What Could The Gospel Be?

 The Gospel as an epistemic artifact (or a body of doctrine/s) can only be 1 of 3 things Considering the Gospel is treated as a "Believe this to be saved" 'thing', this topic warrants some commenting.


-First, the Gospel could be the knowledge of the Covenant of Redemption, as this would be principial to Christian soteriology and trinitarianism. This understanding is the most simple of the 3.

-Second, it could be the entire Christian Religion and all its doctrines. Rendering all biblical and systematic doctrines necessary to be saved. This understanding is the most questionable considering most lay couldn't articulate most doctrines, and all educated theologians would still disagree on secondary/tertiary points, so as to make Zwingli a heretic in the eyes of Calvin or Calvin a heretic in the eyes of Turretin...This does seem to be an unreasonable construction.

-Third, is the interpretive category in which Christians must formulate and systematise what really does "Gospel" mean. Is there a particular set of doctrines required to be believed in order to be saved? We know that St.Paul's proclamation is that the person of Christ saved us from sin. But does the person who rejects the Covenant of Redemption, or Infant Baptism, or Sacramental efficacy, or the idea of head coverings become a heretic?
If the Gospel is a Christ-centred thing, then does the rejection of the Book of Obadiah render someone a heretic. Does a rejection of Westminster Sabbatarianism make someone a heretic?

The third interpretive category can also be formulated to be unreasonable (demand too much) or too lax (require to less).
Therefore what is required to be saved cannot be truly epistemic. Because someone can believe the right thing, and not go to church or do good works (James 2). It also cant 'only' be ethical because of works cant save us. Hence, the Gospel must be considered as ontological (The Trinity's saving work in Christ from eternity till present ), epistemic (a body of sacred doctrine) and anthropological (the things done by us; having faith, law observances).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ecclesial Group VS Denomination VS Christian Types?

In contemporary thought, the use of the word's "Denomination" and "Type of Christian" can be used and often conflated. Unfortunately the word 'denomination' is equivocated to carry some sense of spiritual persuasion in a believer, when actually, it relates to a political-theological persuasion (that's not to say there isn't any ethical categorisation such as the adherences to the Real Presence, Infant Baptism, etc..).  The phrase "type of Christian" also causes linguistical chaos, and could lead others (especially non-Christians and laity) to think of Christendom as a segregated religion. When in reality the categorisation of what people mean by "type of Christian" (Baptist, Presbyterian, etc..) refers to their Ecclesiology, NOT denominational adherence.  What are the proper terms and definitions then? Ecclesiology, refers to the body of Ecclesial doctrines someone believes. These are notions related to their "Doctrine of...
Read more

"Reformed" Baptists Follow Trends, Not Truth: Evaluating Reformed VS Baptist Theology comments

By comments I mean, I am using Reddit forums and responses to Reddit questions as a source of criticism, and will explicitly state when I use Quora sources if I do. The reason I chose Reddit and online threads, as sources of criticism, is due to the more honest, and less commercial treatment of theological/historical topics. By 'honest and less commercial' my implication is that popular authors, publishers and forums (Ligonier, Grace2You, for example), tend to attempt to unify Reformed thought for the sake of "Christian-pietistic" unity, instead of thoroughly trying to systematize Protestant History.  With Reddit and online forums like Puritan Board being a great source due to their contributors being very well read in primary sources and are more likely to be honest, and sometimes really harsh. I've just had more luck dealing with these people (instead of actual university graduates), because they have the time and ambition to interact with the primary sources in...
Read more

Francis Turretin - Notes on His Doctrine of Justification

  Turretin On Justification "Does faith justify us properly and by itself or only relatively and instrumentally? The former we deny; the latter we affirm against the Socinians, Remonstrants and Romanists" Turretin states the two fold nature of Justification, that it can be on the part of God ("actively") or on the part of man ("passively").  I assume Turretins following discourse has an emphasis on the passive; considering his follow critique on the Socinians, Romanist and Orthodox mainly focuses on the instrumental (and organic/improper) cause of Justification.  -Turretin see's Faith as a work. It has to be a work for the Socinian and Romish theories to be false.  On the Socinians its brief, as their theory is essentially making Faith the formal, and instrumental cause. Or as Turretin expresses it "properly and by itself and so is our very righteousness" Swiftly moving onto Romanist. It seems that they hold to the idea that Faith "begin...
Read more