The Core Gospel Claiming to be God

Here is what God wants churches passionate about:
(1) "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,
(2) that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16).

(But: The Israelites had to "look upon" the serpet) John 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

(3) "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36).

(But:Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.)

(4) "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: (5) While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (6) Since we have now been justified by his blood, (7) how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!" (Rom. 5:8-9).

(But: Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.)

These are the essentials of Christian faith. It is this core message about Jesus that we share
........... in common with other
........... Bible-believing, cross-proclaiming, resurrection-confessing, born-again persons
........... that constitutes us a church.

Outside the essence of the gospel,

there are other features that reflect our history and consensus interpretations of the larger biblical message.

They had to strain the story of Jesus through philosophical sieves. They had to create and clarify special terms. They made entrance into their circles a matter of "enlightenment" as reflected in peculiar vocabulary and interpretations.

In the meanwhile, the core gospel has survived two millennia now in its narrative form of telling the big story through collections of little ones about Jesus.

Notice that:

The little stories were strained through the Shelly Sifter of philosophy and the Bible writer's personal agenda: these are not TRUTH as the Gospel is TRUTH. The methods of John and the Gnostics are not much different: therefore, as the Gnostics SIFTED so did John.

The Big Story or the CORE GOSPEL has survived through these little stories.

Our conclusion: The CORE is no more reliable than the sum of its parts: why should we trust Rubel Shelly's CORE GOSPEL as the TRUTH?

Dr. Shelly defines the narrative form as writers taking the literature and constructing a narrative for their own time, place, theological agenda and by sifting in Greek philosophy.

Carl Ketcherside, for one, accepted his definition of a "core gospel"
and changed his religious views to accommodate it.

Ketcherside was considered a maverick in his early preaching and writing days but lived long enough to see his views gain popularity. In (Bill) Love's book, this "core gospel" achieves a status of scholarship (in some circles).

"Dodd maintained that the original disciples who heard Jesus speak and who later became disciples

did so with the anticipation of an immediate return of Jesus while they lived.

When Jesus did not immediately return, they began to memorize the sayings of Jesus and formed a primitive catechism to preserve these sayings (he did not believe in plenary inspiration).

Later disciples, including Luke, Paul and Peter, incorporated these catechisms into their writings

as they attempted to explain within doctrinal and moral instructions why Jesus delayed His coming.

This is identical to Rubel Shelly's Narrative Theology. You begin with lots of recorded fragments none of which are inspired. However, the writers of the Bible pieced these fragments together and sifted them through Greek philosophy to meet the needs of their own agenda.

However, out of this sifting process, by some kind of accident the Core gospel survived.

But the whole is no more inspired than its individual pieces. According to Rubel Shelly, the record is so useless that he sees John sifting in Greek philosophy and read the Logos idea back into the gospel account of John.

The fact that Genesis begins to speak of the Dabar as the personification of the Word of God does not matter: our CORE religion out of Greek and pagan philosophy insists that OUR system gave rise to the LOGOS or DABAR concept.

To Dodd, these original sayings of Jesus (which had salvation as their theme) were buried in the volume of New Testament writings

but he has determined which they are and these form an original 'kerygma' or evangel (the original gospel that has salvation as its theme).

One should not try to teach this gospel but kerusssein (proclaim, preach it). The doctrinal and moral instruction (law, if you will) should be taught (didaskein), not preached.

From this, one can see clearly the distinction that Dodd has made between gospel and doctrine" (Tom Roberts, Neo-Calvinsim in the Church of Christ, p. 48).

"'The significant features of Dodd's theory which have been described in their developmental sequence are:

1. In the earliest church a distinct activity called preaching was practiced.
2. Preaching had a particular content, the kerygma, which was the earliest missionary message of the church.
3. Fragments of this earliest message are discernible in the written record, Scripture.
4. Teaching is a second, distinct activity of the early church.
5. The content of teaching is primarily ethical instruction and exhortation. Its form is derived from Jewish antecedents.
6. The practice and content of teaching are the product of the evolutionary development of the earliest church as it awaited the second coming of Jesus' (Preaching and Teaching in the Earliest Church, Robert C. Worley, pp. 22, 23)." ibid. p. 51.

"Carl Ketcherside advocated that the "core gospel" "'consisted of the (1) life, (2) death, (3) burial, (4) resurrection, (5) ascension, (6) coronation and (7) glorification of Jesus' (Mission Messenger, Dec., 1972, p. 180)." ibid, p. 53. He also said that "The gospel was proclaimed as fully and completely on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus as it ever has been, and nothing written later was added to it" (ibid, p. 53).

"Not one apostolic letter is a part of the gospel of Christ...the Roman letter was not a part of the gospel...the letter to the Galatians was not a part of the gospel"

This is more than just a technical definition: because "gospel" is the only thing which counts as the CORE GOSPEL, the rest of the Bible has value but cannot be used to dfine faith and practice. Therefore, everyone has the right to practice whatever they wish because this is not a "salvation issue." However, no one has a right to object because "doctrine" is not a salvation issue. If you let me define the CORE then I am dictator and you are pharisee.

Leroy Garrett stated an earlier pattern:

"This is to say that the gospel is not the whole of the New Testament scriptures,
........... for the gospel was a reality long before the scriptures were written.

Strictly speaking,
........... the teachings of the apostles are not facts, as the gospel is,
........... ........... but interpretations, implications, and edification based on the gospel.
........... In this area, that of the didache (teaching) even the apostles differed in their ideas and emphases.
........... ........... The churches for whom these documents were written were likewise different from each other.

Garrett goes on to define the "gospel" as something revealed but not subject to debate but:

The doctrine allows for debate and dialogue, for intellectual stimulation and the stretching of the mind. It nurtures us in Christ,

but in such a way that each man develops according to his own uniqueness. The pragmatic mind as well as the speculative mind finds food for thought. Its design is (not) to make us all alike in our thinking, but to make us mature in Christ.

So, we have the "oral gospel" which was in effect before the "graphe," and the seven ones defined above are the only things which we can use to accept or reject fellowship.

All of the rest of the Bible is just pre-post-modern understandings of the apostle-prophets opinions or interpretations. That means "uninspired" to this writer.

"'The implications of all this to unity and fellowship are weighty. It means that the gospel itself, not our doctrinal interpretations, is the basis of our being one in Christ and in fellowship with each other.

That is, when one believes in Jesus and obeys him in baptism, he is our brother and in the fellowship

That fellowship is strengthened and made joyful by doctrine, but it is the gospel and not doctrine that determines the fellowship...' (Leroy Garrett, "The Word Abused," Restoration Review, Vol. XVII, No. 3, pp. 42-46)", ibid, pp. 54-55.

Not only the Bible but modern teachers are treated with the same method. Therefore, Alexander Campbell can be twisted to teach salvation by faith only when Alexander Campbell taught just the opposite--if we read Alexander Campbell as Campbell wrote and concluded.

"It is one of the insights of devoted biblical scholarship since Thomas Campbell's time
........... to see that loyalty to Jesus Christ
........... ........... takes presendence over and gives meaning to a Christian use of the New Testament.

The New Testament is itself the record of a fellowship
........... created by loyalty to the accepted Messiah an Savior, a fellowship
which transcended differences of worship methods and ethical interests,
........... so long as an increasing embodiment of the will of Christ
........... was ever the goal of the companions in the Way.

"Peter's and Paul's almost violent divergence on the race problem, John's unique and (as far as the record goes) unshared interest in the theology of pre-existence." ( p. 139) is DeGroot's proof that the New Testament is the result of conflicting apostles and divisive churches.

DeGroot explains why the 99% majority who have always based their view of the Christian Faith on the Teachings of Christ and His empowered Agents as CULTS OR SECTS.

However, those who reject the Bible and depend on some kind of personal revelation from the Spirit are defined as CHURCHES.

THIS IS AN EXPLANATION OF ANOTHER DISCIPLE'S FOUNDER:

J.H.Garrison: "There is God and Jesus: all the rest is opinion."

"This is why Thomas Campbell could say:

"The New Testament is as perfect a constitution for the worship, discipline, and government of the New Testament church, and as a perfect a rule for particular duties of its members, as the Old Testament was for the worship, discipline, and government of the Old Testament Church, and the particular duties of its members."

"Thus there came to be, very early in the career of this movement, interest not only in

(1) Christian unity in a new freedom, but also (defined as 'church')
(2) a return to the doctrine, ordinances, and discipline of the New Testament church." (p. 153) (defined as 'sect')

In 1932, A. W. Fortune says, "The controversies through which the Disciples have passed from the beginning to the present time have been the result of two different interpretations of their mission.

There have been those who believed it is the spirit of the New Testament Church that should be restored, and
........... in our method of working the church must
........... adapt itself to changing conditions.

There have been those who regarded the New Testament Church as a fixed pattern for all time, and our business is to hold rigidly to that pattern regardless of consequences.
........... Because of these two attitudes conflict were inevitable."

"Broadly speaking, it may be said that number

1 above generated the present fellowship called Disciples of Christ, and that number (church)

2 gave rise to the Churches of Christ. (sect)

According to Troeltsch,

Disciples would be among the 'church' type and
Churches of Christ among the 'sect' type.

"By 'church' is meant that body of conceptions which says "From the beginning they have been 'high churchmen'...

because they 'never ceased to stress the visible and corporate character of the Church as the Divine Society,' (with bylaws, a head and ability to adapt to the culture)

and rejected 'legalized methods and structural forms which are a contradiction of the living nature of the church.'

Degroot does the same "narrative theology" on many of the church Fathers. Unfortunately, men like Lactantius who insisted that:

It is not allowable to alter the provisions of this law, nor is it permitted us to modify it, nor can it be entirely abrogated.

Nor, truly, can we be released from this law, either by the senate or by the people;

nor is another person to be sought to explain or interpret it.
Nor will there be one law at Rome and another at Athens; one law at the present time,
and another hereafter: but the same law, everlasting and unchangeable, will bind all nations at all times;

and there will be one common Master and Ruler of all, even God, the framer, arbitrator, and proposer of this law;

and he who shall not obey this will flee from himself, and, despising the nature of man,
will suffer the greatest punishments through this very thing, even though he shall have escaped the other punishments which are supposed to exist."

Who that is acquainted with the mystery of God could so significantly relate the law of God, as a man far removed from the knowledge of the truth has set forth that law?

But I consider that they who speak true things unconsciously are to be so regarded as though they prophesied under the influence of some spirit.

But if he had known or explained this also, in what precepts the law itself consisted, as he clearly saw the force and purport of the divine law,

he would not have discharged the office of a philosopher, but of a prophet.
And because he was unable to do this, it must be done by us, to whom the law itself has been delivered by the one great Master and Ruler of all, God.

Modern Prophets have received "new revelations" of the end-time which, until now, have not been understood by the Church. Truly, a "New Breed" of Apostles and Prophets is being raised up before our very eyes, who will momentarily assume their end-time role of leading the Church to take dominion and to execute God's judgments in the world.

"I have called the best of every blood line in earth unto this generationÉI have elected to bring them forth in this generationÉTHE ELECT GENERATIONÉeven the bloodline of PaulÉof DavidÉof Peter, James and JohnÉThey will even be superior to them in heart, stature and love for me'ÉYour children will possess the spirit without measureÉThey will move into things of the supernatural that no one has ever moved in beforeÉcoming into the DIVINE NATURE of Jesus ChristÉa Church that has reached the full maturity of the GODMAN! This generationÉis going to see the beginning of this WORLD WIDE NEW ORDER."(3)

"Are you having difficulty discerning or receiving this "new revelation"?

Then you have been interpreting your Bible in the "old way,"
comparing Scripture with Scripture, studying diligently to account for every jot and tittle and being careful to rightly divide the Word of truth.

"If this describes you, then you belong to the "Old Generation"

which will not enter in to "possess the land" in the Latter Rain Revival.
You may even be a member of a denominational church, with its dogmatic confession of faith and statement of doctrine.

These legalistic forms will be relics of the past in the up and coming "Post-denominational Church."

Paul Cain advises that you "dump all that carnal stuff" (doctrine)

and listen to what the "spirit" is saying to the churches through the Latter Rain Prophets and Apostles, who are dispensing many "new, sacred truths.

Are you wondering by what authority the modern Prophets and Apostles presume to confer this Divine Right upon themselves and their followers? Not to worry! Paul Crouch, President of Trinity Broadcasting Network, has provided the following exegesis of Jesus' parable:

"Read the parable of the Wheat and the Tares in Matthew 13:24-30 and you will see that at the end of this age the "ANGELS" are sent forth to remove evil from the earth. That word "ANGELS" also means messengers. So God may use some of us to finish up the work of this age."(4)

Those who would be chosen as the elect Manifest Sons of God by the modern Apostles and Prophets, must first repent of their old divisive attitude of separation from error. Christ cannot incarnate a divided church -- therefore we will need to be delivered from our narrow doctrinal point of view and join the ecumenical crowd on the Broad Way (to destruction). It matters not that the blood of the martyrs was shed contending for the faith that was once delivered to the saints.

Those who persist in being contentious about doctrine may join them when the great "revival" arrives circa A.D. 2000.

Let's now consider how Bloesch actually handles the Word of God, and see which passages are not for him because he cannot make them fit. On the last page of A Theology of Word and Spirit Bloesch argues that the claims of Christianity are true because they are grounded in "events that really happened" and that their credibility is confirmed in the hearts of believers by the Spirit of God "through the ages where the Bible is read and believed and where faith is proclaimed in fidelity and love." Which are the "events that really happened"? Does he refer to the events recorded in Scripture? The temptation of Adam and Eve? The tower of Babel? The flood? The miraculous crossing of the Red Sea? The angelic destruction of the army of Assyrians described in 2 Kings 19? Apparently not, according to Bloesch's elaboration in Holy Scripture.

These biblical accounts are all partly mythological, possibly having some relationship to a distant historical event, but surely colored by the now defunct world-views of the various authors of Scripture (see his chapter "The Bible & Myth," pp. 255-277). What, then, does Bloesch mean when he piously refers in the conclusion of his first volume to those who throughout church history have "read and believed the Bible"? Does Bloesch really mean to commend those who read the Bible and believe it? Believe what? The events recorded in it? Just how much of the Bible is to be believed anyway? Are the miracles and words of Christ historically accurate? Shall we believe the stories in the early chapters of Genesis? Jeffrey J. Meyers Critique

Theological Divide

In Christianity and Barthianism Van Til calls attention to one of Klass Schilder's central concerns in his critique of Barth: "...the deepest line of division in theology lies at the point where some believe and others do not believe in Scripture as a direct revelation of God. And with it goes the fact that those who believe in Scripture at the same time and in the same act of believing hold to direct, factual revelation of God through Christ in history." Bloesch makes it abundantly clear in chapter three, "The Meaning of Revelation," which side of the divide he is on. Consider these statements:

1. "The law and the Gospel cannot be equated with objective propositions either in the creeds of the church or in Holy Scripture."
2. "God's revelation is his commandment and his promise. . . . Yet they cannot be confined to what is objectively written."
3. "We cannot hold the Word of God in our hands or in our minds. . ."
4. "I hold that the Word of God or the truth of revelation is embedded in Scripture. . ."
5. "Yet our final authority is not what the Bible says but what God says in the Bible.... Indeed, some things that his [God's] witnesses say [the prophets and apostles speaking in Scripture] fall short of the full picture that God invites us to see."
6. "Against later orthodoxy and fundamentalism, I hold that the words of the Bible are revelatory but not revealed; they conform to the revelation and convey the revelation through the Spirit. The propositions in the Bible are the result of revelation, the concrete embodiment of revelation and the vehicle of revelation."
7. "Scripture is one step removed from revelation."
8. "The Bible participates in the transcendent Word of God-not directly but through the Spirit of God."
9. "If the biblical text were itself revelation, then human reason could directly apprehend and even critique the Word of God."
10. "It should be readily apparent that my stand is in contradiction to a biblicism that bases the authority of the Bible on its divine perfection as a supernatural book.?

1. God loves you:

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:16).

 

2. Man is sinful and separated from God.

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23); "For the wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23);

"But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God"

(Isaiah 59:2).

 

3. Jesus Christ is God's only provision for man's sin.

 

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me" (John 14:6); "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8)

 

4. We must individually receive Jesus as Savior and Lord.

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name" (John 1:12);

 

"if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved" (Rom. 10:9);

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8).

 

Ephesians has a FIRST HALF that the preachers of the ancient Pagan baptism MISSED. Paul shows that we are raised up with Christ using language identical to his baptism passages. Therefore, as the Lord's Supper shows forth the Death of Christ UNTIL HE RETURNS, Paul in Ephesians 2 proves that baptism as the SHOWING ACT down through time of HOW God extends slavation by grace through faith.

"For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified." (1 Corinthians 2:2 RSV)

In the world in which we live, a lot of people are interested in what feels relevant, seems "politically correct" or has a valid ring to it. Few are interested in the truth. But a lot of those same people are desperately seeking truth in a relationship. They want someone, at least one person to whom they can turn who will not turn away.

That is why the Gospel points not to an idea but to a person, not to a truth but to The Truth. Jesus proved he was true to me when he died in my place.

Jesus proved he was the true way when he came back from the dead.
........... When you really come to know Jesus and him crucified --you know all you need to know.
........... You have come to know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but that truth will satisfy.

Key Quote: "Paul was not given a message or a doctrine to proclaim, he was brought into a vivid, personal, overmastering relationship to Jesus Christ. Verse 16 [Acts 26:16] is immensely commanding--"o make thee a minister and a witness."

But: Till I come, give attendance to (public) reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. 1 Tim 4:13. Paul DID NOT say that he was going to PREACH only Christ and Him Crucified. How could Dennis get PAID if that is all he PREACHED. Paul said that he would KNOW. That means that he suffered just like Jesus Christ as he DID PREACH baptism.

Of course, we miss the point that Paul stopped there because the Corinthians were still carnal confirmed by their composing their own songs and speeches.

In Narrative Theology, John York and Rubel Shelly would take the musical idolatry at Mount Sinai which lost Israel God's Covenant of Grace and had Him turn them over to worship the starry host (Acts 7), have its second incarnation as a pattern for Christian worship and community.

See Dennis Downing on Just Jesus

"It is difficult to know whether Fish intended this as a by-product, but the idea of authority resting in the interpretive community gave rise to narrative theology -- a theology which simply affirms a given community's right to come up with its own interpretation, or to "write" its own new biblical text.  Narrative theology gave rise to various narrative communities-- hence, the arrival of liberation and feminist theologies.

"Narrative theology does not recognize any absolute truth or meaning in a text.  Because Buber is the founder, most narrative theology, especially in Jewish circles, is related to Auschwitz."

"And, what is the purpose of reading texts, for narrative theologians? Why, of course, to affirm the self. Hazards in the Mainline.

Liberation Theology: A movement that attempts to unite theology with social and religious concerns about oppression. It finds expressions among blacks, feminists, Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans, but it is most closely identified with the shift toward Marxism among Roman Catholic theologians and priests in Latin America.

Most traditional doctrines of Christianity are de-emphasized or reinterpreted. Jesus and the Bible are defined and interpreted in light of a class struggle,

with the gospel seen as a radical call to activism (or even revolution) promoting political and social answers usually in the form of classic Communism.

That is the meaning of Community Church. And this explains why modern seeker forms of religion try to reconstruct the Tower of Babel or Apollo's (Abbadon, Apollyon) Oracle which involves the pyramidal system of "ministries" to try to control the entire lives of people.