The Simplicity of the Gospel in One Word

[FarEastBird]

I'm sorry I mispoke then. Because I do think knowing God is with us is the core of the Christian message Jesus came to us and was among us in the flesh and the Spirit is with us in well, spirit. Immanuel is the message and while you can explain that word ad naseum to mean so much more to give a more defined meaning. It is sufficient and I think you know exactly what I am getting at but don't want to understand it.

You are accusing me of something you obviously do. I know I am not that articulate, but it is obvious that you do not want to understand me. You did not misspoke because what you said is true that "There is indeed more to the gospel than one word." Does Jesus' crucifixion simply meant that God is with us?


Of your accusing me a gnostic is simply to hide your ignorance of the gospel, and attempt to discredit to attempt to know God.

But frankly it is not an issue of knowledge, for do not even demons know there is one God?

I said "knowing the truth", not "knowing there is one God." You know the difference. Does knowing that there is one God meant that one knows the Godhead, or the truth?


Below is what Jesus, himself, said:


And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. John 17:3


And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: Mark 4:11


For one to simply claim they know God and Jesus Christ does not make it that he really know God and Jesus Christ. Jesus gave to us the understanding of the godhead through the gospel, the word immanuel does not give to us that understanding.

You are contorting the purpose of the words in the same way Simon the magus and Valentinus. Fore, I suspect that if I asked if you sin so that grace may abound that you would say "Yes!" As those other did as recorded by Irenaeus. Do you know you seem as a wolf in sheeps clothing?


@Christianbookworm Yes, he reminds me of the Gnostics as well as Jedediah and I believe him to be a modern revivalist of an old heresy condemned for millenia, just as the Arian JWs or Sabellian Oneness "Jesus Onlys."

You recite a litany of heretics, whom I have no knowledge of what they believe. Is that your attempt to show that you know the word of God better?


I am asking if one understand the truth. If you do not understand the truth, then do not mislead people that they cannot understand the truth themselves.


Your thread is showing your big error.

[FarEastBird]

II would like to see him say what happens to dead babies and those otherwise incapable of making a decision.

Such will take a long discussion. But one can, at least, make a good conclusion from what the verses says below:

28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. 29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Rom 8:28-29

[Jedidiah]

If I am wrong in perceiving gnostic language, and if it is simply your problem being articulate, I apologize for my failure to understand.

[FarEastBird]

If I am wrong in perceiving gnostic language, and if it is simply your problem being articulate, I apologize for my failure to understand.

I am not a gnostic. I honestly don't know what the gnostics really believe. Yet, from what I understand from what gnosticism is, isn't it the people who claim to understand the word of God but does not really have a coherent knowledge of what they are talking about are more of a gnostic? A person who claim to know the Truth without real coherent knowledge what the Truth is about is more of a gnostic, isn't it? Or perhaps, just plain liars?

No need to apologize if you misunderstood me, but please do not make false impressions to readers that I belong to such and such heretic groups.

[Pentecost]

You are accusing me of something you obviously do. I know I am not that articulate, but it is obvious that you do not want to understand me. You did not misspoke because what you said is true that "There is indeed more to the gospel than one word." Does Jesus' crucifixion simply meant that God is with us?

The crucifixion is not the whole of the Gospel, we know that because the disciples were sent to preach the gospel before they even understood that Jesus would die. So what then could the message be? That God is with us.

Of your accusing me a gnostic is simply to hide your ignorance of the gospel, and attempt to discredit to attempt to know God.

The OP was the accusation, and there was no one saying I did not know the gospel before you replied to it, you are putting the cart before the horse.

I said "knowing the truth", not "knowing there is one God." You know the difference. Does knowing that there is one God meant that one knows the Godhead, or the truth?

Isn't knowledge about the Triune God the highest of truths? Is not Jesus the way, the truth, and the light? But my point was that you seem to be saying that knowing about God is the same as being saved, which is the most basic doctrine of the Gnostics which is where my accusation stems from.

For one to simply claim they know God and Jesus Christ does not make it that he really know God and Jesus Christ. Jesus gave to us the understanding of the godhead through the gospel, the word immanuel does not give to us that understanding.

There is more than one meaning of the word "know" in Scripture, in this case it isn't just "understanding," it is a relationship like Abraham knew Sarah. As for the Markan passage, indeed parables are parables to the uninitiated but elsewhere Jesus spoke plainly and taught for those who have ears so they might hear. The parables are secretive, not so much as His other teachings. Jesus gave us knowledge of the Godhead through the Gospel? What do you think that word means? All of Scripture? Just the NT? Or only the red letters? Because what you think it is is clearly not what I think it is.

You recite a litany of heretics, whom I have no knowledge of what they believe. Is that your attempt to show that you know the word of God better?

No, because heretics are not listed in Scripture. It is my attempt to show that I know of others who speak as you seem to and they were roundly named heretics.

I am asking if one understand the truth. If you do not understand the truth, then do not mislead people that they cannot understand the truth themselves.

The trouble is that I know the truth, and it is far more sufficient than anything you add to it.

Your thread is showing your big error.

The error if it exists is uncharitableness, and that's only if you're not a gnostic.

[FarEastBird]

The crucifixion is not the whole of the Gospel, we know that because the disciples were sent to preach the gospel before they even understood that Jesus would die. So what then could the message be? That God is with us.

Absolutely no. You are making your own gospel. Your gospel is not making revelation of the godhead.

John said, "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true..." (1John 5:20)

Now read below what Paul wrote:

3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. 5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. 6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2Cor 4:3-6

One thing that Paul clearly says is that the gospel is hid to the lost. Your gospel is even known and accepted by cults, who are lost.

And here, further, is what Paul wrote:

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Rom 1:16-20

So there must be a clear understanding of the gospel, else people can make excuses.

The OP was the accusation, and there was no one saying I did not know the gospel before you replied to it, you are putting the cart before the horse.

The OP says what you know as gospel. In that I am showing how faulty it is.

Isn't knowledge about the Triune God the highest of truths?

What an irony. You accuse me of gnosticism, yet you claim to have knowledge of the Trinity. Isn't it the Trinity, regardless what explanations trinitarians do, is openly admitted as a mystery? The reason why you call it a mystery is the reason why I say I cannot understand it, besides also of your arguments in attempts to explain it. Quite honestly, you are making yourself a gnostic.

If, for the sake of argument, you sincerely understand the Trinity, then I would submit to my heart that God had not elected me, or not saved me. But if you don't, then the word of God is unto you also a parable, then you are not saved also. Deep in my heart, being a former Catholic, I tried to understand the Trinity. And I will not lie that I can't have a coherent understanding of the Trinity.

Is not Jesus the way, the truth, and the light? But my point was that you seem to be saying that knowing about God is the same as being saved, which is the most basic doctrine of the Gnostics which is where my accusation stems from.

There is simple reason why one need to know, else one would not know where he is walking; that is what being in darkness meant. The way you presented the gospel, the people who will believe it,would not know the end of that gospel. You would make these people hope not knowing how the hope really work.

There is more than one meaning of the word "know" in Scripture, in this case it isn't just "understanding," it is a relationship like Abraham knew Sarah. As for the Markan passage, indeed parables are parables to the uninitiated but elsewhere Jesus spoke plainly and taught for those who have ears so they might hear. The parables are secretive, not so much as His other teachings. Jesus gave us knowledge of the Godhead through the Gospel? What do you think that word means? All of Scripture? Just the NT? Or only the red letters? Because what you think it is is clearly not what I think it is.

To know is to understand. We need to know so that it will guide us in our walk. If you understood the gospel the same as the cults do, then you will walk the same with them. If the gospel you understood is confusing, it will show among yourselves your confusion.

Change of heart does not really make the person righteous. Some people have pure love of God, but out of ignorance were deceived by the cults.

Paul said, "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (Rom 12:2) Having a change of heart does not make us to know what is good and acceptable, and perfect will of God; having a renewed mind will do.

The trouble is that I know the truth, and it is far more sufficient than anything you add to it.

A poster had questioned your presentation of the gospel, and I had been showing how faulty it is. If you are incorrect of your knowledge of the gospel, then you do not know the truth, and also of the godhead.

I do not even understand why you believe Jesus is the light, and yet you deny that one can grasp the godhead. How can one be walking in the light if one cannot grasp the light that he is following.

[Christianbookworm]

Poor communication can be deadly. It seems we have been talking past each other and misunderstood. It might take an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, holy, good, and so on intelligence to sort this out. Good thing this won't be graded, right?

[Pentecost]

Absolutely no. You are making your own gospel. Your gospel is not making revelation of the godhead.

What an irony. You accuse me of gnosticism, yet you claim to have knowledge of the Trinity. Isn't it the Trinity, regardless what explanations trinitarians do, is openly admitted as a mystery? The reason why you call it a mystery is the reason why I say I cannot understand it, besides also of your arguments in attempts to explain it. Quite honestly, you are making yourself a gnostic.

If the Trinity is not the Godhead what is? You are saying your gospel reveals the godhead and are complaining about me mentioning the "Triune God" which is one of the epitets one can give to the Living God, YHWH, however you want to name The Lord.

If, for the sake of argument, you sincerely understand the Trinity, then I would submit to my heart that God had not elected me, or not saved me. But if you don't, then the word of God is unto you also a parable, then you are not saved also. Deep in my heart, being a former Catholic, I tried to understand the Trinity. And I will not lie that I can't have a coherent understanding of the Trinity.

I have an imperfect understanding of the Trinity, but I fit comfortably within orhodoxy, not that that was my point.

There is simple reason why one need to know, else one would not know where he is walking; that is what being in darkness meant. The way you presented the gospel, the people who will believe it,would not know the end of that gospel. You would make these people hope not knowing how the hope really work.

Discipleship is the most important next step, you can get someone saved but it isn't worth anything unless you teach them the truths of the faith. My point was that you seemed to be making knowledge the foundation of salvation as opposed to faith.

To know is to understand. We need to know so that it will guide us in our walk. If you understood the gospel the same as the cults do, then you will walk the same with them. If the gospel you understood is confusing, it will show among yourselves your confusion.

Knowledge is a poor excuse for the Holy Spirit and fellow saints aiding us through our walks.

Change of heart does not really make the person righteous. Some people have pure love of God, but out of ignorance were deceived by the cults.

That's true, there is a component of knowledge, along with works and faith but it is not the most important. Faith is.

Paul said, "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (Rom 12:2) Having a change of heart does not make us to know what is good and acceptable, and perfect will of God; having a renewed mind will do.

I had a lot o knowledge before coming to the faith, what I did not have was faith which led to good works.

I do not even understand why you believe Jesus is the light, and yet you deny that one can grasp the godhead. How can one be walking in the light if one cannot grasp the light that he is following.

That refutes yourself! The Godhead=Trinity, yet you say you cannot grasp it so then how can you be walking in the light by your own logic.

[Paprika]

The crucifixion is not the whole of the Gospel, we know that because the disciples were sent to preach the gospel before they even understood that Jesus would die. So what then could the message be? That God is with us..

Nope.

So they went out and proclaimed that people should repent.

Whenever you enter a town and they receive you, eat what is set before you. Heal the sick in it and I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.

[FarEastBird]

I have an imperfect understanding of the Trinity,......

Thanks for the admission. Even atheists understand what the Trinitarians try to explain of the Trinity, what they do not agree is the coherence, same as I do.

That's true, there is a component of knowledge, along with works and faith but it is not the most important. Faith is.

That is your gospel? That is not what the true gospel is all about.

I had a lot o knowledge before coming to the faith, what I did not have was faith which led to good works.

Though I convince you to attend to knowledge, such knowledge is a gift of God. I already quoted to you of Mark 4:11.

And try to examine yourself, I am trying to convince you that you do not understand the Trinity, and you are just brushing it off, yet admit that you had an imperfect understanding of it. Quite honestly, it is that lacking knowledge is which the opponents of Trinity are asking to fill their demand of coherence of the Trinity. And, AFAICT, that very same lacking knowledge is the reason why the Trinitarians admit that the Trinity is a mystery. So what difference in knowledge do the opponents Trinity have with the Trinitarians? None! And the claim that trinitarians understand the Trinity is merely a deception. Who can convince you of your faults? Me, the atheist, the philosopers? No, it is only God that can change you. This is happening in your very eyes, and you will not have power even to change yourselves.

See how lack of knowledge will consequently lead us to, and see how knowledge is a gift.

That refutes yourself! The Godhead=Trinity, yet you say you cannot grasp it so then how can you be walking in the light by your own logic.

I had just previously quoted a verse, here it is again:

For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. 2Cor 4:6

If you understand the verse, where I can draw of what I say in understanding the godhead through Christ, it does not in any case show a sign of Trinity. The fact that you even fail to know the gospel will fail you to understand the above verse.

You know what God said? "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." It is the very reason why I rest in the power of God, and not depend much about arguing. Do you read the rest on this thread? Would anyone believe that those things said are recorded in the eyes of God? By their own words will God condemn them.

[Jedidiah]

. . .That is not what the true gospel is all about.

Can you explain in clear simple language what you see that "the true gospel is all about?"

[FarEastBird]

Can you explain in clear simple language what you see that "the true gospel is all about?"

But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 1Cor 1:24

What is this wisdom and power?

16 For by him were ALL things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: ALL things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before ALL things, and by him ALL things consist. Col 1:16-17

The above is the conclusion that can be drawn of the whole of the gospel: that God created ALL things according to his purpose in Christ. Christ's ministry, of his crucifixion, of the prophesies regarding him, of the ministry of the apostles, of why they Jews have to fall, etc, all these things are meant to give us the knowledge that God created ALL things through Jesus Christ. From the above conclusion, we can understand the mysteries that Paul is talking about in his epistles. If one does not know how to relate the gospel into the above conclusion, then he understands nothing of the truth of the gospel.

[Pentecost]

Nope.

Fair point, I disagree with you though. I don't think our views are different enough to justify an argument though.

That is your gospel? That is not what the true gospel is all about.

The gospel is not about having faith? Have you need read Romans?

"5 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. " Romans 5:1-2

And try to examine yourself, I am trying to convince you that you do not understand the Trinity, and you are just brushing it off, yet admit that you had an imperfect understanding of it. Quite honestly, it is that lacking knowledge is which the opponents of Trinity are asking to fill their demand of coherence of the Trinity. And, AFAICT, that very same lacking knowledge is the reason why the Trinitarians admit that the Trinity is a mystery. So what difference in knowledge do the opponents Trinity have with the Trinitarians? None! And the claim that trinitarians understand the Trinity is merely a deception. Who can convince you of your faults? Me, the atheist, the philosopers? No, it is only God that can change you. This is happening in your very eyes, and you will not have power even to change yourselves.

I do not know what you're talking about. Are you denying the Trinity because humans cannot comprehend it? Are you saying you only are saved if you perfectly understand it? It seems like you're saying both but that doesn't make any sense. I am not trying to dodge you, I honestly don't know what you're getting at. In as non-offensive way as you can take this you seem illiterate, or heretical. I'd like to assume the first but you seem to think me a heretic too.

If you understand the verse, where I can draw of what I say in understanding the godhead through Christ, it does not in any case show a sign of Trinity. The fact that you even fail to know the gospel will fail you to understand the above verse.

What do you think the godhead is? Can you tell me or do I have to guess? Or are you so concerned with being vague that it will have to wait until divine revelation?

You know what God said? "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." It is the very reason why I rest in the power of God, and not depend much about arguing. Do you read the rest on this thread? Would anyone believe that those things said are recorded in the eyes of God? By their own words will God condemn them.

I have read the whole thread repeatedly, and you still seem to speak gibberish. I reply to everything you post that is remotely close to on topic, and you ignore everything I say.

But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 1Cor 1:24

What is this wisdom and power?

16 For by him were ALL things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: ALL things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before ALL things, and by him ALL things consist. Col 1:16-17

The above is the conclusion that can be drawn of the whole of the gospel: that God created ALL things according to his purpose in Christ. Christ's ministry, of his crucifixion, of the prophesies regarding him, of the ministry of the apostles, of why they Jews have to fall, etc, all these things are meant to give us the knowledge that God created ALL things through Jesus Christ. From the above conclusion, we can understand the mysteries that Paul is talking about in his epistles. If one does not know how to relate the gospel into the above conclusion, then he understands nothing of the truth of the gospel.

[Paprika]

Fair point, I disagree with you though. I don't think our views are different enough to justify an argument though.

I do disagree greatly that the gospel is primarily about God being with us, and have sketched out from Scripture why this is so. You disagree, and I understand if you don't want to get into a heated discussion in which the point is "to win", but I am hoping you would be interested in have a constructive, irenic discussion with me.

You've stated that a certain fact is so, and I have disputed it entirely, using evidence from Scripture to support my stance. For you to now say that "fair point, I disagree with you though" appears to be backing away from the issue once your position has been refuted, but not being willing to admit the refutation.

If you are willing to proceed: you say that the gospel can be summed up as "God with us", and that was what the disciples preached even before the crucifixion. On the contrary, Matthew and Luke have them saying "The kingdom of heaven is at hand", and Mark that they "proclaimed that people should repent". Additionally, this combination of "repent" and "the kingdom" was what both John the Baptist and Jesus proclaimed, not "God is with us". It seems to be thus indisputable that the call to repentance and the kindom announcement is an axiomatic aspect of the gospel, the euangelion.

[Pentecost]

I do disagree greatly that the gospel is primarily about God being with us, and have sketched out from Scripture why this is so. You disagree, and I understand if you don't want to get into a heated discussion in which the point is "to win", but I am hoping you would be interested in have a constructive, irenic discussion with me.

Ok, if it will please you I want to do it.

You've stated that a certain fact is so, and I have disputed it entirely, using evidence from Scripture to support my stance. For you to now say that "fair point, I disagree with you though" appears to be backing away from the issue once your position has been refuted, but not being willing to admit the refutation.

A basically good summation of what has occurred thus far. Because frankly I am waning in energy over this thread I was trying to escape without further confrontation, but I think that I still have a case that can be made from Scripture.

If you are willing to proceed: you say that the gospel can be summed up as "God with us", and that was what the disciples preached even before the crucifixion. On the contrary, Matthew and Luke have them saying "The kingdom of heaven is at hand", and Mark that they "proclaimed that people should repent". Additionally, this combination of "repent" and "the kingdom" was what both John the Baptist and Jesus proclaimed, not "God is with us". It seems to be thus indisputable that the call to repentance and the kindom announcement is an axiomatic aspect of the gospel, the euangelion.

We both know what repentance is, so let's define the Kingdom of Heaven, and what I mean by God is with us, for the first, St. Paul says in Romans 14:17

"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating or drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit."

The context is in Paul's teaching on the clearness of foods but not being a stumbling block to those who think something's are unclean, but we can either use that or perhaps we can use a more eschatological definition about the resurrection of the dead, which very we'll be what you're getting at. Please respond so we may continue on that point, or suggest another meaning.

As for God being with us, it does not show strongly in the Gospels to be what was preached by the disciples in such words, (depending on the definition of the Kingdom of Heaven) but as such it would appear I made a faulty assertion.

Perhaps an unstated assumption on my part is that God with us can have many meanings, and I think I may have been vague and you have the right to be unhappy with my hermeneutic since I've barely shown any work. My primary source for this doctrine is the repeated idea best summarized by Ezekiel 36:22-38 which I believe will be fulfilled in Revelation 21:1-8. When a Biblical text makes reference to being righteous, I read into that to refer to repentance in all cases except that of God himself.

(I hope that doesn't appear scattered; I am not always the best at communicating ideas.)