The Gospel: Simple or Complicated

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

Isn’t this whole diatribe of justification vs sanctification a picture of a larger problem within Christianity? If we as Christians can’t look at the Bible and decide what’s accurate and what’s not, including who might be a genuinely saved person and whom isn’t, how can this carnal world ever come to Christ? We preach in church that the message is so simple that even a child can come to Christ…but we obviously don’t truly believe that, do we?

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

I’m still waiting for some type of response to this simple question. If you’d prefer, we can delve into epistemology and the philosophy of religion (I’m pretty well versed), but then that’d be counterintuitive with regard to the post.

 

[Ransom]

I’m still waiting for some type of response to this simple question.

Is it a simple question, though? "Is the Gospel simple or complex?" is actually a false dichotomy. It depends on your point of view.

If you're trying to explain to sinners what the Gospel is, it might be something like:

Everyone has sinned, and their sins have angered the God who created them. Everyone deserves the death penalty. But Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died on a cross in your place. If you will turn away from your sins and have faith in Jesus's promises to save you, he will rescue you from the just punishment that you deserve.​

(This is a bit off the cuff, so we could nitpick the exact wording, but a more theologically precise statement wouldn't be that much longer.)

That's pretty simple.

On the other hand, if we went into a detailed theological discussion of what biblical salvation means, just the topical outline alone is more complicated. Here's an example from John Bunyan:



That looks like about a year's worth of sermons, just on what "salvation" means. Because the Bible teaches that the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and ourselves all contribute something to our salvation, and they all come in a particular logical order, and are affirmed in different parts of Scripture. A sermon series on salvation would be a systematic theology, and the Bible is not systematic.

Which one is true and biblical? Well, both of them. Which one is more expedient? That depends on what you're trying to convey.

 

[FSSL]

Two quick responses:
1) The gospel message of: Sin, Repentance and Forgiveness is easy for a young child to understand.
2) The gospel message, when exploded in its entirety, would cover everything from Genesis to Revelation.

Is your question, basically, what is necessary to know to be saved?

 

[aleshanee]

Isn’t this whole diatribe of justification vs sanctification a picture of a larger problem within Christianity? If we as Christians can’t look at the Bible and decide what’s accurate and what’s not, including who might be a genuinely saved person and whom isn’t, how can this carnal world ever come to Christ? We preach in church that the message is so simple that even a child can come to Christ…but we obviously don’t truly believe that, do we?

.

I’m still waiting for some type of response to this simple question. If you’d prefer, we can delve into epistemology and the philosophy of religion (I’m pretty well versed), but then that’d be counterintuitive with regard to the post.

well... i;m not well versed in the philosophy of religion.... but i was saved as a young child... ....and what would go totally against what some believe is even possible.... (and to borrow a phrase ).... i was led to Christ by a young child.. while we sat on a church bus that would drop us off at her house.... the driver refused to go near the neighborhood i lived in.... .. for me and for my friend as well, the gospel was not complicated at all..... it was very simple.... .

but if it is necessary to understand all the arguments of sanctification versus justification and to be able to sort them out in our heads to be saved... .. then it would have been impossible for me to be saved... and impossible for my friend to explain it to me... ...but if it is as simple as understanding Jesus is knocking on the door... and all we have to do is open it.. submit our lives to His will... then we don;t have to understand all the rest of it... ..He will teach us through the Holy Spirit what we need to know...

but more importantly He will guide us.... even shepherd us..... and that in my mind is what would indicate whether a person is saved or not.... is this person guided by God?.... chastened by God?... able to be turned back to God even if he or she temporarily walks away?..... i know i was from that very day...and have been ever since.... ..and while seeing all that in someone elses life might satisfy in our minds they are a child of God... it is far more important that we know those things are a part of ours....

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

What led to my question was a simple question that FSSL (or maybe it was Ransom) asked Leatherneck a few days ago. It was such a simple question, but I literally spent a couple hours thinking about it, and the more I thought about it, the more I realized it was actually a very deep question. It was something to the effect of this: Why do you invest so much time worrying about the correct early version of the Bible, instead of worrying about what’s within the Bible?
It reminded me of my younger years when I (and others) spent so many hours trying to disprove the idea of God, rather than trying to prove his validity. I attended secular college, so many of my classes were steeped in humanism, so it took some time to realize that I could use this same logic in a similar manner to prove belief rather than disprove.
However, when taken to its extreme, would a belief in the incorrect origins of the Bible be indicative of someone not truly being a Christian? For example, if Leatherneck’s argument that we’re following a false version of the Bible potentially jeopardize the very basis of us being a true Christian?

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

By the way, I typed the above response into a few paragraphs, but for some reason it came out in one mass paragraph…not sure why. Also, I’m usually typing on a phone, so my apologies for typos and brevity when I do respond. I tend to normally just read posts on here because the format doesn’t work well with my phone, but I do enjoy reading the messages and am learning a great deal.

 

[aleshanee]

What led to my question was a simple question that FSSL (or maybe it was Ransom) asked Leatherneck a few days ago. It was such a simple question, but I literally spent a couple hours thinking about it, and the more I thought about it, the more I realized it was actually a very deep question. It was something to the effect of this: Why do you invest so much time worrying about the correct early version of the Bible, instead of worrying about what’s within the Bible?
It reminded me of my younger years when I (and others) spent so many hours trying to disprove the idea of God, rather than trying to prove his validity. I attended secular college, so many of my classes were steeped in humanism, so it took some time to realize that I could use this same logic in a similar manner to prove belief rather than disprove.
However, when taken to its extreme, would a belief in the incorrect origins of the Bible be indicative of someone not truly being a Christian? For example, if Leatherneck’s argument that we’re following a false version of the Bible potentially jeopardize the very basis of us being a true Christian?

.
i don;t worry about which version of the bible we have access to today is most correct.... ..i will say i love the oxford edition of the king james published in 1769 the best.... but i also love the new american standard of 1971.... . i use several different versions of scripture when i do intense bible study and i cross reference them... using those 2 versions the most... (we have an entire shelf on one of our walls of books devoted to bibles... bible disctionaries... a concordance... bible atlas... and many different bible versions including one in the hawaiian language)... ...... .

but when i am just simply reading the bible as i would a book... i use mostly the king james or the RVR60 which many scholars say is simply the king james 1769 translated into spanish..... it;s simply a matter of preference to me ... nothing more.... none of the current versions we have available to us today were written under direct inspiration of God.... and that includes the king james and all the bibles that were published in europe prior to the king james.... only the original manuscripts....

many years ago on one of the older fffs ...people were talking about the 1611 king james.... so i ordered one... the big controversy then was that nobody alive today could understand it..... . so having a gift for learning languages i put it to the test.... sat down and read it through...... .it was a challenge but not at all impossible to understand..... ..i think i got through it ok..... but after i finished it i felt like i could go larping at a beowulf convention and fit in just fine... . definitely a rob roy festival... .

 

[FSSL]

Well… besides the problem of the KJVO… who doesn’t care about the meaning of the Gospel. They will reject the message of the Gospel if it is presented from the NIV, so philosophically, they are making a wholly different argument. They usually don’t understand words like “justification” “sanctification.”

Boiled down, for them, the Gospel involves a loyalty to a particular version. I’ve yet to see one of them understand what the Bible teaches. They confuse the Gospel with a requirement to have a KJV. That is why many KJVOs say that you cannot be saved when the Gospel is presented in the NIV (et al)

 

[aleshanee]

Well… besides the problem of the KJVO… who doesn’t care about the meaning of the Gospel. They will reject the message of the Gospel if it is presented from the NIV, so philosophically, they are making a wholly different argument. They usually don’t understand words like “justification” “sanctification.”

Boiled down, for them, the Gospel involves a loyalty to a particular version. I’ve yet to see one of them understand what the Bible teaches. They confuse the Gospel with a requirement to have a KJV. That is why many KJVOs say that you cannot be saved when the Gospel is presented in the NIV (et al)

well then ....that brings up a question.... how would someone who could not read any language....(such as was the majority of europeans during the dark ages....).... be able to understand the gospel and be saved... if the only person there to present it to him was also illiterate and could not read?... ...people repeating what they heard from someone else frequently say it in their own words or with different words...... ..what if... (gasp).... those people back then accidentally said it in the same wording that would later become the NIV?

to declare a particular version of scripture as the only one people can be saved from.... . or to say nobody can be saved from another version takes the power to convict a person of sin and save him away from God and gives it to the printers and publishers.......

 

[Dr. Huk-N-Duck]

well then ....that brings up a question.... how would someone who could not read any language....(such as was the majority of europeans during the dark ages....).... be able to understand the gospel and be saved... if the only person there to present it to him was also illiterate and could not read?... ...people repeating what they heard from someone else frequently say it in their own words or with different words...... ..what if... (gasp).... those people back then accidentally said it in the same wording that would later become the NIV?

to declare a particular version of scripture as the only one people can be saved from.... . or to say nobody can be saved from another version takes the power to convict a person of sin and save him away from God and gives it to the printers and publishers.......

You’re correct. I never considered that before. Also, it sounds as though you speak a few languages, so I’m sure you could testify that in some languages, there’s no exact and literal translation for some words from English to (whatever).

 

[aleshanee]

You’re correct. I never considered that before. Also, it sounds as though you speak a few languages, so I’m sure you could testify that in some languages, there’s no exact and literal translation for some words from English to (whatever).

yes.... i can speak 6 at present... spanish, english, japanese, french.. hawaiian.. and to a tortured extent because i have nobody to converse in it with.... navajo..... or dine'... .... and can read and understand a few more but havn;t mastered speaking them yet.. ..and may not ever coz i get very confused sometimes and start mixing languages without even realizing it...... .. ..for the last couple of years i have been trying to learn mandarin chinese and actually have 3 people in our household to practice it with but still have no success in becoming fluent... .it;s frustrating....

but you are correct.... languages seldom translate cleanly from one to the other..... verbage is often rearranged ... some languages can convey multiple differnt meanings with a sinlge word depending on how they are used.... and in many cases mulitple words and even full sentences ar required to convey a concept in one language that uses only one word to say it in another..... ....and then some lanuages simply don;t have a word to convey a concept that might be easily understood in another.... so translaters have to improvise..... .that can be a problem.... you have to really trust your translators.... ...

 

[ALAYMAN]

I am unable to devote the time that's necessary to answer a thread like this, but appreciate what you are bringing to this forum with many of your posts, and your attitude. I hope to return to this when I get back from vacation.