GakuseiDon

I see parallels here with Bishop Carlton Pearson's "Gospel of Inclusion", which he received by revelation. Pearson was an evangelical -- perhaps surpassing the zeal of his compatriot evangelicals! -- who preached the standard evangelical gospel message that those in Christ were saved. But after an epiphany, he decided that the gospel message was that all were already saved.

The blogger on this website discusses Pearson's "Gospel of Inclusion". My bolding, italics in the original:
http://parsippanyumc.com/blog/?p=59

One new entry into my pantheon of heroes is a preacher I recently heard about named Rev. Carlton Pearson... Carlton was the rising star of the American Pentecostal movement, an African American dear to the heart of Oral Roberts who a couple of years back had grown a church in Tulsa, Oklahoma that packed in 5000 congregants on a Sunday, a unique blend of Black and White together.

Then one day Carlton experienced God speaking directly to him while he was watching the nightly news. He beheld images of starving, disease-ridden Moslems, adults and children in Africa. Along with the compassion he felt towards their suffering, Carlton felt anger towards God. After a lifetime of suffering like this, how can You then funnel these poor, sad people into the eternal torments of hell? This was the traditional teaching he had learned and passed on about God: that those who did not accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ were doomed by God to hell for eternity.

Carlton heard God clearly speaking to him. "No, you've gotten my Gospel wrong. I consign no one to hell. The only hell is the one human beings create on this earth in the ways you treat one another."

Searching the Scriptures, Carlton found ample passages that supported this point of view; where Jesus's saving death on the cross is described as having accomplished salvation for all people, not just for some people. Yes, there were other passages that contradicted this notion, which led Carlton to see that “the inerrancy of Scripture simply wasn't an accurate doctrine...

Carlton began preaching a radical Gospel of inclusion in Jesus Christ, and that there is no hell, and suddenly he became a pariah in the American Pentecostal/fundamentalist fellowship, condemned as a heretic by the very persons who had once praised him.

If you read Bishop Pearson's comments about the gospel message and his "gospel of Inclusion" message, you can see that sometimes he is talking generally about the notion that Jesus offers salvation (which is the standard evangelical position) and sometimes his own version of the gospel (that all are already saved).

I think we see the same thing in Paul's use of "gospel": sometimes he is talking about the standard gospel message -- that Jesus's death and resurrection offer salvation -- and sometimes he means his own gospel message -- that Gentiles can share in that salvation also.

spin

I'm not sure that the Pearson story really adds something to the debate. We end up dealing with just how much was involved in Paul's revelation.

Now when you talk about "the standard gospel message", you seem to be assuming what you need to demonstrate, ie that there was a standard gospel message that would be recognizable to us before Paul. (And I have no trouble with Paul being flexible with the content when he uses "gospel".)



spin

spamandham

Paul does not state that circumcision is the only thing that separates his gospel from that of the pillars. Gal. does talk quite a bit about the uselessness of Jewish ritual, but that's because the Galatians are being suckered into a 'false' gospel - one that involves Jewish ritual. You are assuming based on nothing of substance, that the Jerusalem cult taught the same thing as Paul, but with the proviso that only Jews were eligible.

In fact we do not have much idea at all what the Jerusalem cult was teaching.

That's midrash, as I'm sure you'll agree. Paul's position was formed independent of his quote mining.

...or I don't agree with the conclusions you've drawn.

I didn't bother to comment further, because I didn't see that the passages you quoted even loosely supported the position you're claiming from them.

For example, Rom. 6.10-11

The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

There's nothing here that even implies that 'in Christ' means "exclusively, someone who believes in the death and resurrection". Can we stick to relevant passages please?

It's the closest we've got to Paul telling us what he means by it. I don't see that what you discussed before even comes close to this level.

According to Paul, he persecuted the church because of his zeal for Jewish ritual. If the church was composed of Jews such as Paul, it would make no sense for him to persecute them. Further, Peter is more than happy to put aside Jewish customs when no Jews are watching. There's something different about the Jews in the Jerusalem cult. They don't seem to care much about Jewish ritual, except for social posturing in the right circumstances.

My bad. I meant 1 Cor 15:12 (+). I'll drop this one.

Rom. 5:17-18 suggests universal salvation. Paul definitely states that justification comes through faith, but he doesn't harp consistently on that. He has allowed for other ways of righteousness - such as adherence to the law.

1 Corinthians 1.18:

...because Paul is contrasting his gospel with the wisdom of the world. Read a bit further.

Paul does require devotion to Christ, but the part about believing in the resurrection is Paul's innovation for Gentiles. Recall his audience here - recipients of his gospel.

I think it's unlikely genuine, but few agree with me. So I'll still use it and accept it in arguments, but caveat my doubts. If I excluded everything I doubt, I would need to just drop out of this subforum altogether.

gurugeorge

Well, barring it being an interpolation, 1 Corinthians 15 tells us, because he says that the creed (dying/rising Messiah) was handed down to him, was received by him in the sense of a person-to-person transmission.

Again, this is quite compatible with mythicism so I don't see what all the fuss is about.

GakuseiDon

That's fine, then. If Paul learned that Christ was thought to have died and been resurrected from the Jewish Christians he persecuted -- and I know you believe that shouldn't be assumed -- then logically, the gospel that he got from no man had to have been that salvation had come to all nations by that death and resurrection.

Ben C Smith

I did not say (or mean) it was the only thing; I meant it was the principal thing, the theme of Galatians.

I agree with this.

I do not think the Jerusalem people thought only Jews were eligible; I think they thought gentiles had to be circumcised and follow the purity laws in order to be eligible. I think, IOW, that (at least some of) the Jerusalem saints thought the messiah had died for Jews only. Could gentiles participate? Of course; they just had to become Jews (get circumcised, follow the laws, and so forth).

We know that, whatever the Jerusalem cult was teaching, Paul started teaching the same thing. Galatians 1.23:

They kept hearing: He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.

I agree, but this is a case where Paul specifically calls his gentile exception the gospel, even though we know that his gospel had other parts.

I am sure you do not, but you did not even discuss the passages I offered. It appeared that you were simply ignoring them.

Put this verse next to Romans 10.9:

If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

In Christ means alive to God; salvation means faith in the resurrection. You have a case if and only if being alive to God is not the same thing as being saved.

By way of reminder, your verse is Romans 12.5:

So we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

How does Paul think we become one body in Christ? Look at 1 Corinthians 10.16-17:

Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.

Membership in the body of Christ is predicated on sharing in his body and blood, that is, in his death and resurrection. In this case, the sharing of his death and resurrection is mediated through a ritual, the eucharist, but the idea is the same. Paul does not imagine a body of believers only some of whom are depending on the death and resurrection of Christ. There is only one body (he says this several times), and that body is the crucified and resurrected body of Christ.

Compare 1 Corinthians 12.13:

For by one spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one spirit.

Here entrance into the body (for all people groups) is predicated on baptism by the spirit. And, for Paul, both the spirit and baptism depend on, you guessed it, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

For the spirit, see Romans 8.11 and Galatians 4.4-6:

But if the spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his spirit who dwells in you.

But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth his son, born of a woman, born under the law, so that he might redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. Because you are sons, God has sent forth the spirit of his son into our hearts, crying: Abba! Father!

According to this, we receive the spirit because we are sons, and we are sons because the son of God redeemed us. Any guesses how Paul thinks the son of God redeemed us? See Galatians 3.13 and Romans 3.24-25. There is no getting around this. For Paul, the whole faith depends on the death and resurrection of Jesus.

For baptism, see Romans 6.3:

Or do you not know that as many of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into his death?

Baptism into Christ equals baptism into his death.

They were not Jews just like Paul; they were Jews who believed in a crucified messiah. Hence his agitation with them. (See 1 Corinthians 1.22-23 for the expected results of preaching a crucified messiah.)

That is correct! But ask yourself why Cephas was content to set aside Jewish customs. Paul tells us why in Galatians 2.16; Cephas and Paul both knew, according to Paul, that a man is justified, not by the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.

What is the faith of Jesus Christ? We are back to some of those passages I gave you. In Galatians 3.22 the promise of the faith of Jesus Christ is given to all who believe. All who believe what? In Romans 3.23 the justice (or righteousness) of God comes through the faith of Jesus Christ to all who believe. All who believe what?

Back to Romans 10.9. Paul is not talking about belief in just anything. He is talking about belief in the resurrection.

It does indeed. That does not change the fact that Paul preaches that salvation comes by faith.

I do not know what you call harping, but Paul seems pretty consistent on this. Romans 3.26b, 28, 30; 5.1; Galatians 2.16; 3.8, 11, 24:

...so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

...since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.

Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ....

...nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through the faith of Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law; since by the works of the law no flesh will be justified.

The scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the gentiles by faith....

Now that no one is justified by the law before God is evident, for the just shall live by faith.

Therefore the law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.

Galatians 2.16a:

...nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law....

Romans 3.30:

...since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.

How does this nullify my point? You said that Paul was preaching an inclusive gospel, and I gave you a verse that describes people perishing because they rejected the message of the cross. Is that verse inclusive? How are those perishing people being included in the faith?

Romans 3.22; 10.11-12:

...the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction.

For the scripture says: Whoever believes in him [read this with 10.9 in mind] will not be disappointed. For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on him.

When you say that Paul was preaching an inclusive or even universal gospel, I agree with you. He was including gentiles qua gentiles; his gospel was universal in the sense that it applied to anyone in the universe on his or her own terms. But this inclusiveness or universality does not mean that Paul thought faith in Christ was optional.

2 Corinthians 5.14-17 sounds universal, too:

For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and he died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for him who died and rose again on their behalf. Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him in this way no longer. Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.

Christ died for all? Yes, absolutely, according to Paul. But read the next line, so that they might live for him who died and rose again. Because of his death (therefore) we recognize no man according to the flesh. Because of his death all who are in Christ are new creations. But does this not imply that there are some who are not in Christ?

Ben.

spamandham

Fair enough, but several well qualified scholars argue that it is indeed an interpolation. Certainly you must agree that at least vs 8 is an anachronism. Could it really have been passed down to Paul, that Christ appeared last to Paul?

Personally, I think all of 1 Cor. 15 is an interpolation. It's too different from the rest of the genuine epistles, yet flows as a single consistent work from start to finish.

spamandham

Right, we know the Jerusalem church was devoted to Christ. But we don't know what they believed in regard to resurrection and salvation.

Here it is again,

The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you."

Notice that Paul is stating that the Gentiles would be justified by faith. The implication is, that Jews are justified by another means. This is consistent with the idea that Paul's requirement of faith in the death and resurrection is unique to the gentile gospel, but it's at odds with the idea that Jews also had to have that faith.

By why would I put those verses together? I don't see that as a valid analytical technique.

If you're right, then "in cC" does not imply faith in the resurrection, it implies being alive in God. The Jews were alive in God through the law, the gentiles through faith in the resurrection. I see no problem here.

But what about 2-4?

They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

It's impossible here for Paul to be referring to belief in the death and resurrection, yet Jews are seen as sharing in the spiritual food and drink nonetheless, by mere fact that they are Jews. This is again compatible with two different gospels, one for Jews, and one for gentiles, but at odds with the idea that Jews also had to believe in the death and resurrection.

Though I don't think it important to the discussion, I see the food and drink here as a metaphor and not an actual shared meal.

...right, but that body is composed of different parts (different gospels). He emphasizes the different parts. If they are all basically the same, why would he do that?

1 Cor 10:2-4 undermines this idea. To Paul, the death and resurrection do bring salvation, but Jews receive it through their faith in YHWH, gentiles receive it through faith in the resurrection. Paul considers both ways spiritually equivalent.

We know that Paul came to believe in a crucified messiah, but we don't know that's what those he persecuted believed. Paul tells us he persecuted them because of his zeal for tradition. To me, that implies the Jewish church had abandoned Jewish tradition.

I agree the Jerusalem church was devoted to Christ, and that they probably didn't pay much attention to Jewish ritual. But that's where we part ways.

Neither of those require that they believe in the death and resurrection, but merely that they have faith in Christ. We know what that means for gentiles; beleif in the death and resurrection. We don't know what it means for Jews. Paul draws distinctions between the two in multiple places for a reason; they have core beliefs that are at odds.



This is starting to get too long winded. Sorry.

Ben C Smith

For Paul, devotion to Christ was belief in the resurrection. He would not have said that anybody was devoted to Christ (or in Christ) who did not subscribe to his resurrection. I have shown you the texts.

Because Romans 10.9 tells what the content of belief should be. All those passages promising good things to those who believe do not tell exactly what to believe. Is belief in the Tooth Fairy enough? Paul presumably told his converts the what when he visited them the first time; we get to see what in Romans 10.9 (among other places).

They shared in the food and drink of the old covenant. The new covenant is in the body and blood of Christ. Paul is drawing an analogy from the scriptures, not sketching out two different ways for the present time. Jews of his present time could hardly be said to have been baptized in the cloud of the wilderness or to have eaten the manna.

Different gospels? Then why does Paul say that the righteousness of God is for all who believe, for there is no distinction? Different gospels for Jew and gentile would comprise a pretty big distinction, would they not?

Because (among other things) some are circumcised and some are not. But circumcision does not matter, he says, because Jew and Greek alike are bound by the same gospel, and that gospel lies outside of circumcision and other Jewish markers.

No, the Jews received it through faith in YHWH. Past tense. In the present there is, according to Paul, no distinction between Jew and gentile (Romans 3.22; 10.12); both have to believe in the resurrection (Romans 10.9, just 3 verses before 10.12). In 1 Corinthians 12.13 both Jews and Greeks are baptized by the spirit into one body, and in Romans 6.3 as many as are baptized are baptized into the death of Christ. How are you getting around this? How are you saying that there is a distinction between Jews and gentiles when Paul keeps saying there is not?

Another question. If Paul thought that the Jews could get along fine without the cross, why did he call the cross a stumbling block to them in 1 Corinthians 1.23? If the cross did not lie on the path between them and God, why were they tripping over it?

Last point for this post. Recall that Paul himself is a Jew. Does that mean that he can get along fine without the crucifixion, but his gentile converts cannot? Philippians 3.9b-10:

...not having a righteousness of my own derived from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know him and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings, being conformed to his death, in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

Is this not saying that Paul, a Jew, is participating in the sufferings of Christ in order to attain to the resurrection? Why, if the death and resurrection of Jesus have nothing to do with salvation for Jews, is Paul the Jew participating in it?

Ben.

Amaleq13

No, you just aren't working hard enough. He persecuted a specific group of messianists (ie Church of God) and specifically accepted their views.

Why play dumb? You know the reference and believe it to be an interpolation. I don't find your arguments on that point to be persuasive, either.

No, he doesn't. He places it in conflict with their requirement of gentile believers.

An omission that is pecific to gentiles.