What is the Gospel?

[Randy_Carson]

Romans
By Paul the apostle

I agree. Romans would be a great place to begin for “someone interested in learning about the Catholic understanding of salvation or ‘the Gospel’”. For example, Paul makes clear in Romans 2:6-11 that good works are necessary for eternal life:

6* For he will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11* For God shows no partiality.

“Wrath and fury” are not referring to a “loss or reward” but to a judgment.

Good call, MFM. Thanks!

 

[Philthy]

I think that would be what we call Holy scripture.

True enough, but you’re calling it Holy Scripture is meaningless; the Catholic Church calling it Scripture is meaningful. See the difference?

 

[Philthy]

A1 - I think if you finish the entire John 3:16, you will find the answer you are seeking. There is a qualification for those who will have eternal life. What is it?

Any chance you could simply answer the darn question yourself!? I went back and pulled up the posts, reposted them for you, re-phrased the questions for you, and simply would like to hear YOUR answer to the question. My question is explicit - simply answer it with a yes or a no and then qualify your answer with any explanation you think necessary. Fair enough? Here it is one more time:

• Q1: Is** it part of the Gospel that God only chooses SOME to be made holy?** Yes or No, please!

---

**

A2- I’m not sure if you are referencing TULIP (5 points of Calvinism) with your question. TULIP is not the gospel itself. I believe conversion or Protestant justification is an act of God (monergism) in which we are passive. In our lives as Christians, it is a cooperation between God and man (synergestic)… but God does have His means to deal with us when we do not cooperate (Hebrews 12) because He promises to finish the work the He started.

To understand Protestants, the key really has to do with our view of a forensic justification, and our view of penal substituion. You don’t have to agree with us, but if you want to understand where we are coming from, it is based on the foundation of an imputed righteousness of Christ to our account throught the instrument of faith.

Again, I dont actually see the clear answer to my question. Here it is one more time:

• **Q2: Is it part of the Gospel that we cannot reject God’s grace? **Yes or No, please!
• **Does man, during the course of his post-conversion life NEED to respond to God’s grace in order to inherit the kindgom of Heaven? **YES OR NO, please, followed by any comments you wish to qualify your answer.

Peace be with you!

 

[tweetymom]

Catholics are encouraged to read scripture on their own; however, there is no assurance that the individual will be protected from error by the Holy Spirit in the same manner that the Church is.

Why is that? I really have to disagree.

 

[fhansen]

Why is that? I really have to disagree.

Because, otherwise, Martin Luther was right that we must be baptized in order to be saved and other reformers were right that we don’t need baptism for salvation. Baptists were right that adult believers only must be baptized and Catholics and others are right that infants should be baptized. Catholics and most Protestants are right that Sunday is the right day for worship and Adventists are right that the Sabbath-Saturday -is the only day proper for that purpose. Jesus is God, Jesus is not God. Jesus is really present in the Eucharist at the same time that Jesus is not really present in the Eucharist. Righteousness is merely imputed in order to be justified and righteousness must be truly realized. These and a whole list of other differences over the meaning of scripture have caused one spin off after another of new churches, i.e. most of the division we see in the Body today.

 

[2nd_Adam]

HOw does he “illuminate” (as oppose to interpret? You said He interpreted) to individuals? And what do you mean by "corporately? And does He choose different verses to “illuminate” to individuals vs. ones to illuminate corporately?

Illuminate is similar to interpert or understand. I mean corporately as in visible church. No, individuals and corporately should be the same, unless corporately the visible church drifts away from the truth, then we have to obey God and not man at that point. I think you will find different degrees of purity in life and doctine in the various corporate churches. When you look at the book of Revelation, the various churches had different rebukes and different kinds of commendations. Here’s how the Westminster Confession of Faith speaks of what I am saying:

Chapter XXV

Of the Church

I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all.

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children:and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God,out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

III. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.

IV. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will

 

[2nd_Adam]

I agree. Romans would be a great place to begin for “someone interested in learning about the Catholic understanding of salvation or ‘the Gospel’”. For example, Paul makes clear in Romans 2:6-11 that good works are necessary for eternal life:

6* For he will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11* For God shows no partiality.

“Wrath and fury” are not referring to a “loss or reward” but to a judgment.

Good call, MFM. Thanks!

LOL… I’ve heard Romans 2:6-11 quoted out of context at least 100 times on this site. Please at least study Romans in the context of Romans chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 at the very minimum in context of the book of Romans.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Any chance you could simply answer the darn question yourself!? I went back and pulled up the posts, reposted them for you, re-phrased the questions for you, and simply would like to hear YOUR answer to the question. My question is explicit - simply answer it with a yes or a no and then qualify your answer with any explanation you think necessary. Fair enough? Here it is one more time:

• Q1: Is** it part of the Gospel that God only chooses SOME to be made holy?** Yes or No, please!

---

**

Again, I dont actually see the clear answer to my question. Here it is one more time:

• **Q2: **Is it part of the Gospel that we cannot reject God’s grace? Yes or No, please!
• **Does man, during the course of his post-conversion life NEED to respond to God’s grace in order to inherit the kindgom of Heaven? **YES OR NO, please, followed by any comments you wish to qualify your answer.

Peace be with you!

So my questions are:

Q1: Is it part of the Gospel that God only chooses SOME to be made holy? If so, how is this consistent with the “nutshell” gospel that God loves “the world” and sent his son for the wicked?

Q2: Is it part of the Gospel that we cannot reject God’s grace? Is it part of the Gospel that God makes (ie irregardless of our will) us holy or must those of us with a functioning will allow/cooperate with God to be made holy?

Your questions are changing on me. I think I answered your questions honestly in what I believe. Now, when you are asking again, the questions changed in a different context.

 

[fhansen]

LOL… I’ve heard Romans 2:6-11 quoted out of context at least 100 times on this site. Please at least study Romans in the context of Romans chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 at the very minimum in context of the book of Romans.

This is true. And Romans must be studied in the light of the rest of Scripture. And Scripture must be studied in the light of the teachings of the CC, for the gospel to be capable of being properly understood.

 

[2nd_Adam]

This is true. And Romans must be studied in the light of the rest of Scripture. And Scripture must be studied in the light of the teachings of the CC, for the gospel to be capable of being properly understood.

Romans must be studied in the light of the rest of Scripture. And Scripture must be studied in the light of the Apostle’s teaching as recorded in Sacred Scripture. However, without the work of the Spirit of God in regeneration, the gospel cannot be understood in an effectual way. According to Jesus, you must be born from above to even see the kingdom of God.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why is that? I really have to disagree.

The Church is infallible.

Are you?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Illuminate is similar to interpert or understand. I mean corporately as in visible church. No, individuals and corporately should be the same, unless corporately the visible church drifts away from the truth, then we have to obey God and not man at that point. I think you will find different degrees of purity in life and doctine in the various corporate churches. When you look at the book of Revelation, the various churches had different rebukes and different kinds of commendations. Here’s how the Westminster Confession of Faith speaks of what I am saying:

Chapter XXV

Of the Church

I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all.

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children:and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God,out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

III. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.

IV. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will

And here is how the Catholic Church responds in Dominus Iesus:

1. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60
   On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63
   “The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66
   The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.67

 

[Randy_Carson]

LOL… I’ve heard Romans 2:6-11 quoted out of context at least 100 times on this site. Please at least study Romans in the context of Romans chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 at the very minimum in context of the book of Romans.

But that’s MY interpretation of the passage.

Isn’t it just as valid as yours?

Aren’t we Bible Christians supposed to read and interpret scripture for ourselves?

What makes your interpretation right and mine wrong?

Don’t we both have the Holy Spirit leading us into all truth?

 

[Philthy]

Your questions are changing on me. I think I answered your questions honestly in what I believe. Now, when you are asking again, the questions changed in a different context.

The questions changed? The context changed? So…that means, what exactly, you can’t answer them?
I dont know friend, that seems like a pretty weak excuse to me. Could it possibly be that you didnt realize even half of the implications of your ambiguous theological statements in attempting to articulate “What is the Gospel?”? :yup: And now that I have taken the time to critically review some of those inadequacies and pin down just what exactly it is that you are preaching you realize, just maybe, that you arent prepared to defend some of those statements? :nope: That sounds much more logical to me. Im satisfied with your lack of a response.

Peace be with you!

 

[Philthy]

Why is that? I really have to disagree.

Which statement, exactly, do you disagree with?

 

[Philthy]

Illuminate is similar to interpert or understand. I mean corporately as in visible church. No, individuals and corporately should be the same, unless corporately the visible church drifts away from the truth, then we have to obey God and not man at that point. I think you will find different degrees of purity in life and doctine in the various corporate churches. When you look at the book of Revelation, the various churches had different rebukes and different kinds of commendations. Here’s how the Westminster Confession of Faith speaks of what I am saying:

The Westminster Confession is pretty clear but I find your comments barely intelligible, entirely unverifiable and useless on a pragmatic level.

Peace be with you!

 

[2nd_Adam]

But that’s MY interpretation of the passage.

Isn’t it just as valid as yours?

Aren’t we Bible Christians supposed to read and interpret scripture for ourselves?

What makes your interpretation right and mine wrong?

Don’t we both have the Holy Spirit leading us into all truth?

What is your interpertation of Romans 2 since it has not been dogmatically defined by the Magestrium for you?

 

[2nd_Adam]

The Westminster Confession is pretty clear but I find your comments barely intelligible, entirely unverifiable and useless on a pragmatic level.

Peace be with you!

The questions changed? The context changed? So…that means, what exactly, you can’t answer them?
I dont know friend, that seems like a pretty weak excuse to me. Could it possibly be that you didnt realize even half of the implications of your ambiguous theological statements in attempting to articulate “What is the Gospel?”? :yup: And now that I have taken the time to critically review some of those inadequacies and pin down just what exactly it is that you are preaching you realize, just maybe, that you arent prepared to defend some of those statements? :nope: That sounds much more logical to me. Im satisfied with your lack of a response.

Peace be with you!

What really puzzles me about your posts is how you can post what you do and end it with peace be with you.

…but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect… 1 Peter 3:15

Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will… 2 Tim

 

[Randy_Carson]

What is your interpertation of Romans 2 since it has not been dogmatically defined by the Magestrium for you?

Uh…again…this time with feeling:

Originally Posted by Randy Carson forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*I agree. Romans would be a great place to begin for “someone interested in learning about the Catholic understanding of salvation or ‘the Gospel’”. For example, Paul makes clear in Romans 2:6-11 that good works are necessary for eternal life:

6* For he will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11* For God shows no partiality.

“Wrath and fury” are not referring to a “loss or reward” but to a judgment.
*

 

[2nd_Adam]

Uh…again…this time with feeling:

Originally Posted by Randy Carson forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*I agree. Romans would be a great place to begin for “someone interested in learning about the Catholic understanding of salvation or ‘the Gospel’”. For example, Paul makes clear in Romans 2:6-11 that good works are necessary for eternal life:

6* For he will render to every man according* to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11* For God shows no partiality.

“Wrath and fury” are not referring to a “loss or reward” but to a judgment.

Why would you say that your personal interpertation of Romans 2:6-11 is correct since it has not been dogmatically defined by the Magestrium for you? I believe you took it out of proper context from the gospel revealed in the Epsitles of Romans. I believe it is an incorrect conclusion, considering Romans chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4… and actually the rest of Romans… and the rest of Scripture… and the gospel of God’s grace. It is this kind of view which leads many Protestants to think that Catholic Christians are trying to earn their salvation by their personal good works. By your posting, it appears you are preaching a gospel of works, and not of grace.