The Gospel, Pure and Simple

Panoply · Posted: Wed Mar 31, 2004 2:49 pm Post subject: The Gospel, Pure and Simple

I've composed a very short statement of the Gospel that I'd like to hear people's comments on. I think it could pass as every Christian's Salvation Creed.

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2004 1:08 am Post subject: Why not be as blunt as Jesus?

Hi Panoply. I read your gospel statement. I don't see the point of a Catholic obscuring Catholic beliefs. If Mary is co-redemptrix (co-redeemer), why hide the rationale that justifies the great devotion that Mary so evidently receives? Also, if Catholics believe it's essential for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, then why hide those allegedly true requirements for salvation?

Panoply

When I shared my gospel statement with Eric Svendsen of NTRMin, he said "Sounds very Tridentine, therefore I reject it." So, strangely enough, he sees it as plainly inculcating Catholicism - while you have seen it as obscuring Catholicism.

Nevertheless, what of a Catholic who omits "Mary co-redemptrix" from his salvation creed? Consider that no Word of God has come to the people of God except through prophets. God gave utterance, whereupon the prophets spoke or wrote (usually in their own style of speaking). Thus they are "co-orators" of the Word of God (where "co" is Latin for "with"). Yet whenever you or I quote Scripture, we typically announce it simply as "The Word of God" instead of always saying "The Word of God with Paul" or "The Word of God with Matthew." In short, the status of these "co-orators" typically goes unmentioned because they do not diminish, add to, or alter the solitary power of the Word - despite having the immense priviledge of being co-orators of the Word. For the same reasons Mary being "with the Redeemer," as held by many Catholics, typically goes unmentioned when discussing Jesus and his redemption.

Also, touching your other concern, "salvation conditioned on obedience to the pope" is immediately put into perspective by recounting the Catholic dogma that "heretics" are saved by baptism in Christ (despite their disobedience to or contempt for the pope). In short, "salvation by obedience to the pope" is best understood as a parallel to the salvation or damnation received for submission or rebellion to leaders such as Aaron and Moses (Numbers 16:1-35). As such, submission to the papacy "for salvation" is discussed in Catholic treaties of authority and ecclesiology, not soteriology. Ergo none of my creed, the Catechism, Scripture, nor the council of Trent reference the papacy when discussing salvation or justification as the topic.

Anyway, I'm sorry that my creed conjured the papacy and Mary to your mind - that was neither what the creed was written for nor the reason for my posting it. Still, I hope you found something to appreciate in my creed. It does, after all, announce the Gospel - yes? Also, I hope you will not feel sour over my response - though Jonah was sour over Ninevah's. Let there be peace between us.

God bless.

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2004 11:11 am Post subject: Is the Trentine Creed Catholic?

Panoply,

Anything that sounds like the Trentine Creed should be rejected, because the Trentine Creed is completely medieval and unbiblical. You asked me what I thought of the Brent Arias Creed of Salvation. That is another topic. My basic point is that, for Catholics, the Brent Arias Creed of Salvation is dishonest. Gospel means "good news" and the vast majority of Catholics simply aren't excited about any of the Bible texts or statements that you listed. Their passion is for relics, images, the supremacy of the pope, ceremonies, invoking the saints, Mary, and the doctrine of Transubstantiation and Purgatory. Please reread THE TRENTINE CREED and see that what I'm telling you is true.

Panoply · Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:03 am Post subject: Returning to the Gospel...

I do wonder over your "vast majority" assesment of Catholics. All Catholics who have commented on my creed have universally hailed it as the Gospel of Catholics - often describing it as a blessing to them (for its conciseness).

As for the council of Trent, which I've re-read many times having studied it assiduously, I suggest its "passion" is not an issue since Scripture also discusses relics and images, the Catholic hierarchy and papacy (Matthew 16:18, Luke 22:31-32), ceremonies (Matthew 28:19), invoking of saints (1Tim 2:1, Rev 5:8), Mary (Luke 2:34-35, Rev 12:1), the real presence (1Cor 11:23-29), and Purgatory (Heb 12:14, 1Cor 3:11-15). But now look, "I am talking like a madman" (2Cor 11:23). Yes I realize that your interpretation of Scripture will admit little of my evidences. But remember that your communion and confessions also promote a "passion" for topics seperate from the Gospel (such as Saturday Sabbath keeping). Yet I do not call you "dishonest" (Romans 14:1-10) when you summarize your Gospel with the Sabbath topic omitted. And yes Trent is medieval as you say, but even Protestants have seen Trent is biblical. Indeed, Eric Svendsen branded my creed as reflecting Trent's soteriology - and I perceive you acknowledge my creed as biblical. I myself constructed the creed from studying Scripture and Trent's session on justification.

Still, I'm dismayed that posting my creed has been occasion for accusations against my integrity - now making me defensive. "I have been a fool! You forced me to it, for I ought to have been commended by you" for having posted the Gospel - pure and simple (2Cor 12:11). Remember, you and I have been called to "strive for peace with all men" (Heb 12:14) - that includes both you and I with eachother. So perhaps we can segue by spending time to see "if there is anything worthy of praise?" (Phi 4:8) We can discuss our differences if you feel we must, but can we start with something we have in common?

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2004 12:24 pm Post subject: The gospel is good news

Panoply

Hi Eugene...

What you quoted in the Trentine Creed is a formulaic inculcation of "Extra Ecclesium Nulla Salus" (outside the church there is no salvation). Please note its similarity to the words of a 5th century Trinity creed:

Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith; for, unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire, he will undoubtedly be lost forever. This is the Catholic faith: everyone must believe it firmly and steadfastly, otherwise he cannot be saved. -Athanasian Creed

While that langauge does indicate the adjoining teachings represent the Catholic faith (in their positive elements), it conversely does not mean that the adjoining teachings are necessarily a statement of the Catholic Gospel. Furthermore, as I said before, all such "no salvation" anathemas and formulas are tempered by the Catholic dogma that "heretics" are saved by the baptism of Jesus regardless of their rejection of Catholicism. And since I presented Gospel and Christian life, rather than "extra ecclesium" ecclesiology, then evaluating my creed within Catholicism means inspecting: session 6 of Trent, parts 2 and 3 of the Catholic Catechism, and Gospel passages of Scripture.

Even so, you've condemned my creed (and all other creeds) as "humanly devised" and "only befuddling" and thus inferior to Scripture exposition such as in MacArthur's book. Yet you forget that both creeds and "exposition of Scriptures," as you put it, are "humanly devised!" As such, if one "only complicates and befuddles," then so does the other. Furthermore, Scripture itself teaches that even songs, alikened to creeds, do wisely teach and admonish the faithful (Colossians 3:16). So please understand the wineskins; There is a time and place for everything. My creed fills a niche for brevity at ~250 words. MacArthur's book can fill a niche for assiduous detail at ~250 pages.

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 6:44 pm Post subject: sacerdotalism