The Blended Gospel

[RichardBurger]

The Blended Gospel:

The religious Christian Church is (and has been since the RCC came into existence) teaching a blended, harmonized gospel that takes what Jesus and His Apostles preached to the Jews which included the Law, and what Paul preached for the grace Church that excluded the Law, and mixes them together. These teachings were never meant to be blended, harmonized together. When you do it you destroy both messages. The scriptures teach we are to “rightly divide the word of truth,” not blend it together.

Let me make it clear that all the scriptures are written FOR US, but not all are written TO US. --- Jesus’ message was to the Jews, not the grace Church. Paul’s message was to the grace Church.

I get depressed when I hear the blended gospel being taught. It is a gospel fostered by the devil. I have opposed it on forums for years and have been asked to leave because of my objections to it. Let me make it clear that Jesus Christ did not come to minister to the Gentiles, nor was His message "the kingdom gospel" sent to the Gentiles. He did not offer the "kingdom of heaven" to the Gentiles because the Gentiles were never promised a kingdom on this earth. The following scriptures support my view.

Matt 10:5-7 (NKJ)
5 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans.
6 "But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
7 "And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'

Matt 15:23-24 (NKJ)
23 But He answered her not a word. And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, "Send her away, for she cries out after us."
24 But He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Rom 15:8 (NKJ)
8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

Note that in Matt 10:5-7 and Matt 15:23-24 Jesus said He did not come EXCEPT to the house of Israel. Jesus came to confirm/fulfill all that was written of Him in the O.T. His mission was to the Jews, not to the Gentiles. This is what Paul meant in Rom 15:8.

HOWEVER; This is not to say that God did not have another purpose for Jesus' death on the cross.

But that purpose was “hidden in God” and not revealed until it was revealed to Paul on the road to Damascus by Jesus. The grace gospel was not in existence until Paul taught it. See Eph. 3:9 and Col. 1:26.

The Parable of the Wedding Feast; (Matt. 22: 1-10)

1 And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said:
2 "The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son,
3 and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come.
4 Again, he sent out other servants, saying, 'Tell those who are invited, "See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding."'
5 But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business.
6 And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them.
7 But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
8 Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy.
9 Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.'
10 So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests.
NKJV

We, today, are only invited because the Jews rejected Jesus as their king. God will not let what His Son did on the cross go without results.

This is what I believe.

 

[charlesj]

The Blended Gospel:

The religious Christian Church is (and has been since the RCC came into existence) teaching a blended, harmonized gospel that takes what Jesus and His Apostles preached to the Jews which included the Law, and what Paul preached for the grace Church that excluded the Law, and mixes them together. These teachings were never meant to be blended, harmonized together. When you do it you destroy both messages. The scriptures teach we are to “rightly divide the word of truth,” not blend it together.

Let me make it clear that all the scriptures are written FOR US, but not all are written TO US. --- Jesus’ message was to the Jews, not the grace Church. Paul’s message was to the grace Church.

I get depressed when I hear the blended gospel being taught. It is a gospel fostered by the devil. I have opposed it on forums for years and have been asked to leave because of my objections to it. Let me make it clear that Jesus Christ did not come to minister to the Gentiles, nor was His message "the kingdom gospel" sent to the Gentiles. He did not offer the "kingdom of heaven" to the Gentiles because the Gentiles were never promised a kingdom on this earth. The following scriptures support my view.

Matt 10:5-7 (NKJ)
5 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans.
6 "But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
7 "And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'

Matt 15:23-24 (NKJ)
23 But He answered her not a word. And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, "Send her away, for she cries out after us."
24 But He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Rom 15:8 (NKJ)
8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

Note that in Matt 10:5-7 and Matt 15:23-24 Jesus said He did not come EXCEPT to the house of Israel. Jesus came to confirm/fulfill all that was written of Him in the O.T. His mission was to the Jews, not to the Gentiles. This is what Paul meant in Rom 15:8.

HOWEVER; This is not to say that God did not have another purpose for Jesus' death on the cross.

But that purpose was “hidden in God” and not revealed until it was revealed to Paul on the road to Damascus by Jesus. The grace gospel was not in existence until Paul taught it. See Eph. 3:9 and Col. 1:26.

The Parable of the Wedding Feast; (Matt. 22: 1-10)

1 And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said:
2 "The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son,
3 and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come.
4 Again, he sent out other servants, saying, 'Tell those who are invited, "See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding."'
5 But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business.
6 And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them.
7 But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
8 Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy.
9 Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.'
10 So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests.
NKJV

We, today, are only invited because the Jews rejected Jesus as their king. God will not let what His Son did on the cross go without results.

This is what I believe.

Hello Richard:

I think you are getting depressed over a false hope.

I have written you something that I've attached. It is short, but to the point.

If you read this and want to discuss it further i will be glad to do it. Truth does NOT mind being sifted.

May the Lord be with us as we study His Word. May He bless you,

your servant in Christ,

charlesj

 

[RichardBurger]

Hello Richard:

I think you are getting depressed over a false hope.

I have written you something that I've attached. It is short, but to the point.

If you read this and want to discuss it further i will be glad to do it. Truth does NOT mind being sifted.

May the Lord be with us as we study His Word. May He bless you,

your servant in Christ,

charlesj

Really, "I am getting depressed". Not by a long shot. Why should I discuss anything with you. All you want to do is talk about me.

An Opinion about rituals "in religions:"

When a person, or religious organization, keeps inventing sacraments, then it is they're keeping of the sacraments they have faith in, not Christ. Otherwise, why keep those invented sacraments?

And when one goes to a confessional and tells a "priest" about their sins, then it is their going to the confessional and doing the confession ritual and penance that they have faith in, not Christ. Otherwise, why not go directly to God, from within the heart, through Christ for the forgiveness of sins as Christ taught?

And when one goes to a series of rituals, then it is their participating in the rituals that they have faith in, not Christ. Otherwise, why go to rituals?

Christ never taught anything about ritualistic sacraments, or going to confessionals. He taught faith. It is only the flesh, seeking to feel it has earned its spiritual relationship with God that comes up with the formulation "these are the things I do because of faith." Christ's teaching was that faith is not about man "doing." It is faith in what God has, and will, do.

Just so that everyone knows I'm not singling out the Catholics, it would be entirely possible to write exactly what I just written, only substituting the ritual and legalism details of any protestant denomination for the mass/ritualistic sacraments/confessional part, and the doctrinal point would be just as valid.

Christ did indeed teach that salvation and relationship with God is based on faith and only faith.

It IS the Catholic Church that invented all the nonsense about Mary being a lifelong virgin, and that one prays to her to get healing, favors, and whatever. And it IS the Catholic Church, which elects "saints", and says you can pray to them for special favors; isn't it? I don't remember Christ teaching anything about praying to Mary or "saints". And it IS the catholic church that teaches that you can't be forgiven for sins without coming to its confessional booth, telling your sins to someone it calls a "priest" and doing whatever penance that "priest" tells them to do; right? That is the Catholic Church, isn't it? Or is the church that does all that stuff some other church and I just got confused for a second? This isn't a stereotype, it is just fact. Is the Catholic Church now teaching that one simply goes to God in personal prayer about sin and is forgiven based on the perfection and efficacy of Christ's work on the cross? If that's what they're teaching these days it would be the first I've heard about it.

If the rituals, ceremonies, legalisms, and taboos the Catholic Church started inventing in the middle of the first millennium are just a natural outgrowth of Christ's teaching (the expression of faith, if you will) then why would not the rituals and ceremonies and taboos and legalisms of any other church be the same? For instance, the day of Pentecost was shortly after Christ's death and resurrection and we are told people were speaking in tongues, etc. So why would it not be valid for Pentecostal churches to say: well, what we do goes all the way back to the days of Christ's ministry, death and resurrection, so when we "speak in tongues" it is simply a natural outgrowth of Christ's ministry and what early Christians did. Therefore, you can't be saved or have a relationship with God unless you join our church and do this "speaking in tongues" thing.

Although most protestant denominations only practice the concept in part, the orthodox (or doctrinal) Christian concept is that all believers in Christ are priests with Jesus Christ as our intermediary with God. Forgiveness for our sins is based on Christ's work on the cross and our faith in Christ and his work. That is why (doctrinally speaking) we can approach God directly in our personal prayers and receive forgiveness for our sins.

The Catholic Church, AND OTHERS, have taken this concept rooted in grace and turned it into a system called religion whereby humans earn forgiveness from God by going to a particular place (the confessional), "confessing" sins to someone whose business they are not and then performing some more works ("penance") to complete the business of earning God's forgiveness. The concept at the root of it all is that Christ's work on the cross was incomplete or a failure, and so we have to add our works to Christ's work to make them complete.

Nothing could be more out of keeping with the Christian doctrine Paul wrote, which teaches that Christ's work on the cross was complete, perfect and perfectly efficacious.

I will say this, instead of simply changing out a protestant system of works for a catholic system of works a person really should consider Christ's message of faith.

A person can reach the point of exasperation, trying to figure out the un-figurable (which church's or denominational system is the right system to please and impress God). But Christ's message of relationship with God through faith makes all the figuring unnecessary.

I appreciate and agree with the orientation of many posts: the intended grace nature of what the Catholic Church has termed "sacraments" and turned into empty rituals, the spiritual (rather than physical) nature of Christ's church, the idea of all religion as schemes for pleasing God with the energy of the flesh rather than faith, the concept of salvation through faith alone rather than a program of religious works, rituals and observing legalisms, taboos and "sacraments."

I understand that the antiquity of the traditions and rituals the Catholic Church has invented appeal to many, (at least more so than those traditions and rituals invented by the evangelical/fundamentalist protestant churches), but that is their choice. However, these things would come between Jesus and I.

Every church and denomination has "Jesus" and "faith" and "Christ" readily rolling off its collective tongue. But Christ taught that just because one says "Lord, Lord" that doesn't mean that they will have a relationship with God, but only those who do the will of God - and Christ taught that the will of God is his creations responding to him in faith.

I am where I am now because of a volitional choice to respond to Christ's message of faith with faith. And I find that message of faith very comforting indeed: a relationship with, and justification and righteousness before, the God who created my soul based only on my faith in the savior he sent for me (and the guidance of God's own spirit thrown in (at no extra charge whatsoever).

All this without having to work, work, work at rituals and taboo observance and magic worked by "saints" and the "virgin Mary" and all the rest of that nonsensical claptrap. Instead "doing" what Christ taught us to do; believe on the one whom God sent and rest and be relieved of our burdens by God's grace.

(Nor any need to search and hunt and figure out and research which church hierarchy's claims to have "truth" or "validity")

I can't get more comfortable than that, and why anyone would choose the works route is beyond me (except I can understand their flesh screaming at them, "ok, so now what do I have to do?")

This is not rocket science. On the one hand you have Christ and Paul clearly teaching faith alone and on the other hand you have the Catholic Church teaching mass attendance, compulsory confession, worshipping Mary, the Lord's table sharing turned into a system of magic, "last rites" for salvation, and on and on. And various other churches teaching a relationship with God based on emotional ecstatic, moral purity of the flesh, ritual observance, etc.

It really doesn't seem like much of a choice to me, or is it anything that requires great academic diligence. I prefer Christ's message of faith.

 

[St Columcille]

Well, I see most of the brunt of what is being said is directed toward Catholicism. Unfortunately, I cannot answer all the different subjects at once and therefore will respond to each independently should we come to it.

Since the subject is "the Blended Gospel," I am only going to respond generally. It is always best to use an inductive approach using specific quotes from 'the horse's mouth,' so to speak. Hence, there is a lot of misunderstanding about the function, purpose, and support from both a historical and Scriptural standpoint that is lacking in the comments made about the Catholic Church because most of what is said has no contextual support from competent Catholic authority. The only point about using a historical standpoint along next to the Scripture is to demonstrate a continuity of Truth that surpasses culture, time, and language differences. Because I am becoming a Secular Franciscan, you will see me quote from time to time some stories regarding St. Francis of Assisi who around the early 1200s gave up a life of wealth and lived a life that even many Protestants can look at and say St. Francis of Assisi did something right, although perhaps a little extreme for their own comfort. I look to Keith Green and see the same sort of "No Compromise" by which actions are themselves living words.

What I think is important is a story related by Dr. Walter Martin when discussing the Scripture's textual criticism in regards to the RCA logo of a dog listening to a record player. I think the story also applies to the testiment of the Christian Church that surpasses the pettiness of denominationalism. What is remarkable about the dog listening to the record player is that he is hearing his master's voice. No matter how scratched the record becomes over the years, the dog still recognizes the voice of its master. Likewise, there are many living epistles of Christians throughout the ages who witness to the power of the Gospel in their lives like St. Francis of Assisi or Keith Green. It is a matter of not compromising one's conscience, and living the Gospel.

The point of the debates seems to be to discuss our differences by means of persuasion from Scripture, reason, historicity, and experience. It is what I believe the Methodists and some Anglicans call the "Quadrilateral" or even the "Tripod" of authority (depending on how they devide it).

I, therefore, am not moved by the emotional display of "ranting." It is not a dialogue, it seems rather from my perspective that you are frustrated and are not certain as to what might be persuasive to a Catholic such as myself to get me to return to one of the sects of Protestantism, which I have already been Assembly of God, Southern Baptist, Lutheran, and Anglican), but of which is only a worldview. Christ is not an -ism, but is known within the heart of the individual who has opened the door and allow Him to enter--i.e. the Gospel is indeed "living" in that it speaks to a right relationship with God.

 

[martinlawrencescott]

I think I agree with your OP. It really was a complete secret that Jesus life and death was for us, too. I believe God knew this from the beginning and was the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham that all nations would be blessed through His line. His message and mission was to God's chosen people, but the death and resurrection of Christ made room for all, and we are now (though it was His plan from the beginning) included in His great promise.