Christian Forums

The July 2008 issue of The Spiritual Sword has arrived, and as usual, it is outstanding.  The theme of this issue is, A Handy Guide To Church History.

Featured articles and writers include...


EDITORIAL - Undenominational  Christianity..................Alan E. Highers

The Beginning of the Church.......................................Jay Lockhart

Dangers in the Ante-Nicene Period...............................William Woodson

Early Departures from the Pattern.................................Gary McDade

The Development of the Papacy....................................David R. Pharr

The Rise of Islam........................................................Phil Sanders

The Protestant Reformation...........................................Hugh Fulford

The Influence of John Calvin.........................................Stan Mitchell

The Restoration Movement............................................Ancil Jenkins

The Emergence of Denominationalism............................Alan E. Highers

Time to Retire or Resign...............................................E. Claude Gardner


I encourage Christians everywhere to subscribe to this wonderful publication.


The Spiritual Sword
c/o Getwell church of Christ
1511 Getwell Road
Memphis, TN  38111
$8.00/year


Robert G

Let it begin.

Quote from: Gary on Thu Jul 31, 2008 - 09:17:06
Let it begin.

The great influence of The Spiritual Sword began long ago.  It's a shame so many are too closed minded to read it for themselves.  But,

"If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost..."

Since liberalism thrives on and is driven by emotion, actually learning why people disagree with them is often the the last thing a liberal is wont to do.

Easier to say, "They're legalistic", or "they're not loving", or some such tripe.

All the while not knowing what they're talking about.

Robert G

Quote from: mistergus on Thu Jul 31, 2008 - 17:01:12

Quote from: Gary on Thu Jul 31, 2008 - 09:17:06
Let it begin.

The great influence of The Spiritual Sword began long ago.  It's a shame so many are too closed minded to read it for themselves.  But,

"If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost..."

Since liberalism thrives on and is driven by emotion, actually learning why people disagree with them is often the the last thing a liberal is wont to do.

Easier to say, "They're legalistic", or "they're not loving", or some such tripe.

All the while not knowing what they're talking about.

Robert G

Surely you are not judging are you?

Quote from: mistergus on Thu Jul 31, 2008 - 17:01:12
The great influence of The Spiritual Sword began long ago.  It's a shame so many are too closed minded to read it for themselves. 

The great influence of Scripture began long ago.  It's a shame so many are too closed minded to read it for themselves.

Quote from: Dennis on Thu Jul 31, 2008 - 18:55:22

Quote from: mistergus on Thu Jul 31, 2008 - 17:01:12

Quote from: Gary on Thu Jul 31, 2008 - 09:17:06
Let it begin.

The great influence of The Spiritual Sword began long ago.  It's a shame so many are too closed minded to read it for themselves.  But,

"If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost..."

Since liberalism thrives on and is driven by emotion, actually learning why people disagree with them is often the the last thing a liberal is wont to do.

Easier to say, "They're legalistic", or "they're not loving", or some such tripe.

All the while not knowing what they're talking about.

Robert G

Surely you are not judging are you?

Sure, I am.

I don't judge the hearts of men (Matthew 5:1), but I do try my best to "judge righteous judgement" (John 7:24), as Jesus commanded.

Judging peoples response to The Spiritual Sword is not "rocket science" when those who bash it never can discuss any specifics.

"Righteous judgement" clearly reveals that these people don't know what they're talking about.

Robert G

Mistergus, are you trolling for a fight?  It looks as if you're going to quote people's reactions whether they post them or not!

Quote from: marc on Thu Jul 31, 2008 - 21:45:08
Mistergus, are you trolling for a fight? 

Could be. And there's only one good response to that conclusion.

Quote from: mistergus on Thu Jul 31, 2008 - 17:01:12

Quote from: Gary on Thu Jul 31, 2008 - 09:17:06
Let it begin.

The great influence of The Spiritual Sword began long ago.  It's a shame so many are too closed minded to read it for themselves.  But,

"If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost..."

Since liberalism thrives on and is driven by emotion, actually learning why people disagree with them is often the the last thing a liberal is wont to do.

Easier to say, "They're legalistic", or "they're not loving", or some such tripe.

All the while not knowing what they're talking about.

Robert G

I was just awaiting the usual onslaught of posts aimed at disagreeing with the SS, but if you really need to get that off your chest, call me Dr. Gary, Psychiatrist.

Quote from: mistergus on Thu Jul 31, 2008 - 21:33:29

Quote from: Dennis on Thu Jul 31, 2008 - 18:55:22

Quote from: mistergus on Thu Jul 31, 2008 - 17:01:12

Quote from: Gary on Thu Jul 31, 2008 - 09:17:06
Let it begin.

The great influence of The Spiritual Sword began long ago.  It's a shame so many are too closed minded to read it for themselves.  But,

"If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost..."

Since liberalism thrives on and is driven by emotion, actually learning why people disagree with them is often the the last thing a liberal is wont to do.

Easier to say, "They're legalistic", or "they're not loving", or some such tripe.

All the while not knowing what they're talking about.

Robert G

Surely you are not judging are you?

Sure, I am.

I don't judge the hearts of men (Matthew 5:1), but I do try my best to "judge righteous judgement" (John 7:24), as Jesus commanded.

Judging peoples response to The Spiritual Sword is not "rocket science" when those who bash it never can discuss any specifics.

"Righteous judgement" clearly reveals that these people don't know what they're talking about.

Robert G

I see.  Different standards apply to you compared to those who criticise Foy Wallace's indefensible nonsense.

And by the way, it is kind of hard to discuss specifics when all we have is a table of contents consider.

Quote from: Dennis on Fri Aug 01, 2008 - 09:33:16
I see.  Different standards apply to you compared to those who criticise Foy Wallace's indefensible nonsense.

And by the way, it is kind of hard to discuss specifics when all we have is a table of contents consider.

Dennis,

If it's so "hard to discuss specifics when all we have is a table of contents", then on what possible basis have you decided it's such a "legalistic", "non-loving" publication?  Since you have no basis for an informed discussion regarding The Spiritual Sword, why wouldn't you allow for the possibility that it's actually doing a great and needed work?

But yet, being uninformed and ignorant regarding The Spiritual Sword, you have adoped a negative attitude toward it.

Talk about being closed-minded!

You sure walked into that one.

Robert G

Quote from: mistergus on Fri Aug 01, 2008 - 17:15:14If it's so "hard to discuss specifics when all we have is a table of contents", then on what possible basis have you decided it's such a "legalistic", "non-loving" publication? 

Where did Dennis say that he's decided that it's a "legalistic", "non-loving" publication?  Sounds like you're putting words in people's mouths.  I think you introduced those words yourself in your second post on this thread.  And, you're the only one who's used them in this thread.

That sounds like someone who is carrying a bit of a chip on his shoulder, if you ask me...

Quote from: mistergus on Fri Aug 01, 2008 - 17:15:14

Quote from: Dennis on Fri Aug 01, 2008 - 09:33:16
I see.  Different standards apply to you compared to those who criticise Foy Wallace's indefensible nonsense.

And by the way, it is kind of hard to discuss specifics when all we have is a table of contents consider.

Dennis,

If it's so "hard to discuss specifics when all we have is a table of contents", then on what possible basis have you decided it's such a "legalistic", "non-loving" publication?  Since you have no basis for an informed discussion regarding The Spiritual Sword, why wouldn't you allow for the possibility that it's actually doing a great and needed work?

But yet, being uninformed and ignorant regarding The Spiritual Sword, you have adoped a negative attitude toward it.

Talk about being closed-minded!

You sure walked into that one.

Robert G

I've read the SS, but I do not think I have used these words, certainly not in this thread.  I really didn't walk into anything, just point out your total lack of moral consistency.  But this isn't fun any more.  You are too easy.  Have a nice life.  I am taking Mike's advice.

Quote from: Dennis on Fri Aug 01, 2008 - 20:42:57
I've read the SS, but I do not think I have used these words, certainly not in this thread.  I really didn't walk into anything, just point out your total lack of moral consistency.  But this isn't fun any more.  You are too easy.  Have a nice life.  I am taking Mike's advice.

You have used these words (in previous threads), you simply don't want to take responsibility for them.  Your "too easy" talk is simply you trying to hide.

I always teach my 17 year old son to take responsibility for what he says and does.  Maybe you need a Father like me.

Robert G

Quote from: mistergus on Fri Aug 01, 2008 - 23:23:15

Quote from: Dennis on Fri Aug 01, 2008 - 20:42:57
I've read the SS, but I do not think I have used these words, certainly not in this thread.  I really didn't walk into anything, just point out your total lack of moral consistency.  But this isn't fun any more.  You are too easy.  Have a nice life.  I am taking Mike's advice.

You have used these words (in previous threads), you simply don't want to take responsibility for them.  Your "too easy" talk is simply you trying to hide.

I always teach my 17 year old son to take responsibility for what he says and does.  Maybe you need a Father like me.

Robert G

Put up or shut up.  Support your accusation and show where I have used those terms in reference to the SS based solely on the TOC.

Quote from: mistergus on Thu Jul 31, 2008 - 17:01:12

Quote from: Gary on Thu Jul 31, 2008 - 09:17:06
Let it begin.

The great influence of The Spiritual Sword began long ago.  It's a shame so many are too closed minded to read it for themselves.  But,

"If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost..."

Since liberalism thrives on and is driven by emotion, actually learning why people disagree with them is often the the last thing a liberal is wont to do.

Easier to say, "They're legalistic", or "they're not loving", or some such tripe.

All the while not knowing what they're talking about.

Robert G

    Robert, I'm a little reluctant to get involved in this matter, but I feel a need.  I've read The Spiritual Sword for years, and I become frustrated with its contents every time I read an issue.  Why?  Because the staff writers, like most other Church of Christ devotees, see no salvation outside of their religious party, the a cappella Church of Christ. 

     I was once like these fellows in that I considered anyone not affiliated with the a cappella Church of Christ was lost and needed salvation.  I know Alan Highers, Editor, personally, as well as David Pharr, staff writer.  I attended the Highers/Blakely debate in Neosho, MO in 1989, and I was a member of David Pharr's first church assignment in the early 60s (Gallipolis, Ohio).  So I know where both men stand on doctrinal matters.  And it's always the same old story:  The Church of Christ is what Jesus founded.  All others are fake.  I no longer subscribe to this sentiment.

     In short, I have no further need for the rigid legalism promoted by the Church of Christ denomination, or any other denomination.  I defected this sect decades ago, and my relationship with the Lord has never been closer or stronger.  I no longer view churchianity as an essential element of salvation.  My relationship is with the Lord, not with denominations, sects, religious parties, regardless of their church title.

     Having said all of that, let me add that there are many, many beautiful people in the Church of Christ and in other churches.  Like I was once, they are caught up in the web of partisan religion and need help, just as I needed help.  I pray the Lord will send reformers among them.

—Buff.

Quote from: Dennis on Sat Aug 02, 2008 - 21:03:47
Put up or shut up.  Support your accusation and show where I have used those terms in reference to the SS based solely on the TOC.

Oh, is my memory incorrect?

Are you saying you disagree and reject all negative comments regarding The Spiritual Sword?  That as far as you know, it's doing a great and needed work?

Boy, I'm excited that my memory may be wrong...

Say something positive, Dennis!

Robert G

As I sit here and read this thread that Robert posted and claimed that the SS is from the Lords Church and "it's doing a great and needed work" it leaves me with one question.

If it is as Robert states then why is it not available for the public in a free form on a website somewhere so as it can reach the ones that it is to be helping?

When did God ever Charge for his message?

I know that you may say it cost to prepair such and post it on the web but if it is from the Lord and his church then the funding would be there. What is the offering plate passed around for? Is it not that the Lords church could meet such needs? As I said the Lord has never charged anyone for his message, something to think about don't you think?

PS... Robert I am not judging you but do have to question your motive behind this thread. It does whether intentional or not come across as a sour presentation of motive behind it. Your posting does raise red flags as to the attitude behind the reason for the posting figuring in the fact that the post does not have any body but just a table of contents. It does make one wonder just why you would post it and not the whole contents.

When I was part of the MSOP Movement I used to read SS like a kid does comic books.   But as I matured it became apparent that these guys were paid religionists.  They began to come across as cowardly, only addressing the approved issues.  Not what Christ died to establish. 

Whatever problems the church has, the Spiritual Sword publication is not the answer. 

QuoteIf it is as Robert states then why is it not available for the public in a free form on a website somewhere so as it can reach the ones that it is to be helping?

I find most religious publications that do this are more like propaganda than real scholarship.  Just reaffirming and solidifying already held beliefs.

I have to admit the the topic " Time to Retire or Resign" sounded promising.

Quote from: mistergus on Sun Aug 03, 2008 - 13:53:47

Quote from: Dennis on Sat Aug 02, 2008 - 21:03:47
Put up or shut up.  Support your accusation and show where I have used those terms in reference to the SS based solely on the TOC.

Oh, is my memory incorrect?

Are you saying you disagree and reject all negative comments regarding The Spiritual Sword?  That as far as you know, it's doing a great and needed work?

Boy, I'm excited that my memory may be wrong...

Say something positive, Dennis!

Robert G

Apparently you cannot support your accusation.  That speaks volumes.

Quote from: Dennis on Sun Aug 03, 2008 - 20:09:58
Apparently you cannot support your accusation.  That speaks volumes.

And you cannot deny my accusations.  That speaks multitudes of volumes.

You lose, Dennis.

Robert G

Quote from: mistergus on Sun Aug 03, 2008 - 21:27:47

Quote from: Dennis on Sun Aug 03, 2008 - 20:09:58
Apparently you cannot support your accusation.  That speaks volumes.

And you cannot deny my accusations.  That speaks multitudes of volumes.

You lose, Dennis.

Robert G

Can you say ANYTHING of substance? Apparently you don't have the guts to challenge any comment I have made on the merits.

Quote from: Barabbas on Sun Aug 03, 2008 - 16:18:59
I have to admit the the topic " Time to Retire or Resign" sounded promising.

If you will PM me your mailing address, I will be happy to send you a copy of the current issue.  Actually, I'll send you a set of the last 4 or 5 most recent issues.

This offer is available to anyone.

Robert G

Quote from: Dennis on Sun Aug 03, 2008 - 21:29:28
Can you say ANYTHING of substance?

The Incredible Hulk, Godzilla, King Kong, Paul Bunyon, Fat Albert.

Quote from: mistergus on Sun Aug 03, 2008 - 21:30:33

Quote from: Barabbas on Sun Aug 03, 2008 - 16:18:59
I have to admit the the topic " Time to Retire or Resign" sounded promising.

If you will PM me your mailing address, I will be happy to send you a copy of the current issue.  Actually, I'll send you a set of the last 4 or 5 most recent issues.

This offer is available to anyone.

Robert G

If they have the guts they would put it out on the net for all to see.

Quote from: mistergus on Sun Aug 03, 2008 - 21:27:47

Quote from: Dennis on Sun Aug 03, 2008 - 20:09:58
Apparently you cannot support your accusation.  That speaks volumes.

And you cannot deny my accusations.  That speaks multitudes of volumes.

You lose, Dennis.

Robert G

That's a little backwards.  In most civilized discussion, legal or otherwise, the burden of proof rests on the one making the accusations.  Unsupported accusations don't even need to be denied.

More good thoughts from another good publication...


"Gospel" includes the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, and even more.  It includes all the words of truth that Jesus revealed during his personal ministry and what he later revealed to the apostles and prophets through the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-14: Eph. 3:5) after his suffering on the cross and accension into heaven.  Becoming Christians, worship and living the Christian life are all included in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

                                                "What is the Gospel?", Owen D. Olbricht
                                                          Firm Foundation, April 2008

Quote from: mistergus on Tue Aug 05, 2008 - 18:00:59
More good thoughts from another good publication...


"Gospel" includes the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, and even more.  It includes all the words of truth that Jesus revealed during his personal ministry and what he later revealed to the apostles and prophets through the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-14: Eph. 3:5) after his suffering on the cross and accension into heaven.  Becoming Christians, worship and living the Christian life are all included in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

                                                "What is the Gospel?", Owen D. Olbricht
                                                          Firm Foundation, April 2008

This is not how GC Brewer defined the gospel. Brewer defined the gospel as the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. More importantly, its not how Jesus, or Paul, defined the gospel (they defined it as Brewer did). Jesus stated that when he was lifted up "I will draw all men unto me," not to his teaching, or the Bible, as important as those are. Jesus' death and resurrection saves us, and nothing else.

Acts 2:22-24:

"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him."

I Corinthians 2:2:

"For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified."

I Corinthians 15:3-4:

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve."

II Timothy 2:8:

"Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel. . ."



Pax.

lee,

First, the gospel must be obeyed.  The DB&R alone are facts, and facts cannot be obeyed.  Only commands can be obeyed.

Second, Paul rebuked Peter when he "walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel" (Galations 2:14).  Nothing, nothing in the DB&R alone provides any teaching that Peter was violating.

You claim the DB&R alone is the gospel, but you need more teaching than that to even get a person saved!  Alone, the DB&R leaves one lost, hopeless, and unsaved.

But of course, claiming the DB&R is the gospel allows any false teacher to claim the mantle, "Gospel Preacher".

Doesn't it?

Robert G

Quote from: mistergus on Tue Aug 05, 2008 - 19:45:33
lee,

First, the gospel must be obeyed.  The DB&R alone are facts, and facts cannot be obeyed.  Only commands can be obeyed.

Second, Paul rebuked Peter when he "walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel" (Galations 2:14).  Nothing, nothing in the DB&R alone provides any teaching that Peter was violating.

You claim the DB&R alone is the gospel, but you need more teaching than that to even get a person saved!  Alone, the DB&R leaves one lost, hopeless, and unsaved.

But of course, claiming the DB&R is the gospel allows any false teacher to claim the mantle, "Gospel Preacher".

Doesn't it?

Robert G

So we cannot obey the entire gospel -- correct?

Quote from: mistergus on Tue Aug 05, 2008 - 19:45:33
lee,

First, the gospel must be obeyed.  The DB&R alone are facts, and facts cannot be obeyed.  Only commands can be obeyed.

Second, Paul rebuked Peter when he "walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel" (Galations 2:14).  Nothing, nothing in the DB&R alone provides any teaching that Peter was violating.

You claim the DB&R alone is the gospel, but you need more teaching than that to even get a person saved!  Alone, the DB&R leaves one lost, hopeless, and unsaved.

But of course, claiming the DB&R is the gospel allows any false teacher to claim the mantle, "Gospel Preacher".

Doesn't it?

Robert G

Robert, brother, the gospel is obeyed by believing it. Romans 10:16-17:

"But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?" (KJV)

Adding anything to the gospel, such as doctrine, the church, etc., is to corrupt the gospel. Doctrine doesn't save. Elders don't save. The church doesn't save. Baptism doesn't save.  Only Jesus' sacrificial death, burial and resurrection can save. All of these other things derive their meaning from this one great sacrificial act. Paul wasn't crucified and resurrected, Jesus was. GC Brewer wasn't crucified and resurrected, Jesus was. Foy Wallace certainly wasn't crucified and resurrected, nor was Alexander Campbell or Barton Stone. It was Christ.  The crux or core of the gospel is Jesus and his death and resurrection. His teaching may be a part of the gospel, but it isn't the "core" gospel, strictly speaking, his teaching cannot save us. If Christ was only another great teacher or lawgiver, we're all still dead in our sins and his death was a meaningless farce. GC Brewer understood what the content of the gospel was/is. You need to read GC Brewer's sermons on the gospel. Why don't you post some of those here?

Pax.

Lee,

You amaze me.

Paul rebuked Peter because  he "walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel" (Galations 2:14).

There is nothing in the DB&R ALONE that would show that what Peter was doing was unacceptable.

The "gospel" is more than the DB&R.

Robert G

Quote from: mistergus on Wed Aug 06, 2008 - 17:19:14
Lee,

You amaze me.

Paul rebuked Peter because  he "walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel" (Galations 2:14).

There is nothing in the DB&R ALONE that would show that what Peter was doing was unacceptable.

The "gospel" is more than the DB&R.

Robert G

This is NOT what your hero GC Brewer would say at all.

Here's how the NIV renders that verse:

"When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, 'You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?'"

So the issue at hand is forcing Gentiles to follow Jewish customs. It was in this way that Peter was not "acting in line with the truth of the gospel."

Are you going to argue that the gospel includes for us today Jews who live like Gentiles not being hypocrites and forcing Gentiles to live like Jews? 'Cause that's what the context is about.

Look at 3:1-3:

"You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?"

How plain and direct does Paul have to be? He asks them straight-up whether they received the Holy Spirit by works, or by believing what they heard about Jesus being crucified (which harmoinizes perfectly with what Paul says in Romans 10). If they claim to have received the Spirit by works, then they're foolish and bewitched by a false gospel. Because Galatians teaches that adding anything to the gospel of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus is a false gospel, as 1:6-7 clearly says:

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all."

If the gospel, strictly speaking, cannot be obeyed, because the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus can't be obeyed, then Paul was a liar, because he limits the gospel to the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, yet also says the gospel can be obeyed. And in Romans 10:16 he tells us how to do that:

"But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, 'Lord, who has believed our message?'

As Bro. Brewer's good friend, whose views he endorsed, KC Moser wrote:

"BUT WHAT IS IT TO OBEY THE GOSPEL? This is a Bible question and has a Bible answer. The expression "obey the gospel" is found three times in the Bible. The places are Rom. 10:16 (King James Version), 2 Thess. 1:8, and 1 Peter 4:17. There is nothing in the context of the last two passages to indicate just what is meant by the expression "obey the gospel." But it can be certainly known what Paul meant by the expression "obeyed the gospel" in Rom. 10:16. Hear him: "For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?"' Their failure to believe was their failure to obey the gospel. Therefore, to believe the gospel is to obey the gospel. To believe the gospel is to believe in, trust in, Christ crucified, buried, and raised for our justification. This is the way to appropriate Christ. The gospel saves the believer (Rom. 1:16). God saves those who obey the gospel. Obeying the gospel is appropriating Christ crucified. The death of Christ for our sins naturally implies the obligation of man to accept him. Hence the expression, "obey the gospel."

   "Paul's reference is to Isaiah 53:1. Isaiah's words are: "Who hath believed our report?" To Paul, believing the report was obeying the gospel. John has also referred to Isaiah 53:1. "But though he had done so many signs before them, yet they believed not on him: that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report?"' (John 12:37-38). To believe on Christ with Paul is to obey the gospel."


I'm sorry, Robert, your version of the gospel is a perversion, because it teaches things contrary to scripture. It teaches that we're saved by grace plus works which Paul blasts as heretical in Galatians, Romans, Ephesians, etc.


Pax.

Quote from: mistergus on Tue Aug 05, 2008 - 19:45:33
lee,

First, the gospel must be obeyed.  The DB&R alone are facts, and facts cannot be obeyed.  Only commands can be obeyed.

Second, Paul rebuked Peter when he "walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel" (Galations 2:14).  Nothing, nothing in the DB&R alone provides any teaching that Peter was violating.

You claim the DB&R alone is the gospel, but you need more teaching than that to even get a person saved!  Alone, the DB&R leaves one lost, hopeless, and unsaved.

But of course, claiming the DB&R is the gospel allows any false teacher to claim the mantle, "Gospel Preacher".

Doesn't it?

Robert G

It's interesting how differently people can read a text.  I've always thought it read to live life in light of the truth of the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Jesus.  Kind of like a preacher gently reminding the mourners at a funeral that we need to rejoice and not mourn at the death of a believer.  That would be acting in accordance to the truth of the gospel.