'Reductionist' versus 'Complete' view of the Gospel

Any other gospel is not the gospel given to Paul by Christ.
Receiving Jesus as your Lord and saviour is not the gospel.
Calling upon the name of Jesus is NOT the gospel.
All these man made gospel cannot save one single soul.

1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

I know of no scripture that says that believing Jesus died for our sins is enough to save us. I have heard 'sinner's prayers' that seem to be based on that assumption... but are probably just from people who do not think the connection between their doctrine and the words they speak through.
But let me ask you, do you think someone can be saved without believing Christ rose from the dead? Plenty of people died on crosses under the Romans. But they weren't qualified to die for our sins...except one. And Jesus did something unique. He rose from the dead.

I see there is a context to Paul's explanation of whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. There is some context in the passage. Earlier in the passage, he talks about believing in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead--- the heart believes unto righteousness. Paul wrote earlier that Christ rose for our justification. And he says to confess that Jesus is Lord. Confession is made unto salvation.

Then, a bit later, this quote that all who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.....and how shall they hear without a preacher.... then talk of preaching good news, obeying the Gospel and a reference to Isaiah 53 which tells about Christ's sufferings.



John 1 says that as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name. So some people take that verse and say, "Pray this prayer to receive Christ.....if you believe it you are saved." There is no mention of the cross or the resurrection. I think some preachers who do this, if you asked them if someone needed to believe Jesus died and rose again, or died for our sins and rose again to be saved would say 'yes.' But they have seen the quick-and-easy prayer modeled so much it feels natural. We are creatures of ritual and tradition whether we like those words or not. People who hate the word 'religion' tend to be religious themselves.

Reductionist Approach to the Gospel and Evangelism or a 'Complete View'
A reductionist viewpoint might look at a verse and say 'There is a promise of salvation here, so let's just use this.' Or it may lead to stripping of parts of those verses. For example, if there is a verse that talks about becoming a son of God to them that 'receive Him', they may assume that 'receive Him' means to follow the ritual they have seen of repeating a prayer, rather than the idea of knowing Who He is and believing that He is Who He says He is, understanding His role, etc.

In Luke 24, Jesus said that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in Christ's name to all nations, beginning in Jerusalem. Peter said in a message in Acts that a man had been healed through faith in Jesus' name and that there is no other name under heaven whereby men may be saved. So should we just preach salvation and teach people to claim that promise, or do we assume there is a broader context and we should consider other teachings about salvation? Do we point out that Jesus' words came write after a verse that refers to what was written that Christ should suffer and rise again?

Do we focus specifically on Romans 10:9-10 and declare people saved if they believed a confession (or confession in the form of a prayer) that says that Jesus is Lord and that they believe He rose from the dead? Or do we think this is in the context of a whole epistle which also mentions Christ dying as a sacrifice.... a propitiation? Do we leave out the cross and just mention the resurrection. Romans 10 does quote a line references Isaiah 53. Romans 6 also talks about those who are baptized into Jesus Christ Jesus being baptized into His death and that they shall also be in the likeness of the resurrection.

Water Baptism
When we consider the actual __practice___ of the apostles and the early church in evangelism, water baptism plays an important role. Luke recorded how Christ said that it was written that Christ should suffer, rise from the dead and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached. Yet he records how Peter preached and that after explaining the events of Pentecost from scripture, preaching that they had killed Jesus and that He rose, ascended, and is Lord and Christ, he told his listeners to repent and be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus for forgiveness of sins. The response Peter wanted was repentance and he offered forgiveness of sins through baptism.

And we see Paul tell of his own baptism in Acts 22. The man the Lord sent after he was blinded at his experience with Christ, Ananias told him Why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and calling upon the name of the Lord, wash away your sins.

And Paul's treatment of baptism is also relevant here. Not only does he connect it to the resurrection in Romans 6, but we also see in Colossians 2 that his readers were baptized into Christ's and raised with Christ through faith in the operation of God who raised him from the dead.
Peter wrote baptism now saves you, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.' (I Peter. 3:21) Similar to Colossians 2 and Romans 6, Peter says baptism saves by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Salvation is by faith...and baptism saves you as an answer of a good conscience toward God. In Colossians 2, baptism is to be done in faith.

In Acts 2 in Peter's sermon, Peter associates baptism with forgiveness of sin, and Ananias in Acts 22 associates it with washing away sin and calling upon the name of the Lord.

What I have seen is those with a 'reductionist' approach to the Gospel sometimes take a few verses and ignore the rest, building a doctrine of it. Romans 10:9-10 because THE way to preach salvation--confessing Jesus a Lord and believing God raised Him from the dead, and if someone else uses the Acts 2:38's 'method', he isn't saved. Why is one 'method' from one verse better than another one? Shouldn't we love and accept all scripture.

The doctrinal question is whether these verses are intended to be interpreted out of context? For example, someone might believe that an individual can be saved by just hearing Romans 10:9-10, but without hearing or believing that Jesus is the Christ/Messiah who died for our sins. But isn't the context importance? Paul has already talked about the death of Christ earlier in Romans. The chapter also alludes to a chapter of Isaiah which talked about Christ's suffering.

In Acts 2, Peter does not explain that Christ's death was for our sins. He tells his audience that they had killed the Prince of life. Maybe the audience got saved without being told that, or maybe we are to understand that Peter said a lot more that day and that we are getting a truncated version... and we are supposed to understand from the larger context of Christian teachings or writings the overall gospel message.

1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

I know of no scripture that says that believing Jesus died for our sins is enough to save us. I have heard 'sinner's prayers' that seem to be based on that assumption... but are probably just from people who do not think the connection between their doctrine and the words they speak through.
But let me ask you, do you think someone can be saved without believing Christ rose from the dead? Plenty of people died on crosses under the Romans. But they weren't qualified to die for our sins...except one. And Jesus did something unique. He rose from the dead.

I see there is a context to Paul's explanation of whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. There is some context in the passage. Earlier in the passage, he talks about believing in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead--- the heart believes unto righteousness. Paul wrote earlier that Christ rose for our justification. And he says to confess that Jesus is Lord. Confession is made unto salvation.

Then, a bit later, this quote that all who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.....and how shall they hear without a preacher.... then talk of preaching good news, obeying the Gospel and a reference to Isaiah 53 which tells about Christ's sufferings.



John 1 says that as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name. So some people take that verse and say, "Pray this prayer to receive Christ.....if you believe it you are saved." There is no mention of the cross or the resurrection. I think some preachers who do this, if you asked them if someone needed to believe Jesus died and rose again, or died for our sins and rose again to be saved would say 'yes.' But they have seen the quick-and-easy prayer modeled so much it feels natural. We are creatures of ritual and tradition whether we like those words or not. People who hate the word 'religion' tend to be religious themselves.

Reductionist Approach to the Gospel and Evangelism or a 'Complete View'
A reductionist viewpoint might look at a verse and say 'There is a promise of salvation here, so let's just use this.' Or it may lead to stripping of parts of those verses. For example, if there is a verse that talks about becoming a son of God to them that 'receive Him', they may assume that 'receive Him' means to follow the ritual they have seen of repeating a prayer, rather than the idea of knowing Who He is and believing that He is Who He says He is, understanding His role, etc.

In Luke 24, Jesus said that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in Christ's name to all nations, beginning in Jerusalem. Peter said in a message in Acts that a man had been healed through faith in Jesus' name and that there is no other name under heaven whereby men may be saved. So should we just preach salvation and teach people to claim that promise, or do we assume there is a broader context and we should consider other teachings about salvation? Do we point out that Jesus' words came write after a verse that refers to what was written that Christ should suffer and rise again?

Do we focus specifically on Romans 10:9-10 and declare people saved if they believed a confession (or confession in the form of a prayer) that says that Jesus is Lord and that they believe He rose from the dead? Or do we think this is in the context of a whole epistle which also mentions Christ dying as a sacrifice.... a propitiation? Do we leave out the cross and just mention the resurrection. Romans 10 does quote a line references Isaiah 53. Romans 6 also talks about those who are baptized into Jesus Christ Jesus being baptized into His death and that they shall also be in the likeness of the resurrection.

Water Baptism
When we consider the actual __practice___ of the apostles and the early church in evangelism, water baptism plays an important role. Luke recorded how Christ said that it was written that Christ should suffer, rise from the dead and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached. Yet he records how Peter preached and that after explaining the events of Pentecost from scripture, preaching that they had killed Jesus and that He rose, ascended, and is Lord and Christ, he told his listeners to repent and be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus for forgiveness of sins. The response Peter wanted was repentance and he offered forgiveness of sins through baptism.

And we see Paul tell of his own baptism in Acts 22. The man the Lord sent after he was blinded at his experience with Christ, Ananias told him Why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and calling upon the name of the Lord, wash away your sins.

And Paul's treatment of baptism is also relevant here. Not only does he connect it to the resurrection in Romans 6, but we also see in Colossians 2 that his readers were baptized into Christ's and raised with Christ through faith in the operation of God who raised him from the dead.
Peter wrote baptism now saves you, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.' (I Peter. 3:21) Similar to Colossians 2 and Romans 6, Peter says baptism saves by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Salvation is by faith...and baptism saves you as an answer of a good conscience toward God. In Colossians 2, baptism is to be done in faith.

In Acts 2 in Peter's sermon, Peter associates baptism with forgiveness of sin, and Ananias in Acts 22 associates it with washing away sin and calling upon the name of the Lord.

What I have seen is those with a 'reductionist' approach to the Gospel sometimes take a few verses and ignore the rest, building a doctrine of it. Romans 10:9-10 because THE way to preach salvation--confessing Jesus a Lord and believing God raised Him from the dead, and if someone else uses the Acts 2:38's 'method', he isn't saved. Why is one 'method' from one verse better than another one? Shouldn't we love and accept all scripture.

The doctrinal question is whether these verses are intended to be interpreted out of context? For example, someone might believe that an individual can be saved by just hearing Romans 10:9-10, but without hearing or believing that Jesus is the Christ/Messiah who died for our sins. But isn't the context importance? Paul has already talked about the death of Christ earlier in Romans. The chapter also alludes to a chapter of Isaiah which talked about Christ's suffering.

In Acts 2, Peter does not explain that Christ's death was for our sins. He tells his audience that they had killed the Prince of life. Maybe the audience got saved without being told that, or maybe we are to understand that Peter said a lot more that day and that we are getting a truncated version... and we are supposed to understand from the larger context of Christian teachings or writings the overall gospel message.

1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

I know of no scripture that says that believing Jesus died for our sins is enough to save us. I have heard 'sinner's prayers' that seem to be based on that assumption... but are probably just from people who do not think the connection between their doctrine and the words they speak through.
But let me ask you, do you think someone can be saved without believing Christ rose from the dead? Plenty of people died on crosses under the Romans. But they weren't qualified to die for our sins...except one. And Jesus did something unique. He rose from the dead.

I see there is a context to Paul's explanation of whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. There is some context in the passage. Earlier in the passage, he talks about believing in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead--- the heart believes unto righteousness. Paul wrote earlier that Christ rose for our justification. And he says to confess that Jesus is Lord. Confession is made unto salvation.

Then, a bit later, this quote that all who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.....and how shall they hear without a preacher.... then talk of preaching good news, obeying the Gospel and a reference to Isaiah 53 which tells about Christ's sufferings.



John 1 says that as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name. So some people take that verse and say, "Pray this prayer to receive Christ.....if you believe it you are saved." There is no mention of the cross or the resurrection. I think some preachers who do this, if you asked them if someone needed to believe Jesus died and rose again, or died for our sins and rose again to be saved would say 'yes.' But they have seen the quick-and-easy prayer modeled so much it feels natural. We are creatures of ritual and tradition whether we like those words or not. People who hate the word 'religion' tend to be religious themselves.

Reductionist Approach to the Gospel and Evangelism or a 'Complete View'
A reductionist viewpoint might look at a verse and say 'There is a promise of salvation here, so let's just use this.' Or it may lead to stripping of parts of those verses. For example, if there is a verse that talks about becoming a son of God to them that 'receive Him', they may assume that 'receive Him' means to follow the ritual they have seen of repeating a prayer, rather than the idea of knowing Who He is and believing that He is Who He says He is, understanding His role, etc.

In Luke 24, Jesus said that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in Christ's name to all nations, beginning in Jerusalem. Peter said in a message in Acts that a man had been healed through faith in Jesus' name and that there is no other name under heaven whereby men may be saved. So should we just preach salvation and teach people to claim that promise, or do we assume there is a broader context and we should consider other teachings about salvation? Do we point out that Jesus' words came write after a verse that refers to what was written that Christ should suffer and rise again?

Do we focus specifically on Romans 10:9-10 and declare people saved if they believed a confession (or confession in the form of a prayer) that says that Jesus is Lord and that they believe He rose from the dead? Or do we think this is in the context of a whole epistle which also mentions Christ dying as a sacrifice.... a propitiation? Do we leave out the cross and just mention the resurrection. Romans 10 does quote a line references Isaiah 53. Romans 6 also talks about those who are baptized into Jesus Christ Jesus being baptized into His death and that they shall also be in the likeness of the resurrection.

Water Baptism
When we consider the actual __practice___ of the apostles and the early church in evangelism, water baptism plays an important role. Luke recorded how Christ said that it was written that Christ should suffer, rise from the dead and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached. Yet he records how Peter preached and that after explaining the events of Pentecost from scripture, preaching that they had killed Jesus and that He rose, ascended, and is Lord and Christ, he told his listeners to repent and be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus for forgiveness of sins. The response Peter wanted was repentance and he offered forgiveness of sins through baptism.

And we see Paul tell of his own baptism in Acts 22. The man the Lord sent after he was blinded at his experience with Christ, Ananias told him Why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and calling upon the name of the Lord, wash away your sins.

And Paul's treatment of baptism is also relevant here. Not only does he connect it to the resurrection in Romans 6, but we also see in Colossians 2 that his readers were baptized into Christ's and raised with Christ through faith in the operation of God who raised him from the dead.
Peter wrote baptism now saves you, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.' (I Peter. 3:21) Similar to Colossians 2 and Romans 6, Peter says baptism saves by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Salvation is by faith...and baptism saves you as an answer of a good conscience toward God. In Colossians 2, baptism is to be done in faith.

In Acts 2 in Peter's sermon, Peter associates baptism with forgiveness of sin, and Ananias in Acts 22 associates it with washing away sin and calling upon the name of the Lord.

What I have seen is those with a 'reductionist' approach to the Gospel sometimes take a few verses and ignore the rest, building a doctrine of it. Romans 10:9-10 because THE way to preach salvation--confessing Jesus a Lord and believing God raised Him from the dead, and if someone else uses the Acts 2:38's 'method', he isn't saved. Why is one 'method' from one verse better than another one? Shouldn't we love and accept all scripture.

The doctrinal question is whether these verses are intended to be interpreted out of context? For example, someone might believe that an individual can be saved by just hearing Romans 10:9-10, but without hearing or believing that Jesus is the Christ/Messiah who died for our sins. But isn't the context importance? Paul has already talked about the death of Christ earlier in Romans. The chapter also alludes to a chapter of Isaiah which talked about Christ's suffering.

In Acts 2, Peter does not explain that Christ's death was for our sins. He tells his audience that they had killed the Prince of life. Maybe the audience got saved without being told that, or maybe we are to understand that Peter said a lot more that day and that we are getting a truncated version... and we are supposed to understand from the larger context of Christian teachings or writings the overall gospel message.

That's not how some one receives eternal life.

Why get bogged down with verbage when we already know much is lost in translation? In fact, that's the reason why we use the Bible to interpret the Bible, in context and as a whole.

God Himself paid the ultimate price for the redemption of His own creation, because only God could redeem us. Now, in context and as a whole, is there any verse in the Bible that contradicts God's work?

Isn't faith and evidence of the Spirit, which are gifts of God, what is most important?

But let me ask you, do you think someone can be saved without believing Christ rose from the dead? Plenty of people died on crosses under the Romans. But they weren't qualified to die for our sins...except one. And Jesus did something unique. He rose from the dead.

Yes, I believe so. I know some Christians who recognize Jesus as God, pray to Jesus, and believe He still lives (thereby confirming He rose) but do not understand atonement.

Why get bogged down with verbage when we already know much is lost in translation? In fact, that's the reason why we use the Bible to interpret the Bible, in context and as a whole.

God Himself paid the ultimate price for the redemption of His own creation, because only God could redeem us. Now, in context and as a whole, is there any verse in the Bible that contradicts God's work?

Isn't faith and evidence of the Spirit, which are gifts of God, what is most important?

The belief that Jesus died and rose again and that by believing in Him a person received everlasting life is in Roman's 10:9-10 by the meaning of the words within the passage.

Confessing and believing... it's in the passage. There is quite a lot to these words. So I believe the verses can be used to present a full gospel.

Altho it is still better to put it with verses in John like 3:16 and John 5:24.

Baptism tho would be a seperate thing. That's not how some one receives eternal life.

There is just so much brilliance in this writing. I really, really like how you have presented your case. The format is beyond stellar.

I wanted to ask of your opinion, though. Do you believe that if no physical water is present, such as in a desert or perhaps on the side of Mt Everest where not enough water could be offered for a baptism . . . these people could not receive Eternal Life?

Water baptism is a ritual drawn from the Torah, that the priest must bathe and be cleansed before they enter into the Temple of God. If one is willing and prepared to be baptized, then God will lead him and the pastor to a place where physical water is present and sufficient for immersion. God did it for the Ethiopian Eunuch in a desert so he can be baptized by Phillip. That's a sign. What matters is the baptizing of the Holy Spirit, that day of epiphany in you life. That's what really puts your life on a new trajectory led by the Holy Spirit.

Also, interestingly, everyone born alive has experienced both baptism by water and baptism by spirit - water being amniotic fluid in the womb, and spirit being the first cry. That's what Nicodimus had in mind.

I fail to find scripture that gives any validation in...... salvation without baptism. It just isn't there.
There are 5-6 new age religion teachings that. ...if followed....will cost you your eternal salvation....
it is part of how one receives eternal salvation. The Bible says so...directly.

The Bible explains the difference of baptism under the OT vs NT.
Under the OT it was used for body/skin cleansing ..........and under the NT is for sin cleansing along with repentance to purify the soul.

Yeah, cleansing of the body and the soul, two sides of the same coin.

Yeah, cleansing of the body and the soul, two sides of the same coin.

I fail to find scripture that gives any validation in...... salvation without baptism. It just isn't there.
There are 5-6 new age religion teachings that. ...if followed....will cost you your eternal salvation....it is part of how one receives eternal salvation. The Bible says so...directly.