Tag Archives: resurrection

The First Importance Of The Gospel

Some folks out there still treat 1 Corinthians 1:18 and 2:2 like a pair of spiritual brass knuckles, swinging them at anyone who dares point out that a lopsided “cross-centered” slogan has been twisted into an excuse for unbelief and disobedience. They read Paul’s words about the message of the cross being foolishness to the perishing and decide that any critique of a so-called cross-centered gospel must mean the critic is perishing too. They quote Paul’s resolve to know nothing among the Corinthians except Jesus Christ and him crucified, then act as if that single phrase cancels out the rest of the apostolic deposit. It doesn’t. It never did. The cross is glorious, but when the faithless use the doorway of the gospel to bludgeon gospel into a blood heap, they have become Satan’s little helpers.

Scripture never hands us a minimalist gospel; that’s the devil’s job. God’s revelation is the sole starting point for knowledge, and that revelation is a seamless, non-contradictory system. Paul did not preach a bare fact of crucifixion and then stop. The faithless love a bisected gospel because it reduces the one thing they can’t do, faith. They can’t believe Jesus and they will do all they can to make sure you follow them in their perversions. Paul preached the whole counsel that centers on Christ crucified precisely because that message, understood in its full biblical context, is “the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor 1:24). To rip the phrase out of that context and wave it like a stop sign against systematic theology, apologetics, sovereign election, miraculous gifts, or the present authority of the risen Christ is not faithfulness; it is the very anti-intellectual distortion the apostle confronted. The same Paul who said he knew nothing but Christ and him crucified went on to write thirteen chapters of dense doctrine, ethics, and correction to those same Corinthians. He reasoned, disputed, and taught the entire worldview that flows from the cross and resurrection. Anything less is not the gospel Paul preached; it is a counterfeit that leaves people sick, defeated, and emotionally broken while boasting that “this is the power of the cross.” That is not power. That is unbelief dressed up in Calvary language.

Vincent Cheung nailed this exact abuse years ago, and his words still cut through the fog better than most modern pulpits ever will. In “The Proof of the Spirit” (December 26, 2008) he wrote:

“The entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 2 has been distorted by many anti-intellectual commentators. For example, Paul says in verse 2, ‘For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.’ … The statement … refers to the gospel’s contrast against non-Christian thinking, and not an anti-intellectual strategy of evangelism.”

He said it again in “Remember Jesus Christ” (November 16, 2009):

 “Many people, especially those with an anti-intellectual bias, interpret this to mean that Paul did not preach an entire body of biblical doctrines, and that he was not interested in theology or in intellectual arguments, but that he only preached the ‘gospel.’ … such usage misrepresents what the New Testament means by ‘gospel.’ … although he uses ‘Jesus Christ and him crucified’ as an expression that embraced all that he preached to the Corinthians … this is only a representation (not even a summary) of what he preached, when what he preached was doctrinally much more extensive than the bare expression can convey in itself.”

And in “Theology of the Throne” (November 23, 2025) he drove the point home with surgical precision:

“If the cross becomes the sole reference point, Christianity risks degenerating into perpetual guilt and weakness, as if believers must linger forever at the site of sacrifice without grasping the triumph that followed. … We are not standing at the foot of the cross as if history had stopped there, nor are we waiting outside the empty tomb as if resurrection were the end. … A theology of the throne guards against distortions that arise from an incomplete focus.”

The same abuse shows up when people grab 1 Corinthians 15 and twist Paul’s phrase “of first importance” into another excuse to camp out at the doorway instead of walking through it. Paul opens that chapter by saying, “Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you… 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” (1 Cor 15:1, 3-4). The atonement and the resurrection are indeed first in importance—the doorway, the entrance, the non-negotiable foundation that gets you inside the house of God’s. But the doorway is not the dining room. The doorway is not where you sit down at the table and feast with the King. You do not build your whole life in the foyer, staring at the hinges while the banquet hall echoes with joy and power and promises kept. Paul goes on in that same chapter to thunder about the bodily resurrection, the defeat of death, the sovereignty of Christ, and the certainty that “God may be all in all” (15:28). He is not handing us a slogan to linger at Calvary or the empty tomb forever; he is flinging wide the door so we can enter the gospel, which includes the present throne life, Spirit baptism, healing by faith, mountains moved, and every promise made good in Christ.

The Lord’s Supper itself proves the point with blunt apostolic logic. Jesus commanded, “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24-25). If we were meant to stay perpetually cross-centered, locked in endless sin consciousness and weakness at the foot of the cross, then commanding a repeated supper that looks back while we press forward would make zero sense. The table presupposes we have already walked through the doorway. It calls us to remember the price paid so we can enjoy the victory won. It is a feast of triumph, not a funeral dirge. To treat the cross or the resurrection as the entire meal is to turn the Lord’s Supper into a self-flogging session that the apostle never authorized. That is not biblical piety; that is a unbelief that robs the gospel of its forward momentum and leaves believers spiritually malnourished in the foyer while the King waits at the head of the table.

Vincent Cheung saw this coming and warned against it with the same clarity he brought to the cross-centered slogan. The full gospel is never a truncated one; it is the doorway that opens onto the throne room. Anything that stops short of that full-orbed revelation—election, resurrection power today, miracle gifts, sovereign lordship over every thought and every sickness—is not protecting the gospel; it is shrinking it into something the faithless can do by human effort.

If you find yourself reaching for 1 Corinthians 2:2 or 15:3-4 every time someone says the atonement and resurrection are the entrance, not the whole house, stop. You are not defending the gospel; you are defending a half-gospel that leaves people sick, broke, and powerless while boasting that “this is the power of the cross and empty tomb.” And when they die before their time, their blood is stained on your hands. The real cross and resurrection say, “By His stripes you were healed” (1 Pet 2:24) and “All things are possible for the one who believes” (Mark 9:23). They fling open the door to the throne where we boldly approach and ask and receive. Anything that stops short of that is not the power of God; it is the power of unbelief sugar-coated with spiritual-sounding phrases.

The throne is where the story ends, not the cross or the tomb. Stop lingering at the doorway like it is the finish line. Get up, believe the full revelation, walk through, and sit down at the table with the King. That is where Jesus is. And that is the only way the cross and resurrection stay anything but empty in your life.

Resurrection According The Scripture

Paul says in 1 Corinthian 15:4 that we know Jesus was resurrected because the Scripture says it. This is good reasoning. This is the best type of deductive logic. This is adhering to the laws of Contradiction, Identity and Excluded Middle in perfection. This is thinking like the LOGOS.

Anti-Christians often dislike this type of answer and find it unacceptable. They want you to say, “we know the resurrection is true because of some empirical evidence proves it.” This is of course delusional. Empirical evidence cannot prove any statement of reality because empiricism, observation and scientific experimentation make a triple logical fallacy. This foundation of knowledge makes knowledge impossible. It violates the law of contradiction because it makes knowledge skeptical; and it leads to skepticism, because empiricism, observation and experimentation are fallacious.  Any worldview that uses such a foundation for any knowledge is to be mocked and dismissed.

It is a good thing that resurrection is not proved by our sensations, observations or experimentation, because if it was then resurrection could never be proven. Since our sensations and observations cannot prove any statement of reality, such as water, rocks or trees, then it therefore cannot prove resurrection. Just because some fools use delusional means to interact with the world does not mean you are to follow this example, or compromise by making a bible and delusion into a hybrid. No, you expose how dumb their source of knowledge is and destroy it by logic and the scripture.

The only source of knowledge is God’s revelation. God’s word says there is resurrection and that Jesus was the first born from the dead. Just as He experienced physical resurrection, we also will experience a physical resurrection with a new body. What Jesus experienced we experience. This is God’s love and promise to us.

The Scripture and God are interchangeable, and therefore, Paul says Jesus was raised according to Scripture. We ought to have renewed our minds so that no truth statement about reality has any foundation in our senses, observation or experimentation. As Paul says, we live by faith not sight. This is why Paul says, (Acts 26:8) why should you think it incredible that God raised the dead?

mic-narra-RA3f0b26qwE-unsplash

Word Of Faith vs God Was Never There

Since, Bill Johnson of Bethel was unable to raise Olive from the dead, that proves he’s a FALSE Apostle because one of the signs of a real apostle of Jesus is that they have authority to raise the dead.
-Chris Rosebrough (twitter dec. 2019)

The real issue here is if Rosebrough can logically deduce that if an apostle or someone claiming to be an apostle prays for a miracle, such as resurrection, but then fails, it “necessarily” infers false apostle. This of course, cannot be done as a sound argument, if Scripture alone is your starting point of knowledge. Now, if one wishes to hybrid Christian epistemology with the Pope or their speculative sensations, observations, history and other human starting points, then they might be able to make a valid, albeit, an unsound argument.

Part of the problem, might come from a strawman concerning the nature of Bethel asking for resurrection. When people were praying for the miracle, some were making declarations of faith as “word of faith.” That is, just like Jesus making “word of faith,” declarations with the fig tree or with Lazarus. Or like Joshua with the sun, or the woman asking Elisha for her child to be resurrected. The issue here is that a “word of faith,” declaration is not the same thing as prophecy. To make this short, a “word of faith,” like Jesus used it or other biblical examples is nothing more than a shorthand prayer. When the Shunammite woman said to Elisha that “all is well,” this was word of faith. (2 Kings 4:18–37) It was not a prophecy. It was faith that God was able to do what she was asking. She still acknowledge the reality saying, “Did I ask my lord for a son? Did I not say, ‘Do not deceive me?’” She, like Jesus, both when questioned acknowledge the persons in question were indeed dead, yet, both made faith declarations about it.

This is like the criminal on the cross or Samson, when they summed up a whole bunch of doctrine about mercy in the shorthand phrase, “remember me.” Instead of saying, “father I ask, through your Son Jesus Christ, that you raise person x from the dead,” they make a word of faith, “they are not dead, but asleep.” Or, “Father, through your Son, forgive me of my sin,” as a word of faith, “I am already the righteousness of Christ.” Or, “Father, through your Son, heal me of this sickness,” as a word of faith, “sickness you have already left my body.” There is nothing complicated about this. It would take a bottom-of-the-barrel stupid person to miss this.

This issue is simple. It is about faith. Faith that God does what He promised. Faith that the blood of Christ is a guarantee for all it is promised for. God cannot lie. God was sovereign and all-knowing when He made the promise. He made the promises because He wanted to. Because He was sovereign when He made it, and is still sovereign, the promises are still guaranteed today.

A prophecy is something different. If a false one is given, then it would indeed make the person a false prophet. One problem with some sects, focusing too much on “word of faith,” rather than on “faith” itself, is that it can give mixed appearances. Some with weak faith, in the “word of faith” circles, focus on faith declarations as empty pragmatics, or a program, when they would be better served focusing on hearing the word of God, so that their faith is strengthened. With great faith, (the type of great faith Jesus pointed out) it does not matter how the prayer of faith is given. If you have strong faith, you will be given what you ask for. Thus, it is a non-relevant issue if it is a longer prayer asking the Father for something, or if it is given as a shorthand of a declaration. What matters is faith. Faith is always the relevant issue. This was Jesus’ focus, and it ought to be ours.

Thus, a prayer in faith that fails, does not lead to the necessary consequent of a false apostle, prophet or Christian. Such a case merely shows this person’s faith is not as strong as they thought it was. Now, a continued lifelong example of prayers and no miracles, at least according to Jesus, would prove you are not one of His true disciples (John 15:5-8). When the disciples asked why they failed in a ministry operation Jesus said, “Because of your little faith, (Matt 17:20 LEB).” Jesus went behind their backs and healed the boy. That is, despite God causing them to have little faith and failed to minister compassion, Jesus did God’s Will by healing the boy. Did this failed ministry moment, because of little faith, make the disciples “false apostles”? But I digress. Jesus, with these weak faith disciples, kept rebuking and comforting them to be better. They did.

One point of concern about this critique is that everything about this situation screams, “this is about faith in God,” or maybe, “faith vs. weak faith.” Their focus was about obeying God will (commandments), and seeking God’s promise and God’s power. Yet, religious fanboys see, “apostles.” It is easy to distinguish an empiricist, because they are so focused on people, on sensual things (sensations). Spiritual, intellectual and invisible things like God’s word and faith, are too intellectual and spiritual for their fleshly minds. They need to focus on men. They need robust histories, stories, heavy smelly books, elaborate traditions and colorful shadows. Because they cannot understand how a sinner like themselves is able to have faith to raise the dead, their focus is thus on other men, and how these other men cannot do it either. God was never in the picture. God was never there. They do apologetics against others by assuming God out of their arguments, when God is their defining epistemology, metaphysics and ethics. These fanboys, manage to talk about the Bible, sovereignty, and grace without God being there. If only in this aspect, they are miracles in how blind a person can be. They are practicing empiricists and atheists when they view the world and when they speak.