Archive for April 2011

Free Will? A Mean Doctrine Believed by Mean People

April 28, 2011

Some who agree that the Gospel shows that the cause of salvation is the effectual definite death of Christ do not preach this Gospel as they do not preach Christ and His death so as to expose all that people highly esteem.

The meaning and significance of Christ and His death, revealed in the Gospel, is the only thing that will expose to our minds the sin that deceives us. God uses the gospel to show us the pride that motivates us to try to establish our self-righteousness. John 3:19-20.

Without the Gospel, no lost sinner will ever come to faith in Christ and repent of dead works and idolatry .Rom. 10:9-17.

Many people have faith in a counterfeit Christ. They have faith in their faith. How can this be exposed so that they should not remain deceived and lost? Only through the Gospel preached, heard, and understood.


It is true that the Bible is a book with many topics. It contains doctrine, history, ethics, poetry, letters, etc., but the whole Bible is written in light of the great salvation God has provided for the elect by Christ. The whole Old Testament is written in light of God’s promise to send the Messiah to establish that righteousness that would entitle all who believe the Gospel to the whole inheritance of eternal life.

The whole Nnw Testament is written in light of the Christ who has come and fulfilled that righteousness by His obedience to death. If we remove this light, then the Bible is no better than any other religious history or book of ethics, poetry and letters.

Faith is believing God’s testimony in the Gospel. Ephesians. 2:8-9; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14. Apart from the Gospel, we talk more about “faith alone” than we do about the object of faith.

True Godly repentance begins when we see that all our previous efforts to attain or maintain any part of salvation was no more than dead works, fruit unto death, evil deeds. The only way we could see this is by the Gospel. Apart from the Gospel all repentance is legal repentance! We need instruction in Godly sorrow over sin. 2 Cor. 7:9-10.

Godly love causes us to speak peace to those who believe the gospel as we desire their fellowship. Godly love causes us not speak peace to those with different false gospels as we pray for their salvation.

Without the Gospel, all judgment concerning saved and
lost, concerning spiritual matters is self-righteous judgment based on
ignorance and speculation 1 Cor. 2:13ff.

All acceptable obedience and good works are motivated by the certainty of salvation and final glory, of our being
fully entitled to the whole inheritance of eternal life, of our being completely qualified and fit to Worship god, all based on the obedient death of Christ. Without the Gospel, all attempts at obedience and works are no more than dead works, fruit unto death.John 3:21; Matthew 5:13-16; Ephesians 2:10; Hebrews 10:17-24.

Bill Parker

No Five Points, No Gospel, But Sometimes Agreeing with the Five Points is Like False Circumcision

April 26, 2011

Arminian: “Is agreeing with five points of Calvinism a second work of grace? Will that decision add to the finished work of Christ?”

mark: Let me be the first to say that one can agree with the five points of Calvinism and still be lost. Let me say second that if you agree with any of the five Arminian points, then you still believe a false gospel. The true gospel stands in antithesis to all five points argued by the Arminians. You don’t need to know what Arminians are, but you do need to know the gospel which contradicts any idea that Jesus died for all sinners.

Let me give you an analogy: “uncircumcision is also nothing”. If you let yourself be circumcised, then you are under the curse of the law. How can Paul say that and then also say that “uncircumcision is nothing”?

Faith in the true gospel, necessary as it is, is not the basis of salvation. The death and resurrection of Christ alone is the only basis of salvation, and the reason it is necessary not to be circumcised (or believe in universal atonement) is that God’s gospel excludes the sinner (and her false circumcision or her false faith) from being the difference in salvation.

Some people read Gal 3 (not by works but by faith) and respond: I get it, so I will do it right from now on, using faith instead of works. But they still haven’t got it! They still think they are doing it.

Calvinists who think of their agreeing with the five points as the result of their study and hard work don’t really understand and believe what the gospel teaches about effectual calling. Some of these tolerant folks even deny that election, definite atonement, and effectual calling are part of the gospel. They just think of these truths as something which makes the gospel effective, and that many who believe the Bible don’t know about these things, and even deny these things.

The “like precious faith” of the elect is obtained as a result of the righteousness of Christ imputed (II Peter 1:1) and that faith knows that the cross alone (effective atonement) is true and that an universal extent contradicts the revealed intent and nature of Christ’s death.

But the reason the elect know that as the power of the gospel itself, and not because of their superior thinking ability.

I Cor 1:18 “for the message of the cross is nonsense to those who are
perishing, but IT (the message of the cross itself, not something extra
that makes the message work) IS the power of God.”

Christ’s Death for His Covenant People PLUS MY NEW HEART?

April 25, 2011

Josh Moody writes: “Nobody comes along and says that you don’t need faith. They just say it’s not faith alone. But if it’s not faith alone, then it is faith plus law; and if it is by law, then it is no longer by promise; then it is no longer by faith. The message of faith and works is really a message of work; it is simply legalism” (p157, No other Gospel)

Let me say something different. Nobody comes along and says that Jesus didn’t need to die. They just leave out the word election. They say that Jesus died for everybody but that it doesn’t work unless the Spirit causes you to consent to it.

Some of them also say that, even if you are not elect and even if the Spirit doesn’t cause you to consent to it, Jesus loves you and died for you and offers to save you, but His death didn’t take away your guilt and it doesn’t work, because you didn’t have faith in it.

But if Jesus died for everybody, then it is that death PLUS your “getting a new heart” so that you want to “accept it”, and if the difference of the new covenant is your new heart, then the promise is not about Christ alone or His death alone; and if it is about your heart being changed (so that grace is not cheap and Jesus is Lord), then salvation is not by Christ’s death.

The message of His death plus your new heart is really at the end a message about your new heart.

And even if Arminians can’t agree with Calvinists about the heart being changed before faith, or about this heart change being purchased for the elect by Christ, then they can still all unite in faith that the Jesus who died for everybody and the Jesus who died only for those who are saved are one and the same Jesus.

Because in the end, it’s not the death that matters. It’s our new hearts and we can see the results of that in the way we live!

God “Allows” Bad Stuff, Tim Keller Tells us, But Loves Everybody

April 23, 2011

Tim Keller— “We are an interfaith gathering today, and I freely acknowledge that every faith has great resources for dealing with suffering and injustice in the world. …Christians believe that in Jesus, God’s Son, divinity became vulnerable to andinvolved in suffering and death. He didn’t come as a general or emperor; he came as a carpenter…..True, we don’t know the reason God allows evil and suffering to continue, but we know what the reason isn’t, what it can’t be. It can’t be that he doesn’t love us. It can’t be that he doesn’t care. God so loved us and hates suffering that he was willing to come down and get involved in it. And therefore the cross is an incredibly empowering hint. It’s only a hint, but F U grasp it, it can transform you. It can give you strength. ”

Click to access service_of_remembrance.pdf

Keller is a PCA clergyman who has signed on to the Westminster Confession which explains in its chapter 3, first paragraph: “God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will freely ordain whatever comes to pass.” This is not “allowing”.

Paragraph three of the confession chapter 3: “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life and others foreordained to everlasting death.”

For the manifestation of His glory—that is how the Bible itself explains it. Romans 9:13 declares “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” Romans 9:22 tells the truth: “God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory.”

The Bible was written to those who believe the Christian gospel (not the message of tolerance and loves everybody), so when Bible readers see a “loves us”, they need to ask the question Tonto asked the Lone Ranger: “who’s the us?”

According to the Bible, God does not love all sinners, and that love is never conditioned on the sinner. God has ordained evil things to happen to both the non-elect and the elect, but the promise of Romans 8:28 is that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose.”

Union is Not the Indwelling Nature, and “Made Sin” Was Never the Inward Nature

April 22, 2011

In Christ, there is true transfer, and this transfer is not by infusion or impartation. The elect transfer from a condemned state to a justified state by the legal transfer of imputation. They are no longer part of the “old man”; they are now part of the “new man”.

To get to the real question in the debate about impartation v imputation, we need to ask: what is transferred? Is guilt transferred to Christ, or is a corrupt “old nature” also transferred to Christ? (and if so, which comes first, and why does the second follow?)

I have answered this question in this blog many times. Our hope is not ultimately a “new nature” which still leaves us sinners, along with an “old nature”. Our hope as sinners is that we be counted righteous on the basis of imputation, and thus legally constituted (declared) as righteous, in a new legal state.

But we need to ask: what is transferred? The strict baptists (along with Ella and Fortner) who define “union” as the indwelling, need to be asked if the merit of Christ’s death is legally transferred to the elect. If so, what does that mean, and why does it matter, if the more basic question is not the transfer of guilt or merit? If Christ is “made sin” by “more than” guilt-transfer, then is it the indwelling and the new nature, and not the merits of Christ’s death, which finally matter?

We need get away from the idea that “union with Christ” is about regeneration. As long as our categories for judging saved and lost are “regenerate” and “unregenerate”, we will be assuming (even if we don’t define it at all) that “union” means regeneration and that union/regeneration precedes justification.

God’s imputation of Christ’s death to the elect justifies them. There is union by election from before the ages, but in our lifetimes, nothing is more fundamental than justification by God’s imputation of Christ’s righteousness.

1. We need to define what we mean by “regeneration”. Since the Bible word is “new birth”, we need to think about this new birth in terms of “effectual calling” by the power of the Holy Spirit with the word of the gospel. We need to get away from the idea that “regeneration” is a “change in substance or nature” and then a time gap between that and the hearing of the gospel.

2. We need to define “in Christ” in terms of justification. Although the Bible does teach that the sheep are always in Christ by election, Romans 16 teaches that some of the sheep are in Christ before other of the sheep. This change is not a first of all a change of regeneration or birth but legally a change of state before God. To be in Christ in this way is to be justified.

Union with Christ is legal solidarity with Christ and His work and His benefits. As a result of this legal change, the sheep are born again and believe the gospel, but “union” does not precede justification, except “union by election”.

3. God justifies the ungodly. God does not justify because of Christ’s indwelling (or the gift of faith). God does not justify because God knows that God is going to indwell and change the person. Christ indwells the person because God has justified the person.

A change from a belief in the false gospel to the true gospel is evidence of God’s imputation, but it is never the condition or the reason for God justifying.
Romans 6:17 “But thanks be to God, that you were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were called…”

Roman 6:20 “When you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. What fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed?”

As long we define union as indwelling and judge saved and lost by regeneration, we will be tempted to ignore the gospel of justification and judge by morality and immorality.

Romans 6 describes two legal states, one of which is “free from righteousness”. We tend to judge people (even ourselves) to be saved on the evidence of morality. But God sees that morality as something to be ashamed of, when those moral people are still in their sins, still not yet justified.

Romans 6 defines the “in Christ” in terms of legally being placed into the death of Christ. Instead of a “sacrament” which makes you a participant in Christ ( understood by some as “participating” even in the deity of God!), our hope as the justified is that God has counted the death of Christ as our death.

I am not denying Christ’s indwelling or the absolute necessity for it. I am only saying that this indwelling is not “union with Christ”. This indwelling is not the “new man”. The “new creation” has to do with a change in legal state, and not first with a change of substance or nature so that Christ can indwell our hearts.

II Corinthians 5:14 “one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live would no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sakes died and was raised. From now on, we regard no one according to the flesh (judging by morality or immorality or by other non-gospel standards)….If anyone is in Christ, there is a NEW CREATION. The old has passed; the new has come.”

“Those who live” means first of all those who are justified. The category of “we died” is not about inwardness but about an imputed legal reality. So also the category of “those who live” is not about an inward change but about an imputed reality, legal life because of justification.

Christ is here indwelling, yes, but also, Christ is not here, not yet, and we believe and obey and hope, waiting for the day when Christ will be here. He is not now coming down from heaven as He will someday, and we are not now going to heaven.

So how then are we in Christ? We are in Christ legally. The old has passed. The legal verdict has already been declared. One day, our resurrection, will be the visible evidence of that verdict.

So Do You Have To Prepare the Lost by First Telling them About Arminians?

April 20, 2011

I am not asking that evangelists explain to the lost what
Arminianism is. Rather, I am asking us to not proclaim an Arminian gospel.

The Bible talks about “us” and “our” sins, but it never sounds Arminan or resorts to an Arminian logic. Let us try to do the same thing.

When we tell people that God saves “as many as” (whosoever) has faith in Jesus, let us make sure that we tell them for whom Jesus died. Let’s NOT merely say: “there is no other qualification, no other work, no other standard to be met.” (p126). Faith is not what makes Christ’s death effective for us: the Holy Spirit is not the One who makes the atonement work.

Faith is not a qualification, but a result of Christ’s death, a benefit of Christ’s righteousness. (II Peter 1:1) It is true to say that “without trust we will know no benefit through his death” (p152), but it not the whole truth, and it becomes a lie when we do not rule out he idea that trust is what makes the death work.

And we cannot exclude trust as what makes the death work, unless we teach that trust is a result given to the elect as a result of Christ’s death for the elect.

God has a non-elect. My worry is not that some of the non-elect will be saved. But neither should these pastors worry that the elect will not be saved if they told the truth that God has a non-elect and that God does not love all sinners.

Certainly God commands in God’s law what God has not ordained to happen. But God’s gospel does not include any idea that God “wants” things to happen that will not happen.

At this point you can bring out Spurgeon and the word “offer” and accuse me of letting predestination rule over the gospel. But in the gospel in which God is both just and justifier, the Lord Jesus Christ has already brought in a righteousness by which all those God loves will be justified.

God does not count faith as righteousness. It is the object of faith, Christ in his glorious person and effective death, who is alone the divine righteousness of the elect.

Jesus Saves Those Who Never Heard What?–Or, At Least the Arminians are not Universalists

April 18, 2011

Since I was saved about ten years ago from the false good news of universalism, I can’t help notice the inherent Arminianism of the Gospel Coalition’s brand of evangelicalism.

The Gospel Coalition critiques Rob Bell: “It reminds me of the T-shirt, ‘Jesus Loves You. Then Again He Loves Everybody.’ There’s no good news in announcing that God loves everyone in the same way just because he wants to. The good news is that in love God sent his Son to live for our lives and die for our deaths”

Notice what gospel coalition does not say, will not say about election: that God does not love everybody, that God did not die for everybody. They will only deny that the love doesn’t need Christ’s death.
They only say that God doesn’t love everybody equally, the same way. They still retain the old formula retained by Dordt (sufficient for everybody).
What’s with the ambiguity of “just because God wants to”?
1. God loves the elect in a holy way, not just any old way, yes.
2. But does this deny that God loves “just because God wants to”? God loves because God wants to, and God ‘s nature requires justice for all those loves. Christ has no love for the non-elect.

I take sides with John Owen on God’s justice being necessary for God to save the elect , and thus the necessary nature of Christ’s death, but that does not deny the sovereignty of God’s love. God does not love the non-elect. That’s a little different from the Packer nuance, which says “God’s love is not the whole story” when it comes to the non-elect.

But this is something you can’t say, when you think there are only two sides, liberals and conservatives. When “Calvinists” take sides with the Arminians against the universalists, we must deconstruct the difference. When “historic” Calvinists take sides against the “hypers”, we must deconstruct the difference. Nobody has to take sides with Arminians to avoid the error of eternal justification. Historically, tolerance for Arminianism has resulted in a false gospel which cannot talk about the purpose, efficacy and nature of Christ’s death.

Were you There, Killing Jesus?

April 18, 2011

No, you were not. Nor are you now able to impute your sins to Christ. God has already imputed (or not) your sins to Christ. Christ imputed the sins of the elect to Christ, and then Christ died for those sins. This is not bad news. Election is good news, and the gospel should not be changed into a law which accuses you of killing Jesus.

Many religious songs have those who sing them confess themselves as having killed Christ on the cross. But I question this sentimentality. First, if we all all put Christ on the cross, then Christ died for all sinners, and that is the false gospel.

Second, nobody but God has the ultimate power to put Christ on the cross. If we all are supposed to feel bad about crucifying Christ, then is the Tri-une God also to apologise? May it never be! Acts 2:23-24, “This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.”

The Bible teaches that God’s sovereignty does not eliminate the accountability of sinners. Certain specific lawless men killed Christ. But also, God gave Christ up to die for the sins of the elect alone. God and not man determined for whom Christ would die.

Christ purposed that He would die. The Trinity purposed that Christ would die. God is Christ. Christ is God.

This does not eliminate the accountability of “the lawless men”, even if they were soldiers, or of the “you” Peter is addressing in Acts 2.

Specific humans 2000 years ago purposed that Christ would die. This means that not all humans purposed that Christ would die. His mother Mary, for example, did not kill or intend to kill Christ.

We did not ourselves put Christ on the cross, because we are not the imputers. We do not get to decide when and if we put our sins on Christ. We do not get the opportunity to contribute our sins so that then Christ contributes His righteousness. Neither election nor non-election is conditioned on our sins.

Although believers are commanded to count what God has already counted, we can never be the original counters.

The cross is not what condemns. Good news for the elect, the gospel is not what condemns the non-elect. Rejecting the cross is not what condemns the non-elect, because we are all already condemned in Adam.

The false gospel which says that Jesus Christ died for every sinner is not gospel. The false gospel turns a supposedly universal death into guilt for those who don’t meet conditions which supposedly make that death effective.

Blessed Are Those Who Mourn

April 14, 2011

Earth to Glory, by Jonathan Rainbow, 2003

I wish Rainbow was not dead so that I could talk to him about this book. In that one sentence, I get to the main point of the book. We don’t need to be happy when somebody is dead. We should not resist mourning.

Jon wrote, “ If I die before the trumpet sounds, I want a loud public funeral. I don’t want a quiet private exit. I don’t want them to think of me ‘as I was’. I want them to think that I am now dead. I want somebody to preach about the resurrection.” P77

Of course, when a Christian is dead, we still have hope. Rainbow and I differed about a secondary part of that hope. He still believed in a conscious “intermediate state” for the “souls”. And to avoid assuming that the trajectory toward truth runs in only one direction (my way), let me describe my position as Rainbow might: I still believe that there is no intermediate conscious state, and part of the reason I think that is because most everybody who teaches such a conscious state thinks that death is our friend.

But Rainbow and I agree: the body is not our enemy, and death is not our friend. There are many wonderful things in this book, and I am already hoping that Rainbow’s family will soon publish other parts of his work. I even hope for a sequel called Glory to Earth!

Revelation 21: 2-3 “And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man…”

Let me list a couple of the topics Rainbow addresses:

If sickness is no longer a consequence of sin (as it was in the Mosaic covenant), why then must Christians experience physical death? P40 In what sense can sin be a punishment for sin?
Why are Lutherans wrong about the communication of attributes and ubiquity, and why is Christ present here now only in His deity but not in His humanity? P64

Rainbow does a good job of showing the problems not only with Platonism but also with materialism. As he warns, “The materialist thinks that what is not public is not sin.” p83 And then Rainbow attempts to steer a middle way between Platonism and materialism.

As he points out, at least Pharisees were not Platonists: but as those who believe in material resurrection, the Pharisees often became legalists, imposing extra-biblical rules on people. They were not Gnostics, not antinomians.

If I could talk with Rainbow today, as a fellow “Anabaptist”, I would argue that he does not go far enough in warning Christians about killing other bodies. He not only does not say anything against military “service”, but tends to assume its legitimacy. He is far more concerned about us not killing ourselves with immoderate drinking and eating.

Sometimes Rainbow sounds like my mother! Can you do without it?

But he does ask thoughtful and important questions. He even dares to write about “freedom from marriage”. P129. That is not something you hear very often from those who practically equate the family with church, either by baptizing infants or by teaching parenting instead of the gospel.

Yes, we want a loud funeral where people are sad and not fake, where people are angry at our “last enemy, death”. Because Jesus Christ is risen, and we comfort one another with these words: we shall always be with the Lord.

As his daughter writes in the appendix about his recent death: we are waiting. One day the Lord shall always be with us.

Now Everybody Can Be Free From Pharoah?

April 13, 2011

Jason Stellman, p 143: When Paul spoke to those saints in the churches of Galatia who desired to be under the law, was he talking to people who longed to be under the condemnation of the law?…When Paul wrote that Jesus was born under the law, did he mean that Christ was born under the condemnation of the law?”

Stellman: “If under law and under grace are existential categories describing an individual’s condemnation or justification, then Paul’s argument is a non-answer. It is not justification but sanctification that frees us from the dominion of the sin.”

Stellman’s reading of Romans 6 is common to many Reformed
people today. John Murray, Lloyd Jones, and Sinclair Ferguson tell
us that “freed from sin” in Romans 6:7 cannot mean “justified from sin” because this chapter is about sanctification and not about justification.

It seems to me that this begs the question, and without some attention to the chapter, I will be guilty of simply begging
the question the other way.

I want to attend to the two rhetorical questions about Romans 6:14. The first asks: When Paul was warning the Galatians, were the false teachers wanting to be under condemnation? My answer: Paul’s answer is that the false teachers were under the condemnation. If you go their way, Christ will be of no profit to you.

The gospel does not tell people that they WANT TO be damned.
The gospel says that THEY WILL be damned if their trust in anything else but Christ’s death for the elect. That death alone, apart from our works enabled by the Spirit (be those works of Torah or works of new covenant) is the only gospel.

The second rhetorical question: when Paul wrote that Jesus was born under the law, did he mean that Christ was born under the condemnation of the law? My answer is yes. Gal 4:4: born of the law to redeem those under the law cannot mean only that Christ was born under the jurisdiction of Moses to get Jews free from that jurisdiction.

According to Gal 3:13, Christ became a curse under the law to redeem a people from the curse of the law. I am not denying that Christ kept the Mosaic law. I am not even denying that Christ was under the Mosaic law to keep that law vicariously for the elect. I am affirming that the sins of all the elect were imputed to Christ, and that as surety for the elect, Christ was born under the condemnation of God’s law.

To see this, we need to attend to the first part of Romans 6 before we rush to the second part and conclude that it has to be about a sanctification that makes it just for God to justify the ungodly. Romans 6:10 says that “the death He died to sin”.

Before we jump to the redemptive historical complexity of union and
identification with the death (when? 2000 year ago? At imputation? Before or after faith?), we need to focus on Christ’s death to sin. Does this mean that Christ was unregenerate and then positionally cleansed by the Holy Spirit? God forbid.

Does “dead to sin” mean that Christ became carnal but then again infused with the divine and thus again a partaker of the divine nature? Again, God forbid.

Does “dead to sin” mean that Christ by being in the environment of the world and of the old covenant needed a deliverance from “the flesh” and from the physical body? Once more, God forbid. Does Romans 6 mean that Christ had to suffer intense and infinite “spiritual death” before He died physically, because only in that way would He be “dead to sin”?

What does it mean that Christ died to sin? It means that the law of God demanded death for the sins of the elect imputed to Christ. As long as those sins were imputed to Christ, He was under sin, he was under law, He was under death.

Now death has no more power over Him? Why? Because the
sins are no longer imputed to Him, but have been paid for and satisfied. The gospel is not only about God justifying, but also about God being justified when God justifies.

Much is written about imputation these days, a lot of it Arminian or
Lutheran language about an exchange brought about by the sinner’s faith. Less is written about the imputation of Adam’s sin. (Blocher, for example, in his Original Sin book, concludes that Adam’s sin moved the redemptive historical clock forward (bringing in death) so that individual sins could then be imputed.)

But even LESS is written about the imputation of sins to Christ. I think at least part of the reason for the silence is that preachers don’t want to talk about either whose sins are imputed or when they are imputed.

This is not the time to think through the timing. (Even when we agree that sins which have been imputed to Christ are still imputed to the elect until their justification, we still have the question if imputation logically immediately precedes or follows faith.)

If we only say that the sins of BELIEVERS are imputed to Christ, we not only avoid the good news of election but also (by lack of antithesis) contribute to the evangelical consensus that the efficacy of Christ’s death depends on believing. The true gospel tells how the new birth (and believing) is the effect of Christ’s work.

Stellman’s reading of Romans 6 is not the way most Reformed people in the past read Romans 6:14. Maybe now it’s the new majority way. But everybody needs to deal with the question: whatever you say about the Christian being dead to sin, this also needs to be said about Christ.

If Romans 6 means is that nobody is now under Moses, and that everybody can in principle objectively be free, is that your gospel?

Is it the gospel that Christ was born under the Mosaic law but isn’t
anymore? Isn’t that something like an universalism which assumes that “we” are all already Christians?

Nobody is under Moses anymore —how is that a good news for an individual on his death bed?