- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (03/28)
- Next Post »A La Carte (03/29)
The Gospel
- 03/28/06
- 36
At the Together for the Gospel blog, C.J. Mahaney has challenged the other contributors (Mark Dever, Al Mohler and Ligon Duncan) with two questions. "What is the gospel? What is the most serious threat to the gospel in the evangelical church today?" I thought it would be a good challenge for me to think about this and attempt answers as well. But before I do so, I'd suggest we back up just a little bit and define evangelical before we define gospel and discuss the most serious threat it faces today.
Evangelical
We will begin with a brief examination of the word evangelical.
The word evangelical used to describe a well-defined theological position. What made evangelicals distinct was their commitment to the authority of Scripture and the exclusivity of Christ. Now "evangelicalism" is a political movement, and its representatives hold a wide variety of theological beliefs�from Neuhaus's Roman Catholicism to Jakes's heretical Sabellianism, to Joyce Meyer's radical charismaticism, to Brian McLaren's anti-scriptural postmodernism.
So says Phil Johnson. And he is right. Evangelical has a historic meaning, but one that has largely been lost. The word has become so inclusive that it has really lost all meaning. "These days it means everything" says Phil, "and it therefore means nothing."
So what is the historical significance of the word? An evangelical used to be a person who stood firm on two key convictions: the authority of Scripture and the doctrine of justification by faith alone in Christ alone. These correspond to the doctrines of sola scriptura, which was considered the formal principle of the Reformation, and sola fide, the material principle of the Reformation. Yet today most professed Christians would barely be even to articulate such simple, fundamental doctrines.
So what happened? The following is adapted from notes I took on a seminar led by Phil Johnson at the 2006 Shepherd's Conference:
An evangelical is no longer a person defined by theology but by experience or church membership. Evangelical has been stripped of doctrinal content. Mainstream evangelicals have been assaulted by movements that seem to be motivated by removing the doctrinal distinctives: The lack of theology in the Church Growth Movement, the anti-intellectualism of the Charismatic movement; the neo-ecumenism in Promise Keepers and other movements, the new understanding of justification in the New Perspective on Paul, the denial of propositional truth in the Emerging Church, and so on. These have all worked to the detriment of evangelicalism. So now, evangelicalism which was once a movement defined by doctrine, understands doctrine to be divisive and of secondary importance. The obvious casualty in all of this is the gospel. Catholics and Protestants have long agreed that the heart of the debate is the gospel, but now people would have us believe otherwise.
When we discuss the serious threat facing churches today, I intend to focus only on evangelical churches that would qualify under the historical meaning of the word.
Gospel
When we talk about the gospel, we tend to think of a particular message - a presentation aimed at convincing people to "accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior." But in the ministry of the Apostle Paul, we can see that he used the word with a wider meaning. John MacArthur explains (in Ashamed of the Gospel):
The gospel--in the sense Paul and the apostles employed the word--includes all the revealed truth about Christ (cf Rom. 1:1-6; 1 Cor. 15:3-11). It does not stop at the point of conversion and justification by faith, but embraces every other aspect of salvation, from sanctification to glorification. The gospel's significance therefore does not end the moment the new birth occurs; it applies to the entire Christian experience. And when Paul and the other New Testament writers spoke of "preaching the gospel," they were not talking about preaching only to unbelievers (cf v.15).
The gospel, then, is a message that draws us to God, but which we continue to need and to love throughout the Christian life. So let us define the gospel calling.
I am particularly drawn to William Tyndale's definition of gospel: "Evangelion (that we call the gospel) is a Greek word and signifieth good, merry, glad and joyful tidings, that maketh a man's heart glad and maketh him sing, dance, and leap for joy... [This gospel is] all of Christ the right David, how that he hath fought with sin, with death, and the devil, and overcome them: whereby all men that were in bondage to sin, wounded with death, overcome of the devil are without their own merits or deservings loosed, justified, restored to life and saved, brought to liberty and reconciled unto the favor of God and set at one with him again: which tidings as many as believe laud, praise and thank God, are glad, sing and dance for joy."
This good news made Tyndale so exceedingly glad that he could and would not reject it, even at the cost of his life. He was strangled and burned at the stake for his desire to bring this news to all men through the translation of the Scriptures.
Tyndale, like many others before and after, understands the gospel call or message as being comprised of three essential components:
- The bad news - The good news is only good when we understand the bad news. The bad news is that all men have sinned against God. All men were in bondage to sin and overcome by the devil. They are without merit and deserve nothing good.
- The penalty - The wages of sin are death. Those who transgress against God are condemned. Because we have all sinned against God, we are all living in a state of condemnation and are wounded with death.
- The Savior - Jesus Christ died to pay the just penalty for our sin. Having fought with sin, death and Satan, and having overcome them, He offers restoration of life, reconciliation with God and full justification.
This is the message. Of course, for it to be effective in a person's life, he or she must respond to it in repentance and faith, for this message requires a personal response. With the response comes the rewards - the promise of forgiveness and eternal life.
A very good and reasonably short document about the gospel is The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration.
The Threat
As I pondered the most serious threat the church faces, I was immediately struck by the word apathy which I quickly jotted down on a little sticky note. Not too long after that, I added discernment. I think these two words do a apt job of summarizing what I feel threatens the church. And I think they go arm-in-arm.
In our day churches are filled with people who simply do not care about the purity of the church. There are countless numbers of professed Christians who care nothing for any type of theological precision or defining characteristics of the faith. There is a shocking apathy among those who profess Christ. Coupled with this apathy is a terrible lack of discernment and a lack of appreciation for those who value and display discernment. Too often evangelicals seem not to know how to discern truth from error, and just as often do not seem to care. Apathy and a lack of discernment together make a potent force that forms a serious threat to the church--perhaps the most serious threat we face today.
So many other threats--the pernicious new doctrines that arise, the loss of confidence in the Bible, the rise of teachers and leaders who deny fundamental doctrines--these would be swept away if evangelicals simply stopped being so apathetic and displayed some godly, biblical discernment.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I write books and blogs for fun while doing web design and consulting for a living. I worship and serve at 
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
Comments (36)
Amen Tim! I see this same attitude in many people I know. Their "doctrinal position" is that doctrine divides. This is what they are taught. When I try to discuss doctrine with them, their response is something like "well, I'm sure there is a place in the body of Christ for someone like you". Like I'm some sort of oddity for striving to learn the great love and the depths of the riches and glory of our God.
Many Christians seem to be also taught that once they are "saved", that's it. They can rest in the fact that they are saved. There is no concept of sanctification, sorrow over offending a Holy God, anything like that. I think you are right on when you say that apathy and lack of discernment are the biggest threats to the Church. Excellent post.
Now THIS is the subject we should be continually focused on in today's "evangelical" climate.
1 Thes. 2:9 demonstrates that the gospel is NOT just something for conversion, but also for growth AFTER conversion: For you recall, brethren, our labor and hardship, how working night and day so as not to be a burden to any of you, we proclaimed to you the gospel of God.
John MacArthur states that the church is no longer anti-thetical in its thinking, the result of which has so watered down the true gospel as to make it NO gospel at all. We must return to anti-thetical thinking, that is, the belief that truth IS black and white, and not just a large chasm of greys.
I think Mark Dever has the real solution for getting the church back on track with the true evangel (gospel), On an interview with Todd Friel at Way of the Master Radio, mark began to 'interview' Todd, asking him what the gospel is. Todd did a great job of outlining the gospel as you, Tim, have stated above.
Mark went on to say that one of the most beneficial things we can be doing today is walking up to our fellow church goers and asking them if they are a Christian, and then asking them what it is they put their hope and faith in. He said that THAT should not offend a true brother or sister in Christ. His exact words were, "What a great thing for Christians to be talking about among each other."
He even suggested that people walk up to their Pastor and ask these questions. I think that is a great idea.
Well said Tim. Some profound stuff here that really should be obvious.
I can sure relate to you Greg. I got into a discussion with my marriage small group about total depravity and am now probably labled a psycho. It did not bother me that they did not agree with the scripture I presented them as much as it bothered me that they were unwilling to search out why they believe what they believe. All but one seemed to be happy to agree to disagree without any searching from scripture. They simply, as Tim put, did not care about what was the real truth. It was secondary. Why even discuss it?
This is a trend that I see that has gripped my former church, and as the above post implies, many others as well.
Where do we go from here? I think Brian's quote "1 Thes. 2:9 demonstrates that the gospel is NOT just something for conversion, but also for growth AFTER conversion: For you recall, brethren, our labor and hardship, how working night and day so as not to be a burden to any of you, we proclaimed to you the gospel of God." is a good place to start. Preach the gospel for growth, and don't toss it out once you think you have been converted. I would argue that if one does not have a continuously stronger passion for the gospel as they mature in faith, they may never have had faith to begin with.
Good post, Tim.
As to threat section, I have been thinking that it legalism and antimonianism are the biggests threats. The latter is caused by "apathy", and the former by people who think they have "discernment" but don't.
"the former by people who think they have "discernment" but don't."
That's a really good point.
Dallas, yes, if you even hold to any doctrine, you are sometimes labelled as a fundamentalist whacko. Another problem I seem to run into with the "no doctrine" folk is that if I start talking about doctrine, and especially if I use theological terms such as imputation, justification, etc. I am being arrogant. It kind of makes me wonder what a typical sermon must be composed of? What do we talk about when we fellowship? The ears must be tickled! I think large portions of the church are just the world clothed in religious accessories.
"I think large portions of the church are just the world clothed in religious accessories."
Great observation. Or should I say, tragic observation?
Come on, Tim... don't you know that "it's not a religion, it's a relationship?" ;-)
But seriously, your article is 100% spot on. I routed it to my normal "interested parties" list. I hope this one spawns more discussion than normal. As you say, the failure by so-called Evangelicals to voice the true gospel is one of the biggest threats to the Church right now.
Perhaps not a "threat" but still a big problem in our churches today is apathy toward the gospel itself! If people really knew to some small degree the holiness, power, love, mercy, and wrath of God; and if they knew the terribleness of sin and their own wicked self-centeredness, how great and wonderful would the gospel be? That God would save a sinner such as me! Do many people even realize how offensive and terrible their sin is before an infinitely holy God? In my limited experience, this apathy and deadness to the power of the gospel is an almost universal problem whether your doctrine is biblical or not. And is there really anything we can do about it other than cry out to God for more of Himself and even revival?
Today's society has decided to try and sell our youths this message too. Look at the my space hole on the internet and you see it all over the place.
Tim, way to jump into the boxing ring on the second day after settling.
Being labeled a whacko for Christ is the same as when the aposles got flogged for sharing. They came away from the jews praising the Lord that they should be found worthy of suffering for the Jesus. Mind you, you haven't been publicly flogged for it yet... yet, but the day is coming.
Thanks Tim for being steadfast in your Blog!!!
Amen, Aaron. We are spiritually bankrupt on our own, and have no way to even speak to God. We are dead men walking. We have to come to the understanding that we are but dust. The glorious Gospel of Christ our Lord and God is such good news that we should cling to Him and greatly learn of His depths and riches. Once we understand just what God has done for us by providing our substitute, we can not help but start contributing to our sanctification.
Excellent article! I particularly was helped by your statement, "the gospel includes all the revealed truth about Christ..." In our church (Episcopal), I often hear people saying on the one hand, they love the Lord, and they want to proclaim the gospel, and then on the other hand, they can't see how the gospel bears one way or the other such issues as human sexuality.
Brian,Mark Dever’s idea of asking people if they are Christian is good. But so many stop there and jump into embracing the other person because they do not want to offend them. Now, imagine yourself visiting a church. Would we dare asking these questions to the preacher? Now, if he misses the point, most likely the congregation he oversees too.
Dallas,What are the fundamentals? Do you think speaking of total depravity is fundamental? Is it critical that everyone know what TULIP stands for? Should this be a battle Arminians vs. Calvinists? I disagree. The contention ought to be for the Gospel and never stop preaching it as you mentioned it.
Aaron got it right too. We need to have a greater awareness for sin and a desire for holiness. People need to see Jesus in us who say we are His followers.
I will argue also that impatience is another threat to the Gospel. When God’s people cease to wait in God and raise quickly the golden calf. When prayers seem to be not answered and one grows weary. When “evangelicals” and evangelicals join forces to combat the evils of this age while blinding their eyes to discern who are the sheep and the wolf among them ( ECT I & ECT II is just a sample of that)I am not saying that we are not to live out the faith, but why should we ally with the enemies of the cross of Christ? That breaks my heart.
"Dallas,What are the fundamentals? Do you think speaking of total depravity is fundamental? Is it critical that everyone know what TULIP stands for? Should this be a battle Arminians vs. Calvinists? I disagree. The contention ought to be for the Gospel and never stop preaching it as you mentioned it."
I only used the term total depravity here to make it easier to describe what my group and I were talking about. The term did not come up once in the discussion. I think having a proper understanding of where we are at with God before salvation is very critical. Call it what ever you want. The church is neutering the gospel by making it seem we are so much better than we actually are before God rescues us. If we are so worthy of God's grace where is the urgency in coming to Christ? Where is the power of the cross? It is not a battle verse anyone in particular as much as it is a battle for the gospel itself. The church skips over the fact that we are diserving nothing but God's wrath and do nothing but sin. This is tragic. By reducing our true state before we receive Christ, we reduce the power of Christ's cross and the gospel itself.
This is all I meant. I was in no way insisting everyone know what TULIP means, but since most everyone here knows these terms, it is easier to use them. My post also emphasizes concern over the apathy of the people I was speaking to about the subject on not necessarily what they believed about it. They simply did not care why they believed what they believed. This is a huge problem in the church. No desire to solidify thier beliefs in God's word. They would rather use their flawed logic.
It seems that in many Christian circles, "ignorance is bliss."
Unfortunately something I see all the time is that the trends Tim talks about turn away many (specifically young people in my mind) who would like to have a Christian faith grounded in substance but have grown up being told to "just believe" and that the bible is true "because it is the bible." They know there should be more solid, in depth answers but are not surrounded by believers with any theological knowledge, biblical knowledge in many instances or desire for learning so they explore for themselves and hit the road to some other belief system where they believe they can find more depth and reason to use their thinking skills.
As a student in the humanities among many philisophical types who have grown up in shallow churches, this is what I see and it is very tragic. The worst thing is that often they feel that they have become very "enlightened" and stronger since ditching Christianity, leaving a world where it seems "ignorance is bliss."
Tim, etc.:
Well-put, all. I would say that both "apathy" and lack of "discernment" are fruits of the framework of our current worldviews. Especially in the philosophies of pragmatism and existentialism.
Just think through the lens of a pragmatist: why would he care about dotting the doctrinal i's and crossing the dogmatic t's if the gospel doesn't touch terra firma? How does one practically apply the Gospel (unless, of course, it simply ends at signing a church membership card and "accepting Jesus into your heart...") to everyday life? The Gospel is, as Jesus put it to Satan, living not on bread alone but EVERY WORD that proceeds forth from the mouth of God. The Gospel is a worldview, a way of life. It is the way TO life, and everyday living. The pragmatist wants a "how to" book, and skips over theological ideations for a lack of interest. Apathy.
Also, the lens of an existentialist--always craving the experience, the journey for the journey's sake. This person is into the emotions of worship, what he can "get" out of church, how he feels, etc. Again, the miscellaneous facets of the beauty of God's truth is nothing but a negative, divisive experience for this person. Why study and vie for the Truth when there is so much of a negativity surrounding debate and polemics?
Both the pragmatist and existentialist want nothing to do with the discipline of studying the Truth of God's Word. For various reasons only barely mentioned above, we have a loss of appetite for the Word and thus a lack of discernment.
Postmodernism only exacerbates this culture's proclivity for muddying the facts by denying that there are any facts per se. With the Emergent Church movement (on the heels of the Jesus Seminar, et al), I think we'll be reaping the harvest of a generation of anti-Christian twists on the Gospel that our generation has all but destroyed.
I think we ought to rejoice that the words of Christ are unbreakable: "I will build my church, and against it the gates of Hell will not stand." And, "Behold, I am with you, even until the end of the ages."
Soli Deo Gloria,James H
Awesome post, James. Not that we shouldn't be concerned with the state of the church and proclaiming the true Gospel, but in God's economy, His plan is developing exactly as He planned it from before the foundation of the world. Praise God, for His ways are higher than our ways.
Amen, Greg.
You said that God's plan is unfolding exactly as He planned it. Absolutely. Just as Joseph tells his brother in Genesis 50 that they had planned his demise for evil whilst God planned the events for good, we can argue the same here. When we see a degradation of truth, we can rise like Paul and the apostles (I'm thinking of the end of 2 Cor. 10 re: tearing down every argument that opposes God's truth and taking every thought captive for Christ) and fight the good fight.
We live in the crucible that God has placed us in, and the dross of error and heresy must be driven out. I think our Father is rousing His Son's bride into action. Truly, all things are worked out for the good of those who love God (Rom 8:28), and God is blessing us with trials and tribulations that are necessary for us to prove our faith (1 Peter).
SDGJames H
Hmm, very awesome post.
In the area that I live the word "Evangelical" still has good connotations. It means relevant but Scipture centered.
I do agree that there are a lot of attacks on the Gospel especially on the college campus I'm at (UCSD) where some are preaching something that is not Christ.
Many years ago I listened to a series of messages by Al Martin entitled "What is the Gospel." I believe they can be found online.Anyway, I was so impressed with what he had to say that it has always stuck with me.I haven't read all of the comments here but I doubt anyone mentioned what Mr. Martin suggested as a key part of the Gospel message. That is... "The Law". The Good News requires the condemnation of the Law of God. I believe this is the missing element in today's presentation of the Gospel. In fact, Mr. Martin suggested that if the Law isn't present then the Gospel hasn't been preached.I thought so much of that sermon that I rewrote it for myself and preached once. I was pulled aside after the services and told that I was a quack and didn't know what the Gospel was.Last week I listened to a sermon by Rolphe Bernard on John 17:7. He said basically the same thing. "This is eternal life, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."You can't have Calvary without Sinai.
Jabbok,I believe you are correct in saying that a proclamation without law is NO gospel proclamation. This is what Way of the Master (with Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort and Todd Friel) is all about. They NEVER present to someone the good news of a Savior without FIRST presenting the bad news of that person standing condemned (as a lawbreaker) before a holy, righteous and just God.
Ask a Christian friend this week if he/she is a Christian, and then ask why and how. The point is to start a conversation with him/her about what the true gospel is...that it starts with me being in violation of God's law, and THEN repenting and having faith in Jesus ALONE, that only His righteousness imputed to me will save me from God's wrath.
Who knows...you may be the first person to present the real gospel to your friend with this conversation of law and grace.
I gave a lunchtime evangelistic talk at a major UK university a few months back. The title I was given was "Why doesn't God make himself more obvious?"
So I started with my conclusion, well Paul's actually from Acts 17. God has made himself obvious to all people in all places and the resurrection of Jesus as the Judge is the proof. This is so clear and obvious that he has even told everyone how to respond.
Paul was invited to explain his gospel of Jesus and the resurrection. He does so by presenting creation & providence , the immorality of idolatry and the culpability of ignorance.
The passage is a wonderful (abbreviated) model of presenting the gospel (we've got the sermon notes).
After the talk we had the best question time that i have known. Lot's of intelligent questions. The first came from an Indian student who had only started thinking about God that week. She saw the poster for the talk and came along.
Some good thoughts, Tim. Your comments on today's lack of doctrinal precision reminded me of a quote from Bertrand Russell's "Why I Am Not a Christian." Russell, ironically, understood more than we do today:
"Perhaps it would be as well, first of all, to try to make out what one means by the word Christian. It is used these days in a very loose sense by a great many people. Some people mean no more by it than a person who attempts to live a good life. In that sense I suppose there would be Christians in all sects and creeds; but I do not think that that is the proper sense of the word, if only because it would imply that all the people who are not Christians -- all the Buddhists, Confucians, Mohammedans, and so on -- are not trying to live a good life. I do not mean by a Christian any person who tries to live decently according to his lights. I think that you must have a certain amount of definite belief before you have a right to call yourself a Christian. The word does not have quite such a full-blooded meaning now as it had in the times of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. In those days, if a man said that he was a Christian it was known what he meant. You accepted a whole collection of creeds which were set out with great precision, and every single syllable of those creeds you believed with the whole strength of your convictions."
"Your comments on today's lack of doctrinal precision reminded me of a quote from Bertrand Russell's "Why I Am Not a Christian." Russell, ironically, understood more than we do today:"
Just because Russell made a distinction between what the word 'Christian' meant in the days of Augustine compared to Russell's day, I don't think we can say that he understood more than we do today. In fact, I would say he understood very little.
Here is his conclusion from "Why I Am Not a Christian":
"Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. ... A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men."
— Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects
"What made evangelicals distinct was their commitment to the authority of Scripture and the exclusivity of Christ."
I beg to differ...
Evangelicalism arose out of and in some ways as a response to Fundamentalism.
What you have stated here would just as easily describe Fundamentalism.
So... you've missed something at the heart of Evangelicalism.
Bob,
That may or not be the case in the US, but it certainly wasn't in the UK where there has never been a comparable fundamentalist movement. Evangelicalism in the UK had nothing to emerge out of.
I doubt whether one could make the case for Evangelicalism emerging out of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism was a good thing in the early years of the 20th Century, it was clearly confessional on Christian essentials that modernists were ditching.
But sadly some not so essential truths (like dispensational pre-mill theology) got mixed up with historically central gospel beliefs.
“The problem with evangelicalism is evangelicalism” Francis Schaffer
I do not think the Gospel can be threatened. For all the doctrinal talk here and propositional assertions I don’t understand why no one has questioned the question.
I made some similar comments on the together for the Gospel Blog, but they don’t allow for comments there.
Maybe the way we understand the Gospel can be threatened or the way it is perceived by the world but the Gospel is not ours and cannot be threatened. The Gospel is God’s.
I think what is happening between Christians on the evangelical side and those on the emergent side is counterproductive and annoying but the Gospel is not threatened by any of the things mentioned above. It marches on because it is God’s story.
For the record, before you guys attack me, I believe in absolute truth, and embrace TULIP but also find great value in the emergent movement and the use of a more narrative and relational evangelism.
For sure.
But the church can surely lose the gospel, fail to proclaim, practically deny it etc.
From the perspective of God's sovereignty the gospel cannot be threatened. But from the perspective of our responsibility then it is a different story. We are accountable.
Here is a general question for anyone who wishes to answer. What do you think constitutes for preaching another gospel? Would with holding portions be preaching another gospel, or is adding works? Anyone?
Dallas,Great question.
I would say that any kind of taking away from or adding to the true gospel would cause that message to be no gospel at all.
Presenting the good news of Jesus dying on the cross as a substitute for sinners without first presenting man's condemnation and utter pending judgment under the law seems useless, doesn't it?
In the same way, adding ANY kind of works or requirement to the gospel is NOT the true gospel.
I guess the question still comes back to, what constitutes the true gospel...
Thanks for the reply Brian. I had a feeling you would be the first to reply if anyone did.
I definately agree with everything you said. Especially "Presenting the good news of Jesus dying on the cross as a substitute for sinners without first presenting man's condemnation and utter pending judgment under the law seems useless, doesn't it?"
This has been weighing on me for awhile. Galations 1 6-9 says: "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. "
I would say this strong statement would make knowing what the true gospel is of the upmost importance b
So. What constitutes as the true gospel? What are the fundamentals that should be stressed? It seems like a big deal to get this right.
I've always read that the term "evangelical" is inclusive, and refers to that stream of Christianity. From Wikipedia:
Commentators and historians describe four characteristics of evangelicals:
1. Emphasis on the conversion experience, also called being saved, or new birth or born again after John 3:3. Thus evangelicals often refer to themselves as born-again Christians. This experience is said to received by "faith alone" and to be given by God as the result of "grace alone."2. The Protestant canon of the Bible as the primary, or only, source of religious authority, as God's revelation to humanity. Bible prophecy, especially as interpreted according to dispensationalism, is often emphasized. Thus, the doctrine of "sola scriptura" is often affirmed and emphasized.3. Encouragement of evangelism (the act of sharing one's beliefs) -- in organized missionary work or by personal encounters and relationships with others.4. A central focus on Christ's redeeming work on the cross as the only means for salvation and the forgiveness of sins.
This definition excludes particulars of doctrine, polity and practice which divide denominations, and is quite large enough, despite Phil Johnson's quite un-Christlike invective, to include Charismatics and Pentecostals, even us so-called Sabellian modalists (note that Sabellius' rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity was based on his appeal to Sola Scriptura, whereas the term Trinity and the concept of distinct persons was the intellectual work of second- and third-century theologians, culminating in the authoritative pronouncements of the fourth-century Church Councils, which by no means should be used to short-circuit Sola Scriptura. Just because the vast majority of Christians have always believed something does not make it true - God's word is true.
As for a definition of "the gospel", I think the best presentation is Peter's first presentation to the Gentiles, in Acts 10:34-43:
34So Peter opened his mouth and said: "Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, 35but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. 36As for the word that he sent to Israel, preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all), 37you yourselves know what happened throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism that John proclaimed: 38how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. 39And we are witnesses of all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree, 40but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear, 41not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. 43To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." (ESV)
No divisive Calvinism vs. Arminianism, Trinitarianism vs. Modalism, methods of church government, modes of baptism, or practices of communion to be found in that clear exposition of the Good News!
No divisive Calvinism vs. Arminianism, Trinitarianism vs. Modalism, methods of church government, modes of baptism, or practices of communion to be found in that clear exposition of the Good News!
No siree Don,We use the other 99.999% of the Bible for that!philip
Don, Some questions:
1. Do you believe the Father to be God?2. Do you believe the Son to be God?3. Do you believe the Spirit to be God?4. If so, do you believe them to be God at the same time?5. If not, how do you explain the passages that clearly show them present at the same time?
Thanks.
Don:
The problem with saying, "no divisive trinitarianism...modal monarchianism...etc." is this: without the God who has revealed Himself in Scripture as a triune God, without Him at the heart of the Gospel, you are left with another "god" and a foreign gospel. The doctrine of the trinity was not an invention of any man in any century, but was rightly discovered and defended against the arguments of well-meaning but sorely misguided men who were identified (shown to be what they are) as heretics. It is a sad error of the Sabellians and all anti-trinitarians to think that this doctrine was "created" rather than discovered in the Scriptures. The reason it took centuries for the creeds and councils is simply because the heretics who challenged the Truth didn't appear until then. Also, it took time for the church to wrestle with the revelation as given by the Holy Spirit--time to make certain that they were giving due dilligence to rightly understand the mystery of God's being and NOT jump to conclusions.
I would hope and pray that those teaching you this other god and foreign gospel discover their error and you yours in due time. May God the Father, Son, and Spirit (Mat. 28:18ff) grant you wisdom and repentance.
James H
I think we need to hear both sides of this discussion, and wrestle with what both are saying, to really move forward as the body of Christ through this dilemma.
Side "a" is the side that maintains we are losing the gospel because of an apathetic approach towards doctrine.
Side "b" is the side being criticised by side "a", representive of a huge mass of people who have suffered through doctrinal wars ad infinitum, often over petty non-essentials, and seen peoples' relationships with God and each other destroyed or damaged by misplaced emphasises on doctrinal nitpicking.
The gospel of Jesus is glorious and beautiful and those who have truly partaken of it are rightfully passionate for the nuances of every ounce of majestic truth it embodies, which should be proclaimed and taught to every creature that breathes under Heaven. And yet, those who shirk at the mere mention of the word "doctrine" do not do so without cause - and even some of these are those who also love the gospel and the Savior the gospel proclaims.
So how do we respect both aspects of the Lord's passion in His people, and encourage both sides of this balancing act - regarding firmly His own passion for the gospel and His own disgust for divisive contentions over words and so-called-doctrine which has done more to blaspheme the name of Christ among nonbelievers than probably anything else?