What Is the Gospel?
21 comments | Permalink
I'd strongly encourage you to check out this brief three-post series by Greg Gilbert, addressing the question, What Is the Gospel?
I've often repeated something I once heard from John Piper: being a good theologian is all about making good distinctions. And I think Greg helps advance the discussion by doing just that.
Even though many are asking, "What is the gospel?" Greg rightly discerns that there are actually two distinct questions being asked here:
And he makes this crucial point:
1. It is wrong to argue that "the gospel" is the declaration of the kingdom.
2. It is wrong to say that "the Gospel of the Cross" is not the gospel, or less than the gospel.
3. It is wrong to say that "the Gospel of the Kingdom" is somehow gospel-plus, or a distraction from the real gospel.
4. It is wrong to call a person a "Christian" simply because they are doing good things and "following Jesus' example."
5. It is wrong ever to say that non-Christians are doing "kingdom work."
6. The ultimate goal of any mercy ministry---whether done by an individual Christian or a church---has to be to point the world back to the gate.
7. Many in the emergent church---for all their insistence about how astonishing and surprising their gospel is---have missed entirely what really is astonishing about the gospel.
8. Evangelistic, missiological, and pastoral emphasis in this age belongs on the gospel of the cross—on the fountainhead, the gateway of the broader gospel of the kingdom.
I've often repeated something I once heard from John Piper: being a good theologian is all about making good distinctions. And I think Greg helps advance the discussion by doing just that.
Even though many are asking, "What is the gospel?" Greg rightly discerns that there are actually two distinct questions being asked here:
- What is the gospel? In other words, what is the message a person must believe to be saved?
- What is the gospel? In other words, what is the whole good news of Christianity?
And he makes this crucial point:
To proclaim the inauguration of the kingdom and the new creation and all the rest without proclaiming how people can enter it---by repenting and being forgiven of their sins through faith in Christ and his atoning death---is to preach a non-Gospel.See the third post especially for a number of implications that follow from this. What follows is the barebones outline--though you'll want to go and read the whole thing.
1. It is wrong to argue that "the gospel" is the declaration of the kingdom.
2. It is wrong to say that "the Gospel of the Cross" is not the gospel, or less than the gospel.
3. It is wrong to say that "the Gospel of the Kingdom" is somehow gospel-plus, or a distraction from the real gospel.
4. It is wrong to call a person a "Christian" simply because they are doing good things and "following Jesus' example."
5. It is wrong ever to say that non-Christians are doing "kingdom work."
6. The ultimate goal of any mercy ministry---whether done by an individual Christian or a church---has to be to point the world back to the gate.
7. Many in the emergent church---for all their insistence about how astonishing and surprising their gospel is---have missed entirely what really is astonishing about the gospel.
8. Evangelistic, missiological, and pastoral emphasis in this age belongs on the gospel of the cross—on the fountainhead, the gateway of the broader gospel of the kingdom.
posted by JT at Wednesday, September 24, 2008
21 Comments:
I would agree for the most part, but in regard to addressing this clearly, I might contend that the narrow or small answer actually leads to an even narrower answer after that. The gate is small and the way narrow...
Some might argue that we are only speaking of what's available through that small gate, which is indeed large. However, one can only conclude that the Gospel is actually "good news" if they recognize it as such (which begs action...you cannot separate the goodness of Christ's Kingdom without following His commands - narrow). Intellectual assent to what the Gospel "is," only brings condemnation upon those who don't walk that narrow road.
1. It is wrong to argue that "the gospel" is the declaration of the kingdom.
No. The fulness of the means of salvation subsists in the Church, and the Kingdom is the Church, therefore the declaration of the kingdom resolves to a declaration of the fulness of the means of salvation.
2. It is wrong to say that "the Gospel of the Cross" is not the gospel, or less than the gospel.
The Gospel of the Cross amounts to the full gospel as it pertains to an individual, but the full gospel as it pertains to humanity as a whole is the gospel of the Kingdom.
3. It is wrong to say that "the Gospel of the Kingdom" is somehow gospel-plus, or a distraction from the real gospel.
Paul said, "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." By mentioning that the wonders of God amount to so much more than man has imagined, is this preaching a "Gospel Deluxe"? If so, then we would be following a good example to do the same.
4. It is wrong to call a person a "Christian" simply because they are doing good things and "following Jesus' example."
Jesus was not concerned overmuch with labels. He said, "The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children."
5. It is wrong ever to say that non-Christians are doing "kingdom work."
Yes, in the same way it was once wrong to say Gentiles were outside of the Law. Paul said, "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves".
Teresita,
In light of the fact that you're not a Christian, why is it important to you to spend time posting statements about what the Gospel is or isn't?
Chris Lake: See point # 4 in my post above. You can call me whatever you want, it has nothing to do with my own relationship with the Son of God.
Praise God for His grace in granting men like Greg to think in the way that he does, and then to explain what God has put in His mind. He does so in such a way that men like me can, by the grace of our Lord understand it, and act on it.
All this talk about what the gospel is great, don't get me wrong, but sometimes I feel like people are trying to reinvent the wheel. I think people would be less confused if the Church could get on the same page confess the Apostles and Nicene Creeds in church every week. All of it is there. I say this because I think part of the confusion is over the fact that each church tends to word the same gospel truths differently and put emphasis at different places. That's ok to do and needs to be done, but only after the Church is on the same page. The creeds are what were used historically to teach new converts the gospel, and they should be the litmus test for new converts before they are baptized. I think the widespread use of the creeds would bring great unity among the churches. Let that be our uniting theme, and realize that our differences (though important) are not the most important thing.
Yes, we have moved on from the "wheel" to spaceships. Most churches take an "of course we believe that gospel thing" approach. However, we are on spiritual growth level D, we don't need to hear the gospel anymore.
having asked this same question in a comment here a couple of weeks back - and finding no one brave enough to posit an answer - i was glad to see 'What is the Gospel?' in one of the boxes on jt's site as i scrolled down in my browser. hoping to read a concise answer, imagine my (lack of) surprise as i kept scrolling, and kept scrolling, and kept reading, and i hadn't even yet been to the three - count 'em, three - other pages where greg explains his answer.
i believe that 'preach the gospel' has as many nuances as the loaded phrase 'the word of God' does. and, to some extent, it's not a bad thing. the reason we feel we have to narrow it down to some kind of propositional premise is because - and i'm repeating myself here - the church has over time mangled what 'salvation' means, and reduced it to a transactional yea/nay, in-or-out, heaven-hell 'decision'. and why not - it then becomes something we have and others have to come to us to get. it's a very self-centered 'gospel' to boot.
why do we insist on re-building again the walls that Jesus came to tear down? i guess it's just our nature. even as Christians. because we're still human.
mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa
mikerucker.wordpress.com
Teresita,
The question is not one of labels, Jesus himself tells us that merely 'following' Jesus is not enough unless one believes that He is the Son of God who died for sins. What you believe about him matters, at least that is what he tells us:
John 3:18; 6:28-29; 8:24; 10:25-28; 11:25-27.
Following his example means nothing without faith in him. If you repudiate what Jesus says about Himself, His person (deity and humanity), His work on the Cross (atoning death) and His the resurrection, no matter how much you try to dress like a sheep you don't "ba" like one.
Tim Bertolet: Following his example means nothing without faith in him.
Yet even the demons believe, and shudder. Faith without following his example is dead.
Teresita,
The problem is, you're a confessed Taoist, which is incompatible with Christianity. You don't believe in justification by faith alone, which the Bible clearly teaches (the passage in James refers to justification *before man,* not before God). You're in a homosexual relationship which Jesus, being a Jew who loved and obeyed the same Father as revealed in the OT, would have condemned as sinful (and I'm not "gossiping" about your personal life here-- I'm saying that you can't claim to be a follower of Christ and show no remorse and repentance at all about things that are openly declared to be sinful in the Bible). You're simply not a follower of Christ-- except in those highly selective areas where you choose to be.
Christopher Lake: You don't believe in justification by faith alone, which the Bible clearly teaches (the passage in James refers to justification *before man,* not before God).
On the contrary, St. James cannot possibly be preaching of gospel of justification before men, becaues if there's one thing we can take away from a study of the life and ministry of Jesus it is this: Christ didn't care one whit for whether he or his disciples were justfied before men, as long as the Father was aware of the content of their hearts.
Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
Teresita,
The Gospel of the Kingdom is given to Israel.
Christ is the King of the Jews, not the Church.
The Gospel of God's Grace is given to The Church.
The Gospel of the Kingdom is given to Israel. Christ is the King of the Jews, not the Church. The Gospel of God's Grace is given to The Church.
do what?...
everything's cool - peter just wanted everyone to know he had dibs on being the first pope...
Peter was not the 1st pope. They found his tomb in Israel. hence the crusades, put on by the Great Whore.
Catholics never were and are not Christians. They worship idols, Mary etc.
CONSTANTINE SIMPLY GAVE THE OLD BAAL WORSHIP IDOLS, CHRISTIAN NAMES.
Paul W. Foltz DD said: Teresita, The Gospel of the Kingdom is given to Israel. Christ is the King of the Jews, not the Church. The Gospel of God's Grace is given to The Church.
On the contrary, it is written (Gal. 3:28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
That means Christ is both King of the Jews and of the the gentiles, for in another place it is written (1Cor 15:28) And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Grace belongs to both Jew and gentile, as it is written in the Epistle to the Hebrews (the Hebrews are the Jews) 12:28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear
Paul W. Foltz DD said: Peter was not the 1st pope. They found his tomb in Israel. hence the crusades, put on by the Great Whore.
On the contrary, the Great Whore insists they have found the body of St. Peter twenty feet below the chair in the Basilica which bears his name (from which Pope Benny pronounces ex cathedra, literally, "from the chair").
Teresita,
The following passage from Romans 4 helps to shed light on the "justification" to which James is referring in James 2:14-26:
"What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.' Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but trusts in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 'Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, and whose sins have been covered. Blessed is the man who sin the Lord will not take into account.' (Romans 4:1-8, NASB)
James himself is similarly clear here:
"For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all of it." (James 2:10)
Now, while Christians are certainly to do good works, considering the above passages, in what way is anyone justified before God for anything involving his/her works?
Christopher Lake: Now, while Christians are certainly to do good works, considering the above passages, in what way is anyone justified before God for anything involving his/her works?
Rom.2:13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Teresita: You might want to do better reading of Scripture in its contexts. Paul is simply refuting the Jewish view that having the law is justification. He says you have to obey the law. Paul then goes on to demonstrate that no Jew keeps the Law.
2:17-24 He rebukes the Jews who disobey the Law. (Also James 2:10 tells us that if we stumble at keeping the Law at just one point we've broken the whole law). In breaking the law one dishonors God and is not justified before Him.
2:25-28 Paul tells us one needs to be a "Jew" inwardly with the circumcision of the Holy Spirit. So we know that this is the gift of the Spirit which enables us to walk in the fruit of the Spirit (Romans 8:1-4; Gal. 5). The Spirit only comes to those who are justified by faith in Christ (Eph. 1:3-14; et al)
3:1-8 God is justified when he judges all. Did the disobedience and unbelief of the Jews keep God from being faithful and righteous? No.
3:9-18 No one is righteous before God. No one keeps the Law and walks with God.
3:19-20 The Law can only in the end bring knowledge of sin. The Law ultimately keeps us all (Jew and Gentile) silent because we cannot keep it. "by works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight."
3:29-31 A person is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
4:1-5 Abraham is the paradigm of faith. He was not justified by work (i.e. by being a doer of the Law). "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness." This sets Abraham against the Jewish belief that God blessed Abraham because he kept the Law (Sirach 44:19-21; 1 Maccabees 2:52), which is what you are arguing: that one can be justified by being a doer of the Law.
Jesus and Paul do not offer obedience to the law and/or good works as a means of justification before God.
Teresita,
If the Bible is ever to be understood, one must read Scripture in light of Scripture. The word which is translated as "justified" simply means different things in different contexts in the Bible.
In what other way do you explain Romans 2:13 ("For it not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law shall be justified"), in light of Romans 3:28 ("For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law")?
Now, you can (and do) quote verses here and there, out of context, to try to prove that works are a part of being justified before God, but seriously, how do you explain Romans 2:13, in light of Romans 3:28? It can only be explained by reading Scripture in light of Scripture.
Certain verses, read in isolation and out of their contexts, may seem to make works part of justification before God, but in light of the *clear teaching* of Romans 1:1-8, Romans 3:27-29, Paul's entire letter to the Galatians, and James 2:10 (among many other verses and passages), it is undeniable that justification of the ungodly is *only* by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. The grace and faith do *change* a person and cause him/her to *want* to do good works-- but those good works do not justify a person before God. Over the whole of the Bible, that truth is clear.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home