Let me make some assertions very clear.
- I believe there is life after death.
- I believe life after death depends on Jesus. Those who have the Son have life. Those who don’t, don’t.
- I believe in heaven and in the reality of hell.
Having said that, I would like to make two observations – one that has, I believe, unassailable biblical support and the other equally unassailable support from our own experience.
- There is not a single place I’ve found in the NT where the offer of salvation was presented to someone on the basis of where that person would spend eternity. The gospel was about the Lordship of Christ and his right as risen Lord to rule lives, not about where people would go when they die.
- Every evangelistic presentation I’ve ever seen is about “Where will you go when you die?” “If you were to die tonight and stand before God…” “Heaven or hell?”
Examining Scripture
Again, I am not casting doubt on the existence of heaven or hell. They are real and important. I’m making an observation. Heaven and hell are never the basis of the gospel presentation in the Bible. We should preach about heaven and about hell, but if the Apostles never used death as the basis of their gospel presentations, should we? Let me show you a few scriptures – all from Acts.
1. Acts 2 was certainly an anomaly in many ways, but it was also the first true gospel proclamation. Peter preached the crucifixion and especially the resurrection of Jesus. He concluded, (Acts 2:36-38):
Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”
37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
The risen Jesus was Lord and they needed to repent of their sins and and get right with God. The real question did not seem to be, “If you die tonight…?” but “If you live tonight, will you be in your sin or will you be right with God?”
2. After Peter and James raised the lame man in Acts 3, they spoke to the crowd in Solomon’s Portico. They reminded them of the crowds’ culpability in the death of Christ and preached Christ’s resurrection once again. Then, the “invitation.”
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out… Acts 3:19
Repent, for the forgiveness of sins. No mention of “where will you go when you die?”
3. In Acts 4, they are summoned to the Council for the offense of healing the lame man. There, Peter proclaims Christ again.
Rulers of the people and elders, 9 if we are being examined today concerning a good deed done to a crippled man, by what means this man has been healed, 10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by him this man is standing before you well. 11 This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. 12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:8-12
It’s about the resurrection and about sin and salvation. No mention of death and eternity.
4. Peter, in Acts 10, preaches to the Gentiles. This is about as close as we come to anything that resembles a “heaven and hell” presentation – and it’s not that close.
And 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, 40 but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear, 41 not 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. 42 And 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. 43 To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” Acts 10:40-43
He mentions that Jesus is the judge of the living and the dead – you will face him! But the thrust of the passage, again, is that sin needs to be forgiven and that the risen Lord deserves your devotion.
5. Well, it must be Paul, right? In Acts 13, we get Paul’s first lengthy gospel presentation, to Pisidian Antioch. He spends most of his time, like Peter, on the resurrection of Christ and exalts his Lordship. Then he says,
Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, 39 and by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses. Acts 13:38-39
6. The Acts 16 encounter with the jailer was about believing in Jesus for salvation, but there was, again, no mention of eternity or of the two options.
You can read the rest of the book of Acts and the New Testament. Yes, the Bible talks about eternal glory and eternal punishment, but I cannot find a single place in which eternal glory is the primary inducement for salvation or eternal punishment is the bludgeon which motivates repentance. The general pattern seems be be:
- The death of Jesus Christ is mentioned.
- The resurrection of Jesus Christ is emphasized.
- Having been raised, Jesus is Lord of all.
- People are to repent of sin and believe in Jesus, the Risen Lord.
- Those who repent and believe are forgiven and are right with God.
The gospel is always presented on the basis of our current relationship with God, not our future residence with (or without) him.
The Question
If the Bible does not use eternal residence as the motivation for belief, why is that the basis of just about every gospel presentation?
Again, heaven and hell are biblical concepts, but are they the right concepts to use for our gospel presentations? Have we made a mistake there?
Has our emphasis on “the sweet by and by” caused some to get the idea that they are buying an eternal fire insurance policy so that they don’t fry when they die, while ignoring the Lordship of Christ in their daily lives? Could it be that if we used more biblical gospel presentations, focusing on the Lordship of Christ, on sin and salvation, on the need to yield to Christ TODAY not just get a reservation for heaven SOMEDAY, that it might help people understand the decision they are making?
As you discuss this, I’m going to call down the curses of Psalm 109 on anyone who logs on to chastise me for not caring about heaven or hell! That is not the issue. The Bible teaches that heaven awaits the believer and that there is a real hell for those who reject Christ. My premise is that these are not front and center truths in NT gospel presentations. Here are questions I have.
- 1. Have I missed something? Are there gospel presentations or biblical evidence that I’ve failed to take into account?
- 2. If the biblical model does not emphasize heaven and hell, should we?
- 3. What are the effects of our emphasis on eternity rather than on being right with God today?
I have the same struggle as you. I note this, however: the Bible consistently warns of hell OR God’s wrath/judgment, from the Old through the New Testament. In the New Testament, John the Baptist, Jesus, and the New Testament writers all warned consistently of judgment. So, there is a time and a place for such warnings. Sometimes that will include gospel presentations.
I don’t view that as an open ended question so I don’t use it. Kind of like asking “are you saved,” people know how to answer it and it makes it more difficult to actually share the truth. FWIW, we still use the question from the old FAITH SS training, “what do you understand that it takes for a person to go to heaven?” We don’t use that method for sharing the gospel, but I’ve found that question opens doors for doing so better than any I’ve found
I guess I wonder why Jesus told the story of the “Rich man and Lazarus” or why He bothered to say that there were only ‘two roads, two ways, & two gates”, or why He separated the “sheep from the goats”….I mean, if one’s eternal destination does not ‘factor into’ the decision, why mention it?
Well, I’m playing the devil’s advocate (sorry), but at the same time I think I hear what you are saying – which is, “That is not the main thrust or motivation for being saved.” That said, I agree with Jeff P who offers that the destination question can open doors for a spiritual conversation.
To study the culture in Biblical days is to recognize that the prevailing spiritual attitude centered on ‘gaining heaven’ (I.E. John 3 – Nicodemus, Matt 19, Luke 18, Mark 10 – Rich Young Ruler ) so perhaps, while not speaking it, they were speaking ‘to it’ – WHO KNOWS….
While your point is ‘well-taken’, conversely, with our culture – a presentation without a mention of eternity ‘may’ not offer a complete picture. (No, I’m not a theologian – and have not ‘studied deeply’ today on this topic, like you, these are simply my thoughts.)
Dave, I think you bring up a good point. However, the reason that the apostles didn’t use this question is that in the cultures they were speaking to, there was not a widespread belief in the afterlife or if there was it wasn’t the view of Heaven and Hell which became prevalent in Western cultures after Constantine. In our present context, however, we may find that with the growth of the “nones”, there may be less belief in the afterlife and therefore, the approach of presenting the Gospel may go back to that of the Apostles without reference to Heaven and Hell.
The standard approach of evangelism in the southern Bible Belt where I grew up is to go up to folks and ask, “If you were to die tonight, do you know for sure you would go to Heaven?” This was so pervasive that when Rick Warren said, “You need Jesus, not because you might die tonight, but because you’ve got to live tomorrow”, he was considered almost heretic for going against the consensus standard presentation of the Gospel.
As far as the emphasis on the afterlife as the driving for making a profession of faith in Christ, Dr. Timothy George (President of Beeson Divinity School at Samford University) has an interesting (and humorous) article about all of the Haunted Houses and Hell Houses which churches use as a means of evangelism during this time of year before Halloween. Here is the link to the article called “The Gospel of Ghoul.”:https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2013/10/the-gospel-of-ghoul
David,
You said, “there was not a widespread belief in the afterlife”. Your assertion here is demonstrably false. While liberal scholars have made such claims, those claims simply do not pass biblical muster. In fact, the falsehood that has been accepted by too many is that the OT does not teach about an afterlife. I guess someone needed to tell that to Job, who talked an expectation of seeing God after his body was decayed in the grave.
And in the days of Jesus the afterlife was at least on the mind of the guy we often refer to as the rich young ruler who asked Jesus, “Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?”
John, I am speaking about the beliefs of the non Jewish culture to which Paul was primarily speaking, I’m not talking about the beliefs of the Jews. Obviously, Jesus was only speaking to the Jews and the rich young ruler was Jewish. However, the larger Roman, gentile culture had a different understanding of the afterlife (than the Jews) even if they had one. The Romans had beliefs in numerous gods, so therefore the approach of presenting the Gospel to the Gentile people was different than that to the Jews.
Dave,
While I agree with the idea that an over emphasis on eternity has led to the cheapening of the value of the Gospel to simply a get out of Hell free card, in fact, I mentioned that in last night’s sermon. But the reality is that eternity is a major motivating factor in the scriptures for being saved.
John 3:16 says that believing in Jesus results in not perishing (Hell) and receiving eternal life (Heaven)
John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
John 5:24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.
John 5:39-40 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. (40) But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.
I could copy and paste at least 50 more verses proving that a major motivation in receiving Christ involves receiving eternal life, or avoiding eternal condemnation. I, myself, got saved because I wanted to avoid Hell.
I mean if Jesus Himself used eternal life versus eternal condemnation as motivation for salvation I think we are on solid ground.
John, you are arguing against what I did not argue for.
I clearly argued that heaven and hell are issues. But they do not seem to be the issues that were at the front and center when the NT Christians shared the gospel.
Dave,
But those were the issues that were largely front and center when Jesus preached. Dave, I’m not trying to be obstinate or disagreeable, just pointing that out.
And further, my response is in keeping with your first question.
I don’t believe asking “Where will you go when you die?,” is the only way to evangelize, but I do believe it is a valid form of evangelism.
This question presents the truth of Scripture, whether it is a direct quote or not.
This method of evangelism, however, comes pretty close to some of the following passages. Passages that refer to Heaven and Hell and the life to come.
In John 14:1-6 Jesus is presented as the way to Heaven.
Everlasting life and eternal life would refer to Heaven and eternity: Matthew 19:16; John 3:16; 3:36; 4:14; 5:24, 39; 6:40; 17:3; Romans 6:22; Galatians 6:8; 1 Timothy 1:16; and many more.
Also consider Matthew 3:7; 18:18; 25:46; Luke 16:19-31; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9.
If we were only limited to preaching like they did in Acts, we would have no expository preaching. And, there are other ways of witnessing than just those in Acts.
As to Lordship, a good presentation of the Roman Road of Salvation would include the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
There are many types of valid evangelism. I’m for every one of them.
David R. Brumbelow
That’s a false argument about expositional preaching, David, because we don’t have a single example of preaching within the church, do we? Our examples of preaching are all what we would call evangelistic.
And showing me passages that talk about eternity are not contrary to my argument. If you bothered to read my post, I argued that heaven and hell are biblical and that they are valid subjects of preaching.
However, they are NOT part of the gospel presentations in the NT. Any suggestion as to why?
While Dr. Kennedy’s E.E. leading question may not have been asked verbatim in the NT, certainly the presentation of the Gospel in the NT had a concept of judgment. In Acts 13:40 Paul speaking to the Jews in Antioch of Pisidia gave this warning following the Gospel presentation, “Beware therefore, lest that come upon you which is spoken of the prophets,” vs. 40.
In Acts 17, while speaking to the Athenians Paul says in verse 31, “Because He hath appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he Hath ordained.”
I am persuaded a Gospel presentation without a concept of judgment of sin is at best weak.
I’m making a different point, Dean. The point is about presenting the gospel on the basis of WHERE you will spend eternity.
The judgment of sin is real and important. But the NT emphasis seems to be more on the fact that you are currently under judgment and need forgiveness, not on the fact that you face judgment ONE DAY.
It’s not about whether the judgment of God on sin is at issue, but about the focus and timing of it. WHEN? The biblical focus seems to be on the NOW, not the “when you die.”
Dave, what do you think, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool” means? This has to be the phrase that prompted, “What must we do to be saved?”
What does Paul mean when he speaks of the day of judgment coming on the world in Acts 17?
Now the truth is the presentations you cited are not all the NT offers. You cite presentations to Jews who believed they were God’s chosen people. A Gospel presentation proving they are under judgment now in the present world would devestate them.
In the wealth of the west it will be hard to prove to a lost person he is cursed of God in the present life.
I do believe a Christianity that declares a life on earth lived with Christ is enough to be satisfied is a Western, 20th century mindset. I can’t imagine Paul crawling out from under a pile of stones with broken bones and twisted fingers and teeth knocked out saying, “Boy, even if there weren’t a heaven I still would want to be a Christian because I am not under judgment.”
I’m not saying that Paul advocated a “Your Best Life Now” gospel, or Peter or any of them.
I will point out that his gospel presentation didn’t change much whether the audience was Jews or Gentiles (there were some changes, but the heart did not.
Here’s what I’m saying: The focus was on this fact – you are a sinner who needs God TODAY. Does trusting Christ settle your eternal destiny? Yes. But the gospel was about coming under the Lordship of Christ TODAY and being forgiven TODAY. That was the focus. Heaven was the by-product.
Let me see if I can get a specific response – I’d be interested in your view.
I don’t disagree with anything you have said, except that it does not address my point.
I am speaking of the presentation of the gospel to lost people to invite them to trust Christ. “Gospel presentations” – the term I used.
In NT gospel presentations, the focus is on the person’s CURRENT relationship with Christ – sin, wrath, and the need for forgiveness – and not on the eventual eternal destination of that person.
That is the sum total of my query.
Imagine Buford McGillicuddy, a lost sinner. Normally, when we share Christ with him, we FOCUS on whether he is prepared to die and on the specter of eternal damnation. I’m pointing out that the Apostles seemed to do something different.
They would say, “Jesus died for your sins, Buford, and rose from the dead. His resurrection established him as the absolute Lord and he has the right to be Lord of your life. You need to repent of your sins and trust in him as your Savior so that you can receive the forgiveness of those sins.
My theory is that focusing on “you need Jesus today” rather than “you need Jesus to get ready to die” is a) more biblically accurate and b) leads to a better understanding of the life Buford is expected to live tomorrow.
We’ve all met the guys (and gals) who took Jesus so that they’d be ready to die but expected to be left to live life their own way until then. I understand that’s partially just bad evangelism, but is it also a fruit of the whole “where will you spend eternity?” focus of our evangelism?
Dave, I do think your beef is with faulty evangelism. I am persuaded without a realization of judgment and eternal reward or judgment Buford will not come to Christ. It is not your intention to diminish heaven or hell, I get that but Paul said it well in I Cor 15, “If only in this life we have hope in Christ we are of all men most unhappy.” Jesus taught He came to give eternal life. Why would we not use the promise of eternal life at the beginning, middle and end of our Gospel presentation?
Dave, I do get what you’re saying and I also get what Dean is pointing out. My first thoughts reading this was Edwards’ Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. One cannot read that sermon and not see that Edwards understood the here and now reminder to sinners that judgment is upon them now, almost as if the stench of eternal fires is emanating from them.
He said, “”There is nothing that keeps wicked men at any one moment out of hell, but the mere pleasure of God.”
This kind of preaching is rare nowadays to be sure. But I think the church is also poorer for it. The prospect of an eternity in torment has been and still can be powerfully used by God in the salvation of sinners. And a reminder, as Edwards did, that life if short. May be over tonight. So sinner, what will you do with God and what will be the consequences if you, sinner, are standing before the Judge of all judges…tonight? Tomorrow morning?
I shoul remind that Edwards was preaching from the OT in that sermon. But nonetheless…
He said at one point,
“VII. It is no security to wicked men for one moment, that there are no visible means of death at hand. ‘Tis no security to a natural man, that he is now in health, and that he don’t see which way he should now immediately go out of the world by any accident, and that there is no visible danger in any respect in his circumstances. The manifold and continual experience of the world in all ages, shows that this is no evidence that a man is not on the very brink of eternity, and that the next step won’t be into another world. The unseen, unthought of ways and means of persons going suddenly out of the world are innumerable and inconceivable. Unconverted men walk over the pit of hell on a rotten covering, and there are innumerable places in this covering so weak that they won’t bear their weight, and these places are not seen. The arrows of death fly unseen at noonday; the sharpest sight can’t discern them. God has so many different unsearchable ways of taking wicked men out of the world and sending ’em to hell, that there is nothing to make it appear that God had need to be at the expense of a miracle, or go out of the ordinary course of his providence, to destroy any wicked man, at any moment. All the means that there are of sinners going out of the world, are so in God’s hands, and so universally absolutely subject to his power and determination, that it don’t depend at all less on the mere will of God, whether sinners shall at any moment go to hell, than if means were never made use of, or at all concerned in the case.”
I don’t think it is the best presentation, Dave. You have some good observations from Scripture. I’d be hesitant to make those normative, though, since there was a commonality to the audiences of those presentations that may mitigate to some degree their precise usage in our culture today. There are elements that shouldn’t be dismissed.
One key element is the appeal to forgiveness. That is to say that forgiveness was understood to be a covenant reconciliation. If we are the vassals and God is the Suzerain, then he is right to condemn us to death for breaking that covenant. However, he has provided a way to restore us to a right covenant relationship with him. The fact that he has accomplished this and we have not accomplished it is a radical message.
The question of whether anyone will go to heaven or hell isn’t particularly helpful for a couple of reasons:
1. It leads to the question, “What must I do?” “Repent and believe” is a good answer, except that’s often not explained. “Repent” often gets interpreted as “I need to be a good person to earn God’s favor.” “Believe” gets interpreted as “I need to believe that God exists.” That’s not the Gospel. The question isn’t what we do in order to achieve salvation. It’s in trusting what God has already done and desiring it. Someone who asks the question may desire to earn salvation in some controllable way, like the rich, young ruler. On the other hand, someone who asks the question may already have a desire for God for which the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the assurance that they personally have already been reconciled and are now free to pursue a life fitting of the God who saved them, and who they desire above all other thing.
2. It makes the incentive one of self-preservation rather than reconciliation. Jesus turned this motive upside down by teaching that the first shall be last and the last shall be first. The one who seeks to preserve his own life will lose it and the one who loses his life for Jesus’ sake will gain it. That’s a pervasive message. Even Paul stated that he would be willing to be accursed to save his Jewish brethren. There’s a desire for God that is opposed to self-preservation. Now, you usually don’t lead with that when presenting the Gospel. But when someone “gets” the Gospel and realizes what God did, giving of himself most sacrificially for our sake, then a true desire for God results in our willingness to behave as sacrificially for others in the course of proclaiming the kingdom in every aspect of life.
The issue of judgement is logically, biblically, and historically linked to the issue of salvation. Logically, the very concept of salvation begs the question: Saved from what? Biblically, heaven and hell surely most definitely a motivating factor -both front and center- to Paul’s gospel presentation in Acts 17 (see verses 30-31 specifically). I also think both heaven and hell are in view regarding the inner testimony or intuition regarding life after death in Ecclesiastes 3:11. Moreover, going back to Blaise Pascal’s wager, there is a rich history of persuasion on the basis of eternity. You find appeal to final judgement in the gospel presentations of Augustine and Edwards as well. So both in regard to logic, Scripture and tradition, there certainly are strong reasons to emphasize heaven and hell front and center in our gospel presentation.
Peace and love,
Moz
In our society today the people are told that they evolved from protoplasm and that there is no god or heaven or hell.
Yet they fear death and religion is still a hot topic. Even if in their own minds they convince themselves there is no god or afterlife, they still will fear death.
Asking the question, “Where will you go when you die?’, focuses their minds on the afterlife, and at least can open up a conversation. It should always be followed up with the Gospel proclamation.
The Gospel proclamation includes the coming judgment on sinners, the enmity between sinners and God, and the only way to peace with God both in this world and the one to come.
Self preservation is the right motive to invoke for the time we spend in this world is as a puff of smoke and the time in eternity is, well, eternal.
As to the idea of eternal life insurance. No one gets saved by first becoming more moral. The Gospel proclamation should also emphasis the Lordship of Jesus, and that peace with God comes by submitting to Jesus as Lord. What one MUST believe is that Jesus is Lord. That means more than oral acknowledgement. Those that think they are doing God’s work by leaving this part out [for later?] are not. This is one reason why a lot of ‘sinner’s prayers’ are inadequate means of conversion. You say the prayer and you get something: eternal life. The reality is that you have to surrender yourself to the Lord and have the attitude of complete surrender, of your whole life, in your heart, for that is what it means to have Jesus as Lord.
I’m a little frustrated.
I did not in any way belittle the importance of the doctrine of heaven and hell. I said that repeatedly in my post. I pointed out that in gospel presentations in the NT heaven and hell – where we would spend eternity – was NEVER the issue.
Please do not argue with me that heaven and hell are biblically important doctrines. AMEN. I agree. Hallelujah. No need to assert that as if I don’t.
Can we address these issues:
*Why is it that the NT does not make Heaven or Hell the “hook” for gospel preaching, but we do?
*Have we figured out a better way to do evangelism than the apostles? Have we improved on their techniques?
*Is it possible that there are negative consequences to our “Heaven/Hell” emphasis? Maybe there was a reason the NT authors emphasized getting right with God TODAY rather than just “where are you going when you die?” Is that possible?
*Does how we share the gospel affect how people accept Christ and how people grow in Christ? Does evangelism affect discipleship?
And there are many things that are linked doctrinally/theologically/logically to salvation that we don’t make the main thrust of evangelistic presentations. The fact that heaven and hell are at issue in salvation in not the question. The question is: Should we lead with that?
Dave,
The question could be asked, should we always lead with that? No
Or, should we never lead with that? No.
Is it ever appropriate to lead with that? Yes. It’s not wrong to lead with that.
As you said there are many facets of theology that pertain to salvation. Best to preach the fullness of the Gospel as much as one can.
I have never heard a sermon begin with that. But I have begun with that a few times when witnessing to an individual.
The facts: 100% of our gospel presentations seem to focus on, “Where will you go when you die?” 0% of the NT gospel presentations do that. I’m just asking people to reflect on that a little bit and to discuss it, but alas, few seem willing to do anything but dismiss my idea and to defend our practice.
I would think that if our practice diverges from the biblical practice, we might at least be interested in exploring that. It makes we wonder a little.
But that’s just me.
If you would modify your statement to say 100% of the gospel presentations in the book of Acts don’t focus on where you will spend eternity perhaps you can have that discussion. Because that same statement cannot be applied to all of the NT as you assert.
And even in the book of Acts the term salvation and saved are used multiple times implying being saved from the danger of eternal condemnation or eternal wrath.
Now, having said all of that, I do think that as I said in my earlier comment, the danger of only focusing on the eternal motivation for salvation has led many to treat salvation only as a get out of hell free card. We do need to preach on the present benefits of salvation as well.
When I say “Gospel Presentations” I mean, “When a saved person preached the gospel to a lost person and extended an invitation to trust Christ.”
There are many gospel EXPLANATIONS that delve into the full orb of truth about the gospel. But I have consistently talked about those times when someone who did not know Christ was invited to trust Christ.
That pretty much only happens in Acts, right?
Wouldn’t all of Jesus’ calling on people to believe on Him passages in the Gospels also be gospel presentations?
I certainly see your point in the book of Acts. And your five bullet points at the bottom of your article were flat out powerful. I loved them.
I would say to follow that pattern (the pattern of Acts) would be biblical and powerful. I also think following the pattern of Jesus, calling on people to believe in order to gain eternal life and to avoid eternal condemnation, is biblical and powerful.
How many times in the N.T. in general or the Book of Acts in particular, in all the myriad of presentations of the gospel, is Jesus referred to a Lord, Savior, Christ, or Messiah?
It seems that is a major theme in many of the gospel presentations. Even the word Jesus, refers to a savior.
It seems to me that these words would have little meaning if we are not saved “from” something. Even the idea of Lord, expresses the idea of protection.
I see “being saved from hell” as intrinsic to the gospel presentation. I personally can’t read the Book of Acts and see no suggestion that the major reason we need a “Messiah” or “Savior” is because of the penalty of sin, which is eternal death.
I’ve been reading theology for over 40 years and this is the only time I have been exposed to the idea that “0% of gospel presentations in the N.T.” refer to where we go when we die.
This is not to say, that I don’t appreciate the broader application of the idea that salvation can be offered as a sort of “eternal fire insurance.” My concern would be that we not throw the baby out with the bath water.
The Bible seems to speak to salvation as being saved from sin to devotion to the Lord, as in Colossians, “He rescued [important word] us FROM the domain of darkness [hell] and transferred us TO the kingdom of the Son.” (1:13).
This seems to support discussing the different destinies that await those who do and do not accept the Son as “Rescuer from darkness.”
Again, I also see the broader application of the intent of this post. So often we do fail to adequately proclaim “to” Whom (what) a person is saved.
The “from” is sin and separation. Hell is the fruit of that, not the root.
I get what you are saying but I think you are making a distinction without a difference. Hell is not something separate from separation. It is the Lord’s definition of what sin and separation means.
Though, as I’ve said, I see the gist of what you are saying. I just don’t agree with your implication that hell is not portrayed as a major issue in the Lord’s confrontations with people.
My view is not that we talk too much about hell these days, but too little.
Jesus certainly seemed to preach boldly and frequently about hell as the consequence for rejecting the gospel.
But, I’ll leave it at that an concede the point that we would do well to proclaim the “full counsel of God” including sanctification.
Must. Not. Quote. N.T.Wright.
Actually, I will admit that while I’ve pondered this for a long time, a review I read of recent wright stuff brought this to the forefront of my fertile mind
I think, based on what I read, that I agree with some of his premises but not his conclusions.
Not sure if this comment is directed to my Wright comment, but if so I completely agree 🙂
Yes, it was.
If I’m hearing Dave Miller correctly, I think this is the point which he is trying to differentiate. In the book of Acts, the Gospel was presented in terms of 1) repenting of your sins and 2) making Christ the Lord of your life FOR THE DAYS YOU HAVE LEFT ON THIS EARTH.UNTIL YOU DIE. and 3) when you die, you will send eternity with Christ in Heaven.
By contrast, the methods of evangelism which start out with the question of “Where will you spend eternity? Heaven or Hell?” put the emphasis on following Christ primarily at the point of death. In other words, it can be understood by the listener as a “get of Hell card” and there is less emphasis on repentance of one’s sins and making Christ the Lord of one’s life for their remaining time on this earth. The evidence of this result can be seen in church membership roles where often half or more of a church’s congregation is either non-resident or hasn’t attended for years. At one time these individuals made a public profession of faith in Christ and may have been in a part of that local church for a season or two, but for whatever reason are no longer in fellowship there or at any church. Something has gone wrong in this situation in either how the Gospel was presented or in the individual’s interpretation of what it means to follow Christ.
To give an example, a friend of mine used to attend a small Baptist church in a rural area which chose to have a “Hell House” as an evangelistic effort at Halloween. They invited all of the High School kids in the area and after going though it, over 30 kids made a profession of faith to follow Christ. The church then asked my friend to lead a class for these kids on what it means to be a Christian (they were using the Starting Point material). When it came time for this class, none of the 30+ kids showed up and that’s the last they saw of them. Immediately after the kids had made their decisions at the Hell House, there was great rejoicing in the church over how effective it had been. The sad thing (to me, at least) is that many of these kids may think they’re saved because of a decision they made that night, yet which has not necessarily led to repentance or a changed life. I think that this was the point that was attempted to be made – however, I could be wrong on that, but I thought I would throw this in as a real life example.
Yes.
The gospel was presented in terms of where you stand with God TODAY, never about what was going to happen to you when you die.
Heaven and hell are the fruit, the harvest. The root, the real issue, “Are you in a right relationship with God today?”
The judgment of God is not just an eschatological issue. It’s real today. You need Jesus today, not just when you die. You need forgiveness, reconciliation, etc.
Yes.
Gotta say that’s what I got out of your post too, Dave Miller.
I think it’s a good and helpful post.
I think that there is merit in what you are trying to discuss here. If we over-emphasis the heaven/hell call in salvation we might end up with a bunch of people who accept heaven without accepting Jesus as Lord of their present life… which is exactly what we have in much of western Christianity.
I do like to use the ‘Roman Road’ approach which while it implies hell it does not make the invitation based on it. Working in the Islamic context that I do I have been deeply impacted recently about the truth of what the Gospel means. In Islam god (the false god of the Quran) makes covenants with people through history by forcing them to ‘submit’ (meaning of word ‘Muslim’). They must submit to the behavior that he lays down but he makes no promises to them. The Islamic god is bound to no one and commits to no one. The true God revealed in Scripture loves us and commits to us even while we were His enemies. This has the future implication of the promised eternity but the Gospel is a call to experience a real relationship with a present-tense savior now. This is a unique message among man’s failed attempts to reach god through made-up religions.
Our Gospel call is not to fear, it is not to a future pie in the sky, it is an invitation to live in the presence of the King of Kings who loves us and gave himself for us.
“. . . it is an invitation to live in the presence of the King of Kings who loves us and gave himself for us.” . . . .And to escape the wrath of God that’s coming. Hell is part of that.
I tend to deal with two kinds of people here. Most people don’t believe they are a part of anything. They believe that God is far away and unconcerned about them, as I said, the god of Islam makes no promises. These people are down trodden and many times they are eager to hear that there might somehow be a God who really loves them and cares about them.
The other people we work with are sold out for their own kingdom. We do present Jesus as the true King to whom they owe their allegiance. We do teach that the wages of sin is death and that hell awaits all who reject the coming King.
But, I think it is crucial to know what the Holy Spirit is saying to the person we are engaging. If we go on and on about God’s wrath to people who believe that they are already under God’s wrath and have no hope then we only push them into despair. And also very importantly, we must proclaim judgement to those who believe they can control and manipulate God with pathetic man-made religious rites. At the end of the day, we look not to a method but to the person of Holy Spirit who is speaking to those with whom we speak. When our words align with the words of the Creator who spoke the universe into existence we will see true miracles and the salvation of the lost.
Strider,
Having traveled, worked, and lived in many places on this globe, I tend to agree with you. To make myself clear, I tend to believe we live in a time when the telling of the whole story of redemption is necessary to provide an adequate witness of the gospel of Christ in most cases.
Here in the States many Christians seem to believe that most people have an adequate knowledge of God, His Word, and the Gospel of Christ, that they can simply share the “core” elements of the gospel story with a person and that is sufficient.
That is true with some people, I am sure, but I believe that most people living on this planet, and that includes the U.S. also, need to hear the story of redemption from the beginning. That would include the love and wrath of God. That is why I added to your comment, “And to escape the wrath of God that’s coming. Hell is part of that.”
One thing seems certain to me: That question is better than all the better things believers don’t say to other people.
Jesus spoke of the life to come when presenting the gospel.
He spoke of the Kingdom of God, perishing, and the wrath of God. He also spoke of everlasting life and many mansions.
Jesus speaks to a lost man, Nicodemus, about being born again.
John 3:3
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
John 3:15-16
That whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
This same thought is continued in
John 3:36
He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
In Matthew 7 Jesus is again speaking of salvation and tells people which road to travel.
Matthew 7
13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
Notice that Jesus says one road leads to destruction, the other road leads to life.
In John 14 Jesus speaks of the way to Heaven.
John 14
1 “Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me.2 In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. 4 And where I go you know, and the way you know.”
5 Thomas said to Him, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, and how can we know the way?”
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
In each of these instances Jesus is presenting salvation. In each of these instances He is also speaking of the life to come.
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6 presents the gospel, and says the wages of sin is death. That speaks not only of this life, but the life to come. Eternal life also speaks of this life, and the life to come.
These passages, as well as many others that speak of Heaven, Hell, judgment, wrath, give full warrant to speak of these things in sharing God’s plan of salvation.
David R. Brumbelow
Were these words or similar ones used by the Apostles?
Well we know they weren’t recorded in Acts as being used.
But from Acts 2 we read:
And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation!” So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
It is wrong to assume that the Apostles only preached the words recorded/
Which means they could have posed the question or a similar one.
Were all the words and deeds of Jesus recorded?
From John 21 we read:
This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they *were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself *would not contain the books that *would be written.
Is it also then possible that we don’t have all the words Jesus said?
Do we have the transcripts of Paul’s missionary preaching endeavors? Nope. Some, a few, but certainly not all.
Do we preach ONLY the words we find in the Bible? Or do we preach from the Bible as God leads and directs?
Finally, can we expect sinners, God haters, and naturally minded folks, to surrender their live toJesus because it is the right thing to do? The Law covers EVERY right thing we are to do. We are not saved by obedience but by faith that leads to obedience. And the foundation of faith is told to us in 1st Corinthians 2:
And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.
Finding ways to bring the Gospel message to the mind of the hearer should include many different mental hooks.
We find many times in Acts where Paul was reasoning with the people to persuade them of the Lordship of Jesus. It is the base of such reasoning that separates it from the :wisdom of man”, namely is the reasoning Biblically based.
The question in question is Biblically based, and from that perspective a reasonable introduction to the Gospel.
Great article and thanks!
Reminders are always helpful – that the gospel is “good news” and that evangelism is not rooted in “receiving an answer” but in “proclaiming the truth.”
We tend to show our desire for results when we focus more on the results and outworkings of the gospel than the actual gospel itself.
Yes. This is so true, I think, Jeff.
Case in point…. so much of the “gospel issue” craze – where everything that someone feels is important is espoused as a gospel issue.
Some issues that are touted as “gospel issues” are simply, as you put it, not the gospel itself but a result/outworking of it.