Odd that the bedrock of the Christian faith has become a subject of controversy among Baptists. “The Gospel.”
Last night, one of our commenters told another, essentially, “You don’t understand the gospel.” That’s a pretty severe accusation. But I have often heard a more subtle accusation, that many Christians do not understand all the implications of the gospel.
- You also hear things like, “We need to preach the gospel to ourselves every day.”
- I want to live a gospel-centered life.
- We need to focus on the gospel in every area of life.
So, I thought I would open up a forum here for a simple discussion.
What is the Gospel?
You may want to give a lengthy discourse on some of the aspects of this, but I would ask for commenters to attempt to provide a succinct, direct statement of the gospel – twitter length or so. Expand as much as you want beyond that.
I’d love to hear a few people try to explain as best they can what it means to preach the gospel to yourself every day, to live a gospel centered life – what those common phrases really mean.
So, the comments are open. You tell me.
What is the Gospel?
1 Cor 15:1-4
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
A-Men!
CB…
Did you see where Alabama’s National Championship trophy was broken into a 1000 pieces… going to cost $30K to replace it… I would think they could sell pieces of the broken crystal and have money left over!!!!
so sorry… NOT! LOL
><>”
Bob Hadley,
Please by warned my TN VOL fan brother that you are bordering on SEC blasphemy!!!!
If you do continue to pursue this course of disloyalty, never in your entire lifetime will you be allowed to sit anywhere near the 50 yd. line any closer to the field than the nosebleed section.
You will be confined to stand by the flagpole in the uppermost point of the stadium above the end zone. You will have to pay 7×70 the regular price of club box ticket to even be allowed in the stadium of a SEC NATION. Your parking pass will never be less than $1,000.00.
You will be given only hotdogs left over from the previous week’s game. You will have to wear a jersey with SEC BLASPHEMER on the front and back. And last but not least, you will not be allowed to participate in any human waves.
Oh yeah, there is no SEC blasphemer purgatory. This punishment is forever. So thank seriously my friend, before you cross that line!
Special statement on THE GOSPEL… as presented here… I listened to Matt Chandler’s message, which was very good by the way… on the EXPLICIT GOSPEL on 4/21 since this is an older thread… guess what he said a lot of great things… but NEVER mentioned 1 Cor 15… never one time mentioned the resurrection… so I ask you… did he preach the gospel? He thinks he did. I do not have a problem saying he did… but that leaves a LOT of the conversation on the balance of this thread in direct conflict with Chandler’s 1 hour and 5 minute message… seeing that he never once said anything about the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus… He talked about the cross… and Jesus dying in our place…
Just curious. He said… “here is the gospel: you can’t; God can.” Speaking of saving sinners. I agree. Now to my point, if that qualifies as “the gospel” then we are back to the finer points of the gospel defining and describing the gospel and when we disagree on those finer things, that means the gospel message we preach CAN differ… even when it is cloaked in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.
Have a great Lord’s day tomorrow for all!
><>”
My text Easter Sunday! This is indeed the gospel.
The gospel is as stated by Kevin Burden above. Amen!
Actually, that was by the Apostle Paul :o)
But, I certainly agree with him.
Note, he “received” (accepted it) it and “preached” (shared) it.
The Gospel is simple! Praise God!!
Amen, Apostle Paul! And Amen, Brother Kevin – the Gospel is simple enough that even a child can understand it! Praise God!
“The Gospel of Christ … is the power of God which brings salvation to everyone who believes it” (Rom 1:16). “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life … he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (John 3:36).
“What must I do to be saved? … Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:30-31). To “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” includes who He is and what He has done. “I am the door”, said Christ: By me if any man enter in, he shall be saved” (John 10:9).
The angel of the Lord proclaimed “I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people” (Luke 2:10). Great news, indeed!!
Kevin Burden, love it. The Gospel, that is. So simple. Hard to understand why folks argue about all the other stuff when the Gospel is all we need, huh? selahV
If all we take is this Scripture then the Roman Catholic Church also preaches the gospel. You have to define “according to the Scriptures” to include the method by which the benefits of His life and death and resurrection are transferred to men and women. Hence the discussion in Galatians on the role of faith and works and the discussion in Romans on the necessary doctrine of substitution of the covenant head for all those who are part of the covenant. Justification by grace through faith alone because of the substitionary life, death and resurrection of Christ must be a part of the gospel.
Thank you very much.
><>”
It is weird that you would identify the Scripture(al) definition of the Gospel in such a way, when historically Calvinism is so very closely identified with Catholicism via Augustine. Just say’n!
Scotty,
If any man, woman, boy, or girl, by the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, recognizes himself/herself as a sinner before a just and righteous God, truly and with godly sorrow repents and by faith believes the biblical gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ as plainly revealed in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 that person shall be saved and saved by Christ alone and sealed by the power of the Holy Spirit unto the completion of the age, then shall he or she live in the presence of the Triune God forever and ever. A-Men!
CB,
I believe that! You have stated the message of the gospel – “truly and with godly sorrow repents and by faith believes the biblical gospel.” I hope you recognize that what I was saying is that if you limit “the gospel” to the facts about Jesus it is true that the Roman Catholic Church proclaims the gospel. I know you don’t believe that and neither do I. I just want to be clear that the gospel is not just the facts about Jesus, but includes the message “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.”
A-Men Scotty.
BTW, are you one of my kids?
Way, way, way too old. Probably old as you are! LOL
CB…amazing what the “blood” of Jesus does for a dirty filthy creature, isn’t it?
Hi DAVID,
I am going to quote you from your previous post, this:
https://sbcvoices.com/i-have-a-gospel-problem/
“The gospel is Jesus Christ. It is not a doctrine or a theory. It is Jesus. And the purpose of the gospel is to bring us into what Henry Blackaby calls a “personal love relationship” with God through Jesus Christ. Jesus is not the key to truth. He is truth. Jesus doesn’t show us the way. He is the way. Jesus does not give us principles by which we can live a better life. He is the resurrection and the life. The gospel only changes us because it brings us into contact with the life-changing, soul-transforming power of Jesus. The gospel is the story. Jesus is the one whom the story is about.”
I was very, very moved when I first read this because it was the first time I realized that the belief of Southern Baptists goes far deeper into the phrase ‘the gospel’ than I had read before. Previous Southern Baptists have given me definitions of ‘the gospel’ that were not so fully definitive and clearly stated.
‘ Jesus Christ Son Savior Risen From the Dead’ IS the Gospel.
He IS the Lord of Life Who speaks to us in the very Person of God.
” . . . Lord, to whom shall we go?
Thou hast the words of eternal life.”
(John 6:68)
L’s,
I have shared the biblical gospel with you on Baptist blogs for years. Many people including Dave Miller and Joe Blackman and others have shared with you the gospel also and anyone who knows the gospel and reads this blog regularly knows that to be true. Any other conclusion would be a falsehood.
For you to state what you have in the following statement is simply not true:
“I was very, very moved when I first read this because it was the first time I realized that the belief of Southern Baptists goes far deeper into the phrase ‘the gospel’ than I had read before. Previous Southern Baptists have given me definitions of ‘the gospel’ that were not so fully definitive and clearly stated.”
L’s I would encourage you to read again verses 1-4 of 1 Corinthians 15 and then read comment # 10. L’s you are in great need of the biblical gospel to the saving of your lost soul. I beseech you, dear woman, to lay down your false gospel of works and vain philosophy, repent, and believe the biblical gospel. Otherwise you shall surely perish.
Now, I hope none of you folks out there challenge what I have stated to this dear lost soul. Some of us have been conversing with her on Baptist blogs for years. She does not have a testimony of biblical faith, so please do not encourage her into thinking she does as have so many wicked people have here in the past. May those days be far past. This lady needs to be saved and I have grieved over her many times for her lostness and misguided understanding of Christianity.
Hi C.B.
It’s me, L’s. True, for years you have shared with me, but take a look at David’s wording in the following:
https://sbcvoices.com/i-have-a-gospel-problem/
His wording does not ‘contradict’ anything you have said, but it is worded in a way that I can identify with. For people of my faith,
‘salvation’ is of Christ Crucified, and the Good News is Jesus Christ Risen From the Dead.
Sometimes ‘words’ kind of get in the way of understanding one another. But I can assure you that I know you tried many times to help me, and I love you for that . . . I just don’t relate to the wording in the same way that you do, and it’s no one’s fault.
L’s,
Actually, there is “fault.” The fault lies in your depraved nature and continued resistance to the truth of Scripture relating to the biblical gospel and your lostness and he (Satan) who keeps you comfortably, continuously, pridefully, rebelliously, and ultimately, if you do not repent and believe the gospel, hopelessly from the truth of the gospel to you own destruction.
Yet, I , along with others continue to pray that you fall on your face before God and ask the Spirit to show you the truth of the gospel of the Risen Christ that will free you from your sin, the grip of Satan on your immortal soul, and give you escape from a godless eternity.
Jesus Christ is the gospel ONLY for those who in this life repent of their sins and personally, consciously trust in His death, burial, and resurrection to save them. Followers of other faiths (islam,mormonism, hinduism, etc, ad nauseum) will not be shown mercy and will be punished eternally for their sins. Therefore, Jesus Christ being the gospel is a message of hope for all who by faith bow before Him as Lord and a message of judgment for those who do not.
The Roman Catholic Church does preach the gospel. But then they muddy it up with all the ‘self-improvement/religious ladder-climbing stuff’.
They give the gospel with one hand…and take it away with the other hand.
Many Protestant churches do exactly the same thing.
Kevin (above) has it exactly right. The gospel is Christ’s death and forgiveness for sinners. Period. All that other stuff flows from the gospel to a heart that has been changed by Christ.
“He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion.” The gospel gets muddied up when preachers focus on ‘what we should, ought, or must be doing’. That just turns the gospel upside down and makes it into just another law.
We are declared righteous for Jesus’ sake.
That’s the gospel.
“Many Protestant churches do exactly the same thing.”
Too true. We have decades of moralism among Protestants in the West. It’s what drives the thinking that we need to do all the right things in order for God to bless our nation: “I do good and God makes my life better in this world.” So we conclude that if things are not going well, that either we haven’t done what we are supposed to do or God isn’t real.
But the Bible promises that we will suffer for His name’s sake. So if we properly proclaim the gospel, we can expect to have a rough time. If our hearts are right with the gospel, then we will count is as blessing.
This is why we have a problem sharing the gospel with people. We are afraid that things won’t go well with us. It’s amazing some of the opposition we have encountered doing mission work. We expect that some people will be hostile and they are. But we also see opposition from Christians who say that by proclaiming the gospel, we will have problems: “It’s dangerous!” “You could use that money for something better!” “You’ll make people angry!”
I had one person say that we shouldn’t go out of the country, but instead take the gospel to people here at home. I replied with a list of all the things we do in our area. The response was, “Well, you shouldn’t do those things either.”
We get this because people don’t understand the blessing of doing without a nice vacation and going to minister to people in the slums of some other country or risking going into a dangerous part of town in order to share the gospel with people there. The reason people lack this understanding is because we stop the gospel at verse 4 of 1 Cor 15 and fail to explain the need for verse 58 from the balance of the chapter. If we hold fast to the first 4 verses, we’ll need the admonition of verse 58 because we will see the flesh fail and need the hope of the resurrection to continue. And that is a great blessing.
I’ve found it helpful to read Trevin Wax’s compilation of gospel definitions. http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2009/09/14/gospel-definitions-2/
Thanks for the link… it is certainly well worth reading.
><>”
Andy, you are a credit to the family name!
(Now, if only we could get your dad straightened out. And, perhaps, your gramps as well.)
A-Men.
BTW Andy, I have never met you, but as I told your grandparents many times, I am sorry for dropping you Daddy on his head when he was a little boy and causing to bring shame and dishonor to your family by becoming a Yankees fan. You know that has been a burden for your whole family for years. Maybe he will watch some Braves games this year and be healed.
CB, for the record, I am a passionate Yankee fan. But my love and devotion to the Yankees is tepid and lukewarm compared to my father’s. Dad is pretty much obsessed.
Right, Andy?
My brother, Andy’s dad, on the other hand, is the black sheep of the family who abandoned truth and righteousness to root for the A’s.
Dave,
Maybe it was your brother that I dropped on his pumpkin head? My memory is not what it was. As you know that was years ago.
It happened so often to him, that we can’t remember every time he was dropped on his noggin.
I’m sure what to think of my baseball pedigree. I have Yankees and A’s on one side of my family, Phillies on the other, and I live in Georgia.
I just hope Grandpa doesn’t read that. I think he almost disowned me last summer when I questioned the validity of Jeter’s allstar nomination.
Questioning Jeter in any way is a heresy. If there was any fortune to be divided up, you SHOULD be disowned.
Andy Miller,
Living in Georgia means you are in the SEC, among the greatest of FOOTBALL NATIONS. You are in a good place, but if you desire greatness, do two things: Become a Braves fan and travel westward on I20 in the fall to the most glorious FOOTBALL NATION on earth, T’town, Alabama. Become a Sabanite.
In doing just these two things, your life will be greatly enriched forevermore.
He’s a Penn State fan, CB.
Penn State? Penn State???
Dave, I can relate to your sorrow. I have sons also. Sometimes they do things that baffle us. As I often say to my self, “Keep your chin up, He is young.”
Yes, I cheer for the former classiest program in college football. Hopefully they will be again one day. I’ll refrain from commenting on the SEC. I’m afraid I might be called divisive.
Andy Miller,
LOL. Trust me. You could not even begin to say things like your daddy has about the SEC. You mother has reared you far better than that.
If you dad had his way the whole SEC would be on eternal probation. He actually believes all those rumors that we pay players and buy their parents new homes and cars.
Andy, upon my good word as a loyal Sabanite, I promise you we have never payed a player, bought his family a house or car and player assigned tutors never take tests for athletes on scholarship here in Alabama.
If you play at Alabama you have to be in the top 97% in overall SAT scores in America. All of our graduate players who do not go pro, really have to struggle with the decision as to whether to become brain surgeons or rocket scientists.
Those are the facts Andy, I kid you not!
Andy is my nephew, not my son, CB, but he is, at least, a fan of the Big 10.
By the way, Andy, trashing the SEC is never considered divisive.
Dave,
You mean the entire family has this problem with loyalty to the wrong sports teams and not just one limb of the tree?
This news is so sad. And here I am feeling sorry for myself because I have one child who is an Auburn fan and another cheers for UNC.
It is true that if we look around us we can always find reasons to count our blessings.
It’s called good breeding.
Andy, where are you at in GA? I live in the heart of Bulldawg nation – Athens.
His dad is in Reidsville, Andy is not too far from there.
I serve a church in Vidalia.
I believe that the ‘add-on’s’ become the real problem.
If we can somehow use God’s law to expose and convict of sin…and then the gospel to forgive and bring new life…then the Holy Spirit is qiute capable of bring about whatever changes He wants to make in the life of that person, without us having to send tht person inward (to the self), which was the real problem to begin with.
Kevin nailed it in the first post. So I say “Amen.” The gospel is the good news that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried,
that He rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures. By adding to it comes much mischief.
I agree with Kevin in putting forth the 1 Cor. 15 passage. We can never go wrong presenting scripture to people. God does the saving and there is certainly enough in those scripture words for Him to use to save people.
A also agree with Steve Martin. The RC can and does preach that same gospel…and then they take it away by adding works to it, so that it becomes what Paul called another gospel.
Many of you will remember years ago when the Evangelicals and Catholics Together documents were put forth and signed. Colson and Neuhaus led that effort. It said,
“We affirm together that we are justified by grace through faith because of Christ.”
While some evangelicals signed on, including some SB leaders, many did not because of what was NOT agreed upon. Many evangelicals said that what that statement should have said is:
“We affirm together that we are justified by grace ALONE through faith ALONE because of Christ ALONE.”
If it had read like that, then RCs could not have signed it.
One last thing. I also like what Romans says,
“And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,” (Romans 4:5 ESV)
Those are gospel words. Faith in Him who justifies the ungodly.
Amen!
From here ( http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=gospel )
I found a decent etymology of the word. Note that the Old English godspel is a precise equivalent of the Greek euangelion.
gospel
O.E. godspel “gospel, glad tidings announced by Jesus; one of the four gospels,” from god “good” (see good) + spel “story, message” (see spell (n.)); translation of L. bona adnuntiatio, itself a translation of Gk. euangelion “reward for bringing good news.”
The first element of the O.E. word had a long “o,” but it shifted under mistaken association with God. The word passed early from English to continental Germanic languages in forms that clearly indicate the first element had shifted to “God,” e.g. O.S. godspell, O.H.G. gotspell, O.N. goðspiall. Used of anything as true as the Gospel from mid-13c. Gospel-gossip was Addison’s word (“Spectator,” 1711) for “one who is always talking of sermons, texts, etc.”
I would observe that in my experience modern usage of the word “gospel” actually usually connotes authority rather than an emphasis on “good news” so the etymology doesn’t lead to a meaningful understanding of modern usage.
I mention this because I occasionally get frustrated with the word “gospel” because we could very easily use “good news” instead and I believe we should. On a similar note, you’ll normally see me write “Resurrection Sunday” instead of “Easter” for similar reasons of clarity. I’ll also note that euangelion is the word used in 1 Cor 15:1. Which is what started me down the path of collecting the etymology.
So how did Jesus preach the Gospel before the cross?
Yup. The gospel has never changed since the garden.
Perhaps that was more of a general use of the word, gospel. The word implied an announcement from the king. So maybe Jesus was using the word gospel in the less technical sense. Or, perhaps, Jesus used the word in its full meaning, but the disciples only understood that post-Resurrection and post-Pentecost.
In other words, the gospel in general is the announcement of God’s victory over sin and death. The details of that gospel (provided by Paul in 1 Cor 15) were provided in full later.
No doubt it was a part of the same Gospel that was given to Abraham as well, according to Paul. The Gospel didn’t start at the cross, it’s message was ratified there as God was proven good for His promises (2 Corinthians 1:20)
And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” – Galatians 3:8
It is as Kevin (and the apostle Paul) say:There is only one kind of gospel that can be the power of God unto salvation. And that good news is that God Himself [Christ] became a substitute, dying in the place of repenting sinners.
Truth !
What Paola said!
I used a Bible search engine to find every reference to the gospel. It does not appear to be obviously defined anywhere other than I Cor. 15. Perhaps in some uses we should take it simply as meaning “good news” generally. Otherwise I see no reason to substitute other things for Paul’s definition. Christ Himself & His coming is “good news” and what He came for was to die for our sins, and He rose again for our justification.
1 Corinthians 15:1-4 is good news (gospel).
I doubt that anyone here would assert that the passage is exhaustive in expressing the gospel (good news). It is certainly a fine passage that expresses the foundation for any right relationship with God.
But the good news includes all ‘pure and righteous’ (good) ‘information from God’ (news).
Different people may emphasize more or less of what they perceive as “good news”.
You are right.
Jesus came into Galilee preaching the gospel of God, saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe the gospel.’ – Mark 1:14-15
Look! There is God announcing the satisfying Gospel from a blood stained cross on a hill outside the city gate.
Revelation 5 from Phillips:
“Then I noticed in the right hand of the one seated upon the throne a book filled with writing both inside and on its back, and it was sealed with seven seals. And I saw a mighty angel who called out in a loud voice, “Who is fit to open the book and break its seals?”
And no one in Heaven or upon the earth or under the earth was able to open the book, or even to look at it. I began to weep bitterly because no one could be found fit to open the book, or even to look at it…”
Then good news…
“…when one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep. See, the lion from the tribe of Judah, the root of David, has won the victory and is able to open the book and break its seven seals.”
“Then, standing in the very centre of the throne and of the four living creatures and of the elders, I saw a Lamb that seemed to have been slaughtered. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God and are sent out into every corner of the earth. Then he came and took the book from the right hand of him who was seated upon the throne.”
A-Men again!
Here’s a question, can a bad Mormon be a Christian?
Jared Moore,
First, maybe you need to define what he difference is between a bad Mormon and a good Mormon. Provide proof. 🙂
It seems we’ve tended to settle on the 1 Corinthians 15 passage, which I would do as well.
The Gospel is the announcement of God’s work in Christ who died for our sins and rose again as Lord of all.
That’s my twitter-length definition.
But when I hear people use the word, I think that there is something more working in some people’s minds than this. That’s what I’m wondering about.
Dave,
Given the statement that you made, “The Gospel is the announcement of God’s work in Christ who died for our sins and rose again as Lord of all” how does the discussion with respect to the calvinist/non-calvinist issue relate to this definition? I am not trying to make this a discussion on something that is not related nor am I trying to hijack this thread but to ignore it is not healthy either. Either the differences are significant and they must be addressed or they are not and that makes the whole debate between the two sides immaterial.
It certainly seems to me that those who are on each side of the issue are passionate about their position as well they/we all should be and how that position impacts their view of the gospel and its power to effect the hearts and lives of individuals as well as our communities and our world is equally important as I see it, anyway. It is for me.
I look forward to your answer as well as anyone else who wants to make a comment.
Thanks in advance!
><>”
My whole point is that C/non-C is irrelevant when it comes to the gospel.
Agree Dave.
Agree Dave and Les.
Les??……Did I just agree with Les?
Wow! What a glorious day it is!!
CB, we agree? Break out the bubbly grape juice!!
Les,
I thank the Lord that Dave presented this good post today.
Les, I know my position of soteriology is very close to yours.
I also know that Calvinists have been part of the SBC from the beginning. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that 5 point Calvinists were hand-in-glove involved with 4s, 3s, etc. during the CR and no one fought with one another about this issue.
I, personally have found this new divisiveness over Calvinism to be a very strange thing in the recent years. I believe Satan is having a field day with it during what I think is a 2 Timothy 3:1 season in the Body of Christ among Southern Baptists.
CB,
I’m also thankful that Dave posted this today. It is a good discussion and a needed one.
I’m unashamedly a 5 point Calvinist. Have been for 25 years not long after seminary. I’ve been in that stage where I thought God had called me to make everyone else see it my way too. I’ve been obnoxious about it too at times.
Hopefully I’ve grown some in those respects. I also know many NCs in SBC life and I would stand along ide them and preach with them any day. My current ministry is not pastoring. I work with evangelical, mostly Baptist, churches in Haiti. C or NC is not even on their radar. They are far too busy preaching Christ and His glory AND helping care for orphans and widows.
But if I had a church, I would not hesitate to have most any NC fill my pulpit. I know that at the end of the day, that NC preacher is going to declare to the people that their only hope is Jesus. He is going to tell them to quit trying to save themselves and place their faith in Jesus because Jesus saves! He is not going to tell them to screw up their self will and help save themselves.
We Cs and NCs have so much more in common than we have differences. I too lament the divide in the denomination through which I was saved.
And in addition, we may have something else in common. My sweet home Alabama. That’s my birthplace, where I was educated, married, saved and called to the gospel ministry. Now, if only you root for the right team.
Les,
I had noticed the cap. I was trying to be gracious about your apostasy and not mention it. But now that you have mentioned it, what on earth happened to you to make you go so far from the truth?
Also, one of my sons was in Haiti recently to help build or rebuild an orphanage there. His name is Ben. Long, but thick chested, tall guy, always wears a BAMA cap, never takes it off, quite spoken type, takes after his mother, would have been with a group from SEBTS. Maybe you met him?
Also, do you know a guy there named Charley with Pathfinders Ministries? I have worked with him in the past.
CB,
“But now that you have mentioned it, what on earth happened to you to make you go so far from the truth?”
Well, I guess I was born depraved. 🙂
But would you tell your guys to stop trying to kill our idols? The trees?
Seriously, no I did not run into the group from SEBTS. Were there also some folks from other churches? My high school buddy and football teammate (he was a true athlete though. Played for The Bear) Keith Pugh, pastor of Open Door BC in T-Town, is connected to a group that went down back in January I believe.
Don’t know the Pathfinders. But I’d like to know more about them. I go 4-6 times a year. Love to connect with other ministries. Going again in a little less than two weeks.
Les,
Charley Elgin is the leader of Pathfinders. Go to pathfindermission.org. They are headquartered in Alabama. I don’t think Charley is a SABANATION fan. Yet, I do not hold that flaw against him. He is retired military. He is a great friend to Alan Cross in Montgomery, so two out of three ain’t bad. Look him up. You may be able to help each other with some good things in the future.
Thanks CB. I’ll look them up.
Agreed also. I am seeing on this thread, Calvinists and non-Calvinists agree on the biblical definition of the Gospel (but as Jerry points out, there are other, equally true ways to extract the definition from the scriptures).
That is why the recent dustup over Mr. Harrell’s article is so troublesome. To accuse fellow Christians of preaching a different Gospel is a serious charge, one that should not go unchallenged. Those on either side of the debate who think that soteriology is the Gospel are sadly mistaken.
When I call people to repent, believe, and confess Jesus as Lord, I mean exactly that. I’m not crossing my fingers behind my back. They hear nothing Calvinistic because I mean nothing Calvinistic in the proclamation.
Gold Star, Mr. Mac.
If I thought one side or the other was not passionate about the gospel, I’d go back to battle blogging. This is a family discussion.
Passion does not have to be bad. We are all passionate about a LOT of things.
So, who is saved and how salvation comes to the lost and who Jesus died for and how sins are atoned are issues that are not related to the gospel… is that what I hear you saying?
><>”
Bob, Jesus saves. We all agree with that, C or NC among us. I think we all agree also that when we proclaim the gospel (such as 1 Cor 15), whatever our finer points of theological “in house” discussions, Jesus saves. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation, not your or my view of the atonement. Jesus saves.
I should clarify, “not your or my view of the extent of the atonement.”
“We are all passionate about a LOT of things.”
That is true Bob. Rod Stewart even wrote a song about Passion.”
Do you know the words? Maybe you could sing it for us in New Orleans You favor Rod just a little…..in a skin tone type of way. 🙂
Bob, the facts of the gospel are believed equally by both sides in this debate.
Jesus died for our sins (our only hope of forgiveness).
Jesus rose again as Lord of all (our hope of glory!)
The path to salvation is equally agreed to by both sides.
Salvation is wholly of God’s grace (not by works) and which we receive by faith.
We all agree on the need to evangelize (some of the most passionate witnesses in my church are the Calvinist contingent). We agree on the need for worldwide missions to proclaim the gospel.
Everyone agrees to this. C/non-C alike.
We differ on things that, while important, do not touch the facts of the gospel.
We agree that the sinner must come to God by faith. How does that process work, exactly? There is a point of C/non-C disagreement.
So, my point is that we all agree on the gospel itself, while differing on details surrounding it. I’m not saying that the details don’t matter. They do. We should continue to discuss them and try to refine our beliefs. But we need to recognize that we are have a family discussion, not an us vs. them argument.
That’s all I’m trying to say.
CB
I only sing southern Gospel songs; maybe one that might be slightly contemporary but with a southern twang. I doubt Stewart, Rod or Tony would appreciate any remarks on our respective resemblance!
><>”
I will admit that I was the impetus for the post – I made the comment to another poster. And the reason why I made the comment is because that poster was confusing the Gospel itself with the finer points of the Gospel (like extent of the atonement) and then on the basis of that expanded definition made the claim that Calvinists preach a different Gospel (which has huge implications given Paul’s words in Galatians 1).
I find it more than enlightening that from the very first post we had a non-Calvinist use the exact passage I (and others) did in defining the Gospel to the poster to which I was speaking the infamous sentence. That poster immediately said that this was not enough. It seems that most of the commentators here disagree with that individual. I feel that this should reveal two important points:
1) Calvinists and non-Calvinists despite their distinct views on secondary issues within the Doctrine of Soteriology can and do preach the same Gospel, and
2) We need to make sure that anytime it is suggested that #1 is not true, we need to rebuff that false belief by clearly delineating between the Gospel itself and the secondary points of theology related to the Gospel.
To Dave and the original poster to which I spoke: Again I am sorry about the wording of my statement, but I stand by the commentary I made there in that thread. We need to understand exactly what the Gospel Itself is and distinguish it from those finer points of soteriology. When we confuse the two, we are not correctly understanding the Gospel.
In one sense, DR, you are right that your comment spurred my thinking. But I hope it spurred it in the right way.
I hear the term all the time and I thought, fundamentally, we all have to agree about the basics of the gospel.
So, you are not “to blame” even if your comment got me thinking in a certain direction. I’m actually glad we got into this discussion this morning. I think it is profitable.
I agree completely – and that for me is a rare thing!
I thought I posted this earlier but I guess it did not get through.
I am confused about how one can confuse “the Gospel itself with the finer points of the Gospel (like extent of the atonement)”
There is a BIG difference in CO Carbon monxide and CO2 carbon Dioxide. It seems to me the finer points are absolutely essential and apparently they are essential or we would not even be having this conversation in the first place.
It must be important to the calvinist group because they are the ones making sure that we all get the gospel RIGHT… that is all I am hearing now… gospel this, gospel that, true gospel;
So lets not say everybody is all giddy up on this one sentence in 1 Corinthians becasue it is obviously apparent that there is more, muc, much more to it than that. That is the definition I learned decades ago, and by the way preach and use today.
><>”
Bob, straight question:
Do you believe that Calvinists preach a different gospel than non-Calvinists?
Bob, this is so very important. Paul said,
The passage Les has quoted will help us get to the bottom of this. What was Paul’s problem with the church in Galatia that he is addressing in verses 6-9?
Judiazers had come behind him and told the people, you have to be circumcised to be saved; you have to follow the law of the Jews to be saved. Paul says that he is astonished that they were turning to a “different gospel” and then he says, there is no such thing. He then proceeds to recon the dangers of preaching a gospel contrary to what he preached to them.
These Judiazers did not discount the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus; they added stuff to it. The defined what it meant to be a Christian by focusing on the “finer points.”
Does the Church of Christ preacher who preaches the death burial and resurrection of Jesus preach the gospel when he says that one must be baptized in water to be saved?
What about TD Jakes… seems like I have seen his name mentioned a lot lately… he preaches the death burial and resurrection of Jesus plus a lot of other stuff… seems like his concept of the Trinity is a little different from some of us… and so he has been labeled detrimentally by some. What about our buddy Joel Osteen… he preaches the death burial and resurrection of Jesus… is he preaching the gospel? I can continue… why Benny Hinn preaches the death burial and resurrection of Jesus… who has him scheduled for a revival meeting in your church? Oh yea… you guys dont do those either. Tis Tis.
><>”
I’m asking a simple and serious question, Bob, trying to clarify what you are saying.
I agree with you that there are serious doctrinal problems with each of the men you mentioned.
But are you saying that Calvinists preach a “different gospel”?
That is a significant question.
I think C/non-C Baptists share enough doctrinal common ground to work together for missions. But if I hear you right (and that is why I asked the question) you do not believe that Calvinists preach the same gospel as non-Calvinists. If that is true, then either Calvinism or non-Calvinism is a false faith – we cannot compromise on the gospel.
That’s the basic question I’m trying to understand from your position.
Bob,
“The defined what it meant to be a Christian by focusing on the “finer points.””
They were not emphasizing the “finer points” of Christian theology Bob. They were telling the people that circumcision and obedience to the whole law was a requirement to be justified before God. That is no minor thing at all. It is no gospel at all.
So again, “Do you believe that Calvinists preach a different gospel than non-Calvinists?”
I am saying today that we both cannot be right.
Now, do these men rightly preach the gospel IF they preach the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus?
The passage Les quoted dealt with Judiazers who destorted the gospel by adding circumcision to it… among other Jewish traditions to it.
This is the Scriptural test.
><>”
Les,
Do these other men preach the gospel if they preach the death burial and resurrection???
><>”
Bob, you still have not answered straight up ther question.
Yes or no, “Do you believe that Calvinists preach a different gospel than non-Calvinists?”
Brother, and I do call you brother, this is vitally important. I and many others here and in the SBC are Calvinists. Do you believe we preach the true gospel? Yes or no.
Bob,
“Do these other men preach the gospel if they preach the death burial and resurrection???”
I will be happy to answer your question after you answer the prior question.
Bob, I take it these men are the ones you named earlier, such as Benny Hinn, T.D. Jakes, and Joel Osteen. Of these three I’ve only heard Joel Osteen, and the few times I endured him on TV for a bit I never heard him preach the gospel of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But I’d say to the extent they preach the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ they preach the gospel — but having added to it in the end they are preaching another gospel (including the Restorationists who add baptism for salvation). I don’t see this as a problem with our definition of the gospel, but with theirs. Just randomly I thought of (and looked up) the definition of pasta: Unleavened dough, made of wheat flour, water, and sometimes eggs, that is molded into any of a variety of shapes and boiled. Now if we add to the definition dirt and a few other ingredients, is it still pasta or have we redefined it?
Bob Hadley,
Have you heard Mark Dever preach? If so, does he preach the biblical, soul-saving, Holy Spirit sanctioned gospel?
Bob,
Earlier you asked, ““Do these other men preach the gospel if they preach the death burial and resurrection???””
I assume you are talking about Jakes, Osteen and Hinn.
From what I have read and heard from these men, no I do not. I believe they either add to the simple gospel of salvation by grace alone by faith alone in Christ alone or they have a defective trinitarian theology thus no Savior to preach.
Robert,
Interesting question… Just randomly I thought of (and looked up) the definition of pasta: Unleavened dough, made of wheat flour, water, and sometimes eggs, that is molded into any of a variety of shapes and boiled. Now if we add to the definition dirt and a few other ingredients, is it still pasta or have we redefined it?
Surely you are not equating the finer points of calvinism with dirt in the pasta or a fly in the ointment… I heard a sermon illustration
on a little dog poop in the chocolate chip cookies… saying it is not enough to hurt you… who still wants a cookie…
Surely you did not mean that?
><>”
Bob, for the record I was speaking of what I think I know of Jakes, Hinn, Osteen, and the Restorationists. The main point was about redefining something by adding something that is not part of its nature. Further, I’d say that (again, what I think I know) about the likes of those mentioned above, the problem is a little worse that dog poop in a chocolate chip cookie. More like rat poison, which is about 98% of things that are good and healthy for the rat. It’s the 2% that kills ya.
I did not have Calvinism in mind and don’t thinks it’s comparable.
I will answer your question in this way:
Anyone who preaches that Jesus died on the cross to save some is not preaching the same gospel I preach. That is WHAT I BELIEVE. Some and all are not one and the same.
When you said, the Judaizers were not “emphasizing the “finer points” of Christian theology Bob. They were telling the people that circumcision and obedience to the whole law was a requirement to be justified before God. That is no minor thing at all. It is no gospel at all.”
To them it was theology. It was their theology and it was indeed as you mentioned no gospel.
So there are finer points to the gospel other than preaching “the death burial and resurrection of Jesus.” So these finer points do matter. That has been my point all along and I do not believe for one minute that anyone here fails to understand my point.
Does God consider those finer points to be heresy, I have no clue. I do not make that determination nor have I even hinted of any such charge. I have conversed with others who have.
My point remains: the finer points of our theology are important and our differences are important, whether we like it or not. Either god hand picks who is and who is not saved or He doesn’t. Jesus died for the sins of the whole world and ANYONE can be saved, theoretically, practically, theologically… I do not care…
If the good news, the gospel is not good news to anyone and everyone I meet on the street then I have a problem with it.
This is nothing new… I am not saying anything I have not said a 100 times.
><>”
Thanks Bob. I suppose that is the best we are going to get.
Do you believe that YOU are preaching the biblical gospel?
Bob, would you say that Jesus preached a different gospel than you do in these verses: John 10:14-15 – “14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.”
I don’t understand how you can say, “Anyone who preaches that Jesus died on the cross to save some is not preaching the same gospel I preach.”
Really? So, someone must preach that Jesus died for the whole world in order to be preaching the gospel? You’re adding to the gospel Bob. If what you say is true, every Scripture that does not speak of Jesus dying for everyone, is not preaching the gospel. Just how many verses in Scripture speak of Jesus dying for everyone?
Do a search Bob, and see how many times the gospel was truly preached in Scripture by Christ and the apostles if “Christ died for everyone” must be included in the gospel. I think you’ll be very surprised.
1 John 2:2
2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
><>”
Jared Moore,
I know I keep beatin’ on you, but that is somewhat an unfair question. Let’s keep our challenges on the “fallen humanity” level.
Your question simply puts Bob’s back up against the wall. Besides, you surely know he probably has a somewhat different understanding of that passage than you do.
You can do better. Do so.
Bob, you didn’t answer my question. I don’t deny that Jesus died for the whole world, but to say that someone must believe Jesus died for the whole world is adding to the gospel.
If what you say is true, the times that the Scripture mention Jesus forgiving the sins of His people, you must argue He’s not preaching the gospel. Are you prepared to argue this about so much Scripture?
CB
No I have never heard Dever speak.
><>”
It’s a time like this I would like to hear from Charles Spurgeon. I have never heard someone who pleaded with the unconverted as much as when I read sermons from Spurgeon. Then I am without argument as I read his explanation of biblical election. Is there such a place at the table for a Spurgeonist?
I don’t think Spurgeon could plead for the unconverted without his understanding of election.
So Jared Moore,
Are you taking the position to the opposite pole of Bob and saying he and those who believe as does he are “Not” preaching the gospel if he believes Jesus died for “all” people?
CB, No. I’m not sure what made you think that.
I’m saying that Christ’s life, death, and resurrection in our stead to reconcile us to God is the good news. Saying “Jesus died” is necessary, but saying “Jesus died for the world” or “Jesus died for the elect” is not a necessary component of the gospel. Both Calvinists and Non-Calvinists will be in heaven.
The question is why Bob thinks “for the world” must always be included in the gospel presentation, or you’re preaching a different gospel.
Jared Moore,
Thank you for the clarification. I was greatly desiring that you were not going to throw this post and comment thread back to ground zero.
I had to ask. I thank you for your answer.
OK Bob, can a 5 point Calvinist preach the gospel pleasing to the Author and Finisher of our faith?
I think the Gospel is an event with implications. The event itself is newsworthy (life, death and resurrection of Jesus) and is thus appropriately referred to as gospel.
This gospel event however, carrries implications to life and death. To appropriatte it personally by repentant faith, saves or rescues one from eternal death- judgment.
BD
I’d love to hear you reflect on those implications.
Dave,
To the other part of what you asked about:
“You also hear things like, “We need to preach the gospel to ourselves every day.”
I want to live a gospel-centered life.
We need to focus on the gospel in every area of life.”
I have profited immensely from Jerry Bridges (who needs our prayers for his recent surgery) over the years. He wrote,
I can certainly not state it any better. This is well worth reading.
http://www.ouruf.org/d/cvt_sanctification.pdf
Dave: Perhaps that was more of a general use of the word, gospel. The word implied an announcement from the king. So maybe Jesus was using the word gospel in the less technical sense. Or, perhaps, Jesus used the word in its full meaning, but the disciples only understood that post-Resurrection and post-Pentecost.
bapticus hereticus: Notwithstanding the dating of the Pauline writings and the four gospels, if I were to choose an emphasis for defining ‘gospel’, it would be the later writings (i.e., the four gospels, and more specifically, the synoptic gospels).
The general sense of the word reveals its fuller meaning and thus provides its greatest potential for enacting change, yet as the people of God sought (and some subsequently imposed) technical understandings (via attempts to standardize beliefs, thus assert control of the gospel), the corresponding result has been a waning of the vitality of the church, despite its subsequent increase.
Jesus proclaimed that God is for us, thus challenging our notions as to what God is about, and ever since we have been working overtime to determine just who is actually a member of ‘Us’ with our technical, doctrinal pursuits instead of giving our lives in service to others, as if God’s concern were also our own.
Jesus was about really good news. I sometimes wonder what we are about.
It’s hard to compare apples to oranges Norm. We believe that the Bible is true and that the gospel as revealed in God’s Word is true. It is hard to debate the meaning of the gospel when you do not accept God’s Word as perfectly true, nor accept the biblical gospel as the only hope for salvation for all mankind.
I’d rather keep this as a discussion about how the Bible defines the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ.
Norm (BH),
Do you believe that 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 presents the biblical gospel in its fullness through the writing of Paul, as he was under the inspirational and directional power of the Holy Spirit, in order to fulfill God’s revelation of the soul-saving gospel of Jesus Christ, His virgin born, sinlessly perfect Son, the God-Man Himself, to a sinful and hopeless humanity?
To Dave: The question asked was about defining the gospel, to which an insightful post presented the correlation among gospel and good news, to which you commented, to which I commented, mostly in agreement with you, but your response to me was not about what I wrote, but rather about what you apparently believe concerning me, which presumably disqualifies me from engaging in the conversation, even as your words underscore an important aspect of my post.
To CB: You have asked me this question before, with differing criteria (which really goes to the point of the thread and also supports a point of my post) and I have answered (and interestingly, in the same manner that was sufficient and without qualification for a minister that previously served on the ministerial staff led by Adrian Rogers), yet you remain unconvinced. That is your choice; it causes no concern to myself as to my relationship with God, but it does concern me as it speaks to the fractured nature of the church. Uniformity of belief has never been the case in the Christian church, even from its beginnings, yet the power of God to transform and empower various faith communities continues and is not conditioned by homogeneity of thought.
I Corinthians 15.1-4 is a powerful statement to which I have confidence and faith, but if it is the fullness of the gospel as you assert, why does it then require belief in a virgin birth and a particular theory of inspiration?
We get Jesus, surely the good news of God and concerning God, to whom the gospels bear witness using decades of oral tradition, then following such, we get statements about Jesus, then we get councils and creeds and doctrine, and, yes, we get in spades those more than willing to be gatekeepers. The world needs Jesus, but apparently can only have after an acceptable performance on the AJQ (Accepted by Jesus Questionnaire). As stated earlier, I sometimes wonder what we are about.
Actually Norm,
The gospel does require absolute unity of “thought” if you will. Within the perfect unity of the Trinity, prior to prior, it was decreed thereby to save sinners according to the gospel exactly as it is presented in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. The unity was absolute in the Godhead as to the essence of the gospel.
The fulfillment of that decree was accomplished in human history by the atoning death and glorious resurrection of Jesus Christ, God the Father’s virgin born, sinlessly perfect Son, the God-Man Himself.
If you deny that absolute truth, you are not a follower of Christ. You have not been given the new birth.
Jesus had to fulfill every prophesy to complete accuracy to qualify as the propitiation for our sin. He is not only the sacrifice, He is the mercy seat also.
Had not Jesus been born of the virgin, He would not have qualified to be the perfect, sacrificial Lamb of God of whom God the Father sacrificed on the cross. Norm, either you embrace these absolute truths or you have been slipped a counterfeit gospel by the Old Dragon, Satan himself.
BTW, Adrian Rogers asked me to serve on my first trustee board. If he was among us today, he would tell you the same thing I have. That’s a fact. The employment of his name or any other man’s name, living or dead will not alter the truth of the gospel.
In addition, Dog Ear Crump, an old preacher who did not finish the third grade would tell you the same thing as would Adrian Rogers, only with probably a little more flare. Norm, the saving power of the gospel in not dependent on the man who proclaims it. The power of the gospel is sufficient of itself to save even if read from a stolen Gideon Bible.
You will not find unity of thought in the history of the Christian church, CB; and most likely you will not find it in any particular church, either, including the one you will attend tomorrow. You will not find it on this forum, either, especially given the oft tension between Calvinists and non-Calvinists. And to make it more interesting, you will not find unity of thought in scripture. What you will find are people that struggled to explain the unexplainable.
Now, as far as the doctrine of the Trinity goes, just where is it present in I Corinthians 15.1-4? And where is the doctrine of the virgin birth and a theory of inspiration in said passage?
Norm,
Are you serious? I know your reading comprehension is better than that. You know full well that I did not state that the Doctrine of the Trinity was in that passage. Yet, I do state, and rightly so, that within the perfect unity of the Triune God it was decreed 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 to be revealed by the Apostle Paul under the inspiration and direction of the Holy Spirit that humanity might know the essence of the gospel.
Oh yeah, without the virgin birth, there would be no gospel.
Good try, CB, but not even close for a game of horseshoes. The question concerned 1 Cor 15.1-4, and then you added doctrinal parameters to the passage that are not present. Recall it is conservatives that talk about the clear meaning of scripture and undergird such with the ‘author’s intention.’ If Paul meant to write about a virgin birth, a theory of inspiration, and the doctrine of the Trinity in 1 Cor 15.1-4, would he not write about such in 1 Cor 15.1-4?
Praise the Lord there is a statement I will AMEN!
“The power of the gospel is sufficient of itself to save even if read from a stolen Gideon Bible.”
A 5 Pt Calvinist can preach a gospel message and Jesus can save sinners… any and all who will come to Him in repentance and faith!
><>”
Well thank you there Brother Bob Hadley.
Some games you win, some you lose, and some get rained out. I am glad we went the full nine innings on this one. We can mark this one down as a win-win. What do you say?
Roll Tide… except when they play Tennessee.
><>”
Bob,
“A 5 Pt Calvinist can preach a gospel message and Jesus can save sinners… any and all who will come to Him in repentance and faith!”
I think we are on the same page. Thanks brother.
I just wonder . . . all you folks arguing about exactly what is happening ontologically when salvation happens, I have a question.
When you feel in love (if you have) and your sweetheart said, “I love you” did you begin to dissect this statement in accord with the ontological implications and narrow epistemological reasoning?
Or, did you just say, “I love you, too.” That’s what the gospel means to me.
Well said, Frank L. And in addition to accepting, caring for, and celebrating the other as other, we spend a lifetime trying to understand the other, never quite getting it right or exhausting the meaning and importance of the other; needless to say we end up more deeply loving the other for the surprises, complexity, mystery, and impact that the other has on self?
Norm, I’m sure you are aware that your agreement with me is likely to destroy my standing among others here on this blog.
So, in an act of sincere collegiality, let me assert my belief that the Bible is the absolute, inerrant, Word of God, from cover to cover (including the cover if it says HCSB).
I think you and I would differ greatly in our theology.
The problem may be in the way we approach “surprises, complexity, mystery.” You would see these as significant apart from the inerrant Word of God. I see them as wonderful because of the Word of God.
This makes it difficult for one such as myself to embrace the views of one such as yourself. However, difficult is not impossible.
I truly would hope that you are a genuine, sincere follower of Jesus Christ. You have stated that you are to me in a response many moons ago. I would hope that you could appreciate my dilemma: how can one be a true, genuine follower of Christ and NOT believe the Bible is the absolute truth of God without any mixture of error?
Thank you for allowing me to make this clarification of my position, somewhat at the expense of yours. But, I felt it was necessary in the event I meet CB in a dark alley.
I don’t want to be “thumped to death with a large, leather-bound, KJV.”
Frank L, the fact that you apparently feel/perceive the need to distance yourself from me and allow some doubt about my professed standing before God, when what we largely have in most baptist churches is one’s profession concerning Christ before the church, does not reflect badly on me (“at my expense,” as was used in your post), rather it reflects badly on the current state of SBC and the fear that some have of others if ‘i’s are not dotted and ‘t’s are not crossed. I am reminded of Jesus’ words when he was questioned as to his state of mind and standing in his community, and I paraphrase, “tell me again, how does a divided house stand?” If he was not spared such indignities, surely I can’t expect a pass.
Norm,
There is something else I need to share with you, because I see this often in your comments.
Self-martyrdom is not a Christian virtue.
Norm,
I was using “at your expense” in the exact opposite way you took it.
I am distancing myself because you have made statements that would indicate you may not, in fact, believe that the Bible is God’s Word.
You have also made comments that indicate you allow for a much broader interpretation of how a person is saved than I see in the Word of God.
Yes, I was distancing myself from your theology, with the hope that I need not distance myself from you as a person. That’s what I meant by “at your expense.” I was being apologetic.
I have also noticed that you have never refuted charges that you are universalistic in your soteriology and that you do not accept the Bible as the infallible, inerrant, supernatural Word of God.
If my understanding of you position is incorrect, feel free to state exactly what you believe.
Again, I am uncomfortable distancing myself from your theological position (or anyone else) because I may not have all the facts. I love for you to clear up any misunderstanding I have of your views.
Frank,
I preach from a NASB. Yet, it is large and genuine leather bound and the color is crimson, no joke. Dr Paige Patterson gave it to me when his dog ,A J, bit three holes in my left hand.
Frank: I was using “at your expense” in the exact opposite way you took it.
Norm: You also used the word collegiality and then went on to allow doubt as to my collegiality by stating “I hope ….” The fact that you perceived a need to distance yourself instead of enjoying a point of contact, with a least one you held out some degree of hope, is unfortunate.
Frank: I am distancing myself because you have made statements that would indicate you may not, in fact, believe that the Bible is God’s Word.
Norm: Nothing could be further from the truth, unless you believe that only inerrantists believe scripture to be the word of God.
Frank: You have also made comments that indicate you allow for a much broader interpretation of how a person is saved than I see in the Word of God.
Norm: If anyone is saved, it is because God does such.
Frank: Yes, I was distancing myself from your theology, with the hope that I need not distance myself from you as a person. That’s what I meant by “at your expense.” I was being apologetic.
Norm: I read it as an unintended back-handed slap, and did not display a gracious attitude toward it other than write without using, in my estimation, inflaming rhetoric.
Frank: I have also noticed that you have never refuted charges that you are universalistic in your soteriology and that you do not accept the Bible as the infallible, inerrant, supernatural Word of God.
Norm: Yes, it is no secret that I lean very heavily toward universalism, which I derive from scripture and theological reflection, and no, I am not interested in debating such with people on this forum. Been there, done that, and it only facilitates ‘civilly-challenged’ rhetoric; that is, it is a fruitless conversation to have with many SBC conservatives. And yes, I believe in the truthfulness of scripture and it being God’s word, but I reject inerrancy and do not accept that it is necessary for the former.
Frank: If my understanding of you position is incorrect, feel free to state exactly what you believe. Again, I am uncomfortable distancing myself from your theological position (or anyone else) because I may not have all the facts. I love for you to clear up any misunderstanding I have of your view.
Norm: You are partly right and partly wrong concerning what I believe.
Can we not turn this into a “let’s assess Norm as to his Christian status” and instead allow me to interact in a manner that is central to the purpose of this thread?
When it comes to soteriology, there is a big distance between the Calvinists and non-Calvinists, but I don’t perceive either on either side questioning the other’s inclusion as a brother or sister in Christ, except for a few, but their influence among the emerging generations in SBC is quickly waning. Christians can be wrong, but it does not follow that such necessarily negates their Christian commitment or inclusion in the community of faith. If one cannot accept such a comment from me, then accept it from William Thornton, for he has said the same thing.
I think it not odd, but rather important and good that people are raising issues as to what it means to say gospel, if the question is not raised as a way to further establish status quo. The church, not just SBC, but CBF, UMC, UCC, RCC, etc. is asking this question and such is the case given the state of the church here and abroad. There is a hunger for things religious and spiritual, but the formal baggage that has been attached to such is leaving many, many, many people cold to institutional religion.
I believe the Spirit of God is at work among many people and in many places, and I also see many in the SBC scared to death as to what that might mean. Notwithstanding statements to the contrary, pay attention to all of the wagon circling. But in time, current religious wagon masters that prefer leading using rutted trails will be less suited to lead the many seeking to follow after God’s Spirit over less travelled and ill-defined areas, the areas the poet tells us that makes all the difference.
These followers of Christ will have chosen a way of being that is more given to relying, instead, on God for direction and sustenance. God will be experienced afresh, and among these followers of Christ, new patterns of relationships will emerge, thus ensuring that justice will be less problematic within, and hopefully without, too.
To use biblical imagery, God’s vineyard is developing and evolving and if we wish to enjoy these new grapes, we might rethink some of our institutional wineskins.
Norm,
Thank you for clarifying your view of Scripture and salvation.
It is clear that you do not hold to either a Biblical view of Scripture nor a Scriptural view of salvation. It is doubtful you hold a Scriptural view of Jesus Christ as the virgin born Son of God.
It is also clear that it would be impossible for you and I to converse because while I was trying to give your views and opinions the best possible setting, you attribute to my statements the worst possible motives–even when I state my motives in clear, unequivocal terms.
In regard to truth, there is no point of contact between myself and you. We speak a different language. We cannot even agree on the most basic truth: God’s Word is absolute truth without any mixture of error. Therefore, we cannot establish even the most basic platform for conversing–especially in regard to spiritual matters.
I certainly did not intend any “back-handed slap.” I was making genuine effort to seek a point of contact that we held in common that would allow us to discuss theology. Even when I state that I was being apologetic for even suggesting that you hold an aberrant view of God and the Bible, you took it as an attack.
At least our exchange has clearly defined our differences. I truly do not desire to be “offensive” to anyone in any conversation. Neither do I want to suggest that someone who holds an errant view of Scripture can at the same time possess an true and bona fide salvation.
I believe the latter requires the former–otherwise, salvation is simply subjective.
Again, I did not want to offend you eventhough I had a suspicion that you and I are certainly not on the same page theologically, nor even in the same book.
Well said, Frank.
Frank, perhaps you think that things you write are always as clear to others as they are to you? Again, while what you wrote was believed to be an unintended insult, it was still insulting. I don’t think anyone here would have thought your theology was the same as mine, but even those with differing perspectives typically have some point of contact.
Now in terms of theology. I don’t expect you will ever agree with me concerning universalism, nor is it my desire to refer to your view as aberrant; scripture supports more than one perspective, and should you not perceive this, then you have not been following the Calvinist – non-Calvinist debates in SBC. Yet, people on both sides of this debate at least perceive a need not to destroy lines of communication. But if you perceive that I am not one you can converse, I understand, but this side of the bridge is open to you if you change your mind.
Concerning inerrancy. Most in CBF are likely with the SBC non-Calvinist in terms of salvation and not with me, but most do not hold to inerrancy, thus in most CBF churches which are dually aligned with SBC, you have inerrantist and non-inerrantist working alongside each other in addition to worshiping together, thus when some SBCers say they cannot have fellowship with these people, but for many, many, many other SBCers, that is not the case. They do it every week and in very meaningful ways.
I understand why people hold to inerrancy, but it is interesting that with the scripture we have did not God use it to enact transformation in their lives? Does he not continue to do so? And we know the scripture we have is not inerrant, for no conservative SBTS or SWBTS professor will assert this, nor any knowledgeable person on this forum. Inerrancy refers to one thing: the original autographs, which we do not have. Whether inerrancy is true or not, with the scripture we have the gospel is clear: Jesus saves.
I do wonder if all others on this forum would agree with your statement which reads, “At least our exchange has clearly defined our differences. I truly do not desire to be “offensive” to anyone in any conversation. Neither do I want to suggest that someone who holds an errant view of Scripture can at the same time possess an true and bona fide salvation.” Unless you forgot to write “not” you have made quite an extraordinary statement. Unless William considers Leland (non-inerrantist and universalist) or Bruce (non-inerrantist) to be non-Christian or suspects that they might not be, notwithstanding Dave’s endorsement of your post, at least one other person on this forum will have a problem with this statement. Must the gospel include inerrancy? Will people be saved apart from this belief? And lastly, I assert Jesus as Lord. Is that not a point of contact between you and me?
2 Timothy 3:1-9 and 13 is descriptive of your current and only “point of contact” with the Bride of Christ or any local New Testament church, Norm.
I wish that was not the case, but it is. By your own personal testimony you describe yourself as an apostate. You do not simply lean to some obscure heretical doctrine. You have, by your own words, apostatized in relation to biblical Christianity.
OK. So I will attempt to “twitterize” the Gospel message without quoting just a verse verbatim:
God will do all that He has promised, so trust Him.
I’ll “twitterize it even more.”
God.
And I will agree with you in a way that will make Dave grimace. 😀
Do you know what happens when you analyze a beautiful snowflake in the palm of your hand?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It melts!
‘Kerygma’ doesn’t ‘analyze’ the Good News. . . it ‘announces’ it
🙂
Even unbelievers can preach the Gospel. People with bad motives can preach the Gospel (see Paul for details). If someone preaches repent, believe, confess, they are preaching the Gospel.
I think Benny Hinn is a deceiver and likely a criminal, and I have heard him give a terrific Gospel presentation.
If I and John Q. NonCalvinist both stand up on Sunday and preach that Christ came into the world to save sinners; that salvation is in Him alone, by faith alone, freely offered to all who will put their trust in him, how is that not the Gospel when I preach it and truly the Gospel when John Q. preaches it? How does my Calvinism negate that message?
This is way beyond whether Calvinists are too powerful in the SBC, or are trying to take over. Bob, you and Mr. Harrell are laying an outrageous charge at the feet of Calvinists.
bapticus hereticus: Apparently your concept of martyrdom is different from mine, notwithstanding the addition of self. I have had it relatively good and would not cheapen the sacrifice of martyrs for any sacrifice I have made. But I do seem to recall a passage in John where Jesus shared that the world hated him first, but I wonder what he would have said to those within the faith that experienced such from those in the faith. Goodness, he had that experience, as well; that is, many of his own failed to see his inclusion and legitimacy in the community, certain of their knowledge, limited as it was and being as cummings would suggest impressed with the bigness of their littleness. But really, CB, it is OK; if all I ever experience is slights from fellow Christians for speaking as I am able of God and things Christian, I am rather fortunate (in one sense), except for the fact that my sin and the sin of other Christians weaken the witness of the church in the world.
Dave,
The gospel is something different to every person. That is why it can be the good news for every phase of a persons life, including Christians. First, to a lost person, it can only mean one thing; salvation. Second, it means something unique to each person on a personal basis. “As each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.” 1Peter 4:10. The same grace that saved us is the same grace that we live by. Grace is the conduit of the gospel.
immersion ‘in Christ’ is a kind of a death of the ‘old self’ and a rebirth . . .
the term ‘born again’ may seem to be relatively ‘new’ on the timeline of Christian history, but there was a term used by the early Christians:
‘renatus’ which does translate to ‘reborn’ and corresponds with the Words of Our Lord . . . ‘ye must be born again’ . . .
the term ‘martyr’, as used by the early Christians simply meant ‘witness’. Many who believed in Christ were offered their lives in exchange for denying Him and worshiping the Emperor. But they chose Christ as ‘Lord’. And they died ‘witnessing’ to Him. Soon, because so many, so very many, went to their deaths through imperial persecution, these ‘witnesses’ who were killed redefined the term ‘martyr’ for us in a new way.
The early Church deeply respected their witness, which drew many more into the faith, a paradox because one would think that being slain for being a Christian would have driven people away . . . but it didn’t.
And the Church grew.
Something there was in the witness of those who died that spoke to the pagan world of that time of a hope in a life beyond death so strong that the fear of dying could not bring them to deny Lord Christ.
We must remember that ‘martyr’ means witness. And we must remember also that in the last century, the Twentieth Century, there were more Christian martyrs who died for the faith than in all the previous centuries going back to the time of Our Lord.
Don’t ever take ‘witnessing’ for granted. We can’t do that. ‘Witnessing’ has brought many Christian people to execution at the hands of evil. It isn’t over yet.
And don’t ever disparage ‘martyrdom’ . . . not when the reason for it was a love of Christ that refused to deny Him even in the face of persecution.
We mustn’t disparage that kind of ‘witness’.
I am reading this discussion and frankly shaking my head. It’s probably why I am no longer interested in debating SBC politics. I see how silly it is. This conversation is void of so many things. Arguing over what is the Gospel? Really?
The Gospel is good news. It is for unbelievers and believe it or not Christians need to hear it as well. Christ died on the cross to reconcile us to God. It has nothing to do with correct doctrine. It has everything to do with a changed heart, a changed life. Not a perfect life or perfect doctrine, but that we can come to God in our imperfection. We have access to God the Father through prayer because of what Christ did by fulfilling the law and the shedding of his blood on the cross as the perfect sacrifice. He is the great high priest, I don’t have to be the perfect human being. I don’t even have to have perfect doctrine correct. Belief in Christ and what He did for me on the Cross, His resurrection, His being alive today.
To have this be a Calvinist/non-Calvinist issue is simply ridiculous. It’s politics plain and simple. That’s all it is. I am Calvinist and I will be Calvinist whether you want to push Calvinists out of the SB or not. I am a born again Christian and according to scripture, the sign of a born again believer is to “love the Lord God with all your heart, soul and mind.” Not perfect doctrine. In fact this kind of mindset is what is leading to all the arguments over the years. But to love the Lord God with all our heart, soul and mind is a God thing. It is only done by the work of the Holy Spirit in transformation.
Thanks Debbie for returning. We were all lost without your direction.
BTW, the gospel is about a “correct doctrine.”
Also, this has actually been a great post, and, in general, a very positive comment thread. Why don’t you take off your sword and shield and read it? You might even enjoy some of it…..maybe.
And that correct doctrine is important. Because in recent memory, Southern Baptists have been told that:
We had lost the Gospel.
We had moved away from the Gospel.
We had moved toward the Gospel.
We are moving toward the Gospel.
We are moving away from the Gospel.
We are projecting the Gospel; misusing the Gospel; insulting the Gospel; and many others…
So there has to be answer of “What is the Gospel?”
Even if the answer is “Jesus Christ.” Because then we can say “Ok, the Gospel is Jesus. What does that mean? How do we know Him?”
Meanwhile, I get to talk to an 11-year-old tonight who wants to know how to be right with God and live for Him. That’s good stuff. I think I’ll tell her the Gospel 🙂
A-Men.
Perfect doctrine is flawed doctrine.
I agree with you here Bruce. We are flawed. We won’t have perfect doctrine till we are in heaven. I do not believe all truth is relevant, but in scripture. Our interpretation however is so many times flawed. Fortunately salvation has given to us by God is not based on perfectly correct doctrine but on faith in Christ.
Amen, Debbie.
Perfect doctrine is flawed doctrine. If it was perfect doctrine we would be called “Christian Robots”. One facet of a diamond and the manifold grace of God make it so. I see truth and you see truth and we agree upon it and yet it is so personal that it is unique and different than anyone else because the truth we see changes each one of us individually into the image of Christ. We make up the body of Christ and it is based upon each one being an individual (ourselves) in that body. It is a freedom like no other. It would be all of us that make up the perfect doctrine, not the perfect doctrine making us anything. Hope that makes sense.
” We make up the body of Christ and it is based upon each one being an individual (ourselves) in that body.”
Wrong. The Body of Christ is not based on each one being an individual…” The Body of Christ is based on the gospel, the perfectly sound, Holy Spirit reveal, biblical gospel.
And no, you comment does not make any sense.
“Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.” 1 Corinthians 12:27
Wrong? How do you interpret this verse differently?
cb,
Are you still typing? Your “wrong” was toward scripture, not me. Right?
cb,
I’ve noticed that when you are wrong you never reply. Your comment to me was absolutely wrong. That says something about you. You don’t know scripture and/or you are bias toward me personally. You must be a hypocrite.
Bruce H.,
I do reply. I reply over and over. Yet, you have no ability to understand. In order to make an effort to stay within Dave’s new guidelines, there comes a point when I must refrain from telling you the truth about yourself.
Nonetheless since you persist, I will say in this case; You are in no way right in what you have declared here theologically or biblically. Nor do you desire to know what is right. I assure you that your use of 1 Cor. 12:27 to make your point betrays a gross ignorance of the context of the entire passage.
In addition, such a gross ignorance of that particular passage in context presents a gross ignorance of the entire biblical revelation as a whole. You are a biblical and theological dwarf in your understanding of orthodox faith. Most every person who comments here knows that to be true. They are just more kindhearted (cowardly maybe) than me and so they do not express that truth to you as willingly as I do.
Thus, it is senseless for me to engage you very much. Yet, at times, I do engage you which is a really stupid thing for me to do. But, to my own detriment, I do stupid things from time-to-time. It is a character flaw on my part. Maybe the flaw on my part is the sin of vanity in thinking that if I keep trying long enough, I can make a silk purse from a sow’s ear.
So there, I have replied to your comment. Have a nice day and that will probably easy for you to do. After all, as the saying goes, “ignorance is bliss”……..and self-imposed ignorance is Utopia. So have fun at the top.
“You are a biblical and theological dwarf in your understanding of orthodox faith. Most every person who comments here knows that to be true.”
cb – I have never claimed to be a biblical and theological giant. One thing I do know is the bible is written so laymen can read it and comprehend it. If laymen have to depend upon the highly educated to tell them what the bible is saying in 1 Corinthians 12 about “individuals” and how they fit in the body of Christ there is a deeper issue with the person. They are either a new convert or they cannot comprehend what they read.
I wish one of those people who are siding with you would chime in on this point and set me straight. I am open to a clear and to the point answer. It should be obvious. Of course, you already had your opportunity to give the simple explanation but chose to condemn me. Maybe you didn’t read verse 31 where Paul said he would show you a more excellent way. Maybe he was leading into the subject of 1 Corinthians 13.
The best song I have ever heard even to this day concerning the Gospel is The Creed by Rich Mullins
I’m partial to the Third Day version, but that’s still a good song. 🙂
You two stop fighting. Can’t we all just get along?
Dave,
This smiley face “:-)” and this one “:-)” is about an inside joke between the two of us from yesterday.
_ _ _’_ back!! 🙂
No. Rock and acoustic can never mingle!
What are you, some crazy person that likes the Yankees?
Speaking of the Yankees,….Oh wait! Never mind. The Braves just won another one! That’s five in a row!!
Third Day may be good and all, but Rich Mullins’ version is far superior. Who else could have mainstreamed the hammered dulcimer? 🙂
Rich is my favorite artist of all time.
I do love some hammered dulcimer.
I have a string dulcimer made by my father. My sister and I used to play. I need to have it restrung. The dulcimer is a beautiful instrument.
“Oh Jesus friend of sinners, open our eyes to the world at the end of our pointing fingers…… break our hearts for what breaks yours”.
From “Jesus Friend of Sinners” by Casting Crowns
at the heart of the ‘gospel’ is the announcement that
‘The Kingdom of God is at hand’ . . .
“And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom: and healing all manner of sickness and every infirmity, among the people.” (St. Matthew 4:23)
and
“14 And after that John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
15 and saying: The time is accomplished and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe the gospel. . . ” ( from St. Mark 1)
The Gospel of the Kingdom of God . . .
After reading the many comments, is there any joint Southern Baptist ‘consensus’ as to a ‘definition’ for ‘the gospel’? Or does it remain somewhat elusive to pin down specifically AS A CONSENSUS for the Southern Baptist denomination.
I know what the Gospel of the Kingdom of God means in my own faith, but I am fascinated by the comments I have seen on this topic, and for now, I remain most deeply impressed with DAVID’s post, this:
https://sbcvoices.com/i-have-a-gospel-problem/
Is it possible that there might be some part of DAVID’s post that could serve as a ‘consensus’ for Southern Baptists? If so, what portion would people think would work, and for what reason(s). Thanks, if you can help. 🙂
Thank you for the link Christiane. This is exactly my point and I think this is one of Dave’s best posts to date.
Christiane,
The kingdom “was” at hand, but was rejected by the Jewish nation when they crucified their King. The Earthly Kingdom of God is not currently “at hand,” but will be one day soon. We are living in the “times if the gentiles.” The Kingdom will exist here when Christ returns to rule and reign in righteousness. A mis-guided concept of “the Kingdom” is common among those who have been tainted by Calvinism. This is reflected in the eschatology of amillennialism which is common among them.
Rev Kev,
You boldly stated:
“”””A mis-guided concept of “the Kingdom” is common among those who have been tainted by Calvinism. This is reflected in the eschatology of amillennialism which is common among them.””””
I’m am grateful that someone (you) finally has a complete and perfect understanding of Eschatology….WOW!!!!
You should come down from your crystal palace of correct theology and start a tent revival warning people of the antichrist and how they will miss the rapture if they don’t come down front and say a prayer.
please people, my questions were intended to seek understanding concerning what might be a ‘consensus’ of Southern Baptists about ‘the gospel’.
Sadly, I already know about the disagreements that have led some to disappointment and bitterness towards others. I don’t want to pursue that here.
I want sincerely to try to understand if, within David’s post (‘I Have a Gospel Problem’),
there may be something of a ‘consensus’ to be found concerning a definition of ‘the gospel’ that might be agreed upon by all Southern Baptist:
https://sbcvoices.com/i-have-a-gospel-problem/
Anthony, Your love is overflowing. PS – I do not and never have identified with Robert Schuller.
Sorry Rev Kev…
Good thing I didn’t say you were “tainted” with non-calvinism.
Oh, just now got the Shuller reference….that would be the crystal -cathedral-.
I should have just said Ivory Tower to avoid the confusion.
Kev,
Are you a dispensationalist? I ask because, as far as I know, John Darby, the father of Dispensationalism and Futurism, was a Calvinist who believed in infant baptism.
Yes.
So?
Your point is?
Rev Kev,
Can you not follow your own arguments? You said:
Since the father of Dispensationalism was a paedo-baptist, Calvinist it would seem that you should hold that Dispensationalism is also tainted by Calvinism. Therefore, since you are a Dispensationalist, at least one of your theological positions is also tainted by Calvinism.
Mark,
Darby was not a paedobaptist. Although he start off as an Anglican he became what we call a Plymouth Brethren a group who espouses believer’s baptism by immersion. You are right, however, that he was a defender of calvinism.
Good for him. Even a Calvinist can experience moments of truth (dispensationalism).
Rev Kev,
I would rather state it this way,
“An orthodox concept of “the Kingdom” is common among those who have been blessed by Calvinism. This is reflected in the eschatology of amillennialism which is common among them, as well as is postmillennialism (my view).” 🙂
What’s funny is how antagonistic and some times down right mean spirited “some” Calvinist get when you challenge their belief system. They either call you names or tell you how stupid they think you are (I’m referring to Anthony Clay).
Anthony and evin, this sniping exchange is over. You can discuss the topic or you can drop it. I should go back and delete your entire exchange, but I am too lazy to do that. But it stops now.
There is no need to speak to each other like this, and I believe it is wrong. So, stop it. If you wish to address the post and the issues, feel free. But insulting one another is over now.
I’m sorry. I apologize.
Something I heard today from Dr. James White. Rome cannot accurately represent the gospel, because… in Catholicism, there is no finished work at the cross.
That simple statement stopped me in my tracks and made me rethink and reevaluate “What is the gospel”!
There are quite a few things that James White and I differ from. The law and the Gospel is one area. I do agree with his statement but I do believe someone in the Roman Catholic church can be saved. There are several I know of. There I said it. 🙂 I do not believe the doctrine from the Roman Catholic church saves. But ….it’s faith in Christ, that saves us. But…someone can still be attending the Roman Catholic church and be a true born again Christian. Having heard the Gospel from someone and believing. I think some of you will be surprised at who is in heaven. Now I’ll leave you to your regularly scheduled debate.
Debbie, I can agree with your conclusion that some Catholics can be genuine Christians. The point is, that their stated soteriology does not include the finished work of Christ. It’s Jesus PLUS something and that is NOT the gospel.
Chief Kate: You and I agree, but it is not just Catholics, I will contend, just by the conversation on this thread as a good example, that many in the Southern baptist community do the very same thing, and you are right that is not the Gospel. It goes this way, for salvation, they will tell you that coming to Christ is the only way, which is correct, but then after salvation a morals list pops out that adds to the favor we already have with God through our faith in Christ. Don’t drink, smoke, cuss, and brag about the fact that you don’t. The list is rather extensive. So as I said pointing fingers isn’t necessarily a good thing when many are doing the very same thing. Adding to the finished work of Christ at the cross.
“””after salvation a morals list pops out”””
Aren’t we supposed to “add virtue” to our faith? Or, are you saying that salvation means we can do as we please?
I agree we should be careful about “finger-pointing,” but I also think that attaining and maintaining a correct theology is incumbent upon all believers.
Frank: The good news is that having Christ as our Lord and Savior, we are positionally holy. When God sees us he sees his Son. He sees Christ’s works and sacrifice in our place. Yes, we sin, but we are Holy Spirit led. We hate our sin. We don’t need moral lessons or constant reminding by preachers of our sin. But the beautiful thing is we are accepted anyway, we still have the same access to the throne, we are still favored by God because of who we are not what we do. This can be found in the book of Hebrews among other places.
“””We don’t need moral lessons or constant reminding by preachers of our sin”””
So, you are not only “positional holy” but actually sinless–is that what you are saying. You don’t need preachers pointing out your moral lapses because, apparently, you don’t have any.
I’m assuming your are a real fan of Joel Olsteen who never preaching against sin. I’m also assuming you are pleased with your present pastor who likewise feels no need to preach the “full counsel of God.”
I personally to not believe that “positional holiness” means “sinless perfection.” At least it doesn’t work out that way in my life.
I am truly thankful for the preachers in my life that did not shy from holding me accountable for “adding to my faith virtue.”
The good news is not that we can attain sinless perfection, but that Someone has already paid for our sinful imperfections. That to me is not a “license to sin” as Paul teaches in Galatians, but a motivation to battle my flesh to my dying day with the help of the Holy Spirit Who Indwells me.
Positionally sinless Frank. That is what I am saying. The great and wonderful thing about salvation and the part of the Gospel that keeps being left out. If you will read my statement Frank, we do still sin, we feel hate of that sin, we 1 John 1:9 that sin, but God forgave us before we even asked. Christ died for sin past, present and future. Preach Christ Frank. That is what the Bible is about from Genesis to Revelation. Christ. Watch people’s lives change without one morality lesson from the pulpit. Preach the beauty of Christ. Preach who we are in Christ. See the lovliness around you, not the black, dark which is no longer a part of a Christians life. No I am not fan of Joel Olsteen but I do believe in God’s grace, in the words “It is finished” that Christ said at the cross. Frank: Christians know what sin is. They are not ignorant. They do not know however who they are in Christ, what I have said above because all the time is spent preaching on sin that should be spent preaching Christ. That is the Gospel too Frank.
Frank: Olsteen preaches a prosperity gospel. That is not the gospel. The book of Hebrews, Romans, Ephesians, Galatians. We are new creations Frank. I believe in the Godhead and supernatural change. It doesn’t happen over night. But Philippians says that God will continue to do a work in us until heaven. The Holy Spirit is our guide, not the Law. So yes, we are free to do what we want in answer to your earlier question. Even more than we think we can be and do.
‘THEY THAT WAIT UPON THE LORD . . . ‘
As far as ‘obeying’ the moral imperatives of our faith, I think we MUST make effort to do it out of love for one another in the Holy Name of Christ. We ‘wait upon the Lord’.
We are asked to do the impossible . . . to live in a way that defies our own human nature . . . a way ‘far above’ what we could do on our own.
But the thing is, we can try and sometimes succeed
because we who are weak are strengthened by grace . . .
“Isaiah 40:30-31 (KJV)
Even the youths shall faint and be weary,
and the young men shall utterly fall:
But they that wait upon the LORD
shall renew their strength;
they shall mount up with wings as eagles;
they shall run, and not be weary;
and they shall walk, and not faint.”
Frank: Yes I am very pleased with Wade’s teaching on this. I would have you check his sermons with scripture and see it is not so. The person who has to worry about being condemned by God and feeling the wrath of God, the unbeliever, is the one who has no fear of God. None of this applies to those without Christ.
Debbie,
Not one person, not one, added or even hinted at a “morals list” on this entire thread. You can’t find one with a flashlight.
In addition, none of them stated, promoted, or even slightly hinted at the embracing of an antinomian lifestyle after conversion either.
In reality, all who have articulated a concept of the gospel with the exception of L’s and Norm have done well in doing so no matter their position on Calvinism.
Your chastisement of these people on this thread is totally unfounded, extremely judgmental, and highly hypocritical.
I have to agree with CB. I don’t think I’ve kept up with every comment on this thread, but I certainly haven’t seen any hint of a morals list come out in relation to the Gospel.
It wouldn’t even take a flashlight CB.
So Debbie,
Are you declaring that you have a better grasp and better insight of the biblical gospel than all of these people who have articulated a definitive understanding thus far?
Are you willing to state wherein their errors of understanding the gospel are exposed to your keen theologically trained mind?
Still waiting
That’s a pretty outrageous charge to make (“a morals list”) when you won’t back it up with any sort of proof. Where in this thread has anyone who correctly articulated the gospel (that of course excludes L’s and Nawm) done that?
I believe Frank and my conversation is indicative of what I am talking about in the above comments.
It most certainly is not indicative of what you’re talking about. Of course, when have you backed up any claim of yours with proof, right?
Oh and there is also the “correct doctrine” addition many Southern Baptists have added, again prevalent in this thread.
The Gospel is doctrine. When we preach the Gospel, we are preaching doctrine. Get that doctrine wrong and you get the Gospel wrong. The virgin birth is doctrine. The resurrection is doctrine.
If someone were to preach that God loves everyone and that Jesus died for everyone and that everyone will be saved, that is both a doctrinal error and a gospel error. If someone were to preach that people desiring to come to Christ cannot until they find out if they are elect, that is a doctrinal and a Gospel error.
Bill Mac,
You have mad the point and very well. Thank you.
Bill Mac,
the main priority of the Church was NEVER to preach ‘doctrine’,
but rather to offer Jesus Christ to the whole world
This is a false dichotomy. We offer Christ through the preaching of the Gospel, which is doctrine. It is not one or the other. They are the same thing.
Hi BILL MAC,
I don’t see Jesus Christ as a ‘doctrine’ . . .
a doctrine doesn’t rise from the dead,
or grab the hand of a drowning man who calls out
‘Lord, save me.’
Yes it is Bill. But I believe there is a lot of the Gospel being left out of this conversation and out of so many of our churches. The fact that we are no longer condemned, that we have full access to God even when we sin or mess up is being left out of the equation. I believe that Christ’s finished work on the Cross is left out of the Gospel message. The Gospel is much more than believe on Christ and be saved. The Gospel message is believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved and no longer be condemned, no longer feel the wrath of God, no longer be separated from God even though we are not perfect, we can still come to God, despite the fact that we sin, we have fellowship with God, that we are now led by the Holy Spirit to work where we please, live where we please, be all that we want to be to the Glory of God. We no longer work to please God because of the Cross and Christ’s finished work. we are loved by God and beautiful in his eyes because of Christ’s work not ours. That too is the Gospel.
To clarify “the yes it is” is in response to Bill and others saying that the Gospel is correct doctrine. But even more it is a relationship. By my saying correct doctrine, it means that no one has to understand other doctrinal truths perfectly in order to obtain salvation. That is adding on. And it doesn’t matter if one is a Calvinist or non-Calvinist, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian etc. It’s belief on Christ that is the way to salvation and so much more…..an abundant life free from trying to please God.
If the full extent of Christ’s work on the cross were realized, if free from the law and Grace were realized and taught there would be no more strife in the SBC, there would not be a power struggle or a Calvinist and non-Calvinist debate. There would be no hate in differences of belief we have in things non-essential. None of the stuff would have happened that has happened over the last 6 years, because it wouldn’t matter next to this most wonderful of truths. The full Gospel. John 8 is a great example of grace from God we as Christians have.
1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 “No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
Bill Mac,
That should have been: You have “made” the point.
I don’t think you are “mad” in the least. 🙂
Whew! Perhaps the question should focus on what the gospel is not. The gospel if not a theological system or an institutional structure. It’s not a platform from which to launch good works or a formula for righteous living. It’s not a creed, confession, teaching or tradition of man. It’s not even the Baptist Faith & Message!
The gospel is a living reality. Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The way is Jesus. The truth is Jesus. The life is Jesus. Jesus lived a sinless life, died on a cross, and rose from the dead … for forgiveness of sin and salvation of souls. “The Gospel of Christ … is the power of God which brings salvation to everyone who believes it” (Rom 1:16).
Dave,
I apologize that I did not read through all 193 comments. So if this has been stated please accept my apologies for being redundant. I went through a few but couldn’t make it very far.
You asked: “I’d love to hear a few people try to explain as best they can what it means to preach the gospel to yourself every day, to live a gospel centered life – what those common phrases really mean.”
For me I think there is a distinction between “the gospel” declared and “the gospel” lived out. The good news of the gospel is a simple declaration that (as had been mentioned previously) the kingdom of God is at hand. That’s expounded upon in various ways by the biblical writers. Perhaps the greatest summary being Paul’s in 1 Corinthians 15. Your question about “living a gospel-centered life” etc. I believe is saying something a tad different than 1 Corinthians 15.
In Ephesians 1:3-14 Paul is explaining for his audience the blessings that come from their reception of the gospel–their being transferred from darkness into light. In Ephesians 1:15-23 Paul prays for them essentially that God would move in their hearts in such a way that they could enjoy in present what He has already purchased (1:3-14). 1:3-14 would answer your first question “what is the gospel”. And I think 1:15-23 would in a sense answer your other questions.
This is already lengthy so to save time for those interested: http://www.mikeleake.net/2012/01/where-i-get-enjoy-what-christ-has.html
Reading all 197 comments here would be both harmful to your sanity and evidence that such does not exist.
Thanks for the link and the explanation.
Thanks a lot Dave! 🙂
Wish I saw this post earlier … Because I think this quote is important. Differences between SBC Calvinists and non-Calvinists are important, but insofar as we proclaim 1 Corinthians 15:1–4, we proclaim the same gospel.
The rest of this comment is the quote, which I have divided into multiple paragraphs to make it easier to read on a blog:
“The gospel is what we must believe in order to be saved. To believe the gospel is to put one’s trust and confidence in the person and work of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.
“To preach the gospel is faithfully to proclaim that historical event, along with the God-given interpretation of that event.
“It cannot be stressed too much that to confuse the gospel with certain important things that go hand in hand with it is to invite theological, hermeneutical and spiritual confusion. Such ingredients of preaching and teaching that we might want to link with the gospel would include the need for the gospel (sin and judgment), the means of receiving the benefits of the gospel (faith and repentance), the results or the fruits of the gospel (regeneration, conversion, sanctification, glorification) and the results of rejecting it (wrath, judgment, hell). These, however we define and proclaim that, are not in themselves the gospel.
“If something is not what God did in and through the historical Jesus two thousand years ago, it is not the gospel.”
Graeme Goldsworthy, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics, 59.
Sorry for the mistake in the quote. The sentence that states, “These, however we define and proclaim that … ” should read: “These, however we define and proclaim them … “
Actually, God does love everyone. And He did die for the “whole world” (if we believe what the Bible actually says about it)
But not all who hear that Word of gospel will come to faith. Some will…many will not. Not because God doesn’t love them. God desires that everyone come to faith. Isn’t that what the Bible says?
The big mystery that we are stuck with, is why some hear the gospel and believe…and why others do not. This side of Heaven, we will never know the answer to that one. But that is God’s business, so I guess we’ll just have to trust that He knows what He is doing.
Very good document outlining the fundamentals of the gospel:
The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration
http://www.lifeaction.org/static/uploads/media/pdf/revive_magazine/the_gospel_of_jesus_christ.pdf