The Gospel -- that's what it's all about, isn't it? The Gospel is the primary focus of Christianity. It is our first and foremost message. We take that, by command, to the whole world. In fact, without the Gospel, we have no distinctives. Without the Gospel, we're just "another religion" among many religions with nothing much to say.
So ... what is the Gospel? The Gospel starts with an absolute necessity -- bad news. That bad news is that all of us are sinners. We have all violated God's commands. We are all justly worthy of Hell. Worse, there is nothing we can do to fix that. We can't be "good enough" to make it. We are sinners. We are damned. And nothing we can do will fix it. But then comes the Good News: God has made provision for this profoundly bad news. He sent His Son, God Incarnate, to be born as a baby, live a sinless life, then die for sins He didn't commit on our behalf. God Incarnate, Jesus, then rises again to seal the deal, defeating death and providing forgiveness for our sin. We have no ability to change things, but when we trust in Jesus's sacrifice on our behalf, we are given forgiveness. By faith in Christ's atonement on our behalf, we can have a right relationship with God. That is phenomenally good news.
We shouldn't be surprised that non-Christians find this good news unacceptable. Paul said they would (1 Cor. 1:18), so that shouldn't be news. What is surprising to me is the assault on the Gospel from within. It seems as if every time I turn around people who call themselves Christians are dismantling the Gospel as if they are doing God a favor. Oh, they don't call it that. They simply suggest they are expressing the truth. But in their expression of "truth", they cut the Gospel off at the needs.
Look around you. It's everywhere. How many Christians do you know that argue that human beings are basically good? There is a growing voice that denies the fundamental doctrine that says that all humans are basically sinful. And that doctrine of Hell, an eternal torment ... that one isn't real either, right? In an attempt to "set things right", people are arguing that the orthodox doctrine of eternal torment is a lie and all that realy happens is ... not Hell. Some say that it is annihilation -- you just cease to exist. Some say that there is a period of punishment followed by a move to Heaven. But eternal torment? No, that doesn't happen. There are those who call themselves "Christian" while denying the fundamental fact that Jesus was God Incarnate. There are actually pastors who argue that Christ didn't live a sinless life, didn't die for our sins, didn't rise again. "Christian scholars" argue that, while it was all a nice story, it is filled with myth and legend. Maybe He lived, but He didn't die on the cross. If He died on that cross, He surely didn't rise. Chances are, however, that if He did live, He lived on to be a father of a family that lived on. Come on. Let's deal with reality. And if we can see this reality, we can come to a nice, warm conclusion that perhaps we can get along with the Jews and Muslims and, well, any other equally valid religion.
And there, in a flurry of "truth", "Christians" have eliminated the Gospel. People aren't sinful. We don't need saving. Just be good and you'll be okay. There is no Hell. And Jesus ... if He lived, He wasn't the Son of God. He didn't die on our behalf. He didn't rise again. There is no atonement. That's okay because there is no need for atonement. God doesn't need that. The "good news", then, is that there is no bad news and no need for Christianity at all. Can't we all just get along?
Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing. We have no problem seeing that the world is against Christ. We expect it. Somehow, on the other hand, we believe that people who call themselves "Christians" like us are likely Christians like us even if they deny everything that is Christianity -- the basic message of the Gospel. Maybe you are wise to question various beliefs. Maybe you're wise to recognize when your beliefs contradict the Bible. We all find that to be the case from time to time. But please, please do not allow wolves to sneak in, pose as your friend, and steal your only hope. It is a lie, a lie we cannot afford to call "truth".
5 comments:
Thanks for this - you very accurately describe the problem.
I'm a little perplexed why so many Christians seem to deny this is happening. Especially given the fact that the Bible has so much to say in condemnation of false teaching.
Will,
Would you say that my explanation of the Gospel is accurate?
Yes.
Aside from anything else - Jesus specified that the Gospel was the Gospel of repentance and forgiveness for sins in His name.
The disciples who spread the Gospel interpreted it in that way.
Hey Stan,
I just found your blog and I like what you write. Concise, insightful, observant stuff, I think I'm hooked immediately.
I wanted to say, though, that you should pay careful attention to your own assumptions about what makes a Christian. Answering the question you asked Will, giving it a cursory examination, I would probably say, "Yeah, that's about right." Don't get me wrong, if I wanted to make labels I would label myself a "true" Christian, and I am keenly aware of the softening and deadening that our modern, "mature" relativism has wrought on the Gospel. I agree with your overall sentiment.
But--please remember that A) God uses Scripture to speak to people in different ways, and at different times, and B) There are some elements of our solid Christian theological model that are simply not solid in Scripture.
I say A) only to remind us all of Luke 6: "How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye?" My guess is that most of us (myself included, of course) take what little spiritual grounding, growth, and stability that we might have as qualification to lead, advise, and criticize others. And this is simply not always true. Get me?
With B), I'll have to apologize in advance because I could possibly simply be wrong due to a lack of research. But I think a good example of what I mean is the Trinity. It's just not described in Scripture the way we conceptualize it--am I right?
Another example, and the one that led me to make this commentary here, is the Hell that we describe. To my knowledge (and a quick check on Bible Gateway), there is nothing in Scripture that defines a literal Hell. How we've developed our current conception, or how Dante got his, is beyond me.
This is a racy point of contention, because of course you (or lots of Christians) could easily fire back: "If there is no literal Hell, then what on earth is your Savior saving you from?" A tough question for me to answer convincingly, save that since my conversion (which wasn't yet all that long ago) I've felt deeply convicted that the saving Christ did for me is from SPIRITUAL death in THIS life. In fact, to this day, I would say that the fate of my soul after death is only of the most marginal importance in my faith. It was never what God used to bring me to Him, and THAT is just my point. God speaks to people and molds our faiths in different ways.
Despite my weak views on Hell (and my continuing lack of desire to really research and settle the matter for myself), I feel very secure in my active, growing spiritual life, my real relationship with Christ, and bla bla bla--all the good things I could ask in my developing faith, I have sought and/or have been granted.
Sorry for jumping all over this and/or poorly organizing my argument. Hope it's sensical.
Hey, Ian, welcome. Always good to get positive feedback. (I'll admit it; at this point it's good to get feedback at all.)
A couple of points. First, I have to agree that we all need to be careful about calling "essential" that which isn't, and I've struggled with the concept for some time. I'm not even entirely sure what we mean by "essential". Essential to get saved? Essential to be saved? Beyond that, I know that my own theology has undergone massive corrections. So "essential" is precarious to me, so to speak, and I am a big advocate of the idea that I cannot be right all the time and I need to show charity in all cases.
On the other hand, I think what I stated was the Gospel in its bare, basic, essential form. The point of the post was that deviation from that bare, basic, essential Gospel eliminates the Gospel, and while we may discuss whether Hell is a physical place or not, I don't think any of those components of the Gospel are negotiable.
I have, in the past, discussed the topics of the Trinity and the topic of Hell. I've done some study on them because when someone challenges my view, my first response is "Hmmm, what if I'm wrong?" Of course, once I've been challenged enough and looked at it enough and thrown out my own ideas enough until I come back to the same ideas again with real reasons for them, I stop asking myself, but I've had to answer to my satisfaction those kinds of questions on the Trinity and Hell. If you'd like to see where I ended up, you can find posts (actually fairly recent) On Hell as well as a whole series on the Trinity including The Doctrine of the Trinity, various Christological heresies, common mistakes people make when they deny the Trinity, and what effect Constantine had on the doctrine (one of those very common mistaken assumptions people make). Some time ago I wondered "out loud", so to speak, whether it is possible for a person who knows the doctrine of the Trinity and denies it to actually be a Christian. (It was a question, which, if you read very long, you'll find I do a lot.) So I don't know that I'd agree that Hell and the Trinity are "questionable doctrines." I'll give you that I don't believe in a literal place where people are naked and sitting in fire like so many of the pictures like to display, but I can't bring myself to a mere "spiritual" thing or a brief punishment or an annihilation. They don't fit the Scriptures, and "fit the Scriptures" is a necessity for me.
I hope you enjoy reading and I look forward to further comments. You mentioned that I could "fire back" an answer. Rest assured ... my friends tell me that whatever else may be true of me, I am the king of the soft answer. I almost always have a smile on my face when I respond to people, including you, even if they disagree with me. No shooting here. :)
Post a Comment