There is a component of Christendom (that's my wide-range term) that argues that the "social gospel" is our primary task. The social gospel is good news to society: "God doesn't want you to be poor. We're going to work to make your lives better." That's narrow, of course. It would include the sick and the rest of the downtrodden, but that's the idea. It was, we are told, Jesus's main message. So I thought I'd take a look at exactly what Jesus did say about the poor.
He said the poor were blessed (Luke 6:20) which, if you take it at face value, would suggest that moving someone from "poor" to "not poor" would be a theft of a blessing. But He clarified in Matt 5:3 when He said that the "poor in spirit" are blessed, so that's a little different.
He told John the Baptist that "the poor have good news preached to them" (Matt 11:5). (See also Luke 4:18.)
The rich young ruler failed because Jesus told him to "sell what you possess and give it to the poor" (Matt 19:21).
When the disciples protested because a woman poored expensive ointment on Jesus's feet -- "This ointment might have been sold ... and given to the poor" -- He said it was a beautiful thing she had done because "You will always have the poor with you, but you will not always have Me" (Matt 26:11).
Jesus said that salvation had come to Zacchaeus's house when he gave half of his goods to the poor (Luke 19:8-9).
That's pretty much a comprehensive list of Jesus's statements on the poor, at least according to the concordance. And I think it largely sums up what Jesus wanted to get across. Let's see if we can consolidate it. First and foremost, above any care and feeding, the poor (like everyone else) need the Gospel. Not some social gospel. They need the good news about Christ, salvation from sin. I'm afraid that for many that gets ignored in their attempts to "advocate for the poor." Note, by the way, that this is highlighted in the event with Mary pouring ointment on Jesus's feet. Caring for the poor is important, but "the poor you will always have with you." More important is Christ.
Beyond that, what does Jesus indicate about caring for the poor? Jesus wants people who are His followers to give, to give generously, to give liberally. Followers of Christ ought to be noted for their generosity and charity in caring for people in need. We ought to feed the hungry and care for the sick. We ought to "invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind" (Luke 14:13) where we can minister to their needs. And while most of the charitable organizations these days are para-church organizations, I would have to say that a large number of the followers of Christ are not meeting this command from Christ.
Having said that, what I do not see is a "social gospel" concept. I don't see a command to advocate for the poor, to protest the conditions of people with less than others, to demand higher taxes or call on the government to handle these problems. Mind you, I'm not saying that we shouldn't advocate for people in need. I'm simply saying that, despite what I've heard from so many sources, I don't see any such command in Scripture, especially from the lips of Jesus. I don't see anywhere that Jesus stood against the government of the day to see that needy people were cared for. I don't see where He called on rich people to surrender their wealth to care for the poor. I see lots of commands to His followers to do that, but not to the public in general.
Look, let's face it, American Christians, we are not caring for "the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind" as we are commanded. We're falling down on that score, and we should correct it. No excuses. If you classify yourself as a Christian, a follower of Christ, it ought to be part of your godly practice to care for people in need. Jesus commanded it. We ought to do it. I'm not denying it and I'm encouraging it. I just don't see where Jesus was "the advocate for the poor", where our calling is to force corporations or private parties to give to the needy. I don't see a biblical command to stand against unbelievers for the poor and hungry, insisting that they are required to do what Jesus told us to do. We are the social gospel. We are to be the ones helping people in need. Requiring it of people who by nature despise God and reject Christ doesn't make much sense. And while it would be of benefit to them to help people in need, demanding it of others because we are commanded to do it isn't what Christ had in mind. Obeying was what Christ had in mind.
47 comments:
re: "That's pretty much a comprehensive list..."
In addition to your few verses, there are these...
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. ~Luke 4 (Jesus announcing THE REASON he had come)
Blessed are you who are poor...
Blessed are you who are hungry, for you will be filled...
WOE to you who are rich...
~Luke 6 (to write this passage off as only speaking of the poor IN SPIRIT - rich in spirit? - would be too hasty, as would suggesting that Matthew's take on it is a "clarification" of Luke's take)
What you did for the least of these, you did for me... ~Matt 25
"Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury." ~Mark 12
But when you give a banquet, invite the poor... ~Luke 14
The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried. ~Luke 16
"...So give for alms [to the poor] those things that are within; and see, everything will be clean for you." ~Luke 11
So it is with those who store up treasures for themselves but are not rich toward God. ~Luke 12
"Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." ~Matt 19
"Sell your possessions and give to the poor." ~Luke 12
More...
Consider also, Jesus' example (Jesus, in whose steps we are to walk who came, leaving us an example):
The son of man has no place to lay his head.
When asked to give taxes, he had no money.
When he sent the disciples out, he sent them only with their tunics and shoes, saying, "Do not acquire gold, or silver, or copper for your money belts, or a bag for your journey, or even two coats, or sandals, or a staff."
In the sermon on the mount (Jesus' single largest sermon found in the Bible and a fairly clear call of Jesus' intentions and teachings), Jesus reminded us NOT to worry about our clothes or food, but to be like the birds of the air and trust God; we are told to pray only for our daily bread; we are told to forgive those who are indebted to us (indeed, IF we forgive those who are indebted to us, God will forgive us, we are told); we are commanded NOT to store up treasures for ourselves here on earth; we are told that we can not serve both God and wealth.
We are told "Freely you have received, freely give..."
We see in Jesus' mother's own words that God will tear down the rich and powerful and lift up the poor and oppressed.
We see Jesus chasing out the moneychangers from the temple when they were cheating the poor.
We see a man whose life was largely identified by the poor and marginalized crowd with whom he associated.
We see Jesus going with his disciples while they walked through a wheat field (one not belonging to them) and freely helping themselves to the fruit therein (yet another of many echoes/references to the Sabbath/"taking care of the poor"/Jubilee rules of the OT).
In short, Jesus' teachings on wealth and poverty are far-reaching in the gospels and echoed in the books written by Jesus' followers ("Is it not the rich who oppress you?" and "Did not God choose those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom...?" James asks. "Come now, you rich, weep and wail over your impending miseries." James warns. "Be content with what you have," Paul teaches. Etc, etc, etc).
Jesus teachings on these topics come often and they are STRONG teachings. When Jesus tells folk to tell John that he is preaching to the poor, that is EVIDENCE that he is of God. When Jesus says to do unto the least of these, that is EVIDENCE that they were in the Kingdom. Repeatedly, the call to avoid the trappings of wealth and aid the poor are given as direct and clear evidence of being in the Kingdom.
I don't know many serious teachers who say that Jesus' MAIN teaching was on wealth and poverty, but clearly, abundantly, Jesus' teachings on wealth and poverty ARE CENTRAL teachings to the Gospel.
Agreed?
On the first comment ...
By "comprehensive" I meant "captured the main sense of". "Woe to you rich" does not capture the sense of Jesus and the poor. I included that we are to "invite the poor" (etc.). A story about Lazarus, the "poor man", does not tell us what Jesus thought about the poor. (The story is not about poverty.) Would you say that you have added thoughts to what I wrote or said?
On the second ...
Jesus said that the reason He had come was to assist the poor ... right? No, He came to proclaim good news. That's what He said.
You said, "I don't know many serious teachers who say that Jesus' MAIN teaching was on wealth and poverty" and then finished your thought with "Jesus' teachings on wealth and poverty ARE CENTRAL teachings to the Gospel." I'm not sure of the distinction between "main" and "central". But, it doesn't really matter because I do not believe that Jesus's teaching on wealth and poverty are central teachings to the Gospel. The Gospel is about salvation by grace through faith, not (and this was a main point of my post, so I don't understand why you would ask "Agreed?") "the social gospel".
One last comment.
On one hand, the aim of the post was to point out that we are too comfortable with comfort, to satisfied with wealth, and absolutely not caring enough for people in need. I think you would agree with that. Christians need to act.
On the other hand, with rare exception it is hard to find people who preach that we ought to be more like Christ by owning nothing, selling all our possessions, being poor, not acquiring wealth, etc. who are not richer than the vast majority of the world, owning much, not poor, and not acquiring wealth. When Al Gore diminishes his carbon footprint by a change in lifestyle, I'll consider the possibility that he is sincere about what he says. When the preachers of poverty acquire poverty themselves, I'll consider the possibility that they are sincere about their message.
I would have to disagree a bit with your concern about the level of charity by Christians or American Christians, whichever it was. I think it is more a matter of "we can always do better", more than that we don't do enough.
Our effectiveness, however, is extremely limited when our main course of action is to give more money. How many billions have been donated since LBJ's "War on Poverty" began and what is the result? Poverty still exists. There must be more to it than mere "feed the poor".
We may be limited in what we can do for the poor of the world, by virtue of logistics and politics and theft by those in power there, so donations might be the best we can do. I think our country in general does well on that score.
In this country, the poor can be helped by public policy, a constant debate between the left and their failed policies, and the right with policies meant to increase productivity and wealth for all.
And there also needs to be more pressure through speaking out against the very behaviors and habits that lead to or cement an impoverished existence. I recently read of a move to tie welfare handouts to drug and alcohol testing. I like this idea a lot. It is public policy that pressures people to adjust their lifestyles that keep them down.
To care for the poor in this country must be more than soup kitchens and food drives.
My point, I suppose, was down at a lower level. "Can we do better?" is not my question. "Am I acting in obedience?" is the aim. "Am I doing what Christ said to do?" I am fundamentally opposed to a "war on poverty" or the whole concept of ending poverty. Jesus assured us, "The poor you will always have with you." Couple to that the fact that we don't seem to have a clue what "poor" is, and I'm not thinking at all about what "we" can do.
Before the turn of the 20th century, there were no welfare programs. The poor were typically cared for by the church. The church doesn't much do that anymore because too many of us (I'm not excluded here) seem to think, "I've got mine; good luck with you and yours." The rich American church ought to be embarrassed by that attitude.
Stan,
I think about this whole issue A LOT. I feel like I have a heart for the poor...but I do very little to even feed them. Then I wrestle with "I need to share the gospel" with them so that I myself don't fall into just "social gospel" works. And again, I do very little.
My heart is (or so I thought) that I want to be involved in a ministry that feeds them spiritually (gives the gospel) AND takes care of needs. I'm tired of doing nothing...it's been a prayer of mine lately - funny, because God has been laying some very specific things on my heart as a result: He lead me to sell my reef tank, a hobby I love but costs $$$. At the same time he has been laying a particular church family on my heart that has lots of financial needs. It seems like a direct correlation, so I'm heading that way. Just wanted to share that with you...your post is a very timely one for me.
"My heart is ... that I want to be involved in a ministry that feeds them spiritually (gives the gospel) AND takes care of needs."
That appears to be the method Jesus employed. Heal the sick. Feed the hungry. Care for the needs and, oh, while I have you all here together, let me tell you the Gospel. It is the method that countless missions on various skid rows have used for a long time. Give them what they need so that they'll be able to hear the Gospel.
Of course, this concept (which I am saying positive things about) doesn't address the second category, the one most heavily on my heart. Taking the Gospel to people who need it via the means of meeting their needs is good. Supporting God's people who have needs as part of bearing one another's burdens is equally biblical.
Good you write about these things Stan. I don’t know what social gospel is, but if it is the ”come to the Father He has a lot of money” kind of ”gospel”, then it is really destructive, bringing people of the world into the Church and driving people not of this world away. The Gospel has nothing to do with money, even though walking with Jesus does. On one hand learning to share things with others, and I believe this is the main aim of ”selling your property”, and on the other hand in kind of Benjamin Franklin style: spendings make the difference not earnings, getting rid of foolish desires helps a lot to put finances right.
I am sure Josef did not get into prison in Egypt by chance, probably he had to get understanding about the poor, as prison is the ultimate bottom of the society. The richer one is the less sensitivity s/he has for the poor: understanding their thinking, main drives and constraints. There are things that can be understood only from inside, having real communion with people, I believe. I’m on the beginning of this learning curve so I should not speak much about this. What I feel, there is too much about the poor of the world, and not enough about communion within the Church, building the Church. Sometimes I feel there is no difference how outsiders are treated and how insiders...
Stan asked...
By "comprehensive" I meant "captured the main sense of". "Woe to you rich" does not capture the sense of Jesus and the poor. I included that we are to "invite the poor" (etc.). A story about Lazarus, the "poor man", does not tell us what Jesus thought about the poor. (The story is not about poverty.) Would you say that you have added thoughts to what I wrote or said?
I'd say yes, the passages I point to adds to what you've had to say about poverty as found in the Gospels.
I think that, when looking at what Jesus had to say about poverty that it IS equally important to look at what Jesus had to say about wealth. They are two sides to the same coin, so to speak.
WHY did Jesus command the wealthy man (and ALL his followers) to sell their belongings and give to the poor?
Why did Jesus command us to invite the poor to our dinners?
WHY did Jesus warn about the trappings of wealth and encourage simplicity of life?
Because that is the nature of the Kingdom of God on the one hand and because Jesus has an astute understanding of human nature and our foibles on the other.
In the Lazarus parable (or is that a literal story?), the story is not DIRECTLY about poverty, but it touches on themes of poverty and wealth. If Lazarus' socioeconomic status had been unimportant to the story, why would Jesus have included it in the story? Why would he have juxtaposed Lazarus the specifically-poor man against the specifically rich man? It says something about the Kingdom of God. Otherwise, it could have just been a story about some guy named Lazarus (with no mention of his economic status) and some guy named Bob (with no mention of HIS economic status).
James tells us God has CHOSEN those who are specifically poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom... This is an echo of Mary's proclamation about God choosing her and the ones who are poor and oppressed to be lifted up. This is a foreshadowing of Jesus' own declaration that he had come to preach good news specifically to the poor.
What it seems like you're missing is that there is a strong theme throughout the Bible that God is specifically and especially watching out for the least of these and that this is A central teaching of Jesus and the Bible. And the difference that I'm making is between saying Jesus' teachings on wealth and poverty are A CENTRAL teaching vs THE CENTRAL, or main, teaching of the gospel.
Because the gospel is ultimately a gospel of grace and of God's love for us and, especially, for the least of these, how we treat the least of these IS part and parcel of what living a gracious, loving life looks like and what living out the gospel looks like.
It is much easier to make the case that how we treat the least of these and our attitudes towards wealth and poverty are more central - that is, more emphasized, more important, more strongly taught - to the gospel message than an inerrant Bible is, or than a virgin birth is, or than one's take on atonement is.
If you're simply reducing the Gospel message down to, "It's all about grace," then I can agree with that. Grace IS THE central teaching of the Gospel. But it is not the only aspect of the gospel and I'd say it is entirely fair to say that how we treat the least of these is PART of the gospel message, because it reflects well on our notion of living in God's Kingdom by grace and mercy.
Miklos, the "social gospel" is a term given to those who believe that there is a strong biblical - and especially NT/Christian - emphasis in the Bible on reaching out to the least of these. They believe that siding with and for the poor and oppressed is a central Christian teaching.
It's not the same (not AT ALL) as the prosperity Gospel, which teaches that God wants us all to be rich. It's sort of the opposite of that, actually.
You asked if caring for the poor was central to the Gospel. I said it was not. Apparently you and I have a different definition of "the Gospel". If a central teaching of the Gospel (note that we're using a capitalized term here) is "God will take care of the poor" or, apparently, "we are to take care of the poor", then the Gospel has nothing to offer in terms of good news to the rich. And when Jesus went about preaching, His message wasn't "Good news! God will care for the poor!", but "Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand!"
Is caring for those who need help a central teaching of Christianity? If, by that, we are asking if this is something that all Christians need to do, then I would say it is. Indeed, it was the point of the post. We (rich American Christians) are not doing it enough. But I would heartily disagree that it was the central teaching of the Gospel. Paul was all about the Gospel, yet he said hardly a word about the poor or the wealthy. I would say that this is because it is not a primary teaching of the Gospel. Christians need to heed it. (I balked, if you noted, at the idea that it is even "a central teaching of Christianity", since that would imply that it is something that all should do. It is something that Christians should do.)
Since my post was about the fact that we are missing the strong biblical theme that Christians need to care for the needy, I don't actually understand why you think I'm missing the point that there is a strong biblical theme that Christians need to care for the needy. I didn't say it wasn't a key theme for Christians. I said it wasn't the main thrust of the Gospel.
Here, look at it from this direction. If I surrender all my possessions and spend my days working to meet the physical needs of the sick and hungry and devote my life to feeding and housing the poor and caring for the downtrodden, what have I accomplished? I've done a good thing, sure, but it isn't in being good to people that anyone is saved. And having a relationship with the living God where the current condition is eternal condemnation ... that is the primary message of the Gospel. You might call that "reduced". I call it "focused". Because eliminating the problem of the poor and hurting will not alleviate one bit the need to be saved by grace.
Stan...
If I surrender all my possessions and spend my days working to meet the physical needs of the sick and hungry and devote my life to feeding and housing the poor and caring for the downtrodden, what have I accomplished?
According to Jesus, IF you have done that, then you will have heeded his teachings and followed in His steps.
According to Jesus, IF you have done all that, then you have done that TO HIM.
I think, according to Jesus, you will have lived out His teachings.
I guess I am working on the assumption that Jesus taught the Gospel way. That Jesus' teachings ARE the Gospel.
Are you separating "the Gospel" from Jesus' teachings?
Matthew tells us...
Jesus was going throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness among the people.
The "Gospel of the Kingdom," seems to me to encompass Jesus' teachings. Jesus' specific teachings to aid the poor, to side with and work with the least of these. In context of the four Gospels, are you separating out grace from the rest of His teachings?
I guess we might reasonably ask, "What IS 'the Gospel of the Kingdom?'"
We see no where in the Bible where the term is specifically defined, I think we could agree. It translates simply as "good news." My understanding is that this is what the word meant to the people at the time. When Jesus spoke of the "gospel of the kingdom" being preached to the poor, he meant simply, the good news of the kingdom of God for all people, including and especially the least of these.
Ultimately, the Gospel is the good news that we are/can be/are being saved by God's grace, through faith in Jesus. But part of that good news is that we ARE BEING SAVED - present tense - by living lives of grace ourselves. By living lives of simple faith and reaching out to the least of these, we are being saved.
Stan...
But I would heartily disagree that it was the central teaching of the Gospel. Paul was all about the Gospel, yet he said hardly a word about the poor or the wealthy.
Ultimately, I look to JESUS' teachings to best clarify Jesus' teachings. I love Paul, but I always interpret Paul and the rest of the Bible through the teachings of Jesus, not the other way around. So, the fact that Paul doesn't speak as much about poverty and wealth as most of the other NT writers does not lessen Jesus' teachings.
I don't think we can see the many repeated teachings about the dangers of wealth, the call to live simply and with and for the least of these from Jesus and then set them aside as less important because Paul didn't mention them.
I'm sure you could agree with that.
Dan Trabue: "I'm sure you could agree with that."
No, not that or the rest of the position you take here, but thanks for commenting.
? I'm sorry. I don't think I'm understanding what you're saying.
You DO think that Jesus' teachings about how we should live are less important than Paul's teachings about salvation? That's what it sounds like you're saying, but I'd find that hard to believe.
Although, maybe that would explain some of our differences. That is, if you were less interested in Jesus' actual teachings and thought that we should interpret the teachings of Jesus through Paul, rather than the other way around...
But that would make you more of a "Paulian" than a Christian, wouldn't it?
For myself, Jesus first and foremost and always.
But I'm sure I'm misunderstanding you.
No, I'm saying that, as God Incarnate, since Paul's words are God-breathed, they are just as much the Word of God as Jesus's words. I don't pit one against the other. I interpret the whole as a whole. Further, Jesus's words about how we should live are about how we should live, but we're not talking about how we should live. We're talking about the Gospel. "How we should live" is not "the Gospel".
Now, I'm quite sure you're not saying that being good to people in need is part of the process of becoming acceptable to God. I'm sure you're not saying that.
The Gospel is about becoming acceptable to God. The result of that Gospel is how we should live. That's post-Gospel.
You keep saying "to the least of these". I do not think it means what you think it means. (sorry Princess Bride reference)
You keep saying "to the least of these" as a reference to the poor, but the only reference I can recall when Jesus said "to the least of these", He as talking about children, not the poor.
Stan made an example of selling all your possessions and living a life in service to the poor. I don't think you understood that he meant that in the course of doing that, you don't proclaim the Gospel, only that you live in that way. It is clear by your response to that comment that you didn't understand where he was going with that. If you live a godly life, yet don't preach the Gospel, what good have you done?
You then proceed to point out that Jesus did that as if its in opposition to what Stan said, when it in fact lines up with what Stan said. Live the godly life, surely, but preach and teach the Gospel as well, or its all for naught.
Perhaps we're not really saying anything different. I wouldn't put it the way you are. I think the whole thing is the Gospel. I think Jesus' teachings ARE the Gospel. I think Jesus' example IS the Gospel. The good news for the poor, freedom for the captive, healing for the ill.
I think it's all the Gospel, which can be summed up in Grace and Love and Forgiveness.
And interpreting the whole (including Paul) through the lens of Jesus' teachings isn't pitting one against the other. It is a Biblical hermeneutic. If we hold each line as equally important, then you have Jesus' teachings (for instance, you can eat shrimp) subservient to or equal to OT teachings (you CAN'T eat shrimp). Not every line in the Bible has equal weight. For we who are Christians, Jesus' specific teachings ought to hold more weight and serve as a lens through which we can better understand the whole (not pitting against, but bringing clarity).
I am completely confident in the teachings of my Savior to best clarify and explain the whole of the bible. I bet you are, too. (I hope so, anyway).
Anyway, all of that was to say that there are additional comments from Jesus on wealth and poverty and I'd encourage us all to consider the whole of Jesus' teachings and not write off his ethical teachings (ie, "THE WAY") as not relevant to the Salvation by Grace summation of the Gospel. It is ALL the Gospel, I'd say.
Peace.
Thank you Dan for your answer.
If I may still comment on this I would, just to cultivate some experimental thinking. If you don’t want it to appear here Stan just don’t let it through. : )))
After I made my previous comment I started to think about this topic, and actually, whatever extreme it may sound, I would state I do not see a single example in the Bible, where people of God donated people of the world. Prove me wrong. The only thing I know is the kings of Judah robbing the Temple and giving the treasures to foreign kings.
People who are not born into the Church, but come for material gain are called dogs in the Bible. They are the first on the list of John, stating who are out of the New world. Also Paul said we should keep away from them. By the way Paul cared a lot about the poor, and not only talked about that, but also acted really strongly to collect gifts.
All in all I am inclined to come to a conclusion, that Jesus was talking about the poor within the Church and not outside. The ”little ones” are who come in the name of Jesus. I see this as the only interpretation that is practically possible to implement. Not a cent outside the Church! The food of the Children is not to be given to the dogs.
If all the pain of poverty is not enough to break the hearts of people, I do not think money will, actually on the contrary, it will prolong their suffering (and drive them to hell as a matter of fact). I believe this is a completely consistent way of God throughout the Bible: Break the heart through suffering. When a status of broken heart is reached, then comes the uplifting love of God through providence in all needs abundantly.
Or is it just complete nonsense?
When you have power and you are rich, you do not know why people come to you, why they smile on you. Is it your power and money, or is it really You? It is a great advantage of being poor: The dogs will not bother you. Many who came to Jesus were just dogs, coming for bread, coming for healing, whatever. He was surrounded by them. When He ”lost” his power, the dogs left Him, or even worse, turned against Him. Sad, but this is the reality.
”16 For dogs have surrounded Me; The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me. They pierced My hands and My feet;” (Ps 22)
David said...
You keep saying "to the least of these" as a reference to the poor, but the only reference I can recall when Jesus said "to the least of these", He as talking about children, not the poor.
As far as I am aware, when most people reference the term, "the least of these," they are referring to Jesus parable in Matt 25...
"For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me...’
The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’"
The "least of these," then, is a reference to the poor, the hungry, the foreigner, the imprisoned... those who are marginalized.
At least, that's the way I most often hear the term used. I think one could reasonably include children in with "the least of these," but I'm not thinking of any specific passages that uses that term to mean children and only children. What passage would you be speaking of, David?
David...
Stan made an example of selling all your possessions and living a life in service to the poor. I don't think you understood that he meant that in the course of doing that, you don't proclaim the Gospel, only that you live in that way. It is clear by your response to that comment that you didn't understand where he was going with that. If you live a godly life, yet don't preach the Gospel, what good have you done?
I'm not sure that one CAN lead a Godly life and NOT preach the Gospel. As St Francis is attributed as saying, "Preach the Gospel. If necessary, use words."
I'm familiar with many fine traditional Christian ladies in my church growing up who helped those in need regularly, cooking up dinners for the grieving, visiting the sick in the hospital, giving a cup of cold water to the thirsty. Some of them never "preached the Gospel," never presented the Romans Road or tried to convert someone with their words, but they showed Godly love with their lives and actions. I am firmly convinced that they preached the gospel with their actions, which is by my way of thinking, a much more effective and real way to preach the gospel than trying to get someone to say the "sinners' prayer."
Do you disagree with this line of thinking?
I will note that, in the Matt 25 story, where Jesus has God separating the sheep from the goats, the ONLY difference between the sheep and the goats is what they did and didn't do. There is not a single mention of the "sheeps" preaching the gospel with words. Do you think Jesus was wrong to overlook this important point? Or is it possible that it's maybe not as important as how we live and treat the least of these?
David...
You then proceed to point out that Jesus did that as if its in opposition to what Stan said, when it in fact lines up with what Stan said. Live the godly life, surely, but preach and teach the Gospel as well, or its all for naught.
Brother David, I think if you look at the Bible, you'd have a hard time making your case. The OPPOSITE case is easy to make ("If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."), but making the case that sharing and caring with the love of Christ is all for naught? I'm not sure that a biblical case could be made.
Given some time to think it over, do you think that this is possibly a fair point?
Miklos...
All in all I am inclined to come to a conclusion, that Jesus was talking about the poor within the Church and not outside. The ”little ones” are who come in the name of Jesus. I see this as the only interpretation that is practically possible to implement. Not a cent outside the Church! The food of the Children is not to be given to the dogs.
Brother Miklos, I would have to respectfully disagree. Since you reference the "given to the dogs," I'm assuming you are perhaps thinking of Jesus' words to the (foreign) Canaanite woman, who was begging Jesus for assistance with her sick daughter...
[Jesus answered] 'It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.'
But she said, 'Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.'
Then Jesus said to her, 'O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish.' And her daughter was healed at once."
By our Savior's OWN EXAMPLE, we are to give to those outside of the Kingdom, that seems to me to be the message of the story (Here we have a outsider/foreigner making Jesus CHANGE HIS MIND! How impressive is that??)
Beyond that, we have teachings from Jesus like, "Give to the one who asks of you, do not turn them away," that makes no mention of distinguishing between those in or out of church, but is simply a blanket command: Give to those who ask of you. Period.
Or Jesus commanding, "But love your enemies, do good to them, and LEND TO THEM without expecting to get anything back."
Beyond that, we have the example of the good Samaritan, wherein a Jew is beaten and robbed and a HATED SAMARITAN is the one who reaches across cultural divides to aid HIS NEIGHBOR - a story wherein Jesus teaches us that "our neighbor" whom we are to love is really EVERYONE.
Beyond that, we have the example of the Early Church who gave as they had means to help "the poor" in general, not merely the poor within the church. Here are some quotes from the early church, including this quote...
"And instead of the tithes which the law commanded, the Lord said to divide everything we have with the poor. And he said to love not only our neighbors but also our enemies, and to be givers and sharers not only with the good but also to be liberal givers toward those who take away our possessions.” – Irenaeus, 130-200 AD
I just can't see a good biblical case to support ONLY giving to those within the church, and I see some pretty direct words AGAINST that. Given time to consider these words, what do you think, Miklos?
Miklos...
If all the pain of poverty is not enough to break the hearts of people, I do not think money will, actually on the contrary, it will prolong their suffering...
Or is it just complete nonsense?
I'm not especially impressed by money, but I AM impressed by solidarity and concern. I have lived in poorer neighborhoods my whole adult life and attend a church that is right there with the poor. I don't know much, just my experiences, but I can tell you what my experience has been...
If your church gives money or food or goods to help the poor in your neighborhood, they generally appreciate it, but it also shames them, that they find themselves in this position of needing to ask for assistance from strangers. Those folk tend not to come to church, NOT because they have been assisted (which they appreciated) but because they are ashamed.
On the other hand, if your church becomes PART of the neighborhood, living in the neighborhood, knowing the neighbors and their children and being part of their lives; if your church is in community with them - and when the poor in that neighborhood experience a problem, the church experiences the problem, too - and the church and the community work side by side on common needs and concerns, that is a church that makes a Christian difference in that neighborhood.
That's what makes sense to me. Beyond that, I think this is a reasonable position to draw from the whole of the Bible. From the OT (where Israelis were commanded to leave part of their fields for the poor and foreigners to harvest so they wouldn't starve, where it was expected that you would open up your home and food to the stranger/foreigner passing through) to the NT (where Jesus taught that everyone is our neighbor and that everyone was to be invited to the common table to eat - especially and specifically the poor, but with no mention of "ONLY the poor in the church...,")... I just see no biblical reason not to think that "the least of these" means any and everyone, not only those in the church.
Do you have any biblical reason to think that it should mean aid only those within the church?
From a practical standpoint, I understand that there is only so much that any one congregation can do. My little church of about 80 people simply CAN'T feed the world. We can't feed even the hungry in our city or even the hungry in our neighborhoods. I think we can see in the book of Acts that the early church faced the same problem - the needs were greater than the resources. But that doesn't seem to have stopped them from trying to do what they could do.
Oh, Miklos, here's one other passage that seems to directly deal with what you're speaking about. Paul, writing in Galatians 6 says...
Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith.
As we have opportunity, do good/help/assist ALL - especially (but NOT LIMITED TO) those in the church.
So, I'd say you have a point that we are ESPECIALLY to tend to the needs of those within the church, we aren't limited to that, but are to reach out, as we have opportunity, to ALL.
Seem reasonable?
Miklos,
Earlier you asked what "social gospel" meant and Dan gave an answer. Something didn't sit right (surprise), but I didn't respond. But now I've put my finger on it. Dan offered the following famous quote:
As St Francis is attributed as saying, "Preach the Gospel. If necessary, use words."
The problem with this, and I think David tried to bring it up, is that if you don't use words (i.e., just feed them) then it is all for naught. Yes, feed them but you must also preach with words the gospel, or else they cannot be saved. Sometimes the term social gospel is used to reference this kind of stuff...we, as concerned Christians want to feed and help the poor. But we may forget (or intentionally) omit that actual gospel they need to hear from our words. Dan referenced some ladies who helped a lot of people, and I'm glad for that...but I hope they also heard the gospel.
Anyway, I've heard "social gospel" to mean something like - such a concern with the welfare of others that we only take care of their physical needs...and not take care of the needs of their very soul.
Just a side comment here. Well, a couple.
While people really like that "Preach the Gospel" quote (which wasn't given correctly here), it is problematic. (The "quote" is actually "Preach the gospel at all times; when necessary, use words." Note the key difference. "When necessary." It will be necessary to use words if the Gospel is going to be preached.) First, St Francis didn't say it. At least, no one can find any record of him having said it. Some have claimed that it is a reflection of his life, but St. Francis was as well known for his preaching as for his lifestyle. Second, it makes no sense. It's like saying "Feed the poor and when necessary use food."
Yes, we need to live godly lives. Yes, we need to let our good works so shine before men that they would see our good works and glorify God. No, that's neither "the Gospel" nor "preaching the Gospel" any more than a pulpit and a church building is "a sermon".
Yeah, what he said! That is what I was also trying to convey to Miklos.
SF...
David tried to bring it up, is that if you don't use words (i.e., just feed them) then it is all for naught.
Again, I'd suggest you'd have making a serious biblical case for this. "ALL for naught?" Does that mean that you think that there is naught to be gained, no message sent just by the giving of cold water?
Understand, I'm not denigrating verbally sharing the Good News as found in the Bible. I love good preaching and gospel presentations and think they are grand and can be used mightily by the Holy Spirit. I'm just saying that if JESUS found it significant that "the sheep" gave to the least of these - even WITH NO MENTION of oral evangelism - that if it's good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me.
Recall again the story...
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world...
And WHY was God so pleased with these sheep? Read on...
For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
Not a single mention of "you preached the gospel of my atoning grace" or ANY mention of what they did or didn't say, just WHAT THEY DID.
Or recall James words...
What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.
cont'd...
Their FAITH and WORDS - with no actions - were DEAD. James was entirely comfortable claiming that one's faith can be SHOWN by their deeds. Again, no mention of words. You all seem to be suggesting that the gospel and one's faith CAN'T be demonstrated by one's actions. I am suggesting that I think the Bible teaches otherwise.
Again, Jesus' sheep and goats story is echoed in 1 John, where John writes...
Yet I am writing you a new command; its truth is seen in him and in you, because the darkness is passing and the true light is already shining.
Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness. Anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble...
Dear children, let us NOT love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.
Should we share the good news? Speak of God's grace by which we are all saved, of God's love for the least of these, of the love of God for the whole world? Of course we should. The story of God's love and grace in the here and now IS good news for a fallen people and that's something worth sharing. I'm just saying that there is a strong biblical witness to suggest that that love and grace can be LIVED OUT just as well as it can be spoken and, in fact, UNLESS it is lived out, then even the best words are just excrement.
Thus, I think suggesting that living that Gospel life (good news in action, in our deeds as well as words) is for naught comes a bit close to denying the power of God's love. It sounds like a dismissal of some of these teachings, but hopefully, given some thought on the topic, we can agree on this much:
UNLESS it is lived out, then even the best words are just excrement.
The difference between the sheep and the goats was that one set were sheep and the other set were goats. (Why do so many seem to miss that?) Jesus's message was that His sheep know His voice and follow Him. "Follow Him" means that they do what He says. And in this post I said that Christians need to take care of people in need ... like Jesus said. The sheep in the parable did that. The goats did not.
We appear to disagree on the aim and the effect. Jesus came to preach the good news (and, in the end, to be the Good News). If the Gospel (the good news) is to care for the poor, we have two very important conclusions. 1) There is no Gospel for the rich. 2) This Gospel is circular. That is, preaching the Gospel is doing good to the poor, and the Gospel is doing good to the poor ... oh, that just gets confusing.
Those who follow Christ need to take care of those in need. That's why I said, "Look, let's face it, American Christians, we are not caring for 'the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind' as we are commanded." This is a result of being a follower of Christ. It is not "the Good News". If that was the key component of the Gospel, then there are a lot of unbelievers who are really good preachers ... for something they don't believe.
Stan...
No, that's neither "the Gospel" nor "preaching the Gospel" any more than a pulpit and a church building is "a sermon".
You are free to your opinion, of course. I'm just suggesting that you can't make a biblical case that this hunch of yours is the one true hunch to hold.
My position is the Bible is quite clear that the teachings of Jesus have a strong emphasis on how we behave towards the least of these and that these teachings of Jesus are part of what makes up the Gospel of God's grace. The bible does not define for us anywhere "THIS is what is meant by the word 'gospel' when it is used in the Bible..., and thus, the term 'gospel' CAN NOT be rightly used to refer to Jesus' teachings..."
You simply can't make that case from a biblical point of view. If you want to hold to a hunch that says Jesus' actual teachings aren't ALL the good news of Christ, but only those parts of it which refer to salvation by grace in those specific terms is, hold to it. I can't prove you are mistaken, I just don't find it a compelling case to make.
Stan...
If the Gospel (the good news) is to care for the poor, we have two very important conclusions. 1) There is no Gospel for the rich.
For a man drowning in a ocean of greed, telling that man to let go of that greed and materialism IS GOOD NEWS, my brother. Doesn't that seem a reasonable conclusion?
It seems like VERY good news to me.
Stan...
2) This Gospel is circular. That is, preaching the Gospel is doing good to the poor, and the Gospel is doing good to the poor
I'm not saying "the Gospel IS doing good to the poor," I'm saying Jesus' Gospel teachings INCLUDES being in solidarity and community with the poor, aiding them and working with them.
Beyond that, your circular example seems like it would apply as much for you as it would for me...
Preaching the Gospel is teaching salvation by grace, and the Gospel is teaching salvation by grace...?
I'm not sure that I follow your point, there.
Again, see above for what I'm actually saying. I'm NOT NOT NOT saying "THE GOSPEL IS - AND ONLY IS - GIVING MONEY TO THE POOR." I have not said that nor do I believe it.
I've said that Jesus' Gospel message includes all that Jesus taught. Yes! We can be saved by Grace! Amen! But it doesn't stop there... YES! We are saved by grace! and that Grace-living can be found in releasing our wealth and that grace-living can be found in working with the poor, and that grace-living can be found in working to release the captives... This is ALL part of Jesus' gospel message, seems to me.
The Gospel of God's grace through faith in Jesus is a WAY, not a magic phrase to cling to. It's a way of living and an embracing of God's grace through faith in Jesus in whose steps we follow, by grace!
Seems to me.
Oh! Wait! I have an idea as to how we can get a bit closer to the bottom of this disagreement, if indeed there is a disagreement...
Would you all mind answering a few questions?
In the Gospels, we see frequently words such as, "And they went to preach the gospel..." or "they preached the gospel of the kingdom..." or words to that effect. Over and over, we see that Jesus and the disciples went out to preach "the gospel."
Agreed?
But "the gospel" is never defined. That is, within the four gospel books, it is never defined "they preached the gospel of the kingdom and THIS is what they said when they did so..."
Agreed?
But, while the Gospel writers never define "gospel," we DO have sermons of Jesus where we CAN see exactly what HE preached.
One (or two) of the greatest and most clear examples of these is Jesus' Sermon on the Mount/Plain.
Now, I wonder: Do we agree that these sermons ARE Jesus preaching the Gospel, or do you think this is something else?
For my part, I think we have no reason to believe that Jesus' sermon on the mount is NOT a representative example of the sort of sermon he would preach when he went out and preached "the gospel."
Do you think there is reason to conclude that this Sermon is not representative of Jesus' preaching of "the gospel..."?
If we agree that Jesus SOTM IS an example of him preaching the gospel, are there parts of it that you would say, "no, THIS is not 'the gospel'" and other parts where you would say, "yes, this IS 'the gospel.'"
For my part: If I have learned that Jesus went around preaching the Gospel, and I can SEE/READ one of those sermons, I tend to take the whole thing as part of "the gospel" which Jesus preached. You all appear to disagree with me making that conclusion.
Is that right? You disagree with my conclusion that Jesus' sermon - ALL of it - is part of "the gospel?"
I think maybe your answers to those questions might help define where we're parting ways, if we are.
Please, then, avoiding "hunches" and "guesses", give me the reference you are using that indicates that "the Gospel" is "feeding the poor". That should clear things right up. And it's available, too, I'm sure, since mine is a "hunch" without a "biblical case".
Your gospel appears to be that God will be nice to us and the goal is to become a nice person. Your gospel to the rich person would be "Give up what you seek and become poor!" (We're not touching on whether or not you practice such a gospel.) My Gospel is salvation by grace and it is to be preached. (That's circular?) (Come on, Dan, at least be reasonable. I never said that the Gospel was "teaching salvation by grace." You'll probably want to drop that silly line of disputation.) The Bible invests power in preaching the Word, but I don't see anywhere that it says that faith comes by being given a good meal. We are to care for those in need (something we seem to agree upon), but it isn't the Gospel. It is a platform, perhaps, but saying it is the Gospel is like saying that the way a car travels from Point A to Point B is by means of pavement. No, the pavement makes it easier, perhaps -- makes a good platform for getting from Point A to Point B -- but it's not the primary point. It's not the key element.
The Sermon on the Mount is certainly an example of Jesus's preaching. On what would you base the claim that He preached "the Gospel" on that occasion? Or is it your contention that all preaching is preaching the Gospel? But, no, that doesn't get to the point. On the Sermon on the Mount, did Jesus feed someone? Or did He speak? But, no, that's not even the point. If Jesus was preaching the Gospel on the Sermon on the Mount, then there is no good news. His sermon included a climatic "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt 5:48). That sermon wasn't about the good news, but about the problem of sin. That's not the Gospel.
I thought I'd do an "opinion poll", so I went to Google and asked, "What is the Gospel?" I opened the first 8 entries that answer the question. Here's what they said:
"Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you ... For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor 15:1-3).
"The good news of the Gospel is that Jesus lived a life of perfect righteousness, of perfect obedience to God, not for His own well being but for His people. He has done for me what I couldn’t possibly do for myself. But not only has He lived that life of perfect obedience, He offered Himself as a perfect sacrifice to satisfy the justice and the righteousness of God."
"It is all about Jesus, from start to finish. Jesus is the gospel."
"...Somehow and in some way the earliest Christians always seem to get at these four issues: We are accountable to the God who created us. We have sinned against that God and will be judged. But God has acted in Jesus Christ to save us, and we take hold of that salvation by repentance from sin and faith in Jesus."
"...the gospel is news about what God has already done for you."
"... The gospel is the joyous proclamation of God's redemptive activity in Christ Jesus on behalf of man enslaved by sin."
(Note: That first reference -- 1 Cor 15 -- was repeated over and over as the definition of the Gospel.)
Wow! Wow. Just wow.
I didn't think you'd really go there, Stan. The most famous sermon of our Lord and Savior does NOT contain a gospel message???!!
Man, it sure appears you've defined "gospel" so narrowly that not even JESUS H. CHRIST makes your cut.
Wow.
Man. Anyone else going there?
I must say, that is just astounding, Stan. I was not prepared for that, I'm a bit blown away. Wow.
I'll address your questions/comments in a bit, but for now, Wow.
Jesus H. Christ? I didn't know he had a middle name...actually, I've only heard that in instances where the person was taking the name of the Lord in vain. Wow, Dan...Wow.
Stan (or anyone else), are there ANY of Jesus' specific teachings/sermons that qualify as what you would consider an actual gospel presentation?
If not, then what do you think Jesus WAS teaching all those times that he went to "preach the gospel"? Are you guessing that it was something like Paul's, "For it is by grace that you are saved, through faith in Jesus..."?
On what would you base this?
Re: some of your comments: You said...
so I went to Google and asked, "What is the Gospel?"
And that is a fine approach to finding out what "most people" or "Google" thinks about the "definition" of the Gospel. But I was looking for more of a Bible-centered answer. Do you have some definition of the Gospel from a Biblical basis which insists on defining it only as "salvation by grace through faith in Jesus" and NOT expressed in any other way (as in the grace of Christ-centered living? As in the grace of freedom from materialism?)?
Understand, I am NOT disagreeing that the gospel is rightly understood as salvation by God's grace through faith in Jesus. I just see that grace being rightly expressed in a cup of cold water, or in the words of Jesus' actual sermons/teachings.
For instance, the gospel is the grace of God as expressed in the prodigal son story, agreed on that one? The gospel is the grace of God as expressed in the sheep and the goats story (I'm guessing we disagree on that one). The Gospel is the grace of God as expressed in Jesus' death on the cross. The gospel is the grace of God as expressed in the invitation to come unto God, all who are weary and heavy laden...
Any agreement on those?
Stan asked...
then, avoiding "hunches" and "guesses", give me the reference you are using that indicates that "the Gospel" is "feeding the poor".
It is MY HUNCH (and since "the gospel" has no definition provided in the Bible, it's going to have to be our hunches, right?) that Jesus' SOTM is an expression of the Good News.
Why? I've explained once, but to clarify:
1. We know from various texts that Jesus went around preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God.
2. We know that "the gospel" isn't defined specifically in any of those references.
3. But we DO have some of Jesus' sermons and teachings, thank God! And they all are very much in the vein of the SOTM, give or take.
4. Thus, it is MY HUNCH that it is not unreasonable to assume this is what Jesus' sermons looked like when he preached the Gospel of the Kingdom. The good news of the kingdom is that we are invited to be part of a new kingdom. It is an invitation by and through grace. It is an invitation to kingdom living, as spoken of in the SOTM.
Even if you don't agree with my conclusion, do you see how it might be considered reasonable to think that the sermons we actually have would be representative of Jesus' Gospel message?
Stan...
Your gospel appears to be that God will be nice to us and the goal is to become a nice person. Your gospel to the rich person would be "Give up what you seek and become poor!"
Funny. I've never said that, and yet it appears to you that this is what I think. Perhaps you ought to stick to what I've actually said. Like "The Gospel is salvation by grace."
You'll notice that I do not say that the "gospel is that God will be nice to us." what I DID say is that "the gospel is that salvation is offered to us by grace!" Notice the difference.
I did not say " Your gospel to the rich person would be "Give up what you seek and become poor!" "
Instead, I DID say that for the man being pulled down in a dangerous ocean, releasing that which is dragging him down IS a grace, it IS part of that grace by which we are saved. It IS a gift to release that which is pulling you down.
So, I'd suggest your first step in better understanding what I mean is to stick to what I've said, rather than trying to extrapolate beyond that. As to that extrapolation, no, it is not what I believe. Rather, I believe (as I've always said) in the good news that we are saved by grace.
Stan...
My Gospel is salvation by grace and it is to be preached.
Then we agree on the salvation by grace. But "being preached" is only one way in which that gospel can be shared.
Does that help explain my position better?
Thank you for this discussion Stan, and all. It was really inspiring for me, even if it may be stopped here.
I think the Gospel is perfectly defined. Jesus came to testify about the Truth, which is revealed through His sacrifice and resurrection. The Mount Sermon is about Christian lifestyle, and as such it is a fundamental teaching in the Bible, I believe.
The parable of the Samaritan, does not teach that everybody is my brother, it teaches, that my brothers are those who help me, who have mercy on me when in great trouble, no matter where they come from.
I have no doubt that you Dan and all who comment here would do that for me, it is really great, that you are my Brothers.
Perhaps it would help if I offered a clarification of my position: I'm not saying that each and every line in a sermon by Jesus can be classified as "good news." "Woe to you Pharisees, hypocrites that you are!" is not good news (at least not for the Pharisees - I'm sure it brought some small joy to those oppressed by the Pharisee's bad teachings).
But it's all part of the Gospel message. Jesus went town to town preaching the Good News of the Kingdom of God. Part of that good news is the news that God IS a God of justice and the Wrong will be held accountable. Part of that good news message is that we ALL are wrong, at times. And the punch line of the good news is, "but come unto ME all you who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest!"
Hallelujah!
Still, I'm suggesting it's all part of the good news message of salvation by grace. As is, "give to those who ask of you," as is "anyone who gives a cup of cold water to one of these little ones who is my disciple, will not lose their reward..." as is, "whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me."
It's all part of the good news message, the gospel of the kingdom, the good news of this new Way: a Way of freedom found in sharing and not hoarding, a Way of loving the least of these, a Way of Freedom from the trappings of wealth. Good news, indeed!
Does that help make my understanding of the Gospel more reasonable at all?
Would you say that even if a non-Christian lives a "godly" life, he is preaching the Gospel? If nonbelievers give to the poor, protect the weak, show love to all, do all the things you listed, would they also be preaching the Gospel? Or is there something more needed to be "preaching the Gospel" simply by action?
It's always lively when I let Dan say something. But, as usual, it has deteriorated ... again. I suppose I'll have to let him take another hiatus.
Here's an example. A key point in Dan's argument is the parable of the Sheep and the Goats. The key message of this parable is that the sheep and the goats are separated based on what they did or didn't do. Now, if this is "the Gospel", if this is a central message of Jesus's good news to Man, then we're all pretty much in trouble, because if we get into God's good graces by doing good to the least of these, we fail. If, on the other hand, it is a presentation of the difference of how the saved (sheep) behave as opposed to how the goats (unsaved) behave, then it's not the Gospel, but a warning to those who believe they are among the sheep and aren't.
Of course, when I point out that the former position is salvation by works, it is a misrepresentation of Dan's view. So it gets impossible to discuss. The biblical message of "Woe to the rich" is good news, but the biblical message of "Woe to you Pharisees" is not. So it gets impossible to follow.
I'd recommend we let it go. We won't be making any more headway on this than we have in the past. Finding out what a host of other believers think isn't viable. Knowing the historic view of the Church isn't viable. Listing the Scriptures isn't viable. I guess we're done here.
Stan, I am hearing that you want to quit and that's fine, but I REALLY hope and pray you will answer at least one unanswered question, because it's an important one and a very fair and rational one:
You have made what is, to me, an astounding claim: That Jesus' SOTM contains no gospel preaching. In your words...
That sermon wasn't about the good news, but about the problem of sin. That's not the Gospel.
Okay, fine. I'm not saying every single word uttered by Jesus was a gospel message ("The," for instance. Or "you have..." for instance). But I THINK we agree that the Bible is clear that Jesus DID go around preaching the good news of the kingdom of God, right? (it's hard to tell for sure because you so rarely directly answer my questions, another good reason to do so...)
And I THINK we agree that the four books of the Gospels contain many of Jesus' sermons and teachings, right?
Then, the entirely reasonable and very important question that I think you really ought to answer (maybe even devote a new post to it) is: WHERE in Jesus' teachings/sermons found in M/M/L/J, does Jesus actually preach what you consider to be a gospel sermon/message? Is there even ONE instance of Jesus' teachings that meet your criteria for a gospel sermon/lesson?
Could you please answer this at least in an email and, again, I think this is a serious question that you really ought to address here.
Do you understand how astounding it would be to many people to find out that you don't think the four gospels contain a single example of gospel preaching within all of Jesus' transcribed sermons?
Wow, Dan ... just ... wow! All the way from "I don't think the Sermon on the Mount was a message on the Gospel" to "you don't think the four gospels contain a single example of gospel preaching within all of Jesus' transcribed sermons." You do understand vast gap between "this one isn't" and "there are none", right?
As for Jesus on the Gospel, a quick an certainly not comprehensive list:
Matt 24:12-14; Mark 1:14-15; Luke 14:15-24; John 3:16-18; 10:1-18; 14:6.
Post a Comment