H. Richard Niebuhr wrote in his book, The Kingdom of God in America, that typical liberal Protestant theology offers "A God without wrath brought man without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross." It is pretty accurate. That's what they claim. We "sin," sure, but it's not that bad and God's not mad and we're going to be alright. I hear it from folks who "take a high view of Scripture" while they delete all the references to the magnitude of sin, the wrath of God, and the work of Christ on the cross. In our efforts to ease the tension between "God is love" and "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men," we toss out all reason and say, "There, we made it all better." But if God is not angry and sin is not bad and Christ didn't really accomplish much on the cross, tell us again why we should go to your church? I can get this "positive thinking" stuff from any decent psychologist.
"The gospel," they tell us, "is not good news at all if it isn't good news for everyone." Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? But, hang on. Think about it. In simplified terms, if a doctor devised a cure for a horrible disease, would that be good news? Why would anyone answer "yes" if it only was good news to those who had the disease and not to those who didn't? "Good news" does not require a universal application to be good. And, going with that fine doctor and his cure, what if someone who had the disease refused the cure? It surely wouldn't be good news for him. Well, you might look at it that way, but his refusal to accept it doesn't make it less good, does it?
Scripture is clear. God loved the world in this way: He sent His only Son to die on our behalf so that whoever believes in Him will have eternal life. That's as broad as it gets. It's not even limited to my fictional doctor with the fictional cure. It's available for everyone. But if there is no "bad news" -- if there is no wrath of God and no really serious sin, then, really, what good is it to tell me you have a cure for something that no one has? If Christ did not appease God's wrath (Rom 3:25) and did not redeem us by His blood (Eph 1:7), then what good is it? No wrath. No sin. No redemption. No good news. Contradicting the Gospel by denying what Scripture says is the bad news and removing what Scripture says is the good news does not make for a better gospel.
2 comments:
That Rob Bell quote you linked is all over there place. It seems like he wasn't really thinking about what he was saying, but feeling what he was saying. Rationally, it sounds like a bunch of nonsense. Then set it next to Scripture and the whole thing becomes heretical.
I always shake my head at the naivete of people who say, “_____ is fellowshipping with his old buddies in heaven,“ and name people like John Kennedy or Elvis Presley who essentially spat on the pages of the bible most days of their adult lives with their personal behavior.
Post a Comment