It never ceases to amaze me that people hate the Gospel. It is, after all, good news. Too many don't think so ... even self-professed Christians. Apparently, they define "good" in a different manner than God does ... than Jesus does. Because the Gospel as presented in Scripture in general and by Christ in particular isn't good news at all to so many.
It isn't someone's "tradition," some denominational preference, some human construction that says, "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Matt 7:13-14). It isn't some misguided Paul or anyone else. It's Christ. The words of Jesus. Jesus said many will enter destruction. Jesus said few will find life. But, they tell me, if that's true, it's not "gospel" -- it's not "good news." "The good news," they tell me "is that God forgives everyone." Well, that certainly sounds nice, but ... it's not what Jesus said. Jesus said He came to be a ransom for many, not all (Matt 20:28). That requires that not all be ... ransomed. God claimed, in fact, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay" (Deut 32:35; Rom 12:19; Heb 10:30). Doesn't sound like, "It's okay; everyone gets out of jail free." Jesus warned that "many" will believe they are His servants, but be removed from His presence because He never had a relationship with them (Matt 7:22-23). That's Jesus, not Paul, not Baptist tradition, not some false interpretation. According to Paul, it is God's will to display His power and wrath on vessels of wrath prepared for destruction (Rom 9:22). That, God believes, is good. It's also good to display the riches of His glory on vessels of mercy (Rom 9:23). That, too, God believes, is good.
It's interesting that Paul wrote, "I am not ashamed of the gospel" (Rom 1:16). It's interesting first because he felt he had to make the declaration. Apparently there were those who thought he should be. And why was he not ashamed of the Gospel? I mean, if Paul believed not everyone was saved, shouldn't he be ashamed? Paul was hated for the gospel. Shouldn't he be ashamed? No. Because the gospel is not a "feel good" message. It is "the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes" (Rom 1:16). Because "in it the righteousness of God is revealed" (Rom 1:17). God's righteousness is first revealed in God's wrath against sin (Rom 1:18-21). The Gospel, then, is first good news because it is about God and His righteousness. If God and His righteousness are not good news to you, then, the Gospel is not good news to you. That doesn't mean it's not good news. It means there are those who are hostile to God (Rom 8:7) and don't know "good" when they see it (Mark 10:18; Rom 3:12). The Gospel is not good because everyone sees it and everyone benefits. It's good because, first and foremost, God's righteous is revealed in it. Not everyone is going to think that's good. That doesn't make it not good.
10 comments:
People can only see it as good news if they first understand the bad news. Too often we see our sins as not as bad as the good things we do, and as long as our good outweighs our bad, God will grade on a curve. Until we realize that the prerequisite for being in the presence of God is perfection and that even the mildest sin is an assault on the holiness of God, the good news will never really matter.
You have presented your “argument” in such a reasonable way that I personally don’t see how anyone at all familiar with the Bible’s contents can argue with your premise with any intellectual honestly, as these very clear truths come straight from God’s Word, rather from your own imagination. “Like it or lump it. Take it or leave it.”
My argument is that "good news" doesn't require 100% agreement for it to be "good news." One sinner saved is "good news."
I'm not sure they're concerned about "intellectual honesty" (I think you meant "honesty" rather than "honestly"). Usually the opposition doesn't think it "seems" right or "feels" right.
Yes, I meant to type “intellectual honesty.”
I was thinking along the lines of someone rightfully acknowledging that, “yes, the Bible does say that, so I should not insist that it does not (even though I dislike the fact that it does).” In other words, one’s personal distaste for a universal truth does not negate the validity of it.
It's been my experience that most people reject the doctrines of grace, not out of intellectual rigor, but because it makes them feel bad.
Yes, David, but not just the "doctrines of grace". In this case, if God actually punishes sin the way God actually says He does, God is an evil being because ... sin just ain't that bad. Or, to put it another way, if sin is as bad as God says it is, it makes them feel bad ... like you said.
It is very likely that my experience has differed from David’s, as I’ve observed plenty of arguments/discussions about God, Christianity, “one true religion,” “Jesus is the only way to God,” the authority of the Bible, etc., strictly from an intellectual angle (many right here at this blog!). (My personal Christian journey began in Princeton, NJ, a place with highly intellectual people of many belief systems, so perhaps my experience was slanted that way.) My follow-up comment did include the aspect of “it makes them feel bad” when I mentioned one’s “dislike” and “one’s personal distaste” for the claims of Christ. I believe that both intellectual and emotional responses are relevant factors.
My experiences have been "intellectual" at times, but, when examined, without reasoning. They make arguments (sounds intellectual), but the reasons have no backing.
Very well said, Stan!
Post a Comment