Category Archives: Evangelism

Neutralizing Evangelicalism

Posted by Dan C. on

Here are a couple of excerpts I found here.

“Bible-believing Christians would do well to beware of the New Evangelicalism for four valid reasons.

  • First, it is a movement born of compromise.
  • Second, it is a movement nurtured in pride of intellect.
  • Third, it is a movement growing on appeasement of evil; and
  • Finally it is a movement doomed by the judgment of God’s Holy Word.

Strong language, this? Let us face the facts.”  William E. Ashbrook – 1958 (John E. Ashbrook’s father), The New Neutralism.

“I believe that the mainspring of new evangelicalism is found in three determinations of its founder which may be clearly traced in the state of things today.

  • First, new evangelicalism determined to reject Biblical separation.
  • Secondly, new evangelicalism determined to find acceptance by the world.
  • Thirdly, new evangelicalism determined to add the social gospel to the Scriptural gospel….”  John E. Ashbrook – 1992, New Neutralism II

I  found the entire text of New Neutralism II online here. It’s an interesting read. In this post, I am not taking a particular stance, but am merely sharing the main points, which I find worthy of serious consideration.  The author’s conclusion reads in part:

“My grandfather, on whose farm I spent my summers, used to drill corn with a one row corn planter. One spring he had a young mare called Nellie pulling his planter. Nellie panicked and ran away with the planter. When she had finished her fling, she ended up where she began, and Grandfather finished the job. After the corn came up, we could stand on the hill overlooking the field and trace Nellie’s adventure. A great circle of corn was imposed on the orderly rows. When my father began his Evangelicalism: The New Neutralism in 1958, new evangelicalism was ten years old. As I write these lines in 1992, it is forty-four years old. After ten years it may be hard to see where a movement is going. After forty-four years it is easy to see where it has been.

Early in this book I stated that the mainspring of new evangelicalism is to be found in three determinations of its founder. First, new evangelicalism determined to reject Biblical separation. This determination removed the fences God had ordained to protect the church. From the hilltop of history it is easy to see that new evangelicalism, like Nellie, has traced a great circle back to the fellowship of apostasy The heroes of the 1930’s led their followers to separate from apostasy New evangelicalism has led back into the apostasy their forefathers left. Worse still, the reformation has been vitiated, and the Pope is ready to welcome the wanderers home. The doctrinal fence which kept the charismatic movement in another pasture has been rolled up. New evangelicalism is moving toward one flock, no matter what men believe.

…

Satan is building the one-world church of the end time.  . . . The effect of new evangelicalism has been to deliver much of this portion back to the devil’s program. Neutralism is an attack on Biblical obedience. When Biblical obedience is destroyed, it eventually destroys Biblical faith.

Secondly, new evangelicalism determined to find acceptance by the world. At first this was a craving for acceptance in scholarship and intellectual esteem. Soon that desire for acceptance moved on to culture, music and life style. The desire for acceptance has led to absorption into the world.

One of the key thoughts of new evangelicalism is toleration. That thought has led to the toleration of almost anything in the name of Christianity. Scripture does not say that God is tolerant, but it does say that God is holy. God said, “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world.” A craving for the world’s acceptance, even in scholarship, will displace love for the Lord. “If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (I John 2:15).

The third determination of new evangelicalism was to add the social gospel to the scriptural gospel. … Contemporary new evangelicalism has forgotten that distinction and set the saving gospel and the social gospel side by side as equally important. Since man is a fallen creature, the social gospel will win the day. Man is always more concerned with the needs of his body than with the needs of his soul.”

I find that last statement rather compelling. It might explain, in part, today’s evangelicalism’s intense me-centeredness, including the almost exclusive use of temporal “blessings’ in much of our evangelism.

Another gospel?

Posted by Dan C. on

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel–” Galatians 1:6

Martin Luther’s commentary on the above verse states:

“When the devil sees that he cannot hurt the cause of the Gospel by destructive methods, he does it under the guise of correcting and advancing the cause of the Gospel. He would like best of all to persecute us with fire and sword, but this method has availed him little because through the blood of martyrs the church has been watered. Unable to prevail by force, he engages wicked and ungodly teachers who at first make common cause with us, then claim that they are particularly called to teach the hidden mysteries of the Scriptures to superimpose upon the first principles of Christian doctrine that we teach. This sort of thing brings the Gospel into trouble. May we all cling to the Word of Christ against the wiles of the devil, “for we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”

Within the Galatian church, the false prophets to whom Paul referred were those who would add to the sufficiency of the gospel of grace through faith. Luther, like Paul, was concerned with the adding of works to the principles of faith. Paul’s clear teaching is that adding ‘works’ to grace is ‘another gospel’.

When we look around at the landscape of American Christianity we can find, even today, examples of adding works to the principles of faith in the matter of the salvation of the soul, as well as in the matter of the assurance of our salvation. In contrast, a far greater danger today might be what has been taken away from the teaching of the gospel rather than what is added. Gone, for the most part, is clear preaching and teaching concerning the problem of sin (before and after salvation), along with the adjacent topics of wrath, judgment to come, and the spiritual warfare faced by every believer as he/she works out their salvation with ‘fear and trembling’.

Without mentioning specific examples of today’s popular ministry methods, here’s the question/food for thought: Are omissions from the gospel as preached and taught in Scripture, for whatever reason, examples of ‘another gospel’?

Does God So Love the World? – John MacArthur

Posted by Dan C. on

This is the beginning of an article by John MacArthur.  

“Love is the best known but least understood of all God’s attributes. Almost everyone who believes in God these days sees Him as a God of love. I have even met agnostics who are quite certain that if God exists, He must be benevolent, compassionate, and loving.

All those things are infinitely true about God, of course, but not in the way most people think. Because of the influence of modern liberal theology, many suppose that God’s love and goodness ultimately nullify His righteousness, justice, and holy wrath. They envision God as a benign heavenly grandfather-tolerant, affable, lenient, permissive, devoid of any real displeasure over sin, who without consideration of His holiness will benignly pass over sin and accept people as they are.

Liberal thinking about God’s love also permeates much of evangelicalism today. We have lost the reality of God’s wrath. We have disregarded His hatred for sin. The God most evangelicals now describe is all-loving and not at all angry. We have forgotten that “It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Hebrews 10:31). We do not believe in that kind of God anymore.

We must recapture some of the holy terror that comes with a right understanding of God’s righteous anger. We need to remember that God’s wrath does burn against impenitent sinners (Psalm 38:1-3). That reality is the very thing that makes His love so amazing. Only those who see themselves as sinners in the hands of an angry God can fully appreciate the magnitude and wonder of His love.

In that regard, our generation is surely at a greater disadvantage than any previous age. We have been force-fed the doctrines of self-esteem for so long that most people don’t really view themselves as sinners worthy of divine wrath. On top of that, religious liberalism, humanism, evangelical compromise, and ignorance of the Scriptures have all worked against a right understanding of who God is. Ironically, in an age that conceives of God as wholly loving, altogether devoid of wrath, few people really understand what God’s love is all about.”

The entire article can be read here. Just scroll down to the article section after the radio broadcast options. The article presents a very balanced view of God’s love and wrath, while focusing on the need for presenting a balanced view of the love of God to all whom we desire to reach with the Good News of Christ.

News Flash!!!!! We Humans Are the Center of God’s Universe!

Posted by Dan C. on

Some time ago a man with whom I work commented to another co-worker that the God of his church (one of the two major categories of the Christian church) was more of the kindly grandfather sort than the God spoken of in the past. The other major category, or at least a large section of it, would have us believe that God is SO passionate and SO loving that He sent his own Son to die a bloody death on a cross, just so we can be with Him in the Heaven.  After visiting an average church in this category, an ‘unchurched’ person could easily come away thinking that WE are the center of God’s universe! And of course that is what the ‘unchurched’ are supposed to believe!

After years of reading and studying the Bible I have never been able to find that concept within its pages – until yesterday, and by accident! I was driving to work and I heard the host of a local Christian radio station offer the following uplifting quote:

“Mostly what God does is love you.” Ephesians 5:1

What a revelation! With all that God has to do with running the universe, what He does MOST is sit around in Heaven loving ME!

Actually, that wasn’t my immediate reaction. My first thought was, “Gee, I don’t remember that…is it really what Ephesians 5:1 says?” I looked it up and here is what I found for Ephesians 5:1-2 in several translations and a modern paraphrase that is used by many as a translation:

“Therefore be imitators of God as dear children. And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.” – NKJV

“Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” – NIV

“Therefore, be imitators of God as dearly loved children and live in love, just as Christ also loved us and gave himself for us, a sacrificial and fragrant offering to God.” – NET

The above are just three of the translations I researched, but all of the translations were remarkably similar. Here are the same verses from what many consider a translation. In fact, one wildly popular author has prefaced quotes from this version of the Bible with “The bible says. . .”:

“Watch what God does, and then you do it, like children who learn proper behavior from their parents. Mostly what God does is love you. Keep company with him and learn a life of love. Observe how Christ loved us. His love was not cautious but extravagant. He didn’t love in order to get something from us but to give everything of himself to us. Love like that.” – The Message

Please understand that I am not bashing The Message. I had not intended to mention the title, but copyright restrictions require that I do so. This post is about God – specifically, what we think about God. When I heard that quote, the thought that the main activity of God is to sit around in Heaven loving us just didn’t quite ring true. Maybe it’s just me, but that sort of God somehow seemed much smaller than the God I held in my mind and heart.

Does what we think about God make a difference in our lives and how we live out our faith? Does what the Church believes and communicates about God make a difference in the larger context of the Church’s impact on our culture? In answer to those questions I offer the following quotes excerpted from the first chapter of A.W. Tozer’s book, The Knowledge of the Holy. The chapter is titled ‘Why We Must Think Rightly About God’:

“The history of mankind will probably show that no people has ever risen above it’s religion, and man’s spiritual history will positively demonstrate that no religion has ever been greater that it’s idea of God.”

.” . .the gravest question before the Church is always God Himself, and the most portentous fact about any man is not what he at a given time may say or do, but what he in his deep heart conceives God to be like.”

“Always the most revealing thing about the Church is her idea of God, just as her most significant message is what she says about Him or leaves unsaid. . .”

“Our real idea of God may lie buried under the rubbish of conventional religious notions and may require an intelligent and vigorous search before it is unearthed and exposed for what it is.”

“It is my opinion that the Christian conception of God current in these middle years of the twentieth century is so decadent as to be utterly beneath the dignity of the Most High God and actually to constitute for professed believers something amounting to a moral calamity.”

“The heaviest obligation lying upon the Christian Church today is to purify and elevate her concept of God until it is once more worthy of Him – and of her.”

Readers and friends of this blog, I don’t take this matter lightly. If my grieving heart over this state of affairs is genuine and not self-deception, it is certain that the grief of the Holy Spirit of Almighty God is far, far greater.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO ACCEPT CHRIST?

Posted by Dan C. on

“Now if you were to ask the average man, the average preacher or the average person – the average Christian anywhere – “How do I come into saving relation to Jesus Christ?” the answer would be one of three. People would either tell you “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” — that’s Acts 16:31 or, they would say “Receive Christ as your Savior” — that’s John 1:12, or else they would give you this other answer. (And of course, those first two answers are true; they’re true!) Or else they would give you this third answer, “Accept Christ as your personal Savior.”

Now the word ‘accept Christ’ to the astonishment of a good many people does not occur in the Bible – it’s not there. What is it to ‘accept Christ’?”

The above is taken from an A.W. Tozer sermon. There are two parts to that sermon that can be found and read here. Just scroll down and you will see links to Parts 1 and 2. It is well worth the read!

What’s wrong with being ‘seeker’ sensitive’?

Posted by Dan C. on

Disclaimer: this post is not about any specific church, person, style of music, program, or any other contemporary methods involved in what is frequently called ‘doing church’. If you draw a similarity between the topic(s) discussed herein and any actual church you know of or are involved in, please do not accuse me of being hurtful, intolerant, or accusatory. However, do take it to heart, apply the Berean principle and be obedient to what God would have you do (or not do).

First of all, let’s say the principal of ‘seeker-sensitivity’ assumes that deep down inside everyone is seeking God, whether they know it or not. The purpose of being seeker-sensitive is to attract those who do not know Christ to come to church, hear about him and choose him.  By the way, I actually heard a sermon propose that to hear of Christ and NOT choose him is to go against human nature. Let’s see what scripture has to say about the ‘natural’ man:

“As it is written:
There is none righteous, no, not one;
There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.
Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit;
The poison of asps is under their lips;
Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.
Their feet are swift to shed blood;
Destruction and misery are in their ways;
And the way of peace they have not known.
There is no fear of God before their eyes.”  Romans 3:10-18

In the above reference, the Apostle Paul spoke specifically to everyone being in the same boat, Jews and Gentiles, NOT seeking God.  I’ll leave it to you to look up where “it is written”.

Now hear Paul again, to believers in Ephesus.

“And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.” (Ephesians 2: 1-30)

Here he tells believers they used to be just like everyone else, spiritually dead and as ‘natural’ men, objects of God’s wrath. So mucn for the ‘natural’ man.

Now let’s assume all men are ‘seekers’. Now that’s a perfectly sound statement. We are all seeking after something. Maslow would tell you the highest goal of ‘natural’ man is self-actualization. If you are unfamiliar with Maslow, the hierarchy of needs’ he developed is still the most prominent and accepted theory of human behavior. Pertaining to the ‘natural’ man, his theory is ‘spot on’, according to the Bible. We live for ourselves.

A couple of points here:

1.  Yes, all men are seekers, but NOT after God.

2. Those who do seek God, seek him because they were made alive by the Holy Spirit. (See John 4:44, 65)

If the above is true what does being ‘seeker-sensitive mean?

It means we are in the business of appealing to the spiritually dead who are only attracted to what pleases THEM, and what pleases them isn’t God.  We end up using worldly gimmicks and methods because that’s the only way they’ll come. That, my friends, is ‘self-centered’ church and dishonors God.

On the other hand, if we understand that only those whom the Holy Spirit has awakened from the dead will receive the message of the gospel, all we have to do is preach it!  The church doors are open to anyone who wants to enter, we preach the gospel in love (including sin, judgment and God’s holy wrath), awakened hearts hear their true condition apart from Christ, are drawn to the Savior, and God receives ALL the glory!

Is this really a ‘summary’ of the gospel?

Posted by Dan C. on

I found this statement on a blog I visit occasionally:

“I heard a sermon yesterday in which the pastor quoted from Abraham Lincoln to summarize the gospel:‘malice toward none, charity toward all.‘”

I asked the person who submitted the post if it was Abe’s Lincoln personal summary of the gospel, or what was considered by the pastor to be a good summary of the gospel. I asked out of curiosity, since whenever I hear the term ‘gospel’ used, I invariably am reminded of how the Apostle Paul ‘summarized’ the gospel of Jesus Christ to the church at Corinth (reemphasized, actually).

“Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.” (1 Cor 1-7)

Regardless of who considered that quote a ‘summary of the gospel’, the same question exists – is it really a ‘summary’, or a smaller piece of the whole – the ‘big picture’? After all, that sentiment can also be found in other religions and can be said to be the individual’s responsibility in response to/working out of his/her religion. Or, it can be just a good principle to live by and not be connected to ANY religion.

I’m not saying anything here to personally criticize anyone, especially the author of the comment that started me thinking about all the ways I’ve heard the gospel of Jesus Christ summarized lately, without a mention of sin, or with a wrong definition of sin (sin is just bad things we do occasionally or some unseen gulf between us and God). It’s a reminder to me that when I share the gospel with anyone, I need to include the ‘sin’, it’s proper definition as something the corrupted humans to the ‘uttermost’, and then God’s remedy – belief in His Son.

The Core of the Gospel Message

Posted by Dan C. on

The post below is from the site listed at the bottom of the article, and deserves attention. I commented on it at the bottom.

Did the Apostles use ‘God Loves You’ Evangelism?

The list below includes every instance of evangelistic preaching in the book of Acts, a summary of content, and an analysis of emphasis.

1. Pentecost, Acts 2:14-39

Peter notes the manifestations of the Holy Spirit that all had been witnessing, then ties them to the fulfillment of prophecy of Joel about the last days. He then preaches Jesus as the Messiah–attested to by miracles and by the resurrection which was prophesied by David–and the guilt of the crowd for the crucifixion.

The emphasis is on forgiveness of sin by Jesus the Messiah. There is no mention of God’s love or a relationship with Him.

2. Peter at the Gate Beautiful, Acts 3:12-26

After Peter and John healed a man lame from birth, Peter placed the blame for Jesus’ death on the shoulders of the listeners. He then appealed to fulfilled prophecy and told them either to believe and return and thus receive forgiveness and times of refreshing, or be destroyed.

The emphasis is on forgiveness of sin by Jesus the Messiah. There is no mention of God’s love or a relationship with Him.

3. Peter before the High Priest, Acts 4:8-12

Peter attributes the healing of the man lame from birth to Jesus the Messiah, whom the Jews had crucified, but whom God had raised from the dead. He quotes prophecy and says there is no other means of salvation but through Jesus. Peter then refuses to be silent about the Gospel.

The emphasis is on forgiveness of sin by Jesus the Messiah. There is no mention of God’s love or a relationship

with him.

4. Peter’s Defense a Second Time before the Council, Acts 5:29-32

Peter proclaims the resurrected Christ as Prince and Savior who brings forgiveness of sin and gives the gift of the Holy Spirit. He accuses the Council of putting Jesus to death. They are so infuriated they want to kill the Apostles. Instead, on the advice of Gamaliel, the believers are flogged and released.

There is no mention of God’s love or any kind of tender relationship with Him.

5. Stephen’s Defense before the Council, Acts 7:1-60

Stephen recounts the history of the Jews in which they constantly rebel, rejecting God’s deliverer. He accuses the Jews of being stiff-necked, resisting the Holy Spirit just as their forefathers had. He accuses them also of betraying and murdering the Righteous One, the Messiah. They are so filled with rage they murder him.

Emphasis is on the guilt of the Jews. There is no mention of God’s love.

[Note: When God speaks to Saul about his future during the events surrounding Saul’s conversion (Acts 9), there is no mention of an intimate relationship, only that Paul would suffer much for the sake of Christ.]

6. Peter’s Message to the Household of Cornelius, Acts 10:34-43

Peter talks of the ministry of Jesus, His miracles, death on the cross, and resurrection. Peter tells the Gentiles it is his job to solemnly testify that Jesus is the One appointed by God to judge the world, that Jesus’ coming was prophesied, and that belief in Him brings forgiveness of sin.

The emphasis is on Jesus, the prophesied Messiah who either brings judgment or forgives of sin. There is no mention of God’s love.

7. Paul’s Message to the Jews in the Synagogue at Pisidian Antioch, Acts 13:16-41

Paul preaches Jesus as the anticipated Savior, affirmed by John the Baptist, crucified by the Jews, who rose from the dead in fulfillment of prophesy. Paul then proclaims forgiveness of sin and freedom from the Law for all who believe.

Paul proclaims Jesus the prophesied Messiah crucified and resurrected. His emphasis is on forgiveness amidst warning.

8. Paul at the Areopagus in Athens, Acts 17:22-31

Paul discloses the nature of the “unknown God,” One who is responsible for all creation, and in whom we all depend for our very existence. He calls all men to repent, because God has appointed a judge, a man who has risen from the dead.

Emphasis is on the nature of God, and the reality of judgment. There is no mention of relationship or God’s love.

9. Paul’s Defense before the Jews in Jerusalem, Acts 22:1-21

Paul gives his testimony, detailing his persecution of Christians motivated by his zeal toward God, his conversion on the road to Damascus, and how his sins were washed away in Jesus’ name. When he mentions his mission to the Gentiles, however, the Jews protested violently.

Emphasis is on Paul’s personal encounter with Christ, his own forgiveness from sin, and his subsequent mission. There is no offer of personal relationship with God or mention of God’s love.

10. Paul’s Defense before the Sanhedrin, Acts 23:1-6

Paul says he is on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead. There is no mention of the love of God.

11. Paul’s Defense before the governor, Felix, Acts 24:10-21

Paul establishes his innocence regarding the Jews’ charges, then affirms the Law and the Prophets and the general resurrection of both righteous and wicked, a belief for which he says he is on trial.

There is no mention of God’s love or even of forgiveness.

12. Paul before Felix and Drusilla, Acts 24:24-25

Paul speaks of righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come which frightens Felix who then sends Paul away. There is no mention of God’s love or of a personal relationship with Him.

13. Paul’s Defense before the Agrippa, Acts 26:1-29

Paul gives his testimony, noting the importance of the resurrection. He tells of the commission Jesus had given him, proclaiming the Gospel with a goal of deliverance from Satanic darkness to receiving forgiveness and an inheritance from God. Paul claims his message is the same as the prophets regarding the Messiah’s suffering and resurrection.

Emphasis is on the resurrection of Christ, prophetic fulfillment and forgiveness, and Paul’s responsibility to preach the Gospel. There is no mention of love or a relationship with God.


The love of God is never mentioned
a single time in the entire book of Acts.

1999 Gregory Koukl. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only.
For more information, contact Stand to Reason at
1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333 www.str.org

_______________

I don’t think the author is saying is that we cannot/should not speak of God’s love when we share the gospel, but it is intended to show the primary emphasis of the Apostles’ evangelism efforts. Of course God loves us, the greatest expression of that love is His death in our place on the cross of Calvary! When Paul deemed it necessary to clarify the gospel message to the church in Corinth, this is what he told them:

“Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.” (1 Cor 15: 1-6)

That God loves us in inherent in the death of His Son for our sins. When the realization of sin dawns upon the person whose heart has been awakened by the Holy Spirit, and that person is told that God sent His Son to die for his/her sin, the love of God FLOODS the heart without a single word spoken! To speak only of God’s love thinking that we do the drawing instead of God (John 6:44), and to omit the ‘sin’ issue is to leave out one of the two main points of the message (Christ death and resurrection) on our behalf.

What is Evangelism?

Posted by Dan C. on

I suppose if you did one of those ‘man on the street’ type things and asked the question “What is evangelism?” you would get a wide variety of answers, even if you were outside Any Church, U.S.A.  If you were outside a church you could ask a follow-up question after receiving a definition of evangelism something like “How are you contributing to the evangelism effort?” Here is a good definition of evangelism published in the Banner of Truth magazine over 30 years ago that still holds true today.

“Evangelism is not a making of proselytes; it is not persuading people to make a decision; it is not proving that God exists, or making a good case for the truth of Christianity; it is not inviting someone to a meeting; it is not exposing the contemporary dilemma, or arousing interest in Christianity; it is not wearing a badge saying “Jesus Saves!”  Some of these things are right and good in their place, but none of them should be confused with evangelism. To evangelize is to declare on the authority of God what he has done to save sinners, to warn men of their lost condition, to direct them to repent, and to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.” (John Cheesman, The Grace of God in the Gospel [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1972], 119)

Using the ‘contextualization/need to adapt to the culture’ excuse for leaving 3/4 of the ‘good news’ is NO excuse! The ‘believe in Jesus’ is about all that’s left in the modern evangelical gospel. Man’s lost condition without Christ has not changed, the effect of sin has not changed, the need to repent has not changed.

We need only declare/proclaim, in fact that is all that we are asked to do – tell it. When we tell it and God has opened ears to hear, eyes to see and awakened a dead heart, true salvation follows – a work of God, not man. Even faith to believe is a precious gift. Ephesians 2:8-9.

The First Word of the Gospel?

Posted by Dan C. on

There is a subject that isn’t broached much these days from the pulpits of many or our evangelical ‘seeker friendly’ churches. Whoops! Did I say ‘pulpit’? I meant ‘stage’. We got rid of pulpits along with the church steeple, crosses, all organs and most pianos. But I digress. Back to the subject at hand.

You know, I can’t remember the last time I heard a sermon message about repentance. I guess it’s too closely connected to that other uncomfortable topic, ‘sin’, which in turn could remind you of that dreaded “J” word (that would be ‘judgment’).

The question I have about all this is this – If the gospel message is about Christ dying for our sin and his subsequent resurrection, how can we call a message ‘the gospel’ if sin and repentance aren’t even touched upon? Granted, while Paul did not use the word ‘repent’ in his summary of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-5, it is implicit in Christ’s death for sin. Sin MUST be dealt with and the only thing to do with sin is repent (turn from it and turn to God)! We also have some pretty good examples in the New Testament that demonstrate a fairly high priority on the subject of repentance to the gospel.

In those days John the Baptist came into the wilderness of Judea proclaiming, “Repent,  for the kingdom of heaven is near.”  Matthew 3:1-2 (The beginning of John the Baptist’s ministry)

From that time Jesus began to preach this message:  “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.” Matthew 4:17 (The beginning of Jesus’ ministry)

So they went out and preached that all should repent. Mark 6:12 (The twelve disciples, sent out by Jesus)

Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:28 (Peter preaching in Jerusalem after Pentecost)

“Therefore, King Agrippa,  I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, but I declared to those in Damascus first, and then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea and to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God,  performing deeds consistent with repentance. Acts 26:19-20 (Paul before King Agrippa)

It appears that rather than omit the topics of sin and repentance from our gospel message that they should be of the highest priority!

I would submit to you that if we think we are sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ and we omit the issue if sin and the need for repentance, we are deceiving our listeners. If our intention is to lead the listener to a decision for Christ without dealing with sin, but to bring it up at a later time, we might be con artists guilty of a spiritual ‘bait and switch’.