Category Archives: The Cross of Christ

The ‘Popular’ Gospel

Posted by Dan C. on

For some time now I’ve been listening for a genuine gospel message, or at least a hint that Jesus died for OUR SIN when I read popular Christian books and magazines, listen to popular pastors and teachers,  and even when I listen to contemporary Christian music. The intent in my ‘listening’ is not to intentionally look for false teaching or brand anyone a heretic or apostate, but only to hear how the ‘good news’ is being presented in our American evangelical culture. Here is some of what I’ve heard in the last few months being presented as as the gospel:

“God loves you so much He can’t imagine heaven without you. . .”

“Jesus would rather die than live without you.”

“God hugs us WITH our sin. . .”

“Jesus accepted you a long time ago WITH your sin. . .”

“The core of Christianity is. . .the news of ‘a God who is passionate about his relationship with you.”

“God sent his Son to die for us because he wants a relationship with us.”

“When the gospel is reduced to a legal transaction shifting our guilt to Christ and Christ’s righteousness to us, the gospel focuses too narrowly on a transaction and becomes too impersonal.”

Now compare any of the above statements with the Apostle Paul’s definition of the gospel:

“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.” – 1 Corinthians 15:1-5

What’s the difference between the ‘popular’ gospel and the Gospel Paul preached. . .and why does it matter?

Three Classes of People

Posted by Dan C. on

In his book about the wonderful grace of God, Good News for Bad People, Roy Hession proposes that there are three classes of people:

1. “The bad who do not know they are bad. The great majority of us, whether we are in churches or out of them, do not regard ourselves as bad. Whatever our lifestyle or conduct, we have found some way to justify ourselves. . . . The fact that he may be religious only reinforces his good opinion of himself.”

2. “Bad people who are trying to be good. Sincere as their trying to be good may be, whatever direction their efforts may lie, it is vain for such [people to hope that it is going to improve their relationship with God at all, or that it will greatly change their personal experience.”

3. “The third class is composed of the group in whom the Holy Spirit has done a melting work, the bad humbly confessing to God that they are bad and not pleading any extenuating circumstances. As far as they are concerned, there is only one person at the bar before God and that is themselves. When they take that stand they immediately become candidates for the good news Jesus has for them and for the grace that is greater than all their sin. For them, Jesus is the end of their trying and the beginning of all their finding.”

Much of today’s evangelism, with all of the pop-psychology that is now part and parcel of it’s presentation either ignores the real problem of sin, or speaks of sin as if it’s some non-personal entity that merely separates us from God. Jesus died to remove the gulf or cloud between fallen man and God (expiation) rather than died in our place (propitiation).

I would offer the question – Which is it, expiation, propitiation, or are there elements of both to be found in scripture?

It’s ALL About the Love?

Posted by Dan C. on

Lyrics in a popular contemporary Christian song offer this explanation of why Jesus went to the Cross:

“It was all about the love
That was bigger than a life . . .
‘Cause you would rather die
than to ever live without me”

I am in no way implying that Christ’s love for those God would give Him (See John 6)) was not one of the reasons He died for us. There’s a tremendous love element in Christ’s death for our sins! In fact there is NO GREATER LOVE!  But is it ALL about love? The song would have us believe that it is by telling us that Jesus would rather die than live without us, as if he’s some sort of love-sick teenager!

To the above lyrics and the ALL ABOUT LOVE theme that is so pervasive in contemporary music (and today’s evangelism), I have a something to say – There’s more!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OBEDIENCE held Christ to the Cross. Over and over again throughout the Gospels we find the theme of Christ’s obedience to His Father. The awesome perfection of that obedience was expresseed in the Garden of Gethsemane hours before His final suffering and crucifixion.

“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” Luke 22:42

OUR SIN held Jesus to the Cross. Christ bore our sins to satisfy the law of God.  God accepted His death as payment for our sins.

“But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed”.

“All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way: and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Isaiah 53 :5,6

“Behold, all souls are Mine; The soul of the father As well as the soul of the son is Mine; The soul who sins shall die.” Ezekiel 18:4

“The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”  Ezekiel 18:20

“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 6:23

To say ‘Cause you (Jesus) would rather die than to ever live without me” is not even close!!!!!!! That’s right up there with the sentiment expressed in “God sent his own Son to die because He (God) could not imagine His heaven without us!”

I cannot find that Jesus, or that God in scripture! Can anyone help me out here? What Jesus and what God are they talking about?

Is God’s "Unconditional Acceptance" a Biblical Concept?

Posted by Dan C. on

Some time ago I participated in a Bible study concerning the importance of knowing what we believe as Christians – a great subject! A major point of the study book and materials was the topic of “unconditional acceptance” – God’s unconditional acceptance of us and the need for our unconditional acceptance of others. We should accept others with all their sin and faults, because we know that God accepts us even with our sin. This has become the mantra of much of today’s evangelical church – the new gospel, if you will. But is it biblical?

Well, I can’t find in anywhere in the Bible, and believe me I did my homework. What I do find in the Bible is Christ’s death for our sin as the first point of the gospel message that Paul preached, among others. What the death of Christ in our place means is that God can only accept us through the shed blood of His own Son. Saving faith hinges on recognizing our sin, repentance and a wholehearted turning from it, not bringing it with us!

I found that “unconditional acceptance” became the centerpiece of humanistic psychology beginning in the mid ’50s.  It gradually invaded the church until the condition we have today that it is this ‘new gospel’ permits avoiding the sin issue in the proclamation of the good news, as well as the need for continuously confronting the sin in our lives and turning from it in the process of sanctification as we grow spiritually.

Did I pose a rhetorical question? You bet, as far as I am concerned! The myth of God’s “unconditional acceptance” of sinners is the greatest lie the enemy has ever fed the human race (especially the church), except for the original lie in the Garden when he hinted that we can be like God and the first couple bit.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, unless someone can offer solid scriptural proof that I am wrong.

Salvation Apart From Repentance?

Posted by Dan C. on

Is salvation apart from repentance even possible? I am not talking here of some agonizing exercise of dredging up every little sin ever committed in order to make a verbal confession of each and every one. I am speaking however, of recognizing one’s sinful wretched state apart from Christ  and a consciousness turning away from sin and toward God.

“The idea that God will pardon a rebel who has not given up his rebellion is contrary to the Scripture and common sense. How horrible to contemplate a church full of persons who have been pardons but who still love sin and hate the ways of righteousness. And how much more horrible to think of heaven as filled with sinners who have not repented nor changed their ways of living.

I think there is little doubt that the teachings of salvation without repentance has lowered the moral standards of the church and produced a multitude of deceived religious professors who erroneously believe themselves to be saved when in fact they are still in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity.” A. W. Tozer – The Root of the Righteous

There are those who would say that ‘repentance is an act, something one ‘does’, making it a work and therefore not necessary for salvation.  I have even heard on more than a few occasions and from various sources that you are accepted by Jesus and will be embraced by God “with” your sin. Such is the popular notion of “unconditional acceptance”, and what appears to be the modern definition of grace. Not only that, it is being preached as the gospel of Jesus Christ in churches all across America, not to mention ‘sold’ as the gospel in Christian bookstores filled with ‘spiritual junk food’ as the main fare.

Step right up! Come to Jesus!  NO repentance necessary! If you give up on sin later, that’s ok. If you don’t, that’s ok too! God loves you SOOOOOOOO MUCH he cannot imagine heaven without you!

My friend, the creator of the universe did not send his Son to die for our sins so that we could just drag them along with us when we eagerly raise our hand, walk down front, or sign a little card in order to have our ‘best life now’. God sent his own Son, literally ‘gave him up’, so that when faced with our sin, we would hate it, forsake it, turn to Him and live the rest of our lives for His glory!

Keeping first things first. . .

Posted by Dan C. on

The Apostle Paul probably ascertained some misplaced priorities within the church at the church in Corinth, for he had this to say to them in a letter written to them to point out that very thing – divisions and misplaced priorities.

“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 (died).” (1 Corinthians 15:3-6) (Emphasis mine)

The above verses are nearly always used to answer the question “What is the core of the gospel message?” I know I refer to them constantly when discussing the definition of the “gospel”.  Paul was a, in his own words, a ‘Jew among Jews’, with what some term the equivalent of several Masters degrees and Doctorate or two in his curriculum vitae. He nearly always preached in Jewish synagogues first before taking his message to his primary audience, the non-Jewish Gentile community. Wherever he went, his message revolved around the crucifixion of Christ and the work of God in reconciling men and women to Himself through that death and resurrection. More of Paul’s words to the same crowd. . .

“. . ., but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,” (1 Corinthians 1:23)

“For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 2:2)

Many times I’ve heard this sort of reaction to what Paul says is ‘of first importance’:

“So what? That was then and this is now. Just talking about God’s love and how much he wants us to find our special purpose and have our best life now is what attracts people to church. We don’t need all that sin and repentance stuff!”

If you ever get that, a reply to those objections just might be. . .

Well, you might be filling pews (and theater seating) with the ‘unchurched’, and pronouncing anyone who ‘makes a decision’ because they liked the show ‘saved’, but how many ‘newly churched/saved’ folk actually remain ‘unsaved’ because things ‘of first importance’ were not part of your marketing/advertising campaign to get them through the front doors, nor are they preeminent (and in some cases even included) in your preaching, stage presentations?

Something to think about. . .

So that’s what I was thinking about during my ‘morning’ time before I went to work today and during my drive to work. Pulling into the parking lot, I heard a Keith Green song that literally made my whole day. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

There is a Redeemer

There is a Redeemer
Jesus, God’s own Son
Precious Lamb of God
Messiah, Holy One

Jesus, my Redeemer
Name above all names
Precious Lamb of God
Messiah, O for sinners slain

Thank You, O my Father
For giving us Your Son
And leaving us Your Spirit
‘Til the work on earth is done

When I stand in glory
I will see His face
And there I’ll serve
My King forever
In that holy place

Evidence for the Resurrection

Posted by Dan C. on

Just a few quotes from scholars concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Those of us who believe already have no need for such things, but for those who think it a myth or fabrication, these might prove interesting and prompt further investigation. 

“After more than 700 hours of studying this subject, I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human beings–or it is the most remarkable fact of history.”

Josh McDowell

“I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . . “

E. M. Blaiklock
Professor of Classics
Auckland University

“There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias.”

Clark Pinnock
Mcmaster University

“If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.”

F. F. Bruce
Manchester University

“For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.”

A. N. Sherwin-White
Classical Roman Historian

“These three great facts–the resurrection appearances, the empty tomb, and the origin of the Christian faith–all point unavoidably to one conclusion: The resurrection of Jesus. Today the rational man can hardly be blamed if he believes that on that first Easter morning a divine miracle occurred.”

Prof. William L. CraigA. 
Talbot School of Theology, Biola University

There is also a record of an excellent debate between two distinguished scholars here.  I have no intent to persuade anyone of the fact of the resurrection, but it has long been a matter of some curiosity that although Christ’s resurrection is one of the most attested to events in history, so many do not believe. I can only surmise that this is due to the sad state of the ‘natural’ human condition of being in bondage to sin and in rebellion against the creator – until the ‘supernatural’ turning of the human heart toward God, and the wonderful miracle of new birth in Christ.

The Old Cross and the New – A. W. Tozer

Posted by Dan C. on

All unannounced and mostly undetected, there has come in modern times a new cross into popular evangelical circles. It is like the old cross, but different. The likenesses are superficial; the differences, fundamental.

From this new cross has sprung a new philosophy of the Christian life, and from that new philosophy has come a new evangelical technique–a new type of meeting and a new kind of preaching. This new evangelism employs the same language as the old, but its content is not the same and its emphasis not as before.

The old cross would have no truck with the world. For Adam’s proud flesh it meant the end of the journey. The new cross is not opposed to the human race. Rather, it is a friendly pal and, if understood aright, it is the source of oceans of good, clean fun and innocent enjoyment. It lets Adam live without interference. His life motivation is unchanged. He still lives for his own pleasure, only now he takes delight in singing choruses and watching religious movies instead of singing bawdy songs and drinking hard liquor. The accent is still on enjoyment, though the fun is now on a higher plane morally if not intellectually.

The new cross encourages a new and entirely different evangelistic approach. The evangelist does not demand abnegation of the old life before a new life can be received. He preaches not contrasts but similarities. He seeks to key into public interest by showing that Christianity makes no unpleasant demands. Rather, it offers the same thing the world does, only on a higher level. Whatever the sin-mad world happens to be clamoring after at the moment is cleverly shown to be the very thing the gospel offers, only the religious product is better.

The new cross does not slay the sinner, it redirects him. It gears him into a cleaner and jollier way of living and saves his self-respect. To the self-assertive it says, “Come and assert yourself for Christ.” To the egotist it says, “Come and do your boasting in the Lord.” To the thrill-seeker it says, “Come and enjoy the thrill of Christian fellowship.” The Christian message is slanted in the direction of the current vogue in order to make it acceptable to the public.

The philosophy back of this kind of thing may seem sincere, but its sincerity does not save it from being false. It is false because it is blind. It misses completely the whole meaning of the cross.

The old cross is a symbol of death. It stands for the abrupt, violent end of a human being. The man in Roman times who took up his cross and started down the road had already said good-by to his friends. He was not coming back. He was going out to have it ended. The cross made no compromise, modified nothing, spared nothing. It slew all of the man, completely and for good. It did not try to keep on good terms with its victim. It struck cruel and hard, and when it had finished its work, the man was no more.

The race of Adam is under a death sentence. There is no commutation and no escape. God cannot approve any of the fruits of sin, however innocent they may appear to the eyes of men. God salvages the individual by liquidating him and then raising him again to newness of life.

That evangelism which draws friendly parallels between the ways of God and the ways of men is false to the Bible and cruel to the souls of its hearers. The faith of Christ does not parallel the world, it intersects it. In coming to Christ we do not bring our old life up onto a higher plane–we leave it at the cross. The corn of wheat must fall into the ground and die.

We who preach the gospel must not think of ourselves as public relations agents sent to establish good will between Christ and the world. We must not imagine ourselves commissioned to make Christ acceptable to big business, the press, the world of sports, or modern education. We are not diplomats but prophets, and our message is not a compromise but an ultimatum.

God offers life, but not an improved old life. The life He offers is life out of death. It stands always on the far side of the cross. Whoever would possess it must pass under the rod. He must repudiate himself and concur in God’s just sentence against him. What does this mean to the individual, the condemned man who would find life in Christ Jesus? How can this theology be translated into life? Simply, he must repent and believe. He must forsake his sins and then go on to forsake himself. Let him cover nothing, defend nothing, excuse nothing. Let him not seek to make terms with God, but let him bow his head before the stroke of God’s stern displeasure and acknowledge himself worthy to die.

Having done this, let him gaze with simple trust upon the risen Saviour, and from Him will come life and rebirth and cleansing and power. The cross that ended the earthly life of Jesus now puts an end to the sinner, and the power that raised Christ from the dead now raises him to a new life along with Christ.

To any who may object to this or count it merely a narrow and private view of truth, let me say God has set His hallmark of approval upon this message from Paul’s day to the present. Whether stated in these exact words or not, this has been the content of all preaching that has brought life and power to the world through the centuries. The reformers, the revivalists have put their emphasis here, and signs and wonders and mighty operations of the Holy Ghost gave witness to God’s approval.

Dare we, the heirs of such a legacy of power, tamper with the truth? Dare we with our stubby pencils erase the lines of the blueprint or alter the pattern shown us? God forbid. Let us preach the old cross and we will know the old power.

NOTE: This article first appeared in The Alliance Witness in 1946 and in the book Man: The Dwelling Place of God – 1966.  It has been printed in virtually every English-speaking country in the world and has been put into tract form by various publishers, including Christian Publications, Inc.  It still appears now and then in the religious press.

Also from Man: Dwelling Place of God

“It is scarcely possible in most places to get anyone to attend a meeting where the only attraction is God.”

 

"When I Survey the Wondrous Cross"

Posted by Dan C. on

1

When I survey the wondrous cross
On which the Prince of glory died,
My richest gain I count but loss,
And pour contempt on all my pride.

2

Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,
Save in the death of Christ my God!
All the vain things that charm me most,
I sacrifice them to His blood.

3

See from His head, His hands, His feet,
Sorrow and love flow mingled down!
Did e’er such love and sorrow meet,
Or thorns compose so rich a crown?

4

His dying crimson, like a robe,
Spreads o’er His body on the tree;
Then I am dead to all the globe,
And all the globe is dead to me.

5

Were the whole realm of nature mine,
That were a present far too small;
Love so amazing, so divine,
Demands my soul, my life, my all.

Written by Isaac Watts and first published in 1707. Charles Wesley is said to have commented that he would give up all his other hymns to have written it. Isaac Watts wrote close to 700 hymns and Charles Wesley over 5,000.

The inspiration for the hymns is a verse in Paul’s letter to the Galatian church:

May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Galatians 6:14

A modern version of this hymn, omits verses two and four and has a new chorus with a completely different melody, and a new title, taken from the new chorus. While I can’t say for certain why it was rearranged, some would speculate that the omission has something to do with the graphic imagery of Christ’s blood poured out for us that long ago day on Calvary – that makes us uncomfortable. It’s too closely connected with the topics of sin and guilt.

However, of one thing I am certain. As we near the celebration of Christ’s glorious resurrection, and the victory over the penalty, power and one day the presence of sin that it represents, it would do well for us to remember what it cost the Father – the shed blood of His own Son.

Born on ‘Death Row’

Posted by Dan C. on

You are probably already asking, “What does he mean by that one?”

Well, for this old soldier, that’s what this thing called ‘sin’ is all about, and by the way, the focus of the first point of the two part gospel message (See this earlier post). If I consider it my duty and Great Privilege (See this earlier post), I had better have a good explanation when I tell folks that ‘Christ died for our sins’. A correct ‘view’ of sin is as essential to delivering the gospel message as is the ‘fact’ of sin. Sadly, and to our shame (us evangelicals), we sometimes forget to mention sin when we share the gospel, and often when we do dare approach the subject, we treat it poorly.

Listening to today’s popular gospel, one might think that ‘sin’ is just about the annoying little things we ‘do’ and Jesus died so we could make it to heaven anyway because after all, we are born ‘good’ and of such great worth/value to God that he can’t even imagine heaven without us. Or, sin only means being ‘separated from God’, or ‘missing the mark’ – both true statements. If ‘sin’ is not just those things, what is it?

Listen to what the Apostle Paul had to say on the subject to believers in the city of Ephesus:

“As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.” Ephesians 2:1-2

Now hear what Jesus said to a religious leader named Nicodemus:

“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” John 3:18

Apart from Christ we are spiritually dead and already condemned. Would it be fair to say that those two concepts aren’t brought up much (if at all) in today’s ‘seeker friendly’), discover YOUR special purpose, have YOUR best life NOW ‘evangelical’ environment?

How did we end up this way – spiritually dead and already condemned?  We know the story – the first couple (the only two people who ever walked the earth with complete ‘free will’), in an act of willful disobedience, broke the only rule God gave them and sin entered to pollute God’s perfect creation. The effect on the human race was devastating. Everyone born since then (Christ excluded) has inherited what we call a ‘sin nature’ (also known as ‘original sin’) and under a death sentence. If that’s not bad news (REALLY BAD NEWS), nothing is!. And if that’s the bad news, what’s the GOOD news?

The good news (REALLY GOOD NEWS) is that we can get out from under the ‘death sentence’ – receive a FULL PARDON! When we deserved to die (the wages of sin is death – Rom 3:23) and spend an eternity in Hell, someone died IN OUR PLACE. That someone was Jesus, sent to the Cross by his own Father to die in our stead!

“God made him (Jesus Christ) who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Corinthians 5:21 (Emphasis mine.)

When we realize our lost and dead condition, admit that we cannot help ourselves, and believe in our heart that Jesus paid for OUR sin with His death, we can receive a ‘full pardon’.

That means a whole lot more than Jesus just dying for the ‘bad stuff I do’, or there being this gulf between me and God called ‘sin’. Jesus suffered the death I deserved! There’s a huge difference between the two concepts. Do you see it? Can you see how our definition of ‘sin’ impacts the gospel message itself?

Does God save people if they only hear the ‘love’ message? I’m sure He does, but it might be ‘in spite of’ a poorly delivered message! By all means talk about love, abundant living, God’s blessings for the one who believes, but as secondary to dealing with the ‘sin’ issue. That’s the difference between a ‘man-centered’ and a ‘God-centered’ gospel – and a message this important deserves to be delivered in its entirety.

We’ll talk about why there’s absolutely no need to dilute the message in a later post.