Category Archives: The Gospel

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’?

The Effect of Preaching the Gospel

Posted by Dan C. on

John Newton, former slaver trader and author of the hymn “Amazing Grace” had this to say about the effect of preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ:

“When the Gospel first comes to a place, though the people are going on in sin, they may be said to sin ignorantly; they have not yet been warned of their danger. Some are drinking down iniquity like water; others more soberly burying themselves alive in the cares and business of the world; others find a little time for what they call religious duties, which they persevere in, though they are utter strangers to the nature or the pleasure of spiritual worship; partly, as thereby they think to bargain with God and to make amends for such sins as they do not choose to relinquish; and partly because it gratifies their pride, and affords them (as they think) some ground for saying, “God, I thank thee I am not as other men.” The preached Gospel declares the vanity and danger of these several ways which sinners choose to walk in. It declares, and demonstrates, that, different as they appear from each other, they are equally remote from the path of safety and peace, and all tend to the same point, the destruction of those who persist in them. At the same time it provides against that despair into which men would be otherwise plunged, when convinced of their sins, by revealing the immense love of God, the glory and grace of Christ, and inviting all to come to him, that they may obtain pardon, life, and happiness. In a word, it (the preaching of the gospel) shows the pit of hell under men’s feet, and opens the gate and points out the way to heaven.” – John Newton (1725-1807) (Emphasis mine)

The ‘preached gospel’ described above doesn’t seem to have much in common with the ‘gospel’ heard in most churches today.  Food for thought. . .

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.

Amazing love! How can it be that thou, my God, shouldst die for me?

Posted by Dan C. on

And Can It Be that I Should Gain

 Words: Charles Wesley, 1739 (Acts 16:26)
Music: Thomas Campbell, 1835

And can it be that I should gain
an interest in the Savior’s blood!
Died he for me? who caused his pain!
For me? who him to death pursued?
Amazing love! How can it be
that thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
Amazing love! How can it be
that thou, my God, shouldst die for me?

‘Tis mystery all: th’ Immortal dies!
Who can explore his strange design?
In vain the firstborn seraph tries
to sound the depths of love divine.
‘Tis mercy all! Let earth adore;
let angel minds inquire no more.
‘Tis mercy all! Let earth adore;
let angel minds inquire no more.

He left his Father’s throne above
(so free, so infinite his grace!),
emptied himself of all but love,
and bled for Adam’s helpless race.
‘Tis mercy all, immense and free,
for O my God, it found out me!
‘Tis mercy all, immense and free,
for O my God, it found out me!

Long my imprisoned sprit lay,
fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
thine eye diffused a quickening ray;
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
my chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed thee.
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed thee.

No condemnation now I dread;
Jesus, and all in him, is mine;
alive in him, my living Head,
and clothed in righteousness divine,
bold I approach th’ eternal throne,
and claim the crown, through Christ my own.
Bold I approach th’ eternal throne,
and claim the crown, through Christ my own.

I was reminded of this hymn this morning listening to a presentation given by Albert Mohler at the Together for the Gospel conference. Dr. Mohler described it as systematic theology. At the center is the doctrine of Christ’s substitutionary atonement on our behalf. What is sad is that in our time there are many who claim Christ who hate that doctrine.

The presentations made at the conference can be found here: http://www.t4g.org/.

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!

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!

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!

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

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.