We have been commissioned by the risen Lord Jesus Christ to go into all the world and make disciples. This begins with the people of God living holy lives and sharing the life-changing gospel of Jesus Christ with nonbelievers. Yet, there is much confusion today over just what this “gospel” is. According to the Apostle Paul, the gospel is not an invention of human beings, but of God (Galatians 1:11). Therefore, there is no other gospel but this one (Galatians 1:6-9). So, in order for us to be effective at our task, it seems that we must come to an agreement about this all-important matter.
The English word “gospel” comes from the Anglo-Saxon, “God-spell,” meaning “a God story.” Of course, we cannot base our understanding of important theological terms on English word studies. When we look to the Greek New Testament we find the word euangelion behind the English translation “gospel.” Generally, the word means, “A message of victory, or some political or personal message of good news.” More specifically, Greek scholar Robert Mounce defines the gospel as “The joyous proclamation of God’s redemptive activity in Christ Jesus on behalf of humans enslaved by sin.”[1] In his preface to the New Testament, William Tyndale said that the gospel is that “good, merry, glad and joyful tiding that makes a man’s heart glad and makes him sing, dance and leap for joy.”
The problem today concerning our misunderstanding of the gospel is multi-faceted. One reason is seemingly ecclesiastical confusion. Will McRaney cites an actual comment made by a nonbeliever: “I think every church is saying something different.”[2] Most church leaders would scoff at this notion, but if it is not true, then apparently we are at least convoluting the issue so much that the perception has arisen. When it comes to the gospel, if the trumpet blasts an uncertain sound, there is literally hell to pay. The eternity of an inestimable multitude hangs in the balance depending on us to know what we are talking about!
Perhaps we have become confused because of evangelistic shortcuts. Rather than teaching believers what the gospel is from a doctrinal perspective, churches have resorted to pragmatic methods of getting people to respond to the gospel. While no one would cast aspersion on the intentions of these efforts, it is plain to see how the emphasis shifts from accurate articulation of the gospel to the response to the gospel. So, the gospel is often reduced to a memorable outline, acrostic, story, or visual demonstration, rather than a thorough explanation of the doctrinal realities that comprise the gospel.
Another reason for contemporary misunderstandings is cultural pluralism. We often hear it said that it doesn’t really matter which system of beliefs a person adopts, so long as he or she is sincere. However, is it not true that you can believe something sincerely, and be sincerely wrong? If I believe sincerely that I am Superman, and attempt to leap a tall building in a single bound, or outrun a speeding bullet, I will be sorely disappointed and disillusioned over the error of my sincerely false belief.
Finally, perhaps there is confusion today resulting from what John Stott has called, “our guilty silence.” There may be few things that believers and unbelievers have in common, but one of them is certainly that neither is very comfortable when it comes to evangelism. It seems that we are eager to discuss every other subject except this all important one.
Tom Steffen writes, “As human agents of the gospel, we present a flawed message. We tend to redefine the gospel, wrap it in cultural attire recognizable mostly to us, take shortcuts, lay little foundation, assume that our hearers understand much more than they probably do, forget our message’s connection to the physical world or follow-up, and communicate it in ways that require mental gymnastics from the listeners.”[3]
By now we are accustomed to reading descriptions of certain things by first stating what that thing is NOT. Here perhaps we will find it helpful to delineate a few “non-Gospels” that are frequently substituted for the authentic one. The “Tylenol Gospel” is the offering of Jesus Christ as the cure for “whatever ails you.” Promising a nonbeliever that Jesus is the answer for his or her depression, sexual frustrations, or slumping batting average is theological malpractice. I heard a professional golfer in an interview a few years ago say that his return to form was due to his newfound faith in Jesus Christ. This would cause many of us to wonder if we have committed apostasy considering our woeful slices and hooks! Christ never promised to settle all of our felt needs. In fact, He promised that we would encounter many felt needs in life as we follow Him (John 16:33). The Gospel of Jesus Christ promises to remedy mankind’s greatest need – that of being reconciled to a holy God in spite of our inherent sinfulness.
Related to this is “The Missing Link Gospel,” which psychoanalyzes a person’s life and offers Christ as the missing piece to life’s puzzle that is keeping the individual from being all they want to be. I also call this “The Condiment Gospel,” because Christ is presented as an additive to sprinkle over one’s life, without recognizing that the main dish is defiled. Not too far removed from this is “The Public Relations Gospel” reduces Christ to whatever the preacher or proclaimer feels will draw a crowd. The cost of discipleship is minimized to make the message more palatable. After all, who could grow a megachurch in our day by offering a Jesus who bids His followers to come and die?
Finally, “The Personal Opinion Gospel” falls short of the biblical message in presenting a Jesus that is sufficient for me, but optional for you. This is the danger of only using the personal testimony in sharing the gospel. In
In order to rightly understand and proclaim the gospel, we must have a biblical theology, biblical anthropology, biblical Christology, and soteriology. Sadly, many Christians (and not a few church leaders) will assume these words to be glossolalia or at least from a dead language. I humbly offer the following as a concise summary of the gospel. If in some way my understanding of the gospel is doctrinally deficient, I plead with the body of Christ to use the Scriptures for the God-breathed purpose: teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16).
A biblical theology begins with the existence of God. This may sound redundant, for the word “theology” is the study of God, and it seems a futile effort to study something that does not exist. The Bible makes no argument for God’s existence. It is merely stated as a point of fact from the very first verse. As a former atheist however, I have special interest in this discussion. My “angle” as an atheist was “Deus absconditus” or “the hiddenness of God.” I recall many conversations with Christians wherein I stated that if God was real and really wanted me to believe in Him, He should make Himself more obvious to me. No Christian I encountered could give me a reasonable explanation of His existence. I became a theist by reading the Bible. Since the Bible contains no argument for God’s existence, one might wonder “what did it.” Simply put, in reading about Samuel’s encounter with God in 1 Samuel 3, I just began to wonder if perhaps I had ruled Him out prematurely. The Holy Spirit did the rest. So I do not believe that arguments are necessary or sufficient to convince an unbeliever, but I do believe that reasonable arguments exist, and therefore Christians ought to be prepared to employ them in dialogue with unbelievers.
We cannot assume today that when we say “God,” people immediately understand to Whom we refer by that moniker. There are many belief systems built on unbiblical notions of God or gods, and therefore, beyond pointing to His existence, we need to be prepared to point to His uniqueness. Specifically, this begins by asserting that by definition there can only be one God. If there is more than one, then there would be a differentiation in divine attributes between the two or more proposed gods. One would make up where the other was lacking in some attribute. But if a being lacks a divine attribute, then he (or she as the case may be) cannot be God. If there is no differentiation of attributes, then there is only one God. Two things that are absolutely identical with no distinguishing mark of differentiation are not two things at all, but one. From here, we can present arguments pointing to the God of the Bible as “the God who is there.”
Once we establish that the God of the Bible is the God who is there, we can establish the marks of His identity. He is Creator. He is Sovereign. He is Triune. He is Holy. He is Love. Will Metzger rolls these attributes into three headings: God is Creator, Father, and Judge.[4] As Creator, we claim that He made us and owns us by divine right of creation. As Father, He loves us and wants us to know Him and be with Him forever. As Judge, He made the laws that govern humanity and holds us accountable to them. Man is not the captain of his own soul or master of his own fate. God rightfully owns him and holds him accountable for his life. While these ideas will undoubtedly need to be developed further in dialogue, these categories of thought summarize biblical theology.
A biblical anthropology involves the reality that man is created in the image of God. However, because of the fall, man became inherently prone to sin and is now lost apart from the forgiveness of God. A quick examination of the Law of God revealed to Moses and encapsulated in the Decalogue reveals the truth of our depravity. If one is blind to his or her external violations of God’s standard of holiness, the Sermon on the Mount will certainly reveal the inner sinfulness that plagues humanity. Jesus summarized God’s expectation of His human creatures in two commands amounting to loving God completely and loving our neighbors selflessly. The simple question, “Have you done this perfectly throughout all of life?” will quickly expose the scar of our soul. While most people are quick to measure themselves against lesser standards, we must show them God’s standards and ask how they measure up to them. We do not offer the law as a checklist for salvation, but as an indicator of the need for salvation. It convicts, but it does not convert. Rather, it shows the need to be converted. The law is like a mirror. A mirror shows your hair needs fixing, it doesn’t fix your hair. So the Law reveals our sinfulness; it is not the remedy for it.
When we fail God’s standards, we demonstrate ourselves to be sinners. We aren’t sinners because we sin; we sin because we are sinners. We are born in sin, and the proof of it is in how our lives are lived when unchecked by moral boundaries. Watching a toddler willfully disobey his or her parents is a vivid and undeniable illustration of our depraved nature. J. I. Packer has succinctly defined conviction of sin as the awareness of wrong relationship with and separation from God because of sin; conviction of specific acts of sin; and conviction of the helpless state of sinfulness that continually produces sinful choices and attitudes in me. If I kept a journal of every thought, word and deed I committed in a single given day, I certainly would want to keep it locked tightly for fear that others would know the shamefulness of my sins.
Biblical Christology begins with the demonstration of the futility of public opinion to determine the person and work of Jesus Christ. It matters not who people say He is: teacher, moral example, prophet, miracle worker, religious leader. What matters is who He claimed to be: Son of God (God incarnate); forgiver of sins; the exclusive means of salvation. These are His own claims. The question is whether, in making these claims, He is lying or telling the truth. C. S. Lewis gave us that great trilemma that has been summarized by others as Liar, Lunatic, or Lord. Only one of those labels can be applied to Jesus. If He was lying in His claims, then there is no room to say that He is a good teacher, moral example, or godly prophet.
Biblical Christology extends beyond “who He is” to “what He did.” The Scriptures teach that the eternally existent Divine Logos became incarnate through a virginal conception and birth. He lived a sinless life, affirming His claims through many signs and wonders. Yet, the sinless Son of God died a sinner’s death as the substitutionary atoning sacrifice for our sins. It was impossible for death to keep Him in its grasp, for he rose from the dead bodily and demonstrated Himself alive “by many infallible proofs” (Acts 1). After a number of days, He ascended into heaven where He presently intercedes on our behalf with the Father.
The resurrection is the lynchpin of biblical Christology. He offered the sign of Jonah as the only sign confirming His nature and work. As Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days, so the Son of Man would be in the belly of the earth. The fact remains that the tomb sealed by royal order was found empty on the third day. There is no satisfactory naturalistic explanation for this undeniable fact. The most reasonable explanation for the empty tomb is the bodily resurrection of Christ.
We must avoid any ideology or terminology that implies that the object of our faith, hope, trust, or confidence is in our own actions or desires. We have to be very clear that salvation is of the Lord. We convolute the call of the gospel by associating it with an outward performance of works, such as a prayer, a card, walking forward, even baptism. If these external expressions of faith and repentance are mistaken as substitutions for the internal reality of regeneration, justification, and sanctification, may confuse the person and possibly give them false assurance.
Saving Faith is trusting in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. He alone is Master of the person’s life; He alone will save them from hell. If their confidence is not in this reality, then the person cannot claim to be saved. Saving faith is is volitional and active. The biblical command is to begin to live out that trust which has been committed to Jesus. As we respond to Jesus, there is a surrender to His Lordship (Matthew 7:21; James 4:7-10); a repentance from sins, sinfulness, and false belief (Acts 3:19-20; Matthew 4:17; Acts 17:30-31); and a belief and trust that includes but is not limited to intellectual agreement. It goes beyond intellect to volitional action (Ephesians 2:8-10; John 20:29; Hebrews 11:6; James 2).
It is plain to see that sharing the gospel this thoroughly is not something that can be done on a chance encounter in an elevator or in the duration of an airplane flight (unless we are circumnavigating the globe!). Sometimes, we have the opportunity in such brief conversations to harvest a faith that has been planted and watered by others, but we can by no means assume that in three minutes or less we can lay a foundation and build a superstructure. Any effort to do so rivals salesmanship or manipulation, and the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ deserves much more integrity. We must be committed to the task of making disciples over the long course of developing personal relationships, through which we can genuinely and authentically communicate our faith in its fullness to the unbeliever. This may take hours, days, weeks, months or years. And if this seems an unreasonable amount of time, we must compare it to the eternity which is at stake. The potential of spending years investing in the soul of unbeliever pales in comparison to the eternity that individual stands to endure in eternal separation from God in hell. We must commit to the task!
I hope that this article contributes to the discussion of the biblical gospel and moves us closer to the center of the target.
1 comment:
I like Metzger's viewpoint... The "whole" truth must be the substance of our evangelism.
Post a Comment