What is the gospel?

[radiation7740]

This is the real debate in evangelical circles today. What is the gospel? Here is an article on the different views. There's 2 schools of thought on this: free grace salvation versus Lordship salvation. Enjoy! I take the free grace # 1 position by the way although I disagree with the author when he calls that view antinomianism. The grace evangelical society is another one of my favorite websites.

 

http://faithalone.org/news/y1991/91may2.html

[radiation7740]

By the way the 10 commandments were never given to the gentiles. They were only given to the jews. The law is still in effect for the lost until they come to faith in Christ. Then they are under grace. Jesus did fulfill the law. Why? because we could not fulfill the law. The purpose of the law was to show us how sinful we are so we would turn to faith in Christ & His provision of forgiveness of sins at the cross, & His resurrected life. He died for our sins so that raised from the dead He could give Himself to us so that He could live His life through us. It is impossible to live the christian life. Christ lived it for us.

[Admiral Thrawn]

Jimmy Swaggart's commentary does not accept the 'free grace' concept, and things that people who have nice little pet sins, and those who practise a sinful lifestyle are on the way to hell and are deceived.

 

Even people of the likes of Jimmy Swaggart will not expouse a free grace theology.

[flavius]

I read the linked article, and it was really good. I suspect that it is about 15 years old, as it does not really represent the current discussion of the "gospel question." Perhaps it is just narrowly focused, assuming that all Christians are Evangelicals (or than non-Evangelicals are not Christians?)

 

The problem with "The Gospel" in it's boiled-down Evangelical form is this: it essentially presents Jesus as a Counter-Jew, one who came to uproot Judaism and replace it with 19th century evangelicalism rather than The One to fulfill the whole Great Story of God as played out in the Abrahamic family. The whole notion of the gospel as "personal salvation" is foreign to the Messianic prophecies. Was God deceiving the Jews? A gospel that boils down to a Heaven/Hell fork in the road marked by cryptic signs is not "The Gospel" at all. (I'm not denying eternal consequences, just putting them in biblical perspective.)

 

Now that you're mad, let me say this: If Jesus is NOT the One foretold in the OT Messianic prophecies, then he is not the Lord, not the Christ, not the Messiah. He made no other claim, and there is no other claim to be made.

 

First, the word Gospel. One might assert that when Jesus said "gospel" he meant some sort of generic "good news", with details to be provided by John later. In fact the word "gospel" was quite specific in the first century vocabulary, and quite inflammatory. It was specifically a proclamation of the ascendance of a new emperor or king, but particularly the Caesars. Those gospels explicitly offered salvation to those who obeyed. (The wording of these pre-Christian inscriptions is so vivdly similar to NT texts that it is disconcerting.) The word "gospel" had no reference to cleansing the sin-stained soul until AFTER Jesus rose from the grave. Jesus himself spoke rather little on this subject. (The enormity of it was realized subsequently by the apostles who wrote of it at length.)

 

Jesus' gospel proclamation of the Kingdom of God was precisely a declaration that he was come to restore the throne of David and the ascendancy of Israel (Abraham's children) in the Earth (in accordance with the scriptures.) The modern renditions of what the gospel is, what it means, and what it demands utterly fail to grapple with Jesus' own proclamation: that "The Kingdom of God is at hand." We shamelessly lay down our 19th/20th century doctrinal stencils and spray-paint our slogans and sacraments all over the "oracles of God", then say, "See, the OT prophesied about US!"

 

I would not go so far as to say we preach a "different gospel" (as in being accursed), but I would say that we preach a puny, powerless gospel, and we seem to like it that way. We'd rather have a gospel that just distinguishes between the Saved and the Lost than a gospel that will subject the Earth and all creation to the will of God our King. Maybe we prefer a strictly "internal kingdom" because our faith is weak, and we're afraid that God will fail us and embarass us in front of our friends.

 

To the original points addressed in the "free vs lordship salvation": there simply is no "gospel" to support "free salvation", neither is there a salvation which must be maintained by a narrowly defined piety. My big gripe about both is the reduction of the gospel to a message essentially about personal abstinences and heaven and hell. Heck, Jesus called us to be heralds and heirs of the Kingdom of God, not "sin accountants" in green eye-shades. It seems we are all just a bunch of Neopharisees up in a knot about tithing our herbs, but indifferent about justice, mercy, and humility (the trifecta of the sermon on the mount.)

 

Jesus, simply, calls us to follow in the great procession of the Kingdom of God. In this procession, the law of the Spirit of life sets us free from the law of sin and death. God's kingdom, rooted in the submission of our hearts, advances in the Earth, and the gates of Hades cannot withstand it.

 

"How we get saved" and "if we can lose it" become kind of silly questions. Like people sitting at a great banquet arguing about how we might be invited in, how we know we are at the table, whether the other diners are truly at the table, and whether the food might somehow be taken from us. A grand adventure in missing the point. Oh, we of little faith.

[flavius]

I read the linked article, and it was really good. I suspect that it is about 15 years old, as it does not really represent the current discussion of the "gospel question." Perhaps it is just narrowly focused, assuming that all Christians are Evangelicals (or than non-Evangelicals are not Christians?)

 

The problem with "The Gospel" in it's boiled-down Evangelical form is this: it essentially presents Jesus as a Counter-Jew, one who came to uproot Judaism and replace it with 19th century evangelicalism rather than The One to fulfill the whole Great Story of God as played out in the Abrahamic family. The whole notion of the gospel as "personal salvation" is foreign to the Messianic prophecies. Was God deceiving the Jews? A gospel that boils down to a Heaven/Hell fork in the road marked by cryptic signs is not "The Gospel" at all. (I'm not denying eternal consequences, just putting them in biblical perspective.)

 

Now that you're mad, let me say this: If Jesus is NOT the One foretold in the OT Messianic prophecies, then he is not the Lord, not the Christ, not the Messiah. He made no other claim, and there is no other claim to be made.

 

First, the word Gospel. One might assert that when Jesus said "gospel" he meant some sort of generic "good news", with details to be provided by John later. In fact the word "gospel" was quite specific in the first century vocabulary, and quite inflammatory. It was specifically a proclamation of the ascendance of a new emperor or king, but particularly the Caesars. Those gospels explicitly offered salvation to those who obeyed. (The wording of these pre-Christian inscriptions is so vivdly similar to NT texts that it is disconcerting.) The word "gospel" had no reference to cleansing the sin-stained soul until AFTER Jesus rose from the grave. Jesus himself spoke rather little on this subject. (The enormity of it was realized subsequently by the apostles who wrote of it at length.)

 

Jesus' gospel proclamation of the Kingdom of God was precisely a declaration that he was come to restore the throne of David and the ascendancy of Israel (Abraham's children) in the Earth (in accordance with the scriptures.) The modern renditions of what the gospel is, what it means, and what it demands utterly fail to grapple with Jesus' own proclamation: that "The Kingdom of God is at hand." We shamelessly lay down our 19th/20th century doctrinal stencils and spray-paint our slogans and sacraments all over the "oracles of God", then say, "See, the OT prophesied about US!"

 

I would not go so far as to say we preach a "different gospel" (as in being accursed), but I would say that we preach a puny, powerless gospel, and we seem to like it that way. We'd rather have a gospel that just distinguishes between the Saved and the Lost than a gospel that will subject the Earth and all creation to the will of God our King. Maybe we prefer a strictly "internal kingdom" because our faith is weak, and we're afraid that God will fail us and embarass us in front of our friends.

 

To the original points addressed in the "free vs lordship salvation": there simply is no "gospel" to support "free salvation", neither a salvation which must be maintained by a narrowly defined piety. My big gripe about both is the reduction of the gospel to a message essentially about personal abstinences and heaven and hell. Heck, Jesus called us to be heralds and heirs of the Kingdom of God, not "sin accountants" in green eye-shades. It seems we are all just a bunch of Neopharisees up in a knot about tithing our herbs, but indifferent about justice, mercy, and humility (the trifecta of the sermon on the mount.)

 

Jesus, simply, calls us to follow in the great procession of the Kingdom of God. In this procession, the law of the Spirit of life sets us free from the law of sin and death. God's kingdom, rooted in the submission of our hearts, advances in the Earth, and the gates of Hades cannot withstand it.

 

"How we get saved" and "if we can lose it" become kind of silly questions. Like people sitting at a great banquet arguing about how we might be invited in, how we know we are at the table, whether the other diners are truly at the table, and whether the food might somehow be taken from us. A grand adventure in missing the point. Oh, we of little faith.

[Admiral Thrawn]

The problem with "The Gospel" in it's boiled-down Evangelical form is this: it essentially presents Jesus as a Counter-Jew, one who came to uproot Judaism and replace it with 19th century evangelicalism rather than The One to fulfill the whole Great Story of God as played out in the Abrahamic family. The whole notion of the gospel as "personal salvation" is foreign to the Messianic prophecies. Was God deceiving the Jews? A gospel that boils down to a Heaven/Hell fork in the road marked by cryptic signs is not "The Gospel" at all. (I'm not denying eternal consequences, just putting them in biblical perspective.)

 

No, the Jews misinterpreted the law and the prophets, they simply missed the boat. A correct interpretation would have pointed to Jesus as the fulfillment of the law and the prophets.

 

It is no coincidence that God destroyed the Temple in 70 AD, because Jesus died for everyone's sins, and animal sacrifices were no longer necessary. I've read the law, and some of the prophets, and know that they were referring to Jesus Christ, and how the Gospel is portrayed by 19th Centruy Evangelism.

 

Now that you're mad, let me say this: If Jesus is NOT the One foretold in the OT Messianic prophecies, then he is not the Lord, not the Christ, not the Messiah. He made no other claim, and there is no other claim to be made.

 

Is this a hypothetical assertion, are you trying to make a theological point, I'm confused.

 

First, the word Gospel. One might assert that when Jesus said "gospel" he meant some sort of generic "good news", with details to be provided by John later. In fact the word "gospel" was quite specific in the first century vocabulary, and quite inflammatory. It was specifically a proclamation of the ascendance of a new emperor or king, but particularly the Caesars. Those gospels explicitly offered salvation to those who obeyed. (The wording of these pre-Christian inscriptions is so vivdly similar to NT texts that it is disconcerting.) The word "gospel" had no reference to cleansing the sin-stained soul until AFTER Jesus rose from the grave. Jesus himself spoke rather little on this subject. (The enormity of it was realized subsequently by the apostles who wrote of it at length.)

 

That is easily explained, because after the ressurection of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Person of the Trinity that opens minds to understand spiritual truths in the Bible is placed inside everyone. Numerous things can be seen as a result of the Spirit's ministry.

 

For example, Peter, who prior was a coward who denied Jesus three times, became a very bold evangelist who even went to prison and was ultimately crucified himself for his faith in Jesus, this happened after he received the Spirit. Jesus Himself said - I am the way, the truth and the life, NO MAN COMETH TO THE FATHER, exept by Me. There can be no arguement.

 

Jesus' gospel proclamation of the Kingdom of God was precisely a declaration that he was come to restore the throne of David and the ascendancy of Israel (Abraham's children) in the Earth (in accordance with the scriptures.) The modern renditions of what the gospel is, what it means, and what it demands utterly fail to grapple with Jesus' own proclamation: that "The Kingdom of God is at hand." We shamelessly lay down our 19th/20th century doctrinal stencils and spray-paint our slogans and sacraments all over the "oracles of God", then say, "See, the OT prophesied about US!"

 

He will restore the trone of David, and Jerusalem will rule the world once again, with Jesus being the King. You just have to wait for a several years or longer for that to happen.

 

I would not go so far as to say we preach a "different gospel" (as in being accursed), but I would say that we preach a puny, powerless gospel, and we seem to like it that way. We'd rather have a gospel that just distinguishes between the Saved and the Lost than a gospel that will subject the Earth and all creation to the will of God our King. Maybe we prefer a strictly "internal kingdom" because our faith is weak, and we're afraid that God will fail us and embarass us in front of our friends.

 

That occurs during the Millenium Kingdom. World prophecy has to take it's time. Jesus already defeated the devil on the cross, but it is still in charge of the world system. There is an ordained prophecy for the transference of kingdoms back to Jesus Christ, and nothing that anyone can do can change the sequence of events that are about to change place. A rapture, anti-christ, and tribulation all have to proceed the ultimate milllenium kingdom.

 

To the original points addressed in the "free vs lordship salvation": there simply is no "gospel" to support "free salvation", neither a salvation which must be maintained by a narrowly defined piety. My big gripe about both is the reduction of the gospel to a message essentially about personal abstinences and heaven and hell. Heck, Jesus called us to be heralds and heirs of the Kingdom of God, not "sin accountants" in green eye-shades. It seems we are all just a bunch of Neopharisees up in a knot about tithing our herbs, but indifferent about justice, mercy, and humility (the trifecta of the sermon on the mount.)

 

Jesus, simply, calls us to follow in the great procession of the Kingdom of God. In this procession, the law of the Spirit of life sets us free from the law of sin and death. God's kingdom, rooted in the submission of our hearts, advances in the Earth, and the gates of Hades cannot withstand it.

 

So, what does this mean, how would the life of an average Christian that is saved be reflected out, what would you expect? A civil right movement leader or something - or just an average joe dropping change for the homeless now and then -- how do you see a Christian as living their lives?

 

"How we get saved" and "if we can lose it" become kind of silly questions. Like people sitting at a great banquet arguing about how we might be invited in, how we know we are at the table, whether the other diners are truly at the table, and whether the food might somehow be taken from us. A grand adventure in missing the point. Oh, we of little faith.

 

So God is not an Indian-giver then? What He gives He doesn't take back.

[thegoodhubbie]

They are a bunch of fictional stories written by those that sought power at the time.

[Bullgator]

Which for the last 2000 years have been attacked by those desiring power in their *own* time.

[Becoming]

Thank God for flavius! The best thing I've seen written on loveshack with re: to Christianity! Hear, hear!

 

The good news that Christ is King means that the way of the world's power has been overthrown with that of God's power of love that stands up for what is just for all--not just for those with $$ and influence. While it is right to judge the church for many of its actions that have been more in accord with the world's way of power as opposed to its own gospel's, in fact, what I appreciate about Christianity is that it provides its own critique of religious abuse.

 

And it critiques those who want to sit around counting moral beans while we perpetuate unjust social policies in the name of God.

 

And that's good news indeed.

[flavius]

I will reply briefly as possible and then say goodnight to this thread. I will not quote from the previous mssgs as the message box would be a mile long -nobody would read it. You quoted me in six passages -- I'll respond to each:

 

I. That is just smug 20:20 hindsight. Anyone who has read the Prophets AND Jesus' admonitions to the Pharisees & Sadducees should know better, in fact you should tremble to say such things. The prophets were clearly NOT explicit about Jesus' surprising enactment of the Kingdom, and it is just plain silly to say that they were explicit about American Darbian Evangelico-Fundamentalism. Good grief! One must grind the scriptures to powder and boil them overnight to make them fit into that mold. I'm not saying Evange-mentalism is evil, just that it is contorted. It fails to integrate B.C. and A.D. revelation, rather it chops them apart. The OT and Gospels are ALL about the Kingdom, but Dispensationalism leaves us with no Kingdom at all. (see Milenium note below in Pt V.)

 

II. I'm saying this: The Evange-mentalist view of Christ and the Church is egregiously unlike the O.T. view of the Messiah and the Kingdom. To that extent, it is WRONG. Jesus presented himself as the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies. If he is not that, he is not the Christ anyway. You cannot just redefine "Christ" and "Messiah" ex post facto to suit the whims of your denomination or tradition. (Remember all that stuff you say about the inviolability of the scriptures?? Is that only true when splitting hairs, or does it apply to the big, important things too?)

 

III. You seem to be assuming that I am disputing against the apostolic view of atonement re:salvation (or even against the fact of atonement itself.) I am NOT. But I AM saying that Jesus' proclamation of the Gospel was not essentially about atonement, the Four Spiritual Laws, and acceting Jesus into your heart. It is EXPLICITLY about the Kingdom of God!

 

IV. The O.T spoke only of a restored Davidic Kingdom on Earth, and not of any fulfillment in Heaven or Hell or at the end of time. The Kingdom began with Jesus' own proclamation that "the Kingdom of God is at Hand." The earthly emergence of Christ and his Kingdom does not NULLIFY the promise of eternal life, it INAUGURATES IT. I do not deny that blessed hope, I proclaim it. One enters the Kingdom of God, and that Kingdom HAS NO END.

 

V. The entirety of biblical revelation on the milennium is contained in 1 1/2 verses (Rev 20:4b-5) These are part of John's cryptic apocalyptic vision. Plainly Jesus' Kingdom that "has no end" is not a fixture of a 1,000 year period (which was by no definition "at hand" in AD 30 when Jesus announced it.) And what kind of dope was Jesus if he went around preaching about a kingdom that would not appear for thousands of years and how one might enter it, IF IN FACT THE KINGDOM INCLUDED ONLY THOSE MARTYRED IN THE REIGN OF AN ANTI-CHRIST WHOM HIS HEARERS WOULD NEVER SEE?

 

VI. This was really the only question not extruded out of a doctrinal presumption. It is also the hardest to answer briefly. Let me ask you: How do YOU prescribe a Normal Christian Life? Do you read your bible and pray? Me too. Do you witness to your neighbor? Me too. Do you sit in rows listening for hours each week to a speaker who warns believers of the fate of UNbelievers? Me too. Do you reduce the whole revelation of God into a technology of how to "get saved", and apply that method liberally to the question of who is NOT saved and why? Not me. You might as well just shinny up the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and take a bite!

 

The question itself veritably shouts what I have whispered: outside of the question of "how does one get saved", Evange-mentalism is clueless about Jesus Christ, his call to Man, and his role as Kyrios Cosmou, the Lord of the Universe.

 

Maybe you can mock quaint little liberal ideas like freeing slaves, justice for all, forgiving debts, proclaiming feedom for the captives, binding up the broken, and procaiming the Year of the Lord's favor. Go ahead if you must. But if you do, know that the prostitutes and tax collectors will enter the Kingdom of God ahead of you.

 

Grace & Peace!