Wednesday, March 29, 2006

will the real gospel please stand up

Andew Jones at tallskinnykiwi is asking us to join in the Tim Challies fray over what is the real gospel. Sorry, I cannot do it. First, I'm just not smart enough to keep up in a writing war with these guys - they use words I do not understand - even my dictionary doesn't find these words. Seriously, I do not know where one starts when a debate about what the Gospel is started with the following:
The word evangelical [was] used to describe a well-defined theological position. What made evangelicals distinct was their commitment to the authority of Scripture and the exclusivity of Christ. Now "evangelicalism" is a political movement, and its representatives hold a wide variety of theological beliefs—from Neuhaus's Roman Catholicism to Jakes's heretical Sabellianism, to Joyce Meyer's radical charismaticism, to Brian McLaren's anti-scriptural postmodernism.

So says Phil Johnson. And he is right.
Wow - that's the accuser, judge, jury, and executioner all in one (ok - two). Phil Johnson says so and Tim Challies agrees. What could be added? I'll let these guys continue. John MacArthur explains (in Ashamed of the Gospel):
The gospel--in the sense Paul and the apostles employed the word--includes all the revealed truth about Christ (cf Rom. 1:1-6; 1 Cor. 15:3-11). It does not stop at the point of conversion and justification by faith, but embraces every other aspect of salvation, from sanctification to glorification. The gospel's significance therefore does not end the moment the new birth occurs; it applies to the entire Christian experience. And when Paul and the other New Testament writers spoke of "preaching the gospel," they were not talking about preaching only to unbelievers (cf v.15). [emphasis mine]
Now that I can line up to. The only slight exception I have occurs when they continue that it is the "message". I would rather say it is both the message and the behavior (proclamation and demonstration). So I think they have adequately explained what the Gospel is. I think what is left is to now discuss what it looks like in practice. They modeled what it does not look like in their unfortunate attack against others under the guise of defining evangelicalism. I'll watch to see if they get around to modeling what it does look like.

4 comments:

David Rowe said...

Do these guys live out the message of the gospel or just talk about it ?

Anonymous said...

Rick,
Technically, the Gospel is a message not a behavior. However, the Gospel changes a person and causes the behavior to change.
Randy B.

ricki said...

good clarification Randy. I guess I should have said something more like, "communication of the gospel is more than proclamation, it should be accompanied by demonstration."

Shannon Laser said...

Wikipedia says;
'The word evangelicalism usually refers to a tendency in diverse branches of conservative Christianity, typified by an emphasis on evangelism, a personal experience of conversion, biblically-oriented faith, and a belief in the relevance of Christian faith to cultural issues.' and

The term 'evangelical', in a lexical but less-commonly-used sense, refers to anything implied in the belief that Jesus is the savior. The word comes from the Greek word for 'Gospel' or 'good news': ευανγελιον evangelion, from eu- "good" and angel "message".
To be evangelical would then mean to be merely Christian, that is, founded upon, motivated by, acting in agreement with, spreading the good news message of the New Testament.'

The outside perspective of evangelicalism will always be a reflection those who claim to be Christians. If the message does not reflect the change in behaviour, then it is empty and useless to an unbeliever. Theories are only good for scientists.

reftagger