My long definition of the gospel:
"The story of how God sent Jesus, by the power of the Holy Spirit, to fulfill the promises made through the prophets to Israel for the nations. By his birth, life, words, deeds, death, burial, and resurrection Jesus has inaugurated the kingdom of God in victory over sin, death, and every evil power. His resurrection and ascension to reign at the right hand of God was witnessed and confirms his claim as Israel's Davidic Messiah, the efficacy of his death on the cross, his appointment as judge over all, and his present rule as the world's true Lord."
You may have noticed that I don't have any 'call to faith' or the need to repent or be baptized in these definitions. That is because I am not preaching the gospel. I am defining it. Perhaps it is a strange way to go about it, but many do and I may end up having a strong opinion against it as we go along through the Bible. I do know that it is important when sharing/preaching/proclaiming the gospel to include an invitation. However, it doesn't always happen when Scripture is defining it or even in Peter's Acts 2 sermon. The people actually respond naturally and ask what they ought to do. This leads to faith in the gospel message and to salvation. This is precisely the discussion I added to this series of definitions with my class this week. You'll notice some overlap with yesterday's post because the following has been cut and pasted whereas yesterday was original material:
One major misunderstanding encountered by others who have adopted this view and what I have now experienced myself is the concern that salvation is thrown to the wayside and that the forgiveness of sins is marginalized. What I normally say is that what happens by changing to a definition like this is that we shift the focus away from 'my sin' 'my need' or why the gospel is good news 'for me' and look to Jesus. It is about who he is, his rule and reign and what he has and will accomplish. The gospel is what Jesus has done, which includes his defeat of sin, death and evil on the cross. This is an essential part of the gospel. It is still a message of the cross, but put into a holistic biblical framework. Jesus' victory as king and establishment as Lord is through the cross and resurrection which brings salvation (forgiveness of sins and much much more) to all who believe.
Because the gospel isn't about me, but about Jesus, it is obedient faith in the gospel of Jesus' saving action that brings salvation. So even though it is a saving story, I'm not 'in' that story until I put my trust in him. This means that the 'gospel' isn't really about 'my salvation' but what Jesus has done, which I put my faith in, which then saves me (or better yet, saves US!). Here are some Scriptures to show what I mean:
1 Cor 15:2 - By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
Rom 1:16 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.
Eph 1:13 - And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation.
1Pet 1:9 - for you are receiving the end result of your faith, the salvation of your souls.
If salvation is the result of faith in the message of the gospel, then it cannot be the gospel message itself. Part of the confusion on this, and the difficulty in explaining it, is due to the cross being a "timeless event" in that it effects all of history both before and after it because of what it achieves.
Questions? Comments? Concerns?
Don't forget to 'share' below!
Thanks for reading.
I read some of your early posts about other definitions of the gospel and was eagerly waiting to hear your full definition...but then the baby started crying. I'm glad I came back and read it today! I really appreciate having my vision in understanding the good news lifted just from myself, so much bigger, it's about the Kingdom, about what He came to do for all the nations. Beautiful, and humbling, because he still knows my name :) I've been reading a fiction series by exceptional historians about the life/times of Jesus. A lot of just 'could it have been like this?' but very biblically based in my opinion. (the A.D Chronicles by the Thoenes. fun.) I notice that their books as a whole really come to the same conclusions as you have here. They lead you to understand the fullness of what Jesus came to do in the light of history, and what some of the scholars and pharisees who did believe in Him would have thought and understood about who He was and what His role would be from the Torah, that we may miss.
ReplyDeleteOn another topic, through random channels I came across this website, and just read their confession, and I was wondering if you could look at it and tell me what you think? It's not exactly about the gospel, but sort of, it is about scriptural definitions and how the gospel should be taught in churches and in ministry. I can't find anything to disagree with biblically... but it's so different from what I've known to be 'normal'. If they are correct, it's a really big deal! Thanks!
http://www.ncfic.org/confession
Naomi Hunt
Thanks for your comments, Naomi.
ReplyDeleteI really liked this statement: "I really appreciate having my vision in understanding the good news lifted just from myself, so much bigger, it's about the Kingdom, about what He came to do for all the nations. Beautiful, and humbling, because he still knows my name."
Love that. This is exactly the type of understanding and reaction I'm aiming for. Well put. Yes, a lot of my re-thinking has come while studying historical background more in-depth so its no surprise that the history based fiction you're reading say similar things.
As for the confession, I agree with the overall premise of moving from segregated 'programs' to integrated discipleship. However, they make a few odd points like blaming evolution for age segregation (see article XI). I think they push back a little too hard, diminishing clear roles of church leaders to teach and equip the saints. What was Jesus doing in the Temple? Why did he have non-family disciples hanging on his every word? Paul did the same. Paul, like other boys often did, left family at an early age to learn from their 'Teacher' as the disciples did with Jesus. Education systems are cultural and, like church government, there are more models than the family one. Like I said, I agree with the overall solution to a real problem. My new church is de-segregating the generations right now as well. It's not something we can do overnight, but I'm looking forward to having small groups of all ages. Some of the best small groups I've ever been a part of had a variety of ages from early teens to seniors.