My 100th Blog Post

I've been postponing my blogging the last couple of weeks in large part because I knew this milestone was coming and it is finally here: 100 blog posts! Some of these I migrated from my "side project" blog on "the gospel according to Scripture," but for the most part they originated here and have been largely theological. My original intent was to make this blog about all sorts of things I like and think about and my next goal (as far as the blog is concerned) will be to write about whatever I want to write about. The point is to write.

To celebrate my 100th post I thought I would share with you some of my favourite posts along with my 5 most popular posts of all time. If you're new to the blog, you may not realize that I don't just blog about hell. I've also written a lot about the gospel and the age of the earth.

My favourite posts in chronological order:

5 points often missed about what the Gospel is about. An early post that really captured succinctly what I was blogging about for months.

A Christmas card about the gospel. I was really passionate in this post and it was 'off the cuff.'

Genesis isn't teaching modern science. This post is a must read for Christians debating Genesis 'vs' Science. Just....stop.

Is creation out of nothing a doctrine ex-nihilo? Ditto.

FEAR and the church Probably my all-time favourite.

Is hell the primary motive for Christian mission? Forgot I wrote this post (I was writing a lot at the time) until Jon Coutts posted his index of my posts and I reread it. It may be the best thing I've written (IMHO).

5 most popular posts countdown!

5. How the world views Jesus. A very provoking and heart wrenching reality.

4. Comparing the 3 views: The Hell Triangle. A good basic comparison of the 3 views.

3. An atheist's view on life? Honestly not a great post. It was just the last one before a hiatus

2. RIP Sarah Jones. A post honouring a worker in the film industry I never met.

1. No one goes to hell immediately to hell when they die. Glad this is number one. An important shift needs to be made about how Christians perceive death and judgement. This post is a good example of that.

Amendment: The actual number one post is far and away "A sermon on the gospel." I checked my traffic records from the blog I migrated those posts from. Unfortunately the link for the audio is dead, but I still have my notes if anyone wants me to come preach it at their church. :) One of my favourites, "A christmas card," is also tied with "RIP Sarah Jones." 

Blog Merger

In August, 2011, I started a blog on the gospel and wrote many articles, pointed to resources, etc.I wrote a fair amount on it in phases, but I didn't have the drive to only write about one subject forever. This year I decided to start writing more again because I if I want to be a writer I have to actually write (duh!). When I went to start another blog I made the choice to simply relaunch one that I had started year ago under my own name. I deleted all previous posts and started over with the freedom to then write and post on whatever subject I wanted.

On Thursday, I looked at my old blog and decided it was best to merge it to this one because it is much easier to have everything in one place and I wanted to expose my previous work to new readers. I may write a few posts on the gospel in the next few weeks among other things to break up the onslaught of posts on the age of the earth, Genesis, etc. I do have a variety of interests so you can expect more hockey as the playoffs get closer and the same goes for Doctor who...maybe even Survivor even though the last three times I brought it up the person I was speaking said the exact same thing: "Is that show still even on?" sigh...yes people...yes it is. It's the only reality show I have any interest in, it was just renewed for two more seasons and it will not die because it's Survivor....although I did watch Mantracker cause that's Canadian and awesome.

A Sermon on the Gospel

I was very blessed and fortunate to be a guest speaker at Richmond Alliance Church this past weekend. The lead pastor, Jon, specifically asked me to preach on the gospel because we had some conversations about my study on it last year and he thought it would be great for the church to hear. I was glad to do it and it gave me the opportunity to review and rethink it further as well as communicate it better. I based my sermon on Paul's definition of the gospel given in Romans 1:1-7. You can listen to it by clicking the link below. Leave a comment if you have any comments, questions, or thoughts. Also be sure to 'share' it below if you like it. Thanks.

http://www.richmondalliancechurch.com/www/media/metaudio/20130728.mp3

2 Revised Definitions

It's been awhile since I posted, but I was asked to preach a sermon on the gospel and have done some rethinking on how I articulate my definition. This resulted in the revision of my medium and short versions of the gospel. I have written about the gospel being the story of Jesus and yet my definitions have read like bullet points. The rewriting of the medium definition reflects a move into the direction of telling a story. The short version has minor changes, but is more rhythmic and sounds like a proclamation rather than a dictionary. Here they are:

Short definition:

King Jesus is Lord. He saves and will judge.

Medium definition

The Story of Jesus: Israel's King died on a cross to defeat sin, death, and evil. He was raised from the dead to become Lord over everything (According to the Scriptures). He saves and will return to judge.

Here are links to my previous definitions: Short and Medium

John Meunier ponders the gospel debate

I found a post on the gospel by John Meunier, a part-time pastor.

In it, he cites an interview with Tim Keller on Trevin Wax's blog about the gospel needing to keep the salvation of the individual central. As you can imagine, I couldn't disagree more. This was the comment I left on the blog:

I think the real problem is that real conversation isn’t taking place. McKnight et al are still being misunderstood and lumped into a 'kingdom' or social gospel rather than their actual view of Jesus as the fulfillment of Israel's story and the promises of God to make a people for himself (which contains individuals necessarily) through which to redeem the whole creation. The individualism of Keller and others at TGC is not the gospel according to scripture. I used to define it that way, but after reading McKnight's book on the subject and rereading the entire New Testament and studying every instance of the noun and verb 'gospel(led)' it is clear who is using the term correctly. It is not as though individuals aren't saved, that justification isn't by by faith, or that the gospel has nothing to do with the forgiveness of sins, but that is a misdirected and narrow view that is simply not the focus of the gospel as defined by the New Testament.

After reflecting a little more, I'm not sure that McKnight really is misunderstood as much as I outline here, but that his methodology is being ignored. Keller is not using the whole of the Bible to define the gospel and I think that if individual salvation is thought to be central then the passages that are being used are not being understood properly. The gospel is about Jesus, but even if you say the gospel is about salvation it should be stated that it is the salvation of God's people, which includes individuals when they put their faith in Jesus. Even Paul continues to say that God's people is Israel. We are simply grafted in (Rom 9-11).

David Fitch on gospel proclamation

At this rate of discovery I am beginning to think the shift in how we define the gospel is getting to the point of near "consensus" at the scholarly level. Check out this quote by David Fitch:

"...we must understand we are speaking “reality” into people’s lives by the Spirit and we too are being challenged and changed in the process. This dynamic of proclamation I believe has been lost because a.) our preaching has become limited to a teaching exercise, and b.) we have limited the gospel so narrowly we have lost many if not all the entry points with our culture. I hope to address some of these issues in forthcoming posts."

You can read more here: http://www.reclaimingthemission.com/proclaiming-the-gospel-in-the-neighborhood/

Leave a comment. Please share below. Thanks for reading.

Would John Piper give a 'nod' to my gospel definition?

I had a series of amazing conversations this past week while on a new workers retreat for recently hired pastors and staff. The most significant was about rocking church structures to resemble the people with faith in a gospel for all nations by reflecting it in a way that isn't dysfunctional. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the implications and questioning how much or what to change, why, and how. The important thing is that I'm committed to pursuing it.

Another interesting one was on the car ride home with two new friends. I had several conversations about my journey to changing what I believe the gospel is on retreat and this was the last one. After giving a decent overview of the need for change, reasoning through various passages, and pointing to the extensive use of the titles of 'Christ' and 'Lord' I gave my medium length definition of the gospel:

"The story of Jesus; Israel's Messiah crucified and risen to be Lord over everything (according to the Scriptures) who saves and will judge."

Part of the explanation involved discussions about the Gospel Coalition because they have influence in North American churches and have published extensively over the last few years on the subject, not to mention that it is their name and basis of existence! After answering questions to clarify my definition I recited the definition so it could be typed into their phone. After re-reading it, I was asked whether or not the Gospel Coalition, and specifically John Piper, would approve it, adding that they didn't think TGC would have any problem with it.

I said that I was unsure about the whole group, but that it didn't line up with their statement on the gospel, which has no mention of Israel, uses 'Christ' as a name 5x's, and no mention of 'Lord' at all. I said that their definition has a lot going for it, such as being based on part of 1 Cor 15, but that it ignores central dimensions and focuses on the saving of individuals rather than God's people as a whole and creation itself.

I also added that John Piper, at least, would definitely not approve. Of course I was asked why and the reason is that there is no explicit mention of the payment for sin. Immediately my definition was reviewed for confirmation. I explained that for John Piper, the gospel is even narrower than TGC's and that he essentially defines it as Justification (Righteousness) by faith in order to put in a 'right relationship' with God. Sometimes he includes that Jesus defeated of the devil who can no longer damn us to hell. Sometimes it is to remove the wrath of God from us. He does write more thoroughly in his book "God is the Gospel," but the basic definition is the same with God himself being a positive benefit in addition to being saved from something. Consequently he would not approve of my definition, even though dealing with sin is implied twice by saying Jesus was 'crucified' and 'saves'. I am confident that my standard definition would not be good enough for Piper (despite my disagreement with Piper in this blog post, I do have respect for him. He has impacted many lives for Jesus).

I explained that I don't deny that payment for sin is part of the gospel. It is in my long definition, but it goes along side of the defeat of death and the disarming of every evil power. These are equally important in my opinion and God's victory in Jesus is multifaceted and integrated. I also reiterated how I view the result of faith in the gospel to be different than the gospel itself. What I mean is that Jesus' work on the cross applied to sinners is what happens when you put faith in the work he did.

Unfortunately, I made a big mistake at this point because I failed to say that the central reason why I do not push our sin problem to the forefront is because the gospel is about Jesus, not sin. The message is about the good news of who Jesus is and what he has done to fulfill the promises of God to Israel. If we follow Piper, we get a gospel about Jesus' death to cover my sin for my 'salvation' from God (or is it the devil?) who would have sent me to hell. It also means we have a gospel without Israel, Jesus as Messiah and Lord, or a robust understanding of the cross, etc. What Piper is actually saying is that the gospel isn't good news unless I am saved. Not only does Piper ignore some central themes, he makes the "good news" conditional. How many people need to be saved for it to be good news, exactly? I think this is a major error and that the gospel is always 'good news' or, as some like to say, 'a royal announcement' concerning God's son, Jesus.

The gospel is about Jesus, the saving Messiah of Israel, who died for the whole world.

Leave a comment. Please share below. Thanks for reading.

Jonathan Pennington's definition of the gospel

I got this definition of the gospel in my inbox this morning. It's from Jonathan Pennington in his book "Reading the gospels wisely: A Narrative and Theological Introduction" (pg 5, 16-17):

"Consistently throughout the New Testament Epistles the 'gospel' refers to the oral proclamation about Jesus the Christ (meaning the anointed Davidic King) - who he was; what he accomplished through his life, death, and resurrection; the promise of his future return to establish God's reign; and the concomitant call to repent and have faith. This is not a message of moralism or a call to greater religious obedience but rather is a proclamation of God's grace and the invitation to hope. This is why it is rightly called 'good news.'"

"The New Testament authors, building especially on the Isaianic vision, define the 'gospel' as Jesus' effecting the long-awaited return of God himself as King, in the power of the Spirit bringing his people back from exile and into the true promised land of a new creation, forgiving their sins, and fulfilling all the promises of God and the hopes of his people. This Isaianic vision is itself based on God's work at the exodus, which the prophets take up and reappropriate to describe God's future work. Because of this vision, described as the proclamation of good news, the apostles call their kerygma 'gospel,' and it is why the evangelists likewise describe the work of Jesus and the narratives about him as euangelion. In this there is univocality; Paul and the Gospel writers all understand their message to be one of God's reign coming in the person of Jesus through the power of the Spirit. The 'gospel,' whether in oral or written form, is the message of God's comprehensively restorative kingdom."

Thanks to Trevin Wax for his diligent work on this subject.
Check out his blog for more on this and other subjects:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/

Leave a comment. Please share below. Thanks for reading.

Gal 4:8-20 - The gospel unchained

The last verse in Galatians referencing the gospel is 4:13 in the context of Paul transitioning from the Galatians' enslavement to their freedom:

8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature are not gods.⁹Now, however, that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits? How can you want to be enslaved to them again?¹⁰You are observing special days, and months, and seasons, and years.¹¹I am afraid that my work for you may have been wasted.
12 Friends, I beg you, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You have done me no wrong.¹³You know that it was because of a physical infirmity that I first announced the gospel to you;¹⁴though my condition put you to the test, you did not scorn or despise me, but welcomed me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.¹⁵What has become of the goodwill you felt? For I testify that, had it been possible, you would have torn out your eyes and given them to me.¹⁶Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?¹⁷They make much of you, but for no good purpose; they want to exclude you, so that you may make much of them.¹⁸It is good to be made much of for a good purpose at all times, and not only when I am present with you.¹⁹My little children, for whom I am again in the pain of childbirth until Christ is formed in you,²⁰I wish I were present with you now and could change my tone, for I am perplexed about you.

The word 'gospelled' is straightforwardly speaking about Paul's original preaching of the gospel message to the Galatians due to illness. The whole purpose of Paul writing this letter is to move the Galatians back to simple, obedient, Spirit-led faith in that message rather than a complex system of religious observance and practice being introduced to them. The perversion of the gospel message is the addition of observing the law to be considered part of Israel and to receive eternal life. This is not purely doing the 'right' thing in terms of sin, but also the proper religious observances including rituals of circumcision, Sabbath keeping, festivals, etc.

As far as concluding how Galatians defines the gospel, we can say that it largely assumes the Galatians know its message already. However, the implications have been distorted by others adding requirements to what Jesus has already achieved, the 'righteous' status as Abraham's children declared by God, and what the Spirit is at work doing in their lives.

Leave a comment. Please share below. Thanks for reading.

Mark Stevens discusses 3 gospel groups

Another adherent of 'group C', as I've called it, appears to be Mark Stevens. He is part way through a series on some books written about the gospel or which include it as a central theme. Interestingly, he categorizes group A as "soterian" group B as "Social Justice" and group C as "Historical/Contextual". I'm not sure I agree with his analysis of each 'group' and disapprove of using Scott McKnight's 'soterian' title as well as group C's title, which sets them out as the clear logical choice before full consideration.

Here are the posts:

Introduction
"Soterian"
"Social Justice"
"Historical/Contextual"
Conclusion (coming later this week)

What do you think?

Leave a comment. Share the post. Thanks for reading.

An Expanded Apostes' Creed

I saw this very interesting expansion of the Apostles' Creed which emulates the same sort of expansion I'm driving for on the gospel: http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/how-i-think-the-creed

Leave a comment. Please 'share' below. Thanks for reading.

Early Christmas Card

Here's a bonus post! (Because I got mail)

Perhaps it should be called a Saviour-mas card? If you look at the card, you'll notice the word 'Saviour' has been made exceedingly larger than the rest of the text. I know it's not a 'big deal,' but I can't help myself because it epitomizes the rampant subtle diminishing of the rest of the message of the gospel, which includes Jesus' birth. Why isn't "Christ" larger? It is called Christ-mas after all...

This is one of my favourite passages on the gospel because it defines it clearly and succinctly. It is one of the ones I used as a basis to construct my definitions. The whole quote from the angel reads as follows:

“Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. ¹¹ Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. ¹² This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.” Lk 2:10-12 (NIV)

In the discussion about my short definition of the gospel earlier this week, I pointed out why I use "saves" instead of "Saviour" in my definition. It doesn't get used much in the Bible's gospel summaries let alone the entire New Testament. This verse is the only time it occurs in Luke, it appears once in John, and is absent from Matthew and Mark. Jesus's name means "God saves" and the verb is all over the place so I'm not saying to remove the concept.

However, the emphasis in the passage, and meaning for these Jewish shepherds is clearly bent toward understanding any type of salvation or saving being done by the promised King from the line of David who will rule the world (hence Lord). The fact that the future King and Lord of all who will bring joy for all people is born in an animal's feeding trough and is announced to lowly shepherds stuck in the fields working graveyard shift is the thing we should be noting. The saving action is incredible because of who he was, how he entered the world, and that all people, even the least, will benefit.

But let's not decrease the font size of "Saviour" either. It's one of the only instances we've got, and the act of saving is humbling and great to behold. Merry King-mas everyone!

Leave a comment. Share the post. Thanks for reading.

My long definition of the gospel

This is the last 'definition' post I am bringing over to the blog from a class I am teaching. I already posted my short and medium length definitions with some discussion over the last two days.

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.

My medium length definition of the gospel

 Yesterday I posted my short definition of the gospel with some discussion here. Tomorrow I will post the long definition and more discussion from a class I am teaching. Today's medium length definition is the one I use the most often because it can very easily be unpacked, yet it contains elements that are often left out or minimized when preaching, proclaiming, or explaining the gospel.

My medium length definition of the gospel:

"The story of Jesus; Israel's Messiah crucified and risen to be Lord over everything (according to the Scriptures) who saves and will judge."

 If you compare it to the short definition, you'll notice it begins and ends the same, but 'Christ' has been replaced with 'Messiah' along with several additions. Messiah is a less familiar term, which is a synonym for 'Christ' meaning 'anointed one' referring to Israel's long expected liberating king. It is the English equivalent to the Hebrew word 'Mashiah' which I inserted to deliberately link Jesus to the Jewish expectation we find in the four gospels. The good news for Israel was a good king coming to liberate them from oppressors and usher in a new age of world shalom or 'peace'. That is also why I identified the Messiah as belonging to Israel, which also links Jesus and the gospel to the whole of the old testament in a stronger way.

Another addition was the inclusion of the crucifixion and resurrection. How did I have a short definition without the cross? It is because 'saves' is a board term and the cross is the means by which Jesus defeats sin, death and evil so save. Also, Paul does the same thing in Romans 1:2-4. The question I would ask back is, "How anyone can define the gospel with the cross and not include the resurrection? This happens pretty frequently, but people don't get as bent out of shape about it. However, the cross without resurrection is empty and powerless. What is achieved together is the overthrow and defeat all else, the vindication of Jesus as the true Messiah, and his establishment as Lord over everything because he is victorious. The point of being Lord 'over everything' is also emphasized in this definition to expand the focus to not only persons or his people, but all so-called powers and the entire cosmos (universe).

The last addition was 'according to the Scriptures', which points back to the Old Testament promises of God to Israel through which Jesus is the fulfillment. It also alludes to the New Testament in that there is much more that could be said about what Jesus as Messiah and Lord, crucified and risen, who saves and will judge means. I think having this phrase point back to the source of Scripture allows acknowledgement that no definition can capture everything there is to say about the gospel. We don't even get one single definition that succinctly handles the whole gospel message without using this tactic. The best one we have is in 1 Cor 15, which uses this phrase twice. The same thing happens in Romans 1. If Paul can omit things with a 'catch all' then so can we.

Any thoughts or comments?
Click the 'share' buttons below if you have time.
Thanks for reading.

My short definition of the gospel

I wrote a discussion starter for a class I'm teaching and it included my definitions of what the gospel is (short, medium, and long). Today I'll give you my short one and part of my initial  discussion:.

Short definition:

"The story of Jesus; Christ and Lord who saves and will judge."

Reading through Scripture's use of the word, it will become clearer why I think this is such an important distinction (or expansion) to make. The focus of Scripture is on Jesus' fulfillment of the promises that Israel's king would bring in God's rule over everything by rescuing his people and bringing judgment on the oppressors. This is a major OT theme as well as NT, and it is the gospel: Jesus, the King is Lord who saves and will judge.

Here's some quick stats to put into perspective why I call Jesus Christ and Lord, but avoid Saviour and Judge. He is referred to as 'Judge' only 3 or 4 times (God is called 'Judge' 1 or 2 times), and 'Saviour' 15 or 16 times (God is 'Saviour' 7 or 8 times). However, the actions of judging or saving are used too many times for me to have sorted through and counted so far. The point is that the verbs are applied to Jesus far more than the nouns in these cases.

In comparison, the Greek title of Christ/Messiah/King is used 569 times and very few do not refer to Jesus. Also, "Lord" or "Master" is used of Jesus or God over 550 times and most are referring to Jesus. In both cases, with Christ and Lord, the title is used with Jesus's name so much that the NT writers even used it in place of his name, which we do all the time. When we're comparing over 500 occurrences to under 20 the standard seems obvious.

More importantly, when the NT writers, and even the sermons in Acts, explain the gospel it includes as a primary assertion that Jesus is the Christ and is also the Lord. There are a few flickers of calling him judge, most importantly in Acts 17, and there are a handful where he is called Saviour, but over half are in Titus and 2 Peter which are both 'late' writings and therefore distanced from the earliest articulations of the gospel. In the first 5 books of the NT, "Saviour" is only used once in Lk and Jn and twice in Acts. The point is not that we shouldn't call Jesus Judge of all or Saviour of the world, only that it is not the primary way the bible articulates the gospel. However the actions of saving and judging occur all over the place so we ought to include these as integral.