Christless Christianity #1 – What is the Gospel?
Jan 5th, 2009 by Nathan White
I am going to spend a few posts in the coming weeks sharing various excerpts from the Michael Horton book, Christless Christianity. This is the first post in what I hope to be a mini-series examining the claims of this book.
As I have said before, I highly recommend Christless Christianity to you, as I consider it to be one of the most important books written in the last few years.
Today’s topic: What is the Gospel?
Recently, on a discussion list I am a member of, a friend of mine asked the following question, requesting a response:
What is the Gospel?
A. A Command
B. An Announcement
C. An Offer
D. All of the above
E. Something else
How would you answer this question? I certainly think there is some legitimacy in “all of the above”, but if we’re completely honest about how scripture presents the gospel, I must say that ‘B’, an announcement, probably begins to answer the question best.
Consider this in light of the following excerpt:
“J. Gresham Machen’s cry, directed at Protestant liberalism, can as easily be addressed to evangelicals today: “What I need first of all is not exhortation, but a gospel, not directions for saving myself but knowledge of how God has saved me. Have you any good news? That is the question I ask of you. I know your exhortations will not help. But if anything has been done to save me, will you not tell me the facts?”
As I read through this book, I begun to realize how our culture, and certainly myself included at times, have gotten the gospel backwards. Even in solid, bible-believing reformed circles, too often the gospel is a great exhortation to ‘believe’, or ‘repent’, or ‘place faith in Christ’, or ‘deny yourself’, or any number of things which center on us doing something. This, I fear, many otherwise sincere believers sometimes misunderstand.
But the gospel and our response to the gospel are two different things. We cannot preach our response to the gospel and call it ‘the gospel’; to do so would just preach ourselves. Rather, we must understand that we only call for our response to the gospel after the proclamation of good news has first been given, instead of the other way around.
More on this to come.
And I...
Good thoughts Nathan, I think that Machen quote is from Christianity and Liberalism where he has an excellent section on what the Gospel is and is not.
I agree with your choice of b)….after all (though we so easily and quickly forget this) the word Gospel means “good news”, and announcement and declaration that in spite of rebellion and sin, men and women can be saved through the life and death of Jesus Christ the Son of God. The Gospel is fundamentally indicative.
BTW picked up Goldsworthy today!
Hi, Nathan. At your urging in the previous post, I have ordered my copy of Christless Christianity and can’t wait. I’ve been enjoying the discussions of it on the White Horse Inn as well.
While I agree in the main with all of this, I think it would be easy to get too discriminating about that, setting up walls of distinction where none ought to exist (as in, between command and declaration.) I mean, we see that when Jesus preached the Gospel, His message is summarized as, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
The whole statement is called His gospel, not merely the latter “declaration” but also the former “command.” Again, throughout Acts, the apostolic preaching always included the invitation; and I don’t see anywhere that the text separates that from the “news” portion as if it’s not really part of the Gospel “proper.” (Additionally, the “everlasting gospel” announced in Revelation 14:6-7 begins with the command to “fear God and give glory to him.” etc, etc.)
But, having not read the book yet, I’m surely jumping way ahead, asking questions that will be addressed and answered.
I did find the WHI discussions very helpful, though, with regard to preaching, especially preaching on an ethical passage, and still making it a Gospel sermon.
Just pat me on my wittle head and tell me to wait till the book arrives, if you’d like, and ignore all this.
Nathan, very clear and well put.
Gordan, (excuse me for interrupting), I think Nathan’s point is more about the emphasis of the gospel, rather than what it may include. Personally, I don’t see that the “invitation” has nearly the emphasis as does the “announcement.” I’m thinking of the messages at Pentacost, Cornelius, Ethiopian Eunich, and others. It seems like that the “announcement” in these sermons comprised their entire dissertations. Peter didn’t even give an invitation at Pentecost until they asked what they must do. Furthermore, he didn’t even give an invitation/command at all to Cornelius.
I hope I’m not misunderstanding you, Gordan. And I hope I didn’t put words in Nathan’s mouth that he didn’t mean.
Great– Paul and Gordan picked up books I recommended. Boy, am I on the hook or what?! I hope you guys enjoy them as much as I did
Gordan, I understand your point and largely agree. Let me comment on a few things:
Gordan said:
“setting up walls of distinction where none ought to exist ”
I agree that we can be too convoluted and over-think ourselves. But Davide nailed it when he said *emphasis*. What is the emphasis of our gospel presentation? Where does the power lie?
Gordan said:
“when Jesus preached the Gospel, His message is summarized as, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.””
And now the Kingdom of Heaven has come in its fullness with the accomplished work of Jesus Christ. We’re now just waiting for the consummation of what Christ has already accomplished. So given this fact, saying the above isn’t communicating the fullness of gospel that the rest of the NT gives us. It was when Jesus said it, but He was proclaiming what He was about to do; we now proclaim what He did.
I think Peter’s sermon in Acts two and Paul’s in Acts 17 are great examples of what I’m trying to say. However, I agree with you in that the response cannot be separated from the declaration. But order and emphasis are important. Specifically in this culture where we’re most likely to hear a gospel about us and our responsibility rather than on Christ and His ability.
Hope that helps my friend.
Nathan
Davide and Nathan,
I understand what you’re saying about emphasis. I completely agree.
I’d go further and say that our (fallen) default position is works-righteousness, and so our tendency is to hear any gospel presentation with an ear toward “What do I need to work on here?” As a preacher, the temptation is to give ‘em that as well. With that in mind, the focus on the Gospel as “news” is very helpful.
All that said, though, I hate to see the command element quarantined off as if it’s something other than the gospel proper.
Thanks you guys.
Nathan,
For some reason that I do not understand, my computer will not let me e-mail you using your e-mail link. So, I have to try contacting you this way.
I live outside of Seattle. Therefore, I live with the influence of Mark Driscoll. At one time or the other, either our kids, their friends, or other family members come face to face with this ministry.
I read your blog last year on the subject, which was a real encouragement to me. As a matter of fact, your words were part of the catalyst for me to research Mark Driscoll. I have written an 11 page memorandum to Christian leaders detailing my concerns and also questioning why Driscoll is the highlighted speaker at The Gospel Coalition’s upcoming conference in Chicago. I will be releasing this memo on Monday. If you are interesting in receiving a copy of it, please e-mail me at cathymickels@gmail.com.
Blessings to you.
Cathy Mickels
yeah, I agree
Here’s a perfect example that I found, that illustrates what you are talking about Nathan. This is an actual excerpt from a website. So sad.
1. You must accept that you are a sinner. “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23)…
2. You must accept that as a sinner you owe a penalty. “For the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23a)…
3. You must accept that Jesus Christ has already paid our sin debt.”But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8)…
4. You must accept by faith what Jesus Christ did for you. “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (John 3:36)….
The word “believe” means to trust, to depend on, to rely on. To believe on the Lord Jesus Christ means that you accept the fact that you are a sinner, that as a sinner you owe the sin penalty, and that Jesus Christ died on the cross, was buried, and arose again on the third day to pay the debt you owe…
Now, if you will trust Jesus Christ as your Saviour, pray this simple prayer from your heart…
If you prayed this simple prayer, fill out the form below…
Nathan, you wrote in your comment,
Good point. This reminds me of Pink’s foreword to the second edition of his “Sovereignty of God”, where in answer to his critics who said his book was one-sided, not adequately presenting man’s responsibility, he wrote
Davide,
The example you give reminds me of another example cited in one of our recent posts at StrangeBaptistFire. A church’s statement about salvation included
which actually turns out to be a great synopsis of the Arminian position and thus the modern church’s view of salvation.
As I’ve been reading this thread, I think men are largely talking past each other because of different uses of the word “comfort.”
I think you’re all agreeing that “wordly” or “fleshly” comforts are not what the gospel offers; and also agreeing that there is true comfort of a higher sort that is found in the New Covenant, flowing from the forgiveness of sin.
Is it wrong to offer that latter, higher comfort as part (not all) of the Gospel proclamation? I don’t see how it can be, or else Christ Himself is guilty of not properly presenting the Gospel. He didn’t merely appeal to those who were sensible of their burden of sin; but also to those who felt wearied by the labor of it: and to them he promised not only forgiveness but rest. (Matt 11:28-30)
Let everyone who is thirsty, come and drink. If language is to mean anything, surely that speaks to a deep, experiential longing; and not merely to some high-falutin’ theological idea that “thirst” ought to equal the mental acknowledgement of a sin-debt.
Gordan,
I think in one sense the emphasis of the gospel must be tailored to the audience. To proud pharisees, the gospel should be primarily law (with very few, if any promises of comfort). To the broken-hearted, the gospel should be primarily promises of hope in Christ. Would you agree with this Gordan and Nathan?
Good comments, gentlemen. I’m definitely going to post on this again this week so we can continue to flesh this out.
Davide, I would agree with you in a sense, but maybe in a more ‘personal evangelism’ sense rather than in preaching. When we’re in the pulpit, there’s going to be all kinds of different people listening, and not just pharisees and the broken-hearted.
Nevertheless, the preaching of the law is absolutely vital to make the way for the gospel. We need to preach it and preach it in force; not in hopes of conforming to it; not so we can give principles for living; but because the Law must devastate us so that we are fully impacted by the gospel, and so sinners will look outside themselves for help.
This post is a great way of phrasing what I’ve attempted to ask before.
In Calvinism, the Gospel is pure announcement. It declares that God HAS already saved some and has decreed to condemn the rest. It is finished!
Man is and can only be passive in life? There is no “decision”, no “choice”, no “accepting Jesus as savior”. I’ve never understood why Calvinists preach at all. In fact, this Reformed pastor preaches a certain kind of fatalism (http://www.reformedbible.com/Mourn.htm) – “Mourn! God may hate you!”.
So why, then, the sense of urgency that permeates Scripture? Over and over there are admonitions to remain alert and awake, to preach so that man may hear and be saved, that there are contingencies placed on the salvation of man, even with Christ’s sacrifice being complete. This door has opened. The bridge has been created, but man has to walk across it!! That’s not egotism or being “man-centered”. It acknowledges that man must abase himself, empty himself and allow Christ to change him, that as he is, he is unworthy of entry into God’s kingdom.
How does that recognition in any way detract from God’s power or the efficacy of His sacrifice?
Jim,
Announcement? Sure it is, but much more – the means God uses to bring His chosen to Himself. Generally when people don’t understand why a reformed believer would evangelize, it’s because they don’t grasp the concept of means.
Man has to walk across the bridge? Obviously. I don’t think many Calvinists would argue against that. Problem is that the scriptures indicate that men are unwilling and thus unable to do so in their natural state. God has mercy and gives life to whom He will, and those do indeed walk gladly across.
Fatalism is problematic, but perhaps more biblical mourning would be appropriate in the world, and even in the church, today.
“allow Christ to change him” – Is Christ unable to do it otherwise?
If God just built the bridge and we may or may not walk across it based on our “free will”, why do some cross and some do not? Are we better than those who chose not to? Otherwise, what was the difference between us?
The problem with the efficacy of His sacrifice in your rationale is that it did not secure our salvation – He set up the deal and we need to seal it ourselves. I believe the Word makes clear that He has orchestrated, executed and sealed our redemption from all eternity. That’s efficacy.
Jim–
As Darrin stated, God uses means to accomplish His ends. Thus the exhortations for man to repent are used to bring men to repentance. For without faith and repentance, no man will see the Lord.
Romans 10 says that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. And how are they to ‘hear’ and have ‘faith’ if they do not hear? Hear what? –you might ask. Hear the announcement of what God has done through Christ. This creates faith in the heart, which invokes repentance and trust in Christ. It is the Good News.
I have a really good book recommendation for you. Iain Murray wrote a little paperback called The Forgotten Spurgeon, where he outlines some of the theology of the great CH Spurgeon, the ‘Prince of Preachers’. If ever there was a man who gave free and wide exhortations of the gospel, it was him. Likewise, if ever there was a man who held firmly to the 5 points of Calvinism, it was him. How did he balance such a view you ask? Well, Murray spends two lengthy chapters examining this, and provides dozens of paragraphs from Spurgeon’s own sermons which detail how Spurgeon viewed things. It is profound, and it will answer so many of these questions you’ve asked here again and again. I highly recommend it to you…
[...] This is the third post in what I hope to be a mini-series examining the claims of this book. (P1 & [...]