The Gospel of Jesus Christ Communicated in 140 Characters
May 7th, 2009 by Nathan White
This week Greg Gilbert over at the 9Marks blog asked whether we could accurately present the gospel of Jesus Christ on Twitter –requiring that the text be 140 characters or less. I thought this was an excellent and profitable question, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading some of the short gospel presentations.
However, as I thought about the shortest of space in presenting the gospel, I realized just how important it is to know your audience when presenting the gospel. Of course, the gospel (‘good news’) is simply what God through Christ has done –and when we present the gospel we are simply pronouncing that news. And with this there is no need to ‘knowing your audience’. But there are many factors that go into what aspect of the gospel that we emphasize and/or mention when presenting it to unbelievers.
For example, we should present the gospel differently to a Roman Catholic than we would an atheist. A Catholic is likely to already acknowledge the Triune God, the truthfulness of scripture, the historical record of Jesus Christ, and even the reality of sin. An athiest, however, would need to be presented with something that defends and/or specificially proclaims the truthfulness of some of the stuff a Catholic already accepts.
Therefore, I found the ‘140′ limit quite challenging. Sure, it’s easy to mention some of the important aspects of the gospel in 140 characters, but what good is it to say ‘Jesus is the only way’ or ‘Jesus died for sinners’ to this outwardly-churchy but hypocritical land that we live in?
So, considering the state of our land, the popular church in our day, and most people’s already accepted beliefs concerning God, the bible, and Jesus Christ, I offered the following three attempts at communicating the gospel in 140 characters:
“Salvation is by works alone. But man is incapable of working his way to salvation. You need an alien righteousness, the works of Another”
“Christ/the cross is the only way to eternal life because you can neither escape punishment for your sin nor work your own righteousness”
“God through Christ did what we could not do ourselves: paid the penalty for sin & fulfilled all righteousness; we receive only by faith”
Our culture is inundated with the idea that salvation, in some sense, and in some degree, is dependent upon something in us. That is, what we do, what we say, what rituals we follow, what truths we accept, etc. Religion is about doing good, right? –so the ignorance goes.
But the Bible makes it abundantly clear that man’s works, even his best deeds, are filthy wickedness in His eyes outside of the merits of Christ. And that any trust or dependence in ourselves, or even any attempt to please God in our own power, is absolutely futile, not to mention offense to Him. I believe that this is a very important -and often lost- truth in our land, which led me to phrase the statements above like I did.
What are your thoughts? What aspect of the gospel should we emphasize above all others when only given 140 characters?
Very challenging. I see that in your attempts you emphasized the substitutionary atonement. That’s probably how I would want to go as well. But I think such a presentation is only half-done if we don’t preach Christ’s resurrection (the keynote of the apostolic witness in Acts, etc.)
We run the risk of sliding into sound-byte and bumper-sticker theology when we do these things, though. I don’t know where the line is between reducing the gospel to its bare essentials, and simple reductionism.
Perhaps you could post some scriptural proof that this is the case and not a grid that covenantalism has imposed upon scripture. Since we are talking about the gospel, it should be simple.
Hi James-
The ‘grid’ that I impose on the doctrine of justification is the same grid used by the Apostle:
Christ’s obedience is imputed to us through faith, thus we are justified before God with a righteousness and a law-keeping that is not our own (see also Phil 3:9).
For a full exegetical case I would recommend John Piper’s excellent book ‘Counted Righteous in Christ’.
Okay, well I didn’t think you could answer it. You should really take a long hard look at any system of theology that imposes their beliefs upon the scripture only to arrive at its conclusions.
I have read Piper’s book btw. It if a fine book.
Nothing in Romans 5:18 says that salvation is by works alone.
I know you attend a reformed church and embrace the LBCF, so I don’t expect to change your mind on this issue, but step back and stick with the word.
James- I did answer the question. Without the obedience of Christ, fulfilling the Law on our behalf, salvation would not be possible. Christ did what Adam failed to do: earn/merit salvation by righteous obedience for all his posterity.
Actually no you didn’t. Let us back up. Please show me where God required Adam to earn salvation for all his posterity.
James, you asked how salvation was based on works and I showed you. Adam was never brought into this disussion until you decided to grind your favorite axe.
I don’t really have the time or care to argue over the CT of works. It is taught clearly and plainly in scripture and I am not in the least persuaded by modern novelties that seek to undermine it to stay consistent with a host of other errors.
Here is where Adam was brought into the discussion. This is a quote from you.
Again, Romans 5:18 does not say that salvation is by works alone. It does say that the righteous act of Christ is the basis for our justification.
As for Adam, you cannot demonstrate either from Romans 5 nor Genesis where Adam could ever earn righteousness for even himself, least of all anyone else.
This is a grid that CT imposes upon the scripture:
Believe in the covenant of works, then find the covenant of works, then impose the system upon the scriptures so that it is the overall theme of salvation even though it is never implied or named by any scriptural author.
You were challenged to put the gospel down in 140 characters or less. You failed. You introduced ideas foreign to scripture.
As for novelty, do you really want to play that tired worn out card? Was Luthor’s ideas about justification a novelty to the catholics? None of the church fathers ever spoke of the covenant of works Nathan. NONE OF THEM. Your theology dates back a few hundred years. This is why I continually encourage you to examine your beliefs by the word. It will be rough, some might turn their back on your, but courage is something the Lord looks on with approval, especially when it is for the sake of truth.
James-
Yes, I know I was the first to quote Adam, but my point is that the question you raised has nothing to do with Adam.
Like I said, without the righteous WORK(s) of Christ, there is no salvation. This is salvation by works, that is, Christ’s works, His obedience. That is the point I meant; that is even what you agree with.
And, like I said, I don’t care to enter into a discussion about the Covenant of Works. It is easily seen in scripture by those who don’t have conflicting presuppositions.
BTW-, you said “Again, Romans 5:18 does not say that salvation is by works alone.”
But Romans 2:13 says “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.”
I was simply making the same point. To nail down the point of sin which is so lost in our day, I emphasized that God demands absolute perfect obedience in order to be justified. We cannot obtain that on our own, but Christ has, and He freely imputes this righteous-obedience to us by faith.
What you mean by this and what I mean by this are not the same thing. You mean vicarious lawkeeping, something that is born out of covenantalism. I embrace the vicarious nature of the atonement, but not lawkeeping. Christ’s lawkeeping made him the perfect and only acceptable substitute. His one act (as Paul says) is his death on the cross. This continues into the active/passive aspect of Christ’s work though and is not necessary in your original post.
Consider carefully Romans 3 though. The righteousness of God was revealed apart from the law, being witnessed by the law.
I would love to have an honest discussion about this with you Nathan. You don’t strike me as one who cowers from an honest theological discussion.
(Nathan, be my guest to delete this comment if you are attempting to end the above off-topic conversation.)
James,
I’m curious about where you would draw the line for the beginning of the “one act” of justifiying virtue you reference above. That is, where did Christ’s obedience go from “active” to “passive?” (By the way, I note that there is as little Scriptural support for this grid you have imposed, for the division of Christ’s righteousness into differing kinds, as you claim there is for a covenant of works, but that’s beside the point for now.) Which bit of Christ’s doing His Father’s will crossed that line into the “one act” of passive obedience?
The prayer in the garden? The willingness to go with those who arrested Him? His demeanor during the initial phase of His trials? Accepting the crown of thorns? The scourging? The cross-carrying? The lying still for the actual nails? Where did the one act begin? Isn’t it true that many acts of obedience on Christ’s part led to the cross itself? So which of these justified us? Or rather, why artificially try to separate one obedience from another, or make extra-biblical distinctions between forms of righteousness?
Why would it be wrong, in your view, to see that one act beginning with His being willing to empty Himself and be found as a man? I ask because it seems to me that Philippians 2:5-11 relates Christ’s current exaltation to that most initial willingness to be humbled.
Gordan, it is CT that created the artificial active and passive obedience of Christ. I do not hold to that. I think you misunderstood me.
James,
I beg your forgiveness, then. I thought from what you have written above that you were advancing a New Covenant Theology understanding, in which it is strenuously objected that Christ’s obedience to the Law of God is not counted as our righteousness, but only the “passive” obedience of His sacrifice is. I’ll slink back into obscurity then.
Gordan, I do wholeheartedly embrace NCT. HOWEVER, the idea that Christ’s righteousness is not imputed to us but only what CTers call his passive obedience is not NCT. I know this is a wee bit off topic at this point. We embrace that Christ’s righteousness was put to our account. What most of us deny though is that Christ earned it because Adam failed and that Christ’s righteousness is some kind of lawkeeping covenant of works theory made up a few hundred years ago.
There must be flavors of NCT floating around the ‘net, then, as I’ve had NCT guys stress that the active obedience of Christ is not imputed. It’s not CT that splits the “sorts” of obedience: we merely use those terms to describe things.
But, if I may, you are the one above who keeps bringing up the term “covenant of works.” We don’t need to use that label if you’re bothered by it. The Law was given with the promise that the one who does the whole Law would live by it. And then, in Christ’s conversation with the rich young ruler, about what he needed to do to find eternal life, their discussion of the law included Jesus affirming that if the man kept all these, he would live. I think it’s pretty clear that if a man perfectly kept the whole law, there would be no need of salvation by grace, and that man would never die. Only Jesus ever did this, of course. By perfectly keeping His Father’s will in all things, Christ succeeded where Adam failed. Isn’t that kinda the whole thrust of Romans 5, or how do you read it? Adam’s one sin doomed us all: Christ’s perfect obedience conversely saves us.
James said:
This cannot be supported logically or exegetically, as Gordan pointed out above. His one ‘act’, as Piper details in the book I referenced above, cannot be separated into categories such as His death on the cross versus His life of obedience to God’s law. His entire life was an act of humility/submission to fulfill what His Father had commissioned Him to do. Ps 40:8/Heb 10 – I come to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart.”
James said:
Your problem here is that lawkeeping cannot be separated from righteousness or His obedient act. That is, in scripture, righteousness is always defined by the law. Sure, Christ was righteous far more exhaustively than what is detailed in the letter of the Law; but again, it is impossible to distinguish the two.
James said:
Of course I don’t; but I also recognize that we have such differing presuppositions that a discussion on this topic would be fruitless. We have deeper disagreements that would have to be dealt with first. And I don’t want to get into it all. We interpret scripture must differently. I would say you use more of a wooden-literal and/or proof-texting method; I tend to look at it more systematically, with themes and implications playing an important role in things.
James said (a few times):
I find this funny because you first appealed to Luther’s ideas on Justification as being novel to the Catholics, but then you appealed to the church fathers to support your disdain for CT. Which is it? Did the church fathers preach justification by faith just as Luther did? Or was Luther’s doctrine novel? If Luther was novel then the church fathers you appealed to were wrong on the most important issues. If Luther was not novel then you cannot claim him as an example that novel theologies are sometimes accurate.
But CT dates back to the late 1500s if not before (which is more than just a few hundred years). It has stood the test of time, and the test of the best exegetes the world has ever seen. CT’s view on the law is and always has been the by far dominant view of protestant Christianity. Modern dispensationalism (it all its forms, including NCT) has done nothing to unearth any substantial objections to CT, nothing that hasn’t been used (failing to convince) time and time again.
But ultimately, these issues must be determined by exegesis, not church history. And it is because of exegesis –instead of proof texts taken out of context—that I believe CT to be most faithful to scripture.
Nathan, my point in referencing Luthor was that the catholic church wrote off his views as recent, novel, whatever. They were wrong, Luthor was right.
In the same way, you write off NCT as novel (when I can point out the language of Irenaeus’ view of the law, which would be NCT) as though that has any merit at all.
NCT predates CT by more than a millenium at the very least.
I was just correcting you for calling NCT novel when it isn’t. I was also further pointing out that you don’t even reject theology that is deemed “novel” since you agree with Luthor.
So again, it was a correction and pointing out how you do not consistently follow your own objection. That was all.
[...] In my last post I said the following in an attempt to present the gospel of Jesus Christ: “Salvation is by works alone. But man is incapable of working his way to salvation. You need an alien righteousness, the works of Another” [...]
I like the third rendition the best, although there are many, many ways to concisely convey the gospel. Second is good also. I have a little trouble with the ‘language’ of the first. I do believe that we are saved only by the work of Christ and his righteousness, however, I wouldn’t word it that way–just my opinion.
Thanks for the comment, Davide. To explain why I worded the first presentation like I did, I just posted an article “The Works of the Law and our Salvation”.
I understand why people would prefer not to word things as I did in the first one, but I am convinced that Jesus and Paul both employed these same explicit terms in presenting the gospel –though certainly not every time. There is a different emphasis depending on the audience. Not everybody is from Galatia, or Corinth, or Rome…
I’m clearly out of my depths here as I know very little about Christianity (both atheist and Jewish) but I think the most important matter is what you wish to convey by teaching the gospel. The actual words, the actual text is no more than a mean (Judaism has a funny tale that focuses exactly on this point- it’s the first one, here, about Rabbi Shammai and Rabbi Hillel: )
On the same note (I hope you don’t mind), something that often bothers me: the texts you relate to is translated (old and new testimony). If the mere words were so important, one would surely need a direct approach to the text. As it is, I think that belief is firstly a matter of content and temporary autonomous zones.