;)
The Simple Gospel – The Simple Truth
Posted by Rob Ayers in Bible & Theology, Church & Missions
Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed. – 1 Corinthians 15: 1-11 ESV
The Simple Gospel, the Simple Truth shared with Simple Love. This is displayed in a world of nuance, parables, over-education, and “contextualization.” Yet the truth of Jesus is unvarnished through the boundaries of cultural diversity if indeed He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life for the entire world as He and His first disciples proclaimed. If He is true, then the Gospel is the Truth for all humanity and not just for only some in their own personal perceptions and unique cultures. This is what makes the Gospel message of Christ so unique – and so controversial in cross-cultural settings.
One of the goals of modern contextualization is the attempt to make a simple message clearer by using cultural tools, often using language and symbols that have meaning within a particular culture and utilizing them to communicate the universal truths of Christ. For this we have experts who are highly educated and skilled who often now are seated in academia who write dissertations and treatises and mentor young scholars who become immersed in the theories of their teachers. These in turn go to the field to “try out” these ivory tower philosophies, oftentimes with mixed results.
What is lost in all of this in my opinion is the Simple Gospel, the Simple Truth, shared in Simple Love. Does the truth need an interpreter? Does love? Is the truth any less true in the hands of an American or an Ethiopian? A person with a Phd. or someone with only a GED, or no education at all? Was the world any less diverse or dangerous in the first century as it is in the 21st? Is it any less in need of God’s love? What methods of delivery were used by the first disciples to reach their world for Jesus – and who were so successful that their critics accused them of turning the world “upside down”? Were those methods too much tied to the culture that they lived? Or did they merely share the Simple Gospel in Simple Truth by Simple Love?
Just who were those first missionaries? What schools did they go to? What degrees did they own? How did they learn in their complex world to share a simple message of hope and love though cultural boundaries without reading the latest “must read” from an educated expert? With the exception of Paul, most of those folks were just “simple” receiving no more education than their culture required for “simple” people. In fact a review of most revered preachers and missionaries in Christendom will find that many of those worthies did not tear up the halls of academia, neither were they schooled in cross-cultural methodology. They merely preached the Risen Lord without Fear in Love, leaving the Spirit to speak through their mouths what needed to be said for the given moment. No wonder the Spirit speaks thorough the Apostle Paul this truth:
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.” – 1 Corinthians 1:18-31 ESV
What is the Simple Gospel? I think Paul captures the Gospel message well with his summary in 1 Corinthians 15. On this bases in whatever mission field one finds oneself in, wither it be here among folks in the U.S or on some other cultural field, the message of the Simple Gospel of Love will more than suffice. And while cultural “contextualization” efforts can be worthwhile, they are only a means to the ultimate end: to share the truth in love of the Simple Gospel which is both powerful and offensive.
Here are a few foundational statements of simple truth taken from the Scriptures which I believe are necessary so that the Gospel of The Way can be shared by any believer, anywhere, and at anytime:
1. There is only One God – all others are false.
2. There is only One Savior of the world – Jesus who is The Christ.
3. There is only one prophet and true interpreter of who God is: Christ Jesus – all others are impostors, pretenders, and false.
4. God who in His merciful forbearance allowed humanity to be in self-darkness, now is giving the message of hope through the His One and Only Son – Jesus Christ.
5. By no means can anyone reach God through self work or self sacrifice. The road to salvation does not lead through self – it is outside of oneself that one finds hope, peace and love – Jesus Christ
6. One cannot be “good enough” to receive the redemption found only in Christ – He was good enough to take the wrath that we deserved on Himself on the cross, who then rose on the third day to seal the deal.
7. There is salvation in no other name save through Jesus Christ – He does not use aliases for He is both True and Truth who both knows His own name, and stands upon it alone.
8. The church is the vehicle that God has ordained to be the repository of truth, and the vehicle for the dissemination of the Simple Gospel.
9. God has blessed individual believers in His church to be His hands, feet, and mouth to share His truth to the unreached peoples and nations throughout the world, both known and unknown.
10. The Perfect God uses the imperfect simple minded, humble servant through the indwelling power of the Spirit of God, and leaves the self-reliant to their own devices and failures.
11. The Simple Gospel can be shared in the Spirit of Love which is both True and Trustworthy when given with integrity.
In many respects, this scriptural philosophy I have repeated here is often renounced by “modern” disciples who know better than I. Alas, we will just have to see through the passage of time who is more accurate than the other. I do believe that both scripture and history are guides – and that our efforts of attempting complexity are merely mudding the waters of what is true – and love. Let God be true and every man a liar – let his truth and love be heard by the faithful and humble servant of God, who is indwelt and controlled by the Spirit of God, willing to stand upon the Simple Gospel of Truth and work for its truthful dissemination. Love has no other path but that which is True.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;){kind=logo}
;)
;)
;)
Rob,
I may have worded one or two of your points differently, but I’m in general agreement with you. My favorite thing that you said was this:
And while cultural “contextualization” efforts can be worthwhile, they are only a means to the ultimate end: to share the truth in love of the Simple Gospel which is both powerful and offensive.
Rob,
It is hard to argue against the simple gospel. That is indeed the message we must communicate to the lost among the nations of the earth. The only problem is that doing it in a way they will 1) pay attention; and 2) understand what we are trying to say is not always quite so simple.
For example, go to any street corner in North Korea and begin reading the points you mention here in English, and see how far that gets you. Or, even, have someone translate them into perfect Korean, print up a piece of paper with them written on it, and drop them over the city gospel blimp style. Perhaps someone might get saved, but would we be doing a good job of preaching the gospel? I don’t think so.
In addition to linguistic barriers of understanding, there are also cultural barriers, trust barriers, and spiritual barriers. It is true we should not make the gospel more complicated than it is. As is often said, proclaiming the gospel is like one beggar telling another beggar where to find bread. But, because of cultural differences, often a simple uneducated person of one cultural background will be able to communicate the gospel more effectively than an educated outsider. The only problem is in many settings there are not enough cultural insiders proclaiming the simple gospel to get the job done. This is where the job of incarnational ministry and appropriate cultural contextualization come into play. And, it is not always as simple as it may seem. Go do cross-cultural ministry overseas somewhere for about five years or so, and then come back to tell us about it.
David,
I was having a good time with your response till you got a little scrappy with me. I wonder if the first disciples understood the term “incarnational ministry” or bothered with the fact that they did not understand the culture they were reaching before they went there to preach and teach – God have mercy. And while I am not one to tell you your business, it seems the overspecialization nonsense (as if I needed to go do something for five years until I ‘understood’) is in full play with your final challenge – a bit testy are we this morning?
Let’s parse words: when I say “simple” I don’t mean “easy.” I am quiet certain that it is not easy as flying over with a blimp or knowing the language perfectly to get across the message of the gospel. I live in Middle America and often have to “work on the fly” to get the message across with many multiple misunderstandings and I grew up here! So no, simple does not mean “easy.”
If my post has any message it is this: “Trust in the Spirit, not our own devices.” I have met some wonderful people IN cross-cultural settings who have a wonderful ability to be understood even though we had a language and cultural barrier. Simple ideas are simple to understand – they are innately part of being human. I argue that “God” and His Love are a part of that human “DNA” which every human being instinctively knows no matter where they live, be in North Korea or the Ecuadorian rain forest. In any event, God is always working it out and going before us. Right? He even gives the message to uneducated dolts like me so that people He has prepared in other cultural settings can understand it. In my opinion, many folks are just putting too much complexity in sharing the message of hope that is not understandable unless the Spirit leads and opens hearts. Too much reason and not enough faith – reliance on our selves and less on God.
Rob
Rob,
I showed your post to a neighbor who doesn’t believe in Jesus. In order to understand what you were trying to say, she needed explanations and definitions of the words: “forbearance,” “redemption,” “ordained to be the repository,” and “dissemination.”
Thanks for keeping it simple, though.
E. Goodman,
“Contextualization Specialist”
Rob,
It is possible we are talking past each other here, and are really just emphasizing different aspects of the same essential perspective. I appreciate your recognition that cross-cultural ministry is not “easy.”
And, I am sorry if I came across as “testy,” but it seemed to me your original post could be taken in a deprecatory sense toward those who dedicate their lives and careers in order to communicate the gospel as effectively as possible in a cross-cultural setting. And, your use of the phrase “overspecialization nonsense” does nothing to ease my misgivings in regard to this.
Perhaps it comes across as elitist, but I don’t think it is arrogant to insist that there are many aspects of cross-cultural ministry that are best learned and appreciated as a result of actual cross-cultural experience. I, for one, know I understand many things better as a result of my experience than I did before I had that experience. And, I also believe that if I were to have additional experience, I would understand them even better.
That doesn’t mean that people without extensive cross-cultural experience have nothing useful to contribute to the conversation. But, I think it does mean that suggestions should be offered with a sense of, “I am not entirely sure, because I haven’t been there, and done that, but it seems to me as if…”
Regarding the first disciples, I believe they naturally and intuitively engaged in incarnational ministry. They had lived with and been mentored by the Master of incarnational ministry.
At the same time, however, in many, if not most, cases, I believe the cultural barriers they faced were not as significant as those faced by many cross-cultural workers today. Even Paul, who was very educated, and who wrote the words, “unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews… to them that are without law, as without law…that I might gain them that are without law” (Gal. 9:20-21), worked within the relatively homogeneous confines of the Roman Empire, and almost exclusively among Greek speakers.
Yes, we should rely primarily upon the Holy Spirit, and not so much on our own intelligence and ingenuity. But that doesn’t mean He does not use our training and background, in a similar way to how He used that of Paul, in order to accomplish “specialized” tasks, such as those carried out by many of those involved in cross-cultural gospel ministry.
E. Goodman -
“When in Rome,talk as the Romans do” – If I was talking with your neighbor I would be on her level and not be talking with Pastors, Missionaries, and Christian workers. I have never said that “contextualization” is not necessary. I have opined about the over-reliance on man made formulas when the God given one is just fine.
Rob
Putting it another way, you could say that failing to contextualize is to not share the truth in love of the Simple Gospel which is both powerful and offensive.
Rob,
To which formulas are you referring? I guess I’m missing something. Have “contextualizers” prescribed a formula for contextualization? Has God given us a formula for the “dissemination” of the gospel?
I think contextualization has more to do with self-awareness than it does with insight into culture. In other words, one doesn’t necessarily have to know all the ins and outs of a culture in order to effectively communicate the good news into that culture, but the missionary must realize that he is an outsider and his foreign-ness carries significant barriers to clear communication.
The disciples definitely would have understood this, as Jesus was their model. His entry into culture served as their model, they knew that being in Christ necessarily meant that they were outsiders.
The reason some of us keep bringing the conversation back to contextualization is that it’s precisely what seems to be missing in most of our missionary endeavors. For many, “keeping it simple” is often used as a license to require the hearers of the good news to actually do all the work of cultural translation.
I suppose the gospel is simple. Communicating it across cultures, however, can be a beautifully complicated thing. I agree with you, though, that thankfully, God uses us despite our limitations, plans, and philosophies.
David,
Challenging – yes; Deprecatory – no.
I do believe that experience is a great thing, and that education is fine to a certain extent (would you like me to type out the letters behind my name? I prefer not). But let us be clear – sharing the message of Jesus, the Cross, and the Resurrection from one person to the next (even in a cross-cultural setting) does not take the education of a nuclear scientist, or the experience of a master craftsman of any trade. It merely takes the love of a willing heart to engage their mouth as the Spirit speaks and a person prepared by the Spirit to receive the message. Finis. Education and experience can be plusses but are not at all necessary. I may come off sounding like a died in the wool Calvinist (I’m not) but the truth is this: “Salvation is of the Lord” and messengers (Pastors, Missionaries et. al.)are just merely that: “messengers.” In church history when the church moved away from her supernatural moorings into the prolific appearance of the “ecclesiastical” caste of educated professionals is when the power was removed. Did you sound a little arrogant and elitist? Yep. But I forgive you
My contention is that the cultural barriers that those first disciples faced were the same as the ones we face today – evidence: church tradition tells us of the demise of each of the twelve, and only one died of natural causes (John the Beloved). But since it is a “belief” (born of the fact that neither you nor I were there) we will just have to remain in ignorance and be a little humble about it
Yes – the first disciples innately and divinely were inspired with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit – something that cannot be taught nor bought. Yet every believer today is so endowed with the Holy Spirit of promise. Each has the innate ability to be led and inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Jesus who leads His children every day if they but listen and obey. Those disciples indeed had a great blessing as they walked and were taught by the Master in His earthly ministry (in which he never walked beyond the boundaries of Judea and Samaria) -yet greater are we who “have not seen but believed!” The Master still gives classes, and He still tells disciples to follow, “for I will make you fishers of men.” Our motto is merely “Wherever He leads, I’ll go” to the ends of the earth.
Rob
E. Goodman,
The Gospel Formula: A simple, humble, willing Spirit lead believer, a prepared heart, a divine appointment. Works every time. Simple, even for you “contextualization” experts huh?
Should the believer be prepared? Yep, that is what prayer and bible study do. But I have seen with my own eyes an ordinary country bumpkin with an eighth grade education talk with a sophisticated Ivy league educated Ph.D. (two separate and disparate cultures) and reduce the “smart” guy to tears because of the humble and loving way that the country bumpkin approached it – Spirit lead and all. My friend never spent time in the city, nor did he know the language of the culture to wit he was speaking. He did speak in a language – Love – which knows no boundaries and which everybody understands innately. A soul was won to the Kingdom that day because of my friend and his willingness to be lead by the Spirit and to reach out beyond his cultural comfort zone.
Am I disparaging education in preparing missionaries to reach the cultures in which they are going? Am I also disparaging the experience one gleans from just “being there”? I would hope not. All I am doing is reminding one and all that the process of sharing the Good News merely requires a willing and loving heart – the rest is just gravy.
Rob
Rob,
Well, there you have it: two different perspectives on this particular issue (I will take the liberty to include Andrew and E. Goodman as agreeing, by and large, with my perspective).
And yet, I don’t think our two different perspectives are necessarily mutually incompatible. I think we are just emphasizing different aspects of the same overall picture. I agree that the aspect you are emphasizing is, at times, de-emphasized, and that this de-emphasis leads to an overdependence on human craftiness and ingenuity.
From my perspective (and from my observation, that of most people with significant cross-cultural experience), the dangers involved in over-simplifying our approach to cross-cultural gospel communication are also significant, and it is well worth our while to reflect seriously upon how we can use our knowledge of cultural differences and communication as an aid to help us to do a better job of proclaiming the gospel.
In summary, both-and, not either-or.
Andrew,
I would say yes, as long as the Gospel message is clear – I can communicate the message of Christ simply and do not require the use of academic or otherwise “Christianized” words such as “forbearance” “redemption” “propitiation” “atonement” and “dissemination” (which brought the eyebrows up of our “contextualization specialist”). Yet again the voice of the Spirit is a “heart language” which in my “experience” requires little translation.
Rob
David,
I like it when no one stands with me – if makes me feel loved and appreciated
Rob
Yes, I would agree with David’s both-and. Without the Spirit, no one can understand our message. That much is clear. Paul says in 1 Cor. 2:14 that, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.”
Later Paul says in 2 Cor 6:3, “We put no stumbling block in anyone’s path, so that our ministry will not be discredited.”
Contextualization is not some kind of formulaic five-step process for winning converts. Instead it is the removal of barriers, either present within the messenger (individual or cultural) or within the hearer (individual or cultural).
That way we can establish that salvation is not dependent on following Jewish customs (messenger, cf. Gal. 2:3) and we can explain using pagan writers that we derive our existence from God (hearer, cf. Acts 17:28).
I would agree Andrew – as long as the “contextualization” does not water down or mitigate the true gospel message – and there are myriad examples of where some modern disciples have done just that – hence my post.
Rob
“I would agree Andrew – as long as the “contextualization” does not water down or mitigate the true gospel message – and there are myriad examples of where some modern disciples have done just that – hence my post.”
Why didn’t you just say so in the first place, Rob? There is appropriate contextualization and there is inappropriate contextualization. Appropriate contextualization, as I understand it, serves the purpose of making the gospel message more understandable, not watering down or mitigating it.
Now, the specifics of what makes for appropriate contextualization and what makes for inappropriate contextualization is another conversation. And, one, I might add, that is important to continually maintain.
But, But David….I have never said otherwise!
Perhaps the difference here lies in the angle of our approach. Like you said “Both And/Neither Nor”
Rob
My point is that discerning between appropriate and inappropriate contextualization is not always a simple task, and we should not look down on those who give diligent effort to studying and discerning better ways to do this. The gospel, in and of itself, is a simple message. And, God calls and equips simple people to proclaim it. In that, we are both in agreement. But, God also calls and equips scholars and thinkers to put their scholarship, analysis, and cultural sensibility to His service in order to better carry out the task He has called all of us together, as His Body, to carry out.
“I think one of the problems is that we have let contextualization become about making our presentation more attractive, rather than making it about communicating more effectively. Contextualization as attractive presentation maybe will draw a few more people to listen to you. Contextualization as communication will learn the vocabulary and mindset of a group of people and figure out how to communicate the Gospel in terms that make it clear to people with that vocabulary and mindset.
Contextualization as attractive presentation is essentially marketing. Contextualization as communication is more akin to translation. There’s a place for marketing, but if you attract a lot of people, but fail to communicate the Gospel clearly in terms that they understand, you haven’t really accomplished much. Contextualization as communication has to take priority over contextualization as attractive presentation.” – Oloryn, http://www.sbcimpact.net/2009/03/23/the-abomination-of-truth-in-a-post-modern-culture/, #4
“We often hear that culture is merely the house that people live in. More accurately, it is the house that people build for themselves to live in. Since our culture is, at its core, the product of our behavior, it is no more morally neutral than we ourselves are.” – Bart Barber (see above link), #18
Just further foder for our continued discussion. To further parse: I think I mean when I negatively deride “comparmentalization” I mean the “marketing” kind versus the “translating” kind.
E. Goodman -
Went to your website – some pretty good stuff there. Your quote at the top is somewhat appropriate for this conversation I think:
“More often than not, “partnering in missions,” means small churches give what little money they think they can afford to a larger church or a missions sending agency that will handle mobilization, screening, indoctrination, training, sending, and maintenance of missionaries on the field. This is not “partnering,” it’s outsourcing.” Yet if small churches desire to go to the mission field through short term mission projects, they are often disdained from many of the “professional” missionaries because of their lack of education or experience. Shucks we have had debates on the very topic here on this blog – I did not participate – I felt that I might “viciate” to negatively on the discussion to have any positive impact. But how about it?
Rob
Good quotes, one and all, on your #19, Rob.
I think the balance here is recognizing that, in the Body of Christ, each and every one of us has our important role to play. The small church, short-term volunteer team member is not unimportant because of his/her lack of experience and/or education. But, neither is the experience and education of the career missionary/missiologist something we should disdain or take lightly. We are all in it together, and we all need each other.
Rob,
I believe that the local church is God’s structure for doing missions. Like David has written, every believer has a role to play. I certainly don’t think that higher education makes someone a better missionary. In fact, I’m of the mind that ministry “specialization” has been responsible for the church’s disconnection from the mission field and subsequent inability to think and act like a missionary at home.
As far as the conversation on contextualization goes, however, I’m still of the mind that it’s pretty important- much more important than many may realize. I’m convinced that the reason God keeps us in the world is so that we (all believers) can “contextualize” the gospel into the tribes and subcultures in which we live. In this sense, we’re all “contextualization specialists.”
I’m all too familiar with the negative attitude missionaries can have toward short-term mission teams. I think it’s a problem on both sides:
1) Missionaries who think too highly of themselves and don’t value the local/sending church’s central role in God’s global mission.
2) Churches who think and act like more like tourists and consumers than missionaries.
You may think some of us worry too much about contextualization. But the conversation really has yet to include more than just theologians and professionals. I believe every church member should understand himself to be a missionary, responsible to (lovingly) translate the (simple) gospel into culture.
“For this we have experts who are highly educated and skilled who often now are seated in academia who write dissertations and treatises and mentor young scholars who become immersed in the theories of their teachers. These in turn go to the field to “try out” these ivory tower philosophies, oftentimes with mixed results.”
The problem is that–historically–this has been the exact opposite. Those who practice contextualization are “on the street” and are typically parsed and scrutinized by the academy. Certainly, many who were on the street are now chairing missions departments {as well they should}, but that does not mean that the source of contextualization is from the mountain.
Your whole post takes a negative view of the relationship between academia (in general) and its relationship to contextualization. I would disagree on two accounts.
First, I would argue that there is not enough contextualization at the seminary level (and from those who have spent much time there). When I talk with people about contextualization, I find that most of those who are against it are in or from the seminary. Their disagreement usually incorporates bringing in some argument or evidence from another era which was, at the time it was given, contextualization in its own time and place. Similar to logic, one cannot contradict contextualization completely without first assuming it.
Second, seminary is not the source of contextualization. Contextualization is a by product of the simple gospel itself. It is not a new invention. This is why, in spite of the fact that the apostles were not seminary trained, they still contextualized. The first apostles and the writers of the gospel ALL contextualized to one degree or another. The incarnation itself is the apex of contextualization. God made his message plain and prophetic through the incarnation.
While I agree that one should not water down the gospel, the noncontextual gospel is by nature watered down. This was part of the purpose behind the fact that there were four gospels with different nuances, proofs, styles of argumentation and examples. A gentile can certainly understand the gospel from reading Matthew rather than reading it from a less Jewish Gospel. But that is not the point. Could the presentation that Paul gave in the synagogue led someone in the Greek market to belief? Certainly. But then why did Paul change styles? The only answer is that contextualization is inherent in the Gospel. There is a sense in which the gospel is universal and for every culture. There is also a sense in which the gospel is ours. Problems occur when we take the latter sense and export it. There are particular questions the pique the minds of each culture. There are particular means of arguing, learning, and understanding which God has graciously placed within each culture wherein we receive things to be true. The problem is that since the Fall and Babel all of these are different. Americans quest is for eternal life while Buddhists quest is for self annihilation. The eternal kingdom of God is for both cultures but must be taught in such a way that it does not simply affirm the materialistic american dream nor does it affirm the Buddhist fear of eternal suffering. It is the job of the contextualizer–amateur or pro–to find a biblically faithful and culturally relevant explanation for each culture. Finding an answer for one group does not imply that this specific answer should be used for the other group. Contextualization tries to help us examine our particular understandings of the gospel, look at it universally, and then re-particularize it again in a new culture so that the gospel is both true and indigenous.
rastis brings up a good point about the gospels. Whenever we get ready to start an overview of the gospels we mention that Matthew was written to a primarily Jewish audience, Mark was written to a Roman audience, and so on. This is first century contextualization.
I hope some of you will find a way to get your hands on Will Campbell’s Jan 23, 1977 sermon at Duke Chapel. It morphs nicely with the prevailing sentiment of this Simple Gospel Blog.
And DAvid Rogers, public notice your name came up today in conversation in the hamlet of Collinsville, Alabama as a member of Bellevue Baptist is in town, a great fan of your Dad’s. In the Spirit of Christmas some civil and diplomatic comments were made to that effect.
Hope all of yall are well. For a Christmas breaker check the latest link at my blog for a serendipitous charming song of the Great Steve Martin, recent appearance on Austin City Limits.
And I do hope some of you find a copy of Marilynne Robinson’s Absence of Mind, if not Jill Lepore’s The Whites of their Eyes under the Tree on Christmas Morn.
And or a ticket to see the Coen’s True Grit.
Inerrancy is a Ruse: Even So Christ was Born in Bethlehem, the Lamb of God who Came to Take Away the Sins of the World.
7. There is salvation in no other name save through Jesus Christ – He does not use aliases for He is both True and Truth who both knows His own name, and stands upon it alone.
In my opinion, this was the best point made in the article although they were all good. Christians recognize that unless a person repents of their sin and personally, consciously trusts Christ to save them they will not be saved. In other words, no muslim or hindu or (insert other religion here) will get to heaven and find out “Wow, I thought I was praying to Allah but all along it was God and my salvation is really provided for by Christ Jesus. Who’da thunk it?”
Of course, there are pretend christians who claim that people from other faiths can be saved through Christ without realizing He saved them til they get to heaven. However, most of these people are in mainline denominations or they are moderate baptists–in other words, people who don’t matter.
A person must personally, consciously trust Christ to save them to be saved. That fact is revealed in God’s inerrant word.