;)
Gospel Essentials?
Posted by David Rogers in Bible & Theology
At the end of this post, I’ve got a question on which I would appreciate your opinion. But, first of all, I’d like to give a little background. I’ve decided on a tentative title for my upcoming doctoral dissertation at Southeastern Seminary: “Gospel-Centered Christian Unity: Implications for the SBC and World Missions.” My basic thesis is that it is the gospel itself—a shared experience of having one’s life changed by the same gospel message; a shared relationship with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit; and a shared doctrinal agreement on the essentials of the gospel message—that determines our fellowship with other Christians.
Another key idea I plan to defend is the idea that there is a difference between fellowship and cooperation. While there should be nothing that gets in the way of our fellowship (or the tangible expression of our essential unity) with other true believers, there are practical reasons why it is not always conducive to work together in every aspect of certain ministry projects with some bona fide believers who may differ with us on this point or that point of biblical interpretation.
For instance (though I do not necessarily want to focus on this particular issue here), it will be very difficult for those who have strong convictions that women should not occupy the role of pastor/elder/bishop of a local church to work together in certain settings with those who have strong convictions that women should occupy the role of pastor/elder/bishop. As I understand it, this does not necessarily mean those taking different positions on this issue cannot share fellowship in the gospel, nor that they are not unified in their common faith in Christ. But for them to work together on a church planting team, or on an elder board at a local church, may prove too complicated for it to really make sense. To try to force the issue and insist on coming to some agreement on this issue may prove, in the long run, to be counterproductive. The best solution, in such a case, may well be to agree to disagree, and to amicably part ways (at least as far as cooperation in this or that ministry project is concerned), while at the same time continuing to pray for one another, accept and bless one another as brothers or sisters in Christ, and maintain our own convictions—and even forcefully defend them—when the situation calls for it.
You may or may not agree with me on all this. It will be up to me in my dissertation to defend my views. The question I want to pose here, though, has to do with the gospel itself. If we are going to share fellowship—or not—on the basis of the gospel, it is incumbent on us to be clear on exactly what we mean when we say gospel.
The Apostle Paul gives us some help with the answer to this question here:
Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. (1 Corinthians 15:1-8)
According to this passage, at the very minimum, a biblical definition of the gospel includes holding firmly to a belief in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. This raises the question, though: Does this, all by itself, cover all the bases? The early church, from what we learn from the annals of church history, saw a need to define the gospel a little more specifically.
In the late second century, St. Irenaeus of Lyons defined the Rule of Faith as a means for determining who is a heretic and who is not:
“…this faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven and the earth and the seas and all the things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who made known through the prophets the plan of salvation, and the coming, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his future appearing from heaven in the glory of the Father to sum up all things and to raise anew all flesh of the whole human race.”
In succeeding years, church leaders sensed the need to clarify a little more. As a result, we have the early creeds: the Apostles Creed, the Creed of Nicaea, the Nicene Creed, and the Definition of Chalcedon. During a large part of church history, the parameters of authentic gospel belief have been defined by a large portion of Christendom on the basis of these different creeds.
However, at the time of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther and other reformers made the point that one key defining element of the gospel is a doctrine not specifically dealt with in any of the early creeds: the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone. Some claim this is because there was such a consensus among early Christians on this point that it was not deemed necessary to specifically mention it. Some say that belief in justification by faith is implicit in the creeds of the early church. Others say the reason it was not included was because the early church did not really share the same perspective on this issue as the Protestant Reformers and modern-day evangelicals.
The Apostle Paul, in the book of Galatians, differentiates between those who believe in and preach the true gospel and those who believe in and preach “a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all” (Galatians 1:6-7). And (at least from my perspective), a key distinguishing factor identified by Paul in this same context is indeed the doctrine of justification by grace through faith.
If this is the case, then a belief in the early creeds is not exhaustive, when it comes to defining gospel essentials. This leaves open the question, if you follow me this far: Exactly where do we draw the parameters of gospel essentials? In other words, at what point(s) do you cross the line from the true gospel to a false gospel? Notice I am not talking here about where we draw the line on our ability to cooperate effectively with other believers on this ministry project or that ministry project. According to my thesis, that is a separate issue. Here I am talking specifically about gospel essentials. In church history, some have made a distinction between doctrinal error and “damnable heresy.” That is what I am getting at here. I should add that I recognize it is possible (though usually an anomaly) for an individual to identify with or even officially belong to a heretical group, and yet, at the same time, in spite of this, still believe in and live out the essentials of the gospel.
Having said all that, I would like to end this post by throwing out the following question: Of the following list of beliefs and practices, which ones do you believe place a group or individual outside of the parameters of gospel essentials? And, which ones, even though they may not be biblical beliefs or practices, are not specifically “damnable heresies”? Why?
- Liberation theology
- The prosperity gospel
- “Word of Faith” teaching
- Using the proclamation of the gospel as a means for self-aggrandizement and/or material gain
- Using emotional manipulation or magic or rituals in order to induce spiritual results
- The belief that it is possible to lose your salvation
- Amillennialism
- Historical Premillennialism
- Dispensational Premillennialism
- The belief that animal sacrifices will be restored as a legitimate way to worship God during the millennium
- Postmillennialism
- Preterism
- The belief that homosexual practice is not necessarily a sin
- The belief that homosexual orientation (not practice) is not, in and itself, a sin
- The belief that the reception of the Holy Spirit is always accompanied by the manifestation of speaking in tongues
- The belief that only those who speak in tongues are saved
- The belief in baptismal regeneration
- The belief in and/or practice of infant baptism
- The belief in sprinkling and/or pouring (effusion) as a viable mode of baptism
- Veneration of images, saints, and/or the Virgin Mary
- Worship of images, saints, and/or the Virgin Mary
- The belief that regeneration precedes faith
- The belief in transubstantiation
- The belief in justification by grace through faith and works
- Monophysitism: the belief that Christ has only one nature, his humanity being absorbed by his Deity
- The belief that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son
- The belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son
- The belief that abortion is not murder
- The belief in apostolic succession
- The belief that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and the head of the visible church on Earth
- The belief that the Bible contains doctrinal errors
- The belief that the Bible contains errors on questions of science and history
- The belief that other sources of revelation (church tradition, other books, words of prophecy, etc.) may add to, or complete, God’s revelation in the Bible
- The belief that only designated human authorities (i.e. a recognized church Magisterium) have the authority to correctly interpret the Bible
- The belief that the world came into existence by means of evolution
- The belief that man came into existence by means of evolution
- The belief that a particular view on ecological issues is an essential component of the gospel
- The belief that it doesn’t matter what you think about ecological issues
- The belief that a particular view on issues of social justice is an essential component of the gospel
- The belief that it doesn’t matter what you think about social justice
- The belief that people of different races are not created equal, and racial discrimination is justifiable
- A systematic and/or habitual neglect of preaching on, or minimization of, the seriousness of sin
- The belief that Baptist churches are the only authentic representation of the Body of Christ on Earth
- The practice of “slaying in the Spirit”
- The belief that there is no literal hell
- The belief that there is no literal heaven
- The belief that there will be no literal physical Second Coming of Christ
- The belief that through our words, beliefs, and “positive confession” we can control God
- The belief that everyone will eventually be saved
- The belief that there is no literal devil
- Denial of the virgin birth of Jesus
I am planning on waiting to get some good responses from some of you before giving my own take on these particular issues. I will state at the outset that I believe some of the items on this list are “damnable heresies,” some are not, and I am not totally sure exactly where to draw the line on some of the rest. That is one reason I am posing this question to you on this post. I am hoping some of you may be able to help me as I seek to think clearly and biblically related to this question. Don’t feel you have to give your opinion on every item on the list in order to comment. If you only want to focus in on one or two of the items, that is fine with me. Also, if there are any particular beliefs and/or practices that are not included on this list that you think should be—whether you think they are “damnable heresies” or not—I would love to hear your recommendations.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Just a thought:
you want to try to define ‘The Holy Gospel’ by what is IS, not by what is ‘IS NOT’.
Look at this important Scripture from St. Matthew’s Gospel,
and notice something that MUST be included as a part of ‘The Holy Gospel’ that Christ commanded to be preached:
“19 Go, therefore, 12 and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
20
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. 13 And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”
Do you see it?
“teaching them … to observe ALL that I have COMMANDED you .l ”
Can you name the Great Commandment? Do you ‘observe’ it?
Is it at the heart of the ‘biblical gospel’?
It should be.
Christiane,
Yes, indeed, it is important to start with what the gospel is rather than what it is not. And I agree with the passages you cite as being central to the gospel. However, I don’t think this excludes the value of thinking about what the gospel is not. If that’s all we did, indeed there would be a healthy imbalance. But, from the biblical writers, to the Church Fathers (Irenaeus, to name one), up to modern time, Christians have seen the need to also identify and warn against specific heresies.
I know. My Church says the two Creeds from the early Councils. And I love the quote for Irenaeus.
I am so pleased to see Southern Baptists reading among the writings of the early Church Fathers. Their writings may not be ‘tradition’ for Sothern Baptists, but as Christian people, those writings are a part of their Christian heritage, as are the holy sites and the catacombs.
David, another historical question has been whether there is salvation outside the church. Depending on how that is answered, we might ask questions related to church membership, etc.
I look forward to seeing how you work through this list.
Frank,
Thanks for your comment. I don’t know if you are proposing the belief that there is no salvation outside the church as a possible belief that would place someone outside the parameters of the gospel. I think that, if, at the bottom line, someone is trusting in their membership in a certain organization to save them, then that is certainly outside the boundaries of orthodox gospel belief. However, from what I gather, there is good reason to suppose that the first Church Fathers to make this claim (Cyprian, if I recall correctly, being among them) were not referring to a specific organization with its headquarters in Rome but rather to what we, in modern-day theological terminology, would call the Church Universal. From this perspective, I think there is a sense in which salvation and church membership are linked together. But, I think it is important that we keep clear that salvation is the gateway to church membership (thinking again of the Church Universal) rather than church membership the gateway to salvation.
Some would go as far as saying “King James 1611 Bible” only and no vices either with the exception of over eating. You also have to LOOK like a Christian, too. At least that is what some say.
Out of the 51 bullets listed above (maybe next time use numbers)I can attest to one or two with modifications. I am a Premillennialist (bullet #8)and justification by grace through faith “alone” (bullet #24) as modified. If a person presented any of the remaining as true in the church I attended, I would have to have a conversation with them in order to discern if our faith was similar and take further action as necessary. For instance, I have never spoke in tongues. Even though some in the SBC use 1 Corinthians 13:8 to say tongues have ceased, I do not believe that. Mainly, because prophecies have not failed and knowledge hasn’t vanashed away. That verse was about love and nothing else. I believe that tongues have not ceased, however, when a person promotes its activity in the church they will fall in the same confusion produced by those counterfeiting the tongues just to make it happen. Until I hear genuine tongues, and the Holy Spirit will show me, I cannot promote its activity at this time. The same should be true about the rest of the bullets that are not obviously damnable like worshiping statues (bullet #21).
Can I get along with those people? Only to the point of them having other interest that we share. Some of my other interest are cooking, golf and gardening. We can discuss them with little difficutly but that isn’t anything I would build a relationship on because of my main interest and beliefs. I strongly beleive that my “faith” encompuses everything I do and would spill over into every area of my life. By having a dual interest with someone would be cause for double-mindedness. I would rather offend them than God because I fear God.
Bruce,
I am not sure if very many, if any at all, of the KJV-only people would say that only KJV-only people are truly Christians, or that only those who abstain from their list of “vices” are truly Christians. Perhaps there are some who go to this extreme. I think it is more likely that they would say they are not “good Christians,” and they should not allow “people like that” to “contaminate” their churches.
But my thesis is that, even though there may be certain things that make it difficult for people with conflicting views on this or that to serve together in the same local congregation, this does not exempt them from treating each other as brothers and sisters in Christ.
As I understand it, this is not the same thing as “getting along” or enjoying a good conversation about cooking, golf, or gardening. We may well be able to “get along” wonderfully with people who are not Christians at all, and have some very good and amenable conversations about any number of subjects. But Christian fellowship is something different and deeper than that. It is the recognition that, at the core, you are brothers and sisters in Christ, and all other loyalties and interests are secondary to that.
Having said that, a good question might be whether I should treat someone who insists on the KJV only as my brother in Christ, even when they don’t treat me the same way. If they are saying that belief in KJV only is essential for salvation, I may well have reason to question that they are truly trusting in the grace of Christ alone. But most all of the KJV-only folks I have met would, at the same time, strongly attest to justification by grace alone through faith alone. And, as such, I should recognize them as brothers and sisters in Christ, even though I don’t agree with their particular position on KJV only.
Also, it seems to me that one’s views concerning the millennium and end times–whether premillennial, amillennial, or postmillennial–do not place them outside the bounds of orthodox (or authentic) gospel belief. Now, if someone denies the reality of a future Second Coming of Jesus altogether, that is a lot harder for me to swallow. I am not all that familiar with the Preterist view, but it seems to me that is where that view leads. As I understand it, to deny the Second Coming strikes at a core teaching of the gospel, and calls into question the authority of God’s Word. This is, perhaps, not the case with the Partial Preterist view, which, as I understand it, still awaits a future Second Coming.
As far as speaking in tongues is concerned, I see no reason to base my opinion of someone’s belief in the gospel on whether they speak in tongues or don’t, or whether they believe the gift of tongues is still operative or not. That is a secondary question. There are true believers on both sides. However, it someone says that only those who speak in tongues are truly saved, once again, it leads me to ask in what are they trusting for their salvation? If they are trusting in the experience of speaking in tongues, then they are not trusting in Christ alone, and are not truly saved. But, I imagine the vast majority of those who say only those who speak in tongues are truly saved would deny that they are trusting in speaking in tongues to save them. They would say, rather, it is a result, not a cause of being saved. While I would forcefully disagree with their view of this, I could not say, without a doubt, they are not saved.
At the core, salvation is a matter of the heart. And it is hard–if not impossible–to see inside someone else’s heart. If they say they are trusting in Christ alone for salvation, unless I see something in their life or testimony that very directly contradicts that, I need to give them the benefit of the doubt, and treat them as a brother or sister in Christ, although, in this case, a brother or sister who needs some serious correction in their doctrinal beliefs.
The question of worshiping statues is an interesting one on which I will dedicate a whole new comment…
If someone really and truly worships statues, or saints, or Mary, or anyone or anything that isn’t God, it is hard for me to recognize them as truly Christian. “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” is the first commandment in the OT, and, in many ways, a foundational teaching, if not the foundational teaching, of the entire OT. And, in no wise does the NT change this, or update it. The whole purpose of the gospel is to enable us to worship God, and only God, in spirit and in truth. And no man can serve two masters.
Where all this gets more tricky is when someone claims (as does the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church) that, although we should not “worship” anyone or anything but God, it is okay to “venerate” Mary, the saints, and images of them, or of Jesus. It makes it even more complicated when they say that these images are only a visual aid that help them to worship the true God they represent.
Personally, it is hard for me to appreciate the difference between worship and veneration. And, having lived in Spain for 18 years, I have seen plenty of evidence that what goes under the guise of “veneration” is, in many, many cases, nothing less than blatant idolatry.
Yet, I am forced to recognize there are many people who have a sincere love and devotion to God who somehow feel that images and prayers to saints and to the Virgin Mary allow them to grow closer to God and express their ultimate, bottom-line devotion to Him. While I think they are very mistaken, I must admit that the intent of their heart, in many cases, may be good.
Thus, in the case of an individual who may claim to “venerate” a certain saint or image, I cannot infallibly say that the inner intent of their heart is not to worship God and God alone. However, I think they are on a very slippery slope tending in the direction toward idolatry, and, if the opportunity presents itself, I would seek, in love, to warn them of this danger.
All the above applies specifically to individuals. However, in the case of organizations or churches that officially teach and condone the veneration of images and saints and the Virgin Mary, it is hard for me to view them as truly evangelical (or gospel-embracing). I guess that, theoretically, it is possible for an entire organization or church to collectively take on the same attitude as that described in the preceding paragraph, in which case, they should perhaps be treated the same as individuals taking this position. But, it seems to me that the teaching and encouragement to venerate images and saints and the Virgin Mary does much more to lead people away from the true gospel than it does to bring them to the gospel. It is a teaching that is responsible for leading millions of souls to a life of idolatry and trust in other gods that are not the true God. Even though it may be claimed that is not the intent, it is hard to deny that it is the de facto consequence. In that sense, this teaching is, in a very real way, incompatible with the gospel, as I understand it, and the organizations and churches that embrace it should be regarded as something less than gospel-embracing organizations and churches.
Well, I had hoped to have a few more responses before venturing in with my own opinions, and perhaps they will come eventually. Perhaps the question is a bit complex and daunting. I, for one, recognize it is not the best approach to come at this from a “heresy hunting” perspective. It is not my intention that this discussion evolve (or spiral down) into that. And yet, it seems to me there is a need to define the gospel some way or another. And, while it seems to me there is a good degree of merit in Christiane’s suggestion that we start by describing it in positive terms (what it is) rather than negative terms (what it is not), the NT writers seem to take pains to communicate, for instance, that the Judaizers (in the case of Paul) or the Gnostics (in the case of John) are out of bounds.
Frank & Bruce,
I am planning on responding to your comments, when I get free moment to do so. Stay tuned.
Dave,
I was thinking about your post during lunch today. I do not feel that I have addressed your topic the way you have requested. As I see it now, you are centralizing the gospel message and, from there, the bullets are what exist in the faith of the person expressing that gospel. Even though the gospel doesn’t change, the vessel from which the gospel comes could be contaminated. Paul mentioned that in Phil 1:18 “What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice.” Maybe the list you have provided could fall under the word “pretense” for the most part as long as the gospel is presented accurately. I know that God’s grace brought me out of “legalistic” preaching without someone trying to convince me otherwise. It was all of His grace that worked in me.
Sometimes, I think a creed is good and at the same time it it bad. Over time, it establishes a mental paradigm with boundries that have not been proven by one’s faith. Many in the SBC churches give the standard answer (“faith”, “love” and “Jesus”) to questions offered by teachers in Sunday School without really knowing (intimately) what those answers mean and how they relate to the question. They are just canned answers. Having a creed in place makes me think of that.
Guide me the right way on this. I hope I have addressed your request. I still feel that I am missing something.
Bruce,
I think that the balance in regard to the issues you pose in this comment is addressed in the three-fold description of the gospel I give in the first paragaph of my original post:
“the gospel itself—a shared experience of having one’s life changed by the same gospel message; a shared relationship with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit; and a shared doctrinal agreement on the essentials of the gospel message.”
I think that doctrine alone, no matter how orthodox, is not the true gospel, if not accompanied by a changed life, and a love relationship with all three members of the Holy Trinity. At the same time, though, a supposed relationship that is not built on the doctrinal essentials of the gospel message will be eventually exposed as counterfeit. It is faith in the Son of God who came to earth and died on the cross, ws buried, rose again, and is coming again, that saves us, not faith in an ethereal spirit of goodwill and humanitarianism. Put another way, it is only the substitutionary atonement of Jesus’ death on the cross that allows us to “have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place” and “draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that faith brings” (Heb. 10:19-22). And, as the first epistle of John so forcefully reminds us, we have good reason to call into question a supposed relationship with God, which, even though accompanied by sound doctrine, is not also accompanied by the fruit of love for the brethren and a lifestyle that manifests a continual growth in sanctification.
We are in our Bible Conference this week at MIMs Baptist Church in Conroe,TX. The line-up is David Allen, Bob Pitman, Jerry Vines, Phil Hoskins and Herb Reavis. The music is provided by The Wisnants and Mark Trammell Quartet. Both Jerry Vines and Phil Hoskins have been snowed in and could not attend this year. Last night, David Allen did a great job bringing in the prophesy of the Christ from Isaiah to Luke. It was a great presentation of the gospel journey. You have also presented it well and I am getting a better picture of what you are saying.
One of the things I am presently concerned with in our society is the word “tolerance”. It is even bleeding over into our churches today. Depending on who is imploring tolerance, it really depends on their agenda which brings to light their definition of the word. When it comes to this in the church, we have been given clear instruction to separate ourselves from those who do not “walk out” the gospel essentials clearly. I think the important thing here is for the Christian to be genuinely established in order to be able to balance their relationships on the most important and know when to part ways with the “lukewarm”.
Great post, Dave. I am even more amazed that I have been posting with the son of Adrian Rogers. Imagine that! :-O
Well, David, here goes an attempt:
I have picked out a few that I believe are damnable heresies. If the “Word of Faith” teaching includes what some of the leaders teach about Jesus being futher punished by demons and the like, I would include it. I would say that the belief that only those who speak in tongues are saved is a damnable heresy, likewise baptismal regeneration. Universalism is a damnable heresy as is the denial of Christ’s virgin birth.
I chose these because they strike at the heart of “what must I do to be saved?” And the very cgaracter of the Savior. I am still processing a few others that would definitely be fellowship breakers.
Steve in Montana
Steve,
Thanks for being willing to step up to the plate on this one.
Several of the items on my list I intentionally left a little vague in order to “stir the pot” a bit. Among these are “Word of Faith teaching,” “the prosperity gospel,” and “liberation theology.” We like to use labels like this and categorize people accordingly. And, it is helpful in some ways, in order to save time in going into all the details, provided there is general agreement on what the labels represent.
I also included a couple of other items that many times are associated with “Word of Faith teaching” and “the prosperity gospel.” For example:
•Using the proclamation of the gospel as a means for self-aggrandizement and/or material gain
•Using emotional manipulation or magic or rituals in order to induce spiritual results
•The belief that through our words, beliefs, and “positive confession” we can control God
I think I would say there are some definite anti-evangelical (i.e. contrary to the gospel) tendencies in Word of Faith teaching. But there are also degrees of heresy inherent in this movement. Some are more blatant than others. It is tricky because they most all confess to believe in the atonement and in justification by grace through faith. The problem is when they define faith in a non-biblical manner: as a substance that we as humans have the ability to use and manipulate in order to influence certain outcomes. The true gospel, as I understand it, implies humble submission to the authority of God, His Word, and His will, not using these things to our own advantage.
I dealt with the belief that only those who speak in tongues are saved in my reply to Bruce’s comment #4.
Baptismal regeneration is a bit tricky too. Are we saying, for example, that anyone who embraces Church of Christ teaching on this is necessarily eternally lost? I do think there is a biblical sense in which someone who is truly trusting in Christ will, as a result, be led to follow Christ’s command to follow Him in water baptism. And, if you refuse to do so, there is warrant to question the authenticity of your faith. But, the belief that going under the water (or getting sprinkled) and having a specific formula said over you magically effects a change in your nature and your eternal destiny is definitely contrary to the gospel and leads people to trust in something other than the grace of God for their salvation. As with other issues I have discussed on other comments, it boils down to what is in your heart. If you are truly trusting in Christ and Christ alone, but you have some of the outward expressions of that trust mixed up, you may well be saved, but just inconsistent in the way you explain and express your beliefs.
As far as the virgin birth is concerned, I suppose that if Jesus could have come to earth and died for our sins by means of something else, it would not be essential for our faith. But the Bible is quite clear that this is how He came. And, if we, out of our own intellectual pride, refuse to submit to what the Bible teaches, it is hard to say we are truly exercising faith in God. And, it seems that, in order for Jesus, as God’s Son, to truly identify with us, as the Second Adam, it was necessary for Him to be born as a man. And, in order to be born as a man, and remain God at the same time, it was necessary for Him to be born of a virgin. But, the bottom line for me is God’s Word clearly teaches it. And, if I am trusting in God, it necessarily follows that I accept what His Word teaches.
Something similar holds true for universalism. If you could be saved apart from faith in the grace of God manifested through the substitutionary atonement wrought by Jesus when He died on the cross, the gospel would be optional. And God’s Word clearly teaches that some will pass into eternal damnation. Perhaps, though, someone could be fuzzy-headed about all this, and yet, at the same time, be trusting in Christ and Christ alone for their own salvation. Once again, it is hard to see into someone’s heart.
David Hope to come back to this later, but in all sincerity hope you can read the last 100 pages of Diarmand MacCulloch’s magisterial Christianity before you embark on your dissertation.
My thinking on billy Graham was tweaked a little when he gets kudos for part of the Marshall Plan.
And in all sincerity, I hope you will read Will Campbell Jan 23 1977 sermon at Duke Chapel as you embark.
I hope you go in with open mind about liberation theology especially as it was incarnated in the El Salvadoran martyr Oscar Romero.
May email you privately further.
In the meantime, The Gospel will not evaporate with the clownish posturing of Al Mohler as he goes to the mat in a few days in the wake of the conference linked here
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/6020/43/
Mohler in context of the several recent articles at abpnews where Greg Willis, the author of recent debunked history of Southern Seminary has joined forces with Mohler for Al’s latest distraction.
Stephen,
I would be interested to know what you consider to be the main defining points of liberation theology, and how they match up to the biblical gospel, as I have been describing it here in this post, and in the other comments.
Before I get into responding more specifically to the various comments, I wanted to post the following excerpt from a sermon of my Dad, Adrian Rogers. Though it is a bit long for a comment, I just happened to come across it today as I was working editing sermon manuscripts, and think it is very apropos, and very insightful regarding the question at hand, especially in light of Christiane’s plea to define the gospel positively first:
“How, therefore, are you going to find out whether or not these who are lurking in the branches of apostate Christianity, this monstrous tree, this herb that has become a tree, how are you going to find out whether they are genuine or whether they are one of the devil’s dirty birds? I want to give you some tests. Jot these down on a piece of paper. Let’s let them start with the letter ‘S’, each one.
First of all, the Source Test. When a person approaches you about some kind of faith or some kind of religion, you ask that person this question: Is the Bible, God’s Holy Word, the revelation that God gave through His Word, is that the source of your information? Or, do you get it from some place else? Do you get it from Science and Health: The Key to the Scriptures? Do you get it from The Book of Mormon? Do you get it from the Koran? Or do you get it from the Word of God? Revelation 22, verses 18 and 19: “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book, and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life and out of the Holy City and from the things which are written in this book.” Now, folks, I want to tell you, if they don’t come from a Bible-based ministry, you know they’re a false cult.
But that’s not enough, because some will say, “Yes, we believe the Bible is the Word of God.” So the second test, not only the Source Test, but the Savior Test. Find out what they believe about Jesus Christ. Ask, “Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of God, and God the Son, co-equal and co-eternal with Almighty God?” I frequently ask Jehovah’s Witnesses this question: “Do you worship Jesus?” They say, “Oh, we venerate Jesus.” I say, “No, do you worship Jesus?” Because, in the Bible, it is obvious that he is worshiped. Now, if they worship Him and He is not God, they’re committing idolatry. If they don’t worship Him, they’re not practicing biblical faith. You see, ask them what they believe about the Lord Jesus Christ. And don’t just think this is incidental. Second John chapter 1, verses 9 and 10: “Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If any come unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him godspeed.” Now, that doesn’t mean you can’t bring him in your house to witness to him. To receive means to welcome him as a brother in Christ, as it would mean the counterpart to give him godspeed, and say, “God bless you; we’re all headed to the same place. You don’t believe in the full deity of Christ, you don’t believe that Jesus Christ is the virgin-born Son of God and God the Son, co-equal and co-eternal with God the Father. But, God bless you.” Oh no.
You, friend, have the Source Test. And then, you have the Savior Test. And then, you have the Subject Test. Find out, “Is your primary task preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ?” And, by the way, if some of you get on a pulpit committee sometime, and it is your privilege and your responsibility—and it is an awesome responsibility—to help find a pastor for a church, don’t be so silly as to ask him, “Do you preach the gospel?” What do you think he’ll say? I don’t care who he is, he’ll say, “Well sure, I preach the gospel.” You ask him to tell you what the gospel is, and then ask him if he preaches the gospel. Find out if he understands what the true gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is. Now, in Galatians 1, verses 8 and 9, Paul said, “But though we or an angel from heaven preach ye any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed!” So, there is the Source Test, the Savior Test, and the Subject Test. Is the subject the gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?
Next, the Salvation Test. Now, we’re talking about spiritual bird-watching right now. Does that individual, does that group of people, do they believe in salvation by grace through faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ and His atoning work on Calvary as the only basis for the forgiveness of sins? Now, it’s not the blood of Jesus plus anything; it is not faith plus works. It is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ—the finished, the atoning, work of Calvary. Before we’re finished with the book of Romans, I pray that you will have this so riveted upon your consciousness—what salvation is. Salvation is trusting the Lord Jesus as your Lord and Savior, receiving the gift of God—not any achievement. Ask this individual: “Are you depending on any achievement of your own for your salvation or are you trusting exclusively in the grace of God?” The Salvation Test.
The last test is the Sanctification Test. Is this individual living a righteous and a holy life? Do they teach purity? Do they teach holiness without which no man shall see the Lord? Do you preach and teach and live in accordance with the standard of holiness?
Now, if a person can pass these tests, in my estimation, you can say, I have a brother, a sister, in the Lord Jesus Christ.”
Thanks David,
In discussion about the points on Baptismal regeneration and that “only those who speak in tongues are saved” I see an overlap. I am glad you were specific in your reply to Bruce. There is a difference in disagreeing about the legitimacy of tongues and the necessity of tongues, and it is the latter I refer to. My Grandmother’s sister was a part of the Church of Christ. She was convinced that my Grandmother was going to hell because she had not been properly baptized “for the remission of sins.” That was the clear teaching of her church, and I believe a damnable heresy. I also believe that inspite of that teaching, my Aunt was a believer. Was she confused? Yes. At close to 90 and near death she still fretted over her salvation, finding no real assurance.
Thank you for the excerpt from your Dad. I believe those tests are good ones for us to consider. Looking forward to your further posts on this topic.
Steve in Montana
•The belief that man came into existence by means of evolution
I think this is a belief that should be reflected upon by the church to see if it should be considered not merely error, but heresy.
I think it has some serious consequences to it:
1. It affects the doctrine of man in making humans “nearly animals” (I think that is Wayne Grudem’s terminology…Grudem rejects Theistic evolution BTW).
2. It affects the doctrine of Christ in that the human nature of Christ would have to be considered “nearly animal” since the book of Hebrews says that Christ had to become like man in every way (aside from being a sinner).
3. It affects the doctrine of salvation if the above belief suggests/implies that Adam was not the first [historic] man through whom sin came into the world.
This would obviously affect the doctrine of the fall. And if that doctrine is undermined, then the doctrine of salvation would seem to be undermined as well…at least in the way that Paul talks about the fall/salvation.
If there was no historic first Adam through whom sin came into the world, then I ask “what need is there for a historical last Adam to deliver from sin/death?”.
Benji,
You make some great points, and I definitely agree that this belief has some serious consequences.
I definitely see how this belief would tend to undermine belief in the gospel, and thus, that an organization or church that teaches it would almost certaintly be doing more to drive people away from the gospel than draw them to it.
I am curious, however, if you think it is possible for an individual to be “fuzzy-headed” on this question, and still, at the same time truly trust Christ and Christ alone for salvation?
David,
I am curious, however, if you think it is possible for an individual to be “fuzzy-headed” on this question, and still, at the same time truly trust Christ and Christ alone for salvation?
Yes, I think so and sometimes I think there has to be some discernment as to what the spiritual “trajectory” of someone is.
If someone has, let’s say, always trusted Christ but has gone off to a university and has been confronted with ideas they have never been exposed to before and that has caused them to become confused, then I think the church needs to be tender, patient, and loving in guiding that person in the right way. And if the person is responsive to that [at all], then I think that is a good sign.
However, if a person seems to value gaining “academic respectability” over loyalty to Christ, then that might not be a good sign when it comes to where it looks like they are headed.
I’m not saying that being academic and being loyal to Christ are mutually exclusive. There have been outstanding Academic Christians in the history of the church such as Cornelius Van Til…Geerhardus Vos…B.B. Warfield (all connected with Princeton) and John Frame (Princeton/Yale).
However, as brilliant as Paul was, even he was put down by “intellectuals”, if you will, of his day (Acts 17:18, 32). Therefore, I think we should be prepared to bear that cross if it comes to that. And if someone seems to not have any desire to do that by God’s grace, then I don’t think their spiritual trajectory looks good.
Benji,
Thanks, that was a very helpful comment. I will have to chew a while on the idea of spiritual “trajectory.” On the surface, it appears to me to have merit. As I have intimated on various comments on this stream already, though, I think it is much easier to apply to individuals than to groups. Perhaps, the Worldwide Church of God (now, Grace Communion, International) is an example of entire group that changed “trajectory.” But they also, as I understand it, officially changed their stated doctrinal positions as well. But, it does seem that perhaps this was preceded by a change of heart “trajectory” on the part of some of the key leaders.
David,
When I said “always trusted Christ” above, perhaps I should have said “trusted Christ for a long time”.
David,
I wanted to mention that while I personally believe that the six days of creation were literal 24 hour days, I don’t think that a gap view or a day age view or a framework view necessarily undermines the gospel.
I think it is “tampering with Adam” that the church should be mainly concerned about.
Benji,
I think I agree with you on this, as well. Thanks for all the good thoughts.
David:
Thanks for the reply to my comment 9 above.
I repeat my suggestion Oscar Romero was one of the TOP Three, certainly the Top Ten Christian Saints of the 20th Century with Martin King, and Bonhoeffer.
Billy Graham is a good man but he had difficulty with
•Using the proclamation of the gospel as a means for self-aggrandizement and/or material gain . See Marshall Frady on that point. Graham was a man of considerable virtue and passion, but like your Father and all of us, he was a man of his time; and he may have been less a prophet than is widely considered.
I cannot emphasize enough how vital it is you test some of suppositions by a thorough and exhaustive exploration of Diarmaid MacCulloch. See page 51. Inerrancy as does not hold water. But that is not the main point.
Explore his thoughts on Bonhoeffer. Google Bonhoeffer and Frank Fisher to see how your Dad’s classmate Robert Marsh’s son Charles may interpolate matters in his lived theology approach from your Dad’s boundaries of a narrow moment in the life of Christendom; namely an offshoot of Dwight Moody fundamentalism from 1890 to 1950′s. That is the world that shaped your Father and Christendom is much larger than the convictions of 70 years in its evolution.
See Phillip Jenkins Review in recent Christian Century. Get your hands on MacCulloch’s work and as I say above begin cross referencing your concerns with the Index; and by all means give the last 100 pages a thorough reading.
On a more specific note, in regard women preachers. I notice a recent advertisement by Samford Div School and Manhattan Declaration creator Timothy George his Beeson Div School is sponsoring a Preaching Emporium featuring among others two of the Greatest preachers on the planet I have had the privilege of hearing in the flesh: Episcopalian Senior Pastors Barbara Brown Taylor and Fleming Rutledge. I hope our friend Ginny Brant and her friend Anne Graham Lutz can hear them preach sometime this year.
I think Ginny may be on the cusp of joining SBC Resurgence President Jim Henry’s daughter Kate Campbell–herself great friend of Charles Marsh–of championing the gifts of female preachers and pastors.
Someone who rejected any of the following is not a Christian:
*The virgin birth of Christ.
*The literal bodily resurrection of Christ.
*The divinity of Christ (that He was fully God and fully man).
*The sinlessness of Christ.
*The triune nature of the Godhead.
*The exclusivity of Christ for salvation and that salvation comes only by repentance from sin and faith in Christ. To be more precise, and thanks to the word games that moderates play you have to be more precise, no one from other faiths will be saved by God through Christ without them realizing at the time that it was Christ who is saving them. In other words, no muslim will get to heaven thinking he has prayed to and been saved by Allah but finds out after he gets to heaven “Huh? It was Jesus that saved me? Never saw that one coming.” God will not show mercy on anyone who did not personally, conciously trust Christ to save them.
Not only is someone who denied any of the above not a Christian, but anyone who would be willing to cooperate with someone like that is probably not a Christian or at bare minimum is not at all serious about being a diciple of Christ.