# The Gospel Proper: What is It?



## Theological Books (Feb 28, 2005)

I searched this forum, and others, but found nothing that seemed to be about this particular topic. I hope this is not repetitive.

What is _the_ gospel? I ask this because of finer distinctions I make in regard to tri-covenantal theology (works, redemption, grace). What are the parts of the gospel? In other words, is there any part of the gospel other than the person and work of Christ, such as our response to the declaration of the person and work of Christ (i.e. faith and repentance)? Is part of the gospel "faith"? Or is the gospel--en toto--strictly that which Christ did as per the covenant between him and the Father?

I'm asking general questions in order to flush out some thoughts.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Feb 28, 2005)

K.I.S.S. - Keep It Simple, Sir.

*THE* Gospel is the good news of God to men that they no longer have to die in their sins and face His wrath on the other side of life. God Himself came to earth in the person of Jesus Christ, lived a perfect life and offered Himself as the sacrifice for the sins of men. He now calls on men everywhere to turn from their sins to faith in Him so that they may have eternal life. And He calls us not only to be servants, but to be His children.

THAT is the gospel proper, in my opinion.


----------



## heartoflesh (Feb 28, 2005)

I believe webmaster McMahon has an article somewhere on A Puritan's Mind about "The Sum and Substance of the Gospel" or something like that. It basically explains why the gospel is more than just "Jesus weeps". I can't seem to find it at the present time however.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Feb 28, 2005)

http://apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/McMahonSubstanceGospel.htm


----------



## Larry Hughes (Feb 28, 2005)

The Gospel proper is the Good News, that is that which constitutes the Good News. It follows the nature of news as it is communicated and trusted in objectively. It is never something 'done'.

The Gospel is: John 3:14-15, "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life."

The Gospel is: 1 Corinthians 1:23, "but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,"

It is also helpful to see what it is not, because many preach many of these and foolishly think it Gospel:

It is not purchased by cleaning your life up!
It is not purchased by first giving "œall your heart to Jesus"!
It is not purchased by first repenting of "œall your sins"!
It is not purchased by walking an aisle!
It is not purchased by rededicating!
It is not purchased by praying or re-praying the sinners prayer!
It is not purchased by responding to an alter call!
It is not purchased with all your tears you can muster!
It is not prayer itself!
It is not looking to your faith!
It is not looking to your depravity!
It is not looking inward to find Christ!
It is not the Law!
It is not a new Law!
It is not good deeds, good works!
It is not faith + works!
It is not dead faith needing works added to it to constitute it living!
It is not turning in toward one's self in the least for that is sin.
It is not one's profession of faith.

Any pastor or teacher pointing you in the direction of these and many more "nots" is NOT preaching the Gospel to you at all. If they bring not Christ forth in His saving office unconfused, they are not broadcasting the Gospel proper.

It is objectively Christ crucified, dead, buried, risen and ascended for all sin past, present and future and all righteousness past, present and future accomplished by Christ alone to the one looking/believing in Christ alone.

ldh

In short it is Christ plus absolutely nothing.

[Edited on 3-1-2005 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## Theological Books (Feb 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> K.I.S.S. - Keep It Simple, Sir.



First, it is "Keep It Simple, Stupid," but I thank you for substituting "sir." 

Second, mind if I probe an aspect of your greatly appreciated reply?



> *THE* Gospel is the good news of God to men that they no longer have to die in their sins and face His wrath on the other side of life. God Himself came to earth in the person of Jesus Christ, lived a perfect life and offered Himself as the sacrifice for the sins of men. *He now calls on men everywhere to turn from their sins to faith in Him so that they may have eternal life.* And He calls us not only to be servants, but to be His children.



Now, are you saying our response to the good news of what God has done is part of the gospel? In other words, are you saying the gospel does not fully exist, nor is it fully revealed, unless a response to it is present?

The direction I'm leading this discussion, though I'm free to other directions, is in that way of defining that which consists of the gospel (in its parts). For instance, does an "offer" to believe consist as part of the gospel? Or, is it an objective work with or without any call or command or offer to believe?

Here are some thoughts, Kerry (and all). I believe we must think of *THE* gospel as that which is done solely by God (as either actor/receiver). So, the gospel is NOT the work of Christ AND to offer salvation by faith. Why? Because what do we believe in? We believe IN the gospel. Our believing is not PART OF the gospel. If so, are we believing in that we are believing in Christ (if believing is part of the gospel)? I think the gospel is so objective that regardless of it being offered to ANYONE, it is the full and complete gospel not missing anything at any time.

Now, I do believe offering the gospel and responding to the gospel (note we are not offering the "offering the gospel" and responding to "the responding to the gospel") is proper, for that is what is to be done with the gospel (note that is done with the gospel, but is not part of the gospel) as ordained by our Triune God. However, I think it is very important we neither say believing is part of the gospel, nor offering is part of the gospel.

Does that make sense? You may be thinking it doesn't matter, but, hopefully, we can see how it does matter.

[Edited on 3-1-2005 by Theological Books]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Mar 1, 2005)

TB,



> "¦Here are some thoughts, Kerry (and all). I believe we must think of THE gospel as that which is done solely by God (as either actor/receiver). So, the gospel is NOT the work of Christ AND to offer salvation by faith. Why? Because what do we believe in? We believe IN the gospel. Our believing is not PART OF the gospel. If so, are we believing in that we are believing in Christ (if believing is part of the gospel)? I think the gospel is so objective that regardless of it being offered to ANYONE, it is the full and complete gospel not missing anything at any time"¦etc



I understand exactly what you are saying and agree, I think I do at least. That is one of the reasons one of my "œnots" is that it is "œnot looking to your faith itself". The Gospel is itself objective, outside and alien to us. I think sometimes in today´s lingo the Gospel is lost when the term "œGospel" is used. Don´t get me wrong I´m not against the term, just examining its use. If we look at it as "œGood News", again today, it becomes more clear about the objective nature as one is forced to assess what is the nature of "œnews" and what is not. 

The Gospel proper and true is not "œmy believing" because if "œmy believing" is included in the "œGospel" then the Gospel is not the Gospel at all, I´ve added something else to it in an attempt to "œrest" in it. If "œmy faith" is included in it "“ it is no longer by nature "œnews" and it is certainly not good in the eternal sense since daily I´m fickled. That is why I´ve argued that ultimately the signs such as baptism and the Lord´s Supper primarily point to Christ and not to my doing/profession of faith. 

Look at it this way; if "œmy" faith, that is Larry´s faith specifically, is part of the Gospel, then would one declare to say Bob over hear, "œBob, believe in Christ crucified and Larry´s faith?" In other words we never insert another´s faith into the Gospel. Sounds ridiculous but look at what many preachers preach about Abraham and his test with Isaac. Rather than preach it´s pointing to the Messiah where Abraham´s faith is looking, they point us to Abraham´s faith. Immediately in such preaching the hearer assesses him/herself against Abraham and says to him/herself, "œI don´t know if "œmy" faith is that strong or that kind of faith, would I have done this?" They´ve not preached Christ but a comparative to another´s faith, cruelty then sets in.

It is one thing to bring forth Christ, placard Him, present Him as Good News, point to Him and quite another to placard faith or one of a thousand of "œmy doings". It is one thing to fix the eyes upon Christ as Good News and quite another to fixate on "œmy faith". Fixing on "œmy faith" is not true faith at all, but fixing on Christ is faith, yet this saving faith should not even notice itself.

The best example I can recall was the pastor I heard on the radio back in 1997 when I was converted. I have never since heard a man set forth Christ as that man did. He never called to faith but he certainly painted and placarded Christ before the eyes of my soul and it was absolutely irresistible and faith arose. Yet, so fixed upon Christ crucified for me, I was totally unaware at that moment of the rising faith. 

Today we are more arminian/man centered than we like to think, even in sovereign grace circles, because the discussions that one runs into are typically about faith itself rather than Christ. I believe in one sense, today, that faith has become an idol in American Christianity at large. But this idol faith is not saving faith for saving faith NEVER looks to its self but is fixed on Christ. The only way to fix continually our wondering eyes from the 10,000 idols we create every day and week is to freshly, clearly and unconfused preach Christ every Sunday, fixing our eyes back upon Christ. Few, very few, preachers I´ve experienced do this very often, consistently or at all.

Take this statement, "œBelieve in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." In and of itself is it a true statement? Yes, absolutely. But is it, the whole statement, the Gospel? Yes and no. It contains the Gospel indirectly, if the hearer understands what Christ did. But if the hearer does not, if he/she does not understand the cross, death and resurrection (the part needing placarding before them) then it is not the Gospel to them, but just another "œbelieve in this" statement. One could say this (and other religions do), "œBelieve in the power of faith and you will be saved/made right", "œBelieve in the path of Buddha and you will be saved/made right", "œBelieve"¦etc." But even in the narrow realm of Christianity - our eyes can be so very close yet fall short in that statement, "œBelieve in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." Some eyes will fall short and believe in the truth of Christ, Son of God, God the Son. Some eyes will fall short and fix on the word "œbelieve", "œam I believing enough, rightly, magnitude, etc"¦." Some eyes will fall short believing in the veracity of the crucifixion, even for sin, but yet not trusting or resting upon that for them. And some will read what I just wrote "œyet not trusting or resting upon that for them" and fall short yet again wondering, "œAm I trusting/resting upon Christ for myself" rather than looking to where the rest is spoken of? In a metaphorical sense to communicate the Gospel one needs to almost grab a persons head and point it in the direction of the cross and say LOOK, LOOK at that cross that is salvation, stop working for it, rest in it, there IS peace with God.

It is extremely simple yet our fallen nature is immovable for we always want to work to justify ourselves. This is why the preacher who does not placard Christ every Sunday, in my opinion, has forsaken his calling, because the sheep need it every Sunday given the endless list of failures Monday "“ Saturday and the impending list of failures sure to come the next Monday - Saturday.

Luther recognized this and said the church stands and falls on justification by faith alone. Meaning Christ´s work IS the only Gospel. Many protestants are no different than Rome other than where protestants tend to "œwing it", Rome highly formulated and better systematized the works for salvation. That´s why the simple means of Grace Word and Sacrament/ordinance for engendering and sustaining faith have disappeared and in their absents an almost endless list of "œmeans" are provided. You can hardly find two pastors who will agree on the means of Grace either in content or number. God set forth three, men list an inconsistent bureaucracy that nobody can follow or maintain.

Calvin recognized this and once said the only way to engender a life of gratitude is to expel forever this foolish opinion of our own ability for even our gratitude is unacceptable to God. (You have to really ponder what he is saying here to grasp it.)

Spurgeon recognized this and once said that people will each add their small "œmite" to faith and before you know it all is lost.

Larry


----------



## alwaysreforming (Mar 1, 2005)

Larry,
You made a LOT of good points in that post! I think you've summarized things very nicely. The only problem, after reading through all of that, is to FIND that type of message preached. In the last "Megachurch" I attended, I doubt if more than a handful of the people in attendance would recognize the importance of the distinctions you raised. And because of that, they're satisfied with "the Faith of Abraham" type of sermons, and they don't hold their pastor to a higher standard. If you think you're getting the Gospel in those legalistic sermons, there's no reason to hunger after the true Gospel.
I think one of the ways we can USE these Gospel distinctions is to talk about them whenever we get the chance. Probe people that we fellowship with, or run into at church, and ask them questions leading to conversation that can highlight these differences and then chip off everything that should not be part of the true Gospel. I love doing just that, and people seem to respond very well to it, as if a weight has been lifted from their shoulders.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 1, 2005)

Another board I belong to recently got relentlessy spammed by members of Outside the Camp. We finally got rid of them after I urged them to declare us hell-bound God-haters and leave the list. Still they did spark a good discussion on what the gospel is, so I'm interested to see the discussions under this thread.

The OTC'ers blasted us for (among other things) allowing that those who did not believe in the particular nature of the Atonement could, nevertheless, be saved. I think most Arminians are more guilty of fuzzy thinking than denying grace. That set the OTC'ers off like a thermonuclear explosion though. They (loudly) argued that Limited Atonement was a necessary part of the Gospel, belief in which was a de facto requirement of salvation. (They don't say you must believe in LA to be saved, but they say that belief in it is a necessary evidence of salvation. That is a VERY fine hair to split, In my humble opinion.) I responded that LA was a necessary part of redemption but not of the Gospel. I was immediately branded a heretic, along with the rest of the list, and they thankfully left.

But I stick by my statement, simplistic though it is. That Christ died only for the Elect and in His death actually secured the salvation of the Elect is evident upon some serious reflection on the Scriptures. But to say that one MUST believe it in order to be saved is simply ludicrous. To hold that position one must argue that the vast majority of the visible Church (in both the Old and New Covenants) are not saved.

If such is the case, I'm in good company I guess. In their Heterodoxy Hall of Shame they list such "heretics" as Calvin, Spurgeon, Hodge, Packer, etc.

It seems that there is a certain amount of ambiuity in the NT term, "gospel," but the fact that the idea is squarely rooted in the person and work of Christ is crystal clear.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Mar 1, 2005)

Christopher,

I agree, and know what you are saying.

"as if a weight has been lifted from their shoulders", you said a mouthful of truth there brother!

I think in some sense today in the church (again broadly) we can move from saying, "œwe sympathize with the medieval pre-reformation church goers" to "œwe empathize with the medieval pre-reformation church goers".

But the positive side is that reformational teaching is on the rise!

ldh


----------



## turmeric (Mar 2, 2005)

They preach Christ every Sunday with disturbing regularity at the church I attend. I love it!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 2, 2005)

The Gospel = 



> 1:1 Paul, a servantÂ of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2Â which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3Â concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4Â and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5Â through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, 6Â including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ



Jesus Christ is the promised king and Messiah, descended from David according to the flesh. He is the Son of God, proven through the power of God's Spirit in his resurrection from the dead. Jesus Christ is Lord. Those who belong to the Lord receive grace and are called to preach the obedience of faith to all the nations for the sake of God's holy name.


----------



## turmeric (Mar 2, 2005)

How do they receive grace?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Mar 2, 2005)

> How do they receive grace?





> 7Â Do not marvel that I said to you, "˜You must be born again.´ 8Â The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."


----------

