- This is foundational to why this blog exists.
- This is the only hope mankind has. All Truth (may be) God's Truth, but God's Truth (as revealed to man in the Bible) is the only thing worth fighting or living for.
What is the Good News?
The Apostle Paul defines it in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8...:
"Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which 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 according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. (italics mine; NASB)"He also defines it elsewhere, but to summarize, The Good News (Gospel) is "Christ died for our sins and rose again". His resurrection is verified by nearly 1000 people who saw Him after He had been crucified, placed in a tomb, had the massive stone rolled away in front of a whole group of able bodied Roman warriors (they had "became like dead men (Matthew 28:4)"), and came back from the dead in the same body He died in: holes in hands, in feet, and a spear mark in His side.
Why am I telling you this?
As Paul notes, this Gospel has saving power. From what? Spiritual Death (Hell: Daniel 12:2; Matthew 3:12; Mark 9:44-49; Luke 16:23-24; Romans 3:23;6:23; 2 Thes 1:9; Rev 14:10-11, 20:10; etc). But also from the deadness of a life lived in the flesh without God (Gal 2:20, etc).
The Good news is not just about escaping eternal torment and separation from God. The Gospel is also about enabling men to walk in a life that God specifically designed for mankind. Yes, the Good news not only saves men from spiritual death, but also brings them to life in the Risen Son to live the life God designed for all men.
Christ is the way, the truth, and the life... And no one comes to know God except through and by believing in Him (John 14:6).
What does this mean to me?
I tell you these things so you will believe and be saved, able to live the life God will empower you to live by His Spirit (Romans 12:1-2).
The essential things to believe are what was stated previously: Christ died for our sins and rose again.
That brings me to my last point...
Why did Christ have to die?
Imagine a great chasm. God is on one side. Man is on the other. When sin and death entered the world (Gen 3) the creation of this chasm occurred. Sin separates man from God because God is Holy. Sin is anything that is contrary to God's nature/character as revealed to us in nature (Psalm 19:1-6; Romans 1:20) and in His Word (2 Tim 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:21). Because God cannot come close to sin and because men are inherently wicked, God sent His Son to die in our place. This allows us to know the One any Only God!
I pray this message is beneficial to all reading and will remind you of the Gospel (Christ died for our sins and rose again), encourage belief if you haven't already, and also remind you of the eternal power bound up in His death and resurrection. This isn't just about saving souls, but saving the whole man.
Be sure to send us a message if you have any questions, need any clarifications, or have believed today. This Good News is the only hope for man!
FOR HIS GLORY,
-Phil
Very glad to start off this blog with a very important topic. The gospel or the good news about Christ's death and resurrection, like Phil said, is the foundation of this blog. I would like to add a couple of things on to what Phil was saying previously.
ReplyDeleteWhen dealing with the topic of the gospel, one may ask: What must I do to be saved from the penalty of eternal separation from God? It's very essential to understand that we can do nothing to obtain eternal life. Good works, baptism, going to church, being a "good person", will never measure up to the holiness of God. Even on our best day we all miserably fail to meet the standard of absolute perfection, 100% of the time. Paul makes it clear in Ephesians 2:8,9 that we are not saved by works.
"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."
Paul shows that good works will not save anyone! We can only be saved through simple faith in the person and the work of Jesus Christ. Faith means trust. To be saved, one must place their trust in Jesus Christ and the work He did on the cross to pay the penalty for the sins of the entire world.
The gospel of John makes it clear that we can KNOW for sure that we have eternal life. Jesus said:
"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life."
Do you believe in the Son of God who died and rose again for your sins? If so, John assures you that you have passed from death to life!!
YES! Thanks for clarifying broski. That's some very important stuff I skipped over.
ReplyDeleteOk, so here is the monkeywrench... in quoting 1 Corinthians 15:1-8, is the death and resurrection of Christ what one must believe or is it simply the fact of Jesus as the object of one's salvation, as Jesus states Himself in John 3:16. (You may be familiar with this debate if you have followed various people in free grace circles.)
ReplyDeleteResurgence (who I think is Jeremy),
ReplyDeleteBoth myself and Phillip would not hold to what has been called the "crossless gosspel". I am very familiar with the debate within the free grace circles. And, I don't want to get into naming names and stuff like that at this point. But, we both believe that the death and resurrection are the foundation of what we are placing are faith in to be saved. I believe Paul makes this clear in 1 Corinthians 15:1: when he says:
"Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you RECEIVED, in which also you STAND,".
To me, I see a distinction made between the gospel the Corinthians received to be saved and also that of which they stand by for sanctification (both being the same message). So, Paul can't just be talking about sanctification. So, if this is the gospel they received, then the death and resurrection are things that must be included in the message.
Also, I think we have to account for progressive revelation. Paul definitely revealed more than what was revealed in the gospels. But even in the gospel of John a person can see that, not just believing in Jesus' promise to give eternal life is the only thing revealed. At the end of the book John says in John 20:31:
"but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."
So it seems to me that John adds that Jesus' deity is also a necessary truth to be believed. But, overall, I would say that progressive revelation plays a huge role in determining the exact content of faith.
Great question and highly controversial but that's where we stand.
Thanks,
Brandon
I'm not actually familiar with this argument, but I think it's a really good point that definitely needs to be discussed! So thank you Resurgence for bringing it up.
ReplyDeleteI just want to piggy back off of what Brandon is saying. Yeah man, it's all about progressive revelation!
When Matthew tells us in his Gospel account that Jesus was preaching the Good News of the Kingdom, Jesus wasn't telling people, "Believe that I'm God and in my substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection for eternal life!"
None of that stuff had happened yet. Jesus is the Jewish Messiah who has yet to return! At that point in the story, He was preaching that He was the Pslam 2 Messiah and that He would bring the Kingdom if they would just turn to Him (Repent)!
I know that's a little off topic, but I think it's important to talk about the progressive nature of God's revelation in this way- so, that was an example.
So, what I'm saying, is in the same manner of John 3's Nick @ Nite experience, Christ's death burial and resurrection hadn't happened yet... So the most anyone could believe at the time is that Jesus is the Messiah who brings new life with this Kingdom.
However, the earthly kingdom has been put on hold until the fullness of the Gentiles enter/the Jews repent. The current program in God's workings is the Church, the body of Christ.
Anyway, I agree with Brandon on this one.
Salvation and sanctification are accomplished only by His grace through our faith in who He is (God) and what He's done (Christ died for our sins and rose again).
Thanks for the feedback and I hope that answers your question!
-Phil
Also, I don't think we can disconnect the person of Christ from the work He did on the Cross. The gospel is always about the Person (who He is) and the Work of Christ (what He has done).
ReplyDeleteLast thing, I think the "crossless" position seems to take sin out of the picture in the gospel message. If we teach sin to the unregenerate, then the death and resurrection of Christ becomes of the utmost importance. Then they have facts to rest their faith in.
Brandon
Resurgence does bring up an interesting and controversial issue within the free grace camp.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, those advocating the crossless position make a false dichotomy between the person and work of Christ, as Brandon has pointed out.
Before Zane went to be with the Lord, I had an interested email exchange with him. I wanted to find out how he viewed progressive revelation. That seems to be another major issue in which the crossless advocates depart from the traditional free grace view. Zane had some pretty interesting things to say. Bottom line is that his view, which is probably representative of those in the crossless camp, lines up closer to Covenant Theology than it does with Classical Dispensational Theology.
Thanks and good points Bob! Would you say that Zane would view the content of the gospel, in every dispensation, to be the same?
ReplyDeleteBob Wilkin sums up the GES/crossless view of progressive revelation when he wrote:
ReplyDelete--quote--
Dispensationalism is the teaching that God has had different requirements during different ages as to what believers must do to please God. It is also the teaching that Israel is distinct and always will be distinct from the church.
Some people, many people, feel that each time God gave more revelation, the content of saving faith changed. Thus what Adam and Eve had to believe to be born again was far different than what people had to believe during Isaiah’s day. And what people had to believe to be saved during Jesus’ earthly ministry is different from what people have to believe today to be born again.
It is my contention that the content of saving faith has never changed. There has been and always will be only one saving message. The message that the Lord Jesus preached during His earthly ministry is, I believe, the same message He preached to Adam and Eve in the Garden. It is the same message that He preached to Abraham and to Moses as well.
--end of quote--
That pretty much reflected Zane's thoughts also. However, Zane did make one distinction that Wilkin did not bring out in the previous quote.
Zane wrote, "OT saints up to the announcement of John the Baptist were regenerated, I assume, by believing in the promised Messianic provision."
He said that after John the Baptist then "the name of Jesus is the name one must believe in."
I asked Zane specifically to comment on the doctrinal statement of DTS which reflects the traditional dispensational view of progressive revelation. His reply was interesting. He wrote, "I always thought the DTS statement was ambiguous and I still do."
Hmmmm. Either he did not understand it or he did not agree with it. In either case, I wondered how he could teach at DTS and not hold to their statement on progressive revelation.
Here's the part of the DTS doctrinal statement that I asked him to comment on:
--quote--
We believe that according to the “eternal purpose” of God (Eph. 3:11) salvation in the divine reckoning is always “by grace, through faith,” and rests upon the shed blood of Christ. We believe that God has always been gracious, regardless of the ruling dispensation, but that man has not at all times been under an administration or stewardship of grace as is true in the present dispensation.... We believe ... that the principle of faith was prevalent in the lives of all the Old Testament saints. However, we believe that it was historically impossible that they should have had as the conscious object of their faith the incarnate, crucified Son, the Lamb of God (John 1:29), and that it is evident that they did not comprehend as we do that the sacrifices depicted the person and work of Christ. (Article V)
--end of quote--
BTW, below are some quotes representing the traditional dispensational view of progressive revelation as it pertains to salvation. I would say that this is also the traditional free grace view of progressive revelation. I see the crossless/GES view as being outside the bounds of traditional free grace soteriology.
ReplyDeleteCharles Ryrie (Prof. at DTS):
ReplyDeleteThis dispensationalist’s answer to the question of the relation of grace and law is this: The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement for salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations. It is this last point, of course, that distinguishes dispensationalism from covenant theology, but it is not a point to which the charge of teaching two ways of salvation can be attached. It simply recognizes the obvious fact of progressive revelation. When Adam looked upon the coats of skins with which God had clothed him and his wife, he did not see what the believer today sees looking back on the cross of Calvary. And neither did other Old Testament saints see what we can see today. There have to be two sides to this matter—that which God sees from His side and that which man sees from his.
Elliot Johnson (Prof. at DTS):
ReplyDeleteThe content changes because what may be known of Christ and Christ’s death grows in the progress of revelation in each dispensation.
Paul Enns (Taken From Moody Handbook of Theology p. 522):
ReplyDeleteDispensationalists have sometimes been accused of teaching different ways of salvation in different dispensations. That is, however, a false charge. Dispensationalists teach that “The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement for salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations.” God’s revelation to man differs in different dispensations, but man’s responsibility is to respond to God in faith according to the manner in which God has revealed Himself. Thus when God revealed Himself to Abraham and promised him a great posterity, Abraham believed God, and the Lord imputed righteousness to the patriarch (Gen. 15:6). Abraham would have known little about Christ, but he responded in faith to the revelation of God and was saved. Similarly, under the law God promised life through faith. Whereas the Israelite under the law knew about the importance of the blood sacrifice, his knowledge of a suffering Messiah was still limited—but he was saved by faith (Hab. 2:4). Dispensationalists thus emphasize that in every dispensation salvation is by God’s grace through faith according to His revelation.
Dr. Ron Bigalke (Conference: 2006 Pre Trib Study Group):
ReplyDeleteDispensations are recognizable historic divisions in Scripture wherein God observes the actions and thoughts of man in time and history, and judges the actions and thoughts of man. In every dispensation, man fails to obey God both morally and spiritually. Dispensations are not differing manners of salvation. Throughout the ages of time and history, as revealed in Scripture, man is always saved by grace through faith in the content of God's revelation. The content of faith may change, but man is always saved by grace through faith alone. In the New Testament, saving faith is trusting in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for one's sins. Christ and His atonement are the content of the sinner's belief.
Gregory P. Sapaugh (A Response to Hodges: How To Lead A Person To Christ, Parts 1 and 2):
ReplyDeleteIn the two articles, Hodges focused exclusively on the Gospel of John. While he is correct that "the Gospel of John is the only book in our New Testament canon that explicitly declares its purpose to be evangelistic," his total reliance on that book alone for soteriological truth creates a needless dichotomy with the rest of the New Testament. While John may not emphasize the death of Christ in his presentation on how to receive everlasting life, the centrality of the cross becomes clear in the remainder of the New Testament (this will be discussed more later). Single-minded focus and reliance on one book of the Bible, while ignoring the testimony of the rest of Scripture, is not too far from using a verse out of context to support an erroneous theological position.
It is unclear why Hodges focuses on the misunderstanding by the disciples of the coming death and resurrection of Christ (cf. John 20:9). How are these men any different from any other Old Testament believer? One could go all the way back to Abraham who "believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness" (Gen 15:6). Abraham had eternal life at that point, and yet surely he did not really understand the future crucifixion and resurrection of the Messiah. But he believed in the promise of a Deliverer, and that is what the disciples in John are doing.
But Hodges uses the experience of the disciples to conclude that the cross is not relevant to understanding the gospel. But their experience is from a prior dispensation and it is wrong to make that incomplete experience a basis for comprehending the gospel in the Church age. I agree with the position of Ryrie regarding progressive revelation:
The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement for salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations. It is this last point, of course, that distinguishes dispensationalism from covenant theology, but it is not a point to which the charge of teaching two ways of salvation can be attached. It simply recognizes the obvious fact of progressive revelation. When Adam looked upon the coats of skins with which God had clothed him and his wife, he did not see what the believer today sees looking back on the cross of Calvary. And neither did other Old Testament saints see what we can see today.
So it seems reasonable to expect the disciples of Jesus to have an incomplete understanding of the coming crucifixion. But Hodges, by narrowly focusing on one book of the Bible, the Gospel of John, has forced truth from the Mosaic dispensation onto the Church Age. Thus, for him, the misunderstanding by the disciples becomes an indicator that the crucifixion of Christ is not essential to the gospel. But now we have the complete revelation of the mind of God—the Bible. God has not limited soteriological truth to the Gospel of John. The totality of Scripture must be considered for the full expression of the doctrine of salvation.
Wow! Those are really good quotes, Bob. Thanks for taking the time to post those. I really like what Sapaugh was saying about how a blur between the previous dispensations took place. I agree that the totality of Scripture must be taken into consideration but especially the epistles!! Why would a person build their soteriology solely on a single gospel?? Almost seems to correlate with what MacArthur put forth in "The Gospel According to Jesus"!
ReplyDeleteVery very very very very awesome quotes! Thanks Bob! Ryrie has that quote in his book, "Dispensationalism", and it clears up a lot of soteriological issues throughout the Scriptures! Love it!
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I just wrote that to get a reaction. It is good to think about such things. I believe Ryrie's view is the correct one because we can not disregard the importance of progressive revelation.
ReplyDelete*By the way, Ryrie is the guest speaker at this year's FGA meeting in October. Also, Jody Dillow will be one of their main session speakers.
If I weren't going on vacation in a few days, I would join in the fun. Maybe I will write more while on vacation!
Well, you definitely sparked some great conversation! =)
ReplyDelete