It has become fashionable these days for preachers and theologians to give us “the gospel” in a short form. “The Gospel in 6 minutes.” Or, “the Gospel in one sentence.” What they usually present is a short statement about Jesus’ work for our individual salvation. And that’s all. The main message of the Gospel for our modern preachers seems to be that our individual salvation is the most important goal of God, and Christ came to serve and achieve that most important goal. Thus, the modern view of the Gospel in many churches doesn’t differ too much from the pagan view of the pagan religions. It in fact doesn’t differ from what pagans would want Christianity to be. Many things are excluded from the Gospel: culture, justice, families, history, science, etc. The “gospel” of our modern preachers is strictly limited to one area only: me and mine.
But what is the Gospel according to the Bible? Can we limit it to the individual salvation of souls only? Can we diminish the Christian message to “it’s all about having a personal relationship with Jesus”? Can we agree with those Christian ministers who say that Christian social action cannot be “confused with the Gospel”? What is the Gospel, what is its proper area of operation, and what are its proper limits according to the Bible?
In finding the true nature of the Gospel we need to start with the fact that there isn’t a single verse in the Bible that limits the message of the Gospel to individual salvation only. The Bible doesn’t say, “The Gospel is only this but not that.” There is no area of life for which the Bible says, “But this is not the Gospel,” or “The Gospel has nothing to say about this.” Any such limit, any such boundaries placed on the legitimate area of the Gospel message are entirely man-made and proceed from the personal theological prejudice of the preacher or the theologian, not from sound exegesis.
Yes, the Bible does talk a lot about individual salvation of men’s souls as part of the Gospel message. But the important part individual salvation plays in the Gospel message doesn’t exclude the cultural part of the Gospel. There is no language of “this-but-not-that” when the message of the Gospel is discussed. No Biblical author limits the Gospel in any way. People are saved individually, that is a fact. God is in the business of bringing people to salvific faith, based on the sacrifice of His Son on the Cross. But that’s not where the Gospel ends. Its claims and its message are comprehensive, they encompass all of life. The Gospel is not defined as a “gospel of salvation,” except in one place only, Ephesians 1:13, where it describes what the Gospel does, not what it is. And even in Ephesians 1, the language doesn’t imply any limitation on the message and the meaning of the Gospel.
While there is no limiting language in the Bible concerning the proper boundaries of the Gospel message, there certainly is quite a lot of evidence for its comprehensive nature. The Bible talks about the Gospel using the language of universal power, universal authority, and universal jurisdiction. The Gospel is defined by Jesus as the Gospel of the Kingdom, thus pointing to its comprehensive content and intent. Jesus didn’t focus His ministry on the salvation of individual souls; in fact, in many places, like Matthew 13:10-17, He seems to deliberately turn down opportunities to save people, focused instead on a higher goal, teaching His disciples about . . . the Kingdom! The higher and comprehensive reality of the Kingdom of God was so central to the Gospel –- as opposed to simply individual salvation of souls –- that Jesus spent 40 days of his post-Resurrection life on earth explaining the Kingdom to the disciples. In the last chapter of John and the first chapter of Acts where we learn about His post-resurrection ministry, the word “salvation” is not even mentioned. The central theme there is the Kingdom, again, meaning a universal rule of Christ over every power and authority in heaven and on earth.
An often quoted but misunderstood by our modern churches verse is John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” In the ideology of modern theologians and pastors this verse is almost universally interpreted to mean: God’s main goal, and therefore the Gospel’s main purpose is to convert people and save souls from hell.
But this is not what the verse says. Salvation of souls is NOT the goal at all; it is only a means to a higher goal. The verse starts with that higher goal: “God loved the world.” God’s attention is shown here directed to the whole world, not just individual souls. The salvation of individual souls is only subject to that higher goal, as we see from the conclusion of the passage in the very next verse: “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.”
The “sacred verse” of modern evangelism is not concerned with the salvation of individuals as an end in itself; the end is the salvation of the whole world, the kosmos, the creation of God that was polluted by sin and curse, and now God is restoring it to Himself, and that through the salvation of believers as a means, not a goal in itself.
The language of another central passage for the New Testament evangelism -– the Great Commission in Matthew 28:18-20 –- is just as universal and comprehensive: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.” The basis for preaching the Gospel is thus established: The total, comprehensive authority of Jesus Christ over every area of life, in heaven and on earth. Now, if the Gospel was only concerned with the salvation of individual souls, then such a foundation is a serious overkill; for snatching souls out of sin and hell Christ doesn’t need to establish the fact of His comprehensive authority. We are saved individually by His sacrifice on the Cross. Why does He need to mention His total power, if the intent, the content, and the end of His Gospel were strictly individual? Such language of comprehensive claims makes sense only if it is followed by a language of comprehensive requirements; i.e., if the Gospel He requires them to preach is just as comprehensive, covering every area of life, including the personal life and salvation of the believer, but not limited to it.
And indeed, the rest of the Great Commission has only a small reference to the individual aspect of the Gospel: “baptize them.” And this is only as a means, in the context of a greater, comprehensive, world-wide focus: “disciple the nations, teach them to do everything I have commanded you.” (The Greek text doesn’t contain the phrase “make disciples,” the exact meaning is “disciple the nations,” as nations, not as individuals taken out of the nations.) The nations –- as nations, as comprehensive entities –- must be discipled actively to obey what Christ commanded, everything of it, including the Old Testament. The Great Commission in Matthew 28:18-20 mirrors the passage in John 3:16-17; the intent and the content of the Gospel message are comprehensive, addressing the whole world as world and as nations, and the personal salvation of individuals is only an important means to this goal, but never a goal in itself.
If the Gospel was limited to only individual salvation of men, then we can’t find much sense in the words of Jesus in Matthew 10:18: “And you will even be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say.”
The individual salvation of men is the same for kings and for common people. Why would the disciples worry about “how or what” they must say to kings and rulers, if they are only to talk about individual salvation? What is it in the testimony to kings and rulers that is different? The only plausible answer to this question is in the comprehensive nature of the Gospel, the fact that the Gospel speaks to all of life, and therefore it speaks to every man in his specific area of authority and dominion under God. Kings and rulers have no problem when their subjects are concerned with their personal salvation; the real difficulty lies in telling a king how to rule according to “everything I have commanded you.”
And indeed, we see that Christians were persecuted in the Roman Empire not because they preached individual salvation. They weren’t the only ones to preach it as a matter of fact; Rome had a special Pantheon (All-Gods) were every new god or savior was duly registered and adopted in service of the Empire. But Jesus was different. What made Him different, and why were the Christians persecuted? The answer is: Their message was not limited to individual salvation or the personal life of the believer but was a comprehensive challenge to the Empire itself. In the words of the persecutors themselves: “they all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus” (Acts 17:7).
It was that comprehensive nature of the Gospel, demanding the submission of all earthly powers to Jesus that earned the Christians the persecutions. The sweet picture of heavenly salvation never produced such persecutions; the statement of Jesus’ authority on the earth, over every area of life including politics and culture, did. A verse that is used to support the truncated view of the Gospel is 1 Corinthians 15:1-4:
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
Indeed, this passage looks like it limits the Gospel to individual salvation. But the citation is not complete. The passage logically continues until Paul says about the reign of Christ: “For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.”
The language of universal, comprehensive application of the Gospel is present here too. There is no verse in the middle of the chapter to tell us, “And this is not the Gospel.” To the contrary, before this comment about Jesus’ comprehensive victory Paul talks about the resurrection of believers which is in the very heart of the Gospel. After this comment Paul continues with the resurrection theme. Nothing tells us that Paul’s words about Jesus’ total power is outside the Gospel, a kind of “parenthesis” in the text. The subjection of all powers, all authorities -– yes, including earthly political, social, economic, and other authorities –- to Christ is part of the Gospel message. Excluding it from the Gospel means truncating the Gospel to what Rushdoony calls a “pagan mystery religion,” one of those that the Roman Senate would have readily accepted into the Pantheon in Rome.
Paul talks even more explicitly about the comprehensive nature of Christ’s Gospel when he comments in Romans 8 on the nature of our deliverance from bondage. Explaining that the Spirit testifies that we are God’s sons, free and redeemed, he doesn’t miss the opportunity to remind his readers that this deliverance of our individual souls is not a goal in itself; it is only a means to a higher goal and purpose of God:
For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now (Rom. 8:19-22).
Again, we are saved not just to be saved. God has a higher purpose for us: Apply our deliverance and salvation to the whole creation. Does that mean our social, political, and economic world as well? Yes. The verse says, the whole creation. In the same epistle, while explaining the practical implications of the Gospel message, Paul also includes the duties of the civil ruler: He must be a servant of God. This very claim was considered treason in the Empire; as we saw above, Christians were persecuted for that specific reason, claiming that Christ was a higher power than Caesar. In the Empire’s political constitution, Caesar was god; he couldn’t be a “deacon” of another god. The Gospel however did encroach on Caesar’s realm and requested his subjection to Christ in all, including his policies.
Paul is very adamant about the applicability of the Gospel in every area of life, including criminal justice. Modern theologians and preachers to the contrary, Paul didn’t believe or preach any dichotomy between the Law and the Gospel. The Gospel did include the Law, as is obvious from Paul’s statement in 1 Timothy 1:8-11. There, after explaining the continuing validity of the Law of God in matters of criminal justice, and saying that the Law is good when applied to criminals, Paul doesn’t hesitate to add, “according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.”
Paul is clear here: The Gospel he preached was not limited to the salvation of individuals. It did include every power and every authority, including civil powers. The Gospel Paul had been entrusted with required the righteous use of the Law, and therefore the punishment of the crimes Paul listed, by the Law. Paul was faithful in obeying the Great Commission: The nations must be taught everything Christ had commanded, and therefore the Gospel message included the Law’s provisions against civil crimes. Any truncation of the Gospel to only personal salvation would have been disobedience.
Much more can be said about the comprehensive claims of the Gospel in the Bible. One thing is clear: Those who limit the Gospel to the individual salvation of men’s souls do not preach the Biblical Gospel. The Biblical Gospel is the Gospel of the Kingdom, a comprehensive declaration of the total authority of Jesus Christ over every area of life, including politics, culture, economics, etc. When we fail to make that declaration of the Gospel to the whole of life, we only serve those that want the demise of Christianity.
A Reformed missionary to his native Bulgaria for over 10 years, Bojidar preaches and teaches doctrines of the Reformation and a comprehensive Biblical worldview. Having founded Bulgarian Reformation Ministries in 2001, he and his team have translated over 30,000 pages of Christian literature about the application of the Law of God in every area of man’s life and society, and published those translations online for free. He has been active in the formation of the Libertarian movement in Bulgaria, a co-founder of the Bulgarian Society for Individual Liberty and its first chairman. If you would like Bojidar to speak to your church, homeschool group or other organization, contact him through his website: http://www.bulgarianreformation.org/
Very, very good paper.
It is a mystery to me how all those worthless pastors can read the Bible and fail to see what you have so clearly seen and so eloquently explained.
BM is right to say that we are not saved simply to be saved. However, I don’t think he means that what a person does after being saved affects his salvation status – a view which is at odds with Scripture, the understanding the Early Church, & many Kingdom Christian groups through the ages. For Harmon, the implication drawn from the article is that faith is not enough for salvation: something more is required. It isn’t clear that a so-called saved person goes on automatically or irresistibly to fulfill these purposes, & that puts into question one’s salvation – especially one based upon irresistible grace.
My beef with BM is not over the point about the Gospel including more than just personal salvation. From the Kingdom perspective the Gospel is chiefly about the Kingdom, but my difference concerns the means or methods to be employed. BM fails to keep the Kingdom separate from the kingdoms of this world. Preach to the police, but do not become the world’s police. As I have said before, you can try to change the world, or you can change yourself & thereby change the world, but that isn’t to say individuals shouldn’t try to influence all people wherever they are or who ever they are or that Christians can’t work together to influence the world in a systematic way through corporate efforts from the outside of worldly institutions. From Jesus on down, the world was converted by people who uncompromisingly lived what they believed, obeyed the teachings of Christ, & yet, never used the world’s institutions to accomplish their goals. How could they? They were outsiders, rebels, criminals, & enemies of the human race from the world’s perspective & from the perspective of the world’s institutions. You can’t help but change the world’s institutions or kingdoms when you bring people out of them & into the glorious Kingdom of God. In some cases, a person can stay & work in those institutions, but more often than not, a person would have to either disobey Christ or fail to do his job because the Kingdom of God is incompatible with the ways & means of this world. You cannot be a representative of both Caesar & Christ; you can serve only one Master.
This ideologically-driven article hasn’t produced a single verse from the Bible describing, or even inferring, exactly what it is that expands the message of the Gospel beyond “individual salvation only.” Consequently, it fails miserably in its attempt to inject a social activist substance into the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The Gospel is God’s perfect, one-time, atoning work in Christ Jesus. Again, He is the Gospel. Bible language, therefore, couldn’t be any clearer in proclaiming that His finished work on Calvary is the only Good News for individuals: “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief (1 Timothy 1:15).” The Gospel never departs from, or adds to, the centrality of personal faith in the Savior. And never does this Gospel turn itself towards resuscitating “politics, culture, economics, etc.”
“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation (Roman 10:9,10).”
“That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls (1Peter 1:7-9).”
“Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them (Hebrews 7:25).”
Nothing in these scriptures support Bojidar Marinov’s question-begging claim that “the Gospel message doesn’t exclude the cultural part of the Gospel.” The Gospel declared in them is very much limited to the salvation of sinners by the loving, atoning work of the Lord Jesus. Accordingly, no social-cultural imperative is preached from passages focusing upon Gospel forgiveness:
“Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem (Luke 24:47).”
“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).”
“And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that He is the One ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. To Him all the prophets bear witness that every one who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His name (Acts 10:42, 43).”
“Let it be known to you therefore, brethren, that through this Man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you (Acts 13:38).”
“In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace (Ephesians 1:17).”
The work of those who think the mere preaching of the Cross is foolishness is to upgrade the forgiveness of sins with the so-called ”cultural part of the Gospel,” and to energize Christ’s atonement with cultural relevance. Bojidar Marinov’s ideological mindset refuses to accept that “…it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe (1Corinthians. 1:21).” The apostle Paul, on the other hand, had no interest in marshaling Christians into cultural pertinence when he wrote, “I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2).” How _truncated_ such Gospel determination must sound in the ears of a Rushdoonyite high on sectarian invective about “pagan mystery religion.”
Paul’s warning to Galatian Gospel-tweakers is a perfect rejoinder to Bojidar Marinov’s frantic obsession to improve the true Gospel with works for the ‘kingdom of this world’.
“Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father: To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” — Galatians 1:3-8
My suggestion is to read the article before you make an attempt to reply to it.
Rereading the article continues to reveal an ideological tweaking of the Gospel that looks away from Christ’s mercy for sinners. 1 Timothy 1:8-11, for example, is cited to prove Paul’s Gospel “included the law,” and his preaching “was not limited to the salvation of individuals.” The deceit is exposed in successive verses where Paul includes himself amongst the law-breakers in verses 9,10, and declares that his personal salvation is a pattern for others who would be individually saved:
14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. 16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
My suggestion to you, Bojidar, is that you read the Bible as “…the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son (1 John 5:11),” before concocting agitprop like _The True Gospel vs. the Truncated Gospel_.
Such a shame, Harmon, that your reading comprehension doesn’t match your excellent way getting your point across. There is a Russian joke about such condition, “Chukcha a writer, not a reader,” but I will leave it to another occasion.
There is a paragraph in my article:
You apparently missed it when reading and re-reading the article. Consequently, none of the Biblical verses you quoted disproved what I said in that paragraph. Not a single one of them limits the Gospel to individual salvation ONLY. Yes, they speak about individual salvation, but the word ONLY is not there, neither is there any indication that the Gospel is limited to individual salvation.
Let’s apply your logic to the bitter end. The verses you quote seem to not mention cultural redemption as part of the Gospel. Therefore, you conclude, the Gospel doesn’t address the culture. Well, the verses you quoted don’t mention WORSHIP. Following your own logic, worshiping God must be outside of the scope of the Gospel! If we follow your logic, man’s chief end is not to glorify God but to get saved! Are you saying that worship is not part of the Gospel? Are you saying that man’s salvation is more important than God’s glory?
Your attempt at refuting my reading of 1 Tim. 1:8-11 is not very convincing. Paul talks about his own sinfulness, but in verses 10-11 he talks about civil crimes punishable by the Law. What you are saying is that Paul must have committed the civil crimes listed in verses 10-11 to deserve execution by the civil government. But to argue so will contradict Philippians 3:6 where Paul says about himself that “as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.” So in vv.14-15 Paul is not telling us he was one of those murderers, public blasphemers, homosexuals, etc., he lists in vv.10-11, he is telling us only that his righteousness was nothing, even if he was perfect according to the Law.
You write well. If you learn to read well, you may be able to convince other people.
Bojidar–such a klutzy put-down–’one cannot read well if one isn’t moved by your Gospel-mangling argument’.
You write: “Yes, they [unspecified texts] speak about individual salvation, but the word ONLY is not there, neither is there any indication that the Gospel is limited to individual salvation.”
A key refrain from this and earlier posts is, “but the word ONLY is not there.” This is a semantic trick a child might use since it could be argued the words “individual salvation” (or any other words, for that matter) are not there. ‘Non-mention‘ is the air your argument continues to breathe in the discombobulation that follows:
“The verses you quote seem to not mention cultural redemption as part of the Gospel. Therefore, you conclude, the Gospel doesn’t address the culture.“
Precisely–the “forgiveness of sins” passages, for example, don’t mention “cultural redemption” because they focus upon the power of Christ’s work for individual sinners. So, no, a text preoccupied only with the Person and work of the Lord Jesus (a characteristic of the entire New Testament) “doesn’t address the culture.” But that plain, Christ-centered fact has absolutely nothing to do with your clumsy effort to work up the word “WORSHIP.” This specious ploy supposedly applies “your logic to the bitter end” by forcing a non-existent “logic” to arrive at a non-existent denial of “WORSHIP.”
“Are you saying that man’s salvation is more important than God’s glory?”
No, that’s your interpolation: it’s the crude weapon you’ve forged from the preceding travesty of ‘logic application’. God’s glory, by the way, was never more evident than in Christ Jesus‘ suffering for man’s salvation:
“But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings (Hebrews 2: 9,10).”
“Your attempt at refuting my reading of 1 Tim. 1:8-11 is not very convincing.”
Scripture succeeds in refuting your reading, its pathetic desire to separate Paul into a cultural realm of law-righteousness, and exposes how Gospel-tweaking in action. Paul writes in Galatians 2:31, “I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” The context of Philippians 3:6, moreover, shows it to be wholly concerned with Paul’s absolutely ‘non-cultural’ dedication to His Savior:
“But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead (Philippians 3:7-11).”
You write, “So in vv.14-15 Paul is not telling us he was one of those murderers, public blasphemers, homosexuals, etc.” even though, in 1 Timothy 1:13, we read him saying of himself, “Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.” [“Chukcha a writer, not a reader”
]
My suggestion to you stands, my friend, that you read the Bible, not as agitprop for cultural triumphalism, but as “…the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son (1 John 5:11).”
A lot of writing, but no answer to my arguments. I therefore do not need to do more than just repeat them. May be this will help you understand that arguments are refuted with arguments, not declarations:
1. No verses limiting the Gospel to personal salvation ONLY. Still none.
2. No reply to the argument that your chosen verses mention nothing of worship, therefore according to your own logic the Gospel doesn’t include worship.
3. No answer to my argument that Paul is a sinner, but not a civil criminal of the type listed in 1 Tim. 1:10-11.
I will wait until you present arguments, not another barrage of logorrhea.
“A lot of writing, but no answer to my arguments.“ Because your own “lot of writing” (agitprop in “argument” drag) can’t answer scripture.
“No verses limiting the Gospel to personal salvation ONLY. Still none.”
Because the verses proclaiming personal salvation in Christ Jesus do exactly that–they proclaim personal salvation only. You, however, can’t find a single verse extending the Gospel to ‘personal salvation PLUS’.
“No reply to the argument that your chosen verses mention nothing of worship, therefore according to your own logic the Gospel doesn’t include worship.”
Because your argument (“Well, the verses you quoted don’t mention WORSHIP”) is obfuscation. Therefore, you fail to notice that the “chosen verses” are the embodiment of Gospel worshipfulness.
3.“No answer to my argument that Paul is a sinner, but not a civil criminal of the type listed in 1 Tim. 1:10-11.”
Because this particular obfuscation, ignoring “that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners,” insists that Sinner Paul, who calls himself “a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious,” is actually making a distinction between that sinful condition and the “civil criminal” sins listed in 1 Tim. 1:10-11.
Bojidar, don’t be dissing “logorrhea” because you’ve already shown that the Gospel can’t be tweaked without it.
Very convenient. When the verses you specifically choose don’t mention culture, you claim Gospel doesn’t address culture. When I point they don’t mention worship either, the argument is changed, and now they are “embodiment of Gospel worshipfulness.”
Why is that change of the argument? Because you have a specific agenda you need to defend, and consistency is only an obstacle.
Why not use the same argument and say that your own verses are “embodiment of the Gospel’s culture-changing nature”? After all, all culture change starts from personal change, so what is the problem of including culture change in those verses just the same way you include worship?
Try harder next time.
You think that just using the word “obfuscation” many times proves something. It doesn’t. You still have to explain Paul’s plain words:
So, what does the Law say, ACCORDING TO THE GOSPEL?
“American Vision’s” practice of nesting replies to a cut-off point makes me think this will be my final response.
You complained: “You think that just using the word “obfuscation” many times proves something. It doesn’t. You still have to explain Paul’s plain words.”
Predictably, you go on to obfuscate “Paul’s plain words” with this rhetorical interjection, “So, what does the Law say, ACCORDING TO THE [glorious] GOSPEL.”
Rest assured that this “[glorious] GOSPEL” coincides with the Gospel mentioned in Romans 1:16,17: ”For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, ‘The just shall live by faith’.”
But your desperation to get civil law entrenched in the Gospel, truly crashes and burns against Romans 3:20-23:
“Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”
Finally, the article body beneath the title, _The True Gospel vs. the Truncated “Gospel”_, advances a view of the Gospel as a law-inclusive, culturally comprehensive, extra-salvation call by God for Christians to take institutional control of every area of life. Another germane title might be, _God Only Saves Sinners to Advance His Cultural Recovery Plan_. But can this “gospel” (transcending pagan fixation with individual salvation) be detected anywhere in the soteriological eloquence radiating from these Gospel passages?
“…I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep (John 10:10,11).”
“I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me (Galatians 2:20).”
“In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:9,10).”
Bojidar
Great article. I just watched your video “Europe as a Mirror for America”. It was eye opening as well as inspirational.
Harmon, allow me to place Bo’s points within a real world context. In Mexico corruption is a big problem. The police, especially in certain provinces are very bad. They demand bribes, take graft from the drug traffickers, extort the populace, and are involved in a myriad of other crimes. I believe Bojidar’s point here is that to preach the gospel to the police of Mexico is to confront them with these sins. For the individual men of the police forces, the government, industry, and commerce of Mexico to be disciples of Christ is about how they conduct themselves in those spheres. No less the poet, no less the lawyer, the doctor, or artist. How could it be otherwise? Gary North aptly describes this theology as schizophrenic for it claims the Gospel places no demands upon the believer and then decries the moral bankruptcy it has contributed to. Or should a believer just not be a cop?
Hi my brother I really liked your text and translated it to Portuguese
I just need to do a final review; do you permit me to publish it on my blog? I created this blog to publish materials from american vision if I get permission to do it.
all the best for you and thank you for another excellent text
You are welcome to translate in Portuguese anything I write, Djalma.
I think much of the confusion comes in when we do not begin with God.
We accept the false premises and false structures that appear in the world, because they appear to be real and working. And we treat them as such… when they are broken and lost and BENEATH us.
For example, we take institutions at face value. We perceive these institutions as having a life in-and-of-themselves. Institutions are nothing more than ideas that several people hold, that allow them to work together. Notice the Beasts in Revelation. Notice the “beast natures” that Freud said we all had inside of us (and how Edward Bernays and Hitler sought to cater to that collective beast nature that arises when people come together). Many institutions are built around lies and illusions. Rather than trying to come alongside them and say “hey, I like your tool… I think I can use it for something good.” Sometimes we should simply put our work elsewhere: like investing in real, living human beings.
On the surface: you may have two institutions that appear similar. One lives by the sword and money…and deals with matters of power, influence, and control (with policies simply being a side-affect). This is, largely, the state…and any institution that has lost its way. The other serves a HIGHER purpose, and so its WORK will be PRESERVED even if the physical world were to be destroyed. The BUILDing that remains is the WORK that results in Faith, Hope, and Love (Eternal things, Personal treasures that the Bible declares are beyond time/space). Unless God builds the House (House of God/Temple of God?) they labor in vain that build it.
Awesome article, Bo!! I just added a link to it on our church’s blog. This is such a difficult concept for people to accept, and admittedly, I was slow to come on board right after I started walking with the Lord. But after much study I realized that this is the only interpretation of the gospel that makes sense, as is the case with Reformed Theology in general. In fact, there is no other theological system that holds together under the entire counsel of Scripture without eventually falling apart. It’s very unfortunate that bringing every area of human existence under the authority of God’s Word is not on the agenda of every Christian on earth. The teaching through articles like this one is so incredibly helpful. Thank you for sharing this! May God richly bless you, Bo!
The reason why the gospel doesn’t reinforce that it is a ‘personal gospel’ is that it is probably taken FOR GRANTED that it is actual, living PEOPLE hearing the message. (He who has ears to hear, let him hear.) God did not say to proclaim the gospel to the institutions (if anything, we are to proclaim to people, and help them take their mindsets CAPTIVE to CHRIST). He did say disciple nations. But nations are not institutions (TRULY). Nations are peopleS. People share a culture and a society. But if you want to participate in that culture or society… you have to go through the door: you have to know them, love them, and be accepted by them. And it always starts with one favored acquaintance and works outward from there. Cultures are bound together through friendships and (personal) love. It is only after we love each other, that we can treasure the people.
In this age of electronics, we can fantasize that we are part of a culture, without truly knowing anyone personally. Maybe that is true, to a certain extent. But all of the words, the songs, the ideas… come through people, ultimately. Even our tools do.
Jesus said “I am the door”. In order to get into the fold (and not be a criminal) you must enter through the door, legitimately. The door is a person. And you are a person. The Scriptures say there will be a time when we would call our walls “salvation” and our gates “praise” (Isa 60). Are salvation and praise impersonal?
I come from the “revivalist” culture that has usually sought (and tirelessly proclaimed) a salvation “formula”. (After all, we have to be able to institutionally and impersonally track who is “in” and who is “out” of our club. Complete with “baptismal certificates” for you to treasure.) While I revel in the personal aspects of such a faith, the freedom, and the (truly) genuine and fresh praise… I do question our belief systems a lot. Many of us are just beginning to feel free to question things.
I do not believe in collective salvation, as men think of it. The pagans… THEY were the ones who believed in collective salvation of one form or another. THEY were the ones who usually feared personal independence, because they took that to mean anarchy. Look no further than their forms of government and economy. Look at all of the Pharoah’s, the Emperor-gods, the temple deities (who didn’t care about individuals). And now look at how men were supposed to pay homage to them: only by being connected to a “larger whole” could you have salvation (even if the gateway was temple “sex” it was not personal sex – it was sex stripped of its personal content as much as possible, while still remaining profitable).
Yet… Jesus (by his very being) proves that God does not operate like this. God cares about individual lives. And THIS is how He loves the world: He loves us ALL individually. It is only through His “gateway” Jesus Christ, and Him IN US, that we can be a part of His Grand Story, and Great Society. He is the door. It IS Personal, on a level much deeper than you or I understand, since God is described as a Person (in Heb 1:3). It is AFTER we embrace Jesus (Jah Saves) that He takes us on the road with Him…and we walk together, as he teaches us his ways. He teaches us about personal family: beginning with Him as the Father/Head… proceeding to the Son as Father/Head…then to the husband as Father/Head (a symbol of heavenly realities).
The only way a man can pretend to be the transcendent-yet-immanent “God” is to create a “system” (like 1984) that makes him look ubiquitous to all men (and women). And this has been the way since Egypt forward. Possibly since Cain. Men don’t want to let other men be fathers, they want the sole patriarchal role. They don’t want to permit “another person” to be god: they want to say that God is impersonal so that they can USE HIM by inserting their own image. This is collective salvation. It is not personal: because it does not treat people as personal beings. (And the usual means used to bind people together into an impersonal collective is through swords and money, coupled with written words.)
We are not cogs in a Body. We are members of a Body, and members of one another. And the Body has an identity that is both transcendent and immanent (to every individual member): Jesus Christ.
It is funny how I see christian organizations like “World Vision” being duped by collectivistic “social justice” policies coming from Obama. They think it is “doing good” because it is redistributing wealth, and because the poor have some temporary benefit. But not everything that glitters, is gold. If the morality (which is always personal) of the delivery “system” is twisted…then the outcome will be twisted as well. And this is where the church’s institutions CONTINUALLY mess up!!! (I contribute to them – organizations such as “World Vision”. I’m seriously beginning to question the validity of ANY collectivistic or institutional “charity” of any kind. Because it doesn’t truly reflect the immanent/personal Headship of Jesus Christ through a person. The Scriptures say that we will not see Jesus until we can say “blessed is HE who comes in the Name of the Lord.” No other name is given, whereby we must be saved. Not “the World” not “World Vision” and certainly not “Bush” or “Obama”.)
Sure, Jesus cares about Jerusalem. But it is not an impersonal Jerusalem. He could care less about the dead stones. He wants living stones. And the only way you can HAVE a culture or society is to begin with ONE person, and go person-by-person. YHVH began with Adam, then Eve (for Adam)…and through Adam an earthly society.
Now God is coming to replace the earthly society, with a heavenly one. (In fact, He has come, is come, and is coming.) The society that sees everything as fragmented, and in need of being held together by some kind of structure of rules (about property and physical things)… is already a broken, earthly society. The only One is an invisible, indivisible one: Jesus Christ is the only unity available to us. This is the Heavenly Logic. Jesus is The Living Logos. (C.S. Lewis would call it the Deeper Magic.) In heaven’s logic: one + one can equal one. It’s about knowing the TRUE heirarchy: the layers that God has placed into being/existence itself, like a pearl around a piece of sand in the middle of a field. Where you can have people being free to celebrate and participate in God’s Being so long as they are aware of the fact that they are not the ultimate Head, they are to SERVE and be an extension of the Head, and that the only doorway has already been laid down for us: through the Headship and servant-leadership of Jesus Christ. Our highest calling is to be like Him, to Know Him, to walk with Him. All of the rules that we think of as impersonal, or “just the way it is” are not that: they are the WAYS that we can get to know an eternal God WHO never changes, because HE IS outside of time. There is no need to conquer history, when one understands that God is outside of time. God is merely trying to show lesser beings HIS NATURE…and THAT is why He has chosen not to totally trash this “time continuum.” He wants to be revealed IN US, as He empowers us and changes us, to LOVE Him and obey His Laws.)
What is morality/reasoning/structure? Where does it come from? Why is the world “fallen” from perfection?
Who or What is the door toward healing/perfection/being saved?
(This helps us understand the nature of salvation: Jah Saves.)
What is the Temple of God?
(This helps us know how to proceed in WORSHIPPING Him who saved us, and saves us.)
Oh… and last important question:
How is the Temple to behave?
Bojidar, it appears that you usually prefer to BEGIN your argument after all of this (you begin with the proclamation to the world, about all the things that it should do)… I only disagree with the starting point. Unless you START with the headship pattern (in reality itself) of Father-Son… you cannot get anywhere. Society is based on the family, which begins with the Father and His Heart. The Bible does not say that God is MIND, but that God is One and that God is Love…so this is of some importance to Him (in fact, it was JESUS, God’s only begotton Son, that is The Mind/Logos/Law/structure). How has GOD chosen His oneness to be expressed and reflected in the earth???
The Father (Spirit, Love, God) begot the Son (a human with the name Jesus: Jah Saves). The Son became a life-giving Spirit, and through that Spirit, He equipps our spirits to let our minds be transformed, and place our bodies in subjection. And then (after we have been given the grace to love God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength) can we love our neighbors as ourselves WITH A GODLY LOVE. And teach them with an obedient mind.
Obedience without the graceful, equipping Spirit is shallow… and does not take that much effort for Satan to undo. God desires all of reality (I believed) to be filled with His Spirit and manifested Presence. He wants us to see Him everywhere, and learn about Him. We blaze a straight path for His Arrival in the wilderness, when we live our lives with a HOLINESS and WHOLENESS that comes from (and through) God alone.
We must begin where God begins: with God. He is Holy. He is One. He is Love. And it is only in Him that anything is Whole and healed (reality, society, the world, institutions, people, whatever…). Satan’s kingdom was always divided, from the start. His kingdom operates on rules of death, fear, division, hatred. It’s a temporary throne, that cannot long stand. And God is proving His Character to all of creation, so that such a fall (that Satan instigated) will not happen again.
But we cannot start with “the grand” collectivist things of the world. The world is hopelessly collectivistic, because it is always trying to unite “the particulars” that God created under a particular (of the world) banner. Scriptures say that GOD IS GREAT, and GREATLY to be praised in the ASSEMBLY of the saints.
The latest fad in home-building is the “great room”: it’s like the living room, but it is the hub and center of the house. A lot of “chaotic” individual activity and motion can happen in a house: and God is at the center, enjoying it all (or not). God has prepared many rooms for us. But we have to begin with He Who Is truly great…in order to get to all of the rooms of society. We must begin with One God. Work our way down, in a father-headship pattern…from there.
This is (partly) what gives Islamicists their edge. In their minds’ eyes, they are fighting for One Central Hub (God). In reality, all they are doing is trying to unite all the particulars under yet another particular (a man, a caliphate, and imperfect words). Our unity (the unity of the Christians) is supreme, it is transcendental, it is untouchable with hands, but it IS VERY PERSONAL so much so that nobody (besides the Father) can take it away from us.
The physical words of a book only POINT TO the living person of Jesus Christ: whose Body was the Visible Image of the Unity (completeness and holiness and headship) of His Father. Jesus was the Person of the Father (Heb 1:3) operating in the flesh and mind of the Son whom He begot (who was the visible image that portrayed HIS PERSONAL CHARACTER). It was in Jesus that we realized our humanistic dream, but in reverse: instead of us ascending to Godhood, from earth to heaven… God came down and demonstrated that any possible (real) unity with God must come from the Head down to us. The Body cannot do anything to be the Head, to reach the Head, to be acceptable to the Head. The Head must give both the morality and the grace, both the law and the power, both the reason and the rhyme. We simply are to be filled, respond, and carry it out as He empowers us.
Nobody has SEEN God and lived. But we can gaze upon the Son and be comforted and healed. Jesus was a picture of the Fatherhood pattern that is in reality, itself. All the way from the center of God’s Spirit and Heart… down to the dust of the earth. Represented in One living Man. Tell me that ain’t personal.
Very thought provoking article. Can’t say that I agree with every point, but I do have a question: How do you recommend (resources included) that I deal with someone who is in church leadership that believes that culture is not to be ‘redeemed’? They rarely have anything good to say about culture or our part in it as believers other than to avoid it. Thanks.
Mr. Marinov,
You are suggesting that kosmos in john 3:16 is all creation but in context with the conversation that Jesus was having with Nicodemus, kosmos could only mean people. Remember what the subject that Nicodemus came to talk to Jesus about was salvation. The bible has said in other places concerning His creation that God is not “restoring” creation but replacing creation. He said that he would create a new heaven and a new earth after destroying the old. What kind of salvation comes to the enter kosmos that ends up its total destruction?
The priority of creation, man being created last on the 6th day as a crown jewel of all His creation demonstrates that His love was greatest toward man compared to the rest of creation. He later demonstrates His love for man by cursing the Earth and killing animals to clothe their nakedness. What kind of love for all creation comes with a curse placed on it? Wasn’t it for mans benefit? In context with all of the bible as a whole I would have to disagree with you on kosmos being more that just people in John 3:16.
-Charles
Oops! My apologies! I miss read what you wrote. I see now that you were referring to people only. I should never comment when I’m tried.
I always tell people: Before you use an argument, think if you can apply the same argument consistently, across the board. If you can’t, it isn’t a good argument.
Let’s apply the same argument to you: You are going to die, and your present physical body will rot and be destroyed. What kind of salvation do you have that will end up in your physical destruction?
If your salvation doesn’t contradict the physical destruction of your body, the salvation of the kosmos doesn’t contradict the physical destruction of the world. If you believe the world is not being saved only because it will be physically destroyed, then logically you must believe you are not saved because you will be physically destroyed.
And I am not going to go into detail about the fact that your logic destroys the possibility of having Christian families, Christian churches, or any kind of Christian action whatsoever.
Beautiful argument!
I think I see your point, In a nut shell you are saying that we should continue on past soul salvation into culture, politics, economics etc. which is discipleship. Is that what you are saying?
Exactly. It is part of the Gospel. Keep in mind that just like an individual person is not just a physical body, the world is not just the physical elements. Even if we take the verses for its physical destruction literally – which doesn’t have to be the case – there are aspects of the world that are not material that are being redeemed beyond the physical destruction.
I wholeheartedly agree with you on this. I remembered what someone jokingly said to me, when my first child was born, that our children don’t come with instruction manuals and we have to figure out, for the most part, how to raise our kids on our own, but then it occurred to me that it shouldn’t be that way. Our christian culture should have prepared us to be parents and this is just one area that is lacking among us. We truly have cut major portions of the Gospel out and have thrown them out to the pagans.
Thanks for the article, Bojidar. I appreciate your perspective.
-Charles
That’s a very profound and true statement, especially in its second half. Not only have we deliberately abandoned our responsibilities, we have also actively delegated them to the pagans. Sending Christian kids to pagan schools is only one aspect to it. I am afraid to even begin discussing it, it will take me a whole day elaborating on your observation.
Amen!
My kids have never seen the inside of a public school and they never will as long as I live. Thanks again.