The Issue of Incongruity: Actual or Artificial, Part 5
Welcome back to Pastor Dennis Rokser’s series The Issue of Incongruity that originally began on May 5, 2008. If this is your first encounter with the series I strongly encourage you to click on the title above, which will link you to the first of this now five part series. Each article will end with a link that will guide you through this compelling series.
Warmest greetings once again in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ who declared, “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature,” (Mark 16:15).For those who may be just joining us for this series on the issue of incongruity, the bottom line subject being addressed in these articles is:
“Does the Bible allow for an incongruity or difference between the CONTENT OF THE GOSPEL message which is to be faithfully PREACHED and the content of SAVING FAITH post-Calvary which must be BELIEVED in order to have eternal life today?”Permit me to briefly review the three previous nails that have been pounded into the coffin of incongruity.
Nail # 1: 1 Corinthians 15:1-2
Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you -- unless you believed in vain.Note that THERE IS NO INCONGRUITY BETWEEN THE GOSPEL that was PREACHED by Paul and THE GOSPEL which was BELIEVED by the Corinthians! There was no MAXIMUM preached and MINIMUM believed!
Nail #2: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11
For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures… Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.WAS THERE ANY INCONGRUITY OR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GOSPEL WHICH WAS PREACHED EVANGELISTICALLY AND WHAT THESE CORINTHIANS HAD BELIEVED FOR THEIR ETERNAL SALVATION?
The answer: NO! NEVER! Listen to it again:
Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach (What? “the Gospel”- vs.1), and so you believed (what? “the Gospel” - vs.1). NO INCONGRUITY!
Nail #3: 1 Corinthians 1:17-25
1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God… For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.• Was there any hint of incongruity or disparity between the Gospel which was PREACHED and what God required the lost to BELIEVE?
NONE!!! This so-called issue of incongruity is an artificial dichotomy, a straw man, a non-issue in the Scriptures. Furthermore, this verse makes it clear that “the Gospel” Paul preached and the saving content of faith are one in the same!
Nail #4: 1 Corinthians 2:1-5
And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
• What is the Gospel Paul declared called in verse 1?
… declaring to you the testimony of God
Dear friends, it is always important to realize that the Gospel declares what God has done for man, never what man has done for God. Amen? This is the message of grace.
• What was Paul determined to preach evangelistically when he came to Corinth?
For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
Note again that it is both the PERSON of “Jesus Christ” (His name underscores His deity and humanity in addition to His work) and His FINISHED WORK on the cross (“crucified” in the perfect tense) was the centerpiece content of the Gospel Paul preached to the unsaved Jews and pagan Gentiles in this immoral and idolatrous city in Greece.
• Was there any incongruity in Paul’s preaching between the PERSON of Christ and His CROSS-WORK?
Paul did not separate Christ’s PERSON and FINISHED WORK when preaching the Gospel. There was no incongruity between Jesus Christ’s person and cross-work in Paul’s preaching; in fact, Christ’s person and work are inseparably connected since Calvary. The message Paul preached was not a gutted gospel that was sliced of its substantive content that makes it persuasive and powerfully effective in the heart of the unregenerate by means of the convicting work of the Holy Spirit. Paul preached CHRIST AND HIM CRUCIFIED!
1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
1 Corinthians 1:21 …it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
1 Corinthians 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified…
• Was there any incongruity or difference between the message Paul PREACHED evangelistically to the unsaved and what was expected for them to BELIEVE for their eternal salvation?
What saith the Scripture?
1 Corinthians 2:4-5 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.What does God require that a sinner’s faith be in for eternal salvation? Negatively, it is NOT to be in “the wisdom of men” and their messages of salvation by human merit and works. Positively, it is to be in “the power of God.” But what had Paul earlier highlighted as the POWER OF GOD?
1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.Their faith needed to be in “the Gospel” (1:17) which centers in “the message of the cross” (1:18a) which is the “power of God” (1:18b; 2:5).
This echoes a parallel truth written by Paul in Romans 1:15-16,
So, as much as is in me, I am ready to preach the gospel to you who are in Rome also. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.These passages make it crystal clear once again that Paul PREACHED evangelistically to the lost the saving Gospel that focused on the PERSON and FINISHED WORK of JESUS CHRIST (“Christ and Him crucified”). In doing so, the Holy Spirit (2:4) used this message to open sinners’ eyes to receive the gift of eternal life by putting their “faith” in the Gospel (the message of the cross) which is “the power of God.”
Again I ask: Was there any hint of incongruity or disparity between the Gospel which was PREACHED and what God required the lost to BELIEVE?
NONE!!!
Dear readers, again God has spoken and He has not stuttered: NO INCONGRUITY!
Can you hear the hammer hitting the nail of 1 Corinthians 2:1-5 as it sounds out loud and clear … NO INCONGRUITY!
In my next article we will examine Nail #5: 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10.
Ps. Rokser:
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate this continuing series. You are irrefutably showing from the Scriptures the indefensibility of the GES interpretation of Gospel.
There is no incongruity between the Gospel preached and what must be believed unless, as GES has done, force into or extract from the New Testament whatever they must to maintain the Hodges view.
LM
I don't see anywhere in Scripture where Paul leaves us with the "option" of picking and choosing what we are to believe for eternal life from his message. In order to even attempt so requires hermeneutical gymnastics.
ReplyDeleteLiam/All:
ReplyDeleteWhat has transpired is that Hodges first devised this new Crossless/Deityless interpretation for the content of what must be believed for the reception of eternal life.
He and his GES cell of followers then have gone to the NT and any passage that refutes his new theology they redefine, twist, force into or extract from the passage whatever they must to hold the Crossless interpretation in tact.
It is just that simple.
Any passage that in any way is not in agreement with Hodges is dismissed, negated or assaulted to force it into conformity with Hodges.
LM
"I don't see anywhere in Scripture where Paul leaves us with the "option" of picking and choosing what we are to believe for eternal life from his message. In order to even attempt so requires hermeneutical gymnastics."
ReplyDeleteIn this I would agree with you and I think Mr. Hodges and Mr. Wilkin would as well. The saving message contains no options. No one gets to pick and choose what is part of the saving message. The disagreement is over the content of the message, not the option of choosing.
Looker,
ReplyDeleteAs I understand the GES position, they agree that the content of the Gospel is declared in 1 Cor. 15:1-ff, but they see Paul's glorious Gospel as simply good news for Christians, not the saving message for unbelievers.
JP
Looker:
ReplyDeleteJP is correct, Crossless gospel advocates do not view those issues in 1 Cor. 15 as pertaining to what the lost must believe to be saved.
Crossless gospel advocates insist that “Christ died for sins” and rose again is ONLY “good news” for BELIEVERS, not “the gospel” for the lost.
Greg Schliesmann wrote a series that would be very beneficial reading at this juncture. I am going to ask you (and all my guests) to read The Technical Meaning of the Gospel, Part 3. Exhibit ‘E’ addresses 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.
LM
Looker:
ReplyDeleteHodges wrote, “Most of us deplore efforts made by Lordship people to add provisos to the message of faith in Christ…. But in our own circles, there is a tendency to add theological information to our message of faith.” (How to Lead people to Christ, Part 1.)
Hodges and Wilkin believe requiring the lost to believe in Christ’s deity, His death for our sins and resurrection is too much content, and adding to the Gospel. Wilkin says this is a “different Gospel.”
Pastor Stegall wrote, “In fact, they even contend that to preach the Gospel in this manner creates a stumbling block that may hinder the unsaved from believing in Christ as the guarantor of eternal life.”
A classic example of this are the following infamous statements from a GES Crossless gospel advocate:
“If a JW hears me speak of Christ’s deity and asks me about it, I will say, ‘Let us agree to disagree about this subject.’
At the moment that a JW or a Mormon is convinced that Jesus Christ has given to them unrevokable (sic) eternal life when they believed on Him for it, I would consider such a one saved, REGARDLESS of their varied misconcetions (sic) and beliefs about Jesus.
I would never say you don’t have to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. This has the import of the gospel proposition which makes it salvific! If someone asks me point blank, do I beleive that one must believe that Jesus is God in order to go to heaven, I would say ‘NO!’”
“If I were talking to a Jew, he may very well ask me about the deity and humanity of Jesus. I would certainly entertain his questions and answer them to the best of my ability. But if such a one continued to express doubts or objections to this, I would say politely, ‘Let us for the time being put this issue on the back-burner. Can I show you from the Jewish Scriptures that the advent of Jesus Christ fulfills many prophecies?”
It is very clear that Crossless advocates view the deity, death and resurrection of Christ as potential stumbling blocks in an evangelistic presentation. Hodges and Wilkin view these as unnecessary additions to the Gospel and “excess baggage.” Hodges does not like this way (the finished work of Christ) of presenting the Gospel.
If you have not done so already, I encourage you to read The Tragedy of the Crossless Gospel, Part 1. You can download it in PDF. This article shows from the writings of Hodges and Wilkin how they have changed the terms of the Gospel.
LM
I am somewhat aware of lack of agreement concerning the definition of the word gospel and its meaning in various books in the Bible. That is why I did not use that word. The quote I responded to also did not use that word. The issue was what must be we believe for eternal life.
ReplyDeleteThe poster wrote along the lines that the GES would allow people the "option" of what could or could not be in the saving message. That is simply incorrect. You have pointed out some different viewpoints held, and I am not disagreeing (or agreeing) with what you wrote that. The "option" statement I still disagree with.
Looker:
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, “I am somewhat aware of lack of agreement concerning the definition of the word gospel and its meaning in various books in the Bible.”
It is not a matter of “lack of agreement.” That is an oversimplification, and misconstrues the seriousness of the egregious errors that have been introduced by Zane Hodges.
There is a technical meaning to “the Gospel.” That has been clearly and irrefutably demonstrated for centuries. Greg Schliesmann produced a series on this very subject titled, The Technical Meaning of “the Gospel.”
Just one sample is this installment from the series.
The GES/Crossless gospel advocates have redefined and stripped “the Gospel” of its technical and biblically defined meaning. This has been done for the simple, reason that Zane Hodges has invented a new idea of what the content of saving faith is, which is antithetical to the Scriptural definition of “the Gospel” message that must be preached and believed for the reception of eternal life..
Hodges and his followers go to the Bible to redefine, negate, force into or extract from the Scriptures whatever they must to protect the teaching of the Crossless/Deityless gospel.
LM
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLooker:
ReplyDeleteI do not mean to suggest that you intentionally “misconstrue” the seriousness of the issue. To suggest, however this is a mere, “lack of agreement” really understates the issue.
What Hodges and Wilkin have done is assault the very meaning of “the Gospel” to make it conform to the new interpretation by Hodges.
This is a serious issue over which there can never be agreement with, fellowship alongside or tolerance for.
LM
Looker:
ReplyDeleteAs I understand Liam's comment, he was simply stating a principle of "the Gospel" (1 Cor. 15:1) that Rokser has reiterated throughout his series:
"Note that THERE IS NO INCONGRUITY BETWEEN THE GOSPEL that was PREACHED by Paul and THE GOSPEL which was BELIEVED by the Corinthians! There was no MAXIMUM preached and MINIMUM believed!"
JP