The Technical Meaning of “THE GOSPEL:” THE GOSPEL & FAITH ALONE

Dear Guests:

This is a new installment in the series by Greg Schliesmann.


My previous posts in this series referenced dozens of passages that prove there is a particular message called “the gospel” in the New Testament that the lost must believe in order to be saved. I would like to offer a second line of proof to support the same point.

Early in my Christian life, I was struck by the number of passages that predicate salvation/eternal life upon the single condition of faith. There are 85 instances in 61 different verses that I would say explicitly predicate salvation upon the sole condition of faith in the New Testament:

Matthew 21:31-32 (3x); Luke 7:48-50; 8:12; John 1:12-13; 3:15, 16, 18 (3x), 36 (2x); 5:24; 6:35, 39-40, 47; 7:38-39 (2x); 8:24; 11:25-27 (4x), 40; 17:20-21; 20:31 (2x); Acts 10:43-44; 11:17 (should be translated “when they believed”); 13:39, 48; 15:8-9; 16:31; 26:18; Romans 1:16; 3:19-26 (4x), 28, 30 (2x); 4:3, 4-5, 6-11 (3x), 13, 16 (2x), 21-22, 23-25; 5:1; 9:30-32 (2x); 10:3-4, 9-10, 11; 13:11; 1 Corinthians 1:21; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Galatians 2:16 (3x); 3:1-2, 6, 8-9 (2x), 11, 14, 22, 23-29 (2x); Ephesians 1:13-14; 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9; 2 Thessalonians 1:10; 2:12; 1 Timothy 1:16; 1 John 5:1, 4-5, 9-13 (3x).

I found that these verses supported the conclusion that salvation was by faith alone. Having been so encouraged by them, I created this list of verses, which I can still recite from memory. These verses encouraged me when I was challenged by different arguments for salvation by works.

Memorizing the verses above also gave me a perspective on the way Scripture describes the object of faith for salvation. Forty of these were spoken within the Church Age about salvation in the Church Age. Believers may be interested to know that the object of faith is described in various ways in these passages—

“the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 16:31)
“He who justifieth the ungodly” (Rom. 4:5)
“on Him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead” (Rom. 4:24)
“that God hath raised Him from the dead” (Rom. 10:9-10)
“the preaching of the cross” (1 Cor. 1:18)
“the foolishness of preaching” (1 Cor. 1:21)
“our testimony” (2 Thess. 1:10)
“that Jesus is the Son of God—This is He that came by water and by blood” (1 John 5:5-6)
“the Son of God” (1 John 5:10)

Some passages just use “believe” intransitively (e.g. Acts 13:39, 48; Gal. 3:22) or “faith,” without specifying the object (e.g. Rom. 3:28; 5:1; Eph. 2:8), though of course the object of faith is implied.

What I want to point out specifically, though, is that several of these passages (6 of 40) use the term “the gospel” to describe what is believed for salvation. Consider the following verses:

“And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith,” (Acts 15:7-9; cf. Acts 11:14-17).

“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,” (Romans 1:16)

“In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,” (Ephesians 1:13).

Furthermore, notice that each of the following passages predicates salvation upon believing the gospel both positively and negatively (belief in the gospel is what separates the saved from the lost):

“For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness,” (1 Corinthians 1:17-23).

“But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them,” (2 Corinthians 4:3-4).

“In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day,” (2 Thessalonians 1:8-10).

The same truth is taught in many other passages, which teach sola fide implicitly (e.g. see Romans 10:16; 1 Cor. 4:15; 15:1; Gal. 1:6; Col. 1:5; 1:23; 2 Thes. 2:14; 2 Tim. 1:10; 1 Peter 1:23-25; 4:17).

Crossless gospel proponents have pointed out that many passages share the threads of 1) belief 2) in Jesus 3) results in eternal life. Please notice that the same threads are found in respect to the gospel: 1) belief 2) in the gospel 3) results in salvation/eternal life.

Some passages indicate both positively and negatively that belief in God’s only begotten Son is the condition for eternal life (e.g. John 3:18). The same point is made with respect to the gospel (e.g. 1 Cor. 1:17-23; 2 Cor. 4:3-4; 2 Thes. 1:8-10).

Some passages indicate that a person is born again through belief in the name of the eternal Word (John 1:12). Others indicate a person is born again through the gospel (1 Cor. 4:15).

Contrary to the claims of Crossless gospel proponents, there is no contradiction between believing the gospel and believing in Jesus Christ. The gospel is the necessary content of that faith in Christ. There are many different versions of “Jesus.” The true Jesus is identified and apprehended by the truths of the gospel: He is the Son of God who came in the flesh, died for our sins, and rose again to reconcile us to God by faith in Him alone.


GS

Jim Johnson & the GES Dismiss “THE GOSPEL”

Dear Guests:

The following is a comment by Greg Schliesmann. It appears in the thread under the previous article titled, The Fatal Flaws of Crossless Gospel Advocate Jim Johnson’s Criticism (See- 3/25/2008 11:26 PM)

Following Greg’s comment I will have some concluding remarks.

I would like to give a summary of the issue that was at hand in my post that Mr. Johnson attempted to dismiss:

One of the clear teachings of the New Testament is that during this period of time after Christ’s resurrection, the lost must believe a message called “the gospel” to be saved. According to Scripture, there is no true distinction between believing in Jesus Christ and believing “the gospel.”

Unfortunately, advocates of the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) have sought to define what the lost must believe to be saved apart from this consideration. They argue that in order to be saved, the lost must only believe that someone named “Jesus guarantees my everlasting life.” According to them, a person may be saved upon believing this proposition apart from any truth that identifies the true Jesus or His death and resurrection, which are inherent to the gospel.

In the past, GES, like all evangelicals, taught the message which must be believed for salvation is called “the gospel.” That was the idea behind the title of Zane Hodge’s book, The Gospel Under Siege. However, as criticism arose in the past two years over this issue, it became clear to GES that they must alter their stance of the entire concept of “the gospel.”

They saw it is impossible to defend their position if they admit that the lost must believe “the gospel” to be saved. There is not one passage in Scripture where one could identify “the gospel” merely as the GES minimum message of “Jesus guarantees everlasting life for believers.” Instead, Scripture clearly teaches that Christ’s death and resurrection is inseparable from “the gospel.” In fact, in 1 Cor. 1:17-23, Paul interchanges the terms “the gospel” and “the message of the cross.” This corresponds with his description of “the gospel” later in the same book (15:1-4).

So GES came to see that they could no longer defend their long held position that the lost must believe “the gospel” to be saved, but that “the gospel” did not necessarily include the death and resurrection of Christ.

Mr. Johnson’s position and criticism represents the new shift taken by GES. Now they argue that the lost need not believe “the gospel” in order to be saved because “the gospel” is just a general term for good news and may even include everything in the New Testament. Therefore, they deny that there is ever a usage of the term “the gospel” in the New Testament that describes what the lost must believe to be saved.

My previous posts listed many passages where Scripture clearly teaches salvation comes through faith in “the gospel” (e.g. Eph 1:13), belief of the gospel is an absolute requirement for salvation (e.g. 1 Cor. 1:17-23), and those who die without having believed the gospel will go to hell (e.g. 2 Cor 4:3-4; 2 Thes. 1:8).

When these passages are viewed for themselves, no advocate of the Crossless gospel will ever be able to explain them away. Mr. Johnson attempted to dismiss my posts but would not interact with the verses. When he saw that I was willing to defend the posts, he could not even defend his own criticism.

If Mr. Johnson’s criticism represents the best the Crossless gospel crowd has to offer to refute all these passages that teach the lost must believe the gospel in order to be saved, we do not have much to worry about.

Scripture is clear on this issue. Crossless advocates can only hope to follow the example of Mr. Johnson and throw up diversions to avoid this issue.

Scripture devastates their position!

GS

The nature of the debate, and with the eternal destiny of the souls of men at stake, it is necessary to identify how Zane Hodges/GES and the advocates of the Crossless gospel are undermining and corrupting the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Greg’s note above draws out just one of the disturbing aspects of the reductionist view of the Gospel that Zane Hodges introduced to the Free Grace community. Regrettably, some men were not just deceived by these egregious errors, but have become prime instigators of it.

These teachings of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin, accurately defined as a “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel, has been the cause of “division and offences” (Rom. 16:17-18) in the body of Christ at large, local churches and the Free Grace movement.

It is my hope and prayer that through the efforts of men like Greg Schliesmann, Tom Stegall, Ron Shea, Stephen, Rachel and others who have engaged the advocates of the Hodges/GES interpretation of the Gospel, not one more unsuspecting believer will fall into the trap of the Crossless gospel.


LM

For more on Jim Johnson’s view of the Gospel see The Fatal Flaws of “Crossless” Gospel Advocate Jim Johnson’s Criticism

The Fatal Flaws of “Crossless” Gospel Advocate Jim Johnson’s Criticism

Dear Guests:

In a thread at the blog of Crossless gospel apologist Antonio da Rosa (aka- Sock Puppet: fg me) Jim Johnson referenced the series by Greg Schliesmann titled, The Technical Meaning of the Term, “THE GOSPEL”

Following is Greg Schliesmann’s response to Johnson’s criticism.

I would like to respond to Jim Johnson’s criticism of my post regarding the technical sense of the term “the gospel.” He argues it is flawed because it did not include what he calls a “synchronic word study.” His criticism is flawed, first of all, because I did address the etymology of the word and its relationship to the question, “Does the NT ever use the term ‘the gospel’ in a technical sense for what the lost must believe to be saved?”

I can explain this issue with a simple analogy. Imagine a thousand years from now, someone argued “20th century English never used the term ‘the bible’ in a specific sense that referred to the Holy Book of Christianity.”

Researchers could easily dismiss this claim by the simple citation of examples from 20th century English that clearly used the word in this specific sense. These examples would show that English speakers often used the term “the Bible” in reference to this specific holy book. The force of such actual examples would hardly be helped or hurt by someone’s explanation of the etymology of the word. In fact, the word “bible” does have an etymology from a much more general meaning of “book” or “books.”

So, in respect to the question, what would be proved by demonstrating the basic etymology of the word means “book?” Nothing! One may even cite examples in 20th century English that use “bible” to refer to some other book. Yet, none of this changes the fact that 20th century English does in fact have a technical usage for the term “the Bible.”

This example demonstrates the same principle I explained in my post in regards to “the gospel.” I stated the basic etymology of the word means “good news” and that this sense is sometimes employed in Scripture without reference to the gospel of our salvation. Yet, when one considers the usages of the word after Christ’s resurrection, he would have to shut his spiritual eyes and defy all intellectual honesty to argue that the New Testament does not employ a technical usage of “the gospel” for the message that must be preached unto and believed by the lost for salvation. I examined or at least referenced dozens of clear examples in my article. Mr. Johnson does not even attempt to interact with them. That is the second fatal flaw of his criticism. We could ask Mr. Johnson to explain each of these examples without acknowledging a technical sense of the term, but let’s make it easier for Johnson and consider just one example:

2 Thessalonians 1:6-8 “Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

This passage, like several others, teaches the condemnation of those who do not believe “the gospel.” If there is a message called “the gospel” the lost must believe in order to be saved, then we better be able to identify the content of this thing called “the gospel.” If we are able to identify a particular message that corresponds with the term “the gospel,” we have, by definition, proven that there is a technical usage for the term “the gospel” in the New Testament. If we cannot identify such a message, we are the most pitiable men on earth. Simply put, we would be bound to the uncertainty of whether we ourselves have escaped the condemnation of 2 Thessalonians 1:8.

Such a technical usage corresponds with scores of other passages that link “the gospel” to salvation from Hell (e.g. 1 Cor. 1:17-21; 4:15; 2 Cor. 4:4-5; Rom. 1:16; 10:16; Eph. 1:13, ect).

I would like to ask Mr. Johnson exactly what message is referenced by “the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” in 2 Thessalonians 1:8.

I have sent word to Jim Johnson that his flawed criticisms have been identified and promptly dismissed. He has also been informed that Greg has requested that he respond to his (Greg’s) closing question.

This thread is open to Johnson’s reply, if he is willing to engage what the Bible says in 2 Thessalonians 1:8.


LM

Continue reading on this theme in the next article, Jim Johnson and the GES Dismiss, “THE GOSPEL”


UPDATE by Greg Schliesmann from the attached thread:

“Mr. Johnson made an angry post on Antonio’s forum. Apparently, he felt that my post made no legitimate point that deserved a response but that it only amounted to ‘talebearing.’ Hmm. If he thought he might be able to disprove the points I made, do you think he would avoid responding? I don’t.”

The Technical Meaning of the Term “THE GOSPEL,” Wrap Up

Dear Guests:

Let me begin by offering my sincere apology to Greg Schliesmann. At my request he wrote the multi-part series, The Technical Meaning of the Term, the “GOSPEL.” For some reason I forgot to post the final in the series, which acts as a sort of addendum. What follows was originally to post on December 20, 2007. All I can figure is that with the onset of the Christmas holiday I forgot to post this and moved on. Here, at last, is Greg Schliesmann wrapping up his penetrating series.

The following comments were posted to former GES staff member Jeremy Myers* at his personal blog, Till He Comes. What followed was a longer comment that Greg recently developed into the multi-part series just concluded, which is Greg’s full rebuttal of Jeremy’s definition of the Gospel. We’ll end this series with this original comment from Greg Schliesmann to Jeremy Myers.

Jeremy,

After reading your post, How I Evangelize I read the articles by Pastor Tom Stegall again. Here is a quote that I think gets to the heart of my thoughts and observations about your latest post:

“The Gospel which contains the cross, resurrection, and deity-humanity of Christ is now considered by Crossless proponents to be a fuller gospel needed only for Christians for their sanctification in time, but not necessarily for the unsaved regarding their justification before God. With the very definition of ‘the Gospel’ there has been an abandonment of a once universally held position within the grace camp.” (Tom Stegall, The Tragedy of the Crossless Gospel, Pt. 2 p. 6:

My first observation is that you fumed over a particular distinction that the articles supposedly did not acknowledge, but the fact is the distinction is acknowledged right here and over 17 other places I counted and numbered with pen on my printed pages of the article. I would be happy to scan it for you so you can see yourself. You protested that the articles suggested you do not include the cross in the “Gospel” which you defined yourself in your latest post and in previous articles as “the entire New Testament gospel.”

However, the quote above directly states you include “the cross, resurrection, and deity-humanity of Christ” in what you consider the “gospel” in the very general sense of New Testament revelation. The articles acknowledge this fact, but specifically highlight the REAL issue that you do not include this as an essential element for the lost to believe for salvation. I have 14 instances marked, that are either statements by the author or quotes from GES members, where this issue is specified very clearly as being what is essential for the lost to believe for salvation–NOT whether you believe the message of the cross and Christ’s deity-humanity are part of general New Testament revelation. You express great offense that the articles claim your version of “the gospel” is Crossless, but your complaint hinges entirely upon a distinction that you’re making that 99.9% of evangelicals would never understand — that you consider “the gospel” to be all the good news of the NT, not the message that the lost need to believe to receive eternal life. And even then, the article specifically states this distinction and acknowledges what you claimed it did not — you do indeed include the cross, ect., in what you define as“the gospel,” i.e., the entire NT revelation and, and your words “possibly the Old Testament too.” In light of these facts, I must say–even as I am humbly looking to our gracious Lord and remembering that my speech must “be with grace, seasoned with salt”–a serious question is thus raised as to the purity of your intentions in protesting a supposed misrepresentation that is not even true and leveling an attack on the author, claiming,

“...the author of that article is making himself look foolish…;” “I laughed in his general direction…;” “as for the article…the only thing it does reveal is a lack of scholarship…;” “his baseless claims…,” ect.

Now if the true issue is so clearly defined in the article–THE ISSUE OF WHAT THE LOST MUST BELIEVE TO BE SAVED–and I believe it is, and like I said, I can scan my own copy of the article with notes and numbering in my own handwriting–and if your position on this issue is so Biblically solid, then why do you not deal with the real issue at hand, rather than raising all these sorts of protests and all this fuss about the author that can be directly quashed by quotes from the articles?

What I am most interested in is defending the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. Again, the quote above gets to the heart of my thoughts on this. Christians have recognized that there is a general sense of the word “the gospel” meaning “good news”, e.g., “The Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Luke, ect.” But based upon a plethora of New Testament passages, Christians have also recognized that there IS indeed also a technical usage of the term “the gospel” that came into effect after Christ’s resurrection that refers not to good news in general, nor to the general revelation of God given through the Old and New Testaments, but to the specific message that must be preached to the lost and must be believed by the lost to receive eternal life.

For years, even GES recognized this and took this for granted in all their literature which sought to defend “the gospel,” i.e., not the general revelation of God given throughout time, but to the message of salvation that the lost must believe to be saved. Even the title of Zane Hodges’ book, “The Gospel Under Siege” refers to this very thing–not New Testament revelation in general–but to the specific message that must be given to the lost and received by the lost for salvation. In light of the denial of “the gospel” as a technical term for this message by GES advocates, and the insistence that “Jesus guarantees eternal life to whoever believes in Him” by itself, without any substantiating truth such as His cross work or Deity, constitutes the message by which sinners are saved, for consistency, Hodge’s book should be retitled to “The Promise of Eternal Life Under Siege.” But of course “The Gospel Under Siege” refers to a specific message that nearly all evangelicals recognize because it is a thoroughly Biblical usage of the word that is substantiated in so many passages that it would be impossible to miss unless a person had some pre-determined reason to argue “the gospel” is never a technical term for the message the lost must believe to receive eternal life.

What could this pre-determined reason be? It seems once you accept “the gospel” as a term that in addition to being used in its general sense also as a prominent technical sense, then you are forced to admit Jesus Christ’s death for sins, resurrection, Deity, and humanity are an essential element to it. The claim that this belief also forces us to include the virgin birth and all sorts of other New Testament teachings in “the gospel” is simply wrong, ill-conceived, and contradicted by Scripture.

***END***

For an additional submission in this series see, THE GOSPEL & FAITH ALONE

*See Grace Evangelical Society Dismisses Jeremy Myers

Editor’s Note: I want to caution anyone who might visit Jeremy Myers’ blog, Till He Comes. Jeremy seems to enjoy posting some articles with a “shock value” to them. This demonstrates a disturbing lack of discernment that one might otherwise expect. Jeremy Myers not only holds to the false Crossless interpretation of the Gospel, but he has a whole other set of disconcerting issues, which lead to his dismissal from GES. Again, if you visit his blog, read with discernment.

The Technical Meaning of the Term, “THE GOSPEL,” Part 4

Dear Guests:

We are continuing the special series by Greg Schliesmann

SCRIPTURAL EXHIBITS


Exhibit G: Ephesians 1:12-14

“In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, “THE GOSPEL” of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.”

Notice the phrase “the gospel” of your SALVATION.” Would crossless gospel advocates dare to argue that this refers to the “salvation” of believers from temporal wrath?

In light of yet another passage like this, how can crossless gospel proponents argue “the gospel” is just a general term for “good news” and never has a technical usage for the message of salvation by which the lost are saved?

We could go on. Some other passages to consider include Rom. 10:16; 2Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1:6-9 4:13; Col. 1:5; 1Thes. 1:5; 2Thes. 1:8; 2:14; 2Tim. 1:10; 1Pet. 1:23-25; 4:17.

I believe all of these show, beyond any doubt, that there is definitely a technical usage of the term “THE GOSPEL” that refers to the specific “message of the cross,” which is the wonderful news the lost must believe in order to be reconciled to God forever.

How important is this? I would like to present one more passage that demonstrates the importance of this issue and proves that the destiny for those who do not believe “the gospel” is eternity in hell.


Exhibit H. 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10:

“Since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not “THE GOSPEL” of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.”

Notice that those who do not believe “the gospel,” “shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power.” It is hard to imagine any language that could more clearly teach that those who do not believe “the gospel” will go to hell.


The Punishment of Eternal Hell

This passage clearly refers to eternal damnation in hell for several reasons:

First, those who do not believe “the gospel,” “shall be punished with everlasting destruction.” This is not temporary punishment—it is everlasting.

Second, this passage describes the judgment of those who rejected “the gospel” including the persecutors of the Thessalonians. Some might wish to argue the passage describes punishment during the Tribulation, but the point of this passage is about God’s final judgment of the lost. Paul encourages the Thessalonians in the midst of their tribulations by reminding them that God will ultimately judge those who rejected “the gospel.” Jesus Christ will be glorified among (Gr. “en”) the saints and admired among all believers when He exercises His righteousness and vindicates them by punishing the lost with everlasting destruction.

If this passage dealt with the Tribulation, those who persecuted the Thessalonians avoided the very punishment Paul promised they would suffer. This passage must deal with everlasting damnation. The persecutors of the Thessalonians will be raised from the dead at the Great White Throne Judgment and punished with everlasting destruction when they are thrown into the Lake of Fire. At the same time, Jesus Christ will be glorified and admired among saints, including the Thessalonians

Even if this passage described temporal wrath of the Tribulation, that ultimately does not help crossless proponents (unless they believe in a partial rapture) because the condition for a person living the Church Age to escape the Tribulation is exactly the same for escaping punishment in hell.

Third, those who did not believe “the gospel” will be “punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.” The word “presence” is literally “face.” This means that the Lord’s literal presence will bring their everlasting destruction (this is the same idiom found in Acts 3:19). Every damned person will face the Lord before suffering the Lake of Fire, whether that person is living at the end of the Tribulation or whether that person is raised at the Great White Throne Judgment. According to Revelation 20:12, those who persecuted the Thessalonians will be raised to “stand before God” (Rev. 20:12). This short appearance before the Lord and the glory of His power will result in their eternal destruction. This aspect of the verse, as well, only fits with eternal destruction in hell.

It seems superfluous to point out even more reasons why this passage definitely speaks about the punishment of eternal hell for those who do not believe “the gospel.”


Believe “the gospel”

This passage not only speaks about the eternal damnation of the lost but it also identifies the lost by the fact they have “not obeyed the gospel.” By contrast, the saved are those who “believed.”

The phrase “them that know not God and that believe not the gospel” is an example of hendiadys. Paul explains the same people in two ways. The ones who do not know God are the ones who believe not “the gospel.” Paul speaks of knowing God in the sense that every saved person has known God by believing in Jesus Christ (see Mat. 11:7; John 17:3, 25; Gal. 4:9; 2Cor. 4:4-6).

Free grace believers should not be startled by the phrase “obey not the gospel.” This does not refer to obedience to a set of commandments. In this context, it refers specifically to the obedient response to one specific message of “the gospel.” That response is to believe it. This is clear from the contrast between the damned who have “not obeyed the gospel” (v. 8) and the saved which are “all those who believe” including the Thessalonians “because our testimony among you was believed” (v. 10).

Notice that the opposite of “obey not the gospel” (v. 8) is “our testimony among you was believed” (v. 10). Some crossless gospel advocates have argued there is a distinction between believing a message (i.e. the gospel) and believing in Christ. This passage, like many others, shows that Scripture speaks of believing a message as the condition to salvation. In contrast with the lost who did not obey the gospel, the Thessalonians believed Paul’s testimony of the gospel. Because of that, they are counted among the saints among whom the Lord will be glorified and admired when He avenges them by punishing the lost. There is no contradiction between believing the gospel and believing in Christ.

Paul speaks the same way in Romans 10:16: “But they have not all obeyed the gospel.. For Isaiah says, ‘Lord, who has believed our report?” Please notice again that the way to believe the Gospel is to obey it.

It is obvious from this passage that “the gospel” does have a technical usage for the specific message the lost need to believe in order to be saved. If the Thessalonians were not familiar with this technical usage, it would have been quite a terrible surprise to find out those who “obey not” an unidentifiable message were doomed to eternal destruction.

This passage is a real problem for those who cannot say “the gospel” refers to the specific message the lost must believe in order to be saved. Think again of Jeremy Myer’s conclusion—essentially, ‘the gospel’ includes everything in the NT, if not everything in the entire Bible.” If this were true, how could we ever be sure of escaping the doom that awaits those who believe not “the gospel” according to 2Thes. 1:8-10?


Continue at The Technical Meaning of the Term, “THE GOSPEL” Wrap Up

The Technical Meaning of the Term, “THE GOSPEL,” Part 3

Dear Guests:

We are continuing the special series by Greg Schliesmann

SCRIPTURAL EXHIBITS

Exhibit D: 1 Corinthians 4:15

“For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.”

Please notice that Paul has “begotten” the Corinthians through “the gospel.” The term “begotten” refers to regeneration (cf. John 3:3, 7; 1Pet. 1:23-25). This refers to the salvation of the LOST, not some sort of spiritual awakening of those already saved!

Paul’s idea of “the gospel” through which the Corinthians were regenerated in 1Cor 4:15 is certainly no different than “the gospel” aka “the message of the cross” we read about in 1Cor 1:17-21 and will read about in 1Cor 15:1-4.

Yet, again, crossless gospel proponents deny that the term “the gospel” DOES have a technical usage that refers to the essential message of salvation.


Exhibit E: 1 Corinthians 15:1-4

“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how 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…”

My comments about this will be brief as I have already made longer posts on this specific passage. Crossless gospel advocates correctly point out that v. 2 is properly translated “are being saved” and does not refer to salvation from hell. It refers to second-tense salvation of believers. However, Paul’s point is that the Corinthians initially “received” this message when he “evangelized it” to them at a certain time in the past. This certain time in the past certainly refers to the same thing as 1Cor. 4:15, when Paul begot the Corinthians “through the gospel”. Notice he says this is the message he delivered “first of all” (en protois).

I think the idea that “Christ died for sins” and rose again is ONLY “good news” for BELIEVERS, not “the gospel” for the lost is so absurd it hardly needs comment. I do not believe specifically emphasizes every aspect of the gospel, but it focuses on the foundational truth that counters the Corinthian heresy. But I believe this passage proves that the gospel message focuses on Christ’s “death for our sins” and resurrection, though this is NOT to the exclusion of Christ’s promise of salvation by faith alone which is implied when Christ’s DEATH “for our sins” is properly understood, nor to the exclusion of the essential facts that define WHO this Christ is. The very mention of “Christ” or “Jesus” as the main character of the message of salvation raises the question, “who is He?”

GES advocates love to claim that if we say this passage references the gospel brought to the lost, then we must say Christ’s burial and witness by 500 are part of the gospel. Instead, they insist this is just good news to believers–not “the gospel” for the lost. Antonio da Rosa has remarked that each of the clauses in v. 4, 5, 6, 7 begins with hoti, and somehow that is supposed to mean that they are equivalent as essential elements to the gospel.

But I wonder if they are so treacherous in their own application of this passage!? Let’s pretend for a minute that crossless gospel advocates are actually correct by contending that “the gospel” here applies only to believers. Do they seriously insist that believers must “hold fast” to the truths of who saw Christ first, second, and third and how many people saw him in order be sanctified? No, I assume not. I do not think they would tell a believer that he could not grow as a Christian because he forgot who saw Christ first, second, and third. Instead, if that question actually came up in their own congregations, they would probably get some common sense really fast. They would explain to believers the burial is mentioned as proof of His death, and the witnesses are mentioned as proof of His resurrection.

Allow me to make a second point. Paul says this gospel is “according to the Scriptures”. This phrase only modifies Christ’s death for sins and resurrection in v. 3 and v. 4 about the death and resurrection of Christ “He died for our sins according to the Scriptures” and “He rose from the dead according to the Scriptures”. Aside from that, we know the Scriptures did not predict anything referenced in vv. 5-10 regarding who saw Christ. In Romans 1:2, Paul indicated that the gospel was promised before in the Scriptures. The extra elements Paul mentions do not constitute the truths promised before in the Scriptures but serve as proofs of them.


Exhibit F: 2 Corinthians 4:3-4

“But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.”

Once again, the thing that separates the “lost” from the saved is “the glorious gospel of Christ”.

Again and again, we see that “the gospel” does not refer to general sanctification truth for believers which may include all of the NT and OT. No, it is a specific message that divides the lost from the saved. What is it that the lost “believe not”? What is it that Satan blinds them from? What message will save them if they but believe? The glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God.

Yet crossless gospel proponents argue there is no such thing called “the gospel” that the lost must believe to be saved.

Please continue the series at The Technical Meaning of the Term, “The Gospel,” Part 4

The Technical Meaning of the Term, “THE GOSPEL,” Part 2

SCRIPTURAL EXHIBITS

Does the term “the gospel” ever have a technical usage for the message the lost must believe to be saved?

Exhibit A: Acts 15:7-9

In Acts, six passages speak about preaching “the gospel” to the lost (8:25; 14:6; 14:21; 15:7; 16:10; 20:24). In Acts 15:7-9, Peter recounts the story of his evangelism to the household of Cornelius:

“Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of THE GOSPEL AND BELIEVE. So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by FAITH.”

Is Peter talking about “everything in the NT, if not everything in the entire Bible” when he uses the term “the gospel” in this passage (15:7)? Obviously not! He is talking about the specific message by which the lost are saved. The Gentiles were “saved” by “faith” in the “gospel”. It is upon believing “the gospel” that the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit (15:7). It is upon believing the gospel that their hearts were purified (15:8).

As a matter of fact, Peter was invited by Cornelius to preach the gospel because an angel appeared to Cornelius and told him to call for Peter “who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved” (11:14). By which words were these Gentiles saved if it was not the message Peter had it mind when he said, “God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of THE GOSPEL AND BELIEVE.”

The point is this: The Gentiles were saved through faith. Faith in what according to the context? The Gospel. The gospel here has a technical meaning for the message that the Gentiles were required to believe to be saved.

If Myers somehow wants to make a typically absurd GES-esque argument that “saved” (11:14; cf. 15:11) and “forgiveness of sins” (10:43) and “gospel” (15:7) and “believe” (10:43; 15:7) and “washed” (15:9) do not refer to the event in which these Gentiles were justified before God and saved from hell, and if he wishes to contend they were already saved from hell before Peter preached to them, he still must admit this is the event that they were placed into the body of Christ via the baptism of the Holy Spirit which Peter mentions in 11:16. The condition to be placed into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit (cf. 1Cor. 12:13), which is the essence of salvation in the church age is the same for us — to believe the gospel (cf. Gal. 3:26-27).

Exhibit B: Romans 1:16

“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.”

Here is a passage that will fulfill Jeremy’s prophecy: “My prediction is that the passages he has in mind either use the term “saved” which in context does not refer to justification.”

GES advocates have been very satisfied with their totally unsubstantiated claim that Romans 1:16 does not refer to the message preached to the lost. Rather, they argue it refers to general truths preached to believers for salvation from God’s wrath (even though the Bible teaches believers are NOT subject to God’s wrath).

To the contrary, I believe there are several proofs this particular verse speaks about the gospel brought to the LOST for first-tense salvation/ justification/ eternal life, not to a message brought only to believers supposedly for God’s wrath toward carnal believers! The most obvious, in my eyes, is that “the gospel” which is “the power of God unto salvation” is carried “to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” This is concerning the evangelism of the LOST. There is no sense whatever that the gospel is “first to the Jew” among BELIEVERS who are “in Christ” where “there is neither Jew nor Gentile” (cf. 1Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27-28; Col. 3:11).

Let me summarize a couple points why this is talking about salvation from hell and evangelism to the lost:

1. “…for the Jew first and also for the Greek” refers to the early Church pattern of evangelism of the lost. To claim that spiritual truth among Church-age believers somehow applies to the “Jew first and also to the Greek” specifically contradicts the NT teaching that… “the new man who is renewed in knowledge [this does refer to sanctification truth] according to the image of Him who created him, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised…” (Col. 3:10-11). The NT specifically teaches that the new man is to be renewed in the knowledge of God’s word, but that there is absolutely no distinction between Greek nor Jew in this respect. How then could general revelation for believers be “first to Jewish church age believers, then to Gentile church age believer” in light of Colossians 3:10-11??? Such an idea also contradicts the general teaching about believers being positioned in Christ where there is neither Jew nor Gentile (cf. 1Cor. 12:13, Gal. 3:26-27).

2. Romans 1:2-4 also refers to “the gospel” which was promised previously in the “Scriptures”. This is significant for a couple reasons. First of all, there is certainly no reason to distinguish between “the gospel” of Romans 1:2-4 and 1:16. So in the very first chapter of Romans, Paul teaches that justification is by faith alone in the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection. This is paralleled throughout the rest of the book where Paul teaches justification by faith in the same truths (cf. 3:19-26; 9:30-10:4; 10:16). These each refer to first-tense salvation.

Second, Paul states that the gospel was “promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures” (1:2). This corresponds with Paul’s point about “the gospel” being “according to the Scriptures” in 1Cor. 15:1-4. He is referring to the same gospel. Third, this gospel message emphasizes the Deity, humanity, death, and resurrection of Christ (1:2-4), all of which are preached, for example, in Acts to the LOST. It is simply implausible to suggest this “gospel” is intended only for believers to escape the temporal wrath of God, not for unbelievers to be saved from hell!

3. There is a change in pronouns between 1:15-16 from “you” (1:15) to “everyone” which are specifically identified as “Jews” and “Greeks” (1:16). Although Paul intended to preach the gospel to the Romans, so that they could gain a greater understanding of how Christ’s death and resurrection relates to their lives, Paul does not say in v. 16, “so that it can save you”. He reminds them of the importance of the gospel by stating “it is the power of God to salvation for EVERYONE who believes, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” The implication is that the objective truths of Christ’s death and resurrection which is essential to the salvation of the lost (Rom. 1:16) is also the basis for everything in the Christian life (Rom. 1:15).

4. For some reason GES advocates are very adamant about claiming there are TWO conditions to “salvation” from God’s temporal wrath for believers when they get to Romans 10:9-10. They argue that “confess” means to live a life of discipleship in which one outwardly confesses Jesus Christ. They specifically point out this is in ADDITION to believing. And yet, Romans 1:16 — which they claim also speaks of salvation of temporal wrath for believers — only mentions one condition: “the gospel is the power of God to salvation for everyone who BELIEVES.” This sounds like salvation by faith alone to me, not salvation by faith plus discipleship. Why the inconsistency?

5. Notice, also, that this passage is parallel to the next which is clearly a reference to the gospel brought to the lost for salvation:

Exhibit C: 1Corinthians 1:17-23

“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.”

Notice that the message that must be preached to the lost and must be received by the lost for salvation is called “the gospel” (1:17). This gospel heralds the “cross of Christ” (1:17) and is actually called “the message of the cross” (1:18). This is “the message preached” by which it pleases God “to save those who believe”. Notice that this message specifically involves preaching “Christ crucified” (1:23).

On another forum, Antonio da Rosa indicated that it is insufficient to cite this passage as proof the message of the cross involves Christ’s death. Instead, I needed some exegesis to show “the message of the cross” by which Paul preached “Christ crucified” includes Christ’s death. Umm. Huh??

Can any exegesis possibly prove the “message of the cross” does not necessarily involve Christ’s death? There is little left to say to a person who chooses to be such a fool. I do not say this without love for Jesus Christ or the accursed heretic. Earlier I pleaded to him with this message:

“For the man who so lacks fear before God that he would somehow divest “the message of the cross” of Christ’s death, whatever fear he does not have, I fear for him. O, I beg you not to shut your eyes, not to harden your heart, not to resist the utterly clear statements of Scripture on this subject.”

Paul points out that what separates those who are PERISHING from those who are SAVED is that the saved were saved via faith in the message of the cross which is also called “the gospel” (1:17, 18, 21)? Lest anyone claim that this only has to do with salvation of believers, let me point out the terms “saved” and “perish” (1Cor. 1:18) are articular participles that function like adjectives to refer to two GROUPS of people, without reference to progression/verbal aspect. Notice that faith in the “message of the cross” is what separates the “saved” from the “perishing.”

Furthermore, let me point out that the message of the cross is a STUMBLING BLOCK and FOOLISHNESS to the world! Even though the world was stumbled by this message, Paul thought it ESSENTIAL to preach to the world so that they could be saved! How utterly ironic–and how incredibly sad–that GES members would accuse people like me of STUMBLING the lost by insisting they believe in Christ Crucified!!

This point completely dismantles the crossless gospel argument that we “should” preach the cross only because it is a good apologetic for the offer of eternal life. Paul held up the cross of Jesus Christ to the lost even when it stumbled them. Zane Hodges said,

“Most of us deplore efforts made by Lordship people to add provisos to the message of faith in Christ…We rightly reject such ideas. But in our own circles, there is a tendency to add theological information to our message of faith.”

By “add (extra) theological information,” Hodges explicitly includes “the cross” or “Christ’s substitutionary atonement,” or the insistence on telling the unsaved the must believe “Jesus died for your sins.” This is found in his How to Lead People to Christ Pt. 1, 2 articles.

Other GES advocates have accused us of stumbling the lost by insisting that the lost believe the message of the CROSS for salvation. Their posts can be found on virtually any of the Free Grace blogs. Yet, how utterly ironic that they have placed us into the same company as the Apostle Paul–stumbling the lost with the message of the CROSS by insisting that they believe the message of the CROSS for salvation! Paul indicated that YES, the message of the cross IS a stumbling block for the lost, and yet he did not offer them any other message by which they could be saved!

Please notice very carefully that the message of the cross was not confined inside the churches, but is specifically what “Jews” and “Greeks” heard and rejected (I’m thinking again of the parallel between Romans 1:16 and 1Cor. 1:17-21).

Yet crossless gospel proponents insist that there is no such thing as “the gospel” that the lost must to believe to be saved!

*Part 3, a continuation of the SCRIPTURAL EXHIBITS, is next in the series. Please continue the series at The Technical Meaning of the Term, “The Gospel,” Part 3

The Technical Meaning of the Term, “THE GOSPEL,” Part 1

Dear Guests:

Following is the beginning of Greg Schliesmann’s multi-part series, 

The Technical Meaning of the Term, “THE GOSPEL”

As I suggested earlier, please approach the series with this mind set: If the Holy Spirit shows me something that I may have misunderstood or misinterpreted I will respond to Him.


INTRODUCTION

Before posting these verses, allow me to clarify what my intention IS and what it is NOT. My intention is NOT to exegetically identify the elements that comprise the specific message for salvation termed “the gospel.” I’m sure this will be done through a medium more suitable for such a study such as a more formal article. My intention is to briefly address a more basic question:

Is the term “the gospel” ever used after Christ’s resurrection as a technical term for the specific message that the lost must believe to get saved?

Before Jeremy Myers’s article The Gospel is More than Faith Alone, I had never heard any evangelical deny that the term “the gospel” does have such a technical usage. In fact, Myer’s view contradicts prior statements from the Grace Evangelical Society (GES). Even while advocating the crossless gospel, GES has argued that there is both a “broad” and “narrow” usage of the term “the gospel.” They argued that the “narrow” sense does refer to the message the lost must believe to be saved. That is why Zane Hodges could title his book The Gospel Under Siege. Crossless gospel proponents, however, have come to realize the impossibility of arguing that there is a “narrow” version of the term “the gospel” that does not include the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

[Update: Bob Wilkin, Executive Director of the GES, publicly announced his adoption of Jeremy Myer’s view at the GES Regional Conference in Dana Point, CA: August 24-25, 2007.]

Next, let me clarify my intention is NOT to prove *every* instance of the term “gospel” is applied in this technical sense. Crossless gospel advocates often pretend that our view requires every instance of “gospel” to refer to the same thing. That is nothing but a straw man argument.

For example, we know that in 1 Thess. 3:6, Paul uses the Greek word for “gospel” in its very general sense of good news… “Timotheus…brought us good news of your faith and charity… .” That is obviously the general “good news” sense. But we will see when a message is referred to “the gospel” after Christ’s resurrection, it usually refers to this specific message preached to the lost, which the lost must believe in order to receive eternal life.

It is also important to point out that we are investigating the usage of this term after Christ’s resurrection. Only after Christ’s death and resurrection did the term “the gospel” refer to this message the lost must believe to be saved. In fact, the message of Christ’s death and resurrection was never called “the gospel” until Christ rose from the dead.

Even during Christ’s earthly ministry, the term “the gospel” was used in both a broad and technical sense. For example, the term “the gospel” was often used in reference to “the gospel of the kingdom” that Christ and His disciples preached to the Jews (Mt. 4:23, 9:35, cf. 10:7; Mk. 1:15). So even at that time, “the gospel” had a technical usage then for a different specific message that applied to that particular time.

This point refutes Myers’s entire methodology toward defining “the gospel.” In his article and supplementary “Word Study Chart,” Myers collects various passages that use the term “gospel” along with any nearby statement Myers believes to hint at its content. In conclusion, Myers lists over fifty statements or truths he believes are included in “the gospel.”

The unfortunate dishonesty that lies at the root of Myers’s methodology is especially apparent when he adds his own spin to the fact that there is an undeniable technical usage of “the gospel” in reference to the gospel of the kingdom during Christ’s earthly ministry. Myers starts by properly distinguishing the gospel of the kingdom from the gospel of grace. He asks,

“Would you go to Matthew [i.e., accounts in Christ’s earthly ministry that use the term ‘the gospel’], and say that Paul preached the gospel of the kingdom?”

Myers correctly implies it is illegitimate to confuse the gospel of the kingdom with the gospel of grace.

After acknowledging this well-known Biblical distinction, Myers later on defies all logic when he concludes that “the gospel” includes both the gospel of the kingdom (from Christ’s earthly ministry) and the gospel of grace (from the Church Age) so that they cannot be individually distinguished! He lists them both, along with 50 other items, in his so-called “Word Study Chart” to prove “essentially, the gospel includes everything in the NT, if not everything in the entire Bible.” This, dear friend, is the sort of reasoning on which the GES hangs its contention that there is no such thing called “the gospel” that the lost must believe to be saved? But What Does the Bible Teach?


*In Part 2 of this series we will view the first set of Scriptural Exhibits that answer Greg's question; What Does the Bible Teach? Please continue the series at The Technical Meaning of the Term, “The Gospel,” Part 2

New Series by Greg Schliesmann

Dear Guests:

Earlier this year Mr. Greg Schliesmann wrote a comment that addressed one of the more egregious errors of the “Crossless” gospel. His comment appeared in the thread of a Crossless blog and had essentially been lost there. Last week I happened to find it and believed it is relevant to the current discussions. At my request Greg has taken that comment and expanded into a multi-part series.

Greg’s original comment was in response to several statements by advocates of the “Crossless” gospel that are as unusual and out-of-balance as you will ever read on the “The Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

The first in the series will be posted no Monday morning. The balance of Greg’s series will follow on successive days.

To best appreciate what Greg has developed will require more than a cursory read. I want to kindly encourage every guest, especially those of you who may be on the fence or have already adopted the Hodges’ “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel, to approach Greg’s series as a study.

Please approach the series with this mind set: If the Holy Spirit shows me something that I may have misunderstood or misinterpreted I will respond to Him.


LM


*Please view both of Greg's previous series:

False Paradigms of the “Crossless” Gospel

The “Christ” Under Siege