How I Came to Understand the Importance of a Clear Gospel!

by Peter Hann

I never realized how important and vital it is to present the gospel of Jesus Christ as clearly as possible. The souls of mankind are at stake if it is not. In this article I'll give my testimony as to how and why it is important to present the gospel in the clearest way possible.

In the fall of 2010, I left my former church, which I won't mention by name. It was hard for me to leave, because there were and are dear brothers and sisters in the Lord that I still do love and care about and continue to pray for. I'm also not saying these dear brothers and sisters in the Lord had bad motives. I left due to my concern about how their gospel was presented.

For example, when I first started attending in 2000, shortly after that in the summer of 2001 the church leadership asked me if I knew the "Sinner's Prayer". I sighed and said, "I don't know; I think I do." Then the pastor asked me if I knew it. He took me aside and prayed the prayer. I don't believe I was saved, because I was just saying words. I did not have a change of heart. I actually did get saved, by accepting Jesus Christ alone as my Savior in the fall of 2001.

Looking back, I scratch my head as to why the leadership asked me if I knew a prayer, because there are lots of believers in Christ who don't know the Sinner's Prayer. My former church had it in writing that if you prayed this prayer you were a part of God's family. I thought to myself, "that can't be right because of what John 1:12 says: 'To all who received Him (Jesus) He gave the right to become children of God.'" I'm concerned that praying the Sinner's Prayer can confuse an unbeliever by clouding the clarity of the gospel.

I am deeply concerned with one other statement my former church had given in written form. It stated that to come to saving faith in Christ, you had to "be willing to turn from your sins." Until 2006, I was fine with that statement. Then in the fall of 2005, I had another believer in Christ move in as a second roommate. When he saw the "Sinner's Prayer" and their statement "be willing to turn from your sins," he told me that he believed it was a "false gospel." I thought to myself: "Where in the world is this guy coming from?" "Does this guy hate the word 'repent'?" I also thought: "Is this guy just trying to make salvation in Christ a 'sloppy easy' believe without genuine repentance?" 

I then realized that my roommate was not trying to take the word "repent" out of the salvation experience, but instead he was trying to give out the true saving repentance message. His fear was that when someone reads: "turn from your sins," that person would think, "Oh, do I have to clean up my life first and stop my lying, stealing, etc. in order to come to Christ?" Some have labeled my former church's teaching "Lordship Salvation". My roommate told me how God is willing to take lost sinners and save them from Hell's flames just the way they are. Romans 5:8 says that "God demonstrates His own love towards us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us."

Now it is true that in order for human beings to be saved from God's judgment in Hell, they must repent. But in salvation repentance, the unsaved need to change their whole minds about their own goodness or rituals to save them from Hell. Just like Hebrews 6:1 says: "We repented from our dead works." We came to Christ on the basis of grace alone by placing 100% trust in His redemptive work alone – nothing more, nothing less. It would be like someone offering someone else $20 as a free gift. But if the giver wanted the other person to run an errand to keep that $20 then it would not be a free gift. Our salvation in Christ is an awesome free gift! The Lord, through my roommate, helped me to develop an understanding of why it is important to present the gospel so it doesn't appear like Lordship Salvation.

I had another fellow believer in Christ who was also concerned about the clarity of the gospel. He pointed out a verse to me in Genesis 6:6 where it says: "It grieved the Lord that He made man." Some translations say: "It repented the Lord that He made man." In that passage of Scripture we know it means that God had a change of mind. There's no way God could repent of any sin because He is perfect and holy.

So I tried approaching the church leadership, concerned that they were telling unbelievers that they had to turn from their sins to get saved. That presentation of the gospel can be confusing. My church leadership thought that I too (like my roommate) was trying to take the word "repent" out of the salvation experience. I made it clear to them that I wasn't trying to take the word "repent" out – I was just giving it a clearer definition. Because before people come to know Jesus Christ as their Savior, the only sin (singular) they can repent of is the sin of unbelief. Once an unbeliever trusts Christ alone, that person is then sealed with the Holy Spirit, like Ephesians 1:13 says. Now the believer can work on purging out sins (plural) like lying, stealing, and immorality – now that the individual is saved, and is growing, and maturing in their Christian walk. This happens as the Christian is filled and led by the Holy Spirit.

When unbelievers get saved they may (or may not) feel sorrow or remorse or contrition over their sins. There is nothing wrong with that. I just fear that unbelievers could think that being remorseful or sorry alone will save them from God's judgment. Even though Judas Iscariot felt sorrow after betraying Christ, our Lord still labeled him "the son of perdition". It's like someone being in a court of law with a $30,000 fine against him. No matter how sorry he feels about the crime, he can't be set free until the fine is paid. Someone has to pay the fine for that crime. This is exactly what Jesus Christ did for the sins of mankind – by suffering, dying, and being raised from the grave (as proof that the payment was accepted).

Paul said that he rejoiced not that the Corinthian Christians were sorry, but that their sorrow led to repentance. Because of what Jesus did for us, it should be the motivation for believers in Christ to live godly and holy lives – out of gratitude for what the Lord has done for us. 2 Corinthians 5:14 says: "For the love of Christ compels us."

Before I left my former church, I approached another one of the elders concerning the gospel and repentance. He thought my roommate was a Hyper-Calvinist with no genuine repentance. I told the elder that wasn't true. I told this elder that my friend's concern was a clear gospel. When I brought my concern to the elder about an unbeliever reading in the church bulletin, "be willing to turn from your (plural) sins," he made some kind of remark that it's not you turning from your plural sins, it's God turning you from your plural sins. I think he may have said "a will of the mind," in regards to turning from one's plural sins. I feared this again could make the unsaved think they have to clean up their lives first in order to come to Christ. I think this elder may also have said that he didn't think it was a big deal to present the gospel clearly – that God is sovereign and will bring to pass the gospel. I do agree that God is sovereign, but we must present the truth of the gospel as clearly as we can. Like I said before, the souls of men are at stake. I told the elder that it's similar to how we would want MapQuest to present driving directions as clearly as can be. This elder said that he was more concerned about presenting the gospel completely than clearly. But as believers we must present the gospel clearly and completely!

Another man in the church leadership, when he heard my roommate's concerns, may have been confused as to where my friend was coming from. He even labeled my roommate as "Grace Only." As I think about it now, I think to myself: "Oh my goodness." It's either a person is under law or under grace, like it says in Galatians. I've heard it said that there are only two world religions: "Grace" and "Works". I don't know what exactly this elder meant, but he stated to me that living godly and holy wasn't an option. I agree that Godly living is required in order for believers to have fellowship, but it is not required to get saved or to stay saved. Godly living is required in order for Christians to maintain fellowship with God as it says in 1 John. It's like a father-son relationship. If the son was to be disobedient, he would be subject to his father's discipline. But if he confessed it, he would be brought back into fellowship with his father.

I had another concern at that church. I hope I'm not quoting him wrong, but the one pastor made a comment that God saved him not because someday he would receive Christ, but because God had chosen him. That could be predestination which many who are devout Calvinists believe. It is true that God does grant repentance, but a human being must make a volitional choice to either receive or reject the Son like it says in John 3:36. Also, 1 Timothy 2:4 says that God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

I was water baptized in 2009. Before I was baptized I had to give my personal testimony on how I came to saving faith in Jesus Christ. In my testimony I didn't say anything about "being willing to turn from my sins" (like the church bulletin said). I simply said that the way I got saved was by seeing that I was a lost Hell-bound and judgment-deserving sinner, and the only way of escaping that judgment was to place 100% trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ alone (His death on the cross, burial, and resurrection) – nothing more, nothing less. When I was bringing up my doctrinal concerns to the church leadership, I should have asked them whether it was right for them to have baptized me, due to the fact that I never said anything in my testimony about "being willing to turn from my sins".

One last thing I tried submitting to my church leaders before I left was a clearer definition of saving repentance, which I'll list point by point below.

Saving Repentance is:

• A change of mind. To change your mind about your own goodness to inherit a right standing with God. To also change your mind about Who Jesus is and the fact that He died on the cross for your sins. You must realize you are a lost Hell-bound and judgment-deserving sinner. The only avenue of escaping that judgment is to place 100% of your trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ alone at Calvary (His death on the cross, burial, resurrection, and appearances.)

• Belief in Christ. It's like if you're falling from the sky with a strapped on parachute. You must place 100% trust in the parachute to save you from hitting the ground at too fast of a speed, to your death. It's the same principle with trusting Jesus Christ. You must place 100% trust in His redemptive work to save you from the penalty for your sins on Judgement Day. You can't even place 99% of your trust in Jesus Christ and 1% of your trust in your efforts. You must place 100% of your trust in Jesus Christ.

• Not to be confused with the fruits of repentance. The moment you trust Christ alone, you are now a saved child of God. Christians must be willing to turn from sins such as lying, stealing, etc. – not to get saved or to stay saved – but in order to maintain fellowship with God. Imagine a father-son relationship. If the son is disobedient, it does not mean that the son is not part of the family or that he will be kicked out of the family due to his disobedience. The son will always be a son. The disobedient son is just subject to his father's discipline. If the son confesses his sinfulness to his father, the son is brought back into right fellowship. If the son does not, he is still subject to his father's discipline. The same principle works with God's discipline of his children.

• Consistent with grace. Salvation is a free gift. It's like being offered $20 as a free gift – only so much better! If the one who offered us the $20 told us that in order to keep the money we must wash his car, then it would not be a free gift.

This is what the grace of God is. It is God's simple plan of salvation. It is so simple a child can understand it. Mankind is the one who unfortunately complicates it more than is required for saving faith. Satan is the one who ultimately wants to confuse the clear gospel message. He does not want anyone to receive Jesus Christ but would rather that they spend a horrible eternity in Hell. So as believers, we need to get the true, simple, and clear gospel of Jesus Christ to the lost before time runs out!

The Gospel

"The Messiah died for our sins according to the Scriptures, he was buried, he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures—and is still alive!—and he was seen by Cephas, and then by the twelve."

(1 Corinthians 15:3b-5, International Standard Version)

The Two Aspects of Forgiveness

Recently I have been defending the doctrine of divine forgiveness over at Antonio da Rosa's Free Grace Theology blog. Antonio has been writing a series of articles titled "God's Forgiveness" in which he argues for a new view of forgiveness that he learned from Zane Hodges. According to this view, forgiveness is never used in the judicial sense but only in the parental sense. In other words, Antonio believes that forgiveness is only for the purpose of fellowship, not justification. However, the Bible clearly teaches both aspects of forgiveness: judicial (Acts 10:43; Rom. 4:7-8; Col. 2:13-14; etc.) and parental (Ps. 32:5; James 5:15; 1 Jn. 1:9; etc.). Although I do not agree with Antonio's parental-only view of forgiveness, I have found the topic interesting and the dialogue helpful in understanding his position. But then in the middle of our dialogue something really strange happened and one of my comments suddenly disappeared without a trace! I am going to post the missing comment here to enable further discussion should Antonio choose for that to continue.

In the comment below I am responding to Antonio and arguing for the judicial aspect of forgiveness. In the first part of my comment I discuss Zane Hodges' exegesis of Acts 13:38-39. Then in the second part of my comment I note that justification has two sides: the positive side and the negative side. I explain that God's judicial forgiveness is the negative side of justification. Here's the dialogue:¹

Antonio said...

"Jonathan,

I have responded to your point and answered your questions.

you asked:
-----------
Could you please explain to me Antonio how forgiveness of sins is not equated with justification in this passage?
----------
I did this in the 3 part comment, and my last comment.

You said:
----------
It seems to me from the text that forgiveness of sins is an integral part of justification. Furthermore, the language here is judicial. This seems to be a clear example in which forgiveness is used in the judicial and legal sense.
----------
I responded to these points in my 3 part comment and the last comment.

As for your request for more information about Acts 13, check my answers out via any grammar. I don't think that I am unclear on it. If you have taken any koine Greek, you have the resources to verify my statements. Zane Hodges was a Greek Professor, and he didn't make the same connection that you do in Acts 13.

If there are points or questions that I have failed to answer or comment on, please bring those things to my attention. I believe that I have been quite responsive to your comments.

Please show how the context demands your interpretation. Please use the principles of biblical interpretation and the laws of reason and logic to present an argument from this text supporting your position.

I understand the wishy washy nature of the traditional understanding -- some say it is the same as justification, others say it is like justififation [sic]. You seem to have taken both positions in this comment thread.

Again, if I haven't been compliant to answer and respond to your questions and points, please be so kind as to let me know as to which ones you refer. 

Thanks for hanging in there. 

Antonio

July 18, 2011 3:24 PM"

Here's the missing comment:

Jonathan Perreault said... 

"Hi Antonio,

I respect Hodges work on the Greek text, but in regards to Acts 13 I believe his exegesis is somewhat shallow. What do I mean? I am referring specifically to his article 'Justification: A New Covenant Blessing,' in which he uses the American Heritage Dictionary - an English dictionary (as opposed to a Greek lexicon) - in distinguishing between forgiveness and justification. He also bases his distinction/non-equation between the two terms on the word 'and' (Acts 13:39, NKJV), but even he admits that this word is only found in certain Greek manuscripts (i.e. only in the Majority Text). Hodges then says that even without the 'and' the passage in Acts 13:38-39 is broken down into two sentences, which apparently supports his distinction? (But if that is true, wouldn't the use of the word 'and' then disprove his distinction? The two arguments appear somewhat self-refuting.) It all seems so - to use your words: 'wishy washy'. Maybe Hodges has offered other exegetical insights on the passage that I am not aware of? I was asking you about these (if there was any?), and also about what OTHER Greek scholars have to say about the exegesis of the passage in Acts 13?

Now concerning the passage in Romans 4, when I asked you how forgiveness and justification are not to be equated, I was using your words, not offering a complete or blanket endorsement of that position. I felt that I was unclear on that, and that is why I offered my clarification saying that I don't think the two terms are EXACTLY equivalent, although I do believe that forgiveness is involved or inherent in justification (being the negative aspect of it). Justification involves forgiveness but goes beyond it to the actual imputation of Christ's righteousness (this is the positive aspect and full meaning of justification). Justification is not merely being without sin (i.e. forgiven), but it is being declared, in fact, righteous. We see both the negative and the positive aspects of justification in the passage in Romans 4. Using the example of Abraham the apostle Paul gives the POSITIVE aspect of justification, namely being declared righteous (Rom. 4:3,5). Then in giving the example of David "side by side with Abraham" (so says Godet) Paul highlights THE SAME POINT - justification by faith alone (see Rom. 4:6a where 'the conjunction of comparison kathaper is more forcible than kathos: it indicates an intrinsic and striking agreement: exactly as' - Godet) from the NEGATIVE aspect of justification, namely the forgiveness of sins, the covering of sins, and the non-imputation of sin (Rom. 4:7,8). Commenting on Romans 4:7-8 and the example of David, Godet summarizes: 'Here, then, is the negative side of justification, the evil which it removes; while in regard to Abraham it was only the positive side which was under treatment, the blessing it confers. Thus it is that the two passages complete one another.' (Godet, Romans, 172.) Anyway, I know you have a limit on the length of the comments so I will cut off my comment there, but these are some of the exegetical insights that I have come across in my studies. 

Thanks! 

JP

July 18, 2011 6:27 PM"

JULY 25, 2011 UPDATE: Antonio just sent me a kind e-mail to follow up on our online discussion and to clarify any misunderstandings. I will be continuing my dialogue on divine forgiveness over at his blog as time allows.



ENDNOTE:

¹ The entire discussion with the exception of the missing comment can be read in the comment thread of Antonio's post: "God's Forgiveness Part 2: A Working Thesis".

In Defense of the Gospel, Pt. 3

Question: What if a preacher says that the gospel has only three points instead of four points? Is that wrong?

Answer: I would say that it's perfectly acceptable to outline the gospel in three points as long as the preacher doesn't remove any of the content from the gospel (leaving some of the content to be implied is okay as I will go on to explain – as long as no part of the good news is denied from being included in the gospel). The simplest way I've found to explain this is to say that the content of the gospel can be rearranged but not redefined.¹ In other words, the various points of the gospel can be outlined and arranged in one way or another but the gospel itself cannot be changed (see 1 Peter 1:23-25, NKJV).² Quoting 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, Michael Ramsey affirms: 

"The Gospel was one. The same framework of events underlies the primitive preaching in Jerusalem, the preaching of Paul, the final presentation of the Gospel in the four written Gospels. There were of course differences of emphasis....But there was one Gospel. In it, amid whatever varieties, the Passion and the Resurrection had the pre-eminent place."³

Notice the following biblical examples showing how the gospel can be variously outlined and arranged using 1, 2, 3, or 4 points:

The Gospel in 1 Particular

Christ's substitutionary death:

"Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" ⁴

The Gospel in 2 Pillars

Christ's substitutionary death and His resurrection:

"Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" and 
"He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" ⁵

The Gospel in 3 Points

Christ's substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection:

"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" ⁶

The Gospel in 4 Parts

Christ's substitutionary death, burial, resurrection, and appearances:

"Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, 
and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 
and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." ⁷

The problem comes in when people start contradicting the Word of God for the sake of their tradition by saying that Christ's burial and resurrection appearances are not part of the gospel.⁸ Beware of this new gospel that is not like the others! In effect, groundless gospel advocates do this to the gospel:

The Gospel in 1/2 Portions

Christ's substitutionary death, burial, resurrection, and appearances:

"Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, 
and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 
and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." ⁹

Let me summarize by giving three axioms that I have found helpful in regards to the question at hand:

1. The truths of the gospel can be rearranged but not redefined.
2. The truths of the gospel can be emphasized but not excluded. ¹⁰
3. The truths of the gospel can be implied but not denied. ¹¹

These three statements highlight the difference between affirming the Word of God and contradicting it. There are grave dangers in contradicting Biblical truth (Deut. 4:2; Prov. 30:5-6; Jer. 26:2; Matt. 5:17, 15:9; Lk. 11:52, NIV; Rev. 22:18-19). "So dangerous a thing it is to meddle ever so slightly with the words of—GOD."¹² Christians must always be careful to "hold fast" to the Word of God and to the truth of the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-2; cf. Col. 1:22-23; 2 Thess. 2:14-15).

Continue to "In Defense of the Gospel, Part 4".


ENDNOTES:

¹ Sadly, some in the Free Grace movement have taken it upon themselves to redefine the gospel. For more information see my blog posts titled: "Beware of the Wolves Within Free Grace".

² In other words, the biblical gospel of 1 Corinthians 15:3b-5 can't be tampered with or done away with—as the Word of God it will remain forever (1 Pet. 1:23-25, NKJV; cf. Gal. 1:11-12). For more information on the exegesis of the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15, see my blog post titled: "Getting the Gospel Right".

³ A. Michael Ramsey, The Resurrection of Christ [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1947], p. 13, ellipsis added; cf. Ibid., pp. 21, 44, 73-74. Note: Ramsey says that in the Gospel "the Passion and the Resurrection had the pre-eminent place" (Ibid., 13). Another way to say this would be: The Gospel emphasizes Christ's death and resurrection without excluding His burial and appearances.

⁴ 1 Corinthians 15:3; cf. 1 Corinthians 1:17, 18, 23; 2:2. Note: Christ's burial, resurrection, and appearances are implied in the gospel, not denied in the gospel.

⁵ 1 Corinthians 15:3 & 4; cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:14; 2 Corinthians 5:15. Note: Christ's burial and appearances are implied in the gospel, not denied in the gospel. 

⁶ 1 Corinthians 15:3-4; cf. Matthew 12:38-41; Colossians 2:12. Note: Christ's appearances are implied in the gospel, not denied in the gospel. 

⁷ 1 Corinthians 15:3-5; cf. Psalms 22:1-22; Isaiah 53:1-12; Acts 2:22-36, 10:38-43, 13:29-31.

⁸ For more information see my article: "Beware of the Wolves Within Free Grace".

⁹ No Bible verse teaches this subtle perversion of the true gospel! However, several Bible passages tell believers to watch out for those who would pervert the gospel message (see 2 Cor. 11:3-4; Gal. 1:6-10). Note: Christ's burial, the fact that His resurrection occurred "on the third day", His appearances to Cephas and the twelve, and the twice repeated phrase "according to the Scriptures" (see 1 Cor. 15:3-5) are all denied as not really being part of the saving gospel according to the new groundless gospel position.

¹⁰ That is, excluded from being part of the content of the gospel of salvation. For example, the burial of Christ cannot be excluded or banned from being part of the content of the gospel of salvation (see 1 Corinthians 15:4).

¹¹ That is, denied as being part of the content of the gospel of salvation. For example, the burial of Christ cannot be denied as being part of the content of the gospel of salvation (see 1 Corinthians 15:4).

¹² Ivan Panin, Editor, The New Testament From The Greek Text (Toronto: The Book Society of Canada, 1979), p. xiii, italics and caps his.