A Reply to the Article: "How Does a Mom Pray as a Calvinist?"

I recently came across an interesting article posted on The Gospel Coalition (TGC) website titled "How Does a Mom Pray as a Calvinist?" In the article, the author Courtney Reissig writes:

 

"How does a mom, who believes that God is sovereign over salvation, find any hope for her children? How does she not live in fear about the state of their souls every day? If only those chosen by God find eternal life in him, can she sleep at night if none of them has yet professed faith?

 

In a recent interview about Calvinism, Andy Stanley—senior pastor of North Point Community Church in Atlanta—posed several questions as he critiqued Calvinism from several angles. In one particular segment, he talked specifically about women, and from his vantage point women are less vocal about their belief in God’s sovereignty in salvation because of how harsh it sounds (to him). Mothers, he said, would have a hard time reconciling their maternal instinct to protect, care for, and provide for their child with a view of salvation that, as he sees it, provides little assurance that they will be saved."¹

In response to Courtney Reissig's questions (and her Calvinistic views), I think the following statement is very good:

 

"There is no limitation, but your own rejection of it, to that Divine yearning desire according to which He willeth not the death of a sinner, but rather that they would turn from their evil ways and live [Ezek. 18:23, 33:11]. Is there a child, O ye mothers and fathers, whom ye unconditionally hate and doom to destruction? Not one. And can ye suppose that ye are kinder and better than your God?"²     

 

There is also much to be learned on the topic of divine election from the following dialogue between D. L. Moody and Rev. Marcus Rainsford (excerpted from the book Sovereign Grace by D. L. Moody):

 

Mr. M. -- Suppose a man say he is not "elected?"

 

Mr. R. -- Do you remember the story of the woman of Canaan? Poor soul; she had come a long journey. She asked the Lord to have mercy on her afflicted child. He wanted to try her faith, and He said: "I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." [Matthew 15:24] That looked as if He Himself told her that she was not one of the elect. But she came and worshipped Him, saying, "Lord, help me!" and He helped her there and then. No; there is no election separating between the sinner and Christ.

 

Mr. M. -- Say that again.

 

Mr. R. -- THERE IS NO ELECTION SEPARATING BETWEEN THE SINNER AND CHRIST.

 

Mr. M. -- What is there between the sinner and Christ?

 

Mr. R. -- Mercy!! Mercy!!

 

Mr. M. -- That brings me near to Christ.

 

Mr. R. -- So near that we cannot be nearer. But we must claim it. In John [6:39-40] we get God's teaching about election. "This is the Father's will which hath sent Me, that of all which He hath given Me I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again at the last day." He will do his work, you may depend upon it. Then in the next verse we read: "And this is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day." That is the part I am to take: and when I have done so I shall know the Father's will concerning me.³

 

ENDNOTES:

¹ Courtney Reissig, "How Does a Mom Pray as a Calvinist?" The Gospel Coalition website (December 22, 2018).

² James Morison, "THE GOSPEL AS PREACHED BY DR. MORISON," p. 284. The Evangelical Repository: A Quarterly Magazine of Theological Literature. EIGHTH SERIES. VOL. III. GLASGOW: 1885.

³ D. L. Moody, Sovereign Grace, pp. 117-118, emphasis his.

D. L. Moody on the Doctrine of Election

“Do not stumble at the doctrine of election. Preach the gospel to all, and (as some one has said) if you convert any one who was not ‘chosen,’ God will forgive you.”¹ —D. L. Moody

“‘The elect’ are the ‘whosoever will’s’: the ‘non-elect’ are the ‘whosoever wont’s’.”² —D. L. Moody

 

There is also an interesting dialogue between D. L. Moody and Rev. Marcus Rainsford on the topic of divine election:

“Mr. M. -- Suppose a man say he is not ‘elected?’ 

Mr. R. -- Do you remember the story of the woman of Canaan? Poor soul; she had come a long journey. She asked the Lord to have mercy on her afflicted child. He wanted to try her faith, and He said: ‘I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’ [Matthew 15:24.] That looked as if He Himself told her that she was not one of the elect. But she came and worshipped Him, saying, ‘Lord, help me!’ and He helped her there and then. No; there is no election separating between the sinner and Christ.

Mr. M. -- Say that again.

Mr. R. -- THERE IS NO ELECTION SEPARATING BETWEEN THE SINNER AND CHRIST.

Mr. M. -- What is there between the sinner and Christ?

Mr. R. -- Mercy!! Mercy!! 

Mr. M. -- That brings me near to Christ.

Mr. R. -- So near that we cannot be nearer. But we must claim it. In John [6:39-40] we get God's teaching about election. ‘This is the Father’s will which hath sent Me, that of all which He hath given Me I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again at the last day.’  He will do his work, you may depend upon it. Then in the next verse we read: ‘And this is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.’ That is the part I am to take: and when I have done so I shall know the Father’s will concerning me.”³

ENDNOTES:

¹ D. L. Moody, Notes from My Bible, p. 167.

² D. L. Moody, Notes from My Bible, p. 108.

³ D. L. Moody, Sovereign Grace, pp. 117-118, emphasis his.

The Grace Evangelical Society and Duluth Bible Church: "Crossless" and "Groundless" Till Jesus Comes?

I remember some years ago a friend told me that Bob Wilkin and the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) would never change their view about "the new crossless gospel"¹ (as Tom Stegall has dubbed it) and it would be promoted until Jesus returns at the Rapture.

   
Ironically the same thing can also be said about the new "groundless gospel" of Tom Stegall and the Duluth Bible Church. Their new no-burial view of the gospel² will likely be promoted till Jesus comes.

   
These schisms within the Free Grace Movement remind me of what the apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:19: "For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you" (NASB).

   
The apostle Paul also says in another place to "rejoice in the Lord always" (Phil. 4:4). How can Free Grace Christians rejoice amidst these divisions in the Free Grace Movement over the gospel? One reason we can rejoice is because these contrary views of the Free Grace gospel prompt us to take a close look at the question "What is the gospel?" and also help to clarify the correct interpretation of the gospel. As Scot McKnight, a New Testament scholar and historian of early Christianity has well said, gospel orthodoxy is "often in response to threats to that gospel...articulated by those who are most concerned with the gospel."³

So let's keep standing for the gospel till Jesus comes! Praise the Lord!

ENDNOTES:

¹ Tom Stegall, "The Tragedy of the Crossless Gospel," The Grace Family Journal (Spring 2007): p. 9.

² See Tom Stegall's "Proposed Change" to the "SOLE CONDITION FOR SALVATION" section of the Word of Grace Bible Church Doctrinal Statement, Word of Grace Bible Church handout (circa 2007), no page number, emphasis his. Note: Word of Grace Bible Church is a church-plant of Duluth Bible Church.

³ Scot McKnight, “The Gospel and Orthodoxy,” Jesus Creed blog (February 5, 2009), bold his, ellipsis added (http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2009/02/the-gospel-and-orthodoxy.html, also see the link: www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2009/02/05/the-gospel-and-orthodoxy/). A similar statement by Vance Havner is worth noting. Mr. Havner writes: "Well did Gresham Machen say that 'the most important things are not those about which men are agreed but those for which men will fight.'" (Havner, The Best of Vance Havner [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980], p. 82.)

Know Your Bible: Is Christ's Burial an Essential Part of the Gospel?

Is the burial of Christ part of "the essential substance of the gospel" in 1 Corinthians 15:4? Notice what C. I. Scofield writes in his Scofield Bible Correspondence Course on the New Testament. In his correspondence course there are 179 exam questions on the book of 1 Corinthians. For question 146, Scofield asks: "What three facts in [1 Corinthians] xv. 3, 4, constitute the essential substance of the gospel?"[1] No doubt Scofield is referring to the three facts of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.[2] Thus, contrary to what groundless gospel advocates would have us believe[3], Scofield affirms that Christ's burial is an "essential" part of "the gospel" in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4!

If you were to take Scofield's exam, would you get this question right?

ENDNOTES:

[1] C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Bible Correspondence Course, Vol. 2: New Testament (Chicago: The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, 1934), p. 366, question 146. Note: The original copyright is 1907 by C. I. Scofield.

[2] Elsewhere Scofield affirms: "Jesus Christ brought life and immortality to light through the gospel....Atoning for man's sin by the blood of the cross, coming again from the dead in eternal triumph over the grave, Jesus Christ begins to carry the salvation of the cross into all the world." (C. I. Scofield, In Many Pulpits [New York: Oxford University Press, 1922], p. 65)

[3] For example, one groundless gospel advocate writes the following in reference to The Scofield Reference Bible's note on the two goats in Leviticus 16: "Scofield also makes no connection to the burial but includes references to Christ’s death and resurrection, saying, 'The living goat typifies that aspect of Christ’s work which puts away our sins from before God (Heb. 9:26; Rom. 8:33-34).'" (Thomas L. Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ [Milwaukee: Grace Gospel Press, 2009], p. 587.) It should be a clue to Stegall that we agree with him that Christ's burial is not redemptive (i.e. Christ's burial didn't pay for sin, His death did), but Stegall is going beyond this to conclude that Christ's burial is not part of the gospel. In other words, proving that Christ's burial is not redemptive is different from proving His burial is not part of the gospel. They are two different things. Yet Stegall tries to equate them. For example, in a 2007 church handout titled "Proposed Change" (to the "SOLE CONDITION FOR SALVATION" section of the Word of Grace Bible Church Doctrinal Statement), Stegall claims that "His [Christ's] being buried was not a work which accomplished our eternal redemption, and it is therefore not absolutely essential for someone to know about it and believe it in order to go to heaven, as the original statement seemed to indicate." Stegall is correct to point out that Christ's burial did not accomplish our eternal redemption, but his conclusion that it is therefore not part of the gospel is non sequitur. First, let's make sure we understand what redemption is, and then I will make my point. In the Bible, "redemption" involves the payment for sin; Christ redeemed us by His death on the cross (1 Cor. 15:3; Gal. 3:13; Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:12-15; 1 Pet. 1:18-19, etc.). This is an important point: Christ redeemed us (paid our sin penalty) by His death, not by His burial, and not by His resurrection. "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:3). In other words, Christ's burial did not pay for sins, nor did His resurrection. Redemption was accomplished on the cross. It was there that the ransom price was fully paid (see John 19:30, Greek tetelestai = "paid in full"). Even Stegall affirms that "[Christ's] resurrection didn't pay for our sins, His death did." (Stegall, "THE GOSPEL OF THE RESURRECTED CHRIST," [1 Corinthians 15:1-11], March 27, 2005.) Similarly, in an article titled "TRUTHS ONE MUST SEE AND BELIEVE IN ORDER TO BE SAVED," Stegall writes: "[Christ's] sacrifice for our sins paid the penalty in full, satisfying God's holy demands completely...Christ fully paid for our sins when He died". (Stegall, "TRUTHS ONE MUST SEE AND BELIEVE IN ORDER TO BE SAVED," Word of Grace Bible Church website [accessed April 5, 2011].) In his book The Gospel of the Christ, Stegall makes several more statements connecting full redemption with Christ's substitutionary death on the cross. He talks about being "redeemed by the blood of the Lamb". (Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, p. 30.) He goes on to explain that, "The Lord has seen fit to use a multiplicity of metaphors, images, and diverse terminology to depict the one truth of the Savior's death for our sins. These terms include 'cross,' 'tree,' 'blood,' 'gave,' 'offered,' 'sacrificed,' 'redeemed,' 'suffered,' 'slain,' etc. Yet, despite such rich diversity of expression, there is still a unity of content, as each of these terms point to the same substitutionary, atoning death of the Savior." (Ibid., p. 312.) Stegall also says: "Jesus had in fact provided redemption for Israel by that very crucifixion, and this redemption was proven by virtue of His resurrection." (Ibid., p. 660, italics his.) Stegall is echoing the words of John Hart when he says: "The resurrection proved our justification, but it did not provide for our justification." (Hart, "Why Confess Christ? The Use and Abuse of Romans 10:9-10," Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 12 [Autumn 1999].) Dennis Rokser of Duluth Bible Church also affirms this same basic truth, saying in reference to 1 Corinthians 15:4: "'and rose again' (which is the proof that God was satisfied with Christ's payment of our sins)." (Rokser, "EXAMINING LORDSHIP SALVATION Pt. 2," The Grace Family Journal [Fall 2007]: p. 13, italics his.) One last statement by Stegall is particularly to the point. Commenting on "the redemptive and propitious aspect of Christ's death in Acts 20:28," Stegall emphasizes: "The redemption price for every member of the Church was clearly the death of Christ". (Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ, pp. 660-661.) My point is simply this: Stegall doesn't believe that Christ's resurrection "accomplished our eternal redemption" (i.e. the resurrection didn't pay for our sins in any way, shape, or form) yet he still includes it in his gospel! Thus, for him to exclude Christ's burial for the same reason is the logical fallacy of special pleading (i.e. a double standard). If Stegall were consistent with his own reductionist reasoning, he would not only have to exclude Christ's burial from the gospel but he would also have to exclude Christ's resurrection because it wasn't redemptive either: "His resurrection didn't pay for our sins, His death did." (Stegall, "THE GOSPEL OF THE RESURRECTED CHRIST," [1 Corinthians 15:1-11], March 27, 2005.)

Are Christ's Resurrection Appearances Prophesied in the Old Testament?

Are the resurrection appearances of Christ to His disciples ever prophesied in the Old Testament? For those who may think otherwise, this question is important because it relates to the gospel. 

When the apostle Paul reminded the Corinthian church of "the gospel" (1 Cor. 15:1) that he preached to them, he included the fact that Christ "appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve" (1 Cor. 15:5). Commenting on Paul's gospel in 1 Corinthians 15, W. Harold Mare affirms: "Part of the gospel message Paul passed on to the Corinthians was eyewitness reports of the resurrection of Christ."^[1]
   
Another reason this is an important question is because in the book of Romans the apostle Paul writes: "The Good News was promised long ago by God through His prophets, as written in the Holy Scriptures" (Romans 1:2, GNT). Those who hold to the non-traditional Free Grace "groundless gospel" argue that the resurrection appearances of Christ to His disciples are not prophesied in the Old Testament, and therefore the resurrection appearances are not part of the gospel. One groundless gospel advocate named Greg Schliesmann puts it this way:

Paul says this gospel [in 1 Corinthians 15] 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 [1 Cor. 15] 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.^[2]

What I noticed after reading Mr. Schliesmann's statement is that he actually had to rewrite the Bible to fit his groundless gospel! In 1 Corinthians 15:4, the apostle Paul says that Christ was raised "on the third day according to the Scriptures". But in Mr. Schliesmann's quotation of 1 Corinthians 15:4, the words "on the third day" are nowhere to be found! It reminds me of the Bible created by Thomas Jefferson, commonly referred to as the Jefferson Bible. If any part of the New Testament didn't fit with Jefferson's theology of Jesus, he literally cut those statements out of the Bible. When Jefferson got through with it, his New Testament looked like Swiss cheese—there were lots of holes in it! The Bible has severe warnings against those who take away from the Word of God (see Deut. 4:2, 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19). "So dangerous a thing it is to meddle ever so slightly with the words of—GOD."^[3] The fact that groundless gospel advocates must re-write the Bible to fit their unique interpretation of the gospel is a glaring problem! Maybe Mr. Schliesmann took a cue from the agnostic Bart Ehman who also omitted the words "on the third day" when he misquoted 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. (See my blog post titled "Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus on 1 Corinthians 15:3-4".) But regardless, when someone in the Free Grace movement meddles with the Word of God, it's truly a tragedy.

   
What's more, the groundless gospel error is even more extreme because it actually contradicts the Bible.  Does Mr. Schliesmann really want us to believe that Christ's resurrection appearances are not "according to the Scriptures"? The truth is, both Christ's burial (1 Cor. 15:4) and His resurrection appearances to His disciples (1 Cor. 15:5) are prophesied in the Old Testament. Isaiah chapter 53 is a key passage, and it predicts both Christ's burial (Isa. 53:9) and His resurrection appearances to "His followers" (Isa. 53:10, Berkeley Version).

Isaiah 53: The Gospel in the Old Testament

Christ's death for our sins: Isa. 53:5-6

His burial: Isa. 53:9

His resurrection: Isa. 53:10b

His appearances: Isa. 53:10b

There are also other Scriptures in the Old Testament which predict Christ's burial and His resurrection appearances, such as Psalm 22 and Psalm 40. These are Messianic Psalms, and these two passages of Scripture also predict Christ's burial and His resurrection appearances. 

Psalm 22: A Prediction of the Gospel
Christ's crucifixion: Psa. 22:16

 His burial: Psa. 22:15
His resurrection: Psa. 22:22

His appearances: Psa. 22:22

Psalm 40: A Prophecy of the Gospel
Christ on the cross: Psa. 40:1^[4]

His burial: Psa. 40:2a
His resurrection: Psa. 40:2b

His appearances: Psa. 40:3

In response to Mr. Schliesmann, I will focus on the fact that Christ's resurrection appearances to His disciples are predicted in the Old Testament. I already wrote about this in my paper Getting the Gospel Right, but it bears repeating:

Christ's resurrection appearances were prophesied in the Old Testament like the other elements of the gospel (Rom. 1:1-2; 1 Pet. 1:10-12; cf. Ps. 22:22; Isa. 53:10)....Commenting on the gospel in Isaiah 53, Herbert Lockyer relates the following true story from the life of D. L. Moody: "When Moody was asked to conduct his first mission in London in 1874, union meetings were comparatively new. The committee asked him to explain his methods. Everything went smoothly until one member asked him his creed. Moody calmly replied, 'My creed is already in print.' A member seized a paper and pencil and asked where it could be found. 'In the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah,' Moody answered."^[5]     

Commenting on Psalm 22, notice how C. I. Scofield draws attention to the prophecy of Christ's resurrection appearance to His brethren:

Psalm 22 is a graphic picture of death by crucifixion. The bones (of the hands, arms, shoulders, and pelvis) out of joint (v. 14); the profuse perspiration caused by intense suffering (v. 14); the action of the heart affected (v. 14); strength exhausted, and extreme thirst (v. 15); the hands and feet pierced (v. 16); partial nudity with the hurt to modesty (v. 17), are all incidental to that mode of death. The accompanying circumstances are precisely those fulfilled in the crucifixion of Christ. The desolate cry of verse 1 (Mt. 27:46); the periods of light and darkness of verse 2 (Mt. 27:45); the contumely [insults and harsh treatment] of verses 6-8, 12, 13 (Mt. 27:39-43); the casting lots of verse 18 (Mt. 27:35), all were literally fulfilled. When it is remembered that crucifixion was a Roman, not a Jewish, form of execution, the proof of inspiration is irresistible. At verse 22 the Psalm breaks from crucifixion to resurrection; fulfilled in the "Go to my brethren," etc., of John 20:17. The risen Christ declares to His brethren the name, "Father."^[6]

And commenting on Psalm 40, similarly notice how Scofield makes a point to highlight the prediction of Christ's resurrection testimony to those who saw Him:

The 40th Psalm speaks of Messiah, Jehovah’s Servant, obedient unto death. The Psalm begins with the joy of Christ in resurrection (vs. 1, 2). He has been in the horrible pit of the grave, but has been brought up. Verses 3-5 are His resurrection testimony, His "new song." Verses 6 and 7 are retrospective. When sacrifice and offering had become abominable because of the wickedness of the people (Isa. 1:10-15), then the obedient Servant came to make the pure offering (vs. 7-17; Heb. 10:5-17).^[7]

The gospel (1 Cor. 15:3-5) was promised beforehand in the Holy Scriptures (Rom. 1:1-2); all four elements of the gospel were predicted in the Old Testament—not just part of it, but all of it!

Praise the Lord!

ENDNOTES:

^[1] W. Harold Mare, Frank E. Gaebelein, General Editor, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, 12 Vols., Vol. 10 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), p. 282.

^[2] Greg Schliesmann, "The Technical Meaning of the Term, 'THE GOSPEL,' Part 3," In Defense of the Gospel blog, December 19, 2007, http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2007/12/technical-meaning-of-term-gospel-part-3.html. Note: Mr. Schliesmann was a member of Tom Stegall's church in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It was Mr. Schliesmann who compiled the Scripture Index for Stegall's book The Gospel of the Christ. I have responded to Mr. Schliesmann's views elsewhere, such as in my article "The Free Grace Gospel Debate".

^[3] Ivan Panin, Editor, The New Testament From The Greek Text (Toronto: The Book Society of Canada, 1979), p. xiii, italics and caps his.

^[4] Commenting on Psalm 40:1, C. H. Spurgeon writes: "'I waited patiently for the Lord.' Patient waiting upon God was a special characteristic of our Lord Jesus. Impatience never lingered in his heart, much less escaped his lips. All through his agony in the garden, his trial of cruel mockings before Herod and Pilate, and his passion on the tree, he waited in omnipotence of patience. No glance of wrath, no word of murmuring, no deed of vengeance came from God's patient Lamb; he waited and waited on; was patient, and patient to perfection, far excelling all others who have according to their measure glorified God in the fires. Job on the dunghill does not equal Jesus on the cross. The Christ of God wears the imperial crown among the patient." (Spurgeon, The Treasury of David, 7 Vols., Vol. 2, p. 261.)

^[5] Jonathan Perreault, Getting the Gospel Right, p. 10.

^[6] Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible (1909), p. 608, note 3; p. 609, note 1. Although Scofield does not specifically mention Christ's burial here in connection with Psalm 22 (it's implied, not denied!), his statement still supports my overall point because he does highlight how this passage of Scripture predicts the resurrection testimony of Christ to those who saw Him after He was raised from the dead (Psa. 22:22; cf. Jn. 20:17). And  concerning Christ's burial, Scofield clearly sees predictions of it in other Old Testament Scriptures, such as in the book of Jonah. In the introduction to the book of Jonah in The Scofield Reference Bible, Scofield writes: "THE historical character of the man Jonah is vouched for by Jesus Christ (Mt. 12:39-41), as also that his preservation in the great fish was a ‘sign’ or type of our Lord’s own entombment and resurrection.” (Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible [New York: Oxford University Press, 1909, 1917], p. 943.) Furthermore, Mr. Schliesmann even admits that Christ's burial is predicted in the Old Testament. Schliesmann says: "I agree that Christ's burial was prophesied in the OT." (See Schliesmann's comment for the blog post "The Technical Meaning of the Term, 'THE GOSPEL,' Part 3," In Defense of the Gospel blog.) This admission by Schliesmann highlights the error of his groundless gospel, because although the apostle Paul doesn't specifically say in 1 Corinthians 15:4 that the burial of Christ is "according to the Scriptures"—it's obviously "according to the Scriptures" because it was promised beforehand in the Old Testament!

^[7] Ibid., p. 618, note 1.

1 CORINTHIANS 15:3ff | by Robert H. Mounce

I'd like to share some excellent statements on the gospel from a book by Robert H. Mounce titled The Essential Nature of New Testament Preaching.[1] I have also included the original footnote numbers as they appear in Mounce's book.[2] 

In the chapter titled "CLUES TO A PRE-PAULINE KERYGMA" (pp. 90-93), Mounce writes the following:

"I CORINTHIANS 15:3ff. This passage is without doubt the most valuable piece of pre-Pauline Christianity in the New Testament. Not only is it authentic tradition, but it also furnishes direct evidence of the missionary kerygma [preaching] proclaimed by the early Church. It relates the very terms⁶ in which Paul (v. 1) and the others (v. 11) preached the Gospel.

     

What are the reasons for accepting this account of the Gospel as genuine pre-Pauline paradosis?

     

(1) The verbs that Paul uses for the reception and transmission of the Gospel are equivalent to the official Jewish terms for the taking over and passing on of tradition.⁷ This would indicate that what follows is to be understood as an authentic block of primitive material.

     

(2) The total structure of the passage with its fourfold repetition of hoti ('that') indicates that it is a creedal formulation.

    

(3)  This formula displays a number of un-Pauline characteristics:  (a) The phrase 'according to the scriptures' occurs nowhere else in Paul⁸ (who generally uses 'as it is written'). (b) Since for Paul hamartia (singular) is the principle of sin, it is doubtful that he would have used it in the plural, as in verse 3. (c) Certain other expressions, such as 'the twelve,' are not specifically Pauline.⁹

     

(4) The double reference to the Old Testament Scriptures suggests that it stems from a Jewish-Christian source. So also does the Aramaic 'Cephas,' and the reference to James.

   

(5)  Paul indicates in verse 11 that what he has reproduced has been the common proclamation of all the apostles.

     

It is not going beyond the evidence to conclude with Meyer that here we have the oldest document of the Christian Church in existence.¹⁰ But now we come to the more difficult task of defining the limits of this segment of paradosis [tradition]. Had Paul stopped quoting as decisively as he began, there would have been no problem. But he seems to add a parenthetic remark, extend the final issue, and then trail off into a personal testimony. In view of this we must ask, Where does the kerygma stop, and Paul begin?

     

The explanatory remark connected to the phrase 'more than five hundred brethren,' leads Goguel to strike out all of verse six as a Pauline addition.¹¹ The following phrase ('Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles') is taken as genuine kerygma because of its linguistic similarity to verse 5. The appearance to Paul, says Goguel, was added as a personal testimony.

     

While something can be said for this interpretation, it is much more probable that the original formula extended from 3b through 5. This gives a better balance to the entire passage and brings the final item into harmony with the conciseness with which the other three are set forth. This division is also supported by the definite syntactical break at the beginning of verse 6. The reason for expanding this particular section of the kerygma was to establish firmly the fact of Christ's resurrection. From this basic premise, Paul will argue the resurrection of the believer. The choice of witnesses - well-known leaders of the Church and a large body of people who could easily be found and questioned - shows the care with which Paul built his case.

     

Where and when did Paul receive this block of tradition? The usual answer is that it was passed on to him by Peter when they first met in Jerusalem for a fortnight visit (Gal. 1:18-20) i.e., about A.D. 35.¹² This does not, however, take into sufficient consideration Paul's prior ministry in Damascus (Acts 9). Paul's proof of the Messiahship of Jesus (v. 22) most certainly rested upon the kerygmatic foundation of Christ's death, resurrection, and exaltation.

     

It is much more likely that this bit of paradosis had a much earlier origin. Hunter suggests that Paul is here reproducing the baptismal creed of the Damascus church.¹³ A comparison with the baptismal formula that underlies 1 Peter 3:18-22 favors this view.¹⁴ But whatever its relationship to baptismal or catechetical confessions, it is primarily the terms in which the Gospel was preached (cf. v. 1). It is difficult not to infer from this that it was originally drawn up as a convenient summary of the missionary proclamation.

     

And where did it originate? Against Heitmϋller's thesis that it was an evangelical summary current in Hellenistic Christianity and radically different from the Palestinian kerygma, Hunter argues convincingly that it emanated originally from the primitive Palestinian church.¹⁵ If this be so, then I Corinthians 15:3-5 may represent the very message that won the first converts at Damascus. In any event, we may safely conclude that Paul received this kerygmatic summary from the Damascus church shortly after his conversion and before beginning his evangelistic ministry.

     

Let us now set this passage out as it might have looked had Paul used sermon notes:

           Christ died for our sins -

                  in accordance with the scriptures.

           He was buried.

           He was raised on the third day -

                  in accordance with the scriptures.

           He appeared to Cephas,

                  then to the Twelve."

  

FOOTNOTES:

⁶ tini logōi ("in what terms") refers to both the form and the substance of Paul's preaching.

⁷ Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, p. 21. Pirke Aboth 1:1 tells how Moses received the (oral) Law from Sinai, and committed it to Joshua.

⁸ Interestingly enough, the only other occurrence of this phrase is in James 2:8 - most certainly Palestinian in origin.

⁹ For further linguistic evidence, see Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, pp. 129-130.

¹⁰ H. A. W. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums, III, 210.

¹¹ Maurice Goguel, The Birth of Christianity, p. 42.

¹² Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching, p. 16.

¹³ Hunter, op. cit., p. 16. Cf. also J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, p. 17.

¹⁴ Note the similar pattern: death for sins, descent, resurrection, exaltation.

¹⁵ Hunter, op. cit., pp. 16-17.

References:

[1] Robert H. Mounce, The Essential Nature of New Testament Preaching (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1960), pp. 90-93.

[2] Ibid., pp. 90-93.

A Funeral Foretold in Detail | by Dr. Spiros Zodhiates

Dr. Spiros Zodhiates, author of the Hebrew-Greek Keyword Study Bible and many other books, has written an excellent commentary on 1 Corinthians 15 which I came across while doing some research for one of my articles. The book is titled Conquering the Fear of Death in View of the Empty Tomb. 

     

By the way, in case anyone is wondering, Zodhiates affirms that the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15 includes the four facts of Christ's atoning death, His burial, His resurrection on the third day, and the fact that He was seen afterwards by His disciples. 

     

There are so many great quotes in this book! I wrote some of them down, but there are others too which I just did not have the time to write down. The book is massive. If I remember correctly, it's over 800 pages – and this is just commentary on 1 Corinthians 15! Here's what Dr. Zodhiates says in a chapter of the book titled: 

A FUNERAL FORETOLD IN DETAIL

"He was buried . . . (I Cor. 15:4a)."

     "Here, then, a few sorrowful friends laid the mangled body of Jesus, consigning to a sepulcher the One whom they had hoped to see on a throne. Oh, the depth of the Saviour's humiliation! Here we witness the Prince of life, who holds in His hand the keys of hell and of death, and in whom we all 'live, and move, and have our being,' brought to the dust of death in a borrowed grave. Yet with what loving reverence was He attended and His body prepared for burial. Surely the decent solemnities of a funeral are not displeasing to God. There is a respect due to the body, especially that of a Christian as the temple wherein God has been served and honored. It is designed to be rebuilt in another world, and it ought not to be cast away like common dust in this one. 

     Since Christ's body was to be raised to life in three days, why was it necessary that it be committed to the grave at all? Why could it not have remained in the home of Joseph of Arimathea as safely as in his sepulcher? The reason is stated by Paul: 'He was buried, and...he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.' The phrase 'according to the scriptures' applies both to the burial and to the resurrection. Christ was buried in this manner so that the prophecies concerning Him as the Messiah should be fulfilled. So minute and precious were these prophecies that they not only foretold His incarnation, His passion, and the glorious resurrection that was to follow, but also His burial and the very mode and circumstance of it. His burial in the heart of the earth was prefigured by Jonah's enforced stay for three days and three nights inside the great fish; and Isaiah had expressly declared concerning Him, that He 'made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death' (Isa. 53:9).

     Under the circumstances, it seemed humanly impossible for these prophecies concerning Christ's burial to be fulfilled. The Roman law, under which the Savior was put to death, allowed no interment to the bodies of those who died on the cross; and lest any pitying hand should take their bodies from the tree and cover them with earth, a guard was usually stationed around them for several days.

     We are accordingly told by Matthew that the centurion, and those that were with him, still remained on the hill of Calvary, watching Jesus, after He had given up the ghost (Matt. 27:50-56). And even if these difficulties could be surmounted, there was another obstacle to be removed before He could have an honorable burial. The Jews had a public burial place for all who died as criminals, and if any interment were allowed to Jesus by the Romans, this pit appeared to be the only grave in which His countrymen would allow Him to rest.

     But what are difficulties and obstacles to God? He caused the very people who crucified His Son to prepare the way for the fulfillment of the prophecies that proved His deity and condemned their unbelief. The Jewish law required that malefactors should be buried on the day of their execution; and to prevent their city from being ceremonially unclean on the succeeding sabbath, certain men besought Pilate that the sufferings of the dying criminals might be ended and their bodies taken down. Pilate granted their request, and no sooner was it granted than the rich and honorable Joseph of Arimathea came forward to rescue the body of Christ from the hands of His enemies and to lay Him in his own new tomb. What infinite wisdom foretold these details; what infinite power fulfilled them! A mighty God never lacks means and instruments to fulfill His purposes. He often passes by those whom we might expect to be employed in His service and singles out others who will perform His will with the greatest glory to Himself."¹

Reference:

¹ Zodhiates, Conquering the Fear of Death in View of the Empty Tomb (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), pp. 47-49.

Zane Hodges on Bible Translation

Recently I came across a statement by the late Zane C. Hodges from a July 1964 Bibliotheca Sacra article in which he's reviewing William F. Beck's New Testament in the Language of Today.¹ In the review, Hodges writes,

"If in Solomon's day it could be affirmed that 'of making many books there is no end,' in our own day it might equally be said that of making many translations there is no end. Indeed, the proliferation of English versions of the Bible in modern times is so bewildering that each additional one ought to be required to furnish compelling justification for its existence."²

While there is, of course, a point to be made there; in response to Hodges I would quote a statement from the NIV's Committee on Bible Translation from June 1978 (revised August 1983), when they say: "There is a sense in which the work of translation is never wholly finished. This applies to all great literature and uniquely so to the Bible."³

ENDNOTES:

¹ This is a Lutheran translation of the Bible called The Holy Bible: An American Translation.

² Bibliotheca Sacra 121 (July 1964), pp. 268-269.

³ From the Preface to The Holy Bible, New International Version (Grand Rapids: The Zondervan Corporation, 1973, 1978, 1984).

Jephthah: A Hero of Faith!

I hear a lot about Jephthah's foolish vow, but not so much about his faith. This should not be. In fact, the Bible never mentions Jephthah's supposed "foolish vow" as such — but it does mention his faith!

   
I was reading about Jephthah in the Old Testament the other day (see Judges 11:1-40), and there was a cross-reference in the margin to Hebrews 11:32. So I turned there in my Bible and read these words:

"And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, about David and Samuel and the prophets, who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies." (Hebrews 11:32-34, NIV) 

   
Let's not forget that Jephthah is in the Bible's "Hall of Fame of Faith". Let's start talking about Jephthah's faith! Did you know that Jephthah is a picture of Christ in the Old Testament? Rejected by his half-brothers, he returns to save them!¹
   
Yes, it can be argued that Jephthah made a foolish vow, and R. A. Torrey in his book Difficulties in the Bible, has written some good thoughts about that issue.² But even if it were true that Jephthah made a foolish vow, let's face it: the Bible is full of men and women who despite their flaws, exhibited great faith in God. For example:

• Abraham was a liar.
• Jacob was a deceiver.
• Moses was a murderer.
• David was an adulterer.
• Samson was a womanizer.
• And the list goes on!³

Hebrews 11:39 says: "These were all commended for their faith" (NIV). There's something to think about! 

ENDNOTES:

¹ Another similarity between Jephthah and Jesus is that in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament (called the Septuagint or LXX), the Greek word archēgos (meaning chief/captain/leader) is used to describe Jephthah. The same Greek word is used to describe Jesus in Acts 3:15, 5:31; Hebrews 2:10, 12:2. For more information see the excellent discussion by J. Julius Scott, Jr. in Bill Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), p. 148.

² See R. A. Torrey, Difficulties In The Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1907), p. 58. A more in-depth discussion is presented by evangelist Don McClain in his slideshow: "Lesson's from Jephthah's Vow". The commentary on Judges 11 in the Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament is also very helpful and instructive. It's available for free on the biblehub.com website.

³ For more examples, see the article on the bible.org website titled "God Can Use us All".

What Gospel Did Paul Preach to the Galatians?

The other day while doing some research, I came across what one groundless gospel advocate has written concerning "Paul's preaching of the gospel to the Galatians as recorded in Acts 13."[1] In the book The Gospel of the Christ, the author Tom Stegall writes: "There, after preaching about Christ being cursed for us on the 'tree,' [Acts 13:29, NKJV] he emphasizes how God raised up His Son from the dead at the resurrection. Immediately after making this point, Paul preaches as a consequence of Christ's resurrection the forgiveness of sins and justification 'through Him' (en toutō) to everyone who believes (Acts 13:38-39)."[2] But after I looked up this passage of Scripture in my Bible, I noticed that what the apostle Paul actually says about Christ in Acts 13 is that "they took Him down from the tree and laid Him in a tomb. But God raised Him from the dead, and for many days He was seen by those who had traveled with Him . . ." (Acts 13:29-31, NIV). This is the biblical gospel; Christ's burial is not skipped over, nor omitted. 

     

Stegall concludes with Paul's statement about justification "through Him" (Gr. en toutōi, i.e. justification "in this man" or "in this one") in Acts 13:39. But Stegall's skipping over Christ's burial is unjustified (i.e. groundless), because the apostle Paul specifically includes in his gospel to the Galatians the fact that Christ's body was "laid in a tomb" (ethēkan eis mnēmeion, Acts 13:29). The fact that Jesus was laid "in a tomb" (Acts 13:29) is part of Paul's gospel which he preached to the Galatians and by which they were "justified" (Acts 13:38-39).
     

The burial of Jesus is part of the saving gospel which the apostle Paul preached to the Galatians and to everyone else (cf. 1 Cor. 15:4). So be careful not to skip over Christ's burial in the gospel!

 

"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1:8-9)

 

ENDNOTES:

[1] Thomas L. Stegall, The Gospel of the Christ (Milwaukee: Grace Gospel Press, 2009), p. 315.

[2] Ibid. Later in his book, Stegall goes on to write: "the burial and post-resurrection appearances of Christ are not technically part of the gospel" (Ibid., p. 578); "the cross and resurrection are elements of the gospel in distinction to the burial and appearances". (Ibid., p. 579.)

The Unedited Gospel

 

This morning in church the pastor prayed " that the unedited Word of God would go forth and convert souls". Amen!

The Classic Presentation of the Gospel

The word classic is used a lot in various contexts: classic cars, classic movies, classic books. What exactly is a classic? And what is "The Classic Presentation of the Gospel"?
  

The late Jack Weaver, founder of the ExPreacherMan ministry, calls attention to “the classic presentation of the Gospel” in a blog comment dated June 1, 2013. This is an excellent comment and it's good to be reminded of these essential truths:

"In 1 Corinthians 15:1-5, we read the classic presentation of the Gospel, reiterated to the Corinthian believers. And in verses 1-2a Paul says: 

“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,…” 

There are three important words which I have capitalized, RECEIVED, STAND and SAVED. The Corinthians had received the Gospel, they stand in the Gospel and are saved by the Gospel which they have believed. 

In that classic Gospel passage Paul uses the word “saved” (Greek: sozo, safe, delivered or protected, healed, preserved, do well, be or make whole), which in that context and any interpretation means eternal life. 

...Let us keep the message simple—but not so simple that it is incomplete. Let’s include the essentials as Paul reminded the believing Corinthians. 

In Jesus Christ eternally, Jack"

"An Original Snapshot" of the Gospel | by Chuck Swindoll

I was greatly blessed and encouraged to hear pastor Chuck Swindoll on the radio yesterday. It was God's perfect timing because I tuned in just in time to hear him make this statement:

“Do your very best to set aside whatever may have been your opinions, your experiences, of the things that had turned you against the church, and let’s let the truth permeate, as Luke records the scene as it took place. . . . Look at [Acts] chapter two, verse 41 . . . . ‘Those who believed’ what Peter said (this is a reference to Peter’s first sermon, which we’ve not taken the time to go into; you’ve read it, and we’ve studied it before); ‘Those who believed’ what Peter said (that’s the Gospel), they believed that Christ died, and was buried, and that Christ rose again from the dead—miraculously and bodily, and was seen by those around Him, and they believed in Jesus Christ with their hearts, and they believed the message, that’s called the Gospel, and the result is they were baptized, and added to the church that day about 3,000.”¹ 

Notice Chuck Swindoll says that in Acts chapter 2 the apostle Peter preached the Gospel consisting of Christ's death, burial, bodily resurrection, and that He was seen...that's called the Gospel! That's the "original" Gospel and the only Gospel—have you believed it? If not, do so today!

 ENDNOTES: 

¹ Chuck Swindoll, “An Original Snapshot of the First Church, Part 2,” Series: The Great Commission, Insight For Living Ministries (Thursday, June 14, 2018, Moody Radio), http://insight.org/broadcasts/player/?bid=3137 (time stamp: 06:37 - 08:21).

John Mark: The Rich Young Ruler?

Most of us are probably familiar with the story of "The Rich Young Ruler" (as he has come to be called) narrated for us in the Gospel accounts (see Matt. 19:16-30; Mk. 10:17-26; and Lk. 18:18-27).

   
The other day I heard one pastor say that the rich young man in the story walked away from Jesus straight into Hell! Actually, all my life I've heard preachers jump to this conclusion about The Rich Young Ruler. I never questioned that conclusion because, after all, the Bible says that the young man walked away from Jesus, right? But why does that have to be the end of the story? And how does that supposed conclusion illustrate Jesus' point that "with God all things are possible" (Mk. 10:27, KJV) - even a rich man getting saved, as hard as that may be! And truly it is difficult. Jesus says that it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get saved!¹

   
Actually, church tradition as well as even clues in the Bible itself support the conclusion that The Rich Young Ruler is none other than John Mark - the writer of the Gospel of Mark!²  Richard Wurmbrand (1909-2001), the founder of The Voice of the Martyrs ministry, writes:

     The work of spreading the gospel [especially] where it is forbidden or hindered must be treated as an emergency.

     The Greek word eutheos, translated in Luke 14:5 as "straightaway" [immediately], is the most characteristic word of Mark's Gospel. It is found more often in Mark than in all the other Gospels combined. The reason is as follows. Tradition identifies Mark as the rich man to whom Jesus said that in order to be perfect he should sell everything he had and give to the poor. It seemed to him at that time too big a price, and he left the place with sadness. Later he repented and fulfilled the commandment of the Lord, but there remained remorse in his heart for the time lost in disobedience. Therefore he repeats continually in his Gospel the word eutheos - straightaway.

     What is good must be done straightaway - immediately. Only this moment is ours. The next moment might belong to death, even if we are young and in perfect health."³

Additionally, I'd like to draw attention to a couple of articles that are especially good on this topic. These articles give more details relating to the clues in the Bible supporting the conclusion that The Rich Young Ruler is John Mark, the writer of the Gospel of Mark. Please click on the following links to read the articles:

• The Place to Begin: Mark 1:1-8 by Ray Stedman (1974)
• John Mark: Screenwriter for Peter's Gospel by Chuck Missler (2001)

Just something to think about . . . John Mark: The Rich Young Ruler turned Gospel Writer! "With God all things are possible!"

ENDNOTES:

¹ But the Lord our God is able! He "gives life to the dead and calls things into existence that do not exist" (Rom. 4:17, CSB). "Everything is possible with God" (Mk. 10:27, NLT)!

² John Mark is mentioned by Luke in the book of Acts (Acts 12:12, 12:25, 13:5, 15:37), by the apostle Paul in some of his letters (Col. 4:10; Philemon 1:24; 2 Tim. 4:11), and also by Peter in his first epistle (see 1 Pet. 5:13).

³ Wurmbrand, In the Face of Surrender (North Brunswick: Bridge-Logos Publishers, 1998), p. 233, italics his, first brackets added. Note: This book has since been updated and revised and is now titled The Overcomers.

A Right Understanding of Romans 4:25

“He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.” (Romans 4:25, NASB) 

 

Sometimes I’ll read in print or I will hear preachers say things like: “Christ paid for our sins by His death and resurrection.” Or in the words of Free Grace author J. B. Hixson: “Jesus Christ...died and rose again to pay one’s personal penalty for sin”.¹ 

 

But did Christ’s resurrection help to pay for our sins? Maybe Christ’s payment wasn’t “finished” (Greek tetelestai = paid in full, Jn. 19:30) on the cross after all? Sometimes Romans 4:25 is misunderstood as teaching this. But I like what Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer has written about it. Chafer writes in Volume 4 of his Systematic Theology:

 

“Because of a complicated translation in the A.V. [the Authorized Version, i.e. the KJV] of Romans 4:25, the impression is abroad that in some way—not well defined—Christ was delivered to death for our sins, but was raised again to the end that believers might be justified. However, justification does not depend on the resurrection of Christ, but on His death; and this particular text really asserts a quite different idea. The A.V. rendering is, ‘Who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification.’ Romans 3:24 states that justification is ‘through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus’; and, again, ‘justified by his blood’ (Rom. 5:9). The sense of Romans 4:25 is that, the ground having been provided for justification by His death, the Lord arose from the grave. Bishop Moule writes in the Cambridge Bible on this verse:

 

     Lit. because of our justification. The construction is identical [i.e., in this and the corresponding phrase earlier]. This, and the balance of the clauses, seem to demand the exposition: ‘He was raised, because our justification was effected;’ not, ‘in order to give us justification,’ as many interpret it. The parallel is complete: ‘We sinned, therefore He suffered: we were justified, therefore He rose.’—To this it is objected that the thought is not doctrinally true; justification being, for each believer, dated not from the Lord’s death, but from the time of faith (see [Rom.] ch. 5.1). But the answer is obvious: the Apostle here states the Ideal of the matter; he means not individual justifications, but the Work which for ever secured Justification for the believing Church. A close parallel is the ‘IT IS FINISHED’ (John 19.30). (See too the ideal language in [Rom.] 8.30; and instructive parallels in Heb. 1.3 and 10.14). In the Divine Idea every future believer was declared to be justified, through an accomplished Propitiation, when Jesus rose. His resurrection proved His acceptance as our Substitute, and therefore our acceptance in Him. No doubt the other interpretation is true as to fact: He was raised that, through the Gospel, (which but for His resurrection would never have been preached,) we might receive justification. But the Gr. [Greek] construction, and the balance of clauses, are certainly in favour of that now given.—‘Romans,’ p. 98.

 

     To the same purpose, F. Godet writes, ‘In the same way, as Jesus died because of our offences, that is our (merited) condemnation, He was raised because of our (accomplished) justification. Our sin had killed Him; our justification raised Him again. How so? The expiation of our trespasses once accomplished by His death, and the right of God’s justice proved in earnest, God could pronounce the collective acquittal of future believers, and He did so. . . . So long as the security is in prison the debt is not paid; the immediate effect of payment would be his liberation. Similarly, if Jesus were not raised, we should be more than ignorant whether our debt were paid: we might be certain that it was not. His resurrection is the proof of our justification, only because it is the necessary effect of it’ (Romans, I, 312, cited by Griffith Thomas, Romans, I, 187).”²

 

ENDNOTES:

¹ J. B. Hixson, Getting the Gospel Wrong (Xulon Press, 2008), pp. 84, 89, 92, 99, 100, 104, 110, 145, 205, 229, 237, 242, 258, 285, 347, ellipsis added. Note: I have already responded to Hixson’s statement in my paper “The Free Grace Gospel Debate”. That article is a more thorough critique of his view and is available here. 

 
² Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1976), 8 vols., vol. 4, pp. 88-89, emphasis and ellipsis his. Note: In the quotation above, the Bible verse references have been updated from Roman numerals to the current format.

What Is the Gospel According to Jesus?

In Galatians 1:11-12 the apostle Paul says that he received his gospel by a "direct revelation from Jesus Christ." Thus, the gospel according to Jesus is the gospel according to Paul! What is Paul's gospel? Donald K. Campbell, the third president of Dallas Theological Seminary, has well said: “The gospel message is simply that ‘Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve’ (1 Cor. 15:3-5). Paul said this was the gospel he preached to the Corinthians and it was the message by which they received salvation.”¹ Similarly, George Meisinger, the founder and first president of Chafer Theological Seminary, has written the following statements which are also very good:

“Paul reveals in [1 Corinthians 15] verses 3b-5 what he considered top priority gospel content. The gospel includes many truths, but 15:3b-5 are the crucial priority of the gospel, which he would preach if he preached nothing else. ‘The stress is on the centrality of these doctrines to the gospel message.’”²

“Now [1 Corinthians] 15:3b-5 forms a unit that answers the question, what is Paul’s priority gospel content…With four ‘that’ (hoti) clauses, the apostle boldly puts forth what he preached/delivered and what the Corinthians received/believed for eternal salvation.

First Aspect of the Priority Content: Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures (15:3b)….

Second Aspect of the Priority Content: He was buried (15:4a)….

Third Aspect of the Priority Content: He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures (15:4b)….

Fourth Aspect of the Priority Content: Christ was seen by multiple eyewitnesses….

The Corinthians, as did all audiences to which the other apostles preached, believed/received the gospel in keeping with the priority content identified in [1 Corinthians] 15:3b-5. It is this content the Corinthians received/believed so that Paul may elsewhere say that they are sanctified in Christ Jesus (1:2, cf. 1:30), washed and justified (6:11), and forgiven (15:17)....1 Corinthians 15:3b-5 when received/believed results in forgiveness.”³

“Paul plainly makes known a sufficient gospel. He received it (from Jesus Christ Himself, Galatians 1:11-12), preached/delivered it as did other apostles, and the Corinthians as thousands of others throughout the Roman Empire received/believed it. What did they preach and receive: Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, was buried, rose the third day according to the scriptures, and was seen by multiple eye-witnesses.”⁴

 

This is the gospel according to Paul, the gospel according to Jesus! 

Are you misquoting Jesus on the gospel?

References:

¹ Donald K. Campbell (DKC), entry for "Gospel", Charles R. Swindoll, General Editor, Roy B. Zuck, Managing Editor, The Theological Wordbook (Nashville: Word Publishing, 2000), p. 142.

² George Meisinger, "The Gospel Paul Preached: A Church Age Model of Evangelistic Content," Chafer Theological Seminary Journal (vol.?, #?), p. 5. Cf. George Meisinger, "First Contact: A Church Age Model of Evangelistic Content," CTSJ 13 (Fall 2008). 

³ Ibid., pp. 5-9, 12, emphasis his.

⁴ Ibid., p. 13.

Why the Gospel Matters!

Have you ever wondered why the Gospel matters? What's the big deal about the Gospel? Here's a great comment on the Gospel by the late Jack Weaver (a.k.a. ExPreacherMan) from his blog, Notes From A Retired Preacher:

"As has been said, stick with the Gospel of God’s Grace — IT is the power of God unto salvation.

The Gospel: 1 Corinthians 15:3-5

Why the Gospel: The Power of God; Romans 1:16

What to do with the Gospel – Believe it; John 3:16

Why we cannot mix Grace with perseverance and “repentance” works – they are not comparable; Romans 11:6

Just some ideas - Be encouraged!!"

This is why the Gospel matters: "because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes," like the Bible says in Romans 1:16!

Tampering with the Gospel

The evangelical Christian author John Stott has well said:

"To tamper with the gospel is to trouble the Church....Indeed, the Church's greatest troublemakers (now as then) are not those outside who oppose, ridicule and persecute it, but those inside who try to change the gospel....Conversely, the only way to be a good churchman is to be a good gospel-man. The best way to serve the Church is to believe and to preach the gospel."¹

Ironically, even Tom Stegall of Duluth Bible Church, after tampering with the gospel by removing Christ's burial from his former church's doctrinal statement on the "SOLE CONDITION FOR SALVATION" (i.e. the gospel), writes: "the wickedest transgression according to the Word of God is tampering with the gospel."²


ENDNOTES:

¹ John Stott, The Message of Galatians (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1968), "The Bible Speaks Today."

² Tom Stegall, "The Tragedy of the Crossless Gospel Pt. 9," The Grace Family Journal (Special Edition 2008), p. 1.