Why can't we use Paul's definition in I Corinthians?

By Jesus Christ perfect life, death, burial and ressurection Christ was worthy to place [impute] His perfect character on us so as we repent of sin so we can be declared righeteous by God. Our sins were placed on Christ on the cross as he paid for our sins in breaking the law of God and we made peace with God as God's wrath was poured on Christ that was meant for us in paying God's price for trnsgression against Him.
Simple definition and not original> Gospel=Glorious transaction.

One of things that I kept thinking about in class was the difference between a gospel definition and a gospel presentation (I think I remember Tim Keller preaching on this somewhere...but I don't remember where).

I would think that I gospel definition needs to contain both God-Man-Christ-Response and Creation-Fall-Redemption-Restoration because both are presented as the "good news" in scripture. A gospel definition can stand by itself outside of the response of man.

But it is also clear that a gospel presentation isn't always going to contain all elements of God-Man-Christ-Response and Creation-Fall-Redemption-Restoration in each one. Some will be saved by preaching God-Man-Christ-Response and some will be saved by preaching Creation-Fall-Redemption-Restoration. Some God will save with the presentation of both.

If anyone cares...I'm leaning the simplicity route of Packer and defining the gospel as:

God saves sinners...reconciles the world.

The Gospel is what God has done to fix us. We are broken in our sin. Broken in comparison to our original design. We need to realize we are broken, let God fix us, then function as God has designed us to function, which is to make Him look good to the rest of the broken world so they might want to be fixed by Him as well.

Here is the url from the talk done by Tim Keller:
http://www.acts29network.org/sermon/dwelling-in-the-gospel/

As soon as we include our response in our definition of the gospel, it ceases to be news and becomes instruction and direction. It ceases to become gospel and becomes law. Our response to the gospel is important. But it's only the GOSPEL if it's the good news of what someone else has done to save me quite apart from my help.

Interesting that Paul talks about the coming judgment as part of his Gospel:

Acts 24:24-25 - Paul discourses to Felix about 'righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come' and then in Romans 2:16 Paul says this - "This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares."

Just an observation and addition to the discussion.

Here is a post from a group blog of which I am one of the admins (though I did not write this particular post myself):

http://civitatedei.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/what-is-the-gospel/

Hey Ed! This is so important, as how we define these terms make all the difference in how we go about ministry.

I'd love to hear your definition and some discussion on "mission". Because how we define "missional" or "mission" then determines how we determine the goal(s) of the mission. So often the defintion is very fuzzy or said so theoretical that we can't determine what do we look for or strive for to see if we are accomplishing the mission (or God doing it through us, I should say). But without goals of what our mission specifically is - then we can go along saying we are on mission or missional but we aren't moving towards anything. Mission has to have goals of what the mission is.

ANyway, those are some thoughts at the end of the day here in northern California.....

I think as Paul and others in Scripture address the gospel they address both of these aspects of the gospel. The two are inseparable.

It is not possible to take one and leave out the other. They are intertwined- God-Creation, Man-Fall, Christ-Redemption, Restoration-Response.

I agree with whoever said it - there's a difference in our definition and our presentation of the gospel. The elements we present are the ones needed for the hearers. In Acts 2 Peter preached the Fulfillment of prophecy and the Davidic throne and kingdom aspect of the gospel. That's another thread in the Kerygma that you've not even brought up in the post above. Harry Lee Poe's book The Gospel and it's Meaning is a great resource for this discussion - I highly recommend it. He breaks down the elements of the gospel: Creator God, Scripture and fulfillment, Son of God/Son of David, Death for Sins, Raised from the Dead (the Resurrection), Exaltation, The Gift of the Holy Spirit, The Return of Christ, and Human Response.

I will add that the gospel always calls for a response - this is not good news initiated by a man but it is a message initiated by God which we proclaim. As Paul said at Mars Hill the basic message that God had overlooked such sins in the past - but now he's appointed a man and a day by which to judge the world.

Athanasias would also be a good read on the blended or combined understanding of the creation/restoration message and the legal/atonement message.

Peace.
Paul

Paul, the gospel does CALL for a response. But if we include that response in what the gospel is, we dilute its character as NEWS. We've got to be careful to not let gospel implications, applications, and results become the gospel itself. Calling for response is important and necessary, but it's not the gospel.

I think it is both, Ed. And I think this is all helpful. In our context as SBCers I have been struck by another facet of this, and that is our tendency to give as little of the gospel as possible instead of giving as much as we can when we preach/share the good news. Someone with a Christian worldview may be able to understand with a brief explanation. But more and more need a fuller understanding, and in my own ministry sharing Creation-Fall-Redemption-Restoration has helped many to grasp the greatness of the gospel. For believers this has been particularly helpful in explaining what it means to be gospel-centered in all of life.
I will confess that my recent Evangelism Handbook, unlike my Introduction to Evangelism from over a decade ago, has a much more robust commentary on what the gospel is. I have realized after teaching many years that many have settled for an institutionalized, veneer gospel rather than the amazing story we have to share. Thanks for this helpful information.

In thinking about this recently, I've begun thinking that the gospel is the the good news that Jesus is Lord. As the person who has conquered Satan, sin, and death, he now sits on the throne in heaven and has Lordship over all. So, I would say that all the things that are being discussed here are under that umbrella. Because he is Lord, his kingdom is advancing. Because he is Lord, he is redeeming those whom the Father has given him and all of creation. Because he is Lord, he will judge. Because he is Lord, he saves.

Ed,

I like the definition you gave and several others that have been given. The question I have is: do our definitions leave room for gospel to be both a declaration and a command? For example: 2 Thessalonians 1:8 Paul talks about the coming wrath and vengeance "on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus."

So my question is should our definitions be constructed in such a way that they present a command to be obeyed?

Hope this makes sense.

I think as I have grown older I have realized that for so long I equated the gospel simply as the good news at the point of salvation. That felt limited to me as no one really spoke of the good news (gospel) being for both initial salvation and also for every day Christian living. I still need the gospel just as much today as I did at the day of my salvation. That's hope and good news.

Hey, Ed, my Mom was an English teacher who used to make us diagram sentences. I remember her having me diagram some of Paul's long statements for one of our youth group meetings in the 1960s...I was reminded of that when I read your 'working definition.' Good stuff, despite the mental stops and starts neccessary to understand the definition.

The discussion above about whether or not 'our response' should be included in the definition reminds me of something my old Religion professor from college (Dr. Joe Baskin) did at a church where he was serving as interim. The building was constructed so that the congregation exited through just one double doorway in the back. He went to a local craftsman and had a big brass plaque engraved with large letters and placed it over the exit, so that church members leaving after the sermon could not miss it. Here's what it said... "Well, what are YOU going to do about it?"

Everything that I've read so far deals with Paul's definition or comments on the gospel and all of it is post resurrection. Check out this passage in Luke 9 where Jesus sends out the 12. verse 6 says, "Departing, they began going throughout the villages, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere." How does that passage inform our definition of the gospel? How did they preach the gospel? What did they preach that was considered the gospel? They had no clue about Jesus dying and being resurrected yet. Thoughts?

Ed,
Great discussion! Thank you.

As some have alluded to above, I think the key is distinguishing the message of the gospel from what we might call the larger context in which the gospel is found.

Accordingly, Creation-Fall-Redemption-Restoration serves as the broad context in which the gospel itself is found. Therefore, it is perhaps most appropriate to view "the gospel" proper (the sinless life - sacrificial death - bodily resurrection - glorious ascention of Christ) as the Redemption "piece" of God's overall plan. It is important to note, however, that even when reading a book, the meaning and significance of a particular chapter is best seen when located within the larger context of the book as a whole. We even emphasize the importance of understanding and utilizing the issue of context in preaching. It is, then, in this larger Creation-Fall-Redemption-Restoration context that "the gospel" is best understood to be the "Good News" that it indeed is.

In summary, the full context perhaps is not properly said to BE "the gospel," but provides the appropriate, and perhaps even necessary, background within which the gospel best makes sense and will be understood by the hearer.

I pray that your discussion will challenge us all not simply toward a better UNDERSTANDING of the gospel but a more faithful PROCLAMATION of it!

For God's Glory,
Randy

I love your definition, but was thinking should the Gospel contain all three persons of the trinity or would that be moving into the area of response? I noticed Carson has it and some of the other but you dont, was just wondering on your thoughts or reasons...

I wonder if the Gospel can ever be distilled into a little neat sentence definition. Don't get me wrong, it's important to understand what the Gospel is (and therefore we would know how to proclaim it). But a domesticated Gospel is powerless. It is an undomesticated Gospel that is always threatening, dangerous
and wild. It is that Gospel which propels us (the church) into the unknown and the uncomfortable.

Martin Luther -
This difference between the Law and the Gospel is the height of knowledge in Christendom. Every person and all persons who assume or glory in the name of Christian should know and be able to state this difference. If this ability is lacking, one cannot tell a Christian from a heathen or a Jew; of such supreme importance is this differentiation. This is why St. Paul so strongly insists on a clean-cut and proper differentiating of these two doctrines.

Theodore Beza -
We divide this Word into two principal parts or kinds: the one is called the 'Law,' the other the 'Gospel.' For all the rest can be gathered under the one or other of these two headings...Ignorance of this distinction between Law and Gospel is one of the principal sources of the abuses which corrupted and still corrupt Christianity.

C.H. Spurgeon -
There is no point on which men make greater mistakes than on the relation which exists between the law and the gospel. Some men put the law instead of the gospel; others put gospel instead of the law. A certain class maintains that the law and the gospel are mixed...These men understand not the truth and are false teachers.

J. Gresham Machen -
A new and more powerful proclamation of law is perhaps the most pressing need of the hour; men would have little difficulty with the gospel if they had only learned the lesson of the law. As it is, they are turning aside from the Christian pathway; they are turning to the village of Morality, and to the house of Mr. Legality, who is reported to be very skillful in relieving men of their burdens... 'Making Christ Master' in the life, putting into practice 'the principles of Christ' by one's own efforts-these are merely new ways of earning salvation by one's obedience to God's commands.

Clinton,

A good question. How do you see the Spirit as part of the gospel?

Erik, good question. The term translated "gospel" is used in several different ways in the text of the New Testament.

Alvin, no question to me that younger evangelicals are more attracted to creation-fall-redemption-creation. I do worry about what that means long term.

Ed

Paul, the gospel does CALL for a response. But if we include that response in what the gospel is, we dilute its character as NEWS

Gene I simply cannot agree with you - the gospel comes implicit with NEWS that God is calling for a response. That's part of the news. Remember, the NEWS that John the Baptizer and then Jesus began preaching concerning the Kingdom: "Repent for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand." That was NEWS - and implicit within that message was the call for action based upon that news - a call for a response. So, fundamental is the gospel message - fundamental to the state of every human life and circumstance that if presenting it doesn't command nor demand a response - then it is not being delivered IMHO. News: "Sir you're house is on fire." Good News: "Sir, I see you're trapped in your burning house, follow me I know a safe way out."

Now, in every interaction or correspondence concerning the gospel the "response" we seek might not be the full on "decide now to be a christian or not" response. That's silly and assumes that presenting the gospel is a one time event as opposed to a process, series of events, or successive conversations, and even successive interactions between a lost person and many christians over time. But, each element presented does call for a assent or does pose a question and we should not shrink from that. We need not pin a person to the ground with our knees and make them say the "Uncle" of "Repetance" - but for example when in conversation we speak on the existence of God vs God's non existence - our very statement: "I believe there is a God who exists, and a God you can know, and even more I know this God, and even more this God enjoys my company, etc.," holds within it a call for a response - not a "decide now" response - but if this is to be a conversation as opposed to a lecture on our parts to poor sinners - then we need to ask, and listen to how they respond to the aspect of even an element of the gospel as I just presented. Good News must effect the status and situation of an individual so as to bring about some response - otherwise it's either not good, nor news.

I noticed my link to Athanasius didn't work above - so I thought I'd put it back in - because he does meld the two tracks in his discussion on the Incarnation. http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm

Clinton above mentions the Holy Spirit and we we can see Acts 2:33 where Peter includes the Holy Spirit as part of the gospel presentation. In Acts 2:38 it is even more clear.

I'll make note again using Acts 2:38 that a call for response is a part of the gospel message - or good news. You can repent and be forgiven and receive the Holy Spirit.

This fits in with the Jesus is Lord thread or approach that someone mentioned above - falling under the exaltation element in the gospel's content.

My greater question for Ed is something like this. Is there some elements in the church which view the gospel as an either/or vs a both/and when it comes to the two threads - creator-restoration vs God/man - reconciliation aspects of the gospel? I'm not sure what the reason would be for one group to espouse one of these over the other - unless that is exactly what is happening - that people would abandon the legal/justification aspect of the message for the utopian views which were caused in the early 1900's among groups that espoused a more creator/restoration version of the gospel and slipped from there to a cause oriented, better world YMCA version of the faith?

my favorite:

"The 'gospel' is the good news that through Jesus, the Messiah, the power of God's kingdom has entered history to renew the whole world. ... When we believe and rely on Jesus' work and record (rather than ours) for our relationship to God, that kingdom power comes upon us and begins to work through us.... The gospel motivates, guides, and empowers every aspect of our living and worship."

-- Jim Belcher, Deep Church, p. 120-121

Here is a chiastic locution I am just beginning to work with - maybe not fully a definition of the gospel - but this discussion and some current readings in Pascal, Schaeffer, and Athanasius (and of course John 1) mixed together with this post by Ed to bring about this (a work in progress):

God's Son, the Word that made us in His image, became flesh and dwelt among us, being made in every way like us, that we might be made like Him, not gods, but God's.

Thanks for the discussion people. I hope we can reach some clarity Gene - I might not be hearing what you are saying on some level.

Peace.
Paul

IMHO, someone understands the gospel when they grasp "God, be merciful, to me, a sinner."
-God = a recognition of almighty God
-be merciful + a minimal recognition of grace
-to me = salvation is for individuals
-a sinner = ...and I need salvation

Thanks for that Phil. The Hesychastic have long argued that their use of "The Jesus Prayer" from the story of the Pharisee and the Publican was a constant reminder of the gospel. I'm not against the Orthodox view nor defending it here - but simply noting the long tradition that the prayer you mentioned above is very much a short but surprisingly full version of the gospel. Thanks.

Ed,

I was thinking Romans 1:4... Maybe something like: -

"...we might gain through His grace and the power of the Holy Spirit (or God the Spirit) what the Bible defines as new and eternal life."

Part of the 'joy news' is that we dont have to go it alone, or maybe I am on the verge of response!

Grace,
Clinton

Great post Ed.
Thanks.
I like your definition.
I think the only thing it is missing is a statement that Jesus is God.

Pat

I think that we have at least 4 strong examples of what Gospel is: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The gospel is the story of Christ. Through his words and his works we discover who he is and what he expects of us. I believe that Paul spoke the gospel (the life of Christ) to each church where he went. Every mention of "gospel" in his epistles could refer to these stories of Christ. He vividly portrayed Christ crucified. He taught about the upper room. His dissertations about forgiveness by faith are probably based on Jesus' acts of forgiving people without requiring any prior actions or law steps. All these teachings were based on the gospel - the life words and actions of Christ (and were of course also consistent with Old Testament Scriptures).
Preaching the gospel therefore is simply preaching Christ - who he is and what he has done. Believing the gospel is simply believing Christ. It is a personal thing, not a doctrinal thing. We believe who he is and are continually getting to know him better. Thus, even those who have been believers for decades need more of the gospel in order to get to know Christ better.

I would agree that any definition that attempts to encompass the whole of the Gospel must certainly be a Creation-Fall-Redemption-Restoration type of answer. We cannot limit the work of the Cross as something that only has value for mankind because we must view the cross the way the Bible does. And when we see the vast difference between the "before" and "after" worlds we must certainly conclude that the cross has significant meaning for ALL of creation.

Gen 3:14-19 God's curse falls not only on Adam and Eve but also on the serpent, the ground, and the plants. And from this point on there is a steal/unwillfully given transaction between all created orders. (eg. plants are now used to make clothes to cover the same from our's sin)

We also see the prophetic views of the OT exhibiting a distinct emphasis not only on mankind but also on every other created order. Isaiah 55 for instance shows God's invitation to the thirsty will not only quench the thirst of mankind but also the mountains, hills, and fields!

Also, it seems to me that many who disagree with this type of assessment do so because of the appearance of a "lack" of emphasis on Christ. I should also say it is apparent in the wording of the 2 sets of beliefs presented in this article. However, we must remember that a Redemption could never have been possible without Jesus! Our redemption and the redemption is only possible though Christ. But I should also mention that Jesus's work on the Cross does has a specific bent toward that of humankind. We cannot forget that it was Jesus' sinless life that provided for the defeat of sin. And this shows us God's distinct love for all the people of the earth as he lived and died to not only conquer death (all created order) but also to give us power to live a sinless life that is available only to humankind!

The Gospel is such a glorious thing that impacts the entire created order so as to bring everything back to it's Eden state! Praise be to God for his work in redemption!!

This is one of the best discussions I have seen about what the nature of the Gospel is. To be honest, I have never asked myself some of these questions. I think, in particular, the comments about what we do with the Gospel, "manning it up," loading it with definition and a requirement for response has a profound effect on changing its very nature. Thanks to all of you for posting your comments.