The Sum and Substance of the Gospel
An inquiry to understand what the
minimum requirements are in the Gospel message for someone to be saved.
An
inquiry into the substance of the Gospel
by
Dr. C. Matthew McMahon
Introduction
The
question posed – what is the substance of the Gospel?
There
is much talk today in Calvinistic circles about the message of the Gospel.
Not that the Gospel is incomplete and it needs some refurbishing;
but many are wondering about the essence of the Gospel.
In other words, thoughtful Calvinists are asking, “What is the
sum and substance of the Gospel?” We
may even ask it this way, “What do people need to know, in terms of the
Gospel message, in order to be saved?”
Calvinists are asking this question in order to understand the
manner in which the Lord saves. For instance, there are Calvinists who believe that men are
only saved if they adhere to the doctrines of grace found in the acronym
TULIP. Other Calvinists say
that Arminian preaching contains enough of the Gospel message for men to
be converted. Others even say
that the entire Gospel message, “the good news,” is contained in John
11:35, “Jesus wept,” and that would be all God needs to convert a man.
Various Calvinistic interpretations have been given.
But the question still remains – “what is the Gospel?” What
do men need to know to be saved? This
question has been the subject of millions of pages and thousands of books.
The Puritans gave themselves over to this topic time and time
again. In this brief paper I
hope to tackle the main point of contention, and explain the biblical
position, and the orthodox position of the church for the last 2000 years.
Every
Calvinist would vehemently agree that God saves people in and through His
Word preached, by the application of that Word through the Holy Spirit.
The finished work of Christ’s birth, life, death, burial,
resurrection and intercession is applied in and through the Word.
It is not by osmosis that conversions take place.
They do not take place in a vacuum.
Men are never converted without the Word read, or the preaching of
the Word. The confessions of
the church bear this out distinctly.
The Belgic Confession, in Article 22, states the following,
“We believe that, to attain the true knowledge of this great mystery,
the Holy Spirit kindles in our hearts an upright faith, which embraces
Jesus Christ with all His merits, appropriates Him, and seeks nothing more
besides Him.” This
“kindling” or regenerative power is of the Holy Spirit alone.
The Synod of Dort states in 3-4:6, “God performs by the
operation of the Holy Spirit through the word or ministry of
reconciliation; which is the glad tidings concerning the Messiah, by means
whereof it has pleased God to save such as believe, as well under the Old
as under the New Testament.” The
glad tidings of the Messiah are preached, or read, but always communicated
through the Word. In 3-4:11
it is even more specific, “But when God accomplishes His good pleasure
in the elect, or works in them true conversion, He not only causes the
Gospel to be externally preached to them, and powerfully illuminates their
minds by His Holy Spirit, that they may rightly understand and discern the
things of the Spirit of God; but by the efficacy of the same regenerating
Spirit He pervades the inmost recesses of man; He opens the closed and
softens the hardened heart, and circumcises that which was uncircumcised;
infuses new qualities into the will, which, though heretofore dead, He
quickens; from being evil, disobedient, and refractory, He renders it
good, obedient, and pliable; actuates and strengthens it, that like a good
tree, it may bring forth the fruits of good actions.”
The Westminster Confession’s Chapter 10 is even more
poignant, “All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those
only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to
call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which
they are by nature, to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening
their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God,
taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh;
renewing their wills, and, by his almighty power, determining them to that
which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as
they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.”
The Scriptures on this point abound: Acts 13:48; Rom. 4:28, 30;
11:7; Eph. 1:5, 11; II Tim. 1:9-10; II Thess. 2:13-14; James 1:18; II Cor.
3:3, 6; I Cor. 2:12; II Tim. 1:9-10; I Peter 2:9; Rom 8:2; Eph. 2:1-10;
Acts 26:18; I Cor. 2:10, 12; Eph. 1:17-18; II Cor. 4:6; Ezek. 36:26; Ezek.
11:19; 36:27; Deut. 30:6; John 3:5; Titus 3:5; I Peter 1:23; John 6:44-45;
Acts 16:14; Psa. 110:3; John 6:37; Matt. 11:28; Rev. 22:17; Rom. 6:16-18;
Eph. 2:8; Phil 1:29.
All biblically thinking people
agree that the Word of God is always involved in the conversion of anyone.
No one who knows the Bible to some degree would say that men could
be saved without the Word of God, and of some knowledge of it.
Only heretics say that men can be saved without the Word of God.
Orthodox theologians have, for centuries, believed that the Word
plays an integral part in the Holy Spirit’s work upon the soul. The Holy
Spirit applies the redemption of Christ by the Word to the soul.
The Word is the means by which the soul is converted and changed.
But the question at hand concerning the Gospel is much different
– it is much more than this.
There
are 66 books of the Bible. All
of the content in those 66 books is 100% God inspired.
It is the infallible and inerrant Word of the Living God.
Hebrews 4:12 says, “For
the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged
sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and
marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”
It is very powerful! The
question is not asking us if the Word of God is actually the Word of
God, but the question surrounds the substance of the “good news”
or “Gospel message.” Everyone agrees that the Bible is the Word of God.
Everyone agrees that only the Word of God can convert the soul.
But it is imperative that one does not finish the syllogism by
saying that any part of the Word of God in and of itself is able to convey
the message of the “good news of God.”
No good Calvinist would ever say that John 11:35 is not God’s
Word. But every good Calvinist would say that John 11:35 in and of
itself is not the Gospel. There
is much more to the Gospel than simply saying, “Jesus wept.” It is very important to understand this point.
John 11:35 is the Word of God.
But John 11:35 is not the Gospel.
That is a whole other matter, which we will hopefully see at the
end of this paper.
General
Revelation Insufficient to Save Anyone
General Revelation is totally
and utterly insufficient to convert the soul.
General Revelation is the manifestation of God’s attributes
(those which can be seen) as Creator.
This is where the Creator/creature distinction is found.
The creature can look to the birds, the hills, the waters, the
insects, the stars, even to himself, and see that there is a Creator with
ultimate power behind the universe. However,
they cannot name Him. They do
not know that this Creator is Jesus Christ.
And as a result of this, they cannot know the Gospel by looking to
the stars in the heavens. Without
the Gospel men are not converted. Men
cannot look to the created order of nature and find the Gospel.
The Gospel is not found there.
Surely, good things about God can be seen there, but the Gospel
cannot be seen there. Romans
1:20 states, “For since the
creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and
Godhead, so that they are without excuse.”
The power of God is seen in creation, but the power of the Gospel
to save is not seen in creation. Christ
cannot be gleaned from General Revelation.
The plight of the native in distant lands then becomes apparent.
Christ’s words in Acts 1:8 vividly command us to carry this
Gospel to the ends of the earth because those at the ends of the earth do
not have it; “and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all
Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”
If General Revelation provided a witness of Christ, then this
command would be irrelevant, and the missionary journeys of Paul and Peter
meticulous observed by Luke, would also be irrelevant.
(Now, many more arguments surround this idea. But this suffices for the moment.)
Special
Revelation Needed to know Jesus Christ
Special Revelation is either of
two sorts: it is either the physical manifestations of the Word of God
conveyed, (whether by theophanies, special angelic appearances, or in the
incarnation of Jesus Christ), or it is by the canonized Word of God in the
66 books of the Bible. Special
Revelation is different than General Revelation since it defines the
information surrounding the Gospel, and the only Savior Jesus Christ.
Acts 17:26-27 explains to us that until the Gospel had been
revealed in Jesus Christ, and was extended, by God’s mercy, to the whole
world in its proclamation, there were entire nations who groped in the
darkness after things they did not understand or know.
The pagan nations had created a form of religion stemming from
their debased minds. However,
the true religion of God, found only in the Word of God and the Gospel,
had not been in their grasp. The
text says, “And He has made
from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth,
and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their
dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might
grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us.”
Though God is the Sustainer of their very being (Acts 17:28), these
men still grope after Him because they do not find the Gospel in General
Revelation. They are in a
dark room looking for a light switch that is really on the ceiling.
General Revelation will only make men sensible of their
creatureliness and will, in cases when men actually sit down and think
through metaphysics, supply them with the information that God is the
Judge of universe and they are found wanting because they are not perfect.
It will not, however, supply them with a Savior; only the
possibility or need of one. Special
Revelation supplies them with the distinct and purposeful plan of God, and
the ultimate fulfillment of that plan in the Redeemer, Jesus Christ.
Only special Revelation is adequate to free men from spiritual
bondage. Romans 8:15 says,
“For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you
received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba,
Father.”” The Spirit of
Adoption refers to the application of the work of Jesus Christ on the
souls of His elect through the power of the Spirit who ministers the
reality of that adoption to us. A
clear statement of this contrast between general and special revelation
can be seen in the first line of The Westminster Confession on the Holy
Scriptures, “Although the light of nature, and the works of creation
and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God,
as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that
knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation.”
(Rom. 1:19-20; 1:32-2:1; 2:14-15; Psa. 19:1-4)
In preaching the Gospel to men
who need to be converted, Paul says that this takes place when he preaches
special revelation, or, “Christ crucified.” (1 Corinthians 1:21)
It is in the message of the eunagelion of God that the
herald (karusso) of the Gospel performs the preaching which is the
manner of power for the application and quickening power of the Spirit to
enact conversion. Without the
Gospel in its special revelatory aim, men will not be saved. No one can be saved without the Gospel, the good news of God.
The equivalency of the word “Gospel” and “good news” in the
New Testament abounds. It is
used over 41 times as a noun alone. There are a variety of derivatives and verb uses of the word
throughout the New Testament, as well 28 instances of the word used in
various ways in the LXX.
Knowledge
is Needed to Know Jesus Christ
To say men need special
revelation to be saved argues vehemently that men need knowledge to be
saved. Men cannot be saved
without knowledge. Calvin
says, “By this knowledge, I
say, not by the submission of our sense, we obtain entrance into the
kingdom of God.”
How can men enter the Kingdom of God by anything but “spiritual
perceptions” of the truth? (John 3:3)
Turretin speaks well on this issue and I quote him at length:
“It
is evident that knowledge is included in faith. (1) It is defined by
knowledge: "This is life eternal, that they may know thee" (Jn.
17:3). Nor is this referred
only to the intuitive knowledge in heaven, but it ought to be extended
to the saving knowledge required on the way which Christ proposes as the
certain and infallible means of obtaining that life and by which it is
begun in us (1 Jn. 5:13). "By his knowledge shall my righteous
servant justify many" (i.e., by faith which alone justifies us, Is.
53:11). Hence elsewhere its
act is described by understanding: “Through faith we understand that the
worlds were framed by the word of God" (Heb. 11:3).
"And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the
Son of the living God" (Jn. 6:69).
Here knowledge is added to faith to explain it, to intimate that
it is placed in knowledge. Elsewhere
faith is expressed by "full assurance of understanding" [plerophorian
syneseos, Col. 2:2) and by "knowledge of the truth" (epignoin
aletheias, 2 Tim. 3:7). (2)
Faith and the word are related (Rom. 10:17; Jn. 6:45).
Therefore, where faith is, there knowledge ought to be because the
word cannot be believed or received unless it be known; for as there is no
desire of, so neither is there assent to what is unknown. And if faith is from the hearing of the word and from the
instruction of the Father ("Whoever hath heard and hath learned of
the Father cometh to Christ," Jn. 6:45), how can it be without
knowledge? Can the believer be God-taught (theodidaktos) without a
knowledge of the things which are taught by God?
(3)
We are commanded to make confession of our faith and to give a reason for
it: "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with
the mouth, confession is made unto salvation" (Rom. 10:10).
"Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a
reason of the hope that is in you" (1 Pet. 3:15). Therefore knowledge
is necessary in faith. For who will say that a confession can be made and
a reason given for things unknown? (4)
Knowledge is everywhere required in faith. Hence the "word of
faith" is called the "wisdom and understanding" of
believers (Dt. 4:6). "I
am now come forth," said the angel, "to give thee skill and
understanding. Understand the matter, and consider the vision" (Dan.
9:22, 23*). Christ commands us to "search the Scriptures" (Jn.
5:39), which cannot be done without that act of the mind by which
knowledge is acquired. The Bereans are praised because they did not
inconsiderately believe what they heard from Paul, but diligently
investigated their agreement with the Scriptures, searching the Scriptures
(andkrinontes tas graphas, Acts 17:11). And elsewhere Paul praises
the Corinthians because they were enriched in all knowledge (1 Cor. 1:5),
and challenges their judgment: "Judge ye what I say: I speak as to
wise men" (1 Cor. 10:15). He
enjoins upon the Colossians the knowledge and understanding of mysteries
(Col. 2*:2*, 3*).”
Turretin rightly shows the
intimate connection between the faith that we have instantaneously been
given in the act of regeneration, and a faith which requires us to know
something about the One we are trusting in.
If faith is devoid of knowledge, then Turretin rhetorically asks,
“Can a believer be taught of God without knowledge?”
How then could someone come to Christ who is not taught of
Christ?
Knowledge is also argued well in this light when Turretin shows
that faith and trust, being coessential, are the application of knowing
something as good. A
person would never trust in something they did not know was good.
He says, “The objects of justifying faith, proper and
specific…are the promises of the gospel, which cannot be received except
by trust because they are proposed not only as true, but also as good.”
Men see the goodness of the propositions given to them and trust
they are true and good. The Spirit works this into their souls and justifying faith
is a result.
1
Corinthians 1:21
It is very easy to see the
wisdom of God working in the special revelation of His Son to fallen men
through heralds. These
are specific men with a specific message.
If the message did not matter, or God used anything to convert men,
then the formal idea of a “herald” in the New Testament is not needed.
1 Corinthians 1:21 makes a striking statement of the manner in
which men are converted, “For
since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it
pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those
who believe.” It is
interesting to note that it is through the preaching of the “message”
which men are saved. The
“message preached,” is also more accurately translated
“preaching.” It is the
Greek word kh,rugma
(kerugma {kay'-roog-mah}) where
in the New Testament it refers to the “the message or proclamation of
the heralds of God or Christ.”
This connotation is used throughout the New Testament as the
special message of the herald of salvation found in Jesus Christ, the
Mediator and Messiah of God (Matthew 12:41; Luke 11:32 (of Jonah’s
preaching); Rom. 16:25 (the Gospel “heralded”) 1 Co. 2:4 (the
demonstration of preaching as power in the Spirit) 1 Co. 15:14 (the
preacing of the risen Christ); 2 Tim. 4:17 (preaching to the gentiles that
the may be saved); Titus 1:3 (the Word is the preached Word according to
the command to repent and believe).
Certain
Scriptural Examples of Inefficiency
In understanding that the Gospel
(which is the Word of God and is greater than General Revelation) is a
specific message preached by specific kinds of men (heralds), and in this
message alone the Spirit of Adoption applies the finished work of Christ
to the souls of men, we would need to survey a few areas of the Bible and
ask the question as to whether or not certain portions of the Word of God
actually contain the Gospel, or, are certain portions silent on the
matters of the Gospel which save. It
is important to note that every portion of the Word of God is the Word of
God. I am not trying to
weaken or misuse the Word of God in general.
Let it be said again that I believe all of the Word of God is the
infallible and inerrant Word. But
not all of the Word is the Gospel, and only the Gospel saves because only
the Gospel is the Gospel.
Let me set the stage for our
inquiry here. Let us say you
are a minister of the Gospel and desire to preach to the
“Hitchiwatchi” Indians in the Amazon.
These people have been unaffected by technology and have, for all
intents and purposes, been unaffected in the manner in which they live for
1000 years. They are lost,
depraved souls who need the Gospel preached to them.
Let us imagine that by some “providential appointment” you gain
a manuscript of some of the writings of these people – as crude as it is
. Let us imagine you learn
their language. Let us
imagine you have funding for the trip out there.
All of the typical side issues are dealt with and you come face to
face with the Hitchiwacthi Indians. What
do you say to them? What is
the Gospel message you will bring to them?
What would you not say to them?
Here you are ready to preach to
the Hitchiwatchi Indians. Where do you open your Bible?
Let us imagine you turn to Genesis 11:29, where the text reads, “And
Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and
the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of
Milcah, and the father of Iscah.” Now,
it is with all certainly that this passage is the Word of God.
It is inspired, and it is without error.
However, it is not the Gospel.
There are no Gospel elements to this portion of Scripture in any
manner. The kerygma of
God would not be able to stand on top of a log and preach this verse to
the Hitchiwatchi Indians expecting them to come to faith in believing on
Jesus Christ. Let us imagine
that you as the preacher then decided this text was not working after
reading it, so you turned to 1 Chronicles 7:1 and read, “Now the sons of
Issachar were, Tola, and Puah, Jashub, and Shimron, four.”
Unfortunately, the Hitchiwatchi Indians simply look on with a
puzzled face. In knowing that
these people still seemed a bit disoriented by your choice of texts, you
turn to Esther 5:1-5 and read it. “Now
it happened on the third day that Esther put on her royal robes and stood
in the inner court of the king's palace, across from the king's house,
while the king sat on his royal throne in the royal house, facing the
entrance of the house. So it was, when the king saw Queen Esther standing in the
court, that she found favor in his sight, and the king held out to Esther
the golden scepter that was in his hand. Then Esther went near and touched
the top of the scepter. And
the king said to her, "What do you wish, Queen Esther? What is your
request? It shall be given to you -- up to half the kingdom!"
So Esther answered, "If it pleases the king, let the king and
Haman come today to the banquet that I have prepared for him." Then
the king said, "Bring Haman quickly, that he may do as Esther has
said." So the king and Haman went to the banquet that Esther had
prepared.” It is a nice
little passage and the Hitchiwatchi Indians seem to like the idea of a
king and queen, even eating at a banquet.
But again, there is no Gospel message here.
In desperation you turn to the New Testament hoping you will have
better “luck” there. You
turn to the historical narrative of Acts 28:3-6 where Luke records for us,
“But when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and laid them on
the fire, a viper came out because of the heat, and fastened on his
hand. So when the natives saw
the creature hanging from his hand, they said to one another, "No
doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he has escaped the sea, yet
justice does not allow to live."
But he shook off the creature into the fire and suffered no harm.
However, they were expecting that he would swell up or suddenly
fall down dead. But after they had looked for a long time and saw no harm
come to him, they changed their minds and said that he was a god.”
The Indians seem to respond in amazement.
They know of the sting of vipers, snakes, asps, and the like.
Could it be that the thunder god they worship in their back tent
could be this “Paul” of the text?
Should they bow down and pray to Paul?
In seeing their amazement, you quickly turn back to the Gospels to
John 11:35. “Jesus wept.” The Hitchiwatchi Indians stop shuffling.
Jesus is said to have wept. He
cried. But who is he?
No mention of how he is related to Abraham.
Esther had not mentioned him.
Chronicles did not name him. The
text from the book of Acts did not say anything about him – there was
just a “Paul” in that text. So,
who is this Jesus?
I hope it is obvious that the
good news of God, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, is not apparent in any of
the texts mentioned. Simply
reading those texts would not convert a single soul.
The Hitchiwatchi Indians may be wiser to certain portions of the
biblical record and the Word of God, but they are not more wiser to
the Gospel than the day you arrived.
Christianity is a rational biblical faith – it is not by divine
osmosis that the Word of the Gospel is channeled through a few words in a
text. The Gospel is much more than that.
What,
then, is the substance of the Gospel message and evangelism?
While Jesus Christ walked the
earth He preached the Gospel. At times, the Gospel writers give us insight into entire
discourses on what he actually said.
At other times they simply say that it was preaching that Jesus was
doing. And at other times
they simply make statements about the Gospel, though the particulars about
the Gospel were not given. For
instance, Mark states in 1:1, “The beginning
of the Gospel of Jesus Christ…” Calvin
comments on this verse by saying, “Hence, the
fact that he preached the Gospel of the Kingdom is properly attributed to
him. And Mark prefaces his
Gospel with: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ” [Mark 1:1].
There is no need to heap up passages to prove something so fully known.”
In other words, Calvin attributes the short statement about the
Gospel of Christ, but does not explain or expound what the Gospel means or
what constitutes the Gospel other than that it is of Jesus Christ.
In simply reading this statement in Mark, it would not furnish us
with enough information to understand what this Gospel of Jesus Christ is
really about unless we keep on reading through his entire narrative.
We find out the intricacies and
details of the Gospel as we survey the entire Bible and seek to understand
the common elements of the information given to us in this special
revelation. The
“Euangelion” or “good news”, as we discussed earlier, is what we
are after. We desire to know
the message of the “good news.” How
do we go about “evangelizing someone” if we do not have a specific
message to “evangelize” them with?
One contemporary writer quoted a committee in wrestling with his
question and shows what they decided as a summary of the Gospel message
gleaned from the New Testament. “To evangelize…is so to present Christ Jesus in the power
of the Holy Spirit, that men shall come to put their trust in God through
Him, to accept him as their Savior, and serve Him as their King in the
fellowship of His church.”
This writer goes on to say, “Now this is in many ways an
excellent definition. It
states admirably the aim and purpose of the evangelistic enterprise, and
rules out many inadequate and misleading ideas.
To start with, it makes the point that evangelizing means declaring
a specific message. According
to this definition, it is not evangelism merely to teach general truths
about God’s existence, or the moral law; evangelism means to present
Jesus Christ, the divine Son who became man at a particular point in
world-history in order to save a ruined race.
Nor, according to this definition, is it evangelism merely to
present the teaching and example of the historical Jesus, or even the
truth about his saving work; evangelism means to present Christ Jesus
Himself, the living Savior and the reigning Lord.
Nor, again, it is evangelism, according to this definition,
merely to set forth the living Jesus as Helper and Friend without
reference to His saving work
on the cross; evangelism means to present Jesus as Christ, God’s
anointed Servant, fulfilling the tasks of His appointed office as Priest
and King…there is no evangelism where this specific message is not
declared.”
This is wholly the point at hand.
Here is where we come to preach the substance of the Gospel.
But there is more. He
also says that this message is not enough, but needs to be applied to the
hearer when he comments, “…again, the definition makes the point that
evangelizing means declaring this specific message with a specific
application…There is no evangelism where this specific application is
not made.”
To
have a Gospel is one thing, to evangelize someone “into this Gospel”
is something else.
It is true that we must be exceedingly careful not to make the
Gospel more difficult than it is. That
means we must preach it in its simplicity.
Its simplicity is certainly shown above.
Simplicity does not mean “shortness” or “brevity” but
rather, that everyone from the least to the greatest sitting in a
congregation should be able to comprehend, at least intellectually, what
the Gospel message is all about.
Calvin warns us about such things when he remarks concerning the
Corinthian church. Even in
all their error, they still held to the substance of the Gospel message.
He says they “were persons who did not openly take away any thing
from the substance of the Gospel, but, as they burned with a misdirected
eagerness for distinction, I am of opinion that, with the view of making
themselves admired, they contrived a new method of teaching, at variance
with the simplicity of Christ.”
They certainly made the Gospel more difficult (and this is apparent
from the manner in which Paul explains the Gospel to them in the
Corinthian correspondence) however, I do believe, as Calvin said, that
they still possessed it.
Many ancient writers believed
that 2 Corinthians 5:18-21 was a very well defined summation of the
Gospel. As John Owen’s
states in his Christologia, “This is the substance of the Gospel,
as it is declared by the apostle, 2 Corinthians 5:18-21.” Such a sublime summary is seen in that text, “Now
all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus
Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God
was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their
trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading
through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God. For
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the
righteousness of God in Him.” Such
is the sum and substance of our Gospel message both stated and preached.
Martin
Luther also summarizes the Gospel when he says, “All genuine
reforms or revivals in the churches of God must have as their basis a
plain declaration of this doctrine. The tendency of Christians is like
that of the world, to shy away from this truth which is the very sum and
substance of the Gospel. Those with any acquaintance with Church history
know how sadly true this is. Within fifty years of the death of the last
of the apostles, so far as we can now learn, the Gospel of God’s grace
almost ceased to be preached. Instead of evangelizing, the preachers of
the second and third centuries gave themselves to philosophizing.
Metaphysics took the place of the simplicity of the Gospel.”
He summarized it in four points, “1. The fruit of the sufferings
and the resurrection of Christ is peace, that we know Christ, and place
all our confidence in him. 2. No one should doubt, although he may even
not trust and believe enough. For Christ says here to his disciples:
“Peace be unto you. It is I myself;” and yet they were terrified, and
they feared still the more. 3. This weakness, as everything else, Christ
can indeed suffer in those who are his, and he reveals himself in words
and signs, as he still does at the present time through the Gospel and the
sacraments.
4.
Likewise, the Scriptures bear witness of Christ, how he should die and
rise again from the dead; but of the fruit of this death and resurrection
they say, it is a sermon of a spiritual life and the forgiveness of sins
among all nations in Christ’s name, and through nothing else, either in
heaven or on earth.”
Here Luther captures the main points, the substance of the Gospel
message. Even Spurgeon, who
comments on Luther, says this, “I have always considered, with Luther
and Calvin, that the sum and substance of the Gospel lies in that word Substitution,
— Christ standing in the stead of man. If I understand the Gospel, it is
this: I deserve to be lost for ever; the only reason why I should not be
damned is, that Christ was punished in my stead, and there is no need to
execute a sentence twice for sin. On the other hand, I know I cannot enter
Heaven unless I have a perfect righteousness; I am absolutely certain I
shall never have one of my own, for I find I sin every day; but then
Christ had a perfect righteousness, and He said, "There, poor sinner,
take My garment, and put it on; you shall stand before God as if you were
Christ, and I will stand before God as if I had been the sinner; I will
suffer in the sinner's stead, and you shall be rewarded for works which
you did not do, but which I did for you." I find it very convenient
every day to come to Christ as a sinner, as I came at the first. "You
are no saint," says the devil. Well, if I am not, I am a sinner, and
Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners. Sink or swim, I go to
Him; other hope I have none. By looking to Him, I received all the faith
which inspired me with confidence in His grace; and the word that first
drew my soul — "Look unto Me," — still rings its clarion
note in my ears. There I once found conversion, and there I shall ever
find refreshing and renewal.”
Here, again, are the main points of the Gospel mentioned.
John Gill also remarks on what
he believes in the sum and substance of the Gospel message when it was
given in its infancy form to Adam and Eve.
Though it was complete in the sense that we have the ability to
understand its fullness based on complete revelation, it was still under
the shadows of the Old Testament at that time. “Our
first parents themselves [heard the Gospel], Adam and Eve, and that both
by words and actions. By words, and these spoken not directly to them, nor
by way of promise to them; but to the serpent, and threatening-wise to
him; and yet were the first dawn of grace to fallen man, Genesis 3:15,
from whence it might be at once concluded by Adam and Eve, that they
should not immediately die, but that a seed should be of the woman who
would be the ruin of Satan, and the Saviour of them; which must spring
light, life, and joy, in their trembling hearts: and though these words
are short and obscure, yet contain some of the principal articles of faith
and doctrines of the Gospel; as the incarnation of the Son of God,
signified by the “seed of the woman”, who should be made of a woman,
born of a virgin, unbegotten by man, and without father as man; the
sufferings and death of Christ for the sins of men, signified by the
serpent’s “bruising his heel”, bringing him to the dust of death in
his inferior nature, sometimes expressed by his being bruised for the sins
of his people; and may hint at the manner of his death, and crucifixion,
since his feet could not well be pierced with nails without bruising his
heel; also the victory he should obtain over Satan signified by
“bruising his head”, destroying his power and policy, his schemes and
works, his authority, dominion, and empire; yea, him, himself, with his
principalities and powers; and may express the bruising him under the feet
of his people, the deliverance of them from him; the taking the captives
out of the hand of the mighty, and the saving them with an everlasting
salvation. Which is the sum and substance of the Gospel, and matter of joy
to lost sinners.”
Gill
also states in his practical section of his works, what the sum and
substance of the Gospel is when he says, “Christ
and him crucified is the subject matter, the sum and substance of the
Gospel ministry; “We preach Christ crucified”; this is the preaching
or the doctrine of the cross; the doctrine of salvation by a crucified
Christ; of peace by the blood of his cross; of the reconciliation of
God’s elect in one body, by the cross; of the atonement and expiation of
their sins by his sufferings and death upon it; this the apostle Paul
determined to make the subject, and the alone subject, of his
ministrations, 1 Corinthians 1:23, 2:2.”
As we can see, Gill had much to say about the substance of the
Gospel. It is right for Gill
to say that the sum of the Gospel is found in the words “Christ and him
crucified.” But is it not
interesting to you that gill takes a long time to explain what that means?
After adequate explanation of the text, in light of all that the
Gospel involves, would such a text be used by the Spirit and applied to
the heart to regenerate a soul.
In commenting on the same text
as John Gill above, John Owen says this about the protoevangelium,
“That the seed of the woman
should break the serpent’s head,” Genesis 3:15.
In this promise the Lord Christ was a “lamb slain,”
though
not actually, yet as to the virtue of his incarnation whereby he became a lamb,
the “Lamb of God,” and of his death, wherein he was slain
to take away the sins of the world. Now, the declaration of the Lord
Christ as the Lamb of God slain to take away the sins of the world, is the
sum and substance of the Gospel.”
Again, here we find John Owen explaining what is meant by “the
substance of the Gospel.” The Word is always attended by an explanation of the text.
It is not enough tot give the text and then sit down.
The herald is not doing his job unless he explains the text at hand
and how it fits into the full context of the Bible and the plan of
redemption.
John
Owen also states in Hebrews chapter 9 of the same work, “It is the
second thing mentioned, or the advantage of the church by the taking away
of the first covenant, and all its sacred administrations, that he
principally insists upon. For
herein he designed (as was before observed) to declare the glorious
mystery of the counsel of God concerning the redemption and salvation of
the church by Jesus Christ. But whereas this in general is the substance
of the Gospel, and the subject of all his other epistles, he doth not here
consider and declare it absolutely, but as it was prefigured and typed out
by those institutions of worship, whereby God both instructed the church
and exercised their faith and obedience, under the Old Testament.”
Here he shows that though the substance of the Gospel can be found
in the Old Testament, it was still under its shadow, as the writer of
Hebrews teaches. He goes on
to say what constitutes the Gospel in opposition to those who destroy the
Gospel (like the Socinians), “That the Lord Jesus Christ did give
himself a ransom for sin; that he did it in the shedding of his blood for
us, wherein he made his soul an offering for sin; that herein and hereby
he made atonement, and expiated our sins; and that all these things belong
unto our redemption, is the substance of the Gospel. That this redemption
is nothing but the expiation of sin, and that expiation of sin nothing but
an act of power and authority in Christ now in heaven, as the Socinians
dream, is to reject the whole Gospel.”
In
explaining Hebrews chapter 10 in the same work (volume 6) Owen says,
“But how comes this “Son of God” to be concerned herein? what injury
is done him by apostates from the Gospel? I answer, that as the Lord
Christ in his own person was the special author of the
Gospel; as his authority is the special object of our faith
in it; as his office with all the fruits of it is the subject, sum,
and substance of the Gospel: so there is no reception of it in a due
manner, unto salvation, no rejection of it unto final condemnation, but
what is all of it originally, fundamentally, and virtually contained in
the reception or rejection of the person of Christ. This is the life, the
soul, and foundation of all Gospel truth; without which it is of no power
or efficacy unto the souls of men. But I have treated at large of these
things elsewhere. I
cannot but observe, that, as whosoever rejects, refuses, forsakes the
Gospel, rejecteth and forsaketh the person of Christ; so on what account
soever men take up the profession of it, and perform the duties of it, if
the foundation be not laid in a reception of Christ himself, of the person
of Christ, all their profession will be in vain.”
Here we see that those who reject the message of the Gospel reject
Christ. It would be
impossible for us to assert that in rejecting the phrase “Jesus wept”
is an actual rejection of the Gospel message.
Someone redaction critic could remove this from the Bible (though
he would do damage to the Word of God) but still retains the Gospel
message in other areas of the Bible.
However, when an apostate rejects the specific message of the
Gospel, it is only then that he rejects the Christ of the Bible.
Could a minister stand before a congregation and read “Jesus
wept,” then sit down and expect to hear about the conversions that took
place immediately afterwards without any prior understand of the text or
subject? No not at all.
In commentating on the substance
of the Gospel in Romans 3:26, Albert Barnes states the following, “At
this time: The time now since the Saviour has come, now is the time
when he manifests it. That he might be just: This verse contains
the substance of the Gospel. The word “just” here does not mean
benevolent, or merciful, though it may sometimes have that meaning.
But it refers to the fact that God had retained the integrity of
his character as a moral governor; that he had shown a due regard to his
Law, and to the penalty of the Law by his plan of salvation. Should he
forgive sinners without an atonement, justice would be sacrificed and
abandoned. The Law would cease to have any terrors for the guilty, and its
penalty would be a nullity. In the plan of salvation, therefore, he has
shown a regard to the Law by appointing his Son to be a substitute in the
place of sinners; not to endure its precise penalty, for his sufferings
were not eternal, nor were they attended with remorse of conscience, or by
despair, which are the proper penalty of the Law; but he endured so much
as to accomplish the same ends as if those who shall be saved by him had
been doomed to eternal death. That is, he showed that the Law could not be
violated without introducing suffering; and that it could not be broken
with impunity. He showed that he had so great a regard for it, that he
would not pardon one sinner without an atonement. And thus he secured the
proper honor to his character as a lover of his Law, a hater of sin, and a
just God. He has shown that if sinners do not avail themselves of the
offer of pardon by Jesus Christ, they must experience in their own souls
forever the pains which this substitute for sinners endured in behalf of
people on the cross. Thus, no principle of justice has been abandoned; no
threatening has been modified; no claim of his Law has been let down; no
disposition has been evinced to do injustice to the universe by suffering
the guilty to escape. He is, in all this great Transaction, a just moral
governor, as just to his Law, to himself, to his Son, to the universe,
when he pardons, as he is when he sends the incorrigible sinner down to
hell. A full compensation, an equivalent, has been provided by the
sufferings of the Saviour in the sinner’s stead, and the sinner may be
pardoned.”
Barnes surely takes a long time to explain what “just” means
here. It should be apparent
that the herald must explain the text and apply the text to the hearer,
otherwise the Gospel could not be conveyed in a few simple words.
John Calvin has a wonderful
section in his series of sermons on the Deity of Christ that speak on the
substance of the Gospel and its definition, “The
word “Gospel” indicates that God in sending our Lord Jesus Christ His
Son declares Himself Father to all the world. St. Paul writes to the
Ephesians that Jesus Christ came to evangelize those who were near and
those who were far from God. Those near were the Jews, who were already
allied with God. Those far were the pagans who were aloof from His Church.
When we have looked at it in the light of all Scripture we shall find that
this word “Gospel” has no other meaning. That is why this word is the
title of the four written histories of how our Lord Jesus Christ came into
the world, He went about, He died, He rose again, He ascended into heaven.
That, I say, comes under the title “Gospel.” And why all that? Because
the substance of the Gospel is comprehended in the Person of the Son of
God, as I have already said. The Ancient Fathers surely had the promises
of salvation. They were well assured that God would be their Father. But
they did not have the Guarantee for the love of God and for their
adoption. For when Jesus Christ came into the world, God signed and sealed
His fatherly love. We have received full testimony of life, the substance
of which (as I have already said) we have in Jesus Christ. That is why St.
Paul says that all the promises of God are in Him, Yea and Amen. For God
then ratified all that He had previously said and had promised to men. So
not without cause those four histories have been named “Gospel,” where
it is declared to us how the Son of God was sent, He took human flesh, and
He went about with men in this life. All that is comprehended under the
name “Gospel,” because it declares to us how God perfected and
accomplished everything which was required for the salvation of men, and
it was all done in the Person of His Son.”
This is a wonderful summation of what the point of this paper is
all about. He goes on to say
the same thing in his commentary on 2 Peter, “The power and
the coming. No
doubt he meant in these words to include the substance of the Gospel, as
it certainly contains nothing except Christ, in whom are hid all the
treasures of wisdom. But he distinctly mentions two things, — that
Christ had been manifested in the flesh, — and also that power was
exhibited by him. Thus, then, we have the whole Gospel; for we know that
he, the long-promised Redeemer, came from heaven, put on our flesh, lived
in the world, died and rose again; and, in the second place, we perceive
the end and fruit of all these things, that is, that he might be God with
us, that he might exhibit in himself a sure pledge of our adoption, that
he might cleanse us from the defilement’s of the flesh by the grace of
his Spirit, and consecrate us temples to God, that he might deliver us
from hell, and raise us up to heaven, that he might by the sacrifice of
his death make an atonement for the sins of the world, that he might
reconcile us to the Father, that he might become to us the author of
righteousness and of life. He who knows and understands these things,
is fully acquainted with the Gospel.”
Does
the Word “The” save?
23814 times the word “the”
is used in the Bible. This
word is used in innumerable passages, and is part of the Word of God.
The word “a” is used 6309 times.
The word “so” is used 3349 times.
The word “it” is used 6202 times.
Now, take any one of these and use them as the basis of a
“Gospel” message. Let us
utilize the word “The”. Could
the Spirit use, in and of itself, the word “the” as a means to convert
the soul? Let me be more
specific before you tally your answer.
Let us place a man on a desert island.
He is not familiar with the Bible at all and really knows nothing
about Jesus Christ. One day,
a small boat washes up on shore and he looks therein and finds a skeleton
holding a copy of the Scriptures. Now
this copy has been soaking in the water of the ocean’s waves and the
rains falling on it for some time. It
is a wonder that it was not lost. In
excitement he grabs the book and opens it up.
He cannot make out anything in the book except, on a few pages, he
can make out the word “the.” In
other places he can see the word “a” and the word “so.”
After reading over these words, could such a man be saved?
No, he could not. The
word “the” is not the Gospel. Now,
there is a point to be made here that one should not miss.
Let us not be quick to assume that the Spirit works “hap
hazzardly” with any word in the Bible.
As much as the word “the” is Scriptural, it is not enough to
save, even if we piled up all 23,000 instances of it in one pile, to
convert someone. There is no Gospel message contained within it.
The
Gospel, Faith, and Regeneration
To believe the Gospel in its
substance there must be the reflex activity of faith after regeneration
has occurred. Regeneration
never occurs unless the Word attends the power of the Spirit. It is the general consensus of the orthodox Christian church
that when a person is regenerate, he also enacts faith in what he
understands to be true in the Gospel, is justified, adopted and begins his
life as a Christian at that specific moment.
In an unpublished sermon on Acts 26:18, Jonathan Edwards states,
“Now it is certain that every
sinner that becomes good there is a last moment of his being bad, and a
first moment of his being good, a last moment of his being in a state of
damnation and a first moment of his being in a state of salvation or that
there is a time before which is he had died but one moment he would have
gone to hell, and after which if he had died he would have gone to heaven,
this is self-evident, or which is all one he is made immensely a better
man in a moment than he was before…”
There was a specific moment when the person was lost, but then
there is an instantaneous “transaction” to his removal from the
Kingdom of Darkness into the Kingdom of God’s beloved Son.
He moves from “lostness” to “savedness” in a moment.
That moment is called regeneration, where the Word of God is
made effectual to him.
William Ames explains the
process of regeneration vividly, “As for man, receiving is either
passive or Active. Phil 3:12,
“I apprehend because I have been apprehended.” The passive receiving
of Christ is the process by which a spiritual principle of grace is
generated in the will of man. Eph. 2:5, “He hath quickened…” Active
receiving is an elicited act of faith in which he who is called now wholly
leans upon Christ as his savior and through Christ upon God.
John 3:15-16, “Whoever believes in him…”
1 Peter 1:21, “Through him believing God…”
This is important to note that leaning, here, is believing and
understanding. Without this
“fiducia” or “faith” men cannot be saved.
Is it not a wonder why so many sit under Gospel preaching for so
long? They are gaining more
and more information about the Gospel, in pieces, and then the Spirit, on
a particular day the Gospel is presented and explained, makes that
knowledge of Christ a reality in faith for them through regeneration.
It has been often the case that Calvinists confuse the idea of
God’s sovereign grace with the reality of regeneration.
It is by no means disputed that men are saved and regenerated by
grace alone. As Augustus
Toplady states, “Regeneration must, and always does, come between the
decree of election and the ultimate accomplishment of that decree, the
means and the end being inseparably linked together, both in God’s own
purpose and execution of it.”
But it is exceedingly important not to mix up this idea with being
ignorant of what the Spirit is working in and through.
We are very aware that the Spirit regenerates based on his
application of the Word of God. This
means that men must know something, and that the Spirit then effectuates
what they know into what they trust in.
This is exceedingly important to understand.
Men are not saved in a vacuum as I stated earlier.
They are not saved apart from understanding the rational Biblical
Gospel. They are saved
through believing the rational Biblical Gospel by the power of the
Spirit and a regenerate heart. They
are never saved apart from it. Edwards
says, “No natural man makes a choice of God until he is converted.”
This is important. Men make choices after they are converted, by faith, to
believe in what they know to be true.
They are not converted and wander in ignorance until they are
slowly sanctified and then learn about the Gospel two or three years
later. Regeneration is
only the application of the power of the Sprit, but it is unmistakably
united with what the hearer understands.
If this is not the case, then there is no need of faith to be
saved. As AW Pink states,
“Now the Gospel of God’s grace is epitomized in Ephesians 2:8-9,
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it
is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.”
Men immediately work from the new nature infused into the soul (which the
Holy Spirit creates as a result of the Word), just as they were
continually, moment by moment, living in unbelief by the old nature. Does this mean justification by faith alone is simultaneous
with regeneration? Yes, since
prior knowledge is the foundation of what the hearer believes.
This believing is made effectual by the Sprit though the enablement
of the exercise of saving faith. At
one moment the one hearing the Gospel is not able to spiritually apply the
truth of what he knows to be true. He
cannot lean on Christ for repose in his own heart.
He is not able to act on real faith.
The Spirit of God in regeneration supplies the hearer with the
ability to act in faith and trust in Christ – through the Gospel message
which surrounds Christ’s work.
To understand faith is to
understand this process. As
Pascal said, “The substance of faith consists of Jesus Christ.”
The question is this, “How does one come to faith at the moment
of regeneration?” The
preaching of the Good news of the Gospel precedes the regeneration of the
Holy Spirit that effectually works in the heart.
Men do not understand this change until it is acted upon afterwards
by faith, repentance and the like, i.e. instantaneous conversion.
But the reflex activity of the manner of saving faith is divided
into 3 parts. Historic Christianity has leaned upon this 3 fold division as
something thoroughly needful for salvation.
There are 3 Latin words every Christian should know: notitia,
assensus, and fiducia. Notitia
is first in the order of knowing. It
is when somethings “noted” but not necessarily believed. For instance, I could say, “There is the desk.”
I may not fully believe the desk is there, but I seem to see it and
I note the information as such. Next
is assensus. This is
where I assent to the validity of the information.
I have examined the desk and so I believe that it is really there.
That does not mean, however, that I place my faith and trust in the
desk. Intellectual assent
does not earn me saving faith. There
must be a prior knowledge for faith to express itself after regeneration. It may be that some people preach the Gospel in such a
complete manner that at that specific time faith is enacted. I would never doubt that this could, and has, happened.
The substance of the Gospel must be present, but knowledge, assent
and faith all must be a part of this conversion process.
The Spirit cannot apply the Word to a regenerate heart without that
person understanding what is being applied.
Otherwise, we would have to concede that the Spirit saves in a
vacuum without the Gospel, or a rational biblical theology surrounding the
Gospel. To say this would be
to intend that the Spirit saves men without needing them to be coherent or
thinking.
AA Hodge helps us to understand that faith is the substance of
things hoped for (real things known and understood) while commenting on
the Westminster Confession when he says, “in consequence of the
change wrought in them in regeneration, they obey the call, and
subsequently more or less perfectly co-operate with grace…a spiritual
influence is declared to be necessary to dispose and enable men to receive
the truth. John 6:45, Acts 16:14, Eph 1:17.”
Here then is the important note, they receive the “truth”,
which is something they understand. Only
the truth shall set you free. He
then says, “The infusion of such a disposition must therefore precede
any act of true spiritual obedience.”
In other words, making a man willing to believe the Gospel
(regeneration) is far different than exercising a willingness about the
Gospel (intellectual pursuits after it). He must believe, have faith and understand this, otherwise it
is what Christ calls “spurious faith” (Matthew 13:20) which is no
faith at all.
How is it that instantaneously
in connection with regeneration that justification could take place
without faith? Schaff states,
“Henceforth the doctrine of justification by faith alone was for him
[Luther] to the end of life the sum and substance of the Gospel, the heart
of theology, the central truth of Christianity, the article of the
standing or falling church.”
This cannot be the case, and Luther was a lunatic, is faith is not
requisite. How can someone be
justified without faith? How
can someone be regenerated without understanding the Gospel and then
trusting in it by faith? The
Spirit works in men the understanding they have of the Gospel.
They then react by the reflex activity of faith, and are justified.
In this all orthodox theologians agree.
TULIP
and the Degrees of Understanding the Finite Points of the Gospel.
It is ludicrous to state that
men must first understand all the fine points of Calvinism to be saved.
There are many Calvinists who believe that one must believe the
fullness of the doctrines of grace in the acronym TULIP to be converted.
Simply, this is nonsense. To
demonstrate the folly of this, I shall ask the question in this manner,
“How well do you know the fine points of TULIP and who decides how fine
they go?” For instance, you
may be reading this article and may have known the doctrines of grace for
10 years. There may be
someone else who has pondered those same doctrines for 12 years.
They may, in relation, know the points in a greater capacity of
intricacy and understanding than you do.
If that is the case, then it must needs be that he is saved and you
are not. Maybe his degree of
understanding is the point by which we measure who is or who is not saved. Maybe we should measure that by my understanding of
those points. Maybe we should
measure that by Calvin’s understanding of the points, or the Synod of
Dordt’s? You will say,
“No, that is not true. What
we mean is the basic underlying ideas contained in the Gospel which are
most certainly contained in TULIP – that is what we mean.”
Wonderful. That is
what the point of this paper is all about.
The substance of the Gospel saves.
The fine points of theology help us to praise Christ all the more. TULIP no doubt contains the Gospel. But the substance of the Gospel is much simpler than TULIP.
In one sitting Lydia’s heart is opened and she believes by faith.
Did she have the ability to articulate such things?
No doubt she could articulate the foundational truths of the
Gospel, but to say that the theology found in TULIP is the most basic of
the Gospel message is to confound the simplicity of the message.
2 Corinthians 5:18-21 is a wonderful summation of the Gospel.
How much of TULIP is found there?
This is not to say that TULIP is not the Gospel and is not found in
that passage. It is a very
enlarged and full definition of the Gospel.
It also does not mean that the grace of Christ found in TULIP is
not unlike the grace found in the simple Gospel that converts sinners.
To say though, that one must be learned enough to articulate TULIP
would be to cast many of you reading this into perdition in my own mind if
that were the case. I am not
trying to boast, however, I would imagine there are some out there who do
not know TULIP as well as I – does that make you lost?
And I would imagine there are some out there who know TULIP better
than I – does that make me lost? By
what degree will you measure? You
are measuring in the wrong light. Ask
the minimum, the substance, of the Gospel to be had, not the maximum.
Let us save the maximum understanding of TULIP for a lifetime of
learning about Jesus Christ.
I
know it is true that you are simply trying to propagate a true theology.
Amen to that. We need more people contending for the Gospel.
But do not contend for it in a manner in which would exceed that of
the Spirit of grace. There are many people in many unorthodox churches who have
heard the Gospel and were saved in those churches.
The question, though, is still surrounding what the substance of
the Gospel is and how it is t be preached.
The
Golden Chain
(Decree,
Effectual Calling or Regeneration, Faith, Justification, Adoption,
Sanctification, Glorification.)
Men are not spiritual zombies when they are converted.
Regeneration is acted upon the voice of the Shepherd calling the
sheep and they hear his voice and follow Him.
They are not unaware after they are regenerated.
It is not that God saves men by ringing sounds, or simple tones of
vibrations, in the ear. Hearing
is not hearing music. Hearing
is understanding the call given. The
outworking of the divine decree in the life of a believer is not something
that happens as a result of noise. It
is rational. What do I mean
by this? Surely salvation is
by grace, through the Word of God. But
Romans 10:14 states, “How then
shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they
believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear
without a preacher?” It is not simply by the act of the eardrum banging that the
Spirit regenerates. It is by
the believing in which he works in them to understand and receive a certain
message. This is the
means of realizing the elect’s salvation in the golden chain of
salvation. John 3:1-8
holds forth the preaching of the word as the act (this is that spiritual
“perceiving” being done) and the blowing of the wind as the
application of the act (that is the Spirit working regeneration by the
word.) Hearing does mean
spiritually understanding. Spiritual
quickening, then, is both the act of regeneration in the Word applied, but
also gives way immediately to the faith in trusting in the knowledge known
and preached at the moment.
Even
though regeneration is a radical change, a radical moral change is no
infallible sign of true conversion.
I make this remark more as remarking than explaining.
Some give testimony to be being “saved in a vacuum without
knowledge or understanding of the Gospel.”
This is simply unbiblical. No
amount of radical transformation in the moral life of a person is any sign
that a man is really converted. It
could be a step in the Spirit’s drawing men to the Gospel, but it should
not be gloried in that “so and so” was saved without understanding
Jesus Christ. Even
Kierkegarrd, the philosopher, set 3 stages in a man’s life: the
degenerate, the moral and the spiritual.
Men who are degenerate can go through great changes to become moral
and upstanding, and even have an interest in spiritual things.
But no man can become a spiritual man, or man of faith, without the
operation of the Spirit working the knowledge of God into the person’s
heart through regeneration. There
must be given an examination in the manner in which God may act
spiritually around a person to draw them into the fold.
This may include a change of heart towards understanding the things
of the Law and the need for a Mediator.
But it is only through the Gospel in which men are saved.
“But
God…”
Martin Lloyd Jones preached a
very good sermon on the phrase “But God…” from Romans 5:8.
Now, what shall we do with such a thing?
People were converted as a result of this sermon.
Lloyd Jones only preached on “But God…”
Does this do damage to what has been said so far?
To the contrary, you may have missed the important aspect of the
statement. I said he
“preached a sermon” on this phrase.
Do you see what I am getting at?
Let us assume that no one in his congregation had ever heard
anything about Jesus Christ before, and it was simply by an amazing act of
providence that they all came together to hear this man speak.
Lloyd Jones then reads, “But God…”
Now, do you know what happened?
Nothing. Nothing at
all. No one was converted at that point in the sermon.
No evangelism had taken place.
The people waited for him to continue.
Do you know what happened next?
Well, Lloyd Jones preached through a sermon greater than and hour
long on what these two little words meant in the context of the book of
Romans, and in the context of the Gospel.
Can God save a man on two words?
Certainly, after they have had a thorough explanation of what
they mean. If after an
hour and a half of preaching the content and message 0f the Gospel was
clearly given, certainly, “But God…” can be used by the Spirit to
convert all those people sitting and listening to the herald preaching the
Word of God.
I think Calvinists have a
difficult time understanding that an explanation of a text must surround
the reading of a text in order for preaching and conversion
to take place.
The
Sum of the Gospel
Jonathan Edwards said, “a
remarkable work of Grace I have
sometimes formerly, in reading the apostle’s discourse to Cornelius,
(Acts 10.) wondered to see him so quickly introduce the Lord Jesus Christ
into his sermon, and so entirely dwell upon him through the whole of it,
observing him in this point very widely to differ from many of our modern
preachers: but latterly this has not seemed strange, since Christ has
appeared to be the substance of the Gospel, and the centre in which the
several lines of divine revelation meet. Although I and still sensible
there are many things necessary to be spoken to persons under pagan
darkness, in order to make way for a proper introduction of the name of
Christ, and his undertaking in behalf of fallen man.”
Dwelling on Christ is the first step to precision when explaining
the Gospel. “Jesus wept”
may be included in the larger presentation of the Gospel, but it, in and
of itself, is not the Gospel. |
