the Gospel Archives

TADB 133: The Gospel Reveals the Trinity

The Trinity isn’t a side issue. It’s the heart of the gospel. The church has fought for centuries to defend it—will we?

In today’s church, the question Jesus once asked His disciples—“Who do you say I am?”—is just as critical as it was in the first century. A recent Ligonier Ministries / Lifeway Research survey of self-identified evangelicals revealed alarming statistics:

73% believe “Jesus is the first and greatest being created by God.”
43% say “Jesus was a good teacher, but was not God.”

If these numbers are accurate, large segments of our churches are embracing a view of Christ that mirrors the ancient heresy of Arianism. This isn’t merely a theological debate—it’s a gospel issue. If we get Jesus wrong, we get the gospel wrong.

First-Century Bridges and Ditches

The gospel was no easier to accept in the first century than it is today. Paul wrote:

“Since God in His wisdom saw to it that the world would never know Him through human wisdom, He has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe. It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven, and it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom.”
(1 Corinthians 1:21-22)

As Michael Green observes in 30 Years That Changed the World, Jewish and Greek cultures provided both bridges and ditches to the gospel. The Roman road system, Jewish monotheism, and the Greek translation of the Old Testament opened doors for the message of Christ. Yet there were also deep “ditches”—obstacles that made acceptance difficult.

For Jews, the stumbling block was a Messiah who claimed equality with God rather than political deliverance. For Gentiles, it was the claim that there is one God who is also three persons—a concept foreign to both Jewish and Greco-Roman thought.

The Challenge of the Trinity

The idea that God is “one in essence and three in person” has no perfect earthly parallel. Common illustrations—like water as liquid, solid, and vapor—fall short and can even mislead.

The hardest step for both Jew and Gentile was accepting the incarnation: Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man. This truth has been denied, doubted, and debated from the first century onward. And it remains one of two essential doctrines that separate authentic Christianity from counterfeits (the other being salvation by grace through Christ’s finished work, not by human merit).

The Arian Crisis and the Nicene Creed

In the fourth century, a priest named Arius taught that Jesus was created by God the Father, and thus was neither coeternal with Him nor of the same substance. This heresy caused widespread confusion.

In 325 AD, Emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea to bring unity and clarity. The resulting Nicene Creed affirmed that Jesus is:

“God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.”

The creed also declared the full personhood and deity of the Holy Spirit. Later councils, and the Athanasian Creed in the 6th century, further safeguarded the doctrine of the Trinity. Historically, baptism required affirmation of these truths.

Why This Still Matters

For nearly 1,800 years, mainstream Catholicism and Protestantism have stood united on the Trinity and Christ’s divinity. While we expect groups like Islam, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormonism to reject these truths, the growing denial within evangelical circles is deeply troubling.

If today’s church allows confusion about Jesus’ identity to spread unchecked, we risk repeating history—not in defending the truth, but in tolerating heresy. The pressing question for every generation remains:

“Who do you say I am?”

Get this wrong, and you lose the gospel.

If Jesus is not fully God and fully man, then the gospel collapses. The church of every age must contend for this truth—not just in creeds and history books, but in the hearts and minds of its people today.

Looking Ahead

To guard the gospel, we must clarify what Scripture means by “Son of God” and “begotten.” These terms are key to understanding Jesus’ unique relationship to the Father and His eternal nature. We will explore these in the next article.

For Discussion

Why do you think so many self-identified evangelicals today misunderstand or deny the full divinity of Jesus?
What are the dangers of seeing Jesus as only a created being or just a moral teacher?
Why is the doctrine of the Trinity essential to the gospel and not just a secondary issue?
How would you personally answer Jesus’ question: “Who do you say I am?”—and why is that answer central to your faith?
How can we explain the Trinity and the incarnation to others in ways that are faithful yet understandable?

TADB 132: The Battle for Gospel Clarity

The gospel has survived for 2,000 years — but only because each generation guarded it. From Paul’s defense in Corinth to Luther’s reformation, the battle hasn’t changed: resist additions, subtractions, and distortions. Are we guarding it well today?

In the previous blog, we looked at the need to guard the treasure of the gospel we have been entrusted with. We examined Paul’s example in protecting it from additions. Now, we turn to Paul’s example of guarding it from subtractions and distortions.

2. Guarding Against Subtractions

Luke records an encounter in Ephesus that illustrates this danger:

Meanwhile, a Jew named Apollos, an eloquent speaker who knew the Scriptures well, had arrived in Ephesus from Alexandria in Egypt. He had been taught the way of the Lord, and he taught others about Jesus with an enthusiastic spirit and with accuracy. However, he knew only about John’s baptism (Acts 18:24–25, NLT).

Apollos was eloquent, but eloquence does not guarantee accuracy. He proclaimed a gospel with gaps—truths he knew well, spoken boldly, but missing key parts of the story. He was sincere, yet sincerely incomplete.

Seeing the problem, Priscilla and Aquila took him aside and “explained to him the way of God more accurately” (Acts 18:26). To his credit, Apollos was teachable. As a result, his ministry became even more effective:

He greatly helped those who had believed through grace, for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ (Acts 18:27–28).

This incident reminds us: when we reduce the gospel to a few bullet points to suit a soundbite culture, we risk omitting essential truths. The gospel is the full story of Jesus—His identity, His kingdom, His death, His resurrection, His return. How much of that story can we leave out and still have the gospel? Even Mark, who wrote the shortest Gospel account, would be astonished at the modern claim that the gospel can be shared in a single verse.

3. Guarding Against Distortions

Paul’s epistles were not primarily evangelistic tracts; they were letters to believers, applying the gospel to life in Christ’s kingdom. In 1 Corinthians, Paul addresses various church issues—spiritual gifts, worship practices, moral lapses—but in chapter 15 he tackles a theological distortion: the denial of the resurrection.

Some in Corinth claimed there was no resurrection for believers. Paul dismantled that argument, showing that to deny the resurrection of believers is to undermine the resurrection of Christ Himself:

If there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain (1 Corinthians 15:13–14).

This was not a minor doctrinal debate—it was a direct threat to the gospel’s integrity. Remove the resurrection, and the gospel collapses.

The Historic Battle for Gospel Clarity

The early Church faced numerous heresies that distorted the nature of Christ—some claiming He was divine but not truly human (Docetism), others that He was human but not fully divine (Ebionism, Arianism), and still others blending pagan philosophies into Christian teaching (Gnosticism).

To protect the faith, the Church convened the Seven Ecumenical Councils. The first, the Council of Nicaea in 325, produced the Nicene Creed—a clear statement of Christ’s deity and humanity, and the foundation of what we now call the Apostles’ Creed. These creeds served as guardrails, defining the essential truths of the gospel.

Centuries later, Martin Luther waged a similar battle. Tormented by guilt over sin, he found peace only when the Book of Romans revealed salvation by grace through faith, not by human performance. Luther’s aim was not to destroy the Church but to purify the gospel from accumulated distortions—much like scraping barnacles off a ship’s hull to restore its speed and course.

Our Challenge Today

In a biblically illiterate age, we face the same temptation: to shorten, simplify, and “streamline” the gospel until it is no longer the gospel. When we say, “All you need to know is that Christ died for your sins and rose again”—and leave out His identity, His kingdom, His call to follow—we are not abbreviating the gospel. We are truncating it.

We must remember:

It is not an American gospel.
It is not an evangelical subculture gospel.
It is the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His kingdom—unchanged, regardless of the audience.

Like Paul, like the early church fathers, and like Luther, we must be guardians of the treasure in our generation—protecting it from additions, subtractions, and distortions.

For Discussion

What dangers arise when we reduce the gospel to a few soundbites for the sake of cultural convenience?

2. How much of the gospel story (Jesus’ identity, kingdom, death, resurrection, return) can be left out before it stops being the gospel?

3. How do the early church councils and creeds help us today in protecting gospel truth?

4. In what ways are we tempted today to abbreviate or streamline the gospel until it loses its power?

5. What is the difference between making the gospel clear and making it simplistic?

TADB 131: Protecting the Treasure

Like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the gospel is a priceless treasure that must be preserved intact—protected from any additions that could alter its truth.

It was 1947 in the barren Judean hills near the Dead Sea. Two Bedouin shepherds roamed the rocky slopes, searching for goats that had strayed from the herd. The sun beat down. The air was still. Then one of them spotted a narrow opening in the cliffs. Perhaps the animals had taken shelter there.

Bending down, he tossed a rock inside. Instead of a bleating goat, the air was filled with the sharp crack of breaking pottery. The sound was strange—almost eerie—and it would one day be heard around the world.

Inside the dark cave stood several clay jars. Some lay shattered; others remained sealed. Expecting treasure, the shepherds opened them, only to find old parchment scrolls wrapped in linen, their surfaces blackened with age. Disappointed, they sold the scrolls to an antiquities dealer. Eventually, the manuscripts reached a monastery in Jerusalem, where they were handled casually—until someone recognized their true value.

These were the oldest surviving manuscripts of the Jewish Scriptures, dating back to around 200 BC. Over the next decade, more caves would be discovered, yielding fragments from over 900 manuscripts.

By the early 1990s, the Israel Antiquities Authority established a dedicated conservation lab to preserve these fragile treasures. What had once been dismissed as worthless was revealed to be one of the most valuable archaeological finds in history—worthy of reverence and protection.

The gospel is like that. It is a priceless treasure entrusted to each generation—not only to proclaim, but also to guard, preserve, and pass on intact to those who come after us.

Paul: Preacher and Protector

The Apostle Paul was not only a herald of the gospel but also its guardian. He knew the message could be distorted—by additions, subtractions, or outright alterations—and warned Timothy to protect it:

Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you.
— 2 Timothy 1:14 (see also 1 Timothy 6:20)

In this article, we’ll examine the first danger Paul identified: additions to the gospel.

Guarding Against Additions

After their first missionary journey, Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch, where the gospel had taken root among Jews and Gentiles alike. But trouble soon arrived in the form of certain Jewish believers from Jerusalem, who insisted that circumcision was necessary for salvation.

Adding circumcision meant adding works to faith and merit to Christ’s righteousness. In Luke’s understated words, Paul and Barnabas had “no small dissension” with them (Acts 15:2). In modern terms—Paul was livid.

To settle the matter, the Antioch church sent a delegation, including Paul and Barnabas, to Jerusalem to consult the apostles and elders. The issue was clear: if the gospel was to cross cultural boundaries, it had to be free from the weight of religious tradition and cultural baggage.

When the leaders gathered, Paul testified how God had worked among the Gentiles without requiring circumcision. Peter concluded:

“But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.” — Acts 15:11

Verdict: circumcision is not essential to the gospel. Leave it out.

Armed with a letter from Jerusalem, the delegation returned to Antioch with clarity. But the danger wasn’t gone. In Galatia, Paul faced the same problem—Jewish believers trying to elevate law-keeping into a mark of “higher” spirituality. Paul’s response was sharp:

I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another… (Galatians 1:6–7)

Peter’s error in separating from Gentile believers gave Paul the opportunity to reaffirm the heart of the gospel.

Modern Additions

We face the same temptation today—to “add a little something” to the simple call of the gospel. Over time, small cultural additions can become entrenched traditions that subtly alter the message.

One example is the phrase, “Invite Jesus into your heart” as the response to the gospel. It’s well-meaning, but it’s never found in Scripture. Likely drawn from a misreading of Revelation 3:20, it was popularized through Holman Hunt’s 1853 painting The Light of the World. This image of Jesus knocking on a door became a standard evangelistic illustration in sermons, hospitals, and homes.

The shift, though subtle, is significant: from God’s invitation for us to enter His kingdom, to us inviting Him into our personal kingdom. It feeds the very self-focus the gospel came to transform.

Guard the Treasure

Just as the Dead Sea Scrolls had to be handled with care to preserve their original form, so the gospel must be safeguarded against human alterations. Additions—no matter how small—risk obscuring the glory of grace with the dust of our own traditions.

In every generation, the call is the same: proclaim the gospel faithfully, guard it diligently, and pass it on unaltered.

For Discussion

Why was Paul so passionate about guarding the gospel against additions like circumcision?
How does Paul’s confrontation with Peter in Galatians highlight the seriousness of preserving the gospel’s purity?
Can you think of modern examples where well-meaning traditions or phrases have subtly altered the gospel message?
What is the difference between inviting Jesus into our lives and responding to His invitation to enter His kingdom?
What additions or distortions to the gospel have you encountered in your own Christian experience?

TADB 130: The God We Present Shapes the Gospel We Share

A distorted view of God distorts the gospel. Discover why the early church clarified God’s nature, how today’s culture misrepresents Him, and why gospel conversations must begin with “What is your picture of God?”

What comes to mind when you think about God? Your answer will shape how you live, how you view yourself, and how you respond to the gospel. It is not a small matter. The early church knew this well—and so should we.

From Acts to the Creeds: Clarifying God’s Nature

The book of Acts shows the apostles adapting their message for audiences with very different pictures of God. They knew that unless God’s nature was presented clearly, the gospel could be misunderstood.

In the first centuries of the church, this same need for clarity led to the creeds. While much of their focus was on affirming Jesus as both God and man, they began with an uncompromising statement about God the Father:

“I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.” — Nicene Creed

The implication was clear: if we are wrong about God, we will be wrong about the gospel.

The Changing Picture of God in Our Culture

For many years, gospel conversations in America assumed a shared starting point—most people held a Catholic/Protestant view of God as Creator, holy, sovereign, and judge. The only missing piece, in many cases, was the personal love of God.

That is no longer the case.

Pew Research Center reports that absolute certainty in God’s existence has declined sharply.
American Worldview Inventory reveals that only 6% of U.S. adults have a biblical worldview—and Americans are now more confident in Satan’s existence than in God’s.
Only half of the nation accepts the biblical picture of God as Creator, sovereign, omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly just.

Even more telling: 71% of Americans believe God loves them unconditionally—often with a sentimental “Santa Claus” image—but many reject His holiness, justice, and authority.

As George Barna notes, “It’s no wonder that more than nine out of ten Americans lack a biblical worldview given that people’s fundamental understanding of the nature and existence of God is flawed.”

Why Our Picture of God Matters for the Gospel

Our picture of God is the starting point for understanding the gospel. If we add Jesus to a distorted view of God, we produce a distorted faith. If God is a cosmic genie, then the gospel becomes about self-fulfillment, not repentance, kingdom transfer, and new creation.

I learned this decades ago while sharing “The Bridge” illustration. I would draw two cliffs—God and Man—and ask people to describe God. Their answers were usually orthodox: Creator, holy, sovereign, and just. This provided the perfect opening to add God’s love to the picture and introduce Jesus.

Today’s answers are different. God is seen as loving but rarely as Creator, holy, sovereign, or just. Without these truths, the gospel loses its context and urgency.

A Biblical Starting Point

Before someone can grasp the good news of Jesus, they must first meet the God who is its source. The Old Testament gives us essential truths about Him:

There is one God (Deut. 6:4; Isa. 46:9).
God is eternal—self-existent, without beginning (Gen. 1:1).
God is the creator of all things seen and unseen (Gen. 1:1; Isa. 45:18).
God is relational—seeking fellowship with His creation (Gen. 3:8).
God is sovereign—the owner and ruler of all He has made (Isa. 40:21–26).
God is holy—morally pure, completely separate from evil (Isa. 6:1–5).
God is just—the perfect judge of righteousness (Isa. 61:8).
God is loving—kind, merciful, and compassionate (Psalm 136; Isa. 63:7–8).

These truths shape the way we present the gospel. Without them, Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection can be reduced to a vague act of kindness rather than the decisive rescue mission of the Creator-King.

Helping People Take the First Step

Dr. James Engel’s “Scale of Spiritual Decision” begins at stage -8: discovering that God exists and learning who He is. From there, people progress toward understanding and embracing the gospel. Our task is not to rush them to the cross without first introducing them to the God of the cross.

So before we explain what Jesus has done, perhaps the most important question we can ask is:

“What is your picture of God?”

Because, as A.W. Tozer warned, “The gravest question before the Church is always God Himself.”

For Discussion

1. How do Old Testament truths about God (Creator, sovereign, holy, just, loving) prepare the way for understanding the gospel?

2. What differences do you see between how past generations in America viewed God and how people view Him today?

3. Why do you think so many Americans believe in God’s love but reject His holiness and justice?

4. What questions could you ask in a conversation that might surface someone’s unconscious assumptions about God?

5. If you had to summarize your own “picture of God” in three words, what would they be—and why?

TADB 129: Our View of God Matters

Our view of God shapes everything about us. Drawing from A.W. Tozer’s The Knowledge of the Holy and the Acts 1:8 strategy, this article explores how the early church shared the gospel of the kingdom across cultures—from Peter and Cornelius to Paul in Athens. Discover why understanding a person’s concept of God is essential before presenting the gospel, and how Paul’s Areopagus sermon shows a model for engaging different worldviews in evangelism today.

“What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us… we tend, by a secret law of the soul, to move toward our mental image of God.” – A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy

Tozer’s insight is more than a devotional thought—it’s a missional necessity. Every person carries an internal image of God, whether accurate or distorted, and this image shapes how they respond to the gospel. If we want to proclaim the gospel of the risen King effectively, we must first address the hearer’s concept of God.

The Unconscious Picture of God

Each of us has a default picture—often a caricature—of God lodged deep in our unconscious mind. It is rarely the result of careful study; rather, it is formed by anecdotal experiences, influential figures, cultural messages, and personal assumptions. Without correction by biblical revelation, these views remain flawed. When we ask, “What is God like?” we are touching the foundation of gospel proclamation. If that foundation is wrong, the structure of the gospel will not stand.

The Acts 1:8 Expansion Pattern

After His resurrection, Jesus told His disciples to wait for the Holy Spirit, then to be His witnesses: “In Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8).

This was not only a geographical expansion—it was also a worldview expansion. As the gospel moved outward, the apostles encountered audiences with increasingly different views of God.

1. Jerusalem – Shared View of God

At Pentecost, Peter addressed Jews from many regions. While their customs varied, they all recognized Yahweh as revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures. Peter could proclaim Jesus directly as Messiah because the foundation of God’s nature was already in place.

2. Samaria – Partial Agreement

Philip preached in Samaria to people who worshipped Yahweh but had different cultural and religious practices. Their concept of God was close enough to make a direct connection to Jesus, yet distinct enough to require clarification.

3. Damascus – Still Within Jewish Boundaries

Paul’s first post-conversion ministry was in Damascus, speaking in synagogues to Jews. Again, he could begin with the Messiah because the audience already understood the God of the Scriptures.

4. Caesarea – God-Fearers

Peter’s meeting with Cornelius (Acts 10) marked the gospel’s first recorded entry into a Gentile setting. Cornelius was a God-fearer—a Gentile who worshipped Yahweh but had not fully adopted Jewish practices. Peter still began with Jesus because Cornelius already shared the biblical view of God.

5. Athens – A Different God Altogether

Athens was different. When Paul arrived (Acts 17), he found:

Stoics – Believed God was the rational order in nature (pantheistic, impersonal).
Epicureans – Believed in distant gods uninvolved in human affairs; the goal was personal tranquility.

These views had little in common with the biblical picture of God. Paul could not start with Jesus as Messiah; first, he had to reframe who God is.

Paul’s Athens Strategy

Paul began with their altar “To the Unknown God” and used it as a bridge.
He described Yahweh in terms they had never heard:

Creator of all – Maker of heaven and earth, distinct from creation.
Sovereign Lord – Master over all nations and history.
Not confined to temples – Beyond human-made structures.
Self-sufficient – Needs nothing from humans.
Giver of life – Source of breath and all good things.
Origin of humanity – From one man, every nation was made.
Near yet invisible – Wants to be known, not distant.
Totally other – Cannot be reduced to idols.
Righteous Judge – Will hold all accountable.
Appointed a Man – Jesus, validated by resurrection, will judge the world.

Only after establishing God’s nature did Paul introduce Jesus. This progression gave the gospel a foundation that made sense to their worldview.

The Missional Principle

When the audience shares the biblical view of God, we can move quickly to the person and work of Jesus. When they do not, we must start earlier—by clarifying who God is—before explaining what He has done in Christ.

Today’s “Athens”

Modern evangelism often assumes people already have a basic understanding of God. But in our post-Christian, religiously plural world, many have views of God that resemble Athens more than Jerusalem.

Some see God as an impersonal force (New Age spirituality).
Others see Him as distant and uninvolved (secular deism).
Many see Him as a projection of personal preference.

In such cases, we must start where they are—just as Paul did—patiently building a biblical view of God before proclaiming the risen King.

Conclusion

Paul’s example in Athens teaches us that the gospel must rest on the right foundation: the truth about God Himself. Without that foundation, the message of Jesus will be misunderstood or rejected outright.

If they do not know the God of the Bible, begin there. If they do, proclaim Christ. Always start where they are—so you can lead them to where He is.

For Discussion

How has your own “picture of God” been shaped by family, culture, or personal experience?
What happens when people try to receive Jesus without first understanding who God truly is?
How did Peter’s message at Pentecost differ from Paul’s message in Athens?
In your experience, how do people around you view God today? (Impersonal force? Distant deity? How does this affect the way we share the gospel?

TADB 128: The Gospel of the Risen King

Rediscover the Gospel of the Risen King and guard it from distortions to fuel real discipleship and transformation in a post-Christian age.

As ambassadors of Christ and his kingdom, we need to reexamine our understanding of the first-century gospel, the gospel that the church fathers vigorously protected from various counterfeits. We need to guard that same gospel against additions, subtractions and distortions. In our attempts to abbreviate and abridge the gospel, we need to see if we haven’t skewed it, especially in light of our current audience that is biblically illiterate and post-Christian.

The Gospel of the Risen King: A Journey to Rediscover the Power of the Gospel

For the past 60 years, discipleship has been the focus of my life and ministry. Over that time, I have shared my insights through this blog and my trilogy, Rethinking Discipleship. Both emerged from years of exploring, learning, teaching, and mentoring, all rooted in the conviction that making disciples is at the heart of the Great Commission. I still hold that conviction today.

My passion for discipleship stems from my connection with The Navigators, founded by Dawson Trotman during WWII. Trotman, an avid evangelist, once had an eye-opening moment when he picked up a hitchhiker who had committed to Christ weeks earlier but showed no signs of spiritual growth. Trotman realized that evangelism alone wasn’t enough—new believers needed continued discipleship.

This revelation led to Trotman’s collaboration with Billy Graham in the 1950s, helping to develop follow-up material for the thousands of new converts from Graham’s crusades. This focus on discipleship, or “follow-up,” has birthed numerous organizations and resources over the past 75 years. Yet, despite these efforts, a troubling question lingers: Why does spiritual fruit remain so rare in the church, even after decades of discipleship material and mentorship?

This question brings me to a deeper issue: Is it possible that the root cause of fruitlessness is not simply insufficient discipleship, but an incomplete understanding of the gospel itself?

Rethinking the Gospel

In recent years, as I’ve reflected on my understanding of the gospel, I’ve come to a significant realization: the gospel is more than just a doctrine to be asserted—it is a narrative to be told. Specifically, it is the narrative of Jesus Christ as the Risen King. This Gospel of the Risen King is the foundation of the Great Commission, and it is this message that must shape our discipleship efforts.

As I researched and reflected on the gospel, I found that I was not alone in questioning whether cultural distortions have impacted our understanding of this message. A.W. Tozer voiced similar concerns decades ago, suggesting that our failure to see moral transformation through the gospel may be tied to a failure in how the message is preached. Tozer lamented:

“Could it be that the failure of the gospel to effect moral change is due to a misunderstanding of the message itself? In earlier times, revival campaigns led to real, visible change—closing saloons and brothels as a direct result of the gospel. But today, that kind of transformation seems rare.” (A.W. Tozer, The Set of the Sail)

The Heart of the Gospel

The Gospel of the Risen King centers on the person and work of Jesus Christ as King, which is often missing from our modern presentations of the gospel. To put it simply, we must revisit the question: What is the gospel? This critical question must be answered clearly if we are to unleash its power and experience the fruitfulness we long for.

We must recognize that the gospel is not just a message about salvation from sin, but a proclamation of the Kingdom of God, which is inaugurated in Christ’s resurrection. The gospel transforms lives by transferring people from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light, aligning them with Christ as King.

Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 3:10—“Like a wise master builder, I laid a foundation, and another is building on it”—remind us that discipleship must be built on the right foundation. But if the gospel we preach is distorted, how can we expect to see the fruit of the Spirit in people’s lives?

The Challenges We Face

In my exploration, I’ve identified several cultural “pathogens”—ideas and assumptions that threaten the power of the gospel. These cultural influences undermine the gospel’s ability to bring true transformation. These pathogens have shifted our understanding of the gospel and distorted how we present it, weakening its impact.

One key issue is that many of us still approach discipleship with outdated assumptions about our audience. Our world has changed dramatically, and so must our methods of presenting the gospel. In some cases, small adaptations may suffice; in others, a more significant overhaul will be necessary.

A Call to Recenter the Gospel

The Gospel of the Risen King has the power to create new life and bring lasting transformation, but only if we protect it from distortion and preach it faithfully. As followers of the risen King, our mission is to guard this gospel, proclaim it, and expand God’s kingdom one life at a time. This involves not only defending the message but living it out, reflecting Christ’s image through the power of the Holy Spirit.

In the upcoming blogs, I will share more of my journey: searching the Scripture, asking hard questions, and challenging existing traditions on the Gospel of the Risen King. I am on a journey of sifting through long-held assumptions, and I invite you to join me in this quest for a deeper understanding of the gospel. As the Bereans did in Acts 17:11, we must be open-minded, searching the Scriptures daily to see if what we’re proclaiming is truly the gospel.

Moving Forward

I will explore the cultural pathogens that threaten the gospel and how we can counter them. I will also look at how our gospel presentations have evolved over time and how they can be renewed to better connect with today’s audience.

As we rediscover the Gospel of the Risen King, let us remember that it is more than a message to be heard; it is the story of Jesus as King, reigning over His kingdom, and calling us to live as His disciples.

For Discussion

1. What is the distinction between a “doctrine” of the gospel and the “narrative” of the gospel? How does understanding the gospel as a narrative affect our discipleship efforts?

2. In what ways do we see the Gospel of the Risen King being under attack today? How can we protect and preserve its true message?

3. How does the resurrection of Jesus as King change the way we understand the gospel? Why is it significant to view the gospel through the lens of the risen Christ as opposed to merely the crucified Christ?

4. What cultural pathogens (distortions or misunderstandings) do you think are most common in the presentation of the gospel today? How can we address these in our own lives and ministries?

5. How do we reconcile the fact that, despite a wealth of discipleship resources, many people still struggle with spiritual growth? What could be the missing ingredient?

Podcast 4: The Irreducible Complexity of the Gospel

The following message is the first of three by Ron Bennett that was given at a Navigator Kansas Community Conference in Wichita, KS. The theme of the conference was: Discipleship on the Resurrection side of the Cross. The title of this message is: The Foundation of Discipleship – The Irreducible Complexity of the Gospel. (See also TAD Blogs 15-20)

Outline

Prologue (John 1:1-5)

Act 1: Incarnation

Jesus: Eternal Word becomes human (John 1:14)
Jesus as revealer of God (John 1:18; Heb. 1:1-3)

Act 2: Demonstration

Jesus is called the Servant (Isa 53; Phil. 2:6-7)
He is the second Adam (1 Cor. 15:45)

Act 3: Crucifixion

Christ is the promised Savior (Rom. 5:8; 1 Peter 3:18)
Cross provides the doorway to the kingdom (John 14:6; Col. 1:13)

Act 4: Resurrection

Christ is declared the Son of God (Rom. 1:1-4)
He is revealed as victorious (1 Cor. 15:54-57)

Act 5: Ascension

Christ is called the final High Priest (Heb. 4:14)
Humanity enters heaven (Col. 2:9)

Act 6: Coronation

Christ is crowned King (Col. 2:10)
He is revealed as sovereign with authority and majesty (Eph. 1:19-23)

Act 7: Examination

The King becomes judge (Act 17:30-31)
The kingdom becomes visible (Rev. 21:1-2)

Epilogue: Celebration

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

TADB 054: Surrender or Repentance?

Growing up in my neighborhood, my friends and I would often hold wrestling contests like those we saw on TV. One of our rules of engagement was if someone got into a situation he couldn’t get out of, he would simply say “uncle” (our version of tapping the mat or raising a white flag) and his opponent was obligated to let him go. It was a statement of surrender….for the moment! But we all knew it would start all over again later. Nothing had really changed. Sometimes people “come to Christ” with the same mentality. They have little intention of changing their lives and discipleship is totally irrelevant.

In order to understand the foundation for discipleship on the resurrection side of the cross, we need a clear understanding of the gospel. We need to correctly answer three questions:

What is the gospel?
What issues does it resolve?
What is the required response?

I have suggested in previous blogs that the gospel is the narrative of Jesus Christ the Lord and His kingdom (Rom 1:1-4). It is His story – all of it from His incarnation to the final courtroom.

The second question is what issue(s) does the gospel resolve? In blog 51, I made a distinction between proximate (immediate) issues and causal (root) issues. Both are real, but the former is symptomatic while the latter is the underlying issue.

Scripture describes many proximate issues:

Fallen, lost, dead, missed the mark, broken, guilty, shameful, unbeliever, sick, captive, slave, brokenhearted, poor blind, oppressed, etc.

However, the causal issue goes much deeper and is found in the very beginning of humanity. Adam’s sin was more than violating a command of God. It was deliberate and outright rebellion from God’s authority and leadership over his life. The result is that we are all born into the kingdom of rebellion and are individually complicit with it. This condition is also described as being ungodly, haters of God, children of wrath, children of the devil, those without law. We are rebels against God, declaring our independence from His authority.

When presenting the gospel, it seems more compassionate to infer a person is lost rather than a rebel. But if we don’t identify the underlying issue, we rob the gospel of its power and marginalize the freedom that it brings.

The third question is what is the required response that must be made? If we are simply lost, then we need to be found; if broken, then we need to be mended; if poor, than we need resources, etc. But if we are rebels, what is required? Jesus began His ministry announcing the gospel of the kingdom and said, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe the gospel” (Mark 1:15).

Two words we tend to use interchangeably are surrender and repent. I would submit, however, there is a critical distinction that should be made. Surrender is an act of giving up, saying, “I quit. I can’t go on”. It is like tapping the mat, the white flag, or saying “uncle”. It implies submission (temporary) but not allegiance.

In WW II, POWs were soldiers who had surrendered. Most were held in camps of internment with various levels of treatment. A few tried to escape and return to the fight, but most simply waited until the war was over to return to their country of origin. The main point is that although POW’s surrendered, they did not change their allegiance to the country in which they were held captive.

I am concerned that too many times we present a gospel response that looks a lot like surrender. People feel overwhelmed with their sin, guilt, shame, fears or other proximate issues and finally say “I quit” or “I give up; get me out of my mess”.

Repentance, however, is not only surrender but a change of allegiance. It is a turning from self-governance to Christ-governance. It is renouncing our loyalty to self and pledging loyalty to Christ.

ISBE: Repent = to change the mind

The word μετανοέω, metanoéō, expresses the true New Testament idea of the spiritual change implied in a sinner’s return to God. The term signifies “to have another mind,” to change the opinion or purpose with regard to sin. It is equivalent to the Old Testament word “turn.”

It is one thing to be bested, beaten, or defeated. It is a whole different thing to change the loyalty of our hearts and minds to embrace Christ as our new and final authority. The gospel demands not only surrender but a new allegiance. Repentance is more than the acknowledgement that we have blown it, made a mess or even violated God’s moral code. It is life under new management.

Surrender without allegiance creates a syncretistic¹ gospel, one that reinforces the myth that “life is still all about me” but hopefully with less pain.

The gospel response that brings new life is more than saying “uncle”. It is the reset of our hearts to live under the rule of our benevolent King and gracious Father. It is to renounce our rebellion and pledge our allegiance to our Creator. The gospel Jesus preached and the one the early church embraced was a radical invitation to leave our rebellion against God and come back home as the prodigal son did.

Questions for reflection:

1. How could you guide a spiritual conversation from proximal issues to casual ones?

2. Reflect on 1 John 3:8, “The one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.”

¹ Syncretism (Dictionary.com): The attempted reconciliation or union of different or opposing principles or practices.

TADB 53: Coming Home

In an increasingly skeptical world filled with moral relativism, the idea of sin is no longer a clearly understood or accepted concept. When sharing the gospel, our typical introduction is to establish the biblical truth of the moral depravity of man beginning with Adam’s sin. From there we move to the moral code of God as summed up in the Ten Commands which we have all broken at some point making sin universal. I have sinned. You have sinned. And even if we have broken only one command, James writes, we have broken all of them (James 2:10). We are all law breakers. We are all guilty.

Or we may begin with identifying the felt need of the individual: their greatest pain or hurt. We then compassionately explain that God loves them, wants to relieve their pain and give them an abundant life. First, however, they must ask forgiveness for their sins and then God will come into their life and straighten up the mess.

However, what is our approach if the person has no recognized felt need or doesn’t believe that he is held responsible to an ancient religious moral code? I have been asked, “Why would a loving God send people to an eternal hell for temporary moral infractions during their lifetime? Maybe if they committed some heinous act it would be just, but surely not for lying or cheating once in a while. Maybe they didn’t do as much good as they could have, but they certainly did some good.”

At this point my typical answer dealt with contrasting the holiness of God and our unrighteousness. If we rightly understood how holy God is and how sinful we are, we would not be surprised at the severity of God’s judgment. This is all true, but does it deal with the causal issue?

Jesus said the real causal problem lies with our rebellious hearts (Luke 6:45, Jeremiah 17:9, Ezek. 36:25). Without a heart transplant, we are like walking dead. Ultimately we are judged not simply on the basis of our diseased heart that sins but for refusing to accept the offer of a spiritual heart transplant (John 3:18).

As I suggested in the previous blog, if the gospel is to be good news, it must deal with the causal issue not just a proximal issue. If the gospel doesn’t deal with the root problem of rebellion against God (Sin) then we will never be free. We may look better on the outside, but we are not really free from the bondage of Sin.

Consider the familiar parable that Jesus taught called the Prodigal Son. What if we looked at it through the lens of his causal issue vs. proximal issue?

The basic story line is of a young son who demanded his inheritance early in order to take off and live a wild and sensuous life. Eventually his lifestyle catches up with him. Broke, friendless, and alone he decides to return to his father who graciously welcomes him back with a party. The older brother (confused, jealous, and angry) complains of injustice to his father. The father quickly then returns the conversation back to the younger brother and the celebration. A great story of compassion, mercy and grace given by the father to his immoral son.

But consider an optional story line. The younger son asking for his inheritance early was just a symptom…the proximal issue. What he really wanted was to get out from under the authority of his father. He felt constrained and wanted to run his own life without his father’s interference. He leaves his home out of rebellion. He takes the benefits graciously given by a generous father and uses them as he pleases. He leaves home for another place where his lifestyle is supported and celebrated. His lifestyle and that of his friends is a rebellious statement against all that his father stands for.

Now let’s suppose that his pain finally becomes unmanageable and he remembers the gracious nature of his father. He decides to write a letter of apology to his father, confessing his immorality and owning up to the pain, suffering, sorrow that he has brought on himself. He even admits he disappointed his father, maligned his reputation, and left him shorthanded on the ranch. He even reluctantly admits it was a selfish act, disrespectful, and he can never undo the damage done.

He asks his father for a “pardon” (release from for further retribution). Then he closes with the request for a little more cash since he is frankly broke and could use a little seed money to start his new life. How would that version play out back home on the ranch? How would the father respond to that letter?

In the original story we are told that the son did not send a letter (or tweet an apology). Reunited with his father he did not even say he was sorry. He just came home. He came back where he belonged.

He did say to his father, “I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me as one of your hired men”. Translation: “I have come home to live under your authority. You can put me in your household wherever you want and I will let you be the head. It is your right and I now recognize that”.

This story is one of repentance (not merely confession). He renounced his adopted country of rebellion and returns to be a living sacrifice of loving allegiance and devotion to his father. His father’s acceptance was not based on his son’s sense of guilt or sorrow (it was not essential to the story), but on his decision to come home.

His pain and suffering made him aware of the slavery of the country in which he had been living. His repentance was a change of places/countries/kingdoms. His pain taught him there was no hope of a renewed life in the country of rebellion…..no way to freedom as long as he lived in revolt against his father. He recognized that he had been living in a place where rebellion, pushing the limits, doing your own thing, was the creed. He had gone there because he knew that self-rule was facilitated and celebrated.

His decision was not to live a better life in rebel territory by reforming and changing his priorities. He didn’t promise to tell his friends how generous his dad was or start up a recovery clinic for displaced people. He simply, humbly came home to live under his father’s gracious authority.

That is the good news of the gospel: we can now come home!

Questions for reflection:

What do the following biblical terms imply about the condition of man apart from Christ? How does the gospel deal with each?

Sinner (Rom. 3:23; Isa.59:1-2)
Lost (Luke 15, Matt. 18:11)
Dead (Eph. 2:1,5)
Blind (2Cor. 4:4)
Gone astray (Isa. 53:6)
Children of wrath (Eph. 2:3)
Broken (Zec. 11:16; Ezek. 34:16)

TADB 022: The Cross and the Crown: an Essential but Fragile union

The cross and the crown of Jesus represent basically the two major aspects of His work. The cross represents His humiliation which includes His incarnation, demonstration, and crucifixion. The crown represents His exaltation which includes His resurrection, ascension, coronation, and revelation. More specifically the cross has come to represent the crucifixion, atonement, and His role as Savior while the crown represents His coronation, kingdom and His role as King.

Historically there has been a fragile relationship between these two major elements of the Christian faith. Due in part to our tendency to polarize what we cannot harmonize, the church has swung back and forth between these two truths: a pendulum swinging reductionalism.¹

During much of the 20^th century there have been reactionary debates between those who focused on the cross and those who emphasized the kingdom/crown. As mainline denominations began to emphasize the need to usher in the kingdom now, they either marginalized or dismissed the necessity of the atonement/cross. More conservative camps reacted by emphasizing the cross and personal redemption thereby marginalizing the crown or relegating it to a future (eschatological) dimension. The unintended consequence was a truncated gospel of sin management in which salvation is essential but discipleship is an elective.

The tension resurfaced in the latter part of the 20^th century when there was a debate over “Lordship Salvation”. It pitted the view that belief in Jesus as Savior was all that was required against those who stressed the need to believe in Him as Savior and Lord.

More recently the “missional movement” stressed the gospel through the lens of restoring our culture in light of the kingdom. Much like the earlier movements, the focus on kingdom living polarized the discussion as it tended to marginalize the cross and the atonement.

A second contributor to this polarization is found in the overall theme we ascribe to Scripture. Most would agree that the grand theme is the revelation of God, but what is it after that? Various unifying themes have been promoted: Atonement, redemption, kingdom, Christ, etc. The chosen theme can unintentionally create a tension in the union between the cross and the crown.

A third contributor to this tension is the influence of symbols. Throughout Christian and secular history the cross has survived as the primary symbol for the Christian faith. It has not always been so. The cross was rarely used as a symbol during the first four hundred years of Christianity. Prior to Constantine the early church used various symbols of faith.

“Early Christians used a wide variety of symbols to express their faith. The second-century Christian teacher Clement of Alexandria identified a dove, a fish, a ship, a lyre, and an anchor as suitable images to be engraved on Christians’ signet-rings (or seals).” ² Archaeologists have confirmed this in various discoveries.

“Among the symbols employed by the early Christians, that of the fish seems to have ranked first in importance. Ichthus (ΙΧΘΥΣ, Greek for fish) is an acronym a word formed from the first letters of several words. It translates to “Jesus Christ God’s Son Savior,” in ancient Greek.”³

The symbol of the cross and crown together never quite caught on which is unfortunate in my opinion. One reason could be that to draw a cross is much simpler than drawing a crown. It is fairly easy to make the “sign of the cross” but the “sign of the crown” would take a lot more coordination! So out of convenience we disconnected the theme of the kingdom of God and the atonement.

The atonement of Christ has both an individual and kingdom component. Through the cross man’s rebellion to God’s authority (sin) has been dealt with and God’s wrath averted. But the atonement has also set us free from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the Kingdom of God. The atonement is both a substitution and a transference. We have been brought into His story where we can now find our significance, identity, and responsibility.

I am sure the symbol of the cross originally carried with it the entire story of Jesus Christ the Lord. But overtime and changing cultures, it has lost the context of the kingdom. I am not crusading for a new, revised Christian symbol but rather a renewed union of the cross and the crown. When the cross and the crown are united in our minds as the central theme of the gospel, then discipleship on the resurrection side of the cross will no longer be an elective but an essential and natural response.

The practice of simplifying a complex idea, issue, condition, or the like, especially to the point of minimizing, obscuring, or distorting it. For more background read The Crucified King, Jeremy Treat, Zondervan, pg. 26
Christianity Today, February, 2009, “When did the cross supplant the ichthus (fish) as a symbol of the Christian faith?” Everett Ferguson
New World Encyclopedia “Christian Symbolism”