Bock

Discussion on the Gospel and Its Definition Feb 9

Christianity Today.com has just posted a podcast that is an interview I did on the gospel with Preaching Today. It deals with what the gospel is or is not.

The link is: http://blog.preachingtoday.com/2009/02/darrell_bock_on_small_or_large.html

Christianity Today.com has just posted a podcast that is an interview I did on the gospel with Preaching Today. It deals with what the gospel is or is not.

The link is: http://blog.preachingtoday.com/2009/02/darrell_bock_on_small_or_large.html

Let me know what you think.

I will discuss this in future blogs.

34 Comments

  • Brett W

    Large or Small Gospel
    Dr. Bock:

    I’ll tell you what I think, in a word: brilliant.

    I have something rather controversial to add, and something I’m sure few, in any, will agree with.

    First, when I was introduced to our Savior, the guy who witnessed to me never brought up the issue of sin. The main thrust of his gospel presentation was the LOVE of God for ME. Consequently, I never had a concept of an angry God needing to be appeased. I was told that God loved me and sent his son in order to express the extent of his love for every one.

    Now to the controversial statement. Most Calvinists that I have known see sin as that which separates us from God. They have this concept that sin is so terrible that God could have thrown us all into the lake of fire, but due to his mercy and grace, chose to save some (the apply the wonderful doctrine of Election to this, which I disagree with). They have this paranoia about personal sins. And I think this misunderstanding of sin leads them to the Calvinistic system. They still have this fear (not reverence) for God.

    On the other hand, I am convinced that personal sins are unrelated to one’s eternal destiny. The consequences of personal sins only have a temporal effect. I also argue that Christ paid for all the sins of the world and that, by itself, does not mean all are saved. What separates an unbeliever from God is his/her rejection of God’s offer of salvation. Every child born in the world is heaven bound unless, after a certain event (not age) takes place, and that event is the presentation of the Gospel in which they are free to accept or reject). Even though children who die as infants go to heaven, it is not because Christ paid for their sins; it is because there is no basis for their condemnation.

    I argue that in Gen 3 and in Rom 5, as well as elsewhere, there is NO eternal consequences mentioned for sin. All the consequences of sin listed in Gen 3, for example, last only until the grave. This is why sin is never mentioned in any final judgment passage for the unbeliever.

    No person will answer for sins, not even the unbeliever. I know my view is a bit radical, but I, like everyone else, approach Scripture with certain presuppositions. These presuppositions, and other factors, prevent me from seeing the Calvinist system as even remotely close to the truth.

    I am not one of those who belittles Calvinists. I even worked for Dan Wallace for a while and consider him a friend and godly man. But I am convinced that sin is unrelated to salvation. When Adam and Eve sinned, they did not cease being God’s children. In other words, they didn’t need to become “born again.” They remained God’s children; God unilaterally restored their relationship. They were “separated” from God as a result of their sin, but they were not “unsaved.”

    Sorry for rambling. But your statements about the relationship to sin and the gospel, although we differ in many respects, was rather refreshing for me to hear. I am not in any way implying that you agree with my position; I am just saying that I enjoyed very much the way you presented sin.

    Brett

  • bock

    Large or small dlb

    Brett:

    I can’t agree on your take on sin. Adam and Eve’s action led to death (yes, they were still God’s children, but were sanctioned for their act that led to death and the curse). I do not know how one can read Romans 3-5 and not see sin as a part of the equation (Gospel answers the dilemma of Romans 3:10-18, which is about sin). Whatever hilasterion means in Romans 3, it does deal with ideas tied to sacrifice and sin. As for sin not being mentioned in judgment passages, I think this is an example the word-concept fallacy (I have to have the word sin to have the idea be present– and that equation is wrong). To judge because of the committing of certain vices is to judge for sin. So thanks for your kind comments, but I cannot accept the distinctions you are making on sin and salvation (as you suspected). Romans and Galatians are too clear on such points.

  • cw-nf

    large or small gospel
    Dr. Brock
    I think you have it right about the sin.
    The problim is that most ,want to know how much sin they can get away with, or haw far can you go before it cause trouble.
    sin seperates from God.
    God keep you from sin by his Holy Spirit if we submit.
    cw-nf

  • Anonymous

    Hello Prof. Bock,
    I was

    Hello Prof. Bock,

    I was wondering……with all this talk about the gospel needing to be bigger or smaller I was wondering why we can’t just go with Campus Crusade’s ” 4 Spiritual Laws ” presentation of the gospel. It’s clear and easy. It talks about God, our sin, Jesus’ death, resurrection and our reconciliation to God.

  • bock

    Hello dlb
    This is actually a big topic, but let me try to say it this way briefly. We tend to present the gospel as a transaction and the four laws, even though it gets at relationship, has the same transactional emphasis. It is a good tool, but does not highlight the life with God as much as it does the removal of sin. Gospel presentations that highlight removal from sin focus on the transaction. Removing sin importantly clears the decks for a wlak with God, but the real good news is we can know and relate to God–and he gives the tools necessary for that relationship. It is the relational side of the gospel and what God does to provide for it in addition to the removal of sin that makes the gospel the good news. This relational side of things is what I am hoping people appreciate about the gospel and sharing it.

  • Anonymous

    Hello Prof. Bock,
    Then

    Hello Prof. Bock,

    Then what is the difference between your position and those of the ‘smaller’ gospel crowd? I’m guessing the smaller gospel crowd would say that the gospel is what happened 2000 thousand years ago…….it’s the objective events that happened 2000 years ago………Jesus’ life, death and resurrection and that reconciliation and the power to live the way God wants us to is the result or implication of the gospel but that it is not the gospel itself? How would you answer that? Wouldn’t the smaller gospel crowd andd the larger gospel crowd agree with Paul that the gospel is ultimately about reconciliation?…it’s pretty clear in 2 Corinthians 5. Is this all just a matter of emphasis when presenting the gospel?
    Interestingly I was recently reading J.I. Packers book ‘ 18 Words ‘. On the chapter on the word ‘ Reconciliation ‘ he said for Paul this was the essence of the gospel.

    – Thanks

  • bock

    Hello, Part 2 dlb
    As I suggested the point is what is focused on- the transaction or the relationship. It also is about what gets the emphasis, removal of sin or the ongoing relationship that results from it. A removal of sin and transaction emphasis tends to stress what we avoid (the judgment of God). The relational emphasis highlights where we end up– knowing God in a relationship that is unending and where he provides what we most need to sustain that relationship, namely, the Spirit of God. Do not overread what I am saying. I am not saying this is not in the other version of presenting things. I am simply saying that putting the emphasis on where we end up does a clearer job of presenting what the gospel is really about.

  • Alan

    The Goal of the Gospel
    Thanks Dr Bock. The best book I have read on this is John Piper, The Goal of the Gospel, which espouses what you have said. His, and your point is: the goal of the gospel is not forgiveness, the goal is God! Again, thanks.

    Alan

  • Anonymous

    Prof. Bock,
    I was

    Prof. Bock,

    I was wondering how you would present the gospel. Campus Crusade has the four spiritual laws…..1.) God loves you and has a…
    2.) Man is sinful and separated from God. Therefore he cannot know and experience…
    3.) Jesus Christ is God’s only provision for man’s sin.
    Through him you can know and experience God’s love and plan
    for your life….
    4.) We must individually receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord;
    then we can know and experience God’s love and plan for our lives…..

    9 Marks Ministry’s gospel presentation is : God, Man, Jesus Christ, Response. I was wondering how you would present the gospel. What would be your points or laws that you would present or try to get across when evangelizing? Thanks.

  • bock

    I was dlb
    What I highlight is the opportunity to permanently restore the broken relationship we have to God through what Jesus Christ has done. Paul summarizes this as "we implore the world to be reconciled to God" in 2 Cor 5:20-21. Thus the relational restoration would be clearly built on top of the dealing with cleansing from sin. God offers life and enablement for life with him through the Spirit Jesus provided through his offer of forgiveness for sin. Faith is relational reliance (trust) on what Jesus has done.

  • Ben

    Christ’s Identity in the Gospel
    Dr. Bock,

    Thanks for your comments and perspectives. I agree that the gospel is more than a mere transaction and must embrace the relational component.

    My question deals with the issue of the Identity of Christ within our gospel presentation. Basically, how much (in terms of personhood, diety, work) of Jesus Christ must be communicated and also understood but the hearer for the gospel first, to be true and second, to be efficacious for salvation? For example, would I need to present the doctrine of the Trinity in order to present Christ as revealed in Scriptures? For many cults proclaim than one must believe in ‘Jesus’ but it is not the Jesus of the Bible.

    Thanks.

    • bock

      Christ…Gospel dlb

      Ben:

      Great question. What the early church did was to make clear that Jesus mediated the benefits of salvation with divine privilege and authority (seated at the right hand of God- Acts 2; to function as judge of the living and the dead- Acts 10). The key here is that it is crucial to understand that Jesus’ position is part of why he is so necessary to the process of salvation. So in that position, he died for forgiveness of sins and mediates the giving of God’s Spirit to indwell us. Embracing that work and that person by faith is the response called for (Eph 2:8-10). This can also be expressed as "turning" to God or repenting of sin. We end up emphasizing faith because in the end it is God and his work through Jesus that one trusts in for salvation that also is described as the establishing of this relationship Scripture calls eternal life.

      • Mark Nugent

        Repentance
        Darrell, i was wondering what you mean here when you say repenting of sin? Do you mean turning from sin? Do you believe a person must turn from his sin in order to be saved? Thanks, Mark

        • bock

          Repentance dlb

          Mark:

          Repentance means to change your mind in Greek and to turn in Hebrew. Turning from sin is a way it is often described. I prefer to say that it involves viewing sin differently than before. Rather than being indifferent to it, one is sensitive to it and seeks God’s help in dealing with it. Repentance and turning to God for His provision to deal with it in being saved is something Luke 5:32, 24:47 and Acts 26:18-20 teach clearly.

          • Mark

            Repentance
            Darrell,

            Since I can’t find the phrase “repent of your sins” in the New Testament, I often wonder why so many use it as a requirement in salvation. You are correct in your Hebrew and Greek definitions, but they are not interchangeable, as they do not mean the same thing. They should have never been translated the same. Too many people think to repent of your sins means to stop sinning, and feel sorry for your sins, and too many include it in the Gospel. There is no way a person can be saved by turning from their sins, (stop sinning), making some sort of deal with God to sin less, or to feel sorry for their sins. We are born sinners, and even if somehow we never sinned again, we would still be guilty of sin. I hear and read churches saying salvation is a free gift, but then add repentance of sin to their gospel message. If there is some effort on our part, it’s no longer free. In Luke 5:32 Jesus is calling sinners to repentance. I don’t believe he is calling them to repent of their sins, but to the same repentance John was preaching, which was to change the way they were thinking concerning salvation, the Messiah, and the Kingdom of God. The only way we can deal with sin is after salvation, not before, and not as part of. I feel the repentance message we hear today is a huge heresy which bothers me greatly. I feel it stems from the misunderstanding of the word repent. thanks, Mark

          • bock

            Repentance dlb

            Mark:

             

            Sure hope you read what I said versus just reacting. I said the person who repents, thinks differently about sin and comes to Him for help in dealing with it. It means caring about what sin means and does. Acts 26:20 shows how Paul made the call using the term as part of his presentation of the gospel. This is not, as you say, to stop sinning or feeling bad for sin. It is recognizing that sin is displeasing to God and seeking His enablement to be able to walk in righteousness (Romans 6-8 indicates how God brings us to walk as we were designed to walk). Part of the gift of salvation is the indwelling of the Spirit that enable us to walk with God and do what He calls us to do (Eph 2:8-10). If you want what John the Baptist preached about repentance, take a look at Luke 3:8-14. On the Hebrew and Greek, they are not synonyms, but are related. The Greek mean change one’s mind about something (in this case sin), while the Hebrew pictures that change of mind as a turning (one image is just more visual than the other). The issue is not the use of the term repentance with the gospel but being clear about what it means and how it works. Try reading Luke 24:47 for what the church is commissioned to preach in terms of the gospel (with repentance in the mix). dlb

          • Mark

            Repentance
            Darrell,
            I wasn’t trying to say you were using repentance wrong, just stating the fact that so many do. I was reading a churches statement of faith just the other day, and they clearly said repentance means to turn from your sin, or stop sinning. It just drives me kind of crazy, and i just wanted to get some insight form someone else.

            Thanks again Darrell,
            Mark

  • Brett Williamss

    Dr. Bock:
    You

    Dr. Bock:

    You wrote:
    Embracing that work and that person by faith is the response called for (Eph 2:8-10). This can also be expressed as “turning” to God or repenting of sin.

    Could you clarify how “faith” (as described in Eph 2.8-10) is another way of saying “repenting of sin”?

    BTW, you may have accidentally deleted a previous email of mine along with those putting ads in their posts. I tried to follow up to your reply to my first post.

    Brett

    • bock

      Dr Bock dlb

      Brett:

       

      My point is that even in Ephesians there are references to being brought out of the impact of sin in Ephesians 2. To ask for what Jesus provides means (1) you appreciate the predicament sin has placed you in and (2) that Jesus is the only solution for it. That change of mind (or turn) is what repent means.

      Sorry, I apparently got your reply by accident.

  • Brett Williamss

    Turning or Repenting
    Dr. Bock:

    When I personally accepted Christ by faith, the gospel that was presented to me was that God wanted me to go to heaven and enjoy his love forever. That is what I turned TO. However, I was not making any conscious decision to say “I am now turning AWAY FROM my sins and to God.” I just don’t remember “sins” being a part of the gospel presentation to me. It was all about turning TOWARD heaven. I didn’t ask a lot of question at that time, but I did later learn that all sins were imputed to Christ, not the person committing them. I don’t believe that Christ’s payment for sins is conditioned on whether or not I accept God’s offer of salvation. All of Hitler’s sins were paid for. This is why I have stated before that sins only have a temporal effect. Gen 3 lists the consequences of the Fall, but not one of the consequences goes beyond the grave. In other words, there is nothing about the Fall that determines a person’s eternal destiny!! Christ says a person is justified by his words and is condemned by his words (not his position in Adam). And, hypothetically, if a person lived 75 years without ever sinning, and then died, his eternal destiny would be based on “his words” (Mt 12.37). Living a perfect life (hypothetically) does not qualify someone to enter heaven.

  • Paul

    Dr. Bock:
    I appreciated your

    Dr. Bock:
    I appreciated your dinner table illustration in the pod cast about the gospel. It gave me a very good picture.
    I can understand the concern about not focusing on a transaction, but rather on the relationship/reconciliation offered by God in Christ. It seems like the apostles’ gospel presentation talked about the new relationship with God, about the gift of the Spirit and the new life with God and about the judgment day. So I am having a hard time knowing when I am including too much in the gospel, too much about what I do after the meal.
    What would a “too large gospel” presentation look like? What presentations have you heard which illustrate confusing people by talking about mission?
    Can you speak to this in your future blogs?
    Thanks,
    Paul

  • Brett Williamss

    What I am simply arguing is
    What I am simply arguing is that an unbeliever need not be informed about the issue of sin in a gospel presentation. The unbeliever can simply turn to Christ in order to be saved – and to be “saved” does not have to imply being saved “from” something in the past, such as sins. One could easily argue that by accepting Christ one will be saved/delivered from the coming judgment. Deliverance from the final judgment is based on whether or not someone has accepted Christ, not how many sins they did. I simply can not emphasize this enough. People can die in their sins, but people can’t be sentenced to eternal condemnation because of personal sins!

    Brett

    • bock

      What I am simply arguing dlb

      Brett:

      My take is that if you need to be saved at all, then that implies that there is at least some sense of why such a rescue is needed. Thus, though sin is not explicit, it is implicit in this language. So some sense of need and why the cross does bring in this topic.

      dlb

  • Kevin

    Dr. Bock,
    Thanks for taking

    Dr. Bock,

    Thanks for taking the time to consider the definition of the gospel and to respond to these comments on your blog.

    I question whether the image you use to illustrate your position (that death for sin does not get at the core of what the gospel is about) actually represents the biblical evidence. It’s impossible, of course, to address the NT evidence for the gospel and death for sin in a blog comment, but here is a sample of what I mean:

    In the image of a meal, you call death for sin the table-setting and fellowship with God the actual meal itself (by which you seem to mean the actual gospel itself, or at least the core part of the gospel). But I think the biblical authors see death for sin as a core part of the good news itself. For example, John says that the new song we will sing is “worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain…” (Rev 5:9). After a great meal, you don’t rave about the setting, you rave about the meal. But here we see that we see people singing (raving) about Christ’s death for our sin. Yes, Christ’s death leads to fellowship with God (“God himself will be with them as their God,” Rev 21:3), which is also an important part of the gospel. But we will still sing about his death for eternity, and thus it seems rather more important than simply a means to get to the heart of the gospel.

    I think you rightly say that the gospel includes more than death for sin (at the very least, of course, it includes the resurrection, 1 Cor 15). But wonder if your approach does not over-correct certain tendencies in evangelicalism and end up de-emphasizing the importance of death for sin held up by the NT authors. Paul, after all, can still summarize his message as the “word of the cross.”

    Again, thanks for taking the time for this,

    Kevin McFadden

    • bock

      Thanks dlb

      Kevin:

      Your concluding remark is my point. We do not get the full story JUST with the death. Now ask yourself this question. Why is the crowd able to sing about the cross and Jesus’ death in Revelation? Because they have endless fellowship with the Father because of it! That is the point. The death is not merely a transaction, it is a transition into new life. The reference to the cross is a kind of synecdoche- a part for the whole (the way into life is through the death- that is what makes it great, because of what it enables in an openended way). It is the base, the starting point, you can’t get there without it, but it alone is not the story. The same author who writes Rev 4-5 also writes John 17:3 where eternal life is what Jesus thanks God for giving– and it is defined relationally as knowing the Father and the Son. Does this help?

      dlb

       

      • Kevin

        Dr. Bock,
        I’ll have to think

        Dr. Bock,

        I’ll have to think more about the reference to the cross as a synecdoche–I agree that it is in one sense, but is it significant that Paul chose to call it the “word of the cross” instead of the “word of resurrection?” Could he have just as easily used the latter?

        I also agree that we do not get the full story with just Christ’s death for our sin. But isn’t even Christ’s death itself more than the starting point? more than a mere transaction? Isn’t it a relational act itself as both the Father and the Son’s supreme act of love towards us (John 15:13; Rom 5:8)? This is where your analogy with the Jewish cult seems to me to wrongly de-emphasize the cross as a mere transaction, because there is an escalation between the levitical sacrifices and Christ’s death–the sacrifices were not praised, but the lamb is magnified as worthy because he was slain. And this is where your image of the meal also seems to de-emphasize the cross. Perhaps it would be better to speak of death for sin as part of the meal itself, although not the full meal of the gospel? (And certainly not merely as an appetizer, just to ward off other potential directions ! 🙂

        Thanks again for your time,
        Kevin

        • bock

          Think

          Kevin:

          The point is that the cross alone does not get us to the core or goal of the gospel.  You have to have it (which is the point you are right to make), but if one stops there, something crucial is missing. It is the core of the synecdoche because it all starts with the cross, but it does not end there. John shows us this by calling the cross the glorification of the Son, but the very reference to glorification pushes us toward resurrection-ascension and life. Remember I am not speaking of the cross and all it is in the NT but how we tend to portray it when we discuss it and highlight transaction. It is in that sense of making it sound like only a transaction that I am complaining about its use. I am comfortable with speaking about the cross as a part of the meal. My point in making it like the utensils was to say that a cross without reaching the goal of relationship (that is as transaction alone) is like sitting at the table and never getting to the food that is the point of sitting down to a meal. Please hear me, I am not saying that is what the Bible says about the cross. I am saying when we present the cross as if it were merely a transaction that is what we risk making it become. Does that make any more sense?

          • Kevin

            thanks
            Dr. Bock,

            Thanks for clarifying this further. Yes, this helps. If I’m understanding correctly, you do not interpret the NT to view the cross as a mere transaction. Instead, this “mere transaction” view is the way that some wrongly tend to present the cross.

            I’ll admit that I still feel hesitant about your image of the meal (and analogy with the Jewish cult) because it sounds like you are accepting this premise that the cross (or death for sin) is a “mere transaction,” then building upon it. But I think I see your overall point more clearly now, that we must not divorce the cross from its benefits, or we will misunderstand the gospel.

            Thanks again for the interaction,

            Kevin

          • bock

            Thanks dlb

            Kevin:

            You got it. When we just discuss the cross, something important risks going missing.

            dlb

  • B.

    This is a good discussion. I
    This is a good discussion. I am learning even while reading the comments. But Prof. Bock ‘Kevin’ does bring up a point in 1 Corinthians when Paul calls the gospel ” the message of the cross ” or ” the word of the cross”. He then goes on to say how it ( the message of the cross) trips up or offends both Jews and Greeks. Isn’t Paul saying that the center of the gospel is the crucifixion of Christ? What about in Galatians where Paul says He only boasts in the cross?
    Another question….a hypothetical one….. If Jesus died only to pay the penalty for sin and not bring us into a relationship with God would the cross be meaningless or empty?
    Are there any books that deal with this issue in terms of transaction or relationship in terms of the gospel. Thanks.

    • bock

      good discussion dlb
      The gist of my response is in the post just above called Thanks. The cross serves as a starting point and hub for all of this, but it is not the "landing" point. Yes, without the relationship the cross would be largely a mere legal exercise. God is interested in more than that. I am going to write a book on this in the next year or so.

  • John

    Darkness to Light
    Darrell,

    How do you think the gospel applies to the many Christians today who do not have any sort of darkness to light conversion? Personally, I cannot remember a time when I was not a Christian. Sure, my parents helped me stage some conversion experience, but in reality they raised me to be a Christian and only later tried to make me one of the pagan Gentiles Paul was preaching to. Don’t get me wrong, I believe to gospel, but I have believed it for as long as I can remember. I suppose I, like everyone else, experiences a variety of mini conversions throughout my life as I continue to affirm the truth of the gospel despite my changing circumstances and widening perspectives. However, I would never say that I had some transitional moment (that I can remember) from death in sin to new life with Christ. I think this is true for so many evangelicals these days.

    John

    • bock

      Darkness to Light dlb

      John:

      The scenario you describe fits nicely with the relational core of the gospel, because the issue is embracing the living God and his message through Jesus. As John 1:12 puts it, "but for as many as received him, he gave the right to become children of God." Reception and embrace of what God offers is what relational faith is.