Something rotten at Asbury

I'm not following you. Why is it mistaken to say revival includes the winning of souls to Christ? If a person is right with God, he will witness for Christ, amen?

 

Well of course. I believe that. You missed my point. Since we are not perfect, we sometimes need renewal--unless you are arguing against the need and existence for real revival--I don't know that you are, I simply haven't figured out yet what you are saying.

 

You said, "That's not what Rice meant at all; he is not speaking of salvation."

(emphasis mine)

 

Before something can be revived, it has to be alive first. I am skeptical about how much, if any, spiritual life exists at a university that promulgates a false gospel.

 

He was speaking of salvation not of the believer participating in the revival of the saints, but of the believer winning others to Christ as a necessary component of biblical revival. Is that not clear to you? It is to me.

 

What false Gospel are you talking about?

 

False gospels teach things such as the gospel is an offer instead of a declaration as the Bible teaches; such as conditioning salvation on the sinner instead of Christ having fulfilled all of the conditions on behalf of God's elect.

 

No, it is not. If that is what was meant, then it was communicated poorly.

 

Fair enough.

 

As you know, Christ commanded us to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature.

One of our seminary grads, an Iranian, just spoke in chapel. He and Todd, a current seminary student, just got back from evangelizing in a strict Muslim country. One picture showed Todd sitting next to a Muslim, giving him the Gospel. What would you tell that young Muslim if you were Todd?

 

Hardly something I can write out on here as it would likely be a lengthy conversation depending upon how much the person knew about what God wrote in His Word.

 

Does this mean you believe the Gospel to be complicated?

Hmm. Paul did not take very much space for his statement of the Gospel in 1 Cor. 15.

 

No. However, it also doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.

I don't think that the apostle Paul said
1. Christ died for the sins of His people.
2. Christ was buried.
3. Christ rose on the third day.
and then stopped.

I think he fleshed that out.

I don't think the apostle Paul was a preacher concerned about getting his hearers out on time to beat the rush to the restaurants - Acts of the Apostles 20:7.

 

Absolutely not, and if you think I believe that it does you could not be more wrong.

Yes, he did flesh that out with an extended statement on the resurrection in the rest of the chapter. The atonement without the resurrection is an incomplete Gospel. The Greek grammar of 1 Cor. 15 has one sentence complete sentence from v. 3 to v. 7, probably v. 8 (depending on the grammarian).

Various theologians (John R. W. Stott in Christian Mission in the Modern World, Charles Ryrie in Basic Theology, et al) have pointed out that the burial proves the death, and the witnesses prove the resurrection.

It is a common mistake among Americans giving the Gospel that they leave out the resurrection, thinking that other Americans know about Easter. That is a terrible error in many countries. In Japan, they don't mind adding another god to their Shintoism. They practice ancestor worship, so why not! But the resurrection is absolutely necessary in any presentation of the Gospel.

So 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 that is a basic statement of the Gospel and its proofs. But you seemed to indicate that you would have a lot more to say to the young Muslim, and I'm wondering if that would be in addition to the substitutionary atonement and the resurrection.

Well, of course not, but that statement is superfluous to what I have written here.

 

I do not think you believe that. I apologize if the way I wrote my comment caused you to think that.

 

Wouldn't you need to start by explaining the sinner's condition and why he needs a Savior because of his sin and lack of perfection that he can only have by the imputation of his sins to Christ, which Christ paid the debt for on the cross, and by the imputation of Christ's righteousness to God's elect, that there is nothing that a sinner can do to effect his own salvation but that salvation is totally by Christ ALONE in fulfilling all of the conditions?

 

Well, yes, but you are describing the substitutionary atonement with this, which is all in the phrase--"Christ died for our sins...."

So, if the people at Asbury talked about the substitutionary atonement, that would not be a false Gospel, would it? I guess I'm still trying to get at why you think what is happening at Asbury portrays a false Gospel.

I might agree with you, but though I've done a little research on this "revival" (not yet willing to call it a revival, though it might be), I've yet to hear of a gospel without the substitutionary atonement or the resurrection.

 

You could check out my post in the Baptist Theology & Bible Study section entitled, "The Gospel" - What Is It?". I doubt that is what they teach at Asbury.

 

I'll do that.

 

Okay, I went there and looked at the article. I don't necessarily disagree, but you "doubt that is what they teach at Asbury." You may be right. Here is a page on the Asbury website about past revivals: Revivals – Asbury University

Some seem to me to be real revivals, but the most recent ones look like Charismatic wildfire. If the college is part of the Charismatic "Revivalist Movement" as one website I went to has it, then this is not a true biblical revival. The true Gospel must be preached and souls will be saved.