Bible = Gospel?

[12strings]

Ann, if your husband is preaching the Word of God then he is preaching the Gospel.

Do ya'll agree with this or disagree?

I realize it depends on you definition of the Gospel...but consider the following, and let me know if each would be considered "preaching the gospel" ...or even considered right preaching.

1. I preach on Genesis 1 and do not mention Jesus, only making application that we should worship God because he made us and all things.

2. I preach on Matthew 5 about not lusting, but not mention that Jesus died to forgive lust...only that you shouldn't do it.


Could the above be considered "preaching the Gospel", or even be considered "right preaching of the word" If the larger meta-narrative of scripture is not mentioned?

What say you?

 

[zrs6v4]

I do not think that we can rightly discuss sin or other preaching matters without Jesus having something to do with it.

Does this mean that every time we talk about truth we have to go through a gospel tract? No

I would have to consider sermons in Acts and letters written to churches. Is there every a time that someone spoke truth without including Jesus and His work?

Can the gospel only be implied through a sermon, say you were preaching through a historical book and there is no natural place for Jesus to be preached? Do you always make a point to talk about Jesus even if awkwardly forced?

The danger is probably legalism or leading a church to forget what drives them (gospel) therefore it must always be spoken of. It may not need to be spoken of every time although it may be hard not to mention when our hearts are in the right place.

 

[Herald]

In the the thread of mine you mentioned, I quoted from Spurgeon:

To preach the gospel is to state every doctrine contained in God's Word, and to give every truth its proper prominence.

The reason Spurgeon made this statement is that he believed all scripture pointed towards Christ. Another way of saying it is that all scripture is fulfilled in Christ. So, even if a particular passage does not reference Jesus directly, it does so obliquely. Jesus Christ is the mortar that holds the Bible together.

 

[12strings]

In the the thread of mine you mentioned, I quoted from Spurgeon:

The reason Spurgeon made this statement is that he believed all scripture pointed towards Christ. Another way of saying it is that all scripture is fulfilled in Christ. So, even if a particular passage does not reference Jesus directly, it does so obliquely. Jesus Christ is the mortar that holds the Bible together.

I would agree with this...

So would you say that my OP examples are correct preaching of the Gospel, or not?

 

[Van]

I think lots of folks can preach from the Bible without touching on the topic of salvation from sin, which is the good news. Or another gospel could be presented which actually blocks folks from understanding the gospel. Recently I read of a sermon that said Jesus was Xenophobic. Clear contradiction with the gospel message that Jesus was sinless.

 

[Herald]

I would agree with this...

So would you say that my OP examples are correct preaching of the Gospel, or not?

I think so. Obviously a sermon is going to include other passages in support of your main point.

 

[12strings]

I think so. Obviously a sermon is going to include other passages in support of your main point.

Just to press a bit more, You would say that a sermon on Matthew 5 that simply said "Jesus Doesn't want you to lust...if you lust you're guilty before God of adultery" ...is a complete and proper preaching of God's Word?

 

[Herald]

Just to press a bit more, You would say that a sermon on Matthew 5 that simply said "Jesus Doesn't want you to lust...if you lust you're guilty before God of adultery" ...is a complete and proper preaching of God's Word?

Well, look at my previous post. If that was the only thing you said in the sermon (a three second sermon), then no. But I am assuming that you're preaching a full sermon with other supporting verses, and that you will expound on the text. In that case, yes. If you're doing that text justice then you are preaching the gospel.

 

[12strings]

Well, look at my previous post. If that was the only thing you said in the sermon (a three second sermon), then no. But I am assuming that you're preaching a full sermon with other supporting verses, and that you will expound on the text. In that case, yes. If you're doing that text justice then you are preaching the gospel.

Then I suppose I disagree. I would argue that in order to preach that text (Matt. 5:27-30) and "do it Justice", you must include somewhere the fact that Simply not lusting, or even plucking out your eye or going to extreme measures to avoid lusting will not ultimately save you from hell, but that the forgiveness purchased by Christ on the Cross will.

I would argue that to leave out the redemptive part of God's message to sinners is to take any passage "out of context", that is out of the broadest context of God's redeeming work.

I would also argue that preaching has the primary goal of not simply explaining a passage, not simply of warning people about sin, not simply of telling people how they can avoid sin, but of giving people the hope that Christ has already dealt with sin, that even for Christians this is the vital message to hear again and again. It protects us from moralism.

(If you are wondering where these ideas come from, they aren't mine...I've been listening to Bryan Chapell's "Christ-Centered Preaching")

 

[Herald]

Then I suppose I disagree. I would argue that in order to preach that text (Matt. 5:27-30) and "do it Justice", you must include somewhere the fact that Simply not lusting, or even plucking out your eye or going to extreme measures to avoid lusting will not ultimately save you from hell, but that the forgiveness purchased by Christ on the Cross will.

I would argue that to leave out the redemptive part of God's message to sinners is to take any passage "out of context", that is out of the broadest context of God's redeeming work.

I would also argue that preaching has the primary goal of not simply explaining a passage, not simply of warning people about sin, not simply of telling people how they can avoid sin, but of giving people the hope that Christ has already dealt with sin, that even for Christians this is the vital message to hear again and again. It protects us from moralism.

(If you are wondering where these ideas come from, they aren't mine...I've been listening to Bryan Chapell's "Christ-Centered Preaching")

Ha! I have that book.

I think your question kind of pigeon-holed my response. Chappel has been accused of forcing Christ as the primary subject of any text. In other words, if Christ is not the primary subject of a text, Chappel believes the text must be viewed as though he is. While the entire Bible reveals God's redemptive story through Jesus Christ, not every verse is about Jesus Christ. I hope this makes sense.

 

[zrs6v4]

(If you are wondering where these ideas come from, they aren't mine...I've been listening to Bryan Chapell's "Christ-Centered Preaching")

Good book, He's presodent of Covenant Seminary 15 miles from my house. I went to a school right next door to Covenant and took a class when I was doing my bachelor's where we read and discussed that book and a couple others.

 

[Yeshua1]

Do ya'll agree with this or disagree?

I realize it depends on you definition of the Gospel...but consider the following, and let me know if each would be considered "preaching the gospel" ...or even considered right preaching.

1. I preach on Genesis 1 and do not mention Jesus, only making application that we should worship God because he made us and all things.

2. I preach on Matthew 5 about not lusting, but not mention that Jesus died to forgive lust...only that you shouldn't do it.


Could the above be considered "preaching the Gospel", or even be considered "right preaching of the word" If the larger meta-narrative of scripture is not mentioned?

What say you?

the Apostle paul and other Apostles very specific regarding what is to"preach the Gospel", its birth/death/resurrection of Jesus, Son of God, whose death appeased the wrath of God towards our sins!

 

[12strings]

Ha! I have that book.

I think your question kind of pigeon-holed my response. Chappel has been accused of forcing Christ as the primary subject of any text. In other words, if Christ is not the primary subject of a text, Chappel believes the text must be viewed as though he is. While the entire Bible reveals God's redemptive story through Jesus Christ, not every verse is about Jesus Christ. I hope this makes sense.

I agree that forcing Christ in as the primary subject can often be abused, and I have heard it done poorly...however, preaching a section that speaks only of God's laws and how people must follow them or die seems to not be helpful to people's souls if that is the only message conveyed. It will simply leave some people feeling guilty, and others feeling self-righteous; giving neither person the hope or confrontation they need.

 

[Herald]

I agree that forcing Christ in as the primary subject can often be abused, and I have heard it done poorly...however, preaching a section that speaks only of God's laws and how people must follow them or die seems to not be helpful to people's souls if that is the only message conveyed. It will simply leave some people feeling guilty, and others feeling self-righteous; giving neither person the hope or confrontation they need.

Agreed. When the Law is part of the text being preached it must always be tempered in light of the New Covenant.

 

[DHK]

If one is preaching from Matthew 5 on the topic on lust, then do so. Leave the gospel for another time, when the Lord leads in that direction. The church is for the edification of the saints. The Great Commission is to be done by the saints outside of the church as they go into all the world, even if a part of that world is right next door.
I don't agree with everything Spurgeon says, and neither should you, any of you. Everyone of us should think for ourselves. I have a problem with some young people because, instead of "the Bible says," many times their answer is "but Spurgeon says." So who's Spurgeon?? What saith the Lord?
The purpose of the local church is not primarily evangelistic in nature. It is for the building up of the saints, to teach them doctrine.

Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

 

[12strings]

If one is preaching from Matthew 5 on the topic on lust, then do so. Leave the gospel for another time, when the Lord leads in that direction. The church is for the edification of the saints. The Great Commission is to be done by the saints outside of the church as they go into all the world, even if a part of that world is right next door.
I don't agree with everything Spurgeon says, and neither should you, any of you. Everyone of us should think for ourselves. I have a problem with some young people because, instead of "the Bible says," many times their answer is "but Spurgeon says." So who's Spurgeon?? What saith the Lord?
The purpose of the local church is not primarily evangelistic in nature. It is for the building up of the saints, to teach them doctrine.

Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

I agree with this whole post except for the underlined part... because the Gospel is not just for evangelization, but is the power and motivation for battling Lust in a long-time believer as well.