What the Gospel is not

[DHK]

Really? You don't think the advent of the communication age, with radio, television, smart phones, the Internet, Skype, etc., has changed people?? For one thing, Americans' attention span has dropped significantly just in the last 15 years. Additionally, both politically and socially, polarization, fragmentation and division have become familiar themes and make it far more difficult for people of differing social, spiritual and political opinions to find common ground. Far more likely, they will reject and label one another without actually learning anything about one another. This is just as true of Christians as it is the lost.Sin hasn't changed. Mankind has changed dramatically. And the Bible confirms this will happen, and in fact, it already is:

2 Timothy 4, NASB
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine ; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,​

That verse is always relevant in every age. If you are claiming it for today it is if you are setting a date for the coming of Christ which we are told not to.
Mankind has not changed and never will. His heart is just as evil as it was in the first century and before. If they are not paying attention to your sermons perhaps you are a boring preacher

I am a missionary. In Asia many of our services last for four hours. What is the difference? Are you saying that the believers in Asia are more holy than the believers in America?

There are certain days of the year when we have a "preacher's fellowship." It is a day when preacher's are invited from the surrounding area to preach in one of the churches hosting the event. The day runs from about 9:00 am to 9:00 pm. There are Christians that will sit all day through good preaching of the Word. They enjoy the fellowship with others, and being fed the Word of God.
People haven't changed. Maybe you have. But people haven't.

Get over yourselves. Love God, love others, and preach the Gospel, which is the truth spoken in love.

You can make all the claims you want that men have not changed, the fact is they have, and the opportunities to present the Gospel are becoming more infrequent, and the hearts that are open are fewer and farther between.

Give me the time and date in history when God changed the nature of mankind. When did we enter into this new dispensation?

Nonetheless, we are to keep speaking it, at every opportunity. But we will not reach them with outrage, anger, vilification, and temper. We will reach them with love.

The gospel was never to be presented with outrage, anger, vilification, and temper. You have your facts wrong. You have a picture of history that isn't valid. Some of the Godly men that you are vilifying were some of most Godly and loving saints that walked the earth. They would give their life--literally--for the life of another. That is a characteristic that is not common anymore. We live in a selfish society. But here I reference believers not unbelievers.

And I see on this thread that loving others is disparaged. I have something to say to those who think thusly

1 John 4, NASB
8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.​

That's in the Bible, too. There is no limit on love. You are not allowed to withhold it from anyone. "Love God, love your neighbor." Jesus said these are the two greatest commandments. Your neighbor is everyone, not just those you want to love. It includes the bum, the drunk, the wife-beater, the thief, the murderer -- the homosexual.

Loving your neighbor is also to point him in the right direction which includes pointing him away from his sin. Love is the self-sacrificial giving of one's self. It is not necessarily emotional or an emotion in and of itself. Perhaps your concept of love is wrong.
Jesus spoke more about hell than he did about heaven, was he still speaking in love?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The gospel was never to be presented with outrage, anger, vilification, and temper. You have your facts wrong. You have a picture of history that isn't valid.

I'm not talking "history," I'm talking now. Come home. You've been away too long.

Some of the Godly men that you are vilifying were some of most Godly and loving saints that walked the earth.

I don't know what you think you're reading, but I've "vilified" no one, by name or otherwise.

Loving your neighbor is also to point him in the right direction which includes pointing him away from his sin. Love is the self-sacrificial giving of one's self. It is not necessarily emotional or an emotion in and of itself. Perhaps your concept of love is wrong.
Jesus spoke more about hell than he did about heaven, was he still speaking in love?

A classic example of the fallacy of a false dilemma. He talked about money more than He talked about heaven and hell combined, so stop trying to drag an issue into the discussion that isn't part of the discussion. We aren't talking about heaven and hell, we're talking about preaching the Gospel with love. Jesus used the words for "love" 53 times, counting two usages in the Revelation. If one considers that He inspired the writing of the entire Bible, He speaks of it 311 times. Repentance? Sixty-six times. Tell me what Jesus considered more important.

Many on here are willfully being blind. They read or see what they want to read or see, and ignore anything that contradicts their personally held prejudices and preconceived notions. I say that to say this, clearly and unequivocally:

I am not advocating love over repentance. I am not advocating "feel good" evangelism over truth. I am advocating that we preach the Gospel with love, without condemnation while at the same time being encouraging to the sinner to open his/her heart to the conviction of the Holy Spirit. That means sharing -- gently and lovingly -- the fact they are sinners.

Again, I'm going to say it, and I don't care if you don't agree with me or not: Conservative Christians spend more time being morally outraged at the decline of culture and sociopolitical trends than we do actually doing something about it, i.e., reaching out to those who are actually responsible for the decline of culture and sociopolitical trends and sharing Christ with them, with love.

Liberal Christians spend more time talking about "justice" than they do about bringing to Good News of the One who brings Justice.

When we are asked about the Gospel, we preach Calvin, dispensationalism, the Law, rarely Christ.

I cited Acts 13:14-41 on another thread today. It is a Paul's presentation of the Gospel to the Jews and Gentiles of Pisidian Antioch. Show me his preaching of repentance with condemnation in that passage. For that matter, tell me how closely you have to look to see a call to repentance?

Sinners need to know they are sinners, not doubt. But Paul didn't beat them over the head with their sin. He loved them into the presence of Christ. I would submit that if we don't do that, we aren't presenting Jesus' Gospel. You can take that for what it's worth.

 

[The Biblicist]

Within today’s church it has become fashionable to exhibit moral outrage to lost sinners and their sin.

When Jesus gave the great commision as worded in Luke 24:47 we read:

And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

There is no "good" news to those who first do not see themselves as sinners. That is why the first word of the gospel commission is to preach "repentance and remission of sins."

If you are not a sinner you need no savlation and no savior. Jesus reprimanded the pharisee and scribes because they did not see themselves as sinners but as righteous and without need of a Savior, or physician.

The first command of the gospel commission is "repent" and repentance cannot be preached unless sin is brought to the forefront and defined so that people can see their need for a Savior, for salvation.

This is why God sent the law to reveal the knowledge of sin. Jesus said, "except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish."

The gospel is worthless to all unless first they see themselves as sinners, in need of salvation.

Therefore, I don't think you understand what the gospel is at all. It is only "good news" to those who see themselves as sinners first, and see a need of salvation and see a need of a savior. That cannot occur until they know what sin is and that they are sinners and that is why "repent" is the first word of the gospel. They must know the BAD news first before the gospel is "good" news to them.

 

[Ed B]

I agree with your sentiment and I am reminded of what Paul said to the Corinthians about moral outrage and where it should be directed.

1 Corinthians 5: 9-13

9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges[c] those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”​

We must preach repentance to sinners when we present the Gospel. However, yelling at the fallen culture to repent is not our Gospel mission. Likewise, yelling at unregenerate sinners to stop sinning and live like Christians before the sinner is born again is not our job. Presenting the Good News of the Kingdom to the lost which includes repentence is our job.

Regarding the social justice question, James 1:27 certainly includes an element of that for the Christian and by extension the Church:

James 1:27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world​

Do you see the dichotomy of the words "outrage" and "grace" in that paragraph? Rare is it that anyone made friends by punching them in the nose. Rarer still is anyone berating a sinner for being a sinner and then winning them to Christ. Most of the time, Christians don't get past just berating them, in the first place. If we do it's ...

"Your lifestyle is an abomination, an insult to God, it goes against His holy word, and you're going straight to hell! I pray you get saved!" ...

Yeah, that's gonna win people to Christ!

The old saying "You gotta get 'em lost before you can get 'em found" is nonsense, particularly these days, in the era of "me," "self," and "my rights." Better is to meet them where they are at -- hurting, addicted, angry, depressed. Show them why, without the accusation or the "outrage." Don't try to tell them about "justice" or beliefs. Talk to them about life, and show them it can be better in Christ.

It is the same thing you're trying to do, without the punch in the nose.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

There is no "good" news to those who first do not see themselves as sinners.

Somebody please tell me why advocating love in the gospel presentation somehow equates in your minds to not sharing the truth of sin? Where in the world are you getting this idea?

Nowhere in any of my posts have I said "Whatever you do, don't tell 'em their sinners!" But that seems to be the nonsensical conclusion many of you are reaching.

"Love" and "repentance" are not mutually exclusive.

All I am saying is, do not to preach the Gospel from moral outrage. Do not prefer expression of moral outrage to the presentation of the Gospel. Where is anyone getting the idea I am saying "don't preach repentance"?

What I am saying is active, in-your-face confrontation -- i.e., "You're a sinner and you're going to hell" -- isn't going to win anyone to Christ. That's what I mean by "meeting them where they are at." If they don't think you understand or respect them, they won't listen. Understanding and respect is not acceptance of their lifestyle. Understanding and respect is the least any man should be able to expect from another.

If you are called to minister the Gospel to a homosexual, telling them they are an abomination before God is not going to get you very far. In fact, God doesn't call them an abomination. He calls their sin an abomination. If you forget the difference, your efforts are hopeless and a failure before they start.

"Speak the truth in love." How hard is that to understand?

 

[The Biblicist]

What I am saying is active, in-your-face confrontation -- i.e., "You're a sinner and you're going to hell" -- isn't going to win anyone to Christ. That's what I mean by "meeting them where they are at." If they don't think you understand or respect them, they won't listen. Understanding and respect is not acceptance of their lifestyle. It is all any man should be able to expect from another.

If you are called to minister the Gospel to a homosexual, telling them they are an abomination before God is not going to get you very far. In fact, God doesn't call them an abomination. He calls their sin and abomination.

"Speak the truth in love." How hard is that to understand?

When you confront a homosexual he needs to be confronted with the sin that is characterizing his rebellion against god or you are not preaching the gospel to him as "repent" is the first word of the gospel. Of course, we are not called to preach the gospel in a spirit of "hatred" of the sinner but we sure are to show them God's hatred for their sin, especially the sin that is characterizing their rebellion against God. We are to "warn them of the wrath to come" because GOD IS MORALLY OUTRAGED AGAINST THEIR PERSONAL SINS!

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

GOD IS MORALLY OUTRAGED AGAINST THEIR PERSONAL SINS!

Scripture? I'm sure you're going to cite several verses that depict God's anger, but examine them closely. Do they show God angry at the sin, or the sinner?

The truth is, moral outrage at the ideas, behaviors, and views of others rarely serves God’s purposes, only our own.

Think about that.

 

[Ed B]

When you confront a homosexual he needs to be confronted with the sin that is characterizing his rebellion against god or you are not preaching the gospel to him as "repent" is the first word of the gospel. Of course, we are not called to preach the gospel in a spirit of "hatred" of the sinner but we sure are to show them God's hatred for their sin, especially the sin that is characterizing their rebellion against God. We are to "warn them of the wrath to come" because GOD IS MORALLY OUTRAGED AGAINST THEIR PERSONAL SINS!

I wouldn't question your point that the personal sin of homosexuality must be repented of, but gossip, greed, fraudulent business practices (swindlers), drunkenness, fornication, gluttony, covetousness and all his or her other sins must also be repented of. The list gets long and we soon discover that many of those sins are epidemic amongst church members who have said the sinner's prayer, repented of sin in a non-specific general way, and followed the Lord in baptism already. Did their sinners prayer "take" if they are still swindlers, fornicators, covetous, and gossips? Sexual immorality is a deadly sin both for the heterosexual and the homosexual but so are many other sins.

 

[The Biblicist]

Scripture? I'm sure you're going to cite several verses that depict God's anger, but examine them closely. Do they show God angry at the sin, or the sinner?

The truth is, moral outrage at the ideas, behaviors, and views of others rarely serves God’s purposes, only our own.

Think about that.

The wrath of God will not be against "sins" but "sinners" as it will be sinners, not "sins" that will be cast in to hell.

God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day. - Psa. 7:11

Notice the contrast is between "the righteous" and "the wicked" not between "righteousness" and "wickedness."

Paul said that God "hated Esau" (Rom. 9:13). If you spiritualize "Esau" to mean the descendents of Esau or "Edom" than God hates a whole nation of Esau's.

The whole book of Proverbs contrasts the righteous with the wicked in addition to righteousness and wickedness.

Think about it, God is not going to exert his eternal wrath against sins but against sinners. The "wrath of God abides" not upon sins but upon unbelievers (Jn. 3;36). The love of God is found only "in Christ" not outside of Christ.

In regard, to the particular sin of homosexualiy, it is separated from all other sins as the typical sin that characterizes a city or world that brings on the wrath of God -"as in the days of Sodom..." It seems to be the sin which indicates the moral tipping point of a person, city, nation, world that is at war with God and when this sin comes out of the closet, it becomes the moral flood gate that unleashes gross immorality upon a whole culture and the indicator of soon judgment upon that culture.

 

[The Biblicist]

I wouldn't question your point that the personal sin of homosexuality must be repented of, but gossip, greed, fraudulent business practices (swindlers), drunkenness, fornication, gluttony, covetousness and all his or her other sins must also be repented of. The list gets long and we soon discover that many of those sins are epidemic amongst church members who have said the sinner's prayer, repented of sin in a non-specific general way, and followed the Lord in baptism already. Did their sinners prayer "take" if they are still swindlers, fornicators, covetous, and gossips? Sexual immorality is a deadly sin both for the heterosexual and the homosexual but so are many other sins.

I do not believe all sin is equal in regard to judgement, but all sin is equally sin. There are sins that do not involve the harm of others but only self and thus will not be judged equally as sins that involve and bring harm upon others.

The sin of homosexuality is chosen by God to characterize His coming judgment upon a city or nation or world "as in the days of Sodom, so shall it be." Why? I believe when this sin becomes prevalent in a city, a nation, culture, and the world it indicates the soon moral demise and swift coming judgment of God. Indeed, it indicates a person, people, culture is already under the judgment of God and a moral and cultural collapse of a nation is at hand. It seems to be the sin that acts as the moral flood gate that unleashes a flood of immorality into the public and hastens the demise of a country.

 

[DHK]

I'm not talking "history," I'm talking now. Come home. You've been away too long.

Your entire premise is based on history.
"these days;" "in the past;" "now;" "today's church;"

I don't know what you think you're reading, but I've "vilified" no one, by name or otherwise.

You have mentioned plenty of names. Here are a few examples:

Graham's grandson, William Graham Tullian Tchividjian, pastor of Dr. D. James Kennedy's Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Ft. Lauderdale, doesn't agree with his grandfather.

It is evident you disagree with someone there as the contrast is made.

A classic example of the fallacy of a false dilemma. He talked about money more than He talked about heaven and hell combined, so stop trying to drag an issue into the discussion that isn't part of the discussion. We aren't talking about heaven and hell, we're talking about preaching the Gospel with love. Jesus used the words for "love" 53 times, counting two usages in the Revelation. If one considers that He inspired the writing of the entire Bible, He speaks of it 311 times. Repentance? Sixty-six times. Tell me what Jesus considered more important.

You have made the logical fallacy yourself. Look at just one example.
When Jesus was talking about riches he said: "It is easier to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God."
But who was he talking to? He was speaking to and teaching his own disciples, not the unsaved. So, go through your references and see how many of them relate to the unsaved. How many of the references concerning money are used to point out the sin of the wicked?
He spoke more about hell than he did about heaven. Why? Do what you must to escape hell and enter into heaven, even if it means cutting off your hand or plucking out your eye. But you don't like preachers who would use such vivid illustrations in condemning sin today like Jesus did.

Many on here are willfully being blind. They read or see what they want to read or see, and ignore anything that contradicts their personally held prejudices and preconceived notions. I say that to say this, clearly and unequivocally:

And they were in Jesus day also. He called them for what they were:

Matthew 23:16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
--That is not the only time in that passage where he calls them "blind." They truly were, and deliberately so. The condemnation of sin is absolutely necessary. Do we sit idly by when:

Op-ED: Can God bless a Godless America? - Fox News
The White House is waging an all-out assault on religious liberty. Public schools are indoctrinating our children with the gospel of secularism. Hollywood is spewing toxins into our homes. The soundtrack of our lives is a pulsating mix of sex and violence and filth. The American family is in ruins. What was once wrong is now right and what was once right is now wrong.


Teacher banned fifth-grader's Bible during 'free reading' time, legal group says - Washington Times
A South Florida elementary school teacher banned "religious books" in her classroom and told a fifth-grade student that he couldn't read his Bible during "free reading" time, according to a release by conservative legal group Liberty Institute.

Such headlines are daily fare. I read them every day. These ones come from "Worthy News."

I am not advocating love over repentance. I am not advocating "feel good" evangelism over truth.

I am advocating that we preach the Gospel with love, without condemnation while at the same time being encouraging to the sinner to open his/her heart to the conviction of the Holy Spirit. That means sharing -- gently and lovingly -- the fact they are sinners.

Again, I'm going to say it, and I don't care if you don't agree with me or not: Conservative Christians spend more time being morally outraged at the decline of culture and sociopolitical trends than we do actually doing something about it, i.e., reaching out to those who are actually responsible for the decline of culture and sociopolitical trends and sharing Christ with them, with love.

The Bible commands us to "speak the truth in love." That command has always been there and should never be neglected. That doesn't void the command to or the responsibility to condemn sin--to show the person the holiness of God and how short we fall from His standard.

Liberal Christians spend more time talking about "justice" than they do about bringing to Good News of the One who brings Justice.

When we are asked about the Gospel, we preach Calvin, dispensationalism, the Law, rarely Christ.

I think that is false.
First you need to differentiate. If you are talking about evangelization specifically, I always present the gospel where Christ is the center. If you are speaking of preaching from the pulpit, not every message is a gospel message. The believers don't get fed that way. The local church is for the saints in Christ. The obligation of the pastor is to "feed the church of God." It is the obligation of the church members to carry out the Great Commission. If every message were a gospel message how would your church grow spiritually?

I cited Acts 13:14-41 on another thread today. It is a Paul's presentation of the Gospel to the Jews and Gentiles of Pisidian Antioch. Show me his preaching of repentance with condemnation in that passage. For that matter, tell me how closely you have to look to see a call to repentance?

Acts 13:14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.
--He was traveling, and he entered a synagogue. Not many of us have that opportunity. The Scripture was read, and verse 16 tells us that Paul was invited to speak. He gladly took the opportunity. I don't have that opportunity very often either.
His audience were Jews, unsaved Jews, but Jews that knew the OT. The NT had not been written yet.
His message was THEIR history, and it was a dismal history--God's judgment upon THEM. That is condemnation. Check verses 18-22. It is not a complimentary history of their ancestors. That sets the stage. It is their sin; the sins of their ancestors.
Then he speaks of John the Baptist. They had rejected him as well.

They were the ones that condemned the prophets and finally put Christ to death:

Acts 13:27 For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him.
28 And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain.
--Nothing but condemnation so far.

He then explains the gospel to them, and look at the "invitation:"

Acts 13:40 Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets;
41 Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.
--"Beware"--the words of a threat--not a "come to the Savior" but "Beware!"
--"Lest that come upon you..." Again, Are you going to be cursed also???
--More condemnatory language--"You despisers...perish..."
Paul uses the harshest language possible.
What was the point you were making??

Sinners need to know they are sinners, not doubt. But Paul didn't beat them over the head with their sin. He loved them into the presence of Christ. I would submit that if we don't do that, we aren't presenting Jesus' Gospel. You can take that for what it's worth.

Are you sure about that? Paul did more than beat them over the head. He used the heaviest club he could find. :laugh:

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Your entire premise is based on history.
"these days;" "in the past;" "now;" "today's church;"

That's a reductive fallacy. Because I've mentioned things of the past, my argument is based on the past? Nonsense. Clearly the discussion, from my point of view, has been what Christians do today.

You have mentioned plenty of names. Here are a few examples:

It is evident you disagree with someone there as the contrast is made.

I didn't disparage either man, nor any of the other famous evangelists I've named, You are guilty of using the fallacy of selective observation.

You have made the logical fallacy yourself. Look at just one example.
When Jesus was talking about riches he said: "It is easier to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God."
But who was he talking to? He was speaking to and teaching his own disciples, not the unsaved. So, go through your references and see how many of them relate to the unsaved. How many of the references concerning money are used to point out the sin of the wicked?
He spoke more about hell than he did about heaven. Why? Do what you must to escape hell and enter into heaven, even if it means cutting off your hand or plucking out your eye. But you don't like preachers who would use such vivid illustrations in condemning sin today like Jesus did.

And you continue the fallacy of the false dilemma, as well as compounding it with a non sequitur. My response was regarding how many times Jesus talked about love compared to the subject matters you raise. You utterly fail to address either the subject, or the question.

And they were in Jesus day also. He called them for what they were:

I won't bother quoting the rest of that section, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion to this point. Your entire rambling quotations are known as "weasel wording," introducing unrelated material into the discussion to make it seem you are responding with logical arguments, when in fact you are floundering for any argument at all.

The Bible commands us to "speak the truth in love." That command has always been there and should never be neglected. That doesn't void the command to or the responsibility to condemn sin--to show the person the holiness of God and how short we fall from His standard.

And this is simply a straw man, because I've never said we shouldn't condemn sin. What I have critiqued is how it is condemned. This seems to be a pattern among the members attempting to respond to my thread, because you can't seem to get it through your heads that I've never made such a claim.

I think that is false.
First you need to differentiate. If you are talking about evangelization specifically, I always present the gospel where Christ is the center. If you are speaking of preaching from the pulpit, not every message is a gospel message. The believers don't get fed that way. The local church is for the saints in Christ. The obligation of the pastor is to "feed the church of God." It is the obligation of the church members to carry out the Great Commission. If every message were a gospel message how would your church grow spiritually?

Why are you responding at all, given this post proves you do not understand the position I am taking. I have not said every Christian is guilty of "Gospel by moral outrage" or other distraction that is not the Gospel. I have said it is a major problem in how we are presenting the Gospel to the world. It doesn't have to be "most of us" to be a major problem, and frankly, I don't think your personal, individual methodology would have impact one way or another. Nor mine. It is the general attitude of Christians in the U.S. of which I speak. Not once have I suggested that this message of "moral outrage" or "justice" or "belief system" comes from the pulpit in preference to the Gospel. I am speaking of how we as the body of Christ come off to the world in presenting the Gospel -- or more often, not presenting the Gospel and instead vilifying the world. Your read of ...

Acts 13:14...

Your read of Acts 13:14-41 is pathetically biased.

In Acts 13:14-41, Paul relates a very brief history of Israel, from Joseph to John the Baptist, relating David to Christ, and John to Elijah, the former saying, "I am not He. But one is coming after me the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to untie" (vv.17-25). Paul then states that, despite these witnesses, the leaders and people of Jerusalem did not recognize Him when He came, and they crucified Him, but God raised Him from the dead. Jesus then appeared for many days to those in Jerusalem, "the very ones who are now witnesses to the people" (vv.26-31). Through Him, Paul says, "everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses." And Paul finishes by quoting Habakkuk 1:5 -- "BEHOLD, YOU SCOFFERS, AND MARVEL, AND PERISH; FOR I AM ACCOMPLISHING A WORK IN YOUR DAYS, A WORK WHICH YOU WILL NEVER BELIEVE, THOUGH SOMEONE SHOULD DESCRIBE IT TO YOU" (v. 41).

There is no condemnation there, and there is barely a call to repentance. What is there? Confrontation where the people are at, an expression of God's love for them, what He has done for them, and a call to look and see what is going on around them. Paul shows love by telling them the truth without alienating them.

And what happened? The people begged Paul to come to the synagogue and preach these things the following Sabbath. When confronted by the Jews and blasphemed, Paul told them it was simply the word of God. And the Gentiles who were appointed to believe rejoiced and glorified the Lord.

Now that's preaching the Gospel.

Where you read condemnation, I read the truth of the Gospel, spoken with love. If you can't see that, I am sorry for you.

Are you sure about that? Paul did more than beat them over the head. He used the heaviest club he could find. :laugh:

If that's what you see, that's what you see. No skin off my nose.

 

[Iconoclast]

The wrath of God will not be against "sins" but "sinners" as it will be sinners, not "sins" that will be cast in to hell.

God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day. - Psa. 7:11

Notice the contrast is between "the righteous" and "the wicked" not between "righteousness" and "wickedness."

Paul said that God "hated Esau" (Rom. 9:13). If you spiritualize "Esau" to mean the descendents of Esau or "Edom" than God hates a whole nation of Esau's.

The whole book of Proverbs contrasts the righteous with the wicked in addition to righteousness and wickedness.

Think about it, God is not going to exert his eternal wrath against sins but against sinners. The "wrath of God abides" not upon sins but upon unbelievers (Jn. 3;36). The love of God is found only "in Christ" not outside of Christ.

In regard, to the particular sin of homosexualiy, it is separated from all other sins as the typical sin that characterizes a city or world that brings on the wrath of God -"as in the days of Sodom..." It seems to be the sin which indicates the moral tipping point of a person, city, nation, world that is at war with God and when this sin comes out of the closet, it becomes the moral flood gate that unleashes gross immorality upon a whole culture and the indicator of soon judgment upon that culture.

Good post as usual as you understand the full aspect of the gospel and Kingdom being preached.:wavey::thumbsup:

 

[Ed B]

.....

The sin of homosexuality is chosen by God to characterize His coming judgment upon a city or nation or world "as in the days of Sodom, so shall it be." Why? I believe when this sin becomes prevalent in a city, a nation, culture, and the world it indicates the soon moral demise and swift coming judgment of God. Indeed, it indicates a person, people, culture is already under the judgment of God and a moral and cultural collapse of a nation is at hand. It seems to be the sin that acts as the moral flood gate that unleashes a flood of immorality into the public and hastens the demise of a country.

I almost agree but I think the order is reversed. When I read Romans 1 I see the prevalence, acceptance or approval of this particular sin in a city, nation or world as the sign that God's judgment is happening or has already happened. I see it as the symptom of a diseased host rather than the cause. In other words I think the rapid acceptance of homosexuality is evidence that God has already turned much of our nation and the West over to a dishonorable passions (Romans 1:26) and a debased mind (Ro 1:28). I fear it is too late for the US and the West as Christian cultures.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
​

Perhaps the US can respond to a Jonah and repent as Nineveh did. But I am afraid or inclined to believe that Romans 1 indicates that God has passed judgment on much of our land already. We see more of this particular sin because decades ago our culture "...Claiming to be wise...became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man ...".

Therefore:

Romans 1: 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.​

 

[Revmitchell]

Somebody please tell me why advocating love in the gospel presentation somehow equates in your minds to not sharing the truth of sin? Where in the world are you getting this idea?

From you. All of your posts thus far have given off that attitude.

 

[DHK]

Remember that this is a Baptist Board, and we are posting in a Baptist forum. That being said here is a summary of quotes from the OP:

Dr. Russell Moore, president of the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission,


“I listened on the way back up here from my home town to some Christian talk radio this week, against my doctor’s orders. And honestly, if all that I knew of Christianity was what I heard on Christian talk radio, I’d hate it, too. There are some people who believe that fidelity to the gospel simply means speaking, ‘You kids get off my lawn.’ That is not the message that has been given to us.”

The Gospel is not moral outrage.
Much of what we hear from Christians today is unbiblical, even though it rightly repeats biblical truths.
Within today’s church it has become fashionable to exhibit moral outrage to lost sinners and their sin.

The Gospel is not justice.
The works we do because we love God are important, but they are not the mission of the church, nor were they integral to the gospel.
Everything the church does is not its mission. There are many things that the church is involved with that are not essentially its mission but are nonetheless what Christ's people do precisely because they belong to Christ.

The Gospel is not a set of beliefs.
It is not just a system of thought, a type of mystical experience or way of life.
Christianity is rooted in being in its method of revelation. To have seen Christ is to have seen the Father. Jesus did not come to tell us about God. He came as God.

Those are just some brief quotes along with the introductory quote by Dr. Russell Moore.

What is the problem here?

In his quote Dr. Russell was watching Christian talk radio and observes "if this is all I knew of 'Christianity,'..." and then goes on to make his tirade.

This is his premise upon which TND makes all his assumptions.

As I said, we are Baptists.

We are not "talk Christian radio" and have no idea of what he was watching. It could have been TBN for all we know. The average TV talk show is not representative of Biblical Christianity.

Now in TND's actual remarks after Russell's quote:
"Much of what we hear from Christians today is unbiblical..."
--Well, yeah it is. But we are Baptists, not "from Christians or Christianity in general." I would hope that my church is a Biblically-based church that preaches sound Biblical doctrine rather "what we hear from Christians today.
These sweeping generalizations are not helpful.

And again:
"Within today’s church it has become fashionable to exhibit moral outrage... "
What "church"? Not my church!!
The universal church? (which I deny that exists)? You mean all believers in one so-called body all over the world no matter what faith they may be?? Really? You are lumping all, in all nations everywhere together, and then saying it is fashionable to exhibit moral outrage?
Your sweeping generalizations do nothing to help here. What "church" are speaking of? It isn't mine!

And again:
The Gospel is not justice.
The works we do because we love God are important, but they are not the mission of the church, nor were they integral to the gospel.
Everything the church does is not its mission.

Again I ask: What church are you speaking of? You need to define your terms. This started with a nameless TV program which probably wasn't Baptist. And you are speaking of "the church" which no doubt is not Baptist, or "Christianity" in general which is not Baptist.

How is this entire thread either an indictment against Baptists or even applicable to Baptists?

 

[ShagNappy]

In his quote Dr. Russell was watching Christian talk radio

We are not "talk Christian radio" and have no idea of what he was watching. It could have been TBN for all we know. The average TV talk show is not representative of Biblical Christianity.

“I listened on the way back up here from my home town to some Christian talk radio this week,"

I think it's safe to assume he wasn't watching TBN, since it was radio he was listening to...

 

[DHK]

[/I][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

I think it's safe to assume he wasn't watching TBN, since it was radio he was listening to...

My question still remains the same:
Is the average Christian radio program heard on the radio representative of the average Baptist church.
My answer would be: No, certainly not representative of mine.
TBN or not, Charismatics are all over the airwaves. I have no idea what he was listening to. He doesn't say.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Those are just some brief quotes along with the introductory quote by Dr. Russell Moore.

What is the problem here?

In his quote Dr. Russell was watching Christian talk radio and observes "if this is all I knew of 'Christianity,'..." and then goes on to make his tirade.

First, that's untrue. It is obvious you didn't bother to even read what Dr. Moore said, which therefore disqualifies your next statement:

This is his premise upon which TND makes all his assumptions.

Dr. Moore's entire address before the ERLC's leadership summit is not available online, that I can find, but I did see a full transcript of it recently, and it fit perfectly with what I've been thinking for a long time. In fact, this is not the first time I've challenged BB members to love more than they judge. Unfortunately, it is a habit around here.

Dr. Moore introduced the balance of his comments with a humorous reference to Christian talk radio -- though obviously some Christians didn't think it was funny. The central point of contention was this paragraph, which I quoted earlier:

“I listened on the way back up here from my home town to some Christian talk radio this week, against my doctor’s orders. And honestly, if all that I knew of Christianity was what I heard on Christian talk radio, I’d hate it, too. There are some people who believe that fidelity to the gospel simply means speaking, ‘You kids get off my lawn.’ That is not the message that has been given to us. If the call to repentance does not end with the invitation that is grounded in the bloody cross and the empty tomb of Jesus, we are speaking a different word than the word that we have been given.”

Because so many totally missed the point -- as most have here -- he put his comments in context in an interview with Erick Erickson, editor-in-chief at RedState.com:

“What I’m saying is that we can’t simply condemn. We can’t simply talk about what is wrong with the world. We have to be consistently offering people a way to reconcile with God through the blood of Jesus Christ. That is what makes us distinctively Christian.

My larger concern doesn’t have to do with talk radio, because relatively speaking there are very few people who have a microphone of Christian talk radio. My larger concern is the fact that, really, everybody has a microphone of some sort or other. And the same kind of tendency that can happen, of just expressing outrage without the gospel, or the other part of the message was those who are wanting to simply parrot affirmation without the call to repentance—that can happen on any platform, including Facebook, Twitter. They don’t need to have the sort of audience that a talk radio host would have, but they still could fall into those points of being quarrelsome without a gospel mission at the end of it.”

And that is my concern too, though I certainly don't have the audience Dr. Moore has. Dr. Moore is right. Most of what Christians do today is express outrage at the culture, at the sinner. Conservatives want to condemn the sinners. Liberals want justice for the sinners. Some who just can't seem to get outside themselves want to talk about "beliefs" and "a system." Rarely do you hear the loudest of these actually preach the Gospel, which, as Dr. Moore said, must include a call to repentance. Some of you continue to think I'm speaking against a call to repentance. Obviously you do not read what is being said, but grasp onto a phrase or a thought that you disagree with, and don't bother to find its context.

And DHK ...
For an administrator, you seem to carry on a lot without actually ever addressing a point. One of the reasons I didn't get involved extensively in the discussion you had with Winman over imputed sin is that much of what you did on that thread is the same you have done here -- logical fallacies, particularly of the red herring, straw man and non sequitur variety. I won't reply to the rest of your post as cited here, as it is wasted space and needlessly irritated electrons.

I don't know your church, so I can't comment on your church and wouldn't pretend to do so. I observe. I see. I know what goes on out there in the world, in a general sense. Let me make clear -- as many of you missed this point as well -- although I've offered individual examples that include members here including myself -- I am not commenting on specifics of any one person here at any given time. What Dr. Moore sees is the same thing I see, and if no one this board sees it, I guess you live in an area of exception.

The fact is -- yeah, there's that word again that no one likes -- there are countless people in Southern Baptist churches and other Baptist churches who see these same things. It is time the body of Christ stopped acting like a cranky old man and got out there and actually preached the Gospel. I know many of you do. I do.

That doesn't excuse the behavior of the many who express outrage, a demand for justice, or a recitation of belief systems in place of the Gospel.

 

[DHK]

I don't know your church, so I can't comment on your church and wouldn't pretend to do so. I observe. I see. I know what goes on out there in the world, in a general sense. Let me make clear -- as many of you missed this point as well -- although I've offered individual examples that include members here including myself -- I am not commenting on specifics of any one person here at any given time. What Dr. Moore sees is the same thing I see, and if no one this board sees it, I guess you live in an area of exception.

The fact is -- yeah, there's that word again that no one likes -- there are countless people in Southern Baptist churches and other Baptist churches who see these same things. It is time the body of Christ stopped acting like a cranky old man and got out there and actually preached the Gospel. I know many of you do. I do.

That doesn't excuse the behavior of the many who express outrage, a demand for justice, or a recitation of belief systems in place of the Gospel.

We will have to agree to disagree.
First, I don't belong to the SBC and would not want to.

Second, I do belong to an IFB church and am quite content where I am.

Third, as a missionary I have traveled quite extensively throughout the U.S. and Canada over the years visiting many different churches in over 60% if the States and most of the provinces of Canada. That gives me a good sampling of what and how pastors preach in their churches. In the churches I have visited I don't find what you post to be true. Neither do I find it to be true on the mission field, but then I wouldn't expect it to apply either.

So, perhaps the problems you mention are more inherent in your SBC denomination. If they are (as I suspect), I object to you using such language as "the body of Christ," "Christianity," etc., when really you are only speaking of that one organization you belong to.