'Bringing balance' to the Gospel?
- Thread starter Prentis
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I'm not sure what bringing "balance" to the gospel actually means. How can we, as mortals, make the truth of God more palatable? We should instead emphasize the basics of Christianity -- Belief in Jesus as the only begotten Son of God, leading a humble life of repentence, loving God with all of our hearts, and loving our neighbors as ourselves.
We must be careful not to use traditions of men as teaching tools. For instance, men still teach that the fall of man in the garden was, for lack of a better term, a "bad thing." But was it? Does anyone believe for an instant that God did not know Adam and Eve would fall from His grace? God is omniscient, knowing all things. He knew they would fall, just as He also knew precisely when they would fall. And yes, He could have prevented the fall in any number of ways. So why did He permit the fall? Because it was within His purpose. It was an important part of His purpose. Preventing the fall was not within that purpose.
Moving to the Gospels and the NT, we are striving to remain perfectly within God's purpose. Jesus came to earth to teach, to heal, and ultimately to serve as the perfect sacrificial lamb of God. The Jews rejected Him, and Heaven was opened to everyone. God knew all of this would happen long before He announced it to Abraham or dictated the Book of Genesis to Moses.
Therefore, we as Christians should strive to give this Good News to all who want to learn about it. We should not be concerned with balance, instead concentrating on the truth of God and the basics of obtaining eternal life. That is what is most important.
Rank Stranger
We must be careful not to use traditions of men as teaching tools. For instance, men still teach that the fall of man in the garden was, for lack of a better term, a "bad thing." But was it? Does anyone believe for an instant that God did not know Adam and Eve would fall from His grace? God is omniscient, knowing all things. He knew they would fall, just as He also knew precisely when they would fall. And yes, He could have prevented the fall in any number of ways. So why did He permit the fall? Because it was within His purpose. It was an important part of His purpose. Preventing the fall was not within that purpose.
Moving to the Gospels and the NT, we are striving to remain perfectly within God's purpose. Jesus came to earth to teach, to heal, and ultimately to serve as the perfect sacrificial lamb of God. The Jews rejected Him, and Heaven was opened to everyone. God knew all of this would happen long before He announced it to Abraham or dictated the Book of Genesis to Moses.
Therefore, we as Christians should strive to give this Good News to all who want to learn about it. We should not be concerned with balance, instead concentrating on the truth of God and the basics of obtaining eternal life. That is what is most important.
Rank Stranger
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
I do not think it is wrong to bring the 1st century gospel truth into the 21st century - we do the same thing with language and cultural references - reading Chaucer in today's English with footnotes makes The Canterbury Tales more meaningful, not less meaningful.
Yes... Making the gospel understandable to a modern day reader... Or an english speaking person... Is perfectly fine.
But that's not what I was trying to get to. What about softening the blow of the gospel to our personal lives and how it affects it?
Making the gospel understandable to the people of our modern culture is good, but making it acceptable, what about that?
Anyone claiming to follow Jesus should first determine to what extent he made the truth more attractive and then follow that.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Yes... Making the gospel understandable to a modern day reader... Or an english speaking person... Is perfectly fine.
But that's not what I was trying to get to. What about softening the blow of the gospel to our personal lives and how it affects it?
Making the gospel understandable to the people of our modern culture is good, but making it acceptable, what about that?
I guess it depends on what you mean by acceptable? Do you have some examples?
I mean to make it a little less hard edged. The gospel is pretty rough... I want to make clear I'm talking about the standard Jesus puts forth for his disciples. The gospel is a call to become just that.
Imagine a man plainly telling you that if we do not drink his blood and eat his flesh, we cannot be his disciple. When we hear such things, do we try and reconcile it with the flesh?
Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Mat 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Mat 10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
Mat 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Mat 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
Mat 10:39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
Do we rationalize this away? Do these words not apply to us?
Here is an example of it...
Mar 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
Mar 8:32 And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.
Mar 8:33 But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.
Typically, this can be defended by saying it was for Christ... He died in our stead... But if we read the next verses we see we are to follow through the same process he went through.
Mar 8:34 And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Imagine a man plainly telling you that if we do not drink his blood and eat his flesh, we cannot be his disciple. When we hear such things, do we try and reconcile it with the flesh?
Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Mat 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Mat 10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
Mat 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Mat 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
Mat 10:39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
Do we rationalize this away? Do these words not apply to us?
Here is an example of it...
Mar 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
Mar 8:32 And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.
Mar 8:33 But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.
Typically, this can be defended by saying it was for Christ... He died in our stead... But if we read the next verses we see we are to follow through the same process he went through.
Mar 8:34 And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
I am guilty of always trying to promote the good stuff of Christianity .... and leaving out the nasty stuff regarding the future of the unsaved.
So yes Prentis ... my attempt to bring balance to the gospel is unbalanced ....
So yes Prentis ... my attempt to bring balance to the gospel is unbalanced ....
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
I don't know........
Seems to me that the word 'love' is the only real four-letter-word; as soon as you mention it in public, people (including Christians) completely freak out. Yet, it is the sum of the law and the root of the gospel. On the surface, it seems like talking about love is watering down the gospel, but in reality - there is nothing easy about it.
Seems to me that the word 'love' is the only real four-letter-word; as soon as you mention it in public, people (including Christians) completely freak out. Yet, it is the sum of the law and the root of the gospel. On the surface, it seems like talking about love is watering down the gospel, but in reality - there is nothing easy about it.
1.The preaching of the Gospel brings forth (begets) the new creation in us.
2. From there one is discipled.
The first is a FREE Gift based on the merits of Christ,
The second is a yoke with Jesus which effectualness turns on how well we grasp the GRACE of God based on the first.
2. From there one is discipled.
The first is a FREE Gift based on the merits of Christ,
The second is a yoke with Jesus which effectualness turns on how well we grasp the GRACE of God based on the first.
When I think back to my pre-christian days .... the gospel was always offensive to me .... whether told softly and lovingly .... or screamed by a hell-fire-preacher .... I could not stand it.
I hated Sunday mornings because the only thing on TV was religion . I couldn't stand to hear even a few words while I walked over to turn it off.
It is a spiritual thing .... and sometimes I think God has to break down those spiritual barriers a bit in order to let the unsaved hear the gospel properly .
In my experience over 25 years as a christian ..... every time i tried to "preach the gospel" ... the results were zero.
When I quit trying is when the results came. Out of the blue the Lord would put me in a situation where someone (even strangers) would blurt out sincere questions about the gospel. He set it up , and he opened the heart. The results were always 100%.
When I learned to keep myself and my agenda out of the way .... that is when the Lord was able to use me. Then again .... pretty much all I do is say a few words ... and the lord does the rest (in the heart of the unsaved) .... (who will shortly be saved).
And often it will be several different people in a row the lord uses to reach someone. Not me alone.
We do not build the Church and use Jesus.
Jesus builds His church and uses us.
I hated Sunday mornings because the only thing on TV was religion . I couldn't stand to hear even a few words while I walked over to turn it off.
It is a spiritual thing .... and sometimes I think God has to break down those spiritual barriers a bit in order to let the unsaved hear the gospel properly .
In my experience over 25 years as a christian ..... every time i tried to "preach the gospel" ... the results were zero.
When I quit trying is when the results came. Out of the blue the Lord would put me in a situation where someone (even strangers) would blurt out sincere questions about the gospel. He set it up , and he opened the heart. The results were always 100%.
When I learned to keep myself and my agenda out of the way .... that is when the Lord was able to use me. Then again .... pretty much all I do is say a few words ... and the lord does the rest (in the heart of the unsaved) .... (who will shortly be saved).
And often it will be several different people in a row the lord uses to reach someone. Not me alone.
We do not build the Church and use Jesus.
Jesus builds His church and uses us.
I was told by a pastor who died not long ago from cancer that "you catch more Flies with Honey".
As far as the true gospel is concerned It is best to keep the gospel "pure truth" and sharp as a two edged sword. There is no milk and honey in the gospel of Christ until the kingdom is established here on earth with Christ ruling for a thousand years. That is when Gods rest begins. The kingdom is not for flies it is for broken humans. Broken humans can stand the truth no mater how brutal it may seem. Besides that If you preach it, teach it, displaying the power of the Spirit as a witness to you, God will bring the increase. And I guarantee you that God has never lost not one single soul that has been written in the book of Life.
.
I agree!Yes... Making the gospel understandable to a modern day reader... Or an english speaking person... Is perfectly fine.
But that's not what I was trying to get to. What about softening the blow of the gospel to our personal lives and how it affects it?
Making the gospel understandable to the people of our modern culture is good, but making it acceptable, what about that?
When what is being said is acceptable to us, we tend to like the person saying it, they become popular with men, the majority will follow them. We can see this with modern day evangelists and mega churches, we like to hear what they have to say because it usually doesn't have anything to do with being completely sacrificial - ON OUR PART. it all sounds great!
The problem this has created is we are not being given enough meat to know what it means to be a disciple or even to make a decision TO follow Christ. Many times the gospel is presented in such a way as to bring balance by making amends with the world and being a Christ follower, there is no amending, neither look the same, it is one or the other. If this is attempted, we get lukewarm. There is no power in the lukewarm. We are to be RED HOT, witnessing together in power as a city on a hill.
I believe that I read it in Outreach Magazine, but a survey was done that found only 7% (yes, seven!) of the people asked associated the word suffering with Jesus. Even accounting for the fact that the resurrection superceeds the cross itself as the ultimate end, that's still a startlingly low number. If the Son of God - God incarnate - came to Earth to suffer, what do you think that means for us? Even a nonChristian suffers.
I'm reminded of the passages where Jesus began to preach, and he literally disperses the crowd because he teachings are hard to swallow (John 6:60-66 & Matthew 8:19-22). That's not to say we can discern truth by looking for dispersing crowds, but it tells us the Gospel is something that's not always rosy and perfect.
That being said, yes I think it's a problem. Look no further than prosperity gospels and the Christian living section of any bookstore. However, I qualify that with the statement that simplifying language is not necessarily one in the same as watering down the message. Too often, I see accusations of watering things down because someone preaches out of a dynamic equivalent translation as opposed to a KJV or some other literal version. The problem is we, as Christians, tend to prefer to fight tooth and nail over the latter (Bible versions, language, etc), to the neglect of the overall picture. I'm all for careful word choice when discussing our God, but at the same time, you cannot snipe someone for every little incorrect nuance. I've said things I regret saying and some of them are preserved on this website. If I had slowed it down, then things would have worked.
So yes, it is a problem we must all contend with.
I'm reminded of the passages where Jesus began to preach, and he literally disperses the crowd because he teachings are hard to swallow (John 6:60-66 & Matthew 8:19-22). That's not to say we can discern truth by looking for dispersing crowds, but it tells us the Gospel is something that's not always rosy and perfect.
That being said, yes I think it's a problem. Look no further than prosperity gospels and the Christian living section of any bookstore. However, I qualify that with the statement that simplifying language is not necessarily one in the same as watering down the message. Too often, I see accusations of watering things down because someone preaches out of a dynamic equivalent translation as opposed to a KJV or some other literal version. The problem is we, as Christians, tend to prefer to fight tooth and nail over the latter (Bible versions, language, etc), to the neglect of the overall picture. I'm all for careful word choice when discussing our God, but at the same time, you cannot snipe someone for every little incorrect nuance. I've said things I regret saying and some of them are preserved on this website. If I had slowed it down, then things would have worked.
So yes, it is a problem we must all contend with.
Hi Prentis,
The gospel is only 'balanced' when one understands the reason for it, otherwise it sounds extreme, especially to people who think either they have a little good in them, or, they get to keep the 'good' part of 'good and evil', after they're saved.
The gospel is only 'balanced' when one understands the reason for it, otherwise it sounds extreme, especially to people who think either they have a little good in them, or, they get to keep the 'good' part of 'good and evil', after they're saved.
justaname
Disciple of Jesus Christ
- Mar 14, 2011
- 2,348
- 149
- 63
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
I do not see the gospel as being "rough." The word gospel means "good news." To think of suffering, we all do, believers and nonbelievers. Anything worth attaining is worth the effort given, yet salvation is a gift from God. How difficult is it to receive a gift? With that said though, think of all those who will never receive it.
Simply in the above passages given by Christ, it is taught to love God above all things. My family knows I love God over them. Think about it though from a rational perspective, God is love. The capability to love is because of God, thereby my highest priority should be to the One who made me able to love. So I love, Love (God), above all things.
To die to yourself and pick up your cross is the act of surrendering yourself to God, this is the act of faith. Through faith, God conforms us to the image of His Son. This is done by God, not us.
I can say there have been many cases where one may believe in the Messiah and the remainder of their household remains in unbelief. Here mother is against daughter, brother against brother and the like. Their families see the sword rather than peace. Whenever one leaves the predominate religion of their culture, tension occurs. Think of the Jews of Paul's day and how difficult the gospel was to them. They believe in the one true God, and now new revelation is presented. How easy it must have been to reject the gospel, not believe in the coming and ascension of the Messiah, only to zealously defend their religion given to them by God through Moses.
To change the gospel in any way is to give a different gospel given by the apostles. I say woe to those that do that.
I feel it prudent to be aware and make aware what it is we may face. In this manner, when we do begin to feel the pressure given we can be better equipped to handle what is presented.
Now I will venture a little further and ask, what is the gospel you present? Personally this is what I present.
1Corinthians 15
Romans 10
I do not see any need to add to this gospel, do you?
Simply in the above passages given by Christ, it is taught to love God above all things. My family knows I love God over them. Think about it though from a rational perspective, God is love. The capability to love is because of God, thereby my highest priority should be to the One who made me able to love. So I love, Love (God), above all things.
To die to yourself and pick up your cross is the act of surrendering yourself to God, this is the act of faith. Through faith, God conforms us to the image of His Son. This is done by God, not us.
I can say there have been many cases where one may believe in the Messiah and the remainder of their household remains in unbelief. Here mother is against daughter, brother against brother and the like. Their families see the sword rather than peace. Whenever one leaves the predominate religion of their culture, tension occurs. Think of the Jews of Paul's day and how difficult the gospel was to them. They believe in the one true God, and now new revelation is presented. How easy it must have been to reject the gospel, not believe in the coming and ascension of the Messiah, only to zealously defend their religion given to them by God through Moses.
To change the gospel in any way is to give a different gospel given by the apostles. I say woe to those that do that.
I feel it prudent to be aware and make aware what it is we may face. In this manner, when we do begin to feel the pressure given we can be better equipped to handle what is presented.
Now I will venture a little further and ask, what is the gospel you present? Personally this is what I present.
1Corinthians 15
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
Romans 10
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.”
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;
13 for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
I do not see any need to add to this gospel, do you?