.JPG)
I suspect that part of our difficulty in speaking the gospel to our friends, and to the man in the street, is caused by making it too complicated. This post presents a "simpler" option for your consideration.
Consider Paul's gospel:
Read 1 Corinthians 15:3-8.
Paul is delivering something which he received and is passing on. He did not construct his own gospel presentation.
The essential elements of the presentation are these:
1) Christ died for our sins,
in accordance with the Old Testament Scriptures.
2) He was buried.
3) He rose again the third day,
in accordance with the Old Testament Scriptures.
in accordance with the Old Testament Scriptures.
4) He was seen alive by a great many witnesses.
The space given to the witnesses of the resurrection shows how important this is. The witnesses were many, and the list seems to be carefully given in chronological order: He was seen by Cephas (Peter), then by the twelve (apostles), then by over 500 brethren at once, most of whom are still alive (you can go and ask them about it), then by James, then by all the apostles (again), then last of all by me (Paul).
The more time one has to tell the story, and the more patience potential listeners have to listen to it, the more Biblical and theological content can be put in, but what Paul gives here as the gospel is basic.
The Holy Spirit is the engine of conversion, and this simple rendition is the story he uses to create faith. It really doesn't matter if someone who hears this has ever been in church. The facts of Jesus' divine nature (Son of God), his death for our sins, his burial, and his resurrection are key.
See 2 Corinthians 5:18-23 for a partial gospel rendition which speaks more of the exchange of sin and righteousness between believers and Jesus Christ. I only say it's partial because it is speaking in a church context and does not mention the resurrection. That is simply understood. The word of the resurrection, however, is absolutely key in any witness to outsiders.
See Acts 17:22-35 for an example of witnessing to intellectuals. There is more "theism" taught there, that is, the doctrine of God, taught from the standpoint of natural revelation, followed by the doctrine of man, again reasoning on the basis of common grace, but Paul's presentation ends up in the story of special grace: the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.
An amateur theologian wrestles with theology
Some may be familiar with the "Romans Road," or other witnessing method based on a deeper exposition of the doctrines of law and gospel, penal substitution and justification by faith. I don't suggest by not giving that as an example, that it's not the right thing to use. What I do suggest is that our witnessing methodology needs to be sure to present the experience of the actual, living, physical Christ, in his death, burial, and resurrection. It's not proper to let that fall too much into the background, if we try to speak the gospel (especially to outsiders) by talking more deeply about covenants, law and gospel, total depravity, penal substitution and justification by faith than we do about the biography of Christ. Christ falls into the background even as certain intellectual content of the faith moves to the foreground.
There is inexhaustible intellectual content to our faith -- Christ is the fountain of all wisdom -- and we want this wisdom. But, there is a theological problem that can occur with theology. Our faith has intellectual content, but it is not fundamentally an intellectual system. Our relationship to Christ is "organic," by the Spirit. We live because he died for us and lives again, not because of the depth of our understanding. We live because of what he did, not because of our explanations of what he did, however correct. Our simple faith in the simplicity of the gospel message will lead to deeper understanding, but not the other way around.
This affects how the gospel of Christ is preached, spoken, described, or announced. It is about Christ, and what he did, when he "died for our sins and rose again." This keeps the gospel simple enough to say to our friends and neighbors -- perhaps in a single sentence!
The space given to the witnesses of the resurrection shows how important this is. The witnesses were many, and the list seems to be carefully given in chronological order: He was seen by Cephas (Peter), then by the twelve (apostles), then by over 500 brethren at once, most of whom are still alive (you can go and ask them about it), then by James, then by all the apostles (again), then last of all by me (Paul).
The more time one has to tell the story, and the more patience potential listeners have to listen to it, the more Biblical and theological content can be put in, but what Paul gives here as the gospel is basic.
The Holy Spirit is the engine of conversion, and this simple rendition is the story he uses to create faith. It really doesn't matter if someone who hears this has ever been in church. The facts of Jesus' divine nature (Son of God), his death for our sins, his burial, and his resurrection are key.
See 2 Corinthians 5:18-23 for a partial gospel rendition which speaks more of the exchange of sin and righteousness between believers and Jesus Christ. I only say it's partial because it is speaking in a church context and does not mention the resurrection. That is simply understood. The word of the resurrection, however, is absolutely key in any witness to outsiders.
See Acts 17:22-35 for an example of witnessing to intellectuals. There is more "theism" taught there, that is, the doctrine of God, taught from the standpoint of natural revelation, followed by the doctrine of man, again reasoning on the basis of common grace, but Paul's presentation ends up in the story of special grace: the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus.
An amateur theologian wrestles with theology
Some may be familiar with the "Romans Road," or other witnessing method based on a deeper exposition of the doctrines of law and gospel, penal substitution and justification by faith. I don't suggest by not giving that as an example, that it's not the right thing to use. What I do suggest is that our witnessing methodology needs to be sure to present the experience of the actual, living, physical Christ, in his death, burial, and resurrection. It's not proper to let that fall too much into the background, if we try to speak the gospel (especially to outsiders) by talking more deeply about covenants, law and gospel, total depravity, penal substitution and justification by faith than we do about the biography of Christ. Christ falls into the background even as certain intellectual content of the faith moves to the foreground.
There is inexhaustible intellectual content to our faith -- Christ is the fountain of all wisdom -- and we want this wisdom. But, there is a theological problem that can occur with theology. Our faith has intellectual content, but it is not fundamentally an intellectual system. Our relationship to Christ is "organic," by the Spirit. We live because he died for us and lives again, not because of the depth of our understanding. We live because of what he did, not because of our explanations of what he did, however correct. Our simple faith in the simplicity of the gospel message will lead to deeper understanding, but not the other way around.
This affects how the gospel of Christ is preached, spoken, described, or announced. It is about Christ, and what he did, when he "died for our sins and rose again." This keeps the gospel simple enough to say to our friends and neighbors -- perhaps in a single sentence!
Reviewed and retained.
ReplyDelete