The gospel has become a hot topic in the evangelical world, and for that all Christians should be thankful. But conversation about the gospel is only fruitful in so far as we understand it biblically. In this episode, Jim Cassidy and Camden Bucey discuss the categories Reformed theologians often use to describe the gospel – using Paul’s lesson in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 as a foundation.
Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. (1 Corinthians 15:1-8 ESV)
Participants: Camden Bucey, Jim Cassidy
Browse more episodes from this program and learn how to subscribe.
Camden or Jim,
Would either of you be willing to elaborate on redemption itself. What is redemption? Why do we need to be redeemed? Who/What are we being redeemed from?
Redemption is the purchase of salvation from God’s wrath and curse. We need to be redeemed because we’re sinners and God’s justice must be satisfied. In his active and passive obedience Christ secures salvation and satisfies God’s justice on behalf of the elect.
‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us – for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on tree” – so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith (Gal. 3: 13-14).’
**Sorry about the re-post**.
In reference to the historical event of Christ’s resurrection and the meaning conveyed through the eye witness testimony, I think it’s important for us to understand that the gospel is a particular type of speech. The church receives the declarative indicative of the good news through preaching and the sacraments. These are the means by which the bare historical reality of our Savior’s Person and Work is given meaning and significance to those who receive it in faith. Of course, the Holy Spirit is working through these means to effect regeneration, sanctification, and even condemnation in the hearts of the participants.
Since the gospel message is of such primary importance, preachers of this message ought to be so careful to maintain the indicative nature of this unique type of speech. I think many of our Presbyterian Reformed Churches are confusing the gospel with law. There is so much talk about “living the gospel” or “being the gospel”. Such confused preaching leads to a distortion of the gospel message and takes away from the sufficiency of Christ as our Savior. I think such preaching is making a serious category mistake because it leads people to think that they need to do their part in order to effect their salvation. The sacraments become more of a re-commitment ceremony rather than us simply receiving the free gift that our Savior provides for us through His life, death, and resurrection. I’ve attached Michael Horton’s explanation of the gospel wherein he explains how the gospel is to declared. Hope this is helpful. Blessings.
http://wscal.edu/resource-center/resource/what-is-the-gospel1
‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us – for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on tree” – so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith (Gal. 3: 13-14).’
Ben, I would demur. I think that you may be truncating the Gospel and dividing Christ. The Gospel is that Christ, by his death and resurrection, has delivered us from sin’s guilt and its power. There is such a thing as obeying the Gospel and living it. Jesus makes a difference in how you live, move, and have your being in the here and now.
Jim, I think I understand where you’re coming from. If you think that we are somehow making the gospel incomplete by not including exhortations to obedience, then I would disagree for the following reasons.
First, the gospel is a pure statement of fact. This is evidenced by the term itself, “good news”. The gospel in its very nature is opposite to any willing and/or doing on our part. We are not to add anything or delete anything to the message of Christ crucified for our sins and raised for our justification.
Secondly, this gospel is such good news that it not only has the power to justify us, but it also sanctifies us (see 1 Cor. 1:30). While I agree with you that Christ certainly makes a difference in how we live, move, and have our being now, the category to place such language is in the area of Sanctification (I use this term in its progressive sense). Imperatives are absolutely necessary. But, they should be placed around the periphery of the “good news”, not become part of the “good news” itself. That’s what I mean about making the category mistake. The gospel evokes obedience in us to live in gratitude toward God for what He has already done (i.e. the gospel) for us in Christ.
I don’t think that Christ is divided or the gospel is truncated when we think in these categories. Rather, the effectiveness of His Person and Work is clearly understood when we place them within their appropriate categories.
So, it sounds like you are reducing the Gospel proper to historia salutis and not to the ordo salutis. Is this accurate?
Ben,
Would it be wrong to tell someone to obey the Gospel?
To answer Doug. I feel much more comfortable telling a person to believe the gospel rather than obey the gospel.
To answer Jim, I am not reducing the Gospel proper to historia salutis. The part of the ordo that the gospel would be subsumed is Effectual calling. Those whom God foreknew, He predestined, and called through the preaching of the gospel. As I write in my original post, the bare historical facts of Christ’s death and resurrection are given their proper significance when received by His people through preaching and the sacraments. The declarative indicative message of the gospel is contained (if you will) in the means of grace (Word and Sacrament). This places the gospel proper into Effectual Calling, which is part of the ordo salutis. Perhaps, Gaffin’s emphasis on the broader aspects to the ordo can apply here. Kim Riddlebarger describes Effectual Calling in his article on the Ordo Salutis as, “Those foreknown are predestined, and those predestined are called. Calling occurs when the gospel is preached, and God’s elect respond to that message with faith. (ref http://wscal.edu/blog/entry/basics-of-the-reformed-faith-th-order-of-salvation)”. Maybe I need to study further into this. I’m thinking about going through Warfield’s ‘Plan of Salvation’ to gain more clarity. Any other resources you can recommend?
“Redemption Accomplished and Applied” – John Murray
Ben,
So you wouldn’t consider justification as a part of the Gospel?
Would I consider justification as part of the gospel? The premise to this question seems to contain certain categories that may need some clarification. I don’t want to be locked into a position wherein the gospel is solely an aspect of Effectual Calling. When we talk about justification or any other aspect of the ordo, the foundation that holds all of it together is Union with Christ (See WLC 69). As Reformed Christians who adhere to our confessional standards, I think we need greater clarity on how the unio mystica supports the ordo. We want to maintain justification as monergistic and the gospel as a pure indicative because this is the way Scripture affirms them. Jim, I don’t think talking about the gospel in imperative terms is consistent with our Reformed tradition. To answer your question, I would recommend looking at the following works. They’re helping me sort through the nuances regarding the ordo salutis, historia salutis, and Union with Christ:
Louis Berkof, Systematic Theology. Page 417
JV Fesko, Justification: Understanding The Classic Reformed Doctrine. Pages 87-92
John Murrey, Redemption Accomplished and Applied. Page 121
Michael Horton, Covenant and Salvation.
Actually, Ben, monergism has to do with election and regeneration, at least in the history of theology. Properly speaking, even justification is synergistic. Justification is by faith alone. Regeneration and election do not have the action of man in view for their ground – not even faith. But justification does require (God given!) faith.
The Gospel, then, is a broader category inclusive of the entire complex of God’s redemptive work for us, both in the historia salutis and ordo salutis. Some aspects, therefore, are monergistic – Christ’s death and resurrection as well as election and regeneration. Other aspects are synergistic – justification, sanctification, perseverance, etc. Therefore, the Gospel cannot be reduced to any aspect of either God’s objective, historical works or any aspect of the application of salvation. That is reductionism. The Gospel is a complex, inclusive of both the historia and the ordo in their entirety.
Jim,
I really do not think that justification is synergistic in any way. Granted, we believe, and that is the sole instrument of justification, but does this make justification synergistic? No. Nor does it make God “view man” as the ground of justification, for that alone is the righteousness of Christ. I mean, just because we believe, would you say then that is energy/work on our part? Are we striving, working out, endeavoring (terms perfectly fit for sanctification which is synergistic) etc., when we believe and Christ’s righteouness is imputed? Would you not agree that Rom 4 explicitly contrasts belief with work/energy on our part in the realm of justification? Have I been wrong about the hosts for so long to think that you guys would have said that justification was monergistic? I hope not.
My reaction is in line with MikeD. Jim, you seem to be saying that justification is the sinner’s cooperation with grace to procure his/her righteous standing before a Holy God. What particular sources can you cite in the history of theology that supports monergism only within election and regeneration?
Mike and Ben,
I think you both missed the point of my response. It has to do with the content of the Gospel. For Ben it seems like he is reducing it to historia salutis categories alone. I’m saying the Gospel is broader than that. Isn’t justification an aspect of the Gospel? Or is it only historia salutis, redemption accomplished?
As an side, I agree that using the word “synergistic” for justification is unfortunate and improper. I only intended to underscore the difference between regeneration and justification. The former happens quite prior to any response by man, it is utterly unconditional. The latter, however, occurs with and by the response of man. In that sense it is conditional (conditioned on faith). But monergism/synergism are the technical terms for regeneration (describing the Augustinan and semi-Pelagian views, respectively), and are generally not used with regard to justification in the discussions in Reformed Theology, that I know of. But once again, I only spoke that way to try to get to the nub of the issue of reducing the Gospel to HS categories alone.
It seems to me that we need to affirm on the one hand that the gospel includes both the historia and the entire ordo. But on the other hand, we also need to carefully distinguish the gospel from the law. I think we all agree that the gospel demands obedience and that believing it makes a difference in our lives in the here-and-now, but care is needed to avoid confusion. I like the way Berkhof distinguishes:
“When God offers man the gospel, the law demands that the latter shall accept this. Some would speak of this as the law in the gospel, but this is hardly correct. The gospel itself consists of promises and is no law; yet there is a demand of the law in connection with the gospel. The law not only demands that we accept the gospel and believe in Jesus Christ, but also that we lead a life of gratitude in harmony with its requirements.”