23rd May, 2007

Gospel Revisited

In my last post I used some terminology that apparently means certain things to some who have a seminary education, and it set off alarms that I was communicating some big-word ism heretical theology. I regret that because it resulted in a big hoo-ha of a discussion in which I feel like I ended up writing a whole lot of words with little substance. I’m going to try to revisit some of the underlying concepts of my post with different language.

Just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to walk in Him. Colossians 2:6

The gospel that we receive when we become a Christian is the good news that Jesus really lived, really was the Son of God, really became human out of love for us, really became sin for us and thus died (again out of love for us), really lived again, and really asks us all to follow Him to restore our relationship with the Father. We accept that by faith alone. It is a gift of God’s grace, alone. The good news of Jesus has absolutely nothing to do with transfrerring information or a person accepting a host of doctrinal “facts” that one can glean from scripture (but that another could interpret differently and therefore the facts seem more theoretical than factual). If it required such a transfer of intellectual knowledge, I don’t know that many, if any, would be saved. We clearly wouldn’t need to share it at all with children or even young teens or with people who aren’t gifted with the mental acuity to manage or analyze all that information.

No, the gospel is a good news of a reconciled relationship with the King and the Father through His love and the sacrifice made by Jesus. And, just as we receive that good news by faith, we need to continue to walk, by faith, growing in our relationship with Him. As we do we will grow in our factual knowledge of Him as well, because our increased love will increase our desire to obey Him and our hunger for knowledge and understanding of Him, all of which comes from a greater knowledge of the Word of God. So, it is a both/and sort of thing, but it is always driven by the relationship and by love and faith, not by any work, whether of the hand, the mouth, or the mind. It flows from the inside out, not the other way around.

And, significantly, the knowledge that we are to grow in is much more like knowing one’s best friend, child or spouse better than it is knowing more about World War II. You see, the good news is fairly simple. It is that God loves you and He desires that you love Him, too.

I’m not sure if that is clearer, but perhaps you can let me know.

Responses

That is very clear, thank you Bryan.
When you looked over at my blog today I guess you could see that when not engaging in theological debate, I labour to be simple. Only one person in my entire congregation has actually graduated from High School other than my kids! (and that fella is a top flight doctor specialising in Radiology (ex-Harley Street London).
Steve

Marie was correct in her first comment on the tree analogy. We ate of the tree of Knowledge and died. We need the tree of Life which is Jesus. Let us look to him and live. This does not mean that truth is untrue merely that truth alone is deadly. When we debate the isms and argue about truths then we take our eyes off of Jesus and put them on our own knowledge. This will kill us every time. Adam and Eve ate of that tree and immediately noticed they were naked for the first time. Salvation is not about discussing our nakedness and what kind of clothes we should then put on. Understanding reality in a way that saves us is looking to Jesus and having a relationship with Him. The Gnostics believed that secret knowledge was their salvation. Today too many believe this and as I look at some of the debates in SB life I wonder if the Gnostics have won after all these years.
Let us not be sidetracked from devotion to Jesus in any of our conversations.

Strider, I agree. I have wondered also whether the gospel of the church is just gnosticism repackaged. And, yes, the picture of the tree of knowledge versus the tree of life (life being relationship for the Hebrew) is exactly it.

Bryan–I needed this post right now. Thanks.

Bryan,

Let me share a few quotes from J.I. Packer’s Knowing God that I think speak to what you are saying here:

“…if you look back to Psalm 119 again, you will see that the psalmist’s concern to get knowledge about God was not a theoretical, but a practical concern. His supreme desire was to know and enjoy God Himself, and he valued knowledge about God simply as a means to this end. He wanted to understand God’s truth in order that his heart might respond to it and his life be conformed to it.”

“A little knowledge of God is worth more than a great deal of knowledge about Him.”

“One can know a great deal about God without much knowledge of Him.”

“One can know a great deal about godliness without much knowledge of God.”

Thank you, Paul and Marcia. You must have sensed that I needed some encouragement. It was well given and well received.

I love the quote about the difference between knowing of God and knowing about God. Exactly.

Actually,Bryan, while I’m glad I could encourage you, I was really being all about meeeeeee.

I got into it with myself over the headcovering thing, and I was in my whole if-God-can’t-define-what-I’m-supposed-to-do-more-clearly-then-how-am-I-supposed -to-do-it? snit.

Deep breath. It’s about knowing Him.

Leave a response

Your response:

CommentLuv Enabled

Categories

Bad Behavior has blocked 106 access attempts in the last 7 days.