The Evangelical Universalist Forum

What is the Gospel?

Theology Soteriology
#21

Rachel,
I think you’ve hit on a major impediment to the Gospel: the apathy of most agnostics and atheists to Christianity. Hell (perhaps pun intended :smiley: ), I would rather debate somebody like Richard Dawkins who thinks Christianity is injurious, or a full-blown Calvinist, then somebody who is just indifferent, b/c, as you point out, it is so hard to relate to them. That being said, I think Pascal’s letters are excellent psychology as to why we avoid God, or why God remains hidden to many. Not that evangelists should be psychologists or something, but it is helpful IMO to know what sorts of things/ideas could possibly be motivating their reticence.

I think there are two ways to evangelize: one is the moral-guilt approach, which is often bound to alienate people, though I think Cindy is right and one can evangelize sort of indirectly in that fashion. Another way is to just 2 stay completely within the atheist worldview. If there is no God, then it is hard to see that there is a meaning to life, and most atheists, e.g. Bertrand Russell, Jean Paul Sartre, were quite frank about the futility and meaninglessness of existence w/o God. Some people are stoic to this, but many more I think are just avoiding it with the hum-drum of daily life.

Agnosticism or pluralism is more difficult, and I am often tempted to Deism myself, given, as you also observed, Christianity’s soteriological and denominational feuds. However, if Christian universalism is T, then God will eventually show us that, and not blame those who were unable to make a decision due to lack-of-information (i.e. universalism takes some of the pressure off and lets God work it out). Yet, the Good News is still important. It is kind of like self-cond as “wrong”. The Good News doesn’t need us to highlight it (at least not in a overly evangelistic sense [tho, according to some, Christians can never be too evangelistic :smiley: ], we still must display holiness as best we can obviously); if it is T, then God will ensure its reception, even when it seems like nobody cares. We are explicit when asked, and assertive if called to defend it, but not desperate if it doesn’t seem to take root. Jesus was mostly content with parables, which he must have known would be misconstrued; if it were dire due to lack of time that He/w transmit the Gospel, then I think he would have been way more explicit.

If there is a deadline for salvation, this would be perhaps dangerous, admittedly, but even very traditional Christians such as Martin Luther (with whom probably most of today’s “traditional” Christians are largely unacquainted with the bulk of his work/theology) held out hope for salvation after death (e.g. his pastoral letter to Hans von Rechenberg).

#22

Thank you Dave, Cindy, and Rachel. I should not have presumed that perhaps no one had read my long post just because there had been no comments up to that point. I guess I felt that way, because I consider it to have been the most important post I ever made, since it deals with the Gospel of the Kingdom, the heart of Christianity.

#23

I just saw a talk that Tom Wright did at Fuller Seminary on YouTube where he made some interesting observations about what the gospel is: youtube.com/watch?v=NwXBo9Jvkb4

It’s just too bad he isn’t a universalist!

#24

Yet :smiley:

#25

Indeed, I think were he tentatively points to the leaves on the tree of life either side of the river in the new Jerusalem being intended for the healing of the nations as indicating hope beyond the final judgement at Jesus’ appearing. So he is edging to somewhat hopeful universalist, but some hang-ups seem to hold him back (though as said before, I think both the logic of the narrative he draws from the Scriptures actually demands universal reconciliation :wink: ).

To Rachel, I think if I were in that situation I probably wouldn’t seek to pressure the person, and then after it would depend on how open to discussion the person might be. In some cases, perhaps in most cases, it might be best to follow the advice Cindy lays out above. If they do seem (if only to prove a point, and if I felt that such a person might hear it on some level at that point) I might then add that I’m glad that they feel they have managed to get it all together in their lives, and then suggest the other imperatives that the gospel lays out that they would likely agree with at least in theory, of working at all levels to witness for and to bring justice and reconciliation, of putting things to rights, between communities, between nations, between families, and between their friends and families and local neighbourhood, between humans and the world they live in, not to exploit and mistreat people and things but rather to bring fairness, justice and peace. And since they believe that they have such clear vision they would be perfectly passed to have a massive positive impact on the people and world around them, helping to heal and restore the many injustices and hurts that are everywhere around us, right outside our doors and in our own streets, and certainly not adding to it by action, inaction or unethical purchases, I would (and mean it utterly genuinely and without sarcasm) look forward to the great things they would do, and would be ready to work with and help them in such living and endeavours. Sometimes being faced with the enormity of what we should be doing and are not, even though we have the awareness to know better and can see how we could act, can bring revelation of the fact we are flawed, and as CS Lewis noted, actually trying to live actively and purposely in a moral and ethical manner, that we realise how flawed we ourselves and not just others are. Even in the areas of life where we have a very clear understanding of what should be done, and with our full cognitive understanding, resources we have at our disposal in the Western world, and our wills we should be able to live and achieve it, yet we fail to various degrees.

So while I do actually think Cindy’s advice is the best (particular as they if they are a friend they could see the gospel lived through you) sometimes approaching someone on their own ground and pointing to concerns you both agree on and suggest how as someone who believes they are not flawed how they could be living and effecting positive change, the very effort to do this genuinely in their own steam can for many honestly doing such be very revealing. But in the end, every person is different, and thankfully everything is in God’s hands, and He does know how best to reach and work in and through everyone, and will bring them in their own way to see His Son as the target of their lives, and into being fully the beautiful and unique human being they were called to be from the beginning.

(edited because late nights and dyslexia do not good bedfellows make :wink: )

#26

From The Bible Project:

#27

To me, the Gospel is this: From the moment God created man in His image, we’ve always had the spirit that gives us life right there in our hearts and minds. We just need to look inside and find it, stand up in all truth and start living.

#28

For me God is the Gospel - He’s the good news. He loves us so much that He will do whatever it takes (most painfully the death of His Son) to bring us to Himself.

#29

St. Michael, I like that. :slight_smile: For me though, I believe that Jesus was none other than God Himself, in the form of a man, who came to earth to let us know exactly where to find Him; that He has always been there waiting for us to come to recognize Him.

#30

Agreed. :smiley:

#31

If Jesus is God Himself, then how can He be the Son of God? Is He the Son of Himself?

#32

Oh Paidion you know my answer to this one :smiley: Paradox my friend - paradox. It’s both/and. Logical binary thinking is either/or - true or false - black or white - all or nothing. It’s both buddy. It transcends reason.

#33

If we believe a contradiction, we have no foundation upon which to stand. We can believe anything.

So what does it mean for a piece of paper to be totally white and totally black. To say that it is both, is meaningless—meaningless nonsense. You haven’t given any information about the piece of paper at all. It doesn’t transcend reason; it’s contrary to reason. It just ain’t reasonable; it says nothing.

We cannot escape by labelling it a “paradox”.

A paradox cannot be believed as it stands unless we make an exception. Here is an example of a paradox:

In a town, a barber shaves ALL the men, and ONLY the men, who do not shave themselves.

At first sight, the statement appears plausible. However, if we ask the question, “Does the barber shave himself?” we face an impossible situation.

If the barber shaves himself, then he does not shave himself. For he shaves ONLY the men who do not shave themselves.
But if the barber does not shave himself, then he shaves himself. For he shaves ALL the men who do not shave themselves.

So what do we believe about this barber? That he both shaves himself and does not shave himself? No.
We must say that the conditions expressed in the sentence in red cannot exist.

However, if we exclude the barber himself from the list of men in the town, then those conditions CAN exist.

Similarly, the condition of being one’s own son, or one’s own father cannot exist. We need to conclude that the Son of God is not the same Individual as his Father.

#34

God cannot be tempted with evil James 1.13
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are He 4.15

Therefore, our high Priest is not God. 1 David 1: :smiley:

Or in my living translation:
God cannot be tempted with evil
Christ was tempted with evil

So Christ is not God.

Ahhh…that’s too simple and straight-line, right? :laughing:

#35

Dave,

Christ was tempted in His human nature not His Divine.

Paidion,

In His human nature Christ is the Son of the Father. But they are both Divine.

Father = God

Son = God

Father God is Father of Son God

One God - Two Persons.

#36

Ah…I missed that wording about the two natures in those scriptures, Cole. My bad. :smiley:

#37

The Son denotes that God was in human form. Humans are the sons, but for a brief moment in history God became a Son. Paidion, as in your example of a piece of paper, the paper may be just a plain piece of paper, but if written upon, it becomes a letter, or if folded it can be a paper airplane etc. etc. Again, the barber, when he is at work is a barber. When he goes home to take care of he kids, he is a father. I believe Jesus was the one and only God in a different form.

#38

Matthew 4:7 says this: Jesus said to him "It is written again ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’ "
There is a difference between truly being tempted and simply being asked/tempted. Consider the difference between a smoker and a non-smoker. If one should be trying to quit and is asked to go have a smoke then that person would truly be tempted. If, on the other hand, the non-smoker is invited to have a cigarette, although asked, there really is no temptation.

Speaking of contradictions, Isaiah 45:21-22 says this: "There is no other God besides Me, a just God and a Savior; there is none besides Me. For I am God and there is no other. "
Again,Isaiah 43:11 says “I, even I, am the Lord, and besides Me there is no Savior.”
However, John 4:42 says “For we have heard for ourselves and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world.”
Unless Jesus was the one and only God in the flesh, I would say John 4:42 would not be true.
So to me, the Gospel would be as I mentioned before.

#39

I see your point, but if Jesus was not tempted in the same way we are, I don’t understand the point of the temptation at all. It’s hard to be a hero if the temptation is basically toothless, I think.

#40

True Dave, however, if Jesus was truly tempted in the heart, then I would say He was not as perfectly sinless as we all suggest. For Matthew 5:28 says this: “But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”