The interesting thing is that UBF is not much in danger of making an idol out of doctrinal accuracy, they rather fall from the other side of the horse by not caring about doctrine at all. Moral rectitude also not that much. But ministry success and absolute obedience towards UBF practice and leadership directions and traning, that’s their idol.

Still, there are some doctrinal issues, core points in Jesus’ teachings that deserve fighting for and not avoiding conflict. There is a good example in 2:14. Paul firmly stood against those who taught (indirectly) that following certain practices and rules were necessary, undermining the gospel that teaches justification by faith and not by works.

“Making an idol out of doctrinal accuracy, ministry success, or moral rectitude leads to constant internal conflict, arrogance and self-righteousness, and oppression of those whose views differ.”

Thank God that by God’s grace, we may respect (and respectfully and graciously disagree with) each others differing views, opinions and perspectives while remaining fully engaged.

“I believe such way of thinking – “the doctrine of hell brings dissonance to my life” -> “I can’t believe is” -> “I should be honest about it” -> “So I wouldn’t believe it” is wrong. B/c you make yourself the measure of the truth. And that is something I’m really concerned about.”

I know and understand your objection very well. But you misrepresented two things: First, the problem was not just a “dissonance” in my life (that sounds more like a “inconvenience”) . The problem was rather a “dis-integrity” in my life (accompanied with arrogance, hypocrisy and lack of empathy). And that is a much more serious problem. Second, I do not make myself as measure of the truth, but I make my conscience as a measure of what I believe and live by. I don’t say it’s the absolute truth, and I don’t force anybody else to live by it. What else can I make a measure? The Bible is not clear about these things, at least not to me. The reality is that the Bible contains many different commands including stoning certain people to death and it also contains many contradictory statements about theological questions and the character of God and the way of salvation, otherwise there would not be so much dispute and so many denominations. It is our task to make sense of it all, using our reasoning, our conscience and our heart. I cannot live by a self-contradictory set of doctrines that my heart cannot believe. I have done that for too long in UBF. I still believe the best thing Luther ever said is “It is neither safe nor prudent to do anything against conscience.” When I talked about that with a Korean UBF missionary, he basically told me that the term “conscience” cannot be found in the Bible and should not play a role for a Christian. People who believe such things concern me much more than those who don’t believe in the Bible. And then, there is also the Holy Spirit. To me the Holy Spirit never gave peace concerning the idea that all Non-Christians (in the sense of Evangelical Christians) are condemned and eternally tormented.

I find it difficult to understand much of what you say here. I just don’t follow your logic. And I’m not convinced of much when you use prooftexting as your method of explanation.

“That’s not true. The Holy Spirit, whom God sent to the disciples “will guide you into all truth” (Jn. 16:13). Will he then not guide? Or will all people break from him? Will not God’s promise (Mt. 16:18) be fulfilled?”

So you really think that phrase “guide you into all truth” means that some of us will understand truth so well that we have no flaws? Apparently that would be you, right?

“Where did you find, that \\the bible clearly teaches there will be no doctrine test at the gates of Heaven\\ ? On the contrary: “Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment” (Mt.12:36) and “the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.” (1Cor.4:5) – everything will be estimated.”

So you really believe that Matthew 12:36 and 1 Corinthians 4:5 teach we must each face a doctrine test in order to enter Heaven? I can’t fathom this from these verses, nor from the chapters that contain them. Maybe you could explain your thinking here? If you are correct, then could you explain to me how I can pass the doctrine test and enter Heaven?

yeah sometimes it feels that way, or seems better than fallen world:)

(maybe that’s where old rock song came from: ‘Highway to Hell’)

So for me the Gospel, Jesus Christ, his Cross, God’s wrath, hell, sin are so much connected so I just can not imagine how we can talk about the Gospel, without much attention paid to seriosness of sin and reality of God’s wrath. My experience is very personal, and I believe it is pretty inline with what the Bible talk about this things.
I can’t see much place for such things as redemption, grace, cross if people are not that sinfull, if hell is not that horrible. I believe that as much cross is about the love of God it is also so much about horror of sin and God’s wrath. So, if you will take those out. I don’t know what is cross about at all. I don’t think we even can talk about God’s love on the cross if people are not that bad and punishment is also not that bad. Why God’s Son should be crusified then? Why God just does not tell the people – well, come to me I love you. And as they really not that bad, they surely will come.

Regarding the discussion related to annihilism, I will not be that much concerned if the reality of sin and wrath of God will be still in place. Though, as I read in the Bible the reality and horror of hell (no matter what it is), and I have my own experience which confirmed the truth of this doctrine and the Church tradition is pretty strong on this topic – I believe my duty is to put it to attention as much as Bible does. And by the way, I don’t think the annihilation will be that helpful to overcome dissanance. It is still horrible, death itself horrible, the separation with God is horrible anyways. So if you think that if believe in ECT should push you to evangelism non-stop, I don’t think annihilism will help you solve it. Even if you think you should be motivated by God’s love to bring people for knowing him, you will be still uncare egoists if you don’t dedicate yourself to this topic (in case you really concerned of God’s love, people around and your responsibility to help them). I think just universalism would help.

Something more about this dissonance/struggle. I am not sure if overcoming this struggle is what you really need to do. May be yes, may be not. Ap. Paul seems to have the same struggle (Romans 9:1-3). I believe such way of thinking – “the doctrine of hell brings dissonance to my life” -> “I can’t believe is” -> “I should be honest about it” -> “So I wouldn’t believe it” is wrong. B/c you make yourself the measure of the truth. And that is something I’m really concerned about. What if God want me to live with such dissonance? Or may be Bible can suggest some solutions. I don’t know. I also have it.

And I still don’t think that Evangelism, saving people from hell is main mission of the believer. Main mission is to glorify God and to rejoice in him eternally. Evangelism is the work of the Spirit himself, and people should do it as much as He does.

Well, few words regarding babies/gentiles. I believe that the main way of the sharing good news/salvation is preaching the gospel (1 Cor.1:21, Rom. 1:14-17 etc.). And we are tied with this way. But not God (John 3:8). For example John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit from mother’s womb. I believe that God can regenarate people even where the Gospel is not preached. But his normal way is – through the preaching.

Did you read or watch Richard Rohr’s “Falling Upward”? Reading the book earlier this year felt as though it was exactly describing my religious Christian life in UBF, and then helping me to evaluate my life in UBF. Here’s the video, which summarizes the book: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1kXeklcmMI

Romans speaks of those who live ‘lawfully’ even if they don’t formally know the law, but are approved by God for the spirit not letter of law

why can’t people seek God/fellowship together sharing perspectives without ‘forcing it down each others throats’? guess we really don’t have practical faith? that is, we don’t trust God to refine ourself or others (am i the same now as long ago? will i be the same in the future?)

So am I. Not just in the sense that some of them may go to heaven and others will go to hell. But also in the sense that, even within the kingdom of heaven, Alec has claimed that human family ties will be dissolved, based on what Jesus said in Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25 and Luke 20:35.

If you look closely at these verses, what Jesus actually says is that, in the kingdom, no new marriages will be established. He doesn’t say that all existing marriages will be annulled or dissolved. Personally, I have a hard time imagining that as long as my wife and I both live in this world, we are supposed to love each other deeply and exclusively, but when we suddenly find ourselves in the kingdom, our special bond will disappear and to her I will be just like any other guy. Based on what Paul says in Ephesians 5, I believe that in the kingdom, our union with Christ will bring the fulfillment of marriage. Fulfillment is not the same as annulment. Even Paul didn’t know how to describe this, and in the end he says that it is a mystery. A great deal about the kingdom is just that: mystery. Which is why I have grown more and more uncomfortable with people drawing hard lines in the sand over doctrines of hell and such. There is a great deal that God has not told us, a great deal that we do not yet know, and our human attempts to formulate locically consistent doctrines about these mysteries are not necessarily bringing us any closer to the truth; they may be sending us away from the truth. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be thinking about and discussing these things. We should. But for many of these questions, the best answer for now may be, “We don’t really know.”

The problem is you can’t stop such thinking without changing your understanding of judgement, salvation, hell etc. In that regard UBF is much more honest than those Christians who believe they are saved, have their family life and hobbies, but don’t care that the rest of the world will be condemned and experience eternal torment.

Maybe you as Americans don’t see it so drastically as we Europeans. Most of your neighbours are probably in some kind of Evangelical church. So you may believe most of who you know go to heaven. But in Germany there is only the Catholic church and the very liberal Protestant church, and both are shrinking. Nearly none of their members would qualify for salvation according to the strict requirements of UBFers or most Evangelical fundamentalists. Most Europeans are secular nowadays. Nearly every person I know would be condemned and eternally tormented. Tell me how I can live a “family centered life” with that in mind. In that regard, UBF is completely right.

Writing this, I remember how my Korean shepherdess told me about her friend in UBF who was so sensitive that he could hear the screams of the souls tortured in hell. It was so scary when she told me such things. But all of this created an immense pressure on me to go fishing on the campus and save those poor souls. Still, the image of a loving God, of Jesus who gave his own life and taught us to be forgiving, and at the same time had “no excuse” and eternal torment for all these people around me created a dichotomy that I was not able to sustain with a sane mind.

Chris, I feel almost exactly as you do. I am ashamed of what American Evangelical people have done in the world. They are doing it big time in Africa now. Such things as you mention are some of the reasons why I am outside the gate of Christendom, at least in America. Rachael Held Evans has been a huge source of inspiration for me as well, and also the “naked pastor” and Brian MacLaren. I’ve not read Rob Bell yet.

In regard to my helliology (is that a word, maybe its just part of soteriology…) here are my beliefs right now.

Hell does exist. Satan and his demons will be in hell one day. Only God can make the decision to send someone to hell or not, and He is the one we should fear. I have a holy fear of God, and no fear of hell. I used to fear hell more than God. But now the fires of hell don’t scare me at all, now that the Spirit has opened my eyes to see more of who God is and what He is doing. My Lord Jesus is far stronger than the strong man of hell.

Live as if we all will be in Heaven. Who will be in Heaven? Do any of us know? No, we don’t. The worst person you know today may suddenly be inspired tomorrow, like Saul on his horse. We don’t know who will be in Heaven, no matter how many litmus tests of doctrine we find. Surrender to grace. Be overcome by the furious love of God for you and for all humans. Maybe my act of generosity or my expression of love or my piercing words may impact someone for eternity. Preaching then, is no longer dictating doctrine. Preaching for me is showing love. I am an outlaw preacher, and as such, I live by four words: I owe you love. I surrender to our Lord Jesus, the Master Outlaw.

And third, the bible clearly teaches there will be no doctrine test at the gates of Heaven. Jesus told us what will happen. He will not ask about our “ologies”. All 7.1 billion of us will stand before God with flawed doctrine. None of us will get it fully right. What will Jesus ask? He will simply ask “Did you visit me? Did you feed me?” Matthew 25:31-46. I think these final questions are like the massive litany of questions at the end of Job. In some sense, they are rhetorical, meant to obliterate any pride and to demonstrate the magnificent grace of God. Who can answer “yes” to Jesus final questions? We’ve all fallen short and must admit we did not see Jesus in that man who knocked on our door or the woman who needed just one word of encouragement. Jesus’ final questions demonstrate all our good works are but filthy rags compared to His riches.

All the arguments brought forth in this thread and all the arguments that I tried to find and invent myself did not help, they never convinced me but made things only worse. I realized this particularly strongly when I tried to explain my Evangelical world-view about salvation, who is God, and who is going to heaven and hell etc. to my young son. I found that I was not able to do it in any way that was convincing, consistent and simple enough to be understood by a child. Shouldn’t children be able to understand the gospel (Mt 18:3)? How can I explain to a child that God is love and all-merciful and all-forgiving and at the same time “there is no excuse” for people who did not do any extra-ordinary evil things like murder?

At the risk of oversimplification, the comments seem to be about ECT vs. Annihilationism vs. Rob Bell’s Love Wins (which seems to advocate postmortem conversion and salvation). John Stott had made comments that could be interpreted as supporting annihilationism, which he may have subsequently either retracted from or wishing to no longer being vocal about because of its controversial nature.

My thoughts about hell begin with a God who is love, and about a God who subjected Himself in the Person of His Son to a separation during his crucifixion and death, that brought forth an unbearable agonizing cry of dereliction (Mt 27:46). Though the separation from the Father by the death of Christ lasted only 3 days in the grave, yet for a an eternal Being who has eternally never ever been separated, it was torturous beyond anything that we humans can ever truly know or experience. Even in eternity future, the Son will bear the marks of the cross on His Person. Yet, this most agonizing excruciating moment in the Godhead is the utmost expression of God’s love for man.

Next is that man is created in the image of the eternal God. It is theologically hard for me to conceive of man who is created with an eternal soul by the eternal God to cease to exist should he be separated from God after death.

It is also hard for me to conceive of Rob Bell’s idea of Love Wins.

That said, I am troubled to personally think if I would be eternally separated from my loved ones. I honestly don’t quite know how to emotionally or intellectually or spiritually resolve it. Nonetheless, I rest on my hope and faith in the God who I know is a loving gracious merciful forgiving God (especially toward me, a sinner condemned unclean), and in a God who will always do the right thing out of his perfect love and perfect justice.

@Chris, I think I resonate with you in this: “I loved science and scientific activity, but to me it was clear that occupation with science (my “Isaac”) and occupation with rescuing people from hell were mutually exclusive. So it was with anything else in my life. I had to give up everything. Still, I always felt guilty because I could always do more and give up more to rescue the people. The gospel became a nightmare for me. It destroyed my life on this earth, I became I robot doing the same UBF activities every week without caring about my own life and dreams.” – See more at: http://www.ubfriends.org/2012/09/22/what-is-the-gospel/#comment-9475 Like you, I no longer buy such dichotomous thinking that our lives become compartmentalized and segregated as though one particular aspect of our live (say our church life) is more important than another part (say our vocation). It is exclusivist, elitist, unhealthy and I believe quite unbiblical.

I hope people understand that I am not arguing that ECT is wrong. I am questioning whether this doctine is absolutely essential. I don’t know if anyone who has commented on this thread believes that it is a crucial part of the gospel. The topic of this thread is “What is the gospel?” and so the issue is on topic.

To those of you who seem convinced that ECT is correct and that this is the only biblically sound position, I would like to pose a question. The question is:

How essential is the doctrine of hell to your explanation of the gospel? If someone has a hard time accepting the notion of hell as ECT, does that mean he or she has not fully embraced the gospel? If someone rejects ECT, has he or she rejected the gospel? If a Christian leader like John Stott teaches something other than ECT, or if he tends to avoid the topic altogether because he honestly don’t know how to reconcile it with God’s love, is he undermining the gospel?

My point is: If your ideas about eternal torment are right, then the picture of the people on the raft was completely right. UBF had something compelling, because it was consequential, if you take that picture literally. If you really believe that, your life must end, and you must devote every minute of your life to mission. (Of course you shouldn’t compromise and marry and waste time for family or get a Ph.D. like UBF tells you to do. In that regard, UBF is not consequential.) But I totally reject that picture now. There is no Jesus in this picture who said “it is finished”. There is no loving God. There are only people thrown in a catastrophe. Nobody could have joy in the situation of that picture. Even knowing to be saved on the raft, how could I have joy seeing all the people around me drowning? The Bible commanded me “rejoice in the Lord!” but I was unable with that picture in mind.

I came to the conclusion that not only I would be an egotist if I just stand on the raft doing nothing, but I would be also an egotist if I would have joy in that situation, because it meant I cared only for my own salvation, and I didn’t mind all the millions of drowned people. People on this thread are telling me “they all deserved it”, but my heart doesn’t believe it, that all these people who God created deserve to be eternally tormented for a vague definition of sin that could be anything from being a murdered to having “unclean thoughts” or in some way “rejecting God” or the gospel. I do not want to be an egotist in the first sense (just standing around), but I do not want to be an egotist in the second sense either (stretching my hands, but not really caring about the drowning people anyway, only caring about my own salvation). Yet, I learned that many people in UBF and other fundamentalist churches were of that ilk, and I started to feel really unwell among them. I was told to consider them as my brothers and sisters, but I felt I had nothing in common with them; they seemed to have a completely different value system concerning judgment, love, and compassion. They talked much about compassion and love, but in their hearts they seemed to be cruel and uncaring, both to the eternal torment of Non-Christians, and to the injustice happening in the church. How can you represent a loving and caring God in this world if you are like that? Rachel Evans described my thoughts and feelings very well in http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/scandal-evangelical-heart

“why Christians who seem to understand justice and judgement so well and want such people to be judged, tell me I shall not judge when I’m searching justice at least inside the church.” -> “That is simply offtopic.”

I don’t think it’s offtopic, not on this site, and not concerning the question “what is the gospel”. The gospel has much to do with judgment. But many fundamentalist Christians seem to have a very strange (to me) understanding of judgment and justice. That pattern is widespread, it is not only something I experienced.

“we are talking about people who didn’t do anything like those in your example. Why do they receive eternal torment? And even if they did these things, why is there punishment and torment eternal, while their deeds happened in time?” – See more at: http://www.ubfriends.org/2012/09/22/what-is-the-gospel/#comment-9471

1) Well, they did. I believe the sin before God is much worsier then the story I described above. If it would be not true, why would God punish Adam and Eve and all humankind with death?
2) The sin has no excuses. That is why it is so bad.
3) The sin is against eternal and infinit God, that is why the punishment should be eternal.
4) The people who are condemned to hell are still sinning. B/c they are not repent but increases their guilt by cursing God.
(all those are just classical arguments.)

“Also, I don’t understand why Christians who seem to understand justice and judgement so well and want such people to be judged, tell me I shall not judge when I’m searching justice at least inside the church.” – See more at: http://www.ubfriends.org/2012/09/22/what-is-the-gospel/#comment-9471

That is simply offtopic.

First, I found the topic very hard to think about and to discuss.
Well, that said, I will share few thoughts. Here in Ukraine we live in pretty corrupted society. The political system is pretty corrupted. Recently a horrible event happened. Two police officeres raped, bitten and almost killed a young woman in a little town. The naked almost died woman was found in the morning and took to the hospital. She knew her offenders and pointed on them. But the police seemed to not doing anything about this. The people of the town was greatly frustraited, they wanted those police criminals to be punished, so they came to police center and almost crushed it. They wanted justice! Wicked murders and rapers should be punished! Was this desire ungodly? not human? I am convienced that it was not. And now, after I knew all the details of the event, and I know the total corruption in our country I also really want that those “policemen” will be judjed and punishment. And I will be frustraited if that will not happened. And I will be satisfied if they will be punished according to the law and just according to the truth.
Now, when it comes to God and sinners, who 1) betrayed him without any reason 2) rejected the fullness of his love on the cross. I think this is much worse then the crime I described above. And I think it is nothing wrong when people who love God and his truth will see his just judge will receive satisfection and glorify him, b/c of his righteosness.

“because all who saw a vision from Jesus ultimately joined to the Church” – I don’t understand this argument either. Why was that a reason for them not to witness about their vision to others?

“In the hell there are different places, as in the heaven. Underaged children go the place with no penalty.” But from where do you get this? Seems more like logical conclusions than taken from the Bible. In the same way, I make logical conclusions, starting from the premise that God is love.

The righteous always see unrighteous in torment in order that their joy grow more, because they see that disaster, which they managed to escape by mercy. And so they more give thanks to their Redeemer, the more clear they see in others what they could suffer themselves if they were left by God. However the punishment of unrighteous observed, doesn’t darken the light of such a great bliss in the souls of righteous at all, because where will be no compassion to disasters, there, no doubt, it will have no power to diminish the joy of the blessed. What makes you wonder, if the righteous, looking at the torment of unrighteous, multiplicate their joys through that, when even in art black color is put in the basis so that white or red color be seen more clear? For, as it was already said, the joys for the kind grow the more, the more clear they see by their own eyes those disasters of the condemned, that they eluded. Though they suffice their own joys for full delight… (sorry, I couldn’t shorter)

\\ are they in a “interim state” like you said about the underage children, \\ “Interim” place doesn’t exist. In the hell there are different places, as in the heaven. Underaged children go the place with no penalty. The souls wich are God’s image don’t stop to exist. Some eternally decay, others eternally divinize.

\\it is impossible for me to believe both at the same time\\ Keeping your doubts in secret doesn’t always mean that you’re pretending, it can be experimenting. If you see contradictions in the Bible it means that God wants to bring you to a new level of understanding, it doesn’t mean that they really exist.

“So when I meant that you were putting too much emphasis on the human element, I meant that we have to take into account God’s sovereign dealings with man throughout history. He intentionally orchestrates history so as to give man an optimal setting to pursue, reach out to and respond to his call of salvation.”

If there would be an optimal setting for everyone, we would not need mission, right? In which way were the Indians 600 years ago in an optional setting to respond to God’s call of salvation? Or people in Muslim nations these days? What you say sounds good, but the reality is different.

“The Muslim cleric I mentioned is actually well known in the Christian world. Also, there have been many other stories of people in the Muslim world in which people receive visions and come to faith.”

These are what they are, “stories”. Sure, Christians like such stories and will always propagate them. We cannot verify their correctness. Likewise, Muslims will propagate stories where Christians started to believe in Allah and Muhammad through a vision ( e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG8SPH7q5oc). And there are many stories of Christians that were simply made up by people who wanted to get attention or “build up” people (http://mukto-mona.net/Special_Event_/Darwin_day/lady_hope290106.htm). Personally, I distrust every report of a miracle. Call me Thomas, but I do it for a reason: For every true miracle, there are certainly thousands of fakes.

Anyway, even if there are such miracles, they are certainly the exception and I still wonder why there is no oral tradition or written report of Indian or Chinese man 1000 years ago who had a vision of Jesus and started to preach to their neighbors. The only case the Bible talks about is the Apostle Paul. But there are no reports of people in other nations who suddenly became apostles of Jesus through a vision. So I need to assume these people had no access to the gospel and thus no chance to be saved, which is incompatible with the concept of a loving creator God in my simple mind.

@Alec, “So there will be not seen relatives in hell in this sense.” Luke 16 seems to contradict this. The rich man who was tormented in hell still recognized Lazarus (his neighbor) (16:23) and his father and brothers (16:27.28).

“Those who never killed, never commited adultery, never stole anything and are Non-Christians are not saved.” Even if they had no chance to hear about Christ and the gospel? Also, if they are not saved, does it mean they are eternally tormented, or are they in a “interim state” like you said about the underage children, i.e. are neither saved nor go to hell? By the way, what happens to their souls? Do they simply stop to exist?

“That gentiles are without excuse and that Jesus saved OT righteous when he went to hell after death is just a piece of God’s revelation as well as that God is love.”

The two statements that gentiles are “without excuse” and that (who created the gentiles) “is merciful, forgiving and equal to love” still create such a big discrepance in my simple mind that it is impossible for me to believe both at the same time. Maybe I could somehow pretend to believe it, but my heart and mind would never really believe it anyway. So I stopped pretending to believe such things or trying to defend such positions in similar ways as you are doing now (yes, I once did the same) and started to speak openly about my doubts. As Luther said, it is neither safe nor right to go against your own conscience. So let me be anathema, but at least I want to be honest about what I really believe.

@Chris. I’m not sure how far we can get in this conversation. You seem to want to read into the Bible text that are not there. For instance you use the word ‘torture’, as if that is what God does to those who don’t accept his pardon. But in fact, this word is found nowhere in any of the texts about hell. The word ‘torment’ is used, but this is much different. So the concept of an ECT hell is not a tool which God uses to maliciously punish people but rather they are tormented as a consequence of being infinitely separated from him. It is a mischaracterization of God to say that he is one who tortures, to say the least. Even when he punishes those who do not believe in him, he takes no delight in it (Eze 18:23). But perhaps you putting this forth for the sake of strengthening your argument. Either way, I don’t buy it.

Furthermore you say “imagine you come to heaven and then every day for all eternity you have to see the billions of people who are condemned and tortured every day, just because they happened to live in the wrong place at the wrong time or because they rejected an offer to study the Bible in UBF. Could you live happily in such a place?”

This is another fallacy because you are assuming that people are products of happenstance when in fact Paul says,

“From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.” (Acts 17:26, 27).

So when I meant that you were putting too much emphasis on the human element, I meant that we have to take into account God’s sovereign dealings with man throughout history. He intentionally orchestrates history so as to give man an optimal setting to pursue, reach out to and respond to his call of salvation.

The Muslim cleric I mentioned is actually well known in the Christian world. Also, there have been many other stories of people in the Muslim world in which people receive visions and come to faith.

Also, the head-spinning apparent dichotomy between free will and God’s sovereignty is a daunting conundrum. However, perhaps this is just another paradoxical truth within the subset of God’s variegated wisdom. We know that other such paradoxes exist but yet are true. A good philosophy that seems to explain free will/God’s sovereignty is molinism. I don’t know if you know William Lane Craig, but he and other good thinkers espouse this.

Anyway, my long-winded post is just to say that this is a very difficult issue I think in part because we don’t quite understand our own sinfulness, God’s holiness and his love. These things are far more complex than we can understand in this lifetime. However, we should not use this as an excuse to compromise what the Bible says. Although determining what the Bible says is also a complex issue as well, I think some things are more clear but they become obfuscated when we try to make arguments that stem from largely emotionally driven concerns.

Unless you are going to the extreme to make some specific argument or to try to get us to realize some deep, detrimental flaw in our thinking (you seem to want to point out flaws in fundamentalist evangelicalism) I don’t think that we can progress too far in this discussion. But I’m still open anyway. Love you as a brother in Christ either way.

“A person is condemn (or glorified) not for knowing or not knowing about Jesus, but fro killing, adultery, thefts, etc.” My Non-Christians friends never killed, never commited adultery, never stole anything. They are much nicer persons than many of the so-called Christians I know. Are they saved then?

“A person starts needing Jesus from the time of conception.” So what about a 2-year old child who dies without having professed Jesus and without being “born of water and of the Spirit”?

“I mean, babies do not do good deeds or bad deeds consciously, this is why there is no reason speaking of their punishment of reward.” So you still seem to have a concept of eternal punishment or reward depending on our good or bad deeds. Where does Jesus and salvation by fit into there? As I learned in Evangelical Christianity, the possibility that somebody is rewarded for good deeds is only a theoretical possibility, or not even that, since everybody is infected by original sin and thus is not able to do anything real good. So in the end it boils down to whether somebody “accepts Jesus” or not anyway.

“BTW there are christians in North Korea.”

Yes, I know, there are some underground house churches. But then only those few who were able to be reached with smuggled Bibles will be saved in North Korea? Fact is that millions and actually billions of people in North Korea (and China and India and the Muslim world …) have no access to the Bible or contact with Christians. And even if there is a theoretical possibility that they could be reached by Christians, your argument totally stops working for the native Americans 600 years ago and everybdoy who lived before Jesus was born.

What I think right now is that scripture and tradition do not always speak with one voice on these matters. Sincere and intelligent Christians who approach the Bible can and do reach different conclusions on these doctrines.

Biblical concept of salvation has the notion of the Fall (“original sin”) as its integral part. This is what the Bible tragically starts from. And “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.” (Job. 14:4)

I mean, babies do not do good deeds or bad deeds consciously, this is why there is no reason speaking of their punishment of reward.

@Joe. If ECT doesn’t exist, why should eternal conscious beatitude exist? Why not people just somehow dissolve in God, as pantheists say?

“If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself SHELL BE SAVED” (1Cor.3:15) This verse excludes annihilation, says saint John the Chrysostom: “he himself will not perish as his deeds, will not turn to nothing, but will remain in fire”.

The OT righteous people went to hell after death not because they held divine genocide, killing women and children. It was because the heavens were still closed by the Cherubim (Gen.3:24) and no one could access it (even Abraham went to hell), until Christ came from heaven laying the way for everybody.

There is a big icon school in Sergiev-Posad. And we had a one-year course of Church art at the seminary.

Btw, don’t you know David Barro who also came to Saint-Petersburg at the UBF member and after that quit UBF and now he is a member of Orthodox Church in America?

“From the point of view of my Eastern Orthodox Church UBF is a sect.”

Yes, from almost any point of view, except the internal view, ubf is a sect. Do you have any experience with Russian Icons? I really want to go to Russia again and paint an Icon in St. Petersburg. I long for the kind of spirituality Icons provide.

“I would send you my 7-page insight in it’s teaching, but it’s all in Russian.”

That’s fine, I am not good at Russian, but I would like to try and understand it.

“I’ve just started, and rather hope you can help.”

Sure, just contact me on my own blog page contact form. I reviewed a Korean paper about ubf from 1998, here is the review link.

I wrote this a while ago, hope it makes sense: Моим друзьям в России

Мой русский язык не хорошо :)

All these words regarding salvation are not a joke (as well as being heretic) and not the issue of language/translation (as far as my English is English)

@Chris THERE you might feel sorry if you didn’t do all your best before, and you will find no answer to their questions. But if you did – you will not feel sorry, it will be the time of reward, and this is what real joy is and why gospel is gospel.

\\If God doesn’t send missionaries, how can they have a choice?\\
Let me explain it more detailed. A person always has choice to act according or contra his conscience. So God is merciful to those who acts contra his conscience when he says to the apostles not to cast their pearls before swine (Mt. 7:6)

A person starts needing Jesus from the time of conception. As it is said “in sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps. 51:5) which makes
“by nature the children of wrath” (Eph.2:3), which is alse purified in saving baptism, that “washing of regeneration” (Tit. 3:5)

BTW there are christians in North Korea.

No pressure, no rush. We have plenty of time to mull them over, whenever you can. Maybe sometime you can take a road trip to Happy Valley and hang out with us to discuss in person.

Another question to Alec and David, imagine you come to heaven and then every day for all eternity you have to see the billions of people who are condemned and tortured every day, just because they happened to live in the wrong place at the wrong time or because they rejected an offer to study the Bible in UBF. Could you live happily in such a place? Maybe seeing some of the people who rejected your invitation in the dormitory and thinking “well, I told you so, now you get what you deserve.” Such a place would not be heaven for me, but hell.

“And if we are so concerned about those millions, then we should do whatever we can to partner with God to help them to come to saving faith.” Yes, this was what kept me busy in UBF and guilty every day in UBF. But even when I was able to save one or two, then at the same time ten or hundred others would reject me. This made things even worse and did neither calm down my concerns for those millions nor about the character of God who would create a gospel that didn’t really look like a gospel if it included condemnation and torture of so many people.

If you’re honest to yourself you don’t really believe this either. You rather want to be believe an unverified story about a miracle in the Muslim world, or that God would crush North Korea if there would be good people there (seemingly there is not a single person in North Korea who is worthy enough for God to interfere?), or that Indians 600 years ago had a vision of Jesus? But why then did I never hear about an Indian who preached to his fellow Indians about Jesus 600 years ago? Even if you believe in these miracles, then these are singular cases and this would still mean that God lets billions of people who He created be condemned and eternally tortured.

Another thing: I see an antagonism between your two concepts that “the choice is up to the listener – either to reject or to accept.” and “he doesn’t send missionaries to those people who, he knows (because he forsees everything)”. If God doesn’t send missionaries, how can they have a choice? Your “wiggling” between the position of eternal predetermination and free will makes my head spin. You may object that there is always some kind of dualism at work when it comes to eternal things but still it makes me feel giddy.

Alec, your claim that “Children who are aborted and not baptized don’t go to Kingdom of Heaven, of course, neither they receive punishment as they didn’t commit neither good nor bad.” doesn’t seem to fit the Evangelical concept of salvation either, which is not based on whether a person is “good” and “bad”, and the concept of “original sin”. What about a child that dies with age 1 year? 2 years? 3 years? 4 years? When does a child end being judged according to whether it is “good or bad” and when does it start to need Jesus for salvation?

@Alec, I find numerous things disturbing with your words regarding salvation (but maybe it is a language/translation issue?). And would you share more details about your paper about ubf you are writing? I’m glad you began to share here, but are you a current ubf member writing from an internal perspective? Or just a third party student interested in Korean missions? I’d love to hear more about what you have discovered about ubf.

On annihilationism in general, it seems as though for every verse you can bring up to support it, you can bring up a verse which seems to blatantly contradict it, such as Rev 20:10. One of my favorite, life-changing books is The Cross of Christ by Stott. I know that he supports annihilationism but I just can’t agree with him, regardless of his theological pedigree. Moreover, this doctrine is relatively new (around 1800’s I think, much like the doctrine of the Rapture, as we know it in our day), so we should vigorously and carefully question it.

As far as the interpretation of the OT genocide events go, I think that there is just reason for them. I’m sure to get lambasted by being vague on this, but I only have so much time. Personally, I think that we are beginning to sacrifice the veracity of scripture when we say that these events may not be literal.

Thank you for the links. I will sift through them, though it may take considerable time given my schedule, because I am genuinely interested in parsing this matter out. In due time I shall reply.

Regarding hell and eternal conscious torment (ECT): If you are accustomed to thinking within that framework, then lots of passages in the NT can be seen through that lens. But it’s also possible to build a pretty strong case that the NT supports annihilationism (possibly after a finite period of suffering). Just about every passage that people quote in favor of ECT can support annihilation. I’m not saying that I believe it. But ECT is not the slam-dunk that many have claimed. A good recent book on this is:

http://www.amazon.com/Hell-Final-Edward-W-Fudge/dp/0891121498/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374702725&sr=1-1

About divinely commanded genocide in the OT: There are many ways to try to explain this, and each one is problematic. Regardless of what the OT says, I and many others have a hard time declaring with certainty that the same God who gave his life for us on the cross also wanted the Israelites to carry out horrendous acts of genocide. Some will say that if you don’t believe the literal readings of those OT passages as historical fact then you are completely trashing biblical authority. I don’t buy that argument. A nice summary article on this topic is

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/07/every-known-theistic-approach-to-old-testament-texts-of-terror/

Greg Boyd gave two awesome sermons on this topic. Regardless of where you stand on the issue of OT genocide, these sermons will really make you think:

http://whchurch.org/sermons-media/sermon/gods-shadow-activity

http://whchurch.org/sermons-media/sermon/shadow-of-the-cross

There’s lots more that I can say on these topics, but I’ll summarize them by saying this.

I no longer buy the idea that if a Christian has a hard time believing in ECT for everyone who hasn’t consciously professed faith in Christ, or in divinely commanded genocide, then he has rejected scripture’s authority and undermined the central message of the Bible.

\\Do you really believe all of these people are not only not saved, but even go to hell and will be eternally tortured there? Please answer yes or no \\

Yes, unfortunately this is the case. Bible says: “he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16) A person perishes as apostle Paul says, “because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved” (2Thes. 2:10)

But for those who are ready to sacrifice everything for the sake of the truth, even their lives, God does everything, so they can be saved. He even destroys a country for a single person who firmly decides to strive to the truth.

Children who are aborted and not baptized don’t go to Kingdom of Heaven, of course, neither they receive punishment as they didn’t commit neither good nor bad.

\\Moreover, the responsibility falls to the one whom rejects this offer\\
The responsibility falls to the missionary only in case he communicates corrupted gospel – for false witness. His mission is to do it according to the tradition and in comprehensible language. But the choice is up to the listener – either to reject or to accept.

@Joe. We are also talking about the same God who willfully and justifiably punished Israel, as well as other nations, in some cases not sparing women and children. The imagery in the OT is quite vivid and the accounts are brutal. I’ve thought about the statement, ‘God is love’ as of late. I’m beginning to think that we (including me) do not fully understand the concept of God’s love.

Jesus speaks of the reality of hell, that is eternal conscious torment, more than anyone in the NT. Would you say that Jesus is unloving then? Or you could just make some argument that we really don’t understand what Jesus meant when he talked about eternal torment.

This story illustrates that we can never negate the ability of God to save whom he wants to save. Even if someone is exposed to anti-Christian philosophy for many years, God gives the ability (for he helps us by gifting us faith to believe in him) to accept his pardon when he offers it to them. Moreover, the responsibility falls to the one whom rejects this offer; there will be no excuse because God’s power is even greater than that of Satan’s (a much more powerful being than man) in terms of being able to influence a person. To be frank, I don’t see much wiggle room in this matter. Do you?

@Joe. So many people have parsed out potential frameworks which address this problem. Personally, I think its a different issue than what Chris is raising, but I’ll leave it up to Alec to reply back on this one.

The same could be asked about aborted children and infants who die before they have a chance to hear the gospel. Are they saved? Most Christians say yes, even though I don’t know of any solid biblical evidence for it. The inference is made not from scripture verses but from basic understanding of the character of God. If someone preaches that God must damn them to eternal conscious torment for all eternity, that is a message that I won’t accept, based on what I believe of God’s character. God is love.

So far, I am still wandering outside the gate of Christendom. I would love to find my “Cheers”, but every tribe in Christendom seems to be mutually exclusive, and riddled with requirements, not able to think or question beyond their little niche.

I think these things are why Christianity is such a paradox. We humans need to have our tribe, and yet that tribe must be inclusive to be a light to the world.

I find it a huge struggle to have any kind of allegiance or identity in Christendom.

Until we do not insist that things must be done in a particular way that we are accustomed to, any church or ministry will just become more and more sectarian with an exclusivist, seclusive barricade mentality.

Then what happens is that Jesus is not the highlight or high point of our church/ministry, but something else which is good, such as social justice, mission, discipleship, etc.

This one is by N.T. Wright.

http://www.outofur.com/archives/2012/10/ur_video_nt_wri_4.html

“The message heard through the entire Bible; as the prophets repeatedly admonished the people of Israel and as Jesus preached and taught the Disciples and crowds, what God wants is not the enforcement of the letter of the Torah. What God wants is that we embrace and live the spirit of the Torah. God does not want a community whose purpose is focused on sin and legalism, on exclusion and punishment. God wants a community whose existence and purpose is based on and focused on justice and compassion. God does not want individuals who are legally obedient and ritually clean. God wants individuals who are generous and hospitable and who, in a healthy and wise way, serve those who are hungry, thirsty, naked, sick, hurt, imprisoned, enslaved, oppressed, lost – and those who just arrived and do not know the way.”

I also appreciate his speaking about the emptiness of this life. The gospel addresses this emptiness, which is another reason why I contend that one of the gospel “words” is fulfillment.

He also speaks of alienation from God. This is good. But I wonder if Ravi understands the alienation from Christianity that has taken place? Maybe he does.

What is “good” about the Good News is that we are called by God
to be in loving relationship with God in a way that exceeds any contractual covenant with God
to stop seeing each other as sinners
to stop looking for ways to see each other as sinners
to see justice as repair, rehabilitation, and restoration
to value reconciliation over judgment
to value inclusion over exclusion

What is more important and more powerful than any human exclusion is that we are called by God, without exceptions and without conditions,
to be the body of Christ
to be sisters and brothers in Christ
to be children of God
to be the family of God
to be citizens of the Kingdom of God
to be the Kingdom of God
to live it and exude it and provoke it here and now, constantly and forever

The Good News has 3 inseparable messages:

1) The universal accessibility of the personal and persistent
unrestrained Love and unconditional Grace of God; and
2) The feeding quenching clothing healing visiting welcoming Compassion and the reparative rehabilitating restorative Justice of the Community; and
3) The inclusive Hospitality and joyous Generosity and healthy Service of the Individual.

http://www.outofur.com/archives/2012/10/ur_video_ravi_z.html

What’s the difference between the “Bible” and the “Gospel”?
> I see the Bible as the God-inspired written declaration of the Gospel as the Gospel was proclaimed in various contexts throughout history.

Is the Gospel a *subset* or some kind of core *summary* of the Bible?
> I would say neither a subset nor a summary. The Gospel is a specific collection of facts which tell a message; a message that was/is embodied in the Person, Jesus.

Or is the Gospel the *entire* Bible?
> I see all 31,103 verses (depending on translation) as declaring the Gospel message in some form.

Given the above discussion by Joe and others, it seems clear that both the OT and the NT are part of the Gospel story. If so, where do we draw the boundaries?
> I say we don’t draw any boundaries. Hebrews 4:2 says that the gospel was preached to the ancient Israelites, as well as to us. Hebrews further describes the Gospel message as “entering into God’s rest”, which I believe is the most comprehensive articulation of the Gospel. To describe the gospel message as “entering into God’s rest” then, gives meaning to the restless wandering curse at the Fall, as well as new meaning to Cain’s life story. And we see why God was SO angry with the Israelites in the desert and said “They shall never enter my rest”.

Did the “Gospel” happen in Jesus’ time only or did it begin earlier and is it still going on today?
> The Gospel was always there. Jesus made the Gospel much more clear, that which the ancients only looked forward to and couldn’t understand. But people like the Psalmist in 119 could see the marvelous beauty of the Gospel in the law.

> And the Gospel was certainly preached to Job and through Job. I am eager to do an in-depth study of Job’s three friends and their advice. I am certain that if we did so, we would discover the Gospel message and see why present day churches struggle. I believe a lot of well-meaning Christians express the Gospel the way Job’s friends did. God’s furious love and righteous anger is revealed in the multiple chapters at the end of Job full of rhetorical questions that will make any legalist weep!

Jesus Lifehouse International Church started in Tokyo about 10 years ago, with a missions team from Australia and a Japanese couple. They’re part of the Hillsong family and hold most of their meetings in Japanese and English. I don’t have much exposure to them yet, but what I can tell their outreach, music, and love for Jesus and each other are awesome. Since they started, there have been several church plants throughout Japan and some other countries. They’re holding a conference in November which I’m planning to attend from Oita…

Here are some sites if you’re interested in checking out more:

http://tokyo.jesuslifehouse.com/en/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Lifehouse_International_Church

I really liked this: “What I haven’t understood to the same degree is the value of preemptively preaching the gospel to myself.” The power of grace is not simply in being reactive *after* sin, it is in being proactive *before* sin.

It is similar in my mind to John Piper’s “future grace”. In Piper’s mind, the future is the next 5 seconds. So he advocates living in grace constantly, building on the foundational grace found at the cross.

When Jesus proclaims grace, we all like it. Crowds flocked to him. But then something happened. They all started to realize that Jesus was talking about grace, all grace, and nothing but grace.

I believe the primary reason Jesus was crucified was that people could not see His grace as fair or just. Crowds loved His teaching at first.

The expert law teachers immediately sniffed out that Jesus didn’t seem to have a “fair or just” moral backbone that they could recognize. So they concluded he was not just. Furthermore, Jesus claimed to be God. This blew their minds. How could God act like Jesus, they thought? God would never touch a leper. God would never associate with prostitutes and tax collectors. Yet some of the leaders at least, knew in their hearts that Jesus was actually living out the very law they claimed to know and teach.

Sure, in regard to ourselves, we readily accept and apply grace. But to one of “those people”? We somehow can’t process grace toward other people who are clearly sinners (even though we ourselves are just as bad).

Grace reminds me, these days, of God’s question expressed through Ezekiel 18:29 “Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Are my ways unjust, O house of Israel? Is it not your ways that are unjust?”

Here’s another gospel/grace related post: http://redlikeblood.com/2012/09/28/answering-the-test-question-about-grace/

http://www.challies.com/reading-classics-together/the-days-i-need-the-gospel-least

The gospel drives all three parts of our journey following Christ: salvation, sanctification and glorification. Although salvation is necessary for sanctification to occur, the reverse is not true. Sanctification is not necessary for salvation.

This contradicts the way I used to view salvation (which Koch explains well). I used to see salvation has being made up of three parts: justification, sanctification and glorification. That explains why I ended up on a sin/repent hamster wheel trying to please God by my obedience and not tick off God by my disobedience.

Now my journey is SO much more lively and active since I realized this correction, which came partially from seeing Scripture through the proper lens of grace.

Through the book, I could see a painful picture of myself as someone desperately seeking acceptance and approval from God and from people. And trying to escape judgment and disfavor. That, as Koch points out, has nothing to do with — in fact, it’s a cheap substitute for — agape love.

The last few chapters of the book, which focus on how we treat and ought to treat Christians with whom we disagree, is the most hard-hitting and challenging message to the church (and to me) that I have seen in recent memory.

I purchased the book for my Kindle. But if anyone wants to order a printed copy, you can get a significant discount; see John’s blog for details.

http://johnharmstrong.com/?p=2846

I’m almost speechless.

Our friend John Armstrong just wrote an excellent piece related to your comment, Chris, regarding our motivation:

“Sometimes when being among “Christians” or UBFers I had the eery feeling that people were driven mainly by either this fear (often seen in ordinary members) or this desire for honor and reward (often seen in leaders).”

John wrote:

“St. Augustine’s reasoning, on force and human freedom, demonstrates how essential it is for Christians to balance their desire that all persons know God’s truth as revealed in Jesus Christ with their recognition that the only coercion they should apply is that of reason and love.

The essential flaw of Augustine’s argument is the assumption that the end justifies the means. The end, in this case, is commendable. But the question that must be posed is clear: “Does love not decree the means as well as the end?” Agape love never allows one to detach the means from the end.

Love may reason, urge and plead. But love does not coerce or force. Christians cannot employ means that do not give the fullest attention to the latter’s freedom and personal integrity. Agape simply cannot use force by definition. To apply love in this way usurps God’s prerogative and contradicts love’s very nature.”

I think at times, even Augustine and Aquinas need to be challenged.

(Incidentally, in case you didn’t guess it, John is the person who recommended the Koch book to me.)

My explanation is the implicit prevalent idea that unless a younger Christian fears an older Christian whom he can see, he/she will not fear God whom he/she cannot see.

I used to believe this, but not any more.

This unbiblical fear of man stifles and suffocates the initiative, creativity and freedom of younger Christians, because “they must humble themselves and submit” to their leaders without question.

This excessive honor of the leader is also horrible for him, because it causes him to think/feel implicitly that he cannot be touched, and should not be questioned or challenged by citing Heb 13:17, while ignoring countless biblical passages about humility, and not lording it over others.

Such unhealthy teachings happen because of an improper understanding of the gospel and of the Trinity, for the Trinity emphasizes the equality of all men, regardless of seniority status or missionary status.

This must change and is gradually changing.

Any thoughts on this quote I found? I am extremely troubled by this articulation, but I’m not able to express why as of yet.

“Yes, Christians sin. But Christians fall into sin and when they find they are sinning, they reject it and struggle to get out of sin. If someone is not struggling with sin, they are not a Christian.

On the other hand, someone who willingly dives into sin, embracing their sin and accepting is not a Christian. They are not saved.

Are they not saved because they sin? No. They are not saved because they are refusing to turn away from sin (that’s called repenting) and accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.”

Roger Olson has proposed a litmus test to reveal whether someone truly understands the gospel. The test focuses on whether saving people from hell is the sole/primary motivation for evangelism. Olson asks:
###
“If God revealed to you in a way you could not deny that, indeed, many will be forgiven who never hear the gospel from a human missionary or evangelist, what would be your response with regard to missions and evangelism?”
###
Olson writes:
###
It’s amazing how many people who claim to be born again immediately say something like “I wouldn’t bother with it anymore.”

My response is always to press further… For example: “Really? So you don’t think there’s any reason to tell people about Jesus Christ other than to save them from going to hell?”

At that point most will pull back a little and says something like, “Well, maybe, but not enough to risk my life.” …

My sad conclusion then is that such a person knows Jesus only in their head and not really in their heart. They may be forgiven, but I cannot believe they have experienced God inwardly.
####

These quotes are from
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/02/my-litmus-test-for-true-christianity/

Here is Trevin Wax’s 31 page pdf document of Gospel Definitions from renowned Christians, past and present: http://trevinwax.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Gospel-Definitions2.pdf When I read this a few years ago, I realized for the first time that I had no clear well thought out way of answering the question (“What is the gospel?”) with conviction and clarity, and with passion and purity.

My short version of what is the gospel is 3 words from J.I. Packer: “God saved us” (Tit 3:5).

My 7 word (perhaps more cumbersome) definition of the gospel is “Redeemed trinitarianly by love, mercy and grace.”

I’m a database programmer so semantics is my life. And if the semantics are wrong, the program doesn’t work. And then you get people calling you saying “My computer doesn’t work!” Semantics matter.

I have observed that we Christians often get the semantics wrong and then wonder why people leave. Biblical semantics are dearly important to me when it comes to the gospel.

I want to experience the liberating freedom of simply receiving and giving the transcendent love we were made for–as His treasured possession and his cherished beloved.

Random prayer: “Who am I? Help me to know and experience all that you have for me when I confess to you, I am Thine, O Lord.”

I hope a certain end-of-the-year’s conference for young people held in a certain place called Grasslake, Michigan at a certain time, let’s randomly say Dec 27-30th, will bring out the beautiful dimensions of the Gospel in all its glorious beauty. Someone should really talk to the folks leading this conference about the pearls of the Gospel that are being discussed on this blog right now. :)

In the past, I believed the gospel, but I didn’t believe the gospel. What? Am I schizophrenic? Probably! In my head, I believed the gospel, but what I practically believed in was in imperatives and biblical commands to obedience to “get the (gospel) job done.”

To get technical, in the words of Richard Lovelace, I based my justification on my sanctification. (I base how holy and spiritual I am on how good or well I perform.) Now because of the gospel, I am reorienting myself to base my sanctification on my justification. Nothing can undo what Jesus has done for me when he said, “It is finished.”

Sorry for loving the play on words!

I’m still processing these things, but Michal Horton’s words strike me as true:

“What’s striking is that Paul answers antinomianism not with the law but with more gospel! In other words, antinomians are not people who believe the gospel too much, but too little! They restrict the power of the gospel to the problem of sin’s guilt, while Paul tells us that the gospel is the power for sanctification as well as justification.”

And Martyn Lloyd-Jones belief is assuring: He believed there was “no better test” of gospel fidelity than the accusation of antinomianism.

Koch’s words are just exploding in my mind these days, for example: “Though sanctification is non-essential for salvation, it is essential for life in Christ.”

And this quote is at the heart of what I have tried so hard to communicate (but seemingly failed to). This is what I failed to understand for 20+ years:

“If our salvation is falsely redefined to include our personal efforts at growth in Christ, then it becomes salvation accomplished by us instead of by the One who did it.”

Regarding identity, of course, I would say that I am a servant of God, and a man in Christ since I became a Christian 3 decades ago. But functionally and practically, my identity was virtually entirely shaped by how people perceived me, and by my own ego and achievements, as inconsequential as they might be.

I needed a major paradigm shift to find my entire worth, value, validation and vindication from the gospel, from God, in Christ, and not from anything else. That freed me in countless ways to truly be myself in Christ (which may not be good, because I am at heart a polemic bulldozer!).

The gospel indeed also freed me to discover what grace truly is. This quote from Paul Zahl’s book, Grace in Practice, explains grace that speaks and appeals to me:

“Grace is love that seeks you out when you have nothing to give in return. Grace is love coming at you that has nothing to do with you. Grace is being loved when you are unlovable. Grace is irrational. Grace alone achieves what the Law demands.”

Zahl’s point is that Grace is one way love, while Law is two way love. All my life as a Christian, and even to this day, my sinful fallen default is to the law and to 2 way love. But grace is all of God and none of me. That is just so liberating.

Then I realized that such grace “scares” people, who then start saying that I am an antinomian, and that I am teaching cheap grace, and that this grace is dangerous because it allows people to sin freely and to do whatever they want. But that’s another story.

Have you gotten to the part of Koch’s book where he talks about obedience and law, and how love transcends the law? This is one of the clearest and best discussions of gospel and law that I have ever seen.

Ah, I see all my fellow UBFriends have been quite active these days during my online blogging hiatus. It’s going to take a while to catch with all these new ongoing conversations. For example, Joe’s article on the fallibility of Paul deserves far more discussion and attention than it is currently receiving (but only as long as it doesn’t threaten our #1 status of Most Viewed Article!), right Gerardo R? Still #1, baby!

Okay. I got that out of my system.

Anyway, thanks Brian for this awesome article on the Gospel. It’s funny because I’ve been thinking a lot about the Gospel and the ways I need to be “re-evangelized” by the Gospel and “re-introduced” to the Good News in various areas of my life. Personally, I think our UBF community as a whole is in a season where we collectively need to go DEEPER with the Gospel (evangelize ourselves by going inward) before we start mobilizing ourselves to go BROADER with the Gospel (evangelizing others by going outward)

For example, one real big spiritual breakthrough in my life has been allowing the Gospel to break through the performance mentality of always trying to measure up,and trying to build my identity and “measure up” in the eyes of others through my personal and spiritual achievements.

But Philip Yancey’s book, What’s So Amazing About Grace? and Jerry Bridge’s book (Discipline of Grace) both really introduced me to the side of the Gospel that I really didn’t appreciate. I still remember one line (paraphrased from both books): that (1) there is nothing that I can do that is so bad that it makes God love me less, putting me out of the reach of God’s grace; and that (2) there is nothing I can do that is so good that it makes God love me more, putting me out of the need for more of God’s grace. For some reason, the Gospel to me for the first 25 years of my life was only about (1). But now in this hopefully next 25 years of my life, I am finally accepting (2) in the various areas of my life (though I’m still being renewed in this area). It’s sort of liberating.

On a related topic: I would really like to hear everyone’s opinion on how the Gospel speaks to the issue of “identity.” The issue of identity seems to be a resonating issue on the minds of young people. How does the Gospel speak truly Good News to the issue of our identity? I want to better understand this.

Thanks!

This sentence bothered me immensely: “When they accept this and acknowledge that they are sinners, you can move on.” How does anyone know if they have seen themselves as sinners? Is it just a onetime acknowledgement?

I find that people who share this narrative (like I used to) get stuck when discussing further. They end up concluding that the gospel is “just trying to avoid sin”. They conclude that other people are sinners, but we are ok because we don’t want to sin. They then have no choice but to embark on either a rampage of holy soldier-like judging/condemning or limp along the sad road of repeatedly trying to avoid sin on their own power. No amount of coercing can make them experience the abundant joy and peace and hope that the Scriptures declare.

Joe, I think you hit on something that has come up in my mind numerous times this past year: We need to understand what it means to “fulfill the Law and the Prophets” if we are to understand the gospel and correctly present it. I am convinced there is a redemptive narrative to be found in every OT passage, and that we should be reading the OT for such redemptive narratives, not as examples to try to imitate.

I am becoming more and more convinced that I would use the word “fulfillment” if I had only one word to describe the gospel.

One time I was talking with John Armstrong and he mentioned that Luke 4:16-21 would be his choice for the verses that describe Jesus’ mission statement. I was floored! I always considered the “go into all the world” verses as Jesus’ only mission statement. Probably both are correct mission statements, but at that moment I learned that Jesus was all about proclaiming freedom, and not so much about directing obedience. John was quick to remind me about taking freedom too far, as we need to curtail freedom with the rest of the gospel message and also not let go of obedience. So freedom is certainly a word to use when talking about the gospel.

Is it part of the definition or the part of the message? I’m leaning toward part of the message/effect. Mainly the reason is based on John’s caution. Freedom itself can become anarchy, which is certainly not part of the gospel message.

Regardless, based on Joe’s comments and other blogs, it seems the entire evangelical movement in the West (and perhaps in places like Japan?) is in great need of the gospel: they seem to be seeking freedom from oppression, and coming out of blindness.

Last weekend I attended a church in Osaka, Japan called Jesus Lifehouse Church. It started around 4 years ago with a handful of people and now has over 300, with most of the members being under 30 years old. This kind of growth is amazing, especially in Japan.

One of the things I noticed at their service was *freedom*. The worship music started at their regular Sunday service and many flocked to the stage waving their arms in the air in worship of the King. Japan is typically a reserved society. But these people were *free*. Free to express themselves in creative ways. Free from what others thought of them. Free to be themselves, love God, love others, worship, and dance!

It reminded me of one Jesus’ first messages at the opening of his ministry in Luke 4:16-21:

He stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

Wow! Jesus came to bring us freedom! And this freedom is also accompanied by peace, joy, confidence, etc.

As I thought about this though, it seemed that *freedom* is both *part of the gospel message* as well as an *effect* of it. Any thoughts?