Re: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel?

[Taylor]

Hi David,   I want to begin by apologizing to you, but I am not going to be able to give your questions the attention they deserve. I wrote most of last night (in between short posts to others), thinking I was approximating what I needed to say in order present a satisfactory response; however, upon reading my reply, I realized that I was still leaving much unsaid. Nevertheless the problem boils down to this: either an appropriate answer is going to take more time than I have to offer, or I am going to have to condense my thoughts, knowing that they will not fully -- or perhaps even adequately -- address your inquiry. I'll attempt to do the best I can with the latter.   I think Dean said quite well one of the points I would like to make: If one is going to preach the condemnation of the law of sin, then he or she must give the sinner a way out, which is Christ; for to fail to do so is to leave a soul in torment, and not in a state of grace (thanks Dean). This it seems to me is the locus of failure in most of the preaching on repentance which I have encountered. It is certainly at the center of my concerns against "street preaching."   When repentance is preached as the introduction to the good news of Jesus Christ to people whose background is not rooted and grounded in the grammar of God's correspondence with humanity, which is inclusive of most people in the western world today, the bottom line is this: it is being preached out of context. There is no repentance apart from Jesus Christ and to expect people to repent who do not know him is to demand of them the impossible. "Repent? What the hell for? and What does that even mean?"   The confusion I see over the topic of preaching repentance, is based in a failure on the part of most Christians to realize that repentance, when it was preached in the New Testament, was directed almost exclusively (I am inclined to leave off the "almost" but have not fully research it) to people who were already people of God: it was preached to God's people, the Jews; or to people who knew Christ -- relationally, if not also via personal encounter -- and had put their faith in him. These were people to whom the utterance had meaning. It was meaningful because it was already contextualized in the language of God. To them, repentance meant not only a turning away from something -- as Dean puts it, "the law of sin" -- but a turning to the one whom they already knew as God. The great difficulty they had was in turning to Jesus Christ as the One who was that God. And as you know, many of them refused to do so.   And so, to those people, "repentance" was firstly a change of mind, a turning away from old beliefs and a turning to a new way of thinking about God. The task of repentance for them entailed a restructuring of their thinking about who this God was in whom they had believed. Theirs was to begin to think of God in a way which placed Jesus at the heart of God's identity. It was thus a first order paradigm shift. Repent for what? Repent about this man you know as Jesus of Nazareth. Change your mind about him. He is your Messiah.    To preach repentance to people who do not have this contextual background is to place upon them a death sentence. It is to throw the whole weight of salvation upon their shoulders and to expect of them what no one apart from Christ has ever accomplished: "I have to do something in order to be saved, but I have not the will to pull it off." Hence, if it is taken seriously at all, the weight of that decision will crush them -- if not today, then someday soon.   Is repentance part of the Gospel? Yes, the NT is replete with directives to repent. But repentance is not a means by which or through which people are saved. It is Jesus Christ who is our Savior. Salvation is in him, complete with mediation on our behalf. Repentance is therefore our response to the greatest news the world has ever heard; it is our response to the good news of Jesus Christ. Amen.   I think I'll cut is off with that, David. To go further would be to get into things we have discussed many times in the past. I hope this begins to address your questions and to give you some indication as to my thoughts in relation to this subject. I am sorry that I do not have more time to spend on this, but I have dozens of papers to grade, on top of wanting to spend some time with Tanya and Andy, not to mention I'm over sixty posts behind in my ready :>) Thanks DavidM. I hope you are not displeased with me.   Bill     ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 4:38 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] What is the gospel? > Bill wrote: > > no, it didn't seem to me that they ever really > > got to the Gospel. "Christ," it seemed, was > > but a segue to the soul of their message: > > "Repent, or be damn!" > > I have seen a few street preachers that focus on this message too, and > others who seem to speak of nothing but abortion.  Right now I am focused on > preaching against an official state sanctioned department of immorality at > the University of Florida called the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and > Transgendered) Affairs department.  Sometimes students ask me why don't I > address some other sins or other issues.  Well, the Lord sent me on this > mission and right now I am focused upon one thing, at least up through March > of this year.  They should talk to the Lord about why if they have a problem > with it.  I will for a minute or two address some other pressing issue, but > I am always pressed in my spirit not to turn aside from the mission God has > put on my heart.  As I engage the students in dialogue and debate, I am > always saying, "let's get back to why I'm here today..." > > My question to you is this.  The message, "Repent or be damned," is this not > part of the gospel that Jesus preached?  Is it not a part of the gospel that > most ministers neglect greatly?  You seem to speak about this message as > being excluded from the gospel when you say, "they never really got to the > gospel." > > I realize that you might want to go to definitions about the word gospel > meaning "good news," but good news is always in a context.  If people do not > know they are damned by their sins, which is prevelant in this culture of > lawlessness, then an emphasis of salvation is not a message of good news. > It is simply a message of an archaic religion that most people find > unnecessary for life. > > Considering the actual record we have of what was preached, starting with > John the Baptist, moving to Jesus, and then to his apostles, is the message, > "Repent or be damned" really not part of the gospel?  What do you think? > > Peace be with you. > David Miller. > > ---------- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is > believed to be clean. > >