Skip to main content

What is the Gospel?

Just a quick thought relating to Phil's comment on the Titus 3 sermon. Is the good news (Gospel) just the transformation itself or is it the life to be lived afterwards as well? Is the good news the passport with my new citizenship in it, or is it actually living in the new country? Is the good news the Cross or is it the life of discipleship? Is the good news the Resurrection, or the resurrected life it brings? Have we really preached the gospel if we don't mention both? I have always felt that evangelism that doesn't also point out the cost and consequences of accepting Jesus as saviour is dangerous and dishonest (see Luke 14:27-33). Let me know what you think :)


  1. I think this one might take quite a bit of thought, but by first response is that the Gospel is at its strongest when it balances between the two.. but surely you are preaching the Gospel if you are talking about either.

  2. The good news is simply that: a report of something that has happened.

    The transformation and the response aren't the Gospel so I think your categories are a bit confused.

  3. Faye, i agree you are talking about the gospel if talking about either but have you proclaimed 'the gospel' if you havent talked about both?

    Phil, i believe you suggested the transformation described in Titus 3:4-7 was the gospel 'right there.' But that passage does not describe the historical event but the consequent transformation which that event has made possible. The good news is not simply the reporting of an event but also the implications, connotations, and consequences of that event, without which the event is merely 'news'. As such I would argue that the new life we are called to live is an integral part of the good news. Most evangelism seems to concentrate on getting to the point of the new birth, but without really going into detail about what the new birth will entail, which seems half baked to me. What do you think?

  4. Yeah, I think I'm playing semantics a bit.

    But look at Titus 3:4-7. It's past tense - talking about what God has done. There's nothing in that about what we do - because that's not the Gospel.

  5. I wrote that last comment just before bed so I don't know if I engaged properly with what you said.

    The Gospel is what God has done - the Good News that he has rescued his people from sin and death by the blood of his Son.

    Now, if we have been given a new heart to have faith in that Gospel we then enter a life of repentance - a turning away from sin and living only for God.

    I'm very far away from the evangelical world, coming as I do out of liberalism into a more historical, Reformational faith and practice so I don't want to comment out of turn. However, if evangelism's focus is getting people to come up the front and make a commitment after an emotional appeal and some nice choruses then it's going astray.

    Your sermon that kicked all this off was a great example of a good sermon because you gave the Gospel message and then applied it. My only worry was that the application may have overshadowed the gospel, thus straying into the realms of law; i.e do this stuff and you will live.

    The implications of a life of faith and repentance in light of the Gospel must never be hidden but semantically our response is not the good news.

  6. I think we may have crossed lines here. Our response and the life to which we are called to are separate things. The 'gospel' of Titus 3:4-7 is the transformation of the believer through becoming born again and is neither the historical moment of the Christ event, nor the realisation of God's salvation in the believer's life. I did answer your concern about 'law' in the comments after the sermon, but perhaps starting this post obscured it... not every one checks this blog as often as me :) But you've convinced me, (inadvertantly?) there is no Gospel without application. But that will need more thought... cheers Phil :)


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

That one time Jesus got the Bible wrong

It's so typical isn't it? You are preaching all day long, training your disciples, sparring with the Pharisees, encouraging the poor and down trodden, healing the sick and casting out demons, all day, day after day, and even when you go up a mountain to get a rest the crowds hunt you down and follow you up, and then the one time you get a bit muddled up with some of the details of a biblical text . . . that is the one they write down in the first gospel - verbatim. At least Matthew and Luke had the good sense to do some editing. But Mark, he always had his eye on giving the public the "historical Jesus" whoever that is supposed to be . . . warts and all. Thanks a lot Mark!

Some think I made the mistake on purpose, just to show the Pharisees up.

For some there is no mistake worth mentioning, only a slightly ambiguous turn of phrase.

Others think I am doing something tricky with Abiathar's name, getting him to figuratively stand in for the priesthood.

It really has…

Thor Ragnarok and Parihaka: Postcolonial Apocalypse

Thor: Ragnarok is a riot of colour, sound, violence, humour, sci-fi and fantasy. As a piece of entertainment it is the best Marvel has produced so far. As in many of Taika Waititi's films the plot often seems secondary to the humour and a number of quirky moments seemed only to serve for a quick giggle. I left the theatre overwhelmed by the sensory experience, but ultimately unimpressed by any deeper meaning.

It wasn't until the second morning after my trip to the movies that I woke to the realisation that the movie could function as a profound postcolonial metaphor (I do some of my best thinking while alseep, also it can take me a while for the penny to drop). Unfortunately a quick google showed me that I was neither the first, nor the second to have this thought.

[Spoiler Alert!]

It's easy to miss with all the other stuff going on but Thor undergoes a postcolonial awakening during the film as he slowly realises that his beloved Asgard and its dominion of the nine realms …

Dale Martin does Mark

Dale Martin is an important and frequently controversial NT scholar. Those of us who can't make it to Yale to hear him teach can access some of his lectures, in fact his entire introduction to the NT course, through the magic of the internet.

Here he is holding forth on Mark . . .