If you'll notice on the sidebar a little category with the heading of Bloggerviews, you'll see a few names you might be familiar with. The idea to conduct random interviews with different bloggers seemed like a great way to get to know our blog friends a little better. The last one listed there is the one I did with Frank "centuri0n" Turk, last New Year's Eve. It's been far too long since I've done this, and I've missed it.
When I recently posted on the topic of the resurrection of Christ being in any way absent from the gospel message that one might hear, one of the responses really intrigued me. That response was from none other than the articulate Dan "Booyah" Phillips, of TeamPyro and Biblical Christianity. I suspect many others share the same opinion when I say that Dan is one of my favorites to read at any blog.
I contacted brother Dan via email to see if he might be willing to discuss this a little further, and he was more than happy to oblige. A bit of a different twist on this installment of Reflections Bloggerviews, the following is the email correspondence Dan and I have had over the last several days. Instead of various questions on different topics, we stuck with just this one, and made an effort to dig a little deeper and examine things from a few different angles.
Dan and I are in agreement in that we sincerely hope this discussion might generate some serious thought to what this good news really is, that we call "the gospel". Your thoughts, questions and insights are of course, always welcome. The reference in my first email to Dan regarding the question, was in response to his comment at the original post.
-------------------------------
CARLA:
first, I'd like to thank you again for your time on this subject. When I asked in the concluding paragaph "If a man or woman asked 'what must I believe about Jesus, to enter heaven'? How would you answer?"
You responded with:
"I think you're looking for an irreducible. I'll offer one, unpack it a little, but with this emphatic caveat: this is a thinking-aloud, not a declaration." Then your next line was: "I think that the irreducible is affirmation that Jesus is Lord (cf. Acts 2:36; 10:36; 19:17; Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 12:3; 2 Corinthians 4:5)."
I really liked the way you worded that, but at the same time this goes into more of a pre-supposed overview of the question that may likely not be applicable (for most people) in a real life situation. What I mean by that, is that if a person (unbeliever - little to no Biblical education/and/or a completely twisted idea of what Christianity really is, thanks to the modern nonsense that people call Christianity) did ask you that question in a face to face conversation (rather than a fellow believer who fully understands what you're saying when you say "Jesus is Lord") would you answer the same way - or - would you answer that in this same way but also explain why - according to the verses you posted ?
And for the bonus question, if you would explain why Jesus is Lord, and why a person must believe this - why would you explain why?
I look forward to your thoughts on this.
-------------------------------
DAN:
First and fundamentally, I have to say that the question makes me uncomfortable. Let me explain.
You asking it doesn't make me uncomfortable, because to some degree I know you, and your core commitments. But I'm concerned about where the question could originate, and lead.
Back in the early 1900's, apostasy was also widespread among professing Christian leaders. A group of Biblically-sound men identified core Biblical doctrines that were under attack, and rallied in their defense. These doctrines included the inspiration of Scripture, the divinity of Christ, His virgin birth, and a couple of others. The doctrines were held to be fundamental, the collected essays defending them were published under the title The Fundamentals, and the men championing them were known as Fundamentalists.
One great defender was J. Gresham Machen, first of Princeton and then of Westminster. But Machen was very uncomfortable being called a "fundamentalist." Machen explained that he did not like in effect identifying minimal doctrines as "fundamental," because the implication was that other doctrines were marginal or optional. Machen believed the whole Biblical package, and felt that the Westminster Catechism was the best expression of it. (Say what you will about the WC, I doubt it's ever been criticized as minimalist!)
I feel similarly about this question. I worry, in our intellectual climate, of what could lie behind the desire for such a list, and what would be done with it. (Again, I emphasize, not by you, but by others.)
You see, I envision certain types clamoring for such a list because there are equally-clear Biblical doctrines that (A) they just don't like, and/or (B) they don't want to have to hold and defend publicly, and/or (C) are rejected or perverted by writers, speakers, cliques, or movements with which they've become enamored. These minimizers want to rationalize their infidelity. I don't want to help them in that.
It makes me think of a child. You lay out what you want him to do, and immediately he starts asking questions which reveal that he wants to find out the bare minimum of what he can get away with doing. You immediately know something about his heart. He's not coming from love or respect for you.
So that is part of why I stated it as I did in my initial response. The affirmation of Jesus as Lord is core and kernel. It is the start of everything, and contains within itself everything that must follow.
Example: say a man is converted through the sound preaching of the Gospel. He embraces at least a rudimentary revelation of the holiness of God, his own sin and guilt, Christ's Lordship, death, burial, resurrection. Through repentant faith, he "signs on," as it were. He enrolls in the school of which Christ is master, and he the student (Matthew 11:28; 28:18-20). He begins and continues in Christ's word (Romans 10:17; John 8:31f.).
At his conversion, this man knows nothing of the plenary, verbal, inerrant inspiration of Scripture. However in objective fact his conversion rests on that truth, because he could have known nothing of Christ were it not for the plenary, verbal, inerrant inspiration of Scripture. But this is implicit to him, not explicit. He doesn't formally affirm it nor deny it; but his existence as a Christian rests on its objective truth.
Now, in his growth, he comes to learn that Jesus Himself taught and affirmed the plenary, verbal, inerrant inspiration of Scripture. And so, because his repentant conversion had involved recognition that (A) Jesus is Lord, and therefore (B) he was not, he also embraces this truth. Maybe he does it immediately. Maybe, if he's had the disadvantage of a misleading education, or if approbation-lust is a pet sin of his, it is after a struggle. Maybe a long struggle. But once he sees that it is what Jesus taught, he embraces it.
And so his faith matures, deepens, and gains definition. But it's all an outgrowth of his initial saving faith in Jesus as Lord. That is the major premise. Everything else is a matter of working out that premise (cf. explicitly Colossians 2:6-10).
So I'm very uncomfortable with, in effect, putting a list of doctrines into a box, fitting a lid on top, and then saying "There you go. That's the necessary package. That's it."
What I think makes better Biblical sense is to lay the Biblical foundation, and say, "That gives the basis and parameters. Now we start building."
Does that make a start towards answering your question?
-------------------------------
CARLA:
Dan, thanks so much for your very insightful response. Before I address that, let me just explain briefly why I asked the question "would you explain why Jesus is Lord (to an unbeliever) according to the verses you offered".
While my own Christian life and the experiences I've had as a believer is not any kind of authoritative marker, I have been in and witnessed many disturbing conversations with professing believers over the last few years. Specifically as it pertains to who Jesus is and what He did, and why. I couldn't give you the number, but an alarming amount of people out there honestly couldn't tell you what the gospel actually is. They will even resist the idea that the gospel should be something preached to Christians. They laugh at the idea - but then when asked "what is the gospel" they can't tell you, according to the Scriptures. (To be sure: they have all sorts of warm and fuzzy messages of love and forgiveness and Jesus' wonderful plan for your life).
Granted, there are indeed many believers that could easily tell you what the gospel is, but the very fact that so many can't, is the reason I asked that question.
Your explaination however, was excellent and something I agree with 100%. There is indeed a danger of listing "a list of doctrines into a box, fitting a lid on top, and then saying "There you go. That's the necessary package. That's it." as you say. At the same time however, it seems you would agree that there is at least a kind of "necessary package" as to what we must believe and confess as it pertains to our faith in Christ.
You say:
"What I think makes better Biblical sense is to lay the Biblical foundation, and say, "That gives the basis and parameters. Now we start building."
This does answer my question as to "why is Jesus Lord?". If you lay the Biblical foundation for the why, as your answer indicates, you cannot leave out the fact of His resurrection. As you mention giving the basis and parameters, I am convinced that this truth of Christ must be included.
I don't really like the phrase "essential doctrines", since this does indicate that all doctrines outside of this would be considered non-essentials. I understand the reasoning behind it, but it does seem to lend to what you call minimalist thinking. The bare minimum one must profess for a credible profession of faith - and all other doctrines are up for debate to either be potentially accepted or rejected - that's an idea I've actually run into quite a bit.
It seems to me that there must be a balance somewhere between minimalist thinking, and genuine adherence to those Biblical doctrines that seperate Christianity from all other religions, as it would pertain to an initial, genuine profession of faith.
Your example:
"a man is converted through the sound preaching of the Gospel. He embraces at least a rudimentary revelation of the holiness of God, his own sin and guilt, Christ's Lordship, death, burial, resurrection. Through repentant faith, he "signs on," as it were. He enrolls in the school of which Christ is master, and he the student (Matthew 11:28; 28:18-20). He begins and continues in Christ's word (Romans 10:17; John 8:31f.)."
I agree as you further stated that the man's conversion rests on this, and then the growing and learning, understanding and acceptance of further Biblical truth begins.
At the risk of sounding like a fundamentalist (lol) I wonder if that man could be truly converted through a message that left any one of those things out, that you've listed. God's holiness, his own sinfulness before a Holy God, Christ's Lordship, His death, burial, or resurrection?
I look forward to your further thoughts on this.
-------------------------------
DAN:
Well, we are again talking about the irreducible minimum, aren't we? And I'm still reluctant to come up with a formula.
Reflecting today, I thought of an analogy. Suppose some young couple came to me and asked, "So, what is required of us, at minimum, for becoming parents?" The question itself would alarm me.
Suppose I hemmed and hawed a bit, and the young man impatiently said, "Look, I t hink I know what it is" -- and then laid out the mechanics of intercourse and conception. "And then we're parents. Right?"
Well, how do you answer that?
Of course my real answer would be, "If that's the way you're looking at it, then for pity's sake, don't do it!"
Like all analogies, mine breaks down. The physical act itself could produce a baby, which would technically categorize the sperm and egg donors as "parents." But there is a world more in real parenting than just that act alone.
Paul defines the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. It included the atoning, substitutionary death, the burial, and the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Anything absent those elements should not be called a "Gospel."
But would Paul agree that those verses constituted an exhaustive definition of "Gospel"? In the light of Galatians 1:6-10, and the entire epistle, I can't think that he would. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-11, Paul says nothing explicit about faith-alone/grace-alone salvation -- yet in Galatians, he says that a Gospel that denies those elements is no Gospel at all, and merits damnation for the preacher.
You know, Carla, you and I could tell each other truth about Jesus until He came to us, or we to Him, and we'd still not have grasped the whole. So what percentage of that whole truth is the minimum? Is a grain, a mustard seed, if genuine, "good enough"? Is it the hearty acceptance of what truth one knows from the Word, which carries implicit within it readiness to study, learn, seek after, and accept the rest?
For the Word-hating folks you mention, I'd take a different approach. I might ask, "So, you think you can 'believe in' Jesus, but not believe Jesus? You check some right boxes, but you despise what He says is most important. How is your faith different than Satan's?"
Does this help any further?
-------------------------------
CARLA:
I certainly understand the reluctance to come up with a formula or list of check boxes for the irreducible minimum.
I wonder how that changes though if instead of calling it an irreducible minimum, we call it foundational doctrines? Not for the purposes of seeing how much we can get by with, or get away with - but how much we need to know to get started in our walk of faith in Christ.
Like you, I also think in analogies and I confess that this one isn't original. Several weeks ago my pastor gave this analogy of faith in Christ being like the foundation of a home. We don't just move into the foundation and call it home - but we continue to build (learn) and we continue to invest (study) over time.
I agree that 1Cor. 15 shouldn't be considered an exhaustive definition of the gospel, but I do think it's a good foundational introduction. You've stated:
"Paul defines the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. It included the atoning, substitutionary death, the burial, and the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Anything absent those elements should not be called a "Gospel."
I couldn't agree with you more.
Wrapping this up (yes, you get the final word), I have one last question.
I was recently involved in a conversation with several believers and the question was asked of them "what is the gospel?". The response was striking. Most just flat out ignored the question, likely hoping someone else would answer it. A couple of believers that did respond, gave two different answers. I immediately thought to myself "what if I was an unbeliever, how would I react to what I just heard?". So in light of that, I wonder if you would agree (or disagree) that the gospel is something that ought to be preached to Christians?
I look forward to your response.
-------------------------------
DAN:
By any definition, the Gospel is essential, fundamental, foundational. So if a "Christian" doesn't know it, for pity's sake someone had better preach it to them.
Here's how I see it. I didn't have to do anything to be an American. I just had to be born in America. I could have died at 100 as an American without ever once reading the Constitution, voting, serving jury duty, or any citizenlike thing.
Being a Christian is nothing like that. We are born spiritually dead, enemies of God, not in His family (John 8:44; Romans 1:28-32; Ephesians 2:1f.). We must become what we were not -- children of God (John 1:12), by the miracle of adoption/new birth (John 3:3; Ephesians 2:4-10). This is a miracle, I say, of Divine authorship, and it takes place through the medium and means of His Word, of the Gospel (John 1:13; Romans 10:17; James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:3, 23). Our regeneration is in conjunction with saving faith; though the latter is caused by the former, it is never separable from it. John Murray wonderfully says, "The person who is merely regenerate is not saved, the simple reason being that there is no such person. The saved person is also called, justified, adopted" (Romans, 1:27, footnote).
So no one is saved, regenerate, forgiven, born again, who does not believe in the Gospel. So he must know the Gospel.
Paul both makes that clear and, I think, answers your question, in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. Let's focus on the first two verses:
Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
These muttonheads had been professed Christians for some time, but still had gotten into a mess of confusion and trouble. So Paul takes them back to basics, back to the Gospel, which he then applies to their current state of confusion. But he preached the Gospel, they received it, they now stand in it, they are being saved by it -- if they hold it fast. The Gospel had to be preached, it had to be received, it had to be taken a stand in, it had to be held fast.
I just don't see any way of trivializing that.
As a pastor, I was talking with this older man once, trying to get a feel for whether or not he was saved. Every answer he gave shot wide of the truth, and of the heart of the matter. He was sure he was a Christian, but couldn't much tell me what that meant.
So I thought I had a really bright idea. I asked him, "So, suppose you were talking to someone, and he asked you, 'How can I become a Christian?' What would you tell him?"
He answered with some confidence, "I'd tell him to talk to the pastor."
So a firm and truthful grasp of the Gospel is crucial to our salvation. Paul states the case positively here. He puts it negatively, if you will, in Galatians 1:6-9. There, he pronounces damnation upon the man who perverts the Gospel.
So we had better get it right.
Back to your little clueless group, there. A non-Christian listening in would have had to have been baffled. He must have some muzzy idea that one has to do something to become a Christian. He'd probably guess that, if anyone would know what that something was, it should be Christians. But for a bunch of Christians not to know, nor even to care? Why bother being one, then?
Why, indeed?
I'll go you one worse. A fellow in the church I pastored went around asking longtime Christians simply to name the four Gospels (let alone explain the Gospel). He asked dozens of mostly Charismatics, including "worship leaders." As I recall, none could do it.
Were they embarrassed at their abysmal, inexcusable ignorance? Not at all.
But they were angry -- at him, for asking.
I hope that's of some help. Thanks for asking!
-------------------------------
I would like to thank Dan once again for his time, and his graciousness to answer these questions of mine, and also for expounding on his answers in such a clear way. Again, your comments are certainly welcome (and I will make Dan answer all the tough questions, as he's clearly far more able to do that, than I am).
Related Tags: sovereign grace, baptist, the 5 solas, Christian homeschooling, Christian t-shirts and gifts
I have consulted the all-knowing-weather pages for my region of southern Ontario, just like I do every year, and have saved the forecast. Like I do every year, I compare it to the weekly forecast, and so far, 7 out of 8 winters that I've lived in Ontario, the Old Farmer's Almanac was more accurate, than Environment Canada. EC however, does have a cooler "winter storm warning" graphic, that causes ohhs and ahhhs throughout our household. Yep, we are easily entertained around these parts.
