gospel Archives - Page 13 of 15

Yesterday I introduced the idea that “evangelism” might be better termed “gospelism.” Doing so will help us see that evangelism is about revealing the gospel, whether by word or deed, and should not be equated with giving a one-size-fits-all, prepackaged, bullet-point presentation.

Let me try to explain in more detail what gospelism is.

A Definition of Gospelism

I propose the following definition of gospelism (aka Evangelism):

Gospelism is a way of life whereby, through our actions and words, we reveal the good news about Jesus to those who are being drawn ever closer to Jesus.

Let me unpack this definition of Gospelism

First, gospelism is a way of life.

The gospel is way more than just a set of Bible facts; it also contains truths about how live in light of those Bible facts. Therefore, while you can believe some of those facts without living them, those who do so don’t really understand the full gospel or it’s ramifications for our life.

Also, we can never assume we fully understand and live according to the gospel. There is always more to learn, and more to practice. Gospel truths are a way of life that take an entire life to develop.

Second, gospelism does not just about what we say, but also about what we do.

Since the good news about Jesus concerns all aspects of our physical and spiritual life, then we can live the gospel just as well as speak it. And how liberating this can be! We don’t have to beat ourselves over the head if the words didn’t come just right, or if we forgot eight of the fifteen points in the “gospel outline” that our pastor wrote up.

Sometimes, the best way of sharing the gospel will not require words at all. Among other things, “evangelism” can be simple acts of honesty, service, kindness, and grace toward other people. But most people don’t think about such things as evangelism, and so they don’t think they are “evangelists.”

Remember what St. Francis of Assisi said: “Preach the gospel always; if necessary, use words.” If we are living a life of love, grace, generosity, forgiveness, patience, honesty, sacrifice, etc, then our lives are living testimonies to the gospel, which is always more winsome than words.

This is why you should live intentionally for the gospel. Fill up at the same gas station every week. Use the same check-out person at the grocery store. Request the same server at the restaurant (and tip well). As we consistently live the gospel before people, they do take notice, and over time, the service aspects of the gospel may result in verbally sharing the eternal aspects of the gospel as well.

Finally, gospelizing is revealing the good news about Jesus to those who are being drawn ever closer to Jesus.

This liberates us from trying to pack the gospel down into one five minute conversation. It can’t be done, so don’t try. Since there is so much information to the gospel, it is impossible to share it with any one person in any one setting. Rather, only bits and pieces can be shared at any one time.

Therefore, “evangelism” can be viewed as a process, rather than a one-time event.

If we share or show a bit of the gospel to a person we will never see again, that’s okay, because they are in process just like we are, and God can bring others into their lives to show them more light. We must do our part, but we don’t have to do the whole part. We must always be looking for ways we can show or share the gospel with any and every person we encounter.

Similarly, if we are developing a relationship with a person, we know that we can’t dump the gospel truck on them, because (1) there is too much to share in one setting, and (2) we don’t know or practice it all ourselves. If we share the gospel with words, and they reject it, we can still be friends, because our life is “gospelism” (evangelism) just as much as our words.

So, start with gospelism today

To put is as simply as possible, I believe that Gospelism is anything, whether word or deed, which reveals the gospel to others.

See more on this Gospelism series:
Evangelism is Gospelism (Part 1)
Evangelism is Gospelism (Part 2)
Evangelism is Gospelism (Part 3)
Evangelism is Gospelism (Part 4)
Evangelism is Gospelism (Part 5)
Evangelism is Gospelism (Part 6)

Want to learn more about the gospel? Take my new course, "The Gospel According to Scripture."

The entire course is free for those who join my online Discipleship group here on RedeemingGod.com. I can't wait to see you inside the course!

Why My Best Friends are Atheists and Sinners

By Jeremy Myers

19 Comments

A critic paid me quite a compliment today when he accused me of befriending and conversing with atheists and people who use the “F-word.”

If only he knew the truth…

…but I’ve got nothing to hide, so it’s time for a full confession.

Guilty as Charged!

Wendy says that if I ever meet some prostitutes or strippers, I can invite them over for dinner. I have not met any yet (since I’m not going to the places they tend to hang out).

I gave a $50 Burger King card to a drunk on the street a month ago. If I had the time, I would have gone and eaten with him. I keep looking for him at his corner but haven’t seen him yet.

A while back we let an alleged murderer stay in our house for six weeks while he was on house-arrest. All of his friends and family members abandoned him when it looked like he was guilty, so we took him in. It was one of the best six weeks of my life.

One of our best friends is a swinging, pot-smoking atheist. He is one of the kindest and most generous people we know.

So not only am I trying to make friends with atheists, agnostics, and people who use rough language, I am also trying to befriend prostitutes, strippers, drunks, and murderers.

Why? Because in my experience, Jesus is more likely to be found among people we consider “sinners” than among people we consider “saints.”

Closer to Jesus

When I hang out with so-called “sinners,” I’ve never felt closer to Jesus.

If Jesus were walking the earth today, He would befriend and converse with these people too. Of course, the Pharisees and religious hypocrites would get upset at Him today, just as they did 2000 years ago: “Gasp! Jesus is eating with tax collectors and sinners! Doesn’t he know what they’ve done?” (Read Matt 9:11; 11:19; Mark 2:15-16).

Yes, He does know. That’s why He eats with them.

That’s why I eat with them too…. Not because I’m “holy like Jesus,” but because I’m one of those “sinners.” I hope that if Jesus were walking around today, He would come up to me and say, “Hey! I’m having a BBQ over at my place for sinners. Want to come?”

Definitely! Will there be beer?

Shotgun Hermeneutics is not a Proper Bible Study Method

By Jeremy Myers

43 Comments

There is a tendency in many Christian circles to think that if a particular theological viewpoint can quote a lot of Scripture, it must be right.

For example, in a recent book defending The Five Points of Calvinism (by David Steele and Curtis Thomas), the authors seem to think that if they just quote Scripture, they have proved their point. For each of the five points, they provide a theological explanation for the point, and then “prove” it by citing numerous pages of Scriptural proof-texts, without ever attempting an explanation of any of those texts.

I recently listened to a debate from several years ago between Bob Wilkin and James White. James White used almost his entire opening statement to simply read Bible verses. The implication was that to prove Calvinism, all you have to do is read the Bible, and anybody is not a Calvinist, hasn’t read Scripture.

Shotgun Hermeneutics

I call this shotgun hermeneutics. Those who use this tactic try to “blow you away” by the sheer number of verses they can quote which they feel proves their point.

When you try to explain one or two of them to show that you are aware of these passages but have a different understanding, they will focus on all the other passages they quoted which you did not explain.

A Sample Conversation

In my discussions, the dialogue generally goes like this:

Calvinist: My view is right because of Passages A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J. If you would simply read and believe the Bible, you would agree with what God said.

Me: I have read and studied the Bible, and am aware of all of those passages you just quoted. I simply understand them in a different way. Let’s take the first one as an example. (I then proceed to explain Passage A.)

Calvinist: Well, that’s certainly a creative way to understand Passage A. But we know your interpretation is wrong, because of Passage B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J.

Me: I wasn’t trying to explain those passages, but again, I am aware of them, and all of them can be understood in a similar way as Passage A.

Calvinist: No, they can’t, because no one I’ve ever read has ever understood them that way. Here is what Piper, MacArthur, Sproul, and Calvin had to say about those passages. (They then proceed to quote their favorite authors.)

Me: But those are all Calvinistic authors. Of course they will agree with your interpretation.

Calvinist: Are you smarter or more godly than they are?

Me: No, of course not, but I do think…

Calvinist: Then since they all agree on what those passages mean, and there are so many passages that teach Calvinism, Calvinism is the truth. After all, what about Passages K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, and T?

Me: Yep. Those are all in the Bible.

Calvinist: Hah! I knew you would be silenced by the logic of my system and the irrefutable evidence of my many Scriptural proofs. To God be the glory!

Me: Well, I’m not really silenced, nor am I convinced …

Calvinist: That’s because you’re a depraved heretic.

Me: Oookaay … I gotta go. See ya later.

Calvinist: I’ll be praying for your soul that you would repent from your darkness and be brought into the light!

Theology Discussions

If you have ever tried to discuss theology with someone who holds strongly to a particular system of theology, you know that this is how many of these discussions go.

Recently, I have noticed this shotgun hermeneutics tactic being used by some who disagree with me on various other issues.

In their own blogs and in their comments on this blog, they seem to imply that I have not read the Bible, and that if I did, I would see the truth of their position. They argue that when they quote Scripture at me, I am silenced by the weight of Biblical evidence.

Yet when I attempt explanations of one or two passages they quoted, they say that my interpretation cannot be correct because of so many other Biblical passages which say something different, and furthermore, nobody they have ever read holds to my interpretation.

Then I get called a heretic.

A Proposal for Theological Debate

Shotgun hermeneutics and name calling is no way to proceed in theological discussion.

Shotgun hermeneutics isn’t even a proper method of hermeneutics. It’s actually a form of proof texting where dozens of passages are ripped out of context in order to prove a theological point.

So in order to really get somewhere in theological debate, the two sides must agree to discuss one passage at a time, and stick to it, camp upon it, walk around it, and work through it. Hopefully, you can both arrive at two or three possible interpretations of that one passage.

Only then can the two sides go to a second passage.

The same thing is done with passages A-Z.

Only when this entire process is complete can the two sides go back and reconsider all the evidence, in which any contradicting interpretations are discarded, and hopefully, only one possible interpretation remains.

Though this usually doesn’t happen, at least then you will understand each other rather than thinking the other side has never actually read the Bible.

My Exodus from Calvinism

The systematic verse-by-verse approach is what I used about 15 years ago to leave Calvinism.

In the early 1990’s, I was a five-point, hyper-Calvinist, Lordship Salvationist. Then, a good friend challenged my thinking on James 2:14-26. I camped on that passage for a few months. I saw that my friend’s interpretation was one possible understanding. However, I wanted to reject that view because “there are so many other passages that contradicted this understanding of James 2:14-26.”

In our conversations, my friend told me this: “Yes, it might be that my understanding of James 2:14-26 is wrong. That’s one option. Or maybe you are wrong in your understanding not just of James 2:14-26, but also in your understanding of all those others passages as well. How are you going to figure out which view makes the most sense? There is only one way: You need to study each passage individually.”

So that’s what I did. It took me about ten years, at the end of which time, every single point of Calvinism had fallen for me.

However, I still read books and articles by Calvinists and those who disagree with my views. Why? Because if I am wrong in my understanding of a particular passage, I want to know. I hope you do too.

So don’t practice shotgun hermeneutics. Such a practice is not beneficial since all it does is take aim at other people’s heads in an effort to blow them away.

And by the way, if you want to see some of the fruits of my labor from that 10-year study of various Bible passages, I am laying it all out for you in several of my online courses. The first course is done. It is titled “The Gospel According to Scripture.” I’m teaching and recording the second course right now. It is titled “The Gospel Dictionary.” A third course will come later, titled “Tough Texts on the Gospel.”

To take these courses, you need to be part of the RedeemingGod.com discipleship group. Go here to learn more and join us today.

Free Grace Alliance Conference Panel Discussions

By Jeremy Myers

17 Comments

I was a panel member at the Free Grace Alliance National Conference today on the subject of the death and resurrection of Jesus in relation to the gospel.

But before I write about that, let me write about a different panel which I attended. This other panel was on the issues of assurance, eternal security, and justification.

Assurance, Eternal Security, and Justification

The panel which I only attended was related to the issues of assurance, eternal security, and justification. The basic question was “Does a person have to know that what they get from Jesus can never be lost in order to receive it?”

Of the three panelists, I heard one, Tim Nichols, give a clear answer “Yes” and the other two were a little more evasive. This was not really their fault since many of the questions from the audience were not really on topic. Some questions were related to the death and resurrection of Jesus, or the deity of Jesus, and other things.

The last question, however, was very revealing. It was “If you are witnessing to an unsaved person, and you want to tell them how to be saved, what would you say?”

1. Dave Anderson answered first with two words: “Free Grace.” I’m not sure what he meant by that. I doubt the person he was evangelizing would understand it either.

2. George Meisinger said that he tells as much of the gospel as he can to the person in the time he has. If it’s on an airplane, he is able to tell them lots more than if he is sharing with someone on their deathbed.

3. Tim Nichols answered similarly to George Meisinger, but emphasized that the message we share with unbelievers must come from the Gospel of John.

All in all, it was a great conference session.

Death and Resurrection of Jesus and the Gospel

The second panel discussion I attended was the one in which I was a participant. It concerned whether a person had to believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus in order to be born again. The following are terribly poor summaries of the views presented:

(Note that due to comments for clarification, edits have been made to what was originally written. These are the crossed out sections below.)

1. Ken Wilson said, “~~Yes.~~ We don’t believe in Jesus for everlasting life, but we have to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God who takes away our sins.” I’m not sure who in Christendom (including Catholics) doesn’t believe this, but maybe I misunderstood him.

2. Tim Nichols argued that since nobody would ever dream of not presenting the death and resurrection, the question doesn’t really matter. This is true. Sometimes, Satan’s greatest ploy is to get us talking about theology rather than living out the theology we do know.

3. Larry Moyer said, “Yes, because the death and resurrection is central to the Gospel, and we must always share the Gospel when telling people about Jesus.”

4. Tom Stegall argued similarly to Larry Moyer, but more emphatically.

5. I certainly do believe that the death and resurrection of Jesus are central to the Gospel, and that without the death and resurrection of Jesus, there is no Gospel. All the truths of the Gospel (of which there are dozens-if not hundreds) are for the purpose of getting a person to believe in Jesus and so receive everlasting life. So I always present the death and resurrection of Jesus when I witness to people. So I argued similarly to Tim Nichols–that it’s a moot point.

Some did Believe in Jesus, but not in His Death and Resurrection

However, I did point out that we do have examples of people in Scripture who believed in Jesus and received everlasting life, but did not know about the death and resurrection of Jesus, and even when presented with these truths, did not believe them (cf. Matt 16:31-32; Mark 9:31-32; Luke 9:44-45; 18:31-34; 24:19-26; John 20:9, 24-30). There may be some examples from Acts and the Epistles as well, but it’s almost 2 am, and I’m tired. But just one example: One reason Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 15 is to persuade and convince the Corinthian believers about the resurrection of Jesus. It sounds like some of them had believed in the resurrection, but had turned away from it, but there apparently were others who had heard about the resurrection, but denied it as fiction. Paul is correcting these believers in Corinth about this.

So apparently, there are people who believe in Jesus, and lots of correct things about Him, but don’t have all their theological ducks in a row, but who are still considered by Biblical authors to be regenerate. It is possible to believe many wrong things about Jesus, but still receiver eternal life by believing in Him for it. I think it is possible there are people in the same category today. I may have talked with one a few weeks ago, which I mentioned in a previous post.

Due to the number of panelists, and the limited time, only one question from the audience was asked, and that one had nothing to do with the questions that I had come up with which I hoped to receive answers to. So I still don’t know how Tom Stegall would answer those questions. I refuse to speculate how he might answer them, because if there is anything more dangerous that theological speculation, it is theological speculation about someone else’s theology.

Free Grace Alliance Conference Panel Discussion

By Jeremy Myers

7 Comments

I am on a panel discussion tomorrow night at the National Conference of the Free Grace Alliance. The panel discussion is related to the death and resurrection of Jesus, and whether a person needs to know and believe these historical facts in order to be born again. My invitation to this discussion is due to the so-called Crossless Gospel controversy. People accuse me of teaching a Crossless Gospel, which is exceedingly strange, since I believe the cross is at the very center of the gospel. Without the cross, there is no Gospel.

Anyway, here are some of the issues to be addressed in this Free Grace Alliance panel discussion.

Is Belief in the Death and Resurrection Necessary?

I am presenting the view that while the death and resurrection of Jesus was necessary for justification to be possible, belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus is not what grants a person eternal life. A person simply needs to believe in Jesus for eternal life to be given it by God. I have written on this in the past. Certainly, the death and resurrection of Jesus are central to the Gospel, but since there is so much Biblical information that is part of the Gospel, one does not have to believe the entire Gospel to be justified.

There is a difference between the mechanism of justification (the death and resurrection of Jesus, along with a myriad of other things) and the message of eternal life (believe in Jesus for it). In other words, there is a difference between the Gospel information, and the Gospel invitation.

I agreed to be on this panel for three reasons.

Clarity in Evangelism

First, I want people to be clear in evangelism. If we have a muddled evangelistic message, all we do is erect barriers which keep people from believing in Jesus for eternal life. The death and resurrection of Jesus are definitely part of what we share in evangelism, but we tell them these things to convince and persuade them to believe in Jesus for eternal life, not because they get eternal life by believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus. It’s a nuance, but a very important one. After all, there are many who believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, but don’t believe in Him for eternal life.

Hear from the Horse’s Mouth

Second, I know there are a lot of people who are trying to understand the various positions on the Gospel, and there are many people accusing me of believing things I don’t believe.

So I hope to let them hear my position from me rather than from those out there who don’t understand my position but continue to write pejorative and negative things about me. It’s always best when researching a matter to go to the source.

To Understand the Other Views

Third, I see no logical or Biblical consistency in the view of those who are taking the opposing view. Clearly, they think their view is logical and Biblical or they wouldn’t hold it. I am not exactly trying to persuade them to my view, but I do want to try to understand their view. Toward that end, here are the questions I hope to have answered:

If a person must believe in the death of resurrection of Jesus, is it sufficient to believe in the historical facts of these events, or does a person also have to believe in substitutionary atonement?
If a person does have to believe in substitutionary atonement, what if that person holds the ransom to Satan view?
If a person must believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, do they have to believe that it was by the shedding of blood of Jesus on the cross that sins are forgiven, or can they just believe that it was simply His death that was sufficient? In other words, does a person have to understand that their sins are forgiven “by His blood” and not just by His death?
If a person must believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, must they believe that Jesus rose in a glorified, eternal, incorruptible body, and that He went on to ascend into heaven, or can they believe that He went on to live, grow old, and die again of old age like the others who were resurrected in Scripture?
If a person must believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, must they believe that the resurrection is a past, historical event, or can they believe that Jesus will rise from the dead in the future?
If a person must believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, what was the object of faith for OT people and the apostles who did not (as far as we can tell) believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus? Did the object and content of faith change after the death and resurrection of Jesus?
What passages are there in Scripture which teach that a person must believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus in order to receive everlasting life?
If a person believes that Jesus died on the cross for their sins, and rose again from the dead, but don’t believe that by faith in Jesus they have life that can never be lost, are they justified? (E.g., They say things like “Jesus did his 99%, but I must do my 1%” or “I’m saved now, but if I sin later, I won’t be saved any more” or “I accepted the gift of eternal life, but I can give it back if I don’t abide.”)

In all of my study of the other view, I have yet to read an attempt to answer these questions. Others have noticed this same thing, and we receive daily e-mails and phone calls from people saying they are prayerfully supporting Bob Wilkin, myself, and the ministry of Grace Evangelical Society as we continue to present the offer of eternal life to all who believe in Jesus for it.

Email Questions

Here is one such e-mail:

Jeremy,

By way of introduction, we have been with GES almost since its beginning and had been proclaiming the free grace gospel message for 25 years before that. We were instrumental in formatting the first several years of GES Journal articles for the website and have printed and distributed several thousand pages of GES articles to many pastors and Christian leaders in our area. In other words, we support what you are doing.

We have been keeping up with the ongoing issue of what constitutes the gospel message and are grieved about the possible damage to the cause of Christ that might ensue. We also have supported the ministry at Duluth for quite some time and distributed much of their literature.

I believe that your article, “The Gospel Is More Than ‘Faith Alone In Christ Alone,'” was excellent and it even helped me to “connect the dots” in some of my study on the subject. The open letter on the Duluth website refers to, among other things, this article and mentions two points of disagreement. These comments appeared to me to be a bit pejorative as there was no attempt at biblical refutation or even explanation of the context of your statements.

In addition to the significant biblical evidence that you gave for your position (a position which should be either accepted or proved wrong biblically), is one point that has come up in my study and that I have not seen mentioned anywhere.

It is as follows: In 1st Corinthians 15, we find the classic definition of the gospel which includes the death, burial, resurrection of Christ, and probably the contents of the next few verses. Per verse 15 we see that the resurrection is necessary for our justification, but does not say that belief in it is necessary. Verse 12 and following shows that some of the Corinthian believers did not believe in the resurrection and reiterates the deleterious ramifications of this error. This epistle is written to the Church at Corinth (1:2; 1:7 et al).

Did these believers who already have eternal life then lose their salvation? Did the awareness of their lack then show that they were not true believers in the first place? Or were they eternally saved, carnal believers, who needed to know and apply these resurrection facts so that they may be saved in the sanctification sense and enjoy the resurrection life during their earthly pilgrimage? The first two options are not implied in the context and are disqualified by other scripture. Something similar to the last seems to be more on target.

Unless you are already way ahead of me on this it might be beneficial to also develop this point. No reply to this note is expected as I realize that you have a heavy schedule.

We continue to pray. Keep up the good work (1 Cor. 15:58)

This is an excellent observation and should be developed further. I also want to point out that Peter and the apostles did not believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus until after He died and rose again (cf. Matt 16:20-23; Mark 9:31-32; Luke 9:44-45; 18:31-34; 24:19-26; John 20:9, 24-30). Does this then mean that they were not justified until they believed in the death and resurrection?

I’ll give an update on how things went after the conference.

A definition of Gospelism

A Definition of Gospelism

First, gospelism is a way of life.

Second, gospelism does not just about what we say, but also about what we do.

Finally, gospelizing is revealing the good news about Jesus to those who are being drawn ever closer to Jesus.

So, start with gospelism today

Why My Best Friends are Atheists and Sinners

Guilty as Charged!

Closer to Jesus

Shotgun Hermeneutics is not a Proper Bible Study Method

Shotgun Hermeneutics

A Sample Conversation

Theology Discussions

A Proposal for Theological Debate

My Exodus from Calvinism

Free Grace Alliance Conference Panel Discussions

Assurance, Eternal Security, and Justification

Death and Resurrection of Jesus and the Gospel

Some did Believe in Jesus, but not in His Death and Resurrection

Free Grace Alliance Conference Panel Discussion

Is Belief in the Death and Resurrection Necessary?

Clarity in Evangelism

Hear from the Horse’s Mouth

To Understand the Other Views

Email Questions

Theological Study Archives

Bible Study Archives

Advertise or Donate

Search (and you Shall Find)

Get Books by Jeremy Myers

Schedule Jeremy for an interview

Click here to Contact Me!