WHAT IS THE GOSPEL?

WHAT IS THE GOSPEL?

It is very interesting to notice that within evangelicalism there seems to be some confusion about just exactly how to define the gospel. The reason I find this so interesting, is of course, because the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is supposed to be the common denominator upon which all evangelicals take their stand. If this is the case, then one would expect to find a broad, sweeping unanimity amongst our ranks when it comes to defining the gospel. But this just doesn’t seem to be the case. Opinions on what elements are essential to the gospel message vary considerably; and consequently, the way the gospel is shared with lost people varies as well. I believe that all evangelicals, whatever their definition of the gospel may be, are well intentioned. And I understand the necessity to keep the gospel just as simple as the Bible presents it. But, I am concerned that in some cases, a full gospel presentation may not be given; or in other cases, that the gospel is laden with such a load of denominational baggage that it’s darn near impossible to tote. Some clarity is needed on the issue.

What then, are the essential elements of the gospel? Most evangelicals follow something similar to the Romans Road, emphasizing at least three essentials. One, we are all sinners. Two, Jesus died to save sinners. Three, we must accept Christ by faith in order to be saved. Some feel that this is not a full gospel presentation. Others feel this definition to be more exhaustive than Scripture calls for, appealing to (1 Cor. 15: 3-4) "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. . ." Based upon this passage, some evangelicals insist that there are only three essential elements to the gospel: 1. "Christ died for our sins;" 2. "He was buried;" and 3. "He was raised on the third day." Still others would define the gospel even more simply than this, appealing to (1 Tim. 1:15) "It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all." In this gospel presentation, there is only one essential truth: "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners."

It is my contention, that all of these understandings of the gospel are too simplistic and in the end, they are not full gospel presentations. Even the Romans Road (as described above) I do not consider to be a full gospel presentation. But I do believe that the Romans Road is on the right track. The full gospel message is not contained in any one verse, in any one place. Elements of the gospel are scattered throughout the New Testament, and need to be drawn together in a comprehensive whole, without denominational baggage and without personal opinions.

It is necessary, therefore, to establish a basic hermeneutic principle; and that is that we never build an entire doctrine based upon only one passage of Scripture. While (1 Cor. 15: 3-4) and (1 Tim. 1: 15) are both excellent statements of gospel truth, they never claim to be exhaustive in their treatment of the gospel. The problem with those who reject the Romans Road approach in favor of these passages of Scripture, is that they insist on a very wooden and explicit reading of these passages without taking into consideration their clear implications. For example, when read no deeper than face value (1 Cor. 15: 3-4) only teaches three essential gospel elements: Christ died for sins, Christ was buried and Christ was raised on the third day. But clearly, if Scripture states that Christ died for sins, it implies first that there were sins for which he needed to die; and second, that death was the only way do deal with them. So obviously, when Paul points explicitly to only these three elements, he certainly expects his readers to understand all of the other gospel essentials by way of synecdoche.

The same is true of (1 Tim. 1:15). Taken at face value, this passage only explicitly teaches one element: Christ came into the world to save sinners. There’s not even a hint of the fact that He had to die in order to accomplish this mission; and only a partial elusion to the fact that sinners need to be saved. This is obviously not a comprehensive treatment of the gospel. Once again, Paul expects his readers to understand him by synecdoche, to be referring to whole gospel message.

Now, my problem with the Romans Road model (the way it is most commonly used) is that I believe it to be missing at lease one essential element, and that is the resurrection. I believe that when we do an exhaustive search of the Scriptures, we find five essential elements that make up the gospel message.

1. We are all sinners separated from God with no hope of reconciliation by our own efforts. (Rom. 3: 32) (Eph. 2: 8-9 & 10)
2. Jesus Christ is the very Son of God. (Acts 8: 36-38) (1 Jn. 6:13) (Mt. 16: 16-18)
3. Jesus Christ died as our substitute on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins and provide a means of reconciliation with God. (1 Pet. 3: 18) (Rom. 3: 24-26)
4. Jesus Christ rose bodily from the grave on the third day. (Rom. 10: 9-10) (Acts 15: 12-19)
5. Sinners must receive Jesus Christ by faith as both Savior and Lord. (Eph. 2:8-9) (1 Tim. 1:1) (2 Pet. 1:11)

This is the gospel message. And yes, people need to believe all five in order to be saved. You can look up these verses on your own and see if you think I’m straying off course or not. But I fully and committedly believe that anything less than this is not a full gospel presentation. And conversely, anything more than this is binding up heavy loads and placing them on men’s shoulders. I don't think poeple need to fully comprehend all of the theological constructions behind these five elements. For instance, people need to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but they do not have to have an indepth working knowledge of Chalcedon. People need to believe that Christ died for them personally, but they don't need to have an indepth, working knowledge of propitiation, expiation and imputation. You see what I mean. Belief in these five essentials is necessary, but not full understanding. Faith seeking understanding is the proper persuit of Christian descipleship and sanctification and that will come later.

Calling upon Christ to save sinners through the proclamation of His Word is a serious business and entails a commitment on the part of the preacher to deliver His Word accurately and fully. To present half a gospel dishonors the Lord of the gospel and leaves people in their lost condition. To present a gospel laden with denominational baggage and men’s opinions is to stand in judgment over the gospel message and presume to be an editor of God’s revealed truth; and once again, this leaves people in their lost condition.

We can’t be too careful on this. And the widespread divergence of gospel definitions within evangelicalism demonstrates a lack of seriousness with regard to the essential elements of the gospel. Those who would proclaim God’s Word and ask Him to save sinners through their efforts, need to make sure they are delivering the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Shane Morgan