Preach the gospel, use words if necessary.

[ALAYMAN]

So when one hears the frequently repeated slogan, "preach the gospel, use words if necessary", one has to say gently, but firmly as one can, that this is smug nonsense.

--DA Carson

What a fundy that Carson is.

 

[rsc2a]

Carson considers what words actually mean when he makes statements!?!?

Alayman - What is a reasonable English translation for the word euangelion?

 

[brianb]

http://www.edstetzer.com/2012/06/preach-the-gospel-and-since-it.html

 

[rsc2a]

http://www.edstetzer.com/2012/06/preach-the-gospel-and-since-it.html

That was a pretty good article...

....but this statement Stetzer made horrible.

In fact, verbal communication of the gospel is the only means by which people are brought into a right relationship with God.

 

[brianb]

http://www.edstetzer.com/2012/06/preach-the-gospel-and-since-it.html

That was a pretty good article...

....but this statement Stetzer made horrible.

In fact, verbal communication of the gospel is the only means by which people are brought into a right relationship with God.

I didn't actually read the whole article but yeah that statement is not Biblical. We may communicate the gospel but the Holy Spirit still has to convince them of their need for salvation. And we Christians still have to show Christ in ourselves through our actions and our speech. It is when they see our good works that they will glorify God and glorifying God doesn't necessarily mean that they will trust in Jesus though that would be the most desired result. My view is that if they don't receive your message, they should at least see that you have something that they want. Most if not everyone would like to have joy or peace in their hearts but they don't want it through the true Jesus.

 

[ALAYMAN]

http://www.edstetzer.com/2012/06/preach-the-gospel-and-since-it.html

That was a pretty good article...

....but this statement Stetzer made horrible.

In fact, verbal communication of the gospel is the only means by which people are brought into a right relationship with God.

I'm a bit confused by your acknowledgement that Stetson's article was pretty good (which I happen to agree with).  Stetson explicitly agrees with the argument regarding the gospel I've been advocating, and succinctly so when he says...

The gospel is not habit, but history. The gospel is the declaration of something that actually happened. And since the gospel is the saving work of Jesus, it isn't something we can do, but it is something we must announce. We do live out its implications, but if we are to make the gospel known, we will do so through words.

It appears that the emphasis on proclamation is waning even in many churches that identify themselves as evangelical. Yet proclamation is the central task of the church. No, it is not the only task God has given us, but it is central. While the process of making disciples involves more than verbal communication, and obviously the life of a disciple is proved counterfeit when it amounts to words alone, the most critical work God has given the church is to "proclaim the excellencies" of our Savior.

 

[rsc2a]

http://www.edstetzer.com/2012/06/preach-the-gospel-and-since-it.html

That was a pretty good article...

....but this statement Stetzer made horrible.

In fact, verbal communication of the gospel is the only means by which people are brought into a right relationship with God.

I'm a bit confused by your acknowledgement that Stetson's article was pretty good (which I happen to agree with).  Stetson explicitly agrees with the argument regarding the gospel I've been advocating, and succinctly so when he says...

The gospel is not habit, but history. The gospel is the declaration of something that actually happened. And since the gospel is the saving work of Jesus, it isn't something we can do, but it is something we must announce. We do live out its implications, but if we are to make the gospel known, we will do so through words.

It appears that the emphasis on proclamation is waning even in many churches that identify themselves as evangelical. Yet proclamation is the central task of the church. No, it is not the only task God has given us, but it is central. While the process of making disciples involves more than verbal communication, and obviously the life of a disciple is proved counterfeit when it amounts to words alone, the most critical work God has given the church is to "proclaim the excellencies" of our Savior.

No...you are making a completely different (wrong) point than he is. He is explaining why the gospel has to be proclaimed while you are trying to come up with what is a working definition of gospel.

 

[Anchor]

"And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved." Acts 11:13-14

Let Scripture speak for itself.  The history recorded in Acts is irrefutable--the Gospel message "turned the world upside down" via the preached Word without even the slightest hint that actions communicated the message of the Gospel, and only slightly more so that believer's actions communicated the need for the Gospel (Acts 16). In fact, you will find much more support in the Gospel exhibited through actions as a catalyst to an increased effort to paganize the Gospel message (Acts 14 and 16)

 

[rsc2a]

"And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved." Acts 11:13-14

Let Scripture speak for itself.  The history recorded in Acts is irrefutable--the Gospel message "turned the world upside down" via the preached Word without even the slightest hint that actions communicated the message of the Gospel, and only slightly more so that believer's actions communicated the need for the Gospel (Acts 16). In fact, you will find much more support in the Gospel exhibited through actions as a catalyst to an increased effort to paganize the Gospel message (Acts 14 and 16)

Of course, you have to deal with that pesky church in Thessaloniki:

For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake. And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with the joy of the Holy Spirit, so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia. For not only has the word of the Lord sounded forth from you in Macedonia and Achaia, but your faith in God has gone forth everywhere, so that we need not say anything. For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come. (1 Thessalonians 1:4-10 ESV)

 

[Anchor]

"And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved." Acts 11:13-14

Let Scripture speak for itself.  The history recorded in Acts is irrefutable--the Gospel message "turned the world upside down" via the preached Word without even the slightest hint that actions communicated the message of the Gospel, and only slightly more so that believer's actions communicated the need for the Gospel (Acts 16). In fact, you will find much more support in the Gospel exhibited through actions as a catalyst to an increased effort to paganize the Gospel message (Acts 14 and 16)

Of course, you have to deal with that pesky church in Thessaloniki:

For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake. And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with the joy of the Holy Spirit, so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia. For not only has the word of the Lord sounded forth from you in Macedonia and Achaia, but your faith in God has gone forth everywhere, so that we need not say anything. For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come. (1 Thessalonians 1:4-10 ESV)

"...so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia...."

Thanks for playing.

 

[rsc2a]

You don't think the gospel needs to be preached to believers, oftentimes for the same reason that non-believers needs to hear it?

 

[ALAYMAN]

You don't think the gospel needs to be preached to believers, oftentimes for the same reason that non-believers needs to hear it?

lol, see, this is why it is sometimes difficult to take you serious.  I appreciate some of what you bring to a discussion, but you simply hate admitting when you are in error.  The context of the conversation was the oft-used quote regarding how to "live the gospel" in an unbelieving world/culture.  You cited the passage you did in rebuttal to Anchor's clear assertion of the necessity to proclaim the gospel verbally to the lost, but the passage in question is within the context of being an example to the household of faith.  Just admit your mistake and move on.

 

[ALAYMAN]

http://www.edstetzer.com/2012/06/preach-the-gospel-and-since-it.html

That was a pretty good article...

....but this statement Stetzer made horrible.

In fact, verbal communication of the gospel is the only means by which people are brought into a right relationship with God.

I'm a bit confused by your acknowledgement that Stetson's article was pretty good (which I happen to agree with).  Stetson explicitly agrees with the argument regarding the gospel I've been advocating, and succinctly so when he says...

The gospel is not habit, but history. The gospel is the declaration of something that actually happened. And since the gospel is the saving work of Jesus, it isn't something we can do, but it is something we must announce. We do live out its implications, but if we are to make the gospel known, we will do so through words.

It appears that the emphasis on proclamation is waning even in many churches that identify themselves as evangelical. Yet proclamation is the central task of the church. No, it is not the only task God has given us, but it is central. While the process of making disciples involves more than verbal communication, and obviously the life of a disciple is proved counterfeit when it amounts to words alone, the most critical work God has given the church is to "proclaim the excellencies" of our Savior.

No...you are making a completely different (wrong) point than he is. He is explaining why the gospel has to be proclaimed while you are trying to come up with what is a working definition of gospel.

This just simply makes no sense whatsoever.  Read the article again.  He's talking about those who advocate a defective version of lifestyle evangelism (which seems to be akin to something you're saying, albeit using sophistry to do so) to the detriment of the verbal proclamation of the gospel of Christ.

 

[rsc2a]

You don't think the gospel needs to be preached to believers, oftentimes for the same reason that non-believers needs to hear it?

lol, see, this is why it is sometimes difficult to take you serious.  I appreciate some of what you bring to a discussion, but you simply hate admitting when you are in error.  The context of the conversation was the oft-used quote regarding how to "live the gospel" in an unbelieving world/culture.  You cited the passage you did in rebuttal to Anchor's clear assertion of the necessity to proclaim the gospel verbally to the lost, but the passage in question is within the context of being an example to the household of faith.  Just admit your mistake and move on.

No, I challenged his statement that "the preached Word without even the slightest hint that actions communicated the message of the Gospel" because that's just flat wrong. Verbal communication (i.e. "the preached [w]ord") is only one form of communication thus the need for the qualifier, verbal.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]This just simply makes no sense whatsoever.  Read the article again.  He's talking about those who advocate a defective version of lifestyle evangelism (which seems to be akin to something you're saying, albeit using sophistry to do so) to the detriment of the verbal proclamation of the gospel of Christ.
[/quote]

1 - Lifestyle evangelism isn't defective. Only lifestyle evangelism is defective.
2 - Likewise spoken evangelism isn't defective. Only spoken evangelism is defective.

As to his point, he's saying why only lifestyle evangelism is defective, and he is basing it on the meaning of the word "gospel".  It is because of what the word means that it must be proclaimed. You keep trying to argue about what the gospel is.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

That dumb cliche is the equivalent of "give me your phone number, if necessary, use numbers"!

 

[brianb]

Knowing Francis of Assisi it was probably "use birds" not "use words" since he was known for talking to animals especially birds.

CHIPPY THE CHRISTIAN BIRD SINGS 'JESUS LOVES ME' WITH VIBRATO

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]This just simply makes no sense whatsoever.  Read the article again.  He's talking about those who advocate a defective version of lifestyle evangelism (which seems to be akin to something you're saying, albeit using sophistry to do so) to the detriment of the verbal proclamation of the gospel of Christ.

1 - Lifestyle evangelism isn't defective. Only lifestyle evangelism is defective.
2 - Likewise spoken evangelism isn't defective. Only spoken evangelism is defective.[/quote]

You're tilting at windmills, as nobody here has said otherwise.

As to his point, he's saying why only lifestyle evangelism is defective, and he is basing it on the meaning of the word "gospel".  It is because of what the word means that it must be proclaimed. You keep trying to argue about what the gospel is.

You don't communicate very effectively, at least not in written form.  And that's being charitable, as the alternative would be that you are a sophist.  I have maintained since post one that the gospel is the good news that Christ died for sinners, and that He gives them eternal life if they believe.  That must be proclaimed as a first order of priority, by <God's> design for it to become effective in the hearts of unbelievers.

 

[ALAYMAN]

That dumb cliche is the equivalent of "give me your phone number, if necessary, use numbers"!

"The gospel, so simple that even a Suthren Babtisst can figure it out."

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ALAYMAN]This just simply makes no sense whatsoever.  Read the article again.  He's talking about those who advocate a defective version of lifestyle evangelism (which seems to be akin to something you're saying, albeit using sophistry to do so) to the detriment of the verbal proclamation of the gospel of Christ.

1 - Lifestyle evangelism isn't defective. Only lifestyle evangelism is defective.
2 - Likewise spoken evangelism isn't defective. Only spoken evangelism is defective.

You're tilting at windmills, as nobody here has said otherwise.[/quote]

A common habit of yours is to attempt to compare both of these instead of realizing that both are functions of the other. You cannot separate these and weigh one against the other.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

As to his point, he's saying why only lifestyle evangelism is defective, and he is basing it on the meaning of the word "gospel".  It is because of what the word means that it must be proclaimed. You keep trying to argue about what the gospel is.

You don't communicate very effectively, at least not in written form.  And that's being charitable, as the alternative would be that you are a sophist.  I have maintained since post one that the gospel is the good news that Christ died for sinners, and that He gives them eternal life if they believe.  That must be proclaimed as a first order of priority, by <God's> design for it to become effective in the hearts of unbelievers.
[/quote]

Do you have some kind of reading problem? I have maintained from the beginning that your definition of "gospel" is, at best, inadequate. The gospel is much more than "Jesus paid for my sin so I get to live forever".