The Subjective Power Of An Objective Gospel
Tullian Tchividjian Blog | January 13, 2012
I posted this article from my friend David Zahl (Mockingbird) back in June but read through it again this morning and was freshly edified. I hope you are too. His third paragraph is especially helpful in light of the discussion regarding the ultimate ground of our assurance (a subject I addressed here a few days ago).
The great Southern novelist Walker Percy once asked in his essay The Delta Factor, "Why does man feel so sad in the twentieth century? Why does man feel so bad in the very age when, more than in any other age, he has succeeded in satisfying his needs and making the world over for his own use?" The question remains a valid one, exposing how the subjective orientation of our culture tragically turns against itself. In other words, we are simultaneously more interested in self-fulfillment, and less fulfilled, than ever. That the Christian church, or "movement," would be a microcosm of this tendency should come as no surprise.American Christianity has historically placed a tremendous emphasis on faith as a means to happiness. Articulated most egregiously by figures such as 19th century revivalist Charles Finney, this sort of Christianity veers dangerously close to Pepsi Challenge territory, exemplified by well-meaning believers telling stories of how Jesus has made them better people: "I used to be like (unhappy, selfish, addicted, mean, lonely, fill in the blank), then I met Jesus, and now I'm (happy, generous, healthy, kind, etc)." The intention may be noble, to celebrate what God has done in our lives - an area where we understandably feel we can speak with authority, giving our message an added power - but sadly, it tends to backfire, especially when confronted with someone from another faith, for example Mormonism, who has had an equally if not more dramatic life-changing experience.
Make no mistake: Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit will indeed do things within us and transform us. But that work, as profound as it may be, is not the Gospel. When the Gospel is associated with changed lives, it is immediately put at odds (and in competition with) other "spiritual products" and the "results" they have produced. The Gospel becomes only as reliable as the personal growth it may have produced, which we know - from experience (!) and from Scripture - is not always very reliable. We can wish our testimonies were sturdier, we can do our very best to keep up an illusion of inner and outer stability, but alas, an inescapable fact of human nature is that "my baby changes like the weather" (Smokey Robinson). This is not to say that our feelings and experiences need to be callously denied - of course not - they simply make lousy hitches for the Gospel plow.St. Paul actually taught that if we turn people into themselves, we turn them to despair and doubt (Romans 7:14-20, 8:1). Indeed, when the church places its emphasis on faith as a means of fulfillment, it automatically precludes its goal; it creates a situation where fulfillment becomes impossible. In secular terms, one might recall the psychotherapeutic maxim that, "happiness cannot be approached directly." Instead, the pursuit ushers in its exact opposite: despair. No wonder that a recent study by Lifeway Research found that 70% of young Protestant adults between the ages of 18-22 have stopped attending church. If you "accepted" Jesus into your heart years ago but besetting problems persist, and some circumstances even appear to get worse, if the Gospel is subjective, is it still true? Does it have the same power? That someone would walk away from the whole business is a foregone conclusion. For the remotely self-aware person, a Gospel based on personal sanctification is no Gospel at all. It produces refugees. Put another way, and to answer Mr. Percy's question, we are so sad in this century precisely because we have been so oriented toward and driven by a despair-inducing subjectivity. The Atlantic published a fantastic article on how this subject is playing out in the 'secular' sphere last month in their article "How The Cult of Self-Esteem is Ruining our Kids."
The Gospel of Jesus Christ (1 Cor 15:3-4) is good news, however, and good news for people with real problems. And it does tangibly address the subjective realities of suffering people - thank God - which is where most of us actually live. But it is helpful because it is true, not the other way around. One comes before the other. The Gospel is an objective word that has subjective power.
So what does this objective Gospel look like? Most importantly, it is outside of us: Jesus Christ died for our sins and that on the third day God raised him from the dead, so that we might become children of God, no longer subject to his just wrath and condemnation (1 Cor. 15:3-4). The Gospel points to Jesus and his work alone, that he died for our transgressions and was raised for our justification. It is specific and historic, having to do with what happened on a first-century cross in Roman-occupied Israel. To the question, "When were you saved?" we can answer with a hearty "2000 years ago, on a hill outside of Jerusalem" (John Warwick Montgomery via Rod Rosenbladt).
What, then, is the subjective power of this message? Firstly, we find that there is real, objective freedom, the kind that, yes, can be experienced subjectively. We are freed from having to worry about the legitimacy of experiences; our claims of self-improvement are no longer seen as a basis of our witness or faith. In other words, we are freed from ourselves, from the tumultuous ebb and flow of our inner lives and the outward circumstances; anyone in Christ will be saved despite those things. We can observe our own turmoil without identifying with it. We might even find that we have compassion for others who function similarly. These fluctuations, violent as they might be, do not ultimately define us. If anything, they tell us about our need for a savior.Secondly, this freedom gives us permission to confront and confess our pain. We can look our self-defeating and regressive tendencies in the eye for once. We no longer have to pretend to be anything other than what the Gospel tells us we are: hopeless sinners in need of mercy. Honesty and repentance go hand in hand - freedom puts us on our knees, where we belong. A subjective Gospel turns repentance into a frightening affair, evidence that God is far away from us. An objective Gospel provides the assurance that actually produces repentance, forging the pathway to the place where we find forgiveness and redemption. We can finally grasp hold of the truth that it is always better to be sorry than to be safe. The pastoral implications for marriage alone are staggering.
Finally, when it comes to our fellow sinners and sufferers, we witness to the love of God found in the cross which promises and proclaims redemption despite our feelings or how we are living. To the compulsive or addicted person, this makes all the difference.
An objective Gospel is all that we as Christians have to offer one another and the world. It is the only message that has any power to sustain us, and it is the only message that has the power to absolve us and keep us coming back to Christ, finding our hope, strength, and character when we are at our very best and worst. In other words, it is the only message that has the power to reach its subjects: you and me.
Amen.
Comments:
January 17, 2012 at 02:23 PM
[...] The Subjective Power Of An Objective Gospel. Advertisement GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", "other"); GA_googleAddAttr("LangId", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Autotag", "religion"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "a-confessional-life"); GA_googleAddAttr("Tag", "doctrines-of-grace"); GA_googleFillSlot("wpcom_sharethrough"); Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]
January 16, 2012 at 12:55 AM
Truth Unites,
Thank you for the timely warning. I will cease henceforth from telling people the gospel of the forgiveness of sins. As you have shown, it is far too dangerous. Furthermore, I will commence burning all books associated with one Mr. Luther, in fear that all future associates of my children will meet with an untimely end. This truly calls for drastic measures. Thankfully, Paul addressed these concerns that a free gospel would produce such rampant antinomianism as you describe.
Romans 6:1-4 "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."
Wait...what...? You mean Paul said that the fact that we've been buried with Christ BY baptism is the reason why we should not go on sinning. Gee, you'd think he would have told us that we shouldn't dare consider ourselves Christians unless we had that law thing down pat. Oops.
January 16, 2012 at 12:29 PM
Nick Hunn: "I apologize if my tone was overly sarcastic."
Accepted.
Anyways, I hope you appreciated Lutheran Professor Martin Marty's honesty in his observations about assassins and serial killers who are baptized Lutherans.
January 16, 2012 at 11:58 AM
I apologize if my tone was overly sarcastic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was you who attributed quotes like mine to the ideas that contributed to a man like Breivik. So, while a Lutheran may have written the article, you certainly contributed. But alas, it's water under the bridge. It would sort of be like me bringing up the Westboro Baptist folks to bring discredit upon Calvinism. But that's not exactly a fair argument.
January 16, 2012 at 11:26 AM
Nick Hunn: "Thankfully, Paul addressed these concerns that a free gospel would produce such rampant antinomianism as you describe."
To be accurate, it was a Lutheran who actually "described" the "rampant antinomianism" observed in some baptized Lutherans.
January 16, 2012 at 10:00 PM
[...] http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tullian/2012/01/13/the-subjective-power-of-an-objective-gospel-3... Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted in KFD. Bookmark the permalink. ← The Coming of the Perfect If they thought Jesus was crazy then … → [...]
January 16, 2012 at 09:38 PM
The passion behind this post is beautiful. The message is unconvincing. I've been suspecting that Jesus becomes an increasingly nebulous figure as the years go by, and this post attests to that. Jesus transforms lives, but you'll still be super sinful and the fruit of the spirit coming out between your sinful acts won't give anyone a valid reason to believe. I agree wholeheartedly! Basically, you'll have some sort of feeling within you that lets you know your salvation is true and wonderful, but there is no way for you to prove that to others. You can point to copies of copies of copies of really old texts that were written decades after the actual events occurred, and you call those events written by unknown authors Absolute Truth. I am sorry, but this is one piece of how Christianity absolutely failed me. I think it's a beautiful idea, to construct this idea of a perfect world through Christ and feel his love and redemption and *know* it, but we just can't actually know it. Not really. If we could, then I would sincerely hope more than 33% of the world would know it. Why does Jesus care about you and not me or the other 66%?
January 15, 2012 at 11:26 PM
Nick Hunn: "But we are buried with Him in baptism. We are given His body and blood for our forgiveness. We are assured through the absolution that all our sins are forgiven. ... And I really don’t mean to beat a dead horse or talk about Lutheranism all the time (though I do enjoy that)."
In addition to the comment on 11:27am on Jan. 14, 2012 I'll offer the following as well for your reflection (It's from a Lutheran, Professor Martin E. Marty):
"Q: What do the following have in common? Anders Behring Breivik, killer of scores of innocents in Norway; assassins Lee Harvey Oswald (JFK) and Sirhan Sirhan (RFK); serial killers: Dennis Rader (Kansas, murdered 10); Charles Starkweather (Nebraska, 11); Jeffrey Dahmer (Wisconsin, 17); and Dylan Kiebold (Columbine, CO, 13).
Answer: they were all Lutheran Christians.
Think of Breivik, who was one of the 90,757,570 reported Lutherans in the world (as of 2005) and who must have been one of the 3,991,545 members of the State Church in Norway, which is Lutheran, as 79.2 percent of Norwegians are. It is hard not to be baptized and a registered member of that Church. Then think further; it is hard to picture that Breivik was anything but one of the 97 percent of the members who never shows up. That he caught many ideas from this religious background is clear from citations in his monstrous manifesto and elsewhere."
Perhaps Breivik caught ideas like this from his religious background:
"While in Lutheranism, you hear the pastor announce your forgiveness, you remember your baptism, and partake of the new covenant in Christ’s body and blood. These things are outside of you and produce faith in you. When I say that “God is actively for me” I mean that he daily and richly forgives me all my sins. I see no reason for Lutherans, who are given objective assurance all the time, should find reason to doubt Christ’s promises of preservation in the faith."
January 15, 2012 at 10:09 AM
I love this post, and I think David Zahl (and all the Zahls) are amazing. I read this again and I wish we could all make it this clear. Thanks for reposting, some things are so good they bear repeating.
January 15, 2012 at 08:19 AM
Brandon,
I think we're talking past each other. You're smuggling in the Calvinist insistence on 'knowing you're elect' into Lutheranism. This is the exact inward focus that I'm talking about. We know we are elect because of these external things. It produces faith because God is really and truly forgiving us through them. You're insisting on focusing on the fact that God might not actually be for us when He weekly promises that He is. The why, when, or what how of people falling away is a mystery that God doesn't give us the answer to, but it is not because he withholds grace. In your last paragraph, you seem to be admitting my point that you must be aware of your faith before you can trust in the cross. This is different than having an external promise to cling to.
While I did post that article and agree with it substantially, the main focus that I was trying to get across is the competing syllogisms. One must keep in mind that the author was not a Lutheran and was coming from a more 'reformed' tradition. Therefore, it doesn't surprise me that he would have a tendency to focus upon such things. But I have no authority to speak on his behalf.
With that, I'm going to bow out. I have enjoyed the discussion. Last word is yours, if you'd like.
January 15, 2012 at 06:41 PM
Just wanted to clarify something on the discussion of Phillip Cary's article. Dr. Cary, as Nick said, isn't a Lutheran. He actually takes Barth's view of election and tries to add it to some elements of Lutheran theology. He's Anglican, so apparently he can do that. So, it should be noted that anything he says about election isn't representative of the Lutheran tradition. However, he's absolutely right when he talks about the "self-reflective" faith of Calvinism. There's no getting around it, even for the best of Calvinists who want things to be objective.
January 15, 2012 at 01:41 AM
Brother Nick,
I see no reason for Lutherans, who are given objective assurance all the time, should find reason to doubt Christ’s promises of preservation in the faith.
But, as stated in the article you posted, according to Lutheran theology you can't know if you are predestinated or will perservere in the faith. The fact that the sacraments produce faith in you today is no assurance that they will produce faith in you later in life. Hence, the assurance offered is not final but temporary. The sustained longevity of such assurance assumes that the baptized person is always going to be going to church and responding with faith to the sacraments, but the theology does not promise that they will always continue to do so. Apart from any other means of assurance, it would seem that they have no way of knowing whether they will persevere in the faith or leave the faith like so many baptized persons do.
So, again I ask, must Calvinism ultimately go inward for assurance? Pastor Tchividjian says that Calvinists can have objective assurance. But I still see no reconciliation between this and the limited atonement.
I personally don't believe that limited atonement by itself necessarily turns one inward. What turns someone inward is limited atonement plus an interpretation of perseverance of the saints (emphasized especially in Lordship salvation) that stresses that all the elect will surely work to keep the Law and bear fruit and hence you can only know that you are among the elect and you faith is genuine if your works measure up. But Pastor Tullian frequently criticizes looking to effort-based works as means of assurance. It seems to me that Pastor Tullian is suggesting that the fact that the objective gospel of grace has produced simply faith in us is good enough to know that one is among the elect. I don't think that this turns anyone more inward than emphasizing that such faith is produced in us by the sacraments.
January 14, 2012 at 12:56 PM
BJL, I believe I understand Calvinism well enough. What you have written is exactly what I am talking about. We disagree about the gospel message. Christ is the lamb who takes away the sin of the world, and telling someone that this message is FOR YOU is part of the gospel. I am not saying that Calvinists go around saying 'Jesus may or may not have died for you.' I am not arguing that they aren't capable of presenting the gospel. I am speaking about the consistency of obtaining assurance in a system that says that Christ did not die for all. You get the 'outside of you' gospel, but, if consistent, I argue that you must find something inward afterwards. Not that you should. The promise is outside of you and for you.
January 14, 2012 at 12:47 PM
Brandon E,
The struggle to believe God's word is always a problem. Lutherans have the ability to cling to God's word which is always true, even if they struggle to believe it. Christ said he died for me. I can believe and ask the Lord to help my unbelief. Calvinists don't have this option. They have no true word to cling to because that wonderful news is made into news that may or may not be so wonderful for you (because of the limited atonement). Lutherans do not focus on whether they are predestined because the bible would have us to cling to his promises.
The promise of forgiveness is there in the word preached and the absolution, in our baptisms, in the blessed body and blood of our Lord Jesus given and shed for all of us. We cling to those promises trusting in the truth in the word given from outside of us. And what have we fear as we remain in these things? God does not lie, and he is actively for us.
BTW I am not saying that any Calvinists should struggle with assurance or wonder if the promises are for them.
January 14, 2012 at 12:42 PM
Nick: you misunderstand Calvinism. In the Reformed churches we teach that we are to proclaim/share the gospel...It is a 'free offer to all'. However, the gospel is Christ died for SINNERS (His people]; therefore, Repent and believe. I explain who Christ is, man in relation to God (fallen) and the Good News is Christ offered Himself in place our due punishment and lived the life WE were to live (the fallen first Adam and the meritorious works of Christ, the Second Adam). Therefore, repent, turn to Christ for forgiveness and be baptized. I can take that message to anyone...I cannot say and one should not say that God died for YOU simply because that is NOT the gospel. It's about Christ's work and what HE did....and when that message is preached, regeneration may occur in the hearer (for that is God's duly appointed means). The gospel message is a message, not a 30 second formula to bring decisions.
January 14, 2012 at 12:33 PM
Been there and done that! I thank the Lord for Pastor T's wonderful articulation of the truth (and for a time, my 'experience', that is, seeking to feel better and 'be' better, rather than seeking God and His truth). It is a path that leads to nowhere! So grateful for these blog posts. What he is preaching tells my story: Seek God and HIS (alien) Righteousness and HIS kingdom FIRST.
Thank you again!
January 14, 2012 at 12:29 AM
Nick,
You spell out the problem for Calvin very well. I formerly tried to make sense of Calvin but finally had to give up. There simply isn't anything in his theology that gives assurance; and assurance for someone feeling the weight of the law is what is needed. The only place to find assurance is in the promises and work of Christ for the world. This is the Apostle Paul and Luther. Luther's view of the Gospel actually brought out in full view the 'Good News' for all who believe. No pretense of righteousness is in view with Luther or Paul.
January 14, 2012 at 11:30 PM
Brandon E,
I appreciate the interaction. I am not really trying to prove that the assurance offered in Lutheranism is 'better' (though I believe it is). The main thrust that I am trying to get at is the inconsistency in holding a limited atonement and obtaining objective assurance.
Assurance is a matter of the moment. We should be assured that we are forgiven right now. Because of the things I've mentioned before, I don't think that is possible in Calvinism without looking inward. While in Lutheranism, you hear the pastor announce your forgiveness, you remember your baptism, and partake of the new covenant in Christ's body and blood. These things are outside of you and produce faith in you. When I say that "God is actively for me" I mean that he daily and richly forgives me all my sins. I see no reason for Lutherans, who are given objective assurance all the time, should find reason to doubt Christ's promises of preservation in the faith.
I am unsure where you are getting your description of Lutheranism in your last paragraph. Sure, like all other Christians, some Lutherans may struggle with doubt. But we are buried with Him in baptism. We are given His body and blood for our forgiveness. We are assured through the absolution that all our sins are forgiven. It is not Lutheran theology that produces the doubt.
As our brother Steve mentioned earlier in this post 'not all believe it and come to faith. Why not? God knows, and He ain’t talkin.' These mysteries are not for us to pry into. It is for us to believe the promise that Christ has justified the world, including ME.
So, again I ask, must Calvinism ultimately go inward for assurance? Pastor Tchividjian says that Calvinists can have objective assurance. But I still see no reconciliation between this and the limited atonement. And I really don't mean to beat a dead horse or talk about Lutheranism all the time (though I do enjoy that).
January 14, 2012 at 11:27 AM
Nick Hunn: "Can a Calvinist minister tell any Joe Schmoe off the street any of the following? ‘Jesus died for YOUR sins.’ ‘YOU are forgiven for His sake.’ ‘He shed His blood for YOU.’"
This article might be helpful for you:
Did Christ Die For Anyone?
If you wish to discuss further, comment on the posted link. It's off-topic for Pastor Tullian's post.
January 14, 2012 at 11:07 AM
Wow!
January 14, 2012 at 10:35 PM
Brother Nick,
Christ said he died for me. I can believe and ask the Lord to help my unbelief. Calvinists don’t have this option. They have no true word to cling to because that wonderful news is made into news that may or may not be so wonderful for you (because of the limited atonement).
I understand your point; what I am saying is that Lutheran theology also does not offer real assurance that this news is so wonderful for you, just in a different way.
Even though “Christ said he died for me” is true, Lutheran theology (as the author of the article you posted clearly states) says that you can't know if this means that He will actually save you from eternal perdition. Affirming that Christ died for everyone (unlimited atonement) according to the language of the Bible of course does not mean that everyone will be saved. And if you can't know if you are predestinated and eternally saved, you can't know if the good news will be wonderful for you.
So, what comfort in a promise is there in saying that Christ said he died for me, yet I can't know that I am predestinated and eternally saved? What does it even mean to say that "God does not lie, and he is actively for us," yet I can't know if this means that he won't prevent me from later sinning, losing my faith and being condemned to hell? Saying that "God is actively for us" either assumes that you know that you are predestinated and will carry out His intention to save you, or that despite whatever lofty things we claim to believe about God's unconditional faithfulness we can still do or fail to do something for which we can be condemned to hell. And if I personally have no way of knowing today that I won't do such things in the future, what assurance of salvation do I have?
I'm not saying that you should not have the assurance and security of your salvation; I believe you should. I'm just saying that traditional Lutheran theology compromises it. Instead, it conditions people into thinking that not truly knowing that your salvation is secure is normal for a Christian. It sows in them the concept that they should expect a continual subjective struggle of bouncing back and forth between faith and doubt, such that when they sin they will feel like they are a condemned sinner and not saved. I believe that this is to deny the Lord Jesus' word (John 10:28-29) and it gives the devil unnecessary ground to inflict us with unnecessary forms of unbelief in our daily Christian life.
January 14, 2012 at 10:25 AM
Good post. There’s a lot to say amen to here concerning the assurance and security of salvation depending upon what Christ has done rather than what what we do.
However, I do think it an exaggeration to say that “An objective Gospel is all that we as Christians have to offer one another and the world.” Because, really, the gospel is Christ, our salvation is Christ, and the Christ revealed in Scripture is both objective and subjective to us, His chosen, redeemed and regenerated people. The Christ Paul announced was not merely a “Christ outside of you” but a “Christ in you” once you have received Him, not only a Christ who forgives you but a Christ who lives in you (Col. 1:27; 2 Cor. 4:6-7; 2 Cor. 13:5; Rom. 8:9-11; Gal. 2:20; Gal. 4:19; Eph. 3:17). The same God-man Jesus Christ who walked the earth in the four gospels, now personally and subjectively indwells each and every believer, in order that He might live the Christian life in them and with them (Gal. 2:20). Of course, how obviously or unobviously this is manifested in us should not be our basis for the assurance and security of our salvation; this is found in the Christ’s completed work on the cross. However, it is an unfathomable blessing to know Christ as one’s life in this way.
---
Nick, in the article you posted, the author offers valid criticisms of the means of assurance offered by the standard Calvinist position (it turns us inward to our efforts and fruits to determine if we are predestinated). But he also describes a major problem of assurance in Lutheran theology, that it says that you can’t know if you are predestinated. Some quotes from the article:
The problem is this. Suppose you want to know you are eternally saved. Then no sacrament is going to be good enough for you. In particular, the sacramental promise of baptism cannot function as an unconditional guarantee that you will be saved in the end, because of course lots of people get baptized (especially as infants) and later abandon the faith of Christ.
...the proper direction for a distinctively Lutheran theology to go, sticking with the sacraments and leaving the knowledge of predestination to God. But that has a price: it really does mean that you do not know whether you are eternally saved. That’s precisely why Anfenctung can take the distinctive shape it does for Luther. When you do start disputing about predestination, you can get anxious about whether God secretly plans to withhold from you the gift of perseverance, so that no matter how faithful you are now, sometime in the future you will lose your faith and be damned. This is a possibility that can real its ugly head any time you are aware of your own sin, for at the root of all sin is unbelief. If you cannot rely on your faith now, how can you count on it being there in the future? That is why Anfenctung is never far around the corner.
His answer to this problem is “stick with the sacraments and say ‘What do I care if I’ve been predestinated or not?’” In other words, don’t think about it because you can’t know. Then he goes on to describe the Christian life as a continual struggle between belief and doubt. This does not strike me as a very satisfying answer to the question of the assurance and security of our salvation, and the author simply points out that at least it doesn’t turn us inward like Calvinism. So the standard Calvinist view has it that you can know that you are predestinated if your works measure up, but the Lutheran view has it that you cannot know if you are predestinated, period. Do you see the problem?
But the Calvinist and Lutheran views are not the only two positions. Many Christians believe that the very fact that you believe and have been baptized into the Lord Jesus is proof enough that you have been predestinated (John 3:16; 6:37; 10:28-29; Rom. 8:28-39; Eph. 1:4-5; 2 Tim. 1:9, 12). I personally have no doubt that if the Bible is true then I am saved eternally. Since God has taken the initiative to give me His Son such that I have believed and have been baptized into Him, then I can trust His promise that nothing can separate me from Him. Since I am a child of God, born of God, today, nothing I do or fail to do can cause me to be unborn. My faith may be lacking in many regards, but I simply do not experience doubt concerning the assurance and security of my salvation.
January 14, 2012 at 07:44 AM
Nick,
Thanks for the article link above. Extremely interesting article and a great read.
January 14, 2012 at 03:58 PM
I love most of what Tullian writes about, but there are a few glaring gaps in his understanding of the Gospel, as expressed specifically in this post. In the 3rd from the last paragraph we find this quote: "We no longer have to pretend to be anything other than what the Gospel tells us we are: hopeless sinners in need of mercy." Whatever happened to 1 Cor. 6:9-11, especially v.11: "...And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
Note the word "were" appearing 4 times in that verse. It seems to me Paul is trying to tell us something. What do you think? And what about all the places where Paul, instead of calling us "sinners" addresses the recipients as "saints"?
Re-read the 2nd paragraph of Brandon E's comment. He pretty well nails it: "Christ in you" is the hope of glory. I think we do terrible damage to people when we preach that they should continue to grovel in the dust of "sinnerhood" instead of moving forward in the faith in Christ as his "communion of saints."
Of course the Gospel is objective, but it has a powerful subjective effect on sinners, turning them into people who "were"!
January 14, 2012 at 03:14 AM
Reason keeps us from reading and taking the words of Holy Scripture seriously (on the matter of the 'L').
" Christ died for the sins of the whole world."
"He desires that ALL come to faith."
Well, not all believe it and come to faith. Why not? God knows, and He ain't talkin'.
So, not all will go to Heaven, even though Jesus died for all.
January 14, 2012 at 03:01 PM
Pastor
My niece recently was offended when I told her she focussed too much on herself and introspection. She unfriended me on facebook.
I believe Pastor T answered the question of Did Jesus die for all in his Doctirines of Grace teachings a while back @ CRPC. He taught about a general call and a specific call. WE are all called to receive Jesus but only a specific number of the "elect" will be chosen. Ya'll may need to hear it for yourselves because i may be misquoting.
January 13, 2012 at 12:14 PM
Pastor Tullian,
Thank you for continuing to articulate our freedom and security in Christ because of the gospel. I am encouraged by your voice in this conversation.
January 13, 2012 at 10:47 AM
This is a wonderful post, Tullian. Life-giving. So much of Protestant Christianity has actually been an enemy of itself.
January 13, 2012 at 09:58 PM
Amen! What a beautiful objective gospel it is for us sinners. As I wrote on the last thread, though, I am still confused as to how Calvinism does not inevitably turn one in on oneself. I write this not to be confrontational nor because I seek debate. I'm just hoping that someone can shed some light on how these things fit together.
Calvinism teaches a limited atonement. This effectively negates finding assurance outside yourself. Even if you believe the objective word of the gospel and come to faith, once you admit that Jesus died only for the elect, you are then compelled to know whether you are one of that number before you can be comforted by the 'outside of you' gospel. You must look at something inward, whether that be your faith, your repentance, your works, your change, the fact that you care whether you are elect in the first place, etc. And if we allow the law and God's demands to have their full biblical force, nothing in us provides any means of comfort.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 'L' and objective assurance seem to be at odds. Can a Calvinist minister tell any Joe Schmoe off the street any of the following? 'Jesus died for YOUR sins.' 'YOU are forgiven for His sake.' 'He shed His blood for YOU.' Calvinists teach specifically that Christ did not shed His blood for some. So how do I know I'm elect without looking inward?
Basically what I'm saying is that Calvinists give you the gospel, and then their theology takes it away. You come to faith by looking to your redeemer instead of yourself, and then you remain assured by looking to your faith, because you can't know if you're 'IN' without it. For more on this see http://eastern.academia.edu/PhillipCary/Talks/7972/Sola_Fide_Luther_and_Calvin.
I hope Pastor Tchividjian continues to proclaim this beautiful, objective gospel. It is refreshing to hear.
January 13, 2012 at 04:15 PM
Pastor Tullian,
I have to tell you that God has been using you to help me see the glorious facts about the Gospel of Grace in a new light. I have been deeply impacted by your material.
I now understand that all the glory of the Gospel of Grace is God's, that the ability to live out this life in and through Christ is God's, yet He freely allows us sinners to partake of it. Not dependent upon us, but again upon God, as He graciously gives us faith, repentance and everything we desperately need by His grace alone.
I have been revolutionized and liberated.
With love,
Josh
January 13, 2012 at 03:54 PM
Pastor Tullian,
This article truly blessed my soul. It confirms what I have been understanding of the Gospel all along, namely that it's the grace and work of Christ alone that causes all the other effects to take place in my christian life. May God continue to use you for such a time as this.
With love,
Josh
January 13, 2012 at 02:18 PM
Incredibly encouraging. Tremendously wise and insightful. So very helpful.
Thanks for re-posting this, Pastor Tullian.
February 14, 2013 at 10:07 AM
[...] David Zahl mit «The Subjective Power Of An Objective Gospel»? Share this:E-MailDruckenFacebookTwitterGetagged als: Abtreibung, Darwinismus, Endzeit, Evangelium, [...]
Randy
January 20, 2012 at 12:04 PM
The excerpt from the article above is very disturbing to me. "Make no mistake: Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit will indeed do things within us and transform us. But that work, as profound as it may be, is not the Gospel. When the Gospel is associated with changed lives, it is immediately put at odds (and in competition with) other “spiritual products” and the “results” they have produced."
Are the Holy Spirit and the Gospel at odds with the work of God in our lives? How can this be?