Gospel precision

Being a five-point Calvinist isn't as easy as it looks. The vast majority of evangelical Christian doctrine and theology these days comes from a more Arminian/Semi-Pelagian point of view. That's not to say that there are scads of rabid Arminians hiding around every corner waiting for an opportunity to defend the Remonstrants. I might even suggest that most who could be classified as Arminians have never even heard the term. You know, kind of like a fish who has never heard of the ocean.

If you are unfamiliar with this debate, this page does a pretty good job of explaining the two sides (monergism vs. synergism, Calvinism vs. Arminianism). This page might be helpful as well.

So what does this have to do with anything? Well, Wednesday night at church we had a training session for Awana, the children's ministry we will be rolling out next week. It is a really good program, from what my wife has told me, helping children to memorize scripture by the metric tonne. Amanda and I are both leaders (listeners, actually) with the T&T's and we can't wait to get started next week.

Admittedly, I came into the training session with a little bit of baggage. Awana has historically been very big in Southern Baptist circles, and baptist circles have historically (at least in the last 100 years) been of the Arminian persuasion. In my mind, Awana has always meant little kids walking an aisle during an altar call because their friend just did and it seems like the thing that all the cool kids are doing. You get to the front, you pray the "Sinner's Prayer," and you go home saved! Then, for decades to come, you can look back on that moment as proof that you were, are, and will be heaven-bound.

So, I was pleasantly surprised when the trainer, Rick Hattan, made a point to stress that we, as Awana leaders, need to be very careful to communicate that salvation isn't about praying a prayer at all. He went on to say that he isn't exactly sure when he was saved. He said he thinks it was back when he was about 10 years old, but he doesn't look back on that prayer as the assurance of his salvation. His point was that we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ, and the reason that he knows today that he is saved is because he is trusting in Christ alone, as far as he is able, for his salvation.

We then went on to discuss the "10 word Gospel," derived from 1 Corinthians 15:3-4: "3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures." So, the ten word Gospel goes like this: "Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead." Not bad; much better than I had expected, really. Those ten words do a pretty decent job summarizing the message Paul says he delivered to the church of Corinth.

So, what's my problem? Why is this 10 word Gospel so hard on a 5 pointer like myself? It always comes down to the "L," doesn't it?

The verse plainly states that Christ died for "our" sins, but the context (a letter to a church full of Christians) also defines who the "our" is. Paul can say with confidence that Christ died for "our sins" because the only parties in the conversation are himself and a church.

But, what if he were having a conversation with a neighborhood kid who had never been to church, had never heard the gospel, and had never professed or demonstrated faith in Jesus Christ? Would he have been so bold as to also tell that child that Christ died for "our" sins, that is Paul's and those of the child? And, if not, what sort of Gospel would he have been able to preach if it did not also include a proclamation that Christ had, indeed, died for the sins of the hearer?

In short, can you preach "the gospel" without preaching "Christ died for YOU!"?

I am just beginning to read John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, which is a polemical work dealing with the limited (or particular) nature of Christ's atonement on the cross. I am about four pages into it after about an hour's worth of reading, so this could take awhile! I was able to work through J.I. Packer's introduction to the book, which I will be quoting extensively here.

The two camps on this issue of the nature of the atonement are as follows:

• Universal atonement: Christ died for the sins of every person, everywhere, at every point in history. By his death he secured for every man the right or opportunity to be saved. However, he didn't actually save anyone at the cross. Man must add faith to what Christ did on the cross in order for it to be effective for his salvation.
• Limited (or particular) atonement: Christ died specifically for the sins of his elect on the cross, sufficiently and irrevocably gaining the salvation of each and every person he died for.

Packer summarizes the two positions in this way, "Where the Arminian says: 'I owe my election to my faith,' the Calvinist says: 'I owe my faith to my election.'… Where the Arminian will only say: 'I could not have gained my salvation without Calvary,' the Calvinist will say: 'Christ gained my salvation for me at Calvary.'" For the Arminian, Christ died for everyone, but didn't actually save anyone. For the Calvinist, Christ died for his beloved elect and actually redeemed them from their sin and obtainted their salvation for them.

Why does this even matter? Is the nature of the atonement something best left to ivory tower theologians who also count how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Not hardly.

One's understanding of Christ's redeeming work on the cross will shape the gospel they believe, and the gospel they preach. Packer talks about these two different gospels…

which stand in evident opposition to each other. The difference between them is not primarily one of emphasis, but of content. One proclaims a God who saves; the other speaks of a God Who enables man to save himself. One view presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind?election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit?as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly. The other view gives each act a different reference (the objects of redemption being all mankind, of calling, those who hear the gospel, and of election, those hearers who respond), and denies that any man?s salvation is secured by any of them. The two theologies thus conceive the plan of salvation in quite different terms. One makes salvation depend on the work of God, the other on a work of man; one regards faith as part of God?s gift of salvation, the other as man?s own contribution to salvation; one gives all the glory of saving believers to God, the other divides the praise between God, Who, so to speak, built the machinery of salvation, and man, who by believing operated it. (emphasis mine)

The Arminian gospel, with respect to the atonement, could be formulated as "Christ's death + X = salvation," where "X" is man's addition of faith to what Christ has done in order that he might obtain his own salvation. (The only other alternative is universalism, meaning that if Christ died for all, and his death alone is sufficient to save, we must conclude that all are saved. Universalism is clearly contradicted by the scriptures and very few Arminians would hold this position.) The bottom line, then, for the universalist is to admit that man must improve on Christ's death by some sort of meritorious act (even the act of believing) in order to be saved. If he does not, Christ cannot save him.

When we make salvation depend on man rather than God, we engage in idolatry and blasphemy. We raise man up as the captain of his own soul, the author and perfecter of his faith. We believe (either directly or by implication) that he is able to save himself if he so chooses, but also that he can thwart God's eternal purposes on earth if he stubbornly refuses to give Jesus what he desperately wants, namely for us to open the door of our heart so that he can come in. We reduce Christ to being a "baffled Saviour, balked in what He hoped to do by human unbelief." We can imagine him up in heaven, peering over the edge of a cloud hoping that someone, anyone!, would choose to believe in him so that his death on the cross wouldn't be in vain. "Please open the door so I can come in," he pleads. "I was able to conquer sin and rise from the grave, but the last stronghold I just can't overcome is the heart and will of rebellious man."

Let me pause to take a breath. I'm not trying to say that anyone in the Awana ministry leadership would necessarily come out and say that this is exactly what they mean in their 10 word gospel, nor am I saying that they are consigning souls to the pits of hell by their reckless abuse of the gospel. I am quite certain that their motives are pure and that they truly do care about the children they are ministering to. I simply think that we need to be very careful to consider the implications and logical conclusions of statements that we make. I think that we are called to have a high regard for the Truth of the scriptures, and a high degree of precision in the way we present their contents to children under our care.

If we are concerned with being precise in the way we declare the gospel, what are the essential truths that must be communicated? Packer names four of them:

• that all men are sinners, and cannot do anything to save themselves;
• that Jesus Christ, God's Son, is a perfect Saviour for sinners, even the worst;
• that the Father and the Son have promised that all who know themselves to be sinners and put faith in Christ as Saviour shall be received into favour, and none cast out (which promise is "a certain infallible truth, grounded upon the superabundant sufficiency of the oblation of Christ in itself, for whomsoever (few or more) it be intended");
• that God has made repentance and faith a duty, requiring of every man who hears the gospel "a serious full recumbency and rolling of the soul upon Christ in the promise of the gospel, as an all-sufficient Saviour, able to deliver and save to the utmost them that come to God by him; ready, able and willing, through the preciousness of his blood and sufficiency of his ransom, to save every soul that shall freely give up themselves unto him for that end."

Of course, that is way too much to throw at a child, but Packer brings it all hom in this 33 word gospel message: "that Christ Jesus, the sovereign Lord, who died for sinners, now invites sinners freely to Himself. God commands all to repent and believe; Christ promises life and peace to all who do so."

The difference? It's not a big one, but it is (I believe) important. Rather than asserting that Christ has died for the individual, which may or may not be true, we declare that Christ has died for sinners, and that all who repent and come to him in faith will surely be saved. We do not have God's eternal perspective, so we simply cannot know who Christ has died for. However, if we are preaching the right gospel, this should not be cause for us to neglect our Savior's command to "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation" (Mark 16:15). And let us be careful stewards of the gospel we are commanded to proclaim.