Martin Luther’s Minimalist Gospel
It has been asserted since Martin Luther that the gospel is singularly
the message of the cross. He distinguished between a "theology of glory" and
a "theology of the cross." A theology of glory is one that teaches man "to do"
or obey commands in order to be accepted by God. It is a theology of glory
because "to do" glorifies man before God as being worthy of meriting
salvation on the basis of obedience. Luther understood Roman Catholicism
and certain reformers as well to be putting forth a "theology of glory" which
can only lead to judgment and condemnation.1 In contrast, Luther understood
the biblical gospel to be not about our "doing" at all, but totally about God’s
doing for us. The gospel, for Luther, was a message that was not to be
obeyed, it was a message to be believed. The gospel is a message of God’s
saving action at the cross. It is a message of the penal substitutionary
atonement of Jesus Christ. Jesus died in behalf of our sins and we benefit
from His death by faith in His sacrifice for us and in His resurrection from that
death on the third day. This, for Luther, is a scandal to man’s pride who wants
to achieve his own redemption. The scandal of the cross is that there is
nothing at all for us to do, but believe. We are saved by "faith alone."
This view of Luther’s is elucidated clearly in his writings. In his short
treatise, A Brief Instruction on What to Look for in the Gospels, Luther writes,
"So you see that the gospel is really not a book of laws and commands which
require deeds of us, but a book of divine promises in which God promises, offers, and
gives all his possessions and benefits in Christ."
In his polemic work, Answer to the Hyperchristian, Hyperspiritual,
and Hyperlearned Book by Goat Emser in Leipzig - Including Some Thoughts
Regarding his Companion, the Fool Murner, Luther writes,
"Thus we see in a masterful way St. Paul teaches us how to understand
Christ, God’s grace, and the New Testament correctly - namely, that it is nothing but
[the story] of how Christ stepped into our sins, carried them on the cross in his flesh,
and destroyed them, so that all who believe in him are set free from sin through him
and receive the grace to enable them from now on the satisfy the law of God and the
letter that kills, and to live in eternity..............Now we see that all commandments are
deadly, since divine commandments are also deadly."
In Luther’s Preface to the New Testament he writes,
"The gospel, then, is nothing but the preaching about Christ, Son of God and
of David, true God and man, who by his death and resurrection has overcome for us
the sin, death, and hell of all men who believe in him.........See to it, therefore, that
you do not make a Moses out of Christ, or a book of laws and doctrines out of the
gospel......."
For Luther, the gospel is "nothing but" grace understood as unconditional
promise. Requirements and demands are not and cannot be part of the gospel
message. Luther scholar Paul Althaus describes Luther’s perspective,
"Law and gospel have completely different and even opposite functions. The
law demands that something be done or not be done; it accuses and condemns us
because we have acted or failed to act in a way contrary to its demands. The gospel
contains God’s promise in Christ. It proclaims that all the laws demands have been
met in Jesus Christ, that is, it preaches the forgiveness of sins."
It is this understanding of the gospel that shapes contemporary
evangelicalism. Our evangelistic efforts reflect Luther’s understanding of the
gospel. When "the gospel" is preached, sin is presented as the real problem
we all possess and the solution to that problem is faith in the death and
resurrection of Jesus Christ on our behalf. The "good news" is that Jesus died
for our sins, God is offering us the free gift of salvation and all we have to do
is believe. God has done it all in Christ, we just have to receive the free gift.
Once we believe, we then receive God’s gift of forgiveness and we have
assurance of our salvation. We are saved and assured of heaven in a moment.
On this understanding, the gospel is "good news" because there is nothing we
have "to do" but believe in what God has done. Typically, a person is then
strongly encouraged to read the Bible and attend a Bible-believing church.
However, they are not to do these things in order to be saved because,
according to this version of the gospel, reading the Bible and belonging to a
church are activities that are not necessary for salvation. To say that would be
a denial the gospel. Historically, this is where evangelicalism finds its
unifying center.
However, on the point of the importance of obedience, fellowship,
and the spiritual disciplines such as prayer and Bible reading following
salvation, evangelicalism splinters off into different viewpoints. For those
most concerned with protecting the purity of the "freeness" of the gospel, the
word "necessity" is never used. For them, nothing is needful but faith in
Jesus’ death in resurrection. Anything we do beyond that is pursuing "God’s
best" for us in this life and rewards in the next, but salvation itself is no longer
a concern. For this group it is possible to be a "carnal Christian," that is, to be
held captive by sin and still be considered a Christian, because after all, being
a Christian is fundamentally not about doing anything, but believing. For
them, to talk of the "need" for obedience, prayer, church attendance and Bible
reading is to compromise the purity of the gospel.
For other evangelicals, there is a desire to honor the parts of the Bible that seem to place obedience, fellowship, prayer
and Bible reading in very high regard. This group teaches that, while these
things are not necessary for salvation, they are necessary to prove that you are,
in fact, saved. So the emphasis is more pronounced on the necessity of
discipleship, not in order to be accepted, but to show that you have been
accepted. For a person to lack in obedience, Bible reading, prayer and church
attendance calls into question the validity of their faith.
The presentation of the gospel for both groups would be very similar
and reflects our reformation heritage from Martin Luther. The gospel is the
message of God’s gift of forgiveness in Christ to be received by faith alone.
The "good news" is not about Bible reading, obedience or church attendance,
because these are things we "do." This conception of the gospel is what unifies
all branches of evangelicalism. Evangelicalism has been faithful to Luther’s
conception of the gospel.
But was Luther correct about the gospel as it is
biblically defined? Is it true that the gospel is about, as he says, "nothing but"
God’s promise in Christ? To answer this question, we must go to the
Scriptures. What follows is a survey of key texts that employ the term
"gospel." What we must evaluate is how the biblical writers used the term
and what they meant by it. This is the surest way for us to determine if we are
using it in a way that corresponds to their understanding of the gospel
message. The first concern cannot be whether we are faithful to Luther or our
reformation heritage, as important as that may be, but whether we are faithful
to God in following Luther’s understanding, as our Lord reveals His will in
the Scriptures.
The Gospel According to Isaiah
We first see the use of the word "gospel" or "good news" in the Old
Testament. Isaiah 40:10 is part of a prophetic announcement concerning a
person who would come in the future and announce the gospel. What would
that "good news" be? It would be the announcement of the coming of the
Lord and all that the coming of the Lord would mean,
".....say to the towns ofJudah, ‘Here is your God!’ See the Lord comes with power and his arm rules
for him. See his reward is with him......."
Here we read that the "good news"
is the message of God’s future rule and the blessings that come with it.
The next place we read of the "gospel" is in Isaiah 52:7,
"How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who
proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation, who say to
Zion, ‘Your God reigns!’
The future prophet will bring the good news that
"Your God reigns." Once again we see that the lordship of God as the One
who reigns is synonymous with the "good news." We also see that God’s rule
will result in peace and salvation.
The next place we read of the "gospel" is in Isaiah 61:1,
"The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me, because the Lord has anointed me to preach
good news to the poor."
Once again, the future reign of God is in view and
this time the future blessings of God’s reign is emphasized. This future reign
will set captives free and punish the wicked with vengeance. The good news
is the glad tidings of God’s lordship and all the benefits His lordship brings to
His people. What we have seen thus far is that the gospel as understood by Isaiah
consisted in the proclamation of God’s lordship. "Your God reigns!" is the
gospel according to Isaiah, because it is God’s future rule that will bring with
it the blessings of salvation for His people and the punishment of all the
wicked. Of course this message of "good news" is elaborated on throughout
Isaiah. Isaiah’s prophecy is full of descriptions regarding what this future rule
would entail. Following Isaiah 52's explicit mention of "the gospel" you have
Isaiah 53 which prophecies a future suffering servant who would take upon
himself the sins of God’s people. Nowhere in Isaiah’s description of the
"suffering servant" is the word gospel used. However, it is clear that what we
have in Isaiah 53 is greater detail of how God’s future reign would bring
forgiveness of sins. So we can understand Isaiah 53 to be describing how it is
that God’s coming to His people is, in fact, "good news." It is good news
because the Lord will reveal Himself as a gracious, merciful and forgiving
God who will be able to "pass over" the sins of His people because of His
sacrificial atonement.
But that is not all. The gospel or good news of God’s future reign
also entails the giving of commands, of righteous laws given anew. This we
see in Isaiah 51:4,
"Listen to me, my people; hear me, my nation: The law will
go out from me; my justice will become a light to the nations."
In this passage we read that the law is understood to work "salvation" for God’s people.
"My righteousness draws near speedily, my salvation is on the way, and my arm
will bring justice to the nations."
In Isaiah 51:4 "the law" is announced as
God’s justice and is depicted as "going out" from God. The very next
verse follows this flow of thought and describes God’s righteousness as
drawing near speedily. So the law, or God’s justice goes out from God, which
is God’s righteousness drawing near to men and bringing salvation. As with
Isaiah 53, we do not see the word "gospel" used. But just as with Isaiah 53,
there is no reason to not see that in Isaiah 51 is the unpacking of what the gospel
is. So from Isaiah, we see that the gospel or "good news" is the message of
God’s lordship which brings with it salvation for God’s people. This salvation
is accomplished through the forgiveness of sins and the giving of God’s law as
a light to the nations. The important point for our consideration here, is that
the giving of commands as a light to the nations is to be understood as part of
the gospel, or "good news," of God’s future reign announced by Isaiah.
The Gospel According to John, Jesus and the Disciples
In the Gospels we read of John the Baptist’s proclamation of the "good
news." His preaching is described as a proclamation of the "gospel" in Luke
3:18, "And with many other words John exhorted the people and preached the
good news to them." We read that John’s preaching consisted in "proclaiming
a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins."(Lk.3:3) In Matthew’s
Gospel, John’s proclamation is described as commanding repentance on the
basis of the fact that the kingdom of heaven is drawing near to them. "Repent,
for the kingdom of heaven is near."(Mt.3:2) John himself describes his own
ministry in which he "baptizes with water for repentance."(Mt.3:11) We get a
sense of how this was happening from Matthew 3:6, "Confessing their sins,
they were baptized by him in the Jordan river." So John was proclaiming the
"good news" of the coming kingdom and this proclamation demanded
repentance from God’s people. A public confession of sins and water baptism
was the public recognition of their need for forgiveness. This coincides with
the promised blessing announced by Isaiah in Isaiah 53. However, repentance
also includes a resolve to turn from sinful rebellion to doing God’s will. The
Old Testament backdrop, which prophesied this preaching of repentance is
found in Deuteronomy 30:1-3,
"....and when you return to the Lord your God
and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to
everything I command you today, then the Lord your God will restore your
fortunes and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the
nations where he scattered you."
Notice "returning to the Lord" means a new
resolve to obey him, to reject idolatry and sinful ways and to turn again to
God’s ways, then and only then will they find God’s compassion. This is
fleshed out in John’s ministry. John came preaching "repentance for the
forgiveness of sins." For John, and consistent with Deuteronomy, a renewed
resolve to obey God preceded the assurance of sins forgiven.
With Jesus we see this even more clearly laid out. The proclamation of
the Lord’s coming rule and reign, or the Kingdom, is equated with "the good
news."
"After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming
the good news of God. ‘The time has come,’ he said, ‘The kingdom of God is
near. Repent and believe the good news!’"(Mk.1:14,15)
Here we see the similarity with John’s preaching. The gospel or the "good news" is the
message of God’s coming rule or reign, or in short, his kingdom. Part of the
good news is the granting of the opportunity for repentance. Both John and
Jesus represent the gospel as consisting in the promise of compassion and the
demand for repentance, and it is equally clear that compassion would not be
found where repentance did not exist. The consistency with Isaiah’s message
is obvious and Jesus explicitly aligns himself as the subject of Isaiah’s
message.(Lk.4:14-21) Isaiah’s prophecy of the future proclamation of "good
news" included forgiveness of sins (Isaiah 53), but also with it is the
proclamation of God’s law being proclaimed as a "light to the nations."(Isaiah
51) John and Jesus’ "good news" of the kingdom included the promise of the
forgiveness of sins, but also required repentance and the production of the fruit
of obedience to God’s commands in keeping with it. The blessings of peace
with God would not be found apart from the demand to repent.
Jesus commissions the disciples to preach this "good news of God" as
well. He told them,
"As you go, preach this message: the kingdom of heaven
is near.’"(Mt.10:7) Luke adds, "So they set out and went from village to
village, preaching the gospel and healing people everywhere." (Lk.9:6)
What is remarkable in these passages is that the "gospel" is being proclaimed prior
to there being any knowledge of Jesus’ death and resurrection for the
forgiveness of sins. The way of God’s forgiveness had yet to be revealed.
This is clearly the case, as Luke describes the same gospel preaching disciples
being totally mystified by what Jesus meant concerning the prediction of his
coming death in Luke 18:31-34,
"The disciples did not understand any of
this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was
talking about."
How could they preach "the gospel" when they had no
conception of what Jesus’s impending death and resurrection was all about?
How could Jesus and John preach "the gospel" when Jesus’ substitutionary
atonement was not at all present in the message? They could if "the gospel"
is not limited to a message about Jesus’ death and resurrection for the
forgiveness of sins but also includes a more expansive proclamation of God’s
rule or reign in Christ, or in other words, about the Kingdom of God.
The post-resurrection preaching of the disciples is remarkably, but not
surprisingly, consistent with John and Jesus before them. We find this, among
other places, in Acts2:38 where Peter indicts his fellow Jews of being guilty of
killing the Messiah himself and they are "cut to the heart." They plead with
Peter for a solution in light of this tragic situation. As Luke describes it,
"Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ
for the forgiveness of your sins.’"
Once again, Peter commands repentance,
which is a turning from sinful rebellion and to allegiance to the Lord "for the
forgiveness of sins." From these events, and in Peter’s preaching, we are able
to discern the major elements of Deuteronomy 30:1-3. The comparisons
below makes this clear:
Dt.30:1, "When all these blessings and curses I have set before you come
upon you and you take them to heart....."
Acts 2:37, "And when the people heard this, they were cut to the heart..."
Dt.30:2, ".....and when you and your children return to the Lord your God and
obey him with all your heart.."
Acts 2:38, "repent, and be baptized..."
Dt.30:3, ".....then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes and have
compassion on you and gather you from all the nations where he scattered
you. Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the
heavens, from there the Lord your God will gather you and bring you back."
Acts 2:38,39, "...for the forgiveness of sins. And you will receive the gift of
the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are
far off- for all whom the Lord our God will call."
Through the post-resurrection preaching of the apostles, it becomes
clear how God can forgive our rebellion. He is able through the cross of
Christ. But it is equally clear that repentance, or renewed resolve to live by
God’s ways, is the means by which we gain from Christ’s substitutionary
atonement. In other words, the gospel proclaimed by Jesus, John and the
apostles included the demand for repentance, which means turning from sin
to God’s ways as expressed by His commands. This was the way God’s
people could be assured of receiving the blessings of God’s forgiveness.
So far, we can discern a consistent biblical witness that the good news
consists in the promise of the forgiveness of sins to be sure, but it also consists
in the "granting of" the demand for a whole hearted turning to the Lord’s
ways.
The Gospel According to Paul
The first words of the first chapter of Paul’s magnum opus, the letter to
the church in Rome, Paul describes his purpose as an apostle of Jesus Christ.
The proclamation of the gospel is his purpose. Paul begins this letter
introducing himself as "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an
apostle, set apart for the gospel of God which he promised beforehand
through his prophets in the holy scriptures..."(Rom.1:1,2). Paul sees himself
as continuing where Isaiah and others had left off. Or maybe it is better to say,
that Paul saw himself as one of those Isaiah was talking about who would
come in the future and proclaim, "Your God reigns!" Paul has been "set apart
for the gospel." He goes on to say in verse three that this gospel is
"concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh
and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his
resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord."
In this shorthand description of Jesus as the focus of the gospel the crucifixion is passed over
and he goes right to the resurrection as the crucial element which "designates"
Jesus as the Son of God. His final description reveals the reason why, as Paul
describes Jesus as "Jesus Christ our Lord." He is presently our Lord, and it is
the resurrection which uniquely makes this possible. Crucifixion alone cannot
make this possible. At best crucifixion without resurrection makes Jesus a
martyr for God, but in no way could he be considered as Lord. Resurrection,
however, establishes the fact of Christ’s present and very real lordship. This
connects Paul very nicely with Isaiah’s foretelling of the announcement, "Your
God reigns," but now filling it out with specific content with the risen Christ.
Paul now goes further and describes this risen Christ as the one through whom
the apostles have received their commission,
"through whom we have received
grace and apostleship for the obedience of faith for the sake of his name
among all nations."(v.5)
A mutually interpreting parallel statements become
evident as can be seen below:
Romans 1:1, "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ set apart for the gospel of
God......."
Romans 1:5, through whom we have received grace and apostleship for the
obedience of faith......"
This helps us to discern what Paul understood to be the task and goal
of gospel proclamation. It is to bring the nations into obedience to the risen
Christ who is in fact Lord. The good news is that God himself, the risen Lord,
is calling all nations to Himself. As we saw in Isaiah 53, this good news
includes how it is God can receive rebels and enemies without destroying
them. It is because He Himself becomes the "once for all" sacrifice of
atonement.(Rom.6:10; Heb.7:27; 1 Pet.3:18) But this good news also includes
obedience to God’s law as a light to the nations. God provides the way back,
but He also provides a way of being in coming back or "returning" as
Deuteronomy describes it. This way of being is also "good news" as it is a call
of grace and freedom from sin’s power and a call to righteousness.
This makes sense of Paul’s desire to preach "the gospel" to the
believers in Rome. Paul is not saying he plans on preaching Christ’s
substitutionary atonement over and over and nothing else, as crucial and
central as this part of the gospel is. This makes Paul’s letter as a whole a
Gospel letter. It is the gospel according to Paul, just as Mark’s record of
Christ’s life and teaching is a Gospel book.(Mark 1:1, "The beginning of the
gospel about Jesus Christ..." ) He wants to preach the gospel to believers, not
just to remind them of the necessity of Christ’s death, although surely he did
that, but also preach the commands of God that brings about the obedience of
faith as a "light to the nations" for the glory of God.(Isaiah 51:4)
The Deficiency of Luther’s Understanding
From this survey of biblical texts having to do with "the good news of
the kingdom," it becomes clear that Luther’s view is deficient at key points.
Luther failed to grasp the biblical fact that "the good news" of the kingdom
included the commands of God that were to be done by faith.
(Rom.1:5;16:25,26) This failure to see this led Luther to make the false claim
that the "gospel" was "nothing but" a message of promise in Christ. He failed
to appreciate the fact that the gospel of the kingdom is a "light to the nations"
not only in what it provides by way of promise(Isaiah 53), but also what it
requires by way of commands.(Isaiah 51/ Mt.5-7) These commands in Christ
are just as much "the righteousness of God in the gospel"(Rom.1:16/ Isaiah
51) as the promised provision of Christ’s atonement. This biblical reality has
been appreciated more recently by such writers as Herman Ridderbos who can
say,
"In Jesus’ commandments, also, it is God himself who sanctifies his name
and saves his people. Good works issue from his sovereign fatherly decree and from
his powerfully effective fatherly communion. The radical demand, the positing of
conditions, the promise of reward, proceed from the Father’s will of salvation and are
borne by it. In the form which these things are included in the gospel they belong to
the new covenant that has begun with the coming of Christ, to the gift of sonship in
the kingdom of heaven."
Likewise, Dietrich Bonhoeffer breaks with his Lutheran tradition with
these assertions;
"Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift
which we must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock. Such grace is
costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus
Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives man
a man his only true life."
Bonhoeffer asserts that "the gospel" is costly grace, a grace that calls
us to follow Jesus Christ. The grace of the gospel is, in fact, the
commandment of Jesus to follow in his ways. From the above statements, it
seems quite clear, that both Ridderbos and Bonhoeffer make decisive breaks
with their own reformation heritage from Luther, who taught that the grace of
the gospel can be "nothing but" the promise of God held out at the cross.
From the biblical evidence it seems equally clear that both of these men have
views that more accurately reflect the biblical view of the gospel.
Of course, the ramifications of this observation is both striking and far-
reaching for evangelical theology and in consequence, for it’s evangelistic
proclamation of the gospel. If this view of the gospel is correct, then it must
be concluded that evangelical proclamation of the gospel which understands
faithful "gospel" preaching to be "nothing but" a message of God’s promised
mercy at the cross is a serious distortion of the truth. What has been
characterized as "faithful preaching" has been a tragic misrepresentation of
God’s will in the proclamation of His gospel. The great fear in evangelicalism
since Luther is that we "add to the gospel." This, of course, we must never
do. However, it must be considered with sober biblical reflection whether
evangelicalism in its zeal to not add to the message, has in fact suppressed
crucial elements of it. This was the claim of Dr. C van der Waal,
"To say that the new covenant knows no conditions, is to rob the gospel of its
obligatory character. In the established churches as well as on the mission field, this
antinomianism has caused great harm. An easygoing Christianity has evolved, which
has never learned to come to terms with life, since salvation is a fact anyway. The
indicative has become vague and therefore there no ears are left to hear the
imperative."
It is certain that we must fear adding to what God has said. This cannot be
disputed and must be a constant warning to the church. It is also easy to show,
though beyond the purpose of this paper, that Roman Catholicism is guilty of
this charge in quite radical ways. Clearly, however, this is not the only danger
to the church. The apostle John’s warning to his readers reflects this reality;
"I warn everyone who hears the words of prophecy of this book: If anyone
adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And
of anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from
him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book"
(Rev.22:18,19)
John’s immediate concern is for his composition, the book of
Revelation, as it has been given by God. But if John was instructed to issue
this warning concerning one book in the canon, is it not reasonable to
conclude that the warning extends to the gospel message as it is revealed
through the entire canonical witness? From Paul, this seems very reasonable,
who states,
".......even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel
other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned"
(Gal.1:8)!
If this view is correct, that the gospel consists in the giving of
commands as well as the promise of forgiveness, then we must reconsider
what it is we present to the world as the gospel. We must follow faithfully in
the footsteps of Isaiah, John, the apostles and Jesus Christ Himself. It is safe
to say, that if we cannot bring ourselves to say what they said then in our
"gospel preaching" now, then we may be in step with contemporary
evangelicalism, but we are out of step "with the Spirit" and the very Scriptures
we claim to be faithful to. This is relatively easy to show. In contemporary
preaching it is common-place to offer the forgiveness of God won by Jesus at
the cross by believing Jesus "died for you" on the cross. The good news is
presented as consisting in the freeness of the gift, as understood to be that all
you have to do is believe you are sinner and Jesus died for you. Some
traditions have you come forward to the front of the "gospel meeting" and
others see themselves as trusting the Spirit to work as they let you go your
way to deal with God in your own way and "as He leads." But the unifying
center in both traditions considers it central to the gospel that the offer is free
of all conditions but believing. It is by "faith alone" that the benefits of
Christ’s atonement are gained.
But what would it sound like to stand in front of our "gospel meetings"
and preach like the apostle Peter? We certainly need to do what he did, and
chronicle the guilt of mankind against God. Sin is the issue, we have indeed
gone our own way. God’s judgment is certain and He has resolved to wipe
from the face of the earth all those who continue to rebel against Him in sin.
Hell is the future for all those who continue to go their own way. Everyone
stands in agreement here. Let’s imagine that people, by the grace of God are
"cut to the heart" and afraid for their lives. Now comes the crucial moment of
presenting God’s solution. We now stand as the people Isaiah prophesied
about who would announce "good news" to the world. Here is the crucial
question that determines our faithfulness. Would we be able to say with
Peter, "Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins!" In other words,
would we be able to say what follows? -
"Turn now from your rebellious ways and to the ways of God. Take
yourself off the throne of your life, and recognize Jesus as your one and only
Lord. Show your resolve through baptism, enter the waters of baptism to show
your need for God and His ways. This is what God Himself commands for the
forgiveness of your sins. If you do this, if you resolve to leave the ways of sin
and rebellion, and follow the ways of the Lord all the days of your life, then
and only then will you be freed from the destructive tyranny of sin which
promises only death, and then and only then will you stand forgiven of your
rebellion and sin, you will be showered with the blessing of God’s mercy.
Jesus’ own blood will cover you from His sacrificial death at the cross. No
longer will God find you guilty of your sins, but innocent because of His death
for you. Not only will you find forgiveness today, but you will find His mercy
new everyday as you continue to turn from sin to His gracious ways- this
promise is for you and your children and all whom the Lord our God will
call. Will you serve the ways of sin that lead to death and eternal destruction,
or the ways of life, the way of the Lord that leads to life? Jesus Himself said,
‘I am the way and the truth and life, no one comes to the Father but by me."
Decide now who it is you will serve!"
My hunch is that contemporary evangelicals would take offense at
many aspects of the above presentation of the gospel. But the objections
would not be because the above statement is out of step with Peter, or Jesus, or
John, or Isaiah. What is written above is simply an unpacking of what Peter
himself preached. It is an exposition of what Peter meant by "repent" and
"baptism" as the means by which the benefits of Christ’s cross for
the"forgiveness of sins" is obtained. Of course, someone can object that this is
simply my interpretation of what Peter meant. This objection can be tested
biblically by simply asking what the biblical writers meant by "repent." If it is
shown that "repent" means turning from our sinful ways to God’s righteous
ways, then the above statement is shown to be quite accurate in its exposition
of Peter’s preaching. The fact is, "repent" is commonly recognized by
evangelicals themselves as meaning precisely that. The biblical witness is
quite explicit in the regard and only a desire to escape this predicament can
lead to any other conclusion. This of course paints them into a corner. If this
is what repentance means, then objections to the above interpretation
evaporate. The question now becomes one of humility. Are we willing to
question the way things have been done in the past? Do we fear the Lord
more than the difficulties to be faced as a result of embracing the biblical
understanding of the gospel? It seems that this has always been the crucial
question for God’s people. It becomes a question of repentance and the
willingness to do so. Will we leave our "own ways" in order to follow His in
the proclamation of His truth?
May our Lord bless His church and His gospel through serious, earnest
and sober reflection on His truth as revealed by His Word. May God humble
His servants and give eyes to see and ears to hear His Word in all its clarity
and truth.
1Luther rejected Zwingli because the Swiss reformer’s understanding
of the Lord’s Supper involved notions of covenantal fidelity to Jesus. This, for
Luther, compromised the purity of the gospel as God’s action for us and
nothing else. The Supper is the Gospel made visible. This was why breaking
fellowship with Zwingli over the Supper was not understood as trifling over
details, but about the gospel itself.
2Ed.Timothy Lull, Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings. p.107
3
Italics are mine
4
Ibid. p.84
5
Ibid. p.115
6Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther. p.256
7This is not an exhaustive survey analyzing every occurrence of the
word, though that would be a fascinating study. This is not necessary to get at
the intended meaning. I have chosen important passages in Isaiah, the
Gospels, and from Paul’s letter to the Romans. These passages are important
because in each instance the word "gospel" is used to describe God’s
covenantal relationship to His people.
8The reformed tradition has wrestled with how to think about repentance given their
commitment to "faith alone." One of the first confessions, the Lutheran Augsburg Confession
of 1530, understands repentance to consist in contrition and faith as follows, "Now repentance
consisteth properly of two parts: One is contrition, or terrors stricken into the conscience
through the acknowledgment of sin; the other is faith, which is conceived by the Gospel, or
absolution, and doth believe that for Christ’s sake sins be forgiven, and comforteth the
conscience, and freeth it from terrors. Then should follow good works, which are fruits of
repentance." Here repentance is understood as a product of faith, just as it is a product of fear.
This seems to be an accurate representation of the biblical testimony. However, Lutheran
tradition, presumably recognizing the danger this understanding poses to "faith alone," begins
to state its case differently with the Formula of Concord of 1576 as follows: "We believe,
teach, and confess that, although antecedent contrition and subsequent new obedience do not
appertain to the article of justification before God, yet we are not to imagine any such
justifying faith as can exist and abide with a purpose of evil, to wit; of sinning and acting
contrary to conscience." (Article 3 part 8) With this understanding, faith no longer comes
under the heading of repentance (antecedent contrition) as with Augsburg, but stands apart
from faith as a separate entity which coincides with the "new obedience." In other words,
here, "antecedent contrition" does not "consist in" faith as with Augsburg, but is a necessary
appendage to it. The reformed Westminster Confession of 1647 uses very similar language as
follows: "Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace, the doctrine whereof is to be preached
by every minister of the gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ."(Ch.15 part 1) "Although
repentance be not rested in as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of this pardon thereof,
which is the act of God’s free grace in Christ, yet is it of such necessity to all sinners that none
may expect pardon without it."(Ch.15 part3) Once again, repentance is partitioned from
justification as it is deemed an "evangelical grace" (a post-conversion grace) and asserted as
not "any cause of this pardon thereof." The important point for this paper, is that Peter’s
statement, "Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins" is rendered confessionally
inaccurate because "antecedent contrition....does not appertain to the article of justification
before God" and the Formula of Concord in its rejection of false dogma makes the assertion
that justification appertains to "nothing but" the forgiveness of sins!(Article 3 part 3 under
antithesis) So Peter’s statement, "Repent (have antecedent contrition) "for the forgiveness of
sins"(justification) is confessionally wrong. This progressive move to isolate faith in Christ’s
satisfaction of God’s justice at the cross, and not in a change of life(repentance) for the
forgiveness of sins (justification) would appear to have moved us confessionally away from
apostolic preaching of the gospel.
9How this phrase is to be taken is greatly contested. It could be understood either as
"the obedience which is faith or as "the obedience which derives from faith." The first
identifies faith as the obedience required(a genitive of apposition), the second understands
faith to be the source of consequent obedience. (a genitive of source) As always, we must
suppress the urge to quickly choose the option that best supports our theology and let context
lead us to the best option. I prefer the second option due to Paul’s very similar statement in
Romans 15:18. "For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has
accomplished through me to bring the Gentiles to obedience - by word and deed...." Prior to
this statement, Paul describes this as "the priestly service of the gospel."(v.16) After this
statement Paul states that this "fulfills the ministry of the gospel."(v.19) Paul describes
bringing the Gentiles to obedience as making the Gentiles an "acceptable offering, sanctified
by the Holy Spirit."(v.16) Paul then concludes his letter by stating, "but now has been
disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations (Gentiles),
according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith"-
(Rom.16:26). When all the evidence is gathered, the most likely conclusion is that Paul sees
the gospel as that which "sanctifies" the nations (Gentiles), or leads them to be obedient to
God- an obedience derived from faith. This aligns with Paul’s similar, yet more obvious, use
of the genitive of source elsewhere.( 1 Thess. 1:2 - "work of faith and labor of love and
steadfastness of hope..") Interestingly, Thom Schreiner argues for a "both/and" understanding
of Paul’s statement. He argues that Paul means both obedience as faith, and obedience
derived from it.
10Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom p.252
11C van der Waal, The Covenantal Gospel. p.103