In my last post I referred to a minister who did not agree with me talking about sin when sharing the gospel: he felt this would put people off. Instead he excused his sinless preaching by redefining the “gospel” simply in terms of “convincing people that Jesus is Lord”.
But when Paul came to define the gospel, he did so in these terms:
          “For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received:
               – that Christ died… for our sins… according to the Scriptures,
               – and that He was buried,
               – and that He rose again the third day… according to the Scriptures,
               –  and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve…” (1 Corinthians ch 15)
At the heart of the gospel is the cross.
And the cross is meaningless if you don’t talk about sin.

Of such great importance is this that Paul prefaces these words by saying:
          I declare to you the gospel:
               – which I preached to you,
               – which also you received
               – and in which you stand,
               – by which also you are saved…
               … if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
To hold to anything less than this gospel is “vanity”.
To leave out “sin” is to leave out the cross.

Yet, today, there are those who are doing just that. They desperately want to appeal to the world, and so they focus only on the feel-good aspects of the gospel, but omit any reference to sin, and now, even to the cross.

In November last year, I came across the following post by Todd Pruitt who warned of this troubling trend in America in a post entitled: “No Cross, No Gospel”
http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/1517/no-cross-no-gospel#.WrGt_ehuZnK

He wrote:

I have noticed a trend which ought to concern any member of a PCA church. There seems to be an increasing number of PCA church plants whose stated definition of the gospel is void of any mention of the cross or atonement. In other words, there seems to be a growing number of PCA churches and/or pastors who do not properly define the gospel.

The following example from the front page of a PCA church’s website was sent to me from a concerned member of one of our churches. Notice that they are answering the question, “What is the gospel?”:

What is the Gospel? It is the announcement (literally “good news”) that Jesus’ resurrection was the beginning of salvation for the entire cosmos and will be completed when he returns. God is restoring the peace (shalom) of his creation through the work of Christ and is renewing people, families, neighborhoods, cities and nations, as people trust and follow him.

I have read a number of other definitions of the gospel on other PCA church websites that define the gospel in essentially the same way.

I have no reason to believe that the writers of statements such as the one above are anything other than fine brothers in Christ. It may be that they are pastors who preach Christ crucified every Lord’s Day. I certainly hope that is the case. The fact remains however that the answer given above to the question “What is the gospel?” is so incomplete as to be wrong. It is not possible to explain the gospel without placing Christ’s death for sinners at the center.

Certainly the resurrection of Jesus is essential to the gospel. If we are not proclaiming Christ as risen then we are not proclaiming the gospel. Jesus’ resurrection is necessary for our salvation. Likewise, it is true that the salvation Jesus accomplished is cosmic in scope. That is, there will be a new heaven and earth in the age to come. Sin has ruined everything so the new creation will include both redeemed persons as well as a redeemed creation. I also understand that it is not possible to include everything about the gospel in a single statement. Certainly a statement that addresses the gospel in all its fullness and implications could not fit in a simple statement.

But there is simply no gospel apart from the cross. There is no proper explanation or proclamation of the gospel apart from the fact that “Christ died for our sins.”

So how can it be that there are PCA churches which define the gospel in such a way as to leave out the heartbeat of the gospel itself?

One of the standard features of progressive or liberal theology is a disdain for the atonement. You will hear talk about the various “theories of the atonement.” It will be said that while some accept the “theory” of penal substitutionary atonement others prefer another theory like Christus Victor. Of course they fail to understand that Christ’s victory is grounded in part in his death as our vicarious substitute; our propitiation.

Incidentally, I am making no claim about the intentions of those pastors who neglect to mention the cross or atonement in their definitions of the gospel. They may well be wonderful folks. But if we can’t be “sticklers” about getting the gospel right then what are we?

So, what are we to think about pastors in the PCA who, when asked to explain the gospel, make no reference to sin, the cross, or the atonement? If it were a one-off we could explain it as a probable oversight; a mental speed bump. But I am concerned that this problem is way beyond anecdote. It seems to be a trend.

(end of Todd Pruitt’s comment)

I draw attention to this because many, at this time off year, rejoice in Christ’s resurrection. Of course, thoughtful Christians rejoice in Christ’s resurrection each and every Lord’s day: we don’t confine ourselves to one day a year; rather, each Lord’s day, we acknowledge afresh that without the resurrection, “your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!” (1 Corinthians 15:17)
But without the cross, the message of the resurrection itself is meaningless.
Without the cross, “your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!”

But “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing” (1 Corinthians 1:18).
This is why it is not the message the P.R. machine in some churches want to highlight. As we saw last week, it was a scandal even to Peter.
“But to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”
“Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified:
–  to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness,
– but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
“Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” (1 Corinthians 1:22-25)

Back in 2001 Stuart Townend & Keith Getty wrote one of the most enduring modern hymns of the millennium:
          In Christ alone! Who took on flesh
          Fullness of God in helpless babe
          This gift of love and righteousness
          Scorned by the ones He came to save
          Till on that cross as Jesus died
          The wrath of God was satisfied
          For every sin on Him was laid
          Here in the death of Christ I live

It is hard to imagine Christianity without the symbol of the cross.
But there are those who, while ostensibly keeping the symbol of the cross, would remove the offence of the cross by dissociating it from terms like “sin” and “wrath”.

Back in 2013 the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) – one of those liberal denominations that “you will hear talk about the various ‘theories of the atonement’” – was drafting a new hymnal and wanted to include the Townend/Getty hymn (above). But they couldn’t come at those words: “…on that cross as Jesus died the wrath of God was satisfied…” and sought permission to change it in their hymnal to: “…on that cross as Jesus died the love of God was magnified…”
The song’s authors refused. So the committee voted to drop the song because (it was claimed) the idea that by the cross “the wrath of God was satisfied”  “would have a negative effect on the hymnal’s ability to form the faith of coming generations.”
Once again, the desire for popularity with “coming generations” trumps truth.
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) claim they still talk about the “cross”; but it is not the cross of the Bible; it is not the cross of Christ. They have rejected the gospel.

In the Lord’s Supper we rehearse those words of Jesus:
– “This is My body which is broken for you.
– “This is My blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”
Each time, Jesus adds: “Do this in remembrance of me”.
Why did Jesus add those words: “Do this in remembrance of me”?
Don Carson comments: “It is shocking that this should be necessary… But history shows how quickly the people of God drift toward peripheral matters, and end up ignoring or denying the center. By a simple rite, Jesus wants his followers to come back to his death, his shed blood, his broken body, again and again and again.”

 “God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.” Galatians 6:14