Two Roads to Hell Named “Gospel”
It happened again on Facebook. A twenty- something professing Christian posting casual information about cohabitation with a boyfriend/girlfriend. What struck me about it was the following: as in other cases that I have seen and heard about, the shameless normality in which the information is shared.
Why is this the norm of our day? Answer: the gospel. The gospel means “good news,” and since the Fifties there has been two primary gospels preached in America and both are great news to most people. The first gospel (from the 50’s to the 90’s) emphasized the importance of believing that Christ died for our sins, and if you believed that, you were going to heaven. Obeying the ten commandments was a nice thing to do for Jesus, but optional. Even if you later denied Christ and the gospel, you were still saved, and keeping the law was optional. After all, we aren’t saved by the law, so how important could it be? Just in case you think that’s a generalization, consider these quotes from the book, “Eternal Security” written by evangelical superstar Charles Stanley:
PAGE 6 “As long as I have an ongoing role in the salvation process, my natural tendency will be to focus on my behavior rather than on Christ.”
PAGE 7 “People who are constantly examining their spiritual condition tend to fall into the trap of legalism.”
PAGE 200 “But isn’t it true that people who believe they must maintain some kind of good works in order to stay saved are trusting in themselves for their eternal security?”
PAGE 195 “Placing the responsibility for maintaining salvation on the believer is adding works to grace. Salvation would no longer be a gift. It would be a trade – our faithfulness for His faithfulness.”
PAGE 7 “Show me a believer who is caught up in trying to maintain God’s acceptance through good works, and I will show you a fragile saint. My experience has been that these are the people who on the surface appear to be completely sold out to personal holiness and purity but who suddenly disappear. It is not unusual for these well-meaning types to end up in a lifestyle completely opposite of what they once stood for.”
PAGE 93 “Even if a believer for all practical purposes becomes an unbeliever, his salvation is not in jeopardy.”
PAGE 72 “The Bible clearly teaches that God’s love for His people is of such magnitude that even those who walk away from the faith have not the slightest chance of slipping from His hand.”
PAGE 93 “Christ will not deny an unbelieving Christian his or her salvation because to do so would be to deny Himself. Why? Faithful or not, every person who has at any time had saving faith is a permanent part of the body of Christ.”
PAGE 104 “In Christ, the requirements of God’s holiness have been completely fulfilled!”
PAGE 63 “According to Jesus, what must a person do to keep from being judged for sin? Must he stop doing something? Must he promise to stop doing something? Must he have never done something? The answer is so simple that many stumble all over it without ever seeing it. All Jesus requires is that the individual “believe in” Him.”
Then more good news came in the latter Nineties. The first gospel didn’t emphasize the law enough, but the second gospel places very strong emphasis on the law. But the news is still good; Jesus obeys the law for us! In fact, it was part of the atonement; His perfect obedience was imputed to our sanctification! Moreover, even the relaxed approach to the law in the first gospel was legalism! So relax, be happy, live in peace with thy girlfriend. As one of the propagators of this second gospel has said,
The irony, of course, is that it’s only when we stop obsessing over our own need to be holy and focus instead on the beauty of Christ’s holiness that we actually become more holy! Not to mention, we start to become a lot easier to live with! Will someone please keep reminding me of this? (Tullian Tchividjian, Accountability Groups: The Tyranny of Do More, Try Harder).
And trust me, everyone is getting the message.
Besides, why bother with keeping the law? After all, as second gospel guru Paul David Tripp has stated in regard to Christians, “When you are dead you can’t do anything” (p. 64, How People Change 2006). Likewise, CJ Mahaney: “We [who is “we”?] are [present tense] enemies of God. We are God ignoring. We are God defying. We hate God” (2009 Resolved Conference).
Hence, compare the following quotes from these second gospel gurus to those of Stanley:
Francis Chan: “To change our hearts, what we value, what we risk, how we act, we don’t need more guilt or more rules, we just need to be in love with God. Because when you’re wildly in love with someone, it changes everything.”
DA Carson: “In this broken world, it is not easy to promote holiness without succumbing to mere moralism; it is not easy to fight worldliness without giving in to a life that is constrained by mere rules.”
John Piper: “So the key to living the Christian life – the key to bearing fruit for God – the key to a Christ-exalting life of love and sacrifice – is to die to the law and be joined not to a list of rules, but to a Person, to the risen Christ. The pathway to love is the path of a personal, Spirit-dependent, all-satisfying relationship with the risen Christ, not the resolve to keep the commandments.”
Tullian Tchividjian: “A taste of wild grace is the best catalyst for real work in our lives: not guilt, not fear, not another list of rules.”
These two gospels are two roads to hell. Why? Because both gospels restrict saving faith / belief to limited knowledge of the true gospel. Both limit saving faith to what Jesus did to make our entry into the kingdom possible, and not its purpose. “Jesus died for our sins, just believe that.” No, there is more. Jesus died for the purpose of setting us apart. The biblical word is “sanctification”:
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 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 (1Corinthians 6:9-11).
But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you as firstfruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth (2Thess. 2:13).
In other words, the Spirit’s purpose is to set us apart, and Christ died for our sins to make that possible, resulting in us being declared righteous by the Father. Any gospel that excludes that purpose thereof is a half gospel:
It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality (1Thess.4:3).
The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work (1John 3:8).
Therefore, the “new convert” supposes that Jesus only died to save us, and “enters the kingdom” indifferent to one of the primary reasons Christ died for us—to set us apart from the rest of the world unto the Father as a peculiar people. Hence, Facebook. Yea, flaunt thy supposed “festival of freedom.” After all, he only died to save us. Supposedly. For the true Christian beholding the heart of Christ and his purpose of setting us apart unto the Father, and His willingness to leave Heaven and obey the cruel cross—I beg you to tell me—how can being like the world be like business as usual? Furthermore, how can any man claiming to be a bishop of God tell us not to “obsess” over our holiness? It is the very essence of being a saint. It is what we signed up for. According to Mark G. Cambron, D.D. in Bible Doctrines:
Again we emphasis that the words “holiness,” “sanctification,” and “saint” all come from the same word meaning “set apart,” “separation.” The word “sanctify” in Exodus 13:2, and the word ‘holiness” in Psalm 29:2, and the word “saints” of Psalm 34:9 are the same word. The word “sanctify” of John 17:17, and the word “saint” of Philippians 1:1, and the word ‘holiness” of Hebrews 12:10 are all from the same word.
The call of the true gospel is a call to believe in the works of Christ and a commitment to be set apart according to His will. It is a call to embrace Him as Savior and Lord. It is most certainly an obsession with truth and holiness. It recognizes that being born again is to be set apart by the Spirit. Christ went to the cross to see this happen in His children, resulting in the destruction of the devil’s work. How it must grieve the Holy Spirit and Christ when we not only do the world’s bidding, but report it to others in casual fashion.
And because of this, should not the wording of the gospel be of major concern when we present it? How is it that the gurus of the second gospel proudly herald a five word gospel: “Christ died for our sins”? And then even go as far as to say that we live by that as well! How is it that John Piper presents the gospel in “one sentence,” excludes sanctification, and then says, “that’s the gospel”?
It is not the gospel. It is a half gospel. Both of these gospels breed an indifference for one of the primary reasons Christ went to the cross—sanctification. And by the way, the word of God is the standard for what that separation is and the knowledge to obtain it. It is not just law, it is every word that comes from the mouth of God that we live by (Matthew 4:4).
paul

Paul,
The following are statements you made with which I agree although these are not statements I would make :
“in our initial presentation of the gospel.” That, after all, was my question.
“there is NOTHING they can do in their kingdom living to change their status and the righteousness of God has been credited to their account in full.”
“He also suffered in order that they could be set apart to God as a peculiar people.”
“salvation will result in a commitment to kingdom living and God has given them all the resources for that.”
“their works for the kingdom will make their faith known to themselves and others.”
“Christ is not only savior, He is also Lord, and he must be accepted as both.”
“Christians don’t stand in a judgement to determine their righteousness. Their righteousness has already been determined. “
LikeLike
My goodness! Why not?
LikeLike
BTW, by your statement, “He also suffered in order that they could be set apart to God as a peculiar people,” it appears you are acknowledge that the same work of Christ that justifies us also sanctifies us. Do you really believe that?
I would really like to know why you continue to insist I believe things I don’t believe. Anyone who has read my writings knows I don’t believe the things you impute to me. I have no reason to deny that I believe these things if I really believe them. Could you explain what is up with that?
LikeLike
Obviously, one has to do with purpose, and the other is about function.
LikeLike
Paul,
You wrote,
I will say this. I think He is Savior for justification, and Lord for sanctification, and the two are totally separate. Serving Him as Lord in sanctification can in NO way affect our justification by adding, taking away, or maintaining. Now, if one believes the two are fused, that would be a problem.
Can you explain to me what you mean by fusing justification and sanctification?
LikeLike
I’m in the process of posting on it today.
LikeLike
The apostles seemed to believe his Lordship was important for justification as well. (See E.g., Acts 5:31).
LikeLike
Randy, That’s not the word for Lord. Ever heard of an interlinear?
LikeLike
Paul,
Are you talking to yourself?
LikeLike
Paul,
People who read Greek don’t need an interlinear. The word is not the word usually translated Lord which can also be merely translated “sir.” It is a word that may be translated “ruler” or “leader.” I believe the AV translated it “prince.” To me, that sounds a great deal like what we mean when we talk about Jesus being our “Lord” i.e., “Ruler.” What do you think?
LikeLike
Randy,
Just reading here, your buddy Cambron doesn’t agree with your assessment of that word.
LikeLike
Paul,
It seems ironic that you spew forth very dogmatic and unfounded assertions about what you interpret everyone else to believe, yet you will not answer a direct and pointed question posed to you from Randy about statements you have made. This destroys any credibility you might have had in your ability to engage in a reasonable discussion in front of a watching world. Rather, you sling wild accusations at everyone else but duck the tough questions directed at yourself. I might add, your acerbic tone suggests that you are a very jaded and bitter individual with a huge axe to grind . . . and not really at all interested in giving a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15).
LikeLike
Jack,
Your verbiage is the exact same worn-out Jon Zens-speak that Chantry was tortured with in the 80’s. Stop whining and use the search engine on the blog.
LikeLike
I would not think he would agree. I would think he would go to a secondary or tertiary meaning to support his position contra “Lordship salvation.” There is no question the word can mean “originator” or “author.” There is little question these meanings fit well in other contexts. “Leader” or even “prince” seems to fit better here, unless, of course, our predisposition is not to follow him.
At best, since your friend Cambron was associated with Tennessee Temple and Florida Bible College, he was a flaming Arminian. I think you will find upon careful investigation that he also denied repentance and the need to bow to Christ as Lord at the point of conversion. That was the official position of Florida Bible College. It isn’t really that important to me. I just thought you might like to know.
LikeLike
Ok, thanks.
LikeLike
Paul,
What do you mean by “the fusion of justification and sanctification?”
LikeLike
Randy,
Go to the INS archives–Jay Adams has a good article on it.
LikeLike
I don’t want to know what Adams believes. I want to know what you believe.
LikeLike
Randy,
Why are you Westminstertarded? The point about what Adams believes is that he has been made, and erroneously/hideously so, the icon for present-day so-called “first generation counseling/Phariseeism.” The point is to show what he believes and its orthodoxy versus what the others believe. What he writes and what others say about him is a valuable interpretive tool and very defining. And why don’t you want to know what Adams believes? Who’s beliefs do you want to know. Jon Zens? Good grief! Also, I don’t hear anybody whining about CCEF’s obsession with talking about Adams in the negative, but if one observes the top tags of this blog, mention of Jay would be pretty low on the totem pole. Yet, all you have to do to have a little fun around here is say something good about Adams.
LikeLike