Open Discussion: Is This the Gospel? Shouldn’t “Christians” Know What the Gospel Is?
On the cross, God treated Jesus as if He lived your life so He could treat you as if you lived His life.
~ John MacArthur Jr.
Is this the gospel? Why or why not? Post your comments below.
A related article that expands on this statement can be read here: http://www.jesus.org/death-and-resurrection/the-crucifixion/how-is-jesus-our-substitute.html
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
“so He could treat you as if you lived His life.”
The root assumption behind this is that Jesus lived a life in perfect obedience to the law. So the obvious conclusion to that assumption in this statement is that by treating us “as if” we lived His life, the implication is “as if” WE kept the law perfectly.
Sounds perfectly reasonable, but there is a fatal flaw in that assumption. If Jesus’ perfect keeping of the law is relevant, and that perfect law-keeping is “imputed” to us, that makes the law the standard for righteousness. It keeps us “under law”, the Biblical definition of an unsaved person.
It occurs to me that while MacArthur, et al, may deny this conclusion, I believe that they know this is the practical outcome of this theology. Thus, the mantra of “preaching the gospel to yourself every day” is necessary, because in the reality of this view, the “saved” person” is still “unsaved”. This is the very conclusion found in both Luther’s and Calvin’s theologies. And it is the very reason why we still see “saved” people in churches functioning like “unsaved” people. The theology expects nothing less of them. It is setting them up for failure. When you set people up to fail, they will.
LikeLike
This is a poor qualifier. I do like the explanation above per it’s flaw in emphasizing the law. God does not treat me as if I’ve lived the life of the Savior rather, he treats me based on the propitiation of Christ applied to me when I believed the gospel. I’m still living my life and subject to the correcting discipline of God the Father which includes negative discipline, Jesus was not subject to negative discipline thus, I do not get treated as I lived or am living Christ’s life. I get that MacArthur is seeking, it seems anyway, to “practicalize” the gospel but this attempt ends up deforming it.
LikeLike
“I get that MacArthur is seeking, it seems anyway, to “practicalize” the gospel but this attempt ends up deforming it.”
Alex,
You give MacArthur more benefit of the doubt than I would. Personally, I think he knows exactly what he’s saying.
LikeLike
Actually no… MacAurther’s comment is what the “gospel” has become by virtue of the historic doctrinal evolution. But the this is not what Mathew, Mark and Luke explained as the Gospel. It is not what Jesus preached. Indeed Jesus makes an effort to not discuss his crucifixion. The central theme of what he taught was that he was anointed. (Christ means anointed in English and the ‘substance’ he was anointed with was the Holy Spirit) And Luke details this central theme in Luke chapter 4: v14 to 22. He then summarizes this message in Acts 10 with Peter’s speech on the day of Pentecost . . . after the resurrection. (again notice that the crucifixion plays a subordinate roll in Peter’s comments vs the central theme of his comments)
The gospel has always been the blessing of Abraham and the Covenants of Promise (often referred to as the Commonwealth of Israel) coming to all men (Jew and Gentile) to end the hostility between Man and God (called the Ministry of Reconciliation) such that man is no longer subject to death (the defeat of Death was the purpose of the cross). This is the “Gospel” but this message has almost never been taught and the dirth of theology has so infused original sin and the crucifixion as altruistic ideal for so long that Christians can hear nothing else when people say the word “gospel.”
LikeLike
Hmmmm, GREAT comments all. Can’t respond right now but will do so later.
LikeLike
Andy
MacArthur is a late-comer to Neo-Calvinism thus, I plead guilty to greater space on his behalf in my quick evaluation.
LikeLike
“The gospel has always been the blessing of Abraham and the Covenants of Promise (often referred to as the Commonwealth of Israel) coming to all men (Jew and Gentile) to end the hostility between Man and God (called the Ministry of Reconciliation) such that man is no longer subject to death (the defeat of Death was the purpose of the cross). This is the “Gospel” but this message has almost never been taught and the dirth of theology has so infused original sin and the crucifixion as altruistic ideal for so long that Christians can hear nothing else when people say the word “gospel.”
Thank you, John!!! Actually this is pretty much how I was taught as a kid. It was unheard of where I came from to think of Jesus as obeying for us, or being righteous for us, or the cross being used as an excuse to sin. The focus was more on the resurrection and new life.
It did not occur to me until years later how blessed I was to be taught that. It was the reason for so much cognitive dissonance years later in most churches I attended. It is has been interesting to look back and see how the message changed in my neck of the woods which is a whole other topic.
But then I remember asking my mom when I was about 11 if we were considered Protestants. She answered by asking me what we would be protesting against. Then suggested I look up the word and what it meant historically :o)
LikeLike