Sunday, May 18, 2008

The Problem of Legalism - Part 2

By Bruce Mills

In Part 1 of this series, I examined the problem of legalism in American evangelicalism and arrived at the conclusion that legalism is modern day Phariseeism; that is, it is the reduction of Christianity to a set of rules to be followed rather than a personal relationship with Christ. In this post, I want to look at how we got to where we are and why legalism always falls short of its intended goal. Much of this post is based on an article by Truman Dollar which was published many years ago, but which is just as valid for us today.

The History of Legalism

The scribes were the original legalists. God’s great moral law, along with the ceremonial and dietary laws, was not enough for them. Burdensome as the law already was, they developed another 365 rules, one for each day of the year. These rules, as part of the oral law, became even more important for the scribes than God’s commandments. It is unfortunate, but some modern fundamentalist evangelicals have actually become the successors of the scribes.

The development of legalistic systems follows a fairly consistent four-step pattern. Let’s look at the development process carefully, using the observance of the Sabbath to illustrate each of the four steps.

First, God lays down a principle. Exodus 20:8: “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.”

Second, man reduces God’s great principle into a complicated set of rules. Those rules always (1) become burdensome to keep, and (2) remove individual responsibility for making choices. It was certainly true of Sabbath-keeping in the Mishnah and the Jerusalem Talmud. They had an answer for any question about observing the Sabbath.

Third, man quickly learns how to circumvent the rules. The Jews devised incredible legal fictions to elude the laws of the Sabbath. For example, since the Talmud forbids walking more than 2,000 cubits on the Sabbath except between one’s possessions, the Jews purposefully dropped shoes or food on their proposed route on Friday before Sabbath. Additionally, a plethora of other methods were employed to circumvent the rules. Man is very creative in designing ways to get around rules.

Fourth, man elevates rule-keeping to a mark of spirituality. The principle that God laid down originally is usually overlooked or forgotten in this whole process. The Jews completely forgot that the Sabbath was to honor God, and they contrived man-made Sabbath laws. The Sabbath lost its meaning, and its divine purpose was frustrated.

This contrived system of Sabbath-keeping continues today. When I was in Israel a few years ago, we stayed at the David Citadel Hotel in Jerusalem. We arrived on a Friday evening, shortly before sundown and thus, the beginning of the Sabbath. All of the elevators in the hotel were set on an automatic “Sabbath” setting which caused them to go up and down constantly, stopping at each floor on their trip. This was so that a rider could go from the lobby or restaurant on the lower levels to their room on an upper level without having to push the button in the elevator, because to do so would be work, and therefore, a violation of the prohibition against working on the Sabbath. With a simple phone call to the front desk, hotel guests could request that the lights in their rooms be set to automatically turn off at 9 p.m. because turning off the lights in the room would be “work” and a violation of the Sabbath. Many of the hotel guests were Jews who came to the hotel for the Sabbath so that they could have the Arab and Filipino staff who worked that day prepare and serve their meals, turn down their bed, and do everything possible to keep the Jewish guests from violating the Sabbath.

The New Testament also contains principles that modern legalists have taken, gone through these four steps, and created incredibly complicated systems of legalism which, if followed, supposedly indicate one’s spiritual “health.” For example, James 1:27 says, Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Following the same four-step pattern, the principle stated in the last phrase of that verse has been used by legalists to justify a whole host of rules, regulations, and prohibitions against certain kinds of entertainment, education, food and drink, and even the ownership of certain material items.

A Motivation for Legalism

The chief motivation for legalism is the fear that if God’s principles are not replaced with rigid rules, men will ignore what God said and run wildly into sin. The rules are an effort to force men to do right.

However, the whole system of legalism is an expression of unbelief. Some legalists act as though they do not believe in the power of the Holy Spirit to direct men into right living. The reality of the Christian life is ignored. The attitude of some is “We must interpret God’s principles for them and then force them to obey for their own good.” A local church in my area used to have signs posted on its property prohibiting anyone—both men and women—from coming onto its campus while wearing shorts. That prohibition was based on that churches’ interpretation of what Scripture means by modest dress, and the leadership then forced everyone to comply.

The Focus of Legalism

Often legalism focuses upon the institution, not the individual. Rules protect the institution and its image. Legalism is neither compassionate nor forgiving. It forces compliance and conformity.

When I was in El Salvador a few years ago, our mission team discovered that there were two local churches whose members were prohibited from associating with one another over the length of shirt sleeves. The men in one church wore long-sleeved shirts to church because doing so was considered the “correct” way to dress when attending church. However, the men at the other church felt that they had the freedom to wear short-sleeved shirts to church. The long-sleeved shirt church was desperate to protect its image as people who were separated from the ungodly short-sleeved shirt church, and so the leadership prohibited the people from associating with one another.

But there is a serious misunderstanding among believers about rules. Some seem to think that if you make people obey rules for many years, you have improved them morally. Not so. Most likely, the only thing you have done is succeeded in teaching them to conform. Many people feel that “rules build character.” That old maxim is not necessarily true. Rules without reason build rebellion.

The Failure of Legalism

Legalism has failed. Rules have not made individuals more spiritual. Instead, it generates a great deal of frustration. Many educators and pastors expect a set of rules to elevate moral conduct within their school or church. But let’s examine why legalism fails.

First, a system of rules does not provide or encourage decision-making experience. Every day of our lives we face a new set of moral circumstances. God’s principles do not change; life situations do. Legalists continually seek to design new rules to meet every circumstance, saying, in effect, “We will make decisions for you. Here’s what you can do and here’s what you can’t do.” But God never intended others to make your decisions for you beyond your formative childhood years. God wants each believer to mature to the place where he can examine God’s principles and apply them to each day’s new and changing circumstances.

While it is frightening and painful, parents must allow their children to make wrong choices as they move toward maturity. The exception to that principle involves decisions that may bring bodily harm or moral danger to the child. You obviously do not let a child make a wrong decision about drugs or premarital sex. Also, the younger a child is, the more decisions you must make for him. That must gradually lessen and finally end as a child matures.

Children must learn how to make decisions. It is painful. As my children were growing into adulthood, I often wanted to rescue them each time I saw them about to make bad choices. After all, I know better. I’ve even made some of those same mistakes. So I don’t want them to make bad choices. But I know I will not always be there. What if, when all the wrong choices are made, I am a thousand miles away? I would rather be present when some wrong choices are made so I can encourage and re-teach. I want to be there to lift them up when they’ve fallen.

Most rules focus on the external. That very focus often encourages believers to neglect the inner man. Unless the Christian faith and lifestyle are internalized, the believer never grows.

The moral law of the Old Testament is still in force. Jesus insisted that it still applies. But He refused to let men believe they pleased God because they kept the letter of the law. Jesus insisted that even the Ten Commandments were a matter of the heart. He said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matt. 5:27-28).

I grew up in a church where much of the Christian life was reduced to a rigid set of rules that believers were expected to adhere to if they were to be considered to be “good” Christians. I did so without complaint, knowing the rules had nothing to do with my salvation, but unconsciously measuring my spirituality in terms of my compliance with them.

I felt very holy and safe with the rules. They were so deeply ingrained in me that I find that although I have overcome my legalistic outlook toward others who have the freedom to participate in certain activities, I cannot bring myself to participate. My background in legalism was so deep and pervasive that in regard to certain issues, I still have a profoundly difficult time accepting my freedom in Christ.

I did not smoke, drink, dance, curse, or miss church. Whenever I heard a characterization of worldly or ungodly Christians as a child, it was almost always in terms of these habits. I rarely heard covetousness, gluttony, strife, or envy condemned from the pulpit. I also never heard any discussion of inward qualities that needed to develop in my life. Learning, demonstrating, and applying the spiritual fruits of love, joy, peace, longsuffering, and gentleness were all foreign to my theological education. Oh, we memorized the verses; but that’s all we did. We didn’t examine in detail what those things look like in the life of a believer.

As I have pointed out, the rules of legalism are easily circumvented. People can always find a way around a specific rule. However, principles cannot be so easily overlooked or twisted. We must teach people God’s principles, how to make decisions based on Scripture, and how to have a personal relationship with God and His Holy Spirit. We must lead believers into a victorious Christian life. Rules will not accomplish that.

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Doctrines of Grace in the Gospel of John - part 4

by Robert Fraire

For those that are new to this blog, I started a series on the Doctrines of Grace as found in the book of John. I started this after teaching in the Homebuilders class through the book of John and seeing the same themes emerge throughout. (incidentally, it took us over 3 years to teach through John in class)

This is the fourth entry in this series and it brings me to chapter 6. Now chapter 6 is probably the clearest description of God's sovereign call being both effectual (it always accomplishes what God wills) and necessary for salvation.

To set the context we need to understand that Jesus has just fed the 5,000 the day before and then walked across the sea of Galilee to Capernaum. The crowd who had eaten the food the day before searched for and found Jesus. Jesus knew that they did not search for him to learn the spiritual truth of their condition. Actually what they wanted was more food. In fact they wanted to make Jesus king, so he would provide food for them everyday.

In the face of this disbelief, Jesus told them that He was what they really needed not the food. And then starting in verse 35 we read the following:

35Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. 36"But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe.
37"
All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.

Here Jesus, in the face of their unbelief, tells them that the ones chosen by the Father will hear, believe, and come to Jesus. And those who come will always be safe with Him.

It is clear here that Jesus stated this truth "All the Father gives me..." to contrast them with the people to whom he spoke, who saw his miracles, heard his teaching and yet were fixated on what they could get from Jesus (in this case food) instead of who He was.

So, theologically we see that Jesus distinguishes a group that the Father gives, from the group in front of him at that time. It is the sovereign gifting of the Father that is the cause for people to believe and come to Jesus, and the people in front of him were not those. Also explicit in this statement is the truth that those whom the Father chose, will always come to Jesus. "All the Father gives Me will come to Me..." In verse 39 Jesus reinforces this truth:

39 This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.
40"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."


I have included verse 40 here in order to explain how the necessity of faith is in harmony with the sovereignty of God and not, as some think, contradictory to it.

Remember that Jesus has already said that those in front of him do not believe, and then explained that the Father does choose some and they come to Jesus. He then states the same truths again when He says "...all that He has given Me I lose nothing...". So twice in the space of 5 verses Jesus said that it is the Father that gives people to the Son and that he keeps all that are given to him. Then verse 40 comes, not to overthrow verses 35-39, no it comes to explain the means by which those who are chosen by the Father will be drawn to the Son! God not only chooses who will be saved, but he also decreed how they would be saved, which is through faith in the completed work of Jesus Christ. It violates the context to try and overthrow what Jesus has already said in order to say verse 40 gives the choice to all men, instead of the choice being the Fathers gift to the Son.

The next part of this chapter I want to point out is verse 44. John has told us of a slight shift in the audience to which Jesus is speaking. Now he is addressing the unbelieving Jewish leaders, referred to throughout the book of John as "The Jews". Here Jesus is again addressing their unbelief and in verse 44 he gives us a clear statement of why they can see his miracles, know the scriptures about him and yet still not have saving faith in him.

44"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

Now if we keep in mind that Jesus is continuing his statements that included verses 35 through 39, we understand that this statement gives us the other side. Earlier we learned that those the Father did choose will always come to Jesus, now here we see that those who are not chosen, are unable to come to Jesus because the Father has not drawn them. So in the context this "draw" is synonymous with the Fathers choosing in verse 37 and I will paraphrase this as: Those whom the Father chose, he draws to faith in Jesus. Those who He did not choose will not be drawn to Jesus and therefore will not call out in faith for salvation.

Once again we see God's complete Sovereignty in Salvation. Glory be to God.

Monday, May 12, 2008

The Problem of Legalism - Part 1

by Bruce Mills

A couple of years ago, my youngest son was going through a stage in which he was moussing his hair into a kind of “Mohawk” look. I personally thought it looked ridiculous, but I decided a long time ago that such matters were not a hill on which I wished to die in terms of my relationship with my son. I have no problem with telling him what I think about his hairstyle, but I figure that one day he will grow up and realize that the majority of the people in the world—particularly those who wish to hold a good job—don’t go through life looking like something out of a Japanese cartoon.

That same son also plays guitar as one of the musicians for the praise portion of our church’s worship service. One Sunday, as I was preparing to preach, he walked into the church auditorium with his hair moussed into a row of spikes down the middle of his head like the spikes down the back of a Stegosaurus dinosaur. I cringed inside, thinking how stupid it looked. I must admit that my personal pride was also at play in the situation, wondering what people in the congregation would think about an elder’s son wearing a hairstyle that was so out of place among the middle-class congregation which makes up our church.

No one said anything to me about him during the first service, but just as the second service was beginning, during the singing of the first song, I realized that I needed to see the head usher about a matter, so I quickly walked to the back of the church to speak with him. Suddenly I saw one of the older saints in our congregation approaching me with a look on his face that evidenced disgust and anger. He walked up to me and in a very angry tone, said, “I’m leaving this church right now, and do you want to know why? Because that young man up there on the platform is wearing spiked hair.” He obviously did not know that the “young man” was my son and I wasn’t about to tell him. I replied, “I understand your feeling, but don’t choose this as a hill to die on in regard to your spiritual walk.” The man answered, “I know it’s my own problem, but he’s rubbing it in my face.” Once again I exhorted him not to choose such a trivial matter as appearance as the basis of refusing to stay and join in worship. He stated, “I know it’s my own problem, but I just can’t stand looking at it while I’m trying to worship. I have to go out and pray about this.” He then left the auditorium.

Ten minutes later, with this matter still rolling through my thoughts, I stepped into the pulpit to preach. Fortunately, the Lord was gracious and the Holy Spirit overcame my own disturbed mental state and I was able to effectively deliver the message.

That afternoon, I sat down with my son and explained what happened to him. Before I could even explain my reasons to him as to why I wanted him to consider changing his hairstyle, he said, “Okay, I won’t wear it that way to church anymore.” I went on to explain that I would not consider this man a “weaker brother” in the classic sense of that term, but more of a modern day Pharisee who was looking on the outward appearance rather than the heart, as God does (1 Samuel 16:7). I felt that he should not wear his hair in that style while playing in church simply because it was a distraction for many. I’m sure there were more people who, like that man, looked on my son’s hair with disgust, and were thus distracted from worship. And there were probably some who were only mildly distracted in the sense of inwardly laughing at how ridiculous it looked, rather than focusing on the purpose for which they were present in church.

That is simply one encounter which I have had with legalism among Christians. I’m happy to report that the gentleman who was offended by my son’s hair still worships at our church, and my son’s hairstyle has changed—although he now has a small eyebrow piercing that I personally think looks ridiculous. Fortunately, it is mostly hidden by his hair, which now hangs down over his forehead. I'm sure that one day he get over the audacity of youthfulness.

But my fear is that how we approach the issue of legalism and how we teach our young people about how they should think about it, is confusing and misleading. And, in writing about this topic, I am afraid that I will be misunderstood. It is not my desire to persuade young people that it is okay to wear strange hairstyles, baggy pants, and get body piercings and tattoos. And I’m not saying that smoking cigarettes and drinking alcoholic beverages is no big deal for Christians.

This article does not reflect a personal rebellion on my part. Personally, I am a real stick-in-the-mud when it comes to these matters. My own lifestyle would hardly offend anyone. I am boring. So I’m not fighting against restraints on my personal liberty which I might feel because I’m an elder in the church. There is nothing that I desire to do that my position in the church prevents me from doing.

Rather, my purpose is to encourage people to examine a system of values which is harmful and does not work. We must focus on genuine Christianity, not man-made religion. It is important to teach people how to make moral decisions based on Scripture and then show them how the Holy Spirit can help them put biblical truth into practice in their daily lives.

Legalism Defined

Truman Dollar defined legalism as “the tendency to reduce Christianity to a set of rules rather than a personal relationship with Christ.” It gauges a man’s relationship to God in terms of adherence to man-made rules. It is always judgmental and always eliminates the need for moral decision-making, because decisions are made by a clearly delineated set of rules. The result is usually frustration and unhappiness, because those who are caught up in legalism are racked with guilt over their inability to keep those rules.

Legalism is also subtle and pervasive. None of us are ever completely able to overcome its influence in our lives. We continue to evaluate people on external issues such as skin color, ethnicity, dress, hairstyle, occupation, or education level, and ignore what they are on the inside. We all judge others by such externals and that is wrong.

Abiding by certain standards is not, in itself, legalism. Legalism is making those standards a gauge of one’s spiritual standing with God. Legalism says, “Keep the rules and you will be spiritual.” That isn’t spirituality; that is modern day Phariseeism.

God’s laws are absolute and unchanging. The physical laws by which sustain the universe do not change; they are absolute. So too, God’s moral laws do not change. It is always wrong to lie, steal, covet, and commit adultery.

But mankind has not been content to simply apply those standards. Instead, they have expounded upon them, interpreted them, and often twisted them. God’s absolutes are reinterpreted to include such matters as hairstyle and length, dancing, music styles, homeschooling vs. public education, and a host of other issues. And when we do that, we cheapen the Christian faith.

Please do not misunderstand. I do not object to parents or Christian schools having dress codes and prohibitions against certain activities. Rules function to control behavior for the common good of everyone in the home or school. It is not wrong to have rules. However, it is essential that people understand that compliance with such man-made rules and standards does not make one spiritual or improve his or her standing with God, but I'm afraid that many do often fall into such faulty thinking. When parents or Christian schools decide that focusing on externals is more important than focusing on the internal matter of the heart, they are doomed to create modern day Pharisees among the children who are entrusted to their care.

If you ask such individuals or school officials if they believe they are legalists, they will deny such with vociferous cries of denial and dismay that you would even think such might be the case. But if you ask the young people under their care what the essence of true spirituality is, you will often hear a recitation regarding obedience to the list of "do's" and don'ts" to which they have become accustomed.

Anytime rules are established which go beyond the clear imperatives of Scripture, we run the risk of developing a culture of legalism. And much of American evangelicalism has degenerated into such a culture.

So that's what I believe the problem is which we face with legalism. In the next post, I’ll look at how we have gotten to the place we are in evangelical Christianity, and why legalism fails to accomplish its intended purpose.

Saturday, May 3, 2008

The Wrath of God and the Gospel

By Bruce Mills

As I said in a previous post, I am teaching through the book of Romans in my Sunday School class. As I have been studying, I am preparing for an upcoming lesson on 1:18-32. Verse 18 is the starting point at which Paul begins to unfold the details of the gospel of which he is not ashamed. It reads: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.”

As I pondered this verse, I thought how it is that in today’s postmodern, evangelical culture, talking about the wrath of God against sinners isn’t a popular point to start trying to win someone to Christ. These days, we are told that the idea of a wrathful God is passé, and to tell people that they are sinful and corrupt and on their way to hell apart from a saving relationship to Christ is judgmental and intolerant.

In fact, let me read you what Brian McLaren, the leading spokesman of the Emergent Church movement, had to say about the subject of salvation. He states:

“Perhaps our ‘inward-turned, individual-salvation-oriented, un-adapted Christianity’ is a colossal and tragic misunderstanding, and perhaps we need to listen again for the true song of salvation, which is ‘good news to all creation.’ So perhaps it’s best to suspend what, if anything, you ‘know’ about what it means to call Jesus ‘Savior’ and to give the matter of salvation some fresh attention. Let’s start simply. In the Bible, save means ‘rescue’ or ‘heal’. It emphatically does not mean ‘save from hell’ or ‘give eternal life after death,’ as many preachers seem to imply in sermon after sermon. Rather its meaning varies from passage to passage, but in general, in any context, save means ‘get out of trouble.’ The trouble could be sickness, war, political intrigue, oppression, poverty, imprisonment, or any kind of danger or evil.”

So, in other words, people need to quit thinking about being saved from eternal judgment and only think about being saved from temporary problems. That sounds very different from Jesus, who said, “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28).

McLaren goes on to say:

Isn’t hell such a grave ‘bottom line’ that it devalues all other values? It so emphasizes the importance of life after death that it can unintentionally trivialize life before death. No wonder many people feel that ‘accepting Jesus as a personal Savior’ could make them a worse person—more self-centered and less concerned about justice on earth because of a preoccupation with forgiveness in heaven.

What he is saying here is that if you believe that you are saved from an eternal hell, you won’t be as concerned about justice and equal treatment for others during this life, because “I’ve got eternal life, so who cares what happens to everyone else!” And he remakes Jesus into a social justice mascot.

Another Emergent Church writer, Alan Jones, goes even further than McLaren. He states: “The Church’s fixation on the death of Jesus as the universal saving act must end, and the place of the cross must be reimagined in Christian faith. Why? Because of the cult of suffering and the vindictive God behind it.”

Let me just go on the record as saying that the Emergent Church movement is nothing more than an attempt to revive dead theological liberalism and disguise it by calling it evangelical. Just as the mainline denominations drifted from the true gospel which deals with eternal judgment, Christ’s substitutionary atonement, the forgiveness of sin, and eternal life, to a false gospel which focuses on the temporary problems of mankind such as social injustice, poverty, and oppression, so too, the Emergent Church is an attempt to redirect evangelicals toward a false gospel.

Beware of their deception. They will use phrasing such as this: “We just want to have a conversation about how to deconstruct and contextualize our understanding of Scripture so that we can reorient the whole Christian community around the missional heart of God and the incarnational ministry of Jesus.”

You may be reading that statement wondering what in the world it means, but I used it in order to bring your attention to certain “buzz” words that characterize the Emergent Church so that when you hear them used, warning bells ought to go off in your mind. They commonly and frequently use words such as “conversation,” “deconstruction,” “contextualize,” “reorient,” “community,” “mission” [and “missional”], and “incarnational” in their writings.

There are several more terms, but that’s just a few of the more common ones. If you have a hard time understanding what they are saying because it sounds like “double-speak,” it is probably post-modern Emergent Church garbage.

If you want to read a great book on the subject, buy Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck’s new book titled Why We Are Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be). It’s published by Moody Publishers and is the best articulation of the problems with the Emergent Church that I’ve read. And Phil Johnson, who is one of the leading voices on the dangers of post-modernism, gave it extremely high marks in his review of the book on his Pyromaniacs blog.

But don’t think this aversion to proclaiming a gospel that includes man’s sinful condition and condemnation is limited to the liberals and heretics. Much contemporary evangelism speaks only of the abundant life one can have in Christ, the joy and blessings of salvation, and the peace with God that faith in Christ brings. All of those benefits do result from true faith, but they are not the whole picture of God’s plan of salvation.

Just to show what I mean, I went to www.GodLovestheWorld.com, a website of Global Media Outreach, which provides the Four Spiritual Laws in 144 different languages and dialects. I read only the English version, since that’s the only language I can read fluently, and the thing I noticed about it, is that nowhere in the Four Spiritual Laws presentation of the gospel will you find the words “eternal judgment” or “hell” used. It does mention sin, which it states results in broken fellowship and “spiritual separation from God,” but it never states that God’s righteous holiness demands punishment for sin or that spiritual separation means an eternal hell.

Now, someone might try to excuse the incompleteness of the gospel presentation of the Four Spiritual Laws by saying, “But it has been so greatly used by God to bring people to faith in Christ.” But it does not answer the questions, “Why should I accept Christ?” and, “What am I being saved from?” If you are going to answer those questions—which you must—you must talk about man’s sin offending a holy God and that, as a result, God condemns him to eternal punishment in hell unless he comes to Christ in repentance and saving faith. So then, the corollary truth of God’s judgment against sin and those who participate in it must also be included in our presentation of the gospel.

That’s how Paul starts his presentation of the gospel—by explaining that the wrath of God abides on all mankind because of mankind’s rejection of God’s revelation of Himself.

For Paul, fear of eternal condemnation was the first motivation he offered for coming to Christ, the first pressure he applied to evil men. He was determined that they understand the reality of being under God’s wrath before he offered them the way of escape from it.

That approach makes both logical and theological sense to me. An individual cannot appreciate the incredible wonder of God’s grace until he understands the perfect demands of God’s law, and he cannot appreciate the infinite fullness of God’s love for him until he understands something about the infinite fierceness of God’s anger against his sinful failure to perfectly obey that law. No one can appreciate God’s forgiveness until he understands that his sin requires a penalty be paid and that unless they are forgiven, there is the consequence of an eternal hell.

Like the apostle Paul, we must not leave out these essential parts of the gospel when we present it to people. It is what makes the gospel “good news.”