Is the Gospel simple?

[e.r.m.]

Many today advertise that the gospel is simple, as if it is a rule of law. 'Truth is simple, the gospel is simple, salvation is simple.' The less we have to do to get saved, the more loving God is.

This Gospel reads like: "God loves you and wants you to have a personal relationship with Him. He sent his son Jesus to die for you. Now just believe in Him and accept His gift."

The phrases "Accept Jesus as your personal savior, Invite Jesus into your heart, Receive His free gift of salvation" and more phrases make the "simple gospel" even easier to adopt.

But is the gospel "simple" as some suggest?

In the book, Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die
Chip Heath and Dan Heath.

Six processes are described that get people to believe just about anything, true or false. Amongst them is Simplicity. Human nature makes us prone to believe ideas that are simple. If you express an idea in a simple way, it sells better. Think of the phrases, Go green, Got Milk?, Obey your thirst, Quench your thirst, Stay thirsty my friends, Have it your way, Where's the beef? When an advertisement is simple, it is more effective.

With the simple Gospel stated above, many times people buy into it is because people like things quick and easy. It is human nature.
Prior to Billy Sunday the conversion process and the altar call were seen as relatively lengthy deep processes. Billy Sunday brought us into the modern era of quicky salvation (dare I say, fast food salvation?) I think it was him that convinced people that the gospel and salvation ought to be simple.
[youtube]xmpCC4jhng8[/youtube]
The History of the Sinner's Prayer - The Graham Formula - Patrick McIntyre (full) - YouTube

I decided to read what John the Baptist and Jesus started out preaching. Surprise, surprise, it was not God loves you and wants a personal relationship with you.
They first preached, "Repent and believe the good news." Repenting of one's sins: bitterness, selfish acts, stealing, etc. went hand in hand with believing the good news.

Believing was not an intellectual excercise, the heart need to be prepared. In Luke 14:25-33, Jesus discusses about estimating the cost of following him. In other parts Jesus tells would be followers that "The son of man has no place to lay His head." Jesus spent 3 years preparing people's hearts, Before he died for them. That is a hefty investment. Peter baptized about 3,000 people based on Jesus's preparation, Acts 2: 22 “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[d] put him to death by nailing him to the cross.

The Biblical way of preparing someone comes at a cost, to the preparer and the preparee.

Then people added catch phrases "Invite Jesus into your heart to be saved", "Accept Jesus as personal savior to be saved", "Receive your salvation." Making the conversion process seem even simpler.

The majority of "simple gospel" people I have encountered (not on this website, people here are well studied, I am happy about that), have not been able to give a thorough scriptural description on how they were saved.

When people are encouraged to believe in the simple gospel, like Billy Bright's four spiritual laws, they are by default, discouraged to understand salvation according to scriptures.

Although baptism has been discussed at length, one other phenomenon that happens is that the simplified gospel leaves baptism out. Baptism is considered something extra, -after one is saved. "Salvation must be simpler than having to get baptized" Can one imagine Billy Graham at a gathering of tens of thousands: "Everyone here visiting for the first time. Get with the person who invited you and study the Bible, so they may teach you the Gospel throroughly." Of course not, Billy would want people to be saved right now! The gospel must be made simple to reach so many people efficiently.

I searched in the Bible, and no one refers to the gospel as simple.

My conclusion is that the gospel being simple is a marketing tool like "personal" savior.

Simple is NOT the rule of law when it comes to the gospel, truth is.

The Simple Gospel and the Biblical Gospel do not agree.

In police tv shows, the truth of the villain is never simple, but at the end of the show, it is always very clear.

Colossians

4:4 Pray that I may proclaim it clearly, as I should.

Paul wanted to make the gospel clear, not simple.

But because of Human Nature, people loving simplicity and all - According to Heath and Heath, people are prone to accept the abridged, incomplete gospel when it's presented to them in simple form.

 

[idea]

I like your OP. It almost sounds like a "grace vs. works" thread (I believe it takes both). The concepts of being loving, don't be bitter, forgive one another, repent - the concepts are simple, but the application can sometimes be tricky.

It's true, we'd like to sugar-coat everything, and make it easy, do what you want, everything is peachy kind of a feel-good deal - but there is work involved, things we need to overcome, evil in the world, refinement to be had in the fire.

 

[e.r.m.]

Qp

I like your OP. It almost sounds like a "grace vs. works" thread (I believe it takes both). The concepts of being loving, don't be bitter, forgive one another, repent - the concepts are simple, but the application can sometimes be tricky.

It's true, we'd like to sugar-coat everything, and make it easy, do what you want, everything is peachy kind of a feel-good deal - but there is work involved, things we need to overcome, evil in the world, refinement to be had in the fire.

Thank you. I agree, it takes work.

Feel free to read through the thread 'What is a work?'

Is OP = opinion?

 

[idea]

Is OP = opinion?

opening post - the thread starter post . I'll check out your works thread! thanks!

 

[e.r.m.]

openbing post - the thread starter post . I'll check out your works thread! thanks!

Thank you.

 

[sojourner]

The message is simple: Turn your lives around, because God's kingdom has come near.
The work of transformation is difficult: The narrow gate, the narrow road.

 

[F0uad]

I would agree the gospels are not simple all 4 have different Historical stories its hard to get the real picture.

 

[sojourner]

I would agree the gospels are not simple all 4 have different Historical stories its hard to get the real picture.

But by having four different perspectives, one does get a more complete picture.

 

[F0uad]

But by having four different perspectives, one does get a more complete picture.

Thats illogical if the stories would describe the same thing over and over by the four witnesses without some big errors it would have been more trustworthy or acceptable.. at-least in my eyes. And certainly if we look at the Gospels in a way of Historical stories.

 

[sojourner]

Thats illogical if the stories would describe the same thing over and over by the four witnesses without some big errors it would have been more trustworthy or acceptable.. at-least in my eyes. And certainly if we look at the Gospels in a way of Historical stories.

But they're not historical stories. They are theological treatments. Only Luke purports to be history. And we have to understand that "history" to a first century Palestinian has a far different methodology from "history" as understood by a Modern.
I look at the gospels like pieces of a quilt. The quilt is more interesting the more different kinds of fabric you include.

 

[e.r.m.]

The message is simple: Turn your lives around, because God's kingdom has come near.
The work of transformation is difficult: The narrow gate, the narrow road.

Simple, but not easy.

 

[sojourner]

Simple, but not easy.

Right. And not because the work of transformation is intrinsically difficult. Jesus tells us that his yoke is easy. it's difficult because we resist change. We are fully subject to the natural law of inertia. We're at rest, and we tend to stay at rest.

 

[e.r.m.]

Right. And not because the work of transformation is intrinsically difficult. Jesus tells us that his yoke is easy. it's difficult because we resist change. We are fully subject to the natural law of inertia. We're at rest, and we tend to stay at rest.

I agree. Which is why I believe it says
Luke 9:23-24
Then he said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. [24] For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it.

The simple gospel from my first post leaves this out.

 

[F0uad]

But they're not historical stories. They are theological treatments. Only Luke purports to be history. And we have to understand that "history" to a first century Palestinian has a far different methodology from "history" as understood by a Modern.
I look at the gospels like pieces of a quilt. The quilt is more interesting the more different kinds of fabric you include.

Yes i can agree there different methodology between the first century Palestinians and modern witnesses but giving a false account is forbidden

So if we were to use different scriptures would you also read it the same way as the gospels?

 

[sojourner]

Yes i can agree there different methodology between the first century Palestinians and modern witnesses but giving a false account is forbidden

So if we were to use different scriptures would you also read it the same way as the gospels?

Since none of them are histories (with the possible exception of Luke), I'd have to say that "false account" just doesn't matter. Stories are stories. And even ancient histories didn't pay attention to factual details like modern history.

 

[F0uad]

Since none of them are histories (with the possible exception of Luke), I'd have to say that "false account" just doesn't matter. Stories are stories. And even ancient histories didn't pay attention to factual details like modern history.

So you see the Gospels as ''Stories'' ? And Error based ''Stories'' without being historical :help:
I am not talking about ''Details'' i am talking about direct contradictions between the two or more ''Witnesses'' it looks more to me that some lived among other times then the others.

So how does ''God-Revelation'' comes in the picture and you didn't answer my second question..

 

[sojourner]

So you see the Gospels as ''Stories'' ?

I see the gospels as Geschichte.

I am not talking about ''Details'' i am talking about direct contradictions between the two or more ''Witnesses''

we're pretty sure that none of the gospelers were witnesses.

it looks more to me that some lived among other times then the others.

Correct.

So how does ''God-Revelation'' comes in the picture

Who said anything about "God revelation?"

To answer your second question:

No. Different texts require different reading.

 

[e.r.m.]

I like your OP. It almost sounds like a "grace vs. works" thread (I believe it takes both). The concepts of being loving, don't be bitter, forgive one another, repent - the concepts are simple, but the application can sometimes be tricky.

It's true, we'd like to sugar-coat everything, and make it easy, do what you want, everything is peachy kind of a feel-good deal - but there is work involved, things we need to overcome, evil in the world, refinement to be had in the fire.

There are a number of Baptists that are confronting the fallacies of the quick & easy sinner's prayer salvation. Some of them dismiss the "accepting Jesus as savior" prayer in favor of biblical terminology, like coming to faith and belief.

 

[F0uad]

I see the gospels as Geschichte.

we're pretty sure that none of the gospelers were witnesses.

Correct.

Who said anything about "God revelation?"

To answer your second question:

No. Different texts require different reading.

Hmm.. never heard this kind of approach to the books for a Christian.
Can i ask do you belief it being God's revelation?

 

[sojourner]

Hmm.. never heard this kind of approach to the books for a Christian.
Can i ask do you belief it being God's revelation?

It's God-inspired. but not God-revelation. It's a product of people -- not God.