The Biblical Definition of the Preaching the Gospel

 

Eangelion-the Greek word for gospel. The meaning of the word is the proclamation of the good news, as the apostles did in the New Testament. 

There are many passages of Scripture used in the justification debate. However, that shall not be the purpose of this post. Rather, I wish simply to blog about a common lie frequently spread throughout Christendom. 

Here is the lie: Catholics don't preach the gospel. Those making this claim often say the same about Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, the Churches of Christ, and anyone believing in baptismal regeneration. While we can debate whether or not Baptismal Regeneration is Biblical, or what makes the believer righteous in God's sight, or what is the process of justification for a Christian, claiming that Catholics and others don't preach the gospel is a scary conclusion for anyone to make. 

Those who claim Catholics don't preach the gospel will point to passages like Ephesians 2, Galatians 3, and Romans 3-4 as they argue that Sola fide is taught in Scripture. Catholics, in return, will point to James 2, Matthew 24: 23, and 1 Peter 3: 21 as evidence of justification by faith and works. While each side has their own explanation of the verses used by the opposition, Protestants and Catholics are each convinced that their side is the one rooted in Scripture. It is not my intention in this post to argue for which one that I believe has the backing of Scripture, but simply to clarify that Catholics do indeed preach the gospel. 

It should be remembered, however, that the gospel is always pertaining to the good news in the New Testament. That is the literal meaning of the phrase, after all. The gospel is the proclamation of good news concerning Christ. 

In 1 Corinthians 15, the definition of gospel is defined in the context of preaching the death and resurrection of Christ. Nothing about Sola fide is mentioned. 

Technically, both Catholics and Protestants preach the gospel. Why? Because they both preach about the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Christ. Thus, Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who say that Catholics don't preach the gospel are either (1) ignorant of Scripture or (2) lying. If the former is true, they need to enlightened according to truth. If the latter is true, they are headed to eternal destruction as liars do not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6). 

That's not to take away Catholic and Protestant differences in justification. It's just to say that both preach the gospel. It would be far more honest to admit substantial differences in justification rather than point figures and claim falsehood about whatever side is your opposition. 

Additionally, when some say that the gospel is an essential of the faith and therefore, anyone who denies Sola fide is lost, they are good either (1) being ignorant or (lying) about those who think otherwise. Scripturally, the Bible never defined the gospel as one's view of justification. This is shocking for some to believe, because many have been imbred in man-made traditions that the gospel is Sola fide, as if the two are one and the same. 

The New Perspective on Paul has rightly pointed out that the Gospel was never about justification in New Testament theology. Rather, it was the proclamation of Christ as good news to the nations. But the New Perspective didn't make this up. Catholics and Orthodox had said the same long before the new perspective was known. In fact, the same critics who criticize the New perspective for being new are accepting of the Protestant Reformation being new to those in the 1500s. Indeed, Luther and Calvin shook the world by defining justification, for instance, in ways that essentially no theologian ever had before. 

Don't take Wright or the Catholic Church's word for it. Look for one example in the New Testament where the Gospel is mentioned, and see if it is ever mentioned in the context of justification---because it isn't. 

Evangelicals who oppose Catholicism can and should continue their theological discussions on justification and other issues. I'm not arguing otherwise. Again, I simply wish that the reader see how the Gospel is not one and the same as justification. 

Some of the criticism against Wright and those endorsing the New Perspective have not been consistent. For example, in the link below*1, Wayne Grudem criticizes Wright for saying that most theologians have gotten this issue wrong since, at least, Augustine. Grudem finds it remarkable that Wright could say this since that was 1,600 years ago. Yet Grudem himself has no problem thinking the church fathers before Augustine were wrong on baptism, the Eucharist, church government, etc. In short, many of the reformed and pseudo-reformed critics of the New Perspective hold to later traditions in church history, as they insist that no one altar them. 

Is everything within the New Perspective on Paul ''wrong'' because it is a newer movement? If so, why embrace the Reformation. For just as Luther and Calvin claimed that their views were backed by Scripture, so did Michael F. Bird, N. T. Wright, Peter Leithart, and others. And if one wants to truly be safe by holding to more historic tenets of Christian theology, there is always the option of Orthodoxy or Catholicism, for both precede Protestantism and the New Perspective on Paul. 

Finally, the Gospel is not about how we are saved. Rather, it is about what the good news of who Jesus is, that He is Lord and King of Creation, and that He is Savior. Implictely connected to who He is is, of course, the process through Him in which we are saved. But strictly speaking, the Gospel is not what James in James 2 or what Paul in Romans 3-4 was talking about. 

Read 1 Corinthian 15: 1-58. In the provided passage, Paul does connect the preaching of the Gospel to men becoming saved, yet he never explains the Gospel as explaining the process of our justification. In fact, verses 12-`19 show that his understanding of the Gospel is that Jesus is risen and dead no longer. 

*1-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrAmtwZivpQ