Proclaiming the Historical Truth of the Gospel

The gospel does not need to be rescued. In, in the modern age or in any other age, every attempt to rescue the gospel ends up in a form of theological liberalism. The theological liberals themselves, going back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries said, "We've got the rescue Christianity from these truth claims, especially truth claims having to do with historical fact and eternal meaning, present consequences." [00:14:42]

The apostles were absolutely determined to make clear that they were not preaching cleverly devised myths. The New Testament, to be saved, doesn't have to be mythologized, demythologized. It simply has to be preached. And Peter then goes on, with specificity, to make very clear exactly what he's saying here. He is saying, "We were eyewitnesses of these events. We saw them with our own eyes. We heard the divine majesty say, 'This is my Son in whom I am well pleased' with our ears. We were there." Space, time, and history. [00:25:51]

The historical claims presented in Scripture do not begin with the Gospels. The historical claims do not begin with the New Testament. We also need to understand that an authentically evangelical, authentically faithful understanding of Scripture begins, that the historical accounts from Scripture begin with Genesis 1:1 -- "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." And we come to understand that wherever Scripture makes any historical truth claim, it is to be understood as revealing to us, conveying to us history which is history, as in the space-time continuum, taking place in exact accordance with what was revealed to us. [00:30:18]

Notice that Paul is not only making necessary historical claims here; he is clear that he knows he's making necessary historical claims. And not only that, he is raising these historical claims to of first importance, for he says, "I received that which was delivered also to me and that is that Christ died for our sins," space, time, and history, "according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that God raised Him from the dead according to the Scriptures." [00:33:30]

We are not here because of the right operation of our autonomous human reason. We are here because that ugly ditch is transcended by the gift of divine revelation. And, you know, that is exactly the point that Peter makes in 1 Peter, when you look back at that text once again. Peter says: "For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty." [00:39:11]

But you'll notice that Peter turns from his absolute unconditional assertions about what happened to what we have now. Writing to the church, he says, "And we have something more sure: the prophetic word to which you will do well to pay attention." Do you understand what he's saying there? He's saying, "I was there on the mountain. I saw Jesus with my own eyes. I heard the Majestic Glory with my own ears. But you have something better! You have the Scripture! You have the prophetic Word!" [00:41:07]

I can remember reading that book and having to mark it up knowing I was going to be tested on it and knowing I was going to have to talk about it, I can remember reading that book and then thinking this: "You know, if it didn't happen, it would be immoral to claim that it did. But if, by God's gift of revelation, we know that it did happen, and we know that that's the gospel of Christ, received as of first priority; if we know that salvation comes to those, to those who hear that gospel and, hearing that gospel, believe, and, believing, are saved; we know that the gospel is true and we know that Jesus Christ really was crucified for our sins and that He really was raised on the third day, then, brothers and sisters, it's immoral not to preach it. It's immoral not to tell it. It's immoral not to teach it." [00:43:34]

The Enlightenment was an intentional overthrow, in terms of especially its secular aspect, as represented by those we are citing here; as an intentional rejection of Christianity. But specifically, it was an intentional rejection of the Christian truth claim of revelation. And it was a complete rejection of the gospel of Jesus Christ, as that gospel is predicated upon, established upon certain events that took place in space, and in time, and in history; the saving acts of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ. [00:06:00]

Friedrich Schleiermacher, the founder of liberal theology, came along with the suggestion that, of course, Kant had been right and, of course, Lessing had been right. There is this ugly ditch. There is this mighty chasm. There is no way we can establish the, the Christian religion, as he called it, on the basis of some historical facts and then teachings that are understood to be immutably true by divine revelation based upon those very facts, including the fact of revelation itself. [00:06:34]

Rudolf Bultmann comes back to say, of course, of course, modern historical consciousness means that we cannot take the New Testament seriously as history. Of course. Of course it's impossible to trust sources that are, are, are so ancient, in terms of the modern demands of historiography. It's impossible to take the New Testament seriously as history. And, instead, he argued that the New Testament in particular, and the stories of Jesus found in the Gospels in particular, and the teaching of the early church, had to be, in his words, "demythologized." [00:09:56]

The quest for the historical Jesus, you get the new quest, and you get the Jesus Seminar. The Jesus Seminar was headed by a man by the name of Robert Funk, a professor of New Testament who gathered together a bunch of scholars and they decided they were going to use, here again, simply the tools of secular historiography in order to determine how much of the New Testament was historically credible. And I'm not making this up. They met together, and each participant in the seminar had four colored marbles. [00:16:03]

In the 1980s, I can remember, in seminary, being introduced to the work of Hans Frei and his colleagues at Yale. And this was being introduced as the, "this is another rescue attempt." This was being introduced as the next new thing in terms of how to rescue Christianity from its historic truth claims. Hans Frei said that even though the vast majority of the New Testament is not to be taken as historical, he said it's "history-like." It's like history. It should be read as being "like history." [00:18:25]