Gesunde Lehre | Sound Doctrine

Achtung! Nichts für Leute mit empfindlichen Ohren! Nur für solche die die Wahrheit suchen! (2.Tim4,3-4)| Attention! Not for people with itching ears! Only for those seeking the truth! (2.Tim4:3-4)

Die Präsentation Des Evangeliums Mit Hilfe Der 4 Punkte Muss Geändert Werden - in Arbeit (10% übersetzt)

The english version of the article on this page can be found here

Anmerkung: Diese Seite ist nur provisorisch und noch nicht vollständig / fertig ausgearbeitet

Die Präsentation Des Evangeliums Mit Hilfe Der 4 Punkte Muss Geändert Werden

Nachfolgend Informationen Weshalb die Präsentation des Evangeliums mit Hilfe der 4 Punkten Fragwürdig ist:

  • Busse (Abkehr von aller Sünde zum Zeitpunkt der Bekehrung) fehlt und wird bewusst weggelassen (oftmals wissen das die meisten gar nicht, dass man sich von aller Sünde zum Zeitpunkt der Bekehrung abwenden MUSS, deshalb wird es logischerweise oftmals auch nicht erwähnt von jenen, die die 4 Punkte benutzen, um das "Evangelium" weiterzusagen)
  • "Glaube-Allein"-Theologie (reformierte/calvinistische Theologie) wird gefördert
  • Hölle wird in der offiziellen Version nicht erwähnt, sondern stattdessen "Trennung von Gott"

´Artikel von Dr. Charles Woodbridge´

"Die Vier Geistlichen Gesetze" kontra Paulus' Evangelium

Ursprünglich von Dr. Charles Woodbridge. Der Inhalt wurde ursprünglich in Englisch veröffentlicht.

Aus _Campus Crusade Examined in the Light of Scripture._

Link zum Original: web.archive.org/web/20130105004024/http://www.biblebelievers.net/falseteaching/kjcfourlaws.htm

Einführung

[Dr. Woodbridge unterstützte Campus Crusade in deren frühesten Tagen, aber musste seine Unterstützung zurückziehen und anfangen, eine biblische Warnung auszusprechen, aufgrund des falschen Pfades, den die Organisation eingeschlagen hat.]

Mein Urteil auf der schlichten Lehre der Bibel basierend, achte ich diese "Gesetze" als eine total mangelhafte, in der Tat eine entmannte und irreführende Präsentation des gesegneten Evangeliums des Sohnes Gottes.

Falls sie betitelt worden wären als "Vier Fromme Prinzipien" statt "Die Vier Geistlichen Gesetze", so hätte ich vielleicht wenig dazu zu sagen im Sinne einer Widerlegung.

But to begin with, the use of the definite article "The" is disturbing. The implication is that the "Laws," as the Crusade presents them, are exclusive, definitive and thoroughly adequate. Having discovered and embraced them, a fortunate seeker is presumably bound for Heaven.

When one purports to reduce any subject to four central descriptive items, logic dictates that he must not eliminate from these items the essential ingredients of the matter under discussion. When a physician is prescribing for his patient, he must not remove from his formula necessary but perhaps disagreeable or unpalatable drugs. No faithful analyst, when seeking to abbreviate, must relegate to footnotes the crucial areas of the subject he is publicizing. He must spell out in no uncertain terms -- whether his readers are impressed favorably or not -- the precise, basic, fundamental, and differentiating character of his proposition.

I believe that Campus Crusade has tragically failed to do this. As the result there is every probability that great numbers of earnest students, whose response to the "Laws" has seemed to be affirmative, have a false and unwarranted sense of spiritual security. If my deduction is correct -- and the evidence would lead me to believe that it is -- this would be a tragedy of great proportions.

Years ago I wrote the Director of the Crusade with this in mind. I had the positive, constructive, but admittedly forlorn hope that I might be able to help him to extricate his movement from the doctrinal inadequacies in which "The Four Spiritual Laws" had enmeshed him. I received no reply to my letter. Years have elapsed since them. I now feel that it is my solemn duty under God to speak out in defense of the old, well-tested, and thoroughly proved ways.

Lass uns zuerst die "Gesetze" als Gesamtes untersuchen, immer im Hinterkopf vergleichend mit der Herrlichkeit und dem Wunder des biblischen Evangeliums der Gnade.

In jedem der vier "Gesetze" wird der göttliche Plan für jemandes Leben erwähnt. Die Geschichte lautet folgendermassen: Gott hat einen wunderbaren Plan für das Leben eines Menschen; aufgrund dem feindlichen/ungünstigen geistlichen Zustand des Menschen kann er diesen Plan für sein Leben nicht wissen; wenn die passenden Massnahmen ergriffen werden, kann er den Plan für sein Leben wissen.

Dies ist nicht die Art und Weise, auf welche das Evangeliium in der Bibel verkündet wird. Der Ansatz von Crusade ist anthropozentrisch ("mensch-zentriert"). Er impliziert, dass das summum bonum, das entscheidende Problem [engl. issue] ist, dass ein Individuum Gottes wunderbaren Plan für sein Leben kennenlernen kann.

Der biblische Ansatz ist theozentrisch ("Gott-zentriert"). The writers first laid the background of the being and attributes of God, sublime in His sovereignty, ineffable in His majesty and holiness. They quickly stressed the blazing fact that the righteousness of God has been outraged by human sin and that apart from Divine, unmerited grace, man's deadly guilt (Romans 3:19) will bring upon him the wrath of God (Romans 1:18), the deserved judgment of the Lord (Romans 2:2), and ensuing death (Romans 6:23). The amazing be-all and end-all of the Gospel, according to the Bible, is not what man may or may not know about the Divine plan for his life; but it is the everlasting glory of the living God.

Wie verschieden ist das von den "Vier Geistlichen Gesetzen". Der Höllen- verdienende Sünder has far more to reflect upon, prior to his salvation, than the optimistic confidence dass irgendwo im trüben blauen "dort drüben" Gott einen befriedigenden Plan für sein Leben hat!

GESETZT NUMMER EINS

Aber nun zu "Gesetz Eins" selbst: "Gott liebt dich und hat einen wunderbaren Plan für dein Leben." Dann zwei Fussnoten: Johannes 3,16 und John 10,10. (Ist es nicht verblüffend, dass Johannes 3,16 um alles in der Welt in jemandes Fussnote sein kann!)

Ein paar Überlegungen in Bezug auf dieses erste "Gesetz".

First, the booklet announcing these "Laws" is used indiscriminately with believers and unbelievers. May I ask a rather obvious question? Precisely what "wonderful plan" does God have for the unbelieving sinner who steadfastly and persistently rejects Christ Jesus as Saviour? Antwort: der "See, der mit Feuer brennt." Dies ist vielmehr eine beängstigende, als eine "wunderbare" Perspektive.

Second, is not the Crusade aware of the fact that even a pious Mohammedan might believe that the compassionate God might have a plan for his life?

This being true, the Crusade is left with only three distinctively Christian "Laws."

Third, who is the "God" to whom the Crusade refers in Law One? When the apostles wrote of Him, it was against a religious background of understanding -- their Hebrew readers knew Who God is. But when Paul spoke to Gentiles on the Areopagus (Acts 17), he explained Who the Almighty is.

The Crusade darf es nicht für selbstverständlich betrachten, dass diese verwirrte, ungelehrte Generation von college Studenten wissen, Wer Gott der HERR ist.. At the very outset of the "Laws" it should be made clear Who the One is with Whom the students have to do. Er ist der Heilige, Herrschende, Allmächtigende Schöpfer des Universums.

This observation on my part is not a vague fancy. I heard one of the Crusade's bright and shining lights, a university football star, give his public testimony. Er verwies auf den Gott der Weltzeiten als "der Mann da oben". Manche mögen dies als gerechtfertigte Puerilität [Unreife] ansehen. Ich achte es als Gotteslästerung. I happened to be the other speaker that evening. Bevor ich die Menge ansprach, wandte ich mich an den Studenten und sagte ihm direkt, dass bevor er andern bezeugen würde er sich darüber sicher sein solle, dass er selbst im Blut des Lammes Gottes gewaschen sei und dass er wirklich den lebendigen und wahren Gott kennt.

I do not imply nicht für einen Moment, dass die Crusade Leiter all ihrern Zuhörern einen Kurs in Systematischer Theologie geben sollten. Aber ich bestehe darauf, dass wenn Männer und Frauen die Dinge Gottes handhaben, sie verdeutlichen müssen Wer Er ist, der unbeschreibliche [zu überwältigend um in Worten auszudrücken!] Herr der Herrlichkeit.

A defender of the Crusade might reply: "'The Four Spiritual Laws' are just a summary of truth. The personal workers fill in the gaps." Auf diese Erklärung ist meine Antwort zweifältig.

First, when one is reducing any subject to four basic points, it is the height of folly to omit crucial matters with the trivial explanation that assistants will subsequently explain them. For example, if one is summarizing the theme "Aviation," he will not omit the fact that airplanes have wings and a motor, in the confident expectation that the learner will have these addenda elucidated by assistants after his effort to take off from the earth!

Zweitens, wenn die Assistenten von Crusade in der Tat versuchen, zu erklären Wer Gott ist, so scheinen sie trostlos zu versagen. Warum sonst die Seichtigkeit und Frivolität/Leichtsinnigkeit in den "Zeugnissen" von so vielen ihrer "Bekehrten"?

DAS ZWEITE GESETZ

Und nun das zweite "Geistliche Gesetz" von Crusade: "Der Mensch ist sündhaft und getrennt von Gott."

So weit so gut. Ich lobe Crusade dafür, dass sie die Sache so klar ausgedrückt haben.

Aber Bibelgläubige, die im Wort Gottes unterrichtet sind, mögen wohl erwarten, dass das "Gesetz" erweitert wäre, um die unvermeidlichen Folgen zu umfassen.

Was sind diese biblischen Folgen? In einer Fussnote werden Römer 3,23 und 6,23 zitiert. Eine erklärende Anmerkung deutet an, dass der Sünde seinen eigenen unabhängigen Weg geht und die Gemeinschaft mit Gott gebrochen ist; Beweis für Sünde ist eine "Einstellung" der aktiven Rebellion oder passiven Gleichgültigkeit.

But no uninformed college student, meditating upon this second "Law," could possibly understand that sin is far more than an attitude of independence or rebellion. God has given to sinful man His Holy Law, which reflects His perfect nature and sovereign will. Sin is an open, flagrant breach of that Law or a stubborn refusal to obey it. Apart from the Law of God sin cannot possibly be understood. It is far worse than an "attitude" or a going on one's own "independent way." It is primarily a heart condition, but it is also an act wrought in defiance of the will of God.

What are the consequences of this heart condition and defiance? The second "Law" states that the sinner is "separated" from God and is out of fellowship with Him. The Bible is far more detailed and explicit. It tells the sinner in no uncertain terms precisely what the separation and loss of fellowship involve. The consequences of willful disobedience are horrible indeed. The Bible speaks of "hell." It reminds us of the "lake of fire" (Rev. 20:15). It suggests the endless, conscious torment of Christ- rejecting sinners. This is the dreadful doom of unbelievers. And it is from this that believers are saved by grace.

For all this the Crusade substitutes in its second "Law," apart from a modest footnote quoting Romans 6:23, the dismal consequence that as the result of the sinner's separation from God "he cannot know and experience God's love and plan for his life!"

Das Problem mit dieser Aussage ist, dass sie nicht nur schwach und anti- climactic ist, sondern dass sie auch falsely oriented und irreführend ist. Es erzeugt einen naiven und unberechtigten Optimismus.

In the first place it is, as in the case of the first "Law," man-centered and thus out of line with the total revelation of God. The paramount result of sin and separation appears to be the unfortunate inconvenience that the sinner has lost the sense of God's love and plan for his life!

Secondly, the "Law" omits what the Bible never omits -- the eternal, unmitigated, drastic consequences of sin and separation. How can a person possibly know what it is to be saved unless he is made aware of that from which he is saved? Why not follow the Biblical pattern and tell the whole truth?

Once more the Crusade's rejoinder might be: "We are simply giving a readily understandable summary of truth. We have not space within the confines of the second 'Law' to tell the whole truth." But frankly, can even a "summary" of the Gospel which is worthy to be used as a basis of witnessing to college students possibly eliminate a clear presentation of the actual consequences of sin?

Drittens -- und dies ist lediglich eine Beobachtung -- der abgesonderte/abgetrennte Sünder, der beharrt im Ablehnen der angebotenen Liebe Gottes wird gewisslich den göttlichen Plan für sein Leben wissen! Dieser plan ist das "Gericht vor dem grossen weissen Thron" und "der See, der mit Feuer brennt"!

Bin ich übermässig kritisch? Is this merely a conflict between two relatively similar concepts? Is the Crusade's view simply an exposition of the thoughts of a newer, perhaps more enlightened, generation? Ich möchte meinen Lesern versichern, dass nichts weiter weg von der Wahrheit sein könnte.

One of the leading Crusade writers hat die Katze aus dem Sack gelassen. The Crusade, um es ganz offen auszudrücken, gefällt die Idee der "Hölle" nicht, soweit ihr witness betroffen ist. The writer in question has carefully explained that in testifying to college students. Crusaders "sollten 'Hölle' mit 'ewige Trennung von Gott' ersetzen."

Please do not think that I am quibbling about unimportant ideas. Have you recently studied Romans or Hebrews or Revelation? May I mildly inquire by what authority the Crusade spokesman chooses what words of the Bible he desires to eliminate? Und damit keine meiner Leser mehr Zweifel hegen bezüglich der Gültigkeit meines Arguments, möchte ich sie daran erinnern, dass derselbe Verfasser die Verwegenheit hat, zu deklarieren/verkünden -- and I cannot but wonder why a multitude of old-fashioned Bible believers do not arise in heiligem Protest -- dass wird das Wort "gerettet" (zumindest am Anfang) ersetzen mit 'eine persönliche Beziehung mit Christus eingehen'."

Thus the terrors of Divine wrath are neatly minimized and, probably from the poor student who simply wants a plan for his life, eliminated! Die Gesamtheit der Wahrheit ist verkürzt, und zwar nicht, weil die "Gesetze" lediglich eine "Zusammenfassung" sind, sondern weil the Crusade has taken it upon itself, sie zu verkürzen!

DAS DRITTE GESETZ

The Crusade's third "Law" really troubles me. It does indeed state that Christ is "God's only provision for sin." Splendid! It quotes verses in footnotes (of all places) which indicate that Christ died in our place, that He is the only way to the Father, and that He bridged the chasm between the sinner and God.

But the difficulty is that the "Law" does not tell us Who Jesus Christ is.

College students on the whole have only a glimmering of truth in this area.

Coming, as most of them do, from modernist churches or godless cultures, they do not know that Jesus Christ is God, the everlasting Son of the Father, Who existed from eternity in the bosom of the Father, and Who for the sins of a rebellious race became incarnate and suffered, bled, and died for the remission of our sins.

Moreover, the third "Law" makes no mention of the incarnation, the vicarious blood atonement, the resurrection of the eternal Son "for our justification" (Rom. 4:25). Thus it does not really explain what it means by "God's only provision." This is not the apostolic mode of presentation. "Without the shedding of blood is no remission" (Heb. 9:22). "The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" (I John 1:7). Such verses as these make the matter plain. Any "Law" which may make passing, appeasing references to related verses but which fails to disclose the identity of our blessed Lord or to mention His outpoured blood for sinners does not remotely resemble the Gospel preaching of the apostles. Is Campus Crusade trying to avoid "the offense of the cross"? It appears to be doing exactly that.

And, according to the third "Law," what is the net result of Christ's being "God's only provision for man's sin"? Is it a paean of praise from worshipping hosts of angels around the throne? Is it the eternal adoration of believers in glory because the God-man's work of redemption has been consummated on behalf of lost sinners? Is it antiphonal echoes of wonder resounding through the corridors of Heaven?

The third "Law" gives the answer: "Through Him you can know God's love and plan for your life"! Words fail me. How incomplete and man-centered can a movement be?

DAS VIERTE GESETZ

And now the fourth "Law": "We must receive Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord by personal invitation; then we can know and experience God's love and plan for our lives."

This "Law" might be regarded as helpful if "Law" Three had explained precisely Who Christ is, how He saved sinners, and what it means for one to call Him Saviour and risen Lord. But the third "Law" has left a great vacuum. No wonder college Crusaders seem to be so uninformed. May I show what I mean?

In the Crusade's Collegiate Challenge (Vol. 6, No. 2) we read: "Val talked with a girl who wasn't very interested, but as she listened to the Four Spiritual Laws, she decided to invite Christ into her life. Then she told her girl friend who had also received Christ. 'Our week had been so dull, but what a change.' Her friend replied, 'Yeah, now we're in the in-group.'" Some sentimental, uninstructed soul might breathe a sympathetic sigh and remark, "Isn't that sweet?" But I should like to ask every truly informed reader a pointed question: "Does this sound to you like genuine Biblical conversion on the basis of Christ's atoning work and through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit of the living God?" Of course it does not. And why should it?

In a sheet prepared by Campus Crusade entitled "How to Prepare a Personal Testimony," their workers are told: "Don't use ... words such as 'saved,' 'convicted,' 'converted,' 'born again,' and 'sin.'" These words may be precious to the Crusaders, it is intimated, but "they do not communicate truth to the average non-Christian."

If this dogmatic thesis were true -- and praise the Lord it is not -- how in the world have faithful evangelists through the years, men of God who used these blessed words in the energy of the Holy Spirit, been so marvelously instrumental in bringing precious souls to Christ? Further, is it not true that the Holy Spirit has blessed the use of these very words in the proclamation of the Gospel to sinners? Was Nicodemus a believer when our Lord told him that he had to be "born again"? Were the people surrounding Simon Peter believers when he warned them: "Repent ... and be converted" (Acts 3:19)?

How dare any movement that calls itself "Christian" toss aside lightly the Words of the Omniscient God? Is it to cater to the intellectual or spiritual immaturity of college students? In my opinion this is what Campus Crusade is doing, apparently without fear of weighty contradiction.

May I be a bit more analytical? Three verses of Scripture and words of explanation are given in the footnotes of the fourth "Law." The verses are:

John 1:12; Eph. 2:8,9; and Rev. 3:20. Of course, we are always delighted to discover the Word of God, even if it is relegated to footnotes, in any set of guidelines which have to do with leading souls to the Saviour. And the words of explanation, if they had a solid foundation, could conceivably be of genuine help. They read: "We must receive Christ; we receive Christ through faith; we receive Christ by personal invitation." It then adds:

"Receiving Christ involves turning to God from self, trusting Christ to come into our lives, to forgive our sins and to make us to be what He wants us to be."

All this suggests several questions of supreme importance.

First, not having been told in the first three "Laws" either Who Christ is or how He saved the lost sinner, how can a student really receive the Son of God intelligently as his Saviour?

Second, the word "Saviour" has been bandied about through the centuries.

It is widely misunderstood. It has been given various meanings, some totally false and others deceitfully close to Biblical truth. It is of great importance that true witnesses for Christ always make the title crystal clear.

Die Anhänger von Albrecht Ritschl, mögen das Wort "Retter" vielleicht gebrauchen in Bezug auf Christus. Sie würden meinen, dass Jesus uns rettet, durch Seine moralische Beeinflussung auf unsere Leben, from our base und unwürdigen Motivierungen.

Mary Baker Eddy, Mutter der Christlichen Wissenschaft, schrieb (Science and Health, Seite 39): "Christ wrought a full salvation from sin, sickness and death." Dennoch ist Christliche Wissenschaft so weit entfernt von orthodoxem Christentum, wie es nur möglich ist. Behold what Mrs. Eddy actually means: "His consummate example was for the salvation of us all" (Seite 51). Ist es nicht deutlich, dass der wahre Crusader für Christus in Opposition zu diser Art von falscher Lehre, erklären muss, dass der Herr Jesus uns rettet von Sünde durch Sein perfektes Opfer auf Golgatha?

Even Harry Emerson Fosdick, one of America's leading modernists, did not hesitate to write of Christ: "He died as he lived, a savior. That his saviorhood is unique in its scope and impact is obvious, but the principle of it is not unique. We can all share it" (Dear Mr. Brown, Seite 134). You see, Dr. Fosdick, one of the leading unbelievers of the twentieth century, called Jesus "Savior." And, demonstrating his infidelity to the Word of God, in the same book (Seite 136) he speaks of the substitutionary atonement wrought by our Lord as a "pre-civilized barbarity."

Cannot the Crusade be brought to understand that the Saviourhood of the Son of God must be meticulously explained? Else college students too may speak of Him as "Saviour" while meaning something altogether different from the truth!

What a glorious opportunity is missed in the fourth "Law"! When Christ as He is depicted in the Scriptures is truly received as Saviour, what vistas of rapture break upon the redeemed soul! Now the sinner has been born again into the family of God. Now he has become a joint-heir with the Son of the Father! Now Heaven, with all its infinity of blessing, has its gates flung open to welcome him!

How does the Crusade's fourth "Law" summarize all this wondrous treasure- store of delights? Read its words. Ponder them carefully and, perhaps, a little wistfully. Compare them with the Bible. Understand their man-centered nature. Nun at long last, das "Gesetz" lautet wie folgt: "Wir können Gottes Liebe und Plan für unser Leben erkennen und erfahren." Was für eine anti-climactic Schlussfolgerung!

Why not spell out the truth of God on the basis of the everlasting Word of God? Why not explain the "plan" which the converted sinner may know? It far transcends a student's life choices! It reaches beyond the limits of his life pilgrimage. It leads to and enters the portals of everlasting glory!

Warum sagt man das dem Studenten nicht in ganz klaren Ausdrücken? Und warum, in aller Fairness, warnt man ihn nicht davor, dass die Verwerfung des Sohnes Gottes nicht eine undeutliche "Trennung" von Gott -- sondern ewige Trübsal im Feuersee bedeutet?

Lass den Studenten alle Fakten haben, bevor er eine "Verpflichtung" eingeht, wie Crusade es nennt.

(Aus Campus Crusade Examined in the Light of Scripture von Charles Woodbridge)