Brenton Malnofski: Discussion Questions

1. I would try to use the Christus Victor model when sharing the gospel on campus. I think this method would be the easiest for someone to grasp. It would also be quite a relief to hear that salvation is not works-based. On the surface, there seems to be nothing problematic or unbiblical about this method. The only drawback is that its explanation would require further discussion about how Jesus’ death defeated Satan. Simply saying that it did is great on its own, but a newcomer to faith would have further questions that need to be addressed immediately. As for how I would start the conversation, I would start by asking if someone had heard of the story of Jesus (specifically his death and resurrection), and what that meant to them. That seems like a pretty safe and open-ended way to go about broaching that subject. Then I would segue into the Christus Victor model (without getting overly technical of course).
2. Question 7 – Yes, I believe we absolutely should explain the incarnation when we proclaim the gospel. The incarnation is what grounds the gospel and makes it even more accessible than it already was. Just the statement “God came to earth as a baby” is compelling enough to make someone raise an eyebrow. God being in the flesh allows humanity to grasp the ideas of His love for us, and how we relate to Him that much stronger. Of course, some details will have to be explained when engaging in this conversation with a nonbeliever. But I don’t believe that’s a problem. Jesus being both God and man, instead of just man, is completely essential to the gospel. Shying away from that would be a fundamental mistake and counterproductive. Without insisting on the incarnation, people might be accidentally led astray into thinking that Jesus and the Father are not one, when they most certainly are.

Brenton Malnofski wrote:
2. Question 7 – Yes, I believe we absolutely should explain the incarnation when we proclaim the gospel. The incarnation is what grounds the gospel and makes it even more accessible than it already was. Just the statement “God came to earth as a baby” is compelling enough to make someone raise an eyebrow. God being in the flesh allows humanity to grasp the ideas of His love for us, and how we relate to Him that much stronger. Of course, some details will have to be explained when engaging in this conversation with a nonbeliever. But I don’t believe that’s a problem. Jesus being both God and man, instead of just man, is completely essential to the gospel. Shying away from that would be a fundamental mistake and counterproductive. Without insisting on the incarnation, people might be accidentally led astray into thinking that Jesus and the Father are not one, when they most certainly are.

I would agree with you that we should include the incarnation when we explain the Gospel to others. However I can see how some people may disagree and argue that this could be a stumbling point for some. It is a difficult concept to understand if it is not explained in detail, but for a new believer the details could be overwhelming. By not including it, I don't think you're changing the gospel any, you're just making it easier to understand. I think you would have to use wisdom in deciding whether the incarnation should be included in the initial presentation of the gospel.

I'd agree with you, Brenton, in that the incarnation should always be presented in the gospel. If we don't present the gospel the way it is, we're already leading someone down a path that they won't understand. It can do more harm than good to have to backtrack a newcomers belief because of an initial misrepresentation of the gospel to begin with. I'd say that one should never leave out the incarnation when preaching the gospel. Without it, God is not man and therefore the sacrifice He gave cannot be perceived as the greatest sacrifice.