Preaching Articles

SermonCentral is the world's leader in sermon resources and research. We are dedicated to equipping pastors worldwide for excellence in preaching.

Browse All

Related Preaching Articles

Talk about it...

Chris Armer

commented on Aug 19, 2013

One word that disagrees with this guy's gospel - "propitiation" (1 John 2:2)

Perry Paulding

commented on Aug 19, 2013

Why is SermonCentral promoting clear, biblical heresy??? To deny the penal substitutionary atonement of Christ is a different "gospel".

Malcolm Macinnes

commented on Aug 19, 2013

Brian Zanhd makes a big deal of not pitching God against Jesus, as if the holy just demand of God's justice was irrelevant. The Father did forsake his Son on the Cross, and both Father and Son were agreed that sacrifice must be offered. This Jesus did once when he offered himself. Zanhd's version of the Gospel does not sit well with Paul's letters or the words of Jesus.

Shane Allen

commented on Aug 19, 2013

This is what happens when you take the gospel from an Orthodox Priest I guess. It isn't the true gospel. It sounds lovely but the problem is it is wrong. See Eph 5:6, Rom. 2:5-9. Just do a concordance search on the word wrath. Rom 3:25, 1 John 2:2. Agree with Christ Armer "Propitiation"

Scott Robar

commented on Aug 19, 2013

It seems that Pastor Zahnd have us believe that Jesus was wrong (I speak as a madman) when He said, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Keith B

commented on Aug 19, 2013

This is what you get when you pick and choose what scripture to believe. A study of the book of Romans completely destroys this heresy. If you think this "Gospel" is more Biblical, you are not qualified to preach.

Larry E Baker

commented on Aug 19, 2013

This message is not the Word of Life as his church is named. "Pastor" Zanhd presents a heretical gospel consistent with the Orthodox and Roman churches view point. It teaches modalism and a works salvation. It presents a false gospel that doesn't require the person to recognize his sin and the righteous judgement by God. It doesn't require the person to repent and to look toward Jesus and ultimate justification by God. Of course it is a more acceptable gospel and easier gospel because it makes God the bad guy. God does desire restoration but not at the expense of righteous judgement.

Kenneth Vogel

commented on Aug 19, 2013

So repentance isn't a part of man's response to God? Who is Jesus representing when he declares there is a time when ???? says, "Depart from me. I never knew you."? Augustine is not patristic? Just asking.

Ronald Johnson

commented on Aug 19, 2013

Actually, this sermon is not a heresy. It is in perfect agreement with the first ten centuries of the teaching of the church. It was not until the Eastern Church and the Western Church divided that the focus on legal terminology took the forefront of western atonement theology. This theology became the backbone of John Calvin's theology which dominates much of the western church today. If Romans 2 is the pinnacle of Paul's theology in Romans, then this would be heresy. But if one reads all of Romans, it becomes clear that Chapter 8 is the pinnacle of the discussion for Paul. That's the problem with doing a concordance search and finding everywhere a word is mentioned. You get what you are looking for. If you are looking for wrath, you will find wrath. That is not to say that there is no wrath, but it is not God's primary characteristic. This sermon also fits better with Jesus' description of his mission in Luke 15. He came to pursue the lost. As far as the accusation of "modalism," I do not think that word means what you think it means. There is no hint of modalism in this sermon, nor is there in Eastern Orthodox theology. Nor is this a works righteousness, unless accepting God's love has become a works righteousness.

Ernest Durbin Ii

commented on Aug 19, 2013

Christus Victor... view of atonement. The term comes from the title of Gustaf Aul?n's groundbreaking book, first published in 1931 and translated in English by Gabriel Hebert, in which he drew attention back to this classic early Church understanding of the atonement.

Pastor Sung Kim

commented on Aug 19, 2013

I'm curious why all of you think that Pastor Zahnd does not subscribe to propitiation. He clearly mentions (in the first 5 minutes) that Jesus became sin and suffered the full wrath of God for us. Am I missing something?

Keith B

commented on Aug 19, 2013

@Sung Kim....he was talking about 2 views of the Gospel. He labeled the propitiatory view as wrong, then wen on and called the restorative view "more correct". Despite what people say, this is NOT what was taught by the Postles or the early church fathers.

Dennis Cocks

commented on Aug 19, 2013

You guys better watch it, there are many on this site who think that everything written is worthy of believing and will let you know that you should never criticize anything or anyone for any reason!

John M Lukamto

commented on Aug 19, 2013

I like the way how he illustrate the Gospel, and how he ended with a good conclusion. That God = Jesus, has always been like Jesus, the problem is only we did not know this. Many Christians misunderstood God vs Jesus. God has always been the same like Jesus since Adam and Eve. Adam fell, and yet still children of Israel asked for a Law covenant instead of relying on the Grace of God. Still God came to save wretched men like us, now the battle of choice is still raging on among men (because man is prideful), choose Law (your own self righteousness) or His Grace (unearned / unmerited favor).

Bruce Greenwood

commented on Aug 19, 2013

Very well done! I do not see that his depiction of the Gospel is contradictory but rather complementary. I do not feel threatened by Brian Zand's perspective. The multifaceted Gospel is glorious! I do not think I do the gospel justice in my presentation of it. I hope I can at least present it more fully.

Robert Cicman

commented on Aug 19, 2013

I've been a subscriber to Sermon Central for many years, when I see and hear such heresy being promoted by them I must re-think my support of this ministry.

Jim Gerhold

commented on Aug 19, 2013

It is a great illustration. You might not agree with doctrine or the way it is presented, just write it to your thoughts and heart. I liked it overall, but you won't recognize it when you see me do it for my church...

Keith B

commented on Aug 19, 2013

To be honest, I thought it was overly busy and involved. I thought the chairs distracted from the message.

Stephen Hayes

commented on Aug 19, 2013

I remember this as kid...we called it musical chairs. It might work better if one were to use two sofas.

James Phelps

commented on Aug 19, 2013

Without doubt when we come into the presence of God we become concious of our sin. As John 16:8 says, "The Holy Spirit, when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment." However, when we come into the presence of God it is the love of God that draws us and the holiness of God through the Holy Spirit that convicts us and makes us concious of our sin. When we respond to that conviction it is the love of God that changes the sinful heart and gives new life. He made the statement that " God does not so much confront us with our sin, but with His love." I agree with this statement to some degree but it is not his love alone that does the work, simply because no one can be saved until they first realize they need a savior, which comes through becoming concious of sin. Whadda ya thank?

Randall Starkey

commented on Aug 19, 2013

Paul told Timothy to "study"... to show himself approved... rightly dividing the Word. We seem to really have trouble doing that. We don't know how to rightly divide. We keep saying, like a coin, "it's heads" or "it's tails." It's both. A coin has two sides or it's not real. That's why Paul used the term divide. Truth often has two sides. Much like man's free will and God's sovereignty. So in this case... of course the gospel is restorative. And of course it is justice based substitutionary atonement. It is both. Wish we would quit exalting one or the other. That's not rightly dividing. If you only preach restorative you end up missing the spiritual realities of sin and it ends up real humanistic. God does not just say I forgive you apart from the substitutionary judicial work of Christ and human repentance. The argument here of it pits Jesus against the Father is simply a humanistic view of the Trinity. As silly as Rob Bell calling the cross "child abuse". Actually in the Trinity justice meets love and mercy via substitutionary atonement and they embrace. And, if we only preach the judicial side we can get real religious and not bringing people God's love. If you leave out either side you will end up in trouble. Humanistic or Religious. Two ditches. One on each side. Preach both. Both are true. Two sides of the same gospel coin. A full gospel we could say. Stay on God's narrow road.

Simon P

commented on Aug 20, 2013

I am glad the rest of you can seem to figure out what is going on here. I am just confused.

Mike O'neal

commented on Aug 20, 2013

The suggestion is that we must choose between one or the other of these fuzzy, confusing and sometimes heretical views. This is a little like the old shell and pea trick. Which shell has the pea or in this case which set of chairs represents the gospel? Neither. Sorry

Matthew Roberts

commented on Aug 20, 2013

I am also concerned that Zahnd makes no mention of the need for repentance; this is universalism. It makes for pleasant preaching, since it does not challenge folks to show true repentance by forsaking their sins.

Ronald Johnson

commented on Aug 20, 2013

@ Matthew Roberts...This is not universalism. Salvation still comes through the work of Christ alone. He clearly states that there are those who will not receive the love offered by Christ. It is also a call to repentance in the way that Jesus defined repentance. Repentance is more than a recognition and turning away from sin. It is also a turning toward God in Christ. In a way, repentance is allowing Jesus to find us. What we turn toward is just as, if not more important, than what we turn away from. Many good Muslims turn away from sinful things. However, they do not turn toward Jesus. I know many agnostics who turn away from sinful behaviors, but they have not turned toward Jesus. I think the view he presents here is not diametrically opposed to substitutionary atonement. Where I see the hang up for many of those who have left comments is that it is not 100 compatible with PENAL substitutionary atonement. When we say that Jesus gave his life as a ransom, to whom is the ransom paid? Do you pay a ransom to the one who is the rightful parent, or the one who has kidnapped the child?

Bill Williams

commented on Aug 20, 2013

@Dennis, who specifically on this website has ever written that "everything written is worthy of believing and will let you know that you should never criticize anything or anyone for any reason"?

Dennis Cocks

commented on Aug 21, 2013

Bill, while no one has "specifically" written those words, there are those who comment on here who have NEVER said anything negative about an article, no matter how unbiblical it was (and yes, some are actually unbiblical). I will not name names, but I have people in my mind as I write this. Aside from that, good to hear from you again! You sometimes wonder about someone who often comments on here and then, they don't. You hope nothing tragic has happened, (at least I do). So I'm glad your alive : ) Many people on here comment on something someone writes and then when you answer their comment, they do not respond back. That lacks common courtesy and it is frustrating. I appreciate you because you take time to discuss the issues. Again, good to hear from you!

Bill Williams

commented on Aug 22, 2013

Dennis, thank you. Yes, it's been a while since I've participated much, but I assure you I am alive and well! I was out on vacation a few weeks ago, and the last couple of weeks I've been doing intense preparation for the new school year which begins on Monday for us. But I've been reading the articles and scanning the comments on occasion. I just haven't had much time to contribute much of my own thoughts. Returning to your comment, I can't think off the top of my head of anyone who regularly contributes to the comments in this site who NEVER says anything negative about any article (although likely there are those who never say anything negative about the types of article one may personally disagree with). Even I, who am comfortable listening to a wide variety of perspectives and try to look for truth wherever it may be found, will point out at times where I disagree with an author. I think what may happen is that, obviously, there IS a wide variety of perspectives represented here. And there are types of articles with which we typically disagree, and with which others typically AGREE, so that it only appears that they believe every article is worthy to be believed and should not be criticized, when in fact that isn't really the case. Yes, I agree that some ideas presented in these articles are unbiblical. But I also believe that sometimes we are too loose with that word, often using it when what we really mean is, "That idea disagrees with what I already believe, so it must not be biblical." Overall, I think the comments section does a good job of providing different points of views; and I think most of us are willing to allow the expression of those points of views, even when they differ from our own, as long as they are supported by reason and biblical evidence. And I think that is a good environment in which to grow. Blessings to you!

Keith E Feisel

commented on Aug 21, 2013

heresy has been around as long as the church; so it doesn't surprise me to hear that papal fathers believed this. But the substitutionary atonement to satisfy God's wrath is certainly biblical. I think the way this pastor is advocating is the gospel comes across as a "broad way" rather than a "narrow way."

Keith B

commented on Aug 21, 2013

I love the tags that have been added.

Dennis Cocks

commented on Aug 22, 2013

I agree! This is a much better way to make a comment on someone else's post without using the @ and then the name like I do. It is also easier to follow a certain discussion without piecing the comments that go with each other together.

Scott Horrell

commented on Aug 22, 2013

I?m uneasy with this message. The error is not so much what is affirmed but what is denied. Zhand is putting forth an either-or theory of the atonement when the biblical testimony is decidedly much more ample. Of particular concern is not that his restorative view is "more patristic"?as the recapitulation theory of the atonement is surely a major theme of patristic theology (but substitution is certainly also present in various patristic expressions)?rather it is when he says it is "more biblical," a phrase repeated at least 5 times. The overwhelming evidence is that the hub of biblical soteriology is substitution with multiple forms of expression. But Zhand seems to deny the substitutionary and legal analogies completely. He avoids the OT, he does not even mention human depravity or our being enemies of God, and he tells us that now in Jesus we know what God is like (we didn't know before). So themes of redemption, propitiation, and ?legal? justification are entirely jettisoned. I found the interpretation of 2 Cor 5:17-21 wrongheaded; it is the cross that satisfies God?s holiness to allow the offer of reconciliation to the world. Apparently God is not the Moral Absolute and Lord Chief Justice of all existence. Different from some of the church fathers, Zhand does affirm the fire of divine punishment for those who do not respond to God's love (he doesn't explain what divine fire entails). But given the apparently single attribute of God (love) it will be hard for him to avoid universalism. We are told that God is never turning away from humanity. One final concern is that he interprets Reformation soteriology as necessarily pitting God the Father against the Son. This isn't altogether true. All orthodoxy confesses the essential unity of the Godhead?unity in essence and unity in purpose (1 Pet 1:19-20)?even as there seems (in my opinion) to be a momentary separation of divine koinonia at the cross simultaneous with Jesus's confidence that this is exactly right in the will of the Father. That is, the Cross is a profoundly Trinitarian act, that which more than any other event in history actually reveals God as Trinity. Again, against Zhand's either-or idea of God as one in Love vs. a broken Trinity, I think we must acknowledge the mystery of both-and: both divine unity and the Son also bearing the sin of the world as substitute and Last Adam. Biblical soteriology is like a kalaidescope with many sides and combinations. And beyond it all a certain mystery. The Reformation wasn?t wrong (nor 500 years of evangelicalism) in affirming justification by faith. If there has sometimes been over-emphasis on this single lens, we do well not to throw it out because we find another view more attractive to a new generation.

Join the discussion