Quote:
Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas
|
Seems interesting to me that the first link opens "gospel" up to much more than "salvation by grace through faith" then the other two pretty much shrink it back down to just that.
While the first is not so thorough in its discussion of all the aspects of the gospel, it does make one thing clear, and that is that the gospel was very full and robust at a point that there was no death, burial, and resurrection to believe in. While those are now surely included, it seems that limiting the term "gospel" to the telling of the plan of salvation is a product of Protestantism. We may have steered the ship away from some rocks over they years, but at some level we have steered it toward a different reef. This is especially true of the portion of Christianity that focuses on line-in-the-sand conversion. In other words, most of evangelicalism and fundamentalism (which is generally a subset of evangelicalism). We have spent the last 20 or so years trying to get all the peripheral theology figured out down to the way to describe and practice communion (the Lord's table) and still don't all agree on all aspects of even that one thing.
But we have simultaneously dismissed much of what is the gospel from mind as we distill it down to death, burial, and resurrection. Seems that the gospel really begins by being the gospel of the kingdom. Something that is appealing. Something that was well-defined and there to be preached prior to there being a death, burial, or resurrection to preach. Something that is out of reach because "my life" is not like that. So it is my desire to follow Jesus. To be obedient to the living that he commanded. To have the attributes that warrant being among the "blessed are the . . . ." And when we read right after those blesseds, we see that there is a law of righteousness that is higher than the one written down in the OT. It means living much better than just not stealing or murdering. That is where it becomes clear that we need something beyond us. We need sacrifice that sets aside God's wrath. We need the life that is raised in newness. We need access to the throne of God.
The gospel draws us in. It then shows us how we are not up to the task of living it. Then it shows us the way through the sacrifice of Christ and the help of the Spirit. Then we return to the part that drew us in as the instruction for our new life.
At the very least, it is in the refusal of there being any more law to obey, or command to obey anything, that Lee's gospel is different. No, his "how to be saved" may not be flawed, but that is not
THE gospel. It is just part of it. Lee was fairly good on this part. But he essentially reject other parts.
I think we can eventually come to see that as a "different gospel." And if that different gospel is the one that Lee says Christ laid out, then he is talking about a "different Christ." At least at some level.