Even more on Gospel, Cross, and Kingdom

September 4, 2012 By 5 Comments

Over at TGC, Justin Taylor has a useful summary of D.A. Carson’s essay in the John Piper festschrift, on “What is the Gospel? – Revisited” (I reminder for me to read it) and a chapter by Gilbert and De Young on What is the Mission of the Church?

I esp. like Gilbert and De Young’s attempt to distinguish the broad and specific senses of gospel, that is on the right track, even if I would perhaps nuance it differently myself. Oh, and a few of their denials seem to need correction or qualification.

Just two more observations:

1. I think these definitions of “gospel” need to be coordinated point by point with the Gospels, the apostolic preaching in Acts, and only then Paul’s gospel. If the four Gospels and Luke’s precis of apostolic preaching do not line up with a definition of “gospel,” then we need a new definition.

2. I really think we need someone on the TGC side to come up with a solid engagement with Wright, McKnight, Bock, and Dickson on this topic, otherwise it looks a bit like an exercise in back-slapping in the YRR household and an apologia for an ordo salutis gospel. I sense an excitement about and commitment to this issue in the TGC crowd, but I think maybe they should look outside the back yard for some funky dialogue partners to help them articulate this subject in a robust and convincing manner. Just saying!

 

Filed Under: Uncategorized 5 Comments
  • http://www.facebook.com/derek.rishmawy Derek Rishmawy

    On one of the other posts on the subject they link an article by Simon Gathercole that links up the preaching of the Gospels, Acts, and Paul in a helpful fashion. I can’t remember the name, but I read it a while back. It builds on and updates C.H. Dodd’s work on the apostolic preaching.

  • Patrick Schriener

    Amen! You always say what I desire to say, yet more eloquently. Lets get the dialogue going and keep this from being an in-house debate.

  • Philip Johnson

    I was interested to see Justin Taylor’s descriptive term “gospel of the cross”. Even though the blog post referred to “death and resurrection of Jesus”, I find it interesting that the tilt is toward the term “Cross” instead of resurrection.
    The Gospel Coalition network remembers Walter R. Martin (1928-1989) very fondly as the grandfather or father of the modern-day evangelical countercult movement in apologetics. In Martin’s slender handbook on theology “Essential Christianity” (1962 & 1975) his sixth chapter had the title “The Gospel of Resurrection”. Martin in turn picked up his chapter title from Bishop Westcott’s book The Gospel of Resurrection.
    As Ross Clifford and I have jointly argued in The Cross Is Not Enough (CINE), the resurrection is the lynchpin for Christianity. I suggest that at the very least it would be better (even if it seems long-winded or clumsy) to speak of the Gospel of the Cross and Resurrection; or as CINE draws attention to: “gospel of resurrection”

  • Philip Taylor

    What has John Dickson written on this issue?

  • http://mysite.verizon.net/~vze2tmhh/ pduggie

    It strikes me that when Casron, Keller, and Piper were addressing the “did Jesus preach the gospels” topic, Carson was dismissive, if not by name, of the perspective of McKnight et al on the definition of the gospel. Very much, “nothing to see here, move along”. Solid engagement would be preferred.