“The best definition I have ever heard of the gospel is that it is the complete story of who Jesus is and what he has done for His people. I would modify it this way and say that the gospel is the story of:
* All that Jesus is
* All that Jesus has done
* All that Jesus has commanded”
David is as ususal insightful when he makes the point that any presentation of the gospel is by nature incomplete. As such any presentation is not broad enough, but the issue then becomes is what it says accurate or not? Does it leave out crucial points? Does it even contradict crucial points believed by others.
David still hasnt been drawn about whether in his view a belief in the punishment of Jesus in our place is a pre-requisit for a reasonably complete gospel understanding. I am sure that he would agree that those who remain ignorant of such a doctrine through lack of teaching could respond in faith to what little they do understand. But what of those who know of such teaching and flagrantly reject it? Of course we cannot say that we are sure of anothers salvation or lack thereof, but am I right to get nervous about whether or not I can legitimately call those who teach some of these novel ideas brothers in christ?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In