Yesterday I said I would write about the subject of knowingly ignoring details of the gospel according to Scripture. The person I'm going to bring up as a case in point is D. A. Carson. He is a renowned scholar and an advocate of drawing out the whole of what Scripture says the gospel is. In fact, he has even written at length surveying the use of the word and its variants in the Old and New Testament. The problem is that while he can survey the usage and mention nearly every bit of the gospel in an essay his definition and explanation reduces the gospel to the common, universalized message of salvation.
I want to be clear that Carson defines the gospel with precision that can often be lacking. For example, he clearly explains that the gospel is the message about Jesus, that the effect is not the gospel itself, and that there is only one gospel in the New testament and therefore we don't need to pit the various authors against one another because they are talking about the same thing. Carson misses at least three of the five points I wrote about a few days ago: Jesus as the Messiah, his present reign as Lord, and the framing story of Israel. Please show me if I'm wrong, but in my reading, these are ignored or backgrounded (or perhaps worse - merely more 'effects' of the gospel) in Carson's understanding even after a lengthy survey.
Starting later this week, I will begin to go through each use of the word 'gospel' in the New Testament. That's part of what this blog is really about. This is where I really need some comments and push back. Anything you give me will be helpful and appreciated.
For now, what do you think about Carson's essay (if you read it)?
Are there aspects of the gospel according to Scripture that you are unsure about?
Have you heard anything so far that you didn't know was part of the gospel?
Why do you think these things are not commonly spoken about?
No comments:
Post a Comment