Derek Vreeland - The Gospel vs the plan of salvation

I came across yet another group C adherent this week in Derek Vreeland on his blog here. It is essentially another summary of Scot McKnight's book, but has a helpful chart outlining the differences between the gospel and what some call the gospel, but is actually the plan of salvation.

	The Gospel	The Plan of Salvation
1.	Exemplified in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5	Exemplified in the “Four Spiritual Laws”
2.	True to the teachings of the Apostles	True, but not the gospel
3.	A story framed around Jesus	Principles framed out individual human beings
4.	Highlights the Person who is the good news	Highlights our benefits
5.	Focuses on how God made Jesus alive again	Focuses on how we are made right with God
6.	Produces disciples	Produces decisions
7.	Depends on declaration/creativity	Depends on persuasion/rhetoric
8.	Creates a gospel culture	Creates a salvation culture

An Expanded Apostes' Creed

I saw this very interesting expansion of the Apostles' Creed which emulates the same sort of expansion I'm driving for on the gospel: http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/how-i-think-the-creed

Leave a comment. Please 'share' below. Thanks for reading.

My long definition of the gospel

This is the last 'definition' post I am bringing over to the blog from a class I am teaching. I already posted my short and medium length definitions with some discussion over the last two days.

My long definition of the gospel:

"The story of how God sent Jesus, by the power of the Holy Spirit, to fulfill the promises made through the prophets to Israel for the nations. By his birth, life, words, deeds, death, burial, and resurrection Jesus has inaugurated the kingdom of God in victory over sin, death, and every evil power. His resurrection and ascension to reign at the right hand of God was witnessed and confirms his claim as Israel's Davidic Messiah, the efficacy of his death on the cross, his appointment as judge over all, and his present rule as the world's true Lord."

You may have noticed that I don't have any 'call to faith' or the need to repent or be baptized in these definitions. That is because I am not preaching the gospel. I am defining it. Perhaps it is a strange way to go about it, but many do and I may end up having a strong opinion against it as we go along through the Bible. I do know that it is important when sharing/preaching/proclaiming the gospel to include an invitation. However, it doesn't always happen when Scripture is defining it or even in Peter's Acts 2 sermon. The people actually respond naturally and ask what they ought to do. This leads to faith in the gospel message and to salvation. This is precisely the discussion I added to this series of definitions with my class this week. You'll notice some overlap with yesterday's post because the following has been cut and pasted whereas yesterday was original material:

One major misunderstanding encountered by others who have adopted this view and what I have now experienced myself is the concern that salvation is thrown to the wayside and that the forgiveness of sins is marginalized. What I normally say is that what happens by changing to a definition like this is that we shift the focus away from 'my sin' 'my need' or why the gospel is good news 'for me' and look to Jesus. It is about who he is, his rule and reign and what he has and will accomplish. The gospel is what Jesus has done, which includes his defeat of sin, death and evil on the cross. This is an essential part of the gospel. It is still a message of the cross, but put into a holistic biblical framework. Jesus' victory as king and establishment as Lord is through the cross and resurrection which brings salvation (forgiveness of sins and much much more) to all who believe.

Because the gospel isn't about me, but about Jesus, it is obedient faith in the gospel of Jesus' saving action that brings salvation. So even though it is a saving story, I'm not 'in' that story until I put my trust in him. This means that the 'gospel' isn't really about 'my salvation' but what Jesus has done, which I put my faith in, which then saves me (or better yet, saves US!). Here are some Scriptures to show what I mean:

1 Cor 15:2 - By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 

Rom 1:16 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. 

Eph 1:13 - And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. 

1Pet 1:9 - for you are receiving the end result of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

If salvation is the result of faith in the message of the gospel, then it cannot be the gospel message itself. Part of the confusion on this, and the difficulty in explaining it, is due to the cross being a "timeless event" in that it effects all of history both before and after it because of what it achieves.

Questions? Comments? Concerns?
Don't forget to 'share' below!
Thanks for reading.

The gospel today (Scott McKnight)

I started my first job as a pastor this week and purposely haven't spent time blogging to take it all in. I have a large post I'm working on, which should be up Friday. In the meantime, i found this great explanation from Scot McKnight about how important it is that we re-think what the gospel is in the light of Scripture. It is partly a polemic defence of his book, The King Jesus Gospel, but in doing so, he articulates the reason I started this blog in the first place. We need to know the gospel according to Scripture.

This is a chart he made within the post:

 

Beside it Scot writes:

"Do you see the massive differences? One only speaks to how I can get saved while the other tells me something about Jesus that saves (me)."

Thanks for sharing these posts on Facebook and Twitter.
Leave comments or questions or links. It boosts the my online profile.
Readership spread to Russia and Indonesia this past week!

Galatians and gospel logic

Since I put up the page from my book on the gospel yesterday, which starts by looking at Paul's letter to the Galatians, I will start going through that book's use of the word 'gospel' first.

In the meantime, I mentioned in an earlier post that the number of people holding to a group 'C' view of the gospel (neither Justification by faith or Justice of the the Kingdom, but the saving story of Jesus himself). Well, I'm finding even more examples of this! Peter Enns' post alerted me to something David Williams wrote on gospel logic in Galatians. While he also touches on what I wrote in Group 'C' and the 3rd 'J' his main point is that Paul is not telling the Galatian church what the gospel is, but how they have misapplied it and misunderstood its logical effects in relation to ethnic Israel, the law, and circumcision.

The primary point Williams drives home is that their actions are denying the change the gospel brings regarding the rituals of the Law (Torah/Law of Moses) having lost their governing function over God's people.

This is the logic of the gospel:

If the Messiah was crucified, then the Torah is no longer binding for the Messiah’s people.

The Messiah was crucified (the gospel).

Therefore, the Torah is no longer binding for the Messiah’s people.

 But the Galatians' actions say they believe this:

 If the Messiah was crucified, then the Torah is no longer binding for the Messiah’s people.

It is not the case that the Torah is no longer binding for the Messiah’s people (hence, that is why we’re being circumcised).

Therefore, the Messiah was not crucified (perversion of the gospel).

The thrust of this argument from Paul can be found in 2:21b-3:1.

The more I read Galatians the more I see the interesting parallel to Romans, which has convinced me that Romans is also about Jew and Gentile being one people in the Messiah.

Any thoughts on this?

Group 'C' and the 3rd 'J'

If you are at all familiar with the discussions on defining the gospel over the last few years, you'll know that it can often be polarizing and the two groups usually pitted against one another are labelled group 'A' and group 'B'.

Group 'A' are the ones who define the gospel of salvation; forgiveness of sin, getting right with God, being 'born again', or avoiding hell to 'get to heaven when you die'. That sort of thing. Think Billy Graham.

Group 'B' are the ones who define the gospel of the kingdom; justice, feeding the hungry, making the sick well, cancelling 3rd world debt, providing equality and clean drinking water for all. That sort of thing. Think Bono.

Classically, both accuse one another of ignoring their 'camp'. What are we to do with this? Both use important biblical points and concepts. Some (especially the Gospel Coalition - get used to me bringing them up) suggest group 'A' is essentially right (or at least more important) and that the values of 'B' naturally flow from following the 'A' version of the gospel. I'm skeptical of this since it doesn't happen as widespread as it ought to. However, I don't deny that it does happen with many who hold that view. I haven't heard enough from group 'B' in this discussion so I can't comment on their take, but I would think many of them would not deny 'A' values.

I think the answer is actually in group 'C' which is why I've started this blog in the first place. I believe this group is growing all the time or that people are cautiously drifting over to it. Some of my friends and acquaintances are struggling to get their head around it as I have since February this year! Essentially it involves getting back to Scripture and looking at how it defines the gospel, which changes everything. I'm not saying it's all sorted out, but the 'A' and 'B' camps talk past one another and the supposed mediators often ignore the whole of what Scripture says. I'll post on that one tomorrow.

One way to help grasp the essence of this group 'C' is how we frame the gospel and what we say the heart of it is. And yes, I do think it is a real group and largely unified at that. I found an old post by Scot McKnight (I known it's a lot from him early on, but he's written a lot of online posts on this and I think he's nailed it pretty well). He says there are three 'J' ways to frame the gospel: Justification, Justice, or Jesus. You can read it here.

Any thoughts?