DashHouse.com

Wow --- I didn't get through all those 92 comments! I don't know much about Campolo's theology, but I know he's a great motivator.

I'm curious to know how those guys would respond to this question:

Is it possible to get all of your theology right and still miss the Gospel? or

What if all your theology is right, but you tune out the rest of the world, other than maybe handing out Four Spiritual Laws tracts from time to time? Are you still saved?

Just curious. It seems like the discussion was operating on one extreme.

What if you guys are simply a mutual admiration society? Vainglory vs. God's glory?

Sorry if I'm a little late to the party. I take it this post is an invitation to give my thoughts. :-)

There is so much in that 7 minutes to comment on I don't know where to begin or think I could cover it all. I know little of Keller but I can see why he is the darling of Emergent circles. I've also heard that he claims to be Reformed, but this 7 minutes would certainly cause me to believe otherwise. He too, has conflated the gospel with social justice. Our works are NOT a part of the gospel! Not to belabour the point but, the gospel saves, and those whom the gospel saves, only then will they "do justice," as he puts it.

Mark 1:15 "And [Jesus] saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

If I understand Jesus as Keller wants me to understand these words, I am to repent of my sin and believe the following:

1) Jesus died for my sins
2) Jesus was raised for my justification
3) I must do social justice
4) Jesus will come back to restore the creation.
etc.

Once you say things like 3 & 4 are "part of the gospel" you have a works based gospel, period. 3 & 4, as I have said countless times, flow out of a believed gospel. Do I really have to do social justice to be saved? NO! Now, by not doing it, it may be evidence that I am not saved, but making it a requirement for salvation, ie. conflating it with the gospel, is to render the work of Christ of none effect. Do I have to believe that the purpose of the gospel is to restore the creation? I think the Bible teaches that, but it certainly isn't taught as a "saving gospel truth" by any of the biblical writers.

Trying to be as charitable as I can to Keller's statements, I can't imagine he would disagree with what I have written. I think the language he uses in discussing this topic lacks the precision required as not to confuse people as to what the gospel is, and what it isn't. I have only outlined what has been considered the gospel for the first 2000 years of Christianity, particularly so since around 1517.

I didn't listen past the first 7 minutes so not sure if he added anything after that.

To answer Dave's question: No one ever said anything remotely close to what you are implying. Of course good works flow from the heart of a Christian, but those good works, or "doing justice", are NOT part of the gospel. The gospel is the saving message, hence the "good news." Can you get your theology right and miss the gospel? Absolutely. Can you also "do justice" and deny essential theology and go to hell? Absolutely. It cuts both ways. We must believe the truth AND we must live a holy life; doing ALL that Jesus commands. We are justified by believing the truth about the person and work of Christ. ONCE WE BELIEVE THE GOSPEL, only then are we even able to "do justice." The are separate, but are found together; they are not all together what is called "the gospel."

Thanks, Darrin.

At least we know that we genuinely disagree, and that it's not just a matter of my inability to communicate. ;)

I appreciate you taking the time to listen to the first part of Keller's message.

Darryl,

For my clarification, would you say that numbers 3&4 above are essentials of the gospel? What I mean by that is, if someone denies they are part of the gospel, are they a Christian?

Darrin,

I'm not sure I'd even include #3. As for #4, I think it's possible to be a Christian and not understand that this is part of what God has made possible through Christ.

Right on Darrin.

Darryl, that's precisely what I have been saying for a long time now. Those in the emerging movement/church are pointing to their social justice concern as the basis of their justification, or so they think. That's a general statement for sure but that is my impression based on numerous conversations.

Its tragic really, because they have been deceived and are bringing down people with them.

They do not show evidence of a saving faith in matters of holiness and godliness when you see how linked to the world that they are.

I think I realize more clearly how there are so many who claim the name of Christ but who are not really in Him.

As Tony Evans said last week, there are many who are doing church the world's way but are using His (Jesus) name. I think that is so clearly seen in the emerging church, at least what I have read.

In your other comment on your post on the missional community you said this to me in regards to the emerging church vs established church battle "I think we all need to realize that we're in this all together, and we all need the spiritual passion you talk about"

See, I don't think we are in this together, I think its actually where the "contending for the faith" comes in.

Its the lack of holiness and brokeness over sin that I would come back to. If we are truly in Christ and growing in relationship with Him, there will always be brokeness over sin and increasingly so. Isn't it true that the closer we get to God the more grief and sorrow we have over sin in our lives as we see and know how much it grieves God. Show me just one post somewhere on some emerging blog where there is a demonstration of the brokeness over sin. I can't find it. I've have asked numerous emerging bloggers to give me their convictions what are the essentials, the non-negotiables of their faith, they can't give it. That makes no sense to me as a born again follower of Jesus Christ.

I'd like to keep this thread to the topic of the Keller recording if possible.

Thanks,
Darryl

Darryl...please indulge me here one last time.

So Jesus said, "Repent, and believe the gospel." From what you have just said, you would agree with me that Jesus is not including social justice in that belief, nor is He including the belief that all of creation will be restored. You agree that believing these propositions to be true is not part of the 'believing the gospel' that Jesus commands.

Now, if all that is true, does it not logically follow that these things then are not part of the gospel Jesus tells us to believe, but rather, things that flow from our belief in the gospel?

I'm really trying to understand our difference, as I would agree with you when you say, "I think it's possible to be a Christian and not understand that this is part of what God has made possible through Christ." If that is true, then this "understanding" cannot be a part of the gospel.

I'm only asking because that last statement seems to me that we agree, yet you said, "At least we know that we genuinely disagree..."

I see your only logical defense as having to maintain a position that there are things in the gospel that we do not have to believe, or may even deny, yet still be a Christian. I just don't see that as a qualified position within Jesus' words in Mark 1:15. I think this also comports with Paul's words in 1 Cor. 15:3-4.

Repent and believe the gospel. If these things (ie. things like 3&4) do not HAVE to be believed, how can we say that they are part of the gospel? Never would/should we maintain that there are things in the gospel that are not essential to for one to believe.

I honestly cannot imagine Keller disagreeing with anything I've written here. But I suppose we'll never know that. :-)

Hi Darrin,

I think we're looking at the gospel from two directions. You're asking what someone needs to believe in order to be saved, and I think we generally agree on this. I'm going from the other direction: what Christ accomplished at the cross. When I talk about the gospel, this is what I'm talking about.

I think this could account for at least some of the differences - at least from what I can see.

Martyn Lloyd-Jones said there are over 50 gospels-in-a-nutshell in the Bible. I haven't counted but I imagine he's right. 1 Cor. 15:3-4 would be one of them.

Hi Darrin,

Would it be reasonable to define a Christian understanding of "repentence", as both a condition(sorrow and contrition over past works) and an action( a commitment to future righteous works).

If so, is it possible to interpret "repent and believe" to inexorably link faith and works.

I find that the primary people who make this argument against the "social gospel" are those from the West with full bellies who know where their next meals are coming frum, full houses, lots of stuff, and who live the lives of economic elites compared to the majority of the six billion people in the world.

Basically, I think it is to assuage the conscience of those who can look at suffering and wish to justify their indifference.

Darryl:Lloyd-Jones is pretty specific in the way he defines the gospel so Keller using that quote by MLJ to defend his definition of the gospel, to me, is hardly accurate. But that's a rabbit trail we can save for another day. :-)

Paul: Both repentance and faith are gifts of God. I agree with you that they are inexorably linked; but yet, still separate. In another thread with Darryl I said something along the line that mixing our justification and sanctification is a deadly error; that is the error of Rome that led God to raise up the Reformers to purify the church and the gospel. We are justified by a righteousness that is alien to us; completely outside of us. We are sanctified by the Spirit's work in us. The two are separate works, yet always found together. If that is what you mean, we are in agreement.

Christian for Critical Thinking: Broad sweeping generalizations, especially about things no one has said, are anything but an exercise in critical thinking. If you would have followed all the arguments, you would have seen that no one has denied their necessity. What is being denied is that works such as these are part of the gospel. A believed gospel allows for these works to be done, but are not in themselves, part of the gospel. That is the argument.

Darrin:

I don't think that the reference to the quote about "gospels in a nutshell" implies that we should be vague about the gospel. Keller is quite specific about the gospel, just as Lloyd-Jones is. So the argument isn't specific vs. not specific.

I think we would all recognize the importance of passages like 1 Cor. 15:3-4. We would also all acknowledge, though, that 1 Cor. 15:3-4 doesn't say all that there is to say about the gospel. It says something absolutely central, but it doesn't say everything.

Darryl, what would you say is the way for one to be reconciled to God?

You have indicated before that the way you would communicate the gospel to someone would depend on the context that person finds himself in.

With that in mind, say a well educated person who knows you are a pastor starts asking you about the the things of God. As he talks with you, there is such a sense that he is really at a point in his life where he is really seeking, trying to sort it all out. He tells you he believes in God and believes he is basically a good person and he hopes and believes that because of that God is going to be good with him after he dies and steps into eternity.

He has no assurance, and he asks you about it all. What would you tell a guy like that?

George:

I'm not entirely sure where the question is coming from, or how it fits in this thread.

I would talk about how Christ did what nobody can do for themselves: make us right with God and the world.

Darryl, it comes from me still not quite understanding your position of what the Gospel is and how it should be communicated.

So you say that what Christ did that nobody can do for themslves is to make us right with God and the world. How does the world fit into that?

Also, how can my educated friend receive that truth into his life? What is it that he needs to do?

George,

I've always said that the gospel includes what you and Darrin say it does. I agree. It just doesn't stop there.

I wonder if part of our problem is individualism. It's probably why we emphasize our individual relationship with God - which is important - but fail to see that the scope of God's salvation is much bigger and wider.

I guess that's where you keep losing me Darryl. You say the scope of God's salvation is much bigger and wider than an individual relationship. What does that mean when I'm sharing the gospel with an individual?

George:

Ultimately, you will want that individual to learn that it's not all about him. That's the negative part.

If you want to give them the good part, it's that they get to be part of something bigger than they dreamed.

I agree with that Darryl, the question I still have for you is how does my educated friend receive that truth into his life? How does one receive the gift of salvation?

Hi George,

I think we'll save that one for when we talk about repentance.

Sounds good

By the way Darryl, thanks for the discussion, I love it.

I got thinking, you said "Ultimately, you will want that individual to learn that it's not all about him. That's the negative part."

I would say that individual, any individual who receives Jesus Christ into their lives, who believes in His name, He gives the right to become a child of God. When that happens and it is real, that person will very quickly realize that it had nothing to do with him and everything to do with God.

That's the incredible awesomeness of God, as I receive His Son, He showers me with His grace. I will then be spurred on to good works out of the gratitude I have for Him because of what He has done for me, brought me out of darkness and into his light.

I can never earn His favour (way too many people believe that, including professing Christians)but I can show by my conduct that I am a child of God. Holiness and godly living is a huge indication of that.

Cheers