# A quote by Michael Horton.



## PuritanCovenanter

I recently came across a quote by Dr. Horton that troubled me a bit on Facebook. I have some agreement with it. But I had some concern with it. I don't have access to the whole article so I can't be sure I truly understand it in its full scope. But here it is.



> "We must never confuse Christ's work with our own. There is a lot of loose talk these days about our '*living the gospel*' or even '*being the gospel*,' as if our lives were the good news." Michael S. Horton (Quoted Jan/Feb 2011 Modern Reformation Magazine pg 14)



Now my life is not the good news. But I am suppose to live a gospel obedience and be a light of that Gospel. 




> ‎(2Co 3:2) Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:
> 
> (2Co 3:3) Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.



How beautiful are the feet of those who bring the good news. Even Saint Paul declared it was his gospel. 



> Rom 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.



We are a part of the Gospel. The Gospel is still being applied upon us whom God has chosen. Christ Work concerning atonement was finished at the Cross. That is why he said it is finished. I believe the application of Gospel and the outworking of it in our lives is still going on. The process of reconciliation is still going on. I am saved (justified), I am being saved (sanctification), and I will be saved (glorification). 

The Good News didn't stop at the cross when Christ said it is finished. It also went into the resurrection and it is still going on and progressing in the lives of those whom he has chosen before the foundation of this world. 

I admit that the last part of the quote qualifies the language before it. But I can also say at the same time that there are others who think the gospel ends with the quote, "it is finished." 

I am just a bit worried that there is a separation of our lives from the Gospel and what it is in some of the talk today. Is my concern unmerited?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I agree with the statement Josh with his qualifier. But I also think that the two phrases are not necessarily bad statements. 'living the gospel' 'being the gospel'


----------



## toddpedlar

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I agree with the statement Josh with his qualifier. But I also think that the two phrases are not necessarily bad statements. 'living the gospel' 'being the gospel'


 
Horton's main thrust in rejecting such phrases is that you can't "live" or "be" news. The Gospel is a declaration of an accomplished work, wrought by Christ for His people. It's a done deal. The word "gospel" itself does NOT mean a pattern of living, or any such thing - it's "good news". 

We can live "in accord with" the gospel (though even that does NOT mean "obeying more", but rather it means to carry oneself appropriately as one bought by Christ and wholly owing all to Him) but in no sense, really, unless we wish to twist the word out of place completely, can we "live the gospel". The moment we try to do this, the emphasis comes off of Christ and onto our works - so that "gospel" becomes merely another legalism by which we think we're achieving something by being more consistent in our walk. Horton writes rather strenuously against this co-opting of "gospel" because it really does do damage to people's understanding of what "gospel" really is.


----------



## TrueConvert

I get where Horton is going. I would imagine if one said "We need to live in a way that shows off the gospel," or "be as people apprehended by the gospel" that would be deemed more accurate.
I think what he was saying (and I've heard him say similar on WHI) is we need separation between the good news itself, and implications/applications of the good news. We truly aren't the good news, nor is our life. It's Jesus' person and work. However, saying "live the Gospel" is not self explanatory enough for the difference to be discerned. Perhaps unpacking that phrase is more needful than some see it...........even "live out the Gospel," I imagine, comes a tad closer to what's meant.
#justobservations

---------- Post added at 01:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:38 PM ----------




toddpedlar said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the statement Josh with his qualifier. But I also think that the two phrases are not necessarily bad statements. 'living the gospel' 'being the gospel'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horton's main thrust in rejecting such phrases is that you can't "live" or "be" news. The Gospel is a declaration of an accomplished work, wrought by Christ for His people. It's a done deal. The word "gospel" itself does NOT mean a pattern of living, or any such thing - it's "good news".
> 
> We can live "in accord with" the gospel (though even that does NOT mean "obeying more", but rather it means to carry oneself appropriately as one bought by Christ and wholly owing all to Him) but in no sense, really, unless we wish to twist the word out of place completely, can we "live the gospel". The moment we try to do this, the emphasis comes off of Christ and onto our works - so that "gospel" becomes merely another legalism by which we think we're achieving something by being more consistent in our walk. Horton writes rather strenuously against this co-opting of "gospel" because it really does do damage to people's understanding of what "gospel" really is.
Click to expand...

 
Exactly. I didn't see your post before posting. This is where I meant to go with it as well, though. Thanks for clarifying that way.


----------



## Andres

I can only surmise, but based on several episodes of the White Horse Inn in the past year, I presume Horton's comment also has something to do with the context of presenting the gospel. For example, it is so common for most Christians today when asked of the hope that is within them to immediately describe their own life. Horton would say, no, this is wrong. Our live is not the gospel. The gospel is what Christ has done, not that my marriage is better or I quit abusing alcohol or I am happier now. Will the gospel change your life? Most definitely. But, we must also remember that this changed life, while a good testimony of the power of the gospel, is never the gospel.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> The gospel is a historical event that must be proclaimed. It can not be lived out because "it is finished"...



This kind of quote really bothers me. I just believe the gospel includes more than the propitiation of Christ. It also has to do with reconciliation and a new life. That is what 2 Corinthians 5 is about. 



> (2Co 5:17) Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
> 
> (2Co 5:18) And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
> 
> (2Co 5:19) To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
> 
> (2Co 5:20) *Now then we are ambassadors for Christ*, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
> 
> (2Co 5:21) For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.



This isn't just about merit. It is also about a new life. No one can merit the work of Christ. A life of Gospel Obedience is so attached. I love the Sola's. I believe in them. But it seems like there is a dichotomy that is set up that I am not seeing. In the persons statement above I mentioned that the Gospel didn't stop at it is finished. If it did then the resurrection wasn't important. Neither would it be important for us to bring the good news. I actually think it is good news when someone shares it. They become a part of that good news in that they were sent. It is good news when a person preaches the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. But it doesn't end there. The message of reconciliation is to be proclaimed. It is finished is not the end of the story or the good news. After all we are called upon to imitate the gospel by taking up our cross. We are called into the sufferings of Christ. If we are not conformed into it it is likely we are not a part of it. 



> (Rom 8:17) And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
> 
> (Rom 8:18) For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.





> (Mat 10:38) And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me....
> 
> (Mat 16:24) Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
> 
> (Mat 16:25) For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
> 
> (Mat 16:26) For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
> 
> (Mat 16:27) For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
> 
> (Mat 16:28) Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.



I believe there is a living the Gospel.


----------



## Oecolampadius

I haven't joined the discussions here on PB for a very long time but I find the thread to be very interesting.

I believe that a very good example of that which Horton's statement is meant to address goes like this:
"Being a good Christian example is already evangelism. Without even talking about doctrines, it may be enough for my unbelieving neighbor to know that I am a Christian and that I am walking in godliness."

Another example of this is that when a person, intending to be a gospel witness, proceeds to talk solely about his personal testimony (his conversion experience and changed life but not so much about what Christ did according to Scripture).

One of the many things that Horton tries to remind his readers is that the Gospel is, first of all, objective. Our salvation is grounded in the finished work of Christ which took place in history. This is not meant to do away with the subjective part but, if you look around in evangelical circles, what you'll see most often is that the Gospel is being reduced to this subjective experience which is a sort of mysticism.

If you read 'Christianity and Liberalism' by J.G. Machen, you will find that Machen asserts a very similar thing to what Horton is trying to do with the statement that was quoted.

"If the saving work of Christ were confined to what He does now for every Christian, there would be no such thing as a Christian gospel--an account of an event which put a new face on life. What we should have left would be simply mysticism, and mysticism is quite different from Christianity. It is the connection of the present experience of the believer with an actual historic appearance of Jesus in the world which prevents our religion from being mysticism and causes it to be Christianity."
Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, p. 120


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I totally disagree with the phrase supposedly attributed to St. Francis of Assisi, "Preach the Gospel all the time. If necessary use words." I do not disagree with Horton's statement along with his qualifier. At the same time I am not afraid of the two boldened statements in the quote above though. I do believe we participate in the Gospel. I do believe we can live the gospel message. It entails more than the propitiation of Christ and his statement, "It is Finished." If you remove us there is no need for the whole gospel message. I just believe that the work of Christ and his declaration, "It is Finished," is only a major part of the gospel. I totally and whole heartedly believe in the Covenants of Redemption, Works, and Grace.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Ruben, Straighten me out.


----------



## toddpedlar

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I totally disagree with the phrase supposedly attributed to St. Francis of Assisi, "Preach the Gospel all the time. If necessary use words." I do not disagree with Horton's statement along with his qualifier. At the same time I am not afraid of the two boldened statements in the quote above though. I do believe we participate in the Gospel. I do believe we can live the gospel message. It entails more than the propitiation of Christ and his statement, "It is Finished." If you remove us there is no need for the whole gospel message. I just believe that the work of Christ and his declaration, "It is Finished," is only a major part of the gospel. I totally and whole heartedly believe in the Covenants of Redemption, Works, and Grace.



Paul seems to disagree with you. The gospel is given in 1 Cor 15. It is news. Not an action, not a work we do, not anything we contribute to in the slightest. It is the announcement of salvation prepared before the foundation of the world, and brought into fruition in time through Christ. It is not good news if it is not brought about and accomplished wholly by another, namely Christ. If I have to contribute something, then I am LOST.

[BIBLE]1 Cor 15:1-11[/BIBLE]

I don't think we disagree about how things work out in our lives, and how we are to reflect the truth of the Gospel in our lives - or that the "good news" includes every benefit we receive in this life because of Christ. Nevertheless we do NOT participate in it - we don't bring forth anything that is part of the evangel. The evangel is the news about what Christ has done and what we shall receive assuredly because of His work. It isn't something we "do" or "live" because it is not "in" us. Fruit of the gospel arises, yes. We walk according to the fact that we are the redeemed bride of Christ, yes. We live free because of the gospel, yes. But none of this is our accomplishing anything or "doing" anything toward our salvation; all is our living in response to what has been announced through God's word and his messengers.


----------



## Andres

Oecolampadius said:


> Another example of this is that when a person, intending to be a gospel witness, proceeds to talk solely about his personal testimony (his conversion experience and changed life but not so much about what Christ did according to Scripture).
> 
> One of the many things that Horton tries to remind his readers is that the Gospel is, first of all, objective. Our salvation is grounded in the finished work of Christ which took place in history. This is not meant to do away with the subjective part but, if you look around in evangelical circles, what you'll see most often is that the Gospel is being reduced to this subjective experience which is a sort of mysticism.



Yes sir. This is exactly what I believe Horton means as well.


----------



## py3ak

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Ruben, Straighten me out.


 
That's a tall order!  

I personally don't like the phrases "be the gospel" or "live the gospel". I am not Christ. While I am a blessed participant in the blessings of the Gospel, and while I hope that I will increasingly do more to make it known, and to exemplify the grace Christ has bestowed on me in my treatment of others, I cannot point people to myself. Certainly, I can add my testimony to the chorus of witnesses who maintain that whereas we were blind, now we see; and in forgiving others I might be able to illustrate something of how God's grace works. But nothing that I do is saving: it is not strictly and properly the gospel. And certainly, the power of the Gospel can be seen in the transformation of lives and in zeal to spread that same Gospel that has done so much for us; but again, this is nothing but a witness to the main point: _God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them_. Our salvation consists in the benefits of the work of Christ (fully carried out by that unique theanthropic person, in accord with the terms of the covenant of redemption) applied to us by the Holy Spirit.

Lloyd-Jones has made a similar point. He remarked that the most remarkable conversion/transformation story he knew was about a man who had become a JW, if memory serves. _We preach not ourselves, but Jesus Christ the Lord._ But of course, it is the gospel that sets us free from the law of sin and death, and it is because we are not under the law, but under grace, that sin does not have dominion over us.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Just some more thoughts to untangle. We are not Christ and do not perform his work of propitiation. I am not saying that. But the call to pick up our cross is a part of the message. To share in his sufferings and conform to his image is a part of it. We are his body working through the ages. After all there is no salvation outside of the Church so the Church is a part of the Gospel message.


----------



## py3ak

Randy, it sounds like you may be raising the issue of gospel obedience. I can't speak to Dr. Horton's stance on that matter. There have been some threads in the past about, for instance, whether the command "repent" or the command "believe the gospel" is strictly speaking a part of the gospel or not. Is that what you're driving at?
I don't think anyone is denying that sanctification is part of salvation, which is the other way I could take your concern. We certainly are created in Christ Jesus unto good works, and God does work out a real holiness in us (even though that is not and never can be the foundation of our justification). And that certainly is a feature of the Gospel worth proclaiming: that God will bestow real holiness, that as He desires, so He will bestow _truth in the inward parts_. From the fact that this process has been begun in me, I might encourage people that if God can save me, He can certainly save them; but He will save them, not through me, but through Christ. Which brings me back to the point that I don't like saying "live" or "be the gospel".


----------



## Prufrock

Randy, I certainly understand (at least I think I do!) what you're expressing. I haven't read the article from which you have taken the above quote, so I can't really comment on it in its proper context directly. Nevertheless, I think we might be able to draw this out a bit and arrive at a sense in which this quotation can be taken (and which, from some of Horton's other works, such as _People and Place_, I think is probably faithful to his own meaning) which will be more satisfactory to you. This is not to say that Ruben, et al's answers are not good; but perhaps an additional perspective will be helpful.

Yes, I fully concur that the gospel has imperatives or commands; and that the gospel is not simply about what God _has_ done in Christ, but also what he is doing and will do. We accept both the objective acts of redemption and the subjective acts of redemption. Nevertheless what Horton _seems_ to be expressing here is what he has dealt with elsewhere - an erroneous way of dealing with the current physical absence of Christ by simply replacing him with the church. This problem has taken many manifestations, whether it be in the Roman magisterium or the contemporary Emergent Church. When we, as Reformed believers, confess that salvation is in the church, we do so on the basis that Christ, who ascended on high and gave gifts to men, gave the means by which his Spirit effectually applies his purchased salvation to his people: namely, the Word and sacraments. The church is the "place" of salvation because it holds forth the means which Christ makes use of through his Spirit. If we use the Emergent movement as opposing example, we see a very different principle - that of Christ leaving his church behind and equipping them to _continue_ his mission of redemption to the world: that is, literally to _be_ Christ, transforming the world through the "renewing power" of his "spirit." Instead of a relationship of Head and Body between Christ and his church, wherein the body is united by the Spirit and faith to her physically absent Head, the emergent movement (among others) has transformed this relationship not into a union, but into an _identity_ of sorts. In such a scheme, the gospel is not something which is proclaimed about another (Christ who came, died, was resurrected, ascended and is now seated on his throne), but something which is _continued_ or lived out by the "transforming power of the church redeeming the world." I would be willing to venture that this is the sort of issue which Dr. Horton is addressing in that quotation.


----------



## JP Wallace

For more on this subject listen to about the last three episodes of White Horse Inn from 2010 - there you will get full explanations of what Dr. Horton means - straight from the horse's mouth?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Points taken... To me the Gospel is not just about justification and I think too many people want to make the Gospel about justification only.

Thanks Paul. You have hit the nail on the head.

If you read my earlier posts I am not in disagreement with Dr. Horton's quote by the qualifier....

"As if our lives are the good news."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Ruben. Are we not epistles of Christ as St. Paul said. 




PuritanCovenanter said:


> ‎(2Co 3:2) Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:
> 
> (2Co 3:3) *Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us*, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.



This is not to separate us from Christ as Head.


----------



## Reformed Roman

The point Randy is making is pretty true.

We are called to strive to live like Christ did and to be Christ like. Not to atone for our sins, but we are called to live for His glory.

He means that we can't just take the gospel and live however we want. The gospel should change our lives, and in turn, we shouldn't just claim Christianity, but live it.

Ultimately, not to earn anything, but to give Him glory.


----------



## Reformed Roman

It's obvious we all agree on the same thing. We would just all word it differently.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Just a few more thoughts... 



py3ak said:


> Randy, it sounds like you may be raising the issue of gospel obedience. I can't speak to Dr. Horton's stance on that matter. There have been some threads in the past about, for instance, whether the command "repent" or the command "believe the gospel" is strictly speaking a part of the gospel or not. Is that what you're driving at?
> I don't think anyone is denying that sanctification is part of salvation, which is the other way I could take your concern. We certainly are created in Christ Jesus unto good works, and God does work out a real holiness in us (even though that is not and never can be the foundation of our justification). And that certainly is a feature of the Gospel worth proclaiming: that God will bestow real holiness, that as He desires, so He will bestow _truth in the inward parts_. From the fact that this process has been begun in me, I might encourage people that if God can save me, He can certainly save them; but He will save them, not through me, but through Christ. Which brings me back to the point that I don't like saying "live" or "be the gospel".



We are speaking along the same lines I believe Ruben. The Gospel is a message. Should we not live that message? Our lives should exhibit that message. (By the way, I fail miserably at it) That is why I am not having a problem with the phrase living the gospel. My life is an epistle of Christ to be read of all men as St. Paul said. It is a part of the Gospel. If humanity is removed from the message of the Gospel then there is no need for it. It also goes beyond the message of justification and that is something that I have feared is missing in some of the modern day conversation.


----------



## Jack K

First off, Horton's entire article is still available online here. As it turns out, I was reading it just last night. And I liked it. I didn't see anything wrong with that statement, and much that's right.

Secondly, it seems "gospel" is used in the New Testament sometimes in a narrow sense meaning the death and resurrection of Christ for our salvation (as in 1 Cor. 15:1-11), and other times in a somewhat broader sense meaning the totality of what Christ does, and possibly what he still is doing, for his people (as in the angel's announcement in Luke 2:10-14). I think this may be part of our confusion, as the saving work of Christ indeed does not stop at our justification, as Randy has rightly pointed out. Taken in this broader sense, I suppose we might say we do indeed "live out the gospel," since Christ lives and works in us.

But I would not want to put it that way often. Our conscious good works are best understood as a response and outgrowth of the news of what Christ has already accomplished. They're a reflection. They're the thunder that's evidence of Christ's lightning strike at the cross.

The greatest errors we face in terms of how "gospel" is misunderstood, both by fundamentalists and liberals, have to do with the emphasis being placed on what _we_ do rather than on what _Christ_ does. To the one, the "gospel" is a set of rules you'd better obey or else face God's wrath. To the other, the "gospel" is the feel-good social action we take to fix the world ourselves, maybe inspired partly by Jesus but not really empowered by him or flowing from his atoning work. Both of these are dangerous lies, and Horton is right to speak strongly against them.


----------



## Oecolampadius

Brothers, I think it is necessary that we should all look into the context of the statement that quoted from the Modern Reformation article:

"We must never take Christ's work for granted. The gospel is not merely something we take to unbelievers; it is the Word that created and continues to sustain the whole church in its earthly pilgrimage. In addition, we must never confuse Christ's work with our own. *There is a lot of loose talk these days about our "living the gospel" or even "being the gospel," as if our lives were the good news. *We even hear it said that the church is an extension of Christ's incarnation and redeeming work, as if Jesus came to provide the moral example or template, and we are called to complete his work.
There is one Savior and one head of the church. To him alone all authority is given in heaven and on earth. There is only one incarnation of God in history, and he finished the work of fulfilling all righteousness, bearing the curse, and triumphing over sin and death." [emphasis added]

The rest of the article can be accessed HERE.


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I believe there is a living the Gospel.


 
Jeremiah Burroughs asks, "What is it to live as becomes the gospel?" He answers, "it must be a conversation holding forth the beauty, excellency, and glory of the gospel before those with whom we convese. Here is a Christian who becomes the gospel." (Gospel Conversation, 7, SDG edition.)


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

REMEMBER... MY beef isn't with Horton's quote per se with his qualifier. This is about the couple of catch phrases. "Living the Gospel and Being the Gospel."

Thanks Reverend Winzer. I am such a Burroughs fan that I am considering just mainly reading him this year and getting to know his writings better.


----------



## Oecolampadius

In my humble opinion, what Burroughs meant does not fall into the same category as to what Horton is referring to with his use of the phrases "living the gospel" and "being the gospel". Also, I doubt that one is doing justice in his critique of another person's words if one does not take into consideration the meaning that was intended by the use of those words. We need to be more gracious here. We need to ask the question, "who or what is he referring to?" That is why I said that I believe it is necessary to look into the context of that statement.

Have you all heard of the term *"Incarnational Gospel"* or *"Incarnational Ministry"*? Anybody who is somewhat familiar with Rick Warren (or Rick Warren types) should have an idea of what is meant by these terms. So, I hope I don't have to explain the concept because there is some vagueness to it. I believe that this is one of the main issues that Horton is referring to.

In the context of Horton's article,
"living the gospel", "being the gospel" = "Incarnational Gospel" or "Incarnational Ministry"

In addition, Horton began the statement by saying, "There is a lot of loose talk *these days*..." He is referring to a present phenomena. Like I said, context is important.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Oecolampadius said:


> In the context of Horton's article,
> "living the gospel", "being the gospel" = "Incarnational Gospel" or "Incarnational Ministry"



That might be true. But the full scope of the gospel isn't just justification by faith alone. The phrases themselves are not bad in my understanding. I don't know about Incarnational Gospel nor Incarnational Ministry. Terminology can be used by cults also but that doesn't mean the terminology is bad. 

Again...
As I said.... I am not in disagreement with Dr. Horton's phraseology with his qualifier.


----------



## rbcbob

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Should we not live that message? Our lives should exhibit that message



Randy, if I commission you to spread the message that a wildfire is spreading in the direction of the town, then your responsibility is specifically to "stay on message" and faithfully convey that message accurately. How you carry yourself in the prosecution of that assignment may have a bearing upon the effectiveness of its reception but such "carriage of yourself" is in no way the message itself.

Horton and his associates at the White Horse Inn are devoting this year to recovering a biblical understanding of THE GREAT COMMISSION. One point they made last week is that the contemporary christian needs to keep the GREAT COMMISSION distinct, and not confused with THE GREAT COMMANDMENT.


----------



## MW

rbcbob said:


> One point they made last week is that the contemporary christian needs to keep the GREAT COMMISSION distinct, and not confused with THE GREAT COMMANDMENT.


 
A part of the great commission is, "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." One should guard against receiving any gospel which dichotomises faith and life.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I agree with Rev. Winzer. The Great Commission and the Great commandment go hand in hand and are tightly knitted together as is obedience and love. 



> (Joh 14:21) He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.


----------



## Prufrock

Mr Winzer, I do of course fully stand by Mr. Burroughs statement above, and stand by your use of Matthew 28:29. I wholly affirm the reformed tradition of interpreting scripture when it asserts that the gospel is not just the "indicative," but that there are, indeed, gospel imperatives, that the gospel is something to be obeyed; we proclaim the gospel or "the truth which is after godliness," and teach "the doctrine which is according to godliness," believing that man can truly "_obey not_ the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." I of course fully accept and use the terminology of "living as becomes the gospel," or "living according to the gospel," or "living out the gospel" and (when understood in an orthodox fashion) "living the gospel." Nonetheless, not knowing whether such similar movements currently exist in Australia, there are popular movements here in America associated with more "Emergent Church" ideas which basically transfer the work of redemption from the actual, concrete person of Christ who was manifested in history, performed his once-for-all objective work of redemption (the benefits of which are applied subjectively in time) -- they transfer this work to the church, which becomes the "redeeming agent," transforming the world through "love, peace, understanding and social justice." I am aware that you will be far more familiar than I am with this basic idea which has had numerous incarnations in history, but I can also imagine that the climate in Australia might be different than in certain places here in America. Thus, while I personally never like the idea of giving up sound terminology and don't think such phrases need to actually be erased from our vocabulary, I can certainly at least understand why some in this climate would want to distance themselves from terminology which would easily be understood as supporting these "emergent" ideals, especially as I imagine such things are even more in vogue in Southern California than just about anywhere else in this country. I think that general interactions on this discussion board have made it clear that many of us do have reservations about aspects of the Covenant Theology set forth in certain of Horton's works and a corresponding form of the law/gospel distinction. That being said, I think that in spite of these issues, a sympathetic reading of the above quotation can be found (assuming, of course, that the rest of the article from which it is taken supports that reading), even if we/you/I would not agree that giving up the terminology itself is the best solution; would you concur, or do you think I ought to reconsider?


----------



## rbcbob

armourbearer said:


> A part of the great commission is, "*Teaching* them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." One should guard against receiving any gospel which dichotomises faith and life.



Indeed. And yet the *teaching* is not the *observing* it is the teaching. Conversely the *observing *is not the *teaching*, it is the observing.

In the context of this post, our *observing*, however well performed and devotedly carried out can never be identified as the the teaching. And so relative to the parts of the Great Commission my "observing all things" is neither the *διδάσκω* nor the *μαθητεύω* but rather the *τηρέω* part of the Great Commission.

So the confusion comes when Emergents _et al_ speak of "living the gospel". One does not live the *ευανγέλλιον*, the propositionally revealed "good news", one proclaims it. This gospel, believed, will result in keeping God's Law, living holy lives, and being salt and light in the world.


----------



## mvdm

Randy, I saw that same quote on Facebook some time ago, and had the same reaction as you did. While Horton is probably targeting abuses of evangelicalism who would dichotomize our living from proclamation, Horton's dualistic statement unfortunately {but not surprisingly} dichotomizes in the opposite direction. 

Are WE not "living letters" of Christ, given the _ongoing _ "ministry of reconciliation"?


----------



## CharlieJ

“It cannot be stressed too much that to confuse the gospel with certain important things that go hand in hand with it is to invite theological, hermeneutical and spiritual confusion. Such ingredients of preaching and teaching that we might want to link with the gospel would include the need for the gospel (sin and judgment), the means of receiving the benefits of the gospel (faith and repentance), the results or fruit of the gospel (regeneration, conversion, sanctification, glorification) and the results of rejecting it (wrath, judgment, hell). These, however we define and proclaim them, are not in themselves the gospel. If something is not what God did in and through the historical Jesus two thousand years ago, it is not the gospel. Thus Christians cannot ‘live the gospel,’ as they are often exhorted to do. They can only believe it, proclaim it and seek to live consistently with it. Only Jesus lived (and died) the gospel. It is a once-for-all finished and perfect event done for us by another.”

Graeme Goldsworthy, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of Evangelical Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 58-59.


----------



## rbcbob

CharlieJ said:


> Thus Christians cannot ‘live the gospel,’ as they are often exhorted to do. They can only believe it, proclaim it and seek to live consistently with it. Only Jesus lived (and died) the gospel. It is a once-for-all finished and perfect event done for us by another.”


----------



## Michael Doyle

I believe I completely understand Horton`s point and while I am still working out much theologically, this seems clear to me without muddying my responsibility to be salt and light in light of the gospel. My


----------



## MarieP

CharlieJ said:


> “It cannot be stressed too much that to confuse the gospel with certain important things that go hand in hand with it is to invite theological, hermeneutical and spiritual confusion. Such ingredients of preaching and teaching that we might want to link with the gospel would include the need for the gospel (sin and judgment), the means of receiving the benefits of the gospel (faith and repentance), the results or fruit of the gospel (regeneration, conversion, sanctification, glorification) and the results of rejecting it (wrath, judgment, hell). These, however we define and proclaim them, are not in themselves the gospel. If something is not what God did in and through the historical Jesus two thousand years ago, it is not the gospel. Thus Christians cannot ‘live the gospel,’ as they are often exhorted to do. They can only believe it, proclaim it and seek to live consistently with it. Only Jesus lived (and died) the gospel. It is a once-for-all finished and perfect event done for us by another.”
> 
> Graeme Goldsworthy, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of Evangelical Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 58-59.





When I hear someone say "live the Gospel" I think they really mean live out the *implications* of it. The Gospel is an objective reality, the good news of Christ, His gracious kingdom, His sacrificial death, and His glorious resurrection. It is what Jesus, Peter, and Paul preached. It is also what Judas preached, as those whom Paul address in Philippians who did it out of envy, strife, and selfish ambition. It is the power of God for salvation for everyone who believes. It can be hindered (or, most amazingly, adorned!!) by our lives, but our lives aren't the Gospel message itself. They are fruits of it.


----------



## MarieP

mvdm said:


> Randy, I saw that same quote on Facebook some time ago, and had the same reaction as you did. While Horton is probably targeting abuses of evangelicalism who would dichotomize our living from proclamation, Horton's dualistic statement unfortunately {but not surprisingly} dichotomizes in the opposite direction.
> 
> Are WE not "living letters" of Christ, given the _ongoing _ "ministry of reconciliation"?


 
But how do we jump from "living letters of Christ" to "Gospel"? Wouldn't that mean the Gospel changes? I know you'd say, "God forbid!" But that's an implication that I see.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

MarieP said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Randy, I saw that same quote on Facebook some time ago, and had the same reaction as you did. While Horton is probably targeting abuses of evangelicalism who would dichotomize our living from proclamation, Horton's dualistic statement unfortunately {but not surprisingly} dichotomizes in the opposite direction.
> 
> Are WE not "living letters" of Christ, given the _ongoing _ "ministry of reconciliation"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how do we jump from "living letters of Christ" to "Gospel"? Wouldn't that mean the Gospel changes? I know you'd say, "God forbid!" But that's an implication that I see.
Click to expand...

 

Marie,
This is the passage we are referring to. It isn't separated from the truth or headship of Christ. 



> ‎(2Co 3:2) Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:
> 
> (2Co 3:3) Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the *epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God;* not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.


----------



## MarieP

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Marie,
> This is the passage we are referring to. It isn't separated from the truth or headship of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‎(2Co 3:2) Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:
> 
> (2Co 3:3) Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the *epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God;* not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
Click to expand...

 
Dear brother, I don't think you understood my point. I was asking how you move from "living epistles" to "Gospel." I assume we'd both agree that the context is that Paul doesn't need a literal paper-and-ink letter of commendation because the Philippians are his flesh-and-blood letter of commendation. Where is he talking about the Gospel here? Isn't this a reaction to those who would doubt Paul's credentials? Isn't he in essence saying, "We don't need letters of commendation because we have Christ's own stamp of approval. In fact, you are Christ's letter of commendation to us!"



> 1 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? Or do we need, as some others, epistles of commendation to you or letters of commendation from you? 2 You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read by all men; 3 clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart.


----------



## mvdm

Joshua said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Randy, I saw that same quote on Facebook some time ago, and had the same reaction as you did. While Horton is probably targeting abuses of evangelicalism who would dichotomize our living from proclamation, Horton's dualistic statement unfortunately {but not surprisingly} dichotomizes in the opposite direction.
> 
> Are WE not "living letters" of Christ, given the _ongoing _ "ministry of reconciliation"?
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Van Der Molen (Is that the proper address? Forgive me, if not.),
> 
> Wouldn't it (the reference to "ministry of reconciliation") depend on who you mean by "WE"? If you're referring to 2 Cor. 5 isn't Paul speaking of office-bearers?
> 
> Sincerely,
Click to expand...


Joshua: Yes, "Mr." is the correct title, but "Mark" will do just fine.

Yes, I'd agree the reference to 2 Corinthians likely references the work of officebearers. My point was simply that the gospel involves not just the content of the message, sitting there on the page, but our actively living it. It is the ongoing reconciliation of men to God. In other words it is holistic, interconnection of message by proclamation and life. Note the apostle moves in Chapter 6:1 to say "*Working together with Him*, then we appeal to you not receive the grace of God in vain". V. 3-8.: "We put no obstacle in anyone's way, so that no fault may be found with our ministries, but as servants of God _*we commend ourselves in every way*_: by great endurance, in afflictons, hardships, calamities, beatings, imprisonments, ritos, labors, sleepless nights, hunger, by purity, knowledge, patience, kindness, the Holy Spirit, genuine love; by truthful speech and the power of God; with the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and for the left; through honor and dishonor, through slander and praise..." 

So I think Horton's quote is just an unfortunate choice of words, as it could be misinterpreted as running contrary to the 3rd use of the law and with what we read in 2 Thessalonians 1:8-12.


----------



## rbcbob

mvdm said:


> the gospel involves not just the content of the message



It is a major shift of debate to move from the gospel *IS* to the gospel *involves*.



mvdm said:


> our actively living it



Several have made the point that, owing to what the gospel *is* it therefore is not that which we actively live.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

MarieP said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marie,
> This is the passage we are referring to. It isn't separated from the truth or headship of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‎(2Co 3:2) Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:
> 
> (2Co 3:3) Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the *epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God;* not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear brother, I don't think you understood my point. I was asking how you move from "living epistles" to "Gospel." I assume we'd both agree that the context is that Paul doesn't need a literal paper-and-ink letter of commendation because the Philippians are his flesh-and-blood letter of commendation. Where is he talking about the Gospel here? Isn't this a reaction to those who would doubt Paul's credentials? Isn't he in essence saying, "We don't need letters of commendation because we have Christ's own stamp of approval. In fact, you are Christ's letter of commendation to us!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? Or do we need, as some others, epistles of commendation to you or letters of commendation from you? 2 You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read by all men; 3 clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 

Marie, There is more implied than what you are alluding too. Read Calvin and John Gill on this passage.


----------



## MarieP

PuritanCovenanter said:


> MarieP said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marie,
> This is the passage we are referring to. It isn't separated from the truth or headship of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‎(2Co 3:2) Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:
> 
> (2Co 3:3) Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the *epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God;* not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear brother, I don't think you understood my point. I was asking how you move from "living epistles" to "Gospel." I assume we'd both agree that the context is that Paul doesn't need a literal paper-and-ink letter of commendation because the Philippians are his flesh-and-blood letter of commendation. Where is he talking about the Gospel here? Isn't this a reaction to those who would doubt Paul's credentials? Isn't he in essence saying, "We don't need letters of commendation because we have Christ's own stamp of approval. In fact, you are Christ's letter of commendation to us!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? Or do we need, as some others, epistles of commendation to you or letters of commendation from you? 2 You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read by all men; 3 clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Marie, There is more implied than what you are alluding too. Read Calvin and John Gill on this passage.
Click to expand...

 
I read Calvin on it but didn't see anything about their lives being the Gospel.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

MarieP said:


> I read Calvin on it but didn't see anything about their lives being the Gospel.



Calvin...



> What follows is intended to increase the authority of that Epistle. The second clause, (366) however, has already a reference to the comparison that is afterwards drawn between the law and the gospel. For he takes occasion from this shortly afterwards, as we shall see, to enter upon a comparison of this nature. The antitheses here employed — ink and Spirit, stones and heart — give no small degree of weight to his statements, by way of amplification. For in drawing a contrast between ink and the Spirit of God, and between stones and heart, he expresses more than if he had simply made mention of the Spirit and the heart, without drawing any comparison.
> Not on tables of stone He alludes to the promise that is recorded in Jer_31:31, and Eze_37:26, concerning the grace of the New Testament.
> I will make, says he, a new covenant with them, not such as I had made with their fathers; but I will write my laws upon their hearts, and engrave them on their inward parts. Farther, I will take away the stony heart from the midst of thee, and will give thee a heart of flesh, that thou mayest walk in my precepts.
> (Eze_36:26.)
> Paul says, that this blessing was accomplished through means of his preaching. Hence it abundantly appears, that he is a faithful minister of the New Covenant — which is a legitimate testimony in favor of his apostleship. The epithet fleshly is not taken here in a bad sense, but means soft and flexible, (367) as it is contrasted with stony, that is, hard and stubborn, as is the heart of man by nature, until it has been subdued by the Spirit of God. (368)


----------



## MarieP

PuritanCovenanter said:


> MarieP said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read Calvin on it but didn't see anything about their lives being the Gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What follows is intended to increase the authority of that Epistle. The second clause, (366) however, has already a reference to the comparison that is afterwards drawn between the law and the gospel. For he takes occasion from this shortly afterwards, as we shall see, to enter upon a comparison of this nature. The antitheses here employed — ink and Spirit, stones and heart — give no small degree of weight to his statements, by way of amplification. For in drawing a contrast between ink and the Spirit of God, and between stones and heart, he expresses more than if he had simply made mention of the Spirit and the heart, without drawing any comparison.
> Not on tables of stone He alludes to the promise that is recorded in Jer_31:31, and Eze_37:26, concerning the grace of the New Testament.
> I will make, says he, a new covenant with them, not such as I had made with their fathers; but I will write my laws upon their hearts, and engrave them on their inward parts. Farther, I will take away the stony heart from the midst of thee, and will give thee a heart of flesh, that thou mayest walk in my precepts.
> (Eze_36:26.)
> Paul says, that this blessing was accomplished through means of his preaching. Hence it abundantly appears, that he is a faithful minister of the New Covenant — which is a legitimate testimony in favor of his apostleship. The epithet fleshly is not taken here in a bad sense, but means soft and flexible, (367) as it is contrasted with stony, that is, hard and stubborn, as is the heart of man by nature, until it has been subdued by the Spirit of God. (368)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 
Ok, I'm still not seeing where he says the Corinthians' lives ARE the Gospel.


----------



## mvdm

rbcbob said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> the gospel involves not just the content of the message
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a major shift of debate to move from the gospel *IS* to the gospel *involves*.
> 
> 
> 
> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> our actively living it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several have made the point that, owing to what the gospel *is* it therefore is not that which we actively live.
Click to expand...


I understand the point. It's the same as Horton's. I reject it.


----------



## MarieP

What about this verse? Paul makes a distinction of some sort here.

1 Thessalonians 2
8 So, affectionately longing for you, we were well pleased to impart to you *not only the gospel of God*, *but also our own lives*, because you had become dear to us. 9 For you remember, brethren, our labor and toil; for laboring night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, we preached to you the gospel of God.


----------



## rbcbob

mvdm said:


> I understand the point. It's the same as Horton's. I reject it.



It still remains for you to demonstrate logically and exegetically that *the gospel*, qua gospel, is something lived by Christians.


----------



## MarieP

Phil 1:27
Only let your conduct be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of your affairs, that you stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel,

---------- Post added at 06:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:25 PM ----------

1 Thessalonians 1:5
For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance, as you know what kind of men we were among you for your sake.


----------



## Peairtach

God's Word is to be lived out ethically in heart, mind, soul and strength in iobedience to God in Christ. 

The Gospel, strictly-speaking, is what God's Word says about Christ's Person and Work. It would be blasphemous to try to live that.

We are to be like Christ but only in a certain sense, and we are not to be Christ. There is a very close union between Christ and His people but they must also be distinguished.

We aren't Christ Himself but part of His Body, part of His Bride, branches on the Vine, stones in His Temple.

It's theologically infelicitous and inaccurate language to talk about "living out the Gospel". A person might or might not understand what is being said.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

We are a part of it Marie. We are not the Gospel as you seem to be taking it too far. The authority of the epistle is that it is Gospel authority. We are a part of that Gospel. 



> What follows is intended to increase the authority of that Epistle. The second clause, (366) however, has already a reference to the comparison that is afterwards drawn between the law and the gospel.



Marie, what is that epistle that commends Paul or confirms him? Is it not that we (or the Corinthians (Philippians?)) are in Christ? We are Christ's epistle written by the Spirit of God for the whole world to examine. What is that epistle about? Are we not a part of it? 

Please go back and reread the first page. The language I am seeing has been used by others and understood in a certain context. Read Rev. Winzer's reference to Jeremiah Burroughs. Read my ealier posts about sharing in the sufferings and conformity to Christ. 



> (1Co 11:1) *Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ*.





> (1Pe 2:12) Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation........
> (1Pe 2:21) For even hereunto were ye called: *because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:*





> 1Ti 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.



God gets all the glory but we are a part of the message. If you remove the human element of the gospel it is nothing. There is no need for it. 

I sense in American Reformed Theology that their is a dichotomy that the scriptures are not aware of. Salvation is not just about justification. The Gospel is not just about Justification. There are dangers in this discussion. We shouldn't become Neonomists but at the same time we can't be antinomians. I do not believe Dr. Horton is either of these. But I am not so sure that the two phrases he is using are necessarily wrong. 




> (Tit 2:9) Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again;
> 
> (Tit 2:10) Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; *that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.*
> 
> (Tit 2:11) For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
> 
> (Tit 2:12) Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
> 
> (Tit 2:13) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
> 
> (Tit 2:14) Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.








> (1Pe 2:12) Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation........
> (1Pe 2:21) For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, *leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:*






armourbearer said:


> Jeremiah Burroughs asks, "What is it to live as becomes the gospel?" He answers, "it must be a conversation holding forth the beauty, excellency, and glory of the gospel before those with whom we convese. *Here is a Christian who becomes the gospel*." (Gospel Conversation, 7, SDG edition.)



I hope I am not being blasphemous.


----------



## mvdm

rbcbob said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the point. It's the same as Horton's. I reject it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It still remains for you to demonstrate logically and exegetically that *the gospel*, qua gospel, is something lived by Christians.
Click to expand...

 
No, since he introduced the confusion, it remains for Horton to demonstrate that the phrase "living the gospel" is somehow necessarily opposed to the 3rd use of the law or from our "obeying the gospel" or our being "living letters of Christ".


----------



## Oecolampadius

Prufrock said:


> Nonetheless, not knowing whether such similar movements currently exist in Australia, there are popular movements here in America associated with more "Emergent Church" ideas which basically transfer the work of redemption from the actual, concrete person of Christ who was manifested in history, performed his once-for-all objective work of redemption (the benefits of which are applied subjectively in time) -- they transfer this work to the church, which becomes the "redeeming agent," transforming the world through "love, peace, understanding and social justice."



Paul, I think you nailed it. I believe this is what "*Incarnational Ministry*" means. And, based on the articles and books that I've read of Horton, this is one Horton's major concerns but the article alone indicates that this is one of the main concerns when it comes to those who are presently talking about "living the gospel" or "being the gospel."


----------



## rbcbob

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Originally Posted by armourbearer View Post
> Jeremiah Burroughs asks, "What is it to live as becomes the gospel?" He answers, "it must be a conversation holding forth the beauty, excellency, and glory of the gospel before those with whom we convese. Here is a Christian who becomes the gospel." (Gospel Conversation, 7, SDG edition.)
> I hope I am not being blasphemous.





Could this be one source of the confusion:



> *KJV* Philippians 1:27 Only let your conversation be as it *becometh* *(αξίως)* the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;





> *NKJ* Philippians 1:27 Only let your conduct be *worthy* *(αξίως)* of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of your affairs, that you stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel,





> *αξίως* adverb, suitably; worthily, in a manner worthy of: with the genitive, Rom. 16:2; Phil. 1:27; Col. 1:10; 1 Thess. 2:12; Eph. 4:1; 3 John 1:6. (From Sophocles down.)* [Thayer]


----------



## MarieP

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Marie, what is that epistle that commends Paul or confirms him? Is it not that we (or the Corinthians (Philippians?)) are in Christ? We are Christ's epistle written by the Spirit of God for the whole world to examine. What is that epistle about? Are we not a part of it?



We are living fruit of the Gospel. I still don't see where it says we are part of the Gospel.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> (1Co 11:1) *Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (1Pe 2:12) Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation........
> (1Pe 2:21) For even hereunto were ye called: *because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1Ti 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God gets all the glory but we are a part of the message. If you remove the human element of the gospel it is nothing. There is no need for it.
Click to expand...


I don't see where it says we are part of the message. Let me ask this: was the Gospel still the Gospel before anyone ever came to believe it? Was the Gospel deficient before the first convert?




PuritanCovenanter said:


> I sense in American Reformed Theology that their is a dichotomy that the scriptures are not aware of. Salvation is not just about justification. The Gospel is not just about Justification. There are dangers in this discussion. We shouldn't become Neonomists but at the same time we can't be antinomians.



  

Where did I ever say that the Gospel or salvation is just about justification? I too have heard some Reformed people speak as if it's the sum and substance of the Christian message. And part of that is what got me intrigued with the New Perspective recently. But no, you don't have to be a Neonomian (or antinomian) to agree that's a problem, since Calvin and John Murray and JI Packer have made similar assertions. The Gospel is the good news about Christ, and when we are united with Him by faith, we are justified, adopted, sanctified, etc., etc., etc.




PuritanCovenanter said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah Burroughs asks, "What is it to live as becomes the gospel?" He answers, "it must be a conversation holding forth the beauty, excellency, and glory of the gospel before those with whom we convese. *Here is a Christian who becomes the gospel*." (Gospel Conversation, 7, SDG edition.)
Click to expand...

 
I believe our Puritan brother meant something other than what you do by the word "becomes." In the old days, "becomes" meant it "befits" something.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Giving Mike's comments the most charitable construction (as I believe the 9th Commandment requires of us), if we're speaking of the _kerygma_ then it is not something we _live_ or _do_ but it is a proclamation.

As proclamations go, then, one can receive and obey a proclamation but the proclamation is not our receipt and obedience but a historic content.

There is a pretty consistent pattern in Acts of the announcement of John heralding Christ, Christ performing signs and wonders, Christ being delivered up by lawless hands, Christ raising from the dead proving Himself God and Messiah, and a call to repentance and belief. That _kerygma_ is objective content that requires response but the individual responding is not the content. That _kerygma_ produces life but the life of the believer is not the _kerygma_.

I don't see anywhere in that quote where Mike denies that the Gospel call itself requires obedience unto it but that the obedience unto it is not, strictly speaking, the Gospel even if the obedience itself is part and parcel of the broader aspect of salvation as one is united to Christ.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

MarieP said:


> I don't see where it says we are part of the message. Let me ask this: was the Gospel still the Gospel before anyone ever came to believe it? Was the Gospel deficient before the first convert?



How can there be a Gospel if we are not? You can't remove humanity from it or it isn't. 

It looks like we are at an impass. 

Marie,

I am sorry but I am addressing other issues also. And you seem to have entered into the discussion a bit late. There were two phrases and I don't think they are bad. 

I never said you said anything as you have asserted concerning the gospel being just about justification. I was just rementioning it to bring out some of the issue. I noted earlier that someone said the gospel ended at 'it is finished'. 

I agree. We are befitted concerning the Gospel. The good news is God reconciling himself to man and what that does in mans life. 

Bob,
No, that isn't the source of what you assert is confusion. I don't think I am confused about it. I might be.


----------



## Grimmson

Richard Tallach said:


> It's theologically infelicitous and inaccurate language to talk about "living out the Gospel". A person might or might not understand what is being said.


 
If someone told you to live out the truth or according to the truth (not yet saying what that truth is yet), would you not agree in principle with what was said (not to debate what truth we are talking about)? Since the gospel is the truth of our salvation (see Eph 1:13), let us then replace truth with gospel above, so that one gets to live out the gospel if according to the gospel. Living the gospel” basically means to live your life according to the truth of the gospel, and I do not see why that so terrible. Do we not judge the conduct of church members that is not in step with the truth of the gospel (question based on Gal. 2:14)? Of course we do. The gospel does contain within itself imperatives in which we should all live. We see this in Acts 17:30, when Paul is preaching his message in the Areopagus; whereby all men everywhere are called to repentance. This is because of the indicative of the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord and Savior. In Acts 26:20, we the Apostles telling people that they should repent and turn to God, “performing deeds in keeping to their repentance.” In other words because of the gospel, we should be living a life in accordance to the gospel as a direct result of believing it. The gospel indicative naturally produces the imperative of how we are expected to live that is assuming if we are going to say that the truth is in us (see 1 John 1:8, and 1 Thessalonians 2:13). 2 John’s “walking in the truth”, verse 4, should be seen as walking in the gospel, because the truth is in direct opposition against the doctrine of antichrist. It has a direct affect of the message of the gospel that Christ has come in the flesh, a flesh that if Christ did not come then we would have no hope of salvation. This may seem confusing to some, but it is our jobs as ministers and teachers to clear up any possible theological confusion. 

How do we “live the gospel” or “living out the gospel”? It is by turning to Christ each day. We do it by worshipping and glorying our Lord and Savior. By telling others by Christ, and noticed I said about Christ and not ourselves. We do it by submitting to his Word. If we are in Christ, then we are going to want to live lives that are reflected by the gospel that he has given to us. For are we not to labor or serve in the gospel? See Philippians 2:22 and 4:3:



> (Phl 2:22 KJV) - But ye know the proof of him, that, as a son with the father, he hath served with me in the gospel.
> (Phl 4:3 KJV) - And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and [with] other my fellowlabourers, whose names [are] in the book of life.
> (1Th 3:2 KJV) - And sent Timotheus, our brother, and minister of God, and our fellowlabourer in the gospel of Christ, to establish you, and to comfort you concerning your faith.



The gospel should be seen as transforming, not just in regards to our justification but also sanctification as well, as Randy has pointed out. We must be careful that we are not so focused on our justification that we lose sight of the promise of our sanctification here and now, and later with the resurrection of our bodies and glorification as we are united in Christ. 

I do have issue with “Being the gospel”, because you can live your life according to the gospel by faith, be not perfectly of course, but that does not make essence the gospel. However with that said we should be seen as reflecting the gospel, reflecting and being are not the same thing. Now if one said we should be “being in the gospel” I wouldn’t have a problem with that because the “in” represents that we are resting in the promise of our salvation in God. 

Hopefully I am making sense.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Maybe I am not seeing things clearly but when I see all the lives of those martyred and the people who shed blood for us to hear and be reconciled to God, it is a part of that message. I see those acts as taking up a cross as Jesus commanded. It is imitating Christ as a part of His body. It is living the Gospel and participating in it. It is being a part of the foundation. 



> (1Co 3:8) Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
> 
> (1Co 3:9) For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.
> 
> (1Co 3:10) According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
> 
> (1Co 3:11) For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.



After all. Jesus came and Preached the Good News of the Kingdom. The Kingdom is a part of that good news. We are a part of that Kingdom. Thus we are a part of the Gospel. 

We are called to participate in this..



> (Joh 15:12) This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
> 
> (Joh 15:13) Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.



Addition......................................................................................................

I mentioned this to someone elsewhere...

I believe this is were the discussion is going array. The Church is not the Gospel. She is a part of it as she is a part of the Kingdom. It is the Gospel of the Kingdom. 


(Gal 6:14) But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

(Gal 6:15) For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.

(Gal 6:16) And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

(Gal 6:17) From now on let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus.

(Gal 6:18) The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers. Amen.

Notice what matters here, a new creation. The New Creation is a part of the Gospel as I understand it. It is not in total the Gospel but the Gospel is made up of parts that make a whole.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

MarieP said:


> I believe our Puritan brother meant something other than what you do by the word "becomes." In the old days, "becomes" meant it "befits" something.



Webster's 1828....



> become
> 
> BECOME, v.i. becum'. pret. became, pp. become.
> 
> 1. To pass from one state to another; to enter into some state or condition, by a change from another state or condition, or by assuming or receiving new properties or qualities, additional matter, or a new character; as, a cion becomes a tree.
> The Lord God breathed into his nostrils the breath of like and man became a living soul.
> 
> To the Jew, I became a Jew.
> 
> 2. To become of, usually with what preceding; to be the fate of; to be the end of; to be the final or subsequent condition; as, what will become of our commerce? what will become of us?
> In the present tense, it applies to place as well as condition. What has become of my friend? that is, where is he? as well as, what is his condition? Where is he become? used by Shakespeare and Spenser, is obsolete; but this is the sense in Saxon, where has he fallen?
> 
> BECOME, v.t. In general, to suit or be suitable; to be congruous; to befit; to accord with, in character or circumstances; to be worthy of, decent or proper. It is used in the same sense applied to persons or things.
> 
> If I become not a cart as well as another man.
> 
> This use of the word however is less frequent, the verb usually expressing the suitableness of things, to persons or to other things; as, a robe becomes a prince.
> 
> It becomes not a cart as well as another man.


----------



## MarieP

"BECOME, v.t. In general, to suit or be suitable; to be congruous; to befit; to accord with, in character or circumstances; to be worthy of, decent or proper. It is used in the same sense applied to persons or things."

I believe that's what Burroughs meant. Otherwise, his first sentence would make no sense at all: "What is it to live as becomes the gospel?"


----------



## earl40

MarieP said:


> When I hear someone say "live the Gospel" I think they really mean live out the *implications* of it. The Gospel is an objective reality, the good news of Christ, His gracious kingdom, His sacrificial death, and His glorious resurrection. It is what Jesus, Peter, and Paul preached. It is also what Judas preached, as those whom Paul address in Philippians who did it out of envy, strife, and selfish ambition. It is the power of God for salvation for everyone who believes. It can be hindered (or, most amazingly, adorned!!) by our lives, but our lives aren't the Gospel message itself. They are fruits of it.


 
I dare say I RARELY hear the Gospel outside of church and if "by chance" I am discussing The Gospel with another believer 99% of the time they say they show The Gospel by their works.....and I think they don't imply "they really mean live out the *implications* of it". It is interesting how we see this in totally opposite ways. I think this is exactly what Horton quote addressed.


----------



## turmeric

Have any of you read Christless Christianity?


----------



## rbcbob

turmeric said:


> Have any of you read Christless Christianity?



yes


----------



## MW

Prufrock said:


> would you concur, or do you think I ought to reconsider?


 
My dear brother,

Would you please give some thought to the following post by Mark Jones?

In Light of the Gospel » Blog Archive » The Gospel and Sanctification

What is at stake in the use of the term? It expresses the sanctifying power of the gospel. What is at stake in the condemnation of the term? It shuts us up to a justification-only gospel. The acceptance of such a gospel would require a wholesale rejection of "the gospel mystery of sanctification" such as Marshall understood it; or of the necessity of gospel holiness as Owen expressed it; or of the very idea of gospel conversation and gospel fear as Burroughs has taught it. Life and immortality are brought to light through the gospel. The life believers live is gospel life. It is a life which accords with what the gospel teaches but it is also a life which has been produced by the gospel. We are born again by the incorruptible word of God, the word which came to us by the gospel, 1 Pet. 2:23-25. We are changed into the same image we behold in the gospel glass, 2 Cor. 3:18. Our life is either gospel life or it is a living death.


----------



## MW

rbcbob said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> A part of the great commission is, "*Teaching* them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." One should guard against receiving any gospel which dichotomises faith and life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. And yet the *teaching* is not the *observing* it is the teaching. Conversely the *observing *is not the *teaching*, it is the observing.
Click to expand...

 
John 3:21, "But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." One should be wary of any tendency which distorts the gospel so as to make it nothing more than propositional truth.


----------



## Prufrock

Thank you for sharing this article, Matthew.

As I noted above, I do indeed fall in line with men such as Rutherford and Burroughs on the matter - in fact, it was your high estimation of Rutherford which made me pay close attention to his writings, for which I am most glad, as I have come to find him perhaps my most persuasive influence from the period. For that matter, all of Jeremiah Burrough's "Gospel" books, and Marshall's _Gospel Mystery_ have been some of the foremost writings which have shaped my understanding of Biblical spirituality. In other words, I find myself in complete agreement with you on the importance of _meaning_ of the term and what is at stake when an understanding of the gospel and the law/gospel contrast is advocated which disallows this _meaning_ of the term. I do regret the fact that there are current (and very popular) understandings of the gospel or the law/gospel distinction in the Reformed world today which are at variance from that which (I believe) we have both inherited from a Rutherford or an Anthony Burgess, and that (unfortunately) these understandings may stand behind the quote cited in the opening post; and if that's the case, I certainly don't want to appear to be defending such an understanding of law/gospel. I do want to give the benefit of the doubt, however, and sympathetically read the quote as a necessary attack upon Emergent ideas about the work of redemption. I think you have reminded me, however, that I may have been too quick to defend the sympathetic aspect of what was being said while brushing over other less sympathetic aspects thereof. Thank you.


----------



## MW

Prufrock said:


> I do want to give the benefit of the doubt, however, and sympathetically read the quote as a necessary attack upon Emergent ideas about the work of redemption.


 
Dear Paul,

I would gladly give the same benefit of the doubt if I did not think the systemic reconstruction of the reformed law-gospel distinction was behind the rejection of the phrase. The fact is, these gentlemen are thinking through their theology and making it consistently apply to the whole range of doctrinal loci. We wouldn't expect anything less from trained theologians. It is because of this systematising (leavening) process that the slightest deviation is bound to have far reaching consequences; that is what makes it indispensible for us to take every thought captive.


----------



## Prufrock

armourbearer said:


> Dear Paul,
> 
> I would gladly give the same benefit of the doubt if I did not think the systemic reconstruction of the reformed law-gospel distinction was behind the rejection of the phrase. The fact is, these gentlemen are thinking through their theology and making it consistently apply to the whole range of doctrinal loci. We wouldn't expect anything less from trained theologians. It is because of this systematising (leavening) process that the slightest deviation is bound to have far reaching consequences; that is what makes it indispensible for us to take every thought captive.



Excellent thoughts; thank you. Individual thoughts ought not be separated from the vine which bears them.


----------



## mvdm

armourbearer said:


> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do want to give the benefit of the doubt, however, and sympathetically read the quote as a necessary attack upon Emergent ideas about the work of redemption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Paul,
> 
> I would gladly give the same benefit of the doubt if I did not think the systemic reconstruction of the reformed law-gospel distinction was behind the rejection of the phrase. The fact is, these gentlemen are thinking through their theology and making it consistently apply to the whole range of doctrinal loci. We wouldn't expect anything less from trained theologians. It is because of this systematising (leavening) process that the slightest deviation is bound to have far reaching consequences; that is what makes it indispensible for us to take every thought captive.
Click to expand...



Amen.


----------



## MarieP

armourbearer said:


> I would gladly give the same benefit of the doubt if I did not think the systemic reconstruction of the reformed law-gospel distinction was behind the rejection of the phrase.


 
I don't think it's behind it, at least not in my own reasoning it out. So if someone preaches a sermon on, say, children obeying their parents and yet neglects to speak of the power to obey coming from Christ, the crucified and risen and ascended Lord, was the Gospel preached? I'm not asking if it was "legalistic" (which I assure you I don't think it is- the Gospel demands duty too), I'm just asking, was the Gospel preached?


----------



## MW

MarieP said:


> So if someone preaches a sermon on, say, children obeying their parents and yet neglects to speak of the power to obey coming from Christ, the crucified and risen and ascended Lord, was the Gospel preached?


 
There is alot hanging on the definition of "sermon" in that hypothetical. A child might hear that "sermon" from his parents every day while both parents and child care nothing for God. If, however, the "sermon" is covenantal, and it refers to obeying them "in the Lord," then the grace of God is already operative and any call to duty is issued on the basis of that grace. That is Gospel. It should be the concern of a gospel preacher to articulate that grace and to make it evident for all to see that Christian obedience in this matter is gospel obedience.


----------



## MarieP

armourbearer said:


> It should be the concern of a gospel preacher to articulate that grace and to make it evident for all to see that Christian obedience in this matter is gospel obedience.



Amen! I agree with that. But that does not make our obedience part of the actual gospel itself, right? The Gospel has indicatives and imperatives (we "obey the Gospel" by repenting and believing), but our response to it isn't the Gospel. As Sinclair Ferguson says:

“The great gospel imperatives to holiness are ever rooted in indicatives of grace that are able to sustain the weight of those imperatives. The Apostles do not make the mistake that’s often made in Christian ministry. [For the Apostles] the indicatives are more powerful than the imperatives in gospel preaching. So often in our preaching our indicatives are not strong enough, great enough, holy enough, or gracious enough to sustain the power of the imperatives. And so our teaching on holiness becomes a whip or a rod to beat our people’s backs because we’ve looked at the New Testament and that’s all we ourselves have seen. We’ve seen our own failure and we’ve seen the imperatives to holiness and we’ve lost sight of the great indicatives of the gospel that sustain those imperatives. Woven into the warp and woof of the New Testament’s exposition of what it means for us to be holy is the great groundwork that the self-existent, thrice holy, triune God has — in Himself, by Himself and for Himself — committed Himself and all three Persons of His being to bringing about the holiness of His own people. This is the Father’s purpose, the Son’s purchase and the Spirit’s ministry” (Sinclair Ferguson, message from the 2007 Banner of Truth Conference, Our Holiness: The Father’s Purpose and the Son’s Purchase)


----------



## MW

MarieP said:


> But that does not make our obedience part of the actual gospel itself, right?


 
It is a difficult subject because we tend to dissect everything into its parts. Take the vine and branches analogy. In reality they are one, and yet theoretically they can be distinguished. Proper obedience to the gospel is an obedience produced by the gospel. Romans 6:17, "But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you." At the point at which the doctrine is taught it is possible to distinguish it as the "form;" but at the point as which it is obeyed we have both form and substance and it is not possible to practically tell them apart -- being set free from sin (the promise) and obeying the gospel (the requisite) is all one. The gospel promise is, Live, and do this. The doing comes out of the living, and the living is given in the gospel. This is gospel life; obedience to the gospel is living the gospel.

PS., that is an exceptionally incisive statement by Dr. Ferguson.


----------



## rbcbob

armourbearer said:


> One should be wary of any tendency which distorts the gospel so as to make it nothing more than propositional truth.



My dear Rev. Winzer,

God forbid that I would ever distort the gospel. My concern, which may or may not be the same as that of Dr. Horton, is to guard against that very thing. I fear that there is afoot in our day just such an attempt to subjectivize the term τὸ εὐανγγέλιον (the gospel) and at least blur, if not extinguish the objective definition of that two word biblical phrase. In a day or two I will seek to more fully express this. Your patience is requested.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

*The Gospel *IS *the love of God* in Christ. "Herein is [*the Gospel*], *not that we loved God*, *but that he loved us*, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." (1 John 4:10)

The emphasis is on GOD's love for us, NOT OUR love for Him and others. This is, I think, the very essence of what Horton is trying to communicate to us by neglecting such phrases as "live the gospel," or "be the gospel," because they emphasize OUR love for God, and not GOD's love for us. So, OUR love IS NOT the Gospel, GOD's love IS the Gospel.


----------



## Michael Doyle

With all do respect, it seems Horton may be being made out to say something he is not. The implications seem pretty clear in the context as he is speaking it.


> We must never take Christ's work for granted. The gospel is not merely something we take to unbelievers; it is the Word that created and continues to sustain the whole church in its earthly pilgrimage. In addition, we must never confuse Christ's work with our own. There is a lot of loose talk these days about our "living the gospel" or even "being the gospel," as if our lives were the good news. We even hear it said that the church is an extension of Christ's incarnation and redeeming work, as if Jesus came to provide the moral example or template, and we are called to complete his work.



and he closes in saying the following and throughout, in no way saying, we are not to be gospel witnesses and living out our salvation for the world to see. I am not disagreeing so much with the concerns posted here but am concerned that a fair shake may not be being given to a faithful brother. His quote:


> Before there can be a mission, there has to be a message. Before we go, we must stop and hear—really hear—what has happened that we are to take to the world. Before there is a witness, there must be a person whose accomplishment is worthy of proclaiming even at great personal risk. Before there is an evangelistic outreach, there must be an evangel. The gospel comes first. We must hear it—not just at first for our own conversion, but every moment of our lives—if the Great Commission is to be a joyful delight rather than an intolerable burden with an impossible goal. Hear our Lord's assurance again, with all of the supporting evidence of his incarnation, life, death, and resurrection: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."


Am I wrong here?


----------



## py3ak

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Notice what matters here, a new creation. The New Creation is a part of the Gospel as I understand it. It is not in total the Gospel but the Gospel is made up of parts that make a whole.



It occurred to me after my last post that this might also be something you were driving at: the announcement of the Gospel includes an announcement that the new world has begun, and of course those who already partake in the palingenesis show the reality of this new beginning - though not perfectly, as even the exhortations and rebukes addressed to us indicate. And the Gospel reality is to shape our lives, and increasingly does so. But living as becomes the Gospel is still different from presenting ourselves as part of the Gospel message, or from using the phrases "live" or "become the Gospel". What I would like to see is an explanation of how to say, "I am the Gospel" and "We preach not ourselves" while sincerely meaning both. 

I hear what Paul and Matthew are saying, and it's very informative; and I'm not commenting about Dr. Horton at all, since I don't follow him or know much about him. I'm just trying to figure out what you are saying, and why you like a phrase I don't.


----------



## JP Wallace

"Christ died for our sins," said the primitive disciples, "according to Scripture; he was buried; he has been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures." From the beginning, the Christian gospel, as indeed the name "gospel" or "good news" implies, consisted in an account of something that had happened. And from the beginning, the meaning of the happening was set forth; and when the meaning was set forth then there was a Christian doctrine. "Christ died" - that is history; "Christ died for our sins" - that is doctrine. Without these two elements, joined in an absolutely indissoluble union, there is no Christianity."

Machen wrote this in "Christianity and Liberalism" and that is I believe what Horton et. al. are getting at. The Gospel, the good news is that Christ died for our sin, was buried and rose again on the third day. That is what makes the difference - that is the message. Believe that and be saved. I do not believe that Horton et. al. are driving a division between orthodoxy and orthopraxy but rather are speaking against the all too common exchange that is presently taking place in people's mind between this history and doctrine on one hand and the life that flows for receiving that truth.


----------



## MarieP

py3ak said:


> What I would like to see is an explanation of how to say, "I am the Gospel" and "We preach not ourselves" while sincerely meaning both.



Exactly, brother! I was thinking the same...I don't think you can...

---------- Post added at 10:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 AM ----------




PuritanCovenanter said:


> How can there be a Gospel if we are not? You can't remove humanity from it or it isn't.



Was the Gospel still the Gospel before any of us believed it? If it was, then there's the answer to your question. 

"Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having *the everlasting gospel* to preach to those who dwell on the earth—to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people" Revelation 14:6

Albert Barnes expounds:



> Having the everlasting gospel. The gospel is here called everlasting or eternal,
> 
> (a) because its great truths have always existed, or it is conformed to eternal truth;
> 
> (b) because it will for ever remain unchanged--not being liable to fluctuation like the opinions held by men;
> 
> (c) because its effects will be everlasting--in the redemption of the soul and the joys of heaven. In all the glorious eternity before the redeemed, they will be but developing the effects of that gospel on their own hearts, and enjoying the results of it in the presence of God.



Revelation - Chapter 14 - Barnes' Notes on the New Testament on StudyLight.org


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I recently came across a quote by Dr. Horton that troubled me a bit on Facebook. I have some agreement with it. But I had some concern with it. I don't have access to the whole article so I can't be sure I truly understand it in its full scope. But here it is.
> 
> "We must never confuse Christ's work with our own. There is a lot of loose talk these days about our 'living the gospel' or even 'being the gospel,' as if our lives were the good news." Michael S. Horton (Quoted Jan/Feb 2011 Modern Reformation Magazine pg 14)



I listened to the radio program they did on this very topic. The program was The Great Commission Survey. If you'll listen to the program I think you'll understand and fully agree with his point.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> *The Gospel *IS *the love of God* in Christ. "Herein is [*the Gospel*], *not that we loved God*, *but that he loved us*, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." (1 John 4:10)
> 
> The emphasis is on GOD's love for us, NOT OUR love for Him and others. This is, I think, the very essence of what Horton is trying to communicate to us by neglecting such phrases as "live the gospel," or "be the gospel," because they emphasize OUR love for God, and not GOD's love for us. So, OUR love IS NOT the Gospel, GOD's love IS the Gospel.



You have missed the boat.... This isn't about our duty to obey the law or love Christ. It is about what God is doing in us to obey him. 

I am going to post the blog article by Mark Jones so you will read it and understand what I am trying to say. He said it much better than I can. 

This article says exactly what I am trying to express. Thanks Rev. Winzer for linking us to it. 



> In Light of the Gospel » Blog Archive » The Gospel and Sanctification
> 
> 
> Gospel Sanctification
> Mark Jones
> What is the gospel? Even in Reformed theological circles today the answer to that question is answered differently. The very idea that the gospel not only promises but commands may seem to some a departure from Reformed theology. Yet, the great Scottish theologian, Samuel Rutherford upholds the position that the gospel both persuades and commands. Concerning the “commanding” nature of the gospel, Rutherford writes: “it both commands, (as the Law doth) and with a more strong obligation of the constraining love of Christ…so here be no differences at all” (Spirituall Antichrist, II.122). John Davenant, a British delegate to the Synod of Dort, argues similarly: “The law, because it regards man as created by God in uprightness of nature, requires good works to be done in the strength of nature; but the Gospel, because it regards man as fallen, requires good works from the justified; but to be done, not by the strength of nature of free will, but from infused grace” (Treatise on Justification, 1:288).
> Rutherford elsewhere affirms that the law and the gospel require the same obedience (Pt. II.7). Indeed, “positively”, they are not contrary to one another. “Perfect obedience, which the Law requireth, and imperfect obedience which the Gospel accepteth are but graduall differences” (II.8). Furthermore, “the Gospel abateth nothing of the height of perfection, in commanding what ever the law commandeth in the same perfection….In acceptation of grace, the Gospel accepteth lesse than the law, but commandeth no lesse” (Pt. II.8). (Maybe Rutherford was thinking of Acts 14:15b?). Rutherford’s position can also be located in theologians such as William Perkins and John Owen.
> How can Rutherford maintain such a position? He, like many of his contemporaries, understands Paul’s law-gospel contrast not to be primarily that of command versus promise, but instead a redemptive-historical contrast. But there is more than that.
> We need to understand that the gospel is really about Christology first and foremost. Reformed Christology places a stress on the organic relationship between Christ’s person and work; he is prophet, priest, and king; and all of these offices relate to the gospel of Jesus Christ. That is to say, the Gospel is the whole Christ, his person and his work, and our receiving the whole Christ by faith. More than that, Reformed Christology has historically placed a great deal of emphasis on the role of the Spirit in relation to Christ. Hence, Christology informs our pneumatology and vice versa. Paul’s Christology is Paul’s pneumatology; and these two aspects are integral to the gospel (see 1 Cor. 15; 2 Cor. 3:17-18). The Spirit’s work in us is actually Christ’s work in us and for us (Rom. 8:9).
> Now, we might possibly come to the conclusion that the gospel is only about “Christ for us”, which some might take to mean: “Christ died for the penalty of our sins; thus the gospel is synonymous with justification by faith alone, that is, the gospel is a forensic declaration that lies entirely outside of us.” Or, you may have heard it put this way: “what Christ has done for us is Christianity; what he does in us is his own business, but what he’s done for us is Christianity. The Reformers really believed, and their followers really believed, that nothing that happens in me is the gospel…the gospel is external. It has to do with Christ dying for me.” However, not only is that not the case for some of our finest Reformed theologians, but such an idea certainly flies in the face of the biblical evidence.
> The gospel certainly is “Christ for us”, but that does not mean that that does not include “Christ in us”, something the great English Puritan theologian Thomas Goodwin was careful to point out (see below).
> Some theologians have typically distinguished between three works of God: immanent (e.g. the Father electing in eternity), transient (e.g. the Son dying in time), and applicatory (the Spirit applying the merits of Christ’s work). The scope of the gospel involves God’s immanent, transient, and applicatory works. This not only provides a wide scope to the nature of the gospel, but also enforces a fully Trinitarian understanding of salvation.
> Thomas Goodwin elaborates on this idea. The concept of “Christ in you the hope of glory” (Col. 1:27) occupies a central place in the gospel. Basing his exposition of the gospel on Colossians 1:3-23, Goodwin shows that “the gospel does not only thus convey the Holy Spirit to you, to dwell in your forever, clotheth you with this righteousness, enableth you with open face to behold God…I say the gospel doth not only do all this, but it changeth you into the same image, from glory to glory” (Works, 4:329).
> The distinction between “Christ for us” and “Christ in us” is certainly helpful; but, we should be careful to note that “Christ in us” really is “Christ for us”. Indeed, Goodwin argued that “the main sum and substance of Christianity then is, that Christ be revealed in us, and not only to us; that you come to have Christ by application in and to your souls; Christ brought down into your heart….All, then, that God works upon you savingly, from first to last, is a discovery of Christ, some way or other, in you. It is either the knowledge of his person, or it is a conformity to him…and this I call the sum or substance of our religion” (4:345-46). The gospel includes all soteric blessings, including those that are “in” us (e.g. sanctification & glorification).
> I believe this is vitally important. In my experience, there is a tendency that I have noticed in some Reformed churches to view the gospel as co-extensive with justification. Thus, sanctification becomes the “response” of the believer to the gospel. In other words, sanctification can be viewed as simply “gratitude” on our part. Some who adopt this view recoil in horror at the thought that good works are necessary for salvation, particularly if they make justification synonymous with salvation or the gospel synonymous with justification. In connection with this, Richard Gaffin has made the following point:
> “With such a construction justification and sanctification are pulled apart; the former is what God does, the latter what we do, and do so inadequately. At worst, this outlook tends to devolve into a deadening moralism. What takes place, in effect, is the reintroduction of a refined works principle, more or less divorced from and so in tension with the faith that justifies. These self-affirming works, those self-securing and self-assuring efforts, so resolutely resisted at the front door of justification, creep back in through the back door of sanctification” (BFNBS, 76-77). (Incidentally, the sharp Lutheran antithesis between “law” and “gospel” appears to have been partly responsible for the rise of pietism.)
> Gaffin adds: “Sanctification, first of all and ultimately, is not a matter of what we do, but of what God does. As the best in the Reformation tradition recognizes, it (sanctification), no less than our justification, is a work of his grace” (BFNBS, 77). And, that really is good news.
> As Berkouwer noted, “the path of good works runs not from man to God, says Paul, but from God to man” (Faith & Sanctification, 191). Are we really prepared to say that our obedience is not part of Paul’s gospel message when we recognize that our good works have been prepared in advance for us to do?
> These emphases are necessary because Christ died to make his church holy (Eph. 5:25-27; 1 Peter 2:24; Col. 1:21-23; 2 Cor. 5:15). Herman Bavinck notes the importance of sanctification: “To understand the benefit of sanctification correctly, we must proceed from the idea that Christ is our holiness in the same sense in which he is our righteousness. He is a complete and all-sufficient Savior. He does not accomplish his work halfway but saves us really and completely. He does not rest until, after pronouncing his acquittal in our conscience, he has also imparted full holiness and glory to us….[Evangelical sanctification] consists in the reality that in Christ God grants us, along with righteousness, also complete holiness, and does not just it impute it but also inwardly imparts it by the regenerating and renewing working of the Holy Spirit until we have been fully confirmed to the image of his Son” (Reformed Dogmatics, 3:248).
> Justification answers to God’s righteousness; sanctification answers to his holiness. “Hence, the two are equally necessary and are proclaimed in Scripture with equal emphasis….Justification and sanctification…grant the same benefits”, namely, “the entire Christ” (RD, 3:249). And the entire Christ is the entire gospel, which brings me back to my initial contention that the gospel really is about Christology and all that that means, which includes “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col. 1:27).
> For Thomas Goodwin this was actually a source of comfort: “that whatsoever glory, and whatsoever riches of Jesus Christ the gospel lays open, it is all yours, it is all in you, and for you” (4:337). By making the gospel not simply about “Christ for us”, but also “Christ in us”, Goodwin actually heightens the Christological glories of the gospel by making a similar point to the one made by Gaffin above:
> “if I act anything, it is not I, but the grace of Jesus Christ in me…If I be sanctified it is not grace, so much as Christ, is made sanctification. The truth is, that as a man still grows up more and more gospelised in his spirit, so Jesus Christ is in him, and works out all things else, till there be nothing but Christ in him…” (4:339).
> All of this is to suggest that just because many in the church today have a faulty idea of “living the gospel”, we need not over-react to this principle by making the gospel to be totally outside of us. Such an idea would have been foreign to Thomas Goodwin, and I’m sure the Apostle Paul. Based upon the above, any charge of moralism towards those who make the gospel larger than simply justification by faith is utterly groundless. Indeed, in my opinion, moralism is best avoided when the gospel includes the whole Christ, who is both for and in us, the hope of glory.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

py3ak said:


> What I would like to see is an explanation of how to say, "I am the Gospel" and "We preach not ourselves" while sincerely meaning both.



I think I am being a bit misunderstood. I think I am also being a bit taken out of context. I am not the Gospel. I am a part of the gospel. I can be gospel truth and light to others. 

Thanks Ruben for bringing this passage to light. In fact it is the very next verse that makes me say what I am trying to express. 



> (2Co 4:4) In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
> 
> (2Co 4:5) For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake.
> 
> (2Co 4:6) *For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
> *
> (2Co 4:7) *But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us.*
> 
> (2Co 4:8) * We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair;*
> 
> (2Co 4:9) *persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed;
> *
> (2Co 4:10) *always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies.
> *
> (2Co 4:11) * For we who live are always being given over to death for Jesus' sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh.
> *
> (2Co 4:12) *So death is at work in us, but life in you.
> *
> (2Co 4:13) Since we have the same spirit of faith according to what has been written, "I believed, and so I spoke," we also believe, and so we also speak,
> 
> (2Co 4:14) knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence.
> 
> (2Co 4:15) For it is all for your sake, so that as grace extends to more and more people it may increase thanksgiving, to the glory of God.
> 
> (2Co 4:16) So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day.
> 
> (2Co 4:17) For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison,
> 
> (2Co 4:18) as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.



The essence of the Gospel lives in me by the Spirit. The Spirit of God by grace (Remember, I don't hold to the pinheaded view that grace is just unmerited favor) is influencing me to exhibit the life of Christ, His love for those he died for, and life that is new and changed. He continues to exhibit this work of Christ's anointing as Prophet, Christ's Priesthood, and Christ's Kingship in our lives and through our lives.


----------



## py3ak

I thought Mark Jones' article was very good too; but I still wouldn't say "I am a part of the Gospel". I didn't mean to misrepresent you: but if someone is told to "be the Gospel" (not just "part of the gospel) at some point the obeyed imperative produces an indicative. 
So what meaning do you give to "We preach not ourselves"?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

py3ak said:


> I thought Mark Jones' article was very good too; but I still wouldn't say "I am a part of the Gospel". I didn't mean to misrepresent you: but if someone is told to "be the Gospel" (not just "part of the gospel) at some point the obeyed imperative produces an indicative.
> So what meaning do you give to "We preach not ourselves"?



The same as I would here....



> (Gal 2:20) * I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
> 
> (2Co 4:10) always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies.
> *


----------



## py3ak

But the two verses say two different things, Randy: you can't say they _mean_ the same thing, though what they do mean is consistent. If you can spell out what you see as the connection between them, that would be helpful. Do you, for instance, think that Paul did not preach himself in the same sense that he no longer lived?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

We are to be the light unto the World Ruben. We are not that Light but we are light unto the World. So yes, in the sense that Galatians and this go together, "that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies."

I still like the old KJV... I can't help it. 



> (2Co 4:10) Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body.
> 
> (2Co 4:11) For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake,* that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.*


----------



## py3ak

I don't mean to be thick, Randy, but I still don't feel like you're explaining what it means, and I'm hesitant to import my own meaning into it, because you do like a phrase that I find to be more trouble than it's worth.

Christ is the Light of the world. The church is the light of the world. No one disagrees. So what does the church do? It points to the totality of Christ's person and work. In what it is and does, the work of Christ is evident (sometimes more, sometimes less); but while there is no salvation outside of the invisible church, and outside of the visible church ordinarily no possibility of salvation, that is not because the church is the saviour or the gospel, but because the church is the sphere created by the saving activity of Christ, the agency that proclaims the gospel of Christ. The gospel is at work in us; but as Machen put it, the gospel is not some principle that has been discovered, but an event: one located and bounded in history by the Virgin Mary, by Pontius Pilate. And while I can stake my soul on that event, and while I can explain that it was the most important thing ever to happen, and while I can even say that I'm partaking of a world that began with that event - yet that event would be quite true, and quite sufficient to save sinners, without me: which is why I am uncomfortable, without even entering into the background that Paul provided for the phrase, encouraging anyone to "be the gospel". If you consider what some people mean by it, of course, then it's downright horrifying.
I doubt I can make my point of view any more clear.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

And I have tried to do the same. I have tried to be clear also. Just because some abuse the language doesn't make it poor language. It seems we are at an impasse also. Maybe Rev. Winzer can help me understand.

As Mark Jones made this point....


> All of this is to suggest that just because many in the church today have a faulty idea of “living the gospel”, we need not over-react to this principle by making the gospel to be totally outside of us.


----------



## MW

Dear friends,

Please note that the passages of Scripture being quoted refer to the gospel in its objective, formal import. If some deny it, I do not. In my preaching I have sought first and foremost to proclaim the historical Jesus, to set forth "the faith," and to require acceptance and belief in doctrine. If people do not know about Christ they certainly do not know Christ Himself. But all this is the "form of doctrine." The gospel is not only an historical fact; it is also to be personally appropriated. The form of doctrine is be obeyed from the heart by the grace of the living God. By means of the work of the Holy Spirit the elect are given the light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, i.e., the external word becomes an inward reality. The faith to be believed becomes the faith by which we believe. The form of sound words, WHAT is believed, properly relates to its substance, and the soul knows WHOM it has believed. Any preacher who confines the gospel to historical fact is distorting the gospel as equally as the person who denies the gospel is historical fact.

I am sorry that a sound phrase is being perverted by others. But by your own admisssion, the very word "gospel" is being perverted also; are you going to insist that we relinquish that term? If not, then I see no reason why a sound phrase like "living the gospel" should be disowned, especially when it expresses something essential to the nature of the gospel which is being undermined today.


----------



## ServantsHeart

I'm new to the site and your issue being dealt with,I have nothing to add but I will thank everyone for your earnest effort and input on the subject. I will think upon this more than I have up to this time. I know it's mind bending work pounding these things out so I commend you all for your Berean spirit. May the Lord keep us in unity while we define what that unity of thought is that consist in Sound Doctrine in Scripture.


----------



## pilgrim2

We must never confuse Christ's work with our own. There is a lot of loose talk these days about our 'living the gospel' or even 'being the gospel,' as if our lives were the good news." Michael S. Horton (Quoted Jan/Feb 2011 Modern Reformation Magazine pg 14) .

Mr. Horton is right on. I am not the gospel. Christ's work for sinners is. And me living "the gospel" is not the gospel. The gospel is Christ's work for sinners like me and you.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

pilgrim2 said:


> We must never confuse Christ's work with our own. There is a lot of loose talk these days about our 'living the gospel' or even 'being the gospel,' as if our lives were the good news." Michael S. Horton (Quoted Jan/Feb 2011 Modern Reformation Magazine pg 14) .
> 
> Mr. Horton is right on. I am not the gospel. Christ's work for sinners is. And me living "the gospel" is not the gospel. The gospel is Christ's work for sinners like me and you.



Wow, you just added a lot to this conversation. *And no one is confusing Christ's work with our own*. Go back reread the thread. Comments like this just make me wonder. Did you just read a few posts and then comment? You possibly read a few posts. I don't know. You might as well have made the second post after my original post. Do you really want to go back to the first page of discussion and redo the whole thread again? All your comment reveals to me is that you didn't take time to read what was going on nor did you try to understand what was being said. Well, maybe you just didn't want to interact with the things said in the thread. I don't know. But I don't want this thread to start all over again. And that basically is what your post does. It goes back to post number 2.


----------



## MarieP

Dear brother Randy, how does your own post add anything to the conversation? Our brother D. L. simply was expressing his thoughts on the matter. Why do you assume he hasn't read the thread? Why do you upbraid him for simply making a statement that others have made as well? We may disagree on whether or not our lives are part of the definition of the Gospel, but both you and I would agree that the Gospel produces a peaceable spirit, especially toward our brethren, even as they disagree with us!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Marie,

Please, He didn't interact with anything that has been truly brought to light in this thread.


----------



## MW

pilgrim2 said:


> The gospel is Christ's work for sinners like me and you.


 
Is that an exclusive definition? Do you not believe that the gospel also has reference to Christ's work *in* sinners? Says Dr. Calvin, "the whole excellence of the gospel depends on this, that it is made life-giving to us by the grace of the Holy Spirit." Again, "Observe, that the design of the gospel is this -- that the image of God, which had been effaced by sin, may be stamped anew upon us, and that the advancement of this restoration may be continually going forward in us during the our whole life, because God makes his glory shine in us by little and little."


----------



## mvdm

armourbearer said:


> I would gladly give the same benefit of the doubt if I did not think the systemic reconstruction of the reformed law-gospel distinction was behind the rejection of the phrase. The fact is, these gentlemen are thinking through their theology and making it consistently apply to the whole range of doctrinal loci.



For those defending Horton's disparagement of the term "living the gospel", I would urge you to pay attention to Rev. Winzer's key observation here. You need to be thinking about what lies behind Horton's problem with the term. Rev. Winzer is onto it.


----------



## rbcbob

mvdm said:


> For those defending Horton's disparagement of the term "living the gospel", I would urge you to pay attention to Rev. Winzer's key observation here. You need to be thinking about what lies behind Horton's problem with the term. Rev. Winzer is onto it.




1.	The phrase “the gospel” (*τὸ εὐανγγέλιον*) occurs more than forty times in the New Testament.

2. In the four gospels the phrase τὸ εὐανγγέλιον is consistently that which is preached; that which is to be believed.

3. In Acts and the Epistles this same pattern is predominant.

4. Of the multitude of the imperatives in the New Testament which direct Christian duty [e.g. “Owe no one anything except to love one another” (Rom 13:8); “Go into all the world and *preach the gospel*” (Mar 16:15) etc.] *there is not one which directs him to “live the gospel*.”

5. Nowhere in the N.T. is anyone commended for “living the gospel.”

6. Nowhere in the N.T. is anyone rebuked for not “living the gospel.”

7. The phrases “live the gospel” or “living the gospel” appear nowhere in the New Testament.

8. There is no exegetical basis in the Word of God for passing the phrase “living the gospel” off as a biblical construct. It is rather something read into the text by theologians. 

9 Some theological constructs are helpful, as far as they go. *The construct “living the gospel” however defies precise definition* and rather than being a helpful tool, it seems to me to be a veritable minefield threatening attempts to construct a truly biblical doctrine of the Christian Life which we are called to live (Romans 12:1, 2 Corinthians 5:15), and in the process muddies the intent of the biblical portrayal of “the gospel” as that “testimony that God has given of His Son. (1Jn 5:10)”


----------



## MW

rbcbob said:


> 2. In the four gospels the phrase τὸ εὐανγγέλιον is consistently that which is preached; that which is to be believed.
> 
> 3. In Acts and the Epistles this same pattern is predominant.


 
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (2:111) states, "euaggelion, as used by Paul, does not mean only the content of what is preached... For in the very act of proclamation its content becomes reality, and brings about the salvation which it contains. 'The gospel does not merely bear witness to salvation history; it is itself salvation history.'"

Andrew T. Lincoln (Word Commentary on Ephesians, 39), states, "The truth of this apostolic message is shown in what it accomplishes, for it is the message which has effected the reader's salvation -- 'the good news of your salvation' ... The good news effects a rescue operation, a deliverance from spiritual death, from God's wrath, from bondage to evil powers, sin and the flesh."


----------



## mvdm

rbcbob said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those defending Horton's disparagement of the term "living the gospel", I would urge you to pay attention to Rev. Winzer's key observation here. You need to be thinking about what lies behind Horton's problem with the term. Rev. Winzer is onto it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.	The phrase “the gospel” (*τὸ εὐανγγέλιον*) occurs more than forty times in the New Testament.
> 
> 2. In the four gospels the phrase τὸ εὐανγγέλιον is consistently that which is preached; that which is to be believed.
> 
> 3. In Acts and the Epistles this same pattern is predominant.
> 
> 4. Of the multitude of the imperatives in the New Testament which direct Christian duty [e.g. “Owe no one anything except to love one another” (Rom 13:8); “Go into all the world and *preach the gospel*” (Mar 16:15) etc.] *there is not one which directs him to “live the gospel*.”
> 
> 5. Nowhere in the N.T. is anyone commended for “living the gospel.”
> 
> 6. Nowhere in the N.T. is anyone rebuked for not “living the gospel.”
> 
> 7. The phrases “live the gospel” or “living the gospel” appear nowhere in the New Testament.
> 
> 8. There is no exegetical basis in the Word of God for passing the phrase “living the gospel” off as a biblical construct. It is rather something read into the text by theologians.
> 
> 9 Some theological constructs are helpful, as far as they go. *The construct “living the gospel” however defies precise definition* and rather than being a helpful tool, it seems to me to be a veritable minefield threatening attempts to construct a truly biblical doctrine of the Christian Life which we are called to live (Romans 12:1, 2 Corinthians 5:15), and in the process muddies the intent of the biblical portrayal of “the gospel” as that “testimony that God has given of His Son. (1Jn 5:10)”
Click to expand...


Brother, there have been many texts in this thread which commend those who live the gospel and rebukes those who refuse to obey the gospel. The Mark Jones article supplies more texts demonstrating the same point that the gospel envisions/effects justification and sanctification. Consider also Philippians 1:27, which exhorts us to _"conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ"_ and 2 Thess.1:11-12: _"With this in mind, we constantly pray for you, that our God may count you worthy of His calling and that by His power he may fulfill every good purpose of yours and every act prompted by your faith. We pray this so that the name of our Lord Jesus *may be glorified in you, and you in Him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ*."_

I doubt you really want to insist that the exact phrase "living the gospel" be found in the Bible, or that it must meet some exacting standard of "precise definition". For if that were the case, there would be many confessional doctrines we would could reject out of hand as "something read into the text by theologians".


----------



## py3ak

armourbearer said:


> I am sorry that a sound phrase is being perverted by others. But by your own admisssion, the very word "gospel" is being perverted also; are you going to insist that we relinquish that term? If not, then I see no reason why a sound phrase like "living the gospel" should be disowned, especially when it expresses something essential to the nature of the gospel which is being undermined today.



Mr. Winzer, I've appreciated your insightful posts on this thread, and I just wanted to clarify one point. I have seen you defend "live the gospel" but not "be the gospel": is that omission deliberate? Because it is the latter phrase that troubles me, whereas it is not too hard to see how the first is patient of a good interpretation.


----------



## Michael Doyle

Thank you Bob. I understand the context of your point and find my self in agreement with it. I think I also understand that there is a life, of obedience, faith working in love, that flows out of the gospel. I cannot see how there can be equivocation with all do respect to all on the board.


----------



## MW

py3ak said:


> I have seen you defend "live the gospel" but not "be the gospel": is that omission deliberate? Because it is the latter phrase that troubles me, whereas it is not too hard to see how the first is patient of a good interpretation.



"Be the gospel" is non-sensical. We hear the challenge repeatedly stated, "live what you believe;," so there is no difficulty in transferring that to the gospel insofar as it is believed. But we never hear the challenge, "be what you believe." Besides, you are what you believe anyway: as a man thinketh in his heart so is he. So it's something of a tautology to say "be what you believe."


----------



## py3ak

Thank you, Mr. Winzer, that's a helpful expansion. If you had the inclination to comment on how Dr. Machen distinguishes the law as a principle from the gospel as an event in his sermon on Romans 6:23 in _God Transcendent_ I would be pleased to hear your thoughts.

For those who have been reading this thread, but not the sidebar thread, let me quote a very helpful post from over there:



armourbearer said:


> It is not just living in light of the gospel; it is living the life the gospel brings. The gospel is more than a message; it is the power of God unto salvation. Life and immortality are not only proclaimed but "lit up" by the gospel. The gospel does not only proclaim facts about a person; it also reveals that person to the heart of the believer. How can one espouse a spiritual realism of faith in the sacrament and deny it in the word to which the sacrament is always tied? "Christ who is our life;" "for me to live is Christ;" "the life that I now live in the flesh, etc." Any teaching about the gospel which denies the "real" and "transformational" nature of the gospel is not worthy of the name "reformed."


----------



## MarieP

I just read the cover title of the newest Baptist Times newspaper, and it made me think of this thread:

"Doing God in the Workplace"

A Brit wrote that, but that sounds downright heretical!


----------



## Oecolampadius

Hmm.. It's been suggested here by some that the Law-Gospel distinction is at the heart of the issue. If such is indeed the case, then I think that it might be profitable for us, especially those who are just tuning in, to revisit some of the past threads that discussed the matter:

What is the Reformed view of Law/Gospel?
"Believe!" Law or Gospel?


----------



## Phil D.

Josh, I think you may have posted these comments on the wrong thread...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I must admit some of the reason I started this thread is to point out the differences between our understanding of what the Gospel is. There is a difference between Luther and Old Presbyterians or the old Puritans in my understanding. The Puritans and older Presbyterians had a fuller view of the Gospel than Luther and some of our Modern Day theologians in my estimation. At the same time I see I have caused some consternation and confusion in my posting. I am not the best communicator in the world. 

Maybe my problem here is that it is poor on my part in how I am using the terms. Maybe it is because of the difference of epistemology in my culture compared to others. But when I hear or say be the gospel, as I have heard for years, I hear the charge to live out the Gospel message. Be a part of the message of sacrifice and love for sinners as I am commanded to imitate Christ in His work. In other words I am called to be a picture of Christ and participate in His work. Live the Gospel message as it is befitting to my calling from Christ himself. 

Doing God in the work place? The preciseness of the language is definitely not there. Doing God is yet to be defined. I imagine that a reading of the article would show us how the gentleman would have us interpret it. But to be on the charitable side of things I would interpret that as a charge to do God's will in the work place. I would understand it as a challenge to be a light and glorify God that others might see our good works and glorify God on the day of their visitation. BTW, the title sounds like it is a title to make one inquire. When I took writing in College and High School the preciseness of the title of an article was not to be expected as much as it's ability to pull a possible readers inquiry toward reading the article. That was a principle we learned. That is probably what is done in relation to what Marie is pointing us to look at. 

Thanks for your patience guys. 
Randy


----------



## Michael Doyle

Randy, thank you for this post as it has caused me to really think about these things. I also had to go back and look at the old posts on the Law/Gospel distinctions. They were very informative as I have really been enjoying Horton`s work but am being careful not to just assume lock, stock and barrel, his accuracy on this. I am confused but in a seemingly good and inquisitve manner.

I still find myself unmoved in my initial position but cautious.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I had an acquaintance say this to me and I agree... I reworded it to fit the context here. 



> They are re-working covenant theology, specifically the Mosaic, which in turn affects their turn toward a more Lutheran sharp Law/Gospel *dichotomy* {not just a "distinction"}. Hence, any discussion that even hints at the believers' work in sanctification {"living the gospel?oh horrors!}} causes them to overreact into thinking that we are discussing works righteousness. They want an impermeable wall between law and gospel. Unfortunately for them, the Reformed Confessions don't speak like that.



I didn't start seeing this until I started to look at how one defined the Gospel within the last few years. I do believe the above statement to be true. The old Presbyterians and Puritans had a much fuller defined understanding of the Gospel message than Luther and some of our modern day theologians. I am still wrestling with it as this subject also permeates into other areas in my estimation as you can see by my earlier posts.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> pilgrim2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gospel is Christ's work for sinners like me and you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that an exclusive definition? Do you not believe that the gospel also has reference to Christ's work *in* sinners? Says Dr. Calvin, "the whole excellence of the gospel depends on this, that it is made life-giving to us by the grace of the Holy Spirit." Again, "Observe, that the design of the gospel is this -- that the image of God, which had been effaced by sin, may be stamped anew upon us, and that the advancement of this restoration may be continually going forward in us during the our whole life, because God makes his glory shine in us by little and little."
Click to expand...

 
Matthew,

Let me see if I can distinguish where I believe you take issue with this statement.

I was listening to the WHI today and the hosts said very clearly, in so many words, that the Gospel doesn't tell us to do anything but only announces facts. As I read what you are saying, you take issue with the notion that one simplify the term "Gospel" to simply mean indicative or "what Christ has accomplished...."

As the Canons of Dordt note: 


> Article 5: The Mandate to Proclaim the Gospel to All
> 
> Moreover, it is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise, together with the *command* to repent and believe, ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people, to whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel.


In other words, the Reformed Confessions do not simply treat the Gospel as an announcement of what Christ has done but the Gospel _includes_ a command to repent from sin and to believe and there are said to be those who "...obey not the Gospel...."

Can we agree that your first problem is that you think that the Gospel is more than mere announcement? The Gospel has indicatives (John's herald, Christ's miracles, death, resurrection) but it also includes imperatives (...God calls all men everywhere to repent and believe on Christ....).

On that note, I think what you're trying to point out is that the Gospel creates the obedience it commands. That is that the Gospel announcement does not merely call upon the resources that a dead man does not possess but grants life to those who the Holy Spirit resurrects by its message or leaves men in greater judgment for ignoring the command of the Gospel.

Next step: It seems that the Gospel has two aspects to it. It appears there is a pattern of _kerygma_ in the preaching of Christ and the Apostles that has a limited content to those outside the household of faith. Christ seemed to limit his explanations to parables and some of the "inner teaching" when he was alone with His disciples. The epistles also seem to form a body of literature that assumes its hearers have been transported from the wisdom of this age to the wisdom of the age to come. In other words, the teaching is often "interior" and assumes the person is converted.

There's a real sense, then, where the continual sanctification of the believer is "Gospel work". That is, there is first the aspect of the Gospel that initially converts when the person is "in the world" and then there is the aspect of the Gospel that continues to sanctify the believer and mortify the flesh. Romans 6 is "Gospel" for instance because it speaks about Christ's power over death and sin and the union a believer enjoys in union with Him. It's a call to be who we are in Christ and a reminder that we are not slaves. As we "consider" many realities of our citizenship we are transformed by the renewing of our minds and made holy. Thus it is, repeatedly, that the Gospel reminds us to do things in keeping with who we have been recreated for. Again, it contains indicatives (you have been united to Christ in His death and resurrection) and imperatives (consider yourselves....)

So, a few thoughts or questions:

Do you think it's useful to distinguish between gospel as an announcement to the world that is still in blindness with a reduced content that consists of the historical facts along with a command to repent and believe on the one hand and the further indicatives and imperatives of the Gospel that we instruct those who have been transported from death to life on the other?

Am I reading you correctly that the major problem that you have is that Gospel, as used by some, limits its definition to a single aspect of what the Gospel is and ignores its other aspects?

Finally, if we can agree on what kind of content the Gospel is, let's consider the idea of "living the Gospel". As I see it, we have two connotations with this term:
1. Some use it in the sense that we live lives that are consistent with those who believe the Gospel. Living the gospel, in this sense, still means that the Gospel is not precisely to be identified as the believer but as something the believer trusts in and has been transformed by in a demonstrable way.
2. Others increasingly use it to make their life itself the _content_ of the Gospel ("Preach the gospel always, If necessary use words." ~ St. Francis of Assisi.) There is a confusion that the actions of the believer or the dramatic lifechange of the person become the _content_. People speak of testimony today as "I used to smoke crack and was miserable but now I'm a happy, well adjusted person..." as the Gospel.

In other words, I think we would agree that the Gospel is always preachable content in the sense of words about Christ's work and its implications to men, women, boys, and girls. I think we can also agree that, while the Gospel creates that transformation in men and women, the fruit always needs to be distinguished from that which actually gives life to the fruit.


----------



## MW

Rich, you have provided clear analysis and pointed questions. I will try as best I can to answer those questions so as to bring out my main concerns.



> Do you think it's useful to distinguish between gospel as an announcement to the world that is still in blindness with a reduced content that consists of the historical facts along with a command to repent and believe on the one hand and the further indicatives and imperatives of the Gospel that we instruct those who have been transported from death to life on the other?



On one level, yes; to ask an unbeliever to walk worthy of his calling would essentially be a covenant of works since he has no grace with which to walk. The one duty incumbent on an unbeliever is to repent and believe the gospel. However, on another level, I don't believe that means reducing the content of the gospel. Law for an unbeliever is pure law. Every duty preaches the need of a Saviour to him. Every promise of the gospel sweetly draws him to the Saviour. Meanwhile he should be hearing the doctrines of grace in their fulness, and realising that his own calling is altogether of grace, not of works, lest any man should boast. Alot of the problem with modern Calvinism is the result of reduced content. Unlike previous centuries, we are seeing people converted Arminians and having to undergo another conversion to Calvinism. This is terribly detrimental to the individual believer and to the work of the church because it means there are all kinds of hybrid patterns of discipleship.



> Am I reading you correctly that the major problem that you have is that Gospel, as used by some, limits its definition to a single aspect of what the Gospel is and ignores its other aspects?



Our reformed soteriology is very plain -- justification and sanctification are distinct yet inseparable works. If justification alone is the message of the gospel then from where do we derive the message of sanctification? The justification only definition of the gospel separates justification from sanctification. Pure reformed theology always taught that we are justified by faith; that faith is an exercise of a quickened man, that a man is quickened by the Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit quickens a man by creating a new principle of holiness within him; hence justification cannot be separated from sanctification even though they must be held to be two very different things. My concern is that this teaching of a justification only gospel is antinomian, not reformed, and can only have disastrous consequences if it is accepted. Hugh Binning states, "Christ came not only to spread his garment over our nakedness and deformity, but really and effectually to be a physician to save our souls, to cure all our inward distempers. The Gospel is not only a doctrine of a righteousness without us, but of a righteousness both without, for us, and within us too; 'that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us,' etc. Christ without, happiness itself without, cannot make us happy till they come in within us and take up a dwelling in our souls." We have so many miserable professing Christians because their souls are not being healed. Their justification really is a legal fiction because it is not accompanied by sanctification.



> In other words, I think we would agree that the Gospel is always preachable content in the sense of words about Christ's work and its implications to men, women, boys, and girls. I think we can also agree that, while the Gospel creates that transformation in men and women, the fruit always needs to be distinguished from that which actually gives life to the fruit.


 
Yes; I think we, as in you and I, agree on that. As this thread has demonstrated, however, there is clearly a difference of opinion regarding whether the gospel creates the transformation. As always, I am refreshed by our kindred spirit. Blessings!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Matthew,

Thanks for the responses.


armourbearer said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think it's useful to distinguish between gospel as an announcement to the world that is still in blindness with a reduced content that consists of the historical facts along with a command to repent and believe on the one hand and the further indicatives and imperatives of the Gospel that we instruct those who have been transported from death to life on the other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On one level, yes; to ask an unbeliever to walk worthy of his calling would essentially be a covenant of works since he has no grace with which to walk. The one duty incumbent on an unbeliever is to repent and believe the gospel. However, on another level, I don't believe that means reducing the content of the gospel. Law for an unbeliever is pure law. Every duty preaches the need of a Saviour to him. Every promise of the gospel sweetly draws him to the Saviour. Meanwhile he should be hearing the doctrines of grace in their fulness, and realising that his own calling is altogether of grace, not of works, lest any man should boast. Alot of the problem with modern Calvinism is the result of reduced content. Unlike previous centuries, we are seeing people converted Arminians and having to undergo another conversion to Calvinism. This is terribly detrimental to the individual believer and to the work of the church because it means there are all kinds of hybrid patterns of discipleship.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm reading too much in your response but I was simply trying to make sure I sorted out for onlookers that the term "Gospel" is used broadly in the Scriptures. It seems to me that some limit the aspect of the Gospel to the first aspect I highlighted. I wasn't advocating that the Gospel be limited to the historical indicatives but pointing out that there are imperatives even in the Acts gospel presentation and also noting that the Epistles use Gospel in a way that broadens out its use considerably. Paul seems to refer to much of Romans as "my Gospel". That presentation of the Gospel shifts to much more explanation of the _implication_ of the historical facts that the herald announces.

Maybe I'm not being clear but my point was to try to show that there is a sense in which the Gospel has an "open air" quality to it of announcing the historical events of Christ and His work along with a call to repentance and faith. In addition to that quality, I was trying to note that the Gospel has an "how you give explanation to those who have come inside the Church" quality to it as well. I never intended to limit the Gospel inside the Church to say that there are things you should only be teaching the converted if that's what you thought I was implying.

Bottom line: I was trying to put my finger on what I think you might have a problem with and that is that some limit "gospel" to the open air announcement and even take away from that aspect by insisting that the commands of the Gospel (repent and believe) are not really Gospel at all.



armourbearer said:


> Our reformed soteriology is very plain -- justification and sanctification are distinct yet inseparable works. If justification alone is the message of the gospel then from where do we derive the message of sanctification? The justification only definition of the gopel separates justification from sanctification. Pure reformed theology always taught that we are justified by faith; that faith is an exercise of a quickened man, that a man is quickened by the Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit quickens a man by creating a new principle of holiness within him; hence justification cannot be separated from sanctification even though they must be held to be two very different things. My concern is that this teaching is antinomian, not reformed, and can only have disastrous consequences if it is accepted. Hugh Binning states, "Christ came not only to spread his garment over our nakedness and deformity, but really and effectually to be a physician to save our souls, to cure all our inward distempers. The Gospel is not only a doctrine of a righteousness without us, but of a righteousness both without, for us, and within us too; 'that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us,' etc. Christ without, happiness itself without, cannot make us happy till they come in within us and take up a dwelling in our souls." We have so many miserable professing Christians because their souls are not being healed. Their justification really is a legal fiction because it is not accompanied by sanctification.


I hope you don't think I believe otherwise. I'm reading Owen on Sin and Temptation again. One of the most freeing things for me has been getting the message in my bloodstream that Christ, the Stronger Man, has plundered. I was just telling a group at Church on Sunday that I often hear that the motivation for Christian service is gratitude for the free grace that has been given us in Christ. On the one hand, I cannot argue that gratitude motivates me but it also assumes that gratitude then impels me to act on my own steam. Rather, I believe, Romans 6:1-11 (among other places) makes abundantly clear that our union with an indestructible life is the "engine" that impels. It is not "Rich is grateful and obeys" but "Rich is grateful and obeys because he is united to an indestructible life" and "Rich battles sin because sin as power has been put to death on the Cross with Christ." That's Gospel.


----------



## MW

Rich, I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was taking issue with anything you said. As I noted at the top of my post, these are my concerns in general, not objections to anything you wrote. I can recall reading some material of yours on the book of Romans and I was left in no doubt as to your understanding and commitment to the reformed view of sanctification. I think it is the fact that Romans is fundamental to our spiritual pilgrimage which gives us a mutual understanding on the points under discussion. Not too many people today recognise the depth of Romans as "the gospel." In fact, there are not very many who will accept the sense of accountability which lay on the apostle's heart to articulate the gospel the way that he did. Again, I note with gratitude the kindred spirit we share in these things.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Thanks Matthew. I didn't doubt your kindred spirit. I just wanted to ensure I was understanding your concern precisely.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

> The distinction between “Christ for us” and “Christ in us” is certainly helpful; but, we should be careful to note that “Christ in us” really is “Christ for us”. Indeed, Goodwin argued that “the main sum and substance of Christianity then is, that Christ be revealed in us, and not only to us; that you come to have Christ by application in and to your souls; Christ brought down into your heart….All, then, that God works upon you savingly, from first to last, is a discovery of Christ, some way or other, in you. *It is either the knowledge of his person, or it is a conformity to him*…and this I call the sum or substance of our religion” (4:345-46). The gospel includes all soteric blessings, including those that are “in” us (e.g. sanctification & glorification).



Does Mark Jones really regard the knowledge of Christ as _distinct_ from conformity to Christ? I can hardly agree this is Biblical;

“Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but *we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is*.” (1 John 3:2)

“But *we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory*, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.” (2 Corinthians 3:18)

The message is clear and glorious; *the more we grasp of the beauty of Christ, the more we conform to His image!* Christ's glory is such a _powerful_ glory that it _constrains_ us to be changed in our very nature!


----------



## SolaGratia

The below message was very helpful to me:

Calvin and the Gospel 

by Martin Foord 

Martin Foord examines Calvin's understanding of what the gospel is, and offers some penetrating applications for today's preachers and theologians. 


This talk was originally given at Trinity Theological College in Perth, Australia in June 2009. Our thanks to Trinity and to Marty for allowing us to publish this excellent talk here.



Here: Calvin and the Gospel


----------



## Matthew V

I agree with Horton, as long as we understand what he's trying to argue against.
Horton rocks.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Matthew V said:


> I agree with Horton, as long as we understand what he's trying to argue against.
> Horton rocks.


 
Nobody is disagreeing with Horton in the context of what he said.... Here we go again. Back to the first page of the thread. We are discussing the two phrases in light of Reformed soteriology and whether or not..... Matthew I am curious. Did you read the whole thread and understand it? What does Horton Rock about? I too have a lot of appreciation for Horton. 

Did you read this blog?

In Light of the Gospel » Blog Archive » The Gospel and Sanctification

I posted the whole thing in one of my posts. 

Just curious if you just did a drive by comment or if you really looked into what was being said in the thread as it developed. Because I repeatedly said that I agreed with Horton's quote with his qualifier.


----------



## Michael Doyle

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Did you read this blog?
> 
> In Light of the Gospel » Blog Archive » The Gospel and Sanctification



Thanks for the link Randy. It was a very helpful read. I still have great respect for Horton but am seeing a bit clearer what you and Reverend Winzer are alluding to and it is greatly appreciated


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Michael, 

You would also enjoy this link and blog by Mark also. It discusses the issue at hand also. Reformed Soteriology is not the same as Lutheran Soteriology. 

Confusing “Law” and “Gospel”? | Meet The Puritans


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I'm going to shut this down for now and ask that we give the Horton thing a rest. I think it's sort of unfair to extend the initial post to infer so much into Mike's overall beliefs. I know Mike personally so this issue is very personal and uncomfortable for me. He doesn't participate here (nor do I think he has the time) in a way that would allow us to fully interact with what he's saying.

I'm a supporter of the WHI and just today I was listening to the CD's I get in the mail every month and I heard him with my own ears use the word "obedience" with respect to the Gospel as a command to those that the Church heralds the message of the Gospel unto. I've also heard him repeatedly refer to the 3rd use of the law in such a way that I believe he fully embraces sanctification as a component of the Gospel.

I realize there are some nuances that need to be discussed and continue to be debated in the Reformed community but I would prefer that to be done with a spirit that it is an intramural discussion.

I've been listening to Mike for years on the WHI and he's been personally very kind to me. I think he focuses more on the historical kerygma on his show as well as criticizing the "living the Gospel" in this sense I noted earlier:


Semper Fidelis said:


> 2. Others increasingly use it to make their life itself the content of the Gospel ("Preach the gospel always, If necessary use words." ~ St. Francis of Assisi.) There is a confusion that the actions of the believer or the dramatic lifechange of the person become the content. People speak of testimony today as "I used to smoke crack and was miserable but now I'm a happy, well adjusted person..." as the Gospel.


In other words, I'm not convinced he denies a sense of the Gospel which makes the 3rd use of the law a type of "evangelical obedience". Some may disagree but, again, I've heard statements from him repeatedly that convince me he does not deny this.

I think if Mike's show was primarily focused internally to the Reformed community and he was interacting with Reformed uses of the term "living the Gospel" in the way some Puritans used it then he might not take issue to it. Yet, if you listen to his program regularly, as I do, his show is sort of a very minority voice in a wave of evangelical use of this term that has transformed the use of the phrase "living the Gospel" in the way I described earlier.

I think we need to recognize that we are in a Christian community that is increasingly confused about the Gospel and I believe that Mike and the WHI serve an important function to wake up Christians today that Christianity is not an interior religion among many but an announcement of Christ's death, resurrection, and reign that drags men out of the dungeon of their sin and transports them into the Kingdom of God.

I would like us all to consider that we can respectfully disagree with one another on this and learn a little from the manner in which Calvin criticized some of his contemporaries. He criticized other views in the Reformed movement at his time but he didn't "name names". It allows for discussion and interaction without getting so personal and tearing down. My frustration is that we don't "bird dog" every little thing that a leader says and necessarily assume that it confirms our worst fears in others.


----------

