To sum up, then, we may say that, according to the general consensus of New Testament teaching, a gospel is not a gospel when””
1. it is detached from the Jesus of history;
2. it gives little or no place to the passion;
3. it exalts human achievement in place of the grace of God;
4. it adds other conditions to the one which God has declared acceptable (even if those additions be things good and desirÂable in themselves); or
5. it treats righteousness and purity as things which the truly spiritual man has outstripped.
On the other hand, a gospel is a gospel when””
1. it maintains contact with the Jesus of history, affirming that “this same Jesus “who came in the flesh and died is the vindicated and exalted Lord;
2. it embraces and proclaims “the stumbling-block of the cross”;
3. it extends the grace of God to men for their acceptance by faith;
4. it relies upon the power of the Spirit to make it effective in those who hear it; and
5. it issues in a life of righteousness and purity which is sustained and directed by the love of God.
Excellent! Thanks for sharing this, Kendall.
Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, F. F. Bruce. Enough said.
The “general consensus of Christian teaching.”
Bruce, unfortunately, although a brilliant biblical scholar, is a poor theologian. He illustrates the old challenge of bringing together good metaphysics and scriptural edification. Why Bruce rather than Bultmann, or even Frei?
Do not fault Bruce for not seeing that this would apply to the leadership of TEC even if not a “general consensus of Christian teaching.” This may be defective theology but it is good prophecy.
If you have to ask “why Bruce rather than Bultmann” you’re never going to accept the answer anyway.
Bruce is one of the finest New Testament scholars of the last 70 years.
The implications of this are profound in the present climate in the church.
I ran across it this week and quoted it in this morning’s sermon on 2 Corinthians 11 (we are in the midst of a series on 2 Corinthians).
And for the record, it is the general consensus of New Testament thinking/teaching, not the incorrect quote John Wilkins gives.
PS I am sure a number of you thought of this but it is interesting to consider the comfortable words from Cranmer’s prayer Book in the light of the above.
Fred Bruce was an outstanding classicist, biblical scholar (in both OT and NT) and church historian with immense learning and common sense. Every one of his 40+ books will teach you something new.
Sorry, John, but I’ve learnt nothing from your drive by comments.
RE: “Bruce, unfortunately, although a brilliant biblical scholar, is a poor theologian.”
Sez John Wilkins.
; > )