The Gospel can't be lived. It's the Law that's lived.

[Jack K]

Thanks, linking that previous post about living the Gospel here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f25/do-you-live-gospel-65419/

---------- Post added at 04:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:22 AM ----------

Jack,

You said:

The Bible uses "gospel" sometimes in a more narrow sense and sometimes in a broader one.

How much of this discussion is real meaty disagreement and how much of it is merely one camp arguing for only the narrower sense of the word "Gospel" and the other camp beginning to stress the broader definition as well?

It feels to me as if much of the discussion is about how people wish we would use the word, even though we largely agree in our theology. I suspect much of this is due to different errors we're each interested in combatting. Some are chiefly interested in combatting antinomianism or lax living. Some are more interested in combatting legalism. Some are opposing liberalism. Some want to emphasize the role of grace as a motive in sanctification. And everyone, naturally, wants to use that wonderful word, "gospel," chiefly in a way that supports what they care most about.

That's probably too simple. But I know for sure that I do that.

It seems that many people are using the phrase "living the Gospel" in order to distinguish the power of the Gospel from moralism and mere religious duty. This is how Keller seems to use it in the film I linked.

Yeah, I tend to use it somewhat the same way, having picked up that language from Jack Miller and friends. I'm pretty sure that's the same place Keller picked it up. In any case, Keller makes sense to me because he uses the terms in a way I'm familiar with.

I am learning, though, that you can't assume everyone understands what you mean by phrases like that. And not all of the other meanings are wrong, though some are.

 

[cih1355]

Philippians 1:27 says, "Only conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or remain absent, I will hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;" The people who say that we should live the gospel probably mean that we should conduct ourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[proregno]

I propose the following solution: we are 'part' of the Gospel in the sense that we live 'from' the Gospel, or 'out of' the Gospel, or as a 'result' of the Gospel, as in HC q/a 64:

Q64: But does not this doctrine make men careless and profane?
A64: No, for it is impossible that those who are implanted into Christ by true faith, should not bring forth fruits of thankfulness.

Christ alone is the 'bread of life' (Joh.6:48), in whom I am inplanted by true faith. We live (bring forth fruit) from the Bread (Christ/the Word, 6:51), we are not the bread itself. We are 'part' of the bread/Gospel, in the sense that we are involved/implanted and will therefore bring forth fruit (Joh.15:5), but this fruit (thankfully!) is or never will be 'part' of our justification itself, as we confess in q/a 62:

Q62: But why cannot our good works be the whole or part of our righteousness before God?
A62: Because the righteousness which can stand before the judgment seat of God must be perfect throughout and entirely conformable to the divine law,[1] but even our best works in this life are all imperfect and defiled with sin.[2]

We are the fruit, not the Root, and that is the Good News, praise God !

Bavinck recommended in his Reformed Dogmatics (vol.3, p.229[350]) that, because of the misuse/misunderstanding of the term 'conditions' (esp. with Rome, Lutherans and Remonstrants) from the 17-19th centuries, that the word should not be used. Maybe the same must be done with phrases like 'live the Gospel' and replace it with the clearer 'living FROM the Gospel' ?