I read recently an evangelical Christian's definition of "Christianity". It was rather unsurprising, speaking about the New Testament and the Church Fathers and the Reformers. But how can that be a working premise of the sources of Christianity, if the salvific essentials (the Good News of Evangelicalism) of the faith are in mind? That is to say, are not the teachings of Jesus, by practical definition, sufficient for salvation?
By "practical definition," I am reserving the notion that the non-Gospel portions of the New Testament, by the very premises of the New Testament, are superfluous to salvation. Only the Gospel of Luke expresses a necessary connection to the rest of the New Testament, and it includes (24:45) the disciples having their minds opened to the scriptures. The Gospel of John indicates (20:22) the bequeathing of the Holy Spirit. What then is lacking?
Luke/Acts, of course, carries on with the idea of the signal importance of Pentecost, but only after reflecting on Jesus having spent forty days post-Resurrection teaching the disciples (with no one, apparently, attempting to write any of it down.) It is conceivable that some number of the about one hundred twenty (Acts 1:15) would have died, been arrested, or have otherwise been absented from Pentecost, and never had contact with another believer again. To suggest that such a gospel-only-taught believer was denied the full substance of Christianity would be utterly without warrant.
To claim that the non-Gospel New Testament is essential to Christianity is also without warrant, and this conclusion can be arrived at independently of any criticism of the non-Gospel writings. When are we going to act on this realization?
No comments:
Post a Comment