The gospel is both ecclesiastical and eschatological (those are fun words to use:) Many get nervous when guys say that but I am very convinced that it is spiritually unhealthy to hone in on one forensic doctrine as the dividing “truth” of all Christendom, especially when it is not well understood. I think that many of us have been “Romaphobic” when we deny that the different doctrines of the gospel actually fit together to form continuity. We are so very paranoid of being Roman that we throw the baby out with the bath water by boxing every doctrine so separately that one cannot see the relation each of them have with the overall sphere of the kingdom.

For instance, “Justification” (the way modern exegesis views justification; primarily as salvation itself) must include the entire eschaton, somehow. This means that it must be inclusive to the Church. The Reformers taught that there was no salvation outside the Church, but today’s arguments and overemphasizing on the doctrine of Justification is giving room for people to simply believe in that doctrine alone for their salvation, even if they are not part of the Church. Today’s Justification is essentially a word that is very afraid of its peers. It needs to learn how to cooperate with the other “categories” of the faith, since all doctrines are “essentials,” although they pinnacle at the atonement and/or resurrection.

Salvation is by “grace” alone, when referring to the character of God. But once this character transcends to us, we have a whole new realm to explore and debate. What doe this “merciful act” look like once it leaves His thrown? Does it look (or have to be) purely abstract? And if it does, who is the arbitrator of this abstract(ness)? Can it be more organic and natural, more sacramental, more doctrinal, or a combination of all three?

Take for example, Luther- he screams the “three alones” and this later turns into five alones; now we are at about 150 alones with each denomination camping on one of those alones. So it’s the gospel of the end times, the gospel of justification, the gospel of sanctification, the gospel of sacraments, and so on.

What Wright and guys like Leithart are proposing is that the gospel is much more fluid than our modern propositions. It’s inclusive to ecclesiology, eschatology, sacramentology, and the likes. This does not cancel out grace alone but rather explains it in a much broader (and also deeper) fashion. It’s simply just not healthy to narrow the gospel down to one forensic doctrine, camp out on it, dividing from the rest of the Church over it.I don’t think these guys are against systematics, per se, but are against modern systematics. The argument from N.T. Wright is that Paul was not proposing an abstract doctrine but was simply using the language of the day; language that we are welcome to adopt, but certainly not welcome to abuse.

My prescription for someone that is wrestling against the modern trappings of reductionism is the book Against Christianity by Dr. Peter Liethart. This book will loosen you up a bit and allow you to begin broadening your horizons.