As someone part of a fellowship that has deep fault lines along the Calvinist vs. not divide, I was expecting to see in that video the makings of a new Rob Bell controversy. But I think you oversell the controversy with "onslaught," from that video, it looks like his primary concern is about the specific language we use, and techniques with which we Evangelize. (With a dose of New Perspective on Paul thrown in for good measure.)

Such a critique is sure to ruffle some feathers, and maybe (hopefully) even start a dialog, but since the ultimate message remains the same, I expect this won't be the next big front in the "war" you describe.

In May of 2006, I attended a Renovare conference in Long Beach, CA. Dallas Willard was one of the speakers and he gave a message entitled: "The Gospel Jesus Taught and the Atonment". He said that there are three "gospels" commonly preached:

1. Forgiveness if Sins (atonement)
2. Social Gospel of Liberation
3. "You take care of your church and your church will take care of you" gospel

He said said the fourth gospel, the one Jesus preached, is that you can live in the kingdom of God now (John 17:3). He spoke about this in the context of spiritual formation, something he claimed really does not happen in churches today. One of the consequences of preaching a gospel of atonement is that you can be a Christian (someone who is saved and is waiting to be with Jesus when they die) without being a disciple or follower of Christ in the here and now. Made sense to me.

Without passing any sort of judgement on Scott McKnight or his new book, I submit that the plan of salvation IS the "good news". Why? Because prior to the arrival of Jesus, the only way to God and eternal life involved good works in addition to proper beliefs. Jesus brought grace through faith which completely eliminated the NECESSITY of works (not the elimination of their existence but rather a change in their purpose). If that isn't good news then I don't know what is. I might diverge with Scott on this point, "Equating the plan of salvation with gospel means Jesus could not have preached the Good News. Only the Apostles, like Paul, who preached after Jesus' death and resurrection could possibly present this message." Jesus was the good news! The thread of grace and the promise of salvation (even on an individual basis) runs consistently throughout the Old Testament and is fulfilled in the New. More information and guidance came through the NT writers. The more I read the entire Bible, the more I see how it is all so beautifully connected. Grace was there as a promise for the future in the OT; in the present with the arrival of Jesus; and as a continuing unfolding story in the individual and corporate lives of believers ever since. The fact that I live in this age of grace is a wonderful thing and is extremely good news.

If preach the gospel only means give out gospel words, then maybe McKnight has a case. Typically institutiomalized leaders only refer to preaching as when standing behind a pulpit. This is gross error. Jesus preached the whole gospel with His whole life. It is time for institutiomalized leaders to let both preaching and gospel giving to be free of pulpits and lecturing mentality and return it to normal life living and interaction. This is the gospel mentality of Jesus.

This is a great dialogue to discuss the real content of the gospel versus soteriology, which can be two very different beasts. I would like to add that the plan of salvation as revealed in the Old Testament typology of the sanctuary is a highly rewarding study. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7753684/close_encounters_of_the_god_kind.html?cat=34

I think this is a vitally important book and recovery of an essential truth. Salvation by grace is NOT something new to the Jews, sorry 'elegance'.

After traveling through all four gospels that Br. Thomas mentioned, I am now seeking number 4 but depending upon number 1. CT, thanks for the book update.

Y'shua taught from the scriputres...which we would know as the Tanach, the histories, the prophets, and...the psalms.
And from books...we don't even acknowledge...the Talmud, or Enoch anyone?

So...given that our gentile faith/mindset has been formulated and prejudiced for the past 1800 years, it would be nice to actually, you know, discover what exactly Y'shua did teach...from his very JEWISH background.
And yeah, grace was a bit of a new concept, but not a strange one to the Jew's as it walked hand in hand with mercy.
No, the "new concept" was Y'shua...boy howdy, that was a new one on the Jews...a messiah who didn't come to take names and kick butt, but forgive? Say what?

A messiah who healed the sick, and got his own butt kicked? Come again?

A messiah who constantly challenged the rabbinical teachings of what the messiah should do, and how he should behave? Yeah, this Y'shua guy really got irritating after his first sentence.

Y'shua turned the Jewish world upside down...you'll note, he pretty much avoided the Gentiles as much as possible, and when he didn't...he made the interaction quick, and decisive, and yet the Gentiles came to him as much as he tried to avoid them.

Come to think of it...right there is a great book waiting to be written...why did Y'shua go out of his way to avoid the Gentiles even though some of the greatest demonstrations of belief of his sovereignty/divinity came from them?

There is so much there in the gospels that reveal tons of background information about where Y'shua was coming from that just learning the book of Mark would be a life-long study.

So, yeah, I am kind of curious where Mr. Mcknight is going with this...it could be an outstanding book, or it could be a book where expectation meets disappointment...but I will with-hold judgement till I read it.

The problem with this approach is that Jesus didn't preach exactly the same message as Paul because Jesus couldn't preach himself crucified and risen! He especially couldn't preach that His righteousness was credited to sinners.
That would have really been foreign! The basis of entering the Kingdom is the righteousness of God through faith in Christ. The reality of the Kingdom is the power of the new age inaugurated by the Spirit. That's what Paul preached, and that is an individual reality that has coroporate implications. Yet it begins with individual repentance and faith. Jesus preached the Kingdom of God because that was the only concept they could connect with. But he also preached individual salvation because he baptized individuals and called individuals to repentance and discipleship to Himself. The reasons there are differences between Jesus and Paul is different context and different side of the cross and resurrection. How can that be so hard to figure out? It isn't either/or but both/and.

If you read Hebrews chapter 11, you see that those in the OT were also saved by their faith. It mentions Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Moses, and many more. Our God is truly an amazing God. Hebrews 11:1-2 "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old gained approval."

Too many people *use* the bible to support their doctrines (and thus their finances) rather than simply accept as God's word and obey.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/article_print.html?id=90265

If you perceive a conflict in the text, why is it impossible to admit the likelihood that your perception may be what is wrong?

@Doug - Jesus did consistently preach himself crucified and raised.

Over all I think this is a good dialogue. I think we are all guilty of "to the person w/ a hammer everything looks like a nail"

Looks like an interesting read by Scot McKnight! Thanks for calling attention to it. I don't see how we can talk about "the gospel" without emphasizing the kingdom of God, which was Jesus' central message.

Eric Foley is currently running a helpful series about what the gospel is at ericfoley.com. This link will take you to the first installment:

http://ericfoley.com/2011/07/27/proclaiming-the-gospel-part-ii-a-gospel-is-not-a-testimony-not-a-bible-story-not-a-sermon-not-even-an-offer-of-salvation/

Doesn't the Nicene Creed, the universal Gospel story in a nutshell for over 1,600 years, remain the Gospel summary?

[Ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed]

How could one be considered a Christian and disagree with it?

Since no Reformation creed has supplanted it, doesn't the Church who gave us the Nicene Creed, retain the Gospel?

The "plan of salvation" is merely a pragmatic process of sharing this Gospel story.

"...contemporary Western Christians might be better identified as soterians because we have built our whole church culture around one thing- salvation, who is saved and who is damned."

I really struggle with blanket statements like this. WHO has the authority to speak for "...our whole church culture.." anyway? This authoritarian statement does not represent my experience in the many churches I have been a part of throughout my life.