In fact, I remember when I was a kid and listening to our pastor basically justify abuse of wife & kids at the father's hands because the bible says the family must be obedient to the father (and it does say that
about the obedience part).
Not exact matches
So if one person is thinking only
about the
parts of the gospel that tell a person how to go to heaven when they die or receive eternal life (faith alone in Christ alone), while another person is thinking
about the
parts of the gospel which tell followers of Jesus how to live on this earth (discipleship,
obedience, faithful living), but both persons keep using the term «gospel,» the argument quickly becomes quite messy.
Thus far in this
part of our discussion I have been trying to show that Paul's thinking
about the work of Christ is predominantly eschatological: In virtue of an
obedience which man, who stood simply in the succession of Adam, could not give, and of a victory which man could not win, the human situation has been radically transformed.
I worry
about turning the Bible into a children's story book,
about helping the tinies to engage with Scripture and wrestle and ask questions, and then I can't bring myself to read
about Abraham's near - sacrifice of his son, Issac, on the mountain, no
part of me could ever understand that
obedience, I admit, I'd probably go to hell before I'd raise a hand to hurt my child, I don't understand it at all.