Five Views on the Gospel

by Michael Scott Horton, Scot McKnight, David A. deSilva

Five Views on the Gospel presents five different perspectives on the question "What is the gospel?" Presenting a variety of contemporary and tradition-based perspectives, each contributor answers key questions about the nature of the gospel. Questions contributors address The CounterPoints format provides a unique opportunity for each contributor to set forth their own understanding of the gospel, to interact with competing perspectives, and for the editors to sum up points of agreement and disagreement and a path forward in the debate. The Counterpoints series presents a comparison and critique of scholarly views on topics important to Christians that are both fair-minded and respectful of the biblical text. Each volume is a one-stop reference that allows readers to evaluate the different positions on a specific issue and form their own, educated opinion.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Christianity

256 pages, Paperback

First published June 3, 2025

About the author

Dr. Horton has taught apologetics and theology at Westminster Seminary California since 1998. In addition to his work at the Seminary, he is the president of White Horse Inn, for which he co-hosts the White Horse Inn, a nationally syndicated, weekly radio talk-show exploring issues of Reformation theology in American Christianity. He is also the editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation magazine. Before coming to WSC, Dr. Horton completed a research fellowship at Yale University Divinity School. Dr. Horton is the author/editor of more than twenty books, including a series of studies in Reformed dogmatics published by Westminster John Knox.

Reviews

[James-Michael Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not having a Catholic or Orthodox contributor while having both a Wesleyan and Pentecostal contributor significantly weakens this work. Bad call by the editor.

[Sanjuro · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is, on the whole, a good and helpful book. It's stimulating, and I took lots of notes. But, it has lots of problems, and in my opinion, these problems are not inevitable to the format. Different editorial decisions could have strengthened the book considerably.

First, I think the choice to have Pentecostal and Liberation views, but not Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox views, was a mistake. I'm interested in a wider ecumenism, and this book would have been stronger with a more inclusive approach.

Second, the authors did not at all seem to be addressing the same questions. At one point, late in the book, McKnight makes that clear, when he questions the methodological precision of many of the other authors. Were all of these authors actually addressing "the gospel," or were they describing their wider Christian worldview and then unhelpfully calling that "the gospel"? Or, do some of these authors think that everything a Christian believes is "the gospel?" I'm not sure, but some of these authors lacked clarity and methodological rigor in their approaches, and this is particularly (though not only) true of Ma and Shively. Indeed, in some ways only McKnight seemed to be able to articulate why his essay was addressing the specific question at hand. For example, Horton appeared to equate "justification" with "the gospel." But, I need to know why he made this equation? Is this an assumed equation without critical thought as to why? Are there passages where terminology for justification and terminology for gospel are paired side by side? Did Horton even give any thought to method, or did he just uncritically assume that justification is the gospel because his tradition sees it that way? I loved deSilva's essay, but I had similar thoughts. Does he think all of these ideas are "the gospel," or is he presenting a wider articulation and then calling it "the gospel"? Ma and Shively were the most guilty of writing essays that read as though they were wider articulations of belief that were labeled "the gospel" without methodological clarity.
The gospel is not merely "everything we believe." It's a specific aspect of our worldview. But, only McKnight tried to create a method for narrowing the focus with some sort of criteria (in his case, things said in the gospels where words for "gospel" are actually used, with a little help from Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 15).

Third, some of the response essays were a bit unfocused. This was somewhat true of Ma, and was particularly true of Shively. Shively seemed incapable of responding to the other authors on their own terms, based on their own essays. She had one drum, and she was determined to bang on it with every response. She frequently spent a paragraph or two giving service to the other essays, and then immediately started focusing not on the biblical descriptions of gospel, but her own context, and seemed dissatisfied with the other essays only because their context was different from hers. Context is important, and she did well to describe that, but her essays seemed focused on that to the exclusion of important biblical concepts.

Fourth, I wonder if Horton was the best choice for the Reformed essay. At points, he tried to helpfully distinguish between the Calvinist-reformed and Lutheran-reformed perspectives, and to give voice to both, but when he wasn't clear on this, he presented a Lutheran perspective that lots of other reformed people would not accept. His division between law and gospel was too wide, his view of morality too critical. Horton offered an absolutely bankrupt interpretation of the parable of the good Samaritan. Against a moralist view, Horton argued that only Jesus was the good Samaritan and the rest of us are all the person lying in the ditch, despite the fact that, in the passage, Jesus says the opposite!!! Jesus literally tells the teacher of the law to "go and do likewise" (Luke 10:37), and it's crazy to think this is not also applicable to us all today. Jesus clearly wants people to behave like the good Samaritan, and this is clearly the purpose of the parable. Like it or not, Jesus was moralizing, and that's ok!!! Horton is widely called a Calvinist, but he has a very Lutheran aversion to morals. He gives lip service to doing good in this book, but then always qualifies it, and his view on the good Samaritan is so contrary to the context that only an aversion to morals can lead one in that direction.

I think McKnight offered the best method for the discussion, and I'm glad he called out the fact that the writers were not having the same discussion. McKnight was also the person who best articulated that each writer's gospel was focused on a different "ology." McKnight's was a Christology, Horton's and deSilva's were largely soteriologies, Ma's and somewhat deSilva's were pneumatologies, and Ma's and Shively's were ecclesiologies. I think McKnight is correct that "Christology" is the best starting point, but deSilva was wise to point out that a fuller Trinitarian view needs to be featured in any take on the gospel.

I think Horton's gospel essay was deeply flawed, but, his responses to the other essays were consistently the best. Horton did the best job of demonstrating the flaws in the other essays.

DeSilva's essay was the most insightful, because he demonstrated, through Wesley, the shortcomings in typical reformed articulations of the gospel.

I found Ma's take on Luke 4 helpful, and Shively had good things to say about the need to understand how our views on the gospel affect communities, but I did not see "the gospel" clearly articulated in either of these essays at all.

As a final word: I think McKnight is correct that we need to distinguish between "the gospel" and the things accomplished through, or, because of the gospel. Only McKnight made this distinction, and I think it's an important one.

[Scott Gregory · Rating 3 out of 5]

When you ask, "what is the gospel?" you could be asking one of a number of questions:
1. How do I get saved?
2. What do I need to believe to be saved?
3. What is the core message of Christian thought?
4. What is the summary of Christian thought?
5. What is good about the news of Christianity?
6. What does εὐγγέλιον mean in the New Testament?*
7. What is the content of the εὐαγγέλιον as it is found in the New Testament?
8. What do I think is important in Christian thought?
9. What do I want to talk about when I talk about Christian thought?
And more could probably be added.

Unfortunately, this book slides around between these questions, leaving it up to the reader to discern what, exactly, each author is trying to answer at any given point. This issue makes this book difficult to use in navigating the controversy around the titular term.

However, if you ignore this problem you can find this book a helpful resource in learning about certain key doctrines and ideas within each "view," e.g., Mcknight's "king Jesus gospel" idea, Wesleyan perfectionism, and liberation theology/hermeneutics. In this way, it can become a highly instructive work, and I would be happy to recommend it on that level.


*I am once again asking you to remember that "gospel" and εὐαγγέλιον are two different words, in two different languages, and separated by two thousand years.

[Tim · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was, prima facie, the least strong of the Counterpoints books I’ve read so far. I really struggled to understand the inclusion of several of the perspectives until I read the conclusion by the editor. Did I miss the reference to the online debate in the introduction? I spent the first quarter of the book trying to figure out why Catholic and Eastern Orthodox scholars hadn’t been included. At the resolution, I still felt their inclusion would have made the work as a whole stronger. I love Michael Horton from his other publications and his radio show, but I found my own views are most in agreement with the King Jesus Gospel of Scot McKnight. Just not really all that reformed, I guess. The other scholars made some interesting points. By the end of the book, I felt that all of the essays had a place in the volume, though I still felt that more voices would have made the work stronger.

[Esther · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not to be read as a competition or “Pick your favorite one and discard the rest.” Reading these five views of the Gospel and the responses to each will give you a fuller understanding of the Gospel, help you better understand traditions different from your own, and bring to light ways your own tradition or view can use more thoughtful examination.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book on views of the essentials of the gospel, from various perspectives. Scot McKnight's "King Jesus" gospel perspective was for me the most understandable, convincing, and practical.

[Kyle Haack · Rating 3 out of 5]

Charitable engagement among diverse views on the Gospel.

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Horton presents a clear and persuasive account of the historic Reformed view of the gospel, centering on the person and work of Christ as prophet, priest, and king. However, his essay could have been strengthened by giving greater attention to union with Christ, the resurrection, Christ’s kingship, and the role of the Holy Spirit. These themes would have offered a stronger defense against McKnight’s King Jesus Gospel and DeSilva’s Wesleyan perspective. The Reformed perspective, in my view, is comprehensive in its scope, embracing the redemption of creation under the lordship of Christ, yet rightly centers on the atonement for the forgiveness of sins so that we might enjoy eternal communion with God and his people. That said, certain aspects of the gospel and its benefits, especially union with Christ, the resurrection, and the Spirit’s role, have often been underemphasized in some Reformed circles, and they warrant greater theological and pastoral attention. I would have loved to have seen Schreiner write the Reformed perspective.