on occasional blogging (or, "I'm a paintin' fool")

Well, here we are, with an entry... I am in the midst of renovating the second half of my duplex, sold the other half in November. So my time is cramped for sure. Right now I am in the midst of painting. I have put in three days of painting so far and it looks like another day and a half to go, hopefully Monday and Tuesday of next week. Did I mention that I hate painting? Give me drywall mud any day. At any rate, things are really coming into shape on the reno. One of my deacon's is helping me. He got the kitchen cabinets installed for me this week while I painted.

In the meantime, we are managing to keep up with our New Testament study guides and sermons as we work our way chronologically through the New Testament. Last Sunday was all Ephesians, the first installment in our study of the prison epistles. It seems to me that in the writing ministry of the apostle Paul the Lord used him to teach Christians concerning Christian living in a progressive sort of way. First he dealt with disciplinary matters as the church was being 'hewn from the rock' of Gentile paganism with Galatians and the Corinthian epistles. The Thessalonian epistles were written between these two, dealing with important eschatological questions and pastoral assurances. I suppose we 'forget' about those two epistles more than any others of Paul's, except perhaps Philemon. In Roman's Paul comprehensively explains the theology of salvation, without a doubt one of the most critical books for our understanding of the gospel. From the disciplinary/eschatological beginnings of Paul's 'corpus' [don't you love scholarly words?], we move to theology, and then we move to the heavenlies... that is what Ephesians is all about, especially the idea of the heavenly blessings realized now in the church of the Living God. In Colossians we are called to set our affections on things above, especially the pre-eminent Christ. Philippians also gives us high doctrine in the 'kenosis' passage, the doctrine of the incarnation. The theology of these books are intended to stir up Christian graces in our lives, real practical Christian living. Theology is essential for this, the contemporary pulpiteer who eschews theology and preaches only 'practical' messages can give no solid ground for people to live the Christian life by faith. The only basis for 'Christian living' in such preaching is the pragmatic benefit of living a sober life, and the only power is will power, not faith. Paul's writing closes out with practical matters, four personal epistles written to individuals (Philemon, the two Timothys, and Titus), but high theology intersperses the work. I think Paul was involved in Hebrews as well, but I'll leave my theory on that one until we get to it.

In Ephesians, our first message was about the Church. Entitled "The Great Mystery Revealed" from Eph 1-3, I discussed the great plan of God, determined before the foundation of the world but only revealed in the NT era, the mystery of the Church. The church is formed individually, when individuals are saved by grace through faith, and corporately, when the Gentiles and Jews are taken from where they were to become one new body, not what they used to be. This whole concept involves the manifold wisdom and love of God, for the blessing of the whole church and the praise of the Lord's name. This message involves discussing something God wants us to know. After that comes those things that God wants us to do, but those come in the next two messages.

The second message was also about the church, but more involved with our place in it and how we should be functioning. Entitled "One Body", it covered Eph 4.1-16. The idea of this message was that because of the mystery revealed to us [and in us] (Eph 1-3), there is an imperative for the believer: unite with the body of Christ, especially as it is seen in a local church. There is a call to a mind of unity with the brethren, seven uniting reasons are given (centered around the persons of the Trinity), and gifts are given to the body for the purpose of uniting it in the image of Christ. The whole point of this message is that God has a place for you in a local church and you are obliged to fulfill it.

The third message covered the rest of Ephesians, 4.16-6.24. I called it "The New Walk". The new walk begins with a renewed mind, the renewed mind displays itself by putting off the old man and putting on the new man, especially for the sake of the body: ex., put off stealing, work, so that you may be able to bless others. The renewed mind involves renewed relationships: marriage, family (parent/child), employment (master/servant). Having changed your mind about how to live, the apostle finally calls the believer to stand against the wiles of the devil, fully equipped with the armor of God.

On Wednesday, we moved on to Philippians (which some think was written last of the four prison epistles). The message for this evening was entitled: "Humility and How to Attain It". A major theme of Philippians is humility. Paul's words concerning himself and his devotion to the gospel are an example to us (even when rivals preach it out of envy, hoping to hurt him; or when it might mean his execution). From this, Paul exhorts the Philippians to adopt his mind, by adopting a manner of life worthy of the gospel, and by adopting a mind like Christ. The apostle points to the example of the humility and humiliation of in his incarnation and crucifixion, Christ as the ultimate example for us to follow, leading him to exhort us once again to work (for it is God working in you). My proposition for this message was: "Humility is a state of mind produced by a commitment to self-sacrificial giving."

Well that catches us up. I will now retreat into my mad dash to prepare for the weekend, then next week, more painting!

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on an amazing development for the blind

'Sight' that tingles

You need to read this article. For the technologically oriented, it will be interesting, but for the preacher, the story is priceless. One to save for the illustration file. The article is about a device that allows the blind to 'see'. Very interesting, and to me, quite moving.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on catching up eight sermon summaries -- two weeks worth

I didn't realize how many messages I have not yet added to my summaries. I have been swamped with work as I am busy with duplex renovations two days a week. This last week we turned a corner on the 'ripping and tearing' stage and are now putting things back together. Most of the new sub-floor is into the kitchen/dining room, we only have one more sheet of plywood to install there, then do the entryway and the bathroom upstairs. We also hope to start painting this coming week and then putting in kitchen cabinets... so the end is in sight.

On Wednesday, Jan 24, we covered Rm 6-8, in a message called "The Essentials of Sanctification". The point I was making with the message was that victory over sin should be the normal experience of the Christian life, with victory being obtained by turning our mind over to Christ (reckoning ourselves dead to sin and alive to God), remaining constant in the battle with the flesh, and finally relying on the Spirit for the power needed to overcome.

The following Sunday, Jan 28, saw us in Rm 8 for "The Guarantee of Glory", a message that focused on the end of sanctification, that which motivates us to keep on in the struggle, that is, the great glory that will be revealed in us. These passages contain some of the most tremendous assurances of victory in the New Testament as Paul assures us that the glory is worth all suffering on this earth, that the Spirit within is active, working 'the glory' out in our lives now, and that as we trust in God, nothing can separate us from His love. The reason the believer persists in the struggle for sanctification is the exceeding richness of the reward — a reward that is guaranteed.

Our second message that day was "The Question of Israel", a message covering Rm 9-11, some of the more complicated passages in Romans. A key to understanding these chapters is to understand the objection to the gospel that Paul is answering. The objection is stated this way: How can you trust the promises of God now if God's promises to Israel have been set aside? Paul answers by showing that God's promises to Israel have not been set aside, but that men don't understand what God was doing with Israel in the first place. The first point (ch 9), is that God's promises are not frustrated by Israel's unbelief, they are fulfilled in the chosen remnant who believed. The second point is that Israel's problems are not God's faithlessness, God has provided the means, sent the preachers (the prophets) and given the opportunities - Israel's problem is its own unbelief (ch 10). Last, God's word to Israel is not empty, it remains in force (ch 11) as proven by the remnant in this age, and by the future national turning that will yet occur when the Lord returns. The Proposition: God’s dealing with Israel, past, present, and future, assures us of the wisdom in trusting the promises of God.

Our afternoon message was on Rm 12-13, "The Consequences of Salvation". These chapters are the great 'so what' of salvation. The Proposition: The doctrine of salvation demands the practice of love for God by love for man. In a way we have an inclusio in these chapters, Rm 12.1-2 speak of the need to love God with whole heart mind and strength, i.e., the living sacrifice, and Rm 13.8-14 bring us back to that same idea. In between, we see that the way this is done is by loving our fellow man, first to believers in the church by exercising the gifts and in outdoing one another in showing love for our brethren. Then we are called to do good to men in general, even our enemies, heaping coals of fire on their heads by so doing (something that we can't do maliciously!). And last, we are called to show the love of God by submission to legitimate governmental authority and paying our taxes. In the end we are obliged to owe man nothing but love for one another.

Last Wednesday, we finished up Romans with a message covering Rm 14-16, but mostly concentrating on Rm 14.1-15.7, the obligation we have to brethren who differ with us on non-moral scruples. The title was "Our Relations to One Another" with this Proposition: Christian love demands the sacrifice of high-mindedness for the sake of our brethren. What I mean is that we can't be high-minded about our 'strong consciences' or about our 'strong scruples' - both brothers have to receive each other in love, not despising or judging each other. The strong conscience brother has the additional responsibility of deciding to be considerate of the scruples of the weak conscience brother and an obligation to avoid putting a stumbling block in front of him. Again, the principles of love are our guide and the example of Christ who sacrificed all for us must be our model.

Today, we returned to Acts with "Paul's Farewell Tour" mostly from Ac 20, a bit from 21. I took a bit of a different tack with this message and preached on a subject I don't think I have ever heard a message on -- preparing for the preacher's permanent departure from a ministry. The Proposition: Christian churches should constantly be preparing themselves for the succession of the next generation. I showed how Paul spent time with several churches on the way, talking long into the night in Troas (interrupted by a quick death and resurrection), lingering with believers in each place that he visited on the way to Jerusalem. Then we turned to the words of preparation seen in Paul's message to the Ephesian elders in Ac 20: Paul recounts his satisfaction with his ministry among them, preaching the whole counsel of God, satisfaction with his sincere earnest manner of ministry, satisfaction that he had not withheld anything needful. All of these are preparatory, even in the midst of a vibrant ministry. In this message, Paul knows he is likely not to see them again, so he warns them of certain danger to come, wolves from without, perverse truth twisters from within. Much failure in succession is a failure to adequately prepare people to be discerners of false teaching during the years of ministry. And last, Paul returns to a lesson of practical Christianity where he teaches them concerning industry and generosity - a message he would give as if he were still going to be there next week, but a message that prepares for departure nonetheless. God's people need to keep their own departure in mind, anticipating that there will be a generation to follow and make their own contributions to the future success of the truth by assimilating truth now and passing it on to those who follow.

In the second service, we covered basically Ac 21-23 with a look at the "Antagonism of Judaism". We picked up the thread of anxiety that we see as Paul is told by various prophets along the way to Jerusalem that trouble and imprisonment is coming. Then we see the active antagonism of the Jews as Paul is arrested, beaten, threatened, charges and counter-charges slung around and so on. In the end, the Jews plotted to kill Paul, but he is not overwhelmed by these threats and their antagonism. What is remarkable is that what Paul wants to do when threatened is preach to them! Just as he wanted to do with the mob in Ephesus, Paul turned to the mob in Jerusalem and preached to them ... his desire was to see them come to Christ. I compared again some of Paul's thoughts from Rm 11 and 9 and his desire to see them come to Christ. The whole point of this message was that this is God's will for us when we deal with Jews today who are antagonistic to Christ. We should not react in kind, be frustrated, but we should seek their souls. Are they enraged with you? What an opportunity! Evangelize!

In the last service, we had a similar theme, but this time with respect to the Gentiles. From Ac 24 (and a bit of 25) we looked at "In the Eye of Imperial Rome". Proposition: The servant of Christ must learn meekness in the hope that the most wicked rascals he meets might be born again. The wicked rascals in question for this message were the Roman governors, primarily Felix and his wife Drusilla. I gave historical background for both Felix and Festus, but concentrated on the two years of witnessing Paul was able to have with Felix. Felix, though under conviction, resisted grace (hah!!) in the interest of a bribe. Paul refused to give a bribe, not wanting to get out of jail with this excellent opportunity to witness regularly to this pair, Felix, a former slave turned brutal governor and Drusilla, great-grandaughter of Herod the Great, daughter of the man who executed James the brother of John. What a great prize of grace they would have been, but they would not repent. The attitude Paul has to those who are trying him is to turn it into a witnessing opportunity. Do we do that with people who attack us? We need the evangelistic heart of the apostle Paul instead of the self-protective self-centered hearts we so commonly carry around with us.

Well, that brings you up to date. We have eleven weeks to go in our through the NT series. It has been a great blessing so far, and a good bit of work, but we are hopeful that it will be a great resource for new disicples for years to come.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on comparing evangelicals with young fundamentalists

In a recent on-line conversation [note, in a software upgrade, the conversation comments were lost] I brought up points made by Ernest Pickering in his book The Tragedy of Compromise. Here are the points:

Pickering cites 6 factors that spurred the rise to NE in his book, The Tragedy of Compromise. They are:

1. A reaction to what was perceived as excessive negativism on the part of fundamentalists.

2. A desire to be accepted by the scholarly world.

3. The influence of training in liberal institutions.

4. The general mindset and spirit of the age.

5. A reaction to the criticism that fundamentalism lacked a vision for social action.

6. A growing ecumenical spirit which viewed fundamentalism as too separatistic. [Pickering, pp. 8-10]

In bringing up these points, I was comparing the attitudes which gave rise to Evangelicalism to the spirit that seems to animate a good deal of what is called 'the Young Fundamentalists' today. My contention is that with some modification, the attitudes of the YFs are essentially the same as those of the New Evangelicals. I suggested changing the word "scholarly" in #2 and the word "liberal" in #3 to "evangelical".

In the conversation, Ben Wright of Paleoevangelical disagreed with me. Here is the challenge he issued at the end of the conversation:

I would like some specific examples from you (since you asked for such from me) of how YFdom has been influenced by those factors, particularly #s 2 and 3, even with your replacement of "evangelical." I’m really curious who you’re talking about. And that doesn’t imply that I think your replacement of "liberal" with "evangelical" maintains the validity of the analogy. I really don’t.

When I cited the points, I didn't have anyone in particular in mind, but since Ben recently graduated from Southeastern Theological Seminary, I realize that he may have thought I was directly attacking him on that score. Ahh... I really didn't think of that when I mentioned Pickering's points, Ben, but if my contention is correct, the application may be warranted.

But let me talk about similarities in the YF world to each of these points:

1. A reaction to what was perceived as excessive negativism on the part of fundamentalists.

I grew up in a little evangelical church on the prairies of Alberta. I went away to Bob Jones University in the mid 1970s and became a fundamentalist. I have many friends [and know others] from my school days who reacted to the negativisim in fundamentalism then. They ended up as evangelicals. The YFs today are singing the same song. I really don't see how there is ANY difference between the attitude of the evangelicals of the 50s and later in the 70s and the YFs today. Same song, different verse.

2. A desire to be accepted by the scholarly world.

The parallel here is not exact. I suggested replacing the word 'scholarly' with 'evangelical' above, but that isn't quite right. There does seem to be a desire by young fundamentalists to be accepted by the evangelical scholarly world, which isn't quite the same, at least in application, as the desires of the evangelicals of the 50s. Nevertheless, I don't see a difference in philosophy, simply a difference in direction. When I posted the list I had in mind my friends who were all enamoured with Dallas Theological Seminary in the 80s, for example, or the many young fellows I hear of these days heading off to Masters. Southeastern would fit the category also, as would many others.

That is not to say that the motive for attending such schools is purely for acceptance in the evangelical scholarly world, or that there may be legitimate reasons for pursuing such training for a fundamentalist. I suppose that one would have to know the motivations in each case to be able to completely certain for any one person, but it does seem odd for young men heading for a Fundamentalist pastoral ministry to spend precious years and dollars in the training of men whose pastoral philosophy is not the same as that of Fundamentalism. I suspect that most young fellows who leave a fundamentalist church background or fundamentalist undergraduate program for such training aren't planning much in the way of a fundamentalist ministry career.

3. The influence of training in liberal institutions.

Again, the parallel is not exact. I acknowledge that the YF men are antagonistic towards liberalism, and that they are not training in liberal institutions. But in keeping with my comments above, I don't see how training in evangelical institutions will tend towards producing men with a fundamentalist philosophy of ministry. In addition to the institutions, I would suggest that today young men are reading evangelical authors and being tremendously influenced by their teaching. One can't 'ban books' but the young men today should be cautioned concerning discernment and should probably be developing their abilities for critical thinking rather than becoming enamoured with the current stars of evangelicalism because they seem to be conservative and they might happen to tout my favorite theological points.

So, no, YF men are not being influenced by liberal institutions, in this they are different from the evangelicals. But who can deny they are being more influenced by evangelical institutions than fundamentalist institutions? How are they likely to end up as fundamentalists with that kind of influence?

4. The general mindset and spirit of the age.

On this point, I think the young people called Young Fundamentalists are exactly like the evangelicals of yesteryear. The spirit of the age in the 50s was a confident, modern era. The evangelicals embraced it and expected to transform it by engaging it. Today the spirit is different somewhat, but the YFs are embracing the questioning, anti-authoritarian, worldly mindset of the age in large numbers. Witness the lengthy debates on the YFs favorite internet forum on the permissability of drinking alcohol or permissiveness concerning movie watching or any number of other topics. Notice how anyone who wishes to speak to them with a 'thus saith the Lord' is hooted down and laughed to scorn. The spirit of the age is upon us, and not in a little way.

5. A reaction to the criticism that fundamentalism lacked a vision for social action.

I suppose there ar varying degrees of reaction in this particular area. Some are more involved in social action than others. I also suppose that the jury is somewhat still out on whether or not the efforts of YFs in the area of social action are legitimate or detrimental to the cause of Christ. It is undeniable that some of the YFs have criticized fundamentalism at large for a failure to involve themselves in social efforts. We are not talking merely about a debate about appropriate methodology. That debate rages in the secular and evangelical spheres as well. The distinguishing mark made by this point is that there is a criticism of fundamentalism because of its supposed lack of compassion. For an example of this, read some of Bob Bixby's comments in relation to his efforts. I am not critiquing Bob here, per se. But it is undeniable that he and others complain about fundamentalism's lack of social vision. How are these critiques different from those of the evangelicals of the 50s towards fundamentalists?

6. A growing ecumenical spirit which viewed fundamentalism as too separatistic.

Ben didn't like this point too much in our discussion as I recall. As I understand what he was saying, he seemed to resist the attachment of the label 'ecumenical' to young fundamentalists (or to conservative evangelicals for that matter). First, if we simply say 'a growing broad spirit of openness', we can get to the heart of this point. The evangelicals viewed fundamentalism as too separatistic. Can anyone deny that YFs criticise fundamentalists as being too separatistic? That is what this openness to MacArthur, Mohler, Dever, Piper, et al, is all about. In this area in particular, the YFs are most like the early evangelicals.

One thing further on this point... Ecumenism is as ecumenism does. Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of ecumenical:

1 : worldwide or general in extent, influence, or application
2 a : of, relating to, or representing the whole of a body of churches
b : promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation

Merriam-Webster, I. (1996, c1993). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. (10th ed.). Springfield, Mass., U.S.A.: Merriam-Webster.

The tendency towards wider Christian unity or cooperation is an ecumenical tendency. It is certainly not what a separatist is doing. To the extent one criticises separation, to that extent he is tending towards wider cooperartion. Though the YFs may not be full blown ecumenicals, seeking to unite the entire professing church world-wide, I submit that neither are the evangelicals. But the direction is the same. I am not against Christian unity, but I am also not for unity with all Christians, including many whom I consider to be true believers. The YFs are trending in the opposite direction.

~~~

I suppose these answers are not specific enough, although they have been specific in some cases. Nevertheless, I do see a parallel between the attitude of the Young Fundamentalists and the evangelicals of the 50s and 60s. I left the older bunch by choice. It appears this younger crowd is joining them by choice.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on a definition of conscience

In my studies today, I ran across this little line defining the conscience:

"Conscience is the capacity to feel guilt."

Tom Constable. (2003; 2003). Tom Constable's Expository Notes on the Bible (Ac 24:16). Galaxie Software.

... just something to think about ...

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on the question of conscience - advice from D. L. Moody

My wife frequents thrift stores. The last two days she has been coming home with some real treasures, another church apparently discarded books from their library so I got Hodge on Romans for $1 and several others. Among the books she picked up was a little Moody Press book, Talks to Christians by D. L. Moody. In a message to Young Converts [apparently at a meeting in New York state somewhere], he had this to say:

DAILY WALK AND CONDUCT

Some people ask me questions about their daily walk and conduct. They say, "I would like to know whether it is right for me to go to the theater?" "I would like to know whether it is right for me to smoke?" Or "Is it all right to drink moderately?" I cannot carry your consciences; Christ does not lay down rules; He lays down principles. One rule I have had is this: If there is anything I am troubled about in my conscience, and am uncertain whether it is right or not, I give Christ the benefit of the doubt. It is better to be a little too strict than too liberal. And let me say to you young converts and you Christians here, the eyes of the world are upon you; they are watching.

For myself, I could not go to the theater; I would not like to have my children go. I do not do anything myself that I would not like to have them do. I could not smoke, because I would not want my boy to smoke. I could not read those flashy novels. I have no taste for them, no desire to read them; but if I did I would not do it. But, if you live to please Him, you will not have any trouble in these things. He says, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally."

Another rule is: Don't do anything you cannot feel like praying over. Once I received an invitation to be at the opening of a large billiard hall. I suppose they thought it was a good joke to invite me. I went before the time came and asked the man if he meant it. He said yes. I asked him if I might bring a Friend along. He said I might.

I said, "If you say or do anything that will grieve my Friend I may speak to Him during your exercises."

They didn't know what I meant, and knitted their brows and looked puzzled. At last he asked, "You are not going to pray, are you? We never want any praying here."

"Well," I said, "I never go where I cannot pray; but I'll come round."

"No," said he, "we don't want you."

"Well, I'll come anyway, since you invited me," said I. But he rather insisted that I shouldn't, and finally I told him: "We'll compromise the matter. I won't come if you will let me pray with you now." So he agreed to that, and I got down with one rum-seller on each side of me, and prayed that they might fail in their business, and never have any more success in it from that day. Well, they went on for about two months, and then, sure enough, they failed. God answered prayer that time.

In Europe in a place where there was a good deal of whiskey distilled, one of the men in the business was a church member, and he got a little anxious in his conscience about his business. He came and asked me if I thought that a man could not be an honest distiller.

I said, "You should do, whatever you do, for the glory of God. If you can get down and pray about a barrel of whiskey, and say, for instance, when you sell it, 'O Lord God, let this whiskey be blessed to the world,' it is probably honest."

Do not live to please yourself. Live to please Christ. If you cannot do a thing honestly, give it up, let the consequences be what they may. If you take my advice you will never touch strong drink as long as you live. Nearly all the young converts that have fallen in Europe have been led into it by that cursed cup. "Yes, but," you say, "some of the church members, some of the Christians that stand. high, drink moderately." Well, don't you touch it if they do. Some men have strong will and can tell where to stop; but bear in mind that ninety-nine out of a hundred have not strong wills, and your son may be the very next one to go too far. If it is not an injury to yourselves, give it up for Christ's sake, and for the sake of others. Any of you who have once been slaves to it, come out and try to rescue others who are still slaves to it. As Dr. Bonner, of Philadelphia, said, "Be sure you do not tarnish the old family name. You have been born into the family of God, and you must sustain its high credit." Some of these old families of New York think a good deal of their names; and that is right. A good name is worth more than riches. Now that you have become the sons and daughters of God, do not disgrace the old family name. The eyes of the world are upon you; walk as a son of the King, as a daughter of Heaven, a. child of God, and the world will become better for you, and by your walk and conversation you will light others to Christ.

Turn now to Acts 20:32: "And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified." That was Paul's farewell to the Ephesians. Oh, how sweet it is! "He is able to lift you up." Some of the young converts have got their Bibles out, I see. That is right. I marked that a good many years ago. It has been a great help to me. Paul had been three years among them, and had prayed and wept over them. If you learn your Bible well, you are certain to be good Christians. If the Word of God is not hid in our hearts, how can the Holy Ghost work through us?

That is pretty good wisdom, I'd say. I believe that we can argue against alcohol specifically a little more strenuously from the Bible, but what Moody offers here is good practical wisdom, infused with Biblical principle and Spirit-filled wisdom. If Christians lived with this kind of wisdom, we would have less confusion and a good deal less moral lapses.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on Christian essentials

A long-time friend of mine wrote me yesterday concerning a project he is working on. He was requesting the opinions of several people on this question:

In your opinion what are the cardinal doctrines of the faith that ALL Christians worldwide would have to believe to be Christians?

Having just done some thinking on this, I was ready to give the following reply.

I am just now going through Romans in a NT survey series. The apostle Paul says he is set apart to the gospel in 1.1. Then he gives us some components of the gospel in 1.2-4:

^ESV Romans 1:2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, ³⁴ and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,
concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh

Notice these features:

descended from David according to the flesh - this involves the incarnation and must include, I believe acceptance of the virgin birth. The incarnation could have occured without a virgin birth, but the credibility of the claim would be extremely damaged. Any daughter of David could say they had been impregnated by the Holy Spirit, not her husband, but how could anyone believe such a claim?

declared to be the Son of God in power - this involves incarnation from the divine aspect, God became man, the hypostatic union.

by his resurrection - the resurrection would be a key component that cannot be overlooked.

Paul refers to 'my gospel' three times in the scriptures:

Romans 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

From this one, I infer that a future judgement is an essential part of the gospel.

Romans 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

I am not sure if any new theology is added by this one.

2 Timothy 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

Again we see incarnation, Messiahship, resurrection as essential components.

To this I would add Paul's summary of the gospel in 1 Cor 15.3-4:

^ESV 1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, ⁴ that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,

Here we have substitutionary atonement by a sacrificial death and the resurrection.

John also has some information that I think points to essentials. I call it "John's confession":

^ESV 1 John 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,

The confession includes humanity, messiahship, incarnation. This particular theme is found throughout 1 Jn, especially in the 4th and 5th chapters. See also:

^ESV 2 John 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.

I believe that you will find elements of the confession in Peter as well, but I don't recall the passages right off.

I hope this is some help to you. It is a little difficult to untangle all the threads that are absolutely essential. If I was summing up, I think I would say that these things are essential (although there may be more)

1. Incarnation by a particular virgin birth (not just any virgin would do)
2. Hypostatic union - full humanity and full deity
3. Substitutionary atonement (probably a broad term that includes several particular doctrines)
4. Bodily Resurrection (and ascenscion as perhaps a secondary aspect of this doctrine)
5. Judgement (the point of it all, if no judgement, who needs a saviour?)

Thinking this over a bit, I sent a follow-up e-mail with this line:

Just a quick follow-up, I think that one has to accept the miracles if one accepts the hypostatic union. I suppose that is a given. If Jesus is God, there is no problem with the miracles.

***************************************

I would be interested in any comments others have to refine this summary a bit.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3