“When everything is the gospel, then nothing is the gospel”

Overuse of a term devalues it.

And when you vaguely criticize unnamed authors with the overbroad statement that “When everything is the gospel, then nothing is the gospel,” nothing = nothing.

BTW, I have no idea who the criticism highlighted above is aimed at: “People (in such contexts) are rarely called to ‘good works.’ The work of the Spirit in the heart to produce His fruit is neglected.” Maybe Adams is not thinking of Tchividjian, Horton, Brown, Bridges, or others in their camp (but how are we supposed to know from his global indictment?). But if he is thinking of them, he is misrepresenting them. They do call Christians to good works and do not neglect the development of the fruit of the Spirit. They simply re-direct our attention to the biblical motive or impetus for the good works and the fruit of the Spirit — it’s not so that we can be more pleasing to God or earn His favor or be closer to Him or keep the rules for the sake of keeping the rules (or because we’ll get punished if we don’t); it’s because we’re overwhelmed with gratitude at what the Gospel means: we who were intentionally His enemies and incapable of being anything else have been justified by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, so that we don’t have to do anything for Him, but we want to and we take joy in it.