Eddie, like many I believe we are actually mostly in agreement, you just do not like my choice of words. Of course theology can be drawn from the Gospels, such as you noted, just as theology can be drawn from historical books such as judges and Acts. As you point out, the Gospel (and I would argue many other things) are more difficult to draw out from the Gospels than from the letters. At no point did I mean to imply the gospels or Acts are devoid of theology, some presented quite clearly. Also, Jesus did explain His parables to His disciples privately, and there I think we have things more clearly. You just recoil at my suggestion that God is a con man, a reaction I often get from True Christians. I like putting it that way precisely because it jars the listener out of complacensy into re-examining their presumption that Jesus always spoke clearly. He most certainly did not, as it is written, He PURPOSELY hid the Gospel in the Gospels for the express purpose of NOT converting people, as Isaiah predicted He would. That bit of theology, that God at times hides Truth is clearly presented in the Gospels. The first time I read it it came as a shock to me, but as I thought about it I saw His purpose in NOT immediately bringing many into salvation. He came to be rejected and die, not to head yet another religious movement like Bhuddha, Mohammed, ect ect ect. Yet another unique facet of Christianity, and contrary to how we would do something, to win by losing.
Look, this is on of my answers as to why the idea that somehow Paul is not in line with the Gospels is absurd. This notion that Paul somehow redefined Christianity is the kind of stuff that comes when one does not have an absolute commitment to Biblical Inerrancy, plenary inspration and all those other funky terms to make clear that we actually believe what the book says and NOT what some scholarly review of some high placed seminary so and so thinks. You don't like thinking of God as the Greatest con man ever. Cool, peace be upon you and may your house live forever. I am no Tertullian, but I do share his love of paradoxical and jarring comments, loosely paraphrasing: "I believe God had a Son, because it is absurd. I believe He died and rose again because it is impossible. "
------
Quoted from
"I believe because it is absurd" – Was Tertullian a fideist?
De Carne Christi, a work on the Incarnation of Christ:
Natus est Dei Filius, non pudet, quia pudendum est;
et mortuus est Dei Filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est;
et sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossibile.
“The Son of God was born: there is no shame, because it is shameful.
And the Son of God died: it is wholly credible, because it is unsound.
And, buried, He rose again: it is certain, because impossible.”
The part being frequently (mis)quoted is “It is certain, because it is impossible.” Even the Latin being quoted is wrong. As for the meaning, in the context where this saying appears, Tertullian is responding to the Marcionite view, an early heresy.... As for whether or not Tertullian really thought that the incarnation and life of Christ was impossible, here’s what he had to say about that, at the outset of chapter three:
Inasmuch as you suppose this was within your competence to decide, it can only have been that your idea was that to God nativity is either impossible or unseemly. I answer, that to God nothing is impossible except what is against his will. So then we have to consider whether it was his will to be born: because, if it was, he both could be and was born.
-----
Anyway, the point is that those of a liberal bent SOMETIMES (not always) come with a pernicious naturalistic bias. They forget that Christ predicted that after His death the Con-Forte (giver of strength, paraclete) would lead the Apostles in all Truth and enable them to do even greater works than He Himself. His words, not mine. So, we get a Paul who unpaks the entire Scripture revealing mysteries hidden from the foundation of the world because Paul is, just like me and you "The Greatest Force In The Universe" (ie, indwelt by the Holy Spirit). Please, I am not claiming infallibility for myself, but I AM claiming it for the letters found in the New Testament.
Thus, the whole approach of somehow thinking that Paul sort of shaded or restructured a new version of Christianity in my opinion comes froma naturalistic bias. The letters of all the Apostles were supernaturally influenced just as all Scripture being the breath of God, and even clearer than the Gospels. As such it is right and proper to begin our theology from the most theologically attuned writings like Romans and Hebrews. You do not go to Acts or Revelations as a start to your theology because they are not primarily didactic. That is a second reason, just as valid in my view, as the fact that Jesus was the Greatest con man ever (and I do love my Tertullian, a part time heretic like me I guess).
Anyway, this post has grown long in the tooth so I will only bring up the third reason why the letters, especially Pauls, are a better starting point for theology. The guy was anointed the Apostle to the gentiles at the very first Church council. Last time I checked, I am an uncircumcized gentile (as my kids would say, TMI,dad, TMI).
TGFITU, the Christian sometimes known as JR