1) Intellectually, we are related to the Gospel: by our understanding the Gospel in terms of what it *is*.
2) Existentially, we are related to the Gospel: by our experiencing the Gospel in terms of what it *does*.
Our having the first doesn’t necessitate our having the second (at least not in good measure). Obviously we can’t have the second without the first, but having the first doesn’t mean we’ll have the second in a vital way.
There’s lots of us who *grasp* the Gospel as the truth concerning Christ’s substitutionary work on behalf of sinners. Yet, there is a fewer in number who are *gripped* by the Gospel to where it shapes the core of our being, hence etching an identity (a Christ-image) upon our souls that actually works out in manifold ways.
Much is said today about being “GOSPEL-CENTERED” and yet if you listen long enough it becomes fairly evident that there isn’t much of a theological foundation with the Gospel as cornerstone. And on the flipside, there can end up being little or no concern about being “GOSPEL-CENTERED,” but more of a concern with theology and morality that seems to misplace the Gospel as cornerstone.
In this latter case, it’s not that there isn’t a great deal of truth in what’s said, but that’s about as far as it goes, it ends up being more of an *virtual* truth than *vital* truth (vital in that it is rooted in the Gospel, grows from the Gospel, exalts the Gospel, and appropriates the Gospel).