Thread: Two Ways to Live? or The Good God? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022961
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :
 
I'm a charismatic evangelical of conservative persuasion, Reformed in doctrine, non-lirugical in practice.

Despite my conservatism I have always felt a sense of disquiet over the Two Ways to Live presentation of the Christian message which is heavily promoted by Sydney Anglicans.

While I do believe that the doctrines contained in the presentation are revealed in the bible, I have always felt that the way it introduces the personhood of God to be somewhat repellent. It was intuitive, I think. I tended to put it down to the rebellious nature of indwelling sin railing against God's sovereignty. But now I'm not so sure...

This has caused me some considerable spiritual dissonance in recent years because, while I believe the things Two Ways to Live says are true, I felt almost trapped into presenting the gospel on the basis of those truths. In fact, I had almost come to the conclusion that those truths were the gospel in toto.

The cumulative effect of this dissonance was that I found myself beginning to dislike 'the gospel' and falling out of love with God.

However, I have recently purchased a little book called The Good God by Michael Reeves the head of theology for UCCF. You can read a blog review of the book here.

I have only read the introduction and it has already diagnosed the problem with Two Ways to Live and explained the source of my intuitive disquiet. It is because the starting point of Two Ways to Live is unintentionally sub-triniarian, the result of which is that it is fundamentally unloving and unlovely. Here is the paragraph that has helped me the most.

quote:
If God is mere might. If God, in essence, is the The Ruler, The One in Charge... I will find every inch of my Christianity covered and wasted by the nastiest toxic fallout.

If salvation simply means him letting me off and counting me as a law-abiding citizen, then gratitude (not love) is all I have. In other words, I can never really love the God who is essentially just The Ruler. And that, ironically, means I can never keep the greatest command: to love the Lord my God.
Now Reeves fully affirms the doctrine of the sovereignty of God and that God is indeed the Almighty One, the Ruler of creation, but his point is this: it's not a good way of introducing people to the personhood of God because it doesn't account who God is from eternity to eternity.

In other words, introducing the identity of God as "Ruler" fails to give an adequate picture of who God is because it is ontologically contingent upon his sovereignty over temporal creation and not upon his eternal relationship to himself in the economy of the Trinity.

This, at last, explains the first reason why I have always disliked Two Ways to Live.

So my question is this: are there any other evangelicals of conservative persuasion who, like me, think a principled stand against the theological reductionism of Two Ways to Live is necessary for the health of evangelicalism?

Has anyone else found themselves or others inexplicably damaged by the toxic fallout of this particular gospel presentation?

And is it time for an alternative gospel presentation to be written? And if so, how would you introduce people to who God is and what he is like?

What should be kept in Two Ways to Live? What should amended? What should be ditched?

Finally, would anyone care to join me in reading and discussing The Good God.
 
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
I've always found the Reformed tendency to treat sovereignty as God's defining attribute leads to a rather unattractive God, but maybe that's just me. I'm possibly misunderstanding you, but I think that the concept of the trinity leads logically to a fundamentally relational God, rather than a sovereign ruler operating in splendid isolation.
 
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
PS All of which is a roundabout way of saying that parent-child is a more accurate and accessible and trinitarian image than ruler-subject.
 
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
I've always found the Reformed tendency to treat sovereignty as God's defining attribute leads to a rather unattractive God, but maybe that's just me. I'm possibly misunderstanding you, but I think that the concept of the trinity leads logically to a fundamentally relational God, rather than a sovereign ruler operating in splendid isolation.
If God were (and he isn't) an uncaused monad then his holiness would indeed require his operating in splendid isolation. God, however, is Trinity so even his holiness is eternally relational. However, I think the suggestion that sovereignty and Trinity are incompatible concepts is a misnomer and a misreading of what I'm saying.

My main point is that presenting God's Rulership over creation as fundamental to his identity is actually an mis-application because it places God's sovereignty over against the doctrine of the Trinity in a very unhelpful way.

[ 05. April 2012, 16:08: Message edited by: Daron ]
 
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
I've always found the Reformed tendency to treat sovereignty as God's defining attribute leads to a rather unattractive God.
I would now freely agree with you; if sovereignty is indeed presented as God's defining attribute. Interestingly enough this is precisely where Reeves's argument is going: God is by definition fatherly.
 
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
PS All of which is a roundabout way of saying that parent-child is a more accurate and accessible and trinitarian image than ruler-subject.
Agreed, so long as the ruler-subject idea is not rejected as unbiblical.
 
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
I've no problem with saying that God is sovereign (although I wouldn't use that word in a calvinist sense) or that the ruler-subject image is scriptural, so we're broadly in agreement. And I'm not even a conservative evangelical [Biased] Hopwfully someone who is will be along in a minute...
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Daron

I am going to point out that that is piece of evangelical thought and your strict Calvinist (such as We Frees in Scotland) would have nothing to do with it! Why? Simply because it limits God's sovereignty too much. It makes individuals salvation in the end dependent on that individuals decision. God's sovereignty is therefore only partial.

It relies also on God being subject to time in a way that I find unacceptable. We need a change our understanding of God, they are too much based on what earthly rulers are like and how they protect themselves from the bad parts of human society. As far as I can tell God has shown little signs of wanting to be protected from the bad parts of human society rather he seems to like them.

The existence of the Universe and time and space (in case they aren't the same thing) is totally and utterly dependent on God's desire. Were God to stop so desiring (not sure that is logically possible as time would also stop) the Universe et al would also stop.

God did not create in the beginning he continually creates the world. Each instance that happens, happens because God desires it.

With humans he did something a bit more interesting, he decided he wanted to create a creature that could not just receive the love that cause it to exist but could participate in creation and respond to that love/desire. In other words he created a creature to which God could relate. He may have done it elsewhere but I do know he did it here.

However because the desire happens freely, to create a creature that just returned that desire would be to just more same old same. So humanity became co-creators as well as creatures and able to make decisions that affect the outcome of creation, these are not outside his will, for there is no act which he does not participate in but he restrains his will so humans can participate.

What God desires is a relationship with us but at least one of the big myths is that we need to be especially good, well behaved or such to have a relationship with God. It is not true, God will meet us where we are, wherever that is. God won't make everything go right either, but he will work with us, sometimes giving to those who work hard to do his will the harder tasks. It is our openness to relating back to a God always ready to meet us, that changes things.

I happen to think judgement is real, but it will be when we know God like God knows us, we therefore will be faced with all our hurting and damaging of others and God, this is part of the knowledge and we can choose to reject this or accept it and be truly open to God. You won't stop being held by God but as God wants a relationship he will always wait for us to open ourselves out of the hell of our own making.

Jengie
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
um, I'm a conservative evangelical. Though I'm ordained in a large Reformed tradition (PCUSA), I, too, find the Reformed emphasis on sovereignty as THE defining characteristic of God to lead us down a false path with some pretty bad fruit. As others have noted, the biblical witness, while acknowledging sovereignty, seems to elevate love as the defining characteristic.

Other shipmates will remember that I am enamored with Open Theism, which in many ways is the antithesis of Reformed theology, and definitely emphasizes love as the defining characteristic. God IS love-- it is God's identity.

The quote you offered refuting the "two ways" position (which I've never heard of-- doesn't seem to get any play here in US) strikes me as very similar to what you'd see in Greg Boyd, Clark Pinnock, and some of the other leading Open Theists.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think it is better for people like Jengie Jon to address this one than conservative evangelicals, because Jengie represents an older (and broader) Reformed tradition of which evangelicalism is a subset.

I think you've identified the problem here, Daron. There's an intrinsic tendency towards Dualism within much evangelical theology and practice, I find. It becomes rather reductionist after a while.

I suspect it is possible to avoid this tendency within the confines of the broader Reformed tradition - although, speaking for myself, I've found that it's been contact with the Orthodox (here on these Boards and in real life) that has helped me to move away from the particular strait-jacket that this tendency leads us into.

Arguably, that also makes me less of a reformed, evangelical, non-liturgical charismatic than I used to be. [Biased]

In fact, it definitely makes me less of a reformed, evangelical, non-liturgical charismatic. If anything I'm turning into a liturgical post-evangelical, post-charismatic with some reformed leanings still but an inclination towards the Orthodox approach to things.

They would argue, of course, that the Western understanding of original sin and the rather Scholastic basis for much Roman/Reformed theology (they see the two as a continuum) is intrinsically dualist in and of itself.

I suspect this is an over-simplification and that it is possible to remain Reformed (or reformed) without becoming too binary or dualistic in the Sydney sense.

It's all way too black-and-white - you're in or you're out, you're elect and saved or you're reprobate and damned ...

Dualism runs through the whole thing like a stick-of-rock, and if we're not careful the charismatic side can incline towards gnosticism too.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
While I'm at it ... one of the problems I have with the 'Two Ways to Live' model is that it reduces the glories of the Gospel to a set of readily-memorable sound-bites. The Gospel as sales-pitch.

Reformed types have often deplored Finney's 'new methods' for descending into those kind of marketing tactics and techniques ... (and as a marketer myself I'm not averse to all of that, but I see the dangers) ...

It seems ironic then, that the Sydney crowd are adopting a similar methodology themselves.
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
I'm not an evangelical of conservative persuasion, but it's hard to restrict a thread to one's chosen audience, so if nobody else from outside your target has already responded, I might as well be the first.

The problem starts with Step 1, the one-sided characterization of God as "ruler, the supreme president, the king." Better to start with the Father's self-relevation in the loving Jesus. Better have a text from the Last Discourse from John than from the Apocalypse. Jesus is not a patsy, a dupe for our mendactiy, but he remains supremely focused on our best interest.

The problem continues with Step 3, where it states the counter-biblical, "the punishment for rebellion is death and judgement." The OT always situates God's punishment within his corrective action, his setting right of the situation. To be sure, consistent, willful rebellion leads to utter separation from God, which is death. But, the purpose of the correction is not a retribution, a pay-back, but rather an effort to restore us.

Step 4 has God sending "his Son into the world, the man Jesus Christ." I'm sorry but capitalizing the word Son and decorating it with the adjective "divine" does not do the necessary rhetorical job.

God sent Himself into the world, through the God-man, Jesus. Jesus, the Word, is God's full self-revelation.

Here is the King of Glory, the God-man nailed to the Cross. He is utterly like us; he is our model. We are not to cower; we are to be like him.

[And, I'll modestly pass by the PSA stuff.]

Step 5: When "we are pardoned through Jesus’ death, we can be quite sure that when Jesus does return to judge, we will be acceptable to him".

Not so fast, Padre. This blessed assurance seems contingent on some rote ritual, words and action (not spelled out in the pitch) that wins us the brass ring. I'd rather keep around a little bit of fear and trembling.

Step 6: a lifeline?! That's all the gospel throws us: a miserable lifeline?! I thought there was so much more on offer.

Finally, I think that this synthetic Two Ways theology unhelpfully ignores the biblical Two Ways that is writ all over the Wisdom Literature and in Primitive Christian writings. A bit more biblical reflection and a lot less modern improvisation is what's needed.

That's my two cents.
 
Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :
 
Ugh. I thought TWTL was a thing of the past. This was foisted on me at university (Oxford 12 years ago) as THE way to present the gospel. We were told to learn the steps and memorise the verses, and then there was the inevitable pressure to somehow shoehorn it into every conversation with those poor long-suffering heathens... "would you like me to tell you what I believe? No? Oh it won't take long, pass me that napkin and a biro and I'll show you.".

Looking back, it seems to me that the whole thing springs from the misguided beliefs that sharing the gospel = preaching, that the gospel is merely about escaping damnation and that any normal person would sit in the pub whilst you doodle stick men and quote scripture at them and not think you are a loony.

Of course the theology is skewed. It's all too pat and misses the best bits out.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Daron--

You might take a look at Rob Bell's book, "Love Wins". More palatable presentation of God. FWIW, YMMV.
 
Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
Ugh. I thought TWTL was a thing of the past. This was foisted on me at university (Oxford 12 years ago) as THE way to present the gospel. We were told to learn the steps and memorise the verses, and then there was the inevitable pressure to somehow shoehorn it into every conversation with those poor long-suffering heathens... "would you like me to tell you what I believe? No? Oh it won't take long, pass me that napkin and a biro and I'll show you.".

Looking back, it seems to me that the whole thing springs from the misguided beliefs that sharing the gospel = preaching, that the gospel is merely about escaping damnation and that any normal person would sit in the pub whilst you doodle stick men and quote scripture at them and not think you are a loony.

Of course the theology is skewed. It's all too pat and misses the best bits out.
Dude, I grew up in the Reformed Church, and can remember having to memorise and be able to draw (!) the TWTL pamphlet as part of Catechism classes.

I was about 11 at the time - and that's 22 years ago.

Yes, it was damaging. So damaging that I still carry the scars along with the fruit, and I thank God every day of my life that I was called out of the Reformed tradition and offered a life-giving alternative in the Anglican fold...
 
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
I'm a charismatic evangelical of conservative persuasion, Reformed in doctrine, non-lirugical in practice.
Ditto-ish.

I think 2WTL is helpful as a simple way of remembering the main points of one facet of the gospel story. I agree that there is a real danger, particularly in some conservative circles, of saying that 2WTL IS the gospel.

As you point out, the whole Father / child reconciliation a la Luke 15 is another facet, and different people find different facets the most helpful. Some people need to hear 2WTL, others need to hear about the Father love of God, others about the fact that Jesus offers them living water and the life they were made to live, and so on.

Of course the Penal Substitution story which 2WTL tells is true, but Biblically, the dominant note in explaining the gospel seems to be the idea of inclusion in Christ rather than submission to him.
 
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
I'm a charismatic evangelical of conservative persuasion, Reformed in doctrine, non-lirugical in practice.
As you point out, the whole Father / child reconciliation a la Luke 15 is another facet, and different people find different facets the most helpful. Some people need to hear 2WTL, others need to hear about the Father love of God, others about the fact that Jesus offers them living water and the life they were made to live, and so on.
I'm saying a bit more than that actually. I'm suggesting - along with Michael Reeves - that God's sovereignty over creation (which is a good thing and to be affirmed) as Ruler is nevertheless a bad way to introduce God's essential identity to people. This is because it fails to account for God's triune identity prior to there being a creation over which he rules.

[ 06. April 2012, 08:06: Message edited by: Daron ]
 
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Daron

I am going to point out that that is piece of evangelical thought and your strict Calvinist (such as We Frees in Scotland) would have nothing to do with it! Why? Simply because it limits God's sovereignty too much. It makes individuals salvation in the end dependent on that individuals decision. God's sovereignty is therefore only partial.

It relies also on God being subject to time in a way that I find unacceptable. We need a change our understanding of God, they are too much based on what earthly rulers are like and how they protect themselves from the bad parts of human society. As far as I can tell God has shown little signs of wanting to be protected from the bad parts of human society rather he seems to like them.
Would it be possible for you to clarify what you've said a bit? I'm not sure if you're saying that TWTL limits God's sovereignty or that Michael Reeeve's idea that the trinity trumps sovereignty in terms of explaining God's essential nature puts limits on God's sovereignty.

Incidentally, I don't think Reeves is attacking God's sovereignty per se: he is just saying that using God's sovereignty to introduce his essential character is spiritually damaging in the same way as using sledgehammer to crack a nut is damaging.

[ 06. April 2012, 08:40: Message edited by: Daron ]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Sydney Anglican's theology of the incarnation and the Trinity leaves a lot t be desired - and sadly it shows in that 'presentation'. I know part of it is to make a simple presentation of the Gospel.
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
I sat through the 2 says to live talk once and felt uncomfortable in the vague way you describe Daron. When we left the non-Christian I was with said "So they recommend becoming a Christian for purely selfish reasons-to make sure you won't go to hell." and I thought that was an excellent way of summing up the problem.

A presentation of the gospel without love and a sense of a journey with the relational God is so impoverished I fail to see it as good news at all.

The encroachment of this approach into nearly all branches of the Anglican church in Sydney has seen me retreat from being a MOTR with strong Evangelical leanings to a woolly liberal Anglocatholic.

I shall certainly have a look for Michael Reeves' book, it sounds good.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
The two ways limits God's sovereignity, it makes salvation dependent on a single individuals action and that individual is not God.

The classic Reformed answer to "When were you saved?" is around 33AD or right back to Adam. See Cottontail on the thread about when the church started. Those saved always have been saved because in the end it is God alone who saves.

For me the only way to make any sense of this is to say that the answer is joint between a person and God. From the pov of eternity someone is always saved, there is no way around that. From the pov within a time dimension, there comes times when an individual makes positive decisions for God. These decisions blur the more distant you are from them and it is a matter of continual renewal of that choice. This is the outworking of Salvation or the process of sanctification. It is only when the two are held in tension that we come close to approaching the truth.

Jengie

[ 06. April 2012, 11:34: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]
 
Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :
 
quote:
woolly liberal Anglocatholic.
One too many adjectives there, Evangeline. Take your pick, but I'd leave out woolly.

I too was once made to learn this presentation in a group led by someone who was usually pretty good at spotting dodgy sub-Trinitarian stuff. Along the way since then, I seem to have forgotten most of TWTL. I remember the crown and that's it. The system grew from that holy of holies, St Matthias, so must be right.

Have a look at Kevin Giles on the subject of Trinitarianism here and ask Fr G for a copy of some of Giles' shorter stuff.

One thing I noted immediately about that liberal Anglocatholic place was the Trinitarian emphasis in everything. I found it very refreshing.
 
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
Ugh. I thought TWTL was a thing of the past. This was foisted on me at university (Oxford 12 years ago) as THE way to present the gospel. We were told to learn the steps and memorise the verses, and then there was the inevitable pressure to somehow shoehorn it into every conversation with those poor long-suffering heathens... "would you like me to tell you what I believe? No? Oh it won't take long, pass me that napkin and a biro and I'll show you.".

Looking back, it seems to me that the whole thing springs from the misguided beliefs that sharing the gospel = preaching, that the gospel is merely about escaping damnation and that any normal person would sit in the pub whilst you doodle stick men and quote scripture at them and not think you are a loony.

Of course the theology is skewed. It's all too pat and misses the best bits out.
When I became incumbent of the parish in which I now minister a 'worker' from a Conservative Evangelical flagship church in the area came round for a cup of tea and a 'get to know you'. During that conversation she went through the Two Ways to Live presentation with me and my wife.

We couldn't quite work out was going on. She was very nice, we thanked her for time and we never saw her again. Shortly after that an annual 'gift' from their church to ours was withdrawn.

I wonder if it was because my wife and I didn't fall to our knees and ask to be led in the sinners prayer...

To be perfectly honest I think there's something a bit cultish about TWTL and the people who promote it. There really is something about this branch of evangelicalism that just feels wrong. I wonder what it is? My suspicion is that it incorrectly divides the Father and Son and equally incorrectly excludes - or at least limits - the Holy Spirt.

[ 06. April 2012, 12:07: Message edited by: Daron ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think you've answered your own question, Daron. It 'feels' wrong because it IS wrong ...

As Jengie says, it limits God's sovereignty for a kick-off. Intriguingly, I've also heard Orthodox people say that they were 'saved' back in 33AD too (although I think they might baulk at bit at the 'before the foundation of the earth' bit to some extent ...) but in essence, the classic Reformed model isn't a million miles from the Orthodox position in some respects - even though people on both sides often appear to overlook the similarities.

My beef with it would be similar to yours. It's very reductionist and over-emphases a single part of the equation.

I've been criticised for saying so, but I'm convinced that in practical terms at least, many sectors within evangelicalism (but by no means all) are substandardly Trinitarian for all their protestations to the contrary.

Charismatics, of all people, ought to be thoroughly Trinitarian. Often they veer close to Socininianism or at least a kind of Binarianism with God the Holy Spirit relegated to some kind of almost impersonal 'faith-force'.

Sure, that's not the official line, but, with due respect to your non-liturgical tendencies, in the non-liturgical charismatic evangelical outfits it would be relatively easy to miss out on a fully-orbed Trinitarian approach to things.

Incidentally, I'm wondering how you can minister in your parish and be 'non-liturgical' - [Confused]

If you're Anglican then surely you must be liturgical to some extent, even if it's liturgy-lite. Are you saying that you are non-sacramentalist?
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
To be perfectly honest I think there's something a bit cultish about TWTL and the people who promote it.
There are most certainly cultish elements around St Mathias and I can' t say for sure now but the Evangelical group at the University of New South Wales had a number of the danger signs of a cult 10 years ago. Both were led at the time by The Rev'd Philip Jensen .

quote:
My suspicion is that it incorrectly divides the Father and Son and equally incorrectly excludes - or at least limits - the Holy Spirt.
You mention having some charismatic leanings Daron, one of the hallmarks of Jensenism is a strictly cessational (is that the right word-I don't think so) view of spiritual gifts. They were for the early church only and they believe there is no room for them now. This may also be contributing to your unease with this branch of evangelicalism.

A bit of ink has been spilt on the whole subordination of the son to the father in the trinity view propounded by SydAngs, i'll see if I can find any links over the next few days.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
To be perfectly honest I think there's something a bit cultish about TWTL and the people who promote it.
I don't think they are particularly cultish - beyond being a circle in which their own ideas are promoted over those of others, but then doesn't that describe most christian circles?

Regarding TWTL specifically, the most revealing comment I heard was in an interview with Philip Jensen which related to his time in student ministry. He was talking about how he felt that Campus Crusade under Bill Bright had a very compelling way of evangelisation - and so TWTL was an attempt to do something similar from a SA point of view.

The SAs have a particular take on the Westminster stream of Reformed thought which is somewhat idiosyncratic - if you've ever read their reviews of books from other streams of reformed thought (especially the Continental form) you would know what I mean.

A while back an article was published which showed the parallels between a form of semi-hyper Calvinism and certain Islamic ideas of God. I think while the SA usually avoid this, they definitely tend in this direction.

There are plenty of people who can forget that 'simul justus et peccator' and the noetic effects of sin apply to their own movement and their own reading of scripture. Usually this ends in some kind of theology of glory - attempting to peak behind the revealed decrees of God to get at his secret will (John Piper's comments on various natural disasters as an example).

This also applies to 'Reformed Charismatics' in spades, as they generally don't hold to the first principle.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
Daron, I know the author of this book and I do agree with it's refreshing view of God who wins us to him by his love. (Cliffdweller, it's really not at all open theist, which is a totally different kettle of fish!)
Having been in Oxford around the same time as angelfish I too was well versed in TWTL and I too have gone through the period of disenchantment with a version of Christianity which merely seems to say, "God is in charge, so you do what he says" as a means of sanctification.
So, honest, I am with you. However, I think you have taken a step too far here:

quote:
Originally posted by Daron:


This, at last, explains the first reason why I have always disliked Two Ways to Live.

So my question is this: are there any other evangelicals of conservative persuasion who, like me, think a principled stand against the theological reductionism of Two Ways to Live is necessary for the health of evangelicalism?

Has anyone else found themselves or others inexplicably damaged by the toxic fallout of this particular gospel presentation?

The presentation of God as ruler/creator is incomplete, but it's not inaccurate. TWTL was always trying to be an overview of the Bible's story easily explained to non-Christians, Sydney Anglicans and Reform Anglicans tending towards a small obsession with overview as a method to achieve any desired end. And, in fairness to them, God as creator and ruler is how the Bible begins in Genesis. So as a method of introducing God it has some claim to be Biblical.
All movements have their weaknesses. My own view of The Good God, much as I loved it, was that it could (although it doesn't) veer towards modalism, with its strong focus on only relating to the Father through the Son. Maybe in 15 years we'll all be harping on about a need to rebalance our view of God towards God the Father as the Almighty (as the creed would have it). Who knows?
But I am mostly with you. My days of trying to get "all the points of the Gospel" into a conversation are long gone - I'd much rather get someone to read or discuss something Jesus said or did these days, or the effect that knowing God has on our lives. Rather than downloading information, letting God introduce himself.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Yes, I agree with Leprechaun. We can't possibly get 'everything' into a single conversation. All any of us (of whatever theological stripe or stable) can do is witness to what we know and have experienced. It will always be partial, but God can take our snippets, add them to other people's and, as Leprechaun says, is perfectly capable of revealing Himself - however imperfect or partial or individual presentations might be.
 
Posted by savedbyhim01 (# 17035) on :
 
I have not heard of the two ways to live before. Maybe it is popular in Australia?

God is like a Father. A father inherently has authority over his children, but he also loves his children and plays with his children too. I have two boys. I expect them to obey me. But I also love them and give them good guidelines to follow while taking care of them and spendin time just having fun with them.

Sometimes it is easy to get out of balance and emphasize one aspect of God's character over and or against the other. We should be careful to keep them in harmony.
 
Posted by LucyP (# 10476) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
This has caused me some considerable spiritual dissonance in recent years because, while I believe the things Two Ways to Live says are true, I felt almost trapped into presenting the gospel on the basis of those truths. In fact, I had almost come to the conclusion that those truths were the gospel in toto.

The cumulative effect of this dissonance was that I found myself beginning to dislike 'the gospel' and falling out of love with God.

......

In other words, introducing the identity of God as "Ruler" fails to give an adequate picture of who God is because it is ontologically contingent upon his sovereignty over temporal creation and not upon his eternal relationship to himself in the economy of the Trinity.


It's a shame that TWTL had such a negative effect on you. I've never memorised it or used it myself,(though I have read it), but I wonder if you were pushed to "use" it for every non-Christian you found yourself in conversation with, and that therefore your discomfort was with the inadequacy of the "one size fits all" approach?

It seems to me that it would suit some people -but not all- as a brief, understandable introduction. There are others to whom it would be counterproductive. It takes sensitivity to know what sort of person you are explaining the gospel to, and what their background understanding is. Listening comes first.

I'd be surprised if proponents of TWTL who are mature in the faith thought there was nothing more to the gospel (although there may well be some black-and-white types who can't cope with complexity).

To me, it seems like one potential tool in the evangelistic toolbox - criticising it (if you agree with the tenets, but think they're limited/not balanced enough) is like criticising your chisel for not doubling as a saw.

My brother's children are not being brought up with any Christian education, but when I see them at Christmas I am allowed to tell them the Christmas story and its implications. They have had no problem relating to the idea of God as creator and ruler - they ask me some sticky questions about why God did things the way he did, but his existence and sovereignty they accept intuitively.
 
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
quote:
A while back an article was published which showed the parallels between a form of semi-hyper Calvinism and certain Islamic ideas of God.
I've had some experience of the starchier independent evangelical end of the Reformed subculture in the UK (think Evangelical Times / Banner of Truth) and I do sometimes thing they would actually be happier with Islam. IMO part of the problem is that they define themselves too much in terms of their opposition to more 'liberal' trends in 20th century Christianity, a tendency which is reinforced by personal / congregational histories of withdrawal from 'liberalising' groups. At least IME there is an unhealthy degree of eye-rolling about what the godless Anglicans / Romanists / liberals down the road are up to. This leads them to over-emphasise divine sovereignty and human depravity in reaction to a 'liberal' over-emphasis on divine vulnerability and human goodness and freedom. In the end they get very close to saying that we should worship God primarily because he is powerful (sovereign) rather than because he is good.

[ 07. April 2012, 07:25: Message edited by: Yerevan ]
 
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :
 
quote:
Posted by Yerevan: In the end [some Conservative Evangelicals] get very close to saying that we should worship God primarily because he is powerful (sovereign) rather than because he is good.
I think this is correct. The God presented in Two Ways to Live cannot be loved for who he is, only for what he has done. It forces us to confuse gratitude for love, an error which destroys intimacy and renders the Holy Spirit functionally unnecessary. Why? Because it is possible to feel gratitude for having been rescued from something unpleasant (i.e. Hell) without feeling love for who the rescuer was, is and always will be. It reduces Christianity down from a relational and spiritual miracle in which love the pinnacle to a transactional and propositional system in which gratitude is the prime affection.

[ 07. April 2012, 08:55: Message edited by: Daron ]
 
Posted by LucyP (# 10476) on :
 
When you analyse it like that I can see the problem. I might have to read "The Good God"!
 
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
As an aside my other half was very involved in OICCU around the same time as Leprechaun and Angelfish were in Oxford (small world) and was only vaguely aware of TWTL. And this was back in his calvinist days.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Mercifully, not all Calvinists are quite so reductionist ... as Jengie Jon says, this sound-bite approach to the Gospel is an evangelical innovation. It's not there in the wider and older Reformed tradition - except perhaps, in 'seed form' as, arguably, the Reformed tradition is quite Scholastic and prone to trying to define everything and pin it all down.
 
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
Hi Daron. I feel like a latecomer, but one thing that struck me about the TWTL presentation on the site is that it so heavily emphasizes the Father that the Son is an ineffective widget (really a clone of the Father) and the HS is nonexistent.

To elaborate with some humor...

It seems like God the Father exercised his wrath on the Son, and now the Son is going to exercise his wrath on humanity.

I don't see where Jesus actually does anything! It's like the wrath-o-meter got to a point where it had to go somewhere, and so he incarnated so the wrath could be taken out on his only begotten son with whom he is well pleased. And then we're saved. Woo hoo!

But, then, Jesus is going to come back in judgment and, oh, by the way, those of who you are still in the wrong are going to be judged anyway. And you do have to work because you have to make this choice to be a faithful disciple instead of an infidel reprobate. The old rule of "obey Me or DIE!!!" remains unchanged. The wrathful deity is still lurking, pulling the strings on Jesus' royal throne.

Jesus is the New Coke, if you get the reference.

So, to move on, work out a more robust christology. Does Jesus actually change the nature of our relationship to God? I hope the answer is yes, here, since you say you're Christian. But then, how? What does that mean?

There are other ways I could go, but that's one. And I hope you don't mind my tendency toward humor in talking about theology. It's hard to resist.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Mercifully, not all Calvinists are quite so reductionist ... as Jengie Jon says, this sound-bite approach to the Gospel is an evangelical innovation. It's not there in the wider and older Reformed tradition - except perhaps, in 'seed form' as, arguably, the Reformed tradition is quite Scholastic and prone to trying to define everything and pin it all down.
Well, it's certainly a tendancy these days in certain evangelical circles, but it probably dates back to Theodore Beza and others. Which is why I'd draw the line between the Continental and Westminster forms of the Reformed traditions - though of course it's only part of that tradition too.

I'd say Banner of Truth have a tendency in that direction as does the SAs, though personally I'd give them a pass a lot of the time. Piper and others seem to demonstrate this a little more - a sort of negative energy view of God's sovereignty ("Don't like it that God hates you? Wuss!").
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
As an evangelical Christian of the Catholic tradition(ie Lutheran) as I look at the Two Ways to Live Presentation, I find it overly simplistic. As others have said, while TWTL emphasizes God as ruler and judge, very little is said about the relational side of God. God acts in this world out of love. It is out of love he sent his son to die for us.

Also, the presentation I am familiar with seems to actually deny the divinity of Jesus. It seems to say Jesus was a good man who followed the commands of God and was thus deemed righteous. Yet, as I read the Gospels I see Jesus questioning some of the commands of God, expanding on some and even diminishing others. Jesus is righteous by virtue of his divinity or Sonship.

There is no mention of the action of the Holy Spirit. Simply put, I confess that I cannot by my own reason or strength come to faith in God except that the Holy Spirit has called me and enlightened me through the Gospel and sanctified me with [her] gifts.

Then there is the issue of who chooses whom. As I said, I believe I do not make the choice, but God has chosen me and has called me in the Gospel. He adopted me as a child through my baptism.

TWTL also presumes double predestination. Some are predestined to eternity, others are predestined to damnation. I reject that completely. It is not in the Bible. What I see in the Bible is God wants all to come to the knowledge of the truth and welcomes all.

As a redeemed Christian I am both a saint and a sinner. I try to do good out of thankfulness for what God has done for me, but I realize I also sin in thought, word and deed. I am left crying out, O miserable man that I am, who will save me and I am left with the words of Paul, thanks be to God through Jesus Christ.

One last point, while you say you are non liturgical, I find that in fact through some Christians say that, their form of worship is even more rigid than a liturgical form of worship. Liturgy literally means the work of the people. The work of the people in adoration, confession, thanksgiving and supplication. Every part of liturgical worship is Biblical. There is something to be said that when one does the liturgy one is joining with Christians from the past, present and future at the same time. Dietrick Bonhoeffer once said when he did the liturgy while in prison he got great comfort when he came to the Lord's Prayer by knowing that millions of Christians were joining him in that same prayer.

I also have to say, preaching the liturgical calender forces the preacher to tackle lessons he/she would rather ignore. I once had a Methodist preacher told me he liked how well rounded the liturgical calender was. Try it, you'll like it.

Nuf said, I am off to Easter Vigil tonight.

Happy Easter to all!
 
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
quote:
Piper and others seem to demonstrate this a little more - a sort of negative energy view of God's sovereignty ("Don't like it that God hates you? Wuss!").
And there is a danger here of insulating one's presentation of the gospel from criticism i.e. If you fail to respond to Christianity as portrayed in TWTL its because God simply hasn't chosen that you will do so, not that TWTL Christianity is flawed in some way.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Actually leaving aside Evangleicalism which is a bastard child of the Reformed tradition. There are really two forms of the Reformed Tradition, dominant and alternative. The Scottish Westminster form is a dominant one, where the Reformed tradition is culturally on top, the Dutch is also (in both countries belonging to the Reformed tradition was part of being a good nationalist), but the English, French are alternative to the dominant culture. They function as a minority group within a dominant culture.

The other thing that makes UK Reformed different is the influence of Anglican Puritan Divines, who unable to enact the communal governance of the continent instead produced a very strong personal/individual piety. It is Anglicans, the dissenters had the ability to create the communal governance within their group as did the Scots. However the influence of this fairly quickly spread beyond the CofE, and caused changes in Scotland and in Holland.

Jengie
 
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Hi Daron. I feel like a latecomer, but one thing that struck me about the TWTL presentation on the site is that it so heavily emphasizes the Father that the Son is an ineffective widget (really a clone of the Father) and the HS is nonexistent.
I think it's actually worse than that! It emphasises "God" as "loving ruler of the world": but it doesn't call this God Father, neither is this God's fatherliness presented as essential to his nature. Jesus is presented as 'the man Jesus Christ', which is fine: but the sonship of Jesus is never presented as essential to his divine identity. The Holy Spirit isn't mentioned at all. The Father becomes 'God', Jesus become 'God's ruler', and the Holy Spirit becomes surplus to requirement. This I think, equates to a strange sort of semi-Arianism.

So, it seems to me that TWTL is Binitarian at the very best. The trinity of TWTL is therefore: Ruler, Avatar and Absentee.

[ 08. April 2012, 16:00: Message edited by: Daron ]
 
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by savedbyhim01:
I have not heard of the two ways to live before. Maybe it is popular in Australia?

God is like a Father. A father inherently has authority over his children, but he also loves his children and plays with his children too. I have two boys. I expect them to obey me. But I also love them and give them good guidelines to follow while taking care of them and spendin time just having fun with them.

Sometimes it is easy to get out of balance and emphasize one aspect of God's character over and or against the other. We should be careful to keep them in harmony.
Thanks for contributing. However, I don't think it's enough to say that God is like a father: God the Father really is the father of God the Son. God the Son really is the son of God the Father. And God the Holy Spirit - at the very least - is the eternal bond of love between God the Father and God the Son. It simply isn't right to speak of 'God' and 'Jesus'. Jesus is God, so any notion of God which doesn't include everything that Jesus is in his personhood and by his Spirit simply is not a valid notion of God.

[ 08. April 2012, 16:10: Message edited by: Daron ]
 
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :
 
I think there are three different questions here.

On one hand, there is the question of accuracy - is 2WTL true? And I've got to say that 2WTL is correct in everything that it affirms. There aren't any mistakes of commission in it.

Second question - is 2WTL a sufficient presentation of the gospel? And I guess the answer comes back "sufficient for what?" I think it clearly is sufficient that if someone hears, believes and responds appropriately, they can become a Christian. It doesn't contain everything about Christianity, and it misses a lot of important things out. But any summary of the gospel misses very important things out. I think it's among the better gospel summaries I've come across. It would be better if pic 6b had Jesus within the Christian though, and get some pneumatology in there...

One key thing 2WTL doesn't miss out which a lot of other gospel outlines do is the importance of surrendering one's whole life to God. There isn't any of this rubbish where you can have Christianity as a lifestyle choice for Sundays, like yoga or something. That's a really common problem in today's society. Maybe that's what some of the above posters mean by saying it's "cultish". A church where most of the people have been converted by 2WTL-style stuff probably won't have many Sunday Christians. Does Reeves' presentation make the whole-life-surrender point?

Third question - is 2WTL relevant to people today? This is where I think Daron's point is absolutely right. Most people today respond far better to questions of relationship than to the question "Who is your rightful ruler?" I'm not sure I'd want to prioritise either God's sovereignty or his Trinitarian nature over each other, but in terms of relevance to most people in the UK today, relationships seem more relevant. Some people would doubtless respond better to the 2wtl-style authority question than others.

Overall, I'd say 2wtl is helpful as a gospel outline. It isn't necessarily the main tool for presenting the gospel that a church should use, but it makes some important points that need to be heard.
 
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
I think there are three different questions here.

On one hand, there is the question of accuracy - is 2WTL true? And I've got to say that 2WTL is correct in everything that it affirms. There aren't any mistakes of commission in it.
I think the first theological mistake of omission is this: that the message of the bible is "a message about God and his son, Jesus." No. No it isn't. It is a message about God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Big difference.
 
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
It's like saying that Hamlet is a play about a guy who is betrayed by two of his best friends.
 
Posted by CJS (# 3503) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
I think there are three different questions here.

On one hand, there is the question of accuracy - is 2WTL true? And I've got to say that 2WTL is correct in everything that it affirms. There aren't any mistakes of commission in it.

Second question - is 2WTL a sufficient presentation of the gospel? And I guess the answer comes back "sufficient for what?" I think it clearly is sufficient that if someone hears, believes and responds appropriately, they can become a Christian. It doesn't contain everything about Christianity, and it misses a lot of important things out. But any summary of the gospel misses very important things out. I think it's among the better gospel summaries I've come across. It would be better if pic 6b had Jesus within the Christian though, and get some pneumatology in there...

One key thing 2WTL doesn't miss out which a lot of other gospel outlines do is the importance of surrendering one's whole life to God. There isn't any of this rubbish where you can have Christianity as a lifestyle choice for Sundays, like yoga or something. That's a really common problem in today's society. Maybe that's what some of the above posters mean by saying it's "cultish". A church where most of the people have been converted by 2WTL-style stuff probably won't have many Sunday Christians. Does Reeves' presentation make the whole-life-surrender point?

Third question - is 2WTL relevant to people today? This is where I think Daron's point is absolutely right. Most people today respond far better to questions of relationship than to the question "Who is your rightful ruler?" I'm not sure I'd want to prioritise either God's sovereignty or his Trinitarian nature over each other, but in terms of relevance to most people in the UK today, relationships seem more relevant. Some people would doubtless respond better to the 2wtl-style authority question than others.

Overall, I'd say 2wtl is helpful as a gospel outline. It isn't necessarily the main tool for presenting the gospel that a church should use, but it makes some important points that need to be heard.
As the ship's token Sydney Anglican (and a guy who can do TWTL backwards and in his sleep if called on to) I thought I should chip in. But Custard and Leprechaun have really already made the key points I would have made, I suspect more articulately that I would have.

The only things I would add are:

1. As a little bit of history TWTL was originally developed in the 1970 for use in university ministry where it proved quite effective in generating fruitful discussion with non-Christian students. It was never designed to be parroted in rote fashion; it provided a framework of though that you could learn to express in your own words.

2. The language does not reflect very well God's existence as trinity, but it's not been my experience that starting with an explanation of trinitarian theology when talking with non-Christians, with a small window of time, has not been all that fruitful. So 2W2L starts where the Bible does, with God as creator, which tends (in my experience) to be more accessible for people who don't know their Bible. If you can pull off a brief outline of the gospel with a non-Christian that starts with an explanation of the trinity, then good on you and may God bless your efforts. It has been my experience that TWTL can lead into a natural discussion of the trinity because you have to talk about it when they raise the standard objection to PSA at box 4. There is also plenty of opportunity to talk about the Holy Spirit when discussing box 5 and 6.

3. It's worth pointing out that in 1 Cor 15 Paul seem comfortable to give a summary of the gospel that doesn't feature the relationship between Father and Son or mention the Holy Spirit!

4. Some of those on the Ship who speak authoritatively about 'Sydney Anglican's' know less than they think they do. So for example neither of the Jensen brothers is a cessationist and TWTL does not presuppose double predestination.

5. Although the thread started with a criticism that 2WTL over-emphasises God's sovereignty, there was also a criticism later that it limited God's sovereignty. This is the danger of just taking the tool out of it's context I guess because nobody who knows the author could ever accuse him of limiting God's sovereignty.

I promise we don't think this 90 cent tract with the 6 boxes has replaced the Bible.
 
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :
 
Custard,

In answer to you three diagnostic questions:

Is Two Ways to Live true? This is a difficult one. A year ago I would have said yes whilst feeling a vague sense of indefinable disquiet. Now I think that the opening presuppositions concerning God's essential identity are incorrect. It is simply too misleading to speak in terms of God and Jesus.

Is Two Ways to Live sufficient? I don't this so. I believe that all gospel synopses are insufficient. However, I believe that the insufficiencies of TWTL are grave enough not to use it.

Is Two Ways to Live relevant? Yes, it's relevant, but perhaps only in the same way as the stuff the Jehovah's Witnesses put through my door.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@CJS - it's good to have a Sydney Anglican on board. You guys get a lot of stick here.

On balance, I'd say that Chris Stiles is on the money when he suggests that both Banner of Truth and SA 'pass muster' in both being fully-orbed Trinitarian and true to the wider Reformed tradition (of which they are a subset).

All that said, I do think that there is a tendency towards imbalance and it's no accident, in my view, that the Reformed tradition and its subsets have been prone to Arianism, Socinianism and sometimes an almost binitarian approach - as in Milton's rather idiosyncratic 'take' on things in 'Paradise Lost'.

When Andrew Walker brought out his book about the UK 'house-church' movement way back in 1985, I was shocked (as an active participant at that time) at his charge that we were 'nominally Trinitarian.'

Of all the nerve ... I thought ... we're no less Trinitarian than anyone else.

Then I started listening to the prayers, then I started critically evaluating the 'gospel presentation' and I realised what he was trying to say.

The Trinity mightn't be a good place to 'start' (in your terms) but then I'm not sure if I like the idea of a sawn-off shot-gun approach to evangelism in the first place ... but can see why these methods might have arisen in a campus context. I used to go around with Campus Crusades 'Four Spiritual Laws' when I was at university and often found that we had better and more productive conversations with people when we ditched it and began to engage with them 'normally'.

I've a lot of time for the Orthodox 'come and see' approach rather than the direct, sales-y, in-your-face Protestant evangelical approach.

I'm not sure that saying that it 'works for some people' is a convenient 'get-out-clause', because it strikes me that people who are converted through this method (and people undoubtedly are) are ultimately going to have a lot of 'unlearning' to do further down the road.

Why? Because they're receiving a somewhat truncated or reductionist Gospel in the first place.

1 Corinthians 15 is indeed a 'gospel presentation' but one which needs to be seen in the context in which it was written - the Apostle Paul was reminding the Corinthian Christians of some core truths that they have neglected. You look at his approach on Mars Hill with a pagan audience and it's completely different.

And, arguably, the whole Trinitarian approach is a development FROM the NT rather than something that we can find there in a fully-realised and Nicence form.

[Biased]

Which isn't to say that Nicea is wrong - I fully embrace it - just that we have to embrace scripture AND tradition (whether small 't' or Big T) if we are going to remain true to these things. We can't isolate particular proof-texts, we need to take the whole thing together.

And that's another reason why I believe that certain forms of Anglicanism (let the reader understand) are falling short of the full panoply and richness of their own tradition ...

But that's another thread and another story ...
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
I have been pondering this during Easter Sunday.

I guess the underlying issue is that SAs are (rightly IMHO) committed to using the Bible in evangelism. And the idea of God as Father, and particularly the Father of Jesus doesn't actually get much air time at all in the Bible until the third Gospel (apart from a few oblique references in the Psalms and Isaiah) The God as ruler idea is very strong in three of the Gospels, where the key motif is the Kingdom of God. In fact, most of the trinitarian explication comes in John.
I just think you have to be careful about expecting a Gospel presentation to say more than for example, Luke or Matthew said in their Gospels.
Or else I think you go down the rather strange line that some of the Puritans went down about finding the oblique trinitarian references to be much more clear than they really are and blaming our sinful inability see. You know, Melchizidek, and the guy in the furnace with Shadrach Meschach and Abednego and all that stuff.
 
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
Is Two Ways to Live sufficient? I don't this so. I believe that all gospel synopses are insufficient. However, I believe that the insufficiencies of TWTL are grave enough not to use it.
The question "sufficient for what?" is important. If the thief on the cross knew enough to be saved (and he did), then 2WTL tells people enough that they too can respond with saving faith. And I think that's what it's aimed for.

Of course it's not sufficient for catechesis (however understood) or basic discipleship, but I don't think anyone is claiming that it is.

Taking the Athanasian creed as an example, I agree with all the Trinitarian statements in the creed, but I think the soteriology is deeply defective because it says if anyone does not hold these truths whole and entire they will without doubt perish everlastingly. But we aren't Gnostics. There isn't some level of knowledge that is required for salvation, even of the Trinity. Repentance is required, and relationship with God is required. But knowledge of the Trinity is not.

[ 09. April 2012, 11:42: Message edited by: Custard ]
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
One thing I don't like very much about this presentation, is the way it seems to treat sin as something that is exclusively between me and God. This might be true in some cases, but certainly not in all of them.

If I hurt another person deliberately, then this isn't just between me and God, but also between me and the person that I hurt. But that person seems to be out of the picture in TWTL.

And in the Gospels, Jesus seems to go even a bit further. I'm accountable not even if I hurt another person, but even if I fail to care for another person (the hungry, the thirsty...) When Jesus defines sin in the Gospels, more often than not He seems to do it in these terms. But I don't see these people anywhere in TWTL.
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
CJS said

So for example neither of the Jensen brothers is a cessationist
I'm happy to stand corrected CJS but everything I learnt at Campus Bible Study (UNSW when the Rev'd Philip Jensen was chaplain) and also at the Moore College Dip Bib Studies course was cessationist to my understanding of the word, ie guiding by spiritual gifts, be it those recorded in the book of Acts or the story of Gideon and the fleece were for a specific purpose during biblical times and that they should not be expected now because God has given us Scripture as the ultimate authority. Of course I can't (nor did I) speak on behalf of either of the Jensen brothers personally but this is what I understand of Sydney Anglican teaching that I have been involved with for 20 years.

A quick google found a reference to a book co-authored by the Rev'd Philip Jensen that, to my mind gives an indication of the cessationist view that is generally accepted amongst Sydney Anglicans

quote:
From Book review of Guidance & the Voice of God

Phillip Jensen and Tony Payne, authors of Guidance and the Voice of God believe that God has spoken to us fully and finally through the Bible and that this is the only way we should expect for Him to speak to us. ...

In these last days, God has spoken to us by His Son.
God speaks to us today by His Son through His Spirit in the Scriptures.
Apart from His Spirit working through Scripture, God does not promise to use any other means to guide us, nor should we expect Him to.
While God has often used many supernatural means to speak to His people in former times, these are relegated to the past now that He has given us the Scriptures. While He is still capable of revealing Himself however He wishes, the way He has chosen to do so is by the Spirit working through the Scriptures. This argument is based primarily in the writings of Hebrews which provides ample support.
Happy to see or hear of links to a more charismatic position adopted by SydANgs or are we perhaps speaking at cross purposes, having a different understanding of what cessationist means?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Leprechaun, you say that you agree with the Sydney Anglicans using the Bible in evangelism as though you have some doubt that other streams or traditions do ... I would have thought that it was axiomatic that ALL Christian traditions use the Bible in evangelism ... it's just that they're not all using it the same way ...

This is probably a dead-horse, but one could argue that Sydney Anglicans aren't 'fully' Anglican as they seem to ignore a whole swathe of Anglican tradition that doesn't fit their narrow schema. They seem more Presbyterian than Anglican to me ...

I'm not suggesting that as an indictment in and of itself, just making an observation.

I'm all for using the Bible in evangelism. I'm all for thinking biblically, for seeking to be as scriptural as we can ... but it strikes me that what we're ending up with here is a form of reductionist biblicism - the isolation of particular proof-texts and emphases to the detriment of the whole.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Leprechaun, you say that you agree with the Sydney Anglicans using the Bible in evangelism as though you have some doubt that other streams or traditions do
Oh no, I didn't mean to imply that at all. Many apologies if I inadvertently did so. I merely meant to say that an approach based on the using the Bible could justify not explaining the Trinity much at all, until you get to John. Am I a heretic? I'm not sure.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Happy to see or hear of links to a more charismatic position adopted by SydANgs or are we perhaps speaking at cross purposes, having a different understanding of what cessationist means?
I think they are charismatic in theory but cessationist in practice.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
No, I don't think you're an heretick ...

Interestingly, an Orthodox priest once told me that in their view no-one is actually a heretic until they are consciously and persistently so ...

So an 'I'm not sure' probably absolves you from that camp ... [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
I should point out the presenting of two ways is very old indeed but it is done traditionally within the faith as a call to renewal.

Jengie
 
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
Except that it's Jesus that generally draws people to Christianity (IME) and TWTL seems to drastically downplay the role of Jesus. Some might not see this as a problem, but for me it's crucial.

Also, if God is seen as a king who is trying to discipline humanity, or as a Father, the strategy he's employing is something most parents IME know to be an awful strategy for raising children. He comes off as a truly inept parent who basically throws a temper tantrum at his kids instead of finding a more constructive way to build a relationship.
 
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
Is Two Ways to Live sufficient? I don't this so. I believe that all gospel synopses are insufficient. However, I believe that the insufficiencies of TWTL are grave enough not to use it.
The question "sufficient for what?" is important. If the thief on the cross knew enough to be saved (and he did), then 2WTL tells people enough that they too can respond with saving faith. And I think that's what it's aimed for.
Sufficient for inspiring a desire for God himself, not just a desire for what God can do. In this sense Two Ways to Live isn't sufficiently God centred for all of it's focus on God's incommunicable attributes.

The God presented in TWTL simply isn't desirable for who he is in and of himself. He has sovereignty, authority and power in spades but he lacks personal desirability. And I think this because he isn't presented as the Father who has loved the Son from eternity and has invited people who receive Christ and believe in his name to enjoy that very same love.

quote:
Of course it's not sufficient for catechesis (however understood) or basic discipleship, but I don't think anyone is claiming that it is.
On the contrary, the leader's workbook which is sitting open on my desk is full of all kinds of rhetorical claims for the necessity of rote learning and the indispensability of the 6 particular steps. The sense is very much that TWLT has boiled the gospel down to the bare essentials. I would say that it has gone beyond summary and has entered the realms of dangerous reductionism.

quote:
Taking the Athanasian creed as an example, I agree with all the Trinitarian statements in the creed, but I think the soteriology is deeply defective because it says if anyone does not hold these truths whole and entire they will without doubt perish everlastingly. But we aren't Gnostics. There isn't some level of knowledge that is required for salvation, even of the Trinity. Repentance is required, and relationship with God is required. But knowledge of the Trinity is not.
I would read the Atahansian Creed as saying that it is impossible for a person who actively teaches against the Trinity to be saved. And I agree with that. And that's not a question of gnosticism, it's a question of revelation by the Spirit through the word.
 
Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :
 
As a matter of interest, do proponents of 2WTL go to any lengths to prevent it being mis-interpreted as pelagianism? It seems to me that a way to live necessary for salvation could be easily confused with salvation by works, and I'd be interested to know how this possible confusion is guarded against.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:

The God presented in TWTL simply isn't desirable for who he is in and of himself. He has sovereignty, authority and power in spades but he lacks personal desirability. And I think this because he isn't presented as the Father who has loved the Son from eternity and has invited people who receive Christ and believe in his name to enjoy that very same love.

I don't know if you are deliberately ignoring my posts, or whether I'm just not clear enough - but as I have said, it's really quite a long way into the Bible that God is presented that way. Not even in three out of four Gospels. So saying that any Gospel presentation that lacks those exact descriptions is "toxic" is proto-gnostic IMHO.
 
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:

The God presented in TWTL simply isn't desirable for who he is in and of himself. He has sovereignty, authority and power in spades but he lacks personal desirability. And I think this because he isn't presented as the Father who has loved the Son from eternity and has invited people who receive Christ and believe in his name to enjoy that very same love.

I don't know if you are deliberately ignoring my posts, or whether I'm just not clear enough - but as I have said, it's really quite a long way into the Bible that God is presented that way. Not even in three out of four Gospels. So saying that any Gospel presentation that lacks those exact descriptions is "toxic" is proto-gnostic IMHO.
I'm not ignoring your posts and sincerely I apologise if that's how it looks.

You're touching on one of the particular idiosyncrasies of Sydney Anglican hermeneutics: a preference for each canonical book to be exposited without reference to extrinsic biblical texts, even if those texts illumine the book being expounded.

The supposition appears to be that not only is the bible itself a self-referenitial and self-interpretting text but each individual canonical text operates in a similar manner. I can see the value in this because is pay due respect to the literary integrity of texts being expounded.

Where it isn't helpful, however, is when an overview of the biblical gospel is being offered. I don't see any suggestion that TWTL is an attempt to communicate the synoptic "gospel". No, it sells itself as 'a memorable summary of the Christian gospel', but I'm rapidly coming round to the view that the summary is in fact woefully inadequate because it is insufficiently biblical.

[ 10. April 2012, 12:19: Message edited by: Daron ]
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:


Where it isn't helpful, however, is when an overview of the biblical gospel is being offered. I don't see any suggestion that TWTL is an attempt to communicate the synoptic "gospel". No, it sells itself as 'a memorable summary of the Christian gospel', but I'm rapidly coming round to the view that the summary is in fact woefully inadequate because it is insufficiently biblical.
I'm not being facetious, but would you say the same about the Gospel of Mark? There are two or three references to God as being Jesus Father and several implications of Jesus' divinity, but nothing at all to get you from there to your Gospel summary of the Father's love for the Son being spread to include us (which I quite like as a Gospel summary, but not it's not in all the canonical Gospels!) Rather, God's kingdom arriving and Jesus being the ruler of that kingdom - well that's probably getting towards a summary of Mark's Gospel.
I know several people who have become Christians by reading Mark (or Luke) alone. Was their understanding toxic and sub-Biblical?
I should highlight that I'm no fan of TWTL, as I have said, no longer my cup of tea. But I'm not sure it's as dramatically misleading as you are suggesting.
 
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :
 
I grant you that I'm arguing for a more biblical gospel summary by the inclusion of more Johannine content. But where's the problem with that? My concern is that the apparently deliberate omission of more overtly Trinitarian content - in combination with the assertion that its summary actually constitutes the the gospel and the necessary additional presuppositions, background and biblical theology - has produced something which in actual fact is less than gospel because it doesn't present God as he really is.

John Piper's assertion that "God is the gospel" really gets to the nub of what I'm trying to say. As Piper says, "the gospel is not a way to get people to heaven, it is the way to get people to God."

Now, if this is the case - and I believe that it is - then an accurate picture of who God is should be the primary concern of any accurate gospel summary. Two Ways to Live simply doesn't do that at all well because right off that bat it encourages - or at least allows for - the mistaken inference that Jesus Christ is not God.

[ 10. April 2012, 14:06: Message edited by: Daron ]
 
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
As a matter of interest, do proponents of 2WTL go to any lengths to prevent it being mis-interpreted as pelagianism? It seems to me that a way to live necessary for salvation could be easily confused with salvation by works, and I'd be interested to know how this possible confusion is guarded against.
TWTL would very much agree with the notion of Lordship salvation. A person comes to Christ as Lord when they become a Christian. This includes a desire to obey him. Living in submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation in the sense that intentionally not living in submission to him is strong evidence that a person is not saved. The absence of submission to Christ's commands in a professing Christian is strong evidence that saving faith is, in actual fact, absent.

[ 10. April 2012, 14:16: Message edited by: Daron ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, I've heard that this was how Calvin came up with the ideas he developed about predestination etc - by observing people who were apparently moved by and compliant to the preaching and those who weren't ...

I'm wary these days, though, of speculating about who is and who isn't saved. Salvation is a process anyway ... and it's not for us to speculate about people's eternal destiny. It only leads to judgementalism and a form of Pharisaisism.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, I've heard that this was how Calvin came up with the ideas he developed about predestination etc - by observing people who were apparently moved by and compliant to the preaching and those who weren't ...
And if it was it would have been undone by Jonathan Edwards experience. Moved by preaching is not a sure sign of election, the Reformed understanding goes deeper than that.

However I am afraid Calvin did nothing but chose a particular historical line on this, his sources like all theologians of the time were the Bible and Augustine, plus the church fathers. That is how John Calvin worked after all. For him God's supremacy is probably nearer to Schleiermacher's absolute dependence than to an overarching sovereignty.

Jengie
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
forgot to say Calvin's take on Predestinarianism is not the Calvinist line by the way! It is noted to be distinctly different.

Calvin rarely uses it as a doctrine, when he does he uses it in pastoral circumstances to stop people worrying over whether they are saved.

Jengie
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ok - I didn't post everything I know about Calvin, but only one aspect. I'd heard that his speculations about predestination were based on pastoral observation to some extent - although they would also have been obviously informed by the tradition from which he sprang, which emphasised Augustine and Aquinas.

I understand that Calvin's views were more nuanced than those that subsequently bore his name.

Would you say it was fair, though, Jengie, to regard Calvin as 'the last of the medieval Scholastics'?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
While I think on't ... I think I'm drawing on an evangelical source here, something I read a long, long time ago ...

The point I was making about preaching was incidental. I was thinking more of Daron's point that we are able to discern from outward behaviour and demeanour whether someone has 'saving faith' or not - in Daron's terms.

I'm sure that's the case to some extent, 'by their fruits ye shall know them' - but it strikes me that it's a tricky path to go down. Some early Calvinists (not necessarily Calvin himself), particularly in bourgeoise Holland, regarded material prosperity as a sure sign that someone was among the Elect ... an early anticipation of the prosperity-gospel.

But I think you're right about Calvin's use of the concept - although I'm not as well informed on these things as you are. He applied it to stop people worrying unduly about their eternal destiny.

One of the features of later Protestant pietism was great anxiety over one's eternal destiny and the state of one's soul. This may or may not have been very healthy ... poor old Bunyan seemed to have gone through the mill in 'Grace Abounding To the Chief of Sinners' worrying about the state of his soul.

By the time you get to the 18th century there's almost this sense that the greater and more intense the psychological struggle, the more 'genuine' the conversion ...

The earlier Puritans and Continental Reformed types weren't quite so agitated about individual conversion experiences and so on.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
It is certainly one understanding of Calvin, one my father who is a Calvin Scholar tends to favour, and as far as I can see he is on the cusp (the tipping point), which means the answer is probably yes to whether he is the first modern systematic theologian and the last medieval scholastic. He inherits and knows the medieval scholastic tradition, you can draw lines directly from it to his thought and it is certainly his grounding.

However his work is the grounding on which much modern theology is done, he is indicating the direction, the areas theology will explore. It is why I sometimes think that in one sense all Western theology is Calvinist, even the Roman Catholicism. You can reject it as Trent did but you can not pretend it did not happen.

He is also like most great theologians not absolutely clear. Take communion, his teaching can be interpreted as in line with Zwingli, it can also be interpreted as in line with Spiritual Real Presence as understood by high church Anglicans. It then becomes the highest doctrine held by Protestants and I am semi-quoting there.

Jengie
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure, I've certainly heard that he can be taken as more than a 'memorialist' as it were ...

I'm not convinced, though, that the trajectory of RC theology has been that influenced by Calvin. I'd have thought that they simply continued the trajectory of earlier Augustinian and Aquinan influences, with some reactive elements adopted during the Counter-Reformation - so I suppose in that sense they were influenced by Calvin in terms of having to take evasive action, as it were ...

However, if I were Orthodox I'd probably be saying that all Western Christianity, whether RC or Protestant, is inveterately Scholastic and are simply two sides of the same bad penny ...
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Why do you think the Council of Trent is often referred to as "The Counter Reformation"; they have accepted the ground and now want to say why Protestantism is wrong. Yes it is often a negative influence but an influence never the less.

Jengie
 
Posted by CJS (# 3503) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Happy to see or hear of links to a more charismatic position adopted by SydANgs or are we perhaps speaking at cross purposes, having a different understanding of what cessationist means?
A couple of the phrases you use in your post suggest that we may well be talking at cross purposes.

When I'm talking 'cessationist' I've got in mind one of those guys like Robert Reymond who will argue (at length and in some detail!) that scripture itself teaches (or at least very strongly implies) that the age of miracles, prophecy and tongues has passed. I don't think either Peter or Phillip believe that conclusion has the exegetical support that some of our American Presbyterian cousins see.

While it's a while since I read it, Guidance and the Voice of God is focused on the specific (and very practical topic) of how does God guide his people as they face decisions and make choices in life. In the back half Phillip and Tony argue that 1) God can and has spoken to his people in all sorts of ways, 2) Scripture clearly identifies itself as God speaking, including in guidance of his people 3) Apart from His Spirit working through Scripture God doesn't promise to guide in any other way. Their conclusion is that Christians who want to be guided by God shouldn't go seeking visions and dreams and voices and impressions, they should go to the Bible. I would have thought this was something that you don't have to be cessationist to believe. Or at least I know plenty of non-cessationists who do believe it.

As a final note, I don't think 'non-cessationist' and 'more charismatic position' are equivalent things and there are plenty of SydAng non-cessationists with a strong hostility to the charismatic movement.
 
Posted by CJS (# 3503) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
As a matter of interest, do proponents of 2WTL go to any lengths to prevent it being mis-interpreted as pelagianism? It seems to me that a way to live necessary for salvation could be easily confused with salvation by works, and I'd be interested to know how this possible confusion is guarded against.
I can only speak for one guy who uses it as one of the tools in his kit, but in my experience, if you haven't got sidetracked off somewhere else and actually get to box 6, the box 6 conversation normally involves a little side trip into Ephesians 2:8 - 10. Certainly in my circles, the sort of people who are going to be big on 2WTL are also the sort of people who will go to excruciating and tedious lengths to deny salvation by works (I know I do).
 
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
[tangent]

quote:
The earlier Puritans and Continental Reformed types weren't quite so agitated about individual conversion experiences and so on.
I've heard it argued that French Protestants were much less given to agonising over whether or not they were amongst the elect because their status as a sometimes persecuted minority in a Catholic country was proof enough. To some degree this might also be the case for the early English Puritans when England was still seesawing back and forth between Rome, Geneva and whatever idiosyncratic compromise between the two the Tudors were favouring this week. Its harder to clearly identify the true elect in a society which officially subscribes to a fairly Reformed position however - hence all the agonising in England and New England.
 
Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
I grant you that I'm arguing for a more biblical gospel summary by the inclusion of more Johannine content. But where's the problem with that? My concern is that the apparently deliberate omission of more overtly Trinitarian content - in combination with the assertion that its summary actually constitutes the the gospel and the necessary additional presuppositions, background and biblical theology - has produced something which in actual fact is less than gospel because it doesn't present God as he really is.

John Piper's assertion that "God is the gospel" really gets to the nub of what I'm trying to say. As Piper says, "the gospel is not a way to get people to heaven, it is the way to get people to God."
I agree wholeheartedly with Piper there, with the proviso that rejoicing in who God is also includes rejoicing in his character as revealed in his gifts and actions.

I guess the question I'd want to ask is what form(s) we see the proclamation of the gospel taking in Scripture. Now we see gospel proclamation in the apostles' sermons in Acts, in some of the letters, in the conversations of Jesus in the gospels and in the writing of the gospels themselves.

And the exact form it takes seems to be diverse. Sometimes it is about rejoicing in who God is and the extension of the intra-Trinitarian love to include us. And sometimes it's about the fact that we have sinned against God and need to repent. Both/and not either/or.

It strikes me that maybe the least Biblical thing about 2WTL is the idea of choice in box 6. The gospel is news which demands a response, not a choice to make.
 
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
I grant you that I'm arguing for a more biblical gospel summary by the inclusion of more Johannine content. But where's the problem with that? My concern is that the apparently deliberate omission of more overtly Trinitarian content - in combination with the assertion that its summary actually constitutes the the gospel and the necessary additional presuppositions, background and biblical theology - has produced something which in actual fact is less than gospel because it doesn't present God as he really is.

John Piper's assertion that "God is the gospel" really gets to the nub of what I'm trying to say. As Piper says, "the gospel is not a way to get people to heaven, it is the way to get people to God."
I agree wholeheartedly with Piper there, with the proviso that rejoicing in who God is also includes rejoicing in his character as revealed in his gifts and actions.
My belief is that the problem is more fundamental in that TWTL is insufficiently evangelical in its presuppositions concerning the nature of God. This quote from John Owen's treatise on the Holy Spirit makes my point well:

quote:
The nature and being of God, is the foundation of all true religion and religious worship in the world... There are indeed some acts of religious worship which chiefly respect what God is to us, or has done for us; but the principle and adequate reason of all divine worship, and that which makes it such, is what God is, in himself.
TWTL does not present the 'principle and adequate reason' for worshipping God because it does not present God as triune - which is the ultimate scriptural revelation of his being. TWTL is not sufficiently God-centred inasmuch as its main aim is not to produce worshippers who love and delight in God in himself but only people who are grateful for having evaded his wrath and the just punishment for their rebellion. This, in my view, is why Sydney Anglicans have a drastically reductionistic and increasing attenuated understanding of worship. In the words of John Piper, "they don't know how to go vertical". They have lost their first love.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
An indictment indeed. I hope, for their sakes, Daron, that this is not the case ...
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Reading through the points on the website linked to in the OP made me think it's very similar to the message given out in little evangelistic booklets in the UK in the 1970s. I can't remember what it was called now, but the front cover had a picture of a road which divides into two. I was given one when attending a youth meeting many years ago - it made sense to me then, but as you get older you start to see the world in less black-and-white terms and start to think 'Yes, but....'

I guess much the same reaction people have to the supposedly 'simple' message of Alpha. You either find it really helpful and clear-cut, or your mind starts to question the simplicity and think more deeply around the assertions. Such websites or booklets really ought to acknowledge that some people have minds which do this, and point them in the direction of places where they can ask deeper questions. Or are they frightened to do this?
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Reading through the points on the website linked to in the OP made me think it's very similar to the message given out in little evangelistic booklets in the UK in the 1970s. I can't remember what it was called now, but the front cover had a picture of a road which divides into two. I was given one when attending a youth meeting many years ago - it made sense to me then, but as you get older you start to see the world in less black-and-white terms and start to think 'Yes, but....'
It was "Journey Into Life" by Norman Warren, and you can read it in full on this church's website

(DISCLAIMER: I'm not sure of the copyright implications of them reproducing it in full - I assume they've got permission etc.)
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Yes, that's the one. Aren't the pictures cute?
 
Posted by CJS (# 3503) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
They have lost their first love.
We disguised it pretty well during our Easter celebrations though.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
Two Ways To Live makes me think of one thing. Guillotines.

If God is King, and it means what is presented, then we have a petty, cruel, and sadistic king who is happy to condemn people to eternal torment, making a demonstrable lie of any claim that "Unlike human rulers, however, God always does what is best for his subjects. He is the kind of king." He is an evil and cruel tyrant, willing to condemn others to be tortured eternally.

The best argument for Republicanism I think I've seen. If God's authority rests on his kingship and that is what his kingship leads to then I want no part of it. And although I can have respect for his Son in the picture presented, I might be compelled to bend my knee to the tyrant but he is unworthy of worship. The child-killer presented is unworthy even of simple respect, and Jesus of Nazareth will never inherit the throne.

This leaves us two ways to live.

We can bend the knee and worship the evil sadist.

Or we can fight and attempt to dethrone him him even if the chance of success is low.

These are indeed two ways to live. Worshipping God for personal advancement, or drawing a line in the sand and saying "No." However small a chance of success each of us has in opposing the almighty evil.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0