|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Two Ways to Live? or The Good God?
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@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.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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'?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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 ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CJS
Shipmate
# 3503
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 665 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CJS
Shipmate
# 3503
|
Posted
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).
Posts: 665 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
[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.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Each strand of sorrow has a place, within this tapestry of grace
So through the trials I choose to say, Your perfect will in your perfect way
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
An indictment indeed. I hope, for their sakes, Daron, that this is not the case ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
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.)
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Yes, that's the one. Aren't the pictures cute?
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CJS
Shipmate
# 3503
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
They have lost their first love.
We disguised it pretty well during our Easter celebrations though.
Posts: 665 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
