|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Two Ways to Live? or The Good God?
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
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 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.
--------------------
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 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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
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]](wink.gif) Hopwfully someone who is will be along in a minute...
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
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.
--------------------
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'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.
--------------------
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
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Daron--
You might take a look at Rob Bell's book, "Love Wins". More palatable presentation of God. FWIW, YMMV.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
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...
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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'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 ]
--------------------
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 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 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
Lothlorien
Ship's Grandma
# 4927
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Buy a bale. Help our Aussie rural communities and farmers. Another great cause needing support The High Country Patrol.
Posts: 9745 | From: girt by sea | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
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
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]](confused.gif)
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?
--------------------
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
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
savedbyhim01
Apprentice
# 17035
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Matthew 28:18-20
My Inductive Bible Study Notes
Posts: 31 | From: China | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LucyP
Shipmate
# 10476
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 235 | From: my sanctuary | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
LucyP
Shipmate
# 10476
|
Posted
When you analyse it like that I can see the problem. I might have to read "The Good God"!
Posts: 235 | From: my sanctuary | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
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!").
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
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!
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"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
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
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 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 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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:
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
It's like saying that Hamlet is a play about a guy who is betrayed by two of his best friends.
--------------------
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
|
|
CJS
Shipmate
# 3503
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 665 | From: Sydney | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daron
Shipmate
# 16507
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
@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.
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 ...
--------------------
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
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.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
