don't change that dial
There's not a lot of time between now and the Midwinter Ministerial and even though more could be said about the Preamble it's time to get moving on. Starting next week we'll begin looking at all of the draft revision: article-by-article. It's no mystery that a few of the articles deserve a bit more attention than the others, but to be thorough and consistent you will see them all here with the corresponding article from the current EFCA Statement of Faith.
While the commentary on the draft revision the writers’ included is helpful, I won't be including their notes unless it pertains to my own commentary on the revision. If you desire to make any comments in upcoming days please make sure that you have familiarized yourself with what they have said so as to avoid any unnecessary mischaracterization.
posted by Sean Dennis at 10:23 AM
2 Comments:
Makes you wonder, as a sidelight: if the Reformed tradition is so great that we want to bring more of it into our Ministers Forum, why does it seem like it's always big slices of the Reformed tradition that flock to heretics like N.T. Wright?
Side bar:
Do those in the Reformed tradition, in the spirit of sola scriptura, have a responsiblity to look at Wright's writing and decide in light of Scripture whether or not his understanding of justification is orthodox?
I think so.
When it comes to the New Perspective, whoa! The volume of writing on the subject began so fast and furious that just the thought of giving it a fair reading seems overwhelming... Not to say that I won't engage it in the future. Hopefully a future ministerial will address the issue.
Despite Wright's questionable position on Paul, I don't think we throw out everything he's written. I think the series "Christian Origins and the Question of God" is a helpful tool for looking at first-century Judaism and early Christianity, but I suspect N.T. and I would have some very big disagreements on what I and other evangelicals consider essentials (especially inerrancy).
There is much that is ironic in this conversation. Consider for example that the Preamble to the Draft Revision quotes John Stott. I love some of John Stott's books (I know many evangelicals have benefited from his writing ministry as I have), but at the end of the day I have to recognize that his views on Hell (annihilationism) is clearly outside of the scope of orthodoxy. Though it pains me, I must consider his teaching on this matter to be an abberation; to be heretical.
This is what frustrates me about the effort to enlarge the tent. For the good of the local church, lines must be drawn closer than broader. Stott and Wright (and Lewis for that matter) might sit on my book shelf, but they cannot sit on an elder board or stand in a Sunday School class.
Can we recognize that there is a spiritual unity among believers without trying to create the appearance of a physical unity?
I think so.
Post a Comment
<< Home