Before I delve into the topic of this thread, I would like to share my thoughts on a couple of items that are currently on my mind.
First, I would like to state that many of the threads that I post here at AF have the express purpose of presenting 'another side' to topics that I am either currently studying, or have seen being expounded (and debated) upon at other online sites.
Second, I am amazed at just how many issues are being debated over and over again, with little (usually no) sign/s of learning and/or development that should be taking place if each 'side' would seriously reflect on what their opponents have presented previously (some sites being merely monologues, allowing no dialogue at all, or only from those who already agree with what is being discussed).
Now, the above is actually more of an introduction to an upcoming thread (the Lord willing) that will discuss a prime example of an issue that is being debated repeatedly on a number of internet sites, with pretty much NO development: sola fide.
But before I jump back into the fray, I wanted to share a couple of new sites (at least to me) that I happened upon earlier today.
The first site I would like to share with my readers is:
Credo - The Magazine
The purpose of the site and magazine is summed up in the following statement:
Credo magazine is self-consciously Evangelical, Reformational, and Baptistic: Evangelical since it aims at being supremely Gospel-centered, exalting in the substitutionary death and historical resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ; Reformational as the gospel it promotes is defined by the solas of the Reformation; and while Credo magazine welcomes contributors from diverse ecclesial backgrounds, it seeks to especially celebrate those doctrines that mark the Baptist tradition. (link)
The first issue (and only issue to date), was published just last October. In addition to the magazine, the site also has a Blog, and Media page.
The second site/blog is:
The Andrew Fuller Center for Baptist Studies
This site revolves around Historia ecclesiastica - "The Weblog of Dr. Michael A. G. Haykin".
My personal interest in this site/blog is focused on the Dr. Haykin's "Ancient Church" series (see right side bar on the sites opening page for links). I am still in the process of reading through this series; much of what I have read, has been informative.
Anyway, I sincerely hope that some of my readers will find the above sites of use in their own studies.
Grace and peace,
David
8 comments:
David W. wrote:
Now, the above is actually more of an introduction to an upcoming thread (the Lord willing) that will discuss a prime example of an issue that is being debated repeatedly on a number of internet sites, with pretty much NO development: sola fide.
You never answered my question I posed to you about N. T. Wright and John Piper's response to him in "The Future of Justification".
I thought Piper answered him fully and adequately. Wright wrote a book later called Justification, that you mentioned and linked to.
Does Wright really add anything new to the discussion?
And, since truth is truth, and if one believes their doctrine is biblical, why should they compromise with that?
Your question seems to pre-suppose that everyone is always wrong and that there must necessarily always be "development" throughout history - which may be why you are open to more revelation after the 66 books of the Bible and open to Bahai'ism as a fulfillment of the second coming of Jesus the Messiah - which is, a major contradiction to everything the NT teaches; and requires one to go back and re-interpret everything with a totally different understand of the Universe and Life itself.
If Christ is who He said He was, (and He is) and one claims to be born again and satisfied in Him with His joy and salvation; why would one even entertain even for a moment that there is real Scriptural revelation after the 27 NT books ? (Jude 3 and Hebrews 1:1-3 point to the closing of the canon with the NT books.)
It shows (IMHO) that somehow you don't experience what the NT talks about in the whole gospel message and the Salvation experience.
By the way, Michael Haykin is really good; I wish I had the time to read more of his material. I wold love to get a Phd or Th.d. under him at Southern Seminary.
Hi Ken,
I have about 30 minutes before I have to head out for a meeting, so I will be fairly brief for now. You posted:
==You never answered my question I posed to you about N. T. Wright and John Piper's response to him in "The Future of Justification".
I thought Piper answered him fully and adequately. Wright wrote a book later called Justification, that you mentioned and linked to.
Does Wright really add anything new to the discussion?
And, since truth is truth, and if one believes their doctrine is biblical, why should they compromise with that?==
Me: During our recent Skype session (which I thoroughly enjoyed), I mentioned to you that I was rereading Wright's book, Justification. I had hoped to finish it this weekend, but unfortunately, other issues got in the way of me doing so. (Hopefully I can finish up the reread Tuesday).
I have refrained from responding to your queries because I want to be very accurate when I do so.
However, for now, let me just say that Dr. Wright has addressed a number of misconceptions that Dr. Piper either completely ignored, or just plain got wrong in his, The Future of Justification.
Now, while you wait for me to finish my reread, perhaps you give could me a list (let's say top 5 or so) of errors that you find in Dr. Wright's view of justification...this would be VERY helpful.
==Your question seems to pre-suppose that everyone is always wrong and that there must necessarily always be "development" throughout history...
Me: I can think of very few doctrines within the Christian paradigm that have not undergone significant development over the last 20 centuries. Put yourself back in the early 16th and think about the above that you penned...
==If Christ is who He said He was, (and He is) and one claims to be born again and satisfied in Him with His joy and salvation; why would one even entertain even for a moment that there is real Scriptural revelation after the 27 NT books ? (Jude 3 and Hebrews 1:1-3 point to the closing of the canon with the NT books.)==
Me: Because the Bible, and Christianity, concerns so much more than the individual (i.e. personal salvation). The Bible clearly speaks of our Lord's second coming; when He returns, I have no doubt that there will be added revelation. Further, the very nature of the Kingdom of God is intrinsically tied into the second coming; how one views eschatology significantly effects one's doctrine of the Kingdom of God, and it's place in history.
==It shows (IMHO) that somehow you don't experience what the NT talks about in the whole gospel message and the Salvation experience.==
Me: I could say the same about you; your lack of concern (so it seems) concerning ALL that the Bible addresses, focusing primarily individual soteriology, may be distorting your understanding of the gospel concerning the Kingdom of God, and many other important issues.
I am almost out of time; much more to share, but it will have to wait until later...
Grace and peace,
David
How do I demonstrate a lack of concern about other areas that the Bible addresses, besides individual salvation?
Regarding Eschatology -
So what about all the passages that speak of believers meeting Jesus in the clouds, etc.
And Jesus coming again on clouds -
Acts 1:11
I Thess. 4:13-18
I Corinthians 15:23-28
23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming,
24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.
25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death.
27 For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.
28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.
So, are you a Full Preterist ? or open to it?
Is that the connection with Theonomy? And once one goes there, then Islam (Sharia law has some similarities with Theonomy) and Bahai'ism are possibilities for you?
How do you explain the lack of reference to the Passover sacrifices, the OT sacrifices and temple in Jerusalem, and changing details of OT narratives in the Quran?
Hello again Ken,
A very busy day for the beachbum; finally able to check in on the blog. In your last post, you wrote:
==How do I demonstrate a lack of concern about other areas that the Bible addresses, besides individual salvation?==
Me: Primarily because of what you said in your other post-
==It shows (IMHO) that somehow you don't experience what the NT talks about in the whole gospel message and the Salvation experience.==
Me: The "whole gospel message", includes so much more than the individual "Salvation experience." I have moved on to explore the "much more" of the "whole gospel message", while you seem stuck on only the individual "Salvation experience" aspect. To question one's salvation over the issue of possible revelation after the 1st century seems very odd to me, given that you claim to be an Evangelical—the precise content of the canon has NEVER (at least to my knowledge) been one of the factors that determines the salvation status of an individual.
== So, are you a Full Preterist ? or open to it?==
Me: No, I am not a "Full Preterist", I am a partial preterist.
==Is that the connection with Theonomy?==
Me: No. Remember, I mentioned to you not so long ago that Dr. Bahnsen said that each of the 3 major areas that Christian Reconstructionists place emphasis on, presuppostionalism, post-millennialism, and theonomy can be defended, and stand on their own (though he believed that all should be embraced).
==And once one goes there, then Islam (Sharia law has some similarities with Theonomy) and Bahai'ism are possibilities for you?==
Me: Not for me. I see a big difference between intra-paradigm discussion/disputes and multi-paradigm discussion.
Since you mentioned Islam, did you see my last post in the Surah 4.157 thread?
And did you see the following that I posted earlier in this thread?
"Now, while you wait for me to finish my reread, perhaps you give could me a list (let's say top 5 or so) of errors that you find in Dr. Wright's view of justification...this would be VERY helpful."
Grace and peace,
David
Hi David,
Yes, I noticed all that. I will have to pull out my "The Future of Justification" by John Piper and go over it again. When I get time. Off the top of my head I cannot just type out 5 errors.
I just remember when I read it, thinking, "Piper is right and Wright is wrong".
When I have time, I will try to list the top five errors.
Hi Ken,
Thanks for getting back to me. Shall be looking forward to your 'top 5', when you have the time (no hurry, I know that this is a very busy time of the year for most folk). I finished Wright last night, and added extra notes, focusing this time on his direct interactions with Dr. Piper's book.
Though it is a bit chilly here, it is gorgeous outside. Don't think I will be able to resist much longer the urge for a nice, long bike ride...
Take care and God bless,
David
Ok, I finally have a few minutes to look at some Piper’s The Future of Justification and his critique of N. T. Wright’s view of Justification.
Have you read Piper's book?
Top Six Errors of N. T. Wright: (summarized from Piper’s Future, pp. 18-25)
1. That the gospel is not about how one gets saved. He wrote this several times in his “What Saint Paul Really Said”. (Piper, Future, p. 18)
2. Justification is not about how someone becomes a Christian.
3. That Justification is not about salvation/soteriology as it is about ecclesiology/church.
4. The warnings in the NT about not depending on obedience to the law to save you or justify you are not about legalism but about ethnocentrism.
5. Lessening the importance of imputation.
6. Emphasizing good works as a condition for future justification rather than the necessary evidence that a person was justified in the past.
Merry Christmas!
Hi Ken,
Was out of town over the extended weekend. Had a great time with family; I sincerely hope that you too were able to spend some quality time with your family.
I see that on the 24th, you listed six "errors" from the pen of Dr. Piper concerning Dr. Wright's view on the gospel and justification. I am going to comment on the first three, for I know from my reread of Dr. Wright's Justification, that they are not accurate.
==1. That the gospel is not about how one gets saved. He wrote this several times in his “What Saint Paul Really Said”. (Piper, Future, p. 18)++
Dr. Wright clearly states that the gospel includes personal salvation; but he is also as clear that it includes much more.
==2. Justification is not about how someone becomes a Christian.==
Dr. Wright presents the gospel (which includes salvation) in an analogy as a car, and justification as the steering wheel; without a steering wheel, you are not going anywhere. He goes on to relate that justification is directly related to God's covenant with man. Justification brings one into a covenantal relationship with God, so as the book of Hebrews so clearly establishes, justification is directly related to "how someone becomes a Christian", for when one enters into the new covenant, one becomes a Christian".
==3. That Justification is not about salvation/soteriology as it is about ecclesiology/church.==
Yet once more, Dr. Piper is wrong; justification for Dr. Wright includes salvation/soteriology, but it also includes the covenantal relationship—Dr. Wright refuses to isolate/separate the two—no covenant, no justification.
I have 'a lot on my plate' this week, so I don't want to spend a good deal of time on defending Dr. Wright given the fact that he has done so in great detail in his book; plus, others much more respected than this simple beachbum have already weighed in on this issue—I would like to recommend Dr. Craig Blomberg's (a conservative professor at Denver Seminary) reviews:
http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/justification-gods-plan-and-pauls-vision/
http://www.koinoniablog.net/2009/05/the-wright-approach-to-justification-in-paul_blomberg.html
From the first link we read:
"In fact, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision is by far Wright’s clearest and most extensive explanation to date of his convictions about this central Christian doctrine, and should allay many of the concerns of all but the most intransigent of his detractors. Sadly, Piper may turn out to fall into this latter category, but we can hope for the better."
Grace and peace,
David
Post a Comment