More Thoughts...
I have come to realize that apologetics is not just about defending the faith from atheists and agnostics, but rather, defending the essential truths of Christianity even from people who claim to be Christians.
Storms' final three parts: Part Five, Six and Seven of his review-summary of Carson's book is here.
It is strange that people like McLaren claim to hold the "TULIP" (Yet deny every single core aspects of it) and claim to be Calvinists. Perhaps I can call him a Nazi- a Nazi who happens to deny all the core aspects of it.
Anyway, I think apologetics has been way too defensive (or "reactive" as McLaren terms it, though it is odd, at least for me, that he sees offensive apologetics as the way to go) and should be more offensive. Should Christians perhaps shed their "Jesus loves you" image and go for the "Repent or burn" (along with the reasons why that is going to happen)? I don't really know. But what I know is, "evangelism", according to the popular church may be working (at least to them)- though I fear when all is before God that isn't really going to cut it.
Perhaps I would like to drop a brief quote from an anonymous person:"Is it possible that in giving up the arrogance of certainty, some of us are now clinging to an arrogance of uncertainty?"
Just two chapters after telling everyone to not judge their brother, Paul writes, "I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. (Romans 16:17)"
Hey, we've just been told to get away from those who cause divisions and create obstacles to the doctrine we've been taught!
Likewise we find in Titus 3:10 that, "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;"
So, reject heretics eh? What is even more interesting is that, one verse earlier, Paul tells Titus to avoid foolish strivings about the law that are unprofitable and useless.
I think we need to distinguish between what is irrelevant (Baptism, The Lord's Supper, as they are important, but not vital to salvation, unless of course you follow the RC teaching that communion is required of salvation which is then legalism) and what is crucial to our understanding of salvation (E.g. Salvation by grace through faith, justification etc.). We might have a person who teaches all the orthodox stuff and then go on to teach that we can sin as much as we want and still go to heaven.
But also, one thing that I had always, always despised and hated is when Christians are wasting their time quibbling about useless aspects of theology with people in unreached parts of the world waiting to hear the good news.
Storms' final three parts: Part Five, Six and Seven of his review-summary of Carson's book is here.
It is strange that people like McLaren claim to hold the "TULIP" (Yet deny every single core aspects of it) and claim to be Calvinists. Perhaps I can call him a Nazi- a Nazi who happens to deny all the core aspects of it.
Anyway, I think apologetics has been way too defensive (or "reactive" as McLaren terms it, though it is odd, at least for me, that he sees offensive apologetics as the way to go) and should be more offensive. Should Christians perhaps shed their "Jesus loves you" image and go for the "Repent or burn" (along with the reasons why that is going to happen)? I don't really know. But what I know is, "evangelism", according to the popular church may be working (at least to them)- though I fear when all is before God that isn't really going to cut it.
Perhaps I would like to drop a brief quote from an anonymous person:"Is it possible that in giving up the arrogance of certainty, some of us are now clinging to an arrogance of uncertainty?"
Just two chapters after telling everyone to not judge their brother, Paul writes, "I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. (Romans 16:17)"
Hey, we've just been told to get away from those who cause divisions and create obstacles to the doctrine we've been taught!
Likewise we find in Titus 3:10 that, "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;"
So, reject heretics eh? What is even more interesting is that, one verse earlier, Paul tells Titus to avoid foolish strivings about the law that are unprofitable and useless.
I think we need to distinguish between what is irrelevant (Baptism, The Lord's Supper, as they are important, but not vital to salvation, unless of course you follow the RC teaching that communion is required of salvation which is then legalism) and what is crucial to our understanding of salvation (E.g. Salvation by grace through faith, justification etc.). We might have a person who teaches all the orthodox stuff and then go on to teach that we can sin as much as we want and still go to heaven.
But also, one thing that I had always, always despised and hated is when Christians are wasting their time quibbling about useless aspects of theology with people in unreached parts of the world waiting to hear the good news.
This entry was posted
on Sunday, June 19, 2005 at 12:22 PM.
|
