Concerning video titles, it never ceases to amaze me how so many people cannot read in terms of the "act" in speech-act theory.
But to the greater point, I deeply believe that the issue among reformed people is not that they exaggerate the sinfulness of man too much, but that they have almost no emphasis on our union with Christ.
I mean more that reformed-types tend to talk about the "true" self as being sinful, while any acts of righteousness are a result of Christ overriding our "true" selves. But Paul talks about our sin as coming from our "old" or "false" selves. ("It is no longer "I that sin" Rom 7:17). Our new "true" self is united to the "Christ who lives in me" (Gal 2:20). When I do something righteous, it isn't that Christ overrided my true self to do it. No. He is united to me in such a way, that my true self is in Him. He genuinely performed the work of righteousness AND I genuinely performed the work of righteousness. I am in Him and He is in me (John 15).
My old (false) self is unbelievably sinful, but it isn't my true self. But this opens up a door to a whole host of issues related to how we think about the self. Is the self summed up by your desires? Your passions? your feelings? your thinking? your actions?
Many fellow Christians would answer yes to these questions, and maybe its partially true... But I think Jesus answers this question in Matt 6:22-23. We are what we see. Not what we want in a moment. or what we feel right now, but what we see - which is ultimately about what we love.
Cant wait to check out the livestream on my ride home!
Union with Christ has saved my theology (and fed me spiritually). I was grateful that Union with Christ overtook my theological steering wheel and drove me towards covenant, community, and divine mystery and transformation.
Good rewrite, Joel. I see much better what you are trying to correct, and what does not need the correction -- seminary Calvinism vs. study center Calvinism. That is an interesting distinction.
You are trying to recapture the term humanist in a scriptural way, Genesis 1:26-27 I am guessing, as opposed to the humanist is more purely leaning toward rationalism. So then Bavinck is a humanist, so is Sproul and Kuyper.
Well, it is possible to stretch either the word “grace” or the word “creation,” but why not just admit the traditional distinction between creation (nature) and grace? :)
And @Ross Byrd would have more reasons, given his theology of continuity idea. Redemption is not brand new, it is restoration, not brand new creation, so another reason to admit the word grace for that which absolves and restores nature.
Concerning video titles, it never ceases to amaze me how so many people cannot read in terms of the "act" in speech-act theory.
But to the greater point, I deeply believe that the issue among reformed people is not that they exaggerate the sinfulness of man too much, but that they have almost no emphasis on our union with Christ.
Say more! Like, yes, we are sinful, but now we are justified in united to Christ?
I mean more that reformed-types tend to talk about the "true" self as being sinful, while any acts of righteousness are a result of Christ overriding our "true" selves. But Paul talks about our sin as coming from our "old" or "false" selves. ("It is no longer "I that sin" Rom 7:17). Our new "true" self is united to the "Christ who lives in me" (Gal 2:20). When I do something righteous, it isn't that Christ overrided my true self to do it. No. He is united to me in such a way, that my true self is in Him. He genuinely performed the work of righteousness AND I genuinely performed the work of righteousness. I am in Him and He is in me (John 15).
My old (false) self is unbelievably sinful, but it isn't my true self. But this opens up a door to a whole host of issues related to how we think about the self. Is the self summed up by your desires? Your passions? your feelings? your thinking? your actions?
Many fellow Christians would answer yes to these questions, and maybe its partially true... But I think Jesus answers this question in Matt 6:22-23. We are what we see. Not what we want in a moment. or what we feel right now, but what we see - which is ultimately about what we love.
Cant wait to check out the livestream on my ride home!
Union with Christ has saved my theology (and fed me spiritually). I was grateful that Union with Christ overtook my theological steering wheel and drove me towards covenant, community, and divine mystery and transformation.
Good rewrite, Joel. I see much better what you are trying to correct, and what does not need the correction -- seminary Calvinism vs. study center Calvinism. That is an interesting distinction.
You are trying to recapture the term humanist in a scriptural way, Genesis 1:26-27 I am guessing, as opposed to the humanist is more purely leaning toward rationalism. So then Bavinck is a humanist, so is Sproul and Kuyper.
What do you think about replacing the terms
1. Common Grace
2. Special Grace
with:
1. The gift of first creation, and
2. The gift of second creation
?
Well, it is possible to stretch either the word “grace” or the word “creation,” but why not just admit the traditional distinction between creation (nature) and grace? :)
And @Ross Byrd would have more reasons, given his theology of continuity idea. Redemption is not brand new, it is restoration, not brand new creation, so another reason to admit the word grace for that which absolves and restores nature.
Well said!
Here’s that article:
https://www.patientkingdom.com/p/blank-slate-theology-vs-a-theology