Comments on: Thoughts on Denominations, Church Union and Reunion 3

By: Mandatory Reading | Michael Awbrey

Mandatory Reading | Michael Awbrey — Fri, 15 May 2009 00:18:42 +0000

[...] Thoughts on Denominations, Church Union, and Reunion 1Thoughts on Denominations, Church Union, and Reunion 2Thoughts on Denominations, Church Union, and Reunion 3 [...]

By: Michael Awbrey

Michael Awbrey — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:27:09 +0000

Thank you so much for this series! Truly words I needed to hear, and hope I have been missing!

By: Nelmezzo » Blog Archive » Three on Theology #3

Nelmezzo » Blog Archive » Three on Theology #3 — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 02:38:14 +0000

[...] In June, Alistair of Adversaria was blogging on denominations, church union and reunion. So far, there are 3 posts (1, 2, 3). The most common way of looking at these issues is probably through a “doctrinal correctness” lens. Alastair shifts the perspective–fruitfully–to “what was God doing with his people when he permitted his church to split?” Here are two quotes, the second one extended: In the OT we see God directing the flow of history for the purpose of maturing His covenant people. He moulds and transforms His people through a number of powerful events and experiences. He builds up His people and then breaks them down, in order that they might be refashioned into something newer and more mature. Through the Reformation God created a very new order within the Church. Whatever our convictions regarding the biblical character of the claims made by the Reformers, if we truly believe that God continues to form His people through His providential guidance of the course of history, we must wrestle with the question of why God saw fit to split His Church at the Reformation. [...]

By: Rick Ritchie

Rick Ritchie — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 07:16:57 +0000

Alastair’s own precision of language does help me to see where some of the problem is. He states that he is speaking of an exegetical question rather than a theological one. I think our guys made a similar distinction. C.F.W. Walther distinguished between “Gospel” used in the broad versus the narrow sense. He made a similar distinction for conversion. Gospel in the broad sense includes both Law and Gospel (in the narrow sense), just as Repentance in the broad sense includes both repentance (in the narrow sense) and faith.

Walther also is clear about the fact that what he is distinguishing is the doctrine of the Law from the doctrine of the Gospel. The doctrine of the Gospel will be derived from passages that use the term Gospel in the narrow sense (e.g. Luke 4:18-19, 1 Cor. 15:1-4, Gal. 1:6-7) and other passages that contrast Law and Gospel, even if other terms are used (e.g. John 1:17, Gal. 3:2-5).

By: Confessing Evangelical » Blog Archive » Jesus is Lord and your sins are forgiven

Thu, 28 Jun 2007 09:49:28 +0000

[...] My recent crash-course on objective/universal justification was prompted by the following comment by Alastair over on his blog recently: The message of the kingdom is not merely that forgiveness is now possible, but that the Forgiveness of Sins has actually taken place and that all who will believe can enter into this. [...]

By: Jonathan Bonomo

Jonathan Bonomo — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:11:34 +0000

Alastair,

I really can’t thank you enough for the service you are providing we who are of a similar mind (and hopefully even those who are not) with these posts. It seems to me that you have the foundation for an eventual publishable short book with the four posts you’ve provided here.

Grace and Peace,

Jonathan

By: pduggie

pduggie — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:19:41 +0000

Weird, I just read that essay yesterday.

Al, I like your emphasis on the coming of the Kingdom being the in context of Israel standing in lonely exile here until the Son of God appear.

We sometimes too much emphasize the “God breaking into history” with the kingdom, and forget that God is breaking BACK into history after having left it with the first exile.

By: John H

John H — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 08:32:23 +0000

The message of the kingdom is not merely that forgiveness is now possible, but that the Forgiveness of Sins has actually taken place and that all who will believe can enter into this.

100% agreed. Remind me which of us is the Lutheran here?

Seriously, I’d be interested to know whether you’ve ever come across the Lutheran concept of “objective justification” (or “universal justification”) and if so what you think of it. There seems to be scope for significant interaction between this concept (which I admittedly know very little about) and Wright’s emphasis on justification as something that goes beyond merely the question of “How do I get to go to heaven when I die?”

There’s an essay on universal justification here, but I haven’t read it yet. Ditto this.

By: John H

John H — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 08:25:43 +0000

Alastair: thank you for your response. I wonder whether part of the issue here is the whole question of seeking statements that “encapsulate the gospel message”, or interpretive keys to Scripture, or whatever.

I’m sceptical of the value of any single, short statement claiming to “encapsulate the gospel message”, whether that’s “Jesus is Lord” or justification by faith or law and gospel. I’d prefer to locate the gospel not in summary statements but in the life of the church taken as a whole, as it preaches the gospel, absolves, baptises and celebrates the Lord’s Supper.

At times the aspect of that gospel that needs to be articulated most clearly is “Jesus is Lord”. At times, what people need the gospel to be for them is “Your sins are forgiven - go in peace”.

This makes me wonder if we’re perhaps just coming at this from different angles. The Lutheran understanding of law and gospel is not primarily one of exegesis or hermeneutics. Indeed, Walther writes that it is perfectly possible to preach the Word entirely without error, but to fail properly to distinguish law and gospel - in other words it is a matter of application (in pastoral practice) rather than interpretation.

By: Al

Al — Sun, 24 Jun 2007 23:50:27 +0000

John,
My claim is primarily an exegetical, rather than a theological one. I simply believe that the word ‘gospel’ is used to refer to the coming of the kingdom of God. This is the fundamental meaning of the word in the NT, closely related to its usage in the LXX and other ancient sources. The claim that this has taken place in Christ is summed up in the statement ‘Jesus is Lord’. This becomes the key statement that encapsulates the gospel message.

Forgiveness is a key element of the gospel message, simply because this is what the coming of the kingdom of God involves. The coming of the kingdom of God is the return of God to His people, the overcoming of their exile and the defeat of the powers that had enslaved them. It is the sign that Israel’s warfare has ended and her iniquity has been pardoned (cf. Isaiah 40:1-11). And proclamation of the ‘gospel’ that excludes forgiveness is a huge distortion.

It is because I understand the kingdom of God in such a manner (i.e. with forgiveness of sins as an integral part) that I believe that the gospel can be truly be summed up in the claim that ‘Jesus is Lord’ (i.e. the kingdom of God has come in Christ).

Just one last remark: The message of the kingdom is not merely that forgiveness is now possible, but that the Forgiveness of Sins has actually taken place and that all who will believe can enter into this. The return from exile is not mere presented as a possibility for every individual, but as something that has come to be a reality in and through Christ and something that we can enter into in Him. In other words, the gospel proclamation is less a message that we can be saved, as it is a message that salvation has taken place in history and we are called to enter into it.