Never posted a discussion topic before, but here it goes... I have been pondering the various views of sanctification held by those in our circles (I hold the Reformed view), and I have some questions. I must admit that I have read little on the subject, yet have no time to do so at the moment. Therefore, I seek to draw on your knowledge and input (Chris, I know that have studied and hold the Chaferian view, so your help is appreciated). This is a list of questions that have popped into my brain:
*What are the distinctive points/ideas in the Chaferian model?
*Is the Chaferian model simply the Keswick model with a vocabulary makeover?
*What exactly is a "carnal Christian" by Chafer's definition?
*What exactly is a "spiritual Christian" by Chafer's definition?
*How and when does a carnal Christian become a spiritual Christian?
*Once a carnal Christian becomes a spiritual Christian, can he revert to being a carnal Christian?
*What are the Scriptural evidences of said understanding of carnal/spiritual Christianity?
*Do you believe that the idea of "carnal Christian" and the Reformed model are mutually exclusive?
Again, I ask these questions having very little understanding of the Chaferian view. I appreciate any efforts made to clarify this issue for me.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Friday, June 15, 2007
Monday, June 11, 2007
Paging Jon Tittle, over...
Jon,
I imagine you're still settling in, but was wondering how things are going. I'm sure I speak for all of us back here in MN when I say that you, Jennifer, and Carson are in our prayers. We doubt not our ever sovereign and gracious God to work out all things in accordance to His will for His good pleasure. Keep us updated.
Erik
P.S. If I could get your dad's contact info, that would be a blessing. When you have time, of course.
I imagine you're still settling in, but was wondering how things are going. I'm sure I speak for all of us back here in MN when I say that you, Jennifer, and Carson are in our prayers. We doubt not our ever sovereign and gracious God to work out all things in accordance to His will for His good pleasure. Keep us updated.
Erik
P.S. If I could get your dad's contact info, that would be a blessing. When you have time, of course.
Friday, June 8, 2007
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Good History - Baptist History Blog
http://historiaecclesiastica.com/
It is the blog of Michael A. G. Haykin, Baptist historian teaching at Toronto Baptist Seminary (T.T. Shields' school). Pithy articles of excellent quality.
It is the blog of Michael A. G. Haykin, Baptist historian teaching at Toronto Baptist Seminary (T.T. Shields' school). Pithy articles of excellent quality.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Website of a name...
www.currentchristian.com
If you aren't reading this one daily, you should start.
Jason, is there a way we can put links on the sidebar?
If you aren't reading this one daily, you should start.
Jason, is there a way we can put links on the sidebar?
Thursday, May 31, 2007
From the pen of Barth...
This is what Barth says concerning the Scriptures:
The prophets and apostles, even in their office, even in their function as witnesses, even in the act of writing down their witness, were, as we are, capable and actually guilty of error in their spoken and written word. (Dogmatics, I, 528-9)
If God was not ashamed of the fallibility of all the human words of the Bible, of their historical and scientific inaccuracies, their theolgical contradictions, the uncertainty of their tradition, and, above all, their Judaism, but adopted and made use of these expressions in all their fallibility, we do not need to be ashamed when He wills to renew it to us in all its fallibility as witness; and it is mere self-will and disobedience to try and find some infallible elements in the Bible (Dogmatics, I, 531).
The men whom we hear as witnesses speak as fallible, erring men like ourselves. . . . We can read and try to assess their word as a purely human word. It can be subjected to all kinds of immanent criticism, not only in respect of its philosophical, historical, and ethical content, but even of its religious and theological. . . . Each in his own way and degree, they shared the culture of their age and environment. . . . The vulnerability of the Bible, i.i., its capacity for error, also extends to its religious or theological content. There are obvious overlappings and contradictions. . . . Therefore, whether we like it or not, they did not speak a special language of revelation radically different from that of their time. . . . It seems to be weakened, and therefore robbed of its character as witness ot revelation, by the fact that it has so many "parallels" (Dogmatics, I, 507-9). Emphasis Added
The prophets and apostles, even in their office, even in their function as witnesses, even in the act of writing down their witness, were, as we are, capable and actually guilty of error in their spoken and written word. (Dogmatics, I, 528-9)
If God was not ashamed of the fallibility of all the human words of the Bible, of their historical and scientific inaccuracies, their theolgical contradictions, the uncertainty of their tradition, and, above all, their Judaism, but adopted and made use of these expressions in all their fallibility, we do not need to be ashamed when He wills to renew it to us in all its fallibility as witness; and it is mere self-will and disobedience to try and find some infallible elements in the Bible (Dogmatics, I, 531).
The men whom we hear as witnesses speak as fallible, erring men like ourselves. . . . We can read and try to assess their word as a purely human word. It can be subjected to all kinds of immanent criticism, not only in respect of its philosophical, historical, and ethical content, but even of its religious and theological. . . . Each in his own way and degree, they shared the culture of their age and environment. . . . The vulnerability of the Bible, i.i., its capacity for error, also extends to its religious or theological content. There are obvious overlappings and contradictions. . . . Therefore, whether we like it or not, they did not speak a special language of revelation radically different from that of their time. . . . It seems to be weakened, and therefore robbed of its character as witness ot revelation, by the fact that it has so many "parallels" (Dogmatics, I, 507-9). Emphasis Added
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)