|
Judyt:"by introducing a subtle element of
co-redemption".. This is quite true. So, ask I,with what exactly are
you disagreeing?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: June 19, 2004 12:36
Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:
Fundamentalist
Sorry Lance, guess I got caught up in what you fellows
are doing - if it is not exactly the same it is very, very close - see the
following excerpt from your mentor TFT who has come up with an unscriptural
dichotomy:
Excerpt from God & Rationality - The theology of T.F. Torrance:
Quote ��Evangelical Protestantism has developed a way of preaching the
Gospel which distorts and betrays it by introducing into
it a subtle element of co-redemption. This happens whenever it is said
that people will not be saved unless they make the work of Christ real
for themselves by their personal decision, or that
they will be saved only if they repent and believe,
for this is to make the work of Christ conditional upon what the sinner does,
and so at the crucial point it throws the ultimate responsibility for a man�
salvation back upon himself.
That is very far from being Good News for the sinner. . . . The message of
the New Testament quite different. It announces that God loves us, that He has
given His only Son to be our Saviour, that Christ has died for us when we were
yet sinners, and that His work is finished, and therefore calls for repentance
and the obedience of faith, but never does it say: This is what God in Christ has done for you,
and you can be saved on condition that you repent and believe. The
Gospel must be preached in an evangelical way, that is, in accordance with the
nature and content of the Gospel of free grace, lest it is �another Gospel.�
It is not faith that justifies us, but Christ in whom we
have faith. But the history of Protestantism shows that it is possible
to speak of justification by faith in such a way that the
emphasis is shifted from �Christ� to �me�, so that what becomes finally
important is �my faith,� �my decision,� �my conversion,� and not really Christ
himself.� (God and Rationality, p. 58, his italics.)
Judyt:You know not whereof you speak. All raised
in Christ does NOT=once saved always saved. All of us find it easier to
substitute a charicature for critical thinking.
As to whether you're a 'fundie' or not?? If I
(but that's just me) were a 'fundie profiler' I'd say yes.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: June 19, 2004 12:05
Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:
Fundamentalist
Lance,
You will need to send us a "Topical Index" of your
(and Jonathan's) definitions. I would not call anyone on Jonathan's
list a Fundamentalist (as I understand it); there are people in this country
who pride themselves on being "fighting fundies" They are usually Bob Jones
University graduates or people from legalistic type sects, (some Southern
Baptist though not all). I wouldn't put Izzy, Terry, DavidM, or myself in
that category. We don't agree on every detail, fighting fundies would
have to agree on doctrine and you are sounding closer to their doctrine
that us with your all encompassing incarnation. They teach a type of
Calvinism "Once saved, always saved" that would go along with the TFT
teaching that "all rose with/in Christ"
G:I don't think that it is the Vatican that
produces 'fundamentalists'. Every group whether religious, political or
social has a 'fundamentalist' component/wing. In such there tends to be a
disdain for anything 'gray'. Black and white are preferred.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: June 19, 2004 11:34
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Re:Fundamentalist
it's interesting that
the activism of both Protestant and Catholic conservatives closely
match on, e.g., abortion politics--jt and Izzy themselves are as
anti-abortion as the Pope
apparently the Pope is a
biblicist, too, and the match entails the conclusion that the Vatican
produces 'fundamentalists'... G
||
..feel free to add to the
list
|
