Scot McKnight has a good series on Atonement going on, today's post is about justification and atonement. The discussion following it is about imputation, impartation, Eastern Orthodox theosis and other similar items.
Scot's post ties in nicely with the latest Blogthings quiz making the rounds—How evil are you? And that, of course ties in with the book I am currently reading: Why I Am Not An Arminian and total depravity.
Of course, the million dollar question is to what extent the death of Jesus is efficacious in removing the sinful bent in a person's heart...
I come down strongly on the Keswick side here as popularized by such authors as Andrew Murray (a Reformed pastor), Watchman Nee (a Plymouth Brethren pastor), Hudson Taylor (of China Inland Mission fame) and, although he predates Keswick, Charles Finney (Arminian in theology). In a nutshell what they say is that by faith we can allow the Holy Spirit to keep us from sinning (see I John). Mind you, if is all God's grace, not anything of human ability.
Comments?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
James,
Well spoken here. I have copies of works by all the theologians you listed. Now I must confess that I got into a bit of an argument with a seminary prof once on the issue of human non-sinning. He argued that we could possibly not sin at all if we simply allowed the Holy Spirit to work in our lives at all times. I on the other hand argued that it was impossible to keep from sinning. I acknowledged that in theory it was possible to not sin via submission to the Holy Spirit but in reality I believe that it would never work. Your take on this?
Best
Joe
Joe,
If we take I John seriously, we have to hold it as an option. Now, part of the problem is the definition of sin. The definition I find the most useful is that "sin is a willful transgression of a known command of God." That is the sin that the Holy Spirit can allow us to live above, if we surrender to Him. As all the authors I listed will say, it is by FAITH, not by works or human striving.
I just ordered a used copy of John Fletcher's (Wesley's right-hand man and theologian) On Perfection, which I read years ago and haven't been able to find until this week. Anyway, in it he asks the question "Do you believe it is possible to live in a state of perfect love? If not, why not? Is it because you need to do something first? If so, then you are not seeking it by faith, but by works." Fletcher and Wesley use perfection/perfect in love as a synonym for living without sinning. They say that it is possible to live so in tune with God that you feel nothing in your heart but love towards God and man. This is also the classical holiness position, which has since been corrupted...but that's another story.
James
I'd like to recommend "God's Wrath Postponed" by D. Michael Turner, published by PublishAmerica.com. Turner is literalist of both Universalism and Election. His views attempts to literalize both passages on predestination and universalism, without bringing the sets into conflict. I find his views refreshing and with some unigue insight to an age old issue.
Post a Comment