There's this. And he's right, you know. Calvin and Edwards, not to mention countless others, spared no hostility for these practices. It makes sense for them to do so; their very indulgence, stripped of sensual vanity, suggests soteriological participation that is utterly antithetical to Reformation convictions. Own it. This was the point of the Reformation: to strip Christian practices of any semblance of human contribution to the "finished work of Christ." This is shorthand for, "Grace unmediated, undeserved, unmingled with human effort, applied by faith alone outside of us." Did I miss anything?
But let me humbly suggest that insofar as this evangelical dabbling in the ancient ways is fueled by ignorance, it is a good thing. It's these Reformation distinctives that deserve challenge. Those commitments beg the question, when the two competing ways of salvation are placed side-by-side. I will frankly say that you are only preferring one because you've been taught it's "the gospel." Here's the million dollar question: Who sent them? The truth is, no one did. They claimed Christ had sent them, while they sent themselves.
I can only say that history made a lot more sense when I stopped presuming I knew "the gospel," when I stopped caring what John Calvin (and others) said.
But let me humbly suggest that insofar as this evangelical dabbling in the ancient ways is fueled by ignorance, it is a good thing. It's these Reformation distinctives that deserve challenge. Those commitments beg the question, when the two competing ways of salvation are placed side-by-side. I will frankly say that you are only preferring one because you've been taught it's "the gospel." Here's the million dollar question: Who sent them? The truth is, no one did. They claimed Christ had sent them, while they sent themselves.
I can only say that history made a lot more sense when I stopped presuming I knew "the gospel," when I stopped caring what John Calvin (and others) said.
Comments