Thank you for this post. I wonder if you have counsel for those like myself who feel great tension between Anglican tradition and identity and the minority that orthodox Anglicans seem to be in the US. This is something that weighs me down often. God bless
Interesting post. Were there any books that convinced you of the scriptural case for hopeful universalism? I've been dipping into 'Hee Gates Will Never Shut' by Bradley Jersak this year.
I was compelled by the book Christ Triumphant by Thomas Allin. I also enjoyed Metropolitan Kallistos Ware's piece on it. It can be found online in PDF format.
1. I would not go that far. I attended a Dispy church for years, and they were no heretics. I like to say Dispensationalists are not as right as they think they are, but they are more right than everyone else thinks they are. ;)
4. Again I would not go that far. C'mon.
5. I appreciate your humility about the eternal state. I do pray you do not move further into Univeralism. That tendency is perhaps my biggest problem with Orthodoxy.
6. I won't nitpick on this one. Multiculturalism IS evil. Look what it is already doing to the West. Cultures are not equal, and not all should be tolerated in the West.
1. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I truly think dispensationalism is evil and comes close to proclaiming a different gospel. I attended a dispensational church for years as well and was formed in a dispensational ethos, so I am familiar with how faithful to Christ many of them are. Doesn't change my thoughts about the actual system.
4. Yeah, this one is harsh. I'm just not certain that I can look at Anabaptist history and the subsequent Baptist history and conclude that they are truly following the faith once for all delivered. I will say this, though: the catholic conscious ones like Matthew Barrett are a great asset to the Church and have done a lot to begin to bring the Baptist tradition into a more catholic alignment.
5. I am quite certain that I cannot go any further than hope on this one. Orthodoxy demands that I never go further, and that is my ultimate authority to which I humbly submit.
Funny thing about the Anabaptists. Even when Rome and the Protestants were at war at various times after the Reformation, they were on the same team when it came to the Anabaptists. See how the Munster rebellion was put down. :)
I agree with almost all of your points. I have a question, though, about the assimilation into a culture. I agree that people ought to assimilate into a culture if they move into it, and that generally, people ought to be proud of their cultural heritage and should support its continuance. But what happens when a culture gets something seriously wrong, and the moral authorities remain ambivalent towards it because of its widespread and longstanding place in the culture? I'm thinking here of circumcision, though I'm sure many other examples could be identified. Circumcision remains a common cultural practice in the US, and to a lesser extent in other parts of the English-speaking world. Most people see it as a morally neutral issue and relatively benign. However, I argue that that perception is due solely to inculturation, and that it is actually an egregious moral evil. Cultures that don't practice it are naturally, and rightfully, abhorred by it, and often shocked to learn that it is so common in the US. This is a practice that Americans are only unbothered by because of its near ubiquity here. Most are, essentially, brainwashed by the culture to accept it and think nothing ill of it, and only those who are able to question its value critically ever seem to dislodge themselves from their passive praise of it. I imagine the child-sacrifice of the cultures that once practiced it would look upon that practice similarly. It is so familiar that it simply never occurred to them to question it. What would you say is one's responsibility of assimilation and propagation towards a culture that includes objectively evil practices that are not condemned as such and the culture's moral authorities proclaim it as acceptable?
Great question. My answer gets into my politics a bit. I would argue that when a culture promulgates truly vile things, those things should be overturned by Christian ethics and morality. The preservation of culture must subordinate itself to the Christian ethic, and Christians living in a culture that accepts evil must work to influence the culture away from that. I would argue this is not to the destruction of the culture, but for its sanctification.
What would you say, again using circumcision as an example, for something that Christian ethic "officially" has no position on? Things that, without a defined ethic, is left to individual opinion, where one Christian might think it is vile (as I do) and others do not? For the sake of argument, let's say it is objectively evil, but the majority of the populace is truly unaware of its evil, and the Church refuses to take a position. Would you say the person who sees it correctly should ignore the culture, or accept that perhaps his own opinion is wrong and submit to the culture against his conscience?
I think, like most matters in the Church that are undefined, we must do the hard work of conversing, making it a more public issue, and hoping that as time goes on, the Church reaches a consensus on it. That may take generations, but it begins now, with making it part of ecclesial ethical discussions. That would be my two cents.
I'd be interested to hear more about why you believe dispensationalism is heresy.
I've noticed that evangelicals have no problem condemning hyper-preterisim, because it rejects the physicality of our resurrected bodies. Which is definitely a problem; the resurrection of the body is absolutely necessary.
But when it comes to rejecting the unified body of Christ, which dispensationalism rejects, evangelicals seem to have no issue with that. I think the reason why is because of their low view of the church. Which helps them overlook dispensationalism, which clings to the shadows and rips apart the one unified man into two separate groups. And it's ironic, because the word heresy, if I remember right, means division or schism in the Greek. So dispensational theology is literally schismatic eschatology. And that is not an eschatology that we should tolerate.
Correct
🌳 One day at a time Amigo....
.....and Christ is RISEN! ✨☦️⛪
Thank you for this post. I wonder if you have counsel for those like myself who feel great tension between Anglican tradition and identity and the minority that orthodox Anglicans seem to be in the US. This is something that weighs me down often. God bless
Interesting post. Were there any books that convinced you of the scriptural case for hopeful universalism? I've been dipping into 'Hee Gates Will Never Shut' by Bradley Jersak this year.
I was compelled by the book Christ Triumphant by Thomas Allin. I also enjoyed Metropolitan Kallistos Ware's piece on it. It can be found online in PDF format.
Brave man. Now I will nitpick.
1. I would not go that far. I attended a Dispy church for years, and they were no heretics. I like to say Dispensationalists are not as right as they think they are, but they are more right than everyone else thinks they are. ;)
4. Again I would not go that far. C'mon.
5. I appreciate your humility about the eternal state. I do pray you do not move further into Univeralism. That tendency is perhaps my biggest problem with Orthodoxy.
6. I won't nitpick on this one. Multiculturalism IS evil. Look what it is already doing to the West. Cultures are not equal, and not all should be tolerated in the West.
Thanks for the engagement!
1. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I truly think dispensationalism is evil and comes close to proclaiming a different gospel. I attended a dispensational church for years as well and was formed in a dispensational ethos, so I am familiar with how faithful to Christ many of them are. Doesn't change my thoughts about the actual system.
4. Yeah, this one is harsh. I'm just not certain that I can look at Anabaptist history and the subsequent Baptist history and conclude that they are truly following the faith once for all delivered. I will say this, though: the catholic conscious ones like Matthew Barrett are a great asset to the Church and have done a lot to begin to bring the Baptist tradition into a more catholic alignment.
5. I am quite certain that I cannot go any further than hope on this one. Orthodoxy demands that I never go further, and that is my ultimate authority to which I humbly submit.
6. Glad we agree.
Funny thing about the Anabaptists. Even when Rome and the Protestants were at war at various times after the Reformation, they were on the same team when it came to the Anabaptists. See how the Munster rebellion was put down. :)
Again, I appreciate your humility on 5.
I agree with almost all of your points. I have a question, though, about the assimilation into a culture. I agree that people ought to assimilate into a culture if they move into it, and that generally, people ought to be proud of their cultural heritage and should support its continuance. But what happens when a culture gets something seriously wrong, and the moral authorities remain ambivalent towards it because of its widespread and longstanding place in the culture? I'm thinking here of circumcision, though I'm sure many other examples could be identified. Circumcision remains a common cultural practice in the US, and to a lesser extent in other parts of the English-speaking world. Most people see it as a morally neutral issue and relatively benign. However, I argue that that perception is due solely to inculturation, and that it is actually an egregious moral evil. Cultures that don't practice it are naturally, and rightfully, abhorred by it, and often shocked to learn that it is so common in the US. This is a practice that Americans are only unbothered by because of its near ubiquity here. Most are, essentially, brainwashed by the culture to accept it and think nothing ill of it, and only those who are able to question its value critically ever seem to dislodge themselves from their passive praise of it. I imagine the child-sacrifice of the cultures that once practiced it would look upon that practice similarly. It is so familiar that it simply never occurred to them to question it. What would you say is one's responsibility of assimilation and propagation towards a culture that includes objectively evil practices that are not condemned as such and the culture's moral authorities proclaim it as acceptable?
Great question. My answer gets into my politics a bit. I would argue that when a culture promulgates truly vile things, those things should be overturned by Christian ethics and morality. The preservation of culture must subordinate itself to the Christian ethic, and Christians living in a culture that accepts evil must work to influence the culture away from that. I would argue this is not to the destruction of the culture, but for its sanctification.
What would you say, again using circumcision as an example, for something that Christian ethic "officially" has no position on? Things that, without a defined ethic, is left to individual opinion, where one Christian might think it is vile (as I do) and others do not? For the sake of argument, let's say it is objectively evil, but the majority of the populace is truly unaware of its evil, and the Church refuses to take a position. Would you say the person who sees it correctly should ignore the culture, or accept that perhaps his own opinion is wrong and submit to the culture against his conscience?
I think, like most matters in the Church that are undefined, we must do the hard work of conversing, making it a more public issue, and hoping that as time goes on, the Church reaches a consensus on it. That may take generations, but it begins now, with making it part of ecclesial ethical discussions. That would be my two cents.
I'd be interested to hear more about why you believe dispensationalism is heresy.
I've noticed that evangelicals have no problem condemning hyper-preterisim, because it rejects the physicality of our resurrected bodies. Which is definitely a problem; the resurrection of the body is absolutely necessary.
But when it comes to rejecting the unified body of Christ, which dispensationalism rejects, evangelicals seem to have no issue with that. I think the reason why is because of their low view of the church. Which helps them overlook dispensationalism, which clings to the shadows and rips apart the one unified man into two separate groups. And it's ironic, because the word heresy, if I remember right, means division or schism in the Greek. So dispensational theology is literally schismatic eschatology. And that is not an eschatology that we should tolerate.