I have no idea how he handles the issue of "accepting Christ." Because of his convincing presentation regarding the universality of the redeeming work of Christ, he leaves open a door for criticism by those who do not carefully read his work or who have a working bias that prevents them from doing so. He is a believer.
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 23:27:45 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just finished reading two books: one is The Great Dance, by Kruger and the second, the Letter to the Ephesians, by Paul. ------- all of it is a little overwhelming. Much insight and some questions. I will say that Kruger is no theological liberal. At least, not according to my understanding of such a label. That is not to say that he is a "fundamentalist" either. Perhaps he is just his own man in Christ.
His explanation for the differences and fallacies of both pantheism and deism is somewhat profound. He cautions against a theology that finds the individual lost in the larger notion of God while, on the other hand, embracing a theology that so separates the two (the individual and God) as to place God "up there" and the rest of us "down here." If he has a working teaching of the indwelling Spirit, it is not as evident as it might be.
1. Where is this concept of "universality" written about in scripture?
John 3:16; Eph 1:3-5; Rom 4:25; 5:8, 18 ; II Co 5:19 to name a few. Be careful, here, Judy and try not to straw dog this discussion.
2. Oh no, now you are using the "bias" word along with the "essence" word John.
Bias : : BENT, TENDENCY b : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : PREJUDICE c : an instance of such prejudice d (1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates (2) : systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others
Essence: 1 a : the permanent as contrasted with the accidental element of being b : the individual, real, or ultimate nature of a thing especially as opposed to its existence c : the properties or attributes by means of which something can be placed in its proper class or identified as being what it is
3. He is a "believer" in what? The revelation of God in Christ, or his own ideas?
I use the word "believer " in only one sense -- the biblical sense.
His background is "high church" and that reality plays a larger role in his thinking that even he might suppose. It is his bias. We all have such. Specifically, he does not speak of "justification" except to say that it is overplayed by many in the Western Church.
He rejects the idea of an angry God who is isolated from his creation because of sin and can only deal with us through Christ. He thinks that we have over emphasized the Cross TO THE NEAR EXCLUSION OF THE INCARNATE CHRIST. His argument in defense of such is both effective and biblical.
1. High church? This explains a lot but I wouldn't call this "reality" - it is religious dead works.
It is his reality, his background. None of us escape this issue -- none. You are full of no less bias than Kruger. That is why we compare notes and read and pray.
2. Justification overplayed? With his grandious "incarnational" ideas I guess it is not all that necessary.
The incarnation of Christ is a grandious theology?????? Justification can be overplayed if it is preached to the exclusion of amending and relevant biblical doctrine.
3. Without the cross there is no remission of sin and no reconciliation with God, how can this be OVER EMPHASIZED.
I thought I was clear on that -- when our emphasis excludes the "incarnate Christ" (Kruger). I would say when it excludes the indwelling and transcendent Christ.
4. I'm surprised you would call this kind of argument biblical even if you find it effective John.
As a fundamentalist liberal, I must have book, chapter and verse before I accept anything wild and freaky. That is part of the reason why I don't accept your theoretical application for Ro 2:12-16.
the more narrow issue of the communal essence of a triune God at work in this fallen world is his only real purpose. And, he develops his essay in just less than 100 pages.
He does not believe in universalism and clearly makes the point. However, he spends no time dealing with the problematic issues of universality verses universalism. It is not the purpose of his book to develop a systematic theology. Rather,
1. Sounds more and more to me as though the man does not know God John. Calling the Godhead a "community" give me a break..
Community: 1 : a unified body of individuals: You know, like Father, Son and Holy Ghost
..
Paul's letter is even shorter. But what he says is profound. I had not realized it before, but Paul in this letter is making an effort to show how it is that Gentiles are equally included in the mission and purposes of God through Christ. As this letter relates to Kruger's theme, chapter 1:4-5 are profound. I am going to quote this passage from the New Living Bible.
Long ago, even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes, His unchanging plan has always been to adopt us into his own family by bringing us to himself through Jesus Christ
1. Paul isn't making any such statement John.
Where in the above do you see my comments? Paul isn't making any such statement??
Of course he does. He is the only one talking (in the above.) Like I said before -- don't straw dog this discussion and you are.
Read the "majority text" ..."According as he hath chosen us in him (question, who is
"us" see (Vs.1) us is "the saints which are at Ephesus, and the faithful in Christ Jesus") before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love. Having predestinated us into the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." So you have joined Kruger in making this text say something it was never meant to say. It's focus is on holiness and sanctification in Christ. Not nationality.
"Us" has a universal tone to it (just as does these words "For God so loved the world ....) I found in these words supoortive of much of the theology of Kruger. And just as importantly, I found a little justification for my thinking that Adam was never the complete picture without Christ.
I don't think anyone needs to be afraid to read Kruger --- but it is not for the casual student. By that, I mean that he will make you think. He does not use the high tone words Torrance is fond of -- but his theology is not what most of us are used to. Demon Bias is everywhere. John
It sure is John. Pretty soon sin will be a thing of the past as will be holiness/sanctification. All we will need is the validation of men who hold to these big sweeping theological generalizations to make it. However, God does not change and it was He who inspired the Psalmist to write...
I see no point in my responding to something that I have not said, something that I do not believe and something that I do not teach. You write these words :All we will need is the validation of men who hold to these big sweeping theological generalizations to make it which completely misrepresents the issue. You see my part of this discussion as ending in some kind of theoretical statement -- words as opposed to becoming. I do not want to be defending Kruger and I will not. But you misrepresent him if you believe that he cares more for theory and sanctimony than he does inclusion into the community of God and the image of Christ. Let's stay on issue.
John
"Who shall ascent to the hill of the Lord? or who shall stand in his holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully. He shall receive the blessing from the Lord, and righteousness from the God of his salvation" (Psalm 24:3,4)
