Much of my thinking was shaped in the 'heat' of online debates. And one of the best sparring partners I ever had must be my senior collegemate, Alwyn Lau.
We were in the same CF... then, we were also in the consulting line - "con and insulting" - for a while. Once we bumped into each other at the Jakarta airport, of all places. Some of his musings can be seen in his blog below:
http://www.mblog.com/alwynlau/061310.html
His description of our online epics was apt:
"We're fighters. Theological warriors who battle for every inch of doctrinal 'ground'."
It's strange that we always manage to find common grounds in face-to-face chats, but when we're online, something about the 'impersonality' of the Net made us, well, more fact-oriented. Still, despite all our deep-seated disagreements, Alwyn is in my estimation one of the most gifted, creative and robust Christian minds in the country.
Perhaps one of my frustrations has always been that we can't agree on what we disagree.
For example, he may still think that I slam him for his 'liberal theology' and branded him a heretic because he thinks "the future doesn't exist to be known".
Well, I distinctly remember that the view that 'God does not know everything about the future' is a serious error but when I brandish the label 'heresy'... I was not referring to any view of the future.
I have used such language when my dear friend denied the doctrine of Christ as having two natures -fully divine and fully human, each retaining its full attributes. (as spelt out in the Chalcedon Council)
When he asserts something about Christ sacrificing His divine attributes or that He possess only a human body minus the human soul, the situation seems to call out for such grave warnings.
By golly, that's a touchstone of orthodoxy! It's not a storm in a teacup... We say the same thing about Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses, don't we?
For that, he has branded me as over-reliant on tradition and I have criticised him for making dubious exegesis without proper interaction with tradition. Heheh...
In a way, both of us are merely playing out at a micro level the ongoing macro-level 'identity crisis' that's happening among evangelicals today.
"The traditionalists see the need for firm confessional boundaries, while the reformists intentionally will seek to draw no such boundaries."
www.antithesis.com/pdf/reformist-evangelicalism.pdf
Am I against all versions of 'ecumenism'?
Well, it depends on what we mean by that term. I worship in a mainline denomination which engages and has missionary links with liberal churches in UK. My conviction is that evangelicals cannot open their arms so wide that essential truth is choked to death by the time we close the embrace. I wish Alwyn's concern for the love of God does not subsume equally important aspects of His truth and justice, that's all.
With you in beholding God in all His glory
Dave
PS: Ironically, if you follow the latest offerings in Hedonese@yahoogroups, a funny presuppositionalist has been beating down my head for my unbiblical apologetics!
We were in the same CF... then, we were also in the consulting line - "con and insulting" - for a while. Once we bumped into each other at the Jakarta airport, of all places. Some of his musings can be seen in his blog below:
http://www.mblog.com/alwynlau/061310.html
His description of our online epics was apt:
"We're fighters. Theological warriors who battle for every inch of doctrinal 'ground'."
It's strange that we always manage to find common grounds in face-to-face chats, but when we're online, something about the 'impersonality' of the Net made us, well, more fact-oriented. Still, despite all our deep-seated disagreements, Alwyn is in my estimation one of the most gifted, creative and robust Christian minds in the country.
Perhaps one of my frustrations has always been that we can't agree on what we disagree.
For example, he may still think that I slam him for his 'liberal theology' and branded him a heretic because he thinks "the future doesn't exist to be known".
Well, I distinctly remember that the view that 'God does not know everything about the future' is a serious error but when I brandish the label 'heresy'... I was not referring to any view of the future.
I have used such language when my dear friend denied the doctrine of Christ as having two natures -fully divine and fully human, each retaining its full attributes. (as spelt out in the Chalcedon Council)
When he asserts something about Christ sacrificing His divine attributes or that He possess only a human body minus the human soul, the situation seems to call out for such grave warnings.
By golly, that's a touchstone of orthodoxy! It's not a storm in a teacup... We say the same thing about Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses, don't we?
For that, he has branded me as over-reliant on tradition and I have criticised him for making dubious exegesis without proper interaction with tradition. Heheh...
In a way, both of us are merely playing out at a micro level the ongoing macro-level 'identity crisis' that's happening among evangelicals today.
"The traditionalists see the need for firm confessional boundaries, while the reformists intentionally will seek to draw no such boundaries."
www.antithesis.com/pdf/reformist-evangelicalism.pdf
Am I against all versions of 'ecumenism'?
Well, it depends on what we mean by that term. I worship in a mainline denomination which engages and has missionary links with liberal churches in UK. My conviction is that evangelicals cannot open their arms so wide that essential truth is choked to death by the time we close the embrace. I wish Alwyn's concern for the love of God does not subsume equally important aspects of His truth and justice, that's all.
With you in beholding God in all His glory
Dave
PS: Ironically, if you follow the latest offerings in Hedonese@yahoogroups, a funny presuppositionalist has been beating down my head for my unbiblical apologetics!
Comments