James’s Comments (group member since Mar 30, 2008)

James’s comments from the Anglicans group.

Ouch...I'm a Calvinist. I always feel this is a touchy subject since many people have been burned by some of my Calvinist brothers and sisters (we have a sad history of being pushy, haughty and disdainful toward those who do not share our soteriological beliefs) and since I'm actually not an Anglican, (I'm Presbyterian, PCA) I feel out of place talking about why I'm a Calvinist or why it's so great.

BUT I can always point to the fact that there were (and are) many Anglican priests in the Reformed Tradition. J.C. Ryle, John Stott,and J.I. Packer to name a few off the top of my head. I believe N.T. Wright also, for the most part, is Reformed in his understanding of Free-will, but a recent book of his caused a slight brouhaha amongst the elect (heehee) and they did not know what to do with it.

I've always felt that Anglicanism was a wonderful "Big Tent" home for the different traditions of the Christian faith. To me, an outsider, it looks like Anglicans were able to incorporate these traditions and yet still keep their own identity. One could be an Arminian, a Calvinist, or a Tractarian, and still call themselves an Anglican. That's special I think.

With my Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and non-Reformed brothers I am usually quick to point out, in the spirit of peacemaking, that we can all agree on the idea that God is the one who makes the first move toward us, even before we could ever think about making a move toward Him (1 John 4:10 and Romans 5:8). That is grace. That makes us Christians.

Don't worry I'm still waiting to get paid so I can order mine.

K,

That sounds interesting. I've never heard of Mr. Bell so I'll keep up on your updates. Demolish all false doctrine!!! lol

Eck! I haven't put the order through yet! I shall when I get home. It'll probably come through in 3 days.

Yeah! Cool. Start a thread. I'll try and find it at my book store.

Sounds good to me!

I was thinking the same thing. We should start a new book. Eliot's poetry would be great, but since this is the second time Sayers' name came up for me, I vote that we a read a book of hers. Katharhino, Skylar, and Karen - I believe you all are very familiar with her. Lets read something none of you guys have read...unless all of you have read all of her work lol. I'm a newbie so suggest anything. I could be fiction or essays or whatever. Let me know.

PS-I haven't read a post from the others in the group for some time. I want to hear what everyone else in the group wants too! Please voice your opinions.

Hey K good to see you here! I agree, there is a lot of the NT talking about forgiving our brother/sisters in Christ. Karen's quote though is very good (Mark 11:25) where it says we should forgive "anyone" is used in the context of...anyone lol. I looked it up in several translations and every one of them used the same word (anyone). But even so, even if it was in the context of ONLY our brothers/sisters in Christ, then Mr. Challies' arguement would still be that we must only forgive our brothers/sisters when they ask us for it. It is conditional. On a side note, I wonder if the term "neighbor" in the Good Samaritan story can be translated into "brother" as well.

"...I'm not sure where the Bible directly says that there can be no forgiveness without repentance."

I agree Skylar. Though I think Mr. Challies would argue that the Bible never explicitly says that, only that the "model" given to us by God is that idea, forgiveness being preceded by repentance. I disagree entirely because it says in the word that God loved us before we were forgiven and that Christ was put on the cross WHILE we were still sinners. Forgiveness for us happened before we had a chance to repent.

I feel funny trying to discuss this topic because I feel that it opens up a HUGE can of worms. It goes straight to the mystery of salvation...saved by grace through faith....No act can save us, yet if Mr. Challies is to posit that forgivness from God is coditional (conditioned on our repentance and belief) does he not in fact contradict the doctrine of grace? If repentance is part of reconcilliation/forgiveness then how can we say no act on our part can save us? I don't know...all I know is God is love! Hurray!

This is where my thoughts take me so far. I'm at work so I gotta get back. I'll try and write some more about where I think he is coming from a little bit later. Please anyone jump in.

Glad you joined K!

Thanks for posting the review Karen. I did read it before and thought it was well written and in-depth. I had trouble with one idea though. It was the part where he said that God does not ask us to forgive without there first being repentance.

"Nowhere in Scripture will we find the idea that we can or should forgive an unrepentant person for this kind of crime. Rather, Scripture makes it clear that repentance must precede forgiveness. Without repentance there can be no forgiveness."

I think he is confusing reconciliation with forgiveness. I do believe God models to us a blanket forgiveness, but holds us accountable if we do not accept it. Perhaps that doesn't jive with the idea that Christ died only for the elect, but it doesnt make much sense to me that we are called to love those who have offended us, but still not forgive them. It just seems to me that that idea is so far off the mark. I would love to know what you guys think of this, becausde I found it so hard to Biblically back my idea. Please post some Bible passages that would back your claims. Perhaps we can start a new thread about this subject?

Thanks again for the article Karen.

Don't worry Skylar, I'm kinda a book snob too. Sometimes I get humbled though because I don't think I could write something as good as the said writer.

"Do you think that those of us from more liturgical backgrounds could be more critical of Young's writing, due to our worship styles that emphasize God's mystery and grandeur?"

Hmmm...that's a cool question Karen. Just the other day my cousin asked me why I wasn't Greek Orthodox anymore...he said that they were much more "mystical" than the other Christian denominations. LOL I had to laugh and half-heartedly agree. Perhaps there is a greater sense of reverence in the more liturgical denominations. Perhaps that's part of the reason I attend my church now. But I don't want to think we've somehow conered the market on God's "awesomeness" lol. I think part of it is that we, and when I say we I mean our Goodreads group, are a bit more sensitive to Young's book because we've read amazing fiction that has Zero sentimentality. I think we also get a bit perplexed when we see it in a book that is selling like wildfire. I'm so used to sentimentality in Christian art, so most of the time I just chug along. If I'm not mistaken, Skylar has a degree in Lit and I (almost) have one in Creative Writing...so I think that adds to our snobbery too lol. What do you guys think?

I do have a question for you Skylar, pertaining to the same topic. A friend of mine pointed this out, and I don't know if I would have picked up on it or really felt it unless he said something. He said that reading those scenes between the Trinity was like saying "God's relationship with Himself, and us, is really just an idealized human relationship." He believes that the relationship seen in the Shack is limiting and a little unflattering to God. Though I can see what he is saying, I'm not sure I totally agree. What do you think of this?

And what you said about the Gospel is so true. I heard someone once say that all redemption stories, the ancient myths, contemporary stuff, and so on, point to THE redemption story of the Gospel. It's funny, sometimes I read or watch a story and I completely hone in on a sacrifice aspect. Even if the film or book has nothing to do with Christianity, I get moved by its reflection of the Gospel in a scene. God bless.

Hey Karen, glad you liked it. Yes, I thought it a very interesting observation by Wolff. In a way I thought maybe he was almost saying that "good" or "bad" art doesn't mean one has more "truth" than the other, and how aesthetics can sometimes shape our realties. Some cool things to ponder.

"...the author focuses quite a bit on how the Trinity is relational – how God must exist in relationship with Himself in order for him to be Love - and how it is an example of how we are supposed to be relational and are made to live in relationship with one another. What did you think of that part of the book?"

I did love the idea in the book and it was one easy to catch onto because of the sermons I've heard. Watching the Trinity "in play" so to speak was refreshing. It sometimes got a bit sappy with the "devotional" times He spent together, but what I took from it was that it is much harder to love/encourage the people around you than it is to help/criticise them. (Sadly, I talk from experience). I think encouraging and tell others how you feel about them (honestly and openly, not any of that flattery stuff) comes from a place of great self-esteem and love of oneself, which I feel is wholly possible by knowing how much God esteems and loves me. God makes love look so easy.

Man I still haven't read it! I will soon though. Great quote by the way Karen.

I know this isn't exactly fit with the title of the thread, but I just read this essay written by Tobias Wolff about faith and I thought it very insightful. I hope you guys get a chance to read it. It is very short.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/20...

Now I wanna go out and see the movie, lol.

Yes, I have to say thank you to you both, Karen and Skylar, for your comments which were very insightful. You both come from a place of wisdom that I respect very much.

I agree with both of you guys on so many things. I don't feel like we should throw this book into the fire and call it heresy, but I do wish it was able to convey difficult ideas about God in a better way because sometimes I felt the author came from a revisionist standpoint insead of a traditionalist. Especially when he started talking about paradigms and such.

I, like Karen, do believe it would be of use for non-believers (especially those of different faiths) because it tries to depict God's love, mercy, and Christ's atoning sacrifice (Though, I do wish it deleved into that a little more deeply, I think "The Grand Inquisitor" is far more satisfying than this entire book). I understand in a way we may be splitting hairs (I still don't think that the book did a good job in dealing with God's justice and punishment of evil), but why is it that Lewis' books are never questioned or debunked? Why was his understanding of the Gospel more accurate than Young's?

I'm not sure if agree with the idea that all this conjecturing about the Trinity is useless. I know we will never really "get" this unfathomable mystery, but we do know "this much." Like we can't say there are three gods that make one or that the Trinity are seperate beings. I feel we do take some of the theology for granted because the early Church fathers had to argue out all the things we believe today. So I don't think it's completely presumptious to say what-is-what in Trinity theology. Whether one proceeds from the other...I mean that doesn't affect my daily faith...maybe someone could convince of that another day, but I do believe that God soaks up all our "bad theology" in His Son's sacrifice, and I'm sure we have plenty of it when we start formulating systematic theology about the Trinity. Yet I also know that there are some things we need to draw the line on when someone is trying to teach us or others. I still have a long way to go in learning where that line is, but I believe discussing theology of the Trinity is useful to Christians, even though it is a profound mystery.

Actually, one of my favorite things that my pastor pointed out to us was about the Trinity was that He is a relational God and we, like Him, are made to be relational. One of those aspects of being made in His image and likeness. I thought that was very beautiful and true. Thank you so much for our lively discussions guys. Ibrahim! I wish you read the book so I could hear what you thought of it. Looking forward to more. God bless you friends.

Word Karen. I would argue that God has no gender or sex (because He has no body or parts of a particular gender), but would definitely agree that He has maleness and femaleness qualities. It's funny because those were the same two verses I looked towards to view God the Father as being both those qualities. Yet, somehow we call God, Father and Him "him." Perhaps representing Him as a woman in a story isn't so horrendous, but I think it was Mark Driscoll who purported that doing so makes it "goddess worship." That's a bit hard to swallow, but what can I say, I really don't know enough.

"...it takes a wonderful, awe-inspiring, loving mystery and makes it into a Hallmark card"

word.