Two Questions:
1. What sort of "ballast" do you think we can gain from Edwards's distinguishing himself a Calvinist while "utterly" disclaiming a dependence upon Calvin?
2. Is it easier to run from a distinction [perhaps being distinquished as a Baptist or Anglican] than to bear its "reproach" by identifying with its name properly understood?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Excellent questions; would that my answers had such merit . . .
1. It is interesting to me that up until the 20th Century, Muslims were called "Muhammedians" by the West. The parallel is clear: Christ is to the Christian as Muhammed is to the Muhammedian. When a belief is historically founded on the teachings of a certain individual, it makes sense to allow for that individual's proper name. Paul is not renouncing Christ in his first letter to the church in Corinth; rather, he seeks to ensure that the gospel was not so distorted by his rhetoric that it rendered believers "Paulists." (i.e. "of Paul, or Apollos, of Cephas," etc.) To force the same distinction between the ideas of John Calvin--"Calvinism"--and his name is absurd. After all, if Calvin is wrong it is better for us all that we have his name to attach to it. By the same token, if Paul is wrong in preaching the gospel, then it is Christ who is wrong--for the gospel was to be the message of Jesus of Nazareth, the CHRISTOS (Messiah). This is why it is most helpful if Islam is renounced in favor of Muhammedism--this puts the focus on their prophet. It is upon the credibility of his witness alone that their religion stands or falls.
2. To the second question I will return a question of my own: if within the fold of Christ, some disagreement is commendable--identified by names such as "Anglican," "Baptist," "Methodist," "Wesleyan," etc--what then is the proper nature of secondary separation over and against heresy / orthodoxy proper?
~Reepicheep~
Post a Comment