Comments for stephenmurray.co.za

Comment on Web Crawling by Clara

Clara — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:40:18 +0000

Also check out this really good dialogue between Ross Douthat and a “secular liberal” in Slate magazine: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_book_club/features/2012/ross_douthat_s_bad_religion/ross_douthat_s_bad_religion_faith_and_american_culture_.html

Comment on Web Crawling by Ryan Peter

Ryan Peter — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 19:25:19 +0000

In line with the Bad Religion book though (which looks really good), in a South African context we’ve not only had to deal with the Apartheid heresy (which I think has caused considerable damage to the church) but also the importing of the prosperity gospel, along with all of it’s usual extreme charismatic vibes. In fact, this particular version of the gospel is rife in Africa, and it keeps growing quite alarmingly.

Comment on Web Crawling by Ryan Peter

Ryan Peter — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 19:22:00 +0000

“I’ll be honest, I’ve been rather disappointed by the unbalanced stream of reporting on religion or faith-based issues that has come from the Daily Maverick recently.”

Yeah, know what you mean.

Comment on Two Kingdoms vs Transformationalist by Stephen Murray

Stephen Murray — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 08:55:32 +0000

Thanks for the link. I read the article and I really think 2K’s guys need to present themselves better (like Horton says) because I’ve heard 2K’s people explain their view to me almost word for word the same as Keller explains it in his article.

Comment on Two Kingdoms vs Transformationalist by johncp

johncp — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 05:42:15 +0000

This article of Mike Horton responds to Keller with some good points:
http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2011/12/17/christ-and-culture-once-more/

Comment on The Main Thing is the Only Thing by Thomas Scarborough

Thomas Scarborough — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 20:29:14 +0000

The issue is perhaps that the Word is to be interpreted either in terms of the gospel, or on its own terms — a major contemporary debate. That is, it is either to be relativised by the gospel, or all of it is to be in an important sense absolute.

Comment on The Main Thing is the Only Thing by Stephen Murray

Stephen Murray — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 16:40:57 +0000

@John – I’m not sure I completely understand what you’re proposing. Maybe that would help. Here’s my thing: When Jesus says in Luke 24 that the Bible is about him I just don’t think that in his head he’s going, “Well it’s mostly about me – there is some other stuff in there: law, wisdom – but it’s mostly about me.” Now to be fair to Joe Thorn he probably wouldn’t put it that way either. But I really feel like Jesus, and the examples of the pastoral approach that the apostles use in their letters, is pushing us to see that it’s all about Jesus, it’s all about the gospel. I know that’s nuanced and I know it needs explanation but I really think the main thing is the only thing as far as the content of the Christian faith is concerned. I also have a sneaking suspicion that if we get this right we’ll get the tension right too. But then what do I know.

Comment on The Main Thing is the Only Thing by John Scheepers

John Scheepers — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 14:07:39 +0000

At the risk of taking this off on another debatable issue… Is it perhaps our choice of language/terminology that frames some of the debate? So if for instance we used Kingdom language a bit more – some of that tension between indicative and imperative may be lessened?

In other words the gospel (declaration) is a word about the in-breaking rule and reign of King Jesus. This word is a declaration that it is good to live under the reign of King Jesus and that Jesus has made it possible for us to do that. The gospel word then invites us to live under the reign of King Jesus.

I realise that the tension still remains but it (certainly to me) feels less of a tension than when we frame the issue in “personal salvation” language. Rather than personal salvation as a “subset” of the bigger Kingdom declaration/invitation?

Now, as I know you will, show me fault/lack in that line of thinking?

Comment on The Main Thing is the Only Thing by Leslie

Leslie — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 13:14:03 +0000

Great Post. I haven’t been following this issue that closely but you make me want to check it out. At first glance, I probably totally agree with you (surprise!) and I don’t think you’re spouting nonsense at all.

Comment on DeYoung, Tchividjian and the Issue of Sanctification by Johncp

Johncp — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 05:49:08 +0000

Stephen

I have been following this exchange and at first was a bit surprised that TT felt it necessary to respond to DeYoung’s post. It also seems strange to see people trying to disagree in such an agreeable way! Maybe they are both completely right.
And maybe the different emphases come from a different error that they have in mind. DeYoung, in both posts, refers to the Keswick error in viewing sanctification as a second step of surrender and faith (Let go and let God), whereas TT is probably thinking of evangelicalism’s propensity to moralism (hence the Horton quotes).
I come from a strong Andrew Murray influence and therefore resonate with what DeYoung is saying. You say: I’d want to tentatively argue that a lack of sanctification will always be accompanied by a lack of ‘heartfelt commitment to gospel-drenched justification‘ and vice-versa. And yet I lived in total assurance of and commitment to my justification – yet lacking in sanctification (or at least a real sense of it).
My problem was that I was waiting for God to do something in my life – to really show up; and then realized that He already had (completely – a la Tchividjian) and that I had to fully do (a la DeYoung!). My real growth and peace came when I took the “strive” (agonizomai) commands seriously. I had been waiting for God to meet me so that I could really pray, but when I just started to pray He met me.
DeYoung is correct to put some emphasis on imperatives. Just look again at his first post and see how circumspectly he does it. I suffered in my growth for too long because I did not take these imperatives seriously. I think he is talking to people who are like I was. In the west we are surrounded by Christians who do not take the imperatives seriously.
I have been preaching through Ephesians for over a year now, and have just come to chapter 4. The soaking in the indicatives has been so encouraging. (The only imperative in the first three chapters is: 2:12 “remember”!) Now the imperatives start – and they need to be taken as seriously. It might just be that DeYoung if focussing on the people that live in Eph 1-3 and Tchividjian on those that tend to live in Eph 4-6. We need them both, and we need to hear what DeYoung is saying.
Blessings