If anyone wants to cut to the chase. The last half hour of lecture 18 summarises Jerram Barrs' view of the basis on which ought to evanglise.

----------------
I thank Thee, uncreated Sun, That Thy bright beams on me have shined; I thank Thee, who hast overthrown My foes, and healed my wounded mind;

Quote:
I have no objection to that, but he said that Human beings always manifest the image of God. Sure, all men are made in his image, but since the entrance of sin into the human race we express many things that are nothing like God. Isn’t a definition of manifest: something that is clearly evident, obvious or apparent to the eye or the understanding? In that sense Jesus would fit that description and could lay claim to always manifesting the image and likeness of God. Hence Paul with regard to our salvation talks in Ephesians 4 about putting off the old man and putting on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Doesn’t the new man always manifest something that’s fundamentally different from the old man?

I understand your interest in Calvinism. It’s hard to ignore a system of thought that is so comprehensive and has been very influential in shaping the doctrinal understanding in a large section of protestant Christendom. I am not sure though if Calvinism as we know it today is a true reflection of what John Calvin originally set out to do. His intention had been to accurately reflect the teaching of the bible in his writing and preaching. That is always a good basis to go from. His comentaries on the bible can be found in the Institutes, which contains seventy nine chapters. The new testament talks a lot about doctrine. In Titus 1:9 it talks about encouraging others by sound doctrine and in 2:10 we learn that the way we express doctrine in our life can make the teaching about God our savior attractive. That would imply that our behavior as Christians can make the teaching about God unattractive also! How many people have been turned away from Christianity because of this?

So what is sound doctrine? You can probably define it in many ways, but one way of looking at it is that it is an interpretation of scripture that is a true reflection of what the bible teaches. How can we know what is sound? To determine that, I think it is helpful and probably essential to identify in the bible and in particular the new testament God’s ultimate objective and goal for mankind. Obviously his goal for us must be what he said about us in the first conversation on record in Genesis 1:27 “ Let us make man in our image, in our likeness.” That’s how God likes to see us, but Adam and Eve never got into the full potential of that. God needed their obedience and unfortunately they choose not to listen to him. But, now we are talking again, for in Christ he accomplished his eternal purpose, Ephesians 3:11. Should we then look for something else while it is clear from Romans 8:28 That we have been called by God according to his purpose to be conformed to the image of his Son.

So, no doctrine is really sound or of value unless the sum total of its teaching helps us to come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, Ephesians 4:13.

By the way, thanks for referring me to the CCEL website, it was very helpful.

Quote:
It was encouraging to hear him talk about adjusting our language to fit in with the understanding of the people we talk to about Christ. Unfortunately this still meets with resistance from some sections of the Christian Community, who might see it as being too liberal or modernistic, being feared that this will take away from the truth of the scriptures.

Paul who coined the phrase ‘being all things to all people’ had learned a great deal from Jesus whose example he followed. You could say that in this Paul is a man after God’s heart. Didn’t God do just that in Jesus when he ingeniously revealed all the truth of scripture in him, being made in human likeness, just like us, in language we could understand? ( Philippians 2:7 ).

Quote:
According to the preface the Institutes were an 'apology' to defend the beliefs of the reformed Christians and is dedicated to the king of France, as far as I recall. It also had a pastoral goal and is written in very user-friendly language.

The commentaries are separate to the Institutes. The Institutes AND the Commentaries give a pretty full statement of Calvin's views. He commented, as far as I recall, on the whole of the NT but without Revelation, which he said he didn't understand. He was hard at work on the a commentary for the Old Testament and died while still writing a commentary on Ezekiel.

----------------
His/Yours
Ron B

God deals with hand-crafted masterpieces not mass-produced replicas.

Biblebase Second Thoughts Blog

While you were out Ron I had a pretty strong discussion with some radical FPC folks on FB. They were saying they were 'fighting back' and had labeled Wesley and most the rest of us as heretics. Needless to say I didn't persuade them so I was un-friended (or whatever they may call it). All the while I felt I was getting a better context for what may have brought about a Charles G. Finney.

----------------
Robert Wurtz II

Obedience is better esteemed with God than acquired knowledge, it is the most important lesson -fundamental to the gaining of all spiritual knowledge from God. (GW North)

The Girded Mind

FPC?

----------------
His/Yours
Ron B

God deals with hand-crafted masterpieces not mass-produced replicas.

Biblebase Second Thoughts Blog

Five point Calvinism.

----------------
Robert Wurtz II

Obedience is better esteemed with God than acquired knowledge, it is the most important lesson -fundamental to the gaining of all spiritual knowledge from God. (GW North)

The Girded Mind