Wednesday, February 18, 2009

McKnight's "Neo-Reformed" II

Scot McKnight's second and more substantive post on what he's calling the "neo-Reformed" trend out there.

I want to reiterate that people of any intellectual position are welcome to post and help me think here. That means Reformed, atheist, Wesleyan, Catholic, Lutheran, skeptic, scholar. Even the "neo-Reformed" are welcome to post here (and they have :-). I have rarely deleted a comment, well or mean-spirited.

6 comments:

james petticrew said...

Yeah but oh that the doctrines of grace would help some Calvinists treat other believers with grace!

Angie Van De Merwe said...

I personally don't like the whole conversation, as Barth wouldn't even be included, as he is neo-orthodox...and with the struggle to re-interpret or understand Scriptures within a scientific framwork, the divide even deepens, for me, the irrelavancy of that (Noe-orthodox) discussion...

It is a struggle to "make claims" that are not proveable, only by "faith" in one's understanding of Scripture, so how in "the world" does anyone think they can defend it or live their life based on it?

I find many "so called" secular organizations that do "good" (the same good) as Christian organizations, so why be a part of a divisive, small minded, exclusivistic group such as evangelicalism that likes to point out the distinctives to the extent of exclusion, "discipline"?

The AAR being excluded from the SBL is a case in point! And wasn't Calvin's "Geneva" another case in point on Calvin's understanding of grace?

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Oops, I meant to say that the Neo-reformed discussion is irrelavant...

Ken Schenck said...

AAR left SBL, much to just about everyone's dismay except its own leadership. They are now at least going to meet with us at the same time again, even though they insist on being separate. As a result, there are several new SBL groups this year that have jumped ship and will be doing AAR type topics with SBL. SBL is not confessional or partisan in the least.

Your knee jerk assumption that the "Bible people" were being exclusivist is thus completely topsy turvy. It was individuals who didn't want to be associated with "Bible people" who distanced themselves. This is deeply ironic, since SBL is hardly sectarian.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Sorry, I was thinking of ETS, which is the evangelical branch of theological "reflection', which is what the whole discussion of neo-reformed is about, isn't it?

I do believe that Scriptures have been used to divide, but then, even the Chruch divided from the Jews didn't they? I mean Augustine and Luther were pretty anti-semitic...and the Jews were ???

Pizza Man said...

Roger Olson has chimed in too, agreeing with Scot's assessment.

Link: arminians.org