Confused by Adrian

I know that we are all inconsistent and that our thinking develops over time. However, Adrian's current agreement with me leaves me rather confused.

In THE GOSPEL - Do Nothing! Adrian is agreeing with my post 42: Something to do! which links to GospelDrivenLife: Living in the Gospel in an age of self-help.

My problem is that this view seems to be in conflict with so much of what Adrian normally writes. For example The simple gospel in 10 points is a detailed list of exactly what we need to DO to be saved. I argued with it at the time and it still seems to me to be a great example of a self help program which is exactly what the current posts are arguing against.

Or take everything that Adrian has written on atonement, in every case he attempts to tie down exactly what we must believe in order to be an Evangelical Christian. Yet now he highlights in red:

If people leave my preaching confident in the rules and principles I have given them, I have preached a false Gospel. If they leave the room confident in the faithful grace and power of the Savior to work in them as they seek to obey -- I have preached the Gospel.

As a simple and naive person I do not understand how these can be compatible. Adrian lays down clear rules and principles and tells us to be confident in them, now he is telling us that to do that is to preach a false gospel.

So Adrian, has your understanding and teaching moved on from laying down detailed processes and requirements on how we get saved? Has your understanding and teaching moved on from laying down the law about exactly what must be believed?

Comments

[Mark Lauterbach]

Since I am the guy whose post prompted all this, let me clarify.

There is a great deal of difference between believing a message which says I cannot help myself (which is not a process or a requirement, so much as coming to an end of all processes and requirements) and living out a message that I can help myself by various techniques.

It is true it can sound like a technique, but that is to distort the message. If I am thirsty, coming to drink is not a technique. But trying to make my own water would be self-help.

[Dave Warnock]

Sorry Mark but you have left me more confused.

When I see a list of 10 steps to be followed (in the correct order as they say within themselves) which achieve an end result then how can this be anything but "living out a message that I can help myself by various techniques"?

Coming to drink is not a technique. But a series of instructions and requirements about exactly how you should drink, what you should think of the drink, what you should think about while you drink etc is.

Now I realise that I have taken your post a step further than you did. I agree with your original premise that the Church can often get distracted into being a self help process.

However, I also take very seriously the part I highlighted in my original post 42: Something to do! which seems to me to highlight the danger of our preaching leaving no room for the Spirit, no room for God to act, nothing but a process to sign up to. The danger of turning the Gospel and Salvation into an entirely human process. That is not true to the Jesus we see in the Gospels.

[Adrian Warnock]

Not ignoring you. Short answer is it has a lot to do with the sentiment you expressed in the needing the Spirit post, longer answer will have to wait. 2 talks to prepare this week as well as secular work and family committments. No time to blog - am on my "light blogging" month.

[Dave Warnock]

I can wait. Take time for the family and everything else you need to do.

[Adrian Warnock]

Thanks for the understanding! Life is like at 100mph at the moment!