This is where my brain feels "Hulued..."

My theology professor, Mike Wittmer, has asked some questions regarding emergents and belief (again).  First of all, please read the post before commenting here, as what I am about to put down won't make any sense.

My friend Randy Buist and Mike have been dialoguing back and forth about Mike's questions from the post, with Randy and Mike both articulating their positions extremely well. My main concern is on issues of salvation, which seems to be the underlying tone of the post.  I'm just putting this here to chronicle my thoughts (so I don't forget them) and have a reference point for the future.  Here is what I posted on Mike Wittmer's blog:

Here's a few questions I have regarding this discussion:

1. What was the purpose of the ancient church creeds?  Are these just natural results of a emerging Westernized/Hellenistic influence on an eastern religion (Christianity)?

2. Is "believe" according to Paul ONLY intellectual assent?  My understanding is that it is both/and. Randy seems to assert that right practice is the starting point, Mike Wittmer says that right practice comes from what you intellectually assent to (believe).

3. What is the basis of salvation in Christ?  Is it repentance? What does that mean to Randy and to Mike?

4. What does "making Jesus your Lord" mean? What portion of intellectual assent and right practice is involved?  I think this question probably is closely tied to my previous question.

These are huge questions for me.  I resonate with much of what Randy is saying and think that it offers great hope, however, I recognize Mike's caution as we maybe just losing proclaiming Jesus with our mouths altogether, and just live by his example.  Does that make him just a great teacher?  Is that in the spirit of what Ghandi said about him?

I'm trying in integrate all of these things.  I'm taking a course on Historical theology of the ancient church and I'm mesmerized on how many times Christians banded together to combat incorrect thinking about God. 

Mike Wittmer has said in class, "Orthodoxy only rises in lieu of heresy."  That statement disturbs me a little, but at the same time there is so much history on creeds.

I also am sensitive to Jewish understandings of belief, that they emphasized right practice much more than intellectual assent.  I'm not saying they didn't think it was important (study is the highest form of worship to a Jew), but it seems much more synergized than what many Reformed postures seem to be, which is more on intellectual assent.

I'm not accusing either side here, just asking some open questions. 

Comments

[chris o]

we just might have to discuss this sunday sometime, as this is a topic i'm just a little obsessed with.:)