I think the fine line of "desiring martyrdom," is that I live my life according to the gospel, and if they want to kill me, that's their problem. I don't want to die. But I will not allow my desire to survive turn me into a coward or a hypocrite.
That's the sense I got from Church History I: The thinking was: Don't go around announcing yourself to the Roman authorities when you're in an illegal cult, but don't go out of your way to hide it either. Just live your life as God calls you, and let them do their jobs. God will sort it out.
That kind of courage is quietly terrifying, but I think it's not the same thing as "desiring martyrdom."
I have engaged seriously with topics raised in this thread but admit I have a tendency towards levity as threads continue. This was an example of that.
It doesn't mean I don't take the topic seriously.
Your reference to Heidelberg triggered my memory of the Donne quote.
That's how my butterfly mind works.
FWIW I don't have an issue with the thrust of Horton's argument at all. In fact I'm very much in agreement when it comes to his assessment of Osteen. I also found the Heidelberg connection interesting as I did feel his piece had something of a Lutheran vibe about it rather than a 'Westminster' one if I can put it that way.
I would have some theological differences with Horton but it was more a matter of tone I think. Terms like 'condemned criminals' sound almost as if he's gloating about it in a 'miserable sinners' kind of way ... but I may be doing him a disservice.
I'm reminded of the story of the Baptist whose church is inviting potential new ministers to 'preach with a view.' A friend asks him how the search is going.
'Well, we had one applicant preach last week on how the ungodly will be cast into everlasting hell-fire and outer darkness. Then we had another this week who also preached on the same topic.'
'So which one did you choose?'
'The first.'
'Why was that if both preached on the same theme?'
'The second sounded rather pleased about it.'
If Horton's not coming at it from that angle then I owe him an apology, but that was how it came across to me. Perhaps I'm overly sensitive.
I also found the Heidelberg connection interesting as I did feel his piece had something of a Lutheran vibe about it rather than a 'Westminster' one if I can put it that way.
Which is interesting as your initial response was:
Yes @chrisstiles but I find the neo-Calvinism of that Westminster Seminary site equally as distasteful.
So which is it? "neo-Calvinism" or a "Lutheran vibe"
I would have some theological differences with Horton but it was more a matter of tone I think.
Right, but it's also possible that your reaction is driven by a context which isn't necessarily shared by the author.
The 'Westminster' title suggests a Calvinist orientation of course.
At the same time there appears to be a broader Protestant perspective in their too. I think it was you who identified the Heidelberg angle which suggests to me a Lutheran vibe.
So we've got both a Westminster/Geneva axis and a Heidelberg/Lutheran one at one and the same time, which doesn't strike me as anything particularly surprising.
At the same time there appears to be a broader Protestant perspective in their too. I think it was you who identified the Heidelberg angle which suggests to me a Lutheran vibe.
Except your wording suggested that the reasoning worked the other way around (i.e you had already decided that "his piece had something of a Lutheran vibe" and therefore found the connection interesting).
I'm not sure what your beef is about here.
Because it seems to me that you aren't really reading people's replies, and then if stuck say you are joking, make a joke or:
I do work things out 'on the hoof' and my posts here are not as systematic as I'd be if I were writing an article or essay.
FWIW I'm afraid it was a 'both/and' thing in relation to the Horton piece insofar as I had already intuitively picked up something of a 'Lutheran vibe' which you then very helpfully 'nailed' for me with your Heidelberg reference.
Which in turn set me off into butterfly mode with the Donne references, quips and both/ands ... not that I'm blaming you for any of those.
Perhaps I ought to adopt a more systematic and academic approach when posting here.
Comments
That's the sense I got from Church History I: The thinking was: Don't go around announcing yourself to the Roman authorities when you're in an illegal cult, but don't go out of your way to hide it either. Just live your life as God calls you, and let them do their jobs. God will sort it out.
That kind of courage is quietly terrifying, but I think it's not the same thing as "desiring martyrdom."
Insert eye roll. Well, I'm not sure what the point of the original OP is when you insist on turning every proffered answer into a joke.
I have engaged seriously with topics raised in this thread but admit I have a tendency towards levity as threads continue. This was an example of that.
It doesn't mean I don't take the topic seriously.
Your reference to Heidelberg triggered my memory of the Donne quote.
That's how my butterfly mind works.
FWIW I don't have an issue with the thrust of Horton's argument at all. In fact I'm very much in agreement when it comes to his assessment of Osteen. I also found the Heidelberg connection interesting as I did feel his piece had something of a Lutheran vibe about it rather than a 'Westminster' one if I can put it that way.
I would have some theological differences with Horton but it was more a matter of tone I think. Terms like 'condemned criminals' sound almost as if he's gloating about it in a 'miserable sinners' kind of way ... but I may be doing him a disservice.
I'm reminded of the story of the Baptist whose church is inviting potential new ministers to 'preach with a view.' A friend asks him how the search is going.
'Well, we had one applicant preach last week on how the ungodly will be cast into everlasting hell-fire and outer darkness. Then we had another this week who also preached on the same topic.'
'So which one did you choose?'
'The first.'
'Why was that if both preached on the same theme?'
'The second sounded rather pleased about it.'
If Horton's not coming at it from that angle then I owe him an apology, but that was how it came across to me. Perhaps I'm overly sensitive.
Which is interesting as your initial response was:
So which is it? "neo-Calvinism" or a "Lutheran vibe"
Right, but it's also possible that your reaction is driven by a context which isn't necessarily shared by the author.
The 'Westminster' title suggests a Calvinist orientation of course.
At the same time there appears to be a broader Protestant perspective in their too. I think it was you who identified the Heidelberg angle which suggests to me a Lutheran vibe.
So we've got both a Westminster/Geneva axis and a Heidelberg/Lutheran one at one and the same time, which doesn't strike me as anything particularly surprising.
I'm not sure what your beef is about here.
Except your wording suggested that the reasoning worked the other way around (i.e you had already decided that "his piece had something of a Lutheran vibe" and therefore found the connection interesting).
Because it seems to me that you aren't really reading people's replies, and then if stuck say you are joking, make a joke or:
I do work things out 'on the hoof' and my posts here are not as systematic as I'd be if I were writing an article or essay.
FWIW I'm afraid it was a 'both/and' thing in relation to the Horton piece insofar as I had already intuitively picked up something of a 'Lutheran vibe' which you then very helpfully 'nailed' for me with your Heidelberg reference.
Which in turn set me off into butterfly mode with the Donne references, quips and both/ands ... not that I'm blaming you for any of those.
Perhaps I ought to adopt a more systematic and academic approach when posting here.