|
A sermon on the incarnation from Dallas Willard
You might like to listen to this sermon a few times over the holiday break.
|
David Wanstall, 31/12/2009 |
|
| | Justin | 20/01/2010 21:35 | | I have followed your suggestion at listening to this sermon several times and am somewhat alarmed at its contents and its promotion.
Who is this 'cosmic christ' Willard refers to? That is neither a biblical term or concept. It is widely utilised in the New Age movement and by spiritualists that neither accept nor promote the one true Jesus. Strange for Willard to use and promote a New Age phrase. Why is that?
Here's a smattering of other false teachings from this message alone that I have selected. These aren't misquotes or context dependant. He repeats several of these things more than once.
"Flesh is a good thing" according to Willard. I can't find a record of that in the Word but the exact opposite.
"Your will is your spirit" according to Willard. Really? Biblical references?
What is this "power that is in the body" that he talks about?
"Your natural powers are good" really?-again not scriptural
"Your will is your spirit and your will is looking for what's best" ...ummm perhaps that should be explained further in the light of scripture
Why is someone who's views are often at variance with Scripture and closer to the New Age movement promoted so much?
"Many tender-minded Christians fear to sin against love by daring to inquire into anything that comes wearing the cloak of Christianity and breathing the name of Jesus. They dare not examine the credentials of the latest prophet to hit their town lest they be guilty of rejecting something which may be of God. They timidly remember how the Pharisees refused to accept Christ when He came, and they do not want to be caught in the same snare, so they either reserve judgment or shut their eyes and accept everything without question. This is supposed to indicate a high degree of spirituality. But in sober fact it indicates no such thing. It may indeed be evidence of the absence of the Holy Spirit. Gullibility is not synonymous with spirituality. Faith is not a mental habit leading its possessor to open his mouth and swallow everything that has about it the color of the supernatural. Faith keeps its heart open to whatever is of God, and rejects everything that is not of God, however wonderful it may be. Try the spirits is a command of the Holy Spirit to the Church. We may sin as certainly by approving the spurious as by rejecting the genuine. And the current habit of refusing to take sides is not the way to avoid the question. To appraise things with a heart of love and then to act on the results is an obligation resting upon every Christian in the world. And the more as we see the day approaching." A. W. Tozer
Justin
| | | David Wanstall | 21/01/2010 16:37 | | I don’t remember him using the phrase ‘cosmic Christ’ in this talk. Near the beginning he does refer to the incarnation being a ‘cosmic event‘ which he goes on to explain is an event ‘touching the whole universe’ ie impacting the whole universe.
In other places Dallas Willard has used the phrase ‘cosmic Christ’ and he carefully defines his usage of it. He is the Logos, the Son of God, who as the second person of the trinity is present throughout creation and history (he was specifically present in history as Jesus of Nazareth) - the orthodox Christian view. Whatever new age people may mean by the phrase, that is what Willard means by the phrase. If it is confusing in your interactions with new age people, it would be good to use other descriptions.
Flesh (greek word sarx) is used in a number of different ways in the scriptures, some with moral connotations and some with no moral connotations as Dallas Willard makes clear in his talk. It is worth doing a word study on the different places this word is used but using strongs or some other greek concordance is worthwhile because translations often use a variety of different english words for the same greek word.
Jesus had flesh
Luke 24:39 'for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that i have'
'The word became flesh and dwelt among us' (Jn 1:14)
However, if the flesh is in charge (living according to the flesh - Rom 8) that is bad.
But it is also true that any living that we do according to and empowered by the Spirit will take place in our flesh (Gal 2:20).
the bible uses different words to refer to the whole person or parts of the person - eg love God with your heart mind soul and strength. Some of those overlap. we see it in contemporary usage for example: If you break a person's spirit, you break their will, you can also say they become disheartened. Jesus explains to the disciples before his arrest that ‘the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak’ ie amongst other things, the spirit is the part of us that wills things.
The idea that spiritual things are good and material things (including flesh) ,by definition, are evil is a gnostic idea that is not a scriptural. It was something early Christians had to guard against.
When Dallas refers to ‘natural powers’ he just means ‘natural abilities’. ie the ability to talk, eat, walk, make things, procreate.
| | | Justin | 22/01/2010 09:36 | | Sorry if this appears lengthy but it includes your comments along with my own.
I don’t remember him using the phrase ‘cosmic Christ’ in this talk. Near the beginning he does refer to the incarnation being a ‘cosmic event‘ which he goes on to explain is an event ‘touching the whole universe’ ie impacting the whole universe.(DW)
He uses the phrase at the 45min mark. (JR)
In other places Dallas Willard has used the phrase ‘cosmic Christ’ and he carefully defines his usage of it. He is the Logos, the Son of God, who as the second person of the trinity is present throughout creation and history (he was specifically present in history as Jesus of Nazareth) - the orthodox Christian view. Whatever new age people may mean by the phrase, that is what Willard means by the phrase. If it is confusing in your interactions with new age people, it would be good to use other descriptions. (DW)
The phrase isn't a christian phrase. Its like me saying "my name for Jesus is Beelzebub" or using "isa" as the name for Jesus and "this is how I define it....".
The phrase isn't confusing to me but an alarm bell. It is a name widely recognized as something other than Jesus by spiritualists and new agers the world over. Punch it into google. What is the first hit? Use that name around naive christians, and sooner or later some will be reading books on the subject.
And for the record, where is the name "cosmic christ" in scripture? That isn't a Name of God. It is the name of a false deity.
Willard, as you say, has defined "cosmic christ" in his book "Knowing christ today". Willard makes it clear that Jesus of Nazareth can't save (eternal salvation) and you don't need to believe in Him, but the "cosmic christ" does have the power to save. He has two christs. (JR)
Flesh (greek word sarx) is used in a number of different ways in the scriptures, some with moral connotations and some with no moral connotations as Dallas Willard makes clear in his talk. It is worth doing a word study on the different places this word is used but using strongs or some other greek concordance is worthwhile because translations often use a variety of different english words for the same greek word. (DW)
We don't actually need to do a word search in strongs to know that the word means your body (flesh) and in other contexts sinful nature ie in Romans. Flesh (natural/carnal man) isn't good. Never will be. That is why God promises us a new heart and the flesh (carnal man) must be crucified (which actually means to put to death not as Willard says -controlled). If it is "good" why does Willard say we need to crucify it?
Saying it is good isn't scriptural and by saying it, all one does, is sow the seeds of confusion.
Willard downplays the total depravity of man and need for death and Christ's ressurection life to flow through us, making us like Him. He has a belief that we can be almost totally "good" without Jesus which is not found anywhere in scripture, but is a popular social message(JR)
the bible uses different words to refer to the whole person or parts of the person - eg love God with your heart mind soul and strength. Some of those overlap. we see it in contemporary usage for example: If you break a person's spirit, you break their will, you can also say they become disheartened. (DW)
Contemporary usage (ie spiritually blind people talking in the vernacular) has no bearing on the the truth of the Word. Heart soul mind and strength are, in fact, all different things which is why God uses them seperately.(JR)
Jesus explains to the disciples before his arrest that ‘the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak’ ie amongst other things, the spirit is the part of us that wills things.(DW)
Yes but it doesn't mean your will is your spirit does it? Saying "George is willing and able" doesn't mean "will" and "able" are George does it? Neither can that passage be twisted into something along the lines of "your will is your spirit and your will is looking for what is best...." That is non-biblical mumbo. (JR)
The idea that spiritual things are good and material things (including flesh) ,by definition, are evil is a gnostic idea that is not a scriptural. It was something early Christians had to guard against.(DW)
Flesh (carnal nature use) isn't material. That last point is tangential to the discussion and it isn't a point i've made. (JR)
When Dallas refers to ‘natural powers’ he just means ‘natural abilities’. ie the ability to talk, eat, walk, make things, procreate. (DW)
The world engages in all these activities all the time, and they aren't good in God's sight. You can talk evil, be a glutton, walk evil, fornicate, and make instuments of evil. That isn't a stong biblical argument to support Willard's claim that they are good.(JR)
| | | David Wanstall | 23/01/2010 10:34 | | Regarding:
"Willard, as you say, has defined "cosmic christ" in his book "Knowing christ today". Willard makes it clear that Jesus of Nazareth can't save (eternal salvation) and you don't need to believe in Him, but the "cosmic christ" does have the power to save. He has two christs. (JR)"
A few quotes from 'Knowing Christ Today' Chapter 7:
"Jesus is also the Cosmic Christ" ie he does not have two christs
"The Christian gospel, on the other hand is that by placing your confidence in Jesus as 'the one' you can begin now to live in the kingdom of God with him and thus enter into an "eternal living" that continues through life here, right on through what we call death and forever" ... "the only way I am sure (he is referring to salvation) is the way of relying upon Jesus and following him." ie Willard makes it clear that Jesus of Nazareth saves and believing in and following him is the only sure way of salvation.
Regarding:
"Willard downplays the total depravity of man and need for death and Christ's ressurection life to flow through us, making us like Him. He has a belief that we can be almost totally "good" without Jesus which is not found anywhere in scripture, but is a popular social message(JR)"
Another quote from "Knowing Christ Today":
"When people are accepted by God, that does not mean that they actually deserve or merit that acceptance. Anyone who is 'saved' will be saved by grace or gift, by the abundant kindness and mercy of the God of love. The bitter truth is that all have sinned and fall far short of what God had in mind for them. All! That is simply the human condition" ie he does not play down human depravity.
Regarding the spirit being willing, the actual quote from Matt 26:40-41 is "Then he came to the disciples and found them sleeping; and he said to Peter, "So could you not stay awake with me one hour? Stay awake and pray that you may not come into the time of trial; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak". ie if Peter's name was actually George, Jesus is saying 'George your spirit is willing but your flesh is weak'. He is referring to different parts of the one person.
Regarding natural powers being good:
When Jesus walked and talked in his flesh wasn't that good?
| | | Justin (Guest) | 25/01/2010 09:19 | | (DW)A few quotes from 'Knowing Christ Today' Chapter 7:
"Jesus is also the Cosmic Christ" ie he does not have two christs (DW)
Lets just go back a bit. There is a lot you haven't commented on from my previous post.
"Cosmic christ". If you punch it into google, is the first site a christian site or a "new age" one?
Since it is is clearly the latter, there is the chance that some may go and read about the "cosmic christ" -might they not? So he has used the name of a false deity hasn't he? Yes or no?
Is "cosmic christ" a biblical name of Jesus? Yes or no?
Do you believe it ok to give Jesus the name of a false/New Age deity?
In reference to there not being two christs in Willards mind, that is not true. He may say it, but he then says or intimates the opposite.
On page 177 of his book Knowing Christ he says "the one we call 'Jesus' is also the Cosmic Christ". He says that salvation is ascribed "exclusively to the Cosmic Christ, the eternal Logos" (pg. 187) but that Jesus hasn't the power to save - in talking about Acts 4:12 "there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved", Willard says that the exclusiveness of Jesus name used here "does not concern "coming to God'" and that the "salvation" spoken of was not eternal salvation, but "deliverance of the lame man from his lifelong affliction." (pgs. 186-187.) Here's what he says :
"But the kind of deliverance specifically ascribed to 'the name of Jesus Christ the Nazorean' in Acts 4:10-12 is not the 'eternal salvation' that John 14:6 ascribes exclusively to the Cosmic Christ, the eternal Logos" (pg 187), eventhough there is no mention of 'cosmic christ' anywhere in scripture and "Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house." Luke 19:9.
So if they are both truely the same how come one can save and the other can't?
Dallas never touches the Scriptures that clearly denotes salvation to Jesus Christ such as : "you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins." (Matt 1:21); and "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name" (John 1:12), "through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins." (Acts 10:43); ); etc etc
Willard says those who "deserve" to be saved "certainly will be saved", (see also the quote below from his website), even if they do not believe in Jesus Christ (pg188.)
(DW)"The Christian gospel, on the other hand is that by placing your confidence in Jesus as 'the one' you can begin now to live in the kingdom of God with him and thus enter into an "eternal living" that continues through life here, right on through what we call death and forever" ... "the only way I am sure (he is referring to salvation) is the way of relying upon Jesus and following him." ie Willard makes it clear that Jesus of Nazareth saves and believing in and following him is the only sure way of salvation.(DW)
No, he says the opposite in relation to Jesus of Nazareth. See the quote above. You are saying something he doesn't say, or expressely denies elswhere by adding "Jesus of Nazareth" to his words to try and make what he has said more agreeable. What does it mean to "place your confidence in Jesus as 'the one'"? Jesus is never referred to as 'the one' in scripture as a title. That phrase has done the rounds before, in the Matrix movies for example- its a New Age term used for 'cosmic christ 'Martitraya etc.
(DW)Another quote from "Knowing Christ Today":
"When people are accepted by God, that does not mean that they actually deserve or merit that acceptance. Anyone who is 'saved' will be saved by grace or gift, by the abundant kindness and mercy of the God of love. The bitter truth is that all have sinned and fall far short of what God had in mind for them. All! That is simply the human condition" ie he does not play down human depravity.(DW)
Really? Yet Dallas also says:
"What Paul is clearly saying is that if anyone is worthy of being saved, they will be saved. At that point many Christians get very anxious, saying that absolutely no one is worthy of being saved. The implication of that is that a person can be almost totally good, but miss the message about Jesus, and be sent to hell. What kind of a God would do that? I am not going to stand in the way of anyone whom God wants to save. I am not going to say “he can’t save them.” I am happy for God to save anyone he wants in any way he can.
It is possible for someone who does not know Jesus to be saved. But anyone who is going to be saved is going to be saved by Jesus: “There is no other name given under heaven by which men can be saved” (emphasis mine)."
So, a sinful man that does not know Jesus or believe in Him may be saved/accepted by the "cosmic christ" by being "almost totally good". How does this "being good" occur when the scripture clearly says "They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy : there is none that doeth good, no, not one.", "our righteousness is as filthy rags" and "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing" etc etc. So, no.... his version of depravity is "almost totally good" and potentially worthy of being saved, rather than people accepting Jesus as Lord and saviour and having Christ's righteousness before God.
Please, also explain where in scripture it says you can be saved without believing in Jesus the Son of God, bearing in mind no one does good.
(DW)Regarding the spirit being willing, the actual quote from Matt 26:40-41 is "Then he came to the disciples and found them sleeping; and he said to Peter, "So could you not stay awake with me one hour? Stay awake and pray that you may not come into the time of trial; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak". ie if Peter's name was actually George, Jesus is saying 'George your spirit is willing but your flesh is weak'. He is referring to different parts of the one person.(DW)
Yes, but as I have pointed out, it still doesn't mean "your will is your spirit" does it?
Defining the attribute of something as the "thing" is illogical. For example. God is love. But love isn't God, its merely an attribute and God has other attributes (eg Holy, Just etc). Its like Willard is saying "everything green is grass" because of the phrase"grass is green".
Now, for the record, the will also resides in the soul:
“Give me not up to the will (original, “soul”) of my adversaries” Ps. 27.12
“Thou dost not give him up to the will (original, “soul”) of his enemies” Ps. 41.2
“Delivered you to the greed (original, “soul”) of your enemies” Ezek. 16.27
“You shall let her go where she will (original, “soul”)” Deut. 21.14
“Aha, we have our heart’s desire (original, “soul”)” Ps. 35.25
“Or swear an oath to bind himself (original, “soul”) by a pledge” Num. 30.2
“Now set your mind and heart (original, “soul”) to seek the Lord your God” 1 Chron. 22.18
“They desire and lift up their soul to return to dwell there” Jer. 44.14
“These afflictions my soul refuses to touch” Job 6.7
“My soul chooseth ....” Job 7.15
and there are other attributes to what the spiri
| | | Justin (Guest) | 25/01/2010 09:23 | | Message got truncated, heres the rest
and there are other attributes to what the spirit is : here's a small sample:
“The spirit indeed is willing” Matt. 26.41
“Jesus perceiving in his spirit” Mark 2.8
“He sighed deeply in his spirit” Mark 8.12
“He was deeply moved in spirit” John 11.33
“Paul was pressed in the spirit” Acts 18.5
“Being fervent in spirit” Acts 18.25
“I am going to Jerusalem, bound in the spirit” Acts 20.22
“What person knows a man’s thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him” 1 Cor. 2.11
“They refreshed my spirit as well as yours” 1 Cor. 16.18
“His spirit was refreshed by you all” 2 Cor. 7.13
“My spirit rejoices in God my Savior” Luke 1.47
“The true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth” John 4.23
“Whom I serve with my spirit” Rom. 1.9
“We serve . . . in the new life of the spirit” Rom. 7.6
“You have received the spirit of sonship when we cry Abba Father” Rom. 8.15
“The Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit” Rom. 8.16
“He who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him” 1 Cor. 6.17
“I will sing with the spirit” 1 Cor. 14.15
“If you bless with the spirit” 1 Cor. 14.16
“In the spirit he carried me away” etc etc
So we can be clear on your position, do you believe as Willard says: "your will is your spirit"? and that "your will is your spirit and your will is looking for what is best...." or is he wrong?
Yes or No?
(DW)Regarding natural powers being good:
When Jesus walked and talked in his flesh wasn't that good?(DW)
Of course God is good, including when He came as the Son of Man and walked the earth. How does a perfect and holy God, taking on a body, in anyway reflect or support the notion "our (sinful/fallen man, which we all are) natural powers are good"?
You never addressed the following in the last message:
We don't actually need to do a word search in Strongs to know that the word means your body (flesh) and in other contexts sinful nature ie in Romans. Flesh (natural/carnal man) isn't good. Never will be. That is why God promises us a new heart and the flesh (carnal man) must be crucified (which actually means to put to death not as Willard says -controlled). If it is "good" why does Willard say we need to crucify it?
Saying flesh is good isn't scriptural and by saying it, all one does, is sow the seeds of confusion.
| | | David Wanstall | 27/01/2010 09:57 | | It appears we have different understandings of what Dallas Willard is saying in Chapter 7 of 'Knowing Christ Today'. It is not possible to post all of the chapter online, so for anyone at SBC who is interested, Chapter 7 is available from the church office.
Regarding the names for different parts of the human - heart, soul, will etc. I think the verses we have posted demonstrate that these sorts of terms are used in different ways in different parts of the bible - ie there is no one specific nomenclature for anthropology.
Whatever nomenclature you choose (yours, mine, Willard's, Augustines, Luther's, Wesley's, etc.....), you will be able to find verses that suggest something different. Therefore I think there is room for a range of understandings as long as they are all broadly in line with the overall sense of scripture. I think Willard's understanding fits well within the range of uses in Scripture. They are also helpful for people in their discipleship. I expect that your nomenclature would also fit within the range of uses in the Scripture and would also be helpful for discipleship.
Regarding 'Natural Powers' it appears that we disagree on whether humans in their bodies can do anything that is good (with no sense that what people may do is in any way meritorious)
In listening to and reading Willard - I have never found him to sow seeds of confusion.
| | | Justin (Guest) | 30/01/2010 18:02 | | The names for the different parts of man aren't in dispute. God has clearly outlined them in the Word. God's word is perfect and the verses listed far from demonstrate that these terms are used in different ways. God is very specific and if ones understanding is incomplete, that is where the problem lies, rather than suggesting God's word is "woolly". So no, there is one specific nomenclature clearly laid out, not a nebulous range of ideas open to debate.
"Whatever nomenclature you choose (yours, mine, Willard's, Augustines, Luther's, Wesley's, etc.....), you will be able to find verses that suggest something different. Therefore I think there is room for a range of understandings as long as they are all broadly in line with the overall sense of scripture." DW
I am of Paul and I am of Apollos....
Actually we need one understanding- In line with God's ie. Truth. Men and their ideas are no use, we need Christ. How broad is the line we should have with "the overall sense of scripture"? Should we accept 95% in line with scripture or is the bar to high then? There is either truth or error. 100% in line or error. It is a very thin line... sharper than any two edged sword. To suggest there is a "broadly in line with the sense of scripture" or there are always contradictory scriptures ie "all roads lead to Rome" approach- means one of two things: a) vaguely ok is ok ie. error is alright ... or b) God's Word isn't inerrant in your sight.
Statements of fact also need to actually have a scriptural basis. "Your will is your spirit" isn't scriptural nor is "your will is your spirit and your will is looking for what is best"?.
"Nomenclature"? Sure one can call your will your spirit if you want. But that would be wrong. Someone could call an apple a 'tuning fork', but it would be ridiculous - things quickly turn meaningless and in Willard's case, damaging.
I've asked before :do you believe "your will is your spirit" and "your will is your spirit and your will is looking for what is best"? There has been no clear response other than a general defense of WIllard, so I can only assume your answer is yes...
So when we die- our wills will float off to God in heaven and God's Spirit is His Will that hovered over the face of the deep and that appeared in the form of a dove etc... its His Will that speaks... Its His Will we grieve etc- and we are to worship in will and truth?? Do the word replacement throughout the scriptures and you get a word salad. To many people, should they believe Willard, and elevate their 'soul will' to the level of spirit, it would be extremely dangerous.
Why the total lack of comment on several of the issues, most notably Willard's use of a New Age deity/extra-biblical name for Jesus? Again, I assume this is right in your eyes.
"it appears that we disagree on whether humans in their bodies can do anything that is good"DW
That is a rewrite of Willard's position. We've moved from "your natural powers are good" to "whether humans in their bodies can do anything that is good"....
There will be millions in hell that performed all the acts you (and apparently Dallas) list as being "good", as all of humanity have (some or all) natural powers - which you say are talking, walking procreating etc. To say our natural powers (all encompassing and generically as Willard does) are "good", is plain silly.
Regarding the need to listen to Willard fully and in context in order to avoid confusion- I respectfully disagree- he provided the context and I listened to his talk in full... twice. Just the same as his Ortberg video- there are far too many ambiguous or blatantly wrong assertions eg. "Doubt is good". There are clear biblical errors and questionable associations in much of his material/life, and as previously stated, we shouldn't be following and promoting a man but God.
|
|
|
|
