In any case, his article on the idolatry of man-fearing in the latest 9Marks E-journal is worth a read, not only for its characteristic Trueman wit, but also for the force of its arguments. I like where he's going when he writes:
[I]f a movement does not understand what it is, then it cannot make any really satisfactory determination on who belongs and who does not. The boundaries of a movement are ultimately revealed by the person who comes closest to belonging but who nonetheless does not. Arius is a good early church example. As high and exalted as was his view of Christ, he could still only regard Christ as a creature and not fully God. The boundary was drawn and he was outside of it. Combine the problems of defining evangelical identity with the current cultural penchant for not excluding anybody and you have a heady recipe for total disaster.
1 comment:
I've read and quoted Trueman on this same point from places he's said something similar. He says something is wrong, but he doesn't, nor does evangelicalism, provide an exegetical means from and by which this wrong and dangerous inclusivism will end. Neither does fundamentalism, as far as I can see.
Trueman writes as a historian, which makes his writing more interesting. I think the best columnists, even in the political realm, bring history into their writings.
Post a Comment