I’ve been blogging through The Spirit of the Disciplines by Dallas Willard for the past year. Ok, it’s taken me a long time to get through it. I have a stack of books that are sitting by my bedside and I’m working my way through them. Some books have taken a greater priority, like Saving Your Marriage Before It Starts, since I got engaged this past October and so, as a result, I haven’t been able to finish Willard’s book. I am currently on Chapter 8 and intend to finish within the month.
With that being said, I noticed that Ken Silva has decided to review The Spirit of the Disciplines. When I say review, I mean write a review of a review. Silva shows no evidence that he actually read the book. Instead, he bases his thoughts on a review by Bob DeWaay.
Silva (or is it DeWaay) takes issue with Willard’s view of “yoke”. Ken suggests that Willard says that the yoke is as the practice of spiritual disciplines like solitude, silence, and simple living and that:
First of all this view does not take into account the need for regeneration. It also fails because if it was possible for a mere human to live the perfect life Christ Jesus did as the God-Man then it is conceivable for someone else to have been the Savior.
Willard, in fact, is addressing a Christian audience, one who is already “regenerated”. And Willard never suggests that we can become perfect, like Christ. These disciplines simply are ways of us to prepare to live a life like Christ did.
Silva (or DeeWay) then gets confused with Willard’s statement about “theories of atonement” (p 33), saying that:
rather than concerning ourselves with the blood atonement, averting God’s wrath against sin, salvation by faith through grace, we should be practicing spiritual disciplines with our bodies so that we could then be more like Jesus.
Willard is not dismissing the atonement at all. He is simply saying that just talking about the theology of the atonement does not equal living the Christian life. If we just stop at the theology and don’t actually follow Christ, then we’ve missed the point of what Christ wants us to do, which is to follow Him.
Finally, Silva quotes DeeWay here:
Ironically, Willard admits that the Bible does not command us to practice the spiritual disciplines he prescribes. To hear evangelicals like Dallas Willard and Richard Foster tell us that we need practices that were never spelled out in the Bible to become more like Christ or to get closer to God is astonishing.
Which leaves me confused. Willard constantly refers to Scripture to show how Jesus practiced the spiritual disciplines. And what spiritual disciplines are Silva and DeeWay opposed to? Fasting? Reading Scripture? Praying? Frugality? Chastity? Service? Worship? Fellowship? Confession? Scripture Memorization? These are all practices with Willard suggests will help us live a proper Christian life.
In addition to all of this, Willard repeatedly explains that we have salvation by grace alone through faith and that we aren’t saved by our good works nor do we earn God’s favor by our good works (p 119, 136, 138, 139, 142, 143 are a few examples). He evens spends all of Chapter 8 talking about excessive asceticism in the context of history.
There are three more chapters for me to finish. But I find that Willard has definitely challenged me to consider what practices I should be incorporating into my life in order that I might follow Christ more.
“People have a body for one reason — that we might have at our disposal the resources that would allow us to be persons in fellowship and cooperation with a personal God” – Dallas Willard
32 Comments(+Add)
Which goes to show, Ken’s “research” is often 2nd or third person removed and often without even going to the source… note that also about Ingrid’s “very reliable source”…
At least Mike Corely has gone to the people he has attacked and seemed to walk away with a different view of them… though I also add Pastorboy for going to see people also… I just disagree with his conclusions as he seems to take what was said and remix it to say something else.
iggy
re-re-re-remix wooka-wooka-cha!
A question asked to Mr. Willard:
His answer:
A post mortum universalsim?
http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=14
Rick-
C.S. Lewis also held to a very similar belief, that it was possible for Jesus to save those outside the Christian faith.
I’m not sure how that relates to the disciplines. It seems that this is “outside the scope of discussion”. That quote doesn’t relate to the book nor does it get addressed in the book. Can you explain further?
My comment was in connection to this sentence:
My reading of Willard’s theology suggests that people who are “almost totally good” will be rewarded with salvation. That is at odds with your statement.
Rick,
Wow, I don’t get that at all from Willard… in fact I see him stating that if a person is a Buddhist and is seeking Truth sincerely and humbly, God will reveal and save that Buddhist as he did you and me.
Can you argue with that?
C.S. may or may not have believed that. May point to him as promoting that thought in the Narnia books, yet, forget those books were fiction with theology in them… not theology written in fiction form.
I disagree that Lewis taught “universalism”. I see that if one serves Truth (Jesus) they serve God. In that God will reveal what He will for their salvation. It is and will always be in God’s hands who is saved or not.
If one is a good thief and is nailed to a cross next to Jesus and asks Jesus, “remember me”… Will Jesus do it?”
It is the same question to me… and has nothing to do with universalism.
iggy
That is not how I read it. I will not pursue it, though, Matt desires comments about the book which I have not read.
I see this come up a lot though… yes there are some that take the view that CS Lewis believed that view, and use that as a validation for their own acceptance of that view. I see McLaren and even Campolo leaning or falling in that view a bit. Yet, many like Willard, Scot McKnight and many others do not take that view at all… I would venture that most do not.
iggy
Hi Rick:
I appreciate your comment and your passion to discern truth.
My take on it is that Willard does believe that we are saved by faith through grace. Willard, in the article you sent, suggest there is a possibility that God might save some after death. So, to rephrase Willard’s view, in this life, we are saved by faith through grace, however, according to Willard, there might be a possibility that there is a plan B after this life. I’m not sure if that’s classic universalism.
Like I said, that seems to be beyond the scope of the book. Perhaps the closest thing I can come to using the book in addressing this issue is this: “Of course, we do the righteous deeds because of our redemption, not for our redemption.” (p 119)
I have heard people complain that Willard has said things that could be construed as some sort of universalism before, but to me it’s kind of a non-issue. None of his books really get into it, and it’s always quotes from articles or lectures. It’s never been a full out, “yes, I’m a universalist”, but more like, “there is a chance…”.
I guess the thing I don’t understand is how having a view that’s different about one thing somehow negate’s one’s views about another. None of us are right about everything, so I think we should still be open to learning from people who believe differently from us.
Rick – it’s been awhile since I’ve read Lewis, but my understanding is that he and some others – including, it appears, Willard – have based their uncertainty of the workings after death on Peter’s account of Jesus witnessing to the ’spirits in prison’, thousands of years after their earthly deaths.
It’s not something I’d want to hang my hat on, nor does it seem that Willard or Lewis are suggesting that…
_____________
I’m leaving on a business trip for the week here in just a bit, but I’ll be back on Friday night. I may be able to catch up on my Blackberry, but its likely I won’t be posting till I get back.
Willard seems clear on the “no other name…” aspect. The issue seems to be how the “benefits” of the name/atonement are applied. At least now we are discussing something Willard actually said – as oppossed to a Silva built straw man.
Neil
I’m not sure what he believes, but I believe that a person who has never heard of Jesus, but lives his life in clean conscience as to his understanding of God, how could he not accept the Truth of Jesus should He reveal himself to that person? Taking say, “Lazeres and the rich man” or “the sheep and the goats” as an example of that, or even “the Good Samaratan” – who was of the wrong religion according to the Jews.
Dave – if I understand you correctly, you have made the offer of salvation a reward according to works. Romans is clear, “How shall they believe in whom they’ve not heard?”.
The person that lives a “clean” life has been deemed unrighteous and under condemnation. He is an idlo worshiper (different religion). However the wicked, vile, god forsaking heathen like me gets to believe and get saved without living “clean”.
The difference? I heard. We should never “suppose” when it comes to eternity. The couple of thin shadow verses can not overpower the deluge of the clear. It is not God’s fault people go to hell, we all deserved it. What we didn’t deserve is heaven. If a person lives a clean life and dies, is he automatically saved according to his works? Or is he given the chance to believe afterf death?
Who dies, sees the Lord and is presented the gospel, and says, “Nah, that’s not for me”?
Rick, I think that’s an argument from incredulity. ie “there’s no way someone would turn down Jesus after they’ve died and seen Him, right?”
Just remember, the Israelites SAW the glory of God Himself parting the Red Sea, stopping the king of Egypt and his army, the Glory on the Mountain, and throughout the desert.
And they still didn’t believe.
Saw God. Still worshiped idols and rebelled.
Sounds like seeing God wouldn’t matter if your heart is hard and deceived.
Oh shoot, I opened a can of worms lol.
Yes and no.
I would ask a rhetorical, how can the below be correct from the same book?
In saying what I did there is a subtle but large line of difference of what I am saying. Basically if a person (who had not heard the “Gospel”) lives their life in faith towards their God, how do I know that person isn’t actually worshipping Jesus? How do I know God hasn’t revealed Himself to that person but since they don’t use our English “Jesus” it seems foreign. How do I know that after death Jesus says “well even though you believed there was one God and lived faithfully to the law in your heart, but no-one presented the American Gospel to you, Hell time!”
To be clear I certainly believe that rejection of Jesus or living by a law for it’s sake is not what is required.
Even though this was directed to Israel, Paul expounds on it in Romans:
which I take as a warning to the Jews and hope for they that die without the Gospel: The gentiles will follow the law in their heart, but you take the written law as though as itself is what saves.
As to the yes and no part earlier, these hypothetical people would live by the law in their hearts due to faith towards God. Should a missionary come to them, why would they reject the plain truth to the partial they have already?
I see that as correct by also balanced by:
That verse makes no sense if a person cannot come to Christ without hearing the “Gospel”
I was not saved by hearing the Gospel. (Not playing down your experience – it was probably as equal if not more powerful than mine) I repented after seeing a demon cast out of a person, at that time inside the devils in me were scared to death and not long afterwards in my room I asked God to come in and remove the filth.
The Gospel is not complete without a personal revelation of Christ, otherwise salvation comes by mere words. Take the other extrememe, what happens when there is a revelation but no Christian words given?
ummm then it goes on to say:
R
Which is very clear that though they did hear they did not hear… but again what Paul is emphasizing is..
“faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.”
It is not OUR preaching but the WORD of Christ…
The original language is a bit fascinating as it seems to almost say that some are saved even NOT hearing preaching… But it is clear that it is by Christ one is saved and not by our preaching at all. In fact to read this passage as intended Paul is stating even though people hear the word of God they still do not believe… this is building up to chapter 11 which leads to the quesiton.. ” Did God reject his people?”
If Christ alone is saving people and not our preaching… and though people hear and reject this “Word”… did God reject the Jews?
What I am getting at is this verse is often misused and abused to promote teaching and preaching and it is actually teaching the opposite.
iggy
“What I am getting at is this verse is often misused and abused to promote teaching and preaching and it is actually teaching the opposite.”
Now there’s a statement. It seems you are not suggesting that preaching and teaching error is warned, you are saying that preaching and teaching the gospel can be overdone. And if people can be saved without hearing the gospel then leave them alone.
Please give me a list of missionaries that believe sinners can be saved by behaving favorably to their own religion.
Rick,
I am saying it is not my works we are saved… or rather Paul is saying that… remember that is a major theme running through Romans… one of about 3 or 4 if I recall right.
If people are saved by OUR preaching then it is works. IF they are saved by Christ and Christ alone it is by Grace.
We are not told to not preach… but to keep it in perspective. Just read the passage as it reads. Paul “quotes” someone and then states a “what-about” argument then answers it.
1. You say those that hear are saved
2. How can they hear if WE do not tell them
3. But what about the Jews who heard yet are not saved?
4. Has God forsaken them?
It is very clear if one just reads it. But most often a PREACHER uses it to motivate others to evangelize others because people cannot get saved unless they hear the Gospel… and that is the opposite.
Paul later states that it is the foolishness of Christ we preach. Most mock, yet for some reason some just get saved. It had nothing to do with him. (1 Cor 1)
It is the simple belief that a dead man rose from the grave that makes people stumble or come to salvation… not our pretty little words and arguments. Some will accept that as truth and other will not and it is God who does it.
Believe me this was hard for me to accept as I am a firm believer in free will… (not meaning to start that whole debate again and will not pursue it… just letting the Calvinists know!) =)
iggy
Iggy – I would respond however I am completely baffled by what you are saying.
Rick,
DO you believe people are saved by our works of preaching?
Or
Do you believe that Salvation is by Christ and CHrist alone?
Go and read the passages. That is the argument Paul makes all through out Romans.
1. Salvation by God alone
2. Justification by Grace through Faith.
3. The promise of Abraham
4. The two (Jew and gentile) become one New Man
5. Righteousness comes from Christ alone
I think there might be more.
A good place to start is here
But again, if people believe becuase of our works of preaching then they are saved by works… and not Christ.
iggy
Iggy,
You got it..
Faith comes by hearing. They are not saved by our preaching, they are saved by believing the gospel in our preaching. Just semantics.
Nope… it comes by hearing and believing Christ. Again read it… Paul states that the Jews heard it but did not respond… it then flows right into the next chapter.
Rick it is not just semantics… if they are saved by our preaching then they are saved by us and our works. That is what Paul is stating in Romans. They believe the Gospel by the Power of the Gospel… that is the Holy Spirit… not being born of man but of God.
I gotta go as my family is having some crisis with the fire and my mom in the hospital… (unrelated incidents) but still pray the fire does not reach the family farm as my cousins will lose everything.
iggy
“saved by believing the gospel ” (Rick Frueh – circa 2008 – comment at 4:03 PM on 4/29/08)
Iggy, what part of believing are you not hearing?
Rick,
Again, what part are YOU not hearing? LOL!
You stated, ” they are saved by believing the gospel in our preaching” and Paul is stating that is not so, that it is as if we preached but it is not us, but God alone.
That is why Paul quotes Isaiah in Romans 10: 20. “And Isaiah boldly says, “I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me.”
They did not hear or ask or seek yet God revealed Himself to them and saved them… so what part did “our preaching” play in that? Not one thing.
Yet you are insisting it is semantics.
God is working in people to save them and we can preach and teach but it is God who saves and grows that person. It means also that by hearing the word of Christ… responding to the dead man who rose from the grave… and believing on that… not about preaching, but about what God has done and how one responds.
If it was about preaching and hearing then Paul would not have stated his argument in Romans 10…
iggy
iggy
That is how you exegete Romans 10:20? It is clear he is referring to the Gentiles as they are what Isaiah and Moses are prophecying about. Paul is not saying God saves people who have never heard.
That entire section of Romans is explaining the transitional plan of God concerning the Jews and the Gentiles. If you are saying people can be saved without hearing about the good news then we disagree completely. The Jews rejected the gospel, how? By rejecting the message of the apostles.
Missionaries carry the gospel message to the lost. No missionaries, no gospel. No gospel, no believers.
I thought about this and came up with some situations. You may be able to come up with more.
1. God is a TULIP God and predestines none in non-western nations where the gospel hasn’t been preached. When man goes there, they happen to be predestined. That or he elects people with no gospel preached. Paradox created. Mans magic prayer preaching is needed to save or contrary to general TULIP thought it isn’t :/
2. God isn’t TULIP and mans lack of action sends people to hell, and they who had no chance due to isolation are destined to Hell. It’s directly a humans fault.
3. God appeared to Abraham and his faith was counted as righteousness and so with people in remote places. Even though they believe vastly different things to us (as Abraham who was still saved) it is this simple faith that holds them secure.
All those are with the premise that no one deserves salvation, everyone deserves eternal punishment. Abraham believed the TRUE GOD, not some invention of his own carnal mind. Man’s lack of action doesn’t SEND people to hell, they are already deservedly headed there.
Every year the earth provides enough food for everyone to live. Some still starve. Why? Man’s sinful hoarding and careless attitude toward the starving. In the end, when we all stand before God, we will not think He is unjust for sinners going to hell. We will think he was graciously unfair to save anyone.
Rick,
Then how do deaf people get saved? And the Jews did not reject the message, they rejected Jesus himself. Which is again my point…
Salvation is of God. Cornelius did not hear the Gospel until he was told to go to Peter. Yet, God was actively saving him. Peter was there to confirm that the gentiles were receiving the Gospel.
Again, I am not saying we should not preach or do mission work. I am saying that our works do not save others, God does. Yet, again the main point was that the usage of the verse in Romans 10 was and is used improperly in context to what Paul is stating.
iggy