Thanks, Griffin. As I shared on another comment, my whole post started as text message to a buddy that I amplified a little and then posted.
As I read your thoughtful comment, paired with the other quotes from Comer, I still feel the same hiccup with the language of "entering" the kingdom apart from pistis/faith/allegiance/trust in Christ…
Thanks, Griffin. As I shared on another comment, my whole post started as text message to a buddy that I amplified a little and then posted.
As I read your thoughtful comment, paired with the other quotes from Comer, I still feel the same hiccup with the language of "entering" the kingdom apart from pistis/faith/allegiance/trust in Christ. My concern would be much alleviated if Comer would have used "experience" rather than "enter" the kingdom. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus is concerned with people who are "near" the kingdom, but not in—because they don't believe in him. I'd be interested to see Comer's ordo salutis.
A couple of passages in the NT raise the alarm for hitching discipleship—or Christ as example—with entrance into the kingdom. 1) Col 1:13 - God transfers us into the kingdom (now). 2) Hebrews 12:28 - we receive the kingdom (future). The entrance now and in eternity is one of grace, not works. I know this may seem like semantics to some, but perhaps the theology of justification and sanctification from the rest of the NT authors—Christ's first apprentices—would round out PTW. Even the quote you shared about having "access to a new power"—Comer's answer isn't union with Christ or the indwelling Spirit of God? It's discipleship? *thumbs down* It almost reduces Christ to a life hack. And we shudder at the thought!
And I want to amen the rejection of a “no strings attached” antinomianism. Yuck. The NT is clear that saving faith, genuine regeneration, real Christianity is more than a one time decision—it’s a million decisions to follow Christ, to hear these words of his and do them, and build on the rock (Matt 7).
Thanks for responding! I really appreciate these thoughts.
However, I would not fault Comer for using “enter” rather than “experience.” Jesus didn’t use the word “experience” (or any Greek equivalents to the word experience). He used “enter.” And he used “enter” in myriad contexts that do not necessarily imply salvific implications (Matt. 5:20, 18:3, 19:23-24, 23:13, Mark 9:47, 10:23-25, esp. Luke 9:27; the one decent exception, I think, being Matt. 7:21, which regardless of your interpretation of “kingdom” really does appear to have salvific implications). So I think faulting Comer for using similar language to imply (essentially) the same message that Jesus implied might be a bit unfair.
Take this passage about Paul after making disciples in Lystra: “strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22 ESV). I’m not sure what implications could be drawn out of this, but just think about the strange way tribulations and faith are related to an entering into the kingdom.
Second, in Hebrews 12:28, you said it implies a “future” receiving of the kingdom. But the παραλαμβάνοντες is in present participle active, implying that it is present and ongoing — not future oriented. You could make a case for it being future oriented, but the Greek in the verse doesn’t seem to imply that.
And while entrance into the kingdom is a primarily a divine work of grace that is not contingent upon human works, to deny our response to this work does, at least in my opinion, imply antinomianism.
Comer has mentioned that his ethical framework is inspired by Glen Stassen’s Kingdom Ethics. In that book, he introduces his concept called “kingdom praxis.” These are temporal, active attempts to bring the kingdom of heaven more tangibly into our present reality, and includes things like justice, prayer, deliverance, community building, repentance, peacemaking, healing, and so on. But importantly, kingdom praxis is both a human and divine work. It is “not about what God does while humans stand by passively; nor is it about our effort to build the kingdom while God passively watches.” Kingdom praxis is both “performative and participative,” in that we are often witnesses to what the Spirit is performing while actively participating in His movements. This is why scholars Bruce Chilton and J. I. H. MacDonald, who lend their support to Stassen’s book, argue that the kingdom of God necessarily involves responses from its hearers, usually culminating in a reversal of worldly values as one is further devoted to servanthood and humility. Furthermore, Oliver O’Donovan argues that although cooperation between God and man is carried out mutually, this does not imply that there is an equality in the amount of power each partner brings to the cooperative act. Thus, God and man participate in kingdom praxis as partners, but the level of authority and degree of metaphysical strength added to each cooperative act, of course, lies on God’s part, who is doing the bulk of the heavy lifting in each instance, so to speak.
Further, your differentiating between union with God and the indwelling of God’s Spirit from discipleship is a bit confusing on my end. In my mind, I don’t think you can easily seperate these three components of Christian life. They seem to all run tandem together (though I suppose it might depend upon your definition of “discipleship.”
I think you might be happily surprised by Comer’s overarching philosophy if you dug into more of Comer’s content (via his old Bridgetown teachings, Practicing the Way content, or Art of Teaching series). I hope you’d find that he does not want to reduce discipleship or union with Christ to a life hack. It’s one of the messages he most frequently repeats.
I am more than happy to see you disagree with Comer’s opinion’s from your own denominational or theological leanings (because if we approach Comer from a strictly reformed, Calvinistic perspective, then it would be of course flawed), but I do think it’s unfair to fault Comer’s theology as if it is universally flawed for all Christians everywhere simply because certain aspects of it don’t line up with a specific perspective.
For example, I personally would not fault a Calvinist for having Calvinist leanings, and this is largely because most Calvinist-specific issues are of second and third tier importance.
Anyways, I’ve had a lot of fun discussing this, and I hope that I have not offended you in any way. I appreciate what you’re doing and saying and your heart behind all of this. To be honest, I almost left the faith about 6 years ago, and the only thing that reeled me back in to orthodox Christianity was Comer’s teachings. I have an immense amount of gratitude for the way his teachings and frameworks have helped my friends and family and I just hope other people could see the beauty in what he is doing as well.
Thanks, Griffin. What’s so great to see in Matt 19, is the disciples response about “entering” - who then can be saved? And then Peter follows with, “we’ve left everything to follow you.” This captures what I’m stressing. Comer seems to stress the entrance is learning/becoming like Jesus (progressive sanctification). Where I think the Bible stresses the entrance as Jesus—faith in Him (justification). Discipleship flows from here. Kingdom living is discipleship. My concern was never using entrance language. My concern was how one enters. I think PTW could use more refinement/care/clarity. Not faulting for using entrance language. Faulting for a faulty use. And you are doing the same to me, so lose-lose 😂
I think Paul is referring to the eternal kingdom, which reveals the already-not-yetness of kingdom language in the NT. Suffering is to be expected in our pilgrimage.
I’m not differentiating union or indwelling. Just listing the sides of the coin. I think we may like passing ships here. That’s ok.
So glad God used Comer’s teachings in your life! Hallelujah!
In your first response comment you said, “I still feel the same hiccup with the language of "entering" the kingdom apart from pistis/faith/allegiance/trust in Christ. My concern would be much alleviated if Comer would have used "experience" rather than "enter" the kingdom.” But now you are saying, “My concern was never using entrance language. My concern was how one enters.”
And yet I still don’t see where you are faulting Comer for getting the “how” wrong when the examples you’re drawing from involve the disciples doing things and responding to the message of the kingdom (i.e., “We’ve left everything to follow you” is a responsive action). We’re not saved through works, but we enter into His kingdom by responding to His call to repent and believe.
It seems to be both a receiving and responding, which is what I was getting at in the long paragraph in the center of my second response. It is a both/and, of receiving and responding. This is where Comer is coming from — not that salvation is won by our own righteousness but that taking on the easy yoke of Christ and entering into the already-but-not-yet-ness of the Kingdom is made clearer through our seeking of this Kingdom and his righteousness.
I think we may be reading/writing past each other at this point. I may be misunderstanding, or I’m may not able to clearly articulate what I’m getting at in these comments. My deficiencies know no bounds—especially on my phone in the comments. Blessings.
I think there are some misunderstandings between the two of us in terms of semantics and the definitions that we’ve used, but that does not change the point of my initial comment.
Your paragraph about Comer’s line being “anti-grace” is not accurate. In Comer’s theology, entering into his kingdom does not have salvific overtones. It’s not anti-grace. It’s a healthy response to grace, and is not something that an “editor should have caught.”
Now, if Comer had started PtW with “I am a Reformed Protestant and thus submit to a Reformed Protestant theology over and above contemporary theological scholarship,” then yes, an editor should have caught that line, because it would have been fundamentally flawed. Yet, even though Comer has immense respect for the reformed Protestant tradition, he has criticized and disagreed with many of its features, especially their understanding of “kingdom of heaven.”
As it stands, I would greatly recommend that you at least add a footnote or something to your original paragraph to explain that Comer’s understanding of entering the kingdom does not necessarily carry salvific implications and thus might not imply what your concern insinuates.
And I do apologize that we have had this whole discussion while typing off phones in a comments section. It’s not a good way to communicate and I’m sure I’ve misunderstood many parts of what you’ve said. If you’d like, I’m more than open to a phone or zoom call if you’d like to talk:
Thanks, Griffin. As I shared on another comment, my whole post started as text message to a buddy that I amplified a little and then posted.
As I read your thoughtful comment, paired with the other quotes from Comer, I still feel the same hiccup with the language of "entering" the kingdom apart from pistis/faith/allegiance/trust in Christ. My concern would be much alleviated if Comer would have used "experience" rather than "enter" the kingdom. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus is concerned with people who are "near" the kingdom, but not in—because they don't believe in him. I'd be interested to see Comer's ordo salutis.
A couple of passages in the NT raise the alarm for hitching discipleship—or Christ as example—with entrance into the kingdom. 1) Col 1:13 - God transfers us into the kingdom (now). 2) Hebrews 12:28 - we receive the kingdom (future). The entrance now and in eternity is one of grace, not works. I know this may seem like semantics to some, but perhaps the theology of justification and sanctification from the rest of the NT authors—Christ's first apprentices—would round out PTW. Even the quote you shared about having "access to a new power"—Comer's answer isn't union with Christ or the indwelling Spirit of God? It's discipleship? *thumbs down* It almost reduces Christ to a life hack. And we shudder at the thought!
And I want to amen the rejection of a “no strings attached” antinomianism. Yuck. The NT is clear that saving faith, genuine regeneration, real Christianity is more than a one time decision—it’s a million decisions to follow Christ, to hear these words of his and do them, and build on the rock (Matt 7).
Thanks for responding! I really appreciate these thoughts.
However, I would not fault Comer for using “enter” rather than “experience.” Jesus didn’t use the word “experience” (or any Greek equivalents to the word experience). He used “enter.” And he used “enter” in myriad contexts that do not necessarily imply salvific implications (Matt. 5:20, 18:3, 19:23-24, 23:13, Mark 9:47, 10:23-25, esp. Luke 9:27; the one decent exception, I think, being Matt. 7:21, which regardless of your interpretation of “kingdom” really does appear to have salvific implications). So I think faulting Comer for using similar language to imply (essentially) the same message that Jesus implied might be a bit unfair.
Take this passage about Paul after making disciples in Lystra: “strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22 ESV). I’m not sure what implications could be drawn out of this, but just think about the strange way tribulations and faith are related to an entering into the kingdom.
Second, in Hebrews 12:28, you said it implies a “future” receiving of the kingdom. But the παραλαμβάνοντες is in present participle active, implying that it is present and ongoing — not future oriented. You could make a case for it being future oriented, but the Greek in the verse doesn’t seem to imply that.
And while entrance into the kingdom is a primarily a divine work of grace that is not contingent upon human works, to deny our response to this work does, at least in my opinion, imply antinomianism.
Comer has mentioned that his ethical framework is inspired by Glen Stassen’s Kingdom Ethics. In that book, he introduces his concept called “kingdom praxis.” These are temporal, active attempts to bring the kingdom of heaven more tangibly into our present reality, and includes things like justice, prayer, deliverance, community building, repentance, peacemaking, healing, and so on. But importantly, kingdom praxis is both a human and divine work. It is “not about what God does while humans stand by passively; nor is it about our effort to build the kingdom while God passively watches.” Kingdom praxis is both “performative and participative,” in that we are often witnesses to what the Spirit is performing while actively participating in His movements. This is why scholars Bruce Chilton and J. I. H. MacDonald, who lend their support to Stassen’s book, argue that the kingdom of God necessarily involves responses from its hearers, usually culminating in a reversal of worldly values as one is further devoted to servanthood and humility. Furthermore, Oliver O’Donovan argues that although cooperation between God and man is carried out mutually, this does not imply that there is an equality in the amount of power each partner brings to the cooperative act. Thus, God and man participate in kingdom praxis as partners, but the level of authority and degree of metaphysical strength added to each cooperative act, of course, lies on God’s part, who is doing the bulk of the heavy lifting in each instance, so to speak.
Further, your differentiating between union with God and the indwelling of God’s Spirit from discipleship is a bit confusing on my end. In my mind, I don’t think you can easily seperate these three components of Christian life. They seem to all run tandem together (though I suppose it might depend upon your definition of “discipleship.”
I think you might be happily surprised by Comer’s overarching philosophy if you dug into more of Comer’s content (via his old Bridgetown teachings, Practicing the Way content, or Art of Teaching series). I hope you’d find that he does not want to reduce discipleship or union with Christ to a life hack. It’s one of the messages he most frequently repeats.
I am more than happy to see you disagree with Comer’s opinion’s from your own denominational or theological leanings (because if we approach Comer from a strictly reformed, Calvinistic perspective, then it would be of course flawed), but I do think it’s unfair to fault Comer’s theology as if it is universally flawed for all Christians everywhere simply because certain aspects of it don’t line up with a specific perspective.
For example, I personally would not fault a Calvinist for having Calvinist leanings, and this is largely because most Calvinist-specific issues are of second and third tier importance.
Anyways, I’ve had a lot of fun discussing this, and I hope that I have not offended you in any way. I appreciate what you’re doing and saying and your heart behind all of this. To be honest, I almost left the faith about 6 years ago, and the only thing that reeled me back in to orthodox Christianity was Comer’s teachings. I have an immense amount of gratitude for the way his teachings and frameworks have helped my friends and family and I just hope other people could see the beauty in what he is doing as well.
Blessings, Jeff!
Thanks, Griffin. What’s so great to see in Matt 19, is the disciples response about “entering” - who then can be saved? And then Peter follows with, “we’ve left everything to follow you.” This captures what I’m stressing. Comer seems to stress the entrance is learning/becoming like Jesus (progressive sanctification). Where I think the Bible stresses the entrance as Jesus—faith in Him (justification). Discipleship flows from here. Kingdom living is discipleship. My concern was never using entrance language. My concern was how one enters. I think PTW could use more refinement/care/clarity. Not faulting for using entrance language. Faulting for a faulty use. And you are doing the same to me, so lose-lose 😂
I think Paul is referring to the eternal kingdom, which reveals the already-not-yetness of kingdom language in the NT. Suffering is to be expected in our pilgrimage.
I’m not differentiating union or indwelling. Just listing the sides of the coin. I think we may like passing ships here. That’s ok.
So glad God used Comer’s teachings in your life! Hallelujah!
In your first response comment you said, “I still feel the same hiccup with the language of "entering" the kingdom apart from pistis/faith/allegiance/trust in Christ. My concern would be much alleviated if Comer would have used "experience" rather than "enter" the kingdom.” But now you are saying, “My concern was never using entrance language. My concern was how one enters.”
And yet I still don’t see where you are faulting Comer for getting the “how” wrong when the examples you’re drawing from involve the disciples doing things and responding to the message of the kingdom (i.e., “We’ve left everything to follow you” is a responsive action). We’re not saved through works, but we enter into His kingdom by responding to His call to repent and believe.
It seems to be both a receiving and responding, which is what I was getting at in the long paragraph in the center of my second response. It is a both/and, of receiving and responding. This is where Comer is coming from — not that salvation is won by our own righteousness but that taking on the easy yoke of Christ and entering into the already-but-not-yet-ness of the Kingdom is made clearer through our seeking of this Kingdom and his righteousness.
I think we may be reading/writing past each other at this point. I may be misunderstanding, or I’m may not able to clearly articulate what I’m getting at in these comments. My deficiencies know no bounds—especially on my phone in the comments. Blessings.
I think there are some misunderstandings between the two of us in terms of semantics and the definitions that we’ve used, but that does not change the point of my initial comment.
Your paragraph about Comer’s line being “anti-grace” is not accurate. In Comer’s theology, entering into his kingdom does not have salvific overtones. It’s not anti-grace. It’s a healthy response to grace, and is not something that an “editor should have caught.”
Now, if Comer had started PtW with “I am a Reformed Protestant and thus submit to a Reformed Protestant theology over and above contemporary theological scholarship,” then yes, an editor should have caught that line, because it would have been fundamentally flawed. Yet, even though Comer has immense respect for the reformed Protestant tradition, he has criticized and disagreed with many of its features, especially their understanding of “kingdom of heaven.”
As it stands, I would greatly recommend that you at least add a footnote or something to your original paragraph to explain that Comer’s understanding of entering the kingdom does not necessarily carry salvific implications and thus might not imply what your concern insinuates.
And I do apologize that we have had this whole discussion while typing off phones in a comments section. It’s not a good way to communicate and I’m sure I’ve misunderstood many parts of what you’ve said. If you’d like, I’m more than open to a phone or zoom call if you’d like to talk:
griffingooch97@gmail.com