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 Bi…
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. 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