What do you think of Dallas Willard?

[dms1972]

I have a few of his books, and appreciate the detail he goes into on things like the Sermon on the Mount. But I am aware there is criticism from some of those with a more Reformed understanding - folks like Michael Horton, and John MacArthur - who wonder if it isn't medieval spirituality / mysticism. I am not saying these folks are right in their criticism - they often seem to think the only true form of christianity is Reformation christianity. It does seem as though Willard finds fault with a lot of protestant christianity - which he says has made justification the whole gospel, and replaced a life from above (regeneration), with being let off the divine hook. But it seems at times like he says "ok - this (what many of our churches are teachings) isn't working - "the results are in", lets sweep it away - here let me explain what Jesus meant." Is he correct in his criticism of much contemporary christianity.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have a few of his books, and appreciate the detail he goes into on things like the Sermon on the Mount. But I am aware there is criticism from some of those with a more Reformed understanding - folks like Michael Horton, and John MacArthur - who wonder if it isn't medieval spirituality / mysticism. I am not saying these folks are right in their criticism - they often seem to think the only true form of christianity is Reformation christianity. It does seem as though Willard finds fault with a lot of protestant christianity - which he says has made justification the whole gospel, and replaced a life from above (regeneration), with being let off the divine hook. But it seems at times like he says "ok - this (what many of our churches are teachings) isn't working - "the results are in", lets sweep it away - here let me explain what Jesus meant." Is he correct in his criticism of much contemporary christianity.

I think it's difficult to fully broad-brush contemporary Christianity, and while I've heard of Willard, and I might actually have read some little piece of his somewhere at sometime, if what you're relating is what he meant, then I think he is incorrect. Of course, I'd also say that John MacArthur is just a little on the 'onerous' side with his zealous--sometimes judgemental--evaluations he makes of other Christians.

I think it's best to simply say that there are movements of thought (memes?) that come and go among Christians during certain time periods. But since Christianity on the whole isn't really a huge monolithic cultural phenomenon and could rather be seen as a collection of various cultural institutions, I don't think it's in our interest to go around and castigate each other for our general theological differences ........ unless someone among us is doing something morally heinous. In that case, yes, we need to open our mounts and say that something needs to be cleaned up and swept away.

But that's my opinion. I'm sure Dallas Willard and John MacArther would each disagree in their own ways, but I'll still listen to him on the radio from time to time anyway, among many, many, many other diverse Christian voices.

 

[~Anastasia~]

a lot of protestant christianity - which he says has made justification the whole gospel, and replaced a life from above (regeneration), with being let off the divine hook.

I admit that I don't know who he is, but I'm intrigued by your summary.

I would say he's got some valid points, if he means them the way they sound to me. Much of modern Christianity embraces only the conversion experience, then downplay a good deal of what should follow.

Jesus said the Kingdom of heaven was at hand, the kingdom of heaven is within you. It's not just some eventuality, but something we can and should begin to participate in during this life as part of our salvation.

 

[dms1972]

Well to quote Willard : "... the most telling thing about the contemporary christian is that he or she simply has no compelling sense that understanding of and conformity with the clear teachings of Christ is of any vital importance to his or her life, and certainly not that it is in any way essential."

I think this is might be true to some degree, because churches just seem to focus once a person is a christian on getting them involved in 'church activities' of one sort or another, and may not have "until Christ be formed in you" as their goal.

 

[dms1972]

For Willard salvation is the whole of life, and involves one's transformation into Christ-likeness. He doesn't disagree totally with some of the formulations of gospel such as Charles Ryrie expresses (and Willard quotes) in the following:

"You can believe that what He (Jesus) taught while on earth was good, noble, and true, and it was...You can believe He is able to run your life, and He surely is able to do that, and He wants to. But these are not issues of salvation. That issue is whether or not you believe that his death paid for all your sin and that believing in Him you can have forgiveness and eternal life (Heaven)."

Willard questions whether the issue primarily about going to heaven or hell when we die, or whether it is as he understands it about life from the kingdom of God now - an eternal kind of life, or alternatively a miserable, failing existence.

He argues that Abraham's faith was about something God had promised him in regard to "his current existence - a male baby, a heir, and through that baby a multitude of descendents who would possess the land promised to him"

"He believed God would interact with Him now - just as those who later gathered round Jesus did." writes Williard.

I think i agree with him, that in verses such as John 3:16 "eternal life" (some versions "everlasting life") is often taken to refer to a promise of going to heaven when this life is done. Eternal life is not understood as having anything to do with this life. I think mainly because how the word 'eternal" is understood.

It's certainly the idea I had in my head about salvation growing up - that it was important to be "saved" or I would go to hell when I died.

 

[~Anastasia~]

For Willard salvation is the whole of life, and involves one's transformation into Christ-likeness

I would agree very much with this, and I believe the early Christians did as well.

Willard questions whether the issue primarily about going to heaven or hell when we die, or whether it is as he understands it about life from the kingdom of God now

Well, I wouldn't make an either/or distinction here. But I think it's very much both/and.

Of course anyone who understands anything about the faith is concerned with eternal life in the age to come, in the friendship of God.

But there is sometimes a disregarding or a lack of understanding that in this life now we can not only begin to be transformed into the likeness of Christ (and should be ... else we frankly should examine ourselves to see whether we are even in the faith!) ... and can grow into communion with God and much more. When our spirit is made alive in God, and we begin to be transformed to be like Christ - we should expect such a state to begin to affect everything about us and how we interact with all of creation.

 

[dms1972]

I would agree very much with this, and I believe the early Christians did as well.



Well, I wouldn't make an either/or distinction here. But I think it's very much both/and.

Of course anyone who understands anything about the faith is concerned with eternal life in the age to come, in the friendship of God.

But there is sometimes a disregarding or a lack of understanding that in this life now we can not only begin to be transformed into the likeness of Christ (and should be ... else we frankly should examine ourselves to see whether we are even in the faith!) ... and can grow into communion with God and much more. When our spirit is made alive in God, and we begin to be transformed to be like Christ - we should expect such a state to begin to affect everything about us and how we interact with all of creation.

Thanks again for your comments.

I think the way Willard explains it, is whether the sole target is going to heaven when one dies, or whether that is a by-product or a natural outcome or something else that is the target.

Willard says that the Cross (at least as the main symbol of christianity) is a late emergence in christian history. He is probably correct in that. Yet as far as preaching is concerned didn't Paul say "but we preach Christ crucified..." 1 Corinthians (1: 23) and that "I resolved to know nothing while with you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified" 1 Corthinians 2:2.

But perhaps Paul's preaching differed in some way from modern preaching?

Willard says: "For all the talk about the "new birth" among conservative Christians, there is an almost total lack of understanding of what that new birth is in practical terms and of how it relates to forgiveness and imputed or transmitted righteousness." (The Divine Conspiracy)

But I am still not sure about Willard's new emphasis, has he gone from one imbalance to another?"

I am just trying to find out what the right understanding of the Gospel is, and not getting on very well!

 

[dms1972]

Here is a clip of Willard teaching:

 

[corinth77777]

I have a few of his books, and appreciate the detail he goes into on things like the Sermon on the Mount. But I am aware there is criticism from some of those with a more Reformed understanding - folks like Michael Horton, and John MacArthur - who wonder if it isn't medieval spirituality / mysticism. I am not saying these folks are right in their criticism - they often seem to think the only true form of christianity is Reformation christianity. It does seem as though Willard finds fault with a lot of protestant christianity - which he says has made justification the whole gospel, and replaced a life from above (regeneration), with being let off the divine hook. But it seems at times like he says "ok - this (what many of our churches are teachings) isn't working - "the results are in", lets sweep it away - here let me explain what Jesus meant." Is he correct in his criticism of much contemporary christianity.

 

[corinth77777]

I enjoy Dallas Willard
I had bought his book "Divine Conspiracy" years ago, and never read it, just browsed through it. And then when I was reading the Bible, I recognized that Jesus came preaching the Gospel of the kingdom, and I didn't understand why it seemed to be 2 Gospels in my mind at the time. Then, I remembered scrolling through his book and seeing something about the kingdom. So I took it out and start reading through it. It gave me the answer I was looking for. He thought like me....when I was young for I had questions that people never answered. And didn't understand why most people went to church if there was no change. Who was one to trust?
Even with the section ....you mention in Matthew
I remember thinking if those were more laws we had to keep. But some would say those were for a later time ..for the KINGDOM on earth I suppose. Yet I found His answer at peace with my spirit. And HIS thoughts about JUSTIFICATION, for I also was brought up Baptist, with a father who went to the same school Dallas did. Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Ca. And I did see what Dallas Did. I did ask the question one time in my youth, about What does one need to do if they do not need to do anything? lol
Well we are saved...lol by grace...But at one point I found a passage that meant more to me than anything. Galatians 3;16, or 2:16......And even then I just found so much confusion with so many translations. Yet reading his book, just showed there was more to life, then heaven when you die. And I knew that earlier on. When one day I decided that I was not going to wait to serve God just when I got sick. And I started to pray, and do things for my children, and read the Bible...And God showed up.....I had a joy I didn't never know I could have...... So I was revived, renewed, or regenerated. therefor his thought are something that I can relate to. Then when I was in a bad marriage I sinned...and didn't know if God forgave, and I looked and sought him with my whole heart. He did not come when I wanted, but when he Did show up I knew it was HIM, not anything I deserved, But I was forgiven and renewed...And I will forever be grateful. So the fact that my experiences line up with a lot of what he has written, I kind of stand by his thoughts for the most part. Although I still do not understand what he means by "Trinitarian Presence"

 

[corinth77777]

Thanks again for your comments.

I think the way Willard explains it, is whether the sole target is going to heaven when one dies, or whether that is a by-product or a natural outcome or something else that is the target.

Willard says that the Cross (at least as the main symbol of christianity) is a late emergence in christian history. He is probably correct in that. Yet as far as preaching is concerned didn't Paul say "but we preach Christ crucified..." 1 Corinthians (1: 23) and that "I resolved to know nothing while with you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified" 1 Corthinians 2:2.

But perhaps Paul's preaching differed in some way from modern preaching?

Willard says: "For all the talk about the "new birth" among conservative Christians, there is an almost total lack of understanding of what that new birth is in practical terms and of how it relates to forgiveness and imputed or transmitted righteousness." (The Divine Conspiracy)

But I am still not sure about Willard's new emphasis, has he gone from one imbalance to another?"

I am just trying to find out what the right understanding of the Gospel is, and not getting on very well!

I for one think He is pretty Well balanced.....My brother who also went to Fuller and Father may not agree. However, they are still stuck ON justification.
It is hard for people to see Salvation outside of JUSTIFICATION...but the DEliver(SALVATION) is not only our JUstification, But HE keeps us now, as we trust in HIM (Sanctification) and now is pretty much what we KNOW. I agree with much of Dallas, even though I am not in his mind. But the more I read or hear what he writes it seems to have come together so far. One of the first aspects of the process of being delivered is first to BELIEVE who JESUS is......
I see this as a very important part of the order.
ARE many of us VAMPIRE CHRISTIANS?....???
JUST take a little of HIS blood....and then go back to our own business? IS that a true BELIEVER?
Or is it important to First believe who HE IS by putting trust in him........And as we put our trust in HIM We are forgiven for our sins. As the passage states, if you walk in the spirit the blood of JESUS cleanses us from all unrighteousness. WAIT ? Does it say WALK IN? YEP.......And it's true when you know your sins have truly been forgiven, it spurs you on to LOVE.
Therefore if you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart you will be saved. Well why is it you can confess...and yet NOT just profess? confess I believe means "with" as if something has taken place. HOW can one thus say JESUS is LORD without the help of the holy spirit? What is it the holy spirit has done that allows one to confess, and not just profess?..
Anyway enough for now.....this has been fun..discussing my favorite author of all time....

 

[Sojourner1]

Dallas Willard is one of my favorite theologians. My favorite book that he wrote is "The Divine Conspiracy". There is a new book out called "Life without Lack: Living in the Fullness of Psalm 23", which is very, very good and I highly recommend reading it.

 

[Sojourner1]

One more recommendation...listen to the book "Living in Christ's Presence: Final Words on Heaven and the Kingdom of God". It's from a conference and the speakers on the audible book are Dallas Willard and John Ortberg. It really gives you a sense of the heart of Dallas Willard and what he believed and what he taught.