What do you think of the writings of Spong?

[ebia]

Either I suppose, though content was more what I had in mind.

 

[MKJ]

Either I suppose, though content was more what I had in mind.

You could look at the article "What's Wrong with Bishop Spong". It's defiantly from a certain point of view, but it goes over some of the major critics and criticisms of his work, so it would be a good place to get some of those names. I believe that it's toward the end of the article that they look at his scholarly credentials.

As far as a summary:

His Greek gets criticized a lot, though I can't comment on this as my Greek is almost non-existent..
He lets on as if it is the general consensus in biblical scholarship that the Gospels are not rooted in history at all.
He lets on as if a late date for the Gospels is universally accepted.
He quotes people who aren't Biblical scholars to support his positions.

And essentially, he remains tied to the higher criticism school of thought and doesn't seem to be aware in his writings of other serious streams of thought - the Radical Orthodoxy movement for example.

 

[Justy90]

I've recently read a few of his books, I'm curious to know what others think of his writings. What's your opinion?

I think that he's dillusional and a legend in his own mind.

 

[Aymn27]

here here..I completely agree...

 

[Neo2]

What do you feel is delusional?

 

[Justy90]

What do you feel is delusional?

His whole idea that Scripture is somehow a curtain to what is real instead of recognizing its authenticity.

 

[mark46]

I agree that we will not be given a theology exam at heaven's gate. I also think that it much more useful to focus our lives on following the Commands, rather than on debating theology.

The question here is whether Christianity means anything more than following the sayings of a model human being and teacher.

On this day of all days, I affirm that it does. If there is no resurrection, there is no Christainity. Paul taught us that. If Jesus is not truly God and truly man, then the resurrection is meaningless.

Perhaps the early councils were wrong and nothing matters about who it is we believe in.

Do you disagree?

""What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work today in the vineyard.'

29" 'I will not,' he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.

30"Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, 'I will, sir,' but he did not go.

31"Which of the two did what his father wanted?"
"The first," they answered. (Matthew 21:28-31)

Faith in God consists in putting one's trust in Him and following His commands, not in affirming statements of doctrine about Him. IMO, at least.

 

[wayseer]

I think that he's dillusional and a legend in his own mind.

I am thinking you John Shelby Spong. Please tell me, in what way is he delusional? What do you mean by delusional?

Maybe you just don't like what he writes. But much of this thread sounds more like a personal attack than anything constructive.

 

[Healed_IHS]

Attacks? Here on CF???

Color me shocked

 

[Polycarp1]

I agree that we will not be given a theology exam at heaven's gate. I also think that it much more useful to focus our lives on following the Commands, rather than on debating theology.

The question here is whether Christianity means anything more than following the sayings of a model human being and teacher.

On this day of all days, I affirm that it does. If there is no resurrection, there is no Christainity. Paul taught us that. If Jesus is not truly God and truly man, then the resurrection is meaningless.

Perhaps the early councils were wrong and nothing matters about who it is we believe in.

Do you disagree?

True. My view on the proper function of dogmatic theology, though, can be gained from the importance I place on the fact that the creeds do not read, "I believe that God is X---" but rather "I believe in God, who is X---" ... they are statements of a trusting relationship, a faith in a divine Person, with clarification of who that Person is: e.g., Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Trinity, truly God and truly man, not the Mormon Jesus, the Muslim Isa, or the "good teacher" of Unitarian views. But not an intellectual affirmation that He is those things, rather, an affirmation that I place my trust in Him and that if you need to know who He is, this is the true description.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Polycarp1,

Faith in God consists in putting one's trust in Him and following His commands, not in affirming statements of doctrine about Him. IMO, at least.

That would depend on the doctrine, if the doctrine reflects Christ’s commands then one is putting one’s trust in Him by doing what He taught.

not the Mormon Jesus, the Muslim Isa, or the "good teacher" of Unitarian views

or the Spong views either.

 

[JasonV]

I'm going with Dunstan on this one. I'm neither an advocate nor anti-Spong. He makes some serious errors, and just might be more unorthodox than I am!

 

[brightmorningstar]

To JasonV
Where would you draw the line then? Could someone who calls themselves a Christian but does not believe Jesus Christ is the risen Son of God actually be a Christian by definition?

 

[JasonV]

I don't draw lines. I leave that to the kindergarteners.

 

[Colabomb]

To me the controversy is simple.

If someone believes that Jesus saved us from our sin through the work of the Cross, that he was raised 3 days later and that through faith in him we may have eternal life, he is a Christian. If he does not believe that, he is not a Christian.

The state of his soul is another matter. I fully expect to be surprised by who is and is not given life so i try not to make assumptions.

 

[MKJ]

To me the controversy is simple.

If someone believes that Jesus saved us from our sin through the work of the Cross, that he was raised 3 days later and that through faith in him we may have eternal life, he is a Christian. If he does not believe that, he is not a Christian.

The state of his soul is another matter. I fully expect to be surprised by who is and is not given life so i try not to make assumptions.

So you would argue Spong isn't a Christian then?

I suspect my last Bishop might not have been either by that criteria.

 

[No Swansong]

MKJ
Rarely will you ever read Cola stating that so and so is or is not a Christian.

He has, like his hard headed father, discovered that making such proclamations are simply impossible to do with any degree of certainty. Besides he doesn't believe it is his responsibility to determine if a person is or isn't a Christian.

As for +Spong I haven't found his writings to be edifying. I much prefer N.T. Wright, Alister McGrath or even John Piper or John MacArthur.

 

[wayseer]

As for +Spong I haven't found his writings to be edifying.

I don't think Spong meant his writings to be 'edifying' - challenging and confronting, certainly.

 

[Colabomb]

Whether Spong is a Christian or not is up to God. I don't say that as a platitude or a dodge as many people do, i say it in the way that we are dumb ignorant human beings, and the state of a man's soul is only visible to God.

Which, is why i say I will be surprised on the last day, to see who is amongst the redeemed and who is not, as I am a blind ignorant human being.

 

[wayseer]

Whether Spong is a Christian or not is up to God. I don't say that as a platitude or a dodge as many people do, i say it in the way that we are dumb ignorant human beings, and the state of a man's soul is only visible to God.

Which, is why i say I will be surprised on the last day, to see who is amongst the redeemed and who is not, as I am a blind ignorant human being.

As are we all. Well said.