Deep in Thought
I just started reading "The Challenge of Jesus," by N.T. Wright. Beginning with the first chapter he has me deep in thought.
If N.T. Wright is on to something here, it has huge implications for how we present the gospel . . . Huge implications for how we lead someone to repentance . . . And huge implications for how we disciple followers of Jesus. I don't think the significance of this understanding of repentance could be overstated. It could . . . Well . . . Change everything . . . Even the world.
"Martin Luther rightly reacted against the medieval translation of metanoeite as paenitentiam agere ("do penance") and insisted that the word referred originally to the "repentance" that takes place deep within the human heart, not in the outward actions prescribed as a quasi-punishment. He could not know that his reading would be used, in turn, to support an individualistic and pietistic reading of Jesus' command to repent, which does no justice at all to the meaning of the word in the first century. Jesus was summoning his hearers to give up their whole way of life, their national and social agendas, and to trust him for a different agenda, a different set of goals. This of course included a change of heart, but went far beyond it." (p.27)
Thoughts?
If N.T. Wright is on to something here, it has huge implications for how we present the gospel . . . Huge implications for how we lead someone to repentance . . . And huge implications for how we disciple followers of Jesus. I don't think the significance of this understanding of repentance could be overstated. It could . . . Well . . . Change everything . . . Even the world.
"Martin Luther rightly reacted against the medieval translation of metanoeite as paenitentiam agere ("do penance") and insisted that the word referred originally to the "repentance" that takes place deep within the human heart, not in the outward actions prescribed as a quasi-punishment. He could not know that his reading would be used, in turn, to support an individualistic and pietistic reading of Jesus' command to repent, which does no justice at all to the meaning of the word in the first century. Jesus was summoning his hearers to give up their whole way of life, their national and social agendas, and to trust him for a different agenda, a different set of goals. This of course included a change of heart, but went far beyond it." (p.27)
Thoughts?