Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille
I think it's the phrasing. I've never heard that type of phrasing ever. I can understand being "kept" under Christ (although I would never phrase it that way) but saying "keeping under Christ" to me implies that you are the active party and not Christ. It's not Christ keeping you.. it's you maintaining it yourself.
|
That's exactly what I was thinking, both as to who is the "active party" and the phrasing itself. It's sort of like talking about "getting saved" or being asked "when were you saved?". I know exactly what people mean when they say those things, but they're phrases I have never heard used in my own tradition and that I associate with more evangelical traditions. It's just not the way we talk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS
Christians are the active party in making sure we keep under Christ. Christ is the active party in keeping and sheltering us.
Being a devout person of any faith takes a sense of agency and activity on the part of the believers. It is a constant test and testament of faith.  |
Maybe, but I can tell you that traditional Presbyterianism, rooted in Calvinism, would
always look at God or Christ as the ultimate active party, and would say, without denying free will or human responsibility, that our ability to make sure we "keep under Christ" is completely dependent on God's grace that keeps us. That's one reason why, like Drolefille, it would sound a little more understandable to me to say "kept under Christ" than "keeping under Christ." That, and when I hear "Keeping Under Christ," my initial reaction is to ask "keeping
what under Christ?"
Threaded Mode
