Skip to content

0 thoughts on “We are not saved by grace – Mike Reeves

  1. theoldadam

    Yes, that word 'ALONE' drives many nuts, but without it all manner of mischief will arise.

    Without it, the 'Jesus +' will flourish.

    Even with the word 'ALONE', many cannot help but add something more:
    Your "good works", "your seriousness", "your fruits of the spirit", "a right decision for Christ", "a Pope", "certain people ordained in historic succession", "your sanctification", the list is endless.

    When Luther penned 'alone' in the margin of the Bible, he meant just that. Christ alone. The Word alone. Grace alone. Faith alone.

    This is truly God's work in us, for us.

    Now that we don't have to do anything...what will we do?

  2. imibengo


    I read this and loved it. I'm currently working my way through NT Wright on justification and his grand schemes, and scratching my head - a lot. Part of me wants to have my cake and eat it - to see Wright's perspectives on justification (God's faithfulness to his covenant, God's vindication of the sinner, God's incorporation of the saints into the covenant people and the Spirit's work to make us holy (by grace) to prepare us for the last Day) AND to say Amen! to what I'm reading in articles such as that by Mike Reeves on John Bunyan's understanding of righteousness originating from Christ - fixed and external - but made mine through being "snipped" out of Adam and grafted into Christ.

    Any thoughts? And, how do you reconcile NTW with reformed views of justification?



  3. Glen

    Hey Jamie,

    Mike engages a bit with Wright on Justification here:

    There are links on that page to the other three talks in his justification series. Well worth a listen.

    I think we can cheer on when Wright critiques an anaemic sub-reformational view of justification (which often calls itself the reformed view). So Wright's re-focus on the corporate and on the importance of Israel for reading Gospels and Epistles is great. And when he hammers the absurdity of imputation talk that is devoid of a union-with-Christ context, we can agree. But once you have union with Christ at the centre then imputation is certainly not nonsensical. At that point both Wright and the anaemic view he critiques are wanting. We need to be a lot more solid on union - which is where Mike's teaching is so refreshing and needed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Twitter widget by Rimon Habib - BuddyPress Expert Developer