If heretics cannot be saved, then there I go. On the last day, we will all have some bit of heresy to repent of.
How so? To me, meditating on some bit of Scripture seems very contemplative. Dietrich Bonhoeffer used to give his students a verse of Scripture and ask them to spend thirty minutes each day meditating on it. If that's not a contemplative practice, I don't know what is.
Just so we have our history straight here, the counter reformation was not a movement that was against the reformation neccesarily, but rather was a movement within the Catholic church in response to the reformation that recognized a need for some measure of reform, just not to the level that the reformers did.
I didn't say that Keller opposed the reformation, but Ignatius Loyola is the founder of the Jesuit and father of the Counter Reformation, by quoting such people, especially on on the subject of Spiritual Meditation you associate yourself with mysticism since that is what Loyola is famously known for in his Spiritual Exercises. Keller himself says:
What I was refering to is that Roman Catholicism deny that salvation is attain through faith in Christ alone, therefore if you are truly Roman Catholic and believe such thing your are not saved.
So you believe that all the anathemas of the Council of Trent were not directly aimed at the reformation?
I know Catholics who would affirm that Salvation is by faith in Christ alone, just not by faith in Christ alone. And as I recall, salvation is by having said faith, not by affirming said doctrine.
There have been times where what I needed most was Scripture itself, not my own thoughts and deductions about Scripture. I needed to meditate, not cogitate.
By affirming such thing they would deny the Roman Catholic faith. I never said that affirming a doctrine was the way to salvation, but "believing" such bad doctrine makes a difference.
You can meditate on scripture without the specific intent to increase your theology, you can go to scripture for a reminder of its promises to appease your soul and to fill your mind with the precepts of God. I do that often, this is not the same as mindlessly repeating scriptures, and it's certainly not "imagining" God outside of scripture, it's actually the opposite. I'm not trying to split hairs here, I just want to clarify what I believe proper meditation according to scripture is.
Yeah, I strongly suspect Keller would not generally advocate Catholic mysticism. Having heard him speak a little on the topic of Christian meditation (not much, because it is not a big interest to him), I only recall him echoing what Clowney said about meditating on what the Scripture teaches. Are you basing your criticism on a talk or some writing of his that you've actually seen? Or are you basing your criticism on a guess?
I realize that you have a lot of respect for Mr. Keller and I know he generally profess sound doctrine, but when he's quoting Quakers and Catholic mystics when discussing the subject of meditation I believe it is hard to explain away. Maybe I completely missed the context but in my opinion there's absolutely no reason to use Loyola as a source for any subjects when it come to discuss any matters of christian faith especially not spiritual meditation. If you listen to the video in the OP I would like for you to explain to me what was the context of what he was saying and how could it be interpreted as sound teaching concerning meditation.
If you missed the context then the onus is on you to find out the context since you are the one who is publicly accusing him. Since he is our brother you ought not be so hasty to condemn him. Furthermore if you are unfamiliar with the actual content of the writings (not just who wrote them) that he is referencing you should not be as quick to condemn them.
Obviously I have hit a nerve with my comments, I have quoted what Mr. Keller has actually himself quoted and noted what I disagreed with and why. If you believe that I have misrepresented Mr. Keller I have no objection in reviewing your comments about my remarks as to why I would have misrepresented what was said. If I have indeed misunderstood what was being said I would recognise my error. But so far I have seen no argument as to what I have misunderstood about what was being said. I'm not attacking Mr Keller personnaly but showing my disagreement with what he said.
The video clip featuring Tim Keller that I watched on Apprising Ministries website appears to have been spliced together and shows the same statement repeated by Keller, back to back. The visuals were inserted by the creator of the clip, and seem designed to elicit a response from the viewers. I have to agree with others who have commented that this clip seems a bit alarmist, and does not appear to present Keller's comments in a continuous format. It leaves me wondering what they left out, and what Keller truly said in context.
I did notice that as well but the portion where he quotes Richard Foster and then explain what it means is continuous and from what is being said it is describing contemplative meditation which I certainly disagree with. I would also have like to hear the entire sermon but that portion alone was enough to raise red flags for me.
If I quoted everything that is wrong in "The Spirutal Exercises" of Loyola it would fill pages, search it online there are many free versions of it. Compare his way of meditating and mortifying sin with John Owen for example ( On the mortification of Sin) and see the difference. I would also suggest you read the 4th chapter of the 3rd book of the Institute of the Christian Religion by John Calvin and compare it with what Loyola teach in his exercise. Loyola do not use scripture but his own version on how to attain spiritual control etc. It sound like eastern mysticism.
I encourage you to re-watch the video clip on Apprising Ministries and take note of how it was put together. It is choppy, contains two different instances where the author of the clip spliced Keller's same words in back-to-back, presumably to emphasize the author's point, and has clearly extracted part of Keller's words from one or more larger works. According to what I have read, the statement at the end of the clip regarding Loyola's intent in founding the Jesuits is partially true. What the author left out was that it also appears to have been motivated by a sincere attempt on the part of the Catholic's to expunge corruption from their ranks and return to a more authentic faith and teach their leaders from the Bible.
You accuse me of misquoting people and falsly accusing them, where have I said this? I did contrast Loyola with Owen and Calvin, as for Keller and company I do not know enough about those guys to know what is their greatest influence. I just pointed out that he quoted Loyola on the subject of spiritual meditation. Then I pointed to the difference between Loyola and Owen and Calvin. I nowhere said that Keller was getting all of his influence from Catholic mystics nor that he wasn't influenced by Owen or Calvin.
Not really. My critique was aimed primarily at the article that was linked to in the OP. It is good, though, for all of us here to be careful as well. In particular, I think your statement that Keller is "advocating" practices that are "extrememly dangerous" went too far. You can't really know what he's advocating without more context.
Thanks for posting the link! It seems we can all learn from each other in discussions such as this one. It is easy to let emotion carry us when we read something that seems to resonate with a belief we already hold. For example, if I believe "A" to be heresy and a source I am unfamiliar with presents something that indicates Pastor "Y" (whom I am only somewhat familiar with) believes "A", it is easy to be carried by my already held belief and not take the time to validate the source of information. I know I am guilty of this sometimes, and am thankful for this board that allows us to discuss things and come to a better understanding of the issues.
Thanks, I appreciate this acknowledgement. Since the OP makes no mention of Owen or Calvin I assume that your comment was directed towards my comments. I'm not on a crusade against Keller, but this isn't the first time that I hear that he is favorable to contemplative prayer. It appears that he had seminars called "The Way of the Monk" at his church which is to teach how to practice contemplative prayer (which in my opinions is very dangerous).
Thanks, although he says that medating on scripture is better he still advocate works by people who meditated without the Word of God. He speaks as if the works of Loyola and company were a sufficient substitute for catholics who didn't have the word of God available to them.
I agree with this, the problem with Keller's sermon is that he does not quote specifically a portion of a text, he generally promote the works (without being specific) of Loyola and others. Since the topic is meditation, the listenter is left to believe he is refering to Loyola's Spiritual Exercise which is absolute poison.
In that case Keller is not being judicious with his reference to Loyola.
I disagree simply because as a matter of style, it's cumbersome, and it's understood by one's audience that a quote isn't necessarily an endorsement. If I'm a Protestant and I quote Chesterton, it's fairly obvious that I have a couple of bones to pick with aspects of his theology, I would think.