I have a few questions as I have been perusing through the wreckage at CRN and Slice.
- Where on earth do you get that the emerging community denies/rejects/is reversing the reformation? I don’t know a single emerging church that would call for priests administering rites, indulgences, Latin translations of scripture, or a doctrine other than grace alone. Yet, we are accused of it all the time
- Related to #1, how on earth are we going against the doctrines of grace? Even us non-reformed evangelicals hold to the scriptures “for it is by grace you have been saved, thru faith and that not of yourselves.” Us choosing to accept or reject the grace of God does not in any way diminish it
- You are constantly talking about how we deny absolute truth and the complete gospel.  Which parts of scripture is the emerging community as a whole denying (not just the renegade liberals) and what truth do we reject?
- How many people, if any, have you seen come to Christ in the last four months as a result of your web based para-church mini$try?
This entry was posted
on Friday, May 18th, 2007 at 10:21 am and is filed under Original Articles.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
62 Comments(+Add)
“How many people, if any, have you seen come to Christ in the last four months as a result of your web based para-church mini$try?
Oh that’s a good one. They’ll either say “it’s not our job to save people, it’s the Holy Spirit’s” totally sidestepping the verb you used “how many HAVE YOU SEEN…”
Next, they’ll say that theirs is not an evangelistic ministry but a ministry of discernment.
Lastly, they recount all of the disgruntleds they ’saved’ from a church going PD or some teen that emailed them thanking them for saving them from the clutches of Velvet Elvis.
In other words, if they’re focused on saving anyone (instead of just sniping other Christians,) they’re focusing on saving the saved.
It seems to me that websites like their are doing the “Lord’s work”. By that I mean they set themselves up in the place of God, and take it as their job to decide who is and who isn’t a true Christian.
The sad thing is that there really is a genuine need for good teaching to younger Christians, and there is a lot of bad teaching that needs to be refuted. Unfortunately, CRN is just adding to the noise, and would leave a new Christian more messed up than when he or she started.
There are so many things there that I just can’t logically follow, that I gave up trying. I read Ken’s latest slippery slope missive on Rob Bell, and it was pointless – one big piece of conjecture. All one has to do to refute is look no further than the Mars Hill website. I keep on telling myself I shouldn’t even bother reading from that site because it’s so off-base, but it’s like a bad car wreck.
Nathan,
Great questions… most of which will be answered PTDW answered them as if he was one….
1. I do not see anyone “rejecting” but doing as the Great Reformers and even those like Spurgeon commended others to do… and keep on reforming. That is not the same as rejecting but actually building on the foundation of the Great Reformers… there is a huge difference. The real thing I have come against is that those who claim this reject what the reformers actually taught or whitewash them as persons to the point they are no different than the RCC saints. Luther swore more than Driscoll, yet Driscoll is demonize. Luther taught many things much different than the catholic church because he had better or newer information… like the original text that stated “Grace by Faith” instead of the Latin which stated as was taught “Grace by penance” if we have new insight to a culture historically or whatever if it does not go against scripture it can be used to enhance our understanding… we still must be careful as in the supposed lost gospel of Judas… which was written against by Irenaeus btw so I already knew it was heresy before it was debated!!!!! But then Ken hates Irenaeus… doesn’t he.
2. This is rich with irony as I am trying to help people who are taking Grace too far and are going into Universalism… Instead of focusing on Pelagian or his semi… I think that the real issue revolves around why Luther did not want to try to reconcile many things and Calvin has his unbiblical view of election… Both realized that if the atonement was universal than the logical flow is all are saved! Yet, that is the idea that is happening today as some do not reject Grace, but accept it and still think atonement = salvation… and it does not. Atonement gave forgiveness, and the Life of Christ by His resurrection gives us eternal Life… we are dead and need Life… then we are sealed by the Holy Spirit.
So, that is where the real debate is happening… it is not about “truth”… in fact that is why the initial response to Jonny Mac was “Who are they talking about?” as these sort of accusations you have presented have no real relevance to the actual conversation we are having. But if they do not care to listen then they will not hear…
3. The debate is not against “truth” on our side we accept truth. Those who cast this one think we are “postmodern” and as I have stated over and over we use the “tools” just as Ken uses the “tools” of modernism… but I think Ken more of a modernist than I am a postmodern.. by far. I think that the misunderstanding is around the word “Absolute” which is not a biblical idea as Truth is truth and needs nothing more to be true… Hegel gave us “Absolute” and the modernist who hold to man’s philosophies fight for Hegel’s Absolute truth” we are fighting to restore “Biblical” true to it’s proper place.
As far as “relativism” we see on non essentials the sciprutre teaches that this is so… otherwise Paul is lying in Romans 14: 1-6 “Romans 14
“Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.
Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.”
It seems as Paul states elsewhere, that if it is a sin against your own conscience then it is a sin to you but if it is not then it is not… it seems that somethings are relative to the person to me here don’t you think?
4. Ken will have to answer to THIS question but as I stated, PTDW did a great job for him… I suppose Ken can save time and research by cutting and pasting PTDW answers… LOL!
So, Ken and crew are so far off the mark on the emerging conversation they a like the story of the Blonde
who saw saw the sign for YMCA she said: “LOOK, they’ve spelled MACY’s wrong!!!”
Blessings,
iggy
Number 2 and 4 are irrelevant with four being judgmental. There are Arminians in the EC and Ken is irelevant.
Number one is seen in many emergents as they now accept thr RCC as a Christian denomination. Some are now moving toward Advent wreaths and Lenten observances and even some sacramental practices akin to Rome. Some have even taken a second look at communion as per Rome.
Number three is obvious. Even Rob Bell who many consider in the conservative wing has an article describing the nature of Scripture on the Mars Hill website. You can imagine what others openly muse about Scripture, including MacLaren himself.
Nathan, without even a minimal common creed with which to move out from, the EC has established itself as a wide open opinion fest. From Spencer to Bell to MacLaren to anyone else who desires to they can offer a new and post modern perspective of what was once established doctrine within the Calvinistic and Arminian camps. You know it is running wild with some even toying with the idea that the teachings of the RCC can be modified somewhat to allow them to morph with mainstream evangelicalism. (by the way SBC and other non emergent denominations are also moving that way)
So I disagree with the premise of questions 1 & 3, there are ample and growing evidences of these Biblical infractions within the EC. And believe it or not Ken Silva somehow has the widest documentations on some of these. Strip away the hyperbole and you will see direct instances from his research about those two questions. Maybe people like you do not entertain those things but there are many who do.
The difference is that as some in the SBC are moving away from historical beliefs, some in the SBC are speaking out about it. Where are the EC voices speaking out against not just “wild liberals” as you put it, but major conference speakers and writers?
Rick,
“So I disagree with the premise of questions 1 & 3, there are ample and growing evidences of these Biblical infractions within the EC. And believe it or not Ken Silva somehow has the widest documentations on some of these. Strip away the hyperbole and you will see direct instances from his research about those two questions. Maybe people like you do not entertain those things but there are many who do.”
I can find Baptists who think going to strip clubs is ok… I mean they wont lose their salvation and can 1 John 1:9 it away…
Yet, the fringe who ever they are do not make op the bulk… Believe me I have read much more Brian Mclaren than Ken… I have listened to more sermons and speeches… I am sure I have over 100 mp3 by McLaren… yet I find that almost every accusation against him misses the point and misrepresents in some way what he really stated. The Hyperbole or not… 9 out of ten things I have read against Rob Bell and Mclaren are simply wrong… as on IN THE GROUP and has READ and Listened I think my research as valid is not more than Ken’s.
Now, on the fringe many of us see Gnostics wanting to be part of us… in that we know they are not and still have they desire to converse with us… I think that it is great if a heretical group desires to converse about true salvation! It is like having JW’s come to your door to talk about Jesus and then they listen to you for an hour about your faith… (I have done that about three times… each time someone more specialized comes until they black ball my house from visitation… but they are always interested in what I have to say…. )
I think that most miss McLaren likes to get the conversation going… in most of his books I read he is like, “Does hell really exist? Or is it annihilation? Or is the Hell we talk about people going to the Hell that they will spend eternity in? Now discuss.”
He does not give answers, he may give a bit to one side to help the conversation yet i have heard him say he believes very much in the atonement, yet thinks we need to explore Christus Victor as it was taught for years before Substitionary atonement was even started to be talked about… I think both fit as Mark is very much Christus Victor… Jesus was the suffering Servant as the scripture teaches.
Mostly I think McLaren is trying to show us a broader view.
Now about Catholics… I think you and I will totally disagree… I just was hearing the powerful testimony of a person who was going insane and Jesus brought him out of that darkness and showed him God’s love and Grace… and he is now Catholic… and loves Jesus and claims salvation by Grace… as I tried to show you earlier in another post… your view is wrong that they teach works… the teaching on Penance had evolved a bit more in the last years… so I think some of your ideas a bit back in the Lutherian age.
No offense… when I hear the testimony of this person and how he loves Jesus… I just can’t believe “Catholics are not saved”, that is the same as Ken saying all emergents are not saved… yet here i am… and there are a few more than me I have found here… This is not the first Catholic I have found who confesses Jesus as his salvation I have read and talked to many who believe such.
Blessings,
iggy
Ken et al. are the extreme fringe of neo-fundamentalism, and the “emergent/liberal/apostate” person they ritually attack is likewise a fringe element far to the opposite extreme (ie. the universalist or open theist).
So, we have the extreme fringe on one side attacking the extreme fringe on the other, which the majority who live in the middle between these extremes are left scratching their heads and wondering “who are these guys talking about, anyway”?
Because it sure ain’t us.
Even if some of us are Canadians.
How a person came to Christ and remained or became a Catholic is absolutely irrelevant to the teachings of the RCC. They are profoundly and unquestionably heretical and wrong on the essence of salvation. Your tone is exactly what I was addressing in my previous comment, some emergents as well as others are trying every which way to drag the Roman Church into being accepted as a Bible teaching Christian denomination.
I will tell you what, Iggy, you seem to be a well read believer. I challenge you to read Vatican II which is the official PAPAL doctrine of today’s RCC. Now after you read it, I would ask you to write on your blog the five most serious errors of RCC teaching as expounded in Vatican II. (you will have an extremely difficult time whittling them down to five)
All your scholarly comments and posts and you openly say that because you were moved by a woman’s testimony you are swayed as to the authenticity of the RCC teachings. I just don’t get it. That is purely subjective and is the same reasoning that you sometimes accuse people like Ken of. You would be light years more accurate to argue that the emergent church is expanding methodology without compromising truth than to argue that the teachings of Rome are Biblical.
Please, leave that one alone, you have inadvertently provided proof that the #1 question on the above post is true.
HenryRick,
“a major statement of faith”….
There’s no need. They are not a denomination. You have to take each “emerging church” on its own terms, heritage, theology. Some are minimalists–Nicene Creed only with a broad range of theologies outside that symbol.
Others, LIKE BRIAN MCLAREN’S church, have a pretty typical evangelical statement of faith with elder statements on everything from divorce to human sexuality. (Check that out at Cedar Ridge. So much for Brian being “unclear” on homosexuality.)
Point is…gotta take each community that is interested in engaging the culture on its own theological terms and assess it as such.
More work, not easy, but it makes every negative broad brush statement about the emerging church a lie because by its very nature as a phenomenon it cannot be categorized in the ways we are accustomed.
There is no doctrinal consensus when it comes to particular denominational identity because the “emerging church” phenomenon is driven by ecclesiology/missiology which are inherently about practice. Hence you can have an emerging Anglican congregation using the 1929 Book of Common Prayer that will not ordain women, while down the street a storefront, egalitarian, non-denom that focuses on justice, ministering to addicts, etc. can also call themselves “emerging”.
Their worship, theologies, etc. can all be very different and still all be “emerging”.
The place that gets the real critique for not having a statement of faith is the relationship network called Emergent Village.
Honestly, I think this request is silly.
You don’t ask a group of friends from highly diverse backgrounds to generate a statement of faith as the sign of the legitimacy of their FRIENDSHIPS–that’s all EMERGENT is. A clearing house for an extended network of relationships for ministerial practitioners of a wide variety and kind.
It’s like saying that my wife and I have to give you our statement of faith to prove the legitimacy of our marriage.
We disagree on some things theologically, (i.e. how we would understand some areas of practice, doctrine, etc.) BUT we remain in covenant relationship with each other because that lived theology–reconciling, forbearing, listening, kindness–says much more about the truth of our knowledge and encounter with God in Jesus Christ.
That’s why you will always see a resistance from EV to give you something beyond the Nicene Creed.
That’s why no one has any central place to go invested with the ability or authority to speak for every kind of community that would self-identify as “emerging”–a very different thing from EV.
This key distinction is repeated again and again, but people seem to not understand how crucial it is to things and how it undercuts critiques that can (rightly) be laid at the feet of only a few, but is wrong to lay on the group as a whole.
It would be like judging all SBCers by the likes of Paige Patterson, Al Mohler and saying the whole denom is worthless and of Satan. OR judging all baptists by the marred witness of the SBC.
RobbyMac,
You just nailed it.
And that’s why people get the pushback they do when they unfairly lump in the whole with a couple people that are being scrutinized.
Rick,
I have downloaded the documents and have read at least 5 of the pages so far… I have not seen anything that would cause me to step back and go “Oh my the RCC is not saved!”… in fact as I glanced though most of it… I still see nothing that just jumps out or that there are as many things that are as bad as you say…
All your scholarly comments and posts and you openly say that because you were moved by a woman’s testimony you are swayed as to the authenticity of the RCC teachings. I just don’t get it.”
Rick stated: ”
BTW the testimony I have just heard is not of a ‘woman’ as I was not swayed… i have not idea where you got that notion at all. In fact i was pointing out that the point of Contact with these Catholics friends of mine is always Jesus Christ and their genuine love for Him shown by their devout service to Him… so how you got that statement out of what I said I have no clue. The fellowship I shared was around Jesus… often initiated by them!
It may be much easier for you to email me the “list” of errors you have seen in your reading… since the document is easily labeled for reference I am sure we can find the same thing and then discuss the issue you or I may have… yet again, as I read a portion of it I was pretty impressed…
Now, here is a point of interest… did you know that the RCC, Lutheran and Methodist all agree on Justification? I thought that interesting…
blessings,
iggy
Another Nathan…
Great point… in fact I think it speaks more of the Unity we find in Christ that we can set down the non essentials and focus on the essentials… and in that unify and work together… this is much different that what happened in the early “liberal” days of losing sight of truth for unity.
There is something much deeper going on and it seems that it is not driven by man, but of God… as we may debate but there is always respect and grace when we disagree… I think we have seen that even here between you, myself and others.
Blessings,
iggy
The RCC does not believe in justification by faith, hence the reformation. The verse that struck Luther was “The just shall live by faith” and the RCC counted Luther a heretic because he taught you could be saved purely be faith outside the RCC.
Let me give you a short list of unbiblical teachings from the RCC.
1. They teach that baptism and good works saves a person.
2. They teach that Mary is co-redemptrix
3. They teach that a person can pay for his sins in pergatory.
4. They teach that tradition is as authoritative as Scripture
5. They teach that the Pope is infallible in matters of doctrine.
6. They teach that the Pope is THE representative of Christ on earth.
7. They teach that pious muslims can be saved without Jesus
8. They teach that Mary was as sinless as Jesus including being born without sin
9. They teach that is a mediator between man and Jesus
10. They teach that eating the actual flesh of Jesus and drinking His blood adds grace to the possibility of a sinner going to heaven
Just a few, there are many more.
Number nine should read that Mary is a mediator between man and Jesus
Rick,
“The RCC does not believe in justification by faith, hence the reformation. The verse that struck Luther was “The just shall live by faith†and the RCC counted Luther a heretic because he taught you could be saved purely be faith outside the RCC.”
I already quoted the teachings of the RCC in the comments concerning this… the reformation was in the 1500’s and a lot has changed since then… That is why I said you need to update some of your info…
I will answer the others as I can find them. Again, I know that many did and do not agree with the view of this Pope concerning Mary. Yet i already see that you have misrepresented them on point 7.
Blessings,
iggy
Jimmy Akin, Director of Apologetics and Evangelization for Catholic Answers a pro-Roman Catholic apologetic organization:
“The [Roman Catholic] Church still believes and teaches all the definitions Trent issued.”
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9712qq.asp
From an article entitled “Vatican II—The Myths” from the library of the “Global Catholic Network†EWTN:
“All that the Church taught when Vatican II began is still [Roman] Catholic teaching. The changes whether made by the Council or decided upon since, are [only] in practical matters such as the liturgy or discipline, but always leaving doctrine unchanged” (emphasis added).
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/VAT-2.HTM
Rick, Chris L and all,
I have prepared a very lengthy and somewhat hasty answer to the ten questions, I just want to know if it is alright to post them?
Blessings,
iggy
“”The obedience of faith” (Rom. 13:26; see 1:5; 2 Cor 10:5-6) “is to be given to God who reveals, an obedience by which man commits his whole self freely to God, offering the full submission of intellect and will to God who reveals,” (4) and freely assenting to the truth revealed by Him. To make this act of faith, the grace of God and the interior help of the Holy Spirit must precede and assist, moving the heart and turning it to God, opening the eyes of the mind and giving “joy and ease to everyone in assenting to the truth and believing it.” (5) To bring about an ever deeper understanding of revelation the same Holy Spirit constantly brings faith to completion by His gifts.”
Nope it is not Jonny Mac… it is the Vatican Council 2… Though it sounds very much like Jonny Mac to me… It seems to sound a lot like his being “total commitment/total obedience” for salvation.
Neither of these are what i see as “true”, yet as far as calling one a heretic and that because one is of “works” and be blind to the other is beyond me… I can see less works from the Catholic view than Jonny Mac’s… I see more Grace in the RCC statement than I have heard taught by JM.
Obedience is never about “us” it is all about Him… (Romans 5:19)
blessings,
iggy
Iggy – If you are predisposed to defend Rome, so be it. Of course Vatican II has acceptable language in parts, as does the “Pearl of Great Price” or the written doctrines of Mormonsim or even Jehaovah’s Witness writings, they all have places that when taken out of the body of beliefs seem evangelical.
And your nickname reference to MacArthur reveals your bias both in the nickname and that somehow he came up (?). If you go outside Vatican II and do an historical research opf the teachings of Rome you will find that their teachings today, although couched in much softer and ecumentical language, are still tied to its teachings in years gone by.
The difference between MacArthur’s teachings and the RCC is that MacArthur teaches a salvation be grace through faith but emphasizes a strong obedient discipleship (remember I am Arminian so no bias toward him), while the RCC teaches a salvation through baptism specifically in the RCC church even though some of the writings you quote soften the other areas and make it palatable for people who have an ax to grind with Calvinists so the RCC thorn is a great tool.
If any moderate student of the Scriptures cannot see that the teachings of the RCC are heretical he is volitionally blind, many times a result of a bad experience in evangelical fundamentalism and that energizes their particular doctrinal de-regulation.
This thread is exactly what Nathan claims doesn’t exist in his original post. Let everyone take note, you do not have to, as Nathan puts it, “call for priests administering rites, indulgences, Latin translations of scripture, or a doctrine other than grace alone” to be moving toward Rome, all you have to do is accept them as evangelical, they will do the rest.
Here is the choice you have, Iggy, either the RCC is a God approved Christian church or they are not. One issue about which you have no choice is the fact that the RCC and the evangelical world are coming together disproprtionately on the RCC’s turf. Many of us see that as a falling away, some I guess see it as a move of God’s Spirit. So as I said in my recent post on FJL we have Irreconcilable Differences.
I truly believe the evangelical world is running toward apostacy. Not just because of their acceptance of Rome, but also because of their hedonism and dismantling of Scriptural teachings. I have been saved for 32 years and I would never have believed that evangelical Protestants would again embrace the RCC and the repentance that necessitate the coming together is on the Protestant side. Martin Luther was the anti-christ.
Rick,
“If you are predisposed to defend Rome, so be it.”
I am not predisposed to defend Rome… but to defend my brothers and sisters in Christ… I desire unity in Christ built on Jesus Christ and not to drive more on division that is already there. In that if some do dwell in error to win them over of they do not to rejoice in the fellowship of Christ.
To quote part of the VC2.
“The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself. ”
I think since we have the ministry of reconciliation, that we need to seek the common good and help them then find Jesus Christ for salvation. Be them Mormon, Jew, Arminian, Calvinist, Catholic or emerging…
Blessings,
iggy
Rick,
On Luther you stated,
“Martin Luther was the anti-christ.”
By the standards of those at CRN if Luther lived today and taught his anti semitism, spoke using his favorite scatological language, while discussing theology over a pint of beer, he would have been labeled an emergent and then been called a heretic and lumped into the anti christ pile as Ken and others have done with me and many others.
Blessings,
iggy
The part of Vatican II you quoted is heresy. And to list Mormon, Jew, Arminian, Calvinist, Catholic, and emerging together reveals a profound lack of understanding of the depth of damnable heresy in some of those.
Mormon and Jewish theologies are anti-christ and Catholic is unbiblical while emerging continues to lead me to suspect the worst.
Sorry, Iggy, where you see Christian brothers I see lost souls.
Rick,
Your comment shows a lack of understanding of what I actually said…
Did you read this part and not agree?
“Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ “the way, the truth, and the life†(John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself. —
If you consider that damnable heresy, then I think you need to study more as I see Jesus is the way, the truth the life and that in Him we find the fullness of “religious” life (this is not in the sense we use “religion” it is in the tradition of living the life of Christ as used in the history of all beleivers) It is in Jesus that God reconciled all to Himself.
I am saying that whoever I talk to and with that I look for the common and build on it towards Jesus if they do not know Jesus and if they do, meaning the RCC, not necessarily the Mormon and JW… yet i have met quite a few Jews that love Jesus… contrary to your “antichrist” comment. These refer to themselves as fulfilled Jews.
SO your comment seems lacking in a grasp of what I actually stated and it also shows a lack of charity toward our Jewish brothers who know Jesus as Messiah.
In other words you are calling some unclean that God has made clean…
Blessings,
iggy
Rick,
Just to let you know I look for Jesus in another person saved or not and build on that foundation as Paul did on Mars Hill…
In that I see Christ already working and build on His foundation and then i bear His fruit…
So I do not see lost, I see the reconciled that need to come to life in Christ.
blessings,
iggy
“Just to let you know I look for Jesus in another person saved or not and build on that foundation as Paul did on Mars Hill…
In that I see Christ already working and build on His foundation and then i bear His fruit… ?
I don’t see Jesus in a lost person because He isn’t there. And you misrepresent the Mars Hill narrative as I suspect others do who bear that name. You believe Paul would be Bell or MacLaren today, I think he would be Whitefield or Edwards or Finney.
“So I do not see lost, I see the reconciled that need to come to life in Christ.”
That is universalism. I am now out of my theological league because the terms keep changing. You say Jews when you mean “saved Jews”. Of course I wouldn’t mean him as anti-christ and to suggest that I did is disingenuous. And the heresy I referred to inthe quote was of course directed at the former statement about seeing Christ in everyone.
You travel a very mercurial world of theology that has departed from the historical church. The phrases that you use may appeal to this poat modern generation but they do not appeal to people like me.
Iggy,
” So I do not see lost, I see the reconciled that need to come to life in Christ.” This supports a statement you made about the cross doing one thing (I can’t remember what) for people, and the resurrection giving them life. Can you restate what you said earlier?
When I read your previous statement I wondered how a person “partakes” of the resurrection so that they have life.
Rick,
This is why I see them as reconciled… because scripture teaches it is so…
Romans 5: 8 – 14. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!
For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned– for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. ”
When we were still enemies God reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ…
I see all men are forgiven but we only have salvation by receiving the LIFE of Christ by the infilling of Jesus in us then sealed by the Holy Spirit… this is all taught in the Bible pretty clearly.
Blessings,
iggy
Amy,
A person when they receive Jesus received Him into themselves and we are immersed or placed in Jesus Christ and become a part of His Body… this is the same Body that was resurrected.
We died with Jesus on the cross so partook of His death, are we live by the same in that He was raised so we are too.
Romans 6 teaches this.
Blessings,
iggy
I don’t see any scriptural reason for considering all people reconciled. Romans 3:21-27 teaches reconciliation for those who trust in Jesus Christ to take away their sins, believing that Jesus shed his blood for them.
The Romans 5 passage is addressed to believers, not all men. Romans 5:9 teaches that those who are reconciled are those who have been made right by the blood of Christ.
If all people are already forgiven, why do they need salvation? Forgiven = perfect in Christ’s sight = having experienced his salvation.
Amy,
This is the universal atonement I have shown that Rob Bell teaches. It’s also known as the inclusive theory in that at the cross Christ supposedly redeemed the entire kosmos back to God. Thus in this gravely wrong view all men are already forgiven and simply need to be made to see this and then accept the forgiveness they already have. This is how Bell can say there are forgiven people in hell.
Amy,
read Romans 3 more carefully as it is saying that “22. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23. for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24. and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”
Notice that “all have sinned” and that they are “justified freely by His Grace”
Also, it says very clearly in Romans 5: “For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!”
We are reconciled by His death, and saved through His life… The reconciliation came at the Cross…
Once and for all… (Romans 6:10; Hebrew 7:27; Hebrews 9:12; 9: 26; )
We are all reconciled unto God at the Cross, but saved by His Life. 2 Cor 5: 18-19 states of the reconciliation… ” All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.”
It is that all are reconciled, but it is that man still must turn to Jesus for His life for salvation. Until then man is just a forgiven dead man… our problem with sin was dealt with at the Cross as John the Baptist stated of Jesus “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! Jesus took away the sins of the world… so all are forgiven, but not all saved until these receive the wages of sin being death receive Life… that is the the Hope we desire of the Resurrection… that we are partakers in the Resurrection unto Life eternal.
We without Jesus are still dead. Forgiven but dead. A dead person needs Life and the Life is in the Son. Read through the Gospels and see what Jesus states on this… He is the way the truth the life…
Forgiveness is only half of the gospel… it was freely given by grace at the cross once for all… but eternal Life is in Jesus so we need to receive the Life of Christ Jesus to be saved.
It took me a while to understand this… but as you read this comes clearer and clearer.
Blessings,
iggy
Ken,
It is what the bible teaches… so I accept it for what it says…
Be Blessed,
iggy
Ken,
What is the point (from the point of view of people who believe this) in them thinking that men are already forgiven?
Also, (from the point of view of people who believe this) how do they believe that God is looking on the people who have not yet seen that they are forgiven: 1) as people still separated from God and “falling short” as Romans 3:23 puts it, or 2)as people who are “good” because they are already forgiven or 3) something else?
For people who hold to the universal atonement positition, what are the varieties of ways that people “accept this forgiveness” that they already have?
This belief is different than the belief that Christ died only for the elect, isn’t it?
Also, it’s different from the belief that the price has been paid, but you are not forgiven until you are born again, correct?
Just trying to think through what this really means . . .
Iggy, you said, “read Romans 3 more carefully as it is saying that “22. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23. for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24. and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus . . . ”
What is puzzling to me is how the phrase “to all who believe” seems to be left out of your whole argument. I really don’t see how your argument is clear and see no possible way for this to become “clearer and clearer” with more bible study.
Amy,
“What is the point (from the point of view of people who believe this) in them thinking that men are already forgiven?” For the fringe this opens the possibility that God can also be found through other religions. For Bell it seems to be the basis for his “God loves you just as you are” pitch.
Your second question is answered as you look (in the wrong way) at their idea that then you get people involved in being a “follower of Jesus” and then they at some point “accept” His forgiveness. It’s a “gospel” with no potential for any conflict because no one really has to deal with the gravity of what sin actually is.
Yes, it is diametrically opposed to Christ does for the elect, which I’m not arguing here. But iggy’s actually explaining this wrong view for you quite well. But once you understand this you’ll understand why so many in the emerging church feel so strongly that they need to find God in the “other.” Means look at other religions and see how God is working out that forgiveness there and then join in the work of “the kingdom” there.
This is why McLaren said that people can be “followers of Jesus” (His teachings) and remain in their Buddhist or Hindu contexts. He;s not vague at all once you understand this wrong view of the atonement. It’s also why McLaren denines the vicarious penal substitutionary atonement.
Amy,
I want you to know I’m not ignoring you now but I have to get ready for my message tomorrow. Just wanted you to know I pray this helps.
I guess part of the question is how much does being right or wrong affect our salvation. If a person is raised catholic, perhaps they are wrong about certain doctrines – the idea of Mary being an intercessor for instance. But the conservative evangelical crowd also might have incorrect ideas too – like holding of all scripture as we have it before us as completely inerrant and totally literal.
So how much does being right affect our salvation? What do we have to be right about? If we’re right about that, does being wrong about other things cancel that out?
I person has to be right about salvation by grace through faith. They can baptize babies as a ceremony, they can believe in consubstantiation, they can even believe that the pope is the leader of their denomination. But they cannot believe in good works and baptism to save them.
By the way, Ken, your comments were insightful and spot on. Sincerely.
Rick,
And I sincerely appreciate what you said.
Amy,
Do a study on the phrase “once for all” and notice what each verse states. with the understanding the Jesus died for the ungodly and that we were still enemies when He died for us, His death reconciled us. In that we are forgiven… yet, still we will face death with out the one thing a dead person needs, and that is Life.
This is the issue is that if one truly gets the teaching of the “atonement” and that it was “once for all” and there is not other sacrifice for our sins… as if all are forgiven as the bible does teach then there are two issues.
1. Universalism in which all are saved, yet this conflicts with other scriptures on salvation
2. That what Calvin taught that only “some” are forgiven… which then we need to throw out many verses that state Jesus “died for all once and for all”.
Calvin’s mistake was that he believed that atonement = salvation… and that is not what is taught in Scripture… atonement = forgiveness
Yet, as all were forgiven at the Cross as Jesus stated, “Father forgive them they know not what they do.” we then are force to think that all are forgiven at the Cross and then all are saved… or all are forgiven as Jesus prayed, or else it was a prayer never answered, yet not all that stood there were saved. That is why it says we are “saved by His Life”.
In that we see that all are forgiven at the Cross or Jesus prayer was unanswered and a lie, and it was finished and we stand forgiven… and it is true. Yet, to have life we must come to Jesus who is Life itself… in Christ we have Life and that Life is eternal.
Study this out… it will hold true.
Blessings,
iggy
Ken,
Do you then deny that Jesus death was once for all at the Cross? Do you then say that Jesus lied when He said, “It is finished?”
Be blessed,
iggy
Rick,
According to your last comment, then Lutherans are not saved, and Calvin, who also taught infant baptism is not saved.
Both Lutherans and Calvin taught that infants are saved by baptism… Calvin taught that infants are the receivers of the initial regeneration. Lutherans believe in Consubstantiation.
Yet, both also teach salvation is by grace through faith…
Amy,
Here is a post I did that explains a bit more what i teach.
Be Blessed,
iggy
iggy,
You’re confusing the issue in a very common way. It is one thing to say that Jesus death on the cross would be sufficient to pay the penalty for all the sins of all mankind, it is wholly another thing to say that it actually did pay that penalty and yet many for whom the atonement was made will still end up in Hell because they refused to repent and believe the gospel. Not only does that mean that the God who saves by His mercy and grace is powerless to fulfill the full reward for the price which Jesus paid on the cross, it also means that His redemptive plan for mankind, specifically (and I know you probably hate this word) for the Elect of God meaning those for whom Jesus died is not laid out in the word of God, which is to ignore volumes of Scripture.
When Jesus said “It is finished!” He meant it, the debt was paid in full. But you have to take that in light of what else is revealed in God’s word regarding the fullness of the meaning of that statement. Try John 6:37-39:
36″But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe.
37″All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
38″For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
39″This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.
I included vs 36 because it reveals a lot when He says that those who had seen Him in person and were fed to the full by His miracle with the fish and loaves of bread still did NOT believe.
This passage should cause peace to consume those who have repented and believe the gospel and trust in Jesus evidenced by a submission to His word and a willingness to humble themselves rather than hold fast to selfish ambition and selfish traditions – for they know that He will raise them up on the last day. But it also says that it is all that the Father has given whom He will not lose.
Bill,
I do believe that one must accept Jesus to be saved. In that comes repentance…
though you seem to be contradicting yourself…
“It is one thing to say that Jesus death on the cross would be sufficient to pay the penalty for all the sins of all mankind, it is wholly another thing to say that it actually did pay that penalty and yet many for whom the atonement was made will still end up in Hell because they refused to repent and believe the gospel.”
If it was sufficient then if did pay for the sins of all mankind… you seem to be negating it did by confusing the atonement and salvation as the same thing… that is why the scripture states we are reconciled by death and we receive life by His resurrection.
Romans states also:
Romans 3:25- 26
“God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished– he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.”
God left our sins unpunished so that Jesus could take on the punishment for us. This was to fulfill His required Justice and to be the Justifier.
Later Paul writes in chapter 5: 10 “For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!”
We are not saved by the death of Christ, but by the Life of Christ.
John 5:21; 24; 26;39 and many other verses…
The Life is in the Son and to have the Life we must be in the Son…
We still will die but not in our sins… we will die because we deny Jesus.
We no longer are condemned because of our sin, but because of our unbelief in the Son… Romans 11 states in verses 27-32 “For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.”
Sorry about the KJV but I think that the word choice for the NIV a bit off… it tends to weaken Paul a bit.
It is because people reject Jesus and His finished works, and that they do not accept those works and rest in them that they will be sent to the Lake of Fire.
We will be judged whether we are in the Lamb’s book of Life… Rev 20: 11. Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them.
12. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.
13. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done.
14. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.
15. If any one’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Notice the only thing that mattered was that one’s name was in the lamb’s Book of Life? That is the goal of the Christian life is to live the Life of Christ… to live is Christ to die is gain…
It is not I that live but Christ in me Colossians 3: 3. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God.
4. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.
Jesus must be our very Life… for in Him alone is our salvation and in Him also is our only Hope of Glory. Colossians 1: 27. To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
It is Christ in us… and us in Christ that brings salvation… this was given by the Cross because our sins are no longer accounted against us.
Again, we were reconciled while we were still enemies… that sounds like it was before we even knew we were reconciled…
So, you have us having to be reconciled after we accept Jesus which them means that verse… is a lie. (Romans 5:10) So we either accept the death of Christ took the sins of the world away, or we deny it.
1 John 2:2 is either a lie or the truth… I choose to believe it…
“He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” NIV
” And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” KJV
“He himself is the sacrifice that atones for our sins—and not only our sins but the sins of all the world.” NLV
“And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.” NKJV
“and *he* is the propitiation for our sins; but not for ours alone, but also for the whole world.” Darby translation
“And He [[a]that same Jesus Himself] is the propitiation (the atoning sacrifice) for our sins, and not for ours alone but also for [the sins of] the whole world.” Amplified Version
” and he — he is a propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world,” Young’s Literal Translation
So do you believe this verse or reject it… was Jesus the atoning sacrifice that appeased God… was Jesus like the other High Priest who had to give sacrifice over and over… or did He finish and then sit down… Hebrews 1:3; Hebrew 8:1;
Hebrews 10:11-12 “Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. ”
Was it “once for all” or not? Was it one sacrifice for sins or not?
I believe the truth is that it was. Once for all mankind as God’s will was that none should perish… yet it is that we must come through Jesus by Grace through Faith, not of works…
Blessings,
iggy
Blessings,
iggy
Calvin and Lutherans do not teach salvation by baptism. I was raised in Lutheranism and I’ve read Calvin on baptism. They teach a covenant baptism akin to circumcision which needs to be authenticated later by personal faith.
By the way, if they did teach salvation through baptism they are false teachers, all. As far as church of ZChrist and others they are false churches and the salvation of those members would be somewhat like Catholics, it is by individual basis but any people who are saved did not get saved through their church’s teachings.
All this atonement or recociliation or regeneration and a lot of other terms are general terms that apply to the same event of salvation. To micromanage them is to remove the simplicity that is in Christ. Let me provide salvation 101 for you (from an Arminian perspective)
1. Adam sins and all humanity dies spiritually.
2. God slays animals and covers Adam’s sin.
3. God calls Abraham and makes a covenant of faith.
4. God institutes the law primarily for a consciousness of sin
5. God prophetically describes a Messiah
6. Jesus is born and dies for the sins of the world
7. Jesus resurrects
8. The Holy Spirit draws whosoever wills
In the end the goats are lost, no salvation, no reconciliation, no regeneration, no life whatsoever and they are cast into the lake of fire
The sheep are changed to be like Jesus and are brought to heaven forever.
There, all this other theological oratory is not only intellectualism, its meaningless. And the aspursion cast on the “atonement” view of the cross is just another part of the falling away. We think more highly of ourselves than we ought. Thanks, Paul, you are so right!
iggy,
Do you understand what the meaning of the word “reconciled” is? It seems as though you do not, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you to clarify.
As to your first statement – “I do believe that one must accept Jesus to be saved. In that comes repentance…”
It is not “accept” iggy, it is “receive”. Jesus IS Lord, it is not up to us to “accept” Him as such, but He, in His first recorded words in ministry said to “Repent and believe the gospel” (Mark 1:15) – where do you receive the power and ability to lessen the call that was made by the King of kings and Lord of lords? To say that repentance is fulfilled when one “accepts” Jesus is to ignore the call of Jesus Christ, to diminish His message about those who died at Siloam when He said “unless you repent, you too shall perish”, to ignore what Jesus said in Matt. 9:13 – He didn’t say He came to call sinners to “accept Him” He said He came to call sinners to repentance. Matt. 11:20 what did He do? “Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent” John came in his ministry for what purpose? Mark 1:4 says:
John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Mark 6:12 says: “So they went out and preached that people should accept Jesus into their heart?” Sorry, NO! It says: “So they went out and preached that people should repent.” Luke 15:10, what does it say? “Likewise, I say to you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who asks Jesus into their heart and accepts Him.†Sorry, NO! It says: “Likewise, I say to you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.†Finally let me provide you Acts 3:19 for the exclamation: “Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,”
Repeatedly so called Christians refuse to call people to repentance AND faith, as if in doing so God will overlook their inability or should I say unwillingness to be faithful to His word and save the person anyway. NONSENSE! When Jesus in Matt. 7 tells many to “Depart” He called them what? “Those who practice lawlessness” or “workers of iniquity”, in other words iggy, they had never repented, turned from their wicked ways, from their sin. Thus He says – I NEVER knew you. What a horrific thought to be deluded into thinking you are on your way to heaven and find out from the mouth of Jesus that He never knew you and be cast into the lake of fire.
Rick, Bill,
I am not going to argue over this as I was Arminian and taught it and know it very well… and in the discussion with my Lutheran friends he is the one who told me as well as reading “institutes” of Calvin that I get that they teach salvation of infants by baptism… that is baptism for salvation whether it be infant or adult. Calvin taught that infants could be baptised to begin the initial regeneration.
Here is an example of the Lutheran perspective. http://www.orlutheran.com/trinfbap.html
Also Rick if you read Inst.4, 16, 22 it is in total defense of infant baptism as well as Inst.4, 16, 17.
As far as reconciliation, it is defined in the NT as an appeasement of God by the Righteousness of Christ. We offended and God forgave and cleaned the slate.
As far as accept and receive I see them as interchangeable. We accept a gift is the same as we receive the gift. To not accept the gift is to reject the gift… as well s to not receive it is to deny and reject it’s giving.
John T. Baptist baptism was for the remission of sins… but Jesus’ baptism is of taking them away from the sight of God… that is why Apollos has to be taught of the baptism of Jesus. Water does not cleans us but it is the cleansing of a clear conscience before God as Peter states. Peter backs up my view as he states in 1 Peter 3:18-21
“For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also–not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand–with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.”
Notice the phrase, of baptism, “not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ”?
Again, you keep saying I am saying one does not need to repent, which I have never stated… Yet repentance is not always the response of remorse of sins committed though it can be, it can also be in their response of joy that sins are forgiven.
As far as those that the Lord states “I never knew you” it is because they had a case of the “I’s”. Didn’t I heal… etc… meaning it was that they thought their works were what pleased God… yet if you notice in the parable you are quoting that the one’s Jesus knew had no clue when they ministered to Jesus… “When did we give you a cup of water?” They stood humbly before God with nothing to offer, yet Jesus states what they did to others was unto Him. Their works were so natural out of their being they were not even aware of the fruit they bore…
Blessings,
iggy
I do not care about the Lutheran perspective, Calvin’s perspective, Baptist perspective, Arminious’s perspective, MacArthur’s perspective, et. al…..
Baptism is a symbolic act of obedience by a professing believer which testifies of a born again experience that has already taken place. It symbolically identifies with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It has no part in salvation or a covenant experience. Period.
The salvation of God is totally through the Spirit and baptism and communion are physical representations of the ministry of the Spirit.
I like this new thing about keeping Iggy so busy posting here that he can’t do any harmful “theology” stuff elsewhere.
The smiley face didn’t show up. Durn! : )
Ken says, “It’s a “gospel†with no potential for any conflict because no one really has to deal with the gravity of what sin actually is.” To me, this not having to deal with the idea of “the gravity of sin” is at the center of the problem of this “gospel.”
In various places where I have had training for doing evangelistic work, one of the key thoughts I learned has been that people need to see themselves as sinners and have some grasp of who they are “unwashed” before they can appreciate what Christ has done for them. It is the Holy Spirit’s job to bring about this conviction. When I was saved, even though I was a small child, I remember being under the “weight of my sin” so to speak, for weeks. When I went to Christ to ask for his forgiveness and receive his sacrifice for my sins, it was with a conviction of my own sin that I could not have mustered on my own at 6 years of age. I didn’t even have a “list” of wrongdoings in my mind – I just somehow knew in my mind and with my spirit that God was drawing me to Him and that I needed to ask for His forgiveness.
To try to take away or minimize the idea that our sin separates us from God is unbiblical – the work of the Holy Spirit is to convict us of sin, and to help us understand that Christ took that sin on himself.
Rick,
We agree on baptism, but your previous statement was what i was correcting.
That was all…
I am not Arminian, though I was… I came to grace and left that view about 15 years ago.
I still consider you a brother, though I see that we can do nothing to sustain or maintain our own salvation… it is all of Jesus… as Galatians 5 teaches.
Blessings,
iggy
Tim,
I posted about 5 or six post this week did a book review worked a full time job been to Yellowstone Nat. Park and back Ministered at my fellowship all while still having this discussion…. LOL! It has not taken much of my time at all, in fact most this was off the top of my head… except for the links here and there…
Blessings,
iggy
I always have time to preach the Gospel message of Reconciliation to those who need to hear. I am always amazed to see God move and work as I do…
Blessings,
iggy
Amy,
If you understand that the wages of sin is death… we then understand the “gravity of our sin” for the wages is death… yet if we do not understand we are dead, then we cannot understand that “gravity” we are separated by our death from God… in Rev 20 it is not sin that is the result of being cast in the Lake of Fire… but that those raised are raised yet have not been written in the Lamb’s Book of Life… They have no eternal Life… for the Life is in the Son…
IF one doe not see that if we stop only at the Cross we are still only forgiven dead men. Forgiveness is great, but to walk in the Newness of Life as New Creation… who Has the Life of Christ in us then we are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life and enter into the New Heaven and New Earth.
The Cross paid for all men’s sin. At the Cross God no longer counts men’ sin against them… 2 Cor 5… the result of having all men’s sin not accounted to them is the New Creation they become through the Life of Christ Jesus.
Now, all of our sin was in the future at the Cross… and Jesus “died once for all”… did you look up those verses?
I already pointed out the verses that say clearly we are saved by the LIFE of Christ… we died at the Cross with Jesus… and when we accept the sacrifice and receive the Life of Christ we them enter into His salvation. We cannot stop at the Cross… if we do we have not come to the fullness of the Gospel…
I guess it is your choice to believe the teaching so Scripture that are quite clear… such as Colossians 2:13,14
“When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.”
Here we have that one is dead i their sins, by their sinful nature, yet God made the believer alive with Christ. How? God forgave us ALL our sins, canceled the written code or law that was to add to our transgressions, He took it away, nailing it to the Cross…
God took away our sins and nailed them to the Cross… in Christ. We are partakers in His Death… yet, to stop there again, is to be a dead person forgiven… we need Life to live… and as i have stated over and over… the Life is in the Son.
Now, I have pointed to scripture after scripture that backs up that man is dead… and needs Life… that we are forgiven by the Cross yet still need Life… and that Life is in the Son…To me it seems that those that disagree need to answer to those scriptures instead of myself trying to explain them to those who do not have ears to hear.
If you want the understanding that i teach on 1oo% forgiveness… here is a link to a site I recommend.
http://www.realanswers.net/newsletter/BornFreePresentation1.htm
Blessings,
iggy
Iggy,
Why did Peter say “Repent and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out” if the people’s sins were already wiped out? (Acts 3:19)
If all sins have already been forgiven, is there any point in pointing people to the fact that they are sinners?
If all sins have been forgiven through the cross, but noone has Life unless they get it “in the Son,” is there any point in any kind of focusing on the cross?
Why are the unrighteous “held for the day of judgement” with their punishment continuing if they are already forgiven?(2 Peter 2:9)
How can God speak this way of one who is forgiven: “He who does what is sinful is of the devil” I John 3:8 If all are forgiven, why does God spend so much time talking about men’s sinful state, for example Romans 1:18-32.
Amy,
First off if you read what Peter is saying… I would try different translations…
1. I already stated we need to “repent” which is the initial conversion step…
2. In the literal translation there is no “may be” but it is straight forward in its statement…
“reform ye, therefore, and turn back, for your sins being blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,”
Notice it stated “for your sins being blotted out” not that your sin “may be wiped out”.
For Darby’s shortcomings in other areas… his version reflects also this statement.
“Repent therefore and be converted, for the blotting out of your sins, so that times of refreshing may come from [the] presence of the Lord,”
this means that we are to convert for the blotting out of our sins… as they are already blotted out.
Yet unfold this even in the NKJV version and notice it reflects on what I have been saying…
“Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,
and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you–even Jesus.”
In that our sin be wiped out at the Cross… which is the only time they have been wiped out. In that after that repentance we must receive Christ… repentance itself does not bring Jesus we still need to acknowledge our sins are wiped out and then we can receive Christ… so even in a translation that adds “may be” still teaches that we need to receive Jesus after we acknowledge our sins are wiped out.
Again, this must be in relation to Colossians 2:14
14 He erased the certificate of debt, with its obligations, that was against us and opposed to us, and has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the cross.
What I am getting to is do you believe that Jesus death at the Cross was not sufficient to remove, take away, blot out, our sins? What do you do with the scriptures that state that Jesus death was sufficient and that Jesus Himself stated “It is finished!”
As far as the focusing on the Cross as it is where were find this forgiveness… in that we see the kindness of God who bore with us with patience and gave forgiviness instead of wrath in which he did pour out on His Son…
Yet, we do miss the most important part which is the resurrection as in that we become joint heirs in Christ… He is the “firstborn” of many sons (and doaughters) of God… which is you and me.
Sin died at the cross, but man still has a sin nature. That is was not taken away… man still needs to have the renewal of his mind… We become a new creation but need to grow in the Grace and knowledge of the truth which is in Jesus… we are being conformed to His image.
We still “sin” but they are not held against us. The only sin that sends one to hell is the rejection of Jesus Christ.
Again, you are equating forgiveness with salvation… a forgiven person can be very unthankful… as in the parable of the person forgiving a great debt who then went out to demand payment from someone who owed him money… in that he had no appreciation for the forgiveness given him… He learned nothing from it and abuse others instead.
Romans 1:18-32 is Paul’s way of showing that the Jews need not look down on the Gentile and that all men are deserving of death… because they worshipped the creation and not the creator… their minds are given over to their own lusts… The point Paul is getting at is that being a Jew of Gentile both will die because of their sin for all have sinned and fallen short the glory of God.
Yet, if you read through Romans, Paul’s focus is more on the wages of sin… being death… and that we need to come to Life in Christ.
Blessings,
iggy
I have posted this already but i guess if you post too much the spam filter eats the response…
but here it goes again…
Amy,
First off if you read what Peter is saying… I would try different translations…
1. I already stated we need to “repent” which is the initial conversion step…
2. In the literal translation there is no “may be” but it is straight forward in its statement…
“reform ye, therefore, and turn back, for your sins being blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,”
Notice it stated “for your sins being blotted out” not that your sin “may be wiped out”.
For Darby’s shortcomings in other areas… his version reflects also this statement.
“Repent therefore and be converted, for the blotting out of your sins, so that times of refreshing may come from [the] presence of the Lord,”
this means that we are to convert for the blotting out of our sins… as they are already blotted out.
Yet unfold this even in the NKJV version and notice it reflects on what I have been saying…
“Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,
and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you–even Jesus.”
In that our sin be wiped out at the Cross… which is the only time they have been wiped out. In that after that repentance we must receive Christ… repentance itself does not bring Jesus we still need to acknowledge our sins are wiped out and then we can receive Christ… so even in a translation that adds “may be” still teaches that we need to receive Jesus after we acknowledge our sins are wiped out.
Again, this must be in relation to Colossians 2:14
14 He erased the certificate of debt, with its obligations, that was against us and opposed to us, and has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the cross.
What I am getting to is do you believe that Jesus death at the Cross was not sufficient to remove, take away, blot out, our sins? What do you do with the scriptures that state that Jesus death was sufficient and that Jesus Himself stated “It is finished!”
As far as the focusing on the Cross as it is where were find this forgiveness… in that we see the kindness of God who bore with us with patience and gave forgiviness instead of wrath in which he did pour out on His Son…
Yet, we do miss the most important part which is the resurrection as in that we become joint heirs in Christ… He is the “firstborn” of many sons (and doaughters) of God… which is you and me.
Sin died at the cross, but man still has a sin nature. That is was not taken away… man still needs to have the renewal of his mind… We become a new creation but need to grow in the Grace and knowledge of the truth which is in Jesus… we are being conformed to His image.
We still “sin” but they are not held against us. The only sin that sends one to hell is the rejection of Jesus Christ.
Again, you are equating forgiveness with salvation… a forgiven person can be very unthankful… as in the parable of the person forgiving a great debt who then went out to demand payment from someone who owed him money… in that he had no appreciation for the forgiveness given him… He learned nothing from it and abuse others instead.
Romans 1:18-32 is Paul’s way of showing that the Jews need not look down on the Gentile and that all men are deserving of death… because they worshipped the creation and not the creator… their minds are given over to their own lusts… The point Paul is getting at is that being a Jew of Gentile both will die because of their sin for all have sinned and fallen short the glory of God.
Yet, if you read through Romans, Paul’s focus is more on the wages of sin… being death… and that we need to come to Life in Christ.
Again, in the 2 Peter 2:9 man will still receive the wages of sin if he does not turn and accept the forgiveness and receive Jesus Christ… the wages of sin is death… and the punishment is being tossed into the Lake of Fire which is the second death.
Blessings,
iggy
Amy,
I cannot get the post I just wrote through… it keeps getting a duplicate notice..
But i will try later…
iggy
Yikes!
Chris L, delete all the duplicates!!!!!
Please…
blessings,
iggy
Going back to the questions and ignoring the iggy induced hijacking of the thread, let me just respond to a few of the initial questions, specifically 1 and 4.
Regarding question 1 – you don’t have to take on the characteristics of the Roman Catholic church to be violently opposed to the Reformation by your actions and attitudes. A basic characteristic of the emergent movement is that Scripture is not clear on a multitude of issues, if any, and therefore there needs to be a dialogue about rather than an exposition of its true meaning. Therein lies a root of evil within the EC movement ellaborated on by John MacArthur in The Truth War in more detail. Those wrapped up in the movement have made man more important than God, despite the passion with which they deny as much.
Much more could be said on the subject but I’ll limit my thoughts for sake of space… I don’t want to pull an iggy…
On Question 4 – that is a wicked presumption of many in the evangelical movements, that we are to count “decisions” and celebrate “decisions” and boast about “decisions” never minding the fact that “decisions” DO NOT MEAN converts. Look at the landscape of American Christianity and you have many churches, though packing in the pews or chairs or theater seats or even Drive-In stalls, have diminishing holiness and righteousness because they teach a false gospel, they make promises they cannot support Biblically, they proclaim people saved simply for walking an aisle and repeating some words. Tell me what wife would accept a husbands apology for infidelity if it were merely the repetition of a generic apology and promise to not do it again? To do as much and expect God to honor that man-centered act that oftentimes is followed by the church or church leaders boast of “changed lives” or “new believers” is foolishness to put it lightly.
Though I know from past posts that there are many impacted and transformed by the writings and works of CRN and AM and Slice, it does not seem characteristic, Thanks Be To God, of Ingrid or Pastor Ken or any others there to keep a running tab so as to boast about it prior to examining the fruit worthy of repentance.
Bill,
While I am not in the EC, I can tell you from several of the EC churches I am familiar with (including both Mars Hills and Bob Hyatt’s church) that you’re way off base.
False.
Many EC churches hold a very high view of scripture – and in some cases a higher view of scripture than many traditionalist churches. While pure post-modernism says “there is no truth”, the EC says ‘there is truth, and it can be tested and found to be true’. Where confusion and criticism often are interjected by critics is that the methodology of study is ask-assertive rather than tell-assertive in apologetics: Those who seek to criticize the EC hear the message ‘it can be tested’ and ignore ‘and found to be true’.
As an example, Ken loves prooftexting Velvet Elvis to try to show that Rob Bell rejects sola scriptura, but only because he dishonestly takes a small section out of context. In the section in question, Bell is discussing where we got to Bible and how what is included was included and what was excluded was excluded – and that not only are we trusting scripture when we quote it, but that we are also trusting that God was leading the men who who wrote it and that He was leading the men who canonized it as being part of scripture.
Johnnie Mac’s book is pure swill with research conducted from an armchair rather than with shoe leather, and its great myopia and uselessness has been shown in a number of reviews…
Not always do decisions = converts, but how many converts are there without decisions (and do we really have the wisdom to automatically see the differece)? While “tallies” and pure numbers-focii miss the point, I full support that we should rejoice for the return of the returned prodigal child.
If we are salt and light, we are making a positive impact on the world in which we live and demonstrating fruit.
It’s just sad that 99% of those are negative impacts and tearing down Christians, resulting in the bitter fruit on display there…
Chris L Nathan,
I apologize if I did “hijack” the thread… it was not intentional as I think the spam filter was catching many of my attempts to post…
Also the comments we to answer questions of me… and not to take over this thread… which it seems I did… again not my intention.
Thanks you for cleaning up that mess…
Blessings,
iggy