This post from CRN is a good example of misrepresentation. Beside calling all who are not Calvinist as “Neo-Roman Evangelicals”, the editor of course refers to all free will teachings as unsound Biblical teaching. But the main historical inaccuracy is the contention that the issue in the Reformation was free will.  

“This program delves into the Biblical texts regarding the free-will versus divine election. This issues cuts to the heart of the difference between Rome and the Reformation. Finny and the Reformation and Neo-Roman Evangelicalism versus sound Biblical teaching.”

I believe the issue in the Reformation was two fold, Scripture and justification by faith, was it not? When you have an axe to grind history can be rewritten? And just for the record Wesleyans believe that faith is a gift also, they just believe it is a gift given to all men. So the premise itself is a suggested misrepresentation.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Sunday, September 9th, 2007 at 10:39 pm and is filed under Misuse of Scripture, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

66 Comments(+Add)

1   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 10th, 2007 at 12:18 am

Rick,

What i have found in my studies is that Arminius taught that one could lose their salvation… yet he never taught that… he was closer to the RCC view that we can not be so certain as to whether we are saved or not as that is God’s place.

Now, Arminians do teach that you can lose salvation and that is wrong… yet Calvinists teach that by what we believe we are saved and that too is also wrong… it is not a what, but a in whom we believe.

Both sides agreed fully that faith is a gift and that we are saved by Grace through faith… now be it the Wesleyan “wooing” or the inescapable “you can’t deny Grace if you are elect” both agree on Salvation by Grace through faith…

As for the original teachings both paths have gone down some twisted roads that are not that good yet if we can realize there was Life in Christ before these two men wrote against each others theologies and that same Life is still here today… we can move above and beyond those “systems” limitations. We need only acknowledge that they are man made and limited in their views.

be blessed,
iggy

2   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 10th, 2007 at 12:21 am

“What i have found in my studies is that Arminius taught that one could lose their salvation… yet he never taught that… he was closer to the RCC view that we can not be so certain as to whether we are saved or not as that is God’s place.”

Let me clarify this a bit… Arminius felt that Calvin was too certain… and that to be that certian held a bit of presumption on our part… I agree that one can fail to see the true faith and miss that they are not saved yet keep peerfect doctrine… Paul stated that he even fell prey to that.

To Arminius it was that there was a lack of humilty in Calvins “system” though they really did agree more that Calvin might have even wanted to accept.

Be Blessed,
iggy

3   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 10th, 2007 at 5:20 am

Iggy – yes, yes. But this was about the several misrepresentations at CRN designed to fortify the editor’s position not designed to be truthful.

4   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 10th, 2007 at 8:41 am

Ken is by no way a historian let alone a theologian. All the things he does are thin veils to hide his true agenda and that is to try to be as big as his idol Walter Martin.

The issue is though can one build it with a good reputation? Not if you are in the MacArthur camp and want their approval.

Though some are less likely to rewrite, (though we have seen Ken rewrite why Luther nail the 95 thesis to the Wittenburg Door and that Luther intended to leave the RCC and not work from within) I noted that this idea that the White Horse crew taught on made even Lordship Salvation a “works” theology… as they add that one must “repent from their sin” which one must do, but can become a work if not understood. Also, that one MUST accept Jesus as Lord… never mind that not all that call Jesus “Lord, Lord” will even be saved!

So, here is the double speak and the false use of others to prove how biblically on track Ken is all the while missing the main point of the teaching itself.

Be Blessed,
iggy

5   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 10th, 2007 at 9:00 am

The free will issue is an important discussion because it has at its core will people be lost who might have been saved and for whom the provision was made.

But to frame the Reformation as one over free will is disingenuous and historically inaccurate. And to use the Reformation in an attempt to leverage your own view reveals a lack of integrity. That is my point. In eternity we may discover that either or both views about election were right or wrong, but let us strive to follow Luther’s own words,

“Unless you can convince me by Scripture…”

That my friends is the heart of the Reformation and it is not the possession of any one group, it is to God’s glory alone!

6   clearly    http://seeingclearly.wordpress.com
September 10th, 2007 at 6:24 pm

“Both sides agreed fully that faith is a gift”

Iggy, I would have to disagree. I don’t think you could find an Arminian (that knew what he was talking about) that would actually believe that saving faith is a gift from God. That is decisively Calvinistic. I’m in between the two systems at this point, and I couldn’t even say that saving faith is a gift from God.

7   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 10th, 2007 at 6:34 pm

Dave – everything is a gift of God. The true Calvinist believes that God choses the elect and then at the moment of His choosing He gives the gift of faith to that person and he is saved.

The Arminian believes that God has given the gift of faith to every man and that God’s Spirit draws that person to Christ and that man chooses Christ with that gift of faith.

Both believe that faith is a gift.

8   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 10th, 2007 at 6:50 pm

But let me steer us back to the core of my post. The Reformation was about the Scripture being the only source of Spritual truth and that salvation was by grace through faith.

The post at CRN misrepresented it as a clash between Calvinists and Arminians. The label “Neo-Roman Evangelicals” was also not especially helpful.

9   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
September 10th, 2007 at 8:16 pm

The Reformation was about what the Bible teaches about soteriology, which involves the issue of free will, and the Synod of Dort was virtually a replay of it.

I’m afraid it isn’t really semantics and one’s view in this area will ultimately affect one’s orthopraxy. A quick example would be the following statement: “salvation is by grace through faith in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross.”

Even a practicing Roman Catholic will ascent to that statement. And this is why you now see so many “Protestant” denominations so willing to embrace the apostate Roman Church as Christian?

The Calvinist view is that man is spiritually dead and it is God that seeks out those whom He extends His grace before they even do anything. The Lord regenerates them so they will accept the gift of faith that He gives them so that they will then believe in Christ.

Thus salvation is by God’s grace alone; through faith alone, in Christ alone. The Calvinist sees this as consistent with Ephesians 2:8-9 which literally say these things are gifts.

So you see, the solas of the Reformation were meant to emphasize the work of God alone in speaking Scripture, giving grace to whom He will, faith to whom He will, empowering whom He will to believe in Christ, to the glory of God alone. Quite different than today’s seeker sensitive and man-oriented version of Christianity.

10   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 10th, 2007 at 8:39 pm

“The Reformation was about what the Bible teaches about soteriology, which involves the issue of free will,”

That is a disingenuous stretch. Luther, the Patriarch of the Reformation, stood for salvation by grace through faith, not the works laden Roman Church. His basis was the Scriptures alone, but I would love to find the coversation Luther had with Rome over free will.

Those issues came later but the Reformation was overtly about “The just shall live by faith” To suggest Luther’s battle was any different must be documented. Please provide me the copy of which 95 thesis’s that were a treatise of the free will doctrine.

If you cannot, Ken, then you must admit that some of your post was misrepresentative of the Reformation. One of the commenters said the sermon was good, but it wasn’t about Luther’s Reformation.

11   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
September 10th, 2007 at 8:59 pm

Rick, my comment stands and is historically accurate. You consistently distort the Calvinist position. And personally I couldn’t care less what you personally think about the Reformation. I’ve done my homework so if you want documentation you go right ahead and look it up for yourself.

12   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 10th, 2007 at 10:22 pm

clearly,

I am stating the teachings of Arminius… I mentioned that there are many branches of Arminianism… just as there are different branches of Calvinism… you know 3 point, 4 point 5 point Hyper and such…

But, if one goes back to Arminius and reads his teachings… he never states on can lose their salvation… and that the taught salvation is by Grace through Faith.

This is some of Armnius writings on this topic…

DISPUTATION XLII

ON THE VOCATION OF SINFUL MEN TO CHRIST, AND TO A PARTICIPATION OF SALVATION IN HIM

I. The vocation or calling to the communion of Christ and its benefits, is the gracious act of God, by which, through the word and His Spirit, he calls forth sinful men, subject to condemnation and placed under the dominion of sin, from the condition of natural life, and out of the defilements and corruptions of this world, to obtain a supernatural life in Christ through repentance and faith, that they may be united in him, as their head destined and ordained by God, and may enjoy the participation of his benefits, to the glory of God and to their own salvation.

Notice he states that salvation is by the grace of God and that it comes by repentance and faith. He is not teaching man “earns” salvation.

In fact elsewhere he talks about assurance of salvation.

With regard to the certainty [or assurance] of salvation, my opinion is, that it is possible for him who believes in Jesus Christ to be certain and persuaded, and, if his heart condemn him not, he is now in reality assured, that he is a son of God, and stands in the grace of Jesus Christ.

Of Faith Arminius states:

II. Faith, generally, is the assent given to truth; and divine faith is that which is given to truth divinely revealed. The foundation on which divine faith rests is two- fold — the one external and out of or beyond the mind — the other internal and in the mind. (1.) The external foundation of faith is the very veracity of God who makes the declaration, and who can declare nothing that is false. (2.) The internal foundation of faith is two-fold — both the general idea by which we know that God is true — and the knowledge by which we know that it is the word of God. Faith is also two-fold, according to the mode of revelation, being both legal and evangelical, of which the latter comes under our present consideration, and tends to God and Christ.

III. Evangelical faith is an assent of the mind, produced by the Holy Spirit, through the gospel, in sinners, who, through the law, know and acknowledge their sins, and are penitent on account of them, by which they are not only fully persuaded within themselves that Jesus Christ has been constituted by God the author of salvation to those who obey him, and that he is their own saviour if they have believed in him, and by which they also believe in him as such, and through him on God as the benevolent Father in him, to the salvation of believers and to the glory of Christ and God.

IV. The object of faith is not only the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, but likewise Christ himself who is here constituted by God the author of salvation to those that obey him.

Not all of this I am in agreement with but to say that Arminius denies salvation by grace through faith is not true… through he does not “quote” the passage… if one looks he states it there…

Now, some of the definition may be not the same as Calvinism… but I think some of Calvinism definitions are not “totally” accurate with scripture either.

Being both are “reformers” I think that people like Ken who only think the Reformers to be Calvin and Luther miss out on the other ones… Like Arminius, Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Martin Bucer, The Anabaptists, The Huguenot, Jeanne d’Albret ( a woman reformer),Juan Valdéz,Vermigli, Laski, Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, Jonas; and the “others”: Carlstadt, Zwilling, and the Zwichau Prophets, and of course the one Calvin (the father of the doctrines of grace) murdered in a mock trial, Michael Servetus.

So there is a huge and rich amount of history there if one bothers to really study out the Reformers.

Most of them all agreed that the “Just shall live by faith” and salvation is by the Grace of God. (I say most because i have not studied everyone of these to know for certain).

Be Blessed,
iggy

13   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 10th, 2007 at 10:40 pm

“I’ve done my homework so if you want documentation you go right ahead and look it up for yourself. ”

OK, Ken, here are the thesis’s out of the 95 that delt with the free will vs. election debate:

None. Solid documentation. And I did not distort the Calvinist position on this post, I claimed you distorted the Reformation as a butress for your position. The 95 thesis document that Luther nailed to the door of Castle Church in Wittenburg is online for anyone to look at.

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html

14   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
September 11th, 2007 at 12:01 am

Rick,

Your ignorance is sadly on display here. Please let it go. The 95 theses indeed ignited the Reformation. However when Luther quoted the Scripture and taught that the just shall live by faith he was dealing with soteriology.

Free will, or the bondage of the will as Luther contended, is a key part of the Reformation debate concerning the doctrine of salvation by faith. This by the way, had zero to do with Calvinism at that point.

15   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 11th, 2007 at 5:45 am

Ken – You claimed that the issue “cuts to the heart of the difference between Rome and the Reformation”. Now you say it had zero to do with Calvinism at that point. I have linked the 95 thesis to substantiate that the Reformation dealt with Luther’s assertion that the Roman Catholic Church was no longer teaching salvation by grace through faith as clearly defined by the Scriptures.

My conention satnds, you purposely overstated any free will controversy during the Reformation because you desired to leverage you Calvinistic views. Those views may be correct but they were not a part of Luther’s Reformation no matter how you attempt to claim they were subtly part of the soteriology umbrella.

And when I ask you for documentation that gives the debate between Luther and Rome concerning the free will/election views you tell me to do my own research. I have and I find none, please provide me with some, as you noted, I am ingnorant.

16   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
September 11th, 2007 at 6:09 am

And my favorite line from the 95 thesis, which seems appropriate here, is:

90. To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christians unhappy.

emphasis mine

17   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 11th, 2007 at 6:17 am

Thank you, chris Luther! That is my point, instead of Ken admiting he made a mistake he digs the hole deeper. This is not about free will, my views on that are well known here, this is about (as Chris L’s post teaches) all of us being honest in our debate. The Reformation is something Calvinist and Arminian alike can thank God for, it rebirthed the true gospel message.

Believe me, I am not shy from a free will debate, but the Reformation was not about that. Read thesis #96 -

This debate with Rome is not over free will!
(humor)

18   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 11th, 2007 at 6:23 am

Ken,

And Luther could not be wrong in some point?

Was he not a man like you and me?

Often I wonder at how much faith some put into Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon… and others… and will fight so much over some man’s view… and not see that we are all fallen and in need of a Savior… that even these men (as great as they are) might have missed something, somewhere… and that it is in Christ we must trust…

As far as the reformation… I wonder… were there not true Christians before Luther? Was not Augustine who was firmly in the RCC maybe saved? Were there others who may have come before Calvin… that may have grasped hold of salvation without these men?

To me even if you are historically correct, I will trust Jesus over Calvin and Paul over Luther… I will trust Polycarp and Ignatius… and Iraeneaus as they were taught by John the Apostle… but mostly I will trust Scripture and the Holy Spirit to teach me in all things true as Jesus promised.

So follow the great men if you want… fight over them… I mean it is in their heritage as Zwilling agreed with Luther on every point except that he kept the RCC view of the Eucharist and Luther never spoke to him again… Or Calvin ( the father of the doctrines of grace you hold so dearly to) murdering Michael Servetus in a railroad of a trial over Calvin’s insistence Servetus denied the Trinity which he did not and which Calvin never repented over the action he did.

So follow and fight over your man and I will follow The Christ…

Be Blessed,
iggy

19   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 11th, 2007 at 6:30 am

Iggy, my brother, this particular discussion has nothing to do with any of that. My post was about misrepresenting the Reformation as a fight over free will verses election. So the core of my point was the misrepresentation, not the free will debate.

20   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 11th, 2007 at 6:41 am

Ken,

“This program delves into the Biblical texts regarding the free-will versus divine election. This issues cuts to the heart of the difference between Rome and the Reformation. Finny and the Reformation and Neo-Roman Evangelicalism versus sound Biblical teaching”

And for crying out loud, you are just wrong here… no matter how deep that hole is you are digging… The argument over free will developed after the Reformation began meaning… it is not mentioned in the 95 thesis as others here have stated…

The Calvinist will agree that man has a will… Irenaeus and Justin Martyr taught man has a free will and can make moral choices.

Justin Martyr a 2nd Century Christian apologist
CHAP. CXLI.–FREE-WILL IN MEN AND ANGELS.

“But that you may not have a pretext for saying that Christ must have been crucified, and that those who transgressed must have been among your nation, and that the matter could not have been otherwise, I said briefly by anticipation, that God, wishing men and angels to follow His will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness; possessing reason, that they may know by whom they are created, and through whom they, not existing formerly, do now exist; and with a law that they should be judged by Him, if they do anything contrary to right reason: and of ourselves we, men and angels, shall be convicted of having acted sinfully, unless we repent beforehand. But if the word of God foretells that some angels and men shall be certainly punished, it did so because it foreknew that they would be unchangeably [wicked], but not because God had created them so.”

Irenaeus states also:

“…in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness.”

Again, these are the teachings passed down to us from the Apostle John…

Now the argument you always use is that these writings are not scripture… yet that can be used against those of Luther and Calvin also… they did not write scripture either. But, tell me which Apostle discipled either of these men?

Be Blessed,
iggy

21   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 11th, 2007 at 6:44 am

Rick,

I think I did note that… I am building up to some things here in “Ken’s” debate… but that spam catcher has done it again… LOL!

Be Blessed,
iggy

22   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
September 11th, 2007 at 9:22 am

A Review of Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation:

Erasmus begins his thesis admitting that among the many difficulties in theology, none is a more “tangled labyrinth” than that of free choice. Not only does he set forth his own views in his work, but he admits also that there have been varying ideas on the issue since the early days of the Christian church.

The reason why he tries his hand at untying the knots in this old issue is because it had recently resurfaced in the writings of John Eck and Luther. He hopes that he might want once and for all make the issue more plain…

By taking Luther to task, he inevitable also takes the whole Augustinian theology to task on the issue of the freedom of the will… The heart of the controversy is the doctrine of free will.

Eck was a hundred years BEFORE Luther and his 95 Theses and Augustine dealt with Pelagius himself long, long before that over this very issue of man’s ficticious free will…

23   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 11th, 2007 at 9:35 am

And where is the Reformation in all this? The debate over free will etc. has gone on for centuries, but where is Luther’s contention that he was rebelling from Rome over that issue? Eck was one hundred years before Luther so where does the reformation come in? Luther at first desired reform from within the Roman Church, his departure had nothing to do with the free will debate.

All that research you provide is very interesting, but meaningless in the Reformation concerning Luther. The 95 thesis’s speak for themselves. It is evident that you will not admit that the essence of the Reformation was not the free will issue. Even when provided with evidence and the entire 95 thesis’s, you remain entrenched. Do you ever make a mistake, Ken, and is this one of them?

24   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
September 11th, 2007 at 10:03 am

Rick,

Just to note from first century theology, based on Josephus and the Dead Sea Scrolls:

Theologically, Jesus was most aligned with the hasidim, of which the Pharisees were the dominant representatives. After Jesus’ death and resurrection, the bulk of Jewish converts came from this movement.

Only one sect of Judiasm believed in double-predestination, and that was the Essene sect, which viewed itself as ‘the elect’ (their own words), and all else as ‘children of darkness’. The Essenes hid themselves in desert enclaves after splitting with the Sadducees (eerily, over similar issues as Luther leaving the Catholic church), while keeping a small enclave in Jerusalem for “proper” Temple worship.

There are a number of Jesus’ teachings which are direct challenges/refutations to the positions held by the elitist Essenes…

When you go back to the soteriology of the first century, apart from the Essenes, you have two primary movements:
1) The Sadducees, who denied the resurrection
2) The hasidim (Pharisees and zealots), also called sages and rabbis (though not equivalent to post-AD70 rabbis) who held that God is omnipotent, but that He gave men a the freedom to choose Him or to reject him, and that any apparent contradiction is a result of God’s nature being outside of Creation (’before the beginning).

It wasn’t until the resurgence of Greek fatalism and determinism that the issue became a touch-point in Christianity, and it certainly wasn’t anywhere near the core of Luther and the reformation.

Once again, Ken is all wet. But is that really surprising?

25   Tim Reed    http://theotstrikesback.com
September 11th, 2007 at 10:16 am

Ken,
What a nonsense reply. Congratulations, you showed that this is a debate older than the reformation. What you didn’t show was that the reformation was an argument over free will/election. And you won’t ever show that because it wasn’t.

26   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
September 11th, 2007 at 10:26 am

“Do you ever make a mistake, Ken, and is this one of them?”

Of course; don’t you. In fact, I should have noted it was John Huss who was 100 years before Luther and not Eck. Luther debated Eck. But no, I make no mistake about what I have said cncerning the Reformation.

FYI, you have defined the issue incorrectly which is where you are wrong. The 95 Theses were not the Reformation itself, they were but a catalyst. You cannot separate the Council of Trent from the Reformation because they met for 18 years to come up with Rome’s refutation of the doctrines of the Reformers:

Canons Concerning Justification

Canon 5.

If anyone says that after the sin of Adam man’s free will was lost and destroyed, or that it is a thing only in name, indeed a name without a reality, a fiction introduced into the Church by Satan, let him be anathema.

And what Chris Lyons wrote, apparently to show off his “scholarship” has ZERO to do with the Reformation. Give it up Rick. Ask your dear brothers there at CRN.(Mis)Info? and they’ll likely tell you it’s not a hill for you to die on…

27   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 11th, 2007 at 10:46 am

I invite all to read the original post and all the following comments. And now place it upon the backdrop of the Reformation. And then ask yourself why would someone misrepresent the Reformation in such a way?

And Ken, I do not have to die on a hill for anything, Someone already did that for me!

28   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
September 11th, 2007 at 10:54 am

Henry (Rick),

You really are playing the fool. The main reason I have interacted with you here at this hate-filled waste of webspace CRN.(Mis)Info? is that I have been trying to help you.

Man, so many have noticed how silly you are acting. I really did do what I could my former friend. And it seems that you have now chosen your side; may the Lord have mercy on you.

29   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
September 11th, 2007 at 11:17 am

Is the first century church and its roots relevant? I suspect so, considering that we can better understand a tree by examining its roots – or the tree before it from which the acorn fell…

Did the church begin in 33 AD or in 1517? I’ll take the one from 33 AD, thank you very much.

As for Luther, and then the Council of Trent 30-40 years later, it would seem that – minus your revisionist history – that free will and predestination did NOT figure into the roots of the Reformation, which were embodied in his 95 theses. During the intervening years, any and all possible differences in theology were emphasized and many blown out of proportion – by both sides of the debate – with which to demonize the other…

Surely – surely – if the issue of free will – which, as you note, was hundreds of years old at the time of Luther’s birth – was core to the reformation, Luther would have found room to squeeze in a 96th thesis. No?

As for “hate”, Ken, it is self-evident that the writers here hate sin, and not the sinner (though we slip over the boundary, regretfully, at times), and that the only true “hate” in these discussions is what issues forth from ODM’s such as Slice, C?N and AM as “love”. For you, it is 1984 all over again…

30   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
September 11th, 2007 at 11:19 am

But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca, ‘ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. Matthew 5:22

31   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 11th, 2007 at 11:26 am

“may the Lord have mercy on you.”

He already has, praise His name!

The issue continues to be not about me or my foolishness or my sillyness. The Reformation was about “The just shall live by faith”. The later debates about free will and all materialized and you are correct that Luther was on the predestination side, but that was not the issue in the Reformation. And I continue to see that the reason you mischaracterized it as such was to leverage you own view.

You know I am a free will guy and you have your Scriptures and I have mine. Fine. But we must have integrity in our debates and the Reformation was never about your Calvinistic position. Sorry, it just wasn’t.

32   M.G.    
September 11th, 2007 at 11:39 am

Ken,

Wow. Harsh words. Is it really a matter of sides? Do you believe honestly that everyone who disagrees with you is unsaved?

I’m still interested in a working link to the Aspen Institute. I’m curious as to the context of Warren’s words about followers of Christ in other religions.

Thanks!

33   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 11th, 2007 at 11:44 am

“I’m curious as to the context of Warren’s words about followers of Christ in other religions.”

Let me address that although not completely sure it applies to Rick Warren. But I’ve seen Billy Graham and Schueller say it. They believe that a Muslim(for instance) who believes in one God and lives a “God fearing” life may be saved. Now they still believe that the blood of Christ is the only payment for sins, they suggest that His blood will be applied after that person dies.

I am still unclear whether Warren espouses that view, but some mainstrean evangelicals do.

34   M.G.    
September 11th, 2007 at 11:49 am

Oh, and for what it’s worth, no reputable scholar would contend that “[double predestination] cuts to the heart of the difference between Rome and the Reformation.”

That statement is about as credible as an Anabaptist claiming that the defining issue of the Reformation was adult baptism. Was monergism a part of the intellectual climate during 16th and 17th century Europe? Yes. But trying to establish that particular issue as the “essence” of the Reformation is pretty silly.

35   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
September 11th, 2007 at 12:02 pm

“I’m still interested in a working link to the Aspen Institute.” So who’s stopping you from finding one?

36   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
September 11th, 2007 at 12:05 pm

But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca, ‘ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. Matthew 5:22

I’m not angry with anyone. Context…context…context boyz…

37   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
September 11th, 2007 at 12:12 pm

The Bondage of the Will is fundamental to an understanding of the primary doctrines of the Reformation. In these pages, Luther gives extensive treatment to what he saw as the heart of the gospel. Free will was no academic question to Luther; the whole gospel of the grace of God, he believed, was bound up with it and stood or fell according to the way one decided it…

This is the greatest piece of writing that came from Luther’s pen. In its vigour of language, its profound theological grasp, and the grand sweep of its exposition, it stands unsurpassed among Luther’s writings (front and back cover).

Luther recognized this book as his most important work and even said that if all his other books perished, he would hope that this one, along with his Small Catechism, would be the only ones to remain. As noted above, this is one of the most important books of the early Reformation, for it deals with what Luther saw to be the heart of the Gospel.

Luther here refutes the Romish notion of “free will” in man and upholds the absolute sovereignty of God in the salvation of sinners — as well as justification by faith alone. Luther clearly saw the issue of free will as the primary cause of his separation from Rome.

In this book he replied to the Roman Catholic scholar, Erasmus, and his diatribe The Freedom of the Will. Though disagreeing with just about everything else Erasmus wrote, Luther commended Erasmus for recognizing the crux of the matter at issue between Rome and the Bible believers, the debate over “free will.” In this regard Luther wrote, that unlike
all the rest, you alone have attacked the real issue, the essence of the matter in dispute (i.e. man’s so-called free-will–RB)…

You and you alone saw, what was the grand hinge upon which the whole turned, and therefore you attacked the vital part at once; for which, from my heart, I thank you. (Free Will vs. The Bible

38   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
September 11th, 2007 at 12:14 pm

Translation: Ken isn’t the only historical revisionist…

39   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
September 11th, 2007 at 12:21 pm

Yeah, what did Luther and Erasmus know about the Reformation…those scamps.

O, and by the way, as I write this I notice my prior comment before the Free Will vs. The Bible quote re. Lyons’ misuse of Scripture wasn’t published…interesting. What was that you guyz always say about Ingrid?

40   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
September 11th, 2007 at 12:23 pm

Ken,

1) The problem is, you’re not quoting Luther and Erasmus, you’re quoting another crackpot revising history about them.

2) I assume you mean the 12:05 pm response where you failed to read the entire scripture and continue to call people fools…

41   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
September 11th, 2007 at 12:24 pm

“When most Christians think of the Reformation, the first thing that comes to their mind is justification by faith alone. There is good reason for that assumption; justification by faith alone was the key doctrine that came out of the Reformation; however, it was not the key issue at the foundation of the Reformation. A careful study of the historical facts will clearly show that the issue of man’s will was at the heart of the theological difference between Martin Luther and the
Roman Catholic Church.” (God’s Will, Man’s Will, and Free Will

42   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 11th, 2007 at 12:26 pm

Ken, Luther was a Biblical scholar who delved into free will questions even before the 95 theis. But the Reformation was completely about the Roman hierarchy and the issues of justification of faith.

His views of predestination were not an issue. Your intransigence is mind boggling.

43   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
September 11th, 2007 at 12:27 pm

I will go as far as Martin Luther, in that strong assertion of his,
where he says, “If any man doth ascribe aught of salvation, even the very least, to the free-will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright. It may seem a harsh sentiment; but he who in his soul believes that man does of his own free-will turn to God, cannot have been taught of God, for that is one of the first principles taught us when God begins with us, that we have neither will
nor power, but that he gives both; that he is “Alpha and Omega” in the salvation of men. (Free Will—A Slave)

44   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
September 11th, 2007 at 12:27 pm

How about quoting someone not out on the fringe, someone without an axe to grind and history to revise?

It’s like a friend told me about golfing – no matter how far you whack a ball off the course, you’re always going to find a divit from some other poor sucker who was just as far off course…

45   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
September 11th, 2007 at 12:30 pm

By the Chris Lyons, this is Luther himself: “If any man doth ascribe aught of salvation, even the very least, to the free-will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.”

Hole-in-one…

46   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 11th, 2007 at 12:31 pm

Oh, now you change the verbiage from “the Reformation” to “the foundation of the Reformation”. Did I not openly admit that the free will discussion materialized after the Luther left the Roman Church? But the issue that was at its heart as it breached the church was justification by faith and the Roman Church leadership (pope infallibility, etc.).

So you cannot now try and massage the language to cover your tracks. If this is how you debate than anyone who has integrity is at a disadvantage.

47   M.G.    
September 11th, 2007 at 12:32 pm

Ken,

Why are you intentionally obtuse on a regular basis? Seems kind of pointless…

You were more than helpful yesterday when you so gladly provided a link to the e-book regarding Warren. Now, I would really, honestly, appreciate a link to the audio of the Aspen Institute. I can’t find it from what you cite. You claim to have listened to the audio yourself. I simply am curious as to the context of the quote. If you can help me, i would appreciate it.

Thanks!

48   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
September 11th, 2007 at 12:36 pm

Thank you, Rick – poking through Ken’s ingenuine blether and lack of logic is such a pain, especially when he’s so glaringly wrong…

49   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 11th, 2007 at 12:36 pm

A huge straw man! We all agree Luther was a “Calvinist” so by quoting him it means nothing. That however was not the Reformation issue.

Please Ken, we know Luther believed like you do as to the lack of free will. So all that smoke just clouds the isue, you misrepresented the Reformation to your own benefit. And instead of saying “yes, I might have tweeked it a bit” you openly deny what you wrote and what is history. And the words like “silly” and “foolish” and “the FOUNDATION of the Reformation” just add to your lack of honest debate.

There is no such thing as iron sharpens iron when there is only one ax.

50   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
September 11th, 2007 at 12:40 pm

Rick,

Man, say what you will about my “language,” but you are not going to be able draw me into further debate with you because what I have said will stand. You’ll see…

M.G.,

If you really want the link so bad then I suggest that you go find one. What I have said and done re. that Warren issue I have said and done. I have more important things to do so I haven’t the time to help you, sorry. You want to refute me…have at it…and good luck to you. :-)

51   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 11th, 2007 at 12:41 pm

“Man, say what you will about my “language,” but you are not going to be able draw me into further debate with you because what I have said will stand. You’ll see…”

Game, set, match.

52   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 11th, 2007 at 12:48 pm

Then Ken,

As far as the Bible and it states about man’s “free” will…

1. Genesis 3 is about man’s eyes being open to Good and Evil… that there is a “Choice” to be between them… be for that it was just to either “obey” God’s simple commands the only negative one being “do not eat of the tree of good and evil”. Still a choice was needed to be made.

2. Duet 30: 19 God give the Law and states: “This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live. ”

3. The OT is full of times when people freely choose to do good or evil… 1 Chron 29: 9-11 shows a happier time: “The people rejoiced at the willing response of their leaders, for they had given freely and wholeheartedly to the LORD. David the king also rejoiced greatly. David praised the LORD in the presence of the whole assembly, saying, “Praise be to you, O LORD, God of our father Israel, from everlasting to everlasting.
Yours, O LORD, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the majesty and the splendor, for everything in heaven and earth is yours. Yours, O LORD, is the kingdom; you are exalted as head over all.

4. King David expressed having a “willing heart” Psalms 119:108

5. Isaiah stated the King of Assyria will be punished for a “willful pride”.

6. Creation is stated to even be able to make choices… Romans 8:20 but is frustrated as God’s will is over it’s will. (ahhh a key thought there)

7. In 2 Cor 8:11and 12 Paul talks of their “eager willingness”.

8. John 1:12-13 states we are now born of God and not an earthly fathers “will”. “Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God– children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

9. 2 Peter 1:21 contrasts where true prophecy comes from.. and it “never had its origin in the will of man“.

10. Apollos exercised his own will… 1 Cor 16:12 “As touching our brother Apollos, I greatly desired him to come unto you with the brethren: but his will was not at all to come at this time; but he will come when he shall have convenient time.”

11. Paul states clearly that man has a will he can control… 1 Cor 7:37 “But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin–this man also does the right thing.”

Now Luther is right to a degree… man is in bondage to sin. His free will is not truly free in that he made a covenant with death as Isaiah states… yet what happens as we are in Christ is that we exchange our death for His Life (the wages of sin is death not hell show me a verse that states the wages of sin is hell). In that we now have the Mind of Christ by the infilling of the Holy Spirit and by His direction, we now freely choose to Love God and do His will…

Now that does not negate God’s sovereign choice to give grace and mercy to whom He desire to give grace and mercy to… and if yo understand that God wants us to “freely love” Him because in that “we judge the angels” as they saw His face and loved Him not and we love Him yet have not seen Him” Calvinism and much of Luther’s teachings are “man based and centered” missing that we are shown in Job that there are many other theaters at play that we do not know or see. In Job it is revealed that Satan is out to show how bad man is… and God is showing that this creator still loves and serves Him by his own choice.

Satan wants us to say “God is not just or worthy as He shows favorites and protects” while God shows Satan, that man still loves God… now, since sin was killed in Christ at the Cross, God poured out His Spirit on all flesh and as we see that we cannot on our own power please God or release ourselves from the bondage of death… we respond to the Calling of God and He give us eternal Life… and His Will and Purpose.

To say man has no free will goes against much that is taught in the Bible… so again… follow a mere man or God’s word.

I choose to listen to the Authoritative Word of God and not just men.

Now, take your Bible and prove me wrong on any of this… just your bible… not Calvin, Luther, or anyone else… just the Bible itself.

Be Blessed as you do so,
iggy

53   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 11th, 2007 at 12:50 pm

Spam… catcher… is… killing… me… (Spoken like Capt Kirk)

iggy

54   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 11th, 2007 at 12:52 pm

Iggy, wrong thread. Believe me we will have further discussions on that subject, but this was about misrepresentation.

Thanks.

55   M.G.    
September 11th, 2007 at 12:58 pm

Ken,

I’m not trying to refute you about anything. What I said about checking one’s citations stands. The point I made, and I would still contend, is that your online ministry is poorly done. C’est la vie. Nothing personal. At least I never intimated that you were stupid.

But I am interested in the audio file because I find those quotes from Warren interesting. You claimed to have listened to the audio file. You also were so willing to give the link to e-book. And now you are to busy to help me. Oh well. I can’t force your hand.

Honestly, though, do I believe that you have in fact listened to the audio file? I’m unsure. I worry that you lied to me. But you are free to refute that. And I really would appreciate the link.

At the end of the day, I would love it if your website stuck to issues, engaged in serious arguments, and spoke the truth in love. You have a lot of valid points to make about the current state of evangelicalism, it’s just the way you go about doing it…

Grace and peace,
M.G.

56   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 11th, 2007 at 1:03 pm

Rick,

Now to Ken… Ken is still stating it is about “free will verses” so if he wants to prove that these men are infallible and free will is true then he needs to also do that for that is his thrust in his original article.

I am on a different playing field I know… but I am on Ken’s… if his assertion is that “Finny and the Reformation and Neo-Roman Evangelicalism versus sound Biblical teaching.” Then he need also prove that this is what the Bible actually teaches and states as truth… and that he is also trusting Luther and Calvin over God’s own word… I am in the other part of the statement that Ken has asserted as “true”.

In that you are doing a great job showing that the reformation was not about “free will” (though reformers did teach on free will) but that was not one of the main issues it was clearly a secondary one that needed to be dealt with as Luther developed his theology and Calvin systematize it.

Again, i acknowledge I am on a different field but since Ken is playing there and asserting that the Reformation was based on that… (which I stated he was wrong about also) I now want him to go the extra step of proving from the bible that his view is true and all that he stated are really not teaching “sound bible”.

I hope that clears up things.

Be Blessed,
iggy

57   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 11th, 2007 at 1:09 pm

M.G.

It is interesting that when someone like me presents things that show a ministry is off based, I am told I need to give the source or I am “libel”.

Yet, I have no issue at all in showing the source… in fact I want to show the source to show where i did get that info from… I do not see why Ken, if he is so certain, is so “katty” about giving out his sources… if they back him then all the better for Ken! IF they do not and he is misquoting or twisting which is so often done then i can see his reluctance… so I must conclude that reluctance means that it is highly possible the truth is being stretched or reinterpreted by Ken…

Again, if Ken is right, then this is yet another opportunity that God has open to open someone else’s eyes as to the truth that Ken is trying to get out.

Be Blessed,
iggy

58   Rick Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
September 11th, 2007 at 1:09 pm

Iggy – I understand. We had some tweeking here with leadership from Chris about attempting to stay on topic with special emphasis on people who intentially divert the thread. That is why I wanted to keep Ken on the topic which was not the theological debate, it was the essence of the Reformation.

As you read Ken tried to ever so slightly turn the issue from the one which made him uncomfortable.

59   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 11th, 2007 at 1:17 pm

Ken misrepresenting… that is a given! LOL!

But to prove something to me… one must do it from scripture… not of Luther or Calvin… they were just men like you and me and Ken… So, to me the issue of misrepresenting was already settled… LOL!

I just hope to get Ken to look at the Bible and read IT and them have his theology come out of that… not from reading Calvin or Luther….

I came to my conclusions from reading the Bible… then I looked in church history to see if there was others who had saw what i read… and that is how I find other theologians.

I was amazed when I started reading N.T. Wright as it was like reading many of my own notes… but he had much more depth… but again, I by reading the Bible came to conclusions…

It seems many are historical theologians and not biblical theologians… they are great at reciting other’s works but have done little to no thinking and wrestling with the bible text… they have not read and re read passages that make no sense and prayed until God let you see one little word that opened the whole book of the Bible… Luther experienced that in Habakkuk… “The Just shall live by His Faith” and we get the Reformation! One phrase can change a man or a generation…

Be blessed,
iggy

60   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
September 11th, 2007 at 1:42 pm

One question…Wasn’t Luther German? Because I’m not certain that he would speak in the Kings English.

“If any man doth ascribe aught of salvation, even the very least, to the free-will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright.”

61   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
September 11th, 2007 at 2:03 pm

How about quoting someone not out on the fringe, someone without an axe to grind and history to revise?

Ken does that with all of his writing. Step 1) Have a thought Step 2) research and find everyone who agrees with my thought Step 3) Tell everyone how right my thought is Step 4) Downgrade everyone else’s scholarship.

Watch I’ll prove it:
Ken’s first post at 9/10 8:16 p.m.

The Reformation was about what the Bible teaches about soteriology, which involves the issue of free will, and the Synod of Dort was virtually a replay of it.

Kens rebuttal at: 9/10 8:59 p.m.

Rick, my comment stands and is historically accurate. You consistently distort the Calvinist position. And personally I couldn’t care less what you personally think about the Reformation. I’ve done my homework so if you want documentation you go right ahead and look it up for yourself.

And then:

Your ignorance is sadly on display here. Please let it go. The 95 theses indeed ignited the Reformation. However when Luther quoted the Scripture and taught that the just shall live by faith he was dealing with soteriology.

Kens back up of his thought:

Canons Concerning Justification

(scroll up to get the link)

And then:

(Free Will—A Slave)

scroll up to get the link.

And finally the coupe de grace:

You really are playing the fool. The main reason I have interacted with you here at this hate-filled waste of webspace CRN.(Mis)Info? is that I have been trying to help you.

Man, so many have noticed how silly you are acting. I really did do what I could my former friend. And it seems that you have now chosen your side; may the Lord have mercy on you.

It seems appropiate to point out my favorite movie quote.

See, the sad thing about a guy like you is in 50 years you’re gonna start doing some thinking on your own and you’re gonna come up with the fact that there are two certaintees in life. One, don’t do that. And Two, you dropped a hundred and fifty grand on an education you coulda got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library.

62   Matt    http://matbathome.blogspot.com/
September 11th, 2007 at 2:08 pm

And to think that I thought Ken said he wasn’t a Calvinist.

63   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 11th, 2007 at 2:58 pm

Matt,

Ken is a Southern Baptist who thinks like he is a Lutheran Calvinist but is denial about both…

Interestingly I came upon this article that may show why Ken is so confused.

http://www.learnthebible.org/baptist_calvinists.htm

Be Blessed,
iggy

64   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
September 11th, 2007 at 3:01 pm

Ken is a Christian who believes what the Bible says.

65   chris    http://agendalesslove.wordpress.com
September 11th, 2007 at 3:07 pm

Ken is a Christian who believes what the Bible says.

Unless of course the bible verse involves charity, love, forgiveness, humility, servanthood, and sober judgement. Other than that Ken is spot on.

66   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
September 11th, 2007 at 4:01 pm

Ken,

Then we agree… I showed what the bible stated about “free will”.

Be Blessed,
iggy