Here is a bit from Wikipedia on John Wesley’s beliefs on free will vs predestination:
Wesley was a strong controversialist. The most notable of his controversies was that on Calvinism. His father was of the Arminian school in the church; but John decided for himself while in college and expressed himself strongly against the doctrines of election and reprobation.
Whitefield inclined to Calvinism. In his first tour in America, he embraced the views of the New England School of Calvinism; and when Wesley preached a sermon on Free Grace, attacking predestination as blasphemous, representing “God as worse than the devil,” Whitefield asked him (1739) not to repeat or publish the discourse, not wanting a dispute. Wesley’s sermon was published, and among the many replies to it was one by Whitefield. Separation followed in 1741. Wesley wrote that those who held universal redemption did not desire separation, but “those who held particular redemption would not hear of any accommodation.”[11]
Whitefield, Harris, Cennick, and others, became the founders of Calvinistic Methodism. Whitefield and Wesley, however, were soon back on friendly terms, and their friendship remained thenceforth unbroken, though they travelled different paths. Occasional publications appeared on Calvinistic doctrines, by Wesley and others; but in 1770 the controversy broke out anew with violence and bitterness. Toplady, Berridge, Rowland, Richard Hill, and others were engaged on the one side, and Wesley and Fletcher on the other. Toplady was editor of The Gospel Magazine, which was filled with the controversy. Wesley in 1778 began the publication of The Arminian Magazine, not, he said, to convince Calvinists, but to preserve Methodists and to teach the truth that “God willeth all men to be saved.” A “lasting peace” could be secured in no other way.
Here’s several questions that this has made me think of:
1. If Election is a crucial doctrine, was Wesley a Christian?
2. Can we learn anything from the friendship of Whitfield (a Calvinist) and Wesley (an Arminian)?
3. Is this an example of the Elephant Theology that we’ve been talking about the past few days?
148 Comments(+Add)
GREAT POST! Keep the comments on topic and this should be a great discussion.
Election surely isn’t a cardinal doctrine since many Calvinists come to their theology well after conversion. And if election is true then it is set in stone and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Case closed.
One of the hinderances to good fellowship is arrogance. Until I began blogging I had not encountered it on such a scale. Some Calvinists look down their doctrinal noses at Arminians as if we are “in unbelief” and we do not go by the Bible.
And if, as Calvinists suggest, we should all just preach the same gospel no matter how we view election, then why is election such an issue? If anything, Arminians should be the ones who have an issue with the limited election view. Friendships can be forged as long as Calvinism doesn’t become the gospel.
1) Yes Wesley was a Christian.
2) We can learn that election and free will are not indentifiers of saved/unsaved, and that all Christians must work together, and preach the Gospel together. This Gospel is not Calvinism, or Arminianism. It is Christ Crucified for sinners, raised bodily from the dead, and ascended in to heaven at the Right Hand of God. Salvation in this Gospel is accomplished by grace through faith. So there it is, if we can work together on this, we can accomplish a lot more than we are doing this damning each other to hell over doctrinal disputes junk.
It shows us that when we don’t elevate 2nd order doctrine (to see what the utmost must be believed doctrines are see 1 Cor.15:2-5) to the level of essential doctrine, we end up doing many great things for the Kingdom of God, working together to minister to a lost world that needs Jesus Christ.
It shows us that disagreements do not = you are apostate.
It shows us that 2 men who were far more biblically intelligent than we are, acted much more mature and Christian than we are.
3)Yes, this is a great example of this. I’ll let Chris L comment more on that though since the Elephant Theology was his big post.
Joe
Great post. Most Calvinist where arminians and one point, myself included. So the doctrines outside of the five solas in original context and intermual debates between christians. Although there could be a point that is if are fighting with God and you belevie your doctrine more than the bible then one might not be consider a christian which ever side you are on. That why love and gentleness are so important when talking with other christians. I do not think this is the “elephant theology” becasue the bible is clear and not hiden from our eyes.
Great post. John or Jacob do not equal salvation! Anyways most calvinist where arminians at one point in there life, myself included. The debates on these issues are intramural, between the house of God in most cases.
I do think though that there is a point a person can beholding his theology higher than the bible and actually be fighting against God. They can be come so hostile to the things of God that they are not actually christian(this can happen on both sides of the debate). That is why love and gentleness are so important when discusing things with other brother and sister.
No I don’t think this is a case of elephant theology. Mainly because we have the bible and it is clear and sufficent for everything in touchs upon including the doctrines of grace. Everyone beleives in predestiation and election, they are in the bible. It is a debate about how they work in the lives of believers mainly.
sorry about the double post
Yes but free will, God changing His mind, etc etc are “all in the Bible too”,
Can we deny them then? This is where the Elephant metaphor comes in to play.
All parts of a great whole that stands outside of our small pathetic view of ‘time’. I believe in predestination, I believe in free will, I believe God never changes His mind, and that He changed His mind in Scripture all at the same time. I also believe the Bible in non-contradictory because All Truth is in God, and God cannot lie.
Figure that one out with a systematic theology, you know?
Joe
I’m getting ready to head out for much of the weekend (lots of things with the kids – all 4 of ‘em have some sort of deal this weekend – and lots of things with the in-laws). I’m not sure how much I will get back in…
Per #3 – I would see this as pertaining to part of the multi-dimensionality of God, in that, having no time bounds, He is beyond our understanding, and the things we humans do to force time-based contradictions (like with election and free will) are contradictory to scripture. That we fight about them is part of human nature. When we realize that the scriptures do not have to contradict (and that the areas we’re aruing over aren’t salvific), and that the apparent contradictions in scripture are as a result of our limited knowledge and not flawed interpretation, the better we will be for it…
Blessings,
Chris
Kyle in Wi.
Don’t worry about it, it was predestined before the foundations of the world.
Also, FYI (and I’m sure this will get me in trouble), I laid out most everything in the “elephant” post that I had previously put out here, absent the elephant analogy. Last January.
Or God had the free will to choose to determine that Kyle should be enabled to choose to double post whilst God knowing for sure that he would do it for He so ordained it.
Go Calvinarminianism!!!
Joe
that is where systematic theology comes in. The reason you should do this theology is to sit down and study the whole bible. Like you said there are many things in the bible we don’t get when we don’t look at the whole bible. This is what this approach tries to do. Systematic theology presents a coherent body of ideas or principles from studying the word of God. I totally agree that the differneces are based on our limited knowledge not God’s word!
LOL
yup i total disagree with that post. I think that personal the doctrine of election is glorious. Read what Calvin actually wrote about it. It reminds me that salvation does not depend on me but God, He will finish what I started. This is great encouragement for a troubled soul. This does not give room for sin though. Peter says to make sure of you calling and election by what you do. This brings you to the balance between faith and works. I am saved by faith which will produce works. Same thing with election. Oh well as Foresst said “that is all I have to say about that”
“I do think though that there is a point a person can beholding his theology higher than the bible and actually be fighting against God. They can be come so hostile to the things of God that they are not actually christian(this can happen on both sides of the debate). That is why love and gentleness are so important when discusing things with other brother and sister.”
A great word.
I’ve read the Bible through and through, plenty of times. The problem I have, is the mental gymnastics I always had to do in order to negate free will so I could hold on to my staunch unconditional election ideas. It’s all about goggles and eisegesis. Do you put on your ‘prior assumption’ goggles before you read the WHOLE Bible on the matter of election/free will?
Election is glorious, but is God any less sovreign if he ALLOWS man to chose something?
Of course not.
I still think you’re missing Chris L’s point with the Elephant thing.
YOU, Kyle, and I, and everyone else, just “dun’t get it” when it comes to ‘time’.
But hey, I can’t blame you for sticking to your guns Kyle. A few months ago I’d be fighting just as hard to preserve unconditional election, and SOME other tenants of Calvinism. Until I realized that if I just let go of those pet doctrines a little bit to reinvestigate the Bible and the Truth of predest./free will, it wouldn’t mean I wasn’t a Christian. Once I remembered that Calvinism, Arminianism, or any other kind of ‘ism’ doesn’t make me a Christian, only Jesus saving blood does, then I realized I had the freedom to let go of my position and look in to the opposite honestly, finally. Before, might have said I was honestly looking at all sides, but I was lying. I was not. I was ‘looking’, but no matter what I was going to say I was right, my position was right. When I remembered belief in staunch calvinistic predestination was not a requirement of biblical Christianity, I was able to honestly see the whole view of Scripture better.
Hope that makes sense.
Gotta hold the baby now.
Joe
Posts/conversations that start with the question “Was so-and-so a Christian?” always make me think “Let me get out my Lamb’s Book of Life and check.”
I understand the value of this discussion — good stuff.
But…
Awww..Julie…I thought you were winding up for a riveting comment!!
You’ve been a bit silent in the comments as of late…=(
I enjoy your perspective immensely.
Joe
No.
Julie:
That was kind of my point. Some CR?N writers seem to think they know who is in and who is out. Considering that, according to wikipedia, Wesley actually preached that predestination was heretical, it’s strange that I’ve never heard a bad word about him on the ODM sites.
If you do a search for Wesley on CR?N info, he doesn’t come up at all, in fact.
Who is more of a threat to the CR?N christianity? Bell, McLaren, Warren? Or the founder of one of the largest denominations (Methodist) in the world and the writer of some of the most popular hymns.
I think if I recall the crux of the disagreement was not “predestination” as a whole, rather it was limited atonement.
Wesely held to universal atonement as I do, yet I do not recall him denying that we were predestined to be transformed into the image of Christ.
Funny thing to me is that Whitfield held more grace than most of the ODm’s seem to, as when he was aked about the eternal destiny of Wesely…
iggy
Let me say that I have never thought any of the ODMs or writers here or really anyone who usually dialogues here were not saved. Never. Regardless of the profound and sometimes unpleasant disagreements, I believe we will see each other around the throne.
I can see it now, Ken on one side, Ingrid on the other, and me in the middle. And as we look behind us, there is Iggy tapping us on the shoulder. You can’t make this stuff up!
And when the Lord asks us to break up into small groups Ken, Ingrid, Iggy, Chris R., and a few others sit down to find that our group leader is Rob Bell. Uh-oh, I feel a humor day coming on!!
Tim – was that comment really from Ken? He was saying Wesley was not a Christian?
Rick,
I for one would look forward and truly enjoy that small group! LOL! No… really…
= )
iggy
By the answer from Ken, I suppose that comes out of his Platonist views…
It seems that if Knowledge and belief is what saves us, we do not need Jesus… so if one places knowledge and belief as Ken and the Gnostics do, then they would view someone not as enlightened as themselves as not saved.
Sadly we are not saved by our own enlightened knowledge and we believe God has given us… (not speaking of the bible but that of trust in our own understanding instead of in all are way acknowledging God as He guides our path.) We are only saved by Grace through faith IN CHRIST… and we are only saved by His death, burial and resurrection…
iggy
Did someone say Rob Bell? That’s the real question..is he a christian?
Tom M, are you a Christian? Why do you think that you are?
doesn’t matter if i am, if i’m not then i need to be saved…right?…i’m wondering if his teaching is to be trusted or will it lead me into the vortex of universal spirituality…?
It does matter if your saved. Rob’s not here yet. If you’re not saved his teaching is irrelevant right now, you’re here.He’s not. So are you saved? What are you putting your faith in? I’m not smart enough to know what the vortex of universal spirituality is so I don’t know. What I want to know if what you think happens to Tom M when he dies and why.
Answer this first then. What makes you “reverend”?
Well Tom M,
I’m ordained.
Suddenly Tom, you seem shy. What’s wrong. You’re just here because you have serious questions, right? So come on Tom M. What happens when you die? What do you believe? I really want to know.
Unicorns and puppies and lollypops, that’s what I believe in. Maybe not the unicorns.
What must I do to be saved sir?
=)
Joe
In leu of Tom m not answering yet…that’s why I posted..
Well if you must talk about me…just a believer
it’s like Paul wrote
…pressing toward the mark….intent on “finishing the race”
———————————————————————
“Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
….. I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
….I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
————————————————–
enough about me…..
i didn’t ask if you were ordained…..the question was more along the lines of what man is to be reverend. That’s God’s name.
“….holy and reverend is his name.” (Ps. 111:9)
enough about you.
————————————————
I’m asking about Bell because you all seem to be big supporters and followers and you should know. I just listened to the his ‘trinity’ redefining and that raised serious questions. One big question was that the description he gave seemed to deny the individual persons of the Godhead, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, calling them “some sort of multiple person” (notice the use of the singular). What was very surprising also was that not a single one of your commenters even caught that or seemed concerned. Reminded me of Jude 4, denying the separate persons of the Godhead. I’d be very concerned.
seems that he’s pied piping and nobody questions? Why?
I’m not discerning that the discerner discerners have any discernment?
Tom M,
“I’m just a believer”
So what? There’s this guy called James. He was a brother or a Rabbi named Jesus, also an early church leader. He wrote, “You believe that God is one. You do well; even the demons believe that and tremble.”
In other words this according to this guy James you haven’t really convinced me yet that you’re going to heaven. I’m scared for you, buddy.
ever read Pilgrim’s Progress?
I notice that you are guys are big time ping pong players too. Back and forth, back and forth.
What about the pied piper?
Tom M,
Here’s what I think. You are a jerk that doesn’t want to answer questions but you’re more than willing to ask them. If you go to http://www.marshill.org you can find out contact information for Rob. Maybe you can contact him and then you can come back here and tell us. I just hope you believe more than you said before or you may be on your way to Hell.
P.S. Tom M.
Why this obsession with Rob. Are you gay? Is that why you’re afraid to answer the questions about what happens when you die?
obsession….I’m not gushing over every word the guy says like y’all..for the life of me though i can’t understand what your (the website’s) obsession with him is. I think you should defend any ‘doctrines’ if you’re willing to promote them.
i’m hoping to be raptured…
if you’d like to end this now, that’l be fine since you cannot answer the original question.
oh….not gay
“Methinks he doth protest too much” LOL
“Tom M, Here’s what I think. You are a jerk…”
Rob teach you this “loving” witness Reverend Martino. Disgusting display.
Oh dear, a dispy.
so far i’ve got jerk, gay, and dipsy…..
it’s too easy…it’s too easy
1. Great book. Read it three times as a young person.
2. Yet you seem to have lobbed in your own ball…
3. Tom M., what are you trying to say? Pied Piper? Wha?
What is this original question you want Joe to answer? If Rob Bell is a Christian? Did you not read my earlier comment regarding people determining who other Christians are?
What ways are we able to see who seems to be a Christian? Their fruit? Rob Bell’s teaching, books, reaction to naysayers, etc. show much better fruit than some of these overly wizened ODM plank-eyes.
Again, what is your point here? Depending upon the translation you’re using…there is none. (Ps. 111:9)
I think you need to get your thoughts together in a more coherent fashion because I’m not clear on what your point is, except that you’re not gay.
I can’t fathom being gay or not gay as necessary to bring into this discussion.
IF you’re hoping to be raptured, then you are a dipsy. It’d be like Rick being offended if I called him a Baptist.
I certainly do not get your point, Tom. I am not a supporter (as you put it) of Rob Bell but I thought his attempt to draw out the Trinity in Genesis was very creative, I liked it. The divinity of Christ is a “die over” issue but the Trinity is not.
What is a person and all three revelations of God are the same in substance but different in persons how does that work? And if the Bible is so understated pertaining to that doctrine why do some use it as a heresy club?
I espouse the orthodox view, but if someone says that the three manifestations of God are all one person and He is God (Jesus) fine. Very fine indeed, let’s break bread. And remember, everything the Bell says isn’t susoect so when he makes a good point and a creative teaching that is well within the parameters of orthodoxy, then those who attack him for that reveal an agenda that is motivated by a dislike for the person rather than an objective, loving, and humble discourse about some concerns.
I could name names but I think you know.
not offended in the slightest….but “dispy”, short of course for dispensationalist, ya know…yuk yuk elbow elbow. No problemo senor.
what I still want to know is why when someone redefines one of the most absolute cardinal doctrines of holy scripture i.e. the trinity, not a one of you has a lick of sense enough to even recognize it, but carry right along with a discussion on your new diapraxed understanding of “some sort” of something or other…is it the piper’s flute that has you mesmerized? Snap out of it man
Tom,
I never called you gay. I did call you a jerk. I apologize. I asked if you were gay. You seem to be really worried about a guy you never met. You also asked if he was heterosexual. That seemed to imply that you wanted to know if he was on the market. As for you being easy that’s between you and whatever you believe in.
The Trinity is not one of the most absolute cardinal doctrines of Holy Sciptures, as a matter of fact it is very unclear especially for a cardinal doctrine. I did not think Bell was dismantling that doctrine, I thought he was giving a embryonic expose about the first revelation of the same.
Where did the term dipsy come from? Dispensationalist?
How did being ‘gay’ get brought up anyways lol?
Joe
What’s up Henry….if you don’t think an understanding of the doctrine of the trinity is that important then you probably should go back to school. It’s of the utmost imperative and any body who denies the three distinct persons of the Godhead is simply a bringer forth of heresy.
God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit
Don’t ever let anybody talk you out of that. Maybe you will take some time to read a classic work on the subject and educate youself. It was written by John Owen many years ago. Non-negotiable issue, and grace will not cover it.
Trinity and Person of Christ by Owen:
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/m.sion/owenbrie.htm
highly recommended
re: Rob Bell
The issue has nothing at all to do with the man per se for we wrestle not with flesh and blood
Julie..what’s up
the point is very simple…here’s a guy that’s denying the Godhead and redefining it for one example as “some sort of…” (something) which leaves the door wide open for further diaprax…meaning as soon as we decide exactly what ’sort’ it is we’ll go with that. Can’t you all see that. It matters.
if all this seems to be incoherent….well, don’t pay attention i suppose.
……and Julie, if that verse is not in your bible…well, I’d get another bible.
Wait…what can’t grace cover..?
There is more teaching (I said teaching) on the gift of tongues than on the Trinity, so is tongues a cardinal doctrine about which grace cannot cover?
Henry….can you give me a harder question please?
Rob Bell believes in the Trinity. Maybe you should ask him yourself, or better yet, study what he’s preached, taught, and written.
What he said is perfectly reasonable, considering the Bible does’t come right out and say “God is three cognizant egos as One God”. What he said is plainly talking about the Trinity, and you also must consider his audience as well. What he said is no less than what the Bible says, or what the early creeds say.
If you asked Rob Bell if he believed in the Trinity as historically understood by the Christian Church, he would say yes, and give you a definition of that which fits well within the bounds of the Bible.
Three “persons” is just a reasonable and true extrapolation of Scripture. But saying ’some sort of Word..some sort of Spirit…”, is reasonable within the context of GENESIS 1 (which is where he’s speaking from), since nothing else in the Bible has been revealed yet. He’s coming at it from a “never read anything, or known anything about God before” perspective. Maybe you should see the WHOLE video before you make a judgment of this man’s salvation like that.
Sheesh, there are much bigger and more obvious problems with Rob Bell than this Trinity issue.
Joe
Tom m..
You’re coming across a bit arrogant right now. Maybe you should tone it down a bit and be civil and answer some questions.
Just some brotherly advice.
You must know me from someplace else since you call me Henry and my label says Rick. Where have we crossed paths before? (harder question)
Hey Tom, are you saying basically that if I believe that I am a sinner and the only way for me to get to heaven is by the grace of God and I repent and accept that Jesus died for my sins and I can’t earn it, BUT I believe that there is only one person in the Godhead and He has a Triune nature that allows Him to do this, that I can’t get to heaven?
Henry..er….Rick…..must be the last name..remembered it from seeing on other posts somewhere some time i guess….can’t really say…..auto pilot
guess that question was too hard
Tom M,
I’m going to bow out after I apologize again for calling you a jerk and stating a rather obvious point. You don’t know squat about what Rob teaches and you don’t really care to. His sermons are online. His teaching on the trinity is online. Or was 20 minutes ago when I checked. You’re here for less than pure purposes. Now, you have a good night, I’m going to sleep.
Seriously, are you a heterosexual?
There is no teaching on the Trinity, we come to that conclusion by piecing togather Scriptures. (Jesus’ baptism, etc.). What is a “person” and how can three separate “persons” be the same? Do any of the visions about heaven in Revelation put the Father and the Son in the same picture? And the Spirit seems to be conspicuously invisible and unmentioned.
Using the Trinity as a doctrinal billy club is baseless.
First, nowhere have I questioned anybody’s salvation, this is not the issue at hand.
Dave, if you were to preach that doctrine I’d say that you were preaching another gospel, another Jesus, and another Spirit.
and then I’d probably add this:
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Dave, so are you saying that I can believe in another Jesus who is just a manifestation? If that is the case then the question that needs to be raised is whether or not I even really know Jesus at all.
Do not forget…many will come on that day saying “Lord Lord” only to hear…”Depart from me…I never knew you” (Matt. 7:23; cf. Matt. 25:11-12). Harsh words…all the while they will be crying but”Lord Lord”.
Is it really important?
This is a question of personal relationship, truly knowing the Lord Jesus Christ, even as one man knows another. This is much more than knowing ‘about’ him…even if it’s not quite right…I said the sinner’s prayer after all.
He is a person, sitting now at the right hand of the father interceeding for His own.
1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Do you know Him?
Tom M.
You just crossed the line into being dishonest. You lied. You did question salvation.
That’s too bad you can’t be honest with us and yourself.
You have raised the doctrine of the Trinity to the same level as the gospel itself. The people who were saved at Pentecost knew nothing of the Trinity along with Peter himself. Show me from the New Testament where the epistles teach the Trinity, not just ariving at that from inference?
The whole thing is a straw man that is not a salvation issue. The divinity of Christ, Jehovah in human flesh, that is a salvation issue. And as Joe said Bell believes in the TRinity so you now must admit he is saved.
Wow . . . such an edifying conversation this is . . . :I
My personal answers to the original questions:
1) IF Election is a crucial doctrine, there’s no way anyone but God would know if Wesley was actually “elected” . . . but then, how do we know that anyone is “actually a Christian”? Only God knows our hearts . . .
2) Yes, there’s something we can learn from Wesley’s and Whitfield’s friendship . . . they either put their differences in theology aside or at least didn’t argue about it sarcastically unlike SOME people . . .
3) I really don’t know. I just know that elephant/dog picture was amazing.
I second that. Two or three witnesses.
I think you need to repent of that Tom. And I think this conversation is finished until you can be civil and loving, and stop twisting Scriptures to suit your own judgmental end. The Trinity is what it is, let’s leave it.
As for me, I have an infant who finally went to sleep, so that means it’s my beddy time too. Night all.
Love,
Joe C
PS, Rick I agree with you about the pentecost sermon and the lack of the Trinity in it. Good point. I was thinking the same things the last few weeks.
Joe
John 14:17
“Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.”
Rick, with all due respect, the Holy Spirit is throughtout the Word of God identified as having personality. I cite one example only (above) of many possible.
Note ‘him’ (3x), he(2x), and this is just one verse. These are personal pronouns.
Ok, just one more since you asked…..Rev. 5
6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.
Here we see Jesus, as the Lamb who had been slain, taking the book from the hand of him that sat on the throne.
Certainly you must agree that the one on the throne is God the Father.
—————————————-
Joe….the reason i’m here is because some things are worth fighting for…..the ‘trinity’ of the Godhead especially.
Tom M
You’re preaching to the choir when it comes to believing in the Trinity.
What you are doing wrong however is using that as a litmus test for salvation. You’re bringing an understanding of God that was obviously not required for salvation in the first evangelistic sermons of the Bible, up to the level of ‘required to know and believe at the time of salvation’. This is not good. Not Biblical.
You can see my blogpost on this subject here
Goodnight
Joe
The problem is, tom, the person you’re whining about (Rob Bell) hasn’t “redefined” the Trinity, so you’re building a straw man from the get-go… The really odd thing is that you’re trying to build the straw man based on a 90-second clip in which Bell lays out the very first mention of God as both one and three.
It just seems you’re looking to slander a brother in Christ just for the sake of being argumentative.
Additionally, you’re building “another gospel” in your adding the doctrine of Trinity to the gospel.
Seeing as how all of the systematic theology around the doctrine of Trinity wasn’t settled for 300 years after Jesus’ death, I would think that Jesus or Paul or one of the other apostles just might have wanted to mention that “key aspect” of salvation so that people for the next 300 years didn’t go to hell for getting it wrong…
Joe M.
I’m finished too…but before I go, please show me where I have lied and called into question any particular person’s salvation.
CL….no, what I’m saying is, just for the record, is that you are running off into never-never land, and this re-defined doctrine of the trinity is only one example of where you are being led down the path into what will, down the road, eventually become a “vortex” of universal spirituality.
and basically i’m trying to say, hey wake up man, but
you say “no we’re not” and “no, you’re wrong..”
and so, ok then….leverB
ciao
A couple thoughts…
1. “If you go to http://www.marshill.org you can find out contact information for Rob. Maybe you can contact him and then you can come back here and tell us”
- The ordained, Reverend Joseph Martino.
Let me just keep you from wasting your time Tom. The whole emailing Bishop Bell thing, it doesn’t work — been there, done that.
2. http://seeingclearly.wordpress.com/category/rob-bell/
Tom, there’s some Rob Bell information there. If you email me (pastordave8186@gmail.com), I will send you a paper on emerging soteriology.
3. The terminology on this thread is driving me crazy. EVERYONE who believes the Bible believes in election. There’s no debate there — the Scriptures are loaded with the word and other closely related concpets.
The issue is that some believe we are elect because God sovereignly chose us while others believe we are elect because God foresaw our faith. Then there is a whole other group of people that fit somewhere in the middle — I am in that group and we are usually painted as either one side or the other, depending on who wants to shoot us down.
I am not going to argue the biblical issues on election here, because the conversation will never end — However, let me make it clear, election is not the gospel. It is an important doctrine that has been argued by godly men throughout the history of the church.
However, that doesn’t get Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, and others of the hook. They are soft universalists who deny the existence of heaven and hell as places in the eternal state. Now, those things are gospel issues!
Tom,
Trinity hasn’t been “redefined”… The only vortex is the one that has sucked every bit of logic out of your brain, dude…
Wow,
From all I gathered in my learnin’ of the ole Trinity…
We get from the start the idea of singular.
God…
and then a few verses later, this “God” speaks of Himself in a plurality which is in Hebrew Elohim…
So far that is all Rob Bell stated… but in all my studies that is how we START out getting to the idea of Trinity so I am very confused in how this is a redefinition of anything that was not already taught by other Trinitarians over the vast centuries…
Yet, if Trinity is essential for salvation as a belief, the show me a verse that states so… Yes there are verses that show Trinity at work. But show me a verse where it plain states like this one about Jesus, that “Trinity” is also to be so believed.
John 6:28-29
1 Timothy 1:16 16.
Now again these are just two of many examples of what and who we are to believe for salvation yet, I find no such verse that speaks of “Trinity” in the same manner. I am not talking of the literal word but even the concept of Trinity…
The closest thing is that Jesus states that no one can come to the Father except through Him… but still this does not state one must believe in the idea of the Trinity…
I am not stating Trinity is not true or in the bible… it is. I am stating that as far as salvation, to expect one to believe on the “Trinity” to be saved, when even the greatest of theologians will tell you that they cannot explain Trinity is a bit out in “never never land” to me. In fact it is unbiblical as one then crosses into Platonist Abstractist understanding that Abstract thought is of higher reality and this “spiritual Knowing” is what saves us… it is placing faith in one’s beliefs rather than Jesus.
As far as I am concerned that is Gnosticism and was condemned and even written against in the New testament.
We are to believe on Jesus to be saved, not on our own understanding…
iggy
The thread has been hijacked. Can we discuss Bell in another post?
If you do a search for Wesley on CR?N, he doesn’t come up at all. If he taught that predestination was a heresy, why isn’t this addressed at CR?N?
Who is more of a threat to the CR?N christianity? Bell, McLaren, Warren? Or the founder of one of the largest denominations (Methodist) in the world and the writer of some of the most popular hymns.
And there it is. The watchdoggie arrogance. If you believe in the Bible you believe what I believe. Thus you are insulated from argument or reform because all you have to say is “you don’t believe the Bible”.
Answer the question Clearly, was John Wesley a Christian? Because he didn’t believe in election.
Dave – I appreciate your comment.
Tim – everyone does believe in election, some believe in unconditional and some do not. Dave was just making a distinction and he was right. I believe in election. I don’t believe Dave was being arrogant. He gets testy about other issues but I cannot remember him lighting the Frankenstein fires about Calvinism.
I wonder if I came to Dave M’s blog (clearly) and posted a link to my blog castigating Mr. Silva if that link would get up. Even the Jr. Watchdoggies live by different rules.
A valid point, Joe.
Tim,
I think you missed the point of Dave’s comment re: election – it is the “unconditional” aspect, and its manifestation, that is at the heart of the disagreement.
Alright then. Fair enough. I may have jumped the gun based on Clearly’s past positions.
I apologize if that’s the case.
BTW Dave Marriot, I believe your little moniker for Rob clearly shows your heart.
Where, praytell, did you get the idea that I was suggesting the verse “wasn’t in my Bible?” Just because I said in different translations it doesn’t use the word “reverend” and that the point you were trying to make with it, directed towards Joe and his being ordained, was unclear to me?
If that’s how you interpreted my plain, modern, English, that explains quite a bit, right there.
Julie,
Can you give me a time stamp for the comment you’re quoting
Nevermind I found it. Why do I have a feeling that Tom M is an ODM in incognito?
Time: December 8, 2007, 12:02 am
I still do get much of this conversation… is Tom stating that the Trinity is not in Genesis?
Try reading it this way…
In the beginning God…
The Holy Spirit hovered above the abyss (waters).
Then God said, “Let there be…”
We have God the Speaker.
God the breath (Holy Spirit)
God’s Word that brings forth life… and is life… Jesus.
If the Speaker speaks words he is in essence the Father of His own words.
We have the Trinity right there in Genesis…
Not to mention we have the Gospel written in the names of those in Genesis http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/2005/11/hidden-gospel-in-genesis-5.html
That is a very interesting study!
So if that is what Tom is stating, then he need to study more!
LOL!
iggy
“Answer the question Clearly, was John Wesley a Christian? Because he didn’t believe in election.”
John Wesley was a Christian, insomuch as I have the ability to ascertain anyone’s salvation. What I am trying to say, there is so no reason to beleive that he wasn’t a Christian, even Whitfield believed that Wesley would be closer to Christ in heaven than was he.
BTW, my past positions? My blog doesn’t take positions against these guys on the whole Calvinism thing. If they wan’t to lean Arminian that’s fine with me (I’m not there, btw), but I feel they have a whole slew of other problems!
Jr. Watchdoggie? Hmm, sounds like a hamburger. Can I be a jr. watchdoggie with cheese? I like cheese. It makes me smile.
BTW…wikipedia? Such a scholarly source for such a scholary research blog.
Enjoy
Clearly – feel free to provide info on Wesley that contradicts wikipedia.
A little more research about Wesley not from wikipedia:
http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2007/01/christian-cruise-bout-thirty-years-ago.html
Such a scholarly source for a scholarly research blog
–>Clearly
haha, I have been to your schools faculty page. Not sure that I would pick on anyone else’s scholarship if I was going to that school.
And now we ask a question that beckons on the heels of whether Wesley was a Christian. Was John Calvin a Christian? He, unlike Wesley, was a man given to pride and demanded strict adherance to his view of doctrine.
A deft politician his energy captivated whole cities in his theological grasp, some willingly and some by strong coercion. Unltimately Calvin had three men (Servetus and others)Â murdered at the stake half for their view of the Trinity and other non-Calvinistic doctrines and half because Calvin could not endure personal affronts. Servetus had attended a sermon service by Calvin and Calvin had him arrested after the service.
So compare Wesley’s obsession with humility against the backdrop of John Calvin’s pride and act of murder. So who can be considered a Christian? I believe Calvin was a Christian as flawed as Luther however Wesley’s orthopraxy was light years more Christlike than was Calvin’s. So Calvin is not untouchable, he was as human and carnal as the best of them, I mean, I haven’t murdered anyone…yet.
Not to mention he was a murderer.
hey lemmings….what’s up..did ya miss me
hey I hear that Zamfir is having a concert soon….you know, ‘master of the pan flute’….got yer tickets?
——————————————————-
Julie…I apologize ‘to you’ if I came across as a bit abrupt….here’s where i got the idea…you said
“Again, what is your point here? Depending upon the translation you’re using…there is none. (Ps. 111:9)”
It seemed the reference was to the vs. not to the word (reverend) itself. I don’t know, haven’t read the ‘message’, etc. and didn’t know if maybe you were talking about something like that. I use the KJV, all others are like ‘flat soda’ imo.
Briefly also, the reference to Pilgrim’s Progress was to point out the necessity of finishing the race, which is why I was mentioning “pressing toward the mark” when being pressed on where will I go when I die….
didn’t want to hear the Kirk Cameron spiel that’s all.
———————————————————
Lastly….if you all are happy with the trinity of the Godhead being described as “some sort” of ethereal manifestation of a “creative community”…..then it’s a sorry lot.
Salvation is found in a ‘person’, the Lord Jesus Christ, and not in holding correct doctrine. Paul wrote about counting all things a loss….to go after the one goal……”that I may know him”
But, if the doctrine of God the Son is incorrect, how can a person ever truly know Jesus Christ. They cannot. That is the point. For one reason, the Holy Spirit, the “Spirit of truth”, the third person of the trinity, will never ‘bear witness’ to anything ‘false’, like an incorrect view of Almighty God. Period. Critical to understand this.
But in accepting this teaching you are allowing the trinity of the Godhead to become the “Unknown God” of ‘Mars Hill’…
and it’s all downhill from there.
if you refuse to see that than this is a true statement:
The discerner discerners have no discerment.
Rick Frueh said:
“Show me from the New Testament where the epistles teach the Trinity, not just ariving at that from inference?”
The book of Acts has a good example of presenting the Holy Ghost as a person that interacts with the Christian and not just an “active force of God”:
As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the HOLY GHOST said, Seperate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I (personal pronoun) have called them (Acts 13:2 KJV).
So they being sent forth by the HOLY GHOST, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus (Acts 13:4 KJV)
F Whittenburg
Tom M,
That post was kind of douchey.
Wow, Lemmings that hurt. From a guy who only uses the KJV too. Shouldn’t it be. How are thou, my lemmingish friends. Alas, thou has doth missed me.
Seriously Tom, I got to thinking and I want to answer your original question because I am sure it is asked because you truly want to know. So pause one minute while I go up and look for it. BRB
At 9:10 yesterday, Tom M hijacked this thread and asked,
Failure to capitalize Christian aside. I will now answer Mr. M’s question.
Answer:”Yes, Tom he is.”
Ken, I almost missed your comment up there. Must have been caught up in moderation or something. I think you are a liar so I’m not going to address you here. That’s not calling you a jerk, that is saying that you do a poor job of representing Christ because you lack the ability to stand by your word and be honest. You either lack the ability to tell the truth, or you simply do not know the truth and therefore what you say is always filled with veracity issues. Your commenting here after repeatedly saying you were not coming back is one such example. You repeatedly claim the title pastor, let me share a verse with you;
here’s another one for you to gander at
Here’s a few more:
Ken, when you repent of your dishonesty and issue a public apology of being dishonest and lacking the ability to keep your word, I’ll interact with you. Until then, just be quiet and let the adults talk.
Tim, can’t really apologize for playing a bit ‘rough’ perhaps…my bible says ‘contend earnestly’…
The stakes are high….
but gotta go now…ttfn
“But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever. Amen.”
Tom M,
I’m doing a project on Jude right now, could you tell me what that phrase meant to the original hearers? Also could you give me your take on why Jude quotes the apocrypha?
Tom M,
I didn’t say you were being “a bit rough” or “earnestly contending” I said your post was douchey.
‘playing rough’?
I see no “playing rough” – just someone being an obtuse jerk with only about half a clue on exegesis, hermeneutics and zero grace when it comes to differentiating between narrative and didactic presentation.
No playing rough, tom. Just pain dull and stupid.
That IP seems different than the other Ken’s comments, no?
Rick,
I can’t see his IP address. I only have access to the last 20 comments.
Tom,
Do you know what the difference between contend and defend is?
Contend is pushing toward the prize… in that there is no need to abuse others as you work out your salvation with fear and trembling…
Take some time and look at the difference between “contend” and “defend”… I think you have confused the two and in that misunderstand what Jude is stating.
Contending for the faith while being defended by the Truth who is Jesus Christ,
iggy
Rick
His IP address is different both times. I’m guessing he’s using a proxy server to get around being moderated.
The 66 IP he has used many times before. It was a genuine sighting!
If that was Ken Silva, do I understand his comment that Wesley was not a Christian? (12/07/07 6:35 PM)
I think he was saying that Rob isn’t saved. Which is interesting considering what Jesus said about the Pharisees and why they couldn’t tell the truth.
I might point out that if Chris P is of the AG then he has more in common with Rob Bell then Ken Silva… Ken would say that Chris P is not saved as AG bylaws state someone can lose their salvation and is Arminian based in its history.
So… Ken needs to make a stand against Chris P…
iggy
Poor Matt B.
This was one of his best posts and it has SO been hijacked.
Don’t hold your breath Igs, that would imply this little stand the watchdoggies have taken is based on principle rather than party politics.
If Ken was a man with integrity and held to his convictions… then Chris P would be in the scopes along with us… but since that is not true of Ken, Chris P has no fear…
I thought it rather funny though that according to Ken, Chris is not saved! LOL!
iggy
Joe – I didn’t see Bell come into the discussion up until then, I still think he answers Matts first question.
I think he was answering the KJV man’s question. I really do.
Joe C said:
“”All parts of a great whole that stands outside of our small pathetic view of ‘time’. I believe in predestination, I believe in free will, I believe God never changes His mind, and that He changed His mind in Scripture all at the same time. I also believe the Bible in non-contradictory because All Truth is in God, and God cannot lie.
Figure that one out with a systematic theology, you know?”"
Predestination and freewill flowing together can be found in the story of Joseph. All the jelousy and decit by Joseph’s brothers, the lie of Potifer’s wife, and the time spent in jail by Joseph, never fell outside of God’s predestination to use Joseph to help save a nation.
And Joseph said unto them, Fear not: for am I in the place of God? But as for you, ye thought evil against me (freewill), but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day (predestination), to save much people alive (Genesis 50:19,20 KJV).
Yes, I’ve seen that “flowing together” in that account in the Bible. That’s a good example you bring up Mr. Wittenburg.
They were all making choices of their own will, but God somehow controlled the situation at the same time in His power and plans.
It’s still only touching parts of the greater Elephant that is God and Time.
Thanks for bringing that up Whitt.
Joe
Iggy…might want to check your eisegesis on that vs.
“…..ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”
that’s ‘the’ faith…not ‘your’ faith, the true faith that was once delivered
contend for it…..alert those who are unaware, “for there are certain men……”
thanks just the same though, ttfn
No, really it is contend for the faith… but, you are missing that it is the word “contend” which is not the same as many seem to think as “defend”…
Contend is “to struggle for” it is not to “defend it”… it is to reach for and go for the prize as opposed to having the prize already and defending it… as MacArthur eisegesis of this scripture.
There then is a huge difference… are we defending “truth” or if Jesus is the Truth, does He not defend us as we contend, which also saying “holding to the faith”…
It has to do with persevering and not beating down someone for not believing as you do… it is about living rightly so that that other will see it, and be convicted out of your earnestly striving for the faith.
Warning others also to hold fast to the faith and not be sidetracked by those who have crept in is also part of “contending” but show me where it states to turn on those said men and attack them? We can warn them of their condemnation, yet it seems that their condemnation “was written about long ago” so if this is true, then why warn them? They are already condemned… so again it seems you are the one reading into this verse your view… and not me.
I take it for what it states…
iggy
Rev Joe-
Thanks. Often my posts stink. I usually figure out that out 5 minutes after I post them.
My thoughts on Wesley. He made personal piety a major priority, which is great. We all need this challenge. However, he did believe in some sort of total sanctification, meaning that a Christian could become perfect in this life. I don’t happen to agree with this and have never seen well backed up with Scripture.
re: show me where it states to turn on those said men and attack them…(and) then why warn them?
1. The warning is not for those certain men themselves…”clouds they are without water, etc,. The warning is for those who are in danger of being led astray by their false teachings. This is the whole theme of Jude’s epistle
2. The attack is against no ‘person’, for we wrestle not against flesh and blood. But the error must be exposed. A little leaven leaveth the whole lump.
Paul warned and in so doing contended for others:
“Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?
This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.
A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” (Gal. 5:7-9)
Notice he asks “who did hinder you”…..the source of the error/leaven needs to be identified because it spreads throughout.
one example:
Titus 3:10 A man that is a heretic after the first and second admonition reject;
heretic: someone who introduces error
Hi Tom,
I’m not saying that Jesus is a manifesation, He was real flesh and blood and He was/is God. If you want to be picky, if you are calling Him “Jesus” and not “Jeshuah” then you may not know him either
after all, “Jesus” is possibly a left over of the pagan influence of the post-constantine era church of “Jes” and “Zeus”… we get Joshua out of the Hebrew, why not the exact same name for Jeshuah?
Let me ask you this: I had multiple demons come out of me when I repented and turned to God, calling on Jesus’ Name…if my life has changed (drugs, alcohol, witchraft, foul language) how can Satan have cast out Satan?
The end story is if you believe Jesus the Son of God died for your sins you can be saved. Is a child not saved until they understand the full details? An African person who has no bible?
tom,
It seems then you contradict yourself and now agree with me…
so, in my best “post-modernist” voice I say,
Whatever man…
As again, this is what I was stating when I said there is a difference between contend and defend… and you stated I was putting into the context mine own view… now you state the same thing I did but even better! LOL!
Notice again, Paul is not stating attack the “who did hinder you” but in spite that they “hindered” he exhorts and states, “ye did run well”… so my case is made most cleat by your own words.
again, look at the difference between the words and see I am not stating a lie, but truth, that there is a big difference between contend and defend…
Now there is a verse that Paul states he is “defending the gospel” yet it is not that Paul attacked anyone with the Gospel, rather he stood firmly as those accused and attacked him over the Gospel… yet, look at the meaning of the word contend and find that most often if there is an accusatory action it is from the outside in… as in the case the Judaizers “contended” against Peter about circumcision, yet the word is not the same as in Jude… KJV uses the same word, but one is “criticize” the other is “strive for”…
If you read more than KJV you might see that also, in Jude the word contend is used in the case of Michael and Satan arguing over Moses body… it is Satan who is attacking and instead of defending himself, Michael states that “the Lord rebuke you” for it is God who is our defender.
So while some seem fit to attack people like me, I see that they are in sin and out of touch with the scripture…
In the NIV Paul give the Philippians this exhortation…
1:25-30
I think that you miss that it is you that must suffer for your belief, and it is I who do from people like you who attack me in my faith… but I stand against you as contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.
Even when certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
And as Michael the archangel argued over Moses body with Satan I state, “may the Lord rebuke you” to those who attack my faith in Christ…
I pray that mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance.
iggy
Tom,
I think you and I a just a bit off topic, other than I think that Whitefield and Wesley remained friends even as they both did not agree on some major things… though they did not condemn each other, later others began to… funny how that is… that some would judge Another’s servant.
In the case that we are discussing both men defended their beliefs, yet both also contended for the faith. Both men believed in Jesus to be saved and no One else.
It seems that with some that disagreement is not just that, it is to them, an assault on the gospel itself… and if it is, then do you not think that God is even bigger than the “some men”?
I do, and trust that God already has it worked out in some way that His word will always win… to go after someone else and attack them over their belief seems an act of futility. I agree that warning should go out, yet also that we should listen, especially if the ones critiqued point out that what is stated does not represent them! I hope you agree… that is a sign that we are being just and Christlike.
iggy
Tom,
Can you tell me why Jude quotes the Apocrypha, please?
Joe M.
(see you haven’t dropped the ‘rev’ yet..tsk, tsk)
you can find that issued covered in any number of commentaries…with every divergent opinion…happy searching
Iggy,
with all due respect, as you seem to be sincere, but you can spin it anywhich way you like…in fact, you might put a grace-cherry on top, wrap it up and sell it for $5.99. Probably sell like hotcakes on the booktable over there at Mars Hill.
Speaking of which, and I don’t know if you are a ‘member/follower’ of MH or not…but if you are….and for that matter anybody else reading this,
what you need to do is to get yourself out of that pseudo-christian cult;
“Church of the Unknown God of Mars Hill”
before it’s too late. If you wait too long, what happens is, and the saddest thing is that they never even know it, you too shall have your “conscience seared”…..and that’s not something you want to happen. (1 Tim. 4:1-2)
Whosoever ‘will’……get out of there and take as many with you as you can
———————————————
then go here: Luke 14: 25-35 (find the 3 ‘cannots’)
and that’s as real as it gets, boys
i’m out,
ciao
Tom,
It seems to me that your penchant for divisiveness and slandering of individual brothers (like Bell) and entire bodies of believers (like those at Mars Hill Bible Church – which is about 1,000 miles from Iggy) puts you as the only one here to whom Titus 3:10 applies…
There’s nothing wrong with MHBC or Bell that you’ve even come close to identifying, let alone proving, as unorthodox. Just your slanderous musings…
Tom M,
I LOVE Mars. I serve there every week. I live in covenant community with my brothers and sisters here. My house church is gonna kick off in a few minutes around food and fellowship. You don’t know anything about Mars, but we’ll let even people like you in.
Hey, I’ll have my house church pray for you that you’ll repent. See Titus 3.
Here’s an interesting factoid. Tom M is willing to slander a man of God, but won’t give his opinion on a passage of Scripture. He’ll openly question a man’s salvation, call a church that is sharing the good news of Christ a cult but cannot or is afraid to tell us what he thinks about Scripture. Now, I can understand if he were to shut up about the church and the pastor. By his description of the church we can assume he’s never been there (there aren’t any sale tables)–I’m quite certain he hasn’t met the pastor but his silence on Scripture is puzzling. Maybe he’s never read it, I don’t know. I would just think that a man who claims to have the ability to know who’s in and who’s out would be willing to teach us about Scripture. It’s easy to think you’re playing rough when your slander is aimed outward, it’s a little harder to “play rough” when you’re the one being asked the question. It seemed that he just ducked and ran for cover.
This is too easy. Where’s the real watchdoggies? Men and woman who will give you their opinion with fervor. Sure, they probably twist it just like he does but at least they don’t look like they’re afraid.
Tom,
No spin needed, it seems you want to spin it from what it plainly states to something where you can justify using the bible as a weapon… it is a sword, but it is not a sword against flesh and blood as you even quoted… so again, you quote scriptures that agree with me, then still state I am wrong… and that is a bit perplexing to me and some cause of concern as to whether you are sincere in you view of truth. I do hope you know Jesus and even more that He knows you as that relationship is the most important thing for salvation. Without it you are lost and will spend eternity without God.
Thanks for your time.
iggy
Iggy
had to come back and mop up a bit on this one point because you’ve got it backwards, actually it’s a little ’spun’ out. (that can happen when you only use half the scripture)
————————————-
quote:
Notice again, Paul is not stating attack the “who did hinder you†but in spite that they “hindered†he exhorts and states, “ye did run wellâ€â€¦ so my case is made most cleat by your own words.
———————————
your case is absolutely ‘not clear’ at all. completely upside down and backward to be truthful.
“Ye did run well” (past tense, “what happened”…..no exhortation here, actually a rebuke. Big difference.)
“who did hinder you..” (But now…..someone has brought in heresy and you have fallen for it)
“…..that ye should not obey the truth?”
(and the result of that heresy that you fell for, is apostasy from the truth, disobedience.)
This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you. (’this persuasion’, present tense…..this is not of the Lord)
paraphrase:
you ran well, started good, but now have gone off track. Who did this to you, because now you are no longer obeying the truth. This is not good, and is not what the Lord has called you to.
Okay, now it is clear.
moral of the story: Don’t let anybody (nobody, no-how, nowhere) hinder you from obeying the truth. A good start is no guarantee of a good finish. Can you see it yet?
that’s it, just wanted to contend for the faith and the truth on that last point, for your sake.
———————————————————————–
Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.
Those verses in Galations clearly commend the believers for starting well, and then came the legalists. The reason I hesitate to call the Judaeizers is because Paul says they are teaching sanctification by the law/flesh.
So in Gal.3 Paul is telling the Galatians that not only is salvation by the Spirit, so is sanctification/discipleship. And when Paul says do not let anyone hinder you from obeying tghe truth, Paul means the truth of the Spirit and the worthlessness of the law.
Tom,
I agree that if one does not have the fullness of scripture they go off track… as you have…
Here is the passage
Note these things…
1. Paul is exhorting them to stand firm and not be persuaded to go to the law which is the yoke of bondage.
2. These men taught that one must be under the law first then circumcised, then they would be acceptable to God to accept the Jewish messiah.
3. Paul states to do this, then one misses the point of the freedom of Christ and then under the Law must obey the whole of the Law.
4. If one then is under the Law, then Christ is of no effect for you as you are no longer under Grace but the Law and hope in the Law that it will justify you by your own works.
5. We hope that we will have a righteousness that comes by faith… as a true believer.
6. Being circumcised does nothing… as being under the Law does nothing for righteousness, but faith works its way (expresses itself) out in Love.
7. Here I agree that Paul is stating that they “were running a good race” but have become confused. (Here I agree I did error but I did so in reference to a verse ahead of the exhortation I was speaking of.)
8. The teaching they received was not from God…
9. A little Law works through the whole batch…
10. This is the exhortation I was speaking of but misreferenced… Paul states: “I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view.” and then Paul leaves room for God to move and judge and states, “The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be.”
The issue is that I do not see by this how you defend those who preach the Law be it Mosaic or of man… Ken, Ingrid and crew add to Grace their own standard that amount to nothing and nullifies grace. We either live by Grace through faith, or we die trying to live by our own works.
I do not see where those you accuse nullify grace, but I am seeing where you might be doing so…
Also, this was off the main point of whether you understand the difference between contend and defend. So do you? Can you answer that question? It is a simple one…
Again, those you accuse adding to the grace of God, where is your proof? I think this blog is full of proof of those that do and this blog speaks out against such apostates… is that unkind to you? that I stand against those who try to add works to grace and make people fall from grace?
Be blessed,
iggy
So Tom,
Are you now claiming Apostolic authority?
I must say a lot of you guys really do not act like christians(Especailly the ordained man). You are mean, bickering, gossips that call each other names. Really you guys remind me more of school kids on the playground than that of a mature christian. Look to the bible and test your own salvation then start to ADMONISH WITH GENTLENESS your nrother and sisters. Let us start with what Peter said!
2 Peter
3His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, 4by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. 5For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, 6and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. 8For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. 10Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. 11For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
why does Paul quote Athenian poets
Thanks for explaining that stuff about the law, but that’s more than obvious that it is the first application of the passage, but to apply the passage to other types of error is perfectly acceptable.
Guy’s, you’ll have to contend much better than that.
Iggy,
re: I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view
Jude 5
“I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.”
confidence aside, many do start well but then take another ‘view’, here called what it truly is: unbelief. That’s due to some perversity in the heart of the individual.
….but still there is a need to refute that false view, warning others and ‘contending’ for the truth….the correct ‘view’, even sometimes having to ‘wrest’ the truth (”epagonizomai”) from those who would take it and pervert it. The other option is to weakly roll over and be deceived by every wind of doctrine….’not contending’.
Can you understand it now?
——————————————
Dave,
inadvertently overlooked your question, sorry….but there was something else you brought up.
re: “calling Him “Jesus†and not “Jeshuah†then you may not know him either after all, “Jesus†is possibly a left over of the pagan influence of the post-constantine era church of “Jes†and “Zeusâ€â€¦ we get Joshua out of the Hebrew, why not the exact same name for Jeshuah?”
There is another very strong deception coming in every crack now that you should be aware of. It’s called the “Hebrew Roots Movement” and it appears that you are being influenced by it, judging from your comment. This one is VERY subtle and very dangerous. It is also rather complex and difficult to discern without a strong understanding of Gen.-Rev. You may want to start researching HRM. I’m not going to refute that error and contend for the truth that it is destroying, here/now. This is not the time or place. Maybe another day, but you may find it worthwhile to do the research and to identify the points of contention.
Briefly though, one of those points the is against the ‘name of Jesus’, for that name is hated amongst his enemies, and so now the attack is being ramped up to ‘wrest’ the truth from the ignorant.
————————————————————–
Marty,
not going to spend time playing tit for tat, and i’m not going to do your homework either. Do it yourself.
thanks for the open invite (so to speak) to come to your Coven Community meeting…but you wouldn’t want me there. I’d tear the place up…..smash all your little nooma videos with a hammer, rip up your little workbooks, and put all of it the ‘circular file’. Then i’d make all of you sit down and get a real bible and learn some truth from the Word of God.
On second thought…might be kind of fun.
—————————————-
Chris. L
You’ll need to come up with something more solid than that lame excuse of ’style’ that you keep falling back on to overlook error. And you don’t need to keep rambling on, using all those big words too, like……..dirrative…or… naractic…or whatever you said…..and btw, what was that about Herman Munster?
Oh and you’re wearing out that word ’slander’….so here is a list of alternatives….maybe you can change it up now and then, might be a little more interesting:
asperse, assail, attack, backbite*, bad-mouth*, belie, belittle, besmirch, blacken name*, blackwash, blaspheme, blister, blot, calumniate, curse, damage, decry, defame, defile, denigrate, depreciate, derogate, detract, dishonor, disparage, hit*, hurt, injure, libel, malign, muckrake, pan*, plaster, revile, roast*, scandalize, scorch, slam*, slur, smear*, smirch, sneer, strumpet, sully, tarnish, tear down, traduce, vilify
—————————————————
I’m finished now with this thread but if you really want me to i’ll bust up another ping pong match…er I mean hijack another boring post one day, but it’ll have to be something that is worth contending for.
Now I hope all this isn’t too rough….we play rough where i’m from.
finally, if it is true that the discerner discerners have no discernment, than what is the reason?
Well, that brings us to the thought of the day:
Rambach /Sacred Hermeneutics, (page 81,)
The spiritual man only can thus pierce through the letter, and grasp the very marrow of God’s word: the carnal mind is in this respect utterly blind, for these things are only spiritually discerned.
smile
Sorry, Tom – I’m not going to use those other words, because slander has a specific definition and a biblical admonition attached to it, and it is exactly what you are guilty of.
I knew about that stuff before hearing about the Hebrew roots movement. My point is more that these issues aren’t black and white.
Tom,
I’ll pray that you’ll repent. BTW, if you want to come and try to break stuff up come on. I’d love to testify at your trial and see you get sentenced to a good long time in jail. You’d get a chance to learn a whole new definition for contending.
Tom,
All I asked was if you knew the difference between contend and defend…
You have turned this into a very confusing discussion that seems to lead you to think I am say we do not stand up for the truth taught in scripture and that is not true at all… I am stating we are not to use scripture as a weapon and that our defender is Jesus who is the living truth incarnate…
I am pleased you “contend” but the issue is that people like Ken and Ingrid set out a full our assault using slander and lies against others in their protection and promotion of their view of truth. That is as wrong as if they taught some errant heresy and in my view is that very thing. They promote a false view of God and truth in lying to protect the God who protects us.
If that is your view also then you are in sin and under heretical teaching and need to come out and come back to faith in Christ by Grace for there is no other way… and believe me it is in no way “rolling over” as you stated.
I hope you well on your journey and pray that you grow in the Grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
iggy
Every once in a while a commenter comes in, seems a little harsh but able to communicate, but after a couple of days he reveals what he was all the time. Doctrinal arrogance along with condescending discourse strips away the facade that was in place when they began the conversation but reveals that they were actually waiting for the right moment to pounce.
We call that disgenuous in our parts.