CR?N has a post about the Emerging Church being Catholic. I listened to the audio file CR?N highlighted. It was quite a stretch. But that wasn’t the thing that I noticed.
So then I went to The Berean Call site, produced by Dave Hunt and T.A. McMahon. Here’s the funny thing. Dave Hunt wrote a book called “What Love is This?”, which is featured on The Berean Call site. It is an “expose” on the evils about Calvinism. Here is a quote from the book:
Calvinism, if it were true, would be great news to Satan. He wouldn’t need to deceive the lost to prevent them from believing the gospel because God himself would already have consigned them to hell. As for the elect, because of irresistible Grace, Satan would be wasting his time trying to blind or harden them. There would be no point in trying to blind anyone.
And here is a description of the book from the site:
Multitudes who believe they understand Calvinism will be shocked to discover its Roman Catholic roots and Calvin’s grossly un-Christian behavior as the “Protestant Pope” of Geneva, Switzerland.
This is proof positive that anyone can link anything to anyone. What is more dangerous, Calvinism or the Emerging Church? It seems it’s a toss up.
I guess “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
*Update
I just listened to this audio file from The Berean Call. Dave Hunt says that Calvinism maligns God. He also criticizes John MacArthur’s take on Romans 5.
93 Comments(+Add)
Another excellent post, Matthew. Hopefully this one will not get hijacked.
Delicious irony. The inconsistencies are legion, but hey, whose counting?
Yup they should of never used Dave Hunt. I do not think he is a good research and he does make some outrages claims from his bad research. All he does is genralize instead of aruging from the Bible and then from history. He just is not a good scholar.
One man’s poor scholar is another man’s authoritative research. The one eyed man is king in the kingdom of the blind.
So anyone who claims authoritative research gains the support of uniformed people. And for the record I believe Dave Hunt is a thorough researcher. See, subjectivism reigns!!
Just one more piece of proof that who you attack is more important than what you believe to the watchdoggies.
http://thedowngrade2007.blogspot.com/2007/12/oh-hypocrisy.html
Maybe you can post? Tryin to spread the love and attone for the hate in the name of “Santa Claus is comin’ to town!” Bruce version.
Julie
Did you listen to the show? I laughed most of the way through it. It seemed like there was a younger guy who was trying to do a piece on the evils of the emerging church, and an old man that kept interrupting with random things. At times he even sounded confused on the whole thing… like thinking that emerging churches currently follow monastic, separatist theology. It was pretty funny.
I do not think it is subjective. He uses secondary sources instead of the primary ones, staw men, esegesis, does not deal with the whole bible and on occasion use an ad hominem. He just is not a great scholar. If you disagree with that than that show connecting the e-church and catholicism would of have some wait to it instead of being hot air that cause people to laugh at it.
In the radio broadcast about the emerging church, one of the guys basically says if you support infant baptism at all, you aren’t a Christian. How does that sit with some of the ODMs?
So Matt, what is the focus of .info? Calvinist, Watchdoggies, Calvinist Watchdoggies, Arminian Watchdoggies, Emergent Watchdoggies…?
DT
DT –
I just thought thiat it was ironic that CR?N uses a semi-pelagian, anti-JMac guy to research the emerging church. Shouldn’t they be watchdoggying this Dave Hunt guy. He sounds dangerous.
Matt,
I don’t think Dave Hunt is the most credible of guys in the world of systematic theology but he is not leading people to Hell either. Sometimes using an Arminian, which most professed emergents are, to make a point shows that it is not just the reformed that are concerned with the EC.
DT
Hey Jason (the guy with all the Initials in his name) is pretty upset at you guys! He says your the worst apologist sight ever! check it out here
Whenever I am criticized by a stauch Calvinist I consider high praise. I love the name though – The Puritan Board. I feel like I’m going before the Sanhedrin.
DT,
You say that “most emergents” are Arminian… which I know of one or two, yet the bulk of people I interact with in “emerging” seem to understand grace much better than many of the J Mac people I have run into.
I for one am neither Arminian or Calvinist. I have never really care for either, as both have their good points but when they go bad it is very bad.
I find it interesting though that you can make such a blanket statement as if it was fact… so, how many emergents can you name… let alone what they believe as far as Arminianism?
Also, what do you mean by Arminianism? Do you mean “free will”? Do you mean that one can lose their salvation? I hear much double take from the J Mac side that it seems they are confuse as they profess eternal security, but fear that one can fall away into apostasy and be lost… one cannot have it both ways… One is in the Light or in Darkness and if they cannot make up their mind I understand why they run around in great fear thinking God is not strong enough to not only protect truth but be literally the Living Truth…
So, is J Mac right in insisting that Jesus, being the Living truth needs our protection from the lost? That is his assertion and it seems you agree with him… but do you really believe that?
If so that is very scary stuff and worse than anything I have heard come from my camp… even Universalism as it lowers God below us as then must protect our God from harm.
iggy
Iggy – you must be one or the other in a general sense. If you believe God Himself chooses who is saved, you are a Calvinist. If you believe man has a choice, Arminius is your boy.
All the rest of the theology is merely window dressing.
Rick,
I disagree – I believe it is both (and I suspect that’s where Iggy’s coming from, as well)…
Chris – those theological lines are parallel, they do not intersect.
Were we emergent apologists I’m sure we’d be all upset.
I suspect he joined the forum just to complain about us. Check out his lowly freshman status.
iggy
what does the bible mean when it calls us to be ready to give a denfense for the hope that we have. Is there any point or need for apologetics then? Is this not defending God’s truth?
I would agree with this statement to a large degree. It seems to me that once you pluck one of the petals off of TULIP, they all fall start to fall soon after.
I think there’s a reluctance to be thrown into one camp, though, because it implies we are not in another.
Iggy,
As far as the eternal security thing goes, I’ve seen you mention it a few times, and maybe I’ll regret asking, but I kind of have a hard time understanding your position. I guess I don’t believe losing one’s salvation is an easy thing to do. It seems God is extremely long-suffering with us. I do think it is possible that God would let someone walk away, though.
It seems that Paul’s constant admonitions to remain in God would be pointless if we couldn’t not remain. Also, I’ve seen several people with vibrant faith turn their backs on it and actively work against God. I know the classic answer would be that they weren’t saved in the first place, but I can’t buy that.
I guess, I’m not trying to argue with you, I’m just curious to how you arrived where you are. I feel like I come from a similar background as you. I used to have “eternal insecurity”, I guess. Where as I had to constantly repent for fear of missing the Rapture. I now view things a lot differently.
Mars Hill Seattle and Imago Dei in Portland are both reformed/calvinistic churches. Granted, they are more emerging then emergent, but still…
MHS and ID are like Saddleback and Willowcreek in the emerging church world. Mars Hill Grand Rapids leans more Arminian.
I just don’t think you have your facts straight about “most” emergents/emerging.
Rick,
I have only read a little of Arminius, and of what I read he is not much different from Calvin…
Yet, I have read the bible and the early church fathers… so I am grounded more in their understanding.
I think that “free will” was taught well before Arminius, and though I might agree in many things with him, I do not agree with most Ariminian teachers and preaching today. Most set out that “works” sanctify and make us more perfect and the understanding of “obedience” is more man based than Christ based… meaning that it is in Christ’s obedience we walk and not our own as we have none to give… if we did then we would not have needed the Cross, we could have just been “obedient” as most teach this.
I have already gone on much here on my issues with Calvin, yet I see that one does not need to know a thing of either to be saved, they need only know Jesus and His Doctrine, not any man’s doctrine.
iggy
Dear Matt
Did you see the first sentence describing Dave Hunt’s book:
“… many people around the world reveal that multitudes of sincere, Bible-believing Christians are “Calvinists” only by default.”
The statement reveals that Calvinists are not enemies of the Gospel, and that many are Bible-believing Christians.
On the other hand, when it comes to the the emergent church movement, Dave Hunt writes
“Although there are far too many examples of apostasy influencing the church today…there is one spurious trend that encompasses nearly all of what the above verses address. It’s called the Emerging Church Movement (ECM)…
“… “vintage form of Christianity,†featuring rituals, ceremony, candles, incense, prayer stations, and images to create a spiritually experiential atmosphere for evangelicals is “vintage†only in the sense that it is an imitation of the later unbiblical Eastern Orthodox and medieval Roman Catholic liturgies. The early New Testament church knew nothing of this idolatrous and sense-oriented worship”
“In reading the works of the ECM leaders, we would agree with many of their criticisms of current Christianity. There is plenty to oppose as apostasy and the abandonment of the Word increases in Christendom. The ECM’s corrections, however, rather than having restorative value for the church, are just as contrary to the Scriptures. Even worse, they go far beyond subtly “weaning evangelicals off the Word†to rendering the Bible and its doctrines as the enemy when it comes to drawing the world in general and, specifically, our postmodern culture, to the love of Jesus.”
“…its potential for shipwrecking the faith of our next generation (should the Lord not yet return for His saints) is staggering. Here are just a few of the faith-destroying beliefs as espoused in the writings of the emergent leaders. First of all, foundational to the ECM is the subversion of the Bible. It’s akin to Satan’s scheme to destabilize Eve’s trust in what God commanded: “Yea, hath God said…?â€
Dave Hunt also called the emerging church a “deadly delusion”.
So, what really is worse according to Dave Hunt’s writings, a Bible-believing Christian who holds a Calvinist position or an emergent who holds a deadly delusion?
http://www.thebereancall.org/node/5958
Rick,
Once again, I would disagree, but we can leave that for a different day…
The difference is the term “Calvinist” means a predetermined election by God. The term emergent has no central core yet.
If you believe theologically that God chooses who He wants saved your theology is incongruent with those who teach that God desires everyone to be saved. The other teachings can mesh somewhat, but the basic pre-creation theology has no common ground.
Phil,
I hold to this verse in 1 John 2: 19-20
I hold to that as in Philippians 1:6 as I am “confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.”
I see if God does not complete the work in me, then God is a lair… and I do not see God as a liar.
I hold to the promise of Jesus’ words in John 10:27-30
“My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all ; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”
In this I consider myself as one of the “no one’s” that can snatch me out of His hands…
I think it is pretty simple and believe me I have argued both sides…
I used to believe that OSAS was a lie from hell itself and i would argue with anyone who held that position… I believe that many were persuaded by me as they realized that if I was going to be in Heaven, then they did not want me as a neighbor so began to hope they could lose their salvation! LOL!
Now, to me it is not about OSAS, rather it is if one is asking the question they most likely have something going on in their life that is bounded in error and not truth. I see that the solution to the debate is “growth” for some plant, some water, but God makes things grow… and if one is not growing they are perishing… but God will not let a son of His be stillborn as all that come to Jesus come to eternal life… not temporary life. = )
BTW when I talk this way my Arminian friends get a bit frustrated with me but when i talk “free will” they love me… go figure! LOL!
blessings,
iggy
Chris L.
“Once again, I would disagree, but we can leave that for a different day…”
I must say that we agree on this issue.
DT
Rick said:
Not at all attributing the following to you, Rick, but this statement is the semi-logical precursor to the anti-Calvinist idea that Calvinism sees God as cackling gleefully as He flicks people into hell.
But regardless, while I happen to believe the first half of what you said, I don’t agree that the two concepts are necessarily mutually exclusive.
1) While God is omnipotent, He is also bound by certain aspects of His nature. For instance, even though God can (in one sense) do anything, He can not lie. Is it not possible that God’s nature as it pertains to man’s salvation is such that what He chooses and what He desires are not necessarily the same?
2) Alternatively, is it not possible that the concepts are not mutually exclusive, but that the intertwining is beyond mortal comprehension? (I.E. Maybe “it’s a God thing — you wouldn’t understand” — where “you” is all of us.)
Iggy,
I’m with you on Eternal Security. If salvation really is God’s work in us (regardless of if we choose to respond to it or not, depending on your position), then how can we do anything to affect something that is not ours to begin with? It’s like how God’s holiness is given to us, can we take anything away from God by our actions? Can I lessen God’s Holiness and sanctification of myself (being set apart for holy use, being holy) by what I do?
We all say we don’t ‘do anything’ to be saved, this is true, so then how can we ‘do something’ to be unsaved? How can it be one way, but not the other way? What I see between the lines of the ‘lose your salvation’ conversation is: “I don’t work to be saved, but when I am saved, if I work hard enough, I can be unsaved.”
God’s calls and blessings are irrevocable.
As for Free Will and Predestination, all I have to say is…
Elephant. LOL
=)
Love,
Joe
There is nothing one can DO to “lose” your salvation. But an honest reading of Hebrews 10 and 6 is obviously teaching one can enter into unbelief and commit apostacy. Now this doesn’t come through sin, it comes through unbeliefe.
Sin however can eventually erode your faith if left unchecked. One must do disingenous interpretive calistentics in order to read those passages any differently.
Joe C,
You raise some interesting points. I guess my biggest concern is with some of the terminology. I really hate the term “being saved” as if salvation is a state or descriptor. It seems to me that it much more helpful to think of salvation in terms of a relationship.
I like how N.T. Wright explains it in terms of “getting in” and “staying in”. It certainly seem God offered Israel the ways of “getting in” but they always had trouble “staying in”. I also have a hard time explaining passages in Roman that talk of God cutting off Israel from the vine.
I actually think that thinking of salvation as a state has really hampered a lot of people’s walks. If we say a prayer and we’re in, it seems that has been a big de-motivator for people putting the required time into pursuing God. Yes God is always faithful to us, but a covenant is a two-way street.
I agree with you Phil, but I was just using common terminology, which I admit I’m used to. “Being saved” is something everyone understands. Sorry to confuse. I understand salvation is a relationship.
Rick,
I agree, and have seen this first hand.
You said there is nothing you can DO to lose your salvation, and I agree, but then you imply that belief is not an action, (a DO). Belief is a DO. It’s an active action. It’s not idle. If someone stops that, then this is an action (by inaction) too, isn’t it? But then how can we be saved by grace through faith, not by works, if believing is something WE do? See, now that just makes everything totally confusing and my brain is exploding. Belief can’t be a work, a “DO”, because it has to be there in order for the relationship with Jesus to begin, and we’re not entered in to that saving relationship by our actions.
Hebrews 10 and 6 have always been difficult to understand. I don’t have the answers. I’d be happy to hear and learn what you think Rick.
All I can hear in my head right now is “repent and believe”. I’ll hold on to that, even if I’m terribly confused at the moment. Hebrews 6 and 10 always do that to me when they’re brought up.
Sorry for muddying the waters, but these are the weird thoughts that go through my young head.
Love,
Joe
When God “gave” the promised land to the children of Israel it was given by Hos grace. But Hebrews also tells us that some could not enter in because of unbelief. Faith is not a work, it is a gift from God. However, Hebrews is very serious and I have seen it a few times firsthand.
A person gets saved, grows and matures, prays and witnesses, and then back slides. Now these coup[le of individuals about which I speak backslid to such an extent they denied the faith. They now say it was an anomale, a period in their lives that they no longer espouse. I believe they have commited apostacy.
This is very dangerous, and Hebrews says that those who have partaken of the Holy Ghost, and now count the blood of the covenant with which they WERE sanctified as an unholy thing – they can never come back. That is as serious as it gets.
Now the man who was living with his father’s wife in Corinth actually was saved and eventually repented, so that shows sin in and of itself cannot remove one from faith. But sin can contribute to the hardening of one’s heart. That is why a backslidden Christian should be warned in the most serious terms. He is in real eternal danger.
I think I see what you’re saying Rick, good analysis, but still that leaves the question I have…
What about the verses Iggy mentioned concerning eternal security? If losing one’s salvation is a real threat based on unbelief, how do we explain that in light of the eternal security verses?
Is it that, through belief you enter in, and through disbelief you exit out? And you’re eternally secure as long as you believe and continue in the faith?
Is this a reasonable line of thought, or am I out in left field swinging a bat at flying pigs? lol.
Thanks Rick.
Joe
We are sons and daughters of God by the “spiritual newbirth”, not through obedience. The obedience comes as a result of the “newbirth (i.e. born of the Spirit)”. The divine order is first recieving a Heavenly Father before recieving “correction” from a Heavenly Father. I want to show you something beautiful in scripture that you may have forgotten.
And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked by him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he recieveth. But if ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons (Hebrews 12:5-8).
This passage in Hebrews shows that sons and daughters can be disobedient and still be sons and daughters. What has changed now because of what Jesus did on the cross, is how God deals with that disobedience. Through rejection or correction……..
You can grieve the Spirit, you just can’t leave the Spirit.
And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, wereby ye are SEALED until the day of redemption (Ephesians 4:30 KJV).
F Whittenburg
http://www.christiannewbirth.com
Once again, good points. I love those verses in Hebrews 12, by the way. Thanks F.
Joe
Also the people that do fall away wherenever christians, if they do not return. 1 John says that is why they left. Jesus told us about the different soils and which ones are good. Sure you may see some growth(leaves and green) then they fade away and never produce fruit. if you notice it is not how much you produce but that you do produce fruit in keeping with repentance. Then also the bible says that men where brought into the church and teach wrong doctrine and that they are predestined for destruction. So while we do act is is not justification by grace through faith then santicification through works. Santification is also by grace through faith. God conforms us to His image in this life and will complete at the return of the our Lord.
Here is a good question that will kinda clear it up. Does God violate our free will by keeping us from sin and sinful desire in heaven?
Does He viloate our free will by doing the same on earth?
Those verses are very powerful and give the believer much security in Christ. We are not just hanging on, we are rejoicing in being in God’s hand. However, the two chapters in Hebrews are clear not ambiguous. For years I would massage them into my theology but all the while I knew I was changing their obvious meaning.
I do not know the balance, however, the overwhelming number of verses give us hope and security. But these verses warn us of neglecting so great a salvation, and they obviously refer to believers. God knows whereof He speaks and I can no longer in good conscience alter the clear teachings of Hebrews 6 and 10.
I’d be interested how you explain things like The Parable of the Sower and John 4 which says,
It seems that the argument of Eternal Security follows closely with a belief in Election. It kind of gets back to the point I made earlier, it seems really hard to believe one point in the TULIP without believing in them all.
Here is a quote ffrom J. Edwards regarding our freedom and God keeping His people from sin. It makes you think.
“Objectors may say, God cannot always prevent men’s sins, unless he act contrary to the free nature of the subject, or without destroying men’s liberty. But will they deny, that an omnipotent and infinitely wise God could not possibly invent, and set before men, such strong motives to obedience, and have kept them before them in such a manner, as should have influenced all mankind to continue in their obedience, as the elect angels have done, without destroying their liberty? God will order it so, that the saints and angels in heaven never will sin: and does it therefore follow, that their liberty is destroyed, and that they are not free, but forced in their actions? Does it follow, that they are turned into blocks, as the Arminians say the Calvinist doctrine turn men?”
Also on Hebrews 6 is again talking of fruit in a beleiver. Also remember who it was written to and why. It is written to jewish christian wanting to return to judaism. So they wanted to seek forgives trough goats and bulls leaving the only sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins Jesus. So who do we rely on to produce this fuirt. Ourselves or God? If it is God then we can rest assured because He is the vinedresser that prunes plants to produce fruit. If ourselves then we despair for want plant can prune itself. Not matter where you are on this side of the persaverence of the saints you must always look to Christ and not our action to assure us of our salvation!
There is no such thing as a 4 point calvinist. It is inconsist with the over all teaching of the bible. I think it all hinges on the view of man and how we view sin. This to me is where it all gets boiled down to are we totally depraved(radically corrupt) or not?
It does follow election because if it is God’s decree through Christ that I believe and follow then His word will not return void because all of God’s promises are “YEAH” and “AMEN ” in Him.
“There is no such thing as a 4 point Calvinist.”
Um Kyle, you need to get out more. I know a lot of people who would only subscribe to 4 of the 5 points. You can say that it incongruous, or that you think it’s illogical, but you can’t say they don’t exist. I know them.
Kyle,
Yes, my point exactly. It’s why I pretty much came to the point where I am comfortable saying I disagree with Calvinism at every point.
I know some Arminians will still claim to believe in Total Depravity, but they really mean something different than the Calvinist definition of it.
Joe,
I don’t think the point is whether or not people call themselves that, it just that by definition, a Calvinist is a 5-pointer (or possibly someone like John Piper, who calls himself a 7-pointer). It’s just kind of an oxymoron.
I view it like being pregnant. A woman can’t be “a little” pregnant. She is or she isn’t.
I guess the other question is then whether not being a Calvinist automatically makes one an Arminian? Or is there really a third way?
Phil,
The problem is we need to allow people the room to identify themselves as they see fit. There are people who claim to be 4 point Calvinists.
And there are people who claim to be sane Cleveland Browns fans. It’s an oxymoron.
I know what you mean, Joe.
It’s not worth getting into a huge argument about. People can call themselves whatever they want in my book.
Phil, please define what you mean by “election”
Because the Bible speaks of Election, and the Elect, often. I suppose there would be different interpretations of “Election” and “The Elect” based on your theological disposition.
I still don’t understand how one can lose their salvation…
I think “you can lose your salvation” theology breeds an unhealthy “I gotta make sure I’m doing this in order to ’stay saved” mentality with some. I’ve seen it, and I believe that to be an incorrect approach to our relationship with God. He started it, He’ll finish it. That doesn’t take man’s responsibility out of the picture.
Thanks for all the responses
Joe
We are to earnestly contend for the Truth in the midst of a world filled with people who God willed to never recieve it – and for all the believers who had no choice either, and can never fall away.
Joe C.,
Well, I don’t think it’s easy to lose one’s salvation. I even really hate using that terminology. I do think it is possible for people to walk away from God and to rebel to a point where God hands them over to their own desires. I’ve seen it, and it’s a sad, sad thing.
I guess cannot judge a person’s eternal state, but it seems to me that if someone comes to a point where they hate God, why would they want to spend eternity with him? I have seen people who have had genuine God experiences totally turn on Him.
As for your other question, about the Elect. In the OT, the word for Elect basically mean the “called out ones”. So Israel was God’s Elect. What were they called out for? They were called to be a blessing to other nations, not just to be God’s chosen people.
In the NT, Jesus offers us all a chance to be part of the Elect. I see the Elect as the Church universal, basically. There are promises given to the Elect collectively that will apply to individuals when they become part of the Church. I view the term “Elect” as a train or a ship. A train or ship has a destination it’s going to, but individuals can get on or off of it.
A perfectly dogmatic statement Jeff.
I wonder if God would fully agree, in His infinite power and understanding, with your very terse understanding.
I wonder?
And I also wonder if you bothered to read the entire thread before you drove by with your 1 liner run on sentence. =)
Love, Joe
There are 3 or 4 point Calvinists. But the unconditional election is the line of demarcation. If you believe that then you are a Calvinist and probably will believe in all the rest since they form a pattern that substantiates the theological view of election.
My point is this, Hebrews 6 and 10 are not just confined to Jewish believers, they are written to all believers even though the writer was writing to Jewish believers the Spirit was writing to us all. That is like saying Matthew was written to the Jews so it doesn’t apply to us.
Now those two sections of Scripture have a clear meaning and unless we doctrinally toture them in order to fit a preconceived theology they openly teach a departing from the faith by those who were sanctified bu Christ’s blood. The very least people say is “problem Scriptures” which means I don’t agree with what they say because I believe something else.
(WARNING: BEING FUNNY ALERT!!)
Jeff,
I found what you were saying friend…
Just playing buddy. Can you find me your statement in the Bible please? =)
Joe
LOL
If the Steelers aren’t careful…
Go PATRIOTS!
What’s the point of contending for the faith if God willed many not to receive it, and some to receive it no matter what they want?
Wouldn’t it just “contend” for itself?
But some will say “well it’s weird, I know, but we have to do it anyways even though it makes no sense!”. Sure, but…I contend it makes no sense because they’re looking at it improperly with the incorrect starting assumptions, and that’s why it’s so ‘weird’ in the first place.
Contending for the FAITH makes sense if man is not a fatalist robot.
I’m not condoning either side, as they are incomplete views (Arminianism/Calvinism), I’m just saying…what Jeff said makes no sense Biblically.
Joe
Joe – Calvinism is not only unbiblical, it makes no sense. It teaches God is playing a game of solitaire in which He himself is active in the historical play and we are part of a flannel graph presentation.
There are forms of Arminianism that do despit unto Scripture as well, but fatalism is a deception of Satan.
I don’t understand solitaire too well…so your metaphor was lost on me friend =).
Perhaps a different explanation…?
I think I agree with you about Calvinism though.
I’m still kind of new to this systematic theology stuff and the inanity of it all; I have been a sheltered Christian since being saved lol.
Joe
Solataire is a card game that someone plays by themselves.
Oh right…I see I was missing the obvious again. LOL
Now it makes sense! Thanks Rick.
Joe
“I believe that the widespread unbelief, indifference, formalism and wickedness, which are to be seen throughout Christendom, are only what we are taught to expect in God’s Word. Troublous times, departures from the faith, evil men waxing worse and worse, love waxing cold, are things distinctly predicted. So far from making me doubt the truth of Christianity, they help to confirm my faith. Melancholy and sorrowful as the sight is, if I did not see it I should think the Bible was not true. ”
This is just a good quote from Ryle. I think he nails it on the head.
Rick who does the bible say is in control of everything? Who do we walk, live and have our being in? Is it the devil, people or God?
Just because God is in control does not negate my responsiblities. God does not have to change our hearts to love Him but he does that is true grace. While we were sinners God loved us. I do believe though there can be fatalism because people misuse the bible and do not understand it as they should. So the really question boils down to what is free will?
I was being sarcastic. I will cease from this or strive to be more clear in future attempts.
My post actually was meant to be posted under the “truthinator” thread.
As I skimmed the articles and replies, the thought occured to me: What sense does it make to “Defend the Truth” if people are Sovereignly Reprobated to Hell and are unable to respond to the Truth, or if those who have been Elected to receive it have no will but to Persevere?
In the end, the TULIP has God simply Judging Himself/Rewarding Himself. The whole of Scripture and History becomes a Charade.
I am astonished that John M. is so highly regarded as a Bible Teacher.
That’s all.
So how does God predict the future? Is He unable to do this because the “free agents” have not yet made there choices and God only knows possiblites? Is it fromsome super knowledgeof the future? Or is it because He decreed it to be?
I would choose the last myself. Look at Joe in Egypt and his bros. Then look at the life and death of Christ. Everthing had to happen that way becasue decreed it long ago before the foundations of the world.
What do you guys think?
Kyle,
I don’t believe the future is decreed or scripted. Some events God foretells, but I don’t think that’s because it’s all planned out.
Think of this. There are some things that we can foreknow about people’s actions ourselves. We know that if do one thing, a person will react in a certain way. We can do this somewhat with strangers, but we get pretty darn good at it with people close to us. Now God knows all people perfectly. He know all their motivations, characters, fears etc. He can foretell what they will do. He doesn’t plan it.
When I realizes this, it totally changed the way I think about God. It really makes Him much more alive and active to me. My prayers actually matter to Him.
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
11In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. 13In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
What is all things refering to? I think the bible is clear that God works everything according to His purpose for His glory. Here we see that God is in control in everything escpecially the work of redemption.
Kyle,
Well, this is turning into more of a debate than I want to get into right now, but I will say this one.
I think you need to read that bit of Scripture carefully. When Paul says “He predestined us for adoption as Sons of Christ”, I think he is talking about Christ being predestined to be the way of salvation for the Elect (the Church). It doesn’t say that individuals themselves are predestined for eternal life or death.
Think of it this way. If my wife and I are planning to adopt a child, we might not know what child we will be adopting. However, we could prepare a room, buy furniture, toys, etc. We would be right in saying our child who we have yet to adopt is predestined to “inherit” these things, even though we don’t know who the child is yet. That’s how I believe a lot of the use of the word “predestined” can be explained in Scripture.
Okay that is the last I will say about it too. But I think you are reading a lot into this passage. The bible is pretty clear that God works all thing acoording to his will. Thanks for the intresting ideas though. Try reading and studying with prayer later. I will too! We need to let the bible speak and not our ideas and traditions.
That’s something I can agree on!
God bless!
“I don’t believe the future is decreed or scripted. Some events God foretells, but I don’t think that’s because it’s all planned out.”
In Revelation 4:1, John was “caught away in the spirit” and shown the “things which shall be hereafter”. John then returned and wrote down what he saw in the book we call Revelation. For John to be taken “somewhere” and shown the future, means that the future would have already existed at that time “somewhere” (possibley in another dimension) for him to be taken there, shown it, and come back and wrote about what he saw.
F Whittenburg
http://www.christiannewbirth.com
You missed the point, though, the future is already known but wasn’t scripted.
“You missed the point, though, the future is already known but wasn’t scripted.”
I don’t think I missed the point, I just didn’t feel I had to expound on the thought further, but I can.
And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. For GOD hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fullfilled (Revelation 17:16,17 KJV).
Scripted?
F Whittenburg
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem…how often would I have gathered you as a hen gathers her chicks but YOU WOULD NOT…therefore…”
Within the parameters of God’s sovereign will lives the free will of man, given by the sovereign will of the Father. He called, they refused. Scripted?
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem…how often would I have gathered you as a hen gathers her chicks but YOU WOULD NOT…therefore…â€
Within the parameters of God’s sovereign will lives the free will of man, given by the sovereign will of the Father. He called, they refused. Scripted? ”
What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (According as it is written, GOD HATH GIVEN them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day (Romans 11:7,8 KJV).
Yeah, scripted………
F Whittenburg
http://www.christiannewbirth.com
Elephants!!! SO MANY ELEPHANTS!!
I have a snake!
What do you guys got?
Joe
Two kids and and a dog…
But in my heyday, I had a snake four tree frogs, a western toad, two fire bellied newts, and a water dog… not to mention an… now get this… iguana from which I got my nickname… iggy.
= )
“Come unto Me all ye who are heavy laden…”
That seems to include everyone. “I have called but you have not listened”.
Rick,
Duh, don’t you know that “all” means “some”. Get a clue.
I really don’t have a literal snake…
I was just saying…you know…keeping with the elephant theology post…kinda an inside joke now I guess…
I have 2 dogs and 1 kid….
I can’t believe you had a water dog Iggy, that’s really cool.
Joe
I have a German Shepherd named “Rudy”. Notre Dame and all that!
Our younger Beagle is named “Beckett” after the famous Red Sox pitcher who helped win the World Series for them this year. Go Sox, Go Pats!!!
Joe
He was ugly… but cool he could eat 20 goldfish in about 5 minutes… then he turned into a salamander and died a few weeks later… the trick is to keep them as a water dog for as long as you can… after that they don’t last very long.
I had a friend who kept baby alligators in his garage… they were about 4 foot long… but the 6 inch one was nasty mean… you barely could get the feeder mouse in before he would jump about 6 inches and grab it out of you hand…
My wife was also bit by this guys reticular python… which has some of the longest fangs as far as snakes… it bit through her thumb/first finger web… took a bit to get him off.
I miss them ole biker days a bit as the people I would meet had the strangest hobbies… some i will not or care to not remember let alone mention! LOL!
iggy
I have a dart board with a picture of Josh Beckett, Curt Shilling, Tom Brady and Bill Bellicheat on it. I love to throw darts at that thing.
Joe-
I’m from the Boston area and a big Pats fan myself.
I’m only 2 hours south of Ken Silva. I’m so tempted to visit his “church” some Sunday. The only problem- I have pomo glasses. He’d never let me in.
That and my fiance is terrified of him. She thinks he’s scary.
Don’t worry, Matt, Ken’s church is seeker sensitive. Every visitor gets two printed articles from AM blog.
Joe M,
Everyone in the NFL cheats and does exactly what Bill did, all the time. I bet they’re doing it right now. Everyone knows it, it’s just that everyone’s pissed because the Pats are so unbelievably nasty and great. “FOR I THE JOE MARTINO AM A JEALOUS MAN, YOU WILL HAVE NO OTHER GREAT SPORTS TEAMS BEFORE ME!!” LOL!!! =)
Matt,
Good to hear you’re from around there. I grew up in Marlborough MA, until I joined the military and college, now I’ve lived basically everywhere, and currently live in Oklahoma. My wife’s from M-boro also.
I’d love to visit Ken Silva, and be like…and inside Ninja…you know, scope him out. LOL.
Iggy, I admit, I don’t know much about water dogs, but that sounds CRAZY!!!
Joe
It’s not Ken that scares me, it is the voices he hears that do…
BTW, that is what I am going to write on the back of his book cover… sign iggy Ken’s proclaimed Nemesis
iggy
Sure. You keep telling yourself that. Make sure to say “hi” to the Easter Bunny and Santa for me, too.
LOL whatever Phil,
At this point I think it’s obvious that whatever “cheating” they did, was worth nothing, as the jets are absolutely terrible, and the Patriots have proved their complete dominance of the NFL beyond a doubt.
Everyone will look for any excuse to detract from the dominance of the Patriots.
Har har.
Joe
“Two kids and and a dog…
But in my heyday, I had a snake four tree frogs, a western toad, two fire bellied newts, and a water dog… not to mention an… now get this… iguana from which I got my nickname… iggy. ”
I have some feral kittens that mysteriously showed up on the back porch in 2004 with curly hair that sparkles in the sunlight like they have been sprinkled with “gold dust” (www.tennesseerex.com). Turned out to be a brand new genetic mutation in cats, the world has never seen. I guess God wanted new critters in His Garden? Is it still man’s purpose to dress and keep the Garden?
F Whittenburg
http://www.tennesseerex.com
My cousin had about 20 wild cats he kept around to keep down the mice… most of them just had worms and one of their dogs liked the kittens as chew toys…
Yep, we live in different worlds.
LOL!
iggy
“My cousin had about 20 wild cats he kept around to keep down the mice… most of them just had worms and one of their dogs liked the kittens as chew toys…”
A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel (Proverbs 12:10 KJV).
You new this verse was coming, Iggy
LOL!
F Whittenburg