Erm…let me try it without my Boston vernacular…

Amen!

Grace greater than all our sin!

And all God’s people say…

But you’re right, that really won’t matter in the end. Only thing that matters is that He reached down from heaven in the Person of His Son and died for us, rose again, and saved us.

Joe

1) I’m right and you’re wrong OR You’re right and I’m wrong
2) We both (all) can’t be right
3) When we’re standing in Christ’s prescence one day…none of us will care HOW we got there–we’ll be in awe of the fact that we are there at all. Grace greater than all our sin!

For all I know, God could be limiting His foreknowledge on purpose, and we’d be none the wiser, since He’s so much more infinitely powerful than us. But if God initiated that, is He any less Sovereign?

Just some thoughts. Not an endorsement. I’m not afraid to think, poke, jostle, and reject things that aren’t the primacy of the Saving Gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-6). I don’t think any Christian should be. Such is Freedom in Christ I think.

Joe

I know first hand that the conference is not going to be about redefining the gospel.

Is that because the gospel has already been redefined? Didn’t Schuller already accomplish that?

If the conference were about redefining Schuller’s gospel might not that actually be a good thing?

How closely does Mcmanus’ gospel resemble Schuller’s?

To me it’s more comforting to think of God as being totally responsive, and in time with me. To have assurance that when I pray, He actually hears and actually responds. I can see why validity in either view, but this is one that I find helps me the most.

I actually feel that the open view has caused me to worry less, ironically. Believing that God doesn’t necessarily have just one possible road for me, and that I am free to make real choices has taken a lot weight off of me, I feel.

Anyway, I’m sure it won’t be long until someone comes and tells me why I’m wrong.

Comment: In my journey to reformed/Calvinistic/Doctrines of Grace thinking, I encountered some people that did indeed appear to have a “dead…fatalistic view”, but there are more, like myself that see God’s absolute sovereignty (even in salvation) as a plus. I don’t have to–not that it would do any good–worry about things. God’s purpose is set and it will be accomplished. I am comforted by the thought that He is in control, down to the smallest detail (Acts 17:26).

Joe C: I am certain that “God knows the future exhaustively…” and in knowing it–it’s a done deal. No one does an “end-around” on God. (I’m not implying you said that, just for the record.)

Rethinking is not the problem, redefining is.

This statement is pretty wide open… if you did not mean that all were redefining, then why not add that in the statement also. The conference is called “Re think” right? and you seemed to change it to “RE define” with that statment… it was in what you left out of your own statement that lead me to the conclusion I came to.

Also, you seemed to glaze over the other questions…

SO are you opposed to looking at different ways to present the Gospel? I mean your radio show is relatively new… Jesus never had a radio show… nor Paul… not John might have seen radio in his visions… but I think that there many are tossing the baby out and keep the bathwater in the attempt to keep things just as they see they should be.

Now, are you opposed to all redefining? Then Luther who redefined penance to faith becuase he saw that it was wrong would be in the wrong.

Redefinition is not always wrong, but holding to traditions that are man made that disqualify some for salvation is very wrong.

iggy