Mike Ratliff to Joe Martino, “You have an unregenerate heart.” Click here to read more.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, July 29th, 2008 at 5:21 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
191 Comments(+Add)
You seemed to go on the offensive first there Joe would it be fair to say?? i.e You stated you think their part of the counterfeit church…
I just wonder what response your expecting ,when that’s your first post to their thread??
PS not to make light of what hes said to you,but it just seems the nature of the beast these days i.e blogging its getting all very personal
Andy,
I was responding to his assertion that all “the others” were counterfeits. He was attacking a friend of mine–The youth pastor named Chris, so I wanted to point out that he and I might disagree on who was who.
Andy,
Also, for what it’s worth, I admitted that he would probably feel that way about me.
Ok well i understand standing up for a friend..The clips a bit of a car crash on both sides to be honest..
I don’t particulary think its wrong to witness in the street in the way they do,some great Christians were led to Christ that way Nicky Cruz and Tozer for example…I guess its all about the tone of the person ?? The other guys seemed slightly sarcastic towards your friend..
This post just add fuel to the fire.
what are you trying to accomplish?
I just found it odd that you seemed offended,after ur first response to them..
And personally i don’t see why ur friend needed to tell them their wrong in the first place…Just let them do their thing..
Sorry didnt mean to offend you
was that to me Jose or Joe??
Joe M.
Therein lies the problem i just posted because i thought Jose reply was Joe’s response to me..It seems a lot of reactions is driven by people feeling slighted..
I guess we just need to let people do their own thing and let them be
Joe M,
There’s nothing new there with Mike R.
He’s always been quite fragile, and frequently deletes anything he disagrees with (aside from questioning the regenerate nature of anyone not Calvinist). When I make comments about they way some treat Calvinism in a way to make it “another gospel”, Ratliff is a poster child for such activity…
Ok ive totally missed the boat on this one sorry Joe ,ur friends Chris here ,not the guy in the video duhhhhhhhh i’m dumb i did kill some brain cells recently thats for sure …
I asked this elsewhere…
Who is Mike Ratliff and why should anyone care about what he has to say?
Seriously….
He’s one of C?N’s writers, and when I want to demonstrate the Pharisaical, bigoted nature of the site, I usually point folks to one of his articles and one of Silva’s.
It usually works the trick…
So, let’s see…
Joe M goes on Mike R’s blog and says Mike R is part of the false church…
Then comes back to here to whine and gloat (quite a trick there, too) about how Mike R questions his heart…
Yeah, that makes perfect sense. (not)
youbecomewhatyouhate
Jazz I approved your comment with some trepidation. Please stick with one “handle”.
It would also help if you chose to be more careful in your choice of words with critique. It’s not helpful and certainly inflammatory.
Joe – honestly, you need to grow up a little here.
Aside from your timing and even wanting to post this thread (for whatever reason, I don’t know) – “Somebody called me a name, Mommy!”…
Let me see:
- You state (in couched terms) that Mike is not saved if he continues on the path he’s on
- then you whine (and post) that he questions your salvation
Very productive
Emergent Village wrote:
You essentially agree with the assessment here of ODMs, so why aren’t you also writing against them, instead of agreeing with them?
The fact of the matter that there are two Christianities was lost in this post here at CRN.
This has been my argument and contention from the start, and these Christianities are illustrated very well by the events that have transpired over the last week or so.
There is a Christianity which has a low view of God, a low view of scripture, and a high view of man. This is the type which holds church services to tickle the ears of the participants, elevates feeding stomachs over feeding souls, will work together in a machavellian sort of way to accomplish an end rather than trust in God and His way of doing things. These people have their theology built on springs, and like springs it can be bent and twisted and stretched to please the company that they find themselves with. This is greater Israel, holding only the name of Christ and not the qualities of the true church.
There is a view of Christianity that holds God in higher esteem, and cares more for Him and His commands than for the changing opinions of people. This Christianity finds its power flowing from the heart of God by the Spirit of God, and the love that they have for others flows from their love for God. It is a non-compromising love, caring more about reconciling men to God than men to one another. It is a Christianity that feeds both the soul and the body, that cares for the brethren, and trusts God to accomplish His will through them without compromising by joining other groups that have the same goal but a different god. This Christianity preaches the word without apology, and needs not the entertainment or approval of the outside world. This is the remnant that God will take, the true church.
Which one are you a part of?
PB-
No doubt you are in the “right one”, yeah? Of course, all of us like to think we are.
The problem with your dualist approach above is that it is woefully inadequate, even if you do affirm that there are only 2 sides to the coin (as if it is either ALL the first or ALL the second and no comingling).
There is also the way of Christ that has a very high view of scripture, a very sovereign view of God, an very high view of humankind because they are made in God’s image, a very deep respect for one another, a heart of service and love and humility and sees the gospel as something that is good news for all the world, not just those who can cross their docrinal T’s and dot their I’s. That view is out there as well and comes accross looking very different than the view you seem to think is the only right way.
peace,
Chad
Well John,
May I offer a third Christianity? There is a “christianity” that holds to a high view of their own righteousness and writing skills. That believes there are rules for “them” and for “us.”
I am a stumbling follower of Jesus, PB.
This is an interesting twist on our brother Rob’s excellent imagery. It reveals a certain bias in your interpretation.
Says the Calvinist.
My prayer is that God will knock us off of our towers of doctrine and that we will fall into His grace that is able to save and restore.
I don’t think we all have found true christianity.
We both ( all ) lack in many areas.
No reconciliation on both ( all ) camps.
No forgiveness on all sides even if we write it down.
Accussations, slanders, I’m better then you are.
Rob better then washer or vice versa.
We have yet to see or meet Jesus where he wants us to be.
DO we all try? ofcourse in our own way. There lies the problem.
The problem is us.
Bo,
I am not a Calvinist. I am a Christian.
Joe,
I don’t agree that anyone can look into a persons heart and say that he is not redeemed. I do believe that Christians can and should discern teachings and make judgement of those teachings based on the Bible. I still disagree with many of your Pastor’s teachings, and question if many of those teachings are actually Christian teachings. I urge Rob’s followers to do the same because of their love for him.
PB-
Just to be clear, the above would be followers of Jesus, not Rob.
You are certainly free to question, as we all are and ought to feel the freedom to do. However, there is a fine line between questioning a teaching(s) and already determining your verdict based on a judgment of one’s heart. That is where this all breaks down, I think. You don’t have to agree with Bell or with some of the writers here or with me or anyone else for that matter. But just because you do not agree with them does not make them a heretic. We all confess Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior and strive to serve him with all our heart, soul, heart and mind. To question someone’s understanding of the infinite is fine as long as we do it with the humility that says, “I could be dead wrong on this as well, but thank God we serve a God bigger than our limited understanding.” If everyone could show that sort of humility when having meaningful disagreements I think it would go a long way in reflecting the image of the Servant we all claim to follow.
peace,
Chad
Then why did you equate being Reformed with following Jesus in your response to Iggy?
Chad,
Sorry, pal, I have observed followers of Rob and not Jesus, so I was very purposeful (not in a Rick Warren sort of way) to say followers of Rob.
God is angry at sin, and for Rob to have a tour that indicates a multiplicity of gods demonstrates in one area his lack of concern in elevating the one true God and all of his attributes, one of which is justice and in that justice is a wrath that is being and will be revealed against all the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who supress the truth. God is angry, he is storing up wrath, and will pour out his wrath on everyone who has not been declared not guilty by the finished work of justification completed only in the death of Christ. Those who have taken this by faith have been saved, are being saved, and will be saved. Those that have not, you can bet that God is angry with them, and the scripture bears that out.
John,
Did you even attend TGAA? You crack me up. You have no idea what was taught there. And you are either guilty of intentionally misrepresenting Rob or you are sincerely confused. Either way, you can clear that up by watching the DVD.
PB,
Which gods aren’t angry lecture did you attend? When did you acquire the DVD?
John,
I didn’t realize you addressed a comment to me. I can assure you that I am a follower of Christ, not Rob if that is what you are implying. I don’t understand the part where you don’t agree with me. Can you explain that to me?
Joe,
The title alone tells me not to listen- it indicates that Rob is a polytheist to those who do not know better. I have heard enough snippets to know I do not want to waste my time hearing the whole thing.
God is angry. Whoever does not believe is condemned already.
Joe,
I was saying that if MR or anyone else said you were unregenerate that I did not agree, because I do not believe that anyone can look into a heart and determine that.
That being said, we can discern teachings and make a judgement about teachings based on the Bible, and we should by all means do that, even in the case of RB
PB,
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that God is angry.
Did you watch the Gods aren’t angry tour?
If so what specific point has you so riled up?
Nevermind asked and answered while I was posting.
Chris,
Lets start with the title.
Joe and Bo –
I was thinking the exact same thing when I read PB’s response. He obviously has not seen it or heard it.
PB-
In my initial response to you I should have added to the part where I said you are free to question a teaching that you must first be familiar with it. I wrongly assumed that intellectual honesty was a given.
By the way, that should go for all of us. In seminary one of the first things they teach you is that you aren’t allowed to have an opinion about anyone until you have walked in their shoes, so to speak, and can understand and articulate their side of the story fairly. Then, and only then, are you in a position to offer a critique.
Who is he angry at?
Who doesn’t believe he is angry?
I’m expecting to receive several PhDs from an ODM approved institution as I just read the titles of hundreds of theological works over the last 10 minutes.
Joe, Chad, et al…
I said the TITLE INDICATES a multiplicity of gods
point being I didn’t see it, won’t see it, don’t desire to see it, and have heard trusted brothers in Christ weigh in on both sides of the fence about it. The title itself indicates that there might be polytheism, it might be a history of religion of some sort, and that these gods are not angry.
The one TRUE GOD is angry. So angry that he promises an everlasting outpouring of wrath on all those who have not take the lifeline of grace offered in Christ Jesus alone.
Is it fair to do that with every title?
Can I assume enough about book just by its cover?
How about these titles?
Everlasting Man? Sounds humanistic
Mere Christianity? Sounds trite
Liberated for Life? J Mac sounds herectical.
I’m sure you get the point.
Ah, but those of us who moved beyond the title and attended the lecture (or watched the dvd) know that Rob is not a polytheist.
Thanks for clarifying John. Obviously, at this point a discussion with you on the tour would be fruitless. It would be akin to you and discussing the finer points of being pregnant. We’d just be opining, not really discussing anything of substance.
Then be resposible enough (and God forbid, charitable enough) to withhold your opinion.
Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Have you heard of this charlatan CS Lewis? He authored a tome entitled The Abolition of Man, clearly this is a fellow who desires the death of all of humanity. I would recommend staying away from all his works, as they are all clearly heretical.
Chris,
He is angry at all those who suppress the truth in their unrighteousness. He is angry at all those who have broken his moral law. He has condemned all people already except those who have believed (place trust/faith in) Christ alone for their salvation.
Who doesn’t believe he is Angry? Brian McLaren for one. He believes that the PSA theory of atonement is cosmic child abuse. I believe that the very reality of God’s wrath makes his mercy very relevant to me. Rob Bell says the gods are not angry in his title…what is that supposed to communicate? From my reading of Rob’s books, he believes everyone is saved except those who specifically reject Christ. He said in a Wittenburg Door interview that the hell is for people who do not treat the poor correctly. That is not even CLOSE to the Biblical teaching on Hell.
Considering your past methods of “research” I don’t think I’ll be relying on your analysis of what these men actually teach.
Bo, John Piper has a book titled “Don’t Waste Your Life.” Apparently he thinks this life is all about me and that I have the power all by myself to either waste it or make it fantastic. I bet he is in cohoots with Rick Warren.
(by the way, I actually read the book and liked it. shhhh)
Chad,
Interpret that.
For a person who refuses to see or read or listen to what he so vehemently wishes to criticize than I guess it can communicate whatever you want it to communicate. PB, God speed. Conversing with someone as dishonest as you is simply idle chatter.
P.B.
Thanks for the response but they still doesn’t account for why you have made a strong statement against Rob Bell.
Quite frankly in academia if you are going to hold a position the most responsible thing to do is be as well versed in all counter positions so as to more firmly be able to defend yours.
You have positioned yourself as an authority on biblical knowledge and have placed stakes in the ground on Rob Bell. It seems to me that it would behoove you to know all that you could know about his position.
One of my favorite quotes is: “Why raise your voice when what you really need to do is reinforce your argument”
Ok. I see your point. I will not buy the DVD but I will watch it. You will see my response positive or negative later.
pb- just being honest here: I won’t care either way.
take care.
P.S.A. is only one theory of the Atonement John. There are several people who hold that it’s cosmic child abuse.
John I have a copy of the that issue and to say that is all that Rob said is quite frankly false.
I just wanted to point those out. We have certainly discussed them at nauseam here. So no real need to open them up again.
Chad,
Way to be intellectually honest. Challenge me to watch it so I can render an opinion that you don’t care about.
Oh well. I guess it is okay for you to form an opinion about something and express it, but not for me? You demand an open mind from me, but you don’t have one? Oh well. At least you are honest.
Chris,
I didn’t say it as all he said. It is a pretty accurate summary, however.
John,
I challenged you to watch it so that you can at least sound somewhat credible when you offer your opinion. I never said I cared what your opinion is once you do. I have seen enough of your work to know how you twist things to your own advantage (post #51 is but one of many examples) and so I have no doubt about what your review will be of TGAA. I find you incapable of giving someone or something a fair hearing without preconceived judgments already blurring your vision. Feel free to prove me wrong.
ciao.
Chad,
Help me understand, if I don’t agree with you I don’t give it a fair hearing? Isn’t that like saying you know what my opinion will be before I give it?
If God in your opinion, cannot predetermine the future, or His mind can be changed by your prayers, how in the world can you, a mere mortal, know for certain what my opinion will be?
If that is the case, then why should I even watch it? Why don’t you write what my opinion will be? That way I don’t waste my time, feel like vomiting, and I can read and study the scripture more!
God isn’t angry. It is really a disservice to the truth to portray Him as such. That doesn’t mean that God isn’t awesome and terrifying. One of the best sermons of heard on this was one that Greg Boyd recently preached called “The Fire God”. It can be downloaded here.
The point that Boyd makes in the sermon is that God’s nature is analagous to a fire. Fire can be inherently constructive and destructive. It can warm, but it can also burn. That’s how God’s love is. For those who know Him and get a glimpse of his nature, his love embraces them and draws them in. For those who don’t understand or refuse to see, His love can appear terrifying.
It’s not that God is angry. It’s that his love and wrath are really the same thing. As Dallas Willard says (I’m quoting from memory), “the fire of heaven burns hotter than the fire of hell”.
Amen, Phil.
Portraying an angry God does violence to scripture. It also renders nonsensical anyone who would also claim we know God best as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ. God is love, not anger. We humans are angry, that is for sure. We are still trying to make God in our own image.
Phil.
The very fact that you referenced Greg Boyd and Dallas Willard lends credibility to the fact that the opposite of your statement is true.
Please show scripture that shows God is not angry, not the writings of a man who believes God is not omniscient and has left this world to spin with no real involvement or knowledge. Please use the whole scripture, not the teachings of a man who represents those who look to the 3rd and 4th century as the place where Christian practices of that time should be emulated.
PB – the other day you asked why I bring your name into comments not directly related to you. It is because you are a poster-child for willful (and in some cases, pathological) ignorance on forceful display. To paraphrase a Proverb:
“Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and leave no doubt…”
In this particular case, had you actually done the basest amount of “research” (you know – actually watching the DVD or attending one of the lectures), you would know:
1) Rob doesn’t express a believe in multiple gods, but rather gives a demonstration on where the superstition of polytheism developed and how the One True God, YHWH, revealed Himself to man, and how He was different from all of the false gods.
2) The “anger” he speaks of, which God does NOT have, is one that must be appeased through rituals and sacrifices. Bell’s presentation is one of the best narrative refutations of the very idea of “salvation by works” I have ever heard/seen (and I’ve seen/heard some good ones).
3) Bell makes the point that there is nothing we, as followers of Christ, can do to make ourselves righteous, because God has already declared us so – because HE (God) provided the sacrifice to make peace with us – because we are incapable of doing so, though we often find ourselves trying (through rituals and good works) to earn His love and peace.
Really – then did Jesus’ sacrifice amount to nothing? Is grace nonexistent? Is God angry at me for my sin, or has he forgiven it and forgotten it? OR – because of Jesus’ ransoming be back, does God not hold my sin against me – removing it from me as far as the east is from the west?
I couldn’t agree more, ChrisL.
Chad,
Portraying an only loving God and one who is not intimately involved with our whole lives does radical violence to scripture.
It is God’s wrath that makes his mercy very relevant to me. I deserve his full wrath, I can do nothing to save myself from even one second of my deserved punnishment. It is God’s mercy only that saves me from his righteous wrath. If there is no wrath, no anger, His love is just great information, and it cannot and does not change lives. The proof is in modern churchianity where only His love is elevated and it changes not lives.
Pastor Boy,
Ha ha you have given me a good laugh this morning. In fact my kids are standing next to me saying “Mommy what is so funny!” How do I answer that?
I would agree with Chad on this one; watch the video. You might be surprised! I would love to hear your take on it personally.
I think you should be careful to judge something you know nothing about. At least watch it then offer your opinion.
I attended the God’s are not angry and it was phenomenal.
BTW, I don’t follow Rob I follow Jesus. I trust Robs heart and character that is why I will defend him. I would do the same for you if I actually trusted your heart and character.
FYI – I would note that “fool” has multiple meanings in both the English language and in the Hebrew.
In Proverbs, the common meaning of “fool” is one who is not wise (or is ignorant) and acts in a “foolish” manner.
Jesus’ use of “fool” (Raca) in Matthew 5:22 is one that speaks to the worth of a person (i.e. to call someone “raca” is to say “you are worthless” or “you should not exist”).
My quotation of the Proverb is in line with its original usage in the Proverbs – one who is foolish, ignorant and unwise – not with the first-century idiom ‘raca’ – implying worthlessness.
It could not be appeased through repeated sacrifices, and it cannot be appeased by any works. As the book of Hebrews clearly states, it was appeased by the one sacrifice of our High Priest, Christ Jesus. But why did Jesus have to die? BECAUSE of God’s real wrath.
Tell this to the two children my wife and I adopted from Ethiopia. Or tell it to any parent who loves their children unconditionally. I am sure that those kids lives are “not changed” because someone first loved them but only because they know their parents would smite them if given the opportunity. Your god’s love comes with a price. That is not grace.
While that is one view (which often leads to service out of fear, not love), it is not the ONLY Biblical view of the subject. Again, you mistake a narrow, systematic view of only portions of scripture with a holistic view of its entirety.
I’m not sure, but I think you just quoted Bell from TGAA…
Now you’re suggesting that PSA is the only possible view of atonement – a view that has only existed for about 500 years.
ChrisL,
Your right, he did. I laughed.
I wonder if he will to if and when he watches it.
Chris,
Atonement has existed since Jesus came and sacrificed his life-blood for me. The view of atonement is from the Bible, not man made.
Actually, the plan of atonement is from eternity past.
Anyone who believes this must read St. Athanasius’ On the Incarnation of Christ. I cannot stress that book enough. It helped me tremendously in seeing a far more deeper picture of why Jesus had to become man and why he had to die.
It seems God is angry at someone gentlemen.
A word study on God’s wrath (post Calvary) is not for the faint of heart and you do a dis-service to the lost to minimize the danger.
And you continue to despise the bride of Christ, just as you despise individual brothers. Reducing the worth of God’s people and Christ’s bride to assuage your conscience only inhibits the work of sanctification in your life that is God’s will for you.
Chad,
Your god seems impotent, because he does not know the future and what is going on all around us.
His plan is perfect, His wrath is real, I serve Him out of love and appreciation for what he has done…grace! His love! Christ’s sacrifice was for a person who didn’t deserve it like me. That is the ultimate demonstration of His grace.
PB, I dont know you very well but assume you are a pastor by your name. Do you have any formal theological education? The sort of comments you make make me wonder…and worry.
ChrisL is not talking about atonement as an objective fact in the mind of God but about the theories of how it plays out in human history. That is the work of theology and humans have been speculating on just why God had to die on a cross for 2000 years. Up until 500 years ago NO ONE thought that Jesus died on the cross (the atonement) because God was ticked off. That is but ONE view among several that have develeoped over the course of human history and is the youngest, and in my opinion, most anemic of them all.
huh?? Please provide your source, PB. Either you have me confused with someone else or you are making stuff up as you go along. Some call that lying.
John-
The beauty of Rev. 14 is that it is eclipsed by Rev. 21&22, the end of the story.
But lets be honest: who among us wants to say definitively that we know what the Revelation of John is speaking to?
As for John 3:36 I think ChrisL has already made the proper distinction between God’s righteous judgment that we ALL will face vs. a human tendency to project upon God that he is angry with us and we must appease him by our sacrifices (the whole thrust of TGAA and what Bell is speaking out against).
But like Chris also mentioned, obedience out of fear rather than love is not the Good News of the Gospel.
Chad,
PB is making the assumption that because one person referenced Greg Boyd on one particular topic that everyone here agrees with everything he’s ever written.
Chad,
Amen. I am a tear filled convert, tear filled because it was my sin that placed Christ upon that tree. It was His love that drove Him there. My only destiny was hell, my reality was the wrath of God being poured out on me. But because of God’s love and mercy, He sent Christ to pay the penalty for me, and for all who would believe.
And by the way, the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.
Its called open theism, Chad. Greg Boyd teaches it. I believe you subscribe to it. If I am wrong, I am sorry.
Bo-
ahhh yes. I was afraid that might be it.
I once heard another proverb about what an assumption makes of someone
I guess I don’t get any points for saying I read and liked Piper’s book?
A review on the tour PB.
Might help with this gang tackling going on.
http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/11/21/rob-bell-the-gods-should-be-angry/
actually, pb, what you stated when you said this:
is not open theism but a charicature of it, and a bad one. But in any case, you are wrong on both counts. Apology accepted.
PB- Should I even venture to ask if you have ever read Boyd’s books or listened to his sermons? Have you ever read, by chance, The God of the Possible? Or is this another example of how you can feel free to critique something you apparently know little about?
Jose,
I refuse to read that review because the title indicates that the author is an adherent of polytheism and I will not sully my holy ocular sensory organs with such heresy.
I have read some of Boyd’s books, and am very disappointed with his view of God.
Jose,
I had read that review when it was published. Excellent work.
Jose,
There are a number of online reviews – positive and negative – mostly based on preconceived notions before the event even started. Still, the only way to actually ‘research’ a lecture is to listen to it, rather than have it filtered by others.
Last week, while on vacation with the extended family, I watched TGAA with my parents, siblings and in-laws (who run the gamut from more conservative to more liberal than me), but only a couple had ever actually listened to or seen Bell (or had any opinion on him). The general consensus was along them was:
1) Excellent, thought-provoking look at faith & works, and having peace with God.
2) They expected it to be a discussion on covenants, not sacrifice, so it didn’t delve into the giving of the Law or Jesus’ fulfilment of the Torah. At least one was expecting this to be covered.
3) They thought it was more aimed at new Christians or Christians with cursory doctrinal background (which identifies more than half of the church) who do not understand rituals and works, and who find themselves ‘bargaining’ with God or trying to earn His love.
BO,
ok it was not meant for you.
Since you already made up your mind.
Chris L,
I watched it myself and came to the same conclusion I had before.
But the problems lies on all of us that we can say to any of us ” you have preconceive notions”.
Shocking.
I came to know about Rob bell while sitting in a friends church and having play the NOOMA dvd dust and it was though provoking and insightful. So I saw some more and came to feel something was missing in his message.
But ofcourse I may have preconceive notions. doesn’t everybody?
BO,
I sure was.
PB-
Which books? And where in any of them did you read something that would make you characterize Boyd’s view of God by saying this:
?
John,
I must say that you haven’t faired so well since I left for my lunch meeting.
I appreciate your willingness to watch the DVD. As so you don’t have to buy it I can send you my copy.
In regards to some of you comments I too am left wondering why your historical understanding of the faith seems so myopic. I understand that you have a tradition of faith that feels very comfortable and rationale but I wonder if perhaps your view of the faith may be limited because of a lack of scholarship.
If that is the case then you may actually be doing a disservice to the faith as you vehemently contend for it.
Please understand I make no assumptions about you only I wonder why it appears that you are opposed to anything outside your familiarity.
Jose,
As Chad said, that was one review.
There are a myriad of others out there.
Here’s mine.
Shalom
Chad I take issue with your statement that humans have “a tendency to project upon God that he is angry with us”. I think it’s just the opposite. We have a tendency to IGNORE the anger of God and say to ourselves that everything is “all-right” between us and God. The ONLY why things are right between us and God is when we accept His Son and His atonement for us and stand in His righteousness. Then and only then are things all right between us and God. And ** who ** is saying we must appease God by OUR sacrifices? That’s putting words in people’s mouth. PB certainly never intimated that.
No, I think the opposite is true. You are not letting Scripture speak for itself but are projecting a pre-conceived position – i.e., God is not angry at anyone — and ignoring the COPIOUS scriptures on the wrath/anger of God which state just the opposite.
The preponderance of Scripture on this issue is just too copious and consistent to just dismiss. What is the Gospel for? What are you saved from? There are obviously several answers to that question, but being saved from God’s wrath is certainly a major component of the Gospel’s benefits.
I’m at a loss. This seems so basic to me. What Scripture(s) do you base your position on?
I might propose that we (all the commenters) differ on definition and some of what we are trying to convey is getting lost in translation.
The very fact that you seem to write off people like Boyd and Willard, who are top-notch scholars, just because they don’t agree with you, is just sad. You also have demonstated again and again that you don’t really understand Boyd’s position on divine foreknowledge.
As far as emulating the 3rd and 4th century, I’m not sure what you’re referring too – possibly Willard’s spiritual discipline writings, but why would that be any worse than emulating practices from the 15th and 16th centuries?
The reason I respect Willard and Boyd is that they are intellectually honest. They don’t try to fit Scripture into a box.
Does anyone know if this is copywrited? I will have to use it as my own if not.
What are we saved from? Let’s list a few things:
Death
Purposelessness
A life of sin and its effects
Hopelessness
Guilt and shame
I could go on and on. Anyway, as I stated before, I don’t think God’s wrath doesn’t exist. I just think we portray it in the wrong light. It’s not that God is both angry with us and wants to reconcile with us. Those things would be logically impossible.
It’s just that God’s love can be seen and felt as anger or discomfort. I guess a poor analogy would be the pain a heroin addict experiences when going through withdrawal. Though he must go through hellish pain, it is a necessary part of the healing process. I think that the love of God is downright frightening to some people.
I do not believe “open theism” is a big deal. It is extremely difficult to define, much less understand, the essence, operation, and knowledge of God. The easy way out is just to say “God orchestrated everything according to His will”.
Yea, right. As long as we understand the gospel and the redemption that can only be found in Jesus we can fellowship. I LOVE Boyd’s rejection of nationalism and politics! But to divide over musings about how God operates within the Godhead is “goofy”.
Here is an admission – I have listened to a message that someone here linked to by Bell where he said that Jesus was the only way to salvation and that is by faith. Aside from some other things that do not appeal to me about his teachings, I am hopeful he means what I mean when I say that same thing.
After reading some of his upbringing as a Christian, I believe he is a brother in Christ. For the record, though, I find no edification in some of the new teachings by many of these guys. The tours are definitely not for me.
Chad, that just is not true. Of course it is not the sum total of the Good News of the Gospel but it is a part of the Christian’s instruction. For example:
The context is a loving Father. The purest motive of obedience should be out of love (if you love Me you will keep My commandments), but as God made us and knows us He has also provided (out of love) holy fear as a motivation of obedience. How many times did we “behave” as children more out of fear of our father vs. our love for him?
But to the point, the Scripture is there. It is unambiguous. It is a part of the whole counsel of God. It must be dealth with and assimulated into a healthy Christian world view. To ignore it is wrong and unprofitable as the Holy Spirit saw fit to include it.
It’s not presented as an either / proposition — why make it one? We obey our Heavenly Father out of love and we obey Him out of fear, just like with our earthly fathers. It takes nothing away from the Gospel.
Whether God is angry as we understand anger is irrelevant. The fact that “he who has not the Son has not life” and that the “second death” looms should suffice as ample warning. If God is or isn’t angry, the answer is still Jesus Christ is the only way to eternal life.
JohnH-
We are certainly guilty of being overly smug of our own righteousness, as you point out. However, historically speaking, religion has sprung from a deep seated need of humans to appease the “gods.” If you have watched TGAA or taken any class on comparative religion than you know this just common knowledge. The point I was trying to make with PB is that Bell is not saying God is wrathless but that we have misapproriated that wrather (historically speaking) and more often than not try to make amends to this “angry god” in any number of ways.
With that said, however, I stand by my assertion that we as humans have a tendency to project upon God that he is angry with us. As a pastor I see it all the time. When I sit with a person on their death bed I have to respond to the wife or son or daughter who asks me, “what did I or they do that deserves this?” or “what could I have done to avert God’s wrath?” or any number of questions that highlight a deep seated belief that the forces that act upon us are somehow upset and if we do the right things, think the right things, say the right things, give the right things than we can somehow be at peace (this goes for Christians and non-Christians alike). To such people (the majority of people, in my view) they desperately need to hear that God is NOT angry with them and that peace HAS BEEN MADE through Jesus Christ – that through Christ God HAS RECONCILED all things and is making all things new. Because of this, we do not have to live this way (i.e. we do not have to beat ourselves up over what we did or did not do in hopes of appeasing some vengeful God who can’t wait to watch us step out of line). We can live in peace with the God who already made peace.
That is the gospel.
Well, Boyd doesn’t make open theism a major issue, either. In fact, he actually go out of his way in the prologue of God of the Possible to state that there are plenty of great Christians who disagree with him. He doesn’t call them heretics or anything. He just is presenting what he thinks the Bible says.
It’s really only the dogmatic 5-pointers who have made it into a major issue. Heck, John Piper tried to have Boyd credentials stripped from him.
Phil,
your list had many great things to which we both obviously agree with salvation from’s God’s wrath and judgement are major themes in the Scripture narrative and must be placed at the top of that list.
You state:
I see no contradiction at all. I can be angry with someone and at the same time seek to reconcile with them, especially people I love. I could give you a million wordly examples. (I’m angry with my wife because she hurt my feelings but I certainly want to reconcile with her; I am mad at my son for the stupid kid tricks he pulls, but I certainly want to reconcile with him, etc., etc.) That statement is out of left field. I don’t get that one.
John,
To be certain, I did not say there is no place for fear, only that those who call for obedience based on fear RATHER than love miss the point.
But you bring up 1 Peter:
The word “fear” as used in the 1st century is very different from the way we read it today. For Peter’s audience “fear” would be a way of calling one to be reverent. It is the same word used in 2:18 when Peter calls for slaves to “fear” their masters. He is not telling them to be afraid of them because they are wrathful but to be reverent – to be respectful. In 1:17 Peter is cautioning those who would call God “Father” to not think they are due any priviledges.
I have never understood people who would rather propagate a gospel of fear and intimidation over one of love and grace.
I mreally cannot see why it matters if God is or isn’t angry as we understand it. The avoidance of eternal punishment and the gain of eternal life isn’t enough? I am not sure I have ever witnessed anyone get saved because they realized God was angry at them personally.
I never thought about that at all when I came to Christ. It sems to me a theologians debate with very little relevance. If He is angry, Jesus is still the answer.
John,
I see what you are saying, but I guess, first of all, it seems like you are equating wrath and anger. Anger is an emotion and wrath, as I see it in Scripture, is more tied into judgement or due penalty for wrong-doing. If we the word “angry” to describe God, I believe it brings to mind a lot very wrong and negative pictures of Him.
God isn’t a rage-filled guy storming around tossing lightning bolts from the sky. He’s a loving father, and He approached His creation as such. Just as children don’t understand good discipline at the time, we don’t always see God’s action in the right light.
Chad,
We are probably closer that farther apart then might be apparent in our views here. I certainly concede your view of the historical religious context of appeasment is absolutely correct. I also agree that even many Christians hold an inaccurate view of the wrath/anger of God. But that’s the rub, it’s an inaccurate (read wrong) view. You state:
I would say that is half correct. I believe the Bible says very plainly in many places throughout Scripture that God is angry with sin, in other words God is angry with them **BUT** peace has been made . . . etc. I just think that is more accurately scripturally. If no one is angry what is the need for reconciliation? Have you thought about that?
Phil,
I agree.
My only thought on this is that I have known a lot of people who grew up thinking God was angry at them, and even after they come to a relationship with Him, they have a strong fear of Him becoming angry again. It’s like they can never really trust God.
Phil – I am angry with you, not God!
Chad, I would agree with your definition of fear, i.e., reverential awe. A Christian should never be afraid in the sense of condemnation or wrath from God, but shame, for example, is certainly still on the table. Our works will be judged unto reward. I think that is what Peter was getting at. But this is certainly not the situation for those outside of Christ.
I don’t either and that is not what I am promoting. I just believe in balance and in keeping in mind the whole counsel of Scripture.
I agree that is a problem Phil, but the answer is to correct their misunderstanding by taking them to the Scriptures and showing them where God has forgiven them and loves them and the security they have in Jesus Christ, not by ignoring the scriptures on the wrath of God. Again balance and education. That’s all any of us can do. The rest is in God’s hands.
I think so too, John. That is, about us being closer than further apart.
Good question. And yeah, I have thought about it – a lot lately. First, God can be angry. I have no doubt that God hates evil. He hates injustice. He hates when mercy is not shown. He gets angry at those who lord over others and use their God-given power to be oppressive. God hates sin and the powers that would seek to destroy his GOOD (yet not complete) creation.
It is God’s anger at THAT (the above) which determined God to come to us. Why? To save us from the powers that would seek to undo us. As Athanasius puts it, “it is because of our sorry state that God put on flesh.”
I think we do a disservice to the story if we try to answer these things in short soundbites. It isn’t so easy. It is not enough to just say “God is angry.” If Jesus came, lived and died just because Dad was ticked off at humans because they won’t behave than we have reduced the gospel and, of course, the atonement, to nothing more than cosmic child abuse.
God’s wrath (his righteous judgment, not anger) is always tied to God’s grace. They go hand in hand. God pronounces an angry NO to the forces that would take away the abundant life we were created to have in the image of our Maker and his grace declares a resounding YES to any and all who would leave their idols for the one true God.
Another question to ask is this: If in order to reconcile one must first be “angry” than what does it mean when Paul declares that all have been reconciled to God and as such WE have now been given the ministry of reconciliation. Does this mean I must be angry with everyone/thing first?
peace,
Chad
I realize I am a little late to this conversation, but I thought I read somewhere in Scripture that Jesus is the propitiation for our sins…not only ours, but those of the whole world. (1 John 2:2). Propitiation has something to do with turning away God’s anger or his wrath–not just for us, but as John says, that of the WHOLE world.
I see the point that PB is trying to make, but I think this is a point not based on good exegesis. It seems to me that it is more of a point meant to justify the outrage of the ODM community against a brand or expression of Christian faith that they don’t like. If God is angry, then ‘we’ can share in his righteous indignation of all sorts of aberations of Chrsitianity.
PB, I disagree with you that God is angry. Even when God destroyed the earth with a flood it wasn’t becausee he was angry, but because he was grieved in his spirit. Scripture also says that God is ’slow to anger.’ And, if our anger does not bring about the righteous life that God requires (James) in what way would God’s anger do that?
Now this is not to say that there is no such thing as ’saved’ and ‘unsaved.’ But I submit to you that even on the day of judgment, people will not be unsaved because God is angry with them, but because He is just.
thanks,
jerry
hey Rick-
Saw your lastest thing under “submissions.” That is baloney. Substitution is a common thread that runs throughout any atonement theory. That is a truth affirmed by pretty much everyone – that Jesus is our substitute. He died in our place. The issue is with how that looks (i.e. the “penal” part). Um, no pun intended.
Rick-
The “that” in “that is baloney” was not aimed at your post but at the CRN drivel.
I know. I believe in the penal theology, however I never thought the other views had to “save themselves soley on their own good works”. That to me is being disingenuous in the conversation and actually can reveal a weakness in your own view.
BTW – in a very real way that is theologically slanderous!
My baloney has a first name…It’s C-R-N….
Rick-
Yeah, it makes no sense to say all the “other” views rely solely on their good works. That is nonsense.
My baloney has a second name its S-L-I-C-E…
Amen, Jerry
Oh, I love to read them every day, and if you ask me ‘Why?’ I’ll say, Cause C?N and Ingrid S have found a way to make me pray for them all day…
Chad, some good thoughts in #131
I understand the “ministry of reconciliation” is in reference to the sharing of the good news of God’s reconciliation to mankind (i.e, the Gospel ministry), not our own personal reconciliation with others, so no, our individual anger has nothing to do with the ministry of reconciliation being spoken of here.
And good thoughts on #132.
Sorry, John…couldn’t resist.
We all know you meant #121, but it looks like you’re complimenting your own comment.
PB,
The big point you miss was that God was angry with sin in man… and if a man so desired, he was turned over to that sinful desire… Man was already condemned for sin.
Yet, God sent His Son… Jesus to die for us because he loved us… and His creation as a whole. He redeemed it at the Cross.
TO say God is still angry is to deny the Cross… God is not still angry as JEsus took our sins away… JEsus was the propitiation…
You seem to not understand the Cross at all… by insisting God is still angry, you not only deny the Cross, but His mercy, grace, and loving Kindness that leads us to repentance.
So, your god can be angry all you want, The biblical God became a man, and “made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”
So you can add you deny the righteousness of God also by still insisting God is angry..
You are mixing Law and Grace… JEsus fulfilled the Law and abolished it by His life and the Cross…
You are teaching man is still legally bound, while the bible teaches our salvation is bound on our choice in what we do with Who Jesus is. Do we depend on ourselves, our beliefs, our righteousness, our works… or do we depend on Jesus for all things.
Think about it…
iggy
Johnathan Edwards could have been wrong… though he was a great man… who was very conscience of the cultural context he was in…
John,
I think you are right to point out that the ministry of reconciliation spoken of in 2 Cor. 5 has to do with proclaiming the good news that in Christ God has reconciled us all to himself. But I am not convinced that one must be angry for reconciliation to take place. One could just as well be hurt, or grieved, or heart broken.
What I see unfolding in the stories we have in scripture is a God who looks over his created world (the one he called good) and saddened by the state of affairs his beloved find themselves in. And yet, despite all this, he pulls us by “cords of love” (Hosea 11) and stoops down to feed us even while we do not deserve it – even while we snub him. This is not a God who is ticked off at us. He is not some God who is an emotional wreck because He cannot get his children to obey. It is a God who like any parent grieves the choices his children has made and sets out to do anything – even dying for them – to break the curse that holds them captive and set them free.
Anger has little if nothing to do with it.
peace,
Chad
Hey Rick does it!
After reading my comments, can you blame me??
Well, that is true for “hurt”, but not so much for grieved or heart broken. Reconciliation has to do with enemies making amends and removing the enmity between them and from the human perspective anger is a logial result from all three of these emotions.
Laying the ABUSE of the concept of God’s anger aside (any Biblical doctrine can be abused) I don’t get the aversion to the concept itself. The concept must be used rightly, not ignored or thrown out. There are very clear, concise references to God’s anger, even more with God’s wrath. Again, this and can certainly be over played at the expense of God’s love. The key to me, again, is balance. One must know they are lost in order to be saved. One must know the penalty for unforgiven sin in order to appreciate the pardon. “He who has been forgiven much, loves much. He who has been forgiven little, loves little” to paraphrase our Lord.
John,
I would note that ‘wrath’ is not anger – it is the consequences of justice and is not uncontrolled.
Bell uses a fairly narrow version of “anger” in TGAA – which is a fickle emotion which much be appeased. To say that God is still angry with those who follow Christ is to deny the ability of Jesus’ sacrifice to cover all sins – past, present and future.
Iggy, dear brother, that does not work out at all. To say God is still angry in no way denies Jesus’ work on the cross.
and other such verses cannot simply be ignored or explained away. Further, I don’t see anyone saying God is angry with His redeemed. His anger and wrath remain on those who reject His son.
He sounds still pretty angry to me.
Also, we discussed “reconciled” several weeks ago. Reconciled is not synomyous with “saved” or “justified”. All are reconciled to God, but not all are justified or saved. It’s not the same thing.
Again, you are never angry with your kids and their behavior? What does that have to do with your innate love for them? When you are angry with them does that mean you deny your love for them? No of course not.
Anger does not preclude love. Common experience demonstrates one can be angry at someone or their behavior and still love them.
Chad, I agree with many of your sentiments here. However, you are missing a point central to the argument. God’s anger against sin is based on His inherant holiness and like His wrath is a natural result of His aversion to sin and has a role in the redemptive story.
I agree that wrath is not synomyous with sin, but they ARE closely related concepts. In fact I think one should be much more concerned with God’s wrath than with His anger. Anger is an emotion while wrath is an action, and to deny God’s active wrath against sin (not that you are) is to deny a major portion of the Biblical record.
I fully agree that God’s redeemed are no longer under His wrath and have been delivered from it and have nothing to fear in this regard. Praise God! The same cannot be said of the lost however. (Ref. Hebrews 10:26 above).
We can’t just ignore these passages guys. The warnings are there for a reason. Do we beat people over the head with them? We should not as a general rule. But they should be shared as they are the truth.
John,
Yes, there is wrath, but the wrath is not that God is angry… it is because he is just. Now, God hates injustice…. and those who chose to not accept Christ will be judge by their own righteousness. Rejection of Jesus is the only way to incur God’s wrath….
I do not deny God has wrath, but to assert that God is angry, means then as I stated, the Cross means nothing… Jesus did not come to condemn man, but to reconcile him to God and save him… the motivation was always compassion and love. It is the unhealthy focus on the wrath of God and the almost nil acknowledgement of God’s great kindness toward sinners that is whacked in ODM (systematic) view.
Those who do not accept Jesus will face justice without mercy or grace… yet God prepared a way out of that by His love and mercy and grace…
The point of Jesus on the Cross, most of Paul’s writings, (which many misrepresent, especially Romans 9) is that God so loved us and had such great compassion for us, He became a man and died for us so we would not have to incur His wrath… I see that some overemphasis, the wrath at the cost of distorting and perverting the Grace of God.
iggy
John, why can’t it not be true of grieved and heart broken? The enmity need not be mutual, do you not agree? The enmity can be on our part – we are the ones who have sinned and have fallen – we are the ones who constantly rebel and turn out backs on God. Would this not break any parent’s heart? Would the reunion of the two not be a reconciliation?
I agree. But that balance is not necessarily a 50/50. The scale to balance the two should be the weight given to each in scripture. For me, I put far more weight on matters pertaining to the heart of God in what I find in Jesus more than I do from reading a prayer or desire or a lament in the Psalms (to give one example). And if Jesus is the truest expression of the heart of the Father what does it mean to hear story after story of a father rejoicing over the return of a wayward son, the shepherd who searches tirelessly for a lost sheep or the woman who hunts for a lost coin until it is found? None of these stories even so much as hint at a wrathful God wringing his hands just waiting to smite the wretched human race, do they? So I would say if we are going to be balanced let us lean heavily on the grace and love of God towards a broken world that He is actively seeking to redeem and will one day renew in total. In the end, I would far rather err on the side of grace than on wrath.
peace,
Chad
BTW John,
The fruit of this sort of teaching is what we witness in Mike Ratliff’s post… it perverts the message of Grace to the point that Jesus is used to judge and condemn others… Jesus did not come to condemn man, we were already condemned… Jesus came to save us and reconcile us to the Father to not just “cover” our sins, but to take them away… while we were yet enemies (sinners”. What these people are doing is negating the Cross in that they claim that God is not satisfied with Jesus death… it was not enough to give us forgiveness.
Wrath comes when we deny the forgiveness and life that was offered by the cross and resurrection… to those there is nothing left as Hebrews teaches… all that is left is judgement… for God is just.
iggy
I hope I am not missing that. I was trying to make that point when I said this in post 121:
Perhaps I am not being very clear, for that I apologize. If I remember where this all started it was about Bell in TGAA and the difference between God’s righteous anger towards sin and injustice (which we all agree is of God, and this being an attribute of God that is objectively true about God – as far as we know
) and the subjective nature of that truth in human reality by how we tend to perceive God as angry at US and attempt to appease him by constantly making amends (sacrifice, good works, crossing fingers, etc.). This latter charicature of God is not the God we know. Yet it IS the God that many think they know or think that Christians worship. Such a God does not exist.
In case I am not convoluting this enough, let me push forward with one more thought. I do not think it is true to Jesus’ teaching to say to an unbeliever that God is p-o’d (are we allowed to say pissed off here?) with you and if you don’t get right with God he is going to smite you. This MAY be the case, but not necessarily so. If it is true that ALL THINGS have been reconciled to God in Jesus Christ, as scripture affirms, than that means even sinners. Even those that are in rebellion have been reconciled. God’s anger is not towards them but at the destructive forces that would continue to keep them enslaved. They have been freed from Egypt but they still pursue their idols. One day Gods wrath will be swift and sure upon the sinful structures and powers that have lured God’s good creation away from their true purposes and those who have sown evil in the world will reap what they sow. That is judgment, not necessarily anger – and you are right – it must be preached and should not be side stepped.
The best way, IMO, of speaking to the lost is not by threatening them with hell and the wrath of God (a tactic hardly employed in the NT, and with great qualifications when it is) but by telling them the truth about themselves -they ARE loved by their Maker and have been reconciled – therefore, BE reconciled (i.e. repent). Another way of putting this is the way Bell concludes TGAA: You don’t have to live this way…
That’s good news!!!
Chad,
Some have turned the “Good News!” into, “Your going to Hell!”
And that was not the “good news” the Apostles taught…
LOL!
iggy
Iggy, sadly that is all too true.
I don’t see the sense in an understanding of God that basically says that before the foundations of the world God knew he was going to be in a foul mood. But God is wise. He knew how to diffuse his temper. Kill your own son. Yes, that will do it. There is nothing that can appease an angry god like a good killin’, especially if it is your own son – or in this case, yourself! But hey, now that God has gotten all that out of his system you and I can breath a sigh of relief. Whew! It’s like coming home to find your drunken father had already beaten your mom causing him to pass out before he could hit you and being thankful for it. How warped is that?
John, I know the above is not the “wrath” you are stressing. However, it is the wrath I think PB is thinking of and what many Christians think the “good news” is about. That is a shame.
Chad – Remember, it was God who suggested that very thing to Abraham. Was God just playing games by commanding something that, as you describe, is absurd?
You may have a different view, but mocking the penal view doesn’t either change Scripture or disprove anything.
Rick,
If you hadn’t seen TGAA you missed a really great retelling of the Abraham/Isaac story. Was God playing games? No. But he was testing Abraham – we know that much. Growing up in a culture like Abraham was, where child sacrifice was common and was something that showed the utmost fidelity to a divine being it is understandable why Abraham did not put up a fight when asked to do what no doubt many of his kin had done in the past. What is extraordinary about this story though is that in the midst of it God stops him. THIS God is not like the gods of Abraham’s fathers. THIS God is doing something new – something unheard of, and is the God who PROVIDES the sacrifice. Prior to this point in human history such a thing would have been unheard of.
This provision is something we ALL can rejoice over regardless of which atonement theory you hold to – because they ALL embrace the provision (or substitute) made by God. What I was mocking is the gross mischaracterization of this substitute that fundamentalist Christians have done to something meant to be beautiful and grace-filled.
http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2007/11/horror-of-gods-love-l-ove-as-we.html
Rick-
Read your post. Very nice. Honestly though, that could serve as the preface to any one of the 5 theories of atonement, ya know? I agree 100% with what you wrote, yet do not care for penal.
I have reread Chris L’s post about the different views, and aside from the moral view which I did not understand, I could see elements of the true cross in each of them.
I continue to see the penal view as central and most revealed in the Old Testamet symbolisms.
Me either Rick, they must have all been false convertions, eh?
Scotty – one curious element of some who assert God’s constant anger is that they seem to be quite unmoved emotionally at such a though, even if God were only angry at the lost. The energy they exhibit usually centers around doctrinal snowball fights and not the actual truth they are suggesting.
And when you assert that some are so deceived as to rely SOLEY on their own works for salvation, and when in addition you believe that person will spend eternity in hell, but you close your little treatise with “good luck with that”, it shows the cavalier attitude of your heart and the blatant hubris you have about your own spiritual situation.
Let’s see – you set up a sinner as completely decived and in darkness, you wish him a sarcastic good luck, and you leave believing you have the mantle of Christ resting upon you. OK, who is really deceived?
Amen, Rick.
Like one of our bishops once said to a young pastor who just preached a fire and brimstone sermon, “Yeah, you might be right about them all going to hell. However, if you are going to say that I would hope you’d say it with tears in your eyes rather than a smirk on your face. You act as though you are proud of the fact that you get to pronounce to them their fate.”
Absolutely, Rick.
The one size fits all evangelism doesn’t work either. We all come into our walks from different angles and with different reasons.
The debate centers on these two issues. #1 -How small a faith can establish personal redemption, and #2- are there limits to grace?
1. Two men walk across a bridge over a 1000 foot chasm. One is confident and walks flowingly across. The other is nervous and doubts and walk haltingly and does not make anywhere near the progress as the first man. The result? Both men cross due to the STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE BRIDGE.
#2. If we limit grace it is not grace. And if we measure grace it is not grace. Therefore, if we set up measurable standards that substantiate saving grace in a person’s life, we have constructed a system that relies on our opinion without the possibility of grace. The man living with his father’s wife in Corinth turned out WAS saved. Many would have been SURE he wasn’t.
See, grace is beyond human understanding so therefore we alleviate that humbling uncomfortableness by acting like we have its parameters well defined. And always from our own perspective which we define as inside grace.
I am always amazed by how some can define the undefinable with such specificity and unflinching surety.
Rick,
I may use that analogy often and take credit for it as original.
Amen, Joe!
(I’m already giving you credit)
Well said, Rick.
Chad – You have recieved your own post at CRN. You are a made man!
Written by the ubiquitous”Editor” on the blog that doesn’t allow comments. Makes me wonder if this anonymous Christian would be so bold as to take a stand for Christ when evangelizing. Isn’t that the mark of really being “on fire” for Jesus and being biblically solid?
Ah…innaccuracy and simplicity mixed with some duplicity makes great hypocrisy.
Oh goodie! First, I’d like to thank my mom who never stopped believing in me. I would also like to thank my beautiful wife and kids – they mean the world to me. And I would like to thank all the little people who made this possible.
Hey Rick (I mean Joe)
That illustration above is excellent. I will still it too.
“I would like to thank all the little people who made this all possible. I would like to thank them, but I can’t because I did it all myself.”
Herman Munster as he won an Oscar!
I love this:
and this:
I guess the whole “kingdom” stuff Jesus talked about more than anything was just spiritual niceties. And Paul saying Jesus is Lord when all of Rome declared Caesar as Lord has “nothing to do” with sending a message to Rome about anything whatsoever.
What is odd is I never said Christ’s death is not about forgiveness of sins. Of course it is! Why would anyone want to limit the stretch of the gospel and truncate it to just American individualism?
I’m glad they gave my blog some free press
lol- that is meant to read “STEAL.” Sorry, I was all verklempt from my newfound fame I kant tipe str8
I must admit I continue to grow in my understanding of your views, Chad. There is a difference between
“disagree”
and
“apostate”.
I have been edified by seeing and knowing a little about your family as well. One of my best friends, a staunch Calvinist, and his wife have adopted four African American children from drug situations. He is a very close brother indeed.
Thanks, Rick. My guess is that if we all were to sit down at a pub and have a drink together (speaking of “us” who merely “disagree” and those who think we are apostates) we too might “grow in understanding” of each other. That is my hope, at least. And if we can’t arrange it here and now than we can have all eternity to grow together.
Praise God for any and all who feel the call to adopt and go for it. God’s blessings and peace on your friends.
peace,
Chad
John,
You reference to 1 Peter 1:17 should be taken in context as Peter instructs many time to not fear…
The fear that is stated is reverence or reverent fear. This is not the “terror” as one should have if they do not know Jesus.
Jesus spoke many times not to fear… John says that
So to be afraid of God as a believer will hold one back from the Love of God… Perfect love drives out fear… and in the total trust of Jesus there is no fear.
This is again the misreading that many ODM’s do. They talk out both sides of their mouth… on one hand the bible is clear we are not to fear… and trust totally in Christ Jesus.
It instructs us that we should fear the gov’t if we do wrong… or if we are not saved, to fear the punishment to come… yet as believers one verse, (usually misapplied) cannot negate the overall teaching to not fear.
I suspect it is that they do not look deeper into the text as to the original language, or if they do they miss the overall context of the passage.
iggy
CONGRATULATIONS CHAD!!!
Jude offers an interesting thought as to how much “judgment” we ought to be calling down on those we believe to be false teachers. In it we find this interesting verse
Now, if the most Michael doesn’t presume to get all judgmental, I wonder why there are some who build their ministries on such activity.
Chad,
I saw the article the, ahem, “editor” wrote about you as well (I’m pretty sure the “editor” was Chris P. this time…), and the whole nearsightedness of it is kind of amazing to me. I know I shouldn’t be surprised at this stuff anymore, but I still am. It amazes that a Christian could see something like you wrote and twist it like that.
The thing that I find perhaps most ironic, is that the “editor” is quoting the Apostle Paul – a man who was basically killed for his refusal to bow to Rome. He spent his life proclaiming the Gospel as a contrast to the Pax Romana, and yet all the “editor” is this false dichotomy based on his reductionist view.
I don’t get it either, Phil.
Thanks, Eugene!
I have written a response: The Wideness of God’s Mercy Extends to CRN
gotta go mow the lawn.
peace,
Chad
A saintly attitude…
A saintly activity
I continue to be inwardly affected at what I experience on the internet. Still on a journey that sometimes bids me to refine the direction I had already laid out. I hate it when that happens.
http://judahslion.blogspot.com/2008/07/enemy-within-s-earch-blogs-and.html
Rick,
Loved this line in your post:
Rick, I love you too
Loved this line of yours in your post:
Truth is not a weapon to destroy but in the gospel context it is a vehicle of redemption which should never be served on a cold plate of self righteousness. In fact, truth should be shared upon the wings of humility that should define an unworthy recipient of God’s grace.
Amen!
Eugene:
I have been rained out
Gene – you said that Bell made this observation, “saying that the account of the fall is not just something that happened but something that is happening.”
Does that make the sin of Adam the “Big Bang” of the moral fall?
And Jesus’ substitutionary atonement the “Big Bang” of reconciliation!
And the Day of Pentecost the “Big Bang” of the Great Commission!
A new “Big Bang” theory!
Chad – I have to take exception to your comment about this… in the scriptures, the word of God is likened to a sword. A sword is a weapon and can be used to inflict our opponents. In fact, in the days Paul was writing, a sword could even be used to inflict blunt force trauma to the opponent, with the butt of the handle. Likewise in our day-to-day lives spiritually.
It also could be used to defend
Paul – that sword is of the Spirit and meant to destroy the forces ofg darkness, not sinners for whom Christ died. It would seem that the redemption of the cross would be in contrast to the Sword of the Spirit if it is to “inflict our opponents”. The father of lies is Satan, not people.
Jesus told Peter that those who live by the sword will die by it as well. The defing of truth as a weapon to inflict injury to humans is false and counterproductive. Truth is light and it is the evil One who has blinded the hearts of sinners, not truth itself.
Paul C –
Truth is what sets the captives free. Truth is liberating. It does not destroy. If it destroys anything it is the idols that we so often cling to in hopes for salvation. It destroys the self-righteousness that comes from depending on man-made systems, empires and philosophies. But it does so by eclipsing them in the shadow of the cross, not by weilding power that looks like might = right.
Rick – I was just kidding… thought I’d try my hand at humor (going to be taking a few days off for vaca so wanted to go with a smile).
Chad – again, just kidding my friend.
Good for you, Paul. All is well.
lol Paul. You got me
Thought you’d get a kick out of the “blunt force trauma with the butt end of the handle” – gave myself a little chuckle with that one…
Paul, be careful. With funny comments like those you might be recruited to write for CRN.
OK, the love here is getting a little thick. Can’t we get back to attacking each other in the most vitriolic way?
The good old days…
Rick Frueh Says:
Scotty – one curious element of some who assert God’s constant anger is that they seem to be quite unmoved emotionally at such a though, even if God were only angry at the lost. The energy they exhibit usually centers around doctrinal snowball fights and not the actual truth they are suggesting.
And when you assert that some are so deceived as to rely SOLEY on their own works for salvation, and when in addition you believe that person will spend eternity in hell, but you close your little treatise with “good luck with that”, it shows the cavalier attitude of your heart and the blatant hubris you have about your own spiritual situation.
Let’s see – you set up a sinner as completely decived and in darkness, you wish him a sarcastic good luck, and you leave believing you have the mantle of Christ resting upon you. OK, who is really deceived?
Amen (point very well put)