To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write:
These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. I know your deeds. See, I have placed before you an open door that no one can shut. I know that you have little strength, yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars. I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.
Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth. I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown. Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.
This is sixth of seven articles on the seven cities mentioned in Revelation 2 and 3.
Part I: Ephesus
Part II: Smyrna
Part III: Pergamum
Part IV: Thyatira
Part V: Sardis
Philadelphia, the modern-day city of Ala?ehir, Turkey, sits midway on the route between Laodicea and Sardis on the Roman mail route which defined the Seven Cities of Revelation. Very little of the ancient city of Philadelphia remains, though, with only an unexcavated hill and the ruins of a 4th century church remaining. Because of this, we do not have much archaeological context for what was written in Revelation.
However, we do have a number of writings from this time, and records from nearby cities, including those of church fathers, like Polycarp (a talmid of John). From these, we see a picture of Jews (people of God) who were not acting in the manner of God’s people, as they were persecuting Christians [Current scholarship suggests this was out of a combination of doctrinal differences (leading to Judiazing) and jealousy of the success of Christianity in winning Jewish converts, while some speculate it was because of the Christian abandonment of Jerusalem in AD69]. Whatever the cause, this persecution was occurring in the church at Philadelphia against Messianic believers.
I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars. I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.
During the reign of Domitian (81-96), the Christians in Philadelphia escaped much of the persecution suffered by those in the coastal cities of Ephesus and Smyrna, and this may be what is referenced in verses 10-11:
Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world to test those who live on the earth. I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown.
The Earth Shakes
In 17 AD, the city of Philadelphia was devastated by an earthquake, which completely destroyed Sardis and other nearby cities. Because of it location near the fault line, it suffered aftershocks for an additional 20+ years. As a result, its people lived in fear, and would frequently flee the city into the hills, where they would live in tents and booths, before returning when the aftershocks subsided. This is the imagery Jesus uses when he says:
Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it.
You see, pillars were usually the first architectural components to fail in an earthquake, which made standing, unbroken pillars a sign of permanence and strength.
What’s in a Name?
Philadelphia was founded by the kingdom of Pergamum during the second century BC, and underwent many name changes until it was given the name “Philadelphia” by Eumenes II in honor of the love he held for his brother, Attalus II (who kept the name out of love for Eumenes, upon his death in 160 BC). In 17AD, when Tiberius paid to rebuild the city, its name was changed to Neo-Ceasarca – a name the city’s residents came to despise. And so, it is interesting that this ‘naming’ imagery is also brought out by Jesus, through John:
I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name.
Once again, as we’ve seen with the other five cities, this letter in Revelation was sent to a church using phrases and symbols that would have had special meaning to them, words that would help them to feel the emotional punch that might be missed by others unfamiliar with them. The letters to the churches in Revelation aren’t impersonal platitudes or disconnected teachings or symbolic references to ages of the church – they are personal letters written to flesh-and-blood Christians known to their author. While its core teachings can be carried across cultures, to suggest that the content of Revelation is only (or even primarily) about futuristic events of no import or impact to its original recipients would require a great deal of hubris or ignorance on the part of the modern reader.
What can we learn from this?
In the day we live in, and in the American culture, there are opposing forces at work, both of which act toward the detriment of Christ’s bride, the Church. One of these forces, those that lead the hour of trial that is going to come upon the whole world (no, I’m not dispensationalist, but I still believe there may be unfulfilled prophetic passages pointing to such a time) are the forces actively seeking to dismantle the church, and those who wish to so completely water it down that it means nothing, killing it softly.
Against these forces of evil from without, Jesus will close the door, and what he shuts no one can open.
On the other side, we have the ’synagogue of Satan’, those Christians who would mock, slander and persecute brothers in the church by insisting on certain beliefs and actions above and beyond those given by Yeshua and his Apostles. Like the Judaizers of old, they insist on works for the purpose of salvation, or they insist on belief in specific man-made doctrines for inclusion in the kingdom. They try to close the door opened by Christ, the open door that no one can shut. Paul calls them out in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 -
For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.
To this end, those of us who are believers must persevere and test ourselves so that we do not join their ranks. If we do so and become spiritual citizens of Philadelphia, Jesus tells us:
I know your deeds. See, I have placed before you an open door that no one can shut. I know that you have little strength, yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars. I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.
And so, I would hope that we, like the church in Philadelphia would endure persecution from without (the hour of trial) and from within (the synagogue of Satan) and that we would strive to ‘hold on’ to what we have been given by Yeshua, so that no one will take our crown.
590 Comments(+Add)
Very encouraging read, brother.
It’s easier, sometimes, to focus on the “persecution,” rather than on the promises.
Shalom
I think your way off base! Apprising Ministries and others you mentioned are reformed theologians who unlike the Roman Catholic Church believe justification is by grace, thru faith alone…not by works, what possibly could you be referring too in terms of adding works? They strongly believe the opposite of works salvation!
Persecution from within? What? This is baffling…nothing wrong with holding each other accountable to what is written in scripture and those websites you listed certainly call out people who have gone into error…for examply, they call out people who deny the virgin birth, diety of Christ, the resurrection…I think we can all agree that those things are very Biblical and anyone who would deny those things would also be denying what scripture clearly teaches…
What is wrong with the Calvinist website? Is this an armenian blogger?
Why was my post deleted? Nothing wrong with it, I was just wondering why you were accusing those reformed theology websites of salvation by works? The reformation was about justication by grace alone, thru faith alone?
I’m just curious where you are coming from on that? Just very confused and wanting clarification…
Hi Chris L,
Thanks for this post.In fact,I like your whole series on Revelation.
Amazing how you twisted scripture to present a personal hatred of those who are standing for truth. You are actually speaking against Christian ministries and blogs who have done so much for the Kingdom. Oh, that’s right… they are not defending your doctrine so they are enemies of Jesus.
I think you “Synogogue of Satan” menu is somewhat over the top. Although I disagree with Ken, and can hardly stand Ingrid and her melodramatic genre of imperial judgmentalism, I still would never call them the Synagogue of Satan, even though they, especially Ingrid, take on the role of the Accuser.
Ken, and the Dombrowski’s, and others are attempting to defend the faith even if they are sometimes over the top. I will not be discouraged from addressing things about which I find distasteful and/or unchristian on some of those sites, however we must be careful to address those issues strongly, confontationally, and with conviction but without assigning them as extentions of the evil One.
The devil has no part in us, and against him I would stand with Ingrid and Ken, even though I would disagree with their methodology.
* As a note of information, Ken is still the pastoir of the CRBC which is still a part of their local association.
This is a great and glorious teaching and from it I am able to discern that you speak forth unalloyed truth, oh Noble-heart!
It’s very clear that you are indeed a “voice crying in the wilderness!”
I salute you for standing steadfast as a champion of truth who is manifestly on the heavenly side of an impassable gulf which is fixed between you and the error-mongers you’ve exposed, my brother!
Away, away with the evildoers, those of the Synagogue of Satan! Away with their demagoguery and doctrines of demons! To the pit with them and all their scurvy ilk!
Thank you, thank you oh David for facing Goliath with only the smooth stones of unassailable truth, over which none of the legions of hell may prevail!
Victory in the face of persecution!
Victory over the evildoers!
Victory over the Jezebels and Judaizers!
In blissful, admiring (yet platonic) love,
E.S.
P.S. – the pic of that white rock with the Greek on it was SWEET, nice touch bro!
P.S.S. – Admittedly I didn’t pay much attention in my ancient language class, but I think that tablet is giving directions to the Vomitorium.
William,
The problem with “standing for truth” is that Ingrid, and to a lesser extent Ken, regularly twist, manipulate, and distort the truth to present their own particular version of American Christianity.
If Ingrid or Ken worked for a secular newspaper, they would get fired in a week for their basic lack of professional integrity.
How is that “standing for truth?”
I enjoyed this series, until now.
This site has sunk to a new low. Synangogue of Satan? nice exegesis. More like an attack piece.
You have no moral ground now to stand on to go after Ingrid or Ken. Not even they who you continuously villify use scripture in so cavalier a manner.
My dear brother and co-laborer in truth and all that’s holy and righteous,
I couldn’t help but take note that my careful, thoughtful, and tender-loving comment has somehow failed to appear on your site, no doubt due to the devilry of the enemy!
I plead with you oh stout-heart, may my words of encouragement grace your celestial combox that our brethren and fellow-laborers might take heart and prayerfully receive some small encouragement as our chorus of voices rise up and speak forth truth and light to the diabolical, hell-spawned denizens of the discernmentalist/fundamentalist/calvin-entalist camp!
With fervent, ardent (and purely platonic) love,
E.S.
P.S. – In case my original comment was hacked and deleted by the wicked one I am pasting it below for the edification of CRN.Info’s discriminating readership!
This is a great and glorious teaching and from it I am able to discern that you speak forth unalloyed truth, oh nobleheart!
It’s very clear that you are indeed a “voice crying in the wilderness!”
I salute you for standing steadfast as a champion of truth who is manifestly on the heavenly side of an impassable gulf which is fixed between you and the error-mongers you’ve exposed, my brother!
Away, away with the evildoers, those of the Synagogue of Satan! Away with their demagoguery and doctrines of demons! To the pit with them and all their scurvy ilk!
Thank you, thank you oh young David for facing down Goliath with only the smooth stones of unassailable truth, over which none of the legions of hell may prevail!
Victory in the face of persecution!
Victory over the evildoers!
Victory over the Jezebels and Judaizers!
In blissful, admiring (yet platonic) love,
E.S.
P.S. – the pic of that white rock with the Greek on it was SWEET, nice touch bro!
P.S.S. – Admittedly I didn’t pay much attention in my ancient language class, but I think that tablet is giving directions to the Vomitorium.
ES – First-time comments automatically go to moderation (to prevent spam-bots), and then appear when an administrator approves them. See comment #8.
This is not to defend Pastor Ken Silva, Ingrid Schlueter, Deborah Dombrowski or others.
These Christians are contending for The Faith. They need no defense.
Which makes me wonder for what or on who’s behalf is this site contending?
I think it may be time for someone to take their bat and ball and go home…before it gets dark outside.
Vomitorium: noun (vomitoria)
A passage located behind a tier of seats in an amphitheatre used as an exit for the crowds
I’m not exactly sure why one would need directions on how to exit an ampitheatre – it’s usually quite obvious where they are located…
I think comment 13 is the funniest thing I’ve read all week.
It’s not a defense, just a careful admonition for everyone to go home.
Almost Clintonian… it depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
PB, ES, and the yoyo’s –
Ken/Ingrid/etc. do about as much “contending for the faith” as Barak Obama does in “fostering a culture of life” and “protecting the unborn”. Only in an Orwell novel would Apprising.org qualify as a “ministry” to the faith…
Sorry, PB, but that is an actual apples-for-apples comparison, based upon the use of this phrase – “synagogue of Satan” – in contemporary literature to Revelation. Basically, it was a term given to ultra-legalistic Jews with a passion for the letter of the law and lip service to the spirit of the law (primarily those who followed the House of Shammai’s teaching).
In making a modern comparison, the ADM’s (AM, CR?N, etc.) are, in function, a nearly perfect match to this concept of externalism, legalism, ultra-narrow man-made theology, etc.
Rick – see my note on #17… My comparison is made, not on the basis of a historical-literal hermeneutic, but a combination of historical-critical and historical-contextual hermeneutics. In short – the phrase “synagogue of Satan” as applied in contemporary Jewish literature to Revelation.
Whether the literal application of “synagogue of Satan” is applicable is not my point (as I don’t claim to know their hearts), but the contextual one is right on target…
Dear most holy brother,
I am so pleased to know that the wicked one has no power here in the inner sanctuary of distilled, undiluted truth.
With respect to your musings upon properly marked exits in ancient Greece, perhaps our ancient (but evil and pagan) ancestors were required by their primitive (and evil and pagan) fire code regulations to post appropriate signage which would serve to direct foot traffic to the nearest vomitorium in case of fire, emergency, natural disaster, or perhaps an extremely urgent case of bowel distress.
Of course this is merely my own personal and subjective speculation and is not in any way supported by sacred Scripture.
Therefore shall we now return to the business at hand which is to summarily anathematize the evildoers for indulging in their absurd and heretical flights of doctrinal fancy in this most sacred combox!
Herein the eternal trajectories of human souls are literally and metaphysically at stake and we mustn’t tolerate the liars of the Synagogue of Satan until they have bowed the knee and fallen at our feet and acknowledged that He loves us!
With warm and affectionate (yet platonic) love,
E.S.
P.S. – fo’ shizzle!
What!? Are you referring to the rants found on this site, including a few by commenters on this very article?
Like my wise old granny used to say: “It takes one to know one”.
I missed this last phrase, M.G. – talk about comedy!
I didn’t realize that “contending for The Faith” was a description of branding churches as anathema based upon their building (if a movie theater), their pews (or lack therof), their lack of ‘hellfire & brimstone’, their music style, etc.
I think these need no defense, because much of what is contained therein is indefensible… Perhaps that is what Jim means…
This might be a good start…
Mocker Chris Rosebrough holds a degree in Religious Studies and Biblical Languages from (the worldly and wicked) Concordia University, Irvine a Masters Degree in Business Administration from the (damnable) Pepperdine University and teaches at (the heretical) Capo Valley Church in San Juan Capistrano, California and is the author of the (satanically inspired) blogs ExtremeTheology.com and alittleleaven.com. Rosebrough is also a contributor to (the reprobate and evil) Brannon Howse’s Christian Worldview Network and operates Pirate Christian Radio where he presumably traffics in unspeakable evil.
Chris Rosebrough is also considered by many to be “not handsome” according to an opinion poll that I recently conducted.
Anathema!
Let us strike while the iron is hot my brethren! Shibboleth!
With passionate and heartfelt (yet platonic) love,
E.S.
P.S. – I’ve eaten about a half bag of those PAAS malted milk eggs at one sitting, and now I’m feeling a bit ill, please fervently pray for me.
ES – I think you’re the first ADM sympathizer I’ve come in contact with that had (at least) an inkling of the literary form of satire.
What confuses me, though, is why you’re satirizing the ADM writing style…
Slanderer, Actioner, and Insister Ken Silva is the self-proclaimed “Pastor-Teacher” of Connecticut River Baptist Church and is the author of the (perfectly evil and anti-christ) blogs Christian Research Network and Apprising Ministries. Silva is also utilizes (occultic) discernmentalist techniques to propagate hellish ideas about the absolute objective truth of substitutionary atonement, the deity of Christ, salvation by grace alone through faith alone, and other deeply disturbing and obviously Satanically inspired doctrinal error.
Ken Silva is also known to play certain musical instruments which were invented by the devil.
Anathema!
Flee, flee from the light oh ye evildoers lest the fury of the truth consume you like dried nettles and thorns in the fire!
With a heaping helping of rapturous (yet platonic) love,
E.S.
P.S. – I sense a great disturbance in the force.
ES – FYI, this is your notice that a) w/o a real identity & email; and b) w/o dropping the satire, you will be put on moderation w/ at least a 12-hour lead time before your comments are posted…
ES – I think you’re the first ADM sympathizer I’ve come in contact with that had (at least) an inkling of the literary form of satire.
What confuses me, though, is why you’re satirizing the ADM writing style…
Don’t be confused or confounded, my brother!
What you’re experiencing is no doubt a supernatural “mind-haze” that’s being promulgated by the foul nether regions of the wicked minions of hell as they are bestirred from their demonic slumber by the holy and reverent work we are undertaking even now!
It’s time brother, time to take a stand, time for unflinching boldness, time for speaking forth truth and light in order that we might finally expose the Synagogue of Satan in all its sinister, twisted hideousness for as it is written: “To this end, those of us who are believers must persevere and test ourselves so that we do not join their ranks.” (Chris 3:3)
Amen and amen!
To the end, no matter what!
E.S.
Firebase CRN.Info
P.S. – the shameless plagiarist and rank heretic Ken Silva actually stole that tagline from me as a small child.
I do not subscribe to everything Ingrid or Ken says. I think they may be a bit over the top at times, especially Ingrid. However, it is good to know that some people aren’t buying into all the garbage that is infiltrating the church these days.
I also appreciate how Ken informs us of disciplines, e.g. contemplative spirituality, that are rampant in the church. I do not want to get caught up in these practices, and I appreciate him taking the time to inform those who don’t have time to research these things more fully.
On another note, Cal.vin.ist may have some of these guys on their blogroll, but their teaching is straight biblical. I’m kind of dumbfounded why you think they are the “synagogue of Satan”…
That makes me laugh for its absurdity. Do you not think that using Biblical terms such as false prophets, false brethren, antichrist, evil doers, wolves, denyers of the faith, and a litany of others applied to whomever suits their fancy is not being “cavalier” with the Scriptures? Do you not think that suggesting that Christ’s blood is only powerful enough to save but a few and does not contain the divine potential to wash clean all who come unto Him, even if were the whole human race, is not being cavalier with the Scriptures?
How about attaching the derisive term “Sodom” to teenager girls who are going to see a concert by Miley Cyrus, you consider that great exegesis? I need not go into baptism to expose further Scriptural cavalerity (I made that up!).
I consider Chris Lyon’s verbiage a misdemeaner when compared with the felonious stream of invective laden hate speech that continues to emanate from some of these sites, all to the applause of carnal onlookers who by their approval expose themselves as without the love and grace and humility to discern the voice of the Spirit.
How would WWII have ended up had the United States thought that just criticizing Hitler would be enough to recapture occupied land? If we desire to convince the hearts of men and women we will only do that through living and preaching the gospel of Christ, not by constructing blogs which verbally attack the ones who are taking and occupying much human land.
And all this discerment jibber-jabber by some who by their own theology believe the communities that are following the teachings of these “false teachers” are probably not even part of the elect anyway. But to be sure, there is a self righteous intoxication that comes from believing that you speak for God, and that propels you into a continuing scouring of earth and sea just to find another decaying tidbit upon which to feed.
If that’s Christianty I’m a Hindu. Fortunately Christianity is most exemplified by the cross and the practical articulations found in I Corinthians chapter 113 – which gets very little blog pub due to its lack of juicy gossip and the listing of the sins of others.
And the people cried,
And with this brand of discernment the hubristic tourniquet continues to strangle out the life of Jesus Christ among the very people who profess His name.
(I hope I’ve been clear)
I’m 18 and probably haven’t lived, but c’mon, labelling folks like Silva and Schlueter as the synagogue of Satan is a bit of a cheapshot. Granted – you have disagreements with them, but is responding to what you perceive to be evil with more evil and name-calling the answer? It’s like kids in the schoolyard – just stop already! If Silva is the synagogue of Satan, what does that make you guys? I would seriously your motivation for naming them such? Is it about absolute, Biblical truth…or is it a matter of “I hate you because of your treatment of X”
Here is a Spurgeon quote on CRN:
“I’d rather believe…”? That sounds like preference doctrine – sort of like the other side of the same coin – “I’d rather believe God will save everyone”.
On the other side, we have the ’synagogue of Satan’, those Christians who would mock, slander and persecute brothers in the church by insisting on certain beliefs and actions above and beyond those given by Yeshua and his Apostles. Like the Judaizers of old, they insist on works for the purpose of salvation, or they insist on belief in specific man-made doctrines for inclusion in the kingdom.
This is the quote to which I was referring….sorry!
So you are claiming that these people, who have made a claim to repent and trust the Savior- you are judging their motives- and their heart? No way, dude. I do not buy it.
NC should be committing blasphemy right now in accusing you of being the third person of the trinity.
Your description assigns motives to them, which you may perceive, but cannot know. How is it that you can say that their heart is that of a pharisee? Unless, like typical post-modern speak, you say a pharisee is one who loves the law of God (The Bible) and holds it in high esteem, as opposed to the flip-floppin post moderns who question everything, giving up faith for doubt.
Give me a break.
You cannot possibly judge that…. that is judging thoughts and intents of the heart.
Chris, still no response to my question? How are things websites adding works to salvation? That was the accusation you made in your article. When they are reformed theology which clearly emphasizes salvation by grace, thru faith…I’m guessing your not a fan of John McAurthor or John Piper, or Randy Alcorn either? All reformed theology authors and pastors..
Once again PB confuses “this site” with a commentator who really at this point one cannot tell how serious they even are…
but accordingly PB blames “this site” as having sunk to a new low…
talk about poor exegesis…
whateva!
iggy
PB,
I think you may be confused. Whether one conforms to the letter or the spirit of the law is an outward manifestation.
For instance, Christians are commanded not to be worldly. Some interpret that to mean that we are to wrap ourselves up in a cultural bubble. Which is a safe, easy, thing to do.
But what if, in the midst of running from, and heaping scorn upon, our surrounding culture, we accidentally, and tragically, end up conforming to much of the world around us?
That, I would argue, is precisely is what happened to Slice of Laodicea. That website is basically a “Christian Tabloid.” It has the feel, writing style, level of intellectual sophistication, and overall warmth of a National Enquirer, or a People magazine.
Essentially, Slice of Laodicea reeks of the aroma of the world. It has all of the snark, anger, and petty insults as the worst celebrity gossip blogs.
That I, would argue, is loving the letter and not the spirit of the law. And it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH JUDGING MOTIVES OR HEARTS, but everything to do with judging actions.
Does this make sense?
MG
What is the color of the sky in your world?
PB,
So…
When someone arrogates to themself knowledge that only God can determine and/or know it is blasphemy to name that behavior?
really?
really?
It’s blasphemy to say that you’re trying to act like God when that is what is actually being done?
But it’s not blasphemy to accord to oneself the role of God in knowing people’s standing before God?
That’s not blasphemy…but naming that sinful attitude and behavior is?
Cool.
If that’s the case then I’m happy and proud to be a blasphemer in your world
When you call someone the Holy Spirit out of sarcasm or whatever to make a point, that is blasphemy in my world.
And, if you are going to do it, be consistent.
Your boy Chris L deserves a hearty serving of it after this article.
Peace, NC.
PB,
You illustrate my point well. I made an argument and you returned it it with an intimation that I’m mentally ill.
Not too classy.
Perhaps I’m old-fahioned, but I was taught that Christian gentlemen and ladies use the Word of God, prayerful humility, and good old hard thinking when conversing with other Christians and the world.
I was also taught that sarcasm, insults, and condescending nicknames were not the tools of gentlemen and ladies.
Your immediate use of insults reveals why you believe Ingrid and Ken comport themselves in a manner consistent with the New Testament.
But I believe that Christ calls us to something higher.
MG
You write this:
Please, if you are going to create a standard, at least try to live by it.
PB,
I meditate on the Scriptures daily. They inform my mind, my heart, and my words daily.
Please do not take a short comment left on a blog where I do not provide specific cites to passages as evidence of my use of scriptures.
It is both petty and offensive.
If you want specific cites, though, I would direct you to Galatians 5:2, 2 Timothy 2:24-26, James 3:17 and 1 Peter 3:16.
How you can reconcile these passages with a website that calls a child a painted girl of Sodom is beyond me.
Chris, you left a few off the list of the “synagogue of Satan”. One individual in particular springs to mind. I was in the proccess of reading something he wrote to one of the most respected theologians around. Lets see if he fits:
ultra-legalistic: In the sense you use the word, then certainly. He blasts his “opponent” for not holding to the same beliefs
loving the letter, but not the spirit, of the law: Of course.
slander/persecution of brothers in the faith: Since he published this, and sarcasticly mocks the other theologian throughout, then this would certainly fit.
Adherence to narrow, man-made doctrines: Without a Doubt! after all, He made them!
If only we had had men like you back then, to defend Erasmus from “satanic” men such as Martin Luther!
Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle
Galatians 5:2, (huh?) 1-6 5:1 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
No one is saying that we are saved by a work of the law; in fact we preach repentance and faith in Christ alone, which magnifies the grace of God. FAIL
So, if you back up to 23, and you claim that Ingrid’s and Ken’s words are no better than the National Enquier, then WHY READ THEM and WHY COMMENT ON THEM? in direct disobedience to God’s Word? And why would Chris L call them a synangogue of Satan? Is that Gentle? Is that patiently enduring Evil? You guys are NO DIFFERENT (except you allow comments)
After this article? FAIL
Is this site Holy? Does it make a defense of the glory of God or does it wallow in the mud of the post-modern gobbelty goop that passes for Christianity? Does it call foul on Ken and Ingrid and others while doing the very same thing? This article shows it does. We need to be critical, but with respect. Calling a Christian ministry a synagogue of Satan? yep, thats gentle. FAIL
Vida Blue,
So naming exactly what someone is doing is blasphemy?
So much for people’s commitment to “the truth”.
Would it be helpful to you and PB’s sensitivities if I just said:
“(Name of whoever is sinning and blaspheming by acting like God),
You are materially arrogating to yourself the role of God. You are not God. That is sin. Repent.”
Furthermore,
Chris L is not “my boy”–don’t even know him. In fact, I disagree with him pretty consistently on a lot of things.
And that’s on the record here in the comments.
By the way,
Who is vida blue?
//On the other side, we have the ’synagogue of Satan’, those Christians who would mock, slander and persecute brothers in the church by insisting on certain beliefs and actions above and beyond those given by Yeshua and his Apostles. Like the Judaizers of old, they insist on works for the purpose of salvation, or they insist on belief in specific man-made doctrines for inclusion in the kingdom.//
What works for salvation are these people insisting on, Chris? Who is saying you must hold to certain manmade doctrines for inclusion into the kingdom, and what are these doctrines? You also accused people of saying it’s a sin to have church in a theater, at least I think that is what you said. Can you actually give any evidence that people are ACTUALLY saying that? Or could it just be that these people are questioning the MOTIVES and THEOLOGY of those who often hold services in a theatre?
I would like to see some links, some proof, to the claims that you make. If you can’t prove them, perhaps you should remove them.
Thanks.
For the record, I haven’t read the article.
Second, if there is something untoward in it, I know this website actually allows comments and disagreements. Therefore, it will get addressed. It’s not on me to police it.
Third, Chris L doesn’t claim to have a life calling to bitch and moan about every issue he disagrees with. He doesn’t have some fake ass “ministry of anger”. He’s actually accountable to people here and it is demonstrated again and again.
Fourth, I’m just a commenter here and I have no care to actually keep template/chris p/bitter-boy accountable or even see him change. (The same goes for you, vida blue and PB.) I just prefer to never see a drive-by dump–and I do mean dump–just sit and steam in the heat of the day. Welcome to the market-place of ideas.
Last, what does consistency have to do with anything? You seriously would want me to be consistent in “blasphemy” if that’s what I’m really doing?
Which brings us full circle:
Accurately describing what someone is doing is now “blasphemy”.
Are you sure you’re not bucking for the job too, vida blue? If you’re hired then you’ll have the right to re-define blasphemy for us all. You have something to look forward to, I guess.
Oh, yeah…if you need a reference, I’d be happy to be one.
Um, ok. Well, be one.
If someone has told you its a sin to have church in a theatre, obviously they are wrong. But, my point is that the people and websites that were posted as links in this original article are not saying that it is a sin to have church in a theatre.
51:
Let me know where you want it sent or if the heavenly HR will accept an email.
peace out.
HR? Not sure what that is. Well, why don’t you just put it up here, for everyone to see?
human resources….
the place where you typically have to send a job application, resume, references, etc.
It’s a joke.
A little levity…
Ah, gotcha. Forgive my ignorance.
I just don’t believe that those websites that Chris posted in his article actually say its a sin to go to hold church in a theatre. Nor do I see where any of them preach a works-based salavation.
Thomas,
Do a search for “theater” on Slice. It is pretty evident that she views meeting in a theater as symptomatic of her much lamented circus church phenomenon. I recall reading something like “sitting in their theater, with their itching ears.”
Seems pretty clear to me as to her thoughts on the subject.
Alright M.G. I’ll do a search.
Thomas,
How long have you been reading the sites listed?
M.G.
She does indeed say “sitting in their theater, with their itching ears.”
But that is at the end of her article, and in the context of the article, it is clear that the issue she has is not the building, but what is going on in the building, and like I said earlier, the reasoning for choosing to have church in a theater.
For example, her beef is with trying to take superbowl commercials, superheroes, and the Geico gecko and trying to somehow squeeze out cutesy sermons on them, instead of preaching from the Word of God.
The question is: Do these people who hold church services in theatres and preach sermons based off of superheroes ever get around to the Bible and the gospel?
Firstly, a church is supposed to be a place for the body of believers, not unbelievers. Jesus didn’t go to church to when converts, he went to the sinners where they were, on their own turf, and confronted them with their sinfulness. That is the issue that these websites, like slice, apprising, and so on, is concerned with, not that people are going to church in theaters.
#48
vida blue is a dead pitcher
we have a dead catcher…so…..
They are concerned with the true gospel being preached, not a false gospel. Ingrid gets “itching ears” from 2 Timothy 4:3. Here Paul is talking about holding to correct doctrine, and preaching the word correctly, convincing and rebuking in love. And Paul says we must do this because man is sinful and will not endure sound doctrine, but will heap up for themselves false teachers because of their “itching ears.”
I believe it is pretty clear that Slice and the other websites are not concerned so much with the building, but what goes on in the building (Is the Word of God being taught).
Thomas,
If it’s not an issue to go to church in a theatre then why does it get mentioned?
There’s clear rhetoric that there is a problem to meet in a theatre.
Otherwise, there would be no mention of it and there would only be commentary about the “content” of the preaching.
Furthermore, there would be no personal insults if this was simply about content.
#63 AMEN!
TB,
I’ve got about 30 seconds here:
Ingrid had a series of articles on how awful/worldly/sinful some churches were that were meeting in movie theaters instead of church buildings. They were on Slice 2.0 before it got wiped by her ISP.
I just chose that as one of the obvious examples.
I read apprising regularly, the others I have only read a few times.
Right, but I bet you she wasn’t saying they were sinful simply because they were meeting in movie theatres instead of church buildings.
TB – the only reason they got mentioned was because they were a new church using their meeting place as a “positive” in local advertising…
Well, I would need to see that. However, that does raise another question: What makes going to church in a theatre a positive?
Certainly a theatre carries with it certain implications. Typically, the last thing I think of when I look at a theatre is church, and vice versa. And if the church is intentionally set up to “feel” like a theatre, then, depending on the motives for that, that could be a bad thing as well.
Fiscal responsibility, for one. Many churches in big cities have found theatres to have lots of space available on Sunday mornings for very little in rental cost. For many churches, it is much more fiscally responsible to go with an option like this before building your first building.
Someone from one of the churches in question pointed this out to Ingrid in the comments, and – after lambasting him for not “looking like a church” – she deleted all of his comments when she started looking foolish…
“Certainly a theatre carries with it certain implications. Typically, the last thing I think of when I look at a theatre is church, and vice versa. ”
What, rows of seats and a stage? It’s actually kind of funny because the set up of sanctuaries and theaters have always reminded me of each other.
Anyway, a building is a building is a building.
Actually, I always did kind of wonder about the setup of sanctuaries. Why is it that they’re so remiscient of theaters, anyway?
I understand the point about financially being more cost-friendly. And IF that is how Ingrid responded, then that certainly was wrong. However, I would like to see some actual evidence of that, or even hear her opinion on this matter.
merry,
I am sorry, but when I think of theatre style seats and a stage, I am thinking about enternainment, not God and the Bible. That is probably one of the issues Ingrid has with theatre style churches, and I would concur with that. We don’t go to church to be entertained, we go to church to be convicted and fed from the Word of God. When I think of church, I think of pews and a pulpit and a preacher preaching how great God is and how sinful man is, and learning more about what God says about sin and combating lust and living holy and righteous lives.
I would agree that the content matters, but nobody has made the case that meeting in a theatre is wrong or suspect.
There a ton of churches that meet in theatres that have “a pulpit and a preacher” preaching as you describe.
This is just picking at nits.
To clarify:
The picking at nits is done by these other sites…I’m not talking about the honest discussion that’s happening here.
First of all, Chris L. doesn’t actually mention any of those sites in the article. He links them as illustrative. I think that’s important.
Secondly, apparently nobody has an issue with what Chris L. says about the text and the contemporary significance of the text. That, too, is important.
The issue of contention is that certain people and/or groups are associated with those condemned/criticized by the text. So what is the text condemning? Hearts or actions? Actions. How those “Jews” treated the Christians. What is Chris L. condemning? Actions. How certain people/groups have treated other Christians. That is what this site has been doing for a while now, condemning behavior, and you can search our archives to see specific examples of unChristian behavior.
Yes – if you’re a politician or a lawyer. This statement is laughable. Like saying, I didn’t kill the guy, I just pulled the trigger – the gun did it. Carry on…
Christian P,
Are not actions sprung from our hearts desires?
//On the other side, we have the ’synagogue of Satan’, those Christians…//
That is a statement made in the original article, referring to websites such as Slice and Apprsing, among others. To say that Christians can be the ’synagogue of Satan’ is an oxymoronic statement. Either the accused people are Christians, or they are children of the devil, but you can’t be ‘Christian children of the devil.’
So indeed, this article is not condemning merely the actions, but also the heart. Which, by the way, is what you seem to be accusing Slice and the other websites of doing.
That’s exactly how I read it as well. The first thing that popped to mind was in John 8 when Jesus said to the gathering:
“You are of your father the devil, and the works of your father will you do!”
The funny thing to consider is that while some posts here are fair, they sometimes go on wide detours to implicate the actions of their arch-nemeses in whatever way possible. This particular post seems to do that (notice no mention to the synagogue of Satan in today’s day and age being the RCC which more tightly fits the mold – that wouldn’t be convenient).
//The picking at nits is done by these other sites…//
nc,
I would have to disagree. These websites seem to defend Jesus as the ONE and ONLY way, truth, and light. Apprising for example constantly shows the apostasy of the Roman Catholic church, and not simply with opinons, but first and foremost with the Word of God, the only opinion that matters. Not only that, but these websited point out the false gospel messages/ideology coming from people like Rob Bell and others in the emergent church.
So, I disagree. I do not think contending for the faith (a biblical command by the way, found in Jude verse 3) is nit-picking.
If a church that met in a theatre yet taught biblically sound doctrine, and presented the true gospel, I think you wouldn’t see these websites make such a great complaint. But the fact is, many churches that do meet in theaters and the like meet there because they are compromising on the gospel and Scripture.
Also, nowhere in Scripture will you find Jesus, the disciples, or the apostles constructing a building, or in any other way, shape or form accomodating unbelievers. No, they went out to where the unbelievers were, and pulled them out of those places. It seems we have it quite backwards.
I find it interesting that some are so bent out of shape over the links to SoL, Apprising and such that are most often as are represented here. I see that their sites are most often petty and mostly a waste of time and would not even begin to defend them for their good as it is so hard to find.
Now also mentioned was emergent village which should be offensive to me and is not. I see Chris L has a perspective that I don’t share but realize that is just his perspective that EV is watering down the gospel… in fact I have found quite the opposite happening there as the site has pushed me to ever expand my view and challenged me on many points I had not considered. I don’t agree with all that is said there yet I see the good over all is worth mentioning and to me it is easier to spot both truth and error at EV than it is to filter through all the verbiage crap spewed out by Ken or Ingrid or any of hte their cronies.
Again, I should be offended… yet I understand what Chris L is saying… though I think he may confuse some recent statement from certain individuals who have stepped down from EV as still being the EV view. EV has many other views beside Tony Jones or Doug Pagitt… there is Anthony Smith, Steve Knight, and many others who are not as far “left” as Tony or Doug.
(BTW I think Tony may be off the rails a bit and Doug is wasting his time running for a gov’t office)
Yet for all its worth that Chris L states that EV is “watering down” the gospel… I am not offended… why should I be… its his opinion and he at least is not lying or slandering or attacking them by saying they are apostate.
iggy
This is the very definition of apostasy and error. And I’m not denying that they are doing what Chris L states, but clarifying for Iggy what was clearly written.
My question would be why something like the RCC, which is more obviously in error than the ODMs, are overlooked even though it is apostate.
iggy,
I have never been to emergent village or whatever. I can say that the Bible says if anyone preaches a gospel other than the truth, let him be accursed (Galatians 1:8-9). In fact it is repeated, it is stressed.
So if the emergent church is preaching a false gospel, they should be rebuked, sternly, and others should be informed that the gospel they preach is not the gospel of the Bible.
So now, my question to you Iggy would be: how do you know you are a Christian?
Thomas, my only point was that small issues such as building structures don’t matter, it’s our hearts and only our hearts that matter. It makes me uncomfortable when I see people defending Jesus by means of choosing to complain about the least significant issues. If they want to make an impact, why not go to the core and deal with the main issues of faith that matter? Starting with the miniscule such as theater seats doesn’t really help anyone.
merry,
you miss my point entirely. From beginning to end I have been saying that Slice, Apprising, and the other sites DO deal with the heart. That is their chief concern.
When I think of church, I think of people who desire to follow Christ 24/7, and who come together during the week to corporately worship, to share in certain ’sacraments’ together, and to learn/discuss/teach aspects of what we believe and how we live out those beliefs.
Whether it’s in a theater, a cathedral, a rented back-room in a public house (aka “pub”), or a picnic shelter is immaterial to what a church is.
To John/Jesus’ point, there are those who would consider themselves to be in the faith, but whose orthopraxy is legalistic and narrower than the gates of the kingdom of heaven. Jesus’ descriptions in Matthew 23 are also within the concept of “the Synagogue of Satan” – Jews who were not living in a way compatible with the heart of Judaism.
In the US Civil War, there were Christians on both sides of the conflict who believed they were serving “on God’s side”. This is either a) a paradox; b) only true for one side; or c) true for neither side. The point being made in the letter to the church at Philadelphia was that there were some who claimed to be (and believed in their hearts that they were) serving God, but their actions were NOT furthering His kingdom, but detracting from it.
I am not calling into question that Ken/Ingrid/et. al. believe in their hearts they are serving God. I just happen to see that most of the time, their methods and actions are accomplishing exactly the opposite of what is called for in the kingdom of God.
There are those within the RCC who hold it to be the only valid expression of Christianity, and who persecute those outside the RCC. They would be included, as well.
Rev: It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness.
Or – more accurately – they slander people like Rob Bell, purposely mischaracterize them, quote them out of context, and lie about them.
And you’re wondering why I note that these sites and their supporters are focused on externals (and thus, works), and not truly on faith and action. Perhaps you should put a (TM) after “the true gospel”, because the sites you’re defending add a whole heckuvalot to what “the true gospel(TM)” is.
Do you really want to go into that broad an application of the Regulative Principle? Really? I could point out that Christians in the first three centuries often met in Jewish synagogues (which were community centers, not “church buildings”) – I’ve seen first-hand archaeological evidence of this. I could also point out that Christians in Rome and other cities in the Roman Empire were known to meet for worship in Catacombs (basically underground graveyards).
Sorry – didn’t see the question.
1) Externals-based Christianity (what you wear, what you sing, where you worship, etc.) IS works-based theology. When non-essentials (preferences and convictions) are raised to the level of essentials (absolutes), you’re basing salvation on works, not faith.
2) “Reformed” theology. Where to begin? ANY systematic theology which treats itself as exclusive is adding to the gospel. Statements like “Calvinism IS the gospel” (Chuck Spurgeon), etc. which equate true Christianity with man-made systematic theologies (like Calvinism, Arminism, etc.), then they’re adding to the gospel. A writer on one of the linked blogs wrote:
There are two views concerning the Gospel of Jesus Christ. First, there is what we call Calvinism. Then, there are varying degrees of unbelief
If that ain’t “another gospel”, nothing is.
I don’t have problems with “Reformed” theology (or other Christian theological systems) until they fail to recognize that it is a system of Biblical interpretation made by man, and not a God-ordained belief system.
To be short – Jesus’ description of the “Synagogue of Satan” is culturally contextual to his criticisms of Pharisees in Matthew 23. It is their behavior that is being criticized – not their personhood.
Go away for a day and I miss the great pharisee revolt of ‘09. That’ll teach me!
Anyway, does anyone else find it interesting that all of the letters in Revelation are addressed to the “angel of the church at …”? None of Paul’s epistles use this type of terminology, and it seems that John is speaking to an actual spiritual entity assigned to watch over these believers in a way. Or in some sense it’s the spiritual gestalt of the church; kind of their collective consciousness.
In any case, it seems that John’s letter to these churches makes it clear that they are not just a collection of individuals like we like to think, but rather the spiritual health of one person in the church effects all the others. So the sin or struggle of one person in a church shouldn’t be ignored. If there is a person struggling with sin, all reasonable attempts should be made to restore that person, because if he is left by the wayside, it adversely affects the whole body. It makes you think twice about throwing some members under the bus, so to speak.
Thomas,
I think you miss that there is a great diversity in the Christian faith and that by the standard you are setting.
Are you saying it is wrong to ask and discuss theology and to explore areas of our faith that we might not yet have been exposed to?
The assumption here is astounding. I came to faith at age 16 and have been active in many different denominations… yet it is that I place my faith in the Risen Jesus Christ who came and took away the sins of the world on the Cross and gave me new life by the Resurrection I am saved. It is all by grace and not by works… which SoL and Apprising teach if you really read and look at what they say in their writings. They have Jesus+ I solely believe and trust in Jesus alone for my salvation.
Yet I suppose that is not enough to prove I am saved…
So how do you know I am not? How do you presuppose that anyone and everyone at EV are not saved as you are?
How can you truly prove to me that you are also saved? You could tell me all day, yet from what I have read, your discernment is greatly impaired if you think Ken Silva has any real discernment at all! LOL!…
So… prove to me you are saved… go ahead…
Never mind I will not judge your heart as you as insisting on doing with mine and will take your word for it and truth that you will be guided by the Holy Spirit to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
iggy
BTW Thomas. I have interacted with Ken personally for about 3 years now and he cannot have a real grown up conversation… he usually just puts me down and then states he does not want to discuss matters that I have brought up… it is as if he did, he would be faced with the lies he tells about people. Ingrid is more sincere as I have interacted with her… yet she preaches a works salvation…
Both mouth grace… yet what their focus is about is works of the flesh… dress this way, preach from pulpits, wear ties, sit in pews, etc… they mostly deal with the outside of the cup and judge the inside by what they see… or twist whatever they see to be as it is not.
Ken’s research is shallow at best… he may bring up a good point now and again, yet it is lost in the name calling and put-downs… if he was sincere he would engage in thoughtful conversation instead of writing attack pieces that are only out to harm those he is writing about.
So to me, I see that there is a false gospel being preached… and it is by those who focus on the externals and claim Grace yet give none to those they attack… they are modern day Pharisees that care nothing about the people they attack but only how to keep their ministries going and keeping the income coming in… I mean… Ken is outright doing that on his site…
That is the bottom line… I do not mean to judge their motive as I think the motive is that they believe they are doing God’s calling… yet so did Saul until He met Jesus on the road to Damascus… and I hope Ingrid and Ken and others have the same life changing experience Paul had as well as I have had…
I do not judge their motives only the ones I had when I was like them myself. Mean and legalistic.
iggy
Wow where to begin. I’ll start with Iggy.
First off, I never said you weren’t saved, I simply asked how do you know that you are a Christian. You can say whatever you want about what I was implying there, I just wanted to know, so I could understand your view of the gospel.
Secondly, I can understand why Ken would not want to talk to you, especially if you have acted like this for over three years.
To say Apprising Ministries concern is how people dress and whether or not they have pews in their church is ludicrous. Only a person that WANTS to put a ministry down would come to that conclusion. Looking at Ken’s articles, they are about theology and preserving the gospel. Correct doctrine yields correct living, and ALL Scripture is given by God and profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16). And why: So that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:17)
And that is what websites like Apprising are doing. How can you not see that? Seriously. I guess if I looked really hard to find some stuff about the lack of pews in churches, it MIGHT be there, but you act as if that is all Apprising talks about. And again, if pews are mentioned, its not gonna be because Ken is saying it’s a sin not to have pews in your church. Why don’t you actually read the articles before you spew forth such ignorance?
OK whatever… Thomas…
And really you are judging me… I called for a day of prayer for Ken and he mocked me… that is what he does… Ingrid was more gracious about it..
So until you have Ken state that you are not saved and say lies about you and mock you and you ministry all because you tried to converse with him… then judge me.
iggy
//Are you saying it is wrong to ask and discuss theology and to explore areas of our faith that we might not yet have been exposed to?//
Iggy I have no idea what you are saying here. Of course we should discuss theology, but that doesn’t mean that if there is a clear principle of Scripture that we should try to “explore” new areas. Should we search for the truth? Yes, abolutely. But when you search, when you read the Bible, you have to read it with no presuppositions. You cant read it and try to make it mean something you want, you have to read it and accept what it actually says, even if you don’t like it.
Chris L,
I think I can agree with what you think about when you think of a church. No problem there, although I am not sure why one would want to meet at a pub or theater, unless it was out of necessity.
//To John/Jesus’ point, there are those who would consider themselves to be in the faith, but whose orthopraxy is legalistic and narrower than the gates of the kingdom of heaven. Jesus’ descriptions in Matthew 23 are also within the concept of “the Synagogue of Satan” – Jews who were not living in a way compatible with the heart of Judaism.//
Ok, then the Synagogue of Satan would refer to unbelieves, because the Pharisees and people Jesus is referring to In Mattew 23 were not Christians. So, if that is what you are comparing people like Ken and Ingrid to, then you are saying that are pharisees, self-righteous, hypocrites, and ultimately unsaved, unregenerate, and fast on their way to hell.
But, the truth is, contrary to popular opinion around here, that Ken, Ingrid, and the rest of the sites that you have provided links to, seem to be very, very concerned about the inside of the cup. About true righteousness, about spreading the TRUE gospel. I’ll repeat, there is ONE true gospel. And nobody here is saying that the true gospel includes pews and pulpits. However, if churches take out pews and pulpits, because in fact THEY are more concerned with looking “cool” and “suave” and looking slick Rob Bell style, and less concerned with the Bible, theology, and holiness, then perhaps they are the ones being pharasaical.
As far as your Civil War analogy, that’s um, very broad. I would say though that those fighting for the south, to keep slavery, were certainly sinning, and if they thought they were doing it to serve God and please Him, chances are these people know nothing of the GOd of the Bible.
I mean, do you suppose that simply believing in your heart that you are doing God’s will saves you? Adolf Hitler thought he was doing God’s will. I’m pretty sure he is rotting in hell right now, and rightfully so. Unless we want to think that he somehow repented of his sins as he blew his brains out.
How about Matthew 7, where it says not everyone who says to me Lord Lord will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but HE WHO DOES THE WILL OF MY FATHER IN HEAVEN?
In fact, your very on verse that you used, Revelation 3:9, God says the synagogue of Satan “say they are Jews and are not, but lie…”
So, the synagogue of satan is unbelievers, and you sir have just called those over at Slice, Apprising, and the rest of the websites you listed, unbelievers, whom, by the way, as God goes on to say, will worship at your feet.
Perhaps we should all bow now?
I guess ignorance is bliss…
I have stated publicly that at times Ken has written good things mostly in the past… yet it is his lack of interaction and real research…
Funny how he went from “research” to just having an “opinion” when someone who he committed libel slander against started talking lawsuit…. talk about convictions!
Oh and I have a bad back, diabetes, and neuropathy… and I have at least three ministry websites and run an online Christian radio station… I also am interning in my church and am helping in church planting in other towns… I am in school and have a wife and two kids… I was recently laid off from my full time day job.
So any help with my ministry will be helpful.
(That last part is a joke… sort of)
iggy
Iggy, you act as if judging is a sin…
However, Jesus says in Matthew 7 to judge with righteous judgment.
And I am sure whatever Ken said to you, he had good reason to say it, and it seems quite likely that you misundersttod him. After all, you seem to think Ken is writing blog after blog about pews and pulpits.
//Oh and I have a bad back, diabetes, and neuropathy… and I have at least three ministry websites and run an online Christian radio station… I also am interning in my church and am helping in church planting in other towns… I am in school and have a wife and two kids… I was recently laid off from my full time day job.
So any help with my ministry will be helpful.//
WOW! Let’s applaud that hypocrisy! Iggy, you suddenly sound quite judgmental, something you were just falsely lambasting me for.
//I see that their sites are most often petty and mostly a waste of time and would not even begin to defend them for their good as it is so hard to find.//
That’s what you said above, and now you say,
//I have stated publicly that at times Ken has written good things mostly in the past… yet it is his lack of interaction and real research… //
Sounds like you are changing your tune a bit… kind of like how you accused Ken of going from doing research to just having an opinion. Instead of attacking so much of what he actually says in his blogs, like you were before, now your trying to push it off on his lack of interaction and real research. There is a fancy word for that but I can’t think of it… although I guess I could go with bull.
Thomas… you seem to only look for the bad in people don’t you… and for one who does not even know me… you seem to sure be able to judge my heart.
And there is “judging” that is looking at something or someone in kindness and finding ways to edify them and exhort them to find or grow in Christ… and there is judgmentalism which the Bible explicitedly states we should not do… try Romans 2 in context from 1 through 3 for starters.
So if I joke about the someone who complains about their back or other things while all they really do is sit in front of the computer and attack other ministries… so I am a hypocrite… whatever
There are those who are suffering much more than Ken is and yet I am not “complaining… in fact I joked about it! And you call me names.
… you live in a dark world of condeming others… and I feel sad for you…
iggy
//(That last part is a joke… SORT OF)//
I believe you did type the word “sort”, followed by the word “of”.
So, it was “sort of” a joke. Anybody being honest knows that that means it is NOT a joke, not for the most part at least.
So I think you are being quite hypocritical by your own standards…sort of.
I’m kind of stunned that Chris asserts works based salvation and yes I read his answer to those questions. I’m assuming he’s never read those websites…they assert no form of external Christianity, it’s all a matter of inward renewal, and never about external legalism…never about the church building to be saved, or the attire, or baptism, or anything else…all they are saying is that true believers will exhibit fruits of the spirit…and that is Biblical.
Chris is basically saying it is impossible to correctly interpret the Bible, but God gave us his Word and made it clear enough on the essentials for everyone. I think we all agree that to be saved it’s by grace thru, faith and not by works…faith in Jesus who is God, risen, and paid the penalty for our sins, and that repentance and obediance is a sign of regeneration….we could go into calvinism/armenian, but on most levels I think almost all Christians agree on some level about the cores…we could take limited atonement for example and the Bible clearly states that not everyone goes to heaven, in fact most go to hell…so whether or not you agree on the doctrine on election, you still believe that Jesus atonement is only effective for those who believe. That’s limited atonement by definition…
What would be more alarming is someone who believes that no one goes to hell..many people argue that Rob Bell believes that, but I can’t speak for that myself cuz I don’t know. He certainly has made statements in his books that leave on wondering what his intent was..
Thomas,
It seems you are not able to have a conversation… You do not seem to recognize there is a bit of history between Ken, Ingrid and myself… and choose only to try to show how bad I am. So I am content to let you be as you are and pray for you.
May you grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
iggy
Yoyo,
Are you serious? You read those sites and don’t see the viciousness and shallow version of Christianity they sell… let alone the emphasis on the externals? Ingrid is the Queen of mixing Law and Grace… Ken is just mixed up on many things but is so unteachable as he has set himself up as the Sole purveyor of Truth…
I often wonder how deep some people are in their faith… has it gone past going to church and into realizing that they no longer live but Christ lives in them?
I hope this is no true of you Yoyo, but I cannot see how someone can seriously read any of those sites and see them not teaching a form of external Christianity…
iggy
#78
But that’s not what’s being said or claimed, TB.
What’s being claimed implicitly and explicity (at times) is that meeting in theatres is necessarily evidence of compromise.
That’s just not the case.
The location itself is regularly cited as part of the evidence of compromise.
Then, add a heaping offering of sanctimony and high-mindedness, and you have the ADM’s.
Yoyo,
You mentioned the Calvinist/Arminian argument… Ken Silva will disagree with you though he claims not to be a Calvinist… He calls anyone that believes in free will a semi pleagian which shows Ken has no idea what that even means…
iggy
Again Thomas… you seem fixated on making me be the bad guy… and I am saddend by it. I hope someday you can see others as worthy of the same Grace you see youself having from God and give it to others…
Peace.
iggy
Thomas,
How am I hypocritical… I do not judge Ken in asking for help… I question that he needs support for his “ministry” as it was not too long ago Ken was stating how God was blessing him and his ministry for what he was doing! Now Ken is in trouble and is begging for help…
My point is that others have issues worse than Ken… and I am not out begging for help… I am trusting God to support me and my ministry and He has always come through…
I have not even sold songs to others to sing that I would not deem scriptural enough for myself to sing… as Ken is doing now.
So how again am I hypocritical? That I have not begged for financial support so I can continue to attack others ministries, families, churches with lies and poor research? Sorry I am not doing that…
iggy
Yoyo
Thank you SO much! You do not know how much I really needed a good laugh, which you have so wonderfully provided!
You do know what happens when you assume, right? Sadly, I’ve read those two (and other similar) websites for the past 3-4 years, and they are little more than petty (often fictional) sniping, often aimed at Christians whose primary “sins” are bringing Christ to a culture in a way that might actually be considered (*shudder*) relevant to the way one should live in this society…
Seriously, though, I wonder if you have ever read Ken/Ingrid/Mike Ratliff/etc. for more than a day. If you had, you’d know that your assessment is either foolish or some of the best satire I’ve ever read.
Really? How So? I would suggest that “correctly interpret” is somewhat loaded and ‘Western’ in thought pattern. This assumes that there is only one correct interpretation of every passage, when this is not the pattern evidenced in Scripture, which often has multiple layers and/or wider acceptable patterns of orthopraxy than you would grant.
I do believe that God’s Word makes the “essentials” clear enough for all, but I also believe that many Christians (sometimes myself, as well, even as I try to avoid doing so) add to such “essentials” their own cultural preferences and extra-Biblical convictions.
nc, forgive my lack of acronym knowledge, maybe it should be obvious to me, but when you use ADM idk what that is.
If you TRULY hold to free will, then you are a semi-pelagian. Unless you have a different understanding of free will. But the only thing free about the will of man is that we are free to sin.
Iggy, I suppose you think that if you are poor, financially, or if things go sour for you, that means you must be in some kind of sin or something like that. I looked at Ken’s songs, I don’t see anything wrong with them. So what if he tries to sell them, maybe the man needs a little money. But let’s not make this an ad hominem attack, alright?
Also Iggy, I am not trying to make you out to be anything other than what you are saying. I don’t know your heart, but you do seem to lack discernment. To make the claims about Ken’s website greatly diminshes your credibility on just about anything else you say. I don’t hate you, I only want you to see the truth, and that is what I am trying to show you.
nc,
yes that is being said and claimed.
//This assumes that there is only one correct interpretation of every passage, when this is not the pattern evidenced in Scripture, which often has multiple layers and/or wider acceptable patterns of orthopraxy than you would grant.//
Chris L, seriously? lol. Wider acceptance as a pattern of Scripture? What book are you reading? For a passage of Scripture to have two different, seperate meanings, is impossible. That would be like saying the sun produces not only beams of light but also raindrops.
How can one passage have several meanings? So maybe one is true for me, but not for you eh? Wow, so I guess the inerrancy of Scripture takes on a whole new, bizarre meaning.
BTW this might blow some of you people’s minds, but did you know that God has a holy hatred for unsaved people?
There are probably a few things I don’t completely agree with in regards to Ken Silva, but he certainly holds to the calvinist view, as does John McAurthor, and others.
Chris, your assertion that there can be more than one interpretation of scripture is not accurate. True, many layers and applications, but opposing interpretations can never both be true. A paradox is not a true contridiction, any true contridiction would make part of the Bible untrue…which none of us here would say we believe that. So, no not every doctrine or viewpoint one holds is correct…obviously, calvinist, armenians, and those in between can’t all be right on everything. Someone is wrong on something somewhere in there.
For example, eternal security…one interpretation is obviously wrong and one is right…I do believe that both sets of believers can be saved but one camp has fallen into error on that doctrinal point and they debate each other on who is in error (obviously)…
So, yes scripture has one interpretation..but many applications and layers, but no doctrine like eternal security or conditional security cannot both be true, neither can the idea that all men go to heaven or only some men…they can’t both be true.
TB,
1) ADM = Armchair “Discernment” “Ministry” (two lies for the price of one)
2) Believing in free will does not require semi-pelagianism. Christians (and Jews, prior to them) primarily believed in free will, until gnosticism and fatalism rose in prominent thought. It is possible to believe both in predestination and true free will, and that they can exist w/o threatening God’s sovereignty. It is also possible to believe that none of these matter a whit to the gospel, and that such distinctions are idle chattering and detrimental to Christianity.
blah, blah, blah. (paging Rick Frueh – I’ll let you take this one, Rick)
Just a bit of history – Ken has attacked the character of at least one Christian partially based upon his CD collection, which had “Rascal Flatts, Jimmy Wayne, Tim McGraw, [and] Green Day”
So, being willing to sell music that you would no longer record and would criticize (if you hadn’t written it) does seem rather… odd…
I agree completely with yoyo
So, is Isaiah’s prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 about events relevant to Ahaz or about Jesus’ birth – or both?
When Jesus cries out “Father, father, why have you forsaken me?” on the cross, is he making a statement about his feelings of abandonment, or is he making a statement of triumph by quoting Psalm 22 (since the common practice was to quote the first verse of a Psalm to denote the entirety of the Psalm) – or both?
I can list a rather large number of verses which have differing interpretations, with multiple truths expressed.
Again incorrect. It is a paradox that free will and predestination can both be true, but it was a common belief in Jesus’ time (and ours), and it is possible if you assume that time is not unilinear for God.
I agree that there are a number of scriptures that may have a “correct” interpretation, but I would also note that many (but not all) of these would fall into the realm of “non-essentials” and discerning the “correct” interpretation may be as important as telling the number of angels which can dance on the head of a pin…
The important ones, though, are pretty clear – Jesus lived. Jesus was the Son of God. Jesus died. Jesus rose from the dead. There is One God. Jesus’ sacrifice and resurrection made it possible for men to escape their sinful nature.
So does that make you a yoyo, too?
(sorry – just a bit of levity)…
What’s funny is that you won’t let Ken speak for himself on him because you have him on moderation.
Also, to say blah blah blah to the truth that all we can do is sin, provokes the wrath of God buddy.
God’s sovereignty/ free will. They can’t co-exist. Funny that you think it can though.
Ever read Romans 3? How about Romans 6? how about Romans 8-9? How about Ephesians 1:11?
How about John 6:65, Jesus said “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”
How much other Scripture do you ignore my friend? I think when Jesus said “no one can come” it means, um, NO ONE CAN COME!
So why don’t you address this verse, anybody, just address John 6:65 for me. Please, give me some explanation for it. At least try. Blah Blah Blah isn’t a very good answer.
Holy hatred? That’s pretty rich. And twisted.
Yeah.
Twisted best describes such a view.
Sadly, it doesn’t “blow my mind”…
It just proves that you have a poor understanding of Scripture and don’t understand progressive revelation.
Thomas I am also on moderation… so? Ken can speak all he wants… he is on moderation for a reason… he is nasty and mean and does not add to the conversation.
iggy
When Ken posts something other than name-calling, his comments are usually approved within minutes.
When he just calls names or plays his “you can’t criticize me because I’m a ‘pastor-teacher’ schtick”, the comments sit awhile longer.
Whatever. While I definitely fear God and His power, I don’t fear your rather trite (and unwarranted) references to it. Disagreeing with your man-made theological musings doesn’t do anything to stir God’s wrath.
Sure they can. You just don’t happen to believe that God is powerful enough to allow it to be, and you assume that He experiences time in the same way that we do.
First off, I’m not going to prooftext Scripture to death or play the Calvin/Arminian/OT game of “who’s prooftext is best?”
Second, I’ve already dealt with the full context of John 6 a number of times in the past.
Psalm 5:4-6
“For You are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness, nor shall evil dwell with You. The boastful shall not stand in Your sight;
YOU HATE ALL WORKERS OF INIQUITY.
You shall destroy those who speak falsehood; The Lord ABHORS the bloodthirsty and deceitful man.
now, lets go to ROmans 3.
Romans 3: 9-18 says NOBODY is righteous, NOBODY understands, NOBODY seeks God, NOBODY does good, and not only that but our mouths are full of lies and deceit, we are all together unprofitable, we are full of cursing and bitterness, we are quick to shed blood, destruction and misery are in our ways, and we have not known the way of peace, NOBODY has any fear of God.
So, I do believe that if NOBODY includes us, which I am pretty sure it does, then we do qualify for God’s holy wrath and hatred, until God saved us from our sins of course.
Chris you ignore Scripture like nobodies business. So what did God save you from exactly?
Refuting Calvinism, while rather simple, gets pretty boring the 2,000th time.
You wanna take this one, Rick?
Wow, these are such low hanging curves you’re lobbing TB, that any Arminian could easily knock them out of the park. But like Chris said, we are not here to debate Calvinism verses Arminianism.
I will say, though, it is always dangerous to try to interpret the New Testament through the lens of the Old, which is what you’re doing. Our picture of what God is like and what His final revelation to humanity is needs to be purely focused on the person of Jesus Christ. He fulfills and interprets the Old Testament – it’s not the other way around.
I would go as far to say that a person who sees God primarily as wrathful and full of vengeance does not understand Christ or what was accomplished on the cross. I’m not saying they aren’t Christians, but I believe they have a warped view of God.
Thomas,
Wow… Not even close! And really there is nothing “wrong” with Ken’s songs so you are totally missing the point! Ken attacks others for much less than he states in his songs… one of his songs states:
If Rob Bell or anyone else stated this they are instantly an Universalist… yet Ken states it and gets a free ride… and that is the point… Then Ken states:
Saying this after all his attacks on PDL and Seeker style churches seems hypocritical… if you have actually read his attack pieces against those who talk this way you should understand what I am saying.
I feel this way about you! To take Ken or Ingrid serious seems to lack discernment and to me even mocks it! Ken who used to claim he was “mentored” by Walter Martin until this site busted him noting that he never met WM and that it was only that Ken had listened to WM tapes showed that Ken is willing to stretch the truth to make him look better than he is… I mean I have done the same thing so I guess I was mentored by WM, John MacArthur, and scores of others! Yet I see it dishonest to state I am “mentored” by them… I have been mentored by some great men that I have met an worked with directly… but really I would not brag about who they were as it does not matter. So if you had more history about Ken I think you might realize why his credibility is so low… and why people are begining to see him for what he is and not supporting him.
Now back to that… that is actually so funny that you would accuse me of thinking that one with more bless financially is more blessed from God… that was Ken’s point to me and others! It is Ken who pushed that idea and I was stating it was wrong…
So far your discernment about me is so far off… don’t you think it would be better to get to know me before y0u toss out your own ad hominem attacks at me?
iggy
No Chris, I believe you have a twisted view of God.
Thomas,
Also you never did answer my questions I had in the first comment to you. Why not?
iggy
repost the question for me, Iggy.
Seeking God?
Or
Or
Or
Or
Or in Acts
Now – to Romans 3 –
I would note that Paul is quoting from Psalm 14, in which David has written a Psalm about “fools” whose hearts are set upon evil. If you don’t bother with Paul’s context, then sure, you can prooftext much of what he’s written to mean whatever you would like it to.
No, I ignore systematic theologies like nobody’s business. There’s a difference between Scripture and systematic theology. You just happen to be espousing the latter and treating the former as if it had magically fallen out of the sky without any context to it.
Thems be stake burnin’ words, boy…
Better hide the matches!
Thomas,
Sorry I can’t find them myself… it has been a long day for me so I may have misspoken to you about not answering the questions…so I apologize for that.
They are though:
Is it a sin to look and question our faith? Is it a sin to question doctrines? Is it a sin to listen to someone we might not agree with yet find good things in what they say? Is it a sin to listen to something controversial and though not fully agree with it, consider some of it and allow it to expand our own spiritual viewpoint?
iggy
Paul C,
I notices a reference to me earlier and I ask you the same questions…
And also I feel the same way… actually worse when I read Ken or Ingrid or one of the many others… It seems that so much error can be overlooked about them that the truth suffers… yet instead of acknowledging that, many people seem to feel they can attack those Ken and Ingrid do for their error… which for the most part is not biblical error but differences is style and preferences such as music or chairs or whether one should be in a theater.
iggy
//Now back to that… that is actually so funny that you would accuse me of thinking that one with more bless financially is more blessed from God… that was Ken’s point to me and others! It is Ken who pushed that idea and I was stating it was wrong… //
I never accused you, I asked you. WOrld of difference there bub. I doubt your understanding of what Ken said was correct either.
//“Jesus died, He shed His blood, He’s not willing to lose — anyone.”//
Where can I find the lyrics to that entire song?
//Saying this after all his attacks on PDL and Seeker style churches seems hypocritical… if you have actually read his attack pieces against those who talk this way you should understand what I am saying.//
No that is not hypocritical at all. I don’t see Ken trying to use secular music to save people or in church services. Your argument makes no sense here.
Iggy, basically you are asking me if it is a sin to use discernment. On that level I will answer. Of course not. but when you start saying things like expand, idk what you mean.
But, I just want to know Iggy, how do you think God views an unsaved person?
Speaking of what God hates, I’ve always found this passage quite telling:
Even more interesting is the prescription for Israel’s problem:
Seek justice, encourage the oppressed, and take care of the fatherless and the widow…well that ol’ social gospeler Isaiah! Where did he get such crazy ideas?
Chris L,
How do you define free will?
Also, why don’t you just read Psalm 14? Especially verses 2-3. THis is referring to ALL of mankind that is not saved. Which means we were all fools and godless before we were saved. While we are in the book of Psalm, why dont you address Psalm 5:4-6, or Psalm 7, where GOd says He is angry with the wicked every day?
Also, give me the references to the verses you put up about seeking God, because of course, we do seek out God, but none of those verses say anything one way or the other about our ability to seek out God. So I really have no disagreements with them at all, after all nobody can come to the Jesus unless it has been granted by God (John 6:65). So of course, after God has convicted our hearts, and shows us mercy, and opens our eyes, we can respond to the gospel call. But we only choose God because he first chose us. Jesus Himself says that in John 15:16.
//Seek justice, encourage the oppressed, and take care of the fatherless and the widow…well that ol’ social gospeler Isaiah! Where did he get such crazy ideas?//
lol Phil, again you misunderstand. Nobody is saying we shouldn’t do that. We should, however, if all we do is feed the poor, and we never tell them about the gospel, then we just send them to hell with a full stomach. But the social gospel says just feed the poor and be nice to everyone and we will all go to heaven.
God has given man permission to accept or reject the gift of grace He offers.
FYI – heading to bed here.
I’m sure once Rick Frueh realizes we got (yet another) proselytizing Calvinist on the line, he’ll answer all of your favorite Calvinist prooftexts tomorrow…
So if God gives man permission… yet says we can only come to Jesus IF it is granted by God, and IF God will grant us repentance…
it seems to me your view of free will is unbiblical. I mean, if the golden standard is the Bible that is.
Thomas,
God views the unsaved that same as Jesus did… so how did Jesus view them?
iggy
Jesus viewed them as lost and in need of a Savior, and Jesus told them to repent or perish, and that they were under the wrath and condemnation of God.
That is how Jesus viewed the lost. Agree?
Whatever, Thomas.
You’ve made an idol of your theological “system”, and mistakenly equated your man-made system of belief with Scripture.
Agreed, yet it seems you miss that sin died with Jesus “once for all” on the Cross… it was a one time thing for all people past, present and future…
Yet, saying that, forgiveness does not equal salvation… for the Life is in the Son and one needs a relationship to have the Life.
Forgiveness is offered to all, yet if rejected there is nothing left except judgment.. Yet it all hinges on what one does with JEsus and not about “stopping sinning”…
It is when we come to Christ Jesus and abide in Him we no longer are “sinners” as we now dwell in Christ who has not sin… and sin is dealt with.
Now God is compassionate and just… to say God is still angry with sinners means that the Cross is negated… for God so loved the world He gave his only Son…
Again, there is wrath, but the wrath you are stating sounds very OT and not under the NT any longer. Many seem to mix Law and Grace over this issue… and miss we are no longer under the old covenant unless one still wants to stay there and so be judged by it as Paul teaches in Galatians.
So Jesus was willing to call out to sinners, forgive them… love them… and die for them… and take on the Fathers wrath for them… and that is how God views sinners… with a sacrificial love, kindness and compassion for them.
To understand what I am stating do a study on “propitiation” as opposed to atonement… atonement is OT and what Jesus did was not a perpetual sacrifice, but a one time sacrifice of perpetual efficacy. What I think teaching you are under is one of perpetual sacrifice… and there is a huge difference between that and the biblical teachings on forgiveness and salvation.
iggy
I guess Iggy, you think that God somehow changed his view of man after Jesus died, yet God’s plan all along was to have His Son die on the cross, that was prophesied about in the OT. God’s view didnt magically change once Jesus died on the cross.
For instance, after Jesus had already died, in the book of Acts, God strikes dead Ananias and Saphira, simply because they lied.
How about John 3:36? It says those who do not accept Christ has the wrath of God upon them?
And what about Jesus’ ministry? It was repentance for remission of sins. Everywhere Jesus went, that is what He taught, that is what he begun with (Mat. 4:17) and what He ended with (Luke 24:47).
His parables were about sin, he confronted people about their sin (for example, the rich young ruler and the woman at the well).
Not to mention, Jesus straight told people to repent of their sins, or to go to hell. You can find that in Luke 13 for starters.
Did you know that Jesus spoke in parables intentionally so people COULDN”T understand them? It was only for those who seeked to decipher the truth. But to some, God did not give people an ear to hear. ANd parables were meant to be confusing so some wouldn’t understand and wouldnt be forgiven (thats in Mark 4:10-12).
ANd of course, Romans makes it clear that it is God who saves, and it is based on His SOvereign choice. GOd hardens hearts (ROmans 9:18) and salvation has nothing to do with our will, which isn’t free, except to sin (Romans 9:16).
By the way, last time I checked, Romans was written by Paul, who, wouldn’t you know it, lived after Jesus’ death! Hmmmm.
How about the first gospel presentation after Jesus ascended into heaven? Go to Acts 2, Peter didn’t say “God loves you, you unsaved people.” Nope, and Peter didn’t say “Just believe God is real and tell him to save you, and you will be saved.” Nope, thats not the gospel either.
Peter laid it out, he explained that the very person they nailed to the cross and crucified, had risen from the dead, and was made both Lord and Christ by God. He went straight after their sins, and the Bible says in Acts 2:37 that these people were cut to the heart, and asked “WHat do we do?” And what did Peter say? He didnt just have them repeat a prayer saying they believe it is true. No, Peter said in Acts 2:38 “REPENT, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the ggift of the Holy Spirit.”
Jesus said to preach repentance for remission of sins. That is what Peter did. That is not what many churches are preaching today. They are preaching a false gospel, which is one of the chiefest of sins, and that is why Ingrid and Ken have their ministries, because they are doing the work of an evangelist, which we are all biblically commanded to do.
//Yet, saying that, forgiveness does not equal salvation…//
It doesn’t? Are you sure? See, you can’t say that Jesus forgave everyone when He died on the cross, unless you are a Universalist, which is clearly heresy.
And, Jesus didn’t die for every single man on the earth. He died for God’s elect. He died for whom God sovereingly chose to save. Yet you are correct, Jesus does offer salvation to every man that will repent and believe. The power of Jesus’ death on the cross is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect. But the truth is, if God completely left it up to man to choose who we will serve, we would all go to hell because none of us would choose God, because we are incapable of doing so because of our sinfulness.
God even made vessels of wrath prepared beforehand for destruction (Romans 9:22).
So, I think it is safe to say that God and Jesus view the unsaved now the same way they did in the OT.
Also, just to throw one more stick in, Romans 2 speaks much of GOd’s wrath, and that the unbeliever stores up GOd’s wrath for the day of judgment. Then, Romans 3 defends God’s judgment, and that is where we see, restated from the OT, that no one is righteous, that we are all wretches and incapable of doing good.
Now, notice Romans 3:17. In context, this verse applies to all mankind, it says “And the way of peace they have not known.”
So we do not know peace, yet, in many places, there is peace on earth. And if we can create peace, it is not us who is doing it, bbut rather it is God’s grace working through us to do it.
Now notice in Revelation 6:4 it says “Another horse, fiery red, went out. And it was granted to the one who sat on it to take peace from the earth, and that people should kill one another; and there was given to him a great sword.”
Ah, so you see, God is not taking anything away that man created, God is simply judging man and revealing to man what they really are. He is drawing back His grace and mercy because it is judgment time.
Now what I just showed you wasn’t some scheme, it was all Scripture, not Calvinism, not systematic theology, just the Bible and what it teaches. Revelation is a picture of God’s wrath stored up against mankind because of their sinfulness and total depravity. And it is Jesus Christ Himself who is to be the Judge! So it seems that the view of sin from the Trinity is completely consistent from cover to cover of the Bible. Of course, that makes perfect sense when you study the BIble that that would be true.
Thomas,
It seems that again instead of a conversation you want to condescend and talk at and down to me. I see that you are a Calvinist and much of what you are saying contradicts Calvin’s teachings…
Not to mention again.. God is not looking for us to be obedient… for if it is by obedience we are saved it is works….
So really you have some really messed up views that are unbiblical. I know because I was under much the same sort of teaching until God revealed his Grace to me in a life changing way.
So accuse me all you want, but it seems you are mired in a theological system that has taken many basic bible teachings and twisted them to mean quite the opposite the bible teaches.
God is only pleased with Jesus.. and we are privileged to be able to respond to the loving kindness of God who sent his Son… outside of Jesus there is no salvation for anyone and they will suffer unneeded wrath… for all were given the possibility to be saved at by the Cross and Resurrection.
To me it seems this conversation is not going anywhere as you are still casting attacks instead of conversing…
Interestingly, Iraenius who was a direct disciple in the linage of John wrote that man has a free will… funny how this Apostolic teaching that was past on from John to Polycarp to Iraenius was somehow wrong when Calvin comes along 14oo yrs or so later. Could Calvin had been wrong?
I think you miss this.. that God initiates all that is salvation… and man responds or not.. for God alone is salvation… so we do have free will yet to gain salvation is to lay it down and exchange it for God’s will… we exchange our life (or death to be more accurate for we are dead in our sins) for His Life and that is salvation…
So I am not sure what most of your rant is even about… Yes Paul wrote his letters after Jesus and much I have stated came from his teachings… so again it seems you are misreading much of Paul’s writings. And when was the last time God struck someone down for lying…
Also as far as Ananias.. where does it state that God struck them down? It does not… Peter revealed their lie by the Holy Spirit and they just dropped dead… but it does not say God struck them down. If anything Satan did as Peter states that Satan had so filled Ananias’ heart… so show me where it states God struck them down. Personally I think it was that they were playing a religious game of showmanship and when their plan was revealed they simply died of shock that it was all real!
Also context needs to be taken in much you are stating… the Gospels were before the Cross and Jesus spoke as one under the Law to others under the Law… often what he stated was to show that keeping the Law could not give righteousness and life… (John 5)
So when you state that Jesus said this or that… keep in mind who he is talking to… Jews under the Law… who think that that will save them instead of Jesus…
iggy
I love it. When non-Calvinists say something about their theology they say “you dpn’t understand Calvinism”. Well, Thomas, I for one believe in original sin, and I also believe that man has a free will but can only choose Christ by the illumination of the Spirit. Pelagius would disagree with all my theology. So obviously you have a “limited” understanding of my free will theology.
All “Calvinism evangelists” grow exceedingly tiresome, as is evident by Chris’s comments. Just this balsphemous statement (”Calvinism is the gospel“) made by a particular favorite preacher of mine and heralded as an inside joke by Calvinists, reveals the idolatry they have toward their systematic theology.
The theological ground you wish to cross has been tilled ad infinitum on this blog, but as of yet I have been able to resist God’s will by the power of my own. I remain a self righteous, low view Scriptured, sovereignty doubting, and completely reprobate theolgian who still considers Calvin a murderous politician who strained at a doctrinal gnat and swallowed a camel named affectionately, “Huebby”, which is a nickname for hubris.
And just to add to your doctrinal angst, I find some aspects of open theism very attractive and Biblical. The main problem I have with most Calvinists is that the level of their intellects prohibit any real and substantive grasp of deep theological truths. I do not blame them, though, I just assume it’s God’s will for their lives.
****ATTENTION****
Cat fight alert!!
(Sometimes I crack myself up.
)
Rick,
Interestingly to my Thomas brings up Romans 9 which need be taken in context with chapter 8 and 10… but he most likely stops at verse 18…
He will only notice that God made some vessels of wrath and some vessels of mercy… yet miss that at the end of Romans 9 and into Romans 10 Paul does a flip and it is clear he means that the Jew was the vessel of mercy originally and now is the vessel of wrath so that the original vessels of wrath, the gentiles could now be vessels of mercy…
Meaning this is not about God being like Allah and arbitrarily taking some as good and tossing them over one should to heaven and some as bad and tossing them over his other shoulder to hell, but it is that God has forsaken the Jew to redeem the gentile.
Calvin had a very poor understanding of Romans 9 and has screwed up many good teachers as they use his view in understanding that passage… that is why context and reading the fuller text helps gain insight and is also one of the huge reasons I am not a follower of
AllahCalviniggy
Thomas,
When you started commenting on this thread, you seemed courteous and open to dialogue, which is always welcome here.
As you got more and more worked up over the lack of Calvinism beliefs by commenters, you descended to this:
Anyone who seriously studies the Word discovers that truths of Calvinism are clearly spelled out as are truths of Arminism.
As Chris L. and Rick insinuated, this thread could go to 500 comments back and forth of each giving verses to back up their theology. And by comment 501, no one would be convinced otherwise.
That is the nature of theology.
And to hold theology to a higher standard than Jesus is a subtle and dangerous error.
So please be careful, and please be gracious.
Shalom
The theology of “calvinism is the gospel ” almost sent me to the wrong end of a gun while I still considered myself a calvinist.I was like a dog chasing his tail and jumping through exegetical hoops . I am done with it.I am simply a Christian.Praise God for His grace through Jesus Christ!!
Grace and peace to all,
Opus
Amen and amen.
Opus,
I am neither Calvinist or Arminian… I am believe the bible as it is written and trust my salvation to Jesus… to me that is enough… Calvin had some good things and some bad… Arminius was the same to me. I prefer to go back to the early church fathers if I am looking for something that I am thinking about yet in the end… trust bible and the Holy Spirits leading.
To me there is nothing wrong in reading anyone… even those I disagree with… but I am not staking my salvation on another man’s interpretation of scripture.
iggy
//Not to mention again.. God is not looking for us to be obedient… for if it is by obedience we are saved it is works….//
You can think I am being condescending, or whatever you want, but it is quite evident that all of you are ignorant of what I am saying. You can call it Calvinism, I call it what the Bible clearly teaches. I am not saying our obedience saves us, I am saying that IF we are saved we WILL be obedient, because it is GOD who has SUPERNATURALLY changed our hearts. An unsaved person recognizes their sinfulness through the gospel, and then they repent of their sins and turn to Christ as Lord and Savior for their salvation. NOw, you can say that if they repent, that is works to, but I am not saying that man repents of their own ability. No, Christ gives them the ability to repent supernaturally through the hearing of the gospel.
I’ll write more in a second, I have to eat some chicken tenders…
Thomas,
Repentance is a natural outflow in response to the Kindness of God in that he is willing to forgive and save us… if taken as part of a formula for salvation… then it is a work…
Again instead of just assuming you know what I am saying and then telling me I am wrong… try just talking to me and finding out what I believe.
Calvin did not die on a cross or rise from the grave to save us… he was a man with flaws and to put too much trust in anyone besides Jesus can be dangerous.
iggy
And those who hold to the truths of Arminism would say the same thing.
Opus,
Amen! We’re Christians.
And that is amazing!
A few months ago, my brother and I were discussing Calvinism and Arminism.
He asked which I was, since I seemed to be arguing for both sides.
I told him I am a Bibli-ist. (pronounced bib’-lee-ist)
He said that was a cop-out.
OK – a sinner makes a false profession of faith and indeed is not truly saved – so what? What do you suggest, more human intervention? Insisting to them that they are not saved? According to Calvin salavtion is initiated by God and only God, so apparently He has not as yet initiated that sinner’s salvation – or – that sinner isn’t one of the elect.
I cannot undertand all the handwringing by those that wear God’s sovereignty as a badge about false professions of faith. It just makes for argument concerning something of which God is in complete control and we cannot change.
(I would make such a good Calvinist!)
I was wondering if there is a flood of comments waiting in moderation since AM invited its constituency on Mar. 3 to comment on this article.
It is still kind of funny how the high flown jargon is thrown around:
“fully integrated auxiliaries of CRBC”…
Isn’t CRBC more like an auxiliary of AM?
I guess that “official” sounding language is all you have when you need the seeming seal of good housekeeping of a local church…and there’s nothing else lending credibility to what you do or say.
It’s kind of sad.
Anyway…where’s all the comments?
Nathanael,
Really, many seem to think that these are the only choices… but what about the Greek Orthodox or Ethiopian Church? What did people do before the 1600’s when there was no Calvin, Luther or Arminius? How did anyone get saved before Calvin!?!?!
It was only by Jesus we are saved… all other men are born in and of corruption… so again, I for one will not and do not put all my eggs into a man made system for my salvation…
One of the major breakthroughs for me was when I was able to start reading the bible for what it says outside of my taught systematic theology… and that was only because of Grace that I was able to do so…
iggy
Thomas,
I’ve said this before here.
My testimony (in the Reader’s Digest version of the Reader’s Digest version) goes something like this.
I never, ever in a million years, would have pursued or sought after God if He did not first relentlessly pursue and seek me first.
My parents fervently prayed for my salvation.
And at 21, at a serious cross-road in my life, I surrendered my life to the risen Christ.
So I believe in both. I believe that the Spirit of the living God chose me. But I had to surrender and choose Him.
And now He continues to relentlessy pursue and seek me. And I continue to either choose to respond and seek Him, or seek my own way.
It’s all about grace.
I love God only because He first loved me.
I believe love wins.
That’s my story…and I’m sticking to it…
Amen, iggy, amen.
WHy do you people think we have pastors for? preachers? WHy do you think the BIble says that ALL scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, and correction? Obviously, there is ONE correct interpretation, and if we seek the truth through diligent study and prayer, we can rigthly handle the Word of Truth. The Bible IS understandable. But if we want it to mean something, instead of looking to see what the BIble actually says, well then you get all kinds of wacky beliefs.
You don’t like what I say because you don’t like what the Bible says, NOT because I am a calvinist. That is just your excuse. I wouldn’t be a calvinist unless I believed that is what the BIble taught. And, believe it or not, EVERYONE approaches the BIble with some sort of systematic interpretation, so to say that I have somehow put theology above the words of Christ is ludicrous.
However, when I put forth verses that supports what I believe the Bible says, which just so happens to be Calvinism, you people go bonkers. You can’t even address the verses. Except when you say stuff like “Well Romans 8 and 10 makes it clear that it’s talking about Jews being vessels of wrath now and gentiles are now the vessels of mercy.”
Lol, wow I mean seriously iggy? So I guess God hates all Jews then eh? I guess that’s convenient for you, assuming your not a Jew. I guess that means that all Gentiles are going to heaven then, and all Jews are going to hell. And I guess you conveniently skip the verse right after it talks about vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy Iggy, what do you say about Romans 9:24, “Even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but ALSO of the GENTILES?”
How about Romans 10:12, where Paul says GOd makes no distinction between Jew and Greek? And Romans 9:1-13 makes it clear that “They are not all Israel who are of Israel” and “the children of promise (children of God) are conted as the seed.”
Then verse 11 makes it clear that the children of promise are God’s elect, and that faith is not by works, or even of our own merit, but of God who calls. And again, Romans 9:24 makes it clear that the vessels of wrath and vessels of destruction sees no racial boundaries. It says God calls both the Jews and the Gentiles. It is quite clear.
I don’t have a dog in this hunt…
but I will say this:
TB,
If you’re frustrated by the responses of people in your conversation, fine.
I’ve been frustrated here too at times.
But please don’t say people don’t like the Bible because they disagree with you.
If anything the people here have demonstrated a real commitment to wrestling with the Scriptures.
Obviously to you it is.
I agree with you on one thing:
I would like to think I’m objective, but I”m not. I was not raised in the culture in which the Bible was written. I was raised in the western, capitalistic world. I’m still learning.
I’ve had to unlearn some things that a few years ago I was adamant about.
Some things that were black and white have somehow become gray the more I study the scripture and the more I seek the living God.
Another thing,
different interpretations don’t mean that the “wrong” person doesn’t have confidence in the usefulness of the texts.
I love the mysteries in the scriptures.
I love them.
I love it when I don’t have an immediate answer.
I love being led by the Spirit into and through these mysteries.
Typical ADM response. Once their assertions of their positions don’t magically work on everyone around them the next step is to anathematize all those who disagree with “you don’t like the Bible”.
No we just think you’re wrong and you won’t bother to interact with anyone who doesn’t march in lockstep with you.
I love being wrong.
It’s so freeing.
//So I believe in both. I believe that the Spirit of the living God chose me. But I had to surrender and choose Him.//
Nathaniel, I believe that too! And that IS what Calvinists believe! We love God because he first loved us, and we chose God because He first chose us. And not only that, but God enabled us to choose Him and to have faith.
Yet, we also see that man is responsible for their sins, and that God is NOT the author of sin, man is, and the devil is. We can not reconcile the responsiblity of man to respond to the gospel and the sovereignty of God. But that is one of the reasons that God is God and man is man. We don’t understand why God does not enable some to believe in Him and place their faith in Him, and we do not understand why God does not grant everyone repentance. Nonetheless, that is what the Bible clearly teaches, in Romans, particularly chapter 9. But, Romans 9 does offer an explanation. It says God has vessels of wrath to show His wrath to the vessels of mercy. So you see, if we are Christians, it helps us better understand how great and wonderful GOd is! That he actually SAVED us from our wickedness! He didnt merely make it possible for us to choose Him, no, He went all the way and saved us from and out of our sins, because we were unable to choose Him!
And the truth is, this is ever more than fair. In fact, you could say that it is unfair that none of us go to hell. Because that is what we all deserve because of our sinfulness. None of us deserve eternal life. All of us deserve the full extent of God’s wrath. And that is because Adam and Eve rebelled against God, and became fallen. And that extends to all of us, to the fullest extent. If God backed off from us and left us to our own wicked hearts, there would be no peace on earth, as the Bible says. Literally, all hell would break loose, because we are really little demons. It is only by the grace of God that we are saved, through faith, and not of works, lest any man should boast.
Romans 10 also makes it clear that we come to faith by the hearing of the word of God, so it is God that saves us. Yet, he uses His means of saving people through the hearing of the preaching of the gospel. That is why we should spread the gospel, because that is how God brings about His people, His elect, to salvation, and we are commanded as Christians to spread the gospel fervently to all nations and lands.
Rick Frueh – circa A.D. 2009
And now, by the grace of God, we are little Christs.
Not everyone has a system, but everyone has biases that are funded by their experiences, prior learning, etc.
I believe the Bible is true and conveys salvific truth. I just don’t believe it’s an organized system.
Calvinism, as a system, is predicated on a prior decision to foreground God’s “sovereignty” as the primary category of description and emphasis for God. Everything is read through that emphasis.
That prior decision sets the trajectory for the whole system and how it hermeneutically handles the text.
There’s a ton of “prologue” before you get to a conscious system. If you concede/believe that prologue, the system will look and sound perfectly logical.
nc,
yes, bias is a better word
Iggy, hear the words of Jesus Christ: “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to uffer and to rise from the dead the thrid day, and that repentance for remission of sins should be preached in HIs name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”
Jesus said that, that was part of the Great Comission. How do we get saved? By repenting. How is our sins taken away from us? By repenting.
But how do we repent? Only by the grace of God.
So faith and repentance are indeed necesarry when one gets saved, yet neither of them are works, because it is Christ who grants us both faith and repentance.
Tom,
This is not necessarily directed at you, but it always amazes me how many people say, “this is what Calvinists believe….”
Two things crack me up about that:
1. Put 100 Calvinists in a room and you’ll get about 98 different nuanced versions of “what they believe”
2. Many, many self proclaimed Calvinists have never read Calvin.
Thomas,
Do you really think convert people to your system with your “you people” attitude?Get down off your throne and converse with people like they are brothers in Christ.We have not denied the essentials of the faith.
No, I believe that through reading the Scriptures the Bible teaches that God is Sovereign over all, because well, that’s what the Bible says all over the place. I believe God is solely responsible for our salvation, because the BIble says so, I believe we are all totally depraved, because the BIble says so, and I believe we are totally unable to not only save ourselves but to even accept Christ as our Lord and Savior without God first choosing us, because the BIble CLEARLY says so.
I believe what I believe because of what the BIble says, not because of what John Calvin says. It just so happens that much of what Calvinism believes, is also what I see the Bible to teach.
Before i even knew of Calvinism, I was basically a four-point Calvinist. The only reason I wasn’t a five point Calvinist is because I went to a private high school that was free will/arminian to the core, yet even then I knew what they were saying was often contrary to Scripture. It wasn’t until about eight months ago that I discovered Paul Washer, and everything he said in his sermon to youth I agreed with. Then, I found out that what he held to was reformed theology, so I researched it, and I found that practically everything I believed was what reformed theology taught. Soon, I discovered limited atonement, and because it is so contrary to what I had been taught all my life, I was in disbelief. I didn’t like how it sounded, because I didn’t understand how God could still be loving and yet die for the elect in a way that He didnt die for the non-elect. But, I went to Scripture, and the evidence was overwhelming: The Bible taught the doctrine of limited atonement.
So you see, I didn’t really want to believe in limited atonement, and I was largely unaware of reformed theology/ Calvinism until about eight months ago. Prior to that, I had went to a school my whole life that taught free will/arminianism basically, yet I still retained four point Calvinism basically by my own private study of Scripture, even though I didnt even know what Calvinsim was harldy or what it stood for at the time.
By the way, I am 19, so it’s not like I am some seminarian that has been manipulated into believing Calvinism. If you go to the Scripture seeking the truth of what it teaches, you will see that the general principles of Calvinism are true. Now, of course, Calvinist’s themselves have disagreemetns, and I have no doubt that some things that I hold to are not correct, but what I do believe to be true I adamantly proclaim, and I believe it to be true not because of John Calvin, but because of what the BIble plainly teaches.
Thomas,
If what you wrote is true, its a real shame that God wasn’t sovereign enough to communicate that plainly written truth until 1500 years after the scriptures were done being written.
I am sorry, I do not mean you people to be condescending, if it sounds that way I do apologize. However, I am not certain if you do hold to the fundamentals of the faith.
So perhaps we should start there. What do you consider to be the fundamentals of the faith?
The resurrection.
Also if you want to sound condescending, you might start with insinuating that we aren’t christians and that we have to prove ourselves to a one-off commenter.
Thomas,
Sometimes I can’t see what you are saying as serious…
Does God hate all Jews?
No…
I guess though that you miss that Paul states:
Now did Paul hate the Jews in stating that God put a spirit of stupor on them? Does Paul hate the Jews by stating God has darken their eyes so that the Gentile may come to salvation?
Seriously…
I see you are 19… that explains a lot to me… I am not meaning that as a put down at all. Yet, I am 44 and came to faith at age 16 and have been a student of the bible all these years. I have had major changes in my theology over the years as God has humbled me and shown me grace and mercy in areas I was wrong…
I pray you find Grace… it comes through humility… both are a gift from God… but without humility one cannot receive grace…
It is ever the challenge of the believer to remain humble… even after many years.
iggy
Bo, you act as if people before the time of Luther and Calvin didn’t hold to that. Certainly Roman Catholicism had taken hold, and Luther discovered what the BIble said: That man is justified by faith alone. And that faith is granted by God and His grace and mercy. The truth has always been there in the Bible, but man is responsible for their actions and interpretations, it says that in the Bible as well.
Spoken like a man who lives in the late 20th century or later, since you assume easy access to both the scriptures and literacy.
That sort of interpretation would have been alien to anyone who lived outside of the west and outside of the last 100 years. In other words, the vast majority of Christians who have ever lived.
Bo,
Explain #180
Iggy,
I am glad you see that God doesn’t hate all Jews, but from what you said before it sounded like that. However, the verses you just posted doesn’t really show me much, other than you don’t think God hates all Jews.
//Repentance is a natural outflow in response to the Kindness of God in that he is willing to forgive and save us… if taken as part of a formula for salvation… then it is a work…//
Again, you never addressed that. Above I responded to that, saying I dont believe repentance is a work of man, but it is a part of our salvation, which is granted to us by God. So to say that it isn’t part of salvation is wrong, if that is what you are saying. If you are saying it is a part of salvation, but something that we do naturally after God shows us HIs love and mercy, well then it really would be a work, and that is likewise wrong.
Repentance is a gift of God, granted to us. I am pretty sure that the disciples and apostles understood that, since John the Baptist, Jesus Himself, the disciples and apostles all preached repentance for remission of sins, ans commaded by Jesus Himself at the Great Commision. Obviously they understood that salvation is not by works, yet they taught that man must repent in order to be saved. that is what Jesus Himself taught. Obviously, Jesus can not sin, so He didn’t preach a false gospel. So it is quite evident that repentance and faith is granted to us by God Himself, in fact I can show you verses that even say that if you would like.
Thomas,
I would agree with comment 187, yet it seems I have a much broader understanding of Church history. May I be bold enough to recommend that you audit a course by a Calvinist school
http://www.worldwide-classroom.com/
Any of the history ones are good. Though I had to work past the Calvinist bias, I found overall it was well rounded and informational.
After you listen to the lectures maybe we can talk further.
There is also a good series on Calvin’s institutes there. Though I found that there was a bit of white washing of the person of Calvin… but that was to be expected. Yet I think it will help you better understand you own systematic theology better as it seems that you miss certain nuances of Paul.
Now while not Calvinist I really recommend anything by N.T Wright. Especially his work on Paul’s writings… It will help flesh out Romans a bit more for you.
I hope that you can see that there is a whole world of Christians outside of your understanding of Calvinism… and also be able to extend the Grace to others.
iggy
Bo, I am not ignorant to the fact that prior before Luther, and even for a while after Luther, man did not have access to Bibles. I am aware of how the Catholics dictated to people what to believe and you had to be member of clergy to read the BIble for yourself.
Joe,
I didn’t write #180.
Thomas,
Then why are formulating theology that doesn’t make sense without widespread literacy and easy access to the scriptures?
Thomas…
Again are we saved by a formula or the person of Jesus?
It sounds like you do not even grasp your own theology as far as repentance… from what you are arguing, repentance is part of a formula that saves us… it is not… as I stated, it is a natural outflowing response to what God has done in Christ Jesus… Though some will not respond in faith those that do and “repent” (which is turning from going away from God to turning toward God) they are then on the road to salvation.
Yet I can ‘repent” all day and not be saved… I can confess all my sins I can and still not be saved. So repentance does not save us. Salvation is not the work of repentance but by Grace through faith… the works of repentance that follow the believer are those that one lives as they persevere in the faith and grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ.
To turn repentance, baptism, saying a salvation prayer, going to an alter… all mean nothing unless one comes to the Person of Jesus. Otherwise they are all works and works do not save us.
iggy
Iggy, was it you, or maybe it was someone else, who was just saying that you don’t follow people’s systems of interpretation to understand the BIble, but you simply go to the Bible for the truth? That doesn’t make sense to me that you would then recommend me to go to that website and listen to those people with their biases to learn from the BIble.
But, I will check them out.
Also, I have never said that you had to be a Calvinist to be a Christian. Nope, I don’t believe that, I believe there are many who hold to free will that indeed are Christians, I just believe they actually at heart reject their very own theology and they how it contradicts how they were actually saved.
Nonetheless, free will/arminianism seems to have very detrimental side affects, particularly in regards to the presentation of the true gospel.
The Christian high school that I went to went on a senior trip/missions trip to the Dominican Republic. There we went from village to village playing with the kids for about an hour, then huddling them up and telling them for about four minutes how God loves them, and if you believe that and just repeat this prayer then you will be saved. Sin was barely even discussed, the wrath of God upon them wasn’t even mentioned (for one they probably don’t even believe that God is angry with the unsaved), and they just had the kids, who didnt even speak english, to just say a prayer, asking God to save them.
That’s not the gospel, and these kids were not saved. To make it worse, after the stupid prayer we asked them if they said it and meant it, and of course every kid raised their hands, and then our leaders had the audacity to declare these kids Christians and saved!
That is horrible, and that type of false gospel was evoked from their lack of understanding of Scripture. And that is a sin on the part of the leaders, and on my part for not having the faith and courage to stand up and tell my leaders that what they were doing was wrong and sin. And I feel horrible that I stood by idly and watched as we led hundreds of kids ever closer to the doorsteps of hell.
Spoken with the discernment of a 19 year old. How many years of original language studies do you have? Where can you find the “fundamentals of the faith” listed together in Scripture?
And when Jesus scolded Jerusalem for not repenting and resisting His call He was in effect scolding them for something He did not give them.
As your spiritual journey continues, you will find certain verses interpreted in many different ways. But just to guide you:
World does not mean world
All does not mean all
Everyone does not mean everyone
The Lord that bought them does not mean what it says
The bottom line is do not entertain the notion that the plain and open meaning of Scriptures can be understood as plain and open, it must be molded and massaged to fit into a predetermined systematic theology. Remember that, start a blog, and you are well on your way, grasshopper.
Oh, you’re 19…that explains a lot.
Seriously, I can admire your zeal, but I imagine your theology will change quite a bit in the ten years or so. I know I think a lot differently now then when I was that age.
One thing I would suggest it to a bit more study into the history of the church and see where these different beliefs developed. A major thread in church history has to do with accommodating the way God is described in Scripture with the Greek conception of how a god should be. Calvinism is pretty much the pinnacle of this effort.
It’s also not as if everyone prior to the Reformation was totally lost. Luther sort of took advantage of a growing tide of people realizing there were problems. Actually, Erasmus was a person who planted the seeds of the Reformation. He ended disagreeing mightily with Luther on a number of things, though.
Thomas,
I just got out of treatment for alcoholism. At this point I will not get into any debate with you about essentials.I dont have the energy .I am currently looking for a job.I also see you are 19 and in the cage phase of calvinism.I do not despise you for your youth.You are idealistic in your calvinism right now and there will be no talking to you for a long time .I suggest you humbly take a step back and look at how you speek to others so you can cut this cage phase short.I dont mean to sound condecending because iI have been where you are.
Grace and peace,
Opus
In #180 I forgot to put a “you can ” before convert
//And when Jesus scolded Jerusalem for not repenting and resisting His call He was in effect scolding them for something He did not give them.//
ALright Rick, I heard you were the great refuter of Calvinism, so a 19 year old that has only looked into Calvinism for eight months should be no sweat for you, right?
Apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, people would never want to repent in the first place. Why? Because of our sin natures. So, repentance, faith, it’s all a gift of God, that none of us deserve because of our sinfulness and wickedness. We all deserve to go to hell. I am not deserving of the grace of God and the granting of faith and repentance and the new heart that He has given me.
Do you think that you deserved to have been saved, Rick?
Opus,
In case you did not notice, I did apologize for saying you people. Although I did not mean for that to be condescending, I did say that out of much frustration, and I need to be more patient. However, I do believe it is your Christian responsibility to accept my apology.
You understand very little of true free will theology. Even our free will was a gift from God, and no one can be enlightened to Christ except the Spirit draws him. However, the Spirit draws “all” men according to the unambiguous words of Christ Himself, and, as in the case of Jeresalem, God has granted us the right to say no.
Calvinism in its basic form is nothing more than divine solataire.
Thomas,
Your entire response in #200 is so filled with pre-suppositions and assumptions that its impossible to interact with you in any serious way.
Until you are capable of examining those assumptions you won’t be able to do anything but attack anyone who’s different.
Also, what do you people ( and I say “you people” not to be condescending, but because yall isn’t really a word, and if I simply say “you” a person might take it personally rather than you meaning everyone else that is in disagreement with me) believe the fundamentals of faith are? I think we need to start there if we are going to find some common ground.
Bo,
what presuppostions have I made? I am completely prepared to back up all of my statements with Scripture, and if you look above I have in fact already done so in earlier posts.
But, do you believe that we are deseriving of salvation Bo?
FUNDAMENTALS O THE FAITH
#1 – Avoid the temptation to thoroughly disprove doctrinal terrain that you have already thoroughly disproved.
#2 – Believe the Bible
* Used with permission from the systematic chronicles of the Frueh Institute for Higher Theological Truths
Thomas,
I accept your apology.Thank you.
Grace and peace,
Opus
I’ve already pointed out one to you, the idea that the scriptures are readily available and literacy is widely spread. You’ve already grounded a large part of your theodicy on that assumption alone.
No Seriously, what are the fundamentals of the faith.
I already told you. The resurrection.
Until we discuss the very basic, fundamentals, everything else we say is going to be disagreements, so let’s just go back to the fundamentals.
And I want your complete list of the fundamentals, meaning everything that you think is necesarry, not just one or two of them, unless that is all you think that is necessary.
Bo has no idea what the fundamentals of the faith are, for he is a compromising doctrinal renegade who is out to doom the world with his lies.
Wait a minute, I think I got Bo mixed up with someone else.
Thomas,
Here’s a question for you. When it comes to your list of fundamentals, how many of them use terminology not found in the scriptures?
Things like “total depravity”, or “original sin”.
After you’re done, I have to ask you, do you still believe you’re not dragging all sorts of extra-Biblical assumptions and pre-suppositions?
Is that your list Bo, the resurrection?
Also, I never said that Calvinsim= fundamentals of the faith. Don’t put words in my mouth.
Maybe I should rephrase it: What must a person know/do in order to get saved?
Thomas,
I asked you to do a very simple exercise. It doesn’t have to be online, just do it mentally.
List your fundamentals, then go through them and see how much non-Biblical terminology is used.
“What must a person know/do in order to get saved?”
Call upon the name of the Lord.
“From beginning to end I have been saying that Slice, Apprising, and the other sites DO deal with the heart. That is their chief concern.”
They deal with it differently than I do, I guess.
Bo,
I did it. None.
I don’t how you could even begin to know what the spiritual state of these kids was/is. It seems to take a lot of nerve to assume they’re all false converts.
I have seen people try to drag professions of faith out of people as well, but I do think god can sometime work around this as well. Luckily His grace is bigger than our idiocy.
I also find it odd that you have a problem with people telling people that God loves them. God does love sinners. He’s desperately searching for them. He’s running after them. If there’s not room for that in your theology, than I’m afraid you’re not understanding the Gospel.
I’ve never understood where people get this idea where the Gospel is “God wants to save you has a wonderful plan for your life, but in reality, He wants to kill you”.
And yet somehow you’ve managed to sling bunches of them about in this thread as you’ve attempted to paint everyone who isn’t a calvinist as a damnable heretic.
Which is weird because if those things aren’t fundamentals of the faith then its impossible to be a damnable heretic no matter what we believe concerning them.
Thomas,
Wow, you should become an ODM as you like to twist things I say like pretzels!
To say I do not follow someone else’s interpretation does not mean I do not read and study other views… In fact what I stated was that I do not just accept what is fed to me by other people without further study and looking at how it lines up with the Bible as guided by the Holy Spirit…
So I am not sure where you get that I do not read or study or whatever other people. In fact in that same comment I stated I prefer to read the early church Fathers over 16th century interpretation… Luther had some things write… but he also (for all the talk of Sola Scriptura) did not see James or Hebrews and a few other books as authentic… in fact he called James the
“Epistle of straw” so do I just accept his view? No.
Calvin had many things right, yet when it comes to total depravity, Romans states this:
So how can someone who is already “Totally depraved” be turned over to a depraved mind? If one is totally depraved, then their mind is also… So this verse is really silly in view of Total depravity… Again… if one is already “TOTALLY DEPRAVED” then there is nothing to turn them over to! Yet, Paul, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit writes that God turns these people over to a depraved mind they already have… isn’ t that a bit strange?
As far as Limited Atonement… Calvin realized that if the Atonement (which is actually “propitiation not atonement) is true then that could lead to Universalism… so Calvin invented Limited Atonement… Calvin confused salvation as being at the Cross and not the Resurrection as Paul teaches.
Notice that Paul teaches we are not saved by the death of Jesus (though that is part of salvation) but we are saved by the Live of Christ Jesus. Calvin did not understand this and instead created a view that was contrary to the Bible’s teaching… The bible is clear that the death of Christ which took away the sins of the world as John states in his Gospels and Epistles, was once for all as repeatedly stated in Hebrews and by Paul in Romans 6:10… 1 John states it this way…
So the bible is clear that the sacrifice was sufficient and effective to save all, yet we are not saved by the sacrifice alone but by the Life of Christ as I pointed out.
So though I do not agree, I have taken much time in my life to study out what I do believe and what I see as error taught by other men…
iggy
//you’ve attempted to paint everyone who isn’t a calvinist as a damnable heretic.//
Ah, and where have I done that?
I don’t know what your definition of original sin is, although it sounds like you don’t believe in it, whatever your definition of it may be. That is why I wanted to know what your fundamentals of the faith were.
So, will you please just give me what you believe to be the fundamentals of the faith?
How is it that you managed to do exactly what you said you didn’t do?
Original sin? Where can I find that terminology in teh scriptures?
And why would my belief or disbelief in this variably defined extra-Biblical term trigger your questions about the fundamentals of the faith if you didn’t consider it a fundamental of the faith?
I’m suddenly a bit skeptical of your earlier answer of “none”.
//he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.//
Iggy, do you not see that God was withdrawing His grace from them, and giving them over to what their minds were already like? God has extended grace to all men, even to a degree to the unsaved. The reason that unsaved people aren’t constantly commiting sins and murdering, and the only reason their is peace on earth, is because of the amazing grace of God.
Ephesians also said that God works all things to the counsel of his will, so we could sit here and say “Well how can it be that these people rebelled, yet God works all things to his will?” And truthfully we cant understand that, but that is why God is God and we are man. We may not be able to understand it, yet that is what the Bible teaches. We may not be able to understand the trinity or the fact that Jesus was both 100 percent God and 100 percent man here on earth, yet we accept it because it is what the Bible teaches.
Bo, ever heard of the word doctrine?
That’s in the Bible, and all Scripture is profitable for doctrine.
Just because you don’t see the literal words “original sin” doesn’t mean the Bible teaches it.
I don’t see the words “Bo Diaz” in the Bible either, so be your logic it would seem that Jesus didn’t die for you because the words “Bo Diaz” are not mentioned in the BIble…
Thomas,
As long as we’re clear that as far as you’re concerned the fundamentals of the faith aren’t actually found in the Bible.
//Thomas,
As long as we’re clear that as far as you’re concerned the fundamentals of the faith aren’t actually found in the Bible.//
um, what? I’m saying the opposite of that, I dont know what your talking about.
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect!
Sorry…I couldn’t resist.
Thomas,
What you’re arguing is, is that in order to be an orthodox believer you have to believe in extra-Biblical terminology like “original sin” or “total depravity”.
Of course I suppose you’re going to argue that while the terminology is extra-Biblical they’re built entirely on scripture. Which raises the earlier problem I alluded to. In order for the scriptures to communicate the “fundamentals of the faith” they had to be written, sit around for 1500 years and then finally be interpreted correctly by the Reformers.
Thomas…
The bible does not say that God turned them over to what they already had… it states since the left the knowledge of God… God gave them over to a depraved mind. Again… how does one who is totally depraved get given over to what they already are?
And notice also it states “they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God”? So they had knowledge before and then became depraved.
This is what I mean when one needs to read the bible for what it states as opposed to reading into it something that is not there. It is impossible to become more depraved if one is already totally depraved… and more impossible if totally depraved to one have the knowledge of God and not retain it. It is fallacious logic… Paul would have stated that they never had knowledge of God in the first place thus being already totally depraved God left them as they were.
So if you look at the structure and thought logically, the verse does not mean as you state it does and rubs the Calvinist view in the wrong way… one needs to do a lot of calisthenics to make it mean as you state… but it makes perfect sense if you leave out total depravity and realize that Man can see God in creation and choose to believe in Him, yet chose to worship the creation instead which led to corrupted worship and depravity and because of that, God gave them over to their depravity.
For an exercise try to read it as it is and let it soak in…
As far as understanding for the most part I agree, yet there are some things that are clear and understandable if one allows the Bible to read as it is and not as someone imposes their presupposed belief on it. It is hard to do… it takes practice and I still fail at times… yet if one can do it, the Bible begins to take on more meaning and the Holy Spirit can give more understanding..
iggy
Bo, I am not saying you have to use the same terminology, but have the same concept.
So, maybe I can ask it like this: What are your concepts of…saving faith? What happens when a man becomes a Christian?
According to Calvinism – nothing…
Everything that happens has really already happened because it was decreed since the beginning of time. So the fact that anything “happens” is really a type of illusion.
All of this talk about “what happens when a man becomes a Christian” is just hot-air that we have the luxury of discussing as we sit in our cubicles or bedrooms typing away.
When I became a Christian this is what happened: for the first time in my life I felt like I had stepped outside the box I had been in all my life and could see the sunshine and the beauty of life now that the Lord was a part of it.
A couple weeks after, in my zeal I marched up the street to the local Nation of Islam office and asked to see the “boss”. I had my Bible tucked under my arm (literally). He actually took the time to meet me with another gentleman. I fumbled through a presentation of the gospel and then they proceeded to literally dissect me piece-by-piece as I didn’t know the difference between Joshua and Jonah. But I knew one thing: that Jesus Christ died for me and gave me life.
Needless to say it was an embarrassing day (and I’ve had a few more like it
)
You seem very reasonable and zealous. I also like the fact you hold the Bible in high regard – exemplary for a young man.
Thomas,
Before I answer your question about fundamentals, I’ve got a few for you that don’t require laundry lists:
1) The topic Jesus most preached about was “the kingdom of God/Heaven”. What is this kingdom? Where is it? When is it?
2) What is salvation? When do its effects manifest themselves?
3) What is the purpose of the gospel?
Rick – was the misspelling intentional, or divine intervention?
FYI:
A few of the writers have suggested to me that I could have avoided some misunderstanding (in the original article) had I linked to specific articles at the linked sites, rather than to the entire sites, themselves. I think they are correct. I should have taken the extra 10-20 minutes to pull some of the articles I had in mind, keeping the Frueh Axiom of Nickles and Spittoons, rather than leaving it up to the reader to search out such things on their own.
My apologies for the error.
//The bible does not say that God turned them over to what they already had… it states since the left the knowledge of God… God gave them over to a depraved mind. Again… how does one who is totally depraved get given over to what they already are?//
Of course all of mankind knows God Iggy. There is no such thing as an atheist, only a man in denial of God. Knowing God here obviously does not mean that these people are saved, but merely that they know of the existence of God. Which, even that has been given to us by God, for the only way we know of GOd is through revelation. Either the Bible or the creation.
Now, we can not interpret the Bible in a way that contradicts itself. In Ephesians 1:4-5 Paul says that God has predestined us and chosen us beofre the foundation of the world to be saved. And not merely saved, but holy and blameless. And why? All because of Jesus’ will, to bring praise to His glorious grace.
So, are we responsible for responding to the gospel, and what God has revealed to us? yes. But, can we do that if God does not first enable us? No, because of our sinfulness, as it says in Romans 3. Now, do we choose Him, do we place our faith in Him, and do we repent when we are saved? Yes, absolutely, but that is only because Christ has first led us to Him, and persuaded us to do so.
Romans 9:16 spells it out. “So then, it is not of Him who wills or runs, but of God who shows mercy.”
How much plainer do you need it to be? NOT of him who wills, or strives, but of God who shows mercy.
And verse 18 says God hardens whomever He wants to, and He has mercy and whomever He wants to. It doesnt say, He just let us all be and enabled us on our own to choose Him or reject Him. No, it doesnt say that. It says He reveals the truth to some, and enables them to respond, and on others he hardens.
Thomas….
OK… Then if you want we can go into Calvin’s misunderstanding of predestination.
Look at the scripture you are referencing…
If we take it in the way you understand it… God made some people bad… and then now judges them for that…. and how is that truly Just?
But, now look at what it says.
Notice first off we did not exist before creation…
also, that God chose us in Him… being Jesus… and in Jesus we are adopted as his sons. Note that the predestination is about Jesus and not necessarily about “us” … the eternal plan of God was always Jesus… and us in Him… when one comes to Jesus they are then predestined as Sons… not that also this same thought runs through Romans 8:29…
Notice this about those who love God… and who have been called. To be called means there is to be a willful response to the calling. God does know who will respond and I agree with you on that… yet, the predestination is not about us but about Jesus and that when we answer the call, we then are predestined to conform to the likeness of Christ Jesus.
Predestination is not about God created a group that is saved and another that is created to go to hell… man was not created to go to hell but to be the image of God… So when one comes to Christ they are then predestined to become once again the Image God intended.
To make it about God creating some for glory and some for hell means then God in his eternal plan did not see fit that man, made in God’s own image fit for salvation.
So Calvin’s view of predestination twists the teaching of the bible as far as why God created man and makes a subclass of void images that God creates for no purpose other than to burn in hell. Also it means that Jesus did not need to die as those “predestined” in Calvin’s view are already saved as God created them that way.
This is not biblical.. it is Islam… God made it possible for all mankind to return to their created purpose of being the Image of God through Jesus. The eternal plan was the redemption of fallen man in Christ. Predestination is about Jesus being that plan for man to be redeemed and that man might choose by responding by the gift of faith to the loving kindness God expressed by giving His Son to die for us so we no longer need pay our own wages of sin… being our own death.
Now a person must choose Life in Christ Jesus or to remain in their sin and have eternal death.
iggy
Do you all just sit here and fight all day and night? Get up from your computor and go preach the gospel.
Chad… don’t you see I am trying to lead a Calvinist to Jesus?
Sheeesh!
igs
1) The topic Jesus most preached about was “the kingdom of God/Heaven”. What is this kingdom? Where is it? When is it?
2) What is salvation? When do its effects manifest themselves?
3) What is the purpose of the gospel?
1) The kingdom of God and heaven refers to the rule of God which has been manifested in human history in different forms. It was manifested in the OT towards the Israelites. It is not only a future event but it is going on right now and has been going on.
2) Salvation is the the supernatural act by which God saves man from the power and presence of sin, and ultimately God’s own wrath, and creates a new heart and will for man to desire to do God’s will and to hate sin. This restores fellowship with God and man, and when a saved man dies, he will go to heaven instead of hell, because God has justified and forgived him of his sins.
3) the purpose of the gospel is to make man aware of his sinfulness and wickedness, and that he is under the wrath of God because he has offended a perfect righteous, and holy God. Yet, because of God’s abundant mercy and love, He has extended the gift of salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, who lived a perfect and sinless life, and died for sinners. If man would come to Christ, confessing and repenting of their sins, God will save them. (Of course, the ability to confess and repent is granted by GOd Himself, not a work of man).
The gospel is basically the command of God to inform the unsaved of their enmity with God and their urgent need of a Savior to wash them clean of their wickedness.
So, do you agree with that Chris?
chad, I do indeed talk to people in person about the gospel, and it is a great concern of mine. I also think that it is necessary to understand and, if possible, persuade those who are in error here to the truth of the gospel as well.
Did anyone see Mike Ratliffe’s post about this thread? Talk about a guy with anger and control issues. I find it interesting that the only people who can comment on his blog are those that agree with him.
Mike Ratliff Posts:
Paul and Luanne say Amen
Josh says Amen
Someone disagrees.
Mike calls that person unregenerate
Mike tells that person to read his “deep stuff”
It’s deep all right. Deep as what’s circulating in my barn right now.
Iggy, what you just posted about predestination is laughable.
//when one comes to Jesus they are then predestined as Sons… //
oh really? You can’t be “predestined” to something that you yourself control! That makes no sense whatsoever. God does predestine us to be in Christ, but then He also does not predestine some to be in Christ, I mean, you can dodge Romans 9 all you want, but that’s what it says. And, you even posted Romans 8:30 yourself. Those He predestined, He also called, justified, and glorified.
Foreknew emphasises God’s special choice for his people(Gen 18:19, Jer. 1:5, AMos 3:2). ALso, notice how it is used in this manner in Romans 11:2 and how it is also contrasted with rejection. The Israelites did not “seek God out.” No, GOd came to them, of His own volition.
And you seem to have conveniently disregarded Romans 9:16: “So it is not of him who wills or runs, but on God, who shows mercy.”
I clearly discern that this “Thomas Booher” character is a pawn of the wicked one out to spread division and heresy within the body of true believers here at CRN.Info!
As it is written: ” those of us who are believers must persevere and test ourselves so that we do not join their ranks.” (Chris 3:3)
Begone Mr. Boo-hoo and take your evil doctrines of demons with you! We who are the true believers will never join your ranks, but one day by the power of God Himself you and your ilk will “come and fall down at [our] feet and acknowledge that [He has] loved us!”
We true believers alone have the mind of Christ and we alone are truly saved, unlike you, and Ken Silva, and Chris Rosebrough, and Ingrid Schlueter, and all Calvinists who ever lived, are alive, or ever will live to the praise and glory of God alone!
But don’t despair! It’s not too late even for you, my poor, deceived, misinformed sinful friend because God loves you so much that He sent His Son into the world to die for the sins of everyone who ever lived, is alive, or ever will live and everyone has a chance to make a decision for Jesus and be saved (except all those folks who were already burning in hell before the incarnation but they obviously deserve not having a chance unlike everyone else who lived after the cross, and heard the gospel, and had a chance to decide for themselves).
God will save you if you’ll just say the sinner’s prayer at least once and really, really believe it in your heart. It’s like a burning in the bosom, you’ll know the feeling, trust me.
And don’t worry if you “backslide” or continue in unbroken patterns of sin and rebellion against God’s Word because that is completely normal for the carnal Christian, but you’re still saved no matter what. A tip here is to write the date and time you said the sinners prayer and made a decision for Christ in your Bible so you can remind the devil that you’re a child of God!
That accusing voice when you sin isn’t the Holy Spirit because He would never convict or make you feel bad in that way, it’s the accuser of the brethren the devil trying to steal your joy and confidence in your decision, rebuke that liar in the name of the Lord and he’ll flee from you!
Just hold on tight, and don’t let go, and if you remain faithful to the end you’ll make it to heaven. But even if you don’t remain faithful to the end, even if you deny Christ and curse God as long as you’ve said that prayer you can never finally fall away and you’re safe in the everlasting arms!
I know all this seems hard to believe, but if you have faith as a mustard seed you’ll do just fine because all that matters is that Jesus came to forgive the whole world of their sins (except for the people already in hell) and that includes you, brother!
In real and unfeigned (yet platonic) love,
E.S.
I know I’m late to this but why is predestination a “fundamental” of the faith?
Joe, can I get a link to that?
Nobody said it was Joe.
although if you would like to address Romans 9:16 that would be great, or any of the other passages I have posted.
Link to what? I was asking if this is a fundamental of the faith
Joe,
I just posted this for Mike “Calvinism is the Gospel” Ratliff:
19 times out of 20, he won’t approve comments which are contrary to his narrow set of beliefs, and those he does post, he nearly wets himself over, fretting about ‘persecution’…
Talk about fragile…
iggy said: Now a person must choose Life in Christ Jesus or to remain in their sin and have eternal death.
Now maybe Mr. Thomas Boo-hoo can finally understand and admire the beauty of the unvarnished truth of decisionism!
Can’t you see the blinding beauty of the truth of this fact, Mr. Boo-hoo? Men must decide for Christ or die in their sins (unless they were already burning in hell prior to Christ’s incarnation)!
Let me give you a simple illustration that even a massively deluded Calvinist like you can comprehend.
Consider Noah’s Ark. The Holy Bible, God’s Word, frequently employs “types” of Christ throughout the OT, and Noah’s Ark is one such type.
1 John teaches us that those who have the Son have life, and those who do not have the Son do not have life. In other words those who are IN CHRIST live with Him eternally and those who are not IN CHRIST die in their sins.
The same application can be made with Noah’s Ark. Noah preached the truth for 120 years and everyone in the whole world was free to make a decision and come into the ark and live.
Clearly Noah’s invitation was genuine and everyone alive on planet Earth at that time could have made the decision to enter the Ark, but sadly no one outside Noah’s family chose wisely, instead they all chose poorly, and they were all destroyed. Clearly this wasn’t God’s will, but we can see that man’s free will is sovereign in the final analysis.
Nevertheless the unassailable truth remains that the entire world of humanity could have decided for Noah and entered the Ark, exactly as the whole world can decide for Christ!
So you see Noah’s ark is exactly like Jesus, only different. Everyone who ever existed, exists, or will exist in the whole world has the potential to be saved by Christ (except for all of the people who were already burning in hell prior to His incarnation), but the decision is man’s to make in his sovereign free will and from the wellspring of goodness hidden within his noble heart, his divine spark, his inner-Christ, he can choose wisely.
But we’re persuaded that God will also decide to save some people who have never heard the gospel, yet they live good lives based upon the truth they had.
I’m sure you can agree with us here at CRN.Info now that you’ve seen the light.
Just believe and receive, brother! Let go and let God!
Repeat this prayer: “Jesus, I’m a sinner and I need to be pardoned. I ask you to come into my heart and forgive me of my sins. In Jesus name, Amen.”
If you’ve said that hurry and get your Bible and write down the date and time you made your decision and congratulate yourself brother, because you’re now a true born-again child of God and all the legions of hell can’t change the fact! It’s just that easy!
In generous and orthodox (yet platonic) love,
E.S.
My holy and pious brother Chris L. said: “19 times out of 20, he won’t approve comments which are contrary to his narrow set of beliefs, and those he does post, he nearly wets himself over, fretting about ‘persecution’…
Talk about fragile…”
I praise the Lord that you’re not fragile Chris L. and I’m so very thankful that CRN.Info allows and even encourages divergent opinions and thoughts to see the light of day for open discussion, debate, and edification for the body!
In uncompromising and fundamentalist (yet platonic) love,
E.S.
This reminds me of Dave M’s Calvinist Bible:
Wonderful gems, all…
Chris, why don’t you post the purpose for Mikes blog that you so so much disdain for.
Chris, it seems to me that if you were really concerned about God and doing His will, then you would address what gospel it is that you preach.
So, since you won’t answer what the fundamentals of the faith are, at least tell me what you think the gospel is.
Most anointed and seraphic brother Chris L.,
I just left a comment over at the evildoer Mike Ratliff’s blog commanding him in the name of all that is holy to appear here at CRN.Info before our Tribunal of Truth in order that he may officially be exposed as a member of the Synagogue of Satan!
One by one we’ll find them out my brother, you and I laboring side by side, and they’ll be completely exposed before all of our eyes (metaphorically speaking)!!
Then we’ll force them to make a decision! Either a decision for Christ or a decision for their current master Satan! They must choose this day whom they will serve!
I know I’ve chosen well because I’m a true Christian, unlike Mike Ratliff, Ken Silva, Ingrid Schlueter, Chris Rosebrough and all Calvinists everywhere who are of the Synagogue of Satan!
Yes! Amen and amen! Halleleujah!
In excitable, furtive and wild-eyed (yet platonic) love,
E.S.
Thomas – I was trying to save him the embarrassment of displaying his arrogance and hubris in wider form…
Unless, of course, God isn’t bound by linear, unidirectional time, in which case, God may grant one permission to choose, but also ‘predestine’ the answer, no matter which one is chosen. While this may appear to be a paradox, early Christianity (and Judaism just before it) accepted that both free will and predestination could coexist as a mystery of God. Even today, we can affirm this and understand a little bit more via string theory that these concepts need not be contradictory.
Amen and amen to your holy and righteous quote #252 Chris L!
I perceive that you are indeed a mighty man of God and a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth!
Let us now examine the TRUE manner in which those glorious passages of scripture ought to be understood by every God-fearing, true, born-again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ!
For God so loved everyone who ever lived, is living, or will ever live (except for those who were already burning in hell before the Incarnation), that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever makes a decision in favor of him over burning in hell forever will be saved, period. (John 3:16)
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely have suffer from low self-esteem. And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet to submit to him so that I can watch and see what they might choose to do, because I’m not sure since free will could go either way, but if they mess up I’ll come up with a really good back-up plan, maybe I’ll even take on human form or something similar, anyway I can figure all that out later if they choose badly, after all I have eternity! (Gen 2:16-18)
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of everyone who ever lived, is alive, or will ever live (except for the people who were already burning in hell prior to the Incarnation)! (John 1:29)
Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. (translators note: They had the choice to resist or not resist but they chose badly in this instance, however they could have chosen well, they were just lacking in enough information to choose well or else they were predisposed to bad decision making due to hereditary or environmental factors) (Acts 7:51)
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is a no respecter of persons: that he allows everyone an equal chance to decide for Christ (except for all the people who were already burning in hell prior to the Incarnation), and it’s His true desire that all humanity everywhere and at all times should inviteth Jesus into his heart, and do what he seems best afterward according to his or her own private interpretation of scripture since once they have decided for Christ they are definitely accepted with him forever and ever. (Acts 10:34-35)
This is the gospel, turn or burn.
Speaking truth with superheated turbocharged (yet platonic) love,
E.S.
Thomas!
Holy Cow! You are even denying your own doctrine as well as mine!
The bible states what I said plainly.. and I find it interesting that THIS is the point your argue over!!!
If one is in Christ… they are predestined to be conformed to His Image…
Laughable…
Here is the very scripture that states it as so! In fact you first quoted it!
Really we are getting no where… but if you don’t agree that we are adopted as sons as I stated… then I will not even try to attempt to go into the other things you could have disagreed with that made much more sense!
So yes it is all laughable..
iggy
Ah – I didn’t see that you answered my three questions.
I’m rather surprised you got the first one correct (at least as I and many other ‘non-Reformed’ folks have come to read it). You won’t win any friends in the ADM world with that answer, though.
The second one I would mostly agree with, though I would balance emphasis on the temporal as the eternal, and I would take a more Christus Victor view of the atonement.
Your third one, though, is a rather twisted, complicated, modernist view of the gospel. The focus of the gospel is love, not appeasement of wrath. Your answer, though, is more in the vein of the error of the Sixth Type of Pharisee.
Now to your questions:
What is the gospel? I would just go with Paul’s definition of the gospel:
I would say that this is my basic “fundamental” of the faith, in terms of orthodoxy.
In terms of orthopraxy, I would go with Jesus’ answer:
In terms of process, I would go with Paul’s answer:
As Jesus said, “my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” One need not have a roadmap through a systematic theology or an MDiv to understand the basics of faith.
Chris L. said to Mike Ratliff: But, since you won’t even have the stomach to post this (since it doesn’t agree with your Kool-Aid drinkers), I’ll just leave it at that…
Amen brother! Like you I utterly despise the bottom-feeding lowlife hypocrites who don’t have the stomach to allow comments to appear simply because they don’t agree with the line that’s being toed at that particular blog!
Away with such gutless, spineless, weak-kneed, effeminate, yellow-bellied, cowards!
Such men-in-skirts spiritual sissies deserve nothing but contempt, because they speak from both sides of their mouth!
Such rank hypocrites will rail against a practice, like comment moderation, but then they’ll turn around and do the exact same thing they criticize themselves!
But they know who they are and what they are…they are small-minded and timid and they just can’t take what they so eagerly dish out.
In prison they’re known as “punks”, and on the outside they’re pansies, and in everyplace they’re loathsome and pathetic.
Speaking the truth in love,
E.S.
Comment #258 is spot-on accurate!
In fact I personally know a number of good, practicing Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons who would and do heartily affirm each and every one of those points!
Praise God for his wide mercies!
Heaven looks fuller every minute and I’m more and more persuaded that the devil and his angels will be all alone in the lake of fire apart from the souls of those men and women who died and went to hell prior to Christ’s Incarnation!
The way is indeed broad and wide is the gate, beloved! Praise the Lord!
With a generous, broad and wide (yet platonic) love,
E.S.
Chris, do you believe that any man goes to hell? If so, why?
Thomas Boo-hoo asks yet another ridiculous question with an obvious answer!
Chris, do you believe that any man goes to hell? If so, why?
Of course there are people who “go to hell” and are even in hell at this very moment! All the people who died and went to hell prior to Christ’s Incarnation (because they couldn’t make a decision for Him) are in hell, but this is only because they didn’t have the chance to make a choice for Him and His death on the cross couldn’t pay for their sins because they were already roasting!
What an absurd inquiry! What are they teaching at the Calvinist churches these days? Tiddlywinks?
Slamming the brakes on narrow grace and putting the pedal to the metal for wide open mercy,
E.S.
Good grief. I’m not going into the full hell discussion again.
Yes, I do.
Because their name is not written in the Lamb’s book of life.
When was the Lamb’s book of life written?
(Hint: The answer to my prior question is found in Revelation 13:8)
Rev 13:8 NAS]:
“And all who dwell on the earth will worship him, [the Antichrist, v. 4] every one whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the Book of Life of the Lamb Who has been slain.”
ES – Please see comment #25…
Well Chris, why do you think there name was not written in the book of life? Furthermore, if God isn’t angry with them, and if He is so loving, then why would such a loving God throw anyone into the lake of fire?
Actually, ES – the syntax of the Greek in Rev 13:8 more likely supports “written from the foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain”.
I think your clock might be broken, brother, because some of my comments from yesterday are much older than 12 hours, and a number of my comments tonight have been completely satire-free, and I’ve provided an e-mail adress and weblink…and if the final request you’re making is for me to select a different moniker then I can easily pick one like “iggy”, or “nc” or “chad” if you’d like, but E.S. seems just as good.
Just let me know what I’m missing, bro.
E.S.
Re: 266 how does your revision change the fact that names contained within the book were “written” (past tense) from the foundation of the world?
If the names were written in the book from the foundation of the world and we know from scripture that Jesus is the Lamb of God who was slain from the foundation of the world we have a balanced equation.
The sacrifice is eternal, the gift is eternal, salvation is of the Lord (Eph.), Amen?
Just wondering why it’s my business to figure out who’s going to hell and who’s not? I don’t recall being given the job of separating the wheat from the tares.
The most simplistic answer is that they have not chosen to accept the grace freely offered by Jesus, and have instead chosen to follow their own way. And so, they’re not “going to hell” – they’re already there, and with no change, they’re on track to continue that way on past death.
And you should seriously free up those comments bro, because SOME of your readers are SERIOUSLY gonna get it, even as it makes others angry.
Peace.
Or an equally simplistic answer is that their names weren’t written there because the Author and Creator of life who wrote the names in the book “before the foundation of the world” simply didn’t write them in there.
That’s the whole potter and clay thing…you know, God decides because He’s actually God. Seems simple enough to me, and Biblical to boot!
ES – there’s nothing more than 90 minutes old in queue (and they all fit the description what I told you yesterday would be held), and the ones from yesterday are posted.
Since the observations in Revelation 13 are being written at the time of the end, “written” is, of course, the correct tense. One possible interpretation is that they were written as time unfolded. Another valid interpretation (using your syntax) would be that they were written in the past as future events unfolded.
I’m not interested in “possible interpretations”, I’m interested in the truth, and the truth is what the Bible teaches.
The inspired Apostle certainly codified the revelation he received by “writing it down”, but his epistle isn’t the same thing as The Lamb’s Book of Life, the book is a specific thing he’s writing about.
And the thing he’s writing about that’s in view here – the Lamb’s Book of Life -is claimed to have been written (past tense) before the foundations of the world exactly as Christ is the Lamb of God who was slain before the foundations of the world. Eternal truths are in view in both of these cases and there’s simply no legitimate, Biblical way of slipping around this objective revealed truth, brother.
Grace and peace,
E.S.
Ok, so why do these people not accept the grace freely offered by Jesus? Why is it that they go their own way?
Well, since you note that this is “before the foundation of the world” – what existed before the beginning?
Again, we get to the question of God and time. All of your systematic theology hinges on God being trapped within time, but falls apart like a paper-mache boat if God exists apart from time (i.e. “before the beginning”, as you say). You see – if God exists apart from time, then He has the capability of seeing all possible futures, and exertions of His will in matters only blot out some potential futures while leaving a nearly infinite combination still within His will. He is also not bound by past, present and future. An event can occur (for us) in the future, and He can write about it (for us) in the past, and to Him they are all happening concurrently.
Rather than try to shove God into a man-made box (be it “Calvinism”, “Open Theism”, “Arminianism”, etc.), I’ll just prefer to let God be God and man to be man. Otherwise, the systems will lead to errors in orthopraxy. After all, if Calvinists truly believe what they claim to believe, they’d have no reason to evangelize.
As Rick so correctly and succinctly notes: Calvinism in its basic form is nothing more than divine solataire.
You can choose Calvin, but I’ll choose Christ every time.
Because they were offered grace and they rejected it. God offered, and in their hearts they said “no thanks”.
Thomas Booher,
Did you have any say in being born in the natural? No? Nor I.
According to the Bible does God give anyone the choice of being born, or alternatively not being born? There’s clearly no scriptural support for the existence of such volition, amen?
So why then would men imagine that they should have any choice as to whether or not they are to be born-again, if they hadn’t any choice in being born in the first place?
Why do they complain of one but not the other?
In truth men have precisely as much power to will their second birth as they do their first birth.
Grace and peace,
E.S.
I’m sorry your faith is so small that you insist on certainty in interpretation where none may exist.
Again – the Greek in Rev 13:8 more likely supports “written from the foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain”. This syntax would actually suggest that since the beginning of the world, the book of life has been written as time unfolded.
But (again), even if your translation choices are correct (”before the beginning”), then time is no longer a component that is fixed, and the future and the past co-exist concurrently.
I’m not “slipping around” anything. You’re just locked into a hermeneutical eisegesis, since your system must be true and Scripture must, therefore, fit it.
But why did they say “no thanks” Chris?
I’m sorry – and who’s building their theology out of man-made logic?
Because God allowed them to choose, in the same way He allowed Esther to choose:
Esther had permission to choose to follow God or not. Regardless of her choice, His will would be done.
The Jews in Egypt had a choice of whether to put the blood on their doorposts or not. If they did not, their firstborn would die. The Egyptians could have put the blood on their doorposts, as well, signifying that they were fearers of God, as well, and their firstborn would have lived. God’s response was declared in advance, but the choice was theirs to make…
Heading to bed here.
ES – if you continue actually discussing, I’ll remove you from the mod-list tomorrow morning…
Chris L.,
I’m not talking about Calvin, or systematic theologies, or putting God in a box – you’ve suddenly just brought all that baggage in to muddy the waters which is a poor man’s method of argumentation, brother.
Please don’t change the subject.
You asked what existed before the beginning and we only need to look at the opening of Genesis for your answer, “In the beginning, God”.
You say you want to let God be God and let man be man, and I say AMEN! to that!
The scriptures say that Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God who was slain before the foundations of the world, that’s eternal, that’s outside of time.
The scriptures say that the Lamb’s Book of Life was written before the foundations of the world, that’s also eternal, that’s also outside of time.
Yet even though they are eternal and outside of time the Spirit of God makes it clear that this eternal covenental reality is COMPLETE and is always and everywhere in scripture recorded as PAST TENSE, a finished work.
This is why the Bible can speak of predestination, because God not only knows all realities and contingencies and possibilities, but He as actually ordained them according to His inscrutable and perfect will.
Because God reveals Himself as God Almighty, the omnipotent Potter and He reveals man as the creature, the rebellious clay.
We submit to His revealed truth and His authority and declare the Lord is in the heavens, He does whatsoever He pleases and trust that He works all things to the good of those who love Him, who are the called according to His purposes.
Grace and peace,
E.S.
Do you not realize Chris, that God wrote the Bible so that man could understand? He said things in human terminology?
btw, the greek word for written, “gegraptai”
is the third person singular, perfect indicative passive, which means something that is completed in the past, but has a continuing result. Meaning, the writing of the names in the Lamb’s book of life was completed at that time, and there has been no change, according to my Dad who is a graduate from Westminster theological seminary who has a master of divinity.
Then what does ROmans 9:16 mean Chris? If it is not of us who wills, but of God who shows mercy, how is it that man has a free will?
I’m sorry your faith is so small that you insist on certainty in interpretation where none may exist.
You don’t need to apologize for my weak faith, Chris L., His grace is sufficient for me and in my weakness He is made strong. I’ll make my boast in the Lord and trust in Him, leaning not to my own understanding.
Again – the Greek in Rev 13:8 more likely supports “written from the foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain”. This syntax would actually suggest that since the beginning of the world, the book of life has been written as time unfolded.
But (again), even if your translation choices are correct (”before the beginning”), then time is no longer a component that is fixed, and the future and the past co-exist concurrently.
That’s a fancy imagination you have there, but there’s nothing in scripture to support such a fantasy as you’re proposing. If you want to ignore the obvious use of past, present and future in the scriptures then you’re guilty just as Hymeneus and Philetus whom Paul condemned in 2 Tim for claiming the resurrection had already occurred, overturning the faith of some.
Words actually mean things and God uses His Word to convey actual truth.
I’m not “slipping around” anything. You’re just locked into a hermeneutical eisegesis, since your system must be true and Scripture must, therefore, fit it.
You’ve not demonstrated any eisegesis on my part that’s just a baseless allegation (and more dodging), yet you yourself are guilty of foisting an alternative interpretation on a plain, literal understanding of scripture that has stood and been embraced by Christians for nearly 2,000 years.
But you’re right about one thing, you’re not slipping around anything, because you can’t and the text won’t allow it.
Grace and peace,
E.S.
Emergin Spurgeon,
AMEN! You are right, that is an excellent point. If we did not have any say in our first birth, then why should we think we have any say in being born again?
In fact, if you follow this free will logic, they should be complaining that they didn’t get any say in their first birth. In fact, I guess nobody should go to hell, because we didn’t get to choose whether or not we had a sin nature! I mean, it wasn’t our fault that Adam and Eve sinned, so why should we have to respond to God for salvation for something we didn’t even do?
Chris maybe you should be a universalist…
I’m sorry – and who’s building their theology out of man-made logic?
Man didn’t make logic Chris L., God made logic.
The laws of logic are transcendental and universal and this is true for a reason, because God is a God of reason and He created man to be a creature of reason.
Reason isn’t evil in and of itself, but unregenerate, sinful man’s unsanctified reasoning powers are without exception prone to deify man’s own reason, lifting himself up and making the Infinite Creator and Judge of the universe stand trial in man’s own sinfully corrupted high court of reason.
Of course this is an evil role reversal and this is one of the by-products of the fall. Until the Holy Spirit enlightens him and a sinful man’s soul comes to Christ his reason is darkened and wicked and self-exalting.
When Christ comes sinful man is dethroned and his corrupted reason is sanctified by the Holy Spirit. We know this because we are taught from the scriptures that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and again all the treasures of knowledge are hidden in Christ.
It’s only in His light that men see light, and until then lost sinners are consigned to futility in their minds, but once they are born-again they have the mind of Christ and are able to think God’s thoughts after Him, as His thoughts are revealed in the Holy Bible.
People always and everywhere choose according to their strongest desire, and dead in his trespasses sinful fallen man’s strongest desire is to sin and continue in sin until he is miraculously translated from death unto life by the Holy Spirit after which he desires Christ. This is the new birth.
This is what Jesus and the Apostles and even the OT taught; salvation is of the Lord.
Grace and peace,
E.S.
I read your sixth type of Pharisee as you described me Chris.
So, I guess according to you I am on my way to hell, or as you said, already in hell?
We had no part in our natural birth, however we have a part in our new birth. Even Calvinists believe God gives the elect the faith to believe on Christ . My question is why? Why doesn’t God just regenerate an elect sinner without going through a process that leads to that sinner choosing Christ by faith?
There are indeed many verses that seem to substantiate the Calvinist’s position, however they refuse to admit that there are many more which temper that position with verses and teachings that openly reveal a God given free will and the fallacy of limited atonement.
I am willing to dialogue with anyone, however I find it unbearable and unScriptural to read a 19 year old scold his elders and even suggest they do not believe the Word of God. I have no age limit before I will enter into discourse, I do however have a respect-o-meter which must not be exceeded. That meter has been overworked many times in this thread.
There are many posts that Mike writes that I find excellent, however statements like “The doctrines of grace stand alone above all other forms of Christianity in being completely Biblical” are very unfortunate. And when the first commenter laments that people reject TULIP as a sign of spiritual blindness, well it reveals how some believers view their systematic theology. It is an unhealthy construct that sometimes becomes idolatrous. And this same commenter’sstatement adds to the confusion:
“you think they’d get that and then BEG God to open their eyes and ears so they could see what we are talking about.”
So the spirutually blind are supposed to see that they are blind and ask God to open their eyes? I thought God would do what He wanted, not what you asked Him to do. I guess sovereignty can go just so far.
I openly reject TULIP and therefore I must be spiritually blind. Some don’t play nice with others.
“Arminianism – I mean full blown, wacked out, no holds barred, and just short of universalism Arminianism – is the gospel.”
Rick Frueh circa A.D. 2009
It’s a wonder that anyone can even read the scriptures without your deep understanding of Greek and grammatical syntax. How ridiculous.
As usual, this thread has veered off the course of your post (not your fault) into all sorts of discussion, but your claims that certain people who are pointing out the fallacy of the modern-day, American church are the synagogue of Satan demonstrates the tunnel vision you have developed here. It seems you are now interpreting your Bible in light of your interactions in the blogosphere. I guess this is to be expected.
I just went to SoL: what particular posts, on the home page as of right now, would you relegate to posts from the Evil One? How about on CRN?
They correctly point out the error of some churches promoting Sex Campaigns or Youth Groups assaulting one another with paintball guns. There are some good devotionals. There are some key areas of compromise pointed out as well.
On this post you have missed the mark – it wouldn’t hurt you to retract your statement rather than digging in.
Paul C,
Actually if you look over the many verses concerning the Book of Life, sometimes names are blotted out and some times written in.. so it seems that Chris L has a strong argument….
The scroll existed (figuratively or in reality) and has not been a static book as far as Scripture. The “Righteous” are written in… as Psalms states… yet “no one is righteous” except JEsus as Paul points out and John states that only the Lamb of God was worthy…
Yet, I see that those who are ‘in CHrist” are in “The Book of Life” meaning that it is all about Jesus and those who have found Life in Him.
Really it is not about a book but about who Lives in Jesus and who does not.
The eternal plan was that all would be in Christ Jesus to receive His righteousness and that we would be the righteousness of God in Christ.
iggy
Iggy – you miss my point. The point is that Chris attempts to make something more complex than it is.
More important I think are the questions I ask regarding the posts at SoL and CRN, but since you are not in the habit of remembering wrongs, you’d probably be the wrong person to answer.
Chris L,
I was wondering if you could just keep doing the whole book of Revelation as a study. I am interested in your view on it.
iggy
Paul C,
Actually I think your question is a bit unfair as Chris L address this already and people do state when there is a good post at those sites.
I for one have even stated that Ken Silva has written good articles though they were done many years ago… Ingrid was highlighted at this site when she wrote on adoption… so again, I think you miss the point.
As far as more complicated… Calvin has made many things much more complicated than they really are… and I think that the improper view of predestination has made simple things like the Book of Life more complicated.
So as far as my list it seems that there are some good things there and it is not all bad.
Also, did you note what I wrote in comment 32 here?
Can you find in your heart to extend me the grace you want me to show Ingrid… which I really do! I mean… man… I forgive her and Ken all the time for the rotten things they have stated to and about me…
So forgive me for not being perfect and getting frustrated at times when Ken or Ingrid use Jesus and the bible to attack and abuse others and point that out… I mean… if a child was running in front of a moving car would it be unloving to not try to stop them? If a man came to your door with a gun and I saw it would you not want me to call you to tell you to get out and also call the police? If I warn people of the harm and abuse at these sites how am I unloving? If I point out to them where they overstep the bounds of Christian love toward others who is that unloving?
It is not that complicated at all Paul… really it is not and you are making it much more complicated by stating things that are not true about this site as will as me about it just keep a list of wrongs…
If you want more to add to your list about me just ask I am positive I have much more for you.
peace!
iggy
A better question might be what isn’t a part of the ministry of Satan on SOL and CRN. Virtually every article is an attack on believers. Not to mention a posting of a sermon by Paul Washer, who is the ultimate in works-based preaching.
You’ve got Mike Ratliff posting an article that expository preaching is an essential of the faith (not to mention the outright lies that this article even addressed it at all, that guy couldn’t tell the truth if his life depended on it). This is the same guy that consistently equates the gospel with Calvinism, then when called on it backs off until the next time he posts.
The Apprising Ministries (which astonishingly is a title that has as many lies as words in it) mailbag in which Kenne Silva anathematizes emerging, and evangelical believers and re-cycles lies about Rob Bell and others undermining scripture (no actual evidence is presented mind you, just the assertion).
The “10 marks of a false convert” which have not a single reference to scripture in them (and ironically enough appear on the same page as asccusations of not believing the scriptures, “researcher” slander thyself).
The U2 article is on there, in which the writer somehow links U2 to Rick Warren’s use of the Arabic rendering of the name “Jesus”, no comment on how he got there, it just did. Not to mention some extremely liberal interpreting of a single line of lyrics (I guess they didn’t use “damn” enough for Kenne Silva’s tastes).
I could go on, but really, when their entire ministries are bearing the fruit of Satan its just a matter of reading down the page.
The most repulsive and unattractive and even unchristian character trait is self righteousness. It attacks the fabric of redemption and in fact constructs a format for humanism, not as a follower of Jesus Himself. The “Synagogue of Satan” was hyperbolic, however the point Chris was making was legitimate and all too prevelant in the evangelical blogasphere.
Pride, self righteousness, and hubris all poison the gospel and present a false manifestation of the Risen Christ. Some of the goofy methods around the evangelical churches are…well…goofy, but I sincerely believe that God is most repulsed by any hint of self righteous judgment, even when addressing things that should not be. And in 4 years I have seen this astounding phenomenon:
It is indeed possible to verbally give God all the glory on an altar of self righteousness and call it worship.
MARKS OF A FALSE CONVERT
10. He once had lunch with Rob Bell
9. He likes songs on the overhead projector
8. He rejects TULIP (and daffodils as well)
7. He prays for Miley Cyrus
6. He once had lunch with Chris Lyons
5. He disagrees sometimes with Rick Frueh
4. He likes plexiglass pulpits
3. He forgives Ted Haggard
2. He thinks Iggy is saved
And the number ONE mark of a false conversion???
1. He refuses to make a required spiritual pilgrimage to Geneva.
Rick, I appreciate your comments and agree with them to an extent. However, I would also say that false-humility is equally damning. Because people might be more adept at couching their dislike or even hatred of others behind flowery words, it doesn’t minimize the fact that it is there (and often quite transparent).
To excuse “goofiness” in preference to self-righteousness is understood. However, I think the term “goofy” is generous in referencing some of the things outlined.
You claim self-righteousness shines through, but also does the sad state of affairs in regards to the church and its rather sad attempts to appeal to the world by showing a little leg. I’m not sure how you think these things should be addressed, especially when they are so pervasive. The attempts appear pitifully sad.
Kindly show me a man unaffected by pride and self-righteousness of the blogosphere. Probably won’t find many, especially in this realm, sad to say. Pride is the thing most easily recognizeable in others and detested when we see it, but so little recognized and addressed in our own lives.
Outside of yourself of course.
If nothing else, a tour through the comments of this blog (and others) bear this out.
You are right,Paul. But some are aware of their battle and attempt to have some humility, while others project continually from a throne of self righteousness.
The heart of the law is mercy.
Rick,
Thank God I don’t listen to those who claim they know who is saved and who is not. I trust that Jesus has a handle on my salvation and that the bible is true in what it states as far as my salvation.
I read through the “ten”an only thought how superficial they all are… not to mention that that person was very legalistic by adding many things to salvation that are well outside the realm of “Salvation by grace through faith”… In fact each of these signs seemed to be more in line with Gnosticism as they had more to do with “right believism” as opposed to faith. If you have the “right knowledge” then you are saved… In that we humbly go before God admitting we do not “know” is the act of faith that saves us.
In fact he condemns many Christians who do not even have a bible as they live in countries that it is hard or illegal to have one… he preaches against and for sinless perfection at the same time! Really the list as a shallow as can be.
If I am not saved because of his list… thank God… as I would rather be saved by Grace through Faith than by his rules and laws for salvation.
iggy
Amen Rick. But when we see how hard it is to overcome the sin of pride and self-righteousness ourselves, that should caution us about demanding it in others. As my pastor is fond of saying, “Salvation is one beggar showing another beggar where to find bread.”
Truth must be boldly stood for and spoken up for, not compromised and washed out with diplomacy under the facade of unity.
Right now the emperor has no clothes. His best friend are not the crowds who applaud his new wardrobe, but the young chap who states the truth as it is. I am not trying to insinuate that CRN/SoL are the little boy, but please show me who is declaring our state instead of demanding me plough ahead in folly? They bring up very relevant, though perhaps unpopular items, to be considered. The spirit of how this is done, as we agree, needs to change to reflect more humility, but I prefer a person who calls a spade a spade than a politician who tries to win friends and influence people.
Iggy – It’s humor, my friend, sit back and enjoy!
Rick,
I took it a such from you… I was referring to the original article…
I already know you do not think I am saved!
igs
Paul C,
Trouble is most often as they try to do this they end up calling a spade a shovel… then accusing it of being the cause of death as a shovel is used to dig graves… and whatever point they tried to make was totally lost.
iggy
Paul C,
You’d have a little bit more credibility if you didn’t start from the assumption that things are worse now than they’ve ever been.
A little perusal through the epistles plainly demonstrates this isn’t the case at all. I’ll take churches that are a bit over the top in advertising sermons about Biblical teachings on sex over a church in which mom and son are shacking up together.
If my own intellegence, wisdom, humility, or ability to see truth lead me to make a choice for Christ, then can’t I legitimatly boast in myself?
Any free will theist will believe that our intelligence, wisdom, humility, etc. comes only from God anyway, so He is one who still deserves all the glory. I’ve never understood why Calvinists limit God in the sense that they say He can’t create beings who truly have free will. They are putting God in a box limited by human logic.
Not if your intelligence, wisdom, humility, or ability to see truth is a gift from God. Then you can boast in Him!
Phil put the Vulcan mind meld on me.
FYI
Response to Mike R. on his blog:
___________________
Actually, I DID say this in the post. I quote:
On the other side, we have the ’synagogue of Satan’, those Christians who would mock, slander and persecute brothers in the church by insisting on certain beliefs and actions above and beyond those given by Yeshua and his Apostles. Like the Judaizers of old, they insist on works for the purpose of salvation, or they insist on belief in specific man-made doctrines for inclusion in the kingdom.
Which is why I didn’t do so. I wrote one thing (see above) and you wrote another (The “above and beyond” “beliefs and actions” were referring to things such as expositional preaching over purely “topical” Christless preaching that only adds more tares to their churches.).
I said nothing about teaching orthodoxy vs. teaching orthopraxy (which I happen to believe are more valuable in balance, as evidenced by Jesus’ practice, than at either extreme). And I find it rather hubristic and sanctimonious to seem to think you know whether wheat, tares or a combination of the two are coming into a church. Thus your issues with anything that even resembles biblical ‘discernment’.
___________
We’ll see if it gets posted there… odds on this one are 2-1…
well, the beauty of the story about tares and wheat is that no one can actually tell the difference until harvest.
And God does the harvesting…
So..
anyone who goes beyond the simple acknowledgement that there are tares in the field to the actual “identifying” of the tares…
well….
yikes.
By the way…
Who is Mike R and why should anyone care what he has to say?
Actually, the sixth type of Pharisee was more to be pitied, because their motivation in relating to, and teaching about, God was one of fear. So, they were seen as standing at the doorway to the kingdom on earth, but afraid to walk into it. As with most contemporary Jewish teaching, it was primarily focused on the temporal orthopraxy, leaving the eternal state up to God.
What I quoted is available in the NIV text notes, Paul, and (IMHO) has nothing to do with the topic of salvation. My primary point was that trying to make the Bible into a textbook on the metaphysical nature of time is a foolish thing to do.
1) See comment #237.
2) “The synagogue of Satan” is about action as it springs from belief. None would be “posts from the Evil One”, but some might be of the spirit John was referring to.
3) CRN: Some front-page examples right now: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. (Maybe linking the ones that are NOT examples of such would have been easier).
4) The aptly-abbreviated SoL – here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here… [Noting that this is the first time I've read all of the front page of either of these sites in months. I think I need to take a bath now...]
I’ll see what I can do, Iggy… The first three chapters are pretty easy to get through w/o brushing up against all of the premil/amil/PP/etc. views. I know that continuing on will move us from theology to eschatology, so I’ll need to pray and study a bit to see if I really want to go down that road…
All I can say is Mike Ratliff’s analysis of this article is spot-on.
Yeah, PB – kind of like the “spot on” the carpet, left by my dog the other night…
Mike’s the fragile Calvinism-apologist on staff at CR?N. My favorite Ratliffism is:
There are two views concerning the Gospel of Jesus Christ. First, there is what we call Calvinism. Then, there are varying degrees of unbelief.
#323
or the spot on my kitchen floor where my toddler decided to take a crap after figuring out how to remove the diaper.
#325
Re: the quote.
Well, there’s another candidate for “The Job”…
I love how people end up “preaching another gospel” all in the name of pointing out who is “preaching another gospel”.
Delicious irony.
Chris, you link to the “Synagogue of Satan” that Mike R wrote, the idiots with the paint ball gun, the presentation of a pastor (Chandler) who was spot on, and “Following Christ for Loaves” which is also true.
On SoL, you link to a couple guys with an umbrella jumping off a roof, “Death of the Grown Up” as evidenced by the other videos you link to, the ever popular “Hanky Panky Challenge” that is sweeping the nation, and a guy getting hit in the head with a bag of tampons…
Hmmm…
BTW, I could care less about U2 as I just am not a fan and see no need to address them.
Again Chris, it appears your view has become very narrow when you inaccurately pin a few people as the Synagogue of Satan, completing ignoring there are much more devious things up the sleave of the Adversary than people pointing out where he’s undermining the church.
Didn’t Jesus state that this would happen as a matter of fact? It’s not a matter of opinion, but one of fact. We are not the ones to uproot them, but it appears that Paul, Peter, Jude and John had no qualms about pointing out what they thought were heresies creeping into the church.
Chris L, you reek with arrogance. Just wanted to throw that out there before I began. And to say you pity me as being a sixthy type of pharisee is a lie. I went to your little definition of the sixth type of pharisee, and the verse you had for the sixth type of pharisee, which reads:
Now, I don’t know what kind of bazaar explanation your going to use to explain this one away, although I am sure you will, since you seem to be the kind of guy that twists Scripture to your own destruction, but it sounds to me like that verse says that those pharisees do not enter into heaven themselves. Hmmmm… it also seems that you referred to me as that type of pharisee.
Maybe I am just using my “man-made” pagan logic here, but I deduce that you have just said to me, in your roundabout kind of way, that I am going to hell. Which, by your earlier definition, if you aren’t saved, you are already in hell.
Well Chris, if this is hell that I am in, it sure aint as bad as what the Bible made it out to be…
You say it’s wrong to judge the heart, yet you do it yourself all the time, except you try to soothe your conscience by saying you are only judging actions. Yet Jesus says to judge righteously. Jesus says you will know a Christian by the fruit they bear. So really Chris, go ahead and say that you do not think I am a believer. I mean, at least you would be being honest with yourself, that would be a start.
whoops I messed up the box thingy, it should end after the first paragraph.
To me if PB backs up Mike R it is really funny. It is like the Chinese restaurant that claimed they served chicken but they had seagulls in the freezer (real story about a Chinese restaurant in the Montery Ca. area when we lived there)
iggy
Thomas,
So far in our discussion I do not doubt your sincerity, yet for all your talk about “how to get saved” it does come across that you set up other condition than “Grace through faith”… which includes one must be a Calvinist like you. I read someone say that we are to stand in the door of Heaven and help people come in, yet some seem to stand in the doorway and keep people out. Think about that… is it possible you may do that? One thing I found is that if I hold a doctrine that keeps people from Jesus it may need to be looked at again. Jesus opened the door to all sinners to gain the Kingdom of Heaven… and it was the Pharisee that felt that was not right. This does not mean watering down anything, rather that we have a proper understanding of our doctrines…
I am not accusing you of anything, just hoping you will take time to think about this. I was amazed and still am when I find I am doing this…
iggy
btw does Chris L or Iggy care to address Romans 9:16?
I am no longer amazed at the length people like Mike R will go to justify judging others as Wheat or Tare… even when the bible states leave them alone, he insists on making sure they are pointed out and cast out.
Now, what if a Tare, comes to our church and God changes it into a Wheat. Saul of Tarsus comes to mind.
There is a difference between warning and telling signs of what a Tare looks like… yet there is danger in crossing the line in judging their eternal destiny.
iggy
This pretty much describes those of the ADM variety to the T. I will not say those people aren’t Christians (and neither has Chris), but I do believe they are often doing work that is more associated with Satan’s job description than that of the Father. Satan is the accuser. He is kind of like a spiritual prosecutor who’s job is to catch people in either real or made up charges.
He is throwing these charges at Christians, much like the ADMs do, demanding justice in the strictest sense of the word, but God is saying – “No!” I give them mercy!
Mercy and grace are still scandalous today. We can never forget the scandalous nature of the cross. When we forget that, we start missing the point. That is what the Pharisees did in this particular passage.
For some reason people tend to look at Romans in the exact opposite way it needs to be read. Paul isn’t arguing why God doesn’t need to be merciful to some – he’s arguing why God can be merciful to anyone! Paul is telling the Jewish Christians to get off their high-horse. If God wants to be merciful to Gentiles, then He can do it!
Even if God “hardens” someone is with the hope that hardening will eventually lead to repentance. The person will get so lost and desperate in his sin, that he will eventually cry out for mercy much like the younger son in the Parable of the Prodigal Father. When the son cries out, God is ready and waiting. In fact he runs after him, gives him a ring, a robe, and throws the biggest party anyone has seen. God totally embarrasses Himself. It’s scandalous, once again!
Good response Phil.
I’d also like to point out to TB that the context in Romans is chapters long, not verses long.
Iggy,
Jesus taught repentance for remission of sins. His message was repentance. By your standards, that seems to be works-based salvation, yet I think we can all agree Jesus did not teach that.
To be a Christian, one can not simply “repeat a prayer” or to simply say “God I believe you are real and died for my sins.” It doesn’t matter what we say. In fact, a person can get saved without saying one word.
People are saved through the preaching of the gospel, and Jesus said to preach repentance for remission of sins, that is the gospel.
Now, an unsaved person likely doesn’t even know what repentance means, and certainly if we just go up to them and say “repent,” they are not going to know what they need to repent of, and why it is so urgent.
That is why the gospel includes informing others of their sinfulness, of their wickedness, that is part of the gospel, not an addition. Without that, a person will never come to repentance because they never heard the gospel, and they will never understand their need to repent.
Likewise, you get these people that say how horrible and awful everyone is, and they only tell unbelievers they are sinners just so they can feel good about putting someone else down. They don’t really care about a person’s salvation, they care about looking good and fancying themselves as righteous. They never get around to the good news of the gospel, that Jesus came to wash away the sins of the world, and that if a person confesses and repents of their sins, God will save them. THESE are the people who are like the pharisees.
However, you seem to mistake my motives as well as many others, particularly the calvinists we have discussed, as being people who only wish to talk about hell and damnation and the wrath of God, and only because we calvinists are on our high horses and full of self-righteousness. It seems in your mind, that the moment a person tells someone else that they are sinful and wicked in the sight of God, that we are automatically self-righteous, hateful, and devoid of love for that person.
Yet, the very reason we tell people they are wicked and vile sinners is out of love. It is the same reason Jesus told people they were wicked and vile sinners, and told them to repent or perish in hell. It is because this is the only thing that matters, in the end. The gospel is all that matters. It takes a lot of courage to preach the gospel, to tell someone they are sinners and under the wrath of God, because as soon as you say that you may offend someone and get them very angry. In fact, you could die because of it, and many have.
But, the truth is the gospel is offensive. It is confrontational. It says “You live and sin, and your sinfulness and sinful actions make you worthy of the wrath of God and hellfire. Yet God is a loving and merciful God, and illustrated this by sending His own Son to die for the sins of the world. The Bible says if you repent and put your faith in God, He will save you from your sins. But you can’t save yourself, no matter how good you may think you are.”
Of course, if GOd uses the gospel to convict hearts, He will open their eyes to their sinfulness and need of a Savior, and will place in their hearts conviction of sin and the need to repent. This is not a works based righteousness, this is the gospel that Jesus commanded us to preach. And I and many others who have been slandered on here preach this gospel out of love and a desire to see men saved, not out of hatred or self-rigtheousness or a desire to make others feel horrible or anything like that.
Now, the truth is, to actually perceive that a person may be a tare, and yet to not inform them, would be a real shame. In fact, I believe it is a sin. When Jesus talks about the wheat and tares in the parable, He is saying that we do identify as best as we can, based on good fruit, who is wheat and who is a tare. That is what we are supposed to do. What we are not supposed to do, however, is go on a holy crusade, and murder unbelievers. That is not our job. When the Lord returns, He will gather up the saved, and throw the unsaved into hell.
But it would be very unloving indeed to see someone who is not exemplary of a Christian, and yet, because we ultimately can’t know the heart, only God can, we simply say “oh well, I can’t judge their hearts.” That is true, we can’t judge their hearts. However, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t approach them about their salvation, and the way they are living! If they do not produce good fruit, the BIble says they are not believers. And we are supposed to approach a professing Christian when they are living in sin. Matthew lays out the general formula of going about that. However, if the steps are followed, and that person does not repent of the sin they are in, then the BIble says we should not regard them as Christians.
Likewise, the BIble says that we are to contend for the true faith, and the one true gospel. A true believer can confuse and distort the gospel, I do not deny that. However, a person who claims to be a believer, but based on the fruit of their life is not one, can also present a distorted,twisted gospel. That is why Matthew 7 says “Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven.”
It goes on to say that many will believe they did great works in the name of the Lord, yet they will not be a child of God and they will be cast into hell.
Now, if it were true that people like me, Ken Silva, Ingrid, and the others were saying it is a sin to not have pews in your churches, that would be wrong, and you could rightly make the claim that we are legalistic and prideful. However, that is not what any of us are saying. Rather, we see a fundamental flaw in the presentation of the gospel, and because of this flaw and lack of understanding of the gospel, people go to comfy theater style seats and buildings to accomadate an unbeliever to make it feel more comfortable, and, ultimately, to be shown “love” and kindness and gentleness, in the hopes that somehow being nice to someone else will somehow save their souls from their sinfulness.
And while we certainly should show love to others as Jesus commanded, and to feed the poor and needy and clothe the naked, that is not the gospel. We can do all of that in Jesus’ name, and tell them that we do it because Jesus gave us a love for them, and if they just believe in this loving Jesus they can inherit the kingdom of heaven too. Yet, these people never make Christ their Lord or Savior, but rather a golden measuring stick of morality. And that is what I, Ken, Ingrid, and the rest of us are trying to address. If we omit our sinfulness and repetnance from the gospel, well we no longer have the gospel at all. And in fact, simply “showing love” to others and telling them this is what the gospel is all about, is in fact a works-based righteousness. And that is what my concerns are.
No bizarre explanation (though a bazaar one might lead me somewhere like woot).
Let’s read what I actually wrote in that article:
So, from my article, note that I wrote:
Unlike the previous types of Pharisees, both his belief and practice were correct, but his motivation was out of fear of God.
Also note that the quote (Matt 23:13) is dealing with temporal behavior and the kingdom, not an eternal state. I think you read too much in to make this about one’s eternal destination (which is all grace and all up to God) rather than one’s temporal profession (which is covered by grace, but may be detrimental to the kingdom).
I am making no statement about your eternal destination.
Or, at the very least, per Matt 23:13, you’re unnecessarily making it hell on others…
What to the what? Is judging ‘fruit’ judging the heart or the actions? Taken in literary and historical context, it is the latter. And that’s what I’m attempting to do (though I’m sure I do not always succeed).
You profess to be a believer, so I won’t question that. You do seem to add beliefs (I don’t know about actions) to what is required of one in the kingdom. That is troubling, but every one of us, I am sure, does this to some extent. I don’t know you or what your actions are, so I’m not sure how I can even judge your ‘fruit’ at this point…
When Jesus told people to repent, He was talking to Jews. He was talking to people who were already God’s chosen people. They needed to repent because they knew better. They were in willful disobedience.
However, there is a difference between “getting in” and “staying in” as one of God’s children, to use N.T. Wright’s terminology. To “get in” all that is required is faith. That is why Paul and Silas told the Roman jailer, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved’. Notice, they say nothing about repentance. Repentance is a fruit of belief, not the other way around. Telling a sinner to repent is next meaningless. A sinner must believe and know Christ before he can really repent. As Paul says in Romans, it’s God’s kindness that leads us to repentance.
Sorry Phil – that’s one of the silliest things you’ve ever said. Did this message change at all in Acts when the opportunity to preach to Gentiles arose?
It is completely idiotic to say that repentance is a “work”.
There are a number of places (outside of the jailer) that repentance was spoken about or demonstrated. I am not a person who claims we follow a textbook when it comes to Christ, but it is silly to find ways around repentance because it is a work.
I don’t see how it’s silly. Repentance always begins with God’s people first. An unrepentant Christian demanding a sinner to repent is what is silly.
To the Jews, Jesus preached the Kingdom was at hand, and if they were no careful to repent and start living as God’s people should live, they would miss it.
In Acts, we have Peter explaining to the Jews on the Day of Pentecost how they how missed it, but there was still yet time. Paul then takes the message to the Gentiles. He does tell them to repent, but not until he first explains who Jesus is. Demanding repentance without explaining the love of Christ and allowing Christ to draw people is putting the cart before the horse.
And I’ve never said that repentance isn’t a normative thing for a Christian. All I’m saying is that it isn’t something that is ours to demand. It is something that the Holy Spirit works in the heart of people.
When we demand to see repentance from people all we are doing is feeding our egos in many cases. We need to stick to the simple message of the Gospel that says, “Jesus loves you so much that He died for you – deal with it”. Love is the most powerful force in the universe.
Phil, I am not saying that repentance is a work. And I agree that repentance is a fruit of belief. I am not saying a person on their own repents, but rather, as the Bible says, God grants people the gift of repentance.
But repentance comes from the gospel, and the totality of the gospel, not bits and pieces of it, and twists and fallacies. The true gospel convicts the sinner’s heart of sin, of course this is a work of God not man, and makes the unsaved see his dire need of a Savior to escape judgment and their sins. They also see that they are undeserving of this Savior, yet God, because of His abundant mercy and love, has offered salvation and calls all to repent and believe for salvation. And all that repent and place their faith in Christ will obey. However, as Jesus says at the end of some of His parables, many are called, but few are chosen. Obviously, this shows that those who do repent and place their faith in Christ do so because of God’s mercy as well, not because of man’s will (Romans 9:16).
And one can not have true faith without repenting, and likewise one can not truly repent without placing their faith in Christ. They are nearly interchangeable terms. Because it is not possible to truly put your faith in Christ, and yet still be unrepentant, and likewise one can not truly be repentant yet not have placed their faith in Christ.
In man’s view, in our mind, it is logical that repentance would precede faith, but really I would say they are instantaneous, and all a work of God. We do not repent and place our faith in Christ before we are saved, that is not what I am saying, but what I am saying is the moment of salvation is when God supernaturally works in man’s heart through the preaching of the true gospel to compel man to repent and place their faith in God for salvation from and out of their sins and as Lord of their lives.
Also, Jesus commanded that repentance for remission of sins be preached to all the world in Luke 24:47, “and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to ALL NATIONS, beginning at Jerusalem”
So clearly, repentance for remission of sins is to be preached to everyone. That is what Jesus has commaded us.
Thomas,
Again context is very important. Jesus preached to the Jews BEFORE his death to be baptised for the remission of sins… yet, remission does not mean that sins are taken away, they are just sitting dormant… also this remissional baptism was that of identifying with the Messiah. Now AFTER the death of Jesus there is no longer REMISSION of sins as they died with Jesus on the Cross. Jesus was as John the Baptists said of Him “the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world.”
Also you are still soooo missing my point. I am not saying we should not repent, but to formulate it can make it a work and not the natural outflow of gratitude that we are saved! Also, I think your definition of repentance is more emotional than what the biblical meaning is. When one called others to repent, it was that they turned from their way to anothers way. Actually this was common that one would say to another ‘repent and follow me”. Jesus states this not that one has an emotional response, (though that can happen and is not wrong in itself) but that one turn from their own way, or from the Law and follow Him, the Messiah. Later in Acts, there is the call to “Repent” (and yes Peter states the same words of Jesus yet in the timeline of things Peter had not recieved the full revelation of Jesus yet) Acts 3:19 is a good example of what I am saying.
Again though… I ask you… If someone says a sinners prayer are they then saved? Does the prayer save them or Jesus? If someone is “sorry for their sins” as is the most common definition of repentance, is that enough to save them? Do they not also need the Life of Christ Jesus in them for salvation?
Actually if you read what Paul is stating he state the opposite of what you are saying. Does our preaching save people or does Jesus? If it is our preaching then again it is works and not grace through faith… The Gospel is that Jesus died, was buried and raised again on the third day to give us New Life… you are only preaching half the Gospel if that… the Good News is not that we are sinners, but that we are forgiven sinners who now can have New Life in Christ Jesus.
The bible is clear that the Good News is Jesus is the Christ.
Now we may need to tell someone they are sinning, yet convicting them of their sins is not even our jobs… it is the Holy Spirits.
If you begin to understand some of the basics then we can move on… again that is not a put-down as one grows and learns as time goes on. There is not much that I disagree with that you state above, only that some of the focus is off a bit in your misunderstanding of repentance… and what the gospel is as well as what Jesus taught.
To understand biblical repentance will open a new understanding to a lot of things for you.
Now, try real hard to understand what I am saying before you write another really long rebuttal as you seem to miss what I am saying by a long shot and keep insisting that I am stating things I am not. I do have patience but not the time to keep going over the same thing with you over and over.
iggy
//Demanding repentance without explaining the love of Christ and allowing Christ to draw people is putting the cart before the horse.//
Ah, and nobody is saying to do that Phil. We do tell them of the love of Christ first, of course, but you were saying to omit the preaching of repentance, yet CHrist commands it.
In Luke 13:1-5 Jesus says, and repeats, that unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. He also points out the total depravity of man, saying that no sinner is worse than the other. THe next few verses also point out that a true Christian will bear fruit because they have repented, which is a supernatural work of GOd, and this work of God completely changes man’s desires to do God’s will rather than to sin.
Iggy said: “Now AFTER the death of Jesus there is no longer REMISSION of sins as they died with Jesus on the Cross.”
Jesus said, after not only His death but His resurrection as well in Luke 24:47
“and that repentance and REMISSION of sins should be PREACHED in His name to ALL nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”
Jesus says you are wrong Iggy. I do not say that to be mean, but to inform you.
Thomas,
OK then I am wrong according to you and what you Jesus… yet, again, you are looking at Jesus pre resurrection.
Look up the word remission.
Then study what happened at the Cross… and look up propitiation.
Now the word “remission” is used here but it is not the best word… as the word carries with it the idea that God tolerated our past sins and declared his righteousness to take them away.
Hebrews states our sins are taken away.. not just covered…
Hebrews 10 add more to what I am saying… if it is just a covering then the blood of bulls and goats would have sufficed… but Jesus was and is the High Priest whose blood was the final and fully effective sacrifice… and no other is now needed.
Heb: 10: 3. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4. because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
5. Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; 6. with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased.
7. Then I said, `Here I am–it is written about me in the scroll– I have come to do your will, O God.’”
8. First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them” (although the law required them to be made). 9. Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11. Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
12. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.
13. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14. because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
15. The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: 16. “This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.”
17. Then he adds: “Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.” 18. And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.
Being that Jesus sat down when he was done with his sacrifice… it was totally pleasing to God and no other sacrifice now is needs… God does not remember our sins as they have been taken away.
1 John 3 also states my view…
So if I am wrong as you say then Paul, the writer of Hebrews and John all are at odds with Jesus and you.
Again… I think you need to do more study on the matter before we keep taking…
iggy
//OK then I am wrong according to you and what you Jesus… yet, again, you are looking at Jesus pre resurrection.//
What are you talking about? Luke 24:47 is after Jesus rose from the dead. Before I address anything else you say, you need to clarify what you are saying here.
//Hebrews states our sins are taken away.. not just covered…//
The verse I used, Luke 24:47 says remission, but remission means forgiveness, it could be translated that way. But when you say “our sins are taken away” who are you referring to?
Thomas,
Again… you are not getting what I am saying…
I am not saying someone ought not repent… yet notice Jesus does not say that the sins will be in remission… but forgiven…
So please answer my questions…
1. does saying a prayer mean one is saved?
2. Does feeling sorry for sins mean one is saved?
3. Does being baptised save us?
As I have stated many time to you already repentance is the natural outflow when one responds to the call of God in thankfulness for salvation. It is the turning from sin to walk God’s will.
But it will not save you in and of itself… doing it does not save someone and it can become a work if used improperly. If we use repentance as a bar of soap then one is not trusting in the finished works of Jesus… If one thinks repenting makes them closer to God, they deceive themselves as it is then a work… it is that we come to Jesus (which is repentance) and forsake our own way. It is exchanging our will for God’s will and purpose for us.
Again, if one repents all day, thinking that will save them cause they have gooshy feelings and tossed a few tears, it will not save us… our emotions do not save us… Jesus does…
This does not mean one cannot have emotions and repent… but to use it as a formula… like this…
Though one should respond by repentance… as they should also desire to be baptised… neither of these saves us… Jesus alone saves us.
Does baptism save you? Or does Jesus?
Getting wet does not save us, But being immersed (baptised) into the Body of Christ does save us… That is why Peter states baptism is not the washing dirt from the body:
If baptism is used as a means to salvation it becomes a work… just as misusing repentance can be also.
iggy
//1. does saying a prayer mean one is saved?
2. Does feeling sorry for sins mean one is saved?
3. Does being baptised save us?//
No. Of course not, that is the kind of stuff that I can not stand. words and being baptized have nothing to do with salvation. Feeling sorry for sins is certainly a step in the right direction, but simply feeling sorry for sins is not salvation. Plenty of people for sorry for certain sins that are not saved. Ken and Ingrid would agree here as well.
//Again, if one repents all day, thinking that will save them cause they have gooshy feelings and tossed a few tears, it will not save us… our emotions do not save us… Jesus does… //
I agree with you one hundred percent Iggy! And I am delighted to inform you thant Ken Silva and Ingrid and the rest of us calvinists you have listed all agree with you here.
//it is that we come to Jesus (which is repentance) and forsake our own way. It is exchanging our will for God’s will and purpose for us.//
I do not know if I agree with this. It depends on what you mean by “coming to Jesus.” man can not on their own exchange our will for God’s. Our will doesn’t want God’s will. To give God our wills in order to receive salvation, that would be a works-based salvation just the same as if we tried to repent on our own to be saved.
No, true repentance is brought on by God, and God also changes our wills so that we will choose to serve Him. It is also God who gives us faith.
That’s all very true Iggy, I agree with all of that. But it seems that you think I would disagree with you. I do not, and neither do the rest of the calvinists who have been named on here, or calvinists in general for that matter.
Iggy, whose sins have been taken away? Every single person in the whole world?
Tom,
How do you know what Ken and Ingrid believe? Have you had first person conversations with them?
Thomas,
Calvin would say no, just the Elect… but the bible says this:
I agree with the bible and disagree with Calvin… so I guess that would be your choice as to who to believe.. God at his word… or Calvin’’s word.
iggy
Joe, with Ken I have conversed with him privately. I have not done so with Ingrid, but if you don’t believe me and would like to ask her yourself, then by all means do so.
Well Iggy, I did not ask you what Calvin said.
However, that verse you bring up from 1 John actually appears to be a parallel verse in the context of John 11:50-52:
“nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the WHOLE NATION should perish.” Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad.”
I used to think the same thing about the verse in 1 John Iggy, but then I realized I was wrong, and to assume that whole world really means “every single person that has ever lived in the whole world” is wrong.
But maybe I should ask another question Iggy: Do you believe that every single person in the whole world is forgiven of their sins?
Yeah, Iggy, don’t you know that sometimes “all” means “some”…
Sorry, TB, I’ll stick to the plain meaning of the text rather than jump through all these hoops to make the Bible fit into a nice little systematic theology.
Really, according to you theology, the most I can say to a person I’m talking to is, “Jesus may have died for your sins. It all depends if you’re one of the Elect. If not, hey, too bad. Oh, and by the way, it’s all for the glory of God either way”.
Or as Thomas Beza, who was Calvin’s successor in Geneva, put it:
Hey, you guys have the same initials…
Thomas,
YES! Thomas you are almost getting it!
Yet still missing it!
God initiates salvation and even gives us the gift of faith to turn to Him… yet still what does one do with their faith is still under their own will.
So surrendering ones will for God’s will is what salvation is all about. We exchange the lie of our own will for the truth of God’s will…
Take a look at this presentation and see what I am talking about for the most part as far as the “exchanged life”.
After you have gone through the presentation we can talk more…
Young’s literal translation expresses this idea most clearly…
So man must exchange control of his soul to God for salvation…
Also, if man has not free will, why did God ask for Freewill offerings in the OT? Exodus 35;35; 36:3; Lev 7:16
So the bible seems pretty clear man has a free will as he can give freewill offerings to God even under the OT… so in that we must exchange our free will for God’s will to be saved…
Even Luther states man has a free will though he contended it was corrupt.* Iraenius (who was a direct disciple of John) taught man has a free will.
* Some argue that some misinterpret Luther and believe he taught man has a free will “What he means is that without grace, a man is incapable of doing
good. With grace he can do it.”
Again, about 1 John then what does John mean… he states “whole world” and did not mean it? Did he lie then?
When Paul states the whole world is in bondage to sin, then he really did not mean that also? (Gal 3:22)
Actually in the Greek the word “all” has in it “wrath” that God took away the wrath against the whole world… Yet I am satisfied with “all” meaning “all”… I understand Calvinists cannot handle “all” simply meaning “all” and must contort it to mean “many”, yet I assure you if you go to the Greek with 1 John 2:2 it will mean Jesus took not only my sins and yours away, but the sins of the whole world… so again, it is up to you to decide whether to believe the bible or Calvinism… does all mean all… have “all fallen short the glory of God”? Or if all does not mean “all” then does that mean only some or many have and not all? One needs consistency in reading the bible… if not then they can make it say whatever they want…
I just choose to take it for what it states and believe on it.
iggy
Iggy, there are so many inconsistencies that I could point out that you said. I will go into it tomorrow, but for now I will just say this.
1 John 2:2 does not say “all,” it says “whole world.” You have to make quite an assumption to somehow assume that “whole world” means “every single person in the whole world.” Simply because it says “whole world” does not mean that every single person has the wrath of GOd appeased. Because after all, that is what the word propitiation means. To say that every person in the whole world has been propitiated for would mean you would have to say that God’s wrath is taken away from everyone. Nothing could be further from the truth, for instance, John 3:36 says that if we do not believe in the Son, the wrath of God remains on us. Also, Romans 1:18 and 3:5 comes to mind.
I could say more and I will tomorrow Lord willing. But just think about this: why in John 17:9 does Jesus say
“I pray for them. i do NOT pray for the WORLD but for those whom You habe given Me, for they are Yours.”
Jesus goes on to say that He is not of the world, nor those whom God has given Him.
Ultimately, if every man’s sins have been propitiated for, then everyone would go to heaven. Also, it would be quite odd that Jesus would not pray for the very world which He came to die for. And if God already looks at all of mankind with favor, then what is the big deal? We are all going to heaven anyways if that is the case.
317 – phil
318 – rick
Does God give these gifts to every human, or is His giving limited?
If He does give these gifts to every human, can I boast that those stupid people in hell didn’t use thier gift as wisely as I?
God is no respector of persons and no, we should never revel in ourselves. How and why people end up in hell is best left up to God.
Thomas,
Sorry I am usign the literal translation that uses “all” which in the Greek has in it the understanding of “wrath” so in its meaning the phrase would be like the sacrifice that
Crud…disregard 367 as I hit the submit button before I had a complete thought out! But it is coming soon!
Thomas,
In the literal translation it reads using the word “all” the world and that is what I was using…
It reads rough but here it is:
2. And He an expiation is concerning the sins of us. Not concerning ours and only, but also concerning all the world.
Young’s literal translation is a bit easier…
2. and he — he is a propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world,
Now if all is in the literal and whole is also, I think that they both mean the same thing… also, in the word
1st most translation use “atonement” now which dilutes the power of the passage.. the word propitiation holds the real biblical understanding as atonement means “to cover” and that according the Hebrews is what the OT sacrifices did and why they could not take away sins. Hebrews 10 again covers this.
Jesus was not the atoning sacrifice, but the propitiation… He appeased God’s wrath totally and now we are not just covered but our sins are taken away. Propitiation means:
“to make full payment or to appease completely” and I think that pretty much adds up to whole or all.
The literal translations and the KJV and NKJV, Darby, ERV, Webster’s, use propitiation which to me is even more in line with what you believe as a Calvinist, though I do not limit its application, as I do not equate forgiveness with salvation as Calvin did.
Now as far as the word “whole” which also means “all” in Greek means as I state:
Here is a short section on this… http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2062
It seems clear that in the context of 1 John 2:2 the reference to “the world” falls into line with statements in the Gospel of John like 3:16-17 and 12:46-47. There is some sense in which the propitiatory work of Jesus on the cross (the substitutionary atonement) extends not just to believers but to the entire kovsmo” (kosmos). This is not to say (and the author of the Gospel of John and the Johannine letters would never have said) that the benefit of Jesus’ propitiatory work will accrue to the kovsmo” (kosmos) unless the kovsmo” (kosmos) turns to him and accepts the free gift of life which he offers. But it is offered to the entire world and not to believers only.
So not only is Jesus the Propitiation for believers and nonbelievers but it seems also He is the propitiation for the entire cosmos or “creation” as well.
Again though let’s look at the work “whole world” . Most the time “Kosmos” translated “world” is used of the earth, world system, universe, whole human race… it can refer to unbelievers at times though according to some but the verses they use to back this up seem weak at best. The Jews sometimes referred to the Gentiles as “the world” as they were not accepted by God,
Some will push to say that it is used only about believers in some verses yet again it is a weak argument at best as these verses just read mean what they mean and those people need to do a lot of hoop jumping to make them fit their own theological viewpoint. So I see it is safe to say that Kosmos in this sense means whole human race though I think it can encompass all creation.
Now to me the thrust of the verse is that Jesus is the propitiation… the complete and utter satisfying sacrifice unto God that only pleased Him and turned away his wrath… in that one needs to decide if that propitiation was enough “just for the Elect” or for all people thought they may not accept it for themselves.
Here is a good article that takes on mine and another view point. http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/1John2-2.html
iggy
Before I respond to your entire statement, from what you are saying Iggy, do you believe that all of mankind, even the unsaved, are already forgiven of their sins?
Thomas,
I hold the Universal Atonment view… though like I stated, I see “atonement” as not correctly stating the same as “propitiation”…
Yet, to say all are forgiven is not the same as saying all are saved. I do not equate the two.
iggy
//Yet, to say all are forgiven is not the same as saying all are saved. I do not equate the two.//
Ok, so in your view, you believe that all of mankind is already forgiven, yet not saved?
Thomas,
That is what I see in the bible as I read it so I believe it.
iggy
iggy,
iggy,
Just out of morbid curiosity, based upon your view is it then accurate to say that all the people who are presently in burning in hell were/are forgiven of all of their sins?
The reason I ask is because Jesus said people would die in their sins unless they believed on Him:
I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. (John 8:24)
You even seem to somewhat echo this sentiment when you say “unless the kovsmo (kosmos) turns to him and accepts the free gift of life which he offers.”
It does appear though that in your view of forgiveness there’s at least one “unforgivable” sin which leads to eternal damnation and that’s the sin of the rejection of Jesus as Lord and Savior (i.e. not turning to Him), is this correct?
“But it is offered to the entire world and not to believers only.” Most true Calvinists would heartily agree with you here, certainly for example C.H. Spurgeon would have (and did). In fact only very high and hyper-Calvinists deny that Christ’s offer of the benefits of salvation was a real and true “good faith offer” to all mankind, both elect and non-elect. It’s just that Calvinists believe the “whosoever” that “believe on Him” are and were predestined and predetermined by God alone and are the elect (”the gift of God and not of works lest any man should boast” -Eph 2:8; “not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” – John 1:13; “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.” – John 6:44; and the so-called golden chain of redemption as found in Romans 8:28-31.
I know you interpret these things differently than me and that you’ve undoubtedly heard all these arguments before, but I’m just sayin’…
“Now to me the thrust of the verse is that Jesus is the propitiation… the complete and utter satisfying sacrifice unto God that only pleased Him and turned away his wrath… in that one needs to decide if that propitiation was enough “just for the Elect” or for all people thought they may not accept it for themselves.”
This is simply the point where Calvinists would say Christ’s atonement was sufficient for all humanity but efficient (or effective) for only the elect. You say it’s only efficient or effective for those who turn to Jesus and, of course, Calvinists agree. The question lies in the “turning”: who is responsible for that turning? Who can actually do that turning? It’s ultimately either God who is responsible alone, or man who is responsible alone.
To be honest ig, I don’t see that your position on salvation is very far removed from the vast majority of traditional evangelical Arminian decisionists in the mold of Finney. As I understand it you also have articulated that Christ’s propitionary work “doesn’t accrue” (in other words isn’t credited) to an individual until that individual “turns to him and accepts the free gift of life which he offers.” and you hold that “the turning”, the decision or choice to turn, or not to turn, to accept, or to reject the appropriation of Christ’s good faith offer of eternal life is dependent upon each individual human being’s free will.
Based upon this view it seems correct to me to say that you believe the extent of the atonement (meaning actual and real benefits of justification, atonement and forgiveness resulting in eternal life) is limited in scope only insofar as it is limited by men who either turn willingly to Christ and appropriate His offer or else don’t turn, thereby rejecting and spurning His offer, resulting in eternal damnation.
Have I accurately represented your position as you have articulated it here?
In Christ,
CD
Of course we can’t boast. We all have been given some measure or intellect and wisdom. Some have more and some have less, but to whom much is given much is required. Did the man who was given five talents boast over the one who was given two or one? No, he just chose to go about the work of His master. He understood what he was given was a gift, and that he still owed the master the honor. He understood His master.
In that parable, it was the one who was given one talent who didn’t understand. The ironic thing is that man with one talent represented Israel, or at least a large portion of Israel’s leadership. They were a very small nation, and they were given a little, but they weren’t faithful with what they were given. They did not understand the heart of God. They approached Him out of fear rather than love. So the twist of the story is that it is the Elect who end up with the short end of the stick.
If anyone considers himself part of the Elect at the expense of others, it always puts him in a dangerous position. That is where boasting and pride enter the heart.
“God is no respector of persons and no, we should never revel in ourselves. How and why people end up in hell is best left up to God.”
Rick F.,
As a pastor you must know that how and why people end up in hell IS left to God, because He IS God. Furthermore He (God) has also taken extensive measures to communicate, and has clearly explained, how and why people end up in hell in the Holy Bible. Agreed?
In Christ,
CD
Phil Miller,
Have you made a decision for Jesus? If so, on what basis did you decide?
In Christ,
CD
“And just to add to your doctrinal angst, I find some aspects of open theism very attractive and Biblical.”
Could you share which aspects you’re specifically referring to here, Rick?
In Christ,
CD
I decide to follow or not follow Christ everyday. I decided and choose decide because I have experienced the gracious and undeserved love of Christ that is available to all. Being a Christian is constantly deciding to walk in obedience instead of rebellion. Loving God and loving my neighbor is something I must constantly choose to do through the work of the Holy Spirit.
Sorry, I won’t play your little game beyond that.
CD – now that you’re appropriately identified (and no longer ES), I’ve got you completely off moderation (I think). If you have problems w/ your posts immediately appearing, let me know.
There are still general filter things (certain key words/phrases, too many links, etc.) that may automatically hold up anyone’s comment (I, myself, had one moderated yesterday for too many links), but that should be it, as far as you’re concerned.
What’s really funny about CD being ES is when he went to Mike (I’m an angry man) Ratliffe’s blog and did his spiel, poor Mike almost had a coronary. At the very least, he messed himself. It was amusing to read.
Phil,
It wasn’t “a little game”, and I don’t fancy myself as the foil or enemy of anyone at this site. To be honest I was genuinely interested in your response as I considered it an opportunity for you to share your testimony.
Thank you.
Chris L., thanks brother. Also I’ll admit that I was pleased (but I think it stopped short of sinful pride) when you expressed appreciation for E.S.’s satire earlier in the thread. We can now state conclusively that not all ADM/ODM-sympathizing Calvinists entirely lack a developed sense of humor/irony/satire.
In Him,
CD
P.S. – I also need to admit that I was a bit put off by the fact that DefCon didn’t even make honorable mention in your Synagogue of Satan post.
P.S.S. – Yes, that’s me being facetious.
Joe,
I hadn’t even read Mike’s reply to E.S. until you pointed it out in your comment above. I now realize that I need to drop Mike a quick message to clear up the intent of E.S. which was a fun but simple exercise in reductum ad absurdum.
Thanks for the tip!
‘Til He returns or calls me home,
CD
CD,
The only thing that matters is what one does with Jesus… accept him or reject him.
Did God do this for all mankind or just the Elect. As a Calvinist it is just for the Elect… I am not a Calvinist and so I see the Jesus became sin on the Cross for all mankind and sin died with Jesus on the Cross.
If Christ has no sin in him and sin died on the Cross, a man is forgiven. Yet, we must either accept the forgiveness or not. It is a matter of accepting Jesus and His finished works that saves us.
Now you most likely will ask if this is not a work.
God initiated salvation before creation “in CHrist Jesus”. God did the works in and through Jesus, and in the incarnation, became a man and fulfilled His own righteous requirements and a few other things becoming the propitiation for our sin. God was the Just and the Justifier so that we could be justified (have the debt forgiven) and become Just… as God is Just.
We only respond to the works of God through Jesus for salvation. We cannot add to or take away from what Jesus did.
It all hinges whether you believe Jesus was only able to save the Elect, or that by His death opened the door for all mankind to be saved. If all mankind could not be saved through Jesus then those condemned are not condemned justly as they are only fulfilling their vocation as being created as sub-images of God…
God did not make some in his Image to save them and some in His image yet in some separate class so that he could condemn them… that would be Allah not YHWH.
iggy
Iggy,
You didn’t actually interact with my inquiries, but that’s okay.
“If all mankind could not be saved through Jesus then those condemned are not condemned justly as they are only fulfilling their vocation as being created as sub-images of God…”
Well, we know God is just from the Bible, so whatever He does can’t be unjust, amen?
If all mankind could be saved potentially, yet God knows exactly which of His creations will reject Him and endure unspeakable and eternal torments in hellfire, then why does He create them in the first place, omnisciently knowing beforehand that they’ll choose poorly and condemn themselves?
To me this seems equally as unjust and unloving as the situation presented in your soteriological scheme.
Wherein is the grace and mercy of God in this scenario?
In Christ,
CD
CD,
Sorry, I have my hands full this morning..
As far as the cosmos, Romans 8:21 tells us creation was not put into bondage by it’s own choice… It was subject to bondage by man when he sinned against God. So it is again man’s choice to accept Jesus and be revealed as a Son of God that will liberate creation. In this way God through Jesus has redeemed all creation unto Himself in Christ.
Also even in your own argument if Jesus sacrifice was sufficient for all, then all are forgiven.
The real place of difference is whether forgiveness = salvation… and it does not.
Many seem to think we are saved by the death of Christ… not that is when we died to sin…. it is at the resurrection that one comes to Life in Christ. So one can believe in Jesus and accept “forgiveness” and never receive the Life of CHrist that saves us. It is that we receive the Life of CHrist that we have New Life and as Romans 6:4 states.
So IF you have been united with Jesus in his death, then you should be untied with Jesus in his resurrection. That is the fullness of the Gospel. Yet if one only accepts forgiveness which is given to all people, and not also receive the New Life of the Resurrection they are only forgiven dead men… ask yourself what do dead men need?
Life of course!
If sacrifice for sin was all that was needed the blood of bulls and goats would have been enough, but they could not give Life.
So salvation hinges on receiving Jesus the Person and all he has done… His death, burial and resurrection unto Glory. (1 Cor 15)
Calvin confuses forgiveness with salvation. and the bible as I have shown makes a distiction between the two.
Did the sacrifices of bulls and goats give Life? no… only forgiveness… if Jesus only came and died would we have life? Think about that for a while…
iggy
I liked Emergin’ Spurgeon. I think he should start a blog.
CD,
Yes I agree, so if God did not forgive all men as the bible states the he would not have created some that are just for destruction.
I see Calvin really did not get Romans 9 at all… and most Calvinist stop at verse 18…. though James White is brave enough to go to verse 22, yet if one reads the passage from chapter 8 to chapter 11 one will get the theme that God forsook the Jews so that the Gentile could be saved… and the objects of wrath (the Gentile) became object of mercy, while the objects of mercy (the Jews) became objects of wrath. Paul goes into the idea that he desires the salvation of the Jew right after this passage.
It does not mean that God created some to be damned and some to be saved… God created all mankind to be His Image… and to be in Christ… the idea that God created some for damnation… Outside of Calvinism and his misreading of Romans 9 this idea is not even in the bible!
“Sorry, I have my hands full this morning..”
Me too, ig. I have family visiting from out of town so I’ll be taking my leave from our discussion for a bit.
But with your cooperation I’d like to revisit this subject matter because I still have the sense that we’re talking past each other and I don’t think that’s a very satisfying exchange.
“Did the sacrifices of bulls and goats give Life? no… only forgiveness… if Jesus only came and died would we have life? Think about that for a while…”
I’ll do that.
And I’d likewise ask you to go back again and re-read #375 and #386 and think about that for a while as well.
Also please pray that the Lord might grant an open door to speak His truth in love to my visiting family members as they are professing Christians, but their lives don’t bear the marks or fruit of true Spirit-filled believers.
In Him,
CD
Man does condemn himself as the bible teaches.
Consider this.
Again, it is whether we accept or reject Jesus as sin was dealt with on the Cross… all hinges on accepting or rejecting Jesus…
There is no other sacrifice and no other way to receive life… other than Jesus… reject Jesus and there is no life… and reject his finished works and there is nothing left but wrath… though a man is still forgiven it is the man who chooses forgiveness or wrath… life or death…
forgiveness is a gift, but if I give you a car and you never use it, it is useless. If I offended you, and you forgave me yet I never accepted your forgiveness am I still not forgiven by you? I have just not received it and acted on it… but you have still forgiven me..
So though man is forgiven, if he does not receive Jesus then though Jesus forgave him the forgiveness is wasted… and they cannot receive the Life that is in the Son… so are forgiven dead men… justly condemned by their own choice.
iggy
To anyone,
If you believe that free will is fully free for the unregenerate man and allows for them to choose either heaven or hell –
Does the regenerate man have the same fully freewill that allows him to still choose heaven or hell?
I think the true Arm. says yes – what do you say?
I believe Chad that the point of a true believer is that they exchanged their life for the life of Christ.
Philippians 1:21 expresses this for me.
Also Hebrew 12:9 speaks of this…
I understand the Arminian view and differ from it as I also see that once God starts his work in us, He will finish it.
Again to me it is the exchange of our free will that will only lead us to death, for the Will of God which gives us life.
I do not believe someone can lose their salvation as salvation is by Grace through faith and cannot be earned. If it cannot be earned it cannot be unearned. Or as Paul states, Gal 3:3
So God initiates and sustains and maintain our salvation… and we need only grow in the truth and knowledge of the Grace of Jesus Christ.
If we are the maintainers of our salvation, the we are trying to attain it by human effort…
It is about putting total trust and dependency in Jesus Christ and his finished works… and living out God’s good and perfect will for us.
Philippians 2:12-13 states it this way and sadly most stop half way through the thought with verse 12.
It is God who works in us to will and act according to his good purpose. That is God works out the salvation that is already in us according to His will not our own.
Now do we struggle with the idea we still have a free will after salvation… Of course.. but that is why Paul spends so much time talking about our new identity and being a new creation… it is why Paul expresses that we put on the New Man… It is why Paul expresses we walk in the Spirit of God… it is why Paul expresses we abide in Christ.
We are not our own, we were baught and paid for. (1 Cor 6: 19-20) We are created to do good works in Christ not our own works that lead to nothing. (Ephesians 2:10)
iggy
Iggy, if man’s sins are already forgiven before we put our faith in Him, then why does Jesus say several different times to people that He forgives them AFTER JESUS ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THEY HAVE FAITH IN HIM? I am not shouting that in anger I am just trying to emphasize that part.
For example in Matthew 9, once Jesus sees the faith of the paralytic he THEN says “your sins are forgiven you.”
Also, what about when the rich young ruler comes up to Jesus? The rich young ruler point blank asks Jesus what must he do to inherit eternal life. And notice, Jesus’ response was not to just simply “give Me your will.”
No, Jesus first tells the rich young ruler not to call Him good, because only God is good. Then Jesus says in order to attain eternal life he must keep the commandments. Then after the rich young ruler asks which commandments we are supposed to obey, Jesus lists some of the ten commandments.
The rich young ruler said he had kept them, yet Jesus said that He still must sell what he has and give to the poor, and to also follow Him. Yet the rich young ruler refused because He did not want to give up his riches.
NOtice that nowhere does Jesus say to the rich young ruler that he is already forgiven. It seems to me that if all of mankind was already forgiven, Jesus would have actually told the rich young ruler that.
Futhermore, in Luke 17:3-4 Jesus says to rebuke a sinning brother if he sins against you. After you rebuke them, Jesus says that IF that person repents, THEN forgive him. It would seem to me that if Jesus had truly forgiven everyone already, he wouldn’t be instructing us to make forgiveness conditional upon repentance.
I know you interpret repentance different, but regardless, however you interpret here, Jesus is saying a person must repent before that person is forgiven.
Again, Thomas… you are quoting Jesus BEFORE the Cross…
So when did forgiveness come?
When were your sins forgiven?
Where your sins forgiven at the Cross or only when you came to faith?
iggy
I will also add this thought.
Notice the change before and after the Cross.
Before:
After:
The point is that before the Law, IF you did not forgive all that sin against you, you WILL NOT be forgiven of your sin… as Jesus states elsewhere,
Yet, after the Cross we are exhorted to forgive as Jesus forgave us. Freely…. and with gentleness, mercy and grace.
One is being under the Law and the other is now being under Grace and extending grace to others.
iggy
Thomas,
The point is that if you keep misapplying what Jesus said and pulling it out of context from the Gospels, and take it as you are saying, the if you have forgotten to forgive anyone who has sinned against you… anyone… you will not be forgiven.
But then again, when did your sins get forgiven?
At what point in history were all your sins forgiven?
iggy
I believe that God has granted man the choice to accept His grace or not. While the end result may be heaven or hell is immaterial – God offers grace, but he does not force the recipient to accept it.
I believe He gave Adam a choice in the Garden, and that it was Adam’s choice to sin – and it would have been his choice had he never sinned. I don’t ascribe to the Calvinist theorem which says that Adam was a sucker doomed to fail before he was created.
I don’t follow any theological “system”, so I don’t rightly care what an Arminian/Calvinist/Open Theist would answer. You’ve got my answer, based upon my understanding of the whole of Scripture, and whether or not a systematic theologian of any stripe agrees with me is meaningless.
I believe that God already knows the future, however He he hasn’t orchestrated everything and therefore there are things that happen that He knew would happen but wished they had not. That is my version of open theism.
Chris L,
You obviously have a lot to learn (though you clearly have no desire to) if you really believe what you write:
“I don’t ascribe to the Calvinist theorem which says that Adam was a sucker doomed to fail before he was created.”
It must make you feel real good about yourself to mischaracterize and demean certain things you can’t get your mind around. As you have many times railed against blatant mischaracterization and strawmen, your hypocrisy is particularly notable. Of course when you or someone on your team creates a strawman, it’s excused as either satire or your version of the logical outworking of a belief that you don’t share.
Thomas,
It’s very frustrating to have a conversation with you regarding Scripture because you seem to think that you can pull any verse from any book of the Bible that mentions a word you’re talking about and prove your point. These verse your pulling from the gospels need to be put in their proper eschatological context or else they can be made to say things they were never intended to say.
For example, when Jesus is speaking about judgment to a Jewish audience, he is not talking about a disembodied eternity in hell most of the time. He’s talking about the impending judgment coming to Jerusalem by the hand of the Romans. He’s talking about the destruction of the temple. He’s talking about something that would be near unthinkable to the Jewish people, because the destruction of the temple would to many of them mean God had totally abandoned them again.
So when Jesus is speaking to Jewish listener about the forgiveness of sins prior to the crucifixion, it is to guide them into the knowledge of what the Kingdom of God looks like. It is as if He is holding out a lifeline to the Jews before their religion as they know it becomes completely obsolete. That is what forgiveness looks like for them.
For the Gentiles, though, forgiveness is a bit different. The announcement is that though they may enter into the covenant relationship with God that once only reserved for Jews, but not through the old rite of circumcision and ceremonially following certain steps, but through the work of Jesus on the cross. The thing to realize too is that in near eastern cultures when we are talking about forgiveness we aren’t talking about the payment of a fine or a penalty for the breaking of a law for the most part. We are talking about a restored relationship. We are talking about getting rid of the shame that makes relationship impossible. So Jesus took all that shame upon Himself on the cross, and we do not need to bear it any longer. That is why God’s call for reconciliation is for all people, for all times.
Sorry, that’s not a straw man. I was in the audience when John Piper described the Fall exactly like that, pretty much. He said that God had foreordained Adam’s sin from the foundation of time. It was decreed.
It’s not like there some super-secret code that only Calvinist can read. It’s pretty easy to find out what they believe.
To deny that God gave men a free will is heresy, which means doctrinally wrong. But it is also a fatalistic doctrine since it supposes that God is orchestrating everything, most especially the wills of men, and that God has chosen who will be saved and is now just orchestrating events to bring that to pass.
If that is what I believed, why would I care one whit if someone said differently? Nothing can be changed so why the handwringing? Calvinists are some of the most uptight people I know.
EVD:
Which of the founding Calvinists have you read in entirety? Their writings?
You guys have GOT to be kidding.
Ok, I’ll point one more thing out, then I am going to let my Dad have a go-round with yall.
Acts 2:38
“Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. FOr the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our GOd will call.”
Hmm sounds like God calls to me, not to mention here all doesnt mean all. WOWZA! ANd it’s after Jesus had died and rose again to boot.
oh and Acts 3:19
“REpent therefore and be c onverted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord.”
So we must repent in order to convert, and to have our sins blotted out, so the unsaved are not forgiven prior to conversion.
Ummm….TB, you’re basically proving my point there. Peter is talking to Jews. It’s the day of Pentecost and Jews from all over the world have made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem.
No one is arguing against repentance, but simply the context.
Repent – metanoia – change your mind (about Christ)
WOWZA???
All means all here but not there. Maybe over there, or right here but not there.
All alls are not all at all.
Here is an observation:
Although I do have issues with some of Rob Bell’s teachings or Rick Warren’s pragmatism, I am convinced they both have led a significantly more consistant Christian life than did John Calvin.
Who was it that said faith without works is…well…never mind, works doesn’t really mean works.
Rick Frueh Says:
March 7th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
I believe that God already knows the future, however He he hasn’t orchestrated everything and therefore there are things that happen that He knew would happen but wished they had not. That is my version of open theism.
So then Rick, is it correct to say that in your view of scripture the Triune One True and Living Lord God Omnipotent has unfulfilled wishes/desires and therefore suffers from disappointment?
In Christ,
CD
Yes, the Holy Spirit grieves. If you believe that God desired the world to end up like it did then I would disagree profoundly with that view.
ig,
I’ve prayerfully thought about our prior exchange in the light of scripture.
In particular I reflected upon your position that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross results in the actual forgiveness of all sins for all people, but simultaneously results in the procurement of salvation of no one, and I must say that I find your ideas – while quite novel – to be nothing short of ghastly, appalling, and wholly unbiblical.
First the Bible teaches no such thing as universal forgiveness of sins, instead it teaches the exact opposite which is the universal condemnation of sin.
The thrice holy God of the Bible displayed His unspeakable wrath against sin most pitifully and gloriously by smiting the perfect and sinless Lamb of God slain before the foundations of the world upon the cruel cross of Calvary.
The God of scripture is bound by His absolute purity and holiness, which undergirds all His myriad perfect attributes, to righteously judge sin.
The God of scripture always and everywhere condemns sin, and fallen man is always and everywhere in the Bible shown to be personally responsible for his own sin, and accountable to God for it.
In Christ alone sinners find forgiveness and rest from a constant abiding under God’s holy wrath against sin because all human beings are by nature the children of wrath (Eph 2:3). It’s important here to also note the distinction made between believers and unbelievers by Paul when writing to the church at Ephesus as he affirms that all of us (i.e. born-again, new creatures in Christ) were (past tense) children of wrath. Why would those forgiven of their sins still abide under the wrath of God for their sins? Perhaps you’d say because they hadn’t appropriated that forgiveness by placing their faith in Christ, but then we’re back to Christ’s death securing nothing at all except for the potential salvation of those who place their trust in Him. Here we can easily see that potentially no one would place their faith in Christ and therefore all humanity potentially could have been damned for eternity making Christ’s sacrifice empty and meaningless.
This brings me to my second point. You have forgiven sinners swimming in a lake of eternal fire, suffering punishment for sins that Christ also suffered and died for. What love is this? God punishes His Eternal Son upon a cruel cross, the Son endures unspeakable humiliation and suffering up to and including death for the sins of men and women who will still die not having placed their faith in Christ and then they too will suffer for eternity for the same sins as Christ paid for! Talk about a case of cosmic double-jeopardy!
Surely men must thoroughly disabuse themselves of such a grotesque and monstrous caricature of the God of the Holy Bible!
And this quote brings us full circle:
There is no other sacrifice and no other way to receive life… other than Jesus… reject Jesus and there is no life… and reject his finished works and there is nothing left but wrath… though a man is still forgiven it is the man who chooses forgiveness or wrath… life or death…
forgiveness is a gift, but if I give you a car and you never use it, it is useless. If I offended you, and you forgave me yet I never accepted your forgiveness am I still not forgiven by you? I have just not received it and acted on it… but you have still forgiven me..
So though man is forgiven, if he does not receive Jesus then though Jesus forgave him the forgiveness is wasted… and they cannot receive the Life that is in the Son… so are forgiven dead men… justly condemned by their own choice.
Perhaps this line of reasoning best demonstrates the error before us, salvation by works.
The whole testimony of scripture is to what Christ has done for us – His unworthy sinful creatures – yet here you spin salvation by grace alone through faith alone, the unmerited gift of God to men upon its head and turn the focus to what men do for Christ; deciding for Him, receiving Him, placing our faith in Him, appropriating Him to our hearts, that’s pure works righteousness and it’s flat out, blatant and glaring error. In this you rob God of His glory which is perhaps the vilest and most prideful sin a human being can possibly imagine committing.
And sadly this is where Arminian decisionism always and everywhere leads; a man-centered works righteousness soteriology.
I expect many howls of protest at these truths, but they remain true nonetheless.
Salvation is of the Lord, it’s all of God and all of grace, it is the gift of God lest any man should boast; “not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” – John 1:13; “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.” – John 6:44; and the so-called golden chain of redemption as found in Romans 8:28-31.
So though man is forgiven, if he does not receive Jesus then though Jesus forgave him the forgiveness is wasted… and they cannot receive the Life that is in the Son… so are forgiven dead men… justly condemned by their own choice.
None of Christ’s work upon the cross was wasted in the least. Sinful men can’t lay waste to Jesus Christ’s glorious crucifixion, burial and resurrection!
In fact His sacrifice was fully effective and completely sufficient to objectively and really procure the salvation of all those who were predestined to come to Him by grace alone through faith alone by the calling of the Father, the imputed righteousness of the Son, and the effectual working of the Spirit through the faithful proclamation of the eternal Gospel of grace. These are the means of forgiveness and salvation and the ends are assured by God alone, not by sinful man.
The joy set before Christ was the glory, His glory, which would be revealed in those who He redeemed by His perfect and finished atoning work upon the cross. He could truly proclaim IT IS FINISHED with the full knowledge that redemption was purchased for His bride the church.
The good Shepherd knows His sheep, and the same God who created the universe and calls the stars by name, who spoke all things into existence and who reigns in heaven doing all His pleasure, will absolutely and infallibly sanctify His own people according to the counsel of His own inscrutable will to the praise of His glory alone forever and evermore.
In Christ,
CD
Rick,
I didn’t ask you if the Holy Spirit grieves, please go back and re-read my question and answer it, if you so desire.
In Christ,
CD
Grieves = disappointment
Assuming we agree that the Holy Spirit is part of the “Triune One True and Living Lord God Omnipotent”.
Corum – I do not always agree with your views, however you do have a flair for writing.
405 and 406
Again, Peter is talking to Jews under the Law and this is BEFORE the revelation of Jesus going to the gentiles as well as BEFORE Paul recieved the fuller revelation (the mystery) and gave it to Peter and the other Apostles…
Again, context is so very important… you need to look who, what, where, when, why… to keep context.
iggy
Again, may I remind everyone, go to the epistles, especially “you know who’s” to find foundational theology.
I hope that helps.
CD,
So not you are contradicting yourself as you stated that the sacrifice was sufficient for all… yet just for the elect.
Personally that is really a quite redundant point that Calvin made.
Of course God was saving the Elect… yet if there is not the potential to save all, the God is not just… Yes no matter what God does is Just, yet, God did not just sacrifice His Son for just some but “once for all”.
Again as I asked Thomas… when did your sins get forgiven? At one point in time did God make a provision for all your sins?
Also, if you answer that biblically which I hope you will…
Did Jesus become sin for us on the Cross… do you take that literally?
Now according to the bible, what happened to sin? Who became sin for us… who took our sins away?
Now if you answered the when and the who, it should be obvious that you are wrong in your assessment.
Again when were your sins forgiven?
Who became sin?
Now, did Jesus just forgive all you past sins or all your sins?
Now think about this… did you live at the time of the Cross? So did Jesus die for your past sins, or were all your sins future at that point?
So if your sins were forgiven at the Cross… a past event, and all you sin were in the future from then… were you forgiven then or not? Right now you are saying no… as you are disagreeing with me.
Now if your sins were forgiven at that point… the why would God not have forgiven all sins at that point? And if all sins were forgiven at the Cross, then would that not be universal?
Hebrews is clear that Jesus being the High Priest sat down after giving himself… and there is no other sacrifice… and to think if you answer that you sins were forgiven when you recieved Jesus is to say Jesus then must be sacrificed over and over and over for each person… Hebrews teaches against that.
Also, you miss that this is the point of the New Covenant as the writer of Hebrews stated
So you are stating that my view is ghastly unbiblical yet God himself in his word states this is so… the is the point of the new covenant “Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.”
So again,
1. You say it is sufficient, yet then negate your statement saying that it is ghastly…
2. Jesus died once for all on the Cross for our sins.
3. Jesus became sin, so sin died with Jesus on the Cross.
4. Jesus is not sacrificed over and over for each person
5. All sin was dealt with at the Cross, past, present and future…
6. Since you did not live at the time of Jesus all your sins were future sins to the Cross.
7. All you sins were forgiven at the Cross.
iggy
This is what you said in 369 Iggy.
Then you also said
Nothing left but wrath? But you said that Jesus appeased God’s wrath totally for ALL people… and after all, I thought all always meant all, right?
Also, I will answer your other questions in time Iggy, but I also want to point out that you never directly answered my question about Luke 24:47. This was After Jesus had risen, and He commanded that “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”
Christ commanded that we should preach that, not that we should tell them that they are already forgiven, no He said they needed to repent in order to receive forgiveness.
And notice, it doesnt say just to the Jews, no it says to “all nations.”
And after all, all means all and that’s all all means, right? So clearly this is for both Jew and Gentile, not merely the Jews.
Also Iggy, read Acts 10-11.
Here Peter receives a vision to preach the very same gospel to the gentiles that has been preached to the jews. And Peter does so, going to Cornelius and his household, who are gentiles, not jews, and Peter says to them in Acts 10:43
“To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission (or it could be translated forgiveness) of sins.”
So, the Bible clearly states that man is NOT already forgiven of their sins as you claim, but that we must believe in the Lord in order to be saved. Of course, true belief in Christ is quite clearly denoted as including repenting and placing one’s faith in Christ as Lord and Savior (and of course, as I have said before, repentance and faith is a gift that God sovereignly gives, it is not a human work).
Furthermore, in Acts 11 Peter defends God’s grace that has been given to the gentiles, and he explains the vision that he had received. After he does so, the jews became silent, but then glorified God and said in Acts 11:18
“Then God has also granted to the gentiles repentance to life.”
So obviously, repentance is required for salvation, and as we see, repentance is part of believing in Christ for remission of sins.
So we see that man, Jew or Gentile, is not forgiven of their sins until they repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior.
Thomas,
Yes, though all our sins are forgiven… (and you yet to tell me when that happened) then if one rejects forgiveness then there is nothing but wrath… it is not that hard to understand.
And again you keep saying that I am against repentance! Why do you insist on saying this after I have said at least 3 times if not more in this thread that repentance is part of it, but it is wrong to turn repentance into a work… a condition…
Again, and you seem to not answer this… can someone repent and still not be saved? How is one saved? Is it by our own words or that we place faith in the person of Jesus and profess that?
You seem to be fighting a non fight with me…
1. I agree repentance is needed.
2. We disagree as to repentance can be a work.
3. You seem to be saying one can merely repent and be saved without a relationship (receiving the life of Christ) or that salvation is earned by our repentance.
4. I say we are saved by grace through faith so that it is not our works so no man can boast.
So you are fighting for works and I am fighting for grace through faith….
At least that is all I am getting out of this strange continuing argument that seems to go no where…
Peter does say:
But look at the verse… we still need to receive the gift of forgiveness… and it has to be there already to be recieved… so you negate your own argument agaisnt forgiveness being for all…
Another word that could be used is that of “deliverance” which also shows that we once see ourselves as in bondage to sin, but sin it was dealt with at the Cross we are now delivered from sin and death and are given over to salvation… but again, when we believe we do receive yet to receive something it must already be there.
If I said to you, “receive this $100 bill in my hand” and it was there and you took it… you recieved it. But if I said “receive this $100 bill in my hand” and it was not there, then you would see me as a fool…
To me God gave forgiveness at the Cross through Jesus… it was then all sin was dealt with… and it seems you do not agree with that!?!?!
So if sin was dealt with at the Cross, then sin was forgiven at the Cross! (I can’t even believe I am debating this with two people!)
Otherwise when was sin dealt with? Tell me! Please! I really want to know! When did God deal with sin?
iggy
Thomas also Acts 11:18…
Again, the literal translations states this.
The point is that God changed His attitude about the Gentiles… meaning as I stated in Romans 9 that the Jews once being vessels of mercy became vessels of wrath so that the Gentile, who once were vessels of wrath, could not be vessels of mercy.
This is not about personal repentance… but about God changing his view and saving the Gentile.
iggy
Iggy,
This is Thomas’s Dad. It seems that you believe that forgiveness was granted at the time of Christ’s death, that is, at the time Christ made the atonement for our sins, God also, at the same time forgave us our sins.
This is what I understand you to believe. If I am wrong, please correct me. If this is what you believe, then seriously consider the following:
The Bible nowhere teaches this (that forgiveness was granted to all coincidentally with the atonement). It does teach of an atonement that satisfies God’s justice against us (because of our sin), but it never says or even implies that at the same time, he grants forgiveness of those sins.
Show me how one can draw the conclusion from the following scripture references, that forgiveness has already been granted coincidentally with the atonement.
Acts.10.43 To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.
(The implication is that only to those who believe, receive the forgiveness. One would have to appeal to other scripture that explicity instructs otherwise.)
Acts.26.17, 18 I will deliver you [Paul] from the Jewish people, as well as from the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.
(Forgiveness is received by Jew and Gentile alike, not before the gospel is preached to them but after, and if so, cannot be coincidental with the atonement.)
If you believe that forgiveness has already been granted to all, coincidental with the atonment, you are in error. If this is what you preach and teach, you are proclaiming a false gospel, and giving false hope. One who hears such a gospel can easily assume that since he is already forgiven, all is well, he is no longer under God’s condemnation, he can do whatever he wants, there are no cosequences. If you follow the logic of this gospel, it leads to universal salvation. This is a false gospel. I am warning you, on the authority of the Word of God, those who proclaim a false gospel are accursed, Gal 1:6-9.
Does that anger you? Sorry, but what you are proclaiming is a lie, your logic is twisted (II Peter 3:16).
Comment #412
Open theism teaches that God is open to change through the prayers, decisions, and actions of people. Of course, that is classic Arminianism, however what sets open theism apart is the teaching that God does not know all things. The open theist cannot see that God can still know all things and yet be open to change.
Not only is that consistant with Scripture, but it is completely in concert with the mystery of divinity. But I still do not see why people get all upset about that theology except if you are a Calvinist and it trips your “I have to defend my anti-free will” guidewire.
In the end which cardinal doctrine of the faith does it abrogate, or which part of the true gospel does it change? It’s really not a bid deal (yawn) except it goes against the Calvinist grain, which really may not be bad at all!
Yanking the Calvinist chain is just tooooo easy, they are so thin skinned. I know many Calvinists here in Florida, one a very close friend, and none of them seem to be up on the high wire about everything. Hey guys, if you’re right it’ll all work out, relax.
The Calvinist believes that God hasn’t given man a free will or a deep intellect, and I am the irrefutable proof that exposes the error in that theology.
Calvinism is a theology of fear, supposing that God cannothandle things if He were to give His creation a will of their own since it would lead to chaos outside His control.
Arminianism stands head and shoulders above that finite view of Almighty God, suggesting that the Sovereign is infinitely able to blanket all craetion and all time in a colossal mystery of His power and love and is not intimidated by allowing man a free will. And in the end, this too will echo throughtout eternity to God’s glory.
People from all doctrinal perspectives sometimes latch onto some aspect of their view and instead of treating it like a communal contribution to the overall ecclesiastical journey of faith, they have made it a doctrinal talisman that wards off evil spirits.
BTW – I watched this at CRN and it is so simplistic and operates fully upon their own presuppositions. I remain amazed how everything seems to funnel back into a discussion of free will.
So two open theists make a video that is essentially a two man – back and forth – “you are so right” teaching and post it on their blog as a counter and what do you have now?
Blah, blah, blah.
Rick: “You are so right!”
Rick: “Thank you, so are you!”
I now consider myself on the cutting edge of Christian thought. Two days ago I mentioned open theism on this thread and the last two posts on CRN deal wth open theism. What will I come up with next?
Tom and Tom’s Dad,
Do you believe Hell is full of people who’s sin has been paid for?
Joe,
Sounds like the same question I asked… yet I suppose that they, being Calvinist, would say….”no”.
iggy
Actually that IS open theism. That God knows every single possibility and how to respond to it. He just leaves the direction and choice up to us.
Now I am not entirely sold on Open Theism, yet if you listen to Gregory Boyd there is some really strong biblical teaching coming from him… so to me if an ministry is based on error, then there should be error running through the ministry on other levels… Schuler and Pike for example… or the Prosperity Gospel proponents… all start in error and error is found through out their teachings. In these error based ministries one may find a kernel of truth here and there (I think we do need a positive attitude) yet for the most part the truth is watered down.
Yet, if you listen to Woodland Hills Church Podcast you will find that it is very sound and biblical based and the truth is not watered down at all. Actually, Rick, I think you would really like Boyd’s teaching.
iggy
Tom’s Dad,
How do explain away these verses:
If Christ reconciled all things to himself on the cross, it seems that all the work on God’s part is done. It is up to us to live in that reality or not. It is sort of like if there is a peace treaty signed during a war, but some of the soldiers continue to fight because they do not know about the treaty. By fighting, they may end up getting themselves killed, but in reality they have no need to fight any more.
Hell is a prison which the prisoner holds his own key to a large extent. Our job as Christians is to proclaim the captives are set free. In essence it is tell them that their war with God is over from God’s perspective. Reconciliation is available.
I think why this grates on people is that we have made salvation so much about going to heaven and avoiding hell, that we have neglected the more important aspect of salvation which is that God wants to be in relationship with us. It’s interesting in Matthew 7, when Jesus is describing the judgment on the last day, He says of the ones He tells to depart that He never knew them. Isn’t it odd that He doesn’t say they never knew Him? How can God not know someone? The answer is that people have to let themselves be known of God. They have to be in relationship with Him.
The love of God is like a fire. Fire can be both good and bad depending on the situation. To a cold hiker, it can be warmth and light. But to a person trapped in a burning building, it can be deadly. That kind of how I envision the love of God. Those who truly know Him want to get closer. Those who don’t will run away and hide. Our job as Christians is to reveal the true nature of God’s love to people and trust that the Holy Spirit will draw people to God. People then can respond or ignore this call, but it does seem God is very persistent in calling people.
We need to publish a book of Frueh-isms.
Maybe call it Frueh-dian Slips…
Chris – The “sola” catch was yours, it was unintentional but fits just nicely. You get credit. I want to add to the other Fruehism:
Attention All: All alls are not all at all.
Better.
Phil,
That is part of the reason I am not a Calvinist… I keep hearing that it is all about “me” being “elect” when salvation is about glorifying God… I see that it is more about us being IN CHRIST instead. The emphasis is not about me but about Him.
iggy
Phil and Iggy,
As a Calvinist, I don’t quite see myself in what you guys are saying that Calvinists believe. We usually don’t go around inspecting everyone to see if they are elect – we usually seem concerned with just preaching absolute, Biblical truth and leaving it to the Spirit of God to do the work of salvation.
After conversion, we usually tend to think of believers as being in Christ (read the devotional writings of the Puritans especially for proof of this, or even dudes like the Antichrist aka John Piper LOL). If I am not mistaken, two of the Reformer’s Big Five Slogans was “solus Christus” and “soli Deo gloria” – Christ alone and all glory to God alone. If I have it, Biblical Calvinism is truly not about us, it’s ultimately about God.
K,
Here’s the thing… if one spends time with other Calvinists the I suppose not much “fruit” inspection goes around… I mean you are all the “Elect” so why would you judge someone else’s fruit.
But not being a Calvinist I am judged often by them… Funny I about the same amount of issues with Arminians yet they do not come to my blog or whatever and condemn me, even when I preach that one cannot lose their salvation.
In fact, I can’t remember the last Arminian that even judged me or condemned me! I will say I have run into one or two in my life but as far as the volume of Calvinists that have done so to me… they seem to multiply daily as they come and tell me that I am not saved.
BTW it is easily at least once a week… maybe more that some Calvinist tells me how I am not saved… and let me tell you all about the LOVE that comes with it!
iggy
Thomas’s Dad,
With all due respect you are totally wrong.
Rom 3:22-26 is clear that not only were we forgiven, but justified at the time of the Cross.
One cannot be justified if they have not been forgiven… In order to be forgiven, one must be justified.
Let me explain it…
To be justified is to have our debt of sin balanced out… if you look at accounting to justify something, is to make it right.
So when were we justified? According to these verses it was freely done at the Cross.
Romans 5:8-13 goes into deeper depth.
8. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! 10. For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11. Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
12. Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned– 13. for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
Notice these things.
1. When Paul speaks of reconciliation it is past tense. We “have been justified” when? WHen Jesus spilled his blood…. as it stated, “now been justified by his blood.”
2. Notice also that it was “when we were still God’s enemy, , we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son” Now, when did Jesus die… according to you we were not reconciled at the Cross, but the Cross is when Jesus died and according to this verse is when we were reconciled.
So what is “reconciled“?…. again, like justification, it is an accounting term. God reconciled his ENEMIES at the Cross…
Here the Bible is clearly saying God does not see us as enemies, but has reconciled even his enemies to himself… having forgave their debt of sin… when? At the Cross.
So again… this is what the bible states… and if I am wrong… so be it. But so far I agree with the bible and see that what you are stating as totally unbiblical and unfounded in Scripture.
iggy
Iggy,
First off, you assume I don’t hang around non-Calvinists. Considering I attend a Pentecostal church and serve as a projectionist and typist, I can safely say I am the ONLY Calvinist in the building, come Sunday morning
. I consider non-Calvinists to be saved – TULIP for me, unlike the good Pastor Spurgron, doesn’t equate to the Gospel – though I’d disagree with them on points.
I can only apologise for the behaviour of Internet Calvinists – I know they can be real trolls, annoying nit-pickers and generally aren’t satisfied unless you rock a KJV, wear dark suits and ties and generally say yes to everything the Westminster Confession of Faith says (by distinction, I’m an ex-rapper who wears collared shirts and jeans to church, owns several ESV and more or less am a Reformed Baptist than Presbyterian – not that it matters to me. Being a Christian is more important of course).
I would go so far, though, as to judge the tree by the bad apples. If I did that with some of the “Arminians” I have the [dis]pleasure of disagreeing with, I’d condemn the bunch to hell. But the fact remains, while we live in a human body, frought with sin and pride, we will pollute any good thing we lay our hands, devoid of God’s grace
Chris: On the other side, we have the ’synagogue of Satan’, those Christians who would mock, slander and persecute brothers in the church by insisting on certain beliefs and actions above and beyond those given by Yeshua and his Apostles. Like the Judaizers of old, they insist on works for the purpose of salvation, or they insist on belief in specific man-made doctrines for inclusion in the kingdom. They try to close the door opened by Christ, the open door that no one can shut. Paul calls them out in 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 …
RA: TY TY TY TY TY. Don’t Believe Everything You Read…On the Internet
R. Abanes
This just posted on the RAPTURE READY forums:
“Anyone who supports Obama does not worship the same God I do. Not IMHO. No way no how.”
Sounds like a condition for salvation to me.
Richard Abanes
Jim: This is not to defend Pastor Ken Silva, Ingrid Schlueter, Deborah Dombrowski or others. These Christians are contending for The Faith. They need no defense.
RA: With all due respect, as one who actually does contend for the faith, these persons are not doing the work of apologetics, discernment, or contending for (i.e., defending) the the faith. IMHO, they are witch-hunting, choosing targets of opportunity for attacks, and dividing the church UNDER THE GUISE of defending the faith. That is something altogether different than actually being in a legitimate ministry of apologetics/discernment.
___________
Douglas: I’m 18 and probably haven’t lived, but c’mon, labelling folks like Silva and Schlueter as the synagogue of Satan is a bit of a cheapshot.
RA: There is a legitimate argument that can be made here for that label since these people, as the days move forward, are being increasingly more vocal about kicking out of the church anyone/everyone who DOES NOT meet their conditions of TRUE salvation, TRUE Christian faith, and TRUE biblical ways of running a church (including the appropriate ways of preaching). This is dangerously close to actually adding to the pure Gospel of grace based on simple faith in Christ.
____________
Thomas: What works for salvation are these people insisting on, Chris? Who is saying you must hold to certain manmade doctrines for inclusion into the kingdom, and what are these doctrines?
RA: I have been accused, on more than one occasion, of NOT being a Christian and in need of accepting the REAL Jesus. Why? Because I refuse to call Rick Warren a heretic/apostate. And now we have Ingrid Schlueter not liking the way certain pastors preach, and so she is labeling them clown pastors and fake churches! Why? Because of some doctrinally false teachings about Jesus, salvation, the Trinity? NO. Because they dare to use illustrations and techniques she doesn’t like. Doctrinal assessment, which are biblical, have gone out the window. Just about anything can be used to point the accusatory finger and label someone a false preacher, deceiver, heretic, New Ager, anti-Christ pawn, or member of a fake church.
Richard Abanes
RA,
Your hatred for your Christian brothers and sisters by calling them a part of the synagogue of Satan demonstrates that according to 1John 4 that you have no love for the brethren, which is a fruit or evidence that one is a Christian.
Some apologist. Rick Warren syncophat, more like
This is ridiculous coming from you. You spew hatred and lies, and murder with your mouth on a regular basis, even regularly declaring who is and isn’t a Christian. Far more so than Abanes ever does. Pull the forest of planks out of your eye first.
What in God’s name does Abanes know about doctrinal assessment?
1. You cannot divide the church/ Body of Christ. No one can.
2. You cannot “kick anyone out” of the church either.
3. You must have another one of your process cheese books to sell which would explain your emergence from the ooze.
I regularly read Silva and Schlueter. Everything I’ve seen from them cites biblical references.
It would seem that a lot of the guys you associate with Mr. Abanes seek to make the Gospel seem like this lighthearted and merry event.
Yes, we should have great joy in the sacrifice Jesus made for us. But it’s serious business. If people don’t believe in Jesus and repent of their sins, they will go to Hell. No bones about it. That side of the Gospel doesn’t seem so lighthearted and happy.
“Synagogue of Satan” is stooping low.
this is not about spit balling at each other about personal preferences, or personalities. what’s at stake are the very fundamentals that comprise and preserve the christian faith, which this new paradigm of the purpose driven, “seeker sensitive”, felt needs apeasing movement are chipping away at, blending the world with the church, and vice versa. this is not taught in the bible as the means of conversion or evangelism that either JESUS or his disciples engaged in, noe is it found in the epistles to the church, barring the perverted, scripture twisting and multi-paraphrase proof texting rick warren and others use today to try to promote a market concept to bait and switch people into the church. it’s an interesting idea mr. abanes suggests to describe the handful of faithful ministries who are still trying to preserve the faith once for all delivered to the saints, alluding to the cult concept. that’s exactly how i perceive the masses of biblically ignorant lemmings who are following their christian pied piper of purpose over the cliff of blindness into the compromised, laodicean vaccum of god’s word, that is characterizing the majority of congregants today. if there’s an appropriate analogy of a cult following, it would more accurately describe the preponderance of those grasping at every wind of doctrine, just because it’s the new popular fad or gimmick the latest inventive, enterprising business minded pastor can make merchandise of people’s souls with. most of what we are told are the most effective means being touted today as evengelical methodology, bears very little resmblance to the new testament model given by god’s holy word as the church began, and was spiritually perpetuated, rightly left to us as a representation of what god wanted done, and how. we were’nt given the license to alter that in the name of appeasing the felt needs of unrepentant sinners who won’t draw near to god unless they are inticed by the promise of creature comforts, or the lack of god sent conviction…cult, indeed.
RA,
That is disgusting. I know you and Ken have had your run-ins in the past, but to dignify calling him part of the “synagogue of Satan” is wrong. Sometimes I have to wonder how people who make a song and dance about the way of Jesus fail to live it!
Oh, and namecalling is a kid’s game – either when it is done by the “ADMs/ODMs” or on this blog. Real men deal rationally with sharp disagreements – not throw around names, Mr Abanes.
Whatever happened to 70×7 forgiveness – or is that a relic of “Sola Scriptura” which we can dispense with?
American Christianity, for the most part, is no Christianity at all.
We need to quit fooling ourselves and get back into the book. That book is the Bible.
We need to use realize the Bible is what we need, according to 2 Timothy 3:16
instead of what we see here in this article, and on a regular basis on other sites like it (see Online Discernment Mafia, Word of Mouth Ministries, and Comments here) 2 Peter 3:16
Pastorboy: Your hatred for your Christian brothers and sisters by calling them a part of the synagogue of Satan demonstrates that ….
RA: As is usually the case for ODMs (and their devotees), you’ve once again used the stand-by tactic of:
1. putting words in someone else’s mouth, which in turn enables you to attribute to them a belief/position that in reality they do not actually hold;
2. accuse them of some horrid theological/doctrinal crime, based on the words you’ve placed in their mouth and the belief/position you’ve created for them.
In reality, I do not have any “hatred” anyone. I’ve never stated that. I’ve never implied that. I’ve never written/spoken against those with whom I disagree in a manner at all comparable to the downright nasty, mean-spirited, mocking verbiage used by those whom you defend.
I have, however, voiced disagreements and most strenuously called for changes in their attitudes and detailed why what they are doing is NOT discernment/apologetics.
As for he synogogue of Satan comment, you weren’t reading very carefully. I wasn’t the one who wrote the article. I thanked the author for making that comment because MY POSITION, as I explained in my post (which you apparently missed) is that
That is my position.
Pastorboy: ….according to 1John 4 that you have no love for the brethren, which is a fruit or evidence that one is a Christian.
RA: ODM tactic #2 is seen here. After inventing some trumped up charge by declaring that target A believes thus-n-so (even when that person does not believe what is being alleged), find some verse that can be used out of context to label that person as either:
1. blind/deceived,
2. one who is a deceiver/heretic/apostate;
3. simply NOT a Christian.
The third charge is becoming more and more common, which is evidence that the “cult” of online discernment ministries is indeed coalescing into a far more rigid, isolated, “us vs. them” cult-like entity. I believe it might actually be the very first cult to be formed in, with, and through the Internet.
It’s rather striking to me that for even considering use of the label Synogogue of Satan for others based on their actions/beliefs, you would accuse me (and I assume others here) of NOT BE CHRISTIAN because our conduct/words show that we have no love for the brethren, but instead, harbor “hatred.”
And yet, in the face of hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds, of embarrassingly nasty, spiteful, mocking, mean-spirited, bitter, derisive, and insulting things said by the ODMs and their devotees, you say……..well, I’ve not heard you say much of anything against that.
Are they not consumed by “hatred”?
Do they not fall under the condemnation of 1 John 4 that you have at the ready?
Why not?
Pastorboy: Some apologist.
RA: Indeed. Thank you.
Pastorboy: Rick Warren syncophat, more like
RA: Oh yes, “syncophat,” one of those big words that some ODM comes up with and gets repeated by all their devotees because it sounds cool. The last one was diapraxis. And btw, I think you mean “SYCHOPHANT.” Although given its definition, I really have no idea how in the world it might apply to me.
RA
ERIC: It would seem that a lot of the guys you associate with Mr. Abanes seek to make the Gospel seem like this lighthearted and merry event.
RA: Oh, so now you’re saying that you, and I presume several other people, have some kind of biblical passage that details precisely how much and how little lightheartedness and merry-making can/cannot be associated with:
1. speaking about God;
2. preaching the gospel;
3. discussing spiritual issues;
4. presenting to the world the truth/love of Jesus Christ using their own personalities.
Interesting. I would love to see these passages and such detail in them about the various things you condemn, using the Bible, as being too lighthearted and merry. Thank you in advance.
ERIC: If people don’t believe in Jesus and repent of their sins, they will go to Hell.
RA: Why do you and others keep saying this to me as if it’s something I don’t believe. DUH. I know. yes. You’re right. Good. Fine. Cool. I agree. Uh huh. Right on. Absolutely. You hit that one! No bones about it.
The problem here is that you and others are seeking to tell EVERY SINGLE preacher, teacher, pastor, Christian, author, speaker, exactly how YOU personally believe that truth needs to be communicated to others, how often YOU personally believe that truth needs to be stated, and the words YOU personally would use to communicate that truth.
You are not God. You are not the keeper of God’s servants. This is the gospel, I quote:
THAT MY FRIEND, is the Gospel. Love it. Preach it. Live by it.
Don’t go around adding to it whatever YOU personally think a person needs to do in order to live up to your SUBJECTIVE pattern of life and preaching.
Richard Abanes
hatred, Richard, does not have to be stated or expressed overtly. It can be seen clearly in the tone and in the body of work.
I cannot see how saying an ODM is a part of a synagogue of satan is not hatred- indeed- I cannot see attributing the work of a blood-purchased follower of Jesus Christ to satan does not border on blasphemy.
But you keep on believing what you believe. I have seen you in action with your threatened lawsuits and your dismissive and condescending behavior.
This is TB Junior.
//And now we have Ingrid Schlueter not liking the way certain pastors preach, and so she is labeling them clown pastors and fake churches! Why? Because of some doctrinally false teachings about Jesus, salvation, the Trinity? NO. Because they dare to use illustrations and techniques she doesn’t like. //
Richard, could you substantiate that charge? If you can, give me a link to what you are referring too.
Iggy,
Dad is busy right now, but he will respond to what you said above.
John – The “synagogue of satan” phrase was melodramatic and unfortunate, but I see the point Chris was making. However I will never understand the hypreventilation over this one phrase when many blogs use disparaging remarks and even personal attacks almost every week.
Which uniform you wear determines which blog indescretions affect you most.
#453
I don’t wear any uniform but the blood bought white robe of Christ.
To question others because of the author’s uniform is above the pale
Welcome to Oz, you have a lot to catch up on. Go to Slice of Laodicea and search clown church, heretics, apsotacy, and some of the other delicacies. If you see nothing wrong then you are wasting your time here. Your reformed credentials will gain you instant membership over there.
A metaphor, John, meant to imply that sometimes we show partiality in our assessments. Ya think?
You can say that without everyone laughing at your hypocrisy when you stop using guilt by association tactics, and actually call out other ADMs when they do the same.
bobby: this is not about spit balling at each other about personal preferences, or personalities.
RA: Actually it is.
What the ODMs do, however, is to take spitball material, and spin it into what appears to be material that is more damaging/alarming to the undiscerning/trusting eyes of their devotees. And that is the great deception.
These people are NOT practicing discernment/apologetics. These people are CREATING heretics and apostates to use as target practice, and they do that by use of:
- slander,
- half-truths,
- misinformation,
- flawed research,
- double standards,
- out-of-context quoting of their chosen “enemies,”
- thought suppression,
- character assassination
- manipulation of facts
Using these techniques, a person could make ANYONE look like the worst heretic to ever walk the planet. And that is precisely what they’re doing to make their accusations against the brethren stick.
bobby: mr. abanes suggests to describe the handful of faithful ministries who are still trying to preserve the faith once for all delivered to the saints, alluding to the cult concept.
RA: INCORRECT. I am referring to a handful of so-called ministries who are driving wedges between brothers and sisters in Christ and dividing the church UNDER THE GUISE of “defending the truth,” being a “watchman on the wall,” and participating in so-called “apologetics,” and “discernment.”
But these people, I say again, are NOT discerners preserving the faith. They are witch-hunters creating their own targets of opportunity and twisting the truth to the ruin of the unity of the Body of Christ. That is the issue.
K: That is disgusting. I know you and Ken have had your run-ins in the past, but to dignify calling him part of the “synagogue of Satan” is wrong.
RA: Please read my #449, since it would apply to you as well with regard to the whole Synogogue of Satan thing.
K: Real men deal rationally with sharp disagreements – not throw around names, Mr Abanes.
RA: Excuse me, but………..ROFL. You can’t be serious.
Please read the ODM blogs/websites again and count up the innumerable examples of juvenile name-calling, mocking jabs, personal insults, and ad hominum attacks. It might be an eye-opener.
pastorboy: hatred, Richard, does not have to be stated or expressed overtly. It can be seen clearly in the tone and in the body of work.
RA: Really? And you see no hatred in the tone and body of work spit out by the ODMs? Fascinating. Well, here, let me help you get things straight — I don’t hate anyone.
I just told Ken Silva on a blog, for example, that I forgive him for all he’s done/said against me. And I do. But that doesn’t mean I am going to sit back and watch him deceive, mislead, and divide the Body of Christ. He didn’t respond with much of anything.
And I actually sent an email to Ingrid Schlueter, offer to find some reconciliation by use of a third party moderator that we might both agree on as someone who was impartial. You know know how she responded? Silence.
So, I think you’re “hatred” radar is a bit off.
pastorboy: I cannot see how saying an ODM is a part of a synagogue of satan is not hatred- indeed- I cannot see attributing the work of a blood-purchased follower of Jesus Christ to satan does not border on blasphemy.
RA: OH, really? That’s interesting. First, you didn’t even really read my response did you? Because if you had, you would have understand that in my response I was seeking to explain how that label might have some justification in light of certain aspects of the attacks being made by ODMs against fellow Christians — i.e., they are beginning to subtly put conditions on salvation. Here, let me post it a third time for you:
Did you get it this time? My mom used to say, “Three times a charm.” And no, just because she used the word “charm” doesn’t mean that I was raised by a Wiccan.
pastorboy: I have seen you in action with your threatened lawsuits and your dismissive and condescending behavior.
RA: This one is interesting. Lawsuits? LoL. Again, I’ve never threatened ANY fellow Christian with any lawsuit. Lies, lies, lies, and more lies. You want to see a lawsuit threat? Here’s one from ODM-darling Chris Rosebrough:
And anyone say the word hypocrite? Or can anyone say the words: Pot, Kettle, Black?
And this was a straightforward, absolute, personally Christian-against-Christian lawsuit threat. I have NEVER made such a threat to any Christian. And what did the ODMs do? Accuse Rosebrough of hatred? Hardly. They applauded him! For the complete story on this madness see my blog post, “LAWSUIT RESPONSE: ABANES TO CHRIS ROSEBROUGH.”
Interestingly, as already noted, what prompted Rosebrough’s threat was me simply repeating/correcting his erroneous accusation about Warren preaching salvation by works of “the law.” Rosebrough threatened his lawsuit unless I apologized publicly. So, in the spirit of Christian unity, I apologized, acknowledging that if I had indeed misquoted/misunderstood him, then I was certainly wrong. Case closed — or so I thought.
However, barely two months later, Rosebrough proceeded to again repeat on his website the very same accusation agianst Warren that I had pointed out in the first place! On September 23, 2008, he posted an article/radio broadcast titled: “Rick Warren’s Law Based “Gospel.”
This is the kind of behavior now infecting the Body of Christ and influencing readers of various blogs/websites. Such conduct, IMHO, is both unbiblical and ungodly.
And if memory serves me correctly, Ingrid Schlueter has not hesitated to run to her attorneys on more than one occasion. Does she hate the brethren, pastorboy?
This is all so tragic.
RA
I’ve been making may way through Walter Wink’s “Powers” trilogy, and I think that he makes a very good point about what exactly Satan’s role was/is. In the OT, when Satan is talked about, it is pretty much only in the role of a heavenly prosecutor. He isn’t really presented as the embodiment of evil. That presentation doesn’t happen until later in the NT and other apocryphal writings.
So in his role as prosecutor, he loves justice more than mercy. He wants the strict letter of the law followed. Now, in some sense, this role can be helpful to God’s servants, because it can act as a refining thing, but at other times, it can be just random. It’s like a rogue prosecutor in our justice system just going after people because he has the power to do it.
In any sense, Satan spends most of his time and energy accusing people – both rightly and wrongly. This, I believe, is why it is correct to refer to what the ADMs do as satanic. A majority of their articles are about the wrongs of other Christians, about the need for justice, and pointing out how people fall short. It’s actually something I pointed out here a few months ago.
So when I say an ADM is satanic, it’s not that they’re possessed or completely evil. It’s just they are doing work that imitates the work of Satan. So, yes, they can be Christians and do this I believe, but I also believe they are falling very short of what their actual vocation should be as followers of Christ.
Thomas: Richard, could you substantiate that charge? If you can, give me a link to what you are referring too.
RA: See “Clown Pastor Headlines at NRB” Feb. 9 by Ingrid at Slice. It is in reference to Kerry Shook, who is about as conservative, Bible-believing, godly, and Christ-honoring as any pastor can get…..but Ingrid apparently despises the creative ways and various props he uses to illustrate the points in his sermons.
Ingrid writes:
And in her little blurb of an article, “Community Christian Gets Cheap Laughs From Bible,” she writes:
Hey pastoryboy, you see any tone or verbiage here that might indicate hatred for the brethren or name-calling nastiness? Just curious.
R. Abanes
JohnChisham,
I’d love to hear you address #458. Should Chris Rosebrough be called out as a hypocrite and fraud for making that statement against Arbanes?
Yeah, sorta like John the Baptist and Jesus speaking about the religious nut-jobs who misinterpreted scripture….
Brood of vipers = synagogue of satan
Thou that criticizes others for hyperbolic speech, dost thou do the same?
pastorboy: Yeah, sorta like John the Baptist and Jesus speaking about the religious nut-jobs who misinterpreted scripture….
RA: Oh, Oh, Oh….I see…so when someone dares level a biblical label at one of your ODM pals, or even suggest that such a biblical label might be applicable to them, then it’s hatred and we are not Christians based on 1 John 4.
But when your ODM pals use non-biblical terms to mock, belittle, insult, and denigrate whomever they don’t like (and even threaten lawsuits against them), then they are merely following the pattern of condemnation set down in scripture in passages like: Matthew 3:7 & Luke 3:7.
Uh huh. Interesting. Well, you have a number of problems there, the LEAST of which is that those passages were actually being applied accurately to individuals who deserved to be condemned for their hypocrisy, false teachings, and willingness to lead others away from God.
Sorry, for some reason, I really can’t seem to put Kerry Shook in the same category as Pharisees and Sadducees….pauses…
Hey, maybe it’s because Shook and the others who are being so cruelly attacked and falsely accused by the likes of Schlueter are……nothing like the people condemned in those passages.
Yeah, that’s it.
R.A.
So in other words, Mr Abanes, forgiveness hasn’t made the quantum leap from your heart into your brain? Fairly typical. “They do it, so why can we?” I’ll be uncharacteristic rude and say,
Should read get over yourself. Sorry.
Eric, citing biblical references w/o any relevant or proper context is pretty much SOP on the sites you’re referring to. If that’s the kind of thing you normally read, you might want to get out of the gutter and read something a bit, well, more closely aligned with the kingdom.
The gospel isn’t a viral-marketing campaign for fire insurance, Eric. It is so much more than that, particularly in the part we’ve been asked to play in it. We should rejoice and live like we are saved, rather than just p*****g and moaning about churches who don’t toe the line to our cultural proclivities and preferences.
Actually, Eric, if the cottage-industry of ADM’s isn’t a near-perfect correlation to what John/Jesus was referring to as a “synagogue of Satan”, then there is no modern correlation to this concept. Note the context cited in the OP:
Or I could quote Matt 23:13
This is referring to the same type of behavior as the ’synagogue of Satan’. And this is exactly the function that Ingrid, Ken, Chris R and Co. are filling.
_______
Bobby – Perhaps you ought to worry about your own church, rather than trying to spit on folks in churches that don’t conform to your own non-first-century norms?
_______
Forgiveness does not equal tolerance. If the shoe of the ’synagogue of Satan’ fits, why not apply it?
_______
I don’t think Jesus hated the Pharisees when his similarly themed comments were directed at them in Matthew 23. In actuality, I read those ‘woes’ as in a spirit of sorrow and warning. I don’t hate Ken or Ingrid, but I sure do wish they would stop ’shooting the well and the wounded’ within Christianity…
How about telling Ken, Ingrid, (yourself), etc. this over-and-over. Then, once you ‘get it’, I suspect this won’t be an issue anymore. I wonder if you truly see the irony in this statement.
Tomas de Torquemada was a blood-purchased follower of Jesus Christ, but his work in the Inquisition was a work of the devil, not God, and calling it out as such is (and was) not blasphemy. Whether the instrument of evil is a hate-filled blog like Slice or a whip, wheel and rack is just a cultural courtesy.
Rick – while I agree that it is somewhat unfortunate, it is a concept that I’d stand by insofar as this phrase is (and was) defined w/in the cultural context. It is not a phrase that describes one’s eternal state, but rather one that describes function and action. I will leave their eternal state up to God (the only one who will determine the eternal state of any of us), but I will make the functional comparison without remorse.
Yes. That is what I’m saying.
Very well. Maybe extravagant forgiveness is a concept which both my so-called Calvinist friends and my non-ADM friends here have a hard time with. There’s a world which is dying in its sin, and y’all are concerned with wretches like Slice and CRN.com – shows where priorities lie, right. I’m through with visiting this ADM against the ADMs…
K: So in other words, Mr Abanes, forgiveness hasn’t made the quantum leap from your heart into your brain? Fairly typical. “They do it, so why can we?”
RA: Uhm, no, that would be yet another rather odd assessment of the current situation.
I made it very plain that in this instance, there are some of us now pondering, analyzing, and examining whether or not the label “Synogogue of Satan” would be applicable to these ODMs base don what appears to be a clear practice of ADDING certain conditions for salvation to the simplicity of the Gospel.
That is a legitimate area of discussion and investigation that is a far cry from calling people clown pastors and labeling congregations as fake churches because you don’t like the fact that a certain pastors uses illustrations & teaching methods you don’t like.
RA
K – I don’t understand what you’re getting at. What are you asking be forgiven?
Example: Does forgiveness of a murderer require that nothing be done about the people he is continuing to kill? Are we being “unforgiving” to a serial-killer when we ask the authorities to catch them and put them in prison (for the protection of the rest of society, and so that they might be reformed)?
OR – does forgiveness come directly from those wronged, in the form of no desire for vengeance or retribution?
If it’s the latter, then I would say that’s where I want to be forgiving, and where we’re asked to be. Expecting that a murderer will be captured and prevented from murdering more innocents is not a lack of forgiveness. Expecting him to be tortured and sent straight to hell would be a lack of forgiveness…
An interesting statement today from Ken Silva, who says we should NOT join with unbelievers to alleviate suffering in society, according to the Bible. Why? I’ll let Ken explain:
Sigh. Joining with unbelievers to help alleviate suffering, of course, is one of the marks of of apostate evangelicalism and its heretical movers and shakers.
Another condition on salvation? — Don’t work with unbelievers? At the very least, it seems that daring to help feed an emaciated, starving child by the side of the road with…..gasp….a Buddhist….would be unbiblical.
R. Abanes
RA,
I took the time to read through your recent series of comments here and noticed one of the common themes that emerged was that of “unity”; specifically unity within the Body of Christ.
Obviously this isn’t something new for you as you’ve been consistent in your public calls for such unity, therefore I’m left wondering how your contributions in this particular thread, as well as in other comboxes as of late (NOTE: a quick search of “Richard Abanes Ken Silva” will give the interested reader plenty to chew on) serves to promote your stated goal of unity among the bretheren.
In Christ,
CD
I might add that Ken used the 1 Cor 10:20 way out of context. Note that it is about participating in sacrificial rituals as part of eating meat sacrificed to demons. Paul is saying do not participate in the pagan practices… Ken is stating that we should not join with people of different faith to help others… way out of context there.
It seems Ken and Jesus disagree…
Jesus taught our neighbor was those who one would not associate with. To the Jew, the Samaritans were hybrid dogs.. half Jew and half Gentile and not truly even human as in their minds only the Jew was truly chosen and any one else was “the other” and less than human…
Yet, Jesus states that we are to love them… and be their neighbor… to help them…
Now as far as I can see, other than being “yoked” to an unbeliever, which to me is signing a contract that binds one to another, we are not told to join with unbelievers in helping others.
I see that we can work with others as long as we are not bound to them an they master us.
But that Ken used this scripture to proof-text his view shows that he has a poor grasp at scripture…
iggy
ig says: So not you are contradicting yourself as you stated that the sacrifice was sufficient for all… yet just for the elect.
No, I’m not contradicting myself at all; I’m simply stating a Biblical fact. Christ’s sacrifice for sin was infinite and perfect and fully sufficient to expiate sin. See; think about this for just a second, if Christ were to have died for just one single sin, for just one individual person, then His sacrifice would necessarily have still been infinitely sufficient because God’s holy wrath upon all sin, even one, is an infinite punishment in eternal torments in hellfire forever and ever. This is the true because of the infinitely majestic and holy Person against whom the transgression was committed. This is God’s holy justice as taught in scripture. Clearly Calvinists (like me) and Arminian decisionists (like you) both believe Christ’s atonement was limited in scope; I believe it’s limited to the elect who were chosen in Christ from before the foundations of the world, and you believe it’s limited to those who make a decision for Christ by their own volition through the exercise of their own natural free will.
ig says: Of course God was saving the Elect… yet if there is not the potential to save all, the God is not just… Yes no matter what God does is Just, yet, God did not just sacrifice His Son for just some but “once for all”.
You’re simply confusing mercy and justice here, ig. Mercy isn’t deserved, justice is deserved. Presumably you don’t rant and complain and launch a letter writing campaign whenever a judge, or a governor, or a president pardons one convicted criminal without offering all the convicted criminals a pardon, amen? That’s why it’s called mercy.
In the Bible we learn that all of humanity is fully deserving of eternal damnation, but out of His boundless oceans of mercy, pity and love God chose by His own good and inscrutable will and for His own good pleasure to save some number of unworthy, wretched, hopeless, hell-bound sinners in Christ to the praise of His glory alone forever and evermore. There’s obviously a real sense where Christ died “once for all” and there’s clearly a sense where all men may enjoy His common grace as He makes His sun to shine and causes it to rain on both the wicked and the just. It’s also indisputable that the earth has been greatly blessed by His Spirit’s indwelling presence in His church on the earth. Yes, there is certainly a sense in which even lifelong unregenerate, hardened Christ-rejecting men benefit from His sacrifice, but not necessarily in an eternally saving way.
ig said: Again as I asked Thomas… when did your sins get forgiven? At one point in time did God make a provision for all your sins?
My sins were forgiven at the moment I was translated from spiritual death unto spiritual life by the Holy Spirit and regenerated, becoming a new creature in Christ, behold old things have passed away and all things are new! Biblical justification is an event that happens in time for the new believer by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
ig said: Did Jesus become sin for us on the Cross… do you take that literally?
Yes, I believe the Bible teaches this in 2 Cor. 5:21.
2 Cor 5: 21. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
ig said: Now according to the bible, what happened to sin? Who became sin for us… who took our sins away?
Please see 2 Cor. 5:21 above.
Now if you answered the when and the who, it should be obvious that you are wrong in your assessment.
No, the only thing that’s obvious here to me is that you are deeply entrenched in your incorrect interpretation of scripture.
Again when were your sins forgiven?
See my reply above.
Who became sin?
Please see 2 Cor. 5:21 above.
Now, did Jesus just forgive all you past sins or all your sins?
The perfect righteousness of Christ was imputed to me once and for all at the moment I was born-again by grace through faith, and I was sealed by the Holy Spirit becoming a member of the Body of Christ, secure in Him.
Now think about this… did you live at the time of the Cross? So did Jesus die for your past sins, or were all your sins future at that point?
I think the answer to this question should be obvious.
So if your sins were forgiven at the Cross… a past event, and all you sin were in the future from then… were you forgiven then or not? Right now you are saying no… as you are disagreeing with me.
My sins were forgiven in time at the moment when the Lord graciously saved me, a sinner, by imputing His perfect righteousness to me, reconciling me to God.
Now if your sins were forgiven at that point… the why would God not have forgiven all sins at that point? And if all sins were forgiven at the Cross, then would that not be universal?
Mainly because the Bible never teaches this utterly foreign concept anywhere and you’re guilty of simply making it up for some strange reason. This being said I do pray that the Lord will show you your error, and you’ll quickly recant and repent.
Hebrews is clear that Jesus being the High Priest sat down after giving himself… and there is no other sacrifice… and to think if you answer that you sins were forgiven when you received Jesus is to say Jesus then must be sacrificed over and over and over for each person… Hebrews teaches against that.
This is a half-truth and a wretched misinterpretation of scripture. Hebrews is a comparison/contrast between the old covenant and the new covenant and it teaches against the concept that the blood of animals was ever sufficient to expiate sin (it wasn’t and could never be), and teaches that Christ’s perfect sacrifice upon the cross was once for all, a finished work that never needs never be and in point of fact could never be repeated. Your bald and baseless assertion that Christ must be sacrificed again each time a new believer comes to faith in Him is both absurd and wholly unbiblical.
ig said: Also, you miss that this is the point of the New Covenant as the writer of Hebrews stated
Heb 10: 16. “This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.” 17. Then he adds: “Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.”
So you are stating that my view is ghastly unbiblical yet God himself in his word states this is so… the is the point of the new covenant “Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.”
In fact I’m glad you cited this text ig, because when read in context it argues very strongly against the case you’re attempting to make. Look at what the Holy Writ is saying:
“after that time” – After what time? After the time of Christ’s sacrifice.
”I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds” – Who has God’s laws in their hearts and on their minds after Christ’s sacrifice? Born-again believers.
”Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.” – Who’s sins are forgotten and forgiven after the time of Christ’s sacrifice? Born-again believers.
And what else does Hebrews teach? In Hebrews 10:10 we read: ”By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all”. Only born-again believers are sanctified (which means to be made holy and set apart for God). Unregenerate, unrepentant worldly sinners are never, ever called “sanctified” in the Bible.
Christ’s death certainly happened once for all, it was a singular history making, paradigm shifting, earth shattering event and the result is that those who come by grace through faith to trust Christ are sanctified, forgiven, and saved from the penalty of their sins and trespasses.
In Hebrews 10:14 we read “by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are…what?…sanctified!
One perfect, infinite sacrifice for all time for those who are sanctified (made holy and set apart for God), saved, cleansed and forgiven perfectly and forever by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone to the praise of and for the glory of God alone.
Now at last in the light of the whole counsel of God we can easily see who was being spoken about in Hebrews 10:15-17 which you ripped of context above, ig; there is a specific, discrete group in view and it is those who are set apart and sanctified – believers – and not all humanity in general as you falsely claim.
In Christ,
CD
ig,
I couldn’t help noticing that you failed to interact with a couple of my prior counterpoints to your line of reasoning so I’m re-posting them below in anticipation of your response:
In Christ alone sinners find forgiveness and rest from a constant abiding under God’s holy wrath against sin because all human beings are by nature the children of wrath (Eph 2:3). It’s important here to also note the distinction made between believers and unbelievers by Paul when writing to the church at Ephesus as he affirms that all of us (i.e. born-again, new creatures in Christ) were (past tense) children of wrath. Why would those forgiven of their sins still abide under the wrath of God for their sins? Perhaps you’d say because they hadn’t appropriated that forgiveness by placing their faith in Christ, but then we’re back to Christ’s death securing nothing at all except for the potential salvation of those who place their trust in Him. Here we can easily see that potentially no one would place their faith in Christ and therefore all humanity potentially could have been damned for eternity making Christ’s sacrifice empty and meaningless.
This brings me to my second point. You have forgiven sinners swimming in a lake of eternal fire, suffering punishment for sins that Christ also suffered and died for. What love is this? God punishes His Eternal Son upon a cruel cross, the Son endures unspeakable humiliation and suffering up to and including death for the sins of men and women who will still die not having placed their faith in Christ and then they too will suffer for eternity for the same sins as Christ paid for! Talk about a case of cosmic double-jeopardy!
In Him,
CD
CD,
Really I have answered this in detail more than once in this thread…
But again, when were you forgiven?
Answer that first…
then we can maybe move forward…
iggy
ig,
I did answer your query in detail in #476 above…but now at least I think I’m finally beginning to understand the reason behind your evident lack of substantial interaction with my comments thus far.
In Christ,
CD
One thing you miss that many if not most of the people Paul is talking to were alive at the time of Jesus… also if you want to talk “tenses” yes it was past…
Now first off… look at the very first verses in Ephesians 2…
Ephesians 2
Note first that I have never stated one will not receive wrath if they reject Jesus… they have forsaken, forgiveness through the person of Jesus and also rejected receiving the Life of Christ… so all that is left is wrath… as there is NO OTHER SACRFICE.
Verse 12 makes it clear that it was at this “time” they were separated (before they came to faith) from Christ… so the point I am making is not “sin” that will send them to hell but separation from Jesus.
Verse 1.
Man receives the wages of his sin… which is death. Death is payment for sin… it is the punishment of the curse.
Verse 2. Notice this describes the unbeliever as one who has not yet entered into the “obedience” and is still disobedience…
Verse 3. Paul states that everyone, himself included were once disobedient… and not saved… and were by “nature” objects of wrath. This is key to this passage… so pay attention.
Paul is contrasting that all men are worthy of wrath, including himself to contrast what Jesus did on the Cross.. Paul states that before the Cross everyone was worthy of wrath, yet, “But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy,” now ask yourself when that was? When did God show his great love for us and when did he show his rich mercy?
At the Cross…
Paul talks then about how even those bound for wrath are now saved by Grace and explains how.
Paul goes into the resurrection… “God raised us up with Christ”
So sin was dealt with as everyone bound for wrath now have had the great love and mercy of God displayed for us on the Cross.
What you are doing is missing that Paul is talking about before and after the Cross…
Read the passage a few times and I am sure you will see it.
Verses 2 :11-13 also give the fuller understanding of what Paul is talking about.
Paul is stating that Gentiles were once excluded but because of the Cross and resurrection they are now included. The gentiles are the same vessels of wrath that now are vessels of mercy Paul speaks of in Romans 9… for the Jews were forsaken so that the Gentiles may be grafted on the Vine.
What you are saying to me is that the Cross did not open salvation to the Gentile… in fact if we are all still under wrath then Jesus’ blood was spilled for nothing.
Forgiveness came at the Cross… “once for all” there is not other sacrifice for sin… again to deny Jesus there is nothing left but wrath… Forgiven men and women who thumbed their nose at the kindness of God and rejected Jesus… who will be judged by the word of Jesus.
The real issue is no longer our sin, but that we are dead… dead in our sins…yet if we believe we cross over from death to life….
iggy
What that I am tired of repeating myself over and over in the same thread?
iggy
I read your response to when… so then you were alive at the time of Jesus?
Really?
Again, does Jesus then get sacrificed over and over for each individual?
Have you ever read
Jesus gave of himself once for all…
Have you ever studied that phrase?
So when did Jesus offer sacrifice for your sins? according to the Bible it was when He offered Himself… for you it was when YOU accept Him.
Now, I used to believe as you do… but the Truth is I was wrong… Jesus died for my sins on the Cross… it was effective then for all eternity… it did not just happen when I made a decision… salvation came when I accepted Jesus… but forgiveness came on the Cross.
Ephesians one lays the foundation for Ephesians 2.. In Ephesians 1: 7. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace…
Redemption, the forgiveness of sins came when JEsus spill His blood…
Again, forgiveness, and even redemption is not the same as salvation… they are elements to salvation but not salvation in and of their own.
To redeem something is to claim the ownership of it. It was someone else’s and payment was made, now it is Gods to do as He pleases…
Yet, though one is bought and paid for, they may not accept that and reject it.
To be saved one must accept they are redeemed…
iggy
//1. I agree repentance is needed.
2. We disagree as to repentance can be a work.
3. You seem to be saying one can merely repent and be saved without a relationship (receiving the life of Christ) or that salvation is earned by our repentance.
4. I say we are saved by grace through faith so that it is not our works so no man can boast.
So you are fighting for works and I am fighting for grace through faith…. //
Iggy, it is actually YOU that is fighting for a works-salvation.
1.) Yes repentance is necessary for salvation, and forgiveness (in my mind, not yours of course).
2.) Actually no, I believe that repentance as well as faith is a work of God that He grants to His elect. It is a sovereign supernatural work of God, not of man, lest anyone should boast.
3.) As I have been saying all along, salvation is not a work of man, but of God. You say we must repent Iggy, but in your eyes I am not sure why. If we are already forgiven and God no longer remembers our sins, then why do we need to repent of them? I believe when God draws a man to faith and repentance, that person then by the supernatural act of God through the hearing of the gospel will repent and place their faith in Jesus Christ for forgiveness of sins and salvation.
4.) No, I say we are saved by faith alone through grace alone, you say we are saved by making a decision to believe that we are already forgiven of our sins… which would be a works salvation.
Because you did say Iggy: “Now, I used to believe as you do… but the Truth is I was wrong… Jesus died for my sins on the Cross… it was effective then for all eternity… it did not just happen when I made a decision… salvation came when I accepted Jesus… but forgiveness came on the Cross.”
That’s fascinating. Unbiblical, but fascinating. Sure some of it is true, but to say that we were actually forgiven of our sins when Jesus died on the cross is foreign to Scriputre. Again, you illustrate your works-based salvation again by saying that you are saved when YOU accept Jesus. You say Jesus died for sins and forgave man, yet saved no one.
What you say Iggy is exactly the opposite of what I, Calvinists, and most other people besides the emergents like Rob Bell or I am assuming the purpose driven people believe. We believe God began His saving work for His people at the cross through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ . However, notice I did not say that we actually received salvation at the cross. When that salvation is actually applied is when we come to Christ through the supernatural act of faith and repentance that God sovereignly grants His chosen people. Again, I can’t make this any clearer, our faith and repentance is NOT a work of man, but completely a gift God gives to His chosen people. However, we are not forgiven of our sins or saved from sin and hell until we indeed do repent and place our faith in Christ. Yes, God accomplished forgiveness and salvation for His chosen people through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but that isn’t when forgiveness of sins and salvation is actually given and applied to His people. God, because of His perfect plan and His Sovereign free will, chose to forgive people after He opened their eyes and draw them to faith and repentance. And once man does so, then God forgives them and since we are forgiven of all of our trespasses and we place our faith in Him, we are saved and will enter heaven and fellowship with Him again. Which is why it is so very confusing that you have also said that “repentance is needed” if we are already forgiven of our sins. Now, I believe that God accomplishes and applies His redemptive work in this manner to show us how hopeless and wicked we really are, and how great, merciful, and loving God really is. It is as Romans 9:22-23 says: “What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory.” As Romans 9 makes clear, God has a purpose for even those He hardens as well as those He shows mercy to be granting faith and repentance and ultimately forgiveness of sins and salvation. Proverbs 16:4 even says: “The Lord has made all for Himself, yes even the wicked for the day of doom.”
And this is all more than fair because truth be told God didn’t even have to send His Son to die for us. He didn’t owe us a thing, and we owe Him everything. He would have been perfecty righteous and holy to send us all to hell and not offer forgiveness and salvation to everyone who repents and believes. But because God is love, He did offer us forgiveness and salvation through His Son Jesus Christ to all who repent and believe. And all of mankin is required to repent and believe for remission of sins and salvation, yet because of man’s sinfulness none is able to repent and believe apart from God supernaturally giving man a new heart and will that desires to repent and believe.
Now, why is repentance needed Iggy? Why do we need to repent of our sins that God has already forgiven? Why do we even need to follow Christ, or be His disciples? Why do we need to strive to be holy and sinless if we are already forgiven? If it is true that we simply need to believe and embrace the “reality that we are already forgiven” in order to be saved, why can’t I just do that and then do whatever I want, including all the sinning that I want to do? I mean, after all, ALL of my sins, past, present, future, have already been forgiven right? So it doesn’t really matter how I live or what I do. I guess when Jesus said to die to self and take up our crosses daily that was just an option not a command.
Also, I believe you need to re-examine the reason we are not with God at this very moment Iggy. It is because of our sin. When Adam and Eve fell, it was because of their sin against God. God didn’t boot them out of the Garden of Eden because Adam and Eve one day walked up to God and said: “Hey God, we don’t believe that You are actually walking and talking with us, we don’t actually believe that we are perfect and holy as you are holy, and we don’t believe that you actually view us as sinless and holy like You. We don’t embrace this REALITY that you are trying to show us God.”
No Iggy, that was not what God kicked them out of the Garden of Eden and placed his holy hatred and wrath on them and all of mankind for. That is not why God cursed man (and woman) and the earth and allowed death, pain, disease, famine, hurricanes, tornadoes, adultery, rape, or death. What cursed all of mankind and got us kicked out of fellowship with God was sin. The sin of Adam and Eve eating the fruit. The sin of being disobedient to God. This sin made us exceedingly sinful, and because God is holy and righteous, He cannot but hate us and our sinfulness, and be full of anger and wrath toward us. The great mystery to all of life is God’s grace, mercy, and love. In fact, it would be totally just and righteous for God to have never sent His Son to die for His people and to give His people forgiveness and salvation. He didn’t have to do that at all. But because God is so graceful, and patient, and loving, He did this for His chosen people.
However, the reason we are not with God already is obviously the reason God kicked us out of fellowship with Him and cursed us to begin with: our sin. Now Iggy, if it is true that when Jesus died on the cross he effectively forgave all of mankind of every sin, whether it be past, present or future, then on what grounds does God still have us suffer this hell that is known as earth with all of its pain, suffering, torment, disease, and death? On what grounds does God do that? If sin is why we are cursed, and specifically if it was because of Adam and Eve’s sin, and if God already forgave all of us, including Adam and Eve, then why are we not in the presence of God at this very moment?
Also Iggy, if, as you have said before, God’s wrath was totally satisfied for all people for all sins for all time when Jesus died and rose again on the cross, then how can God still place His wrath on us if we don’t believe in this “reality” that we are already forgiven as you say? If it is true that all of mankind is already forgiven of all of their sins, then why does it matter if we do not choose to believe in the “reality” that we are already “forgiven?” Would that not be forgiven as well?
And here is what I really hate about your god Iggy. What kind of god forgives all of mankind for everything they have done, and yet still sends some forgiven people to hell? What kind of sick, twisted, demented god does that? Certainly not a god of love. Certainly not the God of the Bible. If you want to say that God doesn’t send anyone to hell, but our unbelief in the reality that we are already “forgiven” does, then why does God even ALLOW people that He has forgiven to go to hell? Why doesn’t God just say “No, I forgive you, I will not let you enter into hell, because after all I love you and have forgiven you of your sins.”
Only a seriously sick and twisted god that loves to punish people and see people burn and suffer would send forgiven people to hell. Go and tell that fool Rob Bell that he can go ahead and call me an unbeliever and hell-bound, yet forgiven, heretic. Go ahead and tell him that I do not believe in this “reality” that all of mankind is already forgiven of their sins, because that is a lie from the devil himself. The god that forgives all of mankind yet sends even one of his forgiven people to hell, that god, can go to hell.
And go and tell Rob that when he and I both die, unless he repents, we will see which of us was actually the false prophet and hell-bound heretic.
And true to form the average Calvinist cannot resist playing the “I know who is saved” card. And to project a hubristic tone concerning the redemptive certainty of your eternity against the damnable certainty of someone else’s would be astonishing were it not so common.
If you are the younger Booher you have learned well from you elders. Remember, your currency must be hatred and humility is weakness.
Thomas…
Really I have nothing more to say to you…
You continue to twist what I say and really it has become more than tiring to go over the same things with you.
I do not believe in works salvation… that is just plain silly.
God initiates salvaiton and all we do is respond… we respond to HIS FINISHED WORKS…
I think you keep missing my definition and the biblical definition of repentance.
Repentance is the initial coming to faith. It is the turning from our way to God’s way… It is the U-Turn… it is exchanging our will for His will… it is the acknowledgement I am dead in my sins and need life. I believe emotions can be a part of this but they do not drive are define repentance.
Your definition seems to be “I feel sorry for my sins and need to blather on about them and cry and tell God how sinful He already knows I am to be saved.”
I stated that one can have sorrow for sins and still not be saved. One cannot be saved without the Life of CHrist in them… so sorrow for sins is not enough to save anyone… I know many people who are sorry for what they did in life but will still die and do not know God.
You are fighting for our emotions to save us, I call that a work… Christ alone is our salvation and we depend on what He has already done..
If you can’t get this, we are done… go and live as best you can in the Light you have…
But your own emotions will not save you.
Only Jesus saves us.
iggy
Iggy – I understand where you are coming from, but I understand the Scriptures to teach “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” as the sum of it all. I had no idea what repentance was, I did not know I was dead in my sins, in fact I knew no doctrine at all. All I realized was that Jesus was who He said He was and I was born again.
We make salvation soooo complicated.
BTW Jesus did this already for us.
He did this also so you would not have to…
Again, as I read through your comments to me… they are unloving and really nasty. I see that you do not really care to learn what I am saying and that you only want to cast false accusations out about me… this is most unChristlike… and really I am tired of it…
So again, if you do not care to give respect to others and be civil… I really do not want to talk to someone is only seems out to harm me, others and make up stories and twist what I am saying. I really have way too many people doing that already.
iggy
BTW – when I got saved in March of 1975 I did not feel sorry for my sins, as a matter of fact I continued in some of them for months. I STILL sin today even though the power is available not to. I believe that club is not exclusive.
This notion of doctrinal purity when it comes to conversion is goofy. And I am most amused when Calvinists debate the chronology of events in regeneration -
“God first gives you repentance, then He makes you born again, then He gives you the faith to believe on Christ.”
“Oh no, first God blah, blah, blah.”
What a ridiculous hoot! What in God’s dear name does it matter? Only Calvinists enjoy hashing these useless doctrinal irrelevancies, and they do it with disagreements among themselves but all agreeing they are certain!!
I don’t know that there’s anything I can say to convince you, as it seems your mind is made up, but the one thing I would ask is if you think it is cruel that God would create people with the free will to choose actions that would lead to their own lostness, how isn’t it cruel for God to allow people to do harmful things to themselves and others right now? Why doesn’t God prevent the drunk driver from drinking and killing the young family on their way back from dinner. Why does allow people like Hitler and Pol Pot to survive and cause so much suffering so that they made people lives a hell on earth?
God has created the earth such we have the ability to choose both good and evil through our actions. Perhaps the belief that everything is predetermined is comforting to some because it alleviates some of our personal responsibility. An honest reading of both the Old and New Testaments though will see that we cannot live like that. We will be held responsible for own actions. God sends no man to Hell. A man’s own choice to submit his will to God are what determines his fate. Either he can choose a path trying to save himself through his own works and fighting for his rights, or he can choose to lose his life and follow Christ.
How cruel is it for God to allow some of these commenters on this blog? Extreme cruelty.
I couldn’t word what i saw as the catch 22 that troubled me recently…It was hinted at in a previous post ,but never answered…
I happen to come across a sermon by Tim Keller ,where he nailed what i’ve been troubled by…
So to anyone
Tim’s Quote “If you believe years and years ago in the begining of time ,God said i see human race is going to sin,so here’s what i’m going do go out and save a 1/4 of them…
People say Yuuckkk that sounds awful,..However what i believe is years and years ago God said, i see the human race is going to sin, therefore i will send my Son and give everyone free will….
But since He’s God, He immediately knows if He does it like that,immediately who will choose him…
So either way you have action of God in the deeps of time, that automatically consigns some to heaven and some to hell,so your in the same boat”
Help me out here
Well the classic free will answer is that God only “knows” because He foreknows the decision, but he didn’t predetermine it. A more “open” answer would be that God has chosen to create the universe in such a way that the beings he created have the ability to co-create the future with Him. So He knows all the possible variations of the future, but hasn’t ordained one set path that the future must take. That’s not to say that He hasn’t set milestone that will definitely happen, but just that there future is partially open.
A poor analogy would be me saying something like, “I will fly to New York City next week”. Now, I’m not predetermining every decision I will make prior to that trip, but I do know there are some fixed things in that statement. I’m assuming New York City will be there, and that the airport will be there. I will guide my decision and interact with other to make my trip come to fruition. Now obviously, this analogy is flawed, because I’m not omnipotent, and I have very limited influence in many things. But on the other hand, is infinitely resourceful, and can make things happen when He needs to.
I know that some will read this who will coil away, but as I see it, this description fits the description of Yahweh a lot more than the Calvinist description. In the OT and God fights for Israel and over and over again He is portrayed as being intimately involved. He lets people make bad decisions. He even expresses regret.
To me the question of God’s foreknowledge has kind of become a secondary issue. I am more content in just knowing that God is walking with me and the He is trustworthy. The “how” of His foreknowledge isn’t something I worry about that much anymore.
Interesting Phil, thks for your reply..
I’m not against your ideas…
In my own limited knowledge of the Bible,i see all too clearly characters seeking God which seem’s to line up with free will/seeking i.e the Eunuch or Cornelius or the quote of Pauls “God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us”(just to name a few.examples).
On the other hand God’s sometimes intrusive and elect’s eg Paul being thrown to the floor & blinded…
No doubt the truths, inbetween the two camps
I think i might read some books on the subject..
Thanks again
Andy,
I agree with Phil’s assessment, and one succinct example I point to in scripture is Queen Esther:
She is confronted with the choice of whether or not to confront the king in order to save her people, the Jews.
So, God has already pre-ordained that His people, the Jews, will be delivered. However, Esther has a free-will choice of whether or not to be an instrument in the salvation of her people. If she chooses not to become involved, God’s will (delivering the Jews) will still be done, but she will not be part of it. If she does choose to be involved, we will be part of that salvation, as well.
Similarly, we cannot stand athwart of God’s pre-ordained will – it will still be done. However, He gives us the ability to choose to join him in His salvation or to go our own way. If we go our own way, His will will still be done – just without us. If we go along with Him, we will be part of His salvation, as well.
This is also seen in the Exodus story. Notice that, of the Ten Plagues, it is the the tenth that also has the possibility of falling upon the Israelites: the death of the firstborn. God has pre-ordained that his people will be saved. However, each house had the ability to decide whether to participate, by putting themselves under the protection of the blood of a spotless lamb, and be saved from disaster – or to choose and ignore God’s desire, and suffer the consequences.
Coram Deo: I’m left wondering how your contributions in this particular thread, as well as in other comboxes as of late … serves to promote your stated goal of unity among the bretheren.
RA: Very good questions.
I offer these passages of scripture, which I am trying to bing to the forefront of the minds of these ODMs and their devotees.
If we ALL adhere to these principles of scripture, a more unified Body of Christ will result, reconciliation will be seen, and more accurate assessments will be made of problems in the church that should be addressed:
“Therefore rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy and slander of every kind.”
1 Peter 2:1
“Remind the people to …slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.”
Titus 3: 1-2
“Like a club or a sword or a sharp arrow is the man who gives false testimony against his neighbor.”
Proverbs 25:18
“Whoever slanders his neighbor in secret, him will I put to silence …”
Psalms 101:5
“He who conceals his hatred has lying lips, and whoever spreads slander is a fool.”
Proverbs 10:18
“Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice.”
Ephesians 4:31
“You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.”
Exodus 20:15
“Do not spread false reports. Do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness.”
Exodus 23:1
“A perverse man stirs up dissension and a gossip separates close friends.”
Proverbs 16:28
“An angry man stirs up dissension.”
Proverbs 29:22
“A truthful witness gives honest testimony, but a false witness tells lies.”
Proverbs 12:17
“A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who pours out lies will perish.”
Proverbs 19:9
“[D]o not love perjury; for all these are what I hate, declares the LORD” (Zech 8:17)
Divisiveness is something also forbidden by scripture. Paul declared: “But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another” (Gal. 5:15).
And again, we read: “For ye are yet carnal: whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and division, are ye not carnal and walk as men?” (1 Cor. 3:3).
The destructive nature of division, of course, is that it weakens the house of God (see Mark 3:24-25). According to the Wycliffe Bible Commentary, “sowing discord” actually means, “Literally, lets loose strife.”
So what are we to do to stop this unbiblical behavior and preserve the unity of the Body of Christ? “[M]ark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them (Rom. 16:17 — although it should be stated that an argument could be made that this applies ONLY to someone causing division through false theology/soteriology).
Scripture adds; “I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought” (1 Cor. 1:10).
In other words, I am seeking to preserve the unity of the Body of Christ by appealing to those who are unbiblically dividing the Body of Christ, and I am doing that by pointing out where they have sinned in this regard.
I am marking them, so to speak, and alerting the church to their presence and their deceptive tactics that are destroying the unity of the church. As Paul noted; “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God” (1 Cor. 11:16).
I am also taking the time publicly point out sin, which is what we are commanded to do by scripture. Surely, you do not need biblical references for that.
peace in Him,
Richard Abanes
Chris/Phil excellent thks a lot!!!
((One small note to others,i used Tim’s quote because it clearly stated my confusion, it wasn’t done to put him down or whatnot…In fact i also listened to his sermon Hell: Isn’t the God of Christianity an angry Judge? ,which is also a chapter of his new book…It was so astonishing , and to be honest changed me for the better!!))
//God initiates salvation and even gives us the gift of faith to turn to Him… yet still what does one do with their faith is still under their own will.//
Then Iggy said:
//Repentance is the initial coming to faith.//
So we have faith…yet we don’t. That makes no sense whatsoever Iggy.
Also, how does 1 Peter 3:18 say that we are already forgiven? Simply because Jesus died for sins does not mean at that exact moment we are also forgiven. The verse does not say that at all.
//I do not believe in works salvation… that is just plain silly.
God initiates salvaiton and all we do is respond… we respond to HIS FINISHED WORKS…//
So God initiates salvation, yet it may not be completed if we reject His initiation… that makes no sense. And either way, if we even respond on our own, is that not a work? So basically, in your view Jesus saved no one on the cross, but made it possible for man to choose to believe they are forgiven… and somehow that magically saves them. Salvation therefore depends entirely upon man to choose the option of salvation or not. What a powerless cross.
//I stated that one can have sorrow for sins and still not be saved. One cannot be saved without the Life of CHrist in them… so sorrow for sins is not enough to save anyone… I know many people who are sorry for what they did in life but will still die and do not know God.//
Have you ever read 2 Corinthians 7?
“Now I rejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that your sorrow led to repentance. FOr you were made sorry in a godly manner, that you might suffer loss from us in nothing. For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death.”
Obviously there is a sorrow that leads to death, that is a wordly sorrow. HOwever, it seems you do not know the difference between the two. A godly sorrow leads to repentance, which leads to salvation. This repentance is not “believing we are already forgiven.” That’s the most absurd and unbiblical notion I have ever heard, and you have yet to produce one Bible verse that supports your argument. No, godly sorrow is recognizing that you are a sinner in great need of a God that WILL forgive you if you confess your sins and He will cleanse you from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9).
Indeed, we must recognize our own sinfulness and that God is angry and full of wrath towards the unsaved person. Not only must we recognize it, but we must ask God to save us from and out of our sinfulness.
Which makes me wonder Iggy: If we are already forgiven, then what is God saving us from? It can’t be sin, since we are already forgiven, and I am not sure how it can be hell, because you said God is not angry with sinners anymore, because the wrath of God was totally satisfied for all of mankind on the cross. Yet then you contradict that by saying if we don’t believe in what God has already done, if we don’t “believe we are already forgiven,” then all that is left is wrath…
Where does this wrath come from Iggy? You have yet to address that question.
“
Thomas…
Again… you twist whatever I say… so we are done.
have a great day!
iggy
Ok Iggy I meant to address this earlier. Again, if we are already forgiven, then we have already RECEIVED forgiveness. You can’t receive something that you already have… that is most absurd. If you are forgiven, then you are forgiven, you have already received forgiveness. How could one possibly be forgiven without having received forgiveness?
It seems Iggy you have grossly misunderstood the OFFER of forgiveness and actual forgiveness itself. Forgiveness is OFFERED to all who repent and place their faith and trust in God, but no one is born already having been forgiven.
Ah and by comment 500 we have reached a conclusion.
Iggy is speechless.
How is it that I misrepresented your view? Simply because I point out how illogical, contradictory, and unbiblical your viewpoint is does not make me mean or nasty. Nor have I twisted anything you have said, and if I have, you have failed to point out where and in what way I have done so.
Thomas,
I don’t know, I thought Iggy held his own. It just seems you’ve already reached your conclusion.
One question I have for you is this. If salvation was only about the forgiveness, why did Jesus really have to die? Why couldn’t God just simply grant forgiveness? He commands us to forgive people without demanding recompense, so why couldn’t He follow His own advice, as it were. Why does He demand some sort of satisfaction still? If that’s the case, then God’s law is somehow greater than Him.
You see my answer to that question is that believing that salvation is all about forgiveness of sins is a wrong premise. I see salvation more about being rescued from death and taking part of the restoration and reconciliation of creation. So on the cross, Jesus did the work, and initiated the breaking in of the Kingdom. As saved people, we are to live like the Kingdom is here now, and like it is still coming in the future.
Without this eschatological understanding of salvation, I believe we end up trying to fit square pegs into round holes a lot of times.
Hasn’t all of this stuff about sin, the cross, forgiveness, forensic justification, propitiation, atonement, salvation, substitution, etc. etc. etc. etc. been discussed and delat with only about a million bazillion katrillion times over the last 2,000 years?
For the love of all that is holy, stop bickering about this stuff that’s been settled repeatedly by finer men than all of us put together. For God’s sake, literally, go get a used cop of Louis Berkhof’s systematic theology.
There. Now you’ve got your answers. probably the best you’re going to get anywhere. Or, if you like, you can just go buy:
- Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology
- Hodge, Systematic Theology 3 volumes
- Erickson, Christian Theology
RAbanes
Thomas,
I am not speechless at all… just figured that ignorance can be fixed… but there is no fixing stupid.
I see you as someone not rating too high on the honesty meter and I am sure I am not alone in this.
Why wasted time with someone who does not even grasp basic things… let alone go ever the same stuff again and again… and then to have you just twist things to mean whatever twisted thing you want them to mean?
You seem to have an agenda and want to play some sicko game… and really, I am not wanting to play it with you anymore.
So if you want my answers… I gave them about 5 or 6 times… stop being lazy and re-read them… work through them… go to the bible and study it out…
again have a great day… and work on your honesty a bit.
iggy
RA,
I don’t know how you can say something has been settled repeatedly when theologians are still debating it today. Heck, just look at John Piper’s and N.T. Wright’s recent books talking about justification. It’s a bit facetious to say the matter settled when people are still disagreeing about it. It might not be interesting to you, and that’s OK, I guess. But why write off the discussion.
It’s actually a very important thing, in my opinion, because at the heart of it, it asks the question of what God is actually like.
And Thomas, I have pointed out how you twisted things every time I gave you an answer…
Again… I see you as not too honest.
iggy
//He commands us to forgive people without demanding recompense, so why couldn’t He follow His own advice, as it were. //
No, Jesus demands that we draw a person to repentance, so that we may THEN forgive them.
Luke 17:3-4: “If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and IF he repents, forgive him.
And if he sins agaisnt you saven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you saying, ‘I repent,’ you shall forgive him.”
The question should really be: Why wold God contradict His own law by forgiving someone that has not repented of their sins?
Iggy,
Alright, give me the number of your comments where you point out how I have twisted your view. I will be more than happy to re-read them if you show me which ones they are. I just need to know which ones they are, since after all I am so stupid.
No… Thomas… you do your own work on this… Start from the first comment I made to you and read them all through… but I am not going to do any more work for you…
In this thread the majority of comments are between you and me… so go start from my first reply to you and work through them all…
I will not do what you seem too lazy to do yourself.
iggy
Come on, Thomas, don’t let your adherence to a systematic theology cloud your view of the basic truths. Saying our forgiveness of a person is based on their repentance is simply ridiculous. We must forgive those who wrong us, regardless of their repentance. In fact, if we don’t, we are only harming ourselves. I’ve seen this played out in the real world many time. Those who can’t forgive end up being destroyed by their own bitterness.
We are to love our enemies, and bless those who persecute us. And that is not based on them repenting first. Remember, it’s God’s kindness that led us to repentance.
Thus, the futility of arguing systematic theologies. Few minds are changed, and little of substance discussed.
The true measure of a “system” of theology is the action that such a belief system would produce (per the shema and other teachings, right up through James).
Where a difference in ’systems’ has no different result in action (example: trying to tie a specific view of Creation into a system), I have little interest in lengthy debate.
Where a difference in ’systems’ has a concrete result in action (example: the fatalistic underpinnings of Calvinistic doctrine), I will argue, but for the sake of right action, not for the minutiae of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
SO:
My observations of right belief & right action:
Pure Calvinism seems to lead to:
1) Better respect for God, as Lord
2) Lip service to the incarnation of Jesus
3) Bloodless, loveless Christianity and fatalistic action towards the unsaved (and other believers who do not truck with the TULIP)
4) Legalistic adherence to cultural convictions & preferences
Pure Arminianism seems to lead to:
1) Less respect for God, as Lord
2) Better respect for Jesus as both God and man
3) Emotionalism & pragmatism toward the unsaved (can I hear the 40th chorus of Kum Bay Yah? I still see a couple folks who haven’t answered the altar call!)
4) Moderate-to-lax adherence to cross-cultural absolutes regarding holiness.
Pure Open Theism seems to lead to:
1) Less respect for God, as Lord
2) Respect for Jesus as both God and man
3) “Free-will” approach to missional orthopraxy without the pragmatism of Arminianism
4) Not enough data yet (from my observation) on standards of holiness/obedience
So, I’d rather just live by a standard of Bible-ism
1) Respect for God as sovereign
2) Respect for Jesus, both in divinity and in incarnation
3) Live like we have free will (how would we know if we didn’t?), asking God to give us unfailing love for our neighbors, as if they had complete free will, as well.
4) Strive to not make cultural convictions and preferences into absolutes, while standing VERY firm on the absolutes, themselves.
So – bottom line – I happen to believe that all means all, and that all men are covered by grace, but some choose to reject it (which is how I read Scripture – regardless of what ’system’ agrees with me). I would also say that this particular belief seems to lead to much better orthopraxy, as communicated by Jesus and his apostles. Arminians and Calvinists can bicker about solas and whatever man-made boxes they want to stick God into, but I’ll just let Him be Him, and let the seeming contradictions exist in Scripture, rather than systematize them away…
As an aside, I would just note that you seem to toss around the word “unbiblical” in a completely meaningless fashion, which – in context – would be much more truthful to say “different than my opinion”.
Phil
Thomas is demonstrating that I am right… he is making repentance a work.
If one does not repent, they are not forgiven…
But the bible is clear, we are forgiven and because of this kindness we respond in repentance.
In a backhanded way is fulfilling Romans 2 and showing contempt toward the Kindness of God.
For it is God’s kindness shown at the Cross that leads us to repentance… it is not that one repents to get the kindness of forgiveness…
iggy
//how isn’t it cruel for God to allow people to do harmful things to themselves and others right now? Why doesn’t God prevent the drunk driver from drinking and killing the young family on their way back from dinner. Why does allow people like Hitler and Pol Pot to survive and cause so much suffering so that they made people lives a hell on earth?//
Phil, we deserve to all by put into the gas chambers. We all deserve to go to hell, even to be in hell this very moment, because of our sinfulness. We would all be Hitler’s, even worse, if it wasn’t for the grace of God on mankind as it is. Romans 3 makes this clear that without God no one would do any good and there would be no peace on earth. The same reason women bear pain in childbirth is the same reason we see all over types of suffering: it is because of our sin. It is the same reason that right after the fall Cain murders Abel.
So, it is more than fair that we even have air to breathe everyday when we wake up. What about Job? I do not believe He complained to God. He did not say that what God was doing was unfair. No, though he may not have understood why God was allowing him to suffer, he still praised God for what he did have and he praised God because God is always good, righteous, and holy.
Wow, I guess you missed where Elihu rebukes Job for his arrogance in questioning God! And where God sets Job straight for questioning Him!
Then after chapters 33,34,35,36,37 where Elihu is done rebuking Job and his friends for questioning God… God chimes in and rebuke Job from chapter 38 -41!
What a farce! Have you even read Job?
iggy
Phil, regarding comment 509, how am I clouding a basic truth? You did not even address the Bible verses I presented. Apparently the basic principle, if you go by what the Bible says in Luke 17:3-4, is that we should rebuke a sinning brother, and only extend forgiveness if they repent.
I am not saying that if a person does not repent that we should hold bitterness against them, however, we do not forgive them either until they repent, because God Himself does not forgive anyone until they repent.
And Iggy, you repeatedly twist and misrepresent what I am saying. I have said ten thousand times now that repentance is a gift that God gives His chosen people, it is not a work of man, neither is faith, as Ephesians 2:8-9 states.
Thomas,
You better go and re-read you own comments also… I have not twisted what you have said… in fact you just did it to yourself!
iggy
The point of that passage, Thomas, isn’t to justify not forgiving someone if they don’t repent, but rather to continually offer forgiveness – even to repeat offenders! A parallel passage is in Matthew 18 when Peter asks Jesus how many times he should forgive a person – Jesus answers, “not seven times, but seventy times seven” – basically an unlimited amount of forgiveness. He then tells the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant who was forgiven much but couldn’t forgive little.
Forgiveness and repentance is like a self-feeding cycle. They both feed into each other. It’s God’s forgiveness of us that leads us to repent, and that in turn leads us to forgive others. If you put it the other way around it is creating a power-over relationship that is anti-Kingdom. Living as part of the Kingdom requires us to consider others more important than ourselves, even to the point of dying for them should it be necessary. To say that our love and forgiveness of others depends on what they do is simply missing the point.
Fruehism leads to:
The Truth.
Phil: I don’t know how you can say something has been settled repeatedly when theologians are still debating it today.
RA: What I meant was the simple Gospel is known — i.e., Jesus saves. And there is usually some point of conscious acceptance of Jesus as one’s personal Lord and Savior.
Beyond that, I confess that I have little tolerance for endless bickering about the ins-n-outs, and hows, and whys, and whos, and whats-its, and whens, and other metaphysical theories/musings about the miracle of justification when the TRUTH is that we will not (indeed, we cannot) know for SURE the depths/complexities and divine reality behind every aspect of the justification miracle.
It’s resulted in endless Calvinism vs. Lutheran vs. Calvary Chapel vs. Saddleback vs. You name it arguments and fights. I’d rather spend that time talking to Mormon or atheist who is heading at break-neck speed for a Christless eternity.
________
Phil: But why write off the discussion.
RA: I think it’s because I see great minds and hearts for God arguing about that here, instead of seeing them using that precious time over at mormonapologetics.org, where there is a whole cornucopia of people who believe Joseph Smith holds the key to their eternal destiny as gods.
________
Phil: It’s actually a very important thing, in my opinion, because at the heart of it, it asks the question of what God is actually like.
RA: He’s triune, loving, good, just, merciful, perfect, forgiving, wrathful, tender-hearted, omnipotent, eternal, omniscient, and omnipresent. There. That’s enough to chew on for anyone, IMHO — especially someone who’s still running around thinking that the route to bliss is Oprah Winfrey’s spirituality as espoused by her #1 guru Eckhart Tolle.
The things YOUR talking about are NEVER going to be settled. What NEEDED to be settled, as I noted, has already been settled.
Just a personal opinion here, but I think so much time is wasted endlessly debating the same old things again and again…….I’m just sayin’……two cents thrown in pot.
Carry on.
RA
//Then after chapters 33,34,35,36,37 where Elihu is done rebuking Job and his friends for questioning God… God chimes in and rebuke Job from chapter 38 -41!
What a farce! Have you even read Job?
iggy//
Yes I have read Job Iggy. My point was that although Job did not understand why he was being punished, he did not curse God. Job did question God, and Elihu and God showed Job that it is wrong to even question God.
Job did not understand why God would allow what was happening to Job, and in his questioning God was his sin. But, the point I am trying to make is once Job realized that God is God and God is sovereign and can do as he pleases, even cause men like Job who strive to do God’s will. I was attempting to make the point that God can cause great suffering to godly men, even if they are not in blatant sin.
God also rebuked Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar for not speaking on behalf of God what is right.
It was not because Job was living in deep, horrible sin that God took away his family, health and wealth. It was because God is God, and there are some things that man can not understand, but we should trust God even when God allows us to suffer for, in our minds, no apparent reason. The point is, our righteousness does not mean that life is going to go perfectly and it doesn’t mean that our health and wealth is promised to us.
I was answering Phil’s question: “Why doesn’t God prevent the drunk driver from drinking and killing the young family on their way back from dinner. Why does allow people like Hitler and Pol Pot to survive and cause so much suffering so that they made people lives a hell on earth?”
THe answer is because we are sinners, and even if we are Christians and are striving to be holy like GOd, this doesn’t mean that God will prevent drunk drivers from crashing into us and killing us. That was my point, if you want to say Job was complaining, that is fine.
Phil,
regarding post 516, you have GOT to be kidding me. The Bible doesn’t say “If your brother sins against Him, FORGIVE him.”
No, it says to REBUKE him. Then, IF he repents, you forgive him.
You are right about one thing: Matthew 18 is a parallel passage. However, what you seem to miss is in the parable in Matthew 18:25 the master is demanding the person to pay up, in essence, he is rebuking him for not paying what he owes. Then, in the very next verse, 18:26, we see that the servant effectively repents, and promisies to pay the debt. Becuase of this REPENTANCE, the master then, in the next verse, forgives him.
However, as the parable goes on, notice that the servant that was forgiven by his master does not forgive others of their debts, so then the master sees that his servants REPENTANCE was not genuine. So, the master not only demanded the payment again from the servant, but he even sent him to the torturers!
Indeed, a person must repent in order to receive forgiveness of sins, just as Jesus Himself says in Luke 24:47 and as the disciples and apostles say throughout the book of Acts.
And indeed, Jesus taught that disobedience IS disbelief. A person that truly believes in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior will indeed have repented of their sins and live holy lives, and when they do sin, they will repent of their sins again and hate their sinfulness.
A person that professes to be a Christian yet lives contradictory to the commands of the Bible, and is living a lifestyle of sinfulness, is not a true believer.
Thomas,
Once again, you practise major double speak…
Your own words…
This is what I have been seeing you do… but you seem to not see that you are doing this over and over.
iggy
Also Iggy, I know you have already addressed Acts 10:43 which says “whoever believes in Him will receive forgiveness of sins,” but you said it is because we haven’t yet received forgiveness of sins, which contradicts your whole belief system.
You say God has already forgiven us. Well, if we are already forgiven, then we have already received the Lord’s forgiveness. I mean, nobody who is being honest with themselves believes that a person can have something yet not have received it yet. If it wasn’t so said it would be quite funny.
Thomas,
I probably won’t spend much more time in this discussion. I was just thinking back to when I was your age, and I think I would have given many of the same answers you’re giving now! I wouldn’t have called myself a Calvinist, but I remember saying some of the stuff you’re saying. I distinctly remember saying stuff like, “the question isn’t why does God allow bad stuff to happen to us, but rather why does He allow good stuff to happen to us”. I guess now I can’t just accept that that easily. It’s not that it’s untrue as far as it goes, but it just doesn’t go very far.
I will say this in parting, though, regarding Job, I would say that it’s hard to get the point that it’s wrong to question God from the book. Job did question God, and he wasn’t condemned for it. God didn’t answer him because basically he stated that the answer was beyond Job’s understanding. He did, however, condemn Job’s friend because they attributing evil to God. So that’s something to think about…
Alright Iggy, to appease you, I will agree, Job did complain in the sense that he questioned what God was doing to him, because he was not knowingly committing any grievous sins. I call it questioning, you call it complaining. My point was that Job wasn’t being punished so severely simply because, like some of his friends falsely tried to tell him, that he was living in some deep, horrible sins. It was simply because God is God.
He did not understand why God was allowing this to happen to him. He did not necessarily say that what God was doing was unfair, although he did not understand how it was fair. But then he realized that fairness is not measured by the barometer of man, and Job repented of his questioning God.
So, I think we are in agreement on this one Iggy, I don’t disagree with what you are saying. So now that that is settled, can you address my questions above?
Well Phil, God restored Job again AFTER Job repented. It says that in Job.
Also, Thomas, one other general comment. When you’re referencing the Gospels, you must pay close attention to who the audience is. Jesus is talking primarily to Jews – the chosen people. So when Jesus is telling a parable about an unmerciful servant, the unmerciful servant represents Israel. God’s patience with Israel, his servant is running out. So the message that Jesus sends the Jews again and again in the Gospels is that the Kingdom is at hand, and if they aren’t careful to choose rightly they will miss it. And actually the people they assume God hates will enter before them.
It’s always a bit dangerous being part of the Elect…
It’s like Spiderman – with great power comes great responsibility.
Anyway, grace and peace.
Thomas,
I covered that a few times with you…
If I offended you, and you forgive me… then I can only receive your forgiveness you already offered…
But if you have not forgiven me already then there is no forgiveness for me to receive….
So you are saying that people must receive the forgiveness that is not there…
And how is that done?
If I gave you a car as a gift, and you do not receive it then it is not your possession until you do. If I don’t give you a car, you cannot receive a car no matter how much you try to muster it up to exist in your driveway… it is not there as I have not given it to you to receive.
I mean if you were in account receivable your boss would fire you! You would be claiming people paid when they did not! You would be telling your boss, I recieved their payments even when they had not sent them.
No in accounts receivable the check needs to be already in the hand to be put on the books… just like forgiveness needs to be there to be recieved.
Seriously… think about that for a while… We can only receive God’s forgiveness if He has already offered it to us and it is already there for us to receive… if God has not already forgiven us… there is no forgiveness to receive no matter how much we repent.
Forgiveness must be given before one can receive it… that is the opposite you are saying.
You are saying…
We must receive forgiveness that is not there to receive from God who has not already forgiven us…
That make absolutely no sense at all! Again, when were you forgiven…
You say when you came to faith in Christ… so in that your works of repentance earned God’s forgiveness… but the bible is clear that forgiveness came when Jesus was on the Cross spilling his Blood for those who were still His enemies…
So no matter how you twist it, you are making God respond to you for salvation instead of responding to God in what He already did when He showed His kindness by Giving his Son…for your sins.
Again, I am not sure I can make this any clearer to you that I already have…
iggy
BTW Thomas you are arguing from an Arminian view so if you are a Calvinist, you need to do more studying on what you claim to believe…
Iggy even your own faulty analogy of forgiveness doesn’t make sense.
Let’s pretend your right, and everyone is forgiven. Now, if God has already extended us forgiveness, then we have already received it. And if we are truly already forgiven, then regardless if we “believe” that we are forgiven or not, we have still received God’s forgiveness. Otherwise, not everyone is truly forgiven then.
However, the BIble clearly teaches that God OFFERS forgiveness to those who repent and believe in Christ as their Lord and Savior, but He has NOT forgiven them yet. Seriously how hard is it to understand?
A car salesman says “I have this really nice car just for you, and it will only cost you 100 bucks. But unless I get the 10o bucks, you can’t have the car.”
However, the person being offered the car says, “No thanks, I hate how that car looks, it would really cramp my style.”
Now, the car was offered, yet the person did not receive the car. So, do they actually have the car? No, of course not, because they never paid the 100 dollars required for it.
God demands our obedience. he demands that we make Him Lord and Savior if we are to be forgiven of our sins. Jesus died for sin on the cross, yes, but simply because the BIble says Jesus died for sins on the cross doesn’t mean that it also forgave us of our sins. You can not produce one BIble verse that says that. Yet I have offered many Bible verses to you, and it is YOU who are doing the gymnastics trying to explain the verses away.
Yet you still haven’t explained away Acts 10:43. And you can’t, because this verse here is offered to Gentiles, not Jews. And then Acts 11:18 also makes it pretty clear that repentance is needed not only for forgiveness of sins but also salvation.
So Iggy, whoever, tell me what these verses REALLY mean. Please, quit avoiding the verses. If you are right, then this should be a piece of cake to explain away, right?
Iggy, how do you make comment 511 work with Acts 10:43? I am just dying to know.
Again your logic is horrible Iggy. Actually, it seems you just WANT to believe this instead of what the Bible teaches.
Your only argument against Acts 10:43 has been: //But look at the verse… we still need to receive the gift of forgiveness… and it has to be there already to be recieved… so you negate your own argument agaisnt forgiveness being for all…
Another word that could be used is that of “deliverance” which also shows that we once see ourselves as in bondage to sin, but sin it was dealt with at the Cross we are now delivered from sin and death and are given over to salvation… but again, when we believe we do receive yet to receive something it must already be there.
If I said to you, “receive this $100 bill in my hand” and it was there and you took it… you recieved it. But if I said “receive this $100 bill in my hand” and it was not there, then you would see me as a fool… //
THis makes ZERO sense. The correct way to use your analogy, if you are going to use it to mean that we are all already forgiven of sins would be this: A guy walks up to you and says, “Guess what bud, I just stuck a $100 dollar bill into your pocket, and you didn’t even know it! And whether or not you believe that it is there, it is, because I extended this gift of 100 dollars to you.”
Seriously Iggy, if you can’ t figure this out, you may need to go back to grade school.
A person holds 100 dollars in his hands, and says all you have to do is take it. If you take it, then you have RECEIVED forgiveness.
If you do not take it, even though the OFFER to take the 100 dollars is there, you do not actually HAVE the 100 dollars Iggy.
So it is with forgiveness. God offers forgiveness to all who repent and believe. However, if we do not repent and believe, although the offer is there, we do not actually HAVE forgiveness, because we never repented and believed in order to RECEIVE forgiveness.
You can keep going back to your straw man saying that “Oh look at Thomas he keeps talking about repenting in order to receive salavtion, thats works-righteousness.”
But, you can’t say that because repentance is soemthing God gives to His elect. Repentance is a supernatural act of God, where He changes a man’s heart, desire, and will so that a man will indeed be convicted of their sins and repent.
It is very laughable and wholly unbiblical to say that “showing love” like some kind of hippie to others is going to somehow bring them to repentance and accept Christ as Lord and Savior.
I mean, maybe I will go up to a gay man, and tell him that Jesus loves Him, and I will give the gay man a big hug. And then, I suppose suddenly that gay man will fall under heavy conviction of the sin of homosexuality and he will suddenly fall on his face and say “GOd be merciful to me, a sinner!”
Yea right. Get real. That’s not the gospel and you know it. That’s just something to pacify your conscience and conviction of sin. Of course, who knows, you all might say that God loves homosexuals and there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. That wouldn’t surprise me one bit if that is what you believed.
Seriously Thomas ??????????
You have just stated what I stated…
You are saying if God does not have the $100 in his hands already and offers it we will see him a fool… and that is what I was saying..
The forgiveness must be there to take it….
And IF we do… that is part of repentance… sheesh! what a fool I am to let this conversation go on as far as it has as you still are way out to lunch in insisting I am saying we do not need to repent to be saved…
I even defined repentance for you way back when in this thread… and if fact now you are saying you agree with me and I am still wrong!
Again, as I have said over and over and over… repentance is the natural response to the kindness of God as shown by giving His Son on the Cross. We respond to this kindness and turn in faith… it is the turning, the U-Turn that is what repentance is.
Repentance is not JUST an emotional response. Now I know that most people with your mindset seem to not understand the word JUST as I am using it… it means that emotions can be there, but emotions in and of themselves do not do anything do save us…
So yes, we must believe in the forgiveness that God is offering as it is already there in his hands for us to receive and then receive it… I never stated otherwise.
But if God as you have stated many time does not already have the money in his hands and offers it, we will see him as nuts…. as I have been saying this over and over…
Forgiveness came on the Cross…. it is already there… the Cross is God’s hands that are holding the money… we receive what Jesus did on the Cross… which was forgiveness of sins… when we believe…
But we do no t create forgiveness out of thin air by our belief as you have been asserting for most of the this thread until you just agreed with me in the last two comments.
Again… you do not seem to even understand what you do believe… at least I have made you think about it and get a little clarity… but somehow, I doubt you will even see after all of this, that you do actually believe as I stated!
Good greif…. Eli Eli lama sabatani!
I fear this will be my eternal punishment that I will be cast into hell for eternity to talk to fighting fundees who have no grasp of their own beliefs!
iggy
The funniest thing is still Thomas does not see he is arguing the Arminian view as a Calvinist!
Thomas I re-read as see what you are missing…
Aunt Themma has given all she owns to you and says it is here in Italy… it is yours, but all you have to do is come and claim it and take possession of it….
She has signed all the legal documents that gives you ownership… all is needed is your signature… all you need to do is believe enough to go to Aunt Themma in Italy in faith and receive all she has for you…. again forgiveness does not equal salvation… forgiveness does not equal ownership… it is the offer to come and get salvation… it is the offer from auntie to come and get all she has to give you.
God offers forgiveness… the offer is as good as reality of forgiveness. God is like the auntie in that to offer you what he does not have he would be insane… as if the auntie offered you the property in Italy and did not have any… then she is insane… so for auntie to offer the property must be there to be recieved.
God just already have the forgiveness in his hands for us to receive…
that has been and what I have stated from the start of this loony conversation.
iggy
Iggy, talk about an about face! Your last two comments are still quite confusing, in 531 you sound as if man is not forgiven yet, but the offer is given by GOd to those who repent and believe, and then in 532 it sounds like you go back to what you have been saying all along, which is that God has already forgiven us and all we have to do is “believe” that we are forgiven and believe that God has already forgiven us.
I have said all along that God offers forgiveness of sins to those who repent and believe, I have NEVER said that we somehow create it out of thin air, I have no clue where you are getting that from. But just because God OFFERS forgiveness does not mean that we are already forgiven. We are not forgiven of our sins until we repent and place our faith in Him to save us from and out of our sins. However, when you say that our repentance is a natural act on our part in response to God’s love, I do not agree with that, and that would be a works-based salvation. No, the BIble teaches in Ephesians 2:8-9 that faith is a gift of God that he bestows upon His chosen people. WE have been predestined to salvation before the foundation of the world, as Ephesians 2:4-5 says.
Thomas,
I have been stating the same thing this whole time….
So you see repentance as an unnatural response that we do in order to get salvation?
Again, we will not agree on your interpretation on Ephesians… as I see it is about Jesus and that when we come to faith which is a gift, we are then place in Christ and predestined to be conformed to His image.
So we are at a stalemate as I stated a while back.. and it sounds like you are confused and all over the map… and truly do not desire to understand my view, only to argue that it is wrong. I have wasted much time so I pray you will come to a fuller understanding of the grace and knowledge of Jesus…
we are truly done…
iggy
Thank goodness!
The whole discussion is semantics. The cross has provided the possibility for all sinners to be saved, however that only becomes a reality through faith. Without faith it is impossible to please God, and God does not forgive those of whom He is not pleased. People being judiciously punished for their forgiven sins is goofy.
But Iggy’s logic is no more convoluted than the Scripture torturing that is necessary to suggest the cross was not for ALL humanity. And Thomas is cultivated a nice hubristic ambiance which is required for many Calvinist apologists. Statements like these:
“What a farce! Have you even read Job?”
can be watered and refined in the coming years to come to present a more accomplished self righteous and mocking atmosphere that many Calvinists consider being Christlike.
To those who love the truth. The site owners that were mentioned as the synagogue of Satan although they may be misguided at times (as we all are) are zealous for one reason. Christ and Him crucified. Although I do agree that certain ones need to put a check on some of their rants, I thank God for leading me to those sites. They helped me see the apostasy (rebellion against the word of God) in my own church. They are angry that too many professed Christians are not holding sacred the price that Jesus paid for our sins. Paul warns Timothy (2 Tim 3), that perilous times will come. The description Paul gives here is of people in the church. This is a reality that must be faced if we are believers in the Bible. Because it is a reality we must face, then we cannot for a moment think that such things won’t happen. They are certainly not Judaizers. The Judaizers were people that said that you couldn’t be saved unless you added old ceremonial laws to your faith. These ceremonial laws such as circumcision, and keeping of the Sabbath were only shadows of Christ. When He came and fulfilled them, we were now under no obligation to observe them to be acceptable to God. Not only this, but most of the “laws” that Jesus railed about were man made, they were regulations added on to the requirements of the law so that they could make sure people would be able to obey the law to the letter. Requirements such as you can only walk so far on the Sabbath otherwise you have done too much work and broken the Sabbath, or Jesus couldn’t heal on the Sabbath because it was “work” according to their definition. They were adding things to the moral law that God never intended. The thing is God never expected us to obey the law. The plan was Christ slain for the sins of the world before the foundation of the world. In one way or another we need to live like there is a law to keep…either keep it ourselves which is what the Bible shows we cannot do because we must keep it perfectly, or we trust that Jesus kept it for us and paid our price. Yet this does not give us freedom to sin and throw out the moral law. God is the same yesterday, today and forever…His moral law does not change. These people that are trying to stand for the truth and protect the holy name of Jesus from being desecrated are not the ones shutting the door on people. They uphold scripture which offends the sinner and cuts at their heart. This is what brings a sinner to repentance, to be able to see the Kingdom of God (John 3:3). If you think these people are narrow minded, remember “narrow is the way that leads to life and wide is the road that leads to destruction and few there be that find it.” The ones who shut the door of the Kingdom in people’s faces are those who refuse to preach the gospel, Christ crucified for the sins of the world. Those who won’t show the sinner the door to the narrow way and instead preach how to have a better sex life, family, attitude, or anything that will not offend the sinner but scratch their itching ears (guess what this type of preaching is all LAW if not preached with the offense or foolishness of the cross). Or those that preach that obedience to God’s moral law is legalism. Or those that teach that we draw closer to God in any way other than humility and repentance from sins. (James 4:1-10) Contemplative prayer, meditation, labyrinth walking, Jesus prayer repeated hundreds of times a day, etc; all these have a form of Godliness but deny the power of the gospel (repent and believe on Jesus). Let us all recognize how Paul talked to the Galatians…what a scandal that would be today. Or how Isaiah talked to the Israelites, what a mocker.
Schleuter, Silva, and especially Rosebrough are not taking pot shots at your average Christian. They are rightfully holding up teachers and their teachings to the light of scripture or to the standard of Paul’s teaching (which Jesus put His stamp or approval on Acts 18:9-10). They are exposing those who have proclaimed themselves to be teachers which the Bible warns James 3:1 that not many should be teachers because they receive a stricter judgement because if they teach falsely and people follow their teachings and do not find the narrow path, then they are responsible for the fates of those who they have led astray. Matthew 6:6-10. This is the problem too many teachers and not enough discernment on the part of those teachers. I think the message that they want to send, (although being human at times they err and so did Paul when he neglected to give proper respect to a member of the Sanhedrin) is if you are going to elevate yourself to the status of teacher and teach error, then we will expose you. If you are foolish enough to put videos on You tube that shows what a lack of discernment you have, you will be exposed. May we learn to go to our brothers in private and correct them gently after we have prayed and searched the scriptures like good Bereans to find whether they speak falsely or they are just being over zealous in their love for Christ and His precious name. This is the way I feel, why would I ever laugh at something that disparaged the name of the one who loved me enough to die for me even when I was dead in my sins and did nothing to cause Him to give me such an unspeakable gift.
oops correction on the Matthew verse Matthew 18:6-10
The New Testament allows the freedom for paragraphs.
Seriously. The “enter” key is there for a reason…predestined even.
When I read those sites, the only thing that comes to mind is how Ezekiel 34 applies to such “pastors” and “ministries”, and – in particular – how they misapply the lessons of John 6 and fall into the error expressed in Ez 34:4.
You are so right. The sites I linked to would never focus on adding ceremonial laws – like equating “true” Christianity with externals-based nonsense or how God prefers only certain styles of music. They’d never do stuff like that.
You mean like adding certain extra-biblical, systematical theological beliefs that one must hold to, beyond the gospel?
Who to the what? God was just kidding? He certainly expected us to obey his ‘law’, even though He knew we could not keep it perfectly. I would note that treating it fully as a western concept of “law to be kept/broken” misses a good deal of the point, though. Torah (which we often translate “Law”) comes from the word Yerah (which describes how one guides an arrow to a target). Torah is to help teach us and guide us in the best way, as God intended. Sin is missing the mark, following a way less perfect than God’s. When God created Adam, he did not create him to fail. He gave Adam a choice, and Adam chose poorly.
No – they are standing for their narrow opinions, labeled as Truth(TM), and slamming the door of the kingdom of God in men’s faces, just as their predecessors like Torquemada and the Pharisees of Jesus’ day.
I wouldn’t disagree that the way is narrow – they just act as the Pharisees in Matt 23 who made the way MORE NARROW THAN IT IS, shutting the doors of the kingdoms in peoples faces, while not entering it themselves. They are whitewashed tombs.
Perhaps you should buy a good commentary of Matthew (preferably one w/o John MacArthur’s name splashed all over it). a) Most of the folks the ADM’s rail against (apart from the Health/Wealth’ers) ARE preaching the gospel – just not one with all of the Christianese and extra ‘additions’ to the gospel the discernmentalists would like them to. b) “shutting the door of the kingdom in people’s faces” is not about watering down the gospel – it is about adding requirements to it (which they do ALL THE TIME).
You really are drinking the kool-aid of the ADM’s, aren’t you?
“Scratching itching ears” in context is basically telling people exactly what they want to hear – particularly regarding their ‘rightness’. It is all about telling them all the great theoretical stuff, but never challenging them to apply it – or showing them HOW to apply it. I would argue that many churches which have teachings series that are topical in nature do a better job balancing Scripture and application of scripture than those that just teach the theory via pure exposition without relevant, meaty application to everyday life.
You mean like this?
Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, for each one should carry his own load. (Gal 6)
That certainly would be a scandal! If someone followed that, they’d be torn to shreds by the discernmentalist ’synagogue of Satan’ I referenced in the OP. Oh wait! That is what is happening with your ADM buddies.
Yes, they prefer folks like Haggard, and their schadenfreude gifts that keep on giving… I know I certainly rejoice in the publicly-exposed sins of those whose theology I quibble with.
Oh wait… maybe I don’t.
Or making up their own new Pharisaical standards in the guise of “rightful” “light of scripture”. After all, that sounds better than “in my opinion…” which is pretty much all they tend to deal in…
Fixed that one for you. Now I agree.
Yes! Let us comb through YouTube for every silly video (particularly those aimed at Jr. High youth, or at self-deprecating humor on the part of a pastoral staff member). That’s what God wants. Or, perhaps, we could allow churches to minister to their own members, and if they offend our cultural preferences or cultural convictions – but stay within the bounds of moral absolutes – we could just shut up and be good brothers in Christ rather than gossipmongers, backstabbers and sleazebags.
But that’s just my opinion.
But Chris, tell us how you really feel.
OK, Christian. Sorry to sugar-coat it so much…
I’m just impressed you actually read through that unformatted mess. I couldn’t even wade through it all.
I love this statement:
“Schleuter, Silva, and especially Rosebrough are not taking pot shots at your average Christian.”
Especially Rosebrough? None take pot shots, but especially Rosebrough? Irony is so sweet.
I just came back to see who was still in the marathon. Looks like iggy and TB are taking today off after an all nighter.
Does anyone know if 550 comments is a record?
“sleazebags” Is that from the greek?
It’s great to blog isn’t it. We can say things that we wouldn’t say to people in the same room as us.
Hey, I think you all are too long-winded.
Try to be more concise.
“Sleazebag” from the Koine word:
hoi koprotrogoi
yeah, yeah…547 is my own coinage.
haha…that’s almost a pun.
chad,
The dude just wore me out!
I think I am too patient with some people at times… I desire to really help them grow in their understanding… but foolishly get sucked into never ending arguments with some who could care less to actually try to understand without declaring how (fill in the blank) I am.
I am open for you guys to all pray about that!
iggy
I think we’ve had a couple get this far.
Is a calvinist really a calvinist if they have never read Calvin? If not, what are they called?
I’ve always felt some guilt for accepting the name without reading Mr.C’s books.
Chris P: What in God’s name does Abanes know about doctrinal assessment?
RA: Rather a lot, actually.
_________
Chris P: You cannot divide the church/ Body of Christ. No one can.
RA: Actually, you can. It’s called strife in the Bible — i.e., divide, as in drive a wedge between believers, cause dissension, spread, rumors/gossip that comes between brothers/sisters. I suggest you read a few biblical passages dealing with those issues, get a commentary or two, and……pray.
_________
Chris P: You cannot “kick anyone out” of the church either.
RA: Are you trying to be this…..deliberate in your apparent misunderstanding of the obvious?
What I mean is to figuratively cast out by one’s verbal condemnations of them as not of the Body, not Christian, unregenerate, fake Christians, false believers. Get the picture? By doing that, you kick someone out of the church — figuratively speaking. I do hope you understand me now.
__________
Chris P: You must have another one of your process cheese books to sell which would explain your emergence from the ooze.
RA: I hear a lot of nastiness, personal insults, and venom (par for the course and predictable), but not a lot of substance.
Sorry, I failed to see your post amid all the words.
R. Abanes
Can anyone cite “freewill” from the NT?
Why is this terminology used in the discussion of salvation?
Would there be better terminology to express this idea?
(Terminology used by the Bible)
I’m not being sarcastic, I just find that when I am confronted with a defense of the freewill of man, I am unable to understand the biblical basis.
It is very possible that I am just simple minded.
(As I mentioned before, please no long-winded arguments.)
richard,
Earlier I said that blogging is great because we can say things to people that we wouldn’t say if they were in the room with us.
You sound arrogant.
(Please notice that didn’t take a page to say)
Chad,
I think the best we can se in scripture is that somewhere, somehow, someway a choice of some kind at some point is made in some way. LoL.
Scripture seems to indicate choices being made when it comes to either serving or not serving God:
“If serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.”
Joshua 24:15
“Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.”
James 4:4
How doe sit all work together with: 1. God’s sovereignty, 2. the spiritual deadness of the unregenerate, the fact that none of us seek after God, and total depravity?
I have no idea. But Jesus is Lord, and he died on the cross for ours sins, and salvation is a free gift of God’s grace that is available to all of us who come to him in faith.
So, there it is……that’s plenty for me to chew on and tell people about.
RAbanes
“Hoe often I would have gathered you as a hen gatherered her chicks, bit YOU would not”.
Free will.
How about this in 2 Corinthians 5:11-21
It seems pretty straightforward to me. Christ died for all, God isn’t holding mankind’s sin against it any longer, and we are to act as God’s ambassadors offering his appeal to them. It would seem that giving someone an appeal to make a choice definitely means they have the ability to choose.
chad: You sound arrogant.
RA: Again, a very nice personal insult. But exactly what did I say that was arrogant?
arrogant: “having or showing feelings of unwarranted importance out of overbearing pride.”
arrogant: “Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance.”
arrogant: “overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors.”
I’m really not sure exactly what in the world was “arrogant” about my last post. Goodness.
I responded to statements/questions that were made by Phil.
It is not arrogance for a plumber to say he knows a great deal about pipes — he’s trained and that’s why he gets paid as a professional.
It is not arrogance for a doctor to say he knows a great deal about diseases — he’s trained and that’s why he gets paid as a professional.
It is not arrogance for a editor to say he knows a great deal about grammar & sentence structure — he’s trained and that’s why he gets paid as a professional.
See a pattern?
So, I can’t imagine that you’d think anything I said was arrogant, especially if you’re referring to my reply to Phil’s decidedly antagonistic/insulting remark: “What in God’s name does Abanes know about doctrinal assessment?”
Feel free to review my Curriculum Vitae.
http://abanes.com/Abanes_Vitae.html
All I stated was that, like any other professional, I happen to know about my field of study/work. Now, that’s suddenly arrogant?
Ask if I know about cooking, fixing cars, or building a house — you’ll get a different answer, if that will make you feel better.
One thing that strikes me repeatedly is how…well…really angry you guys sound. Hmmm. Oh well.
R. Abanes
Hey, Richard, I think you’re getting me confused with Chris P! Something I hope isn’t that easy to do, lol!
Just to set the record straight…
#554
So do you. BTW, I never write anything I wouldn’t say in person to their face. It’s just easier that way.
Chris Phil Chad Ken Bob Tom Dick Harry….. it’s all blurring. I’m juts going to call everyone Lola.
RA
J: I wouldn’t say in person to their face. It’s just easier that way.
RA: I agree. In fact, that’s why I post with my real name. I own my statements, including mistakes/sins. It keeps me accountable.
I can’t get away with typing in the flesh under anonymity.
And if I blow it by making a mistake and sinning — I pay the consequences.
RAbanes
The entire New Testament is a collection of free will proofs, “Come unto me”; “He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him”; “Today if you will hear His voice, harden not your hearts”.
It’s obvious.
Well, at least you sound like a pretty humble guy. No, really you do.
A calvinist claiming that someone else uses non-Biblical language is a bad thing? Come on now, this gets too easy.
Total depravity.
Unregenerate/regenerate.
Unconditional election
Limited atonement.
And on and on and on. There’s very few denominations that use more non-Biblical terms than Calvinism.
Chad,
Not
freewill” but the NT does state here and there about man having a will.
I think there are a couple of more references but I can’t find then right now.
Yet, the assumption of the early church fathers was that we did have a “freewill” meaning that we choose on our own accord or voluntary. God does not force anyone to be saved. The choice is in that we respond to what God has done through Christ Jesus or not.
So the argument between free will and no free will is that man has a choice to love God voluntary without compulsion versus being elect one is already predestined to be saved.
Yet to me both are a bit off. We were once slaves to sin, yet Jesus having broke the yoke of sin now allows man to make a free willed choice to chose of reject Jesus. Luther called the yoke of sin on mankind the bondage of the will… So though man is free to chose good and evil, he is bound to the slavery of sin. Now again to me this was broken at the Cross and we are now free to choose. Though now the choice is our own free will or exchanging our free will for God’s will and then becoming slaves to righteousness.
So the only truly free willed people (at least in my view) are those who have yet to choose Jesus and receive His life and become New Creations whose purpose is to do God’s good and perfect will.
To me if one does not choose to love God freely, and are under compulsion and have no choice as the Calvinist state, one cannot truly love God… the choice is ours to love God or not.
iggy
richard,
558 One thing that strikes me repeatedly is how…well…really angry you guys sound. Hmmm. Oh well.
I’m sorry if I said somthing out of line. Your expressive “Hmmm’s”, “Oh well’s”, ect. just seem unnecessary.
I was just giving some constructive criticism.
I’m really very happy, but I don’t get offended by your observation of anger.
CHAD: I was just giving some constructive criticism.
RA: I’ve never heard of “constructive criticism” being equated with one-liner personal insults, backed by nothing.
In fact, in my response I actually asked for your reasoning behind such a pointed insult. And yet you can only note here in Post #567 that you simply find “unnecessary” my occasional informal/emotive colorings in my posts: e.g., “hmmm” (indicative of thought) and “Oh well” (indicative of sad resignation).
That’s constructive criticism? Sorry, I don’t think “you sound arrogant” falls anywhere near the category of “constructive criticism.” Really, let’s be honest, it was an insult, and not at all constructive.
Here’s constructive criticism: “Richard, I’m not sure why you feel the need to use certain phrases like ‘Hmmm’ and ‘Oh well.’ They appear to be unnecessary to the points you’re making and are distracting, at least to me. Just fyi.”
THAT is “constructive criticism.” Instead, you just fired off an unexplained, one-liner insult. You might want to re-think your idea of “constructive criticism” — just fyi.
Richard Abanes
P.S. I am still befuddled by your view that things like “hmm” and “Oh well” are in any way connected to arrogance. (Was there anything else you wanted to mention? Am I misunderstanding you?)
Chad,
Would you define constructive criticism for me? You and I must have different definitions of what it is.
Great post, People need to read this.
Destructive criticism:
“You are a moron.”
Constructive criticism:
“You sound like a moron.”
Deconstructive Criticism: If you were a moron what would you sound like?
More deconstructive criticism: Do morons even exist or are they just social constructs?
Philosophical criticism: If a moron fell down in the woods would anyone care?
Rick: Constructive criticism: “You sound like a moron.”
RA: I really, really, really hope you’re joking.
RAbanes
Rick is joking most of the time.
Except when he isn’t.
Richard – I do private tutoring on comedic nuance.
RF: Richard – I do private tutoring on comedic nuance.
RA: I might take you up on that. LoL.
Oh, BTW, to share a little spiritual WooHoo! to what has so far been a fairly heated and sometimes uncomfortable thread, I want to invite all of you to the new Greg Laurie Bible study going on now every Thursday nights in Orange County, California.
Please read my report on last nights first meeting. About 3,000-4,000 showed up. LoL. Some Bible study!
Richard Abanes
Here is another suggestion for the new OC church’s name:
Habitat for Human Harvest
#578
Does Hugh Laurie ever show up?
Sorry for being gone for so long everyone.
No, I do not see salvation as an “unnatural response.” It is a response that we make after God has supernaturally enabled us to repent of our sins and come to faith in Him.
I am confused and all over the map? Haha, alright. I guess only a person that is confused and all over the map as you yourself are could come to the conclusion that it is me who is confused and all over the map.
But to say we are predestined to be conformed to His image… yet not to be predestined to salvation… doesn’t work Iggy. Could you explain what you mean by that?
Also Iggy, it seems you are scared of Acts 10:43…
Acts 10:43 was not in the original, it was added probably by a 3rd century scribe and was then copied and distributed. It is wise to be afraid of such spurious Biblical adjustments.
Rick,
what makes you think that?
It was satire based on your ridiculous statement about Iggy being afraid of a verse. Kinda like you being afraid of the word “all”.
BTW – Iggy’s suggestion that sinners who wind up in hell are all forgiven is goofy, but it is doctrinal semantics and does no violence to the overall salvidic narrative.
However, to suggest that the overwhelming majority of sinners have not even been included in the redemptive offer of God’s love does serious violence to the redemptive realities. And to suggest that God has appeased Himself by culling out a miniscule subset of humanity as representative of His infinite love is also Biblical heresy.
Calvinism continues to misrepresent Biblical Christianity and does not even blush when called by the name of a murderer. Even the great preacher Charles Spurgeon viewed Calvinism as an idol, because that theology breeds self righteousness. Many who embrace that theology after salvation describe it as an epiphany with the same effervescence as they do salvation.
Reference this thread where the energy emanates from defending and promulgating Calvinism, not Christ. And what kind of “sovereignty” suggests that only God exclusively can open people’s hearts to truth, including choosing who He will enlighten, and yet Calvinists spend an inordinate amount of time scolding those who teach free will?
The entire Calvinistic display is a conundrum wrapped in a paradox wrapped in an oxi-moron and presented in several confilcting Biblical principles. Other than that, it seems to be OK.
Thomas,
I am not scared of a verse and this is why I am not continuing the conversation as you seem to keep acting like I have not interacted with you.
How does Peter say we receive forgiveness… Through Jesus name… why, because of the cross… as I have been saying… So Peter agrees with me.
So that is it… I have no fear in what the bible says, but as Rick states, you seem to have fear of the word all and trying to understand anything outside of the bounds of you systematic theological view. I pray you will be able someday be able to give others grace that Calvin taught and that you might even someday even understand your own theological view if you desire to engage with others and tell them they are wrong.
iggy
Thomas,
Here is the deal. I do not want to monopolize this thread any more with this conversation.
Though I truly do not believe you honestly want to understand my view, I am willing, at my own expense to send you a couple of books for you to read. These books had a profound influence on me in my understanding of Grace.
You may email me iggy@wwdb.org if you want me to do this. In the email give me your shipping address and I will send them out via Amazon.com
If you email me to only argue, I will just send your emails to my junk folder…
iggy
If he does that, just send me the book Iggy! I love to read.
Rick,
I can accept “goofy” though I see it as biblically consistent.
iggy