tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post116101347158419694..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: How Zondervan Acquired The Gospel According to JesusPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-59441022482005508632008-06-04T16:52:00.000-07:002008-06-04T16:52:00.000-07:00Again, sorry so late to this one, but it is an imp...Again, sorry so late to this one, but it is an important distinction readers need to be aware of.<BR/><BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-33165344176935062412007-04-06T21:41:00.000-07:002007-04-06T21:41:00.000-07:00I read through this and found the Cheap Grace argu...I read through this and found the Cheap Grace arguments amusing to put it mildly. And btw - I've read it all on this subject, at least by the main players. It's very simple: the lordship salvation side says, "Salvation is by grace alone with resultant works as a result of the new nature" and the Non-lordship folks say, "You can become an unbelieving believer."<BR/><BR/>I grew up in a church with the latter position; it helped push me to the former. Most of the Non-lordship comments on here are eclectic arguments - a dash of this, a touch of that, and say, "You haven't refuted anything."<BR/><BR/>By the way - I'm a student at DTS, and the number of profs who hold the No Lordship Position is smaller than that eye of the needle through which the camel cannot go.Maestrohhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12270505225992790526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161373054611681932006-10-20T12:37:00.000-07:002006-10-20T12:37:00.000-07:00"the false teachers are not saved but, those they ..."the false teachers are not saved but, those they entice are"<BR/><BR/>Jodie,<BR/><BR/>I disagree. However, this is a deep passage for sure. I need to look at it, and study it more.<BR/><BR/>Two thoughts:<BR/>1. "And many shall follow their pernicious ways; and because of them the way of truth shall be evil spoken of."<BR/><BR/>Jesus said, "You're either for Me, or against Me."<BR/><BR/>The Lord also said: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you go over sea and land to make one convert, and when he is made, you make him twice the child of hell than yourselves." Matt. 23:15<BR/><BR/>2. These would have been better off to have NEVER know the truth.<BR/><BR/>That's a statement that only makes sense if these are apostates.<BR/><BR/>This verse made me think of how our Savior said about Judas, that he would be better off if he was never born.<BR/><BR/>I shall be studying this most incredible passage from the Apostle Peter.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161319219844598522006-10-19T21:40:00.000-07:002006-10-19T21:40:00.000-07:00Hi Don,I almost missed your response in the avalan...Hi Don,<BR/><BR/>I almost missed your response in the avalanche that followed.<BR/><BR/>You bring up interesting texts. About 3 John, yes, I do think he is very likely talking about a person (Diotrephes) he considers saved, and is just a very bossy person in leadership. Obviously his regenerate state is not what he is commenting on or even alluding to at all. But frankly, if a type of perseverance theology had any currency with him, it seems to me, well, he at least could have brought it up here. About the “has not seen God” comment, I see the ideas of 1st John to be derived from the upper room discourse and I see 3rd John as a cover letter for 1st John’s delivery to Ephesus. <BR/><BR/>See Chapter 14 of John:<BR/><BR/>"Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?...<BR/>...21Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him."<BR/><BR/>So in my view, I see that "see" as relative to a serious abiding relationship wtih God, and not everyone saved has that!<BR/><BR/>About 2 Peter 2, I agree with <A HREF="”" REL="nofollow" HTTP://WWW.FAITHALONE.ORG/NEWS/Y1988/88MAY2.HTML”>Bob Wilkins view</A> from back in 1988, that the false teachers are not saved, but those they entice are. He says:<BR/><BR/>Peter is simply saying that if a believer grovels in a life of sin, his life here and now will be worse than if he had never become a Christian. <BR/><BR/>I’m glad to hear you’ve been involved in leading God’s people, and suspect that God is preparing your for enlarged ministry. <BR/><BR/>God bless.<BR/><BR/>JodieAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14129403607163332340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161295968305249712006-10-19T15:12:00.000-07:002006-10-19T15:12:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Gojirahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12638911872713448018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161294970601030462006-10-19T14:56:00.000-07:002006-10-19T14:56:00.000-07:00For PhilOpening words:First off, I would like to a...For Phil<BR/><BR/>Opening words:<BR/><BR/>First off, I would like to attempt to clarify this John Robbins debacle. You called him a name sir -- a "wing nut." I called you on that and for some reason next preceeded to to justify your childish remark. Dear Phil, it doesn't matter if even Mr. Robbins advocates the use of name calling, it is still wrong. That however has nothing to do with his criticism of the Dr. MacArthur LS position. Does my disagreement with his advocacy of name calling somehow mean that I can't see as valid his critism of LS? Of course not. If I must, and you so desire it, I will post to you why he is wrong in what he asserts in his name calling article. But it is highly juvenile to assert the very things you have in regards to this matter. If you disagree with someone on something they have said, does that make everything they say invalid? Your antics here would suggest that you would answer yes, although I have no doubt that you would contradict yourself.<BR/><BR/>THE ATTAINMENT OF JUSTIFICATION:<BR/><BR/>Part of the problem that I see with the LS position is it's reluctance to use proper terms. For example, MacArthur talks endlessly about salvation but sparingly about justification and what that term overall means. A quick glance at the index of TGATJ is more than enough proof for that. Yes, I know that he included a chapeter on Justification in the reworked addition, as well as a chapter on Tetelestai. However, I Find him inconsistant. Since I do not think that you have even half read anything I have posted to you, I shall return to that later.<BR/><BR/>Right now, all I want to do is set up the view I am taking and just let you make fun of it.<BR/><BR/>How does one become right with God? That question presupposes something, that being obviously is there something in the wrong between God and man. To answer that, let's see what the Bible says is wrong with man.<BR/><BR/>Ephesians 2:1-3 doesn't present a pretty picture of how God sees man. The text states: <BR/><BR/>"1. And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, <BR/>2. in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. <BR/>3. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest."<BR/><BR/>First notice how it says we are in our natures: dead. But notice how Paul bounces things off of the word dead: "walked" and "Lived." I'll return to the past tense usage of those words in a moment. How can those described as dead be said to walk and live? Since tresspasses and sins refers to our spiritual being, Paul is first of all stating that we are physically alive but spiritually dead. We lack the very life of God. Life is more than just physical existance, that is, more than food, more than just our daily activities and so forth. All of those things die when we physically die. True life is the life of God. That doesn't mean simply an everlasting existance, but a quality of existance that is totally pure in all regards. Eternal life also has another facet -- that of actually knowing God. That knowing isn't a mere academic thing, but one of intimacy, not just a knowing of a person, or know about a person, but really and truely knowing a person.<BR/><BR/>But back to being dead. Being dead means that we are totally seperated from that life of God. Our quality of existance could be compared to a walking dead person who is seperated from true life and from the one True God. And that death makes itself known in many ways. We have them listed out for us:<BR/><BR/>"in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world"<BR/><BR/>We follow the worlds ways as it is the only thng dead people know how to do. We follow what the world dictates: "If it feels good do it because it must be good." "Everybody does it, so why not you." "Buy now, pay later." Go ahead an take it, no one is looking." The listing could be multiplied. For right now, though, it isn't the actual doing of those things, it is the philophies behind them, the engine that runs them. Walking according to the course of the world means walking in accaptance of the ideals that the world dictates, and bowing to it as if it were God and accepting it as if it were God. Hey, hence the bowing. <BR/><BR/>"according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience."<BR/><BR/>For an interesting take on that see the notes from the NET Bible. For our purposes here, we will take this in the sense it is given: It is talking about the wicked one -- Satan. He is the one who powers the evil in the world system. To walk according to the course of the world is to be energived in your dead spirit by the Wicked one himself. There is no inbetween.<BR/><BR/>"3. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest."<BR/><BR/>There are three things listed here:<BR/><BR/>1) living in lust. Lust here is not meant to refer to how one person can wrongfully want another for sex. It has more to do with the phrase, "You want what you want until you get it, then you want something else." Itis what empowers greed. Greed for this or that because I want it and I gotta have it, and it comsumes me, and I just gotta GOTTA HAVE IT NOW! It is living with that perpetually unfulfilled attitude that wants until it gets and then wants something more and more and more.<BR/><BR/>2)indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind. This is the actual carrying out of the above.<BR/><BR/>3)and were by nature children of wrath. That is how we are in our nature. I find it humorous when people think this is talking about being children of wrathful parents. We are by nature in wrath.<BR/><BR/>All in all, not a pretty picture.<BR/><BR/>Up next, the reason Paul used the past tense.Gojirahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12638911872713448018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161284199616214092006-10-19T11:56:00.000-07:002006-10-19T11:56:00.000-07:00Phil Writes:"I haven't dodged them. I told you: I ...Phil Writes:<BR/>"I haven't dodged them. I told you: I have had reams of direct interaction with Robbins. Same is true of Horton. The fact that you haven't really researched these thigs doesn't obligate me to do your homework for you."<BR/><BR/>Could you please point to where you have interacted with them? That is what most people who claim to be serious would do. And no, I did not ask you to do any homework for me. <BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/>"If you want to make the actual points they have made, then state the actual points (as opposed to merely throwing Horton's and Robbins's names into the discussion). I'll give you the same detailed answers I have already given them."<BR/><BR/>That is illogical Phil when you have already said you don't want to do my homework. If you have already interacted with their material, then please point me to it.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/>"What I won't do is respond a broad-brush, cheap-and-easy attack: "Yeah, well, so-and-so disagreed with your position. How do you answer that?" Demonstrate some actual understanding of the arguments they have made and I will interact with you as I did with them."<BR/><BR/>Again, Phil, that is very illogical of you. Since you have said you have interacted with the material, then please point me in that direction. That would be the most logical and time saving thing to do.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/>"Alternatively, I could answer you this way: I'll see your Horton and Robbins (both of whom reject your notion of "free grace")"<BR/><BR/>More evidence that you yourself aren't to be taken seriously since I have already posted to you that I am not from the Grace Evangelical Camp. Do you actually read what people post to you Phil? Or do you just see what you want to see?<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/>"and I'll raise you a John Piper, Robert Lescelius, Richard Belcher, Curtis Crenshaw, James Boice, and J. I. Packer. Answer that in detail, and then I'll post a detailed summary of my dialogues and correspondences with both Robbins and Horton."<BR/><BR/>No problem, I will do that. It will be later today, though since I do not have those materials with me, though. <BR/><BR/>However, it would still seem illogical for you to say that you would post a detailed summary. Your claim is that you have already interacted with the material. If you have, just point me there.<BR/><BR/>Ypu write:<BR/>"Incidentally, I know Mike Horton. I've spoken at conferences with Mike Horton. Mike Horton is a friend of mine."<BR/><BR/>Hey, that's great! I am glad for you. <BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/>"And you're no Mike Horton."<BR/><BR/>Correct. He is a different person than me.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/>"Try to understand the point this time:" Hmmmmmm.....You also write:"Failing that, I will stand by assessment that you are self-deluded..." More childish name calling. I feel very sorry for you Phil. I did not know that you were going to demonstrate yourself to be such a bully. You also appear to demonstrate that you have failed to grasp my point to you in regards to name calling. Here, allow me to repost something I wrote earlier to you: "If I am not mistaken, we are told to treat others as we would have them treat us. That doesn't translate as call someone a name because they think it is alright to call you a name. I mean really Phil, would you also go around advocating something like, "My daddy can beat up your daddy" as well? But you are funny, though! How would you like it if I called you a name, something perhaps like "Phil, the Art Sippo of Pyromaniacs, Johnson"? You would be right in being upset because it would be a cheap shot. AND BY THE WAY, THAT IS NOT HOW I VIEW YOU! But hopefully you will get the point." I find it incredibly sad that you would persist in being a bully. <BR/><BR/>Just one question Phil? Are you wanting to get into this here or over at the Pulpit? First you say you don't want to debate the issue here; you want to do so at Pulpit. Now you are complaining because I haven't given you anything here. So my question to you, Phil. Just where do you want to do this?<BR/> <BR/>GojiraGojirahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12638911872713448018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161279968876527192006-10-19T10:46:00.000-07:002006-10-19T10:46:00.000-07:00Gojira: "The issues you have dodged are the critic...<B>Gojira:</B> <I>"The issues you have dodged are the criticisms from both Horton's book and Robbins' review."</I><BR/><BR/>I haven't dodged them. I told you: I have had reams of direct interaction with Robbins. Same is true of Horton. The fact that you haven't really researched these thigs doesn't obligate me to do your homework for you. If you want to make the actual points they have made, then state the actual points (as opposed to merely throwing Horton's and Robbins's names into the discussion). I'll give you the same detailed answers I have already given them.<BR/><BR/>What I won't do is respond a broad-brush, cheap-and-easy attack: "Yeah, well, so-and-so disagreed with your position. How do you answer <I>that?</I>" Demonstrate some actual understanding of the arguments they have made and I will interact with you as I did with them.<BR/><BR/>Failing that, I will stand by assessment that you are self-deluded if you honestly imagine that you are being serious.<BR/><BR/><I>"In regards to Pulpit, I have seen you make that claim from the beginning of your series. The up coming Pulpit will be what? The third devoted to the LS question? Yet it would appear that you did not show up during the first two. Perhaps this time you will. We will see."</I><BR/><BR/>If there's a comment somewhere at the Pulpit blog addressed to me that I have ignored, you'll have to point it out to me. I can't find any. I promised to interact seriously with those who are serious, and I will. So far, however, your side has seemed to aim at very little other than demonstrating that I am correct in my assessment that no one has come on the scene yet prepared for truly serious discussion.<BR/><BR/><I>"The post I referred to was your answer to Antonio. You did not offer any answers that he (Robbins) raised; you merely called it a hit peice and obscure. You did not refute anything he said. Nor have you refuted the criticisms in Horton's book."</I><BR/><BR/>Try to understand the point this time: Antonio didn't actually give any cogent presentation of "the criticisms in Horton's book." He merely referred to the fact that Horton had criticisms. If Antonio wants to make an actual <I><B>argument</B></I>—even one borrowed from Horton—let Antonio actually make that argument, rather than simply hiding behind Horton's kilt and pointing at Horton's book as if that constituted a serious, iron-clad, irrefutable argument in its own right. It doesn't.<BR/><BR/>Alternatively, I could answer you this way: I'll see your Horton and Robbins (both of whom reject your notion of "free grace"), and I'll raise you a John Piper, Robert Lescelius, Richard Belcher, Curtis Crenshaw, James Boice, and J. I. Packer. Answer <I>that</I> in detail, and then I'll post a detailed summary of my dialogues and correspondences with both Robbins and Horton.<BR/><BR/>Incidentally, I know Mike Horton. I've spoken at conferences with Mike Horton. Mike Horton is a friend of mine. And you're no Mike Horton.<BR/><BR/><I>"It was about you calling him a wing nut. That was wrong no matter if you like the man or not. I would have expected more from a mature brother such as yourself."</I><BR/><BR/>See the link I posted earlier to Robbins's own article defending "The Virtue of Name-Calling." You keep demonstrating what I have said again and again: It is painfully evident that you're not actually familiar enough with Robbins's work to give you the authority simply to drop his name into an argument and demand that I account for his opinions. When you actually read Robbins and show some meaningful grasp of what he believes, then I'll discuss with you the implications of his opinions in the lordship debate. Until then, I'm going to keep tweaking you about your need to take the whole issue much more seriously than you have.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161277465558651182006-10-19T10:04:00.000-07:002006-10-19T10:04:00.000-07:00Ahhhhh Phil, I love ya! Make no doubt about it! I ...Ahhhhh Phil, I love ya! Make no doubt about it! I do love ya!<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/>"But, see, Robbins doesn't agree with you about that, either."<BR/><BR/>It doesn't matter if he agrees with me Phil. It is still wrong to do that. If I am not mistaken, we are told to treat others as we would have them treat us. That doesn't translate as call someone a name because they think it is alright to call you a name. I mean really Phil, would you also go around advocating something like, "My daddy can beat up your daddy" as well? But you are funny, though! How would you like it if I called you a name, something perhaps like "Phil, the Art Sippo of Pyromaniacs, Johnson"? You would be right in being upset because it would be a cheap shot. AND BY THE WAY, THAT IS NOT HOW I VIEW YOU! But hopefully you will get the point. But as I've said, you are funny! :-)<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/>"As I have said before, it would help if you guys..."<BR/><BR/>Who would the "you guys" be that you are placing me into, Phil? If it is in the Horton, Ritchie, Rosenbladt crowd, then you would be correct. If it is in the Grace Evangelical crowd, then you are very wrong.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/>"it would help...."<BR/><BR/>That from a guy who has had two repeated no shows at the Pulpit and won't engage anything posted here? And you actually talk about being taken seriously? Like I said, at least you are funny!<BR/><BR/>Gojira.Gojirahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12638911872713448018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161276046276200312006-10-19T09:40:00.000-07:002006-10-19T09:40:00.000-07:00Gojira: "As I said, it doesn't matter if I agree w...<B>Gojira:</B> <I>"As I said, it doesn't matter if I agree with the man or not, it would still be wrong to call him names."</I><BR/><BR/>But, see, <A HREF="http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=8" REL="nofollow">Robbins doesn't agree with you about <I><B>that,</B></I> either.</A><BR/><BR/>As I have said before, it would help if you guys would actually read some of the discussions that have already taken place before jumping in (20 years late) and insisting that you really, really are serious.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161259165920093752006-10-19T04:59:00.000-07:002006-10-19T04:59:00.000-07:00Phil, I read this in your first linked article: "H...Phil, <BR/><BR/>I read this in your first linked article: "He is simply engaging, that is, in emotive name-calling."<BR/><BR/>I find that very odd, since the same could be said of your usage of "wing nut."<BR/><BR/>As I said, it doesn't matter if I agree with the man or not, it would still be wrong to call him names.<BR/><BR/>Gojira.Gojirahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12638911872713448018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161253139693708592006-10-19T03:18:00.000-07:002006-10-19T03:18:00.000-07:00Mr. Johnson,"1. What issue have I "dodged"? Bring ...Mr. Johnson,<BR/><BR/>"1. What issue have I "dodged"? Bring it to Pulpit, as I have asked repeatedly, and I'll answer any question you have."<BR/><BR/>The issues you have dodged are the criticisms from both Horton's book and Robbins' review.<BR/><BR/>In regards to Pulpit, I have seen you make that claim from the beginning of your series. The up coming Pulpit will be what? The third devoted to the LS question? Yet it would appear that you did not show up during the first two. Perhaps this time you will. We will see.<BR/><BR/>"2. My correspondence with John Robbins, which your post referred to but you evidently have not read, answers the issues he raised. If you understand his argument and seriously want to bring up those issues in a sober and reasonable way, I'll answer you in detail, too. At the Pulpit blog."<BR/><BR/><BR/>You have once again either not read your own posts or you are being misleading on purpose. The post I referred to was your answer to Antonio. You did not offer any answers that he (Robbins) raised; you merely called it a hit peice and obscure. You did not refute anything he said. Nor have you refuted the criticisms in Horton's book. <BR/><BR/>"3. If you seriously want to discuss whether the label "wing nut" is appropriate for Robbins, I'll talk about that, too. I'll be eager to see how many of his eccentric opinions you share."<BR/><BR/>It wouldn't matter if I didn't share any of his opinions, sir. It was about you calling him a wing nut. That was wrong no matter if you like the man or not. I would have expected more from a mature brother such as yourself.<BR/><BR/>Gojira.Gojirahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12638911872713448018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161231709016721532006-10-18T21:21:00.000-07:002006-10-18T21:21:00.000-07:00Gojira:1. What issue have I "dodged"? Bring it to ...<B>Gojira:</B><BR/><BR/>1. What issue have I "dodged"? Bring it to Pulpit, as I have asked repeatedly, and I'll answer any question you have.<BR/><BR/>2. My correspondence with John Robbins, which your post referred to but you evidently have not read, answers the issues he raised. If you understand his argument and seriously want to bring up those issues in a sober and reasonable way, I'll answer you in detail, too. <I><B>At the Pulpit blog.</B></I><BR/><BR/>3. If you seriously want to discuss <A HREF="http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/PA072.htm" REL="nofollow">whether the label "wing nut"</A> is <A HREF="http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.asp?control=41&sortorder=issue" REL="nofollow">appropriate for Robbins,</A> I'll talk about that, too. I'll be eager to see how many of his eccentric opinions you share.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161222908596512722006-10-18T18:55:00.000-07:002006-10-18T18:55:00.000-07:00h k,Would you say that Diotrephes was a believer?"...h k,<BR/><BR/>Would you say that Diotrephes was a believer?<BR/><BR/>"Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence ... does not receive us. ... prating against us with malicious words. ... he himself does not receive the brethern, and forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the church.<BR/> Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. He who does good is of God, but he who does evil has not seen God." 3 John 9-11<BR/><BR/>Also, do you believe those in 2 Peter 2:20-22 are believers?<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your compliments. I was an elder for 11 years, but had to take a leave of absence. Hopefully one day i will be called back by the Lord.<BR/>I appreciate blogs like TeamPyro, where I am encouraged and challenged, and kept sharp in His grace, and for His glory.<BR/>Have a blessed evening.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161210716712529812006-10-18T15:31:00.000-07:002006-10-18T15:31:00.000-07:00Don,Your high regard for the Scriptures shines bri...Don,<BR/><BR/>Your high regard for the Scriptures shines brightly in the way you examined this issue. Even if my position continues to trouble you, or worse, I count you an honorable man of God. I hope you are a pastor.<BR/><BR/>I think that the context of Paul's letter to his young protégé would preclude his putting on the best face in his discussion of Hymeneus in his first letter. The fact that by the time he wrote 2 Timothy the matter had not resolved, yet Paul was still considering him as one who has "wandered away from the faith" provides no support for the Puritan understanding of perseverance and suggests a bug in the system.<BR/><BR/>You say that the 1 Cor situation describes "the Lord's chastening. The Lord disciplines His children." If you accept the idea that they are regenerate and were disciplined unto death how can you also hold on to the perseverance doctrine?<BR/><BR/>Many of the verses you quoted are just as easily understood as God’s election of His regenerate people (without the corollary that they will succeed in a life of personal holiness) and the great purpose of receiving new life, which is to follow God and love Him. Our argument is that the NT writers write as if that purpose will not happen in every case, although that view can certainly be read into their writings. The NT writers were not speculating that the errors of God's people throughout the OT would be either missing or “not a pattern of life” in the new era. Their Lord had told them a parable that crisply taught them to realize not all the conversions would lead to the same productivity in the spiritual building of the church. The Parable of the Sower assumes the truth of botany, the truth that a shrewd farmer understood. Life begins at germination. All that receive life because of the tossing seed will not become the faithful builders of God's church. Only some will. <BR/><BR/>You say, understandably, "I see where you are coming from, but I see it as a dangerous way to interpret the Holy Writ." And yet I see the reverse as being true--that all the warnings of the Scriptures are being disemboweled by the epic assumption that the only issue is Heaven or Hell. Terrible here and now discipline and humiliation at the Judgment Seat of Christ are powerful motivators.<BR/><BR/>Again, thanks for your thoughtful reply.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14129403607163332340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161206443311758942006-10-18T14:20:00.000-07:002006-10-18T14:20:00.000-07:00FYI - A former pastor of mine wrote a critique of ...FYI - <BR/>A former pastor of mine wrote a critique of the book TGATJ and I have been posting it on my blog since October 12. Also - my current pastor (same church) is a friend of Phil and John Mc. <BR/>It is very interesting and I appreciate all the inside information that has been provided in these posts.Rose~https://www.blogger.com/profile/14906854078623897422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161206109406313212006-10-18T14:15:00.000-07:002006-10-18T14:15:00.000-07:00Fascinating tales. Can't wait to read more. Consid...Fascinating tales. Can't wait to read more. Considered publishing these stories in some way (in a hard copy form, of course) as a primer on the history of the debate? I've noticed lately myself that the so-called "Lordship Salvation" view, better known as the practical implications of the gospel call in the light of the perseverance of the saints, seems to have overall won the debate. I know of only two advocates of some form of no-lordship salvation (I could probably identify others, but simply haven't discussed it with them), and most of what I hear from the contemporary preachers, hyper-commercialism notwithstanding, is consistent with our true and historic version of Free Grace, received by a faith that works. Thanks for this barometer of one of the vital issues in Christian theology!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161192219260856832006-10-18T10:23:00.000-07:002006-10-18T10:23:00.000-07:00Dear brother Phil,It still appears that you are si...Dear brother Phil,<BR/><BR/>It still appears that you are sidestepping the criticism lodged against the LS position by Robbins, as well as those from Horton's book.<BR/><BR/>By the way, do you always call those who might disagree with you names? I noticed that you called Robbins a "wing nut." One might infer that your comment section is just a ploy for engaging in usless trash talk.<BR/><BR/>Regardless, it is sadly beginning to appear that one might have a hard time taking you seriously since you seem to demonstrate a proclivity for dodging the issue that is brought before you.<BR/><BR/>Sad.<BR/><BR/>Gojira.Gojirahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12638911872713448018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161188158065306132006-10-18T09:15:00.000-07:002006-10-18T09:15:00.000-07:00Antonio: "Red flags go up everywhere when . . . Yo...<B>Antonio:</B> <I>"Red flags go up everywhere when . . . Your theological opponents agree whole-heartedly with you."</I><BR/><BR/>That's rich, especially in this context. You don't even seem to know who <I>your</I> theological opponents are. I suggest you write John Robbins and ask him for a written endorsement of Zane Hodges' no-lordship theology that you can publish. It might be a very eye-opening experience for you.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you haven't noticed that the hit-piece you keep quoting begins with this: "Watching the [lordship] debate is painful, for neither side can get the story straight. It is like watching a debate between Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses about Christ"--<B>John Robbins.</B><BR/><BR/>I do realize, of course, that "Both Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin . . . highly endorse Gordon H. Clark's 'Faith and Saving Faith.'" My point is that Robbins does not endorse <I>them</I> or their position.<BR/><BR/>Incidentally, when a wing-nut like John Robbins is the best "scholarly" support you can find for your position, you are in deep trouble.<BR/><BR/>Once again, you have proved what I meant when I deplored the lack of any <I><B>serious</B></I> defense of the no-lordship position.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161183390317058482006-10-18T07:56:00.000-07:002006-10-18T07:56:00.000-07:00Mr. Johnson,I suppose that the reader must make up...Mr. Johnson,<BR/><BR/>I suppose that the reader must make up his own mind.<BR/><BR/>Red flags go up everywhere when:<BR/><BR/>1) Your theological opponents agree whole-heartedly with you (as in the case of the Roman Catholic, Mr. Sungenis)<BR/><BR/>2) Your theological compatriots chasten you, regarding your doctrine as virtually that of the Roman Catholicism.<BR/><BR/>3) Even one of your hardcore 5 point Calvinist friends takes the book to task for its Romanism. And as pertaining John W. Robbins, his view is completely against Lordship Salvation doctrine. Both Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin also highly endorse Gordon H. Clark's "Faith and Saving Faith".<BR/><BR/>Chase the wind with criticisms of me all you want. But when the above 3 items are true concerning your Magnum Opus, legitimate concerns about your theology are raised that your "waving the hand" blanket dismissal does no justice to.<BR/><BR/>AntonioAntoniohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08383024070371150288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161164689376154192006-10-18T02:44:00.000-07:002006-10-18T02:44:00.000-07:00Hello Phil,I hope you are doing fine today.You wri...Hello Phil,<BR/><BR/>I hope you are doing fine today.<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/>"If you do want to engage me in serious debate on the lordship controversy, please do so at the Pulpit blog. If the no-lordship gadflies were truly serious, they ought to have honored that simple request."<BR/><BR/>That is somewhat misleading, in my opinion, as I have yet to see you make an appearance over there. Unless, of course, I have totally missed where you have engaged and interacted with anyone. Or perhaps you posted under a different screen name?<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/>"5. Mr. da Rosa even stoops to citing a Roman Catholic apologist's spin on The Gospel According to Jesus to try to score a point. Are Mr. Sungenis's opinions on this controversy also authoritative for you, Antonio?"<BR/><BR/>That too would be somewhat misleading, as it would appear that Mr. da Rosa is offering one who has critiqued the LS position in regards to Romism. To reply as you have done shows that not only have you greatly misunderstood Antonio's intent, but that you sidestepped the issue he was bringing up. In regards to the totality of Mr. Sungenis' work, yes, he is far from desirable, but that doesn't make Antonio's offered quote any less valuable. For example, Mormonism is far from desirable, yet I have seen where many Mormons have given glowing reviews of TGATJ. <BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/>"3. The retraction quoted in the Robbins hit-piece has nothing whatsoever to do with anything MacArthur actually said in The Gospel According to Jesus. Robbins seems to try to obscure that fact deliberately, but it is nonetheless a fact."<BR/><BR/>Very odd for you, the very man who wrote, "...this comment thread perfectly illustrate what I meant when I lamented the lack of serious interaction on the issue." Anyone who has read Robbins' review knows how that is NOT obscuring anything -- at least, that is, for anyone who wants to engage the subject seriously. The truth of the matter is that MacArthur had made very Romish statements in regards to his study on Romans. In the coming week, perhaps you andI can talk about a few of the statements he made at the Pulpit, since you are relunctant to engage anything here.<BR/><BR/>Gojira.Gojirahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12638911872713448018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161141557905938292006-10-17T20:19:00.000-07:002006-10-17T20:19:00.000-07:00The comments from various no-lordship aficionados ...The comments from various no-lordship aficionados in this comment thread perfectly illustrate what I meant when I lamented the lack of <I>serious</I> interaction on the issue. Virtually every claim made here is demonstrably wrong, misleading, or deliberately twisted.<BR/><BR/>1. Turns out "professor" Antonio da Rosa is not a professor at all, but a student who teaches on the side.<BR/><BR/>2. The student teacher himself weighs in by quoting two sources who have said things critical of <I>The Gospel According to Jesus</I>—both of whom (if anything) execrate the no-lordship position even more than MacArthur does. Are Horton and Robbins sources you are willing to stand by as authorities, Antonio? Do you really want to get into everything <I>they</I> have said about the lordship debate, and do you actually accept their judgments on the matter, or are you just cherry-picking every criticism of MacArthur you can find?<BR/><BR/>3. The retraction quoted in the Robbins hit-piece has nothing whatsoever to do with anything MacArthur actually said in <I>The Gospel According to Jesus.</I> Robbins seems to try to obscure that fact deliberately, but it is nonetheless a fact.<BR/><BR/>4. The second edition of <I>The Gospel According to Jesus</I> includes a preface that explains the second-edition revisions in detail. Compare the two editions paragraph for paragraph and you'll see that the actual changes are relatively few and all essentially minor, mostly to clarify ambiguities or refine passages that had been misconstrued by a critic or two. A couple of complete chapters were added to deal with the doctrine of justification by faith and the doctrine of the atonement. An appendix was also added to answer critics' questions in Q&A format. None of these changes were made surreptitiously, and nothing in the revised edition secretly contradicts or quietly annuls anything in the original. If Mr. de Rosa wants to dispute this or offer evidence for his charge that "the writer(s), editor(s), and publishers act[ed] like a puppy with its tail between its legs with apologies, back-tracking, and eventual revisions in an 'updated' version," I challenge him to cite actual pages and statements to prove his claim.<BR/><BR/>5. Mr. da Rosa even stoops to citing a Roman Catholic apologist's spin on <I>The Gospel According to Jesus</I> to try to score a point. Are Mr. Sungenis's opinions on this controversy also authoritative for you, Antonio?<BR/><BR/>For future reference: <B>se·ri·ous</B> <I>adj.</I> 1. Carried out in earnest. 2. Not trifling or jesting. 3. Concerned with important rather than trivial matters.<BR/><BR/>Some things we post here at PyroManiacs are obviously not <I>intended</I> to be serious, but I have pleaded repeatedly for this particular subject to be handled seriously or not at all. The posts I have made on the lordship issue here are intended as background material and a personal testimony—not an invitation to move the discussion and debate from the Pulpit blog over here.<BR/><BR/>In fact, I made one simple request at the beginning of this series: If you do want to engage me in <I>serious</I> debate on the lordship controversy, please do so at the Pulpit blog. If the no-lordship gadflies were truly serious, they ought to have honored that simple request.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161135289828116982006-10-17T18:34:00.000-07:002006-10-17T18:34:00.000-07:00h k flynn,I would have to see Alexander as someone...h k flynn,<BR/><BR/>I would have to see Alexander as someone who believed in vain.(1 Cor. 15:1-2)As I would also Hymeneus, who was also a heretic. (2 Thes. 2:1-3)<BR/>Though Paul does excommunicate them, hoping they would repent, I'm sure.<BR/><BR/><BR/>1 Cor 11:30 surely speaks of the Lord's chastening. The Lord disciplines His children for sure. Hebrews 12:6-11<BR/><BR/>I believe the Holy Scriptures do teach that God's people will persevere.<BR/>"I am the good Shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. ... And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one Shepherd. ... But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me." John 10:14,16,26-27<BR/><BR/>"But he who received the seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty." Matt 13:23<BR/><BR/>"You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain". John 15:16<BR/><BR/>"Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He who calls you is faithful, who also will do it." 1 Thes. 5:23-24<BR/><BR/>"But the Lord is faithful, who will establish you and guard you from the evil one." 2 Thes. 3:3<BR/><BR/>There's so much more, but this is way too long already.<BR/>I see where you are coming from, but I see it as a dangerous way to interpret the Holy Writ.<BR/><BR/>"But even if WE, or an ANGEL from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed". Gal. 1:8-9<BR/><BR/>"If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed. O Lord come!" 1 Cor. 16:22<BR/><BR/>"Exaime yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves". 2 Cor 13:5<BR/><BR/>Sorry, I had a couple more that came to mind.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161129030248268042006-10-17T16:50:00.000-07:002006-10-17T16:50:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Gojirahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12638911872713448018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1161128646213297342006-10-17T16:44:00.000-07:002006-10-17T16:44:00.000-07:00Hello Frank,If I may, I would go a round of brothe...Hello Frank,<BR/><BR/>If I may, I would go a round of brotherly debate with you.<BR/><BR/>If your answer is affirmative, I will get in contact with you.<BR/><BR/>Gojira.Gojirahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12638911872713448018noreply@blogger.com