tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post116801587229195176..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Before I am banished for posting at BHT ...Phil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1168353527364466442007-01-09T06:38:00.000-08:002007-01-09T06:38:00.000-08:00Terry:I don't know if you visited my site and read...Terry:<BR/><BR/>I don't know if you visited my site and read my articles on the regeneration before faith issue.<BR/><BR/>In any event, let's look at this statement.<BR/><BR/>"<I>Regeneration is a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit by which the divine nature and divine life are given (John 3:3–8; Titus 3:5). It is instantaneous and is accomplished solely by the power of the Holy Spirit through the instrumentality of the Word of God (John 5:24), when the repentant sinner, as enabled by the Holy Spirit, responds in faith to the divine provision of salvation</I>."<BR/><BR/>In your opinion: Does this statement support regeneration preceding or following faith?<BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1168312806887301762007-01-08T19:20:00.000-08:002007-01-08T19:20:00.000-08:00When Antonio answers the 23 examples of exegetical...When Antonio answers the 23 examples of exegetical inconsistencies he has ofered regarding the use of "sozo" in the NT, I'll answer some more of his questions.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1168285015943878712007-01-08T11:36:00.000-08:002007-01-08T11:36:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Gojirahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12638911872713448018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1168279052691687252007-01-08T09:57:00.000-08:002007-01-08T09:57:00.000-08:00Cool! I wonder if this is how Batman feels every t...Cool! <BR/><BR/>I wonder if this is how Batman feels every time he upgrades the Batmobile...Matt Gummhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14698469400042045105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1168232962776569732007-01-07T21:09:00.000-08:002007-01-07T21:09:00.000-08:00Terry:Good to hear you weigh on this...What you sa...<B>Terry:</B><BR/><BR/>Good to hear you weigh on this...<BR/><BR/>What you said is not what I meant for you only quoted me in part which altered the meaning of my words--but what you concluded I do agree with. <BR/><BR/>You're confusing the two issues: 1. God's love was demonstrated through Christ on the cross for us (Roms. 5:8) (for which I completely agree) and did exist before the cross for His elect (Eph. 1:5); and 2. with thinking that His love is appropriated in my life or made effectual to me by my response to it (John 13:1).<BR/><BR/>Again, I fully agree that God's love does already exist for His own that He foreknew and chose before the foundation of the world - "in love He predestined us..." (Eph. 1:4-5); and "because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us". (Roms. 5:5). HIs love for me is not something that is conditioned upon my response to it--<BR/><BR/>But at the same time, God could not fully love me apart from the cross. Why? Because the cross was more than just a demonstration of His love; it was also the place that His justice was met; His law and righteousness fulfilled; the guilt of our sin expiated; and the wrath of God propitiated and whereby we are justified, and the perfect righteousness of Christ is imputed to us by faith (Roms. 3:21-26, Heb. 2:9-18; Roms. 5:21; Phil. 3:6-12). The cross was the righteousness of God put on display and the expression and evidence of God's love for His own (Roms. 3:24-25; 1 John 3:1) because Christ satisfied God in all things pertaining for the redemption of His elect (Heb. 2:17). <BR/><BR/>IOW, if Christ did not become our divine substitute and atonement satisfying God on behalf of the sins of the people, His love would never be realized in actuality. We cannot separate, dissect, or splice the love of God from the cross of Christ anymore we can His grace and mercy. If you do, you reduce His love to something that is humanly accommodating (God loves everybody the same, but only saves some that He loves with an extra special love), but is not divine (His love was shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us - Roms. 5:5). <BR/><BR/>And that love He has for His own elect vessels of mercy (Roms. 9:16-24) is by His own sovereign free will and realized in salvation as adopted sons in Christ (Eph. 1:4-5). "We love Him because He first loved us..." (1 John 4:19).SJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1168232337825946112007-01-07T20:58:00.000-08:002007-01-07T20:58:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.SJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1168224853655926702007-01-07T18:54:00.000-08:002007-01-07T18:54:00.000-08:00Campi wrote, "His love is not conditioned by my re...<B>Campi wrote,</B> "His love is not conditioned by my response, but by His sovereign action."<BR/><BR/>Steve,<BR/><BR/>His sovereign action (the Cross) is not a *condition* for His love. It is the *demonstration* of His love. As Romans 5:8 says "But God *demonstrates* His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."<BR/><BR/>See how the love was there first, not needing a condition, but being the *cause* of the action of the Cross?<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/>TerryTerry Rayburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00888533194435826837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1168220074278191912007-01-07T17:34:00.000-08:002007-01-07T17:34:00.000-08:00Frank says:"The offer is real"What is the offer, F...Frank says:<BR/><BR/>"The offer is real"<BR/><BR/>What is the offer, Frank?<BR/><BR/>How is it real?<BR/><BR/>“Paul teaches us that the ruin of the wicked is not only foreseen by the Lord, but also <B>ordained by his counsel and his will</B>... not only the destruction of the wicked is foreknown, but that <I>the wicked themselves have been created for this very end</I> -- <B>that they may perish</B>” (Commentaries Romans 9:18)<BR/><BR/>“... he arranges all things by his sovereign counsel in such a way that individuals are born, <B>who are doomed from the womb to certain death</B>, and are to glorify him by their destruction...God ... arranges and disposes of them at his pleasure... all events take place by his sovereign appointment” (Institutes III, xxiii, 6)<BR/><BR/>What is an offer?<BR/><BR/>My dictionary gives this as a definition of the verb:<BR/><BR/>"to present for acceptance or rejection"<BR/><BR/>What is 'real'?<BR/><BR/>My dictionary gives this:<BR/><BR/>"true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent"<BR/><BR/>Is the Calvinist 'gospel' a real offer for everyone?<BR/><BR/>I would argue that it is a real offer to not a single soul (note the use of that word soul, denoting the temporal person).<BR/><BR/>The reprobate:<BR/><BR/>Christ did not die for him. God chose him for hell.<BR/><BR/>What can be offered him? How is your Calvinist message a 'real offer' to him?<BR/><BR/>Only in the realm of that fantastical deductionistic theological framework called "Calvinism" could one attempt to say with a straight face that a 'real offer' is given to the reprobate.<BR/><BR/>Does God wish to give a 'real offer' to those who are 'doomed from the womb' unto destruction, apart from any consideration of them whatsoever? There is no offer to the reprobate. His fate was sealed in the counsels of God's all-encompassing decree.<BR/><BR/>There is no offer to the elect:<BR/><BR/>The elect have salvation sovereignly imposed upon them. They are deaf, dead, and blind until God sovereignly imposes His 'grace' upon them, regenerating them.<BR/><BR/>Were the offered anything? They didn't even have ears to hear!<BR/><BR/>By the time they can hear, they don't have a choice, in that they, apart from any desire whatsoever (actually they desired to stay in their sins and rebel against God, right?) they were regenerated.<BR/><BR/>No offer here. Just the whim of a God who thinks he will be glorified by creating people in order to populate hell and heaven.<BR/><BR/>Imagine the glory God receives, Frank:<BR/><BR/>To God be the glory for creating a sub-division of humanity He made for the express purpose and pleasure of torturing in hell forever!<BR/><BR/>Such a notion inspires praise on MY lips (I hope you sense the sarcasm).<BR/><BR/>Antonio da RosaAntoniohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08383024070371150288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1168213562524718382007-01-07T15:46:00.000-08:002007-01-07T15:46:00.000-08:00Steve:I'm putting on my armor to go to a Baptist b...Steve:<BR/><BR/>I'm putting on my armor to go to a Baptist business meeting tonight. I'm sure that'll put me in the right frame of mind to re-read your answer here and reply.<BR/><BR/>If not, I'll be back in the morning sometime to add a few things.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1168201777134570952007-01-07T12:29:00.000-08:002007-01-07T12:29:00.000-08:00Terry:I'll have more for you tomorrow. For now: Y...Terry:<BR/><BR/>I'll have more for you tomorrow. For now: You wrote,<BR/><BR/>"<I>First, it is a misrepresentation to say that Calvinism gives requirements to be born again. Most Calvinists, including myself, see the Scripture as teaching that regeneration (being born again) comes first, before faith, even if only a millisecond</I>."<BR/><BR/>1) It is not a misrepresentation and I can demonstrate this from the writing of men who hold to LS.<BR/><BR/>2) I am aware that Calvinists believe regeneration must precede faith. I have written on this. Please visit my blog and read these two articles:<BR/><BR/><I>Impossible Decision</I><BR/><I>Lordship's Out of Order Salvation</I><BR/><BR/>Maybe we should move our discussion of this narrow topic there.<BR/><BR/>I did leave this question for you in my post above:<BR/><BR/><I>If, as the Calvinist contends, salvation is all of and by God, why then does the Lordship Calvinist condition salvation on a lost man's upfront commitment to “forsake himself” and “follow Jesus in submissive obedience</I>?”<BR/><BR/>Those quotations are from a Calvinist/Lordship advocate who requires those things to be born again. <BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1168198327772269492007-01-07T11:32:00.000-08:002007-01-07T11:32:00.000-08:00Frank, I am very sorry that it has taken some time...<B>Frank, </B>I am very sorry that it has taken some time to respond to your follow up comments—been a busy, but yet home focused weekend. Thanks for your patience. I am so sorry for the length of this comment, but I wanted to be faithful and honoring as possible with your words to me.<BR/><BR/><B>First of all,</B> whatever my concerns were, were not meant to be directed to your article—but had to do with Chan’s movie presentation. Pastor Chan certainly did present some things well—. BUT I thought his overall delivery was still wrapped in some sort of romantic sentimentalism. It’s obvious he has a tremendous passion for lost people and heart desiring them to come to Christ. He seems to be a very loving and gracious brother. I would very much like to visit his church sometime—I am sure I would enjoy it and be ministered to in many ways. Per the video, if he didn’t live in Southern Cal and this was made from say the backdrop of Lake Michigan in Chicago; I am certain it would have had less romantic tones to it and more of an urgent biblical edge.<BR/><BR/>I also appreciate that Pastor Chan in his own church has the priority of a high view of God; the authority of God’s Word; and that we are to live out daily the two great commandments in very tangible, visible, and practical ways in our lives. That is refreshing to hear and I deeply respect him for the uncompromising stand he brings to the foundation for Cornerstone Community Church.<BR/><BR/>Now, on to your questions:<BR/><BR/><B>[1] Does God love sinners?</B><BR/>Yes. I am one—the chief of sinners; and He did/does love me.<BR/><BR/>Rom. 5:5 and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us. <BR/>Rom. 5:6 ¶ For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. Rom. 5:7 For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. Rom. 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.<BR/><BR/><B>[2]How do we know the answer to that question? That is, by what evidence do we know the answer to that question?</B><BR/>By the authority and veracity of the Scriptures.<BR/><BR/>1Cor. 15:3 ¶ For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 1Cor. 15:4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,<BR/><BR/><B>[3]Is it wrong to tell sinners the answer to that question?</B> I assume you mean the first question. No. But the answer must be given in the context of “for whom Christ died.” Otherwise it can be confusing to unregenerate people to hear what seems to be a duplicitous message of “God loves you, but you’re going to hell.” <B>The gospel call</B> does not begin biblically with telling sinners about the love of God. It begins with just the opposite; it begins by proclaiming to them the law of God, the reality of their sin and sinful state, and the certain doom that awaits them. I realize that “love” is the chief attribute of God being promoted today. I call it the Oprahfication of the church. <BR/><BR/>But in the book of Acts, the record of the unfolding of the early church and the spread of the gospel to both Jew and Gentile, the love of God is not mentioned one time. It was not the key hinge on which the gospel swung. In fact, the proclamation of the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ, sola fide, and repentance was the key hinge of the gospel call (Acts 2:35-41).<BR/><BR/><B>Particular redemption is not at stake here; penal substitutionary atonement is not at stake here; the exclusivity of Christ is not at stake here. What is at stake is the character of God.</B><BR/>What’s at stake here is the character and integrity of biblical evangelism.<BR/><BR/>Pastor Chan says, <I>“…you gotta understand the whole message of the Bible is not about this God in heaven who wants to take from you, it’s about this God who wants to give to you. The fact that this Creator, the one made all this actually loves us and wants to give to us and if you miss out on that you’re gonna miss the whole point of your life.”</I><BR/><BR/>That's imbalanced and just isn't true...<BR/><BR/>He then makes the point: that the reason God gave us the Ten Commandments is that if we don’t steal or murder this would be a much better place for us to live. Is that really the chief purpose of the law—to make this world a better place? Or, is it to reveal that this is what pleases God and to measure man’s complete inability or depravity within himself to keep those laws and merit by his own righteousness eternal life? Sometimes while watching this very well made video, I felt like I should sing: <I>“We are the world, we are the children; we are the ones who make a brighter day so lets start giving.”</I> ☺.<BR/><BR/>He also makes this claim, <I>“Listen, if you haven’t heard a single thing I’ve said this whole time you’ve gotta hear this, despite everything you’ve done in your life, God still loves you and doesn’t want to punish you…”</I> <BR/><BR/>Is that true Frank? God really doesn’t want to punish us? Of course not. This is the “sloppy agape” that is being presented. He could have said, <I>“God does want to punish us, His wrath abides on us, He is angry with the sinner every day, and there is nothing we can do about it—we cannot save ourselves. His holiness and justice demands our punishment; His law requires it; BUT, God demonstrated His love for us in that while we were sinners Christ died for us…”</I> Otherwise, God is presented as a one-attribute Deity by love alone – I would call this “the gospel according to Barry Manilow.”<BR/><BR/><B>Yes: God is Holy and Just and also Merciful. But does He do all that -only- for His own sake, or does He do it in order that we can in some way experience those things? If it is the former, then our response to the Gospel is metaphysically irrelevant: God is glorified by both the saved and the damned, and we will be in one of those groups, and blessed is the name of the Lord.</B><BR/>Again, the primary purpose and praise of the cross is for His sake; we are the secondary thought (Eph. 4:4-14). Your last statement is true… if taken in isolation.<BR/>Rom. 9:20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Rom. 9:21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? Rom. 9:22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? Rom. 9:23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, Rom. 9:24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.”<BR/><BR/>Our experience to that reality is secondary; it is not irrelevant—but it is not primary; it is only a matter of grace first granted to the believer in Christ as I know you would also believe. IOW, regeneration must precede faith in salvation. It is all of God—all of grace; and our response is simply the visible sign of His already working within those whom the Father has drawn, the Spirit regenerated and Christ has redeemed (1 Cor. 12:3). This is precisely where his whole marriage analogy breaks down in regards to the gospel call and salvation. Marriage between a man and a woman is a dual covenant. Both are equal; both must vow; both must say “I Do.” Scripture uses the marriage model to describe our life in Christ and relationship with Christ (Eph. 5:22-26) but not in the gospel call of salvation. We don’t bring anything to our salvation <I>“accept the sin that makes it necessary”</I> (Edwards). We are not dressed in white when we come to Christ--we are not spiritual, chaste virgins. We are sinners and by nature children of wrath. We are not lovely, but sinful and depraved. <BR/><BR/>I know that Chan is not a semi-Pelagist or a closet Romanist (God does His part, we do our part and voila… we have a Christian). The whole point of the gospel is that “…He saved us…” There is no cooperation in that divine sovereign work between God and man in salvation. Sanctification is another thing altogether—but none in salvation.<BR/><BR/>I’m glad that Chan didn’t ask everyone at the end of the video to raise their surfboards and catch a wave of faith if you want to accept Christ as your personal Savior. ☺.<BR/><BR/><B>But think on this: Christ died for our sins, Steve. That is the Gospel. What brings us to God is a multi-faceted fact of good news. Yes: God is glorified. Yes: the highest purpose of the Cross is the Glory of God. But the immediate purpose of the cross is the saving of sinners.</B><BR/>I almost totally agree Frank. The highest purpose of the cross is not only the glory of God, but the satisfaction of God—propitiation. God had to be satisfied, before He could save me, before He could really love me. The love of God is not this arbitrary thing; it is reserved for His own. It is not casual, nor general. The love of God is inextricably inseparable from the cross of Christ. BUT, as you rightly assert, the primacy of the cross was that Christ died for God (Roms. 3:24-25)—and we are the benefactors of the cross; not the primary reason for the cross. <BR/><BR/>Chan’s video didn’t bring that tension of those biblical truths to light in his production. Again, I thought there were some positives to his video. I guess I didn’t see this short-film as instrumental, essential or as weighty as you did.<BR/><BR/><B>Paul thought so at Pentecost: his plea to the Jews who heard his preaching, and who knew they were guilty of sin, was that if they repent and are baptized, they would receive forgiveness. And his exhortation was to save themselves from this crooked generation.</B><BR/>That is the essence of the promise of the call; not the complete essence of the atonement. I just don’t think Chan went far enough. And notice in those verses you quoted from, the love of God was not the issue nor mentioned. It was the dual emphasis of repentance and forgiveness. It would have been nice to hear him drive whatever audience he is directing this video to back to the authority of Scripture in his romantic surfboard appeal. Balance.<BR/><BR/><B>You know I reject the "Jesus is my boyfriend" view of "praise and worship". I think it stinks -- but that's because it ignores the gross consequences of sin in favor of sentimentalism.</B> <BR/>I know that and agree completely with you. Please forgive me if you thought in anyway whatsoever I implied the contrary. I am with you brother.<BR/><BR/><B>What Chan has done in this video is not just an appeal to one's emotions -- though I admit he has done that. He has made an appeal which is the same in class as the Way of the Master, but instead of leveraging an argument (which is what WOTM is: it's winning an argument), he leverages the human need to be loved.</B><BR/>I think the greatest human need is not to be loved; but to be forgiven which is the greatest expression of love. That’s the difference. He’s leveraging the wrong thing biblically, but is leveraging that which pushes all the key buttons. He’s tapping into the emotional need for love, not the cognitive need to be forgiven of our sins. BTW, he referred to sin as “messing up.” In his quest to relate, I think he toned down the nomenclature unnecessarily. Biblical love is not unconditional: it is unfailing, unmerited, undeserved, unreciprocated, and self-sacrificial—but not unconditional. AND, it is not conditioned upon a response—it is not an emotion. God demonstrated His love for me in that Christ died for sinners. His love is not conditioned by my response, but by His sovereign action. My response is only generated by His grace. Faith is a gift—not a product of my own will.<BR/><BR/>BTW, I like some of the WOTM material—but I’ve never heard them present sola fide—justification by faith—once in their gospel call. I know that you would agree that the biblical use of the law is not to present pedestrians a 30 second spiritual pop-quiz. It is to bring conviction upon the soul; that as sinners we continually fall short of God’s holy appraisal of our lives (Roms. 3:23) then to be followed by the balm of sola gratia found only in the sinless life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. <BR/><BR/>Here’s my greatest concern about this movie: Chan never once brought up and explained the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. And as you know, without the resurrection you have no gospel and all our preaching (and videos) are in vain. 1Cor. 15:13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 1Cor. 15:14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain..<BR/><BR/><B>Why is it wrong to leverage that if the message of the consequences of sin are clearly in view? Why is it wrong to tell people, "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us," and God shows His love for us in this way?</B><BR/>Because 1. he never said that and 2. love is not the primary essence of the gospel; it is the primary motivation of the gospel. It can, if left unbalanced and unexplained, muster false hope to the nonelect. As one nonbeliever told me after I proclaimed the gospel to 7,000 gays, lesbians, transsexuals and transvestites at a World AIDS Day concert in Oakland, CA, <I>“if God already loves me, then I must be OK; how am I in need of anything more? How could God at the same time let me go to hell if He really loves me?”</I> That is the logical conclusion that many unsaved people come to. I like how Jonathan Edwards approached this (whom I know you deeply appreciate as well) when he called his powerful sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”. Why didn’t Edwards simply call it: “Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God?” We must include in any gospel presentation and call of repentance for the forgiveness of sin with His holiness, justice, wrath and the depravity of man and make the total life and ministry of Jesus Christ the object of that call.<BR/><BR/><B>Jesus loves, Steve! And the size of Jesus' love is the size of the price He paid for sin. God is glorified to show that much Love -- and He doesn’t just show it in a museum: He shows it to us.</B><BR/>No argument there and I am eternally grateful that He loves me for I deserve nothing but to be sanctioned to a living hell forever and ever in unmitigated fury and gall.<BR/><BR/>Luke 24:46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, Luke 24:47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”<BR/><BR/>I love you man. You are always a blessing in my life and a challenge to my thinking, which I need and appreciate greatly. Thank you for your questions and thoughts and a chance to respond. I don’t know if my answers were as adequate as what you presented.<BR/><BR/>Stephanus Campius<BR/>2 Cor. 4:5-7SJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1168197352435605262007-01-07T11:15:00.000-08:002007-01-07T11:15:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.SJ Camphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15844201288864307481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1168159753786426092007-01-07T00:49:00.000-08:002007-01-07T00:49:00.000-08:00John Bunyan's Calvinistic appeals to the lost:"Don...John Bunyan's Calvinistic appeals to the lost:<BR/><BR/>"Don't let Jesus lose his longing, since it is for thy salvation, but come to him and live." (Author's preface to the Jerusalem Sinner Saved)Colin Maxwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02632698769785766168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1168144737569054692007-01-06T20:38:00.000-08:002007-01-06T20:38:00.000-08:00Lou,You wrote, "The problem with the Calvinist's a...<STRONG>Lou,</STRONG><BR/><BR/>You wrote, <I>"The problem with the Calvinist's approach to the verse (Romans 10:9), in my experience, is typically finding the Lordship interpretation of the passage. That means more than believing on the Lord is necessary to be born again."</I><BR/><BR/>First, it is a misrepresentation to say that Calvinism gives requirements to be born again. Most Calvinists, including myself, see the Scripture as teaching that regeneration (being born again) comes first, before faith, even if only a millisecond.<BR/><BR/>Frankly, I don't want to clutter up this Chan video discussion with that debate, but at least you should understand what we believe in that respect.<BR/><BR/>Since regeneration comes first -- along with a New Creation and a New Heart -- "believing in Jesus Christ" encompasses a totality that not only goes beyond mental assent, but includes recognizing and following Him as one's Lord and Savior. This is not a difficulty for the new-hearted believer, it is actually a joy, since the regenerate person now *loves* Jesus.<BR/><BR/>All this, of course, falls apart if regeneration is seen as coming *after* faith, a biblically unsupported view.<BR/><BR/>As Jesus told Nicodemus, unless a man is born again, he cannot even *see* the Kingdom of God (let alone believe in the King).Terry Rayburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00888533194435826837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1168143638920094292007-01-06T20:20:00.000-08:002007-01-06T20:20:00.000-08:00Gummby:I have been saving this one for you, bro.Gummby:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://kingdomboundbooks.com/blog/herbie_r.jpg" REL="nofollow">I have been saving this one for you, bro</A>.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1168137562023806792007-01-06T18:39:00.000-08:002007-01-06T18:39:00.000-08:00Excellent quote from Mr. D. A. Carson.Excellent quote from Mr. D. A. Carson.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1168136127759745202007-01-06T18:15:00.000-08:002007-01-06T18:15:00.000-08:00Lou: here's a working link. Cent: new picture is c...Lou: <A HREF="http://q-and-a-blog.blogspot.com/index.html" REL="nofollow">here's</A> a working link. <BR/><BR/>Cent: new picture is cool. I guess I need an avatar upgrade. Can you help with that?Matt Gummhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14698469400042045105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1168130341402654712007-01-06T16:39:00.000-08:002007-01-06T16:39:00.000-08:00I clicked on your DebateBlog link and it went nowh...I clicked on your DebateBlog link and it went nowhere. Can you give me a site address?<BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1168130152924294142007-01-06T16:35:00.000-08:002007-01-06T16:35:00.000-08:00Centurion:Is this a good thing? Have I somehow ar...Centurion:<BR/><BR/>Is this a good thing? Have I somehow arrived? ;-)<BR/><BR/>I am not familar with your blog. I'll have a look-see.<BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1168127278638435432007-01-06T15:47:00.000-08:002007-01-06T15:47:00.000-08:00Lou --You have just earned yourself the opportunit...Lou --<BR/><BR/>You have just earned yourself the opportunity to ask your question in the <A HREF="q-and-a-blog.bogspot.com" REL="nofollow">DebateBlog</A>.<BR/><BR/>Let's make the topic "the definition of salvation in reformed theology", and I'll defend.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1168127168460394062007-01-06T15:46:00.000-08:002007-01-06T15:46:00.000-08:00Terry --Campi's complaint is not that poor God can...Terry --<BR/><BR/>Campi's complaint is not that poor God can't save sinner: it is that extolling God's love is somehow a violation of the Gospel when it is presented to sinners.<BR/><BR/>There's no question: I'm ready to go to theological blows with anyone who wants to say, "You cast the deciding vote". But I am also willing to go to the theological mat with anyone who says that man does not willing receive the Gospel, and willing to take it outside with anyone who says that God doesn't love sinners.<BR/><BR/>Campi's view -- that telling sinners that God loves them is always a soft-soak -- simply under-appreciates the beauty of the Gopel. It's as if only the saved can appreciate such a thing and therefore we only talk about it amongst ourselves, and even then only if we duly abrogate the love we receive to the Glory which is due to God.<BR/><BR/>And look: I still will call him "Campi" (unless he objects). He's not an outcast for making this mistake -- and he's not the only one who makes this mistake. And its because we have adopted a view of evangelism that it must be a fight -- an apologetic argument. Apologetics is good -- but we are not called to only make a logical argument for Christ: we are called to preach the Gospel -- declare it. God's love is evident in the Gospel, and the fact of God's love for sinners does not change the matter of the horrible problem of sin.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1168127074289646012007-01-06T15:44:00.000-08:002007-01-06T15:44:00.000-08:00Terry:”A secondary common factor is, ‘Believe on t...Terry:<BR/><BR/><I>”A secondary common factor is, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved</I>’.”<BR/><BR/>Before I comment on what you call, “The Gospel as preached by Calvinists,” I will say that I reject the Mental Assent only type of gospel message.<BR/><BR/>The problem with the Calvinist's approach to the verse (<B>Romans 10:9</B>), in my experience, is typically finding the Lordship interpretation of the passage.<BR/><BR/>That means more than believing on the Lord is necessary to be born again. What is required is an upfront commitment to: surrender, submit, deny-self, cross bearing and following in “exchange” for salvation.<BR/><BR/>This then becomes a man-centered gospel, which corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ (<B>2 Cor. 11:3</B>), and frustrates grace (<B>Gal. 2:21</B>).<BR/><BR/>You wrote, “The common factor is ‘Christ, and Him crucified’ [and buried, and risen].”<BR/><BR/>This passage (<B>1 Cor. 15:1-4</B>) defines the gospel: Jesus, God's Son, died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures. This is the gospel message, which the Corinthians received from the Apostle Paul.<BR/><BR/>Please allow for a closing question. If, as the Calvinist contends, salvation is all of and by God, why then does the Lordship Calvinist condition salvation on a lost man's upfront commitment to “forsake himself” and “follow Jesus in submissive obedience?”<BR/><BR/>LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1168121509528050992007-01-06T14:11:00.000-08:002007-01-06T14:11:00.000-08:00I would suggest that two things should be kept in ...I would suggest that two things should be kept in mind here - 1st, the only <I>infallible</I> Gospel presentations to be found are those that are in God's Word. All others must stand in line after the standard of God's perfect revelation. Second, the pattern of Gospel preaching in the NT shows us that there is a need to proclaim truth with some understanding of the audience itself. When the Apostles preached to Jewish audiences, their messages were much more theologically direct (e.g. Acts 2, 3, 4, 7, 13) than when they preached to the Gentiles (Acts 10, 14, 17). It was the same Christ-centered Gospel, but presented according to the theological knowledge, or ignorance, of the audience. In fact, all of these Gospel presentations have their distinctions, but they are all directed to the target of Christ and Him crucified for our sins. With this in mind, the video certainly isn't <I>Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God</I> by Jonathan Edwards. But we ought to keep in mind that Edwards had an audience of mostly unconverted <I>religious</I> people who needed to understand that the works-righteousness that they were holding on to so dearly would only sink them to everlasting hell. Edward's message carried more of the fire of Acts 2; but this video is more like the <I>Basic Theology 101</I> as is presented in Acts 17 by the Apostle Paul to the Athenians. Acts 2 and 17 are both Gospel presentations (without compromise), but they were delivered to very different audiences. For most people in our day, who think that "The Gospel" is a musical genre, they need to hear a simple presentation like this video. Let's face it, there will be many people in our lives who will need us to walk with them in their "Mars hill" existence with a <I>gradual</I>, but faithful, presentation of truth. <BR/><BR/>The thing I can't get over, Frank, is that you posted in a bar.thearmouryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16573006949482415927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1168104239249955382007-01-06T09:23:00.000-08:002007-01-06T09:23:00.000-08:00Lou,I know of a few of the hyper Calvinist variety...Lou,<BR/><BR/>I know of a few of the hyper Calvinist variety (hence my wording "professing" Calvinism)They are forever dotting i's and stroking t's and attacking those whose preaching throws open the door of Heaven and bids all to enter in. <BR/><BR/>There is a very interesting book on the various controversies within Calvinism over the doctrine of "Limited Atonement" in the Welsh scene published by the Banner of Truth. It deals with how to preach the Cross and the free offer etc., <BR/>I remember one illustration of men entreating those who had been trapped underground and were now afraid to venture further. You don't have to say to them: "There's fresh air up here if you will breathe it." You just have to say "There's fresh air up here." Lloyd Jones highly recommended the book which has only recently been translated out of the Welsh. Good solid stuff.Colin Maxwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02632698769785766168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1168100675721500712007-01-06T08:24:00.000-08:002007-01-06T08:24:00.000-08:00Much can be resolved here if we come above the "fo...Much can be resolved here if we come above the "fog of technicality" to the One Whom the technicalities are about.<BR/><BR/>An honest observer will admit that myriads of people have come to Christ under the preaching of what we would loosely call The Gospel, as preached by Arminians.<BR/><BR/>And myriads of people have come to Christ under the preaching of what we would loosely call The Gospel, as preached by Calvinists.<BR/><BR/>The common factor is "Christ, and Him crucified" [and buried, and risen].<BR/><BR/>A secondary common factor is, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved."<BR/><BR/>Having said that, I would add:<BR/><BR/>1. Chan (and Frank) are right that God loves all to whom we may be preaching. If we leave out His love for all sinners, we are misrepresenting him.<BR/><BR/>2. Campi is right that God is not wringing His hands, desiring in His heart-of-hearts that all those will be saved (if He wanted *that*, He would, by God!, *have* it). <BR/><BR/>3. Preaching the Gospel ultimately means preaching Jesus Christ, it doesn't mean preaching the hearer. Hold Jesus up [and His death, burial and resurrection] and His sheep will hear His voice, and will flock to Him, with or without Arminian trappings (though I welcome the falling away of Arminian trappings for the simple sake of Truth).<BR/><BR/>4. Let's preach Him. As one evangelist once said, after being criticized in his methodology, "I prefer the way I'm DOING it to the way you're NOT doing it."Terry Rayburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00888533194435826837noreply@blogger.com