tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post7672853140897763002..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Mouths Must Be StoppedPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-43207995115166520312008-04-28T03:54:00.000-07:002008-04-28T03:54:00.000-07:00Hey, thanks for reply. you say"A Biblical Arminian...Hey, thanks for reply. you say<BR/><BR/>"A Biblical Arminian (not an oxymoron, I think) can and does affirm the Gospel truth of justification by faith alone. While not affirming the doctrines of irrestible grace, particular redemption, etc. And is still well within the bounds of Gospel orthodoxy."<BR/><BR/>I would say, a biblical Arminian, is one whos core theology and experience contradicts his arminian leanings. I was once one of those myself and many of my freinds are also. What I mean is just because they believe that they exercised free will doesnt change the fact that God actually chose them. <BR/><BR/> "I agree with you that movement away from the doctrines of grace in evangelicalism has weakened the church greatly, caused a loss of sense of God's sovereignty and transcendence, and promoted a man-centered approach to evangelism. But this is more a result of the depreciation of ALL theology and doctrines in the modern / postmodern church, not just the doctrines of Calvinism. But what we're discussing here is defending the core and central truths of the Gospel. "<BR/><BR/>I would argue that the decline of all theology began when protestant evangelicals shifted towards arminianism and liberalism. <BR/><BR/>You seem to underestimate just how trajic that 'man centered' consequence is for the doctrines of justification etc and the core of the faith. <BR/><BR/>It is precisely this that has paved the way for every error in the church.<BR/><BR/>Pauls rebuke to the Galatians was a rebuke for mingling a little mancentredness with grace. His response 'youve fallen from grace' 'let the preacher of another gosple be eternally condemed'! What was this other gospel? Grace and human effort. <BR/><BR/>This is why teh doctrines of grace are so intimately linked with the gospel of Jesus Christ. They are not an accessory which gives one a better version than the model that doesnt have them!Revivalfirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12192357065606771313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-70317802845454148512008-04-25T13:09:00.000-07:002008-04-25T13:09:00.000-07:00Mike,I believe a lot of things about God, and, of ...Mike,<BR/><BR/>I believe a lot of things about God, and, of course, I'd like to think I'm right on all of them. In that I could even say I'm certain of them. But I also see a lot of mystery in the bible and in God and it doesn't scare me at all (and I'm not saying it scares you by saying that). <BR/><BR/>I agree that wisdom is about the character of God. But God's character is that He is love, His mercy, His faithfulness, His holiness, His justice, His wrath, His righteousness, and those sorts of things. I don't see His character as touching on the issue of how He thinks or interacts with His creation (except that it will be consistent with being love, being merciful, being righteous, etc.). <BR/><BR/>Yes, He's given us the Comforter and He's given us the mind of Christ, and He gave Paul those, too, and Paul still said what He said in Romans 11. <BR/><BR/>Basically, I agree with nearly all you've said in your last comment, but I'd say that all of that doesn't stop the conclusion of james 3 or Paul's constant call to make every effort for peace and unity among the body of Christ. <BR/><BR/>Fantastic discussion. <BR/><BR/>Doulos, I love what you shared as well. T4G sounds fantastic.Bryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-5716208374393670372008-04-25T11:14:00.000-07:002008-04-25T11:14:00.000-07:00Bryan,I understand. But I seem to think He's been ...Bryan,<BR/><BR/>I understand. <BR/><BR/>But I seem to think He's been a lot clearer on a lot more things than you seem to think.<BR/><BR/>I think that James means that wisdom is first precise according to the character of God. If you want to call that theological orthodoxy, fine. I'm not using that phrase because of connotations, but I think he's saying that if wisdom is not first in line with God's character and His revelation, then it's no wisdom. I do think it's doctrine. And while doctrine is passed on by action, I hesitate to give orthopraxy the place you're giving it. Orthopraxy must be first informed by orthodoxy. I think of Paul telling Timothy, "Follow the pattern of sound words," and of Jesus saying, "My words are Spirit and are Life," and "My word is like a rockbed foundation upon which you can build your house." Certainly wisdom is vindicated by her actions. But the Bible speaks about "doctrine" as the pattern of sound words that shape our actions, not the actions themselves. If it did, we'd be moralists, just trying to earn our salvation.<BR/><BR/>And we can't fix our eyes on Jesus and worship Him in awe if we don't know who He actually is. To the degree that we know Him better, more precisely, to that degree is He glorified. The more imprecise or errant our knowledge of Him, the less He is glorified. He has made Himself known. His ultimate purpose is to display Himself. May we never accusing Him of being so lofty and exalted that we cannot see Him clearly.<BR/><BR/>And I'm not saying I know everything there is to know about God. And I'm not saying He's not unsearchable. But I am saying that He's given us His Word. His full, written revelation. Everything we need. The Word tells all about Him. What He's like. What His judgments and paths are like. And He commands us to study it and know it and be convicted about it. <BR/><BR/>He's also given us His own Spirit, who illuminates that Word. So that even if we couldn't understand it on our own (we can't, even though it's in front of us), the Spirit helps us.<BR/><BR/>AND, He's also given us the mind of Christ (1Cor 2). No eye has seen, nor ear has heard... but God revealed it to us through His Son, and is pleased to give us the mind of Christ "so that we may know" these things.<BR/><BR/>So I think I can trumpet about how I know God. In fact, I think God commands that from me. "Let he who boasts boast in the LORD, that he understands me and knows me." I'm not parading and advertising my insight, or my mental or spiritual acumen, or my divinely-helped intellect. I am boasting in my humility... that though I'm <I>nothing</I>, the Creator of the Universe has made Himself known to me! He has revealed Himself to all the world in His creation, and most exactly and precisely in His Son, by whom He gives His own revelation, which He graciously codified for us in the pages of Scripture. It is the glory of glories that God has made Himself known. And He hasn't just made a few things known. He has truly revealed Himself and His own mind.<BR/><BR/>We will both agree that where God has made Himself clear, we should be certain. Where we disagree is the amount of things about which God has clearly revealed in Scripture. When men disagree for 20,000 years, let alone 2,000, it'll never be a blemish on the clarity of God's revelation, but only on the sinfulness of man. Disagreement, difficulty in understanding, good arguments on both sides... none of that undermines clarity, and neither does it undermine certainty or confidence. <BR/><BR/>God has convicted me of and revealed to me His truth, and by His grace will continue to do so. As He does this, I must speak what He has declared. What else could I do? I hope that you see that the things in Scripture are clearer and more decisively revealed than you now think. I honestly do... for your sake and for His glory.Mike Riccardihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748453197783538367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-38453533921674347462008-04-25T10:41:00.000-07:002008-04-25T10:41:00.000-07:00Mike, you can always email me to check on my motiv...Mike, you can always email me to check on my motivation if you are unsure. I know I'm human and have definitely struggled at times with maintaining love, whether in actions or in a comment on a blog or anywhere. Just ask my wife. :) I believe that I can safely say my heart was in good standing when I made that comment. <BR/><BR/>Thank you for considering my motives and not assuming the worst. <BR/><BR/>I'm sorry that my phrase "not words" threw you off and made you think I was saying that the wisdom of God never involves words. I was trying to emphasize what I believe James is emphasizing in the context of that passage. I assumed people would know that I wasn't totally excluding words. It simply is a fact that wisdom is generally thought of as all about words, and i was emphasizing that it isn't soley about words. I chose my words poorly in the interest of brevity.<BR/><BR/>Do you read James 3's reference to "pure" as being all about pure theology (in the academic sense of that word)? Because I don't see that in the passage at all. I would say it is a reference to pure "doctrine" in the Greek meaning of the word - that being teaching. We teach by conduct as much, if not more so, than by our words. My job as a parent demonstrates that to me every day. I also think that is what Jesus showed us by his rabbinical approach with the disciples. <BR/><BR/>So, I don't discount purity, but I don't think it references a set of academic teachings about the written revelation of God. As you know, Paul himself wrote of God: "Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?"<BR/><BR/>I don't want to blur lines in the name of unity. I hope we can stop and say, "Wow, we are all finite sinners, saved by grace, by an Almighty and unsearchable God. He went to the cross for us. Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound. We are but clay; He is the potter. We are the creatures; He is the Magnificent and Infinite Creator. Let's stop pointing at one another, fix our eyes on Jesus, and simply stand in awe of Him, doing what He's commanded us to do: to love Him with all our hearts, soul, and mind, and to love one another as we love ourselves."<BR/><BR/>I dont think we accomplish this by trumpeting about how we know all about how God works, particularly when there are legitimate biblical arguments over all of these (and we've been debating the same argumetns for 2000 years). Where things are clear - like what God says of Himself (He is the Way, the Truth, the Life, the Resurrection, the Bread of LIfe, the Gate, the Good Shepherd, Holy, Faithful, True, Righteous Judge, Merciful, our Husband, our provider, our King, our creator, and so on), then we will stand firm. And we will do what He's asked us to do.Bryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-84035801356897073702008-04-25T09:59:00.000-07:002008-04-25T09:59:00.000-07:00Bryan,I'm not sure, but I'll be honest with you: i...Bryan,<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure, but I'll be honest with you: it sounds like your last comment was a pot-shot. If it wasn't, I apologize, and will delete the forthcoming comment.<BR/><BR/>Firstly, James doesn't say, "The wisdom of God has nothing to do with words." That he doesn't specifically say it... could that be because he just spent the beginning of the entire chapter talking about words and the tongue?<BR/><BR/>It seems like you're trying to elevate the "good deeds" part above the "first pure" part. That wisdom is shown by the spiritual fruit of good deeds is not nullified or exalted over that the wisdom described is first pure. That is, it's first rightly perceived based on the character of God, and <I>then</I>, having that pure wisdom that is actually from God, you manifest good deeds.<BR/><BR/>Any group of any people regardless of their spiritual state can hang out and do "good" to one another. There are some very others-conscious, "good" (in the human sense) people. I interact with many of them. But they're not unified by their "good deeds," because they're not done in purity of the wisdom that comes from God.<BR/><BR/>Same for Christians. Unity is false if it is not based on truth. If that wisdom from God is not pure, if it is not accurate, if it is not a precise and defined revelation from God, then all our smiling faces and happily relating to one another means nothing to Him. It's not glorifying, because He's not the supplier of it.<BR/><BR/>We can't blur the lines God has drawn in the name of unity.Mike Riccardihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748453197783538367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-57312917442196272172008-04-25T09:24:00.000-07:002008-04-25T09:24:00.000-07:00revivalfire: How can we say that 'justification' i...<I>revivalfire: How can we say that 'justification' is worth contending for while Calvinism isnt when Calvinism offers a purer and more biblical understanding of justification by faith?</I><BR/><BR/>Because Calvinism isn't the Gospel. While I agree that the Reformed view is truer to the Biblical view of justification and all other aspects of the character of God and the work of God in salvation, it is still not the truth of justification by faith. A Biblical Arminian (not an oxymoron, I think) can and does affirm the Gospel truth of justification by faith alone. While not affirming the doctrines of irrestible grace, particular redemption, etc. And is still well within the bounds of Gospel orthodoxy.<BR/><BR/>Wow, I can't believe I'm defending Arminianism. Which I'm really not. I agree with you that movement away from the doctrines of grace in evangelicalism has weakened the church greatly, caused a loss of sense of God's sovereignty and transcendence, and promoted a man-centered approach to evangelism. But this is more a result of the depreciation of ALL theology and doctrines in the modern / postmodern church, not just the doctrines of Calvinism. But what we're discussing here is defending the core and central truths of the Gospel. And those truths, while many of us agree are better explained by Calvinism, are not exclusive to Calvinism.<BR/><BR/>I guess I'm reflecting a bit on what I heard at T4G last week, from Duncan and Dever.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-31374352031847014322008-04-25T09:00:00.000-07:002008-04-25T09:00:00.000-07:00I love that passage from James 3. It praises the ...I love that passage from James 3. It praises the wisdom from God and tells how it involves good works and spiritual fruit, not words. It also closes with the words that "a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace."Bryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-28135521626408205382008-04-25T08:19:00.000-07:002008-04-25T08:19:00.000-07:00it is the devil and his bunch who want a cease fir...<I>it is the devil and his bunch who want a cease fire because it is their speculations, lofty imaginations and well fortified philosophies that are destroyed by the divinely powerful sound doctrine of the Word of God. Therefore the devil and his ministers are behind the ecumenical movement with its strong deceptive current of unity not based on truth. They want peace without purity forgetting that peace is based on purity.</I><BR/><BR/>Amen, man. Seriously.<BR/><BR/>Even sadder is that I don't think many of them <I>forget</I> that peace is based on purity. I think they're deliberate in not remembering that. What you say reminds me of what James says:<BR/><BR/>But the wisdom from above is <B>first pure, <I>then</I> peaceable</B>, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy.Mike Riccardihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748453197783538367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-26147132083099789822008-04-25T07:55:00.000-07:002008-04-25T07:55:00.000-07:00How false teachers are to be silenced is one of th...<I>How false teachers are to be silenced is one of those things in Scripture that is crystal-clear. It is not by physical force or auto-da-fé. But they are to be refuted and rebuked by qualified elders in the church who are skilled in the Scriptures, "able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it" (v. 8). That presupposes that vital truth is clear enough to know for certain. And it prescribes a clear remedy involving exhortation, reproof, rebuke, and correction.</I><BR/><BR/>The battle for the truth is not of our making but to it we are called and in it we are to be good soldiers of Christ. The danger of not contending for the faith once for all handed down to the saints with a clear and decisive <I>“Thus says the Lord!”</I> is clearly illustrated in Genesis 3. The enemy of truth (the father of lies) twists God’s Word in order to either create <B>doubt</B> about it or <B>presumption</B> toward it. The devil comes with both a <B>liberal interpretation</B> – <I>“Indeed, has God said…?”</I> and a <B>conservative interpretation</B> – <I>“For it is written, ‘He will command His angels concerning you….’”</I> And the devil has many men in both camps as is clearly seen in the Bible and was clearly illustrated in the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Both groups were silenced by the Lord Jesus Christ – see Matthew 22:15-46 highlighting verses 34 and 46 – <I>“But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together.”</I> And, <I>“No one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask Him another question.”</I><BR/><BR/>BTW, it is the devil and his bunch who want a cease fire because it is their speculations, lofty imaginations and well fortified philosophies that are destroyed by the divinely powerful sound doctrine of the Word of God. Therefore the devil and his ministers are behind the ecumenical movement with its strong deceptive current of unity not based on truth. They want peace without purity forgetting that peace is based on purity - <I>“And the work of <B>righteousness (purity)</B> will be <B>peace</B>, and the service of righteousness (purity), quietness and confidence forever”</I> (Isaiah 32:17).<BR/><BR/>At the heart of the battle for truth is the gospel (soteriology). Included in that is not only the divinity/humanity of Christ but also the nature and character of God (His absolute holiness in all of His dealings either in salvation or damnation) and the nature and character of man (his absolute inability to be good) and therefore the exclusiveness of the gospel. To go wrong in soteriology is to go wrong in ecclesiology and to go wrong in ecclesiology is to go wrong in eschatology – which is exactly what God’s Word tells us will and must happen!olan stricklandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05345193051857763038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-84374438336265163222008-04-25T07:30:00.000-07:002008-04-25T07:30:00.000-07:00Well-put.Well-put.Mike Riccardihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748453197783538367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-6908691022507305492008-04-25T06:46:00.000-07:002008-04-25T06:46:00.000-07:00Cheers Dan, I found it extremely amusing! "The Dou...Cheers Dan, I found it extremely amusing!<BR/><BR/> "The Doulos said... <BR/>bryan riley: Is Calvinism something worth fighting over? Why or Why not?<BR/><BR/>I think not. And what I mean by this is that only the Gospel, the central Biblical doctrines of justification by faith alone, substitutionary atonement and the like are worth fighting for."<BR/><BR/>Surely 'Calvinism', summarised in the doctrines of grace, are centra. They underpin, and are the overarching theological principles of the Gospel? <BR/><BR/>I'm a very recent five pointer, however it is my conviction about the gospel and the decline of it within evangelicalism which has caused me to be convinced about the doctrines of grace. <BR/><BR/>How can we say that 'justification' is worth contending for while Calvinism isnt when Calvinism offers a purer and more biblical understanding of justification by faith?Revivalfirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12192357065606771313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-33834401198892580612008-04-25T06:37:00.000-07:002008-04-25T06:37:00.000-07:00So, for example, why would you struggle with telli...<I>So, for example, why would you struggle with telling someone that the God, Who Is Love, loves them? (not to mention the fact that God is Love, so we have to let His character and nature begin to educate our education about who He is and how He works).</I><BR/><BR/>Because God is not <I>only</I> love, but is also Light, in whom there is no darkness at all. And I don't want to be deceptive in giving them the idea that God loves everyone in the same way. That's irresponsible. There is a common grace that they are beneficiaries of. They get sun and rain just like us. They also get a stay of judgment just like us. But without faith in Christ, they are not loved by God in the way that God loves His children. Simply because God can only love that which is pleasing. And the only thing that is pleasing is Christ. So those who are not "in Christ" as Paul would say have nothing that the Father truly loves. To say anything different violates His holiness.<BR/><BR/><I>Given your inability to say that you are 100% certain, and I hope you would agree that there are scriptural bases for disagreement, it seems you should have some grace toward differences of opinion on the topic.</I><BR/><BR/>Firstly, I do think that I have some grace towards differences of opinion. But it's not like the color of the wallpaper that we're disagreeing on here. I acknowledge that there are different interpretations, and that they're not arrived at by virtue of psychosis. It doesn't mean I don't think that they're dead wrong.<BR/><BR/>And I'm not sure where I said I wasn't certain. I'm confident to say that I have no doubt that the Calvinist system laid out in the doctrines of grace more closely and accurately describes the person and work of Christ than the Arminian system. Given my certainty, that <I>still</I> doesn't give me free rein to be grace-less towards Arminians, but that grace doesn't come from an uncertainty about how God is, but a certainty. Doulous demonstrated that perfectly. <I>Because</I> I'm <I>certain</I> that God is so sovereign, I can have a spirit of graciousness to those in error, confident that He is in control of all things, and does everything according to the counsel of His own will, His own perfect decree. So grace doesn't have to come from uncertainty (i.e., false humility). Grace comes from knowing with precision who God is, such that you're transformed by the glory of the Father's grace seen in the face of Christ.<BR/><BR/><I>I just know that if someone is calling people to war they, the leader and the followers, had better know what the war is to be about and how it is to be fought.</I><BR/><BR/>I believe I know what the war is about. I also believe that there <I>are</I> more primary things to go to war on... things about which Johnny, Rick, and I would all be on the same side. So I'm not saying that these guys are unbelievers with whom I'm at war. More to come on that...<BR/><BR/><I>As examples of the potential issues: ... Did He die as a perfect sacrifice for sins?</I><BR/><BR/>Again you prove my point. Does 'perfect sacrifice' mean actual substitute? Or does it mean potential substitute? Did He die as a perfect sacrifice for the sins of every single human being who ever lived? Or did He die as a perfect sacrifice for the sins of His own people, marked out before time for His own possession? You <I>can't</I> stay at the level of inclusive language, because nobody knows what you mean. And any responsible, thinking person will say at some point in their inquiry into Christianity, "What does perfect sacrifice mean?" Indeed, if <I>you</I> don't explain that in your proclamation of the Gospel, you are being an irresponsible communicator of the Gospel.<BR/><BR/><I>Finally, I don't believe that people are our enemies. Flesh and blood we don't fight against. We fight a spiritual war. We are told to love our neighbors - period. No, that doesn't mean gloss over unbelief - i don't gloss over my children's lack of belief in my authority - but it does mean that i'm not warring against human beings.</I><BR/><BR/>I absolutely agree, and don't know why you'd think I thought otherwise. You prove my point here, again, too. Like I was saying before, this issue is an issue for which I go to battle with Johnny and Rick (sorry that you guys seem to be the poster child, here... nothing personal). But I'm not warring against <I>them</I>, I'm warring against their ideology. Which is the precise reason why I can <I>team up with them</I> on other issues. I don't wage war on human beings. I wage war on their ideologies, and every thought not brought into captivity to the Word of God... at least, I know that's what I <I>should</I> be doing, and it's what I <I>purpose</I> to do, even if I transgress at times in this.<BR/><BR/>So I don't think there's any warrant to insinuate that I'm warring against flesh and blood here. You and I seem to be battling a little bit, but I'm 100% certain that we'd agree on other things for which we'd go to battle on the same side... and I wouldn't be conflicted about it. That's because I'm not at war with you, but the idea that says "Doctrine isn't those things... it's only these things over here."<BR/><BR/>That seems like an abrupt ending... but no smooth conclusion is coming to mind... lol... so I'll leave it there.Mike Riccardihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748453197783538367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-72783276005963466132008-04-25T05:52:00.000-07:002008-04-25T05:52:00.000-07:00This post is so relevant! I had the privilege to m...This post is so relevant! I had the privilege to meet Phil last weekend at a conference in Rochester, NY. After that, our church book club disscused what are Christians' responsiblities concerning false teachers. I was thinking globally and locally. What are local church leaders supposed to do when leader(s) of other churches start teaching a false gospel? I would hope that people in the church would speak up, but it seems that it is not the rule, but the exception. Many people just leave quietly and say nothing.Debbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150302877339387599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-5254555109281731822008-04-25T05:30:00.000-07:002008-04-25T05:30:00.000-07:00Thanks, Mike. I appreciate that.Thanks, Mike. I appreciate that.James Scott Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07641370124346172648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-41449655305649116822008-04-24T22:47:00.000-07:002008-04-24T22:47:00.000-07:00Mike,I do understand that theoretically those ques...Mike,<BR/><BR/>I do understand that theoretically those questions can be answered differently by a C and an A, but here's the rub - even the "purest" of C believers isn't so in tune with the mind of God to be able to know whether someone is elect or not. So, for example, why would you struggle with telling someone that the God, Who Is Love, loves them? (not to mention the fact that God is Love, so we have to let His character and nature begin to educate our education about who He is and how He works).<BR/><BR/>Anyway, you are correct that we've gotten off topic, because this isn't about soteriology or God's sovereignty - I used that as an example. Given your inability to say that you are 100% certain, and I hope you would agree that there are scriptural bases for disagreement, it seems you should have some grace toward differences of opinion on the topic. <BR/><BR/>I just know that if someone is calling people to war they, the leader and the followers, had better know what the war is to be about and how it is to be fought. I disagree that the war is about whether God works more as you describe or as Rick would describe. I disagree that the war is about most of what we call doctrine. I believe we are called to unity in Christ. As examples of the potential issues: Is He the Son of God? Is he THE way? Did He die as a perfect sacrifice for sins?<BR/><BR/>Finally, I don't believe that people are our enemies. Flesh and blood we don't fight against. We fight a spiritual war. We are told to love our neighbors - period. No, that doesn't mean gloss over unbelief - i don't gloss over my children's lack of belief in my authority - but it does mean that i'm not warring against human beings. Even 2 Corinthians 10 tells us we don't wage war like the world does.Bryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-45127888334922759782008-04-24T19:21:00.000-07:002008-04-24T19:21:00.000-07:00Johnny,Just wanna make sure I'm clear real fast......Johnny,<BR/><BR/>Just wanna make sure I'm clear real fast...<BR/><BR/>I realize that the above points are definitely oversimplified, and are lacking a full fleshing-out with sensitivity to both camps. I had very little time at the time I was posting, and was solely trying to make the point to Bryan that the questions were answered differently by Calvinists and Arminians. I wish I could have held up each view with utmost integrity and careful precision, but time didn't allow. <BR/><BR/>I'll also allow that my understanding is incomplete. But just know that these are practical questions that get asked often and questions to which I've gotten answers from both camps that are represented in what I wrote above. In other words, I'm not pulling this stuff out of the air. I understand there's different brands of Arminianism, and we're talking about a different animal when we get into Semi-Pelagianism. But again, my point wasn't to put forth air-tight arguments for Calvinism... and neither was it to build straw man arguments for Arminianism. I just wanted to demonstrate that we answer those questions differently.<BR/><BR/>And I appreciate your blessing at the end. I pray the same for you. And I also don't think that I'd call Arminianism a heresy. Sorry again if it's been coming off that way. Do I think it's out of accord with what Scripture teaches? Sure. Do I think that all Arminians are pagans? Absolutely not.<BR/><BR/>So I apologize if you feel under- or misrepresented by my characterizations. It wasn't my intent even to get into that neighborhood.Mike Riccardihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748453197783538367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-21267888900842338392008-04-24T14:15:00.000-07:002008-04-24T14:15:00.000-07:00Mike, no offense taken. I do think you are over si...Mike, no offense taken. I do think you are over simplistic in your theological bites, however. I'm not going to run through each, as that would take us way off on tangents...if TeamPyro wants to do one at a time, that's fine.<BR/><BR/>Suffice to say there is a biblical basis for refuting each of your points, or at least fine tuning them a bit for true understanding, and this has been so ever since Calvin wore knickers.<BR/><BR/>So build your local church according to your theological system, and may God bless you. Truly.<BR/><BR/>And may we find much more common cause against true heresies.James Scott Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07641370124346172648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1858359701698499192008-04-24T13:15:00.000-07:002008-04-24T13:15:00.000-07:00Are you saying that you are 100% certain that all ...<I>Are you saying that you are 100% certain that all five points of what we call Calvinism today perfectly describe how God interacts with His creation?</I><BR/><BR/>Nice try. No, the doctrines of grace are not an exhaustive summary of how God interacts with His creation. Are any one of them incorrect in what they do describe? No.<BR/><BR/><I>I'd also add that I don't see how your questions above would necessarily be answered any differently by people of different persuasions on God's sovereignty.</I><BR/><BR/>Let me take care of that for you. (I mean to construct no straw man and mean no offense towards Johnny or Rick. These statements are my honest convictions about where each system necessarily and logically leads.)<BR/><BR/>- Can I walk up to someone and tell them that God loves them and has a wonderful plan for their life?<BR/><BR/>Arminian: Yes.<BR/>Calvinist: No, not necessarily, unless you intend to be intentionally deceiving. Does God have a wonderful plan for everyone's life? Insofar as everything exists to the glory of God, sure. One just has to agree that in that wonderful plan there may be eternal damnation.<BR/><BR/>- Can I make the statement that God wants to save them if they would just let him?<BR/><BR/>Arminian: Yes. They've been shown ample prevenient grace to be able to make that decision.<BR/>Calvinist: No. They're dead in trespasses and sins, and must be sovereignly regenerated by God before they can "let him" do anything. Jesus is not subject to the human will.<BR/><BR/>- Can I tell my congregation that if they don't preach the gospel right, someone will end up in hell who wouldn't have gone there if they did just preach it right?<BR/><BR/>Arminian: Yes. God gives believers the tools and unbelievers enough grace that this can happen. If you don't actively participate in this, it might mess up God's plan.<BR/>Calvinist: No. God has from before time marked out a people for His own possession whom He will effectually call to salvation by the preaching of His word. We should preach promiscuously, but none that are Christ's will be lost.<BR/><BR/>- Can I say to just anyone that Christ died for them, so they owe Him their life?<BR/><BR/>Arminian: Yes. Even though you choose 'not-God,' without you asking for it, Jesus died for you anyway. He gave His life for you! Nothing less than surrendering that life that was purchased by Him is an adequate response.<BR/>Calvinist: No. Christ did not act as a substitute for the sins of every single person in the world. He died <I>for</I> (i.e., in place of) His own people whom He marked out for His own possession, who will believe in Him in time.<BR/><BR/>- Can I tell my congregation that if they're a true Christian that they are eternally secure / will persevere to the end based on God's grace? Or do I have to tell them that they're in danger of being lost unless they do/say/believe this or that?<BR/><BR/>Arminian: No. That they did something to 'acquire' salvation requires that they can do something to lose that salvation. If they don't persevere in faith, they risk becoming lost again.<BR/>Calvinist: Yes. Since there was nothing they could do to 'acquire' salvation, there's nothing they could do to lose it. They are sovereignly upheld in faith by grace. He will lose none that are truly His, bringing to completion all good works that He began.<BR/><BR/>To Stefan's point about Luther, Calvin, and Wesley: I wholeheartedly agree. I'm sorry if I made you think I might disagree. But it doesn't change that if any one of those men were alive, we'd have a responsibility (and a delightful one) to present our case biblically and commit to their consciences that we believe they were in error. <BR/><BR/>Also, I believe the method and mode of baptism to be less "essential" than the nature of God, man, sin, grace, and salvation. So the resolve I have with the doctrines of grace is greater than the resolve I have with credobaptism.Mike Riccardihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748453197783538367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-38075631029561285002008-04-24T12:52:00.000-07:002008-04-24T12:52:00.000-07:00I know that there is. There is ample scriptural b...I know that there is. There is ample scriptural bases for disagreement as well. I'm not a 5 pointer - anymore. Slipping away... :)<BR/><BR/>I'd also add that I don't see how your questions above would necessarily be answered any differently by people of different persuasions on God's sovereignty. (Although some in various camps may be doubtful of eternal security, although when you talk to them about this it is often a semantic thing more so than a substantive thing.)<BR/><BR/>So much of our "disagreemnt" is often more semantic than real. Also, much of our disagreement, I believe, is because of our finite minds, grappling with the Infinite.Bryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-56670816481482640702008-04-24T12:49:00.000-07:002008-04-24T12:49:00.000-07:00Bryan: There is ample scriptural attestation for a...Bryan: There is ample scriptural attestation for all five points of the doctrine of grace.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-7132441565472795032008-04-24T12:46:00.000-07:002008-04-24T12:46:00.000-07:00I look forward to the day where people in the body...I look forward to the day where people in the body of Christ don't feel compelled to say things like "by the way, I'm a calvinist," or "I'm an immersion guy," just to feel like their points will be heard. And, I am guilty in this comment stream of the calvinist one... Darn it.Bryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-43705881750652737472008-04-24T12:44:00.000-07:002008-04-24T12:44:00.000-07:00Mike, Are you saying that you are 100% certain tha...Mike, <BR/><BR/>Are you saying that you are 100% certain that all five points of what we call Calvinism today perfectly describe how God interacts with His creation?Bryan Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00788345747841842640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-28238721807852411162008-04-24T12:40:00.000-07:002008-04-24T12:40:00.000-07:00Doulos:Thanks, but I also agree that there is a sl...Doulos:<BR/><BR/>Thanks, but I also agree that there is a slippery slope at play. I understand what Mike and Puritan are getting at. Once you open the door to the possibility of denying the sovereignty of God in salvation, all bets are off (so to speak).<BR/><BR/>If a pastor who had previously claimed to be a Calvinist started denying or doubting key tenets of the doctrines of grace, we should be concerned, and he should be corrected by his elders or peers.<BR/><BR/>If a church or denomination that held to a traditional, conservative form of Arminianism (or even Calvinism, for that matter!) drifted into semi-Pelagianism, then they would have drifted into heresy.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-76302351662183446482008-04-24T12:32:00.000-07:002008-04-24T12:32:00.000-07:00Stefan - well said!Stefan - well said!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-42116232601068280662008-04-24T12:12:00.000-07:002008-04-24T12:12:00.000-07:00I'd like to point out that in the principles I enu...I'd like to point out that in the principles I enumerated in my last comment, I think the doctrines of grace are naturally and logically deduced from the testimony of Scripture. I personally think "prevenient grace" is hermeneutical gymnastics (sorry, Johnny). If we ever had to move to a new city and I had to find a new church, I would only consider churches that uphold and teach the doctrines of grace, because they're the only ones I could trust to be rock solid in their teaching (other dynamics notwithstanding, like a church full of believers who are all brains and no heart).<BR/><BR/>But, most of use here also believe that believers' baptism is upheld by Scripture, and that infant baptism is refuted. We don't, however, for a minute question the faith of Luther, Calvin, or the Westminster divines, all of whom baptized babies—even though on this point we believe they were in error.<BR/><BR/>...And we sing the Wesleys' hymns without calling them rank heretics, even though they were Arminians.Stefan Ewinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05530690016594029847noreply@blogger.com