tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post8535556899456162509..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Olson on Limited Atonement: Part TwoPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger116125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-91922572805314348342012-07-03T07:33:31.137-07:002012-07-03T07:33:31.137-07:00All right, this has gotten well past "silly,&...All right, this has gotten well past "silly," with folks like Marty and Phil simply in effect saying over and over again "Ignoring every word of both posts, here are my unconnected thoughts about preferring a hypothetical atonement over the Biblical model." Good grief, seriously — Boaz? The story of Boaz trumps the direct statements of Scripture about what Christ actually meant to and did accomplish by His work on the Cross?<br /><br />I should have turned the lights off a while back, and apologize for not having done so. Which I do now.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-803804828797074862012-07-03T05:58:56.379-07:002012-07-03T05:58:56.379-07:00"..prohibit Him.."
God loves Jacob, and..."..prohibit Him.."<br /><br />God loves Jacob, and hates Esua, why is that?<br /><br />An even more mysterious truth is that God loved me, and He calls me by name. I'll never understand this love of God; and yet I am overwhelmed by His love, and eternally secure in His loving hands, and no one, no devil, can pull me away from the grip of my Abba Father, and Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior and Friend.<br /><br />Have a good holiday.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-48210598544917315352012-07-03T04:48:12.386-07:002012-07-03T04:48:12.386-07:00Something to ponder: did the Father have any limia...Something to ponder: did the Father have any limiatations on who He could choose to give to the Son? I say no. Does the H.S. have any limitations on who He can quicken and illuminate? I say no. The only limitations were self-imposed by the determinate counsel in eternity past. If there is an unlimited aspect to the work of the Father and H.S. why do you insist on tying the hands of the Son and prohibit Him from having any kind of unlimited aspect to His work?Marty Summershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14925347433421691898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-2000684793961630212012-07-03T04:05:02.981-07:002012-07-03T04:05:02.981-07:00Buy my book! Just kidding.
Love you, Dan. Well ...Buy my book! Just kidding.<br /><br />Love you, Dan. Well done and thanks.Michael Coughlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01151414777657994736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-54285096623211895492012-07-02T13:48:34.512-07:002012-07-02T13:48:34.512-07:00This afternoon, I posted the following apology for...This afternoon, I posted the following apology for the summer 2012 cover of <i>Enrichment</i> on our website:<br /><br />On behalf of the editors of <i>Enrichment</i>, I would like to apologize for any offense or confusion caused by the cover art of our summer 2012 issue, “21st-century Challenges to the Gospel.” By grouping “Calvinism,” “Annihilationism,” and “Eternal Security” together with various non-Christian ideologies and religions, the cover implied that we believe certain forms of Christianity are as equally challenging to the gospel as outright denials of it. This offended fellow believers who advocate these doctrines, and confused members of our own Fellowship regarding our stance toward those with whom we have principled theological disagreements.<br /><br />Moreover, the cover miscommunicated both our personal beliefs and the actual content of the issue. My editorial on pages 20,21 clearly states that “not all challenges … are created equal.” It distinguishes those challenges in terms of their respective origins (“nonbelievers” or “Christians”) and effects (“block [the gospel] at its source” or “muddy the clarity and purity of the [gospel].” It also described Christian advocates of these positions as “well-intentioned but theologically misguided.”<br /><br />We stand by the content of the articles themselves, however. Though fellow believers advocate limited atonement, nonviolent theories of the Atonement, eternal security, annihilationism, and universalism, such doctrines are not part of the Assemblies of God’s theological witness. For example:<br /><br /> Regarding nonviolent theories of the Atonement, Article 5 of our Statement of Fundamental Truths declares: “Man’s only hope of redemption is through <i>the shed blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God</i>” (emphasis added).<br /> Regarding eternal security, Article IX. Section B, Section 1 of our Bylaws states: “The General Council of the Assemblies of God disapproves of the unconditional security position which holds that it is impossible for a person once saved to be lost.”<br /> Regarding universalism, Article IX. Section B, Section 3, Paragraph a. of our Bylaws states: “We are opposed to all forms of universalism.”<br /> Regarding annihilationism, Article 15 of our Statement of Fundamental Truths declares: “Whosoever is not found written in the Book of Life … will be consigned to the <i>everlasting punishment</i> in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death” (emphasis added).<br /><br />The Assemblies of God does not have a formal statement on limited atonement. However, what might be referred to as “unlimited atonement” has biblical support (e.g., John 3:16,17; Romans 14:15; 2 Corinthians 5:18,19; Colossians 1:19,20; 1 Timothy 2:5,6; 1 John 2:2) and is testified to in the various systematic theologies and doctrinal primers that have been published by the Assemblies of God over the years. It is the common teaching of our Fellowship.<br /><br />Nonetheless, the cover art caused offense and confusion, and we regret the error.<br /><br />For questions regarding this statement, please contact George Paul Wood, executive editor of Enrichment, at gpwood@ag.org or at (417) 862-2781, ext. 3024.<br /><br />http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201203/statement_regarding_cover.cfmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-38849034221493488772012-07-02T12:58:52.136-07:002012-07-02T12:58:52.136-07:00I view the sufficiency of the cross in terms of wh...I view the sufficiency of the cross in terms of what He bought whereas I view the efficiency of the cross in terms of who He purchased as His bride.Marty Summershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14925347433421691898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-64388052852915637732012-07-02T11:18:36.726-07:002012-07-02T11:18:36.726-07:00So Jesus died for the "son of perdition"...So Jesus died for the "son of perdition", and He didn't die for the "son of perdition".<br /><br />One thing is for sure, Judas would have been better off never being born. And that goes for all of us in all realty,- or in all truth,- unless God loved us, and came and redeemed us to Himself.<br /><br />I suppose we disagree.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-26180515371269657152012-07-02T09:34:02.828-07:002012-07-02T09:34:02.828-07:00bought like 2Pe 2:1 says and like Boaz did for the...bought like 2Pe 2:1 says and like Boaz did for the whole field but not redeemed like the context of 2Pe 2:1 says and like Boaz only redeemed Ruth not OrpahMarty Summershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14925347433421691898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-19814253416190890612012-07-02T08:24:13.098-07:002012-07-02T08:24:13.098-07:00"bought all humanity"
Even Judas?"bought all humanity"<br /><br />Even Judas?donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-36963374665316561292012-07-02T04:53:47.973-07:002012-07-02T04:53:47.973-07:00I believe the doctrine of the suficiency of the cr...I believe the doctrine of the suficiency of the cross, 2Pe 2:1, and the typology of Boaz clearly teach that Christ somehow on the cross bought all humanity while purchasing a bride or to put it another way somehow on the cross Christ bought all humanity while redeeming only the elect. Believing that does not make one any less a 5-pointer and it doesn't require twisting Scripture.Marty Summershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14925347433421691898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-46640522749438962212012-07-01T00:15:55.986-07:002012-07-01T00:15:55.986-07:00I too, as Jeremiah, grew up AG. According to the g...I too, as Jeremiah, grew up AG. According to the grace and mercy of God, our path away from Armini-whatever was a sharp jolt of an earthquake - courtesy of a "discernment diva". Followed by the last seven years on a gentle slope out of the errors associated with the AG - courtesy of excellent exegetical preaching/teaching from our pastor, this blog, Living Waters, etc... I'm still befuddled by the apparent lack of doctrinal understanding even among people like Glen Cole. Yeah, his sermons could be on target, but how they worked out in us as the sheep was shaky at best (20 years). Doctrine just wasn't taught specifically... apparently the Sunday School curriculum is available from Springfield (or was at one point). But the best I could say for anyone discussing doctrine at CCC was the couple of classes you took to become a member. And to be honest, this is the first time I've even heard of Limited Atonement. I've heard of TULIP, but I've got four kids, homeschooling, cooking, life, I'm doing the best I can to just trust God is bringing me out of this in His timing as He gives me the wisdom to understand it all. So I don't always seek everything out right now. But I can honestly say I land with the Calvinist on this, not because Dan made a better argument or because I'm apt to avoid anything associated with the AG, rather because it stands up under scriptural scrutiny. Thank you, Dan, for another step up out of the dark hole into the light. And I would agree, the AG & Armini-whatever can at the very least cause some real harm to the Church...and Swaggert is only the tip of the ice burg. Anyone heard of Bill Johnson? Mr. Wood will somehow work in the word "autonomous" to defend that one. Here's my last statement concerning the difference between the Calvinist and the Arminian as I have experienced the two: The Arminian pastor (with the exception of a few) believes his flock is a bunch of dumb sheep who need the entire Bible brought down to the lowest common denominator. The Calvinist pastor (with the exception of a few) knows his flock is a bunch of dump sheep whose minds have been quickened by the Holy Spirit to understand the truths found in scripture. And the two different pastors act accordingly...the Arminian talks down to his flock believing all the while it is in love, while the Calvinist trusts in the Word of God and it's sufficiency, preaching to please only the One who rescued him from death.MFullerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09075556572926922027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-65939173613840344922012-07-01T00:14:48.317-07:002012-07-01T00:14:48.317-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.MFullerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09075556572926922027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-44602123607483137972012-06-30T19:16:22.366-07:002012-06-30T19:16:22.366-07:00DJP when I said the only big gun I meant the only ...DJP when I said the only big gun I meant the only big gun I haven't necessarily thought through sufficiently for my satisfaction. <br /><br />I currently have 3 ways to deal with the double jeopardy issue. 1) There is one unpardonable sin (Matt 12:31-32). To me this is the rejection of Christ which places one outside the bounds of saving grace. The schoolmaster leads us to Him by convicting us of sin, righteousness, and judgment. Those who reject Christ are guilty of trodding under foot the blood of Christ and having done despite unto the Spirit of grace (Heb 10:29). For this they deserve much sorer punishment. 2) There are only two eternal abodes. One is with God enjoying His full glory and goodness. The other is without God in a place prepared for the devil and demons not man (Matt 25:41). A place totally void of God goodness. What is God's goodness? Cool breezes, refreshing water, tasty food, safety of light, stability, etc. The absence of these things is the very description of Hell; the only eternal abode for those who reject Christ. 3) Since the Second Adam died for the universal sin debt we incurred thru the transgression of the First Adam then He can now pardon or condemn any sin committed by any sinner. Since He did not die for particular sins of particular people then we can still die in our sin.<br /><br />I am still waiting to hear your explanation for these three issues. None of your posts or responses has mentioned them: 1) How do you explain the sufficiency of the cross? Every Calvinist I know believes the cross is sufficient for all sinners but very few even try to explain how. 2) How can God place the blood of the nonelect on my hands (Eze 33:6) if I have absolutely nothing to do with their damnation? 3) How do you handle the typology of Boaz which supports unlimited atonement? <br /><br />I'd like to hear you address these issues rather than continuing to hear the same old arguments and so-called proof texts verses.Marty Summershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14925347433421691898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-89157352729052953632012-06-30T15:36:44.737-07:002012-06-30T15:36:44.737-07:00Thanks. They'll do it anyway, as you'll se...Thanks. They'll do it anyway, as you'll see if you ever do read this meta (which I don't nec recommend). Olson says A, I say Olson says A and it's wrong, X says no, he never said that. On it goes.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-33111460941192018212012-06-30T15:33:24.634-07:002012-06-30T15:33:24.634-07:00Oh nothing in particular. I find it difficult to g...Oh nothing in particular. I find it difficult to get through Eph 2:1-3 thinking that the ultimate grace of 2:4 is <i>assuming</i> p.grace. I agree with you. I just wouldn't want an Arminian to just blow you off because of a perceived misrepresentation of their position. <br /><br />I've only recently looked into true Arminian theology. If it weren't for the SBC "TS," I'd still be running around calling all arminians semi-pelagian. Now I'm starting to understand the difference.Zack Skriphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07395315266784467607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-44563291000620658272012-06-30T14:52:07.700-07:002012-06-30T14:52:07.700-07:00I am presenting what Olson says contrasted with Sc...I am presenting what Olson says contrasted with Scripture. Perhaps the Arminian "out" would be the <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093779/quotes?qt=qt0482780" rel="nofollow">"only most dead"</a> nonsense. By contrast, Jesus' drawing results in the resurrection of life (Jn. 6:44-45). What of it?DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-20475476733147961102012-06-30T14:47:31.713-07:002012-06-30T14:47:31.713-07:00Hey, I'm getting to the party late, my apologi...Hey, I'm getting to the party late, my apologies. I haven't read all 99 comments.<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><i>Olson says in effect God walks into a morgue, plop down an elixir of life, and heartily inform the corpses "I love each and every one of you so much that whosoever reaches out and drinks may live" — and that is real love.</i><br /><br />I think, depending on a universal or individualistic understanding of prevenient grace is used, the illustration would actually look like Jesus walks into a morgue and revives everyone for a few minutes, or maybe makes everyone alive but still chronically ill, maybe final stages of cancer, and then tells them to drink the elixir (great word usage!).<br /><br />Universal P.Grace would say everyone is taken from dead to final stage cancer, and Individualistic P.Grace would say it applies to those who hear the Word of God preached.<br /><br />Your illustration looks more like an Arminian who holds not only to total depravity but also to total inability, yet somehow must also hold to libertarian free will.<br /><br />But, I may be wrong. BTW, I'm a 5 pointer, just trying to be fair.<br /><br />Thanks for going through Olson's article!Zack Skriphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07395315266784467607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-23288945315195656812012-06-30T14:02:57.632-07:002012-06-30T14:02:57.632-07:00"..the gospel is a message of what Christ did..."..the gospel is a message of what Christ did for the elect"<br /><br />Amen.<br /><br />The Good News of Christ dying for me, personally, is why this good news is beyond all belief!<br /><br />A sinner is saved by God. God saves us when we were dead.<br /><br />It's the truth of the Bible. It's a deep truth, that has no end to it's depth really.<br /><br />Thanks for the discussion. May we both grow in His truth and grace every day, and even every hour, for this pleases our Abba Father, and our Savior and Friend, Jesus the Christ.<br /><br />All for the Cross! Gal. 6:14donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-77616644043970581122012-06-30T12:06:35.319-07:002012-06-30T12:06:35.319-07:00"Is it your position that Jimmy Swaggart was ..."Is it your position that Jimmy Swaggart was a fine representative of the AOG until his sexual sin?"<br /><br />I'm not answering for George but I don't remember anything that was really problematic about the Swaggart ministry, that is for the A/Gers. Dan, what did you have in mind?Ianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13858057932102156264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-45475549910671450892012-06-30T11:29:01.372-07:002012-06-30T11:29:01.372-07:00Don, you would seem to argue that the gospel is a ...Don, you would seem to argue that the gospel is a message of what Christ did for the elect, and what is true for them when he gives them faith *without* a message that is truly unto them considered as "sinners" (rather than as "elect") before they are saved..rather than an objective message of good news by the Spirit, that there is righteousness freely unto sinners in Christ *as sinners*, whoever they be. A message he saves by. A message that creates faith in those who are being sanctified unto God. A message whereby people lay hold and receive "abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness" (Rom5v17).A message that goes together with new birth.<br /><br />The scope and thrust of what you've articulated in your comments doesn't give gospel warrant to believe and be saved. They just logically collapse to presenting a gospel message of what God does because of what God did..and if I consider myself in (via experiencing God's works in my heart) "what is mine". <br /><br />But the warrant for faith is not in me, but in the risen Christ through the finished work on the cross. Without a doctrine of the cross that gives warrant for gospel faith to any sinner (that is more than invitation/command,but actual basis for it in inclusion as a sinner), one logically has to turn to look in oneself for it,and view oneself according to the flesh. <br /><br />(Out of interest, it seems John Newton believed Jn1v29 means there's actual gospel warrant of sorts, on account of the work of the cross, for a whole world of sinners to believe and be saved if they would. He held that at the same time as believing in a particularist election of grace.)<br /><br />Ok, last one from me! I'm not very good at saying that and stopping it seems.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14063611909779154899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-47228729301093355402012-06-30T09:25:44.829-07:002012-06-30T09:25:44.829-07:00"..it's about limited atonement vs unlimi..."..it's about limited atonement vs unlimited."-Phil<br /><br />Amen.<br /><br />God surely could have had mercy on every rebel-sinner, if He so desired.<br />And God could have left us all under His wrath as well.<br />In fact, I am blessed to understand that all the world hates God, and we all deserve to be judged and told by God, "Depart from Me." <br />There's none good, no not one.<br /><br />Yet God purposed for His glory to save wretches, first of all for His glory, and also, He set His perfect powerful love and affection upon rebels, and so came and saved these same sinners under His wrath, so that we might be with Him in His presence for all eternity.<br />A billion years from now, we will have no less days to sing His praise.<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8YRapsaRfEdonsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-60748338331150819192012-06-30T04:13:52.496-07:002012-06-30T04:13:52.496-07:00Surely at the least you should see that your view ...Surely at the least you should see that your view of the atonement had better not have to deconstruct and reconstruct that verse around a limited atonement.<br /><br />Some more quotes from "your camp";<br /><br />John 1:29 “The next day John saw Jesus coming towards him and said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.'" <br /><br />Says JC Ryle; "Christ is . . . a Savior for all mankind . . . . He did not suffer for a few persons only, but for all mankind. . . . What Christ took away, and bore on the cross, was not the sin of certain people only, but the whole accumulated mass of all the sins of all the children of Adam. . . . I hold as strongly as anyone that Christ’s death is profitable to none but the elect who believe in His Name. But I dare not limit and pare down such expressions as the one before us. . . . I dare not confine the intention of redemption to the saints alone. Christ is for every man . . . The atonement was made for all the world, though it is applied and enjoyed by none but believers."<br /><br />Calvin on that verse; “He uses the word sin in the singular number for any kind of iniquity; as if he had said that every kind of unrighteousness which alienates men from God is taken away by Christ. And when he says the sin of the world, he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race.”<br /><br />Calvin on Jn3v16 "He has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term world which He formerly used [God so loved the world]; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet He shows Himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when He invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life"<br /><br />Calvin on Rom 5v18 "Romans 5:18 tells us, “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.”...“He makes this favor common to all, because it is propoundable to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all [upon them]; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive Him.”<br /><br />Cheers. I won't be replying to any more cherry-picked phrases in my comments..Have a good weekend, too, Don.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14063611909779154899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-40260946088443026682012-06-30T04:13:28.778-07:002012-06-30T04:13:28.778-07:00Don, you're still missing the point. It [my po...Don, you're still missing the point. It [my point] isn't about who saves us, us or God, it's not about Arminianism vs limited atonement Calvinism..it's about limited atonement vs unlimited. It's not about "do I love Him because he first loved me,", it's about "through what message unto me do sinners come to love Him? Can you see the difference? Because you are unfailingly doing what I would expect a strict limited atonement-ist to do - collapsing everything onto a strictly limited atonement..which surely reduces the gospel message to something subjective. Which is what my comments were talking about.<br /><br />For what it's worth, I believe in a unilateral new covenant of grace. Christ is my righteousness, my sanctification, my life, and I am dead to the law. I don't have to pray for God not to turn away from me, and I don't have to pray for forgiveness or call myself a miserable sinner because I still sin.<br /><br />Forget the pomo this or that for a mo..(to us Brits who aren't acquainted with [1980s?] philosophy that's mostly an Aussie slang term for us, as far as everyday people are concerned.) Does God plead with people? Does he love all? <br /><br />Is 1v18, "come let us reason together", Old Covenant Israel anyone? Full of even eros-like descriptions of God's love for an unbelieivng people, many/most of whom "were not all Israel" .."God so loved the world that.."?<br /><br />Here's Spurgeon on God's desiring the salvation of all out of love - and a 5pointer at that;<br /><br />1 Timothy 2:3-4,<br /><br />"You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they, - "that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the Word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for whom am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the Word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 26, Pilgrim Publications, p.50.)"...Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14063611909779154899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-82318314241677434822012-06-29T17:39:55.100-07:002012-06-29T17:39:55.100-07:00"(I used to hold to it)."-Phil
I used t..."(I used to hold to it)."-Phil<br /><br />I used to not.<br /><br />I see Ezekiel 36 as powerful truth to show us that it is God, not us.<br /><br />God said, "I will give you mercy, My Spirit, and not because of you, but for My glory i am doing this.<br /><br />The Holy God of the universe takes a human heart that hates Him, genuinely hates Him, and makes it a heart that loves Him.<br /><br />I would have eternally hated God, if He had not sought me, and made my dead soul alive.<br /><br />I surely do love the Holy Lord of creation now, and I love Jesus the Holy Lamb of God, BUT only because He first loved me.<br /><br />Why did He love me?<br /><br />That is the question for me.<br /><br />But not for our Church today.<br /><br />In fact the Church preaches that God is in love so much with the rebels in this world that he pleads for them to accept Him. There's a CCm song that says, 'Please don't turn away from Me."<br /><br />Very sad false god this god of the pomo Church.<br /><br />The teaching that God loves and redeems those whom he loves is powerful, and incredible when it is seen in the whole counsel of God's Word.<br /><br />Have a good Lord's Day.donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-70863425554459231962012-06-29T15:15:00.467-07:002012-06-29T15:15:00.467-07:00George, I think you're a great guy, and have b...George, I think you're a great guy, and have been more than gracious to everyone whom you have interacted with, and yet you can somehow in your mind hold to the dichotomy of a salvation that saves and yet may not. I return to my previous post giving the definition of "probation" which is: "Subjection of an individual to a period of testing and trial to ascertain fitness." You simply cannot deny that if you commit the "big sin," whatever that is, or draw back from faith you have failed in your probation and you are thereby lost. I have nothing more to say, but you can "semanticize" (new word?) all you want, but if you have salvation you can potentially lose you are only enduring probation and not enjoying propitiation.Kerry James Allenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06083436735702873300noreply@blogger.com