tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post101537289154209877..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Great Things He Has DonePhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-74121035366465120142009-08-26T20:39:42.064-07:002009-08-26T20:39:42.064-07:00I usually let the other guy have the last word in ...I usually let the other guy have the last word in the meta, but I'm going to be working all week with no time to come back and close the meta, so we'll all have to survive with me having the last word this once.<br /><br />[QUOTE R&B]<br />Frank, at no time does the WHI ever say what you wrote. They simply say that one must express the good news of Christ's atoning work which is an objective truth attested to in the scriptures rather than pointing to what has subjectively happened in one's own life as the proof upon which to base saving faith.<br />[/QUOTE]<br /><br />Well, if after a 3-page rebuttal that's the part you want to pick apart -- the metaphor summing up -- then I'm pretty sure that you're not actually reading what I wrote. <br /><br />You're right: they didn't use this metaphor: I did.<br /><br />[QUOTE]<br />Perhaps you ought to post a link here to oneplace.com where your readers can download as many of the WHI episodes as they wish and determine for themselves if the WHI adheres to that which you attribute to them.<br />[/QUOTE]<br /><br />I did in fact cite the episode I'm talking about in the body of this post. Thanks again for reading what I wrote.<br /><br />[QUOTE]<br />Since you apparently place such authority on personal testimony, ...<br />[/QUOTE]<br /><br />Aha. Again, reading what I actually wrote would help you get a handle on what to criticize me for.<br /><br />[QUOTE]<br />... here is mine on this issue: I support the WHI and have for some time. I have shared meals with Mike Horton and Ken Jones and have become close friends with some of their staff members. It is my personal testimony that they do not hold to that which you attribute to them. Therefore, you must believe me.<br />[/QUOTE]<br /><br />You are again changing your categories, R&B. The question is not whether your testimony is irrefutable. The question is whether Scripture says whether what we do in some way reflects on what we believe. I have covered this extensively in my responses to you, but to not avail, apparently.<br /><br />[QUOTE]<br />Of course, I am being hyperbolic here. But it illustrates the fallacy that the WHI is trying combat, namely that giving one's personal testimony is the biblical method of sharing the gospel.<br />[/QUOTE]<br /><br />It only speaks to the one of the kinds of apologetics their show encourages.<br /><br />Thanks everyone for a busy day.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-80467111528589398832009-08-26T20:19:16.301-07:002009-08-26T20:19:16.301-07:00I'm glad one of your posts got as many comment...I'm glad one of your posts got as many comments as Dan's, Frank. It was a good one.<br /><br />My only comment is that the Gospel declares that Jesus Christ is Lord. His being Lord means that what He says, goes. What He says involves my behavior, according to what He said in His word (and Paul agreed to in this passage) and in other passages, both Paul and Jesus agree that it bears fruit. <br /><br />So if that doesn't agree with what I think my theology says, something needs rethinking, clarifying, or restating.David Regierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09766862583586784668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-56708013090889152332009-08-26T19:38:36.686-07:002009-08-26T19:38:36.686-07:00The context is, "Responding to people who are...The context is, "Responding to people who are pointing to something within themselves or something they had done as the PRIMARY evidence of their belief rather than pointing to the historic fact of the resurrection and all it entails." To use your words.<br /><br /><br />I said,<br />"<i>If not, don't you think it's good to state the balance? To state what role fruit-as-evidence does play, not just what it doesn't?</i>"<br /><br />You said,<br />"<i>What balance?<br /><br />And fruit-as-evidence of what?</i>"<br /><br />Balance was referring to the next sentence. The balance of what role fruit-as-evidence does play. As for "evidence of what", fill that in yourself. That's part of what I'm asking you. Fruit as evidence of whatever the Bible does say it's evidence of, playing whatever role the Bible gives it. <br /><br />If you think fruit is never supposed to play any role as evidence of anything, then say that.Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-38330636327903351542009-08-26T17:09:37.705-07:002009-08-26T17:09:37.705-07:00Jugulum: Sorry, but I must answer your questions ...Jugulum: Sorry, but I must answer your questions with questions.<br /><br />What is the context you are thinking of?<br /><br />What balance?<br /><br />And fruit-as-evidence of what?Matthew Lawrence Woodworkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08811367192021200467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-48225757634408097872009-08-26T16:31:26.504-07:002009-08-26T16:31:26.504-07:00R&B Redneck,
I'm still wondering about yo...R&B Redneck,<br /><br />I'm still wondering about your answer to this question, setting aside what the White Horse Inn did or did not say.<br /><br />Would you say we shouldn't dismiss what we do as <i>at all</i> indicative of what we believe?<br /><br />If not, don't you think it's good to state the balance? To state what role fruit-as-evidence <i>does</i> play, not just what it doesn't?Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-82347478851632300632009-08-26T16:26:36.779-07:002009-08-26T16:26:36.779-07:00"How is righteousness apart from the Law if J..."How is righteousness apart from the Law if Jesus had to keep the Law for my sake in order to redeem me?"<br /><br />It's OUR righteousness that comes apart from the law.<br /><br />If Jesus hadn't kept the law, he wouldn't've been perfect and would've had to die for his own sins.<br /><br />The law was fulfilled, not made null and void.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-76620715904935848092009-08-26T16:24:43.850-07:002009-08-26T16:24:43.850-07:00Zaphon,
That's true, but it's his activel...Zaphon,<br /><br />That's true, but it's his actively righteous life that is imputed to the believer.<br /><br />It's not enough to be forgiven, we must be righteous. Jesus lived the life we should have so that it could be creditted to us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-51230403869323563952009-08-26T15:43:40.397-07:002009-08-26T15:43:40.397-07:00I hope this isn't off topic but speaking of &#...I hope this isn't off topic but speaking of 'active and passive righteousness", how does that theory fit in with Romans 5.18 ..." so ONE ACT of righteousness leads to justification & life for all men"?<br /><br />How is righteousness apart from the Law if Jesus had to keep the Law for my sake in order to redeem me? <br /><br />Seems to me that the blood of Jesus in his substitutionary death cleanses me from sin and justifies me.Pierre Saikaleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09409964448078910855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-32948751016525540482009-08-26T15:16:36.811-07:002009-08-26T15:16:36.811-07:00Frank
My intent was not to toss WHI into the out...<b> Frank </b><br /><br />My intent was not to toss WHI into the outer darkness, just to show the breakdown in a system that does not base our deeds upon our faith.Chad V.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02478790778245966382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-54287289056720913912009-08-26T15:03:30.970-07:002009-08-26T15:03:30.970-07:00I was going to leave it alone but I find I cannot:...I was going to leave it alone but I find I cannot: <br /><br />Frank wrote:<br /><br />"When one treks down the confessional byways to the places that one is off the pavement, off the beaten path, and is exploring a kind of brush of exclusivism which, frankly, rules out many people who are simply non-systematic and non-confessional because they are merely murky on some finer points of theology -- or worse, as in this episode where the WHI essentially says that if one doesn't lead with an ecumenical creed but instead leads with love in order to speak to the credal truths one is completely forgetting the Gospel or may have never known it -- then one deserves to have some mosquito pricks on his exposed presbyterianism."<br /><br />Frank, at no time does the WHI ever say what you wrote. They simply say that one must express the good news of Christ's atoning work which is an objective truth attested to in the scriptures rather than pointing to what has subjectively happened in one's own life as the proof upon which to base saving faith.<br /><br />Perhaps you ought to post a link here to oneplace.com where your readers can download as many of the WHI episodes as they wish and determine for themselves if the WHI adheres to that which you attribute to them.<br /><br />Since you apparently place such authority on personal testimony, here is mine on this issue: I support the WHI and have for some time. I have shared meals with Mike Horton and Ken Jones and have become close friends with some of their staff members. It is my personal testimony that they do not hold to that which you attribute to them. Therefore, you must believe me.<br /><br />Of course, I am being hyperbolic here. But it illustrates the fallacy that the WHI is trying combat, namely that giving one's personal testimony is the biblical method of sharing the gospel.Matthew Lawrence Woodworkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08811367192021200467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-55709541171246490812009-08-26T14:05:35.653-07:002009-08-26T14:05:35.653-07:00Hadassah:
The post was actually about Titus 2:13-...Hadassah:<br /><br />The post was actually about Titus 2:13-15. It turns out that the example I used is a podcast I have been listening to for almost 8 weeks trying to see if I could get over my objections to it.<br /><br />They came together today.<br /><br />As for handing the right-minded kerfluffle to our brothers and sisters in Presbyterian churches, let me suggest something to you: the trajectory of the WHI right now is wrong-minded presbyterianism. It is anti-cooperative to non-presbyterians. There are episodes where I cannot fathom how Ken Jones stays seated in the booth.<br /><br />When one treks down the confessional byways to the places that one is off the pavement, off the beaten path, and is exploring a kind of brush of exclusivism which, frankly, rules out many people who are simply non-systematic and non-confessional because they are merely murky on some finer points of theology -- or worse, as in this episode where the WHI essentially says that if one doesn't lead with an ecumenical creed but instead leads with love in order to speak to the credal truths one is completely forgetting the Gospel or may have never known it -- then one deserves to have some mosquito pricks on his exposed presbyterianism.<br /><br />As some people say when you're in trouble, some of my best friends are presbyterians. Consider this my contribution to the open dialog between presbies and babdisses.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-38176281648839279582009-08-26T13:48:51.199-07:002009-08-26T13:48:51.199-07:00Oh. Sorry. I see it now.
I read "...Pres...Oh. Sorry. I see it now. <br /><br />I read "...Presbyterian theology is in serious trouble..." as "we're about to prove that Presbyterianism is unbiblical," whereas you meant, "keep going that way and you will topple what has always been Presbyterianism."Tom Chantryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02485908616177111150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-43104826655336547872009-08-26T13:48:16.194-07:002009-08-26T13:48:16.194-07:00All I normally say on this blog is hurrah, hurrah,...All I normally say on this blog is hurrah, hurrah, you nailed it.<br /><br />But Frank, why do you insist on picking on Presbyterians?<br /><br />And goodness, if you feel the need to rebuke and correct someone out there in public ministry by name, don't you have some better candidates than the WHI?<br /><br />I listen to the WHI somewhat regularly, and I've never gotten the impression that they think obedience, law, works, etc, etc are meaningless. It seems to me like they are the lone voice crying out in the wilderness that it isn't about what YOU DO. It's about what God HAS DONE FOR YOU.<br /><br />Sorta like an oasis in the desert.<br /><br />An oasis that I need to drink from, deeply.<br /><br />Quit messing with the thirst-quenching beverage, man.<br /><br />I'd be inclined to close my comment with something happy and loving, but that smacking at the Presbyterians business has put me out of sorts.Hadassahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17809388943561834992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-57033426104477616302009-08-26T13:44:34.404-07:002009-08-26T13:44:34.404-07:00Tom:
That was actually my point -- some folks hav...Tom:<br /><br />That was actually my point -- some folks have wheeled off the confessional map here for the sake of their love of the confessions, and find themsevles denying what they must believe.<br /><br />Thanks for the sum-up.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-67720491954852528702009-08-26T13:44:16.245-07:002009-08-26T13:44:16.245-07:00....which, as you've demonstrated, is also the.......which, as you've demonstrated, is also the problem you have with the Bible's own presentation of the Gospel.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-37002714552569058442009-08-26T13:39:14.638-07:002009-08-26T13:39:14.638-07:00"We read what the Bible says about repentance..."We read what the Bible says about repentance, we do that and we are saved. <br /><br />That's how we know it applies to us and not just to people generally." - Daryl<br /><br />These two statements perfectly sum up my problem with Dan and Frank's theology of salvation.Stuart Woodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11984240631695114968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-68170419179119700652009-08-26T13:27:30.739-07:002009-08-26T13:27:30.739-07:00While it is true that we need to look to the histo...While it is true that we need to look to the historically objective truth of Christ and his work for assurance of salvation. It certainly can't be the ONLY thing we look to.<br /><br />Any unbeliever can look at that truth, it's still true, Christ still did his work, but it doesn't save him without repentance.<br /><br />I recall Frank saying something like this in his debate with Mr. Wood. We read what the Bible says about repentance, we do that and we are saved.<br /><br />That's how we know it applies to us and not just to people generally.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-64877452282597880102009-08-26T13:19:36.333-07:002009-08-26T13:19:36.333-07:00In case my point is unclear, I agree with Frank th...In case my point is unclear, I agree with Frank that to deny that the gospel must have significant implications in the life of the redeemed is unbiblical. It's just that it's also un-Presbyterian.Tom Chantryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02485908616177111150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-91447953922227550252009-08-26T13:17:20.958-07:002009-08-26T13:17:20.958-07:00If there is not a means for doing that, Presbyteri...<i>If there is not a means for doing that, Presbyterian theology is now in serious trouble.</i><br /><br />Ah - oops - ah - with you until there, but lets not confuse this discussion with actual Presbyterian theology. <br /><br /><i>Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience,and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourages to the one and deters from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law: and not under grace. <br /><br />Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done.</i><br />(Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XIX, Paragraphs vi and viiTom Chantryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02485908616177111150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-609314904649822482009-08-26T13:12:19.333-07:002009-08-26T13:12:19.333-07:00Eh. This is more exciting.
Someone on the intern...Eh. This is more exciting.<br /><br /><a href="http://mohel.dk/grafik/andet/Someone_Is_Wrong_On_The_Internet.jpg" rel="nofollow">Someone on the internet is WRONG!</a><br /><br />ht: BHTFX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-53794267290345535652009-08-26T13:08:30.682-07:002009-08-26T13:08:30.682-07:00Sorry to all for sidetracking the meta.Sorry to all for sidetracking the meta.David Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17709270641017787218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-30365981393422169312009-08-26T13:04:01.287-07:002009-08-26T13:04:01.287-07:00~Stuart
You said: "The true Gospel contains...~Stuart<br /><br />You said: <i>"The true Gospel contains the word 'OUR', how that 'Christ died for OUR sins', both 'yours' and 'mine'."</i><br /><br />That seems pretty cut and dried. Do you no retract that the "True Gospel" must contain the word "OUR"?David Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17709270641017787218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-39282694554731120592009-08-26T13:03:24.706-07:002009-08-26T13:03:24.706-07:00[cont]
| Stuart Wood hits the nail on the head
|...[cont]<br /><br />| Stuart Wood hits the nail on the head <br />| when he refers to the Jews looking to <br />| the snake to be healed and he looks <br />| to the risen Christ to be saved. On <br />| judgment day, I will be pointing to <br />| Christ's righteousness for my <br />| salvation, not to anything whatsoever <br />| that I have ever done.<br /><br />Um, yup? The question you are pointing to asked by the guys at WHI is not “what will save me on the last day?” It is “will you share the Gospel either by doctrine or by testimony?”<br /><br />It’s not either-or. In fact, it cannot be <i>unless you are a Gnostic</i>, which they rail on against all the time. If Christ is real, and he has saved anyone, and one of those is me, I should receive that somehow in an epistemologically-real way, not as if my body somehow makes my gratitude into something dirty.<br /><br />You have to keep clear what you think you’re arguing in favor of. The question is not “what will save me in the end” but “am I saved right now, and if so, so what?”<br /><br />| I will rely on <br />| the blood of Christ just as the Jews <br />| relied on the blood of the passover <br />| lamb to keep the angel of death from <br />| their door. My testimony will not <br />| save me nor does it provide a basis <br />| for the salvation of anyone else. Even <br />| the apostle Paul does not use the <br />| testimony of his dramatic conversion <br />| as the basis for his witnessing. He <br />| preaches Christ and Him crucified, <br />| not Paul knocked off a horse and him <br />| made into a better person. <br /><br />Amen to that – except that even Paul confesses to Timothy that God saved him, the chief of sinners, so that the real glory of Christ could be disclosed in saving that which was unsavable. Paul has a testimony – but it is always framed, “Christ did, therefore I am and will.”<br /><br />| Finally, Frank your "test case" is a <br />| straw man.<br /><br />Let’s see if that’s the case.<br /><br />| No, it is not works <br />| theology to say that attendance at the <br />| gathering of the church is a necessary <br />| consequence of the Gospel. And if I <br />| don't do it, I am a hypocrite. Which I <br />| currently AM and I always will be <br />| until I am fully sanctified. There is <br />| the great "both/and" tension. I am <br />| justified before God because of <br />| Christ's atoning work yet, I am still a <br />| sinner. I should see fruit and <br />| progressive sanctification in my life. <br />| And others should too. But that is not <br />| the basis of my faith. That confusion <br />| is what the WHI addresses.<br /><br />Admitting you’re a hypocrite doesn’t overturn the charge of being a hypocrite, nor does it make my example a straw man. The assembly of believers is a <i>necessary consequence</i> of the Gospel. How does therefore doing it not bring the charge of “works righteousness”?<br /><br />Is there is a means to demonstrate that, then there is a means to demonstrate that being zealous for good works is also not works righteousness. If there is not a means for doing that, Presbyterian theology is now in serious trouble.<br /><br />-30-FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-3678582892956897402009-08-26T13:02:40.076-07:002009-08-26T13:02:40.076-07:00[cont]
| It is possible to do what appears to be...[cont]<br /><br /><br />| It is possible to do what appears to be <br />| the righteous thing but do it based on <br />| the wrong assumption. <br /><br />Yes. That does not make <i>what the Scripture tells us to do wrong</i>.<br /><br />| To expand on the analogy of one's <br />| wife loving him. One believes she <br />| does and therefore he loves her back <br />| and acts accordingly, i.e., he acts <br />| righteously. However, what if she <br />| doesn't love him? What if he has <br />| misunderstood his wife's affections? <br />| Well, he has lived righteously but he <br />| has done so based on a lie. And the <br />| fact of that lie doesn't change <br />| because his intent is honorable, yet <br />| mistaken. <br /><br />I love that – you are a hyper-calvinist then, eh? That somehow someone who actually does love God will be rebuked by God on the last day because God doesn’t love him?<br /><br />I reject the premise. The set of people who do, in fact, love God but whom God, in fact, does not love salvifically is a set of zero people in the history of all time. The WHI guys would reject that idea, too.<br /><br />| Now apply that analogy to the <br />| circumstances that Horton and the <br />| WHI were discussing in the <br />| broadcast at issue.<br /><br />Let me say this clearly and frankly: you can’t. Rod Rosenblatt, in this very episode, said that it is possible that the Gospel is true, and nobody believes it. Now: what does he mean by that – that no one is saved?<br /><br />Dude: he’s a Lutheran. There is no way in any sane method of reasoning that would propose that a real, honest-to-Worms orthrodox Lutheran like Dr. Rosenblatt would propose than no one is <i>saved</i>. It’s inconveivable that Christ died for no one.<br /><br />So what he must mean is this: that nobody <i>grasps</i> what the Gospel means, or what God is doing and has done. Again: I am open to correction here if Dr. RR has one to offer, but the notion you are proposing is simply outside the scope of Lutheran systematic.<br /><br />| In the terms of <br />| sharing the gospel, do you go to the <br />| historic facts of the gospel or do you <br />| point to what you have done in your <br />| life in response to the gospel (your <br />| testimony)? Many of the respondents <br />| were pointing to what had happened <br />| in their lives as the evidence of the <br />| truth of the gospel. The WHI's point <br />| there is that one could go to a <br />| Mormon booksellers convention and <br />| ask the same thing and get the same <br />| responses. Are the Mormons saved? <br />| Not according to orthodox Christian <br />| understanding of the gospel. Are the <br />| attendees at the Christian <br />| booksellers saved? Who knows <br />| because they didn't give an accurate <br />| accounting of what they actually <br />| believed. They could act rightly but <br />| believe wrongly. If that is the case, <br />| they believe a lie and their souls are <br />| in peril. <br /><br />The problem with making what they said into what you are saying here is <i>what they actually said</i>. Prof. Horton made a couple of extended riffs into the subject of how uninteresting the life of the Christian is – making no references or qualifications regarding, for example, this passage in Titus.<br /><br />In their view, no human activity is worth considering when the Gospel is declared – it just doesn’t enter into it. To debunk that view, go out drinking one night and try to preach the Gospel to someone after you’re 8 or 9 beers in. What you have done and are doing preaches harder against what you think you are saying.<br /><br />The problem is not that I am saying it is either testimony or doctrine; the problem is that <i>this is what they have plainly said</i>. I say it is not either/or but <i>both</i>.<br /><br />[more]FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-29793655038685508462009-08-26T13:01:44.502-07:002009-08-26T13:01:44.502-07:00| Look at the original text Frank cited
| to begi...| Look at the original text Frank cited <br />| to begin his post. It is the grace of <br />| God that brings salvation, it is the <br />| Grace of God that trains us to <br />| renounce that which is unrighteous <br />| and it is the grace of God which <br />| causes us to do that which is <br />| righteous in God's eyes. It is the <br />| Grace of God only. Nothing that is <br />| within me. <br /><br />Expect that you (singular) are among the you (plural) who are “zealous for good works”.<br /><br />This is the classic Calvinist disconnect: my will is useful enough to condemn me as a sinner for being willing to sin, but somehow when the text says after being born again I should be thereafter willing to not sin but do the things pleasing to God, I don’t have a will.<br /><br />You will doesn’t save you, but it is <i>saved</i>, and frankly it is <i>reborn</i>. It has <i>repented</i>. It’s not perfect, but it is purified; you would think that something would come out of a purified will the way things come out of the unpurified will.<br /><br />I would think, anyway. You might not think this.<br /><br />| Yet, one can be an unswerving and <br />| unregenerate pagan and live a <br />| upright and moral life.<br /><br />Pheh. I will say it unequivocally: that’s changing from a highly-specialized systematic view of the saved to a superficial and unspecific view of the unsaved. It’s utterly a change of categories. If a rank atheist and hater of God gives all him money to the poor and ends his life ministering to lepers, his life is still a sinful wreck because all his actions came from a dead and God-hating heart.<br /><br />And at the same time, the drug-addled prostitute who comes to Christ and cannot win the fight against addiction and therefore falls over and over again into the lifestyle of money-for-sex can see in his war against those sins – even if not one victory is won in this life.<br /><br />Find a way to be consistent when you go this route, and you might find a way to convince me. I doubt it, but I offer you the opportunity.<br /><br />| And one can <br />| profess to be a Christian and do what <br />| appear to be righteous acts yet be, in <br />| fact, unsaved. That is a sobering <br />| truth and I think it is what Jesus is <br />| driving toward in Matthew 7:21-23. <br /><br />I’d run that last one by the guys at WHI. If that person is baptized, and submits to church in word, sacrament, and discipline, they would tell you, I have no doubt, that this person is should not for one moment doubt their salvation.<br /><br />I’d love to be wrong about that, and I will publicly retract it if you can find a way to get them to say otherwise. But I suspect you’d be surprised by how truly-reformed they are.<br /><br />| R.C. Sproul puts it like this: <br />| <br />| "Everyone who has faith is called to <br />| profess faith, but not everybody who <br />| professes faith has faith. We are not <br />| saved by a profession of faith. A lot of <br />| people, it seems to me, in the <br />| evangelical world, believe that if they <br />| have walked the walk, raised the <br />| hand, signed the card-that is, made <br />| some kind of methodological <br />| profession of faith-that they're <br />| saved." <br /><br />Aha. Ask R.C. Sproul is he believes that about infants who have been baptized – or anyone who has been baptized. You have to see that this particular statement by him is about the <i>non-presbyterian</i> approach to how one enters into the church and can profess salvation by Christ alone.<br /><br />Ask these guys how one who is suffering from doubt in their salvation can rest assured that Christ’s work is for them. If they do not tell you, “by the sacrament of baptism and the ministry of the word,” I will eat my hat.<br /><br />| In short, God does the saving and <br />| God does the "doing" afterwards. <br /><br />Really? So God, for example, does the preaching on Sunday Morning – not your faithful pastor? God does the bread-winning for your family – you can stop going to work now and meditate on the world day and night?<br /><br />That’s a unique way of seeing what the Scripture tells us – one I am certain even the WHI guys would repudiate.<br /><br />[more]FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.com