tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post2142537191761143407..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Upcoming book notice: Andy Naselli's Let Go and Let God?Phil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger96125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-7583793385117923362010-06-21T20:10:59.052-07:002010-06-21T20:10:59.052-07:00Lynda O,
I didn't know that Ryle's writin...Lynda O,<br /><br />I didn't know that Ryle's writings on Holiness was a response to the Keswick movement. Could you point me to some references on that? <br />Thanks,<br />paulPaulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04610383351649422416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-32046080132794860732010-06-17T13:56:06.643-07:002010-06-17T13:56:06.643-07:00Not at all, really. J.C. Ryle's "Holines...Not at all, really. J.C. Ryle's "Holiness," written in response to the Keswick movement, was published in 1877 -- so clearly the movement was making inroads in the 1870s, during Havergal's lifetime.Lynda Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01755739519555633760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-56213487768360660372010-06-16T07:16:16.021-07:002010-06-16T07:16:16.021-07:00"Names associated with the movement include ...."Names associated with the movement include ... Frances Havergal,"<br /><br />She died in 1879. The first Keswick Convention was in 1875.<br /><br />Do I detect an anachronism?DFHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02645574107206812360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-72833839429355713972010-06-08T08:14:19.371-07:002010-06-08T08:14:19.371-07:00Out-Googled.
Twice.
)c:
I hear Whistling Guy fr...<i>Out-Googled.<br /><br />Twice.<br /><br />)c:</i><br /><br />I hear Whistling Guy from the old Clint Eastwood Westerns in the background, dust kicking up, horses snorting, <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=sarape&aq=f&aqi=g8g-s2&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=CBw6smF0OTI63Eo6EygS7qs3-BgAAAKoEBU_Qg7wQ" rel="nofollow">sarapes </a> being thrown back, eyes narrowing and glinting in the hot sun, a bead of sweat drifting down a forehead.Terry Rayburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00888533194435826837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-20888706361203597682010-06-07T14:28:21.613-07:002010-06-07T14:28:21.613-07:00Mike,
""I've done quite a bit of st...Mike,<br /><br />""I've done quite a bit of study on what I think is a grandchild of Keswick theology, and I'm wondering if you good folks might give your opinion on whether my conclusions are valid."<br />I have no idea of what kind of "Let go and let God theology" Keswick theology is. Not only that, the title has a question mark, making it unclear as to what the author's position is on that aspect. <br />Mike, I will take you last comments under advisement, but I think some of your judgments regarding my heart are a bit presumptuous.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04610383351649422416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-66406457794330852302010-06-07T14:14:37.752-07:002010-06-07T14:14:37.752-07:00Mike,
Thanks for pointing out that error. I have c...Mike,<br />Thanks for pointing out that error. I have changed it to T4G. What was I thinking? Thanks again.<br />paulPaulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04610383351649422416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-44614996439045896052010-06-07T14:08:38.142-07:002010-06-07T14:08:38.142-07:00I wanted this to be an unbiased discussion where p...<i>I wanted this to be an unbiased discussion where perhaps someone could show me a perspective on this issue that I have missed</i>.<br /><br />Dude, no you didn't. I hate the false piety gag. You didn't come here and say, "I've done quite a bit of study on what I think is a grandchild of Keswick theology, and I'm wondering if you good folks might give your opinion on whether my conclusions are valid."<br /><br />You came by scoffing that a D.A. Carson disciple was writing against a doctrine you believe D.A. Carson to espouse, showing pretty early on that either (1) one of the greatest minds in Evangelicalism can't get consistent with himself -- and that nobody he knows can help him out with it -- or the much more likely: (2) you don't understand the topic as well as you think you do. <br /><br />Then you moved on to your "New Calvinism" and "neo-Reformed" diatribes.<br /><br />Then, when you finally addressed me, you basically said, "I disagree." No argument, just you disagreed.<br /><br />And you're coming here looking to learn and have your blind spots cleared up? Don't think so, man. This is your pet issue and you saw this thread as your platform and your bullhorn.<br /><br />If the reason for your profile being not available is that you didn't want to draw attention to yourself, then yes, I along with Dan give you props for being the anti-Martuneac. And I even appreciate the dialogue starting with your 3:04 PM comment on 6/3. <br /><br />But none of your comments gave me the slightest impression that you were hoping to be shown wrong, but were hoping to show how wrong, "plain embarrassing," "disturbing," "wacky," "antinomian," "goofy," this "half-gospel," "non-Lordship" "neo-Reformed garbage" is, as your blog says.Mike Riccardihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748453197783538367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-35659079907835626862010-06-07T13:48:38.654-07:002010-06-07T13:48:38.654-07:00Gotta give it to Paul for being the anti-Martuneac...Gotta give it to Paul for being the anti-Martuneac, though.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-88206467659025155862010-06-07T13:48:15.906-07:002010-06-07T13:48:15.906-07:00Out-Googled.
Twice.
)c:Out-Googled.<br /><br /><i>Twice</i>.<br /><br />)c:DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-13366581298171442082010-06-07T13:46:33.729-07:002010-06-07T13:46:33.729-07:00Dan,
I just had no idea what in the world G4 was,...Dan,<br /><br />I just had no idea what in the world G4 was, so I googled, "John Piper G4 conference," and Paul's blog showed up. I suppose he meant T4G.Mike Riccardihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748453197783538367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-47644936954573468252010-06-07T13:46:04.241-07:002010-06-07T13:46:04.241-07:00Wow, I'm disappointed Mike. I really didn'...Wow, I'm disappointed Mike. I really didn't want this to be about me. If I would have wanted to promote my blog here, I would have posted the links myself. I wanted this to be an unbiased discussion where perhaps someone could show me a perspective on this issue that I have missed. <br />Very well, the first link you posted is ok, it's true, I do believe that GS is an antinomian doctrine. However, the second link you posted is a good, concise view in regard to the GS view of imperatives. Thirdly, my book on GS is to the right column and is free because the second addition is in the hands of editors and will be out in a couple of months.<br />Unfortunately, it is the only work out that I know of in regard to GS-I hope that will change.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04610383351649422416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-5243071680896068512010-06-07T13:39:51.004-07:002010-06-07T13:39:51.004-07:00DJP -- google '"gospel sanctification&quo...DJP -- google '"gospel sanctification" john piper' and that blog shows up. I saw it the other day, and it looked like it was the same Paul.Lynda Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01755739519555633760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-47242418974844671272010-06-07T13:30:15.803-07:002010-06-07T13:30:15.803-07:00What'd I miss? Paul has no profile, but has a ...What'd I miss? Paul has no profile, but has a blog? Is there a profile somewhere?DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-766841743073938362010-06-07T13:19:56.964-07:002010-06-07T13:19:56.964-07:00Mike,
My perspective on this issue comes from hun...Mike,<br /><br />My perspective on this issue comes from hundreds of hours of study and hundreds of hours discussing this issue with elders closely associated with John Piper and Paul Tripp. People are just not answering the hard questions in regard to this doctrine. What I wish is that someone would ask Horton what he means exactly by the above quote and write a post on that.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04610383351649422416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-11065407175621495672010-06-07T12:50:29.194-07:002010-06-07T12:50:29.194-07:00Tell me what you think.
I think you really want t...<i>Tell me what you think</i>.<br /><br />I think you really want to argue against something, even if that's not what people are saying, and so you read what people write with a bias. I think you've done that with Piper's message at T4G over at <a href="http://paulspassingthoughts.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/john-pipers-antinomian-message-at-the-2010-g4-conference/" rel="nofollow">your blog</a>, and you've done it here with me. <br /><br />Also, based on your suspicion that I disagree with that paragraph, I think that you haven't read very much of what I've written here. Aside from the sentence in which he quotes Benjamin Franklin, I agree with what Sproul said. I suggest that you take some time and re-read my comments without trying to find an arguing point for what seems to be <a href="http://paulspassingthoughts.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">your pet issue</a>.<br /><br />Paul, seriously brother, the conversation is over. I'd kindly ask you to refrain from further attributing positions to me that I don't hold.Mike Riccardihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748453197783538367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-18248229728784590952010-06-07T12:08:36.654-07:002010-06-07T12:08:36.654-07:00DJP,
Ooops sorry. Ok, I will only cite the one. B...DJP,<br /><br />Ooops sorry. Ok, I will only cite the one. But I think it is a good one for clarification--but again, sorry, I didn't see your comment untill it was too late.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04610383351649422416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-91560735244531818422010-06-07T12:05:26.060-07:002010-06-07T12:05:26.060-07:00"Pleasing God" chapter 15, RC Sproul. Mi..."Pleasing God" chapter 15, RC Sproul. Mike, I have to believe that you would be in strong disagreement with this quote. Tell me what you think.<br /><br />"Sanctification is cooperative. There are two partners involved in the work. I must work and God will work. If ever the extra-biblical maxim, "God helps those who help themselves," had any truth, it is at this point. We are not called to sit back and let God do all the work. We are called to work, and to work hard. To work something out with devout and conscientious rigor. It is a work with care, with a profound concern with the end result."Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04610383351649422416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-84249630355562077252010-06-07T11:39:45.835-07:002010-06-07T11:39:45.835-07:00Paul, let me quickly discourage you from doing tha...Paul, let me quickly discourage you from doing that, please.<br /><br />I don't want these meta's to become "the battle of the quotations." There's already been more of that here than I'd prefer.<br /><br />You say and back up what you think, please. That's what a meta is about. Otherwise, start a blog, write posts, and I'm sure folks would be interested in going and reading.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-60623481869704341452010-06-07T11:36:55.261-07:002010-06-07T11:36:55.261-07:00Mike,
Thank you for those words. I am working on t...Mike,<br />Thank you for those words. I am working on the flip side of this. You say something very key here and I respect you for it:"Yes, I believe that the Gospel that saves is the Gospel that sanctifies." Christians need to thoroughly understand what Piper, Tripp, Keller, Horton, and many others mean by this. I only ask people to really think about the Horton quote that I posted above, it should give folks serious pause, words mean things. As far as your other comments, I am going to pause and post several statements by JC Ryle and RC Sproul. I think I am in good company here.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04610383351649422416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-81110343549597999612010-06-07T11:06:31.063-07:002010-06-07T11:06:31.063-07:00Paul,
One point of argument, then my conclusion.
...Paul,<br /><br />One point of argument, then my conclusion.<br /><br />The instances you bring up about Peter going a place he doesn't want to go, or keeping a vow even when it hurts, all illustrate the dichotomy of the flesh and the Spirit. Being crucified upside down was not pleasant according to the flesh, yet Peter and countless other martyrs before AD 313 rejoiced in those circumstances. They delighted to be counted worthy to suffer shame for Christ's name (Ac 5:40-42). It was an unpleasant experience according to the flesh, and yet in those instances they delighted in Christ according to the Spirit. Pruning is a painful activity according to the flesh, but a delightful one according to the Spirit (cf. John 15).<br /><br />Now, my concluding remarks to you.<br /><br />I think in some places you don't really understand what the folks you're arguing against are saying, because at times you're mixing categories, assuming a logical connection from A to B when there isn't one, and attributing positions to me that I don't hold.<br /><br />Yet in other places it's plain that you understand your opponents just fine and disagree with them, but you're just wrong. You haven't presented anything that is Biblically compelling to make me think otherwise.<br /><br />I reaffirm what I said earlier about hoping you meditate on what you mean by "prayerful dependence on the Spirit," as that is the only phrase that makes your definition of sanctification Christian in any way, and your other comments seem to minimize it quite a bit. I think if you think about it enough, you'll wind up 1) saying something similar to 2Cor 3:18, or 2) chucking that phrase altogether, making your definition of sanctification consistently unChristian.<br /><br />Also, please don't call the position you're espousing the historic, orthodox Evangelical perspective, because it's plain that history is on the side of obedience as a duty of delight. The John Owen quote I gave before demonstrates this, certainly this is abundantly manifest in Jonathan Edwards, you see it in the Institutes, and you couldn't possibly escape it in the Puritan prayers in the Valley of Vision. And insofar as you'd allow an anachronistic use of the term Evangelical, Augustine was brimming with the centrality of the affections, delight, and joy in the Christian life. Of course they were all following the Apostle Paul, the Lord Jesus, King David, and the other writers of Scripture.<br /><br />It's almost unthinkable to me that any Christian could use the term "Gospel" in a pejorative sense. Yes, I believe that the Gospel that saves is the Gospel that sanctifies. I can't even comprehend why someone who has tasted the sweetness of knowing Christ would rebuff at such a statement. I think the position you're espousing will ultimately spend itself attempting to steal the glory of Christ in sanctification and bring it to oneself. Of course you don't believe this, or you'd abandon the position, but I believe it's true nonetheless, and invite you to consider it honestly, and with an open Bible.<br /><br />Nevertheless, by God's grace, I believe this discussion has been productive insofar as it has helped me think through and articulate these things, increasing my own joy in Christ's gracious work in my life, both in my justification and now in my sanctification. And I hope that both positions have been made clear to those reading and not commenting, such that they might be benefited by Biblically evaluating each position.<br /><br />That's all for me.Mike Riccardihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748453197783538367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-74126178333445390392010-06-07T10:49:48.669-07:002010-06-07T10:49:48.669-07:00DJP,
Workin' on it right now, it's the se...DJP,<br /><br />Workin' on it right now, it's the second part of my reply to Mark.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04610383351649422416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-70592915410316619642010-06-07T10:27:30.479-07:002010-06-07T10:27:30.479-07:00III.Redemptive Historical Perspective
Thirdly, yo...III.Redemptive Historical Perspective<br /><br />Thirdly, your Chrstocentric (HRH) approach that teaches that the Scriptures are solely for the purpose of evoking a sense of desire for Christ is also evident. Look at Christ in the Scriptures, see His glory, and thereby reorienting our desires for Christ alone (“Once I can get you to see what you are worshiping, I'll seek to present Christ to you as very glorious and very satisfying, and will show you from the witness of the whole Bible how unbelievably glorious He is.”) Since the belief is that all humans are anthropologically driven by desires (Piper quotes Blaise Pascal on this), change the desires, and therefore change the behavior. Obviously (and again, supposedly), anytime we are merely following our desires, obedience should be a relatively passive affair.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04610383351649422416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-67433347743677655792010-06-07T10:25:29.941-07:002010-06-07T10:25:29.941-07:00II. Heart Theology
Secondly, We see your Heart Th...II. Heart Theology<br /><br />Secondly, We see your Heart Theology approach that seeks to determine heart idols through the analysis of desires (“In the first two examples [exhibitionism and anxiety] I'm going to ask a lot of questions to understand the situation, but they will all be geared toward finding out what it is that you worship in doing these things. What has won your affections in a way that they should be won for Christ? What are you seeking satisfaction from in place of the only source of satisfaction: Christ Himself?”) <br />Heart Theology is articulated by Paul David Tripp in “How People Change.” The questions that you speak of that are geared to finding out what the person is worshipping instead of Christ is what Tripp calls “x-ray questions.” In his book, a list of around 100 interpretive questions are suggested to determine what these desires are at any given time. Actually, some believe that this is a concept borrowed from Neuro-Linguistic Programming (Tony Robbins), and a leading group of Reformed elders closely associated with Paul Tripp have continually declined to deny that Heart Theology is based on this psychological theory of change (NLP). Tripp’s book (HPC) is based on David Powlison’s “Dynamics of Biblical Change” as taught at Westminster , and Dr. Ed Welch (an associate of Powlisons at CCEF, the counseling wing of Westminster) has a PhD in Neuro-Psychology, the source of research for NLP. Furthermore, this concept of determining desires that enable us to find and eliminate idols of the heart can (supposedly) be applied to preventing future sin by imagining life scenarios and how this imagery makes us feel. We can then ask ourselves x-ray questions (based on the feelings evoked) and determine idols of the heart that may trouble us in the future. A copy of the homework sheet from a Reformed church closely associated with Tripp that propagates this teaching can be sent upon request. CONTINUEPaulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04610383351649422416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-31359325120579007822010-06-07T10:24:52.435-07:002010-06-07T10:24:52.435-07:00PS to clarify myself: by "the two approaches&...PS to clarify myself: by "the two approaches" I mean what you're calling Gospel Sanctification, and what you seem to affirm, yourself.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-41766133313905835462010-06-07T10:23:19.037-07:002010-06-07T10:23:19.037-07:00I. Christian Hedonism
First of all, you point to...I. Christian Hedonism<br /><br /><br />First of all, you point to a major facet of GS; true obedience is always accompanied by delight (“But I think the key issue is joy vs. burden.” “Obedience ‘in the Spirit’ is driven by delight”) Most Evangelicals would not agree with this, and would consider such counsel to troubled Christians to be ill-advised. As Christians, we are called to die to self, and sometimes, lack of delight or desire can actually be indicative of the depth of the sacrifice. In fact (this is not a debate point, but a clarification point from my evangelical standpoint), when Christ informed Peter of the sacrifice he would make that would “glorify” Him, he stated what Peter’s mindset would be: “someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go” (John 21:18). Psalm 15:4 says that a righteous person keeps their vow “even when it hurts.” Such vow-keeping is actually the mark of a righteous person. But of course, no Evangelical would say that this is the case all of the time. However, Christ seems to say that the bottom line with him is the determination to obey regardless of what we feel like (Matthew 21:28-31, Luke 11:27,28). Historical Redemptive Hermeneutics, Christian Hedonism, and Heart Theology are the three main tenets that make-up GS and is also often accompanied by the fourth element of New Covenant Theology. Here we are discussing the Christian Hedonism element. It answers the question, “how do we know when our obedience is of Christ?” In fact, Piper even believes that delight MUST accompany true salvation at its conception (“Desiring God” pages 55 [twice on page 55], 61, 66, 67, 68, 69). I once knew of a situation where an individual who was in the worst sort of lifestyle imaginable, prayed for hours that God would save him and to no avail. How did he know that God would not save him? He could not see a “treasure chest of joy” that supposedly always accompanies salvation. He was being counseled by a proponent of CH. I object to such a sad commentary. We are not talking about Corvette Club debates about the various models, we are talking about theology that has eternal consequences. CONTINUEPaulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04610383351649422416noreply@blogger.com