tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post8846294346265963791..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Mystery quotation: Who is a Christian? Open question? Or settled?Phil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger149125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-83589710261894163532011-01-26T04:37:53.807-08:002011-01-26T04:37:53.807-08:00Yeah, it probably is time to close the doors, in f...Yeah, it probably is time to close the doors, in favor of Frank's great post.<br /><br />So I'd remind you all of (hel-lo?) the post itself, and what it was about.<br /><br />Murray poses the question: is the NT clear enough on what it means to be a Christian? The answer to that is "Yes."<br /><br />Murray has argued for scores of pages that part of the reason for evangelicalism's collapse was its unwillingness to draw those lines loudly and clearly and consistently, its sick need for approbation and acceptance by those who do not fall within those lines. He was right about that.<br /><br />Formally affirming those lines and then saying "God will judge" IN THIS CONTEXT is about 13% right and 87% harmful gasbaggery.<br /><br />I can unambiguously affirm that someone who professes no faith in Christ gives me no reason to hope that he is saved.<br /><br />I can unambiguously affirm that someone who professes some kind of faith in Christ, while denying cardinal Biblical doctrines, gives me no reason to hope that he is saved, and no excuse for affirming him as a Christian leader in good standing.<br /><br />I can unambiguously affirm that it is treachery for my to ally myself with someone denying or perverting fundamental doctrines in any way that suggests that I and he are in fundamental accord.<br /><br />Clear enough? I sure thought so. Certainly it is that clear in Scripture, or books like Galatians and Colossians and Jude pretty much fall to the floor.DJPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16471042180904855578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-45133917412789439142011-01-26T02:36:00.737-08:002011-01-26T02:36:00.737-08:00Wow, I was not expecting to see 147 comments here....Wow, I was not expecting to see 147 comments here. Just coming in to say that I greatly enjoy Murray's books and biographies and I need to pick this one up, apparently. Thanks for the quote, Dan!<br /><br />Also, one more piece of wood to throw into the fire...did not Paul "pass judgement" on a number of individuals himself? And most assuredly, he also sought after their repentance, but even more so, he sought to protect the integrity and holiness of the catholic church.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-32565347702981777152011-01-25T22:52:09.742-08:002011-01-25T22:52:09.742-08:00I would say a Christian is someone who has God giv...I would say a Christian is someone who has God given faith by the word of God that has given them eternal God given salvation that has given them God given righteousness that has given them God given truth so they can stand on the God given prepration of the Gospel of peace.thomas4881https://www.blogger.com/profile/16839685480671937969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-61561631848293590322011-01-25T21:03:39.780-08:002011-01-25T21:03:39.780-08:00Donsands wrote:
"What do you think about his...Donsands wrote:<br /><br /><i>"What do you think about his second quote? JC Ryle is a man of Scripture first and foremost."</i><br /><br />I think any "conservative evangelical" Anglican (in fact any "conservative evangelical" baby baptizer) would SAY and MEAN that they are going by Scripture.<br /><br />But I disagree, both with any "efficacy" attached to baptism, and baby baptism in general. They are NOT from Scripture IMHO.Terry Rayburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00888533194435826837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-12083902375247466402011-01-25T20:59:58.356-08:002011-01-25T20:59:58.356-08:00InAwe wrote:
1-Thomas Aquinas lived 1225-1274, wh...InAwe wrote:<br /><br /><i>1-Thomas Aquinas lived 1225-1274, whereas The Council of Trent occurred: December 1545.<br />2-Sproul and Gerstner praise some aspects of Aquinas' apologetic method, but are also very critical of other aspects of his theology --completely reject his soteriology.<br />3-Certainly of all contemporary theologians there is none who defends SolaFide more ardently than R.C. Sproul. Have you read or listened to any of his work?<br /><br />We should be more careful to seek to understand another person's position before critically lambasting them."</i><br />===============================<br />First, I'm not saying Aquinas attended the Council. I'm saying he was in lockstep agreement with it's basic teachings on how to be saved (more on that later).<br />===============================<br />In Ligonier's <i>Tabletalk</i> magazine, May 1994, Gerstner wrote the following in the article entitled "Aquinas Was A Protestant":<br /><br />Aquinas "was a medieval Protestant teaching the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone"<br /><br />Aquinas "taught the biblical doctrine of justification"<br /><br />Aquinas was "one of Protestantism's greatest theologians"<br /><br />Aquinas "with Augustine taught the biblical doctrine of justification so that if the Roman church had followed Aquinas the Reformation would not have been absolutely necessary"<br /><br />Although Gerstner does acknowledge that Aquinas falls short in some areas, still Aquinas' teaching of justification was "essentially the biblical (and Reformation) doctrine"<br />=================================<br />R.C., in "Regeneration Precedes Faith" wrote,<br /><br /><i>"...the great medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas taught this doctrine [regeneration precedes faith]....Aquinas insisted that regenerating grace is operative grace, not cooperative grace. Aquinas spoke of prevenient grace, but he spoke of a grace that comes before faith, which is regeneration."</i><br /><br />My question is, "So what? He was a work-salvation heretic! Not a Protestant!"<br />================================<br />Lets look at some foundations of Thomas Aquinas' theology, from his own <i>Summa Theologica</i>:<br /><br />a. "Hence it is clear that by [water] Baptism man dies unto the oldness of sin, and begins to live unto the newness of grace. But every sin belongs to the primitive oldness. Consequently every sin is taken away by Baptism."<br /><br />b. "Sacraments are necessary unto man's salvation for three reasons..."<br /><br />c. "in order to live righteously a man needs a twofold help of God--first, a habitual gift whereby corrupted human nature is healed, and after being healed is lifted up so as to work deeds meritoriously of everlasting life [emphasis Terry's], which exceed the capability of nature..."<br /><br />These clearly teach that man's "deeds" or "works" are instrumental to salvation, contrary to the Scriptures, which say that if you add works to grace, it's no longer grace (Rom. 11:6).<br />===============================<br /><br />I don't deny that Sproul (and Gerstner) have vigorously defended Sola Fide. <br /><br />That's why I don't get their long-standing fascination with Aquinas.<br />===============================<br />BTW, I couldn't find anything to support your contention that they praised Aquinas' apologetics (I would be interested in reading it if you can cite a source). <br /><br />But if they did, they are wrong. His apologetics is only tenuously based on Scripture. Like other RCC teachers, it is largely based on Church/Papal dogma/tradition, with a little "reason" thrown in.Terry Rayburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00888533194435826837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-9324213184084231512011-01-25T20:44:34.507-08:002011-01-25T20:44:34.507-08:00"Clearly the one doing the divine adjudicatio..."Clearly the one doing the divine adjudication with respect to sheep and goats is a divine person and not us." — Alex Guggenheim<br /><br />Clearly that is true, as far as it goes. I'd add that verses 35-45 tell us clearly the basis on which he makes the division.naturgesetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15268507379933286863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-90966146515543905942011-01-25T20:32:05.929-08:002011-01-25T20:32:05.929-08:00I think you are wrong about Ryle Terry. But I shal...I think you are wrong about Ryle Terry. But I shall have to read more from his writings and teachings.<br /><br />What do you think about his second quote? JC Ryle is a man of Scripture first and foremost.<br /><br />""Once for all, let me entreat every reader of this paper to hold no doctrine about baptism which is not plainly taught in God's Word. Let him beware of maintaining any theory, however plausible, which cannot be supported by Scripture. In religion, it matters nothing who says a thing, or how beautifully he says it. The only question we ought to ask is this, " Is it written in the Bible ? what saith the Lord?" <br /><br />Here's another one commenting on Matt. 28:19:<br /><br />"IT is very difficult to conceive when we read this last command of our Lord's, how men can avoid the conclusion that baptism is necessary, when it may be had. It seems impossible to explain the word that we have here of any but an outward ordinance, to be administered to all who join His Church.--That outward baptism is not absolutely necessary to salvation, the case of the penitent thief plainly shews. He went to paradise unbaptized.--That outward baptism alone often confers no benefit, the case of Simon Magus plainly shews. Although baptized, he remained "in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity." (Acts iii.23.)--But that baptism is a matter of entire indifference, and need not be used at all, is an assertion which seems at variance with our Lord's words in this place." -Bishop John Charles Ryle<br /><br />"donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-33851142806027871862011-01-25T20:29:41.517-08:002011-01-25T20:29:41.517-08:00Trogdor: "I mean, you won't even say tha...<b>Trogdor</b>: "I mean, you won't even say that an unrepentant atheist is condemned. Wow dude. Just, wow."<br /><br />FWIW, I have no problem saying that an unrepentant atheist (like Christopher Hitchens) is condemned to Hell.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-61758173713277498702011-01-25T20:13:27.339-08:002011-01-25T20:13:27.339-08:00You know Alex, I could spend a lot of time listing...You know Alex, I could spend a lot of time listing and explaining passages for you, as if that were actually necessary. No doubt you're literate, which means you can read the New Testament, which is so packed full of such verses the biggest problem is deciding where to start. Seriously, pick a book and we'll almost certainly find something there.<br /><br />We could go as simple as John 3:18 or Romans 10:9-10 or Luke 9:26/Mark 8:38. We could look at passages like Galatians 5:19-21 or Revelation 22:14-15. We could dwell on Acts 4:12 or Hebrews 3:14 or Titus 2:11-14 or Titus 3:10-11 or 2 Thessalonians 2:12 or the entire book of 1 John or a whole bunch of others.<br /><br />But it really comes down to this: you have said that we cannot know whether or not an unrepentant atheist is condemned. I was truly hoping I had been misreading your previous arguments, but no, you actually came out and said it. I can genuinely say I was not expecting that, and I'm truly saddened. I cannot imagine having such a miserable understanding of the gospel that the fate of an atheist is even the slightest bit in doubt.<br /><br />And what's truly troubling is, you take your refusal to take God's Word seriously, and you promote it as if it's something to be proud of. You act as though you're somehow <i>holy</i> because you remain noncommittal about the fate of those who deny the gospel, while those of us who believe the Word regarding the fate of the wicked are making ourselves out to be God or some such nonsense.<br /><br />And with that, I'll be signing out of this conversation. I'm guessing comments will be closed before I have time to get back here (it just seems like one of those threads), and really, I don't know what good it will do anyway. I mean, you won't even say that an unrepentant atheist is condemned. Wow dude. Just, wow.trogdorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11452996348717802065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-40334111537032533282011-01-25T20:12:07.757-08:002011-01-25T20:12:07.757-08:00Wow...I leave to go to a Bible study and it is lik...Wow...I leave to go to a Bible study and it is like the comment thread exploded. I guess I wonder why Jude felt it necessary to warn the church about people creeping in "unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." (Jude 4) Condemnation? Jude is saying he knows people who have already been marked out for condemnation? Tisk, tisk. That Jude...trying to take on the task of divine adjudication. I mean, seriously people...the Bible does give us some guidance here. What about when John talks about those who left us because they were not of us? Do you think he was toying around with the idea that maybe they would become Christians? I think it is clear that at the last moment that any of us heard the pope speak and not repent of his heretical teachings, that at <b><i>that moment</i></b> he was not a Christian. Of course, the fact that he is still alive and has not recanted/repented publicly says a lot for his state at this moment, too.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13987985549747283669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-54988637580880153612011-01-25T20:00:09.385-08:002011-01-25T20:00:09.385-08:00Donsands wrote:
"They seem to me, and to man...Donsands wrote:<br /><br /><i>"They seem to me, and to many others, to degrade a holy ordinance appointed by Christ into a mere charm, which is to act mechanically, like a medicine acting on the body, without any movement of a man s heart or soul. Surely this is dangerous!" JC Ryle<br /><br />Terry was wrong.<br />But that's for another post methinks.</i><br /><br />Don, Don, Don. That quote exactly illustrates my point. Ryle (and other "evangelical" Anglicans) always add Faith to the baptism. Ryle affirms the 25th Article which clearly says that water baptism is "effective" if combined with faith, even the faith of parents bringing their infant! <br /><br />Among other things it's "effective" for is "quickening" (that mean being "born again"). <br /><br />Not sure what the beef is. This has always been a clear teaching of the Anglican Church.<br /><br />C.S. Lewis himself in <i>Mere Christianity</i> speaks of those things that ALL Christians believe, with a sidenote pointing out that HE has the extra belief of baptism being required for salvation (but "tut tut", YOU don't need to believe that -- a kind of absurdity if it were true).<br /><br />Don, at least admit that if Ryle did not believe that baptism had ANY "effective" power, that he was in a wrong and false denomination.<br /><br />I'm not really even picking on him <i>per se</i>. He was apparently a fine man, and a product of his theological environment.<br /><br />I'm picking on those who give baptismal regeneration a theological "pass" as though it's just as valid as true Justification by Faith ALONE.<br /><br />Just because someone writes something true in one context, doesn't mean they are not in serious error in other contexts.<br /><br />For example, many Catholic Bishops and other Catholic prelates and theologians signed the following:<br /><br /><i>"We affirm together that we are justified by grace through faith because of Christ. Living faith is active in love that is nothing less than the love of Christ, for we together say with Paul: "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." (Galatians 2) All who accept Christ as Lord and Savior are brothers and sisters in Christ."</i><br /><br />Not bad, heh?<br /><br />Except the next line (from "Evangelicals And Catholics Together -- The Christian Mission In The Third Millennium") is as follows:<br /><br /><i>"Evangelicals and Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ."</i><br /><br />Any problem with that?Terry Rayburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00888533194435826837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-90191066452274637682011-01-25T19:29:19.644-08:002011-01-25T19:29:19.644-08:00Jim Pemberton: "The Bible is clear on what a ...<b>Jim Pemberton:</b> "The Bible is clear on what a Christian is and gives us clear guidelines for recognizing true Christians. What it does not do is give us absolute certainty on the status of particular individuals (outside of those it specifically mentions)."<br /><br /><b>Me</b>: "In regards to the discussion about the Pope, I find Jim Pemberton's remarks helpful.<br /><br />We do not know with "absolute certainty" the eternal destiny of the Pope. He <b>may</b> very well be Heaven bound." <br /><br /><b>Trogdor</b>: "If you mean that, as he is now, he <b>may</b> be going to heaven, let's just say I vehemently disagree."<br /><br />Operative key word: "May".<br /><br />FWIW I'm okay with vehement disagreement.<br /><br />I'm also okay with your absolute certainty that the Pope is NOT Heaven-bound if he retains the same theological beliefs that he has now.<br /><br />Pax.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-32505755841009161882011-01-25T19:23:24.080-08:002011-01-25T19:23:24.080-08:00naturgesetz,
Thank you for your response to my re...naturgesetz,<br /><br />Thank you for your response to my request from trogdor for one of the passages. Here is the relevant portion of the passage:<br /><br />31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left."<br /><br />Clearly the one doing the divine adjudication with respect to sheep and goats is a divine person and not us.Alex A. Guggenheimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04534710796711749227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-49599905984897804372011-01-25T19:19:11.099-08:002011-01-25T19:19:11.099-08:00Additionally, it's not as if Nicodemus died ri...Additionally, it's not as if Nicodemus died right after Jesus's burial and the last we hear of him. Obviously the Bible is meant to tell of Jesus and God's plan for mankind. It's not Nicodemus' life story, so we arent given anymore information on him.<br /> <br />So he had the rest of his life to think about all that he had witnessed. I can't imagine that he would have hardened his heart after all that.<br /><br />And Jesus may have spoken harshly to Nicodemus earlier, but Jesus spoke "harshly" to everyone, if you take harshly at it's modern connotation, which is really just "honestly" and "without any pretense".<br />He didn't beat around the bush with anyone. I think everybody knew that if they were going to hang out with Jesus, they were at risk of being openly admonished.<br /><br />Jesus openly rebuked lots of people. And anytime someone came grilling and asking questions of Jesus, He always ended up turning it around and becoming the one asking the questions. (And people quickly stopped asking him questions if they werent honestly seeking answers).<br /><br />But just because He openly rebuked Nicodemus, it doesn't mean Jesus condemned him. <br /><br />And Nicodemus had the rest of his life to deal with all he'd learned and witnessed, and we can see that he was an honest man who really was seeking answers.<br />So I have to conclude that any honest person who had witnessed all that Nicodemus witnessed would more than likely become a christian, if he was to remain honest to himself.<br />So if he wasn't yet a follower before Jesus' death (which I think he was), the chances are pretty good that he would have become one afterward.James Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15701856303572677206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-65332955161176501632011-01-25T19:19:08.497-08:002011-01-25T19:19:08.497-08:00Tom,
Best wishes but do know appeals to pity and ...Tom, <br />Best wishes but do know appeals to pity and confusion are contradicted by our numerous exchanges.<br /><br />As to qualifying issues being viewed as a detriment, I am rather surprised that aggressive pursuit of the details of a matter and their implications is something you would rather avoid in your theological development. I do sympathize with the tedious and sometimes exhausting nature of details but details, particularly critical details, may not be excused simply because of the unpleasantness which may accompany their handling.<br /><br />In every science I know of, examining from a distance does not allow one to properly identify critical and special elements and only leads to generalizations which inhibits further discovery and advancement in understanding.Alex A. Guggenheimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04534710796711749227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-59968665858339435792011-01-25T19:09:20.797-08:002011-01-25T19:09:20.797-08:00"Is it error to believe what God has clearly ..."Is it error to believe what God has clearly said about what separates the sheep from the goats?" — trogdor<br /><br />"Specifically to which passages are you referring?" — Alex Guggenheim<br /><br />The clear passage about the separation of the sheep from the goats is Matthew 25:31-46.naturgesetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15268507379933286863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-6484576235732659772011-01-25T19:02:49.662-08:002011-01-25T19:02:49.662-08:00Alex, I wish you well, but honestly, it is impossi...Alex, I wish you well, but honestly, it is impossible to converse with you. I think I've tried. Maybe not well. You qualify everything to such a degree that it is impossible to know what you are saying. I hope the blessing of Christ will abound in you.Tom Chantryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02485908616177111150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-51959107439004349652011-01-25T18:59:02.083-08:002011-01-25T18:59:02.083-08:00Tom,
I endeavor to be a careful reader, he is the...Tom,<br /><br />I endeavor to be a careful reader, he is the scenario that was described:<br /><br />"Here, I'll make it simple. Take an atheist who has never even claimed to be in Christ. Alex, can we say that if he dies in that state, he is condemned?<br /><br />If your answer is anything other than a resounding yes..."<br />_______<br />The state in which the person described as an atheist dies is in the state of never even "claiming" to be in Christ.<br /><br />Now the fact is there really is insufficient information to answer fully because when he says, "never even claimed" my questions is "never even claimed" to whom? To humans?<br /><br />I was left with assuming this is what he meant since we are talking about humans making a determination whether he was saved or not. <br /><br />The Bible never says, "claim to humans you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved". Or "if you do not claim to humans to have believed on the Lord Jesus Christ you will not be saved".<br /><br />The atheist does not answer to humans with regard to divine adjudication. So what he described is someone who claims to be an atheist and that died having never claimed to another human that he believed on the Lord Jesus Christ. <br /><br />Sorry that isn't enough information for anyone to make a divine adjudication. In fact nothing is. <br /><br />Now if he described someone that died without ever having believed on Christ as Savior (something he cannot really know, the best he could do is accept this man's word that he does not believe but even with that, this is not an exception to the binding principle that forbids us claiming knowledge of or capacity to exercise divine adjudication) then the bible states such people die being judged according to their own righteousness and are emphatically lost. But as I said to describe someone as having died without ever having believed on the Lord Jesus Christ is to claim we know their heart and can make divine adjudications. We cannot. <br /><br />So in reality he described with the limits of Scripture what we can only know which is whether a man or woman has claimed or not to believe but not whether they have actually done so or not.<br /><br />Are the odds likely that he was not saved? I wouldn't argue but we are discussing odds and divine adjudication isn't based on odds nor are we permitted to use odds to claim to know divine adjudications.Alex A. Guggenheimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04534710796711749227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-48628666574417316962011-01-25T18:52:31.787-08:002011-01-25T18:52:31.787-08:00Interesting reading peoples thoughts on Nicodemus....Interesting reading peoples thoughts on Nicodemus. I am of the belief we cannot be certain what he ended up being, but I think it points to his becoming born again.<br /><br />He met with Jesus more than once, and Jesus respected him enough to continue teaching him as He could see that Nicodemus was, unlike the others, willing and desirous of learning more of what Jesus had to say. Jesus knew his heart, and I don't think He would have wasted time teaching him if he was not serious.<br /><br /> He also addressed Jesus with great respect it seemed, especially when one takes into account that he had to openly forsake what his fellow pharisees thought of him to do so.<br /><br />And lastly, In John 19, we find Nicodemus helping to bury Jesus and bringing myrrh & aloes, and he is hanging out with Joseph of Arimathea, disciple of Jesus.<br /><br />I think he had become a follower.James Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15701856303572677206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-41365720734608905952011-01-25T18:38:02.389-08:002011-01-25T18:38:02.389-08:00Alex, every time I think I understand you, your ne...Alex, every time I think I understand you, your next post undoes it all. Please answer a simple yes or no: did you understand that Trogodor's question included the words "if he dies in that state" and did you take those words into account in framing your answer?Tom Chantryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02485908616177111150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-75874925945533372692011-01-25T18:34:52.007-08:002011-01-25T18:34:52.007-08:00trogdor,
I would still like to see the passages y...trogdor,<br /><br />I would still like to see the passages you claim state what you asserted they state.<br /><br />But to your recent question.<br /><br />"Take an atheist who has never even claimed to be in Christ. Alex, can we say that if he dies in that state, he is condemned?<br /><br />If your answer is anything other than a resounding yes..."<br />______<br /><br />First, the attempt to appeal to fear with words like..."if you answer is anything other than a resounding yes" is a fallacious form of argument. I understand its use but it is irrelevant to me since it is not an actual argument for anything.<br /><br />As to the atheist, his claim of unbelief and your knowledge of this is irrelevant to the active and binding principle. The Bible does not provide exceptions where we may claim to have knowledge of a thing for which we are not given knowledge, namely the exercise of divine adjudication.<br /><br />So no, you do not have permission from God to do that. You may not claim to know only what God knows. Now you may say that if this man genuinely did not know Christ then he is lost. But that is not an adjudication, it is a general subjunctive statement that may or may not be true about the person. The best you can do is make limited observations and take him at his word for whatever it was worth. That is not enough to produce a divine adjudication or claim to have personal knowledge of such. You must have divine capacity to perform divine exercises.Alex A. Guggenheimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04534710796711749227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-19399632539489908262011-01-25T18:31:17.257-08:002011-01-25T18:31:17.257-08:00Thank you, that is both the example we were seekin...Thank you, that is both the example we were seeking and a plausible explanation. <br /><br />I had trouble with the Osteen moment in this thread, more because I think that MacArthur may have been misquoted. Mind you I never heard his direct quote, but the way I had heard it related was something like, "If people persevere in following Joel Osteen's teaching, they'll get exactly what he promises: their best life now." If that is what he said, it certainly steers clear of any divine condemnation of any individual.<br /><br />I do think, though, that your point might be a bit overstated here. <i>Might</i> be. If Matt had stated that Osteen "will be in hell one day," I would probably agree with you. My guess is that in his mind, "heading for hell" may have another nuance: namely that he is on that road now, it is a road ending in hell, and he would do best to move off of it and to accept the gospel. I hope I'm not putting words in his mouth, but it seems charitable to understand him in this way.<br /><br />I would probably not have put it as he did. I would say that Osteen's message is not the gospel, and that based upon his consistent presentation of that message I do not believe he is a Christian. I think it takes a certain degree of antagonism to read into that statement any intent to usurp God's prerogative of ultimate judgment.Tom Chantryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02485908616177111150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-13737255809335395462011-01-25T18:21:29.619-08:002011-01-25T18:21:29.619-08:00Tom,
Here is one of the examples I had in mind. ...Tom, <br /><br />Here is one of the examples I had in mind. Matt Aznoe stated:<br /><br />"Rather than laughing at Joel Osteen, we should be weeping for his eternal soul. He is a wretched man who is heading directly for hell."<br /><br />This is a divine adjudication. He has taken the posture that more than practically but judicially he may determine the status of Joel Osteen's salvation before God. This is an exercise reserved for the divine.<br />_______________________<br />What I'm hearing.<br /><br />1. It is possible to say that someone is not a Christian and to do so in a way that is Scripturally acceptable.<br /><br />2. It is possible to say the exact same words, but to do so in a way which is erroneous.<br /><br />3. The difference between 1 and 2 is not in the words spoken, but in the speaker's belief that he may usurp God's adjudication.<br /><br />4. Alex Guggenheim has discerned just such an erroneous assumption in "many" of the comments here.<br />_____________<br /><br />I have assumed nothing, I have found a number of attempts to reflect one is able to make or ascertain divine adjudication and proclaim it as such. They may not. I gave an example above. <br /><br />Now to your difference between the two which is rightly identified as context. Earlier I presented the teaching of Matt in response to your issue of the unrepentant adulterer which you felt safe to proclaim they were not a believer.<br /><br />I clearly presented the difference between practical and divine adjudication. And yes, the same words may be used but with different contexts. A practical adjudication is limited to the practical (or practice if this word is giving you issues) and the divine adjudication pertains to the judicial, that which only God can and may do.<br /><br />So when we say, "he is not a Christian" we only may say this practically (or with respect to our practice) but not with respect to divine adjudication or with the posture that our practical adjudication reflects divine adjudication, it may or may not. However, that is merely anecdotal or coincidental and is not designed by God to have any input or reflection of divine adjudication nor may we assume such practical adjudications are sufficient for us to claim they are equal to divine adjudications.Alex A. Guggenheimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04534710796711749227noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-14275323576899760202011-01-25T18:00:54.877-08:002011-01-25T18:00:54.877-08:00Alex,
Is a muslim cleric a Christian?
Or better,...Alex,<br /><br />Is a muslim cleric a Christian?<br /><br />Or better, an apostle of the Mormon church?<br /><br /><br />Why then the difficulty in flaty saying that, as far as Scripture defines what it is to be a Christian, Ratzinger is not one.<br /><br />Could Scripture be wrong? No.<br />Could our understanding of Scripture be so wrong? Well only if the Roman church us right, so no.<br /><br />Ergo, we can say unequivocally that the sitting Pope is not a believer (nor any previous I wouldn't think).<br /><br />I am beginning to think that this all hinges on whether one is willing to say that the Roman church is a false church and to hold to her teachings is to be an unrepentant unbeliever. Is that it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-56308609737580728232011-01-25T17:59:08.175-08:002011-01-25T17:59:08.175-08:00Here, I'll make it simple. Take an atheist who...Here, I'll make it simple. Take an atheist who has never even claimed to be in Christ. Alex, can we say that if he dies in that state, he is condemned?<br /><br />If your answer is anything other than a resounding yes...trogdorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11452996348717802065noreply@blogger.com