Christian Readers discussion
Discipleship
>
Stuff
date
newest »
newest »
My hobby and passion is Apologetics and Theology through world religions. If your book sticks to that arena then I would thoroughly enjoy it. So sure!
But I warn you: I am a nasty critic. If you don't like John MacArthur or Ravi Zacharias then you won't want my opinion. My gift in life appears to be making Christians(?) cry themselves to sleep after a proper emotional bashing from the truth of the Bible.
But I also have a great sense of humor and laugh at myself and everything that isn't 100% sacred. :D
Joseph quote:
"If I may rephrase your question: who will He recognize when they say 'Lord, Lord'?"
Very interesting.
I'm not a big fan of Luther...I bypassed him and went right to William Tyndale. My email is Rodhorncastle @gmail.com.
THanks Joseph.
Hi guys,I just finished writing a lesson that reminds me of what you're talking about. One of the things that really cemented in my mind, after writing it was that there is a clear difference between a convert and a disciple of Christ. A belief in God is not enough. As James tells us, "You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe - and tremble!" (2:19) If a person has truly accepted the Holy Spirit into himself then shouldn't we see a profound change? A real watershed moment? Maybe not that next day, but the next month...the next year? Imagine I said that the Holy Spirit had entered me and empowered me to play football. Shouldn't I be a pro? Shouldn't I be going to the Super Bowl every year? What does it say about the power of God if Him entering us only has a little (or worse yet no) change?
Thanks Joseph. I appreciate the offer, but I currently have 17 books to review from 4 different publishers. I couldn't possibly fit in one more. If I get a breather in my schedule, I will show you (biblically) how my premise doesn't preclude any of the groups you have mentioned. For now however, I have to go. Good luck with your book and God bless. One thought for you though. There is a difference between "success" and progress. A quote that always comes to mind with a topic like this is, "If you're not moving forward, you're sliding back."
Not a dodge. It's just hard work running a college while choosing new curriculum and texts for next semester. Feel free to visit our website at www.desertbibleinstitute. You'll be glad to know that we use authors that you have both mentioned for our texts.
LOL! So I'm an ignorant, arrogant, dodgy Christian who is condescending with poor etiquette AND I should read your book. LOL! You're awful salesman. Again, for sure, no thank you.
The rather non-brotherly sniping aside, how is the issue of free will and predestination reconciled? Perhaps Joseph would be kind enough to give us a couple of definitive statements — or at least a teaser — on how he views this issue in his book?
Serialization works for me. Let's do it.
No problem on the time factor. Yes, I agree to all three propositions excepting that for B and C, God is in control and whatever the state of B or C it is part of His plan and purpose (i.e., sovereignty). Agreed?
Good catch. Somehow I missed 6 and 7.Regarding 6, I agree. Jesus Christ was part of God's plan and purpose before time.
Regarding 7, I agree that humans have free will, but I also believe that God influences free will according to His plan and purpose (again, God always invokes His Sovereignty over all things) and no result of free-will is a surprise to God or an unexpected occurrence or disruption to his plan and purpose.
(I don't mean to disrupt your "by-the-numbers" approach, but I think it is important that you understand my understanding so that if we differ early-on, that difference can be addressed before progressing deeper.)
Simeon: "Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions... Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?" Wesley: "Yes," says the veteran, "I do indeed." S: "And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?" W: "Yes, solely through Christ." S: "But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?" W: "No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last." S: "Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?" W: "No." S: "What, then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother's arms?" W: "Yes, altogether." S: "And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?" W: "Yes, I have no hope but in Him." S: "Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverence: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree."
Joseph wrote: "My fingers burn as I type this...Proposition D: Those concerned with Freewill are desperate to reconcile repentance.
Proposition E: Those who are focused on Sovereignty are desperate to reconcil..."
*************************************************
Neither of these two propositions make sense to me. They come across as generalization fallacies. In addition, the usage of "desperate" colors the generalizations with an appeal to emotion instead of an appeal to the mind.
Please clarify why you worded these two propositions in the manner you did and why I should accept them.
Joseph wrote: "At some point, in some way, we have to agree on what each side has at stake in this argument and acknowledge it. Or, the "debate" will fall on deaf ears as it has done for 2000 years. These proposi..."*****************************************
Okay. Please continue. I don't agree with the generalization, nor the appeal to emotion, nor the concept of "loss" to either side; however, you have my attention (and, hopefully, open mind) to stick with you and see how you develop your final position.
Joseph wrote: "LOL! Excellent response! "I disagree with you utterly, but I'll be patient." Thank you.OK. Lets get into the game:
1. You disagree with the generalizations.
2. You disagree with an appeal to an e..."
**************************************************************************
Proposition D: Those concerned with Freewill are desperate to reconcile repentance.
Proposition E: Those who are focused on Sovereignty are desperate to reconcile grace.
1. Yes, I understand that you disagree. But you have to replace it with something. My contention is NOT the specific value we place in this field, but that there is a value here that we often overlook.
******************************************************************
You challenged me to replace the above propositions. Here’s my response:
Proposition D: Many, if not most, proponents of free will believe their acts of free will occur independent of God and are of their own volition.
Proposition E: Many, if not most, proponents of Sovereignty believe that free will — its circumstance and occurrence — is influenced and directed by God to conform to His sovereign plan and purpose established before time.
Further the “value” that you allude to requires, as do all values, a measurement. There is nothing in the two propositions that are measureable, i.e., I suggest that desperation and reconciliation are not values but instead are subjective conditions not subject to objective “value” measurement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2. I'm not making an appeal to emotion. I am simply recognizing that there are emotions involved. The construct was setup to draw out an emotional response to demonstrate that this is an emotionally charged topic...not just a sterile theological debate.
****************************************************************
For some, and apparently, you, I can see where the issue has an emotional context. However, I suggest that a rational, logical, systematic Scriptural basis for exploring, understanding, and reconciling the two positions is possible without characterizing the effort as emotionally charged or some kind of sterile exercise. “Come, let us reason together…” seems fitting.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3. …your faith is built on Sovereignty. If you found out you were wrong, you would experience loss…[s]imultaneously, a person who believes in Freewill…[t]hey believe that if they found out they were wrong, they would experience loss… *******************************************************
Well, I suppose that if you could prove to me that God is not sovereign, then, yes, I would feel loss, but then again, if God is not sovereign then he is not God, so any loss I might feel would be moot.
Likewise, I suppose that if you could prove to me that free will is independent of God, I could feel loss in that I could no longer count on the promises, plan, and purpose that God had for my life because I could alter His plan, and His purpose in and for my life by my own free will. Again, however, if I cannot count on God being unchangeable and unaffected by human will, then he is not the omniscient, omnipotent God that he claims to be.
Okay. I think your restated Propositions D and E each have grace and repentance components. In other words, they are not mutually exclusive of the other.What if you restated the two this way (note the sequencing):
Prop D: Those who champion free will see repentance and grace as critical in salvation.
Prop E. Those who champion Sovereignty see grace and repentance as critical in salvation.
I suggest this restatement is closer to a functional — and agreeable — definition. It also serves to show that the two concepts have a commonality that is not necessarily insurmountable, nor a difference "to die for."
Joseph wrote: "(Sorry, I was typing the post above before you posted!!)Touche!! "not necessarily insurmountable" is genius. That I think will represent a CRITICAL point in the discussion.
Preview of things to ..."
**************************************************
Please continue.
I think we run into serious problems when we emphasize sovereignty over free will. Practically speaking, no one can be certain they are among the elect apart from the choices we make concerning repentance, faith, and holy living.
For all practical purposes, our free will to believe or not believe, to repent or not repent, to live or not live holy, is all that matters... not the mystery of God's concerning the elect he has chosen.
I would rather teach people to work out their salvation with fear and trembling than assure them they are saved, despite what they do or don't do. And this is where we always end up, practically speaking: either with or without assurance.
So long as we are doing right we can be reasonably assured; but so long as we're not, we cannot be assured.
It's the state one is in at the time of death that matters. And I think all can agree on that.
Any theology that gives assurance of salvation to unbelievers and to the unrepentant is surely Satanic.
Peter boldly proclaimed that God had predetermined the death of Christ and that he was taken by wicked hands and slain; but before Christ died and rose again he was unaware of either.
Peter never bothered to explain this mystery to those who heard him say this... and those who heard him say this never bothered to ask him how this could be possible. Perhaps we should not bother either.
Perhaps we, like them, should simply repent, believe, and live our lives in a way that is pleasing to God, and teach other to do the same, since, in the end, that's all that matters.
The message of salvation isn't for theologians, but to average people. Jesus, we recall, didn't teach as did the teachers of Israel. Nor did he teach as the Christian theologians. He mostly told stories average people understood quite well.
"should simply repent, believe, and live our lives in a way that is pleasing to God, and teach other to do the same, since, in the end, that's all that matters."That statement mean a lot!
Hello, A.J.Your statement, "Practically speaking, no one can be certain they are among the elect apart from the choices we make concerning repentance, faith, and holy living" is interesting.
I have a couple of comments:
1. I have faith in the certainty of my election because of the witness of the Holy Spirit dwelling within me.
2. When it comes to free will and the choices we make, the question has to be, What is the genesis — the prompter — of each choice? When it comes to salvation, is our salvation by "works," i.e., we "choose" to accept or reject Christ or, in the case of acceptance, has grace first been imparted as the genesis, the prompter, of our choosing as part of God's sovereign plan, negating works as the reason for our acceptance?
3. The supposition also exists that a person can reject Christ of their own free will. I would counter that by saying that no one voluntarily seeks something that they don't want in the first place, which is another way of saying that there are humans that are not, will never be, and from the beginning of time were not destined to be part of the elect. Which is another way of saying that a sovereign God has foreknowledge of all things and controls all things (otherwise he would not be sovereign) from the flight and fall of a billion sparrows, to the number of hairs on our head, to the individual sheep He chose for His flock before time. He hardens hearts and imparts grace as He will, according to His plan and purpose. If we think that is unfair and a violation of our free will, then we are assigning a human concept of fairness to a sovereign God who is in no way bound by our finite concept of what, when, and why He should or should not do certain things.
I never stated my position on anything, because I'm not here to argue. That was the whole point of why I posted what I posted.
That was a whole lot of fun!I guess it died an early death. Too bad - I think it was just starting to make progress.
The core of this whole issue is deeper than may appear: Does logic and knowledge matter to salvation? Every theologian would heart-fully hope so. But as we know from the Bible:
The thief on the cross Luke 23
39One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him,d saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” 40But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? 41And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” 42And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 43And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”
Did Jesus have a theological discussion with his friend on the cross? No. Did the Bible say the thief was mocking Jesus earlier? Yes.
All i can say is; God turned the light on.
I think proper theology is a huge part of this - and must always be argued for. You can't have salvation with lies and deception (or general stupidity). Jesus is not Buddha no matter how nice little old ladies are.
There must always be truth. There is election - and freedom plays around it.
The real question is whether the people around you are actually Christians?
Someone's theology had better be trustworthy (and better) or Christianity is a joke. :D
I trust the theology of the Bible.
Your book sounds FUN!