Monday, April 06, 2009
Recent comments on other blogs (April 2009)
Chatsworth House, England (Near my friends Mr. and Mrs. X)
The following are what I view as some of my better recent comments from other blogs. I am not indicating that these are my favourite blogs (or not), at the expense of others.
I keep those opinions to myself.
Obama and AIG
Dumb Ox
No shock.
I have speculated and will stick to it that if Obama plays his cards right and continues with his pragmatic (not to be confused with truth seeking) political approach and has what appears to be success, at least, he could end up a billionaire once out of the White House. Obamamania just has to sort of continue and he could do it.
Top Western politicians that officially make non-celebrity like government wages, sometimes for decades and yet live like 'celebs', must in my mind receive much help from the upper class that they have at times helped in their positions as gov. officials.
Mr. Ox, I have posted my PhD graphs on the problem of evil, which may interest.
Russ
Jeff and I discuss the Watchmen
Jeff Jenkins
My last comments on your previous post were not published. Oh well, it happens, thanks Blogger.
So, I present more on the Watchmen...
I think Dr. Manhattan should put some pants on!
He is:
A smurf (your suggestion) crossed with Mr. Clean and the Jolly Green Giant turned blue and with the misused power of someone like Galactus.
Dr. Blue Baldy
Sure let's kill millions and it will provide temporary world peace, but oh yea I cannot change human nature.
So, I guess 'Baldy' hostilities will begin again in a few years and you helped cover up the death of millions with faulty reasoning. Wars will continue with corrupt humanity despite your cover up of mass murder.
The fall
Mormonism Reviewed
Adam and Eve were made good (Gen. 1: 31). In my PhD writing I reason they were morally perfect and did good but inexperienced in regard to evil, and pleased God. Future resurrected Christians and Old Testament saints that are all regenerated/born again (John 3) trusting in the Biblical God, the only God, (Isaiah 43, 44, 45), the Alpha and Omega (Rev. 22: 13) will have experienced sin, death, the problem of evil, the atoning and resurrection work of Christ and will have spiritual/intellectual maturity that Adam and Eve did not, and will be guided by God through the Holy Spirit, in particular to not fall again. God with pure motives willed the fall, he made Adam and Eve in a way that he knew within the circumstances they would fall, but he did not force or coerce it and therefore as they were significantly free, Adam and Eve were morally accountable for it. We are morally accountable for our sins, even as we come from a corrupted nature and can only be saved as we are predestined to be saved by the work of Christ (Eph. 1 and Rom. 8). Persons are saved by grace through faith in the gospel work (Eph. 2). This should lead to works but our salvation is not in any way caused by human works (Eph. 2, Rom. 4, Gal. 2). The corrupt nature of humanity (Rom. 1-3) demonstrates that God must determine who shall be saved, as persons cannot contribute to salvation through autonomous choice, will or any type of works.
The subject of death
GGM
The last five years the number of persons I know that have died, and not all of them old, has greatly increased.
Thank God for God's everlasting Kingdom. (John 3: 16, Revelation 21-22).
Aspirin and vegetables
Aspirin and vegetables
I noted:
'It makes sense to primarily digest foods that will build up the body and avoid foods that will not build up and foods that will primarily do harm.'
Not a very profound statement, but it is amazing how many persons in Western culture will not follow it.
A Debate: Must a Christian have repented of all known sins upon death to go to heaven?-The debate begins here with me in reply and concludes in comments with the other person, Greg, included.
Back to Jeff's blog: Repentance (for which I need to do regularly, just to be clear!)
Jeff Jenkins!!!
I do not think we always repent of every sin we know about. We are not saved by repentance but through the regenerating work of Christ in his atoning and resurrection work which leads to repentance. I will be kindly blunt:), this is often a classic evangelical error. We are told to repent in Scripture as we need this to be right with God and God uses this as conviction of the Holy Spirit in the initial regeneration process I reason, and in continual santification.1 Corinthians 3: 15 and perhaps Hebrews 6 discuss saved persons that have their temporal works burned up, and do not come to repentance is all areas, certainly in Hebrews. There is a debate on whether these are true believers or not in Hebrews. 2 Peter 3, although a disputed passage (...for any to perish but for all to come to repentance) has Peter appearing to write to those in the church and so it is reasonable to assume that some saved do enter paradise while not in a completely repentant state and yet are still covered under the atoning work.
I do not doubt they believe and have repented in general terms at some point in their life but may perish (Apollumi: bodily destruction) in a state of unrepentant sin. In light of total depravity not yet completely eliminated, logic allows us to reason that many Christians die knowingly sinning.If a Christian regenerated pastor has a unrepentant affair with his secretary and is killed in a car accident on his way home, is he damned? Hardly. To say so is to make the serious error of putting too much emphasis on human free will in salvation. This is what is so good about a Reformed/Biblical understanding of salvation as we ARE NOT saved by own free will, and that includes our ability to repent of every sin known. We are regenerated by God and simultaneously believe and in general terms, even as sinners, repent.
Further...
There is no slippery slope in my Reformed theology. Sin is countered by a dependence on God and a call to God in repentance for holiness.
You (not Mr. Jenkins) make an assertion and did not deal with my points that countered yours.
But okay, there is no further debate.
You have admitted to me in previous posts on thekingpin68 that some of it is basically beyond your education and fair enough. Certainly some of your education, formal and otherwise, is beyond mine.
But, therefore you should be willing to be more flexible in your theological and related views and become more educated and develop stronger opinions as you learn more when you can (in this busy world).
If one pays close attention to what I have written here and on my blogs, NOT ONE THING I have written ever excuses sin or would lead to that taking place.
All sin must be covered under the work of Christ. That is solid Reformed doctrine.
Look at my article against and titled Annihilation on satire and theology in archives.
In spirit form after death I reason we will not sin in Paradise. We will not sin when resurrected. We will have repented of our sins at both points.
We are presently told not to sin and to seek the Lord in his Spirit and repent. This is a Reformed view.
The Reformed bar is higher than that of free will evangelical and associated (as presented by you and some others, but not all evangelicals), in my opinion. Even if persons could repent of all of the sins they knew about, they would still be condemned by the sins they did not know about, as the nature is still corrupted and resulting actions remain at least somewhat tainted in this life.
In strict terms, persons are not going to be saved because they repented or damned because they did not repent of all known sins. They are damned by not being covered by Christ's atoning work which leads to repentance, although we see in Scripture (Rom. 7, 1 John 1-2) that Christians do sin even as regenerated and therefore need to repent continually. Human repentance is never the vehicle that saves someone, as the human will cannot add to or cause salvation. I pointed out verses already which seem to indicate that some believers are not fully repentant and therefore lack works. 2 Cor. 5: 10 indicates a judgment for right and wrong done in Christ. This is hardly a sign of resurrected believers that necessarily fully repented of all known sins in this temporal life.
God standards are so high, and human beings so corrupt, God elects his chosen (Eph 1. and Rom. 8) and as Eph. 2 point out persons are saved by grace through faith for good works. Eph. 2: 8-10 NASB.
8For (U)by grace you have been saved (V)through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is (W)the gift of God;
9(X)not as a result of works, so that (Y)no one may boast.
10For we are His workmanship, (Z)created in (AA)Christ Jesus for (AB)good works, which God (AC)prepared beforehand so that we would (AD)walk in them
The call to repentance is a vehicle to lead some in regeneration and to lead believers in sanctification in salvation.
Libertarian freewill views have been soundly discredited in this posting of Jeff in comments, and on my blogs Biblically, theologically, and philosophically as much as you are a solid Christian and you and I agree on many points as brothers in Christ.
Thanks my friend, but I need to take a stand here.
Rather than attempt to debate me (I agree you are wise to avoid this...and yes I am still learning myself!), I reason you need to read some Reformed theology with an open mind.
Here is a list of books. I am going through Bavinck and Frame for my revisions and they are quite helpful. And by the way, in my undergraduate degree at a Mennonite college I was primarily taught Arminian, free will theology for over four years.
I have also studied major free will thinkers (Augustine, Lewis, Plantinga, Pinnock) for my MPhil and PhD theses.
CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.
BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
FRAME, JOHN M. (2002) The Doctrine of God, P and R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.
Skating on a Manitoba highway. I for one am glad Spring is here.
FYI
How the Union Flag came to be.
I was curious what the American flag would look like with the red and white reversed. I prefer the actual flag.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Okay. So now you owe me for having put up with your bratty ways. Give me more time and maybe I will be able to do another post!
ReplyDeleteMom
Well, I helped set your blog up.
ReplyDeleteLove,
Russ:)
Interesting "skating down the highway" video. Years ago, I was roller skating on asphalt, throwing a frisbee and skating after it to catch it. One time I was going fast to catch it, looking up, when I went off the asphalt into some rocks. My pants were ripped badly and my legs were very bloody. This was during lunch break at work, and there happened to be nurses there taking blood. I walked in, my pants shredded and covered in blood, and everyone looked up in horror. It was funny.
ReplyDeleteInteresting experiment with the American flag. However, this one may be a bit more accurate:
New American Flag?
'This was during lunch break at work, and there happened to be nurses there taking blood. I walked in, my pants shredded and covered in blood, and everyone looked up in horror. It was funny.'
ReplyDeleteYou could have walked in and stated 'Those crazy nurses!'
Yes, I saw that 'commy' flag several times while searching for the alternate American flag.
It looks sharp esthetically as much as I am neither a socialist or communist.
Cheers, Jeff.
Russ:)
Thanks Russ,
ReplyDelete...and yes, I also prefer the current flag configuration. To be honest, I'm not crazy about our National Athem. I actually enjoy, "O Canada"! I usually attend hockey games out here when a Canadian team is visiting so that I can hear it! :-)
GGM
Yes, and 'you' stole our Quebec Nordiques and won two Stanley Cups.;)
ReplyDeleteSeriously, I have never been a serious hockey fan since Bettman (sometimes known online as Buttman) moved two teams (25%) out of Canada.
I will admit however, that neither Quebec or Winnipeg had new arenas under construction and that Denver was therefore a more profitable hockey market than Quebec City, even though the much smaller Quebec City was and is per capita a better hockey town than Denver in all likelihood.
I have watched the Canucks more this year because of Sundin and finally a serious approach to winning, but I will never be a serious NHL fan again until the League concentrates on growing the game primarily in hockey markets. I admit Denver is one, and yes the game is growing even in non-hockey markets in the States, but other sports such as NFL, MLB, NBA, NASCAR, UFC, PGA, and MLS are also primarily growing and at least the NFL, MLB, and NBA are well ahead of the NHL in popularity in America, and will likely also be.
There is no such thing as a most exciting sport. A most exciting sport is a matter of opinion.
Hockey is faster than soccer and has more scoring, but soccer is less disconnected in play and more controlled than hockey. I often find that more interesting, especially European soccer.
My conclusion is that many non-hockey markets will continue to struggle financially unless they have championship teams.
Obamamania compares to Beatlemania??
ReplyDelete-Curious-
I sure would not want to drive on that highway of ice! Unbelievable!
ReplyDelete-Criss Cross Crash-
'Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteObamamania compares to Beatlemania??
-Curious-'
Maybe...'He tax you, yea...yea yea.'
'Anonymous said...
I sure would not want to drive on that highway of ice! Unbelievable!
-Criss Cross Crash-'
Me either!
Cheers.
Yeah, we "stole" the Nordiques and have been enjoying it ever since--except for the last couple of years...we stink!
ReplyDeleteI remember enjoying hockey a lot more back in the days of the "Prince of Wales" and "Clarence Campbell" conferences. It was so much more entertaining back then.
Oh well, at least the Blues are back in the playoffs this year. Maybe next year the Blues and the Nordiques...err...the Avalanche will make it! :-)
GGM
Denver is a good place for hockey, but I agree that Canadian cities and cities like Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Boston are real, blue-collar hockey places. Columbus, Nashville, Carolina, Dallas...come on...give me a break!!
I really do appreciate your including my blog in your reply. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteSweet old lady ---
Sadly I hate all Sports except for MMA. I love that with a passion. Rick b
ReplyDelete'I remember enjoying hockey a lot more back in the days of the "Prince of Wales" and "Clarence Campbell" conferences. It was so much more entertaining back then.'
ReplyDeleteYes these were eliminated seemingly as part of a modern Americanization of the game, even though this should have not been necessary as hockey has been in the United States professionally almost as long as in Canada.
'Denver is a good place for hockey, but I agree that Canadian cities and cities like Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Boston are real, blue-collar hockey places. Columbus, Nashville, Carolina, Dallas...come on...give me a break!!'
As noted, I agree on Denver, although I reason Quebec and Winnipeg should have had their franchises suspended rather than moved.
I do not have a problem with Ohio having one team and Dallas and Houston as southern experiments as Dallas, from what I have read and heard, has done pretty well. But, yet they are not primary franchises.
But, Nashville, Carolina (Raleigh) Tampa Bay, Florida (Miami), Atlanta and Phoenix are all quite questionable.
Southern Ontario should have a second team and one report stated it would immediately be the third most valuable franchise in the League.
I reason we need less socialism in this country in order to further advance business and increase the population of cities. This would increase the economies of places like Winnipeg and Quebec and improve their opportunities to support NHL hockey.
Winnipeg does have a new arena of approximately 15, 000 which is apparently expandable with boxes to approximately 16, 000.
Quebec City is apparently considering a new arena. Hamilton has considered upgrading its older arena.
Thanks, GGM, my friend, we are in basic agreement.
I award you the Clarence Campbell Bowl.
Mom,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the baking you do on my behalf.
Love,
Russ;)
Hello, Rick.
ReplyDeleteI do not hate UFC/MMA. I watch it occasionally and can learn some moves for my street fighting martial arts defences, but goal scoring sports, especially outdoors as in European soccer, are my favourite.
These just in from my non-bank...
ReplyDelete'Due to concerns, for the safety and integrity of the BMO Bank of Montreal Online Service we have issued this warning message.
Please note that Your Bank of Montreal Online Account has expired. In order for it to remain active,
Please use the link below to proceed and restore access to Your Account:
Restore access to Your Account now!
Thank You.
Bank of Montreal Bank.
Accounts Management As outlined in our User Agreement, BMO Bank of Montreal. will periodically send you information about site changes and enhancements.
Visit our Privacy Policy and User Agreement if you have any questions.
BMO Bank of Montreal Security and Privacy
Security Alert
Your Online Banking access has been locked out as the challenge responses you provided do not match our records.Please use the link below to activate and view your account.
Proceed here to start .
However, Failure to do so may result in temporary account suspension. Please understand that this is a security measure intended to help protect you and your account. We apologize for any inconvenience.
Thanks for your co-operation.
Bank of Montreal Bank.
Accounts Management As outlined in our User Agreement, BMO Bank of Montreal. will periodically send you information about site changes and enhancements.
Visit our Privacy Policy and User Agreement if you have any questions.
BMO Bank of Montreal Security and Privacy'
Well... I finally did it i joined facebook, my husband kept talking to me about it.. I will have to admit i am enjoying it!
ReplyDeleteBlessings to you Russ :)
Hmm,
ReplyDeleteHow long will it take me to find Tamela from Arizona?
Russ;)
Since everyone who reads this blog likes good clean humor, I think you should check out my newest food post, it is clean humor using food.
ReplyDeletewww.coffeehouse-journal.blogspot.com
Of course, Rick.
ReplyDeleteHappy Easter, Russ!
ReplyDelete"But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor. 15:20-22).
I had not seen your extra-long reply to my comment on Jeff. I'll have to read it in-depth and reply accordingly.
Thanks, Greg.
ReplyDeleteHappy Easter.
Russ:)
Russ, I saw your reply on your own blog, so I wanted to make a few comments. For the sake of closure (wishful thinking?), I will post this reply on both Jeff's blog, as well as yours.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I always enjoy a good debate, especially with one who also enjoys it and does not take disagreement personally. I think you are one such person, and even though I sometimes disagree, I always respect and appreciate your opinions.
Second, I want to explain my much earlier comment about my theological expertise. I have little formal theological training, aside from a few required college courses, but I have been independently studying the Bible for over 10 years now. I do not want to debate you NOT because I feel insecure in the Biblical foundation for my beliefs, but that I am unfamiliar with the arguments and terminology commonly used by theologians. I don't know if it's just my luck to only debate Reformed theologians, but they especially love to use complicated terms and frequently refer to works by other theologians. They are usually unable to bring down their arguments to the level of one who has a deep understanding of the Bible, but not the Reformist terminology. We're just incompatible debaters.
Lastly, my opinions of Reformed/Calvinist beliefs have been formed solely from discussions with those who believe this way. I have read very little on the subject, so my bias is mainly derived from comparing their arguments with the Bible.
Again, I am shooting for the highest bar possible, and Reformists (as well as most denominations) are resigned to settle for less. I am a firm believer in the power of the Holy Spirit and know that if God wants me to overcome ANY sin, then THROUGH HIM, I can. And there is not one scripture that has ever been found to shake this belief.
'Russ, I saw your reply on your own blog, so I wanted to make a few comments. For the sake of closure (wishful thinking?), I will post this reply on both Jeff's blog, as well as yours.'
ReplyDeleteSure, thanks Greg.
'First of all, I always enjoy a good debate, especially with one who also enjoys it and does not take disagreement personally. I think you are one such person, and even though I sometimes disagree, I always respect and appreciate your opinions.'
Cheers.
'Second, I want to explain my much earlier comment about my theological expertise. I have little formal theological training, aside from a few required college courses, but I have been independently studying the Bible for over 10 years now. I do not want to debate you NOT because I feel insecure in the Biblical foundation for my beliefs, but that I am unfamiliar with the arguments and terminology commonly used by theologians. I don't know if it's just my luck to only debate Reformed theologians, but they especially love to use complicated terms and frequently refer to works by other theologians.
'I feel insecure in the Biblical foundation for my beliefs, but that I am unfamiliar with the arguments and terminology commonly used by theologians.'
Yes.
'They are usually unable to bring down their arguments to the level of one who has a deep understanding of the Bible, but not the Reformist terminology. We're just incompatible debaters.'
I reason you have not grappled with Biblical and theological issues deep enough, based on your writing, therefore you have difficulty with these writers, in general terms.
'Lastly, my opinions of Reformed/Calvinist beliefs have been formed solely from discussions with those who believe this way. I have read very little on the subject, so my bias is mainly derived from comparing their arguments with the Bible.'
Yes, that is incomplete.
'Again, I am shooting for the highest bar possible, and Reformists (as well as most denominations) are resigned to settle for less.
You have absolutely not demonstrated that Greg, and again you merely make an assertion.
I have demonstrated from Scripture and theology that you are likely incorrect.
Your supposed higher bar is the theological error of libertarian free will theology in regard to salvation.
'I am a firm believer in the power of the Holy Spirit and know that if God wants me to overcome ANY sin, then THROUGH HIM, I can. And there is not one scripture that has ever been found to shake this belief.'
You can overcome any sin with God's help in God's will, but it does not state in Scripture that believers will be sinless in this temporal life.
Again, I advise you to seriously study more my friend.
In Christ,
Russ:)
Hi, Russ. Oh, well. Here we go again....
ReplyDelete"I reason you have not grappled with Biblical and theological issues deep enough, based on your writing, therefore you have difficulty with these writers, in general terms."
Not correct. :) Fancy terminology for Biblical concepts does not necessarily constitute theological depth. I can discuss the concepts; it's the terminology that I get lost in. What's wrong with using scriptures to back up one's assertions, instead of what some guy wrote?
"'Lastly, my opinions of Reformed/Calvinist beliefs have been formed solely from discussions with those who believe this way. I have read very little on the subject, so my bias is mainly derived from comparing their arguments with the Bible.'"
"Yes, that is incomplete."
Assuming the Bible to be the ultimate authority on spiritual matters, if I find statements made by Reformists to not measure up to it, then I have enough grounds to consider Reformed theology not entirely correct.
"Your supposed higher bar is the theological error of libertarian free will theology in regard to salvation."
This is a good example of use of terminology, instead of scripture (not that I have used scripture either, to this point). You claim that free will is an error, without any scriptural backing, but I would expect that, since election essentially contradicts free will.
"You can overcome any sin with God's help in God's will, but it does not state in Scripture that believers will be sinless in this temporal life."
Actually, there are some scriptures that either say this, or can be used to imply it (see my next comment). And for your part, maybe you could find scriptures that say that Christians cannot be sinless in this life.
Some scriptures to imply that one can overcome all sin in this life:
ReplyDeleteJesus to the man who had been crippled, "Sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee" (John 5:10). What a cruel thing to tell the man, if He truly could not help him obey the command.
Jesus to the woman caught in adultery, "Go, and sin no more" (John 8:11).
"Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.... If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed" (John 8:34b, 36). "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon" (Matt. 6:24, Lk. 16:13). According to Jesus, when we sin, we are servants of sin, but He also declares that (1) we cannot serve God while we're still sinning, and (2) He can free us from sin, not just its guilt, but sin itself; He does not just call us free, He makes us free indeed!
"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God" (1 John 3:9).
I have heard it argued that these scriptures refer to habitual sin. The argument is that the complex tenses of the original Greek are hard to translate into English. But what kind of sin is not habitual? I'll tell you what kind: the kind that one has repented of and God has cured one of. :)
These scriptures were indeed taken out of context, but there is nothing in the surrounding context that would take away from their implied meaning.
I am fully aware of Romans 7 and 1 John 1:6-10, which are the main scriptures that people use to back their assertions that all Christians are sinners. I have refuted those lines in the past and would do it again, if need be.
I think I'll stop here, for now.
Hi Greg, I wish to state this reply kindly. It is good to deal with this very important and at times complex issue.
ReplyDeleteI pray now in Jesus' name we will both be open-minded. I have attempted to write this reply with an open mind willing to accept your points where possible in love.
I do not wish to go on in circles with this discussion. I have already suggested you consult Scripture and related helpful materials. Hint, I have spent hours on this now and will lose patience, even while appreciating you. I state this kindly and not as a jerk.;) And, I do not wish to recieve email on this either until you have taken my advice and at least consulted commentaries.
"I reason you have not grappled with Biblical and theological issues deep enough, based on your writing, therefore you have difficulty with these writers, in general terms."
Not correct. :) Fancy terminology for Biblical concepts does not necessarily constitute theological depth. I can discuss the concepts; it's the terminology that I get lost in. What's wrong with using scriptures to back up one's assertions, instead of what some guy wrote?
That is unfairly dismissive. Not all scholarly terminology is fancy and some terminology is worth learning. How can you have significant theological depth without a depth of study in theology? Please think about that seriously. Yes, use the Scripture but also seek the assistance of those that professionally study those Scriptures. Examine writings from various perspectives.
"'Lastly, my opinions of Reformed/Calvinist beliefs have been formed solely from discussions with those who believe this way. I have read very little on the subject, so my bias is mainly derived from comparing their arguments with the Bible.'"
"Yes, that is incomplete."
'Assuming the Bible to be the ultimate authority on spiritual matters, if I find statements made by Reformists to not measure up to it, then I have enough grounds to consider Reformed theology not entirely correct.'
No, not necessarily. Theology, in a sense, is the study of Biblical philosophy. From your statements you lack serious theological study on some, but not all points, I will give you that, therefore you are unable to seriously evaluate at some points at least, Reformed theology.
This is particularly true concerning secondary issues which are not always very clear without much study of Scripture, Biblical backgrounds, and commentaries and lexicons.
I do not pursue arguments in areas where I know I am not well-read and knowledgeable.
"Your supposed higher bar is the theological error of libertarian free will theology in regard to salvation."
'This is a good example of use of terminology, instead of scripture (not that I have used scripture either, to this point). You claim that free will is an error, without any scriptural backing, but I would expect that, since election essentially contradicts free will.'
Greg, you flatly get nowhere with that comment. I have been quoting Scripture, which I have looked up in commentaries and lexicons at times, and I use theology. I mentioned Ephesians 1 and Romans 8 for predestination. Romans 1-3 describes the corrupt nature of humanity.
I reject libertarian free will and not compatibilistic limited free will. I discuss it in the links I gave you and in other posts.
"You can overcome any sin with God's help in God's will, but it does not state in Scripture that believers will be sinless in this temporal life."
'Actually, there are some scriptures that either say this, or can be used to imply it (see my next comment). And for your part, maybe you could find scriptures that say that Christians cannot be sinless in this life.'
Greg, I noted, 1 John 1 and Romans 7 appear to describe Christians as struggling sinners. Scripture does not teach that persons will be sinless now although we should seek holiness within the guidance of the Holy Spirit. There are also plenty of verses which discuss the process of sanctification, some of which I will mention below.
'Some scriptures to imply that one can overcome all sin in this life:
Jesus to the man who had been crippled, "Sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee" (John 5:10).'
The verse is incorrect. It is 5:14 but we all make mistakes, no problem.:)
I should state in Scriptural analysis we need to look at the Scripture in context, but also at the Scripture as a whole.
Ellis in his John commentary notes the man is to stop sinning and that it implies that Jesus saw a connection between the suffering and some of the sin the man was guilty of in that case. Ellis states that forgiveness was not mentioned but that the sin so far in the man's life was forgiven. p.1242.
Notice he states sin so far.
I have no problem with the Lord telling us to stop sinning. In God's sanctification of us, we are to seek God and therefore it makes sense. But, Scripture nowhere teaches that this completely occurs in this temporal life.
Also in light of our corrupted nature in Romans 1-3 until the resurrection we would not be purified from our sinful state, although I do reason in spirit we will not sin in Paradise.
'What a cruel thing to tell the man, if He truly could not help him obey the command'
No, as we are to seek God with our limited free will as regenerated saints indwelled and hopefully filled with the Holy Spirit.
Jesus to the woman caught in adultery, "Go, and sin no more" (John 8:11).
Same basic explanation as previous.
BLOESCH
D.G. Bloesch notes that sin cannot be overcome through human effort. The solution lies in what was supplied by Christ through the gospel and he mentions various verses such as John 3: 16-17. Christ suffered and met the requirements of the law. This included expiation, propitiation, and signifies justification and santification for redemption of the sinner.
The Holy Spirit awakens the sinner to the faith. Through regeneration by the Spirit the sinner is set free from bondage to sin and enabled to achieve victory over sin in everyday life.
Sinners are also saved from the results of sin, as in avoiding everlasting punishment.
The Christian has been delivered from the guilt of sin, but still suffers in sin while in a state of grace.
Repentance is the means by which we claim the assurance of forgiveness in the gospel. Suffering related to sin is to spur the Christian to overcome sin. p. 1015.
"Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.... If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed" (John 8:34b, 36).
Ellis notes there was a serfdom under sin which persons were in without Christ. A slave cannot free himself. Christ sets someone free from this serfdom. p. 1247.
This would be in line with what Bloesch stated. We are set free from the bondage of sin, but this does not make us necessarily completely sinless or incapable of sinning.
"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon" (Matt. 6:24, Lk. 16:13).
We are not to serve sin and are to despise it, Greg. Yes.
'According to Jesus, when we sin, we are servants of sin, but He also declares that (1) we cannot serve God while we're still sinning, and (2) He can free us from sin, not just its guilt, but sin itself; He does not just call us free, He makes us free indeed!'
You may be somewhat overlooking the fact that sanctification is a process, Greg. White notes that Christians are set apart for God's use (1 Corinthians 1: 2). This indicates status and not character according to White.
Hebrews 12: 14 tells one to strive for holiness. This shows it is a process. Sanctification, growth and holiness should follow conversion according to Ephesians 1: 4 and Philippians 3: 12 and is a process, once again. In Philippians we are to work out our salvation. 2 Corinthians 7: 1 tells the believer to be holy. Clearly a process is described here that was started by Christ as his atoning work was applied to believers. pp. 969-970.
"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God" (1 John 3:9).
The 'wooden' from the Greek NASB states that no one born of God practices sin, he cannot sin because he is born of God. In light of 1 John 1 that states we have sin it can be reasoned that unbelievers practice sin. Believers do not practice sin, but are tainted by it.
'I have heard it argued that these scriptures refer to habitual sin. The argument is that the complex tenses of the original Greek are hard to translate into English. But what kind of sin is not habitual? I'll tell you what kind: the kind that one has repented of and God has cured one of. :)'
I reason there is sinful lifestyle that is not in the sanctification process, Greg.
The struggle with sin for a Christian is more complex than habit as until our natures are completely changed in the resurrection sin will always be a problem. But a problem that we need to battle against with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
'These scriptures were indeed taken out of context, but there is nothing in the surrounding context that would take away from their implied meaning.'
Again I will note, however, Scripture needs to be evaluated as a whole and not in isolation.
I am fully aware of Romans 7 and 1 John 1:6-10, which are the main scriptures that people use to back their assertions that all Christians are sinners. I have refuted those lines in the past and would do it again, if need be.
You have had opportunity to do so...
I myself, would not personally claim to be fully aware but...
Cranfield and Mounce are two scholars with greater expertise on Romans than I and are world renowned.
Cranfield notes Romans 7 discusses the real anguish and warfare that takes place with sin. There is also a desire for final deliverance. There is confidence in God but a honest recognition of continual sinfulness in the Christian life. p. 155.
Mounce writes Paul was noting that Paul's nature was in constant conflict with what he aspired to as a child of God in whom the Spirit of God dwelled. The conflict will not be solved until we are like Christ, as in resurrected. Again it is spiritual warfare. pp. 170-171.
Concerning 1 John 1, R.W. Orr notes that it is stating that if we claim we have not sinned our course in deceit is complete and we deny the entire testimony of God's word and the need for God's redemptive activity. p. 1575. This would be sanctification.
I think I'll stop here, for now.
Cheers,
Russ:)
BLOESCH, D.G. (1996) 'Sin, The Biblical Understanding', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
ELLIS, DAVID, J. (1986) ‘John’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.
ORR, R.W. (1986) ‘1 John’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
WHITE, R.E.O. (1996) ‘Sanctification’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
Re: Obamamania / Beatlemania:
ReplyDeletesatire and theology said:
Maybe...'He tax you, yea...yea yea.'
I think the song, “Tax Man” is the better choice. You don’t even have to change the lyrics.
Re: The “Great Debate,” Russ vs. Greg:
In the interest on not starting things up again, I will refrain from throwing my full 2₵ in at this time, but in general, I tend to agree with you, Russ.
Hi, Russ. Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I appreciate your patience and the time you spent composing your response, which I found extremely readable. :)
ReplyDeleteI'm going to address some of your points soon, although today I have a looming deadline.
I will make this one comment, though. When I became a Christian, my wife's church (her father, actually) taught that sanctification is a one-time event that instantly makes one perfect. I struggled with this, finding myself wilfully sinning, even after having claimed the experience. This saddened me greatly, as I kept seeking this elusive Holy Grail.
Then I had a discussion with another sincere Christian on the Amazon forums (not generally a friendly place!), who helped me change my view on sanctification. I now am of the same position as you, that it's a process, one that begins the moment you are saved.
My study is ongoing, but I wanted to share that with you. :) More later....
Thanks, Greg.
ReplyDeleteI would appreciate you respecting the fact that I do want this debate going on in circles.
So we are done unless you want to bring in commentaries and such. We have both made our points.
Russ:)
'Re: Obamamania / Beatlemania:
ReplyDeletesatire and theology said:
Maybe...'He tax you, yea...yea yea.'
I think the song, “Tax Man” is the better choice. You don’t even have to change the lyrics.'
Good point, PCGuyIV.;)
'Re: The “Great Debate,” Russ vs. Greg:
In the interest on not starting things up again, I will refrain from throwing my full 2₵ in at this time, but in general, I tend to agree with you, Russ.'
Thanks! I have tried to consult the Scripture in context and use the proper tools.
Russ:)
I'm just glad we all agree on the foundational issues.
ReplyDeleteWell, Russ, after someone tried to kick in my front door last night and shattered the glass, I now agree with you more than ever regarding your stance on self-defense. Ideal thinking goes out the window when reality hits.
Thanks, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteI am glad you are okay!
However, having studied free will evangelical perspectives and Reformed/evangelical perspectives, I must state that the Reformed message is largely not being understood out there in 'Bloggerland' and 'Bloggerchurch'.
Yes, since my attack in the UK in 2000, where I won the fights but was still bottled, my focus has gone even more away from traditional or sport fighting martial arts to street fighting and weapons orientated approaches including defences of course.
Seriously Jeff, consider having something very serious you can grab right out of bed if possible. I wish I had something in the bed, but that is too uncomfortable and so I put clubs under the bed in order that a burglar would not find it too easy to club me while I am asleep, with my own weapon. I keep my Swiss army knife hidden in my academic books. It takes me 1.5 seconds approximately to open the main blade. Sure a switch blade is faster, but I reason it is illegal and I would not resort to such unless the law really becomes lacks here.
The Salvation Army put a drug rehab centre in downtown Maple Ridge about 5 minutes walk from here.
There was a guy on our roof right outside our condo a few years ago at 5.30 am. I went to the window with my bat in my hand and he told me to F off.
He said he was looking for his Mom's place. I called 911 and three units roared down. The cop told me my place was probably being cased. I had my metal bat in my hand as I went and talked to the RCMP outside the building...they said nothing. They had called first and I told them I would be outside. I did not go to the cars with a bat in my hand without telling them I was coming out!
Turns out the punk was telling the truth and weeks later I saw him in the garage fixing his car.
Also watch out for the Burgerler in the middle of the night.
Russ:)
I am not mentioning this in context of debate, but to clarify and show that I realize there are other interpretations.
ReplyDeleteQuite frankly, I write this primarily to learn more myself.
Concerning 1 Corinthians 3: 15, Marsh writes that the person being described has works burned up and suffers the loss of wages though not a loss of salvation. p.1355.
Verse 15 does state the person is saved but through fire. This could mean he/she will be judged harshly at 2 Corinthians 5: 10 and did not primarily live a life guided by the Spirit, but lived in the flesh.
This verse and section of Scripture is a strong indicator to me that not all Christians are fully repentant and walking in the Spirit throughout life, and this may be the case upon death.
Fee agrees as he states that those discussed will suffer loss with their work consumed, but it is qualified that they will not lose salvation.
FEE, GORDON (1987) The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
MARSH, PAUL W.(1986) ‘1 Corinthians’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
Hebrews 6 is more controversial. Hughes reasons that those in verse 4-6 are persons that have publicly confessed Christ and then turned their back on him. These are not genuine Christians. p 221. This was the view I leaned toward while taking Hebrews with the Hughes text in Bible school...but then there were doubts.
HUGHES, PHILIP. (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
John Piper has a similar conclusion to Hughes.
'For these five reasons I conclude that if a person falls away and re-crucifies the Son of God, he has never been justified. His faith was not a saving faith.'
I can accept that the view stating unbelievers are described is a reasonable and possible conclusion from this passage that may indeed not be a parallel with 1 Corinthians 3: 15. But, I do find it suspicious that 1 Corinthians 3: 15 from the NASB states:
15If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
And look at Hebrews 6: 7-8 from the NASB.
7For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God;
8but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.
Notice it states 'close to being cursed', and ends up being burned. This strikes me as quite possibly stating with figurative language the same thing as 1 Corinthians 3, that being the works are burned but the person is not cursed, but close to it. Could it be close to it means one is saved, but living in this temporal realm as if one who is cursed forever in hell?
New Testament scholar Ron Rhodes (formerly of CRI) sent me a paper years ago theorizing on this perspective from Hebrews and I think it has merit, although I do not have the paper handy. I asked for another copy by email.
Michael J. Svigel: Assistant Professor of Theological Studies (Dallas Theological Seminary). writes:
'In the context of the Bible foregrounds, the reference to “repentance” here indicates the original conversion that placed them on the “path of life.” That’s the repentance of the convert, which takes places at their baptism. This is not repentance of the believer as he or she turns away from sin. The word “again” refers back to the previous mention of repentance in Hebrews 6:1—that is, their initial conversion to Christ by faith, represented and sealed by water baptism. That “repentance” set them on the “path of life,” from which there was no going back.
In light of this, the writer to the Hebrews appears to be drawing on the “path of life” image found in ancient Christian baptismal instructions. In essence, he’s saying this: You’ve been enlightened, baptized into the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ as a sign of repentance, and therefore initiated into the church, partaking of its full benefits and learning all the fundamentals. You started walking down the path of life. But you’ve become dull. You’re acting like a “trainee” again, like somebody who needs to be instructed prior to baptism! You should be teaching and baptizing, but you’re acting like you need somebody to teach and baptize you. But that’s impossible! Once a person has been enlightened and gone through the baptism of repentance . . . if they fall aside from the path, they can’t go back again to the baptism of repentance and start all over.
The exhortation, then, is clear: get back on the path of life and move toward maturity! You can’t be converted again, so start acting like a convert!
Conclusion
The evidence from Bible foregrounds, primarily from the first and second century document, the Didache, suggests that the writer of Hebrews had in the front of his mind an image and pattern of early Christian instruction with which his readers would have been familiar: the “path of life” that began with repentance, faith, and baptism as the initiation into the church. They had “fallen aside” from the path and were dwelling in an infant state, as if they were still being prepared for baptism. But because they can not be “re-baptized,” they need to get back on the path and head toward maturity. Thus, in light of the Bible foregrounds, the “stagnated growth” view of Hebrews 6 seems to be the most reasonable.'
This view is similar to Rhodes, I gather. The passage is discussing Christians and therefore could parallel 1 Corinthians 3 mentioned.
Concerning 2 Peter 3: 9, many scholars view this as discussing the repentance of unbelievers, as in God wishes that none should perish. It has been suggested by some scholars (Erickson) that it is God's perfect but not permissible will that none perish.
John Samson of Reformation Theology writes:
'So, the question in 2 Peter 3:9 is whether "all" refers to all human beings without distinction, or whether it refers to everyone within a certain group. The context indicates that Peter is writing to a specific group and not to all of mankind – “to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours” 2 Peter 1:1. The audience is confirmed when Peter writes, “This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved.” (2 Peter 3:1)
Can we be even more specific? Yes, because if this is the second letter addressed to them, the first makes it clear who he is writing to. 1 Peter 1:1 - “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect…” So Peter is writing to the elect in 2 Peter 3, saying:
“This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved.... But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” (v. 1, 8, 9 - emphasis mine)
If the "any" or “all” here refers to everyone in human history, the verse would prove far more than Arminians would want to prove - it would prove universalism rather than Christianity. (Universalism is the false doctrine that teaches that everyone will ultimately be saved, with no one going to hell). If God is not willing that any person perish, then what? No one would ever perish! Yet, in context, the "any" that God wills not to perish must be limited to the same group he is writing to, the elect, and the "all" that are to come to repentance is the very same group. Christ’s second coming has been delayed so that all the elect can be gathered in. God is not willing that any of the elect should perish, but that all of them come to repentance.
Rather than denying election, understood in its biblical context, it is one of the strongest verses in favor of it.'
Piper---Svigel---Reformation
Ciao ciao
ReplyDeleteI hope you've had a good Eater Time.
Take care and God bless you
br.freddie
Brother Freddie,
ReplyDeleteThanks very kindly and I appreciate you reading.
Happy Easter.
Russ:)
"I award you the Clarence Campbell Bowl"I accept..does that come with fries? :-)
ReplyDeleteI haven't had the chance to read through Hughe's Hebrews commentary for myself, but I've enjoyed the quotes I've read from it throughout the years. I think it's about time for another Amazon book run!
Thanks to you and Greg for the discussion; I've enjoyed reading. It's encouraging when Christian Brothers can discuss an issue without it turning ugly--of course, you both have your pictures for that! :-)
God Bless my Brothers!
GGM
'"I award you the Clarence Campbell Bowl"I accept..does that come with fries? :-)'
ReplyDeleteIt comes with a few cheesy franchises.
You could wear the Bowl on your head for looks.:)
Thanks, GGM. The debate allowed me to learn some as I looked into the Scripture and helpful related commentaries. I reason I demonstrated by God's grace I am on the right track.
Russ,
ReplyDeleteYou should be teaching and baptizing, but you’re acting like you need somebody to teach and baptize you. But that’s impossible! Once a person has been enlightened and gone through the baptism of repentance . . . if they fall aside from the path, they can’t go back again to the baptism of repentance and start all over.
The exhortation, then, is clear: get back on the path of life and move toward maturity! You can’t be converted again, so start acting like a convert!If that is the correct interpretation, then that is quite helpful. The passage is certainly not an easy one to interpret.
Yes, Jeff, thanks.
ReplyDeleteThe parallels between Hebrews 6 and 1 Corinthians 3 are quite interesting, whether or not Paul wrote Hebrews.
If the "any" or “all” here refers to everyone in human history, the verse would prove far more than Arminians would want to prove - it would prove universalism rather than Christianity. (Universalism is the false doctrine that teaches that everyone will ultimately be saved, with no one going to hell). If God is not willing that any person perish, then what? No one would ever perish! Yet, in context, the "any" that God wills not to perish must be limited to the same group he is writing to, the elect, and the "all" that are to come to repentance is the very same group. Christ’s second coming has been delayed so that all the elect can be gathered in. God is not willing that any of the elect should perish, but that all of them come to repentance.I find that very helpful.
ReplyDeletePLEASE NOTE READERS:
ReplyDeleteWithin the last 24 hours with Blogger and both Jeff's blog and this blog there has been an error with comments.
My URL placements, for example, last night and this morning are not lining up right in the main body or comments, even though they look correct in preview.
We are not lazy commenters!;)
'God is not willing that any of the elect should perish, but that all of them come to repentance.I find that very helpful.'
This is actually an interpretation I came to as possible through my own study, and it is good to see it within scholarship.
I tend to believe that all of our 'good' works are generally tainted by some level of self-benefit. A possible exception might be if we did that while completely filled with the Holy Spirit. But I would reason that, whatever portion of our attitude that was self-seeking when we performed that 'good' work will be burned up, but whatever portion was done fully for the sake of Christ will withstand the fire test, like gold.
ReplyDeleteBut I do not necessarily see that 'self-benefitting' portion of the good work necessarily as a conscious sin that is not repented of. In fact, I suspect that we may be unaware that we are doing it for (at least partially) selfish reasons.
For any conscious sins that we are aware of yet have not repented of, I believe the Holy Spirit will convict us of. And, if we rebel against that, we will be most unhappy. After attending Bob Jones University for 2 years, I became very rebellious against God, and those were the blackest days of my entire life. Yet I was still a believer. If I had died during that time, I would still have been saved, but I believe there would have been rebellion in me that, at that point, I had not repented of.
When a person is regenerated and becomes transformed by the Holy Spirit, through the blood of Christ, and becomes a holy, pure, living temple that the Holy Spirit now abides in, all sins, past, present and future are forgiven. Jesus said that we no longer have to take a bath. But we still have to wash our feet, as in those days they wore sandals and would get dusty feet from all their walking. In like manner, in our daily living, since we are still sinners, we will still sin, and we still need to confess those sins and repent of them in order to keep a good relationship with the Father. But that is not a salvation issue. The dishes and utensils that were set aside for holy use in the temple, in the Old Testament, were not thrown away into the garbage (read: Gehenna) just because they became dirty after using them. They were still holy and set aside for God, no matter how much blood or guts they got on them. But they needed to be washed so that they could best be used for the purpose they were chosen for.
Within the last 24 hours with Blogger and both Jeff's blog and this blog there has been an error with comments.
ReplyDeleteThis is a test. Before the word "This" I placed an HTML 'break' instruction tag. Let's see if that works. I was also going to use an HTML 'paragraph' instruction tag, but Blogger said that tag is not allowed.
'I tend to believe that all of our 'good' works are generally tainted by some level of self-benefit. A possible exception might be if we did that while completely filled with the Holy Spirit.'
ReplyDeleteVery good point, Jeff.
'But I do not necessarily see that 'self-benefitting' portion of the good work necessarily as a conscious sin that is not repented of. In fact, I suspect that we may be unaware that we are doing it for (at least partially) selfish reasons'
Yes, but not doing Spirit led good works is a sign of living in the flesh and therefore at times I reason not being repentant of sin, some of which are conscious.
Our sin nature leads us to commit known and unknown sins, all of which taint our works.
Cheers, Jeff.
Yes, but not doing Spirit led good works is a sign of living in the flesh and therefore at times I reason not being repentant of sin, some of which are conscious.
ReplyDeleteI agree that could occur. (This time I am placing 2 HTML break tags to see how much that separates my reply from your quote.)
Our sin nature leads us to commit known and unknown sins, all of which taint our works.
Agreed.
Well, I have decided that my final blog posting of April, which will be on thekingpin68, will be an audio post.
ReplyDeleteStay tuned.
Thank you, Jeff and readers.
Okay, time for me to watch FC Porto vs. Man. Utd leg 2.
Еxcellent, what a webpage it is! Τhis webpage pгovides valuablе
ReplyDeleteinformation to us, keep it up.
Look into my site ; buy followers for instagram
This piece of writing offers clear idea for the
ReplyDeletenew people of blogging, that genuinely how to do blogging.
Review my webpage; adobe photoshop cs4 serial key free download