| Author | Message | ||
| Zjason Registered user Username: Zjason Post Number: 82 Registered: 11-2005  |
I'm still digesting what was posted here over the last couple of days, but I just wanted to tell you, River, that what you said means a lot. Thanks for responding. Jason | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 431 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jeremy: I missed that. I totally agree with you. That is radically different from what I thought he was saying. I am saved by Christ's merit alone. My merit has nothing to do with my salvation. If it did, then I would have been able to GAIN my salvation in the first place. It seems to me that to agree with Sproul is to agree that there are degrees of sin. There are degrees of consequences for sure, but sin is sin is sin is sin. Even the tiniest speck of sin separates us from God and were it not for the blood of Christ, we'd have no hope. Jeremy: thank you for pointing that out. I absolutely agree with you. Patria | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1523 Registered: 9-2006  |
I see your point Jeremy, what do you think the guys real position is just judging from what you've read in his quotes? River | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 432 Registered: 3-2005 |
Yes, Jeremy: I am interested in hearing the answer to that question. River, I'm frankly so surprised. I just didn't realize that Sproul would ever suggest that my efforts can even theoretically have any bearing on my salvation which is what I think he's saying here. In other words, we could THEORETICALLY sin SO bad that we'd separate ourselves from Him, but we can trust that God in His mercy won't "let go of our hand" long enough to let us do that. YIKES. My understanding of regeneration is that when I accept Christ, I am literally placed into the Kingdom of Light (Col. 1), seated at the right hand of God, etc. He won't un-circumcise our sin nature. He won't un-seat us at the right hand of God. His salvation of us means that when we submit our will to Him, He takes it kit and caboodle. He doesn't leave us where we're at. He makes us holy. His grace pours out of our lives. But it's ALL HIM. It's NONE ME. Anything good from me is all Him! I'm sorry. I know you asked Jeremy...I'm just a little worked up now. Patria | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1524 Registered: 9-2006 |
Patria, I feel the same as you, I just don't know what he is saying. But i wouldn't let a theologian get me too worked up, if I was willing to let theologians get me worked up I would never get any rest. period. River Yes Jesus paid the ultimate price to save us to the uttermost, with his blood we ARE redeemed, not gonna be, already are. (Message edited by river on September 24, 2007) | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2171 Registered: 10-2004  |
River, what I think Sproul's position is, is what Patria said above that she thinks he's saying. I don't know what his response would be to all of this, but I do know that he is a 5-point TULIP Calvinist. But like I said before, what he is saying seems to contradict the L in TULIP, "Limited Atonement" (which I believe is Biblical). I have noticed that when some Calvnists get to the "P" ("Perseverance of the saints"), they sometimes contradict the "L," unfortunately. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on September 24, 2007) | ||
| Susans Registered user Username: Susans Post Number: 512 Registered: 8-2006 |
I don't believe Sproul does teach or believe that. The doctrine of eternal security is called by reformed theologians "perseverance of the saints". It goes along with total depravity of the human race. From what I understand of Sproul, he is saying that we are so depraved that we could sin away our salvation if it were left up to us. Fortunately, it's NOT left up to us. Jesus died for us and accomplished our salvation. God draws us by His "irresistible grace", and completes what He started, from beginning to finish. IF it were up to us in any way whatsoever, we would mess it up and be lost. It's ALL about God, though. And because it is, we can be secure that He will never let us go once we are adopted as His children. However, I'm open to a different understanding and perhaps I have not seen this before because I do not agree that any effort or action on our part can cause us to gain or lose our salvation. edited to add: River, I would agree with you in not letting any theologian get me too worked up, but go to the bible and see what it says. Also, we are looking at one small portion of his writings and I for one, could not make a judgment on what he believes on that statement alone. (yikes for some reason I'm thinking that is how SDA's defend Ellen!) Also though, remember Presbyterians are very strong on personal piety so it may be as you all have said. I will have to do some reading. Susan (Message edited by SusanS on September 24, 2007) | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 433 Registered: 3-2005 |
I was pretty strong there. Since he's not here to defend himself, I need to back off on being so rude about him. I apologize for that. And of course, he is our Christian friend and I do not in any way want to disparage his name. Patria (Message edited by patriar on September 24, 2007) (Message edited by patriar on September 24, 2007) | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1525 Registered: 9-2006 |
Well, I studied the 5 point TULIP in theology, but I can't remember all the points, I'll have to go back through my notes. Or if you could shoot them to me I would appreciate, just the short version if you have it on file to cut and paste, my notes are THICK and unorganized. Good thing my salvation don't depend on my theology note,s I'd at least be the last one in the gate. "here they are Lord" waving a big sheaf of notes over my head as I'm scratch'in gravel. River | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2172 Registered: 10-2004 |
River, TULIP stands for: T - Total depravity U - Unconditional election L - Limited atonement (or "definite atonement") I - Irresistible grace P - Perseverance of the saints Jeremy | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1526 Registered: 9-2006 |
Yes thanks, I remember now, what do you think of a Pentecostal AOG, type one each being pretty much a five point TULIP? River | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 434 Registered: 3-2005 |
Susan: My opinion counts for nothing! Thank God that my salvation doesn't depend on whether I can interpret a theologian's TRUE meaning!  And again, I would still point out that piety is important. Obedience is important. I only take issue with the idea that those things have any bearing on my justification. Most CERTAINLY my decision to obey is important and the more I focus on Him, the more holy He makes my life...well until I mess it up again. And THAT is the point I'm trying to make. There's no gradual road to perfection. My humanity is a loss except for the way that He chooses to give Himself glory through it. Occasionally for a moment, because of His grace, I might look like Him. But it really takes the pressure off when I realize that when my striving looks more like a sloppy mess than holiness, I rest in the knowledge that it's His work that saved me. I can't remove the finished work He's done for me (thank goodness!). Patria | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 435 Registered: 3-2005 |
River: I will take those words of wisdom right to heart! I need to not get so worked up. Maybe then I'll get some sleep, too.  And speaking of...it's a lot later here than the west coast. Good night my fellow sojourners. Patria (Message edited by patriar on September 24, 2007) | ||
| Susans Registered user Username: Susans Post Number: 513 Registered: 8-2006 |
Amen, Patriar! I agree with you! Blessings, Susan | ||
| Snowboardingmom Registered user Username: Snowboardingmom Post Number: 356 Registered: 11-2005 |
Interesting discussion. Yes, Jeremy I see your point. I hadn't thought about that. Sorry Patria, I guess my explanation wasn't very helpful afterall, huh? So there seems to be two ways to look at it (which gives the same ending result of eternal security). 1) God's blood has saved us. 2) God's grace preserves us. Does believing in #2 mean you have to deny the full meaning of #1? Hmm...I'm going to have to think on this. I guess it's good to know that the one thing we can be certain of is that it's all God. And if we're born again, we have eternal security. Praise God! Grace | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6871 Registered: 12-2003  |
I understand your reaction, Patria! And River, I totally agree with you about not getting too worked up over any theologian! I have a theory that the apparent confusion reflected in Sproul's quote above results not from one's Reformed faith but from one's understanding of the role of the law in the New Covenant. When one believes that there is a continuing use for the law as a rule of faith and practice for Christ-followers instead of Jesus Himself being the fulfilment of all the law and the "Law of Christ" being literally written on our hearts in the Person of the Holy Spirit, then one gets muddy about what role one's behavior and sins actually play. If the law is a continuing standard of practice for the Christian, then one's behavior is somehow potentially linked to one's worth. One can say that God won't allow us to sin ourselves out of salvation, but this theoretical statement is not rooted in the total paradigm shift of the Biblical new covenant. Instead, we are inhabited by God Himself living in our now-living spirits. We HAVE CROSSED from death to life. The books of Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, and Colossians clarify that we are literally "transferred to the kingdom of His beloved Son" (Col 1:13). Our behaviors have no further role to play in our potential salvation. They will be judged for rewards (1 Cor 3 and 4:5), but not even theoretically do they have an effect on salvation. I believe that Sproul believes what most of us believe re: our security in Christ, but I believe that his understanding of covenant theology colors the way he speaks about behaviors. I'm learning that I don't completely fit any formalized, "official" statement of New Covenant Theology. But while I don't consider myself to be "new covenant" or "covenant" or "dispensational", I do see the Bible clearly teaching that Jesus fulfilled all the law, and He Himself in the Person of the Holy Spirit IS the Law written on our hearts. Confusion about this issue yields some confusion in explaining the role of our behaviors. We are obligated to obey the Bible and the commands of God, and we are admonished over and over in the NT about what a godly life looks like, about what will and won't be accepted into the kingdom of heaven. But a truly born again person cannot theoretically sin enough to lose salvation. Living in the new covenant by the law of the Spirit of life is a completely new paradigm. Covenant Theology still holds us in the old paradigm to a certain extent. As Mark Martin told us recently, understanding the new covenant is what makes it possible for people to leave Adventism. If covenant theology were the only paradigm, no Adventist would be convinced. This difference in understanding, I believe, is what is creating the apparent confusion in Sproul's quote. (And that being said, covenant theology vs. new covenant understandings are not points of division among Christ-followers. They are merely points of discussion.) Colleen | ||
| Larry Registered user Username: Larry Post Number: 214 Registered: 5-2007 |
There are some very good points being made in this discussion. I value all your inputs! My wife informed me that Sproul still believes we are under the 10 commandments, and Dennis might be in agreement. This could be a source of some disagreement. Someone mentioned the word "chug". I gotta disagree with that too. Are we suppose to "chug along with all our might"? How about we "schlep along with all our might"? It just gets silly at some point. The word used was "strive". For me it is extremely easy dumping egw (like a truckload of festering manure) due to her satanic glorification errors, her antigospel teachings, adding and subtracting from the Bible and other assorted what nots. Good entertainment, but doesn't exactly give one a superclear view of the gospel. I have been trying to piece all this gospel stuff together as relates to effort and law keeping, lately, having absorbed all the wrong krap over a lifetime. Seems as if I have been in some sort of gospel haze for over a half century. So here is what I have come up with: We are under the 10 commandments until we are saved. That requires one to believe in the TRUE gospel. The 10C's are the tutor that shows us just how bad we are. Once your are saved, believing that Jesus' sacrifice and atonement will 100% save you, without your own efforts, you then cast off the tutor, cast out the bondwoman, cast off the entire Israelite law.
From then on, you are under the law of the spirit. Will you sin? sure. But we are not sinning against the 10 commandments. So what are the new rules? They are found in 1 John 3:23 - To believe in the One He has sent, and to love one another. NOT the Israelite covenant, which includes the 10C's! This point sda's completely fail to recognize. And they are not alone, as a few other denominations have a gospel haze too, I have noticed, upon visiting different churches. I've got an assortment of verses on my notepad, and I admit I do not know everything. So you all feel free to add, subract, and correct me. I need to get this straight. Thank you! | ||
| Susans Registered user Username: Susans Post Number: 514 Registered: 8-2006 |
Larry, A quick note before I head out of town (again!). Your wife is right in that Sproul believes we are still under the 10 commandments. The Westminister Confession teaches that as well. Covenant theology (in my opinion) makes it easy to be deceived by Adventism. Colleen is spot on in her assessment of confusion of behaviour arising out of the believe that the law is a continuing rule of faith and practice. I believe that RC Sproul believes wholeheartedly in the eternal security of the believer, but as Colleen has so aptly pointed out, there is a difference in what he believes is written on our hearts and minds. Larry, I believe you and I agree on the law standing still to shut the world up under sin. The Holy Spirit in the life of the born again believer now convicts of sin and of righteousness and that conviction goes way beyond the 10 commandments. Headed off now! Susan | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 436 Registered: 3-2005 |
Colleen: Very nice summary. That makes sense to me. This is definitely something that we have Christian liberty on. We can disagree til the cows come home and we very well might with Covenant Theologians.  River: You'll be happy to know that I slept like a baby. We had a phenomenal thunderstorm here. I LOVE thunderstorms! While my children AND dog were cowering under MY covers (well the dog was hiding in the closet) I was just enjoying God's handiwork. Grace: That's a good question. I've been wondering along the same lines. I felt like Colleen's post cleared up some leftover fog. Larry: I blieve that's a great summary for understanding the New Covenant. There are many who believe that the 10 commandments are the tutor that lead us to Christ. They may be right. I don't know for sure. Again, that's something we have liberty to disagree about. But here's my thinking on it. I'm not convinced of that. My feeling is that the 10 commandments role was over when Christ finished the work of atonement at the Cross. I believe that the Law that is a tutor to lead us to Christ includes the moral principles of the 10, but also includes all of God's Law. If it was just the 10 that led us to Christ, then my moral attributes that are outside of the 10 could add to my salvation AFTER regeneration and Sabbath-keeping would also have to be a moral law and we've all discovered it isn't. So as we know, our works don't justify us. But neither do they sanctify us. Even the sanctification process is a work of God ALONE. Yes, I can make a choice to live righteously but not based on my merit...ever. Until glorification, I'll need Him 'doing' holiness for me. In other words, after salvation we still can't keep any of God's Law were it not for His abundant grace and mercy. You know what I mean? There's not part of me that's now suddenly so holy I can look like Him without His mercy. He does everything up to the point of salvation AND after salvation. In fact, I think Paul does teach that clearly in Romans, Colossians, Galatians, Philippians "He who began a good work in you will carry it to completion." To me, and admittedly this is ALL my opinion, surrender means literally falling back into the arms of Jesus and giving Him free reign to direct my thoughts and actions. It's funny that since I've done that, I don't have any concern about decisions or choices to make. I know that He will correct and discipline me when I'm getting off the road to holiness. He HAS. I now have plenty of experience to back up my theory. Anyway, just my thoughts. Patria | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1528 Registered: 9-2006 |
Just in case some of you may be interested in what I spent the first four hours of my day doing, here is the results of the reviews I did on various beliefs. You would find most Pentecostals to be of the Arminian persuasion but if you read thru this mess you will soon see that I differ with them and why. These are just my notes, but by reading them I think you can see where it led right back to a along toward the bottom. This is a traditional study and not a particular sect or division of a particular church. Note: If Sproul believes he is still under the Ten Commandments that explains his confusing rhetoric. T.U.L.I.P T - Total depravity U - Unconditional election L - Limited atonement (or "definite atonement") Was Christ death for all people? I am not quite clear on what the mean by “Limited atonement”. Find out. I - Irresistible grace P - Perseverance of the saints There are four major views concerning assurance. 1. Lutheran. 2. Arminian. Pentecostal, believe that the only way to lose your salvation is to consciously turn away from Christ, but not because of sin. 3. Roman Catholic. Mortal sin and venial sin against Gods law. 4. Reformed. Arminian-ism 1. Partial depravity. 2. Conditional election. 3. Unlimited atonement. 4. Resistible grace. Roman Catholic: A believer can lose their salvation by committing a mortal sin. Adherants – Wesleyan Arminians, Methodist, Nazerenes, John Wesley, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic. An interesting thing is that Lutherans make distinction between an elect Christian and a none-elect Christian which makes my eyes roll back in my head to try to get hold of it. A defense for conditional security. (or freedom to him- True freedom) 1 jn :5:16, Mk 3:28-29, Heb 10:26-27, 2 Pet 2:19-22, Gal 5:1-4, Matt 18:23-35 (having unforgiveness towards someone) Apostasy Heb 6:4-6, mat 24:10-13, Heb 3:6, Jn 3:16, Jn 10:26-27, (or) a total of 88 such passages that warn against apostasy which leaves me to believe we best take it seriously, the warnings against apostasy are too believers else why would an unbeliever have apostasy to begin with, he has nothing to apostate from. One cannot lose what he has never gained. So what these scriptures say to me is simply this “Take the Bible and the Gospel seriously and don’t get embroiled in cults, don’t be lying to yourself or to God. Eternal security appears to put God in a legal box to them (Arminians?) Defense for Eternal security. Firstly, John 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. John 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. John 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I have not found any scripture that in contradiction of itself yet, if we believe that we can lose our salvation this scripture would clearly contradict. The Arminian would say, no, no one could snatch you out of the father’s hand, but you could take yourself out. If that is the case this scripture is no comfort whatsoever, nada, I have always been the problem and am still the problem, I am not afraid of some taking my salvation from me. Its always me who sins, me who weakens and me who fails God, he has never failed me. John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: I may be lagging away back there at times or I may be up close, but I am still trailing along somewhere in the group, If I get caught up in a tangle my Shepard is going go back and untangle me and set me on my wobbly feet again. So you can present your scripture or your theology, but unless you can show me where this scripture contradicts then I have to go with this scripture. It is the perfect picture of the true believer, the regenerate Christian who walks in newness of life and have become “His sheep”. To really understand Jn 10:27 one needs to go back and read the 23rd psalms. Is God in the business of turning sheep into goats? Are sheep into the business of becoming goats? A sheep is a sheep and a goat is a goat, one can never transmutate into something else. There are other scripture for the eternal security argument, but why use them when you can’t get past that one, I say get past that one and then use the others. Jesus is just truly all we need. Well, they were gonna rock Jesus for that one and there may be some Arminians who want to rock me out of the Assembly’s of God too! Does that make me a Calvinist? Not by a long shot. Romans 8:29-30 the golden chain of redemption begins to fall apart under any consideration other than what is written in Jn 10:25-29 and especially Romans 8:38-39. Every time I do this study I always end up back on the subject of “sheep” and Jn 10:25-29. It is not the complete defense for eternal life, but as I said, if I ever get past Jn 10:25-29 I might even continue along with the rest of the defense. Thank you Jesus, with a grateful heart I acknowledge Jn 10:25-29, I hear you. River |
