| Author | Message | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 437 Registered: 3-2005 |
River: Thank you for that study report. Grace: BTW, I actually DID learn quite a bit. I think it's always good to hone down what I believe and why. The dialogue we had gave me quite a bit of clarity on a couple of things. Patria | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6875 Registered: 12-2003  |
River, thank you for your study. You make some very good observations. I often remember what M. Scott Peck said in his book, "A Different Drum". (Peck is the psyciatrist who wrote "The Road Less Travelled" and became a Christian as a result of writing his own book and examining the claims of Jesus. His book "People of the Lie" is, in my opinion, a must-read.) At any rate he says that truth is always a paradox, i.e. God is both transcendant and immanent; you must lose your life to find it; though you are poor, yet you are rich, etc. He says that any time you teach only half of the paradox, you are teaching heresy. I realize that in the post-modern world the word "paradox" has come to mean something more negative than positive sometimes, so I prefer to say that truth holds certain realities in tension. As I see it, we know absolutely that God's election of us in Christ is real. Our security in Jesus is absolutely certain. Our total depravity is incontrovertable. We are unable to choose God unless we are enlivened by the Holy Spirit. At the same time, we have to know that the warnings against apostasy are also real. We cannot ignore them because we know we are secure. I am empahtically not saying that our security is in doubt, that our justification in Christ is in any way marginalized, or that we play even the remotest role in "becoming" saved. All I am saying is that we cannot formulate the way God works. In other words, I can't look at theology as a diagram of how God saves and convicts and "works". I can with confidence know that everything the Bible says is true. I cannot explain any of it away. So, for me, the bottom line is that I must live my life before the Lord Jesus with a heart willing to be humbled, a heart that is daily repentant and grateful for Jesus' sacrifice. I must, as Paul says in 1 Cor 11:29-32, judge myself so I will not "come under judgment". I do not see him meaing I might lose salvation; rather, I see him say that if I do not judge myself on an ongoing basis, God may discipline me in ways He wouldn't have to if I were open to repentance and surrender. Paul told the Corinthians that because of their self-centered attitude when they came together to eat the Lord's Supper, many of them were sick and "a number of you have fallen asleep." He says in verse 32, "When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world." I have to take all of Scripture to heart as if it were written for me (which, actually, it was!). There is a certain "holding in tension" required when we look at all of Scripture, but the reality is that when we are alive in Christ, His Spirit confirms our status as His children (Romans 8:14-15). Even when we face the seriousness of the warnings, we can know that we are God's children, and we can respond to His discipline and warning as the loved children that we are, in trust and humility. Bottom line: I must personally take the words of Scripture seriously in my own life. I cannot attempt to create a formula for how God works in any specific life that is more detailed than the Bible is. But the absolutes of His sovereignty, His Lordship over me, over salvation, over the life of my spirit, over sin and evil...these are the foundations of reality. If I am somehow in the center of the picture, I'm not seeing truth. God is the essence of truth and reality. He has granted me a role in His story—but the story is HIS, not mine! Colleen | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1532 Registered: 9-2006  |
That whole post so very well said Colleen. Quote” I do not see him meaning I might lose salvation; rather, I see him say that if I do not judge myself on an ongoing basis, God may discipline me in ways He wouldn't have to if I were open to repentance and surrender.” And I might add, lose out on the blessing that diligence in seeking him will bring. I want Gods blessing rather than discipline. River | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1278 Registered: 4-2000  |
I heartily recommend Dr. Sproul's classic book entitled, "CHOSEN BY GOD." It is actually a small book with an important message. Many Christian readers consider this book his very best. After reading this book, you will have a renewed appreciation for Jesus Christ, our Savior and Substitute. Dennis Fischer | ||
| Larry Registered user Username: Larry Post Number: 217 Registered: 5-2007 |
Dennis, I will pass on Sproul for now. It is sounding more and more like you and him are 10 commandment pushers. Have you refuted this lately? It makes me pretty irritated, having come out of sda-ism, and someone try to influence me to embrace precision instructions found all over the Bible. I am not buying it. Can anyone find things wrong with the following verses? Or the application of them? Galatians 3:17-19 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. Galations 3:24-25 So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. Galatians 3:25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. Galatians 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law. Romans 3:21,22 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth..." Romans 10:3,4 Under law = death Under grace = life You cannot be under both (Romans 6:14). Death and life cannot be married to each other. Your move. | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 594 Registered: 7-2000 |
Now Larry, don't be so quick to take Dennis to task for the law. After all, you wrote this above: 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth..." - Romans 10 ------------------------------------------------ What you wrote is good covenant theology but it's a viewpoint I strongly disagree with. The Ten Commandments cannot be divorced from the rest of the Torah. The Ten Commandments WERE the covenant with Israel of which you and I were never a part of. There is no mechanism, no method in the New Covenant to transfer the Gentiles into the custody of the old covenant law. So, even as unbelievers, we are not under the 10 Commandments. Think about it.... | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 595 Registered: 7-2000 |
River, I'm confused. You write this: 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?) ------------------------------------------- And then you turn around and write this which seems to refute or ignore the possibility of the apostasy that you have just shown: 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. River, you just made the Arminian argument. 'No man' can take me out of Gods' hand--except myself. As you pointed out, it's me who sins, me who fails God. Arminiaism, for me, resolves this tension between eternal security and the many texts warning against apostasy. Calvinism just ignores the texts warning of apostasy and chants over and over 'if they walk away, they were never saved to begin with'. | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1536 Registered: 9-2006 |
I agree Loneviking that calvinism lacks, so does Armiansim. Now I say that in the light of how most Pentecostal Arminians believe because it, at least to me, removes security in Christ. I simply took a look at the defense for and against eternal security. I just land on the side of eternal security like I land with Larry on the Ten Commandments thing. Does my security in Christ depend on me or him? many years of experience tells me that it depends on him because I have failed him, true I repented, but still failed. I think Colleen said it a lot better that I could. Sorry for the confusion, I would like to tell you that it won't happen again but I know it will.  River | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 444 Registered: 3-2005 |
Loneviking: THANK YOU for saying what I was trying to articulate regarding the 10 Commandments in the New Covenant. I can find no Biblically prescribed method to transport them into the New Covenant even as a tutor. **************I'm NOT taking away moral principles from the New Covenant. God's moral principles are transcendant. He IS Law.************. His moral attributes are stamped all over the place since His body is now on earth acting out His will. He chooses to use us to His glory and for His glory. What an awe-filled experience. I know that a person MUST comprehend the gravity of their sin. That goes along with a sincere faith. But the realization of our sinfulness can come in stages. I personally can't tell you a 'day' or 'time' when I was saved. It was a process for me as I gradually realized who God is, that this whole story is ABOUT HIM and His amazing grace in using me for ANY purpose in His universe. If the 10 Commandments were the tutor, I could have just reopened my Bible to Exodus 20 or Deut. 5. I'm simply saying that both of these things, in my opinion, are true. The 10 Commandments are not a sufficient showing of the gravity of my sin AND that we must experience the gravity of our sin. Does that make sense? Patria | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1537 Registered: 9-2006 |
Maybe if you tell me exactly what was confusing about the post we could straighten it out. Did I warn you about the humungas drawer full of tension files I have here? River | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1538 Registered: 9-2006 |
Sorry Patria, we keep stumbling over one another, forgive me. River | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 596 Registered: 7-2000 |
River, you straightened it out--you've been hanging around with those Pentecostals too much!! There are moderate views in the Arminian camp that allow for security of salvation. | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 597 Registered: 7-2000 |
Yes, Patriar, you are making very good sense and that's why I can't subscribe to the covenant theology of the Reformed churches. | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1539 Registered: 9-2006 |
Hey, watch it about me hanging around those Pentecostals! I'll trade you three baptist for one Pentecostal any day! Seriouly though, I am in a really good church right now. Thank the Lord Jesus for that and those old traditional beliefs of being saved every other day have lost their grip. I still haven't got the covenant thing down real good Loneviking, but I,m getting there. It is a much needed teaching in evangelical churches. I'll raise you two baptist and a lutheren! River | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 598 Registered: 7-2000 |
Three Baptist for one pentecostal? You're on! Those pentecostals get to hollerin, rollin' around on the floor and speaking in tongues and I'm gone faster than a pig on skates going downhill! I know some real fiery Baptist preachers, so I'll call you on the next hand as long as that Luthern is Missouri synod! | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 1280 Registered: 4-2000 |
Larry, Thank you for your comments. I fully understand your intense feelings against God's revealed will in Scripture. I too once believed very passionately just like you do, after exiting Adventism, that God's holy moral laws were no longer binding--especially those found in the Old Testament. This so-called "Spirit-led antinomianism" is an overreaction to the legalism we endured under Adventism. The primary purpose of the Holy Spirit is to lead us into righteousness (right doing). I have a new appreciation for Martin Luther these days. He once stated that he wished that some of his earlier writings could be burned. While looking through some older files the other day, I felt like Martin Luther did. The journey from outright heresy to Biblical truth is not instantaneous. Thus, I am very patient with those who claim to reject God's moral laws--whether found in Scripture or in the heart. The Torah (as a unit) and the Decalogue (as a unit) are no longer binding, but God's moral laws are transferred from one covenant to another throughout redemptive history. Without God's law there is no Gospel. Without God's law there is no sin (whether orally or Scripturally given). Without sin, we don't need a Savior nor a Substitute. It is a grave error to attempt to delete and/or disparage God's holy, timeless, moral laws simply to get rid of the festal, Jewish Sabbath. Romans 10:4 is not telling us that the moral laws of God are now obsolete or ended. Rather, Paul is saying that Christ is the ultimate purpose and focus of the law. It leads us to Christ in utter humility and desperation. "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law," (Gal. 3:13) not from our duty to obey it. It may surprise you, but I have been called worse names than a "Ten Commandment pusher." (smile) I make absolutely no apologies for God's moral laws wherever in the Bible they are found. I have great respect for God's moral directives in Scripture. It is my heartfelt prayer that you too will come to appreciate God's revealed will for your life. The moral directives found in the Decalogue were not a sufficient moral guide for the Hebrew people. The non-Decaloglical moral laws of Torah were likewise binding upon them. As Christ-followers, we likewise need the moral teachings of Jesus and His Apostles which reaffirm and expand the moral OT directives. The Bible is God's voice speaking to us. The weakest point of New Covenant Theology is its treatment of the OT canon. While the New Covenant is a clearer and final revelation to man, it is not a superceding one. If that were the case, that would dramatically affect the OT canon in areas of inspiration and inerrancy. To say that we can only interpret the OT through the grid or lens of the NT is unbiblical and assaults the God-breathed authority of the OT canon. The Apostle Paul declares: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16 NASB). Furthermore, we needlessly alienate our Adventist and fellow Christian friends by speaking against the moral precepts of God as found throughout the Bible. I feel a sermon coming on, so please feel free to email me. Dennis Fischer E-mail: dennisfischer@neb.rr.com | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1540 Registered: 9-2006 |
Quote: It is my heartfelt prayer that you too will come to appreciate God's revealed will for your life. Yikes, like you do and Larry don't? ""Spirit-led antinomianism"? Quote: I fully understand your intense feelings against God's revealed will in Scripture. His intense feelings "against gods will?" Oh, well, aw shucks. River | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6885 Registered: 12-2003 |
Dennis, after listening to a couple of the lectures on New Covenant Theology given at The Master's College, I have a better understanding where you are coming from. Please know that just because I (and others whose understandings I know including Dale Ratzlaff) teach that the New Covenant is completely NEW and Jesus has replaced the written law as our rule of faith, practice, and justice, this does not mean that we subscribe to what some people call "New Covenant Theology". Until I listened to those lectures, I had no idea that some New Covenant Theologians actually say the OT is no longer vitally relevant to Christians. I most vehemently disagree with this position. I (and I believe most former Adventists who embrace the New Covenant) do not believe there is no law. I can't even imagine how anyone could come up with this conclusion! Neither do we see "moral law" as something that is "transferred" from one covenant to another. As Richard says, "Moral law doesn't need to be transferred because it is not dependent upon covenants." Morality is literally of God. Just as God is love, God is justice, God is mercy, God is also Law. We have no hope of having love, justice, mercy, or law if we are not connected to God. The written law was temporary. It was not something eternal. But GOD is eternal, and His attributes, including morality and love and justice and grace and peace, are eternal. Where God is, these things also are. People are born into the domain of darkness, dead in sin and bound by it. They are unable to shape their lives by God's love or by His law. And yet Romans 2 tells us that God has imprinted at least a rudimentary awarenss of morality on the consciences of men. Because God is Creator, because man is made in His image, even some understanding of morality is left to depraved humanity. But God's morality is not tied either to a covenant or to any written law. Of course there is LAW! God IS--and in Christ all things live and move and have their being. This existence depends upon law. Morality depends upon law. God's love is not separable from His law. When Paul says "God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us" (Romans 5:5), this process is the new birth. When God pours His love into our hearts, He also pours His moral requirements and convictions into our hearts. Nothing is transferred from any other covenant. God isn't tranferred by covenants. God chooses how to mediate His salvation and soveriegnty with us, and His eternal and unchanging law--including morality--is always present where He is. There is no feeling against God's revealed will in Scripture. When I heard this argument propounded in one of the lectures, I was shocked. Understanding that Jesus has completely fulfilled and supreceded the law does not make the Old Testament obsolete. Quite the opposite. It has more profound meaning, more convicting power to me now than it ever had when I believed the written law applied in some way to me. Believing that we no longer have to refer to the Decalogue for any function of moral guidance does not make us antinomian. As Colossians said, the Law was a shadow. Embracing the substance does not mean we reject what the shadow stood for. It means, rather, that we accept the whole impact of the Law instead of merely the outline of it. Colleen | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6887 Registered: 12-2003 |
I just read over my post above and it's too late to edit... I want to make it clear that what I was saying in the last paragraph is this: Embracing Jesus means we accept the whole substance of the Law of Christ—including morality—and not just the shadow outlined in the Ten Commandments and the rest of the Torah. Colleen | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 1543 Registered: 9-2006 |
Quote: "Embracing Jesus means we accept the whole substance of the Law of Christ—including morality—and not just the shadow outlined in the Ten Commandments and the rest of the Torah." And you know what Colleen? It is there that I realized I had no righteousness of my own so Embraced him and put myself under his mercy, reading the old testament and the new is the same, both say he loved me enough to save me even though I had no righteousness to contribute. I am going to save your post and when I tend to get mixed up again, I am going to read it. River |
