| Author | Message | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 886 Registered: 10-2004  |
Stan, thanks for the link to that article--I enjoyed it. I do disagree with Chuck Smith about us choosing God instead of God choosing us. I guess you could say that Smith certainly is more on the side of Arminianism than Calvinism, though he does not believe in all five points of Arminianism (especially the last one). Jeremy | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 589 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jeremy, I like Pastor Chuck. He has blessed me greatly. But when you pin him down on the question as to whether a Christian can lose his salvation, he will say something like, "as long as you abide in Christ, you are secure". The problem is what does that mean? Is salvation ultimately up to us to abide? But, nonetheless, I still listen to the "Word for today" radio program, and attend his church. I don't feel like I need to leave his church because of these teachings. We are still one in Christ, regardless of how we differ on certain major points. I also can't buy the pre-trib rapture that he has made so popular. Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 591 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jeremy, I have now had a chance to review Mark Martin's site which you linked above. Thanks for posting it. This is a well done summary of the five points of Arminianism and the five points of Calvinism. Martin doesn't give an opinion on where he stands. He talks about a more balanced view that Calvary Chapel has, but I am still not clear on what that view is. I say this based on many years of listening to multiple Calvary Chapel preachers. All I can say, is that despite my own personal differences, I have been blessed spiritually by those same preachers. Stan | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 940 Registered: 7-2003  |
Here's the thing we should keep in mind: Arminianism and Calvinism are really just extreme ends of a scale. Many great Bible Scholars, like Norman Giesler, are not on either end of the scale but somewhere in between the extremes. I think there is an argument to be made that the Bible itself is neither Arminian nor Calvinist. If Biblical teaching were clearly one or the other, then each side wouldn't have to spend so much time and effort trying to explain away certain pesky passages that seem to contradict their philosophical template. Just something to think about..... Chris | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 890 Registered: 10-2004 |
Stan, well I know that Mark Martin does believe that faith is a gift of God. And before he calls on people to accept Jesus, he always prays that God will grant faith to these people. He firmly believes in eternal security (and I believe a lot of Calvary Chapel pastors (most?) do believe in it). Even Chuck Smith says in that article I linked to, that he believes in the perseverance of the saints. And I saw just recently a book online about Calvinism, by George Bryson who you mentioned above, and he stated that he believes in eternal security. But he stated the he thinks that Evangelicals, such as Baptists for example, who believe in "once saved always saved" often mistakenly think they believe in the "P" in TULIP (Perseverance of the Saints), but he sees the Calvinist doctrine as being a bit different than "once saved always saved" and doesn't think it gives assurance to the believer. Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on July 28, 2005) | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 593 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jeremy, Where is that Bryson book online? Do you have a link to it. Is it his book, "The Dark Side of Calvinism"? George Bryson (a Calvary Chapel pastor) has had an axe to grind against Calvinism for a long time. There is an interesting debate in book form between Bryson and James White-a Calvinist-I have heard those two go at it head to head on Hank Hanegraf's program. It is perfectly alright to disagree and have an in-house debate about those issues, but when you entitle a book "Dark side", implying that these great doctrines of grace that so many great men have preached are "dark", then I think that goes over the line. But if you want to read something really ugly, then get Dave Hunt's book "What love is this"? or something like that. As that monergism link above points out, Chuck Smith publicly endorsed this book that trashes the character of John Calvin, and calls Calvinism a different gospel. It doesn't mean Smith believes what Hunt teaches, but when you endorse and sell books like that that are totally irresponsible, then that is when I wonder. For example Hunt's book can be immediately discredited when his research is so poor as to applaud Charles Spurgeon as not being a Calvinist, when it is so clear that he was. Hunt also claims that Calvinism is really directly derived from Catholicism. It was the same Dave Hunt who wrote "The Seduction of Christianity" which condemned all Christian psychology including James Dobson's ministry. As far as eternal security, the Calvary Chapel pastors are divided. I did not interpret Chuck Smith to give an uneqivocal statement on eternal security. People call in on Calvary's radio answer man show all the time asking about eternal security, but I have yet to hear an unequivocal positive answer. They all hedge a little, and put some condition on it. I'm sure you are right about Mark Martin, since you have attended his church. There is a big difference between the doctrine of "once saved, always saved", and the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints as taught by Calvinists. Bryson thinks that some Calvinists bring works in through the back door. John MacArthur actually admitted he was doing this and was confronted by Michael Horton over this issue, and as a result MacArthur retracted what he taught in one of his books. Sometimes the Reformed become "fruit inspectors", and claim people are not truly saved because their lives don't match up and those who do that are wrong. But those who believe that all you have to do is raise your hand at an evangelistic meeting, and then go out and live as if there was never any conversion, and insist that these people are saved are also wrong. So, Chris is right about being two extremes. Chris, Is Norm Geisler's view the same as William Lane Craig's? Stan | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 891 Registered: 10-2004 |
Stan, the book by Bryson is called The Five Points of Calvinism: Weighed and Found Wanting. Here is the link: http://www.calvarychapel.com/library/bryson-george/books/fpocwafw.htm When he says "The Dark Side of Calvinism" is he maybe referring to the problem of God being responsible for evil? (which he probably genuinely believes is a heretical aspect that Calvinism leads to) Regarding eternal secruity, there can be extremes like you said. I've listened to Mark Martin a lot on the radio/internet, and I think he has a good balanced view on it. He understands that if someone has genuinely been born again, they won't lose their salvation and they can know they have eternal life and have full assurance of salvation; but he tells people that if they are living in sin and especially if they're "getting away with it" (without being disciplined by God--Heb. 12) that they need to examine themselves to see if they've really been saved in the first place. Jeremy (Message edited by jeremy on July 28, 2005) | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 942 Registered: 7-2003 |
Jeremy, No, Geisler's view is different than Craig's. Geisler refers to himself as a "Moderate Calvinist". He embraces all five points of the TULIP, but defines them in such a way that he is accused of being Arminian by "hyper-Calvinist" (his term, not mine). Geisler claims that Calvin himself was not a "hyper-calvinist" and would not agree with with the "Calvinism" that has evolved in reformed circles today. Geisler wrote an excellent book detailing his position called, "Chosen But Free". It is a direct response to R.C. Sproul's book "Chosen by God". James White responded to Giesler's book with a retort entitled, "The Potter's Freedom". The second edition of "Chosen But Free" has an appendix with a response to "Potter's Freedom". If you want to read a good debate in written form, pick up all three of these books. Chris | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 182 Registered: 2-2003 |
Thanks for all your comments everyone. Jeremy, Proud of having made the decision to accept Christ? I donít think it would ever enter my head. The contrast made in Ephesians 2: 8-10 is between faith and works. What it says to me, is that if I had worked all my life to obtain salvation (like the Jews had to), then there would be room to boast about it (which they did), but if I just accept it as a free gift from God (as in the gospel), then there is no possible reason for boasting. This it true whether you accept the Calvinist or the Arminian explanation for the passage. The difference being, the whole gospel message (salvation) is a gift by the grace of God including the faith to accept it (Calvinist), or, the whole gospel message is a gift by the grace of God, you just have to make a decision to accept it (Arminian). The reason I asked for a verse to prove that saving faith is a gift of God, is that this really is an important difference between the two systems. Where, or who, does the faith come from? Another problem is that the Greek word has a fairly broad semantic field too. It can also mean belief in certain facts (Js 2: 18-19), a body of doctrine (Jude 3), faithfulness (Gal 5: 22). Faith is actually on the list of both the gifts and the fruit of the Spirit (1 Cor 12: 9; Gal 5: 22), but I doubt whether either of these refers to initial saving faith. There are verses that indicate that God expects people to exercise faith, for instance, there are times when Jesus is amazed at peopleís degree of faith (Mat 8: 10; Mark 6: 6), or the heroes from the OT are commended for their faith (Heb 11: 1-2). Why, if they had nothing to do with it? Also, the verses you gave me can all be read in a way that faith is either a gift of God, or is exercised by the hearers. They are ambiguous. Hebrews 4: 2, for instance, in the NIV reads, ìFor we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith.î Taking into account the whole context, and the discussion about not rejecting God (see 3: 12), then this translation seems the best, although the Greek is ambiguous. As to spiritual death, I just basically disagree. Itís a matter of proof by definition. If you define spiritual death as total inability to respond to God in any way, then obviously the whole TULIP system follows on logically from this. If you define spiritual death as separation from God, but without the added factor of being totally unable to have any sort of desire to be reunited, then it does not follow. It occurred to me to ask, how can you reconcile the idea of total inability with the almost universal desire of man to be religious in some way? If we look at the cultures of man throughout the ages, they almost all had some sort of religion. Atheism seems to be relatively recent. Admittedly some of these religions were totally gross, but not all. Of course, these pagan religions did not find God, but they do seem to indicate that man has an inborn desire to seek him. It is then only by hearing the gospel that we are able to find him. Paul says about the Jews, ìBrothers, my heartís desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.î (Rom 10: 1-2). Now here we have the Jews who are both unsaved (because they do not have the knowledge of the gospel), and zealous for God. How does the doctrine of total depravity explain the existence of someone who is both zealous for God and unsaved? Are not the unsaved supposed to be totally unable even to care about God at all? Colleen, You said, ìI do know that God's absolute sovereignty has given me a sense of security that I never knew when I thought that the universe was full of random acts which God could use to teach me but could not prevent.î Wow! I have never believed that. Is that what Adventism teaches? I believe God does not always intervene because he chooses not to, not because he is unable to. See 2 Peter 3: 9, for instance. But he is still intimately involved with his creation, working out his plans, and will eventually wind it all up and judge the world. As I said before, he definitely has the last word. And we know who wins, as he has told us the end of the story. Stan, Thanks for your kind reply and additional info about yourself. I appreciate it. Iíll get back to you on a salvation ìdefinitionî. Iíll think about it some more first. I am from a scientific background too, by the way. I have a doctorate in chemistry, hence the nick. I guess that is why I take a scientific approach to theology too. You know, look at the evidence, formulate a theory, see if the theory fits all the evidence, keep or modify ñ and so on. By the way, although I do not agree with the details of Calvinist theology, I would not consider it ìanother gospel.î I do not actually know very many Calvinists, but that is more due to the circles I move in, rather than a deliberate attempt to avoid them. I may have mentioned I live in Hungary. The situation is rather different than in America, as you can imagine! I live in a town of about 8000 population. There are few Christians here. The religious background is RC. There is a Reformed church here too. In Hungary this is a traditional church system, with church buildings rather like the Catholics. There is a young pastor from Transylvania who is a born again believer (not often the case in the traditional system here, as he also knows). He has about 12 people in his congregation. We are trying to get the three ìProtestantî church groups to at least get together, pray for each other, and support each other. It seems to be working OK at the moment. He did try to get me to talk about predestination once, but I avoided the subject, as not being too helpful to our relationship at this juncture. LOL. ...... I had to chuckle about the incensed reaction to the title of, ìThe Dark Side of Calvinism.î So what about, ìThe Pelagian Captivity of the Evangelical Churchî in reference to Arminians? Is that not offensive then? In terms of Hyper-Calvinists being so exclusive. OK, Iím being provocative again. Based on what Calvinists believe, no-one can come to faith at all unless they are the elect, right? Arminians have come to faith in Jesus too, they just think they made the decision themselves, rather than God making it for them. So that means believing Arminians must also be the elect. So why are Calvinists so down on them? One final point. About Calvinists being more likely to condemn Adventism. Once again, I seem not to fit the pattern. I am not a Calvinist, and I definitely think Adventism is a cult. But then I also donít think Adventism is really Arminian. Oh well, better goÖ Adrian | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 945 Registered: 7-2003 |
This is the crux of the entire matter. This is what I was attempting to communicate, perhaps not very well, in earlier posts. It all stands or falls on your understanding of man's condition post fall. If man is so depraved that he cannot even respond to promptings of God, then the entire TULIP must be correct. However, if there is just enough of the imago dei left in man that he is able to accept or reject the promptings of God, then the TULIP falls. Chris | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 893 Registered: 10-2004 |
Adrian, I don't know Greek, but I did look up the word used in Hebrews 4:2 where it says "it was not united by faith in those who heard." And bluelettterbible.org says that the Greek voice is passive. So what exactly does that mean? Also, in Heb. 12:2, if Jesus is the author and completer of our faith, how can we be the author of our faith? How can faith be something which we ourselves produce?
Can a dead body have any desire to be reunited with the spirit?
Just because they have a religion doesn't mean they are seeking after the Truth (and Jesus Christ is the Truth). False religions are usually founded by Satan and are designed to lead people AWAY from the Truth of Jesus. Jeremy | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 183 Registered: 2-2003 |
Chris, Right, this total inability thing really is a very basic difference between the two systems. Which brings me back to my question about people being born again under the Old Covenant, as required by the ìcovenant of grace,î and Reformed theology in general. I find this very difficult to believe. But if people like Moses and Abraham actually were born again, then why is the New Covenant so different? How is it actually different at all? And if they werenít, how could they respond to Godís call, which is supposed to be impossible due to total depravity? Incidentally, I read on a site which is in fact Reformed as far as soteriology is concerned, that the ìCovenant of Graceî explanation was invented by Zwingli in order to retain infant baptism as an equivalent to circumcision, and this in order to retain the unity of church and state, which the Anabaptists opposed. If this is true, then we have here an extra-biblical doctrine which was devised as an excuse to persecute the Anabaptists, basically for political reasons. It was then further developed by others, incorporated into the Westminster Confession, and still adhered to today. This is the article: http://www.dtl.org/calvinism/article/wright/historical-3.htm Jeremy, A dead body cannot desire to be reunited with the spirit, but I donít see how that is relevant, because we are talking about a dead spirit, not a dead body. Perhaps it would be better to stick with the spirit. If a person dies, who is not a Christian, then his spirit goes to Hades (assuming the standard evangelical position, of course LOL). This spirit is in Hades because it is dead, meaning it is separated from God. Is it then logically impossible to assume that this spirit could feel a certain desire to be reunited with itís body? Or even with God? As to Hebrews 4: 2. It is rather difficult, as the Greek is somewhat ambiguous, as I said, and also due to the fact that there are textual variants which go a long way back. Even the two 4th century manuscripts do not agree with each other. The verb is sünkerannümi, meaning mix together, blend, unite, compose. It only occurs twice in the NT, the other verse being 1 Cor 12: 24, ìBut God has combined the members of the bodyÖî (NIV) I refer to the Tyndale NT commentary on Hebrews: The two textual variants are, ìbecause it did not meet with faith in the hearers,î (meaning the message) or ìbecause they were not united by faith with those who truly heardî (meaning the hearers). Donald Guthrie says, ìEither reading would emphasise the lack of faith on the part of the hearers, but the former would be more natural from the point of view of grammar.î Of course, Guthrie is not a Calvinist ñ but this just happens to be the one Hebrews commentary I have to hand. The word ìauthorî in Hebrews 12: 2, and also found in 2: 10, is archÈgos. It has several meanings. It could mean author, founder, or also pioneer, leader. So it could mean we look to him as the originator of the faith, or it could mean we look to him as our leader and forerunner in the area of faith, and follow him. The second would perhaps fit the context better. All the OT heroes of faith have been listed as examples, and now Jesus is presented as the perfect one to follow. Of course, he is far more than that, as the rest of the book of Hebrews shows, but that could be the point being made here. Once again, there is somewhat of an ambiguity. I should also mention, that even if it could be shown unequivocally that faith is a gift, it would still not mean that it was a gift that we had no choice about accepting. The nature of a gift is that one gives it and another receives it. Both actions seem to involve freedom of choice, rather than not. The difference between active and passive is like the two sentences: ìThe dog bit the man,î and, ìthe man was bitten.î In the first case, it is clear who did the biting, in the second it is not (though of course, ìby the dog,î could be added). Some of the verses used as proof texts most annoyingly omit the agent of a passive construction, so we are left guessing. For instance, in the above Hebrews 4: 2, it says, ìit was not combined with faithî ñ and it does not add. ìby God giving it,î or ìby the people exercising it.î So we can then end up interpreting it according to our presuppositions. Can be annoying, but that is the way God had it written. God bless, Adrian | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 184 Registered: 2-2003 |
Hello Stan, Right, about salvation ñ this could really get me into trouble, but here goes. This is not meant to be an exhaustive treatment of the subject. I think salvation is basically having a relationship with God through Jesus Christ and being led by the Holy Spirit (Jn. 17: 3; Rom. 8. 14). (And church life is supposed to be based on having open and honest, and loving, relationships with one another, but that is another story). This is something which is completely new and different under the New Covenant from how things were under the Old Covenants. Under the Mosaic law, people had an opportunity to have one of two lifestyles. They could either keep all the precepts of the law, or they could be law breakers and therefore sinners. There were only these two types of people. However, in the letter to the Romans Paul writes that we have been released from the law (7: 1-6) and we are also released from sin (chapter 6). So now there is a third possibility. Paul again, writes in Galatians, ìSo I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature.î (5: 16). This sentence is emphatic in the Greek ñ if you are led by the Spirit there is absolutely no way you will gratify the flesh. And then in verse 22-23 we see there is no law against the sort of behaviour that will result from this type of lifestyle. Many professing Christians do not see this, in my experience. For example, when Adventists say that if we do not keep the whole of Godís law, we must be sinners, they are only recognising the two OT categories, and do not see what the new covenant is all about. You know the argument? ìOh, so you donít keep the Sabbath. I suppose you think itís OK to steal and kill then?î If we see the Christian life in this way, then the apparent conflict between Paul and James can be resolved. For instance, in Ephesians 2: 8-10, it says that salvation is by faith not by works, but God has prepared good works for us to do. And James, using Abraham as an example, says, ìYou see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.î (2: 24). So what gives? It seems to me we have to distinguish two different kinds of works. There can be works of the law that I may want to perform in order to obtain salvation. These have no part in the Christian life. Then there are good works which result from being led by the Spirit (see Eph 2: 10; Mat 5: 16; Js 2: 20-26), which do. If you look at the example of Abraham that James gives, then he is not talking about law keeping. Abraham heard the voice of God and did as he was told. That sounds like being led by the Spirit to me. If Christians are not led by the Spirit, then there are two traps they can fall into. They can either continue in a sinful lifestyle, which we could call antinomianism. Or they could start trying to be ìholyî by keeping lists of rules, which we call legalism. Referring back to Romans, neither of these is consistent with the Christian life, as Paul is at great pains to explain. If we are walking in the Holy Spirit, then the same Spirit is the source of our assurance of salvation. To quote Romans again, ìTherefore, brothers, we have an obligation ñ but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, ëAbba, Father.í The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are Godís children.î (8: 12-16). That will do for now, God bless, Adrian | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 896 Registered: 10-2004 |
Adrian, are you trying to say that Paul uses "works" and "good works" to mean two different things in Eph. 2:8-10??? The context is clearly saying that we have been saved (an action in the past having lasting status) not as a result of works, but that we do produce good works as a result of having been saved (in the past; it could even be translated as "you have been saved forever"). It says that we have been saved FOR good works. Those good works have nothing to do with being saved. He does not even say "works of the Law" in verse 9. And in Titus 3, he says that "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness"--but he says that we should engage in good deeds. Once again, salvation is not the result of good deeds, good deeds are the result of salvation! Are you saying that you don't believe in salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ's life, death, burial, and resurrection alone plus nothing? You either believe that: Faith = Salvation + Works OR Faith + Works = Salvation The latter is the same false gospel whether those works are "New Covenant works" or "works of the Law" (Adventism). Jeremy | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 594 Registered: 3-2005 |
Doc, I appreciate your honesty, even if as you said it might get you in trouble, as Jeremy just pointed out. It looks like you don't buy what the reformers said about Salvation by grace alone, thru faith alone, for the sake of Christ alone. It is this Reformation gospel that has sparked more revivals, and has been the foundation of our evangelical faith that we base our faith and assurance on. Are you saying we are wrong to base our faith on Christ's finished work alone? Thanks for your replies Doc. When I get more time, I will look at your responses more closely, as right now I am very busy. Thanks, Stan | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 285 Registered: 7-2004  |
Doc, I'm not sure whether I am agreeing with what you have said or not. But I saw a distinction in what you wrote between works being salvational and works resulting from salvation. Perhaps I am only reading my view into what you had posted, but I was particularly looking at what you had said I guess the key words in the understanding of this are "which do." If these are referring back in contrast to the "have no part in the Christian life" then I would have to agree and add Gal 5:22-23 and Col 3:12-15 to your list above. But where I quickly take exception when someone contends that these works or fruits are the result of us being made righteous (as opposed to being declared righteous). | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 185 Registered: 2-2003 |
Thanks for your comments and questions folks. Jeremy, You said: You either believe that: Faith = Salvation + Works OR Faith + Works = Salvation The latter is the same false gospel whether those works are "New Covenant works" or "works of the Law" (Adventism). I agree to a point with that. Of the two you mentioned, I believe in: Faith in Christ = salvation + works. Having said that, I think that in the same way I mentioned about the possible three lifestyles and ways of understanding under the New Covenant, I think there are three formulae preached by the modern church, in line with the three lifestyles. The three formulae are: 1. Faith + works = salvation 2. Faith = salvation + works 3. Faith = salvation + nothing It appears to me that 1 leads to legalism, 3 leads to antinomianism and 2 is in line with what both Paul and James said in the verses I quoted. ìYou see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.î It is not Adrian saying that, it is in the Bible, and furthermore in the New Testament in James 2: 24. it is an accurate translation of the Greek, and it is not taken out of context, it is simply the conclusion of Jamesí argument in the whole section. If we really believe that the whole of Scripture is inspired by God, then what James says also has to mean something. So I could ask you, are you saying you believe in: Faith = salvation + works Or Faith = salvation + nothing? If the second is true, and Christians do not give their lives to serving God after they are saved, then how will Godís purposes for the church be fulfilled? Stan, Thanks for your reply. You asked, ìAre you saying we are wrong to base our faith on Christ's finished work alone?î Absolutely not! I live in a country which is principally Roman Catholic, and they have a very poor understanding of the role of Christ in salvation. I said before, we do not know each other, and sometimes misunderstandings arise through trying to explain things in writing long distance. I acknowledge that my salvation is totally in Jesus Christ, by faith in his blood, and by absolute dependence on him. He is the only way my sins could be forgiven, the only way I could have a relationship with God, receive the Holy Spirit, and have any sort of hope for the future. I would be totally nothing and totally lost without him. But I do believe that having been saved, I now have to follow him as his disciple, because that is why I was called in the first place. See Matthew 7: 21, 24; 28: 18-20, 1 Thess. 4: 7, for instance. It seems what I said about being led by the Holy Spirit has been completely ignored, whereas that is the most important thing I was saying, as it distinguishes the Christian lifestyle from all religious systems (I do not believe the Christian life is a religion). Many pseudo-christian systems use formula 1 simply because they do not understand this. For instance, it seems to me that for Adventists, the role of the Holy Spirit is that Ellen White was guided by the Holy Spirit, so everyone has to do what she said. Same with RC and the Pope, Mormons and Joseph Smith and now their ìgeneral authorities,î JWs with Charles Russell and ìJehovahís organisationî the Watchtower society, and so on. I could even say the same for Christians who are always arguing about their favourite teachers, and off following the latest big stars, instead of seeking God for themselves (see 1 Cor 3: 1-9), but that would get me into trouble as well. So I will tell you what I do not accept. First of all you hear a version of the gospel that involves Jesus blessing you, healing you, and possibly giving you lots of money. So you raise your hand, or go forward while the soft music is playing. Someone prays with you to ìask Jesus into your heartî ñ which is not in the Bible incidentally. Repentance from sin is not mentioned, because that would empty the church, so no-one would pay their tithes to maintain the pastor in his extravagant lifestyle. You are now told you are a Christian, because you have had a ìmoment of faithî so you are now saved for ever, and can never be lost, whatever you do. All you now have to do is carry on with life as usual, though it would be good to pay your tithes and attend church. Otherwise you just sit around and wait for the rapture, which of course will happen before anything really nasty starts going on in the world. I donít think this is consistent with what the Bible teaches. It is a false gospel, though this time using formula 3 and not formula 1. Adrian | ||
| Cindy Registered user Username: Cindy Post Number: 730 Registered: 7-2000 |
Adrian, Interesting post! I really like your analysis of the Holy Spirit in a believers' life. I hadn't thought of it quite like that before. You are correct in EGW's role --generally being in the place of the Holy Spirit--in an Adventist members' life. I'm going to think about your equations on faith, salvation and works more....Unfortunately, I've got to leave right now for work. grace always, cindy | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 2367 Registered: 12-2003  |
Adrian, thanks for the post above. I like how you described the "conversion" that asks a person to "ask Jesus into their hearts" without emphasizing repentance. Your example summed up the thoughts I've had recently, only you said it better than I had thought it. I've been aware that Adventism (and other Christians as well) do not emphasize a person's need to repent. The emphasis is always on "asking Jesus to come into your heart"--whatever that means. The focus is fairly self-centered and does not require deep contrition. Many of us (I'm sure!) grew up knowing we had to accept Jesus, but we weren't sure how to or what that meant. The recognition of my deep sin and need to repent were always downplayed. Accepting Jesus was always enmeshed with the Sabbath. I like your three formulae. They are descriptive. Living by the Spirit is the essence of being a Christ-follower--you're right. Romans 8 is totally clear about the need to live by the Spirit instead of by the sinful nature. Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 604 Registered: 3-2005 |
Doc, It will take a lot of time to go over all the interesting points you have made, and unfortunately I am very busy right now. I will get back to you later. Stan |
