tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18297904.post3892483736776793479..comments2023-09-11T09:07:38.474-05:00Comments on Sweet Jazzy Cat: Historic Church vs. Scripturejazzycathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16720471765591930568noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18297904.post-82717464028860329082007-06-13T22:06:00.000-05:002007-06-13T22:06:00.000-05:00Mike,I am somewhat aware of N.T. Wright and his vi...Mike,<BR/>I am somewhat aware of N.T. Wright and his views that are referred to as the New perspectives on Paul. I have read a little about this and I think his view misses the mark. They are viewed as heretical by my denomination (PCA). The following article is by Dr. Ligon Duncan on Wright:<BR/><BR/>http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/apologetics/Covenant%20Theology%20&%20Justification/ligon_whynewperspsoatt.htm<BR/><BR/>Dr. Duncan is a Seminary professor at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, MS and Senior Pastor at First Presbyterian Church in Jackson. This is not my home church although I visit there quite often. I will check out the link you gave me.jazzycathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16720471765591930568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18297904.post-64875950868768362782007-06-13T17:00:00.000-05:002007-06-13T17:00:00.000-05:00Those are good questions Wayne. As much as I would...Those are good questions Wayne. As much as I would like to lay it all out for you I'm not sure I really can in your comments here. It's too complicated and involved, since I'd have to back up and start from the beginning with what I think the gospel and words like "justification" and "salvation" are about in the first place. Perhaps I can find some time to get into in a post on my own blog in the future.<BR/><BR/>However, if you're really interested I'd recommend checking out some NT Wright books, especially "The Challenge of Jesus" and "What Saint Paul Really Said". I think he does a great job of laying out a biblical view of what the atonement and justification and "adoption" into the family of God are all about. Those two books in particular are written on a pastoral level so you don't have to have an advanced theology degree to get into them (unlike some of his other books). If you do read them let me know what you think.<BR/><BR/>For shorter versions, you might also check out some of the articles at http://www.ntwrightpage.com/ - especially the ones having to do with justification. I don't agree with Wright on every single point but I think he's basically right.Mike Clawsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10008278832818422945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18297904.post-7665875645250209812007-06-07T14:47:00.000-05:002007-06-07T14:47:00.000-05:00Mike,As to my being influenced, I believe that eve...Mike,<BR/>As to my being influenced, I believe that everyone, including you, are influenced by people and their doctrinal positions. My reformed view come directly from Scripture and you seem to have a misunderstanding of this view of free will. I will assume that you are aware that the reformed theology holds that man is born spiritually dead and is unable to truly come to faith in Christ apart from the Holy Spirit regenerating him first (Eph. 2:4-5, John 3:3, etc.). In short man has a free will but a total spiritual inability.<BR/><BR/>Your views are hard to discern. In your last comment you affirmed atonement, blood, sacrifice, and wrath; but then also said such a God would be abusive with anger management problems. <BR/><BR/>Universalism??? You said……….<BR/><EM>Or was it God sacrificing his right to get even, choosing to forgive and bear the brunt of our sin even though he could have rightly punished us instead?</EM><BR/><BR/>It seems to me that if God sacrifices his right to get even and bears the brunt of our sin rather than punishing us, then we are talking universalism. Since you deny universalism, and say that His forgiveness must be accepted. This begs the question as to what your view is on how humans accept this forgiveness and what is the future of those that accept this forgiveness? You call accepting forgiveness as just the first step. What are the other steps? What happens to those that do not accept forgiveness? What else does man have to do to be reconciled to God? I am really curious about your views on these issues as I have been unable to find much explanation on your site. You have plenty about temporal concerns and sanctification, but I just wonder how you think a person becomes justified and adopted by God.<BR/><BR/>I have just completed a 6 part series Over at Bluecollar Blog on my view of salvation called Christianity 101. It was based on a post I saw on one of your atheist visitors’ site where he asked the question, “What is a true Christian?” I also answer the question, “what must a person do to be saved?”<BR/><BR/>I would like to understand your thinking better!<BR/>waynejazzycathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16720471765591930568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18297904.post-63067694513257906662007-06-07T01:42:00.000-05:002007-06-07T01:42:00.000-05:00"This view of yours would only be consistent with ...<I>"This view of yours would only be consistent with universalism. Is that your position?"</I><BR/><BR/>I'm sorry, I don't follow your logic. I'm not a universalist per se. I believe God forgives all, but we still have the choice to accept that forgiveness or not. Forgiveness is not the whole of salvation. God desires more than forgiveness - he desires reconciliation, but reconciliation takes two. Forgiveness is just the first step.<BR/><BR/>(Though being influenced by your Reformed teachers you probably don't agree with that "free will" angle either.) <BR/><BR/>BTW, if my view is only consistent with universalism then how is yours any less so? We're both saying that because of the cross our sins are forgiven, we just differ on <I>why</I> that is the case. But what does that have to do with universalism? I'm still not following your logic.Mike Clawsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10008278832818422945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18297904.post-35241748128044521712007-06-04T08:51:00.000-05:002007-06-04T08:51:00.000-05:00Mike,You said………..Or was it God sacrificing his ri...Mike,<BR/>You said………..<BR/><EM>Or was it God sacrificing his right to get even, choosing to forgive and bear the brunt of our sin even though he could have rightly punished us instead?</EM><BR/><BR/>This view of yours would only be consistent with universalism. Is that your position?jazzycathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16720471765591930568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18297904.post-51898025658487244902007-06-04T01:05:00.000-05:002007-06-04T01:05:00.000-05:00Hebrews 10:11-12"11Day after day every priest stan...Hebrews 10:11-12<BR/><I>"11Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God."</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not sure what you think is so challenging to my views about this passage. I think I clearly stated in my comments over at Hemant's blog that my view of the atonement doesn't reject the language of sacrifice. Jesus was the sacrifice for our sins. That doesn't change. <BR/><BR/>What changes is what you think that sacrifice was about. Was the sacrifice about God taking out his anger on Jesus, beating up on him so he wouldn't have to beat up on us? Or was it God sacrificing his right to get even, choosing to forgive and bear the brunt of our sin even though he could have rightly punished us instead? It's a subtle difference, but a crucial one IMHO, since one view paints God as an abusive Father with anger-management issues while the other portrays God as a suffering servant more willing to go to the cross than to respond in anger.<BR/><BR/>The key point here though is that <B>none of the biblical language about blood or sacrifice or atonement or wrath or any of that has to be ignored</B>. It's all still there in my view just as well. That's why all the verses you throw at me really don't do anything to prove your point one way or another. It's not about playing the proof-text game - it's about what you think the language is referring to in the first place. If your interpretive lens is wrong in the first place, then all the Bible verses in the world aren't going to make a difference.Mike Clawsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10008278832818422945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18297904.post-51420336951978172822007-05-31T10:03:00.000-05:002007-05-31T10:03:00.000-05:00Mike,Thanks. I am not very strong on church histo...Mike,<BR/>Thanks. I am not very strong on church history as I have only been a Christian for ten years and have basically concentrated on studying theology. My thinking is from my interpretation of the bible through teachers such as R.C. Sproul and PCA pastors. However, I have not accepted everything that my denomination teaches as I have some differences with covenant theology. IOW, I form an independent opinion based on Scripture and teachers who expound directly from Scripture. When I have a difference from teachers that I respect, I base it on Scripture alone. Infant baptism is one example of my differing from what my denomination teaches.<BR/><BR/>From skimming your view of post-modernism and your phrase “the one true meaning” in this comment, I believe we have a different view of truth. I believe Jesus and the Bible teach absolute truth. Penal substitution is either true or it is not true. Faith in Christ as the only way to eternal life is either true or not true. Truth does not vary from one person to another depending on their view. Perception of the truth may vary, but truth does not vary.<BR/><BR/>The amount Biblical affirmation of penal substitution is overwhelming. From the whole of the OT atonement system pointing to the ultimate sacrifice of Christ to satisfy God’s wrath as described in Hebrews. If anyone can take the passages that I list and disprove penal substitution, then they can prove or disprove anything. I have seen some amazing “spinning” of Scripture from the free grace advocates, but I think it would take much more spinning than that to remove penal substitution from the Bible. That being said, I would sure like to see your interpretation Hebrews 10:11-12 for a sample of how you would do it.<BR/><BR/>Let me even call it a challenge!<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/>Waynejazzycathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16720471765591930568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18297904.post-54545711428611823502007-05-31T00:06:00.000-05:002007-05-31T00:06:00.000-05:00"My ignorance about what the historic Church has s...<I>"My ignorance about what the historic Church has said about the atonement means nothing. I believe in the principle of Sola Scriptura. It is my only rule of faith and practice and I need not go any further. My view comes directly from Scripture and not Calvin, the historic Church, or anyone else."</I><BR/><BR/>Again, my apologies, but it strikes me as rather hubristic to suggest that you have succeeded in extracting the one true meaning of the text while all the great saints and theologians of the past who happen to disagree with you must have gotten it wrong (even though they were reading the same Bible with the same desire to understand). What makes your interpretation better than theirs? Why should I trust your ideas about what the text really means more than those of other Christians whose teachings have stood the test of time?Mike Clawsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10008278832818422945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18297904.post-89078926455847453482007-05-29T22:51:00.000-05:002007-05-29T22:51:00.000-05:00Scribe,Thanks for the encouragement and I agree th...Scribe,<BR/>Thanks for the encouragement and I agree that new Christians and the undiscerning need to be warned about those that preach a false gospel.jazzycathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16720471765591930568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18297904.post-27762532549026419012007-05-29T16:53:00.000-05:002007-05-29T16:53:00.000-05:00Wow Wayne...what's spurring you on to expose the f...Wow Wayne...what's spurring you on to expose the fallacy of the Emergent movement? Don't get me wrong, I think it's great. I know many undiscerning Christian youth that are enamored with the "preachers" of the Emergent church. Keep up the good work Wayne.Scribehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14963170918571560973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18297904.post-2199011300835617602007-05-28T08:29:00.000-05:002007-05-28T08:29:00.000-05:00Steve,Thanks. You always give me encouragement.Steve,<BR/>Thanks. You always give me encouragement.jazzycathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16720471765591930568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18297904.post-34909621978082824912007-05-27T22:47:00.000-05:002007-05-27T22:47:00.000-05:00Eve, Thanks for stopping by.Eve, <BR/>Thanks for stopping by.jazzycathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16720471765591930568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18297904.post-33966894534816125322007-05-27T22:46:00.000-05:002007-05-27T22:46:00.000-05:00Wayne, you stand on very good ground. Keep up the ...Wayne, you stand on very good ground. Keep up the fight!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18297904.post-76866015781449709882007-05-27T20:05:00.000-05:002007-05-27T20:05:00.000-05:00Thanks for this post and a hearty AMEN!!!Thanks for this post and a hearty AMEN!!!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15185060505158684073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18297904.post-83840926697663361742007-05-27T13:10:00.000-05:002007-05-27T13:10:00.000-05:00Thanks Don, Mark, and Susan....It seems to me that...Thanks Don, Mark, and Susan....<BR/>It seems to me that this theology is man-centered and focuses on the here and now of earth rather than the eternal here-after. It seems like I remember Jesus stating that his kingdom was not of this world.<BR/><BR/>As Mark said elsewhere the kingdom is spiritual and both now and not-yet. I believe that is his quote.<BR/><BR/>waynejazzycathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16720471765591930568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18297904.post-60566408619093249052007-05-27T07:18:00.000-05:002007-05-27T07:18:00.000-05:00I'm so saddened that a "pastor" views sacrificial ...I'm so saddened that a "pastor" views sacrificial atonement as "repugnant."<BR/>I wonder if what his view is of how God views "sin." Repugnant doesn't even begin to describe God's view of sin.<BR/>I wonder if the "emergent church" views "liberty in Christ" as whatever works for them. <BR/>Does the "emergent church" have any doctrine at all? (or is that a "repugnant" idea to them?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18297904.post-9002437568512446202007-05-26T09:02:00.000-05:002007-05-26T09:02:00.000-05:00Can you say "genetic fallacy"?... I knew you could...Can you say "genetic fallacy"?... I knew you could.mark piersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13882538938829765324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18297904.post-80110185052439775392007-05-26T09:00:00.000-05:002007-05-26T09:00:00.000-05:00Yes, scripture alone!!!Wayne, way to go!!!These ar...Yes, scripture alone!!!<BR/><BR/>Wayne, way to go!!!<BR/><BR/>These arguments about how we are following man (calvin, church fathers,MacArthur, Sproul, Hinn, Kuhlman, Copeland, Hagin, Greek philosophers... And the list goes on and on)Are good for a laugh.mark piersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13882538938829765324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18297904.post-27496609709278573552007-05-26T08:30:00.000-05:002007-05-26T08:30:00.000-05:00Scripture alone. Amen.The Holy Bible is our final ...Scripture alone. Amen.<BR/><BR/>The Holy Bible is our final authority. Satan hates the Bible.<BR/><BR/>Here is the battlefield: Truth.<BR/>The Holy Writ is very clear why Christ died, as you have shown here Wayne, with only a few verses out of many many more.<BR/><BR/>Paul said he would not boast in anything except the Cross, and that through the Cross he was crucified to the world, and the world to him.<BR/><BR/>And he said that those who are inteligent will think the Cross is foolish, and those in the Church, who are religious, the Cross will be a "stumbling block" to their self righteous ways. <BR/><BR/>" .. the message of the Cross ... is the power of God." 1 Cor. 1:18donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18297904.post-41866616010090360352007-05-25T17:24:00.000-05:002007-05-25T17:24:00.000-05:00Mike,This post deals with your comments in the May...Mike,<BR/>This post deals with your comments in the May 20 thread. I have not condemned you, but I have refuted your unbiblical doctrine per Titus 1:9. It does appear that you are a bit judgmental in your reference to "our reputation". <BR/><BR/>I can assure you that I and probably most of the other "you guys" that you refer to are much more interested in our character and walk with the Lord than we are in our reputation with the secular liberal post modern humanists and the PC culture. I think James would agree......<BR/><BR/><EM>James 4:4 You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.</EM>jazzycathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16720471765591930568noreply@blogger.com