Challenge to no-lordship proponents!
In spite of redundant and clear explanations that the lordship position does not add works to justification in any shape form or fashion, I am flabbergasted that some of the no-lordship proponents will not accept repeated affirmations that this is the case. For the antinomian gospel to grow, I believe the no-lordship proponents must discredit lordship salvation. The only way to do this is to misrepresent the lordship position and thus claim to be the only ones holding the ‘faith alone’ position. The dangerous thing for the church is that the evidence of the last few weeks indicates that some are so committed to discrediting the lordship view, out of delusion, blindness, or perhaps disingenuousness, that they have no problem with proceeding full steam ahead at misconstruing the lordship view to their advantage. To promote their view is one thing, but to distort what they oppose is quite another. It is sad if their distortion is motivated by blindness or delusion, but if it is out of dishonesty to win converts to their view, then their spiritual problem is indeed great.
I do not know what is in the hearts of those that continually distort the lordship view into a justification of faith with works added. However, I issue the following challenge to anyone who wants to assert that my doctrinal position adds works to justification. I have written approximately 60 photo meditations that are brief, not complicated and illustrate basic doctrinal points. Fifty-two of them were written before I ever had a blog or knew anything about FG theology. I say this to point out that there have been no revisions to prepare for issuing this challenge.
THE CHALLENGE………… Search the Jazzy cat blog and all of these photo meditations and copy and paste a direct quote in context showing where I present justification (eternal life) as requiring works or deeds. I will defend this blog and my Photo Meditations only. I am not interested in quotes from books or reformed theologians or paraphrasing of what someone may have said in a comment.
Since I am a proponent of the theological position that is being accused of this position, it should be an easy task for some of you to search my blog and through my own quotes show where I have affirmed that works are meritorious toward justification. If no one can do it, then I will consider it a total victory in showing that all of the accusations that have been made and are continuing to be made against my theological position (reformed, Calvinist, lordship) are pure folly!
37 comments:
I'm behind you, Buddy.
Mark,
Thanks. Some in the no-lordship camp have been and are continuing to resort to theological McCarthyism. McCarthy in the fifties was accusing people of being a communist because they associated with someone who perhaps knew someone else who was a communist. Some are accusing us of affirming a justification of faith plus works because someone who was reformed wrote a book that had a sentence in it that out of context seemed to indicate a faith plus works position.
Well, as they say the jig is up. Show me where I affirm such a soteriology in any of my Meditations or writings or face the truth.
Do I need to read 60 articles?
Yeah. Great challenge! Put your theological opponents to an arduous task.
If you believe in Lordship Salvation, as given by MacArthur, Piper, Gentry, and Boice, then your soteriology is one of front-loaded commitment, surrender, giving up all, repentance etc, which is nothing but works-based contractual provisos. Furthermore, Lordship Salvation back-loads the gospel with perseverance in faithfulness, obedience, and works. If one isn't faithful, doesn't obey and do works until the end of life, he goes to hell. Perseverance therefore is a condition for final entrance into heaven.
This challenge is weak.
Lordship proponents are very quick to express with the mouth "sola fide", but with their doctrine, they betray it.
You want to play games. Works are not a 'meritorious' condition, lol. But they are a condition in Lordship salvation, for if they are not present and persevering until death, one goes to hell.
I have already made a case that Lordship Salvation frontloads the gospel with works of a contractual nature. I have already made a case that perseverance theology is works-salvation. Come argue the points.
Anyone can say that they believe in "sola fide". But prove that you believe in "only faith". Do you believe that repentance is necessary for eternal life? then it is not "sola fide" but "faith + repentance". Do you believe that surrender, commitment, and following Jesus are required for eternal life? Then it is not "sola fide" but "faith + surrender + repentance, etc."
Free Grace theology teaches "bare faith alone in Christ alone". Reformed/Lordship salvation cannot.
Come to Unashamed of Grace and comment on this recent post:
The Inescapable Logic that Proves Lordship Salvation and Perseverance Theology = Works Righteousness
Many of the Reformed Persuasion have not out right come and said that works are necessary for eternal life. Some have: Piper, MacArthur, Gerstner, and others. But for Lordship Salvation, they don't have to say it to teach it. If they front-load or back-load, they teach works-salvation.
Come defend your perseverance theology against the claim of works-righteousness at the above link.
BTW, a challenge that insists I read 60 posts of yours? Comon, can't you do better than that? Who would accept such a challenge.
Come and defend your position on the above link.
Antonio, Show us where MacArthur, Piper and Gerstner say that works are necessary for eternal life. I want to see the specific quotes,IN THEIR CONTEXT.
Antonio,
I will take your latest comment as meaning you are either unable or unwilling to skim through a concise written record of my views on all the major doctrines and present one example where I advocate anything other than justification by faith alone. This comment continues your pattern of theological McCarthyism which is to accuse people of a views they don’t hold and then have the boldness to insist that they do hold those views. Considering the extremely lengthy posts and comments you have, I guess due to the necessity for spin, I would think it would be an easy task since each Meditation is short and comes with a title like grace, faith, regeneration, Christ, atonement, repentance, etc. Don’t even seriously suggest that it would be a big task or long read.
The challenge does not include defending Calvinism or lordship views. That has been successfully done many times. The latest at Pulpit and Pyro. The challenge is for you to show (at least in one specific Calvinist lordship proponent) that your accusations are true. If you cannot back them up, then they are not true but are false. Apparently, you skim over stuff so fast that your retention of the meaning is impaired. I am not interested in debating what you think all these theologians were teaching. I am a lordship Calvinist that has written out in concise form what his theological beliefs are on the major doctrines. I have challenged no-lordship proponents to show me the proof of their accusations. I don’t know how to make it any plainer.
The post you ask me to interact with is too irrational for me to comment on.
W.H.
Once again Antonio goes down in defeat. I would imagine that he is used to that by now.
BTW, that link that he provided DID NOT make any sense to me either.
Where is the mention of the new creation? 2 Cor. 5:17
Where is the mention of being set free from slavery to sin? Romans 6
Where is the mention of being called out of darkness and into His marvelous light so that we can show forth His praises? 1 Peter 2:9
Where is mention of our having died to sins? 1 Peter 2:24, or, steming from that fact that we might live for righteousness..By Whose stripes we are healed (of our rebellion)?
Where is mention of our having been returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of our souls? 1 Peter 1:25.
Where is mention of the Father having delivered us from the power of darkness, and conveying us into the Kingdom of His Son? Col. 1:13.
Where is mention of the Father having made us alive in His Son? Eph. 2:5.
Where is mention of the New Covenant in Christ's blood and its attending benefits to us? Hebrews 7-10:22.
You forget that we are new creations, with new desires to honor Christ, and not the old creatures who sin by nature.
A question for the antinomian:
Does Mark 8:34-38 take place in an evangelistic setting? If yes, then this whole discussion is over, just like it was on The Debate Blog last February.
Mark,
Mark 8:34-38 is an excellent passage that they will have to spin and then spin some more to get it to mean something that fits their system. They do get a lot of practice at spinning.
W.H.
You're to be praised for taking such individuals to task. They argue a lot, but they rarely, if ever present a thorough, logical, Biblical defense. And of course, they never want to read much of what others write, rather they want you to read what they have written. You have more patience than me. You're to praised.
Steve,
Thanks for the encouragement. If they fail to take this opportunity to engage me, then I will have to insist that they stop telling me and others what I believe.
JazzyCat,
At the risk of being called an instigator again, I would like to say that I personally enjoy reading your pictoral meditations. I really don't see anything wrong with 'em.
Gojira,
Thanks. I know what I believe and I know they reflect grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
BTW, my pastor is from N.C. and was up there for the thanksgiving holidays.
Ahhh...so you have a NC boy over your way! Well, good for you!
There are a lot of people running about who want to say that grace changes a person, but then deny that affirmation every chance they get.
But grace is a two pronged thing. We learn in Romans that grace is bigger than any sin we may commit. That is awesomely good news for a believer who understands they still sin. It is comforting for the true believer because they can turn to God no matter what they did. But also comforting to the believer is the fact that grace leads us away from sin as it says in Titus.
The legalist hates the first (which the one who advocates a type of lisence loves), and the one who advocates a type of lisence hates the second, (which the legalist loves). However, neither understands the two passages.
But I would say that you do.
gojira,
Well said. Thanks again.
W.H.
My only qualm is an argument for clarity. I never made a charge against you personally Jazzy Cat. What I have a problem with is that you and brother bluey don't seem to want to admit that you do have some among your Lordship group that confuse the gospel message and I wish I could get some honesty about that but unfortunately you feel I am attacking you personally when all I am doing is challenging something unhealthy that tends to always manifest itself in group thought and peer pressure. We should never ever go along and ignore tendencies to pervert truth. We should always be willing to step outside ourselves and see if we are heading in this direction. I include myself. The gospel is to important.
Brian,
I do not take anything personal. I like you and admire your enthusiasm.
This challenge is for anyone to take a look at my Photo Meditations and copy and paste anything that states that works or deeds are needed for justification. It is not to defend or cover for anyone regardless of what group they belong that include works in justification.
I have 60 Photo Meditations that I wrote that I believe conforms fairly closely to the Westminster Confession of Faith. They are in accord with what my Church (Presbyterian Church in America). While a couple of things are not included that I have problems with, soteriology is not one and is thoroughly covered; therefore, if I held to a faith plus works salvation it ought to be in there.
The challenge is for anyone to show me in my work and writings where I affirm works justification in any manner. It is not about what kind of lives Luther or Calvin led. It is not about what some reformed theologian may have written. It is about the reformed theology that I believe. My beliefs have been misrepresented time and time again and it is time for someone to show it to me in my own words or I am going to insist with passion they not accuse me anymore of a faith plus works justification.
W.H.
Jazzy you said on "Saving Faith":
. . . Therefore, saving faith results in more than just ?talking the talk.? It will lead to ?walking the walk.? This walking the walk does not justify one before God, but is the inevitable evidence of a true saving faith. When a person walks the walk, he is indeed on a path that leads to the mountain top, whereas a mere profession of faith, with no fruit, is worthless.
The emboldened section above is the part I want to hone in on. It seems to me that the functional outworking of your idea here is that the only objective evidence for knowing if one has been justified, for you, is reducable to "good works" (lived out in the life of the believer).
This text, of yours, is why non-"Lordship" folks would accuse your camp of subsuming or confusing justification with sanctification.
The Bible provides an alternative objective for determining whether or not someone has been justified; see I Jn 5:11ff.
I believe that you believe in the finished work alone for salvation . . . I just think, as your meditation illustrates, that your "system" has confused just. and sanct.
Bobby,
First of all the 1 John 5:11 ff are excellent verses for assurance and in determining whether one has eternal life and we used 1 John 5:13 in Evangelism Explosion to impart assurance to new converts. The man who started and still does EE, D. James Kennedy is of the same denomination as I am and thus a Calvinist (reformed).
However, this Photo Meditation was on saving faith and not assurance. I selected the photo of the hiker heading up the mountain top and used 1 John 2:6 whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did. to illustrate my point. There is absolutely no confusion of justification and sanctification as I make it clear that ‘walking the walk does not justify one before God.’ The Meditation from the start to where your quote begins says, ” ‘Saving faith’ is that faith and trust a sinner puts in the atonement of Jesus Christ to pay his sin debt. Scripture tells us, "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins? (1 John 4:10). Saving faith is the instrument or means by which a person gains access to eternal life that the atonement of Jesus Christ secures. This faith is a gift of God and will always be accompanied by repentance and gratitude that will lead to fruit in a persons life (Eph 2:8-10). Scripture is clear that honoring God with lip service, and not from the heart, is not saving faith (Matthew 15:8, James 2:17). Since my first sentence defines saving faith as ‘Saving faith’ is that faith and trust a sinner puts in the atonement of Jesus Christ to pay his sin debt. Scripture tells us, "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins? (1 John 4:10)., I would have to say there is no confusion at all. The sanctification that flows from a saving faith is called ‘walking the walk’ in this meditation to connect with the photo. Note that I also make the point that faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ secures eternal life for the person. How can that be any clearer?
There is no mention in this meditation of works being a part of saving faith or justification, so any confusion would have to be on the part of the reader. If that is the case, I also have a Photo Meditation on justification, sanctification, and the atonement that should further clarify my view.
W.H.
Jazzy,
you can make all the categorical distinctions you want . . . the end game though is that your soteriology places an unhealthy emphasis on good works.
Of course this whole discussion comes back to the Reformed usage of the "Law" (in sanctification) vs. the other tradition that places the Law in a discontinuous relationship realtive to sanctification/justification. That's where I would argue with you, on hermeneutical grounds. But I won't do that now, unless you're game?
Bobby,
Your opinion is what it is. However this challenge is to show where I have stated that works are in any way meritorious to justification. This saving faith Meditation mentions faith as the only instrument in securing eternal life (justification) and even plainly states that ‘walking the walk’ (sanctification) does not justify.
Reformed soteriology affirms grace alone which means God provides the faith through regeneration (John 3:3, 6:37, 6:44, 6:65, Eph. 2:4-9, Rom. 9 and elsewhere). Reformed ‘faith’ is from God and comes with power that creates a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17). This new creation is accompanied with the new heart that responds with repentance, gratitude, and a desire to follow Christ. These flow from regeneration and are not some list of undesirable things that the new creation performs out of duty.
The following are quotes from other Photo Meditations which affirm this over and over:
(1) From #3 Grace I say, Eternal life is a free gift from God that is not earned or deserved.
(2) From #9 Atonement Salvation is from God and is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
(3) From #10 righteousness The righteousness required to stand justified before God does not come from anything that man can do. and also Therefore, the righteousness required to stand before God comes through faith in Jesus Christ.
(4) From #15 Justification Justification is a free gift of God’s grace received by faith and not good works (Eph. 2:8-9).
(5) From #16 Sanctification The Bible is full of warnings of things to avoid (Rom 12) and things to do such as love, forgive, serve, give, etc. These Biblical exhortations to good works are sometimes mistakenly thought to be the means to be justified by God. In reality, good works are the fruit of the justification by God that comes from faith in Jesus Christ.
(6) From #20 Jesus Christ Following the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus is the goal of every Christian, but that cannot save anyone. Trusting, through faith alone in the atonement that Christ made for our sins, has the power to save and is the infinitely most important thing Jesus did while on earth.
(7) From #24 Legalism Once led to Christ, a sinner understands that he is justified by God's grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.
(8) From #26 Good Works One, we are saved by grace alone. Two, faith alone in Christ alone is the way to take hold of this salvation, and it is a gift of God and not generated by human effort. Three, there is no human effort of works or even producing one’s own faith since the faith to believe is also a gift.
I could find more, but these are enough to show that there is no confusion here between justification and works. Also, as pointed out, the first 52 of these Meditations were written before I even had a blog or had engaged the FG proponents. I say this to point out that there has been no editing due to a sensitivity to the charge of works righteousness.
The debates you solicit are not for this post. This post is a challenge to show where I advocate in my Photo Meditation writings a works righteousness or any merit whatsoever in works towards a sinners justification. In this task you have failed.
W.H.
I love the 8:58 comment, W.h. That is my doctrinal position to a "T".
Mark,
Thanks. I do not know why some refuse to believe us when we plainly state what we believe. I sometimes wonder if they understand the concept of a grace with power.
W.H.
Imagine what MacArthur feels when he stands on his head declaring such truths, and, well, see Pulpit Magazine. Plain excegesis of the four gospels is all he sought to do in TGATJ and TGATTA, and look at the circus.
I am convinced that there is NO bridging this gap. One side engages sound excegesis, and is Dispensational to boot, and the other side twists and turns, seemingly employing some sort of philosophical hermeneutic.
MacArthur states plainly that he once taught the gospels in the old Dispy tradition, and that over time he saw the error of his ways. His seems to have been a slow and careful progression away from Classic Dispyism to a more Biblical approach.
Jazzy said:
. . .The debates you solicit are not for this post. This post is a challenge to show where I advocate in my Photo Meditation writings a works righteousness or any merit whatsoever in works towards a sinners justification.
Sure they are, Jazzy . . . the "debate" I solicited gets right at the heart of your medidations, at the exegetical/hermeneutical level. But I can see that your strategy is to stay at the surface, and declare victory, at a super-ficial level . . . this is very revealing of your true intentions, Jazzy.
Bluecollar said:
MacArthur states plainly that he once taught the gospels in the old Dispy tradition, and that over time he saw the error of his ways. His seems to have been a slow and careful progression away from Classic Dispyism to a more Biblical approach.
Actually, MacArthur is still a Classic dispy, I'm a Progressive dispy (i.e. I affirm the Davidic reign of Christ now and not yet--whereas Mac. dosen't). MacArthur engages in non-sequiter exegesis, as he assumes two different, mutually exclusive, hermeneutical traditions (i.e. covnenant in regards to soteriology and dispensationalism as his supposed broader herm. framework). So no, he hasn't moved any where in regards to his dispensationalism--rather he seems to have the ability to remain in a state of cognitive disonance in this regard . . . nothing "sound" about that, Mark!
Bluecollar said:
I am convinced that there is NO bridging this gap. One side engages sound excegesis, and is Dispensational to boot, and the other side twists and turns, seemingly employing some sort of philosophical hermeneutic.
How ironic, actually your whole tradition is rooted in the scholastic tradition which is shaped by speculative philosophy. But I realize caricature is what one must resort to when you have no other "sound" argument to forward. All exegesis requires "interpretive decisions" . . . so the question becomes what "interpretive tradition" and assumptions are dialectically informing my interpretive decisions--and you guys are unwilling to recognize this all important reality . . . which at this point, IMO, fuels the arrogance evinced on this site, as well as at the choir director's site, Phil Johnson.
You guys should try reading some "critical" (scholarly/academic) accounts of the Calvinist tradition (I have an example of that at my site right now); rather than going to people who are dyed in the wool Calvinist . . . this would help you guys, realize your version of Calvinism took shape via certain philosophical assumptions, and is not the pure gospel . . . as you make it out to be. Your refusal to do this, at this point, only fuels your fundamentalist sectarianism which is not a benchmark of Chrisitianity (see I Cor. 1--4).
Bobby,
My true intentions are to show from my writings that pre-date having a blog that I affirm justification by faith alone and do not hold to ‘works’ having any merit whatsoever for justification. This I have done. There are numerous discussions that could spin off from these meditations on many different doctrines and they could be debated at the exegetical/hermeneutical level as you put it.
You said….. You guys should try reading some "critical" (scholarly/academic) accounts of the Calvinist tradition (I have an example of that at my site right now); rather than going to people who are dyed in the wool Calvinist . . . this would help you guys, realize your version of Calvinism took shape via certain philosophical assumptions, and is not the pure gospel .
There you go again trying to tell me what I should believe to conform to your view of Calvinism because you read a critical account of how Calvinism took shape. My Photo Meditations are based on my interpretation of Scripture and I use numerous Scriptural references on each one. I cannot help it if they do not conform to your view Calvinism, but I will not allow you to change my meaning to fit your negative conception. Why can’t you judge them on what they say rather than trying to force them into some tradition or through your template?
The purpose of this post is clear and has not changed in spite of your insults about staying at the surface and keeping things at a super-ficial level. I know what I believe and I know what I wrote, so victory has never been in doubt. It may not be scholarly enough for you, but I think the belief system that I have is Biblical and without a doubt does not include works in justification.
W.H.
Jazzy, Mr. grow just has a problem looking at scripture and its most obvious plain reading, i.e, e.g, Romans 8:28 through chapter 11; Eph.1-2; John 6:35-71. He can't interprete these passages w/o resorting to his anti-calvinist authors and literature.
Alas, we just have our heads all screwed up by Aquinas and Aristotle. Poor us in the Western church. Where would we be w/o enlightened bobby to lead us out of darkness? Oh, the shame.
Interestingly, in the early days of UOG blog bobby takes Antonio to task, and throughout the middle part of Spring-time bobby and Antonio go back and forth. Through it all bobby starts hawking some sort of "Affective Theology". Later bobby engages Phil Johnson at the other end of the Calvinist spectrum as well as Evan May and Tiablog. Seems bobby is the only one who sees things straight. That must be because he is the only one to step outside the influence of the western church.
bobby treats us as though we owe our existence to Phil Johnson, as though he is the "mother-ship" as it were. Perhaps bobby wants to be everybody's mother-ship. It sure seems that way.
Sorry, sir, my Calvinism came to be as a result of plain reading of scripture, long before I even picked up ANY literature by Calvin, or even heard that MacArthur or Johnson existed.
Mark,
I think your observations are correct. It is confusing that he (Bobby) makes all those accusations when my entire belief system comes directly from Scripture. It seems that Bobby as was the case with Lou has an intense hatred of Calvinism. It is hard for me to understand (because I know in my conversion that God changed me before I ever responded) why some people desperately want to believe they willingly came to God on their own. They believe in a grace that only makes an offer of salvation. We believe in a grace that secures salvation from start to finish. The Bible leaves no wiggle room for their view, so they read ‘scholarly’ works that embrace their view and attack ours.
For quite a few months now Bobby has been trying to tell me that I do not know what I believe because of books he’s read that are critical of Calvinism. He seems to be saying that I am embracing ‘Calvinism’ but do not really understand it. The truth is I am embracing Biblical doctrine directly from the Bible that people label with the term ‘Calvinism’. Does he not realize how condescending that is?
Since we go by the label Calvinists, the bottom line is that Bobby will not accept what we write or affirm. Instead, he brings his view of Calvinism and tries to force it down our throats. That is why my challenge concerns what I have written only. He responded to this by saying I want to remain on the surface and at the super-ficial level. It is interesting that he retreated over at Pulpit and/or Pyro. when he was challenged by citing a shortage of time.
The challenge remains.... show me by copy and paste where I said that works are required for justification.
W.H.
bobby also seems oblivious to the fact that many papers and books have been written to uncover some of the terrible errors of Classic Dispensationalism. Two can play that game that he is playing. Many of those papers exposing dispy errors are on my blogroll in the lower half. If bobby thinks our eyes would be opened by reading his suggested books then I say the same would happen to him if he read the lower portion of my blogroll.
Oh to be soooo enlightened.
Mark said:
bobby also seems oblivious to the fact that many papers and books have been written to uncover some of the terrible errors of Classic Dispensationalism. Two can play that game that he is playing. Many of those papers exposing dispy errors are on my blogroll in the lower half. If bobby thinks our eyes would be opened by reading his suggested books then I say the same would happen to him if he read the lower portion of my blogroll.
I'm not even a classic disp., I'm "progressive"; quite a substantive difference.
If you guys can't make the admission that you have interpretive tradition (I know that I do), then I dialogue with you is a lost cause.
All I'm doing with Calvinism is reading scholars who have dedicated their lives to researching this issue (btw: you guys appeal to them as well; i.e. Sproul, Spurgeon, etc.).
Actually I could care less if anybody reads me, Mark! I have been exposed to a different tradition in seminary known as Affective Theology, which is a historic position that can be traced to Augustine, so please don't bad-mouth something you obviously know nothing of.
Bottom line: you guys engage in caricature, and ad hominen attack--which is usually the route people take when they don't have anything of substance to say.
Bobby,
I remember in grammar school our teachers implored us to 'follow directions'. I will have upcoming posts where you can engage as you desire, However, This post gave the following directions:
THE CHALLENGE………… Search the Jazzy cat blog and all of these photo meditations and copy and paste a direct quote in context showing where I present justification (eternal life) as requiring works or deeds. I will defend this blog and my Photo Meditations only. I am not interested in quotes from books or reformed theologians or paraphrasing of what someone may have said in a comment.
Since I am a proponent of the theological position that is being accused of this position, it should be an easy task for some of you to search my blog and through my own quotes show where I have affirmed that works are meritorious toward justification. If no one can do it, then I will consider it a total victory in showing that all of the accusations that have been made and are continuing to be made against my theological position (reformed, Calvinist, lordship) are pure folly!
Oh knock it off, Jazzy. I come back to read the comment thread here; and I find you and Mark talking about me; and you don't expect me to reply to the mischaracterizations being foisted onto me, by Mark (of which you endorsed). Give me a break . . . no wonder I don't read your blog that often.
Bobby,
I do endorse Mark and I will put his gentle spirit up against anyone's. Maybe I have been a little hard on you, as I am far from perfect, and I realize my tone is sometimes less than irenic and I should be more understanding.
However, I guess I finally became really frustrated with all of the reformed people saying we believe A=B and C flows from this like water flowing from a dammed up stream and then have critics say no that is not what you believe. You believe A=B and requires C or A=B it is not valid.
Ask yourself the following question: Is it possible to believe that regeneration divinely produces faith and things like love, obedience, and repentance will flow from that regeneration? I am not asking you to affirm that it is true, but that it is a possible view one can get glean from Scripture. In short why does all of these no-lordship people refuse to believe that justification=faith plus works is not our view, but that justification=faith alone and works result? This is not just a Calvinistic view as many and probably most Christians believe this second view. This post focused on challenge to this frustration.
W.H.
Mark also said of me (btw: I like how he put my name in "lower-case"):
Interestingly, in the early days of UOG blog bobby takes Antonio to task, and throughout the middle part of Spring-time bobby and Antonio go back and forth. Through it all bobby starts hawking some sort of "Affective Theology". Later bobby engages Phil Johnson at the other end of the Calvinist spectrum as well as Evan May and Tiablog. Seems bobby is the only one who sees things straight. That must be because he is the only one to step outside the influence of the western church.
You mean I can't disagree, theologically, with Antonio (on points) and Evan May and Phil Johnson? The points I disagree with Antonio on are the deity issue for one, and a few others. The point I disagreed with Evan on was an hermeneutical issue realtive to the dispensational/covenant tradition--and their disparate approaches to the Israel/Church distinction. The point I disagreed with Phil on was the antinomian issue, as well as the testing of saving faith issue. None of these disagreements were driven around my points on the influence of Aristotle/Aquinas on the broader issue of Prolegomena and "how" we do theology.
BTW, I am a "Western" Chrisitian, and I highly appreciate Augustine, the Western theologian--and his trinitarian emphasis (which btw the way looks more like the Eastern relational understanding of trinity than the Western one we imbibe today). I also appreaciate Colin Gunton, a Western contemporary theologian, who on the continental level has bridged a gap between the eastern and western church, theologically, relative to the trinitarian issue (and the way we do theology) (Irenaeus did the same in his day).
I'm sure there are fine points of theology that Bluecollar disagrees with Phil Johnson (i.e. disp. vs. cov. theology)--but I wouldn't say this means that Mark is trying to be the "mother-ship" (that's actually kind of funny). In fact, Mark tries to characterize me, as if I have a following, and that this is my agenda--he's wrong--I don't have a following.
Anyway, Marks accusations here, are unfounded.
Jazzy,
I would say all Christians agree with the second view to one degree or another; but that's not the issue for me. The issue is where one looks for assurance of salvation, and works in the believers life are not it.
Bobby,
You said... The issue is where one looks for assurance of salvation, and works in the believers life are not it.
There seems to be an overemphasis on assurance in my opinion. Antonio for example, seems to want to talk about it constantly. Although it is important, I do not have a single photo meditation on assurance. I do have one on Eternal Security (perseverance). I would ask that you read it and you will clearly see that works are not mentioned in any positive sense at all. There are twelve sentences and eight Scripture references. This is a heavy reliance on the Bible alone (sola Scriptura) for support and the Meditation is all about grace being the source of perseverance. I looked directly to Scripture and not tradition or books to support all of the Meditations.
One final point on the ‘tone’ of this thread….. I have reviewed it and perhaps you do not mean to be condescending and mildly insulting, but I think Mark and I have valid reason to feel insulted by some of your earliest remarks. While you have complained about our tone and content, I think, to use a lawyer term, you have brought unclean hands to the debate in this thread that have been provocative.
That being said, I have a thick skin and aggressive challenging comments are welcome. I am even going to change a Meditation due to a comment on this blog that led me to discover my error.
W.H.
Since we go by the label Calvinists, the bottom line is that Bobby will not accept what we write or affirm. Instead, he brings his view of Calvinism and tries to force it down our throats.
I have seen this done to the FG people as well. The Reformed people proudly caricature them as telling people to live however they want and God will receive them into heaven. They are called "antinomian" (which is really quite funny) and all kinds of other things. THEIR views are misrepresented. Neither side likes the other telling them what they believe. What I see is both sides trying to draw logical conclusions about what the others' points of doctrine imply. This is not bad if done in the right spirit. People getting defensive is really ugly, though ... very unappealing indeed.
Rose,
You are right all positions should take more care in presenting opposing views more carefully. This problem is wider than just the FG/lordship debate it is pervasive throughout Christendom.
I will henceforth try to be completely accurate in my description of Free Grace views. If I err, I invite you to point it out and I will correct when necessary. However, I feel a need to be defensive and vocal about correcting comments that mischaracterize reformed theology for the following very important reason. I want seekers and new Christians that might happen by to have an accurate view of reformed theology as I am sure you want the same for your position.
One of my favorite blog titles is your husbands' blog "The Earnest Contender." He wants to contend for the truth and he does a good job.
Post a Comment