tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post113998415531544958..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The Protestant Denial of Sola GratiaRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1140117617614690602006-02-16T14:20:00.000-05:002006-02-16T14:20:00.000-05:00I don't have time for garrulous and meticulously m...I don't have time for garrulous and meticulously misinformed bluster.<BR/><BR/>I found so many outright errors (not just exaggerations or hostile interpretations) in your introduction that I'll wait until you hit the books and come back with something much shorter and more substantive.<BR/><BR/>Some of your errors:<BR/><BR/>GB: <EM>Ergo, we do not apostatize from the faith. We can backslide, but we do not apostatize. Let's not forget here that the definition of "eternal security" in Free Grace theology is "If you have at any time in the past made a commitment to Christ, you are saved." Can an unbeliever apostatize from the faith completely? The Free Grace position says "Yes." Reformed theology says "No."</EM><BR/><BR/>This is not a small error. It is a brazen insistence on taking that which you give the appearance of being knowledgeable about and projecting it on to that which you desire to refute but about which you are thoroughly misinformed. First of all we believe that because of the muddled gospel there a great swaths of people who think they are born again but are not. We don't believe that making a 'commitment ' to Christ is even close being a proper response to the biblical offer of eternal life.<BR/><BR/>GB:<EM> However, the Free Grace Theology amounts to Campbellite ecclesiology without baptismal regeneration, for, if you "pray that prayer and really really mean it" and "make that decision to ask Jesus in your heart to your Lord n' Savior" (even if it is the fifteenth time you've done it...you just really really mean it this time), you can be validly baptized, and you can be a full member. </EM><BR/><BR/>This is laughable. Here is Zane Hodges's advice:<BR/><BR/><EM>Notice please! I have not asked him to pray, or to make a decision for Christ, or to do any of the many other things people often ask the unsaved to do.<BR/>All I have done is to ask if he has understood the truth we have discussed, and I have asked if he believes it. I absolutely insist that this is all the personal worker needs to do. I am encouraging the unsaved person to believe, but I can't make him do that.<BR/><STRONG>If he does believe, a prayer is unnecessary. If he doesn't, a prayer will be confusing since I may direct him to say things he can't yet understand or believe, because God has not yet opened his heart</STRONG>. </EM><BR/><BR/>Amen! Besides Hodges, the Grace Evangelical Society's own Jeremy Myers warns:<BR/><BR/><EM>But one thing was confirmed in my own mind. The “sinner’s prayer” is a dangerous witnessing tool. It can leave many people thinking that they are going to heaven because they have “prayed a prayer” yet never understood that eternal life is received by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.<BR/></EM><BR/><BR/>Amen to that to. And concerning child evangelism, Jessica Wempe says:<BR/><BR/><EM>How many people do you know who prayed the “Sinner’s Prayer” five or six times in their lifetime because they weren’t convinced that it really “took”? If a child understands that eternal life is given to all who believe, you alleviate needless worry in his or her life. You don’t have to say a magic prayer to be saved—you have to believe.</EM><BR/><BR/>This suggests Triablogue's strategy: a sort of make-believe heresy-invention. You say:<BR/><BR/>GB: <EM>These folks don't want to be Campellites. (God forbid they believe baptismal regeneration), but they want to be sure they have a regenerate church membership, so they turn the sinner's prayer into a sacramental prayer that functions in the same way.</EM><BR/><BR/>Unbelievable.<BR/><BR/>But amazingly your statement (the second GB quote I quoted above) had two other errors packed into it.<BR/><BR/>GB: (supposedly quoting a F/G type ...) "<EM>make that decision to ask Jesus in your heart</EM> "<BR/><BR/>F/G pastors and writers have been preaching against this for years. Here Shawn Laughlin reviews a book entitled "Seven Reasons NOT To Ask Jesus Into Your Heart":<BR/><BR/><EM>However, this book offers much more. Pastor Rokser explains that asking Jesus into your heart requires no understanding of the Gospel ...; confuses the means of salvation with the results of salvation ...: and how that asking Jesus into your heart either results in no assurance of salvation or a false assurance of salvation ... As these reasons are addressed, the reader will be shown why one must understand the Gospel, what the results of salvation are, and how the believer in Christ can have true Biblical assurance of his salvation. Included are several diagrams, illustrations, and personal examples to make the points exceptionally clear. The reader is also provided with a thorough exegesis of Revelation 3:20, a verse often used to support asking Jesus into one's heart. The reader is shown that this verse is not an offer for salvation to unbelievers, but rather an appeal for fellowship to believers. The 7th reason is perhaps the one that arouses the most reaction, stating that asking Jesus into your heart does not clarify the condition of salvation, but confuses it; especially with children.</EM><BR/><BR/>Jessica Wempe writes:<BR/><BR/><EM>Nowhere in Scripture is anyone told to “ask Jesus into your heart”—this is an expression we created because it sounds simple and child-like. But these are not biblical terms. Do we have to quote Scripture? Not necessarily (though it’s not a bad idea), but we do need to use language that communicates biblical truth. The gospel tells us to believe in Jesus to receive eternal life. Believing is not asking; it’s being convinced something is true. Of course a child who asks Jesus into his heart could be a believer; but it is his believing that saves him, not the act of asking and that is important for him to understand.</EM><BR/><BR/>Chester Chemp says:<BR/><BR/><EM>Unbiblical clichés such as, "give your life," "make a commitment," "ask Jesus into your heart," etc., also added to the confusion. </EM><BR/><BR/>Dr. Bob Wilkin sums it up:<BR/><BR/><EM>I began to share my faith regularly shortly after I became a Christian during my third year in college. For about a year, whenever I got to the invitation, I would challenge people to ask Jesus into their hearts to be saved.<BR/><BR/>Odd things began to happen. These things forced me back to the Scriptures and led me to stop challenging people to ask Jesus into their lives.<BR/><BR/>My policy became: Don't ask. Or, more fully: Don't ask, believe. "</EM><BR/><BR/>That is: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved." Acts 16:31<BR/><BR/>Finally you say that F/G want people to ask Jesus...<BR/>GB: ...<EM>in your heart to your Lord n' Savior" (even if it is the fifteenth time you've done it...you just really really mean it this time), you can be validly baptized, and you can be a full member</EM><BR/><BR/>The idea that F/G advocates the asking or accepting Jesus as Lord and Saviour for the purpose of eternal salvation is rich. This is exactly the muddled attempt at hitting all the bases that we find so tragic. It is certainly not our solution!<BR/><BR/>F/G theology doesn't make the sinner's prayer or any other human convention into a sacrament. F/G proclaims that believing in Christ as the sole provider of eternal life results in the bestowal of eternal life, and therefore salvation from eternal damnation at the Great White Throne Judgment:<BR/><BR/>"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved." Acts 16:31<BR/><BR/>As you can imagine I didn't read the whole novella. If there's an accusation that you know gets the facts straight and you want me to respond to it, than email me to let me know you've posted it. I'm somewhat new to blogging and I find your blog particularily difficult to navigate so I don't frequent it. Try to put it in a single sentence or at least a few hundred words.<BR/><BR/>Glad you engaged. And while you seem to know quite a bit about historical threats to Calvinism, so far you've failed at matching them up to the F/G movement. Maybe you should do research first, analysis second.<BR/><BR/>BTW I do like the writings of Joseph Campbell, but as you correctly note, I don't agree with all of his views.<BR/><BR/>H.K. Flynn (Jodie Sawyer)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14129403607163332340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1140105545941769612006-02-16T10:59:00.000-05:002006-02-16T10:59:00.000-05:00I am not a Gnostic. I don't think we should feed ...I am not a Gnostic. I don't think we should feed the flesh. What an insult to call me that.Rose~https://www.blogger.com/profile/14906854078623897422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1140105361197586292006-02-16T10:56:00.000-05:002006-02-16T10:56:00.000-05:00Gene:Are you seriously arguing that if a man belie...Gene:<BR/><I>Are you seriously arguing that if a man believes a few facts about Christ </I><BR/><BR/>No. That is so sterile. I think you know that this sterility is not at the heart of those soteriologies that fall in the camp outside your own.<BR/><BR/><I>That, Rose, is closer to Eastern Orthodox theosis soteriology than the Free Grade view.</I><BR/><BR/>Huh? What is Free Grade?<BR/><BR/><I>Well, who do you think needs to do the repenting, Rose?</I><BR/>That is a good question. I have to think about that some more. <BR/><BR/>I don't understand your attitude, Gene. All I did was ask you two questions and you write a chapter, labeling me with a bunch of misnomers. <BR/><BR/>How can you slap those labels on me having just read two questions that I asked?<BR/><BR/><I> Do you ever bother to read that which you criticize?</I><BR/><BR/>I read your whole article ... not the link because it took a long time to read just the article. I wasn't criticing you, and I wasn't questioning the link.<BR/><BR/>Bye.Rose~https://www.blogger.com/profile/14906854078623897422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1140064708505970932006-02-15T23:38:00.000-05:002006-02-15T23:38:00.000-05:00Only one critique here- I seem to remember H K Fly...Only one critique here- I seem to remember H K Flynn being a female, and you refer to 'Mr. H K Flynn.' Other than that you said what I couldn't.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00778739900054130935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1140058798965480842006-02-15T21:59:00.000-05:002006-02-15T21:59:00.000-05:00Gene,It is quite obvious that you really do not un...Gene,<BR/><BR/>It is quite obvious that you really do not understand the theology that you argue against. This has been a post of extreme blather and straw men.<BR/><BR/>You mischaracterize, and flat out misrepresent free grace every time your hands type a sentence. It is quite disturbing indeed.<BR/><BR/>It may indeed be beneficial for yourself and your readers to actually familiarize yourself with the TRUE doctrines of grace (Free Grace Theology) before you again are faulted for such deep and careless caricatures.<BR/><BR/>Try reading about Free Grace theology from its advocates rather than from its detractors, should be step number one.<BR/><BR/>You, Steve, and Evan are a couple of peas in a pod. Very little substance in your arguments against that which you do not understand.<BR/><BR/>A remedial course in research tools and principles may be in order.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://free-grace.blogspot.com/2006/02/it-is-fearful-thing-to-fall-into-hands.html" REL="nofollow">Traditionalism's Baseless Charges and Pejorative Labels of Free Grace Theology: It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God</A><BR/><BR/>"Of course, there is every reason to believe that there will be good works in the life of each believer in Christ. The idea that one may believe in Him and live for years totally unaffected by the amazing miracle of regeneration, or by the instruction and/or discipline of God his heavenly Father, is a fantastic notion—even bizarre. We reject it categorically." (Zane Hodges <A HREF="http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1990ii/Hodges.html" REL="nofollow">We Believe in Assurance of Salvation</A><BR/><BR/>AntonioAntoniohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08383024070371150288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1140033383267352652006-02-15T14:56:00.000-05:002006-02-15T14:56:00.000-05:00What's going on in this theory is a hamfisted atte...What's going on in this theory is a hamfisted attempt to read the Incarnation back into the nature of man in his regenerate state.<BR/><BR/>The libertarianly free will or the Holy Spirit (depending on who you ask) is said to act as a bridge between the old and new natures in the same way as the hypostatic union.<BR/><BR/>The problem here is that we aren't Christ. We aren't God taking on humanity in one person via the hypostatic union. This theory, if it was applied to Christ would look more like real Nestorianism than anything else, for, on this theory, the old nature is a human nature, though fallen and sinful, and the new nature is also a human nature, though new and holy Well, we were one person with one nature beforehand, why then aren't we now two persons after we are converted? Two human natures does not equal one human person. Two human natures is two persons. This is derivative of Nestorianism.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1140031886873544412006-02-15T14:31:00.000-05:002006-02-15T14:31:00.000-05:00On who's time table? What does Scripture say?Are y...<I>On who's time table? </I><BR/><BR/>What does Scripture say?<BR/><BR/>Are you arguing that God does not sanctify that which He justifies? Are you seriously arguing that if a man believes a few facts about Christ and prays a prayer, he is, without question regenerate? There is a long discourse on this material, Rose, and you have been a part of it.<BR/><BR/><I>Who would be sinning, then, according to you? Would it be the new creation in Christ, the one that is actually a partaker of the divine nature? Can God sin?</I><BR/><BR/>^That, Rose, is closer to Eastern Orthodox theosis soteriology than the Free Grade view.<BR/><BR/>Well, who do you think needs to do the repenting, Rose? If the new nature cannot sin and the old nature sins, how can the old nature be said to repent, since repentance, of necessity, arises from the new nature and not the old? So, on the one hand you credit sin with the old nature, but it cannot repent for that which it commits; this is left for the new nature, but it would be repenting for something it did not do and for which you deny it is responsible.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>We have one and only one soul. We have one and only one new nature. We do not have 2 separate natures. There is a link to Ernest Reisinger's articles on this above. Do you ever bother to read that which you criticize?<BR/><BR/>Being a new creation does not mean we have a sinless new nature put inside of us along side the old. "Regeneration" is not "creation ex nihilio." It means we have been re-created anew, but sin is still with us as an active principle. When a man sin's he sins from that nature. Being regenerate means we have been made "alive" spiritually, raised from the dead as it were, not that we have a perfectly sinless new nature put inside of us alongside an unchanged old nature that is wholly sinful. The Carnal Christian doctrine conflates justification and sanctification in that respect.<BR/><BR/> Justification is what Christ does for us in heaven. Specifically, He covers our record with His blood and gives us a legal right to enter in. Sanctification is what Christ does in us by His Holy Spirit on earth-this gives us some practical fitness.<BR/><BR/>This: will lead you to the first part and the 3rd:<BR/><BR/>http://www.founders.org/FJ17/article2.html<BR/><BR/>The third deals with this:<BR/><BR/>The non-lordship teaching is that a new nature is implanted in the soul. This results in two distinct natures in the Christian. Nothing actually happens to the old nature except that it has an entirely different new nature placed along side it-this is a real dualism.<BR/><BR/>The Lordship teaching is that a new foundation for action, a new disposition, is implanted in the old ego, thus the Christian is still one person with two struggling principles, and the new principle is destined to conquer the old. This is quite different from the non-lordship teaching of two utterly distinct natures, that is, two selves. This view has profound implications on the doctrine of sanctification. The old nature continues as it was before regeneration throughout the earthly life only to be annihilated at death. One of the non-lordship teachers put it like this - "Flesh is flesh, nor can it ever be made aught else but flesh. The Holy Ghost did not come down on the day of Pentecost to improve nature or to do away with the fact of incurable evil . . . ." This means that the old nature is not changed.<BR/><BR/>Many, if not all, non-lordship teachers teach that progressive sanctification is false, and is not to be expected.<BR/><BR/>The non-lordship teaching is that the evil nature is not at all weakened by grace, but, rather inflamed. The old nature is not changed at all. The old nature remains in all its distinctness, and the new nature is introduced in all its distinctness.<BR/><BR/>The new nature has its own desires, its own habits, its own tendencies, its own affections. All of these are spiritual, heavenly, divine. All the aspirations of the new nature are upward.<BR/><BR/>One antinomian teacher stated it very clearly, "Be warned that the old nature is unchanged. The hope of transforming the old nature into holiness is as vain as the dream of a philosopher's stone, which was to change the dross of earth into gold." This is just why I must emphasize and reemphasize, in this study, that the teaching of the non-lordship teachers is that the old nature is not changed in regeneration or at any time thereafter.<BR/><BR/>There is not one text in the New Testament that teaches that regeneration is the implanting of a "new nature" beside the old, or, that the renewed man has two hostile natures. What he does have is two hostile principles in one nature.<BR/><BR/>Your theology, Rose, appears to have more in common with Eastern Orthodoxy on the one hand and Gnosticism on the other.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1140017878532333162006-02-15T10:37:00.000-05:002006-02-15T10:37:00.000-05:00Gene:You have long posts. :) However, I have to ad...Gene:<BR/><BR/>You have long posts. :) However, I have to admit -- when I've been disciplined enough to read through them all, I've been very blessed and challenged. <BR/><BR/>Thank you sir for taking the time to post such things.<BR/><BR/>No, better said -- thank God for you.<BR/><BR/>SDG,<BR/><A HREF="http://wholecounsel.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow">David Hewitt</A>David B. Hewitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06278089758893077906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1140011948330206862006-02-15T08:59:00.000-05:002006-02-15T08:59:00.000-05:00I would only add that not only has Antonio ignored...I would only add that not only has Antonio ignored my material, as well as the material I've posted by Moo, Davids, Waltke, and Stein, but he's also ignored Gene's material.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1140011763447520452006-02-15T08:56:00.000-05:002006-02-15T08:56:00.000-05:00Justification and sanctification are separate and ...<I> Justification and sanctification are separate and distinct, but they are not so separate and distinct that the latter does not always result from the former.</I><BR/><BR/>On who's time table? <BR/><BR/><I>When a man sins, this is attributed to his sin nature.</I><BR/><BR/>Who would be sinning, then, according to you? Would it be the new creation in Christ, the one that is actually a partaker of the divine nature? Can God sin?Rose~https://www.blogger.com/profile/14906854078623897422noreply@blogger.com