It's good to be a Christ-follower, but you're saved by being a Christ-believer. John 6:66 reveals the tragedy of those who "followed" Christ -- were even called disciples -- but didn't believe in Him. Don't fool yourself into thinking you're saved because you've "surrendered your life to Christ". So far as salvation goes God isn't interested in what you've done, are doing, or intend to do for Him; He's only interested in whether you believe what He has already done.
from http://www.freegracealliance.com/covenant.htm ...
* The sole means of receiving the free gift of eternal life is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whose substitutionary death on the cross fully satisfied the requirement for our justification.
* Faith is a personal response, apart from our works, whereby we are persuaded that the finished work of Jesus Christ has delivered us from condemnation and guaranteed our eternal life.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Lordship and the Folly of Discipleship/Salvation synonymy
A central issue with LS is a failure to accurately distinguish discipleship from salvation. A passage that clearly shows a negative example of the difference is John 6:66. "Disciples" abandoned Jesus precisely because they didn't believe him, yet the word is the same as is used for disciple some 260 other times. Disciples aren't necessarily faithful believers , so the concepts are clearly not as synonymous as the average LS proponent would have us believe. Allowing the Bible to define it's own terms and their use --discipleship isn't salvation, and salvation isn't discipleship -- it's folly to enjoin them as functionally synonymous.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Is this the Gospel of Salvation?
Is this an accurate, concise presentation of the Gospel of Salvation?
“God loves you so much that He sent His Son Jesus to this world long ago. The Bible promises that whoever believes in Jesus will live forever in heaven with Him.”
“God loves you so much that He sent His Son Jesus to this world long ago. The Bible promises that whoever believes in Jesus will live forever in heaven with Him.”
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Why I'm no longer a Calvinist #1 - Pre-faith regeneration
First, a clarification: When I say "Calvinist" I mean it only as a well-known label to quickly sum-up a system of beliefs commonly known as the Doctrines of Grace (DofG). I fully realize there are those who believe the DofG who take issue with being called "Calvinist" since it implies following after a man rather than what they believe are biblical doctrines. Fair enough, so know that I am using the term here in its more general sense as a label.
So, with that out of the way...
... a few years ago, in being challenged on my Calvinist beliefs I was confronted with the reality that, to cling to Calvinism, I would have to accept as true something called Pre-faith regeneration (PfR). Basically, this means that before someone can believe unto salvation they have to first (logically if not sequentially) be regenerated with new life by God to even be able to believe in the first place. This is logically demanded by Calvinism's view of fallen man's depravity which renders the Biblical order of salvation backwards and/or incomplete in many many verses.
There are many examples but here are just a couple to get started:
John 3:16b:
Bible view -- "... whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. "
PfR view -- "... whoever has life shall not perish but believes in Him"
John 6:47:
Bible view -- "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life"
PfR view -- "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who has eternal life believes in Him."
There are many many more examples, but you get the point -- If PfR is true it means the Holy Spirit essentially inspired these and many other verses regarding belief unto everlasting life... backwards! Rather, any natural reading of the Bible paints new life as clearly the result of belief, not the other way around as PfR demands. Since PfR is unbiblical yet required by Calvinism's view of depravity it became evident that strict Calvinism was askew. Not to say Calvinism is all bad, not at all (or second son does bear his name in-the-middle after-all), but if a premise leads to a clearly faulty conclusion then one ought reexamine the premise.
For further reading, please see the following:
Lordship's (out of order) Salvation
The Danger of Teaching that Regeneration Precedes Faith
So, with that out of the way...
... a few years ago, in being challenged on my Calvinist beliefs I was confronted with the reality that, to cling to Calvinism, I would have to accept as true something called Pre-faith regeneration (PfR). Basically, this means that before someone can believe unto salvation they have to first (logically if not sequentially) be regenerated with new life by God to even be able to believe in the first place. This is logically demanded by Calvinism's view of fallen man's depravity which renders the Biblical order of salvation backwards and/or incomplete in many many verses.
There are many examples but here are just a couple to get started:
John 3:16b:
Bible view -- "... whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. "
PfR view -- "... whoever has life shall not perish but believes in Him"
John 6:47:
Bible view -- "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life"
PfR view -- "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who has eternal life believes in Him."
There are many many more examples, but you get the point -- If PfR is true it means the Holy Spirit essentially inspired these and many other verses regarding belief unto everlasting life... backwards! Rather, any natural reading of the Bible paints new life as clearly the result of belief, not the other way around as PfR demands. Since PfR is unbiblical yet required by Calvinism's view of depravity it became evident that strict Calvinism was askew. Not to say Calvinism is all bad, not at all (or second son does bear his name in-the-middle after-all), but if a premise leads to a clearly faulty conclusion then one ought reexamine the premise.
For further reading, please see the following:
Lordship's (out of order) Salvation
The Danger of Teaching that Regeneration Precedes Faith
Monday, January 26, 2009
Theology Talk forum
I would like to announce the creation of the Theology Talk forum.
This is an experimental forum, conceived for the purpose of establishing a "neutral zone" for discussion of our theological similarities and differences.
The problem with blogs
Blogs are great for articles but don't naturally allow for free-flowing dialog. This is because most blogs, by nature, are tightly connected to a specific author's/group's point-of-view so only a few people at best can actually create new articles/topics. This isn't intrinsically bad, but it is often at odds with the normal dynamic of human interaction.
The following factors can cause discussion on blogs to become scattered and/or constrained. Participants are forced to either...
[*]rigidly adhere to a specific topic
[*]"hijack" the comments of an article as spin-off discussion naturally ensues
[*]create an article on their own blog and try to direct the branch discussion to their own blog. This can be especially problematic when the person/group who wants to talk about a new aspect that arises is on a blog that won't allow them to post a link to their own blog for whatever reason, probably because of some known strong disagreement.
[*]carry out the side conversation over e-mail
These things are deterrents to the "natural" discussion that some participants desire.
The proposed solution: A forum
The forum isn't intended to replace our individual blogs, but a forum has a number of advantages that supplement our blogs. The main benefit of a forum is that all the related information, even spin-off discussions, are close-at-hand rather than scattered about a dozen or more different blogs.
[*]any user, not just the admin or a short list of contributors, can create topics of interest at any time.
[*]allow for more free form discussion while also remaining coherent and consistent
[*]better reflect the community rather than an individual or small group
These things make for an environment that is more favorable to natural discussion.
The rules are few, simple, and are intended to foster an environment for open discussion of theology -- similarities and differences -- without concern for being banned or censored simply because we disagree with one another, even sharply.
The rules (subject to change as needed)
[*]you can use any account name you like, but we want to be able to refer to each other by name in the forum so use your real name in your posts. This is to maintain a sense of personal accountability.
[*]no fake accounts, and only one account per person.
[*]no spam.
[*]no profanity.
[*]nothing sexually explicit.
[*]nothing illegal.
All are welcome, please come to Theology Talk forum., register an account, and start/join a discussion about whatever theology is on your mind.
This is an experimental forum, conceived for the purpose of establishing a "neutral zone" for discussion of our theological similarities and differences.
The problem with blogs
Blogs are great for articles but don't naturally allow for free-flowing dialog. This is because most blogs, by nature, are tightly connected to a specific author's/group's point-of-view so only a few people at best can actually create new articles/topics. This isn't intrinsically bad, but it is often at odds with the normal dynamic of human interaction.
The following factors can cause discussion on blogs to become scattered and/or constrained. Participants are forced to either...
[*]rigidly adhere to a specific topic
[*]"hijack" the comments of an article as spin-off discussion naturally ensues
[*]create an article on their own blog and try to direct the branch discussion to their own blog. This can be especially problematic when the person/group who wants to talk about a new aspect that arises is on a blog that won't allow them to post a link to their own blog for whatever reason, probably because of some known strong disagreement.
[*]carry out the side conversation over e-mail
These things are deterrents to the "natural" discussion that some participants desire.
The proposed solution: A forum
The forum isn't intended to replace our individual blogs, but a forum has a number of advantages that supplement our blogs. The main benefit of a forum is that all the related information, even spin-off discussions, are close-at-hand rather than scattered about a dozen or more different blogs.
[*]any user, not just the admin or a short list of contributors, can create topics of interest at any time.
[*]allow for more free form discussion while also remaining coherent and consistent
[*]better reflect the community rather than an individual or small group
These things make for an environment that is more favorable to natural discussion.
The rules are few, simple, and are intended to foster an environment for open discussion of theology -- similarities and differences -- without concern for being banned or censored simply because we disagree with one another, even sharply.
The rules (subject to change as needed)
[*]you can use any account name you like, but we want to be able to refer to each other by name in the forum so use your real name in your posts. This is to maintain a sense of personal accountability.
[*]no fake accounts, and only one account per person.
[*]no spam.
[*]no profanity.
[*]nothing sexually explicit.
[*]nothing illegal.
All are welcome, please come to Theology Talk forum., register an account, and start/join a discussion about whatever theology is on your mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)