The lordship issue if you have not read any articles from Mark McCulley or David Bishop is the idea that once a sinner believes in Christ as saviour he must then accept Him as Lord of his life. He does this by walking in obedience and repenting from sin. A person who only believes in Christ as Savior but not as Lord i.e. not walking in obedience is not a true believer. For a true believer is one who will make it his endeavor to repent from every sin. Repentance is not just a change of mind for them but is also repenting from works of sin i.e. behavior. In other words if you do not actually change your conduct then you have not really repented.
Of course they will probably not say you repent of every sin right away but if your not continually growing in holiness then your salvation is in question. Have you really believed the gospel? Believe is not just the act of the mind that accepts as true the gospel propositions but also includes the element of trust. What this last element is really is not clear.
The totality of the lordship issue is that the lordshiper will stress a change life over and above a change mind. They stress works rather than belief. What they say is that your assurance is grounded in doing not in knowing.
With that said the Bible Really Stresses The Opposite. It stresses what is to be believed. For by faith one does good works.
If you read Gordon H. Clark you see his stress is on what a person knows rather than what he does. The older reformers do the same. Not all of course. But the majority.
If you want to say it this way the issue is an existential issue. The lordship salvation guys are existentialist. If you are not doing then it is not really real.
1 corinthians 1-4 is about our epistemology.
Showing posts with label Anti-intellectual. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anti-intellectual. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 8, 2015
Monday, July 6, 2015
We can know God because we are made with the capacity to reason
To the pragmatist skepticism of modern religious world, therefore, the Bible is sharply opposed; against the passionate anti - intellectualism of a large part of modern Church it maintains the primacy of the intellect; it teaches plainly that God has given to man a faculty of reason which is capable of apprehending truth, even truth about God.
That does not mean that we finite creatures can find out God by our own searching; but it does mean that God has made us capable of receiving the information which He chooses to give. I cannot evolve an account of China of my own inner consciousness, but I am perfectly capable of understanding the account which comes to me from travellers who have been there themselves. So our reasoning is certainly insufficient to tell us about God unless He reveals Himself; but it is capable (or would be capable if it were not clouded by sin) of receiving revelation when once it is given. - J. Gresham Machen, What Is Faith?
That does not mean that we finite creatures can find out God by our own searching; but it does mean that God has made us capable of receiving the information which He chooses to give. I cannot evolve an account of China of my own inner consciousness, but I am perfectly capable of understanding the account which comes to me from travellers who have been there themselves. So our reasoning is certainly insufficient to tell us about God unless He reveals Himself; but it is capable (or would be capable if it were not clouded by sin) of receiving revelation when once it is given. - J. Gresham Machen, What Is Faith?
Sunday, June 7, 2015
Popular Preachers itch the ears of those who do not love the truth
"If I should say, that our modern demagogues have done more hurt to the souls of men, than all those stigmatized with the name of infidel writers have done together, the reflection would be thought odious. I would be referred to many passages in their treatises, asserting almost every branch of the Christian doctrine, in words not easily to be contradicted; and though I might fairly show a complete system of self-dependence to be contained in these same treatises, yea, to be the leading scope and design of them, yet it is easy to see that such a discovery, or any attempt toward it, behooved to meet with the greatest opposition from all who feed on this compound doctrine, especially from those have the largest share of religious pride. For men do not choose to be scared away by arguments from the food which they love best.
If you should throw some handfuls of barley among ever so great a quantity of pearls, the poultry will indeed resort to the pearls; but it is their natural food that draws them: they sometimes do gravel, for the better digestion of their food; for it is the barley that fattens them. And well do the pastors, I speak of, know how to season and mix up the Christian truth with proper ingredients to suit the taste of the people, or, to express myself in more obsolete style, 'They are of the world, therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.' That I may not seem to have disjointed this ancient saying from its context, I would have it noticed, that the chief thing aimed at there is, to make us cautious of hearkening to every spirit or doctrine, by which men pretend to assure themselves of the favour of God, or that Christ abideth in them. The sacred writer, after showing us by what spirit he and his fellows were assured of this, adds, 'Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they are of God.' Then giving us several rules to judge by, he sums them up in these words,'We (the apostles) are of God: he that knoweth God, heareth us: he that is not of God, heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.' Keeping then this rule in our view, let us return to the examining of Aspasio." - Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio
If you should throw some handfuls of barley among ever so great a quantity of pearls, the poultry will indeed resort to the pearls; but it is their natural food that draws them: they sometimes do gravel, for the better digestion of their food; for it is the barley that fattens them. And well do the pastors, I speak of, know how to season and mix up the Christian truth with proper ingredients to suit the taste of the people, or, to express myself in more obsolete style, 'They are of the world, therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.' That I may not seem to have disjointed this ancient saying from its context, I would have it noticed, that the chief thing aimed at there is, to make us cautious of hearkening to every spirit or doctrine, by which men pretend to assure themselves of the favour of God, or that Christ abideth in them. The sacred writer, after showing us by what spirit he and his fellows were assured of this, adds, 'Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they are of God.' Then giving us several rules to judge by, he sums them up in these words,'We (the apostles) are of God: he that knoweth God, heareth us: he that is not of God, heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.' Keeping then this rule in our view, let us return to the examining of Aspasio." - Robert Sandeman, Letters on Theron and Aspasio
Sunday, April 19, 2015
John Macarthur's False Gospel is no gospel at all Part 1
"First, Scripture teaches that the gospel calls sinners to faith joined in oneness with repentance (Acts 2:38; 17:30; 20:21; 2 Pet. 3:9). Repentance is a turning from sin (Acts 3:19; Luke 24:47) that consists not of a human work but of a divinely bestowed grace (Acts 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25). It is a change of heart, but genuine repentance will effect a change of behavior as well (Luke 3:8; Acts 26:18-20). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that repentance is simply a synonym for faith and that no turning from sin is required for salvation."
John Macarthur is right about one thing that faith and repentance are basically the same acts. To repent is to believe. However, repentance from sin does not entail a change life-style from sin. John Macarthur verses do not say anything at all about repentance being something that entails our work. Repentance is just a change of mind about the Gospel of Christ Jesus where sinners who once hated the truth now believe the truth. Macarthur wrongly thinks by saying repentance, the way he understands it, 'is not a human work but a divinely bestowed grace' that this keeps his gospel from being false. No where does Luke 3:8 say that repentance is other than a change of mind. What is the fruit of repentance if it is only a change of mind? It is believing right doctrine. John Macarthur's last sentence is just begging the question and is just fillers; for none of the verses he quotes even remotely agrees with his point.
"Second, Scripture teaches that salvation is all God's work. Those who believe are saved utterly apart from any effort on their own (Titus 3:5). Even faith is a gift of God, not a work of man (Eph. 2:1-5,8). Real faith therefore cannot be defective or short-lived but endures forever (Phil. 1:6; cf. Heb. 11). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that faith might not last and that a true Christian can completely cease believing."
This is perhaps just besides the point. Yes salvation is wholly God's work alone. However, this does not mean that I believe that Macarthur is correct on the Lordship salvation heresy. Macarthur simply assumes that Faith is more than assent (he does not even prove his assumption either). I have not said that a Christian can lose his salvation. Of course a Christian can for a time be subjected to his or her own sin. However, this does not mean that faith is not intellectual assent to the Gospel proposition. Of course, I am not an Arminian and once you are saved you are eternally secured no matter what you do.
"Third, Scripture teaches that the object of faith is Christ Himself, not a creed or a promise (John 3:16). Faith therefore involves personal commitment to Christ (2 Cor. 5:15). In other words, all true believers follow Jesus (John 10:27-28). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that saving faith is simply being convinced or giving credence to the truth of the gospel and does not include a personal commitment to the person of Christ."
This makes absolutely no sense. Faith is grounded in Christ Himself? Has Macarthur actually seen Christ and heard directly from Christ? How does Macarthur know who Christ is? Even Geerhardus Vos whom I quoted in another post would disagree. You cannot distinguish between the person of Christ from the words he has spoken. Even if Faith is assent to the Gospel propositions (which it is) does not mean that it is any less personal than if we were to agree with Macarthur on this issue (which we do not).
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/A114
John Macarthur is right about one thing that faith and repentance are basically the same acts. To repent is to believe. However, repentance from sin does not entail a change life-style from sin. John Macarthur verses do not say anything at all about repentance being something that entails our work. Repentance is just a change of mind about the Gospel of Christ Jesus where sinners who once hated the truth now believe the truth. Macarthur wrongly thinks by saying repentance, the way he understands it, 'is not a human work but a divinely bestowed grace' that this keeps his gospel from being false. No where does Luke 3:8 say that repentance is other than a change of mind. What is the fruit of repentance if it is only a change of mind? It is believing right doctrine. John Macarthur's last sentence is just begging the question and is just fillers; for none of the verses he quotes even remotely agrees with his point.
"Second, Scripture teaches that salvation is all God's work. Those who believe are saved utterly apart from any effort on their own (Titus 3:5). Even faith is a gift of God, not a work of man (Eph. 2:1-5,8). Real faith therefore cannot be defective or short-lived but endures forever (Phil. 1:6; cf. Heb. 11). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that faith might not last and that a true Christian can completely cease believing."
This is perhaps just besides the point. Yes salvation is wholly God's work alone. However, this does not mean that I believe that Macarthur is correct on the Lordship salvation heresy. Macarthur simply assumes that Faith is more than assent (he does not even prove his assumption either). I have not said that a Christian can lose his salvation. Of course a Christian can for a time be subjected to his or her own sin. However, this does not mean that faith is not intellectual assent to the Gospel proposition. Of course, I am not an Arminian and once you are saved you are eternally secured no matter what you do.
"Third, Scripture teaches that the object of faith is Christ Himself, not a creed or a promise (John 3:16). Faith therefore involves personal commitment to Christ (2 Cor. 5:15). In other words, all true believers follow Jesus (John 10:27-28). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that saving faith is simply being convinced or giving credence to the truth of the gospel and does not include a personal commitment to the person of Christ."
This makes absolutely no sense. Faith is grounded in Christ Himself? Has Macarthur actually seen Christ and heard directly from Christ? How does Macarthur know who Christ is? Even Geerhardus Vos whom I quoted in another post would disagree. You cannot distinguish between the person of Christ from the words he has spoken. Even if Faith is assent to the Gospel propositions (which it is) does not mean that it is any less personal than if we were to agree with Macarthur on this issue (which we do not).
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/A114
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
Gordon H. Clark against C.S. Lewis
"Theories about Christ's death are not Christianity: they are explanations about how it works. Christians would not all agree as to how important those theories are. My own church - the Church of England - does not lay down any one of them as the right one. The Church of Rome goes a bit further. But I think they will all agree that the thing itself is infinitely more important than any explanations that theologians have produced. I think they would probably admit that no explanation will ever be quite adequate to the reality." - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
"Some people think that Christ died for our sins as an example to us of courage or martyrdom. His death exerts a moral influence on us. In this sense Christ died for our sins. But preaching the death of Christ in this sense never saved anyone. Those who study the history of theology know that there was a Patristic theory explaining that Christ paid his ransom to the devil. Hugo Grotius expounded a governmental theory. The evangelist does not preach the Gospel unless he expounds the Scriptural theory.
No evangelist can preach the Atonement without relying on a theory. The word Atonement itself is the name of and the result of a theory. The word Satisfaction, used earlier, and unfortunately replaced by the word Atonement, is also the name of and the result of a theory. It is the name of the Scriptural theory. And unless this theory is preached, the Atonement the Satisfaction, the Gospel is not preached." - Gordon H. Clark, What is the Christian Life?
I must say that Clark did not write this necessarily against Lewis but in context wrote this against John Stott
"Some people think that Christ died for our sins as an example to us of courage or martyrdom. His death exerts a moral influence on us. In this sense Christ died for our sins. But preaching the death of Christ in this sense never saved anyone. Those who study the history of theology know that there was a Patristic theory explaining that Christ paid his ransom to the devil. Hugo Grotius expounded a governmental theory. The evangelist does not preach the Gospel unless he expounds the Scriptural theory.
No evangelist can preach the Atonement without relying on a theory. The word Atonement itself is the name of and the result of a theory. The word Satisfaction, used earlier, and unfortunately replaced by the word Atonement, is also the name of and the result of a theory. It is the name of the Scriptural theory. And unless this theory is preached, the Atonement the Satisfaction, the Gospel is not preached." - Gordon H. Clark, What is the Christian Life?
I must say that Clark did not write this necessarily against Lewis but in context wrote this against John Stott
Saturday, October 11, 2014
Theology is no longer needed by Tim Challies
For my calvinist brothers
"How to destroy a perfectly good theology from the inside:
1. By loving Calvinism as an end in itself.
2. By becoming a theologian instead of a disciple.
3. By loving God's sovereignty more than God himself.
4. By losing an urgency in evangelism.
5. By learning only from other Calvinists.
6. By tidying up the Bibles "loose ends"
7. By being an arrogant know-it-all.
8. By scoffing at the Hang-ups others have with Calvinism." Greg Dutcher, Killing Calvinism
Found this on a Tim Challies blog.
http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/killing-calvinism
Just a few issues atleast - 2. Becoming a theologian instead of a disciple - how can you become a disciple if you do not have the knowledge of God? 3. This one is unintelligible. Do they mean only loving the attribute or are they suggesting that there is a distinction between knowing facts of God and having a relational encounter with God. Just would like to say there are more to God than just his soveriegnty just like Love is not the only divine attribute. 6. What does this one mean? That we should not seek to understand things? This is what makes us apologist. If we never sought to put things together then we would never be able to give a reasonable defense to what we believe.
I like how the Anti-Intellectual side wants to diminish Theology so much that they want to unify around some sort of big blob of mash potatoes. Why call yourself anything if you want to learn from others. I remember various other kinds of philosophers saying basically the same thing. God teaches us in falsehoods as well.
"How to destroy a perfectly good theology from the inside:
1. By loving Calvinism as an end in itself.
2. By becoming a theologian instead of a disciple.
3. By loving God's sovereignty more than God himself.
4. By losing an urgency in evangelism.
5. By learning only from other Calvinists.
6. By tidying up the Bibles "loose ends"
7. By being an arrogant know-it-all.
8. By scoffing at the Hang-ups others have with Calvinism." Greg Dutcher, Killing Calvinism
Found this on a Tim Challies blog.
http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/killing-calvinism
Just a few issues atleast - 2. Becoming a theologian instead of a disciple - how can you become a disciple if you do not have the knowledge of God? 3. This one is unintelligible. Do they mean only loving the attribute or are they suggesting that there is a distinction between knowing facts of God and having a relational encounter with God. Just would like to say there are more to God than just his soveriegnty just like Love is not the only divine attribute. 6. What does this one mean? That we should not seek to understand things? This is what makes us apologist. If we never sought to put things together then we would never be able to give a reasonable defense to what we believe.
I like how the Anti-Intellectual side wants to diminish Theology so much that they want to unify around some sort of big blob of mash potatoes. Why call yourself anything if you want to learn from others. I remember various other kinds of philosophers saying basically the same thing. God teaches us in falsehoods as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)