SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Propitiation and the red heifer

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 Next Page )
PosterThread
Svineklev
Member



Joined: 2004/12/14
Posts: 74


 Re:

Ironman--

I'm with Ron on that one. We have nothing to lose but our errors. If only we were better at doing so.

I never feel threatened, but I do sometimes feel frustrated. Though it is good to have people with strong convictions "stick to their guns" as it were, most of us are better at teaching than being taught. That includes me.

As a result, even though we have many errors in our thinking that we'd be better off without, we hang onto them tenaciously. Why? Because we identify too closely with them: "My name is Eric, and I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Calvinist. If you dare to attack Calvinism, you attack me!"

It's really difficult to get away from that sort of thinking. Plus, we too easily imagine ourselves the savior of the world: "Christendom is going to hell in a handbasket because of... (fill in the blank). If only everyone would just learn to agree with me, this old earth would be a great place to live."

I honestly believe that Arminianism detracts from a Christian's walk with God. But I don't think there is that much difference between a devout Arminian and a devout Calvinist. My sainted Grandmother was a Wesleyan through and through, and I will never touch her level of holiness. We should quit treating each other as pariahs. I'm sure the Evil One rubs his hands in glee over some of our inane tussles.

If Ron has some winning arguments up his sleeve, I'll be glad to give him a listen. But he'll need the patience of Job (or better yet, the patience of God with Job). I have found the soil of Calvinism incredibly fertile ground.

Nonetheless, as a system it deals with God's transcendence better than with His immanence. It emphasizes His sovereign qualities sometimes at the expense of His dynamic qualities (His interpersonal relationship with us).

Sorry about any "big words." They are short-cuts that make communication much less of a pain in the butt. Almost always, the concepts behind them are really not that convoluted. We haven't been discussing rocket science. Ask for definitions, and they will be supplied. I'm no major scholar either. I have a Master of Arts in Religion, but that's it.

By the way, Ron, I [i]don't[/i] think it's the difference between redemption accomplished and redemption applied--we both believe in both of those tenets. It's the difference between redemption applied (by Christ Himself) and redemption appropriated (by the Believer, at Christ's invitation).

I don't believe there's any "appropriation" going on. That's why we've had this lovely conversation!

At any rate, love to you all,

--Eric

 2005/4/10 18:35Profile
dohzman
Member



Joined: 2004/10/13
Posts: 2132


 Re: confused

I've followed this thread, read and re-read it several times and even came across a couple of commentaries that described the Red Heifer ashes as an emerengcy offering but also note the reason it was nessary was due to the large numbers of deaths that would transpire during the wilderness journeys and they went into detail. As soon as I finially came to understanding that part of the post it started to take some turns and now I do have some questions. In John's epistles he talks about sin and confession for forgiveness, would that be the same as appropriation? If not in what sense do we appropriate the works of Christ into our lives ? Please bear with me here-----Also couldn't a person who is just really simple minded but loves Jesus with all thier heart be completely redeemed without really knowing the hows and whys but they just go on strong inward conviction? And finially , I have had long spells of trying to clarify the roles or better put, the man ward side of continued grace in salvation and the God ward side. I know that steps on the toes of Calvinists but I have to believe that we have some responsibility in the relationship and its finial outcome? I'll watch for your responses . God Blesss Bro. Daryl


_________________
D.Miller

 2005/4/10 23:02Profile
IRONMAN
Member



Joined: 2004/6/15
Posts: 1924
IN HEAVENLY PLACES WITH JESUS

 Re:

Eric
I did get a hint of your frustration as I read through your discussion with Ron, saw a bit of what seemed to be sarcasm (that was funny) and a freakishly similar tenacity about getting the point across. The both of you are rather stubborn. It was entertaining though watching/reading you going back and forth :)

You say you are good at teaching and yet it is hard to teach you despite you knowing that there are errors in your thinking. Interesting. Being a teacher is a hard thing, but it requires absolute surety of the truth in what you are teaching because many souls depend on this. If one iota of whatever you teach is wrong, that puts a lot of people in danger. Teachers will also be judged pretty harshly so in all the things you teach, be sure that they are born of the spirit of God, anything less than that does only harm. This may mean abandoning prior beliefs which you may have held for as long as you can remember and conceding that you know less than you think. It's better to do that now rather than spend eternity paying for it.

the big words threw me for a loop, maybe a few others so it was a little difficult to follow the thread and understand it all. At some point I kinda didn't remember what it was all about :-? oh so you're no major scholar you say? jus happen to have a master's in religion? man I don't even have a masters :-P At any rate that's more education than most so naturally people will be looking for instruction from you both and I feel that to teach others well, you have to learn well from the Spirit, you can't go wrong with that.

the two of you are eerily alike...like buns...perhaps you ARE long-lost brothers :-P


_________________
Farai Bamu

 2005/4/11 0:04Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
As a result, even though we have many errors in our thinking that we'd be better off without, we hang onto them tenaciously. Why? Because we identify too closely with them: "My name is Eric, and I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Calvinist. If you dare to attack Calvinism, you attack me!"


Hi Eric
It must be reassuring to be able to put yourself under a single label.? ;-) What am I? How long have you got? I am opposed to some of the tenets of Calvinism, but never anti-Calvinist. The system I have strong objections to, the people (that I have met) are great. I love the God-orientation of Calvinists. I think it was Packer who said there are no non-Calvinists just some confused Calvinists. I don't feel confused.

I have a tendency to spring to the defence of my friends rather than systems, so these pages have seen me defending just about everybody whose system I have challenged. I have even defended Calvin in his dealings with Servitus. Luther against the anabaptists. Spurgeon against lots of folk. Matthew Henry against people who thought his commentary was 'wooden'. Even Finney, whose theology is the most convoluted thing I have ever read in my life, has had my support. Attacks on Wesley will really rattle my chain, although I think Whitefield was the 'nicer' character. I defend Pentecostals against the cessationists, and almost any underdog will get my support.

If you find a label that fits, I am sure you will let me know. "congenital non-conformist' might fit? I like to think of myself as a 'Bible-Christian'. I am open, I trust, to revelation and reason, but not to tradition without challenge. I am a natural sceptic, but I easily embrace revelation and/or reason.

So, back to the underlying question. Is covenant imposed or invited? And please understand that I shall not be challenging Calvin's views but yours! :-D


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2005/4/11 4:02Profile
Svineklev
Member



Joined: 2004/12/14
Posts: 74


 Re:

Hey, Daryl--

I would love to have those references and see who is saying such things. The number of commentaries out there is un-be-liev-a-ble!

Yes, confession of sin would indeed appropriate forgiveness. But this is a matter of discipline of the Spirit within the process of sanctification. Justification is a gift and is received rather than acquired.

I must admit I don't know how the LORD will judge those with simple faith. Mormons may "love Jesus with all their hearts" but the Jesus whom they love is hard to recognize as the one the rest of us know and love. So, my guess is that if it actually IS Jesus whom they are faithful to with their simple lives, nothing more is required. Theology is there to help point the way to the True One.

Calvinists are by and large "synergists" (together-workers) when it comes to sanctification. In other words, we do indeed work together with God to work out our salvation (with fear and trembling). Even in terms of the final outcome, Calvinists talk about "perseverance" rather than "eternal security" (the Dispensationalist stance). We must put out the effort to persevere. We can't just put our lives on auto-pilot: "Well, I prayed 'the prayer' once a long time ago and that's good enough."

We do believe that God is faithful and that we cannot slip out of his hand. With his help, we [i]will[/i] persevere...though it may well be difficult.

We believe that justification (being declared righteous before the Father because of the atoning blood of Jesus the Christ) is a monergistic (working-alone) act of God. This initial forgiveness cannot be appropriated by an unregenerate man or woman. They must first be "made alive" in Christ and clothed with his righteousness. Then they can start working on their own holiness (with the direction and strengthening of the Spirit).

So, as far as I know, you didn't "step on my toes" at all.

Good to hear from you,

--Eric

 2005/4/28 20:19Profile
Svineklev
Member



Joined: 2004/12/14
Posts: 74


 Re:

Ironman--

I don't think teaching requires [i]absolute[/i] surety and here's why: the only people who are ABSOLUTELY sure that everything they say is correct are either deluded or unbelievably arrogant. If we wait till we know that we know that we know our theology is right, we will never speak at all.

I take my responsibility seriously. I check and double check. I don't actually KNOW any particular place I am in error. (If I did, I'd change it, wouldn't I?) I assume since I'm human that there are all kinds of things I'm at least fuzzy on.

If shown to be in error by the plain truth of Scripture, I have no problem with "abandoning prior beliefs." That's part of what I was saying: I'm by no means married to these ideas I currently espouse. I don't have "Calvinist" tatooed on my forehead. I will be led of God wherever he will lead.

Probably more than anything else, I am a Calvinist because I have most clearly seen the heart of Christ in passionate, irenic men of God like J.I. Packer, Roger Nicole, and Francis Schaeffer. Don't get me wrong, I love Tozer and Billy Graham and Wesley and Moody (and on and on). But I always feel like they're [i]missing[/i] something, something important. Something I believe Reformed Theology imparts.

All the best,

--Eric

 2005/4/28 20:42Profile
Svineklev
Member



Joined: 2004/12/14
Posts: 74


 Re:

Ron--

I cannot be subsumed under any one label either (other than the one you took for yourself: biblical Christian). I actually would rather be called Augustinian (or even Pauline...but that strikes everyone as presumptive).

I do not toe the party line. I'm Reformed mostly on the Doctrines of Grace (concerning justification, election, and perseverance).

Calvin, Beza, Knox, the Westminster Divines, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Gerstner, Sproul, Horton, Piper, Grudem, etc. all strike me as at least a tad too harsh, too dogmatic. I don't like the bent toward cessationism, anti-Romanism, and dry academics in theology. I think Reformed stances on God's immutability and impassability are often too inflexible. My God is not a machine.

I [i]don't[/i] defend Calvin concerning Servetus. He messed up and there's [i]no[/i] excuse. (I don't care how many thousand Albigensians, Cathari, Waldensians, and Huguenots those "detestable" Catholics tortured and killed.) Two wrongs simply never make a right. Luther's attitude toward Anabaptists and Jews was despicable. Finney was pretty close to an out-and-out heretic and you won't find me defending his "convoluted theology." (No matter how much good he did on the social front...though I will say I would like to see Evangelicals emulate him there.) And I agree, Pentecostals [i]should[/i] be defended against cessationists, but they ought also be brought to task to raise the bar concerning order, decorum, and discernment.

How in the world do [i]you[/i] go about defending Spurgeon? He is so saturated with Calvinism that I don't see how anybody could extricate the tiniest morsel without its being dripping in sauce.

I wouldn't think to label you, but you do seem to be opposed to most of the distinctives of Calvinism and the system as a whole appears at times to horrify you. To me the Doctrines of Grace are the very Gospel, and as the Gospel they are all in all...they are the "earth and sky."

I think the fifth point (the P of the TULIP) is the dearest to me. I once told an Arminian (he wouldn't have minded the label) that it felt to me like this assurance of the faithfulness of God was the heart of the Gospel. Without blinking an eye (and reacting as if to self-evident nonsense), he replied, "Well, of course, [i]that's[/i] not true."

******************************************

Imposed or invited!!? How in heaven's name does one impose OR invite deliverance?

To quote a well-known Arminian:

Long my imprisoned spirit lay,
Fast bound in sin and nature's night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray;
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed thee....

Love ya, brother

--Eric

 2005/4/28 22:04Profile









 Re: Propitiation and the red heifer

The first post, Very well put Ron!

 2005/4/28 23:59
dohzman
Member



Joined: 2004/10/13
Posts: 2132


 Re:

I'll look for that commentary for you and post it and the reference page. I have to admitt that I only have a basic understanding of both the armenian(sp?) view and the calvanistic view. Haveing a RC (roman catholic) back ground but having been lead to Christ by a penecostal preacher and discipled AG/ then later Church of God, I have to admitt that much of what they preach is more suited to one losing thier salvation then the ability of God being able to keep us from falling away. I didn't relize that eternal security was part of the calvanistic doctrine though. I sometimes think that God raises up men of extremes to counter balance when things get get loopsided, Like the doctrine of ....say....sinless perfection from a John Wesley. Or a more calvanistic approach to Christ from say a Luther, who as I understand was more calvanistic than Calvin was. But they seem to be men of extremes to counter trends in thier day that were going to far to the right or left?. Any way, God Bless --- Daryl


_________________
D.Miller

 2005/4/29 0:55Profile
Svineklev
Member



Joined: 2004/12/14
Posts: 74


 Re:

Daryl--

Both RC's and AG's believe you can lose your salvation (although it's difficult under the RC system...you'd just end up going through a longer period of Purgatory).

Calvinists do NOT believe in (the Baptist doctrine of) "eternal security" but in "perseverance" which requires more of the believer but has the same end result.

Luther may have been even stronger than Calvin on believers coming to faith through "election" (predestination) but if my understanding is correct, Luther believed that you could lose your salvation.

I tend to think people who struggle to find the godly "middle" where there is firm ground to stand upon bring more balance than the extremists on either side of an issue...but everyone has their place.

--Eric

 2005/4/29 1:32Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy