And for equal worth, Marcus has also stated that he graduated from a Nazarene Institution of Higher Learning.Originally Posted by Benjamin Burch
What I am really curious about so I will ask him directly this;
Marcus; are you the Marcus Kibbe who designed and patented some pretty neat looking Spice Grinders, Peppermills and Shakers? Just curious.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
Well at least he's not a Catholic!
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison KeillorPost Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 LaughingPaul DeBaufer - thanks for this funny post
Lol. Well neither am I, yet.Well at least he's not a Catholic!
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 2 LaughingPaul DeBaufer - "thanks" for this post
Made me look at my peppermill here, Jim. Nope, not that name on it. Mine says: Olde Thompson.What I am really curious about so I will ask him directly this;
Marcus; are you the Marcus Kibbe who designed and patented some pretty neat looking Spice Grinders, Peppermills and Shakers? Just curious.
OK, now back to your thread after a slight diversion.
Life beats down and crushes the soul and art reminds you that you have one.
~ Stella Adler ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
It takes a great deal of maturity to accept that trying to eliminate all risk eliminates life.
~ Susan Lapin ~
Exactly!And if we aren't going to bash you, then why would we bash Marcus?
Do we bash people who practice and promulgate sacramental theology? No, while we may disagree, we still discuss our differences.
Do we bash those who may hold to a Calvinist persuasion? Well I would hope not for it makes no sense. If we disagree and I will maintain that we do, then we should welcome opportunities to present the doctrine of holiness. Is Holiness antithetical to predestinate Calvinism? I think that this may be the case and if so we should explain how and why a conflict exists. If we simply go on the attack, then we show arrogance, for if our theology was actually better, and I think it is, then we should explain why it is superior. This is something that we should never tire of, it is truly part of making disciples in the nations.
O, and don't let those Episcopalians fool you, they aren't Catholic and they know it!
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
Maybe the Kibbe designed products are the high end big dollar stuff? They were/are nice enough that a patent was taken out on them.Made me look at my peppermill here, Jim. Nope, not that name on it. Mine says: Olde Thompson.
OK, now back to your thread after a slight diversion.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
OBSERVATIONS
1. How did I know that just by virtue of having the word “Reformed” in the title, that this thread would eventually devolve into the A vs. C debate??? (If I were a Charismatic, I’d think I was given the gift of Prophesy…
2. I guess since I am a Confessionally Reformed Christian, that I really wouldn’t need to have this prophetic gift to know that my name would come up even without my participation.
3. My Dear Brother Marcus; while I believe you are free to post as your conscience dictates; it is certainly most true that you do without a doubt PUSH a Calvinist agenda. I don’t know why. To some it may be splitting hairs, but to me, there is a world of difference between, saying “you are wrong,” when the idea/doctrine in question is non-Calvinistic and saying, “I believe that to be wrong, here is what I believe.” The former method challenges the foundations of the Nazareneness of the thread/forum; giving the impression that you want all the Nazarenes to come around to a Calvinist way of thinking. The latter method merely states a personal opinion, which may or may not give someone pause and cause them to think through something they may or may not have thought through before. One method implies “you guys are all jacked up let me straighten you out.” The other says “here’s what I believe; take that for what it is worth.”
3. Ironically, having said that; that is laying out the two methods of communication and the inherent differences: I can honestly say that more often than not it really matters not which method you use. Since, it is the opinion here of many that both you and I “PUSH” or advocate for a Calvinist agenda. Basically what I am saying is that it seems to matter not which method is employed. Many here lump you and I together as those whose agenda is to come in and straighten out the poor, poor Arminans. When in reality those who have known me for the last almost 5 years here on NN, if they are honest and remove any planks from their eyes, do or should see a world of difference between the method with which I post and the method with which you post.
4. Debating the whole A vs. C thing is really quite useless as Steve Burton said earlier, (I’ll paraphrase) we often use the same language but mean different things and in the end it is nothing but a drive by shouting match. One thing I learned from my journey is that for the most part, Calvinist are very poor at explaining Arnininism and Arminians, for the most part are very poor at explain Calvinism. In the end I am of the belief that no Arminian can truly understand Calvinism, for if they did truly understand it (with both the head and the heart) then they would embrace it. For that is what happened to me. And I am equally sure that from the Arminian perspective, that the reverse would also seem true.
END OF OBSERVATIONS.
"Preach the gospel; if necessary use words" is like saying "feed the poor and; if necessary use food."
Post Thanks / Like - 8 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Jim, there are differents issues. I never heard how a view on the sacraments would be working against holiness. In fact, Wesley himself was quite a high church guy. But the very reason he rejected Calvinism was exactly the point you agreed to. And now you're telling us we need to explain this to a guy who presents himself as a Nazarene? And as we understand, might even be the son in law of a Nazarene pastor? Came from a Nazarene school even? Is that reasonable?
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Now, for what does intrigue me about this thread…
Jim Chabot, you have stated here and a few times before that there are many Nazarene folks around you who hold to PSA. Right?
So this is what intrigues me. How can they or do they really? (Yes, Wesley himself did and that baffles me and the only answer I can come up with is that he was inconsistent.)
So, do these folks you know really embrace the Penal part of the Substitutionary Atonement? (PSA) Or do they just use that phrase, while actually just holding to a belief in a form of Substituationary Atonement (SA)
Here is why: To me it makes absolutely no sense and is truly incompatible or inconsistent for anyone holding to an Arminain Soteriology to embrace the P.
Why?
Simply because the P is rooted in Unconditional Election, PSA doesn’t work (or at least I do not understand how it could work) without being rooted in a Calvinistic Election.
So Jim, how do your friends reconcile this? Or do they?
Side note:
As to Paul et al... In discussing Marcus’ push for PSA. I’ll let him address it in detail if he desires, but I think the point is as a Reformed individual PSA is rooted in and integral to the Gospel (Ben, has explained this numerous times and done a fine job, so I won’t repeat)
So, seeing PSA as the Architectonic for the Atonement, one can then also see elements of Victory and Ransom ect (Although as subordinate to PSA) While usually, embracing CV or Ransom as the Architectonic usually and IMO necessarily precludes those from embracing PSA. I think that is what he is trying to say. But in his advocating for PSA so strongly I can see how this point might be lost.
Blessings
George
"Preach the gospel; if necessary use words" is like saying "feed the poor and; if necessary use food."
Post Thanks / Like - 5 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Yes it is absolutely reasonable.
On the other hand, I also realize that you reside in a locale known to be the very epicenter of reformed thought. So I can understand how your perspective may differ.
But in reality, I don't see Calvinism as a threat to Nazarene doctrine so long as we preach and teach holiness. Square peg in a round hole so to speak and eventually one will realize that the round peg fits better. Or as you have suggested, they may also move on to where a square hole may be found. But since we believe that the round hole is better than the square one, then why not extoll the virtues of the round hole and hope that the square peg will be put down in favor of a round one? It's a whole lot more fun than cursing the square hole theory.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
That's easy, they don't reconcile nor do they acknowledge the problem. For most of them it's simple, Jesus became sin, God hates sin, therefore God hated Jesus, turned his head away and let him die, after all somebody had to die thats the rule. Until you explain that this is what they are saying, to which they will deny. Then one by one, I will lay out their assumptions to which they agree with each one. Then I put them together again and they will say no, that's not what they believe. And round we go again!
Yes I believe that they do embrace the "P." The reasoning best I can tell is that they cannot separate the sin from the sacrifice. The concept whereby the sacrifice is the innocent carrier of the sin is foreign to them. Their eyes will stare at each other or simply glass over.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison KeillorPost Thanks / Like - 5 Thanks, 0 Laughing
We don't connect.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)
George, great post. I don't agree with just one thing. You're effectively suggesting that Arminius didn't understand Calvinism. I would suggest he understood it even better than you do. Still reached a different conclusion.
So my point is that it is not about a failure to understand where the difference is. I think the difference is in the kind of God we think we need. It is more psychological than theological. From both sides.
Other than this, again, great post and good observations.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 6 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I suppose that what I am saying is this; Should someone promote Calvinism, then lets use this as an opportunity to promote Wesleyan Arminianism.
Love and help rather than anger and resentment.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
Certainly, I agree to a degree with what you are saying. Considering that Arminius studied with and under Beza I have no doubt that he had an intellectual understanding of the Reformed Faith far greater than what I currently posses. That is why I stated with both 'head and heart.' In his heart he came to differing conclusions. I can respect that even as I disagree.
As to the Nature of God and the psychological vs. the theological; here to I agree, but only in part. The nature of God and the Nature of man are to a degree two sides to the same coin. It is impossible to study either without studying the relation between the two. So, while you may disagree, I also think what is at play here is how one views man. To me A is much more anthropocentric (And as it is evolving, seems to get more so each day. Think Traditional vs. Post Traditional...) Where as C is to me much more theocentric. Or at least just as the two conceive of God radically different, this must IMO also lead to viewing man and his relationship to God also radically different.
Blessings
George
"Preach the gospel; if necessary use words" is like saying "feed the poor and; if necessary use food."
I don't think John Calvin was any more wrong than any other Theologian. They each get something wrong, they are just wrong on different points. I'm pretty sure John Wesley, H Orton Wiley, Wm Greathouse, Hans Deventer (just pickin' a little), or Dan Henderson (not a theologian), don't have all the right answers. I disagree with all of them on some points, yet I am not prepared to call any of them heretics (unless using its original meaning of: "one who disagrees").
There is a lot to agree with in Calvinism. How many Protestant denominations do we have merely because of the disagreement of a single point? How many Catholic sects are there just because of a disagreement on a single point? Both questions are Rhetorical. If anyone was able to answer that question, I wouldn't be able to disagree or agree with you because I don't know.
Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
George, I believe or i was taught that church membership is built around family and not doctrine. Husband may come first then his wife then a sister and brother and etc. The family bring in people with diffrent religion back ground and they feel comfort there because their family and friends are there. They don't real care what we believe in. I remember one southern Bapist preacher who pastoring a large southern Baptist church say Half the people in my church don't know what the southern Baptist believe. When I left the pastoring and before I went deaf we started to a another nazarene church and after being there for a while I told the pastor this is not a Nazarene church He yes it is I sid no just listen to the testomonies. Later he agree with me and he began to have classes teaching what we believe and before he finish 5 or 6 family left the church. Do you see where I'm coming from with this idea.
Thanks
Larry
Is it so hard to believe that a Nazarene could entertain an unexamined sympathy for Calvinism or its trappings? All they have to do is subsist on a regular diet of Christian books, radio and TV and they are Calvinist by default.
Maybe that doesn't make them a fire-breathing TULIP apologist, nor entitle them to an honorary degree from Dallas Theological Seminary, but they are most certainly not Arminian in any measurable respect.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us wthout end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
- C.S. LewisPost Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Rabbit trail alert!
I've been in and out of naznet in between putting together the music for tomorrow, and I noticed this;
What! Where does this come from? Could Charles have written this? I did a little digging and found that this verse is included in "Hymns and Sacred Poems" (1739) it does appear to be from Wesley's pen as it appears here on page 78. http://archive.org/details/hymnsandsacredpo00wesliala It appears that PSA is not an issue here.
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison Keillor
I would hope no one is bashing Marcus. The issue here is that "sacramental" theology is at home in the CotN's big tent. Calvinism is not. Those pushing sacramental theologies may be fighting an uphill battle, but they're at least in the right tent. Someone pushing Calvinism is knocking the tent over.Exactly!
Do we bash people who practice and promulgate sacramental theology? No, while we may disagree, we still discuss our differences.
Do we bash those who may hold to a Calvinist persuasion? Well I would hope not for it makes no sense. If we disagree and I will maintain that we do, then we should welcome opportunities to present the doctrine of holiness. Is Holiness antithetical to predestinate Calvinism? I think that this may be the case and if so we should explain how and why a conflict exists. If we simply go on the attack, then we show arrogance, for if our theology was actually better, and I think it is, then we should explain why it is superior. This is something that we should never tire of, it is truly part of making disciples in the nations.
The other issue is that I make it fully clear that I am not in the CotN and that I don't htink my theology necessarily should work. I'm not ever bothered when folks say "no, we Nazbos don't believe that."
Marcus pushes his agenda (even George can see it) as though he's actually a Nazarene in any meaningful way. I do think there is a very distinct difference. In the end, if Marcus approached it differently, I doubt he'd have the problem.
Also, if Marcus would discuss something on NazNet other than: PSA, Calvinism, Inerrancy, and Pacifism, he might have more luck. However, he discusses nothing but these issues, always in an aggressive and even attacking nature.
I've admitted multiple times I am not the best participant, and I've apologized for that. But I do participate in other general conversations and such, I am friends with people on Facebook, and I at least try (succeed, I don't know) to be something other than the argumentative guy on the theology forum. Marcus does not.
That matters. I think Marcus could do a lot to get different responses. It's on him at this point.
I know that this is one of those statements that is light-hearted, but yet kinda serious at the same time.O, and don't let those Episcopalians fool you, they aren't Catholic and they know it!
Whether they're Catholic or not, we certainly are functionally so for the people. At least, we are at my Cathedral.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
That's easy, they don't reconcile nor do they acknowledge the problem. For most of them it's simple, Jesus became sin, God hates sin, therefore God hated Jesus, turned his head away and let him die, after all somebody had to die thats the rule. Until you explain that this is what they are saying, to which they will deny. Then one by one, I will lay out their assumptions to which they agree with each one. Then I put them together again and they will say no, that's not what they believe. And round we go again!
Yes I believe that they do embrace the "P." The reasoning best I can tell is that they cannot separate the sin from the sacrifice. The concept whereby the sacrifice is the innocent carrier of the sin is foreign to them. Their eyes will stare at each other or simply glass over.
So Jim based upon your brief reply. I have to say while they may think they embrace the Penal Nature of the Atonement; and you may believe that they embrace the P, but truly unless they are Calvinistic in their Soteriological understanding (think Reformed Baptist married to a Nazarene
This is markedly different than PSA. The easiest example would be to quote Billy Sunday (whom I am sure was not the first to say this) but, “You cain’t pay a sin debt twice!”
That is that the difference between SA and PSA it is in the actually design of the Atonement. The P, while standing for Penal which relates to the punishment aspect really has nothing to do with the specifics of propitiation, expiation or even God’s wrath. Those items are common to most beliefs which can be called SA.
Anyone properly embracing a Wesleyan Arminian (WA) Soteriology would have to admit that Christ died for the ‘whole world’ or (I am seriously generalizing here, hopefully to make things easier to understand.) at least sufficient, if not efficient for anyone who would but just believe. But, that part of a person’s WA understanding of salvation is not at all compatible with the P. Like I said or like Billy Sunday said “You cain’t pay a sin debt twice!”
What does that mean and how that works out are as follows: (Please here again I am generalizing or simplifying heavily in hopes of keeping it easy to grasp.)
Again, if these folks believe or as WAs they should believe that anybody can be saved and that that number of potentially saved individuals is not fixed. That is, that this number can continue to increase becoming a larger percentage of the whole. Many will not like this way of explaining it but, again for easy grasping; in WA Soteriology Christ’s death secured the possibility for anyone (those who will just believe or repent and believe) to be saved. And since he died to procure this he died in their place as their substitute. But that is not PSA.
PSA being rooted in Unconditional Election means that Christ suffered, that is died and atoned for THE ACTUAL, the very sin, of a specific number given by the Father to the Son. The wrath he endured was exactly what was owed by the specific number of the elect and them only. So it makes a big difference. For the true adherent of PSA would reject the theory or understanding your friends present as blasphemous.
Why?
Simply put, if Christ’s death was for all and all men do not gain salvation and some are yet sent to hell then that means Christ died for them and took the full penalty (here is really where the Penal aspect comes into play) and yet they somehow fail to gain heaven….?? To the true adherent of PSA this is ridiculous! Blasphemous, insane, untrue, ect… “You cain’t pay a sin debt twice!” Either Christ paid it for them or they pay it themselves by being finally impenitent and suffering the pangs of hell.
No, for PSA to work and truly be Penal in nature Christ’s death must have and does only secure the salvation of those it was designed and intended to pay the penalty for, a specific number of souls. Christ therefore cannot, did not, die for all or else the atonement is a farce and diabolical, you see if Christ paid the penalty then how can anyone he paid it for be forced to pay for it themselves later in hell?
So if your friends believe that anyone can be saved, that Christ died for all, then they do not really believe in PSA no matter what they say.
Now, if they believe that the Father chose before the foundation of the world a specific number of souls to save giving them to the Son, whose life death, resurrection, ascension and Penal Substitutionary Atonement secured not just the possibility that they may be saved, but actually paid the exact an specific price for the sins of that number of the elect and them only…
Well then yes, the do believe in PSA, but they aren’t Wesleyan Arminans, no matter what they say.
After all that I’ll leave you with the simplicity of John Owen
So as you can see from this blurb from Owen the only way to logically and consistently combine PSA and a WA-Soteriology is to choose Point one #1 and say "All the sins of all men" and become a Universalist.FOR WHO DID CHRIST DIE?
John Owen
________________________________________
The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:
1. All the sins of all men.
2. All the sins of some men, or
3. Some of the sins of all men.
In which case it may be said:
1. That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
2. That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
3. But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?
You answer, "Because of unbelief."
I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"
PSA is a head for head deal.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/playpopup...?SID=461002572
Blessings
George
Last edited by George Wallace; April 22nd, 2012 at 03:12 AM.
"Preach the gospel; if necessary use words" is like saying "feed the poor and; if necessary use food."
Post Thanks / Like - 6 Thanks, 0 Laughing
No, it is not hard at all. Many times when people here refer to a person as a Bapterene that is the idea they are trying to convey. But, if that be the case then this person is ignorant, and I mean that in the pure or classical sense of “to not know.” I am not using it pejoratively. So, if that type of person says they believe in PSA, well either they do and are actually “ignorant” of what the Nazarene or WA teaching is. OR They say they believe in PSA and they really don’t because they are really “ignorant” of what embracing PSA consists of.
Well I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree here because from my experience Christian bookstores are a joke! They really overly stocked up on self help material with a Christian veneer, plus a plethora of Romance Novels and diet books also with a Christian veneer. Then the rest of the store is stacked up on stories dealing with X many minutes in either heaven or hell and the Left Behind Series, oh, and any Coach who claims to be Christian, well of course they carry his/her book. Go to any Christian book store and ask for something by Jonathan Edwards, or John Owen, or J Gresham Machen or B.B. Warfield and see how successful you are.
As for radio, well I can concede some ground to you here. When I was in MD I got a steady diet of Alistair Begg, RC, Ravi and Johnny Mac…. Grace to You
TV well I never watch but no one I know that is Reformed is on TV. (Exception: I heard Joni Erickson Tada has/had a show on TBN but I’ve never seen it) TV as far as I know will turn you into a Word of Faith, Prosperity Gospel-Charismatic; not a Reformed individual.
What does DTS have to do with being Reformed or Calvinistic? DTS was specifically and purposely formed to advance Pre- millennial Dispensationalism NOT the Reformed Faith.
I guess I’d have to know the specifics of those of whom you are speaking about. I trust you know that they aren’t Arminians. But, I will say this, I have known lifelong or long time Arminians who have never read his Disputations or his Declaration of Sentiments and once they start reading them, they then claim that Arminius wasn’t an Arminian!
(Or rather that they are not at all an Arminian is the sense that he was)
Blessings
George
"Preach the gospel; if necessary use words" is like saying "feed the poor and; if necessary use food."
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Jim, you really need to separate PSA and Calvinism. The Wesley's supported PSA. They did not support Calvinism. As George pointed our rightly, PSA only works well in a Calvinistic framework. Well, John and Charles didn't get everything right. But then again, we don't believe in them, we believe in God. Appreciating John and Charles for all the good they have done.Rabbit trail alert!
I've been in and out of naznet in between putting together the music for tomorrow, and I noticed this;
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
George, I am enjoying your posts here a lot! Good stuff. If you are interested I would like to continue the relation between psychology and theology and the way we view people, but it is a side track so I'm asking first.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I suppose it is lunacy to promote Calvinism in the CotN. I suppose I should not need to defend the identity of the church among its members. I suppose trying to turn Nazarenes into Baptists has nothing to do with love, holiness or decency. I suppose even Jesus got angry against the ones who tried to lead the ones He died for astray.I suppose that what I am saying is this; Should someone promote Calvinism, then lets use this as an opportunity to promote Wesleyan Arminianism.
Love and help rather than anger and resentment.
Jim, it is not love to tolerate sin. And to promote division, is sin.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)
Well, it might in fact be quite interesting; I am game with a number of conditions.
1. That we agree not to argue. In saying that I am fine with argument in the classic sense as in vigorous debate or arguing our individual points. But I am not fine with argument in the personal sense; this will include disparaging each others ideas, not just our persons. Example: Stating with the qualifier "to me that seems blasphamous or ugly" is fine. Stating that X "is" blasphemous or or ugly is not fine.
2. Given the previous context it seems safe to presume that we might/will touch upon the nature of God and the nature of man. If that is the case then you must agree to refrain from statements using "god" with the intentional lower case g; refrain from referring to my concepts as no different than Islamic determinism; and refrain from saying things like my concept of God is evil and makes you want to vomit and the like.
3. It should be understood that really I have almost zero use for Psychology proper. I find that it does not espouse nor is it founded upon a Christian worldview. I find the term Christian Psychology to be either an oxymoron or nonsensical. Having said that I do have a small appreciation for psychology (lower case). Which I define as observable human behavior and the Statistical method applied to it. I can add to that that it might be interesting to speculate or discuss the "whys" of why people need or desire things; that is it is fine to discuss the 'needs' or 'fulfillment' people find in things.
If you can agree to these provisos then sure I am up for a robust discussion. If you cannot agree or work within these described above then I would prefer not to play in those Reindeer Games. Also, it might be wise to develop this in a separate thread. I'll let you decide that.
Blessings
George
"Preach the gospel; if necessary use words" is like saying "feed the poor and; if necessary use food."
Again, good post. Jim probably won't believe it, but sometimes even my optimism gets the best of me.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
These are separate issues, though, goal and method. Being obviously the one with the hugest plank in his eyes (if the shoe fits, put it on), let me respond.
Yes, I do see a huge difference between Marcus and you. You, George, are at least totally honest and transparent in who you are. Nobody here can have any doubt about it.
Now I have to say that people are dynamic creatures. Hence no opinion regarding a person can be final till Jesus makes His judgement on the last day. If you continue the way you post these last days, contributing as a resource person when it comes to Calvinism, I'll gladly have you on board and you may quote me on that.
Marcus, on the other hand, presents himself as a "regular attending, devoted, faithful, involved, tithe paying, official member in the Church of the Nazarene". While it is obvious for anyone that he is a Calvinist and actively pushing that agenda in a fully Arminian church. In my view, considering he is well informed and not mentally ill, that is a sin. Our response should be clear:
Romans 16:17 - I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
1. I went into a local christian bookstore yesterday and asked if they carried the CEB (the current preferred mainline translation). The guy got really snooty and said that no, they did not carry that, but they did have the ESV (the current go-to Reformed translation).
2. Most Christian bookstores around here tend to maximize on Dobson, Maxwell, MacArthur, and Piper. The theology being propagated may not be what would clinically be regarded as "Calvinist", but the sources are what we find to be true of modern neo-calvinism, or at least reformed thought.
3. The issue with Marcus isn't what he chooses to argue for, but that he does so arguing as if everybody else was a moron who needed to wake up. There is no grace in his arguments...just logic, and an expectation that eventually, people will have to come around to his way of thinking.
Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Fixed.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Though it was not addressed to me, I will accept those conditions for anything you want to talk about.
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I had to look up PSA just to figure out what you guys were talking about. From my perspective, I don't think it would make "diddly-squat" whether one believes in Penial, Pecuniary, or Preventative (this one is listed only because it starts with "P").
Consider, "For the wages of sin is death," Now for those who want to throw up some squiggly lines and tell me what it means, save it, because it doesn't matter. Whether it says "wages" meaning "what we are owed" or it means "penalty" meaning "what we have earned, it doesn't matter. Sin=death any way you want to slice it.
Now consider: "but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." This is the message. We didn't earn it, we aren't owed it .... its a gift. A precious gift. We are bought with a price ... just because it is free to us does not mean that this gift was free.
Which is fine. But PSA generally indicates that the issue is not what we are owed, or being rescued from, but rather what God is owed, and what is necessary so that his anger is not exercised upon us. PSA's objective is satisfying God's wrath, not shalom.
Post Thanks / Like - 5 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Fixed.
*Wink* *Wink*
Sorry I just couldn't help myself
Blessings
George
"Preach the gospel; if necessary use words" is like saying "feed the poor and; if necessary use food."
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 1 Laughing
And that is why I am a fundamentalist and not a theologian.
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 1 Laughing
Anybody who discusses God is, at heart, a theologian.
You're just not (to reference another thread) a scholar.
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Amen George! I'm not a PSA guy, but you are right the aim most certainly is to bring peace and reconciliation.Fixed.
*Wink* *Wink*
Sorry I just couldn't help myself
Blessings
George
-Jim
To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through.
Garrison KeillorPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
You might be confusing scholarship with credentials. In both case you don't have enough information to to make a definitive statement, you can form an opinion on my scholarship. I have only refered to things that I have studied, I have said nothing about credentials.
Nope.
You have said you have not studied enough on the subject to be a theologian. But anybody who engages to talk about the relationship between God and man is, for better or worse, a theologian.
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Well, if all problems could be solved so easily....... Just tell us! Another misunderstanding out of the world, that must be good, right?
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
