I found an interesting post by a former/vacationing #prosapologian channel regular, on the subject of presuppositional apologetics. When I pointed it out to Chris, from Choosing Hats, he wrote a response.

Also at Choosing Hats, installment 2 of their study of Always Ready – I really recommend it.

If I haven’t mentioned it before, I’m trying to complete the outline/syllabus of a church history class for my church. This is preparatory for a later class on apologetics. In my study, I’ve been buying a lot of rather interesting books, and listening to a lot of lectures. I enjoy it, though. I’ll try to share as much as I can, as I progress. One thing I should share: it’s possible to get Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, in an e-sword plugin – for FREE. The program’s free, the plugin is free – and it’s searchable. You can get the Ante-nicene fathers, and lots of other stuff, too, not to mention the completely searchable versions of QUITE a few bible translations. I’m stuck in footnotes and references right now, so I’m a bit out of my mind in boredom 😀 But, the history of the church is integral to the study and practice of apologetics. So, have to do that first!

Yeah, I know. It’s not exactly… daily. Still, I’ll just cruise through a few links that caught my eye.

New group blog about apologetics: Choosing Hats. They’re going through a study of Greg Bahnsen’s “Always Ready”, which I would highly recommend, having just finished it myself.

Also interesting:

Just in case anyone was wondering, the church voted last night to adopt our new constitution by a 3-to-1 margin!

Michael Memorial Baptist Church- 8-3-2008, sermon preached by Dr. Bill Safley

First, let me thank you for caring enough about your church to be here and help with this decision. And, let me sincerely thank those of you who were kind enough to let me know of your concerns ahead of time. That really helps, and I hope that will make this time more productive. Let me also remind of our plan. Tonight, I am going to try to address as many of these issues as I can. And, I want this time to be, above all else, biblical. I think we all can start by agreeing that what counts most is not what I think or you think, but what God thinks. So, I’ll try to stick close to Scripture. Then, you will have to judge whether or not what I say is, in fact, truly in line with the instructions in the Bible about organizing and administering the local church. And, let me get a couple of things out of the way up front. You may not agree with your leadership. You may speak or vote against this – and we will have a secret ballot so everyone will not be pressured in any way – you can oppose this, and we will still love you. And, I’m aware that there are some strong feelings, so I would plead with you to keep your mind open to what we say. Also, don’t bother taking notes, or writing down Scripture references; the text from which I am speaking will be available to you to read and pray over. As we start, let’s ask for the wisdom of God to be with us over the next few weeks.

We are considering a new church Constitution. This all started in a Deacon’s meeting in June of ’06. One of our deacons was frustrated that he was not having more time for ministry. That’s where this man’s heart is, and he didn’t want to be distracted with Administrative issues. He understood the biblical call of a deacon is to be a servant. It turned out several deacons felt the same way. As this church currently set up, the Administrative Board is a sub-committee of the deacon body, and reports to them. So, I was asked by the Deacons to help formulate a new Constitution that would allow us to better separate the administrative and ministry functions of leadership. I did not start this ball rolling, though I certainly do agree with it as scriptural. It began in that Deacon’s meeting. At that time, we thought that a simple revision / a touch-up of what we have was not going to be adequate, so I moved in the direction of a new document. I got together, and then presented to the deacon body a framework to revise. Now, two years and many revisions later, these documents come to you for your consideration with the recommendation of the Deacons and the By-Laws Committee. How was this document formed? To quote our dear friend, Chuck Brooks, you don’t want to go out and reinvent the wheel. So, my starting point was to gather constitutions now in use from a variety of churches, mostly Baptist, and start there. We didn’t write most of this document. The basic framework is from the Constitution of the Capital Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D. C., with some additions from other churches as appropriate, and adjustments for our particular situation. This is a legal document, which requires some precision and legal language, but there has never been any intent to confuse or hide anything. You can go to the Capital Hill Church web site and download that document, and get a very good idea of where much of this started. Still, we have made every effort to consider the special needs and situations of our congregation here. I have received the concerns that this proposed Constitution turns our church into a (“”) secular or social organization. I have been told that this document is “unfriendly.” We are not a secular organization, as this Constitution clearly reflects. Yet, we still must function in a secular world. A Constitution is needed to do that. And, while we don’t want to ever be unfriendly in our approach to anyone, we also must be clear, saying in this document what we believe and are going to do. And, remember our most important concern should be whether or not this document accurately reflects what the Bible teaches. And, I don’t think you will ever find a secular organization with that emphasis.

One question asked why we should have a Constitution at all. It is true that this is a legal requirement to do business, specifically to borrow money. But, in my opinion, there is a much more important reason. From the very start of the church, there have been and still are false believers who want to twist the meaning of Scripture. Peter says that (2Pet. 3:16). The first example of this was the Judaizers who hounded Paul, and the churches he founded. These were self-appointed teachers who said that Christians had to be circumcised and keep all the Law of Moses. They caused such a ruckus that the church met in the first church counsel in Acts 15 to settle the issue. The leaders of the church, then, put out a statement to protect the truth. That has been the pattern of the church ever since. Counsels met from time to time to reject heresy, correct error, and protect the Scripture. And, Baptists have always seen the need for this protective document in the local church. That is the reason the Convention publishes the Baptist Faith and Message. That document clarifies what we, as Southern Baptists, believe the Bible means by what it says. The earliest Baptist confession I can find is the first London Confession of Faith from 1644. The first Baptist statement in America was the Philadelphia Confession of 1742. I wish it was as simple as just saying, “We believe the Bible and love Jesus,” but it is not. Mormons agree with that. A Jehovah’s Witness can say that. So, a Constitution defining what we believe is essential, and I think that document should also say how we will run our church. That’s necessary from a legal standpoint, from a theological standpoint, and I think it is required in order to be honest with new members. There are so many interpretations of some parts of Scripture; we ought to be clear with potential members where we stand simply on the basis of honesty and integrity. And, there is the issue of protecting ourselves in a society that will sue over anything and everything. This document helps protect us in that area. And, I’ve heard that we shouldn’t worry about things like that and just trust God. But, the Bible also says we are not to put the Lord to a foolish test (Matt. 4:7). It’s like Bro. Frank Schmidt said, “The Lord is not going to do for us, what he has told us to do for ourselves.” If I get on my motorcycle without a helmet and wind up a brain-dead, do I bear responsibility for that? Sure. Jesus says (Matt. 10:16), “Be wise as serpents.” Stay out of obvious trouble. Take reasonable precautions. That is Scriptural. Proverbs agrees This is Prov. 22:3, “A prudent man foresees evil and hides himself, But the simple pass on and are punished.” That said, I think we see the need for a Constitution. Also, I would ask you to understand there is a certain priority in these four documents. The statement of faith and church covenant should be rock solid and nonnegotiable. We should be utterly united there. The Constitution certainly is somewhat flexible, and open to amendment, but amendments should be carefully considered, and have to be properly done. The membership application, however, is something that can be modified at any time.

As far as I can tell, I think the main issues are those of Membership requirements, Church Discipline, and Elder Rule. So, we will try to look at these in that order, which is the order they occur in the Constitution. To consider Church Membership, I want to start by reading to you a resolution adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention at the national meeting a couple of months ago.

The resolution is entitled “On Regenerate Church Membership and Church Member Restoration.” The Southern Convention national meeting on June 11 of this year passed this. So, that’s 8 weeks ago.

“WHEREAS, The ideal of a regenerate church membership has long been and remains a cherished Baptist principle, with Article VI of the Baptist Faith and Message describing the church as a “local congregation of baptized believers”; and

WHEREAS, A New Testament church is composed only of those who have been born again by the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the Word, becoming disciples of Jesus Christ, the local church’s only Lord, by grace through faith (John 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9), which church practices believers’ only baptism by immersion (Matthew 28:16-20), and the Lord’s supper (Matthew 26:26-30); and

WHEREAS, Local associations, state conventions, and the Southern Baptist Convention compile statistics reported by the churches to make decisions for the future; and

WHEREAS, the 2007 Southern Baptist Convention annual Church Profiles indicate that there are 16,266,920 members in Southern Baptist churches; and

WHEREAS, Those same profiles indicate that only 6,148,868 of those members attend a primary worship service of their church in a typical week; and

WHEREAS, The Scriptures admonish us to exercise church discipline as we seek to restore any professed brother or sister in Christ who has strayed from the truth and is in sin (Matthew 18:15-35; Galatians 6:1); and now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana, June 10-11, 2008, urge churches to maintain a regenerate membership by acknowledging the necessity of spiritual regeneration and Christ’s lordship for all members; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we humbly urge our churches to maintain accurate membership rolls for the purpose of fostering ministry and accountability among all members of the congregation; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we urge the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention to repent of the failure among us to live up to our professed commitment to regenerate church membership and any failure to obey Jesus Christ in the practice of lovingly correcting wayward church members (Matthew 18:15-18); and be it further

RESOLVED, That we humbly encourage denominational servants to support and encourage churches that seek to recover and implement our Savior’s teachings on church discipline, even if such efforts result in the reduction in the number of members that are reported in those churches, and be it finally

RESOLVED, That we humbly urge the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention and their pastors to implement a plan to minister to, counsel, and restore wayward church members based upon the commands and principles given in Scripture (Matthew 18:15-35; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15; Galatians 6:1; James 5:19-20).

That’s sort of like our proposed Constitution, in that there is a lot of fancy language, but that is a call to honesty. The truth the convention sees is that if someone never comes to church, we cannot honestly count him as a member. If someone gives no evidence of being saved / regenerated, we ought not tell them they are by admitting them as members of the church. If someone sins like the lost world, and will not repent, we should take a stand, for their sake. That’s what this resolution is about. These messengers realize the church is weak and worldly. And, they realize that the answer to that can only be found in the Scripture. So, I want to focus, first on the definition of a church. That is where this resolution starts, with a call to work for “regenerate church membership.” What does that mean? Well, to be regenerate is to be saved. So, this is saying a true New Testament church will not knowingly admit people who are lost. This is in keeping with the Bible, of course. The letters to the churches in the New Testament are addressed to those who are “saints” and “love Jesus.” In April, I gave a sermon on the importance of church membership, which I won’t repeat. But, I would hope we could agree that formal church membership is the example of the New Testament, and is important. Also, I would hope we would agree to restrict church membership to Christians. To me, that is self-evident. You don’t have to think a lot about that one. But, this brings us to the second page of the proposed Constitution and the requirements for joining our church. One objection is that these are too strict because we can’t see someone’s heart. And, we can’t. But the Bible says that if someone doesn’t understand the gospel / if they have not trusted in the death of Christ alone for salvation, received by faith alone accompanied by repentance, the Bible says they aren’t saved (1Cor. 16:22). Paul warns us in Galatians (1:6f) against a “different gospel” that doesn’t save, but brings a curse. “With the heart (Rom. 10:10) one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” But, if the confession is not the true Gospel / if the Jesus these people believe in isn’t the Jesus of the Bible, they aren’t saved and shouldn’t be members of a church. If someone is in open rebellion against God, and will not repent and turn, then there is a problem with the heart as they have not believed unto righteousness. If someone wants to join this church, and I learn they run a strip joint in Biloxi, I would like to ask them to repent and close it before they are admitted to membership.

Basically, there are five membership steps, and let me tell you how we anticipate this working. An individual would indicate a desire to join our church, and we would ask them to fill out an application form and agree to abide by what this church believes. A mature believer will have to talk to them and make sure that they can give a credible witness to being saved. That could be done when they first express an interest in membership, or on a home visit later. And, I want you to understand this is being done now. When someone tells me that they (“”) “are saved,” or even have a membership in a Southern Baptist Church, that doesn’t mean much by itself. I have had people come down seeking membership who did not understand the Gospel. I have asked them how people are saved / what the gospel is / how people go to heaven, and the answer is along the lines of “Well, you just try to keep the golden rule, and live by the 10 Commandments, and hope you’re good enough when you die.” I’m sorry, you don’t have to be able to see the heart to understand that person is not saved. They don’t need to transfer a membership, they need to repent, believe in Jesus as the only way of salvation through faith alone. Then, they should join the church through baptism. Anything less is to refuse to love them enough to tell them the truth. The most recent experience I had like that resulted in the individual stopping to examine his heart. He came to the realization he was lost, even though he was a church member. He professed Christ. I, then, had the privilege of baptizing him. This membership interview is not a theological exam, or an interrogation. It is simply a spiritual talk to see if the person understands the gospel, and can give some evidence of true faith and repentance. And, I believe this is commanded in the Scripture.

For that, I would refer you to the little book we recently studied, 2 John. Starting at V9, John says, “Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. [If someone does not hold to the correct doctrine about Christ, he “does not have God,” i.e. he is not saved.] He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. [That implies that you can tells something about their salvation by their doctrine.] If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; (V11) for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.” That is a serious verse that we ought to take seriously. John is saying there are false Christians out there, and we should not accept them just because they claim some relationship with Jesus. Remember, James (2:19) says that demons believe. They have a relationship with Jesus; it’s just not a good one. We are to evaluate everyone before we affirm them as believers or assist them in any ministry. A failure to do that leaves us accountable to God for the damage these lost people do in Christ’s church. If we aren’t supposed to let them into our house, I don’t see how you can let them into your church. And, this is established, time-honored Baptist practice. John L. Dagg was one of the 6 or 8 men regarded as the Founders of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845. He wrote the first systematic theology book by a Baptist in America. That book was a standard text in our seminaries for many years. In fact, it is still required reading in some. He also wrote a book on church order and organization. He said this, (“”) “In order that the church may judge whether a candidate is duly qualified for [church] membership, they should hear his profession of faith. … The churches are not infallible judges, being unable to search the heart; but they owe it to the cause of Christ, and to the candidate himself, to exercise the best judgment of which they are capable. To receive anyone on a mere profession of words, without any effort to ascertain whether he understands and feels what he professes, is unfaithfulness to his interests, and the interests of religion.” In other words, to receive someone as a member without a look at their life and doctrine is bad for them and bad for the church. The apostle John commands us not to affirm or aid anyone who does not have “this doctrine.” OK, what is this doctrine? Well, remember the point is to have regenerate church membership, i.e. members who are actually saved. So, the doctrine at issue is what you must know to be saved, not your view of end times or the seven days of creation. You must believe in the God of the Bible: Father, Son, and Spirit. You must believe that Jesus is God. You must believe that you are a lost, condemned sinner who needs a Savior. You believe that Jesus is the Savior who died bearing your sins. You must believe that forgiveness, salvation, and eternal life is offered to you (Eph. 2:8-9) by grace through faith, and not by works or human effort. You must understand that, in receiving salvation, you surrender yourself to Jesus as both Savior and Lord with a commitment to obey as a disciple. And, you must believe the Bible: including such things as Jesus was born of a virgin, and rose bodily from the grave, ascended to heaven, and is one day coming back to judge the living and the dead. And, this examination is necessary because there are not only Baptist church members who don’t believe those things; there are Southern Baptist churches who don’t teach them. By God’s grace, there aren’t a large number of liberal and apostate Southern Baptist churches, but there are some. So, one who is a mature believer – an elder, a deacon, a faithful Sunday School teacher – should have a spiritual conversation with the person wanting to join this church. They should, then, vouch for them to the elder board. The candidate doesn’t have to appear before the board, but the board has to know that someone trustworthy has talked to them, and believes they are saved. And, Tony and I should not be the only ones making that decision, for the protection of the church. So, the elder board helps both positively and negatively. If there is someone I am a little concerned about, I can ask another elder to go talk to them. Or, if someone on the elder board knows that the candidate does own a strip club in Biloxi, we can deal with that before we admit them as a member. Remember, our witness as a church, as well as individuals, is at stake here. The candidate for membership will be asked to fill out the application form, appear before the church for affirmation, be recommended to the Elders after a brief spiritual interview. Also, we would ask them to complete a brief new member’s class. The order of all that is not restricted, in an effort to retain some flexibility. In this, the membership application can be easily modified by the Elders, and the one thing I might consider adding would be to advise people that an elder or deacon would be happy to help them fill it out.

Admission to membership is, of course, closely tied to what is called “Church Discipline.” That’s not the best term for it, because the purpose is restoration. This is the command of Paul in Galatians (Gal. 6:1), “Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.” And, this goes on all the time, without people even knowing it. Someone cares enough about a Christian brother to go and tell them what they are doing isn’t what a Christian should do. Then, that Christian brother repents, and the relationship is restored. This is what we are supposed to do for each other. This happens all the time, and no one else knows about it, which is how it ought to be. At issue is what do you do with someone who persistently, over time, repeatedly refuses to repent. Please turn with me to Matt. 18.

To get us from membership to church discipline, I want to address for just a moment the idea that we are never supposed to make any judgments of another. Understand, that is a secular, worldly idea, not a biblical one. If you go back 100 years, good judgment and discernment were virtues. Those were respected and sought. So, the idea that any judgment is bad is wrong. Certainly, there is bad, inappropriate judgment, but there is also proper judging. We are not the final judge and do not determine anyone’s eternal salvation. So, whether it is in admission to membership or in discipline, we don’t really tell someone they are lost. We can’t know that. But, we can know whether or not they are acting like it. So, in love we are to go to them and say how worried we are for them, because we don’t see evidence of salvation in their life. That doesn’t always mean they are lost, but often / even usually, they are. But, that is why we are called to remove them from membership, and that does not indicate we know for certain whether or not they are saved. When Jesus says (Matt. 7:1), ““Judge not, that you be not judged,” He is talking about self-righteous, ungodly judgment. That is obvious if you keep reading in that passage for He then says (Matt. 7:5-7) to first get the speck out of your own eye. Then, you will be able to see clearly to help your brother get the plank out of his eye. It is not right, nor biblical, nor loving, nor Christian to leave the brother with the plank in his eye. Love demands we help him with it – love for him, and love for Christ. So, if we never make a judgment as to whether or not a plank is there / if we just pretend we don’t see it, how is that showing Christian love? The point is that we are to, first, deal with the sin in our own life, and then we will be able to go with sincerity and humility to help our brother. Then, in the next verse the Lord tells us to not give the holy to dogs, or pearls to swine. To do that requires we judge who are dogs and pigs. We want to be generous and forgiving and gracious and merciful in our judgment, but we cannot escape the command to judge. In John 7 (:24), in fact, Jesus commands us to “judge with righteous judgment.” Jesus was our example, and He made judgments about people. He was gracious and good to the repentant sinner (John 8:11), and he drove the unrepentant merchants out of the temple (John 2:15). And, both are equally manifestations of His perfect love which puts God’s honor, purposes, and causes first. But you might object, “He could see the heart.” OK, Paul says to the Corinthian church (1Cor. 5:12-13), “What have I to do with judging those also who are outside? [The obvious answer is ‘Nothing.’ God judges them. Then, Paul goes on to say,] “Do you not judge those who are inside?” [And what is the implied answer? Yes! Of course!] Therefore ‘put away from yourselves the evil person.’ ”

The most important text to deal with is Matt. 18 (:15-20), so I want us to quickly walk through this. V15 > “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.” That’s what is supposed to happen. We are to care about one another enough to help each other stay out of sin. As a candidate joins this church, we would make it clear that we are serious about this. We understand that the seductiveness of sin can trap any one of us. And, we understand that sin can and will mess up our own judgment. So, while we are in our right mind / before sin makes us crazy, we ask each other to do this for us. Christians do this for one another. It is, after all, church discipline, not pastor discipline. What sins should be dealt with in this way? Well, most simple personal offenses should usually just be forgiven and never mentioned in the first place, as (1Pet. 4:8) “love covers a multitude of sins.” But, when the sin is public, or serious, or damaging to the individual, the church, or the witness of Christ, we should go to them. We should, in love, and with all the gracious humility we can muster, plead with them for repentance. Often, that is all that is needed. So, what sins need to come under church discipline? Those that are public, serious, those you cannot forgive, and this is most important, sins that are unrepentant. A person does not come under church discipline / you are not removed from the church role for adultery, fornication, lying, cheating, stealing, homosexuality, axe murder, genocide, or nuclear war. You come under church discipline for a willful, persistent refusal to repent. And, that could involve the sin of gossip. If, month after month, you continue in gossip, and will not stop doing damage and causing division in the Bride of Christ, we have not choice but to act. And, we have to act with sufficient force and firmness to stop the damage. At any stage, repentance and turning from sin leads to restoration, and the process is over. So, V16 > “If he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ ” If the person will not listen, you go with witnesses. That is to protect you and the other person. These witness are to verify that sin is indeed occurring, and that the person is unrepentant. If either is not true, it’s over. And, sometimes, the witnesses might decide the whole deal is trivial; so, just forget about it. If so, you do. And, if the person listens to the group – again, repentance brings restoration. V17 > “And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church.” I think the best plan for this is what we are recommending, i.e. that the church leaders get involved here and try to call the person to repentance. After they work with the sinning one, he will not hear, then the church leadership is to inform the church as a whole that we all need to seek this person out and plead with them to turn from whatever is the ongoing sin. You see, there is a step-wise ratcheting up of the pressure. And, if you have ever been involved in this, you know this takes months, occasionally years. Finally, back to V17 > “If he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.” The person is hardened and simply will not listen to anyone, we are to treat him like a “heathen and tax collector.” What does that mean? What do you do with pagans and tax collectors? You try to get them in church and hear the word so that the Lord will soften their hearts. But, you also recognize they are, as best as we can judge, outside the covenant community of faith. You don’t let them teach, or serve, or speak or vote in business meetings. When you see them, you are kind and cordial, but you don’t enter into intimate fellowship with them. Instead, when you see them, you plead with them to turn from sin. And, you do not let them remain church members. Why not? What is the harm in leaving people like this on the role? The answer is simple. Church membership is a statement by this congregation that we believe that person is redeemed. Remember, the church is a body of people who are saved. But, Christians are characterized by a lifestyle of repentance (1John 1:9). So, when someone will not repent, there is real doubt as to their eternal fate. And, it is sin for us not to warn them that they are danger. Usually, considerable time should elapse at each stage before moving on to the next one. And, I think you can go back and forth between some stages for a while. We want repentance, so we must give God time to produce that. But, there also are instances when discipline must move quickly, for the protection of the innocent, or the church (Titus 3:10). And, of course, there are special circumstances, such as a person under discipline being disruptive. Then, we would have to ask them not to come back. Another special situation would be the wife of a man under discipline. She still has to strive to be a godly wife. This is hard, and gut-wrenching, which is why Jesus goes on to say (V18-20)), “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.” That’s not primarily talking about a prayer meeting, rather the subject is dealing with sin in the church. Jesus knows that this is very difficult, so He gives us this assurance of being with us in this action. If you do it right, the discipline decision you make is verified by heaven. Now, turn back a few pages to Matt. 13. This Constitution strives to follow that pattern, ultimately, if required, leading to the termination of membership by the body that voted to give it to him, i.e. the congregation. To answer the charge that this is some new idea or interpretation, at least for Baptists, I would go back to John L. Dagg, one of the founders of the SBC. He said, “When discipline leaves a church, Christ goes with it.” That is very strong, but many would agree with him. Another thing I have heard that I want to mention is the parable of the wheat and the tares in Matt. 13. Some have said that this forbids removing people from the church, but I would suggest that is not the proper view. Start with V24, which says that this is a parable about the Kingdom of heaven. Then, Jesus tells the parable of the weeds being in the field, and the owner not separating them from the wheat until the harvest. But, Jesus goes on to explain what this means. V37 > The sower is the Son of Man. V38 > the field is the (?) world, not the church. V39 > The harvest is the end. V41 > the servants who tend the field, do the reaping are (?) angels. Nowhere is the church mentioned. Nowhere is church discipline mentioned. This is a warning of the judgment to come on the lost in the world at large when Christ returns to establish His kingdom. And, honesty requires that I point out that – if this parable applies to church discipline – then we have a contradiction in the Scripture, and we can chuck the whole deal, go home and turn out the lights. Church discipline – including the removal from membership if necessary – is in Matt. 18, and 1 Cor. 5 & 6, and Romans 16 (:17-18), and 2 Thessalonians (3:14), and so on. And as far as the argument that no other Baptist church is doing this, that is obviously not true by the resolution we read earlier. That resolution is a clear call to return to the church discipline and integrity that once characterized our convention. Capital Hill Baptist and FBC, Durham, N. C. are both prominent churches that have reinstituted biblical church discipline after a lapse of many years, and there are others. This return to discipline in Baptist churches even made the Wall Street Journal this past January. The article was, of course, a distorted hatchet job, just as you would expect from the secular pr

ess. But, this shows that there is a major recovery of biblical principals going on in this area right now. One of the down sides of being a preacher is that your wife expects you to live like you preach. The world is looking at us. We say we believe the Scripture, and they expect us to live by it. If we claim to follow the Bible, we cannot escape the commands to deal with sin in the fellowship, even to the point of removing the unrepentant person from the church role.

Another issue of concern is the termination of membership when someone has been absent for a year. That is determined by looking at giving and Sunday School records, as those are the best ways we have to identify who is here. But, this is similar to church discipline, as those who are continually absent are in rebellion against the command (Heb. 10:25) to never forsake assembling with the church. Also, this is like church discipline in that you never hear of the cases of restoration, when the brother repents and is restored. You only hear about those who refuse to repent, and they are angry about it. You hear about the people who have gotten letters like this, and have gotten angry, because they have no intention of becoming faithful. But, you never hear about the other side. There are people in this church who got the letter, and said, “Hmm, they are right. I need to be back in church.” Those people returned and are now faithful and are growing in Christ.

Let me read the letter we send out to you.

Dear Church Member,
I pray this letter finds you well in both soul and body. However, we are concerned as our records show you have had no contact with us in the past year. Perhaps you just need some encouragement. If so, let me say that we would like nothing better than have you again be part of our fellowship. Further, we understand these records may be in error, so we would appreciate your letting us know if you have worshipped with us recently. Certainly, if there has been a change in your condition that prevents your attendance, we would like to know in order to pray for you and minister to you in what way we can.

If you have attended worship services or Sunday School with us in the last year, please let us know that. If you are now unable to attend because of illness, travel, military service, or due to some other cause, please let us know that as well. It is our desire to do what we can to minister to you. If you have moved, or are now attending another church, we would appreciate that information as well, and hope that God will bless you in your new church family.

Our desire is to obey Christ’s commission and “make disciples.” We would love for you to be actively involved in our fellowship. We have many exciting new opportunities for growth and service. However, we believe that active involvement in a local church is a biblical necessity for spiritual health and growth. Regular attendance in services and contact with the community of faith is good for both the Christian and the church. So, membership is both a privilege and a duty. Our bylaws call for removal from the membership of any individual who has not attended in the past twelve (12) months. Of course, this requirement is waived in the case of invalids, chronic illness, long-term care of ill family, military service, or any other justifiable cause of non-attendance. Please come and worship with us.

Our bylaws require we hear from you within 90 days from the date of this letter if you wish to remain a member of Michael Memorial. If our records are in error, please excuse this letter and help us correct them. If we can minister to you in any way, please let us know. We look forward to seeing you in church.

Now why should we ever send a letter like to anyone? Why should we care if there are people on the role who have been dead for 30 years? Well, the first thing is that, if we don’t do something, they are still going to be on the role in 200years. But, there are some better reasons. First, It is sin (Heb. 10:25). It is never loving, or kind, or helpful to approve sin, if only by acting like it is OK. Second, it is not spiritually good for a believer to be isolated from the Body of Christ. Without worship, the word, service, and fellowship they won’t be growing spiritually. They are dodging the accountability of the fellowship. So, if you really care about them, you will encourage them to what is spiritually healthy and beneficial. Also, if they are just allowed to wander off, that isn’t showing love for them, and, (1John 4:20) how can we claim to love God if we don’t really love our brother by wanting the best for him? To let these people remain on the role confuses them about their own spiritual state, as we are approving it. Also, this confuses the lost, watching world. These folks – at the moment anyway – are not interested in the things of God, and to retain them as members in good standing is bad for the witness of Christ. This is part of the reason the church now is indistinguishable from the world. And frankly, this puts the pastor in a difficult spot. He is supposed to be the shepherd watching over these people. How can he do that, when he doesn’t even know who they are, and they don’t know him? How can you shepherd sheep who aren’t part of the flock? To accept non-attenders as members in good standing is simply bad for them, bad for the church, and bad for the witness of Christ. Just from a practical standpoint, how can we give people voting rights in business meetings when they have no idea what the condition of the church is, because they haven’t been here for a year?

The third major concern is regarding the elder structure. This is unfamiliar to modern Baptist churches, but that unfamiliarity is something that has developed only in the last 100 years. At the time the SBC was founded, this was the normal structure of most churches. The first president of the SBC, W. B. Johnson, published an article strongly endorsing elder rule. And, we would be electing Baptist elders, not Presbyterian. We have talked in the past about elders, and deacons, and their qualifications and responsibilities. In the New Testament, the elder may also be called “bishop,” “overseer,” or “pastor.” Those words all refer to the same group of people. But, most Baptist churches have a ruling body that blurs the distinctions. There is only one group to lead the church, referred to as deacons. Inevitably, something has to give. If the emphasis in that group is on the oversight ministry, the service ministry suffers. If the emphasis is on the service ministry, the oversight suffers. That’s exactly what our deacons encountered. After investigation, mediation, and prayer, I really believe the Elder system is best, primarily because it is biblical. And, it has many practical advantages. There is help with the workload / the wisdom of many counselors (Prov. 15:22), and the power of group prayer. This promotes confidence in the congregation and helps share the burden of criticism. The elders serve at the pleasure of the congregation, and may be dismissed with proper procedure at any time – including the ministers. We remain a Baptist church. The ultimate authority is you. Of course, there is nothing in the Bible about sheep leading shepherds, so I would say the best thing to do is to elect godly men and then trust and follow them. And, if you find you can’t trust and follow them, get rid of them and find men you can trust and follow. The congregation can vote whatever it wants, whenever it wants. The only qualification that is unique to elders and not shared by deacons is the man must be “able to teach.” There is no reason to interpret that narrowly, so I believe this would be any man skilled in handling the word and able to teach, whether that be to large or small groups, or even individuals. So, while elders would be ordained as elders, this does not restrict the eldership to men were think of as “ministers” or “preachers.”

So, when it comes to elders, I really want to just share my own experience with you. I came up from the pew, not through seminary. And, as I read the Bible, there is no such thing as an elevated, special class of ministers in the New Testament. But, that is what has developed in many places. I have been in a number of Baptist churches over the years, and have seen this in action as the pastor forced his way into making every decision. I believe that the situation of one man alone on top of a pyramid of others under him is abnormal and corrupting, yet that is exactly where many Baptist churches are. I have seen real problems develop precisely because the pastor saw himself as king. Now, I am 58, and in good health. I plan to be here as the Lord allows, but I am eventually not going to be here. However, I have children who want to live on this coast, and I would like for them to have a church to attend that is run by the Bible, and not by a minister who sees himself as a cut above everyone else. I think elder rule is not only the biblical model, but is actually the best defense against an imperial pastorate in which the minister – or ministers – think they are kings and fall into the trap of lording it over their flock. This is actually not much of a change from the leadership structure as it is now, except to make the Elder Board report to the church rather than the deacons. The elder board, then, is a group of men to lead the church, in which the pastor has only one vote, like anyone else. And, the constitution requires that the majority of members of the Board not be receiving any sort of pay from the church. That is for the protections of the people. So, as you can see, this is not some sort of ministerial power grab. If anything, this is attempting to block the pastor from assuming power we see as unbiblical and improper.

Tonight, I have tried to show you two things: that we can defend this constitution as being thoroughly in line with Baptist church governance, both historical and current. Then secondly, and more importantly, we can defend this constitution as being thoroughly Scriptural. I know this has been long, and I’m sure many of you have still more questions and issues. And, that is good. The only thing that is not good is to let the question go unanswered. As we close, I just want to run two passages of Scripture by you. The first is Heb. 13:17, which warns the pastor or elder that he is going to have to stand before God and give account for the job he did “watching out for their souls.” As a church leader, I am going to stand before God and answer for how I treated His church. The longer I am in the ministry, the more this becomes a matter of genuine, serious concern for me. If I am accountable for a flock, I have to know who is in the flock. Doesn’t that make sense? That means we can’t have sheep that never are part of the flock, and are strangers to the shepherd. If I admit someone to the church who is obviously not a Christian, when a few simple questions would make the matter clear, I am going to have to answer for that. How can I be a shepherd and admit a wolf to the flock by sheer carelessness? Even if this lost person is not a wolf / even if he is just sincerely wrong, I have told this man he is saved / going to heaven / reconciled to God when he is not. I have not “watched out for his soul.” And, I am accountable for the damage he does in the church. If I fail to obey the inescapable biblical commands about church discipline, I am running Christ’s church like I want, rather than as He commands. That damages the fellowship and the testimony of Christ. So, that is not going to make our Lord happy.

And, this is an accountability for you as well. The other passage is Ezek. 33 that says a watchman who fails to warn others of approaching danger is going to held responsible by God for their deaths or loss. If you are saved, you know the truth, and you have a debt to the lost to warn them (Rom. 1:14). If we do not warn the lost church member of his danger / if we do not warn the non-attender of his sin and his danger of spiritual loss and stagnation / if we do not warn the unrepentant believer of the consequences of his sin, we do not love God, or others, and we will have to answer to our Lord. Obedience is crucial for blessing. I want the blessing of God on this church, and I think that means we have to run His church the way He tells us. Now, I know there is an awful lot of passion and emotion regarding all this, and that is not necessarily bad. I would ask you to take that passion and turn it into prayer. Don’t pray that everyone would come around to agree with you. Rather pray that all of us would find the wisdom to understand the teachings of Christ in the Scripture and put them into action. Pray that all of us would come around to agree with Christ.

As I said at the start, we will have an open discussion of all these issues next Sunday evening. I appreciate your being here tonight, and do hope that you will come back. There are 50 copies of the text of this sermon, which I will place in the foyer. If you would like to pick one up to review, pray over, and consider, please do. Or, the text will be online or available through the church office sometime tomorrow. Please remember that the issue is what the Scripture says. I have great sympathy with those who don’t like member screening and discipline and all that. You have no idea how much I don’t like being involved in those things. But, I want to be able to stand before God and say that I at least made an effort / weak and fallible, but still an effort to follow the Bible as closely as I could understand it. I pray that we would all have that commitment.

God has solved the sin problem, but each of us have to respond to that mercy and grace through repentance and faith.

God did not create robots to inhabit the earth to fellowship with Him. He made man as free moral agents with the ability to make moral choices. God solved the sin problem but we must respond as sinners and repent and turn to Him. This idea that somehow God ‘elects’ His people and that they have no choice in the matter is foreign to the Bible.

The Israelites had to kill the Passover lamb, receive its blood in a vessel, and apply it to the sides and tops of the doorframes of the house. Then they had to close the door, stay inside, and eat the meat of the lamb.

Joshua set before the people the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob or the gods of other lands and told them they must ‘choose between the two’. But as for Joshua and his house, they would choose to follow the Lord.

The NT tells a story about a feast that was ready. The guests did not have to worry about anything, but they had to come participate in it. In the same way, the feast prepared for us by Jesus Christ is ready, but we must come as guests, and eat. There is a personal responsibility involved in being a Christian. “In that day you will say…” and there is no doubt that every elect of God will confess “Jesus is Lord” and be saved. Jesus said “But I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me,” and so we will come, we will believe, we will trust. But that does not negate the Biblical obligation that we must individually believe in Christ to be saved.

The water is now available, but the thirsty must come and drink.

Those who were dying because they had been bitten by snakes in the wilderness had to look at the uplifted brazen serpent so that they could be healed. The Philippian jailer had to do one thing: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.

What happens if we do not turn to Jesus Christ for salvation? God’s anger will not be turned away from us. In john 3:36 we find a description of those who have never trusted in Jesus Christ: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” If a person does not trust Christ’s atoning sacrifice, he must perpetually atone for his sins. The problem is that our righteousness is as filthy rags.

Salvation is available for all who would come to Him in repentance and faith. We see this truth in verse 2. Behold, God [is] my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH [is] my strength and [my] song; he also is become my salvation.

First, in verse 1 Isaiah says “You have comforted me….” Isaiah was saying, “God was angry with me, but now he has comforted me.” Then in verse 2 Isaiah says, “Behold God is my salvation.” My salvation! What an affirmation. In the original language, “behold” means “surprise!” Wonder of wonders! God is my salvation!

Second, in verse 2 Isaiah says, “I will trust…” The Hebrew word is “batach”, which has the meaning of committing oneself to God and thus being secure forever. This is saving faith. It is not enough to have information about the gospel or even to understand it intellectually and agree about the truth of the gospel. Faith is trust. Saving faith is my wholly depending on the Lord.

Third, remember, God sent Isaiah to speak to King Ahaz, who was in serious trouble. The enemy had the strength and the ability to destroy Israel. Although Isaiah gave him the gospel, he refused to trust in God. So in 7:9 the prophet declared, “If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will nto stand at all.” That is always the truth. If we do not believe in the gospel when it comes to us we will fall That is why Hebrews tells us that “today is the day of salvation.” Implied is do not let it pass you by. Don’t procrastinate!

Fourth, Isaiah said, “I will not be afraid (of anything).” Trust and fear are opposites. Believers are delivered from God’s wrath; thus, their fear of death is gone. A believer therefore says, “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting? The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.” Then comes the glorious shout of jubilation: “But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Dr. _____,

Before I start, I want to confess that I may not have been as charitable as I ought have been before, in our discussions of these issues. My passion results from a zeal for the truth, but was not intended as disrespect. If you gleaned such from our encounters in the past, I apologize most humbly, and I ask your forgiveness. In that spirit, however, I do want to advance a thesis: perhaps, in your advancing this line of doctrine, it is warranted that my puzzlement should be real, when hearing them expounded in your class. From the pulpit, we are taught the opposite of what you have been teaching. That God’s grace in election is unconditional, and the freedom of man’s will to choose any thing is captive to either sin or righteousness. That God’s grace is extended to sinners who are totally depraved – extensive to their wills, which cannot choose anything but evil. That the atonement is not conditional upon the man who chooses to accept it, but upon the intent of Christ to save those for whom He died. That the drawing of all men to Himself is a work of God, worked upon those men who are regenerated by the Spirit, and come willing, not unwilling, to the cross of Christ, due to the effectual call, worked by the Holy Spirit. That we are not simply perseverers, but preserved BY the power of God – irrespective of the autonomous freedom of our wills in a state of salvation.

I pledge, Dr. _____, that my surprise and consternation, in light of what has been taught in the pulpit, was both warranted and truthfully grounded in a real shock as to the inconsistencies of the two gospels being presented. One which seems to require the exercise of a dead man’s “free will”, to accept the Lordship of a God he neither wants nor can desire – and the repentance of sins which a dead loves, and will not release – and a faith which is inexorably set upon this world; and another that requires the faith and repentance that God freely gives, to be the grounds for an invincible, impregnably mighty fortress of salvation which is decreed, empowered, actively aided, and only possible by the creation of new life by the spirit, prior to any exercise of will in the matter. This sovereign will of God is the only grounds I can see for any salvation of man, at all points, and in all means! This is the grounds for my zeal, and I humbly beg forgiveness if I have been too forward in my denial – but I cannot do otherwise in principle, and I apologize if my practice of that denial was lacking in respect.

My difference is grounded not in a desire to “win”, nor in a desire to be the “doctrine police” or any such thing. It is grounded solely in a very real concern and a zealousness (or jealousy!) for the sovereignty of God’s freedom of will over the lives and wills of men, which surely affects how the gospel is presented, why it is presented, and what the gospel itself is. Surely, by asserting that men are not autonomously free does not deny that men are *responsible*. The crux of the matter is that they ARE responsible – to God – the very God who is the self-existent living standard of justice! That is the answer Paul gives to the objector in Romans 9, and it must be our answer when we seek to discover that answer for ourselves, must it not? The salvation that belongs only to the Lord can have no other ground than in the power of God, the unconstrainedly free will of God which determiens the exercise of that power, and the election of men to salvation from before the foundation of the world, to a salvation bought specifically for those whom He elected before the foundation of the world, secured by the omnipotent, substitutionary atonement of the Son, and the justification of His blood – along with the sanctifying work of the Spirit, keeping us in all righteousness! We cannot have any other grounds for salvation, or assurance of it’s efficacy, can we?

If we try to have the grounds for our assurance be in the power of God over our wills, (which does not allow them to stray back to the old nature we were redeemed from, by the sanctification of the Spirit), then how can we say that God has no, or has chosen not to have, power over our wills in the regeneration unto salvation? Does a dead men choose to rise, or is he raised? The heart of stone which dead men have MUST be changed to a heart of flesh by the sovereign power of God. These dead men’s bones are very dry – and can only be knit together by the one who knit us together in our mother’s womb. This is the central issue, it seems. Can a dead man live, unless he is raised to life? If he is raised, will he not believe in the one who raised him, as surely as dusk follows the dawn? This is the glorious truth of the surety found in the doctrines of God’s grace, founded in the absolute sovereignty of God over all of every one of His creations. It is not a mechanistic, fatalistic system, but a glorious declarative truth – that God is our salvation, and that everything that God does, He does perfectly, precisely, and to His own great and majestic glory and purpose.

I’d like to make it clear – I’m not out for your job. I’m not out for you to step down as a teacher. I don’t desire either, and that, in fact is not even on the radar of my concerns. What I’d truly desire is for you to re-examine the Biblical foundation of what is, clearly, part of the very gospel delivered once and for all to the saints. God’s sovereign decree to the salvation of His elect throughout redemptive history, His active regeneration of their souls to prepare a will dead and unable to respond into a soul both alive and able to respond to the gospel presented by the preaching of the Word; God’s active, gracious gifts of faith and repentance to those very same souls, which, on the basis of all this perfect work by the Holy Triune God, believe savingly. This special series of gifts to God’s chosen is of course on the basis of Christ’s death, atonement, justification, and mediation for those self-same elect souls. To try to apply the atonement to one who is not also mediated for, is foreign to the perfect saving work of Christ. Further, to ground our assurance in the ability of God to *keep* our faith, surely necessitates God’s ability to actively direct our wills, and to move in power within those to whom all these good and gracious gifts are granted. Such a necessity surely negates any concept of an *autonomous* free will – and can only mean that the freedom of our wills is only a freedom within the limits of the nature which we possess! Since God can work all things to the praise of His glory, this is very basis of the creative purpose of God, and should be a thing glorified in, not condemned! When a doctrine of the ability of man to freely will is made central to the discussion, and further, cannot be found in scripture as a quality possessed by the children of men, this leads me to believe that perhaps we are placing more credence in a philosophical presupposition than in the words of holy scripture! It is the doctrine of an autonomous free will that is foreign to the Bible, sir, and I challenge you to frame a rebuttal to Romans 9:16, or John 1:13, which in fact state the opposite in the context of salvation – which is the issue.

While I appreciate that you believe no such perfect balance between the responsibility of man and the Sovereignty of God can be found in Scripture, I would respectfully disagree by pointing out that this is a doctrine which is not something new, can be demonstrated by a veritable mountain of scripture, and is perfectly consistent throughout the entirety of Scripture. A Potter whose hands cannot shape the pots as He wills, but leaves the pots to shape themselves of their own free will is not much of a Potter, is He? If God will accomplish all His good pleasure – and his pleasure is decreed from the end to the beginning – can we truly say that God leaves the salvation of His children to the exercise of their depraved wills, apart from any prior intervention of God’s regenerative, restorative grace on those wills? The will of God is always the cause behind all stages of the Work of Salvation. You may disagree with it – but I cannot say otherwise.

God did not create robots to inhabit the earth to fellowship with Him.

Sir, what doctrinal system claims anything of the sort? I know of no such doctrine from any system that even claims Christendom.

He made man as free moral agents with the ability to make moral choices.

So, from that strawman, the opposite claim is: “He made man as free moral agents with the ability to make moral choices.”

Yes, He MADE man that way – but did man not fall? Additionally, in doing so, did He not show that man cannot be trusted to make moral choices? The statement is true – as far as it goes, but it only goes so far. Now, man is a slave to sin, dead in tresspasses and sins, and has a depraved mind – he cannot subject himself to the law of God by making righteous moral choices – in fact – that mind is “not even able to do so”!

They are free – within the limits of their slavery to sin. No one is anything but contingently free – contingent on their master. I would debate really using “free” in the context of slavery. Such a definition is not the Biblical definition of ‘free’ – only ‘free’ in the context of slavery.

Romans 6:18 and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
Romans 6:20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.

That’s the contrast that Paul makes – and that is the contrast we are thus required to make, from Scripture. There is no autonomous free will apart from a contingency upon a master’s influence over his desires, as Edwards would say.

But, we can expound on this from Scripture clearly.

Proverbs 18:1-2 Through desire a man, having separated himself, seeketh [and] intermeddleth with all wisdom. A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind.

Through desire / (a man) having separated / himself, seeks / to meddle (to contend with) / all wisdom.

The desire of man is to separate himself, and he thus seeks to contend with the wisdom of God. To separate himself from? The Righteousness of God. Thus, he isn’t interested in true understanding – but his only interest in his own opinions, which now have primary weight, given his focus on self, as a being separated by himself, to himself – not by God, to Himself.

A man is a slave – and always a slave – but he is also free, and always free – but ONLY to that which his nature belongs. When we are born again to Christ – we are made new – we have a new nature. Not one that is fully free of the flesh – but one that is being sanctified by the Spirit, and bought by the blood of Christ.

Romans 6:22-23 – But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Eph. 2:3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

We were by nature children of wrath.

2 Peter 1:3-4 …seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of {the} divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.

We WILL be partakers of the Divine nature, which a child of wrath can never be, unless that nature is changed. We were given everything pertaining to life and Godliness – through the knowledge of He who called us!

John 8:36 “So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.”

Not free in name only, as you are under sin – free of everything pertaining to life and godliness – but free of the slavery of sin, and slaves to righteousness of God, in which the only true freedom can be found.

John 1:12-13 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

The NT tells a story about a feast that was ready. The guests did not have to worry about anything, but they had to come participate in it. In the same way, the feast prepared for us by Jesus Christ is ready, but we must come as guests, and eat. There is a personal responsibility involved in being a Christian. “In that day you will say…” and there is no doubt that every elect of God will confess “Jesus is Lord” and be saved. Jesus said “But I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me,” and so we will come, we will believe, we will trust. But that does not negate the Biblical obligation that we must individually believe in Christ to be saved.

The water is now available, but the thirsty must come and drink.

Those who were dying because they had been bitten by snakes in the wilderness had to look at the uplifted brazen serpent so that they could be healed. The Philippian jailer had to do one thing: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.

What happens if we do not turn to Jesus Christ for salvation? God’s anger will not be turned away from us. In john 3:36 we find a description of those who have never trusted in Jesus Christ: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” If a person does not trust Christ’s atoning sacrifice, he must perpetually atone for his sins. The problem is that our righteousness is as filthy rags.

Salvation is available for all who would come to Him in repentance and faith. We see this truth in verse 2. Behold, God [is] my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH [is] my strength and [my] song; he also is become my salvation.

Do you see what this argument depends on? OUR faith and repentance – the “doing” of the “exercise” of these things. Just as in James, the outworking of the Spirit causes in us the inevitable outworking of the gifts He grants to us – which were given to us for the *purpose* of these good works.

Eph: 2:10 – For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Sir, have you never seen the scriptures that say BOTH OF THOSE (faith and repentance) are gifts of God? Say whatever we will, that’s the killer for this argument, if we can demonstrate it from Scripture.

God has solved the sin problem, but each of us have to respond (The Father draws you to Himself) to that mercy (God’s) and grace (God’s) through repentance (God’s) and faith (God’s).

As used, this definition of faith and repentance is unbiblical, the Biblical nature of this definition of “free” will contradicts Scripture, and any election which is not the foreordained Sovereign choice of a free and omnipotent creator is no election, but subservience to the free and omnipotent will of man.

On Faith:

The Hebrew “batach” as “place one’s OWN trust in” as the definition of saving faith – clearly raises the question of the origin of the faith and repentance. As I’ve stated already, that origin is very obvious from scripture – as is our inevitable duty and priviledge to exercise those gifts for their intended purpose.

Hebrews 12:1-2 Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Isn’t that incredible? The same verse we use to *define* faith is the immediate preceding context for the statement as to the origin of faith. What is our surety of this faith? The One who grants it is the One seated at the right hand of the Father and interceding on our behalf, as the One who bought us with a price.

Romans 12:3 For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith.

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

Phil. 1:29 For to you it has been granted for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,

Not only does Scripture testify to the provenance of our faith, but the historic confessions of Baptists also testify to their understanding of it.

1689 London Baptist Confession (and 1742 Philadelphia Confession)
Chapter 14: Of Saving Faith

1. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word; by which also, and by the administration of baptism and the Lord’s supper, prayer, and other means appointed of God, it is increased and strengthened. (2 Corinthians 4:13; Ephesians 2:8; Romans 10:14, 17; Luke 17:5; 1 Peter 2:2; Acts 20:32)

2. By this faith a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word for the authority of God himself, and also apprehendeth an excellency therein above all other writings and all things in the world, as it bears forth the glory of God in his attributes, the excellency of Christ in his nature and offices, and the power and fullness of the Holy Spirit in his workings and operations: and so is enabled to cast his soul upon the truth thus believed; and also acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life and that which is to come; but the principal acts of saving faith have immediate relation to Christ, accepting, receiving, and resting upon him alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace. (Acts 24:14; Psalms 27:7-10; Psalms 119:72; 2 Timothy 1:12; John 14:14; Isaiah 66:2; Hebrews 11:13; John 1:12; Acts 16:31; Galatians 2:20; Acts 15:11)

John Owen masterfully testifies to this reality as well.

The Death of Death in the Death of Christ – Book II, Chapter 5, Pgs. 234-235

Thirdly, This condition of faith is procured for us by the death of Christ, or it is not. If they say it be not, then the chiefest grace, and without which redemption itself (express it how you please) is of no value, doth not depend on the grace of Christ as the meritorious procuring cause thereof; — which, first, is exceedingly injurious to our blessed Saviour, and serves only to diminish the honour and love due to him; secondly, is contrary to Scripture: Tit. iii. 5, 6; 2 Cor. v. 21, “He became sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” And how we can become the righteousness of God but by believing, I know not. Yea, expressly saith the apostle, “It is given to us for Christ’s sake, on the behalf of Christ, to believe in him,” Phil. i. 29; “God blessing us with all spiritual blessing in him,” Eph. i. 3, whereof surely faith is not the least. If it be a fruit of the death of Christ, why is it not bestowed on all, since he died for all, especially since the whole impetration of redemption is altogether unprofitable without it?
In one particular they agree well enough, — namely, in denying that faith is procured or merited for us by the death of Christ. So far they are all of them constant to their own principles, for once to grant it would overturn the whole fabric of universal redemption; but, in assigning the cause of faith they go asunder again.

So does Spurgeon testify:

Nay, the doctrine of justification itself, as preached by an Arminian, is nothing but the doctrine of salvation by works, lifted up; for he always thinks faith is a work of the creature and a condition of his acceptance. It is as false to say that man is saved by faith as a work, as that he is saved by the deeds of the law. We are saved by faith as the gift of God, and as the first token of his eternal favor to us; but it is not faith as our work that saves, otherwise we are saved by works, and not by grace at all.

If you need any argument upon this point, I refer you to our great apostle Paul, who so constantly combats the idea that works and grace can ever be united together, for he argues, “If it be of grace, then it is no more of works otherwise grace were no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more of grace, otherwise work is no more work.”

On Repentance:

Acts 5:31 He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
2 Tim. 2:25 with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,

1689 London Baptist Confession (and 1742 Philadelphia Confession)
Chapter 15: Of Repentance Unto Life and Salvation

1. Such of the elect as are converted at riper years, having sometime lived in the state of nature, and therein served divers lusts and pleasures, God in their effectual calling giveth them repentance unto life. (Titus 3:2-5)

2. Whereas there is none that doth good and sinneth not, and the best of men may, through the power and deceitfulness of their corruption dwelling in them, with the prevalency of temptation, fall into great sins and provocations; God hath, in the covenant of grace, mercifully provided that believers so sinning and falling be renewed through repentance unto salvation. (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Luke 22:31,32)

3. This saving repentance is an evangelical grace, whereby a person, being by the Holy Spirit made sensible of the manifold evils of his sin, doth, by faith in Christ, humble himself for it with godly sorrow, detestation of it, and self-abhorrency, praying for pardon and strength of grace, with a purpose and endeavour, by supplies of the Spirit, to walk before God unto all well-pleasing in all things. (Zechariah 12:10; Acts 11:18; Ezekiel 36:31; 2 Corinthians 7:11; Psalms 119:6; Psalms 119:12 8)

1858 Abstract of Principles Articles 8, 9, & 10

VIII. REGENERATION

Regeneration is a change of heart, wrought by the Holy Spirit, who quickeneth the dead in trespasses and sins enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the Word of God, and renewing their whole nature, so that they love and practice holiness. It is a work of God’s free and special grace alone.

IX. REPENTANCE

Repentance is an evangelical grace, wherein a person being, by the Holy Spirit, made sensible of the manifold evil of his sin, humbleth himself for it, with godly sorrow, detestation of it, and self-abhorrence, with a purpose and endeavor to walk before God so as to please Him in all things.

X. FAITH

Saving faith is the belief, on God’s authority of whatsoever is revealed in His Word concerning Christ; accepting and resting upon Him alone for justification and eternal life. It is wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit, and is accompanied by all other saving graces, and leads to a life of holiness.

There is a solution to the dilemma some consider insoluble: The Sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. It is not new, nor is it novel – in fact, it is not complicated.

Augustine perhaps stated it first. (Confessions, X, 29)

“Give what you command, and command what you will. You impose continency on us.”

It’s a truly simple concept. What is commanded is also given. What is given, is also commanded. How is God’s Sovereignty and human responsibility reconciled? In the grace of God, of course.

The Israelites had to kill the Passover lamb, receive its blood in a vessel, and apply it to the sides and tops of the doorframes of the house. Then they had to close the door, stay inside, and eat the meat of the lamb.

How can this be said to be analogous to saving faith?

Israel, when they come to the red sea, immediately complain that Moses has brought them there to kill them all. What was Moses’ response? “Do not fear! Stand by and see the salvation of the LORD which He will accomplish for you today; for the Egyptians whom you have seen today, you will never see them again forever. The LORD will fight for you while you keep silent.”

Second – did not God harden the hearts of the Pharoah, and the Egyptians (is that free will?), and did not the Egyptians hate the Israelites and want them to leave, out of fear? They had no choice but to obey. The Israelites had no more place among the Egyptians. God burned their bridges behind them.

Third – God gave the commands, the means, and the escape – from the Angel of Death, and the Egyptian army. God provided exactly what He commanded. How is this any difference than faith and repentance being both commanded by God, and granted by God? It’s the Sovereign decree which results in His glory being both radiated from and reflected back to Himself.

Of Election:

This idea that somehow God ‘elects’ His people and that they have no choice in the matter is foreign to the Bible.

Sir, election is personal, predestined, particular, and perfect. It is presented in many ways, it is outlined in many places, and it is God’s sovereign freedom that determines it. Our choice is not only completely irrelevant, but completely immaterial.

God’s decree of election takes place before the foundation of the world. It is a personal decree, a loving decree, and a particular decree. It depends on no will of man – no choice – but on the will of God – HIS choice. It depends on nothing man can, or will do, or has done. It rests solely in His divine pleasure. Not only is it anything BUT foreign to the Bible that election rests in no choice of man, but election by the choice of man is anathema to the gospel, and to Scripture itself, directly contrary to your claim.

Once again: John 1:12-13 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

God’s purpose is the purpose which matters in His election. His purposes, His decrees, are what declared the (Omega) End from the (Alpha) Beginning and which accomplish all His good pleasure!

Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, ‘My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure’;

Romans 9:11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls)

Ephesians 1:3-6 Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly [places] in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

Ephesians 2:1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, [it is] the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

1 Thess. 1:4 knowing, brethren beloved by God, [His] choice of you;

Romans 11:5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to [God’s] gracious choice.

Romans 11:7 What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;

Romans 11:28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of [God’s] choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;

Acts 15:7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.

Isaiah 29;16 You turn {things} around! Shall the potter be considered as equal with the clay, That what is made would say to its maker, “He did not make me”; Or what is formed say to him who formed it, “He has no understanding”?

Isaiah 45:9 “Woe to {the one} who quarrels with his Maker– An earthenware vessel among the vessels of earth! Will the clay say to the potter, ‘What are you doing?’ Or the thing you are making {say,} ‘He has no hands’?

isaiah 64:6-8 For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. There is no one who calls on Your name, Who arouses himself to take hold of You; For You have hidden Your face from us And have delivered us into the power of our iniquities. But now, O LORD, You are our Father, We are the clay, and You our potter; And all of us are the work of Your hand.

Romans 9:11-24 for though {the twins} were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to {His} choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.” Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.” What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.” So then it {does} not {depend} on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And {He did so} to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, {even} us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

“Isaiah said ‘I will not be afraid’ – Trust and fear are opposites.”

Yes – and God has not GIVEN you a spirit of fear – but of POWER, and of LOVE, and of a SOUND MIND

2 Tim. 1:7-10 For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline. Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner, but join with [me] in suffering for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity, but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,

His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity who has saved us AND called us!

Soli Deo Gloria. To God ALONE be the glory. In all things.

Dr, _____, You know who I am, and what I was. I’m a walking, talking example of the power, Biblical orthodoxy, and experiential efficacy of the Doctrines of Grace. Only a God sovereign over the will of man could, or would have dragged me out of my sin by a methodical destruction of all of my props, pretensions, deceits, sins, and wickedness. A God who draws all men to Himself has no trouble with recreating a will suited to serve Him, and employing His mercy to save a man such as me. I tell you – it was none of me – I was unwilling, I was unable, I was without power or hope in this world. He saved me, He dragged me out of the miry clay and He remade me to serve Him.

There is no power that can resist His call and power. None. It is to His praise, His glory, and to the jealous desire for His glory above all doctrines, theories, and constructions of man that I write this rebuttal. It is a zealousness for the glory of the God who justifies, the God who calls, the God who foreknows His elect, and is mighty to save those He chose before the foundation of the world. Truly, John tells us: We “were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” Amen, and amen.

Dr. _____ – I love you, I care for you, and I want you to know that I in no way am motivated by any desire to “win an argument”, or to pugnaciously “demean” your abilities as a teacher, which I respect. I’m motivated by a call to defend the gospel of Christ, and by no other reason whatsoever. I consider the Doctrines of Grace the very Gospel – and Calvinism is merely the unfortunate nickname of men for the Biblical theology of God’s Sovereignty in salvation. I am forced to contradict what you are teaching by Scripture and by that “pattern of sound words” which we are commanded to maintain, and to defend. I’m an apologist at heart – and the task of the apologist is to defend the gospel of Christ, and I am more and more convinced that my purpose in Christ is to be “appointed for the defense of the Gospel.” Thus, I am offering this scriptural rebuttal in the spirit of reconciliation, and I am anxious that I do not appear puffed up by means of “superior knowledge”. I have nothing I have not received – and “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.”

Humbly yours in Christ,

Joshua.

Since I posted anything. Why? Well… I got a contract job that involved a LOT of driving, then I was encouraged to do a class on church history and apologetics, so I’ve been studying like mad, and then there’s also been the fact that i went camping the weekend before last, and I’m doing some remodeling work. I’ve been busy.

I’ve been listening to a really crazy amount of stuff lately. Over 125 hours of church/theological history lectures, from Dr. James White and Dr. Kurt Daniel, a LOT of Piper sermons (including some truly awesome ones on Andrew Fuller and Athanasius), and just… stuff. Lots of stuff.

Oh, and I have some pretty heavy reading coming my way soon, so I don’t expect to get out of my blogging rut, soon. By His Grace and For His Glory, Always Ready, Scripture Alone, and The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.

So, between that and the rest of the stuff I have going on – might be a big sparse around here.

John Loftus recently got his second youtube video debunked on the Dividing Line, on 6/12. Ironic, considering the title of his blog.

His response leaves me scratching my head. First, the fact that he responds to practically nothing that Dr. White had to say about his video. Secondly, that he still shows an obvious lack of understanding of where he errs in his understanding of orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, and doesn’t address any of it, in his response. Third, that he believes he is so important that Dr. White would remember mentioning him in passing, in a single blog post, over 2 years ago – in error, in fact, because the post he was commenting on was not even written by Mr. Loftus. Additionally, he mentions Mr. Loftus’ blog in a comment concerning one of the other posters, shortly thereafter.

He begins (after a short one sentence summary of Dr. White’s discussion of his video) with this statement.

Let me ask White if he knows his own theology.

I wonder. Is Mr. Loftus aware that Dr. White wrote a book called “The Forgotten Trinity”, as his Th.M Thesis? I have this book on my shelf, actually. Further, I truly wonder if Mr. Loftus is aware that Dr. White has formally debated on The Trinity specifically, and twice on the deity of Christ? Not to mention his lecture(s) on the subject, which can easily be obtained from his website.

Along with his obvious ignorance of basic creedal statements concerning the Trinity, his choice of “Christian” examples is also quite illuminating. Swinburne? His explanation of the Trinity is decidedly non-orthodox. Why is he trying to pass him off as mainstream in any way, shape or form? Especially considering that Swinburne is Eastern Orthodox by affiliation, and Loftus is replying to a Calvinist! Swinburne goes so far as to say: “the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit be thought of as numerically distinct Gods”. This is directly contrary to any orthodox creed of any sort!

But let me explain what I said. Let’s see if I’m as ignorant as he claims that I am. I think he is the one exhibiting some ignorance about Christian theology.

At this point, it may be useful to actually explore an orthodox explanation of the Trinity.

Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the catholic faith.
Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally.
Now this is the catholic faith: We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being.
For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another.
But the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in majesty.
What the Father is, the Son is, and so is the Holy Spirit.
Uncreated is the Father; uncreated is the Son; uncreated is the Spirit.
The Father is infinite; the Son is infinite; the Holy Spirit is infinite.
Eternal is the Father; eternal is the Son; eternal is the Spirit: And yet there are not three eternal beings, but one who is eternal; as there are not three uncreated and unlimited beings, but one who is uncreated and unlimited.
Almighty is the Father; almighty is the Son; almighty is the Spirit: And yet there are not three almighty beings, but one who is almighty.
Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God.
Thus the Father is Lord; the Son is Lord; the Holy Spirit is Lord: And yet there are not three lords, but one Lord.
As Christian truth compels us to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords.
The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten; the Son was neither made nor created, but was alone begotten of the Father; the Spirit was neither made nor created, but is proceeding from the Father and the Son.
Thus there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three spirits.
And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other; but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons.
Whoever wants to be saved should think thus about the Trinity.
It is necessary for eternal salvation that one also faithfully believe that our Lord Jesus Christ became flesh.
For this is the true faith that we believe and confess: That our Lord Jesus Christ, God’s Son, is both God and man.
He is God, begotten before all worlds from the being of the Father, and he is man, born in the world from the being of his mother — existing fully as God, and fully as man with a rational soul and a human body; equal to the Father in divinity, subordinate to the Father in humanity.
Although he is God and man, he is not divided, but is one Christ.
He is united because God has taken humanity into himself; he does not transform deity into humanity.
He is completely one in the unity of his person, without confusing his natures.
For as the rational soul and body are one person, so the one Christ is God and man.
He suffered death for our salvation. He descended into hell and rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
At his coming all people shall rise bodily to give an account of their own deeds.
Those who have done good will enter eternal life, those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.
This is the catholic faith.
One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully.

~ Tha Athanasian Creed

Swinburne is not orthodox, of course. Loftus isn’t even in the same time zone with orthodoxy, according to his explanation of his knowledge of the Trinity. This, from a man who graduated from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School! Did he not listen, I wonder? I really cannot imagine that he never heard an explanation of the Trinity from Dr. Craig, who he so often mentions as his mentor, of some sort. He also claims to have taught philosophy and apologetics. He did this, without even a basic understanding of what the Trinity is?

Richard Swinburne argues for the Nicene subordination doctrine of the Trinity. [Richard Swinburne, “Could There Be More Than One God? Faith and Philosophy 5, no. 3 (July 1988): 225–41. Reformed thinkers like John Calvin and Benjamin Warfield argued for Trinitarian autotheos, in that the Son and the Spirit do not derive their being from the Father but are God in and of themselves.

That’s all very nice – but Swinburne, when he says that God is 3 Gods, has, at that point, nothing to do with Nicene theology. Period. He certainly cannot profess the Athanasian creed, that we saw above. So, why is Loftus even mentioning this man? Two words. Red Herring.

Swinburne claims that a first God could eternally “create” a second and even a third God, who “proceeds” from the first God, but that there was no reason to eternally create any other Gods since love would be complete in three Gods and no more. He concludes that “if there is at least one God, then there are three and only three Gods” since “there is something profoundly imperfect and therefore inadequately divine in a solitary God.” Swinburne’s view is but one form of the “social Trinitarian model” of the Trinity.

There’s so much wrong with Swinburne at this point, that I’m really confessing – why are we even discussing Swinburne, as if he is relevant to Christianity? I’m sorry, but heresy on this basic level does not have any place in Christianity. Once again, why did he bring him up? Red Herring, perhaps? Distract, by showing us a heretical view, that obviously has nothing to do with orthodoxy, then slip in the punch line, after a bit of time.

I don’t think any account of the Trinity is plausible for the Christian, and that includes Swinburne’s understanding. I find Swinburne’s scenario wildly implausible and guided more by what he thinks the Bible says than by any philosophical reasoning.

Ah, there we go. Ok, so – he admits, finally, that Swinburne has nothing to do with a Biblical account of the Trinity. I’m still failing to see it’s relevance – and especially in the light of the fact that he has yet to shed any light on Dr. White’s supposed ignorance on the topic. His conception is, indeed, fantastical, and bears no relation to Biblical teaching on the nature and essence of God. So, notwithstanding the bolded claim above – does he, in fact, understand the single orthodox understanding of the Trinity?

The bottom line is that no matter how an orthodox triune God is conceived, this is not a simple being.

Of course not. This is GOD.

So, what is the logical next step? Perhaps, present the correct view of the Trinity? Nope.

Social trinitarianism stresses the diversity of persons within the Trinity, while anti–social trinitarianism stresses the unity of the God.

We go, once again, to a claim of universal orthodoxy by some.. wacky ideas. Barthian Neo-orthodoxy, being championed as actual orthodoxy? Why? Because we can score points that way. That’s why.

Barthian/EO ideas about Trinity are exceedingly laughable, considering that Barth was a rank heretic, and the mysticism of the EO church can hide any sort of wanton heresy, if it is explained as a “mystery”. Tell me I’m wrong. Does Mr. Loftus really think he’s fooling us? I’m quite sure he can fool people who want any reason to believe Christianity is false – but it may be helpful to listen to Christianity’s self-definitions, before he runs too far ahead of himself.

Now, his basic misunderstandings in the video Dr. White examined are rather incredible. No less incredible is his willingness to trot out obvious trinitarian heresies. Why does he do this? I’m purely baffled by his statements on this issue. I’m forced to concede that he is either incredibly ignorant of orthodoxy concerning the trinity, unwilling to consider historic orthodoxy as validly Christian, or purely dishonest. Given his continual harping on his experience under William Lane Craig, we are left with little recourse than to say that it is more likely that he is being dishonest. Let me explain why.

If he studied under Craig, he would know what an orthodox construction of the Trinity is, and not the garbled hash he presented to his video audience. Thus, as he is deliberately misrepresenting the orthodox trinitarian position, he is being grossly dishonest, purely for points. This is further demonstrated by his list of qualifications, including claims that he has taught apologetics, philosophy, and theology.

If he is ignorant, it is despite all of this theological training, personal mentorship, and personal experience as a pastor. Despite his mentorship by William Lane Craig. What this suggests is these possibilities:
1. He was deliberately hardened, and did not understand what he was taught for that reason.
2. He just didn’t pay attention in class.
3. He is suppressing the truth, in unrighteousness, and doesn’t realize what he is doing.

Perhaps all 3. Regardless, this is not what he was taught, given where he went to school, and who he was taught by. So, it has to be an endemic ignorance!

If he is unwilling to consider historic orthodoxy as valid, I’m forced to wonder why he continually refers to historic creeds and the like. We aren’t talking about something arcane, or something Christians disagree about. This is something that is definitional to Christianity, not something that is a take it or leave it. If someone does not confess the Trinity, they are not Christian. Point-blank, period. So, why then, are we even trying to state that people who deny the Trinity are even relevant to any discussion of Christianity? Orthodoxy concerning the Trinity is foundational, not optional. So, when we are speaking of Anti-social Trinitarianism, or Social Trinitarianism, why are we even pretending that this is relevant to orthodoxy? If we are ignoring orthodoxy, and only discussing modernist neo-orthodoxy – why are we even pretending to talk about Christianity? Does he understand that such neo-orthodoxy has nothing to do with Orthodox Christianity? Perhaps we’re once again intruding into ignorance – the previous explanation.

Let Christians define Christianity. Further, let the Bible define Christianity. Not John Loftus. Especially since John Loftus cannot correctly define the Trinity.

“Social trinitarianism threatens to veer into tritheism (three gods); anti–social trinitarianism is in danger of lapsing into unitarianism (one God with no distinct persons in the Godhead).”

Why do we have no mention of orthodox Trinitarianism? Does he know what it is? Not according to his video explanation!

“Each person is not to be considered God, only the whole”. Really? Let’s back up to the Athanasian creed.

“Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God.”

So: Not only are each of the persons God – but, the whole is also God. Does Mr. Loftus know the orthodox explanation for this? He doesn’t seem to.

Dr. White certainly gives that explanation, to follow. Does Mr. Loftus interact with this correction? Not in the slightest. Instead, he goes into Social/Anti-Social trinitarianism. What does this have to do with orthodoxy? These two beliefs are not orthodox. In fact, Mr. Loftus’ understanding is far from orthodox. Has he ever read the Athanasian creed? The Nicene? It’s not apparent from his statement!

SOME Christians? I agree with Dr. White. This is definitional. You can’t deny the Trinity’s self-existence from eternity, and call yourself Christian.

Notwithstanding the mispronunciation of “Occam”, he behaves as if the very concept of “uncaused eternality” is an idea that has never had an argument advanced for it, throughout history. Not only that, his argument is a simple argument from incredulity. Last I checked, that was a simple fallacy. Further, he acts as if the concept of an uncreated God, let alone the two-millenia old doctrine of God, concerning the Trinity, is something new and “incredible”. However, as Dr. White points out – there is no definition of “person” made by Mr. Loftus in his discussion of God. What I find interesting is his assertion, in the comments of his blog reply, that Dr. White “(u)sing words like “person” or “hypostatic union” without a precise definition of them means nothing.” Is that so? Tell us, Mr. Loftus. Whose video was he critiquing, and how did the subject come up? Dr. White is a published author on the doctrine of the Trinity. His discussion of common misconceptions of the word “person”, when applied to God, can be found on page 25-26.

“Words often carry with them ‘baggage’ that has become attached to the meaning of a word. The way we use the word may cause us to conjure up particular mental images every time we hear it. The most glaring example of this is the word ‘person,’ a word that is often used when discussing the Trinity. When we use the word ‘person,’ we attach to it all sorts of ‘baggage’ that comes from our own personal experiences. We think of a physical body, an individual, separate from everyone else. We think of a spatial location, physical attributes like height, weight, age—all things associated with our common use of the word ‘person.’ When we use this word to describe a divine person (Father, Son, or Holy Spirit), we tend to drag along with it the ‘baggage’ that comes from our common use of the term in everyday life. Many people, upon hearing the word ‘person’ used of the Father, for example, conjure up an image of a kind of old grandfatherly figure who is the ‘person’ of the Father. He’s separate, different, limited—everything we think of when we think of the term ‘person.’ It will be our task (and it is a difficult one!) to labor to separate such ‘baggage’ from our thinking and use such terms in very specific, limited ways so as to avoid unneeded confusion.”

I really think Mr. Loftus is the one laboring under a misconception, here. It is not Dr. White who misunderstands the doctrien of the Trinity. It is Mr. Loftus. Further, he is the one who has begun to delve into a discussion on the topic without any definition of terms, or exploration of the topic in historic orthodoxy. You would imagine he had received this training in the past – I myself have studied this doctrine, to some extent, as have most orthodox Christians. Not all understand it completely, but what they do understand MUST be orthodox. To worship God in Spirit, and in TRUTH, you must have a proper conception of what you worship.

Let’s delve into Dr. White’s definition of terms, concerning the Trinity. (pg. 26ff)

Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

…

First, the doctrine rests completely on the truth of the first clause: there is only one God. “The one Being that is God” carries within it a tremendous amount of information. It not only asserts that there is only one God – the historic belief, shared by Christians and Jews known as monotheism– but it also insists that God’s “Being” (capitalized so as to contrast it with the term “persons” found in the next clause) is one unique, undivided, indivisible.

Second, the definition insists that there are three divine persons. Note immediately that we are not saying there are three Beings that are one Being, or three persons that are one person. Such would be self-contradictory. I emphasize this because, most often, this is the misrepresentation of the doctrine that is commonly found in the literature of various religions that deny the Trinity. The second clause speaks of three divine persons, not three divine beings. As I warned before, we must not succumb to the temptation to read the term “person” as if we are talking about finite, self-contained human beings. What “person” means when we speak of the Trinity is quite different than when we speak of creatures such as ourselves. These divine persons are identified in the last clause as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Thirdly, we are told that the relationship among these divine persons is eternal. They have eternally existed in this unique relationship. Each of the persons is said to be eternal, each is said to be coequal with the others as to their divine nature. Each fully shares one Being that is God. The Father is not 1/3 of God, the Son 1/3 of God, the Spirit 1/3 of God. Each is fully God, coequal with the others, and that eternally. There was never a time when the Father was not the Father; never a tiem when the Son was not the Son; never a time when the Spirit was not the Spirit. Their relationship is eternal, not in the sense of having been for a long time, but existing, in fact, outside the realm of time itself.

The three foundations of the Trinity, then, are already clearly visible. Here they are:

Foundation One: Monotheism: There is Only One God
Foundation Two: There Are Three Divine Persons
Foundation Three: The Persons are Coequal and Eternal

That’s in Chapter 2: What Is The Trinity?

In Chapter 11, we find: Three Persons. I won’t go into a detailed quote from this chapter – but He discusses all of the individual characteristics of these three persons, in detail.

In Chapter 12: A Closer Look, Dr. White lists Louis Berkhof’s definition, from his Systematic Theology.

1. There is in the Divine Being but one indivisible essence (ousia, essentia).
2. In this one Divine Being there are three Persons or individual subsistences, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
3. The whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons.
4. The subsistence and operation of the three persons in the Divine Being is marked by a certain definite order.
5. There are certain personal attributes by which the three persons are distinguished .
6. The Church confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the comprehension of man.

After stating this, he goes into further detail, on each one of these points. I would encourage Mr. Loftus to purchase this book, The Forgotten Trinity, study it, and thereby gain an understanding of which he speaks. Dr. White is not confused, as to his theology of God, or on the Doctrine of the Trinity. This is eminently orthodox, very concise, and I am purely baffled at the claim of Mr. Loftus that Dr. White has no understanding of the subject. Again, he is the author of a book explaining the subject – and he does so in an extremely concise and understandable manner, that no orthodox Christian will have any problem in endorsing. it is, in fact, endorsed by Norman Geisler (an opponent of long standing concerning other issues), Dr. J.I. Packer (a theologian who has much experience writing about the Doctrine of God), Dr. Gleason Archer, Fr. Mitchell Pacwa (a Catholic debate opponent), Kerry D. McRoberts, and Dr. John MacArthur. This is no novice, and the book is entirely sound in doctrine.

What possible grounds does Mr. Loftus have for his skepticism concerning Dr. White’s understanding of the subject?

…that’s one of the reasons I asked White if he understands what he believes. Using words like “person” or “hypostatic union” without a precise definition of them means nothing.

See, that’s the thing. Dr. White is speaking from the perspective of a published author, with a very extensive body of work outside of that, as well. Plus, it’s work in the very subject Mr. Loftus is accusing him of ignorance in. If Mr. Loftus, as is apparently the case, is ignorant of Dr. White’s extensive treatment of the subject, I’m hard-pressed to be sympathetic about his own complete misunderstanding of the subject he is addressing.

I’m with Dr. White. What does “eternally created” even mean? Just a basic overview of the Nicene or Athanasian creeds will disabuse you of that notion. Further – I’ll return once again to his claim that Dr. White “failed to define terms”. Does he not understand that Dr. White is critiquing HIS video? Is it that difficult to see that his own failure to define any sort of terms is the source of most of his confusion?

The single greatest reason people struggle with the doctrine of the Trinity is miscommunication. It is very rare that anyone actually argues or debates about the real doctrine of the Trinity. Most arguments that take place at the door, or over coffee, or at the workplace involve two or more people fighting vigorously over two or more misrepresentations of the doctrine itself. it is basic to human communication to define terms. Yet so many people have so much emotional energy invested in the Trinity that they often skip right past the “definitions” stage and charge into the “tooth and claw” stage.

…

When it comes to the central affirmation of the triune nature of God, most of the time we leap right past the “formalities” and directly into a tug-of-war with passages of Scripture. The result is almost always the same: both sides go away thinking the other side is utterly blind. Such frustrating experiences could be minimized if we remember that we cannot assume that the other person shares our knowledge or understanding of the specifics of the doctrine under discussion.

~ The Forgotten Trinity, pgs 23-24

I would submit that perhaps Mr. Loftus’ knowledge of the doctrine in question is not as complete as he’d like to think.

“Massive confusion”, indeed. Created?

The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten; the Son was neither made nor created, but was alone begotten of the Father; the Spirit was neither made nor created, but is proceeding from the Father and the Son.

Remember that, from above?

See, here’s where Mr. Loftus gets a bit annoyed. Dr. White corrected him over several things. I don’t think his usage of the word “logos” was in question. It was the manner of usage. Mr. Loftus says “also known as ‘logos'”. As Dr. White points out – “logos” is only a descriptor. Not a title. The second person of the Trinity is first and foremost, the Son. Perhaps He would be, in a much lesser sense, also known as “logos” – but the choice of this term was strange, in the manner he used it in.

Further, his discussion of the supposed “incoherence” of the Incarnation was… not very convincing or coherent, in it’s own right? I mean, when you post a link to your supposed discussion of the Incarnation, in the blog post that is supposedly an exhortation that your opponent is ignorant of what he HIMSELF believes, and even this is completely ignorant of the orthodox understanding of THAT doctrine, I find it hard to believe any accusations of ignorance against anyone else have any credence whatsoever. At least not from them. Mr. Loftus, despite his claims, has obviously not understood what he was taught.

Now keep in mind that the God-man Jesus was a fully human being, so any resurrected God-man must have a body in keeping with his humanity, otherwise the human part of the God-man ceased to exist, died, or his was simply discarded. But it can’t be that God would destroy a sinless man, the man Jesus. Therefore, the resurrected Jesus, being a God-man, is a new and unique being, and this dual natured being is unlike the previous 2nd person of the Trinity.

Now, such a lack of understanding is truly indicative of the level of argumentation he has to offer. Honestly, Dr. White has better things to do than refute this level of… misunderstanding. As he often says, concerning Islam – if you want to show the truthfulness of your own view, it’s helpful to at least make an effort to accurately represent the beliefs of your opponents. If you show no interest in truthfulness concerning their views, you have shown, in essence, that you have no concern with it, ultimately, concerning your own.

Advice I wish Mr. Loftus would take. Especially when his sole claim to fame is that he was taught by the famous William Lane Craig.

This clip shows, very clearly, the depth of Mr. Loftus’ confusion, concerning very fundamental Christian doctrines. When he asks whether Dr. White knows what he believes – I find that odd, considering Mr. Loftus’ demonstrated ignorance throughout this video, and on his blog. A more pertinent question would be:

Does Mr. Loftus have a correct conception of orthodox Christian doctrine? If so, why is he misrepresenting it so badly? If not – what possible justification does he have for his ignorance? There is a very obvious answer to this question, of course.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual {thoughts} with spiritual {words.} But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.

~ 1 Cor 2:12-16

This is the root of the problem. Mr. Loftus, despite his academic training, simply fails to understand even the most fundamental things of theology. Why?

{So} we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief.

~ Hebrews 3:19

He does not know God, and thus cannot appraise the things of God. He has no recourse, either. God is the only recourse. I will pray that God does His will in this man – but, of course, God changes the man. What the man thinks of God is really irrelevant. I pray that his eyes will be opened. We shall see.

Again, these standards he gives are not related, in the slightest, to orthodox understanding of the relationship of the members of the Trinity. This is his basic problem. Why does he not have it? Once again – no one can know the things of God unless they are spiritually appraised. One again, as Dr. White says – he has had “every possible opportunity to study the doctrine of the Trinity, and understand it”. Why does he not? He can’t.

What saddens me is that he doesn’t completely misunderstand it. He knows the gospel. Unfortunately, it’s just enough of it to condemn him. It’s truly not any sort of ‘glee’ that I feel, when listening to a false believer speaking of the contents of his false profession. It’s just sad, to me.

Once again – using “being” in a way that in no way accords with a Trinitarian description in any orthodox way simply shows your unwillingness to correctly represent your subject.

I could probably finish with more clips from the Dividing Line, but I think we’ve adequately explored Mr. Loftus’ colossal ignorance of what he puzzlingly considers a doctrine that Dr. White is ignorant of. As we can demonstrably show that this is not the case; as we can further show that Mr. Loftus is blindingly confused as to the nature and implications of Trinitarian doctrine; and even further, that Mr. Loftus has absolutely no excuse for being so staggeringly ignorant of what he professes to be educated in – we are left with only sobering conclusions.

Mr. Loftus does not know what he is talking about – because his mind is incapable of it. What do I mean by this?

For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

~Romans 1:21

This qualifies as “futile speculation”, does it not? When you do nto understand, there is typically a reason for this. The reason is: God hides it.

At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from {the} wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal {Him.}

~ Matthew 11:25-27

Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man…

~ Romans 1:22

Can it really surprise us, when natural men act as they do? That they fail to understand what they fail to understand? It shouldn’t perhaps – but I’m willing to admit that it does surprise me, sometimes.

The wisdom of God is, truly, hidden from those to whom He has not revealed it. It’s hidden in plain sight. The things revealed are even impossible for them to understand as true. How much more so the doctrines approaching the secret things of God? Well, I hope that we can learn something from this. A man given every earthly advantage to learn the truths of God fails miserably, if God Himself is not in it. Folks, this is a sobering lesson for us. Education, opportunity, and even personal mentorship in doctrine are nothing, if God is not in it. Well, may God have mercy on him.

Soli Deo Gloria. Man has not a thing to do with it.

(Cranmer): i asked you to explain
(Cranmer): i then challenged an assertion you made
(Cranmer): you asked me to explain
(Cranmer): i was trying to explain
(Cranmer): but you simply didn’t want to listen to what I had to say
(Manuel): no dice David I want a debate
(Cranmer): it was a debate
(Cranmer): just not a shouting match
(Manuel): no it was not it was you asking questions
(Cranmer): yes, it was
(Manuel): LOL!
(Cranmer): i get to do that when I’m laying out an argument
(Cranmer): and you are free to do it when you lay out yours
(Manuel): LOL!
(Algo): <@Cranmer> when I am done, I will return it to you
(Algo): dishonesty is the mark of a cult
(Manuel): Who wants to debate?
(Manuel): yes it is!
(Cranmer): right
(Cranmer): and so Jesus, the Living ONe, the YAHWEH of Isa 41, says “I was dead”
(Cranmer): there is your problem in a nutshell
(Cranmer): and no claiming rudeness will remove it for you
(Manuel): No dice you are being dishonest david
(Cranmer): Jesus is the YAHWEH of ISa 41, by his own words, and he says “I was dead”
(Cranmer): where’s the dishonesty?
(Cranmer): that’s quite a claim, so I think you would be better backing it up
(Algo): Cranmer, you are being dishonest because he doesn’t want the truth.
(Cranmer): Manuel, where’s the dishonesty?
(Cranmer): I know the ops don’t like people making such heavy unfounded accusations
(Cranmer): Manuel, where’s the dishonesty?
(Manuel): jeuss is both David’s son and davids lord Right?
(Cranmer): yes, yes he is
(Manuel): Both human and divein he which dies and does not die
(Manuel): So yes you are being dishonest
(RazorsKiss): Yes, posesses the natures of God, from eternity, and humanity, from the Incarnation.
(Cranmer): no, since in Rev 1:19 he claims divinity AND says “I died”
(RazorsKiss): and continues with both natures, for Eternity.
(Manuel): You are mixxing him i9nto a hybrid
(Cranmer): thus the divine one dies
(Cranmer): you are presupposing that the divine cannot die
(Manuel): hybrid is your veiw’
(@brigand): I think even the nature of “death” is being debated.
(Reformerz): Are you UPC or are you Apostolic, Manuel?
(Manuel): hybrid
(Cranmer): nope, it’s really simple
(Manuel): apostolic
(RazorsKiss): Could a mortal man bear the wrath of God, Manuel?
(Cranmer): Manuel presupposes that the Divine cannot die
(Cranmer): and Jesus contradicts him
(Manuel): No Your Jesu is a Hybrid
(Cranmer): he claims to the divine yahweh of Isa 41
(Cranmer): and then claims to have died
(Cranmer): so your disagreement is not with me Manuel
(Manuel): jesus is both davids son and davids Lord
(Cranmer): it is with Jesus’ words in Rev 1:19
(RazorsKiss): Could a mortal man take the penalty of death for us all?
(Manuel): yes
(Cranmer): razor, leave him
(Cranmer): leave him to disagree with Jesus
(Cranmer): Manuel disagrees with Jesus.
(Manuel): A Mortal man without sin
* Cranmer thinks that is a terrible position to be in
(RazorsKiss): Or must He be BOTH man and God – man to share in our suffering, and our temptations – and God to bear the wrath of the Father for the sins of

the world?
(Manuel): There is one mediator between god and men THE MAN CHRIST JESUS
* Cranmer goes off to make a ham/cheese toasted sandwich
(Algo): manuel thinks Jesus is a hybrid?
(Cranmer): two fillings, one sandwich – hypostatic union in the one bread
(Manuel): NoI think your veiw of Jeus is a Hybrid
(@brigand): RazorsKiss: Even Job says he needs a mediator who is both God and man.
(RazorsKiss): I think your view of Jesus cannot save.
(Algo): Did you come up with that term?
(RazorsKiss): Only man cannot bear the wrath of God.
* Cranmer is bored with Manuel because he won’t listen to Jesus’ words in Rev 1:19
(RazorsKiss): Only God does not suffer as we do, and is not tempted as we were tempted.
(RazorsKiss): The God-Man can fulfill both.
(RazorsKiss): Did, and will for eternity.
(Manuel): There is One mediator between god and men the man christ jeus
(RazorsKiss): Yes, there is.
(RazorsKiss): Interceding before the Father.
(RazorsKiss): Why does He have the right to intercede before the throne?
(Manuel): No his slain humanity
(Manuel): is ever seen
(RazorsKiss): He is the Son of God – the only begotten of the Father.
(RazorsKiss): So, Manuel.
(Manuel): The sojn of god refers to his humanity not divinity
(RazorsKiss): If, in the beginning was the Word.
(@brigand): How can one mediate between both God and man without being both divine and human?
* Algo shuts up.
(RazorsKiss): And the Word was WITH God – and the Word WAS God – and He was in the beginning with God…
(RazorsKiss): How can we not be taling about 2 different persons – being called God?
(Manuel): Psalm 33:6 by the word of the LORD were the heavens amde and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth . the day you make the breath of your

mouth another person is the day you will have anarguemtn from john 1;1
(RazorsKiss): Why wouldn’t God be one in purpose?
(RazorsKiss): All 3 persons?
(RazorsKiss): How could God NOT be one in purpose, in all 3 persons?
(Manuel): no such thing as three persons of god
(Manuel): you actually have four with your veiw of jesu
(RazorsKiss): John 1 – The Word was WITH God, and the Word WAS God.
(Manuel): yesssss
(Algo): Sabin is no debater<---but you are? (RazorsKiss): Two persons, being called God. (Manuel): 1st. john 1:1-2 (RazorsKiss): Why is this, Manuel? (Manuel): eternal life was with god from the beggining (RazorsKiss): Eternal life was "God"? (Manuel): 1st. john 1:1-2 (Manuel): yes (Manuel): Yes! (RazorsKiss): So you have two Gods? (RazorsKiss): God - and Eternal Life? (Manuel): No! You do (RazorsKiss): No, I have 3 persons in one God. (Manuel): eternal life is not a person (RazorsKiss): You apparently have two Gods. (RazorsKiss): So it's an impoersonal God? (Manuel): God is Spirit john 4:24 (RazorsKiss): So God is not a person? (RazorsKiss): You said earlier that a spirit cannot be a person. (Manuel): A spirit is not a person (RazorsKiss): God is Spirit. So God is not a person? (RazorsKiss): Curious. (Manuel): Yep (RazorsKiss): So, now you have TWO impersonal Gods. (Manuel): otherwise your jesus is two persons (Manuel): No (RazorsKiss): The God, whom the Word was with - and God - who is spirit, and cannot be a person. (RazorsKiss): Do I have you correctly? (RazorsKiss): Because that is where your argument has taken you. (Manuel): The word is simply that the word Psalm 33;6 (RazorsKiss): 1. You say that God is Spirit. (Manuel): yep (RazorsKiss): 2. You say that a spirit cannot be a person. (Manuel): yep (RazorsKiss): 3. You say that God cannot be a person. (Manuel): he is only a person in the person of the son (RazorsKiss): 4. God is, therefore, what? An inanimate spiritual object? (Manuel): God is spirit (RazorsKiss): A non-personal God gave Christ his Godhood? (RazorsKiss): How would a non-personal God have any interaction with a person? (Manuel): God is a person 1 person in the person of the son (@brigand): Seems like Manuel defines "person" has having flesh and blood. (Manuel): no (Cranmer): 😉 (RazorsKiss): That "person" was only a human being, given his godhood by "god", this impersonal force - according to you. (RazorsKiss): So, we now have *3* Gods, Manuel. (RazorsKiss): One is a person, one is an impersonal force called "The Word" (RazorsKiss): and one is "Jesus" - who WAS a man, but was then "made to be" God, by the impersonal force known as "God", elsewhere. (RazorsKiss): Is this what you're trying to tell us? *** Manuel (~gjzcjzbhd@Cobra-IP1.ViperShells.com) Quit (Manuel:IRC) (RazorsKiss): Rofl. (graceb4me): bummer (@brigand): lol (@brigand): nice RK. (doulos): what? he quit? (RazorsKiss): He's a trinitarian! (RazorsKiss): You all saw that... (RazorsKiss): The Oneness pentacostal just argued himself into being a trinitarian. (RazorsKiss): *sigh* (doulos): God equals spirit, which equals impersonal force which creates Jesus?... * RazorsKiss finds a place to post that one (RazorsKiss): 1. God is spirit, and cannot be a person (doulos): that was insane. (RazorsKiss): 2. So, the "God" in Scripture is an impersonal God (doulos): doesn't understand what a person means.. (RazorsKiss): 3. "The Word" is also impersonal, and also God- and separate from "God" * doulos to Manuel.. person... you keep on using that word..... * doulos I don't that word means what you think it means *** MikeAtHome (~chatzilla@cpe-024-163-081-139.nc.res.rr.com) Quit (Read error to MikeAtHome[cpe-024-163-081-139.nc.res.rr.com: Connection reset by peer) (RazorsKiss): 4. Jesus, who is also God - IS personal - but was not always God, but made to BE God (RazorsKiss): by an impersonal "God" * Cranmer returns with his ham cheese and chilli sandwich - trinitarian and cultic * Cranmer also sips his ethiopian harar doppio (RazorsKiss): I think I just KO'd him. (RazorsKiss): Or.. really his own argument did. (crewbear): ham cheese and chili is trinitarian? (doulos): yeah.. no doubt * Cranmer understands that everyone else is jealous (RazorsKiss): Because that was the funny part. It was what HE said that smoked him. (RazorsKiss): all i did was assemble it. (Cranmer): that too *** Manuel (~gjzcjzbhd@Cobra-IP1.ViperShells.com) has joined #prosapologian (doulos): You assemble three into one Razor? (RazorsKiss): Cranmer- did you see Manuel admit to being trinitarian? (Manuel): LOL no you seen no such thing (RazorsKiss): Sure I did. (Cranmer): you're kidding me, that would be good (Manuel): Sorry (Cranmer): oh, he's back (Cranmer): good to have you back, manueal (Cranmer): manuel (Manuel): nom I would belong to a cult then (Cranmer): how you doing with the Divine Jesus claiming to die in Rev 1:19? (RazorsKiss): 1. God is not a person, but impersonal, correct? Because, according to you, a spirit cannot be a person, and God is Spirit. (Cranmer): I am the First and the Last ... I died (Manuel): That is your veiw not mine (Cranmer): no, it's jesus' view (Cranmer): he says (and correct me if I'm wrong here) "I am the First and the Last ... I died" (RazorsKiss): 2. The Word is also God, but also impersonal - and separate from "God" in John 1. (Manuel): The first and last can say that david Because he was not onloy the first divine but the last glorified humnaity that died (Cranmer): manuel is currently dancing for us (RazorsKiss): That's 2 Gods so far, Manuel. (Cranmer): lol (Manuel): for you razor (Cranmer): so "first and Last" is actually a statement about humanity? (Cranmer): ~nas isa 41:4 (@Gutenberg^): 12Isaiah 41:4 "Who has performed and accomplished [it, Calling forth the generations from the beginning? 'I, the LORD, am the first, and with the last. I am He.'" (NASB) (Manuel): i have One god and one glorified man (RazorsKiss): Then, Jesus is also God, because He was granted his Godhood by the Father - but He is personal - granted His Godhood by the impersonal "God". (RazorsKiss): No, you admitted the "Word" is a God, but not a person. (Cranmer): sorry Razor, I'm interrupting (Cranmer): go ahead (RazorsKiss): And was "with" God, the impersonal Father. (Manuel): We cannot debate here razor you need to come to my group this is confusion compounded (Manuel): Okay lets use your reasoning razor shall we? (RazorsKiss): No, you are confusion multiplied (RazorsKiss): No, let's not. (RazorsKiss): Let's stick to your trinitarian admission. (RazorsKiss): God is, by your admission: (Manuel): yes let's do and i will show you how you have four persons instead of three (RazorsKiss): 1. The impersonal Father (RazorsKiss): 2. The impersonal Word (aka Eternal Life, as you defined it) (Manuel): Okay God the father is a person (Manuel): lets use your reason razor (Cranmer): hello! now he's a person! (RazorsKiss): No, you said God is spirit, and spirits cannot be persons. (Manuel): reasoning (@brigand): !!! (RazorsKiss): Be consistent. (Manuel): Come on now (Manuel): you be consistent? (Manuel): God the father is a persons * Cranmer finishes his sandwich and sits back (RazorsKiss): I'ev been consistently pointing out that you're skipping around like a bug on a hot skillet, yes. (RazorsKiss): Yes, that's my claim - but not yours. (Manuel): come on mr brave let's dance? (Cranmer): a bug on a hot skillet - i like that (RazorsKiss): I'm not interested in my argument. I know it already. (Manuel): No you don't ! * Cranmer dances to Rev 1:19 (RazorsKiss): I'm interested in where you're getting you're trinitarian impression. (RazorsKiss): *your (Cranmer): nice, now Manuel knows our arguments better than us! (RazorsKiss): Because you have outlined 3 Gods for us. (Manuel): your veiw of god is either hybrid or you have four persons (Manuel): I was trinitarain (Cranmer): not at all (Cranmer): you still don't get it (geoffist): you "WERE" trinitarian? not anymore? (Manuel): I lefvt it for the truth' (RazorsKiss): You're also Trinitarian - but with no Biblical basis for it. (Cranmer): i am beginnig to suspect that it's because you don't want to (RazorsKiss): It's a bit confusing. (RazorsKiss): Why can a spirit not be a person again? (Manuel): Come on Razor * Cranmer notes that the first and best way to debate is to properly understand your opponent and address their best argument (RazorsKiss): Please outline that from Scripture for me. (Manuel): come on God the father is a person * Algo can't remember who the Hybrid was. (Cranmer): we're all heretics geoff, keep up 😉 (RazorsKiss): You're revoking your statement that a spirit cannot be a person, then? (@brigand): Cranmer: The best way to debate is to use your words but define them differently, then make random claims (Cranmer): lol (Cranmer): mate (Cranmer): you need the forward slash!!! (RazorsKiss): Manuel: You're revoking your statement that a spirit cannot be a person, then? (Manuel): I don't believe a spirit is a person it is weak and contradictory when explain ing god (Cranmer): try it out, jamie (Cranmer): lol (RazorsKiss): So, "God is Spirit" - thus, God is not a person. (Manuel): Come on let us use your reasoning (Cranmer): oh, I'm not seeing it (Cranmer): my bad (RazorsKiss): ~nas John 4:24 (@Gutenberg^): 12John 4:24 "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." (NASB) (Manuel): Yep (Manuel): Yep (RazorsKiss): So, God is not a person, by your statement. (RazorsKiss): So, Christ is not a person, when He says "into your hands I commit my Spirit", either? (Manuel): Stop with your beating around the bush (RazorsKiss): So, Christ is not a person, when He says "into your hands I commit my Spirit", either? (Manuel): That is a human spirit part of a person body soul and spirit jeus was glorified humanity a person (RazorsKiss): The Father is not a person, as Jesus says "God is Spirit" (RazorsKiss): Spirit cannot be a person. You didn't say "God's spirit". (Manuel): razor let us use your reasoning? (RazorsKiss): So, are also denying men have spirits? (Cranmer): i'm bored (Cranmer): someone boot him (RazorsKiss): Why? Yours is much more enlightening. (Cranmer): he simply doesn't want to listen (Manuel): No men have spirits it is part of humanity persons (RazorsKiss): So, are men persons? (Manuel): 'Yes men are persons (Manuel): so was jesus (RazorsKiss): Then spirit can be persons, can't it? (RazorsKiss): God is spirit, is He not? (RazorsKiss): Per John 4:24? (Manuel): why are you asking me ? (Manuel): I thought you knew (RazorsKiss): Because you're the one playing footsie with the truth. (Manuel): Your doctrine is not the truth (RazorsKiss): Is God Spirit, or do you deny the Biblical doctrine? (Manuel): God is Spirit (Manuel): Yes (RazorsKiss): Why then, cannot God be a person? (RazorsKiss): Jesus is. The Father is.. a Father. (Manuel): What? (Apollos): apparently a spirit cannot have personality in CG's world (RazorsKiss): Fathers are typically persons. This describes a relationship. (RazorsKiss): Relationships are only had by persons. (RazorsKiss): You cannot have a relationship involving only one person. (Manuel): of course god can have personality to deal with us on our level but he is above that (RazorsKiss): Is God a person? (RazorsKiss): The Father - is He a person? (@brigand): God is above having a personality? (Algo): with=face to face (Manuel): NO only in the person of the sonm is god a person (RazorsKiss): So who was Jesus talking to, when praying in the Garden? (Manuel): Yes he did (Manuel): he Prayed to his god as a real human man (RazorsKiss): Who was speaking when the Father said "this is my son, in whom I am well-pleased"? (Manuel): The father Duh (RazorsKiss): A person, or an impersonal force? (RazorsKiss): Do impersonal forces have sons? (Manuel): Goid as spirit the allpowerfull all knowing ultimate being

(JuDaS): I am currently reading the Book of Mormon.
(JuDaS): And I am wondering.
* AOMin takes interest
(JuDaS): Why do we reject other doctrines, other than the fact they are false.
(@bluelunch): I would think that would be a good enough reason in itself.
(@AOMin): how can there be a better reason?
(Tur8inFan): Judas: doctrines need warrant
(JuDaS): I am not saying that it is the best reason.
(@AOMin): or even another one?
(Tur8inFan): Doctrines not derived from Scripture lack warrant
(doulos): Do you knowingly accept a falsity?
(Tur8inFan): Therefore we reject those doctrines
(JuDaS): The same way atheists do.
(@AOMin): well, you do understand the issue of truth, correct?
(JuDaS): Do atheists not reject God?
(@AOMin): not in truth, no
(JuDaS): But they know he exists?
(@AOMin): they do so according to Romans 1
(JuDaS): Yes.
(@AOMin): suppressing the knowledge of God
(JuDaS): So, they do know that God exists.
(JuDaS): That is a fact.
(@AOMin): according to Romans 1, yes
(JuDaS): But, believe in a falsity.
(yoopertrol): when I was a roman catholic all I knew was what the church told me, when I started reading the bible they lost their authority
(@AOMin): if I understand you, yes
(JuDaS): That is how you knowingly accept a falsity, AOMin.
(@AOMin): ok
(JuDaS): Back to the initial question.
(JuDaS): Is there another reason why we reject the fallacies other than the fact they are not true?
(doulos): regeneration Judas….
(JuDaS): Regeneration…?
(@AOMin): are you suggesting that there are legitimate times to simply destroy the persons belief rather than witness God’s truth to them?
(@AOMin): I mean, I could do that
(@AOMin): I can come into a convo with a Mormon and just tear JS up one side and down the other
(JuDaS): Hmm, I wasn’t thinking about that.
(JuDaS): But, that makes sense.
(@AOMin): leaving them helpless and hopeless
(doulos): Being born again leads us to truth and gives us spiritual discernment.
(RazorsKiss): always be ready to give a defense….
(JuDaS): Well let me put it this way.
(@AOMin): but what does that achieve?
(RazorsKiss): FOR the hope that is within us
(RazorsKiss): IN gentleness, and reverence.
(GraceAlone): Hey guys, any veteran calvinists here?
(JuDaS): Is there another reason you reject false doctrine IE: Book of Mormon, Quran, NWT other than the fact it is not true?
(RazorsKiss): because of what IS true!
(GraceAlone): Hey
(@AOMin): well, since truth is the core of the Christian faith……I don’t see any other legitimate way
(JuDaS): Yes, that’s what I was aiming for.
(RazorsKiss): ~nas 2cor 10:3-5
(@Gutenberg^): 2 Cor. 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, (NASB)
(@Gutenberg^): 2 Cor. 10:4 for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. (NASB)
(@Gutenberg^): 2 Cor. 10:5 [We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and [we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, (NASB)
(@bluelunch): GraceAlone: what do you mean by ‘veteran Calvinist’?
(@bluelunch): many here have believed in the doctrines of grace for quite some time.
(RazorsKiss): look at the contrast in verse 5.
(JuDaS): Perhaps we don’t reject the Book of Mormon because its false teachings alone.
(JuDaS): But because of its credibility.
(RazorsKiss): destroy speculations and every lofty thing – raised up against what?
(JuDaS): Or, lack of credibility.
(GraceAlone): I just have some genuine questions for those that are somewhat advanced in theier reformed study
(RazorsKiss): the (true) knowledge of God, and taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ
(@bluewoad): GraceAlone: fire away. If anyone can answer, he will.
(JuDaS): You are correct.
(RazorsKiss): as Bahnsen says – press the antithesis
(GraceAlone): Is there anything that happened that was NOT ordained by God?
(RazorsKiss): you have to push their falsity – but with what? The truth in opposition to it.
(@bluewoad): GraceAlone: nope
(RazorsKiss): You don’t push a negative deconstruction of their argument alone – you push the juxtaposition of the false and the true
(JuDaS): GraceAlone: I believe so, after the reformation, the Bible is no longer a closed text, thus making cults.
(JuDaS): Whilist I am not saying that the Bible should be a closed text.
(GraceAlone): I think the obvious theological answer is no, however, then how can sin and immorality be explained?
(JuDaS): There needs to be equilibrium.
(RazorsKiss): BY showing the true as the only alternative to all of the falsities that exist.
(GraceAlone): You’d have to jump into fatalism and double predestination or supralapsarianism if you say No…
(GraceAlone): If yes, then wouldn’t that destroy the full purpose of God’s FULL sovereignty?
(JuDaS): I am not saying yes/no.
(RazorsKiss): GraceAlone: While God did ordain all events, Romans 9 gives the answer as to why evil exists, and what purpose it has.
(RazorsKiss): ~nas rom 9:14-16
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! (NASB)
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:15 For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.” (NASB)
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:16 So then it [does not [depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. (NASB)
(RazorsKiss): ~nas rom 9:17-19
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.” (NASB)
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. (NASB)
(JuDaS): There was benefits and… Misfortunes.
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” (NASB)
(GraceAlone): So is it double predestination, or single predestination?
(JuDaS): In the reformation.
(RazorsKiss): God ordains all. Period.
(RazorsKiss): However, some are ordained for differing *purposes*.
(RazorsKiss): Some for dishonor, and some for honor.
(RazorsKiss): ~nas rom 9:20-22
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? (NASB)
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? (NASB)
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? (NASB)
(RazorsKiss): ~nas rom 9:23
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:23 And [He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, (NASB)
(GraceAlone): Has God ordained sin? I don’t mean by adversity and destruction, but I mean immorality and unholiness
(RazorsKiss): The vessels of wrath were prepared for destruction.
(GraceAlone): So it is double predestination?
(RazorsKiss): Well, we don’t know exactly, I think, is the only answer we make.
(@Algo): Wow….I step out for a sec. and it’s grand Central.
(RazorsKiss): I think trying to make it a “double predestination”, as if God’s decree is a separate thing for believers and unbelievers…
(RazorsKiss): Is not really looking at the problem holistically.
(GraceAlone): are you supralapsarian RazorsKiss?
(RazorsKiss): Does God declare the end from the beginning? Yes, according to Isaiah 46:10
(RazorsKiss): Supra/infra is a bit of an angels dancing on the heads of pins discussion.
(GraceAlone): Infra is more passive while Supra is hard, straight and every close to hyper
(RazorsKiss): So, does/did God ordain that evil men exist? If so, to what purpose does He do so?
(GraceAlone): I don’t know, is it possible that it was ordained for a greater end or means?
(RazorsKiss): Romans 9 tells us – He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy.
(GraceAlone): It’s hard to be completely ound calvinist without going into supralapsarianism and fatalism
(GraceAlone): sound*
(RazorsKiss): Why is it fatalism to accept God’s sovereignty?
(RazorsKiss): Man is responsible for His deeds – because God says he is.
(graceb4me): GraceAlone: are you a Calvinist?
(GraceAlone): Fatalism is God being 100% the cause of everything
(RazorsKiss): God is Just, therefore, God’s judgement of the matter is Just.
(RazorsKiss): No, that’s determinism.
(@bluewoad): GraceAlone: there’s a difference between ’cause’ and ‘ordain’
(GraceAlone): Somewhat yes, but I’m trying to study on infra and supralapsarianism
(RazorsKiss): Fatalism says that no matter what we do, it’s all determined.
(@brigand): Fatalism is even outside of God’s ability to effect.
(RazorsKiss): and that we can do whatever we want, because it doesn’t matter.
(@brigand): infra and supra are pre-Fall considerations that we really don’t have the insight into.
(RazorsKiss): Well, maybe instead of trying to split hairs on the “order of the decree”, maybe we should try to look to Scripture to see what God’s decree is.
(RazorsKiss): Because, really, that’s all infra/supra is, ultimately.
(@brigand): (and those aren’t the only two options)
(GraceAlone): I see absolute sovereignty, anyone else?
(JuDaS): Before you continue, who are you referring to when you say ”God”, RazorsKiss?
(RazorsKiss): Maybe it’s worthwhile to study, maybe not – but I think your questions are more deep-seated.
(doulos): From Him and through Him and To Him are all things.
(GraceAlone): meaning God has ordained the fall, rather than only “allowing” it to happen, although arguably it could be the same
(RazorsKiss): The trinitarian, Christian creator of heaven and Earth – the Alpha and Omega.
(RazorsKiss): The one and only God 😀
(JuDaS): Are you talking about…!?
(JuDaS): ”I Am?”
(RazorsKiss): How can God allow anything which He has not ordained?
(RazorsKiss): Yes 😀
(@Algo): ……….For Those Of Us In The Slow Group—> http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/sup_infr.htm
(doulos): Is it evil that God ordained sin to be?
(JuDaS): Nay, but rather beneficial.
(RazorsKiss): Nope. Cannot do evil.
(GraceAlone): That’s a question that I had too
(RazorsKiss): Good is what, when you get down to it?
(GraceAlone): Would God be in one contextual sense, the author of sin, but not in another contextual sense?
(doulos): Was God’s INTENTION in the act, evil Gracealone?
(GraceAlone): Probably not
(RazorsKiss): God ordained creatures that would act contrary to His will, and that their acts would only rebound to His glory, in Eternity.
(RazorsKiss): In Judgment of their sins, which has also been ordained from the beginning.
(GraceAlone): so all the sin is for better end?
(RazorsKiss): GraceAlone: exactly.
(RazorsKiss): What did Joseph says to his brothers?
(RazorsKiss): *say.
(JuDaS): Razorskiss: Do you believe in double predestination?
(RazorsKiss): “you meant this for evil – but God meant it for good”
(GraceAlone): I have that position atm
(RazorsKiss): JuDaS- I don’t think the term is sufficient for a definition, really.
(GraceAlone): Wouldn’t Calvinism be unsound if Calvinists were not double predestinaters then?
(RazorsKiss): As it’s commonly used, perhaps I would be – but I don’t think that “double predestination” is sufficiently precise.
(JuDaS): Some of us aren’t Calvinists, though.
(RazorsKiss): Calvinism has never been a monolithic thing.
(JuDaS): Regardless, I think double predestination leaves no room for freewill.
(RazorsKiss): Some have always tried to moderate some things, to the detriment of others.
(RazorsKiss): You’re right.
(RazorsKiss): No will is free save God’s.
(GraceAlone): There is no free will in single either lol
(JuDaS): Ah, ah, but there is.
(@brigand): Read Sproul on Double Pre.
(RazorsKiss): Because no will has freedom to act in any way that is possible, save God’s.
(@bluewoad): brigand: but he’s a Van Halen groupie!
(RazorsKiss): All wills are controlled by the desires that the will acts upon.
(GraceAlone): brb
(doulos): posse peccare non posse non peccare
(JuDaS): What we cannot fail to understand is.
(JuDaS): God did not create us.

(JuDaS): Giving us cards.
(JuDaS): Saying whether we went to hell or not.
(RazorsKiss): No – He created us before the foundation of the world, with the intent, and the decree that specific people would, or would not.
(JuDaS): But rather, the Adversary is giving us ”going to hell” cards.
(JuDaS): And with Jesus, we are exchanging them for ”going to heaven” cards.
(RazorsKiss): As well as decreeing every action we would make, throughout time – as is His prerogative.
(doulos): How does this “exchange” take place?
(RazorsKiss): JuDaS- that’s not only unbiblical, it’s also untrue 😀
(@bluewoad): JuDaS: Satan does not send us to hell. Our sin sends us to hell.
(JuDaS): Let me explain.
(RazorsKiss): God sends us to Hell, actually.
(JuDaS): Or elaborate.
(RazorsKiss): well, those who are going.
* bluewoad nods at RazorsKiss
(JuDaS): Our sin.
(JuDaS): Is transferred to Jesus Christ.
(@brigand): JuDaS: Satan could be nonexistant and sinners would still sin and hate God.
(doulos): Only if Jesus died for them Judas.
* Algo hopes to see this discussion summarized on RazorsKiss’s blog later.
(JuDaS): And righteousness is given to us believers.
(RazorsKiss): heh
(@Algo): Heh
(JuDaS): Thus propitiation is given to God the Father.
(RazorsKiss): hey, it just happened to catch me on the way in
(JuDaS): Through Jesus.
(JuDaS): Does that make more sense now?
(JuDaS): And we gain justification.
(RazorsKiss): Sure. But who did Christ die for?
(JuDaS): Or, are justified.
(doulos): Who is “we” in the justification?
(JuDaS): Us.
(RazorsKiss): Who is “us”.
(JuDaS): Believers, of course.
(RazorsKiss): Ok, so those who don’t believe, are not part of that equation.
(JuDaS): Not necessarily.
(GraceAlone): Hey RazorsKiss, God’s absolute decree in all, would it make God in a contextual sense the author of sin?
(JuDaS): No, actually.
(doulos): What does propitiate and EXpiation mean?
(GraceAlone): He would not be the author of sense as sin being the actual end and reason, but rather a better cause and goodness.
(RazorsKiss): As God decrees the end from the beginning, He decreed the number and the manner of the salvation of God’s Own – and those are whom Christ’s death was both effective and intended for.
(RazorsKiss): GraceAlone- in effect.
(JuDaS): Hmm…
(GraceAlone): In a sense; yes, you mean?
(RazorsKiss): Basically, that God has a plan within which all sin will have a purpose, to bring glory to God, and to display His mercy.
(RazorsKiss): On those whom were spared the wrath of God by the sacrifice of His Son.
(JuDaS): I think Razor nailed it pretty good there.
(doulos): Did Jesus die to purchase faith for those who will NOT believe?
(RazorsKiss): So: If God decrees those who are saved, and those who are not – as well as the acts throughout history, made by every man, and all to His greater glory – can we possibly say, like the objector in Romans 9, that God is unjust?
(doulos): By no means!
(RazorsKiss): God has mercy on whom He has mercy – and hardens whom He will harden – and all to His glory.
(GraceAlone): Of course not, but it is not God rejecting the salvation of man, it is God ordaining sin, that’s a very tough stumbling block for me
(RazorsKiss): Our perception of the justice of the thing – or the lack thereof, is completely irrelevant.
(RazorsKiss): Why? God creates men for whatever purpose He desires.
(doulos): We are but dust.

(RazorsKiss): Does God sin by creating peoople who will sin, even under the Arminian scheme?
(RazorsKiss): It’s the same question, just pushed back one level.
(RazorsKiss): God says, resoundingly, in Romans 9 – “Who are you, to answer back to God?”
(GraceAlone): in Arminianism, arminians basically give up the idea of God’s absolute sovereignty
* bluewoad nods at RazorsKiss
(RazorsKiss): God, very evidently, is nothing of the sort.
(@bluewoad): GraceAlone: you basically have to be either an open theist, or believe in the ordaining of sin.
(JuDaS): RazorsKiss, so do you in fact, believe there is no such thing as freewill?
(doulos): A biblical free will
(RazorsKiss): No, only contingent will.
(RazorsKiss): Contingent upon God’s ordination.
(UncleStudy): What about the nature of Justice? Is it a mere ‘levelling of the scales’? Or is it in someway restorative?
(UncleStudy): i.e. If your daughter is raped, is justice satisfied because the rapist receives retribution?
(GraceAlone): basically either open theist, or supralapsarian + double predestinater
(RazorsKiss): ~nas romans 9:16
(@Gutenberg^): Romans 9:16 So then it [does not [depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. (NASB)
(RazorsKiss): Man does will – but how does he will? In accordance with his desires.
* doulos nods
(RazorsKiss): If a man’s desires are continually evil – what is his will?
(RazorsKiss): If a man has the sanctifying presence of the Holy Spirit, he is ABLE to have that war that Paul desribes in Romans 7, between flesh and spirit.
(JuDaS): Quite frankly, I think predestination well… Double predestination is completely unBiblical as well.
(RazorsKiss): Why? Because he has a new spirit.
(doulos): text please?
(RazorsKiss): UncleStudy: Justice: That which is in accordance with the nature of God.
(RazorsKiss): God IS Just. Therefore, accordance with God = Justice.
(RazorsKiss): Well, i gotta head down to the ballfield.
(RazorsKiss): But I hope that was beneficial somehow 😀
(JuDaS): Yes…

Check this out. Amazing.
HT: bluewoad