Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life. (John 4:13-14)

Saturday, February 11, 2006

End of Discussion on This Particular Thread of Thought

The points in my last two post are for those who believe that salvation is free. They were constructed in a way to give my perspective on things. They were given to show the logical implications of the understanding that eternal life is absolutely free. If a person preaches a gospel where it is costly to the unsaved, is this the same gospel of the freeness of God's grace and gift? And if this is not the same gospel, what does that imply for the person who believes this different gospel? I have not peered in to anyone's heart. I have not judged any particular man's salvation.

I just flatly state my great and heartfelt conviction that any man who believes the Lordship Salvation gospel IS NOT BELIEVING THE SAVING MESSAGE OF CHRIST. I should have just left it at that. Yet what is the implication if they have not believed the only message that saves? That they are unsaved.

Calvinists are confusing sometimes. I don't know what they believe in their heart concerning how they figure they will get into heaven or what they have believed in the past (remember, salvation is received the instant that one believes in Christ for eternal life). I can only go on what they preach as their doctrine now. Some LS people I have responded to lately flatly state that obedience is necessary for eternal life. This is not the gospel of grace, but the gospel of obligation.

My posts were intended really for those who believe in the gospel of the free grace of God yet do not see the implications that all other forms of the "gospel" are false, and if believed, the person has not believed the simple gospel message that saves.

I wanted to have people understand that the free grace/lordship salvation debate has a lot to do with people getting saved, not just with the way they live the Christian life.

In my posts I have directly stated the answer to your questions concerning being friends. I would be friends with anyone. I would be friendly and loving.

But life is so much more than the blogosphere and coffee and donut relationships. There is a real battle out there and Satan has deceived many within our churches.

I don't preach against people. I preach against doctrine. A false prophet is known by his fruit (which is his doctrine, what he says). If someone states that salvation takes faith + obedience+ forsaking sins + whatever, that shows he is a false prophet. That doesn't necessarily mean that he is unsaved. I know that J.I. Packer used to believe in the free grace gospel, for he says so, but then he says later, when he believed the LS gospel he was saved.

I do believe that people get saved in spite of the preachers abbherent theology, sometimes. If at anytime during a conversation, listening to the word of God, or reading it, someone is convinced that Jesus has given them eternal life through their faith in Him alone, they are saved.

But those who now preach LS, whether or not they are saved, are preaching a false gospel to those who are unsaved. The Lordship gospel is confusing, adds many caveats, includes obedience, and is quite subjective. How is one to know if he submitted enough, committed enough, followed enough, repented enough, obeyed enough? Do you see how the personal contingency that is laid on the unsaved by the LS gospel can effect the psychology? If they are worried that they may have not done enough, they have already been swayed to believe that salvation is somewhat contingent on themselves. That one believes that they must DO these things can be naturally shown that they understand the conditionality for eternal life based upon their repentance, their commitment, their following, their obedience, etc, and not on Christ alone.

I have not fingerpointed to any particular person. I am pointing to an abbherent theology. It matter what people believe. Truth matters. It matters so much that without the simple appropriation of the truth of the gospel, no man can enter the kingdom of God. This knowlege breaks me. So much confusion, ignorance, and false teaching is swirling around.

Bob Wilkin writes a journal article called The Subtle Danger of an Imprecise Gospel where evangelists are not using the biblical gospel message of believing in Jesus. People are wishy-washy, imprecise, using terms like "give your heart to Jesus", "you must sign up", "ask Jesus to be your Savior", "accept Jesus", etc. What do these things mean? A person could do all of these things and yet not believe that Jesus guarantees for them resurrection and eternal life.

The aforementioned was just people preaching confusing gospels, where there is great danger in people not undertanding the truth of the gospel, that it is only by grace through purposeful faith alone in Jesus Christ. Those of the LS are as great of a threat or worse, for they preach "costly gospel". Their gospel places contingency on the unbeliever, making the reception of eternal life "costly" to the recipient.

I have not stood in judgement of anyone's trust in Christ. Have I mentioned anyone's names and said they were unsaved? I have merely stated that some people preach a false gospel, and if any unsaved person believes that message, they remain unsaved. The Lordship Salvation crew has said as much about my beliefs, that FG is a false gospel.

Can't you remember recently someone who derided me and my theology state this:

With regards to Free Grace, it should be obvious that at the very heart of the gospel itself, we disagree

The people on the Lordship Salvation side and me all conclude that we aren't preaching the same gospel. It is those who are on the fence who cannot see that they are different and not the same. Therefore at least one of them is under the curse of preaching a false gospel.

I am not trying to alienate people from me. If someone tells me that they have eternal life by faith alone in Christ alone, apart from obedience, works, etc., I will consider them my brother. Yet if these same people continue to preach that forsaking sins, obedience, repentance, whole-hearted commitment, surrender of everything, perseverance until the end, and all the other strings and caveats, are necessary for eternal life, I will call them on their dissonance, for how can someone say that they have been saved by grace through faith alone in Christ but yet heap all these other conditions upon the unsaved? There is a disconnect somewhere and on many different levels, this is dangerous ground.

If people do not see the gospel the same way as I do, how could they consider me their brother? Why would I expect them to, unless it was merely for the benefit of our cordial coffee and doughnut fellowship?

I have one thing to say to SUSAN. Susan, you have been giving me a hard time. Did you give Daniel a hard time when he called my gospel false? When he actually targeted me and held me in contempt? You were the first one to comment on his horrid post about me when you said this:

"Thanks for your respectful and gracious introduction to such wonderful things."

Yet he later had this to say about the same post:

First and foremost Antonio I applaud and thank you for taking me to task on this... I am sorry that I made my post personal...You have my earnest, honest apology for making you the "target" of my post... in hindsight I honestly regret having been so calloused.

It is interesting Susan that you had such a gracious response to Daniel's obvious contempt for me in the personal nature of his post, yet, me, who hasn't made any personal accusations, you give me such grief. Please pardon me if I find this a bit of a double-standard, and competely partial. Daniel's post was anything but respectful and gracious. My post doesn't name names but merely talks about my convictions about theology and their ramifications.

My last few posts have been on theology and not attacks on people at all. They are targeted on doctrine and truth. If I have sinned against anyone, please bring my sin to my attention in order that I may repent of it. If I have sinned, please convict me of it.

I have not looked in anyone's heart nor deemed anyone particular person unsaved, yet so many people seem to have indicated that I have. None of my last 2 posts have been personal, but doctrinal. I have sought to make one point and one point only: the false gospel of Lordship Salvation does not save.

Antonio da Rosa
Lakeside, CA
2/11/06

39 Comments:

Blogger Kc said...

I failed to include this in my comment on your previous post so I will ammend it here. I love you.

February 11, 2006 12:30 PM  
Blogger Bhedr said...

Hey guy,

Let me first say that I must thank you that indeed we can, and I did in the past confuse the message of salvation in an attempt to try to get people to understand election.

God does not intend for me to get men and women to understand it. This only He can do.

you are right. The gospel is free and we must exhort men and women to understand that they are sinners that deserve God's wrath and not His mercy..But God who is full of Mercy and Grace desires to Save them if they take their trust off of themselves, thinking that God owes them mercy and grace, and Believe In Yeshua alone for salvation.

Mercy is Judgment witheld. One must have a knowledge of their sin in order to understand it and so it is that they will understand Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

We must agree with Scriptures diagnosis of our malady and cure or it shows that we lack understanding in some way.

The Human Spirit must stop justifiying itself and place their faith in Christ alone.

February 11, 2006 12:34 PM  
Blogger Pastor Jim said...

Ever thought of running for any government position? You are excellent at avoiding the issues.

February 11, 2006 1:03 PM  
Blogger Shawn L said...

Okay so that nullify's everything you said in the last 2 posts.

I guess I'll only read this one next time....And I thought calvinists were confusing.................

February 11, 2006 1:04 PM  
Blogger Pastor Jim said...

Atleast the issues that are tough.

February 11, 2006 1:04 PM  
Anonymous bobby grow said...

Pastor Jim,

Instead of trying to lead Antonio to "YOUR" point, by having him answer your question . . . why not just come out with it, and get to what you're trying to say to Antonio.

Let me answer for Antonio, I'm willing to bet that Antonio believes a person can sin after they're saved (I Jn 2). What's your point???

February 11, 2006 1:59 PM  
Blogger Bhedr said...

BTW

Antonio,

I didn't mean to leave the impression that I was exhonerating what you have done here. I think an apology is indeed in order. I hope you will not continue to justify or whitewash as Shawn said the last two posts.

I am your friend. please believe this.

February 11, 2006 4:57 PM  
Blogger Shawn L said...

Brian,

That is very good what you are doing Brian and better than my own confusion. I'm not communicating when I hear these types of things because of personal experience. It's hard to be around others from a cult that I know (not on the blogworld) as they always condemn all Christians to hell in their speech. I suppose my thinking is affected because of that.

I just guess I was quite surprised, so instead I should just pray for my friends on this blog. Thanks for the advice, brother.

February 11, 2006 5:28 PM  
Blogger Susan said...

Antonio,
I have been asking you sincere questions based on your points, and I’m sorry if it’s been perceived as giving you “a hard time.” In fact, in my most recent comments to you, I wrote: “I like coming to your site because I enjoy the discussion of Scripture, truth, and meaning…” and on Feb. 7: “I am not a Calvinist nor Free Grace believer, but am a Christian with questions seeking to learn more regarding our faith through various sources, one of which is the Christian blogosphere.”
However, I don’t see answers to the sincere questions of myself and others (centurion’s yesterday, pastor jim's on Feb. 8, and ten cent’s and my own on Feb. 7).
Your selection of my and Daniel’s quotes and your order of their presentation is interesting. It almost implies that I find Daniel’s comments about you to be respectful, gracious and wonderful.
To the contrary, if you go back to Daniel’s original post of January 30, you’ll see my comment as first citing the then-ongoing debate at Veritus Redux. My comments on Daniel’s site have nothing to do with you.
In rereading his post and my comments, I can see that having jumped over from Veritas Redux, I was reading things into Daniel’s words and applying them to other spirited Christian debate on another blog, not yours. For that, I am in error.
I will be more careful in the future.
With respect to my words “thanks for your respectful and gracious introduction to such wonderful things,” you obviously went to Daniel’s site to scout out my comments. You should then have also seen what I wrote immediately preceding my thanks to Daniel.
Context is key to understanding.
Here’s what I wrote (in part – edited only for brevity):
“I greatly appreciate this post. I've been following the debate over at Veritas Redux with great interest. I admit much is beyond me at this point, but between you and the other Calvinist-leaning blogs, I'm learning. …
I'd like to undertake reading Calvin directly, but I'm not sure where to begin. … I feel ignorant when I say that I'd never even heard of Spurgeon or Sproul or other such great writers before coming to your blog. … I'd appreciate any recommended reading from any reformed (or other) Calvinists out there. I know so little.
Sometimes the exegetical discussions leave me in the dust, but I glean enough to whet my appetite and keep reading. Thanks for your respectful and gracious introduction to such wonderful things.”
Can you see the ‘wonderful things’ to which I’m referring in my comments? They refer to theological writings of which I hadn’t heard before, but did through Daniel’s site, so I thanked him.
My response had nothing to do with what you call Daniel’s “obvious contempt” for you. (I don’t believe he had then or has now any contempt for you.)
Truth be told, I was disappointed in his citing you by name. I actually prayed about it at that time. I didn’t like his mentioning your name in his post of Jan. 30, but since I considered the issue to be between just you and Daniel, I did not call him to task on it. Instead, I took the matter directly to the Lord. I asked God to convict Daniel of any impropriety. We are to pray for our brethren in Christ.
When it was handled between the two of you, I was glad for it.
I read his two apologies on your blog post of January 31 and your reply on February 1 (in the Jan. 31 comments section), when you wrote directly to Daniel: “I love you.”
With those words, it seemed to me that the issue was over between the two of you. Scripturally, I thought it was handled correctly. Offense. Confession. Forgiveness. Sin cast into the sea. Over and done with. No need to bring it up again. For some reason, you do so now.
Note that in my comments left on your site on February 3 titled “Absurdities in Action,” I write: “Antonio, I'm very new to both Calvinism and Free Grace - how the differ and perhaps even how they agree. So please forgive my questions if they sound ignorant. Can you help to clear up some things for me? I don't understand exactly what you mean…”
And then:
”I'm getting a lot out of the discussions at Daniel's and Jonathan's blogs, as well as your own. I'm guessing what bhedr means about the mocking is this: When I read someone citing someone else by name and then picking apart their theologies, sometimes the two get confused - the person with the theology. That can leave the impression of a personal attack (which sometimes is indeed there, sometimes not).”
Antonio, the study of theology is completely new to me -- new by a matter of mere weeks, I should say. I spend half my time looking up words (Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and English) in dictionaries and checking out any references cited that I may have in the growing number of books on my shelves that I barely have time to read. So I’m interested in your perspective as well as Daniel’s, Evan’s, Rose’s, centurion’s, pyromaniac’s, Bryan’s and others…
However, when I look at your sidebar and see topics like:
“Calvinism: A Science Fiction Story”
“Reformed Theology: Do Works or Go to Hell”
“Predestination as a box of chocolates,”
I can’t help but sense your disdain for Calvinism and take notice of the continual thought and energy put into attacking it. This perspective speaks greater volumes to me about “Free Grace” than anything else you could say.
I don’t see that approach on Daniel’s site, with the exception of one regrettable post, for which he apologized directly to you and you accepted. We all err.
Frankly, I don’t see any Calvinists on-line saying “you must not only accept Christ but also do x, y and z to be saved.” As I commented to an earlier post on your site, the topics of obedience, submission, sacrifice, humility, works, etc. are all discussed from the OT to NT. Therefore, I believe it’s appropriate to discuss these things among believers.
I don’t see anyone attaching them to salvation as prerequisite conditions, but I do see you repeatedly condemning Calvinists for doing it.
Antonio, brother, if I’ve caused you any undue pain as a brother in Christ, which I consider you to be, forgive me.
I leave you with one thought, and it applies to all of us:
“Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord.” – Hebrews 12:14.

February 11, 2006 6:03 PM  
Blogger Chuck said...

"I do believe that people get saved in spite of the preachers abbherent theology, sometimes. If at anytime during a conversation, listening to the word of God, or reading it, someone is convinced that Jesus has given them eternal life through their faith in Him alone, they are saved."

My question for you is this, Antonio: What do you mean by "convinced"? You say if someone is convinced Jesus has given them eternal life, then they are saved. But as of yet (as far as I can tell) you have failed to actually undergo a thorough explanation of assent and the implications of assent. If I am "thoroughly convinced" that the room I am in is on fire, will that engender a physical, tangible response from me, or will I merely say something like 'The roof is on fire' ? Are there not implications and results to assenting to something? You see, you and I agree with the basic idea of assent: it is acknowledging the truth or validity of a statement. It does not involve "heart knowledge" as opposed to "head knowledge" (a false dichotomy if there ever was one), nor does assent refer to actions.
HOWEVER, there does seem to be a way to assess whether or not someone has actually given assent rather than just paid lip-service. For example, if I were to say, "The building is on fire. I am in the building. I am going to die. I have no wish to die." Then I continue watching television and scratching my nose, you would think that:
A. I am lying; I want to die.
B. I don't actually believe the building is on fire.
Logically, I'll go with B. I think it's the same way with the Gospel. If someone actually believes that Jesus has saved them from wrath, they are going to praise Him and worship, and their desire is to see others saved as well, so much so that they begin to tell others. That very worship and that very desire and that very teaching is the direct, natural result of 'assent'. As outside observers, we can look at someone and ask the question, "Do they actually believe that Jesus has saved them?" They may have said as much, but there are many factors which lead people to say things, and telling the truth is not exactly the human way.
For what it's worth, I have no clue whether Free-Gracers can be saved or not, not because I want you un hell but because only God knows the heart. And as a traditionalists, I am not personally threatened by you; I just happen to believe that regeneration precedes faith and find it vitally important.
Grace and Peace to all, and to all a Good Night!

February 11, 2006 9:17 PM  
Blogger Bhedr said...

Moonlight,

Have you studied Jeremiah 17 and the usage of the words in Hebrew. Leb and Kilyah. Heart and Kidneys. In that day the heart and Kidneys were the house of the soul as communicated throught Scripture.
Trust was encouraged there.

Would you consider this. I agree that man must be regenerated unto faith by the power of God's word and His Spirit, but as Antonio and some others have rightly said, this confuses the message as Jesus extends the invitation to whosoever will. It is not a disingenuous invitation as Jesus wept over Israel who rejected Him and Paul wished himself accursed for his bretheren according to the flesh. As we get into semantics I think we can encourage a head knowledge in both directions. Men might call me a Calvinist but I have never read one book by him and never wish to. More and more each day I am seeing why I must stick to scripture and call on the Holy Spirit for understanding.

I am discovering that both Arminians and Calvinist seem to get upset with the statement that faith is not intellectual. There is a great deal of pride to be had in our intellect and as I said before Jesus saves such that are of a contrite spirit.

Harlots and theives were told that they would enter into the Kingdom of Heaven before the religious scribes would.

He reveals Himself to babes. Whoever is willing to drink of the water of life trusting as a little child shall enter freely.

Oh that we would pray that men and women would trust as a little child at the hearing of the gospel. This message is easy for kids, but for us big adults, we must repent in order to become like them.

We must understand Mercy in order to understand Grace. Ever trusting and allowing God to be God, believing what his word says as he is the Logos...the Living Word.

February 12, 2006 4:46 AM  
Blogger ambiance-five said...

I understand the points made here...but like the Lord said...which is easier to say your sins are forgiven or pick up your bed and walk?

God uses all things..the thing I have issue with is that once we are really saved would we continue to say the easy thing over the harder?

Just my two cents..I was suppose to go to church today but the Lord snowed us in...lol..I guess that is one way for Him to keep my day holy.

February 12, 2006 5:57 AM  
Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Antonio, thanks for sharing this.

I think you have presented your views very reasonably.

It is interesting that often even the vast majority of Calvinists who do not question the salvation of Arminians/ Non-Calvinists imply that in some sense those who reject Calvinism bring works into salvation. They imply that the Non-Calvinist Gospel is defective, but they seem pretty offended by the idea that they are preaching a defctive gospel.

I look forward to reading some more of your excellent Scriptural exposition.

Every Blessing in Christ

Matthew

February 12, 2006 9:45 AM  
Blogger Bhedr said...

Whiter than Snow

February 12, 2006 9:53 AM  
Blogger Pastor Jim said...

antonio, you say.....

"If I were to give you directions to my house and decided to add two or three more left and right turns, you would fail to reach my house."

The same goes for leaving directions out of the equation, which is what you do. You only abide by certain scriptures of the Bible, not the entire Bible.

February 12, 2006 10:29 AM  
Blogger Rose~ said...

Hi Antonio,
Sometimes I read blogs and try to find something, anything that I can agree with. I then point it out to the poster that I want to say AMEN to it. I noticed something in your post that I think even the reformed would heartily agree with. In fact, I see them mentioning this quite a lot.

... evangelists are not using the biblical gospel message ... they are wishy-washy, imprecise, using terms like "give your heart to Jesus", "you must sign up", "ask Jesus to be your Savior", "accept Jesus", etc. What do these things mean? A person could do all of these things and yet not believe ...

I should think that those who you have criticized would see some value in this point. It sounds like them in a lot of ways.

I definately don't think that you are wishy-washy on your message of what the true gospel is. It is the way that I understand the gospel as well. This IS important, as you say. I only hope that those who may have been offended at the last two posts will think about what you have said and not be alienated from the discussion. I pray.

February 12, 2006 11:43 AM  
Blogger Rose~ said...

Oh, and ... what KC said! :~)

February 12, 2006 11:44 AM  
Blogger H K Flynn said...

What Kc said!

Jodie

February 12, 2006 12:38 PM  
Blogger Chuck said...

Bhedr,

Thanks for the interaction- I actually agree with the meat and substance of your post. Mostly, I am trying to flesh out some of the differences bewteen myself and the "Free-Grace" position. Since Antonio identified and defined faith as assent, I want to fully understand what he means by assent. In reference to the passage in Jeremiah, I believe that as well; it's just that in the attempt to overcome what many think is "intellectual pride" many Reformed-ish evangelicals and their cohorts have resorted to imprecise language when defining faith. It is this imprecise language which leads to much of the confusion on both parts.
When I say faith is "intellectual" I am not intending to put undue emphasis on the ability of the mind. I am merely referring to the fact that belief is a thought process, and it is belief which informs our trust, soul, etc. In other words, "heart knowledge" and "experiential knowledge" are merely what we get when we encounter experiences with our senses and then use our minds- our intellects, if you will- to process said information and understand it.
This view is in full agreement with the necessity of a contrite spirit and repentance. However, how will I come to see my sinfulness and be humbled before God and cry out for Christ? It is only when the Spirit applies the Gospel to my soul, and (as Ezekiel says) my heart of stone is softened, my intellect is renewed so that I can finally see the truth of the Gospel and believe. Once I belive or give assent to the Gospel message, then my question concerning the consequences of belief come into play.

February 12, 2006 8:07 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Moorhead said...

Antonio, I can’t believe you have not responded to Steve Hays’ post on your beliefs!

February 13, 2006 6:30 AM  
Blogger Kristi said...

Antonio,
I really appreciate the good work you are doing. You are so right. There is so much more than just blogging relationships, coffee, and donuts! There IS a real war going on. My pastor is especially burdened about this false message of LS. In fact, he is going around to different Christian college campuses, preaching out against it, and bringing to light it's fallacies. It is so wonderful to see someone else out there preaching the same thing. We are battling together for His cause. Keep it up. Do not let all the opposition and criticism get you down!

February 13, 2006 7:20 AM  
Blogger Shawn L said...

James 4 "4:1 What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions. You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, “He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us”? But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Be wretched and mourn and weep. Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you.

Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?"

February 13, 2006 9:01 AM  
Blogger Shawn L said...

Antonio & Other Friends in Christ,

I was thinking about James 4 alot this weekend and this kind of discussion and venting and calling brothers and sisters in Christ as lost is just what is wrong with the church today. I am so guilty of breaking James 4 and I beg everyone's forgiveness.

Christians of all time dealt with this. Do you see James' logic in terms of trying to do an exposition of Matthew 5. He is showing this anger and fighting with one another is murdering and wishing to have our hopes in how others react to what we say rather than putting our hope in God alone. All of us are guilty of this. We have all really done damage to the body of Christ. How can you sharpen iron without really bearing one another's burden and dieing daily for the brethren?

Our venting shows that we are unspiritual and have put our hope in something other than God. We are adulteries and we need to confess our sins and come before God like the tax collector trusting in God's forgiveness in Christ.

This anger we have is because we aren't putting our hope in God, but are putting our hope in how someone else will react to something we say. I see it all over your last two posts and some of my many posts.

We want people to change and want them to come to our view and we will vent and rage and condemn and place other believers in Christ in the same category as lost. This is not the fruit of our faith if we are trusting in Christ alone. Christ alone is what we look to and the radiance of His Glory will be every on our face as we see and delight in him.

All of what has transcribed here really applies to an systematic problem in the body of Christ. I see it in my own life, but I work against it by trying to die daily to my desires and passions, but encouraging one another and help them see the light of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

Oh that we would weep for our actions and repent and come to Christ for our hope alone.

February 13, 2006 9:29 AM  
Blogger centuri0n said...

Still wondering is there is any relationship between baptism and faith. If there is, then a lot of what you are saying over and over here is self-refuting.

February 13, 2006 9:52 AM  
Blogger centuri0n said...

Bobby Grow:

I'd like to invite you to take up the 5 questions I have posed to Antonio here (well, the first 3, and then two others based on your answers to the first 3) in my DebateBlog.

e-mail me at carm.centuri0n@yahoo.com is you are interested so I can send you a blogger invite.

February 13, 2006 9:55 AM  
Anonymous bobby grow said...

Sure, Frank! You're not leading me into an ambush, are you ;-)?

In Christ,

Bobby Grow

PS I sent you an email!

February 13, 2006 11:55 AM  
Anonymous bobby grow said...

Let me answer a bit right here Frank. You ask:

"Still wondering is there is any relationship between baptism and faith. . . ."

Baptism as an outward expression of an inward change; and you're trying to draw a parallel between baptism and works in a believers life, right? I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem with the idea that outward change in and of itself bears witness to the fact that someone has been saved. Just look at Jesus condenation of the Pharisees in Mt. 23. Sure someone can have "outward" moralistic righteousness, but the issue is inward righteousness rightly alingned to the ultimate value giver God.

I don't think this line of questioning can consistently follow through . . .

Anyway just some quick insight on how I might respond to you :)

In Christ,

Bobby G

February 13, 2006 12:44 PM  
Blogger Bhedr said...

Moonlight>However, how will I come to see my sinfulness and be humbled before God and cry out for Christ? It is only when the Spirit applies the Gospel to my soul, and (as Ezekiel says) my heart of stone is softened, my intellect is renewed so that I can finally see the truth of the Gospel and believe.< Moonlight I think we essentially agree here.

Your intellect is responding to the Spirits work. Amen.

Antonio is right to combat repentance but I think he is combating the wrong repentance. He seeks to toss it out all together and it is intellectually dishonest to do so. Do you see what I am getting at moonlight.

Jesus pronounced woes on cities for being unrepentant and said the one that does not receive you does not receive me. He considers this to be temporal admonishion but clearly Jesus says the cities are rejecting Him because they rejected their message. Luke 10:13-16.

This type repentance should be distinguished with another type repentance that is indeed being preached and I fell prone to.

This repentance is Metanoeo/Metanoia-A change of heart about past sin that simply desires a wiser view toward the future. i.e- the prodigal son came to his senses about the end result of his sin and knew immediately that his father was the answer.

What is indeed confusing the pulpits today is Metamellomia-A remorse that seeks to undo what has been done. It was the repentance of Judas and we know that He could not accept that Jesus was God and his deliverer. He thought him only to be a good man as the rich young ruler did and so many others in that day that were looking for tangible and immediate deliverance. They wanted out of the Roman foxhole.

On top of that what is being taught is that you just can't believe. it is too hard.

Jesus didn't say that. he said to have faith and to have it like a simple child. A babe.

So Antonio is right to exhort us in this direction but wrong to deny the coming to ones senses about sin and the comming Judgment. If we underscore that then the precious blood Christ shed will be of little value as one has been inhibited from comming to the knowledge of sin.

We had a man who witnesses to Jews come and present the passover ceremony last night at church. They would go through the house to find the leaven crumb and throw it out and confess that there was leaven dust that they couldn't detect and asked forgiveness applying the blood to the doorposts. The idea is knowing and not wanting sin in your life but understanding you can't get it out and resting all your anxiety of your sin on Christ alone and passing over from death unto life when you Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Jesus said that if anyone believe that He is the resurrection and the life, He will pass from death unto life.

The danger is there in preaching Lordship where you must do and do and do and never have any assurance. I have seen from visiting other sites that this does confuse others and cause them to miss the application of understanding that faith the grain of a mustard seed is what God seeks. The faith of a trusting child. Our hearts must not be troubled. We must Believe casting all the anxiety of your sin on Christ receiving Him as your saviour. I am a bit more comfortable with Bobby Grow or perhaps Jim though at this point as there are some in the Hodges camp that just don't seem to be honest about passages on repentance.

February 13, 2006 2:14 PM  
Blogger Bhedr said...

In fairness to Antonio perhaps I should have said there are men in both the Hodges camp as well as MaCarthurs that seem to either take away from Metanoia or add to it.

February 13, 2006 2:30 PM  
Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Brian, I do not think Antonio has said anything to undervalue repentance. He has only stressed that it is not a condition of salvation.

Antonio has identified the fact that repentance can have a pre-conversion role in enabling recognition of one's sinful state.

Every Blessing in Christ

Matthew

February 13, 2006 2:37 PM  
Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Where is Antonio?

February 13, 2006 3:00 PM  
Blogger Antonio said...

Matthew, I am here, and I have read everyone's comments.

Thank you all for your comments and your continued visits.

There is alot that I would have to comment to each person. I have answered many of the questions, comments, and objections within my articles. I have over 40 articles now on my blog. They can be accessed on the side-bar menu.

Thank you all for your continued visits.

Antonio

February 13, 2006 3:15 PM  
Blogger Antonio said...

Hey Jonathan Moorhead,

Are you really getting a Doctorate?

If you think that Steve Hays blather in the article you link to is a real response to my articles, it would have me wonder very hard at what DTS has come to...

There is not one worthy thing to address in his post. It is blather, assertion, and proof-text without any substance. And his reasoning keeps getting refuted by the Bible by those who believe in grace, time and time again. Steve shows a tremendous hardened heart in his post.

Antonio

February 13, 2006 3:49 PM  
Blogger Bhedr said...

And that is where I disagree with you guys. metanoia is inseperable from pisteuo as it is Godly sorrow working towards faith. To try to seperate the two is not possible.

And you cannot strike from the record that he spoke of the judgments to those cities as being only temporal while Jesus said they were rejecting him because of their unpenitent hearts toward him.

This is where I differ. That really is my only dividing line with Antonio and feel that if he would see this, he would then be a good and faithful witness.

He believes that the gospel call differs in differant dispensations and that is where I differ. It has always been the same. This is the only reason I don't join in with telling him he is doing a good work. Until he acknowledges this simple truth of the Bible then I cannot give my full endorsement. Deep in my heart I wish to as I see his points concerning the Lordship Movement now.

February 13, 2006 5:25 PM  
Anonymous bobby grow said...

Antonio, I like to read blather, what's the link to Hayes' article on Free-Grace? I can't find it at Moorheads.

February 13, 2006 5:53 PM  
Blogger Bhedr said...

Not that he needs my endorsement and in reality he doesn't as that would just be more group mentality...so sorry for that. I think when we get isolated in clubs it causes us not to see scripture clearly as we don't want to lose our constituents or disagree with our teachers.

I want to be free of that. Don't you?

February 13, 2006 5:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bobby,
the link is on this very thread - J. Moorhead's comment on this thread.

February 13, 2006 6:27 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Moorhead said...

Antonio, why are you ignoring your critics? You ignore Steve Hays (perhaps I can understand because of the tone) and Frank Turk. I can see no reason why you will not engage Frank. If you are going to condemn a man to hell you should at least answer his objections.

February 14, 2006 6:32 AM  
Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Jonathan, if I had that many critics I would not have time to answer all of them.

Give the guy a break!

God Bless

Matthew

February 14, 2006 7:49 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home