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)

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God

Free Grace Theology stands accused of teaching “easy believism”. We are told by the Traditionalists that it is merely fire-insurance. The straw men fly with their insistence that we do not preach or teach holiness. We are labeled as “cheap gracers”. Accusations of antinomian are common. This may surprise some of you who haven’t been around the block; the Calvinist Traditionalist has thrown a hefty share of pejoratives my way. They have employed every theological cuss-word in the book.

These are the weak and spurious claims of ignorance.

The Free Gracer is despised, belittled, demeaned, dismissed; but let me tell you one thing: he has yet to be reckoned with.

Traditionalists claim that free will is compatible with election, in that the regenerate elect now has the ability to truly choose. If this is the case, could the elect choose not to persevere in holiness and sanctifiation?

The God of the Traditionalist must force people to accept Him and love Him. He is not able to win or woo, He must coerce, He must impose. He is not able to command our affections apart from a sovereign decree.

I must ask, where on earth are there any relationships that parallel such a case as this? Let me tell you. It lies in dictatorships and tyrannies; with any government that imposes their will against the desires of the people. It is the basis of Islam, fear, terrorism, communism.

The Traditionalist states that God cannot woo or win; He must impose. And after this imposition the regenerate man cannot help but be acted upon by the Most High so that he will indeed progress in experiential sanctification and ultimately persevere until the end in faith, deeds, and faithfulness.

How is the God of Calvinism/Traditionalism any better than the harshest dictator who imposes his will by decree and force; by obligation, constraint, and necessity?

By contrast, have we not seen those leaders in government, society, education, and family who bring out our fidelity by encouragement, love, leading, discipline, and affection?

What a little view of God the Traditionalist must have. His God must first impose allegiance, and next force fidelity.

When someone fails in his or her Christian life, such a one is damned, for God’s imposition of holiness is guaranteed by regeneration, therefore such a person could not possibly have ever been saved.

Yet for the Traditionalist, success is peculiarly subjective. God chooses not to will and to work in them perfectly, for they still succumb to sin. God’s work of regeneration and justification are perfect, but His labor in sanctification is partial. Why aren’t they sinless? Given the view of sovereignty that the Traditionalist has, the only answer is that the sin in the regenerate one is God “willing and working in them His good pleasure”.

If regenerate man does not have the ability to spurn the will of God which may result in dying in a state of unfaithfulness then the only other option, seeing the sin of man, is to hold that God’s necessary work in the regenerate, by decree, is partial: resulting in progressive sanctification that is peculiarly attended by daily sin.

Imagine that: our Holy God who is light, and there is no darkness in Him at all, has fore-ordained that regenerate man will be a conglomeration of both light and darkness.

The better solution is to see that God does not act irresistably on regenerate man (nor on unregenerate man, but that is for another time). If God acted irresistably on regenerate man, we must therefore conclude that God wills our sin, for our sin is ever present (just see the hypocrisy of Traditionalism’s personal attacks against me).

I don’t get the disconnect in Traditionalism. They are forever speaking out of two sides of their mouth:

They say that the regenerate one will necessarily persevere in faith, faithfulness, and good deeds. Yet at the same time, as per Dort and Westminster, they acknowledge that regenerate man may backslide, with the ability to commit “heinous” sins for an undisclosed period of time.

What keeps the regenerate backslider from dying in a state of unfaithfulness, says the Traditionalist? The virtue of their regeneration and the will of God. Yet neither of them stopped the offending regenerate one from falling into “grievous” and “heinous” sins, and from backsliding! What could be the only comeback to this common sense observation of the Christian life? That the reason that the regenerate Christian can totally sin in grievous and heinous ways, backslidding for an unspecified period of time, yet in the end, must repent before death, is the sovereign imposition of their force-His-will God. Yes, even the sin itself was fore-ordained by the all-encompassing decree of their Sovereign Lord.

The regenerate one is nothing but a yo-yo in the hands of God. In their unregenerate state, they hate him (by his fore-ordination), so He must impose His acceptance and love on them (by His fore-ordination). After imposing regeneration apart from their will God kills their old nature and gives them a new heart, yet, nonetheless, they still sin. Why? God has foreordained that they would sin in their new creation as well. In some cases, the regenerate one can backslide very far, committing sins like the most depraved reprobate, yet he will come to repentance at sometime before his death, and will go to heaven.

Yet in their same theology a professing Christian could live a full-life, doing good works and loving the brethren, yet if he does not persevere until the end, he will end up in hell.

Their God will allow them to sin like the unsaved, but in the end, He will make sure of it that they will repent.

Excuse me if this sounds fantastic!

Why not view the Christian life in the same sense as we do good nuclear families? The father of the household (positively) encourages, teaches, leads, loves, guides, rewards and (negatively) disciplines, chastens, punishes, admonishes, all for the benefit of the loved one.

Why must we see the relationship of regenerate man to God as one of necessity? Why can’t we see the Biblical teaching that regenerate man has two opposing natures? Why can’t we see that regenerate man is genuinely responsible to appropriate the grace of God and live according to His commands? Why can’t we therefore see the potential for failure in true Christians?

This has been quite an extended introduction to my post.

Regenerate man has a free will that is regulated by two opposing capacities within his ontological being. The old man is powered by his pride, selfishness, and wordly passions. The new man MUST BE empowered by the Holy Spirit through active yieldedness. What does this say? That unless regenerate man, by an act of his will, mortifies the old man, and actively yields himself to the indwelling Holy Spirit, he will not have victory nor necessitated progressive and experiential sanctification.

God has positive and negative means by which to affect His children apart from coercion, force, necessity, and imposition. The object of this post is not to get into the positive aspects of God’s relationship to the regenerate one. I may in the future outline the glorious nature of God’s encouragement, leading, guiding, teaching, prompting, and acts of love and kindness.

The assessment of the Traditionalist against the Free Gracer is folly.

The Free Gracer has a sober view of God’s holiness and loathe of sin. God demands holiness. God hates sin. He will not tolerate or wink at the evil machinations of His children. God requires that His servants be holy and abide by His commandments.

At His discretion, God will employ His discipline and judgement against the sinful acts of His children. These may take the form of temporal consequences or eternal ones. In either respect, they are serious and sobering.

Following is a list of God’s punitive disciplinary actions against believers, whether they be temporal or eternal.

Within God’s discretionary model of accountability, the believer may be:

1. Cast out (Mt 5:13).
2. Called least (Mt 5:19)
3. Thrown into prison (Mt 5:25)
4. Not forgiven (Mt 6:15)
5. Judged in like manner (Mt 7:1-2)
6. Cast away from the table into the darkness outside (Mt 8:11-12)
7. Denied before the Father (Mt 10:33)
8. Counted unworthy of Jesus (Mt 10:37-38)
9. Condemned on the basis of their words (Mt 12:36-37)
10. Paid back with the loss of their souls (Mt 16:24-27)
11. Handed over to tortures (Mt 18:34-35)
12. Last (Mt 19:30)
13. Last (Mt 20:16)
14. Bound hand and foot (Mt 22:13)
15. Cast outside the wedding feast into the darkness outside (Mt 22:13)
16. Pictured as weeping and gnashing their teeth (Mt 22:13)
17. Not chosen (Mt 22:14)
18. Humbled rather than exalted (Mt 23:12)
19. Whipped (Mt 24:51)
20. Assigned a place with the hypocrites (Mt 24:51)
21. Pictured as weeping and gnashing their teeth (Mt 24:51)
22. Denied entrance into the wedding feast and left in the darkness outside (Mt 25:12)
23. Rebuked (Mt 25:26)
24. Penalized (Mt 25:28)
25. Cast into the darkness outside (Mt 25:30)
26. Pictured as weeping and gnashing their teeth (Mt 25:30)
27. Pictured as losing their lives (Mk 8:35)
28. Made objects of shame (Mt 8:38)
29. Last (Mk 10:31)
30. Ruined (Lk 6:49)
31. Exposed (Lk 8:17)
32. Warned of losing their souls when Jesus returns (Lk 9:24-26)
33. Made objects of shame (Lk 9:26)
34. Not fit for the kingdom (Lk 9:62)
35. Exposed (Lk 12:2)
36. Told to fear God who casts people into hell (Lk 12:5)
37. Publicly denied by Jesus (Lk 12:9)
38. Called fools in the loss of their souls (Lk 12:20)
39. Whipped (Lk 12:46)
40. Assigned a place with the unfaithful (Lk 12:46)
41. Subject to many lashes rather than just a few (Lk 12:47-48)
42. Thrown into prison (Lk 12:58)
43. Last (Lk 13:30)
44. Publicly disgraced and humbled by being put in last place (Lk 13:9-11)
45. Thrown out as worthless (Lk 14:35)
46. Humbled rather than exalted (Lk 18:14)
47. Penalized (Lk 20:24-26)
48. Cast into the fire and burned (Jn 15:6)
49. Killed (Acts 5:5-10)
50. Threatened with death (Acts 8:20)
51. Unforgiven (Acts 8:22)
52. Rewarded with God’s wrath and indignation (Rom 2:6)
53. Subject to death (Rom 8:13)
54. Severely cut off (Rom 11:22)
55. Condemned (Rom 13:2)
56. Subject to wrath (Rom 13:4)
57. Condemned (Rom 14:22-23)
58. Revealed for the negative they do (1Cor 3:13)
59. Punished with loss (1Cor 3:15)
60. Destroyed (1Cor 3:17)
61. Revealed for the negative they think (1Cor 4:5)
62. Delivered over to Satan for physical destruction (1Cor 5:5)
63. Rejected as kingdom heirs (1Cor 6:9-10)
64. Rejected as losers (1Cor 9:24-27)
65. Afflicted with God’s judgment of weakness and sickness (1Cor 11:30-31)
66. Judged and disciplined (1Cor 11:32-34)
67. Accursed (1Cor 16:22)
68. Punished (2Cor 2:6)
69. Paid back with evil for the evil they do (2Cor 5:10)
70. Punished with suffering loss (2Cor 7:9)
71. Not benefited by Christ (Gal 5:2)
72. Severed from Christ (Gal 5:4)
73. Fallen from grace (Gal 5:4)
74. Rejected as kingdom heirs (Gal 5:21)
75. Reapers of corruption rather than eternal life (Gal 6:8)
76. Rejected as kingdom heirs (Eph 5:5)
77. Partakers of God’s wrath (Eph 5:6-7)
78. Considered unholy objects of blame and reproach [at the bema] (Col 1:22-23)
79. Rewarded with harm rather than the inheritance (Col 3:24-25)
80. Objects of God’s vengeance (1Thess 4:6)
81. Put to shame (2Thess 3:14)
82. Condemned (1Tim 5:12)
83. Publicly rebuked (1Tim 5:20)
84. Plunged into ruin and destruction (1Tim 6:9-10)
85. Denied (2Tim 2:12)
86. Ruined (2Tim 2:14)
87. Dishonored (2Tim 2:20)
88. Self-condemned (Tit 3:11)
89. Subject to a negative payback (Heb 2:2-3)
90. Objects of God’s wrath and anger (Heb 3:11-17)
91. Rejected from God’s rest (Heb 3:18-4:11)
92. Burned (Heb 6:8)
93. Subject to a terrifying fiery judgment (Heb 10:27)
94. Subject to server punishment (Heb 10:29)
95. Subject to God’s vengeance (Heb 10:30)
96. Subject to God’s judgment (Heb 10:30)
97. Subject to a terrifying experience at God’s hands (Heb 10:31)
98. Subject to God’s displeasure (Heb 10:38)
99. Subject to destruction (Heb 10:39)
100. Subject to God’s discipline (Heb 12:5-8)
101. Subject to God’s reproving (Heb 12:5)
102. Subject to God’s whipping (Heb 12:6)
103. Consider illegitimate children (Heb 12:8)
104. Rejected concerning the inheritance (Heb 12:17)
105. Unable to escape God’s fiery judgment (Heb 12:25-29)
106. Subject to potentially harmful or detrimental consequences (Heb 12:17)
107. Subject to God’s judgment (Heb 13:4)
108. Susceptible to merciless judgment (Jam 2:13)
109. Not be saved from this merciless judgment (Jam 2:14)
110. Susceptible to strict judgment (Jam 3:1)
111. Opposed by God (Jam 4:6)
112. Susceptible to miseries on judgment day (Jam 5:1)
113. Susceptible to being burned with fire (Jam 5:3)
114. Susceptible to condemnation when the Lord returns (Jam 5:9)
115. Susceptible to judgment (Jam 5:12)
116. Susceptible to premature death (Jam 5:20)
117. Justifiably afraid of God’s judgment (1Pet 1:17)
118. Opposed by God (1Pet 3:12)
119. Opposed by God (1Pet 5:5)
120. Worse off because they are believers (2Pet 2:20-21)
121. Fallen from grace (2Pet 3:17-18)
122. Out of fellowship with God (1Jn 1:6)
123. Put to shame by Jesus (1Jn 2:28)
124. Subject to premature death (1Jn 5:16)
125. Removed (Rev 2:5)
126. Subject to having his crown taken away (Rev 3:11)
127. Punished with sickness (Rev 2:22)
128. Cast into great tribulation (Rev 2:22)
129. Killed (Rev 2:23)
130. Spit out (Rev 3:16)
131. Reproved (Rev 3:19)
132. Disciplined by God (Rev 3:19)
133. Plagued by God (Rev 22:18)
134. Subject to having God take away his portion in the tree of life (Rev 22:29)
135. Subject to having God take away his portion in the holy city (Rev 22:29)
(Credit for this list goes to Marty Cauley, Sylva N.C., friend and GES member. Thank you, Marty!)

I realize that the readers, even those who ally themselves in proximity to my position, may not agree with some of these disciplinary actions.

It must be noted that many, if not most of these disciplinary actions are within the context of parabolic structures, and as such, are not to be taken literally, but the accounts within the metaphorical contructs correspond to spiritual truths.

For sake of clarity and argumentation: Any one who would oppose my use of these references of negative consequences in specific relation to the regenerate one, I have a request. If you take issue with any of these references, please give me your observational, exegetical, and contextual exposition of the verse that would cause you to arrive at your interpretation. Just to merely assert and froth is of no benefit.

Prove by your exegetical and expositional skills that these references are not with the regenerate one in mind.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

God does not trifle with sin, not even the sin of His children.

Heb 10:30-31
"The LORD will judge His people." It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

(*** Parenthesis: Today is Valentine’s Day. Let me tell you something. I love my wife more today than I ever have. Whatever it was when we were married 8 years ago, it wasn’t love. Compared to my affection for her now, that wasn’t love. I continue to woo her, encourage her, and court her love. Let me tell you something for you men. One of the greatest (can I say this on a Christian blog) turn-ons for a woman is a responsible man. Do the list of chores around the house. Help out around the house. Surprise your wife with doing the laundry, mopping the floors, cleaning the bathrooms, giving the kids a bath, etc. Let me tell you another thing (totally off the point of this post): this will leave much time for pleasure. Your wife has plenty on her mind her mind. Relieve her of her stresses and worries, and I guarantee that she will reward you.)


Blogger H K Flynn said...

Preach it brother %)

You are the Rush Limbaugh of Christian blogging.


This is a great post!

Thank you for working on this :)

February 14, 2006 9:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for the list. Interesting stuff. Can you clarify your view of forgiveness? Are people forgiven at the point of conversion? Is repentance needed to be forgiven (i.e., Luke 24:47, Acts 2:38)? Needed for salvation?

February 14, 2006 10:07 PM  
Blogger Antonio said...

I think I need to turn off my anonymous feature.

Bobby Grow:

You are caught.

My blogger software, my site-meter, shows that you are in Portland, Oregon, where you have said you reside. You are using AHNW.org to access my site, and you linked to me from your website!


These questions you ask could fill books.

For the sake of forwardness and brevity, let us boil down your questions into one question.

You are spooked that God, who has forgiven us our sins in a positional sense can at the same time bring us into judgment concerning them.

Let me just make a flat out statement:

Christ's death did not satisfy God's judgment for sin IN EVERY SENSE, ASPECT, or RESPECT.

Christ's death had a LIMITED intent, that was, to take away sin as the barrier to God's unconditional and perfect acceptance of the sinner.

For a little more on my view here, please refer to my article:

The Intent of the 'Atonement'


PS: Bobby: BUSTED!

February 14, 2006 10:21 PM  
Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Excellent post, Antonio.

Hope you enjoyed Valentines Day with your wife.

God Bless


February 15, 2006 12:45 AM  
Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Yeah, get rid of these anonymous dudes, Antonio!

February 15, 2006 12:46 AM  
Blogger Nate said...


Wonderful post dude!!!



February 15, 2006 3:04 AM  
Blogger Jim said...

Antonio, wow! That was a mouthful, I think you have created quite a few potential posts from this one.

Of course, I think you are correct in that we as believers are responsible to live by the Spirit of Christ and not according to the carnal desires of the flesh. This is one of the most neglected points in scripture, that there will be an accounting of our lives.

Daniel just wrote a good post on the matter of walking by the Spirit in Romans. I would like to know what your thoughts are.

p.s. thanks for the marriage advice, I think you are right that our 'love' for our wives at the beginning was quite shallow compared to the maturing it experiences as the years go by.

February 15, 2006 7:40 AM  
Anonymous bobby grow said...

Acutally Antonio I'm not anonymous, seriously. I've never used anonymous except for when I first started blogging and didn't understand how to log in--maybe there's someone else from Portland OR reading your blog. I have nothing to hide, you know that.

February 15, 2006 1:05 PM  
Anonymous bobby grow said...

I also have you linked on my site--that's probably the explanation?

February 15, 2006 1:07 PM  
Blogger Antonio said...


If it was not you, I apologize. It just seems to be too much of a coincidence that someone from Portland who linked here from your blog came at the time of the anonymous post.

Anyway, I still hope that the answer I gave to anonymous was sufficient.

I am not opposed to answering questions!

Love to all!


February 15, 2006 4:21 PM  
Blogger Bhedr said...


Friend. Consider what you say about your wife and consider treating others as you do her in use of your speech as well.

There are areas we agree, but your methods are not God honoring. I see so much of myself in you.

My brother once told me that there was something about myself that I couldn't see but that God would have to reveal it to me one day.

He has.

I have come full circle. I believe in free grace and believe what I was taught as a boy, but I fear I do not agree with your tactics.

I feel compelled to remove your link(not that you mind) as I am troubled and feel that there sleeps an agenda somewhere with you. other than free grace.

February 15, 2006 5:07 PM  
Anonymous bobby grow said...

Like I said, Antonio, it was not me! Do those actually sound like the kind of questions I would ask you?

Anonymous said:

"Are people forgiven at the point of conversion?

These sound like the kind of "leading" questions an LS person might ask you--why would I ask such a naive question--of course a person is forgiven at the point of conversion.

I find it strange that you would even suspect that I asked you that question. Remember, Antonio, the blogosphere is a big big world out there--I also have readers, from Portland, who very easily could've linked from my sight to yours. In fact the person wouldn't even need to have been from Portland, they couldv'e just linked from my sight.

Remember, I like to speak for myself, Antonio, I'm not going to hide behind an anonymous title--I never have or will--give me a break, bro!

February 15, 2006 5:47 PM  
Blogger Antonio said...

Hey Bobby,

my last comment didn't mean to imply that you were not telling the truth. It wasn't that way. From your very first mention that it wasn't you i believed you :)

I was just telling you why I wrote the first one: the coincidences.

I hope you don't think that I didn't believe you, for from the moment you said it wasn't you, I was convinced (therefore I believed as a passive result).

Your brother!


February 15, 2006 6:23 PM  
Blogger Antonio said...


Convince me of sin. What methods or tactics in this post are not God-honoring? What agenda do I have other than facilitating the free grace message?

If I am guilty of sin, address it specifically so that I can repent. Otherwise, I don't know why you would accuse me and point the finger at me.


February 15, 2006 6:25 PM  
Blogger Bhedr said...

Like my brother told me Antonio...Gods going to have to show you because I can't.

February 15, 2006 6:30 PM  
Blogger Antonio said...

Brian, Don't indict me of wrongdoing again without being specific. It is just plain wrong to do so.

February 15, 2006 6:30 PM  
Blogger Rose~ said...

You have given me a lot to think about.
"Easy believism" ... what a silly phrase.

February 15, 2006 7:05 PM  
Blogger nothingnothingnothing said...


You said: "The better solution is to see that God does not act irresistably on regenerate man (nor on unregenerate man, but that is for another time). If God acted irresistably on regenerate man, we must therefore conclude that God wills our sin, for our sin is ever present (just see the hypocrisy of Traditionalism’s personal attacks against me)."

I've taken you up on your plea from several posts ago for your readers to read the Gospel of John. And I'm finding several passages that I can't match up with your view of free will. Such as:

John 12:37-41
37 But though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him. 38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT? AND TO WHOM HAS THE ARM OF THE LORD BEEN REVEALED?" 39 For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, 40 "HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM." 41 These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him.

So did this crowd of people that He was addressing have a choice?

Or how about the disciples:

John 15:19
19 "If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.

John 15:16
16 "You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.

So did the disciples have a choice?

Is there something I'm misreading in those passages? It would seem to me that God is acting irresistably on regenerate man and on unregenerate man. This is not a criticism, just testing your doctrine.

In Christ,
Ten Cent

February 15, 2006 7:14 PM  
Blogger Antonio said...

Ten Cent.

If Total Inability is true, and man is born into blindness, why does God judicially blind the Israelites here? What is the purpose? If they are already blind from birth, according to depravity, and total inability, why does God therefore blind them?

The fact that God finds it necessary to blind and harden anyone would seem to be proof that unregenerate men are not unable to understand or believe the gospel.

The choosing in John 15 has to do with Jesus' choice in apostleship. Where in the context of John 15 does it state that Jesus chose the disciples for eternal life, and that such choosing was irresistable? It is just not there, my friend.

Jesus' choosing of the 12 were for specific a specific function and role. Is it not certain that Jesus chose Judas but Judas is in hell? Did not Judas resist successfully?

This context has nothing to do with eternal life/justification NOR irresistable sanctification.

Lets not compare apples with oranges. I agree that God makes sovereign choices. He chose the nation Israel. Jesus chose the 12 Apostles. These choices were for functional roles, not for eternal salvation. Where was the irresistibility and neccessary sanctification of Israel, God's chosen nation? Did they not rebel? Was there irresistible and necesary sanctification in the nation Israel?


February 15, 2006 7:29 PM  
Blogger nothingnothingnothing said...

Antonio -

You said: "Lets not compare apples with oranges. I agree that God makes sovereign choices. He chose the nation Israel. Jesus chose the 12 Apostles. These choices were for functional roles, not for eternal salvation. Where was the irresistibility and neccessary sanctification of Israel, God's chosen nation? Did they not rebel? Was there irresistible and necesary sanctification in the nation Israel?"

Help me understand. You make some good points. But then I need to know, how sovereign is God's sovereignty? Can our choices actually change the course of history?

Judas for instance. What if he had not rebelled? Or did God just know that he would rebel and so He decided to choose Judas for that purpose?

I'm trying to make sense of how all this works with His sovereignty.

Because even though I can see your point with the Apostles, and could read it that way. The John 12:40 passage is talking specifically about the conversion of the crowd of people that was listening. "HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM."

So I look at that and think God planned this out a long time ago. And it was for the specific purpose that they would not be converted. Or does "converted" not mean converted...saved...changed from one thing to another?

So is God sovereign over events, but not over men? How does His sovereignty work? And maybe that's not something we can really know.

In Christ,
Ten Cent

February 16, 2006 5:15 AM  
Blogger Joe said...

WOW! What a post!

"theological cuss-word" may be the best phrase I've heard this year. I plan to steal it.

hk flynn calls you the Ruch Limbaugh of Christian blogging.

Is that a compliment?

Yeah, I think it is.

February 16, 2006 5:16 AM  
Blogger Rose~ said...

I know H.K. meant it as a compliment ...

But ...
I have always heard Steve Camp referred to as "the Rush Limbaugh" of the blogdom of God.


February 16, 2006 6:15 AM  
Blogger Solifidian said...

I usually agree with Antonio, but he's crossed the line here. He suggested that I clean the bathroom. ;)

February 16, 2006 9:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looks like there's more "Free Grace" debate over at Faith & Practice.

February 16, 2006 9:53 AM  
Blogger Timothy said...

Two thoughts... first, as a Dallas Theological Seminary grad, no one at Dallas uses Hodges book any longer... too many holes in it.

Secondly, all true Christians are Calvinists... you can tell by the way they pray... "God, please move in Bobby Joe's heart, so that he will accept Jesus as his savior."

A true Arminian's prayer would be "God, don't bother with Bobby Joe, after all, he's smart enough to come to you on his own. Just give me super wisdom so that I can trick him into the Kingdom. Thanks."

Just some thoughts.

February 16, 2006 10:37 AM  
Blogger Antonio said...


you graduated from DTS yet you can write this obvious blather and construct this straw man?

L.S. Chafer would be turning in his grave to see the graduates of his college leave with such obvious anti-intellectualism.


February 16, 2006 11:04 AM  
Blogger Timothy said...

They were observations. Something that Dallas is proud to teach their students... I will respectfully move on... I'm really not here to make a Calvinist out of you, with or without straw men.

BTW, there are straw men in your argument as well. Sraw men our are friends... they help us solidify our points... only to be burned at the first point of discussion.

February 16, 2006 12:27 PM  
Anonymous bobby grow said...


A bit immature for a DTS grad! At least your comments.

February 16, 2006 1:33 PM  
Blogger Timothy said...

Sorry to let you down... I just know where these arguments go, and for the most part, it's a waste of time to make them unless one party or the other is given over to a sense of humility. And since most of these type of posts, and the comments made on them, are not coming from people who are submitting to one another, it is really quite pointless to argue.

My comments were just there for thought only. I'm not trying to make converts out of anyone here. Again, listen to the prayers for the lost, 9 times out of 10, they are made with the request that God would change the heart of the unbeliever... That is what the Calvinist is saying. God changes our hearts so that we would believe. Otherwise, He leaves us in our sin, where we would never choose God, no matter how loving He truly is, because of our rebellion against Him.

As for DTS, I'm not big on that institution even though I graduated from there. I've learned a great deal more since my time there, then I did while I was there. I think there are better seminaries than DTS because DTS doesn't equip men to be pastors... They try, but miss the mark.

Blessings again...

February 16, 2006 1:48 PM  
Anonymous bobby grow said...

I agree with you on the heart thing, Titus. Doesn't necessarily make me a Calvinist though . . .

February 16, 2006 4:53 PM  
Blogger Todd said...

I like it Antonio. Todd

February 22, 2006 2:47 PM  
Blogger Mike said...

"How is the God of Calvinism/Traditionalism any better than the harshest dictator who imposes his will by decree and force; by obligation, constraint, and necessity?"

He is God, and he deserves to be a dictator. This is the same false argument that some use when they say that God is the ultimate egomaniac if the entire universe exists only for his glory. It does, and it is right that it does, because he is God and he is deserving of praise and glory from all his creation.

To compare God to a dictator shows a problem with the author of such a claim, not with God. He deserves to rule his universe with complete sovereignty because...


Try reading your Bible. I'll pray for you.

March 06, 2006 12:27 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home