Dialogue Continued
Dear guests of Free Grace Theology Blog:
This is your chance to continue dialoge about the discussion in Free Grace Theology pertaining to the content of saving faith. Dialogue was closed down on Fred Lybrand's blog. If any of you wish to continue over here, Jimmy, Rachel, Jan, Kevin, etc., please feel free to continue.
sincerely,
Antonio da Rosa
Your Free Grace Theology Blog host.
This is your chance to continue dialoge about the discussion in Free Grace Theology pertaining to the content of saving faith. Dialogue was closed down on Fred Lybrand's blog. If any of you wish to continue over here, Jimmy, Rachel, Jan, Kevin, etc., please feel free to continue.
sincerely,
Antonio da Rosa
Your Free Grace Theology Blog host.
posted by Antonio at 5:51 PM
120 Comments:
Bro. Antonio,
Thank you for continuing this discussion. I was at first very hopeful about what could happen over at bro. Fred's blog before it became the OK Corral. I look forward to understanding & growth in grace & knowledge of Christ to continue as we search the Scriptures together here. Thank you. I hope to add to the discussion as soon as time allows. God Bless you.
Antonio,
My take on the issue is rather simple: most confusion about the content believed to be saved stems from a failure to differentiate between the NOUN of knowledge (content of the Gospel), and the SOLE condition of receiving the GIFT of salvation predicated on simple passive VERB: BELIEVE.
So it is misleading to concentrate on the amount of the KNOWLEDGE (noun)of the Gospel at the moment of believing. I see believe and be saved is NOT INHALING knowledge, but EXHALING believe on our Lord Who saves. I see it NOT about the knowledge of the SUBJECT but rather THE EFFICACY OF THE OBJECT believed.
The Gospel of grace is much much more simple as Christ plainly declared in Jn3:16 rather than the one Dr. Hixon expressed by means of his dissertation.
I am deeply concerned when scholars and pastors trying to correct our Lord in the Gospel of John.
Lu Mo Nyet
Lu Mo Nyet,
I was hoping you would show up & add your insights! Thank you. Looking forward to interacting when the time allows & the Lord wills. God Bless you!
Hi Antonio,
I like coming "back home!"
:-)
Have you noticed that much of the time spent in blogging is IGNORING specific information that proves a point.... at least in my thinking. Yet our friends who take a different position just skip right over those points to argue for their position. We get no where when that happens. Is there anyway you could ask your guests to please address the exact issues that you have pointed out. If they find something wrong with your position, point it out. Don't just ignore a verse or illustration. That's one of my biggest frustrations in blogging.
For example.....
Your check list...
---How come no one answers the fact that those in FGA all have a different check list that needs to be believed to be saved?
---How come they don't address the fact that there isn't one passage found in scripture out side of the Gospel of John that lays out the specific list that needs to be believed in order to be saved?
---How come our friends on the other side never respond to the fact that "gospel" is broader than just the content to be believed to be saved? In other words why don't they address the fact that gospel refers to ALL the information about Christ, who He is and what He did to provide for our great salvation. The saving content is just one part of the gospel.
---How come our friends on the other side ignore the evidences I've put out on the Gospel of John.
BTW.... That's not my findings. I learned it from others. But I was being a Berean and checking it out and found it accurate. Why don't our friends on the other side examine that evidence?
Those are just a few examples. Let us all on each side of this debate answer each other on specific points from the scriptures. We might as well just stop blogging about this in my opinion if we're going to ignore each others evidence and points. It just leads to frustration and "depression." Yes, it's depressing when scriptural evidence is ignored and accusations fly against those who are being true to scripture and the Lord Jesus Christ. If somebody can show me honest evidence where they're wrong, then show me. But don't do it by ignoring the evidence that they put forth to prove their point.
The following was posted on another brother's blog, but it falls into the category..... "thus saith the evangelist!"
Here's what was said.....
*These matters are weighty...but, in time, 1 Corinthians 1:17ff will prevail. Free Gracers are going to see the mistake in the GES Gospel. GES is going to greatly diminish (or it will correct its error and join back with us).
If this brother is correct, then he needs to answer the exact points that have been presented by Antonio and others to show where their thinking is unscriptural. To ignore it is to say there is no answer and it just becomes..... "thus saith the evangelist."
GES is very careful and precise with scripture. That's what drew me to them in the first place. But our friends who take issue with them have their points grounded in their tradition. They're not doing a good job of answering Antonio's points.... and others. In fact, they totally ignore those points. HOW COME?
I may stop blogging. I may not. It all depends on where this goes. But Antonio, I will keep reading your articles because I appreciate so much your biblical illustrations and points. I hope that others will be just as careful to answer.
I really mean it when I say I love all my brothers and sisters in Christ. I just desire a real true dialogue with honest answers to honest questions.
In Jesus' love,
Diane
Prior to the closing of the thread at Dr. Lybrand's site:
Missy said...
Dear Dr. Lybrand,
I am trying to extradite myself from this controversy, as for the most part, I have come to my own conclusion on the matter. But I have to tell you that what you have allowed to occur here, by patiently waiting for the mudslinging to subside without getting involved has actually allowed some significant discussion to occur. I have been very surprised! So far I am impressed with your stamina, grace and wisdom to allow others to express themselves.
Earlier you answered Gary - rather clearly and completely in my opinion - in regards to whether the GES gospel was heresy. You said, no, you did not consider it so. It seemed to me that by your answer you agree that "belief in Jesus for eternal life" is not false, but incomplete for salvation. Would this be an accurate description of your opinion?
I am not comfortable with those that are stating that this critical aspect of the Gospel (belief in Jesus for eternal life) is "false" or an "anti-biblical error" even a "destroyer of souls." What the GES is espousing is not an extra-biblical belief, but still a crucial (I consider the MOST crucial) part of the Gospel you believe and preach! Right?
This alone has always confused me as to the vitriol that is used in describing the GES Gospel and continually leads me to conclude the behavior must be more personal than doctrinal.
Do you agree with these villifying descriptions used?
May God bless you in your leadership roles as pastor and teacher.
MissyI later received this comment in an Email from a thread at Missy's site. Missy is a gracious lady and has responded as Dr. Lybrand requested. I do not wish to offend either Missy or Dr. Lybrand by reproducing his comment here but I consider Missy's question and his reply of great import to many of us who have witnessed and participated in this "debate" as it developed over the years.
Fred R. Lybrand has left a new comment on the post "Giving it a rest...":
Missy,
I'm so sorry I didn't respond to your comments on my site. I thought what you were saying was good and fare concerning my view. I'm not big on vilifying...but I'm not interested in being wrong :-).
I'd be happy to correspond privately at fredlybrand@yahoo.com
Please remove this post...I didn't know how to contact you otherwise.
Thanks much,
FRL
Hi Antonio, I posted this at Fred's but you never replied. It is my heart and I post it here so that your readers have the benefit of seeing it.
I have no further debate with you. I close with a simple appeal and that is the only conversation I would be interested in continuing.
Begin quote:
Antonio, I'm going to make my reply to as brief as is possible. I'm sorry to report that this doesn't mean my response is going to be short.
I feel compelled to thank you for providing an answer. I know that you did so knowing full well the risk you were taking. I do not believe this to be an assumption at all, based on your reluctance to answer and finally the extra information that you provided along with your answer. I want you to know that I recognize you took a risk. The people who have been involved in this discussion for recent history are in a better position now because of the risk you took.
I will now briefly address your response to my answer. You claimed that anyone quoting your answer without the supporting information would be abusive, but this was right after you did the same for me. You asked me to be absolutely clear, and I did my best to be so.
Do I have to explain the Gospel using other Scriptures, absolutely. However, there is nothing missing from the Gospel as Paul declares it. I believe I made this clear in my answer. Paul's statements of "in accordance with the Scriptures" covers these points that I provided clarification on for your benefit.
You noted "In all reality, your list here illustrates the complexity of the fundamentalist gospel." My Biblical answer to you is this - it doesn't matter how complex it is. It's God's Gospel, He wrote the requirements, He performed it, and He wrote the testimony of His completing it. Who cares how complex it might seem?
I now have two answers from experience. The President of my ministry has a 7 year old son who can explain the Gospel in detail, and is able to preach it. His simple child-like faith, actually coming from a child, is that it is simply true. It doesn't matter how complex something can be made out to be, the Gospel can simply be believed.
You claimed that some of the points contradicted each other. The idea that Christ paid the price, but that in order for someone to come to Christ they must first know they are guilty.
A person is a guilty sinner until they believe the Gospel and are thus saved and reborn. That is Scripture.. we can argue about that another time if you like.
You make note that I have to use other Scriptures to explain the Gospel. You're absolutely correct. Depending on how deep you wish to understand the Gospel I will have to use almost all of the Bible.
Paul explained the salvation experience by saying that Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. He did not say that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of John. Or the Word of Paul. Or the Word of Peter.
The Gospel is fully expressed in 1 Cor 15:1-11, but to explain the Gospel much other scripture is needed. This is not a problem for someone who honors the Word of God.
Finally you open your reply to me by noting how many things a person must "do" to be saved. The only thing a person must "do" is change their mind from disbelief to belief. Which is the exact same answer given every single time someone asked what they must "do" to be saved in Scripture.
Now on to your answer. You said that someone can deny the facts of the Gospel and still be saved.
Yes that is going to be used as a soundbite - why? Because it is a perfect answer to the simple question.
Your further answer to "What must a man do to be saved?"
"Simply believe in Jesus Christ for eternal life"Sounds simple enough. However, that is not the testimony of Scripture as has been shown to you numerous times. The actual Scripture answer to that says "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved..." Acts 16
But let's examine your answer for a moment.
What does "believe" mean?
Who is "Jesus Christ"?
What is "eternal life"?
Can I just believe that He(or he as you believe) will give me something called "Eternal Life" and that's what I'll get. Just that? I don't have to have Him (him) around do I?
Your stated answer is so ambiguous that it is meaningless. Even the Apostle explained the "Word of the Lord" to the Jailer who asked him "What must I do to be saved?"
Antonio, some will dance around the subject. I can not. I DO thank you for answering this question. We have all of us known what the answer would be for as long as we've been asking it. Even most of the people following you have known, but have not wanted it to be stated.
You are a preacher of heresy. It breaks my heart to say such a thing. Please, please. Shut off the computer. Take a vacation and just read the Scriptures pouring out your heart to God. Please Antonio. I'm writing to you now, as though God Himself were pleading with you to be reconciled to Him.
This isn't about what you say you preach. Lots of preachers make mistakes... even knowingly say the wrong thing. Some stand up and say the right thing but all the while they counsel people against what they say at the pulpit. You have allowed your voice to be added to this last group.
I want no wrath for you. I need no payment for the sin. I'm desperated for you to please cast of the GES heresy that you have adopted. Stand up for the clear truth of the Scriptures.
Antonio you yourself don't need to be strong enough to do it. Please before Holy God, ask Him to do it for you. I'm so scared for you. I'm terrified for those who come under this evil influence. I shudder for the souls of those who think they are saved because they believed some guy named Jesus for Eternal Life. I trust my faithful God that if they start to receive that He will give them what the need to be saved - I have no choice but to pray that they will continue to seek.
Many gain entertainment from our arguments, and the political games but this is life and death. Antonio, you are leading people to their destruction. You are robbing glory from our God. You are using His Name in vain. You are despising the Gospel.
You are breaking my heart.
Kev
Hi All :)
I highly recommend you go to this sight and read the debate on The At-One-Ment of Jesus the Anointed One
John 3:16 "WORLD" also concerning Calvinism. I did a little background on Lu Mo Nyet and was completely delighted with what I learnt :)
HEREAnd Kevin I can understand why your bowing out, because there is more than just one bible out there, and Lu Mo Nyet has one of them :)
alvin :)
Here it is, you will be blessed with Lu Mo Nyet abitity to defend the truth :)
http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2009/03/at-one-ment-of-jesus-anointed-one.html
Sorry about that "ability"
Bro. Kc,
I also appreciated Missy's comments, & belleve she has definitely hit on something there. God Bless.
Bro. Kc,
I also appreciated Missy's comments, & believe she has definitely hit on something there.
Also, bro. Alvin, I visited that site, & though most of what I read was the same old Calvinism, Lu Mo Nyet did a tremendous job defending & presenting the Bible truth! Thank you for pointing it out. God Bless.
Lu Mo Nyet,
Is it.....
"Jesus saves, believe!"
One little girl in AWANA said...
"I'm a sinner, I need a Savior, Jesus is my Savior!"
Simple child like faith.
Is it....
"Believe in Jesus and you will be saved."
:-)
Hi Diane,
Best to stick with the simplicity of the text "You believe right now (pisteuson) on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. . ." I see this answer as giving a positively simple Gospel of salvation, while at the same time negating the jailor's erroneus assumption in asking what to DO.
His question in v30 “And after he led them outside, he said: Sirs, what is it necessary for me to DO (poiein) in order that I might be saved (sōthō)?
If I may I would say that today many just rephrased the jailor as asking "what is it necessary for me to KNOW FULL KERYGMA in order that I might be saved [by the knowledge]?"
The simple answer is “and they said, You believe right now (pisteuson) on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved (sōthēsē), and your house…". Just a simple VERB, BELIEVE. . . Not necessary to add a NOUN (knowledge). God knows what HE is about!
Will Be Saved ... Future, Passive:
Now that he has submitted to the ONLY condition, to believe, he is saved by the power of God.
I see the passive SAVED rules out all assumptions of FULLER Gospel or COMPLICATED Gospel because NOT the content of the believer's KNOWLEDGE that saved, but the OBJECT of his/her believe that saved him/her perfectly forever.
Lu Mo Nyet
Hi Lu Mo Nyet
I was so blessed by reading your replies against Calvinism limited atonement and "world" in John 3:16 just being the elect. I've stood up against these lies myself even before a whole Church, making myself look like an idiot because of my lack of ability to show them false like you clearly do.
Your arguments just reaffirmed to me what I was battling for was clearly the truth.
Thank you brother I can't tell you how much that means to me :)
alvin :)
P/S I wish you would go over on Roses blog where the five-point LS Calvinist can kick off their shoes and just relax and be a blessing to everyone while they are reaffirmed by FG people who say they had the living water poured down their throat, being made to believe against their own wills :(
Hi Diane
I've saved everthing I could get on Lu Mo Nyet, his arguments are powerful and yet simple enough for you and me to understand clearly. He truly is gifted by God as a teacher :)
"You believe right now (pisteuson) on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. . ."
AWESOME!
:-)
Thank you Lu Mo Nyet.
Other words we don't need to DO or MORE information in order to believe :) We simply believe right now on the Lord Jesus Christ!
The content there is the one who believes is saved :)
And we know to be saved is to have eternal life and never perish :)
The evidence is not what saves us, Jesus is who saves us, and when we believe Him were saved :)
Hmm . . . that 'open letter' and ensuing discussion was very interesting.
Hi Alvin,
While there is always room to DO MORE, and to KNOW MORE as one grow spiritually, nevertheless these are not conditions to receive or criteria to determine salvation (e.g., Paul at Acts 9: "Who art Thou Lord?" comp. to Paul at 2Tim--I have fought a good fight. . . kept the faith, etc).
Actually it is much more simple and clear in Greek of Acts 16:31 and Eps 2:8-9.
The aorist tense of believe (pisteuo) in Acts 16:31 means to believe once, for all time; and the perfect tense of sozo (saved) in Eps 2:8-9 means the ones who believe are saved in the past with the result that they go on being saved forever.
Thank you for your kind words.
Lu Mo Nyet
Lu Mo Nyet,
We hope you will visit here often. I've benefitted a lot from your comments...I love your "content and method." Looks like you already have a fan club here!
KC,
I liked Missy's comment too. I'm glad the "circus" is over!
God bless,
Gary
I mean Kc.
Bro. Antonio I look forward to continued debate, discussion and wrestling with you on my “slippery slopes” of “Clintonianism”. I want to also reaffirm that I consider you a gifted teacher and a blessing to me personally in spite of all the error in your theology! ;-)
Bro. David I have appreciated your input on this and other topics so much. May God continue to bless your efforts.
Bro. Gary I thought you were yelling to get my attention! ;-) I may have been a little “quick on the draw” with my “circus” review but that is my honest impression.
Kc,
Actually, it was the attention of Fred and Lou that I was trying to get and no one else, but I appreciate your honesty brother. Apparently Missy never got a clear answer either, but at least she tried.
God bless.
Kc,
I wasn't being sarcastic with my "circus" comment. I totally agree with your assessment. I thought you were quite perceptive and I enjoyed the analogy.
Hi Lu Mo Nyet
Thanks Lu for that little insight in Acts 16:31 and Eph 2:8,9 I hope the Doc read that :)
I really enjoyed the way you stay on track even when the Calvinist were trying every which way to get you to leave :) Calvinism has been a life and death sitiuation with my wife in the past, thinking she wasn't one of the elect and already hating herself. To most people here they don't understand that at all and just look at Calvinism as something to be debated about . . .no big deal :( They have never seen the terrible reality of it when one is told maybe they aren't the elect. It makes God out to be a Monster who picks and chooses between who He wants to be rebrobate or elect being they all are just alike :(
I love the way you shine the light on their false teaching :)
And KC, I also believe Antonio is a gifted teacher and can make things real simple to understand. You will have to show us the error's your speaking about? Or just one?
alvin :)
Hi Antonio; bless you, my man!
Wow, Gary...that's some wicked case of insomnia you have!!
Alvin, I love you brother, but again, I caution you to please be careful about the insinuations you are making about fellow FG blog owners, which run the risk of further fragmenting the FG movement.
You said to Lu Mo Nyet:
I wish you would go over on Roses blog where the five-point LS Calvinist can kick off their shoes and just relax and be a blessing to everyone while they are reaffirmed by FG people who say they had the living water poured down their throat, being made to believe against their own willsFrom your remarks, Alvin, you really don't yet know what I had been trying to do when you left Rose's. You are continuing to assume the worst about me and fail to understand my heart in my style of engaging them (those you call "5 pt. LS Calvinists") on these matters. Your style guaranteed that they would immediately leave the conversation, which is very different from my style.
I could see that you were very upset and I chose not to continue the discussions with Collin and Daniel, rather than to further jeopardize my relationship with you. But I appeal to you, my brother, please don't bring the poison over here. I am perfectly happy to welcome Lu Mo Nyet over to Rose's if he would like to "tango" with the "Calvinists," and I would certainly participate, but not if it again degenerates into emotional ad hominem attacks.
Bro. Gary thanks so much. I really did think you were being sincere. I was joking about yelling because you first used “KC” (as opposed to “kc”) in your comment but I understand what you mean about attention. ;-)
Bro. Alvin you’re in line for a trip to the woodshed but I’m only good for hug. ;-)
Thanks, KC.
"...perfect love casts out fear."
Sign-up list---
Hugs for Alvin whenever he needs one:kcJimMicheleRoseAntonio______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
OMG, how could I forget:
.
Diane
And:
Gary.
Alvin, wow!!! You are loved!!
Dr. Reitman that's another list I can really get on board with! ;-)
Kc,
I hear you Kc. You are kind and I really do think you have a talent for getting to the heart of things with few words- it was a vivid and colorful analogy. Thanks for your comment brother and God bless you.
Geo :~)
Now Jim, you know Alvin knows I love him. We've done rode too many trails and been in too many shoot-outs together. He and I are blood brothers for sure.
:F
Right you are, Bro. Gary...that's why I included your name on the "hugs for Alvin" sign-up sheet without first asking your permission!!
Here is a hug for Alvin:
:~)=
I love all you guys and I agree with KC (shocking!) about the circus-like c.w.a.c. feel to it (I didn't comment but read everything)
(If anyone wants to know what c.w.a.c. means, email me) :~)
Can I hug good ol' bro. Alvin too?
I would like to ask the forgiveness & forbearance of my precious brothers & sisters here for my behavior on the other blog, especially bro. Antonio. Certainly none of us agree on everything, but if I offended anyone I apologize. I appreciate you all & love you in the Lord. God Bless.
OK, Bro. David, you're signed up too.
yea!!!!!
Hey, I wanna sign up for a hug! I'll give em' well, side-ways hugs, or at least a good pat on the back fer sure!
Even I ran a little low in the grace-bank over there in the "circus" - I'll go back and find a good spot to apologize to the Naz.
I need a hug! Where's the end of the line?
Oh, and BTW, what happens back there at the woodshed? This is a mystery. Maybe I don't wanna know thou.
Hug for Alvin!!!!!
Hug for Antonio!!!!
OK, Michele, so now you want me to start another sign-up sheet for you?
HEY!! We gotta draw the line somewhere, here! This is getting clearly out of hand! What would happen if we started hugging just anyone off the street!! Like 5 point Calvinists!!!
It's just like the atonement, you know... After all, if Jesus didn't....
HEY!! Wait a minute...Jesus DID...!!! Oh, all right...
Hug sign-up sheets for EVERYONE!!
Come to Antonio's for a hug!!!
HEY!!! Wait a minute!!! You mean even Lou can get a hug??? What about the mutual ban???
Hang on, everyone...let me check my NIVJ (New Inspired Version [of] Jim):
"To as many as received a hug, to them he gave the right to be reconciled to one another, even to them who could swallow their pride." (Jim 1:12)
Yup, says it right here.
Hey, I want to give all of you a hug 'cause there's a
sweet, sweet Spirit
in this place.
This comment has been removed by the author.
All of the love in this thread is disturbing!
Your Free Grace theology host,
Antonio
A a a l v i i i n....I see you hiding in the closet....
...ohhh, my, what a frown :(
Come on, Alvin, your "time-out" is over, now....everyone else has gotten their hugs and is waiting for you to come out and get your hugs....
Alvin?? Doooon't you smile...!! :-)
Dooooon't you smile....!!!
Did I see a smile...???
Oh, sorry, my mistake....
G A A A A R Y!! Where are you? Will you go in there and talk some sense into your younger brother??? Seems like you're the only one he'll listen to. Tell him Mama Rose and I talked it over, and he's not grounded any more.
Hurry up, we're waitin' supper on 'im....
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bad, you're so bad w/ the slang! LOL !!!!!!
AAAAALViNNN, you UGLY thang; Tha supper bell be ringin!! Come an get yore vittles... you kin bring ole Ruth if'n ya want!! Come an git it!!! We got plinty of grub fer you an that broke down mule you be ridin.I don't have a southern bone in this body :( but I'm still quite a westerner if that scores me any campfire points. What's fer dinner? Help a girl out with some of that SOUL FOOD you're so proud of.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Thanks, Gary.
Alvin finally came out and got his hug, and we're talkin' again. Seems like I said some things to him a while back at Rose's that sounded to him like fightin' words and I think he'll give me another chance to say it reel purtee.
You guys rock.
This comment has been removed by the author.
David,
Thanks for the encouragement.
Lu Mo Nyet,
I appreciate your understanding of the issue, and I don't think I have any disagreement.
Diane,
You have always been a blessing. Whether or not you continue to blog, know that you have a friend in me. I know that God is using you to bless others!
Casey,
I don't know what to make out of Fred Lybrand's statements. I see that some on his side said his treatise was very gracious. I didn't find it that way, personally.
Furthermore, it doesn't follow for him to make such a big deal out of something he does not consider a false gospel or heresy. He is trying to tow a line in both directions and I do not think he has done a good job of it.
Antonio
Gary,
I beat ya' to it, Bucktooth.
Ugly said to tell ya' "hang onto yer britches, ya' varmint." He just got through herdin' cattle and he's on his way back with the mule.
Antonio,
I have to agree with your comments to Casey. It'll be interesting to see how it shakes out.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bad I blush!
I think she might even have some corn whisky to chase it down wit!!
Gary, Antonio,
Was there or was there not closure on Missy's question regarding "heresy"? I seem to detect two versions to the account. That was sure discerning on her part.
Thanks, M
Well, Bucktooth, that's what he dun tol' me.
Cain't even trust 'im as fer as ya' can throw 'im.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michele,
The last I heard he offered to discuss it with Missy by private e-mail, but no clear answer has ever been given publicly that I've seen.
Kevin,
Thanks for your concerns, man, not only for myself, but those who I minister to.
I, too, have concerns about the way that evangelism is done by those prescribing to your position. I have written extensively on my concerns, so I shall not repeat them here.
As a final word, I implore you to allow Christ's words, which have the authority of the Father, Himself, to sink down deep into your soul:
For God so loved the world, that He gave His unique Son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)
blessings to you,
Antonio da Rosa
Does anyone have the number for "Hick's Anonymous"? I'd like to report some backwoods (and backwards) abuse!
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hey All it be me Ugly:~}
I sure hope you all left me some vittles . . . an dat Gary an Bucktooth not have eat'n um all up :)
With all this hugs it hard fur Ugly to keep his mule head disposition . . . an all this here talk about hug'n has even made Ruth be happy . . .she be kno'n when Ugly be'n gruppy an down in the mouth :(
I be real sorry again, an possum be my favorite dish . . .an I be a will'n to share yur vittles if you would have Ugly be eat'n with ya all :~}
I be probably need'n to go to the woodshed . . . but since you all be forgiven me even Rose with them thar fangs . . . . i be swallon all my pride with a little bit of that possum stew an we be all partners again :~} that be just like Jesus to be forgiven a contancurus ole' mule skinner like me:)
Ugly been here and left with a mouth full of love and possum belly . . . .he be as happy as a jay bird on a mountain top . . .heeheeeeee :~}
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hey Antonio,
"Hick's Anonymous"? -- You got the wiki for that?? I tried to google and join and grow myself a bit. ;)
Hey Bad . . . .me never was much fur manners . . . .but Ruth be need'n her rest . . . . an you be no'n a feller be need'n a nap after eat'n all that possum belly . . . an dat love make me an Ruth have sweet dreams :~} :~}
Ugly be bring'n the possum an love too da next campfire :~}
getty-up Ruth >>>>>>>>>
This comment has been removed by the author.
Well me an Ruth not need'n to go dat way anyhow . . . .we be lik'n right where we be :~} :~} nity nite Bad an g~ood an da huggy bunch:~}
This comment has been removed by the author.
Here's a BIG HUG for everyone!!!!!
:-)
Hey there Lu Mo Nyet
You be still there? Don't let all this hillbilly talk scar yah off, Bad he can spell pretty good when he be want'n too :~}
These folks have given me lots of love an a possum belly to make me happy . . . . .but I would love to see yah exegete a couple of Calvinist . . . . yah no just shock um just a weee bit . . . . heeheeeeeee
I be off to work . . . .but I be lik'n to post a couple of your fine shocks . . . .even if yah just make um jump a foot . . . I be real happy . .in fact if you was to make um jump out of thar socks that be real cooool ta see . . . . .heeheeee
Ugly was here and left with love and possum belly left over :~}
Ugly,
I'm glad you caught that love. :) Now I read Tom Sawyer in high school. I asked my teacher "How am I supposed to read this if I can't read this?" Some of you guys have that talent and where I can't even read it, I'll still nod along and I'm impressed. :) I am starting to figure it out, though just a smidge. Speaking southern is like an ensemble of clashing plaid. You feel most comfortable when you know you're breakin' all the rules.
That about right?
:D
http://southernisms.blogspot.com/
;-)
...Ensemble of clashing plaid.
LOL....LOL againI love it!!! You nailed it, Michele.
Hey thar Bucktooth . . . I never did think about it like that . . .but I do know it's catching :) I'm starting to talk this way at work . . . . I find that it lighten's the moment . . .it's hard to get too serious when you talk that way . . . kinda keeps yah light hearted . . . .heeheeeee
Ugly :~}
Hi Lu Mo Nyet :)
You said:
I believe in free will/volition, so to swallow or not to swallow is a personal choice.I believe that one uses their volition when they are being persuaded, they are open to the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. But once they are convinced, that is not the volition but they realize (illumination) the truth. So the personal choice is being made while they are choosing to seek but when they find the light is ON :)
Like the Bereans they searched the Scriptures to see if what Paul was saying was true which was by their volition but once the Holy Spirit opened up the Scriptures to them it was illumination which is not volition:)
Also I see Jesus telling the “Women at the well” she needed to know the gift of God and then in verses 11-15 He explains that gift. I believe in Acts 16:31 to be saved carried content, he needed to know what the gift of God was.
What’s your thoughts?
alvin :)
P/s also the living water was not like physical water that you could chose to swallow or not swallow, once you received (believed) you had drank. I know some have said they believed but chose not to take the gift.
Hi Antonio
I liked what Lu said here in this post. I hope it's ok to post it, with you and Lu? If not go ahead and delete.
CALVINISTS CLAIM PEOPLE ARE SAVED IN ORDER TO BELIEVE:
The text of Jn 3:16 put the CONDITION followed by the CONSEQUENCE : “whosoever believeth [condition], shall be saved [consequence].
“Paul said, “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ [condition] and shall be saved [consequence] . . . ”(Acts 16:31).
See how Calvinist reverse the order in the text: The Westminster Confession of faith states: “This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man; who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.”
Loraine Boettner says, “A man is not saved because he believes in Christ; he believes in Christ because he is saved.”
Arthur W. Pink says, “A man is not regenerated because he has first believed in Christ, he believes in Christ because he has been regenerated.”
R.C. Sproul says, “We do not believe in order to be born again; we are born again in order that we may believe.”
Note the implications of these statements: 1) faith is not necessary to be saved at all, which is completely contrary to Scripture; 2) salvation is thus settled by the decree from eternity and carried out by irresistible grace; 3) and faith, according to the theory, comes as a result of salvation. This is incredible!
I guess for some it is OK to change Scripture by a thousand qualifications but TULIP must remain absolutely unchangeable.
Lu Mo Nyet
Hi Friends,
Have you been following along at the GES Blog lately? There's been some very interesting articles posted by Bob Wilkin and some interesting comments also.
http://www.faithalone.org/
BTW.... You guys are doing it again to me. Making me laugh so hard. I just think about all this hugging going on, and I walk around the house laughing. What's becoming of me????
:-)
All,
I've just sent the following to an anti Zane. I copy it here for you in case you are interested.
. . .[name of blogger],
CHRIST FINISHED PAID FOR ALL SINS EVEN BEFORE HIS RESURRECTION; HENCE TO AFFIRM RESURRECTION IS NOT A CONDITION OF SALVATION.
You remember Jn 19:30 "when, therefore, Jesus received the vinegar, he said [AORIST TENSE--POINT OF TIME], `It hath been finished;' [TETELESAI] and having bowed the head, gave up the spirit.
TETELESTAI -- "it is finished" : PERFECT PASSIVE INDICATIVE of telew. By means of the Perfect tense Holy Spirit shows that alvation is completed IN THE PAST and the results go on forever.
Passive voice: salvation has received fulfillment by means of Christ's soul suffering, spiritual death as per Eli, Eli, Lama sabachtani (Cross cf. 1Jn2:2).
The indicative mood is the reality of salvation. He said Tetelestai, one word, not three: “Finished.” It means to bring to an end, to complete, to accomplish, to fulfill, to perform. Salvation is completed.
Notice that JESUS IS STILL ALIVE when He says “Finished.” Salvation was completed by spiritual death He suffered while on the Cross--bearing all sins/all sins PAID.
Physical death has nothing to do with salvation. Physical death and resurrection is a bonus and NOT requirement to pay for sins. Jesus was still strong, 99% blood still in His body; and with a loud voice to make it clear He put his human spirit in the hand of the Father.
Lou, what is the issue in salvation? SINS prevent us from having a relationship with God. Christ therefore had to come and PAY. Did He have to be resurrected in order to pay for sins? NO.
Isn't resurrection the proof that He successfully paid for sins? YES. So it's a PROOF of salvation, His Resurrection, NOT A CAUSE of salvation -- right? WHERE does it say you must believe in His Resurrection to be SAVED?
1Corinthians is addressed to WHOM? 1Cor1:2 says, "to those who HAVE BEEN SANCTIFIED" -- to already-saved people. So then those ALREADY SAVED people are doubting the resurrection in 1Cor15:3-4. Does Paul ever say that they are not saved? Doesn't he rather still call them saved but IGNORANT, i.e., "brethren" in 1Cor15:31 and following, especially verses 49-50? So isn't rather the purpose of 1 Cor15 to explain, with the result of encouragement (verse 58)?
Lu Mo Nyet
First Greetings to all!
I survived my RVing across the West Coast with wife & 2 teens (started the day after the GES conference).
I am just about done the video of the Conference. As soon as I am done that, I will work on Zane's "Legacy" DVD with much of his classic presentations from dozens of messages.
All,
My posting (above) as well as several others I sent before that one has all been rejected by the owner of In Defense of the Gospel blog. I guess I am not welcome there even though I am not at all in ANY way associated with a particular person or organizations in Free grace movement.
Too bad for a clean and serious free speech blogosphere.
All I want to say has always been very simple: conclusions drawn from a serious study of Bible texts.
Lu Mo Nyet
Hi Antonio!!! :~)
Lu Mo Nyet,
God bless you as you study His Word. Thanks for sharing your thoughts for all to ponder.
Hi Lu Mo Nyet
Excellent!!!!!! I have never heard it stated like that, I can tell we can learn much from you :)
I spent about four hours yesterday just studying all your post over on that sight I gave above.
I should clarify to Diane what I meant by saying that Lu was real simple to understand.
I love the way Lu exegetes Scripture, and much is very technical, in fact Lu's last post I had to dig out my dictionary. And that's just because I'm not as educated as most of you are. But when Lu explains it is very simple and clear :) I've seen how Lu explains the grammatical construction being it flatly denies to the Calvinist his doctrine of irresistible grace extracted out of forced translation. And I loved the way they wanted Lu just to leave or change the subject from John 3:16.
Lu Mo Nyet said:
The word "brilliant" is too modest of an adjective for your exegesis of John 3:16.
Thank you for illustrating why it is best for all of us to avoid absolute statments like "no Calvinist has ever exegeted John 3:16."
We can easily argue that the posture of Calvinistic dogma of election has been swallowed long before looking into any and all texts pertaining to atonement, in one sense unconditional election demands atonement. Listen to John Calvin:
He says: "Predestination we call the eternal decree of God, by which he has determined in himself, what he would have to become of every individual of mankind. For they are not all created with a similar destiny; but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for others. Every man, therefore, being created for one or the other of these ends, we say, he is predestined either to life or to death." Institutes, 3.21.5.
He says the following dogma on the damnation of infants: "I inquire again, how it came to pass that the fall of Adam, independent of any remedy, should involve so many nations with their infant children in eternal death, but because such was the will of God. Their tongues so loquacious on every other point, must here be stuck dumb. It is an awful decree, I confess; but no one can deny that God foreknew the future final fate of man before he created him, and that he did foreknow it because it was appointed by his own decree." Institutes, 3.23.7:
Now every and all texts pertaining to the atonement MUST fit what Calvin has decreed--he must have decreed these because nowhere can be found such decrees in any text of Scripture.
Lu Mo Nyet
Hi Alvin,
For the statement, "no Calvinist has ever exegeted John 3:16.", I clarify that the calvinists MUST read the WORLD as the CHOSEN ones-- they must read Limited Atonement into the text [NOT exegete it OUT of the text]. I stand by my statement that the calvinists can't exegete Jn3:16 as it stands alone and out comes limited atonement from Jn3:16. It is not there at all. If they read the KOSMOS as humanity then the whole calvinistic system would collapse. I see that they are defending man-made system extraneous to Jn3:16 and NOT God's thinking IN the text.
I want to defend another statement I made somewhere else that TULIP can be held [and must be held] based purely on calvinism's theology proper and NOT neccesarily from any text of Scripture. It is a deductionism and NOT inductionism in its hermeneutics. In one true sense it is a theological position by means of proof-texting!
Lu Mo Nyet
Hey thar Diane
What be yur handle! We got a fine you a nickname . . . .Bucktooth be already tak'n so what we be call'n you :~} How's about "sunshine" or maybe . . .hilltop . . . you seem to be on the top of da mountain most the time fellowship'n with the Lord :~} Maybe you see my jay bird up thar too . . . . an Bad's hound dog . . . howl'n at da moon . . . heeheeeee
Hi Antonio/Gereja,
Gereja, You must be aware that not all Calvinists believe that "the world" in John 3:16 = "the elect." For example, John Calvin himself did not. Neither do I.
I have never seen John 3:16 being used as a proof text for the doctrine of particular redemption. Maybe you have an advantage on me with that one.
Unfortunately, I will be away again for a few days. Maybe I'll get back to this post again later on.
Regards,
Yes, Lu Mo Nyet is correct, the logic of Calvinism regarding the atonement is entirely deductive and discounts the contextual use of "world" in 3:16 and the parallel verse in First John dealing with the extent of the atonement, 2:2.
I have also tried to argue in a previous thread on Rose's ("Who is 'All'?") that unlimited atonement is also implied as part of the logic in Romans 5:18. The problem is in defining the terms in that passage very carefully and understanding that the efficacy of the atonement continues throughout our lives in Christ (1 Jn 1:5-2:2).
Two things pertaining to the Atonement that Lu put forth which I'm still chewing on are these:
Lu Mo Nyet said:
I would prefer reading Romans 3:25 first in its grammatical and syntactical setting:
"...Whom God, and no other, set forth (proetheto) as Atonement (hilasterion) by means of (en) His blood, (effective) through faith . . ."This passage is improperly translated propitiation. The God of heaven, Who acted in love, gave, sent, and set forth, did none of this to appease His wrath and anger for the satisfaction of His justice; neither was it for the "satisfaction due to the outraged majesty..."The accusative objects of the setting forth are stated--Whom (hon)and Atonement (hilasterion). Thus, the purpose is not for propitiation, appeasement, punishment, an penal satisfaction! It is provision by Atonement for restoration from the fall, and benefit by means of the blood, effective through faith.
Lu Mo Nyet
also:
If you read carefully Rom 5:12-21 and 2 Cor 5 it will save you a lot of trouble from having to speculate [logically through] that two were unjustly punished for one sin. Actually all men are condemned for ONE sin in Adam (Rom 5:12)and ALL sins were judged on the cross (1 Jn 2:2) and hense grace makes it availible on "whosoever believeth"--will be credited with God's righteousness without charging him/her with sins--hence God is just and justified without counting their tresspasses (2 Cor 5:19).
Lu Mo Nyet
I take it you mean Lu by the two, Adams offspring and Christ . . .alvin :)
Thanks Lu Mo Nyet for your clarification: April 29, 2009 9:43 AM
Also everybody make sure you read Lu's post at April 28, 2009 10:10 PM
Great insight into when Jesus said it is "finished."
Diane
I went and read Bob.W posts and they were very good. I like the way he brought out justification and sanctification as part of the gospel in Galatians. He put flesh on it by showing most likely they were taking the Lord's supper (meal) and the Jews having their kosher food and separating :)
alvin :)
Hi everyone!
Don, thanks for all your hard work that you are doing. I can't wait for their results!
Antonio
Hello to All,
Wow, this is like being in a great Bible study group, while sitting in
my living room.
Lu Mo Nyet- I agree with Alvin about your post of April 28, 2009 10:10 PM.
I had to print it out for my husband to read.
Blessing.
Peggy,
Regarding Lu Mo Nyet.....
ME TOO!
:-)
Ooooops!
Spelled your name wrong.....
Peggie!!!
Sorry.
Diane- No problem.
It's pronounced the
same.
Hey Alvin....
My grandkids AND all my little friends who are NOT my grandkids call me "Di-Di," but "hilltop" is where I see all of you, my wonderful friends!!!
:-)
Alvin,
I can't find it in me to call you "Ugly!" NO WAY!!!!
How bout..... "bulls-eye!"
:-)
You all keep cracking me up!!!
:-)
I, too, spent hours studying what you've all been talking about, and I really was fascinated by Lu Mo Nyet's post on April 28 at 10:10pm.
I've never heard it put that way before.
Lu.... (Is it OK to call you that?).... You are really getting my attention. I would love to hear more about you. Where did you learn all this? I know where you're getting truth..... IT'S IN THE BIBLE!!! Praise God!!!
But where did you receive your Bible education? Where did you come from??? Just curious IF you want to share that with us.
So glad you've joined in the conversation. It's been great!
Don,
I, too, am looking forward to getting a video from the conference if it is offered.
And I can't wait to view Zane's "Legacy" DVD. I'm so thankful for all the work you're doing to make it possible.
Alvin, one other thing.....
YES.... I, too, loved Bob Wilkin's post on Galatians, entitled...
*How was Peter not "straightforward about truth of the Gospel"?*
I've always had questions about that, and Bob just opened my eyes to see what should have been so obvious to me. That just goes to show how long held beliefs block us from seeing the obvious. I always thought Peter was being reprimanded by Paul for not being straightforward about salvation being by grace through faith. So I never saw what was right in front of me.
I think the same thing is happening in this debate. Our friends on the other side can't see it because they are blocked by their preconceived long held beliefs.
Also, Bob's postings on.....
*"An Evaluation of the 4,5, or 6 Essentials... Part 1,2,3,4,and 5"* are EXCELLENT!!!
As I studied today in my little "get away spot," I found myself SCREAMING "inside my heart"..... not out loud!!! I was so moved to shout the truth that I didn't know what to do with my emotions. So I just cried out to the Lord and asked Him to please give me and my husband opportunities to share this truth with those in leadership positions.... pastors and elders and Sunday School teachers, and missionaries, etc.
What really got my heart beating fast was his article..... Part 3. It was on the Gospel of John.
MY FRIENDS....... YOU ARE IGNORING THE PURPOSE OF JOHN IF YOU HOLD THE POSITION OF THOSE ON THE OTHER SIDE.
You have taken what God has recorded and just thrown it away as a history book. John 3:16 becomes no more to you than just a nice verse without meaning for us today. If you don't read anything else that Bob wrote, I HOPE you will read what he says concerning the Gospel of John. THAT ONE BOOK HAS BEEN THE *KEY* FOR ME IN OPENING UP WHAT'S TRUE IN THIS WHOLE DEBATE OF THE SAVING CONTENT. If you don't understand the PURPOSE of John, then you probably will never have your eyes open to the truth that must be believed in order to be saved.
Again..... you can read it at the GES website by clicking on GES Blog.
Part 3,
(but all of them are great!)
I always enjoy visiting with my friends here at Antonio's place.
And that includes Gary, and Michele, and Rose, and Jim, and Peggie......and all the other guests who visit here.
May Jesus Christ alone be your joy each day,
All because of His wonderful grace,
Diane
:-)
Peggie,
Thanks for the hug - I took it assuming I could have one too?
Diane,
Thank you for your hugs too! I love your spirit. I'm so proud to know you, hopefully more and more. I noticed you mentioned above a couple of posts at Dr. Wilkin's GES blog. The latest one was on Peter not being "straightforward" about the truth of the gospel. Wilkin said the same thing that I have been writing on my blog - that it had to do with a legalistic twist on the gospel of grace! This is what "heresy" is all about in the scriptures, from the context and word usage by the author Paul.
I don't know if you've noticed, but I have, that some of our FG brothers, along with everything else are preaching morality, which is legalism. Have you seen this, at all? I am working into a series of posts identifying these things:
- The reasons why they excuse themselves from fellowship and call from a far distance off for the GES to "repent" of "heresy,"
- The reason and source of doctrine which encourages a general sort of theological legalism (more broad than just the gospel issue), and
- The reason and source of their preaching and promoting a message of morality, which is the sort of legalism Paul wrote Galatians to fight against.
I hope you'll leave a comment here or there if you find it of interest.
Thanks so much, Michele
Hi Diane,
Just call me Lu.
I belong to a small Fellowship in Dallas. About twenty people. I have a daily Bible study with a mature believer, and most of my posts come from this class.
We use Bible Works 8 in our study. Other tools also (e.g., Greek Bible) but mainly Bible Works and Bible. We do Bible digging first and consult scholars last. We try not to parrot famous people.
Since I belong to a small no name group I am not afraid to differ from famous people, if the Bible teaches differently. See nowadays so many arrogant people assume our Lord is unscholarly in Jn3:16.
By the way, I enjoy reading your postings.
Sometimes I post something because I am troubled deeply by some of the so called free gracers, classic dispensationalists, etc. who are so sophisticated and continue to denigrate the perfect Atoning Priestly Sacrifice of our Lord (1Jn2:2) by demanding human works, such as repentance and certain theological knowledge to attend SOLE condition of receiving salvation--BELIEVE.
Thanks.
Lu Mo Nyet
Michele,
You bet there's a hug for you!
I'm enjoying studying the scriptures with
all of you.
Hey thar it be me Ugly again back for more hugs . . . heeheeeeee
an possum belly :~}
I be given hugs on the side for Bucktooth or maybe high fives . . . .heeheeeee
hey can Ruth have a hug too . . .she get tired of my kisses . . . she just wanna spit . . .I'm sure she would just love a big ole' hug from Bucktooth or maybe Bad . . . she be like'n Bad cuz he can talk her talk . . . heeeheeeeeee maybe they be related . . .heeheeeeeeee
Ugly :~} was here an on-ery as ever
Michele,
You bet there's a hug for you!
I'm enjoying studying the scriptures with
all of you.
Well lookie thar it be Pegg come'n to give ole' Ugly a hug and Ruth a BIG Ole' Kissy . . . .heeheeeeee
I be realy expect'n the fly'n centurion come down from heaven an blopp'n right on that big 100 . . .maybe she got her wings tak'n away . . or maybe she be tak'n her a little snoooooze . . . .heeeheeeeee
getty-up Ruthy >>>>.>>>>....>>>>getty up i say :~} you be gettin your kissy later :~} :~)
I want to clarify something even though it wasn’t on this thread. But maybe it will help someone to undertsand when you say you “believed Jesus proposition.”
Let’s say I said this “I told the evangelist after "believing" the proposition” I just gave you one part of the sentence, I’ll give the rest at the end.
Here is what that would look like “to believe Jesus proposition”
Jesus said to (Alvin), "I am the resurrection and the life. He (Alvin) who believes in Me, though he (Alvin) may die, he (Alvin) shall live.
"An whoever (Alvin) lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you (Alvin) believe this?
(Alvin) said to Him, "Yes, Lord, I (Alvin) believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world."
Folks that is what it means to believe Jesus proposition!
Here is the last part of the sentence from above: that if I died that night I was fairly certain I would go to hell.Can anyone see the contradiction there?
No one can believe Jesus proposition without being born of God. (John 11:25-27; 20:31; 1 John 5:1a)
alvin :)
I'm sorry here that is again but more clear:)
I want to clarify something even though it wasn’t on this thread. But maybe it will help someone to undertsand when you say you “believed Jesus proposition.”
Let’s say I said this “I told the evangelist after "believing" the proposition” I just gave you one part of the sentence, I’ll give the rest at the end.
Here is what that would look like “to believe Jesus proposition”
Jesus said to (Alvin), "I am the resurrection and the life. He (Alvin) who believes in Me, though he (Alvin) may die, he (Alvin) shall live.
"An whoever (Alvin) lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you (Alvin) believe this?
(Alvin) said to Him, "Yes, Lord, I (Alvin) believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world."
Folks that is what it means to believe Jesus proposition!
Here is the last part of the sentence from above:
that if I died that night I was fairly certain I would go to hell.Can anyone see the contradiction there?
No one can believe Jesus proposition without being born of God. (John 11:25-27; 20:31; 1 John 5:1a)
alvin :)
Hi Michele,
You always are so sweet to me. I'm so glad I got to meet you personally at the GES Conference. That was fun. I hope we'll all get to be together again next year, Lord willing.
Yes, I too loved the article that Bob wrote regarding Peter not being straightforward about the truth of the gospel.
I saw that you have written tons on your blog. WOW! You really have done a LOT of work. I haven't had the chance to read most of it yet just because of time, but I can't wait to find that time. You must be super smart!!!!!
:-)
Hi Lu,
Thanks for your kind words. How interesting to hear about your small Bible group that you meet with!!! That's awesome!!!
What is this Bible Works 8? Is it something private that you use, or is it something that we can all benefit from???
I loved what you said here.....
*We do Bible digging first and consult scholars last. We try not to parrot famous people.*
That's NEAT!!!!!
I'm surprised that you haven't read Zane Hodges since you live in the Dallas area. Yet you sound just like him in many ways.
I hope you will consider visiting GES Conferences in the future. They are really great, and the friendships made are wonderful, too.
Hugs to ALL my blogging friends.....
OK...... now you've got me doing it, too!!!
:-)
Diane
:-)
Hi Lu Mo Nyet....
I would love to hear your insight into the verses that convinced Fred Lybrand that Bob and Zane were wrong on the content of saving faith.
If anyone else has any insight, I would love to hear from you also. Thanks so much.
The following was written by Fred Lybrand and posted on his blog. Since this is the place (Antonio's blog)that we have continued our conversation on the subject Fred started on his blog, I copied and pasted his latest post here. I hope that's OK.
*ANTONIO.... IF I SHOULDN'T DO THIS, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO DELETE. THANKS SO MUCH.*
--------------------
*Fred Lybrand's post below in its entirety...*
Here is the passage that convinced me to change from supporting Zane and Bob. I have yet to have anyone argue against the point...especially in any printed form. The whole passage goes further, but this should be enough for the discussion.
It is undeniable that Paul saw the cross as in the message by which we are saved. Look at this:
"For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles," (1 Corinthians 1:21-23, ESV)
If I put these together for precision it reads like this:
"For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach (Christ Crucified)(v.23) to save those who believe.
What do you think? I think the cross is an unavoidable part of THE MESSAGE. This is especially why a gospel that doesn't include the cross is not a gospel that will save eternally.
Grace,
FRL
------------------------
END OF FRED'S POST
I think it mainly for them wise an prudent fellers . . . .but babes can just be crawling right up on Daddy's lap with child like faith . . . .heeheeeeee dat be me . . . .Ugly . . . .me got a deam bulb . . . .but Jesus His light shine BRIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ugly just done some'n stupid . . .he went to work :~}
getty-up Ruth->>>>>>>>>
I am firing back up my webboard to discuss this dialogue. I find that these blogs are far to short for me to cram everything I want to say into!
I created a new conference called FG Issues Content of saving faith and posted my initial brief (?? for me) response to Fred's letter.
http://gesot1.compsupport.net:8081/WB/default.asp?fid=76
Hi Don,
I'm not able to get into your site with the address you gave....
http://gesot1.compsupport.net:8081/WB/default.asp?fid=76
Is a webboard different than a blog? Please forgive my ignorance. All I know is "my little box!"
:-)
Diane,
I'm not Don, but I had trouble also, but
got in with:
http://gesot1.compsupport.net:8081/WB/default.asp?boardid=ges
re: Webboard
I have been hosting the GES Webboard for almost 10 years straight I used to host the online seminary component on there, but then it just became a discussion board for folks. It is basically a place for sending messages between parties. It also has a live chat feature. . . and an IM feature. You can post (i.e.) upload files, which is helpful when you write a long paper that you want to share.
The link got cut off. . . sorry
http://gesot1.compsupport.net:8081
/WB/?BoardID=52
You will have to past the two parts together in your browser window.
I don't know why it is breaking up the link like that.
Also. . . I found some pretty bad typos. . . I fixed a few of them.
Also. . . Feinberg's paper on Salvation in the OT is online at
http://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/
pdf/salvation-ot_feinberg.pdf
sorry. . you will have to paste
that link together. . . or
do a google for feinberg salvation
in the OT
That paper is a little bit advanced but I have a feeling most of the folks here will not have much trouble with it! :) The most important part is the part about the ultimate object of saving faith and how that does not change through the Dispensations. He goes a lot more in-depth than that. . . you have to read it.
- Don
Thank you so much Don and Peggie. I got into it using Peggie's link, and now I see Don's.
I'm very excited to know about this and to read EVERYTHING I can.
How I thank God for you both.
In Jesus' love,
Diane
:-)
Luke 10:20-22
20 Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rather REJOICE because your names are written in heaven.
21 In that hour JESUS REJOICED in the Spirit and said, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have HIDDEN these things from the wise and prudent and REVEALED them to BABES.
Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight. 22 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.”
Jesus be real happy that the Father hid what the saints be rejoicing over from the wise and prudent!!!!!!!!!!
How did He hide it?
1 Cor 1:18-20
18 For the message of the cross is FOOLISHNESS to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
“ I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”
But He has revealed “the Christ” to babes . . . . heeheeeeeee I be a babe :~}
How has He revealed Him?
Through the simple childlike message of the Gospel of John :)
A babe can take the living water freely if they desire. . .Yep! just take it and rejoice that their names be written in heaven :~}
Revelation 22:17
And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!”
And let him who hears say, “Come!”
And let him who thirsts come.
Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.A little child can just come to Jesus because the Father has revealed the simple child like truth to them. It pleased the Father to reveal “the Christ” to babes :)
John 5: 24 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.”
Babes when they see the cross it will make perfect sense to them because it shows His unconditional love for them and the payment He made to be able to give the gift of life :)
Psalm 36
7 How precious is Your lovingkindness, O God!
Therefore the children of men put their trust under the shadow of Your wings.
8 They are abundantly satisfied with the fullness of Your house,
And You give them drink from the river of Your pleasures.
9 For with You is the fountain of life;
In Your light we see light.
Hi Don,
I just tried twice posting on your webboard, but it didn't go through either time. It's not taking my name and password. I was able to get in to read it, but not post.
:-(
So I thought I'd just let you know here that I read your paper, and was truly blessed!!!!!
I plan to share it with family and friends. God is so good to me. He just keeps bringing me more friends who are able to defend the truth so well. How I praise Him for you!!!
FRIENDS...... YOU WON'T WANT TO MISS READING WHAT DON WROTE. IT'S EXCELLENT!!!!!
Alvin,
I always love what you have to share, also. You are another one who just keeps blessing me with great content.
May God continue to use you both for His glory,
Your friend because of Jesus,
Diane
:-)
Has the Message changed?
The message that was given to Nicodemus was that he needed to be born again. Being a Jew he thought he was already a child of God. The serpent being lifted up was part of the message given to Nicodemus it would have special meaning to him being a Jew.
The message given to the woman at the well was the story of her life, and the fact that she related that to the Christ who would tell them “all things” was the vehicle needed to bring her to the knowledge of His person that He was the Christ which brings life.
These different messages were the vehicle that led them to believe in Jesus as the Christ.
Most people today the message that is the vehicle that will bring them to see Jesus as the Christ is the message of the cross. When believed in the way that ones eternal destiny has been changed and is heaven bound one has believed in Jesus as the Christ and has drank the living water. To see Jesus as ones Savior who has saved them from their sins so that they no longer will go to hell but go to heaven is to believe in Jesus as the Christ.
The living water has never changed it is the knowledge of the Christ but the vehicle getting to that drink can be different.
For the little 3yr old girl Diane told us about, the vehicle that brought her to believe in Jesus as the Christ the One who gives life was the reality of seeing death.
With Lu it took John 14:6 as the vehicle to see Jesus as the Christ the one way to God rather then Buddhism religion of works.
Most of us the message will be the cross, when believed as seeing Jesus as the Christ the One who has guaranteed our way to heaven it is the vehicle that has brought them to that one drink!
But remember by what ever vehicle God uses in a persons life when they see Jesus as the Christ the One who has guaranteed their eternal well being they are born of God.
Alvin :)
Thank you bro. Alvin. No doubt He has changed my eteranl destiny! I also like your post over at Rose's about not being as bad as we could be due to God's grace. Looking within, I often wonder how I could be any worse, but I see what you mean. But you are also right that I deserve hell at least a thousand times over myself. Thank GOD for Jesus & His cross & resurrection! God Bless you brother.
Thanks for your kind words Brother David :)
Hi Lu
I was wondering what you believed about the “all” in Romans 5:18 concerning receiving “justification of life?” I’ve heard someone say that the “all” there is everyone even unbelievers and children who died before the age of accountability. That, that is how God raises them (unbelievers) for the Great White Throne of Judgement.
I have always taken it that the only kind of justification of life God gives is a gift received by faith. This thinking seems to fit into the thinking of “Contemplative Spirituality.”
I was just reading Zane’s comments in his book “The Epistles of John” and the belief of the “revisionist” who he related to the “new wave” today in which Roman Catholic and Buddhist mysticism are merged. I could see where Romans 5:18 taken as everyone being given justification of life could fit into that.
Zane said:
According to this perspective, each and every individual is “one” with God and Jesus simply realized this oneness to a greater degree than others. He is thus not the Christ in the Johannine sense of mankind’s one and only Savior (John 1:29; 4:42).
The literature being produced by this “new wave,” sometimes called New Age II, is copious.
It is striking that this system has a place for “darkness” as the contemplative person meditates wordlessly and reaches down into the darkness of his own inner self in search of a rediscovery of his oneness with Ultimate Reality from which humanity has become estranged, Man’s “fall” is the loss of a realization of this oneness, while his “salvation” is “enlightenment” in the sense of a renewed realization of his union with God and with the cosmos. Western rationalism is said to have corrupted the immediacy taught by the great masters of the inner life, such as Jesus and Buddha, and to have created antinomies, like good and evil, which hinder humanity’s experience of unity with one another and the cosmos. Among the seminal thinkers identified with this general movement are Teilhard de Chardin, Thomas Merton, Fritjof Capra, David Steindl-Rast, Thich Nhat Hanh, Matthew Fox, Beatrice Bruteau, and many others. (page 37,38 “The Epistles of John.”)Zane also went on to say about this “new wave” Gnosis:
Such ideas could easily form the basis of a universal synthesis of mankind’s religions (an undertaking its practitioners acknowledge).I know you had a background in Buddhism so if you have some thought’s on this and Romans 5:18 I would be very interested :)
Alvin :)
Missy said:
Alvin,
Are you still around, bro? :)
Amidst the further posting, perhaps you missed my previous comment:
"Alvin, are you making the distinction because you want me to understand that I don't have to "trust" Jesus for his other promises to have eternal life, just "believe" this one promise of eternal life for eternal life? Are you saying that I don't have to place any trust in Christ's ability to fulfill any promises but this one?"Heeheeee . . . this be Ugly:~} dat Alvin is a real knuckle head . . . .he be worse than a hillbilly from Montana . . . .he might be need’n some of G~oods pills so he be melllllllllllloooow like G~ood:~}
Ole’ Ugly been tink’n bout all this . . . .Ugly’s bulb might not be too bright but Ugly don’t need to b hit in da head with a rock ta get it . . . .heeheeeee....
“Missy” an “G~ood”… be hav’n da same problem they b look’n way past de gift . . . .”Missy” to other promises an “G~ood” ta giv’n up his name:~}
I give “G~ood” as an example:
His testimony has his pastor telling a story about a man who heard about the gift of life but before he would take it he wanted to know what he would have to do if he did? G~ood found himself in this same predicament. His pastor told him…Mike said that if the person being evangelized makes that the issue of whether to accept the gift or not, then they have created the barrier to believing in Jesus for eternal life, not the evangel…
“G~ood” said that…. It wasn't until I was willing in my own mind to give up the demand to retain my self-sufficiency (= "my own name") that I was ready to receive the gift of eternal life, even though I understood and even agreed that the offer was valid …. Just like the one in his pastors scenario G~ood had blocked himself from taking the gift until he was ready to do what would come after the gift. G~ood said… When I was first evangelized I believed that Jesus was who he said he was, and one who was offering eternal life. But I also believed that he wanted me to follow him, which is true, in itself. In my own mind, while I don't remembering believing that following him was a condition of my salvation, I refused to compromise my "principles" and receive the free gift, because I was not willing to give up my self-sufficiency…. G~ood be a swallowing a big lie, by blocking himself from being able to take the gift freely even though he “thought” he believed what Jesus said to be true, he had believed what his pastor had said and so he had blocked himself. But what happened? G~ood be a figurine GRACE…God saved G~ood anyway in spite of him blocking himself . . .G~ood didn’t want the gift until he was willing to give up trying to save himself but he wanted to save himself and keep his own name.. This is why when G~ood heard Daniels testimony it struck a chord with him, Daniel said… I went from believing the truths to be true, and hating God because they were true, and because I didn't want to be a Christian…. This is where G~ood said that Daniel and G~ood came in on the “committed level” not the “fire escape level.” This is where the 3D thinking comes from: … The comments I made about "taking on the name of Christ" and "receive the free gift" had to do with issues that went way beyond mere "1D salvation" in my life. It is certainly possible, and indeed happens quite frequently, that some people when they are saved accept the "free gift" for much more than just a ticket to heaven. I think that is exactly what happened to Daniel as I read his testimony above, and that is certainly what happened to me… G~ood knew that he wasn’t willing to take the gift until he was willing to give up his name because of his own principals.
This is why G~ood has a problem with the word “believe” he “thought” he believed the saving proposition but had no assurance so now he knew that it took more than just to believe but one must have “trust.” But what had really happened was G~ood had blocked himself, he had believed the story his pastor had told and made it the ISSUE instead of the gift:…
Mike Cocoris many years ago wrote a pamphlet staunchly opposing Lordship Salvation, and in it he outlined a scenario in which a person could be offered the free gift of life, only to have them insist on knowing what would be asked of them after they "believed." I must have given the pamphlet away, because I can't find it in my library, but Mike said that if the person being evangelized makes.. that ..the issue of whether to accept the gift or not, then.. they ..have created the barrier to believing in Jesus for eternal life, not the evangelist…
He thought he could keep himself from appropriating the gift UNTIL he was willing to give up his name. Was this true? He thought it was! Looking past the gift of what would be expected of him made it impossible for him to take the gift freely UNTIL grace happened anyway that’s what G~ood thought . . .but G~ood had been lied to. Because that’s not how saving faith happens in the first place it is not a choice to take it or not take it.
The.. CHOICE.. happens when we.. RESPOND.. to the Holy Spirits.. PERSUASION.. through the word of God, but once we are..***** CONVINCED *****.. that what Jesus has said is TRUE we have ***** ALREADY ***** believed~! So we don’t have to choose to believe.
The road that leads to life is narrow and few find it. It is received by a SINGLE act of faith in a SINGLE proposition. To look past it is to *****MISS***** it, to look past it to other promises or what is expected for believers which are ONLY for believers who walk by faith is not to enter by the narrow way BUT TO CLIMB UP ANOTHER WAY.
G~ood said:… I refused to compromise my "principles" and receive the free gift, because I was not willing to give up my self-sufficiency…
How could G~ood take Jesus gift freely when G~ood had.. attached his own good principals to receiving it?
G~ood was not looking at the promise BUT past it, the real ISSUE with g~ood was what will I have to DO IF I take the gift just as Mike Cocoris HAD said about the man who had created his own BARRIER.
What this all comes down to is a simple SINGLE proposition do you BELIEVE Jesus in this verse?
I’ll put Ugly in the verse:
For God so loved the world (dat b Ugly) that he gave His only begotten Son that whosoever (dat b Ugly again) believes in Him shall not perish (Ugly aint gonna perish) but has everlasting life. John 3:16
Ugly***** KNOWS***** he has everlasting life and won’t perish because he has *****BELIEVED***** that Jesus NEVER tells WHOPPERS~!
What this all comes down to is a simple SINGLE proposition do you BELIEVE Jesus in this verse?
I’ll put Ugly in the verse:
For God so loved the world (dat b Ugly) that he gave His only begotten Son that whosoever (dat b Ugly again) believes in Him shall not perish (Ugly aint gonna perish) but has everlasting life. John 3:16
Ugly KNOWS he has everlasting life and won’t perish because he has *****BELIEVED***** that Jesus NEVER tells WHOOPERS~ :~}
Ugly be a***** REJOICING***** just like Jesus said cuz Ugly***** KNOWS***** his name be written in HEAVEN~!!!!!!!! (Luke 10:20,21)
NOW lets get on to ALL those OTHER promises which were written *****TO BELIEVERS***** . . . . .cuz Ugly be a believer now :~}.
Ugly was here an left in a cloud of dust . . .heeheeeee :~}
Getty-up Ruthy :~)>>>>>>.how about me? Dee mule will lie down with de lion getty-up ruthy >>>>>>>.yah sure it don’t say the lion would be eat’n de mule? Now ruthy have I ever lied ta yah? . . . .getty-up I say we got to get ta the grocery store for vittiles >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
be back later :~}
Jim
The English word "believe" is not used "over and over" in the original gospel of John. If in fact there isn't some difference between the English "believe" and the Greek word pisteuwZane C. Hodges
concerning the word believe (Pisteuo)
Luke explains his purpose at the beginning of his Gospel (1:1-4), but John saves his statement of intention till the end. In selecting material to be included in the Gospel his goal has been to have people come to faith or increase in faith (disputed reading) in Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God, and through this faith to possess eternal life in his name.1
This pretty well reflects the state of affairs even a decade later. Brown rightly locates the center of the discussion in the textual problem found in John 20:31. The problem concerns the presence or absence of a single letter (a sigma) in the phrase "that you might believe" (hina pisteu[s]ate). With it, the verb is aorist; without it, present.
Those who deny the evangelistic purpose of John's Gospel typically depend heavily on the present tense. They think that the present suggests the idea, "that you might continue to believe." The 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland GNT indicates that the present tense is found in three old manuscripts plus a few others; the rest support the aorist.
Actually it makes no difference at all which reading is accepted. The view that the present tense supports the idea of "continue to believe" is a semantic fallacy. This was pointed out as long ago as 1975 by Johannes P. Louw. Louw was the co-editor with Eugene Nida of the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains,2
In 1975 Louw published an article, "Verbal Aspect in the First Letter of John," in the journal Neotestamentica. There Louw states:
The Greek praesens [present tense] is aspectually neutral or unmarked, it is a zero tense. It... may be used if the context suggests linear or habitual occurrence, and often verbs denoting processes . . . give the impression that the praesens signifies duration though the praesens itself merely states the occurrence as a fact.3
On the next page he adds, "it is a zero tense of factual actuality."4
I know, of course, that this is not what was taught in Greek classrooms for the last several generations. Most scholars were weaned on the idea that the present tense expressed on-going, or continuous, action. But this idea is a grammatical fallacy. If you read your Greek NT with the same facility you do English, you can easily see for yourself that Louw's position is a slam dunk.
I am sorry to say this, but you can get a reputation as a Greek scholar without reading your Greek NT that easily. That's because the field of NT Greek is loaded to the max with helpful tools—with lexicons, grammars, word studies, commentaries, the whole nine yards. You don't need to know very much to use all these tools. The number of skilled semanti-cists like Louw is quite small. I once heard some lectures by his co-editor, Eugene Nida, reputed to be a linguistic genius. I suspect Louw is not too far behind.
Of course, not everyone has fallen into the "tense trap." You can find a competent, conservative defense of John's evangelistic purpose in Carson, Moo, and Morris's An Introduction to the New Testament.5
What's the bottom line? It is simply this. Neither in John 20:30-31, nor anywhere else in the Fourth Gospel as far as I can tell, does John employ the present tense of the verb pisteuo ("believe") with any suggestion of continuous action. The idea that John's purpose was to get people to "continue to believe" does not have a shred of linguistic evidence.
It is an idea based on a zero tense and it has zero probability.(emphasis mine)
Hey Bad . . .Ugly smell a fox in the hen house:~} . . . . .ta fox say that believe don't mean believe in de Gospel of John . . . .hear his words:
The English word "believe" is not used "over and over" in the original gospel of John. If in fact there isn't some difference between the English "believe" and the Greek word pisteuw.
De Fox even tells five-point LS Calvinist they be saved...so now even others be saying "believe" is not enough.....de fox say he believed the proposition but would still go to hell if he die . . . .so he be think'n believe not enough....so yah got ta have a special kind of believe.
I be think'n this be a good sign over a certain bar:
Please don't feed the trolls but the Calvinist and other false teachers are welcome!
Ugly left in a whirlwind . . . .but don't have many places to light down where people believe John 3:16 really true:(
Physical death has nothing to do with salvation. Physical death and resurrection is a bonus and NOT requirement to pay for sins. Jesus was still strong, 99% blood still in His body; and with a loud voice to make it clear He put his human spirit in the hand of the Father. '
I'd say that our bro Lu is going off the deep end.
Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Colossians 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
Romans 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
There is SO much wrong with what he stated that I am really suprised no one here objected.
Gary M
Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Post a Comment
<< Home