 |
| 
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 5/30/2002 1:59 AM (GMT -6) |   | My dear friend, PotOnWheel,
The mind in harmony with the Spirit of God the Father, is in agreement with, the law of the Spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, which makes me free, from the law of the sin of death, in my flesh. What the letter of the law could not do in me; the law of the Spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, is doing in me. If I seek the Spirit of God the Father, to fulfill the righteousness of the law in me, it will bring life, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. If I seek to fulfill the law, which is spiritual, through my own carnal mind, it is death.
Rom 8:1-8 [There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
In God’s Love,
Tim
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/30/2002 2:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Tim, I'm not sure what light your textbook definitions shed on what I was actually saying. But as to what your quotations said....they are slanted.Pelagius ran into a media campaign that stwisted what his ministry was all about. So, Pelagius was not "Pelagian."
You wrote:
TIM: Pelagianism is the daughter of legalism; there are five claims, especially made for it…
For your reading interest and illumination, follow this link --to something about a man that even Augustine said: "a holy man, who, I am told, has made no small progress in the Christian life."
Here's the LINK at www.brojed.org/pelagius.html for "Pelagius: To Demetrias"
Read the article, and I'm sure that you will see what I mean.
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/30/2002 4:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Did Hilston leave? Are you there James? Move your big right toe if you can hear me?
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 5/30/2002 7:51 PM (GMT -6) | | I fear that James "has left the building."
Like Rose to Jack as he sank into the icy waters...
"come back... . come back...."
Maybe this would jar his return.... check out this thesis.
It seems to me Calvinists can have the <i>least</i> amount of security. The Puritans worked it out consistently. Many agonized over whether or not they were <i>really</i> God's chosen. And being too confident of this was, for many, a sign of pride, hence a possible sign that you're NOT chosen. But even beyond this, if you were TRULY one of God's elect, would you struggle with lustful thoughts, even after 20 years of walking with the Lord? What of your doubts? What about your anger? Jonathan Edwards worried that he didn't have the Lord continually on his mind from morning till evening. We can so easily deceive ourselves, you know. We convince ourselves that if we just believe, we will be saved. But the devils also believe (James). And many persevere for years and end up reprobate.
And theres NOTHING you can do to change the lottery. Its been settled, an eternity ago.
Lets see....
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 5/31/2002 2:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Dear PotOnWheel,
I will read the article to see what you mean about Pelagius, I may of attributed a believe system to him, he indeed, did not hold. That does not mean that I agree…
"Man’s power is sufficient; to do all that righteousness can demand, and to work out not only his own salvation, but also his own perfection."
I believe Salvation is through the sanctification of the Spirit, and I simply agree, it is God which works in me both to will and to do of His good pleasure (Phl 2:13). That I might be, entirely; all that God has created me to be, and to do, entirely; all that He has created me to do.
2Th 1:11 Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of [this] calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of [his] goodness, and the work of faith with power:
Nonetheless,
Tts 3:8 [This is] a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.
However, I do not believe I can obtain to works good enough, to secure my own Salvation nor perfection, of this I hope we would agree. I am sorry to have accused Pelagius of a believe system, he indeed, may of not held; though accused of such, by others in history; thank you for your understanding.
In God’s Love,
Tim
Edited by - Tim on 05/31/2002 07:06:52 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
MaxHerrera
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 1
| Posted 5/31/2002 6:02 AM (GMT -6) | | I assisted in the writing of the Battle for God with Dr. Norman Geisler. I am interested in interacting with those who are either for or against open theism via the website http://www.battleforGod.org
Thanks,
Max Herrera
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/31/2002 6:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Max-
Good to hear of your interest. Will try to drop in, but this site is about all some of us (at least me) can handle. Feel free to do your interacting here too! Welcome aboard!
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/31/2002 11:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Tim, quoting: ...it is God which works in me both to will and to do of His good pleasure (Phl 2:13).
Fact is, that it is our "will" that God is working with. "Synergy" is the technical term. Its NOT JUST us; but it is us that God is working in.
Maybe you and I are agreeing more than you even thought.
The background to the controversy is two-fold:
First, the text is really talking about the problems Paul had to deal with, with how the "judaizers wanted salvation to work somehow through works of the law. That NEVER worked. And even Abraham was saved before he was circumsised. Paul makes that point, that Abraham is the perfect father of the uncircumcized too. (That is why the Mid-Acts thing seems so wacky to me!!!)
Second, the medieval/reformation thing took on a life of its own. Jacubus Arminus was not all that far from Calvin. But it was second or third generation "Calvinists" and second or third generation Arminians (sp?--which is the country?) who actually came to blows in the city of Dortrecht. The "Semi-Pelagian" controversy (against Arminieanism and the TULIP thing) became its own issue. Separate, I think, from what Paul is actaually advising us on.
PoW
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 05/31/2002 4:08:58 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/31/2002 11:26 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I assisted in the writing of the Battle for God with Dr. Norman Geisler. I am interested in interacting with those who are either for or against open theism via the website http://www.battleforGod.org
Thanks,
Max Herrera
Max-
Congrats on the site. Hope to pick up the book asap. Being overseas doesn't make it easy. But from time to time folks come out and can bring stuff.
Is the book basically a fuller version of the article posted on the site?
Are you managing the discussion board there? It would be great if Geisler made himself available as well. Is he likely to do so?
Well, gotta run. Again, the more folks dialogue lovingly about the issues the better. Thanks for the site!
Blessings,
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
Winghead
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 5/31/2002 12:26 PM (GMT -6) | | In response to Greg's latest post, I used to think only Arminians were the ones that worried about losing their salvation. Then, a close friend started to question his salvation for the very reason mentioned. Under the Calvinist system, how do you REALLY know you are saved? How do we know we are God's chosen. The conundrum is more diabolical than its LCFW counter part.
YBIC,
Winghead
P.S. Going on retreat for a day. "See you" when I return.
"...you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:30-31 (NLT)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 5/31/2002 4:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey there again, PotOnWheel,
I agree that each of us, are self-determining; my determination however, does not accomplish my Salvation, nor does it create a perfect heart within me. The work of my faith in God, whom alone possesses the power, accomplishes my Salvation and creates a perfect heart within me; a gift, I simply have to determine if I will accept, or reject it.
My Synergetic relationship, in serving God, is my co-operating or working together with Him to accomplish any certain task. That is Him completing in me His desire, without me competing with His effort to accomplish said task. The combined action of my obedience, which is the second action; to His will, which is the first action; is always greater than I expected or can do alone. The simple additive of this combination, is a greater blessing, than either of us acting separately, could have ever accomplished. I am not saying, God does not work separate from me in others effectively. I am saying, so that I might be, entirely; all that God has created me to be, and to do entirely; all that He has created me to do; I must co-operate with Him.
I believe the cooperation in my Salvation and ultimate perfection; is faith alone, on my part; nothing more, nor less.
Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
What I accomplish for or with God beyond belief for righteousness, requires the trust of obedience, to accomplish the task, He would set before me.
I am enjoying reading the link for "Pelagius: To Demetrias", I have no controversy with what I have read, thus far; let you know if I do. My only controversy would be with someone suggesting…
"Man’s power is sufficient; to do all that righteousness can demand, and to work out not only his own salvation, but also his own perfection."
In God’s Love,
Tim
Edited by - Tim on 05/31/2002 9:12:52 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/31/2002 6:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Tim, for fun try this:
FOR......."Man’s power is sufficient; to do all that righteousness can demand, and to work out not only his own salvation, but also his own perfection."
IF........righteousness becomes: God's work in me both to will and to do of His good pleasure (Phl 2:13)
THEN...... Man can respond to God's work both to will and to do of His good pleasure...to work out not only his own salvation, but also the perfection God desires.
Tricky not to read OUR contemporary battles back into history. Similarly, Pelagius got into trouble when he went from one place to another. Coming to Rome he found much to react to. And later, there and elsewhere, others reacted to him.
PoW.
==================
Sorry, all, for derailing this thread.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 6/1/2002 4:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Dear PotOnWheel,
In my mind, this is an Open view issue. Although, I do not agree with everything proposed, by the Open view, as I understand it; I am somewhat of a mixed mutt, and new to many of its propositions; I may need to repent.
I believe man becomes God's work, in which He alone both wills and does of His own good pleasure...in the work of Salvation, and the perfection He desires to give me. However, being all God wants me to be and to do here on earth, does require my co-operating. I believe it is by, my faith alone, that God alone, accomplishes my Salvation and perfection; it is a gift in my mind, I simply accept or reject, in response to the free offer.
With the veil removed from my face, the reflection of the glory of the Lord, by his Spirit working within me, I become more like him, and reflect his glory, even more to others (2Cr 3:18).
When I am in harmony with the Spirit, the law of the Spirit of life, in Christ, makes me free, from the law of the sin of death, in my flesh. What the righteous demand of the law could not do; the law of the Spirit of life is doing, fulfilling the righteousness of the law in me; bringing life, peace, and joy with it. However, if I seek to fulfill the law, which is spiritual, through my own carnal mind, it is death.
The resident evil, or carnal nature in my mind, hell bent on satisfying my flesh, is always with me in this life; it will not submit to God’s law and indeed, it cannot (Rom 8:7). I believe God saves me from this nature; not by works of righteousness or based on deeds, which I must do; but by the virtue of His mercy (Tts 3:5). Through the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost…
Vine's Expository Dictionary: "new birth" (palin, "again," genesis, "birth"), is used of "spiritual regeneration," Tts 3:5, involving the communication of a new life, the two operating powers to produce; which are "the word of truth," Jam 1:18; 1Pe 1:23, and the Holy Spirit, Jhn 3:5,6; the loutron, "the laver, the washing," is explained in Eph 5:26, "having cleansed it by the washing (loutron) of water with the word." The new birth and "regeneration" do not represent successive stages in spiritual experience; they refer to the same event, but view it in different aspects.
"A renewal," is used in Rom 12:2, "the renewing (of your mind)," i.e., the adjustment of the moral and spiritual vision and thinking to the mind of God, which is designed to have a transforming effect upon the life; in Tts 3:5, where "the renewing of the Holy Spirit" is not a fresh bestowment of the Spirit, but a revival of His power, developing the Christian life; this passage stresses the continual operation of the indwelling Spirit of God; the Romans passage stresses the willing response on the part of the believer.
In God’s Love,
Tim
Edited by - Tim on 06/01/2002 09:43:59 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/1/2002 4:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Nice post, Tim. I'll try to read it more carefully later. Here's two observations.
. . . . .
Tim: "I believe man becomes God's work, in which He alone both wills and does of His own good pleasure"
Paul: "Philippians 2:13for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. "
PoW: I've always taken the "will" and the "work" to be talking about US, and not God. Otherwise the verse reads that God both wills and does IN-ORDER-THAT HE WILL ACT ACCORING TO his good purpose. That wouldn't make sense.
So, Paul's message remains -- God ... works in (us) to will and to act according to his good purpose."
Tim: the Romans passage stresses the willing response on the part of the believer.
PoW: Hurray! Yipee!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 6/1/2002 5:43 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I assisted in the writing of the Battle for God with Dr. Norman Geisler. I am interested in interacting with those who are either for or against open theism via the website http://www.battleforGod.org
Max Herrera
Max-
On Geisler's comments on your site re: timeless eternity vs. temporal eternity, Geisler insists on calling those who affirm God’s temporal eternity “neotheists.” But he must know that there are people, both classical Arminians and Calvinists, who deny that God is absolutely timeless. Do you want to call these people “neotheists” too?
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 6/1/2002 6:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey my friend, PotOnWheel,
I agree that God works in (us) ‘to will’ and ‘to act’ according to His own good purpose in (our) life, by the power of His Spirit. I have no problem with you interpreting Phl 2:13, in the light you do, because this truth is obvious from other Scriptures.
However,
Phl 2:12,13 …work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure.
Phl 2:12,13 is suggesting a contradiction of efforts, concerning Salvation; of a righteous standing declared by God for all, through the blood of Jesus Christ, leading to eventual perfection. Or you can try to work it out own your own, which is full of fear and trembling, with the effort put forth, proving futile; I do not want to play that. The Gospel is a free offer; all my efforts to obtain Salvation and perfection, separate of the work of God, are useless, except through my faith alone; He will assume full control over or of such from there.
Nevertheless, obedience brings the blessing of such and the entire thus, of every if, and then passages of promise, He fulfils in this life also, cool Huh? This is the willing response on the part of the believer, of Rom 12:2, or the renewing of the mind, of the Holy Ghost. A Synergetic relationship, in serving God, if you will, then, WOW.
I am saying, so that I might be, entirely; all that God has created me to be, and to do entirely; all that He has created me to do in this life; I must co-operate with Him.
I believe my new birth accomplished Salvation, however, I do not believe the renewing of my mind, is fully accomplished, in this lifetime. The resident evil is here within me, until the day of redemption.
In God’s Love,
Tim
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/1/2002 11:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Tim: The resident evil is here within me, until the day of redemption.
PoW: I'm hoping to get reid of as much as I can in the mean time.
See: www.bethel.edu/~rakrob/files/THEOSIS2.html | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 6/1/2002 2:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Robert Rakestraws article was excellent, especially his critique of the doctrine of Theosis, thank you for sharing it with me.
‘Holy Ghost Raid’  , kills those pest, of notions desire  , that are always outside the will of God ; look for it soon in your local Christian Book Store or grocery  .
Edited by - Tim on 06/01/2002 8:00:05 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 6/6/2002 5:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Greg,
This is in reply to your post of 05/23/2002 : 07:44:40 AM
Hilston had written: I wouldn't question your interpretation. Rather, I examine your presuppositions and your concomitant handling of the text on grammatical, syntactical, linguistic, and contextual grounds. These are the foundational matters of proper interpretation.
Doc: quote:
This is what it means to question someones interpretation of Scripture.
This is incorrect, Greg. It is a common apologetic blunder that I witness amongst evangelicals. When dealing with such disparate worldviews as, e.g., darwinism and creationism, arguing about the interpretation of evidence is futile, committing the fatal error of answering the fool according to his folly, thus allowing the fool to become wise in his own conceit (Prov. 26:5). So it is with Open Theism. When there is such thorough disagreement over the texts of scripture, it goes beyond hermeneutical matters. One must examine the presuppositions that govern these interpretations. This is the nature and aim of my questions.
Hilston had written: I question my interpretation every time I open the scriptures.
Doc writes: quote:
Then, since your assurance of God is rooted in your particular interpretation of Scripture, you must question your assurance in God.
Not at all. As I read the Bible, I may come across a topic or narrative that I'm quite familiar with, but I will ask myself if my understanding of that particular topic or narrative is correct. I look at the text and correct my thinking accordingly. The Bible is clear and its semantic is comprehensible. If I have doubts about an interpretational matter, I go to the Bible and it's settled. Consider this verse:
Php 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:
Do you have the assurance that God will bring to completion [epiteleo] the good work He has begun in you? Upon what is that assurance based if you yourself are able to thwart His good work? If that is an actual possibility, and if He cannot stop you from destroying yourself, then where is the assurance?
Hilston had written: But I have an objective framework by which to question it; not the arbitrary humanistic approach that, thus far, seems to pervade Open Theism.
Doc writes: quote:
I'm not intrigued enough to inquire what it is about the interpretation of Scripture by open theists that you find "arbitrary" and "humanistic".
From what I gather thus far, it boils down to an arbitrary preference for a certain kind of God that the open theist finds palatable. "I couldn't believe in or love a God like the one you describe." Further, I see what appears to be a tendency for open theists to err on the side of humanizing God and to ascribe to Him human limitations, thus undermining both the transcendent and immanent relationship of God to His creation.
Doc writes:quote:
(ALL open theists use this "arbitrary" and "humanistic" and no-objective approach? )
"... thus far ..." (see my sentence above).
Doc writes:quote:
My only concern is that you see that, however "objective" you believe your approach to Scripture to be, THIS is what your TRUST is in... since your trust in GOD hangs completely on the interpretation of those passages you believe teach you that you, unlike others, cannot fall away.
You don't seem to be getting it, Greg. Let's look at a simple example: Is Jesus God? How do you know? Is your belief in Christ dependent upon objective information? Or some subjective interpretation? Seems like a pretty fundamental question that is easily settled by looking at the text, right?
Doc writes:quote:
So I stand by my contention that your assurance can go no deeper than your confidence in your particular interpretation of Scripture.
You seem to be stuck in this groove, Greg. Do you believe there is but one and only one correct interpretation of a given passage of scripture? Further, do you believe it is ascertainable by the diligent student of scripture?
Doc writes:quote:
And now that I learn that you question your interpretation every time you go to Scripture, I find it remarkable that you think you trust God more than me, any other open theist, or any Arminian.
This isn't a contest to see who trusts God more. I've merely requested an explanation of the basis for trusting God at all within the framework of the Open View. And as I explained above, any questions or doubts that come into my mind are answered when I read and study the scripture.
Hilston had asked: Upon what is your assurance of salvation based if it is not upon the correct interpretation of scripture?
Doc writes:quote:
My assurance isn't rooted in any particular interpretation of particular passages. Its rooted in the central theme of the New Testament, anticipated in hte Old Testament, that God is decisively revealed in Jesus Christ.
You've begged the very question. Isn't your understanding of the "central theme of the NT anticipated in the OT" based upon your cumulative particular interpretations of particular passages?
Doc writes:quote:
My relationship with the living Lord confirms the truth of this revelation.
The more I read, the more arbitrary it all sounds. Mormons also tell me that their interpretation of scripture is confirmed by their experience. This approach is purely subjective. How is it possible that liberal theologians (i.e. unbelievers) are able to arrive at the correct interpretation of scripture? It surely isn't based on their relationship with the living Lord. It is because the Bible is perspicuous. It's meaning is comprehensible to all and all are without excuse.
Doc writes:quote:
In the experience of this perfect love, there is no fear. The concern about assurance never arises.
Apparently, the original readers needed the assurance and encouragement of the scripture given by God through the pen of the human authors. As others are wont to say about the Bible, "... this has the flavor of realism." What you describe does not: "The concern about assurance never arises." Really? If one had to choose between:
(a) Believing what Bible describes as normative in human experience (i.e. needing the reassurance and encouragement and comfort given in the scriptures because of the vicissitudes of life), or,
(b) Believing what Greg says is normative according his experience, namely, that "the concern about assurance never arises,"
... isn't it obvious which one is true? The Open View appears to have a built-in "ignorance is bliss" component, especially considering the fact that my request for specifics is met with a head-in-the-sand answer, "I don't even have to question my assurance," even though the Bible unequivocally speaks of these things. The Bible instructs us to have a detailed understanding of the Hope to which we have been called, and to be always ready to give a defense to him who asks a reason for the Hope that is in us. The answer, "I'm assured of my Hope and I never question it" is not the kind of defense that Peter speaks of.
Blessings,
Jim
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/6/2002 8:22 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Doc writes:
quote:
--------------------------------------------
My assurance isn't rooted in any particular interpretation of particular passages. Its rooted in the central theme of the New Testament, anticipated in hte Old Testament, that God is decisively revealed in Jesus Christ.
--------------------------------------------
You've begged the very question. Isn't your understanding of the "central theme of the NT anticipated in the OT" based upon your cumulative particular interpretations of particular passages?
Doc writes:
quote:
--------------------------------------------
My relationship with the living Lord confirms the truth of this revelation.
--------------------------------------------
The more I read, the more arbitrary it all sounds. Mormons also tell me that their interpretation of scripture is confirmed by their experience. This approach is purely subjective. How is it possible that liberal theologians (i.e. unbelievers) are able to arrive at the correct interpretation of scripture? It surely isn't based on their relationship with the living Lord. It is because the Bible is perspicuous. It's meaning is comprehensible to all and all are without excuse.
My question is............
Hilston, you OFTEN switch around what someone is saying. Is that an error (like I'd make, due to lack of talent on my part) or is it that you just don't get what they are saying. Doc says:"My assurance [is] rooted."so Doc is talking about "assurance." BUT you say: "Isn't your understanding" Doc is talking about personal "assurance"; but you are talking about academic "understaning."
So, I'm wondering...was that a slip in attention (which I'm the master at), or is your perspective that different from Doc's?
I'm guessing the later.
Then Doc says: "My relationship with the living Lord confirms... " And you say: "The more I read, the more arbitrary it all sounds... "
There is a DIFFERENCE in: (1) the kind of faith that leads one to belief and repentence, and (2) the kind of faith that constitutes relationship with Christ.
- PoW
P.S. There is a difference. You and Doc--from what I can tell--are talking about different one's of these.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/6/2002 9:45 AM (GMT -6) | | THIS APPLIES. IT IS POSTED FOR ALL EYES...
.....................................................
Of Water and the Spirit, Alexander Schmemann, SVS Press, 1974, pp. 67-68
If the Orthodox Church remained alien to the long Western debate on infant versus adult Baptism, it is because she, in the first place, never accepted the reduction of faith to "personal faith" alone which made that debate inevitable. From the Orthodox point of view, the essential question about faith in its relationship to the sacrament is: what faith, and even more precisely, whose faith? And the equally essential answer to this question is: it is Christ's faith, given to us, becoming our faith and our desire, the faith by which, in the words of St. Paul, "Christ may dwell in your hearts.. . that being rooted and grounded in love (we) may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth and length and depth and height" (Eph. 3:17-18). There is a difference—not only in degree but also in essence—between the faith which converts an unbeliever or a non-Christian to Christ, and the faith which constitutes the very life of the Church and of her members and which St. Paul defines as having in us Christ's mind, i.e. His faith, His love, His desire. Both are gifts of God. But the former is a response to God's call while the latter is the very reality of that to which the call summons. The Galilean fisherman who, upon being called, leaves his nets and follows Jesus does it on faith; he already believes in the One Who called him, but he does not yet know and possess the faith of the One Who called him. It is his personal faith in Christ which brings the catechumen to the Church; it is the Church that will instruct him in and bestow upon him Christ's faith by which she lives. Our faith in Christ, Christ's faith in us: the one is the fulfillment of the other, is given to us so that we may have the other. But when we speak of the Church's faith—the one by which she lives, which truly is her very life—we speak of the presence in her of Christ's faith, of Him Himself as perfect faith, perfect love, perfect desire. And the Church is life because she is Christ's life in us, because she believes that which He believes, loves that which He loves, desires that which He desires. And He is not only the "object" of her faith, but the "subject" of her entire life.
That faith is "assurance" divine.
- PoW
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 6/7/2002 3:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Tiggers,
You wrote:quote:
Ok, this dialog just seems to be going in circles, and frankly, as (usually) only a reader, the only way to stop this frustrating dizziness is to be defining one’s controlling presuppositions to his/her interpretation of the Scriptures, is this what you’re straight up asking for, Hilston?
Yes, but most people don't usually think, let alone speak in those terms. Therefore I ask questions designed to draw out what the controlling presupps are.
Tiggers writes:quote:
If so, by presups, do you mean how one goes about the exegetical and hermeneutical task, ...
No. One's presuppositions precede one's methodology. The latter derives from the former. For example, one fundamental presupposition is that God has, at various times, communicated with a specific audience via a written document. Therefore, I employ a methodology that takes the pertinent issues into account when I set about to understand the text (i.e., culture, language, customs, etc.).
Tiggers cont'd:quote:
... do you mean how one goes about the exegetical and hermeneutical task, which leads into the best possible interpretation, OR are you speaking more along the idea of one’s theological methodology?
I don't look for the "best possible interpretation." I look for THE interpretation, believing that God would not make His Word so incomprehensible that we cannot have certainty about the intended meaning of a given passage of scripture. Please define what you mean by "theological methodology". How is that distinct from "exegetical and hermeneutical task"?
Gracie'
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hilston
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 103
| Posted 6/7/2002 4:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Johnmd,
This is in response to your 05/24/2002 post.
Johnmd writes:quote:
We are trusting God ultimately for victory in the eschaton - Ultimate victory inthe spiritual WAR. Battles have been and will be lost along the way if the spiritual "war" described in scripture is a description of reality and not an illusion. If war is real, then some battles will be lost...
Do you have any trust in God that applies to you personally? Does He guarantee for you anything, such as which side of the spiritual war you will be on when He has His ultimate victory?
johnmd writes:quote:
Consider the battle that God Himself fights moment by moment on behalf of each individual in an attempt to rescue them from eternal peril. yet untold numbers continue to die and go eternal punishment. Unless you are a "Universalist" and do not take scripture seriously, then God "lost" the battle for that individual life which began at Calvary despite his best effort.
This is the ongoing problem for those who have an erroneous view of the atoning work of Christ. He said He would not lose a single one. Yet you just stated the contrary. God does NOT fight on behalf of each individual. He fights on behalf of His elect. He doesn't attempt to rescue them from eternal peril. He actually and certainly does it. Period. That is the nature of "salvation." We cannot save ourselves. It's like we're in a coma and we're going to die if someone doesn't save us. It has nothing to do with our choice. It has everything to do with the One doing the saving. That is why He can be trusted absolutely, because I know I will fail, yet He will not.
Johnmd writes: quote:
On the flip side where is the security and trust in knowing that God "guaranteed" eternal damnation for so many?
There is security and trust in knowing that God will punish sin, that He will not waver in His righteousness, that He is unchanging in His nature and character, that He hates sin and will not allow it into heaven.
Johnmd writes:quote:
The Open view allows one to trust God as "omniresourcefull" to bring our present spiritual warfare in a fallen world to ultimate victory in the escaton without compromising His holy character as a God who would create and then meticulously control guarantee eternal destruction for the creature all the while giving him the mistaken illusion of free will.
It is only a "mistaken illusion" for the libertarian free-will proponent. Compatibilists aren't under any such illusion.
Arrivederci,
James Hilston
hilston1@aol.com
www.tgfonline.org | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tiggers
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 219
| Posted 6/9/2002 8:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Hilston,
Hilston asserts,
quote:
No. One's presuppositions precede one's methodology. The latter derives from the former. For example, one fundamental presupposition is that God has, at various times, communicated with a specific audience via a written document. Therefore, I employ a methodology that takes the pertinent issues into account when I set about to understand the text (i.e., culture, language, customs, etc.)
Tigger's reply,
Hey Hilston, your presup is that God's Word is authoritative, that's cool with me; nevertheless, this does not preclude a correct or "THE interpretation" (as noted below) I'm sure you're aware of this...sooo, you then delve into "culture, language, customs, etc." as THE tool, methodology or logical contingent for your presup, which should most unequivocally imply the very act of exegesis, for example, it's best when one has the proper tools to dive into the original language of the particular pericope in question, also, it's important to anyalyze the grammar, do some word studies, research the historical-cultural background, check the variants, make a sentence flow, find author if possible, and the audience, etc... NOW, the list can go on, as I'm sure you're aware, but generally speaking, this is exegesis or your methodology, right? But, my question to you becomes, should your methodology go further than mere exegesis? Also, to carry the presupposition that the Bible is authoritative is fine, but how did you get to that presupposition, could it be by mere faith, or exegesis (hmmm...methodology), maybe a little of both?
Hilston asserts,
quote:
I don't look for the "best possible interpretation." I look for THE interpretation, believing that God would not make His Word so incomprehensible that we cannot have certainty about the intended meaning of a given passage of scripture. Please define what you mean by "theological methodology". How is that distinct from "exegetical and hermeneutical task"?
Tigger's reply,
Looking for the "THE interpretation" is cool, but if as I've presumed correctly from your words regarding presups, I find your methodology of the exegetical task wanting, that is, if it's to stand alone. This is where ones theological methodology needs to take root. It is here that I turn to not ONLY to the exegetical tools I have in interpreting scripture, but also turn to experience (my own and others), church tradion, and reason, hmmm…the Wesleyian Quadrilateral. Now, on the real, one will find particular presuppositions/control beliefs that guide one to their conclusion within the four categories of the quad...soooo, from where I stand one's presups do guide our interpretation; however, how we come to our interpretations are as philosophically reasonable, experiential, and historical as they are merely exegetical, ya dig? Well, if you understand where I'm coming from just holla back, otherwise, it's just my 2 cents worth in the conversation  !
Warmly in Christ,
Tiggers
PS
The ball is in your court now, Hilston. LOL (Lot's of Love)
“The notion that God uses evils as a means to such higher goods is, … incompatible with the doctrine that he is omnipotent, and therefore does not need to use deplorable means to achieve his ends” (J.L. Mackie).
Edited by - Tiggers on 06/09/2002 1:56:29 PM | | Back to Top | | |
| 235 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:09 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|