Posted on 02/18/2015 12:14:59 PM PST by pastorbillrandles
Wow! Judaizers? I don’t think so. A man is justified by faith and not by the works of the law. We are the true circumcision, who put no confidence in the flesh, but glory in Christ Jesus. Thanks for your comments Dutchboy-
So, your resistance to being “...in one category or another.” extends to whether you are a Monergist or a Synergist? And, Judaizers were those who followed Paul around claiming that it was nice to “trust Jesus”, but now there is some tangible “stuff to do”...like recognizing the celebratory days (Gal. 3), and of course (as you point out) circumcision.
Why is it that God’s work in us, God choosing us, God reaching to us, God activating faith in us, God moving us is eclipsed in your posts with “Here is what is required!”? And, you are welcome.
BTW, please define “faith” for us. I am curious (if no one else is) what exactly you think this thing really is. And, kindly, don’t give us some “verse” answer...give us what you actually think faith is.
Dutchboy I think I have explained my position pretty well, and am not sure I like your general attitude.Keep reading because I am in the middle of a series, and perhaps you will find the answers you are looking for.
BTW I don’t resist taking a stand with Christ, I just resist categorizing myself according to humanly constructed categories such as “Synergist” ad or Monergist. Salvation is complex yet simple. God does it all from start to finish, and then calls upon us to believe Him.
Fair enough. But, no thanks to continue reading. Frankly, the snarky omissions stick out like a sore thumb, so you may wish to check your own “general attitude”.
But, I was simply trying to find out what exactly you are teaching. Apparently, what you do teach is that you unwilling to be clear because that requires “humanly constructed categories”. Then be prepared for some push back to the errors embedded in your posts. Jesus did not spare the Pharisees and Paul did not care for the Judaizers so saccharin sweet, sanctimonious sentimentalism is clearly not biblical Christianity. We’ll call it out when we see it.
Dutch boy please don’t take offense. I don’t know why you think I have engaged in “Snarky omissions”. All I have attempted to do is exposit a text of scripture. IT seems that you are offended because I don’t choose “mono or Syner categories.
I can’t say I am familiar enough with the details of either one, so why should I be force into a box- (similar to Arminian or Calvinism) -
Btw I expect criticism, we all should (James 3:1), I just think as Christians we don’t have to be surly about it. Go ahead and be a Berean, but you don’t have to imply I am a Pelagian, {harisee or Judaizer.
Pastor Bill, I am not offended. But, thank you for expressing concern about that. I do not want to offend you, either. Let me see if I can lay out what I am driving at with a bit more clarity. You have a blog going on here at FR. By this, you represent yourself as a teacher of some kind of doctrine. That puts you in different league. You may want your remarks to be simple, Gospel-oriented, encouraging statements to win folks to Christ. I sense that and do not question your motives. I have read a few of your posts and found them just fine.
However, I believe we both would agree that a few remarks can be one-half inch from the truth and amplify an error into a thousand mile divide. When you said, “God requires…” (fill in the blank), even if the word is “faith”, it can be easily perceived as a work. Perhaps not to you, but to a reader.
When you went on to say to me, “Even faith is the gift of God, but God does require what he provides” your subtle “but” added yet another complication to a novice readers thinking. I am sure you have heard that “…but…” usually translates into “disregard all that goes before”. What is communicated is that if God provides it all, but I must “act” upon it, then God is clearly not providing it all. This kind of double-speak is rampant in the world today. I was, by asking you whether you were Monergistic or Synergistic to eliminate the possibility of misunderstanding by readers.
But, when I asked this, you would not even address the issue or acknowledge the question. I became further concerned. You did not say, “Those are interesting appellations. I am unfamiliar with them. Can you be more specific about their definitions so I can see if I agree with either?” You just avoided them altogether. That by default is the tendency of Synergists. Why? Because, a Monergist is absolutely, completely and fully persuaded that God is managing all the activities in His universe. A Monergist is all in with the clarity. Synergists always equivocate.
But, then you went on to identify these as “humanly constructed categories”, things got even messier. This implies the question was irrelevant. But, I am persuaded that is absolutely not the case. These “categories” are positions that represent God managing everything, or man contributing to his salvation. They are not human constructs; they are two sides of an argument as clear as “Does God exist or not?”
Paul walked right into the fire fight in the 9th Chap. of his letter to the Romans. He makes it crystal clear that it is God alone doing all of the choosing, all of the drawing, all of the adopting.
16 “So then it does not depend on the man who wills (chooses) or the man who runs (acts) but on God who has mercy. 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires and He hardens whom He desires.”
But, Paul did not stop there in making things clear. He anticipated the blow-back from the Roman audience claiming that this kind of control (and lack of free will) was patently unfair.
19 “You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump (humanity) one vessel for honorable use and another for common use (literal, dishonor). 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.”
Is this defining the Gospel or not? If so, all other remarks about the nature and process of salvation must either be subordinated or subsumed by this clear argument for God’s control. If you believe this is ambiguous, if you believe that this represents some spurious doctrine, if you believe in “Calminiansim” or “Arvinism” (or whatever other clever name the fence-straddlers use to dismiss God’s ultimate control), then I am compelled to speak up. I am going to call it out as a false doctrine of “co-operation”, the misunderstanding of “a little of both”, the deadly claim that man can control his own destiny.
Don’t misunderstand me, I am of course persuaded that God is managing even the error of Synergism as it replaces the Monergistic position today. As Paul writes in Thess., a day will come (might be here) when God sends a deluding influence over the world so that a lie is believed. But, that should not stop us from speaking the truth in love. And, it is love, my FRiend, to say something is in error and should not be accepted. If you find something errant in my words, speak up. But, if the problem is that they chafe I won’t move back. We are both called to teach truth, not popular doctrines. That is what I am driving at.
Thanks Dutchby-I will consider what you are saying, I am always learning- I can’t really respond right now, I am very busy getting ready for a preaching trip, but I appreciate your input.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.