H  O  M  E          
Theological, Doctrinal, and Spiritual Musing - and whatever other else is on my mind when I notice that I haven't posted in a while.
Blogroll
 
T.U.L.I.P.
  • - Endorsed
  • - Indifferent
  • - Contested
 
I Affirm This
The Nashville Statement
 
Autobiographical
 
Profile
Daniel of Doulogos Name:Daniel
Home: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
About Me: I used to believe that evolution was reasonable, that homosexuality was genetic, and that people became Christians because they couldn't deal with the 'reality' that this life was all there was. I used to believe, that if there was a heaven - I could get there by being good - and I used to think I was more or less a good person. I was wrong on all counts. One day I finally had my eyes opened and I saw that I was not going to go to heaven, but that I was certainly going to suffer the wrath of God for all my sin. I saw myself as a treasonous rebel at heart - I hated God for creating me just to send me to Hell - and I was wretched beyond my own comprehension. Into this spiritual vacuum Jesus Christ came and he opened my understanding - delivering me from God's wrath into God's grace. I was "saved" as an adult, and now my life is hid in Christ. I am by no means sinless, but by God's grace I am a repenting believer - a born again Christian.
My complete profile...
 
The Buzz


Daniel's posts are almost always pastoral and God centered. I appreciate and am challenged by them frequently. He has a great sense of humor as well.
- Marc Heinrich

His posts are either funny or challenging. He is very friendly and nice.
- Rose Cole

[He has] good posts, both the serious like this one, and the humorous like yesterday. [He is] the reason that I have restrained myself from making Canadian jokes in my posts.
- C-Train

This post contains nothing that is of any use to me. What were you thinking? Anyway, it's probably the best I've read all day.
- David Kjos

Daniel, nicely done and much more original than Frank the Turk.
- Jonathan Moorhead

There are some people who are smart, deep, or funny. There are not very many people that are all 3. Daniel is one of those people. His opinion, insight and humor have kept me coming back to his blog since I first visited earlier this year.
- Carla Rolfe
 
Email Me
email
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
"Free Grace" debunked... again.
If you have been following my blog for any amount of time, you will recall that I am no fan of "free grace" theology.

Matt Waymeyer writes a simple exposition about Romans 8:28 here, comparing scripture with Free Grace Theology - and scripture wins.
posted by Daniel @ 10:49 AM  
23 Comments:
  • At 11:53 AM, May 30, 2006, Blogger Even So... said…

    So called "Christians" who don't love God? Why would they even care? So why should we?

    Its like those who wonder if they have committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; if they are concerned, I doubt that they have done it.

    Those who have no love for God wouldn't care if they are saved or not, why would this matter, they don't want assurance, they want to be left alone, etc.

    This theory (that is all that it is) has so many holes I think I will put it with my sandwich and eat it like Swiss.

    Actually, it is more like linberger (sp?) chesse: IT STINKS.

    Like smoke from you know where.

     
  • At 5:42 PM, May 30, 2006, Blogger Jim said…

    Daniel, when do we begin to love God? Is it not after He first loved us and gave Himself for us.

    Nevertheless, the NT is full of commands and conditional blessings for those who do love Him. Therefore it seems to me that we can choose to love Him or to love ourselves. The degree of love is simply relative, it is not that there is a complete absence of love, but rather that the love for God and His Word have been usurped for love of other things.

    How do we know if we love God? By keeping His commandments. If that is the plumbline, than sadly many professing christians are failing miserably.

    Daniel, I don't think you really agree with the reformed position of imputed sanctification.

    Sanctification is dependant upon our obedience to the known will of God as revealed through His word. It is not an magical thing that happens without our consent, the Holy Spirit will never violate our will.

    It is very hypocritical to say that all christians love God equally with the same fervour and zeal. But rather, the warnings of scripture are for God's people who put other things before God, hence becoming idolators.

    God bless,
    Jim

     
  • At 7:09 PM, May 30, 2006, Blogger Daniel said…

    I don't think you really agree with the reformed position of imputed sanctification.

    The reformed position does not confuse imputed righteousness with personal sanctification. The righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believer which is what justifies the believer before God - that is, we are not justified by our own righteousness (level of sanctification achieved) we are justified by being "in Christ" - justified by His righteousness imputed to us (we are clothed in Christ). God is the One who justifies us directly, and not indirectly through sanctification.

    Sanctification is dependant upon our obedience to the known will of God as revealed through His word. It is not an magical thing that happens without our consent, the Holy Spirit will never violate our will.

    Amen. The reformed position is that God works in us both to will and to do his good pleasure - that is God works in our will, causing us to desire to do His will - and empowering us to do it. Those of us who are genuinely born again genuinely desire to obey the Holy Spirit - a desire that always produces a change in behavior. For some that change is radical and profound, for others it is less pronounced - but it is always there.

    Sanctification begins when God changes our hearts so that we desire to obey him. Our obedience begins as imperfect, and matures thereafter in accordance with our obedience - just as you have described.

    It is very hypocritical to say that all christians love God equally with the same fervour and zeal.

    Amen again. That would be quite hypocritical.

    All believers (by definition) -do- love God however, not because they have chosen to, but because God has poured his love out into them through the Holy Spirit.

    That being true, it is nowhere suggested in the reform camp that all love equally, we love in proportion to our understanding of God's forgiveness - he who comprehends only a little forgiveness the same loves only a little; the one who comprehends the magnitude of his sinfulness (and subsequently the magnitude of just how much is forgiven him) - the same loves much.

    Obedience demonstrates our love, it doesn't generate it. Loveless obedience is motivated by fear - the fear that failure to obey will result in the loss of reward, or even in punishment. The one who truly loves, obeys because He loves and not because he is afraid of what will happen if he doesn't.

    We know that we love God when the desire to obey results in repentant obedience towards God. Not that we purchase love through obedience, but rather that genuine love begets obedience.

    That is the reformed position - God imputes righteousness not sanctification - sanctification is a process that begins the moment we are justified and is expressed through a new desire to obey God, and ultimately demonstrated in repentance as one yields to the new desires.

    Thanks for your thoughts on that Jim. It sounds like you are misinformed about the reformed position.

    Dan

     
  • At 7:47 PM, May 30, 2006, Blogger Jim said…

    Dan, it is very possible I am not completely acquainted with the ins and outs of reformed theology.

    For the most part I think that they have the fundamentals of the faith quite well established.

    How do you deal with the many passages concerning believers who are either unfaithful stewards or disobedient to the faith? Will they suffer some punitive consequences for their actions, or will God simply turn a blind eye to all ungodliness in their lives?

    This is where it seems I don't understand the reformed position.

     
  • At 10:25 PM, May 30, 2006, Blogger Daniel said…

    Jim - the reformed position is that every genuine believer was put into Christ Jesus the moment they received the Holy Spirit.

    One benefit of being placed into Christ is that Christ bore us in Himself on the cross (spiritually speaking). That means that when God poured out His wrath on us for our sins - Christ received the wrath instead of us - He was our ark, as it were, and while the wrath of God was poured without, we were safe being within.

    The end result is that Christ gave up his life to satisfy the debt our sins demanded - and in doing so entirely insulated us from God's wrath.

    The reformed position is that every sin we ever sinned, past, present, and future was on the cross with Christ, since we were "in Christ" at the time.

    We were in Christ after God's wrath was exhausted - that is, we were in Christ still when He was laid in the grave, and we were in Christ when God raised Him from the dead.

    It is the reformed position that when God raised Christ from the dead we were raised with Christ by virtue of our union - demonstrating that God has accepted us in the Beloved already.

    Prior to salvation, sin condemned us, but there is now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus - whatever sin we sin has been taken to the cross - it no longer has the power to condemn us, Christ having removed that condemnation with the cross.

    The reformed position is that sin isn't something that can condemn us all over again once we are saved.

    So how does the reformed position deal with the many passages that instruct us to obey? One might wonder why we would bother!

    Well, the only ones who would wonder why we would bother obeying God are the ones who think that it is all about getting to heaven. If a mind is so entirely fixated on saving itself from hell - that is, if a person is entirely selfish and using God and religion as a means to escape personal suffering - they will see no reason to continue pursuing God once they achieve their goal - which is the ultimate carnal motive - self preservation.

    Deep begins to call unto deep - that is, the Spirit within us causes us to yearn to obey. The moment we are saved we become a new creation that (unlike our former unsaved selves) actually desires to obey God - not that we are trying to avoid hell - but we simply want to satisfy the indwelling Spirit that ceaselessly demands of us a Holy life and genuine fellowship with God.

    If we grieve the Holy Spirit, as those in Corinth did who dishonored the Lord's table - God may handle us just as He handled them - He made some of them sick, and made some of them die - in fact, as many as the Lord loves He chastens and rebukes. If we sin without chastening - we have good reason to doubt the legitimacy of our faith.

    When God poured his wrath out on our sins - He didn't save a wee bit for later. When we sin there may be chastisement - that is, God may bring discomfort into our lives to wean us off of our sin - but the purpose of this chastisement isn't punitive - it is instructional/correctional and therefore beneficial - He certainly isn't going to add a bit more punishment to us all over again - as though what Christ did on the cross was insufficient. The idea, once you get a handle on it - is preposterous!

    Putting it as straight forward as I know how: sin breaks our fellowship with God here and now, but it doesn't affect our eternal sonship. The reason we obey is because we want to fellowship with God, and we understand that there can be no fellowship whatsoever with God so long as we are obeying sin and not God. So, we begin to see that fellowship with God comes only to the obedient. Said another way - who may ascend the holy hill of God? He who has clean hands and a pure heart. The man who wants to ascend the holy hill goes about obeying so that he can - not in order to be saved, but in order to fellowship with God.

    Let me know if that answers it - I tried to be general and give an over all answer - you might be looking for something more specific.

    Grace,

    Dan

     
  • At 11:47 PM, May 30, 2006, Blogger jazzycat said…

    Daniel,
    Great explanations to Jim's questions. There is much blurring of justification and sanctification. Your answer was thorough and clear. I am curious as to how you embraced reformed theology. Is it widely held in Canada?
    Jazzycat

     
  • At 7:23 AM, May 31, 2006, Blogger Daniel said…

    Jazzy - When I started out I didn't know there was such a thing as reformed theology.

    I was saved as an adult, and when God's spirit came into me I had a new and sudden compulsion to read scripture and believe it. I understood that the natural man doesn't receive the things of the Spirit of God - and that I have really only one Teacher - Jesus Christ - so since the beginning I have always understood that to read the bible properly one must ask and expect Christ to teach you.

    I didn't have any fancy bible reading plans - I just opened the bible at Genesis and read through to Revelations. I didn't know that Christians typically read only small amounts of the bible in one sitting - so I would read for three or four hours straight each morning. I read through the bible three times in a row in the first year, then I began to read each book of the New Testament 30 times in a row (Matthew 30 times, then Mark 30 times, etc.) - that gave me perspective I think to really understand the OT the next time I read through the bible. After I had done that I went back to reading from Genesis to Revelation again and have done so ever since.

    Perhaps because no one taught me any better - I read the bible with the simple presumption that it was written to be understood - that is, the bible wasn't a complex mystery - but simple and comprehensive the moment you believed every word of it was true.

    Before I submitted myself to the Lord's Spirit - that is, before I was walking with the Lord - I tried to read the bible but it was always confusing. I didn't really believe all of it was true, so I read it and edited out those parts that didn't fly with me. I became the author of truth in my own understanding - and that is why the bible never knit together perfectly and seamlessly. But when I committed myself to believe everything in it - BOOM! It opened up like a beautiful flower.

    It wasn't long before I knew I needed to join myself to a group of believers for fellowship, to be ministered to, and to minister to others. I prayed and asked the Lord to lead me to the right congregation - and He did.

    It was then that I was exposed to theology - and I found that the doctrines of grace agreed with my understanding of scripture. I am "reformed" in the sense that I found myself practicing the five solas before I knew what they were. Likewise I found myself a Calvinist before I had ever heard there was such a thing.

    My study of theology and Greek came after I had been exposed to other people's theology and I wondered where on earth did they get that? So I read a few theology text books cover to cover and found out where.

    I imagine the Canadian scene is far more liberal than conservative - I haven't taken an official survey - but by and large my estimation is that the church up here is mainly liberal/Arminian.

    Thanks for popping in Jazzy.

     
  • At 8:17 AM, May 31, 2006, Blogger jazzycat said…

    Daniel,
    Thanks, for sharing that testimony. It is impressive and I see some similarities to my on conversion, especially the part about the Bible being confusing at first. I was very late in life in being drawn to God and I can relate to your experience of things opening up that I never understood before.

    Jazzycat

     
  • At 11:10 AM, May 31, 2006, Blogger bluecollar said…

    Daniel,

    I appreciated your sharing with us how you came to the "Reformed" view.

     
  • At 11:21 AM, May 31, 2006, Blogger Daniel said…

    Thanks Mark, and thanks for stopping in.

     
  • At 2:14 PM, May 31, 2006, Blogger Jim said…

    Daniel, thanks for those thoughts. I completely understand the difference between justification and sanctification.

    The question however is; why will we stand before the judgement seat of Christ? What exactly will we be judged for? And if we are to be judged, could there be a negative consequence to that judgement?

    I think many christians are content to live a lukewarm walk when they fully understand their justification before God. They are however missing the purpose of sanctification and walking by the Spirit.

    I am really curious regarding your answers of my questions here.

    God bless,
    Jim

     
  • At 5:16 PM, May 31, 2006, Blogger Daniel said…

    Jim - Jesus said "whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward."

    It is at the judgment seat of Christ where such rewards will be determined.

    The judgment seat of Christ is mentioned only by Paul in scripture, and it is only mentioned twice. (Romans 14:10, and 2 Corinthians 5:10)

    "But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." - Romans 14:10

    Here Paul is specifically referring to the way some Christians were judging "weaker" Christians - he advised to stop it because it is God who makes those weaker Christians stronger - judging them is judging God. Paul questions the motive of such judgment - why do you show contempt for, and judge your brother? Your brother has to answer to God (not you) for everything he does, therefore instead of showing contempt for him, you ought to make sure that you don't cause him to stumble.

    The judgment seat of Christ in that context is mentioned with reference to a quote in Isaiah (45:23) where we learn that on that day every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that only in the Lord is there righteousness and strength - here it is where every tongue that has hated God will be ashamed etc. Here we read not condemnation, (vs. 25) "But that in the Lord all the descendants of Israel shall be justified and glorified."

    Paul is saying - don't judge your brother, it is God's job to judge - one day we will all be before the judgment seat where everyone in the Lord will be justified and glorified - even this brother whom you are judging. Can you see therefore how inappropriate it is to judge someone who will receive justification and glorification in the same measure as you yourself?

    Likewise in 2 Corinthians 5:10 we read, "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad."

    Is it possible that God is going to punish our sins all over again? No, our sins were punished on the Cross - we are not going to the judgment seat for punishment - but we -will- be judged - but there will be no condemnation. Those things which we did however which were good - these will receive reward.

    Now - I agree with you Jim that many Christians are content to live out a lukewarm walk with the Lord.

    Yet I don't agree with you that the blame lies on their own understanding that they are justified before God.

    Consider if you will that these walk a carnal walk because they are in babes in Christ - that is, they have never matured spiritually - Paul describes carnal Christians in 1 Corinthians 3. They have not laid aside all malice, all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and all evil speaking - they haven't (as newborn babes) desired the pure milk of the word and consequently that haven't grow thereby (c.f. 1 Peter 2:1-2) The author of Hebrews contends with this problem in Hebrews 5:12-14. "For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."

    You are speculating that the reason people don't grow is because they are content with being justified - but the bible says that the reason they don't grow is because they need someone to teach them again the first principles - they need milk, they are babes.

    Really - what you are saying is these people don't love God, and aren't interested in God - all they want is to get to heaven, and now that they think they are going - they could care less about God and that is why they are lukewarm.

    That may well be true of people who have made a false confession of faith, and have been told that they have a lock on heaven now - so they stop worrying about getting saved, and live on in their sin - deceived and as hell bound as they ever were. But it is a gross and positively loveless characterization of fellow Christians.

    When I see a lazy Christian, I see a baby Christian. They don't need my condemnation - they need Christ preached to them - they need the old truths restated - they need to learn again the things that gave me hope and strength to persevere.

    Show me a Christian who lifts himself up by his own bootstraps (and expects others to do the same) - and I will show a Christian who doesn't get it. If we could do these things by ourselves - we wouldn't need a Savior.

    Baby Christians are not purposely missing the point of sanctification and walking in the spirit - they are babies - they don't know --how-- to do these things. They haven't learned to walk yet - and simply telling them to walk right and fly straight isn't going to make it happen.

    My heart aches to see the church so weak, so faithless, so widely immature. But I can't go about suggesting that the reason for it is that people are content with being justified - that would deny that God's Spirit is actually in them.

    Let me know if that makes sense or not.

     
  • At 8:37 AM, June 01, 2006, Blogger Jim said…

    Daniel, it seems as if the "they are probably not saved" defense is the typical last resort used too often. IOW, if there is no logical explanation for a certain passage, the excuse is given that the person was probably a false convert and had a false profession.

    That gets a bit old for me rather quickly, as I have heard that same argument over and over.

    I would love to believe the simplicity that everything will be fine once we stand at the judgement seat of Christ. However, the many scriptures I have read refuse to give me that comfort.

    This will be a time of accountability for the believer...not condemnation for his sins...but rather a judging of his faithfulness in stewardship, and an accounting of his conduct as a believer.

    While Christ's atoning sacrifice paid completely for our sins, and His Spirit enables us to live righteously, we will be judged for our actions as believers and what we built in our lives. The fire will test all things to see whether they were built using the eternal riches of God's grace, or the carnal efforts of our old nature.

    Whatever remains is how we will receive a reward or suffer loss. What that loss is...we cannot say for sure. But please don't think I am saying our salvation is on the line here.

    I agree with you that we should not beat each other up trying the make the other one more spiritual. But I think we would be failing to not speak the truth in love to one another regarding the need to walk by the Spirit.

    Perhaps I have not explained my question clearly enough. Basically, as believers we are accountable to live by the Spirit, obey the Word of God, and grow continually in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Failure to do so will cause us to reap sorrowful consequences.

     
  • At 1:59 PM, June 01, 2006, Blogger Daniel said…

    Jim - I also believe that we are accountable to live by the Spirit, obey the Word of God, and grow continually in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

    I further believe (as I am sure you also believe) that discipling believers isn't about filling their heads with the contents of our favorite Systematic Theology textbook - but discipling believers is a mentoring process whereby we model walking in the Spirit, and train them to do the same. There is nothing in Calvinism that denies this.

    You can't deny that there really are false converts - Christ Himself taught us that there would be. It is true that some abuse this truth - so that every Christian who stumbles in their presence is loudly assumed to be a false convert. No right thinking believer denies the error in that. Notwithstanding - there are false converts, and it is foolish to ignore that truth in our ministry.

    That is - if I see someone who calls them self a Christian walking a "lazy walk" - I would be a fool to deny the possibility that they aren't saved - just as I would be equally foolish to assume that this was the problem.

    Scripture doesn't tell us to sniff out false converts - in fact, if anything it says to let both the tares and the wheat grow together until the harvest. I can't imagine too many false converts sticking around after they have been disciplined by the church - but frankly that isn't our concern.

    Jim said: I would love to believe the simplicity that everything will be fine once we stand at the judgment seat of Christ. However, the many scriptures I have read refuse to give me that comfort.


    I presume your discomfort (in part at least) comes from the allusion you made to 1 Corinthians 3 where you say that there will be a time of accountability for the believer. You speak of the fire testing all things - though scripture is pretty specific - it tests "our works" - if our works endure there is reward - if they do not, that same reward is forfeit. Recall that God has prepared beforehand good works for us to walk in. Who would argue that God didn't prepare rewards for those same good works? It is reasonable therefore to understand that God has prepared rewards for us beforehand, and that the good works we do merely appropriate the rewards that God has always intended to give us. Anyone who fails to do the good works that God has prepared beforehand for them to do - the same loses the rewards that were prepared before hand.

    Truly, and forgive my clumsiness here - but it does sounds as if you are implying that believers ought to obey because God is going to do something terrible to them on judgment day if they don't. You speak of the "loss" in this verse as though Paul were trying to motivate us by being afraid of that loss - but there is nothing I can find in the passage that suggests the loss is anything more than it seems - the loss of a reward.

    The moment we begin to use fear as a motivator - we cast out love; surely you would admit that much.

    When I see the magnitude of the rewards God has set aside for me, and I have squandered through my disobedience - I will know loss, and so will you. But I do not tremble in fear of judgment, nor could I long be motivated by such a baseless fear.

    Every man is certainly going to give account of himself to God - but I doubt very much - based upon the same scriptures that you read - that the judgment seat of Christ is going to be a place of punishment or even discontent for the believer.

    Failure to walk in obedience is going to cause us to reap what we sow - and if we sow nothing, we will reap nothing.

    For the readership, I should like to expand a bit on 1 Corinthians 3 a bit.

    At the end of the second chapter Paul is explaining that He, Apollos, et. al. are teaching God's wisdom and not their own - explaining that spiritual things are not taught by men, but by God's Spirit. He then explains in chapter 3 that the envy, strife, and division the Corinthian believers are experiencing comes from their own twisted notion that one teacher has more status than another. Paul explains that God is the teacher so that they understand that it makes no difference who mentored them whether Paul, or Peter, or Apollos. That whether one plants, or waters the seed makes no difference - since God gives the growth. Paul shows that these activities are united in that the one who does such will receive a reward. Paul is speaking here metaphorically - the building is the church, and the builders build that church. Each believer has been given "works" to do in building that church. You can build the church in two ways - using poor materials, or good materials. Whatever is built using wood, hay, or stubble will be tested. If your ministry produces genuine converts they will endure, if your ministry produces false converts - they will not endure. If you ministry encouraged genuine growth - it will endure, if your ministry gave birth to famine or false growth - it will not endure - whatever truth you have taught - that will survive - whatever false thing you have taught - that will be burned with fire. Whatever work God has prepared for you to walk in - those same works if walked in will endure. Whatever work you did on your own accord or without the Lord - the same have no reward, and will not endure.

    Paul's exhortation here has to do with building the church - his instruction, I believe, is to build the church according to God's plan. Peter, Apollos, and Paul himself were doing just that - walking in the good works that God Himself appointed them to. He encouraged the Corinthians to do the same.

    If we take the church out of this picture - and imagine that Paul is talking about sanctification, as though we sanctify ourselves by building ourselves up with the right materials - we not only do harm to the text - we get a very mixed up idea of who is sanctifying whom.

     
  • At 2:31 PM, June 01, 2006, Blogger Frank Martens said…

    Daniel,

    Interesting post, thanks!

    Also, I think I might be a bit over my head in my TULIP posts :) Based on what I'm seeing from a commentor.

    Cheers!

     
  • At 3:15 PM, June 01, 2006, Blogger Jim said…

    Daniel, I appreciate your patient and comprehensive reply. You do have a gift to remain rather calm where many would get flustered or perturbed.

    While I in no way discount the notion of tares or false converts, I think that any person who is simply a nominal christian does not deserve the assurance or confirmation from any other believer that they are indeed a true child of God.

    But I think in our discussions, I do assume a basic walk with the Lord when using examples of christian conduct and living.

    Daniel, you will continue to do well as you search the scriptures to see if these things be so...I do appreciate the fact that your presuppositions are based on Biblical eisegesis rather than the adoption of others doctrines.

    I will continue to examine this topic in more depth, seeking more insight and revelation from the Lord. You are so correct in affirming that fear should not be a motivation for serving the Lord. However there is an aspect of fear that we must have, and this is what I will try to discern further.

    Peter warns us to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. I don't think this means a fearful handwringing, but rather a sober realization that we serve an awesome God.

    Blessings in Christ,
    Jim

     
  • At 4:49 PM, June 01, 2006, Blogger Daniel said…

    Jim - I would go a step further and say that we ought never to give assurance or confirmation to another believer that they are indeed a true child of God. That is the work of the Holy Spirit and not men.

    Like yourself, in discussing Christian behavior I too assume that the person is a Christian so that the discussion has some context.

    I really do hope you meant "exegesis" when you said "eisegesis" - as I do not think I am projecting outside ideas into the texts that I discuss. Let me know if this was a slip of the wrist, or whether you really do believe that I am reading my own thoughts into scripture.

    I agree with scripture where Paul teaches us that we ought to render ourselves fit for our own salvation (that is, in Paul's absence) with profound reverance - not that we are to be afraid of God in what we do - that isn't the idea, but that we are to remember, as you said, to foster and maintain a sober understanding that we serve an awesome God.

    Thanks for staying with it Jim.

    Frank - as soon as you put a doctrinal stake in the ground - you have to contend for the territory!

     
  • At 5:37 PM, June 01, 2006, Blogger Jim said…

    Daniel, I hope we can have some fun with this conversation as well as trying to nail down the details.

    Jim - I would go a step further and say that we ought never to give assurance or confirmation to another believer that they are indeed a true child of God. That is the work of the Holy Spirit and not men.

    Does this mean I cannot call you brother? :)

    I really do hope you meant "exegesis" when you said "eisegesis"

    Boy, I just cannot sneak anything by you. I was not trying to imply you were importing ideas, but rather that your exegesis will definitely be slightly personally tilted. This is just the nature of interpretation.

    I too have enjoyed this thread of discourse.

     
  • At 7:14 PM, June 01, 2006, Blogger Daniel said…

    Jim - when exegesis is personally tilted in any way, shape or form - then it is no exegesis at all, but eisegesis for sure.

    I do try to read the text without projecting anything into it. In this case, I am careful not to project into the text the commonly held opinion that Paul is talking about personal sanctification - I have heard that so many times, I almost expect to find it when I read 1 Corinthians 3!

    There is always room for improvement of course - I don't see anything of my own preset opinions in my interpretation - but perhaps I am blind?

    You can still call me brother, just don't try and assure me that I am saved. ;-)

    Grace and Peace Jim - it is always my pleasure to discourse with you.

     
  • At 9:52 AM, June 02, 2006, Blogger marc said…

    5 Flies?

     
  • At 9:55 AM, June 02, 2006, Blogger Daniel said…

    Well, flying and/or falling insects would be more exact...

     
  • At 10:14 AM, June 02, 2006, Blogger bluecollar said…

    Daniel: "I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase", and "each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor".

    Clearly your take on this talking about mens labors on "God's building" and NOT sanctification here is right-on. We all work "according to the grace of God which was given to [us]" and we should "take heed how [we]build on it". Jesus Christ is the foundation and there is a choice of materials that are used to build on that precious foundation. If that material is burn-able, the one using said material suffers loss.

    Thank you for your thoughtful answers.

    Mark Pierson

     
  • At 10:32 AM, June 02, 2006, Blogger Daniel said…

    Mark - I think when this passage is rightly understood, it can profoundly affect a person's ministry - they begin to desire the church as God would build it, rather than the church as man tries to build it.

    Thanks for the kind words!

    Dan

     
Post a Comment
<< Home
 
 
 
Previous Posts
 
Archives
 
Links
 
Atom Feed
Atom Feed
 
Copyright
Creative Commons License
Text posted on this site
is licensed under a
Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5
License
.