Well done Daniel. I recently finished the biography of Martin Luther and this lines up exactly with what I read.

The original reformers had no intentions to leave the mother church. But God chose to separate his sheep from the treacherous wolves dressed in royalty.

Much of the protestant movement centered around the kings of Europe wishing to throw off the yoke of the papacy.

What transpired was the creation of varying branches of denominations still embracing much of the catholic liturgy and eccliastical heirarchy; the major difference being the correct teaching and preaching of salvation and many other doctrines. This has been widely lost in these same denominations of today.

Hence the reason grace is again under attack and the simplicy of the gospel is being threatened.

God bless,
Jim

 

"Hence the reason grace is again under attack and the simplicy of the gospel is being threatened."

Hmmm. I wonder what Jim means by that? :-)

 

I assume he meant that some evangelical denominations have not entirely or sufficiently severed themselves from the Catholic perversion of grace, and it as such even in evangelicalism grace is again under attack and the simplicity of the gospel (saved by grace through faith) is being threatened because some are still teaching that with the mouth you are saved by faith, but only if you are saving yourself by works as you do so.

I don't think it was a dig against the fact that the Holy Spirit must first convict a person of sin before that person can repent and believe, but rather was a commentary on how some in the evangelical world are really preaching a works based gospel.

I could be wrong, Jim would have to speak for himself.

 

Mark,

Thanks for making me smile today. You should have become a trial lawyer...you are good at cross examination. :)

I imagine that sentence could be construed a number of ways. Let me flesh it out a bit more.

We are saved by grace through faith alone...period.

Whenever works are added to grace, it ceases to be grace. So therefore whenever we place a yoke of requirements upon others in order to come to Christ, we have in essence nullified the grace of God. Not that God's grace has been made ineffective, but we have made the hearer look to his own efforts as part of the solution to his sin problem.

This teaching of works righteousness is of course the backbone of all Catholic dogma. The daughters of Catholicism never fully exorcised this wicked teaching and now today it is fully prevalent again. The mainline churches are prime examples of the liberal teaching of a grace plus theology.

The flip side of the same coin is the ugly head of fundamental legalism. In this system, the adherent is taught that salvation is part grace, and part keeping of a multitude of laws. Failure to do so could cause them to lose what they had in the beginning, or possibly never had at all.

This is really nothing less than the offering of Cain in a self-centered attempt to please God; the oldest religion in the book, and to a greater or lesser degree we all smell of this filthy rag.

Only as we behold the glory of the Lord are we truly changed into His likeness. Grace becomes more precious as the sinfulness of our pride and rebellion are revealed.

Anyways, I hope I didn't muddy the waters here more than before.

 

James, would a "traditionalist" be one of those who, well, you know, "place a yoke of requirements upon others in order to come to Christ"? Just a wonderin'.

 

Mark,

Growing up two words were anathema to me; tradition and orthodox.

Near to where I lived we had a huge "Greek Orthodox" church building. The eastern orthodox religion is basically the same as the RCC.

Tradition similarly had the same connotations as one who practiced forms of ritualism in worship.

Now, I realize that orthodox can also mean a correct understanding of doctrine that is in line with the agreement of many godly men.

Tradition on the other hand has been a tough word for me to use in conjunction with the preaching of the gospel. However, we are creatures of habit and as such are prone to creating traditions, whether they be good or bad.

You would have to define what you mean by "traditionalist".

 

Jim said...
Antonio, obviously John 3:16 is still valid and applicable in the gospel presentation.

It has been the focus of much ridicule by athiests, and traditionalist's alike.

Perhaps before the offer of grace can be made though, there needs to be some groundwork laid; a foundation on which to rest the doctrine of free grace.

Until a person sees their lost state as a hopeless sinner before a holy and just God, and trembles at the wrath abiding upon them, they will do one of two responses.

1. They will either attempt to justify themselves by good works and reformation, or...

2. They will see the grace of God as a license to sin with full immunity.

Therefore we are remiss to offer the gift to a person who has not demonstrated a conviction from the Holy Spirit. Otherwise why would a man believe in Jesus, unless he sees his utter hopeless apart from Christ.

Why do we need a Saviour if we do not realize we are lost? These verses grant us the assurance that our salvation is based on the promise of God's word alone and not our efforts at holiness or any such thing.

God bless,
Jim

October 30, 2007 7:06 AM

 

Mark,

¿Qué usted está diciendo? What is your point?

 

The word "traditionalist's" and that blog's history with that term. IOW, I'm trying to figure out if you are refering to, well, you know, bibli... err, I mean, Calvinists.

 

Mark,

There are many believers who wear the label of Calvinism. Do some of them not understand grace? Most definitely. Does that mean they are teaching a grace + salvation? Highly probable.

From what I have read of my brother Dan here, a self proclaimed Calvinist, I would say he understands the matter of grace quite well. He has been blessed with the ability to make difficult passages understandable.

But I think of traditionalism as more ritualistic in nature. It is the kind of thing you can practice in your sleep. There are those who go through the motions of religion but have no idea why. That is a dead tradition.

Mark,

Could you define for me what exactly you mean by "traditionalist"?

 

I don't like, nor do I use, the term.

"There are many believers who wear the label of Calvinism. Do some of them not understand grace? Most definitely. Does that mean they are teaching a grace + salvation? Highly probable."

Can you give me specific examples please of both the names of the Calvinists who do not understand grace and what it is that they teach as far as, you would say, "they are teaching a grace + salvation? Highly probable."

Please answer this, James.

(It'll be tomorrow before I see it as I'm going to work now, thanks.)

 

My perception of the term "traditionalist" is that it applies to anyone who consults any exposition of scripture, or commentary on scripture, that is not endorsed by the GES.

 

Centuries of protestant theology got it all wrong until the GES came along to correct all the ill's. Pretty heady stuff.

 

"My perception of the term "traditionalist" is that it applies to anyone who consults any exposition of scripture, or commentary on scripture, that is not endorsed by the GES."

Mark,

I think you are being facetious with me. :)

It would be foolish to hold such an opinion, there is obviously much truth in the centuries of protestant theology.

Lets take John Wesley for example. He was a powerful preacher and used mightily of God. We can learn much from him. However, he held to some incorrect notions about the security of the believer. Does this mean I throw him out as a heretic? Absolutely not! I simply take what I can and leave the rest.

Similarly, Luther and Calvin brought amazing changes to the Church. Does this mean every word they spoke and wrote was gospel truth? For sure not, but we take what we can and leave the rest.

I take what I can from each christian blogger I can.

You make a good point about not making an accusation without evidence. I will try to keep that in mind for further comments.

In Christ,
Jim