Jonathan wrote: > The reason you are still waiting to hear from us >(well I can only speak for myself but I would be > surprised if my reaction is not the same as the > others) is because I disagree with your chosen > method of argumentation here. It has been pointed > out to you (by Lance) that it appears that this is > a 'gotcha' question. In other words, once it is > answered (as the question is really rhetorical - > I do not know anyone that would disagree) it is > expected that you will pounce with something like, > "Ah Ha! I can now prove your entire theory wrong."
LOL. Sorry to disappoint you, but I am not at all that sinister. I truly am trying to understand what you are thinking. You have no idea how strange your teaching is to my ears. I have never heard of a faithless gospel before, except from universalists. Your statement that you do not know anyone that would disagree is very helpful. I had no idea whether your would agree or not. From past posts, I had the suspicion that you would not agree, and that you would have some explanation for why we are unable to be pleasing to God. Jonathan wrote: > There is a place for 'leading' questions if they are > going to lead to dialogue. I am afraid that I interpret > this as one that will result in your judgment, as opposed > to you actually wrestling with Torrance's ideas. I think your fears are misplaced. You are judging me from what you would be doing. I'm not trying to argue as much as I am trying to bring out in the open exactly what you believe. Jonathan wrote: > I consider myself quite good at arguing. Here is part of the problem. I am terrible at arguing and terrible at communicating in general. I try the best I can, but what is in my mind never seems to get transferred to those I try and communicate with. So please do not try and second guess my motives in asking questions. I do appreciate you taking time to articulate what the problem is here. I think if it were not for you, silence would have been all there might have been in response to me. :-) Jonathan wrote: > I have often 'won' an argument even though I have been > completely in the wrong. One of the techniques I have > used is the one mentioned above. Another is one you > have also used. You will posit a question and then put > Yes/No at the end of it. I find that this does not lead > to discussion that goes anywhere. On the contrary, it forces a straight answer. Nothing wrong with adding to the yes / no, but a yes / no gets us started in the right direction. To be honest, most of the time I have no idea what Lance is saying. I read his posts 10 times, and I still can't tell what side he is on or what point he is trying to make. Jonathan wrote: > Instead it allows one person to be able to pounce > on the other (Gotcha). Have you ever seen me do this? Jonathan wrote: > The problem with my use of such methods in arguing > is that I am not really appreciating what the > other person is trying to say. Rather I spend all > my time breaking down their side of the argument. > There is no true dialogue, no give and take > and very little understanding. A few people have > pointed out a perceived tone or arrogance in some > of your posts (others have pointed out that they do > not see this). I would suggest that those who have > seen it may be picking up on some of my points above. That tells me that they are reading between the lines and judging me based upon their suspicions based upon motives that they harbor in their own hearts. Jonathan wrote: > Communication is hard enough in person let alone > in email. I hope you do not consider what I am > saying as me attempting to put you down; I am just > trying to explain why I have not responded to your > question. I appreciate you taking time to explain. It has very much made things much easier to understand. I think you are right on track with your analysis. Jonathan wrote: > Now to the rest of your email which I do consider attempts > at dialogue with us. I am VERY surprised. I got tired of waiting for the clear explanation, so I took my gloves off and made my point, somewhat concerned that you guys would run off. It is very encouraging to me that you do consider my straight forward talk to be an attempt at communication. Jonathan wrote: > The question that this will always come down to is > the following: Who do you think God is? If one believes > that God is the white-haired judge looking down eager > to smite sinners then you will create conditions to make > sure that you are removed from this wrath. I think you assume here that all concepts are creations of our own minds, as if we invent for ourselves the kind of God we would like. This is not at all my approach. I try to study faithfully the revealed Word of God. If it describes a kind of God which I do not like, an angry God, a God of vengeance, a God of judgment, a God of fire and brimstone, a God of both heaven and hell, then that is the kind of God he is. I may not like it, but I had better learn to accept the idea that this is what God and holiness and righteousness is. I am in no position to judge God as being evil for having these characteristics. Jonathan wrote: > If God hates sinners like you say He does than we > better create a complex religion to ensure that we > are not one of those sinners He will smite (or > somehow become sinless). If one believes that > the Father lovingly accepts all of His creation > through Christ and desires to share the relationship > He has with his Son and Spirit then you will read > the Bible entirely differently. Theologically, if > one starts with the Fall of Adam (the problem of sin) > you will end up with a much different view of the > gospel than if you started with the loving relationship > that the Triune God enjoys prior to creation. Starting > with sin one views Christ as the one who deals with sin > and as the Judge. If you start with who God is you end up > with adoption, or the cry of God saying absolutely NO to > you not being included. I think I consider both viewpoints fully. You are spinning the subject here, however, because you suggest that the Scriptures I quoted which characterize God in a way that you do not like as being the creation of men, but you do not apply this same characterization to your perception of God. I think we are describing two sides of the same coin, and I fully accept your viewpoint up to a point where it does not contradict the viewpoint that I am presenting. Jonathan wrote: > My point here is that we are speaking out of > different paradigms. One is a product of > man attempting to make oneself right with God, > the other the biblical model of who God is and > communicates Himself to be. There you go with the spin again. You claim that your viewpoint is "biblical," but you characterize my viewpoint as being the creation of man. Yet, my viewpoint is based upon Scripture. Your viewpoint criticizes the Scriptures that I bring up. Jonathan wrote: > You state, "It seems foolish to me for anyone to remove > the faith of the believer from the gospel message." > From my perspective it seems foolish for anyone to add > faith of the believer to the gospel message. The Bible added this characterization of the believer as being one with faith. Just look at the word "believer." Come on. A BELIEVER is someone who BELIEVES... someone who has faith. I'm not adding anything to Scripture here. You are subtracting something from Scripture. Jonathan wrote: > Faith is always a response to grace, never > a precursor for grace. I completely, 100% agree with this statement. Jonathan wrote: > Making the presence of faith a condition is > to make faith into a law. So what. Are you an antinomian? Are you against law? Are you lawless? Jonathan wrote: > I think that the Bible makes it clear that we will > always fall short of the law. The Bible makes it clear that those outside of Christ will always fall short of the law. The Bible makes it clear that Jesus Christ fulfilled the law. Take your understanding of the Incarnation and how we are in Christ, and what will you conclude? You can conclude nothing less than the fact that the sinful aspect of our human nature is conquered in Jesus Christ. We are no longer bound by the chains of sin which once held us. If Christ kept the law, then so will we, IF we are found in him. This truly is the righteousness that the Scriptures speak about, the righteousness that is not of our own selves, but is found in Jesus Christ. Jesus said he came to fulfill the law. Jesus said: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-19 KJV) So clearly Jesus spoke of those who would DO and TEACH the commandments of the law, and that these would be great in the kingdom of heaven. Jonathan wrote: > In fact the law exists in order to point > this out! Without grace we are all sunk on > the bottom of a very deep sea. We agree on these points. Jonathan wrote: > You state, "If I believed this stuff that Torrance teaches, > I would never challenge anyone." I would suggest that this > is a rather unbiblical view of evangelism. I'm not talking about evangelism, but about the prophetic and apostolic ministry. Jonathan wrote: > The good news that we have to tell others is what > God has done to put us in right relationship with > Himself (2 Cor 5:19), not what we can do (have faith, > repent etc) to be put in right relationship with Him. > The gospel is NOT a challenge. It is a declaration! > It is a declaration of God's radical (and scandalous) > grace. Amen. No, you have to pull out some Bible to show this to me. The gospel is not a declaration of God's scandalous grace. The Bible says that Jesus and the apostles preached, "REPENT, FOR THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS AT HAND" (see Mark 1:15). Look at how Felix responded to Paul's message: "And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled..." (Acts 24:25 KJV) This sure does not sound like some sissy declaration of scandalous grace to me. I say sissy because your gospel would never bring persecution. Have you been attacked for preaching your gospel? Have you been arrested for preaching your gospel? Have people sought to kill you for preaching your gospel? If not, then maybe your gospel is not the same gospel that those men of the Bible preached. Jonathan wrote: > 2. David says, "Jesus is presented as a Judge, which > means that Jesus casts people into hell. He does so > from anger, from "the wrath of God." God is angry with > the wicked and hates them." > This is such a sad and pitiful view of God that I am almost > at a loss for words here. What I have to say here will have > to wait for my posts on hell. Suffice it to say God's anger > is never eternal while his love is. God's mercy and > faithfulness are forever, His wrath and anger but for a > minute. "... God is angry with the wicked every day." (Psalms 7:11 KJV) "And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD. And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." (Isaiah 66:23-24 KJV) Jonathan wrote: > 3. Just a few points here. David, I would be very careful > of creating doctrine (what we dogmatically say about God) > from the Psalms. It can lead to all sorts of hi-jinks and > certainly does here. This is the Psalmist saying what he > thinks of God, not to be confused with who God actually is > or what God would say about Himself. David was a man after God's own heart. The Scripture gives this testimony of David: Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. (1 Kings 15:5 KJV) David is quoted often by the apostles in the New Testament. His psalms contain many Messianic prophecies. Jesus is said to be the Son of David. David is a prophet, someone who speaks for God. I don't understand how you can void the Divine Inspiration in these passages just because they do not describe the kind of God that you imagine for yourself. Jonathan wrote: > Contrast this with the Psalmist saying that even in > death God would be with him (Psalm 139) or Paul's > announcement that nothing, and I mean nothing (Romans > 8:35-39) can separate us from the love of Christ. > Note verse 7 of Psalm 5 which refers to God's "unfailing > love." He hates sinners and still loves them unfailingly? Read the passage again. It does not say that he loves the sinner unfailingly. Verse 7 says, "but as for me, I will come into thy house in the multitude of thy mercy..." The reason God hates the wicked is exactly because of love. If God loves everyone, then he MUST HATE THE SINNER because the sinner hurts those whom God loves. So God's love for the sinner turns to hatred as the sinner works his evil against those whom God loves. Jonathan wrote: > I think your views on God's anger and wrath are > skewed and do not portray an accurate representation > of the God Christians worship. Then we have something to talk about, because I think your view that does not allow for anger and wrath is skewed. Note that I agree with you that God loves and that God is merciful. The difference is that I also accept the Biblical instruction concerning the severity of God. Consider the following passage: "Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off." (Romans 11:22 KJV) Jonathan wrote: > The other point I would make is that you seem > to confuse judgment with eternal punishment in > hell. No, I recognize that Sheol / Hades is not the eternal punishment, but Gehenna is another part of hell, the lake of fire, which is eternal. Nevertheless, even in Sheol / Hades, there is a region of torment. Jonathan wrote: > They are vastly different (one biblical, the other not). > A post on God's judgment will have to be forthcoming. I look forward to reading it. Jonathan wrote: > As I mentioned elsewhere I have a stereotype of street > preachers. Part of it is that I think that street preachers > enjoy the judgment or wrath side of God. Well, I'm not much of a street preacher, but I can speak for myself that I do NOT enjoy the judgment or wrath side of God. Nevertheless, in those public areas such as night club areas and universities, I can say that God anoints me to declare much about the judgment and wrath of God concerning sin. I think the primary reason for this is because people have been so inundated with the message of the grace and love of God that they have no concept of God's holiness and no concept of the true nature of Jesus Christ, as the coming Lion of Judah, coming in flaming fire, to execute judgment and wrath upon the evil doers, and to rule the cities of the earth with an iron rod. Jonathan wrote: > In fact it seems as if there is even a nuance of it > (mostly always from the Old Testament) there arises a > certain eagerness and even glee when discussing these > texts. I hope you don't get that impression from me. I see these passages in Scripture, and they cause me to be grave and sober. Jonathan wrote: > They become the lens through which they interpret > much of scripture. The non-street preacher succumbs > to this just as easily in their pronouncements against > all types of people that they do not believe should be > allowed to be included in Christ (gays, women teachers, > and torah breakers are favourite targets on this forum). > I once had a response on this forum that said, "How dare > you say that [certain political leaders] are included in > Christ?" My answer would be, "How dare you not hope that > they are?" I think that one of these responses is ungodly. And do you think yourself a good judge of what is Godly? What is your view about homosexuality? Is God pleased with homosexuality or does he abhor it? Jonathan wrote: > I do appreciate you taking the time to read one > of Torrance's books. What I would like to see is > that we take a chapter at a time and discuss it, > emailing what we liked and don't like. If we do > it that way the chance for an honest dialogue is > heightened not only because it allows others to see > a summary of a work they do not have but because > otherwise it begins to turn into a bit of a nitpicking > fest. If you have any suggestions on how we can have > honest fruitful dialogue here please speak up. I'm not sure this would be the best way. I tend to be a responsive kind of person. I need something said that stirs me to speak. If you want to start with this, I'll try and work with it best I can. Jonathan wrote: > Saddened, Remember that we are just talking. I do not want to sadden you with my words, unless it leads you to a repentance of heart that would make you closer with God. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
