Evidence for God from Science

Wow, I go do some chores and check this thread and it's WWIII. At first, given the resulting mushroom cloud, I thought perhaps there was some deliberately inflammatory post by Jac that must have beem deleted, as the response seems FAR over the top per what he actually wrote that apparently initiated it. You guys need to take a few deep breaths. It was an extreme over-reaction and I can see why Jac was deeply offended. And I think before we jump to conclusions that someone means some nefarious thing, we should flesh their meanings out with questions before bringing out the big guns. That's the trouble with online commenting - we can over-react in the moment and almost simultaneously hit "submit."

That's the trouble with online commenting - we can over-react in the moment and almost simultaneously hit "submit."

Believe me - been there, done that, and not just once. But we all have our hot-button topics, ones in which it doesn't take much for our all-ready-itchy fingers to pull the trigger. And I've been as guilty as anyone.

Philip wrote:

That's the trouble with online commenting - we can over-react in the moment and almost simultaneously hit "submit."

Believe me - been there, done that, and not just once. But we all have our hot-button topics, ones in which it doesn't take much for our all-ready-itchy fingers to pull the trigger. And I've been as guilty as anyone.

I feel bad for you all. I can honestly say I've never overreacted on this board.

Signed,

RickD wrote:

B. W. wrote:
I did not take anything that Jac said as irony at all due to his choice of words. We are all guilty of not using the perfect wording. To make a reference that the Nazification of the German Church was not heresy - well - how else should one take that? That set me off.

Where did Jac make a reference to the nazification of the German church. All I saw was this that Jac wrote:

You do realize that Bonhoeffer was a major proponent of Lordship Salvation, which is to say, he taught a false gospel, right?

Which was pointing out that Bonhoffoer taught a false gospel because of the heresy of Lordship Salvation that he taught.

Well - from here - again:

Jac3510 wrote:

B. W. wrote:From a historical perspective of the condition of the German Church 1930's can you see why he taught a form of Jesus as one's Lord and Savior that just may cost one much to make a stand for Him?

There is no historical context that validates heresy.

Next, as I understand the history of Lordship Salvation, the controversy began with the 1948 systematic theology of Lewis Sperry Chafer, criticizing "believe and surrender to God" approach to salvation. Not with Bonhoeffer.

As I understand it, LS came to a head in 1988 by John MacArthur. Bonhoeffer died 1945 and that was before 1948 and 1988. Considering how the German Church fell into heresy of Nazification, I do not cite Bonhoeffer as a heretic. There is a historical context often overlooked that drove him to write on "Costly Grace.' Do I agree with Bonhoeffer's ecumenicism - NO. He lived in a dark time and chose to return to Germany where he died for Jesus Christ. I respect that. I would not call him a heretic who is roasting alive in hell because of what Lordship Salvation critics say. Since OASA is true then, how could Bonhoeffer lose his salvation - the man died for Jesus Christ... as many will during the tribulation period too whenever that happens,

There is one thing I mentioned no one responded too - That God is in charge and allows controversy for both sides to learn something.

With the Lordship Salvation folks there is the obvious. With OSAS folks, they are missing that OSAS does indeed lead into abuses, just as anything can. One thing both side do is this: over emphasize a single truth to an extreme at the exclusion of other gospel truth. Until both sides learn to eat a little crow - bloody noses and hurt feelings and offensives will be the rule, not Christ.

Were my words the best to use - NO and neither were jacs.

Thank you Rick for being a mediator and resolving this.

God Bless...
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:
With the Lordship Salvation folks there is the obvious. With OSAS folks, they are missing that OSAS does indeed lead into abuses, just as anything can. One thing both side do is this: over emphasize a single truth to an extreme at the exclusion of other gospel truth. Until both sides learn to eat a little crow - bloody noses and hurt feelings and offensives will be the rule, not Christ.

Ok. You keep saying OSAS leads to abuses, and I keep saying it's not OSAS itself, but misunderstanding or using God's grace as a license to sin, that leads to abuses. And since OSAS is simply a believer's salvation being secure in Christ, I don't see how that in itself leads to abuses. What am I missing?

Thank you Rick for being a mediator and resolving this.

You're most welcome!

"... OSAS is simply a believer's salvation being secure in Christ, I don't see how that in itself leads to abuses. What am I missing?"

Yes, OSAS is either true or it isn't. And to say it isn't would contradict a lot of Scripture.

I guess there are many Christians who use belief in OSAS to not worry about going any further, that also perversely and falsely understand what Jesus calls us to and yet they simply ignore it - continuing to lead a worldly life.

Let me see if I can clear this up.

I believe this is what got the snowball rolling...B. W. you said:

From a historical perspective of the condition of the German Church 1930's can you see why he taught a form of Jesus as one's Lord and Savior that just may cost one much to make a stand for Him?

And Jac responded:

There is no historical context that validates heresy.

I believe what Jac was saying, was that no matter what historical context is given, that context doesn't validate heresy. The heresy Jac was referring to is Bonhoeffer's teaching of Lordship Salvation.

B. W., then you misread what Jac meant by heresy. You thought he was referring to another heresy, when you wrote:

Hmmm are you saying there is no evidence of Nazification of the German Church and its slip into heresy?

And then the floodgates opened. You took your misunderstanding of what Jac was really saying, and proceeded to disprove something Jac wasn't even talking about.


And then...you went on to say that because Jac believes OSAS, that means he doesn't believe a believer should pursue good works as a disciple of Christ.

B. W. wrote:
I ask, are you are telling everyone that the grace of God cannot move a person to love God to become be his hands and feet on this earth to do his will because to do so defies grace on the grounds of works? That is absurd! Where does the bible teach us to be lazy, gutless disciples? Isn't there something called a Great Commission? What kind of followers of Christ does the bible explain for us to be – gutless lazy wonders?

and

Grace as taught by Militant OSAS followed to it logical conclusion would conclude that there is no need for missionaries – because any work for Christ is great evil and must be avoided. It would have to logically conclude that Grace doesn't transform a life into any action because all works are evil. It must conclude that one can use grace to abound in sin. It must conclude that any works mentioned in Titus 2:11-15 is pointless and unnecessary due to nature of works it would cause. It must logically conclude that walking in the spirit is a waste of time as that is deemed a work. It must concluded that Saving belief in Christ is purely intellectual assent to selective approved creed and most certainly cannot be life altering as that is based upon evil works. It must conclude that Eph 2:10 must be ripped from the pages of the bible. It must conclude that if anyone who is changed by Jesus and motivated by him to love others and demonstrate His love must be put to death because they teach a false gospel.

B. W. , with that being said, the whole thing started with your misunderstanding of what Jac meant by "heresy". And then it snowballed when your misunderstanding of what free grace teaches about salvation and discipleship lead you to attack something that Jac doesn't believe, nor does his free grace theology teach. As I understand free grace, salvation is by God's grace through trusting in Christ. And sanctification is also by God's grace through continued trusting in Christ, which then produces good works in a believer.

Trust Christ for salvation

Continue trusting Christ for sanctification and producing good works in a believer

Good works to gain salvation=heresy

Good works in a believer as a result of the Holy Spirit working in a believer who continues to trust Christ.

All by God's Free Grace.

So, I think an apology is warranted by you, to Jac, because of your misunderstandings leading to your "overreaction".

You thanked me for being a mediator, so I think I tried my best to mediate fairly and impartially.

Philip wrote:

"... OSAS is simply a believer's salvation being secure in Christ, I don't see how that in itself leads to abuses. What am I missing?"

Yes, OSAS is either true or it isn't. And to say it isn't would contradict a lot of Scripture.

I guess there are many Christians who use belief in OSAS to not worry about going any further, that also perversely and falsely understand what Jesus calls us to and yet they simply ignore it - continuing to lead a worldly life.

Absolutely. So, its not OSAS that leads to lazy believers, it's believers abusing God's grace, that leads to lazy believers.

After today's brouhaha - actually, not much "haha" in it - I may rethink my position on allowing people with concealed weapons permits to take their guns into bars. Someone says something innocent that is badly misunderstood or interpreted, and BLAM, BLAM! Followed by, "Sorry dude, I just misunderstood you - sorry for air-conditioning your torso."

That, or else we ought to be better than respond to our interpretation of each other with slanderous intimations of labels like holocaust denier. Shy of something like devil worshipper, that's about as low as you can get in my book. And attempts to win debates or debate points by such deeply personal attacks . . . just unconsciounable.

Too bad there's not a test we can administer to know who is inclined to use such language. Then we could just deny them their concealed carry permits!

And, just for my part, while everyone has obviously overreacted at times, there are, as I said before, things that just go way beyond the pail. This is a textbook example of it. That might literally be the lowest, vilest thing I've ever read anyone say about anyone else on these boards. In all that, I stand by my assessment of Bonhoeffer. He was an advocate of LS. He taught a false gospel. It doesn't matter why he did or how "well intentioned" it was. False gospels are false gospels, and Paul says those who teach them are anathema. Men like Bonhoeffer and MacArthur are near the top of that list.

Philip wrote:After today's brouhaha - actually, not much "haha" in it - I may rethink my position on allowing people with concealed weapons permits to take their guns into bars. Someone says something innocent that is badly misunderstood or interpreted, and BLAM, BLAM! Followed by, "Sorry dude, I just misunderstood you - sorry for air-conditioning your torso."

You actually thought it was a good idea to allow guns in bars?

I have a friend here, an older gentleman, who is the biggest gun advocate I've ever known. And even he thinks guns and bars don't mix.

I think guns should be allowed in all public areas, just like in Guatemala. Imagine gun-wielding customers at Walmart on Boxing Day. There would be no more disgracious videos about women fighting tooth-and-nail over those T-shirts on special.

FL

We should be careful when we start labeling things as "false gospels" and such.
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/A114

The gospel that Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow Him in submissive obedience, not just a plea to make a decision or pray a prayer. Jesus' message liberated people from the bondage of their sin while it confronted and condemned hypocrisy. It was an offer of eternal life and forgiveness for repentant sinners, but at the same time it was a rebuke to outwardly religious people whose lives were devoid of true righteousness. It put sinners on notice that they must turn from sin and embrace God's righteousness. Our Lord's words about eternal life were invariably accompanied by warnings to those who might be tempted to take salvation lightly. He taught that the cost of following Him is high, that the way is narrow and few find it. He said many who call him Lord will be forbidden from entering the kingdom of heaven (cf. Matt. 7:13-23).

Present-day evangelicalism, by and large, ignores these warnings. The prevailing view of what constitutes saving faith continues to grow broader and more shallow, while the portrayal of Christ in preaching and witnessing becomes fuzzy. Anyone who claims to be a Christian can find evangelicals willing to accept a profession of faith, whether or not the person's behavior shows any evidence of commitment to Christ. In this way, faith has become merely an intellectual exercise. Instead of calling men and women to surrender to Christ, modern evangelism asks them only to accept some basic facts about Him.

This shallow understanding of salvation and the gospel, known as "easy-believism," stands in stark contrast to what the Bible teaches. To put it simply, the gospel call to faith presupposes that sinners must repent of their sin and yield to Christ's authority. This, in a nutshell, is what is commonly referred to as lordship salvation.

The Distinctives of Lordship Salvation

There are many articles of faith that are fundamental to all evangelical teaching. For example, there is agreement among all believers on the following truths: (1) Christ's death purchased eternal salvation; (2) the saved are justified by grace through faith in Christ alone; (3) sinners cannot earn divine favor; (4) God requires no preparatory works or pre-salvation reformation; (5) eternal life is a gift of God; (6) believers are saved before their faith ever produces any righteous works; and (7) Christians can and do sin, sometimes horribly.

What, then, are the distinctives of lordship salvation? What does Scripture teach that is embraced by those who affirm lordship salvation but rejected by proponents of "easy-believism"? The following are nine distinctives of a biblical understanding of salvation and the gospel.

First, Scripture teaches that the gospel calls sinners to faith joined in oneness with repentance (Acts 2:38; 17:30; 20:21; 2 Pet. 3:9). Repentance is a turning from sin (Acts 3:19; Luke 24:47) that consists not of a human work but of a divinely bestowed grace (Acts 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25). It is a change of heart, but genuine repentance will effect a change of behavior as well (Luke 3:8; Acts 26:18-20). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that repentance is simply a synonym for faith and that no turning from sin is required for salvation.

Second, Scripture teaches that salvation is all God's work. Those who believe are saved utterly apart from any effort on their own (Titus 3:5). Even faith is a gift of God, not a work of man (Eph. 2:1-5,8). Real faith therefore cannot be defective or short-lived but endures forever (Phil. 1:6; cf. Heb. 11). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that faith might not last and that a true Christian can completely cease believing.

Lordship SalvationThird, Scripture teaches that the object of faith is Christ Himself, not a creed or a promise (John 3:16). Faith therefore involves personal commitment to Christ (2 Cor. 5:15). In other words, all true believers follow Jesus (John 10:27-28). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that saving faith is simply being convinced or giving credence to the truth of the gospel and does not include a personal commitment to the person of Christ.

Fourth, Scripture teaches that real faith inevitably produces a changed life (2 Cor. 5:17). Salvation includes a transformation of the inner person (Gal. 2:20). The nature of the Christian is new and different (Rom. 6:6). The unbroken pattern of sin and enmity with God will not continue when a person is born again (1 John 3:9-10). Those with genuine faith follow Christ (John 10:27), love their brothers (1 John 3:14), obey God's commandments (1 John 2:3; John 15:14), do the will of God (Matt. 12:50), abide in God's Word (John 8:31), keep God's Word (John 17:6), do good works (Eph. 2:10), and continue in the faith (Col. 1:21-23; Heb. 3:14). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that although some spiritual fruit is inevitable, that fruit might not be visible to others and Christians can even lapse into a state of permanent spiritual barrenness.

Fifth, Scripture teaches that God's gift of eternal life includes all that pertains to life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3; Rom. 8:32), not just a ticket to heaven. In contrast, according to easy-believism, only the judicial aspects of salvation (e.g., justification, adoption, and positional sanctification) are guaranteed for believers in this life; practical sanctification and growth in grace require a post-conversion act of dedication.

Sixth, Scripture teaches that Jesus is Lord of all, and the faith He demands involves unconditional surrender (Rom. 6:17-18; 10:9-10). In other words, Christ does not bestow eternal life on those whose hearts remain set against Him (James 4:6). Surrender to Jesus' lordship is not an addendum to the biblical terms of salvation; the summons to submission is at the heart of the gospel invitation throughout Scripture. In contrast, easy-believism teaches that submission to Christ's supreme authority is not germane to the saving transaction.

Seventh, Scripture teaches that those who truly believe will love Christ (1 Pet. 1:8-9; Rom. 8:28-30; 1 Cor. 16:22). They will therefore long to obey Him (John 14:15, 23). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that Christians may fall into a state of lifelong carnality.

Eighth, Scripture teaches that behavior is an important test of faith. Obedience is evidence that one's faith is real (1 John 2:3). On the other hand, the person who remains utterly unwilling to obey Christ does not evidence true faith (1 John 2:4). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that disobedience and prolonged sin are no reason to doubt the reality of one's faith.

Ninth, Scripture teaches that genuine believers may stumble and fall, but they will persevere in the faith (1 Cor. 1:8). Those who later turn completely away from the Lord show that they were never truly born again (1 John 2:19). In contrast, easy-believism teaches that a true believer may utterly forsake Christ and come to the point of not believing.

Most Christians recognize that these nine distinctives are not new or radical ideas. The preponderance of Bible-believing Christians over the centuries have held these to be basic tenets of orthodoxy. In fact, no major orthodox movement in the history of Christianity has ever taught that sinners can spurn the lordship of Christ yet lay claim to Him as Savior.

This issue is not a trivial one. In fact, how could any issue be more important? The gospel that is presented to unbelievers has eternal ramifications. If it is the true gospel, it can direct men and women into the everlasting kingdom. If it is a corrupted message, it can give unsaved people false hope while consigning them to eternal damnation. This is not merely a matter for theologians to discuss and debate and speculate about. This is an issue that every single pastor and lay person must understand in order that the gospel may be rightly proclaimed to all the nations.

Paul, I don't have time to address this entire post right now, but you are way off in your understanding of lordship vs free grace. I suppose I need to preface this by saying that I'm NOT a free gracer. I studied the 2, and I believe I understand what each side is actually saying. I've looked at both sides from their own point of view, not just what the other side says. When you use terms like "easy believism" it shows me that you really don't understand free grace as free gracers actually believe.