NeoCalvinism is an increasingly
popular form of Christian irrationalism in the evangelical marketplace
today. This theology has been promoted by the likes of John MacArthur, John Piper, Paul Washer, Al Mohler, Steve Lawson, along with a host of others with whom they are loosely affiliated. We believe that NeoCalvinism is particularly dangerous because it teaches that a correct understanding of doctrine is only achieved when one embraces contradictory precepts, and that though the matter cannot be logically reconciled, it is, none-the-less, the rightly divided truth of scripture. On this point we want to be very, very clear: We are certain that this ludicrous claim of NeoCalvinism is every bit as devastating to our ability to reason from the scriptures as is the claim that the scriptures are not inspired. For the purpose of this blog, we will define NeoCalvinism as any theology that attempts to embrace the following three precepts:
Three Precepts of NeoCalvinism - A Combination of Truth and Error
- The atonement of Christ is particular in nature – Christ died for the elect. (TRUE)
- The gospel is a well-meant offer of salvation to ALL of humanity, even though Christ admittedly did not die for all of humanity. (FALSE)
- Eternal salvation involves both the sovereignty of God as well as the responsibility of man. God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility in eternal salvation cannot be rationally explained but the bible teaches them both and we must “balance” the two concepts if we are to understand the truth. (FALSE)
DISCLAIMER
FIRST: We do not question Pastor Tim’s sincerity or his profession of faith. While we believe that what he is teaching is in error, we find many examples of God’s children brokering in false ideas from time to time in the word of God.
SECOND: We do not doubt that there are a great many people who believe the contradictory precepts of NeoCalvinism as taught by Pastor Tim, but who are none-the-less blood-bought children of God, who are bound for glory based on the work of Jesus Christ alone. Eternal salvation is not based on how well we score on some theology test, but rather is based solely on the sovereign grace of God alone. Given that we see through a glass dimly, we believe that there will be a great many in heaven who embraced erroneous and self-contradictory theological notions while here on earth.
THIRD: We believe that it is important to confront these false beliefs because the promotion of nonsense is not the promotion of biblical truth, and because a proper understanding of the faith once delivered to the saints, which includes the utterly monergistic nature of our eternal salvation, is enormously profitable and instrumental in the peace, comfort, and enjoyment that a child of God may experience in this present life. To ask God’s people to embrace contradictory precepts is to embed the leaven of doubt in the minds of believers in a way that inevitably breeds doctrinal instability among the flock by proselytizing others in error.
And so we present our commentary in the vein of James 5:19-20, that it may correct those who are in error, and in so doing hide a multitude of sins. Let’s listen to Pastor Tim as he speaks regarding the NeoCalvinistic belief that our eternal salvation involves both God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility…
Gospel "Offers"
If you come to a conclusion that telling folks the gospel is an empty offer you come to a conclusion that Jesus Christ never came to, Paul never came to, none of the followers of Christ ever came to. (Tim Conway)
It is certainly true that neither
Jesus, nor Paul, nor any of the other followers of Christ in the bible came to
the conclusion that the gospel is an “empty offer.” In fact, they never came to the conclusion
that the gospel is an “offer” at all. Neither
will you find any instances of them referring to the gospel as an “offer.” This is because the gospel is NOT an offer of
salvation to all of humanity. The gospel
is not a quid-pro-quo wherein all of humanity is given an opportunity to obtain
eternal life provided they meet the condition of faith.
According to the apostle Paul, the
gospel is that “Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures; that he
was buried and that he rose again the third day, according to the scriptures.” (I
Cor 15:3-4). That is not an offer – it
is a proclamation of the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ on behalf of
his chosen people (Matt 1:21). It is
attended by the assurance that those who believe this good news have eternal
life (John 6:57), and they shall never perish (John 10:28) along with the
admonition to walk in obedient discipleship (Acts 2:40, John 14:15).
The gospel cannot be a well-meant
offer of salvation to all of humanity, because there is no way to offer a
finished, particular, effectual work to all of humanity. Failure to understand this point is perhaps the most prominent error in evangelicalism today. Before one sets about the business of making “gospel offers” to people,
they would do well to answer the fundamental question – What did Jesus Christ
accomplish at Calvary? Did he die to
save his people from their sins, or did he die so that all men could be
savable? A sober and correct answer to
that question pours a bucket of cold water on the Gospel-Offerism that is dominates
modern Christendom.
Carnal Conclusions?
And the reason that men and women come to those conclusions based on the sovereignty of God is because they come up with their own carnal conclusions about what the sovereignty of God means. (Conway)
The “sovereignty of God in
salvation” means that salvation is the result of God’s decision and it is based
solely on God’s actions. This is the
very definition of monergism – the work of one. That is not some “carnal conclusion.” It is an unassailable fact of language and word definitions. People correctly
arrive at the conclusion that the sovereignty of God in salvation eliminates
man’s involvement because words have meaning. If God is utterly sovereign in salvation then salvation is a monergistic
work, and there is no way to make man in any way responsible for a monergistic
work of God. So rejection of notion that
man is responsible in his eternal salvation is not some “carnal conclusion” as
Conway states, but rather an unavoidable logical reality based on the very definition
of God’s sovereignty in salvation and the notion of monergism.
The only carnality here is found in
those who would press the daft notion that the so-called “monergistic salvation
of God” requires the responsible actions of man. That is a notion so categorically false that
it is painful and embarrassing to have to point it out. If one is allowed the liberty of defining
monergism as synergism, then there is absolutely no limit to what man can make
the bible say. Indeed this is nothing
short of asserting that when Paul says we’re saved “not according to our works”
(II Tim 1:9) that what he meant was that “we are saved in accordance with our
works.” This assertion is so evidently
false that it requires the radically mind-numbing context of modern
evangelicalism to find an audience sufficiently vapid and void of sound thought
to embrace it.
Feeling the Balance of Scripture?
Look, if you’re not keeping your nose in the scripture all the time and feeling the balance of scripture, and checking your own conclusions by scripture all the time, you will land in error. (Conway)
The conclusion that we believe
needs “checking” is the assertion that the monergistic work of eternal
salvation requires the responsible actions of man in order for eternal
salvation to come to pass. Again, that
is a statement so evidently self-contradictory and erroneous that it seems
silly to have to point it out. Such is
the sad state of affairs in Christendom today. Monergism is “the work of one” not “the work of two” and if our
salvation is in any way dependent upon man’s responsibility, then it is
undeniably synergistic by definition.
We certainly affirm the need to
study scripture, but here Conway refers to the “balance of scripture.” This is NeoCalvinist code-speak for paradox,
mystery, or antinomy. I want to make
this point as bluntly as I possibly can so that there can be absolutely no misunderstanding. In my experience, when
a NeoCal theologian makes reference to “balance” what he is saying is,
“I am about to plop-down an enormous logical contradiction in the middle of my theology and insist that you accept it as biblical truth. Because my position is utterly irrational by definition, you will find me both unable to substantiate it with a coherent and logical argument from scripture, as well as highly agitated toward anyone who endeavors to point-out my folly. I use the term “balance” because it sounds more sophisticated than admitting that I have a bald logical contradiction in the middle of my theology. I find that those who would never accept the notion that their beliefs are “illogical” are far more receptive when the self-same ideas are instead cast as requiring “balance” for proper handling. Though my position is admittedly irrational, I will none-the-less insist that it is, in fact, the right answer, and will characterize any efforts to explore my irrational position as prideful and arrogant attempts at using “man’s logic” to understand God’s truth. In so doing I will be invoking a theological trump-card – namely that I will reason from the scriptures up until reason no longer supports my assertions, at which point I will invoke fiat irrationalism and insist that this is the height of Christian piety and right division.” (TETH paraphrase)
“I am about to plop-down an enormous logical contradiction in the middle of my theology and insist that you accept it as biblical truth. Because my position is utterly irrational by definition, you will find me both unable to substantiate it with a coherent and logical argument from scripture, as well as highly agitated toward anyone who endeavors to point-out my folly. I use the term “balance” because it sounds more sophisticated than admitting that I have a bald logical contradiction in the middle of my theology. I find that those who would never accept the notion that their beliefs are “illogical” are far more receptive when the self-same ideas are instead cast as requiring “balance” for proper handling. Though my position is admittedly irrational, I will none-the-less insist that it is, in fact, the right answer, and will characterize any efforts to explore my irrational position as prideful and arrogant attempts at using “man’s logic” to understand God’s truth. In so doing I will be invoking a theological trump-card – namely that I will reason from the scriptures up until reason no longer supports my assertions, at which point I will invoke fiat irrationalism and insist that this is the height of Christian piety and right division.” (TETH paraphrase)
That is a very strong statement, but it
has been my honest observation, and it has been born-out time and again both
in-person as well as in numerous online interactions with NeoCalvinists. Their allowance of “antinomy” in their
theological system is a cancerous error that undermines the notion of reasoning
from the scriptures and as such is every bit as dangerous as denying either the
inspiration of the word of God. Stated
another way: There are numerous
evangelical pastors who will tear you to shreds over the mere suggestion that
some portion of the word of God is not inspired, (and rightfully so) because
they know that once the smallest portion is called into question, then all of
it is in question. Yet none of them seem
to recognize that asserting that some portion of God’s revelation is irrational
has precisely the same effect. The
moment we embrace irrationalism, where does it end? How do we know that “Christ died for our
sins” means precisely that and not “Christ did not die for our sin?” To embrace logical paradox is to undermine
any appeal to reasoning from the scriptures and in so doing completely
undermines the bible as any revelation from God whatsoever.
The NeoCal on the one hand claims
that God is sovereign in salvation and that salvation is a monergistic work of
God alone. With this much, we heartily
agree. If the NeoCal stopped there, we
would have little objection on the matter. But the NeoCal goes on to also claim that man is also responsible in the
matter of eternal salvation as well. Think
about this for a moment – salvation is a monergistic act of God alone, but
somehow, inexplicably, in a way that we are unable to grasp, we are also
responsible in the matter of eternal salvation. Now to the extent that man’s responsibility is required, the matter of
monergism in eternal salvation is destroyed. This is the unavoidable logical ramification of their assertion for
anyone who is unwilling to allow the defining of terms by their own antonyms.
Since these two assertions are so evidently
in direct contradiction to one another, NeoCal soteriology refers to them using
terms such as “mystery”, “paradox” or “antinomy” and insists that the proper
way to handle the matter is not to question either assertion, but rather, to
believe them both by “balancing the two.” But contradictory precepts cannot
be balanced. There’s no way to affirm a
square circle or a bright-white darkness. If something is square it is not round, and if something is bright-white
it is not darkness. Why is this? It is because words have meaning and apart
from recognizing and adhering to this fundamental tenet of language, all the
inspired revelation found in the word of God collapses into a worthless pile of
irrationalism, irrespective of whatever manner of “balance” one might employ to
make sense of it. If we are allowed to
reject this fundamental notion upon which all language is built and upon which
all revelation either stands or falls, I submit that one can make the bible say
literally anything they want it to say. If
we are afforded the interpretive liberty of defining terms by their own
antonyms we would find it no difficulty to assert that when the bible proclaims
that nothing can separate us from the love of God, its actual meaning is
that something can separate us from the
love of God. That approach to the word
of God should be roundly, soundly and thoroughly rejected by every professing
Christian.
So to “balance” these two evidently
contrary assertions of the sovereignty of God in salvation and the
responsibility of man in salvation is nothing short of calling a bald logical
contradiction the rightly divided word of God. That, brothers and sisters, is complete hogwash, and it should be
roundly and thoroughly rejected by all of God’s people. I can think of nothing more at odds with the
Lord’s assertion that “the scripture cannot be broken.” (John 10:35)
Right Division
The correct way to handle
contradictory precepts is to reconcile them through right division. In many instances, right division is that
process of comparing scripture with scripture, precept upon precept, line upon
line, which reveals that one of these so-called “precepts” is incorrect and
must be replaced with a correct understanding of the word of God in order to arrive
at a proper understanding. And so it is
in this instance. The assertion that
“man is responsible in eternal salvation” is categorically false because by the
time a man ever commits a spiritually responsible act, he is already in
possession of eternal life (John 5:24) and thus his act had nothing to do with
how he obtained eternal life.
You will either say it’s a valid offer therefore God is not sovereign, or you’ll say God is sovereign therefore it’s not a valid offer. (Conway)
Again this likewise presupposes
that the gospel is an offer – a quid-pro-quo opportunity for eternal salvation
conditioned on faith. The gospel makes
no such offer. The gospel is the
proclamation of the finished work of Christ on behalf of His people. It is attended by the assurance that those
who believe this testimony HAVE eternal life and they shall never perish, and
the admonition to follow the Lord Jesus Christ in obedient discipleship.
And, you have to… neither are proper conclusions. (Conway)
That’s because error is embedded in
the question to begin with. One must
extract oneself from the false idea that the gospel is an “offer” in order to
understand the nature of the gospel message. But I digress… This statement is
followed by a number of good affirmations with which we would agree, but
ultimately gives way to the same error at the end. Let’s listen…
The proper conclusion is this: are men depraved, through and through, naturally? Yes. Is God sovereign? Yes. Is salvation of the Lord? Yes. Is it impossible for man to come unless the father draws him? Yes. (Conway)
So far so good…
Are All Men Bidden to Come to Christ?
Are men bidden to come? Yes. (Conway)
It is true that SOME men are bidden
to come. (Matt 11:28) But to imply that ALL
of humanity is bidden to come is simply not true. In the scriptures we find those who are
“bidden to come” are consistently referred to as “the laboring and heavy laden”,
the “thirsty”, and the “willing”. For
one to prove that all men are bidden to come to Christ one will have to prove
that all men are “laboring and heavy laden” under the relentless demands of the
law, that all men are “thirsty” for spiritual things, and that all men are
“willing” to come. This is evidently
false by any reasonable observation, but it is established by the fact that the
word of God plainly states that man in his natural state “will not seek after
God” and has “no thought of God.” (Ps 10:4)
If they come will they be saved? Yes. (Conway)
This is true based on the
previously established precept that it is impossible for man to come unless the
father draws him. It is true because
“coming to Christ” is an evidence of drawing, not because it is a requirement
of salvation dependent upon man’s responsibility.
The Doctrine of the Self-Herding Sheep
Are they responsible to come and be saved? Absolutely they are. (Conway)
This statement places the
responsibility for the gathering of the herd, not on the Shepherd, but on the
sheep. If salvation is monergistic, that is “the work of one”, as all NeoCal’s will
admit, how then does one find room to squeeze in some measure of human
responsibility? Stated more plainly, how
do you ask man to actively and responsibly participate in a monergistic act of
God? The answer is obvious, the moment
you figure out how to allow man to participate actively and responsibly, you
have destroyed the concept of monergism in the process. That’s because the notion that man is in any
sense responsible for his own salvation is an out-and-out denial of monergism
in salvation, plain and simple. The NeoCal theologian asks his followers to
swallow this denial of monergism by invoking the concept of "balance." He is asking you to on the one hand affirm monergistic
salvation by God, provided you define such “monergism” as involving the
responsibility of man. Stated more
plainly it is asking you to define monergism as synergism – which is nonsense
of the highest order. It is a classic case of having one’s cake and eating it
too. Brothers and sisters, men may call
that “balancing the word of God” all they want, but it is nothing short of peddling
self-contradictory nonsense as gospel truth. To insist that one must embrace two concepts so evidently contradictory,
is just addled thinking, not the rightly divided word of God. When one defines their key terms by their own
antonyms, they’re selling snake oil, not promoting the faith once delivered to
the saints.
Atonement Considered Apart from its Intended Purpose
Does the scripture speak as though there is sufficiency in the atonement that if they come they will find it sufficient to save them and wash them of all their sin? Absolutely.(Conway)
I’m not aware of any passage of
scripture that speaks of the sufficiency of the atonement as an abstraction
from its intended purpose. This type of
talk runs rampant in NeoCal circles, but sufficient but efficient theology is
demonstrably false, because there is no such entity as atonement independent
from the purpose of God. Such an ”atonement”
simply does not exist, because the atonement of Christ is the very product of
God’s purpose. Apart from God’s purpose
in saving his people there would be no atonement.
Let me put it this way, if the
atonement is said to be “sufficient for all, but efficient for the elect only”,
then it is insufficient for the non-elect for want of efficiency. That point is unassailable and it is the
complete undoing of the “sufficient but efficient” tommyrot that is being
peddled in the Christian marketplace. Given the inseparable nature of the provision
and purpose of the atonement, it can be well-said that apart from efficiency
there is no sufficiency. Any lack of
efficiency is an abject lack of sufficiency.
If men don’t come is it seen to be criminal? Yes. If they don’t come, their inability is they love their idols more. There’s only one thing that keeps men from coming to Christ, it’s because they’re wickedly married to their sins. (Conway)
True enough, but our brother here
fails to realize that Christ purchased the elect’s regeneration as part of the
covenant of salvation. Upon closer
inspection it becomes clear that this is yet another way in which the atonement
is insufficient for the non-elect – it is insufficient because it did not
purchase their regeneration. The apostle
Paul taught, “And because ye are sons God hath sent forth the spirit of his son
into your hearts crying, Abba, Father.” (Galatians 4:6) This point bears repeating. If the atonement of Christ did not make a
provision for one’s regeneration, and it undeniably did NOT for the non-elect,
then it is not sufficient for their vital salvation in time. Apart from that provision, man is
insufficiently equipped to perform the repentance and total commitment that the
Lordship Salvationists soteriology requires of them to obtain eternal life. It
follows that any appeals to universal sufficiency in the atonement are nothing
short of legacy Arminian soteriological noise that drowns out the clear signal
of salvation by covenant found in the word of God. It is an erroneous theological accommodation
intended to support their soteriology of conditional gospel offers which
require the responsible acts of men in order for salvation to transpire – all
of which is deceptively packaged as monergistic salvation by sovereign
grace.
Total Depravity = Total Irresponsibility
That is what scripture says. And they are so guilty, God is gonna throw them into hell and punish them for their rebellion and their crimes against him and their refusal to come. (Conway)
It is true that rebellion will damn
many. But it is grace that eternally saves
those who are spared, not human responsibility in any measure. Indeed the teaching of total depravity is
nothing short of the teaching of total irresponsibility. It is for this reason that salvation is
monergistic and totally by grace, apart from ANY human responsibility – because
the totally irresponsible are incapable of producing responsible acts apart
from betraying the “totality” of their fallen state. This is an absolutely
unavoidable dilemma that destroys any assertion that salvation is in any sense
the result of man’s responsibility.
If men will believe then the condemnation of God will not hang over their head and they will most certainly be saved and if they will not believe it’s because they will not believe, and Jesus says, “You will not come unto me, that you might not… that you might have life,” and because they won’t come they will perish in their sin and they will be held responsible and that is what scripture says. (Conway)
We agree that men will be held
responsible for their sins. No argument
there. But the question is – are men
eternally saved in any part based on man’s responsibility. If they are, then salvation is synergistic by
definition because it involves God’s part and man’s part and that is action
involving two working components – the very definition of synergism. The NeoCal insists that while man’s
responsibility is involved, that salvation is none-the-less monergistic. That is just complete hogwash. Perched high-atop their two-wheeled
contraption they proclaim, “Behold my unicycle.” One may call such a system of salvation
“monergism” all they want, but doing so underscores their folly to any rational
observer. It’s really just an exercise
in commandeering the terminology they want to use, and then defining it in a
way that is completely inconsistent with its actual meaning.
The Gospel is Actual Reconciliation Proclaimed, not Potential Reconciliation Offered
And we are to take the gospel forth and tell men to be reconciled to God based on the sufficiency of the atonement and all things are ready and if they don’t come the master of the house is gonna have every reason to be angry and his anger will burn on them right to the pit of hell. And that’s what scripture teaches. (Conway)The gospel is the message of reconciliation accomplished by Christ at Calvary, not a message that if you will do something God will accept you as reconciled.
And in the end, is there an elect people of God? You better believe there is, but nobody’s ever excused because they’re not elect. (Conway)
True enough, but perhaps more to
the point - no one is ever excused because they exercise responsibility,
because total depravity is total irresponsibility. To suggest that man’s responsibility is
involved in his eternal salvation is nothing short of making salvation a matter
of works rather than a matter of monergistic grace.
Salvation Based on the Required Compliance of the Totally Non-Compliant
Sinners are addressed in scripture as sinners. Who if they will lay down the weapons of their rebellion, and they will surrender into those merciful arms of Christ, they will find salvation. (Conway)
How does a totally depraved,
utterly irresponsible man find the will to lay down his weapons of rebellion
when his carnal mind is enmity against God? If he can do so, he is not totally depraved, and if he is totally
depraved he is clearly unable to comply with this requirement. Moreover, where do we see an offer of
salvation extended by the Lord Jesus Christ in these statements? “Ye are of your father the devil?” “Who shall save thee from the damnation of
hell?”
This is just more old-line, Arminian, well-meant-offerism tarted-up in NeoReformed duds. It bears no resemblance to the gospel proclamation that Jesus got the job done and those who believe this testimony HAVE eternal life.
The Atonement Did NOT Supply Faith to All Men
And many do hear and they repent and they believe and they are saved. And if they don’t hear, scripture says it’s because they won’t hear they won’t come, they won’t believe, because they love the praise of men, and they love the field and they love the ox and they love the wife, therefore they are unable to come. (Conway)
And why is that? It’s because are not elect, they are not
sons, thus their regeneration was not purchased by covenant. If the atonement did not purchase their
regeneration, then it was insufficient to supply them with the faculties of
repentance or faith required to obtain eternal salvation in Conway’s Lordship
Salvation scheme.
The Atonement Lacks the Purpose of Saving the Non-Elect
And it condemns men for not coming and it puts the finger right on the fact that it is there wickedness that they are personally responsible for. Men are criminal because they will not come. Their hearts are adverse to God. They hate God, that’s why they do not come.(Conway)
True enough. But why do some come? Is it because of responsibility? Surely not given what was just said
here. It is because the father has
monergistic mercy upon them. And what of
the non-elect? They do not come because
there was no saving purpose in the atonement for them. This is yet another way in which the
atonement is insufficient for their salvation – it is insufficient because it
lacks the purpose of saving them.
That is not an excuse that is valid before God. That is a crime that will be punished with the severest… every bit according to justice. But it is severe justice because it is such criminal activity that you know not the depths of. You sin against God, they are heinous crimes, and that is how scripture deals with it. The fault is laid in the lap of men who refuse to come. (Conway)
Mankind stands guilty before they
ever refuse to come. (Rom 5:12) It is true that man is responsible for his own
damnation, but he is utterly irresponsible where the matter of his eternal
salvation is concerned.
We can be grateful to God that he overcomes the hardness of our heart. And he softens it. And he gives us the ears to hear. (Conway)
And why does he do such
things? “And because ye are sons, God
hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.”
(Gal 4:6) This is yet another way in
which the atonement is insufficient for the salvation of the non-elect. It is insufficient for their salvation
because the provision of crying, Abba, Father is made for those who are sons, not
to those who are not sons, all of which was purchased through the atonement of
Christ – since all spiritual blessings are found “in Christ.” (Ephesians 1:1-3)
Moreover, does God overcome the
hardness of hear and give ears to as a result of the responsibility of
man? “The wind bloweth where it listeth,
and thou hearest the sound thereof but cannot tell whence it commeth or whither
it goeth.” (John 3:8) Clearly not.
The Totally Irresponsible Do NOT Exercise Responsibility
We can thank God that he doesn’t leave us all just to love our sin and go to hell. And the thing is, everybody that does go to hell, they got what they wanted. They love their sin and all God did was leave them to have what they love and nobody’s going to fault God in the end. God left them to have what they wanted. They wanted their sin and God let them have it. (Conway)
This is true, but no totally
irresponsible, totally depraved person ever exercises responsibility to
extricate themselves from the condemnation they deserve. Men are ever and only saved by an act of God
alone – period, end of story.
The Bible Teaches Man's IRRESPONSIBILITY in Eternal Salvation
We need to balance out the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man and in the end how you make it perfectly fit – scripture doesn’t try. (Conway)
Ironically, that’s true too. Scripture doesn’t try to make God’s
sovereignty and Man’s responsibility in our eternal salvation “fit” because any
attempt at reconciling these clearly contradictory notions would be the very
height of folly. The bible doesn’t attempt
to reconcile these two notions because it simply doesn’t teach man’s
responsibility in eternal salvation. If
it did it would be teaching salvation by works, and salvation would be no more
of grace. The bible teaches man’s
irresponsibility in the matter of eternal salvation and in so doing upholds the
notion of utterly monergistic salvation by God alone.
And where scripture is silent, you know what? – there are a lot of people who just think they have to give it an answer. But the thing is there are certain things that scripture does not answer for us. (Conway)
The issue that salvation is by
monergistic grace is abundantly attested to in the scriptures and the notion
that it is the result of Man’s responsibility is explicitly and abundantly
refuted.
And where it doesn’t answer, we don’t need to feel compelled to have the answer. But we can see both sides of this reality. (Conway)
Here is more of the BALANCE that
NeoCals invoke. I must admit, I’m
compelled to have the answer that is found in the word of God – that our
salvation is “not according to our works” (II Timothy 1:9) and “not by works of
righteousness which we have done.” (Titus 3:5) and “by the obedience of one.”
(Romans 5:19) We have the answer,
brother Tim, and the answer is that salvation is utterly monergistic and has
nothing to do with man’s responsibility whatsoever.
Salvation by Covenant Undermines the WMO
And I guarantee you there is not emptiness, in the… look… Jesus Christ wept for sinners. Jesus Christ said, “I say these things that you might be saved. (Conway)
He also said that he would “give
eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.” (John 17:2) Do we believe that Christ accomplished the
giving of that gift to all those named in the covenant of election? If he offered eternal life to any others, he
was certainly doing so outside the mandate given to him by his heavenly
father. The truth is Jesus said a lot of things like, “How can ye
escape the damnation of hell?” (Matthew 23:33) and “Ye are NOT of my sheep” (John 10:26).
The Father is seen extending his hand to a contrary people all day long, bidden to come, come unto me. Who did he say that to? (Conway)
The first statement was made to
Israel, God’s chosen people in the old covenant. The second statement was made to the
“laboring and heavy laden.” In neither
instance is this statement made to all of humanity. It follows that neither of these statements
supports the notion of the well-meant offer of salvation to all of humanity,
because God most certainly did not purpose to save all of humanity (John
10:11), neither did Christ die for all of humanity (John 10:26), neither does
he offer salvation to all of humanity (Matthew 23:33, John 8:44).
The invitations are many, there are a multitude in scripture. I mean, nobody is gonna go to hell, for a lack of the most affectionate pleas. (Conway)
The NeoCals are big on this issue
of “eternal salvation by plea” but it is not taught in the scriptures. While Pastor Tim says that “nobody is gonna
go to hell, for a lack of the most affectionate pleas,” I would rather prefer
that “many will end up in hell for lack of any affectionate atonement on their
behalf.”
God's Love... For a SON
You remember… I dealt with this. I mean how is God portrayed, as the prodigal is coming within sight of his home? The father is portrayed as one who runs to receive the son. We didn’t… that’s not a contrivance of my imagination and Charles Spurgeon’s. That is how God reveals himself. (Conway)
Yes. It is how God reveals his love - for a son! Until one understand the distinction between
sonship (which results from election) and discipleship (which results from
obedience) one will never understand the utterly monergistic nature of our
eternal salvation, nor the synergistic nature of our discipleship.
That's where I have to part
company with the Lordship Salvation camp. If man is dead in trespasses
and in sins (Ephesians 2:1) and regeneration is a passing from death unto life (John
5:24) that precedes the exercise of faith in time (I John 5:1), then man is not
in any way, shape or form, responsible for his eternal salvation. A
salvation that requires the responsibility of man is one that requires too much
to save any of us, offered by a savior who provided too little to get the job
done.
FINALLY
If you find yourself
perplexed by the nonsense doctrine of NeoCalvinism, I want to encourage you by
passing along the truth that there are people who believe in the absolute
sovereignty of God in eternal salvation, who see this as all our hope and who
proclaim that the gospel is liberty to the captives (Isaiah 61:1), not the
possibility of liberty to the responsible.
We invite you to visit the Primitive Baptist Church.
Refreshing to see a Calvinist like you who will freely proclaim the atonement actually accomplishes salvation. Given the implied Arminianism in the 'well-meant offer' it makes you wonder why they so criticize the whole package.
ReplyDelete“Refreshing to… you who will freely proclaim the atonement actually accomplishes salvation.” (DavidC)
DeleteThank you for the kind remarks. The term “gospel” is thrown around quite liberally in Christendom. In virtually every instance, this “gospel” is the offer of a potential salvation for all of humanity contingent upon some manner of response, rather than the proclamation of an accomplished salvation for God’s chosen people accompanied by the assurance that those who believe this message are among them (John 6:47). Such "gospel offers" distort the nature of the gospel message by either implying a saving universality in the atonement (as you state), or ignoring the inconvenient inconsistency - namely that particular redemption makes extending a gospel offer to anyone outside the covenant of salvation an exemplary act of insincerity. The logical dissonance of that latter position is the epicenter of NeoCalvinistic theology.
“Given the implied Arminianism in the 'well-meant offer' it makes you wonder why they so criticize the whole package.” (DavidC)
I agree. In the final mix NeoCalvinism is really no different than Arminianism. Both systems require the “responsibility of man” in order for salvation to transpire. Arminianism is just more forthright about it, IMO.
“…a Calvinist like you…” (DavidC)
I am a Primitive Baptist. We are not Calvinists though we do share some beliefs in common with them. I describe some of the differences between PBs and the popular strains of Calvinism in my article “Why Primitive Baptists are NOT Calvinists” (http://theearstohear.blogspot.com/2013/12/why-primitive-baptists-are-not.html). Those remarks must be understood in light of the almost insurmountable difficulties associated with using the term Calvinism (http://theearstohear.blogspot.com/2013/01/calvinism-is-red-herring.html).
Thanks again for taking the time to comment. May God bless our studies and understanding.
teth
I greatly enjoyed Tim on the Carol Burnet Show in the 1970's.
ReplyDeleteThis seems a real change of direction in his career! ;)
Brother Hugh,
DeleteYou're not the only person who has reached out to me to make a Carol Burnett Show reference in regard to this post. :) Having been raised on that show, it took a great deal of personal resolve to resist the urge to call this blog post "Dorf on Calvinism."
God bless,
teth
This hypercalvinst's article contradicts with what Jesus said. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son for whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." God gave and people respond with faith. Don't add your humanistic imagination into the word of God.
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking a moment to interact with my blog. You make a number of statements that I'd like to provide commentary on:
ReplyDeletePG: This hypercalvinst's article contradicts with what Jesus said. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son for whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
TETH: You make this statement but you provide no logical support from scripture to support ot. Without providing that, you are making unsubstantiated assertions, not reasoning from the scriptures. I'm interested in understanding why you believe this article contradicts the Lord's teaching that he gave a gift, to a people, for a purpose (John 3:16) You might find the following link helpful in defining my position on that important and often misunderstood text of scripture:
http://theearstohear.blogspot.com/2012/06/john-316-assurance-of-salvation-to-gods.html
PG: God gave and people respond with faith.
TETH: Consider the following questions - Is faith the gift of God? Yes. Faith is undeniably the gift of God (Philippians 1:29, Ephesians 2:8-9). Do all men have faith? No. All men have not faith (II Thessalonians 3:2). Once we establish the biblical truth that faith is the gift of God that not all men have, your theology would seem to be on the ropes. Do you believe that those who have not been given faith have the ability to respond in faith? If all men have not faith, and faith is the gift of God, and the response of faith is required for eternal salvation in your system, then it is apparent that salvation is not intended for all of humanity as a matter of logical necessity. Can you defend your position with a logical argument from scripture? I am willing to listen, but I suspect that you will either choose to ignore the issue, or your argument will resort to irrationalism as an ersatz explanation of your fiat "truth." The former would be an indication that your position is not so well-founded as you likely believe, the latter would be proof-positive that NeoCalvinism is a form of Christian irrationalism even as my blog correctly demonstrates. I'm willing to listen, you have the floor.
PG: Don't add your humanistic imagination into the word of God.
TETH: I am extremely transparent with respect to the biblical precepts employed in this analysis, using explicit scriptural references to substantiate those claims. You are at liberty to regard this as "humanistic imagination" if you so choose, but I believe it would be far more profitable to engage with the arguments I've set forth against NeoCalvinism with what you believe to be the scriptural arguments against my position, with the same degree of transparency and reference. This is a golden opportunity for you to demonstrate why you believe my position is "humanistic imagination" for all to see, directly beneath my article. You have my full and undivided attention...
TETH
Funny how this video gets the single one that seems to be preaching out of his own lust/ignorance to bash others that follow scripture. Next time get a Paul Washer's video, or Lawson's, and examine them. Straw man indeed.
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDeleteFirst off, thanks for stopping by and for taking a moment to interact with my blog via the comments section. You make a few comments and I'd like to provide some feedback...
DP57: Funny how this video gets the single one that seems to be preaching out of his own lust/ignorance to bash others that follow scripture.
TETH: I'm not entirely sure what to make of this comment. It seems that you are saying that I have picked out Tim Conway, who you imply is a singular example of a modern Calvinist (NeoCal) preaching out of lust and ignorance, as a means of lashing out at other NeoCals who do not exhibit the Conway's error. This is not my intent and the doctrine that brother Conway promotes is likewise promoted by a host of other "Calvinistic" ministers such as Washer and Lawson. His teaching is not some isolated example that bears no resemblance to other Lordship Salvationists, but is a pretty good example of the doctrine that they all teach with respect to the WMO and the sovereignty/responsibility combination they insist is required for eternal salvation.
DP57: Next time get a Paul Washer's video, or Lawson's, and examine them.
TETH: I have not done a critique of a Paul Washer video, but I have commented on a number of his YouTube videos and I do have a video commentary in the works. As for Lawson, I have done several critiques of his doctrine all of which are available both here on my blog as well as on my YouTube channel. I invite you to check them out. I believe that in so doing you will find that his doctrine and Conway's are incredibly similar, as both of them are disciples of John MacArthur's Lordship Salvation theology.
DP57: Straw man indeed.
TETH: Apart from bringing forth a case in support of that accusation it is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assertion. I am willing to hear you out on the matter, please feel free to share why you believe I have misrepresented either Tim Conway or NeoCalvinism and I will gladly respond.
Thanks again for taking a moment to interact. Your interest in spiritual things is encouraging in this Laodicean age.
May God bless our studies and understanding of His word,
TETH
It seems as Paul said...we look through a dark glass...
ReplyDeleteJesus did pray for His disciples that they would be one as He is with the Father and the Father IN HIM. Yet .... We try to battle things out and want to be the Head instead of Jesus. There are some folks that don't want to debate as that looks like foundation faith shaking moments. I don't buy into Calvinism, neocalvinism or Armenianism. I have been bought by Jesus.
I think we could all learn from the entire Word as it is God breathed and useful for training in righteousness as well as rebuke and correction.
There are some folks that don't like the idea of Lordship as there seems to be a take away from His being a Savior by grace so that we don't work for salvation. Or boast in ourselves... Yet we we're created FOR good works...Not saved by our own works...but By JESUS' work on the cross.
There is a working out your own salvation. (God doesn't want us to hit the gym 24-7 as the war we fight is a spiritual one...can't fight it in the flesh)
The point I'm trying to make is the relationship of God to man....is just that. If it is His desire that none should perish, but that all should come to repentance....and the gospel that saves instead becomes a prechosen select few that go into the narrow gate as the pre chosen many that take the wide path to destruction....where did the free will come? I get that sometimes our will isn't all that freeing. If the Son has set you free....you are free indeed!
God knows the end at the beginning...we don't. It would be a hard thing to have a relationship with any human being that it was their way or the highway with every single matter of the day... And yet we also know that we shouldn't look at God as a tyrant and a control freak..as He is Just and trustworthy and faithful and holy. He does forgive for His own benefit. His forgiveness is crucial and our willingness to let Him lead is crucial for us as we don't want to cause a. Christian to stumble as well as lead a child to sin....or look like a hypocrite. No one likes to be rebuked... This is the issue I have with the prosperity gospel that seems to build up the human in carnal blessings and tell them there is no condemnation in Christ and to skip sanctification all together. There are too many changes in the interpretation of God's word and yet it will not return void. Jesus did say there would be trouble in the world....yet He has overcome it! I pray that we can all come to being more Christ like...as that will help folks not to be too confused as we tend to want to lead....and yet how often do we fail when it isn't Jesus they are following ...but a doctrine of man...
There are a lot of statements made in this response, some of which I agree with. However, having read this several times, I don't understand what the main point of this comment is. Perhaps if you took another pass at clarifying what you're trying to say, I'd be more able to comment.
DeleteThanks,
TETH
Is God one person or 3 people? How many Gods are there?
ReplyDeleteYou kept on talking about words and their definitions, yet I imagine you might struggle to be so rigorous when it comes to the concept of the trinity. Are you sure your view on that isn't "illogical"?
And what about Jesus - fully man or fully God or half and half? Or both fully man and fully God? If the latter, that doesn't sound possible to me based on the definitions of the words.
My point being: just because we cannot understand something fully, or describe something completely, it doesn't mean that it's incorrect. If the Bible says Jesus is fully God and also fully man, I'm happy to accept that. If the Bible says that salvation is by grace through faith, and that faith is a gift of God, but it also calls on us to believe or 'have faith', I'm happy to accept that too.
"The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." (Mark 1:15)
ANONYMOUS: Is God one person or 3 people?
DeleteTETH: There is one God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
ANONYMOUS: How many Gods are there?
TETH: There is one God who exists in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
ANONYMOUS: You kept on talking about words and their definitions, yet I imagine you might struggle to be so rigorous when it comes to the concept of the trinity.
TETH: No struggle. Three things of one class can be one thing of another class. An example of that principle in effect is that I am one man but I also have three roles: father, son, and husband. While this example is not perfectly analogous to the Trinity, it nevertheless demonstrates the class distinction by which the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity avoids contradiction.
ANONYMOUS: Are you sure your view on that isn't "illogical"?
TETH: Yes. I’m sure. One thing of one class (GOD) can be three things of another class (PERSONS) without logical contradiction. That concept may be difficult for us to wrap our minds around, but it is not logically contradictory.
ANONYMOUS: And what about Jesus - fully man or fully God or half and half? Or both fully man and fully God? If the latter, that doesn't sound possible to me based on the definitions of the words.
TETH: The bible never makes the statement that God was “fully God and fully man,” though I believe the concept that most intent by that language is found in the bible. Jesus was the Word made flesh. We have absolutely no logical reason to oppose this concept. The fact that it is a unique and therefore highly unusual occurrence does not render it logically impossible.
ANONYMOUS: My point being: just because we cannot understand something fully, or describe something completely, it doesn't mean that it's incorrect.
TETH: I agree with that statement. My objection to Conway’s theology is not based on the idea that “just because we cannot understand something fully, that it is therefore incorrect.” Rather, my objection is that bald logical contradictions are not the rightly divided truth of the word of God, because the scripture is non-contradictory (John 10:35). Conway’s theology is laden with many contradictions. It follows that it is NOT the rightly divided truth of scripture on many fronts.
ANONYMOUS: If the Bible says Jesus is fully God and also fully man, I'm happy to accept that.
TETH: The bible never says “Jesus is fully God and also fully man” though we hear many evangelical pastors parroting that language. The bible says “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us” (John 1:14a). I’m happy to accept that truth even as I’m certain you are. I’m also happy to assert that there is no logical contradiction in that statement. While we do not have a comprehensive explanation of the mechanics whereby the incarnation came to pass, it is nevertheless a logically consistent truth.
ANONYMOUS: If the Bible says that salvation is by grace through faith, and that faith is a gift of God, but it also calls on us to believe or 'have faith', I'm happy to accept that too.
TETH: I’m happy to accept all of that as well. None of those things are contradictory, provided they are rightly divided and properly understood.
ANONYMOUS: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." (Mark 1:15)
TETH: Do you think that because I disagree with Tim Conway’s theology on several points that I therefore have not repented and have not believed the gospel?
TETH: Perhaps more to the point, I'd be interested in knowing:
1. Do you think that some aspects of the Christian faith are illogical?
2. If logic fails, how do you determine when logical can and cannot be employed in understanding the word of God?
3. Is language based on logic or independent of logic?
TETH: I look forward to further discussion of those questions
God bless,
TETH
Thanks for your quick and thoughtful reply!
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting that when discussing the trinity you were happy to use the concept of 'persons' which isn't how Scripture directly describes God. Of course, we can infer the idea that God is a person from what the Scriptures say. But when discussing the incarnation you would only stick to what the Scripture explicitly says, rather than making any inferences from it (such as Jesus being both fully man and fully God).
I don't think that because you disagree with Tim Conway's theology in part that you have therefore not repented or believed the gospel. That quote at the end was intended to be an example of the call on everyone to "believe in the gospel" as recorded in the Scriptures (sorry that it wasn't clear, I should have linked it with my final sentence).
In answer to your questions:
1. I don't know if I'd say aspects of the Christian faith are illogical or not, but I'd definitely say that aspects of God are beyond our complete understanding right now. And because of that, some things could appear illogical. Like saying that Jesus and the Father are one, but also saying they are distinct persons with distinct wills. Or saying that Jesus is both fully God and fully human, which I believe.
2. It's not a case of stopping employing logic in understanding God's word. We always employ logic in understanding God's word. We may not be able to logically understand how the results of that fit together though, because I'm not sure we can wrap our minds around God. But just because I don't understand how Jesus can logically be both fully man and fully God, it doesn't mean I'm going to ignore what the Bible teaches or change it to make it meet my own criterion of logic.
3. I don't know, I've never thought about it.
TETH ANSWER 101
DeleteANONYMOUS: Thanks for your quick and thoughtful reply!
TETH: You’re welcome. It’s my pleasure.
ANONYMOUS: I found it interesting that when discussing the trinity you were happy to use the concept of 'persons' which isn't how Scripture directly describes God. Of course, we can infer the idea that God is a person from what the Scriptures say. But when discussing the incarnation you would only stick to what the Scripture explicitly says, rather than making any inferences from it (such as Jesus being both fully man and fully God).
TETH: I believe that is because if one is going to enter into the three-in-one-ness of the Trinity, referring to different classes (God vs Role) serves to make the matter more clear while remaining non-contradictory. In the case of the incarnation, I believe that using terms like “fully” (and particularly “100% as I’ve heard some say) tends to cloud the issue by creating a rhetorical contradiction (which is often mistaken as a logical contradiction) when no logical contradiction exists. So I believe it is helpful to invoke extra-biblical language in the service of clarifying the point, but generally resist the urge to do so, noting that extra-biblical terminology is prone to an unintended coloring of the narrative that makes it less clear rather than more. As a general rule, I like to stay pretty close to the bible’s testimony and reserve extra-biblical language for only occasional use. I don’t know if that is explanation is sufficient to satisfy your curiosity on the matter, but it is a sincere statement of my approach.
ANONYMOUS: I don't think that because you disagree with Tim Conway's theology in part that you have therefore not repented or believed the gospel. That quote at the end was intended to be an example of the call on everyone to "believe in the gospel" as recorded in the Scriptures (sorry that it wasn't clear, I should have linked it with my final sentence).
TETH: I understand what you intended now and it makes sense to me. Thanks for clarifying.
TETH ANSWER 102
DeleteANONYMOUS: In answer to your questions: 1. I don't know if I'd say aspects of the Christian faith are illogical or not, but I'd definitely say that aspects of God are beyond our complete understanding right now.
TETH: I don’t believe that there are any Christians who would insist that every aspect of God is either revealed or comprehensible to us as fallen creatures. I certainly don’t believe that every aspect of God is completely understandable to us right now. More to the point is the matter of whether or not God’s revelation of truth to us is logical and comprehensible to us now. The question really revolves more around the logical nature and perspicuity of scripture. Is the bible a logically consistent revelation of truth to us that can be reasoned from (Acts 17:2) and rightly divided (II Timothy 2:15)? THAT is really the question we’re dealing with. I the answer is “no” – then we have no means of assessing when logic can and cannot be employed and we are left with sheer mysticism, not biblical Christianity. If the answer is “yes”, then the logical inconsistencies we find in Christian theology are certainly wrong. Clearly, I believe that the answer is “yes” – the bible IS logically consistent, can be reasoned from, and rightly divided. I accept that truth as well as the unavoidable logical consequences of that observation in how we handle scripture and assess the theology of others. What say you?
ANONYMOUS: And because of that, some things could appear illogical. Like saying that Jesus and the Father are one, but also saying they are distinct persons with distinct wills.
TETH: The Father and Jesus do not have distinct wills. Jesus Christ was always about doing His Father’s will. (John 5:30) There is no logical inconsistency here.
ANONYMOUS: Or saying that Jesus is both fully God and fully human, which I believe.
TETH: I would again state that the bible never makes that “fully God, fully human” statement. I would prefer to say, “The word became flesh and dwelt among us.” (John 1:14a).
ANONYMOUS: 2. It's not a case of stopping employing logic in understanding God's word. We always employ logic in understanding God's word. We may not be able to logically understand how the results of that fit together though, because I'm not sure we can wrap our minds around God.
TETH: Again, the question does not revolve around “God” but around his revelation to us. That is an enormously important distinction. God is bigger and more complex than the bible, and I have no problem affirming that our finite minds are incapable of fully understanding all that he is. But the question really revolves around – Is the word of God perspicuous, reasonable, and can it be rightly divided? I submit that if the bible is not a logically reconcilable revelation to us (or as Jesus put it, “The scripture cannot be broken”- John 10:35), then it is absolutely no revelation to us at all, because if logic ultimately fails us in interpreting the bible’s testimony, you have no way of knowing where logic fails. Any case you would set forth for where logic fails in interpreting the scriptures would have to be based upon a logical argument, which in turn is potentially self-contradictory in a world where logic admittedly fails us in some instances. I realize this is probably not something that you have given much consideration, but it is a very important observation if we are to be committed to the sound notion that the word of God is a non-contradictory, logical, perspicuous revelation of truth to us.
TETH ANSWER 103
DeleteTHOMAS: But just because I don't understand how Jesus can logically be both fully man and fully God, it doesn't mean I'm going to ignore what the Bible teaches or change it to make it meet my own criterion of logic.
TETH: I would turn that around and ask – On what logical basis would you assert that God cannot take on flesh and be born of a virgin? I think you are asserting that this is illogical, but you have no real logical basis for making that assertion. I’ll admit that the arrangement is unusual – indeed it is utterly unique – but that by no means establishes that it is an illogical arrangement at all. The virgin birth might be said by some to be “illogical” but this is only true if one insists upon the rules of pure-naturalism, wherein the only way to have a child is by natural means. But the presupposition of pure-naturalism is a form of begging the question in a scenario where the means whereby the virgin birth came to pass was admittedly SUPERNATURAL per the testimony of the bible. So, I suspect that if you gave the matter a little more thought, you’d find that you are calling things that are contrary to what we regard as “nature” illogical, when in reality they are simply “il-natural” and the bible’s testimony speaks of a broader domain of events, capabilities, and possibilities beyond the limited domain of nature. The bible speaks of the supernatural and this opens up the realm of logical possibilities that are contrary to or beyond the scope of natural observation or possibility.
ANONYMOUS: 3. I don't know, I've never thought about [whether language is based on logic or independent of it].
TETH: I appreciate your candor. Language is indisputably based on logic. Without logic one has no access to the meaning imparted by language. Letters logically stand for certain sounds. They are assembled into words that have meaning. These are strung together into sentences and paragraphs all of which are logical constructs that come together to form meaning. All of this must be assessed via logic. So the bottom line is that if you throw logic under the bus, you’ve thrown the bible under the bus, because without logic you don’t have language, and without language you don’t have any revelation from God in the scriptures.
TETH: So, I believe it is imperative that we affirm that the word of God is non-contradictory, and if we find contradictions in our theological assertions, we should redouble our efforts to remove error and come to a non-contradictory position.
May God bless our studies and understanding of his word,
TETH
Thanks, you satisfied my curiosity!
ReplyDeleteAnd yes I believe the Bible can be reasoned from and correctly handled. And it can also be made to say whatever the reader wants it to say when it is incorrectly handled.
Also, you said: "The Father and Jesus do not have distinct wills. Jesus Christ was always about doing His Father’s will. (John 5:30) There is no logical inconsistency here."
This is a bit of a side issue really, but in Mark 14:36 Jesus says "Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will" so it seems to me that he does indeed have his own will (that the cup be removed), but ultimately chooses to submit his to the Father's will, even if it's that the cup is not removed.
Finally, I'm not really sure where we even disagree at this point. I think it's quite subtle. Do you think that it is meaningless to tell people the gospel? Do you think it's empty to tell people to believe in Jesus? And how would you answer someone who asked you "what must I do to be saved?"?
TETH ANSWER 201
DeleteANONYMOUS: Thanks, you satisfied my curiosity!
TETH: I suppose that’s good. I’ve found that curiosity has a way of showing-up time and again, especially for the curious.
ANONYMOUS: And yes I believe the Bible can be reasoned from and correctly handled. And it can also be made to say whatever the reader wants it to say when it is incorrectly handled.
TETH: Yes. I agree. As a result we should be committed interpreting the scriptures in a way that is logically consistent, and also willing to redouble our efforts when some aspect of our theology is demonstrably self-contradictory, rather than opting to throw logic under the bus so we can hold on to bad doctrinal conclusions.
ANONYMOUS: Also, you said: "The Father and Jesus do not have distinct wills. Jesus Christ was always about doing His Father’s will. (John 5:30) There is no logical inconsistency here."
TETH: Yes. I stand by that statement. You will find no instance in the life of Christ where his actions were not in keeping with his father’s will.
ANONYMOUS: This is a bit of a side issue really, but in Mark 14:36 Jesus says "Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will" so it seems to me that he does indeed have his own will (that the cup be removed), but ultimately chooses to submit his to the Father's will, even if it's that the cup is not removed.
TETH: I appreciate and agree with your admission that this is a bit of a side issue, but I’ll offer a couple of things for your consideration.
1. I don’t believe that Christ regarding being forsaken by his Father as a dreadful thing and expressing that in the form of musing “If there’s another way to accomplish our intended objective, could we take that way instead?” (paraphrasing) as proof that it was Christ’s WILL to disobey his father. His actions prove what is will was in the matter and his actions were consistent with the Father’s will.
2. While the bible does not tell us that God the Father had the same thought – namely, that this is a dreadful and painful situation and that if there was some other way, that way would be preferable – we can’t know for certain that the Father himself did not share this sentiment. Of course, that is pure speculation, and we know that there was no other way to accomplish the salvation of God’s people and that both Jesus and his heavenly Father were both of the same will in the planning and commission of the atonement.
TETH ANSWER 202
DeleteANONYMOUS: Finally, I'm not really sure where we even disagree at this point.
TETH: Me either. Is there some particular statement I made in my analysis of Tim Conway’s theology with which you take issue? I find that it’s easier to discuss my analysis if you take examples of things that I’ve actually said and point out why you think those things are in error, rather than making more generalized assessments. I’m willing to discuss anything I said that you believe is wrong. Perhaps if given a chance to clarify, we might find even more common ground.
ANONYMOUS: I think it's quite subtle.
TETH: Probably. If it even exists at all.
ANONYMOUS: Do you think that it is meaningless to tell people the gospel?
TETH: No. What have I said that would give you that idea? The main video on my YouTube page for visitors is entitled “What Is The Gospel?” and is intended to provide a clear statement of gospel mechanics for the curious.
ANONYMOUS: Do you think it's empty to tell people to believe in Jesus?
TETH: No. People should believe in Jesus. He is truth. But the gospel is not saying, “Jesus died for you” or “I love you and have a wonderful plan for your life.” The gospel declares that Jesus Christ has saved his people from their sins. It speaks of his death, burial, and resurrection from the dead to this end. It assures those who believe this testimony that they are among his sheep, and admonishes them to walk in obedient discipleship. This is an important distinction that is rarely understood among Christians, and that to their detriment.
Should We Say “Jesus Died for You” When Presenting the Gospel?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7fFy_Gf4to
Four Spiritual Laws and Four Biblical Observations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8bEuE6rSug
ANONYMOUS: And how would you answer someone who asked you "what must I do to be saved?"?
TETH: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.” (Acts 16:31) That is the biblical answer. I would point out in the context of our discussion, however, that this statement does not mean or imply that “salvation is available to all of humanity” but rather affirms that faith is a fruit of the indwelling Holy Spirit and is therefore a proof of regeneration which makes manifest that someone is a child of God and an heir of eternal salvation by grace.
God bless,
TETH
Dear Teth, thanks be to God that The Truth can be revealed to any man, educated or not. and that if we knew Christ according to flesh it's not of any value anymore, if we are new creation in Christ. It seems to me your intellect has taken over you understanding. You said in previous post: I agree. As a result we should be committed interpreting the scriptures in a way that is logically consistent,:2 Peter states: no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.Your logic tells me that God is not fair,dealing with mankind, but His Word tell me : who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.And re: Gospel is not an offer, I agree that this is not a right word but His word says in Book of Rev.22 And let him that is athirst come; and whosoever will, let him take the Water of Life freely.I am not a follower of Calvin or Washer or any modern preachers. I believe that The Truth will set us free , not men. If believing in Christ is to have relationship with Him, it takes both sides to take part, Christ has done His , we need to trust Him. Thank you and God bless you. Mark
DeleteTETH ANSWER 301
DeleteANONYMOUS: Thanks be to God that The Truth can be revealed to any man, educated or not, and that if we knew Christ according to flesh, it's not of any value anymore, if we are new creation in Christ.
TETH: I would put it this way. God reveals himself to a people he chose to have mercy upon (Exodus 33:19, Romans 9:13-16) not based on anything that that they have done or based on any attribute found in them at all, be it intelligence, wealth, popularity, power or lack of any such thing. Those chosen people are brought to spiritual life at some time between conception and death by the immediate power of God in regeneration whereby they pass from death in trespasses and sins to life in Christ by divine fiat (John 5:25).
ANONYMOUS: It seems to me your intellect has taken over your understanding.
TETH: If rightly dividing the word of God in a non-contradictory fashion through study and comparing spiritual things with spiritual is wrong, then I am certainly in error (II Timothy 2:15, I Corinthians 2:13). This is the biblical model given to us in the word of God. It is wrong to marginalize this repeatedly taught precept as merely “intellectual.” Most of what I have explained to you regarding the scripture is not difficult to understand, it is actually quite simple, but it does require that someone set aside the short-sighted “plain meaningism” that many zealous disciples use to interpret the scriptures and engage in a more serious approach to understanding the bible. Not everything in the bible is clearly stated or easy to understand. Peter affirms this in his second epistle, along with the devastating consequences that result from those who mishandle the word of God: “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” (II Peter 3:16) For more on the false interpretive approach I call “plain meaningism” – you might find these videos helpful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpiZd_eftao&list=PL3D7C3DC06A31EDC7
ANONYMOUS: You said in previous post: “I agree. As a result we should be committed interpreting the scriptures in a way that is logically consistent.” 2 Peter states: “no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.”
TETH: Yes. Those statements are both correct. You’ll find that the “private interpretations” that Peter has in view are all logically inconsistent with the word of God. This is why the Lord Jesus Christ could upbraid men for setting forth contradictory interpretations of the word of God, saying, “The scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35) Stated another way, a logically consistent interpretation of God’s word is one that is logically consistent with the author’s intent. IT is therefore NOT a private interpretation of the word of God, but an accurate rendering of the author’s meaning – it is how one rightly divides and properly handles the word of God.
TETH ANSWER 302
DeleteANONYMOUS: Your logic tells me that God is not fair, dealing with mankind, but His Word tells me: “who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth”.
TETH: God himself says that he will have mercy on whom HE WILL have mercy (Exodus 33:19, Romans 9:13-16). You imply that I Timothy 2:4 means that God desire the salvation of all of humanity. But the bible also says, “But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.” (Psalm 115:3) If God does as he pleases (as he desires), and he does not save all men (Matthew 25:41), then it is logically unavoidable that God does NOT desire the salvation of all men, else they would ALL be eternally saved. It follows that I Timothy 2:4 is not speaking of “all without exception” but “all without distinction.” It is speaking of “all sorts of men” as is indicated by the context of that scripture, which makes a class distinction between “kings and all who are in authority” who were largely hostile to the Christians who were largely “not kings or in authority.” Paul is saying, “Look, just because some person in authority is hostile to Christianity does not mean that you know for certain that God will not have mercy upon them. Look at me. I was an authoritative figure in the Jewish religion who was utterly hostile to the Christian faith, but God saw fit to save me.” In essence he is warning Christians against their carnal tendency toward judgmentalism, even as Jesus Christ taught (Matthew 7:1-5). THAT is right division. It takes the fuller testimony of scripture and reconciles those statements so that they do not contradict one another rather than relying on decontextualized sound bites which are often highly misleading.
ANONYMOUS: Regarding the Gospel is not an offer, I agree that this is not a right word
TETH: That is correct. The gospel is NOT an offer of eternal life contingent upon one’s response. The gospel is the declaration of the finished work of Christ on behalf of his people who are identified by their belief of this testimony.
TETH ANSWER 303
DeleteANONYMOUS: but His word says in Book of Rev.22 “And let him that is athirst come; and whosoever will, let him take the Water of Life freely.”
TETH: Two observations:
1. That is NOT an offer to acquire eternal salvation. How do we know this? Because one must be thirsty and willing in order to partake. Those who are thirsty and willing are already born again, else they would have no interest in spiritual things and would regard them as foolishness (Romans 3:10-18, I Corinthians 2:14). It is impossible to offer eternal salvation to those who already possess it. However, it is possible to invite them into fellowship with God through obedient discipleship. That is the purpose of the Lord’s New Testament church and what gospel ministers are to promote.
2. That is NOT a universal offer. We know this because natural men (unregenerate men) are not willing and thirsty for spiritual truth (Psalm 10:4).
TETH: It follows that the Lord is addressing HIS SHEEP in this passage, encouraging them to enter into a life of obedient discipleship and close fellowship with their savior and to allow his precepts to shepherd their lives in the path of righteousness. I believe that any sober view of our Christian brothers and sisters around us reveals that there is a great variance of how disciples perform with respect to their diligence regarding the Lord’s command. Wouldn’t you agree?
ANONYMOUS: I am not a follower of Calvin or Washer or any modern preachers.
TETH: Neither should we be followers of men, but there are men in this world who are preaching the truth in a way that is much more consistent with God’s word than Calvin or Washer. In my experience, most of them are found among the Primitive Baptists. The proper model for a disciple is to receive the word with all readiness of mind, but to also search the scriptures daily to see if these things are so (Acts 17:11). That exercise will require that you study the word of God, rather than denigrating that noble behavior as merely “intellectual.” Biblical study is part of the Christian disciple’s life that is both commanded and commended in scripture.
TETH ANSWER 304
DeleteANONYMOUS: I believe that The Truth will set us free, not men.
TETH: Sure. What “truth” does the Lord have in view when he makes that statement? (John 8:32) Is he talking about the truth of the gospel mechanics of how Jesus Christ eternally saved his people and being “set free” in the sense of eternally saved? Or is he speaking of the truth of following the Lord in obedient discipleship and the benefits that this will bring into your life in the here and now? (v31)
TETH: John 8:32 is often quoted, and almost always misused and wrestled out of context to address the matter of one’s eternal salvation. Jesus is not talking about how one is eternally saved, he’s talking about how the eternally saved can be “set free” from the practice and consequences of sin by following him in obedient discipleship (v31). That is an important lesson – one that is too often overlooked by the interpretations of that passage that arise from “plain meaningism.”
ANONYMOUS: If believing in Christ is to have relationship with Him, it takes both sides to take part, Christ has done His, we need to trust Him.
TETH: First off, believing in Christ is evidence of a preexisting relationship, not a requirement for obtaining a relationship with Christ. Consider the relationship between father and son. That relationship is utterly beholden to the actions of the father, not the son. The son does not do anything to institute the father/son relationship. This relationship exists because of the father’s actions and is conferred upon the son independent of his will or actions. So, it is with the spiritual father/son relationship. We do not do anything to become sons of God. God does something to make us sons of God.
TETH: That being said, the matter of belief affects our FELLOWSHIP with God, not our RELATIONSHIP to God. You can believe that your father is your father, or not believe that your father is your father, but this does not alter the RELATIONSHIP because your father IS your father, irrespective of whether you believe this or not. Your belief of the matter simply has NOTHING to do with it. But believing, trusting, and obeying your father AS your father radically affects your FELLOWSHIP with him. Sons who obey and love their fathers experience more of their father’s blessing and FELLOWSHIP, whereas those who rebel and disobey find that FELLOWSHIP strained and bring upon themselves the father’s disciplinary rod.
TETH: Let me encourage you to continue your study of God’s word. Whether you ever agree with me on all things theological, I cannot say, but I am certain that it will be enormously profitable to your relationship with God during your sojourn here below.
May God bless our studies and right division of his word,
TETH
Teth,thank you for your replay.In my writing I did not attempt to denigrate you or anyone. we strive for The Truth .We are ministers not of the letter, but of the Spirit. for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life. God's Truth cannot be splintered into many divisions.To study God;s Word is one thing, to have it revealed to us by The Holy Spirit is another, as John says :He will guide you into all truth.I have learned to wait upon The Lord for guidance.Still seeking. Some of us would like to keep The Lord captive according to our thinking. If He is omnipotent He does as He pleases . In the last days Lord God is speaking to us, believers and non-believers through His Son,He is warning and pleading with us, mankind to turn to Him , as it's written in Rev.22 and many other places like Ezekiel.ch33v11 . You have written :Because one must be thirsty and willing in order to partake. Those who are thirsty and willing are already born again:Sounds like you are taking away chance to repent for those who are not thirsty now.Did God wait for you to repent?. all these sinners did not repent yet, or never will, but Lord God is waiting.Obviously God knows who will or who will not receive free gift of life . There is a verse that I hope will solve our differences, it's in Epistle to Hebrews ch.4v3. I'll leave it with you.For me, if Calvin's election teaching is right, than the Universe is controlled by master programmer, and there is no free will.He rested from all His work, but our lives are not predetermined, example of Israel. I can see free will in animals and men alike. My Father in Heaven is full of grace and lovingkindness to Adam kind. And according to me, I see New Testament as an instructions for believers and non-believers on what to do in order to receive eternal life.Thank you. God bless your life
ReplyDeleteTETH ANSWER 401
DeleteANONYMOUS: Thank you for your replay.
TETH: You’re welcome. I enjoy discussing spiritual matters with those who are interested in them. Generally speaking, I find too little interest in spiritual discussion among people in my day to day experience. So, every instance of it is encouraging to me.
ANONYOUS: In my writing, I did not attempt to denigrate you or anyone. We strive for The Truth.
TETH: I did not regard your comments as denigrating, but as an honest expression of a difference of opinion.
ANONYMOUS: We are ministers not of the letter, but of the Spirit. “For the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life.” (II Corinthians 3:6) God's Truth cannot be splintered into many divisions.
TETH: If by “splintered into many divisions” you intend that God’s word cannot be interpreted in a way that creates contradictions (splinters) that cannot be reconciled with one another, then I agree. If, on the other hand, you mean that understanding God’s truth does not require logical, right division by context close attention to word definitions, in order to ensure that scriptures harmonize with one another, then I disagree. The bible explicitly teaches us that this is required to properly handle the word of God (II Timothy 2:15).
ANONYMOUS: To study God’s Word is one thing, to have it revealed to us by The Holy Spirit is another, as John says, “He will guide you into all truth.” I have learned to wait upon The Lord for guidance. Still seeking.
TETH: This statement sets up a false dichotomy which seems to set logic and study at odds with the Spirit’s guidance in spiritual matters. There is absolutely NO REASON for these items to be set against each other. Study and logic is most certainly the primary mechanism whereby a child of God comes to understand the scriptures. I believe the false dichotomy you suggest here is potentially very dangerous to a disciple of Christ if it is taken to its logical conclusion – which is really “It doesn’t matter that my ‘spiritual’ teachings are totally contradictory with one another, because ‘the spirit has revealed’ these things directly to me.” I’ll state this very plainly: ANYONE who is teaching contradictory nonsense is NOT teaching something the spirit of God revealed to them. They’re just insisting that what they teach is true, “Because I said so,” and then spackling over their illogical assertions with a liberal dab of “the Spirit revealed this to me” and a false piety that refused to look at how their assertions directly contradict the word of God. The bible says we are to “Try the spirits, whether they are of God” (I John 4:1) because not everything revealed to someone “by the Spirit” has come from the Spirit of God, and the main guardrail we have against departing from the truth is found in reconciling our claims with the word of God. This is what is meant by “trying the spirits” and logical reconciliation with the word of God is an absolute requirement for knowing that it is the Spirit of God leading us into all truth, and not the spirit of error leading us astray from the truth. I offer that for your sincere consideration.
TETH ANSWER 402
DeleteANONYMOUS: Some of us would like to keep The Lord captive according to our thinking. If He is omnipotent, He does as He pleases.
TETH: My position does not “keep the Lord captive according to [my] thinking.” Rather, it is keeping the Lord consistent with his word, and what he has revealed about himself to us. The word of God reveals GOD’S THINKING about things to us. And God does not contradict himself.
ANONYMOUS: In the last days, Lord God is speaking to us, believers and non-believers through His Son.
TETH: No. He is speaking to his elect (us) by His Son.
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto US by his Son” (Hebrews 1:1)
TETH: The book of Hebrews requires a little digging to understand who is referred to by the pronoun “us” in that passage. I won’t belabor that point here because it is explained in more detail in my article entitled Was Every Man Given to Jesus?
https://theearstohear.blogspot.com/2016/01/was-every-man-given-to-jesus.html
ANONYMOUS: He is warning and pleading with us (mankind) to turn to Him, as it's written in Rev.22 and many other places like Ezekiel.ch33v11.
TETH: Let’s look at that passage in Revelation:
“And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let HIM THAT IS ATHIRST come. And WHOSOEVER WILL, let him take the water of life freely.” (Revelation 22:17)
TETH: This is usually the text that folks raise as an example of Christ “pleading with mankind to turn to Him.” But note the words I’ve capitalized in that text, all of which qualify the Lord’s “invitation.” Who are those invited to come? “Him that is athirst” and “whosoever will.” It is evident to any reasonable observation that those who are thirsty for spiritual things and willing to follow Christ is a subset of humanity, not all of humanity. And so, to insist that this is all of mankind turns a blind eye to the text.
TETH: The Ezekiel 33:11 passage is explained in my article on a parallel text entitled Exercises in Right Division: Ezekiel 16:23. I invite you to give that a listen.
https://theearstohear.blogspot.com/2014/10/exercises-in-right-division-ezekiel-1823.html
ANONYMOUS: You have written, “Because one must be thirsty and willing in order to partake. Those who are thirsty and willing are already born again.”
TETH: That is absolutely correct based on the abject depravity of man in his natural, fallen state (Romans 3:10-18, Psalm 10:4).
TETH ANSWER 403
DeleteANONYMOUS: Sounds like you are taking away chance to repent for those who are not thirsty now.
TETH: I’m not taking anything away from anyone. It is the Lord himself who addressed his “invitation” in Revelation 22:17. I’m simply paying attention to his words, and pointing out that the “thirsty” and “willing” is a subset of humanity, not all of humanity. That is an indisputable fact. It follows that if you are offended by the limiting language in that passage, you are offended by something the Lord said, not anything that I’ve said.
ANONYMOUS: Did God wait for you to repent?
TETH: Yes, and in so doing he was evidently waiting for one of his elect, not for all of humanity to repent, even as he promised, he “is longsuffering to us-ward.” (II Peter 3:9).
ANONYMOUS: All these sinners did not repent yet, or never will, but Lord God is waiting.
TETH: He’s waiting for “us-ward” which designs God’s elect family, not all of humanity. What’s more if repentance was a matter of our choosing then it is a matter of the will, and God excludes the will as having any participatory role in eternal salvation in no uncertain terms (John 1:13, Romans 9:16). This is the sort of logical reconciliation (right division) that I believe is missing from your interpretation of scripture. To suggest that “the Spirit has revealed this to me” when it evidently contradicts the aforementioned, biblical prohibition of the will in salvation, a violation of right division (II Timothy 2:15), a violation of the precept that the scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35), and a violation of the bible’s insistence that we must try the spirits, whether they be of God (I John 4:1). To put it bluntly: when people say “the spirit revealed this to me” when “this” is so evidently contrary to scripture, proves that “this” is not a revelation from God at all.
ANONYMOUS: Obviously, God knows who will or who will not receive free gift of life. There is a verse that I hope will solve our differences, it's in Epistle to Hebrews ch.4v3. I'll leave it with you.
TETH: Let’s take a look…
“For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.” (Hebrews 4:3)
TETH: This verse simply states that those who have believed enter into rest. It does not state that God is waiting for all of humanity to enter into rest, nor does it affirm that all of humanity has the capacity to enter into rest.
TETH ANSWER 404
DeleteANONYMOUS: For me, if Calvin's election teaching is right, then the Universe is controlled by master programmer, and there is no free will.
TETH: That may well be true if “Calvin’s election teaching is right.” But it is only a very coarse manner of thinking that lumps every affirmation of the biblical doctrine of election in with Calvin’s teaching. Nowhere in my discussion with you have I made any reference to Calvin’s teaching at all, but have directly referenced the bible to sustain my points. I believe that Calvin’s take on election, and more particularly predestination, is problematic on a number of fronts, and that there is a much more nuanced way to handle the undeniable doctrine of election taught in the bible. Calvin’s take on election and predestination is devoid of that proper nuance and is problematic for that reason, among other reasons.
TETH: A proper handling of predestination recognizes that there is a distinction in God’s plan between things God had done and things God has longsuffered to come to pass. In other words, God’s decrees involve “I will do” as well as “I will permit others to do” coupled with full knowledge of all things done. With this nuance in place, one is able to affirm the notions of predestination, foreknowledge, omniscience, and the free-will of man without logical contradiction. I agree that Calvin’s take essentially eliminates the notion of free-will in favor of absolutism or hard-determinism, wherein God is the direct immediate cause of all things, and therefore the author of sin. In contrast, the open theist insists upon man as having free will in such a way that God is essentially not in control, but is leaving things to chance, or to the will of the mutable creature, and letting them play out. The truth is not found in either of those camps, but in a third alternative that is much more cautious in how it handles rightly dividing the matter of divine decrees, the sovereignty of God, the permissive will of God, the causation of sin, and the relationship between God and evil. In my experience, the Primitive Baptists alone handle this matter with the nuance required to reconcile all of those considerations in a way that is logically and scripturally consistent.
ANONYMOUS: He rested from all His work, but our lives are not predetermined, example of Israel.
TETH: That depends entirely on what one means by “predetermined.” If by “predetermined” you mean, “God has actively, directly, and causatively forced every behavior ever exhibited among his creation as a matter of divine decree such that it is unalterably fixed” then I completely agree, God has not predetermined all of our lives in THAT way. If, on the other hand, by “predetermined” you mean that “God knows precisely how the events of history will play out and the actual events of history will not deviate one wit from his knowledge thereof” the I would insist that the events of our lives most certainly ARE predetermined in THAT way. To suggest otherwise would be to violate God’s omniscience.
TETH ANSWER 405
DeleteANONYMOUS: I can see free will in animals and men alike.
TETH: The Primitive Baptist position does not deny the free will of man. It simply insists that man’s will, whether free or otherwise, plays no participatory role in the eternal salvation of men (John 1:13, Romans 9:16).
ANONYMOUS: My Father in Heaven is full of grace and lovingkindness to Adam kind.
TETH: Apparently not for ALL of “Adam kind” because he consigns some of them to the lake of fire under his eternally abiding wrath (Matthew 25:41).
ANONYMOUS: And according to me, I see the New Testament as an instructions for believers and non-believers on what to do in order to receive eternal life.
TETH: I say this with all gravity: That is an abject misrepresentation of the purpose of the New Testament. Men don’t do anything to become born. Neither do they do anything to become born again (John 3:3-8). God grants eternal life to his covenant people independent of their will (Galatians 4:6, Ephesians 2:1) by direct, immediate, divine fiat (John 5:25). The New Testament is written to those who have the ears to hear so that they may follow Christ as their reasonable service to God (Romans 12:1).
ANONYMOUS: Thank you. God bless your life.
Search the scriptures to see if these things are so, (Acts 17:11)
TETH
Teth, you have lied about me when you wrote " To suggest that “the Spirit has revealed this to me” . I have written "I have learned to wait upon The Lord for guidance. Still seeking". You want to win so much, I tell you it's yours. !Cor 2v14 states" But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." Natural stands for psuchikos, soul, and it's where mind is situated, and mind needs to be renewed continually.Even a child of God can use mind and it's derivatives as logic and reason and if one does so will reap Rm.8v6"For to be carnally minded is death" Logic comes from Greek philosophers, and should stay there, as Apostle Paul wrote "And my speech and my preaching were not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,". So it is written"and to know the love of Christ, which surpasseth knowledge". If one wants to know the Heart of Our Father, he should turn his pneumatikos, new creation wholeheartedly and ask for the living water and Our Father, who is good Father will give.He that believeth in Me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.”Not out of someones mind but belly.And Christ Himself says"The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, because the Lord hath anointed Me to preach good tidings unto the meek. He hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound,". So child of God should seek anointing and leadership of Holy Spirit in order to do God's service to people. You will probably ignore it or your mind already has understanding of these verses, but I recommend them for you.
ReplyDelete1 Heb2v9 that He by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
2 1John 2v2 And He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
3Rom5v18 Therefore as by the offense of one, judgment to condemnation came upon all men, even so by the righteousness of One, the free gift unto justification of life came upon all men.
4Acts10v43 To Him all the prophets bear witness, that through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins.
5John1v29 The next day John saw Jesus coming unto him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world!
It seems to me that you are a minister of the letter and you use the letter very skillfully, but to know love of Christ is beyond knowledge, to know the Heart of God is the best.
TETH ANSWER 501
DeleteANONYMOUS: You have lied about me when you wrote, "To suggest that ‘the Spirit has revealed this to me.’”
TETH: No. I have not lied about you. I believed that to be what you were suggesting in your response. Indeed, if you believe some “thing”, such as in this conversation when you suggest that God is waiting for people to repent, then either that is something that you believe the Lord has revealed to you, or it is something you believe in spite of the fact that the Lord has NOT revealed it to you. So, which one is it, brother? It cannot be both. If you’re willing to admit that this thought regarding God waiting for every man to repent is NOT something that God has revealed to you, then I would invite you to revisit this matter of speculation. If, on the other hand, you believe this IS something the Lord has revealed to you, then your offense at my statement has no basis. I was simply giving you the benefit of the doubt that the things you suggest so strongly MUST certainly be among those things that you believe God has revealed to you. Hopefully my answer is clearer to you now.
ANONYMOUS: I have written, "I have learned to wait upon the Lord for guidance. Still seeking."
TETH: I see. So, when you say that “Lord God is waiting [for men to repent]” is that something that God has revealed to you or is this something you think is true, but that God has NOT yet revealed to you? Again, if it is the former, then my statement regarding your suggestion is accurate, if it is the latter, then you should be careful to state that you are speculating.
ANONYMOUS: You want to win so much, I tell you, it's yours!
TETH: I don’t have any thoughts of “winning” in the course of gospel ministry, save winning people over to a biblical and non-contradictory understanding of the scriptures. But it seems that what you deride as “winning” is just insisting that one’s interpretation of the word of God not contradict itself. The bible refers to that as “rightly dividing the word of truth” (II Timothy 2:15) and exhorts men to this endeavor.
ANONYMOUS: I Corinthians 2:14 states, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
TETH: Correct. That verse likewise affirms that a natural man CANNOT REPENT because he regards the admonition from God as foolishness and no man repents over a message that he regards as foolishness. This, in turn, further underscores that if God were to wait on a mere natural man to produce repentance, he would be waiting for eternity, and in so doing, emphasizes the need for God to regenerate a man by imparting eternal life to him BEFORE he can ever do something spiritual, such a repent.
TETH ANSWER 502
DeleteANONYMOUS: Natural stands for psuchikos, soul, and it's where mind is situated, and mind needs to be renewed continually.
TETH: The renewing of the mind is impossible for a natural (unregenerate) man because he cannot receive the things of the spirit of God, as plainly stated in this very verse.
ANONYMOUS: Even a child of God can use mind and it's derivatives as logic and reason and if one does so will reap "For to be carnally minded is death" (Romans 8:6).
TETH: A regenerate child of God can do this, but a natural man (an unregenerate man) cannot. Romans 8:6 is addressed to the regenerate for instruction, not to the unregenerate for regeneration.
ANONYMOUS: Logic comes from Greek philosophers, and should stay there, as Apostle Paul wrote "And my speech and my preaching were not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power."
TETH: No. Logic comes from “Logos” which is one of the names of Jesus Christ. He is the “logos” because he is the source of all right (logical) thinking. He is the WORD and apart from logic, neither words nor language have any meaning whatsoever. So, you need to be much more careful in how you handle the concept of “logic” because simply throwing it under the bus has the unfortunate consequence of throwing the bible under the bus as well. When Paul speaks of “enticing words of man’s wisdom” he is not assaulting logic but rather assaulting the illogic of men who speak words contrary to biblical truth. Sometimes you hear people call this “man’s logic” but it is important to note that this is a name for illogic not logic.
ANONYMOUS: So, it is written, "and to know the love of Christ, which surpasseth knowledge."
TETH: True enough, but the love of Christ does not contradict logic, neither does it render logic a thing of little or no value. It is absolutely essential if we are to arrive at a proper understanding of the bible’s revelation to us. This is why Paul’s “reasoned with them out of the scriptures” (Acts 17:2). You can’t reason from something that is fundamentally unreasonable. So, logic is absolutely indispensable in interpreting the word of God, and those who suggest otherwise have not given the matter enough consideration.
ANONYMOUS: If one wants to know the Heart of Our Father, he should turn his pneumatikos, new creation wholeheartedly and ask for the living water and Our Father, who is good Father will give.
TETH: Sure. But he should recognize that God has given us his word to teach us how we should live and he should study to rightly divide that word of truth (II Timothy 2:15). They will find logic an indispensable tool in understanding God’s revelation to them. I’ll state this needful point as well, MANY whom I have encountered who speak of God “revealing things” to them, employ the notion of personal revelation from God as a means of avoiding having to explain why this “revealed thing” is contrary to scripture. In many instances, “God revealed it to me” is just another way of saying “It’s true because I say it’s true and neither you nor your bible have any right to question it.” To me this is the clearest expression of refusing to “try the Spirits” (I John 4:1) that opens one up to the ill-effects of personal opinion under a thin guise of religious mysticism.
TETH ANSWER 503
DeleteANONYMOUS: “He that believeth in Me,” as the Scripture hath said, “out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.” Not out of someone’s mind but belly.
TETH: Your argument seems to be “because living water comes out of the belly, logic is therefore not useful in pursuing spiritual truth.” I can see no other implication in your statement. That is a very unstable notion, another false dichotomy. Living water may come from your belly, even as understanding may be pursued with the mind via a spirit-enabled, logical approach to the word of God. There’s no reason to set these things at odds with one another.
ANONYMOUS: And Christ Himself says, "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, because the Lord hath anointed Me to preach good tidings unto the meek. He hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound.”
TETH: The meek, brokenhearted, captives have no access to the meaning of Christ’s good tidings apart from using logic to discern the language our Lord used to preach these truths to them.
ANONYMOUS: So, child of God should seek anointing and leadership of Holy Spirit in order to do God's service to people.
TETH: Of course. He should also, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (II Timothy 2:15)
ANONYMOUS: You will probably ignore it or your mind already has understanding of these verses, but I recommend them for you.
TETH: Glad to take a look at them…
“He by the grace of God should taste death for every man.” (Hebrews 2:9)
TETH: I’ve written about why “every man” in that verse DOES NOT mean “all of humanity” provided you look at how “every man” is further defined in the immediate context.
“Was Every Man Given to Jesus?”
https://theearstohear.blogspot.com/2016/01/was-every-man-given-to-jesus.html
“And He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” (I John 2:2)
TETH: I’ve addressed this in the following video…
“Office Theology 108: I John 2:2”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpiZd_eftao
TETH ANSWER 504
Delete“Therefore as by the offense of one, judgment to condemnation came upon all men, even so by the righteousness of One, the free gift unto justification of life came upon all men.” (Romans 5:18)
TETH: Available in the following video…
“Exercises in Right Division: Romans 5:18”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18Z_Sjl6qic
“To Him all the prophets bear witness, that through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins.” (Acts 10:43)
TETH: “Whosoever believeth” is a present tense statement of belief, not a declaration of a universal capacity for belief. If I say “Whosoever runneth may participate” I am not saying “All of humanity is capable of running.” That is not remotely implied by my statement. I am making no assertion about universal capacity at all. So it is when the bible says, “Whosoever believeth.” It is speaking of that subset of humanity who is currently believing. It is NOT saying “all of humanity is capable of believing” – not at all. Illogical conclusions of this sort are regularly pressed upon the bible by those who resist using logic to rightly divide what the scripture is actually saying.
“The next day John saw Jesus coming unto him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world!” (I John 1:29)
TETH: The only one who is taking away ANY sins from this world is Christ. He most certainly did not take away the sins of all of humanity, as evidenced by the fact that he sends some of them to hell for their sins (Matthew 25:41).
ANONYMOUS: It seems to me that you are a minister of the letter and you use the letter very skillfully, but to know love of Christ is beyond knowledge, to know the Heart of God is the best.
TETH: You are entitled to an unfavorable opinion of me if that is your belief. I can only say that many of your arguments take the form of pouring contempt upon logic, seemingly in favor of having things revealed to you, which do not require logical reconciliation with the scriptures. I believe that is a fatal flaw that will manifest itself over and over again along your path of discipleship, to the detriment of your understanding and progress in being rooted in the faith once delivered to the saints. I say that with all gravity.
May God bless our studies and understanding of his word,
TETH
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,” saith the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.Isiah55
DeleteDoes not require interpretation.
8 wisdom which none of the princes of this world knew; for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.1Cor2 Simple and clear.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.Speaks clearly , it's not logic ,mind , intellect, education etc.it's spiritually discerned. More so, it tells me that my soulish(natural) man doesn't get this. This is where intellect dwells, where logic is applied. It is not good enough , cause it is spiritually discerned.You have mentioned in previous post that your background is Jewish. Judaism dwells heavily on "chosenness" . Do you still believe that Jews are chosen people?. What happens to people who broke the covenant?. Why Jesus tell chosen Jews that their father is the devil. Perhaps you still dwell on Midrash in your understanding of the Bible, or Babylonian Talmud.You seem to me as the law onto yourself. It's your videos or audio you direct me to. I have read about Jewish and Greek scholars collaboration,about Greek philosophy seeping into Judaism etc. It;s all possible, and real, that is why Judaism is so fragmented. Nobody knows what Judaism is anymore. I recommend a book for you by Israel Shahak Jewish History,Jewish religion,the weight of three thousand years. There is the same pressure on Christianity, to divide and conquer. If there is anything we can learn from the history of Israel ,it is being chosen or elect doesn't mean we are saved. Last thing I will say is,If God knows ifinite future and past,He has created it, "although the works were finished from the foundation of the world."Heb.4v3. Lord God has prepared future for all of us for He says "Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High.”But ye shall die like men,
and fall like one of the princes. just like Israel in the desert.God has chosen and prepared future for Israel and He tells us clearly why they didn't entered His Rest
TETH ANSWER 601
DeleteANONYMOUS: “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.” Isaiah 55 Does not require interpretation.
TETH: Every verse requires interpretation, because verses are written in language and language is based upon logic. Even things that are plainly stated require the logical interpretation of the language employed to make that plain statement. Simply put, logic is utterly indispensable in understanding the bible and as such interpretation of the word of God is ALWAYS required. Don’t believe me? Without employing logic, explain what “higher” in Isaiah 55 means.
ANONYMOUS: “Wisdom which none of the princes of this world knew; for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.” 1 Corinthians 2. Simple and clear. “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” Speaks clearly, it's not logic, mind, intellect, education, etc. It's spiritually discerned.
TETH: Several things to address here. First off, for you to conclude that those passages make a “simple and clear” statement requires logic. Don’t believe me? Without using logic, explain why those passages are “simple and clear.” Secondly, you state, “it’s not logic, mind, intellect, education, etc.” as a means of launching out against logic, but in so doing you have conjoined many things that do not of necessity have anything to do with one another. Logic is not the same thing as “education” or “intellect” or “mind.” It is the principle that God’s word is non-contradictory. Many with fine minds, fine intellects, and who are highly educated are among the most illogical people in the world when it comes to interpreting the word of God. Stated another way, the logic required to rightly divide the non-contradictory word of God is a fairly rare commodity. You should resist the urge to set logic at odds with spirituality. True logic is that which properly handles spiritual truth in a way that does not create contradictions, because contradictions are not permitted, because God does not contradict himself (John 10:35).
ANONYMOUS: More so, it tells me that my soulish (natural) man doesn't get this.
TETH: That is true, but the natural man is inherently illogical when it comes to dealing with spiritual matters. That is because his natural mind rejects the spiritual truths that must be presupposed in order to believe and rightly divide the bible’s statements. Again, the error your committing is in insisting that the logic required to interpret the word of God is a mere natural capacity applied to spiritual things. That is NOT the case. A natural man is utterly devoid of the mind of Christ, the mind of the Logos which is required to rightly divide the word of truth via study (II Timothy 2:15).
TETH ANSWER 602
DeleteANONYMOUS: This is where intellect dwells, where logic is applied. It is not good enough, cause it is spiritually discerned.
TETH: The natural mind may be the locus of natural intellectual ability, but it is not the locus of one’s spiritual capacity or logic. It is totally devoid of it. So again, your error is in relegating “logic” to the natural mind. That is a false assumption. The natural mind is devoid of spiritual discernment and as such it is fundamentally illogical where spiritual things are concerned.
ANONYMOUS: You have mentioned in previous post that your background is Jewish.
TETH: My personal background is not Jewish, neither have I stated such. It is true that the Christian religion grew out of the OT Jewish faith, but I have no personal background in Judaism.
ANONYMOUS: Judaism dwells heavily on "chosenness.”
TETH: That’s because the Jews were chosen of God.
ANONYMOUS: Do you still believe that Jews are chosen people?
TETH: They were God’s chosen people under the Old Covenant (Psalm 135:4), which was a shadow of the broader truth of spiritual Israel under the New Covenant (Romans 9:6-18) which is made up of people of all nations (Revelation 5:9).
ANONYMOUS: What happens to people who broke the covenant?
TETH: Everyone has broken the covenant. Some are saved by the grace of God by a merciful sovereign ruler who chooses to save sinners. Others are passed over and left in their state of just condemnation.
ANONYMOUS: Why Jesus tell chosen Jews that their father is the devil.
TETH: Because many of the Old Covenant Jews were not New Covenant Jews – the were not all eternally saved, even as Paul explicitly states, “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” (Romans 9:6-8)
TETH ANSWER 603
DeleteANONYMOUS: Perhaps you still dwell on Midrash in your understanding of the Bible, or Babylonian Talmud.
TETH: There’s absolutely no reason to press any of this upon me, but it is a common technique:
“You said your background is Jewish.”
“So here’s some stuff that Jewish people believe.”
“Therefore you believe those things too.”
TETH: Rather than explore that line of reasoning, I’ll simply state that it is a strawman fallacy
ANONYMOUS: You seem to me as the law onto yourself.
TETH: Look back through our correspondence. Never once to I make reference to myself as a law. I transparently substantiate the things I say with scriptural references to make it very plain precisely what part of God’s word I’m basing my assertions upon.
ANONYMOUS: It's your videos or audio you direct me to.
TETH: I’ve created these video and audio files for anyone who is interested in exploring these matters in the hope that they may search the scriptures to see if these things are so.
ANONYMOUS: I have read about Jewish and Greek scholars collaboration, about Greek philosophy seeping into Judaism etc.
TETH: I’m sure you have. Nevertheless, if you discerned anything profitable from that exercise, it was the result of using logic to understand what was said.
ANONYMOUS: It’s all possible, and real, that is why Judaism is so fragmented.
TETH: There are innumerable problems as to why Judaism is so fragmented. One of the biblical ones is that the Jews of Christ’s day did not have a proper, logical understanding of the word of God and instead posited “doctrines of man” that were full of logical contradictions, which the Lord Jesus Christ stated were not allowable if one has a proper understanding of scripture (John 10:35). The biggest problem you have in launching out against logic is that Jesus Christ insisted upon it (John 10:35), relentlessly used it in his teaching (John 5:39), and encouraged his disciples to do likewise, through his apostles (II Timothy 2:15).
TETH ANSWER 604
DeleteANONYMOUS: Nobody knows what Judaism is anymore.
TETH: What this has to do with me remains a mystery.
ANONYMOUS: I recommend a book for you by Israel Shahak Jewish History, Jewish religion, the weight of three thousand years.
TETH: Is it possible to glean anything from a book like this apart from logic?
ANONYMOUS: There is the same pressure on Christianity, to divide and conquer.
TETH: What you are refer to as “divide and conquer” the bible refers to as earnestly contending for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3) and the profitable correction of erring brothers (James 5:19-20).
ANONYMOUS: If there is anything we can learn from the history of Israel, it is being chosen or elect doesn't mean we are saved.
TETH: The bible explicitly states that those “chosen” as part of national Israel under the Old Covenant are not all eternally saved. “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel. Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” (Romans 9:6-8).
TETH: That said, the bible also teaches that those who are chosen under the New Covenant shall ALL be eternally saved (Ephesians 1:4-6).
ANONYMOUS: Last thing I will say is, if God knows infinite future and past, He has created it, "although the works were finished from the foundation of the world." (Hebrews 4:3).
TETH: God perfectly knows the future and the past and what comes to pass will not deviate from his knowledge.
ANONYMOUS: Lord God has prepared future for all of us for He says, "Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High. But ye shall die like men,
and fall like one of the princes.” just like Israel in the desert.
TETH: Those words were spoken to the nation of Israel under the Old Covenant.
ANONYMOUS: God has chosen and prepared future for Israel and He tells us clearly why they didn't entered His Rest.
TETH: The Old Covenant was a bilateral (or conditional) covenant made with a nation and having respect to their temporal well-being. In contrast, the New Covenant is a unilateral covenant made with spiritual Israel and having respect to their eternal salvation. This logical distinction, which arises from the testimony of scripture itself, is essential to having a proper understanding of the Old and New Covenants.
May God bless our studies and understanding of his word,
TETH
Dear Teth, making it plain and simple. Logic is not an inherent part of pneumatikos man. This is where you err. You apply logic as a key to understanding Word of God. It's a grave error. Before we were born again, our spirit was dead according to the scripture, and our spiritual senses were dead as well. After being born by the Spirit we have to learn how to use these new faculties from God, and our soulish man(old nature) is able to overcome and lead us, faking the new one. Rom.8. We can live our new life according to our old nature and be fooled . So not logic but the Spirit will teach us and lead us into the Truth. Some believers are not able to recognize the voice of the Spirit , that's why we have so much misleading teachings. People base their understanding on natural ability witch is not from God.
ReplyDeleteTETH ANSWER 701
ReplyDeleteANONYMOUS: Making it plain and simple. Logic is not an inherent part of pneumatikos man.
TETH: The spiritual man (pneumatikos man) has the mind of Christ (I Corinthians 2:16) and is noted for being able to receive spiritual truth which a mere natural man (i.e., one who is unregenerate) cannot. The mind of Christ is logical, given that he is the Logos (John 1:1) and his word cannot be broken (John 10:35). It is a grave error to set logic at odds with the Spirit. Proper logic is how God thinks, and this is why it is possible to reason from the scriptures (Acts 17:2). Once you set logic at odds with the Spirit, you’ve started down the path of pure mysticism, and the bible is reduced to a paper weight rather than what it truly is - a perfectly logical revelation from God.
ANONYMOUS: This is where you err.
TETH: On the contrary. The insistence upon logic as the way God thinks and expresses himself is a fundamental tenet of all right division and reasoning from the scriptures.
ANONYMOUS: You apply logic as a key to understanding Word of God.
TETH: Logic is fundamental to ALL understanding. Where you err is in insisting that spiritual understanding is either contrary to or independent from logic. It most certainly is not.
ANONYMOUS: It's a grave error.
TETH: No. Logic is an absolutely essential attribute of God’s logical mind and his logical revelation to us, apart from which you have absolutely no access to understanding spiritual truth. I realize that affirmation is pretty hard to digest for those who have been pickled in the false dichotomy of logic vs spirit. But it is true nevertheless.
TETH: Consider this: teach me the simplest spiritual truth you know and do so without employing logic. That example, proves beyond any reasonable dispute that all truth is logical, teaching it requires logic, and receiving it requires logic.
ANONYMOUS: Before we were born again, our spirit was dead according to the scripture, and our spiritual senses were dead as well.
TETH: That is correct. We lacked the attributes required for proper spiritual reasoning of things. In such a state we are utterly illogical with respect to spiritual truth. Such a man may possess natural logic to a high degree – that capacity for solving problems related to the natural world, but he is devoid of the capacity of spiritual logic and incapable of receiving spiritual truth (I Corinthians 2:14).
TETH ANSWER 702
DeleteANONYMOUS: After being born by the Spirit we have to learn how to use these new faculties from God,
TETH: Yes. And we are often taught through logical instruction in the truth. The bible repeatedly instructs disciples in this way and the Lord built the church to do precisely the same.
ANONYMOUS: and our soulish man (old nature) is able to overcome and lead us, faking the new one. Rom.8.
TETH: Not entirely sure what you mean by that statement, but I assume you mean that we still sin at times (the old man tricks the new man into behaving improperly). That’s certainly true.
ANONYMOUS: We can live our new life according to our old nature and be fooled.
TETH: Not only CAN we do this, we often DO this. This is the struggle of remaining sin that haunts the regenerate until their dying day (I John 1:8, Romans 7). But when we follow the inclinations of the old man (the flesh) we are acting ILLOGICALLY, because we are functioning on the old man’s flawed presuppositions – things like “I know better than God” or “God won’t really punish me for this anyway” or “this sin is really no big deal” all of which are demonstrably ILLOGICAL statements when compared to the testimony of scripture. Sinning in this way is contrary to logic. That’s because the spirit’s way is relentlessly logical.
ANONYMOUS: So not logic, but the Spirit will teach us and lead us into the Truth.
TETH: Does the Spirit use the word of God to do that? Undeniably yes. That being the case, it is also unavoidable that the Spirit is using the LOGIC of the word of God to proves its case and instruct us in righteousness. See why it’s important not to set logic at odds with the Spirit? It is incredibly important that we avoid that foolish error.
ANONYMOUS: Some believers are not able to recognize the voice of the Spirit, that's why we have so much misleading teachings.
TETH: Quite the contrary, I find that far too many professing Christians rely upon what they insist is the “voice of the Spirit” when what that voice is telling them is demonstrably at odds with the logical testimony of scripture. That’s what breeds confusion among the Lord’s people, not a careful attention to the logic and language of the word of God.
ANONYMOUS: People base their understanding on natural ability witch is not from God.
TETH: Natural ability is certainly from God, even as spiritual ability is. More to the point, those who have the logical mind of Christ do well to use it to study the scriptures in order to righly divide them in a way that is not contradictory, because God’s thinking is not contradictory. He cannot deny himself (II Timothy 2:13).
May God bless you with the revelation that your every effort to teach your “spiritual truth” in this conversation takes the form of a “logical argument” – albeit a fallacious one.
TETH
Where from did you get your logos meaning ? I know , it was from ancient Greek philosophy.(Do you know that Greek philosophers were pagan worshipers,involved in occult). Logos explanation by Greek philosophers is not The Logos apostle John has written about. Word logic is not in the Bible. The Holy Spirit has it's own logic, it's nothing to do with human logic.That's why it's written “For My thoughts are not your thoughts:says the Lord. We see why philosophers were not able to find living God and still cannot,for it's written ;“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” Because logic doesn't lead to Christ, Holy Spirit does. When you say : Natural ability is certainly from God, you make an error. Why?, for natural man has been influenced by this world and his mind has been polluted by it's teaching ,So Rom12v2. says be transformed by renewing of your mind. When Christ breathed Holy Spirit on His disciples he gave them supernatural ability that is not of this world or natural ability.
DeleteTETH ANSWER 801
DeleteANONYMOUS: Where from did you get your logos meaning?
TETH: The known definition of the Greek word “logos” is available from numerous academic sources such as James Strong and Joseph Thayer.
logos - something said (including the thought); by implication a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension a computation; specifically (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (that is, Christ): - account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say (-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work (Strong)
logos - 1) of speech a) a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea, b) what someone has said, b1) a word, b2) the sayings of God, b3) decree, mandate or order, b4) of the moral precepts given by God, b5) Old Testament prophecy given by the prophets, b6) what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, a weighty saying, a dictum, a maxim, c) discourse, c1) the act of speaking, speech, c2) the faculty of speech, skill and practice in speaking, c3) a kind or style of speaking, c4) a continuous speaking discourse – instruction, d) doctrine, teaching, e) anything reported in speech; a narration, narrative, f) matter under discussion, thing spoken of, affair, a matter in dispute, case, suit at law, g) the thing spoken of or talked about; event, deed
2) its use as respect to the MIND alone, a) reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating, b) account, i.e. regard, consideration, c) account, i.e. reckoning, score, d) account, i.e. answer or explanation in reference to judgment, e) relation, i.e. with whom as judge we stand in relation, e1) reason would, f) reason, cause, ground, 3) In John, denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world’s life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man’s salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds. (Thayer)
ANONYMOUS: I know, it was from ancient Greek philosophy.
TETH: Evidently not the case.
ANONYMOUS: (Do you know that Greek philosophers were pagan worshipers, involved in occult).
TETH: Do you know that suggesting someone’s definition of a Greek word is incorrect based on their flawed metaphysics is ad hominem?
TETH ANSWER 802
DeleteANONYMOUS: Logos explanation by Greek philosophers is not The Logos apostle John has written about.
TETH: Neither is it the definition I have under consideration.
ANONYMOUS: Word logic is not in the Bible.
TETH: Logic is implicit in the concept of a word. Apart from the logical constructs of language, phonetics, and symbology, the concept of a “word” is devoid of meaning. The word “bible” is not in the bible either, but you’d be foolish to use that observation to disprove the existence of the bible.
ANONYMOUS: The Holy Spirit has its own logic, it's nothing to do with human logic.
TETH: It’s certainly true that God has his own logic. Properly speaking, that IS logic. It is also true that a natural or unregenerate man is devoid of this logic, because his natural mind rejects the presuppositions required for correct reasoning. What is referred to as “human logic” requires definition. Even a natural man possesses some logical faculties as it relates to natural matters. They may write, read, do math, develop reasonable solutions to complex problems, etc. But when it comes to the spiritual domain, a natural man is incapable of reasoning properly. Thus, a natural man’s “human logic” is actually “illogic” when it comes to dealing with spiritual matters.
TETH: Having said that, none of these observations undermine the existence of logic, or the truth that God is logical, or the truth that His revelation to us is logical. Those truths, coupled with the improved logical faculties possessed by a regenerate man, are precisely why the bible exhorts us to study in order to rightly divide the word of truth (II Timothy 2:15) and why it is possible to “reason” from the scriptures (Acts 17:2).
ANONYMOUS: That's why it's written, “For My thoughts are not your thoughts: says the Lord.” (Isaiah 55:8)
TETH: No. That is NOT why Isaiah wrote that. God’s statement underscores that God’s preference for how to handle the matters of this world is not consistent with how men typically think about things. God’s thoughts involve undeserved mercy for those who were his enemies; man’s thoughts involve doling out punishment to those who have wronged us. God’s point is that man does not think about things the way that God does. We are inherently short sighted by nature, but this does not undermine the existence of logic, nor the truth that God’s revelation to us is logical and can be rightly divided.
TETH ANSWER 803
DeleteANONYMOUS: We see why philosophers were not able to find living God and still cannot, for it is written; “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” (I Corinthians 1:19)
TETH: I have never suggested that logic is a path for the unregenerate to find God. I have stated that God’s word is logical and we must use logic to study and rightly divide it so that we have the proper understanding of what God has said to us (II Timothy 2:15).
ANONYMOUS: Because logic doesn't lead to Christ, Holy Spirit does.
TETH: I have never suggested that “logic leads to Christ.” I have said that logic is required for a regenerate man to arrive at a proper interpretation of God’s logical revelation to us. You seem intent on fighting against a position that I have never held.
ANONYMOUS: When you say : Natural ability is certainly from God, you make an error.
TETH: No. It is certainly true that our natural abilities come from God. “A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from God.” (John 3:27) That truth, however, does not mean that our natural abilities are a means of finding God or obtaining eternal salvation. Rather, that statement is an affirmation of the source of our gifts, including our natural abilities.
ANONYMOUS: Why? For natural man has been influenced by this world and his mind has been polluted by its teaching.
TETH: I agree that the natural man’s mind is polluted and incapable of using logic to discover or understand God. But all men are not mere natural men, some have the mind of Christ through regeneration (I Corinthians 2:16), and thus a capacity for reasoning in the domain of spiritual truth, through a proper understanding of the logical word of God (II Timothy 2:15). I believe our discussion would be much more profitable if you would redouble your efforts to understand what I’m saying, rather than projecting positions onto me. I offer that in all sincerity.
ANONYMOUS: So, Romans 12:2 says, “be transformed by renewing of your mind.”
TETH: That verse is an exhortation to God’s people to employ the renewed mind (the mind of Christ, the capacity of spiritual reason possessed by a regenerate man) in order to transform one’s understanding (doctrine) and practice (actions). The idea of doing things logically consistent with God’s revelation to us is implicit in this exhortation. Again, logic is indispensable if we are to understand this exhortation, let alone profit from acting in accordance with it.
TETH ANSWER 804
DeleteANONYMOUS: When Christ breathed Holy Spirit on His disciples, he gave them supernatural ability that is not of this world or natural ability.
TETH: The giving of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 is NOT regeneration. It was a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit of God to empower the spread of the gospel through the ministry of the apostles and disciples during the 1st century.
sermonaudio.com/sermon/37171333242
TETH: It definitely included supernatural abilities such as healing and speaking in tongues. But this is something separate from the “mind of Christ” which is imparted to all of God’s elect in regeneration, which is relentlessly logical and in agreement with the word of God, and which must be employed by a Christian if they are to properly understand the scriptures.
God bless,
TETH
Teth. Let me start with logos meaning? We know that Greeks were using logos long before Christ was born as Jesus. and they deployed logic as well . John has 'borrowed' this word from Greeks ,and academic sources you wrote from, borrowed some of the meaning from them as well.And centuries later Christians are using it as christian thought.Discerning what is from God and what is from men is not easy. You wrote :Where you err is in insisting that spiritual understanding is either contrary to or independent from logic. It most certainly is not:. Teth , I am saying all along that the Truth comes from the Spirit, rest is us. As is written For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. I cannot say I am being lead by Spirit all the time. And I make errors.My logic is of no help, I need spiritual discernment. The world has left us with a lot of leftovers , at times philosophy wins.And mixing them(spiritual discernment and philosophy) is what makes matters worse.You wrote:I have stated that God’s word is logical and we must use logic to study and rightly divide it so that we have the proper understanding of what God has said to us (II Timothy 2:15). Why do you suggest that (II Timothy 2:15)speaks about logic? Strong tells us about rightly dividing:to cut straight, to cut straight ways: rather applying the Word in sharper and honest way.When you say No. It is certainly true that our natural abilities come from God. “A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from God.” (John 3:27):John was speaking about Christ's authority as The Messiah, and not natural ability .When I wrote : When Christ breathed Holy Spirit on His disciples: it was from John ch20v22 . It was regeneration.Why do you say that baptism of the Holy Spirit is separate from the mind of Christ. It is Him who does it(baptize), and imparts gifts in us, as it says For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;. Can you share with me your thoughts on present situation in the world.
DeleteTETH ANSWER 901
DeleteANONYMOUS: Let me start with logos meaning? We know that Greeks were using logos long before Christ was born as Jesus and they deployed logic as well.
TETH: We also know that at the time of this usage, the Holy Spirit of God chose to use the Greek word “logos” to name and describe the Lord Jesus Christ.
ANONYMOUS: John has 'borrowed' this word from Greeks, and academic sources you wrote from, borrowed some of the meaning from them as well. And centuries later Christians are using it as Christian thought. Discerning what is from God and what is from men is not easy.
TETH: Jesus Christ is the embodiment of Christian thought. As such he is the ultimate standard of all logic, because God is logical, and his truth is logical. That is why “Logos” is an apt name for him. The concept of a word (logos) implies logic because apart from it, words have no meaning.
ANONYMOUS: You wrote “Where you err is in insisting that spiritual understanding is either contrary to or independent from logic. It most certainly is not.” I am saying all along that the Truth comes from the Spirit, rest is us.
TETH: I’m saying that the Truth is logical, because God is logical and those who are born of the Spirit of God are able to use logic to rightly divide the scriptures through the Spirit’s enablement.
ANONYMOUS: “As is written For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” (Romans 8:14) I cannot say I am being led by Spirit all the time. And I make errors. My logic is of no help, I need spiritual discernment.
TETH: Brother, apart from logic, you have no spiritual discernment – which means “keenness of insight and judgment” which requires logic. You cannot judge anything apart from doing so logically. Again, the error that many Christians make is in setting “spiritual discernment” at odds with logic. It is not at odds with logic at all. It is perfect harmony with logic.
ANONYMOUS: The world has left us with a lot of leftovers, at times philosophy wins, and mixing them (spiritual discernment and philosophy) is what makes matters worse.
TETH: Here you imply that logic is equivalent with “philosophy.” It most certainly is not. I believe this reveals that you have a flawed understanding of the nature and definition of true logic.
TETH ANSWER 902
DeleteANONYMOUS: You wrote, “I have stated that God’s word is logical and we must use logic to study and rightly divide it so that we have the proper understanding of what God has said to us (II Timothy 2:15).” Why do you suggest that (II Timothy 2:15) speaks about logic?
TETH: Because it is impossible to “study” anything without employing logic and it is impossible to “rightly divide” anything without using logic. That is utterly unavoidable.
ANONYMOUS: Strong tells us about rightly dividing: to cut straight, to cut straight ways: rather applying the Word in sharper and honest way. When you say No.
TETH: Explain how you make a straight cut without using any form of logic. That exercise will prove interesting, but more importantly, it should prove to you that logic is utterly imbedded in the matter beyond any reasonable dispute.
ANONYMOUS: It is certainly true that our natural abilities come from God. “A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from God.” (John 3:27) John was speaking about Christ's authority as The Messiah, and not natural ability.
TETH: John is affirming that God is the author and giver of every good and perfect gift, even as James states, “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” (James 1:17) That includes both spiritual gifts as well as our natural abilities.
ANONYMOUS: When I wrote, when Christ breathed Holy Spirit on His disciples: it was from John 20:22. It was regeneration.
TETH: The events of John 20:22 do not describe regeneration. His disciples were regenerate already, and this by many proofs (Matthew 16:16-17 per the statement of I John 5:1 for example). But if you do not believe me consider John Gill’s commentary on John 20:22, “And saith unto them, receive ye the Holy Ghost - meaning not the grace of the Holy Ghost in regeneration, which they had received already; but the gifts of the Spirit, to qualify them for the work he now sent them to do, and which were not now actually bestowed; but this breathing on them, and the words that attended it, were a symbol, pledge, and confirmation, of what they were to receive on the day of Pentecost.”
ANONYMOUS: Why do you say that baptism of the Holy Spirit is separate from the mind of Christ. It is Him who does it (baptize), and imparts gifts in us, as it says For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
TETH: I have said that those who are regenerate possess the mind of Christ and this is the mind that is capable of proper, logical thought about things.
ANONYMOUS: Can you share with me your thoughts on present situation in the world.
TETH: It seems we are in the midst of a somewhat normal viral spread coupled with an utterly unprecedented and unwarranted governmental response. The Lord spoke of such “commotions” happening in this world (Luke 21:9), but our trust is to be in the Lord who shall ultimately deliver us to greener pastures (Romans 8:38-39).
God bless,
TETH
Teth.When you say :The concept of a word (logos) implies logic because apart from it, words have no meaning.:,You write yourself ,it is just a concept.
DeleteYou wrote:Brother, apart from logic, you have no spiritual discernment – which means “keenness of insight and judgment” which requires logic.Do you believe that one can receive revelation from God in an instant, without applying brain function. ? like speaking in tongues, or receiving a prophecy.
Brother Teth , there is prove for the seeker that Greek philosophy has influenced Christian thought. It has been rooted so deep that some don't know or don't care about it.
Re:2 Timothy 2:14,15 speaks about :not to engage in word-battles:but to present Gospel in in simple and straightforwardly manner.
When you say :The events of John 20:22 do not describe regeneration:. Do you believe in regeneration without Spirit of God? John20v22 Here Christ breathed Holy Spirit to dwell in them as promised. Before we see works of the Spirit in them but not indwelling.
Teth, you are strangely quiet about influence of philosophy on Christian theology, especially Stoic.Anyway,
I think I reached a point in this discussion with you when I'd like to say thank you, God bless you.
TETH ANSWER 1001
DeleteANONYMOUS: When you say, “The concept of a word (logos) implies logic because apart from it, words have no meaning.” You write yourself, it is just a concept.
TETH: And concepts are required in order for us to have any cognitive understanding of truth.
ANONYMOUS: You wrote, “Brother, apart from logic, you have no spiritual discernment – which means ‘keenness of insight and judgment’ which requires logic.” Do you believe that one can receive revelation from God in an instant, without applying brain function?
TETH: It is certain that God can reveal something to someone in an instant. But for them to benefit from that knowledge, they must possess a rational understanding of that truth. This does not mean that they understand every single aspect of that truth, but a rational understanding of what God immediately imparted to someone is required for that truth to be profitable. Consider God revealing to a man that “stealing is a sin against God.” In order to profit from that truth, one must possess some logical access to the concepts represented by “stealing”, “sin”, “against” and “God.” All of that requires logic. What’s more, to truly profit from that knowledge one must have a rational understanding of the ramifications of that concept, namely the unavoidable logical conclusion that one should endeavor to avoid the practice of sin. That requires logic. Brother, the matter of logic is absolutely and unavoidably embedded in the matter and your reluctance to accept that truth likely arises from the false dichotomy of setting logic at odds with spiritual things. They are NOT at odds. All proper logic is in harmony with spiritual truth, because God’s truth is logical.
ANONYMOUS: like speaking in tongues,
TETH: Speaking in tongues requires the speaker to have some understanding of what he is saying, just as speaking in any language does. The only difference is that the Spirit has enabled them with another language to speak in. This does not in any sense imply that there is no understanding in the matter. On the flipside, unless someone speaks in a language that the listener can logically understand, what is said is not profitable to them. “For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.” (I Corinthians 14:2-3)
ANONYMOUS: or receiving a prophecy.
TETH: To receive a prophecy one must understand what that prophecy is in order to benefit from it. If someone prophecies, “Jerusalem will be destroyed!” They must know the definitions of “Jerusalem” and “destroyed” in order to profit from that declaration. Someone hearing it must logically understand these things as well in order to profit from that prophecy. That’s because logic is utterly embedded in the notions of language and understanding – even in spiritual matters.
TETH ANSWER 1002
DeleteANONYMOUS: Brother Teth, there is proof for the seeker that Greek philosophy has influenced Christian thought.
TETH: I don’t deny that Greek philosophy has influenced Christian thought. Your statement implies that logic = Greek philosophy. That is simply not the case. Logic is how God thinks and how he speaks and how his revelation to us is constructed, and how we, through the spirit’s enablement, may understand Truth. Again, you’re pressing a false dichotomy regarding the definition of “logic.”
ANONYMOUS: It has been rooted so deep that some don't know or don't care about it.
TETH: Perhaps. But that observation is irrelevant to the point I’m making which arises from the word of God – namely that God is logical and that his revelation to us is likewise logical.
ANONYMOUS: 2 Timothy 2:14,15 speaks about not to engage in word-battles: but to present Gospel in in simple and straightforwardly manner.
TETH: Your interpretation of that verse sort of implies that “word definitions aren’t important.” That is NOT what that passage is saying at all. What’s more, the gospel is very simple and straightforward:
1. God chose a people (Eph 1:4-6).
2. Christ died to save them (Matt 1:21, I Cor 15:3-4, II Cor 5:21).
3. The Spirit agreed to regenerate them (Gal 4:6).
4. Those who believe the gospel of Christ are eternally saved (Jn 6:47).
5. We cannot be separated from the love of God in Christ (Rom 8:31-39).
6. We are admonished to live in gospel obedience as a logical consequence that arises from gospel truth (Rom 12:1).
TETH: None of that is difficult. Perhaps more to the point, without logic, neither you nor I have any understanding of those gospel truths whatsoever.
ANONYMOUS: When you say, “The events of John 20:22 do not describe regeneration.” Do you believe in regeneration without Spirit of God?
TETH: No. I do not believe in regeneration apart from the Spirit of God. Neither does stating that the breathing of John 20:22 does not design regeneration support such a conclusion.
ANONYMOUS: Here Christ breathed Holy Spirit to dwell in them as promised.
TETH: No. He did not regenerate them at this time, he showed them an example of how the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 would be fulfilled at Pentecost (Acts 2:16). The Lord’s disciples were regenerate beforehand ,as proven by the example I previously set before – which you chose to ignore (Matthew 16:16-17, I John 5:1).
ANONYMOUS: Before we see works of the Spirit in them but not indwelling.
TETH: Wrong. They were doing works of the indwelling Holy Spirit because they were already born again per Matthew 16:16-17 and I John 5:1. That is logically unavoidable, although I realize your utter contempt for using logic. That will be a great detriment to your spiritual understanding, brother. In fact, it will wrap you up in the deluded world of affirming anything you want to believe based on “God revealed it to me” no matter how contradictory to His word that thing may be. Dangerous stuff.
ANONYMOUS: Teth, you are strangely quiet about influence of philosophy on Christian theology, especially Stoic.
TETH: As to whether I’m “strangely quiet” about the influence of philosophy on Christian theology, I’ll leave that for the readers to decide. At a minimum, I’ve affirmed the influence in this correspondence, albeit while pointing out that it is irrelevant to the case I’m making regarding how logic is utterly embedded in the notion of language and revelation and how God’s thinking is logical as must be our approach to rightly dividing the word of truth.
ANONYMOUS: Anyway, I think I reached a point in this discussion with you when I'd like to say thank you, God bless you.
God bless,
TETH
I'd really be interested in how you reconcile a text like Proverbs 16:9. Or the parable of the Feast. You stated plainly Jesus did not call any but those already elected for salvation. Yet in the parable of the Feast, the king DOES invite those who choose not to come. So was he just "pretending" to invite them and burning with anger towards their decline of the invitation? Also texts like Proverbs 16:9 or Genesis 50:20 do not make complete logical sense in the human mind. How can two truths, that seem to oppose, be reconciled? Does God monergisticly take our steps or are we still responsible for the desires within our hearts? If you can "logically" explain a text like Proverbs 16:9, you must have a mind that can grasp something no other man can.
ReplyDeleteTETH ANSWER 1001
DeleteANON: I'd really be interested in how you reconcile a text like Proverbs 16:9.
TETH: Let’s look at that verse:
“A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.” (Proverbs 16:9)
TETH: This verse teaches that “Men tend to plan their way in life, but God’s instruction on the way to go is superior to man’s ideas and His plan for the future often overturns the plans of men.”
ANON: The parable of the Feast, the king DOES invite those who choose not to come.
TETH: There is a distinction between the indiscriminate publication of gospel truth and those who have the ears to hear or hearts to obey the implications of this declaration. We declare the gospel to all who are willing to listen, but it is addressed to those with ears to hear. Those are two different groups. We do no know who is regenerate, therefore we publish to any who will listen, but the Lord repeatedly said, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” (Matthew 11:15) In so doing he is speaking of those with the spiritual capacity of hearing, the faith required to receive the righteousness of God declared in the gospel - “For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith TO FAITH” (Romans 1:17a).
ANON: So was he just "pretending" to invite them and burning with anger towards their decline of the invitation?
TETH: The parable of the feasts does not represent an invitation to eternal salvation. It is speaking of the invitation to sit under the instruction of the Lord Jesus Christ during his earthly ministry. Many of God’s people were distracted by the affairs of this world such they would not attend to Christ’s ministry as they ought. These people all had the ears to hear, and an opportunity to become disciples of Christ, but their spiritual interests were choked out by the cares of this world and they did not profit from the admonition as they ought. Rather than feast at the feet of the Lord Jesus Christ, the chose to follow the distractions of this carnal world instead. This goes on in our time as well. Many of God’s regenerate sheep choose to persist in pursuing the world and never join the church or enter into discipleship as they ought, and this to the detriment of their temporal existence.
TETH ANSWER 1002
DeleteANON: Also texts like Proverbs 16:9 or Genesis 50:20 do not make complete logical sense in the human mind. Look at the Genesis passage:
“But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.” (Genesis 50:20)
TETH: There’s nothing illogical or impossible to grasp in this declaration. Joseph is merely affirming that man has a limited aperture on the over-arching plan of God and that something that seems “evil” (only bad) under limited consideration may be an instrument of bringing about “good” when seen in the fullness of God’s plan. A man who is sick with a fever may conclude, “I feel terrible, this is bad.” But with a broader understanding of biology, he comes to see that what seemed “bad” through the limited perspective of ignorance, is the mechanism for combatting illness and ministering a greater “good” to the body in the form of recovery and acquired immunity. There’s no contradiction or lingering mystery in Joseph’s statement, just the juxtaposition of ignorance and knowledge.
TETH: The bottom line is that both of these verses make logical sense provided one removes the erroneous presuppositions so often projected onto them.
ANON: How can two truths, that seem to oppose, be reconciled?
TETH: “Seem to oppose” is the key to answering this query. There are things that “seem to oppose” in the bible. Right division is the process of logically reconciling them through contextual qualification. Stated another way, if you have a bald logical contradiction in your theology, you have an error in your understanding. Further study is required to clarify the matter in a way that avoids contradiction (II Timothy 2:15).
ANON: Does God monergisticly take our steps or are we still responsible for the desires within our hearts?
TETH: God does not monergistically take our steps. He knows our every step and has dominion over them, at times overturning them through circumstance and providence. Nevertheless our will is involved in the commission of our very step and thus they are synergistic, not monergistic, in nature.
ANON: If you can "logically" explain a text like Proverbs 16:9, you must have a mind that can grasp something no other man can.
TETH: This matter is reconciled through a combination of God’s dominion (supreme authority over all things that come to pass), God’s omniscience (perfect understanding of what will be), compared to man’s lack of either of those attributes.