|
I disagree with TFT's so called "gospel of free grace"
- What exactly is 'free' about it? God's interaction with man has always
been conditional and when one removes the "Ifs, ands, & buts" they
make "another gospel". The cross cost God God everything and our part
in the covenant of grace is dying to sin and living unto righteousness.
This is something we must do every day in our own lives and it involves
choice but ATST takes nothing away from God because apart from the lamb
slain before the foundation of the world we have nothing to choose - so
what's the problem?
Judyt: "by introducing a
subtle element of co-redemption".. This is quite true. So, ask I,with
what exactly are you disagreeing?
Sorry Lance, guess I got
caught up in what you fellows are doing - if it is not exactly the same it is
very, very close - see the following excerpt from your mentor TFT who has come
up with an unscriptural dichotomy:
Excerpt from God & Rationality - The theology of T.F. Torrance:
Quote ��Evangelical Protestantism has developed a way of preaching the
Gospel which distorts and betrays it by introducing into
it a subtle element of co-redemption. This happens whenever it is said
that people will not be saved unless they make the work of Christ real
for themselves by their personal decision, or that
they will be saved only if they repent and believe,
for this is to make the work of Christ conditional
upon what the sinner does, and so at the crucial point it throws the ultimate
responsibility for a man� salvation back upon himself.
That is very far from being Good News for the sinner. . . . The message of
the New Testament quite different. It announces that God loves us, that He has
given His only Son to be our Saviour, that Christ has died for us when we were
yet sinners, and that His work is finished, and therefore calls for repentance
and the obedience of faith, but never does it say: This is what God in Christ has done for you,
and you can be saved on condition that you repent and believe.
The Gospel must be preached in an evangelical way, that is, in accordance with
the nature and content of the Gospel of free
grace, lest it is �another Gospel.� It is not
faith that justifies us, but Christ in whom we have faith. But the
history of Protestantism shows that it is possible to speak of justification
by faith in such a way that the emphasis is shifted from
�Christ� to �me�, so that what becomes finally important is �my faith,�
�my decision,� �my conversion,� and not really Christ himself.� (God and
Rationality, p. 58, his italics.)
Judyt:You know not whereof you speak. All raised
in Christ does NOT=once saved always saved. All of us find it easier to
substitute a charicature for critical thinking. As to whether you're a 'fundie' or not?? If I (but that's just me) were
a 'fundie profiler' I'd say yes.
Lance,
You will need to send us a "Topical Index" of your
(and Jonathan's) definitions. I would not call anyone on Jonathan's
list a Fundamentalist (as I understand it); there are people in this country
who pride themselves on being "fighting fundies" They are usually Bob Jones
University graduates or people from legalistic type sects, (some Southern
Baptist though not all). I wouldn't put Izzy, Terry, DavidM, or myself in
that category. We don't agree on every detail, fighting fundies would
have to agree on doctrine and you are sounding closer to their doctrine
that us with your all encompassing incarnation. They teach a type of
Calvinism "Once saved, always saved" that would go along with the TFT
teaching that "all rose with/in Christ"
G:I don't think that it is the Vatican that
produces 'fundamentalists'. Every group whether religious, political or
social has a 'fundamentalist' component/wing. In such there tends to be a
disdain for anything 'gray'. Black and white are preferred.[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: June 19, 2004 11:34
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Re:Fundamentalist
it's interesting that
the activism of both Protestant and Catholic conservatives closely
match on, e.g., abortion politics--jt and Izzy themselves are as
anti-abortion as the Pope
apparently the Pope is a
biblicist, too, and the match entails the conclusion that the Vatican
produces 'fundamentalists'... G
||
..feel free to add to the
list
|
