RE: [TruthTalk] God Hates

[ShieldsFamily]

Bill, I am encouraged that you were not discouraged by my comments, and that you replied. J It seems you are easily put-off sometimes. (Me also, I admit!) So may I make a couple of further comments? How about in blue this time? Izzy asks  >  Why is this so important to you, Bill? Why is the idea that our salvation happened before we believed it (vs the idea that salvation is provided but only occurs when one receives it willingly by faith) of such paramount significance to you?Because it gives preeminence to Jesus Christ, he whom the Bible calls our Lord and Savior. Not to be disagreeable, but I DO give ALL preemincence to Jesus.BT: I'm sure you genuinely believe you do, Izzy. How much more preeminent would he be if you would credit all of your salvation to him and did not credit any of your salvation to your faithful response and obedient perseverance? You do consider these to be conditions that you must meet in order for salvation to be yours, don't you? I can only tell you what is in my heart, and you can choose to believe me or not: JESUS gets ALL the credit for anything I do that is obedient or good, for my ability to even understand and receive His grace, and certainly for HIS saving grace by HIS Blood which has made everything possible.  Do you think I am ignorant, or just lying? I hope not.   Arminianism is a nowhere road, Izzy. The only way it works is IF you are willing to put believers alongside Jesus Christ and call them both Saviors. The requirements of faith and obedience do not make us co-redeemers.  They are God’s requirements, not Man’s.  They are repeatedly demanded by God throughout all of scripture.  BT: Those "requirements" do make you "co-redeemers" when you make your salvation contingent upon their fulfillment. Yes, God makes commandments, but only after or in the context of the indicatives of his grace. I once tried to show you this and Judy so erupted that I finally dropped it. I agree that His grace comes first. Faith and obedience only show that I am HIS obedient servant, who gratefully has received His grace. To insist otherwise is to make one’s theology preeminent over God’s Word.  BT: It only places one's theology over God's word if it is false, Izzy. But if it is true and you refuse to believe or even consider it, it is disobedience. So how do we resolve which belief is false, except by loving exchanges like this; to side by side think it through? We must do this, because we love each other.  Historically speaking -- since the Reformation, that is -- the other evangelical alternative has been Calvinism. It at least upholds the absolute agency of God in salvation and recognizes humanity as the helpless lot it is. But I am not in favor of what it does to the character of God in the process.I am excited about Trinitarian\Incarnational Theology (thank you for giving it a Name!) because it gets beyond the never ending pitwars of Arminian v Calvinist infighting. This is truly an exceptional theology. It is historically grounded in the early church (not that that makes it true, but it does give it precedence that places it in close proximity to NT times). It upholds the Reformed tenet of sola gracia, yet it does this without shifting blame toward God for those who refuse to believe. At the same time it allows for full participation in salvation, without making salvation an act of co-redemption. I appreciate your good motives in wanting this to be true. However to me it seems a way of escape from responsibility for our sinful behavior; can you see how it I might think that? Bill I am glad you are excited about something. You may think I’m an airhead because such theological complexities don’t interest me. However to me such endeavors only serve to put Theology above the Simplicity of believing and accepting His Word without second-guessing, questioning, or out-maneuvering HIS will.  Whether or not people argue about their theologies is not an issue for me, and causes me no loss of sleep. I don’t need to resolve it. I don’t need to understand everything about it. I just accept it “as a little child.” BT: I don't get this one, Izzy. You ask me why I think this is so important and when I answer you, you grab onto it and use it as an opportunity to extol the higher virtues of ignorance. Sorry to appear ignorant to you. Have you ever thought I might have chosen to have differing priorities than you? Perhaps I think I understand, and therefore spend my life acting on what I understand, rather than spending my life continually seeking a better theology? Maybe if you took a little more interest in your heritage you would appreciate the hard work of your brothers and sisters who have. Don’t misunderstand my appreciation for those who seek deeper walks with the Lord.  I simply stopped seeking a new theology when I found my home in what I have found in Him. Do you fault me for this? Should I continue seeking a new theology when I am not discontent? That does not mean that I think I already know everything, which is why I am always open to growth and discussion. In the meantime, do not suppose that I don't accept it "as a little child." The word for child means formable, impressionable, someone who can be shaped and molded. I don't know, Izzy, it seems to me that most Evangelicals, if they've been Christians very long, get pretty set in their ways.I agree. Sometimes it takes God to shake us out of our complacency. The above mentioned teaching is of paramount significance because it lets love be what it is: unconditional. That is the problem with this Theology you have embraced.  God’s love is not unconditional. It is free for those who will receive it by meeting His conditions, because He paid the price to make it possible. BT: God's love is unconditional, Izzy. God is love. What "conditions" were there when all there was was the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Did God change his nature when he created? Is the love he has for us different than the love that he is in his being, the love that he shares with his Son in the Holy Spirit? Are you the kind of mother who would say "I'll love you if and only if you do your chores, and your homework, and eat all your vegetables"? Assuming you're not, Do you think it would be wrong if you were? I do. But from where does this right sense come if not from God? Why should it be wrong for us to place conditions upon our love if this is how God enacts his love for us?God's love is unconditional. He loved us before we loved him. Did you get that? -- Does this not indicate that he also loved us before we were meeting any of his requirements? Actually love MUST set conditions, or it is not love. Did you not set conditions for your children, such as Don’t run out into the street, or you will get hurt? You have conditions all of the time. God’s LOVE is not conditional.  Our relationship with Him is.  He said it; I did not. As a parent I hope you would be the same way.  Would you allow your child to rob you, beat up his Mom, and still live in your home? I hope not. God love is why He has conditions: because He does not want us to hurt ourselves, others, or our relationship with Him. I hope my own sons know that if they were to abandon their wives to run off with someone else that their wives would be welcome in our home, but they would not until they repented of their sin. Call me a big meanie, but that is what I call love. It works only because they have had standards ever since they were children. Today I don’t rule over them: I admire them.    But Jesus said we should count the cost and gave a few conditions:, “Luke 14:26   If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. 27   And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple. 28   For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?BT: Yes, Izzy, the Gospel calls for a radical departure from life-as-we-used-to-live-it. Clarification: a radical departure from sin, from rebellion, from disobedience, (as we used to live it). But it does not conditionally link this departure to Christ's love. It is His love on a cross that made it possible to live faithfully obedient to Him!  NOT our OWN goodness! Here you miss the vicarious nature of Christ's mediation.Of dear, more of those words that I don’t understand, that sound like psychobabble to me: could you please spell out the meaning for (ignorant) old me, please? J  His response is our response. He takes our feeble efforts, glorifies them and presents them perfected to the Father. I don’t understand the vocabulary again. Are you saying He takes our sin and makes it presentable to the Father? Surely not. Please explain with scripture if you can. Knowing this sets us free to be ever growing in his love. The yoke is easy and the burden light, Izzy, because we are yoked to him and he is carrying the load. Exactly! Apart from His indwelling Spirit we cannot obey, we cannot resist sin, we cannot resist the selfish desires of the flesh! HE makes it all easy, by faith in His redeeming Blood! The yoke is broken!  At the same time it calls us to unconditional obedience. In the words of James B. Torrance (Thomas' younger brother, who died last year at 81) it distinguishes between "legal repentance" and "evangelical repentance." Please consider his words: Legal repentance says: “Repent, and if you repent you will be forgiven,” as if God is persuaded into being merciful by our acts of repentance.No, God gave us these conditions. Jesus said in Luke 13:3 AND 13:5: 3   "I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Here our forgiveness is conditional upon our deeds of obedience. BT: I guess I am missing your point, Izzy. How does this take away from what I've said? The "repentance" to which Jesus is referring is a repentance from their rejection of him. If anyone rejects Jesus Christ and the salvation he provided, and then refuses from that moment on to repent, he or she will certainly perish.Bill please pay close attention to this: you just ignored how scripture completely invalidated the statement (above) by JBT. Please explain how you can accept BOTH statements; JBT’s alongside of Jesus’?  Jesus said our obedience is the “fruit” of repentance. Matt:3-9:Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance. BT: Did he now? I just quoted JESUS; did He not???? Please answer this question, Bill, please: did He not say “Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance”?  Enough for now, Bill.  I hope I haven’t angered or discouraged you.  Please forgive me for when I have.  Sometimes I’m not good at calculating the effects of my incredulity or curiosity, or whatever. Izzy