TheologyWeb Campus - Theology 201 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/ Does God have a future? The attributes of God. Theist only en Sat, 25 May 2013 10:18:19 GMT vBulletin 5 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/images/misc/rss.png TheologyWeb Campus - Theology 201 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/ Amateur Theological Society http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155932-Amateur-Theological-Society&goto=newpost Mon, 20 May 2013 17:05:27 GMT Who is the person on this DB that is starting an amateur theological society? Who is the person on this DB that is starting an amateur theological society? ]]> Theology 201 siliconwafer http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155932-Amateur-Theological-Society <![CDATA[Don't blame your Church for bad teaching, blame yourself! M]]> http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155909-Don-t-blame-your-Church-for-bad-teaching-blame-yourself!-M&goto=newpost Sat, 18 May 2013 07:55:23 GMT Who does God love? A natural view would say that He loves the good hearted. It would explain that in the following, poverty is a derived state, ie. those whom God loves He keeps them poor, meek, sorrowful, thus reducing the obstacles that stand in the way to entrance into His Kingdom. James 2:5 Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him? One could even say that God protects... Who does God love? A natural view would say that He loves the good hearted. It would explain that in the following, poverty is a derived state, ie. those whom God loves He keeps them poor, meek, sorrowful, thus reducing the obstacles that stand in the way to entrance into His Kingdom.

James 2:5 Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?

One could even say that God protects His own from bad teaching. If a good person found a church and he was taught that to be rich was a sign of God's favour, or that God's kingdom would be forwarded by resources from its members, God would actually work to prevent the good person from acquiring wealth (unequivocally taught in James 2 and other memorable verses, but conveniently ignored by some).

I started the thread with some thought, slept on it for a while, reformulated it to prune away some wrong directions it took (very easy, to go in wrong directions!) away from my main point and titled it so that it wouldn't rub faithful brothers and sisters in Christ the wrong way, not rattle their cages, but to rattle them in their comfortable assumptions, to disturb, to question the peace they have... not to leave them hanging, but to reach a right view, ensuring real peace, the assurance that God promised:

John 14:27 NET “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you; I do not give it to you as the world does. Do not let your hearts be distressed or lacking in courage.

Apparently, there is a peace that the world gives which is not a real peace, in the sense that it is supported by worldly principles. These principles could even be imparted by the church we attend.

Matthew 7:22 NET On that day, many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons and do many powerful deeds?’

Here the individuals, who came forward for judgment, claimed to have been faithful, listing out their achievements.

My question is in two parts:

1. What are the fruits required by God?
2. Who is responsible for ensuring that these fruit appear in a believer's life?

I wanted to rattle the cage, ruffle a few feathers, pull some chains and name this thread, "Mainline Churches are the anti-Christ!", but better sense prevailed. Trolling for traffic is not the aim here, reaching a view that blesses is. My own view, stated below, may be changed to a better view, so I'm coming in with an open mind.

Don't blame your Church for bad teaching, blame yourself!

Matthew 7:7-11 NET “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened for you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. Is there anyone among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you then, although you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! ]]> Theology 201 footwasher http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155909-Don-t-blame-your-Church-for-bad-teaching-blame-yourself!-M The Regulative Principle of Worship http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155881-The-Regulative-Principle-of-Worship&goto=newpost Wed, 15 May 2013 19:53:14 GMT The Regulative Principle of Worship teaches that the worship of God should include those and only those elements that are instituted, commanded, or appointed by command or example in the Bible. The Regulative Principle of Worship is often contrasted with the Normative Principle of Worship, which teaches that whatever is not prohibited in Scripture is permitted in worship, so long as it is agreeable to the peace and unity of the Church. Would the celebration of Christmas be a violation... The Regulative Principle of Worship teaches that the worship of God should include those and only those elements that are instituted, commanded, or appointed by command or example in the Bible.

The Regulative Principle of Worship is often contrasted with the Normative Principle of Worship, which teaches that whatever is not prohibited in Scripture is permitted in worship, so long as it is agreeable to the peace and unity of the Church.

Would the celebration of Christmas be a violation of the Regulative Principle of Worship?

Would having things such as dancing, skits, or burning incense during worship violate the Regulative Principle of Worship?

Why do some Christians believe that playing musical instruments during worship violates the Regulative Principle of Worship? Doesn't the Psalms command us to worship God with musical instruments?

Why do some Christians believe that the psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs in Colossians 3:16 refer only to songs that are inspired? ]]> Theology 201 siliconwafer http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155881-The-Regulative-Principle-of-Worship Immaculate Conception of People http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155869-Immaculate-Conception-of-People&goto=newpost Wed, 15 May 2013 11:59:35 GMT In another thread, this statement was made.

Quote:
Originally posted by Phat8594 View Post
A sinner is someone who sins. If you don't sin - you aren't a sinner,...
The implication I see here is that a person is not a sinner and not subject to God's judgment until the person sins. Thus, we have the immaculate conception extended to all people to describe their condition at birth and who, thereby are born pure, and untainted by sin.

So, can a person be born a "sinner" (and thereby subject to God's judgment) and be labeled in this manner before they have actually committed a sin?

Or, can a person be labeled a sinner only after they actually sin? ]]> Theology 201 rhutchin http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155869-Immaculate-Conception-of-People <![CDATA[Essential Properties and Christ's Incarnation]]> http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155782-Essential-Properties-and-Christ-s-Incarnation&goto=newpost Wed, 08 May 2013 11:31:42 GMT An essential property of an object is a property that the object must have or else it would not be that object. For example, an essential property of a triangle is that it must have three sides. When Jesus became a man, He obtained all of the essential attributes of humanity. Are the following essential attributes of humanity? In other words, does one have to possess the following characteristics in order to be a human being? 1. Being finite. 2. Lacking omniscience. An essential property of an object is a property that the object must have or else it would not be that object. For example, an essential property of a triangle is that it must have three sides.

When Jesus became a man, He obtained all of the essential attributes of humanity.

Are the following essential attributes of humanity? In other words, does one have to possess the following characteristics in order to be a human being?

1. Being finite.

2. Lacking omniscience.

3. Lacking omnipotence. ]]> Theology 201 siliconwafer http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155782-Essential-Properties-and-Christ-s-Incarnation Response to Kant http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155754-Response-to-Kant&goto=newpost Sun, 05 May 2013 19:01:57 GMT I am a bit curious about the progress of treatment of Kant's influence on religion. I had read something about German theologians developing upon Kant's distinction between scientific knowledge and faith. I just wasn't sure if this approval was incorporated into modern theology or actively rejected.

I did a quick search and found a link. It seems broad in some sense though the section on"Influences on Theology" is along the line of what I'm thinking. And then It is more the conservative or evangelical responses... with some consideration of the acceptance of Kant, if this has been part of conservative development. (I suppose it is okay to note also where Kant's ideas have influenced theology in a positive way.)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ka...upplement.html

If there are any short treatments of this idea let me know. And book references might be okay. I just am not expecting to delve too far here.


// ]]> Theology 201 mikewhitney http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155754-Response-to-Kant NRA as anti-Christ! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155750-NRA-as-anti-Christ!&goto=newpost Sun, 05 May 2013 03:45:47 GMT For those who have known me over the years, I have a tendency to ask the difficult questions that everybody else avoids. Now, based on recent reports on world news, the NRA in the USA are resisting intelligent, Christian, reforms to gun registration. Which in sensible thought throughout the world, the NRA viewpoint is simply the thinking of an anti-Christ enclave.... Here in Oz, we are inundated with USA news either from CBS, NBC, PBS and a range of European and Other News services. What... For those who have known me over the years, I have a tendency to ask the difficult questions that everybody else avoids. Now, based on recent reports on world news, the NRA in the USA are resisting intelligent, Christian, reforms to gun registration. Which in sensible thought throughout the world, the NRA viewpoint is simply the thinking of an anti-Christ enclave....

Here in Oz, we are inundated with USA news either from CBS, NBC, PBS and a range of European and Other News services. What amazes me is that those in the USA are in perpetual state of paranoia - I can only suspect that in the USA, faith in Christ is at a huge down point...

Given every aberrant "christian" ideology I have ever encountered stemmed from USA opinion, I have to assume something is wrong in your culture...

Your insights would be appreciated. I will probably only respond to your responses with more questions... ]]> Theology 201 apostoli http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155750-NRA-as-anti-Christ! The Scope and Source of Common Grace http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155703-The-Scope-and-Source-of-Common-Grace&goto=newpost Wed, 01 May 2013 04:21:14 GMT For most of my life as a Christian I have adhered to a sort of de facto, common-sense notion of free will. I have read arguments against various formulations of free will, both philosophically and theologically; that is, as the question relates to our ability to choose any end, in abstract, and as it relates to some capacity to 'choose God' even while we are sinners dead in our sins. 'Of course,' I would say, 'this is all of grace, start to finish! But the grace is enabling, not irresistible.'

I have since given up this viewpoint and adopted something like the soteriology of Lutheranism, insofar as I understand them. Nevertheless the urge to systematize and explain is very powerful. A Lutheran would say that if a person repents and believes, this is a gift of God and has nothing to do with making a decision. They just hear the gospel and are changed. They do not 'refrain from resisting the Holy Spirit', they do not positively choose God, God chooses them and that's that. And yet others who hear the Gospel resist that same grace and die unbelievers. And sincere Christians may apostatize. How does this all work? It seems that if God's purposing and grace are the same in both situations, then there must be some quality of believers in virtue of which they believed, whether it be a positive inclination or a passive 'lack of resistance', that sets them apart from the hard-hearted unbelievers to whom the Gospel has also been presented. And yet a Lutheran will refuse to draw the logic out. I have a lot of respect for this position, but I am still occasionally tempted by the coherence of Calvinist theology.

My chief difficulty is with limited atonement, but despite having said all that it's not exactly what I want to talk about here. Rather I would like to receive some feedback from Calvinists about their understanding of 'common grace' and whether there is any sense in which Christ died for all people. To ask it a bit differently, did Christ effect anything positive for those people God never purposed to save? Do they get some non-salvific, second-order benefit from the Cross? Do they, the reprobate, receive condemnation on account of their unbelief, or not? If so, what is the basis of this condemnation - since it would seem that, Christ never purposing to save them, they are not at fault for refusing what they were never intended to receive? Does God desire their salvation, or not? Did God view us as justified prior to our regeneration, or are those elect who have not yet heard the Gospel and believed under condemnation?

Finally, is common grace (if indeed it exists) grounded in the cross of Christ? If so, how does Christ mediate blessings to the unbeliever? Did he somehow 'interact with' their sin on the cross? In short what is the basis of common grace?

Note: references to confessional documents such as the Three Forms of Unity, the Westminster Standards, etc., are helpful but will not definitively settle the question, because the question is not 'what is the Calvinist position?' but rather, 'what are some positions of particular Calvinists?' I am however somewhat interested in trends and the confessional support a view might be able to claim. For the purpose of this discussion and that purpose only, I take to be a Calvinist one who accepts at minimum that God's decrees regarding the salvation of the people of God are not made in view of a foreseen faith and repentance, but are related to the salvation of the elect as cause to effect. In other words the elect are elect because God made it so and the reprobate are the reprobate because God didn't positively elect them and there are no other categories to fit into. ]]> Theology 201 cosin http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155703-The-Scope-and-Source-of-Common-Grace Arminian Salvation - Is it by Works? http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155673-Arminian-Salvation-Is-it-by-Works&goto=newpost Sun, 28 Apr 2013 23:19:43 GMT I am reading the book, Perspectives on the Doctrine of God, edited by Bruce Ware. Roger Olson presents the “The Classical Free Will Theist Model of God,” (which is Arminian). In his chapter, he writes the following-

“Without [prevenient grace] no descendent of Adam except Christ can do anything spiritually good; one cannot “reach out to God” for salvation, nor can one respond to the gospel with saving faith. Thus, the person who is saved cannot boast because all of the power comes from God; all the saved person did was freely accept and not reject the free grace of God. Indeed, he or she must make a free decision, but it is not a good work; is only nonresistance to God’s saving work. Can the saved person boast just a little because he or she made the right decision? Arminians point to a beggar who is on the verge of starvation and receives a gift of food or money that saves life. Can that person boast of accepting the life-saving gift? Hardly. So it is with salvation; even though the person being saved must freely accept and not reject grace, he or she has no ground for boasting because all of the ability came from God.” (p168)

Two issues.

1. It says, “Without [prevenient grace] no descendent of Adam [can] respond to the gospel with saving faith…all the saved person did was freely accept and not reject the free grace of God…he or she has no ground for boasting because all of the ability came from God.”

I understand this to mean that God’s grace is necessary but not sufficient to gain the salvation of any individual. To the person receiving grace, it is then both necessary and sufficient that the person receive that grace in order to be saved. This is true because a person is allowed to trump God’s grace by rejecting it and not be saved.

Is my understanding accurate according to those who hold to Arminianism?

When Olsen writes, “…all of the ability came from God,” I take it to mean that the critical ability to make a free will decision to accept God’s grace came from God.

It appears to me that the lack of sufficiency in God’s grace to produce salvation and the sufficiency of the person’s free will decision to procure salvation or lose it is a critical distinction. It puts the person in control of his salvation. If he accepts, he is saved; if he rejects, he is not saved. It seems to be entirely up to the person once prevenient grace is extended to him so that God has no say in who is actually saved.

Is this correct?

2. As to boasting. Boasting is possible by one person who perceives he has some advantage over another. Here, it seems to me that the person who exercises his free will to accept salvation has somewhat to boast over the person who rejects salvation. His boast is that he did that which the other refused to do thus gaining a reward not received by the other.

The example of the beggar leaves out part of the equation. We actually have two beggars on the verge of starvation who are presented with food/money that would save their lives. One beggar chooses to take the food/money; the other refuses the food/money. It seems that the one beggar can then say to the other, “You fool, you rejected that which would have saved your life.” That is boasting to me. The one who exercises his free will to accept salvation clearly has room to boast and the basis for his boasting is that he made a better decision.

The nonresistance of one would seem to be “good” while the resistance of the other would be “bad.” Since the resistance of the one who rejects must be active, it is a work, so we might say, by works he is lost. The nonresistance of the one who accepts can be passive. However, in each case, the person must consider the offer made, decide if the offer is sound and worthwhile, and then actively declare intent to accept or reject the offer. I see no reason why that cannot be a work regardless what decision is actually made. ]]> Theology 201 rhutchin http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155673-Arminian-Salvation-Is-it-by-Works