Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Re-conversion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re-conversion

    Recently Jen Hatmaker appeared on Enns' podcast. She shared her story of de-conversion and re-conversion. This prompted a response from reformed professor Dr. Kruger. Jared Byas aka Pete's sidekick responded in kind.

    My thoughts: I certainly agree with Dr. Kruger's position for the most part. I have attempted to give Peter Enns and his ilk the benefit of the doubt, but I cannot in good conscience consider his theological trajectory anything other than apostasy. I believe his attempt to retain the Christian label is well meaning, but ultimately futile as his theology finds it home in agnosticism (with a touch of "historical" Jesus-love). I sympathize with those who doubt and experience unbelief, as we all do, but I also believe that those born again/regenerated by the Holy Spirit cannot and will not remain in a consistent state of doubt and uncertainty. Those indwelt by the Spirit of God will eventually believe and rest in the gospel. You must be born again. You must be born again -- all else flows from that.
    Last edited by Scrawly; 02-10-2018, 01:57 AM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
    Recently Jen Hatmaker appeared on Enns' podcast. She shared her story of de-conversion and re-conversion. This prompted a response from reformed professor Dr. Kruger. Jared Byas aka Pete's sidekick responded in kind.

    My thoughts: I certainly agree with Dr. Kruger's position for the most part. I have attempted to give Peter Enns and his ilk the benefit of the doubt, but I cannot in good conscience consider his theological trajectory anything other than apostasy. I believe his attempt to retain the Christian label is well meaning, but ultimately futile as his theology finds it home in agnosticism (with a touch of "historical" Jesus-love). I sympathize with those who doubt and experience unbelief, as we all do, but I also believe that those born again/regenerated by the Holy Spirit cannot and will not remain in a consistent state of doubt and uncertainty. Those indwelt by the Spirit of God will eventually believe and rest in the gospel. You must be born again. You must be born again -- all else flows from that.
    But why does a differing opinion infer apostasy? I am not familiar enough with Enns or Hatmaker to really comment on their theology. But I also wonder if they are not incorrect, that is, not easily dismissed.

    I suppose the best example of the inadequacy of the inerrancy controversy is the stories of Jonah and Genesis 1 - 3, some will place those entirely within myth and not history, others will reject any mythos and insist on historicity. But each loses something important for the faith. All I can say with certainty is that it is not impossible to be swallowed by a whale and come out alive.

    But can the born again believer go through periods of doubt, and still be heaven bound? Many will say it is impossible, evidence that one is not saved to begin with. Is the regenerate man immune from accepting errors, and holding those errors to the end of this life? That does seem to flow from your post.

    It is a thought provoking OP. I'll recap some points of the Kruger article. These seem to be the basic template for a rippingly good testimony.
    1.) Recount the negatives of your past
    2.) Position yourself as the offended part, bravely confronting the "establishment"
    3.) Portray yourself as an honest seeker and the old group as mired in dogmatism
    4.) Insist your new theology is bible based and the old a rejection of it
    5.) Attack the character of the old group and emphasize the positive of your new faith group.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by simplicio View Post
      But why does a differing opinion infer apostasy?
      It doesn't.

      I am not familiar enough with Enns or Hatmaker to really comment on their theology. But I also wonder if they are not incorrect, that is, not easily dismissed.
      They needn't be dismissed but they ought to be engaged with the knowledge that they are dyed in the wool liberal Christian's.

      I suppose the best example of the inadequacy of the inerrancy controversy is the stories of Jonah and Genesis 1 - 3, some will place those entirely within myth and not history, others will reject any mythos and insist on historicity. But each loses something important for the faith.
      Right, but liberal Christian's such as Dr. Enns attempt to deconstruct Christianity well beyond the sphere of Genesis 1-3 and debate on inerrancy.

      All I can say with certainty is that it is not impossible to be swallowed by a whale and come out alive.
      Right.

      But can the born again believer go through periods of doubt, and still be heaven bound?
      Yes.

      Many will say it is impossible, evidence that one is not saved to begin with.
      I don't think I've come across a Christian who believes that.

      Is the regenerate man immune from accepting errors, and holding those errors to the end of this life? That does seem to flow from your post.
      No. I stated that the regenerate individual will eventually believe the gospel and submit to Apostolic doctrine.

      It is a thought provoking OP. I'll recap some points of the Kruger article. These seem to be the basic template for a rippingly good testimony.
      1.) Recount the negatives of your past
      2.) Position yourself as the offended part, bravely confronting the "establishment"
      3.) Portray yourself as an honest seeker and the old group as mired in dogmatism
      4.) Insist your new theology is bible based and the old a rejection of it
      5.) Attack the character of the old group and emphasize the positive of your new faith group.
      Yes and it is my contention that many of these re-conversions and reconstructions of Christianity are in actuality nothing short of downright apostasy and flagrant heresy.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by simplicio View Post
        But why does a differing opinion infer apostasy? I am not familiar enough with Enns or Hatmaker to really comment on their theology. But I also wonder if they are not incorrect, that is, not easily dismissed.

        I suppose the best example of the inadequacy of the inerrancy controversy is the stories of Jonah and Genesis 1 - 3, some will place those entirely within myth and not history, others will reject any mythos and insist on historicity. But each loses something important for the faith. All I can say with certainty is that it is not impossible to be swallowed by a whale and come out alive.

        But can the born again believer go through periods of doubt, and still be heaven bound? Many will say it is impossible, evidence that one is not saved to begin with. Is the regenerate man immune from accepting errors, and holding those errors to the end of this life? That does seem to flow from your post.

        It is a thought provoking OP. I'll recap some points of the Kruger article. These seem to be the basic template for a rippingly good testimony.
        1.) Recount the negatives of your past
        2.) Position yourself as the offended part, bravely confronting the "establishment"
        3.) Portray yourself as an honest seeker and the old group as mired in dogmatism
        4.) Insist your new theology is bible based and the old a rejection of it
        5.) Attack the character of the old group and emphasize the positive of your new faith group.
        Generally someone like Enns rejects far more than the early chapters of Genesis. There is only one real response to them once they have rejected so much.

        John 3:12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
          [I]t is my contention that many of these re-conversions and reconstructions of Christianity are in actuality nothing short of downright apostasy and flagrant heresy.
          For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
            [I] have attempted to give Peter Enns and his ilk the benefit of the doubt, but I cannot in good conscience consider his theological trajectory anything other than apostasy. […] [par. 2]
            I am glad to learn that you have reached that conclusion.
            For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by simplicio View Post
              But why does a differing opinion infer apostasy? I am not familiar enough with Enns or Hatmaker to really comment on their theology. But I also wonder if they are not incorrect, that is, not easily dismissed. [par. 1]
              As reluctant as we might be to do so in the post-modern era, theological boundaries/lines in the sand must be drawn. In the quest to be open, tolerant, unbigoted, and/or understanding, one can lose sight of the fact that heterodox teachings do exist, and are not to be treated as minor theoretical differences. Being overly patient with and overexposing oneself to seriously false teaching will, over time, erode doctrinal discernment.
              For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

              Comment


              • #8
                I will say up front that I haven't read Enns writing, or his infamous Incarnation and Inspiration, but have listened to the controversy surrounding it. And I also admit that I find it bizarre. The same points Enns raises and is criticized for are the points which are used by his critics (such as the use of the concept of an evolution in Jewish thinking). The appeals to tradition from within the reformed camp have echoes of the Catholic apologists (I am Catholic, so I see appeals to tradition in a different light than most evangelicals). And the novel re interpretations of the Old Testament by Jesus himself suggest that the New Testament does stretch the Old in surprising ways.

                I do not know which other theological positions of Enns suggest that he is apostate. Perhaps someone could provide examples. What truths of the faith has Enns rejected?

                I wonder if the charges of apostasy stem form an all too common definition of the Body of Christ which is restricted to specific denomination. But maybe that is best set aside for now, I will start a thread on it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Personally, I have come to find discussions over salvation too frustrating. Beyond the need to be saved, God doesn't seem to provide a real clear explanation of the process. I am very content to leave this up to God.

                  I think the possibility of falling away and reconversion is possible. I think an argument could be constructed that Peter did exactly that when he denied Jesus three times and then later Jesus restored him. I don't think its very likely. I find Hebrews 6:4-6 too strong of an argument against reconversion.
                  "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." Hosea 6:6

                  "Theology can be an intellectual entertainment." Metropolitan Anthony Bloom

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by simplicio View Post
                    I will say up front that I haven't read Enns writing, or his infamous Incarnation and Inspiration
                    I&I isn't all that bad. As he himself has admitted, his positions has shifted since it was written.
                    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by simplicio View Post
                      I will say up front that I haven't read Enns writing, or his infamous Incarnation and Inspiration, but have listened to the controversy surrounding it. And I also admit that I find it bizarre. The same points Enns raises and is criticized for are the points which are used by his critics (such as the use of the concept of an evolution in Jewish thinking). The appeals to tradition from within the reformed camp have echoes of the Catholic apologists (I am Catholic, so I see appeals to tradition in a different light than most evangelicals). And the novel re interpretations of the Old Testament by Jesus himself suggest that the New Testament does stretch the Old in surprising ways.

                      I do not know which other theological positions of Enns suggest that he is apostate. Perhaps someone could provide examples. What truths of the faith has Enns rejected?

                      I wonder if the charges of apostasy stem form an all too common definition of the Body of Christ which is restricted to specific denomination. But maybe that is best set aside for now, I will start a thread on it.
                      He implicitly regards Yahweh as a tribal deity on par with the god of the Moabites, Chemosh, for example. He denies necessity of faith in Christ for the forgiveness of sins, denies categories such as "saved" and "lost". Denies the gospel or expresses total apathy in regards to it's proclamation, etc. This all becomes painfully apparent if you familiarize yourself with his writings. If he were to "examine" himself and "test" himself to see if he is in the faith as proclaimed by the Apostle's, I believe he would conclude that he is not. He is at home with types such as Rob Bell and Brian McLaren, and their theology is at home in agnosticism, humanism, and the new age -- not biblical Christianity.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Matthew 13:3..."A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. 9 Whoever has ears, let them hear.”

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                          I sympathize with those who doubt and experience unbelief, as we all do, but I also believe that those born again/regenerated by the Holy Spirit cannot and will not remain in a consistent state of doubt and uncertainty. Those indwelt by the Spirit of God will eventually believe and rest in the gospel. You must be born again. You must be born again -- all else flows from that.
                          I don't agree with this assessment. I believe that God makes use of all believers and all types of personalities.

                          I will use myself as an example. I am a naturally skeptical person...which may be why I am a scientist. However, it is this skepticism that has lead me to Christ. My journey was largely an intellectual one and not an emotional one. This is where I struggle as I am not really an emotional person. I have problems trying to apply logic and reason to too many aspects of my life. I am aware of this. However, I believe that God uses my predispositions to share the good news with others of a similar mindset.

                          Believe me, I wish I was not like this. It is not a fun place to be. I beg and pray for God to change me so that I may be able to rest in the Gospel more fully. That being said, God gave me the gift of intellectual curiosity. As such I deal with it and thank God for the blessings that he has bestowed on me. A lot of people have gifts that are also curses...why should I be any different?

                          I live in a world of science and empiricism. I am constantly bombarded with other's beliefs of materialism, reductionism, etc. Being a fallible human being, it takes its toll. I continue to doubt and be uncertain (it comes and goes) but I never give up on my faith in Christ. When I am challenged by skeptics, I fully admit that I may be wrong, that I am not certain, and that I don't have all of the answers. Instead of my uncertainty being met with derision, they usually put their guard down and listen more attentively. I have yet to convert anyone but I don't give up. The one thing that I have been told by my skeptic friends is that they no longer view belief in God as irrational, delusional, and for the simple minded. I consider this a small victory.

                          If I were to take your warning of being born again (not entirely sure what that means exactly) as a necessity, I would give up. I am just not made that way. However, I don't think that means that I cannot believe that I need a Savior and that Christ was the incarnation of the Word. Maybe my faith is too one dimensional, I fully accept that this may be a possibility and I am working on this.


                          Furthremore, I don't take Genesis as a historical record. I take Genesis to be a story about creation. Why would God tell us a story about how he created the universe? The same reason that I tell stories to my children when they ask about complex topics that they have no frame of reference for. How could we as limited humans understand God's act of creation? The real explanation would probably be more like...God spoke. That is great but it also wouldn't satisfy our desire for a little more explanation. I don't think that this makes me a liberal. I believe that Jesus was God's son (the Messiah) who died on the cross for our sins, was physically resurrected from the dead, and will return at some future time to judge the living and the dead. Even if I don't think that Johan was really swallowed by a whale...how would this make me a liberal Christian? I would like to apologize in advance if this was not a point that you were trying to make.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by element771 View Post
                            I don't agree with this assessment. I believe that God makes use of all believers and all types of personalities.

                            I will use myself as an example. I am a naturally skeptical person...which may be why I am a scientist. However, it is this skepticism that has lead me to Christ. My journey was largely an intellectual one and not an emotional one. This is where I struggle as I am not really an emotional person. I have problems trying to apply logic and reason to too many aspects of my life. I am aware of this. However, I believe that God uses my predispositions to share the good news with others of a similar mindset.

                            Believe me, I wish I was not like this. It is not a fun place to be. I beg and pray for God to change me so that I may be able to rest in the Gospel more fully. That being said, God gave me the gift of intellectual curiosity. As such I deal with it and thank God for the blessings that he has bestowed on me. A lot of people have gifts that are also curses...why should I be any different?

                            I live in a world of science and empiricism. I am constantly bombarded with other's beliefs of materialism, reductionism, etc. Being a fallible human being, it takes its toll. I continue to doubt and be uncertain (it comes and goes) but I never give up on my faith in Christ. When I am challenged by skeptics, I fully admit that I may be wrong, that I am not certain, and that I don't have all of the answers. Instead of my uncertainty being met with derision, they usually put their guard down and listen more attentively. I have yet to convert anyone but I don't give up. The one thing that I have been told by my skeptic friends is that they no longer view belief in God as irrational, delusional, and for the simple minded. I consider this a small victory.

                            If I were to take your warning of being born again (not entirely sure what that means exactly) as a necessity, I would give up. I am just not made that way. However, I don't think that means that I cannot believe that I need a Savior and that Christ was the incarnation of the Word. Maybe my faith is too one dimensional, I fully accept that this may be a possibility and I am working on this.


                            Furthremore, I don't take Genesis as a historical record. I take Genesis to be a story about creation. Why would God tell us a story about how he created the universe? The same reason that I tell stories to my children when they ask about complex topics that they have no frame of reference for. How could we as limited humans understand God's act of creation? The real explanation would probably be more like...God spoke. That is great but it also wouldn't satisfy our desire for a little more explanation. I don't think that this makes me a liberal. I believe that Jesus was God's son (the Messiah) who died on the cross for our sins, was physically resurrected from the dead, and will return at some future time to judge the living and the dead. Even if I don't think that Johan was really swallowed by a whale...how would this make me a liberal Christian? I would like to apologize in advance if this was not a point that you were trying to make.
                            When I stated that one must be born again, I meant that one must be regenerated and indwelt by the Holy Spirit in order to be a genuine Christian. When I stated that "those born again/regenerated by the Holy Spirit cannot and will not remain in a consistent state of doubt and uncertainty", I should have re-emphasized that this flavor of doubt and uncertainty applies to those who have deconstructed/de-converted from biblical Christianity and reconstructed/re-converted to a belief system and worldview that is at odds with and in opposition to biblical, gospel centered Christianity.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
                              When I stated that one must be born again, I meant that one must be regenerated and indwelt by the Holy Spirit in order to be a genuine Christian. When I stated that "those born again/regenerated by the Holy Spirit cannot and will not remain in a consistent state of doubt and uncertainty", I should have re-emphasized that this flavor of doubt and uncertainty applies to those who have deconstructed/de-converted from biblical Christianity and reconstructed/re-converted to a belief system and worldview that is at odds with and in opposition to biblical, gospel centered Christianity.
                              My apologies if that came off as a long diatribe given what you meant.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                              35 responses
                              166 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                              4 responses
                              49 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                              Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                              10 responses
                              119 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post mikewhitney  
                              Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                              14 responses
                              71 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                              13 responses
                              59 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Cow Poke  
                              Working...
                              X