Sonship

[Pergamum]

CLSTAMPER:


So, let me get this straight:

You call the less than precise wording of us being "broken" in sin as absolute rubbish... but then you tell us to "sin boldly"

Ha, you are straining at gnats and condemning World Harvest, a good group, and then yourself advocating a position that could easily be misunderstood as advocating a light view of sin.



What is it about brokenness that is so objectionable? Due to the Fall we are sinners, we are imperfect and all we due is broken. Why make such a big deal about WH's use of "broken"?

 

[clstamper]

You call the less than precise wording of us being "broken" in sin as absolute rubbish... but then you tell us to "sin boldly"

Yep.

What on Earth is "broken" about being rescued from the outer darkness and delivered into fellowship with God and His church? Christ so preserves me that not a hair can fall from my head without the will of my heavenly Father. In addition, the Holy Spirit assures me of eternal life. I call that "repaired."

Know what? The theonomists got one thing right: guilt manipulation is bad, even from within the church. You talk about knowing about your identity in Christ, so don't miss the obvious.

 

[Archlute]

I'll give you another example of Sonship sophistry from the WH mission statement:

"The gospel message we seek to proclaim is this: that the Kingdom of God has invaded this fallen and broken world and is driving back the forces of darkness"

What is this psychobabble about being "fallen and broken?" If that is our problem, we need drugs like wellbutrin and prozac. These are not religious matters. Do not pester your pastor about them.

Even as a Christian, I consider myself both justified and sinful. To call me "fallen and broken" is just plain rubbish. To use "fallen" in that sense makes human finitude to to be the problem. The term "broken" is undefinable; it means "I sometimes feel bad about myself."

Call me the chief of sinners. Call me a covenant breaker. Tell me my sins are like dirty rags. Just don't patronize me by telling me I'm "broken."

Maybe someone with your problem wouldn't feel patronized if they were told that they had diarrhea of the mouth.

You continue to attack practically every post on this board that I have read this evening, have nothing constructive to offer, and can't even get your theological terminology straight. My countenance has "fallen" that your record seems to be "broken".

To be a little more serious, fallen and broken are appropriate terms to use regarding all of mankind, and even in a certain regard to the Christian. Fallen merely points out the fact that all men have fallen from their original state, and being as that position from which we have fallen has yet fully to be restored, Christians may also properly be considered yet fallen.

Broken is appropriate as well. The antonym to "broken" is "unbroken/whole", or subsequent to a state of brokenness, "fixed". What this means theologically is that, as man has been broken by the fall into sin (or as older theologians used to speak, the image of God in him has been badly marred), so that original state will not be restored and perfected until our final glorification. Until then, while yet being moved toward glory in our sanctification and status as sons of God, we still remain broken in a very real sense.

I find it ironic that you state "broken" to be an undefinable term, and then go on to provide your own rather amorphous definition, one which I am not so certain would be the definition that Dr. Miller would have given to it. It would be more helpful if you actually quoted larger sections of the passages which concern you in context for others on the board to interact with, otherwise your critiques seem to be unsubstantiated caricatures.

 

[turmeric]

MOD HAT ON

Adam, I truly hate to say this, but if I see another personal insult, i.e. diahhrea of the mouth, I will have to start dishing out infractions to whoever dishes out the insults. No exceptions.MOD HAT OFF

I wish I knew why threads about sanctification and union with Christ bring out such lack of charity in our writing. A person from the outside might wonder if we are actually experiencing these things we claim. I guess it shows that it's not instantaneous...

 

[Archlute]

Well, Meg, I suppose that I am in good company, as Paul used offensive bodily imagery in a rebuke related to a sin that was in need of addressing (Gal.5:12). As well, since Paul commands us to imitate him as he imitates Christ, and Christ also used sharp language in his rebukes, I do not feel a need to be overly worried about this particular instance. Chris has been in repeated need of correction, and twelve of the thirteen lines which were posted above were more than within the bounds of appropriateness, as that term has been defined within the confines of this board.

What I would be more concerned about is you, being a woman, standing over a minister or any other man on this board, as one with authority, namely, as a moderator. I genuinely do not mean that as an insult or an offense to you personally, and I am sure that I would enjoy conversation with you apart from the social silliness of these online boards, as your demeanor is one of thoughtfulness and kindness, even as has been exemplified by this situation. Nevertheless, I think that the administrators of this board have done you a disservice by allowing you this position. Restrictions of authority in church life run throughout the life and relationship of the church body, whether formal or informal, whether meeting at worship or speaking on the street. A function of being a moderator is an exertion of some level of official authority over a body, forum, or debate, and, although I will respect your decision (having been placed there by others), I do not find it congruent with the order of relationships that should be found within the church.

If speaking those opinions causes a problem with my remaining here on the board, then it is probably time for me to leave. I do think that the critiques that have been raised regarding the PB in a related thread today have merit, and I have seen a number of otherwise fine men be removed from this group over the past several years merely because they did not fall in lockstep with the sometimes rather myopic opinion of the majority.

In fact, it would rather be a kind service to me if you would do so. I have a great deal more useful things to accomplish within the church than to debate second rate scholarship by laymen, or the ubiquitous threads that perennially arise upon Baptism (for crying out loud). This board can be an enjoyable outlet for the occasional tossing out of opinions and banter, but really takes itself more seriously and is more of a time waster than it should be. I have fallen into those traps myself on occasion, and it would be best to eliminate that for me now.

May God's blessings be upon you all, and please do not feel that this stepping out has to do with you personally, Meg, it was just the catalyst that has been needed to do something that I have been contemplating taking action on for the past several months.

Signing out,

 

[VictorBravo]

Adam, I agreed with your points on this thread, and I was glad to see you come back to the board a while back.

But this is really self-serving nonsense. Meg was enforcing the rules. She's a moderator duly installed by the owners of this board. This is not a church and your position as a minister does not change your status as being subject to moderation.

I'm really disappointed by the cheap shot. If you have problems with moderators and with how the board is run, you should have taken it up with the owners/admins. Instead, you decide to malign everyone who participates. Bad form, brother.

General Moderator Message: The moderators have been working hard at maintaining decorum and keeping the board from going off the rails. We have had to be clearer about the rules. Please read the forum rules and remember that all the moderators are trying to keep the peace without playing favorites. If you get stung by a rebuke, take it in that context. We make mistakes too, but put a lot of effort into doing it right. Feel free to PM me (or other moderators) if you think things are unjust, but public insults are not part of allowed discourse.

 

[Pergamum]

Turmeric is a girl?

I thought it was a spice!


...A spice girl!?!?

 

[clstamper]

I wish I knew why threads about sanctification and union with Christ bring out such lack of charity in our writing.

That's because these doctrines are not clearly taught in many Presbyterian churches. That is not just a New Life problem. It leaves a vacuum, so people get confused. I don't necessarily blame Sonship people for latching onto that stuff; I just wish they would plant themselves in deeper ground. Unfortunately, we live in an age of shallow soil.

John Owen on sin and temptation certainly helped me. In fact, this was the material that convinced me of the Reformed faith.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Well, Meg, I suppose that I am in good company, as Paul used offensive bodily imagery in a rebuke related to a sin that was in need of addressing (Gal.5:12). As well, since Paul commands us to imitate him as he imitates Christ, and Christ also used sharp language in his rebukes, I do not feel a need to be overly worried about this particular instance. Chris has been in repeated need of correction, and twelve of the thirteen lines which were posted above were more than within the bounds of appropriateness, as that term has been defined within the confines of this board.

What I would be more concerned about is you, being a woman, standing over a minister or any other man on this board, as one with authority, namely, as a moderator. I genuinely do not mean that as an insult or an offense to you personally, and I am sure that I would enjoy conversation with you apart from the social silliness of these online boards, as your demeanor is one of thoughtfulness and kindness, even as has been exemplified by this situation. Nevertheless, I think that the administrators of this board have done you a disservice by allowing you this position. Restrictions of authority in church life run throughout the life and relationship of the church body, whether formal or informal, whether meeting at worship or speaking on the street. A function of being a moderator is an exertion of some level of official authority over a body, forum, or debate, and, although I will respect your decision (having been placed there by others), I do not find it congruent with the order of relationships that should be found within the church.

If speaking those opinions causes a problem with my remaining here on the board, then it is probably time for me to leave. I do think that the critiques that have been raised regarding the PB in a related thread today have merit, and I have seen a number of otherwise fine men be removed from this group over the past several years merely because they did not fall in lockstep with the sometimes rather myopic opinion of the majority.

In fact, it would rather be a kind service to me if you would do so. I have a great deal more useful things to accomplish within the church than to debate second rate scholarship by laymen, or the ubiquitous threads that perennially arise upon Baptism (for crying out loud). This board can be an enjoyable outlet for the occasional tossing out of opinions and banter, but really takes itself more seriously and is more of a time waster than it should be. I have fallen into those traps myself on occasion, and it would be best to eliminate that for me now.

May God's blessings be upon you all, and please do not feel that this stepping out has to do with you personally, Meg, it was just the catalyst that has been needed to do something that I have been contemplating taking action on for the past several months.

Signing out,

Adam,

You and I have had it out in the past but were reconciled. I'll admit that the criticisms you levied at me were largely valid and caused not a small amount of reflection. I have nothing against you and am saddened that you're leaving.

I just spent all day yesterday on a long flight back to Japan and miss my family right now that returns after a week. I spent the last couple of weeks with family and a funeral and, frankly, stuff like this is much less dire to me than it might be at another point.

Frankly, on the scale of "silly hills to die on" this has got to take the cake.

If a minister walks into an establishment and breaks the "house rules" then gets indignant because one of the women who has authority over that establishment asks him to moderate his tone then it is laughable, frankly, to appeal to spheres of authority.

Put another way, suppose a Presbyterian minister walked into my house and spoke in a way that my wife did not like and she asked him to change his tone. If he came to me and told me that my wife needed to understand Biblical roles then I'd tell him that the person who didn't understand authority in this case was the man standing in front of me.

I've heard some military police relate a line that they used to tell senior Marines who used to get indignant that they were getting traffic tickets: "Sir, don't confuse rank with authority."

Be careful that you stand less you fall friend. I've noticed some dangerous parallels between you and some other young men who have studied much and have great talent and insight (which I believe you do) but became very pompous in their wielding of it. One of those is a dear friend who could never quite "make the turn" and has lost two pastorates in the process.

I do wish you the best in the years ahead but, mostly, that you'll mature to the point that you'll look back with sorrow over this post.

Blessings,

Rich

 

[clstamper]

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? It seems like you are saying YES,SIN BOLDLY THAT GRACE MAY ABOUND MORE!

"Sin boldly" is classic Luther. He also said, "No sin troubles us as severely as the lust after divinity. Of course, the lust of the flesh is also a furiously strong urge, yet it is only a form (of sin) and nothing in comparison with spiritual lust or fornication."

The point is that as long as we wear mortal flesh, we will sin. Nobody escapes this. To expect otherwise is not healthy. Yet we have a Mediator and Redeemer in Christ Jesus.

Here's more Luther:

Therefore let us arm our hearts with these and similar statements of Scripture so that, when the devil accuses us by saying: You are a sinner; therefore you are damned, we can reply: The very fact that you say I am a sinner makes me want to be just and saved. Nay, you will be damned, says the devil. Indeed not, I reply, for I take refuge in Christ, who gave Himself for my sins.

Therefore you will accomplish nothing, Satan, by trying to frighten me by setting the greatness of my sins before me and thus seducing me to sadness, doubt, despair, hatred, contempt, and blasphemy of God. Indeed, by calling me a sinner you are supplying me with weapons against yourself so that I can slay and destroy you with your own sword; for Christ died for sinners.

Furthermore, you yourself proclaim the glory of God to me; you remind me of God's paternal love for me, a miserable and lost sinner; for He so loved the world that He gave His Son (John 3:16). Again, whenever you throw up to me that I am a sinner, you revive in my memory the blessing of Christ, my Redeemer, on whose shoulders, and not on mine, lie all my sins; for "the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all" and "for the transgression of His people was He stricken" (Is. 53:6-8). Therefore when you throw up to me that I am a sinner, you are not terrifying me; you are comforting me beyond measure.

See:
Luther's "sin boldly"

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Meg, this is regarding your post #58, which was responding to something of Chris’ earlier. (By the way, I appreciate your moderating the tone and content of the discussion when it gets out of hand.)

[Component: “a part or element of a larger whole”]

What is the end of our faith? Is it not the salvation of our souls (1 Pet 1:9), the finished, consummated salvation we partake of at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Rev 19:9), and beyond?

Our justification before God in the days of our present life on this earth, is it not by faith in the Person and work of the Son of God, our Lord Jesus? Is this justification by faith the consummation of our salvation? Is it not rather a means to that end?

And this finished salvation, of what does it essentially consist? Is it not that we have been predestined to be conformed to the image of God’s Son (Ro 8:29) – holy and without blame before Him in love (Eph 1:4) – in the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself (Eph 1:5), seated with Christ in His throne (Eph 2:5, 6; Rev 3:21), ever the members of the royal family of the Most High?

In that day mortality shall be swallowed up of life (2 Cor 5:4), both hope and faith necessary no more, as we shall see that we have hoped for (Ro 8:24, 25) with our glorified eyes, laying hold of that eternal substance, not by faith but by sight, for the temporal will have passed away and the eternal become our life, no longer evidence unseen but seen.

Faith will have passed away in lieu of the beatific vision of the glorified saints. In that day justification by faith will have outlived its purpose, the work of redemption fulfilled to the uttermost, superceded by the unending life of promise, the Lord Almighty a Father to us, His sons and daughters by adoption, accepted in the Beloved, to the praise of the glory of His grace.

Justification by faith, that vital component by which God brought the adopted into His heart, will be swallowed up of immortality and be no more, while our family-relations as children and bride – His eternal purpose – effected fully to the joy of all, world without end.

Was not justification a means to this glorious end of union with the Godhead?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Chris, from your post #59:

What is this psychobabble about being "fallen and broken?" If that is our problem, we need drugs like wellbutrin and prozac. These are not religious matters. Do not pester your pastor about them.

Perhaps the word comes from the Lord’s words, “He hath sent Me to heal the brokenhearted…” (Luke 4:18). Many such there are, and we do no violence to the truth to use the words of Scripture.

Proverbs 11:14: “Where no counsel is the people fall…” And I see multitudes fallen and in misery because the counsel of God is not given them.

If we use words from the Bible, and in the Biblical sense, please do not molest us with your proper aversion to “psychobabble” – for fallen and broken are Biblical words and ideas. I myself share your aversion to psychobabble, but this is not that.

 

[clstamper]

Perhaps the word comes from the Lord’s words, “He hath sent Me to heal the brokenhearted…” (Luke 4:18). Many such there are, and we do no violence to the truth to use the words of Scripture.

Are the words "broken" and "broken-hearted" referring to the same thing?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Chris, this is from your post #11,

Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here in this world we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness.

Peter says we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world.

No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small?

You say, “As long as we are in this world we have to sin.” Calvin said (commenting on Eph 1:20), “Though sin does not reign, it continues to dwell in us…” And Romans says, “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.” (6:12) It’s a jive pleading for sin to say we “have” to, undermining our responsibility to live godly by saying necessity is upon us to sin.

And then you say, “This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness.” Why then would Paul tell us to “…put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness”? (Eph 4:24) And later in 6:14 charge us to wear “the breastplate of righteousness”. You will note I am not talking perfection, but simple Biblical righteousness, spoken of all throughout the Scripture.

You overstate your case too many times, and this weakens it. As in the notorious,

"No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small?"​

Continually practiced sin will separate us from the Lamb – as in a mass murderer committing murder on the scale you present – for it is written, “Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.” (Eph 5:6) Of course such a one can repent and find redemption, but as it seems you are saying, for a professing believer to sin so (“us”, “we”), well, they are already separated from the Lamb, for such a continual practice shows a fruit incongruous with salvation. What I am pointing out here is your use of overstatement, which in our present discourse brings in an imprecision that renders it theologically useless.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

There are many who own no brokenheartedness, nor brokenness of life, and dreams, integrity, etc. They say , “I am whole, and well, and I will have no God reign over me.” The multitudes taken captive by the devil at his will (2 Tim 2:26), are these not broken humans, slaves to sin, blinded in their minds, to which we are to bring His word, that He might deliver the captives (Luke 4:18)? Some of these He Himself “brought down their heart with labour; they fell down, and there was none to help” till they cried out to Him.

Please, Chris, don’t mistake good words used Biblically for psychobabble. Judge righteous judgment.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

And a final word before I hit the sack (it is late over here in this part of the world). A little booklet I have on my shelves, The Theology of Sonship, by Neil H. Williams (World Harvest Mission; ISBN: 0971531900), says this,

The theological foundation for Sonship may be summarized by the phrase, “sanctification by faith.”​

And then he goes on to elucidate this through Scripture, teaching, quotes from the Reformed community, etc.

Just to bring some focus to this discussion.

 

[clstamper]

It’s a jive pleading for sin to say we “have” to, undermining our responsibility to live godly by saying necessity is upon us to sin.

I (actually, Luther) is merely describing reality. We are justified and sinful. Christian perfection is not available, as you say. So, yes, we will sin.

And then you say, “This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness.” Why then would Paul tell us to “…put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness”? (Eph 4:24)

There's no contradiction. Even our best works are stained with sin. We are justified by somebody else's righteousness.

And later in 6:14 charge us to wear “the breastplate of righteousness”. You will note I am not talking perfection, but simple Biblical righteousness, spoken of all throughout the Scripture.

I don't know what "simple Biblical righteousness" is. God's standard is perfection. He does not substitute an easier Law that we can fulfill to make ourselves righteous.

Continually practiced sin will separate us from the Lamb – as in a mass murderer committing murder on the scale you present...

It would show that one is unregenerate and needs to repent and believe the Gospel.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Chris,

I think you need to study more and post less. What Steve stated is perfectly compatible with Romans 6 in contrast to your own post about the insistence that we must sin.

For somebody being prickly about using innocuous terms in sentences a certain way it would be quite easy for me to jump all over you for saying that we must sin when Romans 6 states that those united to Christ are slaves to Christ and slaves to sin no longer.

Nobody debates that perfectionism is impossible but your manner of stating it is inappropriate given Bibical and Confessional forms of expression.

 

[clstamper]

The theological foundation for Sonship may be summarized by the phrase, “sanctification by faith.”

"Sanctification by faith" is a classic Wesleyan teaching. See Warfield's Studies in Perfectionism. Maybe that is not what they mean?

 

[clstamper]

It would be quite easy for me to jump all over you for saying that we must sin when Romans 6 states that those united to Christ are slaves to Christ and slaves to sin no longer.

As long as we share the mortal coil, we must sin. Even our best works are unclean. This is good orthodox theology. Why does my quoting Martin Luther affect you?

 

[sotzo]

Might I humbly try to offer a resolution to this issue?

The NT is clear on the indicative and imperative. We are justified children of God (indicative), therefore now go and live as children of God (imperative).

Now, one of 2 possibilities exist if I am not living the imperatives. First, I'm not a child of God (the indicative is not a reality)...or second, I am a child of God and I am living as if I'm not. The antidote for the first instance is to trust Christ. But the example of the second is not any different...it is to trust Christ...that is, to hear the Scriptures say "you were once X, now you are Y". Is this not what every applicable epistle in the NT does when it admonishes its audience whether the Corinthians, Galatians, etc?

Now that being said, there are many reasons why a person would need to be reminded they are a child of God. Sometimes, it is because they are arrogant and need to be pulled back to understand their sin and the cost of their salvation. Other times, a person may indeed feel like they are not measuring up and they need to be reminded the Father's wrath has been exhausted on Christ (that is, they are a son...able to call on Him as their 'Abba'). Dr. Miller was merely trying to give pastoral counsel for the latter...taken to an extreme by applying Miller's sonship a priori to every case of forgetting the indicative....not wise....but applying it in cases where that is indeed the root issue of one's heart...is wise.

The problem with this thread, In my humble opinion, is that it is discussing a doctrine outside of its application, to the extent that its extremes are taking a frontseat. And these extremes can only be agreed upon when applied to a certain circumstances (ie, within the context of the community of believers). It's like the worn-out unbelieving polemic against the Proverbs' use of extremes that you can see on many a bible-bashing site...for example, when the Proverbs say to "answer a fool according to his folly" and "do not answer a fool according to his folly". We could set up a thread to debate which one is correct only to find out that both are correct in certain life circumstances (which is the point of the Proverbs as wisdom literature).

I don't see this as relativism...rather it is inherent to incarnational living that is part and parcel of the NT Christian life.

 

[clstamper]

Dr. Miller was merely trying to give pastoral counsel for the latter...

Since Miller at his best is confusing and simplistic, shouldn't pastoral counseling use something else? (That "something else" is not a reference to the Jay Adams model, BTW.)

rather it is inherent to incarnational living that is part and parcel of the NT Christian life.

Uh, oh. "Incarnational living" is no better. It's a phrase that can mean all sorts of things. Only Christ is incarnate and our lives should look to the Cross, the means of grace, and the hope of glory. Please don't hate me. :-(

Also, on a fundamental level, there are problems with seeing one's emotional state (i.e., brokenness, frustration, identity conflicts) as a reflection of one's spirituality. Religious affections are certainly a big part of the human psyche, but not every personal problem can be reduced to spiritual categories.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Since Miller at his best is confusing and simplistic...

Spoken by one who is both rude and incredibly simplistic in his approach.

Your problem, Chris, is not that you possess a grain of truth in what you say but it is just that: a grain. Your posts lack any mature discernment of the larger issue.

I'm finished warning you about it. Please see my post in the thread about the PB in this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f103/oh-no-you-re-member-puritanboard-26093/

I'm not sure I have time for your method of "drive by" posting that is molesting many threads. You jump in, make terse statements that lack nuance while simultaneously casting ideas beyond the pale without justification.

Your posts indicate to me that you've studied much but comprehend in a very shallow way. Where you should be learning you presume to teach. I won't provide that venue for you for much longer.

 

[sotzo]

Since Miller at his best is confusing and simplistic, shouldn't pastoral counseling use something else? (That "something else" is not a reference to the Jay Adams model, BTW.)

This is at best ad hominem. No problem with it being your opinion, but I'm inferring from this post (and your others) you intend for your opinion to be a norm.

rather it is inherent to incarnational living that is part and parcel of the NT Christian life.

Uh, oh. "Incarnational living" is no better. It's a phrase that can mean all sorts of things Only Christ is incarnate and our lives should look to the Cross, the means of grace, and the hope of glory. Please don't hate me.

No hate here. I think this discussion is great. Yes, the phrase "incarnational living" can mean anything, but let's not chalk up a term you may shun to deconstructionist nothingness. By it I mean, living out a doctrine within the community of believers...how Christ's incarnation means we cannot live incarnationally escapes me. I sure ain't gonna send a cup of cold water in Christ's name through cyberspace...must be done life on life.

You have a tendency here to assign certain terms to definitions that automatically disqualify them. Why is that? When I hear, "I got saved" that sometimes conjures up images of my Arminian upbringing and I tend to chalk it up to bad theology. Surely, there is a good and right use of the term "I got saved" that is outside of the categories of my narrow mindedness. Can we not do the same here?

 

[clstamper]

Your posts indicate to me that you've studied much but comprehend in a very shallow way. Where you should be learning you presume to teach. I won't provide that venue for you for much longer.

I take the classical categories, even with Luther for support, rather than accept contemporary constructs. I don't think calling me shallow for it is helpful.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Your posts indicate to me that you've studied much but comprehend in a very shallow way. Where you should be learning you presume to teach. I won't provide that venue for you for much longer.

I take the classical categories, even with Luther for support, rather than accept contemporary constructs. I don't think calling me shallow for it is helpful.

Really? Labels are not helpful? Maybe you ought to heed your own advice then. It stings, does it not, when men incosiderately jump into something and malign you without seeking to understand your position?

I've seen at least 4 posts just this AM where you have labelled men in a shallow fashion. Indeed it is NOT helpful to label men. Hence, you are on notice that you will desist.

 

[clstamper]

I've seen at least 4 posts just this AM where you have labelled men in a shallow fashion. Indeed it is NOT helpful to label men. Hence, you are on notice that you will desist.

Let's talk about labeling. I have been defamed, called shallow, had my education insulted, my maturity mocked, and told I am everything but a nice guy, all in the name of Christian spirituality. Often people become emotionally upset about ideas that contradict their established notions, so they seek to shoot the messenger. Please understand the difference between clarity and tactlessness.

Rev. McMahon wrote:
"All this comes down to debate. Luther posted the 95 Theses on the door of Wittenberg hoping to DEBATE. His Theses were less than "kind" in many ways. His objective was to set forth solid biblical material (in his mind) and debate other to see where he may be right and where he may be wrong."


Instead of being shown how I'm wrong, I get vague accusations of incivility which have no basis in fact. If Rev. McMahon has a problem with me, he may call me direct. I'll give him my phone number.

 

[clstamper]

This is at best ad hominem. No problem with it being your opinion, but I'm inferring from this post (and your others) you intend for your opinion to be a norm.

As I explained, Sonship posits orphan Christians on one side (bad) and adopted Christians on another (good). Calling that simplistic, as I did, is a fair conclusion. This is how the discussion started.

 

[sotzo]

This is at best ad hominem. No problem with it being your opinion, but I'm inferring from this post (and your others) you intend for your opinion to be a norm.

As I explained, Sonship posits orphan Christians on one side (bad) and adopted Christians on another (good). Calling that simplistic, as I did, is a fair conclusion. This is how the discussion started.

I understand, but even if one were to grant you the point that the Sonship material is simplistic, you are still equating "simplistic" with "untrue"...the latter does not necessarily follow from the former. Unified in the risen Jesus, let's go in peace.

BTW, my pastor back home (Lakeland, FL) taught systematics at WTS in Dallas and attended Park Cities Pres. Sounded like some great work Park Cities was doing...also, Julian Russell was senior minister at a congregation here in Memphis and is now at Park Cities...he has a heart for urban ministry that is quite compelling and (more importantly) Christocentric.

Peace brother.

 

[turmeric]

Steve, I may be "all wet" here, but I'm wondering, might you be confusing election with adoption? I shoudn't be arguing theology with you, for the reasons which Archlute suggested before his departure, but I can safely say I have no trouble affirming that justification is a component of election, the election from eternity past. I'm not exactly clear on what adoption is, but I think it comes after justification, at a later point in time.

I'm sorry Chris called you a Wesleyan - the Wesleyans did talk about "sanctification by faith" but they meant something quite different than you do, I think.