Bob Enyart LiveGreetings to the brightest audience in the country. I am Bob Enyart...... discuss Bob's shows here! Bob's show is aired live on the radio and rebroadcast at: KGOV.com
What leads you to believe this is a salvation issue?
Your words:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonster
Premise: It is proven that a large percentage of people cannot even think or conceive on a metaphysical level. I believe the OV stance here to not be plain and must require a philosophical understanding. Here then, you will have a large portion of your congregations that will ascend to the truth without perception.
Question: If close to half of the body is left out of this discussion and understanding, how will you reach this half with truth?
A question of Salvation -
January 26th, 2007, 07:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stipe
Your words:
I'm going to ask Clete for help here because I believe the misunderstanding needs correcting desperately. Clete: Are we talking about our Salvation in any way, shape, or form here?
And in case it is dubious on my part: Have I made a comment that you can see that would lead Stipe to this conclusion? If so, what was it? This needs serious clarity.
Location: Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
Rep Power: 87775
Christian
Right Wing Zealot
Slogan/motto:
Do right and risk the consequences!
Reputation:
January 26th, 2007, 07:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonster
I'm going to ask Clete for help here because I believe the misunderstanding needs correcting desperately. Clete: Are we talking about our Salvation in any way, shape, or form here?
And in case it is dubious on my part: Have I made a comment that you can see that would lead Stipe to this conclusion? If so, what was it? This needs serious clarity.
Well I think I see Stipe's point. You made the comment earlier about how the Open View is a very philosophically rigorous doctrine and so surmised that there would be some large percentage of our potential audience that would be left behind because of a lack of ability or desire to delve into such philosophic heavy lifting and you then asked how we planned to reach such people with the truth.
Stipe might be stretching a little bit to think that you must be discussing salvation rather than the "deeper truths" of the gospel but it's not that big of a stretch given the way you put the question. When you talk about "reaching people with the truth" it sort of comes off as though you are referring to reaching lost people with the truth of the gospel.
For the record, the answer is no, we are not discussing salvation but rather things which I would call the "deeper truths" for want of a better, less lofty sounding term.
"The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders
Are we talking about our Salvation in any way, shape, or form here?
.
If I might chime in here, my opinion would be that anything that causes people to doubt that scripture is telling the truth could potentially affect Salvation.
Where does doubt about scripture stop? Or might it eventually cause some to doubt that Jesus is God, so that His atoning sacrifice on the cross was sufficient to pay the debt for all the sins of all humanity for all time?
Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
If I might chime in here, my opinion would be that anything that causes people to doubt that scripture is telling the truth could potentially affect Salvation.
Where does doubt about scripture stop? Or might it eventually cause some to doubt that Jesus is God, so that His atoning sacrifice on the cross was sufficient to pay the debt for all the sins of all humanity for all time?
Bob asked this and I think it helps me to organize my dishevling into a bit of coherence:
Yes, if you understand my statements this way you are correct, and I've stated my position in an over-arching manner in unclarity. It is rather on this particular issue of omniscience and God's relativity to time, or rather better said, the philosophical metaphysical discussions that lead me to be okay with the perplexing and irrational contexts. For basic doctrines and truths I am quite confident in logic for it is from Christ. It is only when discussing with man, truths that are cloudy that I would question my logic or the logic of another and see room for error.
I would liken this to higher math (one area of applied logic). The higher we get in math, the more room for error. Basic math? No question, easy. Imperative truth. Algebra: More difficult but still based on solid truth, but more of the heretics (D and F students) start getting answers wrong. Calculus: Severe drop-out, but clearly we can still discern truth. Once we get to "mathematical analysis and functional analysis" and traverse into string theory it gets complicated. It isn't that truth is not there, but that logic starts having a hard time grasping it and you start getting credit for partial answers so you don't flunk out. We don't even listen to the ones who flunked out of 'basic' math and 'algebra' about higher math because if they couldn't understand basic math there is no way they can comment on Geometry and Calculus, and they think theorems and postulates aren't even mathematical terms. In theology these are the heretics and false teachers.
Back to a glass darkly: I have no problem with 'simple, basic, or other solid' doctrines of faith and logical belief held therein. We are totally on the same page and I don't question my logic whatsoever. No question: If you try to prove to any of us that Salvation can be found anywhere but in Christ we are going to have a serious logic problem dicussion with that heretic (2+2=10). If you say that the trinity is a false doctrine we are all going to have to give a logical dismiss and see it as their problem, not ours (a+5=10; a=4). Once we say however that God exists outside of time or does not exist outside of time we are becoming more speculative and frankly, I've memorized a theorem and would have to go back quite a ways to see why my theorem would be wrong. Some of my theorems are wrong, but not on the 'basic math/algebraic" level. I also hold that most of my theorems are correct logically so I would say that I am not altogether illogical. The only thing I am trying to say is that the higher we go in extrapolations from scripture (it is illogical for God to be outside of time), the less likely I will be able to logically aquiesce (and I would rather say that I am illogical than say you are 'stupid' at that point. 1) because I have a very high view of other believers in Christ whether they agree with me or not. We agree on the 'basic math and algebra' (basic doctrine) implicitly 2) because three fingers always point back which allows me to have an honest pause over how logical I am on the 'higher math/logic' of it 3) because I want to prepare myself for what Christ is preparing for a logic lesson. If I don't concede that my logic has an ability to be faulty I'll just argue. I think this is actually anti-intellectual, anti-logical, and not very gracious to boot. In order to appreciate higher math, you have to be able to see your mistakes and admit them or you learn nothing, albeit, once you get to higher math those mistakes should be far and few between.
If God is constrained to our time, I do not see the truth of it. My logical structure is built upon theorems and postulates that I've used to solve other troubling logical problems over years and they work very well. I would necessarily have to become very illogical to reshuffle and analyze those postulates and theorems (at least through a shuffling process restructuring process).
Here at last is the position: I see a proposition that is not as clear or as truthful as you are proposing (for me). I've read over the posts here and other places to get clarity on this subject and what I am finding is that it is by no means clear and it is by no means agreed upon. It would be very easy to simply walk away and say "My views work very well for me, since there is much debate over this I'm not going to worry about it. I'm just going to keep what works for me here and believe they are wrong."
My only problem is that I love God's people. If they do not agree with me and I believe we have the same faith, I want to know "why?" I want to see their side to at least appreciate it. There are plenty of denominations and we all disagree on the "higher math." Or as you put it "The Deeper Truths" for lack of a better word. My stance is simply to say "I might not understand your view here at all. It may be illogical or I may be illogical on this perspective but I'd like for us to become as logical together as we can."
Last edited by Lon; January 27th, 2007 at 05:09 AM.
Location: Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
Rep Power: 87775
Christian
Right Wing Zealot
Slogan/motto:
Do right and risk the consequences!
Reputation:
January 27th, 2007, 07:59 AM
Lonster,
I'm stunned! I am almost unable to believe what I've just read!
Why can't other Calvinists be this gracious and this intellectually honest?!
You are never allowed to leave TOL as long as you keep this attitude!
I just hope that you don't turn this higher math analogy into a hidey-hole that you jump into every time you run into a problem that you can't see your way around. I would hope that you would agree with me that a theology which only rarely resorts to this sort of "I don't get it - for now" position is superior to one that seems to hide out there all the time.
"The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders
I'm stunned! I am almost unable to believe what I've just read!
Why can't other Calvinists be this gracious and this intellectually honest?!
You are never allowed to leave TOL as long as you keep this attitude!
I just hope that you don't turn this higher math analogy into a hidey-hole that you jump into every time you run into a problem that you can't see your way around. I would hope that you would agree with me that a theology which only rarely resorts to this sort of "I don't get it - for now" position is superior to one that seems to hide out there all the time.
Resting in Him,
Clete
No, but when it does present itself as difficult for me to grasp, I've got to see it as a different level because it first assaults my logical sensibility. At that point I'm like "What am I gonna do here? Am I really going to chuck my reformed doctrine for this? I kind of love this doctrine, but if he is right or can prove he is right, I'm gonna be in irrational mode for awhile again." In other words, I'm totally open to what God would correct in my life, the problem is that when we look at each other's doctrinal stance and go "How can this guy honestly believe this? It just doesn't make any sense." After that, I bring my other logic in to play. "This guy holds in salvation by grace and faith in Christ, perseverance, not just emotional love but commitment to Jesus. And he honors the God of the Bible even if I see some of his theology as whack."
No, but when it does present itself as difficult for me to grasp, I've got to see it as a different level because it first assaults my logical sensibility. At that point I'm like "What am I gonna do here? Am I really going to chuck my reformed doctrine for this? I kind of love this doctrine, but if he is right or can prove he is right in gonna be in irrational mode for awhile again." In other words, I'm totally open to what God would correct in my life, the problem is that when we look at each other's doctrinal stance and go "How can this guy honestly believe this? It just doesn't make any sense." After that, I bring my other logic in to play. "This guy holds in salvation by grace, perseverance, not just emotional love but commitment to Jesus. And he honors the God of the Bible even if I see some of his theology as whack."
Wow.... I am really impressed by your humble attitude and thoughtful posts.
Location: Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
Rep Power: 87775
Christian
Right Wing Zealot
Slogan/motto:
Do right and risk the consequences!
Reputation:
January 30th, 2007, 09:13 PM
Lonster,
I had somehow missed your post. I will try to respond tomorrow but if I don't do so, please send me a reminder. I don't want to lose track of this thread.
(If the administration of this website would be so kind as to put a "Mark as Unread" tag somewhere on the User Control Panel, as I have suggested about 2,432,576 times, this sort of thing wouldn't happen.)
Of course Knight knows I'm just teasing him but it really would be nice, wouldn't it?
"The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders
Hybrid Mode
