tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post4681890348297591366..comments2024-03-28T05:23:02.152-07:00Comments on Winging It: Innocent BloodStanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comBlogger79125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-29708140817235072142009-07-20T17:13:35.283-07:002009-07-20T17:13:35.283-07:00You're not looking for rational evidence.
I a...<i>You're not looking for rational evidence.</i><br /><br />I am not *looking* for anything. This particular subthread began when you stated:<br /><br /><i>Everytime you say something like this, I just scratch my head. If you think you and I are coming from radically different places - we who are both Christians, saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus in whose steps we follow - if you can't bridge this gap with me, how do you expect to reach out to atheists? To Muslims? To people who truly have radical different starting places?<br /></i><br /><br />I responded:<br /><br /><i>Unless you are God, you cannot know Stans heart. Unless he is God, he cannot know yours.<br /><br />Why then the assumption that both are Christians? Do you operate like the gallop poll, calling people what they call themselves?<br /></i><br /><br />In other words, we can none of us know that those to whom we are talking are Christians... particuarly on the internet where we cannot see each other lives.<br /><br />Thus, to deal with the original issue, I would say that Stan (even if he is not a Christian) is starting from a Christian starting point. Where as you (even if you are a Christian) are starting from a non-Christian starting point.<br /><br />Stan begins, as did Christ, with what 'is written'. You do not (as you proved so repeatedly earlier... even asking (with incredulity) whether Stan believed in such outrageous things as the killing of children, or, well I forget the rest of the list.<br /><br />But whereas Christ used to words 'It is Written' to make an appeal to the inerrant Word of God (even proving doctrines based on the differences between a singular or a plural) whereas you make appeals to Aesops Fables.The Schaubing Blogkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12811910033353720626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-15956267767950429942009-07-19T18:41:34.471-07:002009-07-19T18:41:34.471-07:00it is evidence, not grace, that is required.
The ...<i>it is evidence, not grace, that is required.</i><br /><br />The evidence is there. I believe in the essential Christian doctrine. I have demonstrated love for my brothers and sisters. Even the ones who have been irrational jerks.<br /><br />To say there is no evidence would be a false witness (as in "Thou shalt not bear...") because, as demonstrated, the evidence is there.<br /><br />You're not looking for rational evidence. You're looking for me to say that I agree with you or that I will jump through your hoops (not requirements of God, but requirements of Von).<br /><br />You ain't god and you're wrong to play the part.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-43665931245021583702009-07-19T17:39:56.580-07:002009-07-19T17:39:56.580-07:00You are looking for evidence that God does not dem...<i>You are looking for evidence that God does not demand.<br /></i><br /><br />God, as we have already discussed, knows the heart. He does not need 'evidence'. It is us poor humans that need evidence.<br /><br /><i>May God grant you more grace than you are willing to grant others, brother.<br /></i><br /><br />If any of us are saved at all it is because of Gods grace, and no work of our own. Indeed no grace of mine can have any effect on your, Stans, or my salvation.<br /><br />However when, as a part of a logical syllogism, you make the claim that 'Since both Stan and I are Christians...' it is evidence, not grace, that is required.<br /><br />A 'Christian' is someone who is 'like Christ'. Christ treated Gods Word in a certain way. Anyone who is not treating Gods Word in that way is not, on that accord, 'like Christ'.The Schaubing Blogkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12811910033353720626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-23720802844029716022009-07-19T14:06:47.541-07:002009-07-19T14:06:47.541-07:00So you are looking for "evidence" that t...So you are looking for "evidence" that the Bible does not ask us to provide. You are looking for evidence that God does not demand.<br /><br />I am a Christian. The evidence is in my life and in the love of the Body. Your extra hoops are extrabiblical and unorthodox. I have no need to jump through your hoops, sir.<br /><br />May God grant you more grace than you are willing to grant others, brother.<br /><br />Peace.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-67865277931938777342009-07-19T09:54:31.427-07:002009-07-19T09:54:31.427-07:00I request that you answer the question: What evide...<i>I request that you answer the question: What evidence are you looking for?</i><br /><br />I am looking for evidence that you treat the Scriptures as inerrant, inspired, infallible, sufficient, clear, etc.<br /><br />That you are willing to say, 'where Scripture and my reason disagree, I know that Scripture is right, and I am wrong."<br /><br />That is the foundational attitude and belief of a Christian.<br /><br /><b>Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. </b>The Schaubing Blogkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12811910033353720626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-80942542965239581262009-07-19T09:51:48.022-07:002009-07-19T09:51:48.022-07:00I have see no evidence that you, Dan, are a Christ...<i><b>I have see no evidence that you, Dan, are a Christian. You deny the foundation of the work of Jesus Christ, the authority which He Himself followed.</b><br /><br />I answered with evidence.</i><br /><br />None of the 'evidence' that you posted had anything to do with the issue I raised.<br /><br />One cannot deny the foundation of love and call oneself loving. Nor can one claim to be righteous and deny the foundation of righteousness. Jesus Himself, in His words and His actions, treated Scripture as the inerrant, perfect, authoritative Word of God. You deny this. Thus you deny the foundation of Christs ministry.<br /><br />This is what I meant, and I mean, by 'no evidence'.<br /><br /><i><b>Therefore you have no way to 'know' that Stan is a Christian. Yet you act, in your posts, as if you did have that knowledge. This is a faulty premise.</b><br /><br />Yes, I tend to take people at their word.</i><br /><br />As an act of charity in discussion that is a good plan; except where Scripture denies their word.<br /><br />However as part of a logical premise (which is the context of the discussion) it is faulty. Which is what I said.<br /><br /><i>Where is the love Von? Are you attempting to demonstrate that you are NOT a Christian by your lack of love and grace?</i><br /><br />It is not 'love' to rejoice in wrong (see I Cor 13) or to rejoice (or tolerate) error or false doctrine. Scripture makes this clear. The loving thing to do to someone preaching false doctrine is to rebuke them, and, if they fail to repent, to treat them as an unbeliever.<br /><br />That is what I would expect someone to do for me, that is what I will do for them.The Schaubing Blogkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12811910033353720626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-34706935820005680742009-07-19T06:20:31.141-07:002009-07-19T06:20:31.141-07:00Read your own words, Von. You said...
I have see ...Read your own words, Von. You said...<br /><br /><i>I have see no evidence that you, Dan, are a Christian. You deny the foundation of the work of Jesus Christ, the authority which He Himself followed.</i><br /><br />I answered with evidence. Do I treat people's declaration of Christianity like a poll? Read my answer: I listen to what they say, "I'm a Christian" AND I listen to see what they say ABOUT THAT "...because I am saved by God's grace... etc"<br /><br />What hoops would you have me jump through to "provide evidence" that my words have not made clear? I believe in the Christian essentials and yet you claim to see no evidence. I believe I have shown the love of the community of God here about as well as anyone else, but you say you see no evidence. I believe I have demonstrated the fruit of the Spirit at least as well as you have and yet you see no evidence.<br /><br />What evidence are you looking for?<br /><br />I have very little patience for guys like you who go around proclaiming "I see no evidence..." based upon your ignorance of someone else.<br /><br />I request that you answer the question: What evidence are you looking for?<br /><br />You also state...<br /><br /><i>Therefore you have no way to 'know' that Stan is a Christian. Yet you act, in your posts, as if you did have that knowledge. This is a faulty premise.</i><br /><br />Yes, I tend to take people at their word. No, there is no fool-proof way to know that someone is a Christian, although the Bible is bold enough to tell us, "By this shall all men <b>know</b> that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." So perhaps, according to the Bible, we can?<br /><br />Where is the love Von? Are you attempting to demonstrate that you are NOT a Christian by your lack of love and grace?Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-34036114780751378172009-07-18T16:34:07.374-07:002009-07-18T16:34:07.374-07:00Von, I got news for you, you ain't god.
Which...<i>Von, I got news for you, you ain't god.</i><br /><br />Which was, if I recall correctly, exactly my point.<br /><br />I am not God, therefore I cannot know you are a Christian. You seem to believe that since I am not God, and cannot KNOW that you are NOT a Christian, I must know that you are one. Odd reasoning.The Schaubing Blogkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12811910033353720626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-3725749796548087992009-07-18T16:31:57.858-07:002009-07-18T16:31:57.858-07:00Why then the assumption that both are Christians? ...<i><b>Why then the assumption that both are Christians? Do you operate like the gallop poll, calling people what they call themselves?</b><br /><br />Why? Because Stan has said he is a Christian. Because Stan believes in the traditional essential elements of Christianity and names Jesus as his Lord. What reason would I have for doubting Stan?</i><br /><br />So, in other words, you do operate like the gallop poll. Someone says they are a Christian, and you accept that.<br /><br />Notice that you left out the key part of my question:<br /><br /><b>Unless you are God, you cannot know Stans heart. Unless he is God, he cannot know yours.</b><br /><br />You cannot know Stans heart, and he cannot know yours. Therefore you have no way to 'know' that Stan is a Christian. Yet you act, in your posts, as if you did have that knowledge. This is a faulty premise.<br /><br />I may believe that Stan is a Christian. In charity I would treat him that way, based on his profession.<br /><br />But I cannot make a logical point that begins 'since Stan is a Christian...' since I do NOT know his heart. Only God knows Stans heart.The Schaubing Blogkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12811910033353720626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-33416012651306092932009-07-18T11:59:58.029-07:002009-07-18T11:59:58.029-07:00Yes, what Stan said. I agree with much of what you...Yes, what Stan said. I agree with much of what you said Sherry.<br /><br />And although I have said I was leaving, Von left a point addressed to me so if you don't mind, I will address it. Von said...<br /><br /><i>Why then the assumption that both are Christians? Do you operate like the gallop poll, calling people what they call themselves?</i><br /><br />Why? Because Stan has said he is a Christian. Because Stan believes in the traditional essential elements of Christianity and names Jesus as his Lord. What reason would I have for doubting Stan?<br /><br />Von then said...<br /><br /><i>I have see no evidence that you, Dan, are a Christian. You deny the foundation of the work of Jesus Christ, the authority which He Himself followed. Why should Stan (or I) treat you as a Christian.</i><br /><br />"Evidence" that I'm a Christian? <br /><br />Well how about the fruit of the Spirit - have you seen me lacking in love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, self-control, etc? It's possible, of course, I am a flawed human being. After all, I have often not seen much love or grace shown by you, Von (for one thing, suggesting I'm not a Christian. Who are you to make such a call? You don't know me except for a few words you have seen written). But despite your arrogance, your twisting of my words ("You place your own reason as your ultimate authority") and lack of grace, I don't doubt you are a Christian, I don't know you well enough to make that call. You're just a flawed Christian, welcome to the club. (I AM making an assumption with you, Von, since I'm not sure that I have ever seen that you affirm basic essential Christian doctrine).<br /><br />How about the fact that I have been saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus the son of God who came and lived a perfect life showing us how to live that we may follow in his steps, who was then killed and raised again and ascended into heaven? The traditional orthodox Christian teaching of what being saved means? <br /><br />How about the love with which I have attempted to show each of you all? The Bible tells us that we will know they're Christians by their love for one another, this I believe I have shown at least as well as the others here, yes?<br /><br />How about the way I attempt to do unto and with the "least of these," as Jesus taught us? To live a life of simplicity and mercy, flawed though I am at it.<br /><br />In short, you can know I am a Christian because I believe the essentials of Christian doctrine and because I have been saved by God's grace. You can doubt it all you want, but neither your arrogance, or your ignorance, or your presumption can separate me from the love of God.<br /><br />What possible reason would you have for suggesting I am NOT a Christian? Because I don't believe the same as you do in a few areas? Von, I got news for you, you ain't god. People CAN disagree with Von and still be saved.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-25362407045043913832009-07-18T11:14:05.420-07:002009-07-18T11:14:05.420-07:00Okay. Thank you, Stan. I didn't mean to impl...Okay. Thank you, Stan. I didn't mean to imply that you and Dan were arguing about that particular thing.<br /><br />Today, I am regretting a bit of what I wrote yesterday. I am reminding myself that, of course, I should always think more before I speak.<br /><br />It seems I am always in a hurry to comment or respond, then to get off the family computer so that someone else can have it. We actually have lines that form here sometimes. :o) But obviously I need not respond or comment at all.<br /><br />Have a good day!Sherrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-31070347995393229912009-07-18T08:35:14.523-07:002009-07-18T08:35:14.523-07:00Sherry, Just to be clear, Dan asked me what I beli...Sherry, Just to be clear, Dan asked me what I believed and I told him. He asked me for sources and I gave them. I don't think either of us has actually argued on this topic. <i>This</i> topic (Reformed theology) has been a fairly straightforward, friendly conversation. "I believe this. How do you differ?" "I believe this." "Oh? Where do you get that?" "Here." "Thanks." As much as the conversations have seemed ... edgy at times, <i>that</i> part was pretty calm. (Oh, and by the way, I came across the Confessions and Dort long after I came to the conclusions I came to from Scripture. Just sayin'.)Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-16715450154857571252009-07-17T20:11:44.602-07:002009-07-17T20:11:44.602-07:00After all these years of being a Christian, I stil...After all these years of being a Christian, I still would not like to have to try to explain some things to someone who is very antagonistic toward this faith or to someone who hasn't heard of the blood involved in it in the past. Blood seemed to be a big part of a lot of peoples' lives in the past however. Still is really! If we could actually SEE a heap of just 1 (out of 36!) year's worth of bloody, aborted babies' bodies and perfectly formed little body parts, we'd all be appalled at our present day barbarism! Oh so progressive and civilized are we now!!! We've come a long way, Baby!<br /><br />Years ago I was a stay-at-home mom and found out a Christian family was moving into a rental house across the street. I was excited to hear we would have some fellow believers here in this neighborhood in which we were in the minority and living in the midst of several very unhappy, dysfunctional individuals and families. Well... I considered these new neighbors to be our brother and sister in the Lord... you know, like allies and part of the same family! But they, however, upon finding out what church we attend, looked at us skeptically, out of the corner of their eyes, as though WE were "one of them" and NOT one of them being a fellow TRUE Christian. They worshipped on a different day of the week than we did. (OooOOooe!) <br /><br />That did it for them. Hence, we were not up to par in their eyes and apparently needed to be straightened out, no longer deceived, and living in the sin of not observing the sabbath. Also, we eat meat. So much for Christian fellowship with them! <br /><br />Time passed; another family of another Christian faith (very conservative) moved in and the women and girls in it would see heathen me dressed in pants and even (gasp!) somewhat-above-the-knee shorts working in my yard. At least I had long hair (like all 5 of them did) while feeling what seemed like condemnation for dressing like a man or a floozy who claimed to be a Christian. <br /><br />I found myself trying to convince these neighbors that we DID indeed believe in the same God, that He had radically changed our lives for the better, and that we were believers in and followers of the truth ~ Jesus being the way, "the truth", and the life and all. Sheesh.<br /><br />I wonder, HOW MUCH, really, is God concerned about all these many, many issues in which we become so entangled? It's a mess, and a mess that must be of pure delight to who should be our common adversary, the devil! What's that famous quote by someone famous who famously stated, "We have seen the enemy and the enemy is us"?<br /> <br />(Gotta go make a very late dinner for hungry kids. No time to look it up. I wonder how some find so much time to post on this blog.)Sherrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-60189491694632622822009-07-17T19:53:26.579-07:002009-07-17T19:53:26.579-07:00Geez. It's all so stinking complex!
I gues...Geez. It's all so stinking complex! <br />I guess it gives lots of people something interesting to do, to spend countless hours studying out all these things, and it's enjoyable to them, which is great for them but I get weary of denominational differences and all the division and pride they cause in the church, the worldwide body of Christ. <br />Satan must absolutely LOVE all the things that keep us from being a strong, unified force against him and his minions of demons. (Of course not all who call themselves Christians probably believe THEY really exist either, so.... shall we dance? I mean ARGUE? Then we can separate ourselves into the demon believers and the non-demon believers. And then everyone can smugly be convinced that they are correct and we will all live happily ever after in our small groups of like-minded people.) <br />We are weakened by all this divisive "stuff" and don't even feel like our brothers would have our back if we needed them because they may call themselves Christians just as we call ourselves Christians but they can seem to some to be more like the adversary than ON THE SAME SIDE fighting for the same things with THE SAME FATHER. <br />The older I get, the less a lot of things that can be extremely "big, hairy issues" to a lot of people are mattering to me. I want to see things much, much more simply. <br />I would like things to be as simple as either you HAVE the light of God or you DON'T have the light. Your light may be very, very weak and hardly visible but you ARE lit, or you may be shining brightly. You are either living in darkness or you are not! <br />Or you ARE either born again, adopted, and have taken on a new nature and a new family name (such as Joe Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ) or you are NOT! I anticipate that it may come down to that. Sheep ~ baaaaaaaaah! Or goats ~ maaaaaaaah! Name your team! And remember, if you don't choose God's team, by default, you are automatically on the other team.<br />In the meantime, I seem to nearly always have a meal to plan, shop for, prepare, then clean up after, or something to vacuum, launder, fold, drive to, attend, prune, mow, or cut, or find a place for. This is a very, VERY condensed version of what keeps me busy in order to maintain some kind of order in my home and life. <br />Are we all really EXPECTED read dozens and dozens of books other than The Bible in order to well understand each others' stances and all that is in it? If so, what exactly ARE these excellent books? Does every church library contain them and prescribe them as additional required reading? No, of course not. Better yet, is there some weekend seminar I can attend that will fill in all my blanks in an entirely satisfactory manner? I don't seem to have time to squeeze much else into my schedule most of the time. In fact I've set aside tasks that need to be done in order to post today's comments. I guess I just do not use my time at all wisely and should be studying MUCH harder in order to show myself approved unto God, rightly dividing the word of truth, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed of my ignorance. To be honest (which may destroy my credibility, if I ever even had any), I have never even HEARD of some of these church counsels and things of which you speak, let alone deeply analyzed and compared them. <br /><br />The Belgic Confession and the Canons of Dort!?! I've been in many churches and never once have I heard ANYONE talking about Dort. (Trust me, this is a name I WOULD remember! DORT! Snort, snort.)Sherrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-55137485589995164392009-07-17T19:45:29.841-07:002009-07-17T19:45:29.841-07:00Ok, so I haven't read all 63 comments. But thi...Ok, so I haven't read all 63 comments. But this caught my attention:<br /><i>Everytime you say something like this, I just scratch my head. If you think you and I are coming from radically different places - we who are both Christians, saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus in whose steps we follow - if you can't bridge this gap with me, how do you expect to reach out to atheists? To Muslims? To people who truly have radical different starting places?<br /></i><br /><br />Unless you are God, you cannot know Stans heart. Unless he is God, he cannot know yours.<br /><br />Why then the assumption that both are Christians? Do you operate like the gallop poll, calling people what they call themselves?<br /><br />I have see no evidence that you, Dan, are a Christian. You deny the foundation of the work of Jesus Christ, the authority which He Himself followed. Why should Stan (or I) treat you as a Christian.<br /><br />You place your own reason as your ultimate authority. Stan places Gods Word. If that is not a 'radically different starting' place for doing theology, I don't know what is. You do your theology on a ground of foolishness and sand. Stan builds His on the Rock of Gods Word.<br /><br />Sounds radically different to me. I think I have more in common with a Muslim than I do with you... the Muslim might at least believe in something outside of his own reason.The Schaubing Blogkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12811910033353720626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-26027208327040199712009-07-17T19:40:42.686-07:002009-07-17T19:40:42.686-07:0063 comments and not one by me? Stan, Stan, why did...63 comments and not one by me? Stan, Stan, why didn't you tell me you were having such fun?The Schaubing Blogkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12811910033353720626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-16096480827737901682009-07-17T14:48:39.693-07:002009-07-17T14:48:39.693-07:00Dan Trabue: "The Reformed Church of America?&...<b>Dan Trabue:</b> "<i>The Reformed Church of America?</i>" <br /><br />The RCA has its roots in Reformed theology as evidenced by "the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort". They have drifted some from their roots, but not as bad as the PC(USA) (which touts similar confessions but ignores them completely). The PCA -- Presbyterian Church of America -- and others are Reformed.<br /><br /><b>Dan Trabue:</b> "<i>The 'original Baptists' had their start with the anabaptists.</i>"<br /><br />Guess it depends on <a href="http://www.baptisthistory.org/baptistbeginnings.htm" rel="nofollow">who</a> you <a href="http://www.learnthebible.org/baptist-and-anabaptist.html" rel="nofollow">ask</a> and <a href="http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/baptist.htm" rel="nofollow">which Baptist</a> you're talking about. Best information I've found says the Mennonites came from the Anabaptists, but the Baptists came from England.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-73552431185263323882009-07-17T13:32:05.363-07:002009-07-17T13:32:05.363-07:00Thanks for the info.Thanks for the info.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-31849245326600557082009-07-17T13:31:49.973-07:002009-07-17T13:31:49.973-07:00Just to be sure, THIS Reformed church? The Reforme...Just to be sure, THIS Reformed church? The Reformed Church in America?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.rca.org/Page.aspx?pid=299" rel="nofollow">http://www.rca.org/</a><br /><br />And, for what it's worth, the "original Baptists" had their start with the anabaptists in the 1500s whom I don't believe tended to believe in Election. Although I could be wrong (ALWAYS a possibility...).Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-59520711991684971242009-07-17T13:01:53.817-07:002009-07-17T13:01:53.817-07:00First, "regeneration" is the same thing ...First, "regeneration" is the same thing as "born again". I'm aware that in your Baptist circles that <i>follows</i> faith, but in Reformed circles it precedes faith because without it faith can't happen. By the way, by "precedes", the idea is "logically". No one thinks, "Well, there is regeneration and then, some time later, there's faith." The events would be nearly simultaneous in time.<br /><br />The paragraph about Dan would be (essentially) an accurate representation of what I said. (I don't recall any sound effects.)<br /><br />No, God doesn't regenerate everyone. (There are those referred to as "the elect", "the chosen", etc.) (I think I answered the rest of the questions in that paragraph with my first paragraph.)<br /><br />This is not anything exotic. It is classic Reformed faith. It is, in fact, the original Baptist faith (see London Baptist Confession). Lots of sources on this. You can try John Piper, R.C. Sproul, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon ... and on and on. You can try the <a href="http://www.monergism.com/" rel="nofollow">Reformed Reference Material</a> link on my blog page (They have hot topics like "Free Will", "Doctrines of Grace", and "Regeneration"). Lots of sources. <br /><br />(Like I said, asking for a source isn't an accusation. Demanding it after the answer is given becomes one. You didn't in this case.)Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-46095956780509796912009-07-17T12:04:36.000-07:002009-07-17T12:04:36.000-07:00So (and again, I apologize for not understanding, ...So (and again, I apologize for not understanding, but this is not Christianity as I have been taught it, and I'm just not sure what you mean and so I ask...)... you think that God "regenerates" people, making them "spiritually alive," whether they wish to be regenerated or made spiritually alive? I'm not sure what that means or looks like.<br /><br />So, we've got Dan and he's 18 and not a Christian. You think God just suddenly BOOM! makes Dan "regenerated," and THEN Dan realizes he's a sinner and needs God's grace and asks for it and THEN Dan is saved?<br /><br />Do you think God regenerates everyone or some people God does not? Do you think once someone is "regenerated," they are then saved, without asking for forgiveness or asking for salvation or is this regeneration just the first step and then it is up to the person to ask for forgiveness and make Jesus Lord of their lives?<br /><br />Is this Orthodox Christianity? Eastern Orthodox Christianity? Which faith tradition believes this, as I am generally unfamiliar with what you appear to be saying?<br /><br />And, just to be clear, when I ask "which faith tradition believes this" it is not meant to imply that I think you're lying. I am just not familiar with it and I'd be glad to look up someone else expounding upon it to get a better handle on it.<br /><br />In Baptist circles (and traditional evangelical circles with which I'm familiar), regeneration is another way of referring to being Born Again, which is what happens after God has offered grace and we have repented and accepted grace.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-52779535196531334812009-07-17T11:50:18.404-07:002009-07-17T11:50:18.404-07:00Dan Trabue: "Do you believe something other t...<b>Dan Trabue:</b> "<i>Do you believe something other than that?</i>"<br /><br />I believe that human beings are born spiritually dead. I believe they are inclined only to evil from infancy. I believe that they are hostile to God and incapable of understanding the things of God. A clear offer of grace is insufficient to these human beings. They need to be alive, need to have a new inclination, need to have a way out of hostility, need to have the ability to understand the things of God. That requires something more than an offer or calling from God, more than a "wooing" of the Holy Spirit. (No, not your word, but the concept I've heard so often.)<br /><br />Therefore, prior to any possibility of positive response, human beings require a direct act of God -- "Lazarus, come forth!" They need to be regenerated, made spiritually alive. In this new condition, they have new inclinations, a mind no longer set on the flesh, the capacity to understand the things of God. They are gifted with faith which they then exercise.<br /><br />(See? Seemed like a simple, straightforward question, but the answer is much longer than you would have expected. And ... I would expect much more dialog/disagreement on it.)Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-74661038241692152252009-07-17T11:26:30.485-07:002009-07-17T11:26:30.485-07:00Stan said...
That's a simple matter of "...Stan said...<br /><br /><i>That's a simple matter of "how do we get saved?" You say, "We choose." I can't even begin there. You're happy with "God IS doing something prior. God is calling us to the Kingdom!" and all I can see is a voice crying out in a cemetery, "Come on, y'all! Join me!" Not very effective.</i><br /><br />Seriously, how DO you think we are saved? As noted, I believe we are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus. God offers it and we can accept it or not.<br /><br />Do you believe something other than that? Once again, I'm not clear on our position. I apologize for my lack of understanding.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-27439639388657593962009-07-17T09:57:18.936-07:002009-07-17T09:57:18.936-07:00Stan said...
Before we start anything radical, th...Stan said...<br /><br /><i>Before we start anything radical, there is a standard rule of thumb that you need to follow. It is so standard and so important that it can often be found repeated: "Context, context, context." What is the context of this command?</i><br /><br />Absolutely true. We must always consider the context. I wholeheartedly agree with you.<br /><br />Stan said...<br /><br /><i>Notice that this phrase, "innocent blood", does not convey that the person was sinless.</i><br /><br />You are correct. I think perhaps you have heard me say that these texts suggest that everyone involved was sinless, but that is not what I believe. Clearly the adults involved in these situations were not sinless. Indeed, there is generally some "sin" that is being condemned in these contexts.<br /><br />Having said that, what do the texts say? <br /><br />They are often made in passing in reference to an evil king or people...<br /><br /><i>Surely these things happened to Judah according to the LORD's command, in order to remove them from God's presence because of the sins of Manasseh and all he had done, including the shedding of innocent blood. For he had filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the LORD was not willing to forgive.</i> ~2 Kings 24<br /><br />And<br /><br /><i>They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons. They shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters,<br />whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan</i> ~Psalm 106<br /><br />For instance.<br /><br />And the innocent blood that you speak of IS correctly understood to mean killing folk in an unjust manner, as you suggest. They had no right to shed innocent blood. Even though in at least some of the cases the "innocent blood" shed was of people who were less than perfect, sinning human beings.<br /><br />So I don't disagree with your conclusion. I just also don't think that your conclusion is the WHOLE story. In the case of the sacrificing children, for instance, there is no indication that we are talking about children old enough to be guilty of anything. In that case, it may well mean (sounds like to me) that we're talking about children young enough to have not even been able to commit a sin. TRULY innocent people. "Innocent" meaning, not guilty of anything.<br /><br />So, looking at the prevalence of the use of the term "innocent blood," and its various contexts, it clearly COULD be talking about (IS talking about) adults who were sinners in some cases, who nonetheless were unjustly killed. Innocent of any thing over which the offender had the right to kill them. But, in at least some cases, we are talking about children whom there is no evidence were guilty of anything.<br /><br />Do you have any evidence of guilt in these children? There is nothing mentioned in the text.<br /><br />Seems to me that this is a both/and situation. Sometimes the command against killing innocents was not talking about adults who never sinned, but just that they were innocent of anything deserving of death at the hands of other humans. In other situations, it is talking about children who - lacking any evidence that they were guilty of ANYthing - were most likely wholly innocent of everything except for being human.<br /><br />Seems to me.<br /><br />Now, I know you have a different take on "innocent children" than I do so on that point, we will likely continue to disagree. So be it.Dan Trabuehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30006406.post-23436830005588774452009-07-16T18:35:05.167-07:002009-07-16T18:35:05.167-07:00Man, look at that ... 54 comments thus far and not...Man, look at that ... 54 comments thus far and not one single one on the actual content of the post.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04523232247971115247noreply@blogger.com