Christ has freed us from "slavery to sin". We still sin in various ways, and until we have a glorified body, we will always have a struggle vs sin. To promote the "inevitabilty of sin", undermines what God reckons as righteousness from faith in a believer. If a believer acts upon faith to please God, and God reckons it to him as righteousness, do we actually have a newly given ability to please God, or does grace just work as a cause for our forgiveness only??

Preaching and teaching that God's grace is always bigger than your sin, removes the believer from the responsibilty of sin and allows a "freedom" which God did not intend for us. The cattle call to sin freely….and still be free, is an all out twisting of what Christ had in mind….when HE says, "Go and sin no more"…why wouldn't he have told them to have three more of what she was having??

Yes, God's Grace is always bigger than our sin, but using sin to teach freedom, is a twisted way of testing the grace of God which neither removes you from the responsibility or consequences of your actions, no matter how free you think you are "in Christ". The antinomian cattle call has begun, and yet it is denied when pointed out so which are you teaching, Freedom without responsibility and accountability…..or freedom with responsibility, consequences and accountability……b/c as long as you "advertise" a free sin theology…..you are teaching pure antinomianism…..and you are accountable for the "irresponsibilty" and consequences of the direction of this ministry and it's authority leading believers to be just as "you are" not as Christ is. Still waiting for you to exhort Holiness and obedience along with those 3 sins…..

I can just hear us now, "JESUS, oh JESUSSSSS, Steve said something stupid, are You going to wash his mouth out this time, like You promised???"

One of the things that irks me in the shoebox is when the pulpit guy "exigetes" (sp?) a passage of scripture that's a difficult passage containing an unsettling message, and the guy tries to "soften the blow" by trying to explain why the message both implicit and explicit in the text a. is a historical curiosity, thus has no applicability to the people of God today; b. does not really mean what a rendering into English by a plain translation from the original languages and sources state it says before you in print on the page; c. several references to other passages that say something different so the hearers won't think God's a monster and won't feel uncomfortable. The thing is, if God's not talking about it at this point in scripture, into the circumstances in which the message was originally received, why's the pulpit-guy talking about it.

The larger picture contains the narrow gate of redemption, grace, mercy (not necessarily in that order), but the backdrop is one of fallen, broken creation shot through with the fissures of and mucked up with the stinking rubble left over from the fall contained, as it were, in a basket of judgment and wrath. Against that, the good news of justification by faith, mercy of God toward those who turn Godward of every tribe, tongue, nation, incarnation of Christ and saving contact with the Living God through him - well, the message of the gospel stands out in stark, glaring relief.

I think sticking to the text and what it contains is a pulpit-guy discipline neglected too often by too many, and it leads to muddy theology. It doesn't take an advanced degree or special club membership or a special hat to practice that discipline. Maybe that's why it's not practiced - it brings no glory to its practitioner.

Guy named Nottle, I think, wrote a good book about the OT law called Grace in the End, if I recall correctly.

I gotta quit going off-topic.

Pax

but I also unserstand "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword"
Was this sword for atheists and cults only? never to strike the carnal, luke warm or Doctrinally deficient Christians?

And Who are the ones that told Jesus "did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?" were they just the cults? Or are they the same ones you want us to embrace as "Brothers?"
How did Jesus embrace them?

Are "Mature Christians" merely Saints who fought so long, that they are tired of the battle and the persecution, and now look for the common grounds to avoid the labor of the purpose?
Are they the ones Jesus tells say “You have forsaken your first love. Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first"

If in OT times under the law, the Pharisees and Sadducees were two legitimate divisions of worshipers of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, should they have been left alone and embraced as brothers who just worship differently?
If no, than how is that any different than not embracing all divisions of Christianity?
If yes, than why did Jesus go off on them calling them vipers, white washed tombs and children of the devil?

I would agree in the most literal sense that God's Grace is always effectual and everlasting with regard to salvation. The relationship is secure…even if only on God;s end. However, one's obedience (or lack thereof) certainly has conditions (preceptively) for us to remain in a state of "growth" and good fellowship with God. Would you agree that one can fall out of fellowship with God? Yes, ofcourse. It would be so much easier if God would interact with each of us specifically just as He did Jonah when we rebel vs. His lead (ie, Holy Spirit convictions and scriptural obedience) but that isn't what takes place. We can "resist" and "grieve" the work of the Holy Spirit (in our saved state, preceptively) This is where scripture study, discipleship, church discipline, wisdom from others acts as the vital source of keeping in close fellowship with God. Man's choice to obey in a redeemed state certainly is "conditional" for this to take place. Since we are writing to Christians here, this was the context of my point. It is also true that we never see the phrase "unconditionally loved" used, however I think you can tell from my prior posts that I would never mean to infer that God's Grace for "Salvation" is conditional upon man….It is purely a choice from God before the foundation of the World that had no bearing upon the actions of man. There are verses who's paranthetical warnings indicate a 'mixed" group within the church, some of who's calling is suspect…indicative of a life of faithlessness "after" a profession. We do very little to account for these types, due to a propagation of Neo Grace which isn' too concerned about the accountability of sin to the believer. Sure the "Church" is off our backs…..whew….but now we've gone to the other extreme!

Now that we are past the regenerate state, we have been enabled to obey God, responsible for our obedience since our faculties have been fully restored to keep "fellowship" with God strong. Saying that God didn't truly accomplish a complete work in it's entirety (salvifically speaking) and is "still" working on it, won't fly and is heresy….Catholic salvation, merit by works, would clearly be an example of this.

Ok, that being said….here's something to ponder. Those Scriptures which contain examples of folks warranting paranthetical warnings are missing from our Reformed message. There are people who think they're saved, but are truly not. These people not only do irreparable harm to the flock, they can take down a church, altar theological perceptions, throw off the balance of Biblical teaching…..and I think we have arrived at a pinnacle point where teachers need to be examined by the Word, and held accountable for what they say. We see the warnings everywhere in almost everybook in the NT!! Take the popular church ministires in America…..Joel Osteen, all the Health Wealth Prosperity False Teachers, even our very own reformed camp could do a much better job of rightly dividing the Word and denouncing false teachers, and Politicians, than they are doing! Mammon has a hold on this country….and I see less and less people speaking up about it….lest we lose a few members and stray from the "positve" style message which keeps many of the newbies in our reformed churches from walking away when the meat is preached. We've sold out truth and trusted our own understanding to grow the church sythetically, and substituted Pauline style teaching and preaching for a watered down palatable worldly feel good message!! No wonder the Church isn't strong right now. Who cares if it's not growing in numbers, that's not our concern,….we need to educate, and strengthen the faith of those we already have….stop this relaxed Neo Grace nonsense, and start expecting more trom the involvment of our congregations.

Maybe we shouldn't be comparing so much to these other dynamic and false examples of God "working" so that we feel the need to create our own versions? I say to hell with it. Preach the pure Word, feed the sheep, regardless of how many people want to give $ and become members……don't dumb it down. The true biblical reformed message is actually withering within our own churches. So "few" people want the true Biblcial message, it alarms me how unconcerned those of our highly influential reformed thinkers of our day don't see this happening, you guys out of touch?? Just wanna leave it to "grace" to work itself out?? It won't….it hasn't….and history tells us this.

Maybe I minced words a little, I didn't mean "fire and brimstone" in the Johnathan Edwards sort of way…I just couldn't think of another word at the time…perhaps I meant "more orthodox"…

and I also agree that theology is important, if you've ever ventured into the other foums you'd see I'm pretty opinionated…

and for the most part I agree with what you are saying, it just seems to get hostile around here sometimes (no fault on any person), and I try to stay neutral…

I agree often the message gets "dumbed down" as well I agree that God often gets "merketed" into a neat little package. I guess in my walk right now I'm not sure what to do about it.

Perhaps it is a balancing act with grace and legalism, you don't want to have too much in one spot…in my opinion there is a fine line between reveling in grace and trampling on the cross…

I think we feel similar we just have different MOs…

anyway sorry for the ramble Im just thinking "outloud"

Shalom

Daniel,
I think you really do understand why "everyone" doesn't get along. Theology does matter….perhaps we'd all be shinnig the Pope's shoes about now singing hymns in Latin and hoping those evil Protestants never gain the upper hand if theology didn't matter. There are many ways in which to interprete meaning from Scripture….but not all of them can be correct….in fact, all are incorrect to some degree, yet aren't we still called to "correctly divide the Word to "our Utmost for His highest". That's what this is about….especially when it matters the most and not just for the sake of arguing. Paul argued in the Temple…..so did Jesus. Paul also had disagreements with other Apostles…even sent one away who he deemed was a detrement to the ministry. I see an exhorter in Paul which I don't see in public ministry today …calling those to follow Christ and to expect they will actually do it!! It's not about the Milk….it's about the meat…..time to start expecting growth from all these folks with all the "Grace".

That is not to say a little fire and brimstone is bad, but it is a means to an end, not the end itself.

This bickering over things within out own family really breaks my heart, I can only imagine what Christ must think.

Ultimately though none of this will matter becasue we will open our eyes in heaven one day and embrace one another as bretheren, and spend eternity with our master.

I will leave this verse, it seemed appropriate to me but take it for what its worth…

I love you all in Christ and truly look forward to the day when we all meet in heaven…

1 Peter 2:1-3
1Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind. 2Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, 3now that you have tasted that the Lord is good.

In our attempt to witness the Gospel making a difference and form an eminating desire to be involved in that difference….we have "dumbed down" the Gospel message. Pointing to a Jesus who had the advantage of knowing a person's heart and having the power to forgive and pronounce "on the spot salvation" is often used as examples to "prove" how easy believism can actually work!! I can't think of a greater time than now for the Church to make scriptural distinctions between those who are and aren't "on board". We are guilty (ooopss theres that word that doesn't really exist) of preaching a message which accepts the unbeliever with open arms, and allows them to remain in that state without ever a call to arms….ie. picking up their cross to follow Christ…ie physical evidence of a changed life!! We've stressed "Grace alone by faith" so much that we've negated the true life of a christian is filled with passionate action, sacrifice, labor, ridicule, rejection, and hatred from the world. What about the deep inner sacrifices and hard work which actually provide evidence of our salvation (We are saved by Christs works albeit). We've reacted to this b/c so many in the church don't commit to a discipline of "radical change" and instead want to add a synthetic Jesus to their mammon, "just in case". We;ve stopped at the point of "Grace" to forget pressing ahead for Christ in "unison". Just look at the discipline of the Mormons, JW's, and other cults….we are reactionary to their "works" just to show how the Christian faith is uniquely "not by works", especially the "reformed faith" and we've grown proud and complacent. Yes, we have the truth, but it isn't making much of a difference b/c we're too busy argueing about how "little" (actually nothing) one must do to become saved, so that nothing ever much goes beyond that to further the kingdom..what non christian wouldn't want a theology like that???

Pretty much all of the Bible.

I coudn't agree more!! It's easier to win people over when they don't have to repent of anything. The guidelines set in Scripture are clear for being an Elder, and one must agree that those in "authority"…especially who's "business" it is to oversee and "undertake" the maturity of other believers, should be less comfortable granting "freedom" to sin, serve, and do whatever one feels so freely astounds me. This is what is scandalous!! I am thankful for the early reformers who banded together to champion vs. the heresies of their day by "calling out the sin" of those experimenting with their own anecdotal pop culture theories, which proved NOT to stand up vs. test of Scripture. Neo Grace advocates would rather stay clear of confrontation of sin….boy am I glad Calvin, Luther, Edwards stood up to face the world when called to do so by confronting sin head on in their culture. It resulted in the blessing of freedoms every protestant enjoys today! Instead of the Apostle Paul describing his call to God a "Scandalous Freedom", he more humbly recognized his role as a bond-servant "slave" to God. The only "scandalous freedom" really taking place are those who's lost souls have yet to be saved!!…….and yet when they discover they can still have their mammon plus Jesus too, skipping over their call to repentance creates the very "scandalous freedoms" that Paul calls out in Corinth, "Remove the wicked one from among you", he says!! Even In attempt to be understanding to a bruised and beat up world which does have value, the sinner must at some point be confronted with a call to change. The Church in America doesn't need more freedom….it needs less freedom, a call to discipline ,repentance, and purification that will unite those who are His by those in Christian authority and leadership….while we settle in for Dr. Phil and Oprah style outreach.

Remember that parable about the rich man or king who threw a dinner party? At the appointed time his guests sent excuses. The first said something like, "I've just bought a piece of land, and have to go out and look at it." The second said, "I've just purchased a yoke of oxen, and I've got to go try them out." But the third, the third guy said, "I've just acquired a wife, and for that reason cannot attend." Which is to say, the third guy's excuse was greater than but like unto a combination of the first two. I thought it was pretty risque.

Ok Greg….thanks for clearing all of this up. So he was responding to??? There was no dialogue taking place at the time of that comment between anyone else. But anyway, let's move on shall we??….the responses of many folks on this "blog" are the result of the teachings from Steve Brown which lack affirmation in God's Word as an absolute authority over one's "experience" dealing with repentance and forgiveness. Offering "3 free sins" when Jesus says "Go and sin no more" is an all out abomination. Steve's coarse jesting support of Neo Grace obstructs true biblical repentance in an attempt to make it sound archaeic and out of date and offers an existential approach in it's place bordering on Universalism.

Placing a greater "Authority" on "feeling and experience" than on the Scriptures themselves cannot possbily result in "biblcal repentance" and is therefor no different than any charasmatic or clever guru sprinkling anecdotes instead of Scripture to foster their causes, in this case, the Neo Grace agenda. He routinely denounces others adherance to "biblical authority" and states,

"Whenever religion becomes leverage, it ceases to be the religion of Jesus. The gospel of God's grace takes away the leverage."

Does it take it away?? Does not the Gospel of Grace then become the leverage?? Is Grace all there is to the Gospel?? Why stop there?? Universalists would also be in hearty agreement!! Were we saved just to "experience" (there's that word again) forgiveness?? Or rather isn't this just a part of biblical sanctification involving repentance, the working out of that salvation you've received, and the living out of a life passionately resonating and making a difference with that faith in a steadfast obedience to Scripture. Neo Grace says not! It says you are entitled to feel forgiven without true repentance, that God is "crazy about you" when in fact the "unrepentant" sinner grieves the Holy Spirit and may still be actually be unsaved and under the wrath of God! No where in Scripture do we see a God who states that He loves us "unconditionally". This is why it borders on Universalism. It absolutely promotes and creates a comfort zone where sin can be president, as well as resident, and thus allowing one to create an attitude of thinking that God is never offended by the sin of a believer…so one needn't be too concerned about it….sin get's tossed and joked about so flipantly and callously as if it's not really that important anymore on the "Blog". Repentance and obedience are soon left in the dust and replaced with a narcisistic and even egotistical reactionary response toward the traditional reformed views of repentance and obedience…which at some point, will may result in a theological "shift" in changing our understanding of the character of God..and turns it more into a "caracature"….or cartoon version of the Gospel.

Steve also states,

"You see, if I'm forgiven without condition, you can't make me feel guilty. If God loves me, you can't manipulate me by threatening to take away your love. If God knows my secrets and doesn't condemn me, my secrets can't be used as blackmail. If you have power and threaten to use it against me and I don't care, your power is no longer real power."

Let's examine this. This might be true…..if God's Word didn't say in Ephesians 4:30: " And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption". If it is possible to grieve God, then what Steve is saying cannot be true. This also causes one to negate even having to think about I John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and rightous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrightousness". Why would God write this to "believers" if He no longer wanted us to think we could never offend Him with our sin as Steve states??

Let's take the next point where Steve writes,
" If God loves me, you can't manipulate me by threatening to take away your love".

God's love is not something we should take for granted either, which is just as manipulating as God would be to threaten to take it back! (although He would have every right!!) This again, is reactionary. It's a dangerous thing to create a doctrine on a hyperbole. Having God's love doesn't mean we ever had the "right" to it. It's still Christ's rightousness applied which makes us get along at all with God. If we take sin lightly, we certainly have it coming from others who will and should be offended by it, and perhaps expecting they should "just forgive" so freely is taking advantage and just as manipulative??

Thirdly, Steve states,

" If you have power and threaten to use it against me and I don't care, your power is no longer real power."

Ok, what about the case of those spending eternity in Hell , even their apathetic attutude does not invalidate the REAL power of God! In terms of relation to others, many of those in power also don't care, and any amount of apathy you can muster won't make a difference to them one bit. It only serves to feed one's own pride, serving as though a way to strike back with a stiff upper lip without any effectual cause at all.

Yes, There is a shift in Theology in Reformed Circles, and this is one in which you should all be aware. It's very reactionary….and not revolutionary. If Sarcasm is the hallmark of our Gospel campaign, then it's sin that attracts those who find solice in such whinery. Love without reason is not love at all, and it is a real shame what takes place here. What is supposed to be cutting edge in an attempt to strenghthen believers in their faith, only serves to make those who follow this Neo Grace Movement empowered….and for all the wrong reasons.

I didn't know you were Judge Reinhold! Nice picture. Congrats on the film, er, career, um, yeah. And the blog.

C.

By His Grace, one of the few