Rose's Reasonings

Friday, February 29, 2008

How Do You Spell Repentance?

57 Comments:

Rose:

I trust your guests understand that Hodges, Wilkin/GES reject repentance by any definition as a condition of salvation.

You realize this; don’t you Rose?

In his dissertation of Lordship Salvation, Dr. Bing noted this concern with Hodges.

LM

By Lou Martuneac, at 2/29/2008 11:46 AM
Lou,
You crack me up. Every other word out of your "mouth" is "Hodges." Do you realize how often you type this man's name?

I would say that IF they defined "repentance" in spirit of #7 - IOW, changing from unbelief to having faith in Christ for eternal life, then they are requiring it whether they say so or not - it would be somewhat synonumous. However, if I am not mistaken, I think they define "repentance" as something like #1 or #2 and are not willing to give up that definition for another one that they do not feel fits the meaning of the word. Therefore, with their faith alone approach, the do not list "repentance" with -their definition- as a condition of receiving eternal life.

Actually, I think I have seen them say that repentance (as they define it - again, like #1 or #2 if I am not mistaken) is a condition for salvation from temporal calamity and various trials. (not eternal salvation from hell). I think, but I am not sure.

Lou,
Forget about Hodges for a minute.
Which number on that list best represents how you would define repentance?

Or - am I wasting my time asking you any questions today?

By Rose~, at 2/29/2008 12:26 PM
Rose:

It is VERY important to name and keep naming Hodges (and Wilkin) in regard to the Crossless gospel, and the other extreme views on doctrine that he has introduced into Bible-believing churches and fellowships.

Hodges is a teacher of the false Crossless gospel, and believers need to be warned. That is biblical, Paul named names.

I hope red flags go up any time Hodges’ name and teaching is invoked.

It is the teaching of Hodges that has deceived men like Matthew and Antonio. That is why we must warn others lest they be deceived also.

As for your Repentance “Checklist,” why do you expect someone who takes the major doctrine of repentance as seriously as the Bible does in regard to salvation to pick a definition like picking an apple from a basket. Maybe I should chant, “Eeeny, Meeny…Jelly-Beenie; I chose #... .”

Anyway, I would reject 1-6. As for 7 & 8 I would not pin my thinking on repentance on either one of those brief definitions. No one should, they are not developed enough to hang one’s theological hat on.

Do you take a supportive position of the Hodges/GES view, which Matthew affirmed that repentance plays no role in, and is not a condition of salvation?

LM

By Lou Martuneac, at 2/29/2008 4:00 PM
Hi Rose,
Repentance unto life is a Biblical term.

Acts 11:12 And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house:

13And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;

14Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

15And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

16Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

18When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

Here's a definition that is hard to improve on.

WCF
CHAPTER XV.
Of Repentance Unto Life.

I. Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace, the doctrine whereof is to be preached by every minister of the gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ.

II. By it a sinner, out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature and righteous law of God, and upon the apprehension of his mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavoring to walk with him in all the ways of his commandments.

III. Although repentance be not to be rested in as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof, which is the act of God's free grace in Christ; yet is it of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it.

IV. As there is no sin so small but it deserves damnation; so there is no sin so great that it can bring damnation upon those who truly repent.

V. Men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but it is every man's duty to endeavor to repent of his particular sins, particularly.

VI. As every man is bound to make private confession of his sins to God, praying for the pardon thereof, upon which, and the forsaking of them, he shall find mercy: so he that scandalizeth his brother, or the Church of Christ, ought to be willing, by a private or public confession and sorrow for his sin, to declare his repentance to those that are offended; who are thereupon to be reconciled to him, and in love to receive him.

By VA ~Susan, at 2/29/2008 4:24 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.

By Only Look, at 2/29/2008 4:52 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.

By Only Look, at 2/29/2008 4:52 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.

By Only Look, at 2/29/2008 4:53 PM
Brian,
I don't know why you would even want to come here after all the things you say that you think about me... on other blogs.

By Rose~, at 2/29/2008 4:59 PM
I have tried my best to challange your position as well as warn others that you have hurt others deeply in a nice way. And that is something you seem very unwilling to consider.

I have receieved emails from others about this. Very personal ones. You have hurt people and I hope you understand that it needs to be taken into account.

That is all I am going to say.

By Only Look, at 2/29/2008 5:53 PM
Brian,
the person you are talking about also emailed me and told me that he was sorry for ever talking to you about myself after he read your public comments about me. He said that he also told you that he was wrong about me - that he was wrong and that I was not up to manipulate him or anyone else that he knows. You know he told you that he repented of this thing he was imagining. You know this.

So just leave me alone now please.

By Rose~, at 2/29/2008 5:59 PM
Please stay away from this blog.

By Rose~, at 2/29/2008 6:00 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Only Look, at 2/29/2008 6:08 PM
Brian,
Please stay away from this blog. I have done nothing to you and I think I should be able to expect that you would honor this request.
Thank you and God go with you.

By Rose~, at 2/29/2008 6:13 PM
VA Susan,

what is repentance unto life mean?

Here is a quote from the man Lou Martuneac likes to name, Zane Clark Hodges.

Begin Hodges:
----------
Finally, it is worth considering the observation made by the believers at Jerusalem after they heard Peter’s account of his visit with Cornelius. Their comment was:

"Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life" (Acts 11:18).

Needless to say this text has been read as if it meant “repentance to eternal life”! It has then been urged that this shows that repentance is necessary for eternal salvation. But this view will not bear scrutiny.

To begin with, the word “eternal” is not really here. Although eternal life can be referred to by the word “life” alone (very notably in John 20:31 and elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel), we cannot make this assumption automatically. The word is a perfectly good Greek word for “life” in the various senses in which the language could use it. We must always interpret in context.

Secondly, if we thought that the reference in Acts 11:18 was a reference to eternal life, then we are left with a surprising and implausible idea in this context. We must infer in that case that the Jerusalem Christians just now realized that Gentiles could be eternally saved! But this is so unlikely as to be almost fantastic.

After all, had not the Lord Himself commanded the Gentile mission in His Great Commission to the apostles (Matthew. 28:19; Mark 16:15)? In fact, even the Old Testament taught that Gentiles could be saved (see the quotations in Romans 15:8–11). In the Jerusalem church, of all places, this truth must surely have been known. Indeed, before he spoke, Peter is not criticized for preaching to Gentiles, but for eating with them (Acts 11:3)!

Peter had treated these Gentiles as though he found them fully acceptable since, apparently after his sermon, he had sat down to eat with them. But this implied that they were also fully acceptable to God, and yet all they had done was to repent of their paganism and believe in Christ. They had not become Jewish proselytes!

But the fact that they were indeed fully accepted by God had been signaled by His giving them, says Peter, the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 11:17). In this respect, they were more readily blessed than the Palestinian Jews had been!

We must remember that the Jews at Pentecost did not get the gift of the Spirit until after baptism. But God did not require even this of Cornelius in order for him to be baptized by God’s Spirit. It was thus evident that the Gentiles had entered the same “life experience” that believing Jews enjoyed, that is, they were fully blessed by the God with whom they were now obviously in harmony. We might say, “They entered into the Christian life.”

Here we need to recall the words of the father of the Prodigal Son. Upon his son’s return home, the experiential separation of father and son had ended, so that his dad can say to his unhappy older boy, Your brother was dead and is alive again, was lost and is found (Luke 15:32, underlining added).

Repentance, we may say, is the wayward sinner’s first step toward “coming to life” after his experience of alienation and separation from God. Experientially this is true both for the unsaved sinner and for the saved sinner. Coming home to God, and enjoying His presence, is a form of resurrection and it is a true and vivid experience of life! As Paul would put it later, For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live (Rom. 8:13, underlining added).

The believers at Jerusalem knew to what the father of the Prodigal Son was referring. But they were surprised that “life” in this sense could be enjoyed totally apart from any conditions related to the Mosaic law. The truth they acknowledged here, however, was later to come under challenge (see the view of the believing Pharisees in Acts 15:5), and it was to be officially resolved by the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:4–29). But at this moment, the believers are delighted and they glorified God (Acts 11:18) because the Gentiles had entered into full and genuine Christian living.
----------
End Zane C. Hodges

By Antonio, at 2/29/2008 10:44 PM
Susan:

Antonio (aka Sock Puppet: fg me) posted a lengthy quote by Hodges. As for his view on repentance as a condition of salvation, it can summed up this way, from Harmony With God.

“Thank God there is only one answer to the question, ‘What must I do to be saved?’ That, of course, is the answer not only of Paul and all the apostles, but of Jesus Himself. The answer is: ‘believe!’

Repentance is not part of that answer. It never has been and never will be. But we should keep firmly in mind the lovely truth that repentance is always the first step when we need to come home again!”

Zane Hodges is on the extreme edge with his view of repentance. He is far removed from the general consensus in the FG community that repentance is a condition of salvation.

It is important to not only expose doctrinal error, but also the men who propagate such errors. Hodge and Wilkin are the prime instigators this false teaching.

LM

By Lou Martuneac, at 3/01/2008 1:03 AM
Rose:

Do you take a supportive position of the Hodges/GES view, which Matthew affirmed that repentance plays no role in, and is not a condition of salvation?

Do you accept the Crossless advocates view that repentance, by any definition, is not a condition for the reception of eternal life?

LM

By Lou Martuneac, at 3/01/2008 2:17 AM
Susan,
Thank you for visiting.
I liked this part of the Westminster quote:
Although repentance be not to be rested in as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof

That is good.
Thanks for your contribution to the discussion.

By Rose~, at 3/01/2008 8:48 AM
Lou,
I have always thought of repentance like Charles Ryrie does so under that look, it would be inherently part of conversion, but I am interested in what others think.

I don't want to involve myself in any more lengthy discussion with you presently - it tires me. Have a good weekend.

By Rose~, at 3/01/2008 8:54 AM
Rose:

You claim to be of the Ryrie mindset on repentance. As you are likely aware the Ryrie and Hodges views are quite unlike each other. Then, certainly you could not find the Hodges view of repentance acceptable.

Hodges (GES, da Rosa) is a radical, and on the most extreme edge of repentance as any one in evangelical circles. His extreme view of repentance makes many in the FG camp very uncomfortable, and initiated the first wave of departures from the GES.

I tried to engage this discussion of repentance with you in the Crossless Call thread. (See 2/01/2008 12:27 PM & 3:44 PM)

I searched the thread and as memory serves, you refused to acknowledge or address my question to you on repentance. Why is that?

I have asked you twice, in this thread, if you take a supportive position of the Hodges/GES view, which Matthew affirmed that repentance plays no role in, and is not a condition of salvation. No response; why is that?

These men believe and teach, “Repentance is not a condition for eternal life.” That is a quote from Alvin, and represents the view of the Hodges’ camp.

You replied to Alvin this way, “I agree Alvin. If by repentance we mean ‘changing of the action’, then it is not a condition for receiving a ‘the gift of God.’ Anything one DOES to receive a gift makes it cease to be a gift, but something gained by DOING” (2/01/2008 10:45 AM)

You know the Hodges/GES camp dismisses repentance as a condition of salvation by any definition, including, “change of mind.”

In the Crossless thread I asked, “Rose, understanding that in fact Alvin means repentance, by any definition, is NOT necessary for the reception of eternal life; Do you agree with Alvin’s statement?” (2/01/2008 3:44 PM) You did not reply.

Do you find the Hodges/Wilkin/da Rosa view that repentance by any definition is not a condition of receiving salvation/eternal life acceptable?

If you intend to refuse to state one way or the other how you stand with the Hodges (Crossless advocates) view of repentance, just say you don’t want to identify your position on the issue and we’ll drop it.

LM

By Lou Martuneac, at 3/01/2008 11:26 AM
Lou, let me give you an English expression:

You don't half go on a bit.

By Matthew Celestine, at 3/01/2008 2:29 PM
say you don’t want to identify your position on the issue and we’ll drop it.

Lou, we'll drop it because I said I don't want to get into any more long discussions with you - you are making me tired of interacting with you, of answering your inquisition-type questioning. If you were friendlier and less threatening, I would not mind, but I don't feel a level of friendliness coming from you that makes me want to talk to you this weekend, so now I am done. I think you should just post your thoughts on your own blog.

By Rose~, at 3/01/2008 2:34 PM
"threatening" might've been too strong a word - I think I mean "overbearing."

By Rose~, at 3/01/2008 3:17 PM
Rose:

You have revealed quite enough to irrefutably verify that you are much more than merely sympathetic to the Crossless gospel and its advocates.

You have come to accept and by default endorse their egregious errors on the Gospel as an acceptable way to evangelize the lost.

If truth be known, it is my opinion you also accept the Hodges no need of repentance for salvation view as yet another inconsequential “doctrinal nuance.”

Unity at the expense of doctrine.

Done,

LM

PS: Not to be the chauvinist pig, but men have thicker skin than women, and you need it to debate these issues.

By Lou Martuneac, at 3/01/2008 3:20 PM
Matthew:

"You don't half go on a bit."

If that means I "lock in, shoot straight and mean what I say," then I accept the English expression.

LM

By Lou Martuneac, at 3/01/2008 3:23 PM
You may think whatever you like, Lou, and I am quite sure than any information I might give you to the contrary (of what you have come to decide about me being "more than sympathetic" to the minimalistic theory of salvation) would be inconsequential anyways.

Goodbye....

By Rose~, at 3/01/2008 3:26 PM
Please leave off from commenting here now for a while. I am very tired.

By Rose~, at 3/01/2008 3:26 PM
Rose,

was it not Lou Martuneac who posted on my blog over 3 dozen times under a sock puppet name "Mr. Fly Guy" and became so vulgur, vitriolic, and unChristian, that I had to delete some 30+posts of him under this pseudonym?

It is interesting that he accusses me of something that he did and never apologized to me for.

This is Lou Martuneac for you.

Antonio

By Antonio, at 3/01/2008 4:50 PM
And to Lou, concerning FG and repentance (also, correct me if I am wrong, but Lou Martuneac is not Free Grace and has never claimed to be Free Grace, for a large extent due to the fact he holds doctrines that Free Grace people find in serious error, and would never ally themselves with (in the words of Lou, egregious)), let us read the words of the Grandfather of FG theology (a theology that you have no part and parcel with), Lewis Sperry Chafer:

These portions of scripture [passages that condition eternal life solely on believing, faith] totaling about 150 in all, include practically all that the New Testament declares on the matter of the human responsiblity in salvation; yet each one of these texts omits any reference to repentance as a separate act. This fact, easily verified, cannot but bear enormous weight with any candid mind. In like manner, the Gospel by John, which is written to present Christ as the object of faith unto eternal life, does not once employ the word repentance... When the Apostle Paul and his companion, Silas, made reply to the jailer concerning what he should do to be saved, they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved" (Acts 16:31). This reply, it is evident, fails to recognize the necessity of repentance in addition to believing.

From this overwhelming mass of irrefutable evidence, it is clear that the New Testament does not impose repentance upon the unsaved as a condition for salvation.

The gospel of John with its direct words from the lips of Christ, the Epistle to the Romans with its exhaustive treatment of the theme in question, the Apostle Paul, and the whole array of 150 New Testament passages which are the total of the divine instruction, are incomplete and misleading if repentance must be accorded a place [along with] believing. No thoughtful person would attempt to defend such a notion against such odds, and those who have thus undertaken doubtless have done so without weighing the evidence or considering the untenable position which thy assume.

By Antonio, at 3/01/2008 4:58 PM
Lou,

Quit posing as a free gracer. It is getting rather indefesible for you to continue masquerading as someone who lies under the great and honorable heritage that is Free Grace theology. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

By Antonio, at 3/01/2008 4:59 PM
Antonio:

The FG theology you and Hodges/Wilkin represent is a departure from biblical orthodoxy. Many in the FG camp have quit and/or distanced themselves from the GES because of the radical doctrines of Hodges and Wilkin.

It is clear to any objective reader that the FG camp is split into the GES faction and those who reject where the GES has drifted.

You can continue to perpetuate the façade that the GES doctrine is representative and speaks for the FG community, but that is a falsehood, and you know it.

You have been deceived by Hodges’ teaching and it has ruined you, no less than Jeremy Myers was ruined.

You are an angry, bitter young man. Your bones are waxing old right before our eyes. Confess, repent, your prayers are hindered, (Ps. 66:18).

LM

By Lou Martuneac, at 3/01/2008 6:59 PM
Antonio:

You wrote, “It is interesting that he accusses me of something that he did and never apologized to me for.”

That is yet another one of your bold-faced play on words. I publicly took care of business for the Fly Guy incident, which I was not, and am not proud of. But, I have made that right with God. I posted a public acknowledgment of this. Here it is

“Before I continue, I want to acknowledge that some time last year I used an alias at Antonio’s blog. I was asking him to answer a question from Greg Schliesmann, which, he (Antonio, as is his custom) refused to answer. I pressed him for an answer to Greg’s question, and he replied with vitriol and personal attacks. In any event, I wish I had not visited his blog in the first place, and used an alias in the second place. It was wrong and I’m not proud of it.”
Evaluation, Part 4 See- 2/13/08 @ 1:58PM)

I forgot to apologize to you personally. So…

Antonio, what I did was wrong. I aplogize to you publicly. I confessed and acknowledged it before God and the public. The Lord, according to His promise, (1 Jn. 1:9) forgave me. I ask your forgiveness. Do you forgive me?

LM

By Lou Martuneac, at 3/01/2008 7:14 PM
Hi Rose/All

And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!”
And let him who hears say, “Come!”
And let him who thirsts come.
Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely. (Rev 22:17)

The Greek tenses in John 4:10 would permit the following interpretation of the NKJV rendering. (ZH)

“If you [now] knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink’, you would [already] have asked Him, and He would [already] have given you living water”.

This interpretation of John 4:10 harmonies perfectly with Rev 22:17.

It’s simply about the giving and receiving of a gift, nothing about repentance is there. It’s simple taking Jesus at His word.

The stumbling block for the Calvinist is the simplicity of Salvation, so upon rejecting this, a mysterious, arcane, incomprehensible, decree of God. This is the same stumbling block for any who would add any conditions to being able to take the water freely!

But I fear, lest somehow as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. (2 Cor 11:3)

If you knew the gift of God, you would know that it is free!
alvin

By alvin, at 3/01/2008 7:21 PM
Antonio:

Take this as from a Christian brother trying to counsel a brother who is holding onto a known sin.

You are living a lie that you never posted at my blog as fg me. I have the documented proof you did, and will publish it if you prefer. An IT professional inspected the documentation and it confirms that it was you posting at my blog as fg me. I informed you of all of this yet you still will not admit to it.

You were caught red-handed, you lied and you continue to lie about it.

In the thread where you posed at fg me, Rachel confronted you over it. She wrote, “Even when we asked if FG Me was you and gave you the chance to come clean, you dodged and avoided the question, using vague terms that gave the appearance of denial that you were FG Me, but didn't really answer the question. Then when Lou asked you directly, you played the coward and ran away.

Quit playing games, Antonio…don't hide behind a fake identity to give yourself the appearance of additional support.

I challenge you to post the truth about what happened here. Admit to being FG Me and admit to trying to hide that fact. Acknowledge your deception and apologize for it, no excuses. Stop acting childish and do the mature thing - own up to what you've done. This is the only right thing to do.”

I sent you private e-mail kindly encouraging you to confess and get over this, but you refused. It sent a second e-mail that you posted, which does not bother me in the least, because it shows you are still in denial and unrepentant.

I have already forgiven you, but the stigma of your cover-up and on-going lie is following and eating away at you. The Holy Spirit is doing His convicting work and you are resisting, which evidenced by your vitriol.

You make much of repentance for the believer to maintain a harmonious relationship with God. I agree with that. Don’t you think it is about time to restore your harmonious relationship with God?

“If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me,” (Ps. 66:18)

Your prayers are hindered.

LM

By Lou Martuneac, at 3/01/2008 7:28 PM
Hi Rose

Lou you need to take your own advice! Here is your words:

You wrote that I would want children to affirm the Trinity, and require that for them to be born again. You invented that and assigned that to me. You had no evidence of it, simply made it up and presented it as though it is true of the way I would evangelize children. Then you tried to worm your way out of what you did with word play. Bottom line, you lied in an attempt to discredit me.

And here is what I said that you said I lied about, quote:
Lou I could just HEAR you trying to explain to a little child the Trinity and expecting them to believe it to be saved.

Lou one of your conditions is that a person has to believe in the Deity of Christ in order to be saved. So I could just imagine (hear) you speaking to a young child, and the child makes the statement "I thought the Father was God." Now I could just hear you having to explain the Trinity so she could believe the deity before you would offer her the gift of life.

Lou after you accused me of lying Rose said this:
Lou,
I have read all these comments. I think you misunderstood Alvin. He certainly didn't "lie." He was just imagining with words what it would look like to require these things of children that we seem to require of adult converts.

Lou it's clear I didn't lie! And you as of yet have not apologized for calling me a liar, but yet you expect someone to apologize to you. That is being a hypocrite. So you need to take your own advice.

If you knew the gift of God, you would know that it is free!
alvin

By alvin, at 3/01/2008 8:36 PM
Rose,

Just dropping to say hello sister. Hang in there, remember Psalm 73:23-26. God Bless.

By David Wyatt, at 3/01/2008 9:00 PM
Antonio,

Was it not Lou Martuneac who publicly acknowledged his wrongdoing in using a sock puppet to post at your blog? Was it not Lou Martuneac who has publicly apologized to readers in general and now you personally for his wrongdoing?

Antonio, this is getting most tiresome. For all your talk about believers at the Judgement Seat of Christ, you don't seem to be putting it into practice on this issue. Is this how you plan to work things at the JSOC?

----------

God: "Antonio, I see that you were dishonest in pretending to be someone else at Lou's blog in order to make it appear like your position had more support than it really did. Then I see that, when confronted, you lied about it (which you know I really hate) and refused to admit the truth. You maintained a spirit of pride (which you know I really hate) by beating down on someone else for something they had already confessed. What do you have to say for yourself?"

Antonio: "Did you see what Lou Martuneac did?"

----------

Just a wild guess here, but I'm pretty sure that won't go over too well. Feel free to try it though.

I find it interesting that not one single person has come out in your defense. Not one single person has said that they don't think it was you, how could we think that, etc. I have a feeling that virtually everyone who has followed that little story in any way thought it was you too. That's probably why no one has come out in your defense, because they know they would look foolish.

If you had never posted as fg me at Lou's blog, you would have come out loud and clear that it wasn't you, and we all know it. The fact that you have never once denied posting as fg me at Lou's blog speaks volumes.

Consider these verses:

"When pride comes, then comes dishonor, but with the humble is wisdom." (Proverbs 11:2)

"...and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE." (1 Peter 5:5b)

Antonio, the Bible is clear that God is attracted to humility. Is He attracted to your attitude regarding this issue? Can you honestly say that you have responded just like Christ would have you respond?

By Rachel, at 3/01/2008 11:24 PM
Antonio,

Here's a chance for you to get this right:

Did you ever post under the handle of fg me at Lou's blog?

By Rachel, at 3/01/2008 11:29 PM
Lou, it means you could talk and talk until we are all skeletons.

By Matthew Celestine, at 3/02/2008 3:35 AM
Are you feeling skeletal yet, Rose?

By Matthew Celestine, at 3/02/2008 3:36 AM
Hi Antonio,
[To begin with, the word “eternal” is not really here. Although eternal life can be referred to by the word “life” alone (very notably in John 20:31 and elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel), we cannot make this assumption automatically. The word is a perfectly good Greek word for “life” in the various senses in which the language could use it. We must always interpret in context.]

Antonio,

Just because he can’t see it does not mean it is not there. It seems more than obvious to me what it means. Check the context yourself.
Acts 11

Paul describes God’s commission to him to King Agrippa in the following terms. Turning is something that necessarily happens when a sinner comes to Christ for life.

Acts 26: 15 And I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. 16 But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, 17 delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles—to whom I am sending you 18 to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’

This is talking about eternal life, nothing less.

[Secondly, if we thought that the reference in Acts 11:18 was a reference to eternal life, then we are left with a surprising and implausible idea in this context. We must infer in that case that the Jerusalem Christians just now realized that Gentiles could be eternally saved! But this is so unlikely as to be almost fantastic.
After all, had not the Lord Himself commanded the Gentile mission in His Great Commission to the apostles (Matthew. 28:19; Mark 16:15)? In fact, even the Old Testament taught that Gentiles could be saved (see the quotations in Romans 15:8–11). In the Jerusalem church, of all places, this truth must surely have been known. Indeed, before he spoke, Peter is not criticized for preaching to Gentiles, but for eating with them (Acts 11:3)!]

Hodges is ignoring the fact that the Jews and gentiles were separated from one another by the ceremonial law and by their own choice. The Jews viewed the gentiles as unclean and as dogs, outside of God’s favor. No one denies that there were some gentiles included in OT Israel, but that is the exception, not the rule. As a rule, before Cornelius, the gentiles had not yet been included into the New Covenant along with the true believers in Israel. That is why it took a vision from heaven for Peter to go preach to Cornelius. He learned the Holy Spirit was given even to the gentiles. It was not just about food.

Acts 10:22 And they said, “Cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man, who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation, was directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house and to hear what you have to say.” 23 So he invited them in to be his guests.
The next day he rose and went away with them, and some of the brothers from Joppa accompanied him. 24 And on the following day they entered Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. 25 When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am a man.” 27 And as he talked with him, he went in and found many persons gathered. 28 And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean. 29 So when I was sent for, I came without objection. I ask then why you sent for me.”

God opened “a door of faith” to the gentiles granting them repentance unto life.

Acts 14:25 And when they had spoken the word in Perga, they went down to Attalia, 26 and from there they sailed to Antioch, where they had been commended to the grace of God for the work that they had fulfilled. 27 And when they arrived and gathered the church together, they declared all that God had done with them, and how he had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles. 28 And they remained no little time with the disciples.
The fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant was that all nations would be blessed by the messiah, the Seed of Abraham who was to come. The story of Cornelius showed that God had kept his promise and was now bringing gentiles into His Kingdom who had an equal standing with the Jewish believers before God. Paul said this to the Ephesian gentiles.
Ephesians 2: 11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ… 17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus says the Lord:
“Stand by the roads, and look,
and ask for the ancient paths,
where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls.
But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’

~Susan

By VA ~Susan, at 3/03/2008 1:58 PM
Susan,

We are talking past each other. Here is an exercise that can get the ball rolling.

Can you produce even one clear and unambiguous verse that conditions eternal life, justification, or eternal salvation with a requirement of repentance?

You must be aware of a cogent biblical fact that necessarily places a huge burden of proof you:

Nowhere in the Bible is the reception of eternal salvation, eternal life, or justification conditioned on an act of repentance.

Those who claim that repentance of any kind is necessary from God's point of view as an indispensible and authoratative requirement in order to receive everlasting life must string together texts and arguments in order to support their unbiblical assertion that repentance is a theologically binding requirement for the possession of eternal salvation. In their arguments, the fallacy of special pleading is a common trait, for there is no clear text that makes theirpoint.

They cannot point to even one text that explicitely commands repentance for the express purpose of the appropriation of eternal life. There is no such verse or passage.

If this is such an important element in the discussion of the critical components of the gospel message it is odd – no, it is incredible – that not a single verse clearly conjoins a command to repent with a resultant appropriation of: eternal salvation, eternal life, or justification.

Isn’t the reception of eternal life/justification of utmost importance to a lost sinner on his way to hell? I mean, listen – the information on how a person is initiated into a relationship with God is of dire necessity! Wouldn’t you think that an issue of such great import would be properly clarified by the God who “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4)? Isn’t it unbelievable that in the whole canon of scripture, that if eternal well-being is contingent partly on an act of repentance, that no text whatsoever conditions a result of eternal salvation on such an act?

Antonio

By Antonio, at 3/03/2008 3:39 PM
Good afternoon Rose. I was away for two days. I’ll have something for you in a moment.

Rachel:

Thanks for posting these convicting verses to Antonio.

“When pride comes, then comes dishonor, but with the humble is wisdom” (Proverbs 11:2)

“...and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE.” (1 Peter 5:5b)

The problem Antonio is having stems from ego, pride and arrogance. This is what kept him from confessing and repenting over his plagiarism episodes last year until the blog owner publicly confronted him in such a way he could no loner continue evading his plagiarism and refusal to apologize for it.

His ego is standing in the way of doing right thing, the God-honoring, humble thing. He wants this to go away without having to be honest about what he did and why he won't admit it. I do know one thing for sure, the Holy Spirit is going to keep reminding him every time he begins to pray that he is holding on to sin and refusing to repent of it.

The Bible says, “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me,” (Ps. 66:18).

Antonio is headed for a day like David once had when Nathan came calling. “Thou art the man,” (2 Sam 12:7)

In the mean time we watch as Antonio’s, just like David’s, “…bones waxed old through my roaring all the day long,” (Ps. 32:3) This known and unconfessed sin is going to fester in Antonio.

Just look at this thread alone for how Antonio is dealing with reacting to having been found out. He tries to change the subject, ignore any attempt to help him get right with God, attack and demonize any one who raises this with him.

Antonio: I told you in an e-mail that I would not do a victory dance over you if you would confess and repent of having posted as fg me at my blog. I knew it was you from the start. I gave you numerous public opportunities (and told you in an e-mail) to post in that thread using your own name, I lifted my ban from you, but you chose keep up the Sock Puppet play. Now you are trying to run to where you cannot hide from what you did.

Obey the Scriptures: 1 John 1:9.

Finally Antonio: Do you forgive me?

LM

By Lou Martuneac, at 3/03/2008 3:50 PM
Antonio:

Rachel asked you,

“Did you ever post under the handle of fg me at Lou's (my) blog?”

Why don’t you start by answering her question?

LM

By Lou Martuneac, at 3/03/2008 3:53 PM
Good afternoon Rose. I was away for two days.

Good afternoon, Lou.

I’ll have something for you in a moment.

Perhaps you did not see where I said that I do not want your "something." Frankly, I am tired of your visits coming to me as emails in my inbox. Please take a break.

You like to fight too much. You have stated that you don't want to agree to disagree or disagree agreeably. Therefore, I have come to really lack appreciation for your visits. You are just one small blogger. Mine is just one small blog. I think you can find somewhere else to play the bully.

I wish you all the best in Christ. I will be praying for you.

Goodbye.

By Rose~, at 3/03/2008 5:04 PM
Rose:

You are twisting my words. I will never agree to disagree with the teachers of a false gospel, which Crossless advocates are.

Its not fight, its, "contend for the faith once delivered" (Jude 3).

As for e-mails, you have written me many as well, which I did not mind as long as I thought there was a chance of recovering you from what the Crossless advocates have done with your doctrinal thinking.

So, I take this to mean you will not say whether or not you find Hodges' view on repentance "acceptable" If you agree with Ryrie's view, it is impossible to agree with or accept the Hodges view.

LM

By Lou Martuneac, at 3/03/2008 7:47 PM
[We are talking past each other. ]
No Antonio,
We're not talking past each other, you just won't deal with any of the many scriptures I posted here and here. I pointed out all Wilkin's faulty reasoning from your last post. The meaning of scripture is clear to anyone with eyes to see and we do not need Wilkins and Hodges to interpret God's word for us. It is obvious you do not see because you are blinded by this false teaching and I don't have the ability to help you or to show you the truth. Only God can do that.

2 Timothy 2:24 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

By VA ~Susan, at 3/03/2008 8:17 PM
Lou,
As for emails, I was talking about the notification of comments - your visits on this blog.

I already said that I have usually agreed with Ryrie on repentance. I may take a look at Hodges - Antonio says his book "Harmony with God" is a great one. I have read many things by Hodges that I thought were great. Therefore, I may appreciate his thoughts on repentance too. I won't reject everything Hodges says just because people like you have decided to put him in your crosshairs and blow out of proportion something that is really quite inconsequential in the final analysis, IMO.

New Evangelical... Crossless... whatever you want to call me... it doesn't matter. Your evaluations are irrelevant to me. They might not have been irrelevant, but they have been delivered with such a lack of grace that I can't even hear you anymore.

The end.

By Rose~, at 3/03/2008 9:00 PM
Rose:

Because Antonio says Harmony With God is a “great” book? Knowing that Antonio believes repentance pays no role and is not a condition of salvation ought to be instructive.

But, I have Harmony With God on the shelf right next to me. I have read it. Nowhere are just two excerts that define what the Hidges/GES view of repentance is.

*“Thank God there is only one answer to the question, ‘What must I do to be saved?’ That, of course, is the answer not only of Paul and all the apostles, but of Jesus Himself. The answer is: ‘believe!’

Repentance is not part of that answer. It never has been and never will be. But we should keep firmly in mind the lovely truth that repentance is always the first step when we need to come home again!”

So, from Hodges you have him saying repentance plays no role for salvation.

**“We ought, therefore, to reexamine our ingrained assumptions about New Testament repentance. I know how hard this is for preachers, teachers and lay people who have long believed and/or taught otherwise. I myself once held the ‘change of mind’ view of repentance and taught it. But the Scriptures have persuaded me otherwise.”

Now, you have Hodges rejecting the “change of mind” definition for repentance. That alone puts him and his followers on the extreme edge on the doctrine of repentance.

Many in FG community reject Hodges’ view of repentance and have departed the GES over this, even before his heretical Crossless teaching became widely known.

LM

By Lou Martuneac, at 3/03/2008 9:33 PM
Rose:

You made an over statement, “I won't reject everything Hodges says…”

Who’s talking about rejecting everything Hodges says? No one I am aware of, including myself “rejects everything Hodges says.”

I can read some of his books and appreciate much. I can do the same with some of MacArthur’s books. Now, there will be content in any one of their books that I might appreciate, but the same books may have portions I disagree with sharply.

With Hodges, when it comes to his Crossless interpretation of the Gospel, he has checked out on Scripture. He is teaching heresy of the first order. He is leading others into his error and ruining them doctrinally.

This is no minor doctrine Hodges has corrupted, it is surely no “doctrinal nuance.” The Deity and Gospel of Jesus Christ are under assault by Hodges, Wilkin and the GES camp.

LM

By Lou Martuneac, at 3/03/2008 9:39 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By Lou Martuneac, at 3/03/2008 9:44 PM
Lou, you really don't have any manners.

Rose has told you she does not appreciate your comments, yet you keep commenting again here.

I think it is shameful the way you are bullying a good Christian woman like Rose.

By Matthew Celestine, at 3/04/2008 2:06 AM
Matthew:

Please knock it off with the "bullying" mantra.  
Rachel and I have tried to have a discussion with Rose, but it has become one way for both of us. There is a reason for that in each of our cases.

It is quite obvious what has happened here.

LM

By Lou Martuneac, at 3/04/2008 8:14 AM
Matthew/Rose:

I saw that David Wyatt no longer appears at Unashamed of Grace in the Our Other Blogs section.

Why is that?

LM

By Lou Martuneac, at 3/04/2008 8:14 AM
Lou,
I decided I am not going to let you post repetitious comments at my blog anymore. So I deleted your last comment about Antonio to Susan. This is just more of the same old same old from you. It's obvious you don't appreciate Antonio. How many different ways do you have to say that? Or will you give us that malarchy about how "it's not the man, it's the doctrine"?

I have had a way of doing things around here that have worked for a long time. I have never had to remove many comments or ban people from my blog. I asked Brian not to return to my blog anymore the other day and he seems to be honoring that request.

When exceptional cases arise, one has to alter the way one does things. I have asked you nicely to quit commenting here because I have become very tired of your attitude. Now I am going to start deleting any comment from you that I deem necessary. Why? Because I want to.

Kurt is none of the things you said about him. He is a good friend from my church and I don't appreciate the way you have addressed him. (But I am not surprised)

Now go away and bother someone else.

By Rose~, at 3/04/2008 8:54 AM
Hello Rose,

For some reason after reading through this thread I just want to sing this old sixties song by Dion!

Has anybody here seen my old friend Abraham?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
He freed a lot of people,
But it seems the good they die young.
You know, I just looked around and he's gone.

Anybody here seen my old friend John?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
He freed a lot of people,
But it seems the good they die young.
I just looked around and he's gone.

Anybody here seen my old friend Martin?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
He freed a lot of people,
But it seems the good they die young.
I just looked 'round and he's gone.

Didn't you love the things that they stood for?
Didn't they try to find some good for you and me?
And we'll be free
Some day soon, and it's a-gonna be one day ...

Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walk up over the hill,
With Abraham, Martin and John.

I didn't change the names so as to protect the guilty.

I hope you don't mind the levity Rose?

LOLOLOL

By Kris, at 3/05/2008 8:21 PM
Kris,
Thanks for your comment :~)

Susan,
Now that it seems I can think a little, since the air is clearer in here,
I was looking at this passage that you brought up to Antonio:

Acts 10:42 And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. 43 To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

What exactly was the point you were making? I am interested in discussing it with you. I hope we can keep comments somewhat breif so that we can actually discuss things one thing at a time. That is, if you want to discuss it. I am very curious as to your point about this verse.

Thanks!

By Rose~, at 3/06/2008 12:28 AM
[43 To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”]
Rose,
Sorry, I do not have the email notification turned on, so I did not see your last comment until now. I know you have a lot else going on now, but I wanted to answer this. My point is that forgiveness of sins is connected to having saving faith in Christ. I was refuting the idea that Christ took everyone's sins out of the way no matter if they have faith in Christ or not so that sin is no longer an issue between the sinner and God, that only spiritual life is needed. It is clear here that the benefits of the atonement are only applied to those who have faith. Rachel made the point which Lou quoted to me previously that both the limited atonement folks and the Unlimited atonement folks of the Old Time Evangelical variety are all united on this fact. Rachel also posted the verse that ties propitiation to faith.
Romans 3:25 says of Jesus, "God presented Him as a propitiation through faith in His blood, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His restraint God passed over the sins previously committed..." (HCSB)

That is why it is unbiblical to say sin is no longer the issue in evangelism. Unless the sinner repents, he remains a slave of sin and unless he repents, will surely perish in his sins in hell under God's wrath and curse.

By VA ~Susan, at 3/11/2008 12:25 PM

Metaschema - Erlenmeyer Flask

Hungry/6 - Jodie

The Stumbling Block - Bobby

Sanc's Blog - Michele

Friday, February 29, 2008

Group Blog Post

57 Comments:

Metaschema - Erlenmeyer Flask Hungry/6 - Jodie The Stumbling Block - Bobby Sanc's Blog - Michele

Friday, February 29, 2008

Group Blog Post

57 Comments:

Metaschema - Erlenmeyer Flask

Hungry/6 - Jodie

The Stumbling Block - Bobby

Sanc's Blog - Michele