Monday, July 30, 2007

Free(?) Will

I came across this post and it made think about the idea of "Free Will." I would be eager to hear your view on this. Please do keep in mind though that this topic can really get heated.

People want to feel that they have a free will. I think it all boils down to the fact of pride. We want to feel like we have a say in what goes on. We want to think that "God does His part and we do ours." In one way this statement is correct. God does do His part. He chooses, convicts and draws us to Himself. We also do our part. Our part is sin, sin and sin. We run from God. We hide from God. We are opposed to God on all fronts. Salvation is totally and wholly His. He initiates it and completes it.

We have sinfully made salvation a man thing. If you really think about it from man's point of view salvation totally is up to man.

It goes like this. "Jesus is knocking on the door of your heart. Just let Him come in. He is waiting on you to make a decision for Him. He is ringing His holy hands hoping that today will be the day."

What an unscriptural view of salvation. We moved God out of His seat of Omnipotence and taken His place. If we teach that God is really limited by what we do then salvation is all about man and not God.

51 comments:

jon said...

Hi T.

Free Will? Doesn't exist according to Scripture. Doesn't exist according to Martin Luther either. The Bondage of the Will ought to be mandatory reading for every minister, if not every truth-loving, doctrine-abiding Christian.

Blessings,
jon

JSU said...

I haven't read that one. Thanks for recommendation.

M said...

Free will doesn't exist according to scripture? Adam and Eve didn't have a choice? Gen 3:6 was forced? By whom?

After that, of course we inherit a sin nature. I don't disagree there. And apart from God, we are helpless to choose.

CaryK said...

I humbly point you to Bob DeWaay's excellent article on this topic:

http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue92.htm

Ken Silva said...

Wow! A Jon Cardwell sighting...

Hi DT,

I just have to tell you. I loved your depiction of what Dr. Walter Martin used to call "the mealy-mouthed, namby-pamby, wishy-washy Jesus" begging sinners to be saved.

Only "free" will I want is to be my Lord's bond-slave. Nice job my brother.

fishon said...

Hum,
Let's see. In Acts 2:37, the people asked, "What shall WE DO?" [caps mine].

Notice what Peter says and doesn't say: He says, "Repent and be baptized...." Notice, he didn't say, "Don't do anything. You can't do anything. You have no responcibility at all." He told them they had to DO SOMETHING. That my friends is choice.

Then Peter says in verse 40b: "Save yourself...." NOW I DID NOT WRITE THAT PORTION OF SCRIPTURE; LUKE DID BY THE LEADERSHIP OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. Luke wrote that Peter said, "save yourself...."

I care very little what Martin Luther wrote--But I do care what Luke wrote that Peter said.
fishon

Anonymous said...

fishon,
Nice of you to write your convictions.

DT,

You said "Our part is sin, sin and sin".

You forgot to mention the good news. We don't have to be slaves to sin anymore. There is no sin that Jesus cannot deliver us from. We do not have to continue in sin. Its just our un'will'ingness to give it up. (Please write if you think there is anything that we can't overcome through the power of God)

"For we are more than conquerers through Christ Jesus who strengthens us"

"He that is in me is much greater than he that is in the world"

dk

(sorry, I haven't yet created a blogger id and hence still signing with just initials)

Steve said...

Fishon,

You wrote, "Then Peter says in verse 40b: "Save yourself...." NOW I DID NOT WRITE THAT PORTION OF SCRIPTURE; LUKE DID BY THE LEADERSHIP OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. Luke wrote that Peter said, "save yourself....".

Now come on, we all know that man cannot "save himself" from his sinfulness through his own decisive action. When Peter says "save yourselves" he didn't mean they could actually save themselves in the sense of what Christ did on the cross.

Man has two choices in this world. Neither of which allows him the ability to determine his own end. God has done that for him.

When we hear the gospel, we can believe and fulfill God's will for us, or we can choose not to believe and fulfill God's will for us. Ultimately it is God's will and determination that decides who is saved and who is not.

We must stick to what is revealed in scripture:

1. God is sovereign and is the creator of "all" things.

2. Of all that the Father 'sends', according to His will, to Jesus the Son, Jesus won't lose any.

The Lord, thru Paul, says as much in Colossians chap.1:

13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love,
14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.

DK,

You wrote, "We do not have to continue in sin."

Yes you do. Unless the Lord, thru the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, calls you to Himself thru faith in His Son, you're powerless against sin.

Anonymous said...

Steve,
I also wrote (quoting scriptures)

"For we are more than conquerers through Christ Jesus who strengthens us"

"He that is in me is much greater than he that is in the world"

Paul also said

"Sin shall not have dominion over you"

Isn't it wonderful to know that "I can do all things through Him who strengthens me."

So many promises regarding victory over sin, yet Luther's followers ignore them (or being deceived by the devil??).


dk

JSU said...

To believe in the absence of free will in regards to salvation does not make us "Luther followers". I prefer to be called a follower of Christ. We cannot escape the bondage of sin by our ability or choice (Romans 3:10-12). Yet, because of HIS divine intervention, we have been saved by His grace and freed from the jaws of hell, sin, and eternal damnation.

Dead Theologians said...

dk,

Your constant jabs or low blows are unbecoming and childish. (ie. "Luther followers")

I simply admire Luther for standing up to the hellish papists for their man-made religion.

dk, you wrote You forgot to mention the good news. We don't have to be slaves to sin anymore. There is no sin that Jesus cannot deliver us from. We do not have to continue in sin. Its just our un'will'ingness to give it up. (Please write if you think there is anything that we can't overcome through the power of God)"

Of course I believe that Christ's sacrifice does cover and cleanse our sins. I was speaking about our life before Christ has saved us. I thought that was a no-brainer.

fishon, I recommend you read Romans 3. It is a very humbling chapter. You cannot do anything until the Holy Spirit convicts and draws. Even that trite little saying is true "Lazarus could not come out of the tomb until he was called."

DT

fishon said...

Steve,
I agree. Man can not save himself. However, in the context of Chapter 2 of Acts, it is easy to understand that Peter is saying that the people have a "free will" choice. And that is the subject that we are discussing. He is not saying that people can save themselves--by themselves. He certainly is saying that in context with their question in verse 37. Then he gives them the answer in verse 38.

Peter's sermon convinces the folks that Jesus is the Messiah. They are ready to do what is necessary to make things right, because Jesus has made things right [sloppy way of putting it]. God/Jesus did what was necessary, now they must do "repent and be baptized." "Save yourselves..." simply means, 'do your part.'

Steve, you say: "We must stick to what is revealed in scripture." I totally agree. And I surely do--for there is NOTHING in Peter's sermon, the peoples question, and Peter's answer {Acts 2} that indicates, in any way, that those people did NOT have 'free will' to either do what Peter said or choose NOT to do it.

Steve, thank you for the easy way you disagree with me. You have done it in a Christ-like manner, and I hope you see my reply the same.
MAKE IT a great day.
fishon [jerry]

Steve said...

dk,

I'm amazed that you would stoop to the point of calling me a "follower of Luther." If I were not regenerated and given power over sin I might have been offended by it. But I'll just chalk it up as your inability to not sin.

When Evangelicals dialogue with Catholics, there usually arises a point of tension that is based on the fact that Catholics see much of Paul's writings as applicable to all humans in general, but Evangelicals rightly see most of his writings as applicable to the saints of God only. Those who are born-again, chosen of God, and followers of Christ alone.

dk, I would enjoy your thoughts minus the mud-slinging.

As Ravi Zacharias says: "When you throw mud, two things happen. 1. You lose a lot of ground, and 2. You get your hands dirty.

Steve said...

Fishon,

Thanks for the courteous reply. I believe that when voices rise and tempers flare, 'truth' is the last thing anyone cares about.

I agree, in Peters sermon in Acts 2, there isn't much to indicate that man doesn't have free-will. Our understanding of this revealed truth comes from other portions of scripture. (Rom.5-9, Eph, Col., John, etc.)

Apart from God choosing us, and regenerating us, we are helpless to do anything that even hints at contributing to the salvation of our souls.

Blessings

Anonymous said...

Dead Theologians,

You write: "You cannot do anything until the Holy Spirit convicts and draws."

I absolutely, totally agree. But your sentence, in no way, argues against "free will." For when the Holy Spirit convicts and draws, as He did with the people who heard Peter's Acts 2 sermon, they still had a choice to make. Not to be-labor the point, but Peter in no wise indicated they did not have a choice as to 'repenting.'

Thank you for hearing me out, and I did read Romans 3 as you suggested. I will not continue in my defense of my position. I know that most here disagree and I do not want to turn our disagreements into a battle. I just appreciate that you let me give my understanding of scripture.

Thank you.
MAKE IT a great day.
fishon [jerry]

MM said...

Dead,

Interesting... but how do you make sense of Scripture in light of what you state here? If there is no free will, why does Scripture speak so much about due "rewards," "recompense," "consequences," etc. etc. ?

"But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest." Luke 6:34-36.

"Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour...If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward." I Corinthians 3:7-14, etc.

"... (may) the Lord reward him according to his works." II Timothy 3:14-15

"Without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Hebrews 11:6

"Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward." II John 1:8

"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." Revelation 22:12

(There are about 30 other references to the term 'reward' in the NT alone, for Approved and others who think that frequency is a criterion of authority in the Biblical revelation.)

Robert M. Warren said...

M:

Adam and Eve did have a choice, but their only choice they could make themselves was evil, since they were already in the presence of God.

approvedworkman said...

mm
"(There are about 30 other references to the term 'reward' in the NT alone, for Approved and others who think that frequency is a criterion of authority in the Biblical revelation.)"

Did I say that? Spinning a comment out of context; much like what you do with the Word.

The scriptures are for believers.

Acts 2:
37Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" 38And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." 40And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." 41So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

After they were "cut to the heart"
i.e. convicted, then they were told to repent.
Cut or pricked to the heart, from the Greek katanussō, which means to literally be pierced through. It carries the connotation that they were "impaled" stuck through completely as if all the way into the ground. They couldn't move.They were "transfixed".

Saving faith comes firs, then you repent. Repentance is a work that we do, and we are not "saved" by any work that we do, including baptism. Baptism is simply the outward sign of what has already taken place.

Romans 10:17
17So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

Peter preached the Word. The Word did the work.

Ephesians 2:
8For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

The grace of God is shown in that he gives the faith to believe.We do not possess this kind of faith naturally. Hebrews 12:2.

Romans 3:10-28 shows us that no one is a seeker.
We are justified by faith without the works of the Law,(verse 28)

So where is "free will" in all of this?
The ability to choose is not evidence of free will.I can choose fries or onion rings with my burger, so what?
Volition is not free will. The problem is we do not define the term accurately, and nowhere in the Bible does it say that we possess a "free will"
If you want to be truly accurate, only God has a completely free will.

Read Romans 7. Whether we take the side that Paul is talking about unregenerate man, which he isn't btw, or whether we take the side that he talking about the believer's walk/battle, which he is; the point is whenever we are walking in the flesh we have no freedom at all. We can only sin. Even when an unbeliever does something "good", he or she only does so if it benefits him or her. IOW the flesh seeks it's own satisfaction, no one desires to do good and please God unless they are alrady believers, and Paul points out that this is the daily struggle of the believer. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar, as they have forgotten where they came from.

There is no freedom outside of Christ. "He who has the Son is free indeed!"

approvedworkman said...

One more thing;

Acts 2:
40And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation."

Peter did not say "save yourself". He said save yourself from this crooked generation. That is not the same thing as being saved from eternal damnnation. It is a fruit of the salvation that God has given.

Phillipians 2:
12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.

MM said...

Approved, thanks for sharing your thoughts, but I was not addressing you. No time.

approvedworkman said...

mm
I was only addressing your misrepresentation of my comments, on another post, btw. Deception is easy when nothing is presented in context. The rest of my comment has to do with the post here and the other commenters.

Ya' know, I get the feeling that no one ever played with you when you were a kid.

JSU said...

Jerry,

"For when the Holy Spirit convicts and draws, as He did with the people who heard Peter's Acts 2 sermon, they still had a choice to make."

I think DT is coming from the point that when the Spirit convicts, the sinner can't resist. If the Spirit doesn't convict, the sinner doesn't cry out to God.

Very true... this discussion can go for ages with no surrender. But it's good to discuss these Scriptures and work through them or just talk about them.

MM,

Why do you shut Approved out?

Anonymous said...

dear all,
Can I know the difference between the terms "Luther follower" and "papist"? Both seem to be valid to those who use them, but offensive to those who think they are being called that!

Anyway, I will try not to use that term again. How about you guys?

dk

Dead Theologians said...

dk,

The term papist comes from the idea of a person's loyalties to the pope. Can you deny your loyalties to him?
So, I don't think of that term as a bad one.
I find it interesting that you chose to call us Luther followers and not a Spurgeon or Edwards follower.

MM,

I do think that you and Approved are like gasoline and fire but I do not think it warrants avoiding him or doubting him being a gentleman. Part of sparring about theology is a sticky and sometimes bruising business. If you can stick the cutting remarks then I think you should be able to take them.
There is nothing wrong with wanting lofty philosophical conversations about Mary being the New Eve but understand others may not approach it with a padded pillow. They will come at it with ball bats because the things that we are discussing are deep personal convictions that run to the core of who we are.

In reference to the scriptures that you mentioned.
These references are for the saved. Simple. I thought you knew this being a graduate student.

Fishon Jerry,

Man is responsible but he is unable to respond unless he is called.
Think about it this way.
When we want to see someone saved what do we do? We pray to God to save them? Why? Because we know that God must convict them and draw them BEFORE they can call on Him.

DT

fishon said...

DT said: Fishon Jerry, "Man is responsible but he is unable to respond unless he is called.
Think about it this way.
When we want to see someone saved what do we do? We pray to God to save them? Why? Because we know that God must convict them and draw them BEFORE they can call on Him.

DT, absolutely. I know it first-hand. The Lord took me and turned me inside out--upside down--and all about--and even took me into physical pain in His convicting me.

Oops, got a phone call:preachers work is never done.
fishon

JSU said...

Jerry,

Since you agree with DT, what is your view about free will in salvation?

fishon said...

Jsu,
When the Lord turned me inside out when I was a 33 year old drunk, let me tell you, He was not easy on me. Too long a story to tell here. But I believe it was God's last attempt at getting me to pay attention to Him.

Ah yes, your question. First, I do agree with DT that we have to be called of the Lord. I was.

However, just as there was no doubt that God was calling me, I have no doubt that I could have refused Him. I remember very distintly when I DECIDED to follow Jesus. I remember the thought process very well. Not for one second did I ever believe I had NO choice in the matter.

I could have been exactly like the boys in Acts7:51, "You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit." That says it plain as day. There are those who can and do "resist the Holy Spirit." Their fathers "resisted" and then killed.

Paul even goes on to write in verse 52, "And now you have betrayed and murdered him...." And betrayed in this context, certainly shows 'choice.'

Praise be to our God and Savior, I did not 'resist' the Holy Spirit. I CHOOSE CHRIST.

Sorry about the long answer to a short question.
MAKE IT a great tomorrow.
fishon

Steve said...

Fishon,

I know you were answering JSU, but something in your reply caught my attention. You said the following:

"However, just as there was no doubt that God was calling me, I have no doubt that I could have refused Him."

Do you believe that God could choose someone for salvation, but that person might not get saved?

I personally don't think you could've said no to the Lord. I believe in Irresistible Grace.

Dead Theologians said...

Jerry,

Who was responsible for your salvation? You or the the Lord?

DT

Dead Theologians said...

Everyone,

I posted this on "Spurgeon on Free Will" also.

I like the way Tony Capoccia put it.

"God chooses first, and only the ones He chooses will come, no more and no less. But God uses a process. First He chooses the elect. Then in their life, at His appointed time, He begins to call them to salvation. He sends His Word and His Holy Spirit, to open the eyes and ears and heart of the sinner. He supernaturally allows them to see their sins, and the beauty and loveliness of the Savior, He gives them the gift of faith to believe, repent and submit, and they go running after Jesus, begging for salvation. Yes, they did this with their will, but only after God made them able to see and believe by the gift of faith. And God clearly tells man it was a free gift and not to boast (Ephesians 2:8-9)."

DT

MM said...

Dead,

With all respect, I am going to take my leave of your blog. I appreciated your invitation to read and comment here of a few months ago, and it has been an adrenaline-ridden ride, but it has become clear that conversation here does not exactly tend to the Fruits of the Spirit. I do not want to be associated with a forum that dishonors the name and reputation of Christ by its opportunity for name-calling, anger, and slander among believers. As Christians, we are called to excellence, forbearance, and love. You and your commentors, even in your zeal for pursuing truth, can do better! May you be a witness for Christ in the Blogosphere rather than an embarassment. I know that you all wish to be His witnesses.

If I may, I leave you with this prayer of Christ's from John 17:

"As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.
My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."

All the best to you all! May God richly bless you.

fishon said...

Steve,
I trust you are MAKING it a great day!!!

Your question, "Do you believe that God could choose someone for salvation, but that person might not get saved?"

Answer::Absolutely. Acts 7:51, 52 make it clear that the Holy Spirit can be "resisted." Not only were the OT fathers "stiff-necked resisters" of the Holy Spirit, Paul admonishes some of the NT era people of being just like their ancestors.

2 Chronicles 24:19 says, "Although the Lord sent prophets to the people to bring them back to him, and though they tesified against them, ****they would not listen**** [stars mine]. And Paul is saying to the folks in Acts 7:51 ,52, "You are just like your fathers."

Oops, I had better stop or I will go to preaching.

May our Lord be praised.
fishon

fishon said...

DT,
You asked me, "Who was responsible for your salvation? You or the the Lord?"

Answer::My Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

MAKE IT a great day.
fishon

Dead Theologians said...

MM,

With respect I have to flatly disagree with your summation of our intentions. I find it amazing that you stand as the judge of us who are working through, arguing, and debating our beliefs. I also find it amazing that you point the finger all the while you slid in your subtle jabs in earlier posts with not one apology. None of us left.

The issue I see is that you have not been able to bend or break anyone to your leanings. Praise the Lord for that.

Finally, you have refused to deal with the scriptures that Approved has shared. Instead you bring other scriptures that seem to back up your point.

I still welcome your comments but it appears to me that you want touchy-feely. This is not going to be the place.

DT

Dead Theologians said...

Jerry,

You said "My Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ" is responsible for your salvation.

With your angle would it be that you are 50% responsible and the Lord is 50% responsible?

DT

approvedworkman said...

mm
Pious blether!!
Unity at the exoense of Truth is not biblical unity, i.e. it is not the Body of Christ.
Psalm 133;Eph 2:11-22 as well as the passage you gave from John 17.

"pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one,"

So who are those who believe in the actual message of the apostles, i.e. the real Gospel?

Your goal, as with all roman catholics, is to seduce the wayward ones back to our holy mother the church of Rome. No chance of that here.

Eph 4:
1 I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, 3eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— 5 one Lord,one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Notice, there is one body, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father.I see no mention of one holy, (roman) catholic, and apostolic church.

The prblem is the redefining of the fruit of the Spirit and the redefining of God's love.
Jesus cleansed the temple with a whip.
Now where in the "fruit" does it list allowing false doctrines, and false apostles and prophets to enter and lead people astray.

You have never understood the basis of my argument. I operate on the correct assumption that Rome has absolutley no validity in its doctyrines and practices. Unity and the fruit is not about the toleration of any and every wind of doctrine that blows in.
Only htose who believe in the Jesus of the Gospel Paul preached have the unity revealed in Scripture.
Packing up your toys and going home is not the sign of maturity at all. I belive you are wimping out because you cannot participate in any scripturally based debate.

approvedworkman said...

to,
How long did it take to dig up that gem? lol
Now I can never pray again to my Luther statue.

TO said...

Do not bother praying to him, TO! As the title of this blog says it, Luther is DEAD. He neither knows or cares about you.

Dead Theologians said...

to,

I removed your comment in reference to Luther. I am aware that Luther had a sharp tongue and his language was colorful. I do not care to repeat it here.

DT

JSU said...

Farewell MM.

Anonymous said...

DT,
You said
"The term papist comes from the idea of a person's loyalties to the pope. Can you deny your loyalties to him?
So, I don't think of that term as a bad one.
"
Why are asking me to deny my loyalties to Pope? Did I ever express my loyalties to Pope in your blog? You don't even know whether I am a member of rcc. Why can't you just say 'rcc' than papist, whore etc? Especially when you get offended when called a 'Luther follower'. I have my justifications to call you a 'Luther follower' (Free will doctrine as you explained in this post didn't exist before Luther. Please read more about Luther to see what extend he used this doctrine), but I won't do that again, as it offends you. Why can't you leave it to God to decide whether rcc is the whore of revelations?

Farewell.

dk

fishon said...

DT,
Wow! Nasty mess in Minnapolis.

You asked: "With your angle would it be that you are 50% responsible and the Lord is 50% responsible?"

Oh no. Jesus is 100% responsible. I just did what Peter said to do, in Acts 2:38.
fishon

fishon said...

mm,
If you are still out there, all I have to say is: There is no doubt I am in the minority in this blog site, but I have been treated with only respect and Christian love. Does that mean that there won't be hard pressed opposition to my biblical positions? There will absolutely be. Will someone write something a little curt or possibly offencive to me? Probably.

People who are looking to discuss biblical doctrine, beliefs, and long held opinions, and were/are opposed to being challenged, offended, or even taken apart, WOULD NOT HAVE HUNG OUT WITH JESUS CHRIST. Just ask apostle Peter. I do believe Jesus said to him one time, in a not so flattering tone, I suspect,: "GET BEHIND THEE SATAN."

Yes, I have only been here a couple of days, but I see no sign of what you charaterize as
"""a forum that dishonors the name and reputation of Christ...."""

And if someone gets personal and hurts my feeling, well, I just won't answer that brother/sister and BLESS them with my wisdom. Oops! Wow, bringing attention to my wisdom wasn't very wise. Oh well, my Beagle things I am wise.

Come on back. I may need your support in this place.
fishon

Dead Theologians said...

dk,

You said "Why are asking me to deny my loyalties to Pope? Did I ever express my loyalties to Pope in your blog? You don't even know whether I am a member of rcc. Why can't you just say 'rcc' than papist, whore etc?"

I will show deference to you in this regard.

If you remember I asked you a little while back if you were part of the RCC and you never answered. I just assumed.

DT

Steve said...

I can see why MM has left the building. Men should do battle over doctrinal issues with other Men, and not Women. Only when I clicked on MM did I find out she was a Lady.

"As iron sharpens iron, so one MAN sharpens another." Pr.27:17 (emphasis mine)

MM, do did well by excusing yourself from the battle. If you're married, please consult your husband on doctrinal issues as the bible declares you should. Please excuse any man that has been less than chivalrous toward you.

Fishon Jerry,

Don't worry, you won't need MM to back you up here. After every battle, DT buys beer for all who participated. :) Cheers!!!

Long Live Free Will(y)

MM said...

Gentlemen,

I was clear in my reasons for taking my leave- it's a matter of conscience. If Christians must air their dirty laundry in the public arena, their debates should be governed by love, truth, and self-control, which is not the case here. We must bear witness to Christ. And Steve, thanks for your sympathy :)

Any and all of you are more than welcome to frequent and try your theological ability at the blog that I administer with several pastors, though I warn you that we monitor our comments pretty closely:

www.vocatum.blogspot.com.

Dead Theologians said...

MM,

You said "If Christians must air their dirty laundry in the public arena, their debates should be governed by love, truth, and self-control, which is not the case here."

Potshots are not welcome. I do not come to your blog taking cheap shots.

I repeat myself. "If" dirty laundry has been aired with wrong intents would not put yourself in the same category with the subtle jabs?

DT

MM said...

Dead,

It's true. I made some subtle jabs in conversation on your blog. In order to avoid other occasions for stumbling, I am excusing myself from further conversation here. And now I really will take my leave :) Do come see us at Vocatum.

fishon said...

Steve,
Though not politically correct, but biblical, I agree about the "Lady" thing.

I'll pass on the beer. I use to be a drunk, but I was set free from that sin by Jesus.

MAKE IT a great day.
fishon

Steve said...

Fishon - Praise the Lord for your delivery. It took a few years of drying out myself before the Lord allowed me the ability to consume to His glory!

MM - Your welcome! Women and children first is a motto my family seeks to live by!

JSU said...

Steve,

I died laughing when you earlier said "Free Will(y)". A while back ago I had a cover picture of that movie for my free will discussion.

http://theisleofhope.com/2007/05/14/battle-of-the-wills/

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin