tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2458185836486141916.post4283029736678615437..comments2024-03-27T15:57:45.646+11:00Comments on Set Apart In Christ: Love wins? I hope so!Adamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11729367092929790809noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2458185836486141916.post-19542430069103387282011-03-16T11:47:53.893+11:002011-03-16T11:47:53.893+11:00@Nigel, thank you for your comments. Responding in...@Nigel, thank you for your comments. Responding in your order...<br /><br />1. I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, if I didn't then I actually contradict The Salvation Army's first doctrine! The main focus was supposed to be Matthew 2 here, and so I had attempted to theologise from Scripture, rather than the doctrine. The doctrine was really meant to be a "springboard" for the discussion. If that was unclear it wasn't intentional.<br /><br />2. If I were to rewrite this I would use the term "hope" instead of "wish" (we live and learn). I think it's a much better term and is loaded with theological and Biblical meaning. I agree that our theology must be formed and informed by the Scriptures, that's why I'm not a universalist. My hope (aka wish) will always be, though, that everyone does in fact get saved, but that only through relationship with Jesus Christ. I don't think this is relativism, but optimism as I've suggested in the post. <br /><br />3.Interesting post. Classically Reformed in all its points. With regards to the "need" for the "doctrine of eternal punishment" I would refer to Matt Cairns recent post on this blog for an alternative viewpoint on this discussion. As for the rest of it, I agree in principal, but some of the specifics I would have some issues with. If it's OK, I'd prefer to leave my response to that particular link at that for now.<br /><br />4. I doubt my optimism too! But I continue to pray to in the way that Jesus prayed in Gethsemane about this issue. "If there's another way please do it... yet not my will, but thine be done"Adam Couchmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13617683663818450549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2458185836486141916.post-5197156876093322482011-03-16T11:35:15.143+11:002011-03-16T11:35:15.143+11:00Thanks everyone for your comments.
@Dick... In r...Thanks everyone for your comments. <br /><br />@Dick... In response to your comments, as I read Matthew 2 I still have to come to the conclusion that the "Star" (and how it's interpreted by the Magi) is what was critical to their getting to the point of kneeling before Jesus in worship. If indeed they had prior knowledge seems probable (since they knew of the Jews and that they were expecting a king). It's the star that is the "evangelist" here though, which we must attribute to God, not the people of God.<br /><br />As for Acts 17, I will have a think about how that interacts with this idea of optimistic exclusivism. I think it does, but I haven't thought it through yet. Thanks for the prompting there.<br /><br />With regards to the "immortality of the soul" I'm with you. I chose the word "affirm" deliberately here because I "affirm" what the doctrines point to, but not necessarily to the specific wording contained in them (on a previous blog post I've called for our doctrines to be revised and updated, and this would be one point where change is necessary). The way I read this particular doctrine in the mean time is to recognise that it's written as a "list". As you would be well aware, if we write a list in English that goes beyond two items then we omit all but the last "and" and replace them with commas. That's what's been done here. Mentally as I read our doctrine I simply add the "and" back in so that it reads. "We believe in the immortality of the soul [and] the resurrection of the body..." etc. I also keep in the back of my mind as I do this 1 Cor 15 and Paul's statement that we will be "clothed" with "immortality" at the final resurrection. So whilst we "believe" in the immortality of the soul and the body, this is not a preexistent reality, but rather the hope of what is to come. I realise I'm having to do some theological backflips here to deal with what you have pointed out, but until the doctrines are updated (which I don't think will happen soon, but eventually it will), this interpretation will have to do.Adam Couchmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13617683663818450549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2458185836486141916.post-14422339024060523472011-03-11T20:38:15.740+11:002011-03-11T20:38:15.740+11:00Nice one ads. A clear, articulate and very thoroug...Nice one ads. A clear, articulate and very thorough analysis in the midst of alot of insane rhetoric!GraemeGraeme Hodgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299270118122225941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2458185836486141916.post-68988481093945847812011-03-10T06:38:56.530+11:002011-03-10T06:38:56.530+11:00Thanks for your thought-provoking blog. I got it f...Thanks for your thought-provoking blog. I got it from Chick Yuill's FB page. I enjoy discussions, so please don't take this as criticism. I appreciate your thoughts very much. Just a few responses for further thought.<br /><br />Firstly, the foundation of our beliefs and doctrines must surely be the Holy Scriptures. Quoting from a doctrinal statement of a denomination does not make that statement true. What makes it true, is that it was inspired by the Bible. We should therefore take the Bible as the foundational premise for any evangelical argument. Perhaps it is simpler to argue from a statement of faith, since it by default is assumed to be Biblically based, but it may not be so necessarily. Let's argue from Scripture.<br /> <br />Secondly, you express a wish that you could be a universalist because then maybe God might relent. Is this not a tendency towards relativism; meaning that if I believe it, then my belief must make it true. Going back to my point about Scripture; is it not the basis for our understanding of God, not our wishes.<br /><br />Thirdly, I came across a very helpful response to the issue of Universalism in the following blog, which was very helpful in appreciating God's perspective on sin, righteousness and judgement: <br /><br />http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/02/26/to-hell-with-hell/ <br /><br />Fourthly, I doubt your optimism, even though I wish it were so, since my reading of John's Revelations shows that many people whose names were not found in the book of life were cast into the lake of fire with the Devil. He is sadly not the only one present there (Rev 21:10-15) They are "dead", but they are standing and appear to be conscious of their judgement, not annihilated as Dick suggests.<br /><br />Finally, I'm sure we both agree that the book has not yet been released. Certainly their publisher has won a lot of interest by the controversy. As they say, there is no such thing as bad publicity. Let's see what he actually says when the books are opened.Nigel Hardinghttp://www.facebook.com/nigel.hardingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2458185836486141916.post-42801627047804744492011-03-10T05:10:16.918+11:002011-03-10T05:10:16.918+11:00Those who love me come from every system that exis...Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormans, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who do not vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions. I Have followers who were murderers and many who were self righteous. Some are bankers and bookies, Americans and Iraqis, Jews and palestinians... I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, into my Beloved" <br />Does that mean asked Mack that all roads will lead to you? <br />Not at all smiled Jesus as he reached for the door handle to the shop, Most roads don't lead anywhere. WHAT IT DOES MEAN IS THAT I WILL TRAVEL ANY ROAD TO FIND YOU! (The Shack.. W Young)<br />Thanks for a good postDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07655414949316574275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2458185836486141916.post-39443360733874878942011-03-10T04:34:38.378+11:002011-03-10T04:34:38.378+11:00Thanks for taking a stand on this issue Adam. I th...Thanks for taking a stand on this issue Adam. I think Christians should get involved in the debate. An attitude of detachment is both non-edifying to the individual Christian and the Church as a whole. <br /><br />My main response is on your optimistic exclusivism, and your very generous appropriation of the possibility of God-encounter in other religions deducted from your interpretation of Matthew 2. I am not entirely sure that the three Magi found out or read about the birth of the King of the Jews from a non-Jewish source. We are not aware of the source – it could be because of the Jewish diaspora, or literatures or even oral tradition. But the only logical explanation is that they have “heard” or “learned” about the prophesy from a Jewish source. This “learning from” could be their first contact with the people of God, the Israelites, via the Scripture. Thus, it is certainly not a knowledge arising from other religious worldviews or knowledge, but from the traditions of the people of God! <br /><br />I would go instead to Acts 17. When Paul began his speech to the Athenians, it appeared as though he was complementing their knowledge of “the unknown god,” until he dropped the bomb when said: “In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead” (Acts 17:30-31). Paul practically called the Athenian intelligentsia ignorant, amidst their assumed knowledge of the gods, and their ignorance can no longer be tolerated by God. Paul was the first one to cry sola Christus! <br /><br />On a side note, I have a problem with the notion of the “immortality of the soul,” especially if it is considered as an inherent immortality. This is more Platonic than Christian. The doctrine of the creation ex nihilo suggests that all created beings have a beginning (and hence not immortal), and as such (as Athanasius says) are existing solely by grace. What is inherent in all created beings is the possibility of receding back into nothingness, from which we came from. The soul is also a created “thing” because only God is eternal. (Nazarenes tend to think the same way as the SA on this.)Dick Eugeniohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12490102183451058825noreply@blogger.com