Re: “Genuine repentance”
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 5:29 am
I removed this post because it seemed to be more of a distraction than a contribution to the thread.
My sincere apologies,
Steve D.
My sincere apologies,
Steve D.
I think teachers and pastors gravitate to those extremes because they want to impose their personal criteria and agenda. One the one hand, you have the ultra passive ones. On the other hand, you have the ultra aggressive ones. Both in my opinion are motivated by things like fear and doubt. The passive ones are afraid to make Christianity look too hard and therefore unappealing. The aggressive ones are afraid of making Christianity look to soft and therefore not taken seriously.steve wrote:I don't know why people gravitate to one or the other of those extremes. It's really very simple. God has declared that Jesus is Lord. People deal with that fact in any way they choose.
I think maybe you have me confused with some professor.kaufmannphillips wrote:
When we consider the theological significance of “Lordship,” it is important to give due consideration to worldview....
Part of what makes the original Python sketch humorous is the quandary that Arthur finds himself in when he is faced with anachronistic political theory. A “lordship” model only works when all participants have bought into its premises....
So what happens when participants do not buy into the premises? Well, there are a number of possibilities....
And so we give attention to worldview: when the early Christians thought of Jesus as “Lord,” what premises would they have considered to be intrinsic to this?...
And what of present-day Christians who derive from egalitarian societies?....
Hi, Steve -I removed this post because it seemed to be more of a distraction than a contribution to the thread.
My sincere apologies,
Steve D.
This is not only historically inaccurate (as demonstrated above), but it is also a non sequitur. To say that Jesus is Lord, and that we are obliged to obey Him does not invoke a works-based salvation. It means no one is saved if they do not embrace Jesus as Lord. It does not predict how successfully the Christian will exemplify the ideal servant. My children, when in my home, were obligated to obey me, as well. This did not mean that their obedience was perfect, nor that their acceptance in the family was based upon the perfection of their obedience. This is so obvious to me that (I confess) I become frustrated when people can't see it.“Lordship Salvation” is a specific brand of theology that was started in the 1980's, and has been challenged by theologians such as Charles Ryrie and Zane Hodges, who argued that it teaches a form of works-based salvation. What happens when you have people who come up with doctrines, that in a roundabout way, imply the original doctrine of salvation is not enough, that more is required, is people who become like the Pharisees, by tacking on their own rules and regulations for what is "true" and "genuine" Christianity and salvation. That's all I was saying.
I am glad to hear that you saved that information, Emmet. I thought it was very valuable, and was disappointed to see that it had been removed. However, it is true that it would fit better in the Judaism section.Hi, Steve ["Steve D" not "Steve G"]-
I still have the text to your post. If you don't mind, I'll post some of your responses to the "oven of Aknai" in the "Judaism" section and engage them there.
Shalom, Emmet