Click to listen to this episode of the Freedom Over The Clay Podcast
Click to subscribe on iTunes
In this week's episode we discuss the doctrine of Limited Atonement by
1. Making a case from the Scriptures - Romans 8:31-34 and Hebrews 7-10
2. Discussing the meaning and application of the word "Propitiation" and
3. Going over 1 John 2:2 and a few related objections
Theology, Apologetics, Culture and Worldview
Contact: freedomovertheclay@gmail.com
Dedicated to God centered theology. Comments? Questions? Become a follower.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
005 Freedom Over The Clay Podcast - Common Objections to Calvinism and Unconditional Election
In this episode:
1. We introduce a game called "Catch the Presupposition" and use it to
2. Dissect some common objections to Calvinism including
"I'm not a Calvinist; I'm not an Arminianist, I'm just a Biblicist";
"Aren't Calvinists following man instead of Christ?";
"Dividing the body!"
"Doesn't that mean that man has no will?"; and
"That's not fair!"
3. Then we go a bit deeper into the doctrine of Unconditional Election
Theology, Apologetics, Culture and Worldview Contact: freedomovertheclay@gmail.com
Saturday, April 7, 2012
004 Freedom Over The Clay Podcast--Calvinism: Sovereignty, Total Depravity and Double Predestination
Click here to listen to this episode of the Freedom Over The Clay Podcast
Click to subscribe on iTunes
In this episode we discuss:
1. God's Sovereignty in Scripture and its implications with regard to salvation
2. Total Depravity in Scripture and its implications with regard to salvation
3. A question from Matt about double predestination, answered in light of God's Sovereignty and Total Depravity
Theology, Apologetics, Culture and Worldview Contact: freedomovertheclay@gmail.com
Click to subscribe on iTunes
In this episode we discuss:
1. God's Sovereignty in Scripture and its implications with regard to salvation
2. Total Depravity in Scripture and its implications with regard to salvation
3. A question from Matt about double predestination, answered in light of God's Sovereignty and Total Depravity
Theology, Apologetics, Culture and Worldview Contact: freedomovertheclay@gmail.com
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Alleged Contradictions, Heretics and the "Reason" Rally.
Click to listen to this Episode of The Freedom Over The Clay Podcast
Click to subscribe on iTunes
1. Does Genesis chapter two give us a chronology of creation and is it contradictory to the one given in
chapter one?
2. A question from Marlee in Ventura County about people with skewed theology, and the state of their salvation.
3. The recent "Reason" Rally where many angry atheists gathered together to display their belief in non-belief.
Theology, Apologetics, Culture and Worldview Contact:freedomovertheclay@gmail.com
Click to subscribe on iTunes
1. Does Genesis chapter two give us a chronology of creation and is it contradictory to the one given in
chapter one?
2. A question from Marlee in Ventura County about people with skewed theology, and the state of their salvation.
3. The recent "Reason" Rally where many angry atheists gathered together to display their belief in non-belief.
Theology, Apologetics, Culture and Worldview Contact:freedomovertheclay@gmail.com
Saturday, March 24, 2012
002 Freedom Over the Clay Podcast-Presuppositional apologetics, and a review of "The Lorax."
Click to Listen to this Episode of The Freedom Over the Clay Podcast
Click to Subscribe to the Podcast on iTunes
Are the reasons and evidences for the Christian faith inadequate to get one to believe? If faith comes after reason then is faith unreasonable? In this Episode we take a question from Madison in Thousand Oaks, CA and briefly review the unbelievable radio program entitled "Is apologetics a waste of time?" Then we discuss the need for a presuppositional apologetic. We also introduced our first Theology at the drive-in segment where we take a look at the theological themes in the movie "The Lorax."
Theology, Apologetics, Culture and Worldview. Contact: freedomovertheclay@gmail.com
Click to Subscribe to the Podcast on iTunes
Are the reasons and evidences for the Christian faith inadequate to get one to believe? If faith comes after reason then is faith unreasonable? In this Episode we take a question from Madison in Thousand Oaks, CA and briefly review the unbelievable radio program entitled "Is apologetics a waste of time?" Then we discuss the need for a presuppositional apologetic. We also introduced our first Theology at the drive-in segment where we take a look at the theological themes in the movie "The Lorax."
Theology, Apologetics, Culture and Worldview. Contact: freedomovertheclay@gmail.com
Saturday, March 17, 2012
The Importance of Systematic Theology
Click to listen to this episode of the Freedom Over The Clay Podcast
http://itunes.apple.com/us/
Why do Theology, much less, Systematic Theology? Differing views on Theology abound in Christian thought. Isn't Theology just for scholars? Isn't this discipline reserved for seminary students and people who just like to argue. No doubt there are those who seek to make Theology a single faceted discipline and treat it simply as an academic issue. This plainly is not the purpose of Theology. The discipline of the study of God is meant to lead one into a deeper faith and knowledge of God. Not just with the mind but with all of one's being. Some might say "I don't do Theology, I just need the Bible." Maybe you have heard this slogan: "No creed but Christ". R.C. Sproul once pointed out, "Everyone is a theologian, the only question is, are you a good one?" Everyone has a certain Theology that they hold to, even non-Christians (Romans 1:18), but if anyone is a theologian (maybe not professionally) it's the Christian. He holds to certain beliefs about God and he acts on those beliefs. This is why we must intentionally seek to do Systematic Theology, because invariably what we believe about God will effect the way we live our lives. Holding doctrines in the air as if they do not have any relation to one another should not be the intention of the Christian. Such a mindset leads to inconsistencies that ultimately do not glorify God. So if the Christian is obligated to do Systematic Theology, then how is one to go about this task?
Of course older works from Berkhof and Hodge and even newer ones like Grudem and Horton will aid in the Christian's study, but first and foremost Theology is derived from the exegesis of the text of Scripture. If it is derived from elsewhere your footing is shaky at best. There is only one infallible rule God has given to His church and that is Scripture, even general revelation (creation) must be filtered through the lens of special revelation (Scripture). There also must be the highest view of Scripture, that is we must believe that the Scriptures are God breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). If we don't believe that, then Scripture is not objective revelation from God. Hence the Bible becomes a relativistic mish-mash of varying interpretations, with one interpretation not being better than another. In a recent interview with a mega church Pastor, Piers Morgan said, "...shouldn't the Scripture be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age?" Such are the words of one with a low view of God's Word. Since Scripture is God's objective revelation to mankind it is not subject to the ever changing whims of modern culture. The Bible has revealed that God is immutable (Psalm 102:25-27) and not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33); hence the need for Systematic Theology.
The Doctrines of the Christian faith are not to be held as separate compartments. Reformed theologian B.B. Warfield remarked, "We do not possess the separate truths of religion in the abstract; we possess them only in their relations and we do not properly know any one of them nor can it have it's full effect on our life...except as we know it in it's relation to other truths, that is, as systematized." If we do not see how a particular doctrine affects another then we are bound to misconstrue them. For instance, can the Reformed doctrine of substitutionary atonement be held at the same time as the Arminian doctrine of the universal atonement? Can God's absolute exhaustive foreknowledge be held at the same time as a doctrine of autonomous free will? If we are to be consistent in our Theology these are the types of questions that need to be dealt with. As Christians we believe that God is completely consistent and that likewise applies to the doctrines He has revealed in Scripture.
Systematic Theology not only leads the Christian to consistency, it also helps with his worship of God. By knowing how the doctrines revealed in Scripture cohere with one another, the Christian is brought to a deeper and more profound view of God. As pilgrims on our way to glory, we will not have perfect Theology. However true this might be, the Christian is still obligated to bring the doctrines of the faith together using the only infallible rule possessed by the Christian, Scripture. The Christian worldview is consistent and we should not present inconsistency to the world by letting our doctrine flounder.
http://itunes.apple.com/us/
Why do Theology, much less, Systematic Theology? Differing views on Theology abound in Christian thought. Isn't Theology just for scholars? Isn't this discipline reserved for seminary students and people who just like to argue. No doubt there are those who seek to make Theology a single faceted discipline and treat it simply as an academic issue. This plainly is not the purpose of Theology. The discipline of the study of God is meant to lead one into a deeper faith and knowledge of God. Not just with the mind but with all of one's being. Some might say "I don't do Theology, I just need the Bible." Maybe you have heard this slogan: "No creed but Christ". R.C. Sproul once pointed out, "Everyone is a theologian, the only question is, are you a good one?" Everyone has a certain Theology that they hold to, even non-Christians (Romans 1:18), but if anyone is a theologian (maybe not professionally) it's the Christian. He holds to certain beliefs about God and he acts on those beliefs. This is why we must intentionally seek to do Systematic Theology, because invariably what we believe about God will effect the way we live our lives. Holding doctrines in the air as if they do not have any relation to one another should not be the intention of the Christian. Such a mindset leads to inconsistencies that ultimately do not glorify God. So if the Christian is obligated to do Systematic Theology, then how is one to go about this task?
Of course older works from Berkhof and Hodge and even newer ones like Grudem and Horton will aid in the Christian's study, but first and foremost Theology is derived from the exegesis of the text of Scripture. If it is derived from elsewhere your footing is shaky at best. There is only one infallible rule God has given to His church and that is Scripture, even general revelation (creation) must be filtered through the lens of special revelation (Scripture). There also must be the highest view of Scripture, that is we must believe that the Scriptures are God breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). If we don't believe that, then Scripture is not objective revelation from God. Hence the Bible becomes a relativistic mish-mash of varying interpretations, with one interpretation not being better than another. In a recent interview with a mega church Pastor, Piers Morgan said, "...shouldn't the Scripture be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age?" Such are the words of one with a low view of God's Word. Since Scripture is God's objective revelation to mankind it is not subject to the ever changing whims of modern culture. The Bible has revealed that God is immutable (Psalm 102:25-27) and not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33); hence the need for Systematic Theology.
The Doctrines of the Christian faith are not to be held as separate compartments. Reformed theologian B.B. Warfield remarked, "We do not possess the separate truths of religion in the abstract; we possess them only in their relations and we do not properly know any one of them nor can it have it's full effect on our life...except as we know it in it's relation to other truths, that is, as systematized." If we do not see how a particular doctrine affects another then we are bound to misconstrue them. For instance, can the Reformed doctrine of substitutionary atonement be held at the same time as the Arminian doctrine of the universal atonement? Can God's absolute exhaustive foreknowledge be held at the same time as a doctrine of autonomous free will? If we are to be consistent in our Theology these are the types of questions that need to be dealt with. As Christians we believe that God is completely consistent and that likewise applies to the doctrines He has revealed in Scripture.
Systematic Theology not only leads the Christian to consistency, it also helps with his worship of God. By knowing how the doctrines revealed in Scripture cohere with one another, the Christian is brought to a deeper and more profound view of God. As pilgrims on our way to glory, we will not have perfect Theology. However true this might be, the Christian is still obligated to bring the doctrines of the faith together using the only infallible rule possessed by the Christian, Scripture. The Christian worldview is consistent and we should not present inconsistency to the world by letting our doctrine flounder.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
First stop Arminianism. Next stop Rob Bell.
There has been much chatter about Rob Bell's new book "Love Wins," so I thought it fitting to address the issue from a different angle than most. Many have done a great job already in addressing Bell's wrongheaded notion's about; heaven, hell and universalism. My contention in this post isn't that all Arminian's are as heretical as Bell, as the title of this post might suggest. But that in the issue of God's love as Bell sees it, he simply being a faithful Arminian.
Theology matters. One only has to look at the lunacy that is the Methodist denomination to see the inconsistency that Arminian theology produces. One of the things that divides Calvinists and Arminians is the issue of the love of God. The Reformed recognize God's general love for His creation. Though there is an important distinction that bears clarification, the love that God has for His children is a special love, a love that is not given to all (1 John 3:1). The most popular concept of God's love today is an Arminian one. It is a love that is spread out to everyone universally, equally, without distinction. This view of God's love is severely inadequate and non-Biblical, for it robs God of His ability to show a particular love to those whom He has foreknown (Romans 8:29). The imbalance of this type of thinking, shows that most people have an emotional theology of the love of God, rather than a biblical one. A love that trumps His holiness, wrath, and justice isn't love at all. Combine this idea of God's love and the Pelagian idea of the will of man and you get the essential ingredients for universalism. But Bell's notion of God's love seems to cross boundaries that some Arminians aren't "willing" to cross. If "Love Wins" and everyone will be saved, then it seems that God's love has now trumped free will! I mean, what about those who don't want to be saved? Though in a weird way Bell still makes room for freewill by essentially saying hell is what you make it. Emergents aren't known for their consistency, but what about those Arminians who don't follow the heaven and hell of Bell?
The connection between Arminian theology and universalism, not to mention open-theism, is glaringly obvious. In Arminian theology, God's love could never impinge on the freedom of man. Bell simply takes the standard Arminian definition of God's love to it's logical end, if we can even call it logical. If you take a non-differentiating, general view of God's love, then what stops you from taking the wide path to universalism? It is this view of God's love that causes people to scoff at the idea of God predestining some to salvation and not others. The usual response to predestining grace is, "God is love He wouldn't do that." It is precisely this wrong view of God's love that underlies the thinking that leads to universalism. If you scoff at predestining grace, then why not scoff at the idea that only some will be saved? On this view of love, could not the argument be made that it is not loving that only some will have their sins forgiven? That is exactly the shaky platform on which Bell stands. Even Bell sees the inconsistency of God's general love not actually saving. His reasoning goes like this, "if God loves everyone equally, then why isn't everyone equally saved?" On what basis can your non-universalist Arminian object to this way of thinking, especially since they virtually hold to the same view of God's love. What is missing here is God's differentiating love and how that connects to His wrath and justice. He has an equal desire to demonstrate His love as well as His wrath. "What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory." (Romans 9:22-23)
God's love is differentiated in the scriptures, just look at Jacob and Esau (Romans 9:13). If this love is not differentiated, then the next step is, well, Rob Bell, when it comes to universalism. God's love and mercy are best seen in light of his wrath and justice. God has defined His own attributes and He has revealed them in scripture. The natural fallen human tendency is to let our emotions take hold of our interpretation of God's word. In light of this, how much more do we need our emotion's to be filtered through scripture. It should not be the other way around.
Theology matters. One only has to look at the lunacy that is the Methodist denomination to see the inconsistency that Arminian theology produces. One of the things that divides Calvinists and Arminians is the issue of the love of God. The Reformed recognize God's general love for His creation. Though there is an important distinction that bears clarification, the love that God has for His children is a special love, a love that is not given to all (1 John 3:1). The most popular concept of God's love today is an Arminian one. It is a love that is spread out to everyone universally, equally, without distinction. This view of God's love is severely inadequate and non-Biblical, for it robs God of His ability to show a particular love to those whom He has foreknown (Romans 8:29). The imbalance of this type of thinking, shows that most people have an emotional theology of the love of God, rather than a biblical one. A love that trumps His holiness, wrath, and justice isn't love at all. Combine this idea of God's love and the Pelagian idea of the will of man and you get the essential ingredients for universalism. But Bell's notion of God's love seems to cross boundaries that some Arminians aren't "willing" to cross. If "Love Wins" and everyone will be saved, then it seems that God's love has now trumped free will! I mean, what about those who don't want to be saved? Though in a weird way Bell still makes room for freewill by essentially saying hell is what you make it. Emergents aren't known for their consistency, but what about those Arminians who don't follow the heaven and hell of Bell?
The connection between Arminian theology and universalism, not to mention open-theism, is glaringly obvious. In Arminian theology, God's love could never impinge on the freedom of man. Bell simply takes the standard Arminian definition of God's love to it's logical end, if we can even call it logical. If you take a non-differentiating, general view of God's love, then what stops you from taking the wide path to universalism? It is this view of God's love that causes people to scoff at the idea of God predestining some to salvation and not others. The usual response to predestining grace is, "God is love He wouldn't do that." It is precisely this wrong view of God's love that underlies the thinking that leads to universalism. If you scoff at predestining grace, then why not scoff at the idea that only some will be saved? On this view of love, could not the argument be made that it is not loving that only some will have their sins forgiven? That is exactly the shaky platform on which Bell stands. Even Bell sees the inconsistency of God's general love not actually saving. His reasoning goes like this, "if God loves everyone equally, then why isn't everyone equally saved?" On what basis can your non-universalist Arminian object to this way of thinking, especially since they virtually hold to the same view of God's love. What is missing here is God's differentiating love and how that connects to His wrath and justice. He has an equal desire to demonstrate His love as well as His wrath. "What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory." (Romans 9:22-23)
God's love is differentiated in the scriptures, just look at Jacob and Esau (Romans 9:13). If this love is not differentiated, then the next step is, well, Rob Bell, when it comes to universalism. God's love and mercy are best seen in light of his wrath and justice. God has defined His own attributes and He has revealed them in scripture. The natural fallen human tendency is to let our emotions take hold of our interpretation of God's word. In light of this, how much more do we need our emotion's to be filtered through scripture. It should not be the other way around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)