NEXT!


Since I’ve been sharing these with my friends on google reader and since a commenter pointed them out yesterday as well, I commend to you the NEXT! series over at Team Pyro (written by Dan Phillips). 

Here’s my favorite one: 

Challenge: I think you can make the Bible mean anything you want.

Response: So, you’re saying that the meaning of the Bible is objectively fixed and crystal-clear?

Advertisements

  1. #1 by Stuart on February 25, 2009 - 3:24 pm

    If you are commending TeamPyro I can assure you that you are not “seeing clearly”. How can one commend a blog that denies the true and blessed Gospel, “how that Christ died for OUR sins” (1 Cor. 15:3).

    You should really check out the blog below where you will see a list of the “25 Errors of Modern Evangelicals”, as well as a very challenging article on “Taking the Mask off Calvinism”. This would provide you with the true Christian “eye-salve”, even the Word of God.

    http://fromonewecanjudgetherest.blogspot.com/search/label/Authored%20by%20Pr.%20Stuart%20Wood

  2. #2 by clearly on February 25, 2009 - 4:43 pm

    So here I am in the midst of a series on evangelism, trying to help us all become more efficient at sharing the gospel, and what do I hear, but “these people can’t help us; they are calvinists.”

    Stuart, I don’t buy this reasoning:

    A. Calvinism is evil.
    B. Team Pyro is Calvinistic.
    C. Therefore, I shouldn’t link to them or learn anything from them.

    To say that TeamPyro denies the gospel is a false accusation. Historically, there has been room for Calvinists and Arminians (and those of us in between) to sit at the table of orthodoxy. Furthermore, exegetically, the verse you cite is referring to believers — Paul writes to the Corinthians and states that Christ died for our sins. Whose? Paul’s, those of his associates, and the Corinthian believers. Now, while I do not espouse a limited atonement (as in the one in the TULIP), you can hardly say that these men don’t believe the gospel as laid out in 1 Corinthians 15.

  3. #3 by Stuart on February 25, 2009 - 4:53 pm

    The question is – can a person who holds to the false doctrine of limited atonement tell a person whom they do not know that Jesus Christ died for their sins. I contend that they cannot do this, and since this is indeed the Gospel, they are denying the one and only Gospel. I don’t see how a person can truthfully look at this in any other way. If you hold to limited atonement, can you tell me that Jesus died for MY sins? If you cannot, then you have a false Gospel.

  4. #4 by Samuel Laurence Guzmán on February 25, 2009 - 8:39 pm

    Stuart,
    You don’t need to tell them Christ died for their sins. Find me a passage where an apostle or anyone else tells an unbeliever “Jesus died for YOUR sins.” The fact is, they don’t. They simply told their hearers that they were sinners in need of a Savior, pointed them to Christ, and told them to repent and believe.

    You see, much of what we consider biblical evangelism is not biblical at all, in the sense that it is to be found in the Bible. We shouldn’t confuse tradition with God’s Word.

    So in essence, the problem you propose is not a problem. When witnessing, you simply tell them that Christ died for the ungodly–for sinners. You tell them they are a sinner. Then you tell them to repent and believe. You can still call sinners to repentance and invite them to respond to the Gospel without using Arminian terminology.

    As Dave pointed out, believing in the 5 points of Calvinism does not mean you are denying the Gospel.

    At any rate, I agree that the NEXT! posts are fantastic 🙂

  5. #5 by Stuart on February 26, 2009 - 7:06 am

    Hi Samuel,

    What kind of “Good News” is it if I don’t know if it is “Good News” that applies to me? To know that Christ died for the sins of some is no help to me. I must know that He died for me, and I must derive that knowledge from the objective Word of God. Only the true unversal atonement of Christ and the true Gospel provides this objective knowledge.

    As for the true Gospel being that “Christ died for OUR sins” (1 Cor. 15:3), Paul says that this is “the Gospel that I preached, which you also received” (15:1). When did Paul preach these words to the Corinthians? Did he preach them before they received the words, or after they received the words; before they were Christians, or after they were Christians? The text is clear – 1. I preached, 2. ye believed. The “OUR” belonged to the pre-salvation state, as well as the post-salvation state.

    As for telliing sinnsers that Christ died for THEIR sins, consider these verses in Acts (which could not be said without a universal atonement).

    2:38, 39 – Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

    13:26 – Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.

    13:32 – And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,

    13:38 – Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:

    16:10 – And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavored to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them.

    16:31 – And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

    Finally consider Gal. 1:8,9 – “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
    As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”

    For a more in depth dealing with this, read “Taking the Mask off Calvinism” at

    http://arlomax.googlepages.com/takingthemaskoffcalvinism%3Athedangerofhum

    That will solve the issue for you once and for all.

    Thanks,

    Stuart

  6. #6 by clearly on February 26, 2009 - 9:08 am

    Stuart,

    You have hi-jacked this thread.

  7. #7 by Stuart on February 26, 2009 - 9:38 am

    Hi clearly,

    That’s not my intent. As far as I know there is no discussion going on about this but here at your blog. I just wanted to give your readers something valuable to read and did not want to have to post the whole thing at your blog. The reference I gave them also is not to a blog I own, but just one where somebody asked me to contribute. If it would be more agreeable to you I am happy to post my article here. Also, when it comes to the dissemination of God’s truth, what difference does this make? I would think that we would all want the truth to be considered no matter whose blog it is. “What do we have that we have not received?”

    Thanks,

    Stuart

  8. #8 by clearly on February 26, 2009 - 11:46 am

    Stuart,

    I don’t think you understand. My post had nothing to do with Calvinism or limited atonement, but yet you have managed to hi-jack this entire thread.

  9. #9 by Stuart on February 26, 2009 - 12:00 pm

    Sorry, clearly,

    I just happened to see the reference to Pyromaniacs and thought I would drop a comment as to the danger there. Most of this thread is just you and me, so I don’t see too much harm being done. Anyway, I’ll leave you be at this pont. Sorry to have interfered.

    Stuart

  10. #10 by Daniel Chew on February 28, 2009 - 6:02 am

    Ouch…. The militant 4-pointers have arrived.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: