In Defense of What?

[paynen] Jesus was 1 God who new the hearts of all men, also he was clearly speaking about Pharisees and their movement. Never once did he apply those things to individual Pharisees.

Fair enough.

Tyler,

Your view is definitely pro-Lordship and well-stated. If you have McCune’s systematics, look up faith and repentance under soteriology. McCune defines both concepts in detail. There is a volitional element in repentant faith and you have stated that well. The etymology of “metanoew” does mean change of mind. Yet the usage of the term contextually implies a change of will and emotion, particularly when you compare it to the Hebrew equivalent “nacham”. I sing submission is part of faith in principle form and faith strengthens through the hearing and reading of the Word. Weak faith grows into strong faith. Also, make sure you emphasize Christ as Lord and Savior and that part of his deity is his intrinsic authority. I have appreciated your input in these threads. God has given you wisdom and charity.

[James K]

The very fact that he had to go back and revise his book after interacting with one of TMS professors about the issue is proof he was off.

Should be applied to JMac who has revised his original TGATJ twice now. Not to mention two other major works on LS. Sure, Lou was not real solid on some points but made the corrections for a much stronger polemic in the revised and expanded edition. I suspect that the interactions and feedback Lou got from the first edition is what gave rise to the revisions which demonstrates something about Lou which is very foreign to the claims about him being unmovable and unreasonable.

Mike:

Appreciate it. I’ll have to do some more study into the various strands of Lordship Salvation. My own experience with it was very different. I have McCune’s Systematic. I’ll probably have to buy another set in a few years - they’re getting worn out! His set is the most useful and trustworthy set out there for me.

Chafer is good, but his 8 volumes are more dense than an oak tree at times. Erickson is a little too philosophical for me, but I like him. Strong is probably my second choice. Berkhof is outstanding. I have Michael Horton’s new Systematic and I haven’t quite figured out what to make of him yet. Reymond is interesting for his rabid distaste for dispensationalism - I can literally picture him spitting in fury as he writes.

[Mike Harding]

Tyler,

Your view is definitely pro-Lordship and well-stated. If you have McCune’s systematics, look up faith and repentance under soteriology. McCune defines both concepts in detail. There is a volitional element in repentant faith and you have stated that well. The etymology of “metanoew” does mean change of mind. Yet the usage of the term contextually implies a change of will and emotion, particularly when you compare it to the Hebrew equivalent “nacham”. I sing submission is part of faith in principle form and faith strengthens through the hearing and reading of the Word. Weak faith grows into strong faith. Also, make sure you emphasize Christ as Lord and Savior and that part of his deity is his intrinsic authority. I have appreciated your input in these threads. God has given you wisdom and charity.

Repentance includes genuine regret and sorrow for sin. Metamelomai expresses this as sorrow for sin commited against God and His goodness.

Mat 11:21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

The phrase, “repent in sackcloth and ashes,” is often repeated in the OT and clearly reveals the concept that repentance went beyond a change of ideas or facts, but affected man internally in the core of his being.

2 Cor. 7:8-10 “If indeed I grieved you … I do not regret (metamelomai) if indeed I regretted (metemelomen) … . If indeed it grieved you, now I rejoice, not that you were grieved, but that you were grieved unto repentance (metanoian) … for the grief which is according to God works unregrettable (ametameleton) repentance (metanoian) unto salvation” (Author’s translation).

[Chip Van Emmerik]

[paynen] Jesus was 1 God who new the hearts of all men, also he was clearly speaking about Pharisees and their movement. Never once did he apply those things to individual Pharisees.

He spoke those things directly to men standing in front of Him and interacting with Him, not about their movement. It was absolutely individual and specific, not merely corporate.

Yes but it was recorded without specifics, there is a difference between confronting individuals and discussing individuals.

Sorrow is not emotion, it is a frame of mind. The emotions associated with sorrow are physiological affects of the mentality of sorrow. Now it is true that someone might be “feeling” sorrowful but those feelings are not a cause in and of themselves, rather due to a frame of mind. I do understand the reference in that respect to emotions but fundamentally sorrow is a frame of mind with a possible and common emotional affect, hence the emotion called sorrow.

I believe that your view is not uncommon but is unfortunately a cart-before-the-horse mistake many make due to the demonstrative nature of emotions which are the affects and not the cause of a state of mind.

The Bible certainly refers to those manifestations, that is the manifestation of emotions but only with respect to what they represent, the affect of something greater and not the emotions themselves which is a frame of mind whether it be sorrow, joy, and so on.

Nacham means “to draw a deep breath” – an expression of deep feeling of either regret or sorrow (Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testament, p. 87). This word is nearly always used of God “repenting” (Job 42:6; Jer 8:6; 31:19; Judges 21:15). For example, in Genesis 6:6 the nature of repentance is illustrated in reference to the Father. It reads: “And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” We realize that “God is not a man” (Numb 23:19) nor will “the Strength of Israel … lie (or) repent” (1 Sam 15:29). With God there is “no variableness, neither shadow of turning” (James 1:17). Genesis 6:6 is an obvious anthropopathism where God condescends to our mode of speaking and expresses Himself after a human manner (i.e. Psa. 78:65; 87:6; Isa. 59:16). Notice in Genesis 6:6 that the entire personality of God is involved in repentance. Cognitively, a new decision is formed in view of the deplorable conditions existing. The intellectual aspect is accompanied by a sorrow over man’s sins, “it grieved Him at his heart.” Finally, a volitional element is involved whereby God determines to rectify the situation, “I will destroy man.” Clearly, the nature of repentance involves the total personality including the intellectual, emotional, and volitional aspects.

I don’t disagree, Mike. But again, what grieved God? His emotions or his thoughts? (Still using the anthropic context of course).

None of what you posted still deals with emotions, themselves. Emotions are a physiological reaction to a state of mind. They follow thought.

To assert we are to change emotions is to put the cart before the horse. Hence, the description of drawing a deep breath is not meant that we are to literally draw a deep breath, rather it means to give a visual imagine of its cause, namely sorrow but is used because it is an easily recognized point of reference and common affect of sorrow. So God is not asking for the emotion or the affect of sorrow, but the thought behind the emotion. Why the deep breath? Again, because it is a common but not necessarily universal affect of sorrowful thought which conveys, again, a point of reference.

We are on a bit of a rabbit trail here but it is relevant to the Lordship construct.

I am sympathetic with Tyler’s sentiment of little benefit in the pursuing the course of this thread. At the same time, I can understand the defensiveness and desire to react that fuels it. After being a significant part of launching SI off the ground and managing the day-to-day activities, I walked away from an administrative role here at SI several years ago, and did so very publicly. Eventually, Aaron took over the publishing of the site. Lou was eventually banned from the site here, but continued to contact me privately with concerns. Our exchanges were cordial (or so I felt), though we often disagreed.

Eventually, though, Lou continued to express a frustrated tone with the site, even going so far as to start a dedicated “whistleblower” style blog to attack SI. Though I would remind him privately, personally and frequently that I was no longer personally involved administrating SI, I would be frequently targeted in his personal email complaints as a responsible party, and publicly identified (along with Aaron, Jim, Jason Janz, and Bauder, for example) as a pseudo-fundamentalist who was contributing to the fall of Fundamentalism, human sacrifice, and the use of corn syrup in Coca-Cola (only slightly exaggerating there), though I had for all practical purposes curtailed my blogging activity. It got to the point where I actually had to set my email filter to automatically filter out messages from him.

I maintain cordial relationships with several people with whom I don’t agree. I don’t converse with him as frequently as I used to, but I feel I remain on good personal terms with Kent Brandenburg, for example, who was a significant personality here for a time. I went out of my way to recruit people as diverse as Don Johnson and Dan Burrell in the early days of this site, because I believed then (and still do now) that Fundamentalism had room for a wide range of personalities and emphases. Even in Lou’s situation, I went out of my way to try to arrange a face-to-face meeting with Lou at the FBFI Annual in Schaumburg in 2009. Lou chose not to respond, and I could not seek him out (though I am absolutely certain he was there at the conference) because I did not (and do not to this day) know what he looks like.

I am sure that there are many things Lou and I would agree upon, if we would ever get the chance to figure that out. I am sure that we could genuinely enjoy time spent with each other if given a chance. However, after years of attempting, I am all but convinced that opportunity has little chance of taking place. I realize I can be volatile at times, too. Perhaps I am more to blame than I can see. However, to the matter at hand, it does seem to me that possibly legitimate concerns turned into irrational resentment and vindictiveness quite a while ago, and judging only by what he himself makes available for others to see, he has allowed himself to be defined by his malicious words and personal attacks of others. In that way, addressing Tyler’s objection, I can at least understand the comparison Bob Bixby made in his post.

There is now peace in this thread …

[Joel Shaffer]

Lee,

I strongly disagree with your insinuation that the music styles are akin to what Paul was talking about with idolatry. What you see as idolatry, I see as a preference.

Well, I suppose you have the right to be wrong (just kidding—this thread has been getting a bit too intense :) )

However, with our culture openly defining its celebrity worship with show titles such as “American Idol” which undeniably is bound to a certain music genre; with the openly defined goal of life in our celebrity culture to be to achieve “rock star status”; and, since idolatry and immorality are inextricably linked, and rock music is one of the two factors practically every reputable study attributes to the advancement of the sexual revolution (the pill being the other), I think you might have your head in the sand a bit to state there is no correlation to this particular genre of music in the 20th and 21st centuries and the temple offerings and celebrations Paul referenced in regard to the idolatry of Corinth and Ephesus.