tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post8059698385028042522..comments2024-02-27T03:28:22.684-06:00Comments on In Defense of the Gospel: Calvinism, Religion and WorldlinessLou Martuneachttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-91768159380699568272011-08-18T09:43:17.048-05:002011-08-18T09:43:17.048-05:00Continuing from where I left off.
It's not t...Continuing from where I left off. <br /><br />It's not that there is some amount worldliness in every system, it is that Calvinism is known for how it's followers behave. <br /><br />We are all subject to our sin nature to whatever extent we allow it to drive our decisions - but Calvinism is unique in that it forces us to look at our sin nature all the time. What's worse is that while Calvinism claims that God supernaturally changes the behavior of Believers, Calvinism in practice tires people out because they don't feel like God is doing all the work. <br /><br />Why? because their salvation depends on them being good people, and in very few cases does God actually deliver people from all their normal evils. God uses people in weakness, and draws them out of there old habits of sin. So they wrestle with what is left because if anyone sees that they are still doing this or that, well then.... maybe they aren't really saved. <br /><br />The causality works like this. I look at myself, instead of looking solely at the Christ, so I actually tend to become more like what I am instead of more like what Christ is. Peter learned that he should never take his eyes off the Christ when he sank in the water. Calvinists ought to take a cue from this. The person standing above the waves of sin ought never look at anything eles but the One who saves. <br /><br />Do we really need confirmation that He saves all who believe? Is His Word not enough confirmation? If you look at your own stance to make sure you are secure, instead of looking at the one who has been tasked with not loosing you.... well you're putting your faith in yourself or <b>at least in the results of something you're not really sure happened</b>, not in the One who faithfully saves. That is not the definition of saving faith. <br /><br />Not only do we tend to go in the direction we look. When our eternity is on the line we have a vested interest in seeing what we want to see, and ensuring that others see it too. This is a breading ground for worldliness... <br /><br />Systems that expose our worldliness to judgment, such as what 1st John really tells us to do with our sin, actually do the opposite. <br /><br />The only time we look at ourselves is to expose what we are guilty of. To allow it to be judged as evil. To carry our cross, to crucify the old man - which is to walk and die as a guilty man. Not to run around doing works of obedience. It is to show that we do not make void the Law that declares our guilt but that we establish it as so. <br /><br />We do not look for signs of life in ourselves to give us comfort. We get comfort from the Comforter. We don't look for signs of life in ourselves to get assurance, we get assurance from the faithfulness of the One who saves all who believe. We do not get, or offer righteousness through performance or even BEING anything - we get, and offer the perfect righteousness of Christ by faith alone. <br /><br />Anything else will lead to a religious system that fosters worldliness - and that's what the Calvinism of Piper and those of likemindedness with him does.<br /><br />Thank you all for reading and commenting! I hope this has helped, and that God will use it to continue to help. <br /><br />KevKevlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18080346872086553798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-41287213000035397222011-08-18T09:37:08.350-05:002011-08-18T09:37:08.350-05:00All,
Lou would like me to wrap this up. So here ...All, <br /><br />Lou would like me to wrap this up. So here goes!<br /><br />There have only been a couple of consistant points used in rebuttal of my argument. I have to admit I am more than a little disappointed that there were not more. It is too bad that Dave decided not to interact in the thread. I had hoped the discussion would develop into topics that are deeper and more meaningful. <br /><br />The first is of course "misrepresentation." In my article I cited that Google reports 225,000 (approx) returns for the search calvinism+misrepresent. I have had Calvinists (of the Piper falvour) tell me I'm misrepresenting them when I am quoting them word for word, and not even selectively. Once again in this thread we see charges of misrepresentation with no actual correction or clear indication of what I got wrong. In the few instances where what I am accused of being wrong about was even identified the people went on to assert the same as being valid in their own words. This is confusing behavior but it is exactly what I cited as one of my proofs. <br /><br />The second most popular argument was that if we simply look at the progression toward worldliness that we can write similar articles about very many other systems. <br /><br />My response to this has been along the lines of lying is still wrong if everyone is doing it. Further only Calvinism (out of it and the suggested alternatives) teaches that worldliness invalidates one's salvation. Since Calvinism either leads to worldliness as I suggest, or does not lead the masses who follow it away from worldliness it is a self-refuting system. <br /><br />Tony suggests that I have not shown causality because I have not shown exclusivity. If everyone is worldly and everyone is not Calvinists then Calvinism is not the problem. <br /><br />Everyone has the same evil sin nature that wants to work towards being acceptable, or even just at being acceptable. I demonstrated this from the Bible in the opening of the article. Any system can become an idol and lead people to worldliness. <br /><br />I am not alone in being hesitant of saying I'm "Free Grace" or even that I'm a "Dispenstationalist" or a "Fundamentalist." Why? Because I don't actually follow those <b>systems</b>.... I don't own them.. .nor do I identify myself by them. I just use the Historial Gramatical Hermeneutic from cover to cover of the Bible. Because I do this I agree with the better Free Grace, Dispensational and Fundamentalist teachings. I do not agree with everyone in these "camps" because I don't follow men. I follow the Bible which points me to Christ. <br /><br />That being said, I have never in all the years of my life, either prior to being saved or after, heard a Dispensationalist accuse anyone of "misrepresenting" Dispensationalism..... the idea of that happening is actually funny to me. <br /><br />Are there proud worldly Dispensationalists... yes.. is this the character of the "camp"? No. I don't think even the greatest critics of Dispensationalism could say that it is with a straight face. I know many many more Calvinists, so my observations are not equal - but every Calvinist I know is proud of his theology, and I have yet to meet a Dispensationalist who is so. I have interacted briefly online with some Dispensationalists whom are unpleasant... but I have never met one in person. <br /><br /><b>I have to submit this and will finish in my next. </b><br /><br />Thanks for reading!<br />KevKevlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18080346872086553798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-71765201109495745312011-08-18T09:28:38.104-05:002011-08-18T09:28:38.104-05:00Hi Nate,
Thanks for the comment. I'm not sur...Hi Nate, <br /><br />Thanks for the comment. I'm not sure that incites is the best choice, because that implies instigation and it is our sin nature that is the instigator in us, and the enemy of our souls that is the true instigator of the whole problem. Calvinism fosters worldliness, even while trying to diminish it. <br /><br />If you ask the average American what they know about the Puritans they would probably tell you two things: They followed a lot of rules, and they killed people they thought were witches. <br /><br />Sure there is "context" to them killing those women. This idea was planted - but it doesn't change the fact that this is what the Puritans did. Their inner sin nature, and self-righteousness came out in force, and people died because of it.<br /><br />This being so, they are remembered as being a quiet yet powerful people. These are both flattering and speak well of them. <br /><br />I am no expert on the Puritans, but what I am aware of (rightly or wrongly) is that they were very about self examination. However calling them a historic group of Calvinists may not be specific enough. They did not follow the Calvinism of John Piper - and not just because Piper wasn't born yet. :) <br /><br />As I understand - which may be incorrect - their self-examination was to expose their sin to the Light and judge it; something I'll talk about in my closing. They were not looking for confirmation of their Salvation, or to determine if they were saved. They were looking for evil in themselves so they could crucify it. <br /><br />This practice is much more Biblical. Did they have other similar issues to modern Calvinism - yes... the Salem Witch Trials is all the demonstration I need. <br /><br />Before I close off, I want to address Tony briefly. <br /><br /><b>Tony,</b> <br /><br />I had produced a long response to your last, but the conversation has reached its end. I have just a quick note or two. <br /><br />You're applying Romans in the reverse that is is written. All who are led are sons, not all who are sons are led. Gal 5:16 amplifies and confirms. These saved people had the choice of walking in the Spirit to godliness, or in the flesh to worldliness. <br /><br />You did argue for self examination with regard to Salvation. See your comment at <a href="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2011/08/calvinism-religion-and-worldliness.html?showComment=1313592729727#c8711501337449751064" rel="nofollow">8/17/2011 9:52 AM</a> <br /><br />We could continue but I don't think it would be helpful. I will discuss your challenge on the subject of causality more than I have already when I close this thread. <br /><br />Thanks Nate! <br />KevKevlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18080346872086553798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-14785727750246138642011-08-18T09:22:42.691-05:002011-08-18T09:22:42.691-05:00I believe its time to once more to refer readers t...I believe its time to once more to refer readers to the article by Dr. Peter Masters, <a href="http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2009/07/merger-of-calvinism-with-worldliness.html" rel="nofollow"><i><b>The Merger of Calvinism With Worldliness.</b></i></a> This is his stinging rebuke of the YRR and leadership of men like John MacArthur, John Piper and CJ Mahaney who have lead the YRR toward worldliness and aberrant Charismatic theology.Lou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-50129888813973218042011-08-18T08:47:00.694-05:002011-08-18T08:47:00.694-05:00To All:
Following Kev's reply to Nate above h...To All:<br /><br />Following Kev's reply to Nate above he will be posting a final summation. Thanks for participating and/or following this discussion. <br /><br /><br />LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-21782742125034298182011-08-18T08:39:34.427-05:002011-08-18T08:39:34.427-05:00Nathan:
Interesting point, but what do you suppo...Nathan:<br /><br />Interesting point, but what do you suppose the Puritan young people would think and have to say about today's YRR community of Calvinists at their gatherings such as MacArthur's totally worldly entertainment styles at the Resolved conference? <br /><br /><br />LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-62443846444738560772011-08-18T08:26:31.805-05:002011-08-18T08:26:31.805-05:00Kevin,
Your thesis summarized: Calvinism incites...Kevin, <br /><br />Your thesis summarized: Calvinism incites worldliness.<br /><br />My rebuttal: that's why the Puritans (an entire historic community of Calvinists) are known to this day for their worldliness.<br /><br />It really is too bad that so many people have read Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress", seeing that he was a Reformed Baptist (Calvinist). How many have been turned away to "Vanity Fair" by his Calvinism?<br /><br />NateNatenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-85313829958707692702011-08-17T23:10:38.610-05:002011-08-17T23:10:38.610-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Lou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-49315054432020794382011-08-17T22:55:10.318-05:002011-08-17T22:55:10.318-05:00Tony,
You wrote:
"With regard to causality...Tony, <br /><br />You wrote:<br /><br /><i>"With regard to causality I cite three references that show the uniformity of worldliness across the board of the Calvinism of Piper and similar preachers."<br /><br />This is NOT causality but association. </i><br /><br />If you only quote half of what I say then of course you will miss the argument for causality. <br /><br />Do I really need to break this down even further? Are you just intentionally being hard to get along with? <br /><br />I state uniformity of worldliness across Calvinism, and then I explain how that most likely happens. That is my explanation of cause. <br /><br />Unless you can show that teaching someone to look at themselves will have them become more righteous then your continual fussing about how detailed my explanation is will be ignored. I have laid out my thesis, claiming it is wrong.. or that it doesn't show cause is not a valid criticism unless you can show that my thesis does not actually explain the cause. <br /><br /><br /><br />KevKevlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18080346872086553798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-39050679357715655462011-08-17T22:14:55.435-05:002011-08-17T22:14:55.435-05:00Kevin,
In fairness to you though, I will try to p...Kevin,<br /><br />In fairness to you though, I will try to provide some of my reaction and/or answers.<br /><br />1. I understand what you are getting at. "I do not think the widespread worldliness of modern Calvinists is in dispute..."<br /><br />Worldliness is found in everyone. As much as I despise so called Christian rock, I can understand a difference between those who want it because of worldly reasons and those who simply have not been discipled and still listen to it. There is no book, chapter, verse, for that issue. Don't misunderstand me, I am directly opposed to it. I believe your argument is selfdefeating as a whole since it can equally be applied to any group/movement.<br /><br />2. "It is plainly obvious from nature, and Scripture that one goes in the direction one is looking."<br /><br />Romans 8:14<br />14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.<br /><br />All Christians are led by the Spirit. No amount of introspection can change that, nor can it change that God is still working on and leading that person.<br /><br />3. Regarding the request for a quote, I have seen some devoid of context. I won't bother commenting on a line taken here or there. I would want to know what was being argued.<br /><br />4. "Please provide a Biblical reference to an accurate examination that I can use to tell if I am saved or not by self examination."<br /><br />I have not argued for this.<br /><br />5. "...what does the Bible say about their assurance."<br /><br />I cannot being to know another person's assurance.<br /><br />I have a question for you to ponder:<br /><br />If a person believed in Jesus at a Billy Graham crusade, came to your church for a month, and after some gospel oriented sermons for a few weeks told you he wasn't sure he was saved or not, would your first response be to convince him he really was saved or something else? This is just a curiosity on my part and has no bearing on the discussion.<br /><br />TonyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-7727443804814282092011-08-17T21:57:43.381-05:002011-08-17T21:57:43.381-05:00Kevin,
"With regard to causality I cite thre...Kevin,<br /><br />"With regard to causality I cite three references that show the uniformity of worldliness across the board of the Calvinism of Piper and similar preachers."<br /><br />This is NOT causality but association. This has been my point and you reinforced it. I am not sure how productive this will be at this point. We seem to be at an impasse on the fundamental point of your argument.<br /><br />TonyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-83667868419032550742011-08-17T21:21:46.601-05:002011-08-17T21:21:46.601-05:00Hi Tony,
I can provide you a detailed analysis o...Hi Tony, <br /><br />I can provide you a detailed analysis of a sermon by a man I know personally who is a Calvinist Pastor of a Harvest Bible Chapel which comes under the Harvest Bible Chapel organization led by James MacDonald. I actually worked with him on a significant Evangelism project - until I found out he held to Lordship Salvation theology. I wrote a detailed rebuttal of his sermon on assurance based loosely on 1st John called <a href="http://onmywalk.blogspot.com/2010/10/but-theology-part-1.html" rel="nofollow"><b><i>'But' Theology</i></b></a>. I also wrote a rebuttal of John MacArthur's version of the same teaching called <a href="http://onmywalk.blogspot.com/2010/11/testing-test-part-1.html" rel="nofollow"><b><i>Testing the Test</i></b></a>. <br /><br />You will find ample evidence to support my claim at either or both of these links. <br /><br />The reason why I didn't go look for a quote is two fold. First: Lou would not allow (to the best of my knowledge) linking to the material that I would have to link to. I would not allow it at my own blog for various reasons. Second: these teachings are so prevalent that I simply don't believe you are not well aware of what I'm talking about. You asked for "one Calvinist who teaching that self examination is for salvation." I have given you two. <br /><br />I am still looking forward to the answers to my question. <br /><br />Please provide a Biblical reference to an accurate examination that I can use to tell if I am saved or not by self examination. <br /><br />I also asked: if works show salvation what if the person does not do works on their last day alive, their last week, there last month or their last decade - what does the Bible say about their assurance. Are they saved or are they not. Please provide book, chapter, verse that shows your answer. <br /><br />I am not meaning to be short, but I have answered many questions now and have received precious little in the way of answers for my questions from any of those who have disagreed with my conclusions. <br /><br />Thanks!<br />KevKevlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18080346872086553798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-19341021143827789372011-08-17T21:08:16.415-05:002011-08-17T21:08:16.415-05:00Hi Tony,
With regard to causality I cite three r...Hi Tony, <br /><br />With regard to causality I cite three references that show the uniformity of worldliness across the board of the Calvinism of Piper and similar preachers. I then tried to explain this worldliness by the process of looking at one's self, and merely continuing to become more like one's idea of righteousness instead of actually like Jesus Christ the Righteous. <br /><br />I do not think the widespread worldliness of modern Calvinists is in dispute - perhaps on an individual basis... but in the LS camp of Calvinism there is very little variance that I am aware of. This is almost subjective, in that I have a limited view.. but it is not subjective in interpretation - just in regard to the fullness of observation. <br /><br />It is plainly obvious from nature, and Scripture that one goes in the direction one is looking. <br /><br />Thank you for being more clear - it may be painful for you... but that's what communication over things like Blogger can be like. :)<br /><br />KevKevlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18080346872086553798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-67858399059955343482011-08-17T20:25:03.854-05:002011-08-17T20:25:03.854-05:00Tony:
Presently I am "standing" in my o...Tony:<br /><br />Presently I am "standing" in my office at work, writing from my new 4G phone. <br /><br />Ok, funny stuff out of the way. <br /><br />I stand in the same place I have for 20+ years. I reject all 5 points of Calvinism as I understand them. <br /><br />Furthermore, I also believe this centuries old debate will never be settled, among opposing parties, this side of Heaven. <br /><br /><br />LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-55737254179241722432011-08-17T20:17:22.376-05:002011-08-17T20:17:22.376-05:00Lou, now that there has been alot of back and fort...Lou, now that there has been alot of back and forth, where do you stand on all this?<br /><br />TonyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-11383582959963662962011-08-17T20:07:19.254-05:002011-08-17T20:07:19.254-05:00Kev, regarding a question about examining yourself...Kev, regarding a question about examining yourself, you answered:<br /><br />"Are you a Calvinist? There you have your quote."<br /><br />I am not reformed or a calvinist by anyone's definition. You need to provide a quote please. You are the one making the case. I am seeking further clarity and understanding. Telling me to go do my own research defeats the purpose of you interacting, something you looked forward to doing.<br /><br />By the way, I have made this point on Lou's site before in other threads, arminians require selfexamination too but for different reasons.<br /><br />TonyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-84737681940729076692011-08-17T20:03:11.632-05:002011-08-17T20:03:11.632-05:00Kev,
You are trying to argue causality by arguing...Kev,<br /><br />You are trying to argue causality by arguing from association. You are only showing that according to you, there is worldliness from people who are calvinists. Therefore, calvinism creates or promotes worldliness. Everything else in my posts have been an extension from this. If we can't understand each on this, there is nothing else that needs to be said.<br /><br />TonyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-85165450637968245492011-08-17T19:52:09.876-05:002011-08-17T19:52:09.876-05:00Jan, there is not anyone who can definitively iden...Jan, there is not anyone who can definitively identify what is calvinism other than the words of Calvin.<br /><br />There are many things that self proclaimed calvinists hold to in common, but some calvinists would seek to define other calvinists out of the term. There is no simple answer. The various shades of meaning come into play. Sorry that isn't more help, but I am not really concerned about that label. I hope that helps.<br /><br />TonyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-31836874732650724972011-08-17T19:34:16.538-05:002011-08-17T19:34:16.538-05:00Lou, Kevl
I wanted to share a link here that a fr...Lou, Kevl<br /><br />I wanted to share a link here that a friend gave me on face-book.<br />Dr. Kim Riddlebarger is senior pastor of Christ Reformed Church in Anaheim, California, and co-host of the popular White Horse Inn, a radio-internet talk show.<br />He wrote the following in response to a message given by MacArthur. <br /><br />http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/a-reply-to-john-macarthur/<br /><br />It is an eye opener and shows a fight that is going on between those who claim to be Calvinists. It shows how important good Bible hermeneutics are. This also shows why it is hard to nail down a "true Calvinism" or reason with someone who holds to these views. Especially if their view of Calvinism is entrenched in Reformed/Covenant theology.<br />I have a hard time taking J Mac (a leaky dispensationalist at best) much less this guy.<br /><br />Thanks <br />Jim F.Jim Fhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04206814540235700990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-24233319024605765072011-08-17T15:42:55.795-05:002011-08-17T15:42:55.795-05:00Hi Jimmy,
Before I attempt to read into your que...Hi Jimmy, <br /><br />Before I attempt to read into your question I'm going to answer it as it is plainly stated: no, I do not. <br /><br />Do I see some truth in various portions of what each of those letters describe... yes. Do I see the logic behind them? Yes. <br /><br />God who cannot lie, does not tempt, has not even the slightest shadow of sin, and has no fellowship with darkness. Because I can demonstrate falsehood in each of the points, as expressed by Calvinists, I cannot say that this is God's plan for Salvation, or History. <br /><br />Testimony that is even 99.9% true is wholly unreliable. I would not suggest that TULIP is anywhere near 99.9% true. <br /><br />I have a series called <a href="http://onmywalk.blogspot.com/2009/04/tripping-tulip-part-1-introduction.html" rel="nofollow"><b><i>Tripping TULIP</i></b></a>. Because of how long this comment thread is, if you want to discuss those points please do so at my blog. <br /><br />Of course I'll answer briefly, as it relates to this article here - but probably for the best of the conversation any real deep discussion of them should be done over there. <br /><br />If I haven't answered you clearly, please restate and I'll try to do better. :)<br /><br />KevKevlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18080346872086553798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-64496887731084130322011-08-17T15:02:52.309-05:002011-08-17T15:02:52.309-05:00Kev:
Interesting thesis.
Question:
Do you fin...Kev:<br /><br />Interesting thesis. <br /><br />Question:<br /><br />Do you find God's plan of salvation anywhere in TULIP?<br /><br />Thanks,<br />JimmyJimmy O'Rourkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14716790673405855707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-5943011366783629702011-08-17T12:42:59.962-05:002011-08-17T12:42:59.962-05:00KD/Tony/David:
If you've been posting here mu...KD/Tony/David:<br /><br />If you've been posting here much you probably know I encourage a two way street for comments. Ask a question, take a question. <br /><br />Jan posted a short series of comments that speak to some very disconcerting issues with JMac, Piper and Sproul. The criticism comes from other Calvinists. Jan asked two questions, one on which Calvinism is right, but I would each of you to share your impression of the statement by Sproul? <br /><br />So, what say you, gentlemen? <br /><br /><br />LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-88488827046846930622011-08-17T12:29:14.713-05:002011-08-17T12:29:14.713-05:00Thanks Lou!
I would really like to read Tony, KD ...Thanks Lou!<br /><br />I would really like to read Tony, KD or Dave (preferably all) answer Jan's primary question - which is the "real" Calvinism, and her other questions with regard to the videos she linked us to. <br /><br />Normally I would be against widening a discussion, but since her links speak to the very validity of the consistent remarks in rebuttal so far, I think it would be helpful. <br /><br />KevKevlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18080346872086553798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-51630525590632246342011-08-17T11:06:35.123-05:002011-08-17T11:06:35.123-05:00Tony/KD/All:
Let's post questions on one topi...Tony/KD/All:<br /><br />Let's post questions on one topic at a time. Allow Kev to reply, direct a follow up question back to you, and then, once every one has had their say, move to a new question. <br /><br />Thank for the cooperation. <br /><br /><br />LMLou Martuneachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08683967904677815711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30991724.post-40544242551111903202011-08-17T10:55:09.077-05:002011-08-17T10:55:09.077-05:00Tony, you asked one question that I did not answer...Tony, you asked one question that I did not answer. Frankly because it was answered in the comments above, but I will attempt another go. <br /><br />You asked <i>I am not sure why you are opposed to a person examining himself to see that he is in the faith.</i><br /><br />By what standard does one examine? Where is the test that if I fail I am not saved and if I pass I am saved? <br /><br />I asked in another comment above. Good works show salvation? What if the person does no good works in the last day they live? The last week? The last month? The last year? The last decade? <br /><br />What is your biblical authority to give this person assurance or the lack of assurance based on their works? <br /><br />Why am I apposed to it? Because there is no example in Scripture of getting people to do it. When the Corinthians were worldly and doubting the Resurrection Paul did not lead them through a fruit inspection - he assured them that the Gospel they had believed and been saved through was still true! That they were going to be resurrected because Christ was resurrected. <br /><br />Likewise in every instance, our assurance is because of the Gospel, because Christ has indeed been resurrected and will return for His Bride. Not in, or because we have been "transformed" into something somewhat less ugly and evil than we were before we were saved.. how less ugly? How less evil? <br /><br />It is foolishness, that's why I oppose it. It leads to false assurance in religious people, and doubt in people who actually read the Bible literally and have a true conviction for their sin. <br /><br />KevKevlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18080346872086553798noreply@blogger.com