I was looking for a portion of the debate that focused more on how God saved people in the OT, but I hope this video may show you where these two Christian teachers are coming from.
What I really was impressed by in this deabte, (and I have watched the entire debate BTW), is the demeanor of the two men.
I think debates can help us grow in our knowledge of truth, and it's so important for Christians to debate the truth with an attitude of love for the other person, and of gratitude and grace. Always remembering our own dependance on the Lord, and His gift of the Holy Spirit.
Here's something I read this week from Tabletalk Magazine: "..There are three major questions that we must ask; and I would emphasize very strongly that, in my judgment, we need to ask them precisely in the right order: (1) What do I owe the person who differs from me? (2) What can I learn from the person who differs from me? (3) How can I cope with the person who differs from me?".... We owe our opponents to deal with them in such a way that they may sense that we have a real interest in them as persons, that we are not simply trying to win an argument or show how smart we are, but we are deeply interested in them--and are eager to learn from them as well as to help them." -Dr. Roger Nicole
8 comments:
I too, appreciated the tone of the discussion.
But I think Scripture teaches that we are condemned before a holy God because of our sin, not just because we rejected His Son. I have heard it said that those who have never heard will not be judged for rejecting the Christ. That may be, but they are still sinners in need of a savior, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
I am not a 5-point Calvinist because of my upbringing or church background, but in spite of it. The doctrines of grace is a message that has peen sufficiently presented from general themes as well as pointed answers in the Bible. When I was an Arminian, going through these discussions with my friend, I found it very persuasive that the Reformed side seemed to rely so much more on Scripture.
James White is more Scripture focused.
Throughout the whole debate, and even in another debate they have had, John Sanders is more concerned with logic, then the Bible. Of course logic is essential, but at the same time, there are things, deep things, in the Bible that are beyong our logic. Such as the Triune God.
Thanks for your input Craver.
i hope you are taking it easy, and healing up real good.
Don,
I know you appreciate how well these guys speak to each other, which is commendable. Nevertheless, bad theology leads to more bad theology. John Sanders is a major promoter of “Open Theism” (the Link). And open theism is heresy. So it doesn’t surprise me that a defender of heresy would also defend inclusivism, since both are false doctrines….though this short clip doesn’t seem to get into the topic of inclusivism very much to me.
...before you guys get on me that I'm too quick to throw the word "heresy" around. Consider what the word actually means. Heresy is a break from the beliefs of the Church. Just as full-preterism is heresy because it breaks with the Church in its confession of the "future return of Christ". So open theism is also heresy when it breaks with the Church in her universal belief that God knows all things and nothing is unknown to Him. And it really doesn't matter that two of my favorite Christians in this world (i.e. Fontz & Shive, who both know the Bible better than me), espouse these doctrines. Both those doctrines are heresy.
John Sanders is a promoter of heresy.
That's a good point about Dave Fontz Triston. You and he had a marvelous time together when he came to Nepal, and you respect one another, and love one another.
That's what James White and John Sanders are doing as well.
Dr. White surely did debate Dr. Sanders on Open Theism as well. And it was good to watch as well. And yet it is a false teaching for sure, that God doesn't know the future.
And the debates will go on until the Lord comes.
I want to grow stronger in the truth, and at the same time not become puffed-up in my knowledge, but remember God's grace at all times, and so be built up in His love (1 Cor. 8:1-3).
I'll post a bit more about Inclusivism on my next post.
Thanks for putting it that way, Don. I really mean it. It is too easy for me to virtually demonize people sometimes for what they believe, when I don't know them. And yet, when I respect brothers dearly, as I do Dave Fontz and Dave Shive, it is a different story, and I want to understand where they are coming from. And as you point out, I still love and respect Fontz (as I do Shive of course) even though I strongly disagree with his full-preterism. We continue to remain brothers in Christ, intimate friends, etc.
When you put it that way, (making me think of it like me and Fontz debating, rather than White and Sanders), I really get where you're coming from.
Thanks for the soft rebuke.
Blessings,
Triston
I was just thinking Don that the likely reason we have been at loggerheads on this issue is because when you think of "Inclusivism" you are thinking of John Sanders and James White (meaning including all Christians together). But when I think of "Inclusivism" I think of people trying to put Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists together to find our common ground. And that is also probably why I didn't think the video clip you presented dealt with the topic of inclusivism.
"I think of people trying to put Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists together to find our common ground."
I'm going to talk about that in a post soon Triston. Inclusivism is a wide subject, and I'm going to try and put all the various ways people are Inclusivists.
Post a Comment