Ancient Christian Witness

As some of you know, last June I lost my teaching position
and my academic career was terminated. Needless to say this was due to my having
integrity. If I had been dishonest and gone about things in a non-biblical
manner by going to the person who stole from me privately, I wouldn’t be in this
mess today. If I had know that I was dealing with principalities and powers
rather than apparent ministers of righteousness, I would have gone about things
differently. But the past is over and done with. As things stand, my wife is
still working part time while I look for some kind of employment sufficient to
meet our financial needs, while we take turns watching our three girls. We live
fairly frugally and even more so since my termination.

GeneMBridges said:

Quoting Jnorm
"Do you believe
Sanctification is synergistic?

If so then how can you believe the means
is "unconditionaly" pre-ordained?

I a only asking because the
implications of such a view doesn't leave room for synergy.

I may be
wrong, but how can one resist something that's "unconditional"?"

We
affirm that sanctification is cooperative, not "synergistic" in, for example,
the Arminian sense.
To the extent that salvation has a conditional aspect,
God still ensures the satisfaction of those conditions in the lives of the
elect. Conditionality does not entail uncertainty - and this presupposition
(that conditionality must entail uncertainty) seems to underwrite your
objections. Where is the supporting argument? We're going to get back to LFW, so
where's the exegetical argument for LFW?

"Monergism" refers to
regeneration. Regeneration is irresistible, that is, conversion inevitably and
infallibly results. Sanctification is cooperative, but the results are ensured
insofar that the elect will all persevere to the end, and the elect will be
conformed to Christ's image, but they will not all persevere to end at the same
level of maturity.

3/03/2008 3:22 PM
Paul Manata said:

Quoting JNORM:
"So why do you deny [1] & [2]?"

I told
you why in my post.

I said: "The use of the term 'automatic response' is
loaded with robotic, fatalistic assumptions. Like we're action figures who
'automatically respond' when someone who presses the 'talk' button on our back.
My slap on the face of someone causes an automatic response in the nerve endings
of that person, in turn these cause a subjective experience of pain for that
person."

JNORM responded: "Why would you deny this?"

Because
that's not my position. I have a tendency to deny those premises I don't hold
to...call me weird.

JNORM said: "If the means is also unconditional then
how can you see it differently?

Because (i) the Bible affirms
determinism and moral responsibility and the reality of choices and (ii)
because, philosophically, I am a semi-compatibilist and we have loads and loads
of books on the subject which answer and explain these very purile and
sophomoric assumptions you have about us.

JNORM asked: "Also I would
like to ask you a question. Do you believe Sanctification is synergistic?

Gene explained it, though some Calvinists have used the term 'syngerism'
in explaining this view (Cf. Sproul, and there's others). I stand in that line.
I do not believe that we 'let go and let God,' (as I explained in my first post
to Ben, had you read that one). I believe we are active in our sanctification.
Not like our regeneration. I must make use of the means of grace, I must put to
death sin, etc. I don't just live like hell and expect to make it to heaven.
But, if I do not cooperate in my sanctification I do not lose my salvation or
justification or regeneration. I prove I was never saved in the first place.
This would be a fruit-to-root inference. I would show I was, per Heb. 6, part of
the soil that NEVER produced fruit.

Btw, let me add that you never
bothered to respond to my post above, or most of my arguments.

"In the next several posts, I want to offer some theoretical
and practical thoughts about group spiritual formation. Maybe the best place to
begin is by asking what I mean by "group spiritual formation"?


All
Christian life then is communal and all of us have been called by God to help,
each in our own unique and personal way, foster this share life in Christ. In
light of this, group formation is simply a practical means of exercising this
shared responsibility given to each of us in our baptism.


Unlike say
group therapy or a support group, group spiritual formation is built on a shared
adherence to tradition. (In the current example, this means the Tradition of the
Orthodox Church, likewise for a Catholic or Protestant group. ) But while there
is a shared commitment to a tradition, the exploration of this tradition as such
is not the goal of a spiritual formation group. The goal rather is to allow that
tradition, as expressed by the insights of the group members, to serve as a
guide for how we live our daily lives.


One touchstone of group
formation then is the tradition of the Church as an objective standard."