[We are] not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. (Romans 1:16)

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

A Statement and a Question

by Rose~

I want to say something about the previous discussions that went on here at UOG a couple of weeks ago. I believe I disagree with Antonio. I am not sure how a Jehovah's Witness could believe he was receiving eternal life from anyone other than the Divine Being. How can we separate the message of who Christ is from what He offers? He has no authority to offer eternal life if He is not the eternal being Himself. That being said, I understand and appreciate that Antonio and those who empathise with his ideas are not "evil" or "false teachers." We are all still learning about our Lord and His awesome dealings with mankind, are we not? I find some of the rhetoric from several over the last months (some of my own ilk included) to be quite rectionary and overdone. I don't mean to sound judgemental in that - I know I am not above reproach, but doesn't it get discouraging to anyone else? (oops - I just slipped in a question - and that was supposed to be the statement part.) I love all of these aforementioned ones.

Shifting gears: Here is a question I want to throw out:
I was reading this passage yeaterday and it provoked some questions in my mind.

11 Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men. What we are is plain to God, and I hope it is also plain to your conscience.
12 We are not trying to commend ourselves to you again, but are giving you an opportunity to take pride in us, so that you can answer those who take pride in what is seen rather than in what is in the heart.
13 If we are out of our mind, it is for the sake of God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you.
14 For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.
15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.
16 So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.
17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!
18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation:
19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.
20 We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God.
21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Cor. 5)

Who are the men of verse 11 and who is the you of verse 20?
I think it is pretty clear that the anyone and the us of verse 17 and 18 are saved people.
What about the world and men of verse 19?
Who is the you of verse 20?

I would really love to hear some thoughts from various people on this. Do you see any implications of this passage and your answers to my questions?

39 Comments:

  • Good post, Rose~. I think that text does indicate a general scope for redemption.

    'That being said, I understand and appreciate that Antonio and those who empathise with his ideas are not "evil" or "false teachers."'

    I actually found it rather fun being accused of being an heretick. I almost hope they keep it up. Beats being called a silly old 'Arminian'.

    "He has no authority to offer eternal life if He is not the eternal being Himself."

    Absolutely true, but our receiving the gift of eternal life does not depend upon our understanding this. It is simply a matter of receiving the gift of eternal life in faith.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:54:00 AM  

  • Matthew,

    I think that text does indicate a general scope for redemption.

    Can't you be a little more specific? :~)

    By Blogger Rose~, at Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:17:00 PM  

  • Well, 'men' in verse 11 clearly has a general scope, suggesting that world and men in verse 19 should be interpreted that way as well. It rather does support an unlimited atonement.

    God Bless

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:56:00 PM  

  • What about verse 20?

    By Blogger Rose~, at Tuesday, May 23, 2006 1:11:00 PM  

  • I would say that men in verse 11 is referring to all people - this is the audience for the Gospel that we preach.

    I would have to assume that the you in verse 20 is the same you as in the rest of the book - the church of God which is at Corinth (2 Cor 1:1).

    I agree with you regarding anyone and us in verses 17 and 18.

    Is the world in verse 19 the same as in John 3:16? I am pondering that point. Certainly not all are reconciled and not all men do not have their sin counted against them, but I think he may be referring to a bigger picture here than just reconciled individuals (the ministry of reconciliation).

    These are good questions, Rose, and they are making me think.

    By Blogger The IBEX Scribe, at Tuesday, May 23, 2006 1:31:00 PM  

  • Rose,
    I would say verse 11 and 20 apply to all men and is an example of the external call. To say these verses teach universal atonement would also mean they teach universal salvation

    Matthew
    Anyone who is capable of understanding the concept of eternal life, being provided as a gift by a being, is certainly capable of understanding that said being is deity. The famous verse of John 3:16 provides enough information about the deity of Christ to accomplish this. It is pure nonsense to believe that Biblical salvation flows from a faith in a false god. Having faith in a Jesus with no deity is a faith in a Jesus of the imagination which is a false God.

    By Blogger jazzycat, at Tuesday, May 23, 2006 7:29:00 PM  

  • Rose said:

    ". . . We are all still learning about our Lord and His awesome dealings with mankind, are we not? . . ."

    Rose, there is a difference between being a "learner", and the role that Antonio was functioning in as he wrote his articles. He wasn't asking questions, he was making assertions. Not only that, and this is the primary distinction, he wasn't unconsciously or unwittingly articulating his views; rather he was consciously defining and defending his position on what it takes to appropriate eternal life through Christ. I agree some of the "rhetoric" may have become a bit heated--but, IMO, it was "rhetoric" that was driven by a righteous (speaking for myself now)indignation against blatant false teaching.

    Antonio is not a learner in his articles, he is a teacher, and he is teaching false doctrine!

    IN Christ,

    Bobby Grow

    By Anonymous bobby grow, at Tuesday, May 23, 2006 10:51:00 PM  

  • I dont have alot of time. None, really. I just want to say to you Rose, that, from reading your critique, that either you are not thinking logically or you do not understand my argument.

    I favor the last.

    Antonio

    By Blogger Antonio, at Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:12:00 PM  

  • Verse 20 is addressed to believers, the audience of the letter.

    My pastor used this to show the necessity of preachign the Gospel in church. No, believers do need to be reconciled to God when they fall into sin.

    Jazzycat, were you ever saved before you believed? Had Christ not died for you?

    With regard to conversion, belief in Jesus' deity is never identified as being a condition of receiving eternal life.

    If you believe in the Jesus of the Bible, you believe in the true Jesus. The Bible tells us of the true Jesus.

    The idea that you believe in a 'different Jesus' if you fail to understand the truth of his deity if illogical.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Wednesday, May 24, 2006 12:59:00 AM  

  • I was born 3rd generation Jehovah's Witness and stayed a deluded devout follower for 33 years.So many of their dogmas are twisted from the get-go.--Danny Haszard

    By Anonymous Danny Haszard, at Wednesday, May 24, 2006 4:55:00 AM  

  • With regard to how much theology we have to understand to be saved (let's be frank - that's exactly what we love to argue), I consider myself as a child. I first "asked Jesus into my heart" when I was quite young. Was I saved then? I have no idea whether I understood deity or trinity or any of that. I knew that Jesus was the way to eternal life. Thinking of my own experience then makes me rethink some of my assumptions. This is, I think, rather off-topic, so I'll leave it at that.

    By Blogger The IBEX Scribe, at Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:04:00 AM  

  • Hi IBEX,
    Thanks for addressing the question.

    You too, Jazzycat.

    Bobby,
    To see you say such things is really disturbing to me. "False doctrine"? Look at what the IBEX scribe has said about her belief as a child. This could be an area for difference that does not need to be labeled "heresy". What I see here is Antonio bringing up a hypothetical about what is the very minumum that must be shared with a potential convert - if, say - we were only given 2 minutes to talk with them. Is bringing up a hypothetical "false doctrine"? You are right, he never puts his assertions in question form, that is not his way of doing theology. I wish you wouldn't be so harsh, Bobby, but maybe I don't understand your concern fully. You could email me if you don't want to blog here anymore because I really value your thoughts greatly and respect you very much.

    Antonio,
    I am afraid you will not take the time to address this question, but I wish you would. You surely have taken the time to write these posts that have caused friends (!) to call you a false teacher. It would be one thing if Centurion were leveling the charge, but doesn't it bother you that Bobby is saying this? Don't you want to clarify yourself?

    Would you go on a streetcorner and tell passers by: "Hear! Hear! You don't need to believe that Jesus is the Son of God ... or that He rose from the dead - just believe on Him for eternal life"? If that is what you were advocating in your articles, then I would think you are very very wrong and would separate from you. I don't think that is what you are saying, though. Can you clarify that?

    By Blogger Rose~, at Wednesday, May 24, 2006 12:34:00 PM  

  • DF,
    Thanks for your answer. I really wanted to discuss the 2 Cor. passage.

    Is there a typo here:

    No, believers do need to be reconciled to God when they fall into sin.

    I am not sure what you are trying to say. :~)

    Danny,
    Thanks for visiting and I am glad you have come to see that JW dogma is false.

    IBEX,
    I don't think what you said is off-topic because some have percieved that UOG is a dangerous place because of the things that were said about that topic. Thanks.

    By Blogger Rose~, at Wednesday, May 24, 2006 12:40:00 PM  

  • I will politely make this last post in Bobby's defense. He did not level the charge, it was Joseph and as you know, there is not a man that I can think of that is more objective and he received a lot of heat from the Calvinists blog a few weeks ago. He, Bobby and Myself have clearly show plenty of scripture. I don't know what else to do. Rose, I am comforted by your position, but am refraining from this blog as I am unsure of motive. There may indeed be a shark in the water. Keep that in thought. All of you. I have no clue, but this has been troubling over the past few days and I cannot change my mind as Scripture binds me. I am objective on this as well.

    My brother questions the Trinity. I have spent hours anguishing over this with him along with other portions of Scripture that he has brought into question. He prayed the sinners prayer when he was 4 and barely remembers it anymore. I love him, but my family and I have gone through much pain and anguish. I'd rather not talk much about it anymore. All I know is that the Word of God stands and what is written is what binds and is the message of salvation. Not our lawyerlike...look for loopholes in court type thinking.'

    My brother also calls me a Bible worshipper. It has been an agonizing trip over the years. My heart breaks for him. I really don't wish to talk much more about it. He understands that when he visits at Christmas, he mustn't engade his thoughts to my children and is respectful of that. I pray that one day I will become convinced that he has finally chosen to take God at his word and believe. I pray this for some here as well.

    Please understand that I have no malice in my heart. Take care you guys and be alert as gnosticism is on the move. Pilot had to decide what he was going to do with Jesus and what truth was. Jesus said, "You will know the truth and the truth will set you free."

    I will agree that I have been reactionary in the past, but here I am not and will continue to stand unashamedly for My Lord at the gates with Mordecai.

    By Blogger Bhedr, at Wednesday, May 24, 2006 12:56:00 PM  

  • Rose, my meaning is that if we fall into serious sin, we are not in true fellowship with God and need to be reconciled.

    Because the medium of reconciliation in the Gospel is entrusted to believers, they should strive to be reconciled to God in their walk.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Wednesday, May 24, 2006 1:58:00 PM  

  • Brian, if Antonio teaches Gnosticism, I like his brand of Gnosticism.

    God Bless

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Wednesday, May 24, 2006 2:00:00 PM  

  • Hey Rose,
    I just used this same passage albeit NASB on Adams site this morning under the "slave" post. What a coincidence?

    I will offer my answers to your questions.

    Men in verse 11: I think from reading verse 10 (remember I use the NASB) the men here are believers that will be at the judgement seat of Christ.

    Verse 19: The world and men are everyone who has ever been created.
    I believe the bible teaches that all mens sins against the Law of God have been atoned for on the cross. The only sin that keeps us out of the book of life is the sin of unbelief in Christ for everlasting life. 1 John 5:10-11

    Verse 20: The you is the Corinthian believers or any believer. Verse one of chapter 6 seems to back this up and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for Paul to change the objects of this passage in verse 20 and then plainly in verse 1 of the 6th chapter urge those who had believed not to receive Gods grace in vain.
    I think verse 19,20,21,and 6:1 and following thru on in chapter 6 is telling believers to get a hold of your status of being reconciled, don't receive the grace of God in vain and live a life that causes offense and discredits God's ministry of grace to His human creation.
    Does that make sense?

    By Blogger Kris, at Wednesday, May 24, 2006 2:46:00 PM  

  • Rose,

    I never said Antonio was a heretic, as Brian pointed out . . . the closest I came was to say what he was communicating was "cultic" relative to his perspective on Christology and Soteriology; and sadly I still would stand by this! Antonio has continually defined and defended his perspective w/o providing an opportunity for any reasonable dialogue.

    I would still consider Antonio a friend, Rose--even a brother in Christ--just very mis-guided on this all important issue! I don't think I ever "attacked" Antonio's character, Rose--but I have and will "critique" his perspective on the "content" of the faith. Just like we're all open to critique as we "air" our particular ideas and theologies.

    I'm sorry Rose, if I've offended you, but some times the kettle needs to be called black (see Gal 2 Paul/Peter).

    I think in one of my comments, Rose, I actually asked for forgiveness from Jodie, Matthew, and Antonio for my tone . . . Antonio never responded.

    I just want to underline the fact, Rose, that there is a difference between attacking some-one's person and their doctrine; I was attacking Antonio's doctrine!

    In Christ,

    Bobby Grow

    By Anonymous bobby grow, at Wednesday, May 24, 2006 7:48:00 PM  

  • Rose,

    you ask:
    ----------
    It would be one thing if Centurion were leveling the charge, but doesn't it bother you that Bobby is saying this? Don't you want to clarify yourself?
    ----------
    It doesn't bother me in the least, and why should it? Not a single biblical argument against my position has ensued from his keyboard.

    Clarify myself? If my 3 posts on the subject AND the 15 point soteriological post does not clarify, then one must ask themself if they have imported things into my position that I would not agree with, or haven't taken the time to truly consider the arguments.

    Rose,

    If I was preaching to a JW, teaching to him out of the gospel of John, and I showed him that Jesus promises, guarantees eternal life to the believer in Him for it, and the JW believes the promise of eterna life given by Jesus that I have showed him in the gospel of John, when this man stands before Jesus, is Jesus going to say:

    "You entrusted your eternal destiny and well-being to me when you believed my promise to guarantee for you eternal life, when you believed in Me. But since you didn't add to this requirement belief that I am God then I must throw you in hell"

    It is precisely the good news of eternal life through faith in Jesus that saves. This man has believed Jesus' promise to guarantee for him eternal life! This man has entrusted his eternal well-being to Christ, but you would have him end up in the lake of fire for a lack of passing your doctrinal statement on the ontology of Christ.

    Jesus is God, and had to be God in order to have an eternal sacrifice. This is true, and I would never place aspersions on this fact.

    Yet one does not need know how a gift is provided in order to receive it as an absolutely free gift!

    Jesus says, "Most assuredly I say to you, he who believes in Me has eternal life."

    Let me make a comparison.

    I say to you "If you would reach out your hands you will receive a hundred dollar bill"

    Do you need to know how I earned that hundred dollar bill in order to receive it free?

    Do you need to know that I am a forklift driver at Costco, which enabled me to earn the $100, AS A REQUIREMENT IN ADDITION to reaching out your hands in order to receive the money as a free gift?

    Of course not.

    Jesus is God, Jesus died and rose again, and He is innumerably other things as well.

    He doesn't ask you to believe He is God. He asks you to believe that He guarantees eternal life to the believer in Him for it.

    If my 4 posts and comments haven't clarified my position, then I believe that people are stubbornly leaving them unconsidered.

    Rose writes:
    ----------
    Would you go on a streetcorner and tell passers by: "Hear! Hear! You don't need to believe that Jesus is the Son of God ... or that He rose from the dead - just believe on Him for eternal life"? If that is what you were advocating in your articles, then I would think you are very very wrong and would separate from you. I don't think that is what you are saying, though. Can you clarify that?
    ----------

    Like Paul, I try to tailor my presentation of Christ to the hearers. I am not afraid to preach the diety of Christ. I preach it. I am not shy to speak of Christ passion and resurrection, I HERALD it.

    Yet, I will not get into debates concerning things peripheral to the reception of eternal life.

    If a JW hears me speak of Christ's deity and asks me about it, I will say, "Let us agree to disagree about this subject." I will discuss with him Jesus' ability to impart eternal life by faith alone apart from works. This is where I want to zero in with the JW or the Mormon. They believe that salvation comes by faith AND works, and LOTS of works (not unsimilar to the Traditionalist religion).

    At the moment that a JW or a Mormon is convinced that Jesus Christ has given to them unrevokable eternal life when they believed on Him for it, I would consider such a one saved, REGARDLESS of their varied misconcetions and beliefs about Jesus.

    Both the Mormons and the JWs will say that Jesus IS "the son of God". Yet they will provide some other import other than monotheistic deity into it.

    For John, the "Son of God" and "the Christ" have the import "the one who promises (guarantees) eternal life to the believer in Him for it".

    I would never say you don't have to believe that Jesus is the Son of God. This has the import of the gospel proposition which makes it salvific!

    If someone asks me point blank, do I beleive that one must believe that Jesus is God in order to go to heaven, I would say "NO!"

    How many requirements are there, Rose? How many points of doctrine need to be believed to be saved?

    by the time you add them up, it is not just faith alone in Christ alone, but

    1)belief in the deity of Christ
    2)belief in the substitutional atonement
    3)belief in the bodily resurrection
    4)AND belief in Christ's promise to guarantee eternal life apart from works

    here there are 4 requirements! To this many would add more!

    I tell you this. Number 4 is sufficient!

    Not that I don't preach the others! But when it comes to the PUNCH, the irreducible minimum, I am content to say that Jesus guarantees eternal life to the believer in Him for it, PERIOD.

    The intention and purpose of evangelism is to get the prospective convert to the point where he is convinced that Jesus Christ has guaranteed his eternal destiny, his eternal well-being.

    Anything we do in evangelism, anything that we say to the hearer of our gospel presentations MUST point to the sufficiency of faith in Christ's promise to save eternally.

    We don't bust out with an orthodox creedal checklist and ask that the hearer initial at each doctrinal point in order to be saved.

    The use and purpose of the gospel message is to CONVINCE the hearer that Jesus guarantees eternal life. NOT as a checklist for assurance of salvation or as the requirements for eternal life!

    John wrote his gospel to convince the readers of the sufficiency of faith in Christ to save eternally, not as a belief-system checklist, that once adhered to, will impart eternal life.

    Antonio

    By Blogger Antonio, at Wednesday, May 24, 2006 8:17:00 PM  

  • Actually, not a single biblical argument that agrees with Antonio's position has come from my keyboard on this issue . . . would be more accurate!

    There's your answer Rose! The only argument that really needs to be provided against Antonio's position is that he engages in non-sequiter by creating a false dichotomy between the person and the message of the gospel--since Jesus "personifies" the gospel message!

    In Christ,

    Bobby Grow

    By Anonymous bobby grow, at Wednesday, May 24, 2006 9:14:00 PM  

  • Dear friends, we seem to have lost sight of what Rose asked in the first place in yet another discussion about Antonio. I think the direction these comments are heading are rather fruitless and will only serve to cause division among us. I think that delights the devil. Let's put the focus back on the original intent of the post, shall we? Thanks.

    By Blogger The IBEX Scribe, at Thursday, May 25, 2006 7:34:00 AM  

  • Thanks Antonio and Bobby,
    Thanks for clearing that up.

    Kris,
    I thought that about verse 20 also. Not at first, but after looking more closely, I thought it was clearly to believers. What a concept - believers: "be reconciled to God"- make up with him - walk right in our relationship with him as sons. I think your take on the whole passage sounds right. (I have heard some of it before from a brother I respect). Thanks for sharing.

    By Blogger Rose~, at Thursday, May 25, 2006 7:37:00 AM  

  • Jazzy,
    I deleted your comment because it was "way over the top." I have never done that before, but wow. It is the kind of comment that I was referring to in my post's first paragraph - just not helpful at all. Meow.

    Hi IBEX - thanks.

    By Blogger Rose~, at Thursday, May 25, 2006 7:39:00 AM  

  • Hi Folks,

    ABout the issue of this passage and who it addresses. Great post Rose. I've always assumed Paul meant primarily church people without heavily excluding the unregenerate. That would go for the men of v 11 and the you of v 20.

    I say this becaue he has just made a proclamation of the epic aspect of the Judgement Seat of Christ. So it seems to be primarily the church that he is imploring to fear God.

    Verse 10 reads:

    For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

    Going back another step from v 11, verse 9 says:

    Therefore we make it our aim, whether present or absent, to be well pleasing to Him

    So Paul is living fearfully before God and he is advocating this same attitude to the needy church in Corinth.

    God bless

    Jodie

    By Blogger H K Flynn, at Thursday, May 25, 2006 7:55:00 AM  

  • Angie, is right that this discussion could fall away from waht Rose~ originally posted on. However, I do hope people will take the trouble to read Antonio's last comment. It really was an excellent presentation of his position.

    God Bless

    Matthew

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:09:00 AM  

  • Actually IBEX,

    Rose, opened it up for discussion relative to Antonio with her first paragraph here on this article.

    There's a difference between divisiveness or sowing discord among the brethren; and dividing over something as serious as what Antonio has been arguing (I Cor. 1:1-25; Gal. 2; etc.). There needs to be distinctions made when the deity/humanity of Christ is minimized for the sake of a particular theological construct mechanism to work (Jesus warned against man's tradition replacing His Word Mt. 15).

    Sure non-confrontation is much easier, but its not healthy or loving, in many cases!

    In Christ,

    Bobby Grow

    By Anonymous bobby grow, at Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:11:00 AM  

  • Hi Bobby,

    I'm deeply saddened that you see that as what we are doing instead of simply taking the Bible very explicitly.

    Do you see it as even possible that we are sincerely coming from God's Word?

    (I realize that Antonio and I are seeing this issue somewhat differently, but i assume my position and his [both] are what you are critiquing.)

    In Christ,

    Jodie

    By Blogger H K Flynn, at Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:18:00 AM  

  • Jodie,
    Your thoughts on the passage are very helpful as usual. Thank you. It is good to see you again - you must have been busy with your kids!

    Bobby,
    Youre right. I did bring it up. I was sort of hoping I could take a stand as to my belief and then move on to something different.

    Also - you're right - you didn't use the word "heretic" - you said "he is teaching false doctrine!" Bobby, I wasn't trying to rebuke you at all, I just was very surprised by a couple of your reactions, and dissapointed by how someone jokingly said that you were now "Ashamed of Grace" because you removed our link. That was sad for me. I am sensitive about blog friendships and such, but I don't think Antonio is so much.

    By Blogger Rose~, at Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:22:00 AM  

  • My point was not that it was not prompted by something that Rose said, rather that it is probably best if we stop before things got out of hand. Rose was trying to move on, so let's let her, okay?

    By Blogger The IBEX Scribe, at Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:35:00 AM  

  • Rose,
    I do like your meow. I respect your decision on your deletion. I have over at my site a quote from a sermon of a prominent PCA pastor. He mentions no names, but I would ask you does anything look familar about his comments?

    Jazzycat

    By Blogger jazzycat, at Thursday, May 25, 2006 12:28:00 PM  

  • Rose,

    You did open it up for my comment. And in my last comment, I asked you a question. Feel free, please, to answer my question, as I endeavored to answer yours.

    You wanted me to clarify, and I have. Now that I have clarified, where would you now disagree with me at?

    IBEX,

    My position is not one of splitting hairs, but has consequences in the Christian life. Neither eternal life nor assurance of salvation comes by strict adherence to the most popular orthodox creedal statements of the day. It comes by taking Jesus Christ at His word to guarantee eternal life to the believer in Him for it.

    If you would like to move my comment to another thread, maybe I will start one.

    Antonio

    By Blogger Antonio, at Thursday, May 25, 2006 1:17:00 PM  

  • Rose,

    I did move my comment to my blog if you wanted to respond there so it doesn't mess up the thread of this post (although half of the OP was concerned with my position).

    Antonio

    By Blogger Antonio, at Thursday, May 25, 2006 1:34:00 PM  

  • IBEX,

    I don't think correcting error is getting out of hand . . . esp.

    By Anonymous bobby grow, at Thursday, May 25, 2006 5:07:00 PM  

  • Antonio and Bobby, I think you misunderstand my whole point. It's not about confrontation or who is arguing what. Antonio posted quite a bit on this blog and I think the place to confront him is there where he posted, not here where Rose is trying to engage us on another topic. Is that fair?

    I'm going to be silent on this now, but please understand what I was and was not saying.

    Angie

    (Bobby, I don't know if you know who I am, but I definitely know who you are. I worked for your mom at ECCU in TuitionDirect for a couple of summers and was working in the IS department until August. You worked with my mom, Sara, in CML, I believe.)

    By Blogger The IBEX Scribe, at Thursday, May 25, 2006 6:20:00 PM  

  • Angie,

    I remember you, and your mom, Sara--a wonderful lady, I really enjoyed the short time that I worked with her (a small Christian world).

    I appreciate the levity you're trying to bring here . . . all I'm trying to do is clarify my position (and subsequent frustration with Antonio's position) on the siginificance and implications of what Antonio is communicating. I don't intend my comments to get out of hand.

    I'll have to let my mom know, who I ran into in the blogosphere. Talk later!

    In Christ,

    Bobby Grow

    By Anonymous bobby grow, at Thursday, May 25, 2006 7:39:00 PM  

  • Rose,

    The "Ashamed of Grace" comment on my site, was not made by me, but someone else (who you also know, and you also know his sense of humor, I believe). I didn't respond to that comment lightly, but with a seriousness that clarified why I felt compelled to remove UOG from my links (obviously that doesn't mean that I wouldn't visit UOG anymore--here I am :).

    One thing I find strange, Rose, is that Antonio constantly and as a mode of operation, in general, approaches most of his articles and comments with much intensity; and many times "rudeness"--and yet I hardly ever hear a word about it from any of you (it's almost lauded). I get frustrated and express my frustration with a bit of passion and fervor once or twice (i.e. my prior comments to Antonio), and now I have crossed some sort of communicative ethical line. Anyways, it kind've comes off as some sort of double standard. I'm done, I'll quit talking about the always controversial Antonio . . .

    In Christ,

    Bobby Grow

    By Anonymous bobby grow, at Thursday, May 25, 2006 7:49:00 PM  

  • I found the gag about 'Ashamed of Grace' hilarious. I think it eased a little tension there.

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Friday, May 26, 2006 12:17:00 AM  

  • Antonio,
    I answered you on your blog.

    Bobby,
    again, I wasn't rebuking you. I was just dissapointed because I count you as a dear brother who I really appreciate. If you can't tell from my comments, much of my dissapointment is with the always controversial Antonio himself. He won't even answer my emails anymore ... not for the last month or so.
    Oh, and I hadn't seen your reply to our humorous freind who made the ashamed comment. I will go look. Oh, and I really don't laud rudeness, brashness, or indifference. I don't appreciate those things at all.

    By Blogger Rose~, at Friday, May 26, 2006 5:17:00 AM  

  • Rose,

    I'm sorry you were disappointed with the tone of some of my comments in the past . . . I actually re-read all of my comments on those threads last night; I can see why you might have been disappointed with some of my interaction!

    I'm also glad to see that you aren't in general agreement with Antonio's take on the relationship between "the who and the what" issue of the gospel.

    In Christ,

    Bobbby Grow

    By Anonymous bobby grow, at Friday, May 26, 2006 7:10:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home