Uncategorized

Tuscon Shooting Rhetoric Debate

1 Comment

I don’t normally weigh in on such things…but, wouldn’t the arguments about ‘political rhetoric’ causing a shooter in Tuscon to commit mass murder…be THE EXACT SAME argument against the Muslim Faith for causing the massacre at Ft. Hood?  The nature of free speech comes with a price…but human beings clearly are not robotic automatons…they still choose.  If rhetoric alone causes anything then 100s of 1,000s would be taking up arms (or helping the poor).  While ideas certainly have consequences, we don’t seem to notice that rhetoric is most often invented by a human heart to justify its view.  If education would return to teaching people HOW to think instead of WHAT to think; how to pursue virtue, rather than how to feel good about oneself— a profound and noble shift could occur.  God help us. 

– Fred Lybrand

www.fredlybrand.org

Uncategorized

Aside: Free eBook on a Christian View On Dating and Relationships

Leave a comment

Many of you know my book Glaen: A Novel Message on Romance, Love, and Relating came out this year.  As a special promotion, the EBOOK is available for FREE until January 9, 2011.  This special promotion gets you in line for the free Small Group Study that accompanies the book.  Of course, the hope is to get the ‘buzz’ to pick up even more for the book…and to get small groups using the material.  Glaen is a novel that takes on a Christian re-thinking of dating, courting, relating, and marriage…in the format of a novel.

Here is a note I received this week:

Hi, Mr. Lybrand!I actually finished Glaen the first day I started it! I believe I finished it in about 2 hours or so. I took notes, re-read it again a day or so later, and will re-read it yet again soon. I loved it.I loved the method for finding deep truths, even if they aren’t that incredibly hard to think of or understand. I gave a mini teaching of it/ discussion with my girls (youth group girls that I’m partly in charge of mentoring and leading) at 3:00am on New Year’s morning. (We were having a sleepover.)The next day when we were having lunch at Culver’s, I noticed that some of the girls at a table near me were having an argument on a tough subject that was bringing frustration and not really cutting to some of the core of the issue. I put to use many of the truths from your book, and the argument was resolved. Mostly what was needed were “just definitions” and a bit of love. I had been learning just before reading this book that I needed to know the exact truth opposite of the lies. Knowing the lies themselves isn’t good enough. This was a huge help! When I thought about it, it was as if I had known these truths in part, but since I couldn’t define them for myself, I couldn’t particularly focus on living them out better, or pray for help on living it.I have seriously seen a change in myself since reading this book, and I can’t wait to see the change in others. I am so excited about learning more and more truths, now and all throughout the rest of my life! 

Thank you!

Blessings,

~ Rachel E. Payauys

Honestly, there are just a few days left…so please go to the site www.glaen.com and sign up.

Also, feel free to pass this along.

God bless,

Fred Lybrand

www.glaen.com

P.S.  Most of all…I’d like your feedback after you’ve read it!

Biblically Speaking

The Zero Point Calvinst

14 Comments

Sorry…the holidays and some travel have slowed me a bit!

Dr. Zuck just wrote a review in the next Bib Sac on Back to Faith…very encouraging!

Now, to the question.  I have had a number of friends tell me that they are O Point Calvinists.  I never quizzed them because I sort of thought I knew what they meant.  Yet, now as I think about it, I know all of them believe in Eternal Security.  How can one believe in “God’s preservation of the elect unto eternity…and still deny all the points of Calvinism?

The answer may be obvious, but I’d rather know for sure than guess!

Any of you brave enough to tell us your reasoning (or that of your friend-who-will-remain-unnamed)?

Thanks much,

Fred Lybrand

Biblically Speaking

THE FLAW in DORT (5 Point Calvinism)

14 Comments

I’m so grateful that many of you have pitched in (but haven’t posted yet), and that a number of other have dropped my private notes of apology (too busy)!

I am finding that part of the problem with most Free Grace folks who are against Calvinism is that they simply have not read the original documents.  There is much in Calvinism that I love, and many things that I find to be pretty useless.  We all know that Calvinism is a theoLOGICAL system which largely makes sense if Scripture is not used as the standard of evaluation.  Do not miss the point– Calvinism is HIGHLY scriptural; yet, it is also, highly theological.  In other words, this is how Calvinists put it together.

Yet, one point is often denied in certain Free Grace circles; there is no such thing as Consistent Calvinism.  There is simply a broad spectrum of viewpoints within the largely circle.  We see this same reality with Arminians, Dispensationalists, Amillenialists, Preterests, denominations, and Free Grace advocates.  Sorry, that’s just the truth.  When we preach against “Calvinism” without defining terms, we are in the worst of straw-man worlds.  Sadly, we are attacking friends and patrons.  I personally have felt the same sense of being ostracized for not taking a stance against Calvinsim.

All Free Grace Advocates (faith alone in Christ alone) OWE a debt of gratitude to the Reformation for the recover of Grace being returned to the forefront of conversation and focus.  However, it doesn’t mean that forms and aspects of Calvinism aren’t mistaken (they are)!

Here is THE FLAW in DORT, as I study through it:

Dort assumes that humans are still depraved after regeneration.  In other words, they apply the same standards to a ‘saved’ person as they do a ‘lost’ person.  Practically, this means that they not only have the individual needing to be elected unto salvation, but elected unto sanctification (spiritual growth).

There is nothing inherently required in the ‘5 points’ or in Scripture concerning growth.  The very reason a believer can be accountable is that he is indeed a ‘new creation’ in Christ.  There is a new game in play where God can reward or chasten based on our works (and attitude, faith, doubt, etc.).  Saying that on is chosen to belong to Christ is one thing, saying one is chosen to produce good works (increasing) is quite another.

We are certainly called to good works as believers (read Titus), and God has set the kind of good works in place by His own will (see Ephesians 2:10); but to say God is imposing His will on us to make us obey is actually irrational and indefensible.

Said differently:

Before Christ = Depraved

After Christ = NOT Depraved

I’m catching a flight…so I’ll prove this later!

What do you think?  Where does this go?

Grace and peace,

Fred Lybrand

Biblically Speaking

Face it, You are at Least a Little Bit of a 5 Point Calvinist!

5 Comments

So, in studying the Canons of Dort, I’m reminded of the statements of dear friends and mentors like Dr. Radmacher who have said (to the effect), “I’m a O.O Calvinst and a O.O Arminian.” I mention Dr. Radmacher because he has been very vocal about this issue in recent years, but it doesn’t diminish my love or appreciation for him.  We all must learn to disagree graciously…and on this one, I just disagree.  Of course, I regularly have disagreements with myself as well (so, I’m very in-discriminant in the matter!). The idea is that if you buy one part of the “5 Points” of Calvinism, you must necessarily buy them all.  I’ve addressed this elsewhere.  While I find some of the points in Dort untenable , I find other points quite wonderful.

ARTICLE 11 (under the First Head of Doctrine) And as God Himself is most wise, unchangeable, omniscient, and omnipotent, so the election made by Him can neither be interrupted nor changed, recalled or annulled; neither can the elect be cast away, nor their number diminished.

ARTICLE 5 (under the Second Head of Doctrine) Moreover, the promise of the gospel is that whosoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of His good pleasure sends the gospel.

Article 11 is basically saying that the saved / justified / elect cannot, for any reason, lose their salvation.  This was a huge point the Reformers recovered (thought there is some muddling in the matter as they invite an over-dependence on works/fruit as proof of faith…to be discussed later…or see www.backtofaith.com).  Surely, those of us who believe in eternal security have to agree with Dort on this one.

Article 5 is a plain statement of the gospel…whosoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have eternal life…how clear would I want it?  I know there are some who question if faith in Christ’s crucifixion should be included (see GES Gospel: Lybrand Open Letter), but I certainly find this statement to resonate with my own soul and the forgiveness I have found through faith in the Savior and His finished work.

The point is that as one works through the system of Dort (or Westminster, or the Remonstrance, or Augsburg, etc.), one will find point on which he agrees and points on which he differs.  Taken as a ‘whole’ system, one can be forced to reject or accept…and yet, is that really an accurate description of the view?

The challenge is in the logic of the system, and in theology, it tends to come down to a couple of errors we consistently see:

1.  Bad premise, bad conclusion

2. Good premise, non sequitur conclusion

These are oversimplified, but just because something seems logical, it nowise means it is logical.  Certain points are often pushed along until the absurd becomes the nauseating.  Please know, all sides fall into this from time to time.  Theology is too often built on the shaky cliffs of inference, conjecture, and speculation.  What might happen if we ever dared to just affirm what the Scriptures say and leave the rest to class-time in eternity?

God bless,

Fred Lybrand

The Faith that Saves is not Alone?