>A repeat of the undelivered 'copy' posting of Thu, 20 Aug 1998 - a
>response to Brian's posting of Wed, 19 Aug 1998.
>
>Brian D Harper wrote:
>
>> I sincerely hope that after some reflection you will have a change of
heart. From what you've > written I have a really hard time believing that
you fully understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ,
>> Salvation by grace through faith plus nothing. Do you agree?
>
>
>Brian,
>
>Thank you for writing. Having reflected for many years as engineer,
>scientist and Christian, I think it hardly likely that I shall
>experience a change of heart along the lines you suggest. Regarding the
>Lord's Gospel, I believe I understand it reasonably well: Salvation by
>grace through faith plus a willingness on our part to be taught and
>sanctified by him - not 'nothing', as you suggest.
It is not my suggestion, it comes directly from scripture.
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and
this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by
works, so that no one can boast" Ephesians 2:8,9 NIV
entirely typical. You talk about heeding scripture yet you
replace the clear teaching of scripture with your own
interpretation. It is also very interesting to me to see
that what you seek to add to the Gospel (namely obedience)
is exactly what the Apostle Paul's opponents sought to add.
Vernon:==
>We read in Jn.1:12,
>"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become sons of
>God...". Some, alas, fail to exercise that power; their lives remain as
>before because they resist the process of teaching, testing and
>sanctification that the Lord, in love, desires to impose on them.
>Clearly, this demand for obedience is 'something' rather than 'nothing',
>is it not?
>
>Now, concerning teaching, I take it that you are numbered among those I
>referred to in my last paragraph to Pim, i.e. you accept much of the
>Lord's teachings but baulk at others.
No I am not numbered among those. Are you?
Vernon:==
>Not to mince words, you are in my
>view being constrained by a pitifully weak theory to follow this 'pick
>'n' mix' option.
Nope, wrong again.
Vernon:==
>I again draw your attention to the first of the Ten
>Commandments, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Can you really
>not see that evolution is being deified and given pride of place by its
>followers?
In a sermon given at Ohio State a few years ago, Ravi Zacharias
offered some excellent advice: "You should not judge a philosophy
by its abuse".
>Why do you think the Lord warned us to judge a doctrine by
>its fruits? If one were to follow your logic, this caution should be
>passed over as irrelevant because it has no direct bearing upon
>'Salvation by grace'.
>
>Brian, I suggest you examine again the credentials of this 'millstone'
>that you carry around with you. Accept the Scriptures as
>divinely-revealed truth; after all, as man, our Lord did; and, as
>Creator, he should know for he set it all in motion!!
>
Vernon, I do accept scripture as divinely revealed truth. But, as
Galileo noted:
"The holy scriptures cannot err and the decrees therein contained
are absolutely true and inviolable. But ... its expounders and
interpreters are liable to err in many ways."
-- Galileo
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"It appears to me that this author is asking
much less than what you are refusing to answer"
-- Galileo (as Simplicio in _The Dialogue_)