I hope that everyone understands that this is NOT an ad hominem criticism but hopefully a sincere theological analysis. I assume that Wade thinks I do not really understand his position. However, I believe I do, maybe better than he understands his own position!
Again consider these statements:
God graciously commands all sinners to repent rather than striking them dead immediately and bringing them before Him in judgment. God even more graciously commands all men to embrace His Son, the only Savior ever given for sinners.
The invitation to take up your cross and follow Christ is universally given, but unfortunately, it is also universally rejected by sinners.
If he will believe and repent, he will be saved, for the Gospel is a “whosoever will” gospel.
Why is not everyone in Heaven? Because Christ did not die for the sinner who refuses to embrace Him.
Christ died as a substitute for sinners who will trust in Him. If a sinner rejects his Creator, if he refuses to embrace the Son and if he dies while spitting in the face of the only Savior ever provided for sinners, then that sinner bears his own sin in hell.
But those who trust Christ will be delivered.
The sinner is commanded to repent and believe but he is a rebel at heart.
We experience hell because we refuse to embrace God for who He is.
So I ask you. "Do you desire Him to break you of your self-love, your longing for sin, and bring to you a love for Christ and the things of God?"If you say, "Yes! I want God to do that in my life."
Then I say on the authority of God's Word, He will, because He never turns a deaf ear to a helpless sinner who calls to Him.
"What is needed is a change of nature, and this is what God brings to the helpless sinner who cries out to Him.
These statements have hints of conditions for salvation ie. regeneration, universal appeals and faith preceding regeneration Wade believes that the regenerate need an enablement to be regenerate. This enablement precedes believing on God for salvation ie. regeneration.
I'm sure that he will disagree with this and insist that this enablement is a part of regeneration and is a conviction that is simultaneous with conversion. He believes that conviction takes place first and then conversion though they are so close as to be indistinct. For him it has to precede in order that free will can operate. A ridiculous and ambiguous argument!
These statements are elements of hypo-Calvinism, Amyraldianism and perhaps indications of four point or less Calvinism. His statements indicate a lapse in belief of original sin, believing in the age of accountability for personal sins. He holds two views of salvation one for infants and another with demands to repent for adults, over the age of accountability.
Babies who die in infancy and the mentally challenged are redeemed the same way all sinners are redeemed; through the obedience, death and resurrection of Christ for His people. God simply has chosen to redeem them without giving to them the gifts of faith and repentance for they lived short or challenged lives where those gifts could not be manifested.Thu Dec 04, 11:21:00 AM 2008 Wade Burleson said...And the adult sinner, who wonders whether or not he or she can be saved, we simply point them to Christ and say, "He is the only one who can deliver you. Ask Him, and He will."Or ignore Him and He won't.Thu Dec 04, 11:22:00 AM 2008
March 8, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment