Inspired-Writing.com

Inside the Christianity, the postmodernism there is permeado across the emergent movement, which has been characterized for insisting in the relativity of the truth, with which he has wanted, by means of his leaders to rethink the doctrines that have been supported by the Christianity for centuries.

Which doctrines? Very well, men as Doug Pagitt have said publicly that it is necessary to re-define the doctrine of the Trinidad; Rob Bell, has fought to reject the authority of the Bible; Brian McLaren, who has been the booster of the inclusivismo in the American church.

McLaren and his followers are the liberals of the beginning of the XXth century against which Machen fought. These postmodernistas/emergentes represent the same men's doctrines as Fosdick and Finney at the beginning of last century.

This book arose from a speech that Machen presented to the Elders of the Presbytery Chester and that then Princeton Theological Review published in (vol. xx, 1922) on November 3, 1921, and to which it titled, “Liberalism or Christianity” (Liberalism or Christianity). From this speech it turned out to be a more complex and deep treatment, which brought with it the publication of the book. In him, the author writes,

“In the sphere of the religion, particularly, the present time is a conflict time; the big redeeming religion that has been known for ages how Christianity is battling against a type of completely different belief, which is more destructive than the Christian faith because traditional Christian uses terminology. This not redeeming modern religion is called “a modernism“ o “liberalism“ … the root of the movement is one: naturalism.”

The Machen criticism against the liberalism is that it is not a Christianity, but especially he is not a scientist. To demonstrate the errors of the liberalism, the author describes the differences that exist between the Christianity and the first one, with regard to six aspects: Doctrine, God and the Man, the Bible, Christ, Salvation and the Church. Machen analyzes what the Christianity has believed across 1900 years of history, and compares it with the new liberal propositions, who were teaching that the doctrine was not important, but the important thing for the Christian was to imitate Christ. “Out with the theology!” the liberals shout.

         Pero Machen asks: how to follow Christ if we reject the doctrine? Doctrine is an education, and what the Christianity teaches is based on a historical fact. This historical fact is what we must understand. If we do not understand this historical fact we cannot be called Christians, since Christ's follower must understand his educations and what it came to do to the ground. The liberals were saying that the Christianity is a life style, but Machen demonstrates that for the primitive church and the first Christians, it was a life style based on a message.

With regard to God, Machen shows the liberal education. These were teaching that God could only be met across Christ, with this rejecting the special revelation as the way to appear to God. The liberalism of the XXth century believed that God was the universal Father of the humanity. It has no enemies. It was pantheistic, that is to say, it was teaching that God was quite. There was no difference between God and your creation. All this does of the liberalism any thing less Christianity.

        With regard to the Bible, Machen shows us what the liberals believed. These, says the author, were pushing the doctrine of the inspiration back. The Bible was only a set of educations that had been inherited from generation to generation, without the intervention of the Holy Spirit. Other liberals, were saying that they were pushing the Bible back, but that only they were following the sayings and Christ's educations. All this, says the author, is contradictory and it takes a person to the skepticism and not to the Christianity.

         In case of Christ, Machen shows how for the liberals what the Christian had to do was to follow the lead of Christ. But, in the Christianity, since Machen makes it clear, the important thing the redemption achieved by Christ was, being the object of our faith. It was not only to continue your example, but to put our faith in Him to be redeemed. “Christ is over us,” the liberals say, “but if he was or not a sinner it has no importance.” East is an example provided by the author, in which we see the heresy of the liberalism, and to what it can come if it is not resisted. It will continue

(taken of sujetosalaroca.org)

I enjoyed more soup this night; I feel it, unless you come early tomorrow, it is not going to stay to touch you not a bit. Betty did a finished pan. Mmmmmm! So good as that of yesterday!

If, we believe in the entire depravity.

How is this possible when you have ahead something like made noodles soup at home? Very well, if you truly understand the doctrine, you will see that the two are compatible.

You see, the doctrine of the entire depravity does not mean, how it has been defamed free, that every man is so bad as can be. What she means is that the man in its entirety has been corrupted by the fall. Every part of the man, including his brain, is affected adversely by the sin.

The only people that they come closer, to be so bad as they can, I suppose, they are those that who despise a soup of noodles done in the house!

The key note about the entire depravity of the man is that he has left not even a spark of spiritual life to which one could appeal. Everything opposite, he is "dead" in owed and sinned, that's why he has to be "resuscitated" (to receive the life) so that he could believe.

You see that Lydia's case, his heart had to be “an open sea“ to the truth so that she believed.

So, there is such a thing in the world like the made noodles soup at home despite the depravity of the man. Are not you satisfied? I it am. Mmmmmmm!

Taken of www.nouthetic.org Translated by Milton Villanueva

All the Christians believe in the limited atonement.

"No", you say. “I not!

Since we are going to see. You believe that God has the desire of which they all are safe.

“Surely yes.”

Do you believe that God has the power to save all the men?

“Skylight that yes.”

Then: why are not all the men all safe ones?

“Because some of them do not believe.”

Does it mean, then that He limits its own power to save doing that it depends on the will of the man to believe?

“Good...”

We are going to pass further on. Did not it join really the atonement to God with the man, or yes?

“What does it mean with that?”

That Christ's death really did not expiate the sin of the whole world, removing the fault of the way and joining it with God.

“Very well, not. But it did the possible atonement for all.”

So, you admit that Jesus's atonement was limited only to those who believe for salvation. If what He did really will be expiated by it and not merely it was making the salvation possible, then, they all would be safe. If He paid the hardship for the sins of all, each one would go to the sky because his sins would be paid. God might not have punished Christ and the not creyen - you if the sins of the above mentioned were already full. This would be to receive the same account two times.

“If, but Jesus did the possible salvation for all.”

This way, that, if not all the men are safe:

1. What Jesus did in the cross was limited by the man; not for all, since only the sins of the believers are excused.

2. What Jesus did in the cross was limited in his power to save.

3. What Jesus did in the cross was ineffective (limited) in his effectiveness.

4. What Jesus did in the cross was limited (incompletely) because it needs of the man to make it effective.

If the Arminianos are correct, Jesus's death does not save to any. His atonement was for nobody. This is the Doctrine of the Entire Limitation! It is limited in what it can do because it depends on that the man creates to make her effective. It was partially (limited) in his effects. The Arminianos believe in an atonement that is limited in his power to save.

The Calvinists, on the other hand, believe that Christ's death was effective and, that in fact, there achieves the salvation of all those for which He died. There is no waste in the atonement, it is effective for all the elected ones. None of those for which Christ died gets lost. All those that He tried to save will be safe because Christ's death really achieved it instead of simply putting it at his disposal.

Taken of Institute for Nouthetic Studies

http://www.nouthetic.org

Translated by Milton Villanueva

The term “abduction“ bears the idea of the transportation of the believers from the ground to the sky in the Christ's second arrival. When they used by the writers dispensacionalistas, the term refers to Christ's secret one in which all the believers will be removed of the ground before the big ordeal. Those who support this point of view, of the second sudden and secret arrival for the saints (abduction), also believe that it is being continued by a big ordeal of seven years, at the end of which, Christ will return with the saints from the sky. Those that defend and spread these educations know each other as premileniales dispensacionalista and pretribulacionistas.

Many Protestants have seen historically these two events, the arrival for the saints and with the saints like only one event associated with the general resurrection at the end of the times, without no ordeal of seven years coming up between them. All this departing from the premise of which the Bible does not speak about any secret abduction in any place, but on the contrary, he underlines that the second arrival will be physical, visible, public and clear to all – “any eye will see him” Some of those who support this point of view they can name "post-tribulacionistas", But all those who consider “premileniales historical”, "ameliniales" and "postmileniales" they are compromised with this interpretation of the Biblical eschatology. In Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the same as in the churches of the Presbyterian and reformed family, the majority supports the point "amilenial"; nevertheless, we must be just persons in saying that there is a minority "postmilenial", and an oddness, but they are, “premileniales historical”.

Christ as Mediator entered the representative relation in which Adam was in the integrity state, in order to deserve for the sinner the eternal life. This constitutes the active obedience of Christ who consists of everything what He in his representative aspect did to obey the law, like condition to obtain eternal life. The active obedience of Christ was necessary so that his passive obedience was acceptable to God, that is to say, to turn it into object of the God's approval. Only bearing in mind this, God estimates Christ's sufferings in form different from the one that estimates the sufferings of the lost ones..... And finally, if Christ had suffered nothing more that the punishment imposed on the man, which take part of the fruits of his work would have stayed in the exact place where Adam was before the fall.

God kept on demanding obedience of the man (after the fall), but in addition it needed that from him that he was paying the punishment of the past disobedience. To satisfy this double request was the only way of the life after the sin entered the world. If Christ was nothing more obeyed the law and had not paid the punishment, it could not have gained a title to eternal life for the sinners; and if he had paid only the punishment, without paying the original demands of the law, it had left the man in the position in which Adam was before the fall facing still the task of obtaining the eternal life in the way of the obedience. Nevertheless, Christ by means of active obedience took his people beyond that point and gave them right to life eternal.

Taken of the Systematical Theology of Berkhof, Págs. 451, 452 and 453