Posted on 07/01/2005 9:55:00 AM PDT by Rhadaghast
May 11, 2005 Host: Vic Eliason Topic: False Doctrine Guest: David DiCanio Description: Dr. David DiCanio is Pastor of Columbine Free Presbyterian Church in Columbine, Colorado, and is involved in Christian Media, which produces television-style documentaries on religious trends and movements. Vic Eliason presents two audio cuts. One features Robert Schuller being interviewed by Dr. David DiCanio after giving a keynote address at the 2004 National Association of Evangelicals meeting. The other cut features Robert Schuller interviewing Billy Graham. The two discuss their views concerning how people are saved.
Dr. DiCanio interacts with callers to discuss the opinions expressed by Schuller and Graham and the current move of some leaders in Christianity to preach a gospel that teaches salvation apart from a conscious, biblical awareness of Christ as the only way to God.
Contact Info: info@thechristianmedia.com www.thechristianmedia.com
Rare recordings of great preachers of the past are posted by Dr. DiCanio's church at
http://www.sermonaudio.com/columbine Listen: RealAudio Windows Media
Use the link I have posted above, and then if you go to the bottom of the discription you can click on the fild down load and save it to your computer for play back.
Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but how would you fit John 3:17-18 into that?
I understand. My sarcasm (not utilized on this thread) is pretty dry and gets me in trouble sometimes. Sorry I didn't recognize yours.
He, like all Old Testament people of faith, looked forward to the fulfillment of God's promise of redemption (a promise first made in the garden right after the fall). Moses looked forward to the coming redemption; we look back to its fulfillment. Both require faith. Paul writes about Abraham's justification by faith in Romans 4, and the same would apply to Moses, et al.
LOL...OK, I'll go with that.
Thanks for pointing that out. BTW, your tagline...Hell has accordian music.
:)
Can you show the reference please?
Read John 3:17-18, then tell me what you think.
I'm inclined to believe this because I've read numerous testimonies of missionaries who converted whole villages because the chief had a dream in which Jesus appeared to him, and told him to go to such-and-such a place and ask for the missionary, who would reveal to him the words of eternal life. Hey, the way I look at it is that God is God, and He can do what He wants. If scripture doesn't exclude the possibility of dreams and visions, that option is open.
Good question:
Joh 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him.
Joh 3:18 He who believes on Him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.
Those who believe in Christ are NOT condemned. The "because" is qualified by the knowledge of the name. The person is condemned because they did not believe in the Name which implies they have heard of it. That's one explanation.
I can't. after listening to this it gives me great doubt as to his theology. Greatfully God can use him and has to bring many into salvation.
I think that Jesus said that turning awasy from God was the ultimate sin.
I am afraid that is incorrect.
Tradition may assume salvation another way, but the bible seem very clear.
Please look at John 3:17-18, Acts 4:12, Romans 1-3. These among others show salvation is neccessary. If God has mercy other than Christ, would he not have told us clearly?
Have you ever read Paul Tillich? I read him in a a philosophy of religion course, my freshman year in college (a required course). I was shocked at the implications of this philosophy because the college was related to fundamentalist church that I had attended most of my life. I went home and asked my minister (who also taught at the seminary)if he agreed with Paul Tillich and he said yes. My next question is why is that not what we hear in the sermons, then. His answer was that you have to preach to the level of the congregation and preach the type of message that they want and need to hear. The church was an Evangelical Congregational and the college was Evangelical United Bretheren (now part of the Methodist Church) They shared a seminary because they were the same church at one time.
Here's a sample of Paul Tillich.
God is the answer to the question implied in the human awareness of the finitude. God concerns us ultimately. Whatever we grasp as our ultimate concern we call "god." "god" must be encountered by us in concreteness (214). Tillich uses the lowercase "g" to stress the necessity of concreteness over against ultimacy in the idea of god. Yet, our ultimate concern must transcend every concrete concern. Therefore, Tillich uses the uppercase "G" to stress the transcendent dimension over the concrete concern. However, in transcending the finite, our ultimate concern breaks off the concreteness of a being-to-being relationship with us. This is the indispensable inner conflict in the idea of God. For Tillich, this conflict is the guide to examine the history of religion. Tillich argues that polytheism rising from the need for concreteness or absoluteness motivates a step toward monotheism; and that one’s "need for a balance between the concrete and the absolute drives him toward trinitarian structures" (221). Trinitarian monotheism is not that it allows only one god, but that the ultimacy prevails over the concrete. It is rather a qualitative than quantitative characteristic of God. It also allows human to speak of the living God in whom the concrete and the ultimate are united. "Trinitarian monotheism is concrete monotheism, the affirmation of the living God" (228). The question is how we describe this living God? For Tillich, God is being-itself, not a being among other beings. To describe the relationship between being-itself and finite beings, Tillich takes the word, "ground." For Tillich, God is the ground of being, the ground of the structure of being. God as being itself is the ground of the ontological structure of being. In other words, every ontological being has its power to be in being itself, participate in the ground of being. All accounts of God are expressed through what we comprehend. Can we know God? For Tilich, the answer is clear: we can. Adopting the theory of analogia entis (analogy of being), that is, "that which is infinite is being itself and because everything participates in being itself" (239), The theory of analogia entis explains the possibility of knowing and saying anything about God. However, for Tillich, the analogia entis justifies our ways of saying about God only under a fact that "God must be understood as being itself" " (240). Thus, existential approach to God through the category of finitude must be described symbolically. God is the ground of being, being-itself; who concerns us ultimately. Thus, God is our ultimate concern.
You know Billy Graham has said literally thousands of statements before and after regarding the necessity for one to be saved by Jesus....and pathetically the only thing his detractors can do is to lift a couple of questionable statements made to some other evangelist some years ago or in some magazine article back from 1978....
How do you explain babies? Do they automatically go to Hell upon death?
Please provide the verse(s) that support your #3 fact.
Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.