Menu

Questions That Must Be Answered For the Arminian and Non-Reformed

S
sermonindex

quoted from this link:
http://www.geocities.com/johnandursula/questions

Questions That Must Be Answered

When it comes to the issue of Calvinism, what most people are familiar with, and what Calvinists spend much time answering, is objections or questions against Calvinism. However, I thought of questions that I believe must be answered by those who reject Reformed theology. If you are not Reformed, please look these questions over carefully. I hope these questions might even help put things in perspective as you see what the implications are if one denies the Reformed position. May God bless you as you continue to study these difficult issues:

1. Why do you believe in Christ, while your unbelieving neighbor doesn’t?

2. What does it mean, from an non-Reformed position, that God is sovereign, and can that position be reconciled with the overall teaching of Scripture?

3. Can God fail?

4. Does God fail?

5. If there is a person God has determined to save, but they have the power to thwart His plan to save them, doesn’t that mean that God isn’t sovereign, omnipotent, or omniscient?

6. Has God ordained all things that come to pass? If not, then how is that things come to pass, and how can it be said that God is sovereign over those things?

7. Is God obligated to show mercy to any person? If so, then how can [it be] undeserved? Wouldn't salvation then be based on the merit of the individual?

8. Was salvation actually accomplished or potentially provided for on the cross? If salvation were merely potentially provided for, then:

a. Why would Jesus have had to die if it only provided the possibility of salvation without actually saving people? In other words, if it was just belief in God or in Jesus that would save a person, then why would Jesus have to die, especially since people already believed in God prior to the coming of Jesus, and even believed in Jesus during His ministry?

b. What would happen if no one ever "accepted" Jesus? Do you really think it is possible that Jesus could have died in vain?

c. How many people do you think would eventually be saved?

9. If Christ really died a substitutionary death on the cross, whereby He died in the place of specific individuals, and actually propitiated and expiated that person’s sins, how could it be possible for God to send that person to hell for the very sins that Christ already was punished for on his behalf? NOTE: Many respond by saying because those people did not believe. But isn’t unbelief a sin? And if God did not pay for their sin of unbelief, then how is it that Christ paid the price for all of our sins? Also, this is related to question 8a, above. In terms of belief, the Calvinist maintains the death of Christ actually purchased the faith of the person.

10. How can salvation be possible to those who, from the perspective of God's omniscience, are certain to be lost?

11. Between the Reformed and non-Reformed view, which view of salvation actually accomplishes and secures the salvation of more people, and as such is much more honoring to God?

12. If God has chosen to save a person, died for a person, effectually called/regenerated that person, and gave that person the gifts of faith and repentance, is it conceivable that that person could perish (i.e., lose his salvation)? Does God do this for every single individual who ever has or ever will live?

13. If the only thing God did was to merely give every single person a chance/opportunity to be saved, how many people would actually be saved?

14. On what basis did God choose you for salvation?

15. How is it that God knows the future? Does He know the future because He has decreed and determined what the future will be, or does He know it because He can see the future that somehow happens without His direct involvement in determining the future?

Edit: grammer check

A
awakenwithin

Question Brother.
Do you think people misunderstand Calvinism?

Can we be in the Middle? Can you not be neither?

What if one agrees but not with the name of Calvinism?

These are questions are about God being sovereign, more so if you are Cavinism or not?

The question that hits me... My pastor brought this up a few weeks ago.. How I am I better to chose Christ and not someone else? How was I able to pray and not my brother? Why do I have faith and not him. If will just and sinful as he was?
Can you see Christ and turn from him?
many have told me you can

Brother what is so important about knowing if God called us, or we had free will?

We are all a body right? Have had faith in Christ?

Would it be that if we think one way or another we have different veiw of who God is?

Therfore in some ways our picture of God has changed?

So maybe one way in more humbling and hard for us to handle?

blessing
charlene

L
Logic

Abe_Juliot wrote:

1. Why do you believe in Christ, while your unbelieving neighbor doesn’t?

Because I choose to believe.
The neighbors don't, they hold the truth in unrighteousness (they know the truth but suppress it), because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them.
2. What does it mean, from an non-Reformed position, that God is sovereign, and can that position be reconciled with the overall teaching of Scripture?
By figuring that if man had free will to choose his own destiny, it would diminish God's sovereignty. This doctrine figures that if God gives an authority to man as freedom to choose or even free will it would diminish His sovereignty or He would not have any ability to perform his own will over that of mans.
While in reality, this magnifies God's sovereignty by showing His ability to have government over what man has authority of.
3. Can God fail?
He failed to persuade my grandpa to repent and to be saved from HIS wrath.

If god wanted my grandpa in hell by not choosing him to be saved, then that god is a devil.

5. If there is a person God has determined to save, but they have the power to thwart His plan to save them, doesn’t that mean that God isn’t sovereign, omnipotent, or omniscient?
No.
6. Has God ordained all things that come to pass?
No. [b]ordain :[/b] to select for or appoint to from a willing intent.
God does not ordain sin.
Example:
Adam's sin came to pass, He did not ordain that Adam would sin.
If not, then how is that things come to pass, and how can it be said that God is sovereign over those things?
How is it that God would select for or appoint to from a willing intent that man would do anything which is against, contrairy, or contradict Him, Furthermore, why would God select for or appoint to from a willing intent that wich He hates?
7. Is God obligated to show mercy to any person?
Yes,
God's character obligates Him.
God's Word obligates Him.
If so, then how can [it be] undeserved? Wouldn't salvation then be based on the merit of the individual?

I am obligated to Love my wife.
Even while she is angry at me with out a cause.
I till show mercy to her, for that is what turns her heart back to me.
8. Was salvation actually accomplished or potentially provided for on the cross?
potentially provided for on the cross.

I was not saved when Jesus hung on that tree.

a. Why would Jesus have had to die if it only provided the possibility of salvation without actually saving people?
So He [b]could[/b] save people.
Furthermore, It isn't the atonement that saves, it is the relationship that one has with Him that saves.
In other words, if it was just belief in God or in Jesus that would save a person, then why would Jesus have to die, especially since people already believed in God prior to the coming of Jesus, and even believed in Jesus during His ministry?
It is not the belief in Him, but what He has done to provide salvation that makes the way for a relationship with Him.
b. What would happen if no one ever "accepted" Jesus?
That would proove that He wasn't God.
Fact of what He did and WHo He is are what causes people to "accepted" Jesus.
c. How many people do you think would eventually be saved?
Just me. :-P
9. If Christ really died a substitutionary death on the cross, whereby He died in the place of specific individuals, and actually propitiated and expiated that person’s sins, how could it be possible for God to send that person to hell for the very sins that Christ already was punished for on his behalf?
Because that peson did not take advantage of what Christ did on the cross.

The Children of Israel had to aply the blood to the door posts, so we must aply the blood to ourselves.

10. How can salvation be possible to those who, from the perspective of God's omniscience, are certain to be lost?
The still have a choice.
[b]Example[/b]
I am at Olive Guarde and I invite the Whole world to come and dine w/me.
I already know who will come, therefore I only prepair tables for those who I know will come.
Those who do not come still have an invitation, they can still choose to come, they still have a chance to come.
11. which view of salvation actually accomplishes and secures the salvation of more people, and as such is much more honoring to God?
Mine!
Yours makes god out to be a devil, if not a tirant.
12. If God has chosen to save a person, died for a person, effectually called/regenerated that person, and gave that person the gifts of faith and repentance, is it conceivable that that person could perish (i.e., lose his salvation)?
You are asuming that one can not be deceived.
Just as one can divorse from his wife, one can divorce from his God.
13. If the only thing God did was to merely give every single person a chance/opportunity to be saved, how many people would actually be saved?
Just me. 8-)
14. On what basis did God choose you for salvation?
Only by His grace through my faith.
15. How is it that God knows the future?
He's GOD
Does He know the future because He has decreed and determined what the future will be, or does He know it because He can see the future that somehow happens without His direct involvement in determining the future?
He does not decree everything, He lets man choose his own way. therefore HE He know it because He can see the future that somehow happens without His direct involvement in determining the future as in Adam sinning.

S
sermonindex

Do you think people misunderstand Calvinism?

Yes... sadly it is true.

Can we be in the Middle? Can you not be neither?

I am part of a non- denomination (a denomination) that has made an effort to stay in the middle. I have close brothers and sister that have tried to stay in the middle. These issues have no middle ground.

1. Natural unregenerate men are slaves to sin or they're not. Their entire heart, soul, strength, and mind is in complete bondage to sin or it isn't.(Rom 1-3, Jn 8)
2. Election and Salvation is of the Lord according to His mercy or it isn't. (Rom 9-11, Psa 89)
3. Eternal Redemption for God's elect people is finished (purchased and sure of victory) by the work of Jesus at the cross or it isn't. (Rom 3-5, Isa 53, Jn 17)
4. God's powerful and effectual calling (regeneration: death to life through the gospel) upon His elect is always victorious or it isn't. (Rom 6-8, Jn 6)
5. This following verse says it all for the fifth point. "We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not." (1Jn 5:18) This verse is true or it isn't.
a. "...sinneth not": He does not live in sin, nor is he under the power and dominion of sin... though he does not live utterly without it. (see Jn 1-3)
b. "...keepeth himself": They are kept by the power of God. Therefore they keep themselves by the power of God. The child of God takes the whole armour of God, puts his hand to the plow, and does not look back.
c. "...that wicked one toucheth him not": Though we face tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, peril, and sword... the devil shall not separate us from the love of God.


Rom 8:37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.

What if one agrees but not with the name of Calvinism?

The name Calvinism or Calvinist does not need to be used. I prefer not to use it. But many of the articles that have posted that have been written by others have the name in it. We need it not... Just scripture alone.

These doctrines are all over the bible.

Spurgeon said this,

"It is no novelty, then, that I am preaching; no new doctrine. I love to proclaim these strong old doctrines that are called by nickname Calvinism, but which are truly and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus. By this truth I make my pilgrimage into the past, and as I go, I see father after father, confessor after confessor, martyr after martyr, standing up to shake hands with me . . . Taking these things to be the standard of my faith, I see the land of the ancients peopled with my brethren; I behold multitudes who confess the same as I do, and acknowledge that this is the religion of God's own church." (Spurgeon's Sovereign Grace Sermons, Still Waters Revival Books, p. 170).

"I have my own opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel if we do not preach justification by faith without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing unchangeable eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross." (Charles Spurgeon, The New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 1, 1856).

Spurgeon quoted Whitefield in saying,

"George Whitefield said, "We are all born Arminians." It is grace that turns us into Calvinists. (Charles Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 2, p. 124).

I have made a diligent effort to declare these truths to others... Because they are very humbling. I have Eternally more to thank God for. May we not let a day go by, that we have not wept at our Lord's feet. Let us give Him praise and worship for who He is and what He has done by His everlasting mercy upon us for His glory. Oh, Lord help us all by thy grace to abide in you and continually rejoice in thy mercy.

God bless you my dear elect sister. You are dearly loved by the Lord. -Abraham

Edit: clarification and simplified answer made on the second question. ...and grammer check.

B
BeYeDoers

1. God has very plainly revealed Himself in creation, and Christ has been preached to me (Rom. 1 and 10).

2. It depends on what you mean by sovereign. He is the creator, upholder, and sustainer of all things. He is self sufficient and acts only in accordance with His will. He needs not consent nor help of any other. This is clearly taught by scripture.

3. no

4. no

5. This question starts with a false premise.

6. no; the second part of the question is a false premise

7. God is not "obligated" to do anything; but He can't contradict Himself. If He chooses and promises to have mercy, then He can't not. But I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion, other than setting up more false premises.

8. Jesus was slain before the foundation of the world. It has and always will be accomplished. The question is, will you repent and believe so you can attain it?
a. this question makes no sense. There is no remission without the shedding of blood.
b. "accepting" Jesus is not a biblical concept
c. what?

9. Heb. 10. If you don't repent, you trample the Son of God under foot, counting His sacrifice not good enough for them. How much better it would be had they not even heard, than to hear and reject! And let us remember, that no one is condemned because of what Christ did or did not do, but because they are monsters of iniquity...they love their sin and want to remain therein, INSPITE of Christ's sacrifice! How great is the love of God, to sacrifice even for those who will not believe!

10. False premise again. This author continues to assume Calvinism, then ask the question so that no other answer is possible.

11. God determines His glory, not man.

12. False premise.

13. Not sure what this has to do with anything.

14. False premise, but I will address it anyway. God did not choose me (specifically) to be saved, but chooses to save me out of His mercy and grace, on the merits of Christ.

15. The more I read this article, the more I think the author is hyper-Calvinist...that God directs EVERYTHING, including sin. Omniscience does not necessitate orchestration. If it did, then it has to work both ways. He would have to cause Adam to sin if He likewise causes man to be saved.

-------------------------------------------

Abe, I'm not sure what you are trying to do here. If you are trying to show the folly of Arminianism and the superiority of Calvinism, this artice does a HORRIBLE job. False premise after false premise, it hopelessly misrepresents both "sides" of the issue.

I personally consider myself more Wesleyan in soteriology than either Calvinistic or Arminian.

Some last thoughts: Ravenhill said, "Your theology can be straight as a gunbarrel and just as empty." We are not called by Christ to be Statements of Faith, but rather simply obedient to Him. Looking through history, it seems that Arminians pray like Calvinists and Calvinists preach like Arminians. And people are saved to the glory of God regardless. Praise Him!

R
rookie

I will answer the first question, for there is too much to respond to in this mannner...

1. Why do you believe in Christ, while your unbelieving neighbor doesn’t?

Proverbs 1:

20 \tWisdom calls aloud outside;
\tShe raises her voice in the open squares.
21 \tShe cries out in the chief concourses,
\tAt the openings of the gates in the city
\tShe speaks her words:
22 \t“How long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity?
\tFor scorners delight in their scorning,
\tAnd fools hate knowledge.
23 \tTurn at my rebuke;
\tSurely I will pour out my spirit on you;
\tI will make my words known to you.
24 \tBecause I have called and you refused,
\tI have stretched out my hand and no one regarded,
25 \tBecause you disdained all my counsel,
\tAnd would have none of my rebuke,
26 \tI also will laugh at your calamity;
\tI will mock when your terror comes,
27 \tWhen your terror comes like a storm,
\tAnd your destruction comes like a whirlwind,
\tWhen distress and anguish come upon you.
28 \t“Then they will call on me, but I will not answer;
\tThey will seek me diligently, but they will not find me.
29 \tBecause they hated knowledge
\tAnd did not choose the fear of the LORD,
30 \tThey would have none of my counsel
\tAnd despised my every rebuke.
31 \tTherefore they shall eat the fruit of their own way,
\tAnd be filled to the full with their own fancies.
32 \tFor the turning away of the simple will slay them,
\tAnd the complacency of fools will destroy them;
33 \tBut whoever listens to me will dwell safely,
\tAnd will be secure, without fear of evil.”

This section of Scripture is parallel to what Paul wrote in Romans 1.

Do you see this precept?

In Christ
Jeff

C
ccchhhrrriiisss

Hi Logic...

I really enjoyed your responses! I don't know that I have ever read a more insightful rebuttal to these sort of doctrinal questions. Thanks!

The more that I study the views of Calvinism, the more I am convinced that many Calvinists do not understand the ETERNAL viewpoint of God. He has always known the end from the beginning. Before He created us, He knew who would ultimately choose to accept His offer to fellowship with Him. Yet this time-confined place called LIFE is burdened with the concept of FREE WILL. If predestination prevented our free will from making any difference in our eternal condition, then Christ would have died in vain.

Thanks for sharing your articulate response! I am neither Calvinist or Arminianist. I am simply a believer who freely chooses to love and serve the one true Living God. But God already knew that -- even before He created the Universe, didn't He?

:-)

S
sermonindex

Do you think people misunderstand Calvinism?

Can we be in the Middle? Can you not be neither?

What if one agrees but not with the name of Calvinism?

Calvinist or Arminian...

reminds me of

Pharisee or Saducee

I am neither even though I believe parts of both camps doctrine. This is a false dichotomy though, wordly theology camps that I have seen many brothers dragged way off into error in both directions by. Give me a break, I reject both as a whole and accept some parts of each.

The kingdom of God is not in word but in power, the pharisees and saducees could not inherit eternal life through their doctrines and neither can Calvinists or Arminians.

In Christ - Jim

H
hmmhmm

Jim has a very god point i belive, i see booth camps literately ignoring 100 of scriptures or make them mean something else that "suits" their doctrine, interesting i read just today these eleven questions :-) so just to even this out i post them.

God bless you all

11 Questions on Calvinism & the Calvinist's Worldview

1. It is often said by Calvinists that dead men can't respond. As you say, "you are dead in your trespasses & sins." Eph. 2:1.

In Romans 6, it says that "in the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus."

If being dead in sin means one can't respond to God then does being dead to sin mean that the Christian cannot respond to sin?

2. Even though God does perfectly know all human thoughts, can man have thoughts that have never been thought before (i.e. ex-nihilo thoughts)?

If these thoughts are not free (e.g., they are determined) then has God caused all thoughts, including evil ones, which would make God the author of sin and evil and man not responsible?

If, on the other hand, these thoughts are free, then how can God remain sovereign according to the Calvinist definition of sovereignty?

3. The Bible says in 1 Timothy 2:4, "God our Savior wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth."

It also states that God wants all men to be saved in 2 Peter 3:9, Matthew 23:37 and in Ezekiel 33:11 and 18:30. Obviously not all men are saved.

How does Calvinism explain this? Does the God of Calvinism have two wills that are in direct contradiction and hence have a multiple personality disorder?

4. Calvinism excludes individual faith from the salvation process, classifying such faith as a work.

How can Calvinists classify faith as a work when Paul specifically excludes faith from works in Romans 3:27-28 and 4:5?

5. Jonah 2:8 says that "those who cling to worthless idols forfeit the grace that could be theirs."

If, as Calvinism teaches, God determined before time began who would be reprobates, and therefore does not extend the grace to them by which they could be saved, how logically can we understand this verse's statement that these reprobates, "forfeited the grace that could be theirs.?"

6. The Bible says in John 6:44, "no one can come to me unless the Father who sent Me draws him." The same word "draw" is used in John 12:32 which says, "But I, when I am lifted up from the earth will draw all men unto myself." Matthew 23:37 says that men can resist God's will.

How do you answer this problem in Calvinism?

7. You say that even the "good" acts of sinners are "bad" because they come from a completely depraved nature. Is it a "bad" act to rationally apprehend the truthfulness of apologetics?

If so, why has God commanded us to practice apologetics to sinners, which causes them to do a bad act? Doesn't that mean that God causes sinners' bad acts?

If you say "yes," doesn't that make God a bad guy?

8. When Calvinism is shown to have logical contradictions, Calvinists usually reply that God's thoughts are unsearchable, and therefore the logical problems that Calvinism has, for example divine election and human responsibility, exhaustive sovereignty and human free will, and God's having two contradictory wills, are solved by invoking the phrase, "well that's a mystery."

If you can solve your logic problems by copping out with the term mystery, why can't the Arminian types, atheists and others pull the same move?

9. The Bible says in 2 Thessalonians 2:10 that reprobates "perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved."

From your Calvinistic worldview, how can it logically be said that a reprobate refuses to love the truth and so be saved, when your God determines that the reprobate can't love the truth, can't be saved, and therefore doesn't refuse God at all?

10. You have said that nothing thwarts the will of God, and you also have said that a man's will cannot be free or else God would not be absolutely sovereign.

Doesn't this mean that God determines (or is the cause of) evil and the evil acts of men for his sovereign pleasure?

11. In Romans 9 where God says, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy" why do you automatically assume that God does not want to have mercy on all but only have mercy on the select few when God clearly tells us in Romans 11:32 that, "God has bound all men over to disobedience so that He may have mercy on them all?"

If you say that all means all classes of men, but not all men in every class, then why does it not mean all classes of men but not all men in every class in Romans 3:23 where it says, "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God?"

T
tjservant

" God will not hold us responsible to understand the mysteries of election, predestination, and the divine sovereignty. The best and safest way to deal with these truths is to raise our eyes to God and in deepest reverence say, "0 Lord, Thou knowest." Those things belong to the deep and mysterious profound of God's omniscience. Prying into them may make theologians, but it will never make saints."

A.W. Tozer

R
roaringlamb

I do not think Calvinism confuses people, but rather infuriates them because the flesh has nothing left to boast in, or can take no credit for their spirituality. The teachings of Calvinism exalt God, and His sovereign, immutable will above the folly of man and his supposed wisdom.

One of the things that confuses me is how anyone can reject the headship of Adam into sin and depravity yet expect to have the headship of Christ into truth and grace. These must have one another to work. The race of mankind was doomed in Adam, hence the need for a new race of people, with a new name Christians.

The whole Bible speaks of God's dealings with His people on basis of covenant. God did not deal with the nations surrounding Israel as He did with Israel because they were not in the covenants that He established. In the NT, Christ has fulfilled the terms of the covenant with the Father, and those who are given faith enter into all of the promises of that covenant, but once again it is for God's people whom He has foreknown and predestined to be conformed to their Head. The work was done in eternity and is now being applied in time, consider this verse-
Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

When was this? Of course Christ died over 2000 years ago, yet He died for the sins of His people to come.

Consider also this verse-
Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Whose sins? The sins of the Church, or the people whom God established the covenant with Christ for. Christ is referred to as the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world, or in other words, before the world was formed, this was already as if it were done. Now compare that to this-
Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

The "us" again is the individuals the comprise the Church are they not?

Now as for the notion that a man has free will to come to God on his own, how can any say that when Christ Himself said-
John 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
(Here's a "whosoever" many tend to overlook)

Jesus would go to say that these who needed to be freed were in fact children of their father the devil, and He reiterated to them that if God was their Father, they would love Christ. Form this we see that men in their natural state do not have God as their Father, and are evil and depraved. They hate Christ, they hate God, and want nothing to do with Him or His ways. However the soul that has been re-born, or born from above as is the Greek, rejoices to serve that which he once hated, and what was at one moment foolishness, now brings great joy. Now this soul has Almighty God as its Father.

Paul went on to write-
Romans 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Romans 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

How then can a man who is a slave be free? Also in light of the latter passages, notice that the man did not set himself free from the slavery. Rather there was a heart change allowing him to obey what was once foolishness to him.

Now consider this-
Romans 6:20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.

Do you not see that there was nothing to commend us to God? nothing that should have made God choose us, as we were void of any righteousness. Who then may I ask set us free, and released us from the shackles of sin and death, and breathed life into the dead bones of our souls, and changed our heart of stone into a heart of flesh?

If it was you, or your decision(Note, I am not saying that God decides for us, but rather He so changes the will that it now chooses Christ, and apart from this work we never would choose Christ but rather sin), you deny God the glory of His saving you, and take upon yourself a trait that only God Himself possesses- the ability to give life to whom He will.

Now let's look at one last point.

In John 3:3, Jesus tells Nicodemas, " Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

The Greek word for again is "anothen" which means "from above", "from a higher source", "again".

Looking at these meanings, it is clear to see that the new birth is not something man manipulates or adds to. For Christ Himself says that unless this birth from above happens, man cannot discern the Kingdom. Consider also that as Paul says in 1 Corinthians, "the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit, for they are foolishness to him" (1 Corinthians 2:14), and he also said that the preaching of the Cross is foolishness to those that are perishing, while to us that are save it is the power of God(1 Corinthians 1:18).

In these both, are elements which show us that if God does not "open" the eyes, and make the heart alive, none can see or believe.

Blessings in Christ

W
whyme

ccchhhrrriiisss wrote:
Hi Logic...

I really enjoyed your responses! I don't know that I have ever read a more insightful rebuttal to these sort of doctrinal questions. Thanks!

The more that I study the views of Calvinism, the more I am convinced that many Calvinists do not understand the ETERNAL viewpoint of God. He has always known the end from the beginning. Before He created us, He knew who would ultimately choose to accept His offer to fellowship with Him. Yet this time-confined place called LIFE is burdened with the concept of FREE WILL. If predestination prevented our free will from making any difference in our eternal condition, then Christ would have died in vain.

Thanks for sharing your articulate response! I am neither Calvinist or Arminianist. I am simply a believer who freely chooses to love and serve the one true Living God. But God already knew that -- even before He created the Universe, didn't He?

I have often seen the statement that God foreknew who would choose Him. Where is that verse (s) in the Bible

:-)

R
running2win

Come [i]on[/i] Abe, don't you have anything better to bring up?

R
running2win

but rather infuriates them because the flesh has nothing left to boast in, or can take no credit for their spirituality. The teachings of Calvinism exalt God, and His sovereign, immutable will above the folly of man and his supposed wisdom.

What are you implying? That every christian who is not a calvinist boasts in the flesh or thinks he has something to offer God?! Brother, that is a serious accusation. If you are all knowing then I think you would have the right to make it but since you are not then I would be much more careful in your presumption. The godliest men I've known are not calvinist and they have a better grasp on the inability of the flesh than you or I do. This is a serious thing your saying here and seriously erroneous.

R
running2win

Calvinist or Arminian...

reminds me of

Pharisee or Saducee

I am neither even though I believe parts of both camps doctrine. This is a false dichotomy though, wordly theology camps that I have seen many brothers dragged way off into error in both directions by. Give me a break, I reject both as a whole and accept some parts of each.

The kingdom of God is not in word but in power, the pharisees and saducees could not inherit eternal life through their doctrines and neither can Calvinists or Arminians.

In Christ - Jim


Amazingly profound Jim and I find myself in the exact same place in which you describe yourself. Thank you for these words of wisdom.

R
roaringlamb

What are you implying?

Nothing implied, just truth.

The fatal flaw in Arminian/Semi-Pelagian thought is that man can add anything to his salvation. This leads into all kinds of lies for instance-

Open theism, after all, God is not sovereignly sovereign, but rather at the whim of man's choices.

Non inspired Scripture, I mean how do we know that God told these men to write what they did. Man has a "free-will" and could have inserted his own thoughts.

Sanctification as the basis for justification, because Christ did not really save you when He died, He only erased what you had done before. But now you must maintain a clean slate, or you will not enter Heaven.

Every Christian is a Calvinist whether they admit it or not simply because God says, "we love Him because He first loved us." This is perhaps one of the greatest verses in Scripture, that Almighty God would pre-love a wretched man as myself.

To accept this verse means conceding to God's foreknowledge of who He would love, and who He would pass by, and it also means that we bow the knee, and understand that we are saved because God in eternity past declared it so, and put us into Christ when He died on Calvary thus assuring the salvation of our souls, not simply making a way of salvation, but rather guaranteeing that those who were in Christ from eternity past, would be saved as time unfolded. It truly is a glorious thing !!!!!

S
sermonindex

Every Christian is a Calvinist whether they admit it or not

This is one of the worse things I have ever read on many levels :(

You can have your murderer Calvin, and a nice packaged pharisse theology. I would prefer simply to have Jesus.

Maybe I'll start a new theological camp and call it "Jiminists" the one point of Jiminism is that Jesus is Lord. So therefore all Christians are Jiminsts... Calvinism and Arminianism are just as stupid. There I said it. (I dont mean that to offend my bretheren whom I love and would invite to my house for dinner if you lived close enough or are ever in the Detroit area). That is simply what I want to say... Calvinism and Arminianism are just as stupid.

In Him - Jim

L
Logic

roaringlamb wrote:
I do not think Calvinism confuses people, but rather infuriates them because the flesh has nothing left to boast in, or can take no credit for their spirituality.
are you implying that arminians love the fesh so much that they are infuriated because it seems that calvinisme humbles?

The reaseon that Calvinism infuriates me is because it makes god out to be a devilish tirant.

roaringlamb wrote:
The teachings of Calvinism exalt God,
How is it exalting Him when it makes Him creat only to destroy in hell?

roaringlamb wrote:
One of the things that confuses me is how anyone can reject the headship of Adam into sin and depravity yet expect to have the headship of Christ into truth and grace.
headship of Christ is volentary, headship of Adam is involantary and forced onto mankind.

roaringlamb wrote:
Now as for the notion that a man has free will to come to God on his own, how can any say that when Christ Himself said-
John 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
(Here's a "whosoever" many tend to overlook)

[b]Joh 3:16[/b] [color=990000]For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that [b]whosoever[/b] believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.[/color]

Accordiing to what I heard Calvs say that the "whosoever" is not the entir world. Therefore what do you say that this "whosoever" means?
How do you tell the difference?

roaringlamb wrote:
However the soul that has been re-born, or born from above as is the Greek, rejoices to serve that which he once hated, and what was at one moment foolishness, now brings great joy. Now this soul has Almighty God as its Father.
Not yet, the "regenerated" soul still needs to be saved, according to you.
Therefore, you have many born again non-christians running around in limbo until the "choose"

roaringlamb wrote:
Consider also that as Paul says in 1 Corinthians, "the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit, for they are foolishness to him" (1 Corinthians 2:14),

[b]1Corinth 2:14[/b] [color=990000]But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: and he is not able to know them, because they are spiritually discerned.[/color]
This inability is like saying that one can not because a refusal to do a prior requirement for the ability to do the other.
Example:
[b]John 14:17[/b] [color=990000]the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive because it does not see Him nor know Him. But you know Him, for He abides with you and shall be in you.[/color]
The verse has no implication of inability and one must not asume that it does.

Just as the natural man is not able to know the things of the Spirit of God because the natural man chooses not to receive them.

[b]Recieving is not the same as knowing.[/b]
The reason for the inability of knowing "the things of the Spirit of God" is because of the refusale or unwillingness to recieve them.
There is no inability implied in recieving "the things of the Spirit of God"
Just as:
The world cannot receive the Spirit of Truth because chooses not see Him nor know Him.
There is no inability implied in seeing Him(the Spirit of Truth) or knowing Him.
Therefore, the reason of these inabilitis are because of the refusal or unwillingness of seeing Him(the Spirit of Truth) or knowing Him.
and refusal or unwillingness of recieving "the things of the Spirit of God"

Again, the "not seeing Him or knowing Him" does not imply inability, man only chooses not to or is unwilling to see Him or to know Him.
There is no inability to see God or to know Him, because God has has went to great lengths to make sure that all mankind can see Him or know Him.

The foolishness of the things of the Spirit of God does not make a natural man unable to receive them, for he is able to receive them by seeing Him or by knowing Him.

The foolishness of the things of the Spirit of God only makes him unable to know them because because they are spiritually discerned.

[b]NO![/b] God does not, first, need to give the ability(your so called regeneration), otherwise it is an inability until He gives, inreturn, make man inocent because of the inability.

R
roaringlamb

How is it exalting Him when it makes Him creat only to destroy in hell?

Either way brother, you have got to deal with this in the end. God creates people and they sadly perish. Now it is not due to the free-will of man as that does not exist as everyman is bound to what his heart wants which is sin, and apart from God renewing the heart, he will not be set free.

So then it must be that God is a sovereign Creator who does what He will to whom He will. This is why in Romans 9, the verses that say he has mercy on whom He will have the "mercy" as a verb. He mercies whom He will, and no this Chapter is not about nations as the language does not suit this interpretation, and Paul also sums up his argument thus-
Romans 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Romans 9:23 And [b]that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,[/b]
Romans 9:24 [b]Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?[/b]

The vessels are people, individuals called from all humanity by His grace.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

According to what I heard Calvs say that the "whosoever" is not the entire world. Therefore what do you say that this "whosoever" means?
How do you tell the difference?

Again brother the "whosoever" must do something, they must believe, which apart from God's work in their heart cannot be done.

Also there is no Greek word that means "whosoever", the literal interpretation would be "that the believing ones would not perish"

I have never said that God has not given Christ to the world(all types of men) Christ is for all types of men, and this is what was so hard for the Jewish people to believe, that Christ would not just redeem Jews, but also Gentiles.

Not yet, the "regenerated" soul still needs to be saved, according to you.
Therefore, you have many born again non-christians running around in limbo until the "choose"

I don't know where I have said this, because I believe the new birth is regeneration, and thus a man is given faith to stretch out his once crippled hand to lay hold of Christ. But this ability comes from God alone.

B
BeYeDoers

The fatal flaw in Arminian/Semi-Pelagian thought is that man can add anything to his salvation

No no no no no no no. wrong. Arminianism is NOT Pelagianism or any form of it. Neither is Wesleyanism. Once again, like Abe and the quote in the other thread of Spurgeon, continue to pull the same antics in this "argument." You (intentionally or not) are misrepresenting non-Calvinists in order to strengthen your position. Normally, I try not get involved in these types of discussions, but you are walking a very dangerous line...you are on the verge of condemning to hell whoever disagrees with your Calvinism. Judge not...for what with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

R
roaringlamb

you are on the verge of condemning to hell whoever disagrees with your Calvinism.

I don't think I said that believing the doctrines of grace was the means to salvation brother. That would be heresy, as Christ alone is the way.

If you do not mind, I would like to ask you, does Jesus alone by faith through grace save a man, or must a man add works to the clean slate Arminians believe Christ made possible on Calvary. This really is all I am concerned about, its that men understand they are justified by faith alone, and that faith comes from God, and enables men to reach forth their hand to take the gift of Christ.

B
BeYeDoers

We are saved by grace alone through faith...no Arminian/Wesleyan etc. disagrees with this. And yet you continually say they do. No, you never said believing in Calvinism saves you, but more than once today you have strongly suggested that all non-Calvinists believe man "adds" something to the finished work of Christ...which is a condemning heresy.

S
sermonindex


Abe_Juliot wrote:
quoted from this link:
http://www.geocities.com/johnandursula/questions

Questions That Must Be Answered...

WHY must these questions be answered?

Reminds me of the story of the mother bear with her cub, who was just learning to walk.

"Mother", said the little one, Which foot do I put first?

Is it the front ones first, or the back ones first, or one front and one back, or all four together, or what?"

"Quit talking and just walk!" grunted the mother.

Jeannette

S
sermonindex


running2win wrote:
Calvinist or Arminian...

reminds me of

Pharisee or Saducee

I am neither even though I believe parts of both camps doctrine. This is a false dichotomy though, wordly theology camps that I have seen many brothers dragged way off into error in both directions by. Give me a break, I reject both as a whole and accept some parts of each.

The kingdom of God is not in word but in power, the pharisees and saducees could not inherit eternal life through their doctrines and neither can Calvinists or Arminians.

In Christ - Jim


Amazingly profound Jim and I find myself in the exact same place in which you describe yourself. Thank you for these words of wisdom.
Hear Hear! Me too

Jeannette

S
sermonindex


BeYeDoers wrote:
We are saved by grace alone through faith...no Arminian/Wesleyan etc. disagrees with this. And yet you continually say they do. ...more than once today you have strongly suggested that all non-Calvinists believe man "adds" something to the finished work of Christ...
Yes, I don't understand why this false dichotomy is being forced on us. Who are these hypothetical "Armenians" who don't believe we "are saved by grace alone through faith"?

I haven't seen any on this thread so far :-P

Jeannette

R
roaringlamb

We are saved by grace alone through faith...no Arminian/Wesleyan etc. disagrees with this

It is the doctrine of Arminians that Christ alone does not save anyone, but rather makes salvation possible, but man must maintain the work. This blurring of justification by sanctification is not Scriptural.

Also the belief of Arminians is that the faith which one is saved by comes from myself in response to the Gospel, rather than seeing that even the faith I have comes from God as a free gift and that faith automatically justifies us because of Christ. All of it comes from outside as there is nothing good within.

B
BeYeDoers

It is the doctrine of Arminians that Christ alone does not save anyone

Which Arminians? I've never met any that believe this...maybe this is "hyper-Arminianism" :-P

And it is not the "faith" of the man which saves him, nor the "faith" you claim is given by God...this is not a biblical concept. This confusion is however the modern American interpretation. It is only the grace of God through the shed blood of Christ that saves. Faith is just the "vehicle" through which God has decided to impart His grace. We must be very careful in how we read and use biblical terms.

L
Logic

roaringlamb wrote:
How is it exalting Him when it makes Him creat only to destroy in hell?
Either way brother, you have got to deal with this in the end. God creates people and they sadly perish.
Calv.s god creats specificaly for hell.
The logicaly says that the ones going to hell are inocent because thay are only doing what they are created to do.

My theory has God creating man choosing which to go, heaven or heall.
\\That makes man guilty for going to hell because they rebeled against the truth.

roaringlamb wrote:
So then it must be that God is a sovereign Creator who does what He will to whom He will. This is why in Romans 9, the verses that say he has mercy on whom He will have the "mercy" as a verb.
Your interp. of Romans 9 has God being a devilish tyrant!

roaringlamb wrote:
Romans 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

[b]2Tim 2:20-21[/b] [color=990000]But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honor, and some to dishonor.
[b]:21[/b] If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, and fit for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.[/color]
Again, My God of the Bible lets man choose which vessel he wants to be.

roaringlamb wrote:
I don't know where I have said this, because I believe the new birth is regeneration, and thus a man is given faith to stretch out his once crippled hand to lay hold of Christ. But this ability comes from God alone.
My point was that you say that beciomming "born again" is not salvation, but it is what gives man ability to have faith to recieve Christ or a new heart in order to be saved.

N
Nile

Logic makes many good points which have yet to be refuted.

The doctrine of Double Predestination makes the truth of Calvinism extremely plain.

What father would birth sons with the intended purpose of casting them into hell?
What father loves one son more than another for no reason?
What father hates a son from the moment he is born?

R
running2win

but rather makes salvation possible, but man must maintain the work.

Tell me, who is it here that believes we must maintain the works to maintain salvation? I've never heard someone say that and I've known way more non-calvinists than calvinists. Do you too think that the book of James is an epistle of straw?! (I do happen to know that Luther recanted that statement later on in his life, so don't take that as a slam on Luther.)
These calvinism threads are insanity. Nothing but insanity. I'm out of this one, you all can hash this out if you want to. My view on scripture won't change so please let up on such militant attempts to make calvinists out of us all. Quite frankly, that's what's so offensive about calvinism. Not the "exalting of the sovereignty of God".
When one tries mowing over everyone with their theology it causes strife. Thus you have the offensiveness of calvinism.

H
hmmhmm


running2win wrote:
but rather makes salvation possible, but man must maintain the work.

Tell me, who is it here that believes we must maintain the works to maintain salvation? I've never heard someone say that and I've known way more non-calvinists than calvinists. Do you too think that the book of James is an epistle of straw?! (I do happen to know that Luther recanted that statement later on in his life, so don't take that as a slam on Luther.)
These calvinism threads are insanity. Nothing but insanity. I'm out of this one, you all can hash this out if you want to. My view on scripture won't change so please let up on such militant attempts to make calvinists out of us all. Quite frankly, that's what's so offensive about calvinism. Not the "exalting of the sovereignty of God".
When one tries mowing over everyone with their theology it causes strife. Thus you have the offensiveness of calvinism.

brother, Jesus was never upset because of calvinists, dont you be either. And there wont be any in heaven either, only those who has had their sins washed in the blood will be there. They may call themselves different things down here to seem like they belong to a certain group. But when we follow Christ people know what group we belong to, if they dont know, you are doing something wrong.

Follow Jesus....

Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

S
sermonindex

Abe,

I have a few questions for you:

1. If God decrees whatsoever comes to pass, does that mean that I believe in freewill because God decreed that I should?

2. If God has decreed that I believe in freewill, how can I believe otherwise?

3. If you ever regret your sin, are you not regretting the Sovereign plan of God according to your theology? How can someone regret what they believe to be the Sovereign plan of God?

4. Is God angry with sin? And is sin God's plan? And if God is angry with sin, yet sin is God's plan, is God then not angry with His own plan??

5. Does God prefer sin over righteousness in every instance that it occurs?

If sin is not rebellion against the Sovereign God, then sin is the Sovereign plan of God, in which case, God prefers sin over righteousness in every instance that it occurs, since God could have decreed righteousness instead of sin, yet chose to decree sin over righteousness. So God prefers sin over righteousness in every instance that it occurs.

6. If God prefers sin over righteousness, and eternally decrees whatsoever comes to pass including our sin, how can we truly mourn over our sin? Should we not rather rejoice over our sin, since rejoicing over our sin would be rejoicing in the Sovereign plan of God?

7. Since the bible never explicitly defines "Sovereignty" as God causing everything, why do you define it that way?

S
sermonindex


hmmhmm wrote:
brother, Jesus was never upset because of calvinists, dont you be either. And there wont be any in heaven either, only those who has had their sins washed in the blood will be there. They may call themselves different things down here to seem like they belong to a certain group. But when we follow Christ people know what group we belong to, if they dont know, you are doing something wrong.

Follow Jesus....

Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

AMEN!

S
sermonindex

Has anyone heard of the "flatlanders"? It's a fairly well know illustration, about a race of beings who could only perceive two dimensions.

I'm not sure how true this is to the original version, but it still makes the point.

The flatlanders had a city fenced in by a line that went all the way around, except for well-guarded gates.

One day they saw that a series of large footprints, clearly belonging to no creature they had ever seen before, had appeared during the night! But the gates were locked! How could this happen? What monstrous invader could have somehow breached their defences? A search of the city revealed nothing except the footprints.

It caused absolute panic, no-one could work out what had happened or how - it just didn't make sense.

Everyone had their own theories to explain this phenomenon. The flatlander wise men and scientists argued about it for years. Eventually they split into various opposing camps over it. Some quarrelled violently and even came to blows, each insisting that their theory was the only true one.

Of course, we are aware of three dimensions, and the simple explanation is that a three-dimensional creature had walked through their city. Their two-dimensional walls meant nothing to him.

How many dimensions do you think GOD moves in?

So how can any one interpretation of Scripture = the whole truth about the matter?

Doctrines are merely our feeble attempts to make sense of some aspect of Scripture. The Word of God is Truth, our attempts to rationalise and explain the Word are always [i]less[/i] than the whole Truth. It is an attempt to put one of the dimensions of the whole into a form that our minds can grasp - that is all.

To elevate a mere doctrine into the whole truth about the matter is itself error. To insist on trying to persuade others to accept it as the whole truth is foolishness or worse.

Brother Lamb, you are plainly not (usually) foolish, so why are you doing this over one particular doctrine?

in Him

Jeannette


R
running2win

brother, Jesus was never upset because of calvinists, dont you be either.

Thank you brother, I needed that.
And there wont be any in heaven either, [b]only those who has had their sins washed in the blood will be there.[/b] They may call themselves different things down here to seem like they belong to a certain group. [b]But when we follow Christ people know what group we belong to, if they dont know, you are doing something wrong.[/b]

Follow Jesus....

Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.


Thank you Christian.

S
sermonindex


1. If God decrees whatsoever comes to pass, does that mean that I believe in freewill because God decreed that I should?

2. If God has decreed that I believe in freewill, how can I believe otherwise?

3. If you ever regret your sin, are you not regretting the Sovereign plan of God according to your theology? How can someone regret what they believe to be the Sovereign plan of God?

4. Is God angry with sin? And is sin God's plan? And if God is angry with sin, yet sin is God's plan, is God then not angry with His own plan??

5. Does God prefer sin over righteousness in every instance that it occurs?

If sin is not rebellion against the Sovereign God, then sin is the Sovereign plan of God, in which case, God prefers sin over righteousness in every instance that it occurs, since God could have decreed righteousness instead of sin, yet chose to decree sin over righteousness. So God prefers sin over righteousness in every instance that it occurs.

6. If God prefers sin over righteousness, and eternally decrees whatsoever comes to pass including our sin, how can we truly mourn over our sin? Should we not rather rejoice over our sin, since rejoicing over our sin would be rejoicing in the Sovereign plan of God?

7. Since the bible never explicitly defines "Sovereignty" as God causing everything, why do you define it that way?


Sin is freewill rebellion against the Sovereign God:

"they REBELLED against the words of God, and contemned the COUNSEL of the most high." Ps 107:11

"But the Pharisees and lawyers REJECTED the COUNSEL of God against themselves, being not baptized of him." Luke 7:30

"But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to REIGN over us." Luke 19:14

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should REIGN over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Luke 19:27

T
thomasm

1:Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ. I heard many bad versions of the gospel, which produced a little faith, over time this faith grew into saving faith, I put all my life in the hands of Jesus and his salvation. I aggree faith is a gift of God, not of our selves, but it comes by hearing the gospel of grace.
My neighbor needs to hear the pure gospel, not a watered down hope , the gospel is the power of God for salvation.
2:Right now Jesus is sovereign, and His Spirit has been poured out on all flesh and He is convictings all men of sin because they have not believed in Him, of righteousness because he went to the father, and of judgment because satan now stands condemned.John 16:8-11 eph:19-23
3:Fail at what. Jesus was predestined to be slain from the foundation of the world, not us, we only enter into His predestanation, not ours, when we heard the word of truth, the gospel of salvation, and believed, God put us in Christ, and from that moment on we are destined to be conformed to HIS image in true Holiness. Eph:1;3-14 Its all IN HIM.
I believe in choice.

The only reason I even bother repsonding to this type of thread, is Calvinism , kills, evangalism, why even push this doctrine ? If God has all ready made his election, let's all go hide in our houses and wait for his return, because our preaching is in vain, and so is this thread.
I don't really mean this, but the gift of the Spirit was for a time, quenched by this teaching,I stopped preaching the gospel for a time, This was a diferent Jesus, than the one who saved me by His GRACE. God is merciful.
The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself though Love. love tom

S
sermonindex

QUOTE from a Jed Smock report:

"There was a fellow with whom I remember arguing last year from John Piper’s church, who pleaded for sin in all men. He defended God’s sovereignty, which he understood to mean that God is the only causative agent in the universe. I explained that God’s Sovereignty means that He is the ultimate authority in the Universe. The man was very obnoxious, loud and persistent throughout the afternoon. So I one point, Mike, who is a master of the pun, said to this Calvinist, “You need to piper down.” " (end of quote)

------------

That's a very great way to say it. God's Sovereignty means that He is the ultimate authority in the universe, not that He is the only self-determining agent in the Universe or the ultimate cause of everything.

Here is a great lecture on the Sovereignty of God by Charles Finney:

http://truthinheart.com/EarlyOberlinCD/CD/Finney/Theology/st76.htm

S
sermonindex

Finney is your source for theology? The man who denied original sin?

"Moral depravity cannot consist in any attribute of nature or constitution, nor in any lapsed or fallen state of nature. . . . Moral depravity, as I use the term, does not consist in, nor imply a sinful nature, in the sense that the human soul is sinful in itself. It is not a constitutional sinfulness" [Systematic Theology, 245].

The man who was a Pelagian is your source of theology?

"[Sinners] are under the necessity of first changing their hearts, or their choice of an end, before they can put forth any volitions to secure any other than a selfish end. And this is plainly the everywhere assumed philosophy of the Bible. That uniformly represents the unregenerate as totally depraved,[3] and calls upon them to repent, to make themselves a new heart" [Systematic Theology, 249].

Finney's theology lectures are not centered on the God of the Bible who works miracles in reviving the souls of Men.

There is nothing in religion beyond the ordinary powers of nature. A revival is not a miracle, nor dependent on a miracle, in any sense. It is a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means—as much so as any other effect produced by the application of means. . . . A revival is as naturally a result of the use of means as a crop is of the use of its appropriate means" [Charles Finney, Lectures on Revivals of Religion (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, n.d.), 4-5].

Let Finney tell you of His own errors.

I was often instrumental in bringing Christians under great conviction, and into a state of temporary repentance and faith . . . . [But] falling short of urging them up to a point, where they would become so acquainted with Christ as to abide in Him, they would of course soon relapse into their former state [cited in B. B. Warfield, Studies in Perfectionism, 2 vols. (New York: Oxford, 1932), 2:24].

One of Finney's contemporaries said a similar statement, but more radical:

During ten years, hundreds, and perhaps thousands, were annually reported to be converted on all hands; but now it is admitted, that real converts are comparatively few. It is declared, even by [Finney] himself, that "the great body of them are a disgrace to religion" [cited in Warfield, 2:23].

B. B. Warfield noted the testimony of Asa Mahan, one of Finney's near associates,

...who tells us—to put it briefly—that everyone who was concerned in these revivals suffered a sad subsequent lapse: the people were left like a dead coal which could not be reignited; the pastors were shorn of all their spiritual power; and the evangelists—"among them all," he says, "and I was personally acquainted with nearly every one of them—I cannot recall a single man, brother Finney and father Nash excepted, who did not after a few years lose his unction, and become equally disqualified for the office of evangelist and that of pastor."
Thus the great "Western Revivals" ran out into disaster. . . . Over and over again, when he proposed to revisit one of the churches, delegations were sent him or other means used, to prevent what was thought of as an affliction. . . . Even after a generation had passed by, these burnt children had no liking for the fire [Warfield, 2:26-28].

In the book "Reflections on Revival" Donald Dayton has put together a series of 32 open letters that Charles Finney wrote. These were printed in The Oberlin Evangelist from January 1945 to June 1946.

Dayton writes,

“I have thought that at least in a great many instances, stress enough has not been laid upon the necessity of divine influence upon the hearts of Christians and sinners. I am confident that I have sometimes erred in this respect myself. In order to rout sinners and backsliders from their self-justifying pleas and refuges, I have laid, and I doubt not others also have laid too much stress upon the natural ability of sinners to the neglect of showing them the nature and extent of their dependence upon the grace of God and the influence of His Spirit. This has grieved the Spirit of God. His work not being honored by being made sufficiently prominent, and not being able to get the glory to himself of His own work, He has withheld His influences.” (pp. 17-18)


Jesse, please learn from this man's mistakes and preach the whole counsel of God. Salvation is of the LORD.

God bless you!
-Abraham


S
sermonindex

The bible is my source of theology! I judge everything by the bible. That is why I can't buy Calvinism, I would have to deny so many scriptures; Calvinism doesn't hold up to the full counsel of God's Word. None of the TULIP can really be considered sound doctrine.

But I admire both Finney and Pelagius, though Finney had a bit better theology then Pelagius. Pelagius didn't even admit physical depravity that we are born with which at least prones us or biases us towards sin. At least Finney admitted physical depravity.

But I am glad that Finney and Pelagius both taught that all sin is an abuse of freewill, that it is not some hereditary commodity but that all sin consists in sinning, that conversion is a decision of the heart to repent and believe, and that perfection in this life is attainable because we have a freewill. If Finney and Pelagius did not believe and teach those things, I would disagree with them. But I agree with them because they taught those things.

My bible taught me those things and I was very glad to find out that the bible taught other men (Finney and Pelagius) those things as well.

But neither Finney nor Pelagius are my "source" of theology! If Finney and Pelagius denied freewill, sin being a choice, conversion being a choice, and perfection being attainable, then I would never recommend anything by Finney or Pelagius! But I recommend any preaching or preacher that is in accordance with my bible!

Finney and Pelagius were much better theologians then Augustine, Calvin, or Luther. But the Bible is my source of theology not mere man.

I wish that Augustine would have had a better understanding of Ezekiel 18 before he came up with a philosophical pagan doctrine that completely denied the truth of it. His doctrine of hereditary guilt/sin and his doctrine of inability completely corrupted his entire system and has brought division and confusion to the Church ever since.

---

Abe,

Could you answer these questions for me?

1. If God decrees whatsoever comes to pass, does that mean that I believe in freewill because God decreed that I should?

2. If God has decreed that I believe in freewill, how can I believe otherwise?

3. If you ever regret your sin, are you not regretting the Sovereign plan of God according to your theology? How can someone regret what they believe to be the Sovereign plan of God?

4. Is God angry with sin? And is sin God's plan? And if God is angry with sin, yet sin is God's plan, is God then not angry with His own plan??

5. Does God prefer sin over righteousness in every instance that it occurs?

If sin is not rebellion against the Sovereign God, then sin is the Sovereign plan of God, in which case, God prefers sin over righteousness in every instance that it occurs, since God could have decreed righteousness instead of sin, yet chose to decree sin over righteousness. So God prefers sin over righteousness in every instance that it occurs.

6. If God prefers sin over righteousness, and eternally decrees whatsoever comes to pass including our sin, how can we truly mourn over our sin? Should we not rather rejoice over our sin, since rejoicing over our sin would be rejoicing in the Sovereign plan of God?

7. Since the bible never explicitly defines "Sovereignty" as God causing everything, why do you define it that way?

S
sermonindex

1. If God decrees whatsoever comes to pass, does that mean that I believe in freewill because God decreed that I should?

Yes, nevertheless God commands that you teach the whole counsel of God. (both the duty of men and the bondage of the will)

Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

The Literal Translation reads this verse as.

"Jesus answered them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Everyone practicing sin is a slave of sin."

Do you preach that those who are practicing sin are slaves to it?

God commands that you preach the word. If you simply believe it and preach it(without explaining it away), you shall do well. But, if you can't preach it, because it doesn't fit your theology... you preaching is not God honoring.

For example, just read this verse to people. Just read it (without explaining it away).

2Pe 2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

Do you tell men that they are in bondage to sin? Ho does a slave free himself? How can a slave free himself from his corruption when he is in bondage to it?

Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

To make a right decision, choice, or believing on Jesus... you have to be seeking God in the immediate act or affection. If it pleases God it has to include Faith. Hebrews 11:6 speaks of Faith as diligently seeking God. If their decision, choice, or believing is an act of seeking God, why do the scriptures teach that there is none that seeketh after God?

"None" means what it says and it covers every natural man born into this world. Do you teach and preach that? If you just believed and taught the scripture (without explaining it away) you shall do well.

2. If God has decreed that I believe in freewill, how can I believe otherwise?

You can't apart from the mercy of God. (Mercy that God is not obligated to give to anyone. Nevertheless he dearly loves His children, His mercy upon them is everlasting, and it is new every morning. Call unto Him, and He will answer thee, and show thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not.

May this scripture be the prayer burning in your heart, and you shall do well.
Psa 119:124 Deal with thy servant according unto thy mercy, and teach me thy statutes.


3. If you ever regret your sin, are you not regretting the Sovereign plan of God according to your theology? How can someone regret what they believe to be the Sovereign plan of God?

I hate my sin. I don't hate the decrees of God. I hate my sin, I don't hate God. I love rightousnes and hate iniquity.

The word "regret" is only a part of the description of hating sin. Even Mormons and Catholics regret some of their sin (for selfish motives of coarse). A wonderful example is the thief on the cross. God decreed that he should be a thief and put on the cross. When the thief believed and had affection towards Jesus, His heart naturally hated his sin... and he loathed himself with godly sorrow. (to define biblical repentance)

However, God would have never been glorified in saving a horrific thief on a cross (by His power and mercy), if the man wasn't a thief put on the cross.

Therefore, when I look at my past sins. I rejoice in that God decreed it (because His mercy has delivered me and set me free from my sin, and He is glorified therein.)

However, I do not rejoice in my sin. God doesn't rejoice in sin, why should I?

4. Is God angry with sin? And is sin God's plan? And if God is angry with sin, yet sin is God's plan, is God then not angry with His own plan??

God is not angry with His decrees. God decreed that sin should be in His plan. But, God does not love or rejoice in sin. He rejoices in His dealings with sin. You have to understand that the whole purpose of His decree is so that He might be glorified therein.

The analytical literal translation reads Romans 9 as thus:

Rom 9:19 You will say then to me, "Why does He still find fault? For who has [ever] stood up against [or, resisted] His purpose?"
Rom 9:20 But rather, O human, who are _you_, the one answering back to God? The thing formed will not say to the one having formed [it], "Why did you make me like this?" will it?
Rom 9:21 The potter has [the] right [over] the clay to make out of the same lump on the one hand one vessel to honor, on the other hand one to dishonor, does he not?
Rom 9:22 So [what] if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath having been prepared for destruction,
Rom 9:23 and so that He should make known the riches of His glory on vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,
Rom 9:24 even us whom He called not only from Jews, _but_ also from Gentiles?


When you preach, open your bible and read that to sinners. Just read it and believe it (without explaining it away) and you shall do well.

5. Does God prefer sin over righteousness in every instance that it occurs?

If sin is not rebellion against the Sovereign God, then sin is the Sovereign plan of God, in which case, God prefers sin over righteousness in every instance that it occurs, since God could have decreed righteousness instead of sin, yet chose to decree sin over righteousness. So God prefers sin over righteousness in every instance that it occurs.

God will be glorified in either case. Whether we repent or not. He will either be glorified in demonstrating His mercy on you or He will be glorified in demonstrating His wrath upon you.
God delights in mercy and He also is well please to magnify His law by demonstrating His wrath. Both of these glorious attributes of God have been demonstrated and magnified at the Cross of Christ. God poured out His wrath upon His Son Jesus who was stricken for the transgression of His people. God the Father demonstrated His mercy by giving us His Son. God the Son demonstrated His mercy by giving His life a ransom for many and laying down His life for the sheep.

How would God demonstrate any of these attributes if He did not decree sin? Is not God powerful enough to decree it not? Or, is your concept of God a power limited little god who can't do what he pleases.

Jer 32:27 Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?

God says, "I am God, and there is none like me." God has declared the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done. His counsel shall stand and He will do all His pleasure.
Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
Isa 46:11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

(1.) If it is God's pleasure that all men should be saved, why does He not perform it and appoint it for all? Shall he not do all His pleasure?

(2.) If it is God's desire for all men (universally throughout all eternity) to be saved, why does He not purpose it and do it?


6. If God prefers sin over righteousness, and eternally decrees whatsoever comes to pass including our sin, how can we truly mourn over our sin? Should we not rather rejoice over our sin, since rejoicing over our sin would be rejoicing in the Sovereign plan of God?

If you want to rejoice in your sin you can if you so desire. I don't want you to, it grieves me that you rejoice in an open-theistic God who is limited by man. Rather, you should mourn over this folly.
http://openairoutreach.proboards52.com/index.cgi

Nevertheless, I rejoice in what God has decreed, because He will be glorified in it. (whether you mourn or rejoice)

7. Since the bible never explicitly defines "Sovereignty" as God causing everything, why do you define it that way?

Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.

God's ways are past finding out and His judgments are unsearchable.
Rom 11:33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
Rom 11:34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counselor?
Rom 11:35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
Rom 11:36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen.

All things are:
(1.) For Him
(2.) Through Him
(3.) To Him


Job 6:24 Teach me, and I will hold my tongue: and cause me to understand wherein I have erred.

Psa 71:2 Deliver me in thy righteousness, and cause me to escape: incline thine ear unto me, and save me.

Psa 80:7 Turn us again, O God of hosts, and cause thy face to shine; and we shall be saved.

Psa 143:8 Cause me to hear thy lovingkindness in the morning; for in thee do I trust: cause me to know the way wherein I should walk; for I lift up my soul unto thee.

Psa 66:12 Thou hast caused men to ride over our heads; we went through fire and through water: but thou broughtest us out into a wealthy place.

Psa 78:13 He divided the sea, and caused them to pass through; and he made the waters to stand as a heap.

Job 12:24 He taketh away the heart of the chief of the people of the earth, and causeth them to wander in a wilderness where there is no way.
2Ch 10:15 So the king hearkened not unto the people: for the cause was of God, that the LORD might perform his word, which he spoke by the hand of Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of Nebat.

Job 23:13 But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth.
Job 23:14 For he performeth the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with him.

I have some questions for you Jesse? Can you answer them?

Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

(1.) Can God's will of forming us and making us be resisted?

Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?

(2.) Can God's will of making one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor be resisted?

Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

(3.) Can God's will to show His wrath, and to make his power known on vessels of wrath fitted to destruction be resisted?

Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

(4.) Can God's will to make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy (which he had afore prepared unto glory) be resisted?

Rom 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Rom 9:25 As he saith also in Hosea, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
Rom 9:26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
Rom 9:27 Isaiah also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
Rom 9:28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
Rom 9:29 And as Isaiah said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodom, and been made like unto Gomorrah.

God bless you! -Abraham

A
awakenwithin

what prayer? if God knows

This discussion is archived and closed to new replies. Start a new discussion to carry the subject on.
Archived
1 of 42 posts

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate