SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Looking for feedback: Free From Sin Teaching

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 Next Page )
PosterThread
bobmutch
Member



Joined: 2008/6/26
Posts: 90


 Re:

RobertW:
>>>I have wondered why you press this question?

I asked this question because you made a claim that any one that has studied Finney should know is not true. I ask you for a quote that supported what you were claiming Finney held. You quoted a paragraph that was right above a clear statement where Finney denied what you are saying he held (I think that was very strange).

So when I pointed this out to you just passed over it and when on to some thing different.

So I when ahead and asked you if you could see now that what you were claiming Finney taught was incorrect and at that point you state you wondered why I press this question?

I press the question to get an answer of course!


_________________
Bob Mutch

 2008/12/10 15:13Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
RobertW:
>>>I have wondered why you press this question?

I asked this question because you made a claim that any one that has studied Finney should know is not true. I ask you for a quote that supported what you were claiming Finney held. You quoted a paragraph that was right above a clear statement where Finney denied what you are saying he held (I think that was very strange).

So when I pointed this out to you just passed over it and when on to some thing different.

So I when ahead and asked you if you could see now that what you were claiming Finney taught was incorrect and at that point you state you wondered why I press this question?

I press the question to get an answer of course!



Well, let me just lay out what I have read:

Finney in response to Objection: Does a Christian cease to be a Christian, whenever he commits a sin? He answered:

1. Whenever he sins, he must, for the time being, cease to be holy. This is self-evident. Whenever he sins, he must be condemned; he must incur the penalty of the law of God. If he does not, it must be because the law of God is abrogated. But if the law of God be abrogated, he has no rule of duty; consequently, he can neither be holy nor sinful. If it be said that the precept is still binding upon him, but that, with respect to the Christian, the penalty is forever set aside, or abrogated, I reply, that to abrogate the penalty is to repeal the precept; for a precept without penalty is no law. It is only counsel or advice. [u]The Christian, therefore, is justified no longer than he obeys, and must be condemned when he disobeys; or Antinomianism is true. Until he repents, he cannot be forgiven. In these respects, then, the sinning Christian and the unconverted sinner are upon precisely the same ground.[/u]

2. In two important respects the sinning Christian differs widely from the unconverted sinner:

(1.) In his relations to God. A Christian is a child of God. A sinning Christian is a disobedient child of God. An unconverted sinner is a child of the devil. A Christian sustains a covenant relation to God; such a covenant relation as to secure to him that discipline which tends to reclaim and bring him back, if he wanders away from God. "If his children forsake My law, and walk not in My judgments; if they break My statutes and keep not My commandments; then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless My loving-kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer My faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of My lips" (Psalms 89:30-34).

********
Robert's response:

If a person does not have time to go through the chastening process and perishes before godly sorrow and repentance can happen; does the grace of God 'cover' that transgression? Finney seems to suggest that the difference between a sinner and a Christian is that chastening happens to the Christian. I would contend that even a sinner kicks against the pricks and strives with the Holy Ghost. God deals with them also. However, a sinner does not have the relationship with the Father that the sons and daughters have. And I mean to say more than the fact that the Father is willing to chasten the sons. Chastening is not what I am looking for in Finney's qualification here; it is the believers security with God.

Bob's point #9:

9) If at any point a Christian commits a willful sin they no longer have eternal life abiding in them (1Joh 3:15) and have become a child of the devil (1 John 3:10).

*********
Robert's response:

Upon careful consideration of both your statement and Finney's; I see no real difference that would effect the outcome of a person's eternal destiny if they were in sin. Finney says a person that drinks coffee and tea has a seared conscience. If this is true, how then could they be saved? Can drinking coffee, tea and smoking send a person to hell? Really? Spurgeon smoked a pipe for a time? Did he not? The implications of these views are truly horrendous. That Christ came to save sinners and reconcile the world to God and yet they are thrown out for a smoke or a coffee?

As a little side note my pastor told of a story that there was a preacher that preached coffee was a sin years ago that he knew. An older lady in the church stopped drinking it and poured sugar and creamer into hot water lest she offend God.




_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2008/12/10 15:31Profile
bobmutch
Member



Joined: 2008/6/26
Posts: 90


 Re:

>>>(1.) In his relations to God. A Christian is a child of God. A sinning Christian is a disobedient child of God. An unconverted sinner is a child of the devil.

Finney very clearly here doesn't teach that if you sin once you are lost. Not sure why you can't see that but I am not going to chase you around the bush on this one.


_________________
Bob Mutch

 2008/12/10 15:36Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
In these respects, then, the sinning Christian and the unconverted sinner are upon precisely the same ground.



OK, what does this mean?



_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2008/12/10 15:37Profile
bobmutch
Member



Joined: 2008/6/26
Posts: 90


 Re:

>>>(1.) In his relations to God. A Christian is a child of God. A sinning Christian is a disobedient child of God. An unconverted sinner is a child of the devil.

Really Robert I don't know why we are having this conversation. If English is English it is clear that Finney doesn't hold that a Christian that sins is not saved.

He above states that "A sinning Christian is a disobedient child of God."

Unless you have further quotes from Finney that show different I think this issue should be pretty clear.


_________________
Bob Mutch

 2008/12/10 16:14Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
Unless you have further quotes from Finney that show different I think this issue should be pretty clear.



In fairness, that doesn't answer my question. Finney often says one thing and then another. What does it mean to be on the same grounds with God as a sinner? Can a disobedient child of God be one and the same as a sinner in the eyes of God?


Quote:
9) If at any point a Christian commits a willful sin they no longer have eternal life abiding in them (1Joh 3:15) and have become a child of the devil (1Joh 3:10).



If I understand you correctly you are trying to suggest to me that your view of sin and assurance is more radical that Finney? Finney would say that a Child of God that sins is still a child of God, but you say they are a child of the devil? [i] If at any point a Christian commits a willful sin they no longer have eternal life abiding in them (1Joh 3:15) and have become a child of the devil.[/i] If that is true it is the most radical thing I have ever heard in my life and I have lived among some [u]radical[/u] people.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2008/12/10 16:40Profile
bobmutch
Member



Joined: 2008/6/26
Posts: 90


 Re:

First off Robert I am not a Finneyite nor do I follow Finney in his doctrine. I follow the Wesleyan-Arminian view of Christian Perfection with the mix of Palmers shorter method.

My point on Finney was that you are just wrong when you say that Finney taught you would be lost and a child of the devil if you sinned. I have posted a clear quote from Finney showing this and pointed out your misquote.

It seems you make statements and then when pressed to prove them you just move to another question. That is not the kind of discuss I want to be involved in.

So I tried to end this nicely 4 or 5 posts back and but you just keep up you questions. So I will have to let you know I consider our discussion finished and Lord willing I don't plan on responding to any more of your posts on this thread. Make your finial post and then lets move on. Its bad enough that the thread has been hijacked and I will take part responsibility for that but let's see if we can end up this back and forth in a nice way.

All the best.


_________________
Bob Mutch

 2008/12/10 18:14Profile
PaulWest
Member



Joined: 2006/6/28
Posts: 3405
Dallas, Texas

 Re: Intervention

Quote:
So I tried to end this nicely 4 or 5 posts back and but you just keep up you questions. So I will have to let you know I consider our discussion finished and Lord willing I don't plan on responding to any more of your posts on this thread. Make your finial post and then lets move on. Its bad enough that the thread has been hijacked


I've been following this discussion from a distance, and really haven't noticed a hijacking by Robert or anyone else. You basically made your debut here on SermonIndex by encouraging an open engagement on this subject. You have since been met with challenging disagreements, and with relevant issues being raised to your teaching on this particular subject. This is exactly what you asked for, and your opponents have been engaging you with honorable decorum and polite exchanges.

I am also one who takes issue with some of the interpretations you've presented (as with everyone else here, I can't help but smell "Finneyism"), but I do not see any reason for you to pull out the hijack card. This is a legitimate concern. If you can't take the return volley, don't call for more fire. I sense you are getting flustered and agitated.

Perhaps it would have been wiser to first introduce yourself to the body before assuming a pulpit position and requesting feedback.

Brother Paul


_________________
Paul Frederick West

 2008/12/10 18:43Profile
bobmutch
Member



Joined: 2008/6/26
Posts: 90


 Re:

PaulWest:
>>>If you can't take the return volley, don't call for more fire.

Paul I think the issue was Robert clearly is confused with what Finney taught. As I noted to him Finney is closer to the P in Tulip that to the Christian Perfection that the Wesleyan taught. I felt Robert and I were just going around in circles and after 20 or more posts I didn't think we were getting any where so I bowed out (or tried to) of the exchange as nice as I could.

>>>Perhaps it would have been wiser to first introduce yourself to the body before assuming a pulpit position and requesting feedback.

I am not sure about this forum but I have been posted on forums for the last 10 plus years. Most forums I have been at a new comer is welcome to post a position and ask for feedback. I will presume that this forum is the same until I am told different. Also I am not sure what you mean by a pulpit position. You may want to expand on that a bit.

>>>You have since been met with challenging disagreements, and with relevant issues being raised to your teaching on this particular subject.

Well the discuss has digress to whether Finney held that one sin would make you a child of the devil. Clearly Finney doesn't hold that view and I don't think Finney is relevant enought to this discuss to merit 10 or 15 posts concerning the relation of his and my positions.

>>>I sense you are getting flustered and agitated.

You have sensed wrong. I do how ever consider the topic hijacked but as you will have noticed I take part response for that as I responded to Roberts posts.

Thanks for you input.


_________________
Bob Mutch

 2008/12/10 19:18Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
It seems you make statements and then when pressed to prove them you just move to another question. That is not the kind of discuss I want to be involved in.



If you honestly want to discuss your points you must be prepared to reckon with how the reader perceives them. I have tried to show you [i]my perceptions[/i].

If I have not answered a question I apologize. Point to it and I'll try to answer it again. Jesus often answered questions with questions. I see no foul in doing the same.

I have tried also to zoom out and show how such a theology as is found in point #9 effects the whole. It is a crimson stain in an otherwise acceptable work. It calls into question all sorts of things such as your view of sin and godly sorrow. How you would preach salvation. Whether a person could know true freedom in Christ?

The irony of all this is that I typically stand strong also on the other side of this discussion. But I cannot do that when your view of a single sin making a person a child of the devil exists. That is simply false. I believe a person can fall from grace, but not at all in the sense you describe.

Truly, I don't have time to be debating like this. I have better things to be doing. But impressionable minds linger in these forums. And I cannot stand by and allow such teaching to go unthwarted.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2008/12/10 19:19Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy