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
RobertW
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
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.



Is your view more radical than Finney's or not? Finney is the most radical preacher I know of. That is how your view was associated with him.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2008/12/10 19:23Profile
RobertW
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
Clearly he doesn't hold that view and I don't think Finney is relevant enought to this discuss to merit 10 or 15 points concerning the relation of his and my positions.



He may not hold the view exactly as you state it, but you still have not answered what is meant by:

Finney: 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.

This can mean nothing less than the person is [u]not[/u] saved. In my mind (and I appeal to anyone else to jump in here and comment) that what Finney says is almost identical to what you said in #9. The difference is, and I am not the pedant I could be, is in the use of language.

To say that a person can be removed from justification and on the same grounds as a sinner is to say they are essentially a child of the devil- even if he says that is [u]not[/u] what he is saying.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2008/12/10 19:31Profile
RobertW
Member



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

 Re: Would Finney have discouraged salting food?

In keeping with the overall issues involved in this thread I asked the question; [u]what is sin?[/u] If one could potentially become a child of the devil they ought to know the cause. If willful sin be the cause; what is sin? Again, in keeping with what I perceived were Finney type leanings; I asked if Bob salts his food. I did not recall at the time the bibliography for my understanding of that. But after some searching I found the lecture. Consider what Finney says here:

Finney on Innocent Amusements:

[i]Now, in the light of this rule, it is plain that it is not innocent to engage in amusements merely to gratify the desire for amusement. [i]We may not innocently eat or drink to gratify the desire for food or drink. To eat or drink merely to gratify appetite is innocent enough in a mere animal, but in a moral agent it is a sin.[/i] A moral agent is bound to have a higher ultimate motive to eat and drink--that he may be strong and healthy for the service of God. God has made eating and drinking pleasant to us; but this pleasure ought not to be our ultimate reason for eating and drinking.

So amusements are pleasant, but this does not justify us in seeking amusements to gratify desire. Mere animals may do this innocently, because they are incapable of any higher motive. But moral agents are under a higher law, and are bound to have another and a higher aim than merely to gratify the desire for amusements.

[u]Therefore, no amusement is innocent which is engaged in for the pleasure of the amusement, any more than it would be innocent to eat and drink for the pleasure of it.[/u] Again, no amusement is innocent that is engaged in because we need amusements. We need food and drink; but this does not justify us in eating and drinking simply because we need it. The law of God does not say, "Seek whatever ye need because ye need it"; but, "Do all from love to God and man." A wicked man might eat and drink selfishly--that is, to make his body strong to execute his selfish plans--but this eating and drinking would be sin notwithstanding he needed food and drink.

Nothing is innocent unless it proceeds from supreme love to God and equal love to man, unless the supreme and ultimate motive be to please and honour God. [u]In other words, to be innocent, any amusement must be engaged in because it is believed to be at the time most pleasing to God, and is intended to be a service rendered to Him, as that which, upon the whole, will honour Him more than anything else that we can engage in for the time being.[/u] I take this to be self-evident. What then? It follows:

* 1st. That none but benevolent amusements can be innocent. Fishing and shooting for amusement are not innocent. We may fish and hunt for the same reason that we are allowed to eat and drink--to supply nature with aliment, that we may be strong in the service of God. We may hunt to destroy noxious animals, for the glory of God and the interests of His kingdom. But fishing and hunting to gratify a passion for these sports is not innocent. Again, no amusement can be innocent that involves the squandering of precious time, that might be better employed to the glory of God and the good of man. Life is short. Time is precious. We have but one life to live. Much is to be done. The world is in darkness. A world of sinners are to be enlightened, and, if possible, saved. We are required to work while the day lasts. Our commission and work require dispatch. No time is to be lost. If our hearts are right, our work is pleasant. If rightly performed it affords the highest enjoyment and is itself the highest amusement. No turning aside for amusement can be innocent that involves any unnecessary loss of time. No man that realizes the greatness of the work to be done, and loves to do it, can turn aside for any amusement involving an unnecessary waste of time.

Again, no amusement can be innocent that involves an unnecessary expenditure of the Lord's money. All our time and all our money are the Lord's. We are the Lord's. We may innocently use both time and money to promote the Lord's interests and the highest interests of man, which are the Lord's interests. But we may not innocently use either for our own pleasure and gratification. Expensive journeys for our own pleasure and amusement, and not indulged in with a single eye to the glory of God, are not innocent amusements, but sinful.

end of quote
*************

This is important to flush out because until we understand what Bob's view of sin is we cannot accurately assess point #9 or just what requires repentance and godly sorrow? If smoking is a damnable sin, what else?


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2008/12/10 20:01Profile
RobertW
Member



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

 Can a Christian Sin and Still Be a Christian?

Consider this:

[color=000066] And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven. (Acts 10)[/color]

Clearly the LORD is talking to Peter here. He has just been told 3 times this vision relieving him of any doubt as to what he just saw and who it was that was talking to him. What was Peter's estimation of the vision by his own account?

[color=000066]Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:(10:34)[/color]

What an experience! God has just supernaturally told Peter that He is no respecter of persons. This was not a hunch, this was not a second hand message, it was a first hand directive from God Himself delivered personally.

Did Peter walk in the directive?


[color=000066] But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. (Galatians 2)[/color]

The fact that he was eating with the Gentiles at first tells me that he understood and was mindful of God's directive. As a Jew the tendency would have been to dissimilate. But He had the words of the LORD as His counsel. We are not left to speculate as to 'why' he did what he did.

[color=000066]...he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision[/color]

This is the same circumcision that persecuted Paul. Scripture states clearly that Peter was to be blamed because he feared the Jews and disobeyed a thrice given directive from God that he himself states...[i]Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons.[/i]"

Personally, God has never once spoken to me in such bold and awesome theophanic manifestation. If He had I can 'hope' with a degree of certainty that I would have held close to it as Paul did His heavenly vision. I would have thought about it every time the subject He discussed with me presented itself. "I forgot" would not be a valid excuse after such an awesome manifestation of God.

Question, did Peter become a child of the Devil at this event? Did he need to be reborn again? Afterall, he had a direct [u]order[/u] from God; "What God has cleansed that call not thou common!" He understood this to mean that he was not to be a respecter of persons. This is as close to Adam's transgression as I can think of. He was born again and He defied God for fear of the Jews. What say you?


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2008/12/10 20:31Profile
PaulWest
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
Also I am not sure what you mean by a pulpit position. You may want to expand on that a bit.


Gladly. This is the equivalent of walking into a church building, not bothering to introduce yourself to anyone, and stepping directly up the podium to begin broadcasting your "teachings". Since you've been posting in forums for the past 10 years (as you stated), one would think you would have learnt better etiquette. We know absolutely nothing about you, save the Finneyesque teachings you are putting forth. We've seen it before, friend. Understand that if you just barge into a thread and start this kind of "teaching" here, expect your theories to be severely crash-proof tested with many protective eyes.

Instead, you ought to have announced a little bit about yourself by way of introduction [i]before[/i] you launched into your teaching. As it stands, I also find your "insights" harmful to younger, more naive believers...and I now sense agitation on your part due to the "feedback" you've been receiving from Robert and others. This causes me to ask: Did you merely come here to show off your wares and leave, or did you come for genuine fellowship with the saints of God?

Paul


_________________
Paul Frederick West

 2008/12/10 23:13Profile
bobmutch
Member



Joined: 2008/6/26
Posts: 90


 Re:

PaulWest:
>>>Gladly. This is the equivalent of walking into a church building, not bothering to introduce yourself to anyone, and stepping directly up the podium to begin broadcasting your "teachings". Since you've been posting in forums for the past 10 years (as you stated), one would think you would have learnt better etiquette.

Wow what a charge. I think your dreaming my friend. This a public forum where people are invited to make posts, ask questions, put forth their views, and ask people to make comments on them.

By the way I am guess that is not in your etiquette FAQ but I will ask any way. Do you state this in your etiquette FAQ?

Unless this is a very sectarian forum where you only accept views of certain doctrine positions and hence those that don't agree with you are not welcome but I am pretty sure that this is not the case.


_________________
Bob Mutch

 2008/12/10 23:47Profile
PaulWest
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
By the way I am guess that is not in your etiquette FAQ but I will ask any way. Do you state this in your etiquette FAQ?


No, it's not a rule, and not stated in FAQ. It's just manners. Disregard if it doesn't apply to you.


_________________
Paul Frederick West

 2008/12/10 23:52Profile
bobmutch
Member



Joined: 2008/6/26
Posts: 90


 Re:

>>>It's just manners. Disregard if it doesn't apply to you.

Ok. It's a new one to me.

I do trust dyed-in-the-wool Wesleyan-Arminians are welcome here? I am starting to wonder if this is more a Calvinistic board?


_________________
Bob Mutch

 2008/12/10 23:57Profile
PaulWest
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
I do trust dyed-in-the-wool Wesleyan-Arminians are welcome here? I am starting to wonder if this is more a Calvinistic board?


This board is neutral, and everyone is welcome here. Our aim, however, is to diffuse any kind of eruption that may result from Cal/Arm debates. Finneyism is welcomed, reformed theology is welcomed, anything and everything pertaining to God and scripture is welcome in discussion; it's when these different camps begin a slugfest with each other where we have to draw the line and step in.

Personally, I don't agree with your take on a few things you've listed, but that's okay. Certain people don't agree with me either :). Your thread is fine, although I (and a few others) have detected what we believe to be serious flaws. I am not Arminian; I am Reformed...but brother Robert, to my knowledge, is Pentecostal and Philologus is not Calvinistic. Taylor Otwell is reformed like myself...yet all of us are finding certain aspects of your theology to be objectionable. It has to make you wonder. Friend, this site is theologically eclectic; it's what makes it unique and wonderful - and most of all, honored by God. Stick around long enough (I hope) and you'll discover this yourself.

Brother Paul


_________________
Paul Frederick West

 2008/12/11 0:15Profile
crsschk
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA

 Re:

Well Bob ...

It looks like you are apt to bring over a great deal of content from your blog and have come across not as one looking for discussion and fellowship but as someone with an agenda, namely your own.

Frankly, you have an air that is arrogant and defensive if not accusatory.

This forum is full of a whole host of matters and is not primarily leaning to either of these constructs - A check of the variety of sermons and articles posted here would bear this out.

Try slowing down a bit.

[url=http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=14144&forum=13&post_id=&refresh=Go]MUST READ: SermonIndex Forum Disclaimer / Community Rules[/url]


_________________
Mike Balog

 2008/12/11 0:25Profile





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