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:

TaylorOtwell:
>>>For instance, we read in John 6:35-40 that the Father has given a people to our Lord Jesus to redeem, and that the Lord Jesus will lose none of those people. Now, if you will read the passage, these people were given to Christ even before they came to Christ. And, since they cannot be lost by Christ, it would be impossible for a child of God to become a child of the Devil.

If you hold to unconditional election that would be the way you would reason thing yes. I reject unconditional election as unbiblical and hold the Bible teaches conditional election.


>>>Christ actually propitiated for the sins of his people, Bob.

I would hold that Christ was an atoning sacrifice for all people as stated. If you choose to hold to limited atonement then that is your choose.

>>>He didn't build a bridge half-way across the gulf of sin, which man must complete. Our Lord built a bridge all the way across this horrific gulf between man and God.

This is nothing new to me Taylor. I hold as does every Wesleyan-Arminian that God with the atoning sacrifice build a bridge from God to man and I would except that you know that. So I am not sure why you would imply that the view I espouse would deny that point. You should feel free to say it is your view that my view denies that point and that is fine with me if you feel that way.

>>>We also confess that our Lord is just, and if the Lord Jesus has made propitiation for our sins, in other words, the wrath of God has been poured out upon him for our sins,

As I have noted before that I hold the scriptures teach that the atoning sacrifice of Christ was for the sins of all mankind not just for a select few. But it has conditionals for it to be effectual for a person and conditionals for it to continue to be effectual for a person.

>>>than we confess that our just Lord will not require double payment for those sins - even men do not require double payment for debts.

Well we could get into what justice men does and don't require and the justice of God by discussing how Calvin's God refuses to enable the majority of mankind to come to him but still damns them to hell for not coming. But I have learned a long time ago that there is little fruit in going over such issue. If you have time to argue it I suggest you take your time and use it well by reading Fletcher's checks.

>>>Historically, who can lay a charge against the circumspect and godly walk of the Puritans - not to mention the Apostles?

While I will allow there were many godly Puritans I reject the system of Calvinist them espoused. Both systems have had there godly leaders. Who can lay a charge against the godly walk of Wesley, Clarke, Fletcher and many others. This doesn't make them right or wrong in there doctrine.

As stated before TaylorOtwell I am looking for feed back on some article I have written. I have no interest in a Calvinism Wesleyanism debate or discussion.


_________________
Bob Mutch

 2008/12/9 9:57Profile
bobmutch
Member



Joined: 2008/6/26
Posts: 90


 Re:

philologos:
>>>Your misconception is caused by your misunderstanding of Greek. This is not a reference to an individual event of a sin but the the continuing character of a 'brother hater'. This is the nominative definite article followed by the present participle and has the sense of 'permanent character'.

Thank you for making this point. I will be looking into this and will try to get back to you. These are the kind of points I am looking for. Thanks!

>>>You need to do some serious study into the nature of Biblical Greek before you launch into these crusades.

As noted in the original post I am looking for feedback on the articles position. The best way to do this is to put it out before educated people that can point out flaws in my position, reasoning, and how I am translating the original languages. Thanks again for this point.

Do you see any other objections you can make against the article?


_________________
Bob Mutch

 2008/12/9 10:02Profile
TaylorOtwell
Member



Joined: 2006/6/19
Posts: 927
Arkansas

 Re:

Quote:
As stated before TaylorOtwell I am looking for feed back on some article I have written. I have no interest in a Calvinism Wesleyanism debate or discussion.



But, your article necessitates a discussion on this topic, Bob, because that is the root issue of your assumptions.

Quote:
If you hold to unconditional election that would be the way you would reason thing yes. I reject unconditional election as unbiblical and hold the Bible teaches conditional election.



Then, could you support your claims by providing an exegesis of John 6:35-40?

- Taylor


_________________
Taylor Otwell

 2008/12/9 10:06Profile
bobmutch
Member



Joined: 2008/6/26
Posts: 90


 Re:

RobertW:
>>>>I'm not convinced that what man is looking for in godly sorrow is in fact what God is looking for.

Well God has left us the record by Paul that godly sorrow works repentance. So why you may not be convinced what man is looking for in godly sorrow may not be what God is looking for I am convinced that God requires godly sorrow.

The idea that are person can come to God and repent (change of mind, attitude, and direction as relates to sin) and not have godly sorrow is impossible.

>>>A consciousness that we have sinned against the Lord. When we acknowledge that God will put away our sin.

Under the new covenant I would hold that repentance is much more than a consciousness and acknowledge that a person has sinned. We must bring forth fruits befitting of repentance.


>>>Notice again the language 'begotten'. These people were born again.

I am not sure what your point was here unless you are referring to the many problems in this congregation?

>>>However, we still must reckon with:
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. (I John 1:8)
The personal pronoun 'we' is used repeatedly in I John 1. There is no reasonable way to see in my estimation how the we that is referred to all through the passages is suddenly a different 'we' when we get to verse 8.
The we's, ourselves, 'us' and other personal pronouns mean what they mean in our times. If we means we in verse 8 then, "we is we".

There are difficult scriptures like this else where. We find a similar issue in Roman's 7 where in vs 14 Paul moves from aorist to the present tense and uses "I" 27 times, "me" 7 times and "my" and "myself" 5 time.

In Mantey's Manual Grammar we are told that "The present tense is thus employed when a past event is viewed with the vividness of a present occurrence." Many may not accept this position as it will disagree with there doctrinal position. However the position is supported by Greek grammar.

Historically Wesleyan teachers have deal with this scripture in two different ways. JFB applies it to the carnal sin nature while JWN applies it to those that before they are saved hold they have no sin to be cleansed from.

I will try to post more on this to you a bit later Lord willing.


_________________
Bob Mutch

 2008/12/9 13:27Profile
bobmutch
Member



Joined: 2008/6/26
Posts: 90


 Re:

TaylorOtwell:
>>>But, your article necessitates a discussion on this topic, Bob, because that is the root issue of your assumptions.

I am sorry Taylor but I am going to pass on this. I have made 5 posts that have basically all said the same thing to almost the same question.

If you feel like you need to make a statement or point on limited atonement feel free to do so but I am not really interested in seeing this thread be hijacked to discuss limited atonement.

If you feel the need perhaps you should open up a thread on limited atonement and take quotes from my post to point out what you feel like are misapplied scriptural principles and Lord willing I might make a comment.


_________________
Bob Mutch

 2008/12/9 13:33Profile
TaylorOtwell
Member



Joined: 2006/6/19
Posts: 927
Arkansas

 Re:

Fair enough. May the discerning reader judge what is the truth that accords with godliness, by God's grace.


_________________
Taylor Otwell

 2008/12/9 13:35Profile
RobertW
Member



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

 Re:

Quote:
Well God has left us the record by Paul that godly sorrow works repentance. So why you may not be convinced what man is looking for in godly sorrow may not be what God is looking for I am convinced that God requires godly sorrow.



But what does godly sorrow look like and what is the measure by which man can look on the outward and determine whether a person has come to 'godly' sorrow? If I go by what I see I may preach repentance and possibly hell fire because certain individuals have not attained to my concept of what godly sorrow ought to look like. This is a terrible danger.


Quote:
Under the new covenant I would hold that repentance is much more than a consciousness and acknowledge that a person has sinned. We must bring forth fruits befitting of repentance.



I agree. However, I insist that we allow God to be the judge as to what He requires as the fruits of repentance. He puts His finger on things that are often totally disjointed from what we traditionally think a person should be repenting of. We have our 'list' but is it God's list? Typically ours include outward things when God is looking much deeper and turning the heart on a level that may not entertain the prospective repentance inspector.


Quote:
In Mantey's Manual Grammar we are told that "The present tense is thus employed when a past event is viewed with the vividness of a present occurrence." Many may not accept this position as it will disagree with there doctrinal position. However the position is supported by Greek grammar.



I am still not convinced. I have no doctrine to defend other than to dismiss sinless perfection and salvation by sanctification. The plain sense of the context is that in I John 1 is that the 'We' is 'Us'. The 'we' cannot be some sinner that has rejected Christ. They or your may well be appropriate pronouns to describe someone else, but I would never say 'we' and not include myself in the communication. If the Holy Spirit meant 'they' or 'you' or 'your' He would have used those terms. They surely would have dismissed any confusion and stated with certainty that sinners are the intended audience of that verse. God is [u]not[/u] the author of confusion. He says precisely what He means.

I am fairly comfortable with Wesley's Entire Sanctification; but even Wesley held views that lent towards despair. So we must understand Christian Perfection in light of the grace of God. We simply cannot have a Finney type view of salvation and a Wesley type view of perfection at the same time.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2008/12/9 14:04Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
Under the new covenant I would hold that repentance is much more than a consciousness and acknowledge that a person has sinned. We must bring forth fruits befitting of repentance.


You are confusing causes with effects. The fact that we have such a phrase as 'fruits of repentance' shows that repentance and its fruits are not the same thing.

You have missed a key element of the doctrine of justification, namely that God 'justifies the ungodly'. Take a look at Ezekiel 16 and particularly the position of the word 'then in v 9'. You will see that cleansing follows acceptance and is not a precondition to it.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/12/9 14:17Profile
bobmutch
Member



Joined: 2008/6/26
Posts: 90


 Re:

philologos:
>>>You are confusing causes with effects.

Not at all. Godly sorrow works repentance unto salvation. Where have I confused causes and effects. Godly sorrow and repentance bring about salvation.

>>>The fact that we have such a phrase as 'fruits of repentance' shows that repentance and its fruits are not the same thing.

I believe the phrase is "fruits [meet KJV, worth AMP/ASV, keeping NASB/NIV, befits RSV] repentance.

And I would agree that fruits meet for repentance and repentance are difference things.

>>>You have missed a key element of the doctrine of justification, namely that God 'justifies the ungodly'.

Are you inferring I don't hold that or that I should have put that in as a point or just what do you mean by your above statement.

>>>Take a look at Ezekiel 16 and particularly the position of the word 'then in v 9'. You will see that cleansing follows acceptance and is not a precondition to it.

For new covenant repentance salvation I would be inclined to use new covenant examples and scriptures referring to new covenant repentance and salvation as there is a clear difference between the old covenant and new covenant salvation.


_________________
Bob Mutch

 2008/12/9 16:13Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
For new covenant repentance salvation I would be inclined to use new covenant examples and scriptures referring to new covenant repentance and salvation as there is a clear difference between the old covenant and new covenant salvation.


I am not confusing the Covenants but God Himself does not change. God's heart is to forgive and to cleanse... in that order.

You suggested I think that others have described your teaching as legalistic; on the evidence of your posts so far I can why they would do so.

I am not arguing for sin in the life of the regenerate, In fact on these pages I usually find myself on the other side of the argument but the whole weight of your posts leans towards a salvation that is based on righteousness rather than a salvation which first imputes and then imparts righteousness.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2008/12/9 16:43Profile





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