| Re: |
Proverbs chapter one equals Romans chapter one.
| 2018/11/30 13:37||Profile|
| Re: |
Mak, one more question also which you didn't address yet.
Are you ok with the notion that 1 John 3 says that the born again man is "not able" to practice sin because God's seed abides in him? Is that "not able" really a "not able"? If it is and if you don't have an objection to that "inability" to practice sin because of new birth, then shouldn't you likewise be ok with the notion that in order to see or perceive the kingdom of God you must be born again? In like manner, 1 John 5 says in the proper translation that the born again man believes. It's the reverse of the believer is born again. That is entirely consistent with the other passages in 1 John that say the born again man loves, practices righteousness. No one I don't think would argue that prior to being born again, someone loves God supernaturally. If that is what someone thinks then they have basically rendered 1 John irrelevant. This book was written to help people have assurance they are born again by pointing to the fruit of a new heart, ie., the love, they practice righteousness, they do not practice sin and they are believing. Faith in this book of the Bible is clearly a fruit of salvation ( born again ) not a root.
| 2018/11/30 16:14||Profile|
| Re: A difficult truth|
A logical fallacy is any mistake in reasoning. An invalid argument results when logical
fallacies are introduced into the process of reasoning. Listed below are some commonly
occurring logical fallacies including definitions and some examples.
Over-Generalization (Secundum quid)
Over-generalization in an argument takes place when one makes a generalization from a
limited number of cases. The premises of the argument may be true but the conclusion is
exaggerated because of the limited database.
The two people I met in Anytown, USA were dishonest,
Therefore, all residents in Anytown, USA are dishonest.
Personal Attacks (Ad hominem)
A personal attack draws attention away from the argument or premises and seeks to
discredit that argument by attacking the maker of the argument. This can be done in many
ways from a direct insult to an inferred incompetence.
How can you believe what he says considering that he is an arminian?
Cause and Effect (Post hoc ergo propter hoc)
This fallacy takes place when someone claims that a particular truth naturally follows
from circumstances when in fact no direct connection has been made.
The rooster crowed each morning.
Each morning that he crowed the sun rose afterwards.
He then concluded that his crowing was the
cause of the sun rising.
Appeal to Authority (Ad verecundiam)
This is a common fallacy employed in theological debate. When a famous person
agrees/agreed with a conclusion there is a tendency to ascribe trueness to that conclusion
based on the reputation of the famous person. Sometimes the person will claim the
authority of the Bible when no connection has been made or the argument is inconsistent
with Scripture. The conclusion is either true or untrue based on necessary laws of the
mind. Agreement/disagreement of any individual does not influence the truth of a
This view on the atonement was also held by Augustine or Calvin or Warfield or . . . (anyperson revered as authoritative).
Appeal to the Crowd (Ad populum)
This fallacy is related to the Appeal to Authority in that no valid argument is given, only hearsay. The difference is that the argument is based on mass appeal rather than
individual agreement. Regardless of the number who have held the view in the past, the
argument is either valid or invalid on its own.
This view on the atonement has been held by all orthodox believers in the history of the
church. Or, everyone knows that the world is flat.
Circular Arguments (Circulus in probando)
This fallacy takes place when the truth to be proven is assumed true as a premise.
My view on the atonement is the true one.
Your view is different from my view and is therefore false.
Since your view is obviously false, mine must be true.
Two-Valued Or Black/White Approach
This fallacy states that there are only two possible sides to an argument or that a side
under consideration is either right or wrong, hence, black/white.
You are either Calvinist or Arminian. There are no other
I found this caution necessary to post.
It is taken from the work
"Critical Review of B. B. Warfield's
"Perfectionism: The Theology of
Charles G. Finney"
by Bill Nicely"
Which is fascinating to read by the way.
I urge all to examine yourselves if you are not using any, some , or all of these logical fallacies.
| 2018/11/30 17:00||Profile|
| Re: |
I wanted to thank you brother Alan.
I believe you are a man with deep reverence to God's word and love for truth and that could and will upset and shake some deeply held errors.
| 2018/11/30 17:16||Profile|
| Re: |
Thank you brother, oops - sister
I am grateful that God our Father has shown me His kindness and mercy. I have erred many times, and were it not for His loving and sovereign help and correction, I would have no reason for hope and confidence.
Knowing my own frailty and past and present potential for error, I do strive, and hope to continue to strive to search out every truth of recorded scripture. Even knowing that no matter how much progress I make, I will still know only in part. I trust that God's mercy and the atonement our Lord gave His life to provide for the entire world will preserve me unto the end.
In my love journey with God's word, I have not yet come to the same understanding as Robert, but dear Robert, if in my searching the scriptures I do come to understand what you have attempted to explain to me, then let me THANK YOU for trying ahead of time.
I hope for you that same spirit as we discuss God's amazing grace. Over the years, these type of discussions have so provoked me to dig and search out the exact wording of the text that I have encountered treasures I would never have discovered otherwise.
There are some great resources out there to help us compare our expression with the actual grammar of the New and Old Testament. I have been forced to amend my own expressions by carefully examining the actual texts. If anyone on the forum would like more information about some of the resources that I have found so helpful, just ask and I will gladly discuss with you what I have found so helpful.
Thank you for your last post. It prompted such a wonderful meditation on how much God has and still does to make Himself known. It is a strangely wonderful benefit to being provoked by something so disagreeable that it stimulates back to your mind many wonderful truths that you have feasted on before but now they are refreshingly new all over again.
Much thanks to all the brothers who take time to contribute to these discussions.
Alan and Dina Martin
| 2018/11/30 17:48||Profile|
| Re: |
In this or any other discussion of God’s word., I have repeated this text to myself so that my mind is always open to the Father to give me a Spirit of wisdom and revelation:
If anyone's will is to do God's will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.
The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood. - John 7:17-18
I use this on myself. Am I willing to learn and do God’s will and embrace it no matter what I think I know. Staying teachable. Blessings.
| 2018/11/30 19:00||Profile|
| Re: |
There is a declaration that has welled up in my heart to go on record to make my personal thoughts about God's grace known to those who may be led to read it on this forum.
I believe that I may be speaking for a number of likeminded brothers and sisters who have been troubled by gross and obtuse generalizations that they have read on this forum.
I declare that it is by God's grace and mercy that my sins have been atoned and cleansed by the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. I believe that it was the power of the word of the truth of the gospel and the convicting work of the Holy Spirit that enabled my heart to respond in faith. I heard the word of truth and I believed and it was at that moment that I was included in Christ and received the Holy Spirit. I believe that all that God the Father had predetermined to do in Christ, to redeem mankind unto Himself, and all that He accomplished through His Son in offering Him up as a sacrifice for sin and raising Him from the dead by His power to declare Him to be the Son of God, made this salvation possible. I declare that I was weak and powerless, in an ungodly state, when God demonstrated His love for me and for all of mankind in the death of His Son on the cross. This gospel came to me by His sovereign grace and having heard the word of truth I believed.
I vehemently disavow any gross characterization that my simple act of receiving God's wonderful salvation by faith undermines, or robs God of the glory of His precious grace. Such a thought is reprehensible to me. I strongly disavow that my belief that God has chosen to allow men to receive or reject His gracious gift, shifts the entire focus away from all God's proactive initiative to redeem man and turns the gospel into a man saving himself by the act of faith. I utterly reject such logic as ludicrous and divisive. I declare that a simple act of faith, enabled by the power of the word of the truth of the gospel is not worthy of boasting and can and does in fact still fully glorify God for being so merciful, gracious and sovereign.
I could not overlook this cry which welled up within my spirit today. God is glorified by men receiving His gift, and He will still be glorified in the end when He fully and finally judges those who have refused His mercy and grace. Their ability to resist and reject His gracious gift does not undermine His sovereignty, for He will be glorified in the day of His visitation.
I also declare that I can welcome and honor my brothers in Christ who have embraced a theology that has led them to sincerely attempt to acknowledge God's sovereignty in every facet of our wonderful salvation. I simply disavow some of the logical conclusions that I have heard and read that have arisen out of their sincere desire which grossly mischaracterize my precious faith.
To God be the glory.
Alan and Dina Martin
| 2018/12/1 9:07||Profile|
| Re: |
Mak, I have a similar understanding of grace and soteriology as you do. The idea that if we respond positively to the gospel message in faith that we thereby somehow partially take credit for our salvation is utterly ludicrous. If we want to receive a gift we do have to hold out our hand to receive it but the act of holding out our hand to receive is not some meritorious act that earns, even partially, our possession of the gift.
I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian. There are some things I agree with from both camps. The soteriology that I hold to is much more aligned with Arminianism than Calvinism but again, I don't subscribe to any particular "ism". Roger E. Olson explains well my understanding of the point we are discussing here in one of his books. He states:
//Arminian theology (and many non-Calvinist theologies that are not so labeled) places the initiative in salvation and all the work of salvation squarely on the divine side of the equation. God’s grace is the effectual cause of salvation, but the human person’s faith as response to prevenient grace is the instrumental cause of salvation. What is that faith? simply trusting God; it is not a “good work” or anything meritorious of which the saved sinner could boast. But what about the Calvinist attacks on Arminian theology as a form of self-salvation and works righteousness akin to (they would say) Roman Catholic theology? Knowledgeable Calvinists do not say that Arminians believe they have to work for their salvation; they say that Arminians and other non-Calvinists make the human decision of faith the “decisive factor” in salvation and therefore bring it back, however unintentionally, to salvation by good works. To Arminians, however, this accusation is ridiculous. Imagine a student who is starving and about to be evicted from his room due to lack of money. A kindly professor gives him a check for $1,000—enough to pay his rent and stock his kitchen with food. Imagine further that the rescued student takes the check to his bank, endorses it, and deposits it in his account (which brings his balance up to $1,000). Imagine also that the student then goes around campus boasting that he earned $1,000. What would everyone’s response be who knew the truth of the situation? They would accuse the student of being an ungrateful wretch. But suppose the student said, “But my endorsing the check and depositing it was the decisive factor in my having the money, so I did a good work that earned at least part of the money, didn’t I?” He would be ridiculed and possibly even ostracized for such nonsense. In what situation in human experience is merely accepting a gift “the decisive factor” in having it? It is a factor, yes—but hardly the decisive one. Merely accepting a gift does not give one the right to boast.//
| 2018/12/1 9:55||Profile|
Whittier CA USA
| Re: |
Mak, thank you for articulating so well the postion that many of us hold to.
Indeed, if our repentance and faith/trust could merit/earn salvation, there would have been no need for the cross.
| 2018/12/1 13:00||Profile|
| Re: |
A hearty Amen brother Alan, and brother Daniel.
| 2018/12/1 14:47||Profile|