SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Questions That Must Be Answered For the Arminian and Non-Reformed

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
PosterThread
hmmhmm
Member



Joined: 2006/1/31
Posts: 4994
Sweden

 Re:

Quote:

running2win wrote:
Quote:
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.


_________________
CHRISTIAN

 2007/9/6 17:31Profile









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

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?

 2007/9/6 18:19









 Re:

Quote:

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!

 2007/9/6 20:10









 Re:

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


 2007/9/6 20:27
running2win
Member



Joined: 2007/5/15
Posts: 231
Bowmansville Penssylvania USA

 Re:

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


Thank you brother, I needed that.
Quote:
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.


_________________
Jeff Mollman

 2007/9/7 8:57Profile









 Re:

Quote:

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

 2007/9/7 14:58
thomasm
Member



Joined: 2007/8/17
Posts: 116
Lloydminster, Alberta, Canada

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

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


_________________
Tom weighill

 2007/9/8 5:25Profile









 Re:

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

 2007/9/9 0:35









 Re:

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




 2007/9/9 1:12









 Re:

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?

 2007/9/9 10:01





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy