| Poster | Thread | roaringlamb
Member
Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California
| | Re: | | Quote:
God: Why didn't you have faith as I commanded?
God is not going to ask this question brother.
Again you operate from a democratic egalitarian view in which God must deal with all men equally, or He is unfair. Did Israel receive greater things than the nations around them? Absolutely.
Did the Philistines receive the revelation that Israel did? No. Is this unfair, or does God have the right to do with His creation as He sees fit?
God works with His people in ways that He does not work with others. This is not unfair, but rather the promise of being His people, and receiving the blessing of His promises.
Fair is damnation as we all have sinned against God. Unfair is receiving grace to believe in Christ.
_________________
patrick heaviside
|
|  2007/10/31 14:29 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Quote:
JESSE SAID:
The whole concept of "your own strength" is absurd. No strength is our own. Any strength we have is strength God has given us.)
--------------
ROARINGLAMB SAID:
Your statement above contradicts the Pelagian thought you are defending here.
Pelagius said that freewill was a grace from God. He called it the grace of creation. And he taught that it was not "our strength" but that it was the power of choice given to us by God.
The Pelagian arguement goes as followers: A man could not see if God did not give him eyes. A man would not walk if God did not give him legs. And a man could not choose if God had not given freewill.
The ONLY strength that ANYONE has is the strength which God has given to them.
Quote:
This is what I was trying to draw out from your own words. You yourself admit that a man cannot convert himself, so why do you continue to push this type of theology? I do not understand.
All sinners have the ability of freewill, to resist the truth presented by the Spirit or to embrace the truth presented by the Spirit. If they choose of their own freewill to submit and surrender to the truth, then the Spirit has converted them.
Pelagius had great theology when it came to the Doctrines of Grace. He affirmed:
- the Grace of Creation: when freewill was given
- the Grace of Revelation: the enlightenment, illumination, leading, guiding, and convicting of the Spirit to transform our hearts
- The Grace of Redemption: forgiveness by God's grace and mercy through faith in the shed blood of Christ
And Pelagius also had a good systematic theology:
- Sinners are criminals and not cripples because they are sinners by choice and not by birth
- Freedom of the will is an essential element of moral agency, moral character, and moral accountability.
- Perfection in this life is required of all by our Perfect God because all have been granted the grace of freewill as a free gift.
That is all sound doctrine.
Quote:
When you preach, do you believe the Spirit must produce faith in the hearers, or that He must convict them of their sin? Or do you expect them on their own to believe the Gospel?
1. Faith is the wills submission to the truth. The Spirit presents the truth, but men must voluntarily choose to embrace it.
2. The Spirit convicts them of their sin, with or without their will. Conviction is when a sinners is made known that he is guilty, when the Spirit presents to His conscience all the evidence of His guilt.
3. Men must choose to believe and choose to obey the gospel from the heart. But they can only do that if the gospel is presented to them. Revelation is an absolute necessity.
---------------
[b]Here are two good quotes I thought I'd share:[/b]
"if a man cannot be without sin, then something which is the result of that incapacity will no longer be a sin, because the incapacity is attributable to his nature; yet it is not to his nature but to his will that sin is to be ascribed, in order that the author of nature may not be adjudged to be to blame."
- St. Pelagius, The Letters of Pelagius and His followers, pg 150
"To represent the constitution as sinful, is to represent God, who is the author of the constitution, as the author of sin. To say that God is not the direct former of the constitution, but that sin is conveyed by natural generation from Adam, who made himself sinful, is ony to remove the objection one step farther back, but not to obviate it; for God established the physical laws that of necessity bring about this result.
But how came Adam by a sinful nature? Did his first sin change his nature? Or did God change it as a penalty for sin? What ground is there for assertion that Adam's nature became in itself sinful by the fall? This is a groundless, not to say ridiculous, assumption, and an absurdiy. Sin an attribute of nature! A sinful substance! Sin a substance! Is it a solid, a fluid, a material, or a spiritual substance?"
- Charles Finney, Systematic Theology, pg 261 |
| | 2007/10/31 16:50 | | Logic
Member
Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791
| | Re: | | Why are you all who disagree, denying your moral responsability?
If one is incapable to come to Christ when presented with the truth, then one can not have a moral responsability to do it, for there is no responsability for incapabilities.
You all are denieing that you can come to Christ when presented with the truth, and you will not admitt that it is because of unwillingness or plain rebelion; y'all keep saying that you can not because of your nature is incapable.
You are denying your moral responsability to the call "commanding all men everywhere to repent"(Act 17:30) |
| | 2007/10/31 17:06 | Profile | roaringlamb
Member
Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California
| | Re: | | Quote:
"if a man cannot be without sin, then something which is the result of that incapacity will no longer be a sin, because the incapacity is attributable to his nature; yet it is not to his nature but to his will that sin is to be ascribed, in order that the author of nature may not be adjudged to be to blame."
Then why do we need Christ to die for us?
If man has the wherewithal to be perfect, the man does not need a perfect obedience to be imputed or placed to his account.
This of course is what you find so contrary to both your flesh and your theology, that in Adam, all men died, and that was imputed to all men everywhere. We see this in every day life.
So if you deny the representation of Adam for us, then in essence, you must also deny Christ's representation of us on the Cross bearing our sins, and raising us up with Him to new life. That is if you are consistent with your theology.
So then a man is justified by faith, but not because of its object(Christ and His work), but rather the faith itself is deemed a justifying work done by man. If that is the beginning, then man must maintain his works, and hope that he keeps his obedience perfectly until he dies, as he is the one who determines his fate.
Like I asked you earlier Jesse, after your wife became your wife, how often have you made her keep up her duties to prove her love to you, or also, if she fails in one point of your law of what a wife should be, do you divorce her, and then when she is obedient, you remarry her?
This is the theology you are putting forth. That God marries Himself to a sinner, and justifies them through Christ and His sacrifice, but then divorces them and removes His approval every time they sin, or do not keep the law perfectly.
I do hope this is not how it is in your marriage, but if your theology flows over into your life(as it should), then it would be a simple assumption.
I will complement Finney in that he stuck to errors and never really did back down from them, or blur them, as Wesley did. Yet Finney is nothing more than a "Christianized" version of Emmanuel Kant and ends up simply being ethics.
_________________
patrick heaviside
|
| | 2007/10/31 17:35 | Profile | intrcssr83
Member
Joined: 2005/10/28
Posts: 246
Logan City, Queensland, Australia
| | Re: | | Quote:
Quote:
by Lazarus1719 on 2007/10/31 21:08:54
You know, those who believe that regeneration is involuntary and physical do not and cannot believe that the gospel has any tendency at all to regenerate the soul? Preaching, in their view, is utterly useless.
Persuading, reasoning, and disputing like Paul did really has no influence to regenerate the heart! In their view.
Again, I ask: Who has taught this?
_________________
Benjamin Valentine
|
| | 2007/10/31 17:42 | Profile | roaringlamb
Member
Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California
| | Re: | | Quote:
You are denying your moral responsability to the call "commanding all men everywhere to repent"(Act 17:30)
No I am not, I am denying his ability to do so.
Now, let me bring up your illustration that you love to use, the two year old being told to mow the lawn.
If in fact this was close to the Scriptural view of man's fall, then it would make sense on it sown, but I will fit it to Scripture.
Let us say there is a two year old who was able to mow the lawn, or not mow the lawn, and is told that if he mows the lawn, then he will please his father, and have fellowship with him. But if he does not mow the lawn, he would die(not only physically, but spiritually).
So this two year old, refuses his father's command and brings death into all two year olds as he was the representative of all two year olds. Thus now all two year olds cannot mow the lawn because they lack the ability because of the death brought in in the fall of the first two year old.
However in the grace of the father, he before this all happened had a remedy. He would come in the form of a two year old, and mow the lawn to set free the two year olds who would admit their need of a substitute who did what they could not do.
This fulfillment was placed in the account of all the two year olds who believed this, the father gave ability to the two year olds, and they now could mow the lawn by his strength, and by his grace.
Hope this helps brother. Because this is more Scriptural, and is a wonderful picture of what God has done in Christ for us.
_________________
patrick heaviside
|
| | 2007/10/31 17:48 | Profile | RobertW
Member
Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri
| | Re: | | Quote:
But how came Adam by a sinful nature? Did his first sin change his nature? Or did God change it as a penalty for sin? What ground is there for assertion that Adam's nature became in itself sinful by the fall? This is a groundless, not to say ridiculous, assumption, and an absurdiy. Sin an attribute of nature! A sinful substance! Sin a substance! Is it a solid, a fluid, a material, or a spiritual substance?"
It is certain that [u]S[/u]in did by [i]one man[/i] enter the world as some alien corruption of man's nature and [i]not[/i] as a mere transgression. The fact is proven first by knowing that what the Serpent did in bringing temptation and lies to the Garden were in fact the first sins (transgressions) recorded upon the earth. Surely we would all affirm this fact?
(Romans 5:12) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
The proof that Sin did in fact enter is that both spiritual and physical death passed upon ALL men- even those that did not sin (transgress) in similar fashion to Adam. Death (dying thou shalt die) was the penalty for sinning (Gen. 2:17 Lit). Death also became the instrument by which God would bring separation between Sin and man; not just any death, but the death of Jesus Christ upon the Cross.
(Romans 6:3) Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized [u]into[/u] Jesus Christ were baptized [u]into his death[/u]?
(Romans 6:4) Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
The question in verse 3 is worth asking ouselves. Do we know this? We were dead towards God (Ephesians 2) but alive unto Sin. These are two master's. If there be no Sin that entered to corrupt human nature, then there is no reason for us to be baptized into Christ's death. If our slavery to Sin is merely a matter of a change of mind and heart- truly God [i]could[/i] have accomplished a new heart and mind merely by the application and impression of truth brought to bear upon it by the Holy Spirit. But, clearly, there was somewhat that we needed to [u]die[/i] to- some [i]real[/i] slavery.
Now, I wish not to be understood to say that our slavery to sin is absolute. Sin 'worketh' in the unregenate just as God 'worketh' in those that have His Spirit. Neither are slaves in the absolute sense.
(Romans 6:6,7) Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin.
Slaves are free from bondage at death or emancipation. IF a person has been baptized into Christ- they have been baptized into His death. This frees them from slavery to that alien spirit that works in the children of disobedience we might term as 'Sin' (Ephesians 2:1, 2); at teh same time, having been freed from Sin they became the servants of righteousness by the Holy Spirit that now indwells them.
(Romans 6:16-18) Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
How were we made free? Through baptism into Christ that makes the death of Christ effectual to us. [i]How shall we that are dead to Sin live any longer therein?[/i](6:1) This is more than glorified repentance (change of mind and heart); it is an actual liberty from a slavemaster and subsequent freedom to serve Christ unthwarted. This is the wonder of the New Covenant. This is God coming into the Temple and throwing out the enemy and taking up residence Himself.
Our bodies are [i]a[/i] temple- if I could say it that way and must become THE Temple of the Holy Spirit. Sinners are not abandoned residences; they are the habitation of the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience. The law that 'that' spirit agrees with is the law of Sin. It is a rebellious law that opposes God and seeks to exalt itself above God or be like God.
God did not create man with a natural desire to rebel. Nor is the temptation to rebel a creation of God. The desire or temptation to rebel, that does not have to be taught, comes from [i]within[/i] man. Adam and Eve sinned ONLY because there was a temptor. They were tempted from without. Satan did not stand there and tell Cain to kill his brother. Why? He was able to fill his heart from [i]within[/i].
Jesus Christ was born utterly sinless and had to be tempted as was Adam by the devil face to face. He could not do an 'inside job'. The error of Pelagius and Finney is that they both lend one to think that we are all born as sinless as if we were immaculately conceived of a virgin. In Adam all die. In Christ shall all be made alive. We are either in Adam or we are in Christ. The only thing that matters on this earth is if we are IN Christ. If we are IN Christ we are new creatures. Not creatures like unto Adam- but like as the second Adam which was Christ. We find our way INTO Jesus Christ through our having been baptized into Him by the Holy Spirit. This is more than a mind change towards obedience- it is a new creature with a new Spirit.
We were not born under the Mosiac Law, but we were still subject to the [i]law of Sin and death[/i] that was in our members. The Law of Moses exposed the law of sin, but not completely. The Sermon on the Mount reveals man's inability to [i]naturally[/i] attain to the Glory of God.
_________________
Robert Wurtz II
|
| | 2007/10/31 18:17 | Profile | roaringlamb
Member
Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California
| | Re: | | Perhaps we should look at what the Church at large thought of Pelagius and his teachings.
Here are some excerpts from the Council of Orange, which was convened to discuss Pelagius and his doctrine in 529 AD.
It is important to look at what the Church fought against in the past so that we do not repeat the errors in the future. To equate this to modern days, it is much as if in 100-200 years, the doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons were considered true to Scripture. Our children would be able(hopefully) to look back and see that this was not always the case, and why it was not.
The Canons of the Council of Orange 529 AD
CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek. 18:20); and, "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?" (Rom. 6:16); and, "For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved" (2 Pet. 2:19).
CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom. 5:12).
CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).
CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13)
CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.
CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).
CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).
The rest can be read here
[url=http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/councilorange.html]Council Of Orange Canons[/url]
_________________
patrick heaviside
|
| | 2007/10/31 18:30 | Profile | psalm1
Member
Joined: 2007/1/30
Posts: 1230
| | Re: | | I agree with both roaringlamb and logic. I believe these 2 truths are one truthin that i begin repentence of my own and yet i am not able to properly repent until the Holy spirit reveals my wretchedness and i see the awesome holiness of God.
I know after I got saved About a week later the lord suddenly said to me "You are not your own"
...David |
| | 2007/10/31 18:41 | Profile | Logic
Member
Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791
| | Re: | | Quote:
roaringlamb wrote:Quote:
"if a man cannot be without sin, then something which is the result of that incapacity will no longer be a sin, because the incapacity is attributable to his nature; yet it is not to his nature but to his will that sin is to be ascribed, in order that the author of nature may not be adjudged to be to blame."
Then why do we need Christ to die for us?
to cover our rebeion, not our crippeledness.
Quote:
roaringlamb wrote:
If man has the wherewithal to be perfect, the man does not need a perfect obedience to be imputed or placed to his account.
Obediance was not imputed to us, but righteousness was.
Quote:
roaringlamb wrote:
This of course is what you find so contrary to both your flesh and your theology, that in Adam, all men died, and that was imputed to all men everywhere. We see this in every day life.
If your going to be using Scriptural fraizes, please get them correct;[b]1Corinth 15:22[/b] [color=990000]For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be made alive.[/color]
This is a physical death because the verse before it is physical:
[b]1Corinth 15:2-12[/b] [color=990000]For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.[/color]
Physical resurrection, physical death.
Physical death is not imputed eather.
Quote:
roaringlamb wrote:
So if you deny the representation of Adam for us, then in essence, you must also deny Christ's representation of us on the Cross bearing our sins, and raising us up with Him to new life.
How so?
Quote:
roaringlamb wrote:
So then a man is justified by faith, but not because of its object(Christ and His work), but rather the faith itself is deemed a justifying work done by man.
Both are true.
[b]James 2:21[/b] [color=990000]Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?[/color]
Quote:
roaringlamb wrote:
If that is the beginning, then man must maintain his works, and hope that he keeps his obedience perfectly until he dies, as he is the one who determines his fate.
More like man must maintain his relaitionship with Christ as He is doing the same; it is as a merriage, both partners need to give 100%
However, one does not need to keep his obedience perfectly until he dies, because "if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:"(1Jonn 2:1)
Quote:
roaringlamb wrote:
This is the theology you are putting forth. That God marries Himself to a sinner, and justifies them through Christ and His sacrifice, but then divorces them and removes His approval every time they sin, or do not keep the law perfectly.
See 1Jonn 2:1.
Furthermore, that is not love which you describe; Love suffers long, and is kind; love envies not; love vaunts not itself, is not puffed up, does not behave itself rudely, seeks not her own, is not easily provoked, keeps no record of evil; rejoices not in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.
Quote:
roaringlamb wrote:Quote:
You are denying your moral responsability to the call "commanding all men everywhere to repent"(Act 17:30)
No I am not, I am denying his ability to do so.
If one has no ability to do so, then one is excused from the moral obligation.
Therefore, you are denying your moral responsability to the call.
Quote:
Let us say there is a two year old who was able to mow the lawn, or not mow the lawn, and is told that if he mows the lawn, then he will please his father, and have fellowship with him. But if he does not mow the lawn, he would die(not only physically, but spiritually).
So this two year old, refuses his father's command and brings death into all two year olds as he was the representative of all two year olds. Thus now all two year olds cannot mow the lawn because they lack the ability because of the death brought in in the fall of the first two year old.quote]That makes no sence at all.
Why is that two year old a representative of all two year olds?
How is Adam my representative?
Why can't man do what God commands in Act 17:30?
Is it a willful refusal or an inability?
If it is an inability, then all men are excused from from the call.
Would you call a command of mowing the law for a new born(not a two year old) justifide?
Or would the new born be excused from the command because of the inability? |
| | 2007/10/31 20:06 | Profile |
|
