|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 18, 2006 19:09:06 GMT -5
Is regeneration (new birth) the result of or cause of repentance and faith? If I understand correctly the Reformed view is that regeneration precedes and makes possible repentance and faith. I personally believe that repentance and faith result in the new birth. Any comments?
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Jan 18, 2006 21:39:51 GMT -5
In order for someone to be Born Again, Justified, Regenerated, Adopted, Etc. (all similar terms) they must FIRST Repent and put their Faith in Jesus Christ. The Spirit of God must first draw them near...but they must take the action out of their own free will...Then they become regenerated. God gives them a new heart and new desires to do what He wants them to do instead of what they used to want to do...in other words...I AGREE with Steve
|
|
|
Post by rickb on Jan 19, 2006 13:33:06 GMT -5
Regeneration happens first Regeneration is a work of God John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Ezek 36:26-27 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.Because it is a act of God and not of ourselves it must happen first prior to repentance God calls us we don't choose him. John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father So we do not come to Chirst until he calls us/regenerates us through the Holy Spirit to come to him. 1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. So how can the unregenerate soul come to any saving faith unless they be regenerated. Eph 2:4-5But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) Col 2:13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; The results of regeneration are repentance towards God and faith in Christ, Many times we see the results of regeneration and call it regeneration. Of course this deosn't sit well in the face of an Arminian
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 19, 2006 17:01:33 GMT -5
Rick wrote: The results of regeneration are repentance towards God and faith in Christ, Many times we see the results of regeneration and call it regeneration. Just a point of clarity. In your understanding does regeneration mean the same thing as being born again / from above? "The Greek word rendered 'regeneration,' palingenesia, is composed of palin ('again') and genesis ('birth'). Thus, its participial form 'regenerated' literally means 'born again.'" -Witness Lee (Rev K is this accurate?)If this is so, then you believe that those who are regenerated / born again still need salvation - correct? By the way, I'm not sure, but I don't think Rev K would consider himself Arminian. Either way I don't think it's proper to use the terms Calvinist or Arminian as words of contempt. Certainly, as has been pointed out in other posts, there have been many godly and powerful servants of God on both sides of these issues. Steve
|
|
|
Post by rickb on Jan 19, 2006 18:28:03 GMT -5
Steve, The term Arminian was not used as a word of contempt, if you felt that way or I came off that way forgive me, but I must say that I do believe the Arminian view to be a works based belief which detracts from the work of Christ and salvation by grace alone. That being said God can use anyone he wants to use for his glory, and has many times used the lost.. As far as your Greek definition you are correct, but I fail to see what it has to do with what I state because I see things the same way, although as below you will see more clearly what I mean by it. From Wayne Grudem Systematic Theology, page 670We may define regeneration as follows: Regeneration is a secret act of God in which he imparts new spiritual life to us. This is sometimes called "being born again" (using language from John 3:3-8) "The Order of Salvation" 1. Election (God's Choice) 2. The Gospel call (proclaiming the message of the gospel) 3. Regeneration (being born again) 4. Conversion (faith and repentance) 5. Justification (right legal standing) 6. Adoption (membership in God's family) 7. Sanctification (right conduct of life) 8. Perseverance (remaining a Christian) 9. death (going to be with the Lord) 10. Glorification (receiving a resurrection body) Note: Items 2-6 and part of 7 are all involved in "becoming a Christian" 7 & 8 work themselves out in this life If you study why the council of dordt came about it gives a understanding of what the view is and what the argument is, I have a DVD that I can send you Steve if you are willing to watch it, it is called Amazing Grace, and it gives the historical and theological basis fro what some call Calvinism. My problem is this, people can throw freewill around all day like it is nothing and state that we chose Christ, which is a Amerinian/semi-palagien view, but mention Calvin which, places all of our salvation on Christ alone and people think you are a heretic. Here is the DVD, I will give it to you if you will watch it though. www.monergismbooks.com/amazing2112.htmlWhen I think back to the sin that I was in and how much I loved it, in my own power I would never have given it up or repented/turned from it, it is only by Gods grace and the work of His spirit that I would turn from sin and to him....you see I was a slave to sin and the flesh, and I could do nothing without Christ strength here is a couple of good reads monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/arminianism.htmlwww.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/bad_theology.htmlDivisions and separations are most objectionable in religion. They weaken the cause of true Christianity ...But before we blame people for them, we must be careful that we lay the blame where it is deserved. False doctrine and heresy are even worse than schism. If people separate themselves from teaching that is positively false and unscriptural, they ought to be praised rather than reproved. In such cases separation is a virtue and not a sin. J.C. RYLE Also as a side note if you never heard of Wayne Grudem read his stuff, very balanced, he came out of a Vineyard church and thanks John Wimber for being his mentor...so he is not a devoid of the Spirit dry theologian
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 19, 2006 19:01:13 GMT -5
What if a person is choose by God and never hears the Gospel? Or would that be an impossiblity? So the ones who have never heard the Gospel are not choose by God? One might also contend that if man has no responsibility then if I don't have it then God isn't willing to give it to me? Do you believe that? Does God recieve pleasure out of His own sovern choices? Does God make choices that make Him sorrowful?? Does he have pleasure in the wicked going to hell?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 19, 2006 19:59:58 GMT -5
Rick, I apologize for the misunderstood implication. It's hard sometimes to grasp the spirit of what is said on a message board. I've never read Grudem, but I know that his Systematic Theology is being used at Central Bible College - One of the main schools in the A/G. You wrote: My problem is this, people can throw freewill around all day like it is nothing and state that we chose Christ, which is a Amerinian/semi-palagien view, but mention Calvin which, places all of our salvation on Christ alone and people think you are a heretic. Here is an article on Pelagian from CARM: Pelagianism derives its name from Pelagius who lived in the 5th century A.D. and was a teacher in Rome, though he was British by birth. It is a heresy dealing with the nature of man. Pelagius, whose family name was Morgan, taught that people had the ability to fulfill the commands of God by exercising the freedom of human will apart from the grace of God. He denied original sin, the doctrine that we have inherited a sinful nature from Adam. He said that Adam only hurt himself when he fell and all of his descendents were not affected by Adam's sin. Pelagius taught that a person is born with the same purity and moral abilities as Adam was when he was first made by God. He taught that people can choose God by the exercise of their free will and rational thought. God's grace, then, is merely an aid to help individuals come to Him. Pelagianism fails to understand man's nature and weakness. We are by nature sinners (Eph. 2:3; Psalm 51:5). We all have sinned because sin entered the world through Adam: "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned" (Rom. 5:12, NIV). Therefore, we are unable to do God's will (Rom. 6:16; 7:14). We were affected by the fall of Adam, contrary to what Pelagius taught. Pelagius was condemned by the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus and excommunicated in 417 A.D. by Pope Innocent I. Here is an article on Semi-Pelagianism from Wikipedia: Semi-Pelagianism is a softer form of Pelagianism, which taught that man has the capacity to seek God in and of himself apart from any movement of God’s Word or the Holy Spirit. According to semi-Pelagianism, man doesn’t have a complete capacity, but man and God could cooperate to a certain degree in this salvation effort: man can (unaided by grace) make the first move toward God, and God then completes the salvation process. This teaching is distinct from the traditional patristic doctrine of synergeia, that the process of salvation is cooperation between God and man from start to finish.
The word appears to have been coined between 1590 and 1600 in connexion with Molina's doctrine of grace, in which the opponents of this theologian believed they saw a close resemblance to the heresy of the monks of Marseille (cf. "Revue des sciences phios. et théol.", 1907, pp. 506 sqq.). After this confusion had been exposed as an error, the term Semipelagianism was retained in learned circles as a designation for the heresy advocated by monks of Southern Gaul at and around Marseille after 428. It aimed at a compromise between the two extremes of Pelagianism and Augustinism, and was condemned as heresy at the local Council of Orange in 529 after disputes extending over more than a hundred years; the term Semipelagianism itself was unknown in antiquity.
In more recent times the word is frequently used by those in the Reformed protestant camp to designate anyone who deviates from the Augustinian/Calvinist/Reformed Theology camp, such as Arminians. Arminians (Of course there are always some exceptions) do not believe that "man can (unaided by grace) make the first move toward God, and God then completes the salvation process.". I think there's something to this: "In more recent times the word is frequently used by those in the Reformed protestant camp to designate anyone who deviates from the Augustinian/Calvinist/Reformed Theology camp, such as Arminians." Obviously if you get your view of Arminianism from Reformed sources, then you will come away convinced that it's false. The same can be said for me. I certainly don't consider Calvin or Calvinsts heretics. I listen to R.C. Sproul on the radio often. I believe there are very godly and scholarly people on both sides of the debate. I will say more as time allows, but I have another question for clarity. Based on what you've said so far concerning Wesleyan / Arminian beliefs I get the feeling that you don't believe those who hold them are saved. For example: "I must say that I do believe the Arminian view to be a works based belief which detracts from the work of Christ and salvation by grace alone." and in response to my saying that there have been many godly and powerful servants of God on both sides you wrote: "God can use anyone he wants to use for his glory, and has many times used the lost." So is it your view that those who reject Reformed theology are not in the body of Christ? Steve
|
|
|
Post by rickb on Jan 19, 2006 20:23:08 GMT -5
To preachparsley:
See you miss the point, if God chose them, then they will hear the Gospel, because they are of his elect, pretty simple when you think about it.
I really don't understand this point above , but I will try, My comments in brackets italics : if man has no responsibility then if I don't have it (I would ask have what) then God isn't willing to give it to me? (Why should God give us anything? We all deserve Hell don't we? The premise behind an argument such as you present (if I understand it rightly) is that WE DESERVE SOMETHING GOOD when we don't, God in His mercy chose some to life, just as he chose some for destruction, think of all the tribes and people that God chose to be destroyed in the Old testament)
Your next point
See here is the rub once again, most people want to bring God down to the level of man and make his thoughts our own and his ways ours also, our simple minds try to figure out God in comparison to ourselves. We have to take the truth of what the scripture shows us, sometime he shows us things sometimes we have to have faith, but in my dealing with most Christians and as you guys know from dealing with people on the streets God is seen in the rational mind from "mans" view point.
We can't do that, we are not God and God is not us
Isaiah 55:8-9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by rickb on Jan 19, 2006 20:53:34 GMT -5
Steve Steve, Study where the Arminian view came fromNo inference to anyone being lost that is a arminian implied, just a fact that God can and has used the lost to proclaim his glory, even Wesley himself was unsaved when he set out to do missionary work, you know his qoute..went to anmerica to convert indians...got converted myslef paraphrase versionNope, never said it, I do think that it is a cheapening of the grace of God (versus the will of man), I was a amernian until 3 years ago when I understood how much salvation cost and that salvation is of the Lord and not mewww.bible-researcher.com/arminianism.htmlAlthough Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism were rejected in the Protestant confessions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, during the eighteenth century Arminian doctrine was revived and promoted by the English evangelist John Wesley and his followers. Through their influence Arminian ideas eventually gained the upper hand in most American churches. Dwight Moody, who was the most popular evangelist of the nineteenth century, was essentially an Arminian with regard to his doctrine of salvation, although he inconsistently taught that salvation could not be "lost" after it was "obtained." The same is true of Billy Graham in the twentieth century. Arminian interpretations are to be found in one of the most popular versions of the Bible, Ken Taylor's Living Bible paraphrase. Today a naive and incoherent mixture of Arminian and Calvinistic teachings is typical of many churches, in which people describe themselves as "four point" or "three point" Calvinists after having implicitly accepted the basic premise of Arminianism that it is the free will of man which ultimately decides his standing with God. This premise is incompatible with explicit teachings of the Bible concerning predestination (see for example the ninth chapter of Paul's epistle to the Romans—a chapter which Arminians have never been able to explain). Theologians who have tried to present a coherent system of doctrine based upon the concept of "free will" have tended to fall into gross Pelagianism (e.g. Charles Finney). Churches in which Arminianism prevails tend to become humanistic and liberal, after having rejected the authority of the Bible. In recent years the brazenly heretical "Open Theism" movement lead by Clark Pinnock and John Sanders is a result of Arminians following their premises to logical conclusions. In the end, Arminian premises cannot be maintained without denying cardinal truths of the Christian faith. The naive Arminianism that prevails in American churches represents a serious threat to the gospel. It involves a failure to understand the grace of God, and an ignorance of the gospel preached by Paul and the other apostles. Its tendencies are fundamentally heretical, because it attributes salvation to a human capacity or disposition rather than to God alone.
|
|
|
Post by rickb on Jan 19, 2006 20:56:06 GMT -5
More good reading "you [Arminians] ... say that the Augustinian tradition subordinates the love of God to the will of God ... But this is not what distinguishes the Augustinian tradition from the Arminian tradition. The distinction is between intensive and extensive love, between an intensive love that saves its loved ones, and an extensive love that loves everyone in general and saves no one in particular. Or if you really wish to cast this in terms of willpower, it's the distinction between divine willpower and human willpower. Or, to put the two together, does God will the salvation of everyone with a weak-willed, ineffectual love, or does God love his loved ones with a resolute will that gets the job done? The God of Calvin is the good shepherd, who names and numbers his sheep, who saves the lost sheep and fends off the wolf. The God of Wesley is the hireling, who knows not the flock by name and number, who lets the sheep go astray and be eaten by the wolf. Which is more loving, I ask? - Steve Hays -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "What the Arminian wants to do is to arouse man's activity: what we want to do is to kill it once for all---to show him that he is lost and ruined, and that his activities are not now at all equal to the work of conversion; that he must look upward. They seek to make the man stand up: we seek to bring him down, and make him feel that there he lies in the hand of God, and that his business is to submit himself to God, and cry aloud, 'Lord, save, or we perish.' We hold that man is never so near grace as when he begins to feel he can do nothing at all. When he says, 'I can pray, I can believe, I can do this, and I can do the other,' marks of self-sufficiency and arrogance are on his brow." - C. H. Spurgeon -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From here monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/arminianism.html
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 19, 2006 21:52:00 GMT -5
Rick, I don't see the point in continuing this kind of dialouge. As is often the case the Arminian position is being misrepresented. This is called a straw man argument. That's when you make your opponent’s argument seem so ridiculous that it is easy to attack and knock down. That will get us nowhere. Any of us can easily list innumerable links to sites and articles that are Anti-Calvinist. What's the point? I don't believe there can be serious discussion in this way. "The naive Arminianism that prevails in American churches represents a serious threat to the gospel. It involves a failure to understand the grace of God, and an ignorance of the gospel preached by Paul and the other apostles. Its tendencies are fundamentally heretical, because it attributes salvation to a human capacity or disposition rather than to God alone." Apparently in your estimation you must be "naive", "ignorant", and "heretical" to believe in Arminianism. That despite the fact that many godly and well qualified people have held that postion through the centuries. I cannot conceive of it being God's will to continue in this kind of fruitless discussion. Steve
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 19, 2006 21:57:30 GMT -5
I never said anything remotely or infered that God should give us anything. I said willing, not should. God is not willing that any should perish. I believe that means any, not just ones who have turned to God, but any.
I do think of the people of the OT. They were pagan. They all came from Noah's family. God's punishment was not unwarrented.
You quoted Isaiah 55:8-9. I am not God nor know everything about God, but we are not ignorant of God's workings. For you to say that by beliving we have a choice that I am wrong and quoting that verse... I could say the same to you about saying we do not have a choice and quote that verse.
But we both know these verses.
Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.
1Jo 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
I think there is an element of both. When God moves upon us we respond.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 19, 2006 22:00:20 GMT -5
I said:
You said:
I didn't miss your point. Actually I anticipated your answer.
|
|
|
Post by rickb on Jan 19, 2006 22:10:35 GMT -5
Steve, you still have not told me if you want I can sedn you the DVD. I can send it to you brother, it's no big deal.
I don't beleive contending for the faith is a trivial thing, as iron sharpens iron so does another man.
This qoute that I put above sums it up for me.
Divisions and separations are most objectionable in religion. They weaken the cause of true Christianity ...But before we blame people for them, we must be careful that we lay the blame where it is deserved. False doctrine and heresy are even worse than schism. If people separate themselves from teaching that is positively false and unscriptural, they ought to be praised rather than reproved. In such cases separation is a virtue and not a sin.
J.C. RYLE
|
|
|
Post by rickb on Jan 19, 2006 22:12:16 GMT -5
What and now his punishment is unwarranted??
We are still corrupt and deserve death, but for the mercy of God we would all be there, HIS mercy nothing of ourselves.
Peace out
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 19, 2006 22:22:12 GMT -5
I don't mean to come off rude but...what are you talking about?
I apologize for using a double negative in a sentence. I didn't realize that it would bring you confusion. I will reword it. I was never great at "proper" english.
God's punishment is warranted.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Noel on Jan 20, 2006 18:57:57 GMT -5
Rick, Passionately defending the truth (as you see it) is one thing, but there's something to be said for humility. That means recognizing that all who disagree with Reformed theology are not heretics. It means understanding that there are people who are committed to the Word of God; are students of Church history; live a godly spirit-filled life; that fully understand Reformed theology; and still reject it as inconsistent with the Scriptures. You wrote: I don't beleive contending for the faith is a trivial thing... The problem is that what you seem to really mean is..."I don't believe contending for [Reformed Theology] is a trivial thing." It appears that to you these two are the same, but as I've already stated many others would disagree. As for the DVD I appreciate the offer, but will decline. Is there really any wonder that a Reformed DVD will conclude that Reformed theology is Bible? I would like to see the DVD, but I don't want to take yours. Maybe I'll get it at some point. Regarding the quote by Bishop Ryle: Divisions and separations are most objectionable in religion. They weaken the cause of true Christianity ...But before we blame people for them, we must be careful that we lay the blame where it is deserved. False doctrine and heresy are even worse than schism. If people separate themselves from teaching that is positively false and unscriptural, they ought to be praised rather than reproved. In such cases separation is a virtue and not a sin. I agree with the quote, but of course I disagree with your application - that Wesleyan / Arminian theology is a "heresy" that is "positively false and unscriptural". This kind of rhetoric leaves no room for dialouge. Despite all this I appreciate your passion and boldness. May God continue to use you for his purposes. Steve
|
|
|
Post by rickb on Jan 21, 2006 0:33:07 GMT -5
Hey Steve, you can call me a prideful person (lack of humility) but I can't contend for the faith or as you say it "Reformed Theology" Hmm odd, it's okay for you to call me prideful (lack of humility) but I cannot speak to what the word compels me to speak.
I thought debate was okay, but I guess if it gets a little to hot or a little to much conviction time to stop and call the person a unhumble person??
I agree to the above but you reject my view as inconsistent but yet I reject yours and I am lacking humility???
What did the church have before the protestant reformation (oops I used that reformed word again) So lets say that none of us use the term Calvinism or Arminian and look at the beliefs that have been there long before these names came on the scene??
By the way I don't need the DVD, it is yours for the keeping if you want it...really.
I really hope Steve that you do not allow this to grow as a seed of bitterness towards me, I pray for you brother that you would see the truth about who did the work on the cross and that not of anything of ourselves.
Thought this was interesting:
So yes I chose God....but why...if we know that nothing in us is good as the scriptures clearly teach...then why would we choose good??? We wouldn't only by God regenerating us through the working of His spirit, would we. So that is what regeneration is, it's not of us at all, we have no capacity for good in us when we are slaves to sin! So what caused us to choose him? anything in us No!No!No! It is totally a work of God that causes us to choose him! The alternative is to say that there is something good in us to make us "decide" we will choose God.
That my friend is total depravity, which if you can understand that 1 point of the Calvin belief sets the tone for all the other points, there are no such thing as 2,3 or 4 point Calvinists, they all hinge upon each other and if deny one you deny them all, so to deny total depravity, which the scripture teach, is to deny that salvation is by Christ alone!
I do love you brother as a brother in Christ, I don't doubt anyone's salvation on this board for the differing beliefs, I just think that wrong teaching leads to wrong thoughts, I was there, I spent many years in a certain large worldwide charismatic church watching the begging and pleading for people to come down the aisle or say this prayer (which was developed by Finney and imported to America by Moody) and it sickened me to see so many turn away in a short time later.
You know that quote Ray uses in his audio and video about 294000 converts and 1 year later only 14K...that was the large worldwide charismatic church I spoke of above. I am not condemning them so don't go there, I am just stating the facts. There are some great evangelist within the large worldwide charismatic churches that practice law and grace, but the modern gospel is not so modern, it has been around for many years by those of old who created it.
It's funny when I talk to a Calvinist about using the law in evangelism you know what they say...what else what you use.. But when I speak to a Arminian about the law (not all) they speak of God love and getting decisions etc. etc. (not all I said) My point is the reformation movement taught we are nothing before God and that we can do nothing apart from God.
Take care brother, hope to see you in Detroit for the super bowl!
You say you agree with Ryle's quote but not my application, brother that was his application not mine!
|
|
|
Post by Messenger Micah on Jan 21, 2006 1:01:00 GMT -5
I sure hope you are not comparing what goes on in many charismatic churches to what Finney did. That would show you do not know much about Finney at all.
Just curious, have you ever read any of Finney's books yourself. (I am not asking if you have read about what someone else said about them).
I also do not think it is really accurate to call many modern charismatics (I have been around these for years so I am not going by hearsay) "Arminians". Most of their theology is actually sort of a mix of Calvinism and Arminianism. I am pretty sure the Calvinists you are talking to are guys like yourself who are very well read and live obedient lives to God. This is not true of MOST modern charismatics. They get their theology from TBN or something.
By saying you used to be an "Arminian" I hope you don't mean just because you went to a charismatic church and followed some "Spirit filled" ministers teachings that would make you an "Arminian".
|
|
|
Post by rickb on Jan 21, 2006 1:08:08 GMT -5
I sure hope you are not comparing what goes on in many charismatic churches to what Finney did. That would show you do not know much about Finney at all. Just curious, have you ever read any of Finney's books yourself. (I am not asking if you have read about what someone else said about them). I also do not think it is really accurate to call many modern charismatics (I have been around these for years so I am not going by hearsay) "Arminians". Most of their theology is actually sort of a mix of Calvinism and Arminianism. I am pretty sure the Calvinists you are talking to are guys like yourself who are very well read and live obedient lives to God. This is not true of MOST modern charismatics. They get their theology from TBN or something. By saying you used to be an "Arminian" I hope you don't mean just because you went to a charismatic church and followed some "Spirit filled" ministers teachings that would make you an "Arminian". Nope never said any of what you imply I said I said Just stating my experince thats all We are in agreement here
|
|
|
Post by Messenger Micah on Jan 21, 2006 1:20:34 GMT -5
What did I imply?
That certain denomination is the Assemblies of God is it not. I am a member of an AG church right now. Do you consider them "Arminian"? After being in these churches for about 20 years I would not consider them to be "Arminian".
Since you used to be so "steeped" in Arminian teachings in the past, I was wondering if you ever actually read any of Finney's books for yourself? If not Finney, who are all these "Arminian" ministers that indoctrinated you?
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Jan 21, 2006 1:24:45 GMT -5
Let's just remember the Fruit of the Spirit guys (Galatians 5:22) and the Love chapter (1 Cor. 13), Ok?
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Jan 21, 2006 1:26:02 GMT -5
Now now... let's play nice.
I think people blame Finney for the modern Gospel sometimes. I am sure they have no idea what he actually said. I see it like the way some people think that homechurching would start revival because that is the the way it was done in the first century and in China now. Well, the horse is before the cart, homechurching was due to persecution because the word was being preached in power and in truth.
While I'm not much for an altar call, let's just see how the apostles preached; 2 Cor. 5:11 tells us that "knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, WE PERSUADE men..." Acts 13:43 says of Paul and Barnabas "who, speaking to them, PERSUADED them to continue in the grace of God." And the list goes on and time should fail me of all the places where people were EXHORTED and PERSUADED to obey the gospel. I plan on preaching in the same manner as the greatest examples we have. God however will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. A wise friend of mine once said, "Act as if it all depends on you, but believe as if it all depends on God" I think that is wise. If sinners be d**ned, let them go to hell but only after they have had to walk over our bodies and our hands have grabbed their ankles and we have told them not to go there.
Oh, and Rick, I uh... wouldn't mind that DVD if you are coming to EBC in LA.
Miles
|
|
|
Post by Messenger Micah on Jan 21, 2006 1:36:42 GMT -5
Hey Rick I am sorry my reply was sarcastic. From reading some of your previous posts I guess I figured you wouldn't mind. I do admire your passion, zeal, and study habits.
I do not think you know much about Finney though, especially since you said what Finney did was imported to America by Moody. Finney was also an American so how could that be imported?
|
|
|
Post by rickb on Jan 21, 2006 2:40:47 GMT -5
You are right I stand corrected I have my history wrong. Finney they claim was the "inventor" of the altar call and Moody they say popularized it. Yes I have read some of Finney's stuff, admittedly not a lot but for me enough. that's for the correction
|
|
|
Post by Messenger Micah on Jan 21, 2006 10:03:44 GMT -5
There is a quote from Leonard Ravenhill that Jesse posted on this site under "Great Quotes" where Finney preached 28 straight nights before ever giving an altar call. Haven't you ever heard the high percentage of the multitudes that responded to Finney's preaching remained faithful to holy, God loving, obedient living until the time of their death.
You say "they claim Finney was the inventor of the altar call and Moody they say popularized it". Who are they?
Also since you claim to have been a former "Arminian" and never read much of Finney, I am wondering which ministers it was that indoctrinated you. You have never responded to my question here.
It is easy enough to say "I never said any of that", but from everything you are saying and deliberately not saying I am not convinced that you never actually were "Arminian" in your theology. I think you assented to some of the shallow teachings of modern Charismatics who seem to be Arminian in certain areas and Calvinistic in others, but most of them do not even know the difference.
What did you read from Finney? Finney's Systematic Theology? Or did you read Finney quotes from what others were saying about him?
|
|
|
Post by rickb on Jan 21, 2006 10:30:15 GMT -5
You are right I stand corrected I have my history wrong. Wow did you read this, hmm so by your logic you can't be a Armenian unless you have read Finney! Wrong, Finney was not the founder of the Arminian thought dude, Arminius himself was not even the one who brought that theology about. To me it sounds like you are more a follower of Finney then anything else, because you lift him up so hi, and uh before you say the same for me about Calvin, I think if you read back I said the same thing about Calvin, the theology was around before him. Stand on Finney as you may, and as I said before I have not read "all the works of Finney" but I have read all the works of the bible and if you want to take this discussion to the bible and stay there we can, but I am literally cracking up in laughter by your statement below To be "Arminian" is to follow a line of thought/reasoning/belief in what the scriptures say. Deliberately not saying!!! LOL, what they heck is that! Hey you have fun following Mr.. Finney and enjoy yourself. Lets make it clear for the "thrice" time, I admit I do not know much about Finney and have limited reading of him, but I don't have to know Finney to know Arminianism, he is just an example of one who was, Just as I don't know everything about John Calvin, nor do I need to know, to understand the theology, So why don't you stop following Finney and start interpreting the Scripture in light of Scripture, Remember scripture interprets scripture and we should always stick with that versus falling in love with a man, if man is wrong we have to admit it, read books, but ALWAYS weigh it against what the scripture says. By the way you would be surprised by what I have in my library. Peace out!
|
|
|
Post by Messenger Micah on Jan 22, 2006 2:10:49 GMT -5
Hey Rick, don't get so emotional.
Rick, I have asked you several straight questions that you did not respond to. If you asked me a question several times on the board and I never did answer it I am pretty sure you would think I was deliberately not answering.
As far as your comments about me following Finney, he would not be a bad guy to follow. It is biblical to follow someone as long as they are following Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1). From what I have read of your posts I think you very much try to follow others as they follow Christ and could easily make the same accusation towards you (although since I realize you are debating a topic and I do not know your life I would not make that accusation).
You posted misinformation on Finney (I was not even posting on the thread until that point) and I corrected it when you made a comparison between Finney and modern charismatics. If I did the same about somebody you are familiar with I am quite sure you would do the same.
I then asked you if you had actually read any of his material yourself, and then asked you what you read out of curiousity, and you accuse me of following Finney more than the Bible.
You are right, from looking at all of your previous posts I could accuse you of following Calvin or somebody else more than you follow the Bible, but I understand you are debating certain issues people disagree on, so I read your posts but do not accuse you of following men more than God.
Finally, you came on the board and were critical of Arminian doctrine, claimed to have been one yourself and I ask you which ministers indoctrinated you that way, and you tell me that my logic is if you haven't read Finney you cannot be Arminian.
By the way just because you say you are aware that Calvinism thinking was around before Calvin himself does not mean you are not following him more than the Bible.
Anyhow I have also read all the works of the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by rickb on Jan 22, 2006 9:23:39 GMT -5
Your right, you don't accuse me of following a man more then the bible, but you say if I don't read Finney I don't understand Armenian theology, which is false.
Which by the way you are right I don't understand Finney, and since yesterday I have learned a lot. Finney was actually a Semi-pelagianist!
Which is Heresy, denying that it is grace alone!!
|
|
|
Post by Messenger Micah on Jan 22, 2006 14:01:42 GMT -5
That was a total assumption on your part. I never even thought that if you don't read Finney you don't understand Arminian theology. I am not sure where you got that idea but I clearly did not say it nor thought about it. Usually if someone claims they are Arminian or Calvinist they have clear defined views they believe about certain scriptural areas. Usually they are shaped by God's ministers because in addition to just reading the Bible and personal prayer, God teaches and equips His church through men (Ephesians 4:11-15). I was wondering (for like the 5th time now) who those Arminian teachers were that influenced you before you went Calvinistic. From your posts I have read I am pretty sure there were people who influenced your hyper-Calvinistic views.
One reason I was curious about what you had read is because I have never met anyone who critized Finney who had actually read him for their own self. They are usually reading what others said about what he wrote. Anyone can take fragments of something someone else has written and make it sound totally ridiculous. If you don't remember what you read or don't want to tell me that is fine.
Actually I never said I read all of Finney myself. Not by a long shot. I have read a lot of things he wrote but I have also read alot of what many others wrote and I like certain areas of church history.
I certainly do not agree that Finney what a heretic. I remember Finney writing himself in Revival Lectures that almost everwhere he went he found people steeped in Calvinism, waiting on God, thinking they had no abliity to repent, etc. and he preached accordingly to root them out of their inactivity. He also went on to say that during the time of Edwards, and Whitfield many were trying to earn their salvation by works, striving in the flesh, etc. and they had a message that brought the church into balance and great were the results.
I certainly do not agree with your hyper-Calvinistic views, and I do not agree that Finney was a heretic or preached heresy. I agree with you on the KJV.
|
|