Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Thank you brother for making this suggestion. I will certainly support you in it in any way I can.
Much Chritian love to you,
jer3119
What would be discussed that could not be catered for already?
Well my brother, I don't see any great stampede from our reformed brothers and sisters to support a holiness forum.I don't see anywhere on these forums where Holiness is debated , it is not a subject that is without difficulty , and certainly brevity on this issue is extremely unlikely ..... there are at least 5 theologies concerning Holiness/Sanctification , and that is not even considering the issue of Law and Grace.
so no , this subject is not catered for already , far from it. I don't recall anyone debating Romans 6 , 7 or 8 ... let alone Galatians and 1 John.
thanks for your question.
Which is exactly why a forum was proposed to discuss how to define it, Jim.Depends how you define "Holiness".
Do two weekend days of limited reply really prove a lack of interest? It appears you have a pet peeve, and are ever seeking proof of it, even where none exists.The lack of interest speaks volumes to me if not to you or to others.
Do two weekend days of limited reply really prove a lack of interest? It appears you have a pet peeve, and are ever seeking proof of it, even where none exists.
As for me, I'd love to see a holiness forum. I'd like to know what it would consist of and it's aims. But if its just going to be a forum for brethren to accuse one another of this failing or that, then I don't know if I'd want to participate. Maybe you could define your idea further, Cyg.
SDG,
Brad
Sure Brad , I would like to see all Christians welcome , yes that does mean inviting a cross section of understanding and experience .
I don't have a problem with looking at other perspectives, per se.
I would like to see Romans 6 , 7 and 8 looked into even from differing perspectives , personally I am inclined toward the Keswick view but I think all views are worth examining.
I have studied the Keeswick view, Penn-Lewis, and others, as well as their modern equivalents. I have friend who "counsels" under this paradime, and am familiar with the several Counseling Schools and minitries that use it, and conisdered for a while, Solomans is one of them. The Lord led me away from that to a Reformed Perspective. So I agree with Lloyd-Jones view of this approach and find it wanting. I don't mind looking at it of course, but if it is the view you favor, being the leader in this effort, I would have my doubts about participating.
Ryle's Holiness, Pink's Practical Christianity, Bunyan's Work on Holiness, Owen on Mortification of Sin, or any of the Standard approaches from a Reformed Perspective/Puritan (not the modern perversions of same) where what I had thought you would lean to, so, I was surprised to hear you favored the Keeswick approach.
Also a study of santification looking at Galations and 1 John with the various emphasis found in each.
Holiness is impossible without sanctification, so I would have thought that, Galations, 1John, as well as all the teaching in the Epistles dealing with "putting off the Old Man and putting on the new", and "mortifying the flesh and the lusts", as well as the Lord's teachings, or should I say ESPECIALLY THE LORD'S teaching in the Gospels about "denying self", "loosing self to find self", "picking up the cross and following Him" and so on would be central to the study of holiness.
Similarly, how could the plain teaching of James on the Double Minded Man, deceiving ourselves if we a "hearers only and not doers of the Word" be excluded?
I have no wish for this proposed forum to be anything less than Holy , I would like it very much if brethren would first consider just what is being studied (like take your shoes off before you entering .... metaphorically anyway) before any real headway can be reached.
Totally agree, and since I have been labeled and mischaracterized repeatedly as to what I believe and see as the need in the church and the world today, it being my "pet peeve", among many other false statemets and slanders, I doubt seriously that anything I say will be met with open ears, at least by some. In view of this consideration, and the above points on content, I would have to say I am not hopeful that I could benefit from the interaction, or that others could benefit from my participation.
And finally , I would like this forum , should it receive the backing I hope , to challenge brethren with the outworking , the practical out working of being Holy ....... such is the calling on "the Priesthood of all believers" anyway.
Absolutely and totally agree. As Bunyan said, and I have quoted before, "True Religion is the Practical Part".
thanks for your interest Brad.
Dear Cyg:
Orange tpye below in context of quote is my response:
"So he went and did according unto the word of the Lord." Elijah not only preached Gods Word, but he practiced it. This is the crying need of our times. There is a great deal of talking, but little of walking according to the divine precepts. There is much activity in the religious realm, but only too often it is unauthorized by, and in numerous instances contrary to, the Divine statutes. "But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves" (Jas. 1:22), is the unfailing requirement of Him with whom we have to do! To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. "Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous" (1 John 3:7). Alas, how many are deceived at this very point: they prate about righteousness, but fail to practice it. "Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 7:21)."
That quote from Pink's "The Life of Elijah" is a good example of what I had in mind in a study of Holiness.
Much Christian love to you, my Brother,
jer3119
Thanks for your work for Him,Thanks bro , well just because I lean towards a certain view does not mean I agree with every single point of that view ,
I know, and I have seen in you a willingness to consider different points of view, as in a future national Israel, which is anathama to most reformed "camp" folks.
I have also seen your willingness to admit that AV1611 had a point about BOT covering up how much of Pink's Sov. of God they had changed. To me such deception is just as bad as any supposed error in Pink's views. Just state the point and let people make up their own mind, don't lie about it is what I would say to BOT.
I have also seen you realize AV1611's and the PRC's use of this error to try and swing the pendulum to the other extreme. So I have seen you try and remain balanced and look at an issue through the lens of scrpture, and not let a fear of man, or any particular camp's views determine your own views, rather than a fear of God.
I appreciate that. It is very rare.
and conversly doesn't mean I disagree with the Reformed view ver batum ,
The modern reformed view is not the reformed view of the older reformed authors who taught an experiential christianity, which meant an understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit in empowering and facilitating sanctification. Hoekema is basically quoting/rehashing Murry. Who, while good in some things is terrible on conversion, and sanctification. No wonder there is such confusion today. That is why I go to the best of the older authors, they did not make these errors and knew God personally and walked with Him and taught others to do so.
that is one reason why i would like to see this subject debated , discussed and persued.
I would too, but mostly discussed and pursued, rather than debated. Some here seem to be more about winning arguements and displaying their knowledge of latin phrases and the latest logical fallacy book they read than in really coming to God's Word and to pick up the Cross and follow Him.
I find it hard to participate in discussions where my views are constantly mischaracterized and slandered, and then were that is pointed out, no repentance is offered. In my view, it is a perfect waste of time. And that is why I have stated several times that controversy for it's own sake is vain.
Perhaps my non participation will facilitate your pursuit of the subject without this unfortunate problem.
One things for sure the hope that the "sinless perfection " view could be true was soon discovered by me to be false .
Yes, me too, as I've said in posts here before, every day, I have to go to 1Jn9 and beg His forgiveness and also thank Him for His blood and for using even my sins to teach me to love Him more.
Forget it. Post deleted due to weariness.I would too, but mostly discussed and pursued, rather than debated. Some here seem to be more about winning arguements and displaying their knowledge of latin phrases and the latest logical fallacy book they read than in really coming to God's Word and to pick up the Cross and follow Him.
I find it hard to participate in discussions where my views are constantly mischaracterized and slandered, and then were that is pointed out, no repentance is offered.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?