Predestination and Election

[Ormly]

This after promoting Finney?

Finney produced what Sproul can never produce, i.e., works that testify of God. Sproul, by comparison, is no more than a Doctor Phil.

 

[heymikey80]

Ah, so Finney lying to a church denomination is no great shakes.

Not relinquishing his position when he discovers he's nowhere near their viewpoint is unimportant.

Obeying the Law is not Finney's responsibility.

Finney rejects that assertion.

There can be no justification in a legal or forensic sense, but upon the groundhttp://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm#note2 of universal, perfect, and uninterrupted obedience to law. This is of course denied by those who hold that gospel justification, or the justification of penitent sinners, is of the nature of a forensic or judicial justification. (Systematic Theology, p. 362)
​

 

[Ormly]

Ah, so Finney lying to a church denomination is no great shakes.

Not relinquishing his position when he discovers he's nowhere near their viewpoint is unimportant.

Obeying the Law is not Finney's responsibility.

Finney rejects that assertion.

There can be no justification in a legal or forensic sense, but upon the ground of universal, perfect, and uninterrupted obedience to law. This is of course denied by those who hold that gospel justification, or the justification of penitent sinners, is of the nature of a forensic or judicial justification. (Systematic Theology, p. 362)
​

Is that your best shot? . . . and by saying all that, you can't support and are not supporting by your understanding of what he wrote, are you also saying Finney was not mighty in faith and works of God? Do you really mean to imply that?

 

[heymikey80]

Is that your best shot? . . . and by saying all that, you can't support and are not supporting by your understanding of what he wrote, are you also saying Finney was not mighty in faith and works of God? Do you really mean to imply that?

You're the one making blind implications. Your volatility is not my responsibility.

Finney condemns himself ... and thus he certainly shouldn't be heard out, especially if you praise what he's done, because it's clear what he says condemns what he's done.

I don't care about Finney. He has nothing to say that's relevant to me that others aren't saying more consistently -- even Sproul makes a better case for consistency of life and ministry.

"the atonement is simply an incentive to virtue" -- Charles Finney​

 

[Rick Otto]

projecting

 

[frumanchu]

Finney produced what Sproul can never produce, i.e., works that testify of God. Sproul, by comparison, is no more than a Doctor Phil.

Ahh, so he was "testifying of God" when he lied in order to gain an ordination in the Presbyterian Church? Riiiiiiiiight......

Finney denied the truth of Christ's substitutionary atonement along with many other spiritual truths. He taught a salvation that ultimately rests on men's works and not the grace of God. He drew men away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[frumanchu]

Is that your best shot? . . . and by saying all that, you can't support and are not supporting by your understanding of what he wrote, are you also saying Finney was not mighty in faith and works of God? Do you really mean to imply that?

Interesting that you're rising more to the defense of Finney than you are to Christ. You've done nothing here but make empty statements and offer no defense of your views or refutation of ours.

 

[nobdysfool]

Anyone who would hold up a liar and heretic such as Finney as the model of Christian ministry is blind to a great many of the Bible's teachings on what constitutes moral virtue, and Christian virtue. In short, such a person believes that results are all that should matter, and that the means are justified by them. But if one looks at the results of Finney's so-called "revivals", the result over time is abysmal, and the retention rate very low. If anyone came to truly know the Lord as a result of one of those revivals, it would be more of a testimony to Calvinism and Reformed Theology with regard to Election, than to anything else, because they came to know the Lord in spite of Finney, not because of his so-called ministry.

For one trying to derogate Calvinism, choosing Finney as a model would rank as one of the stupidest moves they could make. It certainly shows a mind-numbing lack of knowledge of Church History, and of sound theology. Finney was about as much a true theologian as is the town drunk in nearly any small town in America.

 

[Rick Otto]

Yeah, but those altar calls to the salvation prayer are great showbiz.
Instant gratification to the senses. Superficial logic based on emotional response.
Better than soap -opera (no commercials).

That's why I give props to Ormly.
"Best shot" is a great example of exciting bluster. Very entertaining & emotionaly persuasive.

But after church, in quiet reflection, I would always get cornered where the angst of performance anxiety meets up with scriptures like "my yoke is light" & "he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it".

I suffered for years until I went online & got the reform presentation of Reform theology.
Learning about predestination & election freed me from manipulation, but even better, it freed up my gratitude as the motivation behind my actions. Doing "works" out of gratitude is a thousand times easier than doing them out of a sense of duty or hope for reward.
Instead of feeling responsible beyond my ability, I felt the total liberty of depending on The Almighty instead of my fallen, corrupt self. I already posessed the reward. Works became a celebration of that instead of a maintenance or merit for that. And that resonated fully with my first love, which was Him, starting at 3&1/2 yrs old when I heard He created everything because He loved me.
I'll never forget hearing that because it hit me like a ton of feather pillows. It was my first "Eureka" moment. It made everything make sense. I was totaly jazzed about it. Still am.
The "goodest" Person in reality is in control of reality, not me. Makes sleeping a whole lot easier.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Heymikey80:
Because it's a predestination of the will.​

I understand that --- but thank you for admitting it.

A will that is "sovereignly predestined/ordained/decreed by GOD", is not "free". This is an absolute; in your paradigm can a man choose DIFFERENTLY than God's sovereign predestination --- either "belief" for the CHOSEN, or "unbelief" for the UNELECT? You know the answer is "no". A will that can only make ONE CHOICE, is not "free".

Quote:
Most people make the mistaken conclusion -- as you have in other threads -- that sovereign choice demands completely monergistic action in all aspects. That's simply not the case.

Responsibility can be divided. There is no "one responsible". There are many responsible people, even the Law acknowledges this fact. The fact is, God is responsible in ultimate ways for everything that happens. That conclusion is inescapable, when ex-nihilo creation is assumed.​

A.T.Robertson on Eph2:8 says "Grace is God's part, faith is ours." That fits perfectly with 2Tim1:12-14 --- where God guards what we entrust, and we guard (with the Spirit) what God entrusts. That is a "divided responsibility", as you said --- but that is not what you meant.

If our WILL is determined by God, then our perseverance and continuance in faith are GOD'S choice. And responsibility is NOT divided.

Under "Calvinism/Predestined-Election", the "P" in TULIP, is "perseverance of the saints"; the belief that God WILL persevere those whom He has elected.

Thus, zero responsibility for men, 100% responsibility for God...

Quote:
You're attributing responsibility to the will, and I would agree, of course.​

No, you don't.

Quote:
But then, the will is created. Your will is created. It's controlled by a variety of things, and it's created ultimately by God.​

See? You do not attribute responsibility to men's will, you attribute it to God's sovereign decision.

Quote:
It's not left up to chance.​

No, it's not --- the biggest failure of Calvinism is in not recognizing sentience of men. CONSCIOUS men, can make a CHOICE. So locked in a mindset of "wicked men seek ONLY sin and corruption", you cannot conceive of a man falling in love with God.

Review the verses you have that you think promote "utter depravity"; for instance, Jeremiah 17:9. Now read verse TEN --- and you'll see God RESPONDS to men's hearts, which though corrupt CAN seek righteousness.

You cannot deny Jer17:10, can you?

(And anticipating a charge of "SemiPelagianism", what I just said does not conflict the idea that the sincere CALL to salvation, is what overcomes man's depravity such that he CAN believe.

Quote:
Chance is a function of partial information.​

And here is the problem; while pragmatically "how can they believe in what they have not heard?" (Rom10:14), passages like Rom1:19-20 says that God is revealed to ALL MEN, so they are without excuse.

Please tell me how it's not the PERFECT excuse, if man's WILL is sovereignly decreed by God?

Quote:
God controlled everything at one time. He does so now. He didn't "let Himself go" when He created Creation.​

He did not sponser Hitler, or the Holocaust.

Quote:
... They "believe for a while and in time of testing fall away." Lk 8:13 Jesus sets the attributes of this faith -- it's temporary. Do you propose that they're saved while they believe?​

YES.

Quote:
That God gives eternal life, then takes it back -- based on whether they have faith or not -- do I get that accurately?​

No --- God takes NOTHING back --- "The gifts and calling of God are IRREVOCABLE/WITHOUT-REPENTANCE" (from God's side). Rom11:29 But if a believing-man comes to UNBELIEF (as James says in 1:14-16, and 5:19-20, and Paul* in Hebrews 3:6-14 & 4:11), then that man has THROWN his salvation away. Not God's choice, but the man's.

* (I believe Paul wrote Hebrews.)

Quote:
How is faith then not an effort (exertion, exercise, work) of the will for the wage of eternal life? Rom 4:4​

Faith (saving-faith) is GOD'S work, that WE WORK. There is nothing meritorious about conviction of utter sinfulness, and our deserving of Hell. That conviction throws us down at His feet, crying in despair and certainty that we're going to HELL, and we implore Him to SAVE us.

Saving-faith is God's work that WE DO. John6:27-28 is clear...

Quote:
And why can't -- shouldn't -- a Christian, not to mention a Calvinist, hit on a way of understanding Scripture from both Jesus and Paul to be consistent with one another about this new kind of justification?​

Consistency demands we include Col2:6-8, 1Jn2:26-28, 2Pet1:5-10, and many other verses (James1:14-16, Heb3:6-14 & 4:11) into our doctrine.

And "justification" is by receiving the abundance of grace, and receiving the gift of righteousness. Rom5:17.

Quote:
We're not talking about conventional works-justification in a human law court. You've said it. We're talking about the court of the King, the court of the King of the Universe, that can walk into the human heart, that first sets itself up there -- or people die without Him.​

Please tell me how you understand Col3:1-17 in light of what you just said.

Quote:
Well yes it can. My cat is only permitted to live among the birds when he's prevented from choosing regarding their life or death. Because his choice is invariably for their death.​

A cat is not as sentient as a man; nevertheless Mom's cat never tries to kill the parrots --- she's learned NOT to. The cat is capable of realizing that bothering the birds earns her a SWAT. Thus, she chooses. (Should she ever STOP believing she'll get swatted, there is no doubt the birds would be history.)

Quote:
The only way I could allow my cat the freedom to live with the birds and me would be if I could change his will. I can't. God can, and He did.​

A newspaper (rolled up and swung at its backside) can instill discipline in the cat; just as God disciplines US.

...YET --- if we are WITHOUT God's discipline, then we are illegitimate and NOT His sons. We had earthly fathers, and submitted to them; SHALL we not much rather BE subject to the Father of spirits, AND LIVE? Of course that was Hebrews12:7-9; lest someone propose "that's not talking about UNSALVATION", let's include verse 25...

Quote:
It can indeed be both. We are both OBLIGATED AND PREDESTINED.​

Not by the definition of the words. "Obligation", only exists when there is a "choice".

You say "there is a choice"; but if there is only ONE choice, which is subject to God's sovereign ordination, there isn't choice.

Quote:
We're also responsible for our sinfulness, because ... it's us. It's our will. We don't free a compulsive prisoner just because he can't help himself. We leave him where he can't do further harm.​

Can an "unelect man", choose OTHER than willful sin? The only answer you can give (with your doctrine), is "NO".

Thus, men are NOT responsible for what they could NEVER avoid.

Quote:
I don't understand why this constantly recurs. Look at it from within your perspective -- and for the moment I'm walking over beside your viewpoint. There are people who are unconvinced by your presentation, Ben. They can't be convinced otherwise. You say they're wrong -- but since they really can't be convinced, their wills are irretrievable -- would you then conclude that their obligation to your view of the truth is null & void?​

Look at post 405 from this thread --- tell me why no Predestinationist is answering it. One answer was attempted, trying to assert verse 13 OVERTURNS the "belief-receive-reveal" sequence. It does not. But not only are the Predestinationists IGNORING the post, it is completely certain that soon, someone will make a post something like "1Cor2:14 proves that unregenerated men cannot believe savingly in Jesus."

Tell me, Mike --- why will that happen?

Quote:
No? Then they're obligated. And their wills are set in the opposite direction. They don't believe you. They aren't credulous of your arguments. You aren't changing their wills, and they don't have the capacity to change either. There is no "in" to fix their wills. From a human standpoint, it seems clear to me this is a counterexample to your assertion? They can't change their wills. So they're off the hook for the truth as you see it.​

Let's see if you have the ability to change your mind (no disrespect intended). Go back and read post 405, and either ACCEPT that 1Cor2:14 does NOT assert "unregenerated men cannot believe savingly in Jesus", or refute what I said. Which statement is wrong --- #1, #2, or #3?

Quote:
I appreciate that we cling to the same Person, but the Gospel is often received in ways we wouldn't expect. There isn't one receipt that's good -- Jesus pointed out in your cited passage that there were varying yields even in successful reception.

There are receptions that don't save. Jesus described one as "believing for a time, and then falling away." As it doesn't save in either theology, I'm skeptical it can be pushed into an argument against either theology.
​

OK, explain to me on what basis you perceive those in Lk8:13 were NEVER saved. It looks to me as though BOTH groups (13, & 15) began the same --- the difference is that the fifteeners held fast and bore fruit with PERSEVERANCE. This aligns perfectly with Paul in 1Tim4:16.

On what basis were the thirteeners NEVER saved, other than the presumption of predestination ("because they fell, they MUST not have been REALLY saved in the FIRST place")?

Thanx again for your replies...

 

[Rick Otto]

Ben,... one word: "brevity".

 

[heymikey80]

Quoted by Heymikey80:
Because it's a predestination of the will.​

I understand that --- but thank you for admitting it.

A will that is "sovereignly predestined/ordained/decreed by GOD", is not "free". This is an absolute; in your paradigm can a man choose DIFFERENTLY than God's sovereign predestination --- either "belief" for the CHOSEN, or "unbelief" for the UNELECT? You know the answer is "no". A will that can only make ONE CHOICE, is not "free".

Sorry, not true. I'm free. I've also only made ONE CHOICE.

The options are open. But the will may only make ONE CHOICE.

That's kind of a constant of this creation. When you come to a fork in the road you can't take it -- you make ONE CHOICE. Your will chooses. And your will has all sorts of controls on it to prevent or preclude quite a number of WRONG CHOICES. If there were more right controls and more insight into the right choice, I assert the number of controls would be reduced further. Until there were complete knowledge of right choices. Then the number of choices would reduce to those.

Quote:
Most people make the mistaken conclusion -- as you have in other threads -- that sovereign choice demands completely monergistic action in all aspects. That's simply not the case.

Responsibility can be divided. There is no "one responsible". There are many responsible people, even the Law acknowledges this fact. The fact is, God is responsible in ultimate ways for everything that happens. That conclusion is inescapable, when ex-nihilo creation is assumed.​

A.T.Robertson on Eph2:8 says "Grace is God's part, faith is ours." That fits perfectly with 2Tim1:12-14 --- where God guards what we entrust, and we guard (with the Spirit) what God entrusts. That is a "divided responsibility", as you said --- but that is not what you meant.

If our WILL is determined by God, then our perseverance and continuance in faith are GOD'S choice. And responsibility is NOT divided.

As I've quoted to you before, even monergists make this same claim:

God alone regenerates. We alone believe. And we believe in Christ alone for salvation. John Murray, "Redemption Accomplished and Applied", "Faith and Repentance", p. 106
​

And that's no divided responsibility. That's actually an inseparable responsibility. God isn't being an individualist. He's not looking at you, "Well, until you gather up enough gumption to have faith, I'm not touching your soiled soul."

If He were, you'd never rely on Him enough to warrant His consideration.

Under "Calvinism/Predestined-Election", the "P" in TULIP, is "perseverance of the saints"; the belief that God WILL persevere those whom He has elected.

Thus, zero responsibility for men, 100% responsibility for God...

Again, wrong. It is 100% responsibility for men, 100% responsibility for God. It's a derivative responsibility on the part of the new man, and it's empowered by the God Who is ultimately responsible for this man's New Birth.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes Rom 1:16
​

Two wills. Both required. One predestined.

Quote:
You're attributing responsibility to the will, and I would agree, of course.​

No, you don't.

Quote:
But then, the will is created. Your will is created. It's controlled by a variety of things, and it's created ultimately by God.​

See? You do not attribute responsibility to men's will, you attribute it to God's sovereign decision.

Well, that's your error. All I've said was simply that the will is created (easily demonstrated), and that it's controlled by a number of things (also easily demonstrated).

As you yourself draw the conclusion from just these two statements that your position is opposed to these facts, your position is not factually based. Therefore it's not the truth.

Quote:
It's not left up to chance.​

No, it's not --- the biggest failure of Calvinism is in not recognizing sentience of men. CONSCIOUS men, can make a CHOICE. So locked in a mindset of "wicked men seek ONLY sin and corruption", you cannot conceive of a man falling in love with God.

It's utterly wrong of you to say such a thing with not even the first shred of data.

We definitely see things differently, because we see that the heart is corrupt and desperately wicked.

Review the verses you have that you think promote "utter depravity"; for instance, Jeremiah 17:9. Now read verse TEN --- and you'll see God RESPONDS to men's hearts, which though corrupt CAN seek righteousness.

You cannot deny Jer17:10, can you?

I've no need to -- just your far-reaching gloss beyond it. Scripture says this heart is desperately wicked, and that God searches this desperately wicked heart. It doesn't say God finds something seeking Him.

God looks down from heaven on the children of man
to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God.They have all fallen away; together they have become corrupt;
there is none who does good, not even one. Ps 53:2-3

​

For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. Rom 3:20
​

(And anticipating a charge of "SemiPelagianism", what I just said does not conflict the idea that the sincere CALL to salvation, is what overcomes man's depravity such that he CAN believe.

Quote:
Chance is a function of partial information.​

And here is the problem; while pragmatically "how can they believe in what they have not heard?" (Rom10:14), passages like Rom1:19-20 says that God is revealed to ALL MEN, so they are without excuse.

Please tell me how it's not the PERFECT excuse, if man's WILL is sovereignly decreed by God?

They have the information. They consciously defy the information. Their own wills are clearly responsible for their defiance. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize, the will is the point of individual responsibility whether it's controlled by another cause or not.

And it is controlled by another cause. Kids grow up to acquire myriad inclinations of their parents, their mentors, their experiences. The will is not free as you're representing it (or if you aren't representing it so, then you'll discover a lot more of your assertions fall pretty quickly).

Quote:
God controlled everything at one time. He does so now. He didn't "let Himself go" when He created Creation.​

He did not sponser Hitler, or the Holocaust.

By "sponsor" you're smuggling in the idea of advocacy, which is a lie as well as a poor tactic to reach the truth. Is that what you're basing your view on? Debate tactics?

The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble. Pr 16:4
​

The fact is, you're the person Paul is predicting will ask the question, and Paul answers this way:

You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? Rom 9:19-21
​

Paul doesn't go into a schpiel about free will and your willingness being x%, God's response being y%. He focuses his answer directly and heavily on God's right to make you any way He wants.

You're making the exact same argument as Paul's hypothetical questioner. Paul answers it Live with it. It's Scripture.

Quote:
... They "believe for a while and in time of testing fall away." Lk 8:13 Jesus sets the attributes of this faith -- it's temporary. Do you propose that they're saved while they believe?​

YES.

Scripture points directly to the fact that this person doesn't produce fruit -- so even by your prior estimates of "Responsible Grace" he's not saved.

So another inconsistency you'll need to address.

Scripture puts these with the group in unproductive growth. So Calvinism agrees with Scripture that these people, because they're observed not to persevere, weren't saved.

And your "Responsible Grace" doesn't require fruit in good works? That's news to me.

Quote:
That God gives eternal life, then takes it back -- based on whether they have faith or not -- do I get that accurately?​

No --- God takes NOTHING back --- "The gifts and calling of God are IRREVOCABLE/WITHOUT-REPENTANCE" (from God's side). Rom11:29 But if a believing-man comes to UNBELIEF (as James says in 1:14-16, and 5:19-20, and Paul* in Hebrews 3:6-14 & 4:11), then that man has THROWN his salvation away. Not God's choice, but the man's.

* (I believe Paul wrote Hebrews.)

When the category of "temporary faith" is recognized as not being saving faith, then this fits perfectly. When someone with a temporary faith comes to unbelief, then that man has rejected Christ. James 1:14-16 doesn't address belief in Christ. James 5:19-20 says the person brought back from wandering is then saved (James said it). Hebrews 3:14 points out that we've only come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.

Temporary faith doesn't appear as saving faith in these verses.

 

[heymikey80]

Quote:
How is faith then not an effort (exertion, exercise, work) of the will for the wage of eternal life? Rom 4:4​

Faith (saving-faith) is GOD'S work, that WE WORK. There is nothing meritorious about conviction of utter sinfulness, and our deserving of Hell. That conviction throws us down at His feet, crying in despair and certainty that we're going to HELL, and we implore Him to SAVE us.

Paul's application defines what he's rejected: it's work for a wage -- whether the employer is generous or not, what he committed to is what we work. There's no need to talk about merit. Paul's not shooting at Pelagius. Paul's targeting Judea's wish to get God's attention by doing anything that may get His attention. Pharisees weren't proto-Pelagians.

Saving-faith is God's work that WE DO. John6:27-28 is clear...

And no, it's not clear, but it doesn't matter.

Quote:
And why can't -- shouldn't -- a Christian, not to mention a Calvinist, hit on a way of understanding Scripture from both Jesus and Paul to be consistent with one another about this new kind of justification?​

Consistency demands we include Col2:6-8, 1Jn2:26-28, 2Pet1:5-10, and many other verses (James1:14-16, Heb3:6-14 & 4:11) into our doctrine.

We have -- just not through verse voting, but through understanding the texts have a context that avoids the pretext of pushing everything into "who's saved" types of reasoning.

And "justification" is by receiving the abundance of grace, and receiving the gift of righteousness. Rom5:17.

Gee, and here I thought it was through relying on Jesus, as Scripture states.

Quote:
We're not talking about conventional works-justification in a human law court. You've said it. We're talking about the court of the King, the court of the King of the Universe, that can walk into the human heart, that first sets itself up there -- or people die without Him.​

Please tell me how you understand Col3:1-17 in light of what you just said.

Verse 1 says it all: "If then you have been raised with Christ" ... the rest is the result, not the cause.

Quote:
Well yes it can. My cat is only permitted to live among the birds when he's prevented from choosing regarding their life or death. Because his choice is invariably for their death.​

A cat is not as sentient as a man; nevertheless Mom's cat never tries to kill the parrots --- she's learned NOT to. The cat is capable of realizing that bothering the birds earns her a SWAT. Thus, she chooses. (Should she ever STOP believing she'll get swatted, there is no doubt the birds would be history.)

"It's because he's not sentient!"
"Oh, well, not as sentient."
"Oh, well now it's because her will is controlled by Mom to always avoid a certain decision."

ROFL! Just make Mom a lot more intense, detailed, and capable. Because God is God, Mom isn't.

Quote:
The only way I could allow my cat the freedom to live with the birds and me would be if I could change his will. I can't. God can, and He did.​

A newspaper (rolled up and swung at its backside) can instill discipline in the cat; just as God disciplines US.

So the cat's will is controlled -- but that inflicts harm on his free will!

...YET --- if we are WITHOUT God's discipline, then we are illegitimate and NOT His sons. We had earthly fathers, and submitted to them; SHALL we not much rather BE subject to the Father of spirits, AND LIVE? Of course that was Hebrews12:7-9; lest someone propose "that's not talking about UNSALVATION", let's include verse 25...

Quote:
It can indeed be both. We are both OBLIGATED AND PREDESTINED.​

Not by the definition of the words. "Obligation", only exists when there is a "choice".

You say "there is a choice"; but if there is only ONE choice, which is subject to God's sovereign ordination, there isn't choice.

Not the case. Your Mom's cat is making only one choice. So by your logic there isn't choice for her cat.

Quote:
We're also responsible for our sinfulness, because ... it's us. It's our will. We don't free a compulsive prisoner just because he can't help himself. We leave him where he can't do further harm.​

Can an "unelect man", choose OTHER than willful sin? The only answer you can give (with your doctrine), is "NO".

The only answer you can give (with your Scripture) is NO.

Thus, men are NOT responsible for what they could NEVER avoid.

Ah, so since no one can avoid creation, "men are NOT responsible for what they could NEVER avoid."

It's absurd. It's inconsistent. It's rejected.

Quote:
I don't understand why this constantly recurs. Look at it from within your perspective -- and for the moment I'm walking over beside your viewpoint. There are people who are unconvinced by your presentation, Ben. They can't be convinced otherwise. You say they're wrong -- but since they really can't be convinced, their wills are irretrievable -- would you then conclude that their obligation to your view of the truth is null & void?​

Look at post 405 from this thread --- tell me why no Predestinationist is answering it.

I'm a predestinarian. I answered it at post 188 when you posted it before. I've answered it before, too. You're not speaking the truth.

One answer was attempted, trying to assert verse 13 OVERTURNS the "belief-receive-reveal" sequence. It does not. But not only are the Predestinationists IGNORING the post, it is completely certain that soon, someone will make a post something like "1Cor2:14 proves that unregenerated men cannot believe savingly in Jesus."

Tell me, Mike --- why will that happen?

Because of my explanation. The passage has soteriological implications, but the passage is broader. When you try to rip at a verse trying to see if it's directly soteriological or not, you're bound to make mistakes. Just saying something that's non-soteriological doesn't mean something about it is soteriological. Because "not everything is soteriology."

Quote:
No? Then they're obligated. And their wills are set in the opposite direction. They don't believe you. They aren't credulous of your arguments. You aren't changing their wills, and they don't have the capacity to change either. There is no "in" to fix their wills. From a human standpoint, it seems clear to me this is a counterexample to your assertion? They can't change their wills. So they're off the hook for the truth as you see it.​

Let's see if you have the ability to change your mind (no disrespect intended). Go back and read post 405, and either ACCEPT that 1Cor2:14 does NOT assert "unregenerated men cannot believe savingly in Jesus", or refute what I said. Which statement is wrong --- #1, #2, or #3?

They're all wrong. They all make false dichotomies of Scripture. The Spirit can speak to anyone. We're spiritual creatures so we can understand the Spirit. We've also received the Spirit specially so we all unmistakably receive from the Spirit. But the Spirit spoke wisdom that rulers of the age didn't understand. That's reading or hearing, but not understanding, wisdom of the Spirit.

Quote:
I appreciate that we cling to the same Person, but the Gospel is often received in ways we wouldn't expect. There isn't one receipt that's good -- Jesus pointed out in your cited passage that there were varying yields even in successful reception.

There are receptions that don't save. Jesus described one as "believing for a time, and then falling away." As it doesn't save in either theology, I'm skeptical it can be pushed into an argument against either theology.
​

OK, explain to me on what basis you perceive those in Lk8:13 were NEVER saved. It looks to me as though BOTH groups (13, & 15) began the same --- the difference is that the fifteeners held fast and bore fruit with PERSEVERANCE. This aligns perfectly with Paul in 1Tim4:16.

"not everything is soteriology."

What's Jesus talking about? Getting saved? Really. Prove it. But be careful: I'm not saying nothing is soteriological about this passage. I'm saying the focus is not on soteriology. So the assertions you make have to address the fact that Jesus isn't talking about getting saved.

On what basis were the thirteeners NEVER saved, other than the presumption of predestination ("because they fell, they MUST not have been REALLY saved in the FIRST place")?

I wouldn't expect Jesus to run into a modernist diversionary preoccupation of "which one of these is REALLY saved?" here. He's not focused on it. I don't expect His distinctives to be detailed for soteriology.

I would even expect some of the hard-stone and choked ground to be softened up and cleared out later. Jesus doesn't say this, either. Jesus is focused on just one growing season. Just one planting. If this is soteriology, it's awfully restrictive of your case. One planting. One harvest. One growth.

 

[Ormly]

Ahh, so he was "testifying of God" when he lied in order to gain an ordination in the Presbyterian Church? Riiiiiiiiight......

Finney denied the truth of Christ's substitutionary atonement along with many other spiritual truths. He taught a salvation that ultimately rests on men's works and not the grace of God. He drew men away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Its all about the revival, Fruuie, revival that came through Finney, Speak of it, my friend. Was it God or not?

Though I believe there are some on this forum who believe so, I dare say there is not one man of God who has all his theological 'ducks', lined up. Can you think of one?

 

[Ormly]

Yeah, but those altar calls to the salvation prayer are great showbiz.
Instant gratification to the senses. Superficial logic based on emotional response.
Better than soap -opera (no commercials).

That's why I give props to Ormly.
"Best shot" is a great example of exciting bluster. Very entertaining & emotionaly persuasive.

But after church, in quiet reflection, I would always get cornered where the angst of performance anxiety meets up with scriptures like "my yoke is light" & "he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it".

I suffered for years until I went online & got the reform presentation of Reform theology.
Learning about predestination & election freed me from manipulation, but even better, it freed up my gratitude as the motivation behind my actions. Doing "works" out of gratitude is a thousand times easier than doing them out of a sense of duty or hope for reward.
Instead of feeling responsible beyond my ability, I felt the total liberty of depending on The Almighty instead of my fallen, corrupt self. I already posessed the reward. Works became a celebration of that instead of a maintenance or merit for that. And that resonated fully with my first love, which was Him, starting at 3&1/2 yrs old when I heard He created everything because He loved me.
I'll never forget hearing that because it hit me like a ton of feather pillows. It was my first "Eureka" moment. It made everything make sense. I was totaly jazzed about it. Still am.
The "goodest" Person in reality is in control of reality, not me. Makes sleeping a whole lot easier.

Cutting to the chase, you felt you were free to do as you please; to have your own worldly life and Christ also. No more convictions and guilt to regulate your actions and thought, oh how glad for that! All 'healthy' guilt was taken away leaving you full of presumption. That is the deadliness of Calvin. I am what I am and I can't do a think about it. . . . and Jesus has forgiven me because I believe it, because I was told so and that agrees with what I want. . . and Calvin says, thats all there is, go your way rejoicing.

Am I wrong? I don't think so. I had all that preached to me for years. It doesn't work.

 

[nobdysfool]

Ben,... one word: "brevity".

Ben doesn't know the meaning of that word. He thinks he will be heard for his "much-speaking". He's always trying to go for the overwhelming "win". That's why it is impossible to have a normal discussion with him. He has diarrhea of the fingers....

 

[heymikey80]

Its all about the revival, Fruuie, revival that came through Finney, Speak of it, my friend. Was it God or not?

Though I believe there are some on this forum who believe so, I dare say there is not one man of God who has all his theological 'ducks', lined up. Can you think of one?

I think it's more the extent of Finney's hypocrisy and error that is so profound. If it were a little of this and a self-conscious awareness of his sin, maybe some kind of openness to correction, he might fit the model of Paul.

I've not seen that in Finney. I have seen a high-handedness, a Marlboro-man individualism and self-ability, defiance of authority except his own. A sort of revivalism without grace.

His views are considered to have caused multiple factions in the Presbyterian church as well, which later split over his views a number of times.

 

[nobdysfool]

Citing Finney as an example to be upheld is the classic example of a belief that the ends justify the means. Ignoring or downplaying the fact that Finney lied to gain his ordination to the Presbyterian Church, and then did not have the moral integrity to renounce that ordination when it was clear that he did not agree with the Presbyterian Statement of Faith, is the mark of someone who has no root in himself, and therefore no root in Christ, not being able to see that Finney's actions did not proceed from a changed heart, but from opportunism, arrogance, and self-aggrandizement.

Any who were truly saved under Finney's ministry (so-called), were saved in spite of Finney, not because of his methods, oratory, or teachings. Finney promoted the circus we see today in the interminable altar calls, the emotional appeals to get people to "come forward", and the focus on numbers of converts and bodies at the altar as a measure of the efficacy of a ministry, and the confusion of results with theological purity. It is the misuse of the fact that God honors His Word above His Name, to justify all sorts of evil and amoral behavior.

Finney's ministry was rotten at its core, being founded on lies.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by RickOtto:
Ben,... one word: "brevity".​

Hi, "Rick". I'd considered breaking that up into smaller posts; but if you look at it, I'm only answering what Mike posted, point by point.

Quoted by NBF:
Ben doesn't know the meaning of that word. He thinks he will be heard for his "much-speaking". He's always trying to go for the overwhelming "win". That's why it is impossible to have a normal discussion with him. He has diarrhea of the fingers.... ​

Hi, "NBF". Every sentence of that post, was in response to Mike's post. Point by point.

If I answer every point, I'm told "overwhelming/burying-in-words".
And then I'm told "you don't even read all of every post".

I can't win.

...but perhaps the greatest lesson I've learned here, is patience.

 

[Ormly]

I think it's more the extent of Finney's hypocrisy and error that is so profound.

Oh? What hypocrisy? What error? Perhaps you mean 'adjustment' or 'rectification' to his thinking as Paul also experienced. Paul being a Lawyer as well.

If it were a little of this and a self-conscious awareness of his sin, maybe some kind of openness to correction, he might fit the model of Paul.

Considering and comparing him to Paul, Finney had a Lawyers mind. It had to have affected his demeanor much as it affected Paul's. Think about it. Did Paul change his demeanor after his conversion or rather was his passion simply redirected with the help of the Holy Ghost. Paul wasn't perfect neither was Finney. We all suffer from the disease called the desire to be right. Finney no doubt had to deal with himself, to be rectified and repent of presumption. No question about it.

I've not seen that in Finney. I have seen a high-handedness, a Marlboro-man individualism and self-ability, defiance of authority except his own.

How about saying he had a "holy boldness', that we should all have? Few have it because few have what Finney had.

A sort of revivalism without grace.

Not really true, however, what would you expect of a Lawyer who knows the 'Law'.. and the word of God, whose personality would of necessity, reveal a legalism of sorts? Lets not condemn without knowledge.

His views are considered to have caused multiple factions in the Presbyterian church as well, which later split over his views a number of times.

Oh? Indeed. By by why is understandable.

Here from Wikipedia:

Finney was the most famous religious revivalist during this period in this particular area. While groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Seventh-day Adventists became closed and exclusivist, Finney was widely accepted and influential amongst more mainstream groups. Finney never started his own denomination or church and never claimed any form of prophetic leadership above other evangelists and revivalists.
[7]
More flexible Christian denominations, such as the Baptists and Methodists, were able to draw many of Finney's alleged converts into their churches, while more established denominations, such as the Presbyterians, were more resistant.

Theology

Finney was a primary influence on the "revival" style of theology which emerged in the 19th century. Though coming from a Calvinistic background, Finney rejected tenets of "Old Divinity" Calvinism which he felt were unbiblical and counter to evangelism and Christian mission.

Note: Did God smite him for this, what you would call, "blasphemy"?

Finney's theology is difficult to classify, as can be observed in his masterwork, Religious Revivals.

Note: Finney was objective in his theology, willing only to be corrected by the word of God as revealed from his teachings that testify of it, something the Calvinist, is not. Does that mean he was always right, NO. You call it hypocrisy. I don't.

In this work, he also states that salvation depends on a person's will to repent and not forced by God on people against their will.[8] However, Finney affirmed salvation by grace through faith alone, not by works or by obedience.[9][10] Finney also affirmed that works were the evidence of faith. The presence of sin thus evidenced that a person did not have saving faith.


Note: I would consider him to be inferring 'practicing sin", which I would agree with. . . So does 1 John.



In his Systematic Theology, Finney remarks that "I have felt greater hesitancy in forming and expressing my views upon this Perseverance of the saints, than upon almost any other question in theology."[11] At the same time, he took the presence of unrepented sin in the life of a professing Christian as evidence that they must immediately repent or be lost. Finney draws support for this position from Peter's treatment of the baptized Simon (see Acts 8) and Paul's instruction of discipline to the Corinthian church (see 1 Corinthians 5). This type of teaching underscores the strong emphasis on personal holiness found in Finney's writings.



Note: Can this be denied as being necessary for belonging to Christ; evidence of becoming a son of the Father?



Finney's understanding of the atonement was that it satisfied "public justice" and that it opened up the way for God to pardon people of their sin.

Note: Is this not true? Ah, but the Calvinist would insist he was of Pelagian, eh? Objective thinking has it that Pelagian wasn't all wrong, ya know?

This was the view of the disciples of Jonathan Edwards' followers, the so-called New Divinity which was popular at that time period. In this view, Christ's death satisfied public justice rather than retributive justice. As Finney put it, it was not a "commercial transaction." This view of the atonement, typically known as the governmental view or moral government view, differs from the Calvinistic view, known as the satisfaction view where Jesus' sufferings equal the amount of suffering that Christians would experience in hell. The governmental view doesn't see the atonement as "paying" off a debt people owe, but rather as making it possible for sinners to be pardoned without weakening the effect of the Law of God against sin.

Note: How can anyone argue that this is still not the grace of God Finney teaches. and that man works for his redemption? I don't believe he ever taught works over grace, except to say he was a holiness preacher-teacher, holiness being a Law of God that is an attribute of Himself.