Predestination and Election

[frumanchu]

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

What...are you daring me to deny that Finney's revival was of God? Let me tell you plain and simple: if Finney worked all those people up denying some of the core elements of the Gospel in his preaching, then no...it was not of God. Why would the Spirit bless the profaning of the Cross of Christ?

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?

No, there is none who has absolutely perfect doctrine. They do however have the core truths down. Finney did not. He denied the work of Christ and in so doing profaned the Cross.

Again, you seem much more intent on defending Finney than defending Christ, if our doctrine is as heinous as you claim.

 

[Ormly]

What...are you daring me to deny that Finney's revival was of God? Let me tell you plain and simple: if Finney worked all those people up denying some of the core elements of the Gospel in his preaching, then no...it was not of God. Why would the Spirit bless the profaning of the Cross of Christ?



No, there is none who has absolutely perfect doctrine. They do however have the core truths down. Finney did not. He denied the work of Christ and in so doing profaned the Cross.

Again, you seem much more intent on defending Finney than defending Christ, if our doctrine is as heinous as you claim.

I'll stick with my knowledge and convictions. You are an extreme one, to be sure. No more of this. Sproul & co. is deadly.

OVER AND OUT!!

 

[Ben johnson]

Sproul is fun to hear --- I frequently listen his daily show, comes on here at 8:30am. I find myself shouting
"Give me a break, that's not what it says!"


....and then I realize I'm at work, and everyone is staring at me...






:o

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Ormly;Cutting to the chase, you felt you were free to do as you please;

Chasing your tail, you project your faults on others.
What I felt was pleasure in knowing God is sovereign.

to have your own worldly life and Christ also.

That isn't logicaly possible.

No more convictions

I was convicted of the truth of God's sovereignity which allowed me to be truly grateful instead of fearful.

and guilt

Guilt always seemed like a symptom, not a problem. I was interested in solving problems not relieving guilt.

to regulate your actions and thought, oh how glad for that!

LOL, I had an entire social structure interested in doing that.
My earliest memory in life is when I was too young to speak or walk without lening on something. I had been sat in my diaper on the floor a few feet away from where my mother & sisters were busy setting the table.
I knew I was about to pee & I knew that for some reason I was supposed to do it the bathroom. So I tried to get some attention & help getting there. I was shushed. They thought I just wanted attention. I remember the frustration of not being able to form words & imagining trying to walk myself down the hall leaning on the wall, not even sure what I was supposed to do when I got to the bathroom.
I felt bad about all that as a warm wet sensation began to flood my diaper, but I wouldn't say I felt guilty.
We are not guilty of Adam's sin, but we suffer from it nonetheless.
Is that fair? Is that just? Could God have a point to that being the fact?
Wisdom transcends logic.

All 'healthy' guilt was taken away leaving you full of presumption.

LoL. I didn't learn about the canons of Dordt until 2000 when I went online. I wasn't even looking for Reform Theology when I found it. I was looking for relief from the boredom & frustration of trying to be a good Christian in spite of the Pelagianism that was confusing me & leaving me vulnerable to the manipulations of guilt mongering religionists in Churchianity.

That is the deadliness of Calvin.

Calvinism is very deadly. Deadly to the ego and the pride that tells us we have redeeming value in spite of Adam's transgression.

I am what I am and I can't do a think about it. . . .

I am saved & I can only be grateful because I was in no way instrumental in in it.

and Jesus has forgiven me because I believe it,

I believe it because I was saved out of mercy not out of merit for having believed anything.

because I was told so

I was told I was saved but would go to hell anyway if I didn't do what I was told.

and that agrees with what I want. . .

What I wanted was peace & love in my life, not the strife I was used to.

and Calvin says, thats all there is, go your way rejoicing.

Yes, rejoicing, not sinning.

Am I wrong?

Usualy, yes. And in the worst way, with the most presumptuous, abusive & condescending manner I have seen tolerated on this forum, but yours is the gospel of works & it seems to have the upper hand here among management, so I'll continue to tolerate it as I have no reason to expect you to reform.

I don't think so.

That much is painfully obvious. A sense of humor & a little humility would help make it less obnoxious.

I had all that preached to me for years. It doesn't work.

Yeah, I know. Preaching is foolishness to those who are perishing.

 

[nobdysfool]

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.

Ever hear of the concept of "picking and choosing" what to respond to?

If I answer every point, I'm told "overwhelming/burying-in-words".

Which is true. Somehow, you haven't learned the art of saying much in few words. I think Rick Otto has that one down to a fine science...You could learn from him.

And then I'm told "you don't even read all of every post".

Which you yourself admitted some years ago. Are you telling us that you have disciplined yourself to actually read every post, in its entirety, before attempting to respond? That would be an answer to prayer for some of us, because you so obviously haven't done so in the past.

I can't win.

No, you can't. We won't let you....

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

Goes both ways, Ben. You have tried our patience on a regular basis. So it's not "poor Ben, he's being so abused".

 

[nobdysfool]

Sproul is fun to hear --- I frequently listen his daily show, comes on here at 8:30am. I find myself shouting
"Give me a break, that's not what it says!"


....and then I realize I'm at work, and everyone is staring at me...






:o

Then you're not really listening. When you are trying to think of objections, while you are listening, you're not really listening. That seems to be a bad habit you've had for years. It shows in your responses here.

 

[frumanchu]

I'll stick with my knowledge and convictions. You are an extreme one, to be sure. No more of this.

I'll take that as a compliment

Sproul & co. is deadly.

Hardly...they preach the Gospel.

OVER AND OUT!!

Have a great day!

 

[Ormly]

quote=Ormly;

Cutting to the chase, you felt you were free to do as you please;
​

Chasing your tail, you project your faults on others.
What I felt was pleasure in knowing God is sovereign.

Why of course. But that is just the license to keep "Self" preserved.

to have your own worldly life and Christ also.

That isn't logicaly possible.

OH my gosh!! ))))

No more convictions

I was convicted of the truth of God's sovereignity which allowed me to be truly grateful instead of fearful.

........<hmmmmm>

and guilt

Guilt always seemed like a symptom, not a problem. I was interested in solving problems not relieving guilt.

Right.

to regulate your actions and thought, oh how glad for that!

I felt bad about all that as a warm wet sensation began to flood my diaper, but I wouldn't say I felt guilty.

That is correct. However, guilt was still there wasn't it? A healthy guilt that causes one, even a baby, to cry out, 'I tried but I needed help!' and then turn to Father or, in this case, mother for it and forgiveness.

We are not guilty of Adam's sin, but we suffer from it nonetheless.
Is that fair? Is that just? Could God have a point to that being the fact?
Wisdom transcends logic.

So does understanding before using it. Adam was innocent as you were as a baby. Innocence left when he 'willfully' transgressed. Innocence left you when you did also, making you guilty. Guilt must mean a state of being and not something I personally have done that can be ascribed to me as iniquity. Put your own time frame in that when you believed you first transgressed. However, one can't fool God in this.

All 'healthy' guilt was taken away leaving you full of presumption.
​

LoL. I didn't learn about the canons of Dordt until 2000 when I went online. I wasn't even looking for Reform Theology when I found it.

Ah, you mean you found the excuse you were looking for; your way out.

I was looking for relief from the boredom & frustration of trying to be a good Christian in spite of the Pelagianism that was confusing me & leaving me vulnerable to the manipulations of guilt mongering religionists in Churchianity.

Had you had real disciples of Christ in your life that would never have happened. Now you are caught a snare and are content.

That is the deadliness of Calvin.
​

Calvinism is very deadly. Deadly to the ego and the pride that tells us we have redeeming value in spite of Adam's transgression.

And that is the deadliness of the Calvinistic lie that tramples down what God loves and gave His Son to redeem. No value, you say? Your value to God is as a son is to His Father.

I am what I am and I can't do a think about it. . . .
​

I am saved & I can only be grateful because I was in no way instrumental in in it.

Words, meaningless empty words of "self" pity.

and Jesus has forgiven me because I believe it,
​

I believe it because I was saved out of mercy not out of merit for having believed anything.

More error because believing is a requirement. Good teaching will help understand that.

because I was told so
​

I was told I was saved but would go to hell anyway if I didn't do what I was told.

Poor teaching but now you have only jumped across the aisle into poor doctrine.

and that agrees with what I want. . .
​

What I wanted was peace & love in my life, not the strife I was used to.

Calvinism will do that for you, relieve you of all responsibility . . . . enter the many 'self'-help books that now become necessary to keep one on track..

and Calvin says, thats all there is, go your way rejoicing.
​

Yes, rejoicing, not sinning.

Yes, I know and now you are just a sinner saved by grace, hanging by his finger nails waiting for either the rapture or death, believing you will a joint-heir with Christ. Sad.

Am I wrong?
​

Usualy, yes. And in the worst way, with the most presumptuous, abusive & condescending manner I have seen tolerated on this forum, but yours is the gospel of works & it seems to have the upper hand here among management, so I'll continue to tolerate it as I have no reason to expect you to reform.

Management, no doubt, sees things the way you do. They will soon remove me from this forum, to be sure.

I don't think so.
​

That much is painfully obvious. A sense of humor & a little humility would help make it less obnoxious.

Look in the mirror, why don't you?

I had all that preached to me for years. It doesn't work.
​

Yeah, I know. Preaching is foolishness to those who are perishing.

Nice, condescending, arrogant, remark. Thanks.

 

[Rick Otto]

I think Rick Otto has that one down to a fine science...You could learn from him.

Thanks for the props, NB.

I know it ain't your usual forum, but Predestination is taking a beating over here:
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7257869&page=25

Take a peek if ya got a minute. Check my reasoning on that last post while you're at it. I can tend to shoot from the hip sometimes, bro.

 

[Rick Otto]

I felt bad about all that as a warm wet sensation began to flood my diaper, but I wouldn't say I felt guilty.
​

That is correct. However, guilt was still there wasn't it?

No, just responsibility. Guilt requires immoral motive.

A healthy guilt that causes one, even a baby, to cry out, 'I tried but I needed help!' and then turn to Father or, in this case, mother for it and forgiveness.

Guilt doesn't cause that. Repentance causes that.

Innocence left you when you did also, making you guilty.

I didn't will to pee in my diaper. In fact, I willed not to. I was still innocent, but still responsible.

Nice, condescending, arrogant, remark. Thanks.

Not willing to eat what you dish?

 

[nobdysfool]

I felt bad about all that as a warm wet sensation began to flood my diaper, but I wouldn't say I felt guilty.
​

No, just responsibility. Guilt requires immoral motive.

Guilt doesn't cause that. Repentance causes that.

I didn't will to pee in my diaper. In fact, I willed not to. I was still innocent, but still responsible.


Not willing to eat what you dish?

Keep it up, Rick.

 

[Ormly]

What...are you daring me to deny that Finney's revival was of God? Let me tell you plain and simple: if Finney worked all those people up denying some of the core elements of the Gospel in his preaching, then no...it was not of God. Why would the Spirit bless the profaning of the Cross of Christ?



No, there is none who has absolutely perfect doctrine. They do however have the core truths down. Finney did not. He denied the work of Christ and in so doing profaned the Cross.

Again, you seem much more intent on defending Finney than defending Christ, if our doctrine is as heinous as you claim.

BTW, People fell out of their doorway under the convicting power of the Holy Spirit when he walked down the street.

When touring a manufacturing facility the power of God fell on those who mocked him that shut down the whole factory.

Don't speak of him doing anything to persuade anyone. Don't tell me it was him and not God who brought conviction and quilt upon those who needed it.

 

[Rick Otto]

Finney's ministry was founded on duplicity from the beginning. He obtained his license to preach as a Presbyterian minister by professing adherence to the Westminster Confession of Faith. But he later admitted that he was almost totally ignorant of what the document taught. Here, in Finney's own words, is a description of what occurred when he went before the council whose task it was to determine if he was spiritually qualified and doctrinally sound:

Unexpectedly to myself they asked me if I received the Confession of faith of the Presbyterian church. I had not examined it;—that is, the large work, containing the Catechisms and Presbyterian Confession. This had made no part of my study. I replied that I received it for substance of doctrine, so far as I understood it. But I spoke in a way that plainly implied, I think, that I did not pretend to know much about it. However, I answered honestly, as I understood it at the time [Charles Finney, The Memoirs of Charles Finney: The Complete Restored Text (Grand Rapids: Academie, 1989), 53-54].


​

Despite his Clintonesque insistence that he "answered honestly," it is clear that Finney deliberately misled his examiners. (His ability to parse legal terms would have served him well had he been a politician in the late Twentieth Century. But he betrays an appalling brashness for a clergyman in his own era.) Rather than plainly admitting he was utterly ignorant of his denomination's doctrinal standards, he says he "spoke in a way" that implied ("I think") that he did not know "much" about those documents. The truth is that he had never even examined the Confession of Faith and knew nothing at all about it. He was woefully unprepared for ordination, and he had no business seeking a license to preach under the presbytery's auspices. "I was not aware that the rules of the presbytery required them to ask a candidate if he accepted the Presbyterian Confession of faith," Finney wrote. "Hence I had never read it" [Memoirs, 60.] So when he told his ordination council that he received the Confession "for substance of doctrine," nothing could have been further from the truth! Nonetheless, the council naively (and all too willingly) took Finney at his word and licensed him to preach.

from:http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm
​

 

[Ormly]

Finney's ministry was founded on duplicity from the beginning. He obtained his license to preach as a Presbyterian minister by professing adherence to the Westminster Confession of Faith. But he later admitted that he was almost totally ignorant of what the document taught. Here, in Finney's own words, is a description of what occurred when he went before the council whose task it was to determine if he was spiritually qualified and doctrinally sound:

Unexpectedly to myself they asked me if I received the Confession of faith of the Presbyterian church. I had not examined it;—that is, the large work, containing the Catechisms and Presbyterian Confession. This had made no part of my study. I replied that I received it for substance of doctrine, so far as I understood it. But I spoke in a way that plainly implied, I think, that I did not pretend to know much about it. However, I answered honestly, as I understood it at the time [Charles Finney, The Memoirs of Charles Finney: The Complete Restored Text (Grand Rapids: Academie, 1989), 53-54].


​

Despite his Clintonesque insistence that he "answered honestly," it is clear that Finney deliberately misled his examiners. (His ability to parse legal terms would have served him well had he been a politician in the late Twentieth Century. But he betrays an appalling brashness for a clergyman in his own era.) Rather than plainly admitting he was utterly ignorant of his denomination's doctrinal standards, he says he "spoke in a way" that implied ("I think") that he did not know "much" about those documents. The truth is that he had never even examined the Confession of Faith and knew nothing at all about it. He was woefully unprepared for ordination, and he had no business seeking a license to preach under the presbytery's auspices. "I was not aware that the rules of the presbytery required them to ask a candidate if he accepted the Presbyterian Confession of faith," Finney wrote. "Hence I had never read it" [Memoirs, 60.] So when he told his ordination council that he received the Confession "for substance of doctrine," nothing could have been further from the truth! Nonetheless, the council naively (and all too willingly) took Finney at his word and licensed him to preach.

from:http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm
​

Deliberately, you say? That is your 'spin' on it to convince yourself.

This is what he from the above:

"I answered honestly, as I understood it at the time [Charles Finney, The Memoirs of Charles Finney:"

You wish to quarrel with that while refusing to address the power of God in his evangelistic life? I dare say you know nothing of it except to parrot what you have been told. You prefer to ignore what God had done and then no doubt along with Fru, accuse me of exalting him over Christ. Go figger. Why don't you read his auto-biography?

 

[frumanchu]

BTW, People fell out of their doorway under the convicting power of the Holy Spirit when he walked down the street.

When touring a manufacturing facility the power of God fell on those who mocked him that shut down the whole factory.

Don't speak of him doing anything to persuade anyone. Don't tell me it was him and not God who brought conviction and quilt upon those who needed it.

Yeah, and I know of Benny Hinn supposedly "slaying whole crowds in the Spirit," causing them all to fall back.

The same Benny Hinn who has promoted numerous heresies and taught against fundamental orthodox doctrines.

Lots of strangs things happen around false teachers. Attributing them to the Holy Spirit is a common error.

 

[frumanchu]

Finney: "&#8230;The Christian &#8230;is justified no longer than he obeys, and must be condemned when he disobeys&#8230; the sinning Christian and the unconverted sinner are upon precisely the same ground."

Translation: The moment a Christian sins he is no longer justified. Ergo, salvation is by obedience (works), not by grace.

 

[Ormly]

Finney: "&#8230;The Christian &#8230;is justified no longer than he obeys, and must be condemned when he disobeys&#8230; the sinning Christian and the unconverted sinner are upon precisely the same ground."

Translation: The moment a Christian sins he is no longer justified. Ergo, salvation is by obedience (works), not by grace.

Any sin? Even onetime? Don't be foolish.That's what you want him to be saying however, he knows and would teach and I would agree with him that the Christian who practices sin is as the dog who returns to his vomit. He is worse off than the sinner who never comes to Christ. He is dangerously close to becoming a reprobate, turned over to Satan to become an outcast. I can speak personally of that danger. Paul also concerned himself with this for himself. I believe I read that from him somewhere. See also Heb 6.4 for a hint of how bad it could be for the backslidden Christian.

For an exercise: What are the types of sins noted in scriptures? You will find some 'more deadly' than others. Ask yourself the question, why? Which one do you believe Finney had in mind? Can you be objective in this or is your Calvinistic bondage too great?

 

[RTE (Road to Emmaus)]

...how bad it could be for the backslidden Christian.
There is no such thing as a backslidden Christian any more than there exists a half-pregnant woman.

The idea of "backslidden" is that pushed by ignorant evangelists who propagate a doctrine of legalism in the name of the gospel. In other words, Arminians - they who are the laughing stock of the world not by reason of the perceived foolishness of the gospel, but by reason of their insular, prudish, morality-based minds.

King David declared that if he made his bed in hell, God would still find him and love him.

The only way one can fall from grace, is that he not acknowledge its all-energising, all encompassing, all-consumming, all-affecting, conclusive, power. In other words, if he be an Arminian or some other legalist.

 

[nobdysfool]

Yeah, and I know of Benny Hinn supposedly "slaying whole crowds in the Spirit," causing them all to fall back.

The same Benny Hinn who has promoted numerous heresies and taught against fundamental orthodox doctrines.

Lots of strangs things happen around false teachers. Attributing them to the Holy Spirit is a common error.

Amen to that. Only someone with no discernment would automatically attribute any manifestation of power to the Holy Spirit. It is obvious here that the defender of Finney takes results to be the proof of genuine anointed ministry, and ignores the more important matter of integrity, honesty, and adherence to orthodox biblical doctrine on the part of the one ministering. A rotten tree cannot bring forth good fruit. Finney was a rotten tree, if there ever was one.

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Heymikey80:
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.​

"OPTION" --- something that is or can be chosen.
Mikey: "The will can only make ONE CHOICE."

There is no other option in your doctrine, Mike. Fatal conflict.

Quote:
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.​

So --- how is it that your will, still SINS? You have no answer for that...