Whatever Happened To Repentance?

9/20/01 | David Wilkerson

[George W. Bush]

I guess you're calling us dogs and swine. I don't know what anyone on this thread said to you that remotely justifies this. Go ahead and stomp off in a huff if that's what you want.

[jude24]

So, let me try to summarize your position:

The believer sins. Of that there should be no debate. "In my flesh dwelleth no good thing" says Romans 7:18. (This, as opposed to Christ, who while he was incarnate in the flesh, was not fallen, unlike we.)

Now, you're saying that once the believer confesses his sins, they no longer exist (true). He therefore is sinless (uh.......) until his next sin. Is this a fair representation of your position???

I think some distinctions must be made. Being saved from sin involves several parts. The believer has already been saved from the penalty of his sin, in that he no longer need fear hell. He also has been set free from the power of sin, in that he no longer is a slave to sin (but indeed is free to choose). But the believer has not yet been set free from the prescence of sin-- he still has the fleshly nature (the "old man") living within him. That will not disappear until the Rapture, "when He shall appeart, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is." (I John 3:2). Then, when we shake off the old corruption, then we shall put on incorruption and thus this flesh, so weak and evil still, will no longer be an influence.

[the_doc]

So teach me....inspite of belief to the contrary I am teachable..:>)

That is what virtually all unteachable folks believe concerning themselves. It is the very reason why they are unteachable.

You are too proud to be teachable. When you run into something you haven't understood before, you balk and say "This can't be right--because this is not the way I understand it!"

In your pride, you balk. And in your balking, you force others to continue unrelenting arguments. But because you are only balking, this continuation of the discussion irritates you.

You then protect your false preconceptions by ignoring the cogent arguments of others and by offering vain "counterarguments" which do not even begin to address our arguments. This wins you a rebuke, because it understandably irritates those of us who do care about the Truth and who do not like to have our Lord Jesus Christ mocked by you.

Sometimes you dismiss the rebuke with a smarmy joke or inane flattery. This is part of your self-deception. You think you love the Lord, and your "lovely" spirit is part of the charade of your Truth-despising spirit.

And the whole mess is sealed by your false doctrine of sanctification. You are actually an unholy mess, it seems to me.

No, lady, you are not teachable yet. You are not even close.

[the_doc]

As a follow-up comment to my previous post, I would point out that you have NEVER seriously entertained the Calvinistic position.

This explains EVERYTHING about your difficulty.

The worst part of the farce is that you would probably come back with the retort "Oh, but I have entertained your position."

The truth is, you haven't. You are stuck in your self-deceptions. (Guess what doctrinal position warns you about that. The Calvinistic position itself is the warning which you can't hear and heed--which, in turn, is the Calvinistic warning itself!)

[George W. Bush]

Now, you're saying that once the believer confesses his sins, they no longer exist (true). He therefore is sinless (uh.......) until his next sin. Is this a fair representation of your position??? I don't think he's coming back. But, yes, that is what he said on previous threads, very similar to this most recent statement. And no Calvinists dispute this, that we are without sin and blameless until we sin again.

The dispute is whether a second act of grace (knowa as "Entire Sanctification") can make us able to discern and avoid sin forever. If only it were true! But Calvinists don't believe that the scripture gives us this teaching. We do, of course, affirm that increasing holiness should be the goal of every Christian and that it is part of the fruit of the Spirit in a Christian's life. We Calvinists do believe in Perseverance of the Saints, that in the end, God will not allow His own to fall. But we don't believe that He grants us an immunity from sin or a supernatural ability to resist sin as a work of the Spirit as effective as the power of the Spirit's work was in the time of Pentecost.

Personally, I think every church should set high standards and hold its members accountable for godly behavior. In this sense, the Holiness churches do set a good example, one which is pretty similar to the ancient churches. But I do think that their perfectionism can actually make people weaker, not stronger. It leaves them open to the Accuser when they stumble or fall, perhaps too discouraged to get up again and follow our Shepherd.

For a just man falleth seven times, and riseth up again: but the wicked shall fall into mischief. - Proverbs 24:16

[LoneGreenEyeshade]

"We will always need our Saviour. The blessed work of the Holy Spirit upon our own spirits can never replace the centrality of the cross in our belief or in our daily walk with He who paid the price of our sins...I believe that God indwells in the earthly believer through the Holy Spirit."

AMEN.

"Quench not the Spirit." 1 Thes 5:19

Why would God command this if He did not indwell us with His Spirit...once we have accepted the work of the Jesus on the cross?

"I will send the Comforter to you...when the Spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth."(John 16:13)

God bless you.

[George W. Bush]

That is what virtually all unteachable folks believe concerning themselves. It is the very reason why they are unteachable. So. Virtually all unteachable folks believe they're teachable and that is exactly why they are unteachable?

Is your point that those who believe themselves unteachable are therefore the only ones who are teachable?

Or is your point that the vast majority of the "teachable" as well as all of the outright "unteachable" are all actually unteachable? It seems that this must be the case.

So, in the end, only a very small fraction of those who claim to be teachable actually are teachable. And, it seems by the evidence of these threads, those few truly "teachable" ones just happen to be those who always agree with you or at least don't publicly disagree with you, no matter what you say. Like when you "teach" us about the hidden irony of Jesus. Or the other secret knowledge of the Bible you have. Why does it increasingly remind me of the exact things said by the ancient Gnostics, your insistence on these hidden and advanced teachings that you hold?

I don't think my analysis here has a flaw. All of the previous threads demonstrate it and are consistent with it.

If doctrine is of such a central importance, then why no broader concern with doctrine on all fronts? Why have you not discussed modern pentecostalism in general, both the type the Wesleyans hold that leads to perfectionism or the type that leads the charismatics to consider their gibberish to be equal to the true speaking of tongues at Pentecost? Both Baptist and Reformed traditions exclude both types of modern pentecostalism. Is it only because CCWoody is charismatic but affirms Calvinism and that peg the prophet seems to be agreeing with you that you tacitly avoid comment on their modern notions of pentecostalism but reject and denounce viciously the pentecostalism of the Nazarenes who have, actually, a far less pernicious influence on the body of Christ?

Why is unity of Calvinist doctrine more important than a discussion of infant baptism? Is it only because we are in unity with Uriel on Calvinism (and, yes, Uriel is the most lovable of us Calvinists) but we won't discuss it for fear of splitting the Calvinist camp?

As far as us Baptists go, I think that you and I both hold strong reservations about scriptural support for universal infant salvation. Yet, I can quote Jerry's remarks in which he strongly affirms infant salvation (and could quote my own Sunday school teacher to that same effect). Is this doctrine of such lesser practical importance than Calvinist doctrines that we should labor through thread after thread after thread and never discuss it seriously for fear of some disunity among Calvinists?

Despite all the clamor and claims of seeking a pure and complete Christian doctrine, it seems that there are some exceptions to the Calvinist quest for doctrinal purity after all. The doctrines of grace are not the only doctrines of the Bible but one would rarely know it from reading our threads. Frankly, I can't see why any reader would believe that there exists anything resembling a close unity of doctrine among FR's Calvinists. And there is often a sneering and hostile spirit from some Calvinists toward others that is never shown in the Bible. There is, after all, a difference between eternal security and eternal arrogance.

[RnMomof7]

The dispute is whether a second act of grace (knowa as "Entire Sanctification") can make us able to discern and avoid sin forever.

That is a bit of a over simplification GW...I doubt you will ever find a Weselyan that claims "sinlessness".

Rememeber my post to Woody that cause all the uproar? Well I listed obvious ten commandment sin...and yet even though all Christians know the list,they choose to break them...notice I used a Weselyan word there.."choose"...no one HAS to lie..no one HAS to cheat on a business deal...

Weselyans would see this as intentional sin ,because you know they are sin and you do it anyway..

Do you believe that Gods grace can keep you from choosing to sin?

That is where the "alarm" of the Holy Spirit comes in..ahhhhh you are poked by the Spirit and reminded that a certain act is sin and displeasing to God..now you have the choice to say yes or no to the sin

As you grow in Gods grace and holiness you will say no to sin more often..

But there are always those sins that jerry listed so well a few threads ago..sins of omission..things we should have done..or some things that you might do without an alarm going off...losing your temper,gossip..

Your relationship to sin changes with Gods grace..because you dont want to sin..and His grace enables you not to sin more and more...and when you do,we have an advocate with the Father..we confess the sin and are forgiven...and hopefull we learn to hear the alarm of the Holy Spirit the next time so we do not persist in that sin..

This is my understanding of it GW..not some great secret doctrine,in fact I would think a somewhat common experience in born again believers.

[George W. Bush]

You present here a very moderate view of perfectionism. Actually, I'm not sure I'd even call it perfectionism. It's pretty similar to what you find in any church.

I'm not sure that I would agree that this is how perfectionism has always been presented. However, I don't believe that a second act of grace is necessary. However, broadly speaking, I don't have any real problem with what you just said. You may believe in a second and separate act of grace and I believe that one act of grace is sufficient but we must both certainly affirm that it is the ongoing work of the Spirit in teaching that keeps us secure in our faith.

Certainly, growing in Christ and in faith and being lead to hate and avoid our sin is the goal of any Christian. We should all expect to grow stronger in resisting sin or we should wonder what is wrong in our walk with Him. As long as we don't misuse scripture to suggest that a fall or failing means we are no longer saved, I don't have much problem with what you outlined above. A falling into sin or a realization of sin requires repentance, not a questioning of our entire salvation.

[RnMomof7]

Sometimes you dismiss the rebuke with a smarmy joke or inane flattery. This is part of your self-deception. You think you love the Lord, and your "lovely" spirit is part of the charade of your Truth-despising spirit.

I feel sorry for you doc

[the_doc]

As you know, I regard you as a divisive crank who knows a few Calvinistic doctrines (as I did before my regeneration in Christ) but who can't clearly grasp the bottom-line point of the theology of Edwards anyway.

You really need to quit playing these smart-aleck games. One of the other Calvinistic FReepers outside our smaller circle has even said that you seem to be some kind of religious hobbyist. (That's a big difference between me and you. I'm not playing games.)

***

The point which you have glossed over in your nasty little challenge is that I can prove my position against RnMomof7. She evades it by simply ignoring it. And this is obvious to any honest lurker, even if you are not honest enough to admit that.

I realize that you resent my uncompromising confidence in Christ the Word. You have even admitted that you are jealous of my ability to learn directly from the Scriptures, rather than from your cherished and overly revered "scholars."

Well, if I were you, I would not be so much jealous (and now spiteful) as worried.

***

Your insistence on stirring up the infant baptism issue again--after you have said that you would cool it!--shows that you do not clearly belong in this discussion of Reformed theology anyway. You have exceedingly bad judgment. Overall orthodoxy notwithstanding, you really do have the spirit of a heretic.

There is a time for every purpose under heaven. But this forum is not the time or place for your anti-paedobaptist spats. It is not the time for your King James Onlyism.

And it is certainly not the time for your carping complaints against me when I happen to be correct about RnMomof7. She is refractory to sound doctrine.

(She can't understand Hebrews 10:14 any better than you can. You two have the same Wesley-style spirit, oddly enough. This is why I do not regard you as an ally in the cause of God and Truth. We have given you every opportunity to repent of your asinine behavior on the earlier thread, and you have smugly refused.)

[the_doc]

You just made my point.

[George W. Bush]

As you know, I regard you as a divisive crank who knows a few Calvinistic doctrines (as I did before my regeneration in Christ) but who can't clearly grasp the bottom-line point of the theology of Edwards anyway. I think any review of the threads actually shows something entirely different. I like Edwards but feel you overrate his work in much the same way as you have Boettner. In particular, Edwards work on the religious affections is so convoluted and disorganized, it has little meaning and actual practicable substance. The author virtually disavowed it in his own introduction. He had a few great sermons though.

You really need to quit playing these smart-aleck games. One of the other Calvinistic FReepers outside our smaller circle has even said that you seem to be some kind of religious hobbyist. (That's a big difference between me and you. I'm not playing games.) I think I'll not lose too much sleep over the soundness of this person whose cowardly enough to accuse behind my back. If they even exist. More of your new charismatic allies? Has your independent Baptist church taken to speaking in tongues? Yes, you do play games. And the small handful of regulars here is not as indicative that you are correct as the dozens or perhaps hundreds of Calvinists at FR who refuse to set foot here. That's why these threads are generally so barren. You actually seem to believe that infinite and harsh repetition will convince someone. Certainly I believe, as Paul did, that all preaching is foolishness. But there is a style of preaching so foolish that I doubt God will ever use it except in the last resort. You don't even grasp what it is you discard and condemn or drive away. What a narrow view of the patient and teaching spirit to which we are commanded in scripture. How you strangle the message of hope in the Gospels.

The point which you have glossed over in your nasty little challenge is that I can prove my position against RnMomof7. She evades it by simply ignoring it. And this is obvious to any honest lurker, even if you are not honest enough to admit that. No, I don't see that at all. Most of what people read in your posts is a constant alternation of "I'm right!" and "You're damned!" with surprisingly little substance. About one third of all your posts have nothing more than those two statements in them for all practical purposes. I have to say that at one time your posts were far more effective and had some actual substance. I can't recall the last time you shared a truly sound scriptural teaching. It's been quite a while. Despite your constant insistence that we Calvinists make the free offer of salvation, that's not what you offer. It's much more like the free offer of damnation the way you teach it. There is, in the tone of your remarks, nothing of the sweetness of Spurgeon's calls to repentance. Instead, you exemplify to me exactly the sort of profitless dispute that Paul so soundly warned Timothy against at the end of Paul's own ministry. Funny, that's one teaching of Paul's you never bother with.

I realize that you resent my uncompromising confidence in Christ the Word. You have even admitted that you are jealous of my ability to learn directly from the Scriptures, rather than from your cherished and overly revered "scholars."

Well, if I were you, I would not be so much jealous (and now spiteful) as worried. I'm hardly ashamed. Actually, I've benefitted from learning more of the great scholars and their works than anything I've read here in quite some time. And when you start turning scripture on its head over a preposition or telling us about the secret irony of scripture, I know better than to follow you down that dark path. Spare me such "learning". The great scholars never do that sort of thing. They are far more sober in the Word, knowing their own responsibility in teaching. As far as your accusation (yawn) that I'm jealous and spiteful, I don't think most readers will see that in my post.

Your insistence on stirring up the infant baptism issue again--after you have said that you would cool it!--shows that you do not clearly belong in this discussion of Reformed theology anyway. You have exceedingly bad judgment. Overall orthodoxy notwithstanding, you really do have the spirit of a heretic. I believe in believers' baptism only. That you, a Baptist elder, wants to play games with this tells most anyone what your real priorities are. In the remarks of which you complain, I was asking why only the TULIP doctrine is important, the standard by which all believers should be measured when in fact there are equal or greater divisions within the FR Calvinist camp on infant baptism, charismania, infant salvation and other matters. And yet, your lightning bolts are only hurled upon non-Calvinists, not those whose measure of disagreement with Calvin is no greater than some of the divisions with the camp of FR Calvinists. Your attempt to distract from this key point is obvious.

The fact that I raise this question is not some proof that I have "exceedingly bad judgment" or the "spirit of a heretic". It's proof that you have an overweening concern for Calvinism that overrides every and all other doctrinal considerations, some of which are as important or more important in the daily lives of believers.

Calvinistic solidarity is not and should not be the complete focus of spiritual life, even for Calvinists. You are afraid to examine the other issues for fear that the Calvinistic coalition will break up.

There is a time for every purpose under heaven. But this forum is not the time or place for your anti-paedobaptist spats. It is not the time for your King James Onlyism. Actually, I don't believe the time to discuss these things will ever come. We can all repeat ourselves hundreds or thousands of times on Calvinist doctrine arguments and yet never can we discuss these other issues, issues which divide our regular posters as much as does our reading of scripture with regard to the TULIP doctrines.

And it is certainly not the time for your carping complaints against me when I happen to be correct about RnMomof7. She is refractory to sound doctrine. I don't think it's RnMom who is truly refractory in the teachings of the Word. But I don't consider myself to be her master or appoint myself her spiritual dictator.

(She can't understand Hebrews 10:14 any better than you can. You two have the same Wesley-style spirit, oddly enough. This is why I do not regard you as an ally in the cause of God and Truth. We have given you every opportunity to repent of your asinine behavior on the earlier thread, and you have smugly refused.) Actually, since you have told me that I'm damned and unregenerate in FRmail, then if I recanted my (correct) reading of 10:14 and apologized, I would still be just as damned and unregenerate. In other words, your entire position is that your personal test of my salvation is whether I agree with your reading of 10:14 or not. If I agree, I'm saved. If I disagree, I'm damned. So, your entire position on this has been unsound and is non sequitur to anyone who believes that words have a consistent meaning. Actually, your position is fatuous and so ridiculous that I am constantly more astounded that anyone takes you seriously. This is your own doing, not mine.

I'll leave aside your accusation that I have a Wesley-style spirit. Poor Wesley here has suffered perhaps more than he should. He was a poor theologian but not as much the villain you would like to paint. I still like Whitefield very much and find in him a real spiritual challenge. I have noticed that you seldom comment on anyting Whitefield writes on the call to personal holiness and dedication to living a godly life. He is, in that sense, little different from Wesley. It's sound instruction.

[White Mountain]

Your #131 et al:

Still after RnMomof7, I see.

You need to know, doc, that GWB has your welfare at heart, as do the rest of us. Please reread his warnings, ponder them, and give heed, lest you end up being shunned even by your current supporters as a false messiah.

You set yourself up long ago as the sole oracle on the interpretation of scripture verses and the salvation of individuals. You are trying to play God.

God bless you regarding your own individual efforts to find salvation, but you cannot enter therein until you humble yourself and drop all these pretentions.

Regarding your efforts to exalt yourself and speak for God, they shall come to naught. God has at sundry times given this authority unto apostles and prophets, who were holy men and did not exalt themselves or go beyond their calling, but you have no such authority, and no such calling.

[the_doc]

Well, all I can say is that you don't know what you are talking about.

Remember, you're a Mormon. Christians really don't pay much attention to you. And we never will.

We can't.

[Dahlseide]

I just read the post you referred to in your #69. You are correct. I am sad. My response, were a child of mine to make a similar statement, would include falling to my knees in prayer, followed by an application of soapy water to the source of the utterance concommitant with an explanation of why the soapy water was being applied. Then if all went well we would both be on our knees in agreement with God's judgment on the two of us.

[White Mountain]

Your #135:

Of course I know what I am talking about, and yes, I am a Latter-Day Saint. Try your hand at writing a positive post addressed to a non-Calvinist that does not attack anybody.

You haven't had much of an answer to anything I have said recently, because it is right on the mark, and you won't admit it of course (because of your depravity and denial), but deep down you know that, or you will know that someday.

I have learned just a little tiny bit about the FRmail you have been sending to people, and I am disgusted. I will say to you again what I said a few months ago: Take your bashing and your baiting and your unChristian behavior to another forum. Learn to honor womanhood.

GWB and Diamond and others will be able to carry the torch of Calvinism just fine without you, so you needn't worry about that.

May God bless you, doc, and open your eyes that you may see.

[Dahlseide]

Your choice of filthy in your #69 as a description of #63 was much to mild.

[Dahlseide]

You cannot deflect the issue to sarcasm. Sarcasm is NOT the issue. Your filthy statement (#63) under the rubric of sarcasm is the issue.

[White Mountain]

Your #136:

I just went back and looked also. (I have been trying to keep up with the news of our war effort.) That really started something! Now doc and Uriel are demanding apologies again, and they may go for thread after thread doing so, if the past is any guide.

This is their modus operandi. Attack. Attack. Attack. Look for pretexts to attack. Try to get the other guy angry, so when they counterattack (even couched in sarcasm), profess to be deeply wounded, and make endless demands for apologies, which is another kind of attack.

Same old double standard. They get to attack, but the other guy cannot counterattack, even couched in sarcasm. They get to take the unChristian low road, but the other guy has to live up to a higher standard.

We accept. We will live a higher standard as best we can, knowing that we will be forever accused by these guys of anything and everything regardless.

RnMom made it clear that she was being sarcastic. That should be enough, but it won't be.

Everyone involved knows that Calvinists do not advocate the immoral lifestyle, quite the opposite, so there is no need for endless recrimination and demands for apology.

My recommendation to RnMom is that she try to avoid giving these guys an opening (though they will just attack about something else anyway).

My recommendation to doc and Uriel is that they not be like the Chinese last spring, demanding apologies when one of their fighters crippled one of our spy planes and we intruded into their airspace to make an emergency landing without their "permission", or like the Taliban wanting a holy war if we should go in looking for the terrorists they won't bring to justice.

Uriel and doc attack in nearly every post addressed to a non-Calvinist. They are hypocritical demanding endless apologies when someone pushes back, but they do it anyway. Thus their reputation and credibility suffers so badly. GWB's #75 is the appropriate way to respond.