Posted on 06/28/2002 4:30:00 AM PDT by xzins
I'm sure you are aware that there has been a debate going on for centuries, often referred to as the Calvinistic/Armenian debate, with Scriptures to back up both sides of the argument.
Anyway, in light of your belief, following is a message I have received from Dr. James Dobson/Focus on the Family. Please advise if this viewpoint is the same viewpoint you hold to.
You asked about Dr. Dobson's beliefs regarding eternal security. He holds to the classic Armenian view -- that is, he believes God never violates the free will of the individual. Dr. Dobson feels that God does not force people to accept Him, nor will He lock them into an earlier commitment if they subsequently choose deliberately and willfully to disobey His known will.
But while Dr. Dobson does not affirm the doctrine of eternal security, he is at the same time confident that our loving God will not banish us from fellowship with Him for our mistakes, human frailties, faults, and failings. God's forgiveness for sin is one of the foundation stones of the gospel message. Still, this does not change Dr. Dobson's conviction that the choice is ultimately ours. He believes it is possible for an individual to remove himself from the grace of God, and exit by the door through which he originally entered -- the will.
This means that, in Dr. Dobson's view, it is possible for a born-again Christian to shake his fist in God's face and say in essence, "I will have my own way!" When that occurs, "There remaineth no more sacrifice for sin." This scripture, which is quoted below in its larger context, is one of at least fifty references that may be cited in support of the theological perspective to which Dr. Dobson ascribes:
*For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, the Lord shall judge His people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.* Heb. 10:26-31 KJV
Dr. Dobson realizes many good Christians have drawn different conclusions regarding this issue. He feels it is an honest difference in understanding on the part of equally committed people who are seeking the truth through imperfect eyes. "We see through a glass darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (I Cor. 13:12)
We would emphasize the following points. The Bible teaches very clearly that it is possible to fall from faith (1 Corinthians 10:12). It also assures us that God will protect us from falling (1 Corinthians 10:13). The first passage warns us when we are complacent. The second comforts us when we are troubled. Among the other passages that deal with this are Matthew 13:18-23, Hebrews 10:26, and John 10:27-29.
We would, therefore, agree with the basic points which Dr. Dobson makes about the possibility of falling from faith but not with some of the other aspects of his answer. The Armenian view held by Dobson affirms that our free will cooperates in our conversion to Christ. We believe that our natural will resists God, and our will only cooperates with the Holy Spirit after conversion. We do not by nature have a free will to make a decision for Christ. We do not by nature have the freedom to choose for Christ. We do have the freedom to chose against him. From our perspective then, Dobson's answer is half right.
They (the non-Calvinist crowd) really do think that what we teach is that we are a bunch of antinomian robots who never move an inch towards God, rather we are dragged kicking and screaming against our wills by a terrible tyrant who cares nothing for us.
I tire of this mischaracterization, and almost feel that it is fruitless to argue with these people any longer.
Dobson's beliefs seem directed by his theology. If you believe that salvation is a matter of clicking together the ruby red slippers and repeating three time" I want ot go home, I want to go home, I want to go home" . Faith is a matter of mans will so then it is necessary to prepare the will and entice the will so that the man will, desire Christ
God is not a part of this process. Mans will trumps Gods grace, so you must find man solutions to the problems that will block the mans will .
The problem is not Adams sin , and the solution is not Gods grace.
The problem is all man and the solution is therefore all man. If we can solve all the mans human problems then maybe he will want to seek God. When in actually God is the solution to the problems
Welcome to the results of the anti reformation Jesuit doctrine.
God can not work unless man allows Him to..
Mans will trumps Gods grace!
Psychology the doctrinal child of Arminism...the church of man! The couch is the pulpit , the DSM the bible. Man ..heal thyself ! Pathetic!
A darn good question. I think you'll get a variety of answers. Some good, others not so good. I don't have time for an adequate reply at the moment. Freep mail me after the July 4th weekend if you don't get an adequate response here and I’ll share what I know.
Peace,
JWinNC
After the fall man's will became severely damaged. Adam was the only man with a truly free will. His sin changed that free will. Luther referred to it as the bondage of the will.
Man maintaines a shadow of the original free will that God gave Adam..but man was made spiritually dead in the fall. His free will choices are limited by the effect of the fall. Man may still do exactly what he choices to do with his free will. But man will never chose God. He will choose between levels of evil..but he will never choose Christ without Gods grace.
When God regenerates the man, and gives him back the full free will that Adam lost man will be free to choose God once again.
I think it's fascinating to see these guys in action. Both Grammer and ftd post these quotes (well, ftd didn't actually quote Melanchthon -suprise suprise) of Melanchthon and they go hand in hand with everything we've ever professed.
One can find nearly identical statements from Calvin -but somehow those quotes don't count. Calvin truly did think he and Melanchthon were quite close in nearly all their doctrine. It was actually Melanchthon's protege Zacharias Ursinus who, according to most experts, wrote most of the Heidelberg Catechism which is one of the three confessions of the Dutch Reformed Churches.
For all this talk of Melanchthon being a synergist, I have yet to see ANY quotes by him that expouse anything which a calvinist wouldn't whole heartedly agree!
In other words, Melanchthon and Calvin had nearly identical doctrine (Melanchthon even accepted Calvin's doctrine of the Eucharist towards the end of his life -and that was, perhaps the biggest difference between Calvin and Luther!). Melanchthon can state that he isn't a stoic and that the doesn't espouse determinism and that's OK. Yet, when Calvin says nearly the same thing, it doesn't count! Amazing.
Jean
He created me and every hair on my head; every thought in my head.
He's either God, or He's not.
Ummmmm I did leave that off huh? That is why I hesitate to answer a question like that. To me it seemed a given...but you are right most do not "get it"
Thanks for the addition to my thoughts I am glad you thought I did ok :>)
So because they purchased a campus that was formerly used for one purpose that makes them heir of the former owner's philosophy.
I guess that means that since Calvin's Geneva was formerly R.Catholic, and because Calvin studied for the priesthood, that means he was really a closet Roman Catholic.
Take that kind of connection into any academic or legal setting and see how far it will get you.
I guess you are complicit for all of the Republican Party's connections to one-worlders if you have ever voted Republican. I guess OP is complicit in all of the Libertarian Party's atheistic members' interests just because he advocates many of the Libertarian positions.
Dobson has consistently preached Christ. He has tried to have a political impact by being part of a coordinating effort to bring likeminded VOTERS together on issues on which they have similar interests.
I wonder if Drsteve has ever had anyone from his university/college/seminary setting do anything untoward. If so, would it make sense for me to brand him for their mistake? Of course not.
***there appear to present [sic] connections between Point Loma Nazarene University [PLNU], the Theosophical Society [TS] and Focus on the Family [FOTF]:***
Besides the bad grammar, note the weasel words "appear to present." This is yellow journalism language used in the absence of a substantive connection.
Is seems God told him several years ago to build a " Healing Center" 3000 million was tha target amount Old article
Acording to Fox News last night since that time good ole Benny has built himself a mansion and a ministry headquarters
But trust the ever changing God of Wesleyan/Arminians God has now changed His mind and there is no need for the "healing center"
Hey xzing God must not have known that He could heal without a special center , so once He realized that ..he canceled the center
Arminian god.." I am the god that changes alot"
Calvinist God
Mal 3:6 For I [am] the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
God will have much to say to that man at judgement.
No more than he'll have to say to the whole of Protestantism for not taking a stronger stand against this charlatan.
This is the problem with so many (mini) magesteriums.No accountablity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.