Posted on 02/01/2014 9:41:58 AM PST by EscondidoSurfer
How exactly does one overcome sin? As one who has thought much about this, I always enjoy reading other perspectives.
Charles Finney (1792-1875)—the famous revivalist—wrote directly about this issue in an article called “How to Overcome Sin” (see link at the bottom of this page). His thoughts on this topic are spot on. Here are five points he makes:
1. There is much wrong teaching about overcoming sin.
“And what is particularly saddening, and even agonizing, is that many ministers and leading Christians give perfectly false instruction upon the subject of how to overcome sin.”
(Excerpt) Read more at overcoming-lust.com ...
Careful with Finney. I believe (if my memory is correct) he denies sin nature and believes that it is possible for a Christian to cease sinning. Hence his little comment on Romans 7
"...Be not afraid, only believe." (Mark 5:36)
"Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." (John 6:29)
“Careful with Finney. I believe (if my memory is correct) he denies sin nature.......”
That’s not all he denies.
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing
Thanks for that link! It’s incredible how often I see this con-man mentioned by folks!
It was a joke.
What’s funny is that the article itself is almost as extreme as what I wrote in sarcasm.
Bfl
I try to be careful with anyone, but i have not read to make judgments on the many things many have, but i do see where i think he is in error as he tries to form his reactionary theology (which is nothing new), though i have also seen charges made based on what Finney says or seems to say in one place but seems to contradict in another, besides trying to blame him for the "decisionism" and superficiality of today,while i think Finney made it hard to be saved due to his high standards. I was listening to Paul Washer again today, whose reactionary preaching there i recommend, but believe there is a place in calling convicted sinners to make a decision, but being an instrument of conviction so the lost become convicted is the main thing.
Check out that link the other poster provided. It appears his opinion only seems to get better when his work is sanitized. The originals are quite deadly.
Evidently, you have a different version of Romans 9 than I have. Mine reads, "...for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God's purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, it was said to her'The older will serve the younger.' Just as it is written, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'" Hmmm.
No, mine is the same Scripture. But it seems you are looking at it from a human viewpoint, whereas one should look at the context from The Omniscient God's point of view, standing outside of time.
Through foreknowledge, The Father of The Lord Jesus Christ knew that Esau was going to choose a life that would not involve repentance from dead works, nor committed trust in Him.
The God did not predestine Esau to Sheol. But Esau selected that destination for himself, and thus disappointed Elohim. Jacob did not. Jacob feared and trusted The God, a choice God also foreknew, before either twin was born, and for which His Son, The Lamb of Calvary, was predestined to be slain from the foundation of the world, because of Adam's and Eve's sinfulness (which was inherited by all their progeny).
In the text you quoted from Paul's letter to the Romans, the verb "to love" is ἀγαπάω (ah-gah-pah-oh), whose meaning is "to sovereignly prefer one above self and others." When The God said this, He clearly meant that He preferred fellowship with and was pleased with Jacob and not with Esau who disappointed Him, because of the choices they were going to make and behaviors they were going to exhibit, based on trusting or not trusting, of choosing to love or not love, The God, Whose Begotten Son was to died for both of these twins, but which Sacrifice accepted by only one of the twins.
"Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:
Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;
Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.
For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears" (Heb 12:14-17 AV).
In fact, the following chapter, Romans 10 deals exclusively with righteousmess and salvation through faith alone (sole fide) based on The Faith delivered by Jesus to His disciples, through His Word spoken to them, which they were to repeat, teach, and write without change (sola Scriptura) to others who would come after. So the Scripture to which you and I have access is the same, but our understanding of the meaning of it apparently is not.
Curious...since you claim to understand Scripture, please provide a passage supporting this claim because it certainly does not comport with the rest of Chap. 9. The passage says "...before they did anything good or bad so that God's choice might stand." And, Paul argues that many will find this "unfair".
"Jacob feared and trusted The God, a choice God also foreknew, before either twin was born, and for which His Son, The Lamb of Calvary, was predestined to be slain from the foundation of the world, because of Adam's and Eve's sinfulness (which was inherited by all their progeny)."
If the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (agreed) was known before Eden (after the foundation of the world), then did God foreknow the outcome of Eden? Thus, could there have been an alternate outcome? But, if there is no alternate outcome, then Eden was planned and executed exactly as intended. Otherwise your definitions of "predestination" and "foreknowledge" are so malleable as to have no substance...
"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:" (Is. 46:10 AV)
Seems to me that He knew what the outcomes would be. Either (1) Adam would not eat of the "tree" of good and evil, or (2) eventually if/when Adam would eat of that "tree", he would die in spirit to The God right away; later physically when Sin/entropy took its toll. O course, Adam's soul was not designed to die, ever.
Is not that kind of obvious?
I understand some Scripture from other Scripture that describes and defines it.
"Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you" (Prov. 1:23 AV).
I do not understand all Scripture, for sure. Sometimes I just make educated guesses, but hold neither myself nor others to it. When that happens, I just try to make it clear that it is probable, not absolute.
However, The Omniscient God having foreknowledge, as claimed here, is absolute. You can't surprise The God.
. . . please provide a passage supporting this claim . . .
I did in another response to you--Isaiah 45:11.
. . . because it certainly does not comport with the rest of Chap. 9.
Oh, it most certainly does, but apparently it has not come to your attention that The God already knows which, in the end, ones eternal destination is. However, He does not make our choices.
As my friend, the reform school counselor teaches his recalcitrant youthful inmates: "Mind your ABCs. Actions arise from Beliefs, and have Consequences." His job was to help them reform their beliefs, not merely suppress their actions.
Satan wants humans, born into Sin as a master, to believe in him and in ourselves his subjects, rather than in The God and Christ as our Master; with The Holy Ghost as obeyed Counselor in our choices.
We, as Esau and Jacob, are/were in Adam's Reform School; and the big singular determining individual choice in this life is whether or not one acknowledges sinfulness, unreservedly and unfailingly commits trust in God to save him/her, and receives His power to abandon sin and cling to His Dear Son, the Promised Messiah.
"What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith" (Rom. 9:30 AV).
Faith that leads to salvation comes first, consistent actions demonstrating the faith comes afterward.
"Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works" (Jas. 2:18 AV).
Esau failed to make the right choice while repentance was still available:
"And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years" (Gen 6:3 AV).
Not that God didn't try.
Post 31: . . . please provide a passage supporting this claim . . . (Dutcboy88)
Post 33: I did in another response to you--Isaiah 45:11. (imardmd1)
That response was my Post 32 to your Post 31, and the verse quoted was:
"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:" (Is. 46:10 AV)
The things to be done by The God in the future presumes omniscience, including a foreknowledge of things to be done by others in the future, or to be thought by others in the future (the others perhaps not having yet even been born), to which His counsel is, or will be (and is also foreknown) a fit response.
Of course, all Biblical prophesy inherently embodies this aspect of His omniscience and foreknowledge, as stated obviously in Isaiah 46:10. N'est ce pas--Is it not so?
Now, if this discussion is to proceed reasonably and carefully, we will not be able to address numerous topics in each post. Thus, I will focus on this particular point (recognizing I am bypassing other points for now, but we'll be back).
Your contention was that God did not drive Esau to his situation, but foresaw that Esau would choose it. And, you now claim that this passage in Is. supports your claim. That is, you find in this passage the concept that God is not managing the events of human history, but simply knows them. Man is doing them without any input from God's direction and evidently "free" from His control. Have I represented you correctly? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but the topics you are presenting are sufficiently broad as to warrant clarifying definitions.
We will?
Your contention was that God did not drive Esau to his situation, but foresaw that Esau would choose it.
I believe that is so, reading the passage Gen. 25:28-34. Do you think that The God prompted or interfered with the decisions made in that passage?
That is, you find in this passage the concept that God is not managing the events of human history, but simply knows them.
That is not at all what I said. Regarding His omnipotence, so far not much has been said. My remarks were directed toward his omniscience and foreknowledge. You have broadened the scope, attributing it to me, and in a direction I do not favor.
You might want to consider the role foreknowledge plays in the conduct of a chess move, or in the layout and writing of a fictional novel.
Absolutely. I believe that is precisely what the Scriptures teach. While this may not be explicit in this episode, continue to read the Book and you will find that is exactly what is happening. Exodus and the remarks from God hardening Pharaoh's heart before Moses speaks with him. Prov. 21:1, "The king's heart (notice that is Solomon speaking of himself) is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes."
There are probably 50 more passages which tell us that God is controlling hearts to believe and to go to destruction. These passages would obviously subsume any remark about a man being told to "choose". The outcome is "go ahead and choose, understand it is God causing that choice."
And, yes, I have considered the role of foreknowledge. It is intimately related to predestination and omnipotence. Notice, if God foreknows what is going to happen tomorrow at 4 pm, then just one thing is going to happen...the thing He knows. Can another thing happen? No. Thus, we are on the way to that thing happening. That you cannot feel yourself moved toward that is part of the genius of God, but He knows what is going to happen precisely because He is directing the outcome.
You may wish to read the Is. passage again. It speaks of this very concept rather than the one you mangled it into.
I fear you’ve only fashioned an automaton, not fearfully and wonderfully in the image of Him that created, made to fellowship by choice with Him, yet having the freedom to refuse. We are at an impasse; for in fact all born of fallen Adam are involuntarily under condemnation. Please do not tell me that Adam had no choice.
Finney is funny.
Finney didn’t believe in the imputation of righteousness to believers. He also held we lost our salvation whenever we sinned. He’s Pelagian.
No where does is say that Adam had free choice. But, it does say that the Lamb provided by God was slain before the foundation of the world. If Jesus' death was already in the plan, what do you think God knew at that time? And, if that one thing was already going to happen, do you actually believe Jesus' death, burial, resurrection was simply Plan B?
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.