Posted on 05/04/2002 4:43:38 PM PDT by RnMomof7
Zacktly
Well, I can't answer any of these questions. I am a Calvinist only because I can read the Bible from left to right and not right to left. I've never been in any "Calvinist" church; I never read "Calvinist" works. And it used to bother me that I was the only one who seemed to see that the Lord really is Sovereign. In fact, the only churches I have ever been a member is a near Universalist Arminian Episcopalian (where the rector was very good at selecting his wines for the communion) and the church I attend now (the grape juice and plastic cup variety).
The Arminian Baptist churches I attended wouldn't even let me join unless I did things their way.
May I ask why you havent attended a Calvinist church?
That's how Clinton excuses what he does. "Mistakes". LOL!!
God doesn't view it that way: Jude 13.
Charles Finney and "Decision Theology"
Who's Finney? What's So Wrong With Finney's Theology? Here are some excerpts of a paper (linked below) about him:
"Reacting against the pervasive Calvinism of the Great Awakening, the successors of that great movement of God's Spirit turned from God to humans, from the preaching of **objective content** (namely, Christ and him crucified) to the emphasis on getting a person to "make a decision."
One result of Finney's revivalism was ... His "New Measures" ... the "anxious bench">/b> (**precursor to today's altar call**), EMOTIONAL TACTICS that led to fainting and weeping, and other "excitments," as Finney and his followers called them.
As the Princeton theologian B. B. Warfield pointed out so eloquently, there are two religions throughout history: Heathenism--of which Pelagianism is a religious expression--and supernatural redemption. And with Warfield and those who so seriously warned their brothers and sisters of these errors among Finney and his successors, we too must come to terms with the wildly heterodox strain in American Protestantism. With roots in Finney's revivalism, perhaps evangelical and liberal Protestantism are not that far apart after all. His "New Measures," like today's church growth movement, made human choices and emotions the center of the church's ministry, ridiculed theology, and replaced the preaching of Christ with the preaching of conversion.
"We sin because we're sinners": the condition of sin determines the acts of sin, rather than vice versa. But Finney followed Pelagius, the 5th-century heretic, who was condemned by more church councils than any other person in church history, in denying this doctrine.
Instead, Finney believed that human beings were capable of choosing whether they would be corrupt by nature or redeemed, referring to original sin as an "anti-scriptural and nonsensical dogma" (p.179). In clear terms, Finney denied the notion that human beings possess a sinful nature (ibid.). Therefore, if Adam leads us into sin, not by our inheriting his guilt and corruption, but by following his poor example, this leads logically to the view of Christ, the Second Adam, as saving by example. This is precisely where Finney takes it, in his explanation of the atonement.
The first thing we must note about the atonement, Finney says, is that Christ could not have died for anyone else's sins than his own. His obedience to the law and his perfect righteousness were sufficient to save him, but could not legally be accepted on behalf of others. That Finney's whole theology is driven by a passion for moral improvement is seen on this very point: "If he [Christ] had obeyed the Law as our substitute, then why should our own return to personal obedience be insisted upon as a sine qua non of our salvation?" (p.206).
In other words, why would God insist that we save ourselves by our own obedience if Christ's work was sufficient? The reader should recall the words of St. Paul in this regard, "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing." It would seem that Finney's reply is one of agreement. The difference is, he has no difficulty believing both of those premises.
That is not entirely fair, of course, because Finney did believe that Christ died for something--not for someone, but for something. In other words, he died for a purpose, but not for people. The purpose of that death was to reassert God's moral government and to lead us to eternal life by example, as Adam's example excited us to sin. Why did Christ die? God knew that "The atonement would present to creatures the highest possible motives to virtue. Example is the highest moral influence that can be exerted...If the benevolence manifested in the atonement does not subdue the selfishness of sinners, their case is hopeless" (p.209).
Therefore, we are not helpless sinners who need to be redeemed, but wayward sinners who need a demonstration of selflessness so moving that we will be excited to leave off selfishness. Not only did Finney believe that the "moral influence" theory of the atonement was the chief way of understanding the cross; he explicitly denied the substitutionary atonement, which "...assumes that the atonement was a literal payment of a debt, which we have seen does not consist with the nature of the atonement...It is true, that the atonement, of itself, does not secure the salvation of any one" (p.217).
Then there is the matter of applying redemption. Throwing off the Calvinistic orthodoxy of the older Presbyterians and Congregationalists, Finney argued strenuously against the belief that the new birth is a divine gift, insisting that "regeneration consists in the sinner changing his ultimate choice, intention, preference; or in changing from selfishness to love or benevolence," as moved by the moral influence of Christ's moving example (p.224). "Original or constitutional sinfulness, physical regeneration, and all their kindred and resulting dogmas, are alike subversive of the gospel, and repulsive to the human intelligence" (p.236).
Having nothing to do with original sin, a substitutionary atonement, and the supernatural character of the new birth, Finney proceeds to attack "the article by which the church stands or falls"--justification by grace alone through faith alone."
Go here to read the rest of the paper: The Legacy of Charles Finney by Michael S. Horton
MORE:
Of course our choices are limited, I don't think I've said differently. Here is what I said previously:
In that sense, I agree that we are limited in our choices...we've already made them and God knows what those choices are. He knows who his people are and always has. But he didn't make those choices. We did.
Our choices are what either brings us to God or turn away from God. In it's most basic sense, the *only* purpose of our free will is to make the decision whether or not we want to accept or reject God.
perhaps you were right.
Around here you need to define MORE and CIVIL!
:))
And what if Scripture tells you that you will never want to make the choice for the good?
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes. - Romans 3:10-18
Some things never change:
And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. - Genesis 6:5 (In other words, "all evil, all the time".)
Face it, we have already rejected God, we already have His judgment upon us, and we all deserve death and hell. It is only by His grace that He chooses to save any of us. Salvation is of the LORD - Jonah 2:9b
Welcome to the party? :-)
We do have the "freewill" to accept or deny God. We are free to do exactly as we want in this regard. However, none of us will ever choose to accept Him, or do any act pleasing to Him, except that He first give us new hearts that want to do so. There are none righteous, no not one, there are none who seek Him. We need to be born again.
Yes and no. At some point we have to say "I choose to follow your will, not my will God." God can sit there all day and night drawing us toward him, but as long as we resist, we resist. We need to give up self-determination and submit to God. At that point, God can begin to work his work in us.
A brood implies a family, a domestic unit, certainly that's a civil thought. And as to vipers, well Jesus --as an environmentalist-- was not swayed by the species predjudices of His day. By calling the pharisees vipers He was no doubt commending them on their ability to use their tongues to such great effect. Their eloquence, yeah that's the ticket.
"Brood of Vipers!"... He is commending them as well spoken, family friendly group of guys. Sounds civil to me.
====
The question is how should we be civil to one another and when is rebuke appropriate?
We could all join the Rodney King school of "Can't we all get along" Religious Evangelization...Gotta get alone to go along I hear...BTW what ever happened to good ole Rodney?...
I KNOW the cost of offense to Jesus...
Well, I have looked in my area and there is a Reformed Episcopalian church about 120 miles from here. Other than that, I have found only 1 other Reformed church in my area.
Plus, up until about 6 months ago, I didn't know what a Calvinist was other than some of those jokes Arminians love to tell like "Die heretic skum, die!" about the 2 Reformed Baptists on a bridge and I didn't know I was one. Gosh, I had to ask Jerry and OP what the TULIP was.
And, the church I do attend now is the most Reformed in nature of any I walked inside and I had to help build that church. But, not to worry, I can "see" the day were I do serve a Reformed church somewhere...
Does that mean you are stronger and have more power than God?
How will we ever do that in light of the Scriptures I presented in 169?
While I agree with you that you have described what man needs to do, how will he do it unless he is "born again", unless he is given a new heart by God's Holy Spirit? Then, and only then, will he do as Jesus commands, which is If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. (Luke 9:23)
Posted by RnMomof7 to Revelation 911 On Religion May 7 10:51 AM #171 of 177 Do you think Jesus was civil?
what I think is unimportant. However, to the believer yes, to the unbeliever, no.
Are you baiting, or are we going to speak to each other with civility?
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.