Thanks,
Jeff. You are correct about the "self-imaging" concept. We have, over
the years, have had heaped upon us the expectations from others (and
from ourselves). Added to this is the fact that we live in a society
which grotesquely over-emphasises accomplishment and appeareances over
substance and serenity. (Heck, they need to make a buck off of us
somehow, what better way than to have an electronic means to convey to
you the message that you smell bad and look worse!). And even if our
expectations are not based upon such epehmeral things, we are still lead
by the nose by an entire host of spritual nasties into believing that
we need to exert more effort in our spiritual/religious activities.
("After all" they whisper to us in our most beleaguered and demorlalized
moments, "the Cross was a very, very good jump-start, but you really
can't count upon it to see you through the end"). We buy into this - or
permutations of this - lie everytime we walk down the "spiritual help"
section of a Christian bookstore. (I am beginning to wonder if they
shouldn't just have a straight-razor at the end of those bookshelves,
just in case you get to the end and you did not see anything that
helped!).
Anyway, it is all getting to the point where I am
splashing in the shallows again after spending a long, long time in the
deeps. (And unless He calls me elsewhere, it's where I am staying for
now!).
The world is indeed upside down TB... I just wrote a
post and my connection got interrupted and lost the thing... but the
gospel is very simple. Man thinks he is smart enough to add to it... to
further explain it.. and to make stipulations in order to enjoy this
grace. But the apostle is declaring here that there is nothing more that
needs to dress it up. It is finished. And so in order to believe that
the gospel is enough we must come off as fools. This is why the
apostle concludes this chapter with Gods love because if we do not
really believe that its a simple as it says then we have a problem
believing that God could love us so much to give us something for free
and then demand nothing in return in order to prove that it was the best
gift. The apostle says that its just glorifying God by enjoying Him
forever. People are always fascinated when they try to define a
simple thing by adding their own definition. This is why the gospel is
anti way to the way we do things. It is something that is too good to
believe and its something that is in reverse of what we think is what
should be done by applying truth. The reason we have a society that
focuses on the external things is because they add to the gospel. The
gospel is what gives us the power to do things anti intuitively. This is
why we feel as if we are the only ones who have this vision.
|
2702
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Charles G. Finney's Systematic Theology
|
on: March 22, 2011, 07:38:24 AM
|
|
It has been strangely and absurdly maintained
that right would be obligatory if it necessarily tended to and resulted
in universal and perfect misery. Than which a more nonsensical
affirmation was never made. The affirmation assumes that the law of
right and of good will are not only distinct, but may be antagonistic.
It also assumes that that can be law that is not suited to the nature
and relations of moral agents. Certainly it will not be pretended that
course of willing and acting that necessarily tends to, and results in,
universal misery, can be consistent with the nature and relations of
moral agents. Nothing is or can be suited to their nature and relations,
that is not upon the whole promotive of their highest well-being.
Expediency and right are always and necessarily at one. They can never
be inconsistent. That which is upon the whole most expedient is right,
and that which is right is upon the whole expedient.
12.
Exclusiveness. Moral law is the only possible rule of moral obligation. A
distinction is usually made between moral, ceremonial, civil and
positive laws. This distinction is in some respects convenient, but is
liable to mislead, and to create an impression that something can be
obligatory, in other words can be law, that has not the attributes of
moral law. Nothing can be law, in any proper sense of the term, that is
not and would not be universally obligatory upon moral agents under the
same circumstances. It is law because, and only because, under all the
circumstances of the case, the course prescribed is fit, proper,
suitable, to their natures, relations, and circumstances. There can be
no other rule of action for moral agents but moral law, or the law of
benevolence. Every other rule is absolutely excluded by the very nature
of moral law. Surely there can be no law that is or can be obligatory
upon moral agents but one suited to, and founded in their nature,
relations, and circumstances.
This is and must be the law of love
or benevolence. This is the law of right, and nothing else is or can
be. Every thing else that claims to be law, and to impose obligation
upon moral agents, must be an imposition and "a thing of nought" (Isaiah
29:21).
The reason that we love is not because the law
presents us with no other option but because God loves us in covenant as
law breakers. We must be free in order to love.
Whatever the
universal right is if it is expedient then there is no reason that it
should not be followed by the ability to achieve it. And if expediency
and right are not hand in hand then there is a lack of ability at some
point in the process. Because to say that the law fits in how man is
created is to say that the expediency would be natural for man. If it is
Gods nature to be known by His ability to act by His attributes then
then ability and nature should be required of man. But we see the
opposite that what is natural to God is not natural to man> for the
sake of argument. Because what is expedient is that man is naturally
fitted to his own inability in order to be expedient in his dependence
upon God.
|
 Remove
 Reply
 Quote
 Notify
|
|
|
2703
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Whitefields letter to Westley
|
on: March 22, 2011, 07:19:50 AM
|
|
But passing by this, as also your equivocal
definition of the word grace, and your false definition of the word
free, and that I may be as short as possible, I frankly acknowledge: I
believe the doctrine of reprobation, in this view, that God intends to
give saving grace, through Jesus Christ, only to a certain number, and
that the rest of mankind, after the fall of Adam, being justly left of
God to continue in sin, will at last suffer that eternal death which is
its proper wages.
This is the established doctrine of Scripture, and
acknowledged as such in the 17th article of the Church of England, as
Bishop Burnet himself confesses. Yet dear Mr. Wesley absolutely denies
it.
But the most important objections you have urged against this
doctrine as reasons why you reject it, being seriously considered, and
faithfully tried by the Word of God, will appear to be of no force at
all. Let the matter be humbly and calmly reviewed, as to the following
heads:
First, you say that if this be so (i.e., if there be an
election) then is all preaching vain: it is needless to them that are
elected; for they, whether with preaching or without, will infallibly be
saved. Therefore, the end of preaching to save souls is void with
regard to them. And it is useless to them that are not elected, for they
cannot possibly be saved. They, whether with preaching or without, will
infallibly be damned. The end of preaching is therefore void with
regard to them likewise. So that in either case our preaching is vain,
and your hearing also vain. Page 10, paragraph 9
O dear Sir, what
kind of reasoning—or rather sophistry—is this! Hath not God, who hath
appointed salvation for a certain number, appointed also the preaching
of the Word as a means to bring them to it? Does anyone hold election in
any other sense? And if so, how is preaching needless to them that are
elected, when the gospel is designated by God himself to be the power of
God unto their eternal salvation? And since we know not who are elect
and who reprobate, we are to preach promiscuously to all. For the Word
may be useful, even to the non-elect, in restraining them from much
wickedness and sin. However, it is enough to excite to the utmost
diligence in preaching and hearing, when we consider that by these
means, some, even as many as the Lord hath ordained to eternal life,
shall certainly be quickened and enabled to believe. And who that
attends, especially with reverence and care, can tell but he may be
found of that happy number?
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
2708
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Charles G. Finney's Systematic Theology
|
on: March 21, 2011, 02:05:28 PM
|
|
It is expedient. It is wise. The true spirit
of the moral law does and must demand it. So, on the other hand,
whatever is plainly inconsistent with the highest good of the universe
is illegal, unwise, inexpedient, and must be prohibited by the spirit of
moral law. But let the thought be repeated, that the Bible precepts
always reveal that which is truly expedient, and in no case are we at
liberty to set aside the spirit of any commandment upon the supposition
that expediency requires it. Some have denounced the doctrine of
expediency altogether, as at all times inconsistent with the law of
right. These philosophers proceed upon the assumption that the law of
right and the law of benevolence are not identical but inconsistent with
each other. This is a common but fundamental mistake, which leads me to
remark that: Law proposes the highest good of universal being as its
end, and requires all moral agents to consecrate themselves to the
promotion of this end. Consequently, expediency must be one of its
attributes. That which is upon the whole in the highest degree useful to
the universe must be demanded by moral law. Moral law must, from its
own nature, require just that course of willing and acting that is upon
the whole in the highest degree useful, and therefore expedient.
Expediency is not meeting the standard of the universal being.
What
is this universal being? God is not a universal being but an eternal
being who is separated from us because He is the only one who is Holy.
Or God is other. Gods law is His way of working to override the wills of
men.. bring sin to an end and recreate a new man through the punishment
of the wicked and the blessing of the righteous. The moral law is the
highest goodness that God cannot share with any other being. All of Gods
goodness begins and ends in God.
God does not lower His law to a
common denominator for all mankind to achieve. But God saves men from
the condemnation of the law by redeeming slaves to the law from their
slavery. This is why there is a difference between expediency and Gods
absolute rite to override the wills of men.
God does not deal with
us according to our sins because Christ fulfilled the requirements of
the law as the only acceptable way to not be charged with individual
sins by the law. God deals with us in relationship and not in a common
universal moral code.
Expediency is wise in this sense. A man who
has much experience and training in the things of God may have a
weakness that everyone can see. But the question is just like a life and
death question. Do we measure a man by a glaring weakness and keep him
from receiving the operation that would save his life instead of looking
at the experience and the kind of following he has? The impact a man
has is more important than the weakness. Example: Spurgeon.
Charlie is not very logical.
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
2710
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Whitefields letter to Westley
|
on: March 20, 2011, 01:05:40 PM
|
"And
we know that all things work together for good to those who love God,
to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He
foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son,
that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He
predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also
justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified." Romans
8:29-30
K_k: Those people whom God foreknew, He foreknew
everything about them, including their every choice, in all
circumstances, including their eventual willingness to receive Christ as
Savior, and thus He predestined them to be conformed to the image of
His Son, and these He also called and justified and glorified.
And
thus there is no need to have an arbitrary separation of predestination
from free will based on Romans 8. True foreknowledge includes
knowledge of all responses to God's love, in advance.
So perhaps Whitefield could have saved himself some conflict with Wesley. And vice versa.
You
fail to see the difference here. Westley believes that God looks down
the tunnel of time and sees free will first then understands how the
event will take place by that choice. But Whitfield is saying that God
pre determines the choice and the event. By the will we are saying that
man could no choose otherwise because God would not allow it. cont. Indeed,
honoured Sir, it is plain beyond all contradiction that St. Paul,
through the whole of Romans 8, is speaking of the privileges of those
only who are really in Christ. And let any unprejudiced person read what
goes before and what follows your text, and he must confess the word
"all" only signifies those that are in Christ. And the latter part of
the text plainly proves, what, I find, dear Mr. Wesley will, by no
means, grant. I mean the final perseverance of the children of God: "He
that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, [i.e., all
Saints] how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?"
(Rom. 8:32). [He shall give us] grace, in particular, to enable us to
persevere, and every thing else necessary to carry us home to our
Father's heavenly kingdom. Had any one a mind to prove the doctrine
of election, as well as of final perseverance, he could hardly wish for a
text more fit for his purpose than that which you have chosen to
disprove it! One who did not know you would suspect that you were aware
of this, for after the first paragraph, I scarce know whether you have
mentioned [the text] so much as once through your whole sermon. But
your discourse, in my opinion, is as little to the purpose as your text,
and instead of warping, does but more and more confirm me in the belief
of the doctrine of God's eternal election. I shall not mention how
illogically you have proceeded. Had you written clearly, you should
first, honoured Sir, have proved your proposition: "God's grace is free
to all." And then by way of inference [you might have] exclaimed against
what you call the horrible decree. But you knew that people (because
Arminianism, of late, has so much abounded among us) were generally
prejudiced against the doctrine of reprobation, and therefore thought if
you kept up their dislike of that, you could overthrow the doctrine of
election entirely. For, without doubt, the doctrine of election and
reprobation must stand or fall together.
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
2711
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Romans Chapt. 6 commentary John Calvin
|
on: March 20, 2011, 12:56:51 PM
|
|
2. By no means. To some the Apostle seems to
have only intended indignantly to reprove a madness so outrageous; but
it appears from other places that he commonly used an answer of this
kind, even while carrying on a long argument; as indeed he does here,
for he proceeds carefully to disprove the propounded slander. He,
however, first rejects it by an indignant negative, in order to impress
it on the minds of his readers, that nothing can be more inconsistent
than that the grace of Christ, the repairer of our righteousness, should
nourish our vices.
Who have died to sin, etc. An argument
derived from what is of an opposite character. “He who sins certainly
lives to sin; we have died to sin through the grace of Christ; then it
is false, that what abolishes sin gives vigor to it.”
The
state of the case is really this, — that the faithful are never
reconciled to God without the gift of regeneration; nay, we are for this
end justified, — that we may afterwards serve God in holiness of life.
Christ indeed does not cleanse us by his blood, nor render God
propitious to us by his expiation, in any other way than by making us
partakers of his Spirit, who renews us to a holy life. It would then be a
most strange inversion of the work of God were sin to gather strength
on account of the grace which is offered to us in Christ; for medicine
is not a feeder of the disease, which it destroys. 183183 This
phrase, “died to sin,” is evidently misapprehended by Haldane Having
been offended, and justly so, by an unguarded and erroneous expression
of Stuart, derived from Chrysostom, and by the false rendering of
Macknight, he went to another extreme, and maintained, that to die, or
to be dead to sin, means to be freed from its guilt, while the whole
context proves, that it means deliverance from its power as a master, from the servitude or bondage of sin.
To live in it, does not mean to live under its guilt, but in its
service and under its ruling power; and this is what the Apostle
represents as a contrast to being dead to sin. Not to “serve sin,” in
Romans 6:6, is its true explanation. See also Romans 6:11, 12, and 14.
The very argument requires this meaning. The question in the first
verse, — Shall we continue in sin?” does not surely mean — shall we
continue in or under the guilt of sin? but in its service, and in the
practice of it. It was the chapter of practical licentiousness
that the Apostle rebuts; and he employs an argument suitable to the
purpose, “If we are dead to sin, freed from it as our master, how absurd
it is to suppose that we can live any longer in its service?”
Then he shows in what follows how this had been effected. This is
clearly the import of the passage, and so taken by almost all
commentators.
But it must be added, that Venema and Chalmers
materially agree with Haldane The former says that to “die to sin” is to
give to sin what it demands and that is, death; and that when this is
given, it can require nothing more. In this sense, he adds, Christ died
to sin (Romans 6:10); and in the same sense believers die to sin, being,
as they are, united to Christ, his death being viewed as their death.
However true this theology may be, (and Chalmers shows this in his own
inimitable manner,) it does not seem to be taught here: though there may
be something in one or two expressions to favor it; yet the whole tenor
of the passage, and many of the phrases, seem clearly to constrain us
to adopt the other view. — Ed. We must further bear in mind, what I have
already referred to — that Paul does not state here what God finds us
to be, when he calls us to an union with his Son, but what it behoves us
to be, after he has had mercy on us, and has freely adopted us; for by
an adverb, denoting a future time, he shows what kind of change ought to
follow righteousness.
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
2712
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: CHAPTER 19. - OF CHRISTIAN LIBERTY. J CALVIN
|
on: March 20, 2011, 12:51:51 PM
|
|
10. Very many also err in this: as if their
liberty were not safe and entire, without having men to witness it, they
use it indiscriminately and imprudently, and in this way often give
offense to weak brethren. You may see some in the present day who cannot
think 2137they possess their liberty unless they come into possession
of it by eating flesh on Friday. Their eating I blame not, but this
false notion must be driven from their minds: for they ought to think
that their liberty gains nothing new by the sight of men, but is to be
enjoyed before God, and consists as much in abstaining as in using. If
they understand that it is of no consequence in the sight of God whether
they eat flesh or eggs, whether they are clothed in red or in black,
this is amply sufficient. The conscience to which the benefit of this
liberty was due is loosed. Therefore, though they should afterwards,
during their whole life, abstain from flesh, and constantly wear one
color, they are not less free. Nay, just because they are free, they
abstain with a free conscience. But they err most egregiously in paying
no regard to the infirmity of their brethren, with which it becomes us
to bear, so as not rashly to give them offense.
But458458
French, “Mais quelcun dira”—But some one will say. it is sometimes also
of consequence that we should assert our liberty before men. This I
admit: yet must we use great caution in the mode, lest we should cast
off the care of the weak whom God has specially committed to us.
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
2713
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Charles G. Finney's Systematic Theology
|
on: March 20, 2011, 12:36:49 PM
|
|
10. Unity. Moral law proposes but one ultimate
end of pursuit, to God, and to all moral agents. All its requisitions,
in their spirit, are summed up and expressed in one word, love or
benevolence. This I only announce here. It will more fully appear
hereafter. Moral law is a pure and simple idea of the reason. It is the
idea of perfect, universal, and constant consecration of the whole being
to the highest good of being. Just this is, and nothing more nor less
can be, moral law; for just this, and nothing more nor less, is a state
of heart and a course of life exactly suited to the nature and relations
of moral agents, which is the only true definition of moral law.
11.
Expediency. That which is upon the whole most wise is expedient. That
which is upon the whole expedient is demanded by moral law. True
expediency and the spirit of moral law are always identical. Expediency
may be inconsistent with the letter, but never with the spirit of moral
law. Law in the form of commandment is a revelation or declaration of
that course which is expedient. It is expediency revealed, as in the
case of the decalogue, and the same is true of every precept of the
Bible, it reveals to us what is expedient. A revealed law or commandment
is never to be set aside by our views of expediency. We may know with
certainty that what is required is expedient. The command is the
expressed judgment of God in the case, and reveals with unerring
certainty the true path of expediency.
When Paul says, "All
things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient" (1 Cor.
6:12), we must not understand him as meaning that all things in the
absolute sense were lawful to him, or that anything that was not
expedient was lawful to him. But he doubtless intended, that many things
were inexpedient that are not expressly prohibited by the letter of the
law, that the spirit of the law prohibited many things not expressly
forbidden by the letter. It should never be forgotten that which is
plainly demanded by the highest good of the universe is law.
First
of all moral law is applied to human strength of expediency, the
spiritual weakness of a man, the rational inability to know what true
expediency is, natural weakness that prevents a man from understanding
the spiritual nature of what the highest moral experience is. Charlie
has this cave man view of how we see ourselves in light of the law. He
is only carving a man made god with a pre historic instrument from a
stone.
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
2714
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Freedom For The Addicted
|
on: March 20, 2011, 12:08:02 PM
|
|
Yes G2 i saw another post where you had a
chest cold. I too had a chest cold this week. Just getting over it but
still lingering.
Addiction is controlled by the absolute
sovereignty of God. Because God has His hand on the universal pain and
pleasure button. I do not mean that God is a sadistic party destroyer.
But i think the world is a place where men use pain as a tool to
dominate the helpless and poor. The point being that pain is not mainly
an instrument for personal sin. I am saying that mans first response to
opposition is to retaliate with some kind of pain. This is why God must
be absolutely sovereign or men would be most degenerate. Man is like an
animal when he is dominated by envy and jealousy.
The inward war
is an attempt to overcome some kind of anxiety. We say that the natural
man uses people and things as his ability to control his environment.
Sovereign grace is the only remedy which is that mechanism that makes
all things rite. Man is born with a will that is not only self
destructive but man is opposed to all that God does. The self
destructive nature of man is his experience in his soul that forces
happiness out of a need to control his environment. Man is trapped in a
way of thinking that keeps him in his own bondage to anxiety.
Everything
is controlled by God. Even the culture sins. God destroys whole
generations through alcoholism, perversion, murder, strife etc. God
moves the heart of the king like a river. He controls the desires of all
people. God does this by holding onto the amount of grace He will allow
in a given situation. This grace has a purpose to bring man under
control of his environment and himself by learning how to rest. Its the
man having fellowship with a sovereign God as if the man were in the
arms of his heavenly Father experience no worries. The only other choice
is anxiety out of bondage to addiction.
The path of the
righteous is a way of peace. This path is determined by God. The most
needy things that man experiences is taken care of on this path way.
This means that God determines all the circumstances and the inward
battles that the saint will experience. God destroys our old wills and
He replaces it with His will. The will is the strongest desire to choose
the most valued thing. But when we receive our new will at the new
birth we do not end the struggle with sin and temptation. We still have
sinful desires that God requires of us to be concerned about. We are
taught that God knows every thought that we think before we think it. So
God is sovereign over our desires. God leads us along a path in which
we give into sinful desires. Everyone gives into his desire of weakness
on a continual basis. Because God never requires us to be sinless. But
He reminds us of the standard in order that we will not think we are
good.
God gives us the ability to rest and not meet with this
anxiety of the world. The level of rest must be determined by God
because no man can see our inward parts. The way of God is both
universally applied for all saints and individually applied. God applies
His word to our souls by way of examination. He is not just the judge
of the universe but He is our Great Physician. He applies wisdom through
corporate experience and He applies wisdom through personal
illumination.
Let me talk about this personal illumination. The
word of God has one doctrinal message. It is the doctrine of grace. All
the other doctrines provide the soil for our experience in this grace.
This is what we call the implanted word or the word of salvation in
which it grows into a beautiful plant so to speak. The implanted word
cannot return without doing what its purpose was to do. The reason is
the Spirit uses the word to apply it to our souls. This cannot be
thwarted or controlled by us. But the Spirit is not a baby sitter. The
Spirit is above the word. He is the eternal God. The Spirit can act
apart from natural causes. The Spirit is really not providing an
experience that we receive words from a page and then we understand what
to do. But the words themselves are spoken words of the Spirit. The
words are life.
Here is what happens in this art of mediation.
It is building one precept upon another. We receive more life as we
expand our vision through these laws ... precepts... and decrees.
Because our new will has these new senses in it we begin to have this
new man providing us with life giving powers. This is called the renewal
of the spirit. It is something that Paul talks about in his teaching on
the inner man. The inner man is drawing us into a kind of soul rest.
This is why we have the ability to rise in our experience and focus on
the eternal things. We do this by the mixture of the word and Spirit
with these spiritual senses. So now we are experiencing something beyond
just the word from the page. We are actually communicating with our
great Shepherd.
Most people think this is just an experience of
the highest order. That we sort of become like little gods so to speak.
But this is not the case. We become very practical. Let me give you a
couple of reasons. First because Gods word goes out from us that cannot
be thwarted. This is the spoken word... or the word from desire. This
word of salvation is both applied to our immediate circumstance and our
supernatural ability to understand the goodness and kindness of our
Father in this ability to control our circumstances out of this
consuming love. Some people do not understand what they are experiencing
because they have not listened enough to have a vision of God. The
Spirit is eternal and He speaks to us in an individual way. We receive
this communication through our understanding of grace.
If Kk
would just read my stuff and think about it he may be able to understand
himself better. Kk... i dont care about winning an argument... i only
care about you understanding God and yourself.
|
|
]
No comments:
Post a Comment