16. This is especially an explanation
of what he had said before, — that by one offense guilt issued in the
condemnation of us all, but that grace, or rather the gratuitous gift,
is efficacious to our justification from many offenses. It is indeed an
expansion of what the last verse contains; for he had not hitherto
expressed, how or in what respect Christ excelled Adam. This difference
being settled, it appears evident, that their opinion is impious, who
have taught that we recover nothing else by Christ but a freedom from
original sin, or the corruption derived from Adam. Observe also, that
these many offenses, from which he affirms we are freed through Christ,
are not to be understood only of those which every one must have
committed before baptism, but also of those by which the saints contract
daily new guilt; and on account of which they would be justly exposed
to condemnation, were they not continually relieved by this grace. He
sets gift in opposition to judgment: by the latter he means strict
justice; by the former, gratuitous pardon. From strict justice comes
condemnation; from pardon, absolution. Or, which is the same thing, were
God to deal with us according to justice, we should be all undone; but
he justifies us freely in Christ. 17. For if the
offense of one, etc. He again subjoins a general explanation, on which
he dwells still further; for it was by no means his purpose to explain
every part of the subject, but to state the main points. He had before
declared, that the power of grace had surpassed that of sin: and by this
he consoles and strengthens the faithful, and, at the same time,
stimulates and encourages them to meditate on the benignity of God.
Indeed the design of so studious a repetition was, — that the grace of
God might be worthily set forth, that men might be led from
self-confidence to trust in Christ, that having obtained his grace they
might enjoy full assurance; and hence at length arises gratitude. The
sum of the whole is this — that Christ surpasses Adam; the sin of one is
overcome by the righteousness of the other; the curse of one is effaced
by the grace of the other; from one, death has proceeded, which is
absorbed by the life which the other bestows. But the parts of
this comparison do not correspond; instead of adding, “the gift of life
shall more fully reign and flourish through the exuberance of grace,” he
says, that “the faithful shall reign;” which amounts to the same thing;
for the reign of the faithful is in life, and the reign of life is in
the faithful. It may further be useful to notice here the
difference between Christ and Adam, which the Apostle omitted, not
because he deemed it of no importance, but unconnected with his present
subject. The first is, that by Adam’s sin we are not condemned
through imputation alone, as though we were punished only for the sin of
another; but we suffer his punishment, because we also ourselves are
guilty; for as our nature is vitiated in him, it is regarded by God as
having committed sin. But through the righteousness of Christ we are
restored in a different way to salvation; for it is not said to be
accepted for us, because it is in us, but because we possess Christ
himself with all his blessings, as given to us through the bountiful
kindness of the Father. Hence the gift of righteousness is not a quality
with which God endows us, as some absurdly explain it, but a gratuitous
imputation of righteousness; for the Apostle plainly declares what he
understood by the word grace. The other difference is, that the benefit
of Christ does not come to all men, while Adam has involved his whole
race in condemnation; and the reason of this is indeed evident; for as
the curse we derive from Adam is conveyed to us by nature, it is no
wonder that it includes the whole mass; but that we may come to a
participation of the grace of Christ, we must be ingrafted in whim by
faith. Hence, in order to partake of the miserable inheritance of sin,
it is enough for thee to be man, for it dwells in flesh and blood; but
in order to enjoy the righteousness of Christ it is necessary for thee
to be a believer; for a participation of him is attained only by faith.
He is communicated to infants in a peculiar way; for they have by
covenant the right of adoption, by which they pass over unto a
participation of Christ. 172172 The original is, “Habent enim in
fœdere jus adoptionis, quo in Christi communionem transeunt.” — Ed. Of
the children of the godly I speak, to whom the promise of grace is
addressed; for others are by no means exempted from the common lot.
| 3092
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Charles G. Finney's Systematic Theology
|
on: September 14, 2010, 11:08:45 AM
|
|
8. Independence. It is an eternal and
necessary idea of the divine reason. It is the eternal, self existent
rule of the divine conduct, the law which the intelligence of God
prescribes to Himself. Moral law, as we shall see hereafter more fully,
does not, and cannot originate in the will of God. It eternally existed
in the divine reason. It is the idea of that state of will which is
obligatory upon God, upon condition of His natural attributes, or, in
other words, upon condition of His nature. As a law, it is entirely
independent of His will just as His own existence is.
Wow.. the moral law is a god.
It
is obligatory also upon every moral agent, entirely independent of the
will of God. Their nature and relations being given, and their
intelligence being developed, moral law must be obligatory upon them,
and it lies not in the option of any being to make it otherwise. Their
nature and relations being given, to pursue a course of conduct suited
to their nature and relations, is necessarily and self evidently
obligatory, independent of the will of any being.
The moral law is a living god that we look to just like God does...uh do do.
|
 Remove
 Reply
 Quote
 Notify
|
|
3093
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Reformed Doctrine
|
on: September 14, 2010, 11:04:03 AM
|
|
Open Theism is a theological construct which
claims that God's highest goal is to enter into a reciprocal
relationship with man. In this scheme, the Bible is interpreted without
any anthropomorphisms - that is, all references to God's feelings,
surprise and lack of knowledge are literal and the result of His choice
to create a world where He can be affected/changed by man's choices.
God's exhaustive knowledge does not include knowledge of future free
will choices by mankind because they have not yet occurred.
One
of the leading spokesman of open theism, Clark Pinnock, in describing
how libertarian freedom trumps God's omniscience says, "Decisions not
yet made do not exist anywhere to be known even by God. They are
potential--yet to be realized but not yet actual. God can predict a
great deal of what we will choose to do, but not all of it, because some
of it remains hidden in the mystery of human freedom ... The God of the
Bible displays an openness to the future (i.e. ignorance of the future)
that the traditional view of omniscience simply cannot accommodate."
(Pinnock, "Augustine to Arminius, " 25-26) Evangelicals cannot remain
neutral in response to this unbiblical view.
The overriding
presuppositions which open theists bring to the text are (1) libertarian
freewill theism ["causeless choice"] (But can a natural man believe the
gospel independent of the Holy Spirit? -- If not, I challenge Open
Theists to tell me why not?) ... and (2) the Socinian belief that God
does not have exhaustive foreknowledge of the future (i.e. that God is
subject to part of his creation -"time"). Open Theists will also
frequently point to biblical passages in which it is said that God
changed his mind about something to prove his ignorance of future
events. But usually it is the case that God is said to change His mind
in sending judgment on people only after they repent of their sin. In
Jeremiah 18:7-10 God simply shows that this type of relenting is a
component of how He generally has decided to act:
"If at any time
I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and
break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have
spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I
intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation
or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my
sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I
had intended to do to it."
In other words, many prophesies of
blessings and cursing are conditional. God has the authority to reverse
his judgment at any time. depending on the response of those prophesied
against. Such warnings have tacit conditions such as when Jonah declared
that Ninevah would be destroyed, but judgment does not take place
because they repented. Jonah knew that God would have mercy on them and
this is one of the reasons he runs away from the task at first. The
prophet is supposed to hold out God's covenant terms, blessing for
obedience and cursing for disobedience.
Dr. Richard L. Pratt, Jr. from Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
3096
|
Forums / Politics Forum / Re: The incredible shrinking economy
|
on: September 12, 2010, 06:43:45 PM
|
|
Doomsday warnings of US apocalypse gain ground
Economists
peddling dire warnings that the world's number one economy is on the
brink of collapse, amid high rates of unemployment and a spiraling
public deficit, are flourishing here.
The guru of this doomsday
line of thinking may be economist Nouriel Roubini, thrust into the
forefront after predicting the chaos wrought by the subprime mortgage
crisis and the collapse of the housing bubble.
"The US has run
out of bullets," Roubini told an economic forum in Italy earlier this
month. "Any shock at this point can tip you back into recession."
But
other economists, who have so far stayed out of the media limelight,
are also proselytizing nightmarish visions of the future.
Boston
University professor Laurence Kotlikoff, who warned as far back as the
1980s of the dangers of a public deficit, lent credence to such dark
predictions in an International Monetary Fund publication last week.
He
unveiled a doomsday scenario -- which many dismiss as pure fantasy --
of an economic clash between superpowers the United States and China,
which holds more than 843 billion dollars of US Treasury bonds.
"A
minor trade dispute between the United States and China could make some
people think that other people are going to sell US treasury bonds," he
wrote in the IMF's Finance & Development review.
"That
belief, coupled with major concern about inflation, could lead to a
sell-off of government bonds that causes the public to withdraw their
bank deposits and buy durable goods."
Kotlikoff warned such a
move would spark a run on banks and money market funds as well as
insurance companies as policy holders cash in their surrender values.
"In
a short period of time, the Federal Reserve would have to print
trillions of dollars to cover its explicit and implicit guarantees. All
that new money could produce strong inflation, perhaps hyperinflation,"
he said.
"There are other less apocalyptic, perhaps more
plausible, but still quite unpleasant, scenarios that could result from
multiple equilibria."
According to a poll by the StrategyOne
Institute published Friday, some 65 percent of Americans believe there
will be a new recession.
And the view that America is on a
decline seems rather well ingrained in many people's minds supported by
65 percent of people questioned in a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll
published last week.
"It is true: Today's economic problems are structural, not cyclical," argued New York Times editorial writer David Brooks.
He
said the United Sates is losing its world dominance much in the same
way the British Empire began to crumble more than a century ago.
"We
are in the middle of yet another jobless recovery. Wages have been
lagging for decades. Our labor market woes are deep and intractable,"
Brooks said.
Nobel Economics Prize winner Paul Krugman also
voiced concern about the fate of the fragile economic recovery if voters
return the Republicans to political power.
"It's hard to
overstate how destructive the economic ideas offered earlier this week
by John Boehner, the House minority leader, would be if put into
practice," he wrote in a recent editorial.
"Fewer jobs and bigger deficits -- the perfect combination."
The
Wall Street Journal, usually more favorable to Boehner's call for tax
cuts, ran a commentary from another Nobel Prize-winning economist --
Vernon Smith -- that failed to provide much comfort for readers.
"This fact needs to be confronted: We are almost surely in for a long slog," Smith wrote.
And
it seems such pessimism has even filtered into the IMF, which warned on
Friday that high levels of national debt and a still shaky financial
sector threaten to derail the global economic recovery.
"The
foreclosure backlog in US property markets is large and growing, in part
due to the recent expiration of the home buyer's tax credit. When
realized, this could further depress real estate prices."
This
could lead to "disproportionate losses" for small and medium-sized
banks, which could in turn "precipitate a loss of market confidence in
the recovery," the IMF warned.
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
3102
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Surrender\Obedience a requirement for salvation?
|
on: September 09, 2010, 04:08:41 PM
|
MBG....where
are you from?? I am trying to remember a time several years ago, where
you and I had some issues way back....I see that we are often in
agreement now. I appreciate your level head....mine is sometimes too
full of passion....I'm not as diplomatic, but I do appreciate your
wisdom and candor on many of these issues we discuss. I think we may
have been discussing some similar issues....do you remember that?? I'm a
bit hazy on the details. We're all on a road of sanctification.
Nobody "has arrived". RT is very thoroughly clear on all Theological
points. It is a common accusation from Arminians that it's a heresy.
That doesn't really bother me, but I sure don't mind calling anyone who
says so, a total fool. All we are saying is that God is ultimately in
charge of all things. He allows sin. Which is primarily why He
"doesn't allow man to "choose"....since the faculties of choice are
completely fallen and described as "unable" to reach God in his own
efforts. Any "ability" extended to man to accomplish this task, is a
human "work". Man's works do not save anybody....nor even himself.
This is all completely described Biblically. You'd think we'd have
Hell to pay for saying this to "any" Arminian. It's sad to see how
every major denomination "used" to embrace Calvinism. Even Baptists did
originally!! What a deep dark Spiritual Climate we live in
today....which is apparent just from the flak thrown around on this
Theology Board. Again, thank you for your steadfast "backup" ....we
make a good team. If you're in the Orlando FL area....we ought to get
lunch sometime!! Grace and Peace to you my brother!!
I
was wondering if you were in the church environment that i am in here in
Clermont, just west of Ocoee. Are you on the east side of Orlando? Ive
been pastored by some of the graduates from RTS orlando since i moved
up here about 10 yrs after living in Miami all of my life. I am
presently a member of New Life presby in Clermont. I dont mean to imply that we are at odds on the bible.. .just that no one agrees 100 percent.
|
|
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
3103
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Predistination and Islam same as Calvinism
|
on: September 09, 2010, 09:51:10 AM
|
MBG, I appreciate your thoughtful reply but i don't believe in salvation through works. You said:
...repentance as a work...
I don't know where in the Bible repentance is seen as a work which negates salvation. Jesus said sinners have to repent.
Luk 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Luk
13:4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew
them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in
Jerusalem?
Luk 13:5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Ss provided the precondition to repentance which is more inline with what you mean, when he said:
Your "will" is restored to respond to God.
Do
you have a Bible verse or teaching from Jesus where man's will is first
restored in order to repent, or a verse in the Bible where man's will
was removed? Thor  SS: Matthew 5:22 Thor...
heres my problem over the years in dealing with this whole issue of
salvation. People are naturally lazy in how they go about gaining an
understanding of salvation because they ignore direct statements that
are made about these ways of God. This is why gaining an understanding
is not just taking a verse and proof texting it to fit pre conceived
ideas. But it is letting the text speak for itself. And the easiest
parts of biblical interpretation are when there are direct statements
about these ways. We take all of scripture and not just the verses we
like. The bible clearly states on a number of occasions that men do
not come to God on their own. This is so clear that we say this is a
universal problem. There is No one who seeks after God!How can you
interpret this direct statement to have the full meaning if your are
saying that man initiates repentance? No man can come to Him unless the
Father drags him. All men are wholly corrupted and unable to come to God
because they do not have the foresight that is needed to turn toward
God. They do not see to the end of the tunnel..hehe.....All have turned
aside ... all together have become corrupted. To deny this obvious
teaching is the same thing as to say that Adam who was part of the fall
never existed because you believe in evolution and that is not the way
you see the beginning. Even as believers who are given grace in
order to continue in our salvation... need the constant ability to seek
after God. Since this truth that no one seeks after God is a universal
timeless truth and not just speaking about a specific group of people.
This is why we believe in free grace. Because we see that there is no
escape from personal corruption on this side of heaven. So that
salvation is defined in terms of those sinners who have obtained grace
and those who sinners who are left in their sins. We say that God
initiating salvation is this defining of what free is in grace. Free
means that God does not determine to save men according to anything that
is in the object. Every thing that is good is renewed by God for Gods
pleasure alone. Salvation is Gods goodness extended to man in His
faithfulness and kindness. If we are praising God for His attributes
then we are denying the rite to obtain any good on our own. Repentance
is part of salvation and must be enabled by God or man would forever be
running from God.
|
|
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
3104
|
Forums / Key Life Forum / Re: addiction versus life in christ.
|
on: September 08, 2010, 05:34:08 PM
|
|
Psychological vs. Spiritual
Interpretations of A.A.
Glenn C. (South Bend, Indiana)
.....two founding figures (Ken Merrill and Joseph Soulard "Soo" Cates)...
"Alcoholism
is a three-fold disease, affecting the body, the mind, and the spirit.
In particular, the problems of the mind and the spirit are usually just
two sides of the same coin. We can choose to emphasize either side, and
the end result will be very much the same: real healing, and learning
how to live life on life's terms in God's universe as he created it.
Ken
M. in South Bend wrote a little on his psychologically oriented method,
but the most articulate spokesman for the wing of early A.A. which
preferred to emphasize the psychological issues in working with
newcomers, is SGT. BILL S. who will have 56 years of sobriety on July
5, 2004. The book which he has recently written -- On the Military
Firing Line in the Alcoholism Treatment Program -- is a priceless
document for understanding early A.A.
Like Ken M. had been in
South Bend, Sgt. Bill was not and is not antagonistic to the idea of
God. In fact, he makes it clear that people in the program who are still
hostile towards God have serious problems. Only the problems are almost
invariably psychological problems that have nothing to do really with
God: hostility towards all authority figures, childhood traumas created
by an abusive father or mother, being victimized as a child by church
people who talked about God while terrorizing and bullying little
children, or something of that sort. And we don't get well from these
things by debating about God, because that is not where the real
underlying problem was situated in the first place. Coming out with
complicated theological arguments, or hitting these people over the head
with a Bible, will accomplish nothing -- that was never where their
real life problem lay.
Sgt. Bill makes it equally clear that one
of the more important signs of real psychological healing comes when the
person who had been so hostile towards all talk of God and spirituality
gradually starts adopting a totally different and sympathetic attitude.
When they finally "quit fighting God" is when they are starting to get
well.
Sgt. Bill learned a good deal about the relative problems
and merits of these two different approaches from personal experience.
When he started the first military alcoholism treatment program in the
United States, at Mitchel Air Force Base on Long Island in 1948, he was
linked to the Chaplain's Office. And he ultimately found that this was
the kiss of death. Military personnel simply would not come to see him.
When he started his second treatment program at Lackland Air Force Base
in San Antonio in 1953, he managed to get the quite different title of
"psychiatric social worker." It is interesting (but instructive) that
drunken soldiers, sailors, and airmen would prefer any day to be
regarded as insane rather than to be regarded as religious!
And
his psychologically oriented approach to recovery worked, and worked
incredibly well. Fifty percent of the military alcoholics who were
willing to take the first steps in dealing with their drinking problem
not only responded positively to this approach, but got sober and stayed
sober. This is fully documented, and is an astoundingly high success
rate for such a hostile environment.
Sgt. Bill always
stressed that alcoholism is a complex disease, and each individual
alcoholic is unique. He and Dr. Louis Jolyon "Jolly" West, the famous
American psychiatrist with whom he worked, found that no one treatment
method would work on all alcoholics. With experience, he and Jolly West
got better and better at predicting which methods were going to work
with each newcomer, but there was no way that a single theory of
alcoholism (and a similarly simple minded theory of treatment) was going
to work on all alcoholics.
He had spent a year visiting Sister
Ignatia at St. Thomas Hospital, and had seen how her strongly spiritual
program worked excellently with a large number of people. But it did not
work with everyone, in Akron or any place else. It worked marvelously
well with some alcoholics, but the first mention of "God" would raise
the hackles on many other alcoholics' necks, and talking about the Bible
would have them running out the door on the spot, as fast as they could
flee. And on the other side, I have seen newcomers to A.A. from certain
kinds of religious backgrounds -- people who wanted God and Jesus and
the Bible -- bristling at the first mention of terms like "higher power"
and running away as fast as their legs would work, the minute any kind
of psychological language showed up.
Now ideally, one should
perhaps interview alcoholics coming into a recovery program, and send
some to a system like Sister Ignatia's which immersed the person into
traditional religious language, and send others to the kind of
psychologically oriented program which Sgt. Bill had to develop at
Lackland Air Force Base. If an area is highly populated enough to
support a large number of A.A. groups, I believe that the ideal may be
to encourage different groups to develop in different directions, so
that each newcomer can, by going around and visiting various meetings,
discover which approach seems most appropriate to where he is, or she
is."
|
|
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
3105
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Predistination and Islam same as Calvinism
|
on: September 08, 2010, 04:17:56 PM
|
Kk...
the doctrine of predestination leads to free grace because it is
focused on salvation coming to man. All other religions find hope in man
coming to God. One is all of grace and mans religion is works based.
Christian faith is unique in that it is God doing all the work of
salvation in the way of substitution so that man can be saved. While
religion is man working in some way to earn his salvation. This free
grace is what we as Calvinist believe and preach.
Kk .. i am not
saying that a person who believes in a partial goodness in man... ie the
will... is not a christian. They are a deceived christian. Because they
cannot really defend salvation as being sola faith, grace, and in
Christ alone. Because as you believe it is through mans will alone as well.
if
you had read KK you would know he never said any such thing. You
should know that Man being good or bad is not relevant to salvation!
Man is not saved by being good...and some actually can be good...so
what,,,it makes no difference. Man is saved only through faith in
Christ. Other religions actual have grace in them...Hinduism and
even Islam. What they don't have is faith only in Christ as their
Savior. In Calvinism you are saved by predestination (only some are
saved) and faith and Christ's death plays a very secondary role to that
primary mode of salvation, predestination. That's why more and more I see Reform Theology as a cult, which acknowledges Christ but really does not need him to be saved. It
has a lot of Gnosticism in it...i.e a believer becomes “awakened' (with
knowledge) to his or her savedness and does not need to make a willful
or personal commitment to Christ to be saved...because they were always
saved...just didn't know it yet! Thor “Whosoever shall call upon the Name of the LORD shall be saved” ...this is how we are saved
Thor
... i agree with you in that the gospel is mainly a message of
encouragement. I can see tho... that STP is very good in his arguments. I
really have not found something that he says that i would question. STP
and i do not see i to i about everything. But we do agree on the
fundamentals of the doctrines of grace. You accused the
Calvinist of being a cult....that is a pretty extreme accusation. We are
not trying to start a fight .... and you know that we have not said
that you or kk were believing a heresy. When you claim that we are a
cult then your saying that we teach heresy. That is really saying that
we are not believers. I dont see where STP has said anything as negative
as these statements. All STP was saying is that if you believe in
repentance as a work in order to obtain salvation and you dont believe
in eternal security then that is really a works salvation. Thor ... your
probably the most liberal person here about playing fast and loose with
works and grace...
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment