Just because you have a desire to do something
but you have a stronger desire to not choose the good ... is not a
proof that your good desires were given weight in your wrong choice.
Thats like saying i chose the drink but i had a lot of desire to not
choose it. So what you are saying is you chose the drink but you did not
choose it. Your doing something in the real world and your trying to
excuse yourself in an imaginary way. If we reasoned like this then we
could claim that our addictions are not what we wanted. So we were not
really addicted but the alcoholic was the reason. The facts are that you
drank each drink by your will. No one put a gun to your head. No one
tied you down and made you drink. Your good desires did not fail you. Every
one sins because they choose to sin. The reason that i believe that the
covenant of grace given to Abram is separate from the covenant of works
given at mount Sinai is because i do not want to mix my sin with His
grace. I want to know that i sinned and deserve the consequences of the
law so that i will look away from my failure and look at grace. I mean
enough for me in my temperament. I trust that God will not produce dread
in me. I do not want a God who works with me to make me good. I want a
God who will forget my sin and declare me innocent. I dont want a God
who must punish me every time i sin to prove that i need to change. I
want a God to look at me completely righteous so that i am encouraged to
look to Christ and be transformed. I dont want a God to change my
behavior .. I want Him to make me new. I have a God who is bigger
than my sin... who is faithful to do as He promised. Every day i wake up
it is a completely different day. Its a new day. The old is passed away
... not so big that it makes me look back and focus on my past. The new
is come. Every day when i get up God introduces me to His love for me.
He teaches me to long for a word of love in the morning not a reminder
of my failures. So if i am looking negatively at my past and not wanting
the morning to come then i am being disobedient. God is bigger then our
trials. So i want God to define who i am because i want to live in
hope. The hope is what He has promised me that He will do in me more
than i could ask or think. I know i am going to fail but this is not a
shared good reward. Its greater than me.
| 2475
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: T.U.L.I.P. blooms
|
on: May 21, 2011, 10:39:18 AM
|
I get a little meta physical.... Man has a
disease. Its called independent freedom. When man fell into sin he
brought about a state of delusion in his own way of life. Man began to
imagine that he could create his own reality. He decided that freedom
was when he was able to choose something as a necessary element to
produce future reality. Man became his own god. But man is free
because he lives in reality and freedom because God creates all reality.
This is why we need to forget our old self. Because our old self is
delusional. The real universe cannot have two equals. Good and evil. If
these are equal then God does not produce real freedom and reality. Man
lives in this god like reality. He is blind to the reason he chooses. If
God is God then He authors all reality. The real universe is
freedom that has its reasons and expressions in God. Mans freedom is
that he chooses freely because nothing that he lives in as reality from
his past or present is outside of God. Reality is in God alone. This is
why man cannot know himself unless he knows God.The universe of reality
is who God is. This is why... to live in seeking God as the real
source of all the good things both spiritual and physical is to find
true freedom. Man cannot know himself or his purpose in this life unless
he knows who God is. Self knowledge is God revealing Himself. Man has a
vacuum in himself. It is a world of imagination. Its his connection to
evil and illusion that is the vacuum. In order for man to understand any
thing in his connection to this world he must have this vacuum filled.
The problem with man is that he is lost in what he thinks is his
expression of freedom. In order for man to find himself he must find God
or he will never understand true freedom.
|
2478
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Reformed Doctrine
|
on: May 19, 2011, 02:14:48 PM
|
|
A Definition of Legalism
1. Using the Mosaic covenant as though it is the covenant between you and God.
2. Attempting to be justified by one's own works.
3. Attempting to be sanctified by one's own works
4. Suggesting that our worth or worthlessness, our self-esteem and self-satisfaction or lack thereof, rest on our own works.
5.
Any attempt to please God judicially, or any supposition that our sin
as believers has resulted in his judicial displeasure. [Any
post-salvation attempt to maintain our judicial standing before God
through good works, covenant faithfulness, merit etc..]
6. Teaching that we conform ourselves to our judicial standing in Christ (righteous and perfect) by our own works.
7. Attempting to attain godliness by a systematic change of behavior
8. Obedience that does not spring from a renewed heart
a. As of an unbeliever who has no renewed heart
b. As of a believer who has a renewed heart but whose righteous behavior does not spring therefrom.
9. Any supposition that externally righteous acts have any value on their own, even as conduct that prepares the way for either
a. A renewed heart (preparationism as regards justification),
b.
The softening or further renewing of an already renewed heart
(preparationism as regards sanctification. Note Romans
12:2-Transformation occurs through the renewing of the mind), or
c. Any other work of the Spirit.
10. Suggesting that faith is irrelevant in the accomplishment of some (or all) good works.
11. Trying to be justified by works that are created and inspired by the Holy Spirit.
12. Attempting to gain assurance of salvation solely or primarily on the basis of the sign of outward works.
- Bill Baldwin
|
 Remove
 Reply
 Quote
 Notify
|
|
|
2479
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Whitefields letter to Westley
|
on: May 19, 2011, 02:11:30 PM
|
|
And that all his followers are liable to the
same, is it not evident from Scripture? For, says the Apostle, "He was
tempted in all things like as we are" (Heb 4:15) so that he himself
might be able to succour those that are tempted (Heb. 2:18). And is not
their liableness thereunto consistent with that conformity to him in
suffering, which his members are to bear (Phil. 3:10)? Why then should
persons falling into darkness, after they have received the witness of
the Spirit, be any argument against the doctrine of election?
"Yet,"
you say, "many, very many of those that hold it not, in all parts of the
earth, have enjoyed the uninterrupted witness of the Spirit, the
continual light of God's countenance, from the moment wherein they first
believed, for many months or years, to this very day." But how does
dear Mr. Wesley know this? Has he consulted the experience of many, very
many in all parts of the earth? Or could he be sure of what he hath
advanced without sufficient grounds, would it follow that their being
kept in this light is owing to their not believing the doctrine of
election? No, this [doctrine], according to the sentiments of our
church, "greatly confirms and establishes a true Christian's faith of
eternal salvation through Christ," and is an anchor of hope, both sure
and steadfast, when he walks in darkness and sees no light; as certainly
he may, even after he hath received the witness of the Spirit, whatever
you or others may unadvisedly assert to the contrary.
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
2481
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Galatians Commentary .... Martin Luther
|
on: May 19, 2011, 01:06:49 PM
|
|
Verse 4. Who gave himself for our sins.
Paul
sticks to his theme. He never loses sight of the purpose of his
epistle. He does not say, “Who received our works,” but “who gave.” Gave
what? Not gold, or silver, or paschal lambs, or an angel, but Himself.
What for? Not for a crown, or a kingdom, or our goodness, but for our
sins. These words are like so many thunderclaps of protest from heaven
against every kind and type of self-merit. Underscore these words, for
they are full of comfort for sore consciences.
How may we obtain
remission of our sins? Paul answers: “The man who is named Jesus Christ
and the Son of God gave himself for our sins.” The heavy artillery of
these words explodes papacy, works, merits, superstitions.
For
if our sins could be removed by our own efforts, what need was there
for the Son of God to be given for them? Since Christ was given for our
sins it stands to reason that they cannot be put away by our own
efforts.
This sentence also defines our sins as great, so
great, in fact, that the whole world could not make amends for a single
sin. The greatness of the ransom, Christ, the Son of God, indicates
this. The vicious character of sin is brought out by the words “who gave
himself for our sins.” So vicious is sin that only the sacrifice of
Christ could atone for sin.
When we
reflect that the one little word “sin” embraces the whole kingdom of
Satan, and that it includes everything that is horrible, we have reason
to tremble. But we are careless. We make light of sin. We think that by
some little work or merit we can dismiss sin.
This
passage, then, bears out the fact that all men are sold under sin. Sin
is an exacting despot who can be vanquished by no created power, but by the sovereign power of Jesus Christ alone.
All
this is of wonderful comfort to a conscience troubled by the enormity
of sin. Sin cannot harm those who believe in Christ, because He has
overcome sin by His death.
Armed
with this conviction, we are enlightened and may pass judgment upon the
papists, monks, nuns, priests, Mohammedans, Anabaptists, and all who
trust in their own merits, as wicked and destructive sects that rob God
and Christ of the honor that belongs to them alone.
Note
especially the pronoun “our” and its significance. You will readily
grant that Christ gave Himself for the sins of Peter, Paul, and others
who were worthy of such grace. But feeling low, you find it hard to
believe that Christ gave Himself for your sins. Our feelings shy at a
personal application of the pronoun “our,” and we refuse to have
anything to do with God until we have made ourselves worthy by good
deeds.This attitude springs from a false conception of sin,
the conception that sin is a small matter, easily taken care of by good
works; that we must present ourselves unto 18God with a good
conscience; that we must feel no sin before we may feel that Christ was
given for our sins.
This attitude is universal and particularly developed in those who consider themselves better than others.
Such readily confess that they are frequent sinners, but they regard
their sins as of no such importance that they cannot easily be dissolved
by some good action, or that they may not appear before the tribunal of
Christ and demand the reward of eternal life for their righteousness.
Meantime
they pretend great humility and acknowledge a certain degree of
sinfulness for which they soulfully join in the publican’s prayer, “God
be merciful to me a sinner.” But the real significance and comfort of
the words “for our sins” is lost upon them.
What wisdom!
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
2482
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Annihilationism : Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield
|
on: May 19, 2011, 12:54:06 PM
|
|
V. MINGLING OF THEORIES
It must be
borne in mind that the adherents of these two classes of theories are
not very careful to keep strictly within the logical limits of one of
the classes. Convenient as it is to approach their study with a definite
schematization in hand, it is not always easy to assign individual
writers with definiteness to one or the other of them. It has become
usual, therefore, to speak of them all as annihilationists or of them
all as conditionalists; annihilationists because they all agree that the
souls of the wicked cease to exist; conditionalists because they all
agree that therefore persistence in life is conditioned on a right
relation to God. Perhaps the majority of those who call themselves
conditionalists allow that the mortality of the soul, which is the prime
postulate of the conditionalist theory, is in one way or another
connected with sin; that the souls of the wicked persist in existence
after death and even after the judgment, in order to receive the
punishment due their sin; and that this punishment, whether it be
conceived as infliction from without or as the simple consequence of
sin, has much to do with their extinction. When so held, conditionalism
certainly falls little short of annihilationism proper.
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
2489
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Romans Chapt. 5 and 6 commentary John Calvin
|
on: May 18, 2011, 02:38:49 PM
|
|
10. He died once to sin, etc. What he had said
— that we, according to the example of Christ, are for ever freed from
the yoke of death, he now applies to his present purpose, and that is
this —
that we are no more subject to the tyranny of sin,(addiction) and this he proves from the designed object of Christ’s death; for he died that he might destroy sin.
But
we must observe what is suitable to Christ in this form of expression;
for he is not said to die to sin, so as to cease from it, as the words
must be taken when applied to us, but that he underwent death on account
of sin, that having made himself ἀντίλυτρον, a ransom, he might
annihilate the power and dominion of sin. 190190 This difference may
be gathered from the general tenor of the whole passage; for his death
and our death are said to have a likeness, and not to be same. And
farther, in mentioning our death in this connection, in the next verse,
he changes his phraseology; it is νεκροὺς and not εἶναι, which means
those deprived of life — the lifeless. “The dead (νεκροὺς) in trespasses
and sins,” are those who have no spiritual life; and to be dead to sin
is not to have life for sin, to be freed from its ruling power. See
Romans 6:18
It is usual with the Apostle to adopt the same form of
words in different senses, which can only be distinguished by the
context or by other parts of Scripture, as it has been noticed in a note
on Romans 4:25. — Ed. And he says that he died once, not only because
he has by having obtained eternal redemption by one offering, and by
having made an expiation for sin by his blood, sanctified the faithful
for ever; but also in order that a mutual likeness may exist between us.
For though spiritual death makes continual
advances in us, we are yet said properly to die only once, that is, when
Christ, reconciling us by his blood to the Father, regenerates us at
the same time by the power of his Spirit.
But that he
lives, etc. Whether you add with or in God, it comes to the same
meaning; for he shows that Christ lives a life subject to no mortality
in the immortal and incorruptible kingdom of God; a type of which ought
to appear in the regeneration of the godly. We must here remember the
particle of likeness, so; for he says not that we shall now live in
heaven, as Christ lives there; but he makes the new life, which after
regeneration we live on earth, similar to his celestial life. When he
says that we ought to die to sin, according to his example, we are not
to suppose it to be the same kind of death; for we die to sin, when sin
dies in us, but it was otherwise with Christ; by dying it was that he
conquered sin. But he had just said before, that we believe that we
shall have life in common with him, he fully shows by the word believing
that he speaks of the grace of Christ:
for if he only reminded us of a duty, his mode of speaking would have
been this, “Since we die with Christ, we ought also to live with him.”
But the word believing denotes that he treats here of doctrine which is
based on the promises; as though he had said, that the faithful ought to
feel assured that they are through the kindness of Christ dead as to
the flesh, and that the same Christ will preserve them in newness of
life to the end.
This is required that we put our
trust in the work of Christ alone. So in matters of sin and in failing
to perform what we know we ought to do... we must look to the grace of
Christ as the vehicle to be renewed from our sins. The work that
procured our victory over sin was in the past but it is based upon the
promises. When we look to His promises then we are transformed and we
are being renewed day by day. This is what the apostle was saying that
we put to death the flesh by the Spirit. All other methods are not
supported in scripture. If we focus on Christ and we learn to look to
the promise then when we sin we are completely free after the sin
because of His work that gained the victory over our sin for us. If we
continue to trust in Christ then we will experience power to see that we
are free. This is our victory. mbG
But the future time of
the verb live, refers not to the last resurrection, but simply denotes
the continued course of a new life, as long as we peregrinate on the
earth.
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
2490
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Galatians Commentary .... Martin Luther
|
on: May 18, 2011, 02:31:57 PM
|
|
Christ is God by Nature
At the same
time, Paul confirms our creed, “that Christ is very God.” We need such
frequent confirmation of our faith, for Satan will not fail to attack
it. He hates our faith. He knows that it is the victory which overcometh
him and the world. That Christ is very God is apparent in that Paul
ascribes to Him divine powers equally with the Father, as for instance,
the power to dispense grace and peace. This Jesus could not do unless He
were God.
To bestow peace and grace lies in the province of God,
who alone can create these blessings. The angels cannot. The apostles
could only distribute these blessings by the preaching of the Gospel. In
attributing to Christ the divine power of creating and giving grace,
peace, everlasting life, righteousness, and forgiveness of sins, the
conclusion is inevitable that Christ is truly God.
Similarly, St.
John concludes from the works attributed to the Father and the Son that
they are divinely One. Hence, the gifts which we receive from the
Father and from the Son are one and the same. Otherwise Paul should have
written: “Grace from God the Father, and peace from our Lord Jesus
Christ.” In combining them he ascribes them equally to the Father and
the Son. I stress this on account of the many errors emanating from the
sects.
17
The Arians were sharp fellows. Admitting that Christ
had two natures, and that He is called “very God of very God,” they
were yet able to deny His divinity. The Arians took Christ for a noble
and perfect creature, superior even to the angels, because by Him God
created heaven and earth. Mohammed also speaks highly of Christ. But all
their praise is mere palaver to deceive men. Paul’s language is
different. To paraphrase him: “You are established in this belief that
Christ is very God because He gives grace and peace, gifts which only
God can create and bestow.”
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment