JCISGD

I think that was established to be true already. That is confusing morality with righteousness though. There is a huge gap between them that will not be compromised. Do you think it is morally wrong to smoke cigarettes? (I assume you do) Do you think a christian who smokes cigarettes is any less justified before God since our righteousness is found in Yeshua alone? it isn't good or healthy to take smoke into one's lungs but that won't keep him out of heaven. If anything, it will get him there faster!! I would disagree. If a person wilfully continues to violate moral laws despite Gods warnings then they will find themselves in hell. Gods grace does not cover wilful rebellion and continuing in practices they know are wrong. That is the false gospel that Satan has been spreading in these last days of apostasy. You will not hear that gospel preached by the holy men of God during the great awakenings.

I agree, but obligations to belong to a certain sect or priesthood still exist. Joining a certain sect or priesthood is also a personal choice. So, if one doesn't agree with the obligations of a certain sect or priesthood they shouldn't join that sect or priesthood. I agree with what you have said....I was trying to emphasize the difficulty. I find it hard to explain. It seems to me that those able to remain celibate are very few indeed, but many feel called to serve. I think some harm is done by requiring an individual to remain celibate in order to serve, because most are not capable without some untoward affect. I'm suggesting that even within a certain sect or priesthood, one should only remain celibate as a matter of personal choice, being passively forced to be celibate in my mind somehow negates it being glorified unto God. I agree with you there HP, but imo celibacy is a gift that God bestows by removing the need to have a family as He supernaturally clothes them for the work He has ordained for them. So is it personal choice or is it Gods choice ? Some are celibate only because they have been hurt or damaged by wrong parenting, these ones need healing and not celibacy as they are out of the will of God which is wholeness for all.

In hindsight it may have been unwise to post another mans work as its abit like walking into a film thats half way through, its confusing and hard to understand. I posted it in good faith and still endorse it completley, but i have read all of Finneys works and life and know his theology and heart. I also understand the language used does not have the same meaning today as language is ever changing and not stagnant. I still think if it is read prayerfully and disagreements taken to the Holy Spirit there is much in it for everyone, but it was specifically posted for those who think celibacy is Gods first preference and that marriage is a hinderance or secondary role in the K.O.H. It was not posted to insist but rather to assist. The more i try to answer objections the more it make it seem i am insisting. I do not want to be found judging another mans servant and indeed i am in no position of authority or responsibility for anyone here. Its still up for discussion but i would ask that any objectional content be approached in love and questioning rather than accusations or assumptions.

hi Andy, my bad i completly missed your questions underneath the quotes except for 19+21, i was lazy and lacked the dillgence you deserve not to mention my dog jumping on the keyboard and loosing one of my replies. I will now try to give a satisfactory answer to 5,8,10 +16 but bear in mind i dont really have the right to reply for Finney. 5. It may be unjust to for men to be in ministry and put women in the position of being ministered by a man without his own wife, Paul did say each should have their own spouses. It may also be that it causes desires where they would not normally arise. Again i do not know Finneys mind or intention but these are plausible imo. 8. I dont think it means afraid as in in fear but in apprehensive or less able to trust ? 10. Again i think the word terror is old language and used differently, but i can say that all men feel the need to be on guard when single men come calling and are left in the company of their wives. Men today are boasting of not getting jealous but it is afool who does not guard their marriage man or woman and the facts attest to this. 16. I would say not all celibate men are unsocial or selfish but i can say this is the tendency of men left to themselves after the death of spouses or those that get too used to their own ways and my middle aged single friends admit this. If this does not feel right to you i would ask you pray on it and ask candid Christian men.

deleted due to double post.

I think i was misunderstanding you somewhat, and now find agreement with you mostly. I have been a single man for 20 yrs since my failed and wrongful marriage of 5 yrs that resulted in two beautiful and now grown daughters. I can vouchsafe the results of 5,8,10 +16 are a danger and i have observed them in many single christian men that i know, but the language is probably stronger and misunderstood in todays society. I think the word embarrasses in 19+21 is used differently in 1870`s than today and would better translate as hinders. I am sure Finney did not mean sex or the lack of it was the obstacle/improvement but rather Christian marriage with all its benefits was the help towards spiritual development. None of us develop in a vaacum and as iron sharpens iron God does use marriage to develop us and did design to do this when He created a helpmate for man. Celibacy then is the exception and not the goal. My position on the exceptions are clarified in my reply to Parker above. Its important to read the whole and keep in the context, i admit its not easy given the language and time difference but i considered it laborious and not expedient to warrant paraphrasing it. If ive answered your objections to your satisfaction feel free to bring anymore, or refute what ive said if you still disagree.

Miss Elly, I agree it is between God and the man/woman and i may have overstepped the mark by suggesting Finney would outright disagree or that he would involve himself in the affairs of a man not in his parish. This was most unwise of me. But you must see i was proved right to some degree as you state Paul Cain did fall and was perhaps pride that he spoke from and not wisdom. One of Finneys points is that Satan steps up the temptations and eventually wears down any man not gifted to be celibate and even in marriage Paul says not to deny one another for prolonged periods without agreement. I hope all will read prayerfully as we are apt to kneejerk at anything now outdated and foriegn to us.

Andy i think you are reading more into it than is actually stated. It does not mean certain failure, it means that history proves that many celibate are tempted untill faulting. Ask any candid man and he will tell you of the strange and intensified temptations that come when wanting to be celibate. Im sorry but you speak from a womans understanding and cannot know the mind of men. Did not Paul advise marriage for temptation rather than resistance? Please read prayerfully as much of what is listed is foreign to todays liberal thinking and the language is old. Its also only an outline and not to be taken as having proof provided. What exactly do you find rediculous?, please quote it so that i can fairly answer you. God bless.

I expect this will meet with disagreement as its not the common understanding. Imo the fruit spoken of that we are to bear is that of converted souls, and not that spoken of as the fruit of the Holy Spirit. How so you ask? Firstly because some bear 30 fold some 60 and some 100. This is speaking of increase where as the fruits of the HS are not so much what we increase in but are endowed with? Secondly because its the spiritual equivalent to OT command to "go forth and multiply". Thirdly because its only natural that we should reproduce spiritually. Finally "he who wins souls is wise" The above is a loose application and not airtight by any means as ive not spent much time considering it. Am i bearing this fruit? answer: No and i dont think im very wise either. Only hay straw and stubble so far.

Just wondering...if I popped something into my mouth that was wrong in the sight of G-d and from the clear teaching of Scripture...just how do you think G-d will vent His displeasure at my unlawful ingestion? Thats up to God, but we can be sure as the enforcer of moral law, God does not let violations go unrectified wether that be natural consequence or divine discipline, he does not show pleasure in reguard to it. Hell is Gods design and its fearful consequences are as much a deterrent to rebellion as is His love and promise of heaven for the obedient. Law without sanctions is no law at all and would soon be disreguarded by all.

I agree with you the choice to live a celibate lifestyle is one that is given to individuals in the word to all that can receive it. And it is not a sin to those who choose this way of life dedicated to the work of the Lord. Matthew 19:10-12 1 Corinthians 7:6-9; 28-35 Who decides your calling you or the Lord, remember the Lord has plans for our life even before we are born. As proved already being married is not a hinderance to a life dedicated to the Lords work. IF God has a spouse for us then it would be a sin to leave her husbandless or to tempt God by trying to be celibate when not gifted to be. Too many only think of themselves and what they can get from marriage.

To all future posters, please read my reasons at the begining and read the lists carefully. I dont expect many will recieve it but that doesnt make it untrue. I came accross these refutions of celibacy being superior and posted it to help those being troubled by a wrong spirit. Many read Pauls words to mean he wanted all to be single if they could, but Finney proves that this was for a limited time and that time was the intense persecution about to hit the church. This single error has caused countless misery or countless less children in every age to date, and i know personally several single men who wrongly think it better not to marry.

I dont think it implies as you think, it merely corrects the false notion that celibacy is better. Sorry i disagree, if we belong to Christ it is not personal choice to marry or not marry. If we are not gifted for celibacy then we will either stumble or stumble others, also there may issues we are refusing to address such as unforgiveness and vengeful vows not to marry. Also the command to go forth and multiply was not to Adam alone but all men unless the exceptions above deem it more prudent. God wants lots of children, who are we to say who He will save or wont. Just to recap, the reasons for celibacy are as follows, 1. Perculiar calling such as Christ and Paul, every other biblical example of holy living was married, including Enoch who walked with God 365 yrs and begot sons and daughters. 2. Perculiar situations such as in war or while fleeing persecution. 3. When our calling is not yet sure, as we cannot be sure our spouse will suit our calling. Love to God comes before need of companionship. There are no others i am aware of but that does not mean there are none.

You cant have it both ways my friends, either you are insisting that only some foods are clean or not. I am insisting that all creatures are now clean, even if not desirable. If you insist that they are not, then you are by default insisting that i am in violation of Gods law. Or the other possibility is that i am just not getting it and on another page altogether? Remember the intent of this post was to show that Christians are free to eat of all creatures. It is not a post about denying the need and eminent restoration of Israel. If any creature is unclean, then it is morally wrong for a Christian or unbeliever to eat and must be repented of or face Gods displeasure.

thats sad when women dont mature and seem stuck in girlhood pink. Im not saying pink does not have a time and a place, but the hair colour of one who represents Christ and wants to be taken seriously? Ive heard of Tammy Baker, but havnt seen any photos. Reminds me of that american show called "bounty hunters?", both husband and wife are loaded with bling and curse and swear while claiming a relationship with God, but atleast they are not claiming to be pastors?

Miss Elly, i thought it good to post as even in my own circles it is thought by many that it is better not to marry, but Finney says thats incorrect interperetation and was only Pauls wish for that time as the Spirit forewarned that major persecution of the fledgling church was about to unfold. I think Finney would disagree with that evangelist and does in his lists of reasons, namely that it is tormenting to single women and a strong temptation to single men. Is this man still standing ? Even if he is it is against the command to go forth and multiply which is only unapplicable in times of undue distress.

Yes i read and understand it. Can you give an example, you need to becareful to distinguish between that which is posted as the error and the refutal perhaps. It is 18th century english as well. just clarify for everyone its not my research, i just copied it.

Im posting this for those who are not fully convinced of Gods postion on celibacy and are prone to the delusions out there. They are not original and are copy and pasted from a brief refutal of them by Finney. Any discussion welcome of course. XVI. EVILS OF CLERICAL CELIBACY. 1. It is a war with nature. 2. It is a bad example, and encourages it in laymen. 3. It tends to licentiousness. This is a notorious fact. 4. Celibates cannot rebuke celibacy in laymen. 5. It is unjust to women. 6. Reproaches God, and implies a denial of his wisdom. 7. It is a constant temptation to unchastity. 8. It makes chaste women afraid of them. 9. It makes them a temptation to many women. 10. Makes them the terror of husbands. 11. Creates much jealousy in families. 12. Many do have and will have mistresses notorious (??). 13. Make the clergy generally odious. 14. Also, objects of suspicion. 15. Expose them to endless female intrigues. 16. Makes them selfish and unsocial. 17. Begets a contempt for women. 18. Corrupts society. This is a fact, see Catholic Europe. 19. It embarrasses them in their work in many ways. 20. Renders them incompetent to be a spiritual guide to females. 21. It embarrasses their spiritual development. 22. It is an error of the same class as nunneries and monasteries. It grew out of the idea that sin has its root in matter, and that the body is essentially impure, that its appetites must be annihilated. 23. Trial has demonstrated that the celibacy of the clergy is only evil continually. 24. Never justifiable except for the most cogent reasons. 25. As the reasons can't be generally made public, it falls under the rule, "do nothing that needs explanation when such explanation is impracticable." XV. PAPISTICAL REASONS FOR PRIESTLY CELIBACY. 1. Marriage embarrassing to the spiritual life. Answer: (1) It is a help, as it prevents temptation. (2) It cultivates many forms of virtue. (3) It is in accordance with our nature. (4) It is a necessity of the race, and its continuance. 2. Inconsistent with the example of Christ and Paul. Their example justified by peculiar reasons. 3. Paul wished that all men were unmarried. Answer: (1) This, if it proves anything, proves too much. (2) The wish was the result of the peculiar circumstances of the church at the time. 4. Paul's teaching and example imply a disapproval of marriage. Answer: (1) Not more so of priests, than of all. (2) Paul guarded against this inference by expressly declaring marriage honorable in all, ministers and people. 5. Revelation represents those "who have not defiled themselves with women" as being more highly honored in heaven. Answer: (1) Whatever this means, it is not peculiar to ministers. (2) The intercourse of the married is not defiling. (3) The passage has reference to fornication and adultery. (4) Paul considered marriage, with its duties and privileges as not defiling the bed. (5) Paul denounced "forbidding to marry." 6. It is better for the spirit to deny and crush the flesh. Answer: (1) Then our animal nature is a mistake. (2) Then we are justified in not propagating the race. (3) Restraint within divinely appointed limits, and not the utter denial and annihilation of our constitutional appetites, is our law. (4) Enoch walked with God 400 years and begat sons and daughters. 7. A family is a hindrance to a minister in his work. Answer: (1) This is exceptional. The reverse is the rule. (2) If this were a necessary result, it should have prohibited the marriage of apostles and ministers. (3) Paul asserts that he and Barnabas were at liberty to marry. (4) A well-ordered family a constant help to a minister in many ways. (5) The help more than counterbalances the hindrance. 8. A single man is less expensive to the church. Answer: (1) No minister at all would cost less still, in dollars. (2) But to do without a minister would be too expensive. (3) Churches can't afford to be without a whole pastor. (4) A pastor's wife more than pays for her support. (5) It is a shame for the church to take this view. (6) This is seriously urged by the ritualists of England today. (7) Especially as it respects curates and the lower clergy. (8) They plead for an expensive clergy for the upper classes. (9) And hence, for celibacy of the lower clergy, because they will be less expensive to the people. (10) A minister can often keep house as cheaply as he can board - his garden, fruit, washing, and mending. (11) Most congregations can pay him easier in the products of their industry. (12) It is generally dangerous for a minister to board. It creates jealousy of the family in which he boards. (13) Also, the woman where he boards. (14) He needs the sacred enclosure and confidence of his own family.

How about a neither postion? Such as a Finneyist position, seeing that God used him to usher in unparralled revivals accoss America and even in the Uk. The Welsh revival has been attributed to prayer and 80,000 Finney tracts being distributed. Would God so mightily use a man and thereby sanction his theology if it was error? Actually i would drop the name of Finney altogether if it were not wrong to deny credit where credit is due, and i feel sure Finney himself would not want his name used for division or adulation seperate from the acknowledgement of the supreme work of the Holy Spirit. Finney took issue with both camps to some degree as far as im aware, but reguardless the fruits of his theology are evident in the numbers of converts, their perserverance in the faith and the very high % that stayed true and holy to the end in contrast with both Arminius and Calvin. I am staggered that Christians on the whole seem unwilling to be humble and learn from proven men of God, and would rather stick to entrenched positions at all costs.

I think you are misunderstanding the thrust and emphasis of what has been said. I am sure those Chinese that were converted through the blessed ministry of Hudson Taylor did not continue in their pagan rituals and acknowledgement of other gods...and sought to do what they saw in the Scriptures, and what they were taught...which all stems from the Gospel of Yeshua, and the teachings of Jews who followed Him. There are many great men of G-d who did not acknowledge their Jewish roots, and went on to do such a lot for the Gospel....but that is no excuse to bury ones head in the sand in these times, especially when Israel has once more become a nation, and for many of us the significance of our roots is an inescapable emphasis of the Holy Spirit, and who is to say that maybe some of those great missionaries and evangelists would have helped lay a better foundation if they had understood things better regarding the Jews....and maybe even the Shoah could have been prevented. The silk road to Jerusalem movement was established about fifty years ago...I have had the privilege of seeing brother Yun and hearing him preach....and I believe amongst other things his heart is to see Jews know their Messiah, and the Gentiles to know the debt they owe the Jews, especially those who reached out faithfully to bring salvation to the nations. Points taken. We are in an age where more are slipping into hell than ever before and the great apostasy is partially complete imo. I support Israel in my prayers and believe Elijah and Enoch will soon roam the streets preaching fearlessly to all, but in the meantime my family and neighbours are perishing. I will not observe Jewish custom and cause them to stumble thinking the kingdom of God is about feasts and foods when the bible says it is about righteouness and love for God. You conceed that these mighty preachers saved multitudes from hell without observance of Jewish culture but then you also seem to imply it is more important to acknowledge Jewish roots than to see the lost saved. You cant have both imo, either salvation is the most important and Jewish culture a side issue or vice versa.

Your points taken and are plausible to my mind, even though i remain unconvinced thus far. I dont know if we can add anything more as proofs unless you are willing to accept that this was not stressed by the men that God has used to bring huge revivals and the salvation of countless number. Im not talking about flaky emotionalism of todays false prophets, these giants in the faith lived holy lives with no scandel or deviation from the faith till the end. If you wont acknowledge these as a work of God i cannot see any way forward and can only be convinced that you are in error. We are told we will know Jesus` disciples by their fruits, and the fruits of men such as Whitfeild, Hudson, Finney, the Wesleys and many more are undisputable in both the solid conversion of sinners and the holiness of their living. Hudson Taylor who gave his life to the salvation of the Chinese, who are now raising up thousands to walk the silk road to Jerusalem while preaching fearlessly to the Muslems, taught nothing that i am aware of concerning the keeping of Jewish feasts or culture. Would you have a impoverished chinese worker begin learning Jewish custom? I would suggest that if these things get in the way of the salvation of souls, then it is they that must go and not the other way around. Unless you can show me that God is using these things to win the lost, i just cannot see their benefit apart from personal interest. But if its only Christians being immersed in Jewish culture then i even think it a possible foul? in the cause of Christ who came to seek and save the lost, of whom i once was.

You are so right Miss Elly, its a joy to hear of your willingness to set the flesh aside for the cause of the gospel and the sake of the lost. I hear so many christians claiming their rights, i wonder do they read the same bible. That said i know too well my many failings. I take it the lady with Pink hair is an figurative example ? im abit lost otherwise.

2. The man of lawlessness is not a who, it's a WHOM, a category of people. - Bold Believer This may be so but it doesnt sit well with me and i dont see where you prove this. If we take it as a group/category of people then the use of singular discription throughout the verses 2 Th 2:3+4 makes no sense to me. The man of lawlessness is discribed as a he and he opposes and exalts himself above all other so called gods and claims to be God. I find it difficult to see how a group of people could do this as the very word God means to be the all powerful being, not equal to anyone else. just my thoughts on it.

I read a good bit of this and it was very good. However I had to laugh a time or two with the rules of no spitting about the house and attending donation parties. I wonder if this last statement should apply to ministers (especially on television) who are continually whining about, begging and pleading for financial support and pledges. It is not a really a party, but a program nontheless. They urge everyone to have faith, have faith, send me your money and YOU have faith. Well, why then don't they exercise some faith themselves and quit driving the people of God nuts with all of the brainwashing. Exactly if they have faith they dont need to ask for anything. The famous George Muller who fianancilly suport thousands of orphans by faith wouldnt under any circumstance let his needs be known and refused any money with strings or doubts. Those tele evangelist asking for money are a disgrace to the gospel of Christ. Some of the things are funny alright and abit outdated but the principle would still apply. I think there alot little habits i never considered

My intention for posting the following link is for edification and not dispute. I dont mean that it is not open to critizism but that i wont be entering into debate. I hope it will be seen as a take it or leave it deal. Although it is a very long list of do`s and dont`s i find it very instructive and very wise counsel to pastors and budding preachers alike, there is ample gleaning for all other too imo. Just scroll down till you reach the blue printing and lists. http://truthinheart.com/EarlyOberlinCD/CD/...Theology/pt.htm