Sin disguised as Virtue?

[Sower]

On 11/20/2020 at 5:10 AM, Unit 11 said:

And yet, say you're following a leader, a famous radio minister with a slew of books and a following of thousands...and he hates someone, in this case the liberals. You look up to him, you trust him, and so if he hates those people, then you should too, right? It's Godly and it's righteous. You're fighting for Family! And so how will you get over it then?

Just saying...

I challenge you to (politely) produce a quote from Dr. James Dobson as saying he hates someone. That's not the man I have known almost forty years.

As I came from a dysfunctional home/upbringing, I knew nothing about treating my bride, nor raising and teaching our children. I heard his program 'Focus on the Family' on the AM Christian radio once by chance (right) in the late seventies, and listened to his programs and bought his books ever since till he retired.

Without doubt, he had the most influence upon my understanding of what scripture says about relationships of husbands and wives, and teaching/training up my children the way God would have me to. And being involved, good stewardship,  in all things that God has blessed our family with, including our very blessed country. Through his influence of focusing on our family learning/training, we chose to remove our children from what we discovered was going on in the government run schools and to home school them. Ourselves. Back then it was illegal, and in Texas, there were parents and private school Christian Principals jailed for refusing government involvement in teaching/raising our own children. Dr. Dobson's  teachings influenced my wife and I enough to give us the confidence to take control of what was taught to them, and not the government.
Those on the front line, actually involved in Christ's work, are most likely to be wounded.

I'm sorry if I have expressed any un Christ like behavior, but your quote is very inflammatory, and I am heated. No excuse.

 

[Desopixi Seilynam]

18 hours ago, Josheb said:

It is by grace we have been saved through faith and it is NOT of ourselves.

That's right, we heard the word of God and believed it. It is by grace that the word of God is available for all men to know and hear. And God foreknew who would sincerely hear and who would not, and according to Paul it is Gods desire for all people to be saved. 1 Timothy 2:1-5

"If our good news be hid, it is hid to them that are lost;
in whom the god of this world [the enemy] has blinded the minds of

them that believe not

lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ should shine on them."

2 Corinthians 4:3-4

Therefore the light of the gospel would shine on them if not for the enemy blinding them. God is not the enemy. These two passages clearly show that your way of wanting to take Romans 8:6-8 is not correct.

" God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. "
1 Tim 2:1-5

-------

People do not have their own ability to repent. As said at the start, one can cry out for "the ability to repent" based on a belief in the Word of God. For faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God, and the ability to repent is the product of sincere faith.

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. We are saved, by grace, Through faith. And we receive faith by hearing the word of God. Romans 10:17

Anyone and everyone can hear the word of God,
because most modern people can read this whole conversation we've been having, and because most people have access to a Bible, and the amount that don't decreases by the day.

Therefore Romans 10:17 together with the fact that the written word of God is available to all, and promised to be: Matthew 24:14 is another set of passages that nullify the idea that not everyone has an opportunity to be saved, or that someone is pre-destined to go to hell.

  It is the Holy Spirit that gives self-control (Galatians 5:22-24) 
 The Holy Spirit was shed into the world via the death and resurrection of Christ. Anyone can choose to believe in the death and resurrection of Christ and thereby be indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
 

-------

Context is always key, and Paul's context for us will always be all the letters of his that we have.

"What man knows the things of man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so no man knows the things of God,
but the Spirit of God." 1 Corinthians 2:11

See now if we stop there, we could say no man at all knows the things of God, but taking one verse like that is not what Paul would want, it should be obvious that Paul is preaching.

"the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God;
for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them,
because they are spiritually discerned."
"But he that is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is judged of no man (he is judged of God)"

"For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct the Lord? But we have the mind of Christ."

"And I, brethren, could not speak to you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ..." 1 Corinthians 2:12- 3:1

Paul is telling the Corinthians that they are carrying on like people that don't have the mind of Christ. 

Because of Ezekiel 33:11, Isaiah 56, 1 Timothy 2:1-5,
1 Corinthians 2:15,3:1 and 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 we know that we can not take the one verse of 1 Corinthians 2:14 to mean that people must have the Spirit or be special/chosen before they can believe. We also have Galatians 3:2

"Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? " Therefore it is clear that one receives the Spirit by the hearing of faith; and faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17 And the word of God is available to all (Matthew 24:14).  

No one is special, all have sinned, all have the opportunity to have a relationship with Christ.

 

-------

For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should turn, and I would heal them.   Matthew 13:14-15

Is the Messiahs translation of Isaiah 6:9-10.

 

God has intervened into the lives of everyone in the world, because He sent His Son into the world. And His written word is available for every personal eye to read and thereby hear.

Edited December 3, 2020 by Desopixi Seilynam
the ability to repent, 1 Corinthians, Matthew 13:14-15

[FrankIeCip]

John 12 

37But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, 38that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke:

“Lord, who has believed our report?
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”

39Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again:

40“He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts,
Lest they should see with their eyes,
Lest they should understand withtheir hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.”

41These things Isaiah said [f]when he saw His glory and spoke of Him.

This is speaking of God blinding and hardening so they will not see or hear and be healed/converted. 
 

Mark 4 10And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. 11And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: 12That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Notice. Unto you IT IS GIVEN. 

Edited December 3, 2020 by FrankIeCip

[FrankIeCip]

Jude 1 4For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Before of old. Before the world. Ordained or predestined to this condemnation. 

[FrankIeCip]

John 17 9I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. 10And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them. 11And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. 12While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

[FrankIeCip]

I will post this once again because nobody answers. Maybe they don’t like what they see. I don’t know. 
Did Paul believe In Jesus? That He was the Christ? Trust Him? Put faith in Him? Call on Him? Etc. Absolutely positively NO. He persecuted Him and the brethren. Jesus intervened first. We are no different than Paul. We are all on our own road to Damascus. God must first intervene in our lives. 

[Starise]

1 hour ago, FrankIeCip said:

I will post this once again because nobody answers. Maybe they don’t like what they see. I don’t know. 
Did Paul believe In Jesus? That He was the Christ? Trust Him? Put faith in Him? Call on Him? Etc. Absolutely positively NO. He persecuted Him and the brethren. Jesus intervened first. We are no different than Paul. We are all on our own road to Damascus. God must first intervene in our lives. 

I guess Paul still had a choice. He could have walked away. God put such a strong argument that He was the real deal to deny it would have been insane. For some the glimpse of God's pulling is not as extreme, but I think we all see it. 

God sees we are thirsty. He puts the water out for us to drink. He then advertises that it's here. Many  deny they are thirsty or drink something else. A few admit they need it and come to Him.

 

[FrankIeCip]

39 minutes ago, Starise said:

I guess Paul still had a choice. He could have walked away. God put such a strong argument that He was the real deal to deny it would have been insane. For some the glimpse of God's pulling is not as extreme, but I think we all see it. 

God sees we are thirsty. He puts the water out for us to drink. He then advertises that it's here. Many  deny they are thirsty or drink something else. A few admit they need it and come to Him.

 

He could not have walked away. When we are converted we are new creatures in Christ. It is a supernatural, literally life changing experience. We have new hearts and minds and now desire to please God. We care about the souls of others. We want what He wants. We love what He loves and hate what He hates. We are members of His body. Bought and paid for. Sealed. Branded. We belong to Him. Amazing and yes Irresistible Grace! 

Edited December 3, 2020 by FrankIeCip

[David1701]

14 hours ago, GandalfTheWise said:

One of the primary characteristics of Arminian belief is a belief in free will.   This seems to be a generally accepted state of affairs.

Quoting from page 927 of the 2nd Edition of Christian Theology by Millard J. Erickson:

"The views of Arminius are quite clear and can be readily summarized.  God's first absolute decree regarding salvation was not the assignment of certain individuals to eternal life and others to damnation, but the appointment of his Son, Jesus Christ, to be the Savior of the human race.  Second, God decreed that all who repent and believe shall be saved.  In addition, God has granted to all persons sufficient grace to enable them to believe.  They freely believe or disbelieve on their own.  God does not believe for us or compel us to believe.  Finally, God predestines those who he foreknows will believe."

 

This quote by Millard Erickson DENIES free will!  Look at the part I've made bold - that is Arminian "prevenient grace", which I mentioned in my post.  Such grace would not be deemed necessary, if fallen man had free will.  Surely this should be obvious?

It is precisely because of the bondage to sin of fallen man's will that grace is necessary, in order for him to believe the gospel.

 

Quote

In the next paragraph, "In the eighteenth century, John Wesley popularized Arminianism.  In fact, for many years he edited a magazine call The Arminian.  While holding to the freedom of the will, Wesley went beyond Arminius by emphasizing the idea of prevenient or universal grace.  This universal grace is the basis of any human good in the world.  This prevenient grace also makes it possible for any person to accept the offer of salvation in Jesus Christ."

Wesley did not hold to free will!  No Arminian holds to free will.  They all hold to the need for "prevenient grace", AS I POSTED.

Quote

 

Roger E. Olson (author of a number of books including Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities and Against Calvinism and  Foy Valentine Professor of Christian Theology of Ethics at George W. Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University) wrote a blog piece (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2018/11/calvinism-and-arminianism-compared-by-roger-e-olson/) contrasting arminianism and calvinism.   Here is a quote from the piece.

"What is Arminianism? A) Belief that God limits himself to give human beings free will to go against his perfect will so that God did not design or ordain sin and evil (or their consequences such as innocent suffering); B) Belief that, although sinners cannot achieve salvation on their own, without “prevenient grace” (enabling grace), God makes salvation possible for all through Jesus Christ and offers free salvation to all through the gospel. “A” is called “limited providence,” “B” is called “predestination by foreknowledge.”

 

Olson is contradicting himself here.  If fallen man had free will, then Arminian "prevenient grace" would be completely unnecessary.

Quote

*As with Calvinism there are varieties of Arminianism that deviate slightly from above, but above is classical, historical, evangelical Arminianism as taught by Arminius, John Wesley, Charles Finney, C. S. Lewis, and Dallas Willard and all other classical, historical, evangelical Arminians."

Oh, good grief!  Wesley, Finney and C.S. Lewis were not Classical Arminians!

Classical Arminians often distance themselves somewhat from Wesleyans, doctrinally speaking.

Finney was semi-Pelagian, not Arminian at all.

C.S. Lewis was not clearly of any persuasion, other than accepting the essentials of the faith.

Quote

 

Irwin W. Reist's article JOHN WESLEY'S VIEW OF MAN: VERSUS FREE WILL on pages 25-35 in Volume 7 - Spring - 1972 of the Wesleyan Theological Journal makes many observations about Wesley and his writings on a number of topics.  Section V of this article lays out a fairly clear picture of what prevenient grace is.  Here is one quote from Wesley in that article.

"For allowing that all the souls of men are dead in sin by nature this excuses none, seeing there is no man that is in a state of mere nature; there is no man unless he has quenched the Spirit, that is wholly void of the grace of God. No man living is entirely destitute of what is vulgarly called natural conscience. But this is not natural. It is more properly termed preventing grace. Everyone has sooner or later good desires; although the generality of men stifle them before they can strike deep root. . . So that no man sins because he has not grace, but because he does not use the grace which he hath."

Here is a mixture of Reist's comments and a Wesley quote.  [Formatting is poor here.]

The second element in Wesley's concept of prevenient grace is the graciously enabled will of man. Free will is not natural to man as a remnant of the pre-fall state. "Natural free-will in the present state of mankind I do not understand. ~28 Free- will and liberty are matters of grace bestowed on all men. And although I have not an absolute power over my own mind, because of the corruption of my own nature; yet through the grace of God assisting me, I have a power to choose and do good, as well as evil. 29 I only assert, that there is a measure of free-will supernaturally restored to every man, together with that supernatural light which 'lightens every man that cometh into the world'. 30

Finally, here are some quotes from an article which is highly hostile to Arminians accusing them of teaching a heresy of free-will and a false gospel (with a form of calvinism being assumed to be the true gospel). https://cprc.co.uk/articles/johnwesley/

John Wesley, False Apostle of Free Will by Rev. Angus Stewart.

The question is this: What was the gospel that Wesley preached? Was it the true gospel (with some weaknesses, perhaps) or was it “another gospel” “which is not another” (Gal. 1:6-7)? Tomkins’ book alone provides enough information to answer this question. Wesley even quotes Whitefield as saying that the two of them “preached two different gospels” (p. 94).

Wesley’s gospel was the false gospel of salvation by the free will of the sinner. Free will, for all his talk of God’s grace, was the deciding factor in salvation. In loving free will, Wesley hated predestination calling it “blasphemy.” He declared, “It represents the most holy God as worse than the Devil, as both more false, more cruel, and more unjust” (p. 78).

However, the Canons of Dordt state that the “decree of election and reprobation” is “revealed in the Word of God” and “though men of perverse, impure and unstable minds wrest [it] to their own destruction, yet to holy and pious souls [it] affords unspeakable consolation” (I.6). Where does this leave Wesley? Not with the “holy and pious souls,” but with the “men of perverse, impure and unstable minds” who “wrest” the truth of predestination “to their own destruction.”

In its “Conclusion,” the Synod of Dordt “warns calumniators to consider the terrible judgment of God which awaits them.” Wesley certainly belongs in this category for he is guilty of the sins that the “Conclusion” proceeds to enumerate:

bearing false witness against the confessions of so many Churches [including the Church of England in which he lived and died] … distressing the consciences of the weak; and … labouring to render suspected the society of the truly faithful.

Remember that Wesley was not simply a church member but a church office-bearer and that his church’s creed (article 17 of the Thirty-Nine Articles) taught election. Moreover, he was a founder of societies (and eventually a denomination) and he saw himself as a restorer of primitive Christianity! If church teachers shall receive a greater judgment (James 3:1), where will this leave Wesley? A false apostle of free will.

The bottom line is that there are many Christians in the Arminian and Wesleyan traditions that do believe in free will and a universal offer of salvation whereby anyone can be saved through Christ's atoning work.  

 

There are precisely zero Arminians or Wesleyans who believe in so-called "free will", otherwise they would not believe in "prevenient grace".

Yes, they (and Calvinists and almost everyone else) believe in the universal proclamation of salvation and that everyone who believes in Jesus Christ will be saved.

It is Pelagian-ish teaching that fallen man has "free will".  These people teach that man does not need to be regenerated, nor does he need prevenient grace, but he can repent and believe in Jesus Christ using his fictional "free will", thus giving him room to boast and denying that salvation is by grace alone.

Incidentally, Arminianism also denies that salvation is by grace alone, albeit more subtly, since the deciding factor, according to them, is still man's freed (N.B. not naturally free) will, not the grace of God.

[GandalfTheWise]

49 minutes ago, David1701 said:

This quote by Millard Erickson DENIES free will!  Look at the part I've made bold - that is Arminian "prevenient grace", which I mentioned in my post.  Such grace would not be deemed necessary, if fallen man had free will.  Surely this should be obvious?

It is precisely because of the bondage to sin of fallen man's will that grace is necessary, in order for him to believe the gospel.

 

Wesley did not hold to free will!  No Arminian holds to free will.  They all hold to the need for "prevenient grace", AS I POSTED.

Olson is contradicting himself here.  If fallen man had free will, then Arminian "prevenient grace" would be completely unnecessary.

Oh, good grief!  Wesley, Finney and C.S. Lewis were not Classical Arminians!

Classical Arminians often distance themselves somewhat from Wesleyans, doctrinally speaking.

Finney was semi-Pelagian, not Arminian at all.

C.S. Lewis was not clearly of any persuasion, other than accepting the essentials of the faith.

There are precisely zero Arminians or Wesleyans who believe in so-called "free will", otherwise they would not believe in "prevenient grace".

Yes, they (and Calvinists and almost everyone else) believe in the universal proclamation of salvation and that everyone who believes in Jesus Christ will be saved.

It is Pelagian-ish teaching that fallen man has "free will".  These people teach that man does not need to be regenerated, nor does he need prevenient grace, but he can repent and believe in Jesus Christ using his fictional "free will", thus giving him room to boast and denying that salvation is by grace alone.

Incidentally, Arminianism also denies that salvation is by grace alone, albeit more subtly, since the deciding factor, according to them, is still man's freed (N.B. not naturally free) will, not the grace of God.

My observation is that many Christians use the term "free will" in the sense of "freed will" or a similar sense which requires God's intervention.  One can debate the accuracy and potential ambiguity of that usage.  However, I think it prudent to take care when decrying free will assuming a Pelagian definition that it will be understood as that by all when there will be those reading the statements who commonly use a different usage. One can of course then drop into a mode of arguing that everyone should adopt a common usage and which one is better or correct, but that won't change common usage different groups use.

The typical arminian emphasis in use of the term free will that I've commonly observed is to emphasize the universal offering of salvation to all through Christ (with some who will reject that offer) in what is ultimately a denial of reprobation.