Archive through June 25, 2006 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 5 » Human-Centered Theology » Archive through June 25, 2006 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Deadmanwalking
Registered user
Username: Deadmanwalking

Post Number: 14
Registered: 4-2006


Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 5:17 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

An old saint once told me that discernment was the tool used in clearing away all distractions to the ultimate question of: "Who does it put on the throne?"

I embraced the Perfectionist/Legalistic form of Adventism until my 30's and then became disillusioned during the cleansing of the Religion Department at Southern. At that time my shift was from Adventist legalism to Adventist liberalism. In recent years I came to see that in reality nothing changed, both are ìMan-Centeredî religions. Being convinced that only a ìGod-Centeredî Theology makes for ìTrue Religionî and having despaired of finding anything of the sort within Adventism I turned to Evangelical Protestantism. What I found, again, was predominantly ìMan-Centeredî Religion. It took quite a bit longer to find ìGod-Centeredî Theology outside Adventism.

I know hundreds of others who have experienced the same journey. What is breaking my heart today is that most of those within my community of friends are either settling for the ìMan-Centeredî religions that make up mainstream American Christianity or are leaving Church altogether for the secular world. Both groups seem perfectly happy, smug even, to have escaped Adventism. It seems the longer in Adventism, the more materialistic and secular we are when we leave.

Iíve discovered that discernment, as described above, is hard work (Iím lazy) and that often I donít like the answer to the ìultimate questionî when I get there.

Iím asking if anyone elseís experience is similar and for help and encouragement in my relationship with my Former Adventist friends. For those of you who identify with my experience, what has encouraged you? Where have you found community? Do any of you feel as lonely as I do?

Soli Deo Gloria,
Richard
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1804
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 8:20 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Richard,
How did you go from Adventist perfectionism to SDA liberalism? That is quite a jump. I heard Frank Knittle speak at an SDA forum about those problems at Southern University, and his presentation was nothing short of shocking.

I agree with you completely about the issue of human centered theology. Yes, It took me many years to discover that just because I left Adventism, I did not necessarily discover true Biblical Christianity. However, i believe that what I had discovered was still better than Adventism. It was like God was gradually leading me out of Adventism. God provides several bridges out of Adventism. The first bridge was provided by Desmond Ford( with regard to the IJ). The second bridge was provided by Robert Brinsmead with regard to the Sabbath.

I was led to an excellent Seventh-day Baptist church for two years while I studied the Sabbath issue. After that we were led to a good non-denominational church where at least the Bible was taught quite well. However, after awhile I saw some of the same themes of legalism, judgmentalism, etc. that I saw in Adventism, and a very shaky teaching on assurance of salvation.

It took a lot of study to come to the realization that you have Richard about a theology that is God-centered, rather than man centered. When I came to the realization that salvation was ALL of God, then a true peace came to my soul. I then realized that I had truly left behind SDA and a basic man-centered gospel that we see in much of evangelicalism today.

J. Vernon McGhee preached a sermon some thirty years ago warning that mainstream Christianity and even evangelicalism would become apostate before Christ returns. His prophecy is coming true. Who are the two most influential "evangelicals" today? Number one is Joel Osteen, who preaches nothing more than pop psychology wrapped in nice terminology about "God", and promoting the "get rich" gospel that is so prevalent today--a classic example of man-centered theology.

The second most influential "evangelical" today is T.D. Jakes. Not only does he preach the "health and wealth" gospel, but he denies the basic doctrine of the Trinity, and is a modalist or a 'oneness" pentecostal. But he is well respected by many prominent evangelicals today.

We see the big trend to be ecumenical with the church of Rome. There is absolutely nothing in common that true Biblical Christianity has with Roman Catholicism. Yet, a very popular evangelist instructs his counselors to send people that come forward back to their Roman Catholic churches, if indeed they are Catholic. Roman Catholicism puts man at the center of their system.

The Protestant Reformation behind Luther and Calvin sought to reform Christianity and bring it back to a God-centered focus. That is why Luther wrote his "Bondage of the Will", and called it his most importan work. Because, only Augustine stood alone against the rest of the church fathers on the issue of free-will prior to Luther. The Puritans brought to America the pure gospel that was God-centered. This God-centered theology was the most popular form of Christianity, until the Roman church found away to corrupt American Protestantism.

Thanks again Richard for bringing up this most important topic.

Stan
Greg
Registered user
Username: Greg

Post Number: 142
Registered: 2-2005
Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 8:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Richard,

I haven't posted here in awhile but I was moved by your heartfelt post. What you said resonated with me on multiple levels. I have also found that "True Religion" is ultimately not man-centered, but God-centered. Unfortunately, it has also been my experience that evangelical Christian churches can preach as much a man-centered gospel as is routinely found in Adventism.

A former Adventist friend recently confided in me that he feared for those people who left Adventism to escape a "bad" church, stumbling into the nearest evangelical church to find "true Christianity" and finding essentially the same problems as they just left. He rightly worried that this one-two punch would leave many disillusioned and far from finding a solid biblical footing for growing in Christ.

Another person I know left Adventism for a season but became discouraged when he found many people in mainstream Christian churches who gave lip service to the gospel and following Christ, but effectively denied him by their actions. He ultimately returned to Adventism rationalizing that "all churches have problems, so why leave Adventism?"

By observing these things and experiencing some of the emotions you have described, I've become convinced that it is quite possible to remain spiritually stagnant or incur spiritual damage by trading one unbiblical church for another.

Furthermore, the false dichotomy propagated by some is that Adventism and evangelical Christianity are in mutually exclusive theological domains. It is reasoned that by leaving Adventism for an evangelical church, one has automatically moved from outside to inside the body of Christ. Unfortunately, the same mentality that allowed us to think we were saved as a group in Adventism also tells us we are closer to salvation as a group outside of it.

As you also mentioned, the smug bitterness toward Adventism can fuel a form of spirituality or even secularism for years. "Thank God I escaped that false church," the former Adventist refugee says, while potentially being no closer to biblical faith.

A God-centered gospel is what cuts through all of this muddled thinking. There are true and false converts in every church with true faith in the God-centered gospel of Jesus Christ as the dividing line. For example, I have found in my own evangelical Christian church the same man-centered religion which portrays God as a cosmic vending machine that I practiced while an Adventist.

It is a lonely feeling, to be sure. I have been comforted to read the Scriptures and also the giants of the Christian faith such as Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones, MacArthur, Piper and Sproul. It has also helped tremendously to find a few friends through the Internet to fellowship with.

This quote by Charles Spurgeon gives good advice to those who are dissatisfied in their search for the "perfect" church:

"If you wait for a perfect church, you must wait until you get to Heaven; and even if you could find a perfect assembly on earth, I am sure they would not admit you to their fellowship, for you are not perfect yourself. Find out those people who are nearest to the Scriptures, who hold the truth in doctrine and in ordinance, and are most like the apostolic church, and then cast in your lot with them, and you will be blessed in the deed."

For God's glory indeed,

Greg

P.S. By the way, my father was as an administrator at Southern College during the purge of the religion department in the 1980s, and ultimately lost his job while defending several of the religion faculty. I would love to talk with you more about this by email: entole@gmail.com
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 4207
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Thursday, June 22, 2006 - 10:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Richard, you're absolutely right about God-centered vs. man-centered religion. Discovering that God is the central "value" in the universe has completely changed the way I see all reality. And Greg (good to see you again, by the way!) your Spurgeon quote is so true! I believe that most of us go through a period, as we process out of Adventism, where we think we must agree with all of a church's peripheral doctrines, or we can't worship there.

This is a concern I hear often: "I can't worship at_____because they believe in_____"

I'm concluding that the crucial thing for everyone is not, initially, finding a church with right theology (as long as the central gospel teaching is orthodox); it's the commitment to surrender to Jesus. A great many people leave the Adventist church validly convinced that there are heretical doctrines they can't embrace, but in the process, they may not be fully committed to learning to live by the Spirit in a relationship committed fo following Jesus alone.

I've realized frequently, during the past couple of years during which a great many "props" in our lives have been taken away, that ultimately we each stand absolutely alone before God. I'm convinced that He walks with us through all manner of "disciplines" in order to bring us to the point of realizing that He alone is our reward, our Comforter, our Provision, our all-in-all.

We have been immeasurably blessed to find ourselves in a church which honors the Lord Jesus and the Word of God to a high degree. Because of steeping in the Bible teaching here, I've fallen in love with Jesus and His word in a way that I could not imagine. But I've also noticed, as we've been involved both at church and with former Adventists, that there is an interesting difference between many former Adventists and Christians from more evangelical backgrounds.

On one hand, there are always those "superficial" Christians who like the "community" but are not committed to delving into the Word. But I've also found that when presented with the opportunity to pursue deep Bible study, many Christians suddenly deepen and grow.

On the other hand, there is an interesting but noticable resistance in many former Adventists to submitting their lives to the word of God. I don't know if this is because they are used to being "RIGHT", because they have been taught to analyze the Scriptures intellectually, or whatóbut while they embrace the idea of security and finished salvation, many times they resist allowing the Word to mediate the Holy Spirit's conviction to surrender in an ongoing and deeply personal way.

My theory, which obviously is not scientifically tested(!), is that if people commit to Jesus in a deeply real and personal way, offering themselves to Him as living sacrifices and surrendering, one step at a time, their personal struggles and "props" as God nudges them to offer them up to Him, they will be less likely to become statistics of attrition.

If people leave Adventism because the theology is faulty and commence looking for a more perfect church, they will likely end up discouraged. If they leave for the sake of Jesus and commit to following Him, even if finding a satisfactory church takes some timeóeven if, as the Spurgeon quote suggestedóthat perfect church never materializesóthey will still be able to deepen and find the deep rest and comfort of discovering that God is sovereign, and in Him is contentment and rest and peace.

If a person aligns oneself with Jesus for His sake, He will teach that person the truth about Himself and His sovereign Lordship. He brings into our lives others with whom we can fellowship. Jesus transcends even immature theology.

And the beauty is that when we commit to vulnerable Bible study accepting God's instruction to us, He changes us slowly but surely from the self-centered "Christians" we have been into God-honoring people through whom He will glorify Himself.

He is completely faithful. He brings us exactly where He wants us, and He brings us new family in Him as He does His work in us.

Colleen
Lynne
Registered user
Username: Lynne

Post Number: 457
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 12:37 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I can't relate to being a lifelong Adventist. However, I've believed much of what I was taught in the church for many years.

I've been attending a church that I believe has been very God-centered in its teaching. However, a quote jumped out at me from above. And that was -

"I became discouraged when he found many people in mainstream Christian churches who gave lip service to the gospel and following Christ, but effectively denied him by their actions."

Well, I can't say that I found much of this in the church I was attending, however, there just are issues preventing me from attending anymore. I now know that it really isn't as God-centered as I thought.

I have stopped going to church and am looking for a new church now. Some things weren't right where I was going to church and it hurts deeply to leave. But if I stay longer it will hurt more. It is just a prayerful decision based on what I believe to be proper discernment.

However, as I find myself looking for another church home. A safe place for my children with proper doctrine and God centered, I find myself thinking what Colleen said, "I can't worship at_____because they believe in_____"

I do try to intellectually interpret everything. It can create barriers sometimes.

It is just so easy to leave Adventism and be secular, isn't it? Because if it isn't the wrong denomination, it is the wrong leadership, if it isn't the wrong bible version, it is the wrong teaching on this or that. Or is it just that everyone there is too old or doesn't dress right or that they don't think like me (not that I know what they are thinking, but I think I know).

I look forward to moving beyond this. It feels good to know that I'm not alone that many of these issues do come up with other people.

Lynne





Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b

Post Number: 559
Registered: 7-2004


Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 9:45 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Colleen, I do agree that people can become overwhelmed and even afraid to attend any church because they can't find a church that has every little doctrine 100% correct (in their minds). I think that this is a hangover from SDAism. There are essential doctrines and non-essentials. We should be unwavering in looking for agreement on essential doctrines, but I think when we really boil it down the essential doctrines are relatively few. First and foremost, the church should prominently and continually preach Christ and Him crucified. I would consider it essential that a church plainly teaches that salvation is solely and totally a gift from God. We do not and can not merit that gift or merit keeping that gift no matter what we might think we do.

I think there may also be non-essential doctrines that are important to us because of our experiences. For example, in our case a study of tithe became the brick that resulted in the whole wall of SDAism falling. Although I do not believe it is an essential doctrine, it would be hard for us to be comfortable in a church that emphasized tithing.

I think it is important to keep in mind the distinction between essential doctrine and teachings that are important to us but are not salvational. Both in how we look at churches, and in how we judge (even to ourselves) the choices that others have made about the church they attend.

This was one of the biggest "benefits" of visiting a variety of churches in our search. We really spent some time studying, thinking, and praying about what was "essential" and was a personal preference.
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 4208
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Friday, June 23, 2006 - 4:55 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I totally agree with you, Rick. Here's my only qualifier: I know of a couple of churches in which the bottom line is probably Arminian, but the pastors preach clear, expository sermons text by text, book by book. In fact, although I have not sat through semons on an extended basis, I doubt these pastors would actually preach that people need to participate in reaching or remaining in God's hands. If they did, I'd run!

My point is that people really must visit personally and discover what kind of preaching and practice is occurring at a church. I think it is important for people to venture out and worship rather than fearfully avoiding the process because of possible disappointments. Where Jesus is preached, where the Word of God is presented, God Himself can teach those worshiping.

I've actually learned a lot by "watching" you and Sheryl church-hunt, Rick. You took your time, visited many churches, and you have finally found the one God has confirmed to you. But you didn't draw back and avoid the process!

I doubt any of us will find a church where we "agree" with every point of interpretation. But that's OKóas long, as you say, that the central tenets of salvation are clearly taught, as long as Jesus and His finished work is central and there is a high view of Scripture.

Colleen
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis

Post Number: 763
Registered: 4-2000


Posted on Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 6:40 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

An old friend, also a former Adventist, sent me the following excellent quote this morning:

"The usual way in which we avoid the appearance of crass individualism is through sectarianism. A sect is a front for narcissism. We gather with other people in the name of Jesus, but we predefine them according to our own tastes and predispositions. This is just a cover for our individualism; we reduce the community to conditions congenial to the imperial self. The sectarian impulse is strong in all brances of the church because it provides such a convenient appearance of community without the difficulties of loving people we don't approve of, or letting Jesus pray us into relationship with the very men and women we've invested a good bit of time avoiding. A sect is accomplished by community reduction, getting rid of what does not please us, getting rid of what offends us, whether of ideas or people. We construct religious clubs instead of entering resurrection communities. Sects are termites in the Father's house." (Excerpts from Eugene H. Peterson, Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places: A Conversation in Spiritual Theology; William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005, p. 244)

Dennis Fischer
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1805
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 2:13 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Would the following quotation be an example of God-centered theology or human-centered theology? Here is the quote:

"I tell people that, of course, I believe in eternal security. As long as I abide in Christ, Iím eternally secure. As long as I abide in Him, Heís going to keep me from falling and present me faultless before His glorious presence. I believe that and I experience Godís security."

Would you more likely hear that statement in an SDA church, or in an evangelical church today, or would your chances be equal of hearing the same message in either church?

Stan
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1806
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 2:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Greg,
It is great to see you back on FAF! Thanks for taking the time to really state these important issues clearly. I totally agree with your post. I also loved the Spurgeon quotation. If we only trade one unscriptural religion for another, we are still spiritually impoverished.

John Reisinger, an outstanding New Covenant theologian at www.soundofgrace.com/jgr/index004.htm makes some excellent points about human centered theology vs God-centered theology, and I will try to post a few excerpts of his article, and see if any of you agree with him:

There Are Only Two Religions in the Whole World!

by John G. Reisinger


There are basically only two religions in the world. One says, "If you will do such and such, God will graciously bestow His blessing upon you." The thousand and one varieties of this religion differ only on what the "such and such" is that you must be willing to do. One variety says bathe in a sacred river, another bids you kiss the sacred rock located in the holy city, still another says be baptized or some similar rite, and in distinctly evangelical circles this religion emphasizes, "If you will open your heart, then God..."

Notice carefully the three key words IF YOU WILL.

(1) God's forgiveness is possible IF .....

(2) God's forgiveness is possible if YOU...

(3) God's forgiveness is possible if you WILL....

The ultimate success or failure of this religion is determined solely by the will of man. Everything depends on an "if," and on "you," and on "your willingness" to do your part. Redemption is always conditional since it depends on man's cooperation for success. The great work of salvation is not actually accomplished until God can find someone who is willing to "cooperate with Him." Our forefathers called this "if you will" system the "religion of works." It was also called "Arminianism" and "semi-Pelagianism" since these were the men who originally caused division in the church by introducing this error of free will. Regardless of the name attached to it by friend or foe, the distinguishing marks are always the sameñthe IF, the YOU, and YOUR WILL are the decisive factors that make the plan of salvation work. This religion offers a wonderful plan of salvation that is able to do mighty things if you will only let it. The God of this free will religion can only desire and offer to save sinners. He is helpless to secure, by His own power, what He longs to do. The goal of redemption cannot be reached unless man, of his own free will, chooses to permit God to accomplish His purposes."

This sounds familiar to what I was taught in my SDA school days--It is all about what we do.

Stan

Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1807
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 3:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Here is more from Reisinger contrasting two different religions of Free-Will and Free-Grace:

Let me demonstrate quickly how sharp and clear the contrast is and how obviously either God or man gets the glory at each point.

(A) FREE WILL - God chooses those whom He foreknows will, of their own free will, decide to accept Him. (B) FREE GRACE - God gives faith to those whom He has sovereignly chosen.

(A) FREE WILL - Christ's blood has redeemed every man, but only those willing to "accept" what Christ accomplished are saved. It is actually our faith that saves us. (B) FREE GRACE - Christ saves every person whom He redeemed with His blood.

(A) FREE WILL - Those who are willing to believe enable the Holy Spirit to regenerate them, or give them a new heart. (B) FREE GRACE - The Holy Spirit regenerates the elect, or gives a new heart, and enables sinners to believe.

Perhaps someone else is thinking, "But does all this really matter as long as we just preach the simple gospel? Are not these theological problems that have no practical implications and only cause arguments and divisions between Christians and are therefore better left alone?" Our Lord and His Apostles thought these things were vitally important. The Puritans and Reformers believed the preaching of free will was the root error. In their minds to preach free will was to overthrow the gospel itself. They felt it was their duty to God and His church to do all in their power to refute the false idea of free will. It should be added that Rome felt exactly the opposite. She instructed her missionaries going into Protestant countries to "begin to overthrow these diabolical doctrines by reasserting the free will of man." The Jesuits saw free grace as the real enemy to their system of works, or rather, their system of free will. These are historical facts! Let those who believe it is only an emphasis at least read what men like Martin Luther had to say in his monumental work The Bondage of the Will. History has branded the word "error" across the doctrine of free will, and marked those who preach it as enemies, even if unwittingly so, of both the gospel and the souls of men.

Now I am aware that many have lost their taste for historic confirmation of the message they declare, but this is only because they do not like the company they are forced to keep as they walk back into time. Men today like to feel they are in the tradition of Knox, Luther, Whitfield, Spurgeon, etc., but when history, the creeds and confessions, and the Reformers and Puritans are seen as united in their outspoken condemnation of free will, then men exclaim, "We believe the Bible not Creeds. We believe what God says, not what men say." Far too often this defensive cry really means, "We believe our own creeds as opposed to those formulated in history."

Notice how Reisinger documents historically where the doctrine of free-will came from. It came from Rome by the way of Jesuit missionaries.

Interesting stuff, and it gives me a lot of food for thought. It appears that modern evangelicalism needs a modern reformation, and that is what www.modernreformation.org with their fine magazine and great radio show www.whitehorseinn.org are trying to do.

Stan


Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah

Post Number: 106
Registered: 1-2004


Posted on Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 3:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Can you document that free will was not believed by the early Christian writers? My impression is that free will was the consistent teaching of the church through all time and that therefore Rome was correct in insisting on free will.

This might be another case where you have to say that the entire Christian church went into error by the time the last Apostle died, to support your belief.

Jeremiah
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1808
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 4:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jeremiah,
Luther did admit that most of the church fathers believed in free-will, except for Augustine. But that is why Luther's "Bondage of the Will" was such a major accomplishment. If you go through Luther's arguments and compare them with the Roman Catholic scholar Erasmus, you will see that Luther reasoned from scripture, but Erasmus used human arguments. But an interesting point is where Erasmus actually admitted at one point that Luther might be right, but he said "the masses will never understand this, and they will be discouraged by these arguments.

But scripture is very clear, and scripture rather than church authorities should always be the final word. John 1:13 and John 6:44 are just two scriptural examples:

John1:13 "who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day."

Stan
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz

Post Number: 1811
Registered: 3-2005
Posted on Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 8:58 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I ran across something today that I really like:

THE GOSPEL OF G.R.A.C.E.

The Gospel of GRACE


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GOD'S SOVEREIGN ELECTION: God, from before the foundation of the world, chose certain sinners to be the objects of his saving grace. This choice was based solely upon the freewill, graciousness, and goodness of God. It is not based upon any merits or works of man. (Ps. 65:4; Jn. 1:13; Jn. 6:70; Jn. 15:16; Jn. 17:6-9; Acts 13:48; Rom. 8:28,29; Rom. 8:33; Rom. 9:11-16; 1 Cor. 1:2; Eph. 1:4,5; Eph. 1:11; 1 Thess. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13,14; 2 Tim. 1:8,9; Tit. 1:1; Jas. 1:18; 1 Pet. 2:9; 2 Pet. 1:3; 2 Jn. 1:1; Jude 1.)

RADICAL SIN: All people, as a result of Adam's sin, are totally and radically depraved sinners, and are unable and unwilling to come to God for salvation. (Gen. 6:5; Ps. 51:5; Ps. 58:3; Is. 53:6; Jer. 17:9; Jn. 5:40; Rom. 3:10-19; Rom. 5:12; Rom. 6:20; Rom. 8:6-8; Eph. 2:1-3.)

ACCOMPLISHED ATONEMENT: Christ's death on the cross actually accomplished something: the redemption of his people (Is. 53:10-12; Matt. 1:21; Matt. 20:28; Matt. 26:28; Jn. 10:11; Jn. 10:15; Acts 20:28; Rom. 5:8; Eph. 5:2; Eph. 5:25,26; Tit. 2:13,14; Heb. 2:10; Heb. 9:28; 1Pet. 1:18,19; Rev. 5:9.)

CALLED EFFECTUALLY: God's sovereign grace will ultimately triumph in the life of God's elect. They, being unwilling due to their sin, will not come to God on their own. But at the Spirit's calling and leading, and by hearing the Gospel, they will repent of their sins and place their faith in Christ, being made willing by his grace. (Deut. 30:6; Is. 55:11; Ezek. 36:26,27; Matt. 11:25-27; Matt. 16:15-17; Jn. 1:12,13; Jn. 3:3-8; Jn. 3:27; Jn. 5:21; Jn. 6:37-65; Acts 11:18; Acts 16:14; Acts 18:27; Phil. 1:29; 2 Tim. 1:9; 2 Tim. 2:25,26; Eph. 2:1,5; Col. 2:13; 1 Jn. 5:20.)

ETERNAL ENDURANCE: All who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ will be redeemed forever. Grace assures they will endure to the end.Their salvation is eternal and cannot be lost. (Is. 43:1-3; Is. 54:10; Jer. 32:40; Matt. 18:12-14; Jn. 3:16; Jn. 3:36; Jn. 5:24; Jn. 6:37; Jn. 10:27-30; Jn. 17:11-15; Rom. 5:8-10; Rom. 8:1; Rom. 8:29,30; Rom. 8:35-39; Eph. 1:5-14; Eph. 4:30; Col. 3:3,4; 1 Thess. 5:23,24; Heb. 9:12-15; 1 Pet. 1:3-5; 1 Jn. 5:4-20; Jude 1; Jude 24,25.)

This is God-centered theology. God gets all the credit.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Stan
Deadmanwalking
Registered user
Username: Deadmanwalking

Post Number: 15
Registered: 4-2006


Posted on Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 9:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"I believe the doctrine of election, because I am quite sure that if God had not chosen me I should never have chosen him; and I am sure he chose me before I was born, or else he never would have chosen me afterwards; and he must have elected me for reasons unknown to me, for I never could find any reason in myself why he should have looked upon me with special love. So I am forced to accept that doctrine."

-- Charles Spurgeon
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker

Post Number: 4216
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Saturday, June 24, 2006 - 10:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It is a great relief to me to know that I am not responsible for my own salvation, for determining when Jesus will come again, for perfecting my own character, for remembering every sin I've ever committed so I don't miss heaven, etc.

God is faithful!

Colleen
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah

Post Number: 107
Registered: 1-2004


Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 6:33 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I don't really care whether I like or hate a doctrine... what I want to know is whether it is the truth!

In this case, it's quite clear what the belief was... so either the church went early into great error, or free will is the teaching of the Apostles.

From Irenaeus against heresies;

3. For the Creator of the world is truly the Word of God: and this is our Lord, who in the last times was made man, existing in this world, and who in an invisible manner contains all things created, and is inherent in the entire creation, since the Word of God governs and arranges all things; and therefore He came to His own in a visible164 manner, and was made flesh, and hung upon the tree, that He might sum up all things in Himself. "And His own peculiar people did not receive Him," as Moses declared this very thing among the people: "And thy life shall be hanging before thine eyes, and thou wilt not believe thy life."165 Those therefore who did not receive Him did not receive life. "But to as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God."166 For it is He who has power from the Father over all things, since He is the Word of God, and very man, communicating with invisible beings after the manner of the intellect, and appointing a law observable to the outward senses, that all things should continue each in its own order; and He reigns manifestly over things visible and pertaining to men; and brings in just judgment and worthy upon all; as David also, clearly pointing to this, says, "Our God shall openly come, and will not keep silence."167 Then he shows also the judgment which is brought in by Him, saying, "A fire shall burn in His sight, and a strong tempest shall rage round about Him. He shall call upon the heaven from above, and the earth, to judge His people."

From St John Chrysostom;

Why then did he say not that "He made them sons of God," but that "He gave them power to become sons of God"? To show that we need much zeal to keep the image of sonship impressed on us at Baptism, all through without spot or soils; and at the same time to show that no one shall be able to take this power from us, unless we are the first to deprive ourselves of it. For if among men, those who have received the absolute control of any matters have well-nigh as much power as those who gave them the charge; much more shall we, who have obtained such honor from God, be, if we do nothis greater and better than all. At the same time too he wishes to show, that not even does grace come upon man irrespectively,17 but upon those who desire and take pains for it. For it lies in the power of these to become (His) children since if they do not themselves first make the choice, the gift does not come upon them, nor have any effect.

[3.] Having therefore everywhere excluded compulsion and pointing to (man's) voluntary choice and free power, he has said the same now. For even in these mystical blessings,18 it is, on the one hand, God's part, to give the grace, on the other, man's to supply faith; and in after time there needs for what remains much earnestness. In order to preserve our purity, it is not sufficient for us merely to have been baptized and to have believed, but we must if we will continually enjoy this brightness, display a life worthy of it. This then is God's work in us. To have been born the mystical Birth, and to have been cleansed from all our former sins, comes from Baptism; but to remain for the future pure, never again after this to admit any stain belongs to our own power and diligence. And this is the reason why he remains us of the manner of the birth, and by comparison with fleshly pangs shows its excellence, when he says,

Ver. 13. "Who were born, not of blood,19 nor of the will of the flesh, but of God." This he has done, in order that, considering the vileness, and lowness of the first birth, which is "of blood," and "the will of the flesh," and perceiving the highness and nobleness of the second, which is by grace, we may form from thence some great opinion of it, and one worthy of the gift of Him who hath begotten, us, and for the future exhibit much earnestness.

For there is no small fear, lest, having sometime defiled that beautiful robe by our after sloth and transgressions, we be cast out from the inner room20 and bridal chamber, like the five foolish virgins, or him who had not on a wedding garment. (Matt. xxv.; Matt. xxii.) He too was one of the guests, for he had been invited;but because, after the invitation and so great an honor, he behaved with insolence towards Him who had invited him, hear what punishment he suffers, how pitiable, fit subject for many tears. For when he comes to partake of that splendid table, not only is he forbidden the least, but bound hand and foot alike, is carried into outer darkness, to undergo eternal and endless wailing and gnashing of teeth. Therefore, beloved, let not us either expect21 that faith is sufficient to us for salvation; for if we do not show forth a pure life, but come clothed with garments unworthy of this blessed calling, nothing. hinders us from suffering the same as that wretched one, It is strange that He, who is God and King, is not ashamed of men who are vile, beggars, and of no repute, but brings even them of the cross ways to that table; while we manifest so much insensibility, as not even to be made better by so great an honor, but even after the call remain in our old wickedness, insolently abusing22 the unspeakable lovingkindness of Him who hath called us. For it was not for this that He called us to the spiritual and awful communion of His mysteries, that we should enter with our former wickedness; but that, putting off our filthiness, we should change our raiment to such as becomes those who are entertained in places. But if we will not act worthily of that calling this no longer rests with Him who hath honored us, but with ourselves; it is not He that casts us out from that admirable company of guests, but we cast out ourselves.

He has done all His part. He has made the marriage, He has provided the table, He has sent men to call us, has received us when we came, and honored us with all other honor; but we, when we have offered insult to Him, to the company, and to the wedding, by our filthy garments, that is, our impure actions, are then with good cause cast out. It is to honor the marriage and the guests, that He drives off those bold23 and shameless persons; for were He to suffer those clothed in such a garment, He would seem to be offering insult to the rest. But may it never be that one, either of us or of other, find this of Him who has called us! For to this end have all these things been written before they come to pass, that we, being sobered by the threats of the Scriptures, may not suffer this disgrace and punishment to go on to the deed, but stop it at the word only, and each with bright apparel come to that call; which may it come to pass that we all enjoy, through the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom and with whom, to the Father and the Holy Ghost, be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Jeremiah
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah

Post Number: 108
Registered: 1-2004


Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 6:41 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

And here's another quote from Chrysostom;

Ver. 44. "No man can come unto Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw Him."

The Manichaeans spring upon these words, saying, "that nothing lies in our own power"; yet the expression showeth that we are masters of our will. "For if a man cometh to Him," saith some one, "what need is there of drawing?" But the words do not take away our free will, but show that we greatly need assistance. And He implieth not an unwilling2 comer, but one enjoying much succor. Then He showeth also the manner in which He draweth; for that men may not, again, form any material idea of God, He addeth,

Ver. 46. "Not that any man hath seen God,3 save He which is of God, He hath seen the Father."

"How then," saith some one, "doth the Father draw?" This the Prophet explained of old, when he proclaimed beforehand, and said,

Ver. 45. "They shall all be taught of God." (Isa. liv. 13.)

Seest thou the dignity of faith, and that not of men nor by man, but by God Himself they shall4 learn this? And to make this assertion credible, He referred them to their prophets. "If then `all shall be taught of God,' how is it that some shall not believe?" Because the words are spoken of the greater number. Besides, the prophecy meaneth not absolutely all, but all that have the will. For the teacher sitteth ready to impart what he hath to all, and pouring forth his instruction unto all.

Jeremiah
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b

Post Number: 560
Registered: 7-2004


Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 11:19 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I agree that it should never be about whether we like the ideas of a doctrinal teaching, or don't like those ideas. The only thing that matters is, what is true. And we must decide what our basis should be for determining what is true. Is our basis the church fathers, or Luther, or Calvin? Or can it only be Scripture itself? The NT Scripture (written by the Apostles themselves) does not place the emphasis on our free will that is promoted in various "decision theology."

I don't believe that our failures to understand every aspects of how He saves us, changes whether He does save us. But our understanding of the depths of God's grace and love are impacted by our understanding of how He saves us. Our assurance of salvation is impacted by our understanding of how God saves us. So let us look to Scripture to find whether we are saved by our actions and choices or by His will.
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah

Post Number: 109
Registered: 1-2004


Posted on Sunday, June 25, 2006 - 2:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I am personally happy with the test of time and sameness when it comes to interpretations of Scripture.

We have an excellent demonstration of the fact of intepretations here in this thread, actually. This is that Stan mentioned two specific texts as being opposed to the doctrine of free will, while Chrysostom 1600 years earlier used those specific texts to support free will.

In view of this, how can "Scripture alone" even exist? If it's not plain enough that you can't possibly get opposing intpretations, I don't see that it's possible to have "scripture alone". It's "scripture plus ______ " and you get to fill in the blank. Could be "what I think it means"...

That's one reason I'm in favor of seeing what was originally believed and if that interpretation is still here today. If it was always interpreted that way chances are that's the truth.

Jeremiah

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration