Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > How are we Saved?

Forum Quick Jump

90 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 3/14/2003 6:45 PM (GMT -6)

John: whats a good place to start with Finney?

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 3/14/2003 6:49 PM (GMT -6)

Actually, Icon I think Jesus went after the Pharisees because they didn't follow the law when they said they did, not because they were trying to follow the law. If the law is what God requires, what is wrong with following what God requires (or at least trying to?). The Pharisees were using the law. The law points towards the lawgiver. There is nothing wrong with following the law in order to please God. But Jesus did not condemn the Pharisees for following the law, but rather abusing the law.
Again, it comes down to, are we going to seriously consider the New Testament verses on holiness and take sin as seriously as God does?

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 3/14/2003 7:23 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

John: whats a good place to start with Finney?

Hi honorman,

According to the owner of the following website (who was one of the editors of the 1994 edition of Finney's Systematic Theology), these are the best places to start to get a basic grasp of Finney's theology:

http://gospeltruth.net/selected_sermons.htm

It is important to note that Finney's theology was largely a reaction to what he viewed as the fatalistic "hyper" Calvinism so common in New England in Finney's day. Finney affirms at least three of the five points (T,U,P), and IMO should have also affirmed the "L" and "I" based on his classical view of foreknowledge. To be sure, Finney radically modified the Reformed doctrines he did agree with.

Major emphases of Finney were the moral law of God, the unity of moral action (cannot serve God and mammon), and man's free moral agency (a.k.a., freedom of the human will). Related to this is Finney's fundamental distinction between God's physical government (of the physical universe) and God's moral government of the moral universe (composed of all moral agents).

While Finney could not rightly be called an Open Theist (though some Wesleyans in his day could be), it seems to me at least that he should have been one. Interestingly, a good percentage of modern Moral Government Theology (MGT) proponents affirm the open view of the future, which was articulated by Gordon Olson (a Finney scholar and MGT advocate) in the mid 1900s.

There are also many links on my website to links helpful to better understanding Finney.

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

Edited by - John Earp on 03/15/2003 12:29:40 AM

Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635

Posted 3/15/2003 5:20 AM (GMT -6)

3. (5-8) The futility of pleasing God in the flesh

a. Paul gives an easy way for us to determine if we are walking in the Spirit or walking in the flesh - where is your mind? The mind is the strategic battleground where the flesh and the Spirit fight

i. We shouldn't think of those who set their minds on the things of the flesh are those who are notorious sinners; they may be noble people who have the best of intentions. Jesus told Peter when Peter, out of the best of intentions, told Jesus to avoid the cross, you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men (Matthew 16:23)

b. When our minds are set on the things of the flesh (carnally minded) we bring death into our lives; but walking in the Spirit brings life and peace

i. We must, however, guard against a false spirituality and see that Paul is talking about the flesh insofar as it is an instrument in our rebellion against God; Paul is not talking about normal physical and emotional needs that we may think about, only the sinful gratification of those needs

c. The flesh battles against God, because it does not want to be crucified and surrendered to the Lord Jesus Christ (And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires, Galatians 5:24), and the law is powerless to tame the flesh

d. We can try to do good in life without being subject to the law of God; we may hope to put God "in debt" to us through the doing of good works, putting God under obligation to us

i. So, in the flesh we cannot please God - even if the flesh is doing religious things that are admired by men

ii. Newell on verse 7: "Perhaps no one text of Scripture more completely sets forth the hideously lost state of man after the flesh."

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1047744674-4722.html#129

God is Love,

Tim

2Ti 2:19…Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity...

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 3/15/2003 6:03 AM (GMT -6)

John E.,

While I am interested in Charles Finney's theology to the extent that he was one of the greatest revivalists in America and his theology has had far reaching influence on religion in America in general (btw, that's practically all I knew about him till I started discussing this with you), I wasn't supposing that your beliefs were identical to Finney's. The questions in my post are really aimed at trying to understand YOUR perspective and theology. I can't dialogue with Finney, but I can dialogue with you. I hear things in the tracts and in Finney that I don't hear in what you say and I assume your "take" on things is a bit different. Or am I just misunderstanding?

I might also add that I find some of the holiness teachings, esp. those of Wesley on Christian perfection to be exciting in the sense that I think we often DO simply assume that striving after holiness is pointless. But striving after holiness in our hearts is something a Christian can/should aspire to as long as it doesn't become legalistic, judgemental (of ourselves or others), works-righteousness, or thought to -secure- our relationship with God. I'm interested in this discussion because it seems like we need to REVIVE our understanding of sanctification in the church! I guess I am looking for a middle ground somewhere between ignoring the call to holiness and what I see as the extremes in holiness theology.

My interest also stems from my very experience as a Franciscan who has made vows to:

1. Purity
2. Simplicity
3. Obedience

When the people in my community made these vows we did not believe we were vowing to be perfect. We were vowing to strive after these things wholeheartedly. The negative experience I had several years ago was when those vows began to feel like an unbearable burden....I began to feel as though God was angry with me for failing to always live up to these vows and it began to crush me spiritually. The only thing that has made me ABLE to renew these vows has been knowing that it is all pure grace...pure grace when I make the vows, pure grace when I fail, pure grace when I renew them again. My vows are promises to strive towards holiness, not promises never to fail. I feel there is an important distinction here. Thoughts?

Thanks,
~E

Edited by - Empiress on 03/15/2003 11:24:18 AM

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 3/15/2003 8:06 AM (GMT -6)

Tim: I do not think anyone hear believes we "please" God when we do good works, as far as salvation is concerned. But neither do I think God is displeased if we do good things for others, or do good works. That is not what Paul is saying.
It would seem odd that God would command somebody to do something (such as follow the ten commandments) and then turn around say it displeases him. What Paul is saying is that we cannot please God in the eradication of our sins by doing good works. But he is not saying we shouldn't do good works. Rather the reason we do good works is different. It is not out of achievement but out of a love for God that we do good works.

Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635

Posted 3/15/2003 3:28 PM (GMT -6)

Thank you, honorman.

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 3/15/2003 6:29 PM (GMT -6)

honorman

Actually, Icon I think Jesus went after the Pharisees because they didn't follow the law when they said they did, not because they were trying to follow the law. If the law is what God requires, what is wrong with following what God requires (or at least trying to?). The Pharisees were using the law. The law points towards the lawgiver. There is nothing wrong with following the law in order to please God. But Jesus did not condemn the Pharisees for following the law, but rather abusing the law.

Iconoclast

Good point. I agree. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for abusing the law by using it to condemn others rather than just doing it themselves.

Likewise when we use the law to condemn ourselves we abuse the law in the same way. The Greek word for “sin” is “hamartia” or “missing the mark”. It is an archery term and literally means missing the target. Does an archer who condemns himself for missing the target and just “tries harder” actually get better? Or does he at some point just quit – only to “try hard” later? In my view a really good archer learns very quickly that he is never going to be perfect – he is only going to be able to get better and better at coming closer to the target through honest assessment and feedback about how to improve – all without self-condemnation. The moment the archer enters into self-condemnation is the moment his honest assessment and feedback starts to fail him. Moreover, if the archer enters into self-condemnation when he makes a mistake he becomes closed to external feedback which he views as judgmental criticism. And without external feedback that he can actually hear and take in he will never get better.

My concern with the view that says that we “ought” to be able to be just about sinless in our current situation is that it either leads to the old “Give up – try hard” cycle or it leads to denial about whether what we are doing is really “sinful” or not. In the case of the Pharisees they were clearly in denial about their own sin. They thought they were just pretty good – so good in fact, that they could go around and abuse the law by condemning others.

I see our view of our own sin as being similar to our view of how much knowledge we have. The more knowledge a person gains the more knowledge they realize that they do not have. When we navigate the bay we reach the open sea. The more sin a person becomes aware of in their own life leads to a realization of how much more sin they really have. When we realize that the standard of perfection is the love that Jesus had for His murderers – saying “God forgive them, for they know not what they do” while they were crucifying Him is a pretty tough standard. The more I become aware of my own thoughts moment to moment the more I become aware of how far I am from this kind of love for others.

honorman

Again, it comes down to, are we going to seriously consider the New Testament verses on holiness and take sin as seriously as God does?

Iconoclast

I take is so seriously that I believe the idea that a Christian should and can be pretty much sinless in this life prevents us from seeing just how serious our situation really is, just how complete our reliance on God must be and just how much God really loves us right here and right now – even though we are so desperately full of sin.

The idea that a Christian should and can be pretty much sinless in this life directly leads to condemnation of self and others OR it leads to outright denial of how desperate we really are and extreme condemnation of others (this helps us continue in our denial). I think this is a direct manifestation of our own knowledge of good and evil taking up residence in our innermost being. It is the serpent’s greatest lie and as such, I see it as the exact opposite of holiness.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 3/15/2003 7:05 PM (GMT -6)

Empiress said:
John E.,

While I am interested in Charles Finney's theology to the extent that he was one of the greatest revivalists in America and his theology has had far reaching influence on religion in America in general (btw, that's practically all I knew about him till I started discussing this with you), I wasn't supposing that your beliefs were identical to Finney's. The questions in my post are really aimed at trying to understand YOUR perspective and theology. I can't dialogue with Finney, but I can dialogue with you. I hear things in the tracts and in Finney that I don't hear in what you say and I assume your "take" on things is a bit different. Or am I just misunderstanding?

John replies: As far as I can tell, my views basically agree with those of Finney (except on Perseverance of the Saints and "the eternal now" concept).

Empiress said: I might also add that I find some of the holiness teachings, esp. those of Wesley on Christian perfection to be exciting in the sense that I think we often DO simply assume that striving after holiness is pointless. But striving after holiness in our hearts is something a Christian can/should aspire to as long as it doesn't become legalistic, judgemental (of ourselves or others), works-righteousness, or thought to -secure- our relationship with God. I'm interested in this discussion because it seems like we need to REVIVE our understanding of sanctification in the church! I guess I am looking for a middle ground somewhere between ignoring the call to holiness and what I see as the extremes in holiness theology.

John replies I found the above paragraph encouraging.

Empiress said: My interest also stems from my very experience as a Franciscan who has made vows to:

1. Purity
2. Simplicity
3. Obedience

When the people in my community made these vows we did not believe we were vowing to be perfect. We were vowing to strive after these things wholeheartedly. The negative experience I had several years ago was when those vows began to feel like an unbearable burden....I began to feel as though God was angry with me for failing to always live up to these vows and it began to crush me spiritually. The only thing that has made me ABLE to renew these vows has been knowing that it is all pure grace...pure grace when I make the vows, pure grace when I fail, pure grace when I renew them again. My vows are promises to strive towards holiness, not promises never to fail. I feel there is an important distinction here. Thoughts?

Thanks,
~E
John replies: Yes, of course any sort of religion can become an onerous burden. To my understanding it all comes down to living life in the presence of God, which can only be cultivated by prayer, and not focusing on feelings as good indicators as to our current spiritual state. A friend of mine once referred to this as living by principle, even when one may not have a conscious sense of the presence of God.

BTW, I just noticed your earlier post, which I do not have time right now to properly respond to. Just skimming over it, I should note the following quickly, and will try as time permits in the next few days to reply in more detail.

1. You asked about my understanding of atonement. My understanding is in agreement with what is known of as the Moral Government (not to be confused with the Moral Influence theory) or Grotian theory of the atonement. Basically, the idea is that the death of Christ in the place of sinners does not in and of itself forgive sinners, but that it makes it possible for God to be "just, and the justifier of those who have faith in Jesus" (Rom. 3). That is, because of Christ's death as the sinless substitute for sinful man, God is now able to righteously forgive all who fulfill the conditions of forgiveness, those being repentance and faith. This understanding is quite different from the popular "sin debt payment" theory/satisfaction of divine justice/penal substition theory of the atonement which are essential to the Augustinian/Calvinistic system of theology.

2. You asked about the person who almost constantly sinned every day but repented every time; I think if the person in question were simply repeating the same sin over and over, then the sincerity of their repentance definitely would have to be called into question, like the proverbial wife-beater who begs forgiveness, says he's sorry, and then does not stop the behavior.

Essentially as I understand Finney (and really Wesley, for that matter), one's "salvation" is determined by their present state of consecration to God. For further information, please review, when you have time, Finney's lecture on "Unity of Moral Action" from his 1878 edition of Systematic Theology. As I understand Finney and the Bible to teach, if a Christian sins, they must repent and do their first works (return to godly love as their heart's motivation), and if they refuse to obey the voice of the Lord, they are lost (remember the analogy of the journey) unless and until they repent (get back on track). That being said, it is not over until it's over, and so any backslider may return to God if she wants to, for God does not give up on them easily--see how patient he was with Israel in the Old Testament, and how patient he has been with each of us in the past. His character is steadfastly loving and full of mercy, always willing to forgive.

This also brings up the issue you asked about concerning a believer who sinned right before he died without having time to repent; what would be their fate? As I understand it, God always gives a person time to repent. Ananias and Sapphira had an opportunity to, as did the "false prophetess Jezebel" that John writes about in Revelation:

The Message to Thyatira (NRSV)

Rev. 2:18“And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write: These are the words of the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and whose feet are like burnished bronze:
19“I know your works—your love, faith, service, and patient endurance. I know that your last works are greater than the first. 20But I have this against you: you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet and is teaching and beguiling my servants to practice fornication and to eat food sacrificed to idols. 21 I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her fornication. 22Beware, I am throwing her on a bed, and those who commit adultery with her I am throwing into great distress, unless they repent of her doings; 23and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am the one who searches minds and hearts, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve. 24But to the rest of you in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not learned what some call ‘the deep things of Satan,’ to you I say, I do not lay on you any other burden; 25 only hold fast to what you have until I come. 26To everyone who conquers and continues to do my works to the end,
I will give authority over the nations;
27 to rule them with an iron rod,
as when clay pots are shattered—
28 even as I also received authority from my Father. To the one who conquers I will also give the morning star. 29Let anyone who has an ear listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches.

Hope this helps.

John Earp

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

Edited by - John Earp on 03/16/2003 12:15:46 AM

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 3/15/2003 7:21 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

John: you bring up some very important issues. If Paul was serious about holiness, are we going to be?
It seems on a website where open theists claim to want to take seriously the verses about God changing his mind, such people would be open to verses in which we are called to live lives pleasing to God, that it may be that Paul (and others) call us not just to be "saved" but to live lives pleasing to God.
Its not a case of legalism or how we are saved, but what God wants of us. I would look at it this way: what is the responsibility of a Christian? Is grace truly about just being "saved?" And can a person truly be saved if they are unwilling to live the life they are saved to?
It would seem one of the truly sad things about american Christianity is that we have emphasises grace in the wrong way, that it would cost us nothing. This simply is not true. If a person is not willing to live for God, then they have not the grace of God. As Paul said, "I would have you eat meat..."
This also cuts to the homosexual issue. It is perhaps true that certain individuals have a tendency towards homosexuality. But is this truly pleasing to God? Is such a life what God would have them be...if we each asked ourselves such a question instead of such questions as "this is the way God made me," we would all probably be a lot better off...

honorman,

I was skimming back through this thread and wanted to respond to what you said by saying that I very much appreciate your take on this, and think that we are tracking together on this.

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 3/15/2003 7:46 PM (GMT -6)

Matt. 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

In the above paragraph, Jesus makes the following points clear (at least to me):

1. Jesus did not come to destroy the law.

2. Jesus staunchly opposes those who would miscontrue his teaching and consequently would teach others to break the law.

3. Unless one's righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, one will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

This leads us inescapably to the question: "How can one's righteousness surpass that of the scribes and Pharisees?" This also speaks to the issue of precisely what lawlessness is as Jesus meant it, for He essentially says the same thing as the above in Matt. 7:21-23.

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 3/16/2003 4:27 PM (GMT -6)

John: can you perhaps elaborate a little on the differences between the moral government theory and the sin/debt payment theory of the atonement. I'm not sure if I am seeing a difference. Thanks!

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 3/16/2003 5:48 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

John: can you perhaps elaborate a little on the differences between the moral government theory and the sin/debt payment theory of the atonement. I'm not sure if I am seeing a difference. Thanks!

Hi honorman,

The sin-debt-payment theory of the atonement as far as I know is the following:

1. Christ's death paid for all the sins of mankind (or, in the Calvinistic system, those of the elect only).

(Similar to this is the penal substition and satisfication of divine wrath theory, which says that Christ bore the exact amount of suffering/wrath due to the elect, thus allowing God justly to not penalize them for their sins).

The problem, as always for Calvinists, is that the Bible expressly states many times that Christ's death was "for the whole world," and its merits are not limited to a particular class of people. It is interesting to note that universalism first flourished in New England as a direct result of reflection upon the Calvinistic theory of atonement. They reasoned that if Christ's death truly paid for all sins "past, present, and future," and the Bible itself clearly stated several times that the benefits of the atonement were for all mankind, then universalism by definition must be true.

Not exactly in reaction to this because it developed centuries earlier in the teaching of Hugo Grotius, the Moral Government theory of the atonement viewed Christ's death as a provision within the divine government of God so that He could *righteously* extend forgiveness to repentant, former criminals/sinners against His moral government. This made the atonement *open* to all who would fulfill the conditions of forgiveness; i.e., repentance and faith, while avoiding the antinomian implications of the Calvinistic theory.

If it is true that Jesus paid for all my sins, past, present, and future, and I can never come under condemnation no matter how much I may sin against God and fellow man, then any amount of sin is permissible, as it has already been "paid for." If the sin debt payment theory is true, then it is wrong for a Christian to ask forgiveness for any sin, as it has already been paid for. Can a debt be *both* paid for and forgiven?

It is very important to note that nowhere in the Bible is Christ's death represented as a "sin debt payment." What the Bible does say Christ's death paid was a ransom/redemption price, which anyone can see is very different from a debt.

Hope this helps

John

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 3/16/2003 10:42 PM (GMT -6)

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 3/17/2003 2:21 PM (GMT -6)

J.E. My understanding is in agreement with what is known of as the Moral Government (not to be confused with the Moral Influence theory) or Grotian theory of the atonement. Basically, the idea is that the death of Christ in the place of sinners does not in and of itself forgive sinners, but that it makes it possible for God to be "just, and the justifier of those who have faith in Jesus" (Rom. 3). That is, because of Christ's death as the sinless substitute for sinful man, God is now able to righteously forgive all who fulfill the conditions of forgiveness, those being repentance and faith.

Greg: I've always understood the Moral Government view of the atonement to be based on the conviction that God doesn't need a sacrafice to save people -- that is, he can "just forgive." The death of Christ displayed God's wrath against sin and God's willingness to forgive. But it did not accomplish the forgiveness of sin. It was to serve as a public deterent of sin and public call to repentance. Is my understanding of the Moral Governement view correct?

John replies: From what I can tell, I would say your understanding is accurate.

Doc If so, then in what sense does Jesus "make it possible" for God to forgive people?

John replies: As far as I understand this (and I don't claim to be an expert on all aspects of Moral Gov't theology), it makes it possible for God to righteously forgive. That is, in the atoning death of Christ, God is shown to be just (not violating his own Law by forgiving without conditions) because of Jesus' death as a satisfaction of public justice, as opposed to retributive justice as in the Reformed system.

I freely admit this is one of the most difficult of all doctrines to fully comprehend (in any system), and as I said, I am certainly no expert, but from what I can tell the MGT view of atonement takes into consideration:

1. How God views sin while at the same time extending forgiveness.

2. How God can possibly uphold the law while forgiving the lawbreaker.

3. How God can show to all people their great need to be broken of pride against God and to be shown their true guilt.

4. How can God can transform our whole being, our manner of living, without violating one's free will (moral persuasion).

Jesus' death is substitutionary in that it is a substitute for a penalty, not a literal full satisfaction of the penalty that is due to all sinners as a whole.

The following excerpt from Finney's sermon in his 1848 series in the Oberlin Evangelist, "Substitution" perhaps will serve to clarify:

quote:

But it should be well considered that an atonement for sin by suffering was not necessary on God's account, but on account of His moral government. It was demanded of God out of regard to the intelligent minds of His universe. He must not set aside the penalty of the law against sin without an atonement, lest a false inference should be drawn, lest it should be supposed that God is reckless of sin, and can permit its commission in His kingdom with impunity. Hence divine wisdom and divine love also must provide against so ruinous an inference. Hence this awful demonstration of God's abhorrence of sin, and of His holy purpose to punish it, which was exhibited when He caused His own beloved Son to be made sin for us, and to bear our sins in His body on the tree. We see therefore that Christ's being made sin for us was a naturally necessary condition of our acceptance with God. And this results not from any want of mercy in God Himself, but wholly from His relations to the intelligent beings who are under His moral government. God well knew that He should certainly be misunderstood if He should pardon sin without an atonement. It is in the nature of the case impossible that He should not have been. If therefore, He would forgive sin--if He would arrest the onward march of law and justice towards their dreadful execution;--if He longed to throw wide open His great heart of mercy, He must first make some terrible demonstration of His utter hostility to sin--must show that He abhorred and would surely punish it. And this was done to perfection in the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ.

(Above quote taken from the following link):

http://www.gospeltruth.net/1848OE/481206_substitution.htm

As to the ransom/redemption price metaphor, this is another aspect of the atonement that is not necessarily covered in the basic Governmental view, but is also not necessarily antithetical to it, either. The following is an article by a Church of the Nazarene scholar, Dr. J. Kenneth Grider, in which he states that the Governmental Theory can in fact incorporate nearly all aspects of other theories of the atonement (except for the Calvinistic view, of course ) :

http://www.biblical-theology.com/moralgov/govthry.htm

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

Edited by - John Earp on 03/17/2003 7:56:21 PM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 3/18/2003 2:45 PM (GMT -6)

Thanks for the clarification John. Yet it seems from Finney's quote (and from everything that I've read on Moral Government) that the necessity of the atonement was epistemological, not ontological. It was to keep us from incorrect "inferences" that Christ died. He showed us God's wrath against sin and the pain sin causes him as a deterent to our sinning. But it didn't MAKE POSSIBLE God's forgiving us -- except in the sense that it motivates us to repent of our sin and stop sinning, which is, I take it, the condition for God forgiving us. Is this correct?

A second question: Is it your conviction that our salvation is abrogated with every intentional sin? Do we need to get re-saved after every intentional sin?

Blessings
Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 3/18/2003 4:47 PM (GMT -6)

G.B.: Thanks for the clarification John. Yet it seems from Finney's quote (and from everything that I've read on Moral Government) that the necessity of the atonement was epistemological, not ontological. It was to keep us from incorrect "inferences" that Christ died. He showed us God's wrath against sin and the pain sin causes him as a deterent to our sinning. But it didn't MAKE POSSIBLE God's forgiving us -- except in the sense that it motivates us to repent of our sin and stop sinning, which is, I take it, the condition for God forgiving us. Is this correct?

J.E.: As I understand this the death of Christ in our stead makes it possible for God to be both just and the justifier of him that has faith in Jesus. Had God simply forgiven sin without an atonement, his Law would have been shown to be a farce. Therefore, the atoning death of Christ makes it *possible* for God to forgive (while yet remaining righteous by his own standard).

G.B.: A second question: Is it your conviction that our salvation is abrogated with every intentional sin? Do we need to get re-saved after every intentional sin?

J.E.: As is responded to Empiress earlier in this thread, no, I do not believe "salvation is abrogated with every intentional sin," nor that "one sin means one loses one's salvation." It is my understandng that if a Christian sins at any time he must repent and have faith in the atoning blood of Christ. If he does not repent after every sin, he by definition is while in such a state self-evidently no longer pursuing holiness, and unless and until he does repent, he will be out of fellowship with God, and will not make the final destination unless and until he repents. (Analogy of a journey)

(Excerpt from an earlier post by me in this thread to Empiress on this topic):

If a Christian sins, they must repent and do their first works (return to godly love as their heart's motivation), and if they refuse to obey the voice of the Lord, they are lost (remember the analogy of the journey) unless and until they repent (get back on track). That being said, it is not over until it's over, and so any backslider may return to God if she wants to, for God does not give up on them easily--see how patient he was with Israel in the Old Testament, and how patient he has been with each of us in the past. His character is steadfastly loving and full of mercy, always willing to forgive. (End quote)

Basically, I don't see how it can be denied that:

1. A Christian must repent and have faith in Christ to forgive of each and every sin whenever he sins. (e.g., 1 John 2:1)

2. That biblical repentance and faith is an offering of oneself as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable unto God, and that discipleship, not a one-time "sinner's prayer" is what salvation is conditioned upon on man's part. (Not "works of the law," but "loving obedience to Jesus as Lord).

3. The Christian life is a journey, spoken of as the pursuit of holiness, without which, no one shall see God (Heb. 12:14).

4. A Christian may, through neglect, sloth, or willfully turning away from following Jesus, forfeit, forsake, or throw away (but not inadvertenly "lose") his salvation.

5. It isn't over until it's over, and so long as there is a hint of conviction in a backslider's heart, the way is open for him to return to Jesus in loving submission.

Edited by - John Earp on 03/18/2003 10:04:48 PM

Edited by - John Earp on 03/20/2003 6:37:19 PM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 3/18/2003 5:21 PM (GMT -6)

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 3/18/2003 5:28 PM (GMT -6)

Below is from Finney's 1851 Syst. Theo., Lecture XIV, "Moral Government; In What Sense Obedience to the Moral Law Cannot Be Partial." Though I use different terminology in my previous post to describe the Christian life of radical discipleship as I understand it, I don't think I materially differ from Finney on this subject:

1. Any sin requires repentance.
2. Unless one truly repents when one sins, one imperils one's own soul.
3. Compounding one sin with further disobedience effectively negates one's position in God, and unless and until one returns to love (repents), one is by definition not headed towards the goal, and will not reach it (unless and until he gets back on the journey). I.E., the Prodigal Son had to return to his Father in order to be restored; his father was always willing to restore his son, but could not unless and until the son "came to his senses" and said, "I will return to my father."

(Begin Quote)

Objection. Does a Christian cease to be a Christian, whenever he commits a sin? I answer:

1. Whenever he sins, he must, for the time being, cease to be holy. This is self-evident.

2. Whenever he sins, he must be condemned. He must incur the penalty of the law of God. If he does not, it must be because the law of God is abrogated. But if the law of God be abrogated, he has no rule of duty; consequently, can neither be holy nor sinful. If it be said that the precept is still binding upon him, but that, with respect to the Christian, the penalty is for ever set aside, or abrogated, I reply--that to abrogate the penalty is to repeal the precept; for a precept without penalty is no law. It is only counsel or advice. The Christian, therefore, is justified no longer than he obeys, and must be condemned when he disobeys; or Antinomianism is true.

3. When the Christian sins, he must repent, and "do his first works," or he will perish.

4. Until he repents he cannot be forgiven. In these respects, then, the sinning Christian and the unconverted sinner are upon precisely the same ground.

5. In two important respects the sinning Christian differs widely from the unconverted sinner:

(1.) In his relations to God. A Christian is a child of God. A sinning Christian is a disobedient child of God. An unconverted sinner is a child of the devil. A Christian sustains a covenant relation to God; such a covenant relation as to secure to him that discipline which tends to reclaim and bring him back, if he wanders away from God. "If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments; if they break my statutes and keep not my commandments; then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless my loving-kindness will I not utterly take from him nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips." Ps. lxxxix. 30-34.

(2.) The sinning Christian differs from the unconverted man, in the state of his sensibility. In whatever way it takes place, every Christian knows that the state of his sensibility in respect to the things of God, has undergone a great change. Now it is true, that moral character does not lie in the sensibility, nor in the will's obeying the sensibility. Nevertheless our consciousness teaches us, that our feelings have great power in promoting wrong choice on the one hand, and in removing obstacles to right choice on the other. In every Christian's mind there is, therefore, a foundation laid for appeals to the sensibilities of the soul, that gives truth a decided advantage over the will. And multitudes of things in the experience of every Christian, give truth a more decided advantage over his will, through the intelligence, than is the case with unconverted sinners.

(The entire lecture may be found at ) :

http://www.firesofrevival.com/st14.htm

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

Edited by - John Earp on 03/18/2003 10:29:47 PM

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 3/18/2003 5:38 PM (GMT -6)

J.E. I do not believe "salvation is abrogated with every intentional sin," nor that "one sin means one loses one's salvation." It is my understandng that ...unless and until he does repent, he will be out of fellowship with God, and will not make the final destination unless and until he repents. (Analogy of a journey).

Greg: I'm confused. You hold that a person who sins is lost unless and until she repents, but deny that salvation is abrogated with every intentional sin.??? If I intentionally sin and do not repent, I am out of fellowship with God and thus lost, right? This is what I meant when I asked if "salvation is abrogated with every intentional sin" and "one sin means one loses one's salvation." So, in this sense, do you believe that every intentional sin disqualifies us from salvation unless and until we repent?

J.E.: I think perhaps my choice of the word, "lost" in the journey analogy was misunderstood. What I meant by it was not lost in the sense of unregenerate, but rather lost in the sense of off the path, like a person could be "lost" geographically on any journey.

As I understand salvation, it is not conditionated upon a one-time committal of faith, but rather radical discipleship from present to the end. "He that endures to the end shall be saved." That is, salvation is a process of discipleship/transformation into the image of God, not a one-time "hell insurance policy" one takes out.

Therefore I do not say and cannot say salvation is "abrogated" or "forfeited" truly unless one dies in a state of unbelief/disobedience. But again, as I said earlier, God gives people *time* to repent--even Ananias and Sapphira had a good opportunity to repent, and the false prophetess Jezebel in Rev. 2 was given "time" to repent by God.

I think it is important to remember the chastening hand of the Lord when his people sin--5. In two important respects the sinning Christian differs widely from the unconverted sinner:

(From Finney's ST on how a sinning Christian differs from an uncoverted sinner):

(1.) ...A Christian sustains a covenant relation to God; such a covenant relation as to secure to him that discipline which tends to reclaim and bring him back, if he wanders away from God. "If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments; if they break my statutes and keep not my commandments; then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless my loving-kindness will I not utterly take from him nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips." Ps. lxxxix. 30-34.
(End Quote)

That is, it is very hard to truly get away from God once one has tasted of salvation, for God will do what it takes to draw a wayward one back.

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

Edited by - John Earp on 03/19/2003 08:01:58 AM

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 3/18/2003 6:19 PM (GMT -6)

Greg: If I intentionally sin and do not repent, I am out of fellowship with God and thus lost, right?

J.E.: The distinction I would make would be that there are two sins or at least one persisted-in sin in the above scenario:

1. Intentional sin.

and,

2. Not repenting of #1.

Drawing again on the analogy of the journey, there is a great difference between one stumbling and falling while in pursuit of God, as opposed to one giving up on the quest, forsaking the goal. In the former case, what is needed is for the traveler to get back up and go on; in the latter, a complete reversal of direction is required. Is that any clearer?

BTW Doc, I would sincerely like to hear what your thoughts are on how a Christian should/must respond if they sin, what constitutes final apostasy, being out of fellowship, going into a life of total denial of Christ's lordship, etc. For instance, how would you characterize a professing Christian who steals money, lies, commits adultery, etc.? (One or all of them). For example, was Bill Clinton justified before God while he was sinning in the Oral Office with Monica? Sincerely would like to know.

Thanks

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

Edited by - John Earp on 03/20/2003 11:08:12 PM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 3/19/2003 3:44 PM (GMT -6)

John: BTW Doc, I would sincerely like to hear what your thoughts are on how a Christian should/must respond if they sin, what constitutes final apostasy, being out of fellowship, going into a life of total denial of Christ's lordship, etc. For instance, how would you characterize a professing Christian who steals money, lies, commits adultery, etc.? (One or all of them). For example, was Bill Clinton justified before God while he was sinning in the Oral Office with Monica? Sincerely would like to know.

Doc: The Finney quote was helpful to clarifying your (and Finney's) views. Thanks.

In answer to your question, with you (and Finney) I don't see salvation as a forensic/ legal "fire insurance" thing... as though saying "I believe" was magic. Its a wholistic/relational/ convenantal thing. Yet, it feels to me like the issue is still framed in legal terms when we seek to formalize the exact behavioral conditions under which salvation is "gained" or "lost". It feels like its being construed as a legal contract rather than a covenant.

I see our relationship with the Lord like the covenant of marriage. A marriage (as its supposed to be) isn't predicated on each particular behavior a partner engages in, though it affects the particular behaviors of both partners, and the behaviors of both partners affect it. But the marriage itself is about the BEING of two people before it is about their DOING. A marriage is about what people DO only because its about WHO THEY ARE. The partners ARE people whose lives are lovingly intertwined, and this affects what the people DO in relation to each other.

Now, its possible for partners to so consistently neglect the covenant of marriage that it dies. They ARE no longer married. But the marriage isn't destroyed by this or that paricular deed. Its destroyed when it dies in the innermost hearts of the partners. A marriage can survive a lot of bad DOING if the hearts of the two people remain committed to one another (and aren't all of us married folks greatful for that!

) Indeed, it is the love of the two people IN THE MIDST of their imperfect actions in the marriage that gradually transforms the actions of both parties to become more loving. Love begets love.

So too, I don't believe any of us think, feel and behave in total consistency with our marriage vows to the Lord. But this doesn't destroy the marriage, so long as our heart orientation is to be married to the Lord. Indeed, I believe (and have found) that my receiving God's love in the midst of my covenant breaking -- my sin -- is what transforms me out of it. The "love of Christ constrains me" (as Paul says). I increasingly WANT to live for him. He wins me over by his love. His marriage to me is bigger than my particular behavior.

Now, does that mean we should conclude: "Since God loves us even though we sin, we can just sin like crazy"? Shall we sin that grace may increase (Rom 6:1)? No. But look how Paul answers this question. He doesn't go legal, he goes covenant. He doesn't go with threats; he goes with encouragements. We ARE new beings in our relationship with God. So its against WHO WE ARE to think and live like that. Paul says since we ARE in Christ, "consider yourself" (think about yourself) as being in Christ, which leads to living consistent with who you are in Christ (Rom 6:11ff).

If you love your wife, don't mock her love toward you. You ARE married. if you love your Savior, don't mock his love toward you. You ARE "in Christ." You ARE a new creature in Christ etc... SEE yourself that way. And ACT consistent with this. BE who you ARE. Let you DOING come into alignment with your BEING.

From this perspective, it makes great sense to look at the kinds of behavior that are consistent with a loving marriage covenant, and the kinds of behaviors that aren't. But it doesn't make sense to try to determine what particular behaviors constitute the end of a marriage. Its a covenant, not a contract.

What do I think about Clinton or others who behave in ways that are radically inconsistent with a marriage with the Lord? IIf I was in a relationship with them, I would encourage them the way I'd encourage someone who is living inconsistent with their marriage to their spounse. I would encourage them to understand the nature of their marriage and to engage in the kinds of behavior that are consistent with and condusive of a marriage.

Are they saved? I know enough to (in the right contexts) warn and encourage. But I never know enough to determine this. Nor do I see that I'm am commissioned by God to determine this.

That's the SHORT version. Gotta run. My wife says Bush is coming on to announce something. Wonder what it coudl be? THE END OF THE WORLD!!!!

Blessings

Greg

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Edited by - GregBoyd on 03/19/2003 8:50:47 PM

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 3/22/2003 6:22 PM (GMT -6)

I find the following article helpful to this issue:

http://eeminc.org/Articles/Sin.html

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 3/22/2003 6:41 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
In answer to your question, with you (and Finney) I don't see salvation as a forensic/ legal "fire insurance" thing... as though saying "I believe" was magic. Its a wholistic/relational/ convenantal thing. Yet, it feels to me like the issue is still framed in legal terms when we seek to formalize the exact behavioral conditions under which salvation is "gained" or "lost". It feels like its being construed as a legal contract rather than a covenant.

Doc,

I am sure it is because of my lack of communication skills that my points on this subject have again been misconstrued. Just to reiterate, I do not believe it is scriptural to speak of salvation being "lost" or "gained" as you seem to, and that is probably why the misunderstanding persists. In my understanding, as salvation is not a "thing" but a relationship, it is something that is not lost through neglect so much as discarded through unfaithfulness.

And as I said previously, it is not over until its over (one's fate is not usually* sealed until their physical death), and so the question often put to Arminians and other free willers, "So, do you believe you can lose your salvation?", is simply not a valid question to an Arminian (if he truly understands the implications of his theological position). *I say, "usually," because of course there does seem to be scriptural support for the idea that a person may sear his/her own conscience to the point where salvation is no longer a possibility for them (e.g., blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, or in Doc's terms, "character solidification").

Doc said: I see our relationship with the Lord like the covenant of marriage. A marriage (as its supposed to be) isn't predicated on each particular behavior a partner engages in, though it affects the particular behaviors of both partners, and the behaviors of both partners affect it. But the marriage itself is about the BEING of two people before it is about their DOING. A marriage is about what people DO only because its about WHO THEY ARE. The partners ARE people whose lives are lovingly intertwined, and this affects what the people DO in relation to each other.

John responds: Yes, I think this comparison is a very apt metaphor for the Christian life. Finney would say "love is the whole of religion," and "moral action refers ultimately to motives."

Doc said: Now, its possible for partners to so consistently neglect the covenant of marriage that it dies. They ARE no longer married. But the marriage isn't destroyed by this or that paricular deed. Its destroyed when it dies in the innermost hearts of the partners. A marriage can survive a lot of bad DOING if the hearts of the two people remain committed to one another (and aren't all of us married folks greatful for that!

) Indeed, it is the love of the two people IN THE MIDST of their imperfect actions in the marriage that gradually transforms the actions of both parties to become more loving. Love begets love.

John replies: I agree with this. Not saying you're doing this, but I have found that many people who argue against holiness theology (whether Wesleyan, Finneyan, Keswick, etc.) tend to think in all-or-nothing categories (not unlike Calvinists vs. Openness) when it comes to living free from sin. Often I have heard people say, "So you think you've never sinned once since you got saved?" Which obviously is not the issue at all to holiness theology as I understand it.

The fundamental issue, as I see it is simply: Is a Christian able to love God with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength in this moment, or not? (Understanding that loving in this manner is the same thing as obeying Him).

quote:

Now, does that mean we should conclude: "Since God loves us even though we sin, we can just sin like crazy"? Shall we sin that grace may increase (Rom 6:1)? No. But look how Paul answers this question. He doesn't go legal, he goes covenant. He doesn't go with threats; he goes with encouragements. We ARE new beings in our relationship with God. So its against WHO WE ARE to think and live like that. Paul says since we ARE in Christ, "consider yourself" (think about yourself) as being in Christ, which leads to living consistent with who you are in Christ (Rom 6:11ff).

John says: I certainly agree with that.

Doc said: What do I think about Clinton or others who behave in ways that are radically inconsistent with a marriage with the Lord? IIf I was in a relationship with them, I would encourage them the way I'd encourage someone who is living inconsistent with their marriage to their spounse. I would encourage them to understand the nature of their marriage and to engage in the kinds of behavior that are consistent with and condusive of a marriage.

Are they saved? I know enough to (in the right contexts) warn and encourage. But I never know enough to determine this.

John replies: You have no ability of discernment? No disrespect intended, Doc, but I find that simply impossible to believe.

Doc said: That's the SHORT version. Gotta run. My wife says Bush is coming on to announce something. Wonder what it coudl be? THE END OF THE WORLD!!!!

John replies: Let's hope it isn't.

I for one am praying and hoping that this war will be over soon, and that both a minimum of casualities and (relative) peace in the region are the result.

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)

revivaltheology.net

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 3/23/2003 2:04 PM (GMT -6)

Very helpful dialogue John. The qualification about the possibility of obeying in this moment was particularly helpful. I have met people who have claimed to me, in defense of the perfectionist doctrine, that they "haven't sin in 13 years" (or some other length of time). I of course pat them on the back for their accomplishment, but I honestly don't believe them. For one thing, if a person doesn't miss the mark in thought, feeling, word or deed in 13 years, they wouldn't be keeping track of it! For another thing, I find the idea of a fellow fallen human being loving God, themselves and all others perfectly, without interruption, in thought, feeling, word or deed to be incredible. Not one careless thought or word in 13 years (Mt 12:36)? But when you frame it as you do, I have no problem. In any given moment, we have the possibility of being perfect. What makes sin sin is that we don't have to do it.

So it seems the only thing we in principle disagreement is the "discernment" issue. I don't claim to be able to discern that Clinton or anyone else is saved or unsaved. Indeed, I would lable this sort of separation (krino) "judgment", and I see it forbidden in Scripture. You seem to believe we can and should judge this.

But John, what purpose does embracing this sort of "discernment" accomplish? What difference does it make? And how is this "discernment" possible? Grant it, we can both "discern" that some of Clinton's behavior was contrary to God's will (duh? right). But can we know Clinton's HEART? Do we know enough about what he was and is given to work with to confidently conclude the degree to which his behavior was the result of heart issues verses screwed up head issues? Is it not the case that many times people with regenerate hearts have screwed up heads that lead to screwed up behaviors? Indeed, isn't this to some extent true of all of us? Why think that Clinton's behavior is a clear indication of an unregenerate heart, but not conclude that yours, or mine, or someone elses "missing the mark" behavior is NOT a clear indication of an unregenerate heart? Is their a sin-scale you know of that grades some sin worse than others and that applies to all people alike?

And again, even if we could peek into Clinton's innermost being and find all this out, what would it accomplish?

Thanks for the clarifying discussion John.

Greg

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

90 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:17 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual