 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 3/8/2003 6:23 AM (GMT -6) |   |
(Moved from the thread: Former Gay Man’s Ministry a True Blessing)
John Earp wrote:
Interesting how Paul, the so-called apostle of grace, did not view the idea of Christians living free from all known sin as an absurdity or an impossibility, but rather makes it quite plain that normal Christian living is to be free from sin (see my comments below on Romans 6). Of course, I realize many will simply mock the clear calls of Christ to obey in all things (a fundamental part of the great commission of Matt. 28:19-20), by saying that to attempt to do so is to unavoidably sin, but this seems quite counterintuitive: In seeking, by the grace of God, to not grieve God the Father by sinning, one is in fact sinning? Away with such wretched sophistry!
The following tract makes a decisive case against Sinnianity:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Revival_Theology/files/Who%20Shall%20See%20God%202.htm
John Earp wrote
1. True Christians should perish the thought of continuing in sin that grace may abound (Rom. 6 1-4). Those who would change this verse to read, "LET us continue in sin, that grace may abound," have conclusive proof that they are yet unregenerate. A true Christian hates sin in his life, and will do whatever it takes to rid himself/herself from it.
Empiress: I agree. We should hate sin in OUR life and do whatever it takes to rid OURSELVES from sin.
John wrote:
2. True Christians are given power over sin through their identification with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection (entire chapter of Romans 6 4-14).
3. True Christians are no longer slaves to sin (v.6)
4. True Christians are free from sin (v.7)
5. True Christians are to consider (reckon) themselves dead to sin and alive to God through Christ. (v.11)
6. True Christians are commanded to "not let sin reign" in their mortal bodies, not to obey its lusts. (vv.12-13)
Empiress: I think all of us would agree that this is what Christians are called to aspire to. We are no longer “slaves” to sin and we do not let sin “reign,” but that does not mean we will never ever falter. As James writes in 3:2 “For we all trip up in many ways” and exhorts Christians to “Confess your sins to one another” (5 16). Why would James require Christians to confess their sins to one another if Christians never ever sin?
But yes, we must HATE the sin in our own hearts and strive to overcome sin our entire lives. To do otherwise would be hypocritical!
John replies: Of course, if one sins, one is obligated to confess and forsake it (Prov. 28:19).
John said:
7. Being under grace as opposed to law does not mean "sin all you want and you still get to call yourself a Christian and go to heaven." (v.15)
Empiress: I don’t hear anyone saying that we can “sin all we want” and still call ourselves Christians. The Christian will earnestly desire to avoid sin at all costs, and if they ever falter, they are quick to repent and seek forgiveness. They also show mercy to others even as they have been shown mercy from God.
John said:
8. That Christians, because they have obeyed the truth, have already been freed from sin, and are now slaves of righteousness, (v.18) and the outcome of sanctification/holiness is eternal life (v.22).
Empiress: And the New Testament defines “righteousness” as “faith.” “His faith was accredited to him as righteousness.” “When someone, without working, puts faith in the one who justifies the godless, it is this faith that is reckoned as righteousness” (Ro.4:5). To become a slave to righteousness is to live by faith.
John replies: The New Testament also says, “he that doeth righteousness is righteous. (1 John 3:4-10)
1 John 3:4 Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. 5 You know that he was revealed to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. 6 No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Everyone who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8 Everyone who commits sin is a child of the devil; for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The Son of God was revealed for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. 9 Those who have been born of God do not sin, because God’s seed abides in them; they cannot sin, because they have been born of God. 10 The children of God and the children of the devil are revealed in this way: all who do not do what is right are not from God, nor are those who do not love their brothers and sisters. (NRSV)
Or, as James said: “Faith without works is dead.”
John said:
In other words, sanctification and eternal life itself is by no means automatic upon a one-time repitition of a so-called "sinner's prayer," but is perpetually conditioned upon a life of radical discipleship to Jesus Christ.
Empiress: I agree we must live a life of radical discipleship to Jesus Christ, but that does not mean we will become “sinless.” While we must demonstrate our faith through works as James describes, it is not our works that save us and it is not being “sinless” that saves us.
Eternal life is not conditional upon our sinlessness as Paul says so clearly, “If you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and if you believe with your heart that God raised him from the dead, then you will be saved. It is by believing with the heart that you are justified, and by making the declaration with your lips that you are saved.…for all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Chapter 3:1-14 of Galatians bears repeating:
“O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? Did you experience so many things in vain?--if it really is in vain. 5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? 6 Thus Abraham "believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." 7 So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." 9 So then, those who are men of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith. 10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them." 11 Now it is evident that no man is justified before God by the law; for "He who through faith is righteous shall live"; 12 but the law does not rest on faith, for "He who does them shall live by them." 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree"-- 14 that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Jesus says, “And eternal life is this: to know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”
John, what is your response to these verses?
John responds:
As Paul is in Galatians arguing against justification by works of the law, and it is clear that if one has ever sinned even once they never can be declared righteous (justified) according to the law. It does not matter if one has obeyed longer than one disobeyed; one sin committed makes it impossible for one to ever be declared righteous by the Law’s standard. That said, a person can only be justified by faith, but biblical faith is so much more than simply claiming one believes. As Jesus said, “Many shall say to me on that Day, ‘Lord, lord...’ Romans 4, which holds up Abraham as the example of what it means for God to justify the ungodly by faith, refers to a man (Abraham) who we would never have heard of had he not obeyed the call of God.
John quoted:
Matt 7 13 "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. Matt 7 14 "For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
John said:
quote:
The radical oneness of true Christian faith and obedience is perhaps no better expressed than here:
John 3 36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
Empiress: The translation you use creates a tension that is not present in other translations. The NJB for instance says, “Anyone who believes in the Son has eternal life, but anyone who refuses to believe in the Son will never see life.”
Nevertheless, the way we “obey the Son” IS by having faith in him and that will naturally lead to good works but not necessarily “sinlessness.” Jesus is not somehow contradicting himself… as he says in verse 18: “No one who believe in him will be judged; but whoever does not believe is judged already.” There is a difference between justification and sanctification, and while we ARE justified by faith, the sanctification process endures our whole lives. Most importantly, our justification is not dependent upon our sanctification, our sanctification comes about because of our justification.
John wrote:
Matt 7 21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven {will enter.}
Matt 7 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
Matt 7 23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'
Empiress: The key verse is the statement: “but he who does the will of My Father” and so we must ask, what IS the will of the Father?? The will of the Father is to have faith in the Son!! Jesus explains this in the chapter preceding in 6:40: “This is my Father’s will: that whoever sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and that I should raise that person up on the last day.”
Those who merely use the name of Jesus but do not believe in Jesus are condemned in these verses.
John replies:
By the way, I have never denied the doctrine of justification by faith, just the antinomian approach to Christianity that you advocate. Faith without works is dead. A Christian must repent of all sin as often as necessary, and seek to live above sin by God's power. And yes, I realize that the point you're trying to make is that homosexual activity is not sin (and that is where we will most likely never agree).
I am saying nothing other than what Jesus said through the Apostle John, for example, in the following passage:
Rev. 2:1 “To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands:
2“I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance. I know that you cannot tolerate evildoers; you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them to be false. 3I also know that you are enduring patiently and bearing up for the sake of my name, and that you have not grown weary. 4But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. 5 Remember then from what you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent. 6Yet this is to your credit: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. 7Let anyone who has an ear listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches. To everyone (and no one but these) who conquers, (overcomes sin) I will give permission to eat from the tree of life that is in the paradise of God. (NRSV with emphasis added; paretheticals mine)
Now many today would respond to this by saying, "Whaddya mean, Jesus?!?!? We're justified by faith alone! You're preaching works!
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 3/8/2003 6:55 AM (GMT -6) | | John, I want to understand what is being said in this tract, so please walk me through it before I respond to the rest of your responses.
From the tract: “Who Shall See God? “
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Revival_Theology/files/Who%20Shall%20See%20God%202.htm
The author explains that only those who are pure of heart, who are “holy,” will see God and that this teaching is essential to faith:
quote:
Proclamation of the doctrine of holiness must be given top priority in our teaching and preaching today, for it is that essential aspect of salvation which is most neglected in present-day preaching. Since essential doctrines cannot be primary or secondary to each other, the doctrine of holiness ranks equal with the doctrines of the Divinity of Christ and His Atonement. In the actual experience of conversion, holiness is just as essential as faith in the atonement.
It sounds to me that the author is saying that being holy, that is having a pure heart that never sins deliberately, is essential to salvation and is a requirement of salvation. Is this correct?
The author explains the necessity of obedience:quote:
The truly obedient are no less careful to keep every commandment of the Lord than the legalist, but do so in love, with full appreciation of the good purpose for which the moral law was given and in adoration for God whose loving kindness established it.
My understanding here is that part of the requirements for being holy is that one:
1. Keeps every commandment of the Lord
2. Keeps those commandments only out of pure motives of love
So, not only is it enough to keep every single commandment, but one must also do so with only pure motives…and this is all necessary for salvation.
Correct?
The author says:
quote:
The pure heart is a holy heart. The Scriptures explicitly decrees that hagiasmos (holiness or sanctification) is essential to salvation, speaking of the "holiness without which no man shall see the Lord,"16 and stating that "salvation" is "thru sanctification."17 What is sanctified and holy if it is not the heart? And what could holiness consist in but the purity of heart just described?
So, holiness, also called “sanctification,” is necessary for salvation. That means that anyone who is not holy, that is, any person who does not obey all of God’s commands with only loving motivation, will not be saved. Correct?
The author then says, quote:
The pure heart is a sinless heart. First, this must be part of the meaning of the word pure, for how can a sinful heart be pure? Second, all that we have observed in the preceding paragraphs implies sinlessness. The heart which is wholly loving and obedient, motivated by no selfish goals but only desiring the glory of God and the welfare of others, cannot be sinning. Thirdly, if we have died with Christ, we have died to sin, and are free from sin. Paul saw it to be a contradiction to say that we can be both dead and alive to the same thing when he wrote: "how can we who died to sin still live in it?" "We know that our old self was crucified with him so that...we might no longer be enslaved to sin. For he who has died is freed from sin." "Thanks be to God that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness."19 We know that this purity, sinlessness, or holiness of heart is both possible and necessary because it is commanded. Can anyone really believe that God would command what is unnecessary, or hold us responsible for what is impossible?- Therefore in the Scriptures it is clearly commanded: "You, therefore, must be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect."20
What I hear in this paragraph is that a person’s heart must be totally sinless, that is free from all sin, in order to by holy and therefore, only a person who is sinless will be saved.
Correct?
The author then describes the “impure heart”:
quote:
1. Any intentional sin - any willful disobedience - makes the heart impure or wicked. This includes any conscious failure to do right or to make up, to the best of one's ability, any past wrong.
2. Any hate or dislike of any person is evil, and is proof of an evil heart.
3. Any action taken to benefit one's self at other's expense is a full demonstration of an evil heart.
4. Any feeling that one's own happiness is really more valuable than that of another - for example, the happiness of a child, or one of another race – is the rationalization of a selfish heart.
5. Any conscious lack of full consecration to our good and loving God is a natural manifestation of a faithless and unbelieving heart.
6. To decide to do less than the best at any time, or to compromise from the highest purpose, turning to something less than the highest is willful sin24 and its end is death.
7. If anyone has an intention to sin again in the future, he is - in his heart - still living in sin.
8. Those who do not hate sin wherever it is found and in every circumstance are still the friends of sin, the enemies of the holiness of God, and are still sinners in their own hearts. The heart is either holy or wicked. Every heart has either chosen to live for the well-being of every man to the glory of God, or it has chosen to serve itself. "If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, 'you shall love your neighbor as yourself,' you do well. But if you show partiality you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law, but fails in one point, has become guilty of all of it."25 The reason this unmathematical statement is true is that the heart which sins at all is totally sinful. The attitude of every heart is simple; it is either absolutely for or against the will of God. All who are not obedient to it are against it.
Because the attitude or choice of the heart is simple, it can be changed by a single act of will. This act of changing one's heart from the love of one's self to a selfless love for God and man is known as repentance or conversion. Nothing but this act of heart or will is true repentance. No other kind of heart is truly converted.
Nothing can be more Scriptural or logical than these facts: (1) the unholy heart, as it stands, cannot be forgiven; (2) the unholy heart cannot stand in the judgment; (3) the unholy heart cannot live in the presence of a holy God; and (4) the unholy heart is damned already. But, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
My understanding here is that anyone who sins intentionally or who even decides to do less than the very “best” at any time or who lacks faith or who dislikes another person is impure and therefore, will not be forgiven and will not be saved.
Correct?
The author explains what holiness isn’t:
quote:
1. When we speak of holiness, we do not mean (and neither do the Wesleyans, if anyone would take time to find out) any such thing as is meant by the charge "sinless perfection." We do not mean that there is any state of mind or soul which makes a human being incapable of being tempted to sin. Scripture reveals that the perfection of the angels did not consist in being incapable of temptation, for some were tempted and sinned. Moreover, any being who is capable of being tempted is capable of choosing sin, otherwise it would not be a real temptation. The true Christian is not one who has lost his ability to sin, but one who has cast away his desire and willingness to do so.
2. We further do not mean that there is such a state of grace as to prevent all error or undeliberate wrongdoing, such as those actions triggered off by ignorance, presumptuousness, spontaneous emotion, etc. Here the distinction must be made - and a very significant distinction it is - that deliberate wrongdoing involves a very different state of heart from undeliberate wrongdoing. A Christian may not be perfect in his actions, but he must be in his intentions.
3. Holiness is not any kind of "works of law." Although it is a form of obedience, it is
not a mere external or outward obedience to any set of rules, no matter how "complete" the set of rules, or how fastidious that external obedience. The charge that holiness is "works instead of faith" stems from ignorance of the Biblical doctrine of holiness, as well as of the import of holiness writings.
I understand this holiness is not perfection in the sense that one is never tempted to sin. I also understand that this holiness does not preclude “undeliberate” wrongdoing in the sense of a sin that is unintential. Finally I understand this holiness is not works of the law but it does involve obedience.
Correct?
I am confused here when the author has insisted above that obedience to God’s law is necessary but then states this is not “works of the law.” Can you explain to me how obedience to all God’s commands is different from “works of the law”? They are the same thing in my mind and understanding.
The author says: quote:
Holiness Essential to Salvation
Commanded, promised and attributed to men, holiness is essential to salvation. Without it no man shall see the Lord. Since being saved implies living in heaven and seeing God, those who shall not see God will not be in heaven, and are certainly not saved. In other words, if a man cannot see God without holiness, he is not saved without holiness.
This sounds like a reiteration again of the idea that one must have a heart that is totally sinless without committing any intentional sin in order to be saved. Correct?
The author concludes: quote:
BACKSLIDER AND HYPOCRITE: If you claim to be saved by some scheme or formula or plan of salvation which leaves out holiness, you are diverging from the Word of God, and your "plan of salvation" is not of God. How can God contradict Himself, as He would be doing by saying that holiness is essential to seeing Him end then letting you into heaven by a "plan" which disregards what He said was essential? Your theology may exalt the "finished work of Christ" and "justification by faith" - you cannot exalt these truths too much - but by so doing you do not for a moment conceal the truths of the RESPONSIBILITY OF MAN and the NECESSITY OF HOLINESS. Continue in your unholiness if you will, but you must be the loser, for your unholiness and self deception will lead you to hell.
So, anyone who does not have a sinless heart will go to hell?
Okay…I do not see anywhere in these teachings how we are truly justified by faith if we are required to be sinless in order to be saved. This sounds exactly like the Old Covenant the Jews had with God for salvation with the addition that we ought to also have faith.
Can you help me understand how we are justified by faith if this is the case?
Thanks,
~E
Edited by - Empiress on 03/08/2003 11:59:10 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 3/8/2003 8:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Empiress,
I believe I am not the first one to recognize what does appear to be contradictions’, concerning the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the Bible. I am going to stay with this observation  or thread I mean  .
2Ti 2:15,19
…Study to shew thyself approved unto God…The Lord knoweth them that are his…
God is Love,
Tim
2Ti 2:19…Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 3/8/2003 9:35 AM (GMT -6) | | ‘Sanctification’ (hagiasmos) is said, to be the state predetermined by God for me, who in grace He calls, and in which course I pursue completeness, hence, the name Saint (or hagioi). The Christian life is that which is, about my consecration unto purification, the effect of such consecration being the sanctification of my heart or life as a believer. Consecration does not make me holy, but declares me to be sacred, that is, devoted to God’s divine service. It is Christ to whom I am indebted for sanctification; it is wrought by the Holy Spirit and is opposed to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, which is not of the Father, but is of the world.
Rom 6:19 …for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness (hagiasmos). …22But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness (hagiasmos), and the end everlasting life.
1Ti 2:15 …continue in faith and charity and holiness (hagiasmos) with sobriety.
Hbr 12:14Follow peace with all [men], and holiness (hagiasmos), without which no man shall see the Lord:
1Cr 1:29-31That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification (hagiasmos) and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
2Th 2:12-14That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification (hagiasmos) of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1Pe 1:2-5Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification (hagiasmos) of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
1Th 4:3For this is the will of God, [even] your sanctification (hagiasmos), that ye should abstain from fornication: 4That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification (hagiasmos) and honour; 7For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness (hagiasmos).
God is Love,
Tim
2Ti 2:19…Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity... | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 3/8/2003 3:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Dear E,
First, I want to clarify that I was not intending to question your integrity or honesty in my former post; I was simply and only pointing out that these were necessary to any real discussion, and hoping by that to encourage further study of the position you oppose. It is basic to any debate that no one assume anything about the other's position, and that they truly seek to understand the differences before they can adequately speak to them. Your questions below encourage me to think that you are truly making an attempt to understand.
quote:
John, I want to understand what is being said in this tract, so please walk me through it before I respond to the rest of your responses.
From the tract: “Who Shall See God? “
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Revival_Theology/files/Who%20Shall%20See%20God%202.htm
The author explains that only those who are pure of heart, who are “holy,” will see God and that this teaching is essential to faith:
quote:
Proclamation of the doctrine of holiness must be given top priority in our teaching and preaching today, for it is that essential aspect of salvation which is most neglected in present-day preaching. Since essential doctrines cannot be primary or secondary to each other, the doctrine of holiness ranks equal with the doctrines of the Divinity of Christ and His Atonement. In the actual experience of conversion, holiness is just as essential as faith in the atonement.
Empiress said: It sounds to me that the author is saying that being holy, that is having a pure heart that never sins deliberately, is essential to salvation and is a requirement of salvation. Is this correct?
John replies: The conditions of salvation are repentance (turning from sin in general and sin in particular), faith (unreserved trust in Christ as Savior/Deliverer), and perseverance in the resultant state of holiness. Repentance is a radical change of heart (ultimate intention/motivation) from self-seeking to unselfish goodwill (loving God supremely and one's neighbor as oneself).
Empiress said: My understanding here is that part of the requirements for being holy is that one:
1. Keeps every commandment of the Lord
2. Keeps those commandments only out of pure motives of love
So, not only is it enough to keep every single commandment, but one must also do so with only pure motives…and this is all necessary for salvation.
Correct?
John replies: What I think perhaps you are overlooking the provision for forgiveness found in 1 John 2:1, which says, "...I write these things to you that you may not sin; if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father..." This is certainly not to be overlooked.
The author says:
quote:
The pure heart is a holy heart. The Scriptures explicitly decrees that hagiasmos (holiness or sanctification) is essential to salvation, speaking of the "holiness without which no man shall see the Lord,"16 and stating that "salvation" is "thru sanctification."17 What is sanctified and holy if it is not the heart? And what could holiness consist in but the purity of heart just described?
Empiress said: So, holiness, also called “sanctification,” is necessary for salvation. That means that anyone who is not holy, that is, any person who does not obey all of God’s commands with only loving motivation, will not be saved. Correct?
John replies: The pursuit of holiness is necessary (a condition) for salvation (see for example, Heb. 12:14).
The author then says, quote:
The pure heart is a sinless heart. First, this must be part of the meaning of the word pure, for how can a sinful heart be pure? Second, all that we have observed in the preceding paragraphs implies sinlessness. The heart which is wholly loving and obedient, motivated by no selfish goals but only desiring the glory of God and the welfare of others, cannot be sinning. Thirdly, if we have died with Christ, we have died to sin, and are free from sin. Paul saw it to be a contradiction to say that we can be both dead and alive to the same thing when he wrote: "how can we who died to sin still live in it?" "We know that our old self was crucified with him so that...we might no longer be enslaved to sin. For he who has died is freed from sin." "Thanks be to God that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness."19 We know that this purity, sinlessness, or holiness of heart is both possible and necessary because it is commanded. Can anyone really believe that God would command what is unnecessary, or hold us responsible for what is impossible?- Therefore in the Scriptures it is clearly commanded: "You, therefore, must be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect."20
Empiress said: What I hear in this paragraph is that a person’s heart must be totally sinless, that is free from all sin, in order to by holy and therefore, only a person who is sinless will be saved.
Correct?
John replies: As I find salvation scripturally speaking to be a process of deliverance from sin and restoration of the image of God in man, and not a "thing" one "has" but a state of existence in the presence and favor of a holy God, one may truly say one is "saved" only to the extent that one is living in present obedience to God's commands as he/she is aware of them. (Please refer to the lectures from Finney's Systematic Theology that I posted on the other thread for further delineation of this idea).
The author then describes the “impure heart”:
quote:
1. Any intentional sin - any willful disobedience - makes the heart impure or wicked. This includes any conscious failure to do right or to make up, to the best of one's ability, any past wrong.
2. Any hate or dislike of any person is evil, and is proof of an evil heart.
3. Any action taken to benefit one's self at other's expense is a full demonstration of an evil heart.
4. Any feeling that one's own happiness is really more valuable than that of another - for example, the happiness of a child, or one of another race – is the rationalization of a selfish heart.
5. Any conscious lack of full consecration to our good and loving God is a natural manifestation of a faithless and unbelieving heart.
6. To decide to do less than the best at any time, or to compromise from the highest purpose, turning to something less than the highest is willful sin24 and its end is death.
7. If anyone has an intention to sin again in the future, he is - in his heart - still living in sin.
8. Those who do not hate sin wherever it is found and in every circumstance are still the friends of sin, the enemies of the holiness of God, and are still sinners in their own hearts. The heart is either holy or wicked. Every heart has either chosen to live for the well-being of every man to the glory of God, or it has chosen to serve itself. "If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, 'you shall love your neighbor as yourself,' you do well. But if you show partiality you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law, but fails in one point, has become guilty of all of it."25 The reason this unmathematical statement is true is that the heart which sins at all is totally sinful. The attitude of every heart is simple; it is either absolutely for or against the will of God. All who are not obedient to it are against it.
Because the attitude or choice of the heart is simple, it can be changed by a single act of will. This act of changing one's heart from the love of one's self to a selfless love for God and man is known as repentance or conversion. Nothing but this act of heart or will is true repentance. No other kind of heart is truly converted.
Nothing can be more Scriptural or logical than these facts: (1) the unholy heart, as it stands, cannot be forgiven; (2) the unholy heart cannot stand in the judgment; (3) the unholy heart cannot live in the presence of a holy God; and (4) the unholy heart is damned already. But, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Empiress said: My understanding here is that anyone who sins intentionally or who even decides to do less than the very “best” at any time or who lacks faith or who dislikes another person is impure and therefore, will not be forgiven and will not be saved.
Correct?
John replies: I would differ with the author in the use of the word, "dislike." It is just too ambiguous to really define (like the word like). I would of course say that hatred (as the term is generally used in English) would be inconsistent with loving (as the term is scripturally intended). As I said above, a person who reaches their physical death without an present ultimate intention of loving God supremely and one's neighbor as oneself, has at best a feigned faith in God.
The author explains what holiness isn’t:
quote:
1. When we speak of holiness, we do not mean (and neither do the Wesleyans, if anyone would take time to find out) any such thing as is meant by the charge "sinless perfection." We do not mean that there is any state of mind or soul which makes a human being incapable of being tempted to sin. Scripture reveals that the perfection of the angels did not consist in being incapable of temptation, for some were tempted and sinned. Moreover, any being who is capable of being tempted is capable of choosing sin, otherwise it would not be a real temptation. The true Christian is not one who has lost his ability to sin, but one who has cast away his desire and willingness to do so.
2. We further do not mean that there is such a state of grace as to prevent all error or undeliberate wrongdoing, such as those actions triggered off by ignorance, presumptuousness, spontaneous emotion, etc. Here the distinction must be made - and a very significant distinction it is - that deliberate wrongdoing involves a very different state of heart from undeliberate wrongdoing. A Christian may not be perfect in his actions, but he must be in his intentions.
3. Holiness is not any kind of "works of law." Although it is a form of obedience, it is
not a mere external or outward obedience to any set of rules, no matter how "complete" the set of rules, or how fastidious that external obedience. The charge that holiness is "works instead of faith" stems from ignorance of the Biblical doctrine of holiness, as well as of the import of holiness writings.
Empiress said:I understand this holiness is not perfection in the sense that one is never tempted to sin. I also understand that this holiness does not preclude “undeliberate” wrongdoing in the sense of a sin that is unintential. Finally I understand this holiness is not works of the law but it does involve obedience.
Correct?
I am confused here when the author has insisted above that obedience to God’s law is necessary but then states this is not “works of the law.” Can you explain to me how obedience to all God’s commands is different from “works of the law”? They are the same thing in my mind and understanding.
John replies: I think this is the real crux of our misunderstanding thus far. As I said previously, one can never do enough good to outweigh even one sin, can never obey God long enough to make up for even one past instance of disobedience, and can never in any way earn God's favor. In addition, "works of the law" as used by Paul does not and cannot mean the Christian has no moral obligation. What Paul felt compelled to argue against was the Judaizing teachers among the early Christians, who sought to place the new Gentile Christians under the yoke of the Mosaic Law in order to be justified. However, Paul, Jesus, James, Peter, and John all emphasized that as Christians we very definitely do have a moral law to obey--referred to in Scripture as "the law of Christ," "the New Commandment, that you love one another," "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus," the "law of love," "the perfect law of liberty," etc. As Christ said, "upon these (loving God with all one's heart, soul, mind and strength, and one's neighbor as oneself) hang all the law and prophets. As He also said, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect." (In context, perfection being defined as loving one's enemies).
The author says: quote:
Holiness Essential to Salvation
Commanded, promised and attributed to men, holiness is essential to salvation. Without it no man shall see the Lord. Since being saved implies living in heaven and seeing God, those who shall not see God will not be in heaven, and are certainly not saved. In other words, if a man cannot see God without holiness, he is not saved without holiness.
The author concludes: [quote]BACKSLIDER AND HYPOCRITE: If you claim to be saved by some scheme or formula or plan of salvation which leaves out holiness, you are diverging from the Word of God, and your "plan of salvation" is not of God. How can God contradict Himself, as He would be doing by saying that holiness is essential to seeing Him end then letting you into heaven by a "plan" which disregards what He said was essential? Your theology may exalt the "finished work of Christ" and "justification by faith" - you cannot exalt these truths too much - but by so doing you do not for a moment conceal the truths of the RESPONSIBILITY OF MAN and the NECESSITY OF HOLINESS. Continue in your unholiness if you will, but you must be the loser, for your unholiness and self deception will lead you to hell.
Empiress said: So, anyone who does not have a sinless heart will go to hell?
Okay…I do not see anywhere in these teachings how we are truly justified by faith if we are required to be sinless in order to be saved. This sounds exactly like the Old Covenant the Jews had with God for salvation with the addition that we ought to also have faith.
Can you help me understand how we are justified by faith if this is the case?
Thanks,
~E
John replies: I think it will help to understand the concept, as taught by the early church fathers and the Eastern churches, that justification is not, as in the Augustinian scheme, a justification of a courtroom, but rather both a declaring and making righteous of the one who believes in God to do so. Faith without obedience is not real, but feigned. As the good ol' Calvinist, Charles Spurgeon put it, "Faith and obedience are inseparable." We obey because we believe. Faith, hope, and love should never be so sharply divided as they tend to be in evangelical Christianity. Can one claim they have faith and are justified thereby while not loving as God has commanded? Certainly they can, but the Bible says such are deceived:
1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love. 9 God’s love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him. 10 In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11 Beloved, since God loved us so much, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God lives in us, and his love is perfected in us. 13By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. 14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world. 15 God abides in those who confess that Jesus is the Son of God, and they abide in God. 16 So we have known and believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them. 17Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness on the day of judgment, because as he is, so are we in this world.
John E's note: In context "as he is" = love. The only way one may have confidence/boldness on the day of judgment is that one be like God--perfectly loving.
18There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love. 19 We love because he first loved us. 20 Those who say, “I love God,” and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen. 21The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also. (NRSV)
2 Cor. 7:1 Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and of spirit, making holiness perfect in the fear of God.
As Jesus said, "The pure in heart shall see God." (Plainly implying that the impure in heart shall not).
For further information on this, please refer to John Wesley's and Charles Finney's sermons on Christian Perfection:
“Christian Perfection”
http://gbgm-umc.org/UMhistory/Wesley/sermons/serm-040.stm
“On Perfection”
http://gbgm-umc.org/UMhistory/Wesley/sermons/serm-076.stm
And the following two sermons by Charles Finney:
“Christian Perfection (Part 2)”
http://gospeltruth.net/1837LTPC/ltpc08_christian_perfectio.htm
And, “Christian Perfection (Part 2)”
http://gospeltruth.net/1837LTPC/ltpc09_christ_perfection2.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 03/08/2003 9:06:52 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 3/8/2003 4:40 PM (GMT -6) | | "The scriptures do not teach that the person of Jesus Christ nor any of the important offices which God has given Him can be divided or ignored according to the whims of men. Therefore, I must be frank in my feeling that a notable heresy has come into being throughout our evangelical Christian circles--the widely-accepted concept that we humans can choose to accept Christ only because we need Him as Saviour and that we have the right to postpone our obedience to Him as Lord as long as we want to!" --A.W. Tozer, --I Call It Heresy
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 3/9/2003 6:43 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Empiress: I am confused here when the author has insisted above that obedience to God’s law is necessary but then states this is not “works of the law.” Can you explain to me how obedience to all God’s commands is different from “works of the law”? They are the same thing in my mind and understanding.
Here is another excerpt from the author:
“9. The pure heart is indwelled by the Spirit of God,18 Who is described in the Scriptures most frequently as the Holy Spirit. It is the conviction of the Holy Spirit which procures a sinner's conversion from selfish disobedience to loving obedience. And it is certainly the continuous holy influence of the Holy Spirit that promotes continuous purity of heart.”
“(a) The man of pure heart may act wrongly, due either to error or to an undeliberate impulse of the body. But when the pure man finds himself in the wrong, he is predisposed to cease the minute he sees it, correct the action, and make all necessary restitution. The pure heart is always predisposed to accept correction, and is in fact searching for any improvement in action. The man who is pure in heart is sensitive to the needs of men as well as the will of God, immediately recognizing that anything which is best for a man is the will of God; and he is instantly obedient to that knowledge.”
“(b) There is a kind of obedience, on the other hand, that is mere legalism. The rules are kept to the letter, and perhaps obedience is much praised. But if one's obedience consists only in control of the mind and body while there is no love in the heart for the purpose behind God's law - which is the well-being of others - then it is mere legalism. Mere external conformity, no matter how exacting, is not "obedience from the heart" and does not truly fulfill the law. The truly obedient are no less careful to keep every commandment of the Lord than the legalist, but do so in love, with full appreciation of the good purpose for which the moral law was given and in adoration for God whose loving kindness established it.”
Springs: We are obedient to God due to love, forgiveness, thankfulness, covenantal relationship, to glorify him etc. Willing obedience from a pure heart is not the same as doing the works of the law. We are able to be obedient to God by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Thy love did read by rote and could not spell. - Friar Laurence. - Shakespeare | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 3/9/2003 7:13 PM (GMT -6) | | John,
I really appreciate your responses. I'll be back for some more dialogue soon, I've just gotten busy.
Thanks,
~E
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 3/11/2003 6:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Tim said:
quote:
I believe I am not the first one to recognize what does appear to be contradictions’, concerning the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the Bible.
Tim, I’m confused what you are saying here…could you explain?
-------------
A response to John Earp...
quote:
Empiress said: It sounds to me that the author is saying that being holy, that is having a pure heart that never sins deliberately, is essential to salvation and is a requirement of salvation. Is this correct?
John replies: The conditions of salvation are repentance (turning from sin in general and sin in particular), faith (unreserved trust in Christ as Savior/Deliverer), and perseverance in the resultant state of holiness. Repentance is a radical change of heart (ultimate intention/motivation) from self-seeking to unselfish goodwill (loving God supremely and one's neighbor as oneself).
Here is the main theological difference I hear, so tell me if this makes sense.
The classical Protestant/Catholic perspective is that:
We are justified by faith. The result of our justification is our sanctification. However, our sanctification is a life long process and will not be complete until after death. We can expect to struggle with sin throughout our lives even while we grow in holiness.
What I hear the author of your tract saying is:
We are justified by faith but the result of our justification is IMMEDIATE and COMPLETE sanctification. If any sin exists in us after our justification, then we have not been truly justified and are not therefore saved.
Would you say this is a fair description of the differences in these two perspectives?
quote:
Empiress said: My understanding here is that part of the requirements for being holy is that one:
1. Keeps every commandment of the Lord
2. Keeps those commandments only out of pure motives of love
So, not only is it enough to keep every single commandment, but one must also do so with only pure motives…and this is all necessary for salvation.
Correct?
John replies: What I think perhaps you are overlooking the provision for forgiveness found in 1 John 2:1, which says, "...I write these things to you that you may not sin; if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father..." This is certainly not to be overlooked.
I certainly agree with 1 John 2:1, but I do not hear the author giving any leeway for sin other than sin that is “unintentional.” Would you say that we can sin “intentionally” and still be justified/saved?
quote:
Empiress said: So, holiness, also called “sanctification,” is necessary for salvation. That means that anyone who is not holy, that is, any person who does not obey all of God’s commands with only loving motivation, will not be saved. Correct?
John replies: The pursuit of holiness is necessary (a condition) for salvation (see for example, Heb. 12:14).
But you have made a distinction here that I do not hear in the author. You say that the “pursuit” of holiness is necessary while the author says that holiness is necessary to salvation. To me, these statements are worlds apart.
Yes, I pursue holiness but I am not “holy,” nor do I believe I ever will be until Christ transforms me completely into his image when I die. From the tract’s perspective, I could not saved. Would you agree?
quote:
Empiress said: What I hear in this paragraph is that a person’s heart must be totally sinless, that is free from all sin, in order to by holy and therefore, only a person who is sinless will be saved.
Correct?
John replies: As I find salvation scripturally speaking to be a process of deliverance from sin and restoration of the image of God in man, and not a "thing" one "has" but a state of existence in the presence and favor of a holy God, one may truly say one is "saved" only to the extent that one is living in present obedience to God's commands as he/she is aware of them.
A few questions for you:
1. Would you say then that at any time a person can “lose” their salvation?
2. If at any time we cease to be living in obedience to God, that is, living in sin, are we no longer saved?
quote:
Empiress said: My understanding here is that anyone who sins intentionally or who even decides to do less than the very “best” at any time or who lacks faith or who dislikes another person is impure and therefore, will not be forgiven and will not be saved.
Correct?
John replies: I would differ with the author in the use of the word, "dislike." It is just too ambiguous to really define (like the word like). I would of course say that hatred (as the term is generally used in English) would be inconsistent with loving (as the term is scripturally intended). As I said above, a person who reaches their physical death without an present ultimate intention of loving God supremely and one's neighbor as oneself, has at best a feigned faith in God.
I feel baffled by this because I find loving my neighbor to be the ultimate challenge. I want so much to love my neighbor and I beg God to give me love for my neighbors, but most of the time my neighbors drive me crazy and it is all I can do to remain patient with them. Even when I drive down the street and someone cuts me off, I have anger towards them and often say something like, “jerk” under my breath…and that isn’t love. But if what you’re saying is true, then I am feigning faith in God because I am not always in a state of loving my neighbor. Am I understanding you correctly?
And I don’t understand how that concept squares with this parable from Jesus:
Luk 18:9-14:
He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised others:
"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, 'God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.' But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me a sinner!'
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."
In this verse it is the one who acknowledges their sin that is justified…so sin cannot possibly disqualify us from justification/salvation. I am like that tax collector every single day and have to say, “God be merciful to me a sinner!”
quote:
Empiress said:
I am confused here when the author has insisted above that obedience to God’s law is necessary but then states this is not “works of the law.” Can you explain to me how obedience to all God’s commands is different from “works of the law”? They are the same thing in my mind and understanding.
John replies: I think this is the real crux of our misunderstanding thus far. As I said previously, one can never do enough good to outweigh even one sin, can never obey God long enough to make up for even one past instance of disobedience, and can never in any way earn God's favor. In addition, "works of the law" as used by Paul does not and cannot mean the Christian has no moral obligation. What Paul felt compelled to argue against was the Judaizing teachers among the early Christians, who sought to place the new Gentile Christians under the yoke of the Mosaic Law in order to be justified. However, Paul, Jesus, James, Peter, and John all emphasized that as Christians we very definitely do have a moral law to obey--referred to in Scripture as "the law of Christ," "the New Commandment, that you love one another," "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus," the "law of love," "the perfect law of liberty," etc. As Christ said, "upon these (loving God with all one's heart, soul, mind and strength, and one's neighbor as oneself) hang all the law and prophets. As He also said, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect." (In context, perfection being defined as loving one's enemies).
But it sounds like while the Mosaic law has been overturned, what you are advocating merely replaces the Mosaic law with a new law. It is as though the words have been changed but the rules of the game are still the same. If humanity could not attain holiness and salvation through the Mosaic law, how can we ever attain it through the Law of love when that is infinitely more difficult???
The heart of our disagreement is not whether Christians have an obligation to live morally. The disagreement is what our living morally will or not will ultimately accomplish. From what you’re saying it sounds as if our salvation DEPENDS on us living morally. I’m saying that our salvation DEPENDS on Jesus alone. We will strive to live morally once we’ve been saved, but we will still fail.
Empiress wrote: quote:
Can you help me understand how we are justified by faith if this is the case?
John replies: I think it will help to understand the concept, as taught by the early church fathers and the Eastern churches, that justification is not, as in the Augustinian scheme, a justification of a courtroom, but rather both a declaring and making righteous of the one who believes in God to do so. Faith without obedience is not real, but feigned. As the good ol' Calvinist, Charles Spurgeon put it, "Faith and obedience are inseparable." We obey because we believe. Faith, hope, and love should never be so sharply divided as they tend to be in evangelical Christianity. Can one claim they have faith and are justified thereby while not loving as God has commanded? Certainly they can, but the Bible says such are deceived:
Again, the difference here is slight in word, but radically different.
I believe that faith without obedience is not real. But it seems you are saying that if we struggle with sin, then we’re not really saved to begin with. Is that right?
quote:
John E's note: In context "as he is" = love. The only way one may have confidence/boldness on the day of judgment is that one be like God--perfectly loving.
See, here I would totally disagree with you wrote. The ONLY way we can have confidence/boldness on the day of judgment is because of the cross. If God judged us based on our sinlessness, then no person could be saved. Our confidence comes from the work Jesus Christ accomplished for us on the cross, not anything we did.
As Romans 4:5 says, “When someone, without working, puts faith in the One who justifies the godless, it is this faith that is reckoned as uprightness.”
Paul is saying it is this FAITH that is reckoned as righteousness, not our works…not our ability to be all loving without sin.
And again in Romans 11:6: “And it is by grace, it cannot now be by good actions, or grace would not be grace at all!”
Exactly…if it something we can do, if it our own “goodness” that saves us, then it would not be grace at all!
Ephesians 2:8: “Because it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith; not by anything of your own, but by a gift from God; not by anything that you have done, so that nobody can claim the credit.”
quote:
18There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love. 19 We love because he first loved us. 20 Those who say, “I love God,” and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen. 21The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also. (NRSV)
While I agree that if we actually hate our brothers and sisters, we cannot be lovers of God, however, that still does not mean that we are saved by our ability to love…it is God, in God’s grace that saves us, and that alone.
quote:
2 Cor. 7:1 Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and of spirit, making holiness perfect in the fear of God.
Yes, this is encouragement and admonishment to strive after holiness…but again, our salvation is not dependent on our own holiness.
quote:
As Jesus said, "The pure in heart shall see God." (Plainly implying that the impure in heart shall not).
I don’t think that is what the verse is implying because those who “mourn” and those who are “poor” are ALSO promised the kingdom of heaven, but that doesn’t mean that those who don’t mourn or aren’t poor won’t be saved. Additionally, mourning and being poor do not seem to automatically entail purity of heart.
I would also take to task the lengthy extrapolation of the concept “the pure in heart” as entailing a heart that is pure of it’s own accord, totally without sin.
As the theologian Richard Hooker writes,
“We see how far we are from the perfect righteousness of the law. The little fruit which we have in holiness, it is, God knoweth, corrupt and unsound: we put no confidence at all in it, we challenge nothing in the world for it, we dare not call God to a reckoning, as if we had him in our debt-books. Our continual suit to him is, and must be, to bear with
our infirmities, to pardon our offences.”
Thanks,
~E
Edited by - Empiress on 03/11/2003 11:10:24 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 3/12/2003 6:05 AM (GMT -6) | | 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...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 3/12/2003 12:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Dear Empiress,
"I believe I am not the first one to recognize what does appear (or seem) to be contradictions’, concerning the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the Bible." - Tim
Empiress: I’m confused what you are saying here…could you explain?
"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Rom 3:31
I truly had a difficult time comprehending the verse above at one time, as anything less than contradictory. And the following one use to throw me fits also…
…Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure. Phl 2:12, 13
God is Love,
Tim
2Ti 2:19…Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity... | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 3/13/2003 2:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Empiress said: Here is the main theological difference I hear, so tell me if this makes sense.
The classical Protestant/Catholic perspective is that:
We are justified by faith. The result of our justification is our sanctification. However, our sanctification is a life long process and will not be complete until after death. We can expect to struggle with sin throughout our lives even while we grow in holiness.
What I hear the author of your tract saying is:
We are justified by faith but the result of our justification is IMMEDIATE and COMPLETE sanctification. If any sin exists in us after our justification, then we have not been truly justified and are not therefore saved.
John replies: First, it does not seem to me that the purpose of the tract was to cover all exceptions to the rule. It seems to me that the writer is most concerned with defining holiness and presenting the essential need for it as shown in Scripture. Exceptions to the overall rule of holiness as God's standard of living for his people would be occasional and inadvertent sins. I think another source of confusion (common to all who are influenced by Augustinian views, especially regarding sin) is your description of sin "existing" in us. Is sin a substance? Or is it a "thought, word, or deed?" Perhaps the following question will help to define your own position: Are you saying that a believer may sin however much he wishes and yet remain justified by faith?
Empiress said: My understanding here is that part of the requirements for being holy is that one:
1. Keeps every commandment of the Lord
2. Keeps those commandments only out of pure motives of love
So, not only is it enough to keep every single commandment, but one must also do so with only pure motives…and this is all necessary for salvation.
Correct?
John replies: What I think perhaps you are overlooking the provision for forgiveness found in 1 John 2:1, which says, "...I write these things to you that you may not sin; if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father..." This is certainly not to be overlooked.
Empiress said: I certainly agree with 1 John 2:1, but I do not hear the author giving any leeway for sin other than sin that is “unintentional.” Would you say that we can sin “intentionally” and still be justified/saved?
John replies: As I understand salvation, scripturally speaking, to be a process, and to essentially consist in deliverance *from* sin *to* holiness, I do not follow the logic that says a believer can possibly be perpetually justified based on a one-time profession of faith. A person is yet "being saved" while this earthly life continues, and one must be saved from *all* their sins--each and every one, through repentance (confessing and forsaking each sin) and faith in Christ's atoning blood for forgiveness and cleansing. Or, as 1 John says, "If we confess our sins, (then) he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." That is, I do not perceive of salvation as a one-time "event" but a lifelong process.
Another related issue to this is the issue of personal growth, both intellectually as well as morally. Perhaps the analogy of a child may help bring understanding. Just because a child may have just had a good bath does not mean that same child does not also have room for physical, mental, and emotional growth.
Empiress said: So, holiness, also called “sanctification,” is necessary for salvation. That means that anyone who is not holy, that is, any person who does not obey all of God’s commands with only loving motivation, will not be saved. Correct?
John replies: The pursuit of holiness is necessary (a condition) for salvation (see for example, Heb. 12:14).
Empiress said: But you have made a distinction here that I do not hear in the author. You say that the “pursuit” of holiness is necessary while the author says that holiness is necessary to salvation. To me, these statements are worlds apart.
Yes, I pursue holiness but I am not “holy,” nor do I believe I ever will be until Christ transforms me completely into his image when I die. From the tract’s perspective, I could not saved. Would you agree?
John replies: Again, I think you are jumping to an unwarranted conclusion from the tract. It's purpose is simply and only to set forth the basics of holiness, not explain all the particulars. But to your question, I do not agree with the Augustinian/Calvinian idea that believers cannot help (but in fact MUST) sin daily in word, thought, and deed. As I understand this issue, those whose ultimate intention (heart) is not to live above sin by the power of Christ within are in fact deceived if they think they are saved. And it appears that the NT writers certainly had no problem calling true Christians "holy."
Empiress said:
A few questions for you:
1. Would you say then that at any time a person can “lose” their salvation?
2. If at any time we cease to be living in obedience to God, that is, living in sin, are we no longer saved?
John replies:
I do not use the term, "lose," as if salvation were a "thing" or a possession which could be inadvertently lost like a wallet. However, as the Bible seems abundantly clear about the possibility of a person turning from their faith in God and returning "as a dog returns to its vomit," I do believe a person can change their ultimate purpose in life from that of benevolence to selfishness and thus be headed to hell.
I find the analogy of salvation as a journey to be helpful. A person on a journey from Los Angeles to New York City, so long as she keeps on track will arrive at the final destination. However, so long as the person stops, detours, or even turns back from the goal, they are by definition not headed in the right direction, and unless and until they turn around (repent) and get back on with the journey, they shall not arrive at the final destination. But just because one may have temporarily gotten off track (say, somewhere in the Rocky Mountains), does not mean they are instantly back at the start of the journey. What is necessary is simple repentance in order for them to get back on track.
Empiress said: My understanding here is that anyone who sins intentionally or who even decides to do less than the very “best” at any time or who lacks faith or who dislikes another person is impure and therefore, will not be forgiven and will not be saved.
Correct?
John replies: Anyone may be forgiven at any time for any sin (except for the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit--another topic of discussion), if the conditions of forgiveness are met (repentance and faith).
John replies: I would differ with the author in the use of the word, "dislike." It is just too ambiguous to really define (like the word like). I would of course say that hatred (as the term is generally used in English) would be inconsistent with loving (as the term is scripturally intended). As I said above, a person who reaches their physical death without an present ultimate intention of loving God supremely and one's neighbor as oneself, has at best a feigned faith in God.
Empiress said: I feel baffled by this because I find loving my neighbor to be the ultimate challenge. I want so much to love my neighbor and I beg God to give me love for my neighbors, but most of the time my neighbors drive me crazy and it is all I can do to remain patient with them. Even when I drive down the street and someone cuts me off, I have anger towards them and often say something like, “jerk” under my breath…and that isn’t love. But if what you’re saying is true, then I am feigning faith in God because I am not always in a state of loving my neighbor. Am I understanding you correctly?
John replies: I think it is wrong to confuse feelings with loving God and neighbor. To be certain, emotions are important, but I find emotions to be secondary effects of the ultimate choice. In other words, one does not have to wait for God to give one warm, fuzzy feelings towards others, but should simply choose to act in a loving way. And just because others may irritate us does not necessarily mean we don't love them. Jesus appears to have been quite irritated at others at times (even his own disciples at times), and yet He never sinned, never acted in a way that was anything less than a loving, godly way.
Empiress said: And I don’t understand how that concept squares with this parable from Jesus:
Luk 18:9-14:
He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised others:
"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, 'God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.' But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me a sinner!'
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."
In this verse it is the one who acknowledges their sin that is justified…so sin cannot possibly disqualify us from justification/salvation. I am like that tax collector every single day and have to say, “God be merciful to me a sinner!”
John replies: This passage, while certainly accurately depicting repentance and faith does not require us to believe that this man "continued in sin, that grace may abound." So long as the publican retained his humble attitude, he remained justified. Would you say that if this man's heart became full of pride just like the Pharisee, he would remain justified perpetually based on this one instance of repentance and faith?
Empiress said: But it sounds like while the Mosaic law has been overturned, what you are advocating merely replaces the Mosaic law with a new law. It is as though the words have been changed but the rules of the game are still the same.
John replies: Jesus said, "This is my commandment, that you love one another..." As Paul said, "The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death." Jesus said that all those who "practice lawlessness" would be told, "depart from me..." It does not follow that Christians are not expected to follow any law at all. Much to the contrary, all the NT writers emphatically affirmed the moral law of God as being binding up all those who would be Christ's followers. Can you show any passage in the New Testament which implies that Christians are not perpetually obligated to love God supremely and one's neighbor as oneself?
Empiress said: If humanity could not attain holiness and salvation through the Mosaic law, how can we ever attain it through the Law of love when that is infinitely more difficult???
John said: Nowhere in Scripture does God say his law (not even that of Moses) said to be impossible to keep. Does God command man, upon pain of eternal death, to do that which is impossible? The idea that God commands the impossible is one of the primary reasons I reject Augustinianism/Calvinism.
God has never said anything other than that his law is reasonable, good, and just, and never impossible to those who have faith:
Deuteronomy 30:11 “This command I am giving you today is not too difficult for you to understand or perform. 12It is not up in heaven, so distant that you must ask, ‘Who will go to heaven and bring it down so we can hear and obey it?’ 13It is not beyond the sea, so far away that you must ask, ‘Who will cross the sea to bring it to us so we can hear and obey it?’ 14 The message is very close at hand; it is on your lips and in your heart so that you can obey it.
It is no less true in the New Covenant God's people are able (by the Spirit's power) to fulfill the law:
Romans 13:8 Pay all your debts, except the debt of love for others. You can never finish paying that! If you love your neighbor, you will fulfill all the requirements of God’s law. 9 For the commandments against adultery and murder and stealing and coveting—and any other commandment—are all summed up in this one commandment: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10Love does no wrong to anyone, so love satisfies all of God’s requirements. (NLT)
And God's commandments are not grievous or burdensome:
1 John 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. 3 For the love of God is this, that we obey his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome, 4for whatever is born of God conquers the world. And this is the victory that conquers the world, our faith.
1 John 2:3Now by this we may be sure that we know him, if we obey his commandments. 4Whoever says, “I have come to know him,” but does not obey his commandments, is a liar, and in such a person the truth does not exist; 5but whoever obeys his word, truly in this person the love of God has reached perfection. By this we may be sure that we are in him: 6whoever says, “I abide in him,” ought to walk just as he walked.
The following passage reflects perhaps as well as any can the vital relationship between faith and obedience:
1 John 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. 24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
Empiress: The heart of our disagreement is not whether Christians have an obligation to live morally. The disagreement is what our living morally will or not will ultimately accomplish. From what you’re saying it sounds as if our salvation DEPENDS on us living morally. I’m saying that our salvation DEPENDS on Jesus alone. We will strive to live morally once we’ve been saved, but we will still fail.
John replies: With that mindset, of course one will continue to fail. "Be it unto you according to your faith."
As Jesus is the only Savior *from* sinning (Matt. 1:21), it does not follow that our salvation "depends on us," as you say. Rather, I find the synergistic truth to be that it depends on us to depend on Him and seek to perpetually follow Him by seeking to be led by the Spirit. So long as one's ultimate intention is to love God supremely and one's neighbor as oneself, one will be kept from falling.
Again, the difference here is slight in word, but radically different.
John E's note: In context "as he is" = love. The only way one may have confidence/boldness on the day of judgment is that one be like God--perfectly loving.
Empiress said: I believe that faith without obedience is not real. But it seems you are saying that if we struggle with sin, then we’re not really saved to begin with. Is that right?
John replies: No, that would not be how I would express this. I would simply say that if one sins, one needs to repent, and if one does not, one's heart (obviously) is not at that time right with God, they are not in fact pursuing holiness, and will not in fact be finally saved unless and until one repents (gets back on course). And one can "struggle against sin" without actually sinning. (a.k.a. temptation).
John E's note: In context "as he is" = love. The only way one may have confidence/boldness on the day of judgment is that one be like God--perfectly loving.
Empiress said: See, here I would totally disagree with you wrote. The ONLY way we can have confidence/boldness on the day of judgment is because of the cross. If God judged us based on our sinlessness, then no person could be saved. Our confidence comes from the work Jesus Christ accomplished for us on the cross, not anything we did.
John replies: Well then your disagreement really has to do with the Apostle John and not me. The plain teaching of this verse is clear: He that loves as God loves (by the power of the Spirit within, of course) will have boldness on the Day of Judgment.
Empiress continues: As Romans 4:5 says, “When someone, without working, puts faith in the One who justifies the godless, it is this faith that is reckoned as uprightness.”
Paul is saying it is this FAITH that is reckoned as righteousness, not our works…not our ability to be all loving without sin.
And again in Romans 11:6: “And it is by grace, it cannot now be by good actions, or grace would not be grace at all!”
Exactly…if it something we can do, if it our own “goodness” that saves us, then it would not be grace at all!
John replies: None of the above present an insurmountable problem for holiness theology. It is quite certain that sanctification is by means of faith as well as justification is. As I said in an earlier post, no amount of right living can ever make up for past sins, no amount of present obedience atones for one past instance of disobedience, and no amount of right living can possibly ever earn heaven. However, the Scriptures are clear that without the pursuit of holiness, no man shall see God, that faith without works is dead, and that he that does not love does not know God. And so ultimately your real problem is with the texts which contradict antinomianism. No one, upon entrance to heaven, can (much less would) ever rightly claim credit for their salvation. Living holy is the least one can do, in view of God's mercy (Rom. 12:1). When all is said and done, those who make it into heaven will feel compelled to cast down their crowns at His feet, giving Him all the glory for their salvation.
About my understanding of Matt. 5:8, Empiress said: I don’t think that is what the verse is implying because those who “mourn” and those who are “poor” are ALSO promised the kingdom of heaven, but that doesn’t mean that those who don’t mourn or aren’t poor won’t be saved. Additionally, mourning and being poor do not seem to automatically entail purity of heart.
John replies: The verse seems quite straightforward: The pure in heart shall see God. The other verses you allude to are not universally applicable promises to everyone in all situations, but apply specifically to certain situations (those who in fact are mourning or are poor), while "the pure in heart" seems quite clearly to be a universally applicable promise.
James 2:20 Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. 23Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. 24You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road? 26For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.
Will the professing Church of today hear that which the Spirit said the churches over nineteen centuries ago?
Rev. 3:1 “I know your works; you have a name of being alive, but you are dead. 2Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is on the point of death, for I have not found your works perfect in the sight of my God. 3Remember then what you received and heard; obey it, and repent. If you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come to you. 4Yet you have still a few persons in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes; they will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy. 5If you conquer, you will be clothed like them in white robes, and I will not blot your name out of the book of life; I will confess your name before my Father and before his angels. 6Let anyone who has an ear listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches.
Col. 1:27 "...Christ in you, the hope of glory: 28Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: 29Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)
http://revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 03/13/2003 8:23:21 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 3/13/2003 4:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Empiress,
The quotes below are excerpted from Charles Finney’s works. Links to the entire lectures are found below each. I hope these will help to clarify the position I am advocating here. Thanks.
2.) That Paul did not see any difficulty in the way of God's accomplishing this work, is manifest from what he says in the twentieth verse--"Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us," &c.
11. The Bible nowhere represents death as the termination of sin in the saints, which it could not fail to do, were it true, that they cease not to sin until death. It has been the custom of the church for a long time, to console individuals, in view of death, by the consideration, that it would be the termination of all their sin. And how almost universal has been the custom in consoling the friends of deceased saints, to mention this as a most important fact, that now they had ceased from sin! Now, if death is the termination of sin in the saints, and if they never cease to sin until they pass into eternity, too much stress never has been or can be laid upon that circumstance; and it seems utterly incredible, that no inspired writer should ever have noticed the fact. The representations of scripture are all directly opposed to this idea. It is said, "Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord, for they rest from their labours, and their works do follow them." Here it is not intimated that they rest from their sins, but from their good works in this life; such works as shall follow, not to curse, but to bless them. The representations of scripture are, that death is the termination of the saint's sufferings and labours of love in this world, for the good of men and the glory of God. But nowhere in the Bible is it intimated, that the death of a saint is the termination of his serving the devil.
But if it be true that Christians continue to sin till they die, and death is the termination, and the only termination of their sin, it seems to me impossible that the scripture representations on the subject should be what they are.
12. The Bible representations of death are utterly inconsistent with its being an indispensable means of sanctification. Death is represented in the Bible as an enemy. But if death is the only condition upon which men are brought into a state of entire sanctification, its agency is as important and as indispensable as the influence of the Holy Ghost. When death is represented in the Bible as any thing else than an enemy, it is because it cuts short the sufferings of the saints, and introduces them into a state of eternal glory--not because it breaks them off from communion with the devil! How striking is the contrast between the language of the church and that of inspiration on this subject! The church is consoling the Christian in view of death, that it will be the termination of his sins--that he will then cease to serve the devil and his own lusts. The language of inspiration, on the other hand, is, that he will cease, not from wicked, but from good works, and labours and sufferings for God in this world. The language of the church is, that then he will enter upon a life of unalterable holiness--that he shall then, and not till then, be entirely sanctified. The language of inspiration is, that because he is sanctified, death shall be an entrance into a state of eternal glory.
13. Ministers are certainly bound to set up some definite standard, to which, as the ministers of God, they are to insist upon complete conformity. And now I would ask, what other standard can they and dare they set up than this? To insist upon any thing less than this, is to turn pope and grant an indulgence to sin. But to set up this standard, and then inculcate that conformity to it is not, as a matter of fact, attainable in this life, is as absolutely to take the part of sin against God, as it would be to insist upon repentance in theory, and then avow that in practice it is not attainable.
And here let me ask Christians what they expect ministers to preach? Do you think they have a right to connive at any sin in you, or to insist upon any thing else as a practicable fact, than that you should abandon every iniquity? It is sometimes said, that with us entire sanctification is a hobby. But I would humbly ask what else can we preach? Is not every minister bound to insist in every sermon that men shall wholly obey God? And because they will not make a compromise with any degree or form of sin, are they to be reproached for making the subject of entire obedience a hobby? I ask, by what authority can a minister preach any thing less? And how shall any minister dare to inculcate the duty as a theory, and yet not insist upon it as a practical matter, as something to be expected of every subject of God's kingdom.
14. A denial of this doctrine has the natural tendency to beget the very apathy witnessed in the church. Professors of religion go on in sin, with out much conviction of its wickedness. Sin unblushingly stalks abroad even in the church of God, and does not fill Christians with horror, because they expect its existence as a thing of course. Tell a young convert that he must expect to backslide, and he will do so of course, and with comparatively little remorse, because he looks upon it as a kind of necessity. And being led to expect it, you find him, in a few months after his conversion, away from God, and not at all horrified with his state. Just so, inculcate the idea among Christians, that they are not expected to abandon all sin, and they will of course go on in sin with comparative indifference. Reprove them for their sin, and they will say, "O, we are imperfect creatures; we do not pretend to be perfect, nor do we expect we ever shall be in this world." Many such answers as these will show you at once the God-dishonouring and soul-ruining tendency of a denial of this doctrine.
15. A denial of this doctrine prepares the minds of ministers to temporize, and wink at great iniquity in their churches. Feeling, as they certainly must, if they disbelieve this doctrine, that a great amount of sin in all believers is to be expected as a thing of course, their whole preaching, and spirit, and demeanour, will be such as to beget a great degree of apathy among Christians, in regard to their abominable sins.
16. If this doctrine is not true, how profane and blasphemous is the covenant of every church of every evangelical denomination. Every church requires its members to make a solemn covenant with God and with the church, in the presence of God and angels, and with their hands upon the emblems of the broken body and shed blood of the blessed Jesus, "to abstain from all ungodliness and every worldly lust, to live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world." Now, if the doctrine of the attainability of entire sanctification in this life is not true, what profane mockery is this covenant! It is a covenant to live in a state of entire sanctification, made under the most solemn circumstances, enforced by the most awful sanctions, and insisted upon by the minister of God distributing the bread and wine. Now what right has any minister on earth to require less than this?
And again: what right has any minister on earth to require this, unless it is a practicable thing, and unless it is expected of him who makes the vow?
Suppose, when this covenant was proposed to a convert about to unite with the church, he should take it to his closet, and spread it before the Lord, and inquire whether it would be right for him to make such a covenant, and whether the grace of the gospel can enable him to fulfil it? Do you suppose the Lord Jesus would reply, that if he made that covenant, he certainly would, and must, as a matter of course, live in the habitual violation of it as long as he lives, and that his grace was not sufficient to enable him to keep it? Would he, in such a case, have any right to take upon himself this covenant? No, no more than he would have a right to lie to the Holy Ghost.
17. It has long been maintained by orthodox divines, that a person is not a Christian who does not aim at living without sin--that unless he aims at perfection, he manifestly consents to live in sin; and is therefore impenitent. It has been said, and I think truly, that if a man does not, in the fixed purpose of his heart, aim at total abstinence from sin, and at being wholly conformed to the will of God, he is not yet regenerated, and does not so much as mean to cease from abusing God. In Barnes' Notes upon 2 Cor. viii. 1, we have the following:--
"The unceasing and steady aim of every Christian should be perfection--perfection in all things--in the love of God, of Christ, of man; perfection of heart, and feeling, and emotion; perfection in his words, and plans, and dealings with men; perfection in his prayers, and in his submission to the will of God. No man can be a Christian who does not sincerely desire it, and who does not constantly aim at it. No man is a friend of God who can acquiesce in a state of sin, and who is satisfied and contented that he is not as holy as God is holy. And any man who has no desire to be perfect as God is, and who does not make it his daily and constant aim to be as perfect as God, may set it down as demonstrably certain that he has no true religion."
Now if this so, I would ask how a person can aim at, and intend to do, what he knows to be impossible. Is it not a contradiction to say that a man can intend to do what he knows he cannot do? To this it has been objected, that if true, it proves too much--that it would prove that no man ever was a Christian who did not believe in this doctrine. To this I reply:--
http://www.gospeltruth.net/1851Sys_Theo/st60.htm
True conversion to God involves the consecration of our, selves and of all that we have to him, so far as we understand what is implied in this. But, at first, converts are by no means aware of all that is involved in the highest forms of consecration. They will soon learn that there are certain things that they did not think of, and that they did not give up to God. At first, perhaps, all that was in their thought was, to lay their naked soul upon the altar, and give up their whole heart to God. But soon they may learn that they did not think of all their possessions and everything that was dear to them, they did not surrender all, and leave not a hoof behind. They surrendered all of which they thought at the time, but they were not fully enlightened, they did not think, nor could they think, at the time, of every appetite, passion, propensity, of every desire and affection, of everything they call their own, and which is dear to them, in the whole creation, to make a thorough surrender and delivery of them all to God. To gain such knowledge is a work of time; and growth in the favor of God is conditioned on making a full surrender and consecration to God of everything we are, and have, and desire, and love, as fast as these objects are presented to thought. As long as we exist, and knowledge increases, there is no doubt that we shall be called upon to grow in grace, by consecrating to God every new object of knowledge, of desire, and of affection, that we may come to know, and desire, and love, to all eternity. As you get new light, you must enlarge your consecration from day to day, and from hour to hour, or you will cease to grow in grace. Whenever you stop short, and do not lay and leave everything that you are, that you possess, or that you love, upon the altar of consecration, that moment you cease to grow in grace. I pray you let this saying sink deep into your hearts.
http://gospeltruth.net/1868Lect_on_Rev_of_Rel/68revlec22.htm
Also perhaps helpful is Finney's lecture on the Moral Government of God entitled, "Unity of Moral Action":
http://www.firesofrevival.com/theo09.htm
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 3/13/2003 6:09 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Empiress said: Here is the main theological difference I hear, so tell me if this makes sense.
The classical Protestant/Catholic perspective is that:
We are justified by faith. The result of our justification is our sanctification. However, our sanctification is a life long process and will not be complete until after death. We can expect to struggle with sin throughout our lives even while we grow in holiness.
What I hear the author of your tract saying is:
We are justified by faith but the result of our justification is IMMEDIATE and COMPLETE sanctification. If any sin exists in us after our justification, then we have not been truly justified and are not therefore saved.
John, can you give me a simple “yes” or “no” on whether this is a fair summary? Your answer confused me.
John Earp said: quote:
Perhaps the following question will help to define your own position: Are you saying that a believer may sin however much he wishes and yet remain justified by faith?
It depends. I would say a believer could potentially fall into sin continually, repent, be forgiven, and remain justified by faith throughout their lives. However, if they are sinning and feel no regret and do not repent, then it would be cause to question whether they are truly in the process of being sanctified. Giving up the pursuit of holiness is cause for question indeed.
Can you tell me how my response to your question is the same or different from your view?
quote:
Empiress said: I certainly agree with 1 John 2:1, but I do not hear the author giving any leeway for sin other than sin that is “unintentional.” Would you say that we can sin “intentionally” and still be justified/saved?
Again, for clarity, could you respond with a “yes” or “no” to my question? I do not understand your response.
quote:
John replies: As I understand salvation, scripturally speaking, to be a process, and to essentially consist in deliverance *from* sin *to* holiness, I do not follow the logic that says a believer can possibly be perpetually justified based on a one-time profession of faith. A person is yet "being saved" while this earthly life continues, and one must be saved from *all* their sins--each and every one, through repentance (confessing and forsaking each sin) and faith in Christ's atoning blood for forgiveness and cleansing. Or, as 1 John says, "If we confess our sins, (then) he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." That is, I do not perceive of salvation as a one-time "event" but a lifelong process.
I also believe that salvation is a lifelong process…yet we are still coming to different conclusions about what that looks like.
quote:
John replies: But to your question, I do not agree with the Augustinian/Calvinian idea that believers cannot help (but in fact MUST) sin daily in word, thought, and deed.
No one “must” sin daily, but it is clear to most that people do sin daily. The confession we pray in church every week assumes this:
”Most Merciful God, we confess that we have sinned against you in thought, word, and deed…by what we have done and by what we have left undone. We have not loved you with our whole heart, we have not loved our neighbors as ourselves. We are truly sorry and we humbly repent. For the sake of your Son Jesus Christ, have mercy on us and forgive us.”
According to your tract it sounds like anyone who honestly prayed this prayer regularly would be merely “feigning” faith in God because clearly they do not have a “pure heart” and are not without “intentional sin” on a regular basis. Would you agree?
John said:quote:
As I understand this issue, those whose ultimate intention (heart) is not to live above sin by the power of Christ within are in fact deceived if they think they are saved. And it appears that the NT writers certainly had no problem calling true Christians "holy."
The difference seems to be this:
Most protestant theologians would say that we can have the ULTIMATE intention (heart) to live above sin by the power of Christ but we may STILL sin because we are fallible beings with a sin nature. In other words, we will sin despite our best intentions (as St. Paul says, “I do that which I do not want to do.”)
It seems holiness theologians are saying that if one –truly- has the ultimate intention (heart) to live above sin by the power of Christ, they WILL be totally free from sin and will never sin deliberately.
Can you say simply whether that is a fair summary of one of the major differences we’re having here?
John said: quote:
I find the analogy of salvation as a journey to be helpful. A person on a journey from Los Angeles to New York City, so long as she keeps on track will arrive at the final destination. However, so long as the person stops, detours, or even turns back from the goal, they are by definition not headed in the right direction, and unless and until they turn around (repent) and get back on with the journey, they shall not arrive at the final destination. But just because one may have temporarily gotten off track (say, somewhere in the Rocky Mountains), does not mean they are instantly back at the start of the journey. What is necessary is simple repentance in order for them to get back on track.
How is this description any different from what I am advocating? This sounds like the process of sanctification I have described.
quote:
John replies: Anyone may be forgiven at any time for any sin (except for the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit--another topic of discussion), if the conditions of forgiveness are met (repentance and faith).
I am still confused. What would you say is the state of a person’s soul when they sin deliberately? Are they no longer justified? Does all a person need to do be justified again after they sin is repent and have faith? How often can one sin, repent, and be justified in their lifetime? Can they do that daily and still be saved?
quote:
Empiress said: I feel baffled by this because I find loving my neighbor to be the ultimate challenge. I want so much to love my neighbor and I beg God to give me love for my neighbors, but most of the time my neighbors drive me crazy and it is all I can do to remain patient with them. Even when I drive down the street and someone cuts me off, I have anger towards them and often say something like, “jerk” under my breath…and that isn’t love. But if what you’re saying is true, then I am feigning faith in God because I am not always in a state of loving my neighbor. Am I understanding you correctly?
John replies: I think it is wrong to confuse feelings with loving God and neighbor. To be certain, emotions are important, but I find emotions to be secondary effects of the ultimate choice. In other words, one does not have to wait for God to give one warm, fuzzy feelings towards others, but should simply choose to act in a loving way. And just because others may irritate us does not necessarily mean we don't love them. Jesus appears to have been quite irritated at others at times (even his own disciples at times), and yet He never sinned, never acted in a way that was anything less than a loving, godly way.
But I am not talking about mere feelings and emotions, I am talking about truly loving my neighbors as myself. The truth is, even though I want to love my neighbors “as myself,” I am selfish and constantly sin by doing that which will benefit me rather than my neighbor. Every time I do not let a person in traffic into my lane when they try to get in, I have failed to “love them as myself.” I find loving my neighbor as myself to be infinitely more difficult than keeping the 10 commandments.
quote:
Empiress said: And I don’t understand how that concept squares with this parable from Jesus:
Luke 18:9-14:
He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised others:
"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, 'God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.' But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me a sinner!'
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."
In this verse it is the one who acknowledges their sin that is justified…so sin cannot possibly disqualify us from justification/salvation. I am like that tax collector every single day and have to say, “God be merciful to me a sinner!”
quote:
John replies: This passage, while certainly accurately depicting repentance and faith does not require us to believe that this man "continued in sin, that grace may abound." So long as the publican retained his humble attitude, he remained justified. Would you say that if this man's heart became full of pride just like the Pharisee, he would remain justified perpetually based on this one instance of repentance and faith?
No, I would say that the moment tax collector started believing he was without sin, he was no longer justified. The sin of Pharisee was not pride but belief in the lie that he could be free from sin.
quote:
John replies: Jesus said, "This is my commandment, that you love one another..." As Paul said, "The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death." Jesus said that all those who "practice lawlessness" would be told, "depart from me..." It does not follow that Christians are not expected to follow any law at all. Much to the contrary, all the NT writers emphatically affirmed the moral law of God as being binding up all those who would be Christ's followers. Can you show any passage in the New Testament which implies that Christians are not perpetually obligated to love God supremely and one's neighbor as oneself?
Of course we are obligated to love God supremely and our neighbors as ourselves! We are obligated to do it, but our salvation is not forfeited when we fail to do so as long as we pick up, repent, and try again. But it is a lifelong process of trial and error! We –grow- in holiness, we are not made holy in a magical moment.
quote:
Empiress said: If humanity could not attain holiness and salvation through the Mosaic law, how can we ever attain it through the Law of love when that is infinitely more difficult???
John said: Nowhere in Scripture does God say his law (not even that of Moses) said to be impossible to keep. Does God command man, upon pain of eternal death, to do that which is impossible? The idea that God commands the impossible is one of the primary reasons I reject Augustinianism/Calvinism.
The whole point of Jesus and the cross was to show that we COULDN”T do it. We needed God. It IS impossible to be perfect and keep the law sinlessly…the point of Jesus was to show that “where the law failed” God provided another way…salvation by grace through faith. While we MUST continue to strive towards holiness, we know that when we fail, God, who is gracious, will forgive us…because our salvation is not dependent on us but on God.
quote:
Deuteronomy 30:11 “This command I am giving you today is not too difficult for you to understand or perform. 12It is not up in heaven, so distant that you must ask, ‘Who will go to heaven and bring it down so we can hear and obey it?’ 13It is not beyond the sea, so far away that you must ask, ‘Who will cross the sea to bring it to us so we can hear and obey it?’ 14 The message is very close at hand; it is on your lips and in your heart so that you can obey it.
And yet we see throughout the Old Testament that it WAS too difficult for people to keep the whole law and that they failed miserably, therefore God sent his only Son to redeem the world. IF we could have done it ourselves, why would we need Jesus?
What is the point of Jesus and the cross in your theology?
quote:
And God's commandments are not grievous or burdensome:
1 John 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. 3 For the love of God is this, that we obey his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome, 4for whatever is born of God conquers the world. And this is the victory that conquers the world, our faith.
That which conquers the world is our faith…not our ability to be sinless. We are to strive to live according to God’s commands, yes, but a failure to do so is not automatic forfeiture of our salvation. This is the distinction I am making.
John said:quote:
The following passage reflects perhaps as well as any can the vital relationship between faith and obedience:
1 John 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. 24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
There is no doubt that there is a relationship between faith and obedience. That is not what I am arguing. I am arguing the idea that occasional sin a Christian’s life does not mean that their faith is void, it merely means they are fallible. “Christians are not sinless, they’re forgiven.” These are two very different concepts.
quote:
Empiress: The heart of our disagreement is not whether Christians have an obligation to live morally. The disagreement is what our living morally will or not will ultimately accomplish. From what you’re saying it sounds as if our salvation DEPENDS on us living morally. I’m saying that our salvation DEPENDS on Jesus alone. We will strive to live morally once we’ve been saved, but we will still fail.
John replies: With that mindset, of course one will continue to fail. "Be it unto you according to your faith."
Are you saying you never fail?
quote:
As Jesus is the only Savior *from* sinning (Matt. 1:21), it does not follow that our salvation "depends on us," as you say. Rather, I find the synergistic truth to be that it depends on us to depend on Him and seek to perpetually follow Him by seeking to be led by the Spirit. So long as one's ultimate intention is to love God supremely and one's neighbor as oneself, one will be kept from falling.
I find this line of thought problematic because many people who have the best intentions have committed heinous sins and atrocities. .
quote:
Empiress said: I believe that faith without obedience is not real. But it seems you are saying that if we struggle with sin, then we’re not really saved to begin with. Is that right?
John replies: No, that would not be how I would express this. I would simply say that if one sins, one needs to repent, and if one does not, one's heart (obviously) is not at that time right with God, they are not in fact pursuing holiness, and will not in fact be finally saved unless and until one repents (gets back on course). And one can "struggle against sin" without actually sinning. (a.k.a. temptation).
Now, this sounds to me very much like the Roman Catholic doctrine that teaches that if one dies in sin without having confessed/repented, they will go to hell. If someone dies right after committing a sin but before repenting, are they not saved? Is life a bit like Russian Roulette in which we hope we will die at those moments when we are all confessed up? Certainly we can have no assurance of salvation if we take this perspective.
quote:
Empiress said: See, here I would totally disagree with you wrote. The ONLY way we can have confidence/boldness on the day of judgment is because of the cross. If God judged us based on our sinlessness, then no person could be saved. Our confidence comes from the work Jesus Christ accomplished for us on the cross, not anything we did.
John replies: Well then your disagreement really has to do with the Apostle John and not me. The plain teaching of this verse is clear: He that loves as God loves (by the power of the Spirit within, of course) will have boldness on the Day of Judgment.
And I could say your disagreement is with the clear teachings of the apostle Paul and not
with me. But in reality, we are both simply disagreeing with one another’s interpretations of these passages.
quote:
Empiress continues: As Romans 4:5 says, “When someone, without working, puts faith in the One who justifies the godless, it is this faith that is reckoned as uprightness.”
Paul is saying it is this FAITH that is reckoned as righteousness, not our works…not our ability to be all loving without sin.
And again in Romans 11:6: “And if it is by grace, it cannot now be by good actions, or grace would not be grace at all!”
Exactly…if it something we can do, if it our own “goodness” that saves us, then it would not be grace at all!
John replies: quote:
None of the above present an insurmountable problem for holiness theology. It is quite certain that sanctification is by means of faith as well as justification is. As I said in an earlier post, no amount of right living can ever make up for past sins, no amount of present obedience atones for one past instance of disobedience, and no amount of right living can possibly ever earn heaven. However, the Scriptures are clear that without the pursuit of holiness, no man shall see God, that faith without works is dead, and that he that does not love does not know God. And so ultimately your real problem is with the texts which contradict antinomianism. No one, upon entrance to heaven, can (much less would) ever rightly claim credit for their salvation. Living holy is the least one can do, in view of God's mercy (Rom. 12:1). When all is said and done, those who make it into heaven will feel compelled to cast down their crowns at His feet, giving Him all the glory for their salvation.
I am not advocating antinomianism which is the theoretical doctrine that teaches that we are free to IGNORE all moral living and laws, etc. I am NOT espousing that. I AM saying that while salvation entails striving towards holiness, the fact that we sometimes fail or deliberately sin is not evidence that we are not saved. Sanctification is a process, and it is a long and strenuous one that lasts our lifetime.
quote:
About my understanding of Matt. 5:8, Empiress said: I don’t think that is what the verse is implying because those who “mourn” and those who are “poor” are ALSO promised the kingdom of heaven, but that doesn’t mean that those who don’t mourn or aren’t poor won’t be saved. Additionally, mourning and being poor do not seem to automatically entail purity of heart.
John replies: The verse seems quite straightforward: The pure in heart shall see God. The other verses you allude to are not universally applicable promises to everyone in all situations, but apply specifically to certain situations (those who in fact are mourning or are poor), while "the pure in heart" seems quite clearly to be a universally applicable promise.
A better understanding of these verses is that Jesus is speaking about MANY kinds of people in these verses….the meek, the poor, those who mourn, the peacemakers, those with pure hearts, etc. These describe many different types of people and different dispositions…but all are “blessed” in some way. The “pure in heart” are not an excluded or even a superior “class” of people in this sermon, but merely one type among many.
quote:
James 2:20 Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. 23Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. 24You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road? 26For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.
Will the professing Church of today hear that which the Spirit said the churches over nineteen centuries ago?
The fact that works will accompany true faith is something we both agree upon. It seems what we do not agree upon is the idea that one must be totally free from sin in their heart in order to be saved.
Thanks,
~E
P.S. I just wanted to say how very much I appreciate this discussion. I have never delved into “holiness theology” and it was never taught to me in my graduate studies so this is really new territory for me. I’ve never interacted with anyone who held to it before. Thank you for dialoguing with me. This is really helpful to my own learning process.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 3/13/2003 6:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Following quote from http://www.firesofrevival.com/theo09.htm
quote:
It has been shown that selfishness and benevolence are supreme, ultimate, and opposite choices, or intentions. They cannot, therefore, by any possibility, coexist in the same mind.
It seems self-evident to me that these things do indeed coexist in everyone's mind.
At the end of this tract the author then says:
quote:
The only sense in which obedience to moral law can be partial is, that obedience may be intermittent. That is, the subject may sometimes obey, and at other times disobey. He may at one time be selfish, or will his own gratification, because it is his own, and without regard to the well-being of God and his neighbor, and at another time will the highest well-being of God and the universe, as an end, and his own good in proportion to its relative value. These are opposite choices, or ultimate intentions. The one is holy; the other is sinful. One is obedience, entire obedience to the law of God; the other is disobedience, entire disobedience, to the law. These, for aught we can see, may succeed each other an indefinite number of times, but coexist they plainly cannot.
So what is the time duration of exclusivity? If it is a nanosecond then I guess I can't really argue against his direct assertion based on my personal experience because I can't differentiate a thought in one nanosecond from a thought in the next nanosecond. To my conscious perception (at the phenomenological level) the thoughts seems to coexist.
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 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 3/13/2003 6:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Following quote from: http://gospeltruth.net/1868Lect_on_Rev_of_Rel/68revlec22.htm
quote:
24. Being less and less disposed to dwell upon the faults and foibles of others, is an evidence of growth in grace.
25. Being less and less disposed to speak sarcastically or severely, or to judge uncharitably of others. A growing delicacy, or tenderness in speaking of their real or supposed faults, behind their back, is an evidence of growth in grace.
Good stuff. Reminds me of the "have to give an account of every careless word" scripture.
So from previous tract we know that any unloving intention is sin and incurs the guilt of the entire law and any loving intention is obedience and is obedience to the entire law. But doesn't the very thought that we "grow in grace" suggest that we are constantly growing in having more and more loving intentions and therefore that we are constantly having less and less unloving intentions? Doesn't this imply that we have lots of unloving intentions throughout the day?
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
Edited by - Iconoclast on 03/14/2003 12:21:53 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 3/13/2003 7:11 PM (GMT -6) | | It seems to me that this whole movement against "sinnianity" is kind of an overreaction or over-focus against the basic idea that if one professes faith but isn't actually seeking a relationship with God then obviously the profession of faith is just lip-service. I call it an "overreaction" because unlike how Paul dealt with this issue in the early church it seems like the way it is being dealt with here is taking us right back to a legalistic doctrine of strict adherence to a "moral law". I don't see Paul saying anything like this in Romans 6. I see Paul calling them back to their relationship with Christ - back to the life that is to be found in Christ - back to the freedom FOR loving rather than the freedom FROM the law. Paul presupposes that they DO have freedom FROM the law but only FOR the purpose of loving.
The book "First Break all the Rules - What the World's Greatest Managers do Differently" makes this point very powerfully. The book shows that to try and do good by focusing on NOT doing bad, results in mediocrity. It turns out that poor sales people have call reluctance. But if you hire sales people for their lack of call reluctance you will not end up with very good sales people. The greatest sales people also have call reluctance - BUT they have other qualities that overcome this call reluctance and the call reluctance WITH these other qualities is what makes a great sales person.
Likewise, to try and do God's will by focusing on NOT sinning according to the "moral law" has been shown to produce really poor results (phariseeism and such). The only way we will improve in doing God's will is by first realizing that He totally loves us and that we have already been made perfect in His eyes and then from there by doing His POSITIVE command - love God and love one another. All ethics must be in total and complete service to this positive command. Any ethic that doesn't actually result in a loving action toward another is a false ethic and is therefore not God's will. There IS an absolute simplicity in obeying God's law - it is to simply do His will - to love one another.
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
Edited by - Iconoclast on 03/14/2003 12:24:13 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 3/13/2003 7:43 PM (GMT -6) | | A link that reviews and critiques holiness theology and Finney's thought in particular is here:
http://www.alliancenet.org/pub/articles/horton.finney.html
Here is a telling excerpt (bold mine):
------------------
"In fact, what is already observable up to this point is that Finney's theology hardly requires God at all. It is an ethical system based on general self-evident principles that men and women can discover and follow if only they make that choice.
The next domino to fall in terms of the classical construction was the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of Christ. The first thing one must note concerning the atonement, Finney insists, is that Christ could not have died for anyone else's sins other than his own His obedience to the Law and his perfect righteousness were sufficient for his acceptance before God, but it is legally impossible and unjust to substitute one person on behalf of others. That Finney's entire theology is driven by a passion for moral improvement is seen on this very point: "If he had obeyed the law as our substitute, then why should our own return to personal obedience be insisted upon as a sine qua non of our salvation?"36 In other words, if Christ fulfilled the conditions of our obedience and satisfied divine justice for our sins, why would our own obedience be a necessary condition of salvation? Here, Finney is careful to distinguish between ground and condition, as he is in the later discussion of perfection: the believer's perfect obedience is a condition, while God's mercy is the ground, of redemption. How God could be described as being merciful to those who, by their obedience, simply merited eternal life is another enigmatic feature of Finney's argument.
In line with the New Haven Divinity, Finney describes the atonement in governmental and moral rather than substitutionary language: "The atonement would present to creatures the highest possible motives to virtue. Example is the highest moral influence that can be exerted....If the benevolence manifested in the atonement does not subdue the selfishness of sinners, their case is hopeless."37 Notice again that the goal of the atonement is not the redemption of sinners from divine wrath, but a moving exhibition designed to exert moral influence to the end of subduing selfishness and the flesh. In other words, the work of Christ itself is a purely ethical category. The substitionary view of the atonement is explicitly rejected because it "assumes that the atonement was a literal payment of a debt, which we have seen does not consist with the nature of the atonement....It is true, that the atonement, of itself, does not secure the salvation of any one."38
Original sin, divine sovereignty, regeneration, and the substitutionary atonement pushed aside, Finney bravely faced his next challenge: the doctrine of justification sola fide, "by which," according to the evangelical faith, "the church stands or falls." As if he were entirely unaware of the sixteenth century debate between justification through an inherent righteousness and a justification through an imputed righteousness, Finney adopts a view of justification that is as Pelagian as the preceding foundation upon which it was erected.
First, in answer to the question, "Does a Christian cease to be a Christian, whenever he commits a sin?", Finney answers:
"Whenever he sins, he must, for the time being, cease to be holy. This is self-evident. Whenever he sins, he must be condemned; he must incur the penalty of the law of God....If it be said that the precept is still binding upon him, but that with respect to the Christian, the penalty is forever set aside, or abrogated, I reply, that to abrogate the penalty is to repeal the precept; for a precept without a 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....In these respects, then, the sinning Christian and the unconverted sinner are upon precisely the same ground."39
Finney was convinced that God required absolute perfection, but instead of that leading him to seek his perfect righteousness in Christ, he concluded that "...full present obedience is a condition of justification." The position taken by the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century was far more Augustinian: Sanctification, to be sure, preceded final justification; nevertheless, the former was always incomplete in this life and imperfections were covered by Christ's atoning work, mediated through the sacramental and sacerdotal ministry. Finney's gospel, however, is pure law. Regardless of his distinction between works as the condition and works as the ground, Finney embraced a works-righteousness that exceeded the Counter-Reformation position.
"But again," writes Finney, "to the question, can man be justified while sin remains in him? Surely he cannot, either upon legal or gospel principles, unless the law be repealed....But can he be pardoned and accepted, and justified, in the gospel sense, while sin, any degree of sin, remains in him? Certainly not."40 With the Westminster Confession in his sights, Finney declared concerning the Reformation formula, simul iustus et peccator, "This error has slain more souls, I fear, than all the universalism that ever cursed the world." For, "Whenever a Christian sins, he comes under condemnation and must repent and do his first works, or be lost."41 With regard to the Confession's insistence on the forensic character of justification, Finney makes the following reply:
But for sinners to be forensically pronounced just, is impossible and absurd....As we shall see, there are many conditions, while there is but one ground, of the justification of sinners....As has already been said, there can be no justification in a legal or forensic sense, but upon the ground of universal, perfect, and uninterupted obedience to law. This is of course denied by those who hold that gospel justification, or the justification of penitent sinners, is of the nature of a forensic or judicial justification. They hold to the legal maxim that what a man does by another he does by himself, and therefore the law regards Christ's obedience as ours, on the ground that he obeyed for us.42
If Finney had not read the Confession prior to his ordination, it is not likely that he gained great familiarity with it afterward, since federal theology insists upon "universal, perfect, and uniterupted obedience to law" as the proper ground of justification. It is Christ, however, whose fulfillment of this requirement forms the ground of the sinner's justification. Finney, on the contrary, insists that this should refer instead to the believer's obedience:
"The doctrine of an imputed righteousness, or that Christ's obedience to the law was accounted as our obedience, is founded on a most false and nonsensical assumption, for Christ's righteousness could do no more than justify himself. It can never be imputed to us....It was naturally impossible, then, for him to obey in our behalf. Representing the atonement as the ground of the sinner's justification has been a sad occasion of stumbling to many."43
Such remarks led Warfield to conclude, "When Finney strenuously argues that God can accept as righteous no one who is not intrinsically righteous, it cannot be denied that he teaches a work-salvation, and has put man's own righteousness in the place occupied in the Reformation doctrine of justification by the righteousness of Christ."44 Furthermore, the view that faith is the sole condition of justification is "the antinomian view." "We shall see that perseverance in obedience to the end of life is also a condition of justification," placing justification at the end rather than at the beginning of the Christian life. But that is not all: "Present sanctification, in the sense of present full consecration to God, is another condition...of justification. Some theologians have made justification a condition of sanctification, instead of making sanctification a condition of justification. But this we shall see is an erroneous view of the subject." Each act of sin requires "a fresh justification." Referring to "the framers of the Westminster Confession of faith," and their view of an imputed righteousness, Finney wondered, "If this is not antinomianism, I know not what is." The legal transaction is unreasonable to Finney, so he concludes, "I regard these dogmas as fabulous, and better befitting a romance than a system of theology." The doctrine of justification, therefore, is "another gospel." He concludes this section against the Westminster Assembly:
?The relations of the old school view of justification to their view of depravity is obvious. They hold, as we have seen, that the constitution in every faculty and part is sinful. Of course, a return to personal, present holiness, in the sense of entire conformity to the law, cannot with them be a condition of justification. They must have a justification while yet at least in some degree of sin. This must be brought about by imputed righteousness. The intellect revolts at a justification in sin. So a scheme devised to diver the eye of the law and of the lawgiver from the sinner to his substitute, who has perfectly obeyed the law."45
Finney understood the significance, therefore, of his break and he also exhibited a surprising grasp of the the Reformation position. His denial is not the result of confusion, it seems, but was born out of careful reflection, and he was so uncomfortable with the evangelical doctrines of imputation and substitution that he did not trouble himself with the Wesleyan-Arminian compromise. He recognized the implications and, unlike Wesley, found them unavoidable. Therefore, he went the entire distance to Pelagianism."
-----------
When I read some of Finney's quotes, it hardly resembles Christianity to me. I just don't get this!
Thanks,
~E
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 3/14/2003 2:18 AM (GMT -6) | | Again, are we going to take seriously the New Testament's call to holiness, or are we not? Are we called simply to be saved, or is there more?
From my own view, I think its rather easy to say, our call is to love one another and we are fulfilling God's command when we do that. But if Paul writes that we are called to holiness, does that do such verses justice, or does it simply gloss over them in the same way that classical theists gloss over verses about God changing? More importantly, are we not responsible to seek out what the holiness that we are called to?
It does not surprise me that a reformed believer such as Horton would call Finney Pelagian. Oh, that dreaded label! We all don't get what we aren't use to...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 3/14/2003 4:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Empiress
When I read some of Finney's quotes, it hardly resembles Christianity to me. I just don't get this!
Iconoclast
I agree. It seems more like Christian Phariseeism - recasting Christianity into obedience to a set of laws that lead to salvation just like the Pharisees recast the mosaical law into a formula for salvation.
honorman
Again, are we going to take seriously the New Testament's call to holiness, or are we not?
Iconoclast
Good question honorman. I think we should. The New Testament call to be holy is all about having faith in Christ's love for us and building a loving relationship with Him. So yes, we should absolutely take seriously our relationship to Christ and seek to obey His command - which is to love one another.
It seems to me that Finney's stuff has nothing to do with being holy but rather everything to do with being a "holy club" - trying to become holy through the force of our own righteousness - as though this was even possible.
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 | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 3/14/2003 6:59 AM (GMT -6) | | I would be interested in someone out there who is knowing Finney speaking up. Anyone?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 3/14/2003 3:21 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I would be interested in someone out there who is knowing Finney speaking up. Anyone?
Dr. Boyd refers to Finney as "the greatest revivalist in history":
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=376
And yes, Finney denied many things which are considered fundamentals to the Augustinian-Calvinistic definition of orthodoxy. Finney's theology is almost identical to Eastern Orthodoxy, except for the sacramentalism inherent to EO. So it really kind of boils down to how one defines orthodoxy, and whether or not one takes the call to holiness seriously. One thing is certain: Finney did not teach a self-salvation or a self-sanctification. Anyone who has actually studied his works (which I have for several years now) or who actually took the time to see what the man himself believed and taught (his complete works are available on the web free of charge at http://gospeltruth.net ) would not imply that Finney believed self salvation or self sanctification.
Finney's Sermon, "Justification by Faith":
http://gospeltruth.net/1837LTPC/lptc05_just_by_faith.htm
"Sanctification by Faith":
http://gospeltruth.net/1837LTPC/ltpc06_sanc_by_faith.htm
In any case, whether or not Finney (or whomever) was or is correct does not change the scriptures which plainly state the without holiness no one shall see God. Call it "sin police" all you want, it is nothing more and nothing less than the Bible's own clarion call to repentance, faith and perseverance in the resultant state of holiness which I have been endeavoring to show.
Romans 6:1 has been virtually rewritten nowadays to read, "LET us continue in sin, that grace may abound!"
I guess Paul was a part of the "sin police" when he instructed Timothy to "exhort, reprove, and rebuke with all patience and teaching."
I guess John was part of the "sin police" when he said in the plainest possible terms, "He that sins is of the devil," and "he that is begotten of God does not sin."
I guess Peter was part of the "sin police" when he wrote, "Be ye holy, in all manner of your conduct," for "he who has called you is holy."
I guess Jude was a part of the "sin police" when he wrote about those who would turn the grace of God into licentiousness, and exhorted the believers under his influence to "keep yourselves in the love of God," and to hate "even the garment that is spotted with the flesh."
And no doubt Jesus was the chief of the "sin police" when he said, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect," and that those who practice lawlessness would be ulimately told, "Depart from me...I never knew you."
In fact, I suppose we need to just rewrite the entire Bible if the politically correct have their way.
Edited by - John Earp on 03/14/2003 8:52:08 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 3/14/2003 4:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has been revealed, bringing salvation to all people. 12 And we are instructed to turn from godless living and sinful pleasures. We should live in this evil world with self-control, right conduct, and devotion to God, 13 while we look forward to that wonderful event when the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, will be revealed. 14 He gave his life to free us from every kind of sin, to cleanse us, and to make us his very own people, totally committed to doing what is right. 15 You must teach these things and encourage your people to do them, correcting them when necessary. You have the authority to do this, so don’t let anyone ignore you or disregard what you say.
Yup, more of Paul trying to be the sin police.
Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see God (Heb. 12:14)
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 3/14/2003 5:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Matthew Henry Commentary on Micah 6:6-8
Here is the proposal for accommodation between God and Israel, the parties that were at variance in the beginning of the chapter. Upon the trial, judgment is given against Israel; they are convicted of injustice and ingratitude towards God, the crimes with which they stood charged. Their guilt is too plain to be denied, too great to be excused, and therefore,
I. They express their desires to be at peace with God upon any terms (v. 6, 7): Wherewith shall I come before the Lord? Being made sensible of the justice of God’s controversy with them, and dreading the consequences of it, they were inquisitive what they might do to be reconciled to God and to make him their friend. They apply to a proper person, with this enquiry, to the prophet, the Lord’s messenger, by whose ministry they had been convinced. Who so fit to show them their way as he that had made them sensible of their having missed it? And it is observable that each one speaks for himself: Wherewith shall I come? Knowing every one the plague of his own heart, they ask, not, What shall this man do? But, What shall I do? Note, Deep convictions of guilt and wrath will put men upon careful enquiries after peace and pardon, and then, and not till then, there begins to be some hope of them. They enquire wherewith they may come before the Lord, and bow themselves before the high God. They believe there is a God, that he is Jehovah, and that he is the high God, the Most High. Those whose consciences are convinced learn to speak very honourably of God, whom before they spoke slightly of. Now,
1. We know we must come before God; he is the God with whom we have to do; we must come as subjects, to pay our homage to him, as beggars, to ask alms from him, nay, we must come before him, as criminals, to receive our doom from him, must come before him as our Judge.
2. When we come before him we must bow before him; it is our duty to be very humble and reverent in our approaches to him; and, when we come before him, there is no remedy but we must submit; it is to no purpose to contend with him.
3. When we come and bow before him it is our great concern to find favour with him, and to be accepted of him; their enquiry is, What will the Lord be pleased with? Note, All that rightly understand their own interest cannot but be solicitous what they must do to please God, to avoid his displeasure and to obtain his good-will.
4. In order to God’s being pleased with us, our care must be that the sin by which we have displeased him may be taken away, and an atonement made for it. The enquiry here is, What shall I give for my transgression, for the sin of my soul? Note, The transgression we are guilty of is the sin of our soul, for the soul acts it (without the soul’s act it is not sin) and the soul suffers by it; it is the disorder, disease, and defilement of the soul, and threatens to be the death of it: What shall I give for my transgressions? What will be accepted as a satisfaction to his justice, a reparation of his honour? And what will avail to shelter me from his wrath?
5. We must therefore ask, Wherewith may we come before him? We must not appear before the Lord empty. What shall we bring with us? In what manner must we come? In whose name must we come? We have not that in ourselves which will recommend us to him, but must have it from another. What righteousness then shall we appear before him in?
II. They make proposals, such as they are, in order to it. Their enquiry was very good and right, and what we are all concerned to make, but their proposals betray their ignorance, though they show their zeal; let us examine them: —
1. They bid high. They offer,
(1.) That which is very rich and costly—thousands of rams. God required one ram for a sin-offering; they proffer flocks of them, their whole stock, will be content to make themselves beggars, so that they may but be at peace with God. They will bring the best they have, the rams, and the most of them, till it comes to thousands.
(2.) That which is very dear to them, and which they would be most lothe to part with. They could be content to part with their first-born for their transgressions, if that would be accepted as an atonement, and the fruit of their body for the sin of their soul. To those that had become vain in their imaginations this seemed a probable expedient of making satisfaction for sin, because our children are pieces of ourselves; and therefore the heathen sacrificed their children, to appease their offended deities. Note, Those that are thoroughly convinced of sin, of the malignity of it, and of their misery and danger by reason of it, would give all the world, if they had it, for peace and pardon.
2. Yet they do not bid right. It is true some of these things were instituted by the ceremonial law, as the bringing of burnt-offerings to God’s altar, and calves of a year old, rams for sin-offerings, and oil for the meat-offerings; but these alone would not recommend them to God. God had often declared that to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams, that sacrifice and offering he would not; the legal sacrifices had their virtue and value from the institution, and the reference they had to Christ the great propitiation; but otherwise, of themselves, it was impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin. And as to the other things here mentioned,
(1.) Some of them are impracticable things, as rivers of oil, which nature has not provided to feed men’s luxury, but rivers of water to supply men’s necessity. All the proposals of peace but those that are according to the gospel are absurd. One stream of the blood of Christ is worth ten thousand rivers of oil.
(2.) Some of them are wicked things, as to give our first-born and the fruit of our body to death, which would but add to the transgression and the sin of the soul. He that hates robbery for burnt-offerings much more hates murder, such murder. What right have we to our first born and the fruit of our body? Do they not belong to God? Are they not his already, and born to him? Are they not sinners by nature, and their lives forfeited upon their own account? How then can they be a ransom for ours?
(3.) They are all external things, parts of that bodily exercise which profiteth little, and which could not make the comers thereunto perfect.
(4.) They are all insignificant, and insufficient to attain the end proposed; they could not answer the demands of divine justice, nor satisfy the wrong done to God in his honour by sin, nor would they serve in lieu of the sanctification of the heart and the reformation of the life. Men will part with any thing rather than their sins, but they part with nothing to God’s acceptance unless they part with them.
III. God tells them plainly what he demands, and insists upon, from those that would be accepted of him, v. 8. Let their money perish with them that think the pardon of sin and the favour of God may be so purchased; no, God has shown thee, O man! what is good. Here we are told,
1. That God has made a discovery of his mind and will to us, for the rectifying of our mistakes and the direction of our practice.
(1.) It is God himself that has shown us what we must do. We need not trouble ourselves to make proposals; the terms are already settled and laid down. He whom we have offended, and to whom we are accountable, has told us upon what conditions he will be reconciled to us.
(2.) It is to man that he has shown it, not only to thee, O Israel! but to thee, O man! Gentiles as well as Jews—to men, who are rational creatures, and capable of receiving the discovery, and not to brutes, —to men, for whom a remedy is provided, not to devils, whose case is desperate. What is spoken to all men every where in general, must by faith be applied to ourselves in particular, as if it were spoken to thee, O man! by name, and to no other.
(3.) It is a discovery of that which is good, and which the Lord requires of us. He has shown us our end, which we should aim at, in showing us what is good, wherein our true happiness does consist; he has shown us our way in which we must walk towards that end in showing us what he requires of us. There is something, which God requires we should do for him and devote to him; and it is good. It is good in itself; there is an innate goodness in moral duties, antecedent to the command; they are not, as ceremonial observances, good because they are commanded, but commanded because they are good, consonant to the eternal rule and reason of good and evil, which are unalterable. It has likewise a direct tendency to our good; our conformity to it is not only the condition of our future happiness, but is a great expedient of our present happiness; in keeping God’s commandments there is great reward, as well as after keeping them.
(4.) It is shown us. God has not only made it known, but also made it plain; he has discovered it to us with such convincing evidence as amounts to a demonstration. Lo this, we have searched it, so it is.
2. What that discovery is. The good which God requires of us is not the paying of a price for the pardon of sin and acceptance with God, but doing the duty which is the condition of our interest in the pardon purchased.
(1.) We must do justly, must render to all their due, according as our relation and obligation to them are; we must do wrong to none, but do right to all, in their bodies, goods, and good name.
(2.) We must love mercy; we must delight in it, as our God does, must be glad of an opportunity to do good, and do it cheerfully. Justice is put before mercy, for we must not give that in alms which is wrongfully got, or with which our debts should be paid. God hates robbery for a burnt-offering.
(3.) We must walk humbly with our God. This includes all the duties of the first table, as the two former include all the duties of the second table. We must take the Lord for our God in covenant, must attend on him and adhere to him as ours, and must make it our constant care and business to please him. Enoch’s walking with God is interpreted (Heb. 11:5) his pleasing God. We must, in the whole course of our conversation, conform ourselves to the will of God, keep up our communion with God, and study to approve ourselves to him in our integrity; and this we must do humbly (submitting our understandings to the truths of God and our will to his precepts and providences); we must humble ourselves to walk with God (so the margin reads it); every thought within us must be brought down, to be brought into obedience to God, if we would walk comfortably with him. This is that which God requires, and without which the most costly services are vain oblations; this is more than all burnt-offerings and sacrifices.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 3/14/2003 6:18 PM (GMT -6) | | John Earp
And no doubt Jesus was the chief of the "sin police" when he said, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect," and that those who practice lawlessness would be ulimately told, "Depart from me...I never knew you."
Iconoclast
Matthew 7:21-22
quote:
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
What does this text suggest that "practice lawlessness" means? It seems like He is going after the religious folks who are working really hard to follow the law but have made following the law more important than an actual relationship with Jesus. Isn't it surprising that Jesus goes after these folks so harshly? Why doesn't Jesus go after the prostitutes, the tax collectors and all the other practicers of lawlessness here? Why is Jesus so forgiving of normal sinners but so brutal to the religious folks? To a woman caught in adultery Jesus tells her that He doesn't condemn her - but He calls the religious folks a "brood of vipers."
Matthew 25:34-46
quote:
Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' and the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'
Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
I take it from this that "practice lawlessness" means being unloving to others and that being holy means going out of our way to be kind to others. So why doesn't Jesus mention anything about how well we kept the ten commandments?
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 | | Back to Top | | |
| 90 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:47 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
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|