Dead To Sin

[DHK]

DHK, are we to believe that every thing about a man or his theology is to be believed at the mouth of a mere man, which you have concluded are all liars? ( and you well may be true when it comes to the article you posted) You certainly are showing how gullible you must be. Why are you trying to derail this thread with these comments? If Finney’s theology interests you, why do not you search it out on your own instead of simply regurgitating the error of another?

You could ask the same question of Dr. Walter and Calvin; or myself and Calvin.
Are we to believe that every thing about a man or his theology is to be believed at the mouth of a man, which you have concluded are liars (and you well may be true when it comes to the posts you have made)?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

:smilewinkgrin:

DHK” We have to be fair and just you know. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

HP: I can tell you this, that you are not fair and that the article you referenced is not fair, but what is that to a confessed liar?? (sorry, but that is your stated position) I have read them myself and only draw inferences where I know for certain what they felt and see a clear connection between their writings and stated beliefs those of yourself and others.

You do as you so desire. Just remember. It was you that seem so bent out of shape when I point out the clear connection between your views and that of Calvin. You have been enflamed about such comparisons and have even edited posts and gave warnings considering those comments. Now are you going to do the very same thing you so detest in others???? Here is an interesting verse for you to ponder.

Ro 2:3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?"

Just one more for good measure. “Mt 7:12 ¶ Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”

Fire away if that is your desire!:thumbs:

PS, while you are at it, tell the list again that I hardly ever use Scripture but rather just my philosophy!! (I am not quoting DHK but that was clear insinuation as I recall)

 

[Dr. Walter]

Why not just accept the fact that two men hundreds of years apart can read the Bible and draw the same conclusions without knowing one another or reading/studying one another?

I gave you my personal testimony about how I came to the position I hold today. I wasn't looking for it, in fact, I was reading the gospel of John to repudiate it. I never read Calvin, I simply read the scripture and it jumped off the pages at me. I told my wife when we were reading the gospel of John as this was happening. I can fight the professors and students but I cannot fight God and I knew it was God tossing these unwanted statements at me as I read the gospel of John.

I didn't like the doctrine but I couldn't deny it and the more I read the scriptuers contextually the more clear it became that was exactly what the scriptures were teaching.

It is natural to believe God loves everyone, and died for everyone and is begging and pleading for everyone to come to him. That position is not abrasive even to the lost. However, such a doctrine hardly fits Peter's description of Paul's teaching on salvation when he says:

2 Pet. 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

There is nothing hard to understand about your doctrine. However, if you take Romans 9 at face value it presents very hard things that most people want to explain away in order to not merely soften Paul's word but interpret them in such a way that Paul is directly contradicted.

Paul plays the devils advocate against himself in Romans 9 and provides the would be objections to what he is teaching. If I were a betting man, I would wager that the objections are exactly what characterize your rejection of unconditional divine election.

1. It makes God unjust/unrighteous - What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?

2. It makes robots and denies human free choice - Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

3. This makes God the author of sin as He made us this way - Why hast thou made me thus?

HP: I can tell you this, that you are not fair and that the article you referenced is not fair, but what is that to a confessed liar?? (sorry, but that is your stated position) I have read them myself and only draw inferences where I know for certain what they felt and see a clear connection between their writings and stated beliefs those of yourself and others.

You do as you so desire. Just remember. It was you that seem so bent out of shape when I point out the clear connection between your views and that of Calvin. You have been enflamed about such comparisons and have even edited posts and gave warnings considering those comments. Now are you going to do the very same thing you so detest in others???? Here is an interesting verse for you to ponder.

Ro 2:3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?"

Just one more for good measure. “Mt 7:12 ¶ Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”

Fire away if that is your desire!:thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: Why not just accept the fact that two men hundreds of years apart can read the Bible and draw the same conclusions without knowing one another or reading/studying one another?

HP: Oh please DW. Calvinism and its tenants are known the world over. You and DHK are no islands to yourselves, and like it or not Calvin’s theology has had more of an influence on your thinking, and the thinking of DHK, than either one of you desire to admit to, cognizant of that influence or not.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW, what is really on your mind? Which passage do you desire the most to look at? Pick one and make your points. Is it Romans 9?

Here is a deal for you. You exegete the passage and I will show the list the philosophy that drives your exegesis.:thumbs:

 

[Dr. Walter]

HP: Oh please DW. Calvinism and its tenants are known the world over. You and DHK are no islands to yourselves, and like it or not Calvin’s theology has had more of an influence on your thinking, and the thinking of DHK, than either one of you desire to admit to, cognizant of that influence or not.

So you don't accept my own testimony that I was an adversary to Calvinism, fighting it, reading scripture to combat it and through reading the scriptures was converted to it? Think about it! I was engaged in repudiating it just as you are. I was converted to it by merely reading the scriptures as God empowered those scriptures to my mind and conscience. You were not there, were you? Why would I make this up and lie? As God is my witness, I am telling you the absolute truth. My wife knows that no one was more opposed to unconditional election than I was and no one fought it more vigorously. She was with me reading the gospel of John and the Lord did the same thing to her as he did to me.

It is amazing that all the fighting stops and all the rationalizations are set aside when you realize you are fighting God and not men. This is what happened to Saul of Tarsus on the Road to Demascus. If any man met him along the way he could and would have rationaling denied Jesus was the Christ and all who taught such were deceived. However, when Jesus confronted him, all arguing stopped, all rationale was put aside and all he could utter is "Lord, what will you have me to do." That is precisely what happened to me in the sense that I knew it was God confirming it to my mind and to fight was to fight God not the professors and other students.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: So you don't accept my own testimony that I was an adversary to Calvinism, fighting it, reading scripture to combat it and through reading the scriptures was converted to it?

HP: What does it matter when you accept a clearly Calvinistic position, none other than unconditional election?????

DW: Think about it!

HP: You need to ‘re-think’ it.:thumbs: If you believe that Scripture teaches unconditional election, you have accepted an untruth and a Calvinistic one at that. You did not so learn that from God, because Scripture does not teach any such thing. Pick your favorite passage and lets look at it.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Romans 9 is the clearest Biblical chapter on this subject that I can think of. However, I am not so sure that simply taking a text with the preconcieved battle plan to prove or disprove what the chapter says in regard to a certain point will be very objective and fair to the text.

Can you stick with the scripture and immediate context as definitive of the individual statements within the context? Will you place your philosophical arguments aside and just deal with the developmental context of thought? I can do that, but I have yet to see you do it? Can you refrain from charging me with calvinism every time I present an interpretation on a given text? I promise you that I will only give an interpretation that the immediate context and development of thought sustains and give my reasons based upon the context for any interpretation of a word or statement. Are you able to keep within a contextual based hermeneutics?

HP: What does it matter when you accept a clearly Calvinistic position, none other than unconditional election?????


HP: You need to ‘re-think’ it.:thumbs: If you believe that Scripture teaches unconditional election, you have accepted an untruth and a Calvinistic one at that. You did not so learn that from God, because Scripture does not teach any such thing. Pick your favorite passage and lets look at it.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: Can you stick with the scripture and immediate context as definitive of the individual statements within the context?

HP: You will have to demonstrate for me to see if that is a fair manner in which to discern the truth of Scripture.

DW: Will you place your philosophical arguments aside and just deal with the developmental context of thought? I can do that, but I have yet to see you do it?

HP: DW, I do not desire to be unkind, but you are asking the impossible, both for yourself as well as myself. Everyone, even DHK smilewinkgrin, has a philosophy either stated or implied. We were not devoid of all knowledge and wisdom from God when we started reading Scriptures. I would say that you could not understand the least truth from Scripture without a philosophical understanding of truth stated or implied. Philosophy has to do with seeking truth, and if one has no anchor of truth whatsoever before coming to Scripture such a one could not understand a lick of it.

God was at work in our hearts and minds before we heard or understood Scripture. Even the heathen who have not the Scriptures have some insight from God concerning truth. Are you suggesting that we should set aside the very foundation of truth granted to us by God before coming to Scripture, or that we should not take into consideration the very foundation of basic truth God grants to all men via first truths of reason, matters of fact and truths of immutable justice in order to come to a sound understanding of Scriptural truth? I would consider that a recipe for disaster of great proportions.

 

[Dr. Walter]

HP: You will have to demonstrate for me to see if that is a fair manner in which to discern the truth of Scripture.



HP: DW, I do not desire to be unkind, but you are asking the impossible, both for yourself as well as myself. Everyone, even DHK smilewinkgrin, has a philosophy either stated or implied.

Perhaps, I should have said it this way, "If correct exegesis of scriptures conflicts with your philosophical bias which will submit to which? What is your final authority? In other words what is the purpose for going to the scriptures if your mind is already made up in spite of what the Scriptures may say to the contrary? I realize this is a two way street but are you willing to submit philosphical bias to the test and authority of scriptures?"

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: Perhaps, I should have said it this way, "If correct exegesis of scriptures conflicts with your philosophical bias which will submit to which? What is your final authority?

HP: Now we are thinking on the same page.

Let me make this perfectly clear. God instilled truth, regardless of what realm it is to be found in, is my final authority. Conscience can never be ignored. Knowing full well that one may error as a philosopher or a theologian, I would not be too quick at simply submitting to one or the other. My task would be to see which one is in error, not to simply dismiss one for the other. The basis of ones philosophy should be centered on God given truths such as first truths of reason, matters of fact and truths of immutable justice, should they not? If one has no innate standard for truth via these means, how could one ever simply trust their theological conclusions???

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Scripture is a matter of interpretation, and is not simply a matter of reading and comprehension. It is foremost a spiritual book and must be spiritually discerned. It takes the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. Are we to think for a minute that we can ignore first truths of reason given to us by the same Spirit and end up with truth as we read Scripture? I think not. Truth compliments truth regardless of what realm it is found in.

Any man that believes all truth comes via Scripture is dreaming. Certainly there are certain truths that are found nowhere else, but Gods truth agrees with truth regardless of which means it is granted to us by. Again, all truth is not granted to us by reading the Scriptures. If it were so, the heathen would have no truth, and that would be directly contrary to Scripture.

 

[Dr. Walter]

It is important that you note the words "when in conflict with each other." That is the point I am speaking about.

HP: Now we are thinking on the same page.

Let me make this perfectly clear. God instilled truth, regardless of what realm it is to be found in, is my final authority. Conscience can never be ignored. Knowing full well that one may error as a philosopher or a theologian, I would not be too quick at simply submitting to one or the other. My task would be to see which one is in error, not to simply dismiss one for the other. The basis of ones philosophy should be centered on God given truths such as first truths of reason, matters of fact and truths of immutable justice, should they not? If one has no innate standard for truth via these means, how could one ever simply trust their theological conclusions???

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amen. If in fact we find conflict, we cannot, or at least should not, just assume that our interpetation of Scripture might not be in error. It well may be. I certainly have had to rethink some of my Scriptural interpretations and I am certainly still in that process. The same goes for philosophical notions as well. Our goal should be to harmonize both realms to the best of our abilities with the help of the Holy Spirit.

Just as an example of philosophical error (IMHO) would be the notion that some hold that the soul and the spirit of man are vastly different. Entering into this whole mix would be ones understanding of both as being different or basically one in the same. This is just an example.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

You know DW, You are right in that I do not really know you, and neither do you really know my heart. I would hope that somewhere in this conversation we might find just a glimmer of hope of which to built a common foundation of truth upon. I really mean that. :godisgood:

 

[Dr. Walter]

You know DW, You are right in that I do not really know you, and neither do you really know my heart. I would hope that somewhere in this conversation we might find just a glimmer of hope of which to built a common foundation of truth upon. I really mean that. :godisgood:

Reconciliation is always a worthy goal and building friendship is always better than making enemies.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amen. With that good note I will retire for the night. I would like to start a thread on the relationship between ones philosophy and ones theology before proceeding to any given text. Does that make sense? I have always thought such a discussion could be the very bedrock of understanding truth. Shall we give it a shot? If so you can start it if you wish or I will start it hopefully tomorrow evening. Fair enough?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Amen. With that good note I will retire for the night. I would like to start a thread on the relationship between ones philosophy and ones theology before proceeding to any given text. Does that make sense? I have always thought such a discussion could be the very bedrock of understanding truth. Shall we give it a shot? If so you can start it if you wish or I will start it hopefully tomorrow evening. Fair enough?

Philosophy can be an endless debate. Whatever happened to simply being guided by common sensible rules of hermeneutics and let the scripture intepret scripture? I am a meat and potatoes type guy. The Spirit bears witness with the word not human philosophies.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

This is meat and potatoes, trust me. I also had not noticed your thread on Romans 9. I just do not desire the discussion on that passage to be a rehash of the last discussions. I want to turn a new leaf. Bear with me. I want to address that passage but would you be so kind as to discuss with me on the philosophy/theology issue for a mile or so before I add my thoughts on that passage? I know you will have a better understanding of my approach to Scripture, and I of your views, if we walk together down that road for a space. We do not have to tarry that long on the subject, but rather just see if we can at least understand each other better. I promise I will get back to your position on Romans 9.

 

[DHK]

Amen. With that good note I will retire for the night. I would like to start a thread on the relationship between ones philosophy and ones theology before proceeding to any given text. Does that make sense? I have always thought such a discussion could be the very bedrock of understanding truth. Shall we give it a shot? If so you can start it if you wish or I will start it hopefully tomorrow evening. Fair enough?

Philosophy is but a vain man's imagination.
Scripture needs to be interpreted in the light of Scripture, with sound hermeneutical principles. John MacArthur gave some good principles to go by in the fourth chapter of his book "Charismatic Chaos." Here is what he wrote:

1. The Literal Principle
Principle number one we'll call the literal principle: the literal one. When we go to the Bible, this is so basic, we assume that God is talking to us in normal speech.

2. A Historical Principle
Now, when the Scripture was written, they understood what was said clearly.
Time has passed. Culture has changed. Circumstances have changed, and even language has changed. Modes of expression have changed. We have to reset it into its historical context.

3. Grammatical Principle
You go to a text of Scripture and you have to approach it grammatically. This is called syntax. Lexigraphy is the study of words, syntax is the study of the relationship of words.

4. The Synthesis Principle
The Old Reformers used the expression "Scriptura Intra Pratatum" (sp.). What that means is that Scripture is its own interpreter. And you use the Synthesis Principle. What does that mean? That I always interpret a given passage in the Bible in the light of the rest of the Bible.

5. The Practical Principle
The last question you ask is, "So what? What does it mean to me? What does it have to do with me? How does it apply to my life? But you never ask that question until you've gone through all the other steps.

Instead of philosophy, let's concentrate on "rightly dividing the word of truth."