Dead To Sin

[Jedi Knight]

HP: I certainly do believe in substitutionary atonement but certainly I reject the usupported Calvinistic notion of the literal payment theory.

Read the bible instead of calvins work might help clear your head. Jesus was a literal payment.......have you not read 1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself a RANSOM for all. Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

 

[Dr. Walter]

New Testament gospel preachers called upon their hearers to repent, believe, and confess Christ in baptism. Those who obeyed the gospel did all of these things. They were converted to Christ in this way.

It is too bad these things are not being done today in denominational Christendom.

Why is it that you can say this so clearly in black and white but inspired men can't? Where in the scripture does it say in equally clear language that preachers call upon their hearers to repent, believe, and confess Christ in baptism????

I read where they call upon their hearers to repent and believe AND be baptized. Since you can say it so clearly and easily why can't God inspire New Testament writers to say the same thing????? Unless, it is not there and the Bible teaches no such thing.

Again, please present ONE SCRIPTURE that teaches or gives an example where repentance and faith did not precede the act of baptism????? Just one?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JK: Read the bible instead of calvins work might help clear your head. Jesus was a literal payment.......have you not read 1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself a RANSOM for all. Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

HP: Sorry JK but your ignorance of theological notions such as the literal payment theory is showing. You apparently do not understand the arguments being raised and what is implied by that theory as opposed to other notions of the atonement. A great read for you would be the book called “The Atonement” by Albert Barnes. You can access it on line. :thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: Again, please present ONE SCRIPTURE that teaches or gives an example where repentance and faith did not precede the act of baptism????? Just one?

HP: This one is for the record books! DW and I agree on this point!:applause:

 

[Jedi Knight]

HP: Sorry JK but your ignorance of theological notions such as the literal payment theory is showing. You apparently do not understand the arguments being raised and what is implied by that theory as opposed to other notions of the atonement. A great read for you would be the book called “The Atonement” by Albert Barnes. You can access it on line. :thumbs:

You don't even know if your deceived.....but can discern theology? My Bad! :laugh:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JK: You don't even know if your deceived.....

HP: Because one admits to a possibility in their theology by no wise mandates they cannot know something to be true. The possibility exists my wife may not love me but I can know of certainty that she does. The possibility exists I may be deceived, but I can still know her love to be true.

Scriptures give us clear ways in which to examine ourselves to see if in fact we are in a right relationship with God. Here is one such verse JK.

1Jo 3:19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.
20 ¶ For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.
22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
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.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

& he did it in red too....LOL

 

[DHK]

I do not expect others to believe what the New Testament says about these matters. Denominational Christians are too closely tied to man-made tradition to believe the truth of the New Testament. They use the Bible when it supports their beliefs and practices, but they stick to man-made tradition when the Bible does not support their beliefs and practices. This is true of every denomination.

1. And others won't believe you.
2. What you call denominational Christians (many if not most) do preach and teach NT truth contrary to your lies.
3. They use the Bible to support NT truth, not tradition. Your confused. It is the RCC that relies on Tradition not Bible-believing solidly evangelical preaching churches.
4. To say that this is true of every denomination is an illogical fallacy. It is called a sweeping generalization which is impossible to prove. Have you been to every denomination, sub-denomination, those that you classify as denominations (such as IFB)? The obvious answer is NO. Thus you can't make that statement because you can't prove it.

And the wonderful thing about this post is that it is now impossible for you to try to come back and refute it with one of your cultish answers.

 

[Dr. Walter]

HP: I certainly do believe in substitutionary atonement but certainly I reject the usupported Calvinistic notion of the literal payment theory.

Ok, please explain what kind of "redemption" and "propitiation" you do believe in?

HP: Where do any of these verse state or imply we are dead in Christ? We are alive in Christ and dead to sin, or we certainly should be if our hope is founded upon the Rock.

I don't deny either. I believe we are alive in Christ in three basic applictions. Regeneratively we are alive in Christ as we have been "created in Christ Jesus" or new birth (Eph. 2:5,10). Judicially we are alive in Christ by imputation of his righteousness; experientially we are alive in Christ as we walk in the Spirit of Christ.

Likewise, we died in Christ to sin judicially as our sin was not imputed to us (Rom.4:8) but it was imputed to Christ just as his righteousness was imputed us. We died to sin symbolically in baptism (Rom. 6:3-4) and we die DAILY in Christ to sin as we crucify the flesh under the power of the Holy Spirit. Since Romans 6:2 is found in the Aorist tense of completed action it cannot be referring to the progressive daily crucifixion to sin but rather to our justified position in heaven before God seated in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:7).

HP: What? What was unleashed on Christ was in no way 'justice.' What are you talking about?

Sin voilates the justice of God by breaking his law. There is a penalty for breaking his law - the wages of sin is death. On the Cross Christ provided the propitiation for our sins thus satisfying the just penalty for breaking God's law. His death redeemed us from the wrath of the law by suffering that penalty in our stead -"He was made to be sin FOR US". He was not made a sinner, as he never sinned. Our sin was imputed to him rather than to us (Rom. 4:7) and he paid the debt of our sin thus satisfying the justice of God against sin.

 

[Jedi Knight]

The possibility exists I may be deceived

Thus how can you know the things of God....for the natural man cannot. Trying to have it both ways is nothing more than double talk.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim

HP: I certainly do believe in substitutionary atonement but certainly I reject the usupported Calvinistic notion of the literal payment theory.

DW: Ok, please explain what kind of "redemption" and "propitiation" you do believe in?

HP: Let the reader first understand that regardless how those supporting Calvinistic notions concerning the atonement, Scripture by no means presents it as a literal payment for specific sins as the Calvinist or those leaning hard towards Calvinism depict it to be. That notion is a philosophical theory, not a plain truth of Scripture.

DW has presented such a theory as fact when it is not, so I am first going to ask DW to support his claims and to answer some questions regarding it.

First, if a literal payment was made for specific sins, and it is obvious that all sins are not in the end remitted, is it not true that only certain sins could have been atoned for, and those of the elect only, if the literal payment theory is correct? Is it not true that if this is all done before we are even born that ONLY the elect have any chance whatsoever to be saved, and that apart from any considerations of any choices they have or will make? Is it not also true that if such a theory is correct there was NEVER any possibility of the non-elect ever being saved, necessitating deterministic necessity for the damned as well as for the elect?

Does the reader see and understand that if you have the predestination of the elect by whose sins were in fact remitted or paid for on the cross two thousand years ago that double predestination, i.e., the predestination of the damned to damnation by God as well as the predestination of the elect is a position that cannot be logically denied?
Is it any wonder why Calvin himself admitted to the necessitated belief of double predestination? He accepted it as a necessitated end to the theory of a literal payment as should all that believe it was such. To try and deny the logical consequences of such a theory is to cavil at reason itself.

DW, tell us plainly. Do you or do you not deny double predestiantion, the predestination of both the elect and the damned? If by some chance you would desire to deny the predestiantion of the damned, explain to us how the theory of a literal payment, to which you obviously subscribe, can avoid such an end?

 

[Jedi Knight]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim

HP: I certainly do believe in substitutionary atonement but certainly I reject the usupported Calvinistic notion of the literal payment theory.


HP: Let the reader first understand that regardless how those supporting Calvinistic notions concerning the atonement, Scripture by no means presents it as a literal payment for specific sins as the Calvinist or those leaning hard towards Calvinism depict it to be. That notion is a philosophical theory, not a plain truth of Scripture.

DW has presented such a theory as fact when it is not, so I am first going to ask DW to support his claims and to answer some questions regarding it.

First, if a literal payment was made for specific sins, and it is obvious that all sins are not in the end remitted, is it not true that only certain sins could have been atoned for, and those of the elect only, if the literal payment theory is correct? Is it not true that if this is all done before we are even born that ONLY the elect have any chance whatsoever to be saved, and that apart from any considerations of any choices they have or will make? Is it not also true that if such a theory is correct there was NEVER any possibility of the non-elect ever being saved, necessitating deterministic necessity for the damned as well as for the elect?

Does the reader see and understand that if you have the predestination of the elect by whose sins were in fact remitted or paid for on the cross two thousand years ago that double predestination, i.e., the predestination of the damned to damnation by God as well as the predestination of the elect is a position that cannot be logically denied?
Is it any wonder why Calvin himself admitted to the necessitated belief of double predestination? He accepted it as a necessitated end to the theory of a literal payment as should all that believe it was such. To try and deny the logical consequences of such a theory is to cavil at reason itself.

DW, tell us plainly. Do you or do you not deny double predestiantion, the predestination of both the elect and the damned? If by some chance you would desire to deny the predestiantion of the damned, explain to us how the theory of a literal payment, to which you obviously subscribe, can avoid such an end?

I think you admire John Calvin a lot! You sure do chirp about him a lot compared to scriptural reasoning. But if you cannot reason out passages I guess it's your best defense.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I have asked you kindly without any tone of disrespect to please give us your understanding of redemption and atonement but instead you simply attack what you imagine my position is. Hence, no answer to a polite question.

You make the unwarranted assumption that I studied Calvin before I studied the Scriptures. I have never studied Calvin's institutes to this day. So you create a straw man and destroy it.

Second, I do not believe that God elected anyone to condemnation as Adam did that by his choice as the official representative of the human race (Rom. 5:12, 18-19 "by one man's disobedience many were made")

Third, I believe election is only "to salvation" (2 Thes. 2:13) never to damnation (Rom. 8:28-31).

Fourth, Hebews explicitly states that Christ "having obtained" our redemption (Heb. 9) and by one offering sanctified us "once and for all".

Fifth, you have not answered my question. How can anyone have a meaningful discussion with you and not get frustrated with you when you won't answer questions however so politely asked and when you infer things you cannot possibly know is true???? What is the point to talk to you????

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim

HP: I certainly do believe in substitutionary atonement but certainly I reject the usupported Calvinistic notion of the literal payment theory.


HP: Let the reader first understand that regardless how those supporting Calvinistic notions concerning the atonement, Scripture by no means presents it as a literal payment for specific sins as the Calvinist or those leaning hard towards Calvinism depict it to be. That notion is a philosophical theory, not a plain truth of Scripture.

DW has presented such a theory as fact when it is not, so I am first going to ask DW to support his claims and to answer some questions regarding it.

First, if a literal payment was made for specific sins, and it is obvious that all sins are not in the end remitted, is it not true that only certain sins could have been atoned for, and those of the elect only, if the literal payment theory is correct? Is it not true that if this is all done before we are even born that ONLY the elect have any chance whatsoever to be saved, and that apart from any considerations of any choices they have or will make? Is it not also true that if such a theory is correct there was NEVER any possibility of the non-elect ever being saved, necessitating deterministic necessity for the damned as well as for the elect?

Does the reader see and understand that if you have the predestination of the elect by whose sins were in fact remitted or paid for on the cross two thousand years ago that double predestination, i.e., the predestination of the damned to damnation by God as well as the predestination of the elect is a position that cannot be logically denied?
Is it any wonder why Calvin himself admitted to the necessitated belief of double predestination? He accepted it as a necessitated end to the theory of a literal payment as should all that believe it was such. To try and deny the logical consequences of such a theory is to cavil at reason itself.

DW, tell us plainly. Do you or do you not deny double predestiantion, the predestination of both the elect and the damned? If by some chance you would desire to deny the predestiantion of the damned, explain to us how the theory of a literal payment, to which you obviously subscribe, can avoid such an end?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: I have asked you kindly without any tone of disrespect to please give us your understanding of redemption and atonement but instead you simply attack what you imagine my position is. Hence, no answer to a polite question.

HP: Sometimes one can best show you what they believe by discussing what they know is NOT the truth. There is more than one way to set forth what you believe is the truth. My views will become apparent as we go along.

DW: You make the unwarranted assumption that I studied Calvin before I studied the Scriptures. I have never studied Calvin's institutes to this day. So you create a straw man and destroy it.

HP: I have never stated or implied that you have read or even know who Calvin was. I really could care less. That does not deter the reasonable listener from making clear comparisons where the truth warrants such comparisons.

DW: Second, I do not believe that God elected anyone to condemnation as Adam did that by his choice as the official representative of the human race (Rom. 5:12, 18-19 "by one man's disobedience many were made")

HP: Adam was no such thing to the human race. That again is a false Calvinistic assumption, regardless who you follow after. Funny how the passage you make mention of Romans 5:12 and then simply overlook the reason why we are sinners like Adam, and it is not because he is our ‘federal head’ as Calvinism proclaims, but rather the Scriptures are clear: ”because all have sinned.” Period.


If in fact it is as Calvinism and yourself proclaim, that Adam was our federal head and all are sinners from birth as a result of that, double predestination rules whether you admit to it or whether or not you say you believe in it or not. It is logically necessitated by your belief. Now I am certainly glad you obviously see a problem with double predestination, but you are simply being logically inconsistent. But….. Oh those blessed inconsistencies.

If some are elected to salvation and the means for salvation is limited to them, (as you have clearly shown by their sins alone being atoned for via the literal payment theory, there is no other logical end but to believe all others have been created in such a state as for damnation to be their only end. To even consider the possibility of others being saved would contradict the very foundation of a literal payment for the sins of the elect. You have shown us absolutely nothing that would logically show us that the end of your beliefs can be deduced in any other fashion than double predestination.

DW: Third, I believe election is only "to salvation" (2 Thes. 2:13) never to damnation (Rom. 8:28-31).

HP: You cannot have one without the other if logic means anything to you.

DW: Fourth, Hebews explicitly states that Christ "having obtained" our redemption (Heb. 9) and by one offering sanctified us "once and for all".

HP: Certainly that is true, but how does that prove anything at all in relationship to a literal payment for the sins of the elect? One sacrifice made the way possible for all, not simply the elect, to be saved. To deny this is to deny that Christ died for the whole world. There is nothing in the verse mentioned to support a literal payment as opposed to making salvation possible for all. I would say that not one sin of one individual was literally paid for on the cross, but the way was made, the bridge was built whereby God could forgive every sin that has ever been committed if one fulfills the stated conditions for salvation. Repentance is the first condition man MUST fulfill in order to be saved. One repents in order to be saved, not simply because he has been saved. "Unles ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." That is a clear stated condition of salvation.

DW: Fifth, you have not answered my question. How can anyone have a meaningful discussion with you and not get frustrated with you when you won't answer questions however so politely asked and when you infer things you cannot possibly know is true???? What is the point to talk to you????

HP: I have been telling you and will continue to tell you how I believe. It will be shown by what I say I believe as well as by stating what I do not believe is supported by Scripture and reason. Don’t get impatient. I trust we will have many years to get to get to plumb the depth of our beliefs. I have posted my beliefs in many different ways, and if you stick to a discussion it will not be long until you will have a better understanding of my views and I of yours. Be patient. It will be apparent in due time. :thumbs:

 

[Dr. Walter]

You cannot take one verse (Romans 5:12) and ignore the context that explains that one verse. Repeatedly, Paul says it was by "ONE MAN's disobedience" that MANY were "MADE SINNERS" and condemned. You can no more deny his representative action negatively than you can deny "by ONE MAN'S OBEDIENCE" MANY shall be "MADE" righteous positively.

You are so concerned about fighting a philosophy that you refuse to bring the level of discussion down to the scriptural context.

HP: Adam was no such thing to the human race. That again is a false Calvinistic assumption, regardless who you follow after. Funny how the passage you make mention of Romans 5:12 and then simply overlook the reason why we are sinners like Adam, and it is not because he is our ‘federal head’ as Calvinism proclaims, but rather the Scriptures are clear: ”because all have sinned.” Period.

My logic is determined by the scriptures not vice versa as is yours. I don't go to the scriptures to bring them into alignment with a preconceived philosophy. You do not know my past. I hated what you call Calvinism and fought it much more aggressive than you do. I was not convinced of my position by Calvinism or by reading calvinistic literature as I opposed it from the day I had been exposed to it. I came to my position by reading through the gospel of John and by something you may not be familiar with. I was reading the gospel of John every night in order to find ammunition against calvinism but I ran into a problem - I ran into God rebuking me through the very gospel I had chosen to read to resist and repudiate Calvinism. That is something you do not understand and it was something I didn't understand until I experienced it.

I do not believe in double election and I am aware of the basis of your logic and it is not the scriptures as the scriptures make sin accountable to the sinner and its consequences. All mankind sinned in Adam when Adam sinned and verses 13-15 prove that. Death is the result of sin and yet death reigned where there was no law and death reigned where there was no sin like unto Adam's (willful sin). Infants die but death is the wages of sin. Infants die but without committing any individual and personal acts of commission. "By one man's disobedience" MANY were "MADE SINNERS." This biblical explanation has no place in your philosophy or soteriology.

If in fact it is as Calvinism and yourself proclaim, that Adam was our federal head and all are sinners from birth as a result of that, double predestination rules whether you admit to it or whether or not you say you believe in it or not. It is logically necessitated by your belief. Now I am certainly glad you obviously see a problem with double predestination, but you are simply being logically inconsistent. But….. Oh those blessed inconsistencies.

If some are elected to salvation and the means for salvation is limited to them, (as you have clearly shown by their sins alone being atoned for via the literal payment theory, there is no other logical end but to believe all others have been created in such a state as for damnation to be their only end. To even consider the possibility of others being saved would contradict the very foundation of a literal payment for the sins of the elect. You have shown us absolutely nothing that would logically show us that the end of your beliefs can be deduced in any other fashion than double predestination.

Your very line of reasoning attempts to paint my view as placing the blame upon God for sin instead upon the sinner. That is not my view nor am I logically forced to accept that view. First, because I am not a superlapsarianism as John Gill. Your fighting Gill and his logic. I am sublapsarian. Adam's sin condemned the human race as the whole race was in him acting just as Levi was in Abraham paying tithes. Adam was the embodiment of the human race and by "one man's disobedience many were MADE sinners." This statement is meaningless to your philosophy and soteriology.

Just as Jesus said, he did not come into the world to condemn the world because THE WORLD WAS CONDEMNED ALREADY. They were condemned "in Adam" which is proven by being born with a sinful nature which is manifested when capable of discerning right from wrong by willful actions and death the consequences. Infants die and death is the wages of sin and yet they have committed no individual willful act of sin - "by one man's disobedience" many were MADE SINNERS.

HP: Certainly that is true, but how does that prove anything at all in relationship to a literal payment for the sins of the elect? One sacrifice made the way possible for all, not simply the elect, to be saved. To deny this is to deny that Christ died for the whole world. There is nothing in the verse mentioned to support a literal payment as opposed to making salvation possible for all. I would say that not one sin of one individual was literally paid for on the cross, but the way was made, the bridge was built whereby God could forgive every sin that has ever been committed if one fulfills the stated conditions for salvation. Repentance is the first condition man MUST fulfill in order to be saved. One repents in order to be saved, not simply because he has been saved. "Unles ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." That is a clear stated condition of salvation.

First, not all are five point Calvinists. Some are four, some three, some two, some one. I beleive the Lord is the Savior of all men but especially those who beleive. He is the only Savior for the world but the gospel declares him to be sufficient to save whosoever will come. Nothing prevents the worst sinner on earth from being saved but their own free will to resist and reject the gospel of Jesus Christ and nothing obtains the salvation of any sinner but the free elective grace of God.

I have walked in your shoes with as much hatred for the truth as you have and fought it successfully against my college professors. However, I ran up against one Rabbi I could not deny or resist and he arrested me as clearly and as explicitly as He did another rabbi on the road to Damascus. All argument ceased when Christ revealed the truth. The rabbi on the road to Demascus really did not know who he was persecuting and neither do you.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: All mankind sinned in Adam when Adam sinned and verses 13-15 prove that.

HP: That passage proves no such thing. What passed upon all men???? Sin or death??? Are death and sin synonymous with you and or Scripture? Go ahead. Tell us that they are, just as you suppose. Furthermore, it tells us precisely while all fall into condemnation, because "ALL HAVE SINNED" not because Adam did. What utter nonsense you imbib.

We are physical descendants of Adam, and as such inherit his physical nature which includes mortality. There is not a solitary Scripture that promotes our sin as the sin of Adam. God states specifically and plainly states that no man is responsible for the sins of anther. Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

While we are in Ezek, here is another Scripture you would do well to consider. Eze 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

 

[Dr. Walter]

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Wherefore, as by HOW MANY MEN did sin enter the world? ONE MAN! By one man sin entered and death by that one man's sin. So death passed upon all men, for that "ALL HAVE" sinned. Aorist tense completed action in the past.

Look at verse 13. There is no sin where there is no law as sin is the violation of the law! Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses even when there was no law! They did not individually violate the law but died never the less - FOR WHAT SIN? For "all have sinned" in Adam.

Look at verse 14 - even those who do not willfully sin die! Why do they die for death is a result of sin? Infants are subject to death but have not sinned individually or willfully but yet die! Why? Because "all have sinned" in Adam.

Look at verses 15-19-

"For if through the offence of one many be dead" - v. 15

"For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one" - v. 17

"by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation" - v. 18

"For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners" - vb. 19

You are so married to your philosophical ideas that you simply ignore the repeated explanation of scriptures.

Does verses 15-19 EVER ONCE say that condemnation, death, judgement came upon all men because all men INDIVIDUALLY sinnned? But this is what you are saying! This is how you are interpreting the entire context. Your position must completely reject Paul's explanation from verse 12-19. Your position has to remove the words "by one man" and replace it with "by our own."

When you have to do scripture revision to support your philosophy you are obviously wrong.

Ezekiel 18 is deals with the proper and improper administration of capital punishment "IN ISRAEL" under the civil law - look at Ezek 18:3-5.

Anyone comparing your responses with my responses can easily see that you are fighting with Calvin not with me and in addition you are responding philosphically for the most part while I am responding by scripture alone. Put aside your philosphical arguments and look at the scriptures and deal with the scriptures exegetically and honestly for what they are saying not what you must force them to say to fit your philosophy or your axe to grind against Calvin.

HP: That passage proves no such thing. What passed upon all men???? Sin or death??? Are death and sin synonymous with you and or Scripture? Go ahead. Tell us that they are, just as you suppose. Furthermore, it tells us precisely while all fall into condemnation, because "ALL HAVE SINNED" not because Adam did. What utter nonsense you imbib.

We are physical descendants of Adam, and as such inherit his physical nature which includes mortality. There is not a solitary Scripture that promotes our sin as the sin of Adam. God states specifically and plainly states that no man is responsible for the sins of anther. Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

While we are in Ezek, here is another Scripture you would do well to consider. Eze 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

 

[DHK]

HP, I won't you to read this quote and consider:

The problem was Finney wrote Revivals of Religion while he was an ordained Presbyterian minister. This exposed his opposition to his own denomination’s theology. In addition, later writings confirmed that he believed in the possibility of sinless perfection for newly converted Christians,
the denial of the imputation of Adam’s sin and guilt,
the human ability to create for oneself a new nature,
the denial of the substitutionary Atonement, and
the power to manufacture revival by the application of specific techniques.
In other words, he denied large sections of the Westminster Confession that he had sworn to uphold. He and Asa Mahan (1799–1889), the president of Oberlin College, later developed these ideas into what is labeled “Oberlin theology.”

Finney’s ministry was unique. At a time when most pastors read their sermons, Finney preached without notes — and usually without preparation — rising to speak as the Spirit gave him utterance. Later he spoke from a skeleton outline.
Finney looked down on formal training. His preaching style was sometimes criticized for its harsh, judgmental spirit.
Finney practiced many innovations. Since he did not believe in original sin, he believed men could turn to God in repentance without supernatural intervention. Therefore, any measure that could elicit a decision for Christ was legitimate. Altar calls, the practice of praying publicly for unconverted people that were present, and the demand for instant decisions to follow Christ characterized his work.



Finney was outspokenly Pelagian. His other theological beliefs mentioned earlier further revealed his revulsion of theological training. One historian sums up Finney’s theology:

“The whole idea that an unregenerate man was governed by a fallen nature was all wrong.…

A decision of the will, not a change of nature, was all that was required to be converted. …

If conversion was the result of the sinner’s decision, and if the inducing of that decision was the responsibility of the preacher … then any measure that would bring the unconverted right up to the point of instant and absolute conversion had to be good”

http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200601/200601_118_Finney.cfm


You sir (HP), are a follower of Oberlin theology, a Finneyite. Every time you refer to someone's theology as being Calvinistic we shall call you a follower of Finney, one with Pelagian ideas who adapted the Oberlin Theology. If you want name-calling there it is.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

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?

 

[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?

I did research on Oberlin theology and the New England Movement long ago in Seminary. I only gave you a link so you could see for yourself. Dr. Walters, myself and others testify that we have not studied Calvin. I have emphasized to you that I am not a Calvinist. Yet you receive much glee in plastering the name Calvin throughout your posts and tagging all that disagree with you as Calvinist.

Well, I have news for you. You are of the Oberlin Theology persuasion, Pelagian in your stance, a Finneyite. So henceforth I will refer to you as a Finneyite, since you have as much pleasure in referring to us as Calvinists. We have to be fair and just you know. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Does this bother you?