• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Do Christians Have an Inner Struggle with Sin or the Flesh?

Do Christians Have an Inner Struggle with Sin or the Flesh?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Other


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Internet Theologian

Well-Known Member
Look, stop the name-calling. If my Sof F is based on Finney then it is obvious your is based on the Catholic Church..

Show me where I called you a name, or put an end to your fabrications. Thanks.

With all seriousness your doctrine is based off of Finney's beliefs. You should seriously look into it my friend. You know what they called his teachings, don't you? They gave it a title back in the day.
 

SovereignGrace

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Do they?
You attend a Reformed Baptist Church?
Do they have their own Statement of Faith or rely solely on the Westminster? or some other 17th C. document? L.C.or Faith perhaps?
Do they have their own constitution or pattern after one of the Puritans or maybe Spugeon's?
Are you still stuck back in the 17th century IT?
Why are you even using a computer? It is amazing that you have electricity. Does the Westminster CoF allow for that?
This one deserves 100 'dumbs'. Calling Bob Hope!!
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Show me where I called you a name, or put an end to your fabrications. Thanks.

With all seriousness your doctrine is based off of Finney's beliefs. You should seriously look into it my friend. You know what they called his teachings, don't you? They gave it a title back in the day.
Equating my beliefs with Finney's is name-calling enough, just as I would call you an "Augustinian.
To put an end to it here are some of Finney's beliefs as quoted by David O'Beale in his book, "In Pursuit of Holiness:

The pragmatic tendency was revealed in Finney’s attitude toward revivals: “Revival is not a miracle, or dependent on a miracle in any sense. It is a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means.” He justified the means that he used on the basis of the results he achieved. If his “new measures” persuaded men to make professions of faith, then they must be legitimate. (pp. 73, 74)

Finney assumed that God cannot justly require a man to do anything he is unable to do, and thus the law is brought down to the level of a man’s ability. Furthermore, if every man can be entirely sanctified, then society itself is also perfectible. Mahan and Finney trained scores of professional evangelists who were noted for their zeal for social reform… Pragmatism and Pelagian Perfectionism blended naturally into what became the Social Gospel. (p. 74)

Now, if you keep on equating my beliefs with Finney's, as stated above, you are both ignorant and a liar, and should not be posting here. Cease and desist.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
This one deserves 100 'dumbs'. Calling Bob Hope!!
Why is it dumb? Do you keep either one? the London CofC or the Westminster CofF?
If you say yes, I would say you are a hypocrite, unless you are a very unusual individual.

Here is what they both say regarding one point.
Westminster:
VIII. This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts. and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest, all the day, from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments, and recreations, but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.

London CofF
8. The Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men after a due preparing of their hearts,
and ordering their common affairs aforehand, do not only observe an holy (g) rest all the day,
from their own works, words, and thoughts, about their worldly employment, and recreations,

but also are taken up the whole time in the publick and private exercises of his worship, and in
the duties (h) of necessity and mercy.

The entire day is to taken up in "the public and private exercise of worship," etc
Is that what you do on Sunday for the whole day, every Sunday?
Or do you take time to watch the Suberbowl, any other TV program, go to the store for any item, any kind of recreational activity at all, etc.? Do you honestly keep the "Christian Sabbath" (falsely called), as these two confession of faiths have set out?

If not, why is it so dumb? You are the hypocrite that says you follow it.
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
This thread is going nowhere and has degenerated into a personality conflict.

This thread will be closed at 3PM Central Time.
 

Internet Theologian

Well-Known Member
Equating my beliefs with Finney's is name-calling enough, just as I would call you an "Augustinian.
To put an end to it here are some of Finney's beliefs as quoted by David O'Beale in his book, "In Pursuit of Holiness:

The pragmatic tendency was revealed in Finney’s attitude toward revivals: “Revival is not a miracle, or dependent on a miracle in any sense. It is a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means.” He justified the means that he used on the basis of the results he achieved. If his “new measures” persuaded men to make professions of faith, then they must be legitimate. (pp. 73, 74)

Finney assumed that God cannot justly require a man to do anything he is unable to do, and thus the law is brought down to the level of a man’s ability. Furthermore, if every man can be entirely sanctified, then society itself is also perfectible. Mahan and Finney trained scores of professional evangelists who were noted for their zeal for social reform… Pragmatism and Pelagian Perfectionism blended naturally into what became the Social Gospel. (p. 74)

Now, if you keep on equating my beliefs with Finney's, as stated above, you are both ignorant and a liar, and should not be posting here. Cease and desist.
Equating a persons beliefs with another persons beliefs is not name calling.

Your soteriological stance matches Finney's. I didn't say all of your teaching matches his, but most definitely you have gotten hand-me-down soteriology from his erroneous system.

In the above you quoted I doubt you understand what is taking place. Persuasion techniques are used to garner professions of faith and assure men of heaven. Here is an infamous one; 'Trusting Christ is the same as sitting in a chair, trusting in a chair.' Or this, that a person gets saved in the same way a person chooses a career, he simply makes a decision, he has the power within to do so.

Sound familiar?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top