How does one's theology positively or negatively affect how they deal with addiction?

[Skandelon]

Short answer, yes.

Part of God's decree is providing modern medical helps that affects the approach taken in the healing process to addiction.

Ok, so let's follow this line of thought to its logical conclusion. If God hasn't decreed for a believing alcoholic to receive medical help then isn't he in the same predicament I have already presented? He is in a jail cell where it APPEARS passivity would be the tendency all things considered.

 

[preacher4truth]

Please go back and re-read my previous posts and you will see that I specifically explained that the Calvinists don't believe that their doctrine "dismisses one's obligations" and I specifically explained:

"Claiming you are responsible for your choices is fine. I know that is what Calvinists believe. But I'm not questioning that point..."

Yet, you rebut my post as if I'm attempting to argue otherwise. Why is that?

And yet I can have a cordial, objective, and sincere conversation with a brother, like ZRS who is also Calvinist, without either of us resorting to ad hominem even once.. That is revealing.

It reminds me of that Sesame Street game "Which one of these is not like the other?" I guess I have to play that game when I decide who to engage in conversation on this board.

Your OP in totality betrays what you are claiming here.

You've painted Cals as those who don't own up, and painted yourself as not being a cal, that your theology is superior, and thus you are able to own up. Yet, you're NOT owning up right now.

Interesting.

 

[Skandelon]

The question is: Can we have a Calvinistic view on God's ordaining of all events including my sinful habits, struggles, and so forth and still be active in our overcoming sinful habits (or sanctification, etc...).

I believe the answer is not a simple one to understand but it still remains a "yes".

Well stated and I agree that most, if not all Calvinists, would say the same. I would have too when I was Calvinistic, but that may or may not change the more 'subconscious' response when you really believe it is all already been decreed. In other words, you can say 'yes' because it is the only practical way of approaching the issue, but know in your heart that passivity is logically where your view takes you.

In response to the first question I quoted God does have control over all things that come to pass including my addictions that I face (I assume we agree here as this relates to previous discussion on God's will). Therefore, when a struggle comes God has brought it, most often by secondary means such as through others or through the consequences of sin or something like that. He could have taught me, gave me wisdom, gave me different thoughts, desires, or anything that could have stopped me (That is where the intricacy of God's work becomes foggy). Yet, in any case God has given it to me and chose that I have to deal with it.

I would disagree with the idea that 'God has given it to you' as if he is the one responsible for your addiction, even if through secondary means. I don't believe that concept is supported biblically. He doesn't even tempt men to sin, and I don't believe His choice not to stop something is equal to his giving it or bringing it to pass. I think I understand what you mean, but I reject the concept of God causing/making/doing or in any way actively participating in the origin of evil.

I have to run, but I'll respond more later... thats for being the way you are. It is refreshing...

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Could it be that the unsavory do0ctrine of "Fatalism" is rearing its ugly & unchristian like head again? Are you attempting to apply a pagan doctrine to the the Christian Doctrines of Grace......say it isn't so!

The doctrine of fatalism is the rebellion of the carnal heart against this universal principle of our nature, seeking to excuse itself for its sinfulness by throwing the blame, the responsibility, upon the Creator (Gen. 3.12).

No sane mind can every fully believed in fatalism...certainly not a studied Christian. For by the very constitution of our moral nature, every man knows, as well as he knows his own existence, that he is a voluntary and accountable being & that he ought not to do many things that he does do, and that he ought to do many things that he does not do. Right!

 

[preacher4truth]

They didn't agree with my soteriological views. They objectively and cordially responded to my question and my perspective in a brotherly manner. They didn't resort to ad hominem and they didn't become combative. They simply engaged in a discussion from their different perspective. In short, they were the opposite of you. That is what I am celebrating!

In other words they addressed you in the same manner as I did, accept they agreed with your objective. I understand.

Your bottom line objective is to paint Cals as not owning up to their sins/addictions. Your whole story? Totally subjective.

In addition, you won't accept rebuttal from others against your subjective story unless it comes from a scholar, but will receive support for your subjective story without!!!! Why am I not surprised?

And I know why! This is why I am celebrating! You can't answer my responses which did in fact meet debate requirements, showing where you misrepresent, and why. Yet you cannot answer.

Yes, let us start a thread and only respond to those who follow our objective, and subscribe to our subjective lines. Anyone who rejects? Count them as an enemy, and force them to have to provide scholars to disprove our subjective stories!

Fact is, you're hiding.

 

[Skandelon]

Your OP in totality betrays what you are claiming here.

Yet I quoted my OP saying that I understand Calvinists 'explain it differently' that 'these are generalities' and that Calvinists don't deny personal obligation and responsibility...but you continue to close your eyes to these facts and turn things into something more combative...

You've painted Cals as those who don't own up

Actually I painted myself as one who didn't own up while I was a Calvinist and readily said OVER AND OVER that was MY experience and was seeking discussion regarding others experiences and perspectives considering the logical conclusions of the respective systems of thought, but, Rob, keep telling yourself what ever you need to in order to paint me as the monster you have created in your mind.

that your theology is superior,

Huh, and your not painting your theology as superior to mine? News flash, we all think our theological perspective is superior to the other, otherwise we wouldn't believe it to be true.

Interesting.

You know what is interesting, is that I can have a cordial and sincere conversation with one Calvinist right along side my discourse with you and you still can't see the obvious intent of my posts.

 

[preacher4truth]

Yet I quoted my OP saying that I understand Calvinists 'explain it differently' that 'these are generalities' and that Calvinists don't deny personal obligation and responsibility...but you continue to close your eyes to these facts and turn things into something more combative...

Actually I painted myself as one who didn't own up while I was a Calvinist and readily said OVER AND OVER that was MY experience and was seeking discussion regarding others experiences and perspectives considering the logical conclusions of the respective systems of thought, but, Rob, keep telling yourself what ever you need to in order to paint me as the monster you have created in your mind.

Huh, and your not painting your theology as superior to mine? News flash, we all think our theological perspective is superior to the other, otherwise we wouldn't believe it to be true.


You know what is interesting, is that I can have a cordial and sincere conversation with one Calvinist right along side my discourse with you and you still can't see the obvious intent of my posts.

Your OP never said that Calvinist do not deny personal responsibility! Nothing in it claims what you are NOW stating.

Provide proof where your OP states this false claim of yours. It is NOWHERE in your OP. In fact, quite the opposite is true.

In addition, your subjective story is not factual, nor is what you've claimed above factual, nor are these facts in anything you've said in your OP that a person could close their eyes to. What you say is simply not there.

"Explain it differently" and "these are generalities" do NOT equal "Cals don't deny personal responsibility." Feeble attempt to justify yourself.

Again, provide proof your OP says that Cals don't deny personal responsibilty. It's not there. Anywhere. I'll wait for this proof.

How is fessing up "to when you were a Calvinist you didn't own up", but now that you aren't a Cal you do own up any different than what I said? This is what I've said all along, you claim that being a cal, on does not own up, and until you became a non-cal, you weren't able to own up because of your theology (implied). This is nothing but blaming something else for your behavior, and a slam against Cal theology.

You further prove my point here; your attempting to show that unless one is non-cal, one does not own up or take responsibilty for ones behavior. Thanks for further substantiating this. Nothing in your OP shows otherwise. And nothing in your OP says or supports Cals as ones not denying personal responsibility.

Again, your OP does just the exact opposite, and this is the entire objective of your thread and OP in the first place, i.e., how ones theology negatively effects their behavior (Calvinism, according to you) and how ones theology positively effects behavior (non-cal theology, according to you.)

Fact is Charles, that your OP is a slight to and against Calvinist theology.

Interesting that the one Calvinist has been cordial to me. You? Not so much.

What does cordial mean to you? "Those who agree with me and play along while I paint Cals as unable, and irresponsible, and incapable of "owning up."'"

Non-cordial to you? Any person who disagrees with your OP and accusations toward Cals.

 

[Skandelon]

Your OP never said that Calvinist do not deny personal responsibility! Nothing in it claims what you are NOW stating.

This is my final response to you. You are wasting my time. In my first post I said, and I quote verbatim, "Even if you know the practicality of your theological system doesn't dismiss your obligations..."

What do you think that means, Rob? Let me tell you, and please pay very close attention:
1. "Your theological system" would mean "Calvinism"
2. "doesn't dismiss" means "does not deny"
3. "your obligations" means "your personal responsibility."

And in my second post in reply to Icon, before you ever posted your first response, I clarified this fact even further by writing, "Claiming you are responsible for your choices is fine. I know that is what Calvinists believe. But I'm not questioning that point."

You have ignored those facts even after my numerous explanations and references. You clearly don't want to have an honest and objective conversation. You want to be combative, misrepresentative and rude. I choose not to engage with such any longer.

What does cordial mean to you? "Those who agree with me and play along while I paint Cals as unable, and irresponsible, and incapable of "owning up."'"

Cordial means actually dealing with what I have said rather than creating stuff in order to label and dismiss me as being misrepresentative. And zrs hasn't agreed with my soteriology and he hasn't agreed that Cals don't "own up" because he is objective and honest enough to know that is not what I was arguing. Instead he is addressing my actual points and I've wasted more time than I should responding to you when I should be engaging him...

From now on forgive me if I don't reply to your post as I am placing you on my ignore list. I think this will be better for both of us. I wish you all the best. Good bye.

 

[Skandelon]

zrs, allow me to pick up where I left off...

God can enlighten my eyes to overcome materialism by revealing something far greater, that is, something eternal.

Is this 'enlightening' an irresistible work in the same manner that he brought you to faith, or do you believe He is just equipping you to freely choose?

So I do not believe Calvinism's logical end to dealing with struggles is passive

But you do affirm that if God decreed for you to recover that you will certainly recover and if He decreed for you to remain addicted that you will certainly remain addicted, right? How does that logically not lead one to accept passivity? I understand that you can reject that logic and choose to be active, but what I'm saying is HOW does that system of thought NOT lead one logically to passivity (i.e. see jail cell illustration again)???

I think you answer this question in the next quote...

You are correct to say that if God wills that we be trapped in a sin or a bad habit then we will not escape or if He wills that we be delivered that we will be delivered. No matter what He chooses, it will be done. I think looking at that in our little theological box can be deceiving because in practical application of Scripture (not Calvinism ) that is a narrow way to see it.

So, you agree that it is the practical application of this system, but that it is justified because it is also the application of scripture itself, right?

That means you have to choose to not do what scripture logically leads you to do, doesn't it? You have to choose not to logically apply the 'biblical truths' because if you do so then you will respond passively. Doesn't it stand to reason that scripture would anticipate this tendency and address it by telling us this specifically, if indeed it is a logical conclusion of the text which shouldn't be followed?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Like before, as a Calvinist, if I were struggling with a particular sin, I would have prayed about it, asked for forgiveness and asked God to change that part of me. Now, however, I would still do all that but I'd also take more active steps to change my behavior; like talk to a pastor/get accountability/confess to friends and put up barriers in my life to keep me from making those sinful choices again. Now, that may just be maturity because I was younger when I was a Calvinist and now I'm older, but in self reflection I also think it has to do with my theological perspective about free will and my role in the sanctification process.

This may well have been your view when you were a Calvinist, but it is certainly not the Reformed Calvinist position. 'Let go and let God' is a Wesleyan perfectionist concept. If you have read the Puritans (Owen, Gurnall, Watson etc.) on overcoming sin, you will know that they regarded the battle against sin as being one to the death (eg. Rom 8:13) and lasting all the believer's life.

Steve

Steve

 

[Skandelon]

This may well have been your view when you were a Calvinist, but it is certainly not the Reformed Calvinist position. 'Let go and let God' is a Wesleyan perfectionist concept. If you have read the Puritans (Owen, Gurnall, Watson etc.) on overcoming sin, you will know that they regarded the battle against sin as being one to the death (eg. Rom 8:13) and lasting all the believer's life.

I don't deny that is their claim, but my argument is that this claim isn't logically consistent with their view, as I explained in detail above.

Going back to the previous illustration: Is it logically consistent for a prisoner in a jail cell to attempt to get out if he truly believes that His release can not come unless the guard so chooses and that if he so chooses that it will certainly come to pass?

Contrast that with a prisoner who believes the guard desires his freedom and has provided all that is needed for his release IF the prisoner takes action.

One belief logically leads to passivity (even if that logic is denied, which it seems to be), and the other logically leads to action. Right or wrong and why?

 

[Benjamin]

Those of the free-will belief tend to blame themselves and seek help from others more readily. They know that their will is theirs and thus it is their responsibility to take the steps to change it with the help of God and others.

Again, I KNOW these are generalities, but having been one who held to both systems of thought I do recognize in me more of a willingness to take ownership of my behavior, choices and recovery than I did as a Calvinist. Even if you know the practicality of your theological system doesn't dismiss your obligations there is an affect on one who believes that their sinful habits and addictive behaviors was ordained by God so that it could not have been otherwise...and even more so when you believe the healing or recovery is completely dependent upon the same.

What say you? Do you find yourself or others reacting differently to sinful behavior and addictions based upon their theological views?

First, let me say to each his own when it comes to their theological position. As a matter of fact I once had a friend who was a very Calvinistic pastor. He’s no longer around though now. It seems he got caught up in an adulterous affair with the church secretary and this was going on for some time, although many were becoming suspicious. Finally, the suspicions spread and rumors reached his wife. When he got home that day he got into a huge fight with his wife and ended up hitting her so hard that she died. Later, after he had had been found guilty and was about to be sentenced the judge paused to ask him, “What was going on in your mind when you found out you had killed had your wife?” Apparently, he said, “I was thinking WHEW, I’m glad THAT is over with!”

 

[preacher4truth]

This is my final response to you. You are wasting my time. In my first post I said, and I quote verbatim, "Even if you know the practicality of your theological system doesn't dismiss your obligations..."

What do you think that means, Rob? Let me tell you, and please pay very close attention:
1. "Your theological system" would mean "Calvinism"
2. "doesn't dismiss" means "does not deny"
3. "your obligations" means "your personal responsibility."

And in my second post in reply to Icon, before you ever posted your first response, I clarified this fact even further by writing, "Claiming you are responsible for your choices is fine. I know that is what Calvinists believe. But I'm not questioning that point."

You have ignored those facts even after my numerous explanations and references. You clearly don't want to have an honest and objective conversation. You want to be combative, misrepresentative and rude. I choose not to engage with such any longer.

Cordial means actually dealing with what I have said rather than creating stuff in order to label and dismiss me as being misrepresentative. And zrs hasn't agreed with my soteriology and he hasn't agreed that Cals don't "own up" because he is objective and honest enough to know that is not what I was arguing. Instead he is addressing my actual points and I've wasted more time than I should responding to you when I should be engaging him...

From now on forgive me if I don't reply to your post as I am placing you on my ignore list. I think this will be better for both of us. I wish you all the best. Good bye.

Good, place me on your ignore list Chuck. This will leave you in bliss, and will leave you to not have to address my dismantling of your posts and subjective theories.

You're ignoring the fact that you've painted Cals as those who don't own up, and yourself, as one who does. You just don't like this part being addressed, but would rather trot along with others as though what you've said against Cals in your false representation of them is true.

Some people are just smarter than this, and won't let you slide with this misrepresentation.

No matter how you construe yourself, your OP denies what you are now saying. :wavey:

You're denying what you set out in your OP. That is, to attack Cals and Cal theology, and place yours above theirs, claiming Cals theology negatively impacts their behavior, and that non cal theology positively impacts their behavior. It's nothing more than you honoring yourself, while attempting to take down others in the process. If someone agrees with you, they are your friend, if someone exposes you, as I have, they are to you an enemy.

This is not only in your OP, but is the objective in your thread title:

"Cal theology has a negative impact, non-cals have a positive impact, please let me get by with this accusation, and don't address my subjective theory, or I won't play with you. And if you are going to rebut my subjective personal experience, you need to use a scholar to do so, or it is not valid."

Every honest person can see what you are doing, and that what I've said is valid.

As I said, and as you are now doing certainly by putting me on "can't handle" is hiding.

:tongue3:

 

[Skandelon]

First, let me say to each his own when it comes to their theological position. As a matter of fact I once had a friend who was a very Calvinistic pastor. He’s no longer around though now. It seems he got caught up in an adulterous affair with the church secretary and this was going on for some time, although many were becoming suspicious. Finally, the suspicions spread and rumors reached his wife. When he got home that day he got into a huge fight with his wife and ended up hitting her so hard that she died. Later, after he had had been found guilty and was about to be sentenced the judge paused to ask him, “What was going on in your mind when you found out you had killed had your wife?” Apparently, he said, “I was thinking WHEW, I’m glad THAT is over with!”

I've heard that in a joke about falling down stairs...

 

[preacher4truth]

This may well have been your view when you were a Calvinist, but it is certainly not the Reformed Calvinist position. 'Let go and let God' is a Wesleyan perfectionist concept. If you have read the Puritans (Owen, Gurnall, Watson etc.) on overcoming sin, you will know that they regarded the battle against sin as being one to the death (eg. Rom 8:13) and lasting all the believer's life.

Steve

Exactly.

His subjective personal 'cal' experience is not representative of Cals in general as he wants others to accept without question as if he is some authority.

Chuck believes his experience as a cal represents all other cals, but truly, his inability to, and not owning up to his own sin/addictions/personal problems then, as a cal, is not based in his theology, but contrary to this is based on his person.

For one to blame his not owning up to personal failures on saids theology is nothing but a a copout. One can't blame this on his theology, and should instead blame this on his own person.

Chuck wishes to paint Cal theology as having a negative impact on behavior (of course and as no surprise), and that he as a non-cal or arminian or whatever his theology, he wants to present it as glorious and positive. What a beautiful story! Why would it end otherwise?

Talking down about another, their theology, or whatever it is, is simply a person attempting to make themselves appear better than those they are putting down.

This entire thread is an attempt to cast a theology as having a negative impact on owning up/behavior/responsibiluty &c, namely against Calvinist theology.

 

[Gershom]

God cured me of it—He gave me a spot on my lung

God didn't give him a spot on his lung, RC Sproul gave him a spot on his lung by years of intentionally inhaling smoke.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

This may well have been your view when you were a Calvinist, but it is certainly not the Reformed Calvinist position. 'Let go and let God' is a Wesleyan perfectionist concept. If you have read the Puritans (Owen, Gurnall, Watson etc.) on overcoming sin, you will know that they regarded the battle against sin as being one to the death (eg. Rom 8:13) and lasting all the believer's life.

Steve

Steve

Id like you to show me where thats a Wesleyan perfectionist concept.

 

[Skandelon]

God didn't give him a spot on his lung, RC Sproul gave him a spot on his lung by years of intentionally inhaling smoke.

:applause::applause:

 

[glfredrick]

Id like you to show me where thats a Wesleyan perfectionist concept.

The concept of "let go and let God" is Keswickian, and indeed stems out of a Wesleyan worldview.

Why? Because it speaks to the "second blessing" (or second filling of the Holy Spirit) common in that Arminian practice, where it is commonly recognized that the first blessing or first filling is primarily by the actions or belief of a human choice. They realize that at some point God has to enter (or reenter) the picture and take charge in order to meet the obligations of Scripture that show a sovereign God.

We may have had that conversation here on the board, but not since I've been here to see it unless that thread came when I was not looking.

Here is an overview from a book (against) the Keswick doctrine:

Keswick theology—one of the most significant strands of second-blessing theology—assumes that Christians experience two “blessings.” The first is getting “saved,” and the second is getting serious. The change is dramatic: from a defeated life to a victorious life, from a lower life to a higher life, from a shallow life to a deeper life, from a fruitless life to a more abundant life, from being “carnal” to being “spiritual,” from merely having Jesus as your Savior to making Jesus your Master. So how do people experience this second blessing? Through surrender and faith: “Let go and let God.”

Second-blessing theology is pervasive because countless people have propagated it in so many ways, especially in sermons and devotional writings. It is appealing because Christians struggle with sin and want to be victorious in that struggle—now. Second-blessing theology offers a quick fix to this struggle, and its shortcut to instant victory appeals to genuine longings for holiness.

"Let Go and Let God? A Survey and Analysis of Keswick Theology"

Another paragraph from another source details the origins:

( http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/why-let-go-and-let-god-bad-idea/ )

People who influenced Keswick theology include John Wesley, Charles Finney, and Hannah Whitall Smith. Significant proponents of Keswick theology include Evan H. Hopkins (Keswick’s formative theologian), H. Moule (Keswick’s scholar and best theologian), F. B. Meyer (Keswick’s international ambassador), Andrew Murray (Keswick’s foremost devotional author), J. Hudson Taylor and Amy Carmichael (Keswick’s foremost missionaries), Frances Havergal (Keswick’s hymnist), and W. H. Griffith Thomas, and Robert C. McQuilkin (leaders of the victorious life movement). People who were influenced by Keswick theology include leaders of the Christian and Missionary Alliance (A. B. Simpson), Moody Bible Institute (D. L. Moody and R. A. Torrey), and Dallas Seminary (Lewis Chafer and Charles Ryrie).

That writer continues:

Keswick theology, however, is not biblically sound. Here are just a few of the reasons why:

1. Disjunction: It creates two categories of Christians. This is the fundamental, linchpin issue.
2. Perfectionism: It portrays a shallow and incomplete view of sin in the Christian life.
3. Quietism: It tends to emphasize passivity, not activity.
4. Pelagianism: It tends to portray the Christian’s free will as autonomously starting and stopping sanctification.
5. Methodology: It tends to use superficial formulas for instantaneous sanctification.
6. Impossibility: It tends to result in disillusionment and frustration for the “have-nots.”
7. Spin: It tends to misinterpret personal experiences.

Unfortunately, Keswick has been widely promulgated in Baptist circles, largely when pastors are exposed to conference speakers that give rousing sermons and the point sticks and goes home to the congregation. I've found it everywhere, taught by many who's primary theology would disavow what it stands for, and that largely because it "sounds" so pious.

 

[Iconoclast]

The concept of "let go and let God" is Keswickian, and indeed stems out of a Wesleyan worldview.

Why? Because it speaks to the "second blessing" (or second filling of the Holy Spirit) common in that Arminian practice, where it is commonly recognized that the first blessing or first filling is primarily by the actions or belief of a human choice. They realize that at some point God has to enter (or reenter) the picture and take charge in order to meet the obligations of Scripture that show a sovereign God.

We may have had that conversation here on the board, but not since I've been here to see it unless that thread came when I was not looking.

Here is an overview from a book (against) the Keswick doctrine:



"Let Go and Let God? A Survey and Analysis of Keswick Theology"

Another paragraph from another source details the origins:

( http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/why-let-go-and-let-god-bad-idea/ )



That writer continues:



Unfortunately, Keswick has been widely promulgated in Baptist circles, largely when pastors are exposed to conference speakers that give rousing sermons and the point sticks and goes home to the congregation. I've found it everywhere, taught by many who's primary theology would disavow what it stands for, and that largely because it "sounds" so pious.

Correct....it is sincere but sad...