The videos explain things well and as I’ve noted before with full detail and scripture, I am ANTI those stoops in buildings that some call an “altar”.
John 6:65 (New American Standard Bible)
|
Only those who is it granted by God continue to walk with His Son.
Related post: Charles Finney Proves How Terrible Doctrine Carries for Generations.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Independent Conservative - Copyright 2008 - Copyright Notice
[powered by WordPress.]
31 queries. 0.957 seconds
January 18th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
IC, why are you vexing me with the photo of this man on your website again?? LOL!!
January 18th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Wow. I thought Charles Finney was a giant of Christianity. Oh well. If you come up with anything bad about Dwight Moody or William Carey, I might not be able to take it!
January 19th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Can I compare “altar calls” to giving my confession to a Catholic priest? If so, then we have been deceived.
IndependentConservative reply on January 19th, 2008 at 4:23 pm :
Places you’ve been that are really into the “altar”. Did you get the impression they felt the Holy Spirit had a stronger presence on the “altar” than the back pew? And given that, why would anyone feel the Holy Spirit was in any inanimate object, like a stoop called an “altar” or a pew?
Why do I need to run to the front of the building in the presence of all to speak to God? That is if I want to pray.
If I wish to speak to the elders, why can’t I call for them without all the need to do so in front of all on a stoop? Why didn’t the apostles use this stoop technique and call it an “altar”? Because Jesus never instructed us to act in such a way, that is why.
To me, the stoop in a building that is called an “altar” is the idol nobody wants to admit is an idol. Some claim it’s just “symbolic”, well this “symbology” that was not engaged in by the apostles has certainly become a little piece of “idolatry” from what I see.
January 19th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
I now see that exposing your sins at the altar in front of man leaves them with the opportunity to expose your business to others. That’s why we must read our word continuosly when He said call no man your father and that your prayers should be done in secret. I remembered going to church and we were told one day if we don’t expose our sins by confessing, we could go to hell for it. I, and others have said things that I don’t believe I would tell my own mother or even this site. Knowing what I know now, my business is nobody’s business unless it was meant to be exposed for His glory by the natural move of the Holy Spirit.
IndependentConservative reply on January 19th, 2008 at 7:54 pm :
Well Acts 19:18-19 is something that was done willingly, regarding sin they were turning from at that moment. It was a display of their victory over the sin. If you read more of Acts 19, the context of their confession is apparent. And James 5:16 is not something to be used as a vice of compulsion, or to be used to learn secrets about someone, or to be used as some sort of mass broadcast in a fashion that would make someone uncomfortable. If someone desires to speak of an issue they desire prayer regarding or speak of an issue they are thankful to be delivered from that is one thing, but not how some of the pimps use it as a yoke. James 5:16 does not always require mass broadcast and some things are much better NOT broadcast in mass, but someone may wish to speak with a select individual or group of individuals, when seeking prayer to overcome.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
To add, the exposition of false prophets are to be said and known because they are not called and are not following the guidelines of scriptures, but your burdens should be known only to the Father.
January 20th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
The only reason we HAVE altar calls is because the historically and Biblically supported doctrine of Election has been jettisoned. If you believe that YOU choose God,then altar calls make sense. If you believe that GOD chooses YOU,then altar calls are nonsense.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Your remarks on Finney are not accurate or fair, based as they are on a few quotations taken out of context as found in the writings of B. B. Warfield. In fact, Finney did not teach a “simple, one, two, three” method of salvation. His sermons were not filled with stories and lacking in doctrine. What Finney criticized in preaching was a preaching that was aimless and left the sinner with nothing to do but wait for God to convert him.
The Bible is replete with exhortations to sinners to respond to the grace of God. They are told to repent, believe, make themselves a new heart, forsake their evil ways, be reconciled to God, etc. However, those same words, if found in the mouth of Finney, you would call “decisionalism”.
Finney, in fact, had a very clear theology of the sinner’s dependence upon the grace of God. Throughout his preaching and writing He reminded his hearers that no one will, in fact, repent, but for the grace of God. What he also told them, however, is that they had no right to wait for more grace before they repented.
Finney was not the first to call sinners to an immediate closure with God’s offer of salvation. What about Paul’s words to the Philippian Jailer? So far as we know the only instruction that man and his family had received, prior to their baptism was what Paul spoke to them that evening. How about the Ethiopian Eunuch? Phillip allowed him to make a profession of faith after but a short time of instruction while riding in a chariot! In fact, the book of Acts seems to present quick conversions as the rule!
Actually, most of Finney’s converts had probably had more Christian instruction prior to their conversion than those to whom the Apostles preached. What they had been told throughout their lives is that they must wait God’s time to be converted or labor long in prayer to be converted. All cavils aside, including those based on a few of Finney’s words taken out of context by his detractors among the Old School Calvinists, the converts of the revivals in which Finney participated were remarkably faithful and stalwart. In his “Autobiography”, which has been extensively annotated in recent years with plenty of corroborating contemporary testimony, Finney gives hundreds of examples of converts who were still bearing much good fruit in their later years. Besides these, he alludes to thousands of others who, though unnamed, he mentions, without fear of contradiction, as being sound converts.
I freely confess that what passes for evangelism today is but a mockery of what was practiced by Finney and his contemporaries, both among the Old and the New School evangelists of that era. Finney was painstaking and thorough in his probing of conscience and did not think it right to draw the gospel net until his auditors showed evident signs of being under deep conviction.
I really wish you, and many others who have taken up the cudgels laid down by Warfield and the Old School Calvinists, would do what Finney urges us all to do: fairly and thoroughly acquaint ourselves with the arguments a man may bring and answer those arguments rather than building and knocking down a straw man and claiming it is identical to our opponent.
IndependentConservative reply on July 23rd, 2008 at 10:42 pm :
Dear Mr. Healton,
It is good we agree that what is taking place today in many cases is bad. However, there are still a number of things we won’t hold agreement on. And although I doubt either of us will change the other’s mind, I share this with you just the same and pray the Lord’s will be done.
Salvation is NOT the work of man as Charles Grandison Finney said, but fully the work of GOD. If it truly is by God’s grace that we are saved, than it is the work of God alone and not the work of man. Certainly scripture has plenty of proclamations for men to repent, but only the elect are willing because only those given to the Son by the Father before the foundation of the world are the Lord’s and are granted God’s grace in order to answer the call to repentance, John 6:65. Which leaves it as the work of God alone.
The methods of Charles Grandison Finney were not nearly as effective as you proclaim them to be, but you can learn the truth for yourself in less than 30 minutes in this earlier post about the matter:
Charles Finney Proves How Terrible Doctrine Carries for Generations.
You claim that scripture features in the book of Acts: “seems to present quick conversions as the rule!”
Well lets take a little deeper look into the instances from that book which you’ve cited and see if the minister called for immediate closure, or if the sinner themselves requested such as a result of God’s grace moving them to that point.
Acts 8:25-40, I’m assuming you will take a moment to read that before reading the rest of my comment. Here are some things you seem to not take good note of:
1) The Ethiopian can’t be called some “quick convert”, because he was already reading the scriptures himself. He simply needed some help in understanding what He was reading.
2) It certainly was not the work of man, the Lord clearly sent Philip to the Ethiopian. The Spirit told Philip to approach the Ethiopian, it was not Philip’s idea.
3) The Ethiopian asked Philip to instruct him, asked Philip to sit with him. So it is the Ethiopian, not Philip who is pressing for dialog to continue.
4) In verse 36, who made the request for an immediate baptism?
Please show me where this passage of scripture supports your notions of the minister (Philip) calling for immediate closure? It was the one seeking repentance, because God moved him (the Ethiopian) to that proclaimed desire to repent. The Lord taking Philip there, the Ethiopian desiring direction and proclaiming faith on Jesus was nothing of Philip’s demanding, but fully the work of God alone.
Acts 16:22-40, again I am assuming you will take a moment to read that before reading the rest of my comment. Again some things you seem not to take note of:
1) Who speaks of salvation first? Is it Paul and Silas who called for immediate closure, or did the jailer fall before their feet, brought them out and then asked himself “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” It was NOT Paul and Silas who sought closure, but the jailer.
2) In response, Paul and Silas said what any Christian should say in telling him in response to believe on the Lord Jesus. This was a statement in response to a request. The jailer had been graced by God to desire repentance.
3) If this is a “quick conversion”, it is only because God caused the jailer to request how he might be saved the moment he got Paul and Silas out of the prison.
So again, I’m not seeing this call from immediate closure by the ministers (Paul and Silas), that you claim is so in line with the events you’ve cited from the book of Acts yourself. Rather, I see the sinners themselves pleading to be saved.
For me, this is not about Finney and his writings or actions as much as scripture. So I hope you can make a case based on the scripture you’ve asserted, that proves your point. Because I see the opposite of what you’re claiming.
If a minister preaches the gospel, those God wills by grace will respond. Without any strong pressure from the minister to do so.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:40 am
You make a good point about the earnest inquiries of both the Philippian Jailor and the Ethiopian Eunuch. Nevertheless, in neither case did the evangelist respond by telling them to wait for God to convert them or to plead with God to save them or to use the means of grace until such time as God might be pleased to regenerate them. These were the directions commonly given to anxious sinners in Finney’s days, to which he strongly objected.
After Peter preached to the crowd gathered on the Day of Pentecost, they were indeed stricken in conscience and asked Peter and the rest of the Apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” Peter gave them specific direction, as you may read there, but that is not all. It goes on to say that “with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, ‘Be saved from this perverse generation!’” (Acts 2:40) Then those who received his word (about three thousand) were baptized and were added that day to the Church. What is this if not strongly encouraging people to make an immediate decision?
Moreover, Peter’s words clearly assert the part of sinners in their own salvation. He tells sinners to “be ye saved” or, as the KJV puts it, “save yourselves”. You may, if you wish, frame this so as to preserve the requirement that all aspects of salvation are strictly determined by God but the fact still remains that Scripture teaches men play a part in their own salvation and are called upon, indiscriminately, to meet the conditions for justification in Christ.
Peter, in his second public sermon, likewise calls upon the people to repent and return, that their sins might be wiped away (Acts 3:19). Here, it is not preceded by any inquiry on the part of the people as to what they should do. Peter takes the initiative and tells them. The results follow immediately as many believed his word. (4:4)
Finney’s usual method was not to draw the gospel net until the people showed evidence of being anxious for their souls and despairing of self-salvation. This is why he conducted “protracted meetings”, that is, a series of meetings in which the full ground of conviction and need for conversion were covered. Please read his “Memoirs”. I suggest the complete, annotated version, edited by Garth M. Rosell and Richard A. G. Dupuis, published by Zondervan.
IndependentConservative reply on July 24th, 2008 at 10:53 am :
Mr. Healton,
Have you seen anywhere in the presentations I’ve offered or on this blog were it was ever asserted that we not respond as Philip, Paul and Silas? I also don’t promote the “salvation is the work of man” doctrine Finney promoted either. Again I say to you, my stance is on scripture. You have failed to show via your own examples (Acts 8:25-40 and Acts 16:22-40) what you claimed.
Again you are making things up that are not in scripture. This time with Acts 2. Peter responded to a request of what to do, he did not press an immediate decision. Their hearts were already pricked. They were already being repentant. Don’t you realize that God had already worked in their hearts at the point they were pricked and believing what Peter was saying? They were bearing the fruit of faith in asking what to do and believing.
And so you do promote the error of Finney and you assert salvation is the work of man. As if man does something to save himself. Let me show you what scripture says to your wrong teaching.
1 Corinthians 15:10 (New American Standard Bible)
Notice Paul affirms of himself is total depravity, it is not him, but the grace of God with him that enabled him to teach Christ crucified and raised from the dead.
As is noted in Romans 3, none are righteous, none seek for God. You claim man plays a role in this, which is untrue, because man can’t save himself, but only by God’s grace is anyone saved. Those able to respond to a call to “save themselves” have already received God’s grace in order to respond, again proving it was God alone who worked in them. You are trying to claim you of some small little work of yourself brought about your own salvation, when all are dead, dead, till God brings life as He chooses, through Christ by His Spirit, Ephesians 2. (Read that and understand anyone who is honestly saved did nothing of themselves to bring it about.)
See how Paul explains the details to Timothy.
2 Timothy 2:24-26 (New American Standard Bible)
Notice, God as He wills grants repentance. Those granted repentance are lead to knowledge of the truth, this is not a work of themselves. Then they come to their senses, this is where we see someone who is already convicted seeking repentance, God’s grace has already moved them, it was not their own work, but the gift of God, to one who was DEAD. A dead man can’t raise himself. A dead man can’t even beg for his own life. It is God who has moved on those who come to their senses and confess Christ. You are trying to promote what you are seeing in the natural and ignoring that it is God alone who performs the work. You are promoting a doctrine of the flesh, when the flesh is dead. Any that show any signs of life only do so because of what grace God has granted them. Not the work of man, but of God alone.
Acts 3 - Acts 4:1-14, Yes and I knew eventually you’d find something where an Apostle actually called for repentance. Now we see a miracle was performed and everyone was standing in amazement of how and why. And Peter gave a sermon and the fact they needed to repent. However we see the responses varied from continued interest, to hating him. This is because we know God had given grace to some and not to others. Does this mean the repentance was the work of those who listened to Peter? NO! See what I’ve already explained for you above in this comment. It was the work of God.
Did Peter take some stoop and proclaim it was an “altar” and tell people to go plant their faces on it? No. He tells them the message of Christ and from there those given grace responded. Was this “salvation” the “work of man”, no.
Finney like you promote somehow man brings his own salvation. Claiming it is the work of man. As if you do God some favor of yourself. That is the issue, that and these assertions that some stoop be proclaimed an “altar” for someone to run to as if God rest in a stoop.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
I think you have not followed my argument closely enough. I did not say that you gave false instruction to inquiring sinners. I was simply making clear what false instructions were current in Finney’s day and to which he took exception. You cannot understand Finney out of the context of early 19th century Reformed practice. Actually, I counted on the probability that you would have shared with Finney at least a reservation about the kind of instructions I gave as examples.
I also hoped to bring you a little closer to seeing that the language Finney uses about human ability, though you may reject the idea of free will, can still be used with propriety. I showed that the Scripture uses such language. For argument’s sake, I granted the idea of God’s absolute determinacy in the salvation of sinners. Most Calvinists that I know of do not dispute that language such as Finney used is, on the surface of it, contrary to Scripture. They certainly reject his doctrine of natural ability but to say that we may only refer to God’s agency in the salvation of sinners is unreasonable and contrary to many examples in Scripture.
You must admit that the Scriptures do not always and immediately insist on God’s agency in turning people to Himself when speaking of man’s agency in turning to Him. When Peter said, “Be saved (or save yourselves) from this perverse generation!” he did not immediately say, “but, strictly speaking, you will only do so if God causes you to save yourself.” I could multiply examples of this but this one alone should suffice.
I do not see why you cannot tolerate language, such as is used in Scripture, that points out man’s part in his own salvation. To use an analogy, if I said, “See, that trees limb is moving” and did not immediately add, “because it is being blown about by the wind” you, given your argument so far, would fault me!
Finney, as I have stated several times already and as you can confirm for yourself if you would read his writings, makes it very clear that no one will ever turn to the Lord without His grace and that no one can possibly put God in his debt, as regards salvation.
The real differences between Calvinists and Arminians, semi-Pelagians and Pelagians, are subtle, but profound. You are arguing way out on the ends of the branches where the differences are really not that great. In fact, Finney is not your opponent on that level. It is at the root, in the concepts of freedom and responsibility, that the argument is actually important and enlightening.
IndependentConservative reply on July 24th, 2008 at 2:52 pm :
I invite you to look up the original Greek text of John 3:8 and work out the full translation yourself. You might learn something.
I don’t know why you use the term “Calvinist” when you’ve never seen me use it. 1 Corinthians 3, I claim Christ alone.
Some feel pressure tactics and whatever might draw numbers is good. Some feel they choose Jesus. I disagree with all that.
If I disagree with scripture from your point of view, it is because Ephesians is something that you will not embrace in full unless the Lord wills. No it’s not me who disagrees with scripture, but you who desire to focus on man. You who desire to focus on the tree. You who desire to focus on the creations rather than the creator.
Romans 9:16 (New American Standard Bible)
I take full comfort knowing I am in the Lord’s hands. If you wish to claim your own hands any at all, I can only say to you the same as I would say to you if we were in agreement. The Lord’s will NOT YOUR WILL be done.
July 24th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Let me ask you this - Why do you not fault Peter for telling people to “be saved”? If it is wrong to use any language that implies human agency in salvation, surely Peter was wrong in this instance.
Also, for the record, one of the sentences I wrote in my previous post was not what I intended. I wrote, “Most Calvinists that I know of do not dispute that language such as Finney used is, on the surface of it, contrary to Scripture.” I meant to write, “Most Calvinists that I know of do not dispute that language such as Finney used is, at least on the surface, scriptural.”
As for you not wanting to be classified as a Calvinist I can only say that you and Calvin seem to agree on those points that particularly characterized his teaching. Yes, of course, neither of us would hold the views we do if we did not think that they were, in the first place, scriptural.
Both sides have a problem in the debate on determinism and freewill in the context of salvation and damnation. Those who believe God’s sovereignty necessitates sole agency have, in the end, to make God ultimately responsible for sin and the damnation of sinners. Those who hold that sinners freely choose sin and their own consequent damnation have to square this with the fact that salvation is wholly of God’s grace and that sinners have nothing to boast about it.
Both sides are jealous for the honor of God. Free-willers abhor the idea that God should be made responsible for sin and determinists abhor the idea that sinners can take any credit for their salvation. Both sides can find Scripture that tends to confirm their views and have to carefully frame their interpretations of Scriptures that appear, at least on the surface, to be contrary to their views.
I believe in the genuine freedom of the will, in part, because I think making God the author of sin is a greater evil than allowing that man may truly be said to play a morally real part in his own damnation or salvation. I believe that it is possible and reasonable to reconcile the Scriptures emphasizing God’s sovereignty in salvation with those that show man’s free agency. Moreover, God has placed in our minds the fundamental idea that responsibility is proportionate to ability. It is so fundamental that to deny it would be the equivalent, in the moral sphere, to denying the truth of the principle of non-contradiction in the realm of logic.
IndependentConservative reply on July 24th, 2008 at 8:55 pm :
Because you mishandle the words God gave to Peter. Unlike Finney, Peter never attributed salvation to be the work of man.
Peter understood the doctrine of election and God had him write it out for you.
1 Peter 1:1-5 (New American Standard Bible)
You claim I charge God with the fate of sinners, I respond to you from scripture.
Romans 9:19-24 (New American Standard Bible)
I don’t try and craft anything, I respect the sovereignty of God and leave it there.
You’re talking a lot of philosophical logic, not much scripture.
July 25th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I did not mishandle Peter’s words, but simply quoted his exhortation to the crowd to “be saved from this perverse generation.” Your quote from Peter’s letter, written three decades later, is not to the point. When Peter preaches to lost people, as evidenced in the book of Acts, he does not focus upon their need for God’s prevenient grace, though that would not have been improper. Rather, he focuses upon their responsibility to respond to God’s offer of pardon and peace in Jesus. So why do you fault Finney for speaking of the responsibility of sinners to repent and believe the gospel? Do you not believe that sinners are responsible to God? Are not the non-elect damned because they did not obey God’s law and refused, when informed, to be saved by His Son?
Finney taught predestination and the perseverance of the saints, as you may read from the chapters on those subjects in his “Systematic Theology.” He teaches that, under the covenant of grace, God has chosen particular persons for salvation and not others and that those thus chosen will persevere in faith and holiness to the end of their lives on earth. Are you surprised to learn this? Read it for yourself.
I do not refer to “philosophical logic” but simply to “logic.” Everyone, including you, uses logic when they argue even though they are completely ignorant of the theory of logic, just as everyone uses some grammar when they speak even if they flunked the subject in school. Whenever you appeal to Scripture as the basis of your argument you are using logic. You are saying that what what someone is saying is either consistent or inconsistent with what is said in Scripture. You are assuming the laws of identity and non-identity, the most basic laws of logic. I simply pointed out that there is also a simple, basic rule of morality, indelibly written by God on the minds of men, that responsibility is proportionate to ability. Just as we assume that whatever God says does not violate the laws of identity and non-identity, so we should assume that God’s moral governance of His creation does not violate the law of responsibility being proportionate to ability.
There are people who, despite the self-evident truth of the basic laws of logic, maintain that “A” = “non-A”. Among those are many of the adherents and teachers of eastern religions. They say that right = wrong and that non-being = being at the most basic level of reality. Likewise, there are people, Christians among them, who maintain that responsibility does not equal ability but that men may be held accountable for transgressions of God’s law when they had absolutely no ability to do otherwise than transgress. When the evident absurdity of this is pointed out to them, they shrug their shoulders and claim that God’s ways should not be judged by the canons of human morality. But God is the one who gave us the rule in the first place! He wrote it upon our hearts and requires us to follow that rule among ourselves.
Our Lord Himself says that the one who knew his master’s will and did not do it shall be beaten with many stripes but the one who did not know shall be beaten with few. He goes on to say that from everyone who has been given much, much shall be required. (Luke 12:47-48) This is in the context of final judgment. Responsibility is proportionate to ability.
If we fail to do something God knows would be for the best but has, for other good reasons, not allowed us to learn about, we shall certainly experience the adverse natural effects in this life (”few stripes”) but will not be judged for it in the next (”many stripes”). We shall be judged according to our knowledge and not for that of which we were unavoidably ignorant (see John 9:41; 15:22; Romans 1:18-21; 4:15; 5:13; James 4:17). Why is judgment proportionate to knowledge if not because knowledge of the right is necessary to our ability to do the right? So the Bible assumes man’s ability to do what is right and condemns him for not doing it.
Jesus said that the men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment and condemn His contemporaries because they repented under the influence of much less light; so, likewise will the Queen of Sheba condemn His generation. (Matthew 12:41-42) These heathen peoples were able to believe with far less revelation than was being given by Jesus to His generation and so this proved that the latter were all the more guilty. This again shows that judgment is proportionate to knowledge, and hence, ability.
Now, briefly, as for the passages you quoted: In 1 Peter 1:1-5 we find that predestination is conditioned by God’s foreknowledge. What did God foreknow? Did He not know who would, in fact, respond in faith to His offer of pardon and peace through Jesus Christ? So it was for the sake of these that He sent His Son. We are chosen “in Christ” (Ephesians 1). No one who does believe will have done so apart from God’s prevenient grace.
In Romans 9:19-24,Paul is dealing with the Jews who find fault with God for designing a plan of salvation that was based on their disbelief and used it to bring about the death of the Messiah. Despite the fact that this was specifically foretold in Scripture (Isaiah 52-53), they assumed that, being the “chosen people”, they would gladly welcome the Messiah and with Him inherit all the promises. What they objected to was having to believe that they sinned in rejecting Jesus. They assumed that Jesus’ death was proof positive that He was not the Messiah. So they tried to argue with Christians, “if this was God’s plan, why should we be condemned for it and have to repent of it?”
This was an obviously insincere argument and so Paul treats it with the contempt it deserved. God took the fallen, sinful “lump” and made from it two vessels: one for salvation and one for condemnation. How did He do this? He did it by bringing to them a Messiah that would be unacceptable to the majority of them. They sought salvation through the Law, so when God offered them salvation by grace, they balked. But are they now unable to be saved? No, for Paul pleads with them and prays for them, to be saved, as you may read in the remainder of the book of Romans.
God’s sovereignty is not at all compromised by man’ free will. God causes the wrath of man to praise Him. As a Judo master takes the force of his opponent and uses it to throw him, so God uses the freely-chosen evil of men and devils to bring about His plans for good. He does not cause or prefer them to live in sin but if they prove unwilling to repent, He will use them for His glory and the greater good. Knowing the end from the beginning, He includes all our free choices in His sovereign plan.
IndependentConservative reply on July 25th, 2008 at 5:35 pm :
The non-elect were already condemned.
John 3:18 (New American Standard Bible)
You seem to not understand the total depravity of man. Man does not start life in a “neutral” state. Man starts off dead, in sin and a child of Satan. Only the redeemed are born again and children of God. Man does not simply face hell for rejecting a Christian missionary, even the person who never meets a Christian missionary and never claims Christ is ALREADY condemned. It’s not just a matter of refusing “when informed”, but even if never meeting a Christian, still bound for judgement instead of eternal life. Because all died with the first Adam, 1 Corinthians 15:20-26. Man starts off dead and God saves as He wills.
When a call is made for salvation, the elect respond because they are the elect, the non-elect will reject it. The difference is that Peter knew it was all the work of God, that ALL deserve death, but God by His own choosing grants some the gift of life eternal. Finney was not some man just asking sinners to repent, he felt man controlled it. He not only was yelling for men to bow at a stoop, he was telling them they might lose their salvation and that the church would die without more “revival” and he even claimed that anyone who did not promote his “revival” concept was showing to be a “backslider”.
So this plus the video evidence proves Finney was very much not on board with the doctrine of predestination. He was on board fully with the same doctrine of “free will” that you’ve continued to promote.
You continually recite:
As if one who never met a Christian and never affirmed Christ will not land in the same lake of fire as all other sinners, for being WITHOUT CHRIST. All who never affirm Christ are not the Lord’s and end up in the lake of fire, Acts 4:12 and Revelation 20:15.
Luke 12:40-48, you’re missing here that all mentioned were claiming to be slaves of the master, claiming to be followers of Jesus Christ. And while those who claimed to follow Him, but are not the Lord’s will be placed with the unbelievers (fake servants, that He never knew, Matthew 7:22-23), those who are His will have their work tested, 1 Corinthians 3:11-15.
What Peter writes about in his first epistle, it is not about some free will of man to “accept” an offer, but how God brings to life those He chooses to give life to and faith is the sign that one was granted grace. The letter to Rome proves none are righteous, regardless of the method man might use to affirm himself and God chooses, not man of himself and a full read of the book of Romans proves it. With Romans 9 proving it is the predetermined plan of God who is to receive honor, not man’s choosing at all and Romans 11 proving the remnant of the Hebrews will be saved.
The bottom line is, that your view promotes a false doctrine, that perhaps a “good Muslim” will be saved if they never met a Christian to tell them about Jesus. This is untrue and unbiblical, to act (or even lightly imply) as if someone who never claimed the only name by which one can be saved might somehow avoid damnation because of how you perceive their “ability”. Yes those around before Christ came in flesh who repented in hearing about the Lord are saved in Christ. However, you take the doctrine of “free will” to it’s sadly erred conclusion, secular humanistic universalism. Which you may deny, but really that’s where you end up. You end up with the same erred doctrine taught today by Billy Graham and Robert Schuller.
James G. Healton, now I must show you why I am not like John Calvin. Because I don’t go on for years in written debate with someone who continues to be contentious. I tell you the truth of the sovereignty of God, I don’t sit with you to talk about a tree moving as if it moves on its own.
And you probably could go on for more hours, days, weeks or even years promoting your error. But that is not time I will grant to you with me. Because my time is better spent sharing the message of Christ with others, than having a protracted debate with someone who came here in disagreement and only remained to express nothing but a doctrine of man. So James G. Healton, your time here is done, your access has been disabled, because unlike Calvin, I don’t entertain erred doctrine long. You’ve had your time to say your say and it is past time for you to go. Whether you desire to or not.
You are certainly a cordial man, but we disagree and as I said in my first comment, I never felt we would. So no more time needs to be spent with you.
May the Lord’s will be done.
July 25th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
IC, to sum it up so that my lil ol mind can comprehend this lively discussion…is it safe to say that God preordained who would be saved from the beginning based upon His foreknowledge of a person’s heart that they would reject the gospel once they heard it; all the while knowing that this person was created as a vessel of dishonor to bring about God’s perfect will (ie. Pharoah)
again knowing that God wished none to perish, but that all would come to repentence?
This is really a “teaching” lesson for me. I’m some what torn between what both of you are saying.
IndependentConservative reply on July 25th, 2008 at 9:17 pm :
Well God gave those who would be saved to His Son before the foundation of the world, John 10, John 17 and Ephesians 1.
You have to understand, that of ourselves, we are totally depraved. Left with “free will” all man can and will do is sin continually and never embrace God, Romans 3:11. That is one of the major messages in Paul’s letter to the saints in Rome. That no matter how you slice it, man can’t win of himself.
So we are left with only those who God grants grace to, that ever will believe on His Son and be saved. God made Pharaoh an example for His glory, by simply allowing Pharaoh’s flesh be its self, be depraved and on top of that hardened Pharaoh’s heart, Exodus 7:2-6. God hardened Pharaoh and God used Pharaoh, a vessel fit for destruction, to bring forth His glory. Now the “free will” viewpoint has trouble embracing that God would actually “harden” someone. Just as the free will viewpoint can’t well handle that God can send an evil spirit, Judges 9:23.
All our hearts without grace from God are wicked, Genesis 6:5.
Now consider Noah, he was predestinated for honor and it was proclaimed at his birth, Genesis 5:29. Noah didn’t “do” anything but be born at that point. He had not “made a decision”, it was foretold he would do good. God was with him and so instead of being wicked, he loved God.
Regarding 2 Peter 3:9, please see: 2 Peter 3:9 Refutes Universal Salvation. That should help you with understanding what was said and who it was being said to and about.
I find it pretty funny that Mr. Healton kept running back to Acts 2:40, even after I explained to him what took place prior to that.
It was just a circle and it was time to end it. Although it was really exposing how claiming man of his own self can somehow bring about his own salvation and is not totally depraved of himself, leads straight to secular humanistic universalism.
Even Paul knew of himself was nothing good, not of his flesh, Romans 7:18. Only by God’s grace are we saved and desire anything good.
This does not mean we don’t tell people to believe on Jesus, we just know who brings about any positive responses. Just as someone believing on Jesus is predestinated, so is somebody telling them the gospel.
July 26th, 2008 at 12:10 am
I so now understand the importance of teaching sound doctrine and proper exegete of scripture. That video of 2Pet 3:9 was excellent! I’ve never heard that scripture broken down like that in all my “church” life (you know what doctrine I just came out of last year)!
The whole time that I was following your debate, (Gen 6:5) was in my mind.
I’ve never accepted and never will accept the false doctrine of universalism. It’s just not biblical!
I believe the Holy Spirit allowed me to come across this discussion to further seal and settle in my spirit that no one just comes to the Father, He choses us as (Eph 1) states…and that can be a hard pill for folks to swallow. The fact is our little finite minds will NEVER fully comprehend “all” that God does.
Also, “no man” can take credit for the salvation of another. (1 Cor 3) comes to mind. It’s not Paul or Apollos, or Calvin or Finney, charismatic preaching or music for that matter, but God, through Jesus Christ, that gives the increase of souls into His kingdom, again as He chose before the foundation of the earth (I hope I’m in right context here).
I was reading in (1Kings 22) the other day about Micaiah’s prophecy and what really struck me was that THE LORD allowed a “lying spirit” in the mouth of the prophets because the King of Israel and the people’s hearts were “hardened” to hearing the truth! Same thing God has done to in sending “strong delusion” today because people do not want to hear the TRUTH of the gospel.
(2 Thess 2)
When it comes to the Word, if our “perception” is off, then our “reception” is off and “deception” is ON!
Another note is that it somewhat helps me to understand why some folks just won’t accept Jesus as Lord, no matter how many times they hear the gospel or how they may have started out with God but have gone astray (probably open another can of worms with this statement…once saved always saved debate)
My grandmother who grew up Baptist, then converted to Islam when my Mother did, BUT my mother came to the knowledge of the truth and my Grandmother remains a muslim to this day. She just does not want to receive Jesus as Lord. I pray for her and witness to her as the Holy Spirit leads me,(as do others) but I may have to just face the truth that she may die a sinner. She’s 97 and still going strong. I told the Lord not to let her leave this earth until she denies Allah, repents, confesses and accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior(back in my WOF days I “boldy told” God this…you know that demand God to do what I tell Him to do because of the “authority” I have on this earth as a “christian” WOF doctrine)
Talking about a hard pill to swallow, my sweet lil 97 year old Grandma, possibly going to hell, God can’t possibly allow that, after all, she loves God, she just has a different road to him…man that is universalism at it’s best! But the fact is, my loving Grandma might not make it to heaven and this grieves my heart! I’m going to continue to pray for her as long as I have breath in my body while she’s still here on earth…anyway…
It was a great discussion and I thank you IC for letting it to go on as long as it did. Lord knows it enlighted my understanding to some sound biblical truth!
IndependentConservative reply on July 26th, 2008 at 1:31 am :
Well we certainly can’t know all of our creator when we are simply His creations. Made for His glory and not our own.
You keep praying godlysoldier and now more of us will be praying with you.
(I will add, I have a post coming very soon, possibly the next post, which is about the NOI. I’ve been working on it for a bit and was actually hoping to get it out yesterday. I don’t know what branch of Islam your grandmother may be with, but the timing of that post is not anything I’ve “setup” because of anything you’ve shared. I don’t want you or anyone thinking I’m trying to make posts to jump into some personal matter anyone mentioned. I’m not “promising for sure” it’s next, but at the moment it’s the next planned post. But I’ve got other posts that were once “next” and still have not been posted yet. It’s still in the works. Just wanted you to know it’s been in the works even before I knew about your grandmother.)
godlysoldier reply on July 26th, 2008 at 2:07 pm :
I believe she’s under the old NOI sect, with Allah and Elijah Muhammad and his son. Not so much Farra-the-Con. It’s been like 25 plus years that she’s been a Muslim.
She acknowledges Jesus as a good teacher but not as the Son of God and reads her “Koran” right along with her “bible” and her 3 prayers a day faithfully.
I can’t wait to read the post you’ll be doing. (I keep telling myself that I’m going to “educate” myself with her doctrine so I can be a more effective witness, but I just can’t bring myself to study any other doctrine than the Gospel).
I’m sure your post will be very informative and enlightening.
May God conti