How to defeat Calvinism

[QuestionTime]

I'm not fully up to speed with this original sin thing, i've never really given it much thought.

Is this correct? :

Biblical and pre-Augustinian view - we are the guilty sinners. This results in proper focus on how we relate to God , ourselves and each other.

Sorry Mahogony, I don't know about the writings of the early church fathers. I just know that Pelagius and Augustine had a debate on this issue and Augustine somehow won and Pelagius has been known as a heretic ever since.

I always believed in Original Sin because that was what I was always taught. However, recently God showed to me that I have hated Him without a cause. Now if God has inflicted mankind with sin by inheritance from Adam, then God is to blame for me being sinful, or at best Adam is. But how unfair that God should allow us all to be born sinful due to Adam's wrong? What of all the suffering in this world? If we aren't to be blamed for being born sinful, how then can men not be angry with God for allowing this mess? But Jesus said: "They have hated me without a cause."

Augustinian and modern christian view - put the blame on adam and eve or God. This results in converts who perhaps haven't come to full realisation that God holds them accountable for their own sin. This is a more attractive view and avoids hurting people's feelings if we can blame someone else, ...but whether it produces real converts or not or whether it really matters at all is a good question.

I admit that I hold to the augustinian view personally, that our sin is a result of adam and eve. But I'm beginning to see that what I have always taken for granted about this, may not fit exactly with pre-augustinian christianity. And if it doesn't agree with pre-augustinian christianity, then it most certaily will not agree with biblical christianity.

When a person calls a certain view 'heresy'..and I'm guilty of this myself.... is that with respect to the roman catholic's standard of heresy? or the bibles? Maybe I can call myself a heretic.

We all know what happens when the Catholic church calls people "heretics." We all know what happens when Islam calls people "Infidels." These words should have no place in true Christianity.

Quest

 

[MahogonySnail]

It is interesting to read about these things:

Pelagianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Pelagians charged Augustine on the grounds that the doctrine of original sin amounted to Manichaeism: the Manichaeans taught that the flesh was in itself sinful (and they denied that Jesus came in the flesh) – and this charge would have carried added weight since contemporaries knew that Augustine himself had been a Manichaean layman before his conversion to Christianity. Augustine also taught that a person's salvation comes solely through an irresistible free gift, the efficacious grace of God, but that this was a gift that one had a free choice to accept or refute[1].


I just noticed one difference between augustines and TULIP Calvinisms views:

"but that this was a gift that one had a free choice to accept or refute"

Augustines views do sound Arminianist based on that 'free choice to accept or refute' sentence.

Anyway I believe what made Pelagius a heretic was not his belief in free-will but his belief in achieving salvation by human effort and choosing good over evil. There was no place for Christ and the cross and God's grace in these views and they seem to me very humanistic orientated. Moral atheists like Richard Dawkins might like Pelagius's writings I don't know.

Anyway many notable bible people also don't believe in original sin, Charles Finney was one:

"If man is in fault for his [supposed] sinful nature, why not condemn man for having blue or black eyes? The fact is, sin never can consist in having a nature, nor in what nature is, but only and alone in the bad use which we make of our nature. This is all. Our Maker will never find fault with us for what He has Himself done or made; certainly not. He will not condemn us, if we will only make a right use of our powers - of our intellect, our sensibilities, and our will. He never holds us responsible for our original nature… since there is no law against nature, nature cannot be a transgression… man's nature is not a proper subject for legislation, precept, and penalty, inasmuch as it lies entirely without the pale of voluntary action, or of any action of man at all." Charles Finney (Sermons on Gospel Themes, p. 78-79, published by Truth in Heart)

It just goes to show that if you are a big time or noted preacher/evangelist like Finney, whether you are a heretic or not on some matters doesn't matter .

 

[QuestionTime]

Anyway I believe what made Pelagius a heretic was not his belief in free-will but his belief in achieving salvation by human effort and choosing good over evil. There was no place for Christ and the cross and God's grace in these views and they seem to me very humanistic orientated. Moral atheists like Richard Dawkins might like Pelagius's writings I don't know.

I agree also. Anyone who thinks that we can just start obeying the Bible by effort is fooling themselves, and is teaching doctrine contrary to such scriptures as the story of the Pharisee and the Publican.

The Bible says that our affections are set on the things of earth because we don't trust God. This is hardly an issue of nature, it's rather an issue of mankind doing their best to survive in this world without knowing God. Our affections are set on what sustains us and what gives us comfort. But the more that I understand God in my own walk, I see that all of my sin is a result of not trusting in Him fully. I use my sin to comfort myself, and I concern myself more with self-preservation than with what pleases God. But now God is directing my heart to trust in Him, and therefore my affections are naturally leaving the things of earth and are being directed toward Himself.

Anyway many notable bible people also don't believe in original sin, Charles Finney was one:

"If man is in fault for his [supposed] sinful nature, why not condemn man for having blue or black eyes? The fact is, sin never can consist in having a nature, nor in what nature is, but only and alone in the bad use which we make of our nature. This is all. Our Maker will never find fault with us for what He has Himself done or made; certainly not. He will not condemn us, if we will only make a right use of our powers - of our intellect, our sensibilities, and our will. He never holds us responsible for our original nature… since there is no law against nature, nature cannot be a transgression… man's nature is not a proper subject for legislation, precept, and penalty, inasmuch as it lies entirely without the pale of voluntary action, or of any action of man at all." Charles Finney (Sermons on Gospel Themes, p. 78-79, published by Truth in Heart)

It just goes to show that if you are a big time or noted preacher/evangelist like Finney, whether you are a heretic or not on some matters doesn't matter .

I don't know what you mean by your last sentence, but I do like to read Finney from time to time. Keith Green was profoundly influenced by Finney for one, and who would accuse Keith Green of being an heretic?

Finney is very clear in his logic always and he always gives plenty of examples to support his conclusions. I love what he says in your quote: "nature cannot be a transgression."God doesn't blame us for what we cannot help but do, because that would be great injustice; and would be contrary to everything God teaches about justice in the Bible.

 

[phil36]

Sorry Mahogony, I don't know about the writings of the early church fathers. I just know that Pelagius and Augustine had a debate on this issue and Augustine somehow won and Pelagius has been known as a heretic ever since.

I always believed in Original Sin because that was what I was always taught. However, recently God showed to me that I have hated Him without a cause. Now if God has inflicted mankind with sin by inheritance from Adam, then God is to blame for me being sinful, or at best Adam is. But how unfair that God should allow us all to be born sinful due to Adam's wrong? What of all the suffering in this world? If we aren't to be blamed for being born sinful, how then can men not be angry with God for allowing this mess? But Jesus said: "They have hated me without a cause."

We all know what happens when the Catholic church calls people "heretics." We all know what happens when Islam calls people "Infidels." These words should have no place in true Christianity.

Quest

Well I suggest you should learn about 'Heresy' all the old heresies are still here in one form or another.. it helps to know what is scriptural and what certainly is not!

So tell me QT, what is your TRUE Christianity?

Phil

 

[imoss]

OK.... MY friends!!!!!! ENOUGH OF THE PERSONAL ATTACKS... firstly & foremost my rebuke goes out to myself. A shameful display that in no way glorifies my Lord.

Oh & Cookie with respect to your post.... WONDERFUL!!!!

 

[MahogonySnail]

I don't know what you mean by your last sentence, but I do like to read Finney from time to time.

My point was, we'd have to call Finney a heretic too because he didnt seem to believe in original sin.

 

[QuestionTime]

Well I suggest you should learn about 'Heresy' all the old heresies are still here in one form or another.. it helps to know what is scriptural and what certainly is not!

So tell me QT, what is your TRUE Christianity?

Phil

Faith in a bleeding Savior, resulting in perfect love for God and man. Besides, heresy is only heresy if it's against what your group believes.

My point was, we'd have to call Finney a heretic too because he didnt seem to believe in original sin.

Many already do. Just Google two words: Finney + heretic and you will see.

Quest

 

[QuestionTime]

I just found this article online and I am going to read it. It's an article against the doctrine of Eternal Torment.

Reading this article would be considered another heresy by many, but that's fine with me. I want to know what the Bible says for myself, not what some guy in 400 AD thought it meant.

Because the reality is, that all our beliefs have been shaped for us already by those who converted us, and then we follow in their footsteps by gathering around us more who agree with what we already believe. No one actually takes the time to learn the truths of the Bible for themselves. Well, I am going to question everything from now on. After-all, my name is QuestionTime!

Quest

he material on this chart represents an overview of my research into the Doctrines of Hell and Eternal Conscious Torment. Like many, I once was a firm believer that the Bible taught these doctrines absolutely, explicitly and without question. I felt that one would have to be either blind or a heretic to not see the overwhelming Biblical support for it. There is no question that the Bible has a lot to say about God's judgment against sin, retribution , and the final state of the wicked. We are not left in doubt on these issues; they deserve our utmost consideration, and our greatest attention to detail as we prayerfully study them. However, Ifound that as my faith in the infallibility of scripture increased, I became more and more uncomfortable with the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment in Hell. I began to ask myself, Does the Bible really teach this doctrine, or am I reading in more than what's there? Does the Bible really present these teachings the way we hear preachers present them? Eventually I began to see that the Bible scientifically defines its own terms and its own language. When I began to rely on this instead of my own assumptions of what I felt the Bible had to teach, my confidence in the truth of Eternal Conscious Torment collapsed entirely. A Biblical doctrine with such grave consequences as the eternal destiny of mankind must be explicit. It must be explicit beyond any reasonable doubt. It must frame its language in terms beyond the ability of reasonable men to misunderstand it. It is my contention that the Doctrine of Eternal Torment completely fails in this regard. In order for it to be maintained we are asked not only to read in absent words and concepts which stretch the limits of credibility, but oftentimes to read exactly the opposite of what the scriptures so clearly say; even when it is obvious that divine care has been taken to prevent us from drawing such conclusions. A doctrine of such magnitude surely cannot stand on such a brittle, teetering foundation.

 

[ShelleBelle76]

I just found this article online and I am going to read it. It's an article against the doctrine of Eternal Torment.

Reading this article would be considered another heresy by many, but that's fine with me. I want to know what the Bible says for myself, not what some guy in 400 AD thought it meant.

Because the reality is, that all our beliefs have been shaped for us already by those who converted us, and then we follow in their footsteps by gathering around us more who agree with what we already believe. No one actually takes the time to learn the truths of the Bible for themselves. Well, I am going to question everything from now on. After-all, my name is QuestionTime!

Quest

he material on this chart represents an overview of my research into the Doctrines of Hell and Eternal Conscious Torment. Like many, I once was a firm believer that the Bible taught these doctrines absolutely, explicitly and without question. I felt that one would have to be either blind or a heretic to not see the overwhelming Biblical support for it. There is no question that the Bible has a lot to say about God's judgment against sin, retribution , and the final state of the wicked. We are not left in doubt on these issues; they deserve our utmost consideration, and our greatest attention to detail as we prayerfully study them. However, Ifound that as my faith in the infallibility of scripture increased, I became more and more uncomfortable with the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment in Hell. I began to ask myself, Does the Bible really teach this doctrine, or am I reading in more than what's there? Does the Bible really present these teachings the way we hear preachers present them? Eventually I began to see that the Bible scientifically defines its own terms and its own language. When I began to rely on this instead of my own assumptions of what I felt the Bible had to teach, my confidence in the truth of Eternal Conscious Torment collapsed entirely. A Biblical doctrine with such grave consequences as the eternal destiny of mankind must be explicit. It must be explicit beyond any reasonable doubt. It must frame its language in terms beyond the ability of reasonable men to misunderstand it. It is my contention that the Doctrine of Eternal Torment completely fails in this regard. In order for it to be maintained we are asked not only to read in absent words and concepts which stretch the limits of credibility, but oftentimes to read exactly the opposite of what the scriptures so clearly say; even when it is obvious that divine care has been taken to prevent us from drawing such conclusions. A doctrine of such magnitude surely cannot stand on such a brittle, teetering foundation.

It is with great caution I'd love to read the same article. I'll also be interested in your determination after you finish reading. My pastor teaches we should test everything we are taught against the Word of God ourselves, instead of being a blind follower. Anyone who is afraid to really get in the word and seek truth, I cannot see how they will survive the religious deception of the last days.

 

[QuestionTime]

It is with great caution I'd love to read the same article. I'll also be interested in your determination after you finish reading. My pastor teaches we should test everything we are taught against the Word of God ourselves, instead of being a blind follower. Anyone who is afraid to really get in the word and seek truth, I cannot see how they will survive the religious deception of the last days.

Here is a fantastic quote from this article that everyone should read:

If anything, this chart stands as an invitation to the Bible Student to dig deeper. Sometimes things are not quite as cut and dried as we once thought they were. We should be open to embrace new truths if our much cherished beliefs are found to be in error. Truth never has anything to fear from a careful and scrupulous investigation of the facts. It is my prayer that the information presented here will prompt others to begin their own investigation and to themselves make true the command of the Apostle Paul:
PROVE ALL THINGS, HOLD FAST THAT WHICH IS GOOD
1 Thess 5:21

A Challenge to the Doctrine of Eternal Torment - The Harvest Herald

Quest