1 Corinthians 10:13 – regarding “The Believer and Sin”.

In a (now deleted*) comment from the “Am I an Arminian” thread, I was accused of “proof-texting” when I made reference to 1 Corinthians 10:13.
I quoted that verse to show that when a believer sins it is a result of his/her choice and not because of some irresistible tendency to sin that drives the believer to live in disobedience to God.

“No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.”

That verse makes it clear that no believer is tempted by anything that is beyond their ability to withstand. God Himself makes sure that all temptation we face IS resistible – and we therefore need to take PERSONAL responsibility for our sin. If we do not take that personal responsibility, then I cannot see how we can genuinely come to the Lord to confess OUR sins in order to receive forgiveness and cleansing from unrighteousness.

It is clear that I am not the only one to be faced with this same accusation of “proof-texting” by drawing attention to the promise God gives in the above mentioned verse.

See the blog entry at the following link:

A Contextual Examination of 1 Corinthians 10:13


---------

* I do not make a habit out of deleting comments, but the person referenced above became abusive and showed himself to be a wilful liar. Further information on the reason for the deletion of of his comments can be found in the comments section of the “Am I an Arminian” thread.

God’s Foreknowledge and Man’s Free Will

Two recommended articles by David Servant that address the issues of God’s foreknowledge and man’s free will.


God's Regrets
The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them" (Gen. 6:6-7).
I [the Lord] regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me and has not carried out My commands (1 Sam. 15:11).
I suppose it is comforting to know that even God has His bad days. But on a more serious level, we can't help but wonder why God would regret something that He himself did. We just read that God said He was sorry that He "made man on the earth." He wished He hadn't done it. But if God is all-knowing, and if He knows everything that is yet to happen, why didn't He decide not to create man on the earth before He got started, knowing that He would regret it otherwise?


Deception is an Election

Moses' warning about false prophets in Deuteronomy 13:1-4 raises a question. If God knows everything, then why did He say that a false spiritual leader could be a means for Him to "find out" if we love Him with all our hearts?
The simple answer to that question is that God didn't create us as pre-programmed robots. Our choices are exactly that—our choices. Loving God is something we choose to do or choose not to do. God must therefore test us to see what we will choose.
Certainly God foreknows what we will do, but His foreknowledge is based on the outcomes of our tests. If there were no outcomes, there would be nothing for God to foreknow.

Duelling Quizzes.

In the comments section of one of my articles, a Calvinist commentator provided a (now deleted) quiz intended to demonstrate the “truth” of the Calvinist approach to scripture.
The following link provides an answer to that quiz, demonstrating how vastly different theological viewpoints can be supported by the selective use of scripture.

quiz-for-your-calvinist-friends

As a personal comment, I have to say that THIS quiz has much more value than the Calvinist equivalent. At least I can recognise the God that is being promoted – I can’t say the same for the god being promoted by the Calvinist mob. That god is an imposter.


-----
While I have deleted the Calvinist quiz from this blog, it may be accessed via the "Wesleyan Arminian" blog at the link provided above.

THE BELIEVER AND SIN

Can the believer live without sin?
Or maybe a better question would be “Why can’t the believer live without sin?”

Scripture makes it clear that we are EXPECTED to live in obedience but do we always live up to that expectation? I think Scripture also makes it clear that we have been equipped to live up to that expectation.
If God does not allow us to be tempted beyond our ability to resist – what does that mean to the believer? Does it mean what it clearly says? That we CAN resist ALL temptation we face? I can’t see that it means anything less than that.

If that is the case, how can we say that we always inevitably sin? That outlook is denying the clear promise God has given in His word.

When we DO sin – is it because we had no control, that we are totally incapable of doing anything else? Not if God is true to His word. He has made it clear that He has provided the way for us to avoid sin. If we give into temptation it is because we have chosen to do so, because we have not recognised and applied the resources God has provided – it is not because the temptation was beyond our ability to resist.

God has provided what is necessary for the believer to be free of sin. But He has also provided a means of being cleansed again IF we sin. Through confession of sin we can receive forgiveness and cleansing.
In His promise regarding confession, God has provided a “safety net”. It’s not something we should take for granted – it is not to be treated like a trampoline. It is there to give us protection as a last resort.

Then why do believers continue to sin?
There are probably many reasons but I suggest a MAJOR reason is that we expect to sin. We fail to recognise and rely upon the provision God has given. If we expect to continue in sin – then we are likely to meet that expectation. I see part of the answer to this tendency is the renewing of our minds - learning to think according to God's word and not according to our own traditions.

Many also expect to sin because they believe it is in their nature, but his view of the believer denies the reality of the new birth. We are a new creation in Christ the old has passed away. There needs to be a distinction made between the unregenerate man bound over to disobedience and the new man who is in Christ. There is a need to recognise that the new birth results in actual changes in the believer’s life, that the believer is equipped and motivated in ways not possible for the unbeliever.
When God requires obedience and freedom from sin – He also EQUIPS those who trust in Him to make those things attainable.

Yes we WERE all sinners but God does not leave His children AS sinners. By His grace He forgives and cleanses ALL who would come to Him in faith to receive His mercy.

---------

If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.
My dear children, I write this to you so that you WILL NOT sin. But IF anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but ALSO FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD.
We know that we have come to know him IF WE OBEY HIS COMMANDMENTS. The man who says, "I know him," BUT DOES NOT DO WHAT HE COMMANDS IS A LIAR, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: WHOEVER CLAIMS TO LIVE IN HIM MUST WALK AS JESUS DID.

(1 John 1:8 onwards)

From instrument of brutality to symbol of love

I found this article in the Easter weekend Sydney Morning Herald.


From instrument of brutality to symbol of love
by
John Dickson

I have recently bought two DVD sets presented by Dickson. Both examine the historical evidence of Jesus' life and ministry in a very accessible format. They are highly recommended - though may not be easily obtainable outside of Australia.

"The Christ Files"

and

"Life of Jesus"

More details at:

http://www.publicchristianity.org/

A Book That May Be of Interest

Did Calvin Murder Servetus? By Stanford Rives

TOLERATING FALSE GODS

When the Israelites made the golden calf, they referred to it as the God who had brought them out of Egypt. In one sense it was the RIGHT God they were worshipping, but instead of recognising Him for who He REALLY is they created their own image of Him.
At that time most of their knowledge of God was based on the spoken word of Moses and upon a few personal experiences as interpreted by Moses. They had no written scriptures and the Holy Spirit was not given to them in the way he has been given to believers today.
When Moses departed their camp, leaving them without their primary link to God, they reverted to the ideas of divinity they’d absorbed in Egypt over the previous 400 years. And God did not take it lightly when they created the false image and worshipped it.

Today Christians have the written scriptures and the Holy Spirit has been sent to lead us into all truth. Therefore there is no excuse for any major misunderstanding of God. Yet His character, His ways, His purposes and His method of salvation are viewed differently across various “Christian” camps.

At what point does a God cease to be the God of the Bible and become a false God?

Most Christians would have no hesitation in recognising that Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons have departed from the truth, but what have those groups got wrong?
Their beliefs promote a different understanding of God’s character, God’s ways, God’s purposes and God’s method of salvation.
If we recognise the error within these groups and see them as false; why are we more tolerant of other “Christian” doctrines that like wise distort the character of God and His means of providing salvation?

PUTTING ARMINIUS IN HIS PLACE

Over the last couple of weeks I have visited several “Arminian” blogs and I have been encouraged by many of the articles. This has been very welcome after months of being continually confronted and battered by Calvinists and their false teachings.

I have found that I am in agreement with most doctrine I’ve read on these websites. This agreement did not come about because I was conditioned by Arminius’ teaching, but because I studied and read the same Bible that Arminius studied and trusted the Holy Spirit’s teaching abilities.

Unfortunately, along with the good doctrine, I have also seen some evidence of a very unhealthy devotion to a man. Arminius is being given praise that is not due to him.
At times his teachings are mentioned in a way that gives the impression that they are THE means by which we understand truth and his teachings are held up as THE standard of doctrinal orthodoxy. In some cases this reliance on Arminius gives the impression that his teaching overshadows the value of scripture.

This situation is yet another example of man’s teaching being given too high a priority. Arminius was a man and the soundness in his teaching is due solely to its agreement with the scriptures. Go first to the SOURCE of scriptural truth and seek GOD alone for revelation through the Holy Spirit. Arminius (and other teachers) can later provide confirmation or otherwise of what we believe we have learned from the scriptures.

Promote the writings of Arminius as a valuable secondary resource by all means – but do not make him into a standard by which all teaching is judged. There is only ONE written standard of truth – the BIBLE.

POTTER AND THE CLAY – MOULDING THE SCRIPTURES

Recently the teaching ministry of a particular woman was recommended to the members of a Christian discussion forum, so I read a transcript of one of her sermons based on “The Potter’s House”.
I was interested to see what was said about this topic because the image of the potter and the clay (from Romans 8) is a favourite proof text used by Calvinists.
While she presents some interesting ideas on potters and the use of clay – and even though she makes reference to biblical statements; it seems to me that she merely used the imagery to create her own message. It’s was the common practice of using a “text” as a springboard to present a message that the PREACHER wants to convey rather than taking the biblical text and seeing what IT has to say.To me this was made most clear by her avoidance of the interpretation GOD gives regarding Jeremiah’s observations in the potter’s house. She does make reference to Jeremiah 18 in which God has told Jeremiah to visit the potter – but then she stops after the potter/clay illustration is given. The following verses are not mentioned, and yet these give the very important context to the WHY God sent Jeremiah to observe the potter: and God’s interpretation turns the usual understanding of the story upon its head.
Usually the imagery of the potter and the clay are used to convey the idea that God is in control and that we are merely clay in His hands – subject totally to His will and His purpose for our lives. Some of us He has decided to make into vessels of honour and others He has decided to make as vessels of dishonour. The story is used to show how we have no involvement in our destiny – the potter (God) moulds the clay (us) as He desires.But when we see what God told Jeremiah we get a DIFFERENT picture.
God’s explanation of the potter and the clay shows how the clay (humanity) can change what God had decided. Those who God had determined to punish can avoid that punishment if they repent. Those who God had determined to reward could lose that reward if they turned to disobedience.The illustration shows that the clay can affect the outcome of the potter’s intention and if necessary he will make it into another pot, one different from his first intention.This sermon was a classic example of how to avoid scriptural context to mould God’s word into a form that WE choose to support our favoured theology.

----

Here is the PURPOSE of God’s message about the potter and the clay given in the part of the text that was not addressed in the sermon: Jeremiah 18 5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

AM I AN ARMINIAN?

For most of my Christian life I was unaware of both Calvinism and Arminianism and the conflict between those different theologies.
My first knowledge of Calvinism came through participation on an internet forum; and I couldn’t believe that any professing Christian could believe such things about the God I’d grown to know over the previous 30 years.

Arminianism remained out of the picture until I started to be labelled as an Arminian by the Calvinists I was increasingly coming into contact with. While some used the label reasonably benignly, as if it was merely an alternative to their personal preference for Calvin; others used it as an accusation, as if an “Arminian” was something to be loathed.

From the first time I was identified as an “Arminian” I have objected to the label. Having not even heard of Arminius to that point, I knew that I was not a follower of the man or his doctrine. However, considering the number of times I was being associated with his teaching I eventually decided to find out more about him.

While I still object to be labelled as an “Arminian”, it is not because I have an objection to Arminius or his basic theology. My brief investigation into this matter has introduced me to some very worthwhile blogs associated with Arminian teachings. Through reading some of the articles I have been surprised how much I can identify and agree with their ideas and understanding. I have provided links to some of these on the sidebar.
In my previous blog entry I addressed my concerns about the use of none biblical “theological terminology”. That would perhaps be my main disagreement with the Arminian writers on the recommended blogs.
My experience with both charismanic and highly traditional churches has shown me how dangerous mans’ traditions can be, so I have a strong aversion to teachings that rely too much on sources other than the scriptures (this includes the use of non-biblical theological terminology). If these sources become too influential, then it becomes likely that we start to interpret scripture according to those sources rather than vice versa.

I was becoming increasingly discouraged by the apparently increasing influence of Calvinist thought among the Christians with whom I’ve come into contact in recent months. My first real contact with “Arminian” believers has given me a great deal of encouragement and I look forward to keeping up to date with their blog contributions.

At the moment I have the enjoyment of reading through some of their archived articles. One I found particularly interesting was “ON THEOLOGY” by Billy Birch found at the following link:

http://classicalarminianism.blogspot.com/2007/07/on-theology.html

His point about valid theology bringing glory to God draws a clear distinction between the Arminian and Calvinist views.

Description or Definition? :Terminology’s Effect on Theology

I have a particular aversion to non-biblical terminology being used to describe biblical beliefs. I think inevitably that such terminology will begin to DEFINE our beliefs instead of merely describe them.
Take the phrase “Total Depravity” – to the Calvinist this means a total inability to respond to God prior to regeneration. It goes much further than describing man’s separation from God due to a sinful nature.
The Arminian understands the term in a different way, allowing the sinner to believe in God PRIOR to regeneration in response to the Holy Spirit’s conviction through the hearing of the gospel.*
As far as I’ve been able to determine – both theologies believe in man’s “total depravity”, but their definitions of the term are significantly different.

Personally I prefer to have man’s condition described as being: “bound over to disobedience” as per Romans 11. At least with the biblical definition there is a scriptural context revealing the reason for and the effect of man’s condition.

Rom 11:32 “For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.”
The context reveals that man’s condition is not intended to be a totally exclusive state for anyone – but its intention is to place ALL on a level playing field with God, so that ALL may have to opportunity to benefit from God’s mercy.

Therefore which description BEST describes man’s condition and God’s response to man’s condition? Total depravity or “bound over to disobedience”? Which (in context) leaves less room for ambiguity?

Another term I’ve come across recently is “prevenient grace”. Does this not create the error of dividing God’s grace into categories or different levels, one result being the erroneous concept of “irresistible grace”?

Maybe if we stick as closely to possible to biblical language to describe biblical concepts, we would be less likely to introduce so many of man’s assumptions into our doctrine: assumptions that arise from our choice of terminology rather than the text of scripture.

----------------
*At least this is my current understanding of the Arminian belief. I’ve had little contact with Arminian theology until very recently.

SEEK MAN OR SEEK GOD?

In recent weeks in various places I have written of the need to search the scriptures and seek the Holy Spirit’s teaching ABOVE the teachings and traditions of men.

Without exception – every time I’ve written of the need, I’ve had people saying things like:

1) I’m abandoning accountability
2) I think I have a monopoly on the truth
3) I’m expecting others to adopt my beliefs
4) I’m arrogant
5) I’m a lone ranger Christian

These are only a sample of the comments I’ve received.
I am wondering why people are so challenged by the thought of seeking God for themselves through His word and Spirit rather than turning immediately to men for their teaching.

Aren’t we taking a big risk if we put our trust primarily in men’s teaching? Wouldn’t it be much more profitable if we took more responsibility and made more of an effort to search the scriptures for ourselves BEFORE we seek the opinions of men?

Have we fallen too far into the mindset of a clergy/laity division that we always need to look for a man of “learning” to teach us? Did the Lord provide the scriptures only for the scholars? Do we need to consult an academic in order to find understanding from the Bible?

Take a look sometime at the controversies that rage throughout the “church” and see how many of them result from arguments arising from human theological reasoning. Do any of them originate from the scriptures alone (when the scriptures are taken in context)? How many of those arguments rage around selected proof texts, with one side quoting one set of verses and the other side quoting another set?

Why is it so threatening to suggest that we can seek God’s revelation PERSONALLY rather than rely on a scholarly or theological intermediary?

And before the opposing voices start building their straw men again, let me state clearly that fellowship and discussion with other SPIRIT LED believers is an essential part of our lives.
As we each search the scriptures for ourselves; as we each seek the Holy Spirit’s revelation; together we can encourage each other. The Holy Spirit’s teaching will be consistent and complimentary. There will be no contradiction. So in fellowship, as we are led more and more by the Spirit, we’ll move more and more in agreement.
Where disagreements rage – somewhere there is a failure to follow the Spirit’s leading.

Often when disagreements arise, peace is made by “agreeing to disagree” – but is that a satisfactory solution?
Why not agree to seek the Lord to reveal the truth? Do we think He’s incapable of doing so?

“THE LIMITS of GOD'S GRACE” by David Servant

The greatest tragedy today is that so many are trusting in a grace that God has never offered to anyone. We are indeed saved by grace—but it is a grace that offers us an opportunity to repent and become committed disciples who love God with all our hearts and keep His commandments. God’s grace forgives and transforms those who truly believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

From “The Limits of God’s Grace” by David Servant
https://www.heavensfamily.org/ss/e_teachings/2005_02


----

I think this article by David Servant has relevance to the questions I asked in the previous post (found immediately below)

LIVING ACCORDING TO GOD'S WILL?

How far away from living “TOTALLY according to God’s will” can we be before it becomes a serious issue regarding our relationship with God?

Is it ok to be living 90% “according to God’s will”, or 70%? How about 50% - is that an acceptable pass mark?
OR are we totally incapable of living “according to God’s will” at all?

Is God’s will so far beyond our capabilities that even the death and resurrection of Jesus, and the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit aren’t enough to bring us into line and to equip us to live according to His will?

Does it matter whether we live “TOTALLY according to God’s will” or not? Does God overlook our disobedience all together or does He expect something more of us after we’ve been blessed by His gracious gift of salvation?

PREDESTINATION?

CALVIN'S CAMELS

Another recommended article:

“Calvin’s Camels” by David Cloud


Ye blind guides, that strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel!



INTRODUCTION
Having read John Calvin’s Institutes and having studied the writings of many Calvinists both ancient and contemporary, I am convinced that Calvin was guilty of straining at gnats and swallowing camels. To accept Calvinism (in any of its forms) is to deny the plain teaching of dozens of Scriptures.

I have examined Calvinism many times during the 32 years since I was saved. The first time was shortly after I was converted, when I was in Bible College, and Calvinism was one of the many topics that were strenuously discussed by the students. I had never heard of Calvinism before that and I didn’t know what to think of it, so I read Arthur Pink’s The Sovereignty of God and a couple of other titles on the subject with a desire to understand it and to know whether it was scriptural or not. Some of the students became Calvinists, but I concluded that though Calvinism makes some good points about the sovereignty of God and though I personally like the way it exalts God above man and though I agree with its teaching that salvation is 100% of God and though I despise and reject the shallow, manipulative, man-centered soul winning scheme that is so common among independent Baptists and though it does seem to be supported by a few Scriptures, the bottom line to me is that it ends up contradicting far too many plain Scriptures.

Full article can be found here:

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/calvins_camels.html

PERPLEXED WITHOUT CONTEXT

I've been made increasingly aware of the importance of CONTEXT when it comes to understanding scripture.
I strongly recommend the following article from David Servant. It looks at the dangers of applying out of context statements.


https://www.heavensfamily.org/ss/e_teachings/bible-out-of-context

THIS CREATION & GOD'S ULTIMATE PLAN

What is God working towards? What is His ultimate plan for His creation?
Look to the very last thing that He reveals – look what comes after the judgement.

It is a NEW creation – a new heavens and a new earth, populated by those He has redeemed. A new heavens and a new earth where only righteous dwells.

Maybe we should ask – considering the state of THIS creation and considering the sinful state of man (and considering the claims of Calvinists); why didn’t God START with that perfect creation which will give no place at all for unrighteousness. Why did He allow sin to enter the perfect world He created in the beginning?

Why create a human race with the potential for sin, knowing that the majority would have to be dealt with severely; that the majority would end up enduring eternal punishment of the worst imaginable kind? Does He find pleasure in condemning so many to the Lake of Fire?

I don’t think the answer is difficult when we see what the scriptures reveal about Him and His character.
God wants a WILLING people who will love Him, obey Him, and give Him glory.
He wants to demonstrate His justice, His mercy and His love to the people He created.

To achieve all of that in a meaningful way, He had to allow the possibility of rejection. Love is only meaningful if it is given willingly. Obedience is only meaningful if there’s a possibility of disobedience.

God therefore gave Adam the freedom to choose: to be obedient by NOT eating the forbidden fruit – or to be disobedient by eating it. Only by giving that choice could obedience mean anything – it is no hard thing to “obey” if nothing is out of bounds.

However, God was not taken by surprise by Adam’s sin, but HE had already made provision to deal with it in the most unexpected and glorious way. Some details of this can be found in Romans 5, a truth that is more or less summarised in Romans 11.

“God bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.”

“Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.”

God did not use Adam’s sin as an excuse to EXCLUDE people from His eternal plan – but He used it to make His mercy available to ALL – that NO ONE would have access to His eternal purposes through human effort, but ALL could obtain access through the gracious and merciful gift of salvation that He made available to ALL who turn to Him in faith. To ALL who put their trust in His righteousness and His provision and not their own righteousness and their own worth!

WHO IS THE GOD YOU WERE TAUGHT TO FOLLOW?

Forget the hyped up superstar preachers.
Forget the overbearing, authority-claiming “anointed” celebrities.
Even forget the local “pastor”.

Take the time to know God for yourself. Get to know God FIRST through the scriptures, allowing the Holy Spirit to be your teacher.
The MAJORITY of what we have learned about God from others is wrong. They are not bringing us to the God revealed in scripture, but to a God created in man’s imagination.Be HONEST and don’t try to twist, change or ignore those “difficult” verses that portray a God that makes our theology uncomfortable.

The God of the bible is NOT the God of comfortable, westernized Christianity. And He definitely is NOT the God of the superstar celebrity preacher.Unfortunately most of us are too lazy and too disinterested to seek Him for ourselves and we find the entertainment we get from the celebrities preferable to any thought of Holiness.

BLESSINGS?

It seems like many western Christians have the opinion that their nations have been blessed by God, that the comforts and security they have enjoyed are His gifts.
But have we been living blessed lives in our comfortable, prosperous western nations? Or are the “blessings” we’ve had, really the thorns and the stones that prevent the seed of God’s word taking root and thriving?
I think the latter is closer to the truth.