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

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.

 

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!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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!”

 

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:

 

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.

 

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.

 

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:

"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...