Food for Thought

[Guest]

Before we get carried away in further accusations of "damnable heresies", etc., it might be good to consider the following excerpt from an old preacher:

THEME.--WHAT MUST MEN BELIEVE TO BE SAVED?

TEXT.--"He that believes not shall be condemned."--MARK xvi: 16.

THIS terrible sentence was uttered by our Lord in his last interview with his disciples before he ascended to heaven. It is a fearful utterance when properly considered in its relations and bearings. Paul says, "Without faith it is impossible to please God," and again, "He who comes to God must believe." Heb. xi: 6. The Lord says, "He who believes not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." John iii: 35. We learn from Rom. v: 1, that justification is by faith. It is a matter of profound gratification, that, in the midst of the confusion, misunderstanding, and mysticisms of these times, there are some important points on which all are agreed. One thing in which all are agreed is, that there can be no justification or spiritual life without faith. No man can come to God, please God, or be accepted of God without faith. Without faith, no man can be saved from his sins now, nor from eternal condemnation in the world to come. The condemnation of heaven rests on the man who believes not. This is stated in the Scriptures as clearly as language can make it. It is a matter settled and agreed to by all who receive the Bible.

If, then, it is settled, that a man can not be saved unless he believes, a question of momentous importance rises. That question is, "What must we believe?" This question contains the theme for the present discourse. It is useless to perplex our minds about the question whether justification is by faith alone, or by faith and something else combined, till we settle the one about what we must believe. This lies at the foundation. It is the first matter to be settled. We can take no other step correctly, do no other thing acceptably, nor please God at all till we believe. Nor is the question, What must we believe to become a Quaker, a Shaker, a Romanist, a Unitarian, or a Universalist. What a man must believe to become one of these, or one of a hundred more similar to them, is a matter of no consequence compared with the question, What must a man believe to be justified before God? This is the great question among those now agitating the minds of men. Among all the beliefs of our time, there is but one through which sinners can be justified and saved in the sight of God. Among all the questions of our day, there is none of the same importance with the one, What is the belief without which the soul of the sinner can not be saved at all? This is the great question. If this can not be settled, and that, too, without ground for a doubt, it is useless to proceed to discuss others. We must live in doubt and die in despair. But, thanks to our heavenly Father, it can be settled. By his blessing, it shall be settled in this discourse.

The inquiry is not what it would be well to believe, or what it would be better to believe than something else; nor what it would be respectable or popular to believe, but what is it that a man must believe, or be condemned--lost forever?

In the commission, the Lord said: "Go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature." The Gospel is, then, what must be preached. The Lord proceeds: "He that believes." He that believes what? He that believes the Gospel, certainly. The Gospel, then, is what the Lord commanded the apostles to preach, and what hearers were required to believe. The amount of it is, then, that the Lord commanded the Gospel to be preached, required the Gospel to be believed, and declared that he that believes not the Gospel shall be condemned. But some man will say: "All sorts of preachers profess to preach the Gospel, and I see not how to determine which is the Gospel." There is a way to test the matter. Does a man claim that he is preaching the Gospel when preaching Calvinism? If he does, the Lord says: "He that believeth not the Gospel shall be condemned." Dare he say: "He that believes not Calvinism shall be condemned?" He will not say this. Or, to place the matter in a different form, we will look at it as follows:

A man can not be a Christian and not believe the Gospel.

Calvinists themselves admit that a man can be a Christian and not believe Calvinism, for they admit that there are Christians among the Arminians, and they do not believe Calvinism.

Therefore, Calvinism is not the Gospel.

Nothing can be clearer than that if a man can not be a Christian and not believe the Gospel, but can be a Christian and not believe Calvinism, Calvinism is not the Gospel, and, consequently, not what a man must believe to avoid condemnation.

This same reasoning may be applied to Arminianism.

A man can not be a Christian and not believe the Gospel.

A man can be a Christian and not believe Arminianism, as Arminians themselves admit.

Therefore, Arminianism is not the Gospel, nor what a man must believe to avoid condemnation.

The same rule may be applied to Universalism.

A man can not be a Christian and not believe the Gospel.

A man can be a Christian and not believe Universalism, as Universalists themselves admit.

Therefore, Universalism is not the Gospel, or what a man must believe to avoid condemnation.

Some man may say, "Try Campbellism by the same rule." There is no need of any trial in this case, for it is granted, if there is any such thing, that Campbellism is not the Gospel. Whatever may be said of the isms, of which an example is here given, and all such, whether true or false, they are not the Gospel, nor what a man must believe, in order to justification, or what a man must believe, or be condemned. Whatever the Lord requires a man to believe, it is not any of these isms. Belief in any one of them is not what the Lord requires; nor will unbelief in any one of them condemn any man. True or false, as mere questions, there is no salvation in believing them, nor condemnation in not believing them.

It is not necessary to pursue this negative examination further, or the inquiry touching what a man need not believe. The matter now is to determine what a man must believe. Among all the beliefs of the world, what belief is it through which the sinner is justified before God? By reference to John xx: 30, 31, we learn what he wrote out his testimony concerning Christ for. He says: "Many other signs truly did Jesus, in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you might believe." This gives the purpose of the apostle in writing his book: "These are written that you might believe." The next question is, That you might believe what? He informs us, "That you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." This settles the question about what we must believe. We must believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. This is the grand proposition to be believed, and the belief of it is the faith that justifies the sinner, or through which the Lord saves his soul. Here some one may start the question, "Is this saving faith?" The apostle proceeds to refer us to the result of this faith, in the same connection, in the following words: "That believing you might have life through his name." These things are written that you might believe. The truth to be believed is, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. The object of this belief is, that the believer might have life through the name of Jesus. Here is the grand truth to be believed, and the belief of it is the faith through which the sinner may have life. This belief is evangelical, divine, apostolical--the belief that saves the soul. There is no other belief or saving faith for sinful man. If he has not this, he will be lost. There is no dispute about the belief here advocated. No church repudiates it. The doubts and disputes are all about other beliefs. If a man believes with his heart that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, he has true faith, divine faith, saving faith, and there is no other faith through which man can be justified before God.

We can learn something of what a man must believe from what he is to confess with his mouth. We will now hear Paul tell, in the same connection, what a man must confess with his mouth and believe from his heart: "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: for with the heart man believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Rom. x: 8, 9. To believe that "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the same as to believe that he is the Christ, the Son of the living God; for if God raised him from the dead, he thus demonstrated that all he ever said was true. God would not have raised an impostor. If God raised him from the dead, he thus confirmed his divine mission and all he ever said. His entire claim to be the Messiah, or to be from God, is confirmed, if God raised him from the dead. Indeed, if he rose from the dead at all, it proves his divine mission. An impostor could not have raised himself from the dead. God would not have raised him, and thus have aided him in palming an imposition on the world. The belief, then, with the whole heart, that God raised him, amounts to the same as the belief that he is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I would ask who is your brother or sister? Take care in where you draw the line; you may leave "out" one who God deems to be "in".

[Guest]

Salvation is of the Lord.
Therefore it is not of man.

Any theology or "ism" that preaches, teaches and believes that salvation is of man, teaches error.

The only theology I have ever heard that honours the Biblical mandate that "salvation is of the Lord" Jon 2:9 is Calvinism.

And just for Steve, that is why some of us Calvinists defend passionately the doctrine that regeneration precedes faith!
Anything else is not "of the Lord" but "of man".

The only reason I do not consider Arminianism damnable Homer, is because Arminians themselves are mixed up in their theology!
As much as they hold onto free willism, they yet affirm that salvation is by grace through faith and is a gift from God, even if their theology logically implies otherwise when fully fleshed out.

Open Theism fully embraced is another matter entirely.

Mark

[Guest]

Any theology or "ism" that preaches, teaches and believes that salvation is of man, teaches error.

Calvinism on the other hand teaches salvation has nothing to do at all with man , which carried to it's logical end means that man can not be held responsible for choices therefore justice would demand that he can not be punished if he is not responsible.
On the other hand i think free will is not a good description of man's condition because his will is really not free considering he has a sin nature and the opportunities to know Christ vary immensely on the circumatances of his life. We certainly have a will , we certainly make choices but i would'nt call our will free.

[Guest]

There is no set of propositions by which a person can be justified (shown to be righteous), if he believes them.

Texts such as the well-known John 3:16 indicate that a person receives permanent life, not for what he believes, but for whom he "believes" into.

But I think that we can be tripped up even by texts such as John 3:16 when "pisteuō" is translated as "believe". Let me quote a text in which
"pisteuō" has a rather different meaning:


Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name. But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men. He did not need man’s testimony about man, for he knew what was in man. John 2:23-25

Jesus would not entrust himself to those believing in him. That is the meaning of "pisteuō" in the text above. I believe it to be the meaning also in John 3:16. God gave his only-begotten Son that whoever entrusts [himself] to him will not perish but have permanent life.

But it's even stronger in John 3:16. It's not "whoever entrusts himself to him" but "whoever entrusts himself into him" This implies a committing of the whole life to Jesus the only-begotten Son of God! It includes initial repentance (change of mind and heart), baptism, and submission to Jesus and his teachings as he expressed them in "the sermon on the mount" and elsewhere.

[Guest]

Any theology or "ism" that preaches, teaches and believes that salvation is of man, teaches error.

Calvinism on the other hand teaches salvation has nothing to do at all with man ,

Now this is the reason we Calvinists accuse Arminians of misrepresentation, and so we should.
What good does it do to allow these kinds of statements any merit? None.

Calvinism nowhere denies that man is not involved in his/her salvation.

We make distinctions (biblical ones) based upon the text, concerning such things as regeneration, justification, calling, conversion, sanctification etc. All of these distinctions are salvation from a biblical perspective, and all of them involve man to one degree or another, except regeneration which is solely a work of God.

which carried to it's logical end

No, carried to the illogical ends of Arminianism, not Calvinism.

means that man can not be held responsible for choices therefore justice would demand that he can not be punished if he is not responsible.

See what I mean. These are Arminian conclusions not Calvinistic ones nor biblical ones!
Command in scripture does not imply ability!, how many times does this need to be repeated?

On the other hand i think free will is not a good description of man's condition because his will is really not free considering he has a sin nature and the opportunities to know Christ vary immensely on the circumatances of his life. We certainly have a will , we certainly make choices but i would'nt call our will free.

True.
Man does not have free will. His will is a slave to His nature. We agree.

Now that we agree, we really need to study the foundation of Total depravity, as it may help you to come to a more biblical understanding of Man, and then we can discuss how God Unconditionally saves some men.
Then we can discuss how God intends to save some men, and how He goes about Calling some men, and then how He intends to keep them and bring them finally to glory!

We have our work cut out for us. When do we begin these great subjects?

Mark

[Guest]

means that man can not be held responsible for choices therefore justice would demand that he can not be punished if he is not responsible.

See what I mean. These are Arminian conclusions not Calvinistic ones nor biblical ones!
Command in scripture does not imply ability!, how many times does this need to be repeated?

Would not responsibility mean one who has the ability to respond?
I know you keep saying that command does not imply ability but can you show this from scripture?

Man does not have free will. His will is a slave to His nature. We agree.

Don't slaves sometimes disobey their master(s)? Don't they sometimes desire to be free?

[Guest]

Don't slaves sometimes disobey their master(s)? Don't they sometimes desire to be free?

Scripture teaches

Jer 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard its spots? Then you also may do good, who are accustomed to doing evil.

2Pe 2:19 promising them liberty, they themselves are the slaves of corruption. For by whom anyone has been overcome, even to this one he has been enslaved.

And Jesus tells us,

Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Whoever practices sin is the slave of sin.

When you ask about being free, what do you mean by that?
Jesus taught that freedom was something a person is enabled to do by an act of the Son.
How on earth can a slave in this sense, desire or have the ability to set himself free?

Jesus said,

Joh 8:36 Therefore if the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.

And please take the time to read the contexts in these passages for more light.

[Guest]

Would not responsibility mean one who has the ability to respond?

No, not at all, where is this idea taught in scripture?

Responsibility speaks of what one “ought” to do, not what one has the natural or moral ability to do.

I know you keep saying that command does not imply ability but can you show this from scripture?

I have done this and for the last time I ask anyone to dare to deny these scriptures and their implications with regard not to Calvinism, but per context and scripture itself.

1/ God commands Lazarus to come forth from the tomb.

Joh 11:43 And when he had thus spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.

Now the context here is not merely some kind of amazing miracle in raising this man from the dead, but all about Christ being the one who raises the spiritually dead to life. He is the resurrection and the life and Lazarus is an example as to how God saves sinners.

Did Lazarus have the ability to come forth? No
Was He commanded to come forth? Yes!
Did he come forth? Yes
By what power did he come forth? Monergism, ie God alone.
Was he passive or not? Passive entirely.
His reaction? Praise directed solely to Jesus for His act of grace and mercy. He understood what Jesus meant when He had just said to his sister, “I am the resurrection and the life” (Joh 11:25)

He would have also understood

Joh 6:65 And he said, For this cause have I said unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it be given unto him of the Father.

2/ The same thing is illustrated in the Old Testament with the story of the dead dry bones.
The Prophet was commanded to preach to these dead bones so that they might live!
You can almost hear someone saying, “What, you must be kidding!”
But he obeyed the command to preach to them.
Did they have an ability to obey that command? No!
These things are illustrative for us in How God saves sinners!
God is even now raising up a mighty army from dead dry bones.

When we do evangelism, we are preaching to dead sinners. Graveyard dead spiritually.
We trust in God’s power to raise them to life through the faithful preaching of the gospel.

Ours is not the job of converting sinners, ours is the job of proclaiming Christ who is the resurrection and the life. That is gospel preaching.

We preach to all men, in that God commands all men everywhere to repent, knowing full well, that no one has the ability in and of themselves to obey this command, yet it does not hinder us, for we know that God alone shall raise whomever up from the grave, when He sees fit and in His own time. (Rom 9:18) Joh 3:8.

Ours is to be faithful messengers, trusting in God the Holy Spirit, to accompany the preaching, which is the usual means that God uses to call his people out of darkness into His marvellous light.

Command does not imply ability.
Responsibility does not imply ability.

3/ Every one of the commandments are to be obeyed, and yet scripture teaches that man cannot obey them perfectly.

We are called to be perfect even as our Heavenly Father is perfect, yet scripture teaches we have no ability to to be perfect.

The commandments of God were never meant to empower us, but rather, to strip us of trusting in our own ability so that we would come to an end of ourselves.

With striking clarity, Paul teaches that this is the intent of Divine legislation

(Rom 3:20 because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for through the law cometh the knowledge of sin.
Rom 5:20 And the law came in besides, that the trespass might abound; but where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly:
Gal 3:19-24 What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made; and it was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator.
Now a mediator is not a mediator of one; but God is one.
Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could make alive, verily righteousness would have been of the law.
But the scriptures shut up all things under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
But before faith came, we were kept in ward under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
So that the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Command does not imply ability.

The ability spoken of is Moral ability.
Man does not have it and the law was never given as if man in and of himself could obey it.

Responsibility speaks of what one “ought” to do, not what one has the natural or moral ability to do.

Much more could be said...
Mark

[Guest]

mark wrote:

Responsibility speaks of what one “ought” to do, not what one has the natural or moral ability to do.

the word "responsibility" implies that the one being held responsible has the ability to be responsible. let's say a father says to his son "i hold you responsible for mowing the lawn tomorrow." That day, the son is hit by a car and is in the hospital with a broken leg. Is it "moral" or "just" or "fair" for the father to punish the son for not cutting the grass the next day? that would be outrageous.

The statement you made is nonsensical.

TK

[Guest]

Did Lazarus have the ability to come forth? No
Was He commanded to come forth? Yes!
Did he come forth? Yes
By what power did he come forth? Monergism, ie God alone.
Was he passive or not? Passive entirely.
His reaction? Praise directed solely to Jesus for His act of grace and mercy. He understood what Jesus meant when He had just said to his sister, “I am the resurrection and the life” (Joh 11:25)

Mark,

First off, I have to admit that i haven't followed this raging debate extremly closly, but this statement about Lazarus not having the ability to come forth on his own (he was dead) got me thinking.

How would you compare this event to the event of Peter walking on the water?

Did Peter have the ability to walk on water? No
Was He commanded to come forth? Yes!
Did he come forth? Yes
By what power did he come forth? Monergism, ie God alone.
Was he passive or not? Not entirely, he had to walk.

As far I as I can tell, God never rescended the command He gave to Peter, yet Peter started sinking.

God's reaction? Why did you doubt?

Would it be a strictkly Calvinist position that Jesus somehow pulled the rug out from under Peter's faith in order to make some sort of point?

Please understand, I'm not trying to insinuate anything... I'm just asking.

Thanks,
Perry