Give me a greeting when you visit. I appreciate nice-ness.
You can address another blogger ... and even disagree with them, that is fine. All I ask is that you leave censure and hand-slapping to me.
Speak up ... about the posts.
Be nice!
Earl - As I write, teach Sunday School, I think of people like you in my audience. It gives me a sanity check of what I am saying. Would what I say pass the "crap" or sanity check of you or others that I know?
Todd - With blogs like this one there is plenty to be hopeful for in the blogsphere.
Matthew - Its nice to read an edifying Christian blog ... You are so level-headed.
Mark - You're real! The blogosphere needs more real people like you around.
Loren - I'll bet you stay up late nights thinking about all the theology that must be swimming through your head. I just want to say that it's great to see the ways in which God is challenging you, and using you to minister through your blog. The things you, and others here, have shared, are very thought provoking!
Come now, and let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. (Isaiah 1:18)
Rose~NW Ohio, USA
I am 43 and I have 4 kids and a husband. I am trying to live life wisely and learn more about the ways of God. I am too intolerant for the doctrine dissers and too lovey-dovey for the ultra-separatist pugnacious types.View my complete profile
I read the article. I found it a bit rambling, but I stuck with it.
Anyway, while one may appreciate what he is speaking of in regard to Calvinism’s Limited Atonement, I can see these “Crossless” gospel advocates headed to full-blown universalism. I have two thoughts:
1) The writer raises the disturbing teaching from GES “Crossless” gospel men:
Antonio wrote, “Forgiveness of sins is not the issue between God and man. Sin has been done away with as a barrier. Jesus Christ IS the propitiation for the sins of the world. Jesus has taken them all away in the limited aspect of it being the barrier between God and man.”
This is from the GES website, under the “How Can I Be Saved?” link on the left column on the homepage:
“Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the whole world (John 1:29). He has removed the sin barrier which separated us from God. However, we still lack spiritual life, eternal life. To get that life, we must simply believe in Jesus for it.”
While I reject Calvinism’s Limited Atonement: Hodges, Wilkin and da Rosa are inching even closer to Universalism. There is no sin barrier between the lost and God? It is little wonder that this extreme teaching leads to the claim that lost men do not have to know, understand or even be aware that they are sinners. It is little wonder that this extreme teaching leads to the claim that all a lost man must do is say he believes in a promise. Just believe in a promise of eternal life even if he believes the promise is guaranteed by the Mormon (half-brother of Satan) Jesus- as Antonio is teaching.
2) The truly “Crossless” gospel is the teaching of Hodges, Wilkin, Myers and da Rosa. As Hodges in How to Lead People to Christ wrote,
“In recent years I (Hodges) have become aware of a way of presenting the gospel invitation that troubles me. I believe I have heard it from my earliest years, and I admit it didn't really bother me for a long time. Now it does. I have heard people say this: 'In order to be saved you must believe that Jesus died on the cross.' . . . . usually implied is the idea that Christ’s work on the cross is sufficient to provide for our salvation. Thus they mean to say that we are trusting in the sufficiency of his work of atonement. Let me be honest, I don't like this way of presenting a gospel invitation.”
“The simple truth is that Jesus can be believed for eternal salvation apart from any detailed knowledge of what He did to provide it.”
Hodges insists the cross does not need to be known, understood or believed by the lost man. This is also true for His resurrection and Deity. All of these are ripped from the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the peril of the unsaved who have the misfortune to hear this non-saving message.
The Hodges/Wilkin/GES interpretation of the Gospel is aptly labeled, “Crossless.” IMO, however, “Crossless” does not go far enough. The Hodges/GES message is “Crossless” and “Deityless.”
LM
PS: I am wondering why Antonio has not commented on your “Receiving Christ” article and scenario. It is an important discussion and I believe helps define some of the issues.
In December 2007 I wrote an article that was followed by a lengthy discussion thread on the question of whether or not “Crossless” is the right and appropriate label of the Hodges, Wilkin, GES view of the Gospel. There is a good deal of documentation and links to substantiate the “Crossless” label.
This wasn't about the "minimalistic theory of salvation with no corresponding realtiy." It was about telling people to cling to a cross that holds no provision for them. I find that more contrary to Scripture and God's character than theorizing (while preaching the cross) that someone can theoretically be saved without knowledge of the cross.
Do you have anything to contribute about the subject of the post?
For those who Calvinists deem NOT predestined to Heaven, I understand that Calvinism's invitation is an invitation to a closed door.
“Minimalist” as the “Crossless” advocates have minimalized the Gospel leaves the Gospel “hollow” and void of any saving content.
As you noted in another thread, lost people cannot be saved apart from believing in His death and resurrection. The GES eliminates these from what must be understood and believed, i.e. the “Crossless” gospel.
As you know, I agree with you that the Gospel as presented by the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) falls short of the mark. However, I must still take exception with your often stated belief that it is the GES understanding of the barrier between man and God that is the source of that error. I know you read the comment thread of Rachel's post Open question to all “crossless gospel” / “refined free grace” proponents at Pursuit of Truth and, while I suspect you disagreed with the sections of works of R.B. Thieme, Jr that I quoted from, I am surprised that you still want to make the barrier a GES distinctive. I will state again that the particular view of the barrier held by the GES is one that was taught at Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) and is not the root of the problem. I do not believe that everyone who does not hold to your understanding of repentance is on the slippery slope to universalism.
Rick Hughes has done a fine job of summarizing the works of R.B. Thieme, Jr (which I believe to be truth) and I would like to share two quotes:
Repentance means a change of mind. For example, at salvation you change your mind and realize that you do need Christ as your Savior, that on your own you cannot do anything good enough to gain entrance into Heaven with perfect God. Repentance does not mean feeling sorry for your sins.
The moment each of us decides that we need a Savior, that Christ is the one true Savior, and that He died for us personally, in that moment of faith we receive Christ as our personal Savior. Salvation takes place in just a second, in an instant, in a moment of faith. How can it be so quick? Because Jesus Christ on the Cross already did all of the work! Nothing remains to be done except for us to believe. The instant that we do believe, God brings us into an eternal relationship with Him. In that single, simple moment of belief, we pass from spiritual death to eternal life.
Rick doesn't hold to you view of repentance and yet isn't a universalist. What gives?
Also, I know that Greg Schliesman took exception to the statement that sin is no longer a barrier between us and God (I suspect that you agreed with him, please correct me if I am wrong). If sin is still part of the barrier then then how could Christ's work on the cross be complete? How then does non-meritorious faith finish the work of Christ on the cross? Yes our lack of righteousness (-R) does flow from the fall, from Adam's original sin, but the two are not the same. If sins are an issue at the Great White Throne and there is double jeopardy then why not triple jeopardy? How can we ever be eternally secure?
I appreciate your contributions in dealing with the reductionist errors of the “Crossless” gospel.
I've not done a great deal of reading and research on this, but Greg and Rachel seem to have.
It seems to me that the GES camp is making the sin barrier a distinctive. Not exclusive or unique to GES, but clearly one of their teachings.
Greg and I do agree with one another. We reject the sin barrier issue. Rachel also disagrees with the sin barrier issue.
I am short of time, so a quick note. Christ died for the sins of the whole world. IMO, no man's sins are forgiven unless and until he has come to Christ, the Bible way, and received that forgiveness. “It is finished.” Forgiveness has been made available to all mankind. Now, lost men are to receive that forgiveness through faith in the biblical Jesus, not Antonio’s “cultic” Mormon Jesus.
I’m good with Hughes’ summary of repentance (as I understand a quick read of it) that you noted.
If a lost man does not come to Christ in faith and repentance he remains unforgiven, guilty and condemned for his sins. Because of his sin and unbelief he is eternally separated from God in the Lake of Fire.
I liked this from Rachel, “Bob Wilkin has stated that Christ’s death automatically and actually removed the sin of all people, whether they believe in Him or not. He holds the view that sin is simply no longer a barrier between anyone and God. Whereas the view of both unlimited and limited atonement is that sin IS still a barrier between everyone and God, Christ’s death didn’t actually remove sin from anyone future from the cross, His payment only removes your sins when you believe in Him.
So I am not looking for a debate between limited and unlimited atonement, I’ve already researched those positions and hold to unlimited atonement. However, Bob Wilkin has gone farther and stated that not only is Christ’s death available for all people, but it is actually applied to all people.”
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, but we are going to charitably disagree on this point.
Glenn, You didn't say "hi" to me. :~) Hey, I am pretty persuaded by the view that sin actually has been removed as well... being pictured by the veil in the temple being rent in two so that men can come freely into God's presence.
I used to think of it the way Lou describes it. I used to think your sins were on your own account until you came to Christ... and then they were taken off by the cross. I realized though, that I have a little problem with the "chronology" of such a perspective.
Viewing that the atonement was universally effective in removing sin as a barrier between man and God does not lead to universalism. Each individual still must appropriate the life that Christ won through His victory over sin... by faith in Jesus.
Lou suggested I check out this post of yours. I was expecting something more related to the conversation I'm having with Antonio - but I'm actually glad it's not nearly as related as I thought it would be.
Before I start the bulk of my post I have to admit I only skimmed the article. Just got home from work and I'm beat but I was interested.
I think the Calvinists have it all wrong on who Christ died for. Clearly He is the Kinsman Redeemer and died to redeem all of creation (the whole kosmos as the Greek puts it). Not only that but 1 Jn clearly says He is the propitiation for the sins of all people every where.
The Cross truly is available to all mankind. Propitiation is the appeasement, not the forgiveness. We are forgiven when we "homologeo" our sins. Or repent, or agree with God about our sins. The payment was made, we simply trust in that.
Election is a tough subject, mostly because God hasn't spelled it out for us. God has elected any number of things to happen. I believe this includes that some people WILL repent unto life. God will pursue them with His unfailing Grace until they do repent. But I do not believe that this excludes ANYONE. Anyone who would trust Christ would be saved. He's not willing that any would perish - He hasn't predestinated anyone to Hell. He has hardened the hearts of those who reject Him so that His purposes would be fulfilled but He never orchestrates that rejection.
I know that the word "repent" is a hard sell in much of the Free Grace camp. But still honestly believe that is only because we have allowed the Lordship Salvation camp to define it instead of Scripture.
Repentance unto life is only the judgment of self, assessment of Christ and the resulting transference of trust from self to Christ. It is not a change of behavior, a promise to, or even an intent to. Repentance is a change of mind.
I do find it odd that you will allow Lou to ramble on with his tirades and links that have nothing to do with the article the opening post is wishing to discuss. He has his forums for his spewings. Your blog!
Lou is one to talk about deleting comments. I have seen that he deletes them on his blog quite often when they do not have to do with the opening post. You should show him the same respect.
On another note, I found the article most informative and hitting the nail on the head. Tracy is a very articulate and intelligent writer.
Do you beleive in George Meisinger's position? I thought that you did. If you do, why do you disparage my position?
Maybe you remember this discourse with me:
Me: ---------- It occurs to me that you and Meisinger believe that there are at least two different ways to become eternally saved:
1) Zane's way (in other words, through the Johannine terms) and 2) Romans 10:9, 10 way.
Am I reading you right?
There are more than one way to receive eternal life/justification? ----------
You: ---------- You are correct, that is exactly what he is saying. ----------
Me: ---------- At the end of the day, Jesus Christ guarantees eternal life to any and all who simply trust Him to do so, despite any shortcomings in their knowledge or understanding of Him, His nature, or His work. ----------
You: ---------- You are correct and I believe Dr, Meisinger would agree with you as well. ----------
I wonder why. I asked a point blank question once of you:
Suppose a man begins reading the gospel of John and when he gets to John 11:25-26, he entrusts his eternal destiny into the hands of Jesus Christ. The words and miracles of Christ that he has read up to this point in the narrative have persuaded Him that Jesus can be relied upon to secure and guarantee His eternal felicity and destiny. He believed in Jesus in the very same way that Nathaniel, Apostle John, Peter, Andrew (John 1:35-50) the disciples (2:11), Nicodemus (3:16); and the Samaritans (4:39-42) did when they received eternal life. Before getting much further in the narrative, this man has a heart attack and dies.
Is this man with the Lord or is he in hades?
You responded:
YES! I think the man is saved.
You gave that answer when Lou Martuneac's checklist evangelism friends answered the same question this way:
I would say that that man is still “dead in his sins” and would thus be in hell, just like the person who dies w/o ever hearing of Jesus
another said:
It is my view that this man is hell bound
Here was my final question:
Are you [all] willing to come out and say that you believe that someone who has believed in Jesus, certainly trusting and falling upon His mercy and grace alone, entrusting his eternal destiny into His hands, believing Him in His promise, is going to hell because he died before getting to the cross?
For those who wish to know what Lou in his ultra fundamentalist mindset says a person needs to do to go to heaven, here is his list of things:
Section one: BELIEFS NECESSARY 1) Believe that there is only one God 2) Believe that God is one; in other words, believe in the Trinity 3) Believe that Jesus is the Christ 4) Believe that Jesus is God’s Son 5) Believe that Jesus is deity 6) Believe that Jesus died on the cross 7) Believe that Jesus died for his sins 8) Believe that God raised Jesus from the dead 9) Believe that Jesus was a human
Section two: ADDITIONAL REQUIRED STEPS 10) Must agree to the convincing and convicting work of the Holy Spirit 11) Must understand that he is a sinner 12) Must confess the sin that makes him a sinner 13) Must turn from that sin 14) Must know that Jesus is God’s Son 15) Must confess with the mouth the Lord Jesus 16) Must transfer his dependence to the Lord for his salvation 17) Must pray for God to save him
As you can see, I have jumped on the Lou Martuneac bandwagon. If you are going to delete him, please delete me to. I thought that since you left his intact without a rebuke, my comments were welcomed too.
Hi Antonio! I have not -to date- deleted one of Lou's comments for it having annoyed me. (Can't say the same about him toward me). I will not delete yours either. Of course not.
I am leary of deleting comments. That doesn't mean I won't ever. I just really don't want to - I want to have some modicum of free expression around here. I am not afraid of what Lou Martuneac or anyone one has to say. I will not allow myself to feel threatened by others going on and on about their thoughts.
That is how it stands for me right now.
BTW, I still say that man in your scenario is saved (just like I thought on your blog - as I told you) ...because there is a difference between ignorance and denial. I wish you would read my post on UoG about that and tell me if it makes any sense to you.
I have to say that when I read Dr. Meisinger's article I found it interesting in that it made me think. To be honest I was not completely sure if I agreed with him or not. I have continued to think about it, study, and pray and I have to say that I don't believe that I can say I agree with him.
Before I go on and quote Dr. Meisinger at length I need to state an important point. I have never meant to disparage your position or the position of any other Christian blogger including Lou, Rose, Matthew, Jon Lee, and the many others I have interacted with in the blogosphere. I have disagreed with all of you at one time or another and, if I continue to interact, I will most likely disagree with you again. None of you has any responsibility to justify yourselves to me in any way shape or form and I have no intention of forcing you to do so. The only One that we must justify ourselves to is out Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If any of you have taken any of my comments as disparaging I apologize to you. I do reserve the right to represent my understanding of bible doctrine and I certainly understand that not everyone will agree with me.
My original comment to you that Dr. Meisinger would agree that if someone is saved when they believe that Jesus Christ offers eternal life is correct. The following quote is representative of a lot of what he says even though you may not appreciate the tone:
Is an explicit mention of eternal life necessary? Yes, they answer, because the Gospel of John is the only book targeting unbelievers and John contains a strong emphasis on eternal life. In addition, they insinuate that the Gospel of John gives us a superior gospel that excludes, or at least makes substandard, what the other apostles say about about imputed righteousness or forgiveness. This must be judged as wrong-headed. Any gospel message rooted in biblical soteriological content offers a sufficient and wise gospel message that results in the eternal salvation of those who believe.
Why Confess With One's Mouth? (Romans 10:9-13) by George E. Meisinger Chafer Theological Seminary Journal, Fall 2006, p. 23
Dr. Meisinger's article is a long one and it is difficult pulling all of the pieces together. Nowhere in the article does he disagree with presenting the gospel to an unbeliever by telling them that Jesus Christ offers eternal life. What he does have a problem with is stating that the eternal-life gospel is the only way to present the gospel. I still believe that my original statement to you was correct and that George Meisinger believes that the eternal-life gospel and the imputed-righteousness gospel are both valid.
As for why have I moved back towards the position of my youth, namely that one must believe that Christ died as their substitute in order to be saved? The reason has to do with the question of whether a Mormon can be saved by believing that Jesus provides eternal life in spite of their misconceptions. Here is your now famous quote:
At the moment that a JW or a Mormon is convinced that Jesus Christ has given to them unrevokable eternal life when they believed on Him for it, I would consider such a one saved, REGARDLESS of their varied misconcetions and beliefs about Jesus.
It does not matter whether Mormons include works as necessary for salvation since they are putting their trust in, I believe, a false prophet. When I thought about it I realized that the way of salvation I had always known uniquely identified the Christ in a way that the eternal-life-only gospel does not. I suppose if I had thought this through I would have come to this conclusion a long time ago but I had not thought about it in those terms.
Another item which bothers me about your position is that you say that those who believe on His name (Jesus) are saved but then at least imply that there is not deep meaning to that name. I have known for a long time that the Old Testament contains a lot of prophecies regarding the Messiah and that the name of Jesus Christ is full of meaning. I did some checking and found a good source for the OT messianic prophecies titled The Old Testament Regarding the Messiah. I am sure there are many more references on the subject but I haven't tried to track them down. If you accuse me of saying that someone has to know and understand all of these references in order to be saved I will deny it (because it's not true). On the other hand I don't believe that it is right to claim that the name of Jesus Christ does not carry a lot of meaning.
And one last thing. Over time I may change my position on different doctrines as I learn and grow in the word. While no one likes admitting they are wrong about anything I also won't let pride stop my spiritual advance.
Lou,
I do believe that you hold to unlimited atonement in the sense that Christ died for all. However, you do not appear to believe that sin has been completely removed from the barrier by Christ's work on the cross. This is a position that I am unfamiliar with but, as you said, we will have to respectfully disagree.
You wrote, "I do believe that you hold to unlimited atonement in the sense that Christ died for all. However, you do not appear to believe that sin has been completely removed from the barrier by Christ's work on the cross. This is a position that I am unfamiliar with but, as you said, we will have to respectfully disagree."
You have my view it sized up in a way in am comfortable with.
I thought it was a great article. It was sound and proven by clear literal interpretation of scripture. Thanks Rose.
I can't help it, well I guess I can but I won't. :) LM said: "If a lost man does not come to Christ in faith and repentance he remains unforgiven, guilty and condemned for his sins. Because of his sin and unbelief he is eternally separated from God in the Lake of Fire."
Lou, I think the bible clearly teaches that a man doesn't go to the lake of fire for his sins. A person goes to the lake of fire because his name is not written in the book of life. Rev. 20: 11-15
Verse 15: "And if anyone's name was not found in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."
I believe no one is condemned for their sins, Christ has taken care of that. The scripture teaches that, Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world but to save it.
Can anyone find where it literally states or clearly implies that a person is cast into the lake of fire because their sins are not forgiven?
I praise God that He has provided atonement for all mankind. I praise Him that no one, including me, is physically born without hope.
How unjust would it be that all of mankind is 'born without a choice' into sin(and I believe we are) and then our Creator would not provide for our sin that we were born in?
IMO Jesus couldn't make any clearer than what He said in Mark 3:28,29
28"Truly, I say to you, ALL sins SHALL be forgiven the sons of men, and WHATEVER blasphemies they utter; 29but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an ETERNAL sin.
There is only one eternal sin, all other sins SHALL be forgiven. I believe the only eternal sin is not believing God's testimony concerning His son, when the Holy Spirit convicts us(John 16:9). That is the sin that keeps any man from having his name written in the book of life.
Most people who do not understand the biblical doctrines of reconciliation, redemption, and propitiation to name a few hold to a view that sin is still an issue.
It seems they adopt their view from the writings of men verses the bible. The scriptures make it clear that sin will not be an issue at the great white throne of judgement.
Before the discussions of consistent Free Grace theology have come up, both you and I have shared amiable and profitable discussions.
I appreciate your humility and candor as you work through these issues prayerfully, allowing your current views on the Bible, viewed through your conscience and discernment, to inform your conviction.
For a moment, please bear with me. We all have certain presuppositions. You have shown yourself transparent, allow me.
Based upon my conception of God, I come to these issues with the idea that the appropriation of life from God is simple. Acceptance from God, not being anything gained from any worth or merit or actions of my own, comes as a simple gift.
If out of the simplicity of the heart, one hears or reads of the teachings, works, actions, and/or exploits of Jesus of Nazareth and is convinced that they have eternal life through faith (trust) in Him for it, they indeed have everlasting life.
What misconceptions are fatal and what are trivial, Glenn, and who would be the arbiter of such considerations?
If someone heard or read of Jesus's words from the gospel of John (the author, by the way, relating to us the true Jesus), and in the simplicity of heart entrusted his or her eternal destiny into the hands of this Person, why would any human being regard such a one as unsaved?
Let me venture a guess.
Take a look at the older brother in the parable of the Prodigal Son.
Good morning Rose- Antonio wrote, "What misconceptions are fatal and what are trivial, Glenn, and who would be the arbiter of such considerations?"
Antonio: It has been widely noted you believe that a lost man can be saved no matter what misconceptions he may hold. You said any misconception should be put on the back burner.
That statement is all inclusive. We know from numerous notes by you, Hodges, Wilkin, Myers, etc. that this includes not just misconceptions, but open, conscience rejection of the deity of Christ.
You stating, "The Mormon Jesus and the Evangelical Jesus are one and the same," clearly shows the depths to which you will go to run down and negate the Deity of Jesus Christ to uphold the reductionist teachings of Zane Hodges on the "Crossless" gospel.
My new contributor, Phil Evans in his article, The Hollow Gospel of the GES, documents that Hodges considers the cross, resurrection and even the deity of Christ "excess baggage" in a Gospel presentation.
These teachings are fatal to the Gospel and reduce your "Crossless/Deityless" message to a non-saving proposition to the detriment of the lost.
The judge (arbiter) of these egregious errors you have adopted and seek to spread is the Bible and the Lord Jesus Christ whose name and Gospel the Hodges message has assaulted. Your interpretation of the Gospel has been "consistent;" consistently wrong! The GES's abuse and twisting of the many clear passges of Scripture are on record and fully evidence the departure from a balanced biblical theology that the "Crossless" faction of the FG camp have gone.
You ask what is "trivial." The teachings of Hodges has trivilaized the Lord's finished work on the cross. Trivialized the Lord Jesus Christ by the assualt on His titles (the Christ & Son of God). You personally trivialized the Lord by equating Him to (as David Wyatt noted) a "cultic" Mormon Jesus.
The Hodges/GES "Crossless" gospel has been trvialized down to a "fatal" message for the lost, in that it does NOT save.
LM
*Rose: I'll be away from a computer the rest of the day, and will look in later, if possible.
Your questions are reasonable and I will try to give reasonable short answers. Your use of the word presuppositions was a very fitting choice of words and it holds the key to how I try to recognize the difference between a pagan god and the true God. I think I should give some background on how my thinking has developed so you can at understand where I am coming from on this. About a year and a half ago I began to study the Biblical Framework study by Charles Clough. I have linked to some of his material at times but I have no idea if anyone even followed the links much less read though the material. Charles Clough begins the study with a heavy emphasis on presuppositionalism and the Creator-creature disctinction. I believe that most of this material was originally developed by Cornelius Van Til who was a hyper-Calvinist but I have found nothing yet that is at odds with dispensationalism (Clough himself is dispensational). One of the major concepts that I have come away with is that Christianity holds to the Creator-creature distinction while all paganism holds to the continuity of being. The online notes don't go into the depth that the recordings do but if you are interested you can follow this link to Section II Chapter 1 of Clough's study notes.
Using this as background, if a Mormon believes in a Jesus who "was once like us and we shall become like him" they are believing in a pagan god. Likewise, don't Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Christ was an angel, a creature, and not God (both are variations on the continuity of being presupposition)? These are pagan gods that they have put Jesus' name on and I do not believe that they are putting their trust in the One who provides salvation.
I would also like to say that while we have disagreed about certain issues that I have never harbored any ill will towards you and I don't see why we cannot be on amiable terms. If I am going to post comments I believe that I have an obligation to present truth and that if I am wrong that God will correct me. You have certainly put a lot of presure on me at times but it has served as motivation for me to study certain doctrines more deeply than I would have otherwise.
Lou, I think Antonio asks a good question. What misconseptions are trivial... and what are major... and how do we decide which is which? I have ideas, but I find that a challenge worthy of consideration. What do you think? When it comes to misconceptions about Christ - what is a trivial misconception and what is a major one?
I do think that the mormon's idea of Jesus is so far off the mark that they are dealing with a different god with only the name Jesus attached. But let's move over to some other misconceptions that are more in the middle - where do we draw the line in our mind as to what is acceptable and what is fatal?
Kev, Thanks for your thoughts on the post that I linked to. Liver and Onions is one of my favorite blogs, even though TJ is really egy. (Maybe that is one reason I like it - who knows!) The word "repent" is really the most confusing word in the Christian jargon that I have ever encountered. Everyone means something different by it and when people use it, I find the lapse in communication is stunning. I think I will just use more specific terms like "turn from sin" or "change one's mind about Christ" or wahtever... to suit the actual thing that I am trying to refer to. I used the word "repentance" in a post once and it was a disaster - no one knew what the other meant - everyone was talking past eachother.
Kris, Thank you for your thoughts. I agree about being so glad for God's provision. The view some have of this situation is not too pretty a picture of our loving God. He is just and righteous, not cruel and arbitrary.
(Wendell is my husband's middle name - he really goes by John) :~)
Glenn, I think you SO MUCH for your comments. You are most gracious. I really appreciate you. :~)
I am following your thoughts so nthis thing and they seem to click with me very well. What would you say to Antonio's question about where to draw the line on what is a fatal miscoception and what is trivial? I think you and I are in agreement about the mormom idea of god.
The word "repent" is really the most confusing word in the Christian jargon that I have ever encountered. Everyone means something different by it and when people use it, I find the lapse in communication is stunning. I think I will just use more specific terms like "turn from sin" or "change one's mind about Christ" or whatever... to suit the actual thing that I am trying to refer to.
I think the best (and simple) definition of repentance is that it involves a hatred and sorrow for sin and a willingness to turn away from it. This delivers us from two dangerous errors:
[i] The idea that we can be pardoned while desiring to live in rebellion before God [ii] The idea that we must produce good works before we can exercise faith.
In this last avoided error, we are not telling (say) the adulterer to give up his sins and then come back after a probation period so that we can explain John 3:16 to him. But we are saying to him - covered in the first avoided error - that he cannot be determined to keep his various female companions and expect to be able to say that he is heaven bound. We avoid turning the grace of God into lasciviousness in the first one and making it null and void through a works salvation on the other.
Where I have decided to draw the line is at the Creator-creature distinction that I mentioned in my previous comment. Christianity is the only belief (I don't like calling Christianity a religion) where an unbridgeable gap exists between the Creator and His creatures. All pagan religions believe in one of many variations of the continuity of being and when I see that it raises red flags with me. When a Mormon believes in a Jesus who "used to be as we are and we will become as he is" that is a perfect example of continuity of being and turns Jesus Christ into a pagan God. That is where I draw the line.
I believe that to place your faith in someone who is part and parcel of the continuity of being is a direct rejection of the God of scripture and will not result in one's eternal salvation.
What I find difficult in the arbitrary distinctions of what would be trivial and what would be fatal in discussing the ontology of Christ in relation to saving faith is that the answers we hear are purely speculative.
It would be no hard task to make a strong case that the disciples themselves, even after years of being with Jesus of Nazareth, did not grasp his divinity, and understood Him to be a man, though with exceptional power from God.
Let me ask a couple of questions and set them up.
Let us say that someone has these beliefs:
1) The Bible is the Word of God, with verbal and plenary inspiration.
2) The Bible is true.
3) Believes everything he reads in the Bible, convinced that it is true. These beliefs of his are based upon his interpretations of the Bible (everyone interprets the Bible as they read it!)
4) After reading the whole New Testament, this man does not believe (was not persuaded or convinced) that Jesus of Nazareth, whom the New Testament refers to over and over again, is God, but that Jesus was the most important prophet of God, was the Messiah, of the line of David and Tribe of Judah, King of Israel.
Then this man reads in the gospel of John where Jesus says that the believer in Him will never perish but have life and guaranteed resurrection and believes Jesus of Nazareth's words. This man reads John 6:47 and believes that by simple faith in Jesus that he has everlasting life. This man entrusts his eternal destiny into the hands of the one he finds authorized of God to guarantee his eternal destiny, namely, Jesus of Nazareth.
This man has not made the creature/creator distinction. He believes that Jesus has been authorized by God, annointed of God, to be the Messiah and the Guarantor of eternal life to all who simply trust in Him for it.
Why has he not placed his faith in Jesus of Nazareth? And if he has, why isn't he saved?
Philip believed that Jesus was the Christ, and as we know from 1 John 5:1, everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God. This is how he described Jesus to Nathanael:
"We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, whote -- Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."
Jesus was introduced as a mere man who had a biological father. But Philip understood Jesus to be the Messiah, the Christ, the Savior of the World (c.f. Jn 4:42 M.T.).
The person who we were just talking about has a great misconception about Jesus, that Jesus was merely a man who was the greatest of prophets, yet nevertheless, the annointed of God, who has been given authority and it authorized to give eternal life to all who believe in Him.
How can you say that he is believing in a different Jesus or a different god when he simply has a misunderstanding and misconception about Him?
It is manifestly illogical to claim such.
The only genuine positions one may have of this scenario are:
1) The man is saved, having fully entrusted his eternal destiny to God's Christ. 2) The man is unsaved because, although he believed in Jesus of Nazareth for eternal life, he did not fulfill another co-condition of receiving everlasting life, namely assent to the orthodox doctrine that Jesus is God, therefore misses heaven by a doctrinal stipulation.
It cannot be that he has believed in anyone else but Jesus of Nazareth! You have to grapple with this. The only logical and genuine position you could have is that one MUST believe that Jesus is God in addition to trust in Him. But then it wouldn't be simple faith alone in Jesus alone but faith in Jesus plus faith in doctrine (as true and important as it is!).
When I read through the Acts of the Apostles, I am struck by the fact that those who have some of their sermons contained therein do not emphasize the deity of Christ when they preached. For instance, Peter could say, "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus both Lord and Christ." This is the Lordship of Jesus that was granted unto Him by God, not the Lordship of Jesus by virtue of His divinity. God appointed Jesus to be Lord and the annointed King.
"Jesus of Nazareth" is emphasized 7 times in the book of Acts.
Here is another example:
Acts 10:38 8 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. NKJV
Acts 10:42-43 And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins."
If someone believes that Jesus of Nazareth is sufficiently authorized by God to guarantee eternal life to the believer, why is it that it is said that one must also understand that Jesus is God to identity Him?
Does Peter fail in sufficiently identifying and referring to Jesus of Nazareth?
I will answer your questions to the best of my ability but I do not pretend that I have answers that will satisfy you on all counts. I know that my answers will beg more questions and I am not sure how much time I have to spend defending every word that I write.
----- Antonio's First Question -----
This man has not made the creature/creator distinction. He believes that Jesus has been authorized by God, annointed of God, to be the Messiah and the Guarantor of eternal life to all who simply trust in Him for it.
Why has he not placed his faith in Jesus of Nazareth? And if he has, why isn't he saved?
----------
I want to make sure that I am understanding you correctly. It appears that you hold that when it comes to the Creator-creature distinction a person (any person) can reject it, accept it, or not really have thought about it or missed it in some way. In contrast, I hold that there are really only two positions and those are to accept or reject the Creator-creature distinction, there is no neutral position. If someone rejects the Creator-creature distinction then they are rejecting the God of scripture. Oh, they probably wouldn't state it that way but that is exactly what they would be doing.
God does not allow us to miss such things. There are many ways that He forces the issue: our consciences, common grace, and the convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit come to mind. So, someone reads through the bible and comes away not having noticed that our infinite God is different from all the others? Is this because the convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit did not shine the light of truth on that or is it because that person actively rejects that truth? I hold that it is an active rejection of the truth.
Many unbelievers have gone to their graves believing that their gods guaranteed them eternal life of some kind (valhalla, nirvana, the happy hunting grounds, etc.). If an unbeliever were to say that Dagon was the guarantor of eternal life you would most certainly tell him that he was wrong. There have been many false prophets making counterfeit claims through the centuries and each person must choose whether to believe them or the true God. How does an unbeliever make this distinction? I believe that it is the God who stands behind the offer that is the difference and that He is not hidden from them.
If he believes Jesus was authorized by a god like any other god, annointed of a god like any other god, to be the messiah and guarantor of life just like any other god then then that person is not saved. I also find this scenario to be self contradictory. All of the attributes and titles you list belong to the God of the bible and I do not believe that anyone would truly believe these things and reject Christ's deity or the Creator-creature distinction.
----- Antonio's Second Question -----
"We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, whote -- Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."
Jesus was introduced as a mere man who had a biological father. But Philip understood Jesus to be the Messiah, the Christ, the Savior of the World (c.f. Jn 4:42 M.T.).
The person who we were just talking about has a great misconception about Jesus, that Jesus was merely a man who was the greatest of prophets, yet nevertheless, the annointed of God, who has been given authority and it authorized to give eternal life to all who believe in Him.
[...]
How can you say that he is believing in a different Jesus or a different god when he simply has a misunderstanding and misconception about Him?
----------
I am sorry but this doesn't jump out at me at all. Did not Jesus grow up in Joseph's household? I suspect that Joseph was legally Jesus' father, was Phillip really denying Jesus' divinity?
I will say state once again that there are no neutral misconceptions. If Phillip was truly denying Christ's deity I would say he was not a believer at that time but since it doesn't seem to me that Phillip was denying His deity I don't have to say that.
----- Antonio's Third Question -----
If someone believes that Jesus of Nazareth is sufficiently authorized by God to guarantee eternal life to the believer, why is it that it is said that one must also understand that Jesus is God to identity Him?
---------
Only God is authorized to guarantee eternal life just like only God is allowed to forgive sin (didn't the Pharisees want to stone Jesus for doing that?). I believe that the scripture makes it abundantly clear that Christ is God in soteriological passages just like everywhere else but you will not agree to that, so why argue the point any more?
At this point I have taken time on this that I really don't have and I will have to let it go. I know very well where you stand on this just like you understand where I stand, hopefully that will be good enough for now.
Looks like more of the same to me! All human reasoning and not one single scripture given. It would be good to see someone at least use some scripture to prove their point. Seems like Antonio is the ONLY one that is!
Wow that was really a snappy come back! I'll tell you what. I'll quit my day job and begin studying full time so that whenever anyone asks me a question I can produce a book to answer each and every question.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I really don't think that you actually answered the questions, but skirted them. I have more to say about that, which I had already begun to type, but I erased it, wanting to give Rose a chance to answer the questions. I will respond to you after she answers.
Rose, give a couple of minutes to my questions whenever you get the chance. I would really love to hear what you think.
BTW, I have read your post on unashamed and read all the comments. I believe, so far as i can tell, that Alvin has done a great job of responding. If there is something specific you would like me to respond to, i would be happy to.
I see it this way, a Calvinist and a hyper-calvinist grew out of the same soil! Bad Soil!! Bad Bad Soil!!! So there source came from the same place. All five-points were meant by Calvin to fit together. Also I would never call myself by the name of a mere man!
Goodnightsafehome,,,your not as safe as you think! There will be no Calvinist in heaven just believers! If a Calvinist gets there it's because they believed Jesus simple promise of eternal life. If at the time they believed they were thinking they had to persevere in good works then it was impossible for them to have assurance. And if they had no assurance then they could not know they had eternal life! Which is really sad!!!
I believe that most of this material was originally developed by Cornelius Van Til who was a hyper-Calvinist.
Perhaps any one who uses this term Hyper Calvinist would like (in a short paragraph - less than 200 words) tell us the difference between a Hyper Calvinist and a Calvinist. If you don't know, then please say so, rather than wrapping what you merely think they have in common in the same, tired, old rhetoric that has long passed its use by date.
I agree with you. There are more differences (or at least, another main difference) but hold tight for a while. Your wisdom in withholding this obloquy is commendable. I hope that others can match it.
Hi Susan, sorry to hear about your blood pressure. But actually what I said could be the most loving thing that can be said to those that hold to perseverance of the saints. To have assurance there is only two options for them at the time they believe. (1) They also know they will persevere in good works at the moment they believe. (2) They don't know if they have believed. And being they have to endur to the end to be saved, they can't know if their saved until the end and then it's to late. Also I agree with what Matthew said. But if you look at the posts you will see I was quoting what someone else was applying. That's when Colin jumped on his high horse and took off with it half cocked Ha! Ha!
one drink from the Christ alvin Susan, running and rollerblading are great for the blood pressure!
That's when Colin jumped on his high horse and took off with it half cocked Ha! Ha!
Alvin, is it jumping (in your book) on to a high horse to ask what is the difference between a Calvinist and a Hyper Calvinist and to request that we keep to the simple question asked?
Alvin, do you know any of the differences between a Calvinist and a Hyper Calvinist? If not, just say so.
As my last act on the Christian blogs for the forseeable future here is a link to the definition of Hyper-Calvinism courtesey of Theopedia. I hope you find this of help.
I do not believe that my participation in the blogs has been biblically justifiable. I do not possess the spiritual gift of pastor-teacher or any other communication gift. All I can do is repeat what I have learned from men who do possess those gifts. This often puts me in the position of trying to justify other peoples work which I do not believe is right. I also believe that I get drawn into situations which spread divisiveness among the body of Christ which we are all warned against.
God bless you all and I hope you all find the truth you are all looking for.
A useful definition of Hyper Calvinism there. The issue now is, of course, wherein can it be said that Van Till was a Hyper Calvinist? Did he deny the free offer etc.?
Hi everyone, I am super busy with work right now, but I read through all the email notificatin of these comments and I will have to get back to them later.
One thing, though: Susan, Can you be very specific about what it is that you want me to charge Alvin for (as opposed to giving him a free pass) :~) I was inspired to comment on his comment but I don't have time to right now.
Hi Rose: Hyper Calvinists deny the responsibility of the sinner to repent and believe the gospel. They effectively deny the need of evangelism and the free offer of the gospel. Van Til denied none of these things. Therefore, for the sake of Christian integrity, I saw the need to query whether the branding of him as an Hyper was justified. I decided therefore to see if those who saw him as such actually knew what a Hyper Calvinist was. It is a term that often gets bandied about, sometimes by those who do not know what they are talking about.
[One thing, though: Susan, Can you be very specific about what it is that you want me to charge Alvin for (as opposed to giving him a free pass) :~) I was inspired to comment on his comment but I don't have time to right now.]
Hello Rose, I would be very happy if you would "charge Alvin with" those words you have put on the top of your post box. "Be challenging" "Be charitable!" "Be nice!" That's all I'm asking.
I don't blame Glen for making a mistaken remark about Van Till being a hyper-Calvinist. He obviously is a man who cares about truth, even if that means parting with some of his previous beliefs shown to be false. Alvin, on the other hand, has a history of misrepresenting Calvinists and there are many sites that do nothing but spread lies about godly men who are Calvinists. If you read certin blogs it becomes more than evident who feeds on this. These false reports cause needless damage and divisions in the body of Christ. Satan is very pleased and the Holy Spirit is grieved.
I tried to patiently show Alvin his errors about one of his false accusations which he continues to repeat even now. (See the Koran thread.) Alvin never admited he had misrepresented Piper and Sproul in his two "proof quotes". He just ignored my two questions about the source of his "facts". If he actually heard the quote of Sproul on a DVD as claimed, he is even more responsible for bearing false witness against R.C. Sproul Sr. since he would have known the truth from the context. That is why I got so upset when I read AGAIN these same hateful accusations of Alvin's.
I stopped back in to read the thread and have a couple of comments and request. While I respect the right of someone to disagree with me, we can do it in a agreeable manner. So those who read this would understand I'm trying to be charitable while challenging, and am hopefully perceived as nice.
One of the things I see done to support someone's theological stance is usually not made on scripture but on the writings of men. Paul made a point in 1 Corinthians, "not to go beyond what is written" (1 Corinthians 4:6c).
In a theological system you have to have a consistent, coherent, comprehensive evidence to say it is valid. As far as Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism (with all due respect to Susan) has been shot full of holes for a number of years now. One of the things that drew me away from my calvinist theological roots was the bible.
I would ask that if someone is going to make an argument for a position, they make it from scripture they have studied (not just read) and become convinced of - not someone else's interpretation.
Also, I would recommend that we don't use emotional appeals to determine what truth is from scripture. In personal interactions with hard line Calvinists they always seem to make an argument from scripture in proof texts that in many cases do not have anything to do with the context of the passage they removed it from. When confronted with this they get upset. This is also true of the anti-crossless group.
Anyway, I hope this is helpful as we consider this "crossless call".
I think Jim's call is one of those nice wee calls people make from time to time to get back to the Bible, even if his other comments are somewhat loaded against Calvinists. I am sure that he will find here on these pages that the Calvinists are ready to engage him direct from the pages of Scripture as he desires. All we ask is that we are treated with Christian respect, not misrepresented - something which we try and oblige our theological opponents with the same.
I just noticed this as I have read through again (had my second cup of coffee), sin is still an issue. Even most will agree on this after studying the scriptures. However, it is only the sin of unbelief that will condemn someone to eternal separation from God. (John 3:18)
What some who do not understand is the wall of partition that Paul spoke of in Ephesians 2:14-16. A "middle wall of partition" (NET), or literally the "dividing wall" mentioned in verse 14, referred historically to the dividing wall in the temple in Jerusalem. This wall separated the court of the Gentiles from the rest of the temple and excluded the Gentiles from the inner sanctuaries. Spiritually this wall was a picture of the separation that stands between God and man which prohibits man’s access into God’s presence. The Jews could go beyond the dividing wall, but this was only because they had access through their God-given sacrificial system which pointed to the person and work of Christ, the Messiah, the One who would make peace and remove this barrier.
Some may appeal to Revelation 20 at this point. It is clear from this text that there are two books opened. The first is the book of life which is spoken of elsewhere (Ps 69:28 [this is thought to be a reference to physical life]; Exodus 32:32ff; Ps 139:16; Daniel 7:10; 12:1; Isaiah 4:3 [targum interpretation - eternal life]; Malachi 3:16; Luke 10:20; Acts 13:48 [Greek word does not mean "ordained" but "inscribed"]; Philippians 4:3; Hebrews 12:23; Revelation 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; 22:19; 21:27). If one has not believed their name is not found there. The only recourse for any righteous judge is to consider all the evidence before sentencing. The only thing left for them is to fall back on their works. No one will be saved by any works. The only work that will save is to believe (John 6:29).
In addition (although off topic - as Rose pointed out), the idea that of those of us who hold to a free grace gospel are headed to universalism is laughable.
However, it is only the sin of unbelief that will condemn someone to eternal separation from God. (John 3:18)
Can you show us, Jim, from the Scriptures, where unbelief is said to be the only sin that condemns the sinners. I emphasise the word only. For my part, I see a whole host of sins being listed as the cause of damnation in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
Your prooftext shows that people will be kept from inheriting the kingdom of God because of being characterized by unrighteous behavior.
I see nothing about simple entrance into the kingdom which is by grace through faith.
Now maybe you want to make a case that inheriting the kingdom of God = entering the kingdom of God, but I think that Noah Webster would take issue with you equating the terms "inherit" and "enter" (and so would the Apostle Paul).
1 Samuel 2:22 Now Eli was very old, and he kept hearing all that his sons were doing to all Israel, and how they lay with the women who were serving at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 23 And he said to them, “Why do you do such things? For I hear of your evil dealings from all the people. 24 No, my sons; it is no good report that I hear the people of the Lord spreading abroad. 25 If someone sins against a man, God will mediate for him, but if someone sins against the Lord, who can intercede for him?” But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for it was the will of the Lord to put them to death.
26 Now the young man Samuel continued to grow both in stature and in favor with the Lord and also with man.
27 And there came a man of God to Eli and said to him, “Thus the Lord has said, ‘Did I indeed reveal myself to the house of your father when they were in Egypt subject to the house of Pharaoh? 28 Did I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to go up to my altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me? I gave to the house of your father all my offerings by fire from the people of Israel. 29 Why then do you scorn my sacrifices and my offerings that I commanded, and honor your sons above me by fattening yourselves on the choicest parts of every offering of my people Israel?’ ...
3:8 And the Lord called Samuel again the third time. And he arose and went to Eli and said, “Here I am, for you called me.” Then Eli perceived that the Lord was calling the young man. 9 Therefore Eli said to Samuel, “Go, lie down, and if he calls you, you shall say, ‘Speak, Lord, for your servant hears.’” So Samuel went and lay down in his place.
10 And the Lord came and stood, calling as at other times, “Samuel! Samuel!” And Samuel said, “Speak, for your servant hears.” 11 Then the Lord said to Samuel, “Behold, I am about to do a thing in Israel at which the two ears of everyone who hears it will tingle. 12 On that day I will fulfill against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house, from beginning to end. 13 And I declare to him that I am about to punish his house forever, for the iniquity that he knew, because his sons were blaspheming God, and he did not restrain them. 14 Therefore I swear to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.”
Antonio: I didn't claim that the words "enter" and "inherit" are synonyms but I do contend that they who enter the Kingdom also inherit it, hence the reference to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
I simply asked our new found friend Jim to supply some scriptural proof that unbelief is the only damning sin, and thus far as he has not done so. I notice that you haven't taken it upon yourself to do so.
John elaborates further on this matter that all unpardoned sin damns the sinner when he writes:
Rev 21:8 But the fearful and unbelieving and the abominable and murderers and whoremongers and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, they shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. Here unbelief is listed as but one of several damning sins.
Thank you, Jim. I read a post on your blog that I thought was really good and stated well some of the concerns I share with you about the lack of accountability in the blogosphere.
Antonio, I was trying to find the specific question you want me to answer. I am a little confused - I have been ill and I ahve been away from this for a few days. Is this the question:
What misconceptions are fatal and what are trivial, Glenn, and who would be the arbiter of such considerations?
Yes, you are right about Hyper Calvinists. They frown on anyone appealing to mixed congregations (and I don't mean male and female) for people to come to Christ. They think that such commands implies creature power and therefore refrain from doing it. While Calvinists believe that men lack the power in and off themselves to come, yet they recognise that God imparts the power to come through the agency of the preached word. This naturally invigorates the Calvinist evangelist and encourages him to throw the gospel net as far and as wide as he can. The Hyper Calvinist on the other hand, wants to see evidence that the Spirit has moved upon the soul of the hearer before he will bring him the gospel promise. The warrant to believe, Calvinists say, lies in the promise of the gospel i.e. that whoseover will may come. The warrant to believe, for the H/C, is in the evidence that God has being moving upon the soul. H/C produces a spirit of self examination and doubt since it points the sinner to look within. Calvinism (and Evangelicalism as a whole) with its emphasis on the rich promises of the gospel points men away to Christ as He is freely offered in the gospel and rpoduces a spirit of hope.
it is quite a jump to come to the conclusion that those who enter the kingdom will inherit it. I wonder how you would come to such a conclusion?
Furthermore, people go to hell unforgiven, and those who John talks about are terminally characterized by their sin. A man who has such understanding as I have seen you have could surely see that because one goes to hell characterized by their sin and unforgiven, does not necessarily mean that they go to hell because they are condemned for their sins.
You would need to make a biblical case for that!
The fact of the matter is that men are put into hell because they don't have life. Sin is no longer an issue between God and man in the specific consideration of who gets into heaven and who does not. Jesus took away the sins of the whole world and is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world.
There is no text at all you can come up with that says that a man is condemned to hell BECAUSE of his sin guilt.
Furthermore, the cause that someone goes to hell is their unbelief. But the reason they go to hell is that they do not have life.
This is the same as saying the cause for someone getting in trouble at work was their car breaking down, but the reason they get into trouble is that they were late for work.
Please give us a text that states taht men and women go to hell for the cause of the sins that Christ died for.
Rose you asked: Alvin, Do you realize that you misrepresented the people that Susan says you misrepresented?
1/27/2008 12:10 PM
Hi Rose, No I didn't misrepresent anyone that I know of and have been seeking to bring forth the evidence. I was wrong in saying it was DVD when it was a VCR tape. It was over 10 yrs ago in an Evangelical Church in Libby Montana if I remember right that someone in the Church liked R.C. Sproul and brought a VCR tape for us to listen to in adult sunday school. That's where I heard him say "he didn't know if he was saved." I went online to try to find the source but found the same thing as Susan did on the tabletalk. This is what I have so far but am still trying to produce the VCR tape. I also have a DVD of the James White and Bob Wilkin debate where White is not able to say with certainty he is saved but is growing in assurance. So this should not be a shock to anyone who knows the truth about the 5th point of Calvinism. It's impossible for them to have certainty because they believe in a spurious faith they can ONLY know with certainty when they reach the end of their life.
Here is my documentation thus far on John Piper and R.C. Sproul:
“No Christian can be sure that he is a true believer. Hence, there is an ongoing need to be dedicated to the Lord and to deny ourselves so that we might make it.”[ John Piper and Pastoral Staff, TULIP: What We Believe about the Five Points of Calvinism: Position Paper of the Pastoral Staff (Desiring God Ministries, 1997) Dr. R.C. Sproul candidly admitted that he wasn't sure he was saved in a TableTalk article a few years back (Nov 6, 1989, p. 20). He began:
A while back I had one of those moments of acute self-awareness that we have from time to time, and suddenly the question hit me: "R.C., what if you are not one of the redeemed? What if your destiny is not heaven after all, but hell?" Let me tell you that I was flooded in my body with a chill that went from my head to the bottom of my spine. I was terrified. A few sentences later he confirmed his doubts,
I thought, "Maybe it's really true. Maybe I'm not saved after all." Dr. Sproul seems to be suggesting that Peter's remark indicates that he was unsure that he had eternal life. Such a conclusion is unwarranted. Peter likely meant that it makes no sense to leave Jesus since He was instructing them about eternal life. The fact that a person knows that he is eternally secure doesn't mean that he no longer needs or wants to learn about life eternal. Our hearts should be set on that life, not this one (Matt 6:19-21; 1 Cor 3:10-15; 9:24-27; 2 Cor 5:9-10; 1 Tim 6:18-19).
Hi Rose Hi Colin, I finally got some time to reply. You asked me the difference between Calvinism and Hyper Calvinism? This I think is the best definition: Part 1 When the true position of a Calvinist is finally exposed, he will usually claim that he is being misrepresented. Therefore, another type of Calvinism has been invented, and it is to it that every objection against the Calvinistic system is consigned. The adherents of this fictitious scheme are referred to by various terms: "ultra-Calvinists" "extreme Calvinists," "high-Calvinists," "Hardshells." The favorite designation for this group is "hyper-Calvinists." ( Arthur W. Pink, The Doctrine of Sanctification) The trouble is, hyper-Calvinism is an ambiguos term. To an "Arminian,' all Calvinists might be considered hyper-Calvinists. To an admirer of Spurgeon, any Calvinist to the right of him could be a candidate for a hyper-Calvinist. To one group of Calvinistic Baptists, another Calvinistic group they don't like might be dismissed as hyper-Calvinists. Many consider a hyper-Calvinist to be a Calvinist who goes beyond the teachings of John Calvin. ( E.D. Strickland, in "The Berea Baptist Banner Forum) But to say that a person could go beyond the teachings of Calvin is not accurate, for when we examine Calin's views, we will see that Calvin was (as is to be expected) true to his name. So just what is a hyper-Calvinist? Since it is the Calvinists themselves who regularly make this judgment, we must of necessity hear from them:
The present writer would define hyper-Calvinism as a view of predestination that would deny or minimize human responsibility to repent and believe the gospel because of an inability to do so in light of the doctrine of total depravity. Furthermore, hyper-Calvinism would deny the necessity of a universal offer of the gospel. (Belcher, Pink: Predestination, p 8)
Hyper-Calvinism in its attempt to square all gospel truth with God's purpose to save the elect, denies there is a universal command to repent and believe, and asserts that we have only warrant to invite to Christ those who are conscious of a sense of sin and need. (Iain Murray, Forgotten Spurgeon, p 47)
Hyper-Calvinism is the denial that God, in the preaching of the gospel, calls everyone who hears the preaching to repent and believe. It is the denial that the church should call everyone in the preaching. It is the denial that the unregenerated have a duty to repent and believe. (Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism, pp. 10-11)
But as one of the above writers also related of hyper-Calvinism: "IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO DEFINE IT IN A MANNER THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTIBLE TO ALL." ( Belcher, Pink: Predestination, p 8) One Sovereign Grace Baptist insists "you would have find a thousand different definitions of a hyper-Calvinist among the religions of the world." (Jimmie B. Davis in "The Berea Baptist Banner Forum," March 5: 1990, p. 51) The only proper use of the term hyper-Calvinist is in practice not profession. As one writer has said: "When we talk about 'hyper-Calvinism' we are not talking about the extending of Calvin's doctrines to a place beyond which he taught, but we are merely talking about an overemphasis on what he taught." ( Ruckman, Hyper-Calvinism, p. 3) The Calvinists and the so-called hyper-Calvinists believe, teach, and preach the same things about Calvinism--the "hyper-Calvinist" just puts them into practice more consistently than the Calvinist. Spurgeon, who was criticised by "hyper-Calvinists" contemporary with him, (Iain H. Murry, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism) just as he is today, (Marc D. Carpenter) said about the doctrine of his critics: I do not think I differ from any of my Hyper-Calvinistic brethern in what I do believe, but I differ from them in what they do not believe. I do not hold any less than they do, but I hold a little more, and, I think, a little more of the truth revealed in the Scriptures. ( Charles H. Spurgeon, quoted in Iain Murray, Hyper-Calvinism, p. 38)
part 2 Hyper-Calvinism vs. Calvinism Because they believe that they are the true Calvinists, those who are denominated as hyper-Calvinists do not accept the label. In fact, no one has ever countenanced the label. Those accused of hyper-Calvinism have even retaliated with a neologism of their own to brand what they consider as "a teaching that falls below the level of true Calvinism." ( Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism, p. 40) Apparently coined by David Engelsma, "hypo-Calvinism" has since been used as a term of condemnation by other critics of what they consider to be something less than true Calvinism. But even though Calvinist refuse to accept the label, and often cannot agree on just what exactly a hyer-Calvinist is, they are adamant in their insistance that Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism are poles apart: A hyper-Calvinist and a Calvinist are two entirely different people. ( Keener, p. 21) Hyper-Calvinism is an aberration from true Calvinism. ( Iain Murray, Hyper-Calvinism, p. 40) And although Calvinists incessantly lament that Calvinism is not distinguished from hyper-Calvinism, they relish attacks on hyper-Calvinism. THEY USE THE TERM TO MAKE THEMSELVES LOOK ORTHODOX MUCH THE SAME AS THEY USE THE LABEL ARMINIAN. THEY ARE GREAT AT ARTICULATING WHAT THEY DON'T BELIEVE, SO AS TO DRAW ATTENTION AWAY FROM WHAT THEY DO BELIEVE. By crusading against the errors of both hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism, the Calvinist can take the middle road and APPEAR to be orthodox. This is exactly what Spurgeon did in his day: Now I, who am neither an Arminian nor a hyper-Calvinist, but a Calvinist of Calvin's own stamp, think I can stand between the two parties. Believing all the hyper-Calvinist believes, and preaching as high doctrine as ever he can preach, but believing more than he believes; not believing all the Arminian believes, but still at the same time believing that he is often sounder than the hyper-Calvinist upon some points of doctrine. (Charles H. Spurgeon, The Two Wesleys (Pasadena: Pilgrim Publications, 1975), pp 4-5) Once again it is apparent that the true difference between a Calvinist and a hyper-Calvinist is one of practice not profession. A Calvinist of "Calvin's own stamp" is too much of a Calvinist. ( The Other Side Of Calvinism by Laurence M. Vance)
I have been quoted and asked a question GOODNIGHTSAFEHOME,
"Can you show us, Jim, from the Scriptures, where unbelief is said to be the only sin that condemns the sinners. I emphasise the word only. For my part, I see a whole host of sins being listed as the cause of damnation in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10."
I would point you to (in addition to the other scriptures on this post) John 1:29; 5:22; Revelation 20:11-15 and many other scriptures...too many to list. As Zane Hodges points out in a recent article,
"It is because the Judge (Jesus Christ) is also the Lamb of God who has taken away the sin of the world (John 1:29). The Judge will not bring up an issue that He Himself has dealt with on the cross. This Judge will condemn no human being whatsoever for any sin whatsoever."
My question back to you would be are you trying to say that Jesus did not pay the penalty for sin?
Also, I would point out that your view of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is flawed.
Who are the “unrighteous” (NASB) or “wicked” (NIV) in view? Paul previously used this word (Gr. adikos) of the unsaved in verse l (cf. v. 6 where he called them unbelievers). However he also used it of the Corinthian Christians in verse 8: “you yourselves wrong [adikeo].” Christians as well as unbelievers have been guilty of unrighteous conduct, even all the offenses listed in these verses. Therefore what Paul said about the unrighteous in this verse seems to apply to anyone who is unrighteous in his or her behavior whether saved or unsaved. It does not apply just to the unrighteous in their standing before God, namely unbelievers.
What will be true of the unrighteous? They will “not inherit the kingdom of God.” Elsewhere Paul used this expression to describe the consequences of the behavior of unbelievers when he compared it to the behavior of believers (cf. Galaltians 5:21; Ephesians 5:5).
Inheriting the kingdom and entering the kingdom are synonyms in the Gospels (cf. Matthew 19:16; Mark 10:17; Luke 18:18). But as most Calvinists do not believe in a literal Reign of Jesus Christ from Davids throne, and all the Messianic prophecies being fulfilled, it will be hard to understand that Paul (a Jew) was speaking of entering the Kingdom in a physical sense on the earth. Not heaven as many take this to mean.
He did not mean that Christians are incapable of practicing these sins, but they typically characterize unbelievers. Paul warned his readers about being deceived on this subject (v. 9). Probably many of them failed to see that how Christians choose to live here and now will affect our eternal reward. Many Christians today fail to see this too. The fact that we are eternally secure should not lead us to conclude that it does not matter how we live now even though we will all end up in heaven.
Paul’s point in this whole section (vv. 1–11) was that genuine Christians should not continue in or return to the sinful practices that mark unbelievers. We should become what we are because of what Jesus Christ has done for us. This appeal runs throughout the New Testament and is latent in every exhortation to pursue godliness. It is especially strong in this epistle. Rather than assuming that believers will not continually practice sin, the inspired writers constantly warned us of that possibility.
Paul makes this clear as he continues the letter.
As for debating any Calvinists, I prefer to do what Paul told Timothy (and Titus),
“Teach them and exhort them about these things. If someone spreads false teachings and does not agree with sound words (that is, those of our Lord Jesus Christ) and with the teaching that accords with godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing, but has an unhealthy interest in controversies and verbal disputes. This gives rise to envy, dissension, slanders, evil suspicions, and constant bickering by people corrupted in their minds and deprived of the truth, who supposes that godliness is a way of making a profit.” 1 Timothy 6:2c – 5.
“Remind people of these things and solemnly charge them before the Lord not to wrangle over words. This is of no benefit; it just brings ruin on those who listen. Make every effort to present yourself before God as a proven worker who does not need to be ashamed, teaching the message of truth accurately. But avoid profane chatter, because those occupied with it will stray further and further into ungodliness, and their message will spread its infection like gangrene.” 2 Timothy 2:14-17a.
“But reject foolish and ignorant controversies, because you know they breed infighting. And the Lord’s slave must not engage in heated disputes but be kind toward all, an apt teacher, patient, correcting opponents with gentleness. Perhaps God will grant them repentance and then knowledge of the truth and they will come to their senses and escape the devil’s trap where they are held captive to do his will.” 2 Timothy 2:23-26
“For there are many rebellious people, idle talkers, and deceivers, especially those with Jewish connections, who must be silenced because they mislead whole families by teaching for dishonest gain what ought not to be taught. A certain one of them, in fact, one of their own prophets, said, ‘Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’ Such testimony is true. For this reason rebuke them sharply that they may be healthy in the faith and not pay attention to Jewish myths and commands of people who reject the truth. All is pure to those who are pure. But to those who are corrupt and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their minds and consciences are corrupted. They profess to know God but with their deeds they deny him, since they are detestable, disobedient, and unfit for any good deed.” Titus 1:10-16
So you see, I am not apologetic for what I believe. Like Luther persuade me from the scriptures and reason and I will change my mind.
And also because I am persuaded by my study of the scriptures and the lack of a good hermeneutic argument from Calvinists, lordship salvationists, and anti-refined gospel opponents, my challenge is to prove your case biblically. I don't think it is a "wee" issue.
Hi Rose/Antonio: Antonio: Have ye not read the Scripture that reminds us that The wages of sin is death? (Romans 6:23) 1) The death in this verse is put in contradistinction to eternal life i.e. it is reference to eternal death or the second death i.e. hell. The Believer will never partake of this second death. It is reserved for those who are said to “die in their sins” (John 8:21) and because they die in their sins, then they will never be with Christ in Heaven. 2) This Second Death is clearly caused by the fact that they have sinned - for it is put under the picture of a wage – something earned. I get my pay check every month because I have earned it with the sweat of my brow Likewise, people in hell can say: “I am here, because my sin (including that of unbelief) has brought me here.” The death that brings men to hell i.e. in that they do not have life is spiritual death. They are dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1) It is wrong to pit these things against one another. Likewise, it is wrong to pit the “cause” against the “reason why.” There is no text that states that men and women go to hell for the cause of the sins that Christ died for. Which is why I am a Calvinist. i.e. I beleive that all for Christ made atonement (the elect) will be saved. However, your position i.e. not merely Univeral provision but Universal application is neither Biblical nor is it “Old School Non Calvinism”, as the heading at the top of your shared blog suggests, but is nothing more than a recent and novel interpretation, rejected by most Bible students in this and past ages. I base my observation thsat those who enter the Kingdom of God also inherit it from Revelation 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. God’s so great salvation which is to the uttermost guarantees the believer that he will ultimately overcome and therefore inherit the Kingdom. You have no Scripture to suggest otherwise.
Your gripe at first seems to be against the use of the word “hyper” and it’s somewhat elastic application. However, such is applicable to any doctrine. EW Bullinger is often branded as a “Hyper Dispensationalist” but I’m sure that those follow his teachings would dispute the designation. So that argument, while it has some merit, also fails to make any real impression. The same may be said for the reference to Hypo Calvinists. The fact is that there are major differences between Calvinists and Hyper Calvinists which cannot be ignored or played down. You quote: But to say that a person could go beyond the teachings of Calvin is not accurate, for when we examine Calvin's views, we will see that Calvin was (as is to be expected) true to his name. This suggests that Calvin held to the most extreme position and so that it could not be surpassed. This is not so. When the H/C’s deny the free offer of the gospel or deny that it is incumbent on sinners to repent and believe the gospel, then they are going. By putting too much wait on the Sovereignty of God, they have failed to maintain the basic Biblical doctrine that man is responsible for his sins. Calvin (and Calvinists) wisely maintain(ed) both positions.
Your various quotes in your two admissions flow from the pen of both Calvinists and non Calvinists. Unfortunately they are saying different things. Those from Calvinists are pointing out the doctrinal differences (Man’s responsibility) while those from non Calvinists are basically saying that there are no doctrinal differences, but merely the practice. This is sending out a confusing signal, since you cannot logically argue both at one and the same time. I suggest that you run with the Calvinist idea that the hyper Calvinists, by denying the doctrine of man’s responsibility, have effectively manufactured another message that cannot be described as authentic Calvinism. None of this involves you embracing Calvinism, but it will prevent you from (a) getting confused and (b) branding good men like Van Til as something which they repudiated. I note with thankfulness that Glenn has practically distanced himself from his original branding of Van Til as a Hyper Calvinist. This preserves both decency and truthfulness in the debate.
CHS rightly claimed that he held to the same 5 points of Calvinism as the H/C (just as he held to the same doctrine of the Trinity, Virgin Birth etc.,) but made the all important distinction in that he also said that he held to more than they did i.e. the free offer of the gospel and the responsibility of man.
When the H/C’s deny the free offer of the gospel or deny that it is incumbent on sinners to repent and believe the gospel, then they are going.
Should read:
When the H/C’s deny the free offer of the gospel or deny that it is incumbent on sinners to repent and believe the gospel, then they are going beyond Calvin.
I trust that you will forgive this fourth sally in a row unto this page – although one was a correction – but I woke up this morning to quite a number of replies to various points.
It looks as if this reply to Jim will not take long, judging from the various verses he quotes above which he deemed me fit to come under. He unapologetically (his own statement) regards all Calvinists as rebellious people, idle talkers and deceivers etc., and who must not be engaged in with foolish and ignorant controversies etc. (Read it for yourself above) This being the case, I must wonder why he then engages me at the beginning of his reply (“My question back to you is...”) and then at the close (“My challenge is...”) What Jim am I to correspond with? Do I wish to engage with a man who is out of line with most of my various opponents on this blog who treat Calvinists with respect (although radically disagreeing with their doctrine) and who has practically damned me because in his view, though I profess to know God, yet deny Him with my deeds, being detestable, disobedient and unfit for any good deed. I think not. I am already engaging here with someone who can articulate his peculiar doctrines and who is generally polite (though robust) and another who is less articulate and can feed me with the doubts about my salvation. So, Jim, until you sort out what line you want to take, I’ll give you a miss.
I will attempt to answer your questions in 15 mins or less! :)
First off I notice some criticism of Glenn's attempt to answer (which I have not read) were that he did not answer with Scripture. Well I'd argue that though scripture is used in your post some of the assumptions you make are not at all based on Scripture. Such as the opening statements about the Disciples. Seeing as they presented Him to each other as "the One we have been looking for".
Anyhoo....
You asked Why has he not placed his faith in Jesus of Nazareth? And if he has, why isn't he saved?
If your description is to be seen as exhaustive then the man has not repented. He has not seen that Christ died for his sins and rose again. 1 Cor 15 3-4
He has erroneously thought that there was some man named Jesus who promised eternal life if you would be able to ask him for it.
You said that James though He was just a mere man the "son of Joseph". Alas this is how Jesus was identified. James is not saying He was not God, He's saying Who the Person he was talking about is.
It could be shown to be assumption whether the verse is explained my way or your way. Mine agrees with Scripture. And allows for the fact that since he said they had been looking for the One who is the Christ they are aware of Scripture and that the Christ would be God Himself.
You said 1) The man is saved, having fully entrusted his eternal destiny to God's Christ. 2) The man is unsaved because, although he believed in Jesus of Nazareth for eternal life, he did not fulfill another co-condition of receiving everlasting life, namely assent to the orthodox doctrine that Jesus is God, therefore misses heaven by a doctrinal stipulation.
3) the man did not see his sins paid for on the Cross as Jesus explained was needed to be Born Again, and that to be saved one must be Born Again. John 3.
He believed a false gospel, that Jesus is just some guy who will give you eternal life if you ask him for it.
Lastly you continue to ask leading questions that though list Scriptures are not based in Scripture.
If someone believes that Jesus of Nazareth is sufficiently authorized by God to guarantee eternal life to the believer, why is it that it is said that one must also understand that Jesus is God to identity Him?
Does Peter fail in sufficiently identifying and referring to Jesus of Nazareth?
Matt 2:23
I'm out of my 15 mins here and have to get back to work. Sorry but Peter knew his audience. That should be enough of an answer for you for now. If not I will continue.
I believe this quote of Vance puts it all in to perspective on Calvinism:
The STUMBLING BLOCK for the Calvinist is the SIMPLICITY of Salvation, so upon REJECTING this, a SYSTEM has been contructed whereby salvation is made a mysterious, arcane, incomprehensible, decree of God. Thus the basic error of Calvinism is confounding election and predestination with salvation, which they NEVER are in the Bible, but only in the philosophical speculations and theological implications of Calvinism: the other side of Calvinism. (LMV)
In contrast to what the scriptures say:
John 3:16For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
John 5:24“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.
John 4:10 Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.” John 4:13 Jesus answered and said to her, “Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, 14 but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.” 15 The woman said to Him, “Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw.”
John 6:47Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me[a] has everlasting life.
John 11: 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?” 27 She said to Him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”
Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.
2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the SIMPLICITY that is in Christ.
Jesus kept it real simple, so simple a little child could come to Him! And this is why a person can KNOW they have eternal life simply based on Jesus promise (1 John 5:13) Pretty simply!!!
Colin, you reference Romans 6:23, claiming the death described here is the 2nd death. Is there any reason this would not be describing the physical death?
Colin, you reference Romans 6:23,claiming the death described here is the 2nd death. Is there any reason this would not be describing the physical death?
Hi Missy,
I would not deny that it takes in physical death, but it seems very tame to limit it to the mere physical, especially when it is mentioned in contradistinction to eternal life.
Thanks, Colin. Just curious as I had made the opposite assumption in the light of that comparision - that we will face an unavoidable physical death as a consequence of sin, but another kind of "life" exists that is eternal.
Thanks, Colin. Just curious as I had made the opposite assumption in the light of that comparision - that we will face an unavoidable physical death as a consequence of sin, but another kind of "life" exists that is eternal.
I notice most of the Old Time Evangelical commentators at least include eternal death in the remit. John Wesley writes in his notes on the verse: Death - Temporal, spiritual, and eternal. Is the due wages of sin; but eternal life is the gift of God - The difference is remarkable. Evil works merit the reward they receive: good works do not. The former demand wages: the latter accept a free gift.
Missy: Are you pulling my leg? (joking...in case of Trans-Atlantic word difficulties) about John Wesley? He was the world famous Methodist evangelist. Not Reformed in his doctrine :-( but nevertheless a good man.I like to quote him when I am contendign for something being Old Time Evangelical (as opposed to being solely Calvinistic)
In the context of Romans 6 which is about the consequences of our living, Wesley is pointing out that those who live after the flesh reap the consequences of their sins i.e. that is the reason why they are in hell. On the other hand, those who are living for God (as seen in their good works) do not attribute their salvation in any way to their good works, but are totally dependent 100% on the grace (gift) of God.
Regards,
(Nice to see you got to be the 100th one to comment on this thread. I think I "robbed" you of it a few weeks ago on another thread.)
Darn! The joy was lost on me, Colin. I did not even realize - my focus was channeled too tightly I suppose.
Seriously, I have no ides who he is. I don't read a lot of religious material other than the Bible and some contemporary study guides or books for book club meetings. Most of what I've learned about "Old Time" religion is right here on this blog. I should study more of these guys everyone is mentioning, but then I worry I will begin debating in the same circular arguments I keep hearing. Plus, I kinda like thinking I am original - why spoil it? :)
I guess, in reading Romans 6, I had always considered the theme to be "Sin Will Always End." And the question I ask myself in the end is, will I die along with my sin or let my sin die alone and live with Christ? So I considered the literary death in this chapter to be the death of sin, which in a way is a second death, but sin dies with flesh, so I consider that a concurrent death.
Good morning Rose hope your feeling more like yourself today! back to the topic:
"A "Crossless" Call"
The Bible tells us: John 1:29 Behold! The Lamb of God WHO TAKES AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD!
1 John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours ONLY but also for the WHOLE world.
The Calvinist does not believe that God has taken away the sin of the world! This would not make sense to the Calvinist because how would God condemn the reprobate to hell if He took away their sin? The Calvinist believes that God has created the reprobate for hell therefore the Calvinist does not believe John 1:29 or 1 John 2:2.
John Calvin quote concerning 1 John 2:2:
But here the question may be asked as to how the sins of the whole world have been expiated. I pass over the dreams of the fanatics, who make this a reason to extend salvation TO ALL THE REPROBATE and even to Satan himself. Such a monstrous idea is not worth refuting. Those who want to avoid this absurdity have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world but effectively only for the elect. This SOLUTION has commonly prevailed in the schools. Although I ALLOW the truth of this, I deny that it fits this passage. For John's purpose was only to make this blessing common to the whole Church. Therefore, under the word "ALL” HE DOES NOT INCLUDE THE REPROBATE, but refers to all who would believe and those who were scattered through various regions of the earth. For, as is meet, the grace of Christ is really made clear when it is declared to be the only salvation of the world. ( Calvin, Commentaries, vol. 10, p. 245 )
In a tract on the Lord’s Supper against Tileman Heshusius (1527-1588), Calvin declared what he REALLY believed about the Atonement: The first thing to be explained is how Christ is present with unbelievers, to be the spiritual food of their souls, and in short the life and salvation of the world. As he adheres so doggedly to the words, I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which WAS NOT CRUCIFIED FOR THEM, and how they can drink the blood which WAS NOT SHED TO EXPIATE THEIR SINS? (Calvin, quoted in Helm, p. 21)
Calvin taught that God loved the elect and planned their holiness and salvation while on the other hand, HE HATED THE REPROBATE and PLANNED THEIR SIN and DAMNATION. (Morey, p. 296.)
The reprobate is just another name or theological curse word for the non-elect.
As a matter of interest, what do you understand by the verse in Psalm 5:5 where it says:
The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.
Adam Clarke, who is regarded as one of the greatest of the Arminian commentators wrote:
Thou hatest all workers of iniquity - Some sin now and then, others generally; some constantly, and some labor in it with all their might. These are the Workers of iniquity. Such even the God of infinite love and mercy hates. Alas! what a portion have the workers of iniquity! the hatred of God Almighty!
Hello Rose, Hope you are feeling better today. Instead of trying to decide the question about whether some person with minimal information about Jesus Christ can be saved or not, we should instead concern ourselves with whether we will be found faithful ambassadors for Christ.
I could not help thinking of Antonio's words concerning the JWs when I read this passage of Scripture. These are sobering words indeed!
Acts 20:17 Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the church to come to him. 18 And when they came to him, he said to them:
“You yourselves know how I lived among you the whole time from the first day that I set foot in Asia, 19 serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials that happened to me through the plots of the Jews; 20 how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house, 21 testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. 22 And now, behold, I am going to Jerusalem, constrained by [2] the Spirit, not knowing what will happen to me there, 23 except that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and afflictions await me. 24 But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God. 25 And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again. 26 Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all of you, 27 for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God. 28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, [3] which he obtained with his own blood. [4] 29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish everyone with tears. 32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.
Hi Susan, we do share the whole council of God! You said: we should instead concern ourselves with whether we will be found faithful ambassadors for Christ.
Susan as an ambassador for God you have to preach the reconciliation that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself NOT COUNTING THEIR SINS AGAINST THEM. Susan how do you do that when when you really don't believe it? You think that God is counting their sins against the non-elect. Aren't you having to lie, or do you keep silent about this?
Goddnight God hates sin, but He has paid for all sin on the cross so it is not an issue having to do with the living water that anyone can take freely!
You wrote, “Instead of trying to decide the question about whether some person with minimal information about Jesus Christ can be saved or not, we should instead concern ourselves with whether we will be found faithful ambassadors for Christ.”
I agree that we should all be concerned with the Bible mandate that every believer is an ambassador for Christ. We are compelled to and have the privilege to preach the Gospel to every creature. If we are going to be faithful ambassadors for Jesus Christ we had better be preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The eternal destiny of every living soul depends on a proper understanding, and clear presentation of the Gospel to the unsaved.
The Hodges “Crossless Gospel” (CG) is not the biblical plan of salvation. Zane Hodges (Wilkin, da Rosa, Myers) has reduced, minimalized and trivialized the Gospel of Jesus Christ down to a non-saving message that saves no one.
Are you aware that Hodges, Wilkin and da Rosa insist a lost man can be saved apart from understanding or believing in who Jesus was, what He did to provide salvation and His deity? The problem with the CG does not stop with lack of knowledge.
Antonio believes a lost man can be saved even if he (the lost man) consciously rejects the Lord’s deity. In a witnessing situation Antonio says “any misconception” the lost have about Jesus should be “put on the back burner.”
The sole focus of “Crossless Gospel” evangelism is to get the lost person to say he/she believes in the promise of eternal life.
Jon Lee has questioned da Rosa for creating the perception that the promise of eternal life is the object of faith instead of the Lord Jesus Christ. Jon wrote to Antonio, “Nowhere is there a stipulation that I must believe in Him FOR the promise that He makes. This places the object of faith on the promise and away from Him.”
Jon Lee makes an excellent point, the latter sentence especially, which I have been stressing for months. (See Jon’s comment at Unashamed, Jan. 28 @ 8am)
Antonio’s now infamous statement in which he sees no difference between the “cultic” Mormon Jesus and the Jesus of the Gospels is just one example of how the advocates of the CG have corrupted and “refined” the Gospel and person of Jesus Christ down to a non-saving message. I have been reading several people, who are sympathetic to the CG, questioning Antonio over his equating the Mormon half-brother of Satan and the Jesus we read of in the Bible as “one and the same.”
Hodges, Wilkin and da Rosa are propagating a system that has so minimalized the Gospel that virtually no content is left that one might recognize as the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The “Crossless Gospel” is not just a “minimal information” approach to evangelism. There is virtually no information about the person and finished work of Jesus Christ that needs to be known, understood or believed by the lost man for the reception of eternal life.
Rachel posted the following at my blog, which focuses on and sums up the area of concern many of us have in these discussions.
“What we are concerned with is NOT what they personally believe, NOT what they would probably share when witnessing, and NOT what they think was necessary to make it possible for people to be born again. We ARE concerned with what Hodges/Wilkin think is necessary for the lost person to believe to be born again. This is what we are discussing, and their view on this specifically is what we are rejecting.”
Looks like your off the suject at hand again Lou! As Rose has already said to you:
Do you have anything to contribute about the subject of the post?
Just to show your blowing more smoke this is your quote of a quote: Jon wrote to Antonio, “Nowhere is there a stipulation that I must believe in Him FOR the promise that He makes. This places the object of faith on the promise and away from Him.”
John 4:10 IF you KNEW the gift of God and who it is who said to you give, 'Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water. She needed to KNOW what the gift was!
Hi Colin Colin I believe this is where the Calvinist has went to the dark side. They take scriptures like Psalm 5:5 “You hate all workers of iniquity” and run with it. Just like they take Malachi 1:2 Yet Jacob have I loved; But Esau I have hated. Then when they get to scriptures like John 3:16 they have to do word games and say that “world” doesn’t mean world. But if they would have started with the child like scriptures first then they wouldn’t have to do all these word games. God hates the flesh that’s why we “MUST” be born again. This is the dark side of Calvinism “they must but they cant.” We were ALL born in iniquity, and God hates the “first” which represents the flesh. But God desires that all be saved and has provided a way. He wants believers to be ambassadors for Him pleading with people to be reconciled. Were to tell them that God was in Christ reconciling the WORLD unto Himself NOT COUNTING THEIR SINS AGAINST THEM. This is why the good news is good news for EVERYONE if they will believe. The living water has been offered to EVERYONE to take of freely.
Calvinism would have us believe that man is dead like a rock so God has to do everything. From regeneration to perseverance of the saints. When man ate of the tree of good and evil they new that they were naked for the first time (Gen 3:9-11,22). They had a conscience which keeps people from being as evil as they could be (Rom 2:14,15). Man is able to make choices, we do it every day. The Scriptures tell us we are without excuse because God has made Himself known through His creation (Rom 1:18-20). It is clear from Scripture that no one will seek God. But God has not left us to ourselves but desires that ALL men be saved. He has provided away and draws ALL through His Holy Spirit and His written word. If man will respond to the light he has God will give him more light until the day dawns and the Morning Star rises in his heart. Illumination my friend!
This is my last post on Calvinism, I know many of you will be happy Ha! Ha! But know this, in my heart I mean the best for each and everyone of you. This subject is just to close to home with me so I get a little over zealous and not gentle as I would like to be. I apologize if I have offended anyone.
Is it your position that the Lord Jesus Christ is NOT the necessary object of faith for the reception of eternal life?
The Lord Jesus Christ IS the necessary object of faith for the reception of eternal life.
And there is content that has to be believed in order to believe in Him as the Christ.
John in his epistle stated: Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God (1 John 5:1a).
You could go out on the street and ask anyone if Jesus was the Christ and they would most likely say ‘Is’nt that His name!’ But that would not save them! A person HAS to believe that Jesus is the Christ in the sense that John means it. If we go to John’s purpose statement for the signs in the Gospel of John we will see: And truly did Jesus many other signs in the presence of His disciples that are not written in this book, but these were written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name (John 20:30,31). John I believe tells us what it means to believe in Jesus as the Christ in Martha’s statement to Jesus. Jesus said to her. “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe THIS? She said to Him. “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.” (John 11:25-27)
Anyone believing in the Lord Jesus Christ in this sense is born of God! Jesus asked Martha do you believe THIS? And she answers “Yes and exactly according to what John in his purpose statement wants us to believe. To believe in Jesus as the Christ is to believe He is guarentor of your eternal destiny.
Jesus told the women at the well (1) If you KNEW the gift of God (2) and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ (3) you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.
She had to KNOW what the GIFT was! She couldn’t just believe in Jesus to believe in Jesus BUT she had to KNOW what the gift was. Assurance is of the essence of saving faith.
One drink from the Christ and you will never thirst alvin
Interesting that she had to know what the gift was, and Who it was she was speaking with. Isn't it interesting that Jesus Himself standing in front of her offering her Living Water wasn't enough for her to be saved.
She had to know what the Gift was, and Who He is. It wasn't enough to "believe Jesus for eternal life" She had to know Who He is, and what the Gift was.
She came to understand He is the Christ, and that it wasn't His last name.
Sorry to step on your feet there Lou, I'm beginning to weary of speaking with the likes of Antonio at multiple blogs and posts where he just up and disappears when he doesn't receive freedom to post whatever he wants without it being questioned... and also with those who dismiss what you say because they think it's not on topic and then go on to post something completely off the original topic themselves.
Believing in Jesus for Eternal Life is a false Gospel. It's been shown in more ways than I can count... this adherence to such a doctrine is willful disobedience to the Scriptures.
Kec, I disagree with your estimation. Believeing in Jesus for everlasting life is the gospel. Where I differ with Antonio and Matthew is that my emphasis would be on *Jesus.* In that sentence "Believe in Jesus for everlasting life"... *Jesus* is enriched - more than just a name... and the Person, not just the name, must be known to a better degree than those brothers advocate.
But still - if we are calling people to believe in Jesus and trust in Him, surely we are asking them to trust Him for the gift of eternal life, are we not? What would you say that coming to Christ entails coming to Him for? Do you believe He offers a gift? What is the thing that we trust Christ for that brings us into a relationship with Him? What would be your content of saving faith, Kev?
You said I disagree with your estimation. Believeing in Jesus for everlasting life is the gospel.
And then asked What would be your content of saving faith, Kev?
The Apostle Paul tells us what the Gospel is, and thereby what the content of saving belief/faith is.
1 Cor 15:1-11.
There is no reason to debate when the Apostle spells it out for us. In my circles there are little children in the single digits who preach the Gospel, and effectively. It is perfectly free. No hoops to jump through.. no pledges.. no changing one's self. Simple repentance unto life.
God came and died for my sins, rose again and was seen by real living people.
If I put my faith in this I have "repented unto life". God will regenerate me and I'll be saved to the uttermost.
My purpose for believing in Him is not part of the Gospel. God says if I believe in Him I will be saved. I'm not instructed to believe in Him FOR something. I'm instructed to believe in Him. He is identified by what He has done, and is doing. Just as God has always identified Himself.
While I appreciate your reply, I am a little confused.
You appear to claim the person of the Lord Jesus Christ must be the sole object of faith for salvation. Then you focus on the promise of eternal life as if that is the object or a joint-object of faith for the reception of eternal life.
One clarifying question: Would the following be a fair definition of your view?
The object of faith, which results in eternal life, is the promise of God to the believer.
You wrote, "Lou, I'm beginning to weary of speaking with the likes of Antonio at multiple blogs and posts where he just up and disappears when he doesn't receive freedom to post whatever he wants without it being questioned..."
That is his pattern: Drive-by posting. I don't worry about it.
You also wrote, "...and also with those who dismiss what you say because they think it's not on topic and then go on to post something completely off the original topic themselves."
I don't pay any attention to the duplicity. Got the same from the Lordship crowd.
Interesting that she had to know what the gift was, and Who it was she was speaking with. Isn't it interesting that Jesus Himself standing in front of her offering her Living Water wasn't enough for her to be saved.
That's right Kev it wasn't enough for her to be saved! She didn't know who it was standing before her except that He was a Jew. I don't see anywhere in the narrative that Jesus comes out and tells her He is Jesus. She goes from seeing Him as a Jew to believing He was a Prophet to finally believing He was the Christ. She had to be persuaded through these steps that He was the Christ the One who could give her eternal life. The living water that He offered Her once she drank of it she would NEVER thirst again. The living water was not eternal life but would spring up into eternal life. The living water was the Knowledge of His person, that He was the Christ. With faith this Knowledge would bring life in His name (John 1:12; 20:31; 1 John 51a). These things He told her she HAD TO KNOW and once she knew she would have already have asked (believed) and He would have already have given. Kev notice also at the end of the Bible (Rev 22:17) this living water is offered freely. This is the same living water that the women at the well drank. It is offered to everyone who desires can partake of it. The same conditions that Jesus gave to the women at the well in John 4:10 have to be met! To believe in Jesus for eternal life IS to believe in Him as "The Christ." And the one who has believed in Him KNOWS they will NEVER thirst! Notice sin is not an issue for anyone to partake of this water, thats because Jesus has paid for the sin of the world (John 1:29; 2 Cor 5:19; 1 John 2:2).
One drink from the Christ and you will NEVER thirst! alvin
Kev, So would you say that asking a potential convert to trust Jesus as their Saviour is not right?
Or would it be better to just ask them if they believe who Jesus is?
See, there is a personal element in saving faith where we believe that Jesus actually has done something for us. What is that something? He died on the cross and rose from the dead. But why?
In the passage you reference, Paul says that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures is part of the gospel. Why did He die for our sins? What does this do for us?
Kev, I think if you ponder that a little further you will agree that you have to trust Christ for your justification/eternal standing with God/eternal well-being and that this is part of saving faith, not just recognizing passively who He is.
I guess I am not following your statements very well.
Lou you said: You appear to claim the person of the Lord Jesus Christ must be the sole object of faith for salvation. Then you focus on the promise of eternal life as if that is the object or a joint-object of faith for the reception of eternal life.
Lou it sounds as though you have a problem with Jesus? He is the One who told the women at the well she needed to KNOW the gift of God and who it was that asked her for a drink. That's two things! How would you interpret the verse? (John 4:10) alvin
Lou, Yes, I am aware of the problems with certain views that are being taught by some in the FG camp.
[IMO, no man's sins are forgiven unless and until he has come to Christ, the Bible way, and received that forgiveness.]
Agreed. The Bible does not teach a blanket forgiveness without repentance. I thought Rachel's quote was very good. she's a bright lady! I have read some of her posts here before.
[1 Samuel 3:13 And I declare to him that I am about to punish his house forever, for the iniquity that he knew, because his sons were blaspheming God, and he did not restrain them. 14 Therefore I swear to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.”]
Matthew asked: [Susan, how was Eli's house punished?]
Hi Matthew, It seems very evident their sentence means an eternal condemnation. Eli's sons were reprobates. They had no fear of God and will reap what they deserve. God will show them no mercy, only justice. Scary stuff!
That passage also reminds me of Hebrews 10:26ff.
For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
The passage in 1 Samuel also supports some kind of a limited atonement since the sins comitted by Eli's house were not covered by any sacrifice. I'm sure you will completely agree ;)
Do you believe that the only sin that condemns a person is the sin of unbelief? If so, how do you reconcile that with the passage in 1 Samuel 3:13,14?
"It seems very evident their sentence means an eternal condemnation. Eli's sons were reprobates. They had no fear of God and will reap what they deserve. God will show them no mercy, only justice. Scary stuff!"
Can you explain why you think eternal condemnation is in reference here?
So, I was saying...You appear to claim the person of the Lord Jesus Christ must be the sole object of faith for salvation. Then you focus on the promise of eternal life as if that is the object or a joint-object of faith for the reception of eternal life.
This was my clarifying question: Would the following be a fair definition of your view?
The object of faith, which results in eternal life, is the promise of God to the believer.
You said I guess I am not following your statements very well.
I think that is the case. :) But I'll answer the questions you asked - cause chances are you asked for the information you didn't get out of what I posted. So answering them will be the best help.
So would you say that asking a potential convert to trust Jesus as their Saviour is not right?
Or would it be better to just ask them if they believe who Jesus is?
The Gospel identifies Him as our Saviour, so if you are trusting in the Gospel you are trusting in Him as your Savior. In order to do this I am convinced that one must know Who He is. That's what I was getting at.
You said Kev, I think if you ponder that a little further you will agree that you have to trust Christ for your justification/eternal standing with God/eternal well-being and that this is part of saving faith, not just recognizing passively who He is.
I completely agree, but this can not be divorced from Who He is. God does not save because you believe that some guy named Jesus (or any other name used without meaning or understanding) will give you eternal life.
We believe in Christ, that He did what He did on our account. Knowing that this is what saves us. So yes we trust Him as our Savior, and depend on Him for our Justification. But we can't just believe that some guy named Jesus, or "Christ" is going to give us Eternal Life because we want it.
We have to "obey" the Gospel. We have to believe and trust (=faith) that He died on our own account for our own sins and that this was done legally (according to the Scriptures) that this really has paid our debt.
Some would have us believe that one need not know or acknowledge they even have any sin to be paid for...
I'll make a separate post about that in just a moment.
Is sin still an issue or since the Cross is all sin forgiven?
Flat out - sin is still THE issue.
Jesus is the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the World."
This is true. Notice that John the Baptist did not say who will/shall take away all the sins of the whole world. But that what He does is take away the sins of the whole world.
This is something He does. Not something He has done, or will do. This is an important distinction. It's His character, purpose and action. It is not the "result" that John is declaring but the Person.
Christ Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the Whole world. This is absolutely true. Unlike my Calvinist brethren I submit to the truth that Christ died for every sin of every person. Yet I also submit to the fact that God works in patterns that He establishes. If we visit Lev 16 we will see that all the sins of Israel were "propitiated" first by sprinkling blood at the Mercy Seat, and then those very same sins were confessed on the scape goat who bore them away.
Can we say that since the Cross that all sins have been taken care of? Well God forgave in times past based on His own faith in the Blood of Christ. So God has always forgiven based on the SURE fact that Christ would pay for the sins of the world. Rom 3:21-31
So if sin isn't an issue now, it must never have been.
One last note, if any in Christ sins we have an advocate in Heaven. He "advocates" for us because Sin is still an issue.
He doesn't advocate for the non-believer because if you deny Him, He tells us that He will deny you. Only Christians have the Advocate going before the Father on our behalf.
Sin is still an issue, and the Gospel is defined by the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor 15:1-11. This is the content of our faith, it is what we need to know and trust.
When the "Crossless" advocates like Alvin, Matthew and Antonio use the Lord's titles, "the Christ" and "Son of God" they use those terms from the Zane Hodges inspired presupposition that they do not mean or infer the Deity of Christ.
As Greg Schliesmann thoroughly documented, based on nothing more than assumptions Hodges has stripped the Lord's titles of their Deity.
Hodges does this because they believe a lost man can be saved apart from understanding or believeing who Jesus is and what He did to provide salvation. So, they have to strip His deity from His titles that appear in John 20:31.
"...that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God..."
Through Hodges abuse of the Lord's titles, younger men like Antonio come to absurd conclusions such as there is no difference between the Mormon and Evangelical Jesus.
[Can you explain why you think eternal condemnation is in reference here?] Sure Matthew, I'll be glad to after you answer my previous questions. BTW, you do believe in hell, don't you?
I wrote, “IMO, no man's sins are forgiven unless and until he has come to Christ, the Bible way, and received that forgiveness.” To which you replied, “Agreed. The Bible does not teach a blanket forgiveness without repentance.”
You may be aware of this one also, but Hodges, Wilkin, da Rosa teach that unsaved man is forgiven and born again without repentance. They believe repentance is only for the redeemed to maintain fellowship with God.
In Harmony with God, Hodges wrote, ““Thank God there is only one answer to the question, ‘What must I do to be saved?’ That, of course, is the answer not only of Paul and all the apostles, but of Jesus Himself. The answer is: ‘believe!’ Repentance is not part of that answer. It never has been and never will be. But we should keep firmly in mind the lovely truth that repentance is always the first step when we need to come home again!”
Dr. Charlie Bing took exception to Hodges view on this in his (Bing’s) LS dissertation.
Another example of the absurd teaching coming from the advocates of the “Crossless” gospel.
You are asking me to defend the idea that eternal condemnation rests upon unbelief only in the light of your assumption that the house of Eli were eternall condemned for their sin.
I do not wish to debate an assumption.
I do not feel any need to answer the question you pose until you give some explanation of the grounds of your assertion that the house of Eli were eternally condemned.
Just a point of clarification, I wrote the statement you attributed to VA Susan in your comment immediately above. It was in a note to Glenn.
Here it is in a fuller context, “ Christ died for the sins of the whole world. IMO, no man's sins are forgiven unless and until he has come to Christ, the Bible way, and received that forgiveness. ‘It is finished.’ Forgiveness has been made available to all mankind. Now, lost men are to receive that forgiveness through faith in the biblical Jesus, not Antonio’s ‘cultic’ Mormon Jesus.”
Lou, will you read the following and answer the question I asked toward the middle of this comment?
I would appreciate your comments and reasons you would disagree.
LM said: "If a lost man does not come to Christ in faith and repentance he remains unforgiven, guilty and condemned for his sins. Because of his sin and unbelief he is eternally separated from God in the Lake of Fire."
Lou, I think the bible clearly teaches that a man doesn't go to the lake of fire for his sins. A person goes to the lake of fire because his name is not written in the book of life. Rev. 20: 11-15
Verse 15: "And if anyone's name was not found in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."
I believe no one is condemned for their sins, Christ has taken care of that. The scripture teaches that, Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world but to save it.
Can anyone find where it literally states or clearly implies that a person is cast into the lake of fire because their sins are not forgiven?
I just want to add something.
I praise God that He has provided atonement for all mankind. I praise Him that no one, including me, is physically born without hope.
How unjust would it be that all of mankind is 'born without a choice' into sin(and I believe we are) and then our Creator would not provide for our sin that we were born in?
IMO Jesus couldn't make any clearer than what He said in Mark 3:28,29
28"Truly, I say to you, ALL sins SHALL be forgiven the sons of men, and WHATEVER blasphemies they utter; 29but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an ETERNAL sin.
There is only one eternal sin, all other sins SHALL be forgiven. I believe the only eternal sin is not believing God's testimony concerning His son, when the Holy Spirit convicts us(John 16:9). That is the sin that keeps any man from having his name written in the book of life.
Lou, will you read the following and answer the question I asked toward the middle of this comment?
I would appreciate your comments and reasons you would disagree.
LM said: "If a lost man does not come to Christ in faith and repentance he remains unforgiven, guilty and condemned for his sins. Because of his sin and unbelief he is eternally separated from God in the Lake of Fire."
Lou, I think the bible clearly teaches that a man doesn't go to the lake of fire for his sins. A person goes to the lake of fire because his name is not written in the book of life. Rev. 20: 11-15
Verse 15: "And if anyone's name was not found in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."
I believe no one is condemned for their sins, Christ has taken care of that. The scripture teaches that, Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world but to save it.
Can anyone find where it literally states or clearly implies that a person is cast into the lake of fire because their sins are not forgiven?
I just want to add something.
I praise God that He has provided atonement for all mankind. I praise Him that no one, including me, is physically born without hope.
How unjust would it be that all of mankind is 'born without a choice' into sin(and I believe we are) and then our Creator would not provide for our sin that we were born in?
IMO Jesus couldn't make any clearer than what He said in Mark 3:28,29
28"Truly, I say to you, ALL sins SHALL be forgiven the sons of men, and WHATEVER blasphemies they utter; 29but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an ETERNAL sin.
There is only one eternal sin, all other sins SHALL be forgiven. I believe the only eternal sin is not believing God's testimony concerning His son, when the Holy Spirit convicts us(John 16:9). That is the sin that keeps any man from having his name written in the book of life.
"I'll tell you this much for now, we are never going to agree on your assumptions, and I am not going to invest a great deal of time on it."
That is all I need to know, Lou. I would rather not engage someone with your attitude toward anothers views. I did not attempt to converse with you with the attitude that what you had to say is un-important or not worthy of investing any time in both of us attempting to rightly divide the Word our God has given us.
A long time ago I came to the conclusion that the position you hold is wrong. Some of your notes are a repitition of the same assumptions I have seen before from other persons. I reject them and I wanted to be plain about that.
I do not feel it necessary to rehash, at length, issues in this or any blog that I have already come to firm convictions over. If you don't appreciate that I'm sorry.
Over the last hour I had already prepared some notes for you, but I'll delete them as soon as I post this comment.
“And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins,” (Eph. 2:1).
Kris, I haven't conversed with you before but I will give a short answer to just one point you made to Lou.
You said Lou, I think the bible clearly teaches that a man doesn't go to the lake of fire for his sins. A person goes to the lake of fire because his name is not written in the book of life. Rev. 20: 11-15
I won't debate this with you either. Rev 20:11-15 doesn't say the person will be thrown in the Lake of fire BECAUSE they don't have their name written in the Lamb's Book of Life. It says that those who don't have their name their will be.
At least you included verse 12. Each person will be judged by their deeds. And even after that God will search the Lamb's Book of Life to see if they are listed there. Barring being found in that Book they will be thrown in the Lake of Fire.
This section of scripture doesn't at all tell us "why" it simply states what WILL happen.
Rev 21:8 identifies WHO these people are. And gives us great insight into the topic.
But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
Notice these people are identified by their sins.
These are people who have not been reborn. Those who are reborn are "former" liars, murderers, sexually immoral by nature. We now have possession of the New Nature, Christ Himself living in us. WE are no longer identified as "liars" and "thieves" (even if we lie or commit thievery). We are now identified as Sons and Daughters of God, we are "in Christ" not "in our sins".
God has not wiped the slate clean for all of humanity. Each person individually must Repent to believe that Christ died for their own sins. That He rose again from the dead in the flesh. God Himself paid the debt for us. This is what our faith is in, this is what it means to "believe in Jesus."
We trust Him with our salvation, in full knowledge that we deserve death because of our sins. We see that death paid in Christ. We see Him alive for our life. And because He's alive right now, our Eternal Life starts now.
And what is this "Eternal Life" that the Crossless gospel preachers would have us ask a guy who lived 2,000 years ago for?
John 17:3 NASB 3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
Even in the definition of this coveted Eternal Life the "Crossless/Deitiless gospel" is refuted. For Eternal Life is to KNOW God the Son Jesus Christ.
"I do not feel it necessary to rehash, at length, issues in this or any blog that I have already come to firm convictions over.."
I can't help but believe your not sincere with your statement above Lou, since you continually "rehash, at length" your firm convictions with other believers(Alvin, Matthew, Antonio and others) not only on this blog but many others.
If you feel like you don't have good, sound, answers to my comments then just say so. But the excuse to not "rehash" seems a little bogus to me.
I think I agree with most all of what you have said. I don't really much difference in our understanding. If I understand your comment right, we both agree that our deeds/sins are not what keeps us out of the lake of fire. It is because our name is not written in the Book of Life.
Kris asked:[Can anyone find where it literally states or clearly implies that a person is cast into the lake of fire because their sins are not forgiven?]
Hi Kris, Here are some verses I found. Hope they're helpful. ~Susan
Revelation 14:6 Then I saw another angel flying directly overhead, with an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on earth, to every nation and tribe and language and people. 7 And he said with a loud voice, “Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come, and worship him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water.”
8 Another angel, a second, followed, saying, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of the passion [1] of her sexual immorality.”
9 And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”
Rev 20:11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. 13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Revelation 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
2 Peter 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell [1] and committed them to chains [2] of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; [3] 7 and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked 8 (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); 9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, [4] and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority.
Hi Kris you said LOL, I really messed my last sentence up, Kev.
I should have said we both agree that it is because our names "are" written in the Book of Life is what keeps us out of the Lake of fire.
sorry
Being reborn, regenerated, or recreated (each term works) is what keeps us out of the Lake of Fire. It is that a sinner "is" a liar. That demands he be thrown in the Lake of Fire. The sinner isn't burnt for eternity because he lied, he burns for eternity because he is a liar and so will lie again.
The New Heaven will be pure, holy. There will be no liars in it to lead rebellion or sow doubt, or to seek glory for themselves. The New Heaven will have no liars.
The person is cast into the lake of fire because they "are" a sinner.
The record of our rebirth in Christ is that our name is written in the Lamb's Book of Life.
As the Apostle Paul says that some will be saved but have no works to show it.. they will be saved "as by fire"... because all their works will have burnt at the Judgment Seat of Christ.
I think this speaks of the incredible beauty and mercy of God. That when a lost sinner is standing before Him in Judgment and it's clear he has done nothing but evil for his entire life that God will still look for the record of the payment made. This TRULY shows that God does not will that any should perish.
People are cast into the Lake of Fire because they are sinners. Because they will sin again. God has not erased all sin. God has not "forgiven" all sin.
God is in the recreation business now. You are recreated and so forgiven, or you are destined for an eternity of suffering.
These are good scriptures, the 2nd Peter verses could apply and be used to encourage even believers to live Godly lives while in our earthly tents. The unrighteous kept under punishment are the same ones Paul talks about in Romans 1. Notice in Romans 1 Paul says the "wrath" of God is revealed in those who live unrighteous by giving them over to what they want because they don't want to acknowledge God. In the end they will be thrown into the fire, not because of their deeds/sin but because their names are not written in the book of life. I think Rev. 20:11-15 speaks for itself, those whos names are not found in the book are thrown into the fire.
Rev 21:8 needs to be read in the context of verses 5,6,7 and we can see that those in verse 8 could have drank freely if they thirsted and had their names written in the book but evidently they wouldn't.
Rev 14:6-11. These verses are harder for me to understand. I know they don't mention this "fire and brimstone" being the second death anywhere. Verse 11 actually seems to indicate that those who worship the beast and recieve the mark are having no rest day or night while they are actually alive on earth after they received the mark. It also seems that John is making the statement in verse 12 that those who don't receive the mark or worship the beast are the persevering saints during this tribulation.
Doesn't it seem odd that if the reality of eternal punishment in the fire were taking place at this time that there would still be a "day & night"?
Susan I do not see in any of these scriptures that conclusively proves anyone is thrown into the fire because their deeds/sins were not propitiated for. Why would Jesus say all sins shall be forgiven men except for the one ETERNAL sin of blaspheming the Spirit.
I just want to make one thing clear. I am not advocating a person can show no signs of love for the Son within themselves whatsoever and conclude that they been born again unto life. I am just advocating that men go to the fire because their names are not written in the book of life and the bible teaches that all the worlds sins are propitiated at the cross. I think limited atonement is born out of a man-made system not God's word. The eternal sin is not believing the Spirits convicting truth in John 16:9. If we don't believe the Spirit then we will die "in our sins" instead of "in Christ" and therefore not have our names written in the book of life.
Sorry this is so long, Susan. And I am not a fundamentalist(someone who has stopped listening). This is what I believe about who goes to the lake of fire and the teaching of limited atonement. I don't disregard or count your views not worthy of investing my time to try to understand why we differ in our understanding.
Hi Rose Lou I think the best way to go forward from here is to take turns asking questions. You have already asked one and I answered. Your question: Is it your position that the Lord Jesus Christ is NOT the necessary object of faith for the reception of eternal life?
My answer: The Lord Jesus Christ IS the necessary object of faith for the reception of eternal life. Now here is my question: Lou you said: You appear to claim the person of the Lord Jesus Christ must be the sole object of faith for salvation. Then you focus on the promise of eternal life as if that is the object or a joint-object of faith for the reception of eternal life.
How do you interpret this verse? John 4:10 Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.”
Kev, I understand what you are saying and I agree. I agree we are not condemned for lying we are condemned because we are liars. We are not condemned for lies or any other sin. Jesus did not come into the world to condemn but to save.
We are condemned because we don't have life, we are still "in our sin" and not "in Christ", in the book of life.
That is why I contend that all the lies or anyother sins committed by the whole world are atoned/propitiated for at the cross. Sins committed are no longer mans eternal problem, the truth is they never were, the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world. Not having life within (new birth) is mans eternal problem.
I think our communication is different, we basically are saying the same thing. Maybe someone may understand you better than I or I better than you. I think we are saying the same thing. Its close enough for me anyway. :)
Good morning Rose! it is always a bit strange typing these comments when about 95% of you all are still tucked up in bed. Sometines I get Alvin on his night shift and slightly later on, Matthew might say "hello" but it is early afternoon here before the rest o' ye rub the sleep from your eyes :-)
That's the second time on this blog that I've attributed a quote to the wrong person, but at least they agreed with it :-)
Let me ask those who think that all men are forgiven wehther they come to Christ or not:
Why does Peter condition remission of sins on saving faith in Christ's name?
To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Act 10:43)
Lou, yes, the lake of fire is a place of torment for the unsaved and Hades or Hell in the KJV is a place of torment for those unsaved before the resurrection.
Thank you again for your replies. We are not saying the same thing. Sin is THE issue.
Propitiation is not atonement. Read Leviticus 16 (could be 17..) Propitiation is "appeasement" not Atonement. These sins must be confessed on the scapegoat and the people must repent to trust that God has taken the sin.
Sinners are not condemned because they don't have life. They don't have life because they are condemned already. A sinner's sins will reveal who he/she is at the Great White Throne, and then in mercy God will seek their name in the Book of Life. It's one last chance for salvation. Not the reason for condemnation.
You said Sins committed are no longer mans eternal problem, the truth is they never were, the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world. Not having life within (new birth) is mans eternal problem.
At least you are consistent. But if this were true then almost all of the Bible is terribly misguided.
If sin was never the problem because it had always been atoned for (which is what your understanding demands and you recognize) then God was unjust to Curse all of Creation in Genesis 3. Because if Christ became a Curse for us, if Cursed are all who hang on a tree and this was done "before the foundation of the World" (and it was because it was elected to happen) then God had no justice in Cursing the world for the first sin.
We are not saying the same thing at all. I have been trying to show you that the Biblical stance on Salvation (as close as I am able to get to it) is not unreasonable. That it isn't the mess that the Crossless gospel proponents argue against in strawman arguments. It's just the Truth.. there is no need to twist, ignore or limit anything..
This had to be more harsh because you were being lead astray by my kindness.
Kev, you wrote: A sinner's sins will reveal who he/she is at the Great White Throne, and then in mercy God will seek their name in the Book of Life. It's one last chance for salvation. Not the reason for condemnation.
What is this last chance for salvation? Do you believe that sinners can be saved at the Great White Throne? It looks like that from here. Perhaps you can explain this further and (hopefully) remove any misunderstadning on my part.
Good Morning Lou, yes I am rubbing the sleep from my eyes at this moment. Just about to have a little breakfast and then go out for a run. I don't believe the ones in hell are forgiven. Or anyone else is forgiven until they believe in Jesus for eternal life. I believe forgiveness is a personal issue. I sat on a jury last week and the lawyer explained that just because a defendent is not found guilty doesn't mean that he is innocent. Just as Jesus as the Judge will find one either guilty or not-guilty. Forgiveness is not a judical issue. Jesus has paid for the sin of the world so no one will be found guilty for their sin, it was ALL paid for, but until they believe in Christ they are unforgiven.
Repentance is not a condition for eternal life. That is why the living water in Rev 22:17 you can take freely! And that's why repentance is not mentioned ONCE as a condition in the ONLY book in the Bible that has the signs for the purpose we might believe in Jesus as the Christ. That would be the Gospel of John. And repentance is NEVER mentioned in the book of the Bible that the Gospel is being defended by Paul (Galations). Repentance brings one into a good position to believe for eternal life. Repentance is a work, which Jesus gives an example of Niniva turning from their sin. That God saw their works! And repentance to life is NOT eternal life. But life there simply means repentance CAN bring one to Christ. If repentance was a condition for eternal life it would say it. But it says ANYONE CAN TAKE OF THE LIVING WATER FREELY!
I agree Alvin. If by repentance we mean 'changing of the action', then it is not a condition for receiving a "the gift of God." Anything one DOES to receive a gift makes it cease to be a gift, but something gained by DOING. This just seems obvious to me, as an old time evangelical. ;~)
One problem with human courts is that they lack the knowledge in some cases either to convict without doubt or to release without doubt. I think the legal phrase for it over here is that "There is a case to answer." Of course, the Almighty isn't troubled with the lack of knowledge, for His eyes are in every place beholding the evil and the good (Proverbs 15:3)
The distinction that you are drawing between being unforgiven and guilty is unreal. If I need to be forgiven, then I must needs be forgiven for something that I have done wrong. If I have done wrong, then I am guilty and will remain so until I am forgiven. All these things stand together - the one leading naturally and logically to the other. You seem to be affirming one thing on one hand and denying it on the other.
Hi Rose After re-reading my post it seems as though I came out of the sack swinging Ha! Ha! It is a wee bit to early for a fight I better go run first! See yah later
If by repentance we mean 'changing of the action', then it is not a condition for receiving a "the gift of God." Anything one DOES to receive a gift makes it cease to be a gift, but something gained by DOING. This just seems obvious to me, as an old time evangelical. ;~)
Hi Rose:
If by repentance, you mean that you intend by God's grace to forsake sin (rather than be stubborn and foolish enough to remain in such rebellion against God) then do you still see this as a work and therefore meritorious of salvation? The faith that saves is repentant in nature (as I define above) and the repentance that indicates the desire and determination to turn from sin is built on faith that God's power and grace enables us to do it.
I wonder what Old Time Evangelicals ever taught faith without such repentance? Preferably before Zane Hodges :-)
I've been reading and following these conversations, but haven't had much time to post lately (although I have tons I'd love to say! LOL). I see that the issue of Jesus paying for all sins at the cross has come up again. I have discussed this to death with Alvin in the past, and as a result I had posted an article at my group blog awhile ago detailing my response to such a view. I hate to do a "drive-by" post just to basically link to my group blog, but I just don't have a lot of time right now. However, if you read my article, you will note that Alvin failed to respond to the vast majority of my points. So perhaps he will make another attempt, or maybe others of you can do so. I would simply paste in my points here, but it's a pretty long article. :-)
You wrote, "I agree Alvin. If by repentance we mean 'changing of the action', then it is not a condition for receiving a "the gift of God'."
As you are aware Hodges/Alvin/da Rosa totally dismiss repentance by any definition, even the biblical "change of mind" from a condition for salvation. Dr. Bing expressed his disagreement with Hodges on this in his (Bing's) dissertation.
Rose, Do you agree with Alvin's statement, "Repentance is not a condition for eternal life," understanding he means no kind of repentance is necessary to be born again?
Let me be clearer. I HOPE. I said mans/the whole worlds ETERNAL condemnation because of "sins committed" is/was dealt with on the cross. All who believe in the son are not condemned, others who don't believe are condemned already because they don't believe in the Son, not because their sins are not propitiated, but because they don't believe the Son has propitiated them.
I totally agree with you in that man is not a sinner because he lies, he lies because he IS a sinner. We either believe and die in Christ or not believe and die in our sinful state.
Sin still is an issue here on earth. Sickness, cancer, being murdered by someone, murdering someone ourselve, stealing, etc are all results of man being sinners. Just because we are born again doesn't mean we as believers can't do these things. I know you know this, King David is good example.
You don't have to say you "had to be harsh because of your kindness was leading me astray" I consider this a conversation, not you being a tutor or God forbid me being a tutor we are just believers discussing our understanding.
Matthew: (and Aunty Rose) Forgive my little sarcarsms here. I was reflecting on how blessed we all are to be born into an age when the Old Time Evangelicalism which demanded repentance is slipping away and we have the great insights of Zane Hodge to replace it.
Yes, there are a lot of advantages in this modern age, but I'm afraid this modern theology isn't one of them :-)
1. Are you saying that repentance is a change of mind?
2. Are you saying that the intent to forsake sin is the ticket? (Funnily enough, I immediately thought of this saying when I read your former comment: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."
Lou, to me it is obvious that one changes one's mind from an unbeliever to a believer when they are converted. In that sense, I accept the word repentance as a part of salvation, but I really think it is not a useful word ... becuase everyone means something different by it.
I just want to say one more thing about this "Crossless gospel" deal.
I am not commenting because of anything cross or crossless.
When Jesus told Nicodemus that just as the serpent was lifted up so the Son of man must be lifed up.
I believe God sent serpents to bite the people who were continually walking in unbelief and therefore grumbling.
When they cried out fearful of dying He told Moses to make a brass serpent and put it on a stick, He told Moses to tell those who were bitten to look at that snake on a stick and they would live.
It wasn't the snake or the stick that saved their life, it was because of their act of believing God. He could have put a donut on a stick and saved them if they would just believe Him.
It is not the cross that saves us, it is believing what God says about His Son that saves us. The cross is the means by which the Son has propitiated the sins of world and the resurrection proved it.
After reading Hebrews I believe and am convinced that sin is not the issue between God and man anymore, Jesus took care of that. The issue for man is simply believing God's testimony concerning His Son. Just like it was to those who were bitten by snakes, they believed God and looked to brass serpent and lived.
Thank you Rose for the space to comment, you are great blog host. Thank you Kev & Susan for your investment of your time to engage.
Sir Colin, IMO the Old Time Evangelicals message for the most part mixed discipleship with the free gift. And also had you walking isle and inviting Jesus into your heart to be saved. Which did not save anyone. I see Zane Hodges as coming along and making clear discipleship and the free gift are seperate issues. One being free the other being costly. And I also see him as making clear what it means to believe. Just simply taking Jesus at His promise and that assurance is part of His offer as the Christ. The only thing I had a problem with was in Zanes book "Absolutely Free" was he had John Calvins name all through it. And for that reason I put it back on the shelf, but was later compelled to get it. So you can have your "Old Time stuff." And if you go way back a whole lot of them believed in child baptism which to me proved they believed in a works salvation.
Repentance must be taken in it's context. There is no place that I know of in Scripture that uses repentance as changing ones mind from unbelief to belief. But where ever it is used has turning from sin in mind. Also as I have stated repentance is not mentioned ONCE in the Gospel of John as a condition for eternal life. I think just about anyone on the street if asked would say that repentance has to do with turning from sin, this I believe would be the widest understanding of it and the most accurate from Scripture.
Acts 20:21 shows that repentance is toward God and faith is toward our Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance has to do with harmony with God and bringing and end to, or keeping from temporal judgment. But if the question is "What must I do to be saved?" The answer is to simply believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance gives no one eternal life but facillitates one believing in Jesus for eternal life. One can take of the living water if they so desire without any conditions what so ever it is offered freely! That's because eternal life is a free gift which has NOTHING to do with your sin, that was ALL paid for on the cross. God is NOT counting anyones sins against them, therefore be reconciled to God.
take the living water FREELY! alvin P.S. I'm going to be gone for most of the day, bye bye!
Hi Goodnight (now that's a strange sentence... bet you never heard that one before *smile*)
I know I already know your name.. but you think I could remember it right now???
You asked What is this last chance for salvation? Do you believe that sinners can be saved at the Great White Throne? It looks like that from here. Perhaps you can explain this further and (hopefully) remove any misunderstadning on my part.
No I don't think anyone will be saved at the Great White Throne Judgment, but God does look for the names of those lost ones in the Lamb's Book of Life. Even at that moment He will seek to act with mercy. But those who have not been born again can not be allowed in to Heaven.
The problem with discussing theological ideas on a forum or blog is that there are SO MANY people involved in the conversation. It's impossible to fully explain what you mean when you say anything... in this case I was trying to make a targeted response to Kris.
I'm sorry I wasn't clearer.. I try to be really I do. :)
You said You don't have to say you "had to be harsh because of your kindness was leading me astray" I consider this a conversation, not you being a tutor or God forbid me being a tutor we are just believers discussing our understanding.
I didn't mean to come off as a "tutor" and it seems I did. I am sorry... I'm hardly qualified.
This is not a sarcastic apology or anything like that. I mean I should not have worded my post in such a way as to raise myself up.
I said mans/the whole worlds ETERNAL condemnation because of "sins committed" is/was dealt with on the cross. All who believe in the son are not condemned, others who don't believe are condemned already because they don't believe in the Son, not because their sins are not propitiated, but because they don't believe the Son has propitiated them.
Anyone who has not trusted that Christ propitiated (appeased) God the Father for our sins is still taking their own responsibility for their sins and their eternal state. They have not "repented" to trust God for these things.
They haven't been born again because they haven't repented. So while the "math" sort of works to say they are headed for the Lake of Fire because they don't have life. It's actually that they are headed there because they embody death. They are going their because of and for their sinful nature. That's the "reason" they are going to the Lake of Fire.
The escape from that is being born again.
Why can't I write a simple sentence that explains the difference between the two thoughts..... anyone here actually know English, who would help me? :)
Rose, after much exhausting work in the Word of trying to escape repentance.. and make it something that isn't part of Salvation I had to relent... I had to "repent" as it were.
Here is my very short definition and a longer (less accurate) version is linked.
You wrote, “I accept the word repentance as a part of salvation, but I really think it is not a useful word ... because everyone means something different by it.”
Repentance is not a useful word; in what context is the doctrine of repentance not useful? Repentance is a vital teaching in Scripture. How can “repentance” not be a useful word?
Which “part of salvation?” The concern here is not over repentance following salvation. I am focusing on repentance as a condition for the reception of eternal life. There are different interpretations of repentance out there, Hodges, Wilkin, da Rosa being the most extreme and unorthodox.
My question has to do with whether or not biblical repentance is a necessary condition FOR salvation.
Alvin (the CG camp) says repentance, by any definition, is NOT a condition for salvation. He wrote, “Repentance is not a condition for eternal life.”
Rose, understanding that in fact Alvin means repentance, by any definition, is NOT necessary for the reception of eternal life; Do you agree with Alvin’s statement?
385 Comments:
Good Morning Rose:
I read the article. I found it a bit rambling, but I stuck with it.
Anyway, while one may appreciate what he is speaking of in regard to Calvinism’s Limited Atonement, I can see these “Crossless” gospel advocates headed to full-blown universalism. I have two thoughts:
1) The writer raises the disturbing teaching from GES “Crossless” gospel men:
Antonio wrote, “Forgiveness of sins is not the issue between God and man. Sin has been done away with as a barrier. Jesus Christ IS the propitiation for the sins of the world. Jesus has taken them all away in the limited aspect of it being the barrier between God and man.”
This is from the GES website, under the “How Can I Be Saved?” link on the left column on the homepage:
“Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the whole world (John 1:29). He has removed the sin barrier which separated us from God. However, we still lack spiritual life, eternal life. To get that life, we must simply believe in Jesus for it.”
While I reject Calvinism’s Limited Atonement: Hodges, Wilkin and da Rosa are inching even closer to Universalism. There is no sin barrier between the lost and God? It is little wonder that this extreme teaching leads to the claim that lost men do not have to know, understand or even be aware that they are sinners. It is little wonder that this extreme teaching leads to the claim that all a lost man must do is say he believes in a promise. Just believe in a promise of eternal life even if he believes the promise is guaranteed by the Mormon (half-brother of Satan) Jesus- as Antonio is teaching.
2) The truly “Crossless” gospel is the teaching of Hodges, Wilkin, Myers and da Rosa. As Hodges in How to Lead People to Christ wrote,
“In recent years I (Hodges) have become aware of a way of presenting the gospel invitation that troubles me. I believe I have heard it from my earliest years, and I admit it didn't really bother me for a long time. Now it does. I have heard people say this: 'In order to be saved you must believe that Jesus died on the cross.' . . . . usually implied is the idea that Christ’s work on the cross is sufficient to provide for our salvation. Thus they mean to say that we are trusting in the sufficiency of his work of atonement. Let me be honest, I don't like this way of presenting a gospel invitation.”
“The simple truth is that Jesus can be believed for eternal salvation apart from any detailed knowledge of what He did to provide it.”
Hodges insists the cross does not need to be known, understood or believed by the lost man. This is also true for His resurrection and Deity. All of these are ripped from the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the peril of the unsaved who have the misfortune to hear this non-saving message.
The Hodges/Wilkin/GES interpretation of the Gospel is aptly labeled, “Crossless.” IMO, however, “Crossless” does not go far enough. The Hodges/GES message is “Crossless” and “Deityless.”
LM
PS: I am wondering why Antonio has not commented on your “Receiving Christ” article and scenario. It is an important discussion and I believe helps define some of the issues.
By
Lou Martuneac, at 1/22/2008 10:52 AM
Rose, I trust this will be OK.
In December 2007 I wrote an article that was followed by a lengthy discussion thread on the question of whether or not “Crossless” is the right and appropriate label of the Hodges, Wilkin, GES view of the Gospel. There is a good deal of documentation and links to substantiate the “Crossless” label.
The article is titled, Is the “Crossless” Label the Right Label?
Lou
By
Lou Martuneac, at 1/22/2008 10:54 AM
Hi, Rose! Hope your family is well today. :)
That was a good article, very reasonable.
I must also say - kettle. black. ;)
By
Missy, at 1/22/2008 11:17 AM
Good morning, Lou.
You don't comment here very often.
This wasn't about the "minimalistic theory of salvation with no corresponding realtiy." It was about telling people to cling to a cross that holds no provision for them. I find that more contrary to Scripture and God's character than theorizing (while preaching the cross) that someone can theoretically be saved without knowledge of the cross.
Do you have anything to contribute about the subject of the post?
By
Rose~, at 1/22/2008 11:17 AM
I am glad you liked it, Missy. :~)
By
Rose~, at 1/22/2008 11:18 AM
Rose:
For those who Calvinists deem NOT predestined to Heaven, I understand that Calvinism's invitation is an invitation to a closed door.
“Minimalist” as the “Crossless” advocates have minimalized the Gospel leaves the Gospel “hollow” and void of any saving content.
As you noted in another thread, lost people cannot be saved apart from believing in His death and resurrection. The GES eliminates these from what must be understood and believed, i.e. the “Crossless” gospel.
LM
By
Lou Martuneac, at 1/22/2008 11:31 AM
Yes, Lou,
I think we have covered this ground once or twice. ;~) I know what you mean by your terms.
I do hope that you and your family are staying warm and well.
By
Rose~, at 1/22/2008 11:33 AM
Lou,
As you know, I agree with you that the Gospel as presented by the Grace Evangelical Society (GES) falls short of the mark. However, I must still take exception with your often stated belief that it is the GES understanding of the barrier between man and God that is the source of that error. I know you read the comment thread of Rachel's post Open question to all “crossless gospel” / “refined free grace” proponents at Pursuit of Truth and, while I suspect you disagreed with the sections of works of R.B. Thieme, Jr that I quoted from, I am surprised that you still want to make the barrier a GES distinctive. I will state again that the particular view of the barrier held by the GES is one that was taught at Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) and is not the root of the problem. I do not believe that everyone who does not hold to your understanding of repentance is on the slippery slope to universalism.
Rick Hughes has done a fine job of summarizing the works of R.B. Thieme, Jr (which I believe to be truth) and I would like to share two quotes:
Repentance means a change of mind. For example, at salvation you change your mind and realize that you do need Christ as your Savior, that on your own you cannot do anything good enough to gain entrance into Heaven with perfect God. Repentance does not mean feeling sorry for your sins.
Rick Hughes
Practicing Your Christianity
p. 4 (PDF p. 12)
The moment each of us decides that we need a Savior, that Christ is the one true Savior, and that He died for us personally, in that moment of faith we receive Christ as our personal Savior. Salvation takes place in just a second, in an instant, in a moment of faith. How can it be so quick? Because Jesus Christ on the Cross already did all of the work! Nothing remains to be done except for us to believe. The instant that we do believe, God brings us into an eternal relationship with Him. In that single, simple moment of belief, we pass from spiritual death to eternal life.
Rick Hughes
Practicing Your Christianity
p. 11 (PDF p. 19)
Rick doesn't hold to you view of repentance and yet isn't a universalist. What gives?
Also, I know that Greg Schliesman took exception to the statement that sin is no longer a barrier between us and God (I suspect that you agreed with him, please correct me if I am wrong). If sin is still part of the barrier then then how could Christ's work on the cross be complete? How then does non-meritorious faith finish the work of Christ on the cross? Yes our lack of righteousness (-R) does flow from the fall, from Adam's original sin, but the two are not the same. If sins are an issue at the Great White Throne and there is double jeopardy then why not triple jeopardy? How can we ever be eternally secure?
By
Glenn W, at 1/22/2008 12:53 PM
Hi Glenn:
I appreciate your contributions in dealing with the reductionist errors of the “Crossless” gospel.
I've not done a great deal of reading and research on this, but Greg and Rachel seem to have.
It seems to me that the GES camp is making the sin barrier a distinctive. Not exclusive or unique to GES, but clearly one of their teachings.
Greg and I do agree with one another. We reject the sin barrier issue. Rachel also disagrees with the sin barrier issue.
I am short of time, so a quick note. Christ died for the sins of the whole world. IMO, no man's sins are forgiven unless and until he has come to Christ, the Bible way, and received that forgiveness. “It is finished.” Forgiveness has been made available to all mankind. Now, lost men are to receive that forgiveness through faith in the biblical Jesus, not Antonio’s “cultic” Mormon Jesus.
I’m good with Hughes’ summary of repentance (as I understand a quick read of it) that you noted.
If a lost man does not come to Christ in faith and repentance he remains unforgiven, guilty and condemned for his sins. Because of his sin and unbelief he is eternally separated from God in the Lake of Fire.
I liked this from Rachel, “Bob Wilkin has stated that Christ’s death automatically and actually removed the sin of all people, whether they believe in Him or not. He holds the view that sin is simply no longer a barrier between anyone and God. Whereas the view of both unlimited and limited atonement is that sin IS still a barrier between everyone and God, Christ’s death didn’t actually remove sin from anyone future from the cross, His payment only removes your sins when you believe in Him.
So I am not looking for a debate between limited and unlimited atonement, I’ve already researched those positions and hold to unlimited atonement. However, Bob Wilkin has gone farther and stated that not only is Christ’s death available for all people, but it is actually applied to all people.”
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, but we are going to charitably disagree on this point.
LM
By
Lou Martuneac, at 1/22/2008 1:34 PM
Good afteroon Rose!
For those who Calvinists deem NOT predestined to Heaven, I understand that Calvinism's invitation is an invitation to a closed door.
No man ever pushed the door open and found it shut.
By
Colin Maxwell, at 1/22/2008 1:56 PM
Glenn,
You didn't say "hi" to me. :~)
Hey, I am pretty persuaded by the view that sin actually has been removed as well... being pictured by the veil in the temple being rent in two so that men can come freely into God's presence.
I used to think of it the way Lou describes it. I used to think your sins were on your own account until you came to Christ... and then they were taken off by the cross. I realized though, that I have a little problem with the "chronology" of such a perspective.
Viewing that the atonement was universally effective in removing sin as a barrier between man and God does not lead to universalism. Each individual still must appropriate the life that Christ won through His victory over sin... by faith in Jesus.
I am still open to think this through some more.
By
Rose~, at 1/22/2008 1:57 PM
Hi Colin Maxwell
By
Rose~, at 1/22/2008 2:36 PM
Hi Rose,
Lou suggested I check out this post of yours. I was expecting something more related to the conversation I'm having with Antonio - but I'm actually glad it's not nearly as related as I thought it would be.
Before I start the bulk of my post I have to admit I only skimmed the article. Just got home from work and I'm beat but I was interested.
I think the Calvinists have it all wrong on who Christ died for. Clearly He is the Kinsman Redeemer and died to redeem all of creation (the whole kosmos as the Greek puts it). Not only that but 1 Jn clearly says He is the propitiation for the sins of all people every where.
The Cross truly is available to all mankind. Propitiation is the appeasement, not the forgiveness. We are forgiven when we "homologeo" our sins. Or repent, or agree with God about our sins. The payment was made, we simply trust in that.
Election is a tough subject, mostly because God hasn't spelled it out for us. God has elected any number of things to happen. I believe this includes that some people WILL repent unto life. God will pursue them with His unfailing Grace until they do repent. But I do not believe that this excludes ANYONE. Anyone who would trust Christ would be saved. He's not willing that any would perish - He hasn't predestinated anyone to Hell. He has hardened the hearts of those who reject Him so that His purposes would be fulfilled but He never orchestrates that rejection.
Kev
By
Kevl, at 1/22/2008 3:31 PM
Hi Rose,
Just to add to my last :)
I know that the word "repent" is a hard sell in much of the Free Grace camp. But still honestly believe that is only because we have allowed the Lordship Salvation camp to define it instead of Scripture.
Repentance unto life is only the judgment of self, assessment of Christ and the resulting transference of trust from self to Christ. It is not a change of behavior, a promise to, or even an intent to. Repentance is a change of mind.
God Bless!
Kev
Kev
By
Kevl, at 1/22/2008 3:35 PM
Hi Rose!
Sorry about that oversight!
By
Glenn W, at 1/22/2008 3:39 PM
Rose,
I do find it odd that you will allow Lou to ramble on with his tirades and links that have nothing to do with the article the opening post is wishing to discuss. He has his forums for his spewings. Your blog!
Lou is one to talk about deleting comments. I have seen that he deletes them on his blog quite often when they do not have to do with the opening post. You should show him the same respect.
On another note, I found the article most informative and hitting the nail on the head. Tracy is a very articulate and intelligent writer.
Antonio
By
Antonio, at 1/22/2008 5:24 PM
GlennW,
Can I ask you a question?
Do you beleive in George Meisinger's position? I thought that you did. If you do, why do you disparage my position?
Maybe you remember this discourse with me:
Me:
----------
It occurs to me that you and Meisinger believe that there are at least two different ways to become eternally saved:
1) Zane's way (in other words, through the Johannine terms)
and
2) Romans 10:9, 10 way.
Am I reading you right?
There are more than one way to receive eternal life/justification?
----------
You:
----------
You are correct, that is exactly what he is saying.
----------
Me:
----------
At the end of the day, Jesus Christ guarantees eternal life to any and all who simply trust Him to do so, despite any shortcomings in their knowledge or understanding of Him, His nature, or His work.
----------
You:
----------
You are correct and I believe Dr, Meisinger would agree with you as well.
----------
Does Romans 10:9, 10 Teach that One Must Understand the Resurrection IN ADDITION to Simple Faith In Christ for Eternal Life?
By
Antonio, at 1/22/2008 5:37 PM
Rose,
you say, "With no correspondence to reality"
I wonder why. I asked a point blank question once of you:
Suppose a man begins reading the gospel of John and when he gets to John 11:25-26, he entrusts his eternal destiny into the hands of Jesus Christ. The words and miracles of Christ that he has read up to this point in the narrative have persuaded Him that Jesus can be relied upon to secure and guarantee His eternal felicity and destiny. He believed in Jesus in the very same way that Nathaniel, Apostle John, Peter, Andrew (John 1:35-50) the disciples (2:11), Nicodemus (3:16); and the Samaritans (4:39-42) did when they received eternal life. Before getting much further in the narrative, this man has a heart attack and dies.
Is this man with the Lord or is he in hades?
You responded:
YES! I think the man is saved.
You gave that answer when Lou Martuneac's checklist evangelism friends answered the same question this way:
I would say that that man is still “dead in his sins” and would thus be in hell, just like the person who dies w/o ever hearing of Jesus
another said:
It is my view that this man is hell bound
Here was my final question:
Are you [all] willing to come out and say that you believe that someone who has believed in Jesus, certainly trusting and falling upon His mercy and grace alone, entrusting his eternal destiny into His hands, believing Him in His promise, is going to hell because he died before getting to the cross?
Antonio
By
Antonio, at 1/22/2008 5:53 PM
All:
For those who wish to know what Lou in his ultra fundamentalist mindset says a person needs to do to go to heaven, here is his list of things:
Section one: BELIEFS NECESSARY
1) Believe that there is only one God
2) Believe that God is one; in other words, believe in the Trinity
3) Believe that Jesus is the Christ
4) Believe that Jesus is God’s Son
5) Believe that Jesus is deity
6) Believe that Jesus died on the cross
7) Believe that Jesus died for his sins
8) Believe that God raised Jesus from the dead
9) Believe that Jesus was a human
Section two: ADDITIONAL REQUIRED STEPS
10) Must agree to the convincing and convicting work of the Holy Spirit
11) Must understand that he is a sinner
12) Must confess the sin that makes him a sinner
13) Must turn from that sin
14) Must know that Jesus is God’s Son
15) Must confess with the mouth the Lord Jesus
16) Must transfer his dependence to the Lord for his salvation
17) Must pray for God to save him
For documentation read this article: An example of a checklist for eternal life from an outspoken fundamentalist/traditionalist: Lou Martuneac
Antonio
By
Antonio, at 1/22/2008 5:58 PM
BTW,
As you can see, I have jumped on the Lou Martuneac bandwagon. If you are going to delete him, please delete me to. I thought that since you left his intact without a rebuke, my comments were welcomed too.
Antonio
By
Antonio, at 1/22/2008 6:11 PM
Hi Antonio!
I have not -to date- deleted one of Lou's comments for it having annoyed me. (Can't say the same about him toward me). I will not delete yours either. Of course not.
I am leary of deleting comments. That doesn't mean I won't ever. I just really don't want to - I want to have some modicum of free expression around here. I am not afraid of what Lou Martuneac or anyone one has to say. I will not allow myself to feel threatened by others going on and on about their thoughts.
That is how it stands for me right now.
BTW,
I still say that man in your scenario is saved (just like I thought on your blog - as I told you) ...because there is a difference between ignorance and denial. I wish you would read my post on UoG about that and tell me if it makes any sense to you.
By
Rose~, at 1/22/2008 6:21 PM
Conditions for salvation?
1 Cor 15:1-11
Verse 11 "Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed." Issue settled for all right minded Christians.
Antonio the honest approach would be to argue against Paul's inspired writings, not some made up position inflicted on a mere man.
Kev
By
Kevl, at 1/22/2008 6:49 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Lou Martuneac, at 1/22/2008 9:57 PM
Antonio:
Rose said to you, "I wish you would read my post on UoG about that and tell me if it makes any sense to you."
Why don't you weigh in on that? Is there some reason you have not participated in that thread?
Here is the link...
When It Comes to Receiving Christ...
LM
By
Lou Martuneac, at 1/22/2008 10:05 PM
Antonio,
I have to say that when I read Dr. Meisinger's article I found it interesting in that it made me think. To be honest I was not completely sure if I agreed with him or not. I have continued to think about it, study, and pray and I have to say that I don't believe that I can say I agree with him.
Before I go on and quote Dr. Meisinger at length I need to state an important point. I have never meant to disparage your position or the position of any other Christian blogger including Lou, Rose, Matthew, Jon Lee, and the many others I have interacted with in the blogosphere. I have disagreed with all of you at one time or another and, if I continue to interact, I will most likely disagree with you again. None of you has any responsibility to justify yourselves to me in any way shape or form and I have no intention of forcing you to do so. The only One that we must justify ourselves to is out Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If any of you have taken any of my comments as disparaging I apologize to you. I do reserve the right to represent my understanding of bible doctrine and I certainly understand that not everyone will agree with me.
My original comment to you that Dr. Meisinger would agree that if someone is saved when they believe that Jesus Christ offers eternal life is correct. The following quote is representative of a lot of what he says even though you may not appreciate the tone:
Is an explicit mention of eternal life necessary? Yes, they answer, because the Gospel of John is the only book targeting unbelievers and John contains a strong emphasis on eternal life. In addition, they insinuate that the Gospel of John gives us a superior gospel that excludes, or at least makes substandard, what the other apostles say about about imputed righteousness or forgiveness. This must be judged as wrong-headed. Any gospel message rooted in biblical soteriological content offers a sufficient and wise gospel message that results in the eternal salvation of those who believe.
Why Confess With One's Mouth? (Romans 10:9-13)
by George E. Meisinger
Chafer Theological Seminary Journal, Fall 2006, p. 23
Dr. Meisinger's article is a long one and it is difficult pulling all of the pieces together. Nowhere in the article does he disagree with presenting the gospel to an unbeliever by telling them that Jesus Christ offers eternal life. What he does have a problem with is stating that the eternal-life gospel is the only way to present the gospel. I still believe that my original statement to you was correct and that George Meisinger believes that the eternal-life gospel and the imputed-righteousness gospel are both valid.
As for why have I moved back towards the position of my youth, namely that one must believe that Christ died as their substitute in order to be saved? The reason has to do with the question of whether a Mormon can be saved by believing that Jesus provides eternal life in spite of their misconceptions. Here is your now famous quote:
At the moment that a JW or a Mormon is convinced that Jesus Christ has given to them unrevokable eternal life when they believed on Him for it, I would consider such a one saved, REGARDLESS of their varied misconcetions and beliefs about Jesus.
Is Christ's Deity Essential
By Antonio, at 6/13/2007 12:25 PM
It does not matter whether Mormons include works as necessary for salvation since they are putting their trust in, I believe, a false prophet. When I thought about it I realized that the way of salvation I had always known uniquely identified the Christ in a way that the eternal-life-only gospel does not. I suppose if I had thought this through I would have come to this conclusion a long time ago but I had not thought about it in those terms.
Another item which bothers me about your position is that you say that those who believe on His name (Jesus) are saved but then at least imply that there is not deep meaning to that name. I have known for a long time that the Old Testament contains a lot of prophecies regarding the Messiah and that the name of Jesus Christ is full of meaning. I did some checking and found a good source for the OT messianic prophecies titled The Old Testament Regarding the Messiah. I am sure there are many more references on the subject but I haven't tried to track them down. If you accuse me of saying that someone has to know and understand all of these references in order to be saved I will deny it (because it's not true). On the other hand I don't believe that it is right to claim that the name of Jesus Christ does not carry a lot of meaning.
And one last thing. Over time I may change my position on different doctrines as I learn and grow in the word. While no one likes admitting they are wrong about anything I also won't let pride stop my spiritual advance.
Lou,
I do believe that you hold to unlimited atonement in the sense that Christ died for all. However, you do not appear to believe that sin has been completely removed from the barrier by Christ's work on the cross. This is a position that I am unfamiliar with but, as you said, we will have to respectfully disagree.
By
Glenn W, at 1/22/2008 10:10 PM
Glenn:
You wrote, "I do believe that you hold to unlimited atonement in the sense that Christ died for all. However, you do not appear to believe that sin has been completely removed from the barrier by Christ's work on the cross. This is a position that I am unfamiliar with but, as you said, we will have to respectfully disagree."
You have my view it sized up in a way in am comfortable with.
Happy to respectfully disagree on this one.
Lou
By
Lou Martuneac, at 1/22/2008 10:16 PM
I thought it was a great article. It was sound and proven by clear literal interpretation of scripture. Thanks Rose.
I can't help it, well I guess I can but I won't. :)
LM said:
"If a lost man does not come to Christ in faith and repentance he remains unforgiven, guilty and condemned for his sins. Because of his sin and unbelief he is eternally separated from God in the Lake of Fire."
Lou, I think the bible clearly teaches that a man doesn't go to the lake of fire for his sins. A person goes to the lake of fire because his name is not written in the book of life. Rev. 20: 11-15
Verse 15: "And if anyone's name was not found in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."
I believe no one is condemned for their sins, Christ has taken care of that. The scripture teaches that, Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world but to save it.
Can anyone find where it literally states or clearly implies that a person is cast into the lake of fire because their sins are not forgiven?
By
Kris, at 1/23/2008 12:26 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Kris, at 1/23/2008 12:27 AM
I just want to add something.
I praise God that He has provided atonement for all mankind. I praise Him that no one, including me, is physically born without hope.
How unjust would it be that all of mankind is 'born without a choice' into sin(and I believe we are) and then our Creator would not provide for our sin that we were born in?
IMO Jesus couldn't make any clearer than what He said in Mark 3:28,29
28"Truly, I say to you, ALL sins SHALL be forgiven the sons of men, and WHATEVER blasphemies they utter;
29but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an ETERNAL sin.
There is only one eternal sin, all other sins SHALL be forgiven.
I believe the only eternal sin is not believing God's testimony concerning His son, when the Holy Spirit convicts us(John 16:9). That is the sin that keeps any man from having his name written in the book of life.
Have a great week, Rose, Wendell, and all.
By
Kris, at 1/23/2008 12:58 AM
Rose,
Interesting article. As for the substitutionary atonement not removing the sins of mankind as an issue is dealt with in part on my blog:
http://freegracegospel.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/lone-road/
Most people who do not understand the biblical doctrines of reconciliation, redemption, and propitiation to name a few hold to a view that sin is still an issue.
It seems they adopt their view from the writings of men verses the bible. The scriptures make it clear that sin will not be an issue at the great white throne of judgement.
Very Respectfully,
Jim
By
Jim, at 1/23/2008 1:02 AM
Glenn W.
Before the discussions of consistent Free Grace theology have come up, both you and I have shared amiable and profitable discussions.
I appreciate your humility and candor as you work through these issues prayerfully, allowing your current views on the Bible, viewed through your conscience and discernment, to inform your conviction.
For a moment, please bear with me. We all have certain presuppositions. You have shown yourself transparent, allow me.
Based upon my conception of God, I come to these issues with the idea that the appropriation of life from God is simple. Acceptance from God, not being anything gained from any worth or merit or actions of my own, comes as a simple gift.
If out of the simplicity of the heart, one hears or reads of the teachings, works, actions, and/or exploits of Jesus of Nazareth and is convinced that they have eternal life through faith (trust) in Him for it, they indeed have everlasting life.
What misconceptions are fatal and what are trivial, Glenn, and who would be the arbiter of such considerations?
If someone heard or read of Jesus's words from the gospel of John (the author, by the way, relating to us the true Jesus), and in the simplicity of heart entrusted his or her eternal destiny into the hands of this Person, why would any human being regard such a one as unsaved?
Let me venture a guess.
Take a look at the older brother in the parable of the Prodigal Son.
Antonio
By
Antonio, at 1/23/2008 2:08 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Lou Martuneac, at 1/23/2008 9:19 AM
Good morning Rose- Antonio wrote, "What misconceptions are fatal and what are trivial, Glenn, and who would be the arbiter of such considerations?"
Antonio: It has been widely noted you believe that a lost man can be saved no matter what misconceptions he may hold. You said any misconception should be put on the back burner.
That statement is all inclusive. We know from numerous notes by you, Hodges, Wilkin, Myers, etc. that this includes not just misconceptions, but open, conscience rejection of the deity of Christ.
You stating, "The Mormon Jesus and the Evangelical Jesus are one and the same," clearly shows the depths to which you will go to run down and negate the Deity of Jesus Christ to uphold the reductionist teachings of Zane Hodges on the "Crossless" gospel.
My new contributor, Phil Evans in his article, The Hollow Gospel of the GES, documents that Hodges considers the cross, resurrection and even the deity of Christ "excess baggage" in a Gospel presentation.
These teachings are fatal to the Gospel and reduce your "Crossless/Deityless" message to a non-saving proposition to the detriment of the lost.
The judge (arbiter) of these egregious errors you have adopted and seek to spread is the Bible and the Lord Jesus Christ whose name and Gospel the Hodges message has assaulted. Your interpretation of the Gospel has been "consistent;" consistently wrong! The GES's abuse and twisting of the many clear passges of Scripture are on record and fully evidence the departure from a balanced biblical theology that the "Crossless" faction of the FG camp have gone.
You ask what is "trivial." The teachings of Hodges has trivilaized the Lord's finished work on the cross. Trivialized the Lord Jesus Christ by the assualt on His titles (the Christ & Son of God). You personally trivialized the Lord by equating Him to (as David Wyatt noted) a "cultic" Mormon Jesus.
The Hodges/GES "Crossless" gospel has been trvialized down to a "fatal" message for the lost, in that it does NOT save.
LM
*Rose: I'll be away from a computer the rest of the day, and will look in later, if possible.
By
Lou Martuneac, at 1/23/2008 9:22 AM
Antonio,
Your questions are reasonable and I will try to give reasonable short answers. Your use of the word presuppositions was a very fitting choice of words and it holds the key to how I try to recognize the difference between a pagan god and the true God. I think I should give some background on how my thinking has developed so you can at understand where I am coming from on this. About a year and a half ago I began to study the Biblical Framework study by Charles Clough. I have linked to some of his material at times but I have no idea if anyone even followed the links much less read though the material. Charles Clough begins the study with a heavy emphasis on presuppositionalism and the Creator-creature disctinction. I believe that most of this material was originally developed by Cornelius Van Til who was a hyper-Calvinist but I have found nothing yet that is at odds with dispensationalism (Clough himself is dispensational). One of the major concepts that I have come away with is that Christianity holds to the Creator-creature distinction while all paganism holds to the continuity of being. The online notes don't go into the depth that the recordings do but if you are interested you can follow this link to Section II Chapter 1 of Clough's study notes.
Using this as background, if a Mormon believes in a Jesus who "was once like us and we shall become like him" they are believing in a pagan god. Likewise, don't Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Christ was an angel, a creature, and not God (both are variations on the continuity of being presupposition)? These are pagan gods that they have put Jesus' name on and I do not believe that they are putting their trust in the One who provides salvation.
I would also like to say that while we have disagreed about certain issues that I have never harbored any ill will towards you and I don't see why we cannot be on amiable terms. If I am going to post comments I believe that I have an obligation to present truth and that if I am wrong that God will correct me. You have certainly put a lot of presure on me at times but it has served as motivation for me to study certain doctrines more deeply than I would have otherwise.
By
Glenn W, at 1/23/2008 11:04 AM
Lou,
I think Antonio asks a good question. What misconseptions are trivial... and what are major... and how do we decide which is which? I have ideas, but I find that a challenge worthy of consideration. What do you think? When it comes to misconceptions about Christ - what is a trivial misconception and what is a major one?
I do think that the mormon's idea of Jesus is so far off the mark that they are dealing with a different god with only the name Jesus attached. But let's move over to some other misconceptions that are more in the middle - where do we draw the line in our mind as to what is acceptable and what is fatal?
By
Rose~, at 1/23/2008 11:43 AM
Kev,
Thanks for your thoughts on the post that I linked to. Liver and Onions is one of my favorite blogs, even though TJ is really egy. (Maybe that is one reason I like it - who knows!)
The word "repent" is really the most confusing word in the Christian jargon that I have ever encountered. Everyone means something different by it and when people use it, I find the lapse in communication is stunning. I think I will just use more specific terms like "turn from sin" or "change one's mind about Christ" or wahtever... to suit the actual thing that I am trying to refer to. I used the word "repentance" in a post once and it was a disaster - no one knew what the other meant - everyone was talking past eachother.
By
Rose~, at 1/23/2008 11:48 AM
Kris,
Thank you for your thoughts. I agree about being so glad for God's provision. The view some have of this situation is not too pretty a picture of our loving God. He is just and righteous, not cruel and arbitrary.
(Wendell is my husband's middle name - he really goes by John) :~)
By
Rose~, at 1/23/2008 12:00 PM
Glenn,
I think you SO MUCH for your comments. You are most gracious. I really appreciate you. :~)
I am following your thoughts so nthis thing and they seem to click with me very well. What would you say to Antonio's question about where to draw the line on what is a fatal miscoception and what is trivial? I think you and I are in agreement about the mormom idea of god.
By
Rose~, at 1/23/2008 12:08 PM
I meant I THANK YOU
not I THINK YOU
By
Rose~, at 1/23/2008 12:09 PM
Hi Rose,
The word "repent" is really the most confusing word in the Christian jargon that I have ever encountered. Everyone means something different by it and when people use it, I find the lapse in communication is stunning. I think I will just use more specific terms like "turn from sin" or "change one's mind about Christ" or whatever... to suit the actual thing that I am trying to refer to.
I think the best (and simple) definition of repentance is that it involves a hatred and sorrow for sin and a willingness to turn away from it. This delivers us from two dangerous errors:
[i] The idea that we can be pardoned while desiring to live in rebellion before God
[ii] The idea that we must produce good works before we can exercise faith.
In this last avoided error, we are not telling (say) the adulterer to give up his sins and then come back after a probation period so that we can explain John 3:16 to him. But we are saying to him - covered in the first avoided error - that he cannot be determined to keep his various female companions and expect to be able to say that he is heaven bound. We avoid turning the grace of God into lasciviousness in the first one and making it null and void through a works salvation on the other.
Regards,
By
Colin Maxwell, at 1/23/2008 1:25 PM
Hi Rose,
Thank you for your kind comments as well.
Where I have decided to draw the line is at the Creator-creature distinction that I mentioned in my previous comment. Christianity is the only belief (I don't like calling Christianity a religion) where an unbridgeable gap exists between the Creator and His creatures. All pagan religions believe in one of many variations of the continuity of being and when I see that it raises red flags with me. When a Mormon believes in a Jesus who "used to be as we are and we will become as he is" that is a perfect example of continuity of being and turns Jesus Christ into a pagan God. That is where I draw the line.
I believe that to place your faith in someone who is part and parcel of the continuity of being is a direct rejection of the God of scripture and will not result in one's eternal salvation.
By
Glenn W, at 1/23/2008 4:07 PM
For those of you who are discussing repentance here is a link that you all may find helpful:
Except Ye Repent
by Harry A. Ironside
New York: American Tract Society, ©1937.
By
Glenn W, at 1/23/2008 4:49 PM
A very useful booklet, Glenn.
By
Colin Maxwell, at 1/23/2008 5:06 PM
Glenn,
Unless You Repent (I assume an updated printing of Except Ye Repent) by Ironside is the book that got my head on straight about repentance.
Kev
By
Kevl, at 1/23/2008 6:52 PM
What I find difficult in the arbitrary distinctions of what would be trivial and what would be fatal in discussing the ontology of Christ in relation to saving faith is that the answers we hear are purely speculative.
It would be no hard task to make a strong case that the disciples themselves, even after years of being with Jesus of Nazareth, did not grasp his divinity, and understood Him to be a man, though with exceptional power from God.
Let me ask a couple of questions and set them up.
Let us say that someone has these beliefs:
1) The Bible is the Word of God, with verbal and plenary inspiration.
2) The Bible is true.
3) Believes everything he reads in the Bible, convinced that it is true. These beliefs of his are based upon his interpretations of the Bible (everyone interprets the Bible as they read it!)
4) After reading the whole New Testament, this man does not believe (was not persuaded or convinced) that Jesus of Nazareth, whom the New Testament refers to over and over again, is God, but that Jesus was the most important prophet of God, was the Messiah, of the line of David and Tribe of Judah, King of Israel.
Then this man reads in the gospel of John where Jesus says that the believer in Him will never perish but have life and guaranteed resurrection and believes Jesus of Nazareth's words. This man reads John 6:47 and believes that by simple faith in Jesus that he has everlasting life. This man entrusts his eternal destiny into the hands of the one he finds authorized of God to guarantee his eternal destiny, namely, Jesus of Nazareth.
This man has not made the creature/creator distinction. He believes that Jesus has been authorized by God, annointed of God, to be the Messiah and the Guarantor of eternal life to all who simply trust in Him for it.
Why has he not placed his faith in Jesus of Nazareth? And if he has, why isn't he saved?
Philip believed that Jesus was the Christ, and as we know from 1 John 5:1, everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God. This is how he described Jesus to Nathanael:
"We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, whote -- Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."
Jesus was introduced as a mere man who had a biological father. But Philip understood Jesus to be the Messiah, the Christ, the Savior of the World (c.f. Jn 4:42 M.T.).
The person who we were just talking about has a great misconception about Jesus, that Jesus was merely a man who was the greatest of prophets, yet nevertheless, the annointed of God, who has been given authority and it authorized to give eternal life to all who believe in Him.
How can you say that he is believing in a different Jesus or a different god when he simply has a misunderstanding and misconception about Him?
It is manifestly illogical to claim such.
The only genuine positions one may have of this scenario are:
1) The man is saved, having fully entrusted his eternal destiny to God's Christ.
2) The man is unsaved because, although he believed in Jesus of Nazareth for eternal life, he did not fulfill another co-condition of receiving everlasting life, namely assent to the orthodox doctrine that Jesus is God, therefore misses heaven by a doctrinal stipulation.
It cannot be that he has believed in anyone else but Jesus of Nazareth! You have to grapple with this. The only logical and genuine position you could have is that one MUST believe that Jesus is God in addition to trust in Him. But then it wouldn't be simple faith alone in Jesus alone but faith in Jesus plus faith in doctrine (as true and important as it is!).
When I read through the Acts of the Apostles, I am struck by the fact that those who have some of their sermons contained therein do not emphasize the deity of Christ when they preached. For instance, Peter could say, "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus both Lord and Christ." This is the Lordship of Jesus that was granted unto Him by God, not the Lordship of Jesus by virtue of His divinity. God appointed Jesus to be Lord and the annointed King.
"Jesus of Nazareth" is emphasized 7 times in the book of Acts.
Here is another example:
Acts 10:38
8 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.
NKJV
Acts 10:42-43
And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins."
If someone believes that Jesus of Nazareth is sufficiently authorized by God to guarantee eternal life to the believer, why is it that it is said that one must also understand that Jesus is God to identity Him?
Does Peter fail in sufficiently identifying and referring to Jesus of Nazareth?
Antonio
By
Antonio, at 1/23/2008 9:09 PM
Hi Rose
Excellent Antonio!!! And based totally on scripture!!!
blessings alvin
maybe Lou can give us some more of his biblical speculations?
By
alvin, at 1/23/2008 11:25 PM
Antonio,
I will answer your questions to the best of my ability but I do not pretend that I have answers that will satisfy you on all counts. I know that my answers will beg more questions and I am not sure how much time I have to spend defending every word that I write.
----- Antonio's First Question -----
This man has not made the creature/creator distinction. He believes that Jesus has been authorized by God, annointed of God, to be the Messiah and the Guarantor of eternal life to all who simply trust in Him for it.
Why has he not placed his faith in Jesus of Nazareth? And if he has, why isn't he saved?
----------
I want to make sure that I am understanding you correctly. It appears that you hold that when it comes to the Creator-creature distinction a person (any person) can reject it, accept it, or not really have thought about it or missed it in some way. In contrast, I hold that there are really only two positions and those are to accept or reject the Creator-creature distinction, there is no neutral position. If someone rejects the Creator-creature distinction then they are rejecting the God of scripture. Oh, they probably wouldn't state it that way but that is exactly what they would be doing.
God does not allow us to miss such things. There are many ways that He forces the issue: our consciences, common grace, and the convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit come to mind. So, someone reads through the bible and comes away not having noticed that our infinite God is different from all the others? Is this because the convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit did not shine the light of truth on that or is it because that person actively rejects that truth? I hold that it is an active rejection of the truth.
Many unbelievers have gone to their graves believing that their gods guaranteed them eternal life of some kind (valhalla, nirvana, the happy hunting grounds, etc.). If an unbeliever were to say that Dagon was the guarantor of eternal life you would most certainly tell him that he was wrong. There have been many false prophets making counterfeit claims through the centuries and each person must choose whether to believe them or the true God. How does an unbeliever make this distinction? I believe that it is the God who stands behind the offer that is the difference and that He is not hidden from them.
If he believes Jesus was authorized by a god like any other god, annointed of a god like any other god, to be the messiah and guarantor of life just like any other god then then that person is not saved. I also find this scenario to be self contradictory. All of the attributes and titles you list belong to the God of the bible and I do not believe that anyone would truly believe these things and reject Christ's deity or the Creator-creature distinction.
----- Antonio's Second Question -----
"We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, whote -- Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."
Jesus was introduced as a mere man who had a biological father. But Philip understood Jesus to be the Messiah, the Christ, the Savior of the World (c.f. Jn 4:42 M.T.).
The person who we were just talking about has a great misconception about Jesus, that Jesus was merely a man who was the greatest of prophets, yet nevertheless, the annointed of God, who has been given authority and it authorized to give eternal life to all who believe in Him.
[...]
How can you say that he is believing in a different Jesus or a different god when he simply has a misunderstanding and misconception about Him?
----------
I am sorry but this doesn't jump out at me at all. Did not Jesus grow up in Joseph's household? I suspect that Joseph was legally Jesus' father, was Phillip really denying Jesus' divinity?
I will say state once again that there are no neutral misconceptions. If Phillip was truly denying Christ's deity I would say he was not a believer at that time but since it doesn't seem to me that Phillip was denying His deity I don't have to say that.
----- Antonio's Third Question -----
If someone believes that Jesus of Nazareth is sufficiently authorized by God to guarantee eternal life to the believer, why is it that it is said that one must also understand that Jesus is God to identity Him?
---------
Only God is authorized to guarantee eternal life just like only God is allowed to forgive sin (didn't the Pharisees want to stone Jesus for doing that?). I believe that the scripture makes it abundantly clear that Christ is God in soteriological passages just like everywhere else but you will not agree to that, so why argue the point any more?
At this point I have taken time on this that I really don't have and I will have to let it go. I know very well where you stand on this just like you understand where I stand, hopefully that will be good enough for now.
By
Glenn W, at 1/24/2008 1:22 PM
Hi Rose
Looks like more of the same to me! All human reasoning and not one single scripture given. It would be good to see someone at least use some scripture to prove their point. Seems like Antonio is the ONLY one that is!
one drink from the Christ
alvin :)
By
alvin, at 1/24/2008 2:26 PM
Alvin,
Wow that was really a snappy come back! I'll tell you what. I'll quit my day job and begin studying full time so that whenever anyone asks me a question I can produce a book to answer each and every question.
By
Glenn W, at 1/24/2008 2:38 PM
Hi Rose
Sorry Glen, sounds like you got a good source to go off of. I just needed to go up and find it again.
I believe that most of this material was originally developed by Cornelius Van Til who was a hyper-Calvinist
By
alvin, at 1/24/2008 3:14 PM
I believe that most of this material was originally developed by Cornelius Van Til who was a hyper-Calvinist.
Alvin: In less than 200 words (a short paragraph) what is the difference between a Calvinist and a Hyper Calvinist?
P/s Hi Rose!
By
Colin Maxwell, at 1/24/2008 4:51 PM
Glenn,
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I really don't think that you actually answered the questions, but skirted them. I have more to say about that, which I had already begun to type, but I erased it, wanting to give Rose a chance to answer the questions. I will respond to you after she answers.
Rose, give a couple of minutes to my questions whenever you get the chance. I would really love to hear what you think.
BTW, I have read your post on unashamed and read all the comments. I believe, so far as i can tell, that Alvin has done a great job of responding. If there is something specific you would like me to respond to, i would be happy to.
Antonio
By
Antonio, at 1/24/2008 5:43 PM
Colin,
Alvin was quoting Glenn W.
Antonio
By
Antonio, at 1/24/2008 6:19 PM
Hi Rose and Goodnight
I see it this way, a Calvinist and a hyper-calvinist grew out of the same soil! Bad Soil!! Bad Bad Soil!!! So there source came from the same place. All five-points were meant by Calvin to fit together. Also I would never call myself by the name of a mere man!
Goodnightsafehome,,,your not as safe as you think! There will be no Calvinist in heaven just believers! If a Calvinist gets there it's because they believed Jesus simple promise of eternal life. If at the time they believed they were thinking they had to persevere in good works then it was impossible for them to have assurance. And if they had no assurance then they could not know they had eternal life! Which is really sad!!!
one drink from the Christ
alvin
By
alvin, at 1/24/2008 6:41 PM
Dear Rose,
I appeal to you as a fellow believer not to continue giving Alvin a free pass on his hateful speech to Colin and the other Calvinists here.
Respectfully,
Susan
PS,
Alvin, you are very bad for my blood pressure.
By
Anonymous, at 1/24/2008 7:34 PM
Goodmorning Rose/VA Susan/Antonio/Glenn and all!
I believe that most of this material was originally developed by Cornelius Van Til who was a hyper-Calvinist.
Perhaps any one who uses this term Hyper Calvinist would like (in a short paragraph - less than 200 words) tell us the difference between a Hyper Calvinist and a Calvinist. If you don't know, then please say so, rather than wrapping what you merely think they have in common in the same, tired, old rhetoric that has long passed its use by date.
Just one short paragraph
Regards,
By
Colin Maxwell, at 1/25/2008 2:45 AM
Colin, I believe an Hyper-Calvinist is one who denies that the Gospel is offered to all men and women, but is offered only to the elect.
I would avoid applying the term to any other variations in Calvinist theology.
God Bless
Matthew
By
Matthew Celestine, at 1/25/2008 3:37 AM
Rose, the comments on this post built up rather quickly.
By
Matthew Celestine, at 1/25/2008 3:37 AM
Hi Matthew,
I agree with you. There are more differences (or at least, another main difference) but hold tight for a while. Your wisdom in withholding this obloquy is commendable. I hope that others can match it.
Regards,
By
Colin Maxwell, at 1/25/2008 4:10 AM
Good morning Rose
Hi Susan, sorry to hear about your blood pressure. But actually what I said could be the most loving thing that can be said to those that hold to perseverance of the saints. To have assurance there is only two options for them at the time they believe. (1) They also know they will persevere in good works at the moment they believe. (2) They don't know if they have believed.
And being they have to endur to the end to be saved, they can't know if their saved until the end and then it's to late.
Also I agree with what Matthew said. But if you look at the posts you will see I was quoting what someone else was applying. That's when Colin jumped on his high horse and took off with it half cocked Ha! Ha!
one drink from the Christ
alvin
Susan, running and rollerblading are great for the blood pressure!
By
alvin, at 1/25/2008 7:21 AM
That's when Colin jumped on his high horse and took off with it half cocked Ha! Ha!
Alvin, is it jumping (in your book) on to a high horse to ask what is the difference between a Calvinist and a Hyper Calvinist and to request that we keep to the simple question asked?
Alvin, do you know any of the differences between a Calvinist and a Hyper Calvinist? If not, just say so.
Regards,
By
Colin Maxwell, at 1/25/2008 9:05 AM
Hello Everyone,
As my last act on the Christian blogs for the forseeable future here is a link to the definition of Hyper-Calvinism courtesey of Theopedia. I hope you find this of help.
I do not believe that my participation in the blogs has been biblically justifiable. I do not possess the spiritual gift of pastor-teacher or any other communication gift. All I can do is repeat what I have learned from men who do possess those gifts. This often puts me in the position of trying to justify other peoples work which I do not believe is right. I also believe that I get drawn into situations which spread divisiveness among the body of Christ which we are all warned against.
God bless you all and I hope you all find the truth you are all looking for.
By
Glenn W, at 1/25/2008 9:33 AM
Hi Glenn,
A useful definition of Hyper Calvinism there. The issue now is, of course, wherein can it be said that Van Till was a Hyper Calvinist? Did he deny the free offer etc.?
Regards,
By
Colin Maxwell, at 1/25/2008 9:40 AM
Hi everyone,
I am super busy with work right now, but I read through all the email notificatin of these comments and I will have to get back to them later.
One thing, though:
Susan,
Can you be very specific about what it is that you want me to charge Alvin for (as opposed to giving him a free pass) :~)
I was inspired to comment on his comment but I don't have time to right now.
By
Rose~, at 1/25/2008 11:34 AM
real quick:
I have always thought of Hyper Calvinists as those who won't evangelize because they think the elect will get saved no matter what.
By
Rose~, at 1/25/2008 11:35 AM
Hi Rose: Hyper Calvinists deny the responsibility of the sinner to repent and believe the gospel. They effectively deny the need of evangelism and the free offer of the gospel. Van Til denied none of these things. Therefore, for the sake of Christian integrity, I saw the need to query whether the branding of him as an Hyper was justified. I decided therefore to see if those who saw him as such actually knew what a Hyper Calvinist was. It is a term that often gets bandied about, sometimes by those who do not know what they are talking about.
Regards,
By
Colin Maxwell, at 1/25/2008 12:16 PM
Okay. I should have said that I had read Van Til was a hyper-Calvinist. Only he and God know for sure.
Good bye!
By
Glenn W, at 1/25/2008 12:53 PM
[One thing, though:
Susan,
Can you be very specific about what it is that you want me to charge Alvin for (as opposed to giving him a free pass) :~)
I was inspired to comment on his comment but I don't have time to right now.]
Hello Rose,
I would be very happy if you would "charge Alvin with" those words you have put on the top of your post box.
"Be challenging"
"Be charitable!"
"Be nice!"
That's all I'm asking.
I don't blame Glen for making a mistaken remark about Van Till being a hyper-Calvinist. He obviously is a man who cares about truth, even if that means parting with some of his previous beliefs shown to be false. Alvin, on the other hand, has a history of misrepresenting Calvinists and there are many sites that do nothing but spread lies about godly men who are Calvinists. If you read certin blogs it becomes more than evident who feeds on this. These false reports cause needless damage and divisions in the body of Christ. Satan is very pleased and the Holy Spirit is grieved.
I tried to patiently show Alvin his errors about one of his false accusations which he continues to repeat even now. (See the Koran thread.) Alvin never admited he had misrepresented Piper and Sproul in his two "proof quotes". He just ignored my two questions about the source of his "facts". If he actually heard the quote of Sproul on a DVD as claimed, he is even more responsible for bearing false witness against R.C. Sproul Sr. since he would have known the truth from the context. That is why I got so upset when I read AGAIN these same hateful accusations of Alvin's.
~Susan
By
Anonymous, at 1/26/2008 12:40 AM
Rose,
I stopped back in to read the thread and have a couple of comments and request. While I respect the right of someone to disagree with me, we can do it in a agreeable manner. So those who read this would understand I'm trying to be charitable while challenging, and am hopefully perceived as nice.
One of the things I see done to support someone's theological stance is usually not made on scripture but on the writings of men. Paul made a point in 1 Corinthians, "not to go beyond what is written" (1 Corinthians 4:6c).
In a theological system you have to have a consistent, coherent, comprehensive evidence to say it is valid. As far as Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism (with all due respect to Susan) has been shot full of holes for a number of years now. One of the things that drew me away from my calvinist theological roots was the bible.
I would ask that if someone is going to make an argument for a position, they make it from scripture they have studied (not just read) and become convinced of - not someone else's interpretation.
Also, I would recommend that we don't use emotional appeals to determine what truth is from scripture. In personal interactions with hard line Calvinists they always seem to make an argument from scripture in proof texts that in many cases do not have anything to do with the context of the passage they removed it from. When confronted with this they get upset. This is also true of the anti-crossless group.
Anyway, I hope this is helpful as we consider this "crossless call".
By
Jim, at 1/26/2008 9:16 AM
Hi Rose and all,
I think Jim's call is one of those nice wee calls people make from time to time to get back to the Bible, even if his other comments are somewhat loaded against Calvinists. I am sure that he will find here on these pages that the Calvinists are ready to engage him direct from the pages of Scripture as he desires. All we ask is that we are treated with Christian respect, not misrepresented - something which we try and oblige our theological opponents with the same.
Regards,
By
Colin Maxwell, at 1/26/2008 9:52 AM
I just noticed this as I have read through again (had my second cup of coffee), sin is still an issue. Even most will agree on this after studying the scriptures. However, it is only the sin of unbelief that will condemn someone to eternal separation from God. (John 3:18)
What some who do not understand is the wall of partition that Paul spoke of in Ephesians 2:14-16. A "middle wall of partition" (NET), or literally the "dividing wall" mentioned in verse 14, referred historically to the dividing wall in the temple in Jerusalem. This wall separated the court of the Gentiles from the rest of the temple and excluded the Gentiles from the inner sanctuaries. Spiritually this wall was a picture of the separation that stands between God and man which prohibits man’s access into God’s presence. The Jews could go beyond the dividing wall, but this was only because they had access through their God-given sacrificial system which pointed to the person and work of Christ, the Messiah, the One who would make peace and remove this barrier.
Some may appeal to Revelation 20 at this point. It is clear from this text that there are two books opened. The first is the book of life which is spoken of elsewhere (Ps 69:28 [this is thought to be a reference to physical life]; Exodus 32:32ff; Ps 139:16; Daniel 7:10; 12:1; Isaiah 4:3 [targum interpretation - eternal life]; Malachi 3:16; Luke 10:20; Acts 13:48 [Greek word does not mean "ordained" but "inscribed"]; Philippians 4:3; Hebrews 12:23; Revelation 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; 22:19; 21:27). If one has not believed their name is not found there. The only recourse for any righteous judge is to consider all the evidence before sentencing. The only thing left for them is to fall back on their works. No one will be saved by any works. The only work that will save is to believe (John 6:29).
In addition (although off topic - as Rose pointed out), the idea that of those of us who hold to a free grace gospel are headed to universalism is laughable.
Jim
By
Jim, at 1/26/2008 10:08 AM
However, it is only the sin of unbelief that will condemn someone to eternal separation from God. (John 3:18)
Can you show us, Jim, from the Scriptures, where unbelief is said to be the only sin that condemns the sinners. I emphasise the word only. For my part, I see a whole host of sins being listed as the cause of damnation in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.
Regards,
By
Colin Maxwell, at 1/26/2008 10:36 AM
Colin,
Your prooftext shows that people will be kept from inheriting the kingdom of God because of being characterized by unrighteous behavior.
I see nothing about simple entrance into the kingdom which is by grace through faith.
Now maybe you want to make a case that inheriting the kingdom of God = entering the kingdom of God, but I think that Noah Webster would take issue with you equating the terms "inherit" and "enter" (and so would the Apostle Paul).
Antonio
By
Antonio, at 1/26/2008 5:32 PM
1 Samuel 2:22 Now Eli was very old, and he kept hearing all that his sons were doing to all Israel, and how they lay with the women who were serving at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 23 And he said to them, “Why do you do such things? For I hear of your evil dealings from all the people. 24 No, my sons; it is no good report that I hear the people of the Lord spreading abroad. 25 If someone sins against a man, God will mediate for him, but if someone sins against the Lord, who can intercede for him?” But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for it was the will of the Lord to put them to death.
26 Now the young man Samuel continued to grow both in stature and in favor with the Lord and also with man.
27 And there came a man of God to Eli and said to him, “Thus the Lord has said, ‘Did I indeed reveal myself to the house of your father when they were in Egypt subject to the house of Pharaoh? 28 Did I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to go up to my altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me? I gave to the house of your father all my offerings by fire from the people of Israel. 29 Why then do you scorn my sacrifices and my offerings that I commanded, and honor your sons above me by fattening yourselves on the choicest parts of every offering of my people Israel?’ ...
3:8 And the Lord called Samuel again the third time. And he arose and went to Eli and said, “Here I am, for you called me.” Then Eli perceived that the Lord was calling the young man. 9 Therefore Eli said to Samuel, “Go, lie down, and if he calls you, you shall say, ‘Speak, Lord, for your servant hears.’” So Samuel went and lay down in his place.
10 And the Lord came and stood, calling as at other times, “Samuel! Samuel!” And Samuel said, “Speak, for your servant hears.” 11 Then the Lord said to Samuel, “Behold, I am about to do a thing in Israel at which the two ears of everyone who hears it will tingle. 12 On that day I will fulfill against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house, from beginning to end. 13 And I declare to him that I am about to punish his house forever, for the iniquity that he knew, because his sons were blaspheming God, and he did not restrain them. 14 Therefore I swear to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.”
By
Anonymous, at 1/26/2008 11:06 PM
Hi Rose/Antonio:
Antonio: I didn't claim that the words "enter" and "inherit" are synonyms but I do contend that they who enter the Kingdom also inherit it, hence the reference to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
I simply asked our new found friend Jim to supply some scriptural proof that unbelief is the only damning sin, and thus far as he has not done so. I notice that you haven't taken it upon yourself to do so.
John elaborates further on this matter that all unpardoned sin damns the sinner when he writes:
Rev 21:8 But the fearful and unbelieving and the abominable and murderers and whoremongers and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, they shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. Here unbelief is listed as but one of several damning sins.
Regards,
By
Colin Maxwell, at 1/27/2008 5:50 AM
Susan, how was Eli's house punished?
By
Matthew Celestine, at 1/27/2008 9:16 AM
Rose, are you feeling redeemed today?
By
Matthew Celestine, at 1/27/2008 9:18 AM
Matthew,
Yes, I am feeling redeemed, but I am also feeling a little bit complainy because of all this illness.
By
Rose~, at 1/27/2008 12:09 PM
Alvin,
Do you realize that you misrepresented the people that Susan says you misrepresented?
By
Rose~, at 1/27/2008 12:10 PM
Thank you, Jim.
I read a post on your blog that I thought was really good and stated well some of the concerns I share with you about the lack of accountability in the blogosphere.
By
Rose~, at 1/27/2008 12:13 PM
Antonio,
I was trying to find the specific question you want me to answer. I am a little confused - I have been ill and I ahve been away from this for a few days. Is this the question:
What misconceptions are fatal and what are trivial, Glenn, and who would be the arbiter of such considerations?
By
Rose~, at 1/27/2008 12:18 PM
Colin,
So my definition of a hyper-Calvinist is correct then?
By
Rose~, at 1/27/2008 12:19 PM
Hi Rose,
Sorry to hear about your being sick.
Yes, you are right about Hyper Calvinists. They frown on anyone appealing to mixed congregations (and I don't mean male and female) for people to come to Christ. They think that such commands implies creature power and therefore refrain from doing it. While Calvinists believe that men lack the power in and off themselves to come, yet they recognise that God imparts the power to come through the agency of the preached word. This naturally invigorates the Calvinist evangelist and encourages him to throw the gospel net as far and as wide as he can. The Hyper Calvinist on the other hand, wants to see evidence that the Spirit has moved upon the soul of the hearer before he will bring him the gospel promise. The warrant to believe, Calvinists say, lies in the promise of the gospel i.e. that whoseover will may come. The warrant to believe, for the H/C, is in the evidence that God has being moving upon the soul. H/C produces a spirit of self examination and doubt since it points the sinner to look within. Calvinism (and Evangelicalism as a whole) with its emphasis on the rich promises of the gospel points men away to Christ as He is freely offered in the gospel and rpoduces a spirit of hope.
In short - you got it right :-)
Regards,
By
Colin Maxwell, at 1/27/2008 12:55 PM
Colin,
it is quite a jump to come to the conclusion that those who enter the kingdom will inherit it. I wonder how you would come to such a conclusion?
Furthermore, people go to hell unforgiven, and those who John talks about are terminally characterized by their sin. A man who has such understanding as I have seen you have could surely see that because one goes to hell characterized by their sin and unforgiven, does not necessarily mean that they go to hell because they are condemned for their sins.
You would need to make a biblical case for that!
The fact of the matter is that men are put into hell because they don't have life. Sin is no longer an issue between God and man in the specific consideration of who gets into heaven and who does not. Jesus took away the sins of the whole world and is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world.
There is no text at all you can come up with that says that a man is condemned to hell BECAUSE of his sin guilt.
Furthermore, the cause that someone goes to hell is their unbelief. But the reason they go to hell is that they do not have life.
This is the same as saying the cause for someone getting in trouble at work was their car breaking down, but the reason they get into trouble is that they were late for work.
Please give us a text that states taht men and women go to hell for the cause of the sins that Christ died for.
Antonio
By
Antonio, at 1/27/2008 5:09 PM
Hi Rose, hope your feeling better.
Rose you asked:
Alvin,
Do you realize that you misrepresented the people that Susan says you misrepresented?
1/27/2008 12:10 PM
Hi Rose, No I didn't misrepresent anyone that I know of and have been seeking to bring forth the evidence. I was wrong in saying it was DVD when it was a VCR tape. It was over 10 yrs ago in an Evangelical Church in Libby Montana if I remember right that someone in the Church liked R.C. Sproul and brought a VCR tape for us to listen to in adult sunday school. That's where I heard him say "he didn't know if he was saved." I went online to try to find the source but found the same thing as Susan did on the tabletalk. This is what I have so far but am still trying to produce the VCR tape. I also have a DVD of the James White and Bob Wilkin debate where White is not able to say with certainty he is saved but is growing in assurance. So this should not be a shock to anyone who knows the truth about the 5th point of Calvinism. It's impossible for them to have certainty because they believe in a spurious faith they can ONLY know with certainty when they reach the end of their life.
Here is my documentation thus far on John Piper and R.C. Sproul:
“No Christian can be sure that he is a true believer. Hence, there is an ongoing need to be dedicated to the Lord and to deny ourselves so that we might make it.”[
John Piper and Pastoral Staff, TULIP: What We Believe about the Five Points of Calvinism: Position Paper of the Pastoral Staff (Desiring God Ministries, 1997)
Dr. R.C. Sproul candidly admitted that he wasn't sure he was saved in a TableTalk article a few years back (Nov 6, 1989, p. 20). He began:
A while back I had one of those moments of acute self-awareness that we have from time to time, and suddenly the question hit me: "R.C., what if you are not one of the redeemed? What if your destiny is not heaven after all, but hell?" Let me tell you that I was flooded in my body with a chill that went from my head to the bottom of my spine. I was terrified.
A few sentences later he confirmed his doubts,
I thought, "Maybe it's really true. Maybe I'm not saved after all."
Dr. Sproul seems to be suggesting that Peter's remark indicates that he was unsure that he had eternal life. Such a conclusion is unwarranted. Peter likely meant that it makes no sense to leave Jesus since He was instructing them about eternal life. The fact that a person knows that he is eternally secure doesn't mean that he no longer needs or wants to learn about life eternal. Our hearts should be set on that life, not this one (Matt 6:19-21; 1 Cor 3:10-15; 9:24-27; 2 Cor 5:9-10; 1 Tim 6:18-19).
one drink
alvin
By
alvin, at 1/27/2008 10:40 PM
Hi Rose
Hi Colin, I finally got some time to reply. You asked me the difference between Calvinism and Hyper Calvinism?
This I think is the best definition:
Part 1
When the true position of a Calvinist is finally exposed, he will usually claim that he is being misrepresented. Therefore, another type of Calvinism has been invented, and it is to it that every objection against the Calvinistic system is consigned. The adherents of this fictitious scheme are referred to by various terms: "ultra-Calvinists" "extreme Calvinists," "high-Calvinists," "Hardshells." The favorite designation for this group is "hyper-Calvinists." ( Arthur W. Pink, The Doctrine of Sanctification) The trouble is, hyper-Calvinism is an ambiguos term. To an "Arminian,' all Calvinists might be considered hyper-Calvinists. To an admirer of Spurgeon, any Calvinist to the right of him could be a candidate for a hyper-Calvinist. To one group of Calvinistic Baptists, another Calvinistic group they don't like might be dismissed as hyper-Calvinists. Many consider a hyper-Calvinist to be a Calvinist who goes beyond the teachings of John Calvin. ( E.D. Strickland, in "The Berea Baptist Banner Forum) But to say that a person could go beyond the teachings of Calvin is not accurate, for when we examine Calin's views, we will see that Calvin was (as is to be expected) true to his name.
So just what is a hyper-Calvinist? Since it is the Calvinists themselves who regularly make this judgment, we must of necessity hear from them:
The present writer would define hyper-Calvinism as a view of predestination that would deny or minimize human responsibility to repent and believe the gospel because of an inability to do so in light of the doctrine of total depravity. Furthermore, hyper-Calvinism would deny the necessity of a universal offer of the gospel. (Belcher, Pink: Predestination, p 8)
Hyper-Calvinism in its attempt to square all gospel truth with God's purpose to save the elect, denies there is a universal command to repent and believe, and asserts that we have only warrant to invite to Christ those who are conscious of a sense of sin and need. (Iain Murray, Forgotten Spurgeon, p 47)
Hyper-Calvinism is the denial that God, in the preaching of the gospel, calls everyone who hears the preaching to repent and believe. It is the denial that the church should call everyone in the preaching. It is the denial that the unregenerated have a duty to repent and believe. (Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism, pp. 10-11)
But as one of the above writers also related of hyper-Calvinism: "IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO DEFINE IT IN A MANNER THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTIBLE TO ALL." ( Belcher, Pink: Predestination, p 8) One Sovereign Grace Baptist insists "you would have find a thousand different definitions of a hyper-Calvinist among the religions of the world." (Jimmie B. Davis in "The Berea Baptist Banner Forum," March 5: 1990, p. 51)
The only proper use of the term hyper-Calvinist is in practice not profession. As one writer has said: "When we talk about 'hyper-Calvinism' we are not talking about the extending of Calvin's doctrines to a place beyond which he taught, but we are merely talking about an overemphasis on what he taught." ( Ruckman, Hyper-Calvinism, p. 3) The Calvinists and the so-called hyper-Calvinists believe, teach, and preach the same things about Calvinism--the "hyper-Calvinist" just puts them into practice more consistently than the Calvinist. Spurgeon, who was criticised by "hyper-Calvinists" contemporary with him, (Iain H. Murry, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism) just as he is today, (Marc D. Carpenter) said about the doctrine of his critics:
I do not think I differ from any of my Hyper-Calvinistic brethern in what I do believe, but I differ from them in what they do not believe. I do not hold any less than they do, but I hold a little more, and, I think, a little more of the truth revealed in the Scriptures. ( Charles H. Spurgeon, quoted in Iain Murray, Hyper-Calvinism, p. 38)
By
alvin, at 1/27/2008 10:44 PM
part 2 Hyper-Calvinism vs. Calvinism
Because they believe that they are the true Calvinists, those who are denominated as hyper-Calvinists do not accept the label. In fact, no one has ever countenanced the label. Those accused of hyper-Calvinism have even retaliated with a neologism of their own to brand what they consider as "a teaching that falls below the level of true Calvinism." ( Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism, p. 40) Apparently coined by David Engelsma, "hypo-Calvinism" has since been used as a term of condemnation by other critics of what they consider to be something less than true Calvinism.
But even though Calvinist refuse to accept the label, and often cannot agree on just what exactly a hyer-Calvinist is, they are adamant in their insistance that Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism are poles apart:
A hyper-Calvinist and a Calvinist are two entirely different people. ( Keener, p. 21)
Hyper-Calvinism is an aberration from true Calvinism. ( Iain Murray, Hyper-Calvinism, p. 40)
And although Calvinists incessantly lament that Calvinism is not distinguished from hyper-Calvinism, they relish attacks on hyper-Calvinism. THEY USE THE TERM TO MAKE THEMSELVES LOOK ORTHODOX MUCH THE SAME AS THEY USE THE LABEL ARMINIAN. THEY ARE GREAT AT ARTICULATING WHAT THEY DON'T BELIEVE, SO AS TO DRAW ATTENTION AWAY FROM WHAT THEY DO BELIEVE. By crusading against the errors of both hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism, the Calvinist can take the middle road and APPEAR to be orthodox. This is exactly what Spurgeon did in his day:
Now I, who am neither an Arminian nor a hyper-Calvinist, but a Calvinist of Calvin's own stamp, think I can stand between the two parties. Believing all the hyper-Calvinist believes, and preaching as high doctrine as ever he can preach, but believing more than he believes; not believing all the Arminian believes, but still at the same time believing that he is often sounder than the hyper-Calvinist upon some points of doctrine. (Charles H. Spurgeon, The Two Wesleys (Pasadena: Pilgrim Publications, 1975), pp 4-5)
Once again it is apparent that the true difference between a Calvinist and a hyper-Calvinist is one of practice not profession. A Calvinist of "Calvin's own stamp" is too much of a Calvinist.
( The Other Side Of Calvinism by Laurence M. Vance)
one drink from the Christ
alvin
By
alvin, at 1/27/2008 10:46 PM
I have been quoted and asked a question GOODNIGHTSAFEHOME,
"Can you show us, Jim, from the Scriptures, where unbelief is said to be the only sin that condemns the sinners. I emphasise the word only. For my part, I see a whole host of sins being listed as the cause of damnation in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10."
I would point you to (in addition to the other scriptures on this post) John 1:29; 5:22; Revelation 20:11-15 and many other scriptures...too many to list. As Zane Hodges points out in a recent article,
"It is because the Judge (Jesus Christ) is also the Lamb of God who has taken away the sin of the world (John 1:29). The Judge will not bring up an issue that He Himself has dealt with on the cross. This Judge will condemn no human being whatsoever for any sin whatsoever."
My question back to you would be are you trying to say that Jesus did not pay the penalty for sin?
Also, I would point out that your view of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is flawed.
Who are the “unrighteous” (NASB) or “wicked” (NIV) in view? Paul previously used this word (Gr. adikos) of the unsaved in verse l (cf. v. 6 where he called them unbelievers). However he also used it of the Corinthian Christians in verse 8: “you yourselves wrong [adikeo].” Christians as well as unbelievers have been guilty of unrighteous conduct, even all the offenses listed in these verses. Therefore what Paul said about the unrighteous in this verse seems to apply to anyone who is unrighteous in his or her behavior whether saved or unsaved. It does not apply just to the unrighteous in their standing before God, namely unbelievers.
What will be true of the unrighteous? They will “not inherit the kingdom of God.” Elsewhere Paul used this expression to describe the consequences of the behavior of unbelievers when he compared it to the behavior of believers (cf. Galaltians 5:21; Ephesians 5:5).
Inheriting the kingdom and entering the kingdom are synonyms in the Gospels (cf. Matthew 19:16; Mark 10:17; Luke 18:18). But as most Calvinists do not believe in a literal Reign of Jesus Christ from Davids throne, and all the Messianic prophecies being fulfilled, it will be hard to understand that Paul (a Jew) was speaking of entering the Kingdom in a physical sense on the earth. Not heaven as many take this to mean.
He did not mean that Christians are incapable of practicing these sins, but they typically characterize unbelievers.
Paul warned his readers about being deceived on this subject (v. 9). Probably many of them failed to see that how Christians choose to live here and now will affect our eternal reward. Many Christians today fail to see this too. The fact that we are eternally secure should not lead us to conclude that it does not matter how we live now even though we will all end up in heaven.
Paul’s point in this whole section (vv. 1–11) was that genuine Christians should not continue in or return to the sinful practices that mark unbelievers. We should become what we are because of what Jesus Christ has done for us. This appeal runs throughout the New Testament and is latent in every exhortation to pursue godliness. It is especially strong in this epistle. Rather than assuming that believers will not continually practice sin, the inspired writers constantly warned us of that possibility.
Paul makes this clear as he continues the letter.
As for debating any Calvinists, I prefer to do what Paul told Timothy (and Titus),
“Teach them and exhort them about these things. If someone spreads false teachings and does not agree with sound words (that is, those of our Lord Jesus Christ) and with the teaching that accords with godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing, but has an unhealthy interest in controversies and verbal disputes. This gives rise to envy, dissension, slanders, evil suspicions, and constant bickering by people corrupted in their minds and deprived of the truth, who supposes that godliness is a way of making a profit.” 1 Timothy 6:2c – 5.
“Remind people of these things and solemnly charge them before the Lord not to wrangle over words. This is of no benefit; it just brings ruin on those who listen. Make every effort to present yourself before God as a proven worker who does not need to be ashamed, teaching the message of truth accurately. But avoid profane chatter, because those occupied with it will stray further and further into ungodliness, and their message will spread its infection like gangrene.” 2 Timothy 2:14-17a.
“But reject foolish and ignorant controversies, because you know they breed infighting. And the Lord’s slave must not engage in heated disputes but be kind toward all, an apt teacher, patient, correcting opponents with gentleness. Perhaps God will grant them repentance and then knowledge of the truth and they will come to their senses and escape the devil’s trap where they are held captive to do his will.” 2 Timothy 2:23-26
“For there are many rebellious people, idle talkers, and deceivers, especially those with Jewish connections, who must be silenced because they mislead whole families by teaching for dishonest gain what ought not to be taught. A certain one of them, in fact, one of their own prophets, said, ‘Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’ Such testimony is true. For this reason rebuke them sharply that they may be healthy in the faith and not pay attention to Jewish myths and commands of people who reject the truth. All is pure to those who are pure. But to those who are corrupt and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their minds and consciences are corrupted. They profess to know God but with their deeds they deny him, since they are detestable, disobedient, and unfit for any good deed.” Titus 1:10-16
So you see, I am not apologetic for what I believe. Like Luther persuade me from the scriptures and reason and I will change my mind.
And also because I am persuaded by my study of the scriptures and the lack of a good hermeneutic argument from Calvinists, lordship salvationists, and anti-refined gospel opponents, my challenge is to prove your case biblically. I don't think it is a "wee" issue.
Jim
By
Jim, at 1/27/2008 11:01 PM
Hi Rose/Antonio:
Antonio: Have ye not read the Scripture that reminds us that The wages of sin is death? (Romans 6:23)
1) The death in this verse is put in contradistinction to eternal life i.e. it is reference to eternal death or the second death i.e. hell. The Believer will never partake of this second death. It is reserved for those who are said to “die in their sins” (John 8:21) and because they die in their sins, then they will never be with Christ in Heaven.
2) This Second Death is clearly caused by the fact that they have sinned - for it is put under the picture of a wage – something earned. I get my pay check every month because I have earned it with the sweat of my brow Likewise, people in hell can say: “I am here, because my sin (including that of unbelief) has brought me here.”
The death that brings men to hell i.e. in that they do not have life is spiritual death. They are dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1) It is wrong to pit these things against one another. Likewise, it is wrong to pit the “cause” against the “reason why.”
There is no text that states that men and women go to hell for the cause of the sins that Christ died for. Which is why I am a Calvinist. i.e. I beleive that all for Christ made atonement (the elect) will be saved. However, your position i.e. not merely Univeral provision but Universal application is neither Biblical nor is it “Old School Non Calvinism”, as the heading at the top of your shared blog suggests, but is nothing more than a recent and novel interpretation, rejected by most Bible students in this and past ages.
I base my observation thsat those who enter the Kingdom of God also inherit it from Revelation 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. God’s so great salvation which is to the uttermost guarantees the believer that he will ultimately overcome and therefore inherit the Kingdom. You have no Scripture to suggest otherwise.
Regards,
By
Colin Maxwell, at 1/28/2008 3:37 AM
Alvin: Re, Hyper Calvinism
Your gripe at first seems to be against the use of the word “hyper” and it’s somewhat elastic application. However, such is applicable to any doctrine. EW Bullinger is often branded as a “Hyper Dispensationalist” but I’m sure that those follow his teachings would dispute the designation. So that argument, while it has some merit, also fails to make any real impression. The same may be said for the reference to Hypo Calvinists. The fact is that there are major differences between Calvinists and Hyper Calvinists which cannot be ignored or played down. You quote: But to say that a person could go beyond the teachings of Calvin is not accurate, for when we examine Calvin's views, we will see that Calvin was (as is to be expected) true to his name. This suggests that Calvin held to the most extreme position and so that it could not be surpassed. This is not so. When the H/C’s deny the free offer of the gospel or deny that it is incumbent on sinners to repent and believe the gospel, then they are going. By putting too much wait on the Sovereignty of God, they have failed to maintain the basic Biblical doctrine that man is responsible for his sins. Calvin (and Calvinists) wisely maintain(ed) both positions.
Your various quotes in your two admissions flow from the pen of both Calvinists and non Calvinists. Unfortunately they are saying different things. Those from Calvinists are pointing out the doctrinal differences (Man’s responsibility) while those from non Calvinists are basically saying that there are no doctrinal differences, but merely the practice. This is sending out a confusing signal, since you cannot logically argue both at one and the same time. I suggest that you run with the Calvinist idea that the hyper Calvinists, by denying the doctrine of man’s responsibility, have effectively manufactured another message that cannot be described as authentic Calvinism. None of this involves you embracing Calvinism, but it will prevent you from (a) getting confused and (b) branding good men like Van Til as something which they repudiated. I note with thankfulness that Glenn has practically distanced himself from his original branding of Van Til as a Hyper Calvinist. This preserves both decency and truthfulness in the debate.
CHS rightly claimed that he held to the same 5 points of Calvinism as the H/C (just as he held to the same doctrine of the Trinity, Virgin Birth etc.,) but made the all important distinction in that he also said that he held to more than they did i.e. the free offer of the gospel and the responsibility of man.
Regards,
By
Colin Maxwell, at 1/28/2008 4:32 AM
Oops...
When the H/C’s deny the free offer of the gospel or deny that it is incumbent on sinners to repent and believe the gospel, then they are going.
Should read:
When the H/C’s deny the free offer of the gospel or deny that it is incumbent on sinners to repent and believe the gospel, then they are going beyond Calvin.
By
Colin Maxwell, at 1/28/2008 4:35 AM
Hi Rose, Jim and all
I trust that you will forgive this fourth sally in a row unto this page – although one was a correction – but I woke up this morning to quite a number of replies to various points.
It looks as if this reply to Jim will not take long, judging from the various verses he quotes above which he deemed me fit to come under. He unapologetically (his own statement) regards all Calvinists as rebellious people, idle talkers and deceivers etc., and who must not be engaged in with foolish and ignorant controversies etc. (Read it for yourself above) This being the case, I must wonder why he then engages me at the beginning of his reply (“My question back to you is...”) and then at the close (“My challenge is...”) What Jim am I to correspond with? Do I wish to engage with a man who is out of line with most of my various opponents on this blog who treat Calvinists with respect (although radically disagreeing with their doctrine) and who has practically damned me because in his view, though I profess to know God, yet deny Him with my deeds, being detestable, disobedient and unfit for any good deed. I think not. I am already engaging here with someone who can articulate his peculiar doctrines and who is generally polite (though robust) and another who is less articulate and can feed me with the doubts about my salvation. So, Jim, until you sort out what line you want to take, I’ll give you a miss.
Regards,
By
Colin Maxwell, at 1/28/2008 9:18 AM
Hi Antonio,
I will attempt to answer your questions in 15 mins or less! :)
First off I notice some criticism of Glenn's attempt to answer (which I have not read) were that he did not answer with Scripture. Well I'd argue that though scripture is used in your post some of the assumptions you make are not at all based on Scripture. Such as the opening statements about the Disciples. Seeing as they presented Him to each other as "the One we have been looking for".
Anyhoo....
You asked Why has he not placed his faith in Jesus of Nazareth? And if he has, why isn't he saved?
If your description is to be seen as exhaustive then the man has not repented. He has not seen that Christ died for his sins and rose again. 1 Cor 15 3-4
He has erroneously thought that there was some man named Jesus who promised eternal life if you would be able to ask him for it.
You said that James though He was just a mere man the "son of Joseph". Alas this is how Jesus was identified. James is not saying He was not God, He's saying Who the Person he was talking about is.
It could be shown to be assumption whether the verse is explained my way or your way. Mine agrees with Scripture. And allows for the fact that since he said they had been looking for the One who is the Christ they are aware of Scripture and that the Christ would be God Himself.
You said 1) The man is saved, having fully entrusted his eternal destiny to God's Christ.
2) The man is unsaved because, although he believed in Jesus of Nazareth for eternal life, he did not fulfill another co-condition of receiving everlasting life, namely assent to the orthodox doctrine that Jesus is God, therefore misses heaven by a doctrinal stipulation.
3) the man did not see his sins paid for on the Cross as Jesus explained was needed to be Born Again, and that to be saved one must be Born Again. John 3.
He believed a false gospel, that Jesus is just some guy who will give you eternal life if you ask him for it.
Lastly you continue to ask leading questions that though list Scriptures are not based in Scripture.
If someone believes that Jesus of Nazareth is sufficiently authorized by God to guarantee eternal life to the believer, why is it that it is said that one must also understand that Jesus is God to identity Him?
Does Peter fail in sufficiently identifying and referring to Jesus of Nazareth?
Matt 2:23
I'm out of my 15 mins here and have to get back to work. Sorry but Peter knew his audience. That should be enough of an answer for you for now. If not I will continue.
Blessings and peace in the Lord,
Kev
By
Kevl, at 1/28/2008 11:46 AM
Hi Rose
part 3 Hyper-Calvinism vs. Calvinism
I believe this quote of Vance puts it all in to perspective on Calvinism:
The STUMBLING BLOCK for the Calvinist is the SIMPLICITY of Salvation, so upon REJECTING this, a SYSTEM has been contructed whereby salvation is made a mysterious, arcane, incomprehensible, decree of God. Thus the basic error of Calvinism is confounding election and predestination with salvation, which they NEVER are in the Bible, but only in the philosophical speculations and theological implications of Calvinism: the other side of Calvinism. (LMV)
In contrast to what the scriptures say:
John 3:16For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
John 5:24“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.
John 4:10 Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.”
John 4:13 Jesus answered and said to her, “Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, 14 but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.” 15 The woman said to Him, “Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw.”
John 6:47Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me[a] has everlasting life.
John 11: 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?” 27 She said to Him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”
Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.
2 Corinthians 11:3
But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the SIMPLICITY that is in Christ.
Jesus kept it real simple, so simple a little child could come to Him!
And this is why a person can KNOW they have eternal life simply based on Jesus promise (1 John 5:13) Pretty simply!!!
One drink from the Christ
alvin
By
alvin, at 1/28/2008 1:18 PM
Colin, you reference Romans 6:23, claiming the death described here is the 2nd death. Is there any reason this would not be describing the physical death?
By
Missy, at 1/28/2008 2:01 PM
Oh, and dear Rose, huloooo! I hope today is proving out a little nicer than the yesterdays.
By
Missy, at 1/28/2008 2:02 PM
Colin, you reference Romans 6:23,claiming the death described here is the 2nd death. Is there any reason this would not be describing the physical death?
Hi Missy,
I would not deny that it takes in physical death, but it seems very tame to limit it to the mere physical, especially when it is mentioned in contradistinction to eternal life.
Regards,
By
Colin Maxwell, at 1/28/2008 2:08 PM
Thanks, Colin. Just curious as I had made the opposite assumption in the light of that comparision - that we will face an unavoidable physical death as a consequence of sin, but another kind of "life" exists that is eternal.
Carry on... :)
By
Missy, at 1/28/2008 3:46 PM
Good morning Rose/Missy:
Thanks, Colin. Just curious as I had made the opposite assumption in the light of that comparision - that we will face an unavoidable physical death as a consequence of sin, but another kind of "life" exists that is eternal.
I notice most of the Old Time Evangelical commentators at least include eternal death in the remit. John Wesley writes in his notes on the verse: Death - Temporal, spiritual, and eternal. Is the due wages of sin; but eternal life is the gift of God - The difference is remarkable. Evil works merit the reward they receive: good works do not. The former demand wages: the latter accept a free gift.
Regards,
By
Colin Maxwell, at 1/29/2008 1:54 AM
Rose, still praying that each morning brings you closer to Spring - although I guess it would whether I pray or not, eh? :)
Colin, I should probably know who John Wesley is? Is he saying "good works" (as the latter) accept a free gift?
By
Missy, at 1/29/2008 11:21 AM
Missy: Are you pulling my leg? (joking...in case of Trans-Atlantic word difficulties) about John Wesley? He was the world famous Methodist evangelist. Not Reformed in his doctrine :-( but nevertheless a good man.I like to quote him when I am contendign for something being Old Time Evangelical (as opposed to being solely Calvinistic)
In the context of Romans 6 which is about the consequences of our living, Wesley is pointing out that those who live after the flesh reap the consequences of their sins i.e. that is the reason why they are in hell. On the other hand, those who are living for God (as seen in their good works) do not attribute their salvation in any way to their good works, but are totally dependent 100% on the grace (gift) of God.
Regards,
(Nice to see you got to be the 100th one to comment on this thread. I think I "robbed" you of it a few weeks ago on another thread.)
By
Colin Maxwell, at 1/29/2008 11:48 AM
Darn! The joy was lost on me, Colin. I did not even realize - my focus was channeled too tightly I suppose.
Seriously, I have no ides who he is. I don't read a lot of religious material other than the Bible and some contemporary study guides or books for book club meetings. Most of what I've learned about "Old Time" religion is right here on this blog. I should study more of these guys everyone is mentioning, but then I worry I will begin debating in the same circular arguments I keep hearing. Plus, I kinda like thinking I am original - why spoil it? :)
I guess, in reading Romans 6, I had always considered the theme to be "Sin Will Always End." And the question I ask myself in the end is, will I die along with my sin or let my sin die alone and live with Christ? So I considered the literary death in this chapter to be the death of sin, which in a way is a second death, but sin dies with flesh, so I consider that a concurrent death.
By
Missy, at 1/29/2008 1:24 PM
Good morning Rose hope your feeling more like yourself today!
back to the topic:
"A "Crossless" Call"
The Bible tells us: John 1:29 Behold! The Lamb of God WHO TAKES AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD!
1 John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours ONLY but also for the WHOLE world.
The Calvinist does not believe that God has taken away the sin of the world! This would not make sense to the Calvinist because how would God condemn the reprobate to hell if He took away their sin? The Calvinist believes that God has created the reprobate for hell therefore the Calvinist does not believe John 1:29 or 1 John 2:2.
John Calvin quote concerning 1 John 2:2:
But here the question may be asked as to how the sins of the whole world have been expiated. I pass over the dreams of the fanatics, who make this a reason to extend salvation TO ALL THE REPROBATE and even to Satan himself. Such a monstrous idea is not worth refuting. Those who want to avoid this absurdity have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world but effectively only for the elect. This SOLUTION has commonly prevailed in the schools. Although I ALLOW the truth of this, I deny that it fits this passage. For John's purpose was only to make this blessing common to the whole Church. Therefore, under the word "ALL” HE DOES NOT INCLUDE THE REPROBATE, but refers to all who would believe and those who were scattered through various regions of the earth. For, as is meet, the grace of Christ is really made clear when it is declared to be the only salvation of the world. ( Calvin, Commentaries, vol. 10, p. 245 )
In a tract on the Lord’s Supper against Tileman Heshusius (1527-1588), Calvin declared what he REALLY believed about the Atonement:
The first thing to be explained is how Christ is present with unbelievers, to be the spiritual food of their souls, and in short the life and salvation of the world. As he adheres so doggedly to the words, I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which WAS NOT CRUCIFIED FOR THEM, and how they can drink the blood which WAS NOT SHED TO EXPIATE THEIR SINS? (Calvin, quoted in Helm, p. 21)
Calvin taught that God loved the elect and planned their holiness and salvation while on the other hand, HE HATED THE REPROBATE and PLANNED THEIR SIN and DAMNATION. (Morey, p. 296.)
The reprobate is just another name or theological curse word for the non-elect.
What love is this?
One drink from the Christ
alvin
By
alvin, at 1/29/2008 1:59 PM
Alvin,
As a matter of interest, what do you understand by the verse in Psalm 5:5 where it says:
The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.
Adam Clarke, who is regarded as one of the greatest of the Arminian commentators wrote:
Thou hatest all workers of iniquity - Some sin now and then, others generally; some constantly, and some labor in it with all their might. These are the Workers of iniquity. Such even the God of infinite love and mercy hates. Alas! what a portion have the workers of iniquity! the hatred of God Almighty!
What are your thoughts on this verse?
Regards,
By
Colin Maxwell, at 1/29/2008 2:29 PM
Hello Rose,
Hope you are feeling better today.
Instead of trying to decide the question about whether some person with minimal information about Jesus Christ can be saved or not, we should instead concern ourselves with whether we will be found faithful ambassadors for Christ.
I could not help thinking of Antonio's words concerning the JWs when I read this passage of Scripture. These are sobering words indeed!
Acts 20:17 Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the church to come to him. 18 And when they came to him, he said to them:
“You yourselves know how I lived among you the whole time from the first day that I set foot in Asia, 19 serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials that happened to me through the plots of the Jews; 20 how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house, 21 testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. 22 And now, behold, I am going to Jerusalem, constrained by [2] the Spirit, not knowing what will happen to me there, 23 except that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and afflictions await me. 24 But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God. 25 And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again. 26 Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all of you, 27 for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God. 28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, [3] which he obtained with his own blood. [4] 29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. 31 Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish everyone with tears. 32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.
By
Anonymous, at 1/29/2008 2:30 PM
Hi Rose
Hi Susan, we do share the whole council of God!
You said:
we should instead concern ourselves with whether we will be found faithful ambassadors for Christ.
Susan as an ambassador for God you have to preach the reconciliation that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself NOT COUNTING THEIR SINS AGAINST THEM.
Susan how do you do that when when you really don't believe it? You think that God is counting their sins against the non-elect. Aren't you having to lie, or do you keep silent about this?
one drink
alvin
By
alvin, at 1/29/2008 3:18 PM
Hi Rose
Goddnight God hates sin, but He has paid for all sin on the cross so it is not an issue having to do with the living water that anyone can take freely!
one drink from the Christ
alvin
By
alvin, at 1/29/2008 3:22 PM
Alvin,
Was David wrong then to say that God hated all workers of iniquity? How and when did God hate all workers of iniquity?
By
Colin Maxwell, at 1/29/2008 4:23 PM
Hello Rose:
I have been away on a ski trip.
Lou
By
Lou Martuneac, at 1/29/2008 4:47 PM
Hello Susan:
You wrote, “Instead of trying to decide the question about whether some person with minimal information about Jesus Christ can be saved or not, we should instead concern ourselves with whether we will be found faithful ambassadors for Christ.”
I agree that we should all be concerned with the Bible mandate that every believer is an ambassador for Christ. We are compelled to and have the privilege to preach the Gospel to every creature. If we are going to be faithful ambassadors for Jesus Christ we had better be preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The eternal destiny of every living soul depends on a proper understanding, and clear presentation of the Gospel to the unsaved.
The Hodges “Crossless Gospel” (CG) is not the biblical plan of salvation. Zane Hodges (Wilkin, da Rosa, Myers) has reduced, minimalized and trivialized the Gospel of Jesus Christ down to a non-saving message that saves no one.
Are you aware that Hodges, Wilkin and da Rosa insist a lost man can be saved apart from understanding or believing in who Jesus was, what He did to provide salvation and His deity? The problem with the CG does not stop with lack of knowledge.
Antonio believes a lost man can be saved even if he (the lost man) consciously rejects the Lord’s deity. In a witnessing situation Antonio says “any misconception” the lost have about Jesus should be “put on the back burner.”
The sole focus of “Crossless Gospel” evangelism is to get the lost person to say he/she believes in the promise of eternal life.
Jon Lee has questioned da Rosa for creating the perception that the promise of eternal life is the object of faith instead of the Lord Jesus Christ. Jon wrote to Antonio, “Nowhere is there a stipulation that I must believe in Him FOR the promise that He makes. This places the object of faith on the promise and away from Him.”
Jon Lee makes an excellent point, the latter sentence especially, which I have been stressing for months. (See Jon’s comment at Unashamed, Jan. 28 @ 8am)
Antonio’s now infamous statement in which he sees no difference between the “cultic” Mormon Jesus and the Jesus of the Gospels is just one example of how the advocates of the CG have corrupted and “refined” the Gospel and person of Jesus Christ down to a non-saving message. I have been reading several people, who are sympathetic to the CG, questioning Antonio over his equating the Mormon half-brother of Satan and the Jesus we read of in the Bible as “one and the same.”
Hodges, Wilkin and da Rosa are propagating a system that has so minimalized the Gospel that virtually no content is left that one might recognize as the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The “Crossless Gospel” is not just a “minimal information” approach to evangelism. There is virtually no information about the person and finished work of Jesus Christ that needs to be known, understood or believed by the lost man for the reception of eternal life.
Rachel posted the following at my blog, which focuses on and sums up the area of concern many of us have in these discussions.
“What we are concerned with is NOT what they personally believe, NOT what they would probably share when witnessing, and NOT what they think was necessary to make it possible for people to be born again. We ARE concerned with what Hodges/Wilkin think is necessary for the lost person to believe to be born again. This is what we are discussing, and their view on this specifically is what we are rejecting.”
Hope this has been helpful.
LM
By
Lou Martuneac, at 1/29/2008 4:51 PM
Hi Rose
Looks like your off the suject at hand again Lou! As Rose has already said to you:
Do you have anything to contribute about the subject of the post?
Just to show your blowing more smoke this is your quote of a quote:
Jon wrote to Antonio, “Nowhere is there a stipulation that I must believe in Him FOR the promise that He makes. This places the object of faith on the promise and away from Him.”
John 4:10 IF you KNEW the gift of God and who it is who said to you give, 'Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.
She needed to KNOW what the gift was!
one drink from the Christ
alvin
By
alvin, at 1/29/2008 5:23 PM
Alvin:
Is it your position that the Lord Jesus Christ is NOT the necessary object of faith for the reception of eternal life?
LM
By
Lou Martuneac, at 1/29/2008 5:59 PM
Hi Rose
Hi Goodnight, I'm not ignoring your question but need time to answer it properly. Will try to get an answer together tonight.
one drink
alvin
By
alvin, at 1/29/2008 6:14 PM
Hi Rose
Hi Colin
Colin I believe this is where the Calvinist has went to the dark side. They take scriptures like Psalm 5:5 “You hate all workers of iniquity” and run with it. Just like they take Malachi 1:2 Yet Jacob have I loved; But Esau I have hated. Then when they get to scriptures like John 3:16 they have to do word games and say that “world” doesn’t mean world. But if they would have started with the child like scriptures first then they wouldn’t have to do all these word games.
God hates the flesh that’s why we “MUST” be born again. This is the dark side of Calvinism “they must but they cant.” We were ALL born in iniquity, and God hates the “first” which represents the flesh. But God desires that all be saved and has provided a way. He wants believers to be ambassadors for Him pleading with people to be reconciled. Were to tell them that God was in Christ reconciling the WORLD unto Himself NOT COUNTING THEIR SINS AGAINST THEM. This is why the good news is good news for EVERYONE if they will believe. The living water has been offered to EVERYONE to take of freely.
One drink from the Christ
alvin
By
alvin, at 1/29/2008 6:42 PM
Hi Rose
Calvinism would have us believe that man is dead like a rock so God has to do everything. From regeneration to perseverance of the saints. When man ate of the tree of good and evil they new that they were naked for the first time (Gen 3:9-11,22). They had a conscience which keeps people from being as evil as they could be (Rom 2:14,15). Man is able to make choices, we do it every day. The Scriptures tell us we are without excuse because God has made Himself known through His creation (Rom 1:18-20). It is clear from Scripture that no one will seek God. But God has not left us to ourselves but desires that ALL men be saved. He has provided away and draws ALL through His Holy Spirit and His written word. If man will respond to the light he has God will give him more light until the day dawns and the Morning Star rises in his heart. Illumination my friend!
This is my last post on Calvinism, I know many of you will be happy Ha! Ha! But know this, in my heart I mean the best for each and everyone of you. This subject is just to close to home with me so I get a little over zealous and not gentle as I would like to be. I apologize if I have offended anyone.
Blessings alvin
By
alvin, at 1/29/2008 7:22 PM
Alvin:
Now that you are done with Calvinism you can address this question.
Is it your position that the Lord Jesus Christ is NOT the necessary object of faith for the reception of eternal life?
LM
By
Lou Martuneac, at 1/29/2008 11:24 PM
Hi Rose
Lou asked:
Is it your position that the Lord Jesus Christ is NOT the necessary object of faith for the reception of eternal life?
The Lord Jesus Christ IS the necessary object of faith for the reception of eternal life.
And there is content that has to be believed in order to believe in Him as the Christ.
John in his epistle stated: Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God (1 John 5:1a).
You could go out on the street and ask anyone if Jesus was the Christ and they would most likely say ‘Is’nt that His name!’ But that would not save them! A person HAS to believe that Jesus is the Christ in the sense that John means it. If we go to John’s purpose statement for the signs in the Gospel of John we will see: And truly did Jesus many other signs in the presence of His disciples that are not written in this book, but these were written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name (John 20:30,31).
John I believe tells us what it means to believe in Jesus as the Christ in Martha’s statement to Jesus. Jesus said to her. “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe THIS? She said to Him. “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.” (John 11:25-27)
Anyone believing in the Lord Jesus Christ in this sense is born of God! Jesus asked Martha do you believe THIS? And she answers “Yes and exactly according to what John in his purpose statement wants us to believe. To believe in Jesus as the Christ is to believe He is guarentor of your eternal destiny.
Jesus told the women at the well (1) If you KNEW the gift of God (2) and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ (3) you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.
She had to KNOW what the GIFT was! She couldn’t just believe in Jesus to believe in Jesus BUT she had to KNOW what the gift was. Assurance is of the essence of saving faith.
One drink from the Christ and you will never thirst
alvin
By
alvin, at 1/30/2008 12:59 AM
Alvin,
Interesting that she had to know what the gift was, and Who it was she was speaking with. Isn't it interesting that Jesus Himself standing in front of her offering her Living Water wasn't enough for her to be saved.
She had to know what the Gift was, and Who He is. It wasn't enough to "believe Jesus for eternal life" She had to know Who He is, and what the Gift was.
She came to understand He is the Christ, and that it wasn't His last name.
Sorry to step on your feet there Lou, I'm beginning to weary of speaking with the likes of Antonio at multiple blogs and posts where he just up and disappears when he doesn't receive freedom to post whatever he wants without it being questioned... and also with those who dismiss what you say because they think it's not on topic and then go on to post something completely off the original topic themselves.
Believing in Jesus for Eternal Life is a false Gospel. It's been shown in more ways than I can count... this adherence to such a doctrine is willful disobedience to the Scriptures.
Kev
By
Kevl, at 1/30/2008 11:17 AM
Kec,
I disagree with your estimation.
Believeing in Jesus for everlasting life is the gospel. Where I differ with Antonio and Matthew is that my emphasis would be on *Jesus.* In that sentence "Believe in Jesus for everlasting life"... *Jesus* is enriched - more than just a name... and the Person, not just the name, must be known to a better degree than those brothers advocate.
But still - if we are calling people to believe in Jesus and trust in Him, surely we are asking them to trust Him for the gift of eternal life, are we not? What would you say that coming to Christ entails coming to Him for? Do you believe He offers a gift? What is the thing that we trust Christ for that brings us into a relationship with Him? What would be your content of saving faith, Kev?
By
Rose~, at 1/30/2008 11:25 AM
I meant to say "Kev"
By
Rose~, at 1/30/2008 11:26 AM
Hi Rose,
Thanks for your reply. :)
You said I disagree with your estimation. Believeing in Jesus for everlasting life is the gospel.
And then asked What would be your content of saving faith, Kev?
The Apostle Paul tells us what the Gospel is, and thereby what the content of saving belief/faith is.
1 Cor 15:1-11.
There is no reason to debate when the Apostle spells it out for us. In my circles there are little children in the single digits who preach the Gospel, and effectively. It is perfectly free. No hoops to jump through.. no pledges.. no changing one's self. Simple repentance unto life.
God came and died for my sins, rose again and was seen by real living people.
If I put my faith in this I have "repented unto life". God will regenerate me and I'll be saved to the uttermost.
My purpose for believing in Him is not part of the Gospel. God says if I believe in Him I will be saved. I'm not instructed to believe in Him FOR something. I'm instructed to believe in Him. He is identified by what He has done, and is doing. Just as God has always identified Himself.
Blessings! And prayers for healing!
Kev
By
Kevl, at 1/30/2008 5:25 PM
Alvin:
While I appreciate your reply, I am a little confused.
You appear to claim the person of the Lord Jesus Christ must be the sole object of faith for salvation. Then you focus on the promise of eternal life as if that is the object or a joint-object of faith for the reception of eternal life.
One clarifying question: Would the following be a fair definition of your view?
The object of faith, which results in eternal life, is the promise of God to the believer.
LM
By
Lou Martuneac, at 1/30/2008 7:59 PM
Kev:
You wrote, "Lou, I'm beginning to weary of speaking with the likes of Antonio at multiple blogs and posts where he just up and disappears when he doesn't receive freedom to post whatever he wants without it being questioned..."
That is his pattern: Drive-by posting. I don't worry about it.
You also wrote, "...and also with those who dismiss what you say because they think it's not on topic and then go on to post something completely off the original topic themselves."
I don't pay any attention to the duplicity. Got the same from the Lordship crowd.
Lou
By
Lou Martuneac, at 1/30/2008 8:03 PM
Hi Rose
Hi Kev, you said:
Interesting that she had to know what the gift was, and Who it was she was speaking with. Isn't it interesting that Jesus Himself standing in front of her offering her Living Water wasn't enough for her to be saved.
That's right Kev it wasn't enough for her to be saved! She didn't know who it was standing before her except that He was a Jew. I don't see anywhere in the narrative that Jesus comes out and tells her He is Jesus. She goes from seeing Him as a Jew to believing He was a Prophet to finally believing He was the Christ. She had to be persuaded through these steps that He was the Christ the One who could give her eternal life.
The living water that He offered Her once she drank of it she would NEVER thirst again. The living water was not eternal life but would spring up into eternal life. The living water was the Knowledge of His person, that He was the Christ. With faith this Knowledge would bring life in His name (John 1:12; 20:31; 1 John 51a). These things He told her she HAD TO KNOW and once she knew she would have already have asked (believed) and He would have already have given.
Kev notice also at the end of the Bible (Rev 22:17) this living water is offered freely. This is the same living water that the women at the well drank. It is offered to everyone who desires can partake of it. The same conditions that Jesus gave to the women at the well in John 4:10 have to be met! To believe in Jesus for eternal life IS to believe in Him as "The Christ." And the one who has believed in Him KNOWS they will NEVER thirst!
Notice sin is not an issue for anyone to partake of this water, thats because Jesus has paid for the sin of the world (John 1:29; 2 Cor 5:19; 1 John 2:2).
One drink from the Christ and you will NEVER thirst!
alvin
By
alvin, at 1/30/2008 10:09 PM
Kev,
So would you say that asking a potential convert to trust Jesus as their Saviour is not right?
Or would it be better to just ask them if they believe who Jesus is?
See, there is a personal element in saving faith where we believe that Jesus actually has done something for us. What is that something? He died on the cross and rose from the dead. But why?
In the passage you reference, Paul says that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures is part of the gospel. Why did He die for our sins? What does this do for us?
Kev, I think if you ponder that a little further you will agree that you have to trust Christ for your justification/eternal standing with God/eternal well-being and that this is part of saving faith, not just recognizing passively who He is.
I guess I am not following your statements very well.
By
Rose~, at 1/30/2008 10:09 PM
Hi Rose
Lou you said:
You appear to claim the person of the Lord Jesus Christ must be the sole object of faith for salvation. Then you focus on the promise of eternal life as if that is the object or a joint-object of faith for the reception of eternal life.
Lou it sounds as though you have a problem with Jesus? He is the One who told the women at the well she needed to KNOW the gift of God and who it was that asked her for a drink. That's two things! How would you interpret the verse? (John 4:10)
alvin
By
alvin, at 1/30/2008 10:40 PM
Rose,
So glad you are improving.
Lou,
Yes, I am aware of the problems with certain views that are being taught by some in the FG camp.
[IMO, no man's sins are forgiven unless and until he has come to Christ, the Bible way, and received that forgiveness.]
Agreed. The Bible does not teach a blanket forgiveness without repentance. I thought Rachel's quote was very good. she's a bright lady! I have read some of her posts here before.
By
Anonymous, at 1/30/2008 10:42 PM
[1 Samuel 3:13 And I declare to him that I am about to punish his house forever, for the iniquity that he knew, because his sons were blaspheming God, and he did not restrain them. 14 Therefore I swear to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.”]
Matthew asked:
[Susan, how was Eli's house punished?]
Hi Matthew,
It seems very evident their sentence means an eternal condemnation. Eli's sons were reprobates. They had no fear of God and will reap what they deserve. God will show them no mercy, only justice. Scary stuff!
That passage also reminds me of Hebrews 10:26ff.
For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
The passage in 1 Samuel also supports some kind of a limited atonement since the sins comitted by Eli's house were not covered by any sacrifice. I'm sure you will completely agree ;)
Do you believe that the only sin that condemns a person is the sin of unbelief? If so, how do you reconcile that with the passage in 1 Samuel 3:13,14?
~Susan
By
Anonymous, at 1/31/2008 12:47 AM
Susan,
"It seems very evident their sentence means an eternal condemnation. Eli's sons were reprobates. They had no fear of God and will reap what they deserve. God will show them no mercy, only justice. Scary stuff!"
Can you explain why you think eternal condemnation is in reference here?
By
Matthew Celestine, at 1/31/2008 3:32 AM
Rose,
"How many times can a man shake his head and pretend that he just doesen't see?"
By
Matthew Celestine, at 1/31/2008 3:32 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Lou Martuneac, at 1/31/2008 7:29 AM
Hi Rose...
Alvin:
I was trying to be cordial, and trying to get at your belief system.
When come back with this sort of remark, "Lou it sounds as though you have a problem with Jesus?" we are not going to get far.
LM
By
Lou Martuneac, at 1/31/2008 7:38 AM
Alvin:
So, I was saying...You appear to claim the person of the Lord Jesus Christ must be the sole object of faith for salvation. Then you focus on the promise of eternal life as if that is the object or a joint-object of faith for the reception of eternal life.
This was my clarifying question: Would the following be a fair definition of your view?
The object of faith, which results in eternal life, is the promise of God to the believer.
LM
By
Lou Martuneac, at 1/31/2008 7:40 AM
Hi Rose,
You said I guess I am not following your statements very well.
I think that is the case. :) But I'll answer the questions you asked - cause chances are you asked for the information you didn't get out of what I posted. So answering them will be the best help.
So would you say that asking a potential convert to trust Jesus as their Saviour is not right?
Or would it be better to just ask them if they believe who Jesus is?
The Gospel identifies Him as our Saviour, so if you are trusting in the Gospel you are trusting in Him as your Savior. In order to do this I am convinced that one must know Who He is. That's what I was getting at.
You said Kev, I think if you ponder that a little further you will agree that you have to trust Christ for your justification/eternal standing with God/eternal well-being and that this is part of saving faith, not just recognizing passively who He is.
I completely agree, but this can not be divorced from Who He is. God does not save because you believe that some guy named Jesus (or any other name used without meaning or understanding) will give you eternal life.
We believe in Christ, that He did what He did on our account. Knowing that this is what saves us. So yes we trust Him as our Savior, and depend on Him for our Justification. But we can't just believe that some guy named Jesus, or "Christ" is going to give us Eternal Life because we want it.
We have to "obey" the Gospel. We have to believe and trust (=faith) that He died on our own account for our own sins and that this was done legally (according to the Scriptures) that this really has paid our debt.
Some would have us believe that one need not know or acknowledge they even have any sin to be paid for...
I'll make a separate post about that in just a moment.
Kev
By
Kevl, at 1/31/2008 11:24 AM
Is sin still an issue or since the Cross is all sin forgiven?
Flat out - sin is still THE issue.
Jesus is the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the World."
This is true. Notice that John the Baptist did not say who will/shall take away all the sins of the whole world. But that what He does is take away the sins of the whole world.
This is something He does. Not something He has done, or will do. This is an important distinction. It's His character, purpose and action. It is not the "result" that John is declaring but the Person.
Christ Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the Whole world. This is absolutely true. Unlike my Calvinist brethren I submit to the truth that Christ died for every sin of every person. Yet I also submit to the fact that God works in patterns that He establishes. If we visit Lev 16 we will see that all the sins of Israel were "propitiated" first by sprinkling blood at the Mercy Seat, and then those very same sins were confessed on the scape goat who bore them away.
Can we say that since the Cross that all sins have been taken care of? Well God forgave in times past based on His own faith in the Blood of Christ. So God has always forgiven based on the SURE fact that Christ would pay for the sins of the world. Rom 3:21-31
So if sin isn't an issue now, it must never have been.
One last note, if any in Christ sins we have an advocate in Heaven. He "advocates" for us because Sin is still an issue.
He doesn't advocate for the non-believer because if you deny Him, He tells us that He will deny you. Only Christians have the Advocate going before the Father on our behalf.
Sin is still an issue, and the Gospel is defined by the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor 15:1-11. This is the content of our faith, it is what we need to know and trust.
God Bless!
Kev
By
Kevl, at 1/31/2008 11:34 AM
Kev:
One thought for you and others.
When the "Crossless" advocates like Alvin, Matthew and Antonio use the Lord's titles, "the Christ" and "Son of God" they use those terms from the Zane Hodges inspired presupposition that they do not mean or infer the Deity of Christ.
As Greg Schliesmann thoroughly documented, based on nothing more than assumptions Hodges has stripped the Lord's titles of their Deity.
Hodges does this because they believe a lost man can be saved apart from understanding or believeing who Jesus is and what He did to provide salvation. So, they have to strip His deity from His titles that appear in John 20:31.
"...that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God..."
Through Hodges abuse of the Lord's titles, younger men like Antonio come to absurd conclusions such as there is no difference between the Mormon and Evangelical Jesus.
LM
By
Lou Martuneac, at 1/31/2008 11:40 AM
[Can you explain why you think eternal condemnation is in reference here?]
Sure Matthew, I'll be glad to after you answer my previous questions.
BTW, you do believe in hell, don't you?
By
Anonymous, at 1/31/2008 3:13 PM
Susan:
I wrote, “IMO, no man's sins are forgiven unless and until he has come to Christ, the Bible way, and received that forgiveness.” To which you replied, “Agreed. The Bible does not teach a blanket forgiveness without repentance.”
You may be aware of this one also, but Hodges, Wilkin, da Rosa teach that unsaved man is forgiven and born again without repentance. They believe repentance is only for the redeemed to maintain fellowship with God.
In Harmony with God, Hodges wrote, ““Thank God there is only one answer to the question, ‘What must I do to be saved?’ That, of course, is the answer not only of Paul and all the apostles, but of Jesus Himself. The answer is: ‘believe!’ Repentance is not part of that answer. It never has been and never will be. But we should keep firmly in mind the lovely truth that repentance is always the first step when we need to come home again!”
Dr. Charlie Bing took exception to Hodges view on this in his (Bing’s) LS dissertation.
Another example of the absurd teaching coming from the advocates of the “Crossless” gospel.
LM
By
Lou Martuneac, at 1/31/2008 3:34 PM
Susan:
Don't be surpised if you find Matthew questioning the existance of a literal Hell, the place of eternal conscious torment for the lost.
A literal place of torment (Hell) is one of the 7 areas of doctrine that Jeremy Myers was questioning.
LM
By
Lou Martuneac, at 1/31/2008 3:40 PM
Alvin:
We were discussing the necessary object of faith for the reception of eternal life.
Would the following be a fair definition of your view?
The object of faith, which results in eternal life, is the promise of God to the believer.
LM
By
Lou Martuneac, at 1/31/2008 3:42 PM
Susan, yes, I believe in hell.
You are asking me to defend the idea that eternal condemnation rests upon unbelief only in the light of your assumption that
the house of Eli were eternall condemned for their sin.
I do not wish to debate an assumption.
I do not feel any need to answer the question you pose until you give some explanation of the grounds of your assertion that the house of Eli were eternally condemned.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
By
Matthew Celestine, at 1/31/2008 4:03 PM
Rose, are you feeling obstinate today?
By
Matthew Celestine, at 1/31/2008 4:04 PM
Hi Rose,
VA Susan writes: [IMO, no man's sins are forgiven unless and until he has come to Christ, the Bible way, and received that forgiveness.]
Good point. Forgiveness of sins is conditional on faith in Christ:
To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Act 10:43)
This knocks a lot of what has been written on this page on the head.
Regards,
By
Colin Maxwell, at 1/31/2008 4:40 PM
Hi Goodnight:
Just a point of clarification, I wrote the statement you attributed to VA Susan in your comment immediately above. It was in a note to Glenn.
Here it is in a fuller context, “ Christ died for the sins of the whole world. IMO, no man's sins are forgiven unless and until he has come to Christ, the Bible way, and received that forgiveness. ‘It is finished.’ Forgiveness has been made available to all mankind. Now, lost men are to receive that forgiveness through faith in the biblical Jesus, not Antonio’s ‘cultic’ Mormon Jesus.”
(See- 1/22/2008 @ 1:34PM)
Lou
By
Lou Martuneac, at 1/31/2008 5:10 PM
Matthew:
You wrote, "Susan, yes, I believe in hell."
Do you believe Hell is a literal place of conscious torment for the unsaved?
LM
By
Lou Martuneac, at 1/31/2008 5:51 PM
Lou, will you read the following and answer the question I asked toward the middle of this comment?
I would appreciate your comments and reasons you would disagree.
LM said:
"If a lost man does not come to Christ in faith and repentance he remains unforgiven, guilty and condemned for his sins. Because of his sin and unbelief he is eternally separated from God in the Lake of Fire."
Lou, I think the bible clearly teaches that a man doesn't go to the lake of fire for his sins. A person goes to the lake of fire because his name is not written in the book of life. Rev. 20: 11-15
Verse 15: "And if anyone's name was not found in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."
I believe no one is condemned for their sins, Christ has taken care of that. The scripture teaches that, Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world but to save it.
Can anyone find where it literally states or clearly implies that a person is cast into the lake of fire because their sins are not forgiven?
I just want to add something.
I praise God that He has provided atonement for all mankind. I praise Him that no one, including me, is physically born without hope.
How unjust would it be that all of mankind is 'born without a choice' into sin(and I believe we are) and then our Creator would not provide for our sin that we were born in?
IMO Jesus couldn't make any clearer than what He said in Mark 3:28,29
28"Truly, I say to you, ALL sins SHALL be forgiven the sons of men, and WHATEVER blasphemies they utter;
29but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an ETERNAL sin.
There is only one eternal sin, all other sins SHALL be forgiven.
I believe the only eternal sin is not believing God's testimony concerning His son, when the Holy Spirit convicts us(John 16:9). That is the sin that keeps any man from having his name written in the book of life.
By
Kris, at 1/31/2008 6:32 PM
Lou, will you read the following and answer the question I asked toward the middle of this comment?
I would appreciate your comments and reasons you would disagree.
LM said:
"If a lost man does not come to Christ in faith and repentance he remains unforgiven, guilty and condemned for his sins. Because of his sin and unbelief he is eternally separated from God in the Lake of Fire."
Lou, I think the bible clearly teaches that a man doesn't go to the lake of fire for his sins. A person goes to the lake of fire because his name is not written in the book of life. Rev. 20: 11-15
Verse 15: "And if anyone's name was not found in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."
I believe no one is condemned for their sins, Christ has taken care of that. The scripture teaches that, Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world but to save it.
Can anyone find where it literally states or clearly implies that a person is cast into the lake of fire because their sins are not forgiven?
I just want to add something.
I praise God that He has provided atonement for all mankind. I praise Him that no one, including me, is physically born without hope.
How unjust would it be that all of mankind is 'born without a choice' into sin(and I believe we are) and then our Creator would not provide for our sin that we were born in?
IMO Jesus couldn't make any clearer than what He said in Mark 3:28,29
28"Truly, I say to you, ALL sins SHALL be forgiven the sons of men, and WHATEVER blasphemies they utter;
29but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an ETERNAL sin.
There is only one eternal sin, all other sins SHALL be forgiven.
I believe the only eternal sin is not believing God's testimony concerning His son, when the Holy Spirit convicts us(John 16:9). That is the sin that keeps any man from having his name written in the book of life.
By
Kris, at 1/31/2008 6:32 PM
Kris:
One issue at a time is about all I can handle. And I am in way over that already.
Just as soon as Alvin responds to the question I posted to him three times now, I'll take a look at yuour concern.
I'll tell you this much for now, we are never going to agree on your assumptions, and I am not going to invest a great deal of time on it.
Alvin, Would the following be a fair definition of your view?
The object of faith, which results in eternal life, is the promise of God to the believer.
LM
By
Lou Martuneac, at 1/31/2008 7:02 PM
Lou, you stated:
"I'll tell you this much for now, we are never going to agree on your assumptions, and I am not going to invest a great deal of time on it."
That is all I need to know, Lou. I would rather not engage someone with your attitude toward anothers views. I did not attempt to converse with you with the attitude that what you had to say is un-important or not worthy of investing any time in both of us attempting to rightly divide the Word our God has given us.
Grace & Peace
Kris
By
Kris, at 1/31/2008 7:28 PM
Kris:
A long time ago I came to the conclusion that the position you hold is wrong. Some of your notes are a repitition of the same assumptions I have seen before from other persons. I reject them and I wanted to be plain about that.
I do not feel it necessary to rehash, at length, issues in this or any blog that I have already come to firm convictions over. If you don't appreciate that I'm sorry.
Over the last hour I had already prepared some notes for you, but I'll delete them as soon as I post this comment.
“And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins,” (Eph. 2:1).
LM
By
Lou Martuneac, at 1/31/2008 7:46 PM
Kris, I haven't conversed with you before but I will give a short answer to just one point you made to Lou.
You said Lou, I think the bible clearly teaches that a man doesn't go to the lake of fire for his sins. A person goes to the lake of fire because his name is not written in the book of life. Rev. 20: 11-15
I won't debate this with you either. Rev 20:11-15 doesn't say the person will be thrown in the Lake of fire BECAUSE they don't have their name written in the Lamb's Book of Life. It says that those who don't have their name their will be.
At least you included verse 12. Each person will be judged by their deeds. And even after that God will search the Lamb's Book of Life to see if they are listed there. Barring being found in that Book they will be thrown in the Lake of Fire.
This section of scripture doesn't at all tell us "why" it simply states what WILL happen.
Rev 21:8 identifies WHO these people are. And gives us great insight into the topic.
But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
Notice these people are identified by their sins.
These are people who have not been reborn. Those who are reborn are "former" liars, murderers, sexually immoral by nature. We now have possession of the New Nature, Christ Himself living in us. WE are no longer identified as "liars" and "thieves" (even if we lie or commit thievery). We are now identified as Sons and Daughters of God, we are "in Christ" not "in our sins".
God has not wiped the slate clean for all of humanity. Each person individually must Repent to believe that Christ died for their own sins. That He rose again from the dead in the flesh. God Himself paid the debt for us. This is what our faith is in, this is what it means to "believe in Jesus."
We trust Him with our salvation, in full knowledge that we deserve death because of our sins. We see that death paid in Christ. We see Him alive for our life. And because He's alive right now, our Eternal Life starts now.
And what is this "Eternal Life" that the Crossless gospel preachers would have us ask a guy who lived 2,000 years ago for?
John 17:3 NASB 3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
Even in the definition of this coveted Eternal Life the "Crossless/Deitiless gospel" is refuted. For Eternal Life is to KNOW God the Son Jesus Christ.
Kev
By
Kevl, at 1/31/2008 8:25 PM
"I do not feel it necessary to rehash, at length, issues in this or any blog that I have already come to firm convictions over.."
I can't help but believe your not sincere with your statement above Lou, since you continually "rehash, at length" your firm convictions with other believers(Alvin, Matthew, Antonio and others) not only on this blog but many others.
If you feel like you don't have good, sound, answers to my comments then just say so. But the excuse to not "rehash" seems a little bogus to me.
Grace to you
dead in my trespasses & sins, Kris.
By
Kris, at 1/31/2008 8:38 PM
Thanks, Kev.
I think I agree with most all of what you have said. I don't really much difference in our understanding. If I understand your comment right, we both agree that our deeds/sins are not what keeps us out of the lake of fire. It is because our name is not written in the Book of Life.
I appreciate your response, Kev.
Grace & Peace
Kris
By
Kris, at 1/31/2008 8:52 PM
Kris asked:[Can anyone find where it literally states or clearly implies that a person is cast into the lake of fire because their sins are not forgiven?]
Hi Kris,
Here are some verses I found. Hope they're helpful.
~Susan
Revelation 14:6 Then I saw another angel flying directly overhead, with an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on earth, to every nation and tribe and language and people. 7 And he said with a loud voice, “Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come, and worship him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water.”
8 Another angel, a second, followed, saying, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of the passion [1] of her sexual immorality.”
9 And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”
Rev 20:11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. 13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Revelation 21:8
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
2 Peter 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell [1] and committed them to chains [2] of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; [3] 7 and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked 8 (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); 9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, [4] and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority.
By
Anonymous, at 1/31/2008 8:59 PM
LOL, I really messed my last sentence up, Kev.
I should have said we both agree that it is because our names "are" written in the Book of Life is what keeps us out of the Lake of fire.
sorry
By
Kris, at 1/31/2008 9:02 PM
Hi Kris you said LOL, I really messed my last sentence up, Kev.
I should have said we both agree that it is because our names "are" written in the Book of Life is what keeps us out of the Lake of fire.
sorry
Being reborn, regenerated, or recreated (each term works) is what keeps us out of the Lake of Fire. It is that a sinner "is" a liar. That demands he be thrown in the Lake of Fire. The sinner isn't burnt for eternity because he lied, he burns for eternity because he is a liar and so will lie again.
The New Heaven will be pure, holy. There will be no liars in it to lead rebellion or sow doubt, or to seek glory for themselves. The New Heaven will have no liars.
The person is cast into the lake of fire because they "are" a sinner.
The record of our rebirth in Christ is that our name is written in the Lamb's Book of Life.
As the Apostle Paul says that some will be saved but have no works to show it.. they will be saved "as by fire"... because all their works will have burnt at the Judgment Seat of Christ.
I think this speaks of the incredible beauty and mercy of God. That when a lost sinner is standing before Him in Judgment and it's clear he has done nothing but evil for his entire life that God will still look for the record of the payment made. This TRULY shows that God does not will that any should perish.
People are cast into the Lake of Fire because they are sinners. Because they will sin again. God has not erased all sin. God has not "forgiven" all sin.
God is in the recreation business now. You are recreated and so forgiven, or you are destined for an eternity of suffering.
Kev
By
Kevl, at 1/31/2008 9:57 PM
Susan, thanks for your reply.
These are good scriptures, the 2nd Peter verses could apply and be used to encourage even believers to live Godly lives while in our earthly tents. The unrighteous kept under punishment are the same ones Paul talks about in Romans 1. Notice in Romans 1 Paul says the "wrath" of God is revealed in those who live unrighteous by giving them over to what they want because they don't want to acknowledge God. In the end they will be thrown into the fire, not because of their deeds/sin but because their names are not written in the book of life.
I think Rev. 20:11-15 speaks for itself, those whos names are not found in the book are thrown into the fire.
Rev 21:8 needs to be read in the context of verses 5,6,7 and we can see that those in verse 8 could have drank freely if they thirsted and had their names written in the book but evidently they wouldn't.
Rev 14:6-11. These verses are harder for me to understand. I know they don't mention this "fire and brimstone" being the second death anywhere. Verse 11 actually seems to indicate that those who worship the beast and recieve the mark are having no rest day or night while they are actually alive on earth after they received the mark. It also seems that John is making the statement in verse 12 that those who don't receive the mark or worship the beast are the persevering saints during this tribulation.
Doesn't it seem odd that if the reality of eternal punishment in the fire were taking place at this time that there would still be a "day & night"?
Susan I do not see in any of these scriptures that conclusively proves anyone is thrown into the fire because their deeds/sins were not propitiated for. Why would Jesus say all sins shall be forgiven men except for the one ETERNAL sin of blaspheming the Spirit.
I just want to make one thing clear. I am not advocating a person can show no signs of love for the Son within themselves whatsoever and conclude that they been born again unto life.
I am just advocating that men go to the fire because their names are not written in the book of life and the bible teaches that all the worlds sins are propitiated at the cross. I think limited atonement is born out of a man-made system not God's word. The eternal sin is not believing the Spirits convicting truth in John 16:9. If we don't believe the Spirit then we will die "in our sins" instead of "in Christ" and therefore not have our names written in the book of life.
Sorry this is so long, Susan. And I am not a fundamentalist(someone who has stopped listening). This is what I believe about who goes to the lake of fire and the teaching of limited atonement. I don't disregard or count your views not worthy of investing my time to try to understand why we differ in our understanding.
anyway thanks Susan for being engaging.
Grace & Peace
Kris
By
Kris, at 1/31/2008 10:38 PM
Hi Rose
Lou I think the best way to go forward from here is to take turns asking questions. You have already asked one and I answered.
Your question: Is it your position that the Lord Jesus Christ is NOT the necessary object of faith for the reception of eternal life?
My answer: The Lord Jesus Christ IS the necessary object of faith for the reception of eternal life.
Now here is my question:
Lou you said:
You appear to claim the person of the Lord Jesus Christ must be the sole object of faith for salvation. Then you focus on the promise of eternal life as if that is the object or a joint-object of faith for the reception of eternal life.
How do you interpret this verse?
John 4:10 Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.”
one drink from the Christ
alvin
By
alvin, at 1/31/2008 10:44 PM
Kev,
I understand what you are saying and I agree. I agree we are not condemned for lying we are condemned because we are liars. We are not condemned for lies or any
other sin. Jesus did not come into the world to condemn but to save.
We are condemned because we don't have life, we are still "in our sin" and not "in Christ", in the book of life.
That is why I contend that all the lies or anyother sins committed by the whole world are atoned/propitiated for at the cross. Sins committed are no longer mans eternal problem, the truth is they never were, the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world. Not having life within (new birth) is mans eternal problem.
I think our communication is different, we basically are saying the same thing. Maybe someone may understand you better than I or I better than you. I think we are saying the same thing. Its close enough for me anyway. :)
By
Kris, at 1/31/2008 11:14 PM
Good morning Rose! it is always a bit strange typing these comments when about 95% of you all are still tucked up in bed. Sometines I get Alvin on his night shift and slightly later on, Matthew might say "hello" but it is early afternoon here before the rest o' ye rub the sleep from your eyes :-)
That's the second time on this blog that I've attributed a quote to the wrong person, but at least they agreed with it :-)
Let me ask those who think that all men are forgiven wehther they come to Christ or not:
Why does Peter condition remission of sins on saving faith in Christ's name?
To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Act 10:43)
Regards,
By
Colin Maxwell, at 2/01/2008 1:58 AM
Lou, yes, the lake of fire is a place of torment for the unsaved and Hades or Hell in the KJV is a place of torment for those unsaved before the resurrection.
By
Matthew Celestine, at 2/01/2008 3:24 AM
Hi Kris,
Thank you again for your replies. We are not saying the same thing. Sin is THE issue.
Propitiation is not atonement. Read Leviticus 16 (could be 17..) Propitiation is "appeasement" not Atonement. These sins must be confessed on the scapegoat and the people must repent to trust that God has taken the sin.
Sinners are not condemned because they don't have life. They don't have life because they are condemned already. A sinner's sins will reveal who he/she is at the Great White Throne, and then in mercy God will seek their name in the Book of Life. It's one last chance for salvation. Not the reason for condemnation.
You said Sins committed are no longer mans eternal problem, the truth is they never were, the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world. Not having life within (new birth) is mans eternal problem.
At least you are consistent. But if this were true then almost all of the Bible is terribly misguided.
If sin was never the problem because it had always been atoned for (which is what your understanding demands and you recognize) then God was unjust to Curse all of Creation in Genesis 3. Because if Christ became a Curse for us, if Cursed are all who hang on a tree and this was done "before the foundation of the World" (and it was because it was elected to happen) then God had no justice in Cursing the world for the first sin.
We are not saying the same thing at all. I have been trying to show you that the Biblical stance on Salvation (as close as I am able to get to it) is not unreasonable. That it isn't the mess that the Crossless gospel proponents argue against in strawman arguments. It's just the Truth.. there is no need to twist, ignore or limit anything..
This had to be more harsh because you were being lead astray by my kindness.
Kev
By
Kevl, at 2/01/2008 5:58 AM
Kev, you wrote: A sinner's sins will reveal who he/she is at the Great White Throne, and then in mercy God will seek their name in the Book of Life. It's one last chance for salvation. Not the reason for condemnation.
What is this last chance for salvation? Do you believe that sinners can be saved at the Great White Throne? It looks like that from here. Perhaps you can explain this further and (hopefully) remove any misunderstadning on my part.
Regards,
By
Colin Maxwell, at 2/01/2008 7:14 AM
Bro. Kevl,
Your post of 1/31/2008 8:25 PM I believe hit the nail on the head!! God Bless.
By
David Wyatt, at 2/01/2008 9:52 AM
Good Norning Rose
Good Morning Lou, yes I am rubbing the sleep from my eyes at this moment. Just about to have a little breakfast and then go out for a run.
I don't believe the ones in hell are forgiven. Or anyone else is forgiven until they believe in Jesus for eternal life. I believe forgiveness is a personal issue. I sat on a jury last week and the lawyer explained that just because a defendent is not found guilty doesn't mean that he is innocent. Just as Jesus as the Judge will find one either guilty or not-guilty. Forgiveness is not a judical issue. Jesus has paid for the sin of the world so no one will be found guilty for their sin, it was ALL paid for, but until they believe in Christ they are unforgiven.
one drink from the Christ
alvin
By
alvin, at 2/01/2008 10:10 AM
Sorry Rose,,,Morning!!!
alvin
By
alvin, at 2/01/2008 10:13 AM
Sorry Goodnight I called you Lou! I guess I needed to get more of the sleep from my eyes!
alvin
By
alvin, at 2/01/2008 10:18 AM
Hi Rose
Repentance is not a condition for eternal life. That is why the living water in Rev 22:17 you can take freely! And that's why repentance is not mentioned ONCE as a condition in the ONLY book in the Bible that has the signs for the purpose we might believe in Jesus as the Christ. That would be the Gospel of John. And repentance is NEVER mentioned in the book of the Bible that the Gospel is being defended by Paul (Galations). Repentance brings one into a good position to believe for eternal life. Repentance is a work, which Jesus gives an example of Niniva turning from their sin. That God saw their works! And repentance to life is NOT eternal life. But life there simply means repentance CAN bring one to Christ.
If repentance was a condition for eternal life it would say it. But it says ANYONE CAN TAKE OF THE LIVING WATER FREELY!
one drink from the Christ
alvin
By
alvin, at 2/01/2008 10:29 AM
Good morning, Alvin!
Good afternoon, Goodnight?
:~)
By
Rose~, at 2/01/2008 10:43 AM
I agree Alvin. If by repentance we mean 'changing of the action', then it is not a condition for receiving a "the gift of God." Anything one DOES to receive a gift makes it cease to be a gift, but something gained by DOING. This just seems obvious to me, as an old time evangelical. ;~)
By
Rose~, at 2/01/2008 10:45 AM
Alvin,
One problem with human courts is that they lack the knowledge in some cases either to convict without doubt or to release without doubt. I think the legal phrase for it over here is that "There is a case to answer." Of course, the Almighty isn't troubled with the lack of knowledge, for His eyes are in every place beholding the evil and the good (Proverbs 15:3)
The distinction that you are drawing between being unforgiven and guilty is unreal. If I need to be forgiven, then I must needs be forgiven for something that I have done wrong. If I have done wrong, then I am guilty and will remain so until I am forgiven. All these things stand together - the one leading naturally and logically to the other. You seem to be affirming one thing on one hand and denying it on the other.
Regards,
By
Colin Maxwell, at 2/01/2008 10:46 AM
Hi Rose
After re-reading my post it seems as though I came out of the sack swinging Ha! Ha! It is a wee bit to early for a fight I better go run first! See yah later
alvin
By
alvin, at 2/01/2008 10:46 AM
If by repentance we mean 'changing of the action', then it is not a condition for receiving a "the gift of God." Anything one DOES to receive a gift makes it cease to be a gift, but something gained by DOING. This just seems obvious to me, as an old time evangelical. ;~)
Hi Rose:
If by repentance, you mean that you intend by God's grace to forsake sin (rather than be stubborn and foolish enough to remain in such rebellion against God) then do you still see this as a work and therefore meritorious of salvation? The faith that saves is repentant in nature (as I define above) and the repentance that indicates the desire and determination to turn from sin is built on faith that God's power and grace enables us to do it.
I wonder what Old Time Evangelicals ever taught faith without such repentance? Preferably before Zane Hodges :-)
By
Colin Maxwell, at 2/01/2008 11:31 AM
Old Time Evangelicals?
The best old time thing is Jack Daniel's Old Time Tennessee Whiskey.
By
Matthew Celestine, at 2/01/2008 11:46 AM
Rose, are you feeling fiery today?
By
Matthew Celestine, at 2/01/2008 11:46 AM
Hi all,
I've been reading and following these conversations, but haven't had much time to post lately (although I have tons I'd love to say! LOL). I see that the issue of Jesus paying for all sins at the cross has come up again. I have discussed this to death with Alvin in the past, and as a result I had posted an article at my group blog awhile ago detailing my response to such a view. I hate to do a "drive-by" post just to basically link to my group blog, but I just don't have a lot of time right now. However, if you read my article, you will note that Alvin failed to respond to the vast majority of my points. So perhaps he will make another attempt, or maybe others of you can do so. I would simply paste in my points here, but it's a pretty long article. :-)
By
Rachel, at 2/01/2008 11:47 AM
The best old time thing is Jack Daniel's Old Time Tennessee Whiskey.
It shows in some of your postings, Matthew ;-)
P/s Aren't we all so blessed that we should be living in this age?
By
Colin Maxwell, at 2/01/2008 12:03 PM
Is that one of your trick questions, Colin?
There certainly are a good many advantages to modern life.
By
Matthew Celestine, at 2/01/2008 12:20 PM
Hi Rose/ALL
If you go to Rachel group blog make sure you read Jon's comment!
alvin
By
alvin, at 2/01/2008 12:25 PM
Rose:
You wrote, "I agree Alvin. If by repentance we mean 'changing of the action', then it is not a condition for receiving a "the gift of God'."
As you are aware Hodges/Alvin/da Rosa totally dismiss repentance by any definition, even the biblical "change of mind" from a condition for salvation. Dr. Bing expressed his disagreement with Hodges on this in his (Bing's) dissertation.
Rose, Do you agree with Alvin's statement, "Repentance is not a condition for eternal life," understanding he means no kind of repentance is necessary to be born again?
LM
By
Lou Martuneac, at 2/01/2008 12:27 PM
Alvin:
I'll check back later, digging out of a blizzard and going to work in an hour.
LM
By
Lou Martuneac, at 2/01/2008 12:28 PM
Hi, Kev.
Let me be clearer. I HOPE. I said mans/the whole worlds ETERNAL condemnation because of "sins committed" is/was dealt with on the cross. All who believe in the son are not condemned, others who don't believe are condemned already because they don't believe in the Son, not because their sins are not propitiated, but because they don't believe the Son has propitiated them.
I totally agree with you in that man is not a sinner because he lies, he lies because he IS a sinner. We either believe and die in Christ or not believe and die in our sinful state.
Sin still is an issue here on earth. Sickness, cancer, being murdered by someone, murdering someone ourselve, stealing, etc are all results of man being sinners.
Just because we are born again doesn't mean we as believers can't do these things. I know you know this, King David is good example.
You don't have to say you "had to be harsh because of your kindness was leading me astray"
I consider this a conversation, not you being a tutor or God forbid me being a tutor we are just believers discussing our understanding.
Grace & Peace
Kris
By
Kris, at 2/01/2008 12:30 PM
Matthew: (and Aunty Rose) Forgive my little sarcarsms here. I was reflecting on how blessed we all are to be born into an age when the Old Time Evangelicalism which demanded repentance is slipping away and we have the great insights of Zane Hodge to replace it.
Yes, there are a lot of advantages in this modern age, but I'm afraid this modern theology isn't one of them
:-)
Regards,
By
Colin Maxwell, at 2/01/2008 12:34 PM
Colin, dont you know that Zane Hodges and Antonio Da Rosa are the Two Witnesses predicted in Revelation chapter 11?
By
Matthew Celestine, at 2/01/2008 12:40 PM
Matthew: You're too modest!
By
Colin Maxwell, at 2/01/2008 1:01 PM
Colin,
Is Billy Graham an "old-time evangelical"?
1. Are you saying that repentance is a change of mind?
2. Are you saying that the intent to forsake sin is the ticket? (Funnily enough, I immediately thought of this saying when I read your former comment: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."
Do you ever hear that saying in Ireland?)
3. I am too young to be your AUNTY! hello??
By
Rose~, at 2/01/2008 1:02 PM
Lou, to me it is obvious that one changes one's mind from an unbeliever to a believer when they are converted. In that sense, I accept the word repentance as a part of salvation, but I really think it is not a useful word ... becuase everyone means something different by it.
By
Rose~, at 2/01/2008 1:04 PM
I just want to say one more thing about this "Crossless gospel" deal.
I am not commenting because of anything cross or crossless.
When Jesus told Nicodemus that just as the serpent was lifted up so the Son of man must be lifed up.
I believe God sent serpents to bite the people who were continually walking in unbelief and therefore grumbling.
When they cried out fearful of dying He told Moses to make a brass serpent and put it on a stick, He told Moses to tell those who were bitten to look at that snake on a stick and they would live.
It wasn't the snake or the stick that saved their life, it was because of their act of believing God. He could have put a donut on a stick and saved them if they would just believe Him.
It is not the cross that saves us, it is believing what God says about His Son that saves us. The cross is the means by which the Son has propitiated the sins of world and the resurrection proved it.
After reading Hebrews I believe and am convinced that sin is not the issue between God and man anymore, Jesus took care of that. The issue for man is simply believing God's testimony concerning His Son. Just like it was to those who were bitten by snakes, they believed God and looked to brass serpent and lived.
Thank you Rose for the space to comment, you are great blog host.
Thank you Kev & Susan for your investment of your time to engage.
Grace & Peace
Kris
By
Kris, at 2/01/2008 1:10 PM
Hi Rose
Sir Colin, IMO the Old Time Evangelicals message for the most part mixed discipleship with the free gift. And also had you walking isle and inviting Jesus into your heart to be saved. Which did not save anyone. I see Zane Hodges as coming along and making clear discipleship and the free gift are seperate issues. One being free the other being costly. And I also see him as making clear what it means to believe. Just simply taking Jesus at His promise and that assurance is part of His offer as the Christ. The only thing I had a problem with was in Zanes book "Absolutely Free" was he had John Calvins name all through it. And for that reason I put it back on the shelf, but was later compelled to get it.
So you can have your "Old Time stuff." And if you go way back a whole lot of them believed in child baptism which to me proved they believed in a works salvation.
toota-loo
alvin
By
alvin, at 2/01/2008 1:48 PM
Hi Rose
Repentance must be taken in it's context. There is no place that I know of in Scripture that uses repentance as changing ones mind from unbelief to belief. But where ever it is used has turning from sin in mind. Also as I have stated repentance is not mentioned ONCE in the Gospel of John as a condition for eternal life. I think just about anyone on the street if asked would say that repentance has to do with turning from sin, this I believe would be the widest understanding of it and the most accurate from Scripture.
one drink
alvin
By
alvin, at 2/01/2008 2:17 PM
Hi Rose, Alvin, all
I have visitors in tonight...so I'll answer you all in the morning. If the Lord permit
Regards,
By
Colin Maxwell, at 2/01/2008 2:49 PM
Hi Rose
Acts 20:21 shows that repentance is toward God and faith is toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
Repentance has to do with harmony with God and bringing and end to, or keeping from temporal judgment. But if the question is "What must I do to be saved?" The answer is to simply believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Repentance gives no one eternal life but facillitates one believing in Jesus for eternal life.
One can take of the living water if they so desire without any conditions what so ever it is offered freely! That's because eternal life is a free gift which has NOTHING to do with your sin, that was ALL paid for on the cross. God is NOT counting anyones sins against them, therefore be reconciled to God.
take the living water FREELY!
alvin
P.S. I'm going to be gone for most of the day, bye bye!
By
alvin, at 2/01/2008 2:52 PM
Hi Goodnight (now that's a strange sentence... bet you never heard that one before *smile*)
I know I already know your name.. but you think I could remember it right now???
You asked What is this last chance for salvation? Do you believe that sinners can be saved at the Great White Throne? It looks like that from here. Perhaps you can explain this further and (hopefully) remove any misunderstadning on my part.
No I don't think anyone will be saved at the Great White Throne Judgment, but God does look for the names of those lost ones in the Lamb's Book of Life. Even at that moment He will seek to act with mercy. But those who have not been born again can not be allowed in to Heaven.
The problem with discussing theological ideas on a forum or blog is that there are SO MANY people involved in the conversation. It's impossible to fully explain what you mean when you say anything... in this case I was trying to make a targeted response to Kris.
I'm sorry I wasn't clearer.. I try to be really I do. :)
Kev
By
Kevl, at 2/01/2008 3:11 PM
David, thank you for the encouragement!
By
Kevl, at 2/01/2008 3:12 PM
Kris before I respond I have to apologize.
You said You don't have to say you "had to be harsh because of your kindness was leading me astray"
I consider this a conversation, not you being a tutor or God forbid me being a tutor we are just believers discussing our understanding.
I didn't mean to come off as a "tutor" and it seems I did. I am sorry... I'm hardly qualified.
This is not a sarcastic apology or anything like that. I mean I should not have worded my post in such a way as to raise myself up.
Kev
By
Kevl, at 2/01/2008 3:16 PM
Kris you said
I said mans/the whole worlds ETERNAL condemnation because of "sins committed" is/was dealt with on the cross. All who believe in the son are not condemned, others who don't believe are condemned already because they don't believe in the Son, not because their sins are not propitiated, but because they don't believe the Son has propitiated them.
Anyone who has not trusted that Christ propitiated (appeased) God the Father for our sins is still taking their own responsibility for their sins and their eternal state. They have not "repented" to trust God for these things.
They haven't been born again because they haven't repented. So while the "math" sort of works to say they are headed for the Lake of Fire because they don't have life. It's actually that they are headed there because they embody death. They are going their because of and for their sinful nature. That's the "reason" they are going to the Lake of Fire.
The escape from that is being born again.
Why can't I write a simple sentence that explains the difference between the two thoughts..... anyone here actually know English, who would help me? :)
Kev
By
Kevl, at 2/01/2008 3:21 PM
Rose, after much exhausting work in the Word of trying to escape repentance.. and make it something that isn't part of Salvation I had to relent... I had to "repent" as it were.
Here is my very short definition and a longer (less accurate) version is linked.
http://onmywalk.blogspot.com/2007/10/short-definition-of-repentance.html
Kev
By
Kevl, at 2/01/2008 3:22 PM
In case that link won't work because of Blogger's windows here is a "tinyurl" version
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3xunh2 that's a preview for your confidence
Here is the actual link
http://tinyurl.com/3xunh2
Kev
By
Kevl, at 2/01/2008 3:24 PM
Good afternoon Rose:
You wrote, “I accept the word repentance as a part of salvation, but I really think it is not a useful word ... because everyone means something different by it.”
Repentance is not a useful word; in what context is the doctrine of repentance not useful? Repentance is a vital teaching in Scripture. How can “repentance” not be a useful word?
Which “part of salvation?” The concern here is not over repentance following salvation. I am focusing on repentance as a condition for the reception of eternal life. There are different interpretations of repentance out there, Hodges, Wilkin, da Rosa being the most extreme and unorthodox.
My question has to do with whether or not biblical repentance is a necessary condition FOR salvation.
Alvin (the CG camp) says repentance, by any definition, is NOT a condition for salvation. He wrote, “Repentance is not a condition for eternal life.”
Rose, understanding that in fact Alvin means repentance, by any definition, is NOT necessary for the reception of eternal life; Do you agree with Alvin’s statement?
Please advise.
Thanks,
LM
By
Lou Martuneac, at 2/01/2008 3:44 PM
Hi. 200!!
By
Missy, at 2/01/2008 4:07 PM
<< Home