Explaining the Gospel to a Child
November 6th, 2007
How can parents explain the gospel to their children without toning down the commands of Scripture?
Certainly children are limited in their ability to understand spiritual truth, but so are adults. Very few people intellectually understand all the gospel truth at the moment of salvation. Fortunately, the essential truths are basic enough that even a child can understand. Jesus Himself characterized saving faith as childlikeness (Mark 10:15). True belief is not a function of advanced intellect, sophisticated theological understanding, or complex doctrinal knowledge.
Children old enough to be saved can grasp the concept of coming to Christ with an obedient heart, and letting Him be the Lord of their lives.
When sharing the gospel with a child, keep these points in mind:
1. Remember that repetition and restatement are especially helpful. Give the gospel simply and briefly, but don’t assume the first positive response means they got all the truth they need to know. Continue explaining and expanding your explanations. Too many ministries to children equate every positive response with a real conversion.
2. Use Scripture and explain it clearly. Even with children, God’s Word is the seed that produces life (1 Peter 1:23). Don’t use approaches that give gospel outlines with no Scripture. Only the Bible can speak with authority to the human heart—including a child’s heart.
3. Understand the inherent danger in any outline or prefabricated presentation: they tend to follow a predetermined agenda that may bypass the child’s real needs or fail to answer his or her most important questions.
4. Finally, remember that the issues in salvation are the same for a child as for an adult. The gospel is the same message for every age group. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones wrote,
We must be careful that we do not modify the gospel to suit various age groups. There is no such thing as a special gospel for the young, a special gospel for the middle-aged, and a special gospel for the aged. There is only one gospel, and we must always be careful not to tamper and tinker with the gospel as a result of recognizing these age distinctions. At the same time, there is a difference in applying this one and only gospel to the different age groups; but it is a difference which has reference only to method and procedure. (Knowing the Times [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1989], 2.)
Children must be able to understand that sin is an offense to God’s holiness and that they are personally guilty (though because of their limited experiences, most kids obviously won’t have as deep a sense of personal guilt as adults). There’s nothing wrong with telling children about hell and God’s wrath. Children do not have a difficult time grasping such concepts. They understand punishment for wrongdoing and are capable of understanding that Jesus died to take the punishment for the sins of others. They need to be told that Jesus expects to be obeyed, and they will understand even better than some adults that trusting Jesus means obeying Him. The importance of obedience needs to be emphasized repeatedly, even after the child makes a profession of faith.
(Today’s post was adapted from a GTY Issues & Answers article.)
John Piper has a superb example in “Counted Righteous in Christ.”
Thank you for the article. I appreciate your desire to reach children for the gospel of Christ! That is wonderful.
One note – could you re-phrase the second to last sentence? You said that trusting Jesus means obeying Him. If that’s the case then “a” (trust) = “b” (obedience). And, if a = b, then faith is not a gift. It’s a work.
I’m assuming that I’m misunderstanding the phrase and you’re referencing phrases such as “the obedience of faith”. Is that correct?
Timothy – I read that sentence to mean that obeying follows the trust. IF you trust Jesus THEN you obey Him…if you don’t obey Him, you don’t truly trust (and believe) Him. Just to chime in…
DeS
God has chosen us before the world began and one can often see God working in little children. When my Grandson was only 3 or 4, I had been taking him to church since a baby and then Sunday School since 2 yrs old. In our discussion I was going to try and explain to him the Trinity, and I started by saying, “There is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, one God but 3 persons…” and kind of hesitated. He looked at me and without a pause said, “I know Grandmas, its like this (held up his hand and his 3 fingers were together) they’re stuck together.” and I still marvel at his answer and think of when Jesus asked Peter “But who do you say that I am?” and Peter answered “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” and Jesus said in Matthew 16:17 “…for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.” Praise God.
Hi Timothy!
If I may reply to your restatement request, that was a wrestling match for me for a long time, but there’s no denying it:
2 John 6 – “And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments…”
John 21:15-17 “15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”
16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”
17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.”
There are many other such examples of this, and it shows that loving God expresses itself in obedience. I hope I haven’t stepped outof bounds in replying.
Faith a gift? That is a terrible and biased interpretation of Eph. 2:8. One that is promoted by the Calvinistis in order to make Scripture fit their system.
The “that” is in neuter/single gender/number because it refers to an implied subject: salvation. “That” what? That salvation.
It is a sad comment that expositors such as MacArthur and others who so pay lip service to sound exegesis would so violently disregard it when Scripture doesn’t fit their theological bend. And then promote it with the idea that the are doing the Lord a favor.
Shame on them.
Vince,
So then are you suggesting that faith is a work? Something that we ourselves have to actively do to be saved?
The Scripture is incredibly clear that man is not able to place their faith in God due to sin, (Rom. 3:10-12). Therefore faith must be something that God gives us because we are unable to respond to Him on our own. I’ve no doubt that you have been thouroughly indoctrinated against Calvinism, but the Scripture is very clear about the depravity of man due to sin and the only hope of salvation being God’s intervention in the life of a person.
Calvinism represents the most consitent view of the Scripture and the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Faith? Strong’s 4102 It is a gift…not of human origin that saves(Ephesians 2:8). It is also fruit of the Spirit(Galatians 5:22). Same original word(root word 3982 ~ persuaded, meaning from outside the person by the Spirit) in both verses and in others reflecting Bible truth…and yes, what Calvin learned in Christ. How these eyes see. Hope this helps.
http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=4102&version=kjv&page=5
Parents aren’t to behaviorally micromanage(performance/works acceptance) their children into the Kingdom ~ they are to teach them what God requires of man and provides in Christ and let the Spirit of God deal with the aspect of regeneration.
Vince,
Jacob said it very well. Because of the condition of the heart of man described in Jer. 17:9, the unregenerate sinner cannot please, understand, or come to God (Rom.8:8, 1 Cor. 2:14, and John 6:44).
If you will notice in Eph. 2, the parenthetical element at the end of verse 5 “by grace are ye saved” is repeated in verse 8. It would be a tautology to say salvation and grace are “not of yourselves” since he had just said that 3 verses earlier.
Faith and works are mutally exclusive. The point is not whether salvation is by faith – it is. The point is “where does the faith originate?” Eph. 2:8 doesn’t indicate that faith is the gift of God, rather salvation is the gift of God. To say otherwise is to twist the Scriptures.
But for the sake of argument – lest’s say that faith is the gift of God. So what does one do with that faith? He must believe. One must receive Jesus as we read in Jn 1. So if one must receive he must do something.
Scripture tells us that salvation is a gift. This gift is paid in full by Jesus and this gift is freely offered. But to appropriate, like any other gift, it must be received. Faith is how it is appropriated. To say that if it is my faith it is a work, but it is the Lord’s given faith is not, it doesn’t make sense because the person must still receive it.
So if “receiving” is a work, then none can’t get saved. But thank the Lord He did it all, and now He offers salvation to all, so that those who receive Him enjoy reconciliation with Him.
one more comment…to say that if it is “my” faith it is a work, it is another clever twisting and redifining of words Calvinist employ because without twisting and redifining the system doesn’t work.
May I suggest a book by Steven J. Lawson, Foundations of Grace, Vince? Your library may have it or might by request be willing to add it to their shelves. Otherwise, I’ve seen it for less than retail here: http://www.monergismbooks.com/Foundations-of-Grace-A-Long-Line-of-Godly-Men-p-16935.html A video, Amazing Grace that may be helpful is also there, http://www.monergismbooks.com/Amazing-Grace-The-History-Theology-of-Calvinism-DVD-p-16342.html . Salvation has two aspects(God’s and man’s perspective) and the two aspects give God alone glory when He, of His will rather than man’s(John 1:13), causes a man to be born again and that man then responds empowered in Christ. That is what I have seen/heard in God’s Word and understand Calvin to have believed and taught. Hope this helps. Don’t want to shift the article conversation to Calvinism so think I’ll leave(as my son needs to use the computer) the discussion with that(other than you can see if any links on my blog interest).
God bless.
Vince,
I think where Armenians and Calvinists differ, is that both agree that man makes a choice to accept God, but Armenians stop here without looking at the whole picture. (1 Cor. 2:14, John 6:44, 2 Thes. 2:13, Rom. 9:10-24, Rom. 8:28-30, Eph. 2:1-10, Eph. 1:4-6, Acts 13:48, and 2 Tim. 1:9) God chose man (election), gave them the desire to know Him (regeneration), brought them to Himself (conversion), gave them a right legal standing before God (justification), and made them a member of God’s family (adoption).
Why do you say that “faith” cannot be a “gift of God”? It sounds to me as if you are trying to make salvation just a little bit of man. The Bible is clear that salvation is not of works. Do you think that accepting Christ is ultimately man’s work apart from the influence of the Holy Spirit? Do you say that accepting Christ is something MAN DOES? Because if it is something that man does, then it is a work.
Daniel,
Here we go again. First, let me say I am NOT Armenian…but a Calvinist would say that I am, because if one is not a Calvinist, then he MUST be an Armenian. Right?
Second: Calvinist accusing the Armenian of not considering the whole of scripture is a joke. Calvinists are masters at neglect, redefining, and misinterpreting.
Third: Proper study of Eph. 2:8 (see above) doesn’t support the idea of faith being a gift – salvation is.
Make salvation a little bit of man because man has the responsibility to believe? That is like saying that a beggar “worked” when he was given a handout and he reached to receive it. Ridiculous don’t you think!
But, what is most important is the proper interpretation of Scripture. And thanks you variopus papular teachers who promote error with regards to faith, we have a whole bunch of people who checked their brains out the door, and go on in the error.
They, these teachers and people, do this because the think they are doing God a favor. They are not. God can manage nicely without their twisting of the word.
Vince,
Your idea of salvation is just typical of the Armenian belief, but I would not say that everyone who is not a Calvinist is an Armenian.
You said, “Calvinist accusing the Armenian of not considering the whole of scripture is a joke. Calvinists are masters at neglect, redefining, and misinterpreting.”
For the sake of argument, consider the fact that, in Eph. 2:8 the word “faith” is what the gift of God was, if this is so, then it clearly disproves your view. On the other hand, if salvation is what is referred to, it does not disprove my view. In fact, in that verse, the gift of God could be any one of the three things mentioned (grace, salvation, or faith) or it could even be ALL THREE and two out of three would disprove your view, AND you have no evidence to prove that salvation is what is referred. Wouldn’t you say that this is a thin thread to base your beliefs on especially considering the context of the passage (DEAD in sins)? I would appreciate it if you would share with me what I have “neglected, redefined, and misinterpreted.”
You also said, “Make salvation a little bit of man because man has the responsibility to believe? That is like saying that a beggar “worked” when he was given a handout and he reached to receive it. Ridiculous don’t you think!”
My analogy of salvation is a little different from yours. I see it as God having mercy on whom He will have mercy and hardening whom He will; and making vessels unto honor or dishonor. Can the thing formed say to the one who formed it “why hast thou made me thus?” So rather than saying that it is up to man to accept God, we should really say that it is up to God to accept man.
Daniel,
Same faulty rethoric. In Eph. 2:8 the “that” is neuter and singular – thus it will never be a reference to faith, either by itself or as a package as Calvinist try to make it say. The question, “that what?” is simple, logical, and textual, and the answer is the “salvation” – the implied subject. This is basic English grammar – and let me say that even a foreigner (my self) can understand that.
But I don’t mean to confuse you with the rightly dividing Scriptures or simple English grammar since your mind is already made up.
Your arguments are well representative of Calvinism’s selective and faulty reading of Scripture. The reason this is so is because your loyalty is not to God, but to a man-made system. A God-centered theology means that loyalty goes to the Scriptures – all of them. The redifining of words and the misrepresentation of texts inspired by the Holy Spirit do not result in a God-centered theology.
I remember Paul calling the Berean Jews “more noble-minded” because they were diligent to check Paul’s teaching with the Scriptures. Dan, be noble-minded and let Scripture, all-of them rightly divided, be your guide, rather than a man-based theological system.
Then and only then, God will receive all the glory and honor He deserves.
Mark and Damon,
Thank you for your responses. I definitely have NO qualms whatsoever with your statements – that faith results in obedience and if you have true faith, you will obey Christ. But to say that “trusting Jesus means obeying Him” takes on a whole new meaning to me.
I trust this makes sense.
One quote: “Faith produces obedience, but to suggest that faith is obedience is to confuse justification with sanctification” (Christ the Lord, 36, Horton).
Vince,
I do not see why “that” cannot be “that faith,” but if you want to be grammatically correct, then it cannot be “that saved.”
You have accused me of the following: 1) your loyalty is not to God, but to a man-made system 2) A God-centered theology means that loyalty goes to the Scriptures – all of them 3) The redifining of words and the misrepresentation of texts inspired by the Holy Spirit do not result in a God-centered theology.
Again I will ask you, would share with me what I have “neglected, redefined, and misinterpreted” and how I am unloyal to God? Do you know of any scriptures that disprove my view?
Let’s say that your salvation was up to you and that my salvation was up to God. Which one of us can have assurance of salvation? If you chose God, then you could chose to leave Him; but if God chose you, He has promised to finish what HE has begun (Phil. 1:6).
I’ve always considered the Calvinist view that if man participates in his salvation, even if only by accepting (which would be all of his part), then he must “keep himself saved” to be a major non-sequitur.
David,
Answer me this: if I chose to accept Christ, could I decide somewhere down the road that I no longer want to live that way and choose to leave Him and not be saved any more?
Daniel,
Your Calvinisn leads you to bad theological thinking all over. The reason you don’t see that the “that” cannot refer to faith is because your mind is made up, regardless of what Scripture teaches. That is all. You don’t want to be confused with Scripture. You are reading what you were tought, rather than what the Scripture says. Typical Calvinism.
The question you asked is answered in Eph. 1:13 and many other Bible passages. Fuethermore, that question has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
So Daniel, let the text speak for itself. If you want to defend God’s golry honor His word by rightly dividing it.
Here is a question for you: If man has no responsibility toward the gospel, why is God jelous (Second Commandment)?
Vince,
Ephesians 1:13 “In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise.” Paul could not make this statement if his understanding of salvation was the same as yours. If you think that man makes the ultimate decision to accept or reject God rather than that God makes the ultimate decision to accept or reject man, then WHY do you think that man could not make a decision to leave God after he accepts Him? Is he stuck now? How come He could make a decision before but not now?
You said, “The reason you don’t see that the “that” cannot refer to faith is because your mind is made up, regardless of what Scripture teaches.” You show me a place in scripture that says that faith comes from man, and I will change my view.
To answer your question, I have already said that man does have a responsibility to make right decisions, and those decisions do have significance. I said, “I think where Armenians and Calvinists differ, is that both agree that man makes a choice to accept God, but Armenians stop here without looking at the whole picture”; what I am saying is this: the Bible tells us in John 6:44 that God must draw a man BEFORE he can come to Him. It also tells us in 1 Cor. 2:14 that before God draws a man (the natural man) he cannot even UNDERSTAND the things of God.
Therefore, my position is not that man has no responsibility, but that man’s desire for God and spiritual things is brought about by the Holy Spirit, and not by anything of himself.
Daniel, you still continue in bad study practices. Eph. 1:13 was intended to point out the security of salvation. But also, did you notice the the phrases ‘ye also trusted’ and ‘ye believed’? Obviously this indicate that man has a responsibility toward the Gospel. That is to believe it.
In a parevious entry you pointed out Phil 1:6 as if this verse was in your favor. Yet what you ended up doing was making salvation a “process” rather than an “event.” But this is also consistent with Calvinism’s perserverance of the saints. Note that Calvinism doesn’t teach “preservation” of the saints – that is the work of God. Perseverance is man’s work. So it seems that Calvinism is man-centered when it comes to salvation.
I know you will say – no, what it meas is that the true believers will persevere in the faith. That is true. But it is not what Calvinism has taught.
ALso, please read John 6, I think there is there something about coming to Jesus. Note it doesn’t say dragging to Jesus.
I am still waiting for the answer to the question, why is God jelous? Please think about the implications of your answer, if any.
Good chatting with you Dan.
Vince,
The phrases ‘ye also trusted’ and ‘ye believed’ mean just that. As I said, I am not denying the decision of man, just the idea that this desire for God and spiritual things is brought about by himself.
You have raised a very good question, and one with which many people have struggled. Every mention of God being a jealous God is in the Old Testament and is in reference to Israel (God’s chosen people who were ever turning to false practices and false God’s).
When you said, “I know you will say – no, what it means is that the true believers will persevere in the faith.” that is exactly right. I call myself a Calvinist because of my belief about God’s role in salvation, and not because of any other belief. I have always assumed that this was a Calvinist belief but if not, well then so be it.
Now could you answer my question? If you think that man makes the ultimate decision to accept or reject God rather than that God makes the ultimate decision to accept or reject man, then WHY do you think that man could not make a decision to leave God after he accepts Him? Is he stuck now? Why could He make a decision before but not now?
Daniel,
The Second Commandment still effective in the NT. In addition salvation has always been by faith – OT and NT. God’s character doesn’t change. My point is that God’s is jealous becuase people give to other ‘gods’ the worship He alone deserves. However, if people don’t worship Him because He didn’t give them the faith to worship Him, then there is, of course, no reason to be jealous. So the fact the He is jealous indicates that there is a human factor involved.
Now corcerning your question, I thought I did answer it with Eph. 1:13. At the moment a person places his trust in Jesus, that person is sealed with the Holy Spirit and according to Rom. 8 nothing can separates un from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus. In addition, these are two different issues you are trying to bring together, but are independent of each other.
There is a reason it is termed “Perseverance of the Saints” rather than “Preservation of the Saints.” The reason is that in Calvinism security is based on performance because according to Calvin God gives the non-elect a “false” faith. So even though one may have faith, he is never sure that it is the real thing because God may be playing with him. How does a Calvinist know he is saved – he can’t if he is truly a Calvinist, becuase his faith may not be the real thing.
Now, I realize that many people I defined TULIP in diferent ways. And that is a good Calvinistic strategy – remain jello and can’t be pinned down.
Well, I am off for the weekend. I have also Monday of and will spend my afternoon deer hunting. Have a great weekend Dan.
I would like to ask a question concerning the article (sorry if it derails the discussion already in progress).
I am the father of 4 (8,7,5,4). Almost everynight, as a family, we have devotions and a discussion. I’ve been purposeful in this by finding devotional books geared towards kids, Bible story books and also (of course) straight reading out of the Bible.
What I would like to ask, though, is if there is a very good devotional book that anyone here has ever seen that discusses salvation is a good, clear way to kids. Maybe something that goes through the topics in the article (God’s holiness, man’s ‘fallen-ness’, the work of Christ, etc.).
Please let me know and thank you!
Greg
Notwithstanding this site is “Explaining the Gospel to a Child”, I think some comments have taken a few rabbit trails. I wonder how many more comments may be added to the site “God’s Absolute Sovereignty” posted Sept 28/07 by John MacArthur if some of these people (who left comments here) would read this article!
Vince.
You need correction in your idea that Calvin teaches to look at our works for assurance…Calvin taught the explicit opposite of that.
Here are some quotes from Calvin:
Notice this passage from Calvin’s comment to John 3:16:
“For since He necessarily hates sin, how shall we be convinced that He loves us until those sins for which He is justly angry with us have been expiated? Thus before we can have any feeling of His fatherly kindness, the blood of Christ must intercede to reconcile God to us.”
Compare his comment to John 15:9:
“For he who seeks to be loved by God without the Mediator gets imbrangled in a labyrinth in which he will find neither the right path or the way out. We should therefore direct our gaze to Christ, in whom will be found the pledge of the divine love.”
Calvin warns us against looking to ourselves for assurance:
“They tell you [some semi-papists], if you look to Christ salvation is certain; if you return to yourself damnation is certain. Therefore, your mind must be alternately ruled by diffidence and hope; as if we were to imagine Christ standing at a distance, and not rather dwelling in us. We expect salvation from him – not because he stands aloof from us, but because ingrafting us into his body he not only makes us partakers of all his benefits, but also of himself. Therefore, I thus retort the argument, If you look to yourself damnation is certain: but since Christ has been communicated to you with all his benefits, so that all which is his is made yours, you become a member of him, and hence one with him. His righteousness covers your sins – his salvation extinguishes your condemnation; he interposes with his worthiness, and so prevents your unworthiness from coming into the view of God. Thus it truly is. It will never do to separate Christ from us, nor us from him; but we must, with both hands, keep firm hold of that alliance by which he has riveted us to himself. ”
Institutes 3.2.24
But how can we know whether we are elect?
“But if we are elected in him, we cannot find the certainty of our election in ourselves; and not even in God the Father, if we look at him apart from the Son. Christ, then, is the mirror in which we ought, and in which, without deception, we may contemplate our election. For since it is into his body that the Father has decreed to ingraft those whom from eternity he wished to be his, that he may regard as sons all whom he acknowledges to be his members, if we are in communion with Christ, we have proof sufficiently clear and strong that we are written in the Book of Life. ”
Institutes 3.24.5
Calvin’s thoughts on assurance were not based on our works at all.
Our assurance of salvation is always the same,
gaze at Christ and His cross
HT: Steve
Sorry…
wrong link for Steve…should be correct below:
Steve
Vince,
I agree that the second commandment is still effective today, and that God’s character never changes. My point was not that God doesn’t care about whether we worship only Him, but that God was jealous about His chosen people who were constantly turning to false practices and false doctrines. This does not mean that God was not in control however. Worship is man’s response to his knowledge of God and God demands that He be the sole object of our worship.
Ephesians 1:12-14 says that the Holy Spirit is the assurance of our salvation. The Holy Spirit manifests Himself in our lives through the fruit of the Spirit. Our assurance of salvation is not from our own performance, but ultimately from the Holy Spirit’s performance. In Matthew 7:20 Christ says, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
Read Ephesians 2:1-10 very slowly, read it several times, if you need to, and tell me how many times you see that man is the one that accepts Christ, or that man is even able apart from the Holy Spirit to accept Christ. I think that this passage overwhelmingly shows us that salvation is ALL of Christ and NONE of man. Also read 2 Timothy 1:9, Acts 13:1-28 (specifically vs. 28), Ephesians 1:4-6, and 2 Thessalonians 2:13.
I would also recommend reading Romans 9:10-24 and telling me what Jacob did to accept this, or what Esau did to refuse this, before they were born. Read Romans 8:28-30 and tell me where God asked us permission to save us.
So are you saying that God gives us the option to come to Him but not to leave from Him? I think that the view of assurance of salvation that you have, fits in better with my view than with your’s. My view is that God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, and will complete the work He began in us, at the day of Christ. Your view is that we chose God and He will complete the work that WE began, at the day of Christ. Tell me how this view makes sense.
I really enjoy this conversation, Vince. I can tell that you have studied the scriptures, and desire to base your views on them. Have a nice weekend.
Daniel.
You said
Read Eph 2…very slowly
is this kind of like speakling loudly to those who don’t speak English?
Just found that to be funny and probably insulting to Vince…
Seth,
Not at all. By suggesting that he read this passage very slowly, I was mearly asking him to soak it in, meditate on it, and study it. That was the farthest thing from my mind, but upon re-reading my comment, I can see how it could come across that way. I was not trying to insult or degrade him in any way, but thank you for the caution. I do have an ever plaguing tendency to be less gracious and more harsh than I should be. He doesn’t speak English?? On the contrary, if I did not know better, I would have said that he was American. He also has a loyalty to God’s word that is quite admirable.
Hello All. I enjoyed the exchanges posted here, a testament to the fact that God IS real. Though my input below sadly has nothing to do with the posted topic, I just want to share what I think about all this based on what God has made me go through recently in my life.
First of all, His saving work in me was in no way my own doing. I was drawn to the Lord through a series of circumstances that ultimately led to me believing in Jesus Christ as YAHWEH and Lord & Savior. After that, I lost everything that I cherished — a comfortable life, my old group of friends and acquaintances, a sinful relationship. I suddenly had to conserve a can of sardines for two meals, while days before I was used to spending left and right for almost anything that I wanted. However, during those “times of poverty”, God made me rich with His revelations about Him through the Scriptures. I wanted to know EVERYTHING about God, something that I never even desired before.
It’s amazing because I grew up in a Catholic school run by Benedictine monks. We had religion classes, but we never delved into the Bible. It was always about catechism, CCCC, magisterium, etc. Though we were required to bring Bibles to class, we only used it to look for the verses as answers to seatworks. During that time, I NEVER had the slightest hint of curiosity to even read about Jesus, whose crucified image I always saw in the school chapel.
So I can not claim that it was I who decided to know more about God. Rather, the Holy Spirit. Psalm 37:2, “Delight yourself in the LORD, and he will give you the desires of your heart.” It is the LORD who will give my heart’s desires. Before, I always asked for what I wanted, but now I always humbly ask for what God, my LORD (owner) wants for me.
Romans 10:17 “Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.” Growing up in a Catholic background, I always “heard” the gospel every Sunday. But faith was never there. I placed my confidence in the system, that as long as I do this and that, I’m OK with God. But now, every opportunity given me of taken by me to listen to the Word of God, my faith is being renewed. I can never work up my own faith, for it will only be akin to building a house on a foundation of sand.
The LORD God Almighty bless us!
*Philippians 1:29
“For it has been “granted” to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake.” (ESV)
Acts 13:48
“And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were “appointed” to eternal life “believed”" (ESV)
Believing was granted
Those who believed were appointed – they were appointed, thus they believed.*
In His Grip
Alexander
I didn’t take offense to the reading slowly…actually I am a slow reader. But, if the suggestion is that reading slowly would change the meaning of the text – Houston, we have a problem!!!
Let me reiterate that the “that” in Eph. 2:8, is neuter in gender, while faith is feminine. So no matter how you turn it the “that” is not looking back to the neuter.
Trying to ask me if I am trying to say that “faith” is a work is really failing to study the text. Let’s say that faith is a gift of God…still that cannot be said from Eph. 2:8. So anyone saying that is “adding” to the text. And it doesn’t get any better the slower one reads it.
I’d like to make a note here. And I have to be honest – I kind of baited some of you to see what would happen. I am not a Calvinist – I think you figured that out, so I wanted to compare something. After all, who is Calvin? I read in my bible to keep your eyes on Calvin? No, no, no!!! Jesus.
In a previous article/discussion the issue was evangelism was addressed, and note how few the entries/responses were. But when one discusses Calvinism – wow – look at the number.
Do you know what that tells me? That it is a lot easier and safer to talk religion and share the Gospel.
But if you a true Calvinist – you don’t have to.
And here you go again….
oops…error. Meant to say at the end of para. two, “the ‘That’ is not looking back to ‘faith’. They are of different gender, and those of you who know a little greek, or spanish, or italian, know that the genders would have to match.
Thanks.
Vince,
The word “that” in Ephesians 2:8 is indeed neuter, and “faith” is indeed feminine. However, “Grace” is also feminine, as is “salvation.” Therefore, “that” must refer to one of these three at least, and maybe more than one, or all three in conjunction. Also, taking this verse in the context of “we were DEAD in sins when Christ made us spiritually alive (quickened us)” it sure seems likely that “that” refers to faith.
Romans 9:10-24 explains Pauls view on this subject. You might want to read this passage.
Daniel,
please engage your brain. If the “that” would be referring to one of those things, it would be femenine…if it was referring to more than one it STILL would be femenine. The diference would be the number – from singular to plural – NOT the gender.
-Vince
Now, I know that there are many of you out there that know that I am correct in what I am saying to Daniel regarding Eph. 2:8. But you have opted to stay quiet. Perhaps, it is because you know it is true, but are unwilling to admit it because it would not fit your Calvinism.
Gotcha!!
Vince,
“that” is plural not singular, according to Adam Clark and Charles Wesley.
Daniel,
Well, it they say that they got it wrong or you looked at the wrong place. If it were plural it would be reflected in the translation. It would read “and these.” Take a look at http://www.Buleletterbible.com, or any other place with a decent concordance and you will see that it is neuter singular nominative.
See Dan, you are fighting the Scriptures because they don’t fit your theology. Repent.
Vince,
I am not the one saying that “that” is plural, I was pointing out that some well-known men who held to YOUR view said that it was plural. That said, how does the fact that it is singular rule out the possibility of referring to “faith”? If it cannot refer to “faith” then how could it refer to “salvation” since they are grammatically equal? I am not the one fighting scripture here, Vince. You are the one trying to eliminate the possibility of faith being a gift, but I am not arguing that salvation is not a gift. You should read Paul’s view on this subject in Romans 9:10-24, if you really want to interpret scripture with scripture.
Dan,
We are going in circles. Let me put it plainly one more time:
That = singular neuter
Faith = singular feminine
Grace = singular feminine
Thus “that” if referring only to faith or faith and grace should be feminine. Grammatically it is impossible for “that” to refer to either faith or grace becuase it is a different gender.
Why is it in the neuter if referring to salvation when salvation is feminine as in Rom. 10:10?
Answer: Because salvation is the implied subject – it is the issue at hand, but the word ’salvation’ is not stated. If Paul would have used “that” in the feminine and singular form it would have created confussion as to what he was referring: faith? grace? salvation? If he wanted to refer to all three of them he would have used the plural feminine form. But he didn’t, he used the neuter singular. The reason is because the issue at hand is not grace, is not faith, it is salvation, yet it is implied as clearly seen by the grammar and context. This is textually, grammatically, and syntactilly correct.
Suggesting that “that” could refer to faith is obsurd. It doesn’t fit grammatically, syntactilly, or textually. It is a forced reading to accomodate a certain theological position.
In addition, note that the word “gift” is also in the neuter. The “that” and “gift” are the same item. If “gift” was in the feminine that one could make a point that it is referring to faith. But it is in the neuter, just as “that” is. The reference, as Romans 6:23 makes it clear, is that the “gift of God is eternal life,” salvation. By the way, I have not found a reference that points out unequivocally that grace and/or faith are gifts. But I am open.
I have read the passage in Romans that you mentioned. Did you notice verse 22, “What if.” This states that God could, in His right to do so, save whoever He wishes. But it doesn’t say that He did. All it says that IF God wanted He has the right to do it. So it describes that God has the right to do that, if we so desired. But it doesn’t state that He did so.
In addition, the balace to Romans 9 is Romans 10. But a good calvinist will always look to 9 and ignore 10.
Correction: “if He so desired,” rather than “if we so desired.”
Vince,
Verse 18 says, “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.” This has been my point all along. God will have mercy on whomever He wants to, and will harden whomever He wants to. “So then it is not of him that WILLETH, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy (vs. 16).” This verse, very clearly, shows us Paul’s view. IT IS NOT OF HIM THAT WILLETH! The “what if” in vs. 22 is not saying that this is not what hapened, but is giving a possible reason for it. Actually the word “what” is a CONJUNCTION or continuation of the previous verse which says, “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”
Chapter 10 does not conflict with this (Paul’s) view.
In Ephesians 2:8 “that” is a pronoun that literally means “this thing” and therefore MUST refer to one of the NOUNS in the verse (either grace or faith). A verb (Ex. are saved) cannot have an antecedent.
It is not in my power to convince you of this doctrine, because only the Holy Spirit can do that. It is not of him that willeth, Vince.
Ephesians 3:7 and 4:7 tell us that grace is a gift.
The simplicity of the gospel seems to be missing from the article. Instead of explaining what “faith, belief, trust” is to the child, there is the emphasis on, “You better be good!” A focus on a person’s behavior will never bring assurance, a focus on Christ, his work, and the free gift of salvation will bring assurance.
Anything we offer in “exchange” for God’s pardon and promise of eternal life keeps it from being a gift.
Sorry, the last sentence of my third paragraph should say, “A verb (Ex. are saved) cannot be an antecedent.”
Daniel,
1. Since you opted to camp on Rom. 9:18, you arrived at the wrong conclussion for the rest of the text clearly states that God has the right to do what you stated, but it never says He did.
2. Concerning Eph. 2:8, it is obvious your mind is made up, grammar, syntax, and context don’t seem to mean anything to you. This is a matter of YOUR pride and choice. A neuter article doesn’t look back on a feminine noun. You opted to do harm to the Word just so you can support your point.
3. Note that I never said, as you are trying to imply, that it looks back on “are saved.” You did to me the same thing you are doing to the scriptures – misrepresentation. The “that” refers to the implied issue – salvation.
Daniel, let me encourage you with Paul’s words to Timothy, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.” 2 Tim. 2:15
The issue is not winning or loosing an argument or to support one’s position. We need to go where Scripture takes us. Is election real? Yes, the Bible teaches so. But it is just as true that the Bible teaches that there is a human responsibility involved. How these two work together, I don’t know. However, I know I cannot deny one in favor of the other for doing so is getting half a truth and become unbalanced in one’s theology. Even worse, it is taking away from Scripture and denying God’s sovereignty over His word.
Vince,
How can you say that Romans 9 is not what happened? Vs. 10-12 says, “And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.” This is the way it happened, Vince. “It was said unto her” not “it could have been said unto her.”
You can avoid any scripture you like by simply denying that it is true. Paul says that this is the way it happened not that this is the way it could have happened. What if I were to say that the seven day creation could have happened but that evolution was really what happened? Where would you be as a Christian if you looked at all of scripture the way you look at this passage?
I was not trying to imply that you said that “that” looks back on “are saved.” I was saying that “that” being a pronoun, it requires an antecedent. I realize that a pronoun must agree with its antecedent but I was saying that it must have a noun that it replaces. If you look at this verse in context, (Christ quickened us when we were dead in sins) and (God hath before ordained that we should walk in them), it is clear that God’s quickening is a gift because it is done even when we are dead in sins. Even if not stated in this verse, faith, being the result of quickening, is a gift.
You said, “Since you opted to camp on Rom. 9:18, you arrived at the wrong conclussion for the rest of the text clearly states that God has the right to do what you stated, but it never says He did.” Read the passage again. It absolutely is what happened. Verses 21 and 22 are not saying that this could have happened, they are asking a question to those who question this view, in order to answer them.
Oops… I meant six day creation.
Daniel & Vince,
Although this comment roll has found its way into a cavernous conversation that would better be submitted under some of the other blogs, I must help you both in a small but important correction.
ArmEnian is a race of people. ArmInian is the proper name for the teaching and beliefs of Jacob Hermann, better known as Arminius (I am sure that you knew this). It is a common mistake to mispell or even mispronounce. But, for the many committed Christian brothers and sisters in Christ who have come out of the very Arminian based Armenian Orthodox church, the distinction is very important.
Having said that, my mother-in-law is an Armenian immigrant who loves the Lord. And we have actually used this same little topic as a tool and opportunity for conversation with our own 25% Armenian children who we are praying for and committed to “explaining” the gospel to on a daily basis.
Greg,
Saw your post WAYYYY up there from November 09. Hope maybe youre still checking this thread to see if anyone answers.
From my own personal experience I have found that what works best for my family is just systematically covering entire books of the Bible a little each night over the years. This is the same method I follow in my preaching. I guess it is just really expository family devotionals.
Like you, we tried lots of devotionals and outlines even crafts, illustrations and games when the kids were younger but found none of those really accomplished what we wanted to get out of it for our family and, interestingly, our kids just liked simply getting together, praying, reading and talking better. For us, consistency has been the key to what I would call “success” more than curriculum. Though I dont mean to say that I don’t think there is tangible power in going “all Bible.” Anyway, that’s my 2 cents. Hope things are going great in your family devotions.