Clarifying Calvinism (Conclusion)
January 21st, 2009
(By Phil Johnson)
Part VIII: To sum up. . .
We’ve been taking note of five important truths implied in the eight words of 1 John 4:19 (“We love Him because He first loved us”). I alliterated the five implications of that text I highlighted for you, but if you simply give them slightly different names, they spell TULIP:
* The perverseness of our fallen state—that’s the doctrine of Total Depravity.
* The priority of God’s electing choice—that is the doctrine of Unconditional Election
* The particularity of His saving work—that, as we saw, entails the doctrine that is often called Limited Atonement.
* The power of His loving deliverance—that, once more, is the doctrine of Irresistible Grace.
* The perfection of His redemptive plan—that is nothing other than the doctrine of Perseverance.
You might be one of those people who doesn’t want to be referred to as a Calvinist or an Arminian. But the fact is, if you are a Christian at all, you do already affirm the fundamental principle in every one of those truths. You already know in your heart of hearts that you weren’t born again because you were morally superior to your unbelieving neighbors. You were worthy of God’s wrath just like them (Eph. 2:1 3). According to Ephesians 2:4-6, it was God who quickened you and showed you a special mercy—and that is why you are a believer. You already know that in your heart. You don’t really believe you summoned faith and came to Christ in your own power and by your own unaided free will. You don’t actually believe you are morally superior to people who don’t believe. You therefore must see, somewhere in your soul, that God has given you special grace that He has not necessarily shown everyone.
You also believe God is absolutely sovereign over all things. I know you do, because you lean on the promise of Romans 8:28. And that promise would mean nothing if God were not in control of every detail of everything that happens. If He is not in control of all things, how could He work all things together for good?
Furthermore, you pray for the lost, which means in your heart, you believe God is sovereign over their salvation. If you didn’t really believe He was sovereign in saving sinners, you’d quit praying for the lost and start doing everything you could to buttonhole people into the kingdom by hook or by crook, instead. But you know that would be folly. And you pray about other things, too, don’t you? You pray that God will change this person’s heart, or alter the circumstances of that problem. That’s pure Calvinism. When we go to God in prayer, we’re expressing faith in His sovereignty over the circumstances of our lives.
You even believe God operates sovereignly in the administration of all His providence. You say things like, “If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that” (James 4:15)—because in your heart you believe that God works all things after the counsel of His own will (Eph. 1:11), and nothing happens apart from His will.
Nothing is more biblical than these doctrines that are commonly labeled Calvinism. In a way, it is a shame they have been given an extrabiblical name, because these truths are the very essence of what Scripture teaches. The very gist of Calvinism is nowhere more clearly stated than in the simple words of our verse: “We love Him, because He first loved us.”
Thank you, Phil, for that superb and detailed clarification. It really is an eye-opener. I agree with you that the term “Calvinism” is a bit unfortunate, since these are doctrines that must essentially be held by all those who profess Christ.
Let us pray that the Word of God will be taught and received by God’s people so as these great doctrines are understood to the edification of all. In the end, any doctrine that does not give God ALL the glory should be at least viewed with caution and, perhaps, suspicion.
Can I be so bold as to ask for a series on clarification of Dispensationalism and Coventant Theology next?
James 4:6
“But He gives more grace. Therefore He says: “ God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble.””
Jeremiah 24:7
“Then I WILL GIVE THEM A HEART TO KNOW Me, that I am the LORD (YAHWEH); and they SHALL BE My people, and I WILL BE their God, for THEY SHALL RETURN to Me with their whole heart.”
Ezekiel 36:25-27
“Then I WILL SPRINKLE clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I WILL CLEANSE YOU from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will GIVE YOU A NEW HEART and PUT A NEW SPIRIT WITHIN YOU; I WILL TAKE the heart of stone OUT of your flesh and GIVE YOU a heart of flesh. I WILL PUT My Spirit WITHIN YOU and CAUSE YOU [MAKE YOU] to walk in My statutes, and YOU WILL keep My judgments and do them.”
2 Corinthians 4:6
“For IT IS the God WHO COMMANDED light to shine out of darkness, who has SHONE IN OUR HEARTS TO GIVE the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”
Ephesians 2:8-10
“For by grace you have been saved THROUGH FAITH, and THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES; it is THE GIFT of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God PREPARED BEFOREHAND that we should walk in them.”
Acts 2:38
“Then Peter said to them, “REPENT, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the REMISSION OF SINS; and you SHALL RECEIVE THE GIFT OF the Holy Spirit.”
Romans 6:23
“For the wages of sin is death, but THE GIFT of God is ETERNAL LIFE in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Romans 8:30
“Moreover whom He PREDESTINED [Note that foreknew is set as a seperate doctrine to PREDESTINATION in the previous verse], THESES He also CALLED [This is Particular Redemeption]; WHOM He CALLED, THESE He also JUSTIFIED; and whom He justified, THESE He also glorified.”
Ephesians 1:5
“…HAVING PREDESTINED us TO ADOPTION as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, ACCORDING TO the good pleasure OF His [YAHWEH's] WILL…”
Ephesians 1:11
“In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, BEING PREDESTINED ACCORDING TO the PURPOSE OF Him who works all things ACCORDING TO counsel of His {YAHWEH’s] WILL…”
John 1:13
“…WHO WERE BORN, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, BUT OF GOD.”
Colossians 1:12-14
“…giving thanks to the Father WHO HAS QUALIFIED US to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light. He HAS DELIVERED us from the power of darkness and CONVEYED US INTO the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.”
John 3:18-20
““He who believes in Him is not condemned; but HE WHO DOES NOT BELIEV IS CONDEMNED ALREADY, BECAUSE he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and MEN LOVED DARKNESS RATHER THAN LIGHT, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.”
1 Corinthians 2:4-16
“And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, BUT IN DEMONSTRATION OF the Spirit AND OF power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men BUT IN THE POWER OF God.
However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet NOT THE WISDOM OF THIS AGE, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. But WE SPEAK THE WISDOM OF GOD IN A MYSTERY, the HIDDEN WISDOM which God ORDAINED BEFORE THE AGES for OUR [The PREDESDTINED & FOREKNOWN] glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
But as it is written:
“ Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
NOR HAVE ENTERED INTO THE HEART OF MAN
The things which God has prepared for THOSE WHO LOVE Him.” [ Isaiah 64:4 ]
But God HAS REVEALED them TO US THROUGH His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so NO ONE KNOWS THE THINGS OF God EXCEPT THE Spirit of God. Now we HAVE RECEIVED, not the spirit of the world, but the [GIFT OF the] Spirit who is from God, THAT WE MIGHT KNOW the things that have been FREELY GIVEN TO US BY God [YAHWEH].
These things we also speak, NOT IN WORDS which MAN’s WISDOM teaches but WHICH THE Holy Spirit TEACHES, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But THE NATURAL MAN DOES NOT RECEIVE the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; NOR CAN HE KNOW THEM, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For “WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND of the LORD THAT HE MAY INSTRUCT [Allow/Choose] Him?”[ Isaiah 40:13 ] But we have the mind of Christ.”
And fearfully we must look at this Prophecy:
Revelation 17:17
“For God has PUT IT INTO THEIR HEARTS to FULFILL His purpose, to be of one mind, and TO GIVE their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled.”
And this judgement on the souls of the people of the Elect nation:
Isaiah 63:17
“O LORD, why have You MADE US STRAY from Your ways, And HARDENED OUR HEART from Your fear? Return for Your servants’ sake, The tribes of Your inheritance.”
Your servant for the Liberty which is from our Deliverer and the Rock of our Salvation Alone, by the gift of the Spirit through the gift of Faith,
W
Sorry to be ornery, but…Come on, at least give up on Limited Atonement. Certainly in an effectual sense it is limited because all are not saved however, this is a classic ‘human argument’. The scripture EXPLICITLY says Christ died even for the lost. How can you deny that? Saying ‘if so, His blood was wasted’ won’t cut it.
Romans 5:18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. (I suppose there’s a paranthetical ‘of the elect’ in there?)
1jo 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
2pe 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.
Come on, would TUIP be that bad?
Not to be contrary, and I apologize for not having read the rest of the series, but I have a question regarding this part of your post:
“Furthermore, you pray for the lost, which means in your heart, you believe God is sovereign over their salvation. If you didn’t really believe He was sovereign in saving sinners, you’d quit praying for the lost and start doing everything you could to buttonhole people into the kingdom by hook or by crook, instead.”
What is the point of praying for the lost if God has already made the decision, before time began, of who would be saved and who would not? It is lost on my why one would waste time praying for something when it will not affect the outcome. Whereas, if one believes that there is some element of human free will in the salvation process, even the slightest amount, it does make sense to pray for them. The prayer is that the Holy Spirit move in them, that God “draw them close,” so that the can choose whether or not accept his grace.
Regarding the comments made on prayer.
Wouldn’t Arminians have more of a reason to be devout in prayer than Calvinists? Though God may not encroach on someone’s free will, He is still certainly sovereign over people’s circumstances. Even in the accounts of Jonah and the apostle Paul, there is no evidence of God wiping away their ability to choose. Instead by changing circumstances and/or showing more of Himself, people were still able to choose him, right?
But as for Calvinists, what incentives exist for prayer? Apart from the biblical commands to pray always, wouldn’t Calvinists be inclined to pray less since God has already chosen who will be saved (or unsaved), apart from our prayers?
Help!
“..wouldn’t Calvinists be inclined to pray less since God has already chosen who will be saved (or unsaved), apart from our prayers?”
No. I don’t. I pray with all my heart that my family would saved, and come to the truth. My heart aches for them at times. And yet i know the Lord has His elect children whom He loved before He created the universe. He was the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world for His sheep. he is the Good Shepherd who shall seek and save each of His beloved lost sheep. Christ’s mercy is given to whom He purposes, and none of us deserve His mercy. In fact He owes me a deserved punishment in hell, away from His presence.
Why would Christ save any of us? Only because He loved us, and foreknew us, and predestined us. But why does Christ love any of us?
I would think most people today think Christ has good reason to love us, all humans in fact, and we are dear to Him, and He can live without us really.
But this is false. He can surely live without rebels who hate Him, and don’t want anything to do with Him. Jesus’ love is beyond all comprehension! His love isn’t like anything we could ever imagine. He loves evil wicked people who hate him, and want to kill Him. But does He have to love them? No.
“How true are the words of Scripture: “They hated Him without a cause.” (John 15:25) How just the remark of an old divine: “Unconverted men would kill God Himself if they could only get at Him.” -JC Ryle
“and He can live without us really”
This is true, but I meant to say people think Christ can’t live without us.
I think it’s funny that William writes longer articles than Phil.
So again, I understand that we as believers have good reason to pray and thank God for the undeserving grace He bestows upon His elect. His love surely is greater than I could ever write or even imagine.
But that doesn’t change the question posed above. Can our prayers ever change God’s general love into particular love for the unsaved? If not, then why pray for the salvation of nonbelievers?
Even if the case were made that we as humans have no way of identifying the elect (or unelected) and so should pray for all in case they were recipients of God’s irresistable grace, they would have been wooed by God’s love regardless of our prayers to begin with, right?
“why pray”
Because Jesus prayed, is one reason. Jesus prayed, “O My Father, if it is possible let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You.”
Jesus knew He was going to die on the cross, be scourged, and spit upon, and all that the father and he had decided before eternity, our Savior knew. Why did He pray this prayer? Why bother?
God is eternal, infinte, and all-knowing. And yet He rejoices when each and every child comes to Him in repentance. he works through us, with our prayers, and our love, which is from his grace, to bring His elect children to reoenatnce and faith, and into His everlasting arms.
It’s possible to know Christ is sovereign in all things, and yet be full of longinf for Him to save the lost. The benefits from thes truths is a peace that passeth all understanding, and 100% pure glory for our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Why do i pray for the lost? because Jesus prayed. And becuase my heart longs to see God save the lost. His will be done, not mine.
James,
That is something I have even thought
I must deny myself from writing so much.
I am by no means a wize person but count myself among the foolish of 1 Corinthians 1 and I am definately among the weak… All this writing is further affecting my health, which is not good for my family…
Seen as brother Phil is an Elder and I am just truly grateful for the mercies of Almighty God to such a great sinner as I have been (I share much with our beloved brother John Newton); I am much less to be given an ear. Yet, I am grateful that Scripture is the Final Authority of YAHWEH, by the conviction of His Spirit of grace and truth. It sure takes the pressure of my failings.
OK, OK, I had better quit!
lol
Humbled by the FEAR of Almighty God, and by His unmerritted love and grace, which I never deserved and which set me at liberty from my bondage to my sins.
W
On Prayer,
Those believers who have been won over by the Doctrines of Grace assert that our God is the God that also delared the MEANS by which He will do His will: That means inlcudes service from a willing and loving heart; which has been inclined to these by His Spirit Alone.
Therefore a “calvinist” prays because it is the will of our Father that we be involved with a willing and loving heart in His declared means of salvation.
Why Do I pray? Because it is the means God has declared and it is His will, that I desire to conform to; because He has put that desire into my heart. Left to my human wisdom; I would not even desire to spend the time in prayer (This would be sin). But as He conforms me to His Son, Whom often prayed to the Father, so I desire to do His will.
Another way to phrase the Question you ask is:
WHY DID JESUS Pray? (Seen as He and the Father are One)
Answer:
Because it is the heart and will of the Father, and to do so is to fulfill all righteousness and the Royal Law of Love. And we know that Jesus came to FULFILL THE LAW in our behalf and to do what we fail to do, so as to give us His imputd Righteousness and to take away our UNRighteousnes.
I believe this makes sense; and I pray that my brothers and sisters will too, according with the Spirit.
Prayerfully yours in the love of Messiah,
W
I was looking forward to more talk about hyper-calvinism, or how that is wrong, but I think I missed it in this series.
I used to go to a Sovereign Grace church and left primarily due to hyper calvinism being believed by certain segments of the church who believed they were following what the pastors taught. And though the pastors did not believe in hyper-calvinism, they couldn’t effectively preach against it (at least in my opinion, nor of the people who thought they were preaching hyper-calvinism).
Someone mentioned in a previous article that calvinists don’t believe in the statement by David M(?) about torturing puppets, and though I haven’t seen it written (haven’t looked for it), a couple of people do basically believe that at that church, though they would say it slightly differently – because such-and-such happened, that means that God wanted/desired it to be that way. So… A lady told me that Because she was in sin for ten years rebelling against God, and then finally turned to him in her thirties, that means that God’s ultimate desire/plan/etc for her was for her to sin for ten years, and He wouldn’t want it any other way, and any attempts by others to bring her out of that sin is going against God’s plan.
There are some good things to be learned from calvinism, as long as you don’t take the concepts to their logical conclusions, ie. hyper-calvinism. (Note, if you are offended by that, note that the exact same wording was used at the beginning of this series regarding things armenians say, as long as they don’t go to the logical conclusions to open-theism, etc.). There isn’t any reason that a non-calvinist has to end up in open-theism or pelagianism, any more than all non-open-theists end up in hyper-calvinism.
eric said “Wouldn’t Arminians have more of a reason to be devout in prayer than Calvinists?”
At one time, I wrestled with that same thought – ‘If the elect are elected, then why bother.’ The problem is that the Arminian camp’s view of salvation (foreknowledge of who will accept the invitation) is also a set, finite, known group (unless one subscribes to Open Theology).
So, the Arminian would also be praying for the salvation of loved ones who may or may not be part of “the foreknown”. At the end of the day, both groups face the same dilemma: they want to pray for the salvation of people who may or may not be part of a set, finite, known group. The HUGE difference in the groups is how one is included in the membership of that group.
We pray for His mercy on the souls of those we love, just like He has shown mercy to us. Not sure if that helps, but it has been on my mind as I have followed this series, and the comments.
John Daley,
Yes, I was referring to hyper-calvinists who teach that when people sin, they are doing God’s will because He has ordained them to do such (some say He even compels them to do it, though he is blameless in doing this)! Do men glorify God by sinning? No, but he glorifies Himself by punishing sin. I differ only in that I deny God is writing some big melodrama/suspense-thriller to amuse Himself (the problem with that is the ‘villains’ are real individuals who will feel real torment for eternity when the curtain falls). Rather I say He (while knowing the end from the beginning) gives the players in this drama artistic license to write their own ending…but according to His unchanging laws. He IS sovereign! That does not mean everything everyone does is His doing as I have proven before from scripture. The notion that man has free will to a) do some earthly dood
b) do a lot of earthly evil
c) reject salvation but not d) accept savation
is, to me, unprovable and contrary.
As Dave Hunt (I know he’s a pariah here) put it, the elaborate fiction of God’s offer of salvation when He ordained evil is as if God’s ‘rescuing’ of man were like someone who starts a fire so he can report it, put it out and be the hero!
Why must we believe that ANY choice on man’s part makes God ’subject’ to man. Not so.
David M. ,
Amen ! God has given us choice and we are the ones who are to be subject to Him. I will say it again : If there is no choice then there are some who are the frozen chosen and no matter how many times they hear the truth , then , if the Augustinian / Calvinistic way is true , then God prevents the lost from ever being saved and the chosen cannot help but believe and obey. Our prayers will do no good when it comes to evangelism because the saved are already on a list. It is then all robotic and no one really can choose to truly love, they are just programmed and cannot help but love because God wil make sure they love. But when there is choice, free will then there is a choice to believe and be baptized. There is a choice to repent . There is a choice to believe. There is also the choice to reject and still love sin and darkness.
Ray B.
Yes indeed. As someone once said “Made willing is an oxymoron!”
Why wouldn’t we pray for everyone? We all told to love all people, so therefore we would only naturally pray for all to go to heaven. We do not know who God has chosen, so it would only make sense that we would petition God for our family members, friends and acquaintances to be saved.
Donsands, I have a question for you, is there still a poster around by the name of Sarah? I have not visited this site in quite some time and I know she used to post here. She was very interesting and had a real grasp of Calvinism.
Liz
Excellent article, Phil!!!
You said: “If He is not in control of all things, how could He work all things together for good? Furthermore, you pray for the lost, which means in your heart, you believe God is sovereign over their salvation.”
I wish all non-Calvinists could understand this. I remember you quoting this many years ago in another article, and I have not been to this site in years. It is just too simple for some to comprehend, I believe.
I agree with you, I wish the name Calvinism did not have to be associated w/ this doctrine. When discussing this on other forums, I have sometimes told people that it is just **Scripture**, and Calvin was just a teacher of Scripture; and whenever I am accused of preaching *doctrines of men*, I always tell them that *justified by faith alone* was always apart of Scripture, too, it just took a good teacher to ferret it out.
In God’s amazing grace,
Liz
“Made willing is an oxymoron!” Indeed, Jesus was not made willing. He wasn’t made of the Holy Spirit and the thing concieved was not Holy. Right?
Let’s see, if someone is not made willing, where does that leave them? Unwilling, or just confused? Was the creation subjected to sin by God? Well, it seems then that the creation was made willing to sin, so what is so difficult about God making Christ the firstfruit and we the firstfruits willing to do good? Or is it the case that Christ was not a real man? Or that he was no different than the first Adam and could have been decieved by the Devil? Or, perhaps he was not made perfected in Holiness? Perhaps he was made with both sin and righteousness in him as fallen Adam and he had to go the Arminian way and choose to be good from that weird Pelagian position of moral neutrality? Or, maybe he was just confused and made a good guess? Or tossed the dice, or like Rick Warren said, gave it sixty days to see if it would work.
Of course on the other hand if he was made willing, if we are made willing then there is assurance that the right choice has been made for us, as any good Father would do for his children: “Choose life.” Of course the only ones who do that are those who are first made alive, but Arminians don’t think they are dead, or blind, or deaf, or crippled, or children in need of a Father, do they?
David M: Certainly in an effectual sense it is limited because all are not saved however, this is a classic ‘human argument’.
This is a terrible way to reason. You admit that “in an effectual sense” (which is only another way of saying “in reality”) it is limited. Christ’s payment for the sin of every single person in the entire world demands universalism. You acknowledge this, but dismiss it because it’s a human argument. It is most certainly not a human argument. It’s reading the texts, putting them together, considering the mind of God as He wrote them, and by careful exegesis and by the fruit of the ministry of the Holy Spirit, coming to a sound conclusion. In other words, it’s doing theology. Nobody should feel as if they’re being carnal if they don’t shut their brains off when they come to the Biblical text.
The scripture EXPLICITLY says Christ died even for the lost. How can you deny that?
Calvinists don’t deny that in some way Christ’s death brought benefits to all men. So in that sense we would all agree that Christ died for the lost. However, what we do deny, and what Scripture denies, is that He effectively paid for the sins of every single human being in His death on the cross. Limited atonement. Particular redemption. Not: Limited death. I think this is borne out by 1Tim 4:10, which says God is the savior of all men, especially of believers.
That means, as Spurgeon put it, Christ bought some good things for all men, and all good things for some men.
[You quote Romans 5:18] (I suppose there’s a paranthetical ‘of the elect’ in there?)
I mean, quoting that does nothing, because the very next verse uses the term “many,” instead of “all.” If you’re going to argue like that, then they cancel out each other. When you read Scripture that way, you have a contradiction in consecutive verses.
And besides, if “all men” in Rom 5:18 means every single human being who ever lived, then you simply cannot deny universalism: “even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.”
1jo 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
“The whole world” simply refers to “people throughout the whole world.” It cannot mean every single individual who ever lived. When read in light of the rest of the Biblical witness, this is unmistakable.
- John 10:11, 15 – Jesus says He lays down His life for the sheep. He doesn’t lay down His life for the goats too, and then the sheep are the only ones who cash in on it.
- John 17:9, 20 – Jesus prays for the believers, and not the world.
- Acts 20:28 – He bought the church with His own blood, not everyone inside and outside of the church.
- Ephesians 5:25 – Christ gave Himself up for the church, as she is His bride.
2pe 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.
Again, we must read this verse in light of the whole Bible. A consistent, literal, grammatical-historical hermeneutic would not allow us to read this verse as if it meant that Christ purchased the salvation of false teachers. If you’ll allow me, I want to reproduce a quote from Phil Johnson about this verse.
Now, this verse poses no problem if you understand two things. First, the word ‘Lord’ in the phrase ‘the Lord that bought them’ is the Greek word despotes. Which speaks of sovereign Master and Lord. It’s strong emphasis on the strength of God’s sovereignty and Lordship. If you understand this as a reference to Christ it could simply refer to what Philippians 2:8-10 teaches that Christ’s death obtained for Christ a position of absolute Lordship over all. And so these false teachers who were part of the field Christ purchased in order to obtain the hidden treasure of the Church were denying the Lord that bought them. That’s one interpretation of the verse.
However, this Greek word despotes is almost never used in the New Testament to speak of Christ. It usually is an expression that applies to the Father. When it speaks of Christ as Lord usually the Greek text uses the word kurios. Now if these false teachers were Jewish false teachers, as it appears they were, than this might even be a reference to an Old Testament passage. Peter may have been paraphrasing Deuteronomy 32:5-6, which says this, “They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of His children, they are a perverse and crooked generation. Do you thus requite the Lord O foolish people and unwise? Is He not thy Father that hath bought thee?” And in that verse, that Old Testament verse, “thy Father that hath bought thee” plainly refers to the nation’s temporal deliverance from Egypt. And so Peter may have simply meant that these false teachers were guilty of denying the God that had redeemed them from the nation of Egypt.
On the other hand, here’s a third possible interpretation. He may have been making the point simply that although these false teachers had identified with the people of God, claimed to trust Christ, their preaching was a denial of the God they claimed to have been redeemed by. So there are three possible Calvinistic interpretations of that verse, there are others. In any case, nothing in this verse permits us to conclude that Peter believed an atonement had been made equally for everyone in the world. This verse proves nothing against the Calvinistic doctrine of particular redemption.
Jdantzlerw: What is the point of praying for the lost if God has already made the decision, before time began, of who would be saved and who would not? It is lost on my why one would waste time praying for something when it will not affect the outcome.
JD (and Eric, too), the answer is that God ordains the ends (who will be saved and who will not), but He also ordains the means (prayer / preaching of the Word). The same way He ordains salvation for the elect and damnation for the lost, He ordains that those events come to pass through the means of the prayers of His people.
The same is true for the actual conversion of sinners. Their salvation was ordained from eternity past, but their conversion was effected (applied in time) by the preaching of the Word of God (Rom 10:17; 1Pet 1:23-25). God ordains that salvation should be brought to people. But how does He ordain that it actually be applied to them? How does He accomplish it in time and space? Are there people just sitting around who never heard of Christ before and then ::ZAP:: God sovereignly saves them? Certainly not. He accomplishes salvation in time and space by the preaching of His Word and the prayers of His people.
So, again, to summarize, the answer to your questions is that God not only ordains the ends, but also the means.
Whereas, if one believes that there is some element of human free will in the salvation process, even the slightest amount, it does make sense to pray for them. The prayer is that the Holy Spirit move in them, that God “draw them close,” so that they can choose whether or not accept his grace.
If you pray to God to do anything, you implicitly affirm the teaching of Calvinism. That was one of Phil’s points in the post, so I won’t repeat it.
The end of your statement there: “so that they can choose whether or not to accept His grace,” doesn’t exist in reality. God’s drawing them means that they’ve been regenerated, given a new heart and a new spirit, eyes to see and ears to hear. No one, seeing God as He is with the eyes God gives when He “draws” us, sees such glory, and then chooses sin.
David M: Why must we believe that ANY choice on man’s part makes God ’subject’ to man.
Because by definition only one being can be sovereign. One possibility is that God chooses to “limit His sovereignty,” which is a nonsense statement. “Limiting one’s sovereignty” means sovereignly deciding to not be sovereign. It’s impossible. God would then not be unchangeable. And, frankly, He would no longer be God, because what it means to be God is to be absolutely sovereign. That’s God. God. Lord. Master. Ruler.
So anyway, that’s one possibility. And if that’s the case, then man would be sovereign. God would be “limiting His sovereignty” to make each individual sovereign over themselves. It makes us little gods over our lives, which is why it appeals to the deceitful human heart. At the heart of it lies the idolatry of self-deification.
The other possibility, is the Biblical teaching that God is sovereign through and through. He is absolutely sovereign, and by definition cannot change in degrees of sovereignty.
Close italics.
Ray B,
(Disclaimer: Ray and I have interacted previously. My severe tone with him comes not from personal ire, nor would I respond to Arminians this way. But Ray is not an Arminian. He is a confessed Pelagian, who has denied the orthodox doctrine of original sin. So please don’t take offense to my severity with him, unless of course you believe the same things he does.)
Still at it, eh? I hesitate to cast more pearls before you after last year’s maddening exchange, but while I’m in a prolific mood, I’ll give it a shot.
God prevents the lost from ever being saved and the chosen cannot help but believe and obey. Our prayers will do no good when it comes to evangelism because the saved are already on a list. It is then all robotic…
See my above comment to JD and Eric for a refutation of this underdeveloped and immature thought.
…and no one really can choose to truly love…
That is absolutely correct. No one can choose to truly love, because we’re all by nature spiritually dead, children of wrath. I know you don’t believe that, Pelagian that you are, but you have to deal with Ephesians 2. The heart is desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9). How will that heart all of a sudden choose to truly love?
But when there is choice, free will then there is a choice to believe and be baptized. There is a choice to repent. There is a choice to believe.
And you can hear in these comments your grasping at reasons to commend yourself to God. “I chose. I exercised my free will and chose to believe. I chose to be baptized. I chose to repent. See Jesus?! You commanded! And I obeyed! That’s why you should let me into heaven!” That’s lawkeeping. That’s seeking to be under law. You commend your obedience as ground for acceptance with Christ in justification. That is not the Christian Gospel.
But at the same time, Calvinists don’t deny that people have to choose to put their faith in Christ alone, and utterly rely upon Him for their righteousness. There is a choice. One must exercise their will.
But the point is that our will is in bondage to sin. Every human being after the garden was born spiritually dead, except for One. That means our will is no longer by nature free to choose good and evil. By nature, it is bound to choose sin. The only way we can choose good is if our will is changed. That change is regeneration. It is given sovereignly by God, because He decides He’ll be gracious.
So there is a choice we must make to be saved. There is a choice we do make. But that choice is impossible for a human being to make until they have been begotten again by the living and abiding Word of God.
I like your other possibility, Mike.
What it means to be sovereign is that God is not controlled by any outside forces, no one influences God or can give God directives, He does all He does for the good pleasure of His will.
We see in Exodus 33:19 that God describes His sovereign nature by His **freedom** to act as He so chooses.
Exd 33:19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.
If God were not free to act as He so chooses then something outside of God would be in control. I am more than happy to let God be the one making all the choices, or, we are left w/ the possibility of only TWO sinister forces, the devil or depraved man (who is dead spiritually), deciding our destinies. Those are our only choices, God, satan, or depraved man. I go w/ God every time.
an extra note on 1 john 2:2:
1jo 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.
was john writing primarily to jewish christians?
gal2:9James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.
so paul went to the gentiles and john was among those who was primarily concerned for jews. was Jesus the propitiation for the sins of believing gentiles (‘the whole world’) who would be grafted into the true israel or an ineffectual propitiation for unbelievers as well? i think john addressed this in his gospel:
john11:51He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one.
it’s a virtual parallel to 1 john 2:2 and hopefully more clear for those further removed from the historical/cultural setting of the writers. Jesus died not just for jews but also for gentiles – that was the culturally relevant point at the time – but still specifically for the “children of God.” you can also see this in Jesus’ High Priestly prayer in john17 when He refused to intercede for “world” in john 17:9 but only for believers – both current (v9) and future (v20).
Mike ,
You have freely chosen to label me a Pelagian. I consider myself a Christian.
It is not lawkeeping or merit to obey the truth. Romans6 :17.
Obedience comes from faith . Romans 1 : 5.
Faith comes from hearing the word. Romans 10 : 17.
I agree with everything but struggle to understand limited atonement…here is a resource from EPM.org that deals with 1 John 2:2 and other verses that explicity teach Christ died for all…
However, because Scripture is my authority, I find myself unable to get around what seems to be the clear meaning of 1 John 2:2 and 1 Timothy 2:6 and Isaiah 53:6 (I could also throw in John 1:29, John 3:16, and Hebrews 2:9). These passages seem to be sweeping in their inclusion of all men under the work of Christ. If it came down to just one passage, maybe I’d think it didn’t mean what it appeared to, but there are too many passages to explain away, and some of them are too clear.
Furthermore, 2 Peter 2:1 speaks of false teachers who bring swift destruction on themselves, and describes them as “denying the sovereign Lord who bought them.” Either Christ died for all men, including those who aren’t elect, or the false teachers who bring destruction on themselves are elect. I just don’t know how else to interpret this passage.
Whenever I hear these passages interpreted by those who advocate limited atonement, I have the distinct sense that rather than accepting what the passages are saying, they are trying to make them say something else which is foreign to the intent of the author and the natural understanding of the words and contexts. The passages that say Christ died for his sheep and his bride do not nullify this, for they don’t say he only died for his sheep and his bride. (Logically, it may make no sense to us for him to die for goats, and for those who won’t become his bride, but again, my logic is not the point. Scripture teaches many things that do not fit together with the western airtight consistency we try to demand of them.)
Whether we like it or not, there seem to be two components in salvation, first Christ’s provision of the gift and second our acceptance of the gift. Regardless of our profound failure to understand how those work, and what we may believe about the extent of free will or how He empowers us to choose salvation, Scripture itself does not demand that Christ’s death to offer us a gift automatically saves us, only that it offers us salvation that we may or may not accept. “Whosoever will may come”—well, if Christ didn’t die for him, can he come or not? (Of course, I believe that due to depravity and election and grace, we cannot accept it on our own, but only through a drawing, convicting, supernatural work of the Spirit.)
In my mind, the belief that Christ died for all, even for those who do not accept him, is not Arminianism, but a moderate viewpoint that is still distinctively Calvinistic. This is what I mean when I say I’m a four pointer. If someone says “then you’re really a closet Arminian, but you just won’t admit it” I disagree, but the bottom line is, my goal is not to be a Calvinist nor is it to avoid ever being accused of being an Arminian. My goal is to be biblical. It’s just that my understanding for the most part—but not entirely—lines up with Calvinism far more than Arminianism. That R. C. Sproul and other “5 points or no points” logicians would not be happy with my conclusion on limited atonement is not of primary concern to me. Dr. Sproul says, on a logical basis but in my opinion not a biblical one, that to disbelieve in limited atonement is to be a universalist, a Pelagian, etc.
In Grace Unknown, Sproul’s defense of the 5 points, most of which I agree with, he admits this about 1 John 2:2: “On the surface this text seems to demolish limited atonement, saying explicitly that Christ is the propitiation of the sins for the ‘whole world.’ The whole world is set in contrast with ‘our.’ We must ask, what does ‘our’ mean here and what does ‘whole world’ mean here?”
I am not so sure the meaning of “our” and “whole world” is really so debatable. I ask myself, if John wanted to affirm that Christ died for the whole world, including those who would be saved and unsaved, what more would I expect him to say to convince me than he says in this passage? After hearing Dr. Sproul’s rationale I still believe that the passage actually says exactly what it appears to say “on the surface.” Sometimes our attempts to get beneath the surface, to depart from the obvious meaning, are motivated by trying to squeeze Scripture into the mold of our minds, rather than our minds into the mold of Scripture.
Even though he gets in one last shot about those “semi-Pelagians” who believe this passage says what it actually appears to say, I’m willing to be labeled if that is the result of sticking with what the text. (Interestingly Dr. Sproul says nothing about Isaiah 53:6 or 1 Tim 2:6 or 2 Pet. 2:1 or other passages that also seem to clearly teach that Christ died for all.)
In John MacArthur’s study Bible, commenting on 1 John 2:2 he says, “Most of the world will be eternally condemned to hell to pay for their own sins, so they could not have been paid for by Christ.” However, he doesn’t cite a single passage to back up this argument. It seems to be based purely on logic. (But on the day of atonement didn’t the high priest offer sacrifice for the sins of all the people, including sinners who did not end up repenting?) Likewise, Dr. MacArthur says nothing to persuade me that 2 Pet. 2:1 doesn’t mean what it appears to.
Wayne Grudem, whose systematic theology I deeply appreciate and with whom I usually agree, says of 2 Peter 2:1’s “denying the sovereign Lord who bought them”:
“the text means not that Christ had redeemed these false prophets, but simply that they were rebellious Jewish people (or church attenders in the same position as the rebellious Jews) who were rightly owned by God because they had been brought out of the land of Egypt.” But I just don’t see that in the text or the context. If someone did not already believe in limited atonement, I don’t see how they could conclude that this text wasn’t saying Christ died for these false teachers he is said to have “bought.” It seems to me to say that though they are obviously not going to heaven, Christ died for them.
One theologian says, “If the doctrine of Particular Redemption is denied, salvation then rests ultimately upon the work of the man, and not upon the work of Christ. If Christ did the same work for men who perish in hell as He did for men who are brought to heaven, salvation then must rest upon a second merit and not upon the merit of Christ.” I follow the logic—I just don’t see the Scriptural evidence for it. And I am not going to reject what Scripture appears to teach on the basis that it could lead me to believe something else that is unscriptural. No, I will choose not to believe that other thing—whether it is works-righteousness or universalism or anything else—on the basis of what Scripture says about that thing.
I understand the logic of 5 point theologians. Indeed if I had to base it all on logic and ignore those pesky “Christ died for all” passages, I would reach their same conclusion. But neither their logic nor mine should be my authority. Whenever we reduce our theology to what we can readily grasp we exalt ourselves and lower God. And, frankly, for some people I think a lot of it is men-pleasing—we want to be popular with those in our theological circles who insist that if we believe one thing then we must believe another. (Who wants to be excluded from the club?)
R. C. Sproul spends over five pages defending limited atonement on a logical basis. His case gets noticeably weaker when he cites Scripture (or rather, cites some Scriptures while neglecting others). I believe that most theologians who affirm particular atonement do not base it on the clear indications of Scripture, but deduce it from other teachings of Scripture. If our logic was authoritative, this would work. But if I was depending on logic, I would not believe the doctrine of the trinity, because it does not fit inside of our small minds. Nonetheless, the fact that we can’t figure it out, that it does not stand up to our logic, doesn’t make it any less true. The fact that I can’t figure out how Christ could die for all people if not all people will be saved (and clearly they won’t) may not make sense to me. But I believe it doesn’t have to make sense to me or anyone else in order to be true. It comes down to the fact that, to paraphrase my old Greek professor Ed Goodrick, I’d rather be comfortable with what my Bible actually says and uncomfortable with the logic of my systematic theology than vice-versa.
I’m still open on the matter. I’ve prayed and asked God to open my mind to his Word. I deeply appreciate John Piper (probably my favorite living author), John MacArthur, Wayne Grudem, and R.C. Sproul. But when I’ve read what they’ve said on this subject I’ve been impressed with their logic, but not with the biblical support for that logic.
So is limited atonement misunderstood, hard to understand, ect…Theologians like RC Sproul who claim you have to understand it exactly to be saved are contridicting themselves, because they rightly believe in regeneration which is pre faith…so a complete understanding of limited atonement is not needed for salvation-once regenerated you are secure. We know that Jesus died for our sins and that we in no way earned it or did anything to merit it…Calvin himself stated that Jesus died for all men, common grace was offerned but that his death was only effectual for the elect…but only the elect could respond. Spurgeon stated that in writing as well…so I’m not sure what the major difference is. Maybe it’s because of our depravity that the offer of grace could be extended but only the elect could respond, so Jesus only died for the elect since none can respond apart of God.
That makes total sense, but some verses still seem to state otherwise..I’m at a loss
Ray,
You said, “It is not lawkeeping or merit to obey the truth. Romans6 :17.”
On the surface, your statement would seem correct, however, having discussed with you the issue of baptism, and knowing your belief that baptism causes or is necessary to salvation, I cannot accept your statement as true, in the sense that you intend by it. According to your previous statements, baptism (in particular) is necessary for salvation. The only logical conclusion, then, is that baptism, as a work of man to obtain salvation, is indeed lawkeeping or merit. ALSO, your use of Romans 6:17 is entirely out of context. The verse says, ” But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.” Do you mean to say that this verse teaches that obeying from the heart causes us to no longer be servants of sin? I am unsure why you use this verse to support your point, as it would seem, rather, to contradict it. Please explain.
I’m troubled why RC Sproul would suggest that a man could not be saved unless he understood limited atonement. McAurther wrote an article on his GTY.org website about his congregation and many he believed were true believers but lacked assurance. By this blog’s definition of calvinism, those who lack assurance cannot be saved….obviously McAurther disagree’s with this blog’s assesment..
Isn’t it possible or likely that spiritually maturity would lead to greater understanding and that not all young believers understand everything deemed nessacary the moment they are saved…by nessacary I mean understanding limited atonement or even perservance of the saints..
Daniel ,
The whole chapter Paul is responding to those who would attempt to use grace as a license to sin. Or he was anticipating their questions. As you know at the end of Chapter 5 he was saying grace is greater than our sin. When I use certain verses I am trying to be brief. All I know is that from the heart the Christians at Rome had obeyed the pattern or form of teaching. My point being that any kind of obedience , for salvation or sanctification , is not lawkeeping. Even baptism for remission of sins is not merit or lawkeeping. Obedience comes from faith /belief/trust/ in God , in His word , in the sacrifice of Jesus. I know when I was baptized I was fully trusting in the blood of Jesus to save me. I was reaching out and accepting God’s grace. There was no attempt at merit.
Ray B.: My point being that any kind of obedience , for salvation or sanctification , is not lawkeeping.
That is a destructive an insidious lie. I pray to God that no one reading this considers that to be a valid point on any level. It’s a damnable thing to say.
We Christians can indeed obey Christ’s commands in a way that is properly called lawkeeping, the lawkeeping that is condemned throughout the letter to the Galatians, and elsewhere.
All Ray is doing is doing his best to keep the law, then saying, “Oh well that’s not lawkeeping, that’s not works of merit, that’s just me obeying, the ground upon which I’m saved.” That’s like saying, “No, that’s the sun. That’s just the big burning star at the center of our galaxy that sustains life by the heat and light it gives off.”
I say this not for Ray, but for any readers who might be tempted to believe such insidious lies. It is so insidious because of our nature to be Pharisees, to try to keep the law (even though we can’t), and to present God something for acceptance. That robs Christ of His glory, and it misunderstands God’s righteousness.
For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Mike ,
Let me clarify , I mean the obedience that comes from faith .
Romans 1 : 5 and 16 : 26. Neither verse mentions lawkeeping and merit.
Ray,
You said, “I mean the obedience that comes from faith .”
Correct! In other words, the obedience that results from, follows, and validates faith. In other words, the obedience does not cause faith, or have any effectual weight in obtaining salvation.
You said, “Even baptism for remission of sins is not merit or lawkeeping.”
You are correct. Baptism is not merit or lawkeeping, because (and this is the important part) it does not bring salvation, and is not necessary in order to obtain salvation. Baptism occurs after salvation, and is therefore, as you said, not merit or lawkeeping. If baptism brings the remission of sins, then it absolutely is merit and lawkeeping. By definition (and definitions are not something you can deny) any work of man that is done for the purpose of obtaining salvation is a work of merit and lawkeeping.
Daniel ,
Jesus said : He that believes and is baptized will be saved and he who does not believe will be condemned, Mark 16 : 16 .
He said it was necessary to both believe and to to be baptized. I know , you will say but what about the second part? I agree. If you do not believe you will be condemned. I will go with what the Lord commnaded. He never said it was lawkeeping or merit to believe and be baptized.
Ray,
If you are being baptized for the purpose of obtaining salvation, then He did say that it is lawkeeping and merit.
Eph 2:8,9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Salvation is not obtained by works. Baptism is a work. Therefore, salvation is not obtained by baptism. You may respond to this by saying that baptism is not a work, but I will remind you that a work (merit/lawkeeping) is defined as anything that we do to obtain salvation. If we are baptized for the purpose of obtaining salvation, then we have participated in a works-based effort for salvation. However, the Bible is clear that we cannot obtain salvation through works.
In case this is unclear, here it is in a step-by-step definition form. The only presuppositions here are 1) salvation is not obtained by works, and 2) we are attempting to come to a conclusion that is LOGICAL, and thereby consistent with LOGICAL definitions and methods.
In the context of Eph. 2:8,9, “works” are synonymous with “lawkeeping” and “works of merit.” For these purposes, I will use the term “works of merit” to refer to the “works” of Eph. If something is a work of merit, then it must have these qualities, and if anything has these qualities, then it must be defined as a work of merit: A work of merit is something that we do to obtain salvation; so, to clarify – 1) A work of merit is something that we do. 2) A work of merit is done for the purpose of obtaining salvation. We can determine whether anything is a work of merit by subjecting it to these two qualifications. Obviously baptism is something that we do, so that leaves only the second qualification. If baptism is done for the purpose of obtaining salvation, then it now fulfills the two requirements for being a work of merit, and must necessarily be defined as a work of merit. However, if baptism is done as simply an outward profession, as I believe the scriptures teach, then it does not meet the two requirements for being a work of merit.
So, we now have three possible conclusions: 1) either my two presuppositions are false (which they are not), 2) my previous paragraph does not follow those two presuppositions and is not logical (which it is), or 3) your belief about baptism NECESSARILY requires that baptism is a work of merit, and mine does not. These are the only three possible conclusions, and we can logically rule out the first two. This leaves you with two options: 1) either explain to me how my conclusion is illogical, or 2) admit that your conclusion is illogical. Logic is that simple. If it is determined that your view is illogical, then abandon it. There is nothing shameful about that.
Daniel ,
I am bound to the Lord and His teaching. He was the One who spoke the words of Mark 16 : 16 . Not by human logic. That is where I stand.
I also agree with Paul and what he wrote in Eph. 2 : 8 and 9. I find no conflict with Paul and Jesus.
When anyone is saved by faith then they do something. When anyone confesses their faith in Jesus they do something. The jailer asked what he had to do to be saved and he was told to believe in Jesus. He did something. He was baptized. There are many other examples.. None of the examples are about lawkeeping and merit, they are responses of obedient faith. They were all saved by grace. They were all cleansed by the blood of Jesus.
Ray,
You said, “I am bound to the Lord and His teaching. He was the One who spoke the words of Mark 16 : 16 . Not by human logic. That is where I stand.”
It is your flawed human logic that leads you to interpret those verses the way you do. I do not deny the words of Mark 16:16, however, I think that I have proven logically that those words do not mean what you say they mean. You say that you are bound to the Lord and His teaching, yet you deny the logical (and correct) interpretation in favor of an illogical (and incorrect) one. The words of Mark 16:16 do not mean what you say they mean. You must deny all logical/biblical forms of interpretation to hold to your position. Therefore, I must logically deduce that you are holding to a blind belief that is clearly an errant view. I have attempted to give you a sound interpretation, and you have completely ignored it. I have shown you that the verse in Mark does not, and indeed cannot, teach what you hold that it teaches, but you have, without refuting my statements, chosen to hold to your position anyway. If this is the case, then you have chosen to abandon logic, which would explain the many errant views that you have expressed in the short time I have known you.
You said, “When anyone is saved by faith then they do something. When anyone confesses their faith in Jesus they do something.”
Yes, they do something, but their action is not what saves them. God saves them. If you believe that confessing faith in Jesus is the saving act in itself, then you are sadly mistaken. If confessing faith in Christ (the confession in and of itself) then ninety percent of all Americans would be saved! EVERYONE confesses Jesus Christ! That is not what saves a person. The Holy Spirit’s work alone is what saves a person. In Revelation we see that many people will say Lord Lord, we did all these things IN YOUR NAME. The Bible says in Romans 10:9: “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” On the surface, you would seem correct, however, this verse assumes that the Holy Spirit has already done a work in the heart. Also, it is not the confession in and of itself that brings salvation.
These instances of people doing things and being saved can be confusing if you have chosen to abandon all forms of logical conclusions, but they all have one thing in common: they meet the first qualification of a work of merit, but not the second. That means that they are something that we do, but they have no weight in themselves to bring salvation. They are acts of obedience.
Daniel ,
You have not dealt with Mark 16 : 16 . It says belief and baptism and salvation. You can dany it , but it is there. You can talk about human logic but it is plain what the Lord said.
You said : ” They are acts of obedience.” Exactly . This what I have said all along. Obligating God to save you is lawkeeping , merit ; it is boasting . Obedeince is expressed because of faith.Faith comes from hearing the word.Also I already said that when one obeys , it is being saved by God’s grace. Those who are baptized believe it is being saved by the blood of Jesus.
Ray,
I said, “They are acts of obedience.”
You responded with, “Exactly . This what I have said all along. Obligating God to save you is lawkeeping , merit ; it is boasting . Obedeince is expressed because of faith.Faith comes from hearing the word.”
I cannot believe what I am reading! Ray, acts of obedience have no power to save! Nor are they necessary to salvation. James says, “Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.” (2:18). Here is what this means, Ray. Works (act of obedience) do not bring faith, they simply reveal it. One who has no acts of obedience (baptism) has dead faith as James tells us. However, these acts of obedience do not bring salvation, but rather, they follow salvation. James clearly tells us that the works SHOW that there is faith. But this is the key, the works do not constitute faith. One can have acts of obedience (outwardly) and not be saved, but one cannot be truly saved who does not exhibit the fruit of the Spirit (acts of obedience). However, the fruit of the Spirit (acts of obedience) are the result of sanctification, which follows salvation, and therefore, cannot have any weight in bringing salvation.
I have not dealt with Mark 16:16 because I have already done so, and you have ignored me. However, for your sake, I will do it again. Here is what I believe that Mark 16:16 means.
Gill’s commentary: “and is baptized; faith must precede baptism, as these words of Christ, and Scripture examples show; and such as have it, ought to make a profession of it, and be baptized; and in which way it is that faith discovers itself, and works by love to Christ; namely, in observing his commands,”
I believe that this verse could be rightly rendered this way: He who spiritually sees his need for Christ, and comes to Him as a sinner and commits his life to Him; and is baptized in obedience to the command of Christ, thereby showing that his faith is not dead, and as a public profession of a faith that is accompanied by works; this man will be saved, however, he who does not believe in this way will be condemned.
I think that it is dangerous of you to build a belief upon one verse that does not clearly teach what you claim, and is clearly denied by the rest of scripture. I have stated what I believe that Mark 16:16 means. If you believe that I am wrong, show me where I have erred. If you cannot, then do not continue to go back to you original statement of, “It says belief and baptism and salvation,” or “I am bound to the Lord and His teaching.” Indeed you are bound, but you are behaving as if you are not. When you have been shown that your interpretation is false, you must abandon it. If you do not, then you are firmly planting your feet in mid air.
Please clarify your last two sentences. What do you mean by, “Those who are baptized believe it is being saved by the blood of Jesus”?
Daniel ,
You know from past discussions that I have not let one verse be the only explantion I have given for salvation. Jesus said , not what Gill has written , He that believes and is baptized will be saved. It is both belief and baptism and then salvation. That is what I mean by standing with Jesus. It is what He said. If He had given only that verse , then that is all the Lord needs to give. But there is an abundance of verses about salvation. There are other passages , that I presented in our earlier exchange , that say baptism is essential for salvation and how they all connect to grace. You are calling obedience a work . I am not. I have constantly said that obedience comes from faith.
James also says that ” a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” James 2 : 24. Real , true justifying faith is a faith that works. Not works of merit so as to boast but works that come from trusting in God. Whatever God says we must do is what He commands. That is not trusting in self. Nothing to boast about nothing to obligate God to save us.
Ray,
You said, “He that believes and is baptized will be saved. It is both belief and baptism and then salvation. That is what I mean by standing with Jesus. It is what He said.”
You don’t seem to understand what I am saying. You can say “It is what He said” all you want, but that does not make it so. If you were standing with Jesus, then you would seek to find out what is meant by those words rather than just assuming what they mean. I have given you a clear interpretation, so either refute it, or do not continue in your position. You have yet to show me where my interpretation is flawed. I asked you not to respond by simply restating your belief, but you did so yet again, so I can only conclude that you have no defense.
You said, “Real , true justifying faith is a faith that works. Not works of merit so as to boast but works that come from trusting in God.”
This is exactly what I said. Do you not see the inconsistencies in your statements? I need go no farther than this statement
You said, “a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.”
This is completely wrong. Christianity has always said that salvation is by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone (meaning not accompanied by acts of obedience). Salvation is by faith alone. True faith, however, will be exhibited by obedience. THE OBEDIENCE IS NOT NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. If it was, then it would be a work of merit. James is not saying that works are necessary to procure salvation, he is saying that works are necessary to validate faith, and show that it is real.
You said, “You are calling obedience a work . I am not.”
YES YOU ARE! When you say that we are saved by faith plus works, you are calling obedience a work. If works are necessary for salvation, then that automatically makes obedience a work of merit. This is just the way it is. You must deny logic to disagree with this. The Bible says that salvation is not of works, you say, “a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” We are not saved by faith PLUS anything. You cannot call yourself a Christian when you deny the fundamental belief upon which the whole Christian faith hinges.
You said, “Jesus said , not what Gill has written…”
This is just it, you don’t know what Jesus said. You will not listen to any explanations. You need to consider that there may be another interpretation, and that yours might not be correct. I have given you another interpretation of James and Mark 16:16; you have not responded to those interpretations. Please do so.
Daniel ,
Yes I have and when I quoted James 2 :24 you said I was wrong. I quoted scripture and scripture is not wrong. The traditions of men have brought us the doctrine of faith alone.
I will still say what Jesus said and not men and their interpretations including what he said in Mark 16 : 16 . He said it . It is truth.
Ray B.: The traditions of men have brought us the doctrine of faith alone.
Romans 3:28: For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
Daniel,
Give it up man. Pearls before swine. Everybody who’s still interested can plainly see the error of Ray’s statements. You don’t need to engage it. He’s self-refuting. You’re only giving a further forum to a heretic. Let this thread die, just like the other 200+ comment threads from last year.
Mike,
You are absolutely right.
Ray,
I have been wrong in continuing to discuss this with you. I hope that you will one day see your statements and beliefs for what they really are. I can only pray that our discourse has encouraged you to look to the scriptures, in the future, and attempt to find out what they really mean, because there is so much more there than what you have been willing to see thus far.
In Christ,
Daniel Chaney
Sure faith apart from works of the law . Granted ; no argument. I have never said you could be saved by works of the law.
But if you want to advocate faith alone then James 2: 24 refutes it. You can deny it and dance around it all you want. Jesus told some people that unless they repented they would perish. Other passages speak about repentance and it is all that is mentioned. But salvation is not by repentance alone. Actually except for James 2 : 24 the expression by faith alone is from man not from the scriptures. I Peter 3 : 21 mentions baptism as saving but not baptism alone. We could go on . I am not the heretic. I have given plenty of scriptural truth to back up everything I have written. And I have said all along that salvation is by faith through grace. There is no error in what I have written.