The Gospel Delusion
A review of John MacArthur's The Gospel According To Jesus 20th Anniversary Edition
Part 5: Well, if you have to ask...
Please begin reading this series at Part 1: The Obligatory Introduction
Dr. MacArthur opens the Introduction to The Gospel According To Jesus with the question: “What is the gospel?” (1) and says that this question has driven his ministry for years. I surely do not mean to for The Gospel Delusion series to be used to question the Doctor’s Eternal Salvation but I’m forced to question the integrity of one who is ministering without having what the Gospel is absolutely clear. The Apostle Paul declares that the Gospel is the power of God unto Salvation, and that it is by reception of the Gospel that we are Eternally Saved. Romans 1:16 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 Ephesians 1:13 If one has not received the Gospel then they are not Eternally Saved. I feel compelled to echo the words of the Apostle Paul in Romans 10:14-17
How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent?
As it is written: "HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO PREACH THE GOSPEL OF PEACE, WHO BRING GLAD TIDINGS OF GOOD THINGS!"
But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?"
So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Not to be crass but Dr. MacArthur explains in the opening paragraph of that same page how his question about what the Gospel is has “driven [him] all the years of [his] ministry.” (1) He closes that paragraph with two sentences “A particular theologian’s view of this or that doctrine is only of incidental interest to me. All that really matters is what God’s Word says.” (2). I will be noting the Doctor’s practice of being very interested in what men think and using that to interpret the Word of God in later installments of this series but this instance is most glaring. The man has written several revisions of an incredibly popular book supposing to explain what the Gospel truly is, and the introduction of the book indicates that he hasn’t known what it is for all the years of his ministry. He actually does seem to be more interested in what he (a particular theologian) thinks than what the Word of God says. For the Word of God declares what the Gospel is in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11
Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.Not only can a person not be saved without having received this message, it is absolutely absurd to suppose the Word of God is not clear what the Gospel of Christ is. It is declared by the Apostle Paul who’s decreed-by-God mission was to spread this Gospel to the World. Galatians 1:1 & Galatians 1:11-12
For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.
After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.
Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
I marvel that one could spend “all the years of [his] ministry” (1) searching for what the Gospel is because ministry could not rightly begin until one was first Eternally Saved through reception of that very same Gospel. A previous Pastor of mine once asked of a prospective Youth Pastor “You know you need to be Saved to fill this position right?”
The Doctor also writes “On a disturbing number of fronts, the message being proclaimed today is not the gospel according to Jesus.” (2) While I agree with him that this is true, we do not share agreement with what the error is. The Apostle Paul tells us in the first chapter of Galatians that he received the Gospel he preached directly from Christ. He tells us in 1 Corinthians 15 that this same Gospel is what every Apostle preached and what every Christian believed.
He goes further by stating “…the good news of Christ has given way to the bad news of an insidious easy-believism that makes no moral demands on the lives of sinners. It is not the same message Jesus proclaimed.” (1) The Gospel, the Good News of Jesus Christ makes no demands on anyone as we can clearly read in the Apostle’s words. Truth makes no demand, it is simply something that can be relied on. It is either received or it is not. It is the Good News that the Law of Sin & Death (the soul that sins shall die Ezekiel 18) has been fulfilled in Christ Jesus through His death burial and resurrection. There is no call to submission in the Gospel. It is a statement of fact that one can put their trust in or not. One cannot believe in vain because the message is absolutely true, as explained by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15.
Dr. MacArthur’s dilemma created by his delusional view of the Gospel is clearly stated when he writes “The promise of eternal life without surrender to divine authority feeds the wretchedness of the unregenerate heart. Enthusiastic converts to this new gospel believe their behavior has no relationship to their spiritual status – even if they continue wantonly in the grossest kinds of sin and expressions of human depravity.” (1)
We see in his statements the depths of his misunderstanding of the Gospel of Christ. The Gospel is not God’s power to change lives, it is the power of God unto Salvation. Romans 1:16 It is not the method by which God makes ungodly people godly, it is the method by which God justifies any ungodly person who will put their faith in Him. Romans 4:5
What the Lordship Salvation proponent does is load discipleship into the requirements for Salvation. One must be willing to change their life completely, if not actually accomplish such a lofty task in order to be saved. But nowhere in Scripture do we read that it is the Gospel that either demands, or causes people’s lives to be transformed. In fact we are told over and over again that it is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that works the transformation of our minds and lives. This is stated ever so clearly in Galatians 5:16-18
I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.It’s clear to me that Justification happens by faith, and that Sanctification happens by the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of a Born Again (regenerated) Christian. In fact, the example of the father of our faith Abraham is given many times over and over again in Scripture. It says “Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness.” It does not say that Abraham obeyed God, but that he believed Him. It was his belief/faith/trust that brought about salvation for him, just like it is with us. That Abraham obeyed God was just him working out that faith when he obeyed. James says this was his faith being perfected, not established.
For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
The Doctor continues “It follows logically, then, that someone’s one-time profession of faith is more valid than the evidence of that person’s ongoing lifestyle in determining whether to embrace him or her as a true believer. The character of the visible church reveals the detestable consequence of this theology.” (3) I argue that the Bible doesn’t speak of embracing fellowship with someone based on their profession of faith, or even on the fact of their salvation. We are taught by the Apostles to only have fellowship with orderly Christians. Loading the Gospel up with commitment doesn’t change how people will behave. Declaring that a disorderly person is not truly saved doesn’t help them become orderly.
I argue that loading the Gospel up with Discipleship actually results in a lack of Discipleship in fellowship. Since people are thought to either be saved if they seem holy or not saved if they don’t seem holy – everyone tries to look holy. The Lord Our God said that people like this were merely “whitewashed tombs.” Matthew 23:25-28
Dr. MacArthur talks about the “worst kinds” (4) of sin and names the most emotionally charged titles for sin most of us can think of over and over in his work and asks how people who do these things could be considered Christians. I don’t want the reader of this series to be confused, no Christian should ever commit any sin but it is not the severity of sin that should concern us, but its existence at all. There are no worse sinners, and there is only one payment for sin.
Thankfully if we sin we have an Advocate with the Father in Heaven, Christ Jesus the Righteous. 1 John 2:1 This is both true of the Saint who drives faster than the speed limit and the Saint who murders someone. If we find one of the Brethren caught in sin, they are out of fellowship and so must be restored. That is the purpose of Church discipline. As one is disciplined, or discipled they will be more and more recognizable as being conformed to the image of Christ.
The Gospel saves people, and then the Holy Spirit conforms us to the image of Christ.
References:
All references (unless otherwise stated) are from The Gospel According To Jesus: What is authentic faith? Revised & Expanded Anniversary Edition By John MacArthur Copyright 2008
1. Pg 20
2. Pg 19
3. Pg 20-21
4. Pg 37
111 comments:
I haven't put out an installment in this series in a while. I've got Part 6 almost ready to go.
I'm really amazed at how much there is that needs to be talked about on every page of his book.
Kev
"I argue that loading the Gospel up with Discipleship actually results in a lack of Discipleship in fellowship. Since people are thought to either be saved if they seem holy or not saved if they don’t seem holy – everyone tries to look holy. The Lord Our God said that people like this were merely “whitewashed tombs.” Matthew 23:25-28"
This is a GREAT point Kev! And it is so true. What is worse, they are almost certainly attempting to look holy in the power of the flesh. I have been listening to the speeches from the Resolved 2008 conference. Ironically, MacArthur was trying to point out how bad it is to try to please men. But that is just exactly the motive that overcomes someone in such a position. I don't know how it could be avoided. In times past (when I was much younger) I had been in such circles. I found myself often trying to gain their approval so as to avoid their over zealous criticism. So I would attempt to act like I thought they wanted me to act instead of being myself. I was perpetually "dry" inside and felt like I didn't have any friends because all my relationships were false. Somehow in the end I figured it out and got new friends. But I do think this is an inevitable consequence of this type of thinking. It does destroy both fellowship and discipleship. I have heard of a few people who "left the faith" who were involved in such groups as this. I wonder if they really left the faith or if they just couldn't take the dis ingenuousness anymore. It's a terrible thing to be conditionally accepted like that.
JanH
Hey Jan,
You made quite a statement when you wrote;
I was perpetually "dry" inside
I know exactly what you mean - at least I know what that statement means to me.
The Word says that wellsprings of living water will rise up in us, but the fellowship I had when I was caught up in Lordship Salvation was always dry.
Just like you said I was trying to act and say the things that I knew they wanted to hear - all so I could maintain what I thought was "fellowship."
I wasn't living, I was acting. There was no Living Water flowing through my life because I was living in a doctrine, not the Spirit.
Very well put!
Kev
>>Dr. MacArthur opens the Introduction to The Gospel According To Jesus with the question: “What is the gospel?” (1) and says that this question has driven his ministry for years.
Yes, well, that question appears to drive the entire Free Grace movement.
To say a question drives something is not to say one does not believe he has the answer to that question.
You're opening this post with nit-picking, Kev!
>>The Gospel is not God’s power to change lives, it is the power of God unto Salvation.
It's both. Salvation is salvation from sin. You can't be both saved from sin and a slave to it (Romans 6). If you're saved from sin, you're a new creature, old things are passed away, all things are become new.
>>It is not the method by which God makes ungodly people godly, it is the method by which God justifies any ungodly person who will put their faith in Him.
It's both. He both justifies/forgives/pardons and cleans up/purifies/sanctifies.
What you're denying by divorcing a change of life from reconciliation to God is regeneration. But we must be born again if we would make it into heaven. If we are not born of God, born of the Spirit, we're just stuck in some religious system.
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for the comment. You'd really have to read the book to get the context properly. I could have quoted his entire chapter but that would have violated his copyright.
He spends a lot of time about how study over a number of years led him to find out what the Gospel actually is. That would be fine except that all the while that he didn't know what the Gospel was he was "pastoring" the Church.
Kev
Daniel, I'd ask you to slow down and read the article before you comment on it.
I'm not divorcing anything from anything.
The Gospel doesn't make good people. The Gospel is the good news that Justification is available because Christ paid the full price.
The Holy Spirit transforms people. Not the Gospel.
I'm not divorcing the Spirit's work in the Believer from anything.. I'm just not falsely marrying it to the Gospel.
Kev
Hello Kev:
Sorry I have not been able to visit sooner, but I have been doing 12 hour days at work lately.
You write, “I will be noting the Doctor’s practice of being very interested in what men think and using that to interpret the Word of God in later installments of this series but this instance is most glaring.”
This is a statement that I’d like to reflect on.
I have read JM’s testimony from his youth of how he saw professing Christians that lived more like the unsaved and seemed not to care. This was in his college years.
It was his observation of behavior that appeared inconsistent to what he thought should be the consistent testimony of believers that caused him to reinterpret the Word of God. The result is that he came to develop a Gospel that conditions the gift of eternal life on an upfront commitment to behavior expected of a genuine believer that he did not see among some he knew in his youth.
JM made the mistake of coming to the Bible with a presupposition, forcing into the Scriptures what he desired to be truth and extracted from the Scriptures what has come to be known as Lordship Salvation.
Just a side note now: The full title from the first of the now three editions of The Gospel According to Jesus reveals a great deal. Most don’t pick up on its significance. Here is that title: What Does Jesus Mean When He Says, “Follow Me?” The Gospel According to Jesus.
I cited the title in that way to highlight my point. On the cover JM reveals that he believes the Gospel, the way a lost man is born again, is by following Jesus. LS calls on the lost man for an upfront commitment to self-denial, cross bearing and following in “exchange” for the gift of eternal life. I will sometimes refer to this as “frontloading faith” with a commitment to the kind of behavior that should be the result of a genuine conversion.
BTW, some believe JM’s title, as I showed it above, is the title followed by The Gospel According to Jesus as the actual subtitle. Doesn’t matter really, but JM’s LS is a message of justification because of a lost man’s commitment to following. That is Lordship’s man-centered, works-based message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21).
LM
Kev:
“What the Lordship Salvation proponent does is load discipleship into the requirements for Salvation.”
That gets to the heart of where the error of LS originates. I don’t have the time to go long on that, but you have it exactly right.
In my book is a 27 page chapter dedicated to the matter of LS confusing and blurring the lines of distinction between the doctrines of salvation and discipleship.
If I may, I am going to link you and your guests to an article at my blog that addresses this issue.
Please read, John MacArthur’s Discipleship Gospel.
LM
>>Daniel, I'd ask you to slow down and read the article before you comment on it.
Kev, I did. And then I went & read the other 4 parts of your series.
It has been quite a while (15 yrs ?) since I read MacArthur's book. So on the quotes, I'm just going on what you post.
>>The Holy Spirit transforms people. Not the Gospel.
Technically, it's not the Gospel, the message, that saves either. It's Jesus who saves. The Gospel is the message that He does. (Not to state that the entirety of the Gospel is a single phrase or any such thing. Just differentiating between the message and the One about Whom the message is.)
Regeneration, certainly a work of the Holy Spirit, is not one of those "maybe it will follow eventually" things. Without the Spirit of Christ, without regeneration, one is not on his way to heaven. "Ye must be born again."
Daniel,
It is the Gospel message that you are saved through reception.
1 Cor 15:1-2a Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved
I could quote other Scriptures but do I have to? The Gospel is the power of God unto Salvation for example.
We are not Eternally Saved by the practical sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit in our lives.
We are saved by receiving the Gospel.
The Gospel is very clearly defined by the Apostle in 1 Cor 15:1-11. He isn't giving a "summary" he clearly writes that he that this is a declaration of the Gospel.
Scripture has no errors. This IS the Gospel, not some summary.
Kev
I'm not sure what propels me to read your and Lou’s blog from time to time, but I read the first 4 installments of your critique of MacArthur’s book kev, and it really disheartens me that you continue to misrepresent and come against him when he is proclaiming Biblical truth. I started to go through and write your misunderstandings and errors just for my own benefit, but since we’ve been through it all and I respect your desire that I not make your blog a pulpit, I hope you’ll at least allow me to make a couple of comments on one simple statement you made in your comment section here. I know that I’ve said this many times before, but I’m praying that you, Lou and others will see the truth this time. You said:
We are not Eternally Saved by the practical sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit in our lives.
While I know what you are trying to say here kev, I would ask that you clarify for your readers what you mean by the word “by” in that statement. LS agrees that sanctification cannot take away our sins or impute any righteousness to us, if that’s what you mean by “by”. Only Jesus Christ’s finished work can do that, accessed through faith in Him. But the truth is that we also cannot be Eternally saved without the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit in our lives.
Both you and Lou have stated repeatedly that you agree with the fact that God will disciple/discipline and sanctify us once we come to faith in Christ, conforming us more and more to the image of Christ. Yet you then say that Christians can be Eternally saved apart from this. Now unless you mean that a person professes faith and then instantly falls dead of a heart attack, your reasoning does not make sense Kev. Can you see the inconsistency? Can you see that MacArthur isn’t saying that a person can be reconciled to God by making some commitment to God up front or by sanctification, but that we cannot be eternally saved apart from it, because it is the road that God will take every true believer on during their earthly journey. Oh how I pray that you will see this.
The issue of repentance and faith being an inward turning from sin to Christ is a separate issue, and your misrepresentation here lies in the accusation that LS says that a person has to make a commitment to follow Christ and obey Him in exchange for salvation, rather than this being an inward result of regeneration (not salvation) according to God’s grace. While I know that you don't believe in regeneration prior to faith, I think it's unfair of you to continue implying and teaching that MacArthur says that one must, of their own accord, promise to turn from sin and follow Jesus in order to gain salvation.
Thanks brother. I hope you'll let the comment stay.
bp:
Your suggesting there are misrepresentations are absurd, but we have come to expect that from LS apologists because that is all you have left.
There is no“misrepresentation” of the obvious meanings anyone can read from the documentation we provide from sources like John MacArthur. IMO, the problem you have is that these truths we are documenting are anti-biblical, you understand they are, but you refuse to accept that, therefore, you cry “misrepresentation,” as most LS apologists do.
Calvinism’s regeneration prior to and apart from faith is an extra-biblical presupposition.
The LS message calls for an upfront commitment, what I call front loading faith, with a commitment to follow Christ no matter what the cost, in “exchange” for the gift of eternal life. I have documented this from the writing of Dr. John MacArthur. I used the word “exchange” in quotes, because that is the word JM uses.
Furthermore, I have documented more of this non-saving, works based message from an appendix in JM’s book. Read it for yourself in my article, Summary of Lordship Salvation on a Single Page at my blog.
The proof that JM demands a sinner turn from sin FOR salvation is in print. I have documented it. Read it: Lordship’s “Turn From Sin” FOR Salvation.
For the record, and by way of reiteration from last summer: I am not interested in another round of your circle logic and LS mantra while ignoring the irrefutable evidence of LS’s man-centered message that frustrates grace (Gal. 2:21) we present to you.
LM
Hi Bridget,
Lou linked you to some of the same things I would have, had I replied first.
Before I read Dr. MacArthur's book I thought his movement was about holiness and honoring Christ. Reading his book has left me feeling offended by the misrepresentation he allows his followers to have.
I think you said before that you hadn't read much of his writings. I suggest that you purchase this book and read it critically.
I'm not misrepresenting the man. In fact, I'm being as kind as I possibly can. The picture of my red ink writing all over his pages in Part 1 is typical of every page of his book.
I've only just gotten through the pre-face and into his introduction in this series.
It really is that bad.
Later I'm going to be talking about how he builds strawman arguments to argue against instead of just talking about what the Word of God saying.
Read his book, but do so with a critical eye. You are deeply blinded to criticism against LS but you are far from inept. If you will honestly evaluate his work, I mean really test it. You will come to find it is not true.
Don't test it by if you agree with it. Don't test it by if it sounds holy. Test it by does the Word of God actually say this or not.
Kev
Bridget,
You asked about the "by" statement.
Eternal Salvation is irrevocably established by Justification.
The ungodly sinner is justified gracefully when they put their trust in Christ Jesus.
That is how salvation is established and maintained.
God is the potter, and we are the clay. He does what He chooses with us but that is not how He keeps us saved. We are "kept" saved by the fact that we have been Justified by Grace through Faith in the fact that the Sinless Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose to life again.
Kev
"LS agrees that sanctification cannot take away our sins or impute any righteousness to us, if that’s what you mean by “by”. Only Jesus Christ’s finished work can do that, accessed through faith in Him. But the truth is that we also cannot be Eternally saved without the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit in our lives."
Bridget,
Are you saying here that there is more needed for salvation from hell than trusting Christ's finished work on the cross? If we “cannot be Eternally saved without the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit in our lives,” is Christ's cross work insufficient to save us? The difference between your view and ours is perhaps best explained by saying your view has the person needing to be sanctified in order to be eternally saved while we say the sanctification of the person is the natural result of having been eternally saved. Our view has the person established on a secure foundation. Yours has the person ever seeking to be established because there is no foundation at all but an unavoidable, ever present uncertainty.
JanH
Jan, this is getting to be a habit.
VERY well put.
Kev
Lou, I assure you that the reason I (and I assume other LS proponents) cry “misrepresentation” is not because we understand LS as anti-biblical but refuse to accept it, but because we see your critique having grave misrepresentations. I assume your motives are pure, and I’d encourage you to likewise give your brothers and sisters the benefit of the doubt and not play God in determining motives. BTW, while Calvinism does teach that regeneration occurs prior to faith, it does not teach regeneration “apart” from faith. When regeneration happens, faith always happens.
Jan,
Do you believe that sanctification by the Spirit is something that can be by-passed by a believer? If not, then please see your inconsistency in saying that a person can be eternally saved apart from it. Since it cannot be by-passed, it is Biblically correct to say that a person will not be eternally saved apart from it. This does not in any way minimize or make insufficient Christ’s life, death and resurrection, because it is only through faith in Jesus Christ that we are justified before God. You are comparing apples to oranges. Because I say that one cannot be saved apart from the sanctifying work of the Spirit, you are assuming that I mean that sanctification somehow justifies or aids in making us right before God, and I’m not.
Kev,
I didn’t add this comment because I wanted to go around in circles again. These two points I’ve made are critical for you guys to understand if you are to see the Biblical nature of LS and your misrepresentations of its teachings. I’m not sure why you cannot see your own inconsistencies, but I will continue to pray that you will, and I will seriously consider your advice too.
God bless.
bp:
You wrote, “…while Calvinism does teach that regeneration occurs prior to faith, it does not teach regeneration ‘apart’ from faith. When regeneration happens, faith always happens.”
Yes, in your extra-biblical system, regeneration, i.e. being born again, does “occur PRIOR to (and APART from) faith” in Christ. So, the truth is that “faith always happens” AFTER regeneration, which in reality is AFTER eternal salvation has been infused to the lost man.
Some Calvinists have devised subtle terms and phrases to minimize the obvious unbiblical conclusions of the regeneration before faith teaching. Phrases such as, “regeneration has the casual priority over faith.”
You know as well as I do that Calvinism insists the lost are totally unable to express faith in Christ prior to the act of regeneration. And regeneration is the moment they are justified and born again. So, that is salvation occurs not just PRIOR TO, but is the same as APART FROM FAITH in Christ.
What does the Bible say, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God,” (Eph. 2:8).
Of course Calvinists, to protect their extra-biblical views had to devise some way to negate the obvious meaning of this verse by claiming even faith is a gift. Absurd! Brother George Zeller devastated this teaching in his article, The Danger of Teaching That Faith is the Gift of God.
BTW, Dr. Charlie Bing, in his latest Grace Notes wrote, Is Faith in Jesus Christ a Gift of God? Here is an excerpt, “Another theological problem with the view of faith as a gift of God is that it misunderstands the nature of faith. Faith is not (as they claim) a divine energy, a special power, or an infused dynamic.”
Can’t you be honest enough to acknowledge that in your system of regeneration, which is the moment a lost man is justified and born again, “occurs prior to,” and is one and the same as APART from faith? You can’t because to do so would leave Calvinism’s extra-biblical view of regeneration before faith in ashes.
Can’t you let the Bible say what is says apart from human logic, reasoning and Calvinistic presuppositions forced upon it? Instead, you have to devise a series of catchphrases and the maze of circle logic to avoid the disturbing implications of regeneration (justification) before faith.
This is why I can emphatically state that your view of regeneration prior to faith is EXTRA-biblical.
LM
Bridget,
Your logic is failed on this. That one thing occurs after something else does not mean that the thing that happens after is integral to the thing that happens first.
That a person falls after they step off a cliff does not make falling part of the step.
Eternal Salvation is done by Justification. Abraham BELIEVED (not obeyed, got to be a good person, did his very best, or submitted - but BELIEVED) God and it was accounted as righteousness.
A person is Eternally Saved in a instant, the instant of Justification.
Bridget, as far as misrepresentations you are the one who is guilty of misrepresenting Lordship Salvation. I have read and quote it's greatest apologetic work. You can claim that LS is something different all you like. But as I continue with this series I'm going to be quoting Dr. MacArthur. I'm not making stuff up so I can argue against it... I'm quoting the man.
I've encouraged everyone who reads this series to go buy his book. I'm not making anything up here... I don't want to misrepresent the man. I'm going to great lengths to let his words speak for themselves.
Calvinism teaches that regeneration happens prior to faith. Therefore it happens apart from faith.
You say that one is Born Again in Christ, and THEN they will have faith... that means in order to get the faith one must first be regenerated. That means that you are regenerated without having faith. Faith is a byproduct of it...
But Scripture says that we are saved through faith. Not given faith as a result of salvation.
You are at odds with Scripture, but you've got a whole system of thought (a theology) that you are resting in. It is blinding you.
Don't you get sick of having to be sure of what Calvinism says, and what your brand of LS says? Why can't you just read the Bible and let it speak for it's self?
Kev
Alright Bridget, I think I understand what you are saying, but I find your way of categorizing information unnecessarily confusing and cumbersome. The problem is in your persistent use of future tense regarding eternal salvation. The most natural way of interpreting this statement:
“But the truth is that we also cannot be Eternally saved without the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit in our lives.”
is to understand that salvation is an UNFINISHED work, and is therefore not secure until the end.
It is in your use of the phrase “be Eternally saved” that the problem lies. To hold what I think you are saying, one must necessarily have uncertainty regarding salvation via trust in the cross of Christ. I can't see how it is possible to say one must be sanctified in order to be eternally saved without denying, or at least questioning, that one has been saved already. Consequently, we must see that something else needs to be added in order to secure our salvation. If you would affirm a “have been saved” state, I think I could be satisfied. But you will not do that. You always put “have been saved” at the end of the equation, continually implying that salvation is unfinished and, therefore, whether you mean it or not, uncertain. I see a great difference in saying we cannot be eternally saved without sanctification and saying we will be sanctified because we have been eternally saved.
As to your question, when I say we are sanctified because we have been saved, I am telling you what I feel the relationship between salvation and sanctification is. I am not saying there is no relationship at all. You are also saying there is a relationship between them, but the relationship you outline is very different. I would say inverse. I have sanctification being contingent upon salvation. You have (or at least seem to have) salvation being contingent upon sanctification. For my part, I expect the Holy Spirit to be sanctifying me throughout my sojourn on earth. He has been doing that since I trusted Christ almost 30 years ago. But I expect it BECAUSE I know I HAVE BEEN saved by receiving Jesus' death on my behalf. As for assurance of my salvation, it is to the cross of Christ I look.
You have a strong disdain for discussing salvation as an established condition based on a past event. I don't understand that at all, frankly. I have been thinking of the hymn “My Faith has Found a Resting Place” all day. The first verse and refrain are, “My faith has found a resting place not in device nor creed. I trust the ever living One, His wounds for me shall plead. I need no other argument, I need no other plea. It is enough that Jesus died and that He died for me.” I realize it is only a song and not Scripture, per se, but it eloquently expresses where my hope and rest are. Do you have this rest? I hope you will say yes, but if you will not acknowledge a secure salvation based on a past event, I don't know how you could. I don't see why you are uncomfortable with such a confidence as understanding salvation to be contingent upon the cross and sanctification to be contingent on salvation. Why must you put such confidence away from you by saying you will not be eternally saved without sanctification? How can you but question your salvation with such a view?
JanH
>>But the truth is that we also cannot be Eternally saved without the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit in our lives.
Amen!
Justification and sanctification may be discussed separately, but they do not occur separately.
Kev,
You are right in saying that I believe that regeneration comes before and enables faith. But one thing that I hope that you will see as continuous misrepresentation here is your assertion that this means, according to our system of belief, that faith is a result of salvation and that we don’t believe we are saved through faith, but rather through regeneration. This is not true at all, and I am quite sure that MacArthur would also not agree with this assertion. Regeneration does not = Salvation. Regeneration awakens our dead and sin-enslaved hearts. It gives sight to our blindness so that we see our sinful state rightly and the beauty of Christ rightly and we respond. Regeneration is not salvation, it leads to faith, which brings salvation.
See Kev, when I say that you misrepresent JM, I don’t mean that you are misquoting him, I mean that you are misinterpreting his words, or misinterpreting what he “means” by his words. You are running his words through your grid and coming up with conclusions that I believe he would strongly disagree with.
And while I do want to get this particular book, I have read many of JM's writings and books and since I also adhere to reformed soteriology, I think I have a good grasp of his beliefs.
Lou,
You are right in that Calvinists do believe that the Bible teaches that faith is a gift. But we don’t have to look at Eph 2:8 and try to devise some way to negate the obvious meaning. We agree that we are saved through faith. As I said to kev, regeneration does not equal salvation.
And again, I encourage you brother, to stop judging the motives in the hearts of your brothers and sisters in Christ. I have noticed that many of your replies to people are very uncharitable. When you say in your comments that this or that is why we say what we say, or things like…
“Some Calvinists have devised subtle terms and phrases to minimize the obvious unbiblical conclusions of the regeneration before faith teaching.”
….you give the impression that you know the thoughts and intents of our hearts. That you somehow know that we really see your interpretation as true, but in order to protect our theology, we devise ways to minimize our obvious unbiblical conclusions. Please consider that you may be doing this without knowing.
Jan,
You may not like the way I categorize, but do you believe that Christians can by-pass the sanctification process? This is a question I’d encourage you to ponder. Because regardless of whether or not you think my categorizing confusing or cumbersome, the question is: Is it true? Because if your answer is no, then it is incorrect (unbiblical) to say that people can be eternally saved apart from it.
It is not Biblically or logically incompatible to say that we are justified before God upon faith in Jesus Christ, declared not-guilty and perfectly righteous in His sight forevermore, and to also say that sanctification is necessary in order to be eternally saved. I hope you will consider the question above at length, Sis.
Bridget-
I have already told you my view on the relationship between salvation and sanctification. It is no good trying to get me to answer whether we can by pass sanctification when the very question skirts the terms of salvation. It is like asking whether a baby must first learn to talk and walk before it can be born.
However, for the sake of argument, lets assume your idea is correct. Now you must explain how believing in Christ is in fact sufficient for salvation and sanctification is not a further work that must be done in order for us to be saved.
You have said twice that JUSTIFICATION happens upon belief but have not said SALVATION happens upon belief. I want to know if you believe we are SAVED upon belief. Does JUSTIFICATION equal SALVATION?
If we are not SAVED upon belief, then obviously something else must be done in order for us to be SAVED and faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross is insufficient for SALVATION.
JanH
Hi Bridget,
Thanks for explaining yourself. I hope you know that I am not trying to be rude in any way. I want you to be welcome.
You said Regeneration does not = Salvation. Regeneration awakens our dead and sin-enslaved hearts. It gives sight to our blindness so that we see our sinful state rightly and the beauty of Christ rightly and we respond. Regeneration is not salvation, it leads to faith, which brings salvation.
The word "regeneration" means to re-create, to bring new life, restoration to the pristine state...
If one is Born Again, (regenerated) they are in fact Saved. They are a "new creation" in Christ.
With that I think it's wise for me to step out of Jan's way and ask you to answer those questions asked of you.
Thanks,
Kev
>>Does JUSTIFICATION equal SALVATION?
Jan, is that a trick question? I thought Protestants all agreed (not to leave the Roman Catholics out, I just don't know what they say on it ...) that justification is a part of salvation, but not the entirety of it.
Justification is the pardon the legally erases our sins and is chronologically the beginning of salvation.
Sanctification begins at the time of justification and continues life-long.
Glorification occurs after physical death.
Ryrie taught it that way (used his text in Bible Doctrines class in college) and I'm not aware of a system, Arminian, Calvinist, Lordship, Free-Grace, etc. that teaches otherwise.
Dan-
It's not a trick question. I agree with you that justification and salvation are, for all intents and purposes, synonymous. I am asking it because I am not sure Bridget is seeing them as synonymous. I want to find out if that is so. There seems to be quite a discrepancy in definitions going on and I am hoping for clarity, as far as it goes.
JanH
Bridget, I have just reread my last comment to you and realized it might sound a bit terse. I'm sorry about that. I didn't mean it to. I am trying to be incisive, not terse.
JanH
"Jan, this is getting to be a habit.
VERY well put.
Kev"
Thanks Kev. Far be it from me to discourage good habits. :) Heh.
JanH
(And while I do hope that Bridget will answer my questions I see no need for you to step out of my way. None whatever. :))
Jan, there's a misunderstanding here.
>>I agree with you that justification and salvation are, for all intents and purposes, synonymous.
I said "that justification is a part of salvation, but not the entirety of it."
Justification, then, is a subset of salvation, not a synonym for it
Kev, you said that if one is Born Again, (regenerated) they are in fact Saved. They are a “new creation” in Christ.
2 Cor 5:17 says, “If anyone is in Christ he is a new creation”, not if anyone is regenerated, he is a new creation. Although regeneration is the beginning of that process.
People who are blind and dead in sin cannot respond to the gospel. That’s why Jesus told Nicodemus that unless one is born again, he cannot even “see” the kingdom of God. And later on in the chapter, Jesus says, "the wind (Holy Spirit) blows where it wishes..." (not where man directs it).
Jan,
I’m sure guilty myself of being terse at times. :) Please realize that I am not trying to skirt the terms of salvation, I’m actually trying to address them. What Daniel says is biblical.
Salvation begins upon faith in Christ, but sanctification is also part of salvation, as is glorification and an eternity spent with God.
So in answer to your question, justification equals salvation in the sense that we are forgiven and made completely righteous before God upon faith in Christ. But as I said, sanctification is also necessary, which does not mean that something else must be done in order for us to be saved, (which would render Christ’s work at the cross insufficient), because sanctification isn’t something that we do to earn salvation, it is something God does to us as part of the salvation process. He sanctifies us, He conforms us more and more to the image of Christ. And since He does this to all His children, it is unbiblical to tell people that they can be saved apart from it.
I truly hope you are beginning to see the truth in this. I can understand why you would be hesitant to say it, because on the surface, it seems as though it might be adding to the gospel or saying that Christ’s death was insufficient, but it’s not. Hebrews 10:14 says, “For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” Salvation is a process, so we cannot tell people that they can skip this part of the process and still be eternally saved.
Kev,
In pondering your point further this morning that if one is Born Again, (regenerated) they are in fact Saved. They are a “new creation” in Christ, I'd have to add further that since regeneration is the beginning of becoming a new creature in Christ, I wouldn't disagree that it is at this point that we become new creatures or born again, but I don't think this equals salvation until this newness of heart and healing of blindness sets its eyes upon Christ by faith.
Really, the two are so intricately woven, that while I believe regeneration must come first, faith in Christ and salvation immediately follow.
So when 2 Cor 5:17 says, "If anyone is in Christ he is a new creature.." it is not saying that if anyone is in Christ, he then becomes a new creature, but that if anyone is in Christ HE IS a new creature. It doesn't place regeneration at the point of faith in Christ at all.
Regarding the ordo saludis (sp?) ... enough of this happens at the same time that I'm not sure it's a big deal.
1 John 5:1a Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God:
Is there a time lapse or sequence there? Doesn't seem to be ...
btw, bp (Bridget?), are there some Lordship blogs you're aware of? I don't need to restrict my discussion to one side of this debate.
I agree Daniel, that there is no time lapse between regeneration and faith, at least I don’t see it in Scripture. But the reason that it really does matter to specify the sequence is that one either believes the new birth happens as a result of their own faith or that faith happens as a result of Holy Spirit given new birth. One points to God as the reason, the other points to man as the reason.
Even the verse: Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, doesn’t imply sequence. Again, it doesn’t say that whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is [then] born of God. It states that whoever (present-tense) believes that Jesus is the Christ, he (perfect-tense) is born again.
I hope my comment before last did not confuse the issue more. I was really focusing on being a new creature “in Christ” as relating to salvation.
As far as blogs, do you mean blogs that are devoted to the Lordship topic Daniel? Cuz I don’t know of any like that. I know of some good reformed blogs, but I doubt Kev will let me post them here. :/
Bridget
Dan-
Pardon me. I didn't understand you correctly.
I don't have Chafer's Systematic Theology so I can't say for sure what he wrote. I do have Ryrie's Basic Theology in which he states that there are three tenses of salvation:
“(1) The moment one believed he was saved from the condemnation of sin (Eph. 28, Titus 3:5). (2) That believer is also being saved from the dominion of sin and is being sanctified and preserved (Heb. 7:25). (3) And he will be saved from the very presence of sin in heaven forever (Rom. 5:9-10).” Chapter 48, page 319.
These tenses of salvation have also been expressed as
Justification- salvation from the penalty of sin
Sanctification- salvation from the power of sin
Glorification- salvation from the presence of sin
What I am trying to do here is to keep from getting these tenses mixed up. I am focusing on salvation from the penalty of sin and am concerned that saying one will not be eternally saved (from the penalty of sin) unless one is sanctified is mixing/confusing sanctification and justification. When I asked about whether Bridget meant there was a distinction between salvation and justification that is what I was getting at. George Zeller at the Middletown Bible Church in Connecticut has some useful things to say about the importance of maintaining this distinction:
Is there a danger in not making the proper Biblical distinctions between justification and sanctification?
One of the problems of the Lordship Salvation position is that it sometimes fails to keep justification distinct from sanctification. The commands that pertain to justification are different and distinct from the commands that pertain to sanctification. For example, consider the command in Romans 12:1, "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice." This command pertains to sanctification, not to justification.
The commands which involve discipleship pertain to sanctification and not justification. These would include such things as "Deny self," "Forsake possessions," "Hate father, mother, son, daughter," "Take up thy cross," "Lose your life for Christ’s sake" etc. Confusion results when we make the conditions of discipleship the same as the conditions for justification. WHAT MUST A PERSON DO TO BE SAVED (JUSTIFIED)? WHAT MUST A PERSON DO TO BE A DISCIPLE? Lordship Salvation advocates give the same answer to both of the questions, because they teach that the terms of discipleship are equivalent to the terms of salvation. The Bible gives distinct answers to these questions.
(Note also that he uses the terms “saved” and “justified” as synonyms.)
If you are interested, more here: http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/salvatio/lordsh09.htm
Bridget,
Thank you for being gracious. :) I appreciate that very much.
I have here some quotes from your post with added emphasis on the parts of concern:
“Salvation begins upon faith in Christ...”
“...sanctification isn’t something that we do to earn salvation, it is something God does to us as part of the salvation process.”
“Salvation is a process...”
I can only conclude from these quotes that you do not regard salvation as a finished work. I had made that observation earlier in this thread. I imagine this is why you do not like to refer to salvation as a past or, as I put it, finished/established event. I would agree with you if I understood you to mean that the outworking of an established salvation is progressive. That is certainly true. But the establishing of it, as a positional fact, is already done at the time of believing. In Romans 8:30 we are told that “whom He justified, these He also glorifIED.” Past tense. When we believe, we ARE saved, and glorified as we are placed in Christ, who is glorified at this time. We are regarded as He is regarded, being in Him. Therefore, we ARE glorified even now, positionally. Therefore, we may and indeed must speak of our salvation in established terms. Christ is not “in process.” He is seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven, His work to obtain our salvation being finished. “But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus...” Ephesians 2:4-6. Note all these things are in the past tense and are in/with Him. It is finished. For now we live by faith in these things, groaning, as Paul had just said a few verses earlier. But they are established truths just the same. This is why I have such concern at saying we cannot be saved unless we are sanctified. I say we cannot be sanctified unless we are saved. The actual salvation is not a process. The outworking of that salvation is a process.
JanH
Jan,
3 tenses ... I'd forgotten exactly how Ryrie phrased it, but that brings it all back.
>>What I am trying to do here is to keep from getting these tenses mixed up. I am focusing on salvation from the penalty of sin and am concerned that saying one will not be eternally saved (from the penalty of sin) unless one is sanctified is mixing/confusing sanctification and justification.
That's a typical issue to raise ... but too often those who raise it make sanctification optional.
Salvation minus sanctification is not salvation.
Those who are justified / forgiven / pardoned / reconciled are also sanctified. And that sanctification begins immediately. The believer grows in sanctification ... probably any of us here could tell of things the Lord has pointed out to us within the last 6 months.
And Romans 12:1 is a call to complete consecration / sanctification.
Bridget,
Can one be or ever have been Justified by God and then not "make it" to Heaven?
Also, Gal 2:16 shows us that one believes and then because of that belief they are justified.
John 6:40 says that those who believe are given life - not the other way around.
John 20:31 says that life comes after and due to belief as well
1 Tim 1:16 says that belief comes before life as well.
And of course there is the most famous verse in the Bible John 3:16 that also says that belief comes before life.
Regeneration prior to (and therefore apart from) faith is not Biblical.
Kev
Bridget, my question of can one be justified and not make to heaven is something you need to really consider.
Don't just go back around the barn with well if you're justified then you're going to be sanctified....
God is going to destroy the Earth and create a new one. This IS going to happen. It has been declared by God and so it WILL happen. Just as sure as God is going to sanctify every Christian to the point tht they become the very image of Christ.
However, the new heavens and the new earth are not part of the Gospel. Nor are they part of how a person gets Eternally Saved.
That there will be troubles in this world is not part of the Gospel, though it is absolutely true.
ARe you getting this?
Kev
"For now we live by faith in these things, groaning, as Paul had just said a few verses earlier."
Silly me. I should have said a few verses earlier in Romans 8.
JanH
"That's a typical issue to raise ... but too often those who raise it make sanctification optional."
Dan,
I understand this is an issue you want to discuss but right now I think there are bigger things in front of us. I don't mean to dis you or ignore you, but Kev has asked a great question here that is right on point:
"Can one be or ever have been Justified by God and then not "make it" to Heaven?"
and I'd like now step out of his way.
JanH
No kev. A person cannot be justified and not make it to heaven. I just wish that you and Jan would be able to say that a person cannot be justified, skip sanctification and go onto be eternally saved. You must know that it's true because you've both said that a true christian will be sanctified. But you just won't say it.
Let's say it this way: When a person is justified, he is from that moment eternally saved. BUT, if a person says he has believed, that he is a Christian and does not experience sanctification, he will not be eternally saved. That better? I'm guessing not. :/
As for regeneration occuring before faith, remember that I don't disagree with those Scriptures...I don't disagree that justification happens upon faith in Christ. And I belief that eternal life comes as a result of that justification.
Regeneration and faith are practically instantaneous. The regeneration is the opening of blind eyes. One sees the gospel in truth and they believe! It happens by the power of the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the gospel. It blows where it wishes. There is no eternal life without Jesus, and there is no regeneration without instant faith in Jesus. Regeneration awakens our dead hearts.
Honestly kev, do you really think you made this choice freely? Give the glory to God. I truly believe that you can never know the depth of their own sinfulness and the heights and depth of God's grace until you see the truth of this.
Keve:
Here is a quote from a friend of mine that appears in my book. It is in regard to the extra-biblical presupposition that regeneration (being born again) occurs prior to and apart from faith.
Is it “look and live” or “live and look?” Is it “Look unto Me, and be ye saved” (Is. 45:22) or “Be ye saved, and look unto Me?”
Is it “He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life” (John 6:47, cf. John 3:15, 16, 36; 5:24) or “He who hath everlasting life believeth on Me?”
Did Paul say to the Philippian jailer “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:31) or “Thou shalt be saved, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ?”
(Evangelist John VanGelderen, Faith Versus Fatalism, p. 3.)
Lou, your post simply reveals another misunderstanding that you have of what JM and others are saying. I would never say “be ye saved and look unto me” or “live and look”. When the Holy Spirit awakens us through regeneration (and blind eyes can see), it is always in conjunction with the message of the gospel, and leads immediately to faith.
Regeneration + faith in Christ = eternal life.
Regeneration alone does not = life.
How can one have sins forgiven and eternal life if there was no Christ to die in their place? I hope and pray with all my heart that you will see this continuous misrepresentation and stop what you are doing.
All of those verses Kev gave, do not contradict regeneration first.
Gal 2:16:
"..a person is not justied by works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ." AGREED!
And John 6:40:
"...everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life.." AGREED!
John 20:31:
"..but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." AGREED!
1 Tim 1:16:
..."...those who were to believe in him for eternal life." AGREED!
Bridget did you read those verses? They all show belief BEFORE regeneration.
Regeneration means to be "born again" "new life" "restoration" "revived" check it out.. I'm not making this stuff up....
You said No kev. A person cannot be justified and not make it to heaven.
Good glad we agree on that.
Unfortunately your Calvinistic leanings dictate that you follow up with
Let's say it this way: When a person is justified, he is from that moment eternally saved. BUT, if a person says he has believed, that he is a Christian and does not experience sanctification, he will not be eternally saved. That better? I'm guessing not. :/
There are no "buts" with God.
The problem is you look for Sanctification as proof.
Justification is a gift. And so is Sanctification.
Justification is not contingent on Sanctification. But Sanctification IS contingent on Justification. (at least in the context we are speaking of, I'm not saying "set apart" as children and objects can be... got to be sure to cover all areas or I'll get bitten.... )
If Justification happens, God WILL Sanctify. Why? Because He has promised such.
Sanctification is something you're given, not something you give.
Sanctification is something received, not do.
Sanctification is not always visible.
Sanctification is unto GOD not unto MAN.
Sanctification can ONLY be judged by God - see Paul say that he wouldnt' even judge himself let alone others.
Sanctification is not evidence, it is providence.
The Gospel tell us that Christ died in our place and this properly given perfect sacrifice was acceptable to God and propitiated Him for ALL SIN OF ALL TIME OF ALL THE WORLD. So that He could be Just in justifying the ungodly sinners who place their Faith in Him.
Grace can not be earned. But you say "Nah! that's not what I'm saying!"
Alas.. the Lord God gives UNMERITED FAVOR to those who place their faith in Him. And the Lord God who cannot lie has said that it is evil to even have the apearance of evil. He does not mix works with Grace no matter how much english twisting goes on to describe why putting faith in God would be merritable but complete submission to Him would not....
Sorry ran out of time so the "heat" showed.
Date night.
Kev
Sanctification is something you're given, not something you give.
Sanctification is something received, not do.
Sanctification is not always visible.
Sanctification is unto GOD not unto MAN.
Sanctification can ONLY be judged by God - see Paul say that he wouldnt' even judge himself let alone others.
Sanctification is not evidence, it is providence.
That's a lot of nice theory, Kev.
The biblical fact remains that we are all warned that people who do certain things are going to Hell.
I Corinthians 6:9-10
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Revelation 21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
I could list dozens more passages, but these are representative.
Hi Daniel,
You said That's a lot of nice theory, Kev.
The biblical fact remains that we are all warned that people who do certain things are going to Hell.
I require clarity so that I can converse accurately so I'm going to ask you a couple of questions. Please, just so we can continue effectively, answer each. I'm not laying down some kind of law here.. I just don't want to go in circles.
Are you saying that people get to heaven or go to hell because of what they "do"?
Are you saying that someone who has been Justified but who does those things will go to Hell?
Are you saying that it's not possible for someone who's been Justified (since they are absolutely going to Heaven) to do those things because if they did they'd have to go to Hell?
If you are in fact saying one of the above, do you really think that's biblical?
Kev
OK, I'll try to take these one at a time.
>>Are you saying that people get to heaven or go to hell because of what they "do"?
All (at least all beyond an "age or accountability") are condemned for what they have done -- for sins they, make that we, have committed. Any other explanation of condemnation is empty sophistry.
Besides the passages I quoted above, see Ephesians 5:6, which follows another of Paul's lists of sins.
Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
Do we agree that far? Until we agree regarding the charge and the verdict, discussion of the pardon is not going to help very much.
Daniel,
Now we do not agree. You need to read Genesis.
And further I won't be manipulated by you here. Just answer the questions. Taking things in steps allows you to build a false argument using the time tested approach of proof-texting and false assumption. I'm not interested.
If you'd like to discuss then I'm more than interested in that. Please just answer the questions. I was very open with them.
Kev
If we don't agree on the first half of the first answer, then building on top of that disagreement is not going to enrich either of us.
Your first question actually does have 2 parts: Do people go to hell for what they do? Do people go to heaven for what they do?
I believe the 2 questions have different answers.
I'm not "manipulating" or building a straw man by saying that people go to Hell because of their sin.
I should read Genesis, should I? Presumably you're referring to chapter 3.
Adam and Eve were condemned for what they did. They ate the forbidden fruit. Adam, at least, did so with full knowledge that he was disobeying God. You can argue (validly) that there was unbelief involved in all of that. Satan sowed disbelief ("hath God said?" ... "Ye shall not surely die!"), but the issue for which God condemned them was the disobedience. "Hast thou eaten of the tree ...?"
So I maintain that people are condemned for sin they have committed.
If people don't go to hell for sin, then why do they go to hell? Particularly as I cited Ephesians 5:6?
Daniel,
Just answer the questions.
People go to Hell because they are "condemned already" John 3:18
When where they condemned? Check out my blog post For In That Day Yo Eat Of It You Shall Surely Die
People go to hell because of the Curse.
Not because of disobedience.
For before there was Law death reigned.
Here's another question for you then. If someone were never to sin would they go to Heaven? Ezekiel has some interesting verses on a similar subject.
If a man were to simply obey God all his life would he then go to Heaven?
The Lord Our God answered that question in John 3:18 didn't He? And that makes what you're suggesting invalid.
Kev
All creation was condemned not just Adam and Eve. romans 8
Your blog post, "for in the day ..." was quite interesting. I read that & the AIG article to which you linked a few days ago.
All creation was condemned -- "groaneth ..." -- true. But not all creation was condemned to Hell. As much as your neighbor's dog frustrates you, it's not going to burn in Hell for all eternity.
I'm not contemplating why all of creation is subject to the decay and entropy that leads all of us to physical death.
But to return to the question at hand ...
>>If someone were never to sin would they go to Heaven?
>>If a man were to simply obey God all his life would he then go to Heaven?
Only One Man ever made it to adulthood having lived that way. And Jesus did not deserve to die for the simple reason that He never sinned. You will surely not say that our Lord deserved to be punished!
You say Jesus addressed the issue of someone who never sinned in John 3:18. If I may quote verse 19 as well ...
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Where is the sinless man addressed here? Is he one whose deeds are evil?
Jesus doesn't address the hypothetical sinless man b/c, aside from Himself, there never has been one. He was addressing a very religious sinner by the name of Nicodemus -- and all of the rest of us who like Nicodemus have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
Daniel,
The old earth (the one we are on now) is going to be destroyed.. along with the heavens. Where is Hell? What happens to Hell in Revelation? It gets cast into the Lake of Fire.
God is going to create a New Earth and New Heavens.
The old is cursed and will be destroyed along with the rest of Satan's kingdom.
I never said that Jesus referenced any sinless person. See straw-man argument.
And just to make it clear, because you are using false assumption, the Lord didn't say they were condemned because of their deeds. He said the loved the darkness more than the light because their deeds were evil.
John 3:18-19
What is this condemnation John 12:31
John 15:5-11
Why are you insinuating that I'm saying the Lord would have been condemned???
Do you think your political manipulation is going to gain you ground here? Look, that might work at the pulpits of Calvinism and Lordship Salvation but I expect a higher standard of conversation here.
But now that I've played along with you. If a person were to live a perfectly sinless life would they go to heaven?
And please answer the rest of the questions. I didn't want to set down any rules for this conversation but if you don't answer the questions then our conversation is finished.
No more dancing, transparent discussion or leave.
Thanks,
Kev
Kev, I don't know what it is about my arguments that you can't understand. Disagree with, OK. But you're acting like I'm speaking some foreign language.
>>If a person were to live a perfectly sinless life would they go to heaven?
Since only those who die in infancy and Jesus Himself ever did, that is a pointless question.
But, yes, it is sin that separates us from God. Those who have a perfect record (e.g. stillborn infants) go to heaven.
I know I break ranks with some of the Calvinists here ... but I broke ranks with them on all 5 points of the TULIP a long time ago.
OK, maybe that sentence "Those who have a perfect record go to heaven" still isn't clear. Those who have never committed a single sin go to heaven.
>>Where is Hell?
Are you asking for its GPS coordinates? It's physical location in 3-D space?
God doesn't say, so I don't know. I have heard that it is actually outside of the space-time continuum in which we live. But I don't know for sure. Frankly I'm not interested in going there and finding out.
>>No more dancing, transparent discussion or leave.
You and Lou are the only people with whom I've ever debated who couldn't take an attack on your argument without trying to box me into yes-or-no questions and claiming that I was up to some kind of subterfuge (deception, lack of honesty). Are your arguments that shaky that the best you can do is tell me to leave?
Hi Daniel,
I don't think you really think there is a language barrier. But putting that aside...
You said,
>>If a person were to live a perfectly sinless life would they go to heaven?
Since only those who die in infancy and Jesus Himself ever did, that is a pointless question.
In Ps 51 David models the ultimate in repentance for sin. He recognizes that he was sinful from conception.
Ps 51:5
Children don't go to heaven because they have lived a sinless existence. Have you ever been around a child??
I don't have time to link you but studies show that children learn to lie before they learn to speak.. they are selfish, violent, vengeful...
You said;
OK, maybe that sentence "Those who have a perfect record go to heaven" still isn't clear. Those who have never committed a single sin go to heaven.
So one can earn their way into heaven by being good then. That is what you're saying. Good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell.
Either they are good without Christ (and you alluded to that this wasn't possible - to be transparent) or they become good through Christ.
It's not really Christ's blood that purchases Salvation, but His blood purchases Sanctification and since Sanctified people are good people they go to heaven.
Am I getting this right?
GPS, no.. I don't think there is good reception there.. though I could be wrong.
Under the Earth is the location. Some argue that this actually means in the center off. I'm not really sure but it makes for interesting discussion. It is always "down into" when direction is given.
Then you finished with this;
You and Lou are the only people with whom I've ever debated who couldn't take an attack on your argument without trying to box me into yes-or-no questions and claiming that I was up to some kind of subterfuge (deception, lack of honesty). Are your arguments that shaky that the best you can do is tell me to leave?
Did I ask you any "yes or no" questions? Have I EVER??????
See this is what I mean about the political nature of your arguments. You are offended that I expect you to converse openly... as though I'm avoiding some strong argument.
If you want to not be accused of deception don't use it...
I'm not going to follow proof-texting rabit trails for post after post when you can just make your case instead... Maybe you have fun playing games like that but I truly do not.
If my arguments are "so shakey" then simply expose them using Scripture. Playing political games, like your last paragraph, is not going to convince me.
Now please answer these questions. You MAY answer with a simple yes or no, but you don't have to. You DO have to answer clearly or not bother posting again.
Kev
I'm sorry Daniel it was rude for me not to repost the questions. They are many posts up now.
Here they are
Are you saying that someone who has been Justified but who does those things will go to Hell?
Are you saying that it's not possible for someone who's been Justified (since they are absolutely going to Heaven) to do those things because if they did they'd have to go to Hell?
Kev
Daniel, and All,
To bring the temperature down here a bit. I wish to post the following;
Most people on the net who I have personally observed "debating" are not interested in getting to the TRUTH. They appear to me to be interested in entertainment, pride, notoriety, influence and just being fleshy.
I'm do not want to be interested in any of those things, and actively seek to avoid any interest in them.
As has been proven on MANY occasions if your argument is TRUE I will be convinced. Unfortunately.. I'm sometimes convinced of arguments that are not TRUE.. but that can not last because I continually test things against Scripture.
I will not be offended by an argument from Scripture.
If you want to argue on a personal level, there are several other blogs I'm sure your familiar with that thrive on that sort of thing. Go there and talk about how bad this or that person is if you like... but not here.
Kev
>>They appear to me to be interested in entertainment, pride, notoriety, influence and just being fleshy.
Too true, Kev. I sincerely wish to avoid that as well.
Hi Daniel,
I'm glad you agree. I'm not afraid of "heat" (can you tell?) but I think we can do better.
Thanks for this comment. I won't be online much more tonight so don't be offended if my replies are slow.
Kev
>>He recognizes that he was sinful from conception.
Then the only One we would agree was sinless is our Lord. Which is why arguing over whether someone sinless could go to heaven is of little value -- because there aren't any people like that.
>>So one can earn their way into heaven by being good then.
No. No one can pay for past sins by any amount of future goodness. Only Jesus' blood can pay for past sins.
>>Under the Earth is the location [of Hell].
Perhaps so. God doesn't say explicitly, so I don't know. I'm open to that idea or that it is outside of the 4 dimensions of space + time that we know. Or other reasonable ideas. The fact is that it is a place of eternal torment and ending up there is the worst thing that could ever happen to a person.
>>Are you saying that someone who has been Justified but who does those things will go to Hell?
This is asked as a yes-no, but it can't be answered in that way.
Those who do those things will go to Hell (or the lake of fire, the 2nd death, if you want to distinguish.)
Either someone who does (present tense) those things was never justified, or no longer is.
It says "all liars" ... and I believe it for what it says.
Hi Daniel,
You said;
Then the only One we would agree was sinless is our Lord. Which is why arguing over whether someone sinless could go to heaven is of little value -- because there aren't any people like that.
If one could fly would it be fun?
There is value in speaking about things that are not possible because they often reveal the lacking in a person's framework of understanding.
Even if it were possible for a person to live without sin in this dispensation they would still be sent to Hell and later the Lake of Fire (yes I do make a distinction *smile*) if they never repented to put their faith in the Christ of the Gospel.
No. No one can pay for past sins by any amount of future goodness. Only Jesus' blood can pay for past sins.
Jesus paid for more than just past sins, but all sin. 1 John 2:2
In fact it says that God forgave sins in the past because of His own faith in the Blood of Christ that was coming. That payment is not tied to time. Romans 3
In truth, all of mine and your sins were "future" when Christ made the payment.
You said
Either someone who does (present tense) those things was never justified, or no longer is.
So you believe that Justification can be lost?
That doesn't agree with the Gospel as Paul declared it. 1 Cor 15 the Christians (who Paul declares are saved) were denying the resurrection.
You said It says "all liars" ... and I believe it for what it says.
Yes it says all "liars" not all people who lie. 1 Cor 6 for example. Christians are "Saints" not sinners, but it's clear from every bit of Scripture that saved people sin.
I do not believe Justification can be lost. I believe the very Gospel it's self proclaims Eternal Security, along with all of Paul's writing.
Check this post out Proof-Texting The Gospel for more info on that.
Kev
I see you got onto another subject, so hopefully you can remember your last comment to me kev.
I did read the verses that you posted. But I don’t think you're understanding what I’m saying. None of those passages you brought up talk about regeneration (new birth). Not a single one. They do talk about life through faith in Christ, but as I said, only regeneration + faith = life, so I obviously don’t disagree with them.
You say that regeneration = life. So tell me, is it regeneration alone that gives us life kev, or is it faith + regeneration that gives us life? Faith and regeneration are intricately linked, aren't they? One cannot have eternal life without either one of them, it’s the order that is in question, and none of the verses you gave deal with this order. But John 3:3 does.
Jesus told Nicodemas that a person cannot even “see” his kingdom unless he is born again. Your theology would have that order reversed to say, “A person must see and believe in order to be born again. The cause behind our faith is dealt with in places like John 10: 26, where you again reverse the order. In that passage, Jesus is speaking to the Jews in the temple and explaining to them “why” they don’t believe. He says, “but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock.” Again, you would have it reversed to say, “you are not part of my flock because you do not believe.”
Why do you think all the analogies to Jesus healing people’s blindness in Scripture?
”I am the LORD; I have called you in righteousness; I will take you by the hand and keep you; I will give you as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations, to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness.” - Is 42:6-7
”And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God….For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness’ has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. - 2 Cor 4:4,6
Sinners don’t choose to be born the first time, and sinners don’t choose be born the second time. Regeneration is like the labor pains of a woman that jump-starts the birthing process. Or maybe a more accurate anaology would be the spark of life at conception. Regeneration begins this process of life by opening the eyes of blind people enslaved to sin, and I believe is instantly consummated with faith in Christ.
btw, I did read your interaction with Daniel, and while I'm sure you know that I'm not in alignment with him on many points, I found your frustration with him not answering questions interesting. You said:
There is value in speaking about things that are not possible because they often reveal the lacking in a person's framework of understanding.
It reminded me of a continous question I kept asking you and Jan. And I don't think I've received an answer yet.
Do you believe that sanctification by the Spirit is something that can be by-passed by a believer?
I want to ask that question more distinctly kev.
Do you believe that a person can be justified, skip sanctification and go on to be eternally saved?
Thanks.
Bridget, of your question I direct you to the article you are commenting under.
Quoting from the article It’s clear to me that Justification happens by faith, and that Sanctification happens by the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of a Born Again (regenerated) Christian.
One can neither skip God's work, nor control it.
I'll also direct you to this comment which was directed to you.
Bridget God saves someone by Grace through Faith.
Regeneration happens after faith.
Life is regeneration. That's what the word means....
Life is given by grace in response to faith.
Life is not "regeneration + faith." where did you get that from?
No faith and regeneration are not intrinsically linked. God regenerates those who have faith. They are not one and the same.
No John 3:3 doesn't deal with the order of faith and regeneration. That interpretation is a forcing of Calvinism into Scripture.
All of the verses I linked you to showed faith before life. That is faith before regeneration.
Should we just say "yes it does" "no it doesn't" ???
You said Sinners don’t choose to be born the first time, and sinners don’t choose be born the second time. Regeneration is like the labor pains of a woman that jump-starts the birthing process. Or maybe a more accurate anaology would be the spark of life at conception. Regeneration begins this process of life by opening the eyes of blind people enslaved to sin, and I believe is instantly consummated with faith in Christ.
If this were true then the God Who claims to be unable to lie would in fact actually be a liar because He would be picking those who go to Heaven and those who will perish in the Lake of Fire.
Since He knew all these that were going to Heaven and Destruction then He would also be a liar about why He created the Lake of Fire.
A god who sends "all liars" to the Lake of Fire but who is himself a liar is not worthy of worship, he would be a tyrant. Just would be no title for him. Such a god would make a mockery of words "mercy" and "love."
Kev
Bridget the God I worship has died for the sins of the World and said any who are thirsty (lacking the Living Water required for Eternal Life) let them come and drink
The God I worship says that all who know the truth ought say "come" and any who are thirsty can come drink FREELY.
The God I worship says to preach the Gospel of Christ to every single created being.
The God I worship truly cannot lie, and has had me die in Christ so that it's not me living but Him, and as He lives through me He will preach the Gospel to every creature saying that He has died for "our" sins, and making available Salvation through faith.
the God I worship says that everyone who believes will be saved and those who don't will be condemned.
The God I worship has been propitiated (satisfied) by the Blood of Christ and will not be bribed. Because the Salvation He offers is by UNMERITED FAVOR lest any should boast.
The God I worship, after having paid the full price Himself said "It is finished!"
Which was a legal statement of complete freedom because everything due was fully paid. Τετέλεσται
There is nothing to be added to the "finished" work of Christ on the Cross.
Kev
Kev, all of my comments immediately pass through your theology grid and come out all mixed up. Remember when I said that you don’t misquote JM, but you misrepresent what he says or what he “means” by what he says? That is what you are doing with me.
For example, I never said that faith and regeneration are one and the same, but that one cannot take place without the other. When I say faith + regeneration = life, I mean that new life in Christ cannot happen without both. Just as you would say that God would not regenerate apart from faith, I believe one would not have faith apart from regeneration.
Please take a closer look at this. You keep saying that regeneration = life. Yet you know as well as I do kev that there can be no life apart from faith in the one who gave his life so that we might have life. Yet you still refuse to say that faith is imperative along with regeneration if we are to have life. So here again you are refusing to admit the obvious, just as you refuse to admit that since a person cannot be justified, skip sanctification and go onto eternal life, we cannot tell them they can have eternal life without sanctficiation. You know these two points are true, but you won’t say so. Remember your own words, brother.
There is value in speaking about things that are not possible because they often reveal the lacking in a person's framework of understanding.
Please heed your own advice kev and take a closer look at the these things that are not possible.
Btw, show me one single bible verse that talks specifically about regeneration, and says that it comes after faith.
Hi Bridget, maybe you could try to be clearer? Thanks.
You said For example, I never said that faith and regeneration are one and the same, but that one cannot take place without the other.
I know that's what you said. However, from the Bible since new life happens AFTER faith I say that faith happens without regeneration. That God regenerates those who have faith. I've said this several different ways. I wonder who is misunderstanding who here.
Sorry. I'm not trying to be rude.
You said When I say faith + regeneration = life, I mean that new life in Christ cannot happen without both.
I know that's what you're saying. But "new life in Christ" IS regeneration.
Just as you would say that God would not regenerate apart from faith, I believe one would not have faith apart from regeneration.
You have made this amply clear. It is however in error. Total Inability is an extra-biblical concept.
Please take a closer look at this. You keep saying that regeneration = life. Yet you know as well as I do kev that there can be no life apart from faith in the one who gave his life so that we might have life.
I have tried to be clear, but I have apparently failed.
since faith comes first, then life - as per every single salvation message in the Bible - faith happens and then regeneration.
the exact same relationship as justification has to sanctification.
The first is not dependant on the second, but the second IS dependent on the first.
It's like building a house. The foundation is not Dependant on the roof but the roof surely IS dependent on the foundation. And this is a concept that is used in the Bible.
Kev
Bridget you have asked
Btw, show me one single bible verse that talks specifically about regeneration, and says that it comes after faith.
I already have in two posts, given you several. That you deny what Regeneration is what is stopping you from agreeing. The only reason you deny the definition of Regeneration is because that definition violates your theology.
Do you see an issue with this?
Kev
Hey Bridget,
I haven't read this in AGES but CH Mackintosh was an incredible writer from the 1800's Check out his booklet Regeneration: What Is It?
I'm sure it will be an amazing read for you.
And since he's not arguing with you like I am, it will probably be much more helpful.
I'm going to re-read it again to see if I can tighten up my understanding too.
Kev
Maybe we’re getting under some layers here. You say that regeneration is new life in Christ, but if you were to be more precise kev, wouldn't you say that new life in Christ actually comes from faith acting "in conjunction" with regeneration? I mean, you wouldn’t say that new life can come apart from faith, would you? If not, then in reality you believe that faith works together with regeneration to bring forth new life in Christ.
And here’s the thing: You wrongly presume that since all those verses say that faith is needed to inherit new life, that this faith MUST come before regeneration and work in conjunction with regeneration to bring forth new life in Christ. But the truth is that regeneration comes before faith (and actually enables the faith) and works in conjunction with faith to bring forth new life in Christ.
I pray that this is becoming clearer. Again, I challenge you to find one single verse in the Bible that specifically talks about “regeneration” or “new birth” coming after faith, kev. You won’t find one.
Phil 1:29 says, “For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him (Phil 1:29).
Did you catch that? In order to believe, it must be "granted to us." How is faith granted? By the Holy Spirit tilling up and softening the stone-like hearts of sinners so that the seed of the Word going forth will find soft, pliable soil, take root and bring forth repentance and faith that leads to eternal life. I was blind, but now I see!
I know I've said this before, but when Jesus told his disciples, "You did not choose me, but I chose you", he did not in reality mean to say that they DID choose Him and that's WHY he chose them.
Did you know that Martin Luther considered this doctrine the heart of the Reformation? He said, "If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright."
Oh how I hope and pray you will come to see the truth of this, brother, and that what you are teaching is not God-given free grace at all.
For the glory of God, and for your joy!
Kev, it just occurred to me that this may be THE big sticking point. You said above that regeneration IS new life in Christ.
Would you say that regeneration IS new life in Christ or that regeneration IMPARTS new life in Christ?
Bridget read my last reply. I clearly stated that Faith comes before regeneration. That regeneration is dependent on faith not the other way around. Just like every other like relationship in the universe.
Since I went to great lengths to be clear why would you ask I mean, you wouldn’t say that new life can come apart from faith, would you?
If you're not reading my replies there is hardly any reason for me to continue.
You ask the same question again Again, I challenge you to find one single verse in the Bible that specifically talks about “regeneration” or “new birth” coming after faith, kev. You won’t find one.
So long as I use your definition you're right... but I much prefer to use the definition that the Bible gives.
I'll reply to the rest in another post because this is silly.
Kev
Bridget you said
Phil 1:29 says, “For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him (Phil 1:29).
Did you catch that? In order to believe, it must be "granted to us."
Yes interestingly enough it says "granted" not "given." This is the fulfillment of Isaiah 55
And we read the Jews reaction to all of this in Acts 11:18
God has granted that the Gentiles can repent unto life. Previously that was not His program.
But check out how you twist it.
How is faith granted? By the Holy Spirit tilling up and softening the stone-like hearts of sinners so that the seed of the Word going forth will find soft, pliable soil, take root and bring forth repentance and faith that leads to eternal life. I was blind, but now I see!
Repentance unto life has been granted.
I know I've said this before, but when Jesus told his disciples, "You did not choose me, but I chose you", he did not in reality mean to say that they DID choose Him and that's WHY he chose them.
Huh?
You said Did you know that Martin Luther considered this doctrine the heart of the Reformation? He said, "If any man doth ascribe of salvation, even the very least, to the free will of man, he knoweth nothing of grace, and he hath not learnt Jesus Christ aright."
Wow I guess that means we all better repent and turn our selves unto Lutherism.
Oh wait.. I think the Bible has something to say about this.
Romans 3:4 Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written:“ That You may be justified in Your words,And may overcome when You are judged.”
Oh how I hope and pray you will come to see the truth of this, brother, and that what you are teaching is not God-given free grace at all.
For the glory of God, and for your joy!
Again, it is not my intention to be rude but this over the top piousness is getting old. You are arguing for a theology you're not seeking to produce joy in me or Glory for God.
Kev
Bridget, "joy" comes from assurance. The system of theology you offer offers none.
You're all powerful god who would loose his sovereignty if one were to somehow want to be saved by him.. but he can't actually save anyone unless they perform up to some undefined standard for the rest of their life. And they can't every truly trust that he's actually going to do what he says because they can never truly be sure if they are going to continue to be good enough for the rest of their life.
I know this is rough to read. But truly look at the lack of consistency in the theology you're sitting under.
Kev
You said, “God has granted that the Gentiles can repent unto life. Previously that was not His program.”
If that’s the case, and repentance has been granted unto everyone now, then why does Paul say in 2 Tim 2 that the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome, but patient, and that God ”may perhaps”grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will?
And why does Jesus (in John 6) say “it is the Spirit who gives life...but there are some of you who do not believe...This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father”?
This doesn’t sound like a sure thing in fulfillment of Is 55 at all.
Btw kev, the problem isn’t that God would lose His sovereignty if one were to somehow want to be saved by him, the problem is that you actually believe that you (as every other sinner alive) were following the prince of this world, enslaved to sin and hard of heart, living in the passions of your flesh and then one day, you heard the gospel and decided to believe in Jesus even though Scripture after Scripture says it is not true and that HE awakened you. That HE made you alive even WHILE you were dead. That is the point kev.
Also, for you to say that I can’t ever truly trust that God’s actually going to do what he says because I can’t ever truly be sure if I’m going to be good enough for the rest of my life couldn’t be a more blatant misrepresentation of what I’ve said. And the sad thing is, even after I've explained this time and again, you will probably still continue to go forward in this blog, believing and teaching that JM, Piper and others teach this also, which is really, really sad.
--I deleted my first post and reposted here because of a mess up in explanation.
I’m sorry that I’m being so repetitive kev. But I wish that you would not judge my motives by saying that I’m not seeking to produce joy in you or glory for God. As much as you might think that you have me pegged as arguing for the sake of theology, you cannot see the motives of my heart, and you’re very wrong. I’m sorry I am sounding pious to you though.
Please know that I am reading your replies, and I’m trying to get at the heart of something here but probably not doing a good job of it at all. I realize that you believe faith comes before regeneration and is not dependent on regeneration, but I am trying to show you that new life in Christ most definitely IS dependent on both faith and regeneration.
Please bear with me. I know that you think that this is foolish because you believe regeneration IS new life in Christ. But kev, is the new birth something that God DOES in us or is it something that just IS once faith happens? This distinction needs to be made. Because if the new birth (regeneration) is something that God DOES in us, “resulting” in new life in Christ, then new life in Christ is dependent on both faith in Christ AND regeneration.
The only way your assertion that regeneration IS new life in Christ will work is if you don’t believe that regeneration is something God does in a person with the result being new life in Christ, but instead you believe that new birth just happens and just IS upon faith.
Am I being any clearer? In other words, Man believes, and God regenerates Him, which results in new life in Christ. OR, faith + regeneration = new life in Christ.
Hi Bridget,
I only have a moment to respond so I'll respond to this.
Also, for you to say that I can’t ever truly trust that God’s actually going to do what he says because I can’t ever truly be sure if I’m going to be good enough for the rest of my life couldn’t be a more blatant misrepresentation of what I’ve said. And the sad thing is, even after I've explained this time and again, you will probably still continue to go forward in this blog, believing and teaching that JM, Piper and others teach this also, which is really, really sad.
I've asked you to tell me if you are infact Eternally Saved and you have not been able to answer me.
You say "being saved in the end" is conditional on behavior.
You have not been able to tell me that you are Eternally Saved so I don't think I have misunderstood you.
Kev
>>You say "being saved in the end" is conditional on behavior.
I don't know whether Bridget is saying that or not, Kev. I think she and I disagree on all 5 points of the TULIP.
But that saying you ascribe to her would be consistent with Jesus' teaching:
Matthew 10:22
And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
>>Yes it says all "liars" not all people who lie.
OK, the standard definition of "liar" is a person who tells lies. And the standard definition of a murderer is one who murders. And the standard definition of a bank robber is someone who has robbed a bank.
So ... if those standard definitions don't apply ... then what might be the definition of "liar"?
Hi Bridget,
I hope you realize that I do love you, even though you have a singular ability to frustrate me. Bragging rights?
You said
I realize that you believe faith comes before regeneration and is not dependent on regeneration, but I am trying to show you that new life in Christ most definitely IS dependent on both faith and regeneration.
Well it depends on if we're talking about the life, or the birth. In the context of what we are talking about "salvation" then we're talking about the birth, or new birth into that life. Regeneration is actually that new birth, where that life is "knowing" Jesus Christ which does require faith. You can not deeply experience Him without faith... as faith waxes and wanes so does our experience of Him therefore so does our experience of that New Life.
You asked is the new birth something that God DOES in us or is it something that just IS once faith happens?
I think Scripture is clear that it is something that God does to us after faith happens.
Because if the new birth (regeneration) is something that God DOES in us, “resulting” in new life in Christ, then new life in Christ is dependent on both faith in Christ AND regeneration.
yes our new life in Christ is dependent on both in a quasi-way. It's not dependent on both working together.. but it can only happen after each have happened.
You said but instead you believe that new birth just happens and just IS upon faith.
That's not what I was attempting to communicate to you.
Yes you are being clearer, which is helpful - I hope.
Kev
Daniel, we call someone a liar if they lie but we are actually in error.
A liar, as a title or identity is about who the person is.
A Christian can lie, but can not be a "liar" they have the New Life in them.
A Christian can sin, but is not a sinner.
A sinner is someone who is subject to sin, not someone who sins. Likewise a Liar is someone who is subject to lying, not someone who lies.
Kev
As for that endurance to the end I would suggest you check what the Lord is talking about.
If you still think He's speaking of Eternal Salvation then I suggest you read Hebrews 11 and see how many of those "heroes of faith" didn't endure until the end.
Kev
>>As for that endurance to the end I would suggest you check what the Lord is talking about.
Well, He continues to warn about persecution and tells the disciples "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (verse 28)
Now, I know you distinguish hell from the lake of fire, but isn't "kill[ing] the soul" and "destroy[ing] both soul and body in hell" something that doesn't happen to someone who goes to heaven?
The 12 were being prepared for their first mission and that preparation included preparation for persecution -- and the necessity of standing true up to the point of death. None of them paid that price on that mission nor on the mission of the 70, but over the next few decades all of them did.
Peter notably failed at Christ's trial, but Jesus restored him. And Jesus restores His when they fail and then confess their sins (I John 1:9).
But those are His who end as His -- confessing before men and confessed before the Father (Matthew 10:32).
A Christian can lie, but can not be a "liar" they have the New Life in them.
...
A sinner is someone who is subject to sin, not someone who sins.
Kev, you are going deep into dualism with that statement. Such dualism is not the doctrine of Christ or His apostles.
John confronts dualism very similar to this in his first epistle, the plainest way being chapter 3, verse 7: Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
John ties what a man is to what he does.
Paul also confronts the dualistic idea that one can sin without being subject to / a slave of sin.
Romans 6:16
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
We are the servants of whomever we obey.
You say "being saved in the end" is conditional on behavior.
It’s not conditional upon behavior in the sense that my behavior in any way justifies me or makes me right before God. And it’s not conditional upon behavior in the sense that my obedience (conformity to Christ) is done by the strength of my own will. But it is conditional upon behavior in this sense: The way God saves is through Justification, Sanctification, and Glorification. And since Sanctification is part of the process by which He saves, a growing in holiness, and conformity to Christ in growing measure (behavior change) is not optional.
Since we cannot be justified, skip sanctification and be glorified, we run this race set before us, looking to Jesus, knowing that it is GOD who began this work in us (He granted us repentance and faith in Jesus and justified us at conversion based on what Jesus did on our behalf) and He who began this good work in me WILL bring it to completion. HE is working in me both to will (to actually give me the will to work) AND to work (Phil 2:12). It is by HIS power that I am being conformed to Christ in greater measure.
That’s one of the things that you keep missing kev. Saying that I can’t ever truly be sure if I’m going to be good enough is just so far off the path of what I ever think. I KNOW I’m not ever going to be good enough! And I never wonder if I can trust that God’s going to do what He promised, but just the opposite, I KNOW that He will finish what He started, as He has promised.
He is conforming me more and more into the image of Jesus (sanctification). I AM growing in my hatred of sin and in holiness. Heb 12:14 says that we are to “strive” for peace with all men and for holiness, without which no one will see the kingdom. We know this is not speaking of “positional” holiness by reading the rest of the passage.
But I strive, knowing it is GOD who is doing this in me. He’s doing it because this is how he saves. He justifies upon faith in Jesus, He sanctifies by moving us forward and growing us in conformity to Christ, and eventually glorifies us.
I wish that you could see the irony kev, that for all your continous claims that I am looking to or trusting my behavior in order to finish strong and finally be saved, YOU yourself are trusting that your own decision (something that you think YOU decided to do of your own free will) was the catalyst to your salvation. Who is really trusting that something they do aids in their salvation here?
You have not been able to tell me that you are Eternally Saved so I don't think I have misunderstood you.
I am eternally saved.
I think Scripture is clear that it [regeneration] is something that God does to us after faith happens.
But please show me "where" it’s clear that it is something that God does to us after faith happens, kev. The only proof you’ve given for this belief so far are verses that say that faith is required to have life. And you said since life = regeneration, it couldn’t possibly be saying that regeneration comes first.
But now I think you see that the “act” of regeneration (God “causing” us to be born again) ALSO needs to come before we “ARE regenerated” and actually have this new life. In other words, faith AND the act of regeneration both come before new life in Christ. So those verses don’t prove faith comes first, or contradict that He regenerates first. In fact, they don’t mention the sequence at all.
It’s not conditional upon behavior in the sense that my behavior in any way justifies me or makes me right before God. And it’s not conditional upon behavior in the sense that my obedience (conformity to Christ) is done by the strength of my own will. But it is conditional upon behavior in this sense: The way God saves is through Justification, Sanctification, and Glorification. And since Sanctification is part of the process by which He saves, a growing in holiness, and conformity to Christ in growing measure (behavior change) is not optional.
Amen. Well-said.
Sanctification is not something that God uses to save people...
It is something that He does to saved people.
HUGE difference. Salvation is not dependent on Sanctification.. .
Not interested in circles.
Kev
Kev, are you saying straight out that sanctification is not an essential part of salvation? It's either not a part or is optional?
Daniel if I meant it was "optional" I would have said it was "optional."
One is Eternally Saved the very instant they are Justified.
Just like falling after having stepped off a cliff is not optional, but also not a requirement for the step.....
We've been through this...
Kev
Kev, why do you always insist on talking about salvation in the past tense, and refuse to talk about it in terms of the present or future? Paul does.
“For by grace you have been saved…” – Eph 2:8
“Now I remind you brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received in which you stand and by which you are being saved…” – 1 Cor 15:2
“Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.” – Rom 5:9
It is there, clear as the day. You need to align your theology with the truth of Scripture, brother.
Btw, I’m sorry that I frustrate you so. I’m not meaning to. :/
And I know we've been through this before, but don't you see Paul using the same language as we've been talking about? The fact that we "are being" saved and "will be saved" does not take away from the fact that at the point of justification we "were saved".
Just wanted to be the one to make the 100th post. :) Do I win anything?
And kev, just something to think about: The analogy you used about sanctification not being optional in the same way that falling after stepping off a cliff is not optional, but also not a requirement for the step is not anything I would disagree with because I agree that sanctification is not a requirement for justification. That's different than saying that sanctification is a requirement for salvation (since salvation is a process).
wow over 100 posts - thanks to Bridget. That doesn't happen around here a whole lot.
I've got Part 6 ready to post - I think. And part 7 is being worked on.
Finally I was almost asleep when posting earlier so I'm not entirely sure what I even posted. :)
Kev
Saved, Being Saved, and Will Be Saved
that's just Eternally Saved, being Sanctified and will be Glorified.
1 John 3:2
Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is
That doesn't mean that Eternal Salvation is a process, it's not it's an act of God. But it does mean those who He has saved are those who He's going to be working in.
Kev
Kevin, read 1 Cor 15:2 again. Some translations say “are saved” and some say “are being saved”, but “are saved” here is a present, passive indicative verb, which indicates present tense “are being saved” by God, instead of something that took place in the past. In 1 Cor 1:18, Paul also says, “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” He doesn’t say “to THOSE who are being saved, he includes himself in this “us” and he has already been justified at the point of this writing.
You said:
“Saved, Being Saved, and Will Be Saved that's just Eternally Saved, being Sanctified and will be Glorified.”
Well yeah! But why do you refuse to say it like Paul says it? He says we “are saved”, “are being saved” and “will be saved” in different places throughout the NT, but you refuse to speak of salvation in the way that he does.
I’ve done my best to point out the 2 major ways in which you continue to misrepresent JM (and others) at your blog:
-Saying that he teaches a works-based salvation because he teaches that one must be willing to turn from sin to follow Christ, which is exactly what happens at the point of God’s regenerating grace, which enables dead hearts and blind eyes to be awakened so that they see the truth of their sinfulness and the beauty of Christ and turn to Him and believe. (I have yet to see even one verse from you that shows faith comes before regeneration.)
-Saying that JM’s teachings that Salvation (present-tense and future-tense Salvation) is dependent on Sanctification is unbiblical. I’ve shown you that it is Biblical, and that Paul, himself, uses the exact same language. Logic too demands that you recognize that if a person cannot be justified and skip sanctification and go on to be glorified and eternally saved, then that means they cannot be eternally saved apart from sanctification.
It is in-fact it is you, brother, who teaches that man is able to and must conjure up repentance and faith by the act of his own free will in order to earn salvation. That’s not God’s sovereign free-grace, that’s changing your mind “in exchange” for Salvation, (which Scripture says you are incapable of doing), and redefining the word “grace”.
Kev, please take the time to look at these things closer before you go on refuting JM’s book. Because ultimately I believe you are unknowingly trying to refute God's Word Itself.
I really do care.
Bridget
The Gospel is still being preached. Souls are still being added to this "One Body" that is Christ.
As this series continues you may change your mind about who is misrepresenting Dr. MacArthur.
Kev
There’s no point in me continuing to read your series, kev. Sadly, you have shown here that even in the face of solid Biblical proof of your misunderstandings and misrepresentations of JM AND of Scripture, you not only refuse to admit these misrepresentations, but you also forge on ahead with barely a pause for reflection.
Therefore, it's a waste of my time to read and point out the errors.
Thanks for your interaction Bridget. I hope you will buy Dr. MacArthur's book and read it to see what he's saying for yourself.
I'm only up to about page 22 in my review but I've actually read his book. Before I read it I used to respect his position because I didn't know what it actually was. I thought he was about holiness and honor for the Lord. Reading his book has left be incredibly offended at his loose handling of Scripture.
In coming installments of this series I will show him knowingly misquote Scripture even. I have seldom been so offended and angry at a teacher of Scripture.
Kev
Oh one more thing Bridget, this series isn't a review and rebuttal of what you think Lordship Salvation teaches. It is a review and rebuttal of what Dr. MacArthur writes in his book.
Thanks,
Kev
Kev:
You wrote, "Oh, one more thing Bridget, this series isn't a review and rebuttal of what you think Lordship Salvation teaches. It is a review and rebuttal of what Dr. MacArthur writes in his book."
That is right on target! We are quoting exactly what JM writes in his published works and deal with exactly what he says.
The LS camp will never cease to cry "misrepresentation." Ironically, the Crossless gospel advocates have an even more shrill cry of "misrepresentation" when the reductionist heresy of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin is exposed
The best defense against cries of "misrepresentation" is to quote the source, which we have done all along.
Lou
Hey Lou,
While I value Bridget and her input I do have to learn to be careful to remember what I'm talking about in given thread.
This discussion started to eat up too much effort and I know that as this series progresses much of what is said here will become irrelevant.
I wish I could write a single article and cover everything that I read in his book but it's just so incredibly hard to cover that much in a small place. The risk of doing it the way I am is that people don't see the finished work before they start to read the claims I'm making.
I really am trying to do the most justice I can to his writing. There's absolutely nothing to be gained by arguing against something that isn't in his book. ESPECIALLY since I recommend anyone who's reading this series should go buy it...
Kev
Post a Comment