For those interested in continuing the discussion from the previous post, I’m beginning a new post wherein we can discuss the issue of justification.
I’d like to set forth a definition of the term that I hope we all agree upon so that we can begin from the same launching point.
Justification: In a legal sense, the declaring just or righteous. Used in this forensic sense, it refers to one’s standing before God at any given time. The Bible clearly states that the saved/faithful are declared righteous in God’s sight. In other words, although we are all law breakers, those of who are justified are viewed as though we are law keepers. We possess a righteousness that is not our own but is alien to us and outside of us (Phil. 3:9, Rom. 3:21).
The big question at hand is the security of such justification. Is this declaration of righteousness a divine verdict passed by a Sovereign God on each individual saved person from eternity past and therefore secure by the very fact that it is a declaration by God Himself? Or is this really only a future declaration, secured only by one’s continued observation of doctrinal and moral standards?
Romans 8:29-30 appears to make justification a past, present, and future condition. “…those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.” Justification and glorification are said, by Paul, to be a “done deal”–yet we know that glorification is a future state to be enjoyed by the saved. If we find ourselves “conformed to the likeness of his Son,” then we were predestined to be this way. If we have been called out of sin, then we have been justified. If we have been justified then we have been (although we don’t experience it in this life) GLORIFIED!
I will toss out the London Confession’s treatment of justification as a springboard for discussion:
“Those whom God effectually calls He also freely justifies, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting them as righteous, not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone. They are not justified because God reckons as their righteousness either their faith, their believing, or any other act of evangelical obedience. They are justified wholly and solely because God imputes to them Christ’s righteousness. He imputes to them Christ’s active obedience to the whole law and His passive obedience in death. They receive Christ’s righteousness by faith, and rest on Him. They do not possess or produce this faith themselves, it is the gift of God.
Faith which receives Christ’s righteousness and depends on Him is the sole instrument of justification, yet this faith is not alone in the person justified, but is always accompanied by all the other saving graces. And it is not a dead faith, but works by love.
Christ, by His obedience and death, fully discharged the debt of all those who are justified, and by the sacrifice of himself through the blood of His cross, underwent instead of them the penalty due to them, so making a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God’s justice on their behalf. Yet because He was given by the Father for them, and because His obedience and satisfaction was accepted instead of theirs (and both freely, not because of anything in them), therefore they are justified entirely and solely by free grace, so that both the exact justice and the rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.
From all eternity God decreed to justify all the elect, and Christ, in the fullness of time, died for their sins, and rose again for their justification. Nevertheless, they are not personally justified until the Holy Spirit, in due time, actually applies Christ to them.
God continues to forgive the sins of those who are justified, and although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may because of their sins, fall under God’s fatherly displeasure. In that condition they will not usually have the light of God’s countenance restored to them until they humble themselves, confess their sins, ask for pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.
The justification of believers during the Old Testament period was in all these respects exactly the same as the justification of New Testament believers.”
For an outstanding resource on the subject, I recommend The God Who Justifies by James White
There is a book by Robert Shank entitled “Life In The Son.” Shank deals with the idea of Perseverance of the Saints as he takes every passage of Scripture that deals with the topic, and he goes very in depth of the topic. It is very good reading, and will give a different perspective if you believe in the idea of Perseverance of the Saints. He opposes it in a very biblical way.
Eric Gray
Let’s put some of those books on the table and put forth what you think are good points.
I have attempted to exegete Rom. 8:29-30. I look forward to criticisms and comments.
Sorry I have been missing this discussion – great stuff gentlemen! Let’s all try to keep our replies as short as possible in order to foster people to read and study this subject.
Two Questions:
Question? E.G. Thanks for the book recommendation. Could you give me the quick thesis of the book? In what way specifically does he oppose “Perseverance” of people who follow Christ?
Question? Ken. Do we need to start by everyone affirming or being able to question the idea of a “forensic declaration?” After reading through the previous string, it would seem that there are some who may believe it is not a forensic righteousness but an actual righteousness received through either baptism or obedience. It seems the discussion is hinged on the nature of saving faith and not so much the expression of saving faith.
Robert Shank’s book on Perseverance of the Saints, entitled, “Life In The Son” is a great read. Let me quote to you the back cover of the book, and I think that will give a good idea of the book’s thesis.
“Are the proof passages used to support eternal security possibly misconstrued? Dr. Shank convincingly argues that the question confronting us is not, Is the believer secure? but rather, What does it mean to be a believer? If apostasy is an actual peril for every Christian, the Scriptural warning passages must be frankly accepted rather than interpreted into irrelevance or circumvented by theological hypothesis.”
Dr. Shank plunges into the Greek language in many of the bible passages reguarding this topic. He gives tenses and verb uses in order to dissect each passage. Look it up and give it a try. I promise you will not be disappointed.
To reply to whoever’s question about the “unregeneration,” do not think that I am ducking out of the question. I have never been asked that one, and so therefore, I am taking some time to research the topic a little better. I will get back with you shortly. Thanks
Eric Gray
Eric G.,
Would you consider Robert Shank, a Baptist pastor, to be a Christian?
How would/might Robert Shank answer the question, “When did God learn that I would trust Jesus to be my savior?”
Ken,
We have been around the barn about this one, and every time you have asked me this question, my response has been the same. God has foreknowledge, unlike we do. God knew before the foundation of the world who would choose to follow Christ and who would not. How else am I supposed to answer this question?
In regards to your first question, I do not know much about Robert Shank. I know he is a good writer. I do not know what his beliefs about the Bible are. I know what the Bible says one has to do to become a Christian, but ultimately, it is not up to me to decide whether or not he is a Christian; it is God’s decision.
Eric Gray
Eric,
Forgive me but I think this is the first time you’ve directly answered that question. But I could be wrong. Your answer encourages me since it means we are not in opposition on the sovereignty of God. Now since you say that God’s knowledge of your decisions is eternal then why do you have a problem with me saying that God’s decree to choose some for salvation is eternal? What’s the difference?
If we recognize that God’s knowledge is eternal then we MUST also recognize that God isn’t waiting around for us to obey in order to put us in contact with the saving power of the blood of Jesus.
I know that from my human standpoint, I don’t have eternal knowledge. Therefore, I don’t presume upon God. I, like you, encourage every believer to obey the commands of Christ and to remain faithful. This is how one has assurance that he is really saved.
I’m also encouraged that you aren’t “broad-brushing” all Baptists as “non-Christians” like some of your brethren are apt to do. This is good.
If I may interrupt without causing a derailing that leaves Mr. Rutherford’s questions unanswered: E.G., It seems that if God has foreknowledge, and used such knowledge to look into the future and see whether or not we would believe in him, and by that fact then decreed his election, then he is looking for our personal faith to merit his salvation. Therefore, we are no longer able to say that salvation is by grace through faith; but rather it is owed to us through works (the work of faith). Am I not understanding you correctly?
How do you interpret Ephesisans 2:8?
Also, just for clarification: Believing that the passages that warn us against a very real apostasy does not mean that we cannot believe in the doctrine of perseverance of the saints. I think most will say that apostasy is real and the biblical warnings against it are very real. I missed the previous posts, so I am not sure how this distinction became accepted.
For those of you just joining this discussion, it is a continuation from the Perseverance of the Saints vs. Once Saved Always Saved post and its 53 comments.
Thanks Eric, that helps me. I don’t think the point I raised about apostasy and perseverance of the saints not being mutually exclusive doctrines was raised previously- but I just scanned the 56 comments.
Ken,
Here is the problem I have with your idea that it is “God’s decree to choose some for salvation.” In Acts 10:34-35, Peter says, “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.” If God chose some for salvation and the rest are lost and there is nothing they can do because they haven’t been “chosen,” then the Bible has contradicted itself and God is a liar. But we know that it is impossible for God to lie (Heb. 6:18). So let me try to understand your view. You stated, “If we recognize that God’s knowledge is eternal then we MUST also recognize that God isn’t waiting around for us to obey in order to put us in contact with the saving power of the blood of Jesus.” Are you stating that if we are one of the “chosen,” then we have been cleansed even before we ever believe? Please explain.
For a moment, let me try to explain Ephesians 2:8. In the original Greek, the verse would best be translated as, “For it is by grace that you have been saved through the continuation of your faith.” The verb “save” is a perfect passive participle, which Machen, author of “New Testament Greek for Beginners,” refers to as “a present state resultant upon an act which took place in the past.” The fact that the word “save” is a participle shows that it is a continuation (process) of the act, “which would show in its primary case, justification, in its continuing case, sanctification, and in the end, glorification” (Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek). “Paul is using this construction to emphasize that the effects of salvation are an ongoing part of a believer’s life” (Mounce).
That is how I would explain Ephesians 2:8.
You ask, “if we are one of the ‘chosen,’ then we have been cleansed even before we ever believe?”
In a sense, yes. Just as you acknowledge that God knew you would be saved before you ever believed, God also knows that you will be cleansed before you ever believe (since one cannot be saved without being cleansed from sin). From God’s perspective, it’s a done deal–sealed in eternity past.
Of course, I’m not God and so I experience the effects of this “choosing” in real time. So from my perspective, I experience the cleansing when I exercise saving faith (obedient faith).
Pretty much I would plead with a sinner to do the same thing you would, namely repent of his sins and submit to Christ’s command to be baptized. I would not quibble over when, in God’s eyes, he was justified.
Your explanation of Eph. 2:8 is a perfect example of two people seeing the exact same thing and disagreeing over what they see. I would say that the ongoing effects of salvation (the continuation of your faith) is a work of God. He completes the work he started in me. He works in me to will and to do according to His good purposes (Phil. 2:18). This is what we refer to as the sanctification process. It is synergistic. Therefore, if my life bears no fruit of the Spirit, then it is pretty clear that God is not working in me and that my justification is suspect.
Oh, and one more thing. When the Bible says that God shows no partiality does it contradict itself when it also says that he will separate the sheep from the goats? What about when he takes vengeance on those who don’t obey the Gospel?
C’mon, Acts 10:34ff is a softball. God shows no partiality between Jew and Gentile when it comes to election. He chooses individuals to glorify Himself from all nations.
Ken,
We essentially agree, but it is as you said, we see it differently in some way. But, in regards to Eph. 2:8, we disagree on the idea of the continuation. Answer this: If my faith is a continual process, does it mean that the process can stop? Also, this is an idea that I have throwing around in my head. If Jesus Christ is the same today, yesterday, and forever, and God loved His people, the Israelites, why did God let His people fall away so many times? And can we parallel that to our Christian faith today, signifying that His people, Christians, can fall away from grace?
Eric Gray
Ken,
I have discovered another question not only for you, but for anyone else who would like to answer it. Does 1 Timothy 4:1-6 disprove the idea of Perseverance of the Saints?
E.G., due to the fact that Mr. Rutherford answered your question about Acts well, I would like to pick up on your interpretation of Eph. 2:8. You said that the original Greek should be rendered, “For it is by grace that you have been saved through the continuation of your faith.” You rightly pointed out that the word translated as “saved” is a perfect passive participle. But you then translated the word “faith” as a continuous action…but, it is not even a verb- it is a noun in the genitive case. I didn’t know if you accidentally parsed it incorrectly or not.
You rendered “faith” as a perfect passive participle rather than “saved,” in your argument. The fact that the word “saved” is a continuous action does not make “faith” continuous also. Your quotes from Machen and Mounce only prove that “saved” is continuous, not “faith.”
If your parsing of saved is correct (and it is), then shouldn’t the translation that is offered in most our English Bibles be enough then? If anything, the verse might read, “For it is by grace you are continuously being saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.”
Your point begs the question, why has every major bible translation not opted with your translation if you are rendering the Greek correctly?
It is not that we are seeing this verse through different presuppositions as much as it is that we need to see the verse for what it actually says in the Greek. I am also curious, how do you interpret the fact that faith is a gift of God and not the product of human intention?
As a side, I believe that we are justified at the point of our belief, not in the past before time. Where is a proof text for justification having taken place in the past. I only thought that election took place in the past and justification at the point of our believing (each individual existentially). The Westminster Shorter Catechism says, “What is justification? Answer: Justification is an act of God’s free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to and received by faith alone.”
Regarding the risings and fallings of Israel, note that Israel never fell such as to completely lose the blessing of God. If you look at the history of the kings of Judah, even though some of them were desperately wicked (Ahaz, for example), God remained faithful to his promise to David that his line would be everlasting.
In 2 Kings 17 it appears that Israel and Judah will cease to exist because of their sin. But we know that God, as He always did, kept a remnant for Himself. This was the remnant which returned to the land and rebuilt the Temple.
In NT times, Paul speaks of God’s plan for Israel in Rom. 9-11. Especially in light of what Paul says at the end of Rom. 8, this is an amazing passage.
So, can we fall away? Yes. Will true believers fall such as to lose their eternally decreed election? No. God will, through His Hand of discipline, restore His children; those whom Jesus bought with His blood.
O Lord, may I never experience discipline like David did.
Regarding 1 Tim. 4, I would place these false teachers (most likely Judaizers who had the appearance of being Christians but were guilty of preaching justification by obedience to law–thus making them false teachers) in the category of “make believers.” If any of them were true believers, then it would only be a matter of time before God would, through his Hand of discipline, restore them to the truth.
It’s likely that God providentially used Paul and his writings to restore many of these wayward believers. Even Peter himself was heading down the wrong road and Paul got “in his face”.
So my short answer is, “no.” You won’t find any passage that I haven’t already wrestled with over this same issue. Don’t forget, I once held your doctrinal positions.
Mr. Driggers (formal, aren’t I?), Please call me Ken.
I don’t have a “proof text” per se. I can look to my own salvation though. Didn’t Jesus say, on the cross, “It is finished”? His work on the cross and his subsequent resurrection served to secure my justification long before I believed.
Yet at the same time I appreciate your point about “receiving” justification by faith. Yes. I certainly did experience a “conversion” of my soul at the point in time when I trusted in Christ for my salvation. As I’ve said before, I’ve learned to be at ease with the tension between God’s sovereignty and my apparent free choices.
Ken, you and I are in complete agreement. I believe the same thing…I think it is a nuance of time that is, as has already been stated, difficult to delineate. It seems there are two aspects to justification like you have already said. One is universal and took place at the cross on behalf of all elect, but the other is existential and requires me to receive that work by faith. I too take great comfort in the sovereignty of God with such things.
I appreciate your previous two posts. Well said.
Ken,
I noticed your conversations between Jason Driggers. Are you saying that you were justified by your faith?
Also, one major problem that I have about your argument in 1 Timothy 4, is that to take your position regarding unconditional security, you have to assume a lot into the text, from what I have seen thus far. In 1 Timothy 4, what does it mean to “depart from the faith?” Does that not mean that they were once “apart of the faith?”
Jason,
I appreciate your comments on my post regarding Ephesians 2:8. I apologize for the accidental error. But, let me make this point. If it is by grace and through faith that I am “continuously being saved,” does that not point out that my salvation is not secured unconditionally, but could mean that I could, in some form of rebellion, no longer be continuously saved, if it is a continual process?
Also, in Eph. 2:8, is the gift of God my faith, or is it grace? And how did you come up with your answer?
Eric Gray
Eric,
The Bible is full of warnings against apostacy. This is clear. At Grace Fellowship, we encourage one another to “work out (our) salvation with fear and trembling…” even though we are quite aware of the fact that it is God who causes us both to do and to will according to His good purposes.
We see this as the way we examine ourselves to see if we are truly in the faith. Unlike the common caricature of reformed believers, we are not “the frozen chosen”.
We absolutely reject (and perhaps we’ve reached an impasse) the notion that when one is regenerated that he/she can somehow become unregenerated again.
We take seriously the language of the Bible which refers to believers as being adopted by God and which also refers to us as having a righteousness which is not our own. If while we were still sinners, Christ died for us–despite our sin–then it’s pretty clear that my lack of faithfulness will in no way jeopardize my standing with God.
If you disagree, then disagree. I simply want you to understand that there are good and valid arguments on the side of “Perseverance of God with the Saints.” Unfortunately, you haven’t heard alot of them because, like my own experience at Freed-Hardeman, there were no reformed people around to argue their position with me and I relied on second-hand (often caricatured) representations of the reformed positions. At Freed, if you were to question the accepted dogma, you were labeled a heretic and silenced or run off. Sad indeed.
Eric, to answer your question about Eph. 2:8, I think that the fact that we are continually being saved by grace through faith would more easily support the position of the perseverance of the saints. For you see, to accept that God will not continually save me by his grace, I have to adopt your presuppositions about systematic theology (i.e., that God is not capable of saving anyone who does not persevere out of his own intentions and abilities).
To answer the second part of your question I will stay within the verse itself. The phrase “for by grace you have been saved through faith,” is what is refered to in Eph. 2:8b when he says “this.” Or to say it another way, what is the “this” that is referred to in the second part of Eph. 2:8? Answer: “For grace you have been saved through faith.” So the gift of God is the fact that we have been saved by grace through faith- all of it…not just our having faith.
“And are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” Romans 3:24
Ken,
I appreciate your comments, and being so optimistic about answering my questions. I do not share your view, but that is okay. It leads for good, wholesome, Biblical conversations, and it causes both of us to reexamine our lives with God, and to renew our love for the Scripture. I also appreciate your view (I know that sounds weird), but it helps me to see other doctrines, and how they came to be, and what they are all about. I never knew so much about the idea of Perseverance of the Saints. I appreciate your knowledge of the Bible, and you have helped me in some of my views. But, I do not hold your position, as you know. I have tried to understand your view, but as I have studied everything you have stated, I do not feel like it holds water. I do not understand how a God of choice could let us be free-will agents, but once we are “true-believers”, that choice is taken from us. We can know that we have salvation, and if we walk in the light with God, then we will never lose our salvation. But, I cannot get over all of Paul’s warnings against losing our salvation, that I know that you do not view them that way, but in just reading the text, I cannot see it otherwise. It is my prayer that I am not reading anything into the text, and I honestly feel as though I am not.
Jason,
The reason why I brought up the point about the continuance of being saved, is that something has to be done to continue that saving power. Think about a wrist-watch. It will continue to tick as long as the battery is good. Parallel that to our Christian life. God will continue to save my soul as long as it is living for Him. I do not hold the position that if one falls away then they are “make-believers.” The Scripture does not make that point. Temptation is a danger for all of us. Falling away is a danger for all true-believers, just like it always has been.
Regarding Ephesians 2:8, I asked you the question about the gift to see what you would answer. The gift, as you quoted in Romans 3:24, is grace, which is the saving power brought through Jesus Christ’s death. Faith is a result of grace. But, like I told Ken (although he disagrees with me), faith requires action. It is threaded into the entire Bible. Hebrews 11 is a great example of what true faith is.
Eric Gray
Just to set the record straight. I have never said that faith does NOT require action. I have made it clear that only justification is monergistic. I have also tried to make it clear that God generates faith in those whom He chooses and that faith, if it is truly empowered by the Holy Spirit, will necessarily be active and obedient.
Ken,
Where do you find in Scripture that God has only put faith into those whom He chose? Why did God single those few out, and was the Gospel not for the whole world? Is it not the Word of God that brings salvation to all, and that God desires that all men be saved? How can you say that God “generates faith in those whom He chooses?” Are you saying that God chose who would go to heaven? Or has the Gospel been made available for all who would come to it, and that it is man’s decision to accept that invitation?
Eric Gray
E.G., Again you are falling back on a presupposed systematic theology (as am I by the way) to interpret Eph. 2:8 the way that you do. I agree with Ken and believe that his view is the one presented in the Bible- faith and works go hand in hand. I like your wrist-watch analogy, but in that analogy I would say that the Holy Spirit is the battery and our works are done by his empowerment. I never said that those who fall away are “make-believers.”
Help me understand your view better. Let me ask you this and I believe it is a key question: What exactly did Christ’s death on the cross accomplish? Try to cite scripture to explain your view.
Eric says,
Eph. 2:8, John 6:44, John 6:65, Acts 9:15-16, Rom. 9:14-15, Phil. 2:13.
Eric says,
For his glory according to his set purposes (Acts 2:23). The Gospel is for the whole world but only the elect (biblical term) will be saved.
Eric says,
If salvation comes to all then all will be saved. Are you now a unversalist??? 1 Tim. 2:4, in context means “all manner of men” because we know not all will be saved.
Eric says,
I’ve been saying that all along.
Eric says,
Answer Jason’s latest question, it’s a good one. Is the atonement merely a possibility (potentially to fail if nobody accepts it) or did something get accomplished on the cross?
Gentlemen, thank you for the dialogue! I believe it will be very helpful to those who desire to dig through this issue.
May I make a suggestion and a request? The issue of my choice/His choosing will only begin to make true sense after an understanding is established in regard to the spiritual condition of a person after the fall. I would like each of you to make one statement that best reflects your understanding of what the Scripture teaches in regard to the spiritual condition of a person after the fall of Adam.
I apologize if this seems to be getting you off point, but I believe it is addressing the root of the issue vs. the flower of perspective.
Ken,
I have a major problem with your argument. It seems as though you are taking the Scripture to push your own agenda. I am sorry for the tone that it comes across, but I do not see it any other way. Does the Bible contradict itself? The way that you are using the Scriptures, then it would seem as though it would. But we know that such is not the case. What about John 3:14-17 which says,
“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.”
The word for world is “cosmos,” which means all ages. If God only chose certain ones to go to heaven, then He would have said “for God so loved the chosen ones.” Otherwise, it is perposterous to think that God has already decided who would go to heaven and who would go to hell. If that is the case, why? Does God not love every soul? You are abusing the word “chosen” and “predestined.”
Who did God chose? His church. His people. Who are His people? Christians. Who makes the decision to become a Christian? The person. Everytime you see those words, think about who Paul is writing to: the church. Of course God predestined His church to go to heaven, but in no way does it even alude to the fact that God chose certain individuals to go to heaven.
Referring to Acts 9:15-16, as you stated to me, “c’mon that’s a softball.” That was the apostle Paul. God chose Paul to go minister to the Gentiles. My point is made exactly. If you want to believe in this idea, then you can search the Scriptures and find that. Otherwise, let’s use the whole book and come to a knoledge of the whole truth.
John 8:32 “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
Eric Gray
Eric, I find it telling that you neglected to answer my question. Maybe you simply forgot, or it is because you cannot answer it? Your answer to Ken concerning “cosmos” is just wrong. It never refers to ages in all of scripture. Look it up in any lexicon.
God so loved the universe would be another way of saying this. But God loving the universe does not mean that he therefore cannot die for the elect. You are using the fallacy of the excluded middle by putting God’s love for the cosmos and God’s love for the elect at odds with one another. Maybe the best way to love the universe is to die for the elect! Romans 8 says that the same cosmos eagerly awaits the redemption of the sons of God.
Mr. Miller…I’m not sure where you are headed, but I’ll play along. I think my question above is more to the point because E.G.’s belief in salvation does not allow for imputation of Christ’s righteousness and our sinfullness (the cause of justification). Essentially he is teaching works righteousness and a useless cross. But anyway, here you go,
WSC 18, “The sinfulness of that estate wherein man fell, consists in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called Original Sin; together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it.”
WSC 19, “All mankind by their fall lost communion with God, are under his wrath and curse, and so made liable to all miseries in this life, to death itself, and to the pains of hell forever.”
E.G. I await your answer to my question that is so important it bears repeating, “Exactly what did Christ’s death on the cross acomplish? Try to cite scripture to support your answer.
Eric,
You said that God knew from eternity past who would place their trust in Christ. You even said that God knew from eternity past that YOU would place your trust in Christ. Why is it so preposterous to see the saved as “chosen by God”? If God is omniscient, then He learns nothing. The way you are representing “chosen” and “predestined” is abusive to the sovereignty of God. Am I to imagine God in Heaven somehow wringing His hands just hoping that people will overcome their disbelief and accept the Gospel? Is God so small?
I have tried to make it clear to you that 1.) there is tension between the concept of God’s sovereignty and my choices and 2.) that I experience the process of salvation in real time and am not privy to the eternal knowledge of God.
As to Acts 9:15-16, if your theory of free will is true, how could God be so sure of Paul’s future choices that He could prophecy with certainty to Ananias what Paul would do and suffer? God is outside of the restraints of time. For me to limit God to linear time is to rob God of His sovereignty.
Again I ask, was the atonement a big risk on God’s part? Or did the death of Jesus accomplish something real?
Taking this a little further…
We all agree to point 1…
1. God knew before He created the world who would choose Him and who wouldn’t.
How about Point 2?
2. God was free to create the world otherwise (such that different people would choose Him).
If we agree to point 2, then it seems clear that…
3. God chose to create the world in such a way that exactly the people who get saved were by His decree (by choosing to create the world as He did and not otherwise).
Even a Deist could agree to that!
I think this is why intellectually honest Armineans have moved to Open Theism.
Jason, I actually think Dan’s question goes directly to the heart of the issue. The reformed position rests on the foundation of man’s utter inability to choose God without a special work of grace that He gives to some and not to others. The rest of the TULIP is easy after we establish the T.
Ken and Jason,
Let me answer the question about the cross. Romans 3:10 says, “There is none righteous, no, not one.” What did the cross accomplish? Righteousness, on the part of Jesus, and for man. Romans 3:23 says, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…” What did the cross accomplish? verse 24:
“being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passsed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier ofthe one who has faith in Jesus.”
Romans 5:10 says that the cross reconciled us to God because we were enemies.
2 Corinthians 5:14 says that through the cross, I died to sin.
Romans 1:16 says that the cross (gospel) is the power of God to salvation.
Ephesians 1:5 says that through the cross we were adopted, redeemed, forgiven, shown the riches of His grace, obtained an inheritance, and became apart of the purchased possession.
Ephesians 2:1 says that through the cross we are made alive with Christ.
Ephesians 2:14-18 says that the cross broke down the middle wall of separation, signifying that being a Jew is no longer important, which is good news to me, a gentile. Also, He put to death the enmity, and abolished the Old Law. Also, I have access to the Father by the Spirit.
Hebrews 4:15 says that through the cross I have a High Priest who is able to sympathize with my weaknesses.
Hebrews 10:10 says that I have been sanctified through the cross of Christ.
Isaiah 53 says that through the cross Jesus bore my griefs and sorrows, He was wounded for my transgressions, He was chastised for my peace, and my iniquity was laid on Him.
And finally, Acts 2:36 tells me that through the cross, Jesus has been made my Lord (master) and Christ (Messiah, Annointed One).
So much was accomplished through the cross of Christ, I do not deny that. But, what will we do about it? Jesus died so that men, through Him, might be saved. Just as in Matthew 22, Jesus sent out the invitation. Many are called by the gospel (2 Thess. 2:13-14), but few are chosen because only few have accepted. What will I do about the cross of Christ?
Eric Gray
E.G., thanks for the reply. I really did not mean for you to simply quote scripture at me. That will get us no where because you and I will interpret those scriptures differently. I wantd you to explain the order of salvation in your own words and use scripture to support your views. The irony of the scriptures that you quoted is that you cannot believe them and hold the position that you do concerning the calling of God.
I will be more explicit. Does the cross effectually save anyone, or does God need our cooperation through faith in order for it to be effective?
Let me give us some categories for discussion. There are two types of calls in the scriptures. There is a general calling (which you often refer to) and an effectual calling. The Bible teaches that the general call to believe in God goes out to man through the light of revelation (Romans 1:18-20). Yet you seem to be saying that man stands neutral and is waiting for the cross to “call” him so that he might come to salvation. This not only denies original sin, but it denies general revelation. How would you answer this?
Yes Eric. the cross is the justification of the one who has faith in Jesus. But if God must rely on the chance that I may or may not choose to have faith (if left to me) then there is the distinct possibility that the cross, in your theological view, justified no one. I would go farther and say that, if left to me, then the cross would ABSOLUTELY justify no one since I am, by nature, a child of wrath. This goes to Dan’s question earlier today.
Jason, I think you will find that Eric is comfortable in his denial of original sin. Having been of the same theological persuasion for years myself, the theology is much closer to Pelagianism than Semi-Pelagianism.
Jason,
Ken is right on about my view of original sin. I do not believe that the Bible supports such an idea. But, I do not understand how you can come up with an idea that the cross saves me before I have faith. I understand what the cross did, that it saved sinful man. But how does sinful man get saved, other than by responding to the cross?
Romans 10:17 says that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But back in verse 14 it says, “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?”
You see, if we are saved by grace through faith, how can we have faith unless we hear the word of God? And how can we be called apart from the Word of God? As I stated before, 2 Thess. 2:13-14 says that we are called by the gospel, and 1 Cor. 15:1-4 says that the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. So if “whoever calls on the name of the Lord” will be saved, then do they not have to hear the word, and respond to it?
Why would you encourage someone to repent, confess Jesus’ name, and be baptized into Christ? Why would you encourage someone to live faithfully? Because if we are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8), then that faith comes from hearing God’s word (gospel), and by responding to it.
Is the cross ineffective? No. But when I do not respond to it, then it is ineffective in my life. Does that make sense?
Eric Gray
Well, again our theological presuppositions are going to dictate how we understand Romans 10:17. In no way does it disprove the fact that God is the one who saves and he does such a work through the preached word which produces faith (gifted to us through him by his Holy Spirit). 2 Thess. does not disprove this position, niether does 1 Cor.
We cannot have faith apart from hearing the word of God. I agree. So then are you putting God in the dock and accusing him of being unfair to those who did not hear the preached word? You still are not dealing with Rom. 1:18-20.
I want to challenge the logic of your statement that says that the cross is not ineffective, but only becomes effective if I respond in faith. Then theoretically, the cross has only secured a possibility of my salvation, but then relies on me to answer the call. Therefore, in a very real way, you are saying the cross is ineffective in and of itself. In your view, Jesus’ work on the cross needs me to make it effective. That is about as close to a powerless God as it gets.
You neglected to answer my question about the general call of natural revelation mentioned in Rom. 1:18-20. What about that verse in your view?
And then there is the issue of imputation…which it seems you deny. Scary stuff.
Eric, interesting that you quote Rom. 10:17. Follow Paul’s thought in that verse to the rest of his argument…
10:18 did they (Israel) not hear? Of course they did
11:1 Did God reject his people? No
11:5 There is a remnant chosen by grace
11:7 What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, as it is written, ‘God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day.’
Apparently, from this context, it’s not a neutral equation. Faith comes by hearing. Israel heard. Most didn’t believe because God gave them a spirit of stupor. Now how does that fit into a theology where God predestines the plan, not the man?
Ken,
This discussion has been very confusing for me to follow. It seems to me that the confusion results from arguments about predestination, justification and salvation all getting run together. So I thought it would be helpful to clarify what you meant when you said ‘The big question at hand is the security of such justification.’
I do mot see where there is any question in the Bible about justification for all men being once and for all. Romans 5:18 makes this pretty clear:
18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
Are you saying justification and salvation is the same thing?
Thanks,
Jose
Ken,
Responding to your question about Romans 10:17, God did foreknow His people, because that is what the Bible said. But were they chosen because they were Jews, or were they chosen because they were Abraham’s decendants? And if so, then why? Because of Abraham’s faith (Romans 4:3, 13). So from the very beginning God’s people were those of faith, not because He hand-picked them. Regarding Romans 11, the remnant were those who kept their faith in God and did not follow after Baal (Romans 11:4). There has always been a remnant of Israelites who kept their faith. You know about the divided kingdom. You know those things. Therefore, God did not chose them because of who they were, God chose them (or rather, they chose to stay with God) based on faith.
Jason,
Show me a time in history, Old or New Testament, where God did not require a response to His grace. God has always required man to chose. Think of the Garden of Eden: man had a choice to love God or love sin. It has been the same way ever since. Even as Israelites, they had a choice to leave God and follow after other Gods. And what did God do? He gave them up to their lusts and desires. When has God not required a response? So then, with the cross in mind, does He not require a response to contact that cleansing blood? I am not saying that the cross is ineffective, because it atoned for the sins of the whole world. Jesus died for every person. But if I, as a sinner, do not respond to that invitation, then my sins are not cleansed, and I am still lost in my sins. How are my sins forgiven lest I ask God to forgive them? How are they washed away lest something wash them away? How can I receive the crown of life lest I live faithfully? Do you see my point? God requires response. That is justification.
Regarding Romans 1:18-20. Regarding the context of Romans 1, Paul is speaking to Gentiles. That is comforting, because I am one. You said,
“so then are you putting God in the dock and accusing Him of being unfair to those who did not hear the preached word?”
Are you saying that everyone is going to heaven? Please answer that.
But in referring to Romans 1:18-20, it says that they are without excuse (1:20) because 1. God’s invisible attributes are clearly seen (1:20), 2. they knew Him and did not glorify Him (1:21), 3. became idolatrous (1:23), and many other ungodly and unrighteous things.
But how has God revealed His nature to them? Psalm 19:1 “the heavens delcare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork.” Also, think back to the time of Adam. As Coffman’s commentary on Romans points out, Lamech (Noah’s father), lived in the time of Adam. Therefore, those people would have known about God, because they had a first hand source of someone who walked in the garden with Him. During the time of Abraham, the purpose of the Jews was to prepare the world for Jesus. They were to recognize Him, and love Him. They were to tell the world about the one true God. During the time of the apostles, the Gospel reached the entire known world. What is our mission today? Matthew 28:18-20 says to take the gospel to the world. Hebrews 11:6 says that “without faith, it is impossible to please God.” It should be our goal that all would hear the gospel and come to repentance. It is our job as Christians to take the gospel to the world. Jesus said that no man comes to the father except through Him (John 14:6), and in Acts 4:12 it says “Nor is their salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” referring to Jesus Christ. If I want to be justified, saved, reconciled, redeemed, etc., then it is only through Jesus Christ. And if someone does not hear the gospel, then they cannot be saved. What other explanation is there? So therefore, we need to be even more earnest to take the name of Jesus to the world.
Eric Gray
My point in trying to have each person identify the baseline spiritual ability or capability of a person is related to the fact that if a person is spiritually dead to God, then something must make him alive. In other words, does salvation come from my ability to believe or does it come from God’s power in granting me spiritual life? Martin Luther understood this fundamental issue and that is why he wrote: “The Bondage of the Will” to address our spiritual condition. Luther’s point was that before salvation we cannot do anything good since the only thing dead people do is nothing at all. It is the nature of saving faith and not the outworking regarding saving faith that you are trying to remedy.
I think that is where your resolution to this discussion must start.
Ken
I hate to jump in and make everyone think we a ganging up on you.(ha) It seems to me that Eric is doing a very good job (3 or 4 against one) standing for his beliefs. But I have a couple of questions, if you don’t mind.
Back to your remarks concerning the nation of Israel. If Israel had fallen to such as state as to completely lose the blessing of God and had been vanished from the earth would Christ still have come into the world?
Do you think is was God’s plan for the children of Israel to murmur, to complain, to believe the report that they could not take the “Promise Land” and to wonder in the wilderness for forty years. I believe that God knew what would happen but he allowed them to make their own decisions. Anyway, just a thought about that and I could go on and on with examples in the Bible were people had to obey and act in order to recieve God’s blessings.
Another question – you have mentioned several times about “Reformed Theology”. Would you care to elaborate? I have already asked you if there was something we were missing. I know that we are not the brighest bulbs in the light string but we do like to study our Bibles.
You also mentioned that when you were at Freed Hardeman if you questioned the accepted dogma you were labeled a heretic and silenced or run off. Would you explain what you meant by the accepted dogma?
I hope this will help me to better understand where you are coming from.
Eric, your response to my inquiry regarding Rom. 10:17 is simply nonresponsive. I asked you how God could send those who heard and disbelieved a spirit of stupor. This would not be in keeping with your “free-will” philosophy.
You then take the concept of God’s choosing and turn it completely around to mean that those God chose really are the ones who choose to stay with God.
Eric, you really need to grapple with the question that Dan has thrown out twice now. Did Adam’s sin have no effect whatsoever on the moral ability of his offspring? You seem to think we’re all born neutral to God’s holiness and that we have a 50-50 chance of either going to Heaven or going to Hell.
Maybe you can better answer if I word it in this way, Are we sinners because we sin or do we sin because we are sinners? Please show, from the scriptures, how you arrive at your answer.
Dan,
In response to your baseline question, I believe the Bible clearly teaches that there is none righteous, none who seeks God, none who does good (Rom 3:10-12). Yes, we are dead. However, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). Further, the Holy Spirit working in the world convicts of sin, righteousness and judgement (John 16:8). Thus it is God working in the world that convicts us of our sin and draws us to Himself, making it possible for us to be saved.
But before we jump gun on salvation, consider the destinction between JOhn 3:3 and 3:5. With God’s grace and the working of the Holy Spirit, we can come to some understanding of our condition. John 3:3 says we need to be born again to see the kingdom of God. An analogy would be the criminal that realizes he is a criminal, that he is bad. But in the case of the criminal, he is probably not ready to be put in charge of the bank. JOhn 3:5 indicates that we must be born of water and the Spirit in order to actually enter the kingdom of God. I take that to mean that when we are born again of water and the Spirit, then we can be saved. Even then, John 3:5 doesn’t say that if one is born again of water and the Spirit one will be saved. It just says it is a precondition.
Now consider the Samaritans in Acts 8:9. They believed the preching of one of apostles, Phillip, and were baptized by him in the name of Jesus Christ. But that was not good enough! Now when the apostles in Jeruselem heard about it they sent John and Peter to them. John and Peter prayed for them to receive the Holy Ghost (Acts 8:15) as “He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (v16). This is very consistent with the teaching in John. The Samaritans obviously lacked the Holy Spirit despite believing and being baptized by one of Christ’s disciples.
The Samaritans did all that they could do. They responded to God by believing the gospel and being baptized. They put themselves in a position to be saved. I would argue they need to keep themselves in that position.
How is what you do or teach different or better than what Phillip did or taught? How would you respond to that security question I put to Ken?
There is no rush though. I know you are busy and it is a stressful time. I hope everyone is doing well. I will keep praying.
Jose
Hello again Mark!
Eric is doing great. He’s playing with some hot topics…but he’s got some Bulldog in that crimson blood.
I’ll be happy to answer your questions, Lt. Columbo…er, my dear bro.-in-law. (haha)
1. I cannot speculate on what would have happened if Israel had vanished. I’m sure God could have brought salvation to the world in any way He wanted to.
2. Was it God’s plan for the Israelites to murmur, complain, etc.? Yes, in the same way that it was God’s plan for Joseph’s brothers to sell him into slavery (see Gen. 50:20). Yes, in the same way that it was God’s plan for the Jews to reject Christ and to deliver him up to the Romans to be crucified (see Acts 2:23). Now I truly fail to understand how God can know something from eternity past but still have to “wait and see” what man will do when presented with the options.
3. You misrepresent me when you imply that I don’t believe that one needn’t obey or act in order to receive God’s blessings. I have repeatedly made it clear that I believe we must act on God’s commands and obey Jesus’ teaching. If I were so laissez faire as to believe this then why would I make any effort to lead a holy life? I trust my actions speak for themselves.
4. Reformed Theology is a systematic theology which is marked primarily by an understanding that the Bible teaches that mankind is fallen as a result of the sin of Adam and is totally depraved/spiritually dead–unable to be pleasing to God without divine intervention. Because of this, God in His Sovereignty must elect unconditionally those whom He will save. This means that the atonement wrought by Christ on the cross was limited to a particular group of people–the elect. Because God must intervene in the heart of the sinner, He does so in the form of an effectual calling that consists of an irresistable outpouring of grace at regeneration. Finally, since election and regeneration are works of God alone, it is God alone who can keep a sinner in a saved condition. This is called God’ perseverance with the saints.
Fire away.
5. I was never labeled a heretic at FHC. I always gladly toed the dogmatic line. But, let’s say that someone (a computer science teacher maybe) made it public that he didn’t think all miracles had ceased with the death of the apostles. Could he be allowed to continue to teach at FHC? Not in 1981 he couldn’t. What if someone believed that there was some merit to the arguments of historic premillennialism (such as those put forth by Boles in the early days of the Rest. Movement)? Could he be allowed to continue? I would think not. Does the school have the right to do this? Yes. Does it make for a monolithic faculty where students are rarely exposed to a non-caricatured view of opposing viewpoints? Yes.
Wow, this discussion is getting confusing. Eric Gray, I want to take the time to respond to your questions first. Maybe you have read something that misrepresents my convictions- but I want to make it clear that I do not believe that we should not tell believers that the Bible demands them to bear fruit in keeping with their faith. I also want to make it clear that I too believe that God demands a response to his grace. This seems clear from scripture and therefore I don’t feel the need to defend a position that I do not hold to. I also believe that the way in which God has ordained for men to be saved is by faith through hearing the preaching of the Word. But without that Word, man can, and is condemned by the witness of nature to the divinity of God- which you seem to deny.
Concerning Romans 1, you said that you believe that Psalms 19:1 proves that all have received a general call to repentance. Yet at the same time it seems that you want to keep up this notion of having the gospel story being told to all men in order that they might believe (you tried to prove this by sighting Lamech which is a point built on pure speculation). If Psalm 19 is true, then your point about the need for a first-hand account of the gospel is a moot point. Do you not see the contradiction? Romans 1 and Psalm 19 say that the general call to believe has gone out to all people (Jews and Gentiles alike see the light of nature). Why then do you try to add another call through the supposed first-hand accounts?
*Also, on your point about the supposed firt-hand account, when did this first-hand account disappear? It is clear by the time of Abraham that when God called him, he did not know the true God. What about the people in-between the time of the disappearing of Adam’s witness and the days of Abraham? Did God give all these people over to damnation?
I believe your argument is built on speculation and ignores the seriousness of rejecting the revelation of God through nature. Such an act is worthy of eternal punishment, whether or not the gospel has been heard. You have yet to enter this debate by explaining how you can hold logically contradicting positions. Do you really believe what Romans 1:18-20 is saying? Tell me exactly how you can believe in it and hold your view of man’s need for a general call exclusively through the gospel and not through nature as well.
I would of course, not believe in universalism. I don’t see how you read that into my comments, please explain.
In the famous words of radio talk show host Glenn Beck…Wrapping the duct tape around my head again to keep it from exploding.
We celebrated Christmas this past Sunday. A beautiful and perfect plan to redeem us. So simple yet so complete. Christmas was the beginning.
I believe that God made the plan of salvation so simple because we are so dumb. When I was 13 I knew I had sinned, deserved hell, knew that Jesus was born and died to pay the price I could not. Then rose again to prove He was the real deal. I asked for forgiveness and trusted Him as my Savior. No matter the debate on the legitimacy of the vehicle or method in my situation, I was born again at that instant. For me I had a life-changing experience. I did not need to be told to prove about whether it was genuine, to live my life a certain way, if I was truly of the elect, or if I would fall later in life or persevere to the end. That stuff did not matter. I had Jesus in my life, the joy of the Lord, and wanted to share that joy wth others. It’s all that really mattered then. Should be all that matters now too. I will leave it at that.
This particular blog is like reading the writings of Calvin vs. Luther and other past scholars over hundreds of years from piles of dusty books that smell funny. Nothing is going to change your minds by regurgitating the same theological talking points over and over is it? Now prayer for understanding is a different story altogether if you believe that prayer does make a difference.
Discussion is good. But maybe “K.I.S.S.” is also good policy for the non-scholarly majority of us folks and for those that come afterward that might want to engage in some meaningful conversations.
More worthless thoughts and ramblings from me to be ignored? Maybe. You be the judge. Just wanted to interject one last time.
For me my time is up here for good as my Home Depot Credit card is maxed out and there are no more sales on duct tape. ;^)
Roger and out……for real this time.
C.A. thanks for chiming in. Lots of people have life-changing experiences…Mormons have burnings in their bosoms, Quakers quake, Shakers shake, and some people see Jesus in a bowl of spaghetti. When all is said and done, it’s not the experience itself which gives one assurance it is the presence of the Holy Spirit and the accompanying fruit of the Spirit in the life of the believer.
How do you know nothing will change my mind by regurgitating theological talking points? I have learned profound truths (had my mind changed) by grappling with the “talking points” of theologians of the past. Speak for yourself, bro.
Maybe someone will start a KISS blog for C.A. and he can “Rock and Roll all Night and Party Every Day”! Oh, wait a minute…wrong KISS. (Mary will appreciate that one! 😀 )
I second your comments Ken. Thanks. C.A.- Eric Gray is offering some very sophisticated arguments (though I feel-superficial) and he needs to have someone intellectually engage him and, for the sake of mutual edification, challenge him. I am sure you do not want everyone to feel as you do. After all, if we did, there would have been no Luther or Calvin!
My point was never as much the discussions themselves, but having these discussions on a level for “the rest of us”. Not really dumbed down, just not so “smarted up” all the time. ;^)
I had made suggestions in the past to consider a special blog for “deep thinking”, and to have some other blogs where issues and topics can be discussed that others would not be so intimated by the intellectual prowess and deep theological concepts demonstrated in the majority of the blogs here.
Sure, there are some light-hearted things on here like why Santa must be a woman, but for the most part lots of this is over most people’s heads (not the truth but the presentation), and is why I believe there are still only 5-7 regulars on this blog with the majority being some form of GF leadership.
Ken, you are a great example of how studying yourself and seeking the truth can change someone’s mind and heart. Amen for that!
I just have a personal passion to engage as many as possible in one on one conversations, relationships, and friendships. That’s me. This blog is a great vehicle for that, and a way to get people from GF communicating during the week. It would be great to see many others from GF on here regularly wouldn’t it? Even some of the women! 😉
Just my observations and nothing more.
“Shout it Shout it Shout it out loud!” There’s my KISS reference Ken, and I am still in great need of a shrubbery. 🙂
Much love and peace to you all in Jesus name!
Ken,
Regarding Romans 9-11, particularly 10:17: You stated about the “spirit of stupor.” As you know, Paul quoted from Deut. 29:4, regarding the Israelites who had seen God’s miracles in Egypt, yet still did not fully trust in Him. They hardened their hearts against the one true God, and He gave them over to it, and did not allow them to enter the Promise Land. The parallel that Paul makes, as noted by James Burton Coffman in his commentary on Romans, is that these Jews had seen Jesus’ miracles, but they did not believe. Therefore, God gave them over to their unbelief, as they hardened their hearts as Pharoah, and He gave them this “spirit”, or rather, allowed them to retain this spirit. Secondly, it is not for me to question why God allowed them to do this. I read it and accept it because the Bible says it. But I know that He gave them many chances to repent because I read about it. Jesus taught for three years hoping His people would repent. Nevertheless, God allowed them to harden their hearts, despite the miracles that were done. Why else would Paul say that the gospel went to the Gentiles, in some way, to provoke the Jews to repentance (Rom. 11:13-14)? God always gave a choice. Name a time when He did not.
Ken, you have really suprised me with how much Calvinism you have accepted. Calvin was very intellectual, but very upset at the Catholic church, and because of that, he totally strayed from Bible doctrine. The idea of original sin is totally abusing the text.
If a child is a newborn, maybe even a year old, up to three, however the toddler age, you pick, and they die, will they go to hell? If so, why? If not, why not? If I inherit sin from Adam, then if I am a child and die then I am condemned to hell because I am not able to give my life to Christ. How is that supported in Scripture, if that is how you feel? I understand that you pull your view from Romans 5, but that is not the focus of the chapter. Paul said that through Adam, sin entered the world, and spread to all men. It in no way says that through one man, every man was born depraved. It said that sin spread to all. How? Because all have sinned. Not because we are born with it. We made the choice to sin. We were innocent as children, sinless, but we chose to rebel against God, and because of that, “condemnation.” Before Adam, the world did not know sin. It does not say that because of Adam, everyone is born with sin, or everyone inherits Adam’s sin. Please support your doctrine with Scripture to help me understand your view. To answer your question, we are sinners because we sin, not because we are born with it. The first time we sin, we become sinners. But it is not until we recognize what sin is, that we can fully understand why we need Jesus.
Also, this is a sidebar from yours and Mark’s (Dad’s) debate. Regarding your statement about FHC, I have great respect for that college, and I know that you do to. They are running a great Bible college, and they do not need things like your views to creep in and ruin a good Bible-based University. Answer this, if you have time. This is not important to our argument, but it has been on my mind.
If there are so many denominations across the world, with many different beliefs, will all go to heaven? When Jesus said in Matt. 16:18 that He would build His church, what church is that? Is it Grace Fellowship? Is it Baptist, Methodist, Church of Christ, Catholic? What is it, and how do we know what His church is?
Eric Gray
Jason,
Guys, sorry I am taking up so much space. But your questions require much discussion. I hope you understand. Thanks for the opportunity to debate with you. This is a modern version of the debates in the 50s and 60s.
Answer this question, and I think that I will be able to understand your question. I am having a hard time understanding what you are talking about, and therefore, I cannot fully answer your question. What do you mean by a “general call to repentance?”
In Romans 1, because of the moral nature that we are given from God, the Gentiles had created a law unto themselves. But they violated that law, and did many of the things listed in Romans 1. They were idolatrous, homosexuals, wicked, immoral, etc. But even though they were not Jews, God still demanded that they live for Him, in whatever way He is talking about. I do not understand all of God’s laws for the Gentiles, but there were some listed in the OT. Maybe I need to study up on it. But nevertheless, Paul says in Acts 17 that “truly these times of ignorance, God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.” The Athenian philosophers knew there was another God, but they didn’t know how to worship Him or who He was. That is why Paul told them about “The Unknown God.” However God judged the Gentile nations is His business, not mine. But I know, from Scripture, that today He commands all men everywhere to repent, because salvation is only through Jesus Christ. How can I answer it any better? If I do not do the things of the Bible, how can a just God, who told all to follow His Son, save any who do not know Him? We cannot be forgiven from sins except through Christ.
Also, from your statement about Lamech, and it being pure speculation, it is not. As long as the Bible is true regarding its dates and lifetimes of people, you can work up a chart that proves that Lamech lived in the time of Adam. Look it up. Many scholars have proved it, and I have seen it myself. Disprove the scholars, and you might have a good point.
Also, how do you know that when God called Abraham, that he did not know the true God? That is pure speculation. The Bible says that Abraham believed God. It does not say that He did not know God. Obviously, during this time the people had a law, and some form of atonement for sins, given the examples of Cain and Abel, Noah building an alter after the flood, God’s covenant of circumcision, Abraham offering Isaac, Abraham offering the ram. God did not give them over to damnation, they were still required to follow Him, through obedience to His commands. It has also been proven that Abraham lived in the time of Noah. Therefore, Abraham would have had second-hand knowledge of the beginning of the world, and of God’s nature.
Eric Gray
Whatever doctrine of original sin you possess, I don’t know how you would interpret Genesis 6:5, “The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
It seems that it is highly unlikely that those who were only continually wicked all the time would care to pass down the knowledge of the true God orally. My position is that even if Lamech did know Adam, he would not have passed such a tradition down, and if they did so, then Genesis 6:5 would not be true because such careful preservation of oral tradition would have been a righteous act. Your argument that supposedly many scholars have take such a position is easy to refute by me simply saying that many scholars also disagree with such a position- but scholars are not our final authority, right?
Nonetheless, I can see how I am not being very clear. Let me try to clarify. Getting back to Mr. Miller’s observation at what the heart of our problem is, what do you believe concerning the nature of man? Is he morally neutral? Explain. I understand that you have been labeled (and agreed) that you are Pelagian, I just want to hear it in your words.
(I’m not trying to ignore your questions about Acts and Abraham, we will come back to them.)
Jason,
First of all, I hope that you do not base your doctrine of Original Sin from Genesis 6:5, because that in no way says that we are born with sin. You are reading a lot into the text, and not taking it for what it says. It says, “…every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” That does not say that they were born depraved. If it does, maybe I need to check my reading skills, or get glasses, because I do not see it. There were righteous people that lived before the flood. What about Seth, Enoch (who walked with God). It said that Noah walked with God. How did Noah learn about God? He obviously learned it from somewhere, maybe from Methuselah, who lived with Enoch, , who lived with Mahalalel, who lived with Enosh, who lived with Seth, who lived with Adam. Simple timeline. But it wasn’t until 500 years after Noah was born that God said He was going to flood the world. Would 500 years give time for some of the righteous people to die? I believe so. You cannot say for certain that Noah did not learn from his father about God, just like you cannot say for certain that Abraham did not live in the time of Noah.
A child is innocent, without sin. If man is born with sin, then our newborns are lost. Otherwise, they are innocent and pure. Why else would Jesus say in Matthew 18:3, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.” Why? Because children are innocent, and have a trusting nature like we should trust in God. In a sense, those children are closer to heaven than we are because they are innocent because they do not understand what sin is. It is not until we understand what sin is that we become accountable to our sins.
I did not say that Genesis 6:5 proves my view of original sin, nor do I disagree that there were righteous people before the flood, but in the days of Noah we are told there was not. I want to make clear that I am not debating your timeline- I am debating what you are using it to prove. Why could Noah not have heard about God from God rather than oral tradition. The Bible clearly says that God spoke to him directly.
Thanks for answering my question. So would it be fair for me to say that you believe that man is born morally neutral before God? Or are you saying he is actually born righteous?
By the way, I appreciate this debate as well. I am learning a lot. Thanks Ken for letting us ramble on.
C.A. I am not sure if we know each other, so greetings!
Regarding your comments, I don’t think its a question of the “level” of the discussion. I think we can all contribute something of value, even if its only a clarifying question, at the same time we are learning from the smart guys. Matthew 23:8 says “But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 “Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.” So don’t let these guys intimidate you. Anytime you get that feeling that they are too smart, do what I do. Just repeat to yourself three times, “Dan is a monkey,” “Dan is a monkey,” “Dan is a monkey” and you will feel better 🙂
I think we can ask the folks here to try to simplify and stay focused on a particular scripture, subject or doctrine at a time. Actully, I think that would help them too. And your comments in your previous post about the simplicity of the gospel are right on. This is what Paul stresses in 1 Cor 1:19 – 3:23.
However, like Dan is prone to say, doctrine matters. It could affect my kids’ and my friends’ eternal lives. So let me address something you said in your previous post that implied doctrine does not matter. Do you think that the people Jesus is referring to in Matthew 7:22-23 think they are saved?
22 Many will say to Me on that day, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?”
23 And then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.”
Listening to how you feel, I think your comment about not worrying sounds right on. A real follower is not going to worry about the Bible’s warnings. Your love of the Lord and His teaching will guide you if, in fact, Jesus is in you. But that does not mean that you shouldn’t take the warnings at face value or that you never need to examine yourself (2 Cor 3:5). If you should get confused and fall into sin and I become aware of it, I promise that I will remind you of the perseverance and consequences that the Bible teaches. I would not want you to become complacent or hardened because of some non-biblical teaching about “security of salvation.” And I would not want you to teach “Security of Salvation” either. Note that this thread started out with a discussion of perseverance versus “once saved.”
Am I being straight forward enough?
Blessings and peace to you too in Jesus name!
Jose
Jose, thanks for your comments and C.A., I apologize for bullying if that is how it came across. I am trying to work to a point with Eric, it just is hard to do a lot of listening in blog format.
Jason,
I do not say that man is born morally neutral or righteous. I am saying that a child is born innocent in the eyes of God, just like Adam was created in an innocent state. His relationship was as it should have been with God, without sin. Once we sin, our relationship is marred to the point to where we are enemies of God. But once our sins are forgiven, it is as if we never sinned, just like Adam and Eve before they sinned, just like that newborn infant who does not know wrong.
Eric Gray
Eric,
In your view, are people born with the ability to avoid sinning? If so, isn’t it theoretically possible for there to be or have been people who lived their whole lives without sin?
In your view, was Adam able to NOT sin or was it inevitable that he would sin? What was wrong with Adam’s nature that caused him to eventually sin?
You also apparently misread Rom. 5:19. In my Bible it says that through the disobedience of Adam, “many were made sinners.” How could this be if Adam’s sin has no bearing on the nature of his offspring?
Eph. 2:3 says that we are, by nature, “children of wrath”. When do we receive this nature? At birth or when we sin? If it happens when we sin, just what is the mechanism that changes our nature? Was Adam, by nature, a child of wrath before he sinned?
I believe that God in his Sovereignty is never surprised by the death of an infant. I have no doubts that God is in control and applies the atonement to them in whatever way He sees fit. If you are choking on the idea that God is in control even of the death of babies then you will have a big problem with God’s discipline of David after his sin with Bathsheba.
Ken,
I have to jump in on your last response to Eric. Doesn’t the Bible clearly teach in Gen 6:9 that “Noah was a arighteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God.” Further, the Bible teaches that “the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23). Yet “24 Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him” (Gen 5:24).
I went back and looked at Romans 3:10-12 which I can quote backward and foreward and realize that it does not indicate that we are born condemned it says we have BECOME useless”
“10 as it is written,
“There is none righteous, not even one;
11 There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God;
12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless;
There is none who does good,
There is not even one.”
Listening to Eric and reading these verses without the blinders of the doctrine that I had swallowed hook, line and sinker, I realized that I had been deluded.
I think there is an element of truth to you argument about being children of wrath (Eph 3:9) but even then it does not say that we are born that way.
I don’t question the sovereignity of God, but you have a lot of explaining to do. And you still have not replied to my origial post about all the Bible verses requiring perseverance. That Calvanist TULIP thing is in the trash as far as I am concerned.
One more thing about Calvin. He was so big on doctrine that he would rather murder people than allow them to disagree with his doctrine. A Oneness believer named Servetus was burned at the stake in 1553 for his beliefs (there is one God), with Calvin’s approval, only Calvin would ahve preferred to have the man beheaded (Walter Nigg, The Heretics (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962), pp. 324-328). Now does this sound like a guy full of the Holy Ghost that we should all count on to show us the way to eternal life?
Jose
Ken,
We are all over the page. I think every doctrinal issue under the sun has been touched and nothing in my opinion has been resolved. Let’s go back to the beginning of this dialogue where we were discussing Heb 6:4-6, without going back and reading your comments again, and forgive me if I misrepresent your comments, you asked me to interpret what I thought of the “Impossiblity of being renewed again unto repentance”. I gave my view of this passage but never heard back from you if you agreed with me or not. After all that has been said since then I’m sure I know how you feel about it but will not put words into your mouth.
In order for me to continue in this dialogue I will need reference material other that the Holy Scriptures since it is apparent that your views are partly from the Word of God and partly from your interpretation of God’s will or design for redemption of mankind. For example, and I quote, you stated “If we recognize that God’s knowledge is eternal then we MUST also recognize that God isn’t waiting around for us to obey in order to put us in contact with the saving power of the blood of Jesus. First of all, I will never attempt to nor can I ever hope to understand the knowledge of God. Has he ever told us that He is impatience and will not wait for us to come to repentance or as you stated “wait around for us to obey”? You did state that you don’t have eternal knowledge and therefore you don’t presume upon God and you encourage every beliver to obey the commands fo Christ and to remain faithful that this is how one has assurance that he is really saved. Now it just gets more confusing. You say that once someone is saved he or she can’t lose their salvation but the Hebrews writer is plainly warning of that very thing happening. I believe we have listed all the passages in the New Testatment that speak on this subject.
You go on to say, in a response to Eric, that if we are one of the chosen that we were cleansed from our sins even before we believe, that from God’s perspective it is a done deal—sealed in eternity past. You go on to say that you are not God and so you experienced the effects of this “choosing” in real time. That from your perspective, you experienced the cleanings when you excercised the saving faith (obedient faith). How do you arrive at this point of view? Please explain, if you don’t mind and use scripture to support your view for I perceive that what you are saying is that you have already been cleansed of your sins by the foreknowledge of God being chosen before the beginning of the world and that there is nothing you can do to thwart God’s plan.
Sorry, I have to go now. Not only do I have to be at work on time but they even insist that I actually work. Whoever heard of such. If I don’t hear back from you or don’t have time to respond I will do so when I get the chance. Look forward to seeing you this weekend.
Mark
Jose and Eric,
I don’t recall pledging my allegiance to Mr. Calvin. I don’t recall putting him forth as the father of the church or the one who leads to eternal life. Please tone down the rhetoric, it does nothing to bolster your arguments.
I, for one, plan to stay with argumentation from scripture.
Jose, I don’t have time to go verse-by-verse on your list. Why don’t you pick two that you’d like me to deal with. Provide your exegesis and then I’ll respond.
Ken,
I believe that you are misunderstanding the weight of such discussions as this. If your doctrine is right, then my soul is in danger because I am a false teacher. Therefore, if you do not have time to try to teach someone, then why start a blog such as this? I understand the informality of something like this, but we are Bible students, and if you are going to promote a certain doctrine, and someone questions you about it, then it is your JOB and RESPONSIBILITY as a teacher to fully explain a subject. You wrote your original post, and we questioned you. It is your job to prove it right, and if you cannot do that, then you do not need to state such doctrines. If you do not have time to explain your point of view, then why have this blog? We have taken the time out of our busy schedules to refute your ideas. The least you can do is take some time to try to explain yours.
Secondly, I want to commend Jose on his comments. Jose, you are right on about this idea of original sin.
Ken,
When has the Bible ever said that we are born with sin? If that is the case, then I can be conceived a homosexual. But we know that such is not the case. Why would a holy and righteous God who wants to be in fellowship with us create us sinners? You stated Ephesians that we are by nature children of wrath. Because Satan fell from God’s presence and tempted Adam and Eve, the world knew sin, and lost its innocence. But that does not mean that I carry Adam’s sin with me. I am not responsible for someone else’s sins. I am accountible for what I do in this body, not because of what Adam did in the Garden of Eden. I am by nature a sinner, not by birth. But how do you know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden before they sinned? They could have been there three years, which meant that they went a while without sinning. We just do not know. Now if they were created to sin, they would have been sinners from day one. But we do not know how long they were there before they sinned. Your view is pure speculation and misinterpretation. Please fully examine your view of Calvin’s doctrine. Also, I cannot remember what the U is in TULIP. Please refresh my memory. Also, are you a five point Calvinist? Please tell me how much of the TULIP doctrine you believe.
Finally, one question that I have been wondering. What did Grace Fellowship stem from? Did it form from the Presbyterian group?
Eric Gray
E.G., I will go so far to say that if you do not believe in salvation by faith alone through grace alone, your soul is in danger. This is why I have continued this discussion. I do think you are being unnecessarily harsh with Ken. Let’s keep this discussion above the belt.
Jose, you comments about Calvin being a murder are unfortunate and I hope you can rise above name-calling as part of the defense of your faith. After all, Eric’s word to Ken about the need to save us could very well apply to you if both he and I are wrong in this debate. Using false arguments as a means of manipulation is just not ethical. Lies do not convert people, truth does.
Eric, If we are all born in innocence, why then was it necessary for Jesus to be born of a virgin? Could he not have been born in innocence and then choose to not sin continually until his death?
I think I should explain my last post. Calvin did approve of the burning of Servetus at the stake- because it was civil law at the time. The man broke the law by teaching heresy, and the consequence was that he be burned at the stake. Calvin merely approved that the law be executed. Whether or not his heart was in conflict by this, we do not know.
But to go as far and call him a non-believer is judging mattters that are not left for us to judge and calling him a murder is no less than putting a spin on the situation.
I don’t feel the need to defend Calvin, read his commentaries or Institutes and you will find plenty of trash to dig up on him.
I just don’t see how such information forwards our theological debate. If he married a nine year-old like Muhammed did, then I would say let’s call his character into the debate.
Fortunately our faith is not built on the character of man (though it seems that yours is), our faith is built on the character of God.
Eric,
Kindly refrain from preaching to me about my use of time and my responsibilities to respond to your every question. My responsibilities to my family to provide a living far outweigh my responsibilties to answer your every question. As in the words of Forrest Gump, “That’s about all I got to say about that.”
I will address your questions on MY time. As far as Jose’s list, he can pick a reasonable two passages, provide his exegesis and I will respond. I think that’s fair.
All those who post on this blog are here by my good graces (can you say “benevolent dictatorship”?) Keep the comments on subject and avoid personal attack, please.
When I have time, I will return and address some of the latest inquiries.
Ken,
I understand that you have to work and make a living. So do I. I am not attacking you personally in any way. My point is if we are going to come to a fulness of truth, then we need all of the arguments, not just part of it. If it is to much, close the blog and we will be done. Otherwise, let’s get down to it, and fully discuss it. Plus, I got all of my personal attacks out in an earlier post that I think you remember, which I still apologize for.
Jason,
Referring about the virgin birth, c’mon man. There is no way possible to explain that Jesus was born of a virgin to show that he did not have original sin. Let’s stick to what the Bible says. Jesus was born of a virgin to fulfill the prophesy in Isaiah 7:14. Jesus was born of a virgin to prove that He was of God (deity). Read Matthew 1:22. It tells exactly why Jesus was born of a virgin.
Ken and Jason,
Please explain Ezekiel 18. Does that passage alone not contradict your idea of original sin? It says in paraphrase that the son does not inherit righteousness from his earthly father, just like in verses 14-17 which says that he will not die because of his father’s iniquity. Maybe this doctrine of original sin was floating around in Ezekiel’s day, and he refuted it. Each one is accountable for his own sins.
Eze. 18:20 “The son shall not bear the guilt of the father nor the father bear the guilt of the son.”
How do you explain 2 Corinthians 5:10? “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that EACH ONE may receive the things done in the body, ACCORDING TO WHAT HE HAS DONE, whether good or bad”
How can I be accountable for Adam’s sin? How can I bear Adam’s sin? How can I be born with Adam’s sin when I must answer for my own sins? Please explain those two passages.
Eric Gray
E.G., it is very convenient for you to make a claim about your systematic and then to feel no burden to prove it from scripture. If that is the case, then we are not debating, you are simply pontificating. When you are asked to substantiate a claim and then refuse to with trite sayings that insult my commitment to the scriptures- you are being counterproductive and are certainly NOT debating. “Let’s stick to what the Bible says,” okay- then do just that.
Matt. 1:22 is one of many verses taht summarize the reason for Jesus being born of a virgin. Certainly that is not the only reason that Jesus was born of a virgin. I think it is interesting that in a parallel passage, Luke 1:27-35, a reason given for his virgin birth is so that he might be called holy- and there are many other verses that give a reason for his virgin birth.
You made the claim, now explain it. Why does Jesus need to be holy and born of a virgin? The prophecy given in Isaiah was given for a reason. Why was it necessary that Jesus be born as such? Why does he need the virgin birth if only to prove that he was God? Didn’t he do that many times over with his signs and wonders?
The burden of proof lies on you. If you want me to change my mind and become Pelagian, then you need to explain your position better than that. Surely you are not merely interested in slapping a few Calvinists around, right? The virgin birth makes sense in my theology- but it doesn’t seem to in yours.
In Ezekiel 18, original sin is not in view, acutal sins are. Why use the phrase “a son who sees” if we are talking about original sin?
Again, your favorite fallacy of the excluded middle raises it’s ugly head. 2 Cor. 5:10 and the doctrine of original sin are not mutually exclusive. I believe that both are true and that the Bible teaches both.
You are accountable for Adam’s sin because you would have done the same thing if you were in his shoes. That is the doctrine of federalism. It is folly to believe you would have done better than him if given the chance. You would have ate, and you would have fallen just the same. You are held accountable for both original sin and actual sins. Sorry to break the news to you- you are no better than Adam.
Eric,
First of all **SURPRISE** I agree with you on the virgin birth not having a bearing on the sinlessness of Jesus. Jason, I can’t go with you on that one.
Second, it’s quite frustrating to respond to you since you don’t really deal with my questions and instead toss out even more objections (I was just waiting for the Ez. 18 passage to get thrown out).
Indulge me as I go back and clarify.
You and Jose seem to think that just pulled my beliefs out of thin air. Again, I believe the Bible teaches that God is Sovereign over all events (You yourself said that you believed that God has eternal knowledge of all events). I gave two examples to bolster my point: 1. Joseph saying, “you intended it for evil but God intended it for good” and 2. Peter, on Pentecost telling the Jews who had just crucified Christ that the Lord was handed over to sinful men by the set purpose of God. NOTHING happens by accident, fate, chance, or by the unencumbered will of free moral agents. To deny this is to embrace atheism or at best Deism.
Since God is Sovereign, then I must deal with the tensions between God’s Sovereignty and man’s duties to respond, make choices, obey, etc. This is what I have been doing all along. You have yet to explain HOW you deal with this tension. You have simply ignored it. Many of your “what if” questions are similar in nature to those hypothetically posed by Paul in Rom. 9:14 & 19. Think about it, if Paul didn’t believe that God ordains everything which comes to pass, then why didn’t he just answer, “Well of course God’s not unjust, everybody has an equal chance to respond” or “the potter makes all the pots exactly the same, it’s up to the clay to be ‘moldable'”?
You still haven’t addressed my inquiry to you about your apparent misreading of Rom. 5:19. Look at v. 12. Paul says, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” Note he says that death came to all men through Adam’s sin. I know you don’t have a problem with that–the consequences of Adam’s sin bring death to all men. But look at the next phrase, “because all sinned.” The word is “sinned” (past tense) not “sin” (present). Paul is clearly making the case the Adam’s sin was MY sin. Adam was my representative in sin just as Jesus is my representative in righteousness.
This doesn’t take away from the culpability I have for my own personal sins. Paul makes that clear as well. I stand forensically with Adam as the human race’s representative as a sinner. My own sins, as a result of this nature, just make it all the more clear that I am a sinner. Ezekiel is getting at this point by calling each man to account for his own sin and not leaving the sons without hope of restoration. Ezekiel is not making a theological point for the purpose of explaining justification by grace. Paul is. There’s no more contradiction here than there is between Paul and James over faith and works.
You say, “I am by nature a sinner, not by birth”. I asked you to tell me how this works. How can you be a natural “sinner” but not be born this way? If you are a “Natural” doesn’t that mean that you come by it “naturally”? The word “nature” shares its root with “natality” which means BIRTH! I’ll ask again, do you believe people are born with the ABILITY to NOT sin? If not, what is it about their nature that causes them to, of a necessity, sin?
I ask you to please fully examine your rejection of the doctrine of original sin. Don’t embrace your traditions to the detriment of the plain meaning of the text.
I gave a snippet description of reformed theology to your Dad a few posts back. I believe that will clarify where I am coming from. One cannot embrace the “T” without embracing all the other elements as well. As to the beliefs and origin of Grace Fellowship, all that information is available on the website.
Ken, my apologies for interrupting your prior discussions. *Just for clarification* doesen’t Jesus’ virgin birth show that he is born without original sin? Or, to say it another way, if Jesus was not born of a virgin, then he would have been born with original sin. To deny this is to deny the need for a virgin birth- unless you take the “merely a sign” position that E.G. takes. The Bible says that Jesus being born holy is more than just a sign.
E.G., please continue to answer Ken and ignore my previous post for the time being, his is more to the point.
Jason,
I can see why people would argue to your point. I don’t think that it is a necessary inference. Robert Reymond (very reformed and very Presbyterian–and no, Eric, I’m not a Presbyterian) takes the view that there really is no connection in his Sys. Theo.
But to me it’s not an issue to contend over.
Thanks for hanging in there on the thread. You are welcome to keep at it. You’re welcome to join us for our family reunion this Saturday. I’m gonna need an ally! HAHA
🙂
Thanks for the invite. If I were close to Atlanta I would love to meet all of you guys. I can’t agree about the virgin birth not being a major point because it deals directly with the natures of Christ. “What was the human nature that he possessed like?”
No big deal though, and I am not trying to start a new debate.
Ken,
I cannot believe that we agreed on something 🙂 I am so glad to hear those words “I agree.”
Ken,
I do not embrace the TULIP doctrine because it does not make logical biblical sense. Okay. let’s take this one step at a time. I want to fully answer all of your questions. If I am born with the guilt of Adam’s sin, and created a sinful being, then why does Soloman say in Ecclesiastes 7:29, “Truly, this only I have found: that God MADE MAN UPRIGHT, but they have sought out many schemes.” It is man’s choice to sin, just like it was Adam’s choice to eat of the fruit. And to respond to Jason’s phrase, how do you know that I would have given in to temptation? Have you ever resisted temptation? If I am born with sin, then why can I resist some temptations? Because I am created upright. If I never sinned, I would not need Jesus to cleanse my sins, but I would still follow Him, just like He was baptized to “fulfill all righteousness.” But I did sin, and do everyday. Therefore, I need Jesus. But do not underestimate man. Job was upright. Noah walked with God. These men were righteous. Paul (Saul) was blameless in the law. How do you know that man cannot help but sin? I cannot help it because I gave in to it, not because I was born with it. Your idea is pure speculation.
Romans 5: If Adam’s sin is upon all’s shoulders, then why are not all made righteous by Christ? If that is the case then everyone is going to heaven. But it all comes back to this idea of choice. I choose to sin, and I choose to repent. Verse 12 says that death spread to all men because I suffer the consequences of Adam’s sin. Just like if my father went out and raked up all this debt, my mother and myself and siblings would have to pay it back because I will suffer the consequences of his sin. That does not mean that I sinned, nor am accountable for the sin, but must bear the consequence. Make sense? Also, it says that all sinned, not born with it. Verse 19 is tricky because it has been misconstrued. It says that “many were made sinners,” not all. Different from verse 12. They were made sinners because sin was real, and they were tempted and gave in. Also, “many will be made righteous” because they choose to crucify the old man through the death of Jesus Christ. Choice: key word. If Adam is my representative, as well for all of mankind, then why is all mankind not going to heaven? But you stated it perfectly when you said that “each man is to account for his own sin.” Exactly! I do not account for Adam’s sin. I do not bear the guilt of Adam’s sin. I bear the guilt of my sin.
Answer this: Was it God’s will for me
to sin?
R.L. Whiteside said this about Rom. 5:19:
“The many” here includes all that arrive at the years of responsibility. Paul does not say how these were made sinners by the disobedience of Adam, nor how they are to be made righteous by the obedience of Christ. It is pure assumption to argue that the disobedience of Adam is imputed to his offspring, or that the obedience of Christ is imputed to anybody. Neither guilt nor personal righteousness can be transferred from one person to another; but the consequences of either, to some extent, may fall upon others.”
Once I sinned, I became a sinner. But I can quit sinning if I can build up my faith enough. But even if I had only one sin, I need Jesus and am a sinful being.
If we believe that Jesus Christ was fully man and fully God, then why did He not carry the guilt of Adam? Hebrews 2:17 says that “in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.” If we are born sinful beings, Christ would have to. But He did not. Also, He resisted temptation, and I am able to resist it, too. And there is a possibility that I can stop sinning.
How can a just God hold me accountable for what Adam did? There is nothing that I could do. That was Adam’s decision to eat the fruit. Likewise, Adam is not responsibile for my sin. I live my own life and make my own decisions. He will not get me to heaven, and he will not condemn me to hell. Jesus will get me to heaven, through responding to Him: My Choice.
Eric Gray
Eric,
Please clarify.
You say,
Are you saying that these men were without sin? Was Paul blameless such that he didn’t need Jesus to atone for his sin?
Could anyone be justified by the Law? Paul says no. Why not?
Jason,
How can you say that Jesus’ birth was to show that He didn’t have original sin? Is that in the Bible? I have not read it, but I would love to. Please show me. If you take this view, then you must support the Doctrine of Immaculate Conception. If this is true, then Mary must of been sinless. Because if it comes through mankind, then Jesus was born into mankind. But we know that Mary was not sinless because she offered a sin offering as it says in Luke 2:22-24. What made her not sinful? Likewise, Jesus chose to not sin.
Ken,
I am looking forward to this weekend. I always enjoy seeing you and your family. Your kids are growing so much, and it is so good to see you all. I think that it is best to agree to keep our religious discussions on this blog and not bring them up this coming weekend. Hope you agree. Look forward to seeing you. God bless!
Eric Gray
If I can add these questions without interrupting the debate:
E.G., why did you interpret Ecc. 7:29 as referring to each individual instead of the creation of Adam?
I will leave the point about me knowing you would sin like Adam (because you have a sin nature) because I know it requires you to adopt biblical presuppositions for you to believe it.
Do you see it as fair for God to allow many innocents who had nothing to do with Adam’s sin to experience the consequences of sin? Would the families of those killed in the Tsunami find comfort in that? I don’t see how you have gotten God off the hook for visiting sin on people with the argument you are using? Coudn’t he stop the innocent from being murdered? Raped? I am beginning to see that Ken is right- you don’t believe in God’s soveriegnty.
Given your view, how do you interpret Ex. 20:5?
Ken,
I am not saying that these men were not without sin. But Jose did bring up a good point about Enoch. Could Enoch have been sinless? Possibly. I cannot say yes or no, but it is possible. But why do you degrade me? If you say that I cannot but help sin, then I have an excuse to sin. I know that you are not literally degrading me, but maybe we should put a little more hope in mankind. Also, no one could be justified by the law because it did not have the power to complete cleanse sins. That came through Jesus Christ. But could I be justified if I never sinned? Well, I would still be just.
No matter what arguments we embrace, Jesus Christ cleansed us from our sins. Thanks be to God, says Paul, because He has delivered us from this body of death. Whether or not I am born with sin, Jesus still died for my sins. Praise His Name!
Eric Gray
Jason,
I would explain Exo. 20:5 like it says. He is talking about punishing sin, and the children suffering the consequences of their fathers’ sin. But God would show mercy to them that loved Him and kept His commandments. Does that mean that those who are “the elect” (I use that in the way Ken views it, although I do not agree with it) are not born with sin, if God shows mercy to them? There are too many holes in this argument. It does not make sense. How can a just God cause me to be born with sin, when He wants me to be sinless?
Also, your question about Ecc. 7:29 makes no sense. What is the difference? I am of Adam’s decendants, and I am an individual. Please explain.
Bad things happen to good people because sin is in the world. Did Job suffer because he sinned? No he didn’t. God was showing him off to Satan. He suffered because of his faith.
Did the Christians in the 1st century suffer because they were sinful, or because they were righteous, and because of the sins of those who put them to death?
Habakkuk cried out the same thing: “Violence!” Injustice, perversion, etc. And God’s response was judgment. But nevertheless, “The just shall live by faith.” No matter who suffers what, no matter how many innocent people die, the just will still live by faith.
He finally concludes the same way we should feel: “But the Lord is in His holy temple. Let all the earth keep silence before Him.” Do you know what that means? It means that He is God and I am not. It is not for me to decide why someone suffers. My job is to live by faith. His job is to be God. Therefore, I must shut my mouth before Him because He is reigning in His Holy Temple, my body, and through the body of Christ.
I don’t know why the tsunami killed all of those innocent people. I don’t know why 9-11 happened. But I do know that God knows. That is all that matters. God is in control. I am not. He is the Lord of my life, and I am going to live for Him each and every day.
Eric Gray
OK Eric, I think we’re getting down to it.
You say,
You sound like a humanist utopian. I really don’t think the Bible teaches such a high view of mankind. To say that Enoch might have been sinless is to bring God’s holiness down to a ridiculously low level. If you look through the pages of scripture, when people encounter the holiness of God (e.g. Is. 6) they have a far different reaction than you do.
You also say,
So is it your view that the Law was deficient? What does Paul mean in Romans 7:7ff? It appears to me that Paul sees the Law as holy and spiritual. To Paul the problem isn’t the Law, it’s sin. Apparently Paul has a much lower view of himself than you do.
Ken,
I am sorry I offended you.
The reason I associated your teaching/beliefs with Calvin is that I recognized elements of your teaching as Calvinist. Further, you noted in several posts that your theology was Reformed. I just did a quick Google search on “Reformed Theology” and here are excerpts from the first link I found
“Reformed theology came out of the Reformation and in particular the theology of
Calvin (1509-1564). Reformed theology holds to the five points of Calvanism,
although not all Calvanists would be reformed.”
As I was beginning to read the Bible, I was taught these doctrines as authoritative and biblical. I used to argue with Dan in Adult Ministry Team meetings about the role that people play in their own salvation, and things like the warnings that you must persevere in faith in order to be saved. I used to kid him that I was going Arminian, but I assumed and trusted that the Calvinist doctrine must be sound and I just wasn’t mature enough yet to understand it properly. However, as I have matured, I have come to understand that our perseverance is required and the warnings are real.
However, I was settled on Total Depravity, having my own life experience and my previous interpretations of scripture like Romans 3:10-12. I also accepted that babies probably go to hell. After taking care of many infants, I know that even the tiniest infant sometimes shows anger, which I associated with the “sin nature.”
Perhaps you can now imagine how profoundly shaken I was to learn that another pillar of my original 5 point calvinist faith was erroneous. You may still want to try to defend it, but having looked at Noah and Enoch, it is clear that Total Depravity should not be taught, or at least not the way it is taught, as doctrine.
I look up to people like you and Dan, and I know that you have a lot of knowledge I do not have. My saying that you have a lot of explaining to do was not intended to be punitive. I expected that (1) you are aware of things I am not aware of that might bolster the case for Calvin’s doctrine, and that you just had not shared it; or (2) you were going to be as surprised as I was when you thought about the significance of the scriptures about Noah and Enoch, and the significance of “turned aside” and “become useless” in Romans 3:10-12.
I don’t see any recognition of the issue in your subsequent posts so I want to ask you directly just to be sure. After examining these scriptures do you still believe that as the head of the human race, Adam’s fall became the fall of all his posterity (Jesus Christ being the only exception), in such a way that corruption, guilt, death, and condemnation belong properly to every person. And that all persons are thus corrupt by nature, by choice and by divine declaration enslaved to sin, and morally unable to delight in God and overcome their own proud preference for the fleeting pleasures of self-rule?
As far as my “rhetoric” about Calvin, I guess I was lashing out because I felt duped. That is not your fault and I am sorry I let my anger show through to dump on you. Sorry.
With regard to scriptures that teach the necessity of our perseverance, here are three very clear ones.
1 Timothy 4:1-16
Hebrews 10:23-29
Phillipians 2:12-16
My exegesis is that the Bible clearly teaches that we must persevere in faith in order to be saved. If we do not persevere, then, even though we are or were genuine believers, we will lose our chance for salvation.
Jose
Jason,
I believe you implied that I use false arguments to manipulate people and that I am an unethical liar. This because I pointed out some issues with Calvin’s doctrine and then noted issues with the man’s life that lead me to question our relying upon his influence in our doctrine. I think I see what you mean about name-calling.
In your subsequent post, even though you indicated that you were not defending Calvin, you pointed out that his approval of the killing of Servetus under civil law was ok in that he was supporting law enforcement. Hmm, I still think he was a murderer and you I guess you can call me anything you want for thinking that.
Finally, I understand your point about judging like God judges, but within the church we need to judge what is acceptable behavior for Christians (1 Cor 5:11-13). Calvin’s behaviour in the case of Servetus falls short of acceptable Christian behaviour in my opinion. If he were alive today, I would boot him out of the church and I would certainly not allow him to teach. I think we need to take a more careful look at what he has already taught us.
I try to base my faith on the scriptures and what God reveals to me directly. I don’t think your tone or comments are appropriate, but I obviously hit a nerve with you. I am sorry for that.
Jose
Jose, your comments are appreciated even though your apology seems to be a little less than sincere. To be clear, I believe that the doctrines that Calvin taught are biblical rather than adopting the notion that he “invented” TULIP. Therefore, even if Calvin did not exist- I believe the doctrines that the Synod of Dort relied on to refute the Arminian’s version of TULIP are biblical.
I am not sure how you can apologize to Ken for your rhetoric and then defend it to me. As far as your belief that Calvin was a murder- each man is accountable to God for his own judgments. It is also ironic that you cite 1 Cor. 5:11-13 because previously you implied that Calvin was not a believer because of his actions and therefore according to that verse you should not judge him.
My comments were meant to help you and I tried to be gentle. Believe it or not, I care for your ability to witness your faith because if we are both servants in the kingdom, then we are working towards the same ultimate goal. You will not win a Calvinist to your position by calling Calvin a murderer. Do what you want with that information. Please don’t condecend me by saying you hit a nerve. I accepted Christ into my heart-not Calvin. I simply dispise that argument because it spins the truth in a manipulative fashion. I don’t think I would use it even if I was still Arminian. It makes me wonder, do you yourself approve of capital punishment, or are you consistent? If you are consistent, how do you deal with Genesis 9:6?
I have come full circle in my own life so I appreciate your comments to Ken. I was once Arminian. But I accepted Covenant Theology/Calvinism because I believe it is biblical- NOT because I am accepting dogma. If you and Eric are relying on the intelligence of a man to see the persuasiveness of your arguments, you would do well to not insult it.
Eric G., when you say things like “Why would a holy and righteous God who wants to be in fellowship with us create us sinners?” and “How can a just God cause me to be born with sin, when He wants me to be sinless?” don’t you think Paul addressed this objection in Romans 9?
Concerning Enoch and Noah:
I don’t think you guys realize that this “linchpin” has major problems. I have to adopt your systematic theology assumptions in order to interpret the text the way you do- because the text does not say what you are pressing it to say.
In my systematic theology, I would say that God gave Enoch and Noah a new heart, or he regenerated them. This was an act of God apart from the faith of these men. At this point, God also justified them- once again, an act of God’s grace alone. At this point, they were called “blameless.” They were then able to believe in God and exercise that faith. Therefore, it could also accurately be said that Enoch “walked with God.”
This is called the ordo salutis, or, order of salvation as articulated in the Reformed tradition. I don’t think you can articulate an ordo salutis for your theology.
Now, I know that you will say, “None of that is in the text!” That is true, but niether is your way of reading into the text. We are not told in these texts about Enoch and Noah how they became righteous and walked with God.
Both of us bring that knowledge to the text based on our presuppositions from our particular systematic theology (or, to say it another way, our understanding of the Bible as a whole).
Therefore, I don’t think you have proved your theology from Noah and Enoch. If anything, I believe you are misunderstanding those passages and using them to say more than they are really saying.
Sorry for the posting flurry. E.G., I am sure you have an answer for this, but how do you interpret Psalm 51:5? “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”
Jason,
I do not rely on the intelligence of a man. Man is wrong many times. I have been wrong many times. I rely on the intelligence of God and His Word. There is nothing wrong with citing what other credible Bible scholars have said. Calvin was very intelligent, but I feel as though he was blinded about many things because of his feud with the Catholic church.
Ken,
I do not view myself in any high regards. I am a sinner, and I will always be. I am like filthy rags. But through the blood of Jesus Christ I can view myself as a child of God, and that is something to be proud of. You say that the Bible doesn’t give a high view of mankind. I disagree. Genesis 1:26 says that we were made in the image of God. Now that alone gives a high regard to mankind. We are made in the image of the True Living God. What a blessing!
Did God put us on the world to sin?
Regarding the law, it was incomplete. It did not have that complete atoning blood of the Lamb of God. Paul said, “Who will deliver me from this body of death?” Not the Law of Moses, but Jesus Christ. You say that the problem is not the law, but sin. Yet, the law was not able to completely forgive sins.
Look at what Paul said in Gal. 2:21 “I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.” The law was a tutor, bringing us to Christ (Gal. 3:24).
Hebrews is a great book regarding how the Law was incomplete. Chapter 7:11-12 tells that there was a need of a change in priesthood, because there was a change of law. Look at what it says in 18-19, “For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its WEAKNESS and UNPROFITABLENESS, for the law made NOTHING perfect…”
Heb. 10:3-4 “But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.” Why? Because it was not the perfect Lamb of God. It seems as though Paul (if he wrote Hebrews, but certainly Galatians), did not have that high of a view towards the law as you think. He knew it was sacred and holy, as well as I do. But he also knew that it was no longer God’s law, and because of that he did not hold it in that high of a view as you think.
Coming back to the statement about man. I do not want to come across as though I think that man is sufficient in and of himself. It is possible for man to not sin, which is evident through Jesus Christ, being fully man and fully God. But the world has never known anyone like Jesus Christ. Regardless of whether Enoch never sinned is beside the point. I do not personally care. I sinned, and I need Jesus. Everyone I know has sinned, and they need Jesus. I do not want to get stuck on little things like this to bog down our discussion. We all need Jesus, and I know you agree. I think it best if we leave this discussion, and enter another, maybe even some different topics, of your choosing. Thanks for a great discussion. Hope you have a great new year.
Eric Gray
Whether or not Calvin was a sinner (or even a believer) really has no bearing on the conversation. Just because he popularized certain doctrines, does not mean that they rest on his authority. This is a classic example of the genetic fallacy. No one has invoked Calvin as the authority or justification for any claim.
It’s a little like saying that the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are immoral because their authors held slaves.
Sorry for yet another post but earlier I said that I did not think you guys could articulate an ordo salutis, and yet I found one from an Arminian perspective. Maybe this can aid discussion.
E.F.,
First of all, God’s ways are not my ways. I understand that. I believe in the Sovereignty of God, but not in the way you do. I believe that the elect is the Church, nothing more, nothing less, and that the Church is made up of believers that were called by the Gospel. The church was predestined corporately, not individually. If God chooses to show mercy on the Muslim nation and bring judgment upon us, that is His doings, and I am supposed to live by faith (Hab. 2).
Where in this verse do you find that God hand-picked His chosen people?
Verse 16 tells of the self-righteous. Paul says that salvation is in God alone.
Verse 17-18 says that God used Pharoah to show His power.
Consider this: “God has no right to condemn a sinner whom He Himself has hardened.”
Please explain how that verse promotes whatever you think it does.
Jason,
First of all, there is a problem in your argument. You stated, “I would say…” It doesn’t matter what you say or think. It matters what the Bible says. The Bible never mentions Noah and Enoch receiving a “new heart” or being “regenerated.” I never said they were for sure sinless. I said it was a possibility, something to think about. Do I think they were? No. Noah definitely sinned right after exiting the ark. But it is something to discuss. It is not doctrine. I apologize for coming across as though I believed that. It is an idea, not a belief. I don’t want to bring anything to the Bible. I want to read what it says, and accept it as that. I feel as though I have. Also, I don’t want to adopt a “Systematic Theology.” I want the Word of Christ to dwell in my heart, and leave it up to the Holy Spirit that dwells within me to help me to understand it. I don’t want to have a “Pelagian,” “Arminian,” or whatever other names you have. I want to be a Christian, nothing more, nothing less. I don’t believe Calvin, I believe God and His Son.
Regarding Psalm 51:5, let’s look at the context. What just happened? David sinned with Bathsheba, Nathan calls him the man (figurative joke), and David has repented. So David pens this Psalm and gives us a true form of repentance.
Look in verse 4: “Against You, You only, have I sinned, and done this evil in Your sight–That you may be found just when you speak, and blameless when you judge.” David sinned, he did not inherit Adam’s sin. If he inherited Adam’s sin, which he could do nothing about, then God would not be just when He spoke.
Verse 5: Of course, I understand that you view this to mean Original Sin. But let me offer a different perspective. I know that you will not change your beliefs, but maybe I can spark some thought. 1. Is it possible that David viewed his sin as Isaiah did his? Isaiah 6:5 Isaiah said that his people were unclean. This could be the case because in verse 6 David says that God desired truth. Maybe he viewed his people as being perverse or unclean, and that he was born into an unclean people. 2. He could be saying that he is a sinner by choice, not by birth. He could understand the magnitude of his sin, and be using a metaphor, which I think is very likely. He wants to be forgiven, but it seems as though his whole life has been sinful, which I myself can second. He said that his sin was always before him (verse 3), which leads me to believe that he understood sin, which babies cannot.
Hope that answers your question. Please list any comments regarding it.
Eric Gray
I consider it this way… Who is the pot to tell the potter what rights he has or doesn’t have? We are utterly contingent on God. Our conception and every breath we take is at God’s good pleasure. God may do what He likes with His creation.
Could you please cite this verse for us?
It was a quote from an outside source, not a Bible verse. But I cannot believe that you are perfectly fine with God allowing you to be born with sin. That is outrageous. How could the God of this world, who is Just and Holy, allow His creation to be born sinful? It is not logical. You have yet to state how it is so. Where in the Bible does it say that we are born with sin? Also, why do I have to carry the guilt of Adam? If this is so, then how come helpless children go to hell? If that is how you feel, then I am sorry. It must be a terrible thing to know that your children are lost even though they have no idea what sin is. Otherwise, let’s through this idea out the window and realize that our God of love wants us to be saved, and that He would not cause us to bear the guilt of someone that we could do nothing about.
Even the verses that you have stated talk about it is God’s job to be God, not mine. It has nothing to do with Original Sin. I do not tell God how to do His job, but everything that He does has a purpose, just like it has been stated. But what purpose is there in creating us with sin?
Eric Gray
Eric Gray,
I was going to stay out but I just can’t.
You say,
You cannot get around the fact that Paul ties the sin of Adam to his offspring in Rom. 5. I pointed out the word, “sinned” in v. 19 as being past tense. There’s no amount of acrobatics that you can do to avoid the real meaning. Just as God imputes the sin of Adam to all the children of Adam (i.e. when Adam sinned, I also sinned so I am therefore a sinner), He imputes the righteousness of Christ to all the children of God (the Elect–however you CHOOSE to define the word).
I also pointed out that the common meaning of the word “nature” points to that which someone is born with. Again you ignore the plain meaning of the word and force it into your systematic theology (and you do have one whether you like it or not–no person can come to the scripture completely free of presuppositions–I even learned that at Freed-Hardeman!).
Eric, Adam was created in God’s image but his sin plunged the human race into radical corruption. Therefore, I am, by nature, also a sinner in the image of Adam. John says that for a man to claim to be without sin he is a liar. Your philosophy implies that there must be sinless people (adults) out there since it is theoretically possible to go without sinning. Why don’t you take the anecdotal evidence of all your friends (and family!) being sinners as a clue to the true nature of humanity–FALLEN.
Throughout history, only Pelagians and strict rationalists have argued as you do. You assert that my views are suspect (or even heretical) but the weight of hundreds of years of biblical scholarship is against you.
You ask, “but what purpose is there in creating us with sin?” Simple. So that He can, by grace alone, be the salvation of my soul. So that He alone can get the glory for salvation, righteousness, and justification. It’s the same answer to the question, “why did God allow Adam and Eve to sin in the first place?” In all things, God gets the glory.
I believe that in your system, man gets the “attaboys”, God’s Sovereignty is brushed aside, and the Holy Spirit is relegated to simply writing scripture.
Eric, could you please explain how it is not logical (i.e., a violation of the laws of logic)? If you can, I will drop my adherence to the doctrine of original sin.
E.G., fair point about my choice of words in saying, “It seems to me.” I will change that to “The Bible teaches.”
I want to reiterate my respect for your willingness to be challenged. If you want to just willy-nilly reinterpret Ps. 51:5 as you do, that is fine, but your interpretation does not deal with the original Hebrew at all. From conception, David was in sin. Just like Esau and Jacob were before they had done anything. Ps. 51 and Romans 9:11 are hard to get around without just ignoring them, or just reinterpreting them according to personal opinion. You can’t take a theological term like “election” and then redefine it according to how you want. The Bible has already defined the term for us.
Also, I appreciate your desire to be committed to Christ, but you have a systematic theology. We all do. The fact that you reinterpreted Ps. 51 shows that you do. I encourage you to not be concerned with this. You can say that you just want to follow the Bible’s teachings, but once someone asks you what the content of that teaching is, you will explain systematic theology. It is not a bad thing, only bad systematic theology is bad.
I don’t really understand your desire to make God play by your rules. The Bible says that Adam was created innocent. Then, from that point on, the natural mechanism that God worked with to create a human being was conception and birth (a natural process that God controls in his providence). He set this up before the Fall. At the point that Adam fell, then man began to be born in sin. God did not change the process by which he had ordained to create men, but he did make a plan to redeem them.
Your argument seems to be that we have to accept your position because there is no other viable alternative logically speaking. Yet you are wrong, it is not that our position is not logical, it is that you don’t like it.
Answer E.F.’s challenge.
Jose,
The only offense I took was to being somehow guilty by association. I think we’re all over the Calvin thing so we’ll leave that in the past. I certainly appreciate your humble spirit as always. I will always be indebted to you for the way you cared for Kyle all those many months in the Bridgeway nursery. Again, my thanks.
As to our discussion, please don’t make the inference that I believe all babies who die in infancy will go to Hell because of their sinful natures. I will go so far as to say that they DESERVE to go to Hell. I have to make this assertion based on my reading of Romans 5. We all sinned (that’s sinned–past tense) in Adam (v. 19). When Adam sinned it was as if I was there sinning as well. Therefore, God imputes that sin to my account from my very birth. Although I may find this hard to swallow, it’s completely fair since I know that, in Adam’s place, I would fare no better.
The difficulty comes when we try to determine the fate of those who never live long enough to commit personal sin. Unlike my nephew Eric, I can take no comfort in their supposed “innocence”. Romans 5 (as well as other scriptures) precludes that. I can, however, look to passages such as where David’s infant son, struck down by God as punishment for David’s sin, is said to be going where David will be with him. I know it’s not a strong argument but it lends credence to the view that God applies the atonement of Christ to them as He sees fit. I take greater comfort knowing that God is Sovereign and in control of everything which happens in the universe. He knows who will live and who will die and he has known this eternally. If he chooses to take an infant from this earth, I trust that He is fair and just and that He will bridge the gap between their need for atonement and their inability to exercise personal faith.
Jose, you can choose to reject the doctrine of original sin and total depravity but you must embrace the consequential theological implications…implications which lead inevitably to a man-centered religious system, a denial of the Sovereignty of God, and pure legalism.
As to Noah and Enoch, I will cite to you Heb. 11:6 “without faith it is impossible to be pleasing to God.” I would say that it was obvious that Noah and Enoch, like Abraham trusted God and it was credited to them as righteousness. They put their faith in God to BE their righteousness. Their obedience and holy living were the fruit of that faith.
You ask,
My answer is clearly, yes.
Now to those scripture references:
1 Tim 4:1-16
I’ve made it clear what I believe about “make believers” in the church who have the appearance of being “of the faith” but are, in fact, not. John says that if they had truly been of us they would never have left. James makes it clear that there is such a thing as dead faith–a mere profession of faith which has no power to save. This is why James can say that demons “believe”. They have a faith but not saving faith.
This may be what Timothy means by “some will abandon the faith”. He could also be referring to those who abandon the faith for a season and then God, through His hand of discipline, brings them back (but often not before their witness has been destroyed and perhaps their lives are in shambles).
In verse 16, I don’t think Paul means “save yourself and your hearers” in the same way that Jesus saves. It’s more likely that he means that Timothy will “save himself” from the heartache and negative consequences that neglecting to be careful will bring.
Heb. 10:23
I wouldn’t take “received the knowledge of the truth” to demand the interpretation that this indicates one who has been born again. In context, I believe the writer is appealing to Jews who are “weighing the evidence” in his case for Jesus. If they reject the Jewish Messiah, then all they have left is animal sacrifice which doesn’t atone for sin.
Jose, I’ll ask you, what happens when a person is regenerated? What happens when they receive the Holy Spirit? If your contention is true that one can lose their justification, then does that person need to be regenerated all over again? And if one is only regenerated when they are baptized in water then doesn’t it make sense that they would need to be baptized every time they lose their justification? And just how much sin does God tolerate before he rips your justification away? Have you ever lost your justification? Are you sure that you stand justified now? If so, on what basis?
I’ve made an effort to answer your questions, kindly answer mine.
Phil. 2:12-16
This one is easy. Look at verse 13. Paul says that God “works in me to DO and to WILL according to His good purposes.” Paul’s admonishment to the Philippians is to keep in step with the Spirit of God that is in them. As a believer, I have real choices before me and I can really stumble (as I have done many times). When I submit to the indwelling Spirit, I gain power to persevere. If I don’t then I can quench the Spirit. In such an event, I need to be ready for the Divine Discipline since God disciplines those whom He loves.
Jose, If I understand you correctly, you would see God not as a loving Father but as an angry judge who is just waiting for me to screw up so he can rip His Spirit out of me, turn His back, and tell Jesus “I don’t care who you pray for (Jn. 17:9), I’m throwing that one back!”
Your last sentence betrays your belief. You have no assurance that you are saved. You simply believe that you have a CHANCE to be saved. Would that be a 50-50 chance? Why doesn’t the Bible use such language…chance?!?!?
Your turn.
Wow, Ken. Great post. I was waiting to go on the offensive, but those are some really good questions.
Thanks Ken, I appreciate your graciousness. However, I do not get the same conclusion from Romans 5.
– Because of Adam’s disobedience, sin entered the world;
– However, verse 12 does not indicate that we are born as fallen creatures; it says we are born into a world with sin;
– Verse 12 says that death spread to all men because all have sinned, not because they are born that way;
– Verses 13 and 14 establish Paul’s argument that all men sinned because everyone died even prior to the Law being established, thus the use of the past tense is clearly a reference to those that died prior to the Law;
– and verse 14 notes that Adam is a type of Jesus which clearly says to me that man cannot have a sin nature, since Jesus was fully man, not to mention that Adam was made in the likeness of God;
– If you look at all of verse 19, it draws a parallel between many being made sinners because of Adam’s sin and many being made righteous through Christ’s obedience, so to apply your reasoning that Adam gave every man a sin nature requires the parallel that Christ gave every man a righteous nature. I know you don’t want to go there. I know this does not make sense to try to pose this argument but I am stretching, trying to find why you think Romans 5 supports you position.
You go on to say: “When Adam sinned, it was as if I was as if I was there sinning as well.” Your saying this is a construction of your misunderstanding Romans 5. The Bible doesn’t say this, at least not in Romans 5. You indicated there were other scriptures to support your position. What other scriptures? Thanks
You went on to say “Therefore God imputes that sin to my account from my very birth.” Ken, since you are so willing to take on sins you didn’t commit, I would gladly give you mine (no, I would not wish that on anyone). However, your extrapolation comes from the faulty interpretation explained above, and hence cannot be ascribed to the Bible.
I am willing to believe hard things. Until two days ago, I believed in the doctrine of total depravity and reasoned as you do about babies, including the idea that God is sovereign and that He can and should do as He pleases to receive all honor and glory and praise, Amen. Note that I have repeatedly asserted my belief in God’s sovereignty. The Bible clearly teaches that and I am not questioning this aspect of your comments. There are things that I am not clear about, but I sleep well trusting in God and knowing that salvation is by Faith because of God’s grace. We totally agree that no religious system or good deeds can make us righteous before God.
Hebrews 11:5 states specifically that “By faith Enoch was taken up so that he would not see death; and he was not found because God took him up; for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God.” I can also see where you apply Hebrews 11:6 to both Noah and Enoch. Although you did not state it explicitly, I believe you are making the point that it is not that Noah and Enoch did not sin, but that it was their faith in God that made up for their sin. Good point. However, in making the argument that I had been wrong in assuming they had not sinned, you clearly undermine your case for Total Depravity. How can a totally depraved person have faith in God such that God is pleased with them? …all have turned …all have become useless. It doesn’t say they started there. And Noah and Enoch were not in the position we are in today having Christ’s atonement or the Helper.
I look back on these arguments and try to reconcile the obvious effects of sin in the world and our seeming predisposition to it. I can find other scriptures that would lead me toward belief in total depravity such as: Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually (Gen 6:5). I still cannot say that it applies to an infant but I was thinking that perhaps it is an acquired predisposition due to the effect of sin in the world. Then I recalled that there is one other factor we need to consider. There is an evil being called Satan, and he actively seeks out those to devour. He was there in the Garden, getting Eve to sin. Isn’t that Hell’s best kept secret that there is a Devil? I cannot remember when was the last time I heard a good sermon preached about Satan. In fact, I can’t remember a sermon preached about Satan; can you? Nobody wants to think about him and his demons roaming the world. Is this the explanation? I would love to hear your views on Satan please, and how this figures in to our seeming predisposition to sin. Thanks.
1 Tim 4:1-16
—————————————————
Ken, you said: “I’ve made it clear what I believe about “make believers” in the church who have the appearance of being “of the faith” but are, in fact, not.” What verse or verses in 1 Tim 4:1-16 are you referring to? There is nothing in there about fakers. It says that some will fall away because they get tricked by evil spirits and by rotten people who have seared their own conscience. It appears to me that you are ignoring the plain meaning of the scripture. Also, note how this fits with my comments above about the doctrine of Total Depravity.
You go on with various speculations including speculations about the meaning of verse 16. You can say whatever you want but it is not appropriate to allow unsupported speculation to override the plain and simple meaning of Paul’s statements in verse 16.
I am sorry brother, but this was very bad. You can’t make the Bible conform to your doctrine. We must conform our doctrine to the Bible.
Heb. 10:23
————————————————–
You say: I wouldn’t take “received the knowledge of the truth” to demand the interpretation that this indicates one who has been born again.
The complete verse in the NASB reads “For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins”
The reference to “there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins” is a direct reference to the atonement (past tense) for that individual. Are you suggesting that someone who has the knowledge of truth and has been justified has not “been saved.” I put “been saved” in quotes because that would be your usage, not mine. In any case, your analysis is unreasonable. This is clearly a real believer that Paul is referring to. You are ignoring the plain meaning of the scripture in favor of your speculations.
We must conform our doctrine to the Bible, not the other way around.
Ken, you asked me “what happens when a person is regenerated? What happens when they receive the Holy Spirit?”
I find two references to “regeneration.” One is referring to the end times (Mat 19:28). I don’t think that is what you are referring to. The other, Titus 3:5 says: “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.” I think it is pretty clear. In my church we often refer to Peter’s formula in Acts 2:38-39 for being saved: “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” Melanie helped a lady pray though to the Holy Ghost yesterday. This was a lady that spoke in tongues when she was baptized about 4 months ago, but had not spoken in tongues since. She got to pray in tongues yesterday for a long time! This lady, Emily, said that she had allowed doubt to overtake her. She began wondering if she had imagined it. She was/is still struggling with the world. Her husband was “regenerated” earlier this year. He is no longer an alcoholic. When I say he was an alcoholic, I mean having seizures from alcohol poisoning and coming to church so drunk the whole sanctuary reeked (granted that it is a small sanctuary). I don’t mean he is a former alcoholic in the sense that the guys that go to AA are former alcoholics; I mean he is no longer an alcoholic. Christ has set him free. He and his wife are both regenerated. I can’t give a better definition since I have not myself experienced it. If you want to meet them and question them, I am sure they would be willing to explain their view of regeneration. I’m sure I can’t do it justice the way they could. One of the awesome experiences I get all the time is talking to some very unsophisticated people that are guided in what they say by the Holy Ghost. It is humbling to talk to them.
Ken, you said, “If your contention is true that one can lose their justification, then does that person need to be regenerated all over again? And if one is only regenerated when they are baptized in water then doesn’t it make sense that they would need to be baptized every time they lose their justification? And just how much sin does God tolerate before he rips your justification away? ”
To your point of “my turn for an answer.” I asked you previously if you are equating justification with salvation. If you have responded, I have not seen it. In any case, I do not equate the two words. Justification to my understanding is that we have a free pass for our sins, as if they never happened. Past, present and future. This is a free gift from God. It is a prerequisite for salvation. Romans 5:18 says “So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.” Note that it says to “all men.” The free gift is what it is and you cannot lose it in the sense that God is faithful. I don’t think you would disagree with me on this so I won’t spend any time trying to support it from scripture. However, Hebrews 10:23 which we visited above makes me wonder if one can’t reject the gift after receiving it. Its not that God “rips it away” as you put it, but rather, that you trash it. That would certainly go along with the teaching in the Bible that if you keep on sinning, you will not be saved. I have previously pointed out about 25 scriptures that indicate that you must persevere in faith and obedience until the end.
Jesus is adamant that we must obey his commandments. There are many admonitions, but the most telling is this: 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
22 “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’
23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’ (Matthew 7:21-23) They might know Jesus but even the Demons know Jesus. Or would you argue that people that prophesy and perform miracles in the name of Jesus are/were not believers? Also see Luke 6:46. The question is, does Jesus know you?
I think you need to believe Jesus is your savior, confessing Him and being baptized for the remission of your sins (justification) and receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost so you can go on living and be transformed in a way that is pleasing to God, and God will save you. I also believe you can quench the Spirit. There were obvious problems that Paul was dealing with in many of the Epistles, so even having the Holy Ghost is not a guarantee of salvation. We must persevere, presenting ourselves as a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God. And we must not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of our minds, so that we may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect (Romans 12:1-2).
You asked, “Have you ever lost your justification? Are you sure that you stand justified now? If so, on what basis?” My answer is that I have been baptized three times. The first time as a baby in the Trinitarian way when I was not a believer, back when I claimed being a Christian but didn’t know what the Bible said. Then I was baptized by immersion at Bridgeway. Also still a Trinitarian, I felt it was something I had to do to out of obedience, but I had started reading the Bible and couldn’t see how a work such as baptism could make a real difference for a believer. Never-the-less, I believe I went through the ceremony genuinely praying for God to forgive me and promising God that I would turn my life around and follow Him. I have since been baptized in Jesus’ name. Again, I did this out of obedience to the scripture, seeing the error of my previous Trinitarian beliefs. I believe my sins are forgiven because I trust God’s promises in the Bible. That said, I do not believe I am saved already and I do not have the Holy Ghost. I examine myself and don’t see the fruit of the Spirit. I have head knowledge but my heart is not right. I don’t know why. As you pointed out, even the demons believe. I can’t help but see myself in the plight of the Samaritans who believed and were baptized by Phillip. Acts 8:14-17 says,” Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit.” I have had several apostolic pastors lay hands on me. They tell me that they sense the Holy Spirit all over me, and to surrender myself completely. I am encouraged in that a number of the “Holy Rollers” I know tell met hat it took some of them years before they received the baptism of the Holy Ghost.
Please don’t waste your time trying to teach me about tongues or the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. I have studied it, but beyond that, I see it and know it is real. I see the gentleness of the people. They aren”t the same. If you want to tell me about tongues and the Holy Ghost, first come to church with me and allow an apostolic pastor to lay hands on you. Since you are already saved, wouldn’t it be ok to ask God to allow you to glorify Him in tongues, allowing the Spirit to completely control your most unruly member and speak through you directly to God. I think you might have a 50/50 chance that you will get the surprise of your life. It happened to Mel while she was driving several days after we were prayed over, and the pastor in our present church laid hands on us. The whole thing was so hokey to Mel, who was the one that took us, that after that service she wanted to go back to Bridgeway. Several days later, surprise! I KNOW my wife. Or I should say I knew my wife. Come examine the people for yourself. Don’t believe the garbage that is said about them being works based Christians. They are not perfect and their organization has some religious trappings that I disapprove, and some of them even “back slide.” But I think you will see what I mean.
Phil. 2:12-16
————————————————
You said, “This one is easy. Look at verse 13. Paul says that God “works in me to DO and to WILL’according to His good purposes.” Paul’s admonishment to the Philippians is to keep in step with the Spirit of God that is in them. As a believer, I have real choices before me and I can really stumble (as I have done many times). When I submit to the indwelling Spirit, I gain power to persevere. If I don’t then I can quench the Spirit. In such an event, I need to be ready for the Divine Discipline since God disciplines those whom He loves. ”
I agree. I would go the one step further which is to say that at some point, God knows, you have gone too far, and there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins (Hebrews 10:23) or that Jesus will reject you for your lawlessness (Matthew 7:23).
Ken, You said “Jose, If I understand you correctly, you would see God not as a loving Father but as an angry judge who is just waiting for me to screw up so he can rip His Spirit out of me, turn His back, and tell Jesus “I don’t care who you pray for (Jn. 17:9), I’m throwing that one back!”
Ken, we both know that God is love but he is also Holy and sovereign. It doesn’t matter what I think. Paul tells you to work out your salvation with fear and trembling (Phil 2:9). Jesus was crucified in the most horrible way as the atonement for our sins. The gift wasn’t free for everyone, it cost Jesus everything. The issue with your strawman argument is your presupposition that you know you are saved and you can’t lose your salvation. You need to make a case for that. John 17:9 does not do it. Let me put John 17:9 in context. Looking at verses 9-12 as Jesus prays for his disciples: “9 I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours; 10 and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them. 11 “I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are. 12 “While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.
It is clear form the reference to Judas in verse 12 that Jesus was praying for his disciples. I believe you have inappropriately extrapolated this to imply that all believers are automatically saved because nobody can take them away from Jesus. I think its clear that you are putting words in God’s mouth. Again, this is bad. We must not make the Bible conform to our doctrine, but rather, conform our doctrine to the Bible.
Finally, you said “Your last sentence betrays your belief. You have no assurance that you are saved. You simply believe that you have a CHANCE to be saved. Would that be a 50-50 chance? Why doesn’t the Bible use such language…chance?!?!?”
You are correct that I have no assurance. Jesus said, “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.” I don’t know the odds, but it looks like it’s a lot less than 50/50.
I know I have been hard on you. But its out of love for you and the folks there (except maybe for Jason – just kidding Jason 🙂 and the truth, and Jesus Christ.
Thanks for taking the time to reply to me. I am sure I will be losing a lot more sleep this week as a result of this post. But let me thank you in advance for all the time you are giving me. I know it is costing you. If you want to delay for some time, don’t feel like you need to reply right away. I worked all day at a church fundraiser and I could use a break! If you want to call a respite and then come back and yell at me for my audacity after a week or so, that would be very cool :). You might want to start a fresh post for folks with low speed connections.
God bless you and yours!
Jose
In case anyone’s wondering – MS Word measures that last post at 3,615 words and 6 printed pages.
Ken,
There is a major problem in your argument. You base a lot of your view around Romans 5, which forces you to assume into the text. The text does not state that because of Adam’s sin, I have been made a sinner. Read it for what it says, because it never said that we all were made sinners because of Adam, but many. Also, it says that death spread to all men, because all sinned, not because of Adam I suffer the guilt of his sin. I suffer the consequences of his, and my, sin.
I think Jose made a great argument about Original sin and perseverance. I echo everything that he said, which is everything that I have said from the get-go. If you want to label me as a “pelagian” and a “strict rationalist”, then do so. I do not see it, I see the Bible.
Also, can I hold this view and go to heaven?
I don’t doubt the Sovereignty, or elevate man any higher than God has. I am a child of God, I am made in the image of God, and I have Jesus as my Savior. THAT’S SOMETHING TO BE PROUD OF! I can view myself in high regards. God loved man so much as to offer His Son on the cross. How can I not view man in high regards if God saw man in a way as to save him?
Jason,
God has defined the term “election.” It is His church, His people. Not selected individually, but corporately. Everytime you see the term, it is being referred to the Church, because that is who the writers are writing to. Look at Ephesians and Romans. They were written to churches. The question then comes, “Who is the Church?” I know we will disagree on this one, so let’s save that for another discussion.
Jose,
I appreciate your humble heart, as you have searched the scriptures and have come to a knowledge of the truth. You also have not let these guys intimidate you with their religious jargon, but have not taken it for truth because they said it. May God bless you. Please continue in your studies.
In regards to your reference to speaking in tongues and laying on of hands, I would ask that you study 1 Corinthians 11-14, particularly 1 Cor. 13:8-12. It is referring to tongues, prophesying, etc. that will cease when the “perfect has come.” I want to put before you that the “perfect” is the Bible. Once we received the written revelation, those things ceased because it required the Apostles to lay their hands on someone to impart gifts of the Holy Spirit. Once they died, the gifts ceased because no one else could impart the gifts. Also, now that we have the written Word, why do we need tongues? We no longer have to prove Jesus, as they had to. We have the word which has been proven. Please consider these things.
Eric Gray
Ken,
I am going to answer one more time because I got to thinking about it again. Oh No! He’s thinking! haha. Anyways, this idea of regeneration, that word has been mentioned many times. So I have been doing a study of it, because I did not know what it meant. I knew it happened because the Bible said it did, but I did not know what it was. The more I studied about it, particularly from Titus 3, the more I knew what it was.
Tit. 3 is a great passage. Jesus Christ came into the world, not because of anything I have done (Praise be to God because I am not worthy), and because of this, He saved us by offering Himself upon the cross for the sins of the world. But Paul made an interesting point. He saved us because of His mercy. The interesting point is how He saved us. He saved us through the washing of regeneration, and the renewal of the Holy Spirit.
Let’s look at the washing of regeneration. The word “regeneration”, as you know, comes from two greek words which mean “new birth.” I know that you don’t agree with what I am about to say, but I cannot deny the word. Referencing that to John 3:3-5, Jesus said that we have to be born of the water and the spirit. How? Acts 2:38, Repenting, and being baptized so that we could receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. That parallels with Tit. 3:5. That is how God works salvation in my life. Now I can be justified by His grace and become a fellow heir of eternal life.
So then comes the question about unregeneration, or if one falls will they lose their salvation? I would answer yes, they can lose their salvation. So what happens if that is the case? Nothing that the person would know. Think about it. When one rebels against God, they have hardened their heart to His word, and no longer let Him work in their life. Just like the Prodigal Son in Luke 15, he was busy in wasteful living. They would not “feel” God removing His Spirit from them because they never felt it come in. They would not know they lost their salvation because they are not concerned with spiritual things. If they were, they would not have fallen from grace.
Also, you asked how they could receive their justification again. I refer again to Luke 15. The son came home and repented, and he was restored to the family. If we want to return to God, all we have to do is repent, and turn from that sin, and live faithfully, and he will continue to forgive us (1 John 1:7). They do not have to be baptized again, because when they were baptized for forgiveness of sins, they were forgiven, but once they rebelled, they only need to repent because they have strayed from God. If they never come back, then they are lost, and God does not know them. If they return home, they are children who have come back home. Eph. 4 says there is one baptism. We do not need more because Jesus was sacrificed once. I hope that answers your question. Please respond.
Jose,
What do you mean that you were only baptized in the name of Jesus? Why would one only be baptized in the name of Jesus? Jesus clearly stated in Matt. 28:18-20 that we need to be baptized in the name of the “Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” Please explain.
Eric Gray
Eric,
It was good to see you on Saturday. Please know that I speak very fondly of you to my friends who read this post. My desire is to disagree but not to be disagreeable. May God empower us all to speak with words of love and respect.
You said in a recent post:
I just read verse 12 again. It clearly says that “all sinned”. If Paul’s intent was to mean that we die because we all sin eventually then why didn’t he just say that. Instead he says, all “sinned”–past tense. Now if your contention is true, that it is unjust for God to hold babies accountable for Adam’s sin, it would be equally unjust for babies to die (as some unfortunately do) as the consequence of Adam’s sin. You are in a quandry here.
Then I read vv. 18-19 again.
How is it that “all men” receive condemnation if your contention is true? Wouldn’t men only receive condemnation when they commit personal sin? How does one make sense of Paul’s words here OTHER than an explanation to the reader of the principle of imputation.
Eric, if it’s unfair of God for me to receive the imputation of Adam’s sin then it is equally unfair of God for me to receive the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. I know you’re trying to get God off the hook here but it’s OK. He’s Sovereign and Holy. He does all things for the praise of His glory.
You also said,
Eric, for fear of sounding harsh, I will say that this is a “perfect” example of mangling the scripture. Let me parse your reasoning here:
1. The “perfect” in v. 10 is the completed canon of scripture.
2. Therefore, when Paul says that prophecies, tongues and knowledge will pass away when “that which is perfect is come” we are to understand that sometime in the late First Century, when the last NT document was completed (or would that be in the 3rd Century when the canon was solidified, hmmm), all prophecies, tongues and knowledge ceased and have been gone ever since.
What follows must also be true:
3. During the First Century, prophecy, tongues and knowledge was only “in part”. These gifts only gave the church “partial” prophecy and knowledge. During the First Century, these gifts only gave the church a “poor reflection”. The church’s knowledge was “childish”.
4. But alas, when the canon was completed, the church became completely mature, seeing Christ (as it were) “face to face”. When the canon was completed, the church received “full knowledge”.
Is this REALLY what Paul was saying? Is your zeal to deny the reality of spiritual gifts so strong that you will abandon good biblical interpretation?
The same is true of your interpretation of John 3:3-5. When He was talking with Nicodemus, nearly three years before His death on the cross, was Jesus really referring to the Christian ordinance of water baptism–which wouldn’t be instituted until Pentecost some years later? This would completely gut your argument regarding the thief on the cross being saved during a previous “dispensation” and therefore not requiring water baptism.
The same is true of your interpretation of “one baptism” in Eph. 4. It appears that you are saying that since Paul says there is “one baptism” that means that we only need to baptized once. Is that really what he is saying??? He refers to one body and one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, and one faith (all clearly references to the singleness of kind–so as to motivate the believers to remain unified). Yet, you would say that “one baptism” doesn’t follow the same interpretive pattern. Instead, “one baptism” means you only need to be baptized once?!?!?! Wha?
It only makes sense, following your contentions regarding obedience as a pre-requisite to justification, that if one “loses” his justification, then one must also lose the gift of the Holy Spirit, one must also lose his adoption, one must also lose his redemption, and one must also lose his place “in Christ”. Since you say that the only way a person can “get” all the things I just listed is by obedience to water baptism, then the person who “loses” his justification must undergo yet another water baptism.
Eric, you say you follow no “isms” or pre-conceived theology. This is just flat false. I’ve been there. I’ve held your theology. It colors everything you see in the Bible. You cannot have the “high ground” in this forum. We all recognize that we come to the scriptures with “baggage”. Perhaps you have grown so accustomed to yours that you don’t even notice how much it “weighs” on you.
While I agree that this is a weighty passage and deserves consideration,
one thing that is crystal clear from Matthew 7:23 is that the folks Jesus is referring to were not once believers and then unbelievers. Jesus makes this clear when He says that He never knew them.
Ken,
Have you ever spoke in tongues? If so, how? And if so, then how can I speak in tongues? Has the Spirit never moved me to such? I have never felt it. Does that mean that I am not a true Christian? Am I a “make-believer”?
Also, you stated it just right. It is unfair for me to receive Christ’s righteousness. It is through His grace and mercy, both of which I did not deserve. But Romans 5 does not say that I received Adam’s sin. It says I received death because I sin, personally.
Regarding John 3:3-5, Jesus was talking about the Kingdom. What is the kingdom? The church. Therefore, if one wants the Lord to add him to the church, then he must be washed from his sins, just like they did in Acts 2. That is what Jesus was referring to. We know that because He also referred to when He would be lifted up, which would result in the establishing of the Kingdom, church, on the Day of Pentecost.
Also, I do not rest all of my hope in water baptism, as you seem to think. If I do not repent, then baptism means nothing. If I do not confess, baptism means nothing. But if I do not do them all, then I have not done anything.
Regarding the tongues, what was the purpose of speaking in tongues and prophesying? Answer that and I think we can address it further.
Eric Gray
I want to interject, feel free to deal with this in your own time- but I do not want it to interrupt the flow of the discussion.
This gets back to one of my earlier points that I made before I started exploring your views: E.G. and Jose, do you believe that God reveals himself in nature? If so, is this revelation sufficient enough information to condemn men for rejecting it?
I would answer these two questions by saying yes and yes, based on Romans 1:18-32. How would you answer them?
A short passage and then a few questions. I don’t want to add too much to this well-worded and already lengthy discussion.
First, check out Luke 13:1-5. (As far as I have read, this passage has not been brought up here yet.) Then, I have a few questions to ponder:Christ doesn’t seem to need to establish that these men were sinners. Why doesn’t He first say, “These men had chosen to sin, just like the rest of the Galileans have”?He then calls all to repent. He even says “You will all likewise perish” (v.3, my emphasis). Did Christ say this because He had already searched the hearts of all those listening and knew they were all ones who had chosen to sin? Or, is it just a safe assumption because the majority of men make that choice?Does this assertion that we “will all likewise perish” apply to us, or just the people that Christ addressed it to then?What is the verdict on people whose deaths are not the direct result of their sins? (e.g., the 18 at Siloam) And, what is the verdict on those who escape such tragedy? (e.g., the rest of Jerusalem)Why don’t we see more people choosing not to join Adam’s rebellion, if we are all presented with such a choice in our natal, sinless state?
Eric,
you ask,
I speak some German. I have, however, never spoken in the tongues of angels (neither by training nor by the power of the Holy Spirit). I don’t embrace the neo-Pentecostal doctrine of the “second blessing” so I can’t be lumped together with them as such. Nice try.
Why didn’t you defend your mangling of 1 Cor. 13? My whole point was to show that your interpretive methods are suspect.
You said,
Unfortunately, that’s not what I stated at all. I asked you if you thought it was unfair of God to impute the righteousness of Christ to you? My inquiry was aimed at determining if you believed God needed to be protected from the apparent unfairness of imputing righteousness since you feel the need to protect God from the apparent unfairness of imputing Adam’s sin.
Of course Jesus was referring to washing from sin with Nicodemus. My question to you was regarding linking this passage to the Christian ordinance of water baptism. Simply because the word “water” appears in this passage does not demand that it refer to Christian baptism. Again, I am pointing out that your interpretive methods are suspect.
Finally, I have never thought that you rested your hopes on water baptism. I am convinced, however, that you rest your hope on your obedience. This has been my contention all along. You believe you are justified by your obedience to commands. This is legalism and Paul condemns it.
The purpose of tongues and prophecy (at least in the church of Corinth) was to build up the church.
Jeffery (Father or son? Either one makes me smile!),
In any case greetings. Excellent point about Luke 13. Jesus assumes all men are sinners. I think there is plenty of biblical support for the idea that all men are sinners. But what do you think the scripture says? Are we sinners because we sin, or are we guilty of Adam’s sin from thousands of years ago?
I don’t know how the idea that all men are sinners applies to infants. Ken had a good point that babies must be sinners since they too die. Maybe it’s something to do with our heart and our emotions. In Jer 17 it says:
9 The heart is more deceitful than all else
And is desperately sick;
Who can understand it?
10 “I, the Lord, search the heart,
I test the mind,
Even to give to each man according to his ways,
According to the results of his deeds.
And maybe its like Jason suggests in Romans 1:18-20. Maybe God’s invlsible attributes are clear as day to infants, and we reject God on an emotional level even before we are mature enough to form thoughts about the world.
I am eager to see what Ken says about the role that Satan plays in the world and in our sin.
Jose
Eric,
The “Great Commission” is an answer to a question, as well as a commandment from God. Look at the scripture in context of Matthew 28:17 and see if you understand my point. In Mathhew 28:19 Jesus is telling them point blank that He is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit that is sending them out. This can be backed up with tons of scripture from both the Old and New Testaments. Look at Isaiah 9:6. Find the parallels of the Great Commission in the other Gospels. Whose name is represented? Find a good Bible translation such as the NASB or NIV and look at John 17:11. What is God’s name? In whose name did the apostles baptize? For an eye openner, examine this:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/One-Top.htm
With regard to tongues, I am certain of a few people that speak in tongues. I have reason to believe there are many, perhaps many millions. Do a Google search on the Azusa Street Revival. That is the roots of my present church, although I would love to see an end to denominations.
I’d be happy to share what I have learned, but we have plenty of outstanding material on justification and perserance. Also, we ought to let Ken guide the discussion as we are guests here. Or you can get my email address from Ken and we can communicate offline.
Jose
Jose, there are lots of places we could go with this, but let’s just stick to the great commission. Matt. 28:18 says “And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.'”
Who would you presume gave all authority to Jesus if He indeed is the Father (eliminating the Father as a possibility)?
Ken,
I agree with you. I do have a Systematic Theology. But I do not want to be guilty of abusing the text, and I pray to God every day to help me read it for what it says. I hope that I have done so thus far.
I do not have to protect God in any way. He is just and holy, and I am a filthy sinner. But your view of Romans 5 blows my mind. Your whole theology rests on this one passage, whether you like it or not. I know this because if this one falls through, it is only a matter of time before the rest fall through. I have been reading a book that talks about Calvin’s theology. It is amazing how many times the man contradicts himself. Why adopt the theology of someone as such?
Getting back to Romans 5:12-21. I want to point out that in verse 12 it never says that sin spread to all men because of Adam, it says death spread to all men. It also says that all sinned, not through Adam, but of choice. You see, to adopt this view of Original Sin, you must also ASSUME that Paul means we sinned through Adam. The Bible does NOT say anything such as this. The consequence is death, not the guilt of Adam’s sin. Paul is talking about death. The “free gift” from Adam was death, not sin. Notice that in verses 15-17. Also, because we all sin, judgment came through Jesus Christ. It says in verse 17 that death reigned, not sin. In verse 19, it says that “many” became sinners. This word differs from the word “all” found in verse 12. Paul makes a distinction, that all were not made sinners from Adam, but many. They were rendered sinners because sin was in the world. It entered the world, not in man’s heart. Also, Paul says that many “will be made righteous.” If all sinned with Adam, then all will be made righteous with Christ. But we know that is not true because not all will go to heaven. Notice the distinction in word usage used by Paul.
In regards to 1 Corinthians 13, what do you think the “perfect” is? Could it be the Word? Please answer. And if the purpose of speaking in tongues was to build up the church, and to prove what these men were speaking, why do we need them today since we have the complete revelation?
Finally, I do not rest all my hope on my obedience. I rest all my hope on the saving power of the blood of Christ. But if I do not respond to that saving power, then the blood will not be efficacious for me, personally. Christ washed His church by the water of the word (Eph. 5:26), and that is who the sacrifice was effective for. But if I am not a part of His church, then I will not receive that cleansing. Therefore, I must act accordingly so the Lord will add me to His church (Acts 2:47).
Eric Gray
Eric,
OK, I think this has come as far as it can on this forum. I will respond once more and you can then have the last word. After that I will begin a new thread which, as always, you are welcome to join.
You say,
It’s funny how you roundaboutly condemn me for basing my theology on “one passage”. It’s a bit like your treatment of Acts 2:38, but I digress. I and others on this thread have clearly pointed out other passages in the Bible that teach the doctrine of Total Depravity and Original Sin. You simply don’t buy it and I don’t buy your rejection of those doctrines. There we are.
As far as Calvin is concerned, I will say it one last time. Calvin is not my savior nor my spiritual leader. I’ve never claimed otherwise (show me anywhere that I’ve adopted the label “Calvinist”). For you to continually try to make me “guilty by association” because I share some similar biblical interpretations with the man is disingenuous. You share interpretations with Jose. Does that make you a “Oneness Pentecostal”?
Back to Rom. 5. So Paul says “all sinned” even though he really means that “some sin”. Then you say, people were “rendered sinners because sin was in the world…not in man’s heart”. It sounds to me like you are saying that Paul believes people are “sinners” before they commit personal sin. Kinda what I’ve been saying all along…
All children of Adam are sinners by imputation, and by extension, behavior. All children of God are righteous by imputation and, by extension, behavior. This is the simple meaning of Rom. 5 and it fits with Rom. 6.
I don’t know for sure what “perfection” in 1Cor. 13 is. I lean toward it being the parousia (2nd Coming).
Eric, I believe the Bible is the final authority in doctrine and practice of the church. I also believe that the church is built up by spiritual gifts in addition to the Bible. Some are gifted to be teachers, pastors, servants, givers, prayer warriors, etc. Why do we need teachers today since we have the complete revelation?
Finally, you HAVE referred to your obedience as “justification”. I contend that the Bible teaches that justification is monergistic. It is a work of God alone. You reject that. Again, there we are. I’m sorry. We just disagree on this point.
Ken,
I do not base my view of the essentiality of baptism from Acts 2:38 alone. I will suggest that you can find the talk of baptism in almost every book of the Bible. If it is mentioned that much, don’t you think that it is a little important than to degrade it to a simple “religious rite”?
I agree that it is time to end this conversation. Although, I do not know what I am going to do with my day 🙂 That’s a joke. I appreciate the opportunity to be a part of this conversation. I hope that my comments helped in some way, even if no one agrees with them. It is always good to get different views that way we have something to talk about at family reunions 🙂
I do not agree with you about Romans 5, because the Bible just simply does not state that. It doesn’t matter what I think Paul meant, or what you think Paul meant. The Holy Spirit knew what He meant, and that is what He said. And therefore, He never said that I am born with Adam’s sin.
It must be very sad around your church and home to view all of those little children as lost souls, even the newborn babies. May God have mercy on them, if that is the case. But nevertheless, I stand strong on my position that the view of Original Sin is unbiblical, simply on the fact that Romans 5 does not say such, and also that Jesus told His disciples that they needed to become like little children. If I need to become like a child born with sin, then Jesus lied to me about how to enter the Kingdom of God. But I know that He didn’t lie, it is just this idea is false.
I apologize for labeling you a “Calvinist”, but as they say, if the shoe fits, wear it. You cannot deny that you are a calvinist. You believe the majority of his doctrine, which does make you “guilty by association.”
It is amazing how far you have gone from the truth. You have complicated the Bible so much as to make the “Ole Jerusalem Gospel” almost not understandable. Why must be twist the truth so much? May we “speak where the Bible speaks, and be silent where the Bible is silent.” You may say the same of me, but it is my prayer that you would read the Bible without your “religious blinders” on that are perverting your knowledge of the truth. Please examine your views extinsively, especially considering that you are a teacher and an elder at the church where you attend. I hope nothing for you except good things, and I will continue to pray for you and your family each and every day. Send my love to the family.
Eric Gray
I see my question slipped through the cracks. Fair enough. I think an argument is weakened by focusing on non-essential elements. Can we all mutually try to find the KEY point, or most crucial point of our disagreement? Mr. Miller proposed that it was our differing views on the nature of man. That may be, but I think we are at a hermeneutical empass.
To all who are not “Calvinist” (and I find in interesting that one of the greatest systematizers of the faith has been relegated to a derogatory term- and I also agree with E.G., Ken- you are one, mostly), what would you say is the point about Reformed theology (implying much more that “just” Calvinism) that you disagree with the STRONGEST.
If we don’t want to respond in this fashion, that is fine. It just seems a blog gets unproductive at times and would be more helpful if discussion were organized in a debate style-format.
Eric Farr,
With regard to your question about the
Great Commission, I gave scripture, but you responded with your reasoning. I will not answer you, but I will leave you with some more scriptures to ponder:
Jesus said to Philip in John 14, “9 Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? “10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.
Who created the world in:
Genesis 1:1 or John 1:10
Isaiah 44:24 or 1 Cor 8:6
Isaiah 45:18 or Col 1:15-16
Malachi 2:10 or Heb 1:8-10
Why do the Jews go to stone Jesus in John 8:58 “Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” and in John 10:30 “I and the Father are one.”
Jews were strict monotheists. Yet Thomas, speaking to Jesus, makes this outrageous statement in John 20:28 “My Lord and my God!” What was he thinking!
See if you can find this scripture: “Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is three persons;”
The two of us persons, I mean beings, I mean entitities writing you this message (I mean me and my spirit of course), are greived that you should doubt us.
We wish you all the best,
Jose and Jose
Jose,
Regarding your talk about Jesus being God, and vice versa, I want you to ponder this verse.
In Acts 7, as Stephen the Martyr was being stoned, he stated in verse 56, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” Jesus and the Father are one, being unified and of the same Godhead. There is one God, but with three different jobs. God the Son (Jesus) did create the world. And He is also God in the flesh.
But as it states in Phil. 2:6, Jesus did not consider His Godly form something to be held on to, and came to the earth to be made “a little lower than the angels”, but now He has ascended back to heaven where He sits at the right hand of God where He “lives to make intercession” for us (Heb. 7:25). Therefore, we can conclude that Jesus, being in heaven, is now a different entity. He also sent His spirit (John 14:26) that dwells within us (1 Cor. 3:16) which helps us in times of prayer (Rom. 8:26) which seals our souls (Eph. 1:13-14), declaring to God that we are His children.
Each member of the Godhead has three different jobs, yet are all one. We see God the Father, who is the Almighty, who created the plan, God the Son, who created the world, and God the Spirit, who dwells within us. This is why Jesus commanded His disciples, as well as us, to make disciples of all nations, “baptizing them in the name of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of the HOLY SPIRIT, teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19-20). All authority in heaven and earth has been given to Jesus (Matt. 28:18), and the only way to get to the Father is through Christ (John 14:6), and if we have seen Jesus then we have seen the Father (John 14:9), but Jesus is also the Author of Eternal Salvation because of His obedience (Heb. 5:8-9), therefore I want to do what He commanded because my salvation is in His hands. Therefore, I want to be baptized in the name that He said to.
Eric Gray
Eric,
I went over all these scriptures so many times it makes me dizzy. I understand where you are coming from, but I don’t think you read the Bernard link I sent you. Please read it. Furhter, I believe you have konwledge of Greek and Hebrew that will be useful in evaluating if Bernard is telling the truth when he explains some of the apparent difficulties. Once you actually entertain the idea in your mind that the Trinity is really three personas of God, versus three persons, suddenly all the scriptures will flow together naturally and easily. You won’t have to wonder how it can be that Jesus and the Father are one. Isaiah 9:6 and many other scriptures don’t have to be explained away.
Also, please think about what it takes to be a separate person or entity or being. What defines a person or entity or being? Mind, spirit, soul and body? But God is a Spirit. What does Jesus mean by being One with God? What are the rules governing resurrected gods that don’t live in time? If you had to write a book, and make the most emphatic case you possibly could that there is one God, could you have been more enphatic than the Bible?
Just so I don’t leave you completely without a response to the scriptures you cited, let me just note in your argument about Stephen that it must then be reasonable for me to expect to see at least two thrones when I get to Heaven, one for the Father and another for the Son. In fact, one of the teachers at our old church believes we will see three thrones even though it’s “one Godhead.” No joke.
To your point about Phil 2:6, if Jesus was in Heaven prior letting go of His Godly form would that make two gods in Heaven before Jesus came to earth? This stuff is all about human reasoning unless you accept what the Bible plainly states, that the man Jesus is God incarnate. God has a Spirit as well as a mind. Jesus did not have a mind or spirit apart from God. He had flesh and human emostions apart from God the Father, and his mind was probably limited in how much it contained apart from what the Spirit revealed to Jesus, because he was a real man. The exact representation of God in man form. If you consider the Bible from this point of view, which is in fact what the Bible teaches, then you will find all those seemingly complicated scriptures become easy. You will still find a few objections but I believe the Bernard book will address those. For example, you may ask, don’t the salutations in the epistles, e.g., “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” indicate that Paul sees Jesus as a separate entity from the Father? I believe you know Greek, you tell me if Bernard’s exlanation that the “and” between Father and the Lord, can be translated as “even.”
JOse
Jose,
If you would, please send me that link once again. I don’t think I noticed it. Send it to me by email. thanks.
I agree that in the beginning, there was one God. Today, there is one God. I do not disagree.
I also agree that Jesus is God-become-man. There is no argument. But I am still trying to comprehend this idea. I do not stand on this argument as strong as I do others because I am still learning. My fleshly mind cannot comprehend a lot of heavenly things.
In Revelation 5, and I understand that a lot of Revelation is figurative, but it talks about the scroll that no one was worthy to open (5:3). Previously in chapter 4, it said that there was “One who sat on the throne” (4:2), which is God the Father. But in came the “Lamb” who took the scroll from “Him who sat on the throne” (5:7), which leads me to believe, if taken literally, and I am not sure that you can, maybe you can clear it up, but there were two separate beings. Also, notice in 4:2 that John was “in the Spirit” in the “throne room of heaven” as my Bible labels this section. Please clarify. Maybe you have a better understanding of this passage than I do.
I know there is one God (Deut. 6:4). The Hebrew word for “one” is translated by Strongs as “united” “numerically one” etc. God is united, just like it talks about in Eph. 4 that they are all united, “One Spirit… One Lord… One God.”
The reason why I think differently is because of numerous passages that talk of Jesus being exalted to the “right hand of God.” This is also found in Acts 2:33. Now, I understand that it is not literally at the right hand of God, but it is a place of authority, second to the Father. Jesus is in control of this world, next to the Father. He is in subjection to the Father, which was a part of His leaving heaven and coming to earth. He gave up some of His authority. That is a bad word to use, but I can’t think of another. Could Jesus be a different Spirit? I guess that is my question. Please help me understand it.
Eric Gray
Wow. I’m speechless. I pray for enlightenment. These posts trouble me greatly.
Jason,
Please don’t do that. I’ve been impressed with your cogent, thoughtful posts up to now.
Your emotional state does little to enlighten us as to the true meaning of the text.
Soooooo…STOP YER SNIVELING!!! 🙂
Eric,
Your humble spirit in approaching these latest questions is admirable.
Ken, fair enough. If their is any emotion that I feel it is one of humility, not condescension and I apologize for sounding that way. I really am terrible at communicating on a blog. My prayers have blanketed this discussion- I am well aware of the need for the Spirit of God in such discussions- but I cannot divorce my pastoral concerns from these discussions.
We have touched so many topics that are a rehashing of the major heresies that the church has already worked out throughout its history.
Here is my argument, neglecting church history leaves the door wide open to misguided hermeneutics and a misunderstanding of the scriptures as well as the very language that the scriptures use to convey its message. Can we afford to commit such errors in seeking enlightenment? Shall we presume to make up our own rules for how the scriptures should be read? Why not appeal to the great councils of the past? Are they tainted with the same blinded dogmatism that we have been accused of?
You might improperly use the famous slogan and say, as some already have here, “I don’t need tradition, sola scriptura!” Yet can we afford to ignore the work of the Spirit over the last 2,000 years? Or do we assume he has ceased his work in helping us to understand Christ as he is presented in the scriptures?
(By the way- I appreciate your church’s blog so much and want your church leaders to know that this is a very impressive use of technology to present the gospel. I owe Mr. Farr for showing me this and believe that I will start emplementing it in my own ministry next year).
Thank you all for your openness and willingness to examine these scriptures. I don’t have enough knowledge and in some cases have not taken the time to verify everything David Bernard says, but I have cross checked with others that know Greek and history, and I have spent enough time with the scriptures Bernard references that I have satisfied myself that it is the truth. Further, nobody has shown me any scriptural arguments that cause me any doubts. Here is the link to David Bernard’s online book:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/One-Top.htm
Eric, excerpts from Chapter 9 address your last two questions better than I can. Look for the subtitles: “The Right Hand Of God” and “The Lamb In Revelation 5.”
Jose
Jason,
I really appreciate the difficulty of this discussion, especially based on the perspective you just shared. Please consider what Paul was battling in many of his Epistles. Think of what our friends Luther and Calvin battled. If we are going to go by historic tradition, we should all just join the Holy Roman Catholic church. Look at Bernard’s book in chapter 10 “Oneness Believers in Church History” and chapter 11 “Trinitarianism Definition and Historical Development.” With regard to the Holy Spirit, that is what started this entire odyssey for me. I wasn’t expecting, hoping or even believing that there were people that actually spoke in tongues.
Jose
Jose, I know that you were not arguing that there were people who spoke in tongues. Even if you did, that is not a heretical view, it is an evangelical one. I myself am not Penecostal but I am sure that David Bernard has many insights that I can learn from. I will read it and then wiegh in with something more substantial than expressing my emotions (given time- I have the better part of 13 books and 5 dissertations to read over the next 4 weeks for my classes).
Just for clarification: Paul, Luther, and Calvin battled many things that are related to this issue. What do you deem as relevant to this debate?
Two things that I would encourage you to do:
1) Read all sides of a debate. (Maybe you have- I don’t necessarily assume that you haven’t). Sinclair Ferguson’s Holy Spirit is an excellent, academic and yet accessible book on these issues. Yes, he is a Presbyterian but by God’s grace, he has many good things to say. Many of his arguments are exegetically faithful.
2) Don’t ignore the Holy Spirit’s work in the church (and by church, I mean in all denominations that believe in the Bible as God’s authoritative and inerrant word- and yet I feel bound to qualify that the Holy Spirit is also working outside the church but he works primarily through his covenant people). I didn’t argue above tradition is as authoritative as scripture, nor do I believe this.
I would propose that you don’t believe that tradition is useless, or you wouldn’t commend David Bernard’s book to us- instead you would use purely exegetical arguments from the scriptures. All who approach the Bible seeking to interpret it rely on the Bible itself and some tradition in their exegesis. It is just a matter of how self-aware they are.
The Reformers never sought to do away with tradition, simply to reform it according to the scriptures. I believe as you and the Reformers did that we should not agree with the Catholic notion that Tradition=Scripture (to those who might take offense, sorry for the oversimplification), but we should never go too far and ignore what is unavoidable. Such exegesis is not responsible and it is dangerous to the flock of God. The Reformers would not have argued your position on tradition.
Jason,
Paul, Luther and Calvin battled distortions of the gospel. You know I don’t think very highly of Calvin, but my pastor thinks Calvin was pretty cool given the times. I guess I don’t know enough to appreciate it/Calvin. My pastor also thinks it is foolish for me to argue with you guys about Total Depravity. I asked him what he thought about that doctrine. He says it does not matter how we arrive at believing that we are sinners. What counts is that we believe that we are sinners and that we need Jesus to save us.
It is amazing to me that anyone falls back on tradition to guide their interpretation of the scriptures. Information, ideas – yes, tradition – no. Church history is full of corruption, even torture and murder. However, I agree with you about looking at things from all angles. For example, that is partly how I arrived at the historicity of the Bible, by looking at what the opponents of Jesus and Christianity had to say. However, I really do not feel like I need to read books about the Holy Spirit written by Trinitarians. Allow me to tell you a story about the Holy Spirit’s work in the church and in my life.
We moved to Atlanta back in 1992 and started attending Bridgeway Church when it was just 20-30 people. We had learned to feel/experience the presence of the Holy Spirit at our old Episcopal church in Virginia, but we were very worldly and did not study the Bible like we do now. We could not find a church here in Atlanta where you could actually feel the presence of the Holy Spirit until we went to this totally ugly little Baptist church called Bridgeway. It had nothing in common with the church we came from except the Holy Spirit. The church grew and Dan Miller came to be the youth pastor. When Dan (he is one of the leaders at Grace now) first imposed on my life, telling us that doctrine mattered, we had to read the Bible, and that we had to do quiet time and be obedient even to the point of witnessing to others, the first thing I did was begin to study to see if what he said was in the Bible and if the Bible itself was reliable. I knew there was something there, something real and powerful that I had not understood before, because I could see the evidence of it in my kid’s lives and in others. I am big on evidence. I have been studying ever since.
In any case, my wife, Melanie, and I found ourselves in a new church before Dan went to GF. Here is how that happened. Our old church, Bridgeway, went through a melt-down or perhaps it was a Satanic attack or a dispersion by God. God knows. One day, toward the end, my wife declared that the Holy Spirit had revealed to her that she should no longer go to Bridgeway. My wife, who had become a more diligent student of the Bible and was much more diligent with quiet time than me, had become interested in some preaching by a radio preacher called Mark Rutland. His teaching includes receiving of the Holy Ghost as they did in apostolic times, by the laying on of hands, and that the in-dwelling of the Holy Ghost is evidenced by speaking in other tongues. We met with the pastor of our present church a few times for Bible study. I found his grasp of the Bible to be far better and clearer than anything I had ever heard before. His teaching was pure Bible, so we went to one of their services.
His preaching and the people at the chruch were totally weird to us. They are all nice but they really like to yell and wave their hands during church, or even run around. It made us very uncomfortable like it was maybe a bunch of brainwashed cultists hyped on emotion. But the word that was preached was pure Bible, and we were moved to go up for the alter call to be prayed over to receive the “baptism of the Holy Ghost.” We didn’t feel a thing. Several of the “Holy Ghosters” would speak what sounded like mumbo jumbo to me. It seemed nice but fake. When Mel and I left there, we smiled at each other and she said, “lets go back to Bridgeway.” This was extraordinary in that she was the one that had insisted we leave Bridgeway and try this other church, so understand we really thought these Holy Ghosters were faking it and it had made us very uncomfortable. Mel began hearing strange words in her head that Sunday night but she did not tell me until two days later. She was driving in her car singing praise songs with the radio, and she was hearing the words in her head again, only clearer, so she started saying the words. Then she couldn’t (or did not want) to stop for more tan an hour. Based on what the folks at our new church tell us, this is common to receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost after-the-fact, sometimes years later. However, at the time, I still didn’t believe it.
I figured Mel must have “lost it,” deluding herself because she had wanted to speak in tongues in the first place. But it quickly became evident that she was a different person. A totally different person! I remember going through all the differences that I was seeing in her, some of which I knew were unconscious, like not being impatient and not tail gating when she drove. After a couple of weeks of this, I finally asked her to let me hear her pray in tongues. It wasn’t just that it was a different language; it was a different accent with popping and clicking sounds that one certainly cannot produce without growing into such a language. There was no mumbo jumbo or repetition.
We joined the Pentecostal church. The United Pentecostal church has some fakers and some “back sliders,” and their organization has some trappings of religion, but I have found them to be what they claim to be, followers of Jesus, and the doctrine is pure Bible. It is so extraordinary that so few people are aware of the Pentecostals or the power of the Holy Spirit the way the Pentecostals experience it.
To learn about the in-dwelling of the Holy Ghost or speaking in tongues, I just ask the people in my church. There wisdom and understanding of the Bible is profound. Perhaps you can understand why I am not interested in reading Ferguson’s book on the Holy Spirit.
The outreach of the Pentecostals is focused on getting people filled with the Holy Ghost as evidenced by speaking in tongues. One time I visited a large Pentecostal church on the other side of Atlanta. I went up for the alter call at the end of the service and a bunch of them gathered round and laid hands on me. The musicians kept playing, the singers kept singing, and I didn’t realize I was keeping them an hour past the service. I finally gave up. When I cleared my eyes and looked around, there were still a couple of hundred of them waiting for me, and I was just a visitor! Then they all left. There was nothing uncomfortable or unusual to them about it. No sense of wasted time or disappointment. They had all just been watching and waiting to see what God would do. Still no Holy Ghost for me though.
Even though I recommend Bernard’s book, I do not think we should rely on traditions, including Pentecostal ones. Historical information is very useful, but ideas must always be tested against the scriptures, including the Pentecostal ones, and I have tested them. Man has not gotten better with time, the Israelites did not get better with time, and the New Testament Church was getting out of line with the gospel while the disciples were still living and writing the Bible. It is only by the grace of God and the working of the Holy Spirit, that we have the Bible and the truth still exists.
I only recommend reading Bernard’s book because he deals so directly with scripture, using scripture to interpret scripture. Once I got the idea that there might be another way of looking at the Trinity, I was able to clearly see what verses were plainly saying. I keep scriptures organized by category in my Palm Pilot. I read the Bible and when I find passages that relate to a particular doctrine or question, I put them in my Palm. Searches and cross-references in any good Bible software will do the rest. That is where I get most of the scriptures for the posts I made above, except of course where I referenced Bernard’s book.
In any case, this discussion is all about words. Paul notes that the Kingdom of God does not consist in words, but in power. I have not seen any miraculous stuff besides the tongues themselves, and that the Spirit coordinates the actions of two or more of them sometimes, but I believe some of stories they have told me about seeing signs and wonders such as growing out a deformed/short leg. I used to complain to the leaders in my church that one of our kids at church (Christina) is autistic and has seizures all the time. I told them that if they really had the Holy Ghost like the apostolic church, that they should heal the girl. So I prayed and fasted for God to answer me or heal Christina. God showed me that he is sovereign over Christina’s situation by revealing various things to me one weekend last summer, culminating with speaking directly to me through tongues and interpretation during the church service that weekend. Months later, I talked to Christina’s father about it. He is confident she will be healed. He saw her in a vision along with her mother, long before he ever met the mother. He saw in the vision that Christina would be sick before he ever met the mother. God also showed him in the vision that Christina would be healed although he does not know when or even if she will be healed here on earth. The mother thought he was nuts when they first met and he told her that God had shown her to him in a vision, and that they would be married. She was dating someone else at the time and these Pentecostals are ultra conservative about men even talking to women. How they bear up is a miracle and it is evidence. But there is much more to this story. Perhaps we can get together some time and I will tell you about it.
Now I am arguing with you guys over simply accepting what the Bible teaches. I got to this exact same place about the Trinity with Dan more than a year ago, where in his defense of the Trinity he presented me with a paper that was a mix of reasoning about scripture, and what the church fathers believed. Dan and I are presently arguing over the meaning of Mark 16:16. I believe it says the he who believes and is baptized will be saved. I also believe it teaches that he who does not believe will be condemned. It only gets hard to interpret when you overlay man-made doctrines.
Do you think I am crazy? But if I ignore the evidence, that really would be crazy. I’m off to try to convince the guy that runs the web site for Campus Crusade for Christ that he ought not teach that the Holy Spirit is a separate person.
I pray that God blesses you as you seek to do His will and glorify Him. I hope that you will baptize in the name of Jesus, and that someday, somebody you baptize will come up out of the water speaking in tongues.
Jose
There are a number of things in this debate that have been frustrating, but for me this is the worst.
First, because it is both arrogant and insulting. This statement begs the question that the debate is actually about… What does the Bible teach?
Second, compare the simplicity of the doctrine of the Trinity to the hermeneutical, and linguistic gymnastics that Bernard goes through to reconcile modalism to the Scriptures. A child that understands the Trinity (three persons, one God) can make sense of virtually any passage that relates to the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The modalist has to continually refer to a reference that he does not fully understand and must take on faith (at some level).
Now that does not mean that modalism is false and the Trinity is true, but the Trinity clearly caries the day for ‘simply accepting what Bible teaches’.
I apologize for taking so long to respond- I have been out of town all weekend. I appreciate your story Jose, but I admit it was hard to read a post that long that had very little that pertained to this debate.
I also agree with Eric Farr. I find you to be quite condescending. I am not offended as much as amazed. It is not the Holy Spirit that leads you to say such things- I assure you.
You think that you have a high view of the Holy Spirit, but you ignore that he might be working outside of your limited and very narrow section of the church. God is bigger than that (he is at work in all things even though he is not in all things).
You say that you have a high view of what the Bible actually teaches- and yet you appeal to your experience to show “evidence” for your beliefs.
You say tradition is worthless, and yet you still stand on the shoulders of those that have gone before you in understanding the Bible- you are not an autonomous thinker who approaches the scriptures without preconceived commitments.
I feel that at this point our blog has reached its limitations. Without being closer to you geographically, I fear that we cannot make any progress on this, and I am sure Ken is sick of this unusually long thread. I will pray for you.
Concerning your comment that implies my baptism is ineffective- I forgive you. If God chooses to work by his Spirit to speak in tongues through someone I baptize, I would be submissive. I don’t believe that tongues are normative for believers. If they were then Jesus would have spoke in tongues and so would John the Baptist whom Jesus called the greatest among women-born men (Mt. 11:11- interestingly, John did not perform any miracles to provide evidence of his faith!). I could give you many exegetical reasons why I hold the position that I do, but you would ignore them.
Deny the Trinity and you will face eternal condemnation because you do not worship Jesus as he presents himself in HIS word. I pray you take that more seriously.
If you want to thoughtfully consider these issues together then I am more than happy to do that with you.
If you continue to tell me that I am not as intelligent/spiritual/biblically literate as you and therefore I am hardly worth debating, then we can wait until judgment to have this matter settled. Your choice.
I too tried to speak in tongues at one time. It didn’t take. I believe it is because, like John the Baptist and many other Christians throughout history, It is not something I can manufacture by setting my sin tarnished will to accomplish it (James 1:17).
No I don’t think you are crazy. I believe you are deceived and in grave and eternal danger. Pentecostals are Trinitarians (or at least have been historically). If your pastor is not concerned with your heretical view, then I will pray for him as well.
Concerning your pastors comments, how we arrive at our beliefs is just as important is the conclusions that we reach. The whole process must honor God. I disagree with his oversimplification of this complicated matter. You can’t reach the right conclusions without thinking the right thoughts that lead to those conclusions.
I am willing to engage these issues with a scriptural discussion. We will set aside Bernard and Ferguson, we can set aside our experiences, and we will turn to the God of the Bible. What does he have to say about himself as he exists? Is he a monad? Is he a Trinity? How do you answer the age old problem of “the one and the many” if he is a monad as Islam claims? How does your polytheism solve the problems that this presents us?
Eric,
There are no hermeneutical or linguistic gymnastics in the scriptures I have referenced or the witness I provided.
You say the Trinity is so simple a child could understand it, but simply stating that “1 + 1 + 1 = 1” does not make it true. And if it were true, it would not be simple by any means.
I used to ask many people for an explanation of the Trinity because I could not find it in the Bible. I have yet to get a good explanation. There haa been a lot of reasoning about the Father speaking as the Spirit descended on Jesus, as well as appeals to “mystery” or what the church “fathers” believe. (Note that by chruch fathers I mean the guys that consolidated power in the Holy Roman Catholic Church.) The problem is that these ideas don’t explain how 3 separate persons can be one Lord, nor do they correlate to scriptures such as “I and the Father are one,” or “before Abraham was born, I am,” or many others. Without appeal to the magic of the Trinity doctrine, you can’t begin to explain that.
I remember a class at Bridgeway where they were teaching us to pray to the Father, and to Jesus, and to the Holy Spirit separately. That we should not ignore any of the persons of the Godhead. There was a teacher that believed that she would see three thrones when she got to heaven. These are wonderful people. They are trying to be as good and as faithful as they can be.
Sorry, I don’t buy the simplicity arguement. And if Bernard mistated something, please put it forth.
Yes, I am arrogant sometines. I apologize for coming across so full of myself. One of my many faults.
Please consider what I have said without the personality flaw or the offense.
Jose
Jason,
Sorry for the condescending tone, as Eric F. also pointed out. Yes, it is evident to me too now that I look back on it… Sorry for that.
I think the public debate is good. I don’t know why you feel otherwise. And I think we all need to be a little tolerant when others say things that offend us for the sake of getting to the truth and establishing better relationships. I don’t recall your ever saying you were sorry for the things you said about me when we had our little discussion on Calvin.
I agree that God is working everywhere. I think I told you how we became members in our little Baptist chruch because we could feel the presense of the Holy Spirit there. Many times God caused what my wife and I call “God-incidences.” They are like coincidence only they are not a coincidence. That outside any Pentacostal church or belief. That has not changed.
You say that if I deny the Trinity I will be condemned because I do not worship Jesus as he presents Himself in His word. Don’t you think that I have the same fear for you and for my kids and my friends? I have stated my my beliefs and where I get them in the Bible so that anyone on this blog can examine the sciptures I have put forth to see if I am referencing them correctly. I have tried to use scripture to interpret scripture, with a minimum of reasoning or intepretation. What is your explantion for those scriptures? What scriptures and what reasoning do you use to form your Trinitarian interpretation?
I think you made some good points about tongues. I think things were different before and after the ressurection of Jesus. Else why does Jesus say that he must die in order for the Father to send the Helper? Beyond that, I can’t say.
I am dependent upon others for Greek and Hebrew. However, Bernard uses scripture to interpret scripture, which I have checked. He does reference some Greek and some history. I believe you confirmed that Calvin was consenting in Servetus being put to death because he did not believe in the Trinity. I think Servetus believed as I do. If you find error in Bernard’s book, or in anything I have stated, please show it to me. I don’t want to refer people to a book or say things that are wrong. For example, one of the keys for me in beginning to accept the Oneness doctrine was the understanding that the Greek word for “and” in the salutations in the epistles can be translated as “even.” Is that true? I have asked that of several credible people, but they were Oneness believers. It would help solidify my belief if you could confirm it for me also.
Good point about my pastor’s comments. He and I talked about that very thing at the time and he agreed that getting there the right way is important. I think his point was that the Bible is not very clear about what position to take regarding total depravity, or whether Babies go to Hell, so it would be more effective for me to debate the greater issues that are clearly dealt with in scripture if my goal is to get you to consider a view you had not previously entertained.
Please consider what I have said.
Jose
Jose, I’ll have to take these in a few pieces. First, with this:
First, I didn’t actually say that it was so simple that a child could understand it. I said that a child who understands it could make sense of the Scriptures. This is because it is the most straightforward way of accepting the Biblical text for what it says.
Second, your “1+1+1=1” formula is a mischaracterization of the Trinity. Perhaps you don’t understand the doctrine that you reject. If this is not the case (and you do have a clear understanding of the doctrine) then I would suggest that your slander of it is not helpful.
I’ll address more a bit later…
Jose, tell me why I should respond to you with hermeneutical arguments for the Trinity if you claim to not want to listen to (or read) Trinitarians explain such a doctrine?
You guys ought to go back and look at how many times you each have had to apologize for sounding condescending or arrogant or harsh.
It might surprise you, and it might give you pause to reconsider the value of your discussion.
Mr. Lee, I will take that comment as though it is directed at me and others (because I’m sure it is).
I feel comfortable with apologizing for condescention- it is expected when a group of sinners discuss things they feel passionate about. The fact that we fail is not justifcation for quitting. A real problem would be if we did not apologize when we failed and became aware of it.
Concerning the value of this discussion- while I have had my doubts…I think that there is value because the content of this discussion has eternal significance. Therefore, though we may fail, we should keep trying.
I trust that God is working. Thanks for the “gut-check.”
John, when you suggest reconsidering the value of the discussion, do you mean to imply that it would have been better to not have had the discussion at all?
Jose,
I apologize for overlooking your previous apology. It is greatly appreciated and I also apologize for being condescending at times.
I have begun to read Bernard. I felt it important to take your stance seriously and to address it appropriately. Because these issues are so important, I have made a website where I posted my critique. This is the first of many parts. Please read it and let me know your thoughts.
http://www.geocities.com/borngamecock/index.html
Jason,
Thanks for your willingness to examine the scriptures with me. I am working on a web site where we can have an interactive Bible study similar to the GF site. I looked at your comments at your site but I don’t have a way of responding other than this blog. I get the feeling you are making it a homework assignment, and if your first criticism of Bernard is any indication, I will have a lot to say :).
However I won’t post my remarks here because the Oneness vs Trinity discussion isn’t in line with the original thread Ken started. I think we need to be respectful of the direction of the leaders at GF and not hijack their blog. Its clear from John Lee’s comments that we have worn out our welcome. Please email me when you get a chance and I will send you the web site once it is set up. You can reach me at
jblanco@bellsouth.net
Jose
Eric F.,
I don’t mean to ignore you. I was just trying to figure out what to do about not hi-jacking Ken’s blog. Perhaps if the leaders there agree, you could start a thread on the Trinity.
On your comment about a simple way for kids to understand the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, I think we ought to tell kids that God became a man who we call Jesus. That God is far more than a man, but we call Him Father because he is the Father of Jesus,and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. I don’t know any adults that have been able to explain the Trinity doctrine to me in a way that makes sense and is supportable from the Bible, so I don’t know how it can help kids to teach them that.
Like I told Jason, we can continue this discussion elsewhere if the leaders at GF don’t want it on their website. My email is
jblanco@bellsouth.net
Jose
Ken,
I am still hoping to hear from you on the subject of the role that Satan plays in our sin or sin-prone condition. Also, I don’t know if you came to a new realization about the scriptures that say we must persevere in order to be saved, or if you are just ignoring my comments on your interpretation of those scriptures. I don’t see how we can both be right. If my analysis is incorrect, please show me where.
Thanks,
Jose
Along those lines, my apologies for high-jacking. I forgot what this thread was about a long time ago. For me, it was simply an issue of focusing on the most crucial doctrines. Anyway, my apologies Ken.
Eric –
To the extent that folks need to continually qualify their posts with apologies and ask forgiveness – I’d say the discussion is fruitless.
But, that is of course my opinion. This is not my forum. It belongs to Ken.
John
Jose,
Yes, I’ve been toying with the idea of taking up a defense of the Trinity over on my blog. I’ve just been a little leery of committing the time that will be necessary as the official host of the debate that will follow. It’s been nice for me to participate here as just a second-tier participant as time has permitted. 🙂
John’s recent comment was a splash of cold water as well. As you mentioned, maybe we can find another venue to hash through these issues.
Eric F.