Yes, and yes.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Nature of Theology
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
- Status
There are two very different views.
#1. Faith is the result of regeneration. (Nicknamed "Calvinism")
#2. Regeneration is the result of faith. (Nicknamed "Arminianism")
Those two views are diametrically opposite of each other.
We can't have it both ways.
My point was, and is, that the verse where Paul expresses the Gospel says:
1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.
Whose sins did Christ die for? Every person's without distinction or for our sins?
The point of all this is that we argue about theology, and which of the several methodologies is superior, and which is least influenced by man's fallen nature, yet we have trouble understanding, let alone articulating, the very basis of our faith, the Gospel of Jesus Christ and Him Crucified.
Before we can have intelligent discourse on Bibliology, Christology, Pneumatology, Anthropology, Ecclesiology, Eschatology, or Angelology, we must, must, make sure our Soteriology is biblical, for without a proper, biblical Soteriology we have no foundation for the rest.
I am actually enjoying this discussion. It is not often that a conversation of this nature makes it to the 4th page without degrading into something less than Christian dialogue. Plus I like the company…it’s like getting you to teach for free.There are two very different views.
#1. Faith is the result of regeneration. (Nicknamed "Calvinism")
#2. Regeneration is the result of faith. (Nicknamed "Arminianism")
Those two views are diametrically opposite of each other.
We can't have it both ways.
My point was, and is, that the verse where Paul expresses the Gospel says:
1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.
Whose sins did Christ die for? Every person's without distinction or for our sins?
The point of all this is that we argue about theology, and which of the several methodologies is superior, and which is least influenced by man's fallen nature, yet we have trouble understanding, let alone articulating, the very basis of our faith, the Gospel of Jesus Christ and Him Crucified.
Before we can have intelligent discourse on Bibliology, Christology, Pneumatology, Anthropology, Ecclesiology, Eschatology, or Angelology, we must, must, make sure our Soteriology is biblical, for without a proper, biblical Soteriology we have no foundation for the rest.
My statement that salvation is conditioned and that the condition is met by God (one is saved through faith yet that faith is a work of the God in the lives of those being saved) was not meant to be a statement from either camp (Calvinism or Arminianism). But this brings me to two points.
First, the OP concerned theology as subjective towards human reasoning, and I believe that this issue brings this out (we’ve winnowed down the conversation right back to the main topic). You are speaking of a logical order – what comes first, faith or regeneration?
Logically, then, the question could be phrased thusly: Is there a point where man is turned to God, has truly and biblically repented and believed in Christ as his Lord and Savior when in fact Christ is not? Or is there a point where man is saved yet unwillingly so as he has neither repented or believed, and is in a state of rebellion against God?
Arminianism (as you have presented here) answers “yes” to the first. Man repents and believes, and because of that faith he is saved. Calvinism (again, as you have presented here) answers “yes” to the second. God saves man by making him a new creature, and by this spiritual life he can discern the truths of God resulting in faith.
Both of these rely on extra-biblical reasoning to form their conclusions. While both views can find biblical support (e.g., Ezekiel 36 and Mark 1:15), Scripture itself affirms neither salvation unto faith or faith without salvation. Both of these views could be correct, but both are also subject to philosophical reasoning.
Second, I am not denying that Calvinism and Arminianism oppose each other. I am denying that my statement was inconsistent with Scripture. When you say that the view that one must repent and believe to be saved stands in opposition to the belief that salvation is entirely a work of God, you are saying that those two views contradict each other in your theological system. The crux is not wither A contradicts B (and here I don’t think they do) but whether A and B contradict Scripture. I do not believe that there is a “logical order” to this “process” of salvation. I think that by grace I have been saved through faith. Not that by grace I have been saved to believe, but that salvation as a whole is grace of God. I don’t believe that salvation can be taken or observed but as a whole.
I believe that Christ died for the sins of humanity (for the sins of the world). Not for my individual sins, that they are reconciled at the Cross - but for my individual sins that they forgiven through the Cross as I am reconciled in Christ.
We disagreed on two points:
1. You rejected my statement that those who believe will be saved.
2. You rejected my statement that Christ’s death provided the means of salvation for humanity in general, but particularly for the redemption of those who believe (the elect).
To remain brief, I’ll just answer our disagreements and note that we agree more than we disagree (although our disagreement is significant).
My statement was that those who believe will be saved. You rejected this statement. I believe you did so based on theology and not Scripture…unless you view John 3:14-16 as hypothetical illustration.
In terms of a universal provision of salvation, I can offer numerous passages but we would differ on interpretation. For example, I could offer 1 John 2:2 (and several comments from Calvinists throughout history) in support of this universal provision but I also know that you can do the same in support of a different interpretation. The heart of the disagreement is that we will consistently be talking past each other because of the level of reliance your theology has on the Reformed penal substitution atonement. I believe that God was, through Christ, reconciling the world to himself (2 Cor. 5:19) and that all things will be in submission to God through Christ (1 Cor. 27-28).
In other words, I am one of those “heretics” who believe that all men are commanded to repent and believe, that the Father has given all judgment to the Son, and that those who believe will be saved.
No, and no.
We seem to have a different opinion, again. I would say "no" to both. How do you conclude each respective position would require a "yes" response?
I disagree. I believe Particular Soteriology is biblical.
They contradict each other in any theological system, including the bible.
A contradicts B, and only one contradicts scripture. "There are none that seek after God." "They are at enmity with God." "They don't receive spiritual truth, neither, indeed, can they." "The heart is deceitful and wicked to the point we can't understand how wicked it is."
You create a false dichotomy between "faith" and "belief?" What warrants that dichotomy?
If Christ died (Atoned) for the sins of everyone, without exception, how can anyone ever go to hell? If their sins have been Atoned for they are sinless and thus not under the curse of the second death.
If Christ did not die for your individual sins, are you still in your sins? And do you create another false dichotomy between reconciliation and forgiveness? Isn't one the basis of the other?
Is this complicated gospel, which I find exceedingly confusing, really the "simplicity which is in Christ?"
Let me clarify again what is happening here .I disagree with what you are posting because you are twisting it a bit.
I did not disagree with the statement that everyone believing will be saved.....when you edit my other post,you cut off that response as I no longer see it on here.
I'll repeat it now John 3:16 Says everyone believing and the idea is everyone believing and continuing to believe will be saved.
The way you worded your statement I said I disagreed with the wording because I knew your intent was that you were trying to say that everyone who Wills to believe for everyone willing to believe with the idea that it's in and of themselves. Because if you're going to turn around and agree that no one can do that unless God enables them then you can't read the statement as if they could do it in and of themselves by their own will ,unaided by God and then turn around and say well no no one can do that unless God enables them .
so you are either going to give what is the biblical and calvinistic position or you're not, so you need to
decide by clarifying your statement what you mean.
As for your second point I do reject It because it starts off saying Christ that provided the means necessary for salvation.
No.... the Bible teaches that Christ that accomplished redemption in Hebrews 9:12 it doesn't say he accomplished the means necessary.
If I say that I am baking a cake and I get all the ingredients mix them put it together put it in the oven and watch over it set the temperature and then pull a cake out of the oven pull it out of the pan and put the icing on it and say it's finished I can say I bake the cake .
if I say hey John I'm going to give you the means to make a cake and I put a bag of groceries on the table with a baking pan,mixing spoon,and all the ingredients necessary....I could not say I finished baking the cake...
For that cake to be made, baked, and finished, YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ADDITIONAL IF I ONLY PROVIDED YOU THE MEANS TO BAKE IT.
I give you a pan and here's the ingredients that doesn't mean I baked the cake it means I provided the means so that's two different things you say the way I'm reading your post.
Also you keep using misusing 2nd Corinthians 5:19 221 when you keep saying God was in Christ reconciling the world .
quote the verse where it says not imputin their trespasses to them.
explain how the whole world does not have their trespasses imputed to them at the White Throne judgement .
go ahead explain that
don't use the cop out that unbelief is the only thing that's going to be punished .
all sins will be punished as per John 8 if you don't believe I am he you will die in your sins is what Jesus said to the religious leaders he said sins plural,
not you will die in your sin of unbelief he said you will die in your sins plural so their sins for all are going to be imputed to them, each and everyone.
You keep taking shots at the big evil termDoes one have to repent and become a Calvinist to be saved?
Calvinists......or Calvinism.
Let me offer this to you.....
Does one have to repent and become a biblical christian to be saved?
You and others speak against the term....Calvinism....as if there are not millions of bible believing Christians who diligently study scripture, the words of Jesus and all the biblical teaching found in the 66 books and declare what the teaching is.
Without using the terms of the reformation....the teaching is that of scripture. You sound as if no Cal studies scripture, but rather we get hooked up to Calvinist I.V. and it this theology gets infused apart from scripture.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Yes, the thing of we just regurgitate our beliefs and only get them from other cals is ad nauseum and frankly a false charge. But no matter how many times one denies this accusation he is convinced he's right and this is what we do.
It is interesting to note how both sides of the camp have so many flaws, but he has found the truth?
Ahem.
I believe all who are converted will only be those He has graced with repentance, faith, and His mercy. I was talking to a friend of mine the past week, he is in the fundy group, we had a good talk over 2 Peter 3:9 and he is considering his error in applying the verse to all mankind.
I have found that some men who are well read in theology over think things from time to time.
They are sincere before God initially in their desire to grow in grace and knowledge.
They go to school they take in many ideas and get to enjoy the process of study and trying to weigh things out.
Some cannot let go.of the process....and they over think things trying to find a non existent middle road.
It is like that fantasy of finding an Island somewhere and there is no Isis, no criminals, everything is Idyllic.
2 pet 3:9 is often one of the most misused scriptures, because of the language used, but when properly read....can change a person 180 degrees.
I hope that I am mistaking, but it appears to be that with this post you for some reason gone back in an attempt to imply some motivation to my words that do not exist. That is dishonest discourse.
As I have said, this OP is not about Calvinism or Arminianism. I have no problem with either with the term Calvinism or Calvinists. I have no problem with the term Arminianism or with Arminianians.
But I have noticed that when members discuss a topic with you, and with Internet Theologian, and it comes to a certain place where it is clear that there is no agreement, both of you result to insults, attacks, and implication. I cannot help but see your comments in this light, which of course colors my view of you (whether right or wrong). So my brotherly suggestion is to please return to the topic and stop relying on your "feelings" of what I mean by my replies.
When I speak of theology incorporating human reasoning, I am AS I STATED OVER AND OVER AGAIN, speaking of my own understanding as well.
I could not agree more. In order to support unbiblical doctrine they must create complicated and compound explanations of rather simple straight forward statements and thus do violence to simplicity we find in Christ.
2 Corinthians 1:12 For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.
3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
I am trying to see if you are deliberately misusing my words to bring a point to my attention or if I have inadequately stated my belief. Keeping it simple, I believe that we are saved by grace through faith and that salvation is a work of God. I think you'll at least agree with half of that statement...I think the "saved by grace" part anyway.No, and no.
We seem to have a different opinion, again. I would say "no" to both. How do you conclude each respective position would require a "yes" response?
I disagree. I believe Particular Soteriology is biblical.
They contradict each other in any theological system, including the bible.
A contradicts B, and only one contradicts scripture. "There are none that seek after God." "They are at enmity with God." "They don't receive spiritual truth, neither, indeed, can they." "The heart is deceitful and wicked to the point we can't understand how wicked it is."
You create a false dichotomy between "faith" and "belief?" What warrants that dichotomy?
If Christ died (Atoned) for the sins of everyone, without exception, how can anyone ever go to hell? If their sins have been Atoned for they are sinless and thus not under the curse of the second death.
If Christ did not die for your individual sins, are you still in your sins? And do you create another false dichotomy between reconciliation and forgiveness? Isn't one the basis of the other?
Is this complicated gospel, which I find exceedingly confusing, really the "simplicity which is in Christ?"
I also believe particular redemption biblical. I also understand that you present "repent and believe" to be a contradiction to salvation.
The difference is that I believe we are reconciled at the Cross (humanity) to Christ yet when we sin we have a Mediator with the Father.
I actually believe the gospel is very simple - repent and believe in the name of Jesus and you will be saved. Our theologies of how that is worked out, of what God was thinking and feeling....how these are put together. That's another story.
Neither one. I read your question and saw your answers and found your answers to be incorrect. Let's look again.
You say the answer is "yes." I disagree. The answer is a resounding "NO!" If a person has faith in Christ he is one of His. It is impossible for a lost person to have faith.
No person is ever saved unwillingly. The Grace that brings salvation draws that person to Christ, removes the cold, dead, heart of unbelief and gives that person a new, living, believing heart of faith. God has the Power to make the unwilling willing. When a person receives that new heart, it is a heart of faith. It is a heart that believes. It is a heart that repents. It is a heart that follows. And that is the simplicity we find in Christ.
Any dishonest discourse would be you cutting off by editing half my post, then saying I disagreed with a direct biblical statement that I posted.I said I disagreed with how you worded your statement. ....if anything I am trying to keep the discussion on track.
I called you no names.
It was you that suggested that I was using Gnostic methodology in coming to what I posted.
If you cannot see that I am not sure what you are reading.
Can you post where I called you a name JonC?
I hope I am wrong, but you are appearing to be a bit two faced and over sensitive as I now see you are saying TC is doing the same thing to you.
Notice both of us questioned you on what we read as posted contradictions. ....where there is smoke there is fire.
I have clarified things and a few times said to you....I see what you posted, you have a right to post it, but I have a right to oppose it also.
Let's not allow the thread to degenerate into personal issues. Let's keep it high and lifted up, as any discussion of a Holy God ought to be.
Back to the discussion.
Back to the discussion.
Okay, so you believe in limited atonement. Good. We now have a point of agreement. Let's try to build on that.
I am not certain how you came to understand that, but I don't believe repent and believe to contradict salvation. I believe repentance and faith (belief) are the results of salvation, not the cause of it. Bearing in mind I use the word "salvation" in the sense of "regeneration" not in the sense of progressive sanctification or glorification. The latter two also being the result of regeneration and never the cause of it.
That's the issue. I never said, nor do I believe, that the answer is "yes" to either question. I believe it is "no" to both. Men are not saved so that they will believe, but neither do they believe so that they can be saved.
When I said that we don't compare A to B, but A and B to scripture I was in no way denying that the lost cannot believe. Instead, I think that the most simple approach is to take Scripture as it comes (John 3:1-15 does not set up theological acrobatics for verses 16-21...they are all true, and simply so).
The issue that some have is that they seem so steeped in theory that when someone simply says that they believe the Bible they find it baffling. You, Icon, and Internet Theologian seem to have immediately rejected the idea that those who believe are saved, I suppose because it lacked the luster of a well developed theology.
But if it will help, maybe make it super-duper clear what I believe here, I will try to articulate more bettererly. Smile
I believe that salvation, to include faith, is a work of God and not man. I believe that "being saved" means that Jesus is your Lord and Savior (it is a state of repentance and belief). So I do believe that men must be born again (or if you prefer "born from above"), but that they are not born again so that they can believe. Being born again, they believe.
I do not believe that there is a millisecond where the lost have saving faith apart from God's work, but I also do not believe that there is a millisecond where those who are saved are without faith. While I realize we will probably never agree on this point, at least next time you may understand my view a bit better.
What are you talking about? I didn't edit out any of your post. I am suggesting that the belief that God, via special revelation, reveals the complete truth to some while leaving others with only a partial view is gnostic methodology. So what? Are you disagreeing with the method or simply the name I used?
Did I say you called me a name? What I am saying is that you try to pit me against Calvinists when I am in truth not. I think that there is some error in their theological conclusions, but for the most part I believe it is in what they dismiss rather than what they affirm. Most of the theologians that I listen to and read are, BTW, Calvinists. I just don't think that God gave them via divine special revelation the truth that others have not yet grasped.
I'm posting quickly as I haven't much time. Don't take it as being over sensitive, I'm not that invested. But on this issue (on faith being a result of being saved) I disagree with both you and TC. So I do not find it the least bit odd that y'all both disagree with me.
You are not being truthful here.
I am on my phone now..... I will show exactly what I mean when I get to a keyboard.
I do not like the direction this is going in.
I do not like how you summarize what I post and ascribe to me things I did not say....
This is the third time you have done so.
At this point I do not trust what you are posting.
I agree.
I believe in Particular Redemption. Jesus died to redeem the elect. But I do not believe that this excludes Christ bearing the sins of humanity as a whole (becoming sinful flesh as the representative of mankind in general, of the elect in particular). So we probably disagree as I do believe that Christ's work on the Cross was a general provision of salvation for all men. I believe that all men reject this general provision, but the elect are saved by the grace of God through faith.Okay, so you believe in limited atonement. Good. We now have a point of agreement. Let's try to build on that.
I am not certain how you came to understand that, but I don't believe repent and believe to contradict salvation. I believe repentance and faith (belief) are the results of salvation, not the cause of it. Bearing in mind I use the word "salvation" in the sense of "regeneration" not in the sense of progressive sanctification or glorification. The latter two also being the result of regeneration and never the cause of it.
I believe that the Father offered His Son as a guilt offering, that through Christ God was reconciling the world to Himself. Everything (every single thing, nothing left out...except of course the Father) will be put under Christ. And the Son will be subject to the Father, so that everything is reconciled through Christ with God.
I also am using "being saved" to refer to that process of regeneration. I disagreed with you that faith is a product of salvation, but I did not mean that salvation was a product of faith. I may be wrong, but it appears that that was how you took it. I mean that I believe "repent and believe" is descriptive of what it means to be saved.
- Status