Is Todd Friel Right?

R.C.Sproul said that "There are all sorts of conditions that must be met for someone to be saved. Chief among them is that we must have faith in Christ. Faith is a necessary requirement." He then says that "all the elect are indeed brought to faith. God insures that the conditions necessary for salvation are met". From a Calvinist perspective it is correct to say that there are requirements that must be met for salvation. I think Sproul once asked what an elect person is before he is saved. His answer was - he is lost. By the way, I also think repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin and that repentance is a gift - but it is actually done by the person. And the elect will certainly be saved - but they are not saved from the foundation of the world. They are saved when they repent and believe the gospel. And I should add that a person who repents and believes the gospel is saved and justified even if he doesn't share the Calvinistic view of election which I happen to feel is man's best attempt to explain these things.

 

Every believer will repent of their sins. They do so precisely because they have heard the voice of their shepherd and learned that they are sinners in need of repentance.

Where we differ is that you place this repentance as a requirement before the cross while I place this repentance after the cross.

Ephesians 2:4-5
But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—

I honestly don't know how you ignore this passage.

 

Even though I tend to lean Calvinistic in my thinking I need to say that I have no problem with that statement. I also believe that it is perfectly OK to tell anyone who you get a chance to talk to that Christ died for their sins. I believe that the offer of the news of the gospel is real to everyone. I believe in sovereign election but that is not the place for it when you are sharing the gospel. Christ either died or he didn't and of course he did. The reformers, though Calvinistic, did not agree on this either. If you read the puritan Robert Traill from the 1600's you will find that he sounds a lot more like John R. Rice than some of the Young Restless and Reformed internet warriors. Also, when a 5 point Calvinist talks about a limited atonement they are referring to not just Christ's death on the cross but his actual blood being applied for an individuals sins. That has to be limited or else you are left with universalism. But Christ died once and everyone without exception who repents and trusts him for salvation will be saved. And many Calvinists believe that though some don't. I personally think that if you ask someone "if you share the gospel with a person is the offer of salvation real"? If they say "only if they are elect" then they are moving close to hypercalvinism.

 

Just the good old Holy Bible, which I quoted to you in some detail. I'm sorry that you don't feel able to answer me in the same way rather than relying on your fallen human logic to instruct you

 

What I notice is you just avoided the text I provided which fulfilled the requirement you demanded from me.

How is it that while we were still dead in sins, God made us alive with Christ? Was it because we, ourselves, in our deadness, chose God while rejecting other gods? Was it our brilliant discernment, while being dead, that eventually lead us to no longer find the gospel foolishness and we, on our own, decided that repentance was our ticket to heaven?

In regard to Acts 2, I have explained Peter's statement to his covenant family of Israel. However, since you seem entirely clueless regarding God as a covenant making God, such explanation is lost on you.
Let's look one more time.
Acts 2:36-39
Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you 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 for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

Peter is addressing the House of Israel. Covenant Israel, chosen from among all the other nations as a set apart people of God.
Notice that before they ever respond, God's Spirit convicted and cut them to the heart (Read Hebrews 4 to gain more insight).
Notice that this covenant relationship with Peter and the other disciples is established when the convicted persons call the disciples "brothers."
In other words, the bonds are already established. God has done his work in making these people alive with Christ. The effect of this movement of God is for these persons to say "what shall we do?" The effect is...repent...not before hearing the gospel, but after hearing the gospel.

Even Acts 2 shows you that your forcing the dead person to repent prior to being made alive is not shown in this passage.
Somewhere in your past you were fed false information. You cling desperately to this false information and now you cannot, indeed will not let the Bible change your information which you have in your brain. It will take God shifting your paradigm. Take heart, that's what it took for God to change me. I once was firmly set in your shoes. I just kept reading the Bible and Reformed Christians kept challenging my paradigm. There came a time when I had to let go of the legalism in which I had been raised. I thank God he kept working in my heart. I am convinced he will keep working in yours as well.

 

Well you are right on that. Specifically, what I was talking about occurred in Scotland among Presbyterians in the early 1700's. A question was asked to a new pastor "Do you agree with this, that it is not sound and orthodox to teach that we forsake sin in order to our coming to Christ?" The ensuing debate got into questions about the role and place of repentance and the offer of the gospel, etc. It almost blew the denomination apart and this was all among Calvinists. It's all interesting reading but the point I was trying to make is that Calvinistic theology is man's best attempt to look at the overall plan of salvation through the eyes of God as if you are standing afar off and looking at the whole in space and time. But when it comes to my handling of the gospel I am saying that I have a warrant from scripture to offer everyone the gospel in a real and true way. Election and predestination and limited atonement can still be true. I bring up the Calvinists controversy in the 1700's to show that it is incorrect to say that a Calvinist cannot fervently appeal to people to repent and believe the gospel based on the sure fact that if they come to Christ they will not be cast out.

 

I don't see it that way, SBG.
What I see is Jesus commanding Israel to repent and believe the Gospel in that passage, as He is their Lord.

Respectfully, I see that any other way than the Lord granting His completely unmerited gifts to someone is in error.
If someone teaches, for example, that "salvation is by grace, but..."
As soon as one attaches a condition to it that must be met by men before God will save them, then to me, that involves man's efforts and devolves into works.

I hold that anything that is seen in the Scriptures, including belief, repentance, faith, walking the narrow path, denying ourselves and taking up our crosses and following Him, good works, etc, are all necessary evidences that will be present in someone who is saved.

None of those things, if performed, will ever result in God granting them eternal life.


God's children are His by His choice ( Psalms 65:4, John 6:37-65, Acts of the Apostles 13:48, Romans 8:28-30, Romans 9:13-24, Ephesians 1:3-12 and others ), they did not become His by their choice.
They are His by His work ( Ephesians 2:10 ), not a cooperative work between Him and them.

There are no works that could possibly merit us eternal life...
Not even our belief of the Gospel, as even that was given to them ( Philippians 1:29 ) in the behalf of Christ.

 

No.

Who are His sheep?
Please see Ephesians 1:1, 2 Peter 1:1 and several others, my friend.
How about John 17:20-21?

" Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." <--- His people.

Who are the epistles addressed to?
Those that have believed on Christ, from the heart ( Romans 10:8-10 ).

Also, please see Revelation 5:9, Revelation 7:9.
Those are His people.

 

I disagree.

To me, that would make salvation granted by merit.
Again, eternal life is a gift per Romans 6:23 and cannot be earned:

" For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Why you are unable to see that if salvation were conditional it would make Romans 6:23 untrue, I do not know, SBG.

I wouldn't know, as I'm not Reformed.
But I am aware of many people who consider that a total lack of merit on our part, when it comes to salvation from God's wrath, makes no sense to them.

In the Bible, it's called election, my friend.
God's choice of the sinner to salvation, through no effort of our own.

Many, especially nowadays, call it "Calvinism".
It's the very same thing that Paul preached, and can easily be seen in Romans 8, Romans 9, Ephesians 1, Ephesians 2, 1 Thessalonians 1, 2 Thessalonians 2, and in 2 Timothy 1:9, for example.

 

He's stating what has to happen for a person to see the kingdom of God ( John 3:3 ).

I agree, which Is why I take His every word seriously, and understand it in context with all the rest of it.

As do others, but I assure you that I do not take my teachings from him or others like him, and I never have.