Featured The Nature of Theology

This seems, to me, to be an unnecessary complication of what should be a simple Gospel message. Christ died for my sins, therefore my sins are paid for, hung on the cross, and I bear them no more. I am heaven bound. How does that differ from someone for whom Christ died but is not heaven bound?

Does the "everything" include the souls in hell, the demons, and Satan himself? Are they all also to be reconciled to God through Christ's sacrifice?

I believe the ability to repent, believe, and obey are the products of regeneration. Is that what you are saying?

 

How in the world did we ever give you that impression? Everyone who believes is saved. That statement is not just bible truth, it is absolute bible truth. All the saved believe. I am not sure what you mean by "it lacked the luster of a well developed theology." My entire point for this thread is that, before we can study the rest of Theology we must first come to grips with biblical soteriology if, for no other reason, than the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit, neither can he know them, because they require Spiritual discernment to be understood.

If we don't get our Soteriology correct, our Christology will, necessarily, be flawed. And if our Christology is flawed then our Theology of the Godhead will be equally flawed. And if our understanding of the Godhead is flawed all the rest of our Theology will suffer from that flaw.

That seems to me to be a distinction without a difference. Their faith is the result of their regeneration. They are not given an option to believe as a result of their regeneration, they are given faith. They believe.

And nobody else in this thread has indicated such a time lapse either. Regeneration, faith, repentance, the desire for obedience are all instantaneous, simultaneous with regeneration.

The Ordo Salutus is not temporal, but logical. It is expounded, not to generate a sequence of time, but a logical sequence that disabuses us of any false concept of "innate" faith, or that a lost man must repent first, or muster up some faith first, or has something innate in him that can be exercised unto salvation. The Ordo Salutus is to emphasize that "salvation is of the Lord" and not the result of any innate faith, or goodness, or acceptability, or merit on the part of man.

Lost man not only cannot come to Christ, he will not come to Christ. His lost condition prevents it.

 

Okay, fair enough. How else can it be expressed? It seems to me to come down to two choices. Either He died for me or He didn't. Is there some 3rd alternative I have missed?

I think you and I have a very different definition of "reconciliation." My understanding of "reconciliation" is that element of salvation that refers to the results of atonement. Reconciliation is the end of the estrangement, caused by sin, between God and those who are reconciled. How do you reconcile the lost, the demons, and Satan being reconciled (do you see what I did there? ) to God but still be estranged? Aren't estrangement and reconciliation exact opposites?

Again, isn't that a distinction without a difference? If not, what is the difference?

 

I must have misread what you wrote. I could have sworn you said:

If you did not post that, who did?

And again. You say Calvinism answers yes. Except none I know of do.

I don't believe faith is a result of being saved. I believe faith is the result of regeneration, which results in our salvation.

 

I have no serious disagreement with IT's comment that many non-calvinists think calvinists simply regurgitate what they have been taught. But the same is true on the other side of the aisle. Many calvinists believe arminians simply regurgitate what they have been taught.

Sometimes that is correct and sometimes it is wrong.

I understood you to be saying that none of us has a complete knowledge of the scriptures and therefore none of us can claim absolute understanding. And with that I agree.

However, I do believe we tend to over-think some things, making the simple complex. I know I do. When I do so I tend to make things more difficult than they need to be and it is only when I get back to the simplicity of Christ that the light begins to dawn in my otherwise clouded thinking.

By the way, I only use the term "calvinist" as a form of short-hand. I am certainly not a "Calvinist" in the normal usage of that term. I do not self-identify as a "Calvinist" because the word itself engenders so much needless strife.

I am a Particular Baptist. I believe in Particular Redemption. I believe Calvin was wrong on many things. But he was right in his Soteriology. But I am an Historic, Particular, Chilliastic Baptist. But try not to over-think it!

And nobody has suggested we were "unbelievers without faith" after being regenerated or having His New Spirit in us. I am not sure where you got that impression. Maybe a result of over-thinking something we said?

The mind of God is too immense for us to comprehend. In order for us to come to any small understanding of His Eternal Truth it is necessary for us to examine only one small part at a time. When doing so we run the risk of emphasizing that one small portion over the rest of His Eternal Truth until such time as we isolate and examine another small portion when we again emphasize that small portion over the rest.

Because of our human limitations it is necessary for us to examine Eternal Truth in time even though that imposes a temporal limitation on Eternity. But as our finite minds are incapable of comprehending Infinity we have no other recourse. We simply lack the capacity to grasp all of His Eternal Truth is a single giant bite. Therefore we form logical constructs such as the Ordo Salutus.

Hang in there. So far the thread has been very enlightening.

 

I have said for years that I am appalled by so many Christians who know what they believe but don't have a clue why they believe it and could not defend their beliefs if their lives depended on it.

And remember this is coming from a guy who spent over 40 years in vocational ministry, 25 of those years as a Seminary Professor.

I once had a student tell me, in class, that he was pre-trib. Fine. I lean that way myself. But I asked him to give a biblical reason he was pre-trib. He just looked at me and sputtered. He knew what he believe but did not know why he believed it.

The same is true of many who self-identify as a "non-calvinist" (I won't use "Arminian" as most Arminians don't self identify as Arminians because they have no clue what an Arminian actually is).

They have been taught: Calvinism - - - Bad. Bad. Bad Calvinism.

And the same is true of many who self-identify as a "Calvinist."

They have been taught: Arminianism - - - Bad. Bad. Bad Arminianism. Good Calvinism. Good. Good.

And that. unfortunately, has plumbed the depth of their Theological acumen.

 

I agree. Doctrine is primary.

I attend an SBC church in Texas that is pretty run of the mill SBC. We are very conservative (sometimes to a fault) and firmly believe in eternal security (and I agree OSAS is usually poorly presented). Out of our average Sunday morning attendance of around 700 (of which I pastor an outreach ministry to a local senior retirement park with around 140-150 in attendance) I would guess I am in the minority soteriologically. Perhaps as many as 1/3 of us could be described as Founders Friendly. But we make sure it never becomes a matter for divisiveness. My public stance is "What matters is that you are in Christ, not how you think you got there!"

Most people who leave good bible preaching churches do so for all the wrong reasons, usually over something minor.

When I was in Seminary the Seminary President once said that in his 60 years of ministry he had never had a church split. He had been a logger as a young man and said when he was splitting a log sometimes he would miss and only get a little sap and bark. He would then say he never had a church split, just lost a little bark and sap.

The Seminary Dean of Faculty was a little more pointed. He used to say, of those who left for silly reasons, "Even the Body of Christ needs a bowel movement now and then. Makes the rest of the Body more healthy."

 

Paul seemed to think Doctrine was very important.

1 Timothy 4:6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.

13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.

16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them:

5:17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

2 Timothy 3:10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

Titus 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

2:1 But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:

7 In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity,

 

There is no question about it. The sacrifice of Christ fulfilled all righteousness, including the authority to preach the gospel to every person. And nobody here has said differently. The gospel call is extended to all mankind, He died for all in that way, but that does not imply that the application of the atonement is to all.

In some sense, certainly.

Exactly. His sacrifice benefits all mankind, but saves only the elect.

But there was a whole lot more happening on the cross that just the atonement. The atonement is limited to the elect. But the benefits of the cross can, in some sense, be extended to all men.

The idea that our sins after salvation are not paid for on the cross is a dangerous proposition, if that is what you are saying. It is the cross and the cross alone that pays the penalty for our sin. And that penalty was paid, in full, on the cross. Our confession has nothing to do with our relationship to Christ, only our fellowship. If we fail to "ask forgiveness" for a sin what happens? You are aware, I am sure, that the New Testament never teaches that we should "ask forgiveness." Only confess our sins and thus claim the forgiveness already purchased on the cross. And that only to restore fellowship, never relationship.

 

I understand. My wife and I cared for my mother for the last 10 years of her life (she lived to be 102). Then we cared for my wife's mother for the last 10 years of her life (my wife is younger than I and her mother was only 17 years older than me).

It was a great burden. But one we gladly shared. And we miss them both.