The act of receiving

We are all born with the right 'stuff.' Genesis 1:26,27 and James 3:9 indicates that we as sinners are born with an intact 'image of God' in us. We are created as human beings with the communicable attributes that God is endowed with in His Being. We have a sense of love, mercy, justice and we understand, even as sinners, that there is a Being called God. We can learn and we attain knowledge and we can communicate to each other secular and Divine concerns about ourselves as sinners. No one has to be told that they are sinners. We have conscience and can communicate human love, which later on, gives us the concept of His Divine love for us at the Cross. We, are not mummified corpses as Calvinism suggests as one of their several props. Any funerals that I attended the dead body could not do any of the above things, but sinners do have these abilities as lost people. Both St. Matthew and Luke indicate in 7:11 and 11:13 that sinners and saints alike ' . . . know how to give good gifts to their children.' These things being true we are not bound by the alleged 'Inability' to understand Gospel truth and to believe in Jesus for salvation. In other words, when a preacher preaches or a Christian witness to the message of the Cross, the sinner does understand and can respond and in fact does react either in the form of rejection or acceptance of Jesus' saving benefits. When God says, contextually, that the sinner does not understand the ' . . . deep things of God' this is clearly understood by Christians as being a fact. [I Corinthians 2:10] In 2:14 God reminds us that the 'natural man'/the sinner has little interest at all in the truths in the spiritual realm because the Adamic nature still rules in his life and he is owned by the evil one. [I John 3:10]

My point is that all sinners can hear and respond to the simple saving message of Christ. There is nothing like a two level or layered 'general call' and the other the 'effectual call.' Every effective, proclamation of the Gospel is a general call to all who hear and is effectual because God the Spirit is commingled in its 'good tidings' which is to all people. [Luke 2:10] 'And the angel said unto them, Fear not; behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.' 'All' is an inclusive word and excludes no one.

 

Yelsew,

No one is making theclaims for Calvin being added to Jesus and all that other nonsense. Your fooishness merely furhter discredits you as a worthy participant.

Doubting Thomas,

Accountability does not imply ability. As has often ben pointed out, and oncded by arminians, theLaw was given to Israel, and obedience expected (complete obedience) knowing full well that such could never happen.

It is a non sequitur infrence tha anility is to be inferrred from responsibility, a non sequitur soundly denied by Scripture.

If you must doubt, coubt human ability to choose God. Some here, like Yelsew, continue to say the issue is the ability to choose. It is not. The issue is the ability to choose any option as freely as any other. Scripture is clear that we are not so free.

Some here like to make an issue of our being in the image of God. That is not the issue either. The issue is whether we are in Adam or in Christ. All are born in Adam, and as such are, as Paul puts it in Romans 5, helplesss. That state does not change until we are in Christ.

In fact Arminians should take a long look at Romans 5. The way it lists theconsequences of a single sin should give them pause as the seek to minimise the imapct of the Fall.

It should but it won't. They are far too committed to caricatures of biblical teaching. Unfortunate. They miss out on many blessings.

 

Bible belted,

We also like the Book of Romans because it speaks of a 'even playing field' for all sinners, [Romans 3:23] and because all are lost, all can run to Christ [Romans 3:22 ] {it is by FAITH and unto ALL people}for redemption [Romans 3:24]. Verse 25 says that a sinner must have faith in His blood, rather than the flip interpretation of Calvin which suggests that this faith is given to a human only after He regenerates the lost.

In Romans 4:3 Abraham, of his free will believed God and only then was it counted unto him---the righteousness of Christ. Notice Christ did not first regenerate him and then get him to believe in the Lord God. There is a difference.

In Romans 4:5 it tells us that believing in Jesus is not a work, as Calvinists accuse us of believing. 'But to him who worketh not, but believeth in Him who justifies the ungodly, that persons faith is counted for righteousness.'

There is nothing in Romans or throughout all of the Scriptures that faintly suggests that regeneration surges in first and then God gives faith in the after-tide. In Romans 5:1 Paul starts right out with the fact that justification is by faith, as Luther strongly believed--his words 'the just shall live by faith.'

In Romans 5:12-19 Paul tells us that because of Adam's sin all people fell because of his failure. Christ is no less potent in that He, being the 'second Adam' has restored 'all people unto justification of life. Only one condition stands in the way of human redemption and that is having faith [Romans 5:1] in His promises via the Cross of redemption. And then there is the rest of the great Book of Romans.

Best regards,
Ray

 

Ray Berrian, you said some thoughtworthy things of the much praised, if not worshipped, man John Calvin. But "FATHER John Calvin"?? (empasis mine) Why criticize a man strongly and then call him "Father" with the same mouth? Don't you recall what He said Who you profess to know, even Jesus the Christ?

Harald

 

Ray Berrian,

Who was Abraham's faith? [Clue: Galatians 3:25]

"But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;" [Romans 4:24]

If faith itself is that which was imputed to Abraham, why is it here written that the same "it" shall be imputed to us if [seeing] that we believe on Him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead? The faith imputed to sinners is not their faith, or else they would justify themselves. It is the faith of the Son of God.

"And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:" (Philippians 3:9)

In this text, the righteousness of God (the faith of Christ) is said to be BY FAITH. It cannot be faith itself, as the thing received and the thing by which it is received must be distinct.

 

Yelsew,

On February 10 at 7:10 p.m. you wrote about a caution as to whether John Calvin repented of his manslaughter of Servetus. I have before me a book which said that 'eight years later Calvin was still advising other rulers to exterminate heretics "like I exterminated Michael Servetus . . . !' Calvin was not a victim of his times he was a victim of his theology. And by this I mean he copied the theology of St. Augustine and his 'City of God.' The above statement might strongly hint that Calvin never repented from his great sin. One would have thought that John should have patterned his life after Jesus kindness rather than St. Augustine.

'Dr. Piper, a Calvinist, reminds us that the standard text on theology that Calvin and Luther drank from was "Sentences" by Peter Lombard. Luther was an Augustinian monk and Calvin immersed himself in the writings of Augustine, as we can see from the increased use of Augustine's writings in each new edition of his "Institutes".'(John Piper, "The Legacy of Sovereign Joy : God's Triumphant Grace in the Lives of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin {Crossway Books, 2000, p.18.}) John Calvin was the end product of the Roman Catholic theology of by gone days.

 

Harald,

The use of the word, 'Father', was to alert some Calvinists that their theology has been handed down to them by men like: Father Augustine, Father Peter LOombard and possibly the Augustinian monk--Father Martin Luther. A pinch of sarcasm was intended. Surely, you don't think Luther and Calvin turned 180 degrees into Reformation Protestants, or if you don't like this label, into orthodox Christians, or Reformation Christians?

 

The dominant theology of the time was a victim of the notion that Christ had left to his church the establishment of His Kingdom in this world. Thus, with this error in view men set about aligning themselves politically and eliminating all who threatened that political alignment.

We see the same thing in the Puritans in America who came to the New World 'seeking religious freedom' but this for themselves.

Yes, it is sad that Calvin followed the pattern of those to which he protested, but this does not negate the truthfulness of the things he believed, because these things were in Scripture.

Padeobaptism is one error which seems to have let the door open to many others and to violence. Note the words of Christ to the disciples in Lk. 9.51-55.

The Roman Church and the Reformers placed emphasis on Baptism and neglected the 'manner of spirit' they were of.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

But PB,

Paul is not speaking of the Object of Abraham's faith, but of the faith of the Galations and history records that Abraham was Hebrew, not Galatian. So Gal 3:25 does not support your claim for Abraham's faith.

Interesting word "imputed" Many think that it means something in input, added to, combined with. But in the Greek it means inventoried, estimated, counted, reckoned, etc.

The point is that Paul is not telling the Romans that they will receive faith if Christ be raised up from the dead. He is telling them their faith in Jesus will be inventoried meaning they already have it, are in possession of it, carry it in stock.

It's almost as if you are shooting arrows in the dark.

[ February 11, 2003, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: Yelsew ]

 

My understanding of Galatians 3:22-4:31 is that the Law is the sinner's schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. By way of the Law we learn that we are guilty sinners and in need of Christ.

In finding Christ He tells sinners and saints that it comes by 'promise.' A promise is something that requires someone receiving it. How do we receive the promise? We are saved by faith in Jesus Christ. [Galatians 3:26] What is faith? Dr. Charles C. Ryrie, in his "Basic Theology' p. 626 says that 'Faith is giving credence, confidence, trust or holding something or someone as true.' Your definition may be similar or even better.

When Christ finds us or we find Him, then we become Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise. [Galatians 3:29] The promise of faith comes through Jesus Christ and His saving benefits but only to those who 'believe' [Galatians 3:22 b]or have 'faith.' [Galatians 3:26]

To me faith is trusting Christ for everything related to my redemption. 'Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.' [Hebrews 11:1]

In Hebrews chapter eleven all of the 'heroes of faith' obviously had a faith/trust in God to accomplish the will of God and their challenge in life. This faith we believe comes out of the heart and via the free will of a human being. God gives grace; we respond in faith.

 

Gee whiz, Ray, that would mean that those who adhere to Calvin's teachings make the same error that the Mormon's make in adhering to the teachings of their Necromancer, golddigger, fortune hunter founder Joseph Smith, and his murderous follow-on leaders Brigham Young et al.

Just kidding, but my comparison is similar to Primitive Baptist's on a preceding post, where he equated the Galations with Abraham.

 

Brother Dallas,

You said, something like, 'This does not negate the things that he believed; these things are found in the Scriptures.'

This is what some of us are gently, trying to point out and prove that four points of Calvinism are the thoughts of Augustine and Calvin which I feel are the machinations of someone other than God Himself.

Calvin learned his trade from the Augustinian persecutions and even killing of the Donatists and other schismatics. Great numbers of Donatists were forced back into the Roman Catholic Church just as Calvin did in Geneva. This is all the more reason why we should question each doctrine that they taught, line by line, word by word. What do you think?

My regards . . .

 

You've pretty well nailed it Ray

If faith, that in humans, is what God finds akin to righteousness, it seems unlikely that God is the one who put it there. It is more likely that Gave us the reason(s) to have faith, and not the faith itself.

If he gave (instills, implants, etc.) us the faith, for what purpose did he do all the things that spawn faith within us? You know, like dyin' on the Roman cross, Raising from the dead, etc. When all that was necessary was to create us with faith in him already present in us. We would not so easily fall for sin's temptations because we would have faith in God to rely upon.

 

Bro. Ray,

We can certainly question all doctrine taught by men. However, when we come to scripture and find those doctrine taught there, then our questioning should stop, unless we are searching for a man whose teachings are in line with the notions we have so that we can proclaim we believe the truth.

A misunderstanding of those who propose free-will of man is that God must operate to force Himself upon man, this is not so. Because of the drawing and dealing of God, man becomes willing. God changes the will, or better the desire of man, from a love of sin and darkness to the love of His truth and Glorious light. This change is worked by the Holy Spirit, the drawing of man puts into him a thirst for God which makes him one of the whosoever will. Until this thirst is worked from the Goodness of God, it is not more than man reforming himself in his mind, a reforming of the mind is not a heart-work from where Christ said all evil proceeds from man. Only God can circumcise the heart.

I don't have a problem with questioning what is taught by man, be it Calvin or any other. But when those things are presented in scripture and rather than believe them we attack the teacher for his personal failures then we show ourselves to be focusing on the outward appearance of the cup and not the inside of the cup.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Bro. Dallas,

You said, 'The R.C. & the Reformers were into the teaching of baptism and neglected the 'manner of spirit they were of.'

You remind me of 21st. century Psychiatrists who explain away vile crime of humanity by way of searching the background of the accused and then making up excuses for them.

I think a Christian should see that indeed Augustine and Calvin killed human beings for the sake of what they thought was correct/orthodox theology. The state required beheading people; the church required 'burning at the stake.' You and I both know that they burned their victims at the stake. Right?

 

Bro. Dallas,

Augustine and Calvin killed people. Jesus said, 'A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil . . . ' [Luke 6:45] Were Augustine and Calvin good or evil people?

Incidentally, you do not find John and Charles Wesley persecuting people when they did not buy their more Arminian view of Scripture. Could it possibly be they were as Jesus said, 'good men?'

Words for thought.

 

yeah. But I also know that the Roman Catholic, Calvin and Luther all aligned themselves with a world government. The thought was that this was the only way a 'religion' could survive. This was copied among the so called reformers of the church all the way to king Henry the VIII of England.

yeah. Calvin and the Roman Church burned their dissenters; but they first established a political support whereby they could proclaim their theology law. The underlying thought was that of the establishment of the Kingdom of Christ, so that the government was the first assimilated, and dissenters were 'eliminated.' True this is hideous;

I am not attempting to explain away the wrongs such men committed. Nevertheless, these wrongs committed by men do not negate the truth of God.

You know the hiearchy of the R.C. church. This system draws heavily upon the Jewish system; Calvin followed the same premise for his church government, under the law men died under the witness of two or three. These men drawed heavily upon these things to validate their church government and their worldly position (in association to political entities), which they felt gave them a mandate from heaven.

If you think Calvin is merely a product of his belief in the election of God's Children, and that he was in a vaccum whereas he was not affected by his environment, more power to you. The fact is that he was not in a vaccum.

To the praise of the Glory of the Grace of God, there were bodies throughout Europe who taught the Sovereignty of God who refused Calvin's Baptism who were persecuted as heretics, even though they would have agreed fundamentally with Calvin's teachings save for baptism.

As far as Augustine goes, he was definitely influenced by his superiors. When he requested to do mission work in Britian and this was granted, his first reports of converts brought back to him that he should not continue to tear down the places of worship the heathen had grown accustomed to, but rather these places and the peculiar ceremonies they witnessed should be incorporated into the Christian religion, this would induce more of the population to accept the Christian faith because they would view it not as a 'foreign' religion, but the extension or continuation of their own, maybe even the perfection of their own ceremonies.

Yeah. Alot of error here. But, I find the faith once delivered to the saints to be that which is espounded by T.U.L.I.P.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

The whole point of me posting Galatians 3 was to prove that faith is sometimes used to describe its object. "..when faith is come." Faith was around long before Christ came, but faith, that is, Christ, the object of faith. You still did not address the issue. What is the "it" that shall be imputed, or as Yelsew prefers, "reckoned" or "counted" (its the same thing by the way) if (seeing) that we believe? In other words you're saying it (our faith) will be reckoned to us if we hae faith, or believe. That makes no sense!

Yelsew, you are harping about stuff that has nothing to do with the issue. Understand what you're arguing before you attempt to correct somebody else. Also remember what Peter said, "Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together as the manner of some is..."

 

You are right. But we also do not see John Gill, C.H. Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, nor any of the other "dissenters" burning any at the stake.

Incidentally, Mr. Gill and Mr. Spurgeon each pastored the Park St. Chapel in London, both were Baptist; yet they lived, even Spurgeon, 100 years after Gill, in a time when they could not call the place of worship anything but a 'chapel.'

Then in America we find that Baptists were restricted from preaching more than once a month, and never from the same location. This service could be morning or evening, but not each. This was because they were 'non-conformists' and 'dissenters' and a great many, though conceedingly, not all, expounded the same truths which Calvin did.

We can dig up the questionable character of all men who profess the name of Christ, still, this will not change the word of God.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Ray B. Thank you for your brief explanation. As for Luther and Calvin I do not give much for them. Luther was clearly a heretic on many points of doctrine. Calvin clinged to the heretical practice of pedobaptism. He also exhibited an entirely wrong attitude with respect to Servetus when he consented to his killing. He had a twisted understanding of the local assembly. And what little I've read from his Romans commentary I saw he was unclear and off on justification. Sometimes in his commentaries he taught universal atonement, sometimes particular atonement. He also seems to have believed and taught the heresy of gospel regeneration. I can list many men who top him as teachers of the Bible. He did teach things in agreement with the word of God, that I do not deny, but the many heretical things he held to makes me highly suspicious of him.

Augustine was a Romanist as far as I can see, but more orthodox than his modern day counterparts. Nevertheless he was a heretic in certain areas, and that is serious.

Harald