A Personal Relationship with Jesus is not enough

[Eric B]

The Calvinists don't go far enough in total depravity and unconditional election:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Westminster Confession

Man, in no way, cooperates in his own justification.

I would think that most Calvinists would agree with all of this.

And, of course, we deny irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints.

Isn't effectual call another name for irresistable grace?

 

[John Gilmore]

DHK,

Yes, human reason rebels at Christ's words and tries to find a rational explanation. Yet, in His last testament, Christ willed to us His body and blood in, with, and under bread and wine for the forgiveness of sins. How is this possible? It is possible because Christ is true God and true man. He is not limited by time and space.

Communion is the receiving of the testament of Christ not the covenant of works that the papists and the baptists have invented.

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by Eric B:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The Calvinists don't go far enough in total depravity and unconditional election:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Westminster Confession

Man, in no way, cooperates in his own justification.

I would think that most Calvinists would agree with all of this.

And, of course, we deny irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints.

Isn't effectual call another name for irresistable grace? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I've been hanging around Calvinists too long. I'm starting to use their terms.

Lutherans view justification as a judical act; whereas, Calvinists see justification as a process. When justification is a process, man cooperates even if the Calvinists say cooperation is irresistible.

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by Briguy:


John, Is the Christian held in God's hand or does the Christian hold on to God's hand?

In Love and Truth,
Brian

Do you recall Luther's explanation to the third article?

...the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith; in which Christian Church He forgives daily and richly all sins to me and all believers...

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by John Gilmore:
DHK,

Yes, human reason rebels at Christ's words and tries to find a rational explanation. Yet, in His last testament, Christ willed to us His body and blood in, with, and under bread and wine for the forgiveness of sins. How is this possible? It is possible because Christ is true God and true man. He is not limited by time and space.

Who is to talk about "human reasoning" and rationalization here? How about some Bible exposition instead? Where in the Bible does it say that the Lord "willed" His body and blood to us. It doesn't. He didn't "will" it; He sacrificed it; and he sacrificed it once for all. The elements of the Lord's Table are purely symbolic, are not salvic in any way, neither are they any means of grace in any way shape or form. They are simply symbolic of our Lord's body and blood, and that is all. There is no forgiveness that can take place as a result of partaking of these elements. There is no magical supernatural quality about them that can forgive sins. Only Christ Himself can do that, and He is not present in those elements. They are purely symbolic. He is as much present in those elements as he is in the very pages of my bible, in fact perhaps he is more so in my Bible than in the elements, even though my Bible is made only of paper.
I don't worship the elements, and I don't worship the actual Bible itself. I worship Christ.

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
DHK

 

[John Gilmore]

double post

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by jasonW*:

Firstly, as noted earlier, necassary and essential are synonyms. To say what you have stated is a non-sequitor.

Tell me, is it essentially or necessarily a non-sequitur?

Secondly, given the lack of reference to baptism in damnation, the only thing you can possibly infer is that faith trumps baptism. If baptism+faith == salvation, but !faith == damnation, what does that say about baptism? You seemingly have no idea, do you?

Faith does not trump baptism. Baptism is the instrument through which faith is obtained. Can faith be obtained by those who reject baptism? No. Therefore baptism is necessary for salvation.

But, just so you can see this clearly, solve the following:

X: Baptism + Faith = Salvation

Y: Baptism - Faith = Damnation (we can say this because we know that lack of faith + anything leads to damnation....)

I would agree with equation X. Baptism is the means whereby we obtain faith. And the faith of Christ saves us through baptism. And baptism saves us through faith.

I would not agree with equation Y. Baptism does not produce unbelief. If someone believes that baptism saves without faith, that belief was not generated by their baptism.

So, what is the difference between the two? Faith and lack of faith. So, what is really important here?

Faith does not come without the Word (Romans 10:17). When Christ says salvation comes through baptism, He is saying that baptism is a form of the Word. Can a person reject baptism and thereby reject the Word and have faith? No. Can a person receive faith through preaching? Yes (1 Cor. 1:21).

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by John Gilmore:
Tell me, is it essentially or necessarily a non-sequitur?

Yes.

Faith does not trump baptism. Baptism is the instrument through which faith is obtained. Can faith be obtained by those who reject baptism? No. Therefore baptism is necessary for salvation.

So, you cannot have faith without baptism? Painted-corner what?

I'll let the rest of the people on the board correct you on this one.

I would agree with equation X. Baptism is the means whereby we obtain faith. And the faith of Christ saves us through baptism. And baptism saves us through faith.

Well, first of all, it is grace that saves us, through faith.

Secondly, where does it say that baptism saves us through faith?

I would not agree with equation Y. Baptism does not produce unbelief. If someone believes that baptism saves without faith, that belief was not generated by their baptism.

I think you need to take a math class.

Baptism - Faith = Damnation does not say baptism produces unbelief. What is says, in conjunction with the first equation, is that faith is the lynchpin. Without faith, we cannot be saved. But, of course you would see this if you read the post closely.

Faith does not come without the Word (Romans 10:17). When Christ says salvation comes through baptism, He is saying that baptism is a form of the Word. Can a person reject baptism and thereby reject the Word and have faith? No. Can a person receive faith through preaching? Yes (1 Cor. 1:21).

Where does it say that a person cannot reject baptism? I am curious. Because we are explicitly told that if we have no belief, we are damned. But we are not told that if we have no baptism that we are damned. You are presuming that. Yes you are. Stop shaking your head. Yup...you are.

jason

 

[HisMercy]

I haven't read through the whole post. I was just wondering how someone can say they have a personal relationship with someone they can't identify? If someone says, I have a personal relationship with God or the Lord. Who are they talking about? The Father, Son or Holy Spirit? I believe the first step in having a relationship is being able to identify the other person in the relationship.