Biblical Assertion

[37818]

There are reams of good stuff written on that passage. Some say it means you can lose your salvation. Some say it's a dire warning to keep you on the right path and is actually something that won't happen so it's hypothetical. Owen was talking about an order of salvation where God is sovereign and logically the first thing would be a decree to save some. Separating out for a holy purpose is one definition of sanctification so he used the term. If you wish to reject that that is perfectly OK. He was just a man.

Without dealing with specifics of an interpretation how can it be discussed? I do not have Owen's arguments on that verse. I believe God who saves, keeps those whom He saves. The Biblical sanctification fits neither Calvinism or Arminianism. God sanctifies with His truth. What must come first, God Himself precedes His truth. And so who the Son is John 14:6, and yet what He said, John 17:17. And what both Peter and Paul wrote, 1 Peter 1:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14. If there are conflicting views, why? There is always reasons. There is what the word says. And what men say the Scripture does not explicitly say. If an interpertation is in fact right, why? Set two of differing views side by side. All views can be wrong, but only one can be fully right. i presented what I understood.

 

[KenH]

Your determinism cannot provide a logical reason why Christ had to go to the cross.

Do you understand salvation at all, Silverhair?

Do you understand that God "will by no means clear the guilty"(Exodus 34:7)? In order to be saved, one must be as holy as God. So how does one have his guilt cleared? Augustus Toplady expressed it quite well in the words of a hymn:

"From whence this fear and unbelief,
If God, my Father, put to grief
His spotless Son for me?
Can He, the righteous Judge of men,
Condemn me for that debt of sin
Which, Lord, was charged to Thee?

Complete atonement Thou hast made,
And to the utmost farthing paid
Whate’er Thy people owed;
How, then, can wrath on me take place,
If sheltered in God’s righteousness,
And sprinkled by Thy blood?

If Thou hast my discharge procured,
And freely in my place endured
The whole of wrath divine;
Payment God will not twice demand,
First at my bleeding Surety’s hand,
And then again at mine.

Turn then, my soul, unto thy rest;
The merits of thy great High Priest
Speak peace and liberty;
Trust in His efficacious blood,
Nor fear thy banishment from God,
Since Jesus died for thee."

 

[KenH]

You even have to be given faith so once again why the cross, it serves not purpose in your theology.

Again, do you understand salvation at all, Silverhair?

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

 

[KenH]

@Silverhair, to be clear, Christ did not become a sinner. No! The sins of God's elect were imputed to Him to pay their debt. God's elect don't become righteous, they are made righteous due to Christ's perfect righteousness being imputed to them.

 

[DaveXR650]

. Logically if conviction caused a person to repent then all would repent and trust God. But practically all are convicted but all do not repent.

I think you are treating it like an on/off switch. The fact is, if there is enough conviction to motivate someone to repent then it was effective. But some are more sensitive than others, or more hardened. There is not an equal amount of "conviction" bestowed on everyone and the rest is up to them.

2] God is disingenuous when He say that He desires all to come to repentance.

That's the same argument atheists use when they say God either desires the evil that comes upon people or else he is not all powerful. It is a false choice.

The Gospel call in Calvinism is not a well meant or sincere offer.

Unfortunately, that is a charge that many Calvinists agree with. There was a big blowup over that among Puritans called the "Marrow Controversy". I think the offer is real and even high Calvinists like Owen said it is real so that's what I go with.

 

[DaveXR650]

Without dealing with specifics of an interpretation how can it be discussed? I do not have Owen's arguments on that verse. I believe God who saves, keeps those whom He saves. The Biblical sanctification fits neither Calvinism or Arminianism. God sanctifies with His truth. What must come first, God Himself precedes His truth. And so who the Son is John 14:6, and yet what He said, John 17:17. And what both Peter and Paul wrote, 1 Peter 1:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14. If there are conflicting views, why? There is always reasons. There is what the word says. And what men say the Scripture does not explicitly say. If an interpertation is in fact right, why? Set two of differing views side by side. All views can be wrong, but only one can be fully right. i presented what I understood.

You are going to find that there are differing views on almost everything. Even among the good guys. At our level, I would recommend becoming familiar with a few good people so you can use their opinion as a starting point when something looks confusing. Owen is kind of a pain to read but you could start with Spurgeon or Martyn Lloyd-Jones. They have sermons listed by scripture reference so you can often find a sermon on the very passage you are looking at. Start there, and you will avoid some of the strange interpretations people on this forum come up with. No offense intended but when I see someone say on this forum that their interpretation fits neither Calvinism or Arminianism warning lights start flashing all over the place.

 

[37818]

At our level, I would recommend becoming familiar with a few good people so you can use their opinion as a starting point when something looks confusing.

A good recamendation in general.

If you personally come to a good Biblical conclusion. Will you give it up merely based on what?

I have been at this since 1968. And I have changed my views as I better understood the evidence on an issue. Now I have been of my faith since 1962.

Merely being disagreed with, simply that?

If a known Bible teacher is agreed with, one should I think be able to simply explain said view. Giving rejerence or reference.

 

[Silverhair]

Do you understand salvation at all, Silverhair?

Do you understand that God "will by no means clear the guilty"(Exodus 34:7)? In order to be saved, one must be as holy as God. So how does one have his guilt cleared? Augustus Toplady expressed it quite well in the words of a hymn:

"From whence this fear and unbelief,
If God, my Father, put to grief
His spotless Son for me?
Can He, the righteous Judge of men,
Condemn me for that debt of sin
Which, Lord, was charged to Thee?

Complete atonement Thou hast made,
And to the utmost farthing paid
Whate’er Thy people owed;
How, then, can wrath on me take place,
If sheltered in God’s righteousness,
And sprinkled by Thy blood?

If Thou hast my discharge procured,
And freely in my place endured
The whole of wrath divine;
Payment God will not twice demand,
First at my bleeding Surety’s hand,
And then again at mine.

Turn then, my soul, unto thy rest;
The merits of thy great High Priest
Speak peace and liberty;
Trust in His efficacious blood,
Nor fear thy banishment from God,
Since Jesus died for thee."

Do you understand salvation at al @KenH? The bible states it clearly if you care to trust what it says.
Eph 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
Eph 1:14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

Rom 10:13 For "WHOEVER CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD SHALL BE SAVED."

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?

You may want to trust Toplady I will trust the bible.

 

[Silverhair]

Again, do you understand salvation at all, Silverhair?

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

So now you are going to trust what the bible says rather than your errant philosophy of Calvinism. Remember I said it is your Calvinism that does not require the cross. For you to use scripture just points out the error of your theology.

Since I trust scripture what you just posted supports my view of salvation and proves yours is in error.

 

[Silverhair]

@Silverhair, to be clear, Christ did not become a sinner. No! The sins of God's elect were imputed to Him to pay their debt. God's elect don't become righteous, they are made righteous due to Christ's perfect righteousness being imputed to them.

Well you almost had that right. What you should have written was this. Christ did not become a sinner. No! The sins of those that trusted in Christ Jesus {Philippians 3:9} had their sin imputed to Him and thus having had their sin debt covered became one of God's elect. God's elect don't become righteous, they are made righteous due to Christ's perfect righteousness being imputed to them.

 

[Silverhair]

I think you are treating it like an on/off switch. The fact is, if there is enough conviction to motivate someone to repent then it was effective. But some are more sensitive than others, or more hardened. There is not an equal amount of "conviction" bestowed on everyone and the rest is up to them.

That's the same argument atheists use when they say God either desires the evil that comes upon people or else he is not all powerful. It is a false choice.

Unfortunately, that is a charge that many Calvinists agree with. There was a big blowup over that among Puritans called the "Marrow Controversy". I think the offer is real and even high Calvinists like Owen said it is real so that's what I go with.

Dave you are just dancing around the obvious problem with your view of conviction. Have you Dave ever felt a conviction that something you were going to do was wrong and yet did it anyway? If you did then you either rejected the conviction of the HS or else the HS wanted you to do it. Which is it Dave are you more powerful than the HS or did you exercise your God given free will? If man does not have the ability to reject the conviction of the HS re the gospel call then one is forced to accept the call and the question becomes why does the HS not force all to trust in God as that is Gods stated desire is it not?

Dave does God desire all to come to repentance, Yes or No? How does your answer relate to my question?
Now as to your "irresistible grace" we have two options,
1] The HS is not sovereign as we know that all do not come to repentance
or
2] God is disingenuous when He say that He desires all to come to repentance.
It appears that you are just trying to avoid the obvious. Come on Dave be honest here. This has nothing to do with the atheist but all to do with your "irresistible grace".

You may want to go with what Owen says but does it comport with the bible? The answer to that is NO. So it appears you are more willing to hold to what some man says the bible says rather than trust what the bible actually says.

 

[KenH]

ince I trust scripture what you just posted supports my view of salvation and proves yours is in error.

 

[KenH]

You may want to trust Toplady I will trust the bible.

Do you believe that both Christ and a sinner can be punished for the same sins?

 

[AustinC]

Resisting God does not equate to freedom. It equates to rebellion not yet judged.

 

[KenH]

Well you almost had that right. What you should have written was this. Christ did not become a sinner. No! The sins of those that trusted in Christ Jesus {Philippians 3:9} had their sin imputed to Him and thus having had their sin debt covered became one of God's elect. God's elect don't become righteous, they are made righteous due to Christ's perfect righteousness being imputed to them.

You think that salvation is conditioned in some form or fashion on the sinner and not on Christ alone, that it is some kind of joint venture on the part of the sinner and Christ. The Bible clearly teaches that salvation is not conditioned on the sinner at all but totally on Christ alone.

 

[Silverhair]

Do you believe that both Christ and a sinner can be punished for the same sins?

Why do you? Christ's death on the cross was sufficient to cover all sins but a persons sins are only covered when they trust in Christ. So we do not have both punished for the same sins. You do understand that Christ chose to go to the cross so He was not punished for any sins but man is punished for those sins that are not forgiven.

 

[DaveXR650]

@Silverhair Honestly I don't care what you do with irresistible grace. I'm not a big fan of the term and was only trying to illustrate that if the help offered is decisive then it is the determining cause. I stand by that. And the fact is the desire to come to Christ either comes something within yourself that makes you desire it or it comes from God. You are dancing around that. The WCF attempts to explain the offer to everyone and the results of it by what is called the "general call". People left to their own free will do what they want and avoid what they don't want. And they don't have a desire to come to Christ. If that was all there was to it then those who did come to Christ would be showing more wisdom, virtue and inherent righteousness than the people who didn't. The WCF states that more grace is needed and they called it "effectual grace" which just means that it was effective to bring a person to salvation. It is an attempt by men to explain something very difficult but I think they did OK. I agree with them that it does not seem to me at least that the better, more astute, upright and virtuous people are the ones who tend to get saved. In all the years since Christianity started, I think we would be able to observe that if that was true.

You and Ken should get together because you both don't seem to like Owen.

 

[Silverhair]

Resisting God does not equate to freedom. It equates to rebellion not yet judged.

You think that salvation is conditioned in some form or fashion on the sinner and not on Christ alone, that it is some kind of joint venture on the part of the sinner and Christ. The Bible clearly teaches that salvation is not conditioned on the sinner at all but totally on Christ alone.

You are just showing that you either do not know or do not trust scripture. Only God saves but He only saves those that trust in Him. How you can miss that I do not know but you obviously have.

 

[Silverhair]

@Silverhair Honestly I don't care what you do with irresistible grace. I'm not a big fan of the term and was only trying to illustrate that if the help offered is decisive then it is the determining cause. I stand by that. And the fact is the desire to come to Christ either comes something within yourself that makes you desire it or it comes from God. You are dancing around that. The WCF attempts to explain the offer to everyone and the results of it by what is called the "general call". People left to their own free will do what they want and avoid what they don't want. And they don't have a desire to come to Christ. If that was all there was to it then those who did come to Christ would be showing more wisdom, virtue and inherent righteousness than the people who didn't. The WCF states that more grace is needed and they called it "effectual grace" which just means that it was effective to bring a person to salvation. It is an attempt by men to explain something very difficult but I think they did OK. I agree with them that it does not seem to me at least that the better, more astute, upright and virtuous people are the ones who tend to get saved. In all the years since Christianity started, I think we would be able to observe that if that was true.

You and Ken should get together because you both don't seem to like Owen.

@DaveXR650 I can understand why you do not like the term "irresistible grace". But just because you do not like the term you do seem to like the concept. The way you have stated it you have the HS as the determining factor. So He determines how much conviction He needs to apply so that the person will repent and thus He also determines what not to apply to ensure others do not repent. So what you have is God working against His stated desire that all come to repentance.

You are correct, the choice to trust in Christ Jesus does come from the person because if it came from God then it is not a choice is it. I will admit that I find to odd that you make a statement like man has no desire to come to Christ. How does that square with "People left to their own free will do what they want and avoid what they don't want." What do most people want? Paradise. What do most people not want? Hell. So when one is presented with those options which do you think they would choose? It is not a matter of what they want it is a matter of what do they trust or who do they put their trust in.

You should know that it is not a matter of one being more wise, virtuous or righteous as we are all sinners. Why some do not trust in Christ Jesus I do not know but the answer from your perspective has to be that God did not give them the "effectual grace" so as to trust in Him. So under your theology the real reason that people did not trust is because God did not give them "effectual grace".

As for my not liking Owen, I do not like or dislike what he wrote as I do not depend upon what some man has said to try and tell me what the bible says.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Ken those are not command. Notice what is being said "let him that is athirst" "If any man thirst, let him come" Those are invitations.

Purely on a point of information, Revelation 22:17 and John 7:37 are both commands.
The Greek word translated as 'Let him come' is erchestho, which is the 3rd person singular present imperative of erchomai.