Decisional JUSTIFICATION - Sovereign SANCTIFICATION

[ReformedBaptist]

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

According to Christ it is because of their own choice whether to believe or not.

There is nothing in those texts about making a choice, but declarations by the Son of God about those who believe and those who don't.

Try again. lol

RB

 

[AresMan]

All things being equal, why do some believe and others not?

Here is my answer:

Why do some believe?
A special work of the Holy Spirit changing their wills and illuminating their hearts with the truth of the Gospel (Eze 11:19; 36:26; Joh 3:21; Joh 6:37-40; Phi 1:29; Act 5:32; 2 Tim 2:25).

Why do some not?
This is the default for everyone because of their nature (Rom 3:10-12; 1 Cor 2:14). They willfully reject God, and are justly condemned (Joh 3:19-20).

 

[skypair]

This kind of gospel preaching I personally classify as heresy equal to the errors of Rome, perhaps worse. I classify it as heresy because I see it as being damnable.

So now are we even far as questioning each other's salvation? :type: No, I wasn't questioning yours and you have misunderstood mine.

It is utterly man-centered puting the focus of redemption on man on the man himself to make a decision, and even more disgusting, putting the focus of our preaching on decision.

It is man-centered as to application. The difference between yours and my application is that you would have the gospel apply to anyone who likes the preaching. They're the ones who are "regenerate" and hear the Spirit and are "elect." To you, that is how "justification" is dispensed to the right folks.

Me -- I would preach the gospel and believe salvation was applied to those who "believed with the heart and confessed with the tongue." When the preacher says, "Do you take Jesus to be your Savior?" I would not say that the person who says, "Who, me?" is saved yet.

Here's the thing, good friend -- the blood didn't jump out of the lamb onto the doorposts at Passover! Whosoever would be saved had to kill the lamb and take the blood himself and smear it on the doorpost and lentil. And that, as you might recall, is what got them justification with God so they could get out of Egypt/sin. They had yet to be sanctified in the desert and in the Promised Land before they could be glorified.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Are you saying your words that read "personal attack edited" are not your own?

I guess someone was doing me a favor -- someone who misunderstood me switching between the personal "you" and the rhetorical "you." I'm sorry I didn't make that point clearer but it's a general application statement to say one must be justified but it is personal application to speak about what you preach or teach (even if I don't believe that is what you believe).

I've said all along that there is a disparity between what you teach and what you believe and practice (just like there is with RC Sproul).

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

Actually I am not Larry. As far as I understood the doctrine, and please correct me if I am wrong, that the name implies just what it says: that grace is irresistable. Thus those ones to whom the grace of God came to should have been the elect, and should have been saved, if grace is irresistable. I am not a Calvinist. And there are many things that I do not understand about Calvinism. But the name in itself implies that grace cannot be resisted. Stephen's entire message states that it can. So where have I gone wrong?

You are incorrect in your understanding. The term "irresistible grace" is rejected by most in favor of "effectual calling." However, no Calvinist denies that man rejects God's grace. What they believe is that God's effectual calling is not rejected, and this is born out by 1 Cor 1, Rom 8, etc.

Your argument is a red herring because it leads away from the real issues.

Brother, as long as you have been around for these debates, I would think you would be past tactics like this. For some reason, it seems like the people who have been around the longest are the ones who make these kinds of errors more than anyone else.

 

[Pastor Larry]

John 6 -- John 1:9, Rom 1:19-20, Rom 2:14-15, etc. Want more?

skypair

You cited John 6:44 and said that it shows that God draws all men. Yet the verse does not say that, and none of these verses say that either, so far as I can tell. So rather than giving "more" (since you have given any), start by supporting your view from Scripture.

 

[skypair]

Here is my answer:

Why do some believe?
A special work of the Holy Spirit changing their wills and illuminating their hearts with the truth of the Gospel (Eze 11:19; 36:26; Joh 3:21; Joh 6:37-40; Phi 1:29; Act 5:32; 2 Tim 2:25).

Well, here's my answer in Calvinist terms -- the drawing was NOT complete; the calling was INeffectual at that particular time.

And now for my own terms: Heb 10:39 "But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul." And if we believe, we "apply the blood" to the doorposts. If we don't, we either "draw back" resisting doing anything or we sit quietly in our pews and hope not to perish.

Why do some not?
This is the default for everyone because of their nature (Rom 3:10-12; 1 Cor 2:14). They willfully reject God, and are justly condemned (Joh 3:19-20).

Yes, indeed. This is the default. Many "believe in vain." They got the Lamb Who has the blood but won't kill the lamb and apply the blood because they are holding out for another way.

You're not really saying that you must not respond to the gospel, are you? You're not really saying that you passively receive what you believe, are you?

If you believe the stock market is going up but don't invest, how much richer do you think you will be when it happens?

Do you have something to give to God? We call it "substitutionary atonement" for a reason, right? If you do believe, what do you have to decide or choose to give in order to receive Christ's death on your behalf?

Yeah, I know. What you have to give is utterly worthless but it is extremely valuable to God. And that is why He will JUSTIFY you in Christ. He isn't going to do it if you demand to keep your life and receive His gift as well.

skypair

 

[skypair]

You are wrong. The term "irresistible grace" is rejected by most in favor of "effectual calling."

Which tenet is just as fraught with error. You would never admit that God is actually "calling" if the person didn't respond because that would mean that God wasn't sovereign, wouldn't it, Lar? So let's invent another term -- "general calling" -- and say by it that the same call that the "elect" hear is the calling that the "reprobate" hears but God must have meant for it to be ineffectual most of the time. Same gospel. God just meant for it to be ineffectual (and heap more condemnation on some) and effectual simultaneously.

Come clean, Lar. More vocabulary doesn't help the problem. :laugh: Grace is not irresisible any more than "calling," the gospel message, is always effectual. Grace is only irresistible to a certain class of person who is already chosen and the call is only effectual in those same special ones who will probably let everyone else know they are "elect" as soon as they realize it themselves.

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

This isn't "more vocabulary." These distinctions are almost as old as Christianity itself.

In Rom 8:29-30, everyone who is called is justified and glorified. So if you believe all are called with that call, then you must be a universalist.

In 1 Cor 1, the difference between the saved and unsaved is the call.

These are clear passages of Scripture that refute the notion that all are called with the same call.

the gospel message, is always effectual

Look up effectual. It means that it accomplishes its purpose. If the gospel is always effectual, then everyone who hears it will respond to it in faith. That simply is not true.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

So now are we even far as questioning each other's salvation? :type: No, I wasn't questioning yours and you have misunderstood mine.

It is man-centered as to application. The difference between yours and my application is that you would have the gospel apply to anyone who likes the preaching. They're the ones who are "regenerate" and hear the Spirit and are "elect." To you, that is how "justification" is dispensed to the right folks.

Me -- I would preach the gospel and believe salvation was applied to those who "believed with the heart and confessed with the tongue." When the preacher says, "Do you take Jesus to be your Savior?" I would not say that the person who says, "Who, me?" is saved yet.

Here's the thing, good friend -- the blood didn't jump out of the lamb onto the doorposts at Passover! Whosoever would be saved had to kill the lamb and take the blood himself and smear it on the doorpost and lentil. And that, as you might recall, is what got them justification with God so they could get out of Egypt/sin. They had yet to be sanctified in the desert and in the Promised Land before they could be glorified.

skypair

A few things here. One, your view suggests that no particular people were in view when Christ was slain before the foundation of the world. If you say everyone was in view, then your stuck in a the quagmire of having to explain how His blood failed to acctually accomplish redemption for those for whom it was shed when the Scriptures specifically teach that He obtained redemption for us (Heb 9:12).

If you try to use the Passover it is of no help to you. All Israel was delivered out of Egypt and there were people left outside the Redemption that was given to them.

All "Israel" is saved by the blood of Jesus and there will none for whom His blood was shed that will not be delivered from "Egypt"

RB

 

[skypair]

In Rom 8:29-30, everyone who is called is justified and glorified.

Perhaps we should quote the actual text. "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified:..."

Do you see where is says "for whom He did foreknow?" This passage teaches that He calls them. It does NOT teach that He doesn't call everyone. Neither does it teach that everyone who is called is justified. The word "everyone" that you use does not even appear in the passage.

In 1 Cor 1:2, the difference between the saved and unsaved is the call.

Actually, they were ALL "called to be saints" but only those who, in response "called on the name of Christ" were saved.

These are clear passages of Scripture that refute the notion that all are called with the same call.

Is that why Calvies are always asking "Why do some respond and some not when the same message is preached?" It has nothing to do with the effectuality or irresistiblity of the message --- it had to do with the contemplations of the human spirit (intellect, emotions, will). Is the intellect convicted that its soul is "dead in sin?" Does the spirit believe that Christ gave His own life for them? Is the spirit willing to exchange Jesus life for their own? to die with Christ and be raised again with Him in resurrection to "newness of life" as baptism teaches?

Granted, these are points that may come across more or less powerfully. But there is no different message for some ("effectual call") than for others.

Look up effectual. It means that it accomplishes its purpose.

I thought scripture said that the word never returns void but always accomplishes God's purposes. The problem here is that you don't understand God's purposes. If one hears and is saved and another hears the same thing and isn't, the ineffectuality is not with God but with understanding His purposes. What you appear not to understand is that God wants all to be saved, but you think He preaches the gospel/calls only so that the elect can be saved.

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

Perhaps we should quote the actual text. "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified:..."

Do you see where is says "for whom He did foreknow?" This passage teaches that He calls them. It does NOT teach that He doesn't call everyone. Neither does it teach that everyone who is called is justified. The word "everyone" that you use does not even appear in the passage.

Since you quoted the text, I would think you would read it. Notice (in the text) that those whom he called end up glorified. There is no person (according to the text) who is called but not justified and glorified.

In 1 Cor 1:2, the difference between the saved and unsaved is the call.

Actually, they were ALL "called to be saints" but only those who, in response "called on the name of Christ" were saved.

First, notice how you take liberty to change my words. I did not say 1 Cor 1:2. You added that. (I think you treat the words of Scripture the same way too often ... as things you can change to fit your goals).

The verses in question are verses 23-24: but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Notice the groups of people and the responses:
Jews -- Stumblingblock
Greeks -- foolishness
Called (both Jews and Greeks) -- Christ the power and wisdom of God.

So again, think carefully here (though it is pretty obvious).

There are three groups: uncalled Jews, uncalled Gentiles, called Jews and Gentiles. Only one group accepts Christ for what he is and they are the group designated as called.

Is that why Calvies are always asking "Why do some respond and some not when the same message is preached?"

No, we are asking how you explain it. The question is not for our benefit. We know the answer. The question points out the inconsistency in your position that you have no real answer for.

Granted, these are points that may come across more or less powerfully. But there is no different message for some ("effectual call") than for others.

Exactly the point. The message is the same. The difference is in what God does in the individual.

I thought scripture said that the word never returns void but always accomplishes God's purposes.

It does.

The problem here is that you don't understand God's purposes. If one hears and is saved and another hears the same thing and isn't, the ineffectuality is not with God but with understanding His purposes.

No, there is no ineffectuality. The purpose of God is not to save everyone. The gospel also hardens people, as we see in the Bible. Therefore, God's purposes are to save some and harden others, and the word always accomplishes those purposes.

What you appear not to understand is that God wants all to be saved, but you think He preaches the gospel/calls only so that the elect can be saved.

No, I understand that perfectly. But what I don't do is ignore or change the passages that fill out the full picture of that.

 

[skypair]

Since you quoted the text, I would think you would read it. Notice (in the text) that those whom he called end up glorified. There is no person (according to the text) who is called but not justified and glorified.

True, they were "foreknown" in some way rather than inclusive of everyone.

The verses in question are verses 23-24: but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
...
There are three groups: uncalled Jews, uncalled Gentiles, called Jews and Gentiles. Only one group accepts Christ for what he is and they are the group designated as called.

In the context, they are all being "called" by Paul's preaching. I think what you need is to go back and consider whether preaching is the "call" or if "election" is the call. You are making the gospel superfluous to salvation, my friend. It's really, the way you describe it, not about the gospel or it being preached at all, is it? It's about something we can't see going on 'behind the scenes,' so to speak.

The question is not for our benefit. We know the answer. The question points out the inconsistency in your position that you have no real answer for.

Free will.

Exactly the point. The message is the same. The difference is in what God does in the individual.

OK, this is the 'behind the scenes' secret that you know and we don't, right? So the difference isn't in what they hear and what they think about it, yeh or nay? It's God already in them lending His own POV? Do you think the fact that everyone has a God-given conscience might then weigh into their thoughts? maybe "convicting them?" That's certainly one of the things that is necessary, isn't it.

What about the reasonableness of the proposition that Christ died for the convicted sinner? That's pretty universal knowledge and included in the gospel, right? Is that God working? Is this something only the "elect" can understand?

What is the real reason some believe and others don't? Dr Rogers taught it well. He said it comes down to the same issue Pilate faced, "What will you do with Jesus?" Pilate had a decision to make, but to save his own political (temporal) life, he had to "pawn it off" on someone else.

That's really what the decision is, isn't it, PL? That's really why some believe and some don't. Some just don't like the "terms and conditions" of choosing -- especially if they can some way get the same results by being not deciding.

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

True, they were "foreknown" in some way rather than inclusive of everyone.

Yes, and regardless of what "foreknown" means, all of those who are foreknown are called and then justified and then glorified. There are none who are called who are not also glorified. So you must be either a universalist or someone who recognizes the effectual call.

In the context, they are all being "called" by Paul's preaching. I think what you need is to go back and consider whether preaching is the "call" or if "election" is the call.

No, but it doesn't really matter because in the verse all who are called recognized Christ as the power of God and the wisdom of God. Clearly, some do not recognize Christ as that, and on the basis of the text we must conclude that they are not among "the called."

You are making the gospel superfluous to salvation, my friend. It's really, the way you describe it, not about the gospel or it being preached at all, is it?

You know better than that.

OK, this is the 'behind the scenes' secret that you know and we don't, right? So the difference isn't in what they hear and what they think about it, yeh or nay? It's God already in them lending His own POV? Do you think the fact that everyone has a God-given conscience might then weigh into their thoughts? maybe "convicting them?" That's certainly one of the things that is necessary, isn't it.

I don't know what you mean by "behind the scenes." God tells us what he does, though he doesn't tell us how and he doesn't tell us who. The difference isn't in what they hear, but rather in what they think about it. And they think different things, not because God is "lending them his own POV" but because God gives them a new nature. Everyone's God-given conscience is distorted by sin.

What about the reasonableness of the proposition that Christ died for the convicted sinner?

I think Jesus died for all sinners in some sense,not just the convicted ones.

What is the real reason some believe and others don't?

Because some are chosen, called, and given a new nature by God and others are left in their own sin to do what they want to do.

Dr Rogers taught it well. He said it comes down to the same issue Pilate faced, "What will you do with Jesus?" Pilate had a decision to make, but to save his own political (temporal) life, he had to "pawn it off" on someone else.

No, Pilate made a decision. He didn't pawn it off to anyone else. So no, that's not a particularly good way to put it.

 

[Lukasaurus]

Because some are chosen, called, and given a new nature by God and others are left in their own sin to do what they want to do.

Larry, are they chosen, then called?

Mat 20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

Mat 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.


Rev 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

While the verses in Matthew refer to service (although most calvinists use them for election support, I don't know why though, since not all the called are chosen...), the verse in revelation has the calling before the choosing.

 

[DHK]

You are incorrect in your understanding. The term "irresistible grace" is rejected by most in favor of "effectual calling."

Not much difference is there? "Many are called; but few are chosen." The ones that are chosen are the ones that believe. Salvation is by faith and faith alone. It is only effectual because a person has chosen to believe in the saving grace of Christ. It is ineffectual when man chooses not to believe. The basic premise behind salvation all the time is faith. Faith is not a gift. The only time it can become a gift is after salvation; never before. Faith is confidence. I trusted Jesus Christ as my Saviour because I was confident of the promises of His Word that what He said was true. Faith and confidence in that respect are the same.

However, no Calvinist denies that man rejects God's grace. What they believe is that God's effectual calling is not rejected, and this is born out by 1 Cor 1, Rom 8, etc.

Effectual calling is just another term for God's grace which can be rejected. If God calls, that call can be rejected. I have seen it many times. Then the call becomes ineffective in that person, for he has rejected it. God cannot force anyone to be saved. It is against His nature to do so.

Your argument is a red herring because it leads away from the real issues.

It is not a red herring at all. It right at core of this issue: "Decisional justification." Does man make a decision to be saved? Yes he does. And it is his own decision.

Brother, as long as you have been around for these debates, I would think you would be past tactics like this. For some reason, it seems like the people who have been around the longest are the ones who make these kinds of errors more than anyone else.

You are right that I have been around a long time.
However, when we had that old Cal/Arm forum I never once posted in it. I have generally stayed away from these debates. They are not my cup of tea. Occasionally I will enter into a debate such as this one. But I will be the first to admit that I am not an expert in Calvinism. However, I do know what I do believe. And I do know what the Bible teaches. I don't follow after a man's system of theology, and therefore refuse to be boxed in by one man's system of theology.

 

[skypair]

The difference isn't in what they hear, but rather in what they think about it. And they think different things, not because God is "lending them his own POV" but because God gives them a new nature.

Kinda takes "decisional justification" right out of the equation for you, then, doesn't it? You, like Pilate, can let others make the decision for you thus deferring the decision yourself. I would guess by that profession that you had no choice and no "hand" in becoming a pastor?

Everyone's God-given conscience is distorted by sin.

Very good. But the conscience isn't totally hardened all at once, is it. Every new sin is another new denial of God saying you should do good and not sin.

And of course, all this leaves out the case in which one has resisted the gospel 1000 times and then on the 1001st time, believes. What happened there? God suddenly "elected" or "regenerated" an "elect" saint whom He wouldn't regenerate 15 years ago? What does that tell you?

PL, I'm not going to badger you anymore. Your truth is quite obviously good enough for you. What's true for me obviously doesn't apply to you.

skypair

 

[skypair]

DHK,

Thanks for you encouraging words. I didn't learn salvation PL's way either. PL HAS made a decision in his life. Heavens, he's apparently decided to be a pastor! Why he would deny making a choice (other than false humility) I do not understand. Heck, he's committed more to God than I have! His career reveals his choice! Unless he is just trying to be PC with someone, I don't understand his motives.

skypair

 

[Ed Edwards]

K.I.S.S = Keep It Simple, Stupid:

Apparently God may know who will accept the call to salvation and who won't. I don't know who will accept the call to salvation and who won't. So I have to present the call to salvation to who ever will listen. The rest is up to the Lord.

 

[Reformer]

sometimes I just can't help myself

Skypair said

So now someone says, "They can hear preaching but they can't understand it." That's silly!!

Jesus said

But when He was alone, those around Him with the twelve asked Him about the parable. And He said to them, “To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, so that

‘ Seeing they may see and not perceive,
And hearing they may hear and not understand;
Lest they should turn,
And their sins be forgiven them.’”

I just thought the obvious contradiction (that Skypair won't see) was worth pointing out


And now Skypair will explain how this doesn't mean what is says

Ok folks pick up your stones and see if you can catch me