Dr. Graham answered my letter

KJ,
I didn't know that I was insincere ever in the presentation of the gospel, and I am a Calvinist.

Cheers,

Jim

 

NO

Depends. I believe some Lutherans preach the gospel. Others do not.
</font>[/QUOTE]Isn't that a rather narrow view of God's work in the world? God will and can work even when we believe he cannot. God's work is much bigger than just our narrow minds and experiences. His work is much bigger than us. Just look at how Paul became a believer. Anone knows that people have become Christians in churches where the pastor is not a Christian simply by hearing God's word. People have become Christians in motel rooms by reading the Bible that was placed there.

Many years before I met my wife I dated a young lady who became a Christian while a student at BYU by simply reading the Bible. When she became a Christian her parents shunned her and she left BYU and the Mormon Church. Mormons certainly do not preach the gospel. In fact they preach a false gospel.

 

Even Calvin writes in his Institutes that his theology can get a person in trouble if taken too far. What I find interesting is that the majority of Calvinists have never read Calvin's Institutes. They assume they know what he taught. They are simply selective Calvinists. I don't know of anyone who holds to his view of how communities should be orgainizeed and run. If that were the case Prebyterians would rule and Baptists would be run out of town.

 

Looks like what the Bible says.

That is true in its context because the vast majority could not read. Only at best about 2% could even read. We do know that people today have come to Christ simply by reading the Bible. Inside some of those Bibles may be written what a person needs to do to be saved.

 

When we declare ourselves a Calvinist, the generally accepted understanding are the five points of Calvinism; the TULIP.

The gospel presentation is not insincere because we are commissioned to preach the gospel in all the world. We haven't a clue who are the elect of God. That is another forum, however.

KJ..No, I would never make theology a test of fellowship. My wife remains Anglican. I preach and fellowship in other than Baptist churches. My best friend is the pastor of a C&MA Church.

Wife, two daughters and granddaughter, travelled by rail up to Inverness, Scotland from London. They spent a week up there and then returned to London where they went out by rail on day trips to such places as Stratford-On-Avon. The rail service was a mess, but it did not spoil their vacation. That is prolly her last trip back home to England. I am not allowed to fly for medical reasons, so I may never go home again.

If God can use a mule to bring about His will, I am sure He can use any vessel. I know of one man who actually came to Christ through a drunken fool who happened to know scripture and preached when he got drunk. My father could neither read nor write, but he had more scripture memorized by hearing the word than many people who are quite literate. We cannot limit the abilities of our sovereign Lord.

On Calvin, the Institutes were written early on in Calvin's life and his later books reflect many changes he made in his theology. His commentary on Romans is a classic example. Certainly none of us would want to mimic Calvin's civic attitude. He was all for executing infidels and whipping civil disobedient persons.

We must never dismiss a person's upbringing and background when considering their writing. Certainly I would write out of an atmosphere of war over English skies, and the British attitude and now my Canadian experience. All writers write from whence they came.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I don't think, if we study the issue fully, that there is any need to concede that point. What "condition" exists in infant baptism that washes away original sin? That is a classic case of ex opere operato. The Catholics don't even deny that, I don't think. We should we deny it for them? All we need to do is read what they teach about it without picking out a few pet sections. The whole teaching is what the issue is.

 

Finney preached a heretical view of the atonement.

It is incorrect to characcterize the gospel that Calvinists preach as insincere. It is the same gospel Christ preached, that whosoever believes will be saved.

 

NO

Depends. I believe some Lutherans preach the gospel. Others do not.
</font>[/QUOTE]Isn't that a rather narrow view of God's work in the world?</font>[/QUOTE]No, not at all. It is exactly what God said in Scripture. We need not say more than he said, but it is compromise to say less.

I can't comment on this since I have never encountered a time where I believed God couldn't work. The issue isn' what God can or cannot do. He who created the world out of nothing and convicted a false prophet with teh voice of a donkey can certainly work in any other way. This issue specifically addresses the word of God and what God said he would do.

Exactly. But it is strange to me that you are willing to make this concession without admitting the same about others who actually preach a more dangerous false gospel because it is closer to truth that the Mormon's are.

 

Looks like what the Bible says.

That is true in its context because the vast majority could not read. Only at best about 2% could even read. We do know that people today have come to Christ simply by reading the Bible. Inside some of those Bibles may be written what a person needs to do to be saved. </font>[/QUOTE]Not sure what this means. The verse is true in its context for sure. The point is that someone has to know what to believe before they believe. I was making no comment on whether or not someone can get saved by reading the Bible or a gospel tract. The point is that the gospel must be communicated, or preached. The issue isn't standing behind a pulpit. The issue is communication of hte message to be believed. V. 17 makes that clear, I thought.

I guess it goes to show that things that are taken for granted shouldn't be.

 

I don't think, if we study the issue fully, that there is any need to concede that point. What "condition" exists in infant baptism that washes away original sin? That is a classic case of ex opere operato. The Catholics don't even deny that, I don't think. We should we deny it for them? All we need to do is read what they teach about it without picking out a few pet sections. The whole teaching is what the issue is. </font>[/QUOTE]But what do they mean by, and they call it, "erasing original sin?" The Catechism says that this is an act of the Holy Spirit that frees a person to turn towards what is good and away from sin. So infant baptism, for them, is what the Arminians call prevenient grace. So what!

They also believe that it releases them from all sin, that is, baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. While we don't see it that way, the whole process is an act of faith (including the church's faith).

Suffice it to say, the whole teaching matters, like you have said. And the whole teaching rests on faith and grace.

 

I'm really uncomfortable when Finney is said to be a heretic because someone doesn't agree with his view of the atonement.

Or that Catholics are all lost because we don't agree with their system of sacraments, even though we haven't made an attempt to really ascertain what the sacramental system means to a devout Catholic.

Or that Campbellites are going to hell because they misinterpret Acts 2:38, in our opinion.

God's grace is much broader than our finite understanding of the Bible. What if Campbellites are correct, that believer's baptism by immersion is the moment in time when regeneration takes place. Applying Larry's logic, Baptists would still be going to hell because they failed to understand that baptism regenerates, and therefore, their failed understanding dooms them to hell despite the fact that Baptists have been immersed by believer's baptism.

We are saved by grace through faith, and the proof of that experience is the confession that Jesus is Lord.

That is the devout Catholic's confession.
That is the devout Lutheran's confession.
That is the devout Campbellite's confession.
That is the devout Baptist's confession.

To God be the Glory!

 

The whole teaching of hte Catholic church does not rest on faith and grace alone. There is not many more ways to say that. If you read what they say, they teach that faith alone in Christ alone is not sufficient, and if you teach that, you are anathema. They single handedly wiped out the salvation that is taught by the NT.

With respect to Finney, he had a large number of problems, one of which was his theory of hte atonement. Finney believed in the governmental theory of atonement. He denied vicarious, or substitionary, atonement. He denied original sin. He was a pelagian, a heresy condemned for centures. Not even arminians are pelagians (which is why they have a different name), although many who appear to be arminian are actually pelagian, even on this board. In short, if Finney wasn't a heretic, then orthodoxy has no meaning.

Here is a brief article that will talk about some of the problems.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm

Then God was wrong.

Yes.

Again, this is simply inadequate. If you omit the word "alone" you have compromised the biblical teaching. We are not saved by "grace through faith." We are saved by grace alone through faith alone. And the confession that "Jesus is Lord" is a confession of submission to who he is and what he did. And that requires the "aloneness" of Christ, faith, and grace.

Not actually, in most cases. And don't mistake "devout" for "biblical." One can be devout in his confession and make a wrong confession.

Sometimes. Baptists are probably no better than many on this doctrine. Our churches are filled with unbelievers.

 

If a bridge has a sign stating that bridge is structurally sound and yet one pillar is defective, that bridge is unsafe and unsound. So it is with the Christian religion, especially when it comes to the gift of grace through our sovereign Lord. This is the point both Larry and I have been trying to say. It is that simple, but based on sound doctrine, the sovereignty of God, and the efficacious work of Christ on the cross alone. He had two companions on the hill in crucifixion, but He died alone for humankind. He died for all, but instead of some.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Larry,

Again, I appreciate your honesty in sharing your position.

I would like to ask one more question, and then I will leave off of this debate. I hope you will answer this question with more than a yes or no reponse.

In the Arminian system of theology, wouldn't their understanding of "faith" be a work, since they believe that prevenient grace, granted to all, enables a person to "on his own" hear the gospel messaage and respond in faith?

If this is so, and I believe it is, then most Bapitst are lost because they do not believe in "grace alone." They actually believe in grace plus a person's own faith in order to be saved. This faith is usually expressed in the sinner's prayer. Therefore the sinner's prayer is a work, their work, added to God's grace in order to be saved.

Therefore, following your logic as applied to Campbellites, Arminians are lost because they aren't trusting in grace alone, but rather their "faith" that led them to pray the sinner's prayer.

I will tell you up front, that if you don't believe this is true for Arminians, then everything you've said about Campbellites or Catholics is false.

Your hang up on faith alone is misguided, because the person hearing the gospel message also has to have faith in the messenger. Is the messenger telling me the truth. Since the Catholic church believes that they are defending the faith once for all delivered to the Saints, it is not wrong for a person to have faith in the church as the vehicle that is presenting the gospel. Because the Catholic church understands this and admits this, you say they are adding something to faith alone. In other words, it's ok for me to share the gospel and tell the lost sinner, I know it's true! But it's not ok for the Catholic church to share the gospel and say to the the lost sinner, I know it's true!

I think you are pressing "faith alone" to an extant that no one can get saved unless Jesus himself appears in the sinner's path, without help from anyone else.

I have to have faith in the messenger (church).
I have to have faith in the messenger's message.
I have to have faith in the Bible.

I guess I have asked two questions: one on grace alone, and one on faith alone.

I'm more interested in hearing your response to the Arminian question.

Thanks.

 

I think they come dangerously close to this and have said so publicly. I think the net result is that in their theology, a person is saved by their own merit. What distinguishes the saved and unsaved is in the person, not in God. That is not biblical. But that being said, I think there are substantial differences in that arminians do not add works or means of grace to salvation. I have serious problems with arminian theology ona number of fronts, not least of which is the one you mention. But historically, arminianism has been recognized as evangelical; Catholicism, Campbellite-ism, and others have not been.

Faith is the gift of God. But again, the distinction is that faith isn't a work per se, such as the sacraments and works are in catholic soteriology. This is a classic case of "same words, different meanings."

No. The "sinner's prayer" whatever form that takes is the expression of faith. I think you are missing the key points of what Catholics mean by their soteriology.

As for faith in the messenger, message, Bible, etc., again, you are confusing the issue. The Bible and messenger are the means of communication. They are not a "means of grace" such as the discussion here is about. Bringing all of these unrelated things into the discussion is confusing the issues at hand. That is why the ECT and other compromises have taken foothold. We have lost the historically recognized distinctions about these matters.

In the end, Jim is right. God saves through his sovereign mercy. He may use a Catholic priest to do it. But the message that God saves by is not the message that the Catholic church teaches and it is not the works that the Catholic church adds.

I have enjoyed the discussion. Best to you on this holiday.

 

As I understand. . .

Faith is a work (John 6:29; 1Thes 1:3; 2Thess 1:11). Apart from faith, no man shall be saved. Works are inner or outward. When faith, prayers, decisions, any work, any merit of man is said to be the efficient cause of salvation, works, not grace, is introduced. Faith is granted on behalf of Christ (1Pet 1:21; Col 2:12; John 1:13; 6:28-29; Acts 13:48; 18:27; Rom 3:22; 9:16, 18, 22; 10:17; 12:3; Gal 2:16,20; 5:22; Eph 1:19; 2:8; Phil 1:29; Heb 12:2; Tit 3:5). Salvation is by faith alone, and not by any merit of man. Man is saved by grace.

By grace,
Bob Krajcik
Mansfield, Ohio
July 5, 2005