Is Faith Necessary for Salvation?

Actually, what Spurgeon was dealing with was not historic (or classic) Calvinism, but rather hypercalvinsm: a heresy that arose among the Particular Baptist in England in the middle of the 1700s. Historic calvinism has always stood over against hypecalvinism.

 

Let me see if I understand what you're saying. God reveals Himself to a person in order to show they deserve to be condemned. They never hear of the gospel of Christ. They die. They go to hell. Is this correct?

 

God reveals Himself in the created order to show people that there is a creator God who is not like them that they ought to be worshipping. That they reject this concept, which they know from creation to be true, is the reason they deserve to be condemned.

So the connection is less direct than it is in your statement; yet, in the end, the light of natural revelation leads to the condemnation of all people. In regard to the state of humankind, that is what the light of creation accomplishes. This part of Romans one is helping to establish the truth of Romans 3 that "all have sinned," and that all (Jews, who had more revelation than simply the light of creation; and Gentiles, who had only the light of creation) were "under the condemnation of sin," and "the whole world can be held accountable to God."

If they never hear the gospel, they will remain condemned for their sin. The gospel is their only hope for being saved from what they deserve. I base this on the rhetorical questions of Romans 10, which are phrased so that the only answer that can be given to them is "They can't!":

Someone can only be saved if they believe on Christ, and they can only believe on him if they have heard of him, and they can only hear of him because someone tells them about him. Of course, the reason they need to be saved in the first place is because they did not do what they knew (from the light of creation) that they ought to do (Romans 1).

 

Actually no it wasn't. In the same sermon he states he believes as much as the hyper-but more so. And if you hold to the common belief of Calvinism you will not be called a mongrel Calvinist unless you have a belief that is differing and distasteful to other Calvinists. I have heard other Calvinists try to explain it away just the same you just did but it does not follow his nor explicit writting. He states what he states not against Hyper (you WILL NOT find this anywhere in his sermon) but that Calvinism (thoses doctrines of Grace he speaks of so much in the sermon and the first half is all about) does not view this 'responsibility' as apart of their doctrine. Keep what he says in the context of the sermon not men trying keep their doctrine true by revising it why 'they' think is was written about.

Spurgeon stated specifically in a sermon dealing with Jesus dieing for ALL mankind in a text that is stated by Calvinism to mean just different kinds. Spurgeon states that (paraphrase) Though some Calvinists of old have tried to make the text say what it does not say "HERE". I will never allow my theology to read into the bible what I don't like. I can copy, paste it if you like.

Note: He was not a general attonement person.

 

The heathen, infants, and idiots are all excluded from the hope of salvation if faith is indispensably necessary in order to salvation.

"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." -1 John 5:1

The phrase "is born" is perfect passive indicative. This very clearly teaches us that the one who believes that Jesus is the Christ has already been born of God. Question: If a man has been born of God, is he a child of God or not? If so, he was a child of God BEFORE he believed.

 

I don't know what you're trying to imply but I don't see how this verse disproves anything I said.

2 Peter 1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

Unless I'm mistaken, Peter is saying God the Father gave us Christ the son who revealed to us the things necessary to have eternal life. He has also given us the means to be "Godly" or righteous. Again, his name is Jesus.

Yes, Jesus is the Word that became flesh but there is no way he could reveal to man all knowledge and wisdom of all the ages. Knowledge is still being revealed to man and God has known it all along. This will happen in the future also. Jesus was often frustrated just trying to get man to understand one concept like faith. See the graveside of Laz. where is says Jesus wept.

I read your post and can say you are very logical. Sometimes too logical because God's logic conflicts with the logic of the world. This is what drove Jesus to say to you (our logic) this may seem impossible but to me, all things are possible. Don't let your logic get in the way of your understanding of God.

 

Which is why we argue about a word like if. Why there are calvinist and armanians. Why there are Pentacostols, Catholics and even Baptist. Because we all understand God's logic.

through the knowledge of his Son Jesus Christ. I have never said one can be saved or righteous without knowing and accepting Christ as their personal savior. If I did, please point that post out to me. What I said is we don't know God's entire plan to assure the good news reaches every cornor of the world. Jn 3:16 says he came to save the world. I defend the Bible as being true and said the "world" will be given a chance to be saved.

My line of argument is there is more to God than what is contained in the Bible. I apologize if you feel this is unsubstantiated and extra biblical truth but that was the point of my post. Many people like yourself feel somehow they fully understand and comprehend God because they have a good understanding of the Bible. I say you have a good understanding of God as revealed to Man but I know God is more than any book can contain.

Walk with me to revelations, John is in heaven and could find words to describe the ground on which he stood. To put it best he could he said the streets appeared as transparent gold. Transparent gold? What does that mean? Gold that is see through?

My point is John saw heaven and could not fathom words to even tell us what he saw. How could we who have yet to see heaven comprehend Gods dwelling place? I don't believe man is capable of fully comprehending God so revealed to us just enough that we might believe and live holy. And we argue over that.

 

Yes, because exactly. Hypercalvinists believe in the 5 points of calvinism, but they don't believe in the duty of everyone to believe. Historic calvinists (and Spurgeon) did.

Yes, I know that quote. Spurgeon is just saying that he interprets one particular verse differently than some historic Calvinists did. It has nothing to do with him differing from historic Calvinism on any doctrinal issues.

 

I agree and yet he speaks of scirptures that do not go in hand with Calvinism. He holds them as truth not understood by men as such. He speaks of them being contrary NOT to hypers but the common Calvinistic theology. He never makes mention of Hyper-Calvins in this sermon except to show that he is as adamant as they about what they hold to but he holds somethings different but just as adament. The entire first half the the sermon is about the commonly held view of Calvinism and not a refure to the hyper. Thus the last in context is still in view when he states these two views (Calvinsm vs. free-will - Personally I believe it is better ascribed resposiblity but...) seem to contradict each other. The very fact he uses John Wesley and Whitefield as examples shows that which he was comparing, unless you contend Whitefield was a Hyper-calvinist?? It is obvious he was not speaking of hypers but commonly held calvinism and Wesleys view per-say of free-will.

I never stated he differed doctrinally from them. Just that there were places in scripture that spoke contrary to what he believed and in spite of this he still would not allow belief to change what scripture stated - specifically on that particular scripture. Perosnally I believes both views are two sides of the same coin, containing a different picture on either side and both are part of one object representing the same establishment/entity. The problem comes when either side tries to make a two headed coin or a coin with two tails that we have a coin of no value. IMHO that is.

 

I'm afraid this is really off the topic of this thread, but let me respond really quickly. I think the verse in question is 1 Timothy 2:6, the "ransom for all" verse, which many (but not all) Calvinists interpret, in context, as "ransom for all types" (not just common people, but kings, etc.). But interpretting it the way Spurgeon does does not make it "contrary to what he believed", or contrary to historic Calvinism, either. Limited atonement does not mean that there is not a sense in which it can be said that Christ died for all. Here's Charles Hodges classic explanation of limited atonement, which explains limited atonement as it would have been in historic Calvinism.

 

I want to make sure I understand the last quote from Hodge. I doubt that I do. He is saying that there are elect people in Hell who died prematurely??
Or God makes sure they don't die till they do believe because of the Covenant?

 

What is the meaning of 1 John 5:1? Do we believe in order to become children of God or do we believe because we are children of God?

 

It means we know we are children of God because we believe that Jesus is the Christ.

 

WHile I agree Charles Hodges was a Great and Godfearing man I do not think he was right on everything he wrote. And yes, I dispute differing things there in.
I even spent about 45 minutes writing a very good refute against some of it but I decided against it and you know what I realized at the end- It matters little. We do not (within the baptist realm that is) differ on the Truths of scripture but the mechanics of those truths. I can post just as many refutes to Cals 'L' in TULIP by other Cals of the 4 point persuasion and non-Cals too. Lets us look at scriptures for ourselves and sharpen one another though encouragement and friendly banter to know His Word better. We can use others works, yes but they are not our own works and therefore not our understanding of that faith we hold so dear. If we understand it properly we can states pretty closely to the way they do.

What I'm saying is that when ANY person sets down to show what scripture is speaking of he will automatically look at scripture through their personal theological bent. Yes, we must utilize the tools of theology but we must be true to scriptures and not allow theology to dictate scripture but let scripture reveal itself throught the Spirit of the living God proving ALL doctrine with Grace and Truth TO us as we seek Him.

On a side note with regard to his (Charles Hodges) last line about limited attonment:

Did I miss something? He isn't speaking that the Orthodox doctrine of Limited attonement is Catholic did he??

 

While I agree in part with this statement... we ALL deserve to be there. Without Christ as my life, I WOULD be going there. Faith is indeed necessary... there's got to be belief. Not to be overly simplistic, but re-read these verses found in John 3:

In fact, over 90 times in the book of John alone, the standard of belief is required for salvation.

 

Good points Joshua.

But I think what she meant was that no one goes to Hell unless they have rejected Christ and THUS deserves to go there. I think her whole deserves hinges on the believe issue and if they will not believe they deserve their choice.