Is Faith Necessary for Salvation?

[russell55]

Because classical or Historic (forgot which was which, sorry) Calvinism (that Calvinism which those who lived around mid-1850s and back believed) does not allow for mans responsibility Spurgeon in another sermon speaking on Mans responsibility states many other Calvinists of his day considered and even discribed him as a mongrel Calvinist. Why, He states because He holds to both Gods soveriengty AND mans responsiblity.

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.

 

[Amy.G]

And it isn't as if God denies someone salvation, which makes it seem as if everyone has a right to salvation, and God refuses to give it to them. What everyone has a right to is condemnation, because condemnation is what they have earned by their rejection of the God they know exists because they see his handiwork.

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?

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

First of all as a moderator I would imagine that you would refrain from personal attacks. You have no right to question my integrity based on my call name. I have a desire to be both a pastor and a theologian. Truth be told to be called a pastor is far more significant than a theologian. Everyone has a theology of some kind, so I guess we are all theologians, yet not everyone is called to be a pastor. So your personal attacks against me based on the title theologian are really unwarranted and only reveal a certain insecurity on your part.

You lack a certain precision in your view of the revelation of God. By quoting the following you are only making a case for general revelation:

Psalms 19:1-2 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Romans 2:14-15 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

When you take into account that the law does not have the power to save but only to condemn, you have only made my case all the more sure. It is necessary to move beyond general revelation and receive special revelation through the preaching of the gospel. That is why Paul wrote in 2 Cor. 3:4-4:6:

4 Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, 6 who has made us competent[3] to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
7 Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? 9 For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory. 10 Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it. 11 For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.
12 Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, 13 not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end. 14 But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. 15 Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. 16 But when one[4] turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. 17 Now the Lord[5] is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord,[6] are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

4:1 Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God,[7] we do not lose heart. 2 But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants[8] for Jesus' sake. 6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

You see the law kills but the Spirit gives life. The ministry of Moses was only in giving the law, which brought death, but the ministry of Paul is to preach the Gospel and through the age of the Spirit now there is life. What the law could not do the gospel has the power to do, which is to save.

That is why Paul wrote in Romans 7:

7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.

You have to get it through your head that the law is not the light of the gospel but the light of condemnation. General revelation is the light that everyone has but that light is not sufficient to save. Special revelation is the light of the gospel and is necessary for saving faith.

As far as you suggestion that I did not deal with Titus 2:11, I think I did. By no means does it teach that Jesus appeared to all men everywhere at all times, that is over reading what is being said. Any time you read that God loves all men or that he desires to see all men saved or in this case that Christ has appeared to all men then you have to interpret what that means. All can mean everyone at all times but if it does then you just became a universalist. Do you believe that everyone will go to heaven? You must if you think that all means everyone at all times. Is that what 1 Timothy 2 teaches?

3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Is God not able to accomplish his own desires? According to your view evidently not.

They can't.
1. The grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.
2. Rom.1:20--They are without excuse.
3. The heavens declare the glory of God.
4. Their conscience bears them witness.
5. They have the law written in their hearts.
6. God has given them light; as he gives a measure of light to every man.
7. In his grace he will give the light to any man who, acting on the light that he has already received, wants more light--that is wants to be saved. That also is the essence of what Spurgeon said.
8. In connection with the above (#7), if he doesn't receive that light (the light of the gospel), then his blood will be upon your hands and you will give account for it. But God doesn't need you. If you disobey his call he will send someone else in your place.

Historically it is a fact that there have been hundreds of millions of people who have lived and died since the time of Jesus who did not hear the name of Jesus.

1. Jesus is the way the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father but by Him.
2. There is no one who seeks God.
3. Therefore apart from hearing the Gospel those who lived and died without believing in Jesus were not able to have faith in God.
4. There did have sufficient revelation to convict them of evil.
5. They are without excuse for their evil.
6. The world therefore needs missionaries.

 

[russell55]

God reveals Himself to a person in order to show they deserve to be condemned.

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."

They never hear of the gospel of Christ. They die. They go to hell. Is this correct?

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!":

For “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”[g] 14 But how can they call on him to save them unless they believe in him? And how can they believe in him if they have never heard about him? And how can they hear about him unless someone tells them?

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).

 

[Allan]

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.

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.

 

[PrmtvBptst1832]

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.

 

[LeBuick]

With one passage of Scripture I can do away with your unorthodox notion.

2 Peter 1:3-4:

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.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

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.

God's logic is the Scripture and that is the logic that I implore. What we learn from 2 Pt 1 is that everything pertaining to eterenal life and godliness has been revealed. There is nothing that is now a mystery to us except to await the return of Jesus. Your whole line of argumentation requires unsubstantiated and extra biblical truth claims that cannot be verified. Using Pascal's wager if you are right then what have I lost? But if I am right and you are wrong there are hundreds of millions of souls in jeopardy and who need to be evangelized least they die as they are already condemn for not having believed (John 3:18).

 

[LeBuick]

God's logic is the Scripture and that is the logic that I implore..

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.

What we learn from 2 Pt 1 is that everything pertaining to eterenal life and godliness has been revealed. There is nothing that is now a mystery to us except to await the return of Jesus..

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.

Your whole line of argumentation requires unsubstantiated and extra biblical truth claims that cannot be verified. Using Pascal's wager if you are right then what have I lost? But if I am right and you are wrong there are hundreds of millions of souls in jeopardy and who need to be evangelized least they die as they are already condemn for not having believed (John 3:18).

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.

 

[russell55]

Actually no it wasn't. In the same sermon he states he believes as much as the hyper-but more so.

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.

Spurgeon states that (paraphrase) Though some Calvinists of old have tried to make the text say what it does not say "HERE".

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.

 

[Allan]

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.

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.

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 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.

 

[russell55]

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 -

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.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

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 like what Charles Hodge an avowed Calvinist said,

[SIZE=-1]CHARLES HODGE, SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, Vol. II, Page 557[/SIZE]
Those for whom it was specially rendered are not justified from eternity; they are not born in a justified state; they are by nature, or birth, the children of wrath even as others. To be the children of wrath is to be justly exposed to divine wrath. They remain in this state of exposure until they believe, and should they die (unless in infancy) before they believe they would inevitably
[SIZE=-1]CHARLES HODGE, SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, Vol. II, Page 558
[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]perish notwithstanding the satisfaction made for their sins. It is the stipulations of the covenant which forbid such a result.[/SIZE]

Notice that he states that infants have grace and are not found guilty for unbelief. There is a great difference between an infant who has not yet reached an age of accountability and an adult who willfully and wantonly rejects the general revelation of God written on their heart, so that they are without excuse.

 

[Karen]

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?

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

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?

Sorry for quoting something that is really difficult to grasp. It is not your fault. There has been a great transition in wording and semantics since the time of Charles Hodge. If you will allow me I will put his quote in a more modern dialect.

The atonement though specifically offered to a special group known as the elect was not transferred in eternity past. They are not born in a justified state because they are by nature or birth the children of wrath even as others. That is to say that there is not an eternal justification of the elect. They are not different from the rest of the lost in as much as they are born into sin and are in need of redemption in order to be saved.

Therefore they remain in this state of exposure until they believe and should they die (unless in infancy) before they believe they would inevitably perish even though the satisfaction of Christ was sufficient to atone for their sins. However, in this case, not having believed the gospel they would not receive benefit of the atonement.

 

[PrmtvBptst1832]

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?

 

[Amy.G]

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.

 

[Allan]

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:

It therefore is the limited and meagre scheme; whereas the orthodox doctrine is catholic and comprehensive; full of consolation and spiritual power. as well as of justice to all mankind.

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

 

[Joshua Rhodes]

I know from years of reading the Bible that God is just, fair and righteous and there will not be anyone in hell that doesn't deserve to be there.

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:

15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. 16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him."

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

 

[Allan]

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.