Again, I am not saying that you do not know Calvinism, but in regards to pst, seek to not quite realize what the scriptures themselves teach about it.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Monergists who are not Calvinists II
- Thread starter Reformed
- Start date
I believe salvation is 100% the choice of God, so I'm a monergist. Yet I'm not a Calvinist in that I don't believe God causes faith (though I do believe He enables it). The difference is, I don't believe faith causes salvation, but rather, God's reckoning or crediting of faith causes salvation.
Rom. 4:5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
It's my view that this word, credits (reckons, accounts) is the most neglected word in theology. No one ever wants to talk about it, but Paul used it often. It first appeared in Genesis 15.
Gen. 15:6 Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.
Justification by Faith means, "The theological principle, emphasized in Protestantism, that salvation comes to an individual by God's grace through faith, so that to be "declared righteous" or "justified," or "saved" is on the (sole) basis of one's faith in Jesus Christ apart from any works of merit (Rom. 1:17; 3:28; 5:1)."1 (emphasis mine)
Keach's Catechism declares justification by faith as, "Justification is an act of God's free grace, wherein He pardons all our sins, and accepts us as righteous in His sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone. (Rom. 3:24; Eph. 1:7; 2 Cor. 5:21; Rom. 5:19; Phil. 3:9; Gal. 2:16)."2
Similarly, the Westminster Shorter Catechism defines justification by faith as, "Justification is an act of God’s free grace in which he pardons all our sins and accepts us as righteous in his sight for the sake of the righteousness of Christ alone, which is credited to us and received by faith alone."3
Does God cause faith? Prior to the new birth, an individual is dead in trespasses and sins and incapable of belief or faith (Romans 3:9-12; 8:7; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:1; Colossians 2:13). Regeneration by the Holy Spirit makes saving faith possible. Saving faith is something the individual does (Acts 16:31) but it is enabled by and in the response to the work of the Holy Spirit. The Greek word for "credited" (Romans 4:3-6) (λογίζομαι, logizomai) is rendered in the New Testament as numbered, reckoned, reason, suppose, take into account, consider(ed), and credit(ed). So, it is our faith that is credited as righteousness or is it what our faith is in? I think it is the latter. If it is our faith that considered righteousness then we fall into the error of E.P. Sanders and N.T. Wright. However, if our faith in the person and finished work of Jesus Christ, our righteousness is imputed to us. It is an alien righteousness (from outside of us).
Perhaps we are in agreement here? If so, great. Please forgive me for the technical answer. When writing about the great doctrines of the faith I do tend to "go long in the tooth". I am not trying to be pedantic.
1. Donald McKim, Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms.
2. Keach's Baptist Catechism, Question 37
3. Westminster Shorter Catechism, Question 33
Sorry, I'm not understanding the distinction they are making. Perhaps you're not either, which is why you're quoting it rather than just explaining it, but feel free to explain.
My contention is that God counts the faith (in Christ) of the ungodly as righteousness. Thus, the faith itself, even faith in Christ, cannot save. Only God can save by choosing to reckon the faith of the ungodly. (Rom. 4:5)
Do you disagree?
I am an idiot. I tried to respond to the post in my mobile device and I deleted it. Moderators: can you restore my post, please, so I can respond to Calminian? Thank you.
Sent from my Pixel 2XL
@Calminian ,OK. I can see my post in your response in post #43.
The sources I quoted are all of the same understanding. Our faith is credited, declared, or imputed as righteousness. The question that needs answering is whether it is our faith that is declared as righteousness (as in the New Perspective on Paul) or is it who our faith is in? I believe scripture teaches it is the latter. I think that is an important distinction. I provide sources to show that this is not a novel invention of my own.
*edited to correct grammar.
The sources I quoted are all of the same understanding. Our faith is credited, declared, or imputed as righteousness. The question that needs answering is whether it is our faith that is declared as righteousness (as in the New Perspective on Paul) or is it who our faith is in? I believe scripture teaches it is the latter. I think that is an important distinction. I provide sources to show that this is not a novel invention of my own.
*edited to correct grammar.
I think this is irrelevant to my point. I'll state it again.
My contention is that God counts the faith (in Christ) of the ungodly as righteousness. Thus, the faith itself, even faith in Christ, cannot save. Only God can save by choosing to reckon the faith of the ungodly. (Rom. 4:5)
Do you disagree?
I do not but that is fine.
Yeah. I do.
The sinner cannot exercise saving faith until they are made capable of doing so through regeneration for reasons given in my restored post #43. That renders the rest of your explanation moot.
I don't see why this makes what I said moot, but let's delve into your take on this.
So you believe that God gives us, in essence, a faith that is already righteous and doesn't need to be credited as righteous. Thus, you must believe this verse is mistranslated?
I don't think that's the case. I think Paul makes it clear God reckons the faith of the ungodly. He says it explicitly. You seem to be saying there's no such thing as an ungodly believer. The way I read it, Paul disagrees.
I think this also is why the term crediting is never talked about by most calvinists. They really have no idea what to do with it. Why would something already righteous need to be credited as righteous?
Last edited:
The only thing I reject is a judicial philosophy (and fruits of that error). Otherwise I accept Penal Substitution Theory.
Are you equating hunanistic philosophy with Scripture itself?
No, I am rejecting that Calvin and we Calvinists are getting the Pst from sources outside of the scripture themselves!
Easy. You doxxed one of the former moderators by saying what his name was. Soon after, the moderator(s) modified the post to remove the doxxing
Let me put it this way - take out the philosophy of rertibutive justice and I agree with Penal Substitution Theory. If you believe that philosophy prescribed in Scripture then defend it with Scripture.
I'm sure you must've already explained your position elsewhere - could you provide a link to it..or briefly state again what you mean by retributive justice? Do you mean it as a hostile disposition of God? Because I understand penal substitution theory as simply God being righteous in dealing with all sins as per His law of sin and death - isn't that Scriptural?
I have discussed my view several times (I am not sure the title of the thread, it has been awhile).
I come from a SBC background and once was a Calvinistic preacher in SBC churches.
I disagree that it is proper to apply the philosophy of retributive justice to divine justice. I believe this because I do not see it the underlying philosophy of ANE religion, Hebrew faith, or Christianity. It seems to me to be a product of humanistic law (a Renaissance philosophy of justice).
So I do not hold that philosophy, and of course theological views dependent on that philosophy.
But other than that I affirm Penal Substitution Theory. Scripture teaches Christ died for our sins, God was pleased to crush Him, by His stripes we are healed, the chastening for our well being fell upon Christ, and in Him we escape the wrath to come.
The difference is I do not see justification for assuming the philosophy and no one has offered a convincing argument for applying it to divine justice.
I'm unable to see the exact distinction you use between the two.
Justice, as a whole to me, is ensuring the scales are balanced in terms of the act and its consequence. If good acts are done, the proportionate consequence is life. If sins are committed, the proportionate consequence is death. This is the Law of works. Given by God, this is divine justice. Given that the wages of sin is death as per this law, it is retributive in not overlooking any past sin. Do we differ in our understanding of what retributive justice is?
I don't think we differ in terms of rertibutive justice (it is a fairly well define philosophy).
The wages of sin is death.This was not per the Law (as expounded upon by Paul in Romans). I do understand it us per the law of rertibutive justice. I disagree, however, that this is the proper way to view divine justice. What is assumed is a grounding in divine justice and also attributing a philosophy of justice to divine justice. I disagree it is correct.
Ancient paganism adopted a balanced scale approach to divine justice (Egyptian paganism did so very literally). I do not see this as God's justice as presented in Scripture or held by the first millennia of church history.
Could you elaborate on this...
When you say it is not per the Law as used by Paul - I'm confused. Because that is precisely where I'm drawing this from.
Again, are you saying Paul mentions both the law of retributive justice and the law of divine justice as distinct laws in Romans?
That gentleman did make himself a public figure. In doing so, he is no different than John MacArthur, Chuck Swindoll, Alistair Begg, Tony Evans, or James Dobson. All those men are in the public domain.
Exactly Reformed, His podcast is now a public broadcast, and can be discussed.