The Age of Accountability

[koreahog2005]

John, I respectfully disagree. The young man asked, "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?" (Mark 10:17). Jesus answered his question.

 

[Eric B]

Who is saved and who is not is not a matter of what God withholds. It is a matter of what God gives.

But according to your your notion of "giving", that presupposes "withholding", to explain why many are not saved. No matter how "passive" you try to make it.

 

[Eric B]

The free agency you describe may exist in baseball but not in salvation. Paul was never able to surrender his life to Jesus, "the good that I would I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do." With the mind he served the law of God but with the flesh the law of sin. He was delivered from the body of this death by God through Christ Jesus not through the choice of a free agent with a jump start from the Holy Ghost.

This is semantics; that statement agrees with the basic premise of monergism. Men are hopeless because they cannot even want to do right, then the Holy Spirit comes and changes their nature, and now makes them able to do right. Your dismissing this as a "jump start" from the Holy Spirit, but the Calvinists would say that this WAS the "deliverance from the body of death". (unless you mean this in a sense that a person no longer sins). That is more fitting for the Arminian position, but then if "depravity" is the main issue, then this so-called "jump-start" is all that is needed to enable the sinner. That way, you do not have the frequently charged "sinner just snaps out of it on his own and saves himself by doing good", or whatever.

You are confusing law and gospel. Surrendering one's life to Jesus is part of the law that no man can keep. The gospel is sheer grace apprehended by faith alone not through the works of the law.

Jesus was not preaching the gospel to this man but the law. He was trying to show the man the demands of the law: perfect obedience to the Master. The preaching of the law either makes presumptous men who imagine they can fulfill the law's demands (pharisees) or it leads to despair.

Before, I had always been saying that the Calvinists' "total inability" simply turned the Good News of salvation by faith in Christ into "another Law [man couldn't keep, and therefore] of sin and death", and now here is someone who explicitly confesses it as such. But nowhere is faith in Christ ever associated with the "Law", but is contrasted with it. (and "surrender" comes in the life after conversion). It is basically, then, where there was really only one covenant all along (as Ian and I had discussed), and that Christ was simply added as a new "Law" to a scheme of demanding men to fulfil what they are unable to, in order to unconditionally save some, leave the rest condemned. Thus is it your position that sorely confuses Law and Gospel! But Christ is proclaimed as "good news" to the world, not a rehashing of the same old Law in which there is no hope at all for most.(because He is reached through a means where we are able, as contrasted with what is called "performance" Rom.7:19)

 

[El_Guero]

BobRyan,
mmm... I reckon that you haven't read Calvin's words about the Apostle John speaking in First John ... ;o)

First, when you quote me - do so in context. And remember - I AM NOT A PELAGIAN ... And I do read Augustine. I also read Calvin. I enjoy Jonathan Edwards. It is a shame that others do not do so.

Isn't it ironic that God only mentions a small number of persons that He specifically predestined to faith?

But, He told us "These wicked people, who refuse to listen to my words, who follow the stubbornness of their hearts ... "(NIV Jer 13:10)
"I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings." Jer 17:10 bible.gospelcom.net(KJV)
EZE 18:23 "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?" Gospelcom.net (KJV)
Of course NOT! How can the Sovereign LORD really, really mean that!
And Ezekiel missed it again: (33:14,15 NASB) "But when I say to the wicked, 'You will surely die,' and he turns from his sin and practices justice and righteousness .... he shall surely live; he shall not die."
And again in Ezek 33:11 NASB - "(God speaking) I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways!"
But, Paul himself said: (1 Tim 4: Gospelcom) 13Till I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. .... 16Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for "in doing this" you will "save" both yourself and "those who hear you"."

Jesus said that He willed that Jerusalem would come to Him ... If the call of Jesus can be resisted ...

The fact remains in Scripture, that God himself has predestined some for specific actions (including repentance). The fact remains that God also allowed some people to willingly repent. And God commanded them to do so.
To build my theology upon one aspect of God's grace and ignore another part of His nature will give me a very narrow view of the Lord. Just as I cannot ignore His sovereignty, I cannot ignore that He has given man responsibility. God gave me responsibility.

Without the enlightenment by God we cannot come to Him, but He gave the Word that enlightens everyone.

The best sermon I have ever read is "Sinners in the hands of an Angry God." A true Calvinist preacher of the Gospel realizes that preaching supralapsarianism doesn't bring lost souls to Christ. But, when they realize that and place doctrine under the Sovereign's decree to preach the Gospel - they realize results.

In Him,

Wayne

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by koreahog2005:
John, I respectfully disagree. The young man asked, "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?" (Mark 10:17). Jesus answered his question.

Jesus did answer his question. Jesus showed him what he needed to do to inherit eternal life.

 

[John Gilmore]

Eric B,

This is semantics; that statement agrees with the basic premise of monergism. Men are hopeless because they cannot even want to do right, then the Holy Spirit comes and changes their nature, and now makes them able to do right. Your dismissing this as a "jump start" from the Holy Spirit, but the Calvinists would say that this WAS the "deliverance from the body of death".

Calvinists stray into Arminian territory and deny monergism when they say that man cooperates to obtain faith after the initial jump start (regeneration). Regeneration and faith occur simultaneously without the cooperation of man.

Before, I had always been saying that the Calvinists' "total inability" simply turned the Good News of salvation by faith in Christ into "another Law [man couldn't keep, and therefore] of sin and death", and now here is someone who explicitly confesses it as such. But nowhere is faith in Christ ever associated with the "Law", but is contrasted with it. (and "surrender" comes in the life after conversion).

Where did Jesus proclaim the Good News of salvation by faith in Christ to the man? Jesus knew the thoughts of the man. The man wanted to judged by the law. Jesus showed him how he could inherit eternal life by keeping the law perfectly.

 

[El_Guero]

Mea culpa ...
When I re-read my post, I did not intend to infer that I felt that BobRyan had misquoted me ... I should have delineated the two paragraphs more clearly!

 

[koreahog2005]

John, you said:

Jesus did answer his question. Jesus showed him what he needed to do to inherit eternal life.

I agree. Jesus’ answer was in agreement with Paul’s answer to an identical question:

“And after he brought them out, he said, ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ And they said, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household.’ ”
(Acts 16:30-31)

 

[koreahog2005]

I'll clarify what I just said.

Two identical questions:

"What shall I do to inherit eternal life?" (Mark 10:17)

"What must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30)

Two answers in agreement:

"Sell all you possess, and give to the poor. . . and come, follow Me." (Mark 10:21)

"Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ." (Acts 16:31)

Jesus was defining faith for the young man. Faith means that a person is willing to give up everything to serve Jesus: f-a-i-t-h, forsaking all I trust Him.

 

[John Gilmore]

koreahog2005,

No, the two answers are not in agreement. Jesus answered the question that the man asked. He told him what to do. Paul and Silas did not answer the keeper's question. Paul and Silas did not tell the keeper to do anything, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." The difference is that the keeper had despaired of his own efforts; whereas, the other man had not. Paul and Silas preached the gospel to a man who had been struck down and terrified by the law.

Another example is when the Jews who had been pricked in their heart asked, "What must we do?" Peter did not tell them to do anything, "Repent and be baptized."

[ September 05, 2004, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

 

[koreahog2005]

John, surely you're not serious. Paul and Silas answered the Philippian jailer's question, and Peter answered the crowd's question. In both cases they were not avoiding the question or introducing a new subject.

 

[John Gilmore]

koreahog2005,

Salvation is the gift of God, not a work of man. The question the man, the jailor, and the crowd should have asked is "How does God save me?"

But the man who spoke to Jesus was not interested in how God saves. He wanted to save himself through his fulfillment of the law. So Jesus gave him an answer from the law.

In the case of the jailor and the crowd, the law had already done its work. They had been struck down and terrified. They had despaired of their own efforts but they had not yet been enlightened to ask the right question. So the evangelists answered the question they should have asked. "How does God save me?" God bestows his gifts of faith, repentance, and baptism on you through His holy word without any work, merit, or worthiness on your part.

[ September 06, 2004, 04:52 AM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by John Gilmore:
Matt Black,

1. The infant does profess his belief in Jesus through the mouth of a parent or sponsor. Regardless of the public profession, we can never be sure that an infant or an adult believes. They may be hypocrites.

How is this scriptural?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by John Gilmore:
Matt Black,

2. Well, from your one page doctrinal statement, I can't tell if your denomination is Arminian or not. It does seem to be Christian, though. The key requirement for membership seems to be baptism by immersion. By contrast, my denomination has 636 pages of doctrine which every confirmed member must pledge to defend with his life.

Membership does not equate to salvation. The RCC catechism and other doctrinal statements of the RCC could fill a building. Your point?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Matt Black]

Also John, ref your penultimate post, how are 'believe' and 'repent' (your words) not 'doing' words?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[koreahog2005]

John, you said:

The question the man, the jailor, and the crowd should have asked is "How does God save me?"

But they didn't ask that, did they? The question they did ask was answered. Interestingly, Jesus, Paul, Silas, and Peter did not answer the question by giving them a lecture on monergism versus synergism. All three answers were in sync: surrender, believe, repent, follow.
To return to the topic, infants cannot surrender, believe, repent, or follow.

 

[koreahog2005]

John, I've got one more question about something you said:

In the case of the jailor and the crowd, the law had already done its work.

Philippi was a "leading city of the district of Macedonia, a Roman colony." Paul normally went to a synagogue first when he entered a city. In the case of Philippi, he found a group of women assembled at a riverside (Acts 16:13). So, there was probably no synagogue in Philippi. It took ten Jewish males to form a synagogue, so there probably were not that many Jewish males in Philippi. It is reasonable to assume that the jailer was not Jewish. When you said that the law had already done its work on his heart, were you referring to "the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness" (Romans 2:15)?

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John Gilmore:
Matt Black,

1. The infant does profess his belief in Jesus through the mouth of a parent or sponsor. Regardless of the public profession, we can never be sure that an infant or an adult believes. They may be hypocrites.

How is this scriptural?

Yours in Christ

Matt </font>[/QUOTE]Heb. 4:2; Matt. 15:8; Matt. 7:21

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John Gilmore:
Matt Black,

2. Well, from your one page doctrinal statement, I can't tell if your denomination is Arminian or not. It does seem to be Christian, though. The key requirement for membership seems to be baptism by immersion. By contrast, my denomination has 636 pages of doctrine which every confirmed member must pledge to defend with his life.

Membership does not equate to salvation. The RCC catechism and other doctrinal statements of the RCC could fill a building. Your point?

Yours in Christ

Matt </font>[/QUOTE]I agree but the content of the RCC catechism means nothing to the papists. The only thing that really counts is the latest infallible pronouncement from his unHoliness. And about the only thing that matters to some Baptists is the mode and age of baptism.

On the other hand, scripture teaches us to mark those who cause divisions and avoid them. The Arminians (and others) cause divisions. We mark them with the Book of Concord. No one may join our fellowship unless they first agree that the Book of Concord states the biblical doctrine in opposition to those who deny that doctrine.

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by koreahog2005:
John, I've got one more question about something you said:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In the case of the jailor and the crowd, the law had already done its work.

Philippi was a "leading city of the district of Macedonia, a Roman colony." Paul normally went to a synagogue first when he entered a city. In the case of Philippi, he found a group of women assembled at a riverside (Acts 16:13). So, there was probably no synagogue in Philippi. It took ten Jewish males to form a synagogue, so there probably were not that many Jewish males in Philippi. It is reasonable to assume that the jailer was not Jewish. When you said that the law had already done its work on his heart, were you referring to "the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness" (Romans 2:15)? </font>[/QUOTE]No. Romans 2:15 refers to the natural law that checks to some extent the coarse outbursts of sin and helps keep order in the world. The jailor was listening when Paul and Silas preached the law and gospel to the prisoners. Acts 16:25.