Again, Are you denying that man is a sinner that ONLY God can save?
That we cannot even come to God by ourselves?
that ONLY those who place faith in jesus get saved, and that ONLY those whom God enables can do such?
-
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!
The Doctrines of Grace and Evangelism
- Thread starter Herald
- Start date
Again, Are you denying that man is a sinner that ONLY God can save?
That we cannot even come to God by ourselves?
that ONLY those who place faith in jesus get saved, and that ONLY those whom God enables can do such?
Robert Snow
New Member
You really need to get a grip on your reading and understanding skills, and quit reading into my statement more than I said. I never said anything about man not being a sinner. I also never said that man does not need God to save him.
I am starting to think that you do this on purpose in order to minimize others for your benefit. If this is the case, you do know that this would be equivalent to telling lies, don't you?
kyredneck, earlier today I promised you a more detailed response.
"Faith" is the English translation of the Greek word pistis. Pisteuo "believe" and pistis "faith" are basically the same word. One is the noun form (pistis, faith) and the other is the verb form (pisteuo, believe). Here is a sampling of passages that use the verb form: Matthew 18:6; 21:32; Acts 8:37; 16:31; Romans 3:22; 4:11; 4:24; 8:37; 10:9.
Acts 16:31 is clear, concise, and to the point:
Acts 16:31 "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
With the verb form being used it basically means, "use your faith."
You will notice that these verses strongly support sola fide. Nowhere is human effort or participation even hinted at unless you want to make believing a work.
James 2 starts off by addressing believers and their heart attitude towards others. He warns them about the sin of favoritism and of having a hardened heart towards the poor. James calls these believers to action when he writes, "Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself" (2:17). As I wrote in my earlier post, Christians were created for good works (Eph. 2:10). Where Paul made a statement, James preached on it! The justification in James 2 is not regenerative or salvific in nature. It means that the believer's faith has been validated as real. Good works are the evidence of the new birth.
kyredneck said:
"Faith" is the English translation of the Greek word pistis. Pisteuo "believe" and pistis "faith" are basically the same word. One is the noun form (pistis, faith) and the other is the verb form (pisteuo, believe). Here is a sampling of passages that use the verb form: Matthew 18:6; 21:32; Acts 8:37; 16:31; Romans 3:22; 4:11; 4:24; 8:37; 10:9.
Acts 16:31 is clear, concise, and to the point:
Acts 16:31 "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
With the verb form being used it basically means, "use your faith."
You will notice that these verses strongly support sola fide. Nowhere is human effort or participation even hinted at unless you want to make believing a work.
kyredneck said:
James 2 starts off by addressing believers and their heart attitude towards others. He warns them about the sin of favoritism and of having a hardened heart towards the poor. James calls these believers to action when he writes, "Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself" (2:17). As I wrote in my earlier post, Christians were created for good works (Eph. 2:10). Where Paul made a statement, James preached on it! The justification in James 2 is not regenerative or salvific in nature. It means that the believer's faith has been validated as real. Good works are the evidence of the new birth.
Doing this in order to get one to clearly state what they believee, as know you despise cal theology, so what model do you aspire to follow?
Robert Snow
New Member
I pity anyone who lives by labels. I study the bible and believe what I think it teaches. I don't feel the need to run and discover if I fit neatly into one camp or the other.
You need to check out Herald's view of labels Robert.
Who has said that we must run and discover if one fits neatly into one camp or another? You belong to a camp regardless if you ever crack open a book or not.
And you're the one who said that you don't talk about Calvinism as much as you used to! Ha.
You are pretty heavy-handed with your broad swipes. You assert with a lot of vigor --but it's just a bunch of balderdash Robert.
Illogical and wrong,huh? Please demonstrate.
Calvinists attempt to make God into a liar?!! You need to do some heavy repenting for that one. You have said you were sorry for lesser offenses.
You are one confused dude. Hyper-Calvinism is not Calvinism --so it can't be considered Calvinistic teaching.
Robert Snow
New Member
Then tell me that what kyredneck believes is not Hyper-Calvinism. You say this is not Calvinism, well some will beg to differ with you.
To me it's like putting two snakes in a bag; one poisonous and one not. The poisonous snake is more dangerous, but both are still snakes. I choose to keep my hands out of he bag completely.
I have read the bible enough to know that both viewpoints are in error, but Hyper-Calvinism is the more dangerous of the two.
He does not like labels....but finds them useful to say calvinism {a label}
is bad :laugh::laugh::laugh:
Robert Snow
New Member
To acknowledge the existence of labels is different that identifying oneself with one particuliar label.
You proudly acknowledge and glory in the label Calvinism. I, on the other hand, view my beliefs as being Christian. So, if you want to pin the label Christian on me, that's alright. To label me as Arminian because I don't follow the false teaching of Calvinism is not a label I will accept.
Labels are good in that they identify generalities. For example, if I moved to a town and was looking for a church to attend, any Calvinistic church would automatically be off limits to me. In fact I would go to any church before I would a church that teaches Calvinism. If the only Baptist churches in the community were Calvinistic, I would leave the Baptist church. Methodist, Christian, even Church of Christ would be preferable. In fact, I would attend a church on the Internet before I would align myself with a church that was DoG.
Robert Snow,
The only label I might have used with you is anti-calvinist...
maybe after seeing you post over 500 times...calvinism bad, calvin no good, i hate calvinism, i believe calvinism is evil......I started getting the idea that perhaps you were anti-calvinistic. I do not think i am going out on a limb in saying that am I????:wavey:
The thing is when i just read your last post ,I would be concerned that you state you would never go to a DoG church.
If it is the truth as many understand it to be...you would be saying that you would not want to attend a church that was teaching truth!
You do not really want to say that do you???
it reminds me of paul saying;
The only label I might have used with you is anti-calvinist...
maybe after seeing you post over 500 times...calvinism bad, calvin no good, i hate calvinism, i believe calvinism is evil......I started getting the idea that perhaps you were anti-calvinistic. I do not think i am going out on a limb in saying that am I????:wavey:
The thing is when i just read your last post ,I would be concerned that you state you would never go to a DoG church.
If it is the truth as many understand it to be...you would be saying that you would not want to attend a church that was teaching truth!
You do not really want to say that do you???
it reminds me of paul saying;
Robert Snow
New Member
Wow, you picked up on that did you? For a Calvinist, you are pretty smart.
Thats your prerogative & I wouldn't go in anything except a Reformed Church so labels do indeed have purpose & serve us both.:thumbsup:
Now if your telling us by your statement that Calvinists are not Christian, I'd like you to say it plainly once & for all.
Robert Snow
New Member
Calvinist are wrong on many things, but I would never say they are not Christians. I know many people who attend an Assembly of God church. They too are wrong, albeit on different points, but they too are Christians. I would even venture to say that every church has areas where they are wrong. If perfect doctrine was required to be a Christian, no one would be saved.
Well at least your not proping yourself up as one who thinks, if you dont believe the way I do your going to hell.
Robert Snow
New Member
If I felt that way, and was correct, heaven would be a lonely place and hell would be crowded.
All I can do is believe what I think is correct concerning the doctrines in the bible. This comes from the pastors I have sat under, the books I have read and my own personal study.
I like that, “use your faith”.
I checked the passages, and I'm not trying to be difficult, but I fail to see whether it's noun or verb form how it refutes the plain statement of scripture that justification is not by faith alone.
The Philippian jailor is one of those cases in the scriptures where there's no indication given of God's having wrought within beforehand, as with Lydia in vv 13,14 who was at a place of prayer on the sabbath and whose heart the Lord opened to receive the gospel, or as with 'devout' Cornelius in Acts 10, or the Ethiopian eunuch reading Isaiah in Acts 8, or the 'devout' Jews in Acts 2, etc.. I don't know if he even fully understood what he was asking, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” I have to presume that he knew that these two (Paul and Silas) were 'saved', and that they preached a way of salvation, and it had to make an incredible impression on him to witness these two praying and singing hymns to God at midnight after being whipped, cast into prison, and placed in stocks, and the prisoners listening to them; and to top it off, nobody ran when they had the chance! I believe his question to be along the lines of,“Sirs, what must I do to obtain this great joy that you possess?” Which brings us to:
"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
The intent of 'you and your household' is not relevant here (interesting topic though), so let's ignore it:
“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.....”
'Use your faith' in the Lord Jesus, and you will....what? Be saved from hell? Be given the free gift of eternal life? Be born from above? Apply the blood of Jesus and receive eternal redemption?
[I think] that Reformed 'Sola Fide' types generally take it to mean:
'Use your faith' (gift from God) in the Lord Jesus, and thereby apply the blood of Jesus and receive eternal redemption.
The passage is referring to salvation and not [only] justification. I don't know how you relate salvation to justification, sanctification, and glorification. To me, salvation consists of the other three, and has eternal and temporal aspects. Concerning the eternal aspect of salvation man is totally passive, with the temporal aspect he is active.
The types given in the scriptures contradict the notion that eternal redemption is acquired through 'sola fide':
“For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ” [1 Cor 5:7].
On that dreadful night in the land of Egypt it was the father who slew the lamb and applied the blood, the firstborn was passive. The faith of the firstborn had nothing to do about whether the blood worked or not [eternal salvation]. The firstborn's faith in the blood would have everything to do with how they rested that night, or any joy that was to be had for that redemption [(temporal) gospel salvation].
Most that were redeemed out of Egypt, the land of bondage, were refused entrance into Canaan, the sabbath rest of God, because of their unbelief, Moses and Aaron included. They were totally passive in their redemption from the land of bondage, but by their unbelief they were responsible for the toil and weariness of wandering in the wilderness for the remainder of their lives, and for being denied entrance into the land of milk & honey. It required their faith to enter into God's rest.
but hath now been manifested by the appearing of our Saviour Christ Jesus, who abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, 2 Tim 1:10
The gospel sheds light on life and immortality, it does not impart it. It is Christ who has abolished death and imparts life and immortality through the birth that is from above, in which we are totally passive:
who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Jn 1:13
It is through obedience to the gospel that the living may enter into the joy, peace, and righteousness in the Holy Spirit, which is the kingdom of God. John 3 makes it clear that before one can enter into or even see the kingdom of God they must first be born from above.
28 They said therefore unto him, What must we do, that we may work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. Jn 6
Believing [reliance on, adhering to] indeed is a work, faith is a fruit of the Spirit, and I suggest to you that it actually requires as much or more conscience effort on our part to believe as it does to do 'by nature' the things of the law which has been written in out hearts. It is error to view believing and being saved as a one time event. It is something we must do throughout our lives. Regeneration, i.e. the birth from above or eternal salvation, is a one time event, a done deal; salvation is an ongoing affair throughout the believer's life.
for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law..... Ro 2:13,14
The story of the good Samaritan beautifully illustrates the above truth. It wasn't the priest or the Levite, who had the law and who were hearers of the law, that helped him who had fallen to the robbers. It was a Samaritan, one whom the priest and the Levite would consider to be a dog, who had compassion and proved to be neighbor to him that had fallen. The Samaritan did it 'by nature'. A God given nature.
Thus the truth of Jn 3:21:
But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, that they have been wrought in God.
God had already wrought within, and these were already doing the truth 'by nature' prior to coming to Christ.
But you consider a passage like Ro 3:28 to be 'regenerative' in nature?
Last edited by a moderator:
Paul's emphasis on faith was against the backdrop of apostate Judaism's emphasis on works of the law.
Luther's emphasis on sola fide was against apostate Roman Catholicism's system of works.
There's more to it than faith only, and God supplies it all through the birth from above.
Salvation from beginning to end, is by God's grace alone.
Luther's emphasis on sola fide was against apostate Roman Catholicism's system of works.
There's more to it than faith only, and God supplies it all through the birth from above.
Salvation from beginning to end, is by God's grace alone.