The Reformation: Which side was right?

[Jude]

[/QUOTE]Jude:
You need to study the Parable of the Sower / Soils. Where does it point to "falling away" (an actual believer losing salvation) being possible?Rev...... G[/QB][/QUOTE]

(Mat 13:20-21 NIV) The one who received the seed that fell on rocky places is the man who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. {21} But since he has no root, he lasts only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away.

(Mat 13:22 NIV) The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful.

 

[Jude]

More passages to consider...
(Heb 2:1-3 NIV) We must pay more careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away. {2} For if the message spoken by angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, {3} how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him.

(Heb 3:7-14 NIV) So, as the Holy Spirit says: "Today, if you hear his voice, {8} do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion, during the time of testing in the desert, {9} where your fathers tested and tried me and for forty years saw what I did. {10} That is why I was angry with that generation, and I said, 'Their hearts are always going astray, and they have not known my ways.' {11} So I declared on oath in my anger, 'They shall never enter my rest.'" {12} See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. {13} But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness. {14} We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first.

(Heb 3:19 NIV) So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief.

(Heb 4:1 NIV) Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it.

(Heb 4:11 NIV) Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.

(Heb 6:4-8 NIV) It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, {5} who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, {6} if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. {7} Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. {8} But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.

(Heb 10:23-27 NIV) Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. {24} And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. {25} Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another--and all the more as you see the Day approaching. {26} If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, {27} but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

 

[Jude]

Hmmm.....nobody from the 'once save always saved camp' wants to respond to the above verses?

On another note, I was browsing through a book by Mark Noll on signicant events in church history. I can't quote (I didn't yet buy the book), but he did point out that after Luther's great "here I stand" speech, the Roman church's response was quite interesting. In essence, what Rome said, was that if you followed Luther's logic completely, Biblical interpretation would be left up completely to the individual. Isn't this one big reason why mainline protestant churches are dying?

 

[Rev. G]

Jude:

MT 13:20-22 speaks of one receiving the word with joy, but it does not speak of salvation. Such a person is "unfruitful," that is, they NEVER bear fruit. The reason they never bear fruit is because they have never been born again.

HEB 2:1-3 - A threatening / warning to the Hebrews to whom it was written not to turn away from Christ. How does this prove your theory?

HEB 3:7-14 - At least you are now using a passage that might be considered for your cause...especially verse 12 that speaks of one who has an "unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God." Still, this does not prove that one can "fall from grace." It only reinforces the point that one "inside" the church can show that the heart they have is unbelieving (it never had faith). Verse 14 is consistent with the doctrine of the "preservation and perseverance of the saints": "We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first."

HEB 3:19 - Does not prove "falling away." Only shows that those who are unbelieving cannot enter into Christ's rest.

HEB 4:1,11 - Question: How does one enter the rest? Is it through divine grace (alone) or human effort?

HEB 6:4-8 - YES! THE prooftext for your position. What does it mean to have been enlightened, to have tasted the heavenly gift, to have shared in the Holy Spirit, and to have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age? Sounds like being part of a local fellowship - participating in the worship, partaking of the sacred ordinances, sitting under the proclamation of God's Word, etc. Yes, there are some who "fall away" from such fellowship, but they were never truly born again (1 JOHN 2:19).

HEB 10:23-27 - Yes, those who "keep on sinning" after they have received the truth will face judgment. No doubt there. Notice that they are the "enemies of God." Praise God that believers "have been justified through faith" and have "peace with God." God's wrath has been removed from the believer. We are no longer enemies because of Christ's blood! Praise God! (Romans 5).

On another note, I was browsing through a book by Mark Noll on signicant events in church history. I can't quote (I didn't yet buy the book), but he did point out that after Luther's great "here I stand" speech, the Roman church's response was quite interesting. In essence, what Rome said, was that if you followed Luther's logic completely, Biblical interpretation would be left up completely to the individual. Isn't this one big reason why mainline protestant churches are dying?

Of course Rome responded that way! Why shouldn't they? That does not mean they were correct, though.

The reason mainline Protestant churches are dying is because they have left the teaching of the Word of God, and have (in reality) ceased to be Protestant (Evangelical).

Rev. G

 

[Jude]

"HEB 6:4-8 - YES! THE prooftext for your position. What does it mean to have been enlightened, to have tasted the heavenly gift, to have shared in the Holy Spirit, and to have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age? Sounds like being part of a local fellowship - participating in the worship, partaking of the sacred ordinances, sitting under the proclamation of God's Word, etc. Yes, there are some who "fall away" from such fellowship, but they were never truly born again (1 JOHN 2:19)."

How can one "tast(e) the heavenly gift, "share in the Holy Spirit," and the "powers of the coming age," and receiving the 'sacred ordinances' and NOT be a Christian????? At least in my mind, one must 'endure to the end' to be saved.

You also quoted...
1 John 2:19 NJB
They have gone from among us, but they never really belonged to us; if they had belonged to us, they would have stayed with us. But this was to prove that not one of them belonged to us.

This doesn't necessarily prove your point. Of course there are those who are present in the Christian community who are never ever really born again. But there are those, (for example, Judas, Ananias, Sapphira)who have 'once tasted of of Holy Gift," that have become apostate.

 

[Jude]

You also said, "Of course Rome responded that way! Why shouldn't they? That does not mean they were correct, though."

Nor does it mean they were incorrect. In fact, I think, in this matter, they were right-on target. One of the problems with the Protestant movement is the wide-variety of doctrinal views. Sincere, Bible-believing, Christ-centered Christians who believe that they alone have the right 'take'. Again, don't take my views as 'pro' RC...I'm not or I'd be one. But I certainly don't think they are always wrong.

 

[Rev. G]

One of the problems with the Protestant movement is the wide-variety of doctrinal views.

If you study (American) church history you will find that Evangelicals (Protestants) agreed on about 95% of their beliefs prior to the Second Great Awakening. The differences came in areas dealing with polity and the ordinances. With the Second Great Awakening came the firm conviction of "democracy" in church life - including being able to "vote" on what one wants to believe. Individuals abandoned the "old beliefs" because they "interpreted" the Bible differently, and the number of denominations multiplied.

If you go back and look at the doctrinal statements prior to that time (historical confessions and creeds), you will notice a great deal of cohesion.

Rev. G

[ October 04, 2002, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: Rev. G ]

 

[Jude]

How about Calvinists and Arminians? What about the different views of Holy Communion, Orders, Salvation etc.? I'm not sure there is the level of agreement between Protestants that you suggest. That being said, I am among those who signed the "This we believe", and my name is listed in the back of the book. There are many points of agreement, and again, my belief is that the Spirit will bring the Church together in a more visible way, in all matters doctrinal, this century.

 

[Rev. G]

How about Calvinists and Arminians? What about the different views of Holy Communion, Orders, Salvation etc.? I'm not sure there is the level of agreement between Protestants that you suggest.

If you look at the doctrinal statements of the Lutherans, the Reformed, the Anglicans, the Presbyterians, the Congregationalists, and the Particular Baptists you will see agreement on soteriology (no Arminianism there - they were all "Reformational"). There was obviously no differing views on salvation, they all held to sola fide. The disagreement existed on the issues of polity (church government) and the ordinances (communion and baptism).

Do some study in church history, it might do you some good.

Rev. G

 

[Jude]

Originally posted by Rev. G:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> How about Calvinists and Arminians? What about the different views of Holy Communion, Orders, Salvation etc.? I'm not sure there is the level of agreement between Protestants that you suggest.

If you look at the doctrinal statements of the Lutherans, the Reformed, the Anglicans, the Presbyterians, the Congregationalists, and the Particular Baptists you will see agreement on soteriology (no Arminianism there - they were all "Reformational"). There was obviously no differing views on salvation, they all held to sola fide. The disagreement existed on the issues of polity (church government) and the ordinances (communion and baptism).

Do some study in church history, it might do you some good.

Rev. G</font>[/QUOTE]No difference between Presby's and Anglicans? C'mon!To say that the Reformers were essentially of one mind is, well, silly. And yet, I like what Robert Coleman wrote in his book 'Nothing to Do but to Save Souls', "The founders of Methodism, as the Reformers and the most revered Fathers of the church universal, have all recognized the full, complete, and perfect sacrifice of Christ for the sins of the whole world. Interpretations of Atonement may be different, but at its heart is the objective fact that Calvary covers it all. The work is finished! Through His blood we have a new and living way into the very presence of God..." I like also what he said in a few paragraphs later, "Justification may be viewed as Christ for us; regeneration may be described as Christ in us. Though different in nature, both belong to the miracle of conversion." (pp.65.-66)
All Protestant theologicans embrace 'sola fide', but you know that there is quite a diffence between those Calvinist/Reformed and Arminian. The former see regeneration as something apart from human effort/initiative, but the latter believe that justification and regeneration is 2 sides of the same coin. As Coleman says, "...faith has no personal merit. Rather it is simply the free gift of God by which the righteousness of Chirst is appropriated." (p.72.)
He says also, (and I agree wholeheartedly!)"Something is wrong with any concept of justification that does not result in holiness of life...the Gospel is not a mere creed; it (is)a living, throbbing, dynamic experience." Amen! Not only do we not yet have agreement on things doctrinal, the Church has failed to agree/see the need to be holy. No wonder our witness is America is so pathetic.

 

[Rev. G]

No difference between Presby's and Anglicans? C'mon!To say that the Reformers were essentially of one mind is, well, silly.

All Protestant theologicans embrace 'sola fide', but you know that there is quite a diffence between those Calvinist/Reformed and Arminian.

"Something is wrong with any concept of justification that does not result in holiness of life...the Gospel is not a mere creed; it (is)a living, throbbing, dynamic experience." Amen! Not only do we not yet have agreement on things doctrinal, the Church has failed to agree/see the need to be holy. No wonder our witness is America is so pathetic.

I didn't say there were NO differences. What I said is that there was essential agreement on doctrinal issues, such as justification, election, etc. (Read the Thirty-Nine Articles; also note that the Reformer Martin Bucer was quite influential in helping to form the doctrinal position of the Anglicans). They were of one mind on those "main" issues. As I stated earlier, the disagreements came in the area of the ordinances and polity. Luther and Zwingli had a heck of a fight over the Lord's Supper - they were not of one mind on that issue. But, at their conference, they agreed on EVERY OTHER POINT. It's too bad they fought the way they did.

Strictly speaking, Arminians are not "historic" Protestants.

No argument here about the quote on justification. The Reformers taught that justification is by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. Unfortunately sola fide has been distorted in our day. Let's not forget how the Reformers fought against the antimonians of their day, and we should stand up for the truth of the Gospel as well.

Rev. G

 

[Maverick]

Let's forget Calvin and Arminius and just stick to Scripture. One thing about dead theologians is that they have perfect theology now.

Calvin looked around and saw the Catholics killing the saints and stealing their property and such and was most likely asked by some of His flock if they would lose their souls as well. So, he searched for an answer and found eternal security, but went a bit overboard. Much like looking down the gun sight so hard that your eyes blur. He made too much ado over election misunderstanding how God's foreknowledge can handle that and yet predestinate a person of free will after they make a free choice to believe. If Adam's one free will decision to sin can throw him out of Eden forever why is it so hard to conmprehend that one free will decision to believe can save a soul for eternity? His followers went even further. I have heard of a 7 point Calvinist.

Arminius saw, as you do, the church folks not seeking holiness and was sure you could not live that way and stay saved even though Paul clearly teaches it. So, he did indeed find the free will that Calvin overlooked, but missed the fact the adoption and birth do not change with demeanor and that folks can be saved yet as by fire and even turned over to the devil that flesh may be destroyed and the soul saved. And his followers go even further than he did.

Biblical theology might in the terms of men be Calamin or Arminist, but again, we should follow the book and not men. Men make things far more difficult than God does. If the book was written for all saints to believe and be followed and since not many mighty or noble are called then the weak and the foolish should be able to understand it if they are born again and have the Spirit within them.

The Reformers came out of Catholicism and were "scholars" accustomed to "deep" thinking, logic and intensive dialogue and debate. Yet, Christ chose poor unlearned fishermen, a doctor and a tax collector to make apostles. Even though Paul would have had as many degrees or more than D. James Kennedy, he called all that dung and spoke of the simplicity of the Gospel though he could argue with the rabbis and philosophers.

Yet, the church grew more from the weak and foolish than it ever did by the "scholarly." I am afraid that their scholarship while it helped them to see the errors and come out from the Whore it was also a hindrance keeping them from coming completely out of the error bringing some of it into each denomination which like leaven brings us into the sin of those groups wanting to recognize and return to Mother.

Remember, the great scholars of Catholicism brought us into the Dark Ages creating a false priesthood that did not enter into Heaven and hindered those who would have gone. We now have a new group of Nicolaitanes trying to do the same thing in evangelical circles and these lads are leading their flocks back to the Whore and are engaging in whoredom themselves.

With these new lads telling the commoner that they cannot possibly understand the Word without them and that this passage may be Scripture or it may not be Scripture they secure for themselves a priesthood as strong as Rome ever had. They have destroyed the foundations of the Reformation and yea, the Word itself.

When the people had One Word and the pastors and scholars preached from it believing it was the very Word of God, we had numerous great revivals and a strong Church that was proactive in the world and respected by the world. Now, that the New Nicolaitanes are building their own kingdom with versions that contain the Word of God, but are not the Word the Church is a mockery, the "saints" base and the glory departed. Is it any wonder that these lads recognize their "spiritual" cousins in the Romanist institution and have great affinity for them? The philosophy and doctrine are the same and they play the same game and shall shear the same shame!

 

[Rev. G]

He made too much ado over election misunderstanding how God's foreknowledge can handle that and yet predestinate a person of free will after they make a free choice to believe.

Election was not a "Calvin thing," ALL of the Reformers held to the doctrine of unconditional election. Luther wrote more on election than did Calvin. The doctrine of election is not much ado over nothing, it is, as Luther put it, at the cor ecclesia ("the heart of the church"). It is wrapped up with the "solas" of the Reformation, particularly GRACE ALONE and GLORY TO GOD ALONE.

Rev. G

 

[Rev. G]

When the people had One Word and the pastors and scholars preached from it believing it was the very Word of God, we had numerous great revivals and a strong Church that was proactive in the world and respected by the world.

What are the greatest revivals that have taken place (post-biblical)?

Rev. G