Works ARE Neccessary for Salvation

[tyndale1946]

When you inherit something it is given to you without you earning it! I never had to earn my eternal salvation as Jesus did it for me.

I was Totally Depraved because of my federal head Adam. Before the very foundation of the world I was elected by the Father and given to the Son. All those that the Father gave him he saved on the tree of Calvary by bearing their sins and died for them only. On the third day he arose from the dead then ascended to heaven to sit on the right hand of God.

You can read all my thoughts on the Calvinism/Arminian TULIP thread doctrine... I won't go into it here... Sound doctrine says an inheritance is a gift and that what I believe! The Lord of Glory purchased me and all his children by his Irresistible Grace alone and they can never fall and are secure for all eternity!

Upon "THIS ROCK" I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!... Brother Glen

 

[Dr. Bob]

Think I've seen it all, now.

Staunch 5-point calvinist saying that man MUST do something. Amazing Grace + ???

Think we may all well agree, and it is just the words used or the "timing" of such faith, etc, that causes confusion.

God saves us. 100% HIS act. Through the Blood of Christ.
Sends His Spirit to regenerate us so we CAN believe and repent and call on the Lord.

But we ARE saved by God. The "believe" and "repent" are only subsequent acts of the already-regenerated heart. Without such work of the Spirit, we cannot believer or repent.

 

[tyndale1946]

Dr. Bob can you run that by me again?... Brother Glen

 

[LP]

The "believe" and "repent" are only subsequent acts of the already-regenerated heart.

To accept your quote, we would have to accept that all the elect's actions are determined and they have no free-will. Or else that the elect has a psuedo free-will of the type where he just thinks he has free-will; and that since he thinks this, the Bible writes as if he has free-will; but that through it all, God is really mandating all of the elect's important actions as if strapped upon an anvil. In other words, that determinsm is true and the elect have no free-will.

If your quote is true, why would the elect need to "work out [their] own salvation with fear and trembling"? Who is Paul specifically appealing to in that, God or the elect? If God does IT ALL, and it is all a totally done deal, why would Paul speak such a thing?

COL 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel.

If your quote is true, why would Paul speak "If ye continue in the faith," to the elect? Should it not say "since you will indeed continue in the faith"?

If your quote is true, would not all the "IF" passages directed at the elect in the Bible instead need to be say "since YOU WILL"? Does not the word "IF" spoken to the elect imply a question of outcome?

If your quote is true, would not all the "Choose you" type passages in the Bible instead need to say "it has been chosen for you"? If there is a choice to make, then isn't there a...a choice to make? If there is a choice to make, is there not a question of outcome?

GOD IS RESISTABLE. He allows Himself to be so at times.

ISA 1:19 If you are willing and obedient,
you will eat the best from the land;

ISA 1:20 but if you resist and rebel,
you will be devoured by the sword."
For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.

-------------------------------------------

AC 7:51 "You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! 53 you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it."

-------------------------------------------

RO 11:22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

[ March 10, 2002, 04:31 AM: Message edited by: LP ]

 

[PackerBacker]

Originally posted by LP:

GOD IS RESISTABLE. He allows Himself to be so at times.

I'd say Paul makes this point real clear in the first three chapters of Romans. Studying through Romans again, I just finished up chapter three. When no one seeks after God, understands, has no fear of God, etc I think it is clear that God not only is resistible but that it is sinful man's natural stance to resist God. A question might be: Who or what allows us to stop resisting God? How can that power come naturally from the depraved mankind Paul describes in Romans? Sure He is resistible but how does His mercy ever become attractive to us sinners?

While I will agree with the idea that MacArthur wrote about on "Faith-works" (Bottom-line, real saving faith will have fruit), I know that salvation is not a partnership between God and I. All glory to Him for a wonderful salvation that saves me from the penalty of sin (Rom. 6:23) and the slavery to sin (Rom. 6:22). He does the calling, justifying, conforming, and the glorifying (Rom 8:28-30). When He is making all these things possible for us resisting sinners, there will be these "Faith-Works," but there will be not be any works that I add of my own efforts that help in the salvation of the Lord (Eph 2:1-10).

Just my two cents.

[ March 10, 2002, 07:31 AM: Message edited by: PackerBacker ]

 

[LP]

The only thing I disagree with the above on, which is also a sticking point I have with MacCarthur in his book Faith-Works, is that the believer WILL do works, and that if he does not, then that means necessarily in every instance that such a one simply never has known Christ. That runs the whole thing amuck, and runs into all those problems I just went on about in response to Dr. Bob's post indicating a hyper-Calvinist position.

I beleive it is far more accurate to say that God WILL prompt us to do Faith-Works, but that we can resist him in those promptings, just like with most any other promptings. That is a key, key theme in Hebrews. The believers there were wanting to abandon things amidst their period of suffering, but the HS was speaking and speaking and speaking to them to go out the gate and suffer with Christ. They were resisting and resisting and resisitng Him who was speaking, and by the time the letter was written to them, had become dull of hearing. And that when they were going on long in that, they were neglecting so great a salvation. Such could have eternal ramifications, and it is not just about the size of our crown and rewards:

HEB 3:12 See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. 14 We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first.

Faith-works ARE NOT an option, and they ARE NOT something that we WILL DO as if constrained upon an anvil to do them. We can resist God in them. And though there is obviously good room for God's mercy, patience and discipline, if we persist in resisting God in doing the faith-works He lays out before us, we will simply not inherit eternal salvation. The very process of hearing and hearing and hearing Him speak and our resisting and resisiting and resisitng brings it on. Believers can refuse and resist God.

HB 12:25 See to it that you do not refuse Him who is speaking. For if those did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape who turn away from Him who warns from heaven.

[ March 10, 2002, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: LP ]

 

[Chris Temple]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey:
My friend,
This is not an issue of *total depravity*. Any theologian knows that man outside of Gods grace is depraved with no hope of salvation.

As a "staunch 5-point Calvinist", I can't believe you said that. The reason there is T is because the Arminian remonstrants denied total depravity. Even today, it is a staple of Arminian-Evangelical theology that man is not so depraved that he cannot turn to God on his own. Just this morning I heard a SS teacher say that first we repent, and then we are born again. That is self-birth and salvation by works, instead of the biblcal doctrine of being born from above so we can repent, believe and receive faith.

 

[Scott_Bushey]

Chris, et al,
I have to admit, I have never been so misunderstood in all my days. What must I do, present the Westminster or the Baptist confession of 1689 so I can get my position across? Let me state again for the record, *I am* a 5 point Calvinist. This is not to say I see Calvin or his institutes above the supremacy of Holy writ. I fully wave the flag of *total depravity*. I in no way believe men choose God or that one can lose his salvation once God begins it.

Chris,
If you will again re-read what I posted, you will see that you have misinterpreted my intent.
Here is the original post....
I wrote: (In regards to what Tyndale stated about total depravity and my premise that men must be proactive in their salvation)
My friend (To Tyndale),
This is not an issue of *total depravity*. Any theologian knows that man outside of Gods grace is depraved with no hope of salvation.

Bob Griffin states: "Staunch 5-point calvinist saying that man MUST do something. Amazing Grace + ???".
I reply:
Bob, let me repost what you replied to.
Here is my post you responded to, in it's full context.
I wrote:
My friend (Again to Tyndale),
This is not an issue of *total depravity*. Any theologian knows that man outside of Gods grace is depraved with no hope of salvation. It is a basic principle to understand that because of Gods grace, man can and will respond. But this in fact does not discount the fact that man must respond to the call, that he must repent and that he must believe. *He* (man)must do all these things. As I said earlier, God allows repentance and man repents, God allows for response to the Gospel call and man responds, God allows for belief and man believes. Yet the lines in scripture, in regards to Gods devine election and mans responsibility do meet. Spurgeon said it best, "They are two friends (election and mans responsibility) that do not need reconciling".

Bob, Chris, et al,
Is it not clear?
Do you see that I in no way have implied that man is not *totally depraved. Dead as a doornail*. However, I have implied that to every action there is reaction.

More on it's way..........
In HIM,
Sola Fide,
Scott Bushey

 

[Scott_Bushey]

Gentlemen,
Have I missed something here? All of the great reformers of the past acknowledge God sovereignty and supremency in the salvific process. But most all of them also agree that men play a part in the miracle. Men are called and yes they respond, they are regenerated and given the gift of repentance and subsequently, rightfully repent. God gives them faith through grace to believe, and they believe. No one has argued these miraculous rudements.
But to imply that subsequent to the regeneratory miracle men do not have to react or respond to it is absurd. For every cause, there is an affect. Action causes reaction. Scripture shows both concepts and harmonizes it.

Let me say this, God is sovereign. And as it is stated in Jonah, "salvation is of the Lord". I am, as you have called me, am a staunch Calvinist. Before I studied these ideas, I was much like you, singular to the fact. Packers book, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God unearthed much study time on this subject.
Spurgeon believed the same. I agree with them at this time. Men are called to believe! They are called to repent! Scripture demands that men call on the name of the Lord. To seek Him, while He may be found.
This excerpt from Spurgeons sermon on Romans state:
This doctrine (Mans responsibility in salvation) is as much God's Word as the other(Gods sovereignty in the elective process). You ask me to reconcile the two. I answer, they do not want any reconcilement; I never tried to reconcile them to myself, because I could never see a discrepancy. If you begin to put fifty or sixty quibbles to me, I cannot give any answer. Both are true; no two truths can be inconsistent with each other; and what you have to do is to believe them both. With the first one, the saint has most to do. Let him praise the free and sovereign grace of God, and bless his name. With the second, the sinner has the most to do. O sinner, humble thyself under the mighty hand of God, when thou thinkest of how often he hath shown his love to thee, by bidding thee come to himself, and yet how often thou hast spurned his Word and refused his mercy, and turned a deaf ear to every invitation, and hast gone thy way to rebel against a God of love, and violate the commands of him that loved thee.

I exhort you all. If you have not read Calvins Commentaries, you should. The issue we address is embraced by the father of the reformed.

Here is a link to the sermon on Romans by C. Spurgeon. http://www.txdirect.net/~tgarner/spur207.htm

In Him,
Solo Christo,
Scott Bushey

 

[Chris Temple]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey:
[QB]Chris, et al,
I have to admit, I have never been so misunderstood in all my days.

Scott:
If WE are ALL misunderstanding you, perhaps you are not being clear?

Chris,
If you will again re-read what I posted, you will see that you have misinterpreted my intent.
Here is the original post....
I wrote: (In regards to what Tyndale stated about total depravity and my premise that men must be proactive in their salvation)

I still don't see how I've misrepresented what you have said. You said:

My friend,
This is not an issue of *total depravity*. Any theologian knows that man outside of Gods grace is depraved with no hope of salvation. It is a basic principle to understand that because of Gods grace, man can and will respond. But this in fact does not discount the fact that man must respond to the call, that he must repent and that he must believe. *He* (man)must do all these things. As I said earlier, God allows repentance and man repents, God allows for response to the Gospel call and man responds, God allows for belief and man believes. Yet the lines in scripture, in regards to Gods devine election and mans responsibility do meet. Spurgeon said it best, "They are two friends (election and mans responsibility) that do not need reconciling".

**"This is not an issue of *total depravity*. Any theologian knows that man outside of Gods grace is depraved with no hope of salvation.**

And I said this is simply not true. ALL Arminian theologians do not believe that man outside of God's grace is depraved with no hope of salvation; they all believe that if they act in faith God will respond in giving them salvation. Your "Any theologian" qualifier does not stick.

God allows repentance and man repents, God allows for response to the Gospel call and man responds, God allows for belief and man believes.

This is not Calvinism. God does not "allow" repentance, but grants it. God does not "allow" for a response to the gospel but works it; God does not "allow" for belief, but instills it.

Yet the lines in scripture, in regards to Gods devine election and mans responsibility do meet. Spurgeon said it best, "They are two friends (election and mans responsibility) that do not need reconciling".

This is true. But so far your Calvinistic statements seem more like the Calminian statements of Norman Geisler in Chosen But Free, rather than classical Calvinism.

Perhaps I am still misuderstanding.

 

[blackbird]

I wouldn't trust the best fifteen minutes of my life in order to be saved--nor would I trust the best fifteen minutes in order to keep me saved. My faith and trust is in the Lord Jesus Christ alone--I have repented of my sins and have received HIM as Savior and Lord. Notice I said that I've receive HIM and not just a knowledge of him. I didn't receive the truth about Jesus to get me saved--I received Jesus as the only truth of salvation.

 

[LP]

You are involved with on-line threads with Greg Bahnsen? He's been dead for quite a few years.

 

[Scott_Bushey]

LP,
You are correct.......1995 to be exact.
Scott

 

[Dr. Bob]

I'm behind you, Scott.

W-A-Y behind, so I won't get fragged by the incoming!

But you hit a nail that deserves to be pounded in and leave a dent! The centrality of Arminian theology is faulty because it is not based on a sovereign God as WE define sovereignty.

In this new age we have new definitions proliferating about such issues. Geisler is deplorable (I won't use his books any longer in ANY class I teach) and others are speaking of a God who is NOT in control, does NOT have a choice.

Sounds like me when the wife asks if I want to go to the Penney's in the Mall. Not really any choice.

 

[tyndale1946]

I agree with Dr. Bob and this thread has drifted off into theological never...never land!... Brother Glen

 

[Scott_Bushey]

I agree gentlemen............shall we move on? I find the point *moot*.

In HIM,
Scott Bushey

 

[PackerBacker]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey:
I agree gentlemen............shall we move on? I find the point *moot*.

In HIM,
Scott Bushey

Scott,

Even though it seems you were misunderstood, I for one benifited from reading your replies. Glad to have you on the board.