• About
  • BULLETIN ARTICLES

etsop95

~ Perspectives on Bible, philosophy, and politics (sometimes)

etsop95

Tag Archives: salvation

Blind Leading the Blind

27 Tuesday Aug 2019

Posted by Ron Thomas in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

blind, faith only, salvation, sinners prayer

If the blind lead the blind, then both the blind and those led by the blind will fall into the ditch.

Who are the blind? When Jesus spoke His words (Matthew 15:14), He was speaking of the religious leaders and their precepts or commands of men. The word tradition, a word Jesus used in this context, is a word that means “passing down.” The word can be understood in a favorable context as well as unfavorable. When Jesus used the word, it was most certainly unfavorable. Why so unfavorable? Because the passing down of teachings from men had the effect of neutralizing God’s word, His will for the nation of Israel. This resulted in religious leaders and teachers setting to the side the Lord’s express will and living by the guidance of man. Jesus called these leaders blind, and to make it even worse, those who follow their teachings are themselves blind.

We live in a context today that is similar. We have blind religious leaders leading blind religious people (or semi religious) and both will fall into the ditch. Here are some examples. First, there is the common teaching that many churches subscribe to what is called the sinners prayer. Here is what they mean: a contrite person is to pray a particular prayer asking Jesus into that person’s heart. This is not Bible teaching; the closest one can get to wanting the Bible to teach this is Luke 18:9-14. Read it, ask yourself if this is a prayer by a sinner asking Jesus into his heart. Now compare that with what Peter said to those in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, “Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).

The difference can’t be more obvious. If that is the case, then why do so many people follow this way of thinking? Just like they were in Jesus’ day, they are today. The blind lead the blind. If the blind don’t know (or refuse to believe) what the Bible teaches, how are they going to accurately teach? They can’t.

Lesson: search the Scriptures to see if that which is taught is so (Acts 17:11). If the thinking of your way can’t hold the day throw it away.

BAPTISM AND FORGIVENESS OF SINS

10 Friday May 2019

Posted by Ron Thomas in Sound Doctrine

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

baptism, forgiveness, salvation

In the context of our congregation, the biblical teaching of baptism for the remission of sins is not a teaching that troubles any of us (at least, with regard to what I am aware). The other day I was talking to a Baptist preacher, a man with whom I am very impressed; he was saying to me that he has trouble over the idea of someone making a decision for the Lord, then instantly dying without being baptized, how that person would not be pleasing to the Lord. I understand the nature of the problem as he posed it and I understand how some will use a similar scenario to speak against the Lord command of baptism in water as essential. Though I understand, those who think along this line are mistaken. How do I know? The scriptures teach that baptism is directly connected to the forgiveness of sins (Acts 22:16). Since this is so, consider: any command of God directly connected to the forgiveness of sins is a command essential for a person to obey in order to be saved; baptism is a command of God connected to the forgiveness of sins; therefore, baptism is a command of God for a person to obey in order to be saved (1 Peter 3:21). RT

 

God’s Choice/Election

07 Saturday Oct 2017

Posted by Ron Thomas in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

arbitrary, Calvinism, choice, election, R. C. Sproul, Romans 9, salvation, sovereignty

R. C. Sproul wrote: “Let’s assume that all men are guilty of sin in the sight of God. From the mass of humanity, God sovereignly decides to give mercy to some of them. What do the rest get? They get justice. The saved get mercy and the unsaved get justice. Nobody gets injustice” – Chosen by God

Justice is rendered by God in ALL respects, but as Sproul asserts it, this can be misunderstood. In the context of God’s choice/election, some make, perhaps unintentionally, God arbitrary in His decisions. They (otherwise known as Calvinists in theological perspectives) try to get around this by speaking of God’s sovereignty, that is, it is God’s sovereign will, His sovereign choice to save some and not others. What is in view with this perspective is this: God chooses who will be saved (apart from that person’s individual will) and who will be lost (in spite of a person’s desire to be saved). To a rational person, this makes God arbitrary, even a monster!

Some reply like this: God chose to save Noah and those in the ark, but decided to let the others drown (callously, without regard to their own desire to willingly submit to the preacher of righteousness and obey).

The word sovereign is defined: Supreme in power; possessing supreme dominion; as a sovereign ruler of the universe (Websters). It is true that God’s sovereignty gives mercy to some; this is in accordance with Hebrews 5:8-9 (“Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him”). It is in His power to do this; thus, His sovereignty is exercised. Justice is render to all (2 Corinthians 5:10: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad”), and in this justice, mercy is extended to those who choose to obey. There is nothing in the word “sovereign” that intimates the supreme power (sovereignty) of God taking away volition from His creation, those created in His own image.

Before us, therefore, I offer the following:

  1. Man has free will and can choose whether or not to obey the Lord’s express will. This is taught in Joshua 24:15, Matthew 11:28-30 and Acts 26:19 (just to name a few).
  2. It is God’s desire to save all. This is taught in 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9.
  3. Thus, God has given all the choice whether to be saved or not. This is taught in Acts 2:40

Remarks in relation to Romans 9. The word “Israel” is the physical nation and the church (9:1-6). The children of Abraham are: 1) through promise (Isaac), 2) physical descent (Ishmael) (9:6-10). Thus far, the only reason for individual identification is to contrast physical descent with spiritual descent. The context of God’s election (choice) is this: a contrast between physical and spiritual descent. It was through Isaac and it was through Jacob that God chose to bring His Son into this world; it was not through Ishmael and neither was it through Esau. God’s choice of election was through whom He chose to fulfill His promise to Abraham – not a word about salvation (9:10-11). In Romans 9:12-18, Paul illustrates, via Scripture, God’s choice in this process. 1) God spoke about what would happen (from the perspective of Rebekah) in Genesis 25. The older (Esau) would serve the younger (Jacob). In that which Scripture speaks concerning them, i.e., their individual lives, this did not happen. Three options: First, it never happened, and God was wrong. Second, it happened, but is not recorded. Third, application of the prophetic words did not apply to individuals, but to the two nations. For those who accept the Inspiration of Scripture, the first is ruled out. To accept the second option, a viable one, one needs evidence (for which there is none). That leaves the third option, and the context of Romans 9-11 bears this out.

God chose Jacob, and it was near 1,500 years later the words of Malachi records God’s choice in terms of love/hate. Certainly, Coffman had it right when he wrote, in his remarks on Malachi, “This choice between Jacob and Esau had nothing at all to do with individuals, but concerned whole nations of people. ‘The selection of Jacob was the selection of a people rather than an individual.’ … the eternal destiny of Jacob or Esau is not connected in any way with what is written here. This passage in Malachi was written centuries after Isaac’s twins were born; and it was the posterity of those brothers concerning which the prophet wrote” (Barnes, Calvin, Butler, Ellicott, Lange, Pulpit, all affirm similar).

CONTEXT: Paul speaks concerning a contrast between two peoples: spiritual Israel and physical Israel, with the former in good standing with God, the latter not. It was God’s choice to show mercy to those of spiritual Israel rather than physical Israel, and it was God’s choice to show mercy to one nation as compared to another nation. God showing mercy to one, not the other is based on God’s choice (9:15). In this context that Paul makes clear salvation is not in view, but God’s sovereign will in relation to nations is (cf. Dan. 4:17), thus Egypt was brought into the discussion in relation to the physical nation of Israel. Paul’s point in this is not exclusively “God’s prerogative to choose” (though this certainly applies), but to show that God chose to offer salvation to the Gentiles (non-Jews) as He did to the Jewish people (Romans 1:16-17; 9:25-26). Moreover, those who identify themselves with physical Israel, it’s only the remnant of those identified with physical Israel that will be saved (9:27-29).

Why will only a remnant be saved? Because, as Paul states, those of physical descent chose (elected) their own way of salvation, and not the Lord’s (9:30-10:3).

 

DISCUSSION ON FREE WILL IN RELATION TO SALVATION

29 Thursday Dec 2016

Posted by Ron Thomas in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Calvinism, dead in sin, free-will, salvation

This discussion took place between myself and Brent Baxter on a FB Christian Discussion page. Brent, after the discussion, expressed to another that I attacked him. As you read the discussion, you must decide whether I did or not. I can tell you that I made it a point not to do so. I was hard on his handling of Scripture, but I did not attack him. He also mentioned he is pleased to converse with me because he likes the fact that I will engage in conversation to a great depth. Though Brent denies he is a Calvinist, he argued in this discourse as one. In the course of the dialogue, one will see bracketed notes. These are transcribed from the hard copy I printed, with some additional elaborations. Typos and pitiful expressions are from the discourse, a “cut and paste” into this word document.

The original post from Brent Becky Baxter (BBB)

Humbling thought

It is true that God’s word, the Bible was written for His chosen in that it is spiritually appraised by those He has enabled to hear. This enabling comes by no intrinsic value of the hearer but solely by God’s sovereign grace alone. Jesus said. Through John that His sheep hear his voice and another they simply will not follow.
It’s a work He initiates in the believer and swears by His own character to bring it to completeness.
No one knows who is going to hear. Our responsibility as faithful stewards to whom He has entrusted it, is to proclaim the gospel. Reasoning in the scripture as necessary.
This really is a good discussion group for just such fellowship

RT: I will engage. Since God enables some, but not others, then God is responsible for those who are not enabled. If I understand you correctly, this is what you are saying. I am interested in your scriptural support.

BBB: You finally got it.. never quite understood What is so hard to understand about ” He loved us even when we were dead in our trespasses and sin, He made us alive”
Further, Eph 2:3 by nature, children of wrath, leaves no capacity to consent to ones own new birth. The natural man cannot appraise his spiritual condition of needing salvation. 1 Cor 2:14

RT: Thus God is responsible for the natural man’s damnation since the natural man has no capacity to consent. The natural man is not responsible.

BBB: Genesis 2 and 3 gives a crystal clear account of who is responsible for death and damnation and it wasn’t God.
When God set before the nation of Israel life or death, their response was. ” all that the Lord has said, we will do and will obey”. Ex 23:7. Now I don’t know about anyone else but it’s pretty clear that until God puts a new heart in them they can say and do whatever, but it’s only the remnant that God reserves unto himself that are redeemed. Now the whole OT ends in showing how well their self will according to the flesh worked out for them. The arrogance of self effort for them is clearly stated in Malachi. “How have we despised you ?” They said

RT: You go to the OT to develop at NT teaching? Your remark on Ephesians is wrong. I want you to develop this from what Paul taught to Ephesus. In Gen. 2 & 3, was Adam a natural man, that is, a fleshly man? If he was, did he have freedom of will? In Deut 30, was the nation of Israel natural, that is, fleshly? Did they have freedom of will to accept or reject?

BBB: Paul in Romans 5 makes the case for the development of a N T teaching beginning in the O T. The second Adam. Follow closely Romans 5, Romans 8, 1 Cor 15:45.
Adam, had freedom of will concerning the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He ate and died that very day. Than what free will did he have thereafter ? All the choices of a dead man.
How did Israels freedom of will turn out for them ? What was the sum total of their spiritual dead state ? They couldn’t even identify their Messiah . Romams 9. 10, and 11 is not describing a frustrated God who is waiting for Israel to exercise their free will or free choice but God who is in control of who and when He will give life to the spiritually dead. This is consistent with Ezekiel and Gods intentions.
Now as far as Ephesians the spiritual death is clear. That which, while it was dead, God made alive. Paul teaches the same truth in Ephesians that he teaches throughout Romans and he is consistent with the Genesis nerative of death, the need of a new heart in Ezek 11:19. The spiritual birth of John 3

[To this point, note the following remarks he made from the dialogue: (1) “This enabling comes by no intrinsic value of the hearer but solely by God’s sovereign grace alone.” (2) “It’s a work He initiates” (3) “Eph 2:3 by nature, children of wrath, leaves no capacity to consent to ones own new birth” (4) “it’s pretty clear that until God puts a new heart in them…” (5) “but God who is in control of who and when He will give life to the spiritually dead.” To this point this boils down to this: man has no free will in relation to salvation. In other words, there is nothing he can do to initiate or do to be saved, God must do the initiating, that is, enabling him to respond.]

RT: Your remark on Romans 5 needs to be more specific. There is nothing within C-5 that speaks against freewill. With regard to your remarks on Adam, making a choice does not speak against his freewill, only a prohibition set in place concerning a particular tree. There wss [was] nothing Adam could do to generate a plan to get back to God. This speaks nothing against freewill, however. On Romans 9-11, that is answered in 9:30 – 10:3. Israel tried to establish their own plan, complementary to my point on Adam. In Ephesians, spiritual death is clear, but where does Paul speak against freewill? Moreover, your remarks along this line are contrary to Acts 10:34-35. John 3 speaks nothing about freewill (for or against), only that one must be born again from above.

BBB: The contrast between the first man Adam and the second Adam and what comes by each is not unclear or nonspecific. That would be the passages in Romans and Corinthians for those Armenians in Broward co.
As for the passage in Ephesians, here is a list of the fruit of free will from a spiritually dead person not yet made alive:
1- walked according to the course of this world
2- walked according to the prince of the power of the air
That would be Adam and Eves free will.
For Armenians that would be their free will before death, to walk according to the deceiver not according to Gods command
3- walking according to the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience
4- living in the lust of the flesh
5- indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind
6- by nature children of wrath
Now Paul justifies his theology of dead in sin in Romans 3:11 when he quotes the Psalmist that there are none who seek God. Now only a Plegian and Arminian inserts a free will to choose God in this theology
It all goes back to the difference in how one interprets the passage in Genesis 2:17, ” in the day you eat from it you will surely die “.
And therein Ron, you and I evidentially will never interpret the same

[An analysis of the foregoing: Paul’s point in the Ephesian section alluded to by Brent is in the fact those dead in sin chose to walk as Paul described, they chose willfully to live in accordance with the ways of the world. those who chose to walk in a certain way, is it possible those same ones can choose to walk in a different way? In regards to the Romans 3:11 remark, if none seek God, and God controls the who and when of a person’s salvation, then life given to the spiritually dead is a directly a consequence of God’s action. Or, to state it differently, if God chooses not to give person X an enablement to be saved, then person X is not culpable, not accountable for why he is lost.]

RT: Of course, I said nothing in relation to a confusion of contrasts in Romans 5:12-21. It’s obvious the Holy Spirit is making a contrast, but not against free will. Paul speaks about that which passed (death/life) from one to all (be it Adam or Christ), not a contrast of enabling/non-enabling or free will/non-freewill.
There is nothing in Ephesians 2 that speaks against free will, and neither does Paul intimate such a thing. Paul begins his thought in C-2 by saying God made those in Ephesus alive, but did He say how? He made us alive together having raised us up in Christ when those saved were saved by faith, something Paul said they heard (they heard the gospel taught), then obeyed that which they heard, as stated in 1:13 (cf. Acts 16:31-33). There is nothing in chapters 1 and/or 2 that speaks against free will, but there is something in chapter 1 that speaks of hearing, trusting (believing), then being sealed.
Paul’s point in the litany of Scripture (Romans 3:11ff) is NOT against free will, but only that man does not seek the Lord. I will leave off saying anything more on this point until you have something further to say.
Yes, it may be the case that you and I will not interpret the same way, but there is no chance that you are correct in your reasoning against free will. 1) You have implicitly prescribed to God culpability in one’s damnation, making man excusable, something expressly denied by Scripture (Romans 1:2). 2) God commands all people everywhere to repent, but if a person can’t repent because God has not enabled that one to do so, then point #1 is additionally established. 3) You make God partial in salvation with your teaching of enabling / non-enabling, something the Scripture expressly denies (Acts 10:34-35).

BBB: What does mans free will produce ? What is it that free will that initiates the new birth when Christ makes it clear that those He saves are according to Gods eternal purposes..
Free will connotates a will independent from any other will. Man’s free will is not Gods will or it would not be free.
As to the being made alive, its called the new birth. John 1:12. Makes no allowance for the free will of man because the receiving is qualified as that exercise of God. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

RT: Man’s free will produces that which he desires to seek. In and of himself, there is no chance that man can generate his own road to salvation. That is Paul’s point with regard to the Romans in chapters 2 through 11. The eternal purposes of God do not, and never have, mitigated man’s free will. Man’s free will can’t initiate salvation’s path, but it can respond to the Lord’s invitation as it pertains to salvation. Paul had free will to produce the fruits of his service against God’s way of righteousness, but it was his free will that generated his response to the Lord when called (Acts 26:19). Man’s free will is not God’s will; in this you are correct (Proverbs 14:12; Jeremiah 10:23), but man’s free will can align itself with God’s will (Luke 6:46). Your following remark, however, does not follow. Man’s free will may or may not be in line with God’s will. It’s all about obedience (John 3:36; Hebrews 5:8-9). Yes, being made alive in in relation to the new birth, but Paul explained how that occurred in chapter 1.
Your remark on John 1:12 is perplexing. Those who received the Lord, as the verse states, did so because they were enabled by God to do so? It says no such thing! Those who received the Lord had the right, the power, the opportunity to become children of God. Those who respond to the Lord’s invitation (Matthew 11:28-30) have free will to do so; otherwise, the Lord’s invitation is a plain mockery to those who can’t (not won’t, for “won’t” implies free will). Those who reply and obey are born of God.

BBB: Zombie theology puts the free will of the spiritually dead working alongside Gods will and gives credit to the flesh for the internal workings of the Holy Spirit in the drawing process where Christ states plainly ” no man can come to the Son except the Father draw him.” Purely the Holy Spirit’s work on the rebellious free will of the flesh. As to the mockery of God toward those He has not chosen, What man or chunk of clay can accuse God of unrighteousness in His sovereign choices ? To base an entire theology of free will on that false assumption is not is not a sound Biblical theology of sin.

RT: This is all that you can do in the way of argumentation, to be disparageing? Be that as it may, you have not refuted one single point of anything I have offered. You have dismissed it, but not refuted it. You misuse John 6:44, for you did not cite the next verse that speak of how the drawing occurs. That which you call false theology has certainly stood the test of this discussion, for if you could refute it biblically, you would have. As it is, you have not and cannot. If you want to debate the workings of the Holy Spirit, then we can, or if you want to debate what Paul meant in Romans 9, we can. Hopefully, others will find this discussion beneficial to their own studies.

Robert Kramer: Nothing new here from the reformed theology side. It’s hard to believe they actually believe they’re representing accurately the arguments they oppose. I love my brothers who are “reformed” leaning, but the constant misrepresentation of those with whom they differ continues to leave me perplexed. Seems a lot like what we see in DC today on politics. I certainly hope it’s not an intentional misrepresentation.

BBB: The only intentional misrepresentation set forth as Biblical doctrine in this thread is that man has free will to accept or reject God’s offer of salvation. And the best that has been done in argumentation is to insert the concept of free will in every passage mentioned where it is not. Every person is responsible to accept Gods offer of salvation but until God changes that persons will, he continues in his rejection.
Where in scripture do we find. “The Lord’s invitation is a plain mockery to those who can’t “. Now there is some real sound doctrine to build an argument for free will upon. The fact is God is no respecter of persons. To inject free will or even the remote concept into the Ephesian’s 2 passage or the Roman passages mentioned is pure error.
It’s not hard to separate a works religion from a salvation by grace faith. The only acceptable obedience in relation to salvation is that which is led by the Holy Spirit when a believer is filled by the Holy Spirit. The filling and leading is not a result of an active self will, but a self will that is not in control.
The follower of Christ is to die to self daily, pick up his cross and follow. And the proponents of free will say that by exercising the very thing they are to lay aside is the very thing they are to exercise. To take up ones cross and follow is done by denying himself. Now inject self will into that one and it becomes a works religion.
To acknowledge Gods sovereignty into this passage and the predestination of God for the believer makes it a work of grace on the part of God. (Matt. 16:24- )
What the Armenian and Pelagian heresies do is interpret scripture through the ideology that God’s sovereign will is always subject to the free will of lost man. That there is enough good in every human being to exercise free will to choose or reject God’s offer of salvation and that is the definition of a works religion.
Paul states clearly, in the Ephesians 2 passage with no suggestion of free will in any remote sense that we are saved by grace and that not of our selves. The works religionist adds according to man’s free will to receive or reject.
In the John 1 passage those who are given the right to become children of God, were born not of the will of blood nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man but of God. The works religionist adds except for the exercise of the free will of man
Now there is the boast before God. That one has exercise of free will because there is enough good in his lost dead soul to accept or reject Gods grace.

[Bringing the earlier italicized remarks forward from the dialogue, note the following: (1) “This enabling comes by no intrinsic value of the hearer but solely by God’s sovereign grace alone.” (2) “It’s a work He initiates” (3) “Eph 2:3 by nature, children of wrath, leaves no capacity to consent to ones own new birth” (4) “it’s pretty clear that until God puts a new heart in them…” (5) “but God who is in control of who and when He will give life to the spiritually dead.” (6) “John 1:12. Makes no allowance for the free will of man.” (7) “the internal workings of the Holy Spirit in the drawing process…” (8) “Every person is responsible to accept Gods offer of salvation but until God changes that persons will, he continues in his rejection.” It has been argued that man has no free will in relation to salvation. If man has no free will in his salvation, and if he is saved it is only because God enabled him to be saved with some inner working of the Holy Spirit, then if there is no inner working of the Holy Spirit for a man to be saved, then it is not possible for man to be responsible for his “lostness” or damnation.]

RT: Intentional misrepresentations? You are good at assertions, but wanting in evidence. If I am guilty of intentional misrepresentations, then demonstrate wherein I have done so as you have accused; to this point you have not.
You insert “no free-will,” but I have shown via the context you have misused the passage, both in Ephesians 2 and John 6. What have you done in reply, only dismiss it. Moreover, I have conclusively demonstrated you have made God partial in His handling of man in conjunction with salvation. What have you said in reply. Nothing.
You assert every man is responsible to God, but you fail to make the case for this to be so when you assert that God enables one to be saved, but not the other. There is no chance you can reconcile the idea of man being responsible to God for his “lostness,” but at the same time affirm unless God nudges him he can’t be saved! “Every person is responsible to accept Gods offer of salvation but until God changes that persons will, he continues in his rejection.” Thus, you declare, man is responsible; but if man gets no nudge from God – how can he be responsible? YOU have made God responsible for man’s “lostness.”
I have not affirmed the Lord’s invitation is a mockery to those who can’t respond to God’s invitation; instead, I have shown where YOU make it a mockery. YOU make a mockery of God’s invitation extended to all people, but unless God gives some nudge or enablement, one can ‘t be saved. You say [God speaking], “You all need to be saved, but unless I give you a nudge to be saved, you can’t.” Yes, a mockery in full-force.
You have misused Ephesians 2 to make your case, but the context does not allow you to sustain your point.
You assert that I affirm “pure error.” Very well, demonstrate that I have, rather than just assert it.
Man is responsible for his damnation, but how can man be responsible to God for his own condemnation if God does not (or did not) give him an opportunity to reply in the affirmative with an enabling nudge from God? He can’t. There is no chance you can reconcile this. None!
You speak about “works religion,” in relationship to “saved by grace,” but with your reasoning here, I wonder if you even know what Paul means when he speaks of the word “works” in Romans (for instance).
You say “the only acceptable obedience in relation to salvation is that which is led by the Holy Spirit when a believer is filled by the Holy Spirit.” Where does the Scripture teach this?
You say “The filling and leading is not a result of an active self will, but a self will that is not in control.” Where does the Scripture teach this?
You don’t know what it means to die daily or to pick up one’s cross and follow. To do such a thing as this, does one do this of his own free-will, or is this action generated from an outside source, not of his own free-will at all? Identify what the Holy Spirit means when He speaks of a “works religion,” and as you do so, be sure to develop this from the context in which the term is used, that is, assuming you can find this term in Scripture.
I await your answer to these.
The so-called definition of “works religion” is your own, not anything from Scripture supports this definition from man. Am I wrong? I await your reasoning from Scripture to show that I am wrong.
You remark that “Paul states clearly…” in Ephesians 2 that man is saved by grace and that “not of ourselves.” Fine! Your point is? The Scripture also teaches us that God’s grace teaches man to deny ungodliness and to live soberly, righteously in this world (Titus 2:11-12). Does God’s grace teach the non-free-will person?
It appears you have arrived at a point where you are frustrated in this discussion with your insertion and accusation of those who think contrary to you, calling them “works religionists.”
In John 1:12, you have failed to understand the Holy Spirit’s point. When one submits to the authority of God, believing Jesus Christ is the Son of God, then that one who submitted has the right, the power, the privilege of becoming a child of God. Vincent Word Studies states, “Here, therefore, ἐξουσία [authority, power] is not merely possibility or ability, but legitimate right derived from a competent source – the Word.”

BBB: Free will or Gods will is the great theme of scripture from Genesis to Revelation. Failing to understand scripture accurately is not unique to any one person in this thread.
God reveals the truth about Himself in Biblical Scripture. The reader can accept it or reject it. That’s the sum total of free will according to Genesis 2-3. No one can change it. There is no higher standard of right and righteousness than God Himself. Many cannot accept that God is not subject their model of what is right and what is sin.
Romans 9:11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” 14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate MY power in you, and that MY name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. 19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it
That is a reality about God that the “fig leaf” of self will has no capacity to accept.
For certain, the history of Israel bears this out. This is the name that The LORD proclaims of Himself. No one can change, redefine, or reinterpret this self proclaimed excellency of His being. All would do well to believe all that He discloses.

RT: Not sure if this is something to which I should reply. I have much to say about this passage, but I wonder if there is fatigue in our conversation. To this point I have enjoyed the dialogue. I hope I have not failed you as a disputant. If you think it is warranted, I will continue. On the other hand, if you want to let it rest, then I will do so.

BBB: The text is self explanatory even a new born babe in Christ can understand it. Fatigue or not one cannot explain it away. There are many things in scripture that are hard to hear and as you and I prove once again there is much to consider. Best wishes my C D friend…

Robert Kramer: Once again, when one doesn’t agree with a Calvinist, they “don’t understand self explanatory texts even a new born Christian should understand” with the accusation of not hearing God’s Word. They believe in “heretical” theology. Brent, so if one does not believe in reformed theology/Calvinism, would you represent them as heretics ?

(This is the last bit of the discussion between Brent and me that is germane to this post.)

Ex-Church of Christ

20 Saturday Aug 2016

Posted by Ron Thomas in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

assurance, context, ex-church of Christ, salvation

Disgruntled employees always have bad things to say about an employer; the same goes for those who are not biblically informed. The following is a website that speaks as disgruntled members of the Lord’s church. It is my intention to incorporate the remarks (in full) and reply to them. Let me encourage you to do your own study on these matters.

http://ex-churchofchrist.com/unbiblicalCoC.htm

It is asserted that about 20% of the churches (church of Christ) teaching the following.

  1. You cannever be sureyou are saved.

This is never stated out loud from the pulpit. However Bible stories of people being struck dead are told so many times from the pulpit that the message comes across loud and clear. Every time a passage about the security of salvation is read in a Bible class, the teacher is quick to counter it with verses like: “Make every effort to work out your salvation with fear and trembling.” The statement is made repeatedly that Baptists are so sure they are saved that they use grace as a license to sin.

Consider also the frequent words of warning that Paul gives regarding over confidence toward salvation. 1 Corinthians 10:12 states “Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” 2 Corinthians 13:5 says “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves.” —Kevin Cauley, Berryville church of Christ, Arkansas

One of us taught at a rural Church of Christ for 18 months. Each sermon Sunday morning and Sunday evening was on the security of our salvation. After 18 months a 70 year old woman was asked, “Do you believe you’re definitely going to heaven?” “No,” she replied, “but I feel a lot more secure than when you first arrived.” A few months later her husband died of cancer. She was worried that he wouldn’t go to heaven because he died smoking cigarettes. He had tried many times to quit, but never did. *

I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.” –I John 5:13

19We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain” –Hebrews 6

One preacher explained “Not Under Law, But Under Grace” (Romans 6:14) in this way:

“‘`For you are not under law” is an ellipsis (“Gram. Omission of one or more words, obviously understood, but necessary to make the expression grammatically complete,” Webster. …”For you are not under law only, but also under grace”).

This preacher cannot imagine a forgiveness from God that puts us under grace and not under law.

Another example comes from a preacher who wrote an article entitled: Will Those Under Grace Have To Give an Account? His answer is “yes.”

******************

RT – Can you know you are saved? It seems like a silly question when the Scripture actually speaks to the issue. In 1 John 5:13, the answer is clear. “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life” (ESV). The above remarks are NOT my experience with any congregation my family regularly attended. That is not to say some within the church did not feel secure, but I have NEVER heard a preacher or elder say anything to the contrary of 1 John 5:13. Why would they? If one has doubt, the problem is not Scripture or the Lord, but only the person who identifies himself as a saint working through his (her) personal struggles. To somehow suggest that incorporating 1 Corinthians 10:12 or 2 Corinthians 13:5 into a conversation or sermon whereby one is encouraged to think about the insecurity of their personal salvation is to miss the point of the Scripture, context and personal application. 

What was Paul’s point in the two passages referenced by the web article?

In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul’s point was to warn the saints that if they were not mindful of the experience the Israelites had in their wilderness wanderings, then they would fail to hear and heed the Lord’s warnings. This is made abundantly clear via the context of the first 11 verses. Thus, no matter the struggle one has in life, when one trust in the Lord, then the Lord will bring that person through the trials because He has made a way for them. Does this sound like “doubting one’s salvation”? No. It only sounds like an exhortation to saints to trust in the Lord, not in self.

In 2 Corinthians 13, Paul’s larger point (chapters 10 through 13) was in relation to their being false teachers and the all-too-willingness of the Corinthians saints receiving them. Some were questioning Paul’s authority and credentials; so, when Paul comes again, he was going to present himself with that which some desired. In the course of these remarks, he called upon them to take spiritual inventory of their walk with Christ. Does this sound like Paul is calling into doubt one’s salvation? Only if the one who was given a warning fail to heed that warning, a warning that comes from God.

On the other hand, if one trusts in the Lord, then the inventory taken will make clear where he (or she) stands (cf. 1 Corinthians 16:13).

Are the saints under “law” or under “grace”? Let the New Testament speak for itself.

“But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing” (James 1:25)

“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death” (Romans 8:1-2)

“For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age” (Titus 2:11-12)

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Back to the question, are the saints under “law” or under “grace”? Only allowing the Scripture to speaks for itself, what would you say? (Be sure to read the context wherein those passages are located.)

Will those under “grace” have to give an account? Again, let the New Testament speak for itself.

“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil” (2 Corinthians 5:10)

It is clear that while some may teach that one can’t be sure of their salvation, those who teach it or believe it are biblically mistaken. Similar to those who post this without contextual evidence of the assertions and accusations.

A Discussion Concerning My Post on 1 Peter 3:21

04 Monday Apr 2016

Posted by Ron Thomas in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

baptism, Baptist Church, faith only, salvation, works

This discussion is the result of a post I made on 1 Peter 3:21. The dates of our discussion correspond to the last of March and the early part of April 2016, on “Christian Discussions” on Facebook. You will note that the correspondence is direct in its tone; in my estimation, this is how it should be. I did not interpret anything that he said to me as uncharitable, disparaging, or unkind. I tried to respond in kind.  I hope you find this discussion helpful in your own studies.

*****

JG – If the Bible is the Word of God it cannot contradict itself. Therefore, salvation was always through Jesus’ substitutionary death, whether believers fully understood that or not in the Old Testament. God allowed them to have faith in the sacrifices, which were a figure of Christ, but they had to trust in a free salvation through the shed blood of a substitute. Salvation was always the same-free without works of any type.

If baptism is now required in the “new covenant” then there would be two ways of salvation, Old Testament and New Testament, which some do hold to. But a holy God cannot save anyone based on anything less than a perfect sacrifice, which is Christ. The thief on the cross, per the New Testament, died after Christ died, for they broke his legs so he would die before the sabbath. So the death of a testator inaugurates the testament/covenant (Hebrews).

The thief died under the New Covenant, which we are under. If Christ did not require baptism for him, then God can save without baptism. But God cannot save without Christ’s death for sins. Baptism signifies and testifies to our salvation. Yes the phrase in Peter is “baptism doth now save us”. But again, interpretation always depends on context. The Bible commentaries are trying to understand the phrase in the total context of the New Testament. Let’s look at John. The purpose of the Gospel of John was to help readers be saved. Now remember when the Bible was written it was not yet compiled into one book. So some Christians would only have the Gospel of John. In that book is what we need to be saved. No where does baptism appear as a part of salvation (John 3 “water” is not baptism. Nicodemus, a Jew, would not have taken Christ’s words to refer to this Christian rite. In context, then, how would Nicodemus take it? Either as physical birth: we must be born physically AND spiritually, born of the flesh and spirit, or he may have taken it to refer to the Word of God). In Bible days, if you meant business, you would be baptized. It was a given. It was always closely associated with salvation, though not the basis for it. Hence one might say, “I was saved and baptized last Tuesday” or “I was baptized and became saved last Tuesday” but not meaning the baptism saved. Only they would not mentally even consider a salvation that did not immediately involve baptism. Ephesians 2:8-9 notice we are saved “BY” grace, “THROUGH” faith. Faith does not give God the authority or ability to save us. It is only the means to receive the gift. The death of Christ (source of grace) gives God the authority and ability to save. The BASIS of our salvation is Christ’s work, not our faith, not our believing, not our works of any kind. God cannot save sinners if Christ did not die. God would sin Himself if He did. He cannot forgive sin. He forgives us only because the death of Christ met the law’s demands against us. He requires faith I suppose so we are not robots – so we will reach out and take the gift. But my faith is itself imperfect and sinful, and cannot be a BASIS for God to save me. Same for everything else I do.

RT – The perfect sacrifice is Jesus. The Lord’s requirement of baptism is not “two ways of salvation.” This is a failure to understand the comprehensive nature of what it means to be justified by faith. The thief on the cross was not saved under the New Covenant, as demonstrated in the piece that I wrote, because the New Covenant was not inaugurated until Acts 2, a number of weeks after the thief died. Yes, the death of the one who made the will inaugurates the new will, but not until the appointed time of that document being discharged. Jesus did not address baptism in any way at all with the thief, and the passage is a proof-text for faith only advocates. Yes, interpretation does depend on context, and the expositors understood well the context. The words “signifies” or “testifies” are not in the verse of 1 Peter 3:21, or John 3:3-5; it is inserted based on theology, not exegesis. Of course, we know that “water” is not water in John 3, but is some figurative word/expression of something else. Perhaps it means buttermilk! There is absolutely no reason to interpret “water” in any other way than in its normal meaning. The only reason this is not done is because faith only advocates stumble atf the obvious meaning of the passage. On what hermeneutical basis will you say it does not mean buttermilk? John wrote some time after Nicodemus was dead and gone, but for the sake of discussion, let me grant that Nicodemus would not have understood it in a Christian context, would Nicodemus not have known something of John’s baptism? Of course he would have (cf. Luke 7:29-30); he was not out of touch with what was going on, as indicative in John 1:19-28. There is no chance he would have taken that to mean physical birth, because the very nature of his follow up question to Jesus was asked incredulously (3:4). Thus, Jesus ruled out a physical birth. It is certain, there is NOTHING in John 3 to refer “water” to the “word of God.” One has to run to some other location in the New Testament to get away from the normal and ordinary meaning of the word water – all because of a theological predisposition. The basis of salvation is the Lord Jesus. The Lord told Nicodemus there are two components to salvation, and they are a “must.” Those two components are water and spirit. “Spirit” is generally interpreted to be the Holy Spirit, but there is no certain indication within the Greek New Testament to demand this. The Lord’s requirement of man was (and is) faith. This faith works exactly as Acts 18:8 illustrates. You might have been saved and baptized on Tuesday, but the New Testament does not recognize any such delineation. The word “works,” wherein a person is not justified by works, in a New Testament context is that act or thought that originates in the mind of man, used as a substitute to that which the Lord did (or said). There is no chance for you to be correct when you connect “works” to God’s commands. For by so doing you have relegated God’s commands as unnecessary, unimportant, not essential to one’s salvation, when 1 John 5:3 declares otherwise. The term “faith only” is not a term used in the New Testament in relation to one’s salvation, except in James 2:24.

JG – Therefore a man is not justified by the works of law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by faith and not by the works of law. For by the works of law shall no flesh be justified”. Galatians. Works of the law or “of law” refer to God’s laws and commands. We are not justified by works of any law that God has given. The law only condemns. Some say this refers only to the Law of Moses. But the Greek says “works of law” not necessarily works of THE law of Moses. Mosaic Law or Christian Law, we are not justified (saved) by works, but faith ONLY. This verse teaches clearly faith ALONE, whether it uses those words or not. The New Testament is clear.

RT – Completely false. You have to insert the word where the word does not exist. The context of Romans 3 demonstrate what law is in view, to say nothing of Galatians. I await your analysis of James 2. In the morning I hope to see it.

[The words within these brackets were not part of the original discussion. I include them because of the importance of the theme. ** The word “law” in Romans 3-4 and in Galatians pertains to the Law of Moses. The idea that “law” pertains to God’s commands are ludicrous. If God commanded something to be done, for man to come along and say that it is not essential puts him in a precarious situation (his resistance not withstanding). As I mentioned in a previous post, if a person wants to be justified by “works,” then that person has substituted something in place of the “mechanism” God employed whereby a man is actually justified. Man is justified by faith (Romans 1:17); this means that man is justified by his response to God’s gift (John 3:16). It does not mean, and never has, that man is justified by a mental assent apart from what the Lord said regarding other matters. Neither does it mean that man is justified when they trust in the Lord apart from that which the Lord Himself included in man’s salvation. For instance, the remark is often made that the other side of the coin identified as faith is repentance. The New Testament teaches nothing of the sort. There is no “coin” (or an equivalent word) where this is the case; it is strictly a man-made teaching. Some can very much believe, but a penitent heart follows not (John 12:42-43). The remark is made that God’s law only condemns. This is the case with regard to the Law of Moses, and the apostle Paul makes this plain (Acts 13:39). This not at all taught with what is known as the law of Christ (cf. James 1:25). It is either complete arrogance, or a lack of understanding, to say “law” refers to God’s laws and commands. Since the former might be interpreted as too harsh, then perhaps the latter is the case. Moreover, to say that baptism is a “work” of man is to demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics Paul addresses when he speaks concerning the issue that man is not justified by the works of the law. I marvel every time I read one’s thoughts concerning this. The Holy Spirit made it abundantly clear than in baptism, one is placed into Christ (Galatians 3:26-27), in baptism one is joined to Christ in His death, burial and resurrection (Romans 6:3-7), in baptism one receives the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16).]

JG – Romans speaks of the law of God simply put. One is written, to the Jew. One is in the heart – the Gentile. One is not saved by law or law-keeping. It is all God’s law, manifested through conscience and the Scriptures. God commanded His people to be circumcised , yet Paul made it clear to all who trusted in their circumcisn that it will not save. “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law. For by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” Galatians 2:24. God commands His people to be baptized, but after salvation. It does not save. Salvation is by grace through faith. Eph 2:8-9 does not say “by grace through faith and baptism, or church membership, or tithing, or doing good” although all those are commanded for believers. Please be careful, trusting in baptism I believe will prevent you from being saved. “Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.” Galatians 5:1-5. James does not contradict Paul. Read Romans 4. Abraham was NOT justified by works before God. James says he was justified by works. In the context James is stating how our works justify us before men who must see outward proof of conversion. God does not need that. So Paul says he was not so justified before God.

RT – Yes, it is true that Romans speaks of the law of God – it is the Law of Moses. Simply put. There is no codified law in Romans 1, though in Romans 2-5 the context makes clear, exclusively, the Law of Moses is in view. Though there is no codified law in Romans 1, it is clear the Lord held accountable those who lived before the time Moses was given the Law. With the Law of Moses being given to a particular people, it was then to the non-Hebrew people there was no codified law. What you call the “law of the heart” is not mentioned in Romans. Perhaps you can codify this “law of the heart” for our discussion. 

To be saved by the “law” or “law-keeping” is not something that I have argued for, and if you think so, then you have misunderstood terribly what I have written. Your remark on circumcision is correct – if one trusted in the act, then no good it would have done for the one who submitted to it. If one trusted in it. On the other hand, if one did not obey, or did not obey in accordance with the directive God gave, then that is another matter. Tell me, Jeffery, if a man decided to circumcise male infant on the 9th day, 10th day or the 7th day – would that have pleased God? Under the Old Covenant, one was justified the same as they are today, by faith. It was not faith alone, but by faith. Under the Old Covenant, a male infant not circumcised on the 8th day was outside the covenant. Being outside the covenant, Jeffery, was to be outside God’s designed “ark of safety.” To not be circumcised on the 8th day, would that have been pleasing to God? If so, then how do you know? If not, then one is inside the covenant without faith (because an 8-day old infant can’t be justified by faith), but only by circumcision.

Your Galatians 2:24 remark is fine, but that only goes to demonstrate that if one wants to be justified by the law – the Law of Moses – then that one is not saved. You would know this if you paid attention to the remarks of Paul in the chapter. It is not “law” in general, but the Law of Moses specifically. God commands His people to be baptized, but after salvation? This is taught, just as you wrote it, where? Your Ephesians 2:8-9 does not teach it. I suppose, if I were to reason like you, that I could say that “repentance” is not required for salvation because Ephesians 2:8-9 speaks nothing of it. Or, perhaps, I could say it this way, “repentance is commanded, but it is only after one is saved by faith alone.” Certainly, you will argue this way, right? if I were to trust in baptism as you think, your remark/warning would be proper. I am not, however. Neither can you read anything that I have said to conclude that I am.

Yes, it is true James does not contradict Paul. Yes, let us read and compare Romans 4 with James 2.

“What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God” (Romans 4:1-2, KJV)

“But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (James 2:20-24, KJV).

If you read the context of both chapters, you can easily see that in Romans 4, Paul speaks of circumcision, directly related to the Law of Moses. Moreover, the word “works” in that chapter is directly related to the same word in the previous chapter, the Law of Moses. In James, the Law of Moses might be in 2:1-12, but in 2:13-26 it is not under discussion at all. What is under discussion is how one is not justified by faith alone, exactly contrary to that which you believe and teach! James speaks nothing concerning justification before men. To whom does James 2:21 refer?

JG – Sir: The Gentiles in Romans had “The law written in their heart, their conscience the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another”. You say there is no law of the heart? It is stated so in Romans. God is speaking of the moral conscience all non-Jews had and have, without having the Scriptures. That is not the Mosaic law, but God’s universal moral law. We are not justified by works of any kind, whether works under the Mosaic Law, or works under God’s universal moral law, or works under the Christian dispensation. Was God pleased if the Jews did not keep their covenant (Mosaic Law)? Of course not. Is God pleased if a Christian chooses not to be baptized, or live by God’s moral precepts? Of course not. But the Jew of the Old Testament, and the Christian of the new, are not justified before God by anything more than faith in Christ. Justification cannot stand on other than a perfect standard, which is Christ’s work done for us. We are not justified by faith, baptism, works or anything we do. We are justified only on Christ’s finished work, as was the Jew of the Old Testament. We appropriate that through faith in Christ, then we obey because we are new creatures. Please continue your studies in the New Testament and also theology. This argument has been around since the dawn of the Christian church, and has been amply explained in many commentaries. The Church of Christ argues on the radio prolifically for baptismal regeneration, but Christians of all ages have already dealt with that view in depth. Your understanding of the New Testament is still limited. Remember, there always was, and always will be, one salvation for all mankind of all generations. The Old Testament Jew was not saved any differently than we are. He was not required to keep any commandments for salvation, only to live by the covenant God required of the Jew at that time. Circumcisn did not save the Jew, and baptism does not save the Christian. The thief on the cross did not need to be baptized because Jesus does not require baptism for salvation. It is irrelevant what dispensation he was under, although he was under the New. Did he know about Jesus’ death and resurrection for our sins? You say “no” but we don’t know that. Jesus taught prolifically on his death, resurrection, and substitutionary atonement while alive. This thief must have known that since Paul required that knowledge for salvation. But even if he did not understand fully, the Jew of the Old Testament did not necessarily understand the Messiah who was to come and shed his blood for his sins. But he put his faith in the truth that God would forgive him through the shed blood of an innocent sacrifice. He was saved the same as we are, and God based his salvation on Christ, but God allowed his limited understanding. “The times of ignorance God winked at, but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent” Acts. You say Ephesians 2:8-9 don’t mention repentance and so in my view that would mean repentance is not necessary for salvation? Again you fail to understand the full meaning of the words. Ephesians says faith alone. That is all that is required. Then does that contradict verses that teach repentance? No, for that is included in faith. Faith and repentance are the same act, from different angles. When we turn from what we did trust in and from our life to Christ, that one act is a turning from and a turning to. You cannot turn to without turning from. When looked at as a turning from, it is repentance. when looked at as a turning to, it is faith. God can say faith is all we need, because when one has faith, he automatically has repentance. Once cannot have one without the other. The Church of Christ also makes repentance a different act than faith, and then make salvation a series of steps,like, ask, repent, believe, receive, etc. When one trust Christ, that act is a repentance, also a receiving, a trusting, a giving of oneself, an asking, etc. It’s not as complicated as some think.

RT – When Paul speaks about this “law” he speaks in the context of the Gentiles standing in judgment over the Jewish man because in his heart is a standard more faithfully followed than that which the Jewish man has codified (Romans 2:11-16). I am glad you pressed the point of the “moral law” and I concur that something did exist prior to the Law of Moses being given; it even ran concurrent with the Law of Moses until the time of Christ. Again, can you codify this “law of the heart” for us Jeffery?

Under the authority of the Law of Moses, Paul said that those who “do the law are justified” (2:6-13, NKJV). “Justification cannot stand on other than a perfect standard, which is Christ’s work done for us.” Justification stands because God declares it; there is no other basis upon which to measure it. Nevertheless, you will receive no contrary perspective from me on this remark. But, your next remark is flat wrong. “We are not justified by faith, baptism, works or anything we do.” The “works” you speak of wherein a person is not justified is that thinking and/or action that seeks justification apart from God. In a New Testament context: faith, baptism are not works of man at all – they are the works of God (John 6:29, Luke 7:29-30; Colossians 2:12). Moreover, the apostle said expressly that one is justified by faith (Romans 1:17) and baptism incorporates one INTO Christ (Romans 6:3-7). One is not a new creation when he is outside of Christ.

It is a lie to speak of the “Church of Christ” arguing for “baptismal regeneration.” Perhaps I can speak of man-made churches like the Baptist Church as being antinomians! Yes, I know this issue has been around a long time, thus, I am a strong proponent for public oral debates on the issue of “faith alone” and its disconnect from New Testament teaching. Neither have I argued that salvation is in any way different than justification by faith. I refuse, however, to subscribe to the false doctrine that salvation is by faith alone, something the New Testament does not affirm.

Again, you are flat wrong relative to your remark on commandments required to be kept by one who lived under the authority of the Old Covenant, as Romans 2:13 illustrates, to say nothing of Deuteronomy 30:15-19. Of course Jesus did not require baptism for salvation; He only said it in Mark 16:16 and John 3:5, again, to say nothing of what He authorized Paul and Peter to say!

It is NOT irrelevant what dispensation the thief was under – because the New Testament addresses it. Yes, I can say with certainty, far more than you can say otherwise, the thief on the cross could not believe in Jesus’ resurrection. Even the apostles had difficulty accepting the fact of it when Jesus spoke to them personally.

I do not fail to understand the point relative to Ephesians 2:8-9; I am only using your reasoning method and applying the tactic you attribute to me back to you. I knew well you would reject this and, moreover, I knew well what you would say (by and large). Find “faith alone” in Ephesians, anywhere in the epistle. “Repentance” and “faith” are two different words. They do not mean the same things. Whatever relationship might exist between the words – they are different in meanings. Go to Vine’s Dictionary or Mounce’s and transcribe where “faith and repentance are the same act.” It is not there! It is not me who fails to understand word meanings; “repentance” (metanoeō) literally means to perceive afterwards, hence to change one’s mind or purpose. The word “trust” is nowhere found in the meaning of this word. “Faith” (pistis) means a firm persuasion, a conviction based on hearing (Hebrews 11:6, 1). No, I am not the one mistaken in this matter. I await your authoritative references to sustain your point. Repentance has a keen relationship to faith, but they are different words with different meanings.

In a New Testament context when one is saved by faith, that one is saved as a result of Hebrews 5:8-9. In other words, when one hears the word of God, believes it, turns from sin and is baptized into Christ for the forgiveness of sins, that one is justified by faith (Acts 18:8). It is true, salvation is not complicated – but it becomes so when people assert a false doctrine like faith alone, when the New Testament teaches not a bit of it.

JG – For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast. Eph 2:8-9. All that is needed is included in this verse. I cannot and will not argue the point further. Keep on studying and searching. We are saved by grace through faith. Repentance is not mentioned because it is assumed in the faith. One cannot have faith without repentance. Baptism is a work of man. It is an act we do beyond simple faith. We could say living right and doing good are works of God too. They are, but then the verse has no meaning. “To him that WORKETH NOT, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his FAITH is counted for righteousness (Romans). If you can’t see that’s faith alone, I cannot do more. I know you don’t accept that. I will leave you to the Holy Spirit to do as He sees fit. If your ardent study has not convinced you otherwise, there is probably nothing more I can do. It is up to God now.

RT – I will give you no substantive reply, since you want to go no further. I will reply in the word document I have made to keep track of the discussion, but unless you want to see that (which I assume you won’t), I will let it drop here.

[It is clear to me the substance of what I submitted last was more than could be handled. There is nothing in Ephesians 2:8-9 that warrants inserting the word “alone” in there like Jeffery does. Jeffery and those similar to him do the same as Satan did in the Garden when they insert a word not put there or even implied into the biblical text. One cannot have faith without repentance, we are told. Yet the demons believed and did not repent (James 2:19), the Pharisees believed but would not confess because they loved the praise of me more than of God (John 12:42-43). The people believed, but John refused to baptize them until fruits worthy of repentance was brought forth, and some feared being put out of the synagogue (Matthew 3:1-10; cf. John 9:22). Examples of faith without repentance. Of course, the reply to these examples will be, “But, that is different…they did not have a saving faith.” It is clear there is a difference between what one would call a saving faith and a faith that does not save; the point is sustained – one can have faith without repentance.

Also, the notion of God’s command as being works of man is ludicrous, unless man actually thought of God’s commands as his own personal work of righteousness. There is no chance, however, if a person seeks to obey God because of his love for Him, and God commanded a person to be baptized for (with a view to) the remission of sins, that person is seeking to be saved by works. A man who is “saved” by works is a man who seeks to substitutes what God put in place for his own way of thinking. As demonstrated in this discussion, the works mentioned are directly related to the Old Testament, in a system that was not designed by God to save at all (Acts 13:39; 15:10, 24). Could one be saved by God who refused to obey? No, one could not; that would be rebellion. Under the Old Covenant, one was saved as under the New Covenant today, by faith. It is not faith alone, but by faith.

It is a complete lie to say baptism is a work of man! I guess I could be charitable and say, when a comment like that is made relative to baptism, the one who so speaks, speaks from a lack of understanding. This is true, but the same one who so asserts bought into a lie fabricated before him. Baptism is nowhere called a work of man, to begin. Second, baptism is a command of God. Third, in baptism, one receives the forgiveness of sin and “puts on Christ” (Acts 2:38; 22:16; Gal. 3:26-27). If that is a work of man (it is not), then one whale of a work it is! Moreover, to equate baptism as a work of man with “living right and doing good” is to fail in making a distinction as the New Testament does. God expressly said baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21)! In Ephesians 2:10 and Titus 3:4-8, the idea of good works is clearly set forth after one is saved by God.

As I bring this to a close, I marvel at the insistence some have in their effort to relegate a command of God as non-essential for salvation, when the Lord expressly made it essential. Though I marvel at this effort, I am saddened by the manipulation of the biblical text (or texts) toward a theological bent not taught in the New Testament, as they affirm it. The Scripture is very plain when it is expressly said that one is not saved by faith alone (James 2:24). For those who subscribe to a man-made doctrine like faith alone (cf. Matthew 15:1-14), it does not matter what the Lord said, it only matters what they want to believe.

Jeffery said that he will leave me in this discussion to the Holy Spirit as He sees fit. For that I am grateful, for it is only the Holy Spirit (or God) that I want to please. Consequently, a man-made doctrine like faith alone I reject.]

 

 

Legalism (4)

26 Monday Oct 2015

Posted by Ron Thomas in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

legalism, pharisee, salvation, works

This is the fourth in a series on LEGALISM. To see the whole document please visit www.rv85.net.

FACEBOOK

The word legalism is not in the Bible, so I asked others on a Facebook list to define the word. One definition that was given was 2 Corinthians 3:6. Three translations of the passage are given: a) who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (ESV), b) Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life (KJV), c) He has qualified even me as a minister of the new covenant, which is not a written but a spiritual covenant. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (Williams).

Note that the word legalism is not in the passage (or context).

Otherwise, from the Facebook entries, here is what I received: strict adherence, conformity, a list of do’s and don’ts, trying to be justified by the law (Galatians 5:4). Some have included putting one’s trust in one’s performance of the law, trusting in works to save you (or earning salvation), adding one’s own righteousness to what Jesus did.

WEBSITES.

Here is how one website defined it: (http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-Christian-legalism.html).

  • “It is a term Christians use to describe a doctrinal position emphasizing a system of rules and regulations for achieving both salvation and spiritual growth.”
  • Again, from the same source, “Legalists may appear to be righteous and spiritual, but legalism ultimately fails to accomplish God’s purposes because it is an outward performance instead of an inward change.”

Legalism is a system of thinking that is “essentially opposed to grace.” Grace is understood as that way of thinking that is tolerant of people who are of a different persuasion/thinking on varying doctrinal issues.

  • There is a qualification, however; “A word of caution is necessary here. While we need to be gracious to one another and tolerant of disagreement over disputable matters, we cannot accept heresy. We are exhorted to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints (Jude 3).”

As I synthesize the above, legalism is an attitude of thinking that speaks to a person outwardly obeying commands, but inwardly having no heart for those commands.

Another website says: (http://www.christinyou.net/pages/legalism.html)

  • Legalism, “Legalism – social or self-acceptance of the observance of law, and conformity to the requirements thereof, as the basis of…Theological determination of spiritual condition or destiny, Sociological/religious control of human behavior”

This website has a large outline that is full of commentary on what meets his definition of legalism and what a legalist does and thinks. In his commentary, he made this remark: “Christianity is not a legal, judicial, law-based religion”

I am sure he did not intend what the ramifications of this remark conveys.

  • Is Christianity not a “legal” religion? Is not God king, the legal authority to establish His will for man? Matthew 28:18-20
  • Is Christianity not a judicial religion? Will not the words of Jesus, as spoken in John 12:48, judge us in the last day?
  • Is Christianity not a law-based religion? Do we not have a law of liberty, as expressed by James in James 1:25?

In a strict dictionary definition of the word it means to adhere or conform to the standard of law.

The English dictionary puts no value judgment on this word. There were many on Facebook who did give an interpretative evaluation as they defined the word. Since the Bible does not use the word and, thus, offers no value judgment to it (obviously!), those who did offer a value judgment did so based on a theologically prejudiced approach. One man said that legalism in his mind is a rigid list of do’s and don’ts wherein complete law keeping is neither possible nor necessary.

Legalism (3)

16 Friday Oct 2015

Posted by Ron Thomas in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

legalism, pharisee, salvation, works

This is the third in a series that I am doing on LEGALISM. To see the complete document please go to www.rv85.net.

*************

BIBLE STUDIES. Scofield Bible (p. 1614, study notes on “The Law of Moses, Summary”). “Law, as a method of divine dealing with man, characterized the dispensation extending from the giving of the law to the death of Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:13-14, 23-24).” And “[t]he attempt of legalistic teachers (e.g. Acts 15:1-31; Gal. 2:1-5) to mingle law with grace as the divine method for this present dispensation of the Church, brought out the true relation of the law to Christians.”

The Christian Doctrine of the law (all below are direct quotes). (B-1) Law is in contrast with grace. Under the latter God bestows the righteousness which, under law, He demanded (Ex. 19:5; John 1:17; Rom. 3:21, note; 10:3-10; 1 Cor. 1:30). (B-2) The law is, in itself, holy, just, good, and spiritual (Rom. 7:12-14). (B-3) Before the law the whole world is guilty, and the law is therefore of necessity a ministry of condemnation, death, and the divine curse (Rom. 3:19; 2 Cor. 3:7-9; Gal. 3:10). (B-4) Christ bore the curse of the law, and redeemed the believer from the curse and from the dominion of the law (Gal. 3:13; 4:5-7). (B-5) Law neither justifies a sinner nor sanctifies a believer (Gal. 2:16; 3:2-3, 11-12). (B-6) The believer is both dead to the law and redeemed from it, so that he is “not under law, but under grace” (Rom. 6:14; 7:4; Gal. 2:19; 4:4-7; 1 Tim. 1:8-9). (B-7) And under the new covenant of grace the principle of obedience to the divine will is produced inwardly (Heb. 10:16). So far is the life of the believer from the anarchy of self-will that he is “under law toward Christ” (1 Cor. 9:21), and the new “law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2; 2 John 5) is his delight; whereas, through the indwelling Spirit, the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in him (Ro, 8:2-4; Gal. 5:16-18). The commandments are used in the distinctively Christian Scriptures as an instruction in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16-17; compare Rom. 13:8-10; 1 Cor. 9:8-9; Eph. 6:1-3).

ANALYSIS of the above remarks

Analysis of  the top paragraph.  It is true that the covenant given to Israel was characterized by the word “law.” It would be a mistake, however, to look upon the word “law” apart from what the Lord said with regard to the heart. Some of that which the Lord said can be read in Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Micah 6:8, Joshua 22:5, and Isaiah 33:15. The “legalistic teachers” (a word not in the texts referenced) of Acts 15 and Galatians 2 attempted to incorporate/fuse two diametrically opposed standards into one. The gospel Paul preached was a gospel of liberty, while that which the “false brethren” proclaimed was the message of “circumcision” (Galatians 2:3). The word “circumcision” stood for the whole of the Law of Moses (Acts 15:1) – and the contexts of Galatians 2 and Acts 15 make this clear. The liberty in Christ stands in contrast to the bondage brought by the law that one is beholden to sin (cf. Romans 7:24). The specificity of sin, however, can (could) only be known by God’s revealed law (Romans 3:20). The law, in this context, was not designed by God to save, but to “point out.” Thus, to properly understand “law” in the remarks above is not to understand “law” in general, but “law” in the specific, that is, the Law of Moses.

Analysis of the second paragraph.  With regard to B-1 not a single referenced text establishes their point that God demanded righteousness from the old law, that is, a righteousness that one could attain on their own. With regard to Romans 10:3, the problem was not what God established, but what man attempted to establish. On B-2, the point is true. B-3 can be understood in a couple of ways. First, is the point made that before the existence of the Law of Moses the world was guilty of sin? Second, is the word “law” standing in front of the whole world pointing out its sinfulness? The first option is true because Paul addressed this point in Romans 5. The second option is not true at all unless the word “law” refers to the law of Christ. The passages of Scripture referenced only sustain the point with regard to the Law of Moses. B-4 will, once again, pertain only to the Law of Moses. It does not apply to “law” in general because Paul is contextually speaking of the Law of Moses. B-5 is true, but the passages referenced speak of the Law of Moses. The passages referenced in B-6 refer to the Law of Moses. The possible exception, by context, is 1 Timothy 1:8-9. I say “possible” because not all expositors concur that the Law of Moses is not the point under discussion (in a brief survey, the following expositors think the Law of Moses is what Paul had in mind: Ralph Earle, Phillip Towner, Gareth Reese). B-7 admits there is “law” that applies to the Christian, and it is certainly true that the Christian’s response to the law, as written in B-7, is accurate. The reference to Romans 8:2-4 (Galatians 5:16-18) is a point of contrast between two systems (both of God), only one of which justifies. Moreover, ALL God’s commandments are instructions in righteousness, but there is a distinction between the covenants wherein some commands apply to a specific group. The Old Covenant applied to those who lived under it (Israel); the New Covenant applies to all who live today (called the “law of liberty;” James 1:25).

James 1:25 – But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing. ESV

James 1:25 – But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. KJV

Romans 6

14 Wednesday Oct 2015

Posted by Ron Thomas in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

baptism, salvation, slavery

The power of sin brings death to each individual in this world. How can one, then, get out from underneath this burden of sin and death? In Romans 6 Paul addresses this point further than he did in Romans 4 with regard to Abraham. These words are written to Christians, that is, they were written to men and women who already had been immersed into Jesus for the forgiveness of sins – thus, they were saved by faith. Yet, there was a failure to understand the significance of the Law of Moses (5:20) in salvation. While grace is much more powerful than the law, that does not give one the privilege of sinning even one time in order that the power of grace can be shown, known, felt, or understood in its greatness! To live in sin (the practice of sin as a habit is Paul’s point) is actually to be in bondage to slavery that can do nothing but destroy. Jesus, however, came to release man from this bondage to slavery and because He died to sin (that is, He chose to not be controlled by it, not even one time) each one who has been united to Him in baptism (immersion) has also died to sin and been resurrected to a new life. All of this, Paul said, really has to do with who it is that we want to obey. If we want to obey the sinful activity of this world, then let us understand that it leads to spiritual death. On the other hand, if we want to obey God, then the life He promises us is ours, that is, our spiritual life (6:16-17).  RT

Legalism (2)

09 Friday Oct 2015

Posted by Ron Thomas in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

legalism, pharisee, salvation, works

This is the second in a series on LEGALISM that I am posting on this blog. To see the complete document please go to www.rv85.net

********

DEFINITION. The word legalism is defined as a strict, literal, or excessive conformity to the law or to a religious moral code (Merriam-Webster Deluxe Dictionary, Tenth Collegiate Edition, p. 1047). The word legalist is defined an advocate or adherent of moral legalism; one that views things from a legal standpoint, especially one that place primary emphasis on legal principles or on the formal structure of governmental institutions (Webster, p. 1047). The word pharisee is defined (identified) as one who is a member of the Jewish religious sect noted for strict observance of rites and ceremonies of the written law and….on the validity of their own oral tradition concerning the law (Webster, p. 1368). A strict, literal adherence to a standard by which something is measured. Exactly what is meant by “excessive” is vague to me. The word pharisee is included in this section because of its use in some religious conversations; it does not have a direct impact on properly understanding legalism.

REFERENCE WORKS. The words legalism or legalist is not found in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia-Revised, and neither is the word legal. Neither words are in Hastings Dictionary of the Bible. They are not in Faussett’s Bible Cyclopedia. Neither words are in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Neither word is found in my one-volume edition of Evangelical Dictionary of Theology.

In McClintock’s Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature the word legalist is found, and it reads in part, “Properly speaking, a legalist is one who ‘acts according to the law;’ but in general the term is made use of to denote one who seeks salvation by works of law (not of the law, but of ‘law’ generally, whether moral or ceremonial, ek ergōn nomou, Romans v. 20) instead of by the merits of Christ” (5.325).

In Geisler’s Systematic Theology (4.223-224) there is a discussion of legalism, an error of Theonomists and Biblionomists. Theonomists are those who subscribe to the view that governments should be subject to the Old Testament law of God, similar to what one understands as a theocracy. Biblionomists is a moderate form of the same, the church over state paradigm. Geisler defines legalism as the belief that we are sanctified by law-keeping – that adhering to the Old Testament law is a means of our sanctification. Geisler denies there is any biblical sanction to such an approach, but in fact, the New Testament is clear that keeping the Law of Moses, including the Ten Commandments was peculiar to the Israelites, not those living under the authority of the New Covenant.

Very little in the way of reference works entry (that I have), but that which does include it speaks of salvation by “law keeping,” that is, in keeping the Law of Moses.

BIBLE.  Legalism and legalist are not Bible words and, with regard to the theological works that I have, they are not words that demand entry into the recognized works (except the two I referenced above). As best I can tell, the words are of relatively late origin in religious circles and defined by some in a mostly religiously prejudicial way. The word law is obviously related to legalism.  Of course, this is a Bible word, and it is used quite a large number of times. The Hebrew word torah gives us our English word law in the Old Testament. Hasting’s says the word means a pointing out, direction, an authoritative direction (vol. 3. 64). “It was in no way the case that salvation was initially achieved through keeping the commandments of the Torah. From the very beginning the Torah was not understood ‘legally’” (Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, 2.473). In the New Testament the English word law is the Greek word nomos (195x), and this can refer to any law whatsoever (Hastings 3.73). In the New Testament the word nomos is “usually the Mosaic law as a whole” (EDNT 2.473). The word law, as in the Law of Moses, was never designed by God to save a person.

Acts 13:38-39 reads, “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses” (NKJV).

Galatians 3:10-11, “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.’ But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for ‘the just shall live by faith’” (NKJV).

In fact, the law (Law of Moses) was designed by God to do the following: a) Romans 3:20, to give knowledge of sin, b) Romans 4:15, to manifest the wrath (judgment) of God because of sin, c) Galatians 3:21-25, to teach those under its authority that a greater covenant is forthcoming (cf. John 6:44-45, 2 Corinthians 3:9).

← Older posts

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 689 other followers

Last Month

Log in

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Blogs I Follow

  • Christian Publishing House Blog
  • Canon Fodder
  • PreachingHelp.org
  • Biblical Proof
  • Sunrush Church of Christ
  • The Church of God : Official Website
  • Brotherhood News
  • Believing Prayer
  • Daniel B. Wallace
  • NT Resources
  • etsop95
  • Forthright Press
  • Ferrell's Travel Blog
  • Larry Hurtado's Blog
  • Carolina Messenger
  • ThinkingJesus
  • CRI
  • Big Ten Network
  • eScriptorium
  • Biblical Notes

Blog Stats

  • 13,523 hits

RSS Ron Thomas – Forthright Fellowship Room

  • PERFECTED The love of God…
  • Secular Society – A False Hope
  • Our Plague

Blog at WordPress.com.

Christian Publishing House Blog

Apologetic Defense of the faith, the Bible, and Christianity

Canon Fodder

Exploring the origins of the New Testament canon and other biblical and theological issues

PreachingHelp.org

The sermons and writings of Steve Higginbotham

Biblical Proof

Speaking where the bible speaks, and silent where the bible is silent.

Sunrush Church of Christ

The Church of God : Official Website

There is one Body!

Brotherhood News

Believing Prayer

Daniel B. Wallace

Executive Director of CSNTM & Senior Research Professor of NT Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary

NT Resources

Established by Dr. Rod Decker - Maintained by Dr. Wayne Slusser

etsop95

Perspectives on Bible, philosophy, and politics (sometimes)

Forthright Press

Straight to the Cross

Ferrell's Travel Blog

Commenting on biblical studies, archaeology, travel and photography

Larry Hurtado's Blog

Comments on the New Testament and Early Christianity (and related matters)

Carolina Messenger

"This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." (1 John 1:5)

ThinkingJesus

Letting Jesus Speak Today

CRI

Big Ten Network

Big Ten Network's website

eScriptorium

this and that from the pen and keyboard of mcgarvey ice

Biblical Notes

- Est. 1965 by Roy C. Deaver -