Salvation is a Gift....now what?

[editor]

such persons the officers shall exclude from the Christian fellowship
by withholding the sacraments from them,
and God himself excludes them from the kingdom of Christ.

Interesting little quote below!  So, the officers of the church didn't believe in priests...now they had "officers."    

Perhaps reforming Catholicism wasn't a good idea?    I wonder how the reformed branch of Geftakysism will fare?

Also, with regard to the section above, I believe you will find in the text, that by withholding the Sacraments, they are merely ackknowledging what God has already done.   In other words, the "officers,"  got together and recognized that God excluded Bro. so-and-so from the kingdom late last Thursday, meaning that this person is no longer welcome at Baptisms, Communion, etc.

How do they know?  

Brent

[M2]

Re. topic of this thread, today's sermon (Jan. 25) by Kim Riddlebarger at CRC was on the Reformed view.  It can be heard for about a month at http://www.christreformed.org/index.shtml.  

Margaret and All,

I listened to the Jan 25th sermon.  It was an excellent message on how faith is a gift.  But then he ended his message with a statement like "...flee to Christ to take the gift...".  So am I missing something?

Marcia

[editor]

Re. topic of this thread, today's sermon (Jan. 25) by Kim Riddlebarger at CRC was on the Reformed view.  It can be heard for about a month at http://www.christreformed.org/index.shtml.  

Margaret and All,

I listened to the Jan 25th sermon.  It was an excellent message on how faith is a gift.  But then he ended his message with a statement like "...flee to Christ to take the gift...".  So am I missing something?

Marcia

No, you're not missing anything.

Welcome to the first realization (maybe?) that perhaps reformed folks really do believe in evangelism, and do indeed try to persuade people to turn to Jesus.

I see absolutely no contradiction at all in the final statement he made.  It is perfectly fitting and scriptural.  Didn't Jesus say,  "Come unto me?"

Brent

[M2]

Re. topic of this thread, today's sermon (Jan. 25) by Kim Riddlebarger at CRC was on the Reformed view.  It can be heard for about a month at http://www.christreformed.org/index.shtml.  

Margaret and All,

I listened to the Jan 25th sermon.  It was an excellent message on how faith is a gift.  But then he ended his message with a statement like "...flee to Christ to take the gift...".  So am I missing something?

Marcia

No, you're not missing anything.

Welcome to the first realization (maybe?) that perhaps reformed folks really do believe in evangelism, and do indeed try to persuade people to turn to Jesus.

I see absolutely no contradiction at all in the final statement he made.  It is perfectly fitting and scriptural.  Didn't Jesus say,  "Come unto me?"

Brent

Good point.  I've heard some say that 'taking' the gift is a 'work' attitude.

Marcia

[editor]

Good point.  I've heard some say that 'taking' the gift is a 'work' attitude.

Marcia

Again, if we pass from death to life when WE take the gift, or appropraite the grace, or accept Jesus, or repent, etc. then it implies we are saved by our choice, which is a work.

However, if "fleeing to Christ to take the gift," is the first demonstration of a redeemed heart, which it is, then there is no problem theologically.

I like what Tom was saying a while back, about Prevenient Grace.  No matter how you slice it,  we aren't going to flee to Christ without grace working on our behalf.  This holds true for Calvinists and Arminians of the worst description!  They can say whatever they want, but it requires grace, and as grace, can't be earned by works!

Brent

[Oscar]

Good point.  I've heard some say that 'taking' the gift is a 'work' attitude.

Marcia

Again, if we pass from death to life when WE take the gift, or appropraite the grace, or accept Jesus, or repent, etc. then it implies we are saved by our choice, which is a work.

However, if "fleeing to Christ to take the gift," is the first demonstration of a redeemed heart, which it is, then there is no problem theologically.

I like what Tom was saying a while back, about Prevenient Grace.  No matter how you slice it,  we aren't going to flee to Christ without grace working on our behalf.  This holds true for Calvinists and Arminians of the worst description!  They can say whatever they want, but it requires grace, and as grace, can't be earned by works!

Brent

Howdy folks,

I think that what some of you are doing here is to unwittingly commit a fallacy of equivocation in your thought process.

A fallacy of equivocation is a subtle change of definition of a word used in your argument.

Example,

1. Men are saved by grace not by works.
2. Faith is a work

Therefore men are not saved through, (by), faith.

That is the reasoning behind some of what is being said here.

However, in premise 1 "works" means "acts of righteousness that win the favor of God to a degree that overcomes their debt of guilt".  This is the meaning of "works of righteousness" in the NT in the context of grace/works discussions.

In premise 2 "work" simply means "an act performed by a human being".

That is why the conclusion is invalid.  Men are indeed saved by grace, through faith.

In all theologies I have ever encountered to the right of outright Pelagianism, some form of grace must be operating in/on the person before faith can be exercised.  That is why "salvation is of the Lord", but we must obey the command, "Repent and believe the gospel".  We must do it.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[Oscar]

FAITH gives us access.
GRACE is the agent

FAITH  positions
GRACE  performs


FAITH   aligns
GRACE   accomplishes

FAITH is the avenue,
GRACE the acquisition

FAITH displays attittude
GRACE displays appropriation!

Both are divine gifts!


Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God!
1 John 3:1

By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand...
Romans 5:2
Verne

Verne,


To me, this sort of reasoning displays the inner contradictions of Reformed theology.

John 3:18 tells us that, "...he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotton Son of God".

If God judges men for their lack of faith, and if faith can only be obtained as a gift from God, then you have God judging men because they do not have what He refuses to give them.

Huh?

Romans 1: 18-21 speaks of this.

The wrath of God is revealed against men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

That which is known about God is evident within them.
For God made it evident!

Verse 20 says that nature alone is enough to cause belief in God.

Verse 21 says that they knew God, at least as to His existence.

Their condemnation is based on their suppression of the truth and their turning to delusions about false gods.  Not because they could not have believed in God.

Men are held morally culpable for not doing what was in their power to do, ie, believe in God.  This causes them to descend to a state where they do all manner of evil.

Why suppress the truth if you can't believe it anyway?

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[editor]

If God judges men for their lack of faith, and if faith can only be obtained as a gift from God, then you have God judging men because they do not have what He refuses to give them.

Huh?

Romans 1: 18-21 speaks of this.

The wrath of God is revealed against men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

That which is known about God is evident within them.
For God made it evident!

Thomas Maddux

Hi Tom,

Do I detect an anti-reformed bias in your writing?  

I am not a  Calvinist, but I do have to call you on this one.  Does not Romans teach that every man abides under the wrath and judgement of God?  God isn't judging us for something He didn't give us, (faith) but for who and what we are.

Does not Romans carefully explain and defend God's judgement against sinful man?

Your rehetorical question is akin to "Then who has resisted His will?  Why does He still find fault?"   The issue here has nothing to do with God's judgement not being just as explained by the reformed camp.  On the contrary, they explain it by saying that He would still be just and righteous if every single one of us went straight to Hell.  We "earned" it, all by ourselves.

The perspective on this is one of mercy, not judgement.  God's righteous judgement condemns us all, but His mercy in Christ saves many!  That is the wonder.  The fact that all aren't saved isn't the issue, the fact that ANY are saved is the issue.

While I agree with much of what you are saying,  you aren't representing the reformed tradition accurately in your most recent post.

Brent,  3.67 points.

[Oscar]

If God judges men for their lack of faith, and if faith can only be obtained as a gift from God, then you have God judging men because they do not have what He refuses to give them.

Huh?

Romans 1: 18-21 speaks of this.

The wrath of God is revealed against men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

That which is known about God is evident within them.
For God made it evident!

Thomas Maddux

Hi Tom,

Do I detect an anti-reformed bias in your writing?  

I am not a  Calvinist, but I do have to call you on this one.  Does not Romans teach that every man abides under the wrath and judgement of God?  God isn't judging us for something He didn't give us, (faith) but for who and what we are.

Does not Romans carefully explain and defend God's judgement against sinful man?

Your rehetorical question is akin to "Then who has resisted His will?  Why does He still find fault?"   The issue here has nothing to do with God's judgement not being just as explained by the reformed camp.  On the contrary, they explain it by saying that He would still be just and righteous if every single one of us went straight to Hell.  We "earned" it, all by ourselves.

The perspective on this is one of mercy, not judgement.  God's righteous judgement condemns us all, but His mercy in Christ saves many!  That is the wonder.  The fact that all aren't saved isn't the issue, the fact that ANY are saved is the issue.

While I agree with much of what you are saying,  you aren't representing the reformed tradition accurately in your most recent post.

Brent,  3.67 points.

Brent,

Actually what I have is a bias against is self-contradictory nonsense.  When you speak of the "Reformed Tradition" one has to realize that all reformed theologians are not identical in their teachings.

What I frequently do is to follow the logical train to the last station on the line.  (reductio ad absurdam)

If that results in an absurd conclusion, so be it.  That is not bias, it is thinking.

That is what I was pointing out to Verne.  You have to deal with what John 3 actually says, not what Reformed, or any other, theology demands that it should say.

One of the BIG, BIG problems I have with Reformed teaching is that it makes God the author of sin.  Reformed authors realize this, but they attempt to avoid this by authoritative declaration.

They insert the phrase, "yet without sin", right after they admit that God causes sin!    

The "secondary cause" dodge doesn't work either...in my opinion.

I would prefer the honesty of Zwingli, who said something like, "Yeah, God causes sin, get over it buddy, that's just the way it is".

Regarding Romans, one of my habits is to read the old testament passages that are quoted in the NT.  Remember, the "first hearers" of these teachings were familiar with the OT, and therefore understood the passages in context, not in isolation.  If you go through Paul's arguments in Romans and look at the OT passages, it raises many questions about what the quotations actually mean.

I am taking a class on Essential Christian Doctrine, which starts today.  I will have a chance to discuss these things with a trained theologian.  We'll see what develops.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[Joe Sperling]

Does the conversation below confuse you? I know that it confuses me. Therefore, I do what comes natural: I let someone else do the thinking for me.

It's easy, it takes little effort, and all you have to do is drive to a meeting. Be sure to wear a 3 piece suit or a head covering, and come Sunday at 10:00 to a service you'll never forget:

First Church of Latter Day Christian Scientific Jehovah's Witnesses of the 7th Day(Reformed)
1022 W. Logan Ave.
Los Angeles, Ca., 90045

This Sunday's Sermon: "Is it individuality or Demon infestation?"   Father Herb McNally explores our natural desire to be individuals, rather than the corporate expression God so desires.

[editor]

One of the BIG, BIG problems I have with Reformed teaching is that it makes God the author of sin.  Reformed authors realize this, but they attempt to avoid this by authoritative declaration.

I am taking a class on Essential Christian Doctrine, which starts today.  I will have a chance to discuss these things with a trained theologian.  We'll see what develops.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Hi Tom,

I was merely pointing out that you misrepresented the "other"  side in your post.  I know that I can speak for all of us by saying that we are getting lots of benefit from your views on this and other topics.

Nevertheless, it is not becoming for us to misrepresent the "other" side.

No one, to the best of my knowledge, has ever said,  "The Bible teaches that God is judging people because He didn't give them faith."  That is, no one says this unless they are trying to either blaspheme----which was certainly not your motive----or they are trying to make a straw man out of reformed folks.

Calling an Arminian a "virulent dog," is pretty low....but so is claiming that a Calvinist asserts that God is handing out gifts, and then punishing those He didn't give a gift to.   It just isn't true.

There may be plenty that is wrong with Reformed theology, but let's at least stick to what this theology really is!

Carry on,

Brent

[outdeep]

Calling an Arminian a "virulent dog," is pretty low....but so is claiming that a Calvinist asserts that God is handing out gifts, and then punishing those He didn't give a gift to.   It just isn't true.

I guess I don't understand this statement.  I understood Reformers took the position that God sovereignly elects some (gives them the gift of salvation) while others he chooses not to elect.  When one asks about the justice of this the reply seems to be 1) The person who is being judged was born a sinner and should be judged like everyone else.  Therefore don't get hung up on the fact that the person who has no chance to find salvation is being judged (after all everyone deserves hell).  Rather look over here and marvel that God is granting mercy to His elect.   2) Don't question God - isn't it His Sovereign right to make one a vessel of mercy and another a vessel of wrath?  If He wants to withhold salvation for reasons of His own choosing, who are we to argue?

It seems to me that "punishing those he didn't give a gift to" is a more straightforward way of saying just this.   I understand why Reformers wouldn't want to say it like this as it comes across a bit crass.  But, I don't see how it is any different than their more carefully worded apology.

[Arthur]

I just read the letter from Theron Messer on the ga website.  Written in 1990...remarkable insight.  Or maybe anyone who reads their Bible's...without a certain influence...could have seen the error.

I believe that Geftakys rejects the Biblical teaching on predestination and thus believes that man must have a part in his salvation.  Not being able to argue against justification by grace, he argues against sanctification by grace.  This subtle error is probably an error from a pure motive.

Though it probably wasn't so much a pure motive as a desire to be dominant.  

Not being able to argue against justification by grace, he argues against sanctification by grace.

Those words pretty much encapsulate it all, don't they?

[Oscar]

Actually what I have is a bias against is self-contradictory nonsense.

It would appear to me that the medium of mere logical analysis is often insufficient to explain certain teachings of the Scripture. It is a grave mistake to reject any clear teaching of the Word of God just because we find its implied conclusions "absurd". It is a logically absurd contruct to suggest that the eternal and immortal  Chist bacame human and sufftered physical death. It is equally absurd to assert that after three days in the grave he rose to life again. The Word of God teaches it and we accept it. The Bible is filled with such apparent contradictions. Remember Abraham and Sarah? How does a guy with abolutely not a single offspring, decades beyond the procreative years (as well as his wife!) end up with a name like "Father of a multidude?". Our entire faith it would seem, is based on absurdity.
There is simply no way to satisfactorily explain why divine soverignty and human responsibility are both concomitantly true by employing  mere logic - it fails utterly! They would seem to be, from a solely logical point of view, mutually exclusive, yet the Bible teaches them both.
Using the kind of argument you have Tom would suggest that we reject the following verses:

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
Proverbs 2:4-5

How's that for contradictory nonsense?  

Also, troubling ar first blush are the following...

And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.
 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him.
  And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
 Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.
2 Kings 20:20-23


In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
Titus 1:2  

I am afraid your argumentation with regard to this particular topic fails to recognize the limits of epistimology and language in plumbing some Scriptural depths. In this I think you misunderstood Brent'st merely repeating what Scripture clearly states.

When you speak of the "Reformed Tradition" one has to realize that all reformed theologians are not identical in their teachings.

What I frequently do is to follow the logical train to the last station on the line.  (reductio ad absurdam)

If that results in an absurd conclusion, so be it.  That is not bias, it is thinking.

That is what I was pointing out to Verne.  You have to deal with what John 3 actually says, not what Reformed, or any other, theology demands that it should say.

One of the BIG, BIG problems I have with Reformed teaching is that it makes God the author of sin.  Reformed authors realize this, but they attempt to avoid this by authoritative declaration.

They insert the phrase, "yet without sin", right after they admit that God causes sin!    

The "secondary cause" dodge doesn't work either...in my opinion.

I would prefer the honesty of Zwingli, who said something like, "Yeah, God causes sin, get over it buddy, that's just the way it is".

Regarding Romans, one of my habits is to read the old testament passages that are quoted in the NT.  Remember, the "first hearers" of these teachings were familiar with the OT, and therefore understood the passages in context, not in isolation.  If you go through Paul's arguments in Romans and look at the OT passages, it raises many questions about what the quotations actually mean.

I am taking a class on Essential Christian Doctrine, which starts today.  I will have a chance to discuss these things with a trained theologian.  We'll see what develops.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

No truly reformed theologian makes God the author of sin as this is a position that is blasphemous and utterly contrary to the teaching of God's Word, We are told He is of purer eyes than to behold evil (Habakkuk 1:13), and that God is light and in Him is no darkness whatever! (1 John 1:5). I would invite you or anyone else to produce any statement to that effect.
I agree that the denoument of a purely logical argument that posits God's absolute soverignty, which reforemd thinkers contend to be true, would tend inevitably to lead one to conclude that God is the author of sin. We do not make that conclusion simply because it contradicts Scirpture, regardless of what one's vaunted logic would suggest. It places the Word of God as our ultimate standard in these matters, not deductive reasoning.
Verne

Verne,


1. The doctrine of the Trinity is based on deductive logic.

Premise 1: The Bible calls three persons; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, God.
Premise 2: The Bible says there is only one God.

Conclusion: There is one God, who subsists in three persons.

2. Logic is the art of clear thinking.  If your thinking is not logical, it is confused.  Logic serves to force us to think clearly.

3. Doctrines such as the incarnation and the resurrection are not illogical.  They are not empirically verifiable...but that is not the same as either illogical or absurd.

When, in the discussion of logic, the word absurd is used it usually means self-contradictory.  For example, Verne Carty does and does not exist.  Both states of being are possible, but not at the same time and in the same sense.  Therefore the statement is absurd.

4. Regarding the origin of sin.  The first sin we know anything about was the rebellion of Satan.  This limits the options.

a. God created Satan with the potential to sin or not to sin, but left him free to decide to sin or not.

b. God created Satan with a nature that forced him to sin, so he could not fail to sin.
   
c. God created Satan sin free but acted upon him in such a way as to make him sin.

Unless you can think of some other options Verne, that's all there is.  Option a. makes Satan a free moral agent...which in the view of many Reformed theologians is impossible.  It violates their idea of God's sovereignty.

Which option would you choose?

4. The idea that God is the author of sin has been discussed among serious theologians for centuries.   Zwingli taught it.  So I think "wrong" would be a better word to use if you disagree, rather than "blasphemous".

I think that that those who believe this use the voluntarist argument: God makes the rules so whatever He chooses to do is right.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[Oscar]

One of the BIG, BIG problems I have with Reformed teaching is that it makes God the author of sin.  Reformed authors realize this, but they attempt to avoid this by authoritative declaration.

I am taking a class on Essential Christian Doctrine, which starts today.  I will have a chance to discuss these things with a trained theologian.  We'll see what develops.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Hi Tom,

I was merely pointing out that you misrepresented the "other"  side in your post.  I know that I can speak for all of us by saying that we are getting lots of benefit from your views on this and other topics.

Nevertheless, it is not becoming for us to misrepresent the "other" side.

No one, to the best of my knowledge, has ever said,  "The Bible teaches that God is judging people because He didn't give them faith."  That is, no one says this unless they are trying to either blaspheme----which was certainly not your motive----or they are trying to make a straw man out of reformed folks.

Calling an Arminian a "virulent dog," is pretty low....but so is claiming that a Calvinist asserts that God is handing out gifts, and then punishing those He didn't give a gift to.   It just isn't true.

There may be plenty that is wrong with Reformed theology, but let's at least stick to what this theology really is!

Carry on,

Brent

Brent,

I have to get to work.  I will try to answer you on this tomorrow.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux
 Virulent Dog First Class with Gold Oak Leaf Cluster