Salvation is a Gift....now what?

[editor]

Those who are not, will be judged before the judgement seat of God for not getting saved.
Marcia

No,

this statement is totally eroneous.  Sinners will be judge according to their thoughts, deeds and actions.   Not, because they aren't saved.

Jesus bore the judgement for us.  Every sin has to be judged.  Sin is the issue, not lack of salvation.

Brent

[Mark C.]

Hi All   !

  I have been following this topic with great interest and wondering if there is anything that I could possibly add to the debate between Reformation thought and Arminian.  After all, this argument has been going on for hundreds of years.
  Tom remarked in one of his post's that Reformed theology and Dispensational theologians were actually getting closer to each other in modern times and I think that this is true.  There is great value in understanding both of these views as both have something to offer.
   As I shared before I studied books on grace byReformation writers and by dispensationalists and it was wonderfully encouraging for me to discover both views were absolutely opposed to the false holiness message of GG, though they came from different ways of expressing their thoughts on grace.
 When Reformed writers,and from the Disp. view Charles Ryrie, discuss grace and the Christian life they both emphasize honesty and humility.  Charles Ryrie in his book "So Great Salvation" takes on the "Lordship Salvation" teaching and uses Reformation authors to refute it. ("Lordship Salvation" is a teaching supposedly based on Calvinism which teaches that if a Christian is really saved he will express the Lordship of Christ in his/her life)
   I thank God for the Reformation and I don't think we should ridicule men like Calvin, Luther, etc. as they moved us out of the darkness of Roman Catholism into clear Gospel light.  The declaration of the authority of the Bible over the church, the priesthood of every believer, and salvation through grace by faith alone is the foundation from which modern Evangelicalism must be rooted in order to be truly Christian.  That these Reformists had great flaws in some of their views is an opportunity for us to learn from these mistakes.
   Reformed teaching bases it's teaching on "sola scriptura" and teaches that what the Bible says trumps any philosophy that is contrary.  Yet, when talking about the Christian life they recognize that one must be honest re. one's tendency to sin and it colors their interpretation of passages like Rom. 6.  They understand that though this passage says "I've died to sin" it does not mean sinless perfection because they don't experience it in their lives.
  Yet, there are those in Reformed churches who feel a great fear of falling into Humanist philosophy as this is what led their brethren into Modernism.  This is a logical fear,and yet I believe that the tension between God's Word and understanding my humanity is a necessary component to growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.  
   In conclusion:  As a follower of Reformation theology I must understand that God's ways are past my powers of reasoning and ask why it is that Jesus chose a child as an example of what His Kingdom was like.  For the Dallas Theological Seminary graduate who has taken psychology courses I must be able to allow the Bible to take precedence in my understanding of humanity.  
                                           God Bless,  Mark C.

 
 

[M2]

Those who are not, will be judged before the judgement seat of God for not getting saved.
Marcia

No,

this statement is totally eroneous.  Sinners will be judge according to their thoughts, deeds and actions.   Not, because they aren't saved.

Jesus bore the judgement for us.  Every sin has to be judged.  Sin is the issue, not lack of salvation.

Brent

You have broken the 1000 barrier with this post, Brent.

But...  They did not have a choice in the matter, if they were not pre-destined to get saved.

BTW I'm not trying to knock any theology here, I'm just trying to understand.  

Marcia

[editor]

Those who are not, will be judged before the judgement seat of God for not getting saved.
Marcia

No,

this statement is totally eroneous.  Sinners will be judge according to their thoughts, deeds and actions.   Not, because they aren't saved.

Jesus bore the judgement for us.  Every sin has to be judged.  Sin is the issue, not lack of salvation.

Brent

You have broken the 1000 barrier with this post, Brent.

But...  They did not have a choice in the matter, if they were not pre-destined to get saved.

BTW I'm not trying to knock any theology here, I'm just trying to understand.  

Marcia

Hi Marcia,

When I re-read my post it sounded a little terse, mainly because I was in a hurry.

Here's the deal.  Your question is so common, that Paul answered it about 2000 years before you had a chance to ask:

Romans 9:13  As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."  14  What shall we say then? [Is] [there] unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!

In other words, "Gee, it seems like God is unjust if he loves Jacob and hates Esau.  I mean, they didn't have a chance, He decided it even before they were born."  Paul answers by saying it isn't a matter of judgement, or justice, it's a matter of mercy!  Fairness and justice scream for all of us to go straight to Hell!  But mercy has been shown to all those who believe.


The next question is much more serious, and betrays an attitude that borders on blasphemy:

Romans 9:15  For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion."  16  So then [it] [is] not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.  17  For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth."  18  Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.  19  You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?"  20  But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed [it], "Why have you made me like this?"  21  Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

Here, the question is actually an accusation, not unlike a rebellious teenage boy, who forgets to bring his homework home.  His father rebukes him for not doing his homework and the boy says,  "Geez Dad!  How can I obey you when I don't have my homework?  I don't have a choice, I can't do it."  

The fact is he can't do his homework...but because he "chose" not to by forgetting it.   In this case,  a sinful man actually accuses God of finding fault with people who have no choice...which is blasphemous.  Paul answers this fellow with harsh language, as seen above.

I find it very interesting that those who feel they must oppose the doctrine of unconditional election often resort to the same arguments that Paul dispatches in Romans 9!  

It isn't that difficult!

1.)God pre-destined/pre-ordained/forknew those who would be saved. Romans 9
2.)Everyone who calls upon the Name of The Lord shall be saved.  Romans 10

Just because our understanding has trouble with this doesn't mean it isn't true.  When I read Romans 9, I am thankful that God chose me, and showed mercy to me in Christ.   When I read Romans 10, I am happy that I called upon His name, and that he promises me that I will be saved.  

What's the big deal?

Brent

[Oscar]

H,

Quite interesting.  I agree with much of what you say.  However you must admit that Calvin taught that God caused Adam to fall.

For example: "I admit that by the will of God all the sons of Adam fell into that state of wretchedness in which they are now involved: and this is just what I said at the first, that we must always return to the mere pleasure of the divine will, the cause of which is hidden in himself".  Institutes, 23,4.

What you are arguing is that God caused it to happen but he didn't cause it to happen.  

 Huh?

Here's a question for you, my voluntarist friend; If God's will is absolutely free...why is he "The God who cannot lie"?

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Tom,

No, I don't have to admit that "Calvin taught that God caused Adam to fall." And no, I am not arguing "that God caused it to happen". Calvin said that it was "by the will of God" that Adam fell, but that is not the same as saying that He caused it. I interpret him to mean that since Adam fell, it must have been God's will (in some sense) to allow him to fall (as a result of his own free choice), since otherwise God would not have allowed it to happen.  After all, "with God nothing shall be impossible" (Luke 1:37), so it seems to me that He could have prevented it if it had not been His will. But that doesn't mean He caused it.

This basically involves the age-old question of "Why is there evil in the world if it was created by a good God?" People have taken a number of different approaches to this question through the centuries. Some have simply denied that God exists. If God doesn't exist, then the question is clearly meaningless and doesn't need to be answered. Some have denied that the God who created the universe is good (Marcion, for example). Some have denied that God is omniscient (i.e., He didn't know that Satan and Adam would rebel when He decided to create them). Calvin (and many others, myself included) simply bowed in humility before God's sovereignty and said that for His own reasons, He wanted to create Lucifer and Adam, even though He knew they would rebel, thus introducing sin and evil into the creation. As the Lord Jesus said, "Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight." (Mat. 11:26).
What is your approach?

As for your question "If God's will is absolutely free...why is he "The God who cannot lie"?", it reminds me of some questions that atheists have asked, such as "If God is omnipotent, why can't He make a rock he cannot move?" If you answer that question correctly, you will also have answered your question.

God bless,

H

 

H,

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think it is a good answer.  Arguing that God "orders everything after the counsels of His sovereign will" but then He has nothing to do with the results is, in my humble opinion, just goofy.

Saying that "If God's will is absolutely free why can't He lie" is like an atheists trick questions is incorrect.

The "If God is omnipotent can he create an irresistable force and an immoveable object" type of question is not really a question.  It is a word game.

God cannot create square circles, or circular squares.  That is because if he makes a square circular, it is no longer a square, and vice versa.   The term square circle is a nonsense term.

In the case of an immoveable  object versus the irresistable force, the two cannot co-exist, and therefore the "question" is self referentially absurd.  Or, if you wish, self contradictory.  If a thing is unmoveable, there cannot exist an irresistable force at the same time and in the same sense.   The opposite is also true.

However, the Bible clearly says that God cannot lie, (Titus 1:2).

Therefore, God's will is not free in this area.  This shows that the proposition that God's will is absolutely free is false.

God is not free to lie, nor to do anything unholy, unmerciful, unjust and so on.  That is why voluntarism is false.

God is not limited by a higher law that He must obey.  God always acts in accord with His eternal nature.  His sovereignty expresses his nature.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[Oscar]

Aahhh! Now we are getting somewhere. I did not say that I believed your representation of what the Trinity is! I accept your syllogism as presented as it is clear that although premise one and two appear to be contradictory logically, the Bible does indeed state them both. Tom I could not logically explain to anyone even if I wnated to what it means that "three persons subsit in one", your definition not mine. That statememt clearly defies mathematical logic.  Rather than the flowery and liguistically elegant conclusion you arrived at, my conclusion is that the Biblical teaching of the Trinity while true, defies logic!!!!


Verne
p.s. I hope all understand I am playing logical devil's advocate here... I believe in the Trinity of course, by faith!  

One of our children's devotionals helped quite a bit with the Trinity.

Example one:  The sun.

We see its light, feel its warmth, and require its phototrophic properties.  3 distinct "aspects" sunlight, the character of one sun.

Example two:

H2O, water:  It exists as solid, liquid and gas, yet it is all water.

Perfect examples?  No, not perfect, but surely if water can have 3 "persons," God is also able to exist as a Trinity.

Brent

Brent,

In dealing with a child's mind, this might be helpful.  However, it is exactly the reasoning employed by a very popular heresy in the early Church.

This was called "modalism".  God was said to be one being, who subsists in three modes: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

It preserved the Unity of the Godhead, but to do so it sacrificed the personhood.  That is why it was rejected by the early Church fathers.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[al Hartman]

     ...the Bible clearly says that God cannot lie, (Titus 1:2).

Therefore, God's will is not free in this area.  This shows that the proposition that God's will is absolutely free is false.

God is not free to lie, nor to do anything unholy, unmerciful, unjust and so on.  That is why voluntarism is false.

God is not limited by a higher law that He must obey.  God always acts in accord with His eternal nature.  His sovereignty expresses his nature.

Tom, Brent, Verne, H, Mark C, and All,

     Admittedly, I am light years and millenia behind the main posters in this discussion, as are many if not most of its readers.  But certain things seem evident and beg addressing.  Please consider that the questions of the less scholarly are as important to our faith and understanding as are the deeper matters to you...

     Is it not that God cannot lie because He has chosen to be so?  Doesn't "the will of God" connote desire, intent and choice?  It is uncanny to think that God could be limited by anything but His own choice.  Who established His sovereign nature if not Himself?  Who else could have possibly imposed such restriction upon Him?  If God is omnipotent-- can do anything-- then the only possible reason that He cannot lie is that He will not lie.

     God's very nature is of His own choosing.  He is not holy, righteous, just, merciful, good because it is required of Him or imposed upon Him, but of His own volition, because He chooses to be so.  Anything that God "is not free" to do is because He Himself has deemed it so.  No other power could have.

     I am open to instruction regarding these things, and request your response...

al


     

[H]

H,

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think it is a good answer.  Arguing that God "orders everything after the counsels of His sovereign will" but then He has nothing to do with the results is, in my humble opinion, just goofy.

Tom,

I didn't say that He has nothing to do with the results, I just said that He did not "cause" Adam to sin, Adam sinned by his own free choice. Adam's free choice was part of God's plan, but that doesn't mean that God "caused" it. By the way, how do you understand verses like Eph. 1:11 ("In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,")?

Saying that "If God's will is absolutely free why can't He lie" is like an atheists trick questions is incorrect.

The "If God is omnipotent can he create an irresistable force and an immoveable object" type of question is not really a question.  It is a word game.

God cannot create square circles, or circular squares.  That is because if he makes a square circular, it is no longer a square, and vice versa.   The term square circle is a nonsense term.

In the case of an immoveable  object versus the irresistable force, the two cannot co-exist, and therefore the "question" is self referentially absurd.  Or, if you wish, self contradictory.  If a thing is unmoveable, there cannot exist an irresistable force at the same time and in the same sense.   The opposite is also true.

However, the Bible clearly says that God cannot lie, (Titus 1:2).

Therefore, God's will is not free in this area.  This shows that the proposition that God's will is absolutely free is false.

God is not free to lie, nor to do anything unholy, unmerciful, unjust and so on.  That is why voluntarism is false.

God is not limited by a higher law that He must obey.  God always acts in accord with His eternal nature.  His sovereignty expresses his nature.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

I disagree with you regarding the nature of your original question. Just like "circle" and "square" are mutually exclusive concepts, so "God" and "liar" are mutually exclusive concepts (at least in my mind; if they are not mutually exclusive in your mind, then we have a problem). Just as it is impossible for a square to be a circle, so "it is impossible for God to lie" (Heb. 6:18). Thus your question ""If God's will is absolutely free why can't He lie?" is just as absurd and self-contradictory as the atheist's questions about God's omnipotence, since they both involve an impossiblilty. This is crystal clear to me. If it is not clear to you, then there is not much I can do apart from praying for you (which I do, by the way).

Just as I believe that God is omnipotent even though He cannot do impossible things, so I also believe that His will is absolutely free even though He cannot do impossible things. As W.E. Best said, "God’s freedom indicates that He is under no compulsion outside of Himself. He acts according to the law of His being. God is self-moved, and unable to sin." You yourself said "God is not limited by a higher law that He must obey.  God always acts in accord with His eternal nature.  His sovereignty expresses his nature." I agree with this 100%!

God bless,

H

[H]

Tom, Brent, Verne, H, Mark C, and All,

     Admittedly, I am light years and millenia behind the main posters in this discussion, as are many if not most of its readers.  But certain things seem evident and beg addressing.  Please consider that the questions of the less scholarly are as important to our faith and understanding as are the deeper matters to you...

     Is it not that God cannot lie because He has chosen to be so?  Doesn't "the will of God" connote desire, intent and choice?  It is uncanny to think that God could be limited by anything but His own choice.  Who established His sovereign nature if not Himself?  Who else could have possibly imposed such restriction upon Him?  If God is omnipotent-- can do anything-- then the only possible reason that He cannot lie is that He will not lie.

     God's very nature is of His own choosing.  He is not holy, righteous, just, merciful, good because it is required of Him or imposed upon Him, but of His own volition, because He chooses to be so.  Anything that God "is not free" to do is because He Himself has deemed it so.  No other power could have.

     I am open to instruction regarding these things, and request your response...

al

al,

thanks for your excellent post! The only part I disagree with is the first sentence. The rest of your post makes it abundantly clear that you are NOT "light years and millenia behind the main posters in this discussion"!

Lord bless!

H

[Scott McCumber]

     ...the Bible clearly says that God cannot lie, (Titus 1:2).

Therefore, God's will is not free in this area.  This shows that the proposition that God's will is absolutely free is false.

God is not free to lie, nor to do anything unholy, unmerciful, unjust and so on.  That is why voluntarism is false.

God is not limited by a higher law that He must obey.  God always acts in accord with His eternal nature.  His sovereignty expresses his nature.

Tom, Brent, Verne, H, Mark C, and All,

     Admittedly, I am light years and millenia behind the main posters in this discussion, as are many if not most of its readers.  But certain things seem evident and beg addressing.  Please consider that the questions of the less scholarly are as important to our faith and understanding as are the deeper matters to you...

     Is it not that God cannot lie because He has chosen to be so?  Doesn't "the will of God" connote desire, intent and choice?  It is uncanny to think that God could be limited by anything but His own choice.  Who established His sovereign nature if not Himself?  Who else could have possibly imposed such restriction upon Him?  If God is omnipotent-- can do anything-- then the only possible reason that He cannot lie is that He will not lie.

     God's very nature is of His own choosing.  He is not holy, righteous, just, merciful, good because it is required of Him or imposed upon Him, but of His own volition, because He chooses to be so.  Anything that God "is not free" to do is because He Himself has deemed it so.  No other power could have.

     I am open to instruction regarding these things, and request your response...

al


     

Hi, Al,

The way you stated this makes it seem as if you are saying God created himself. Or at some point in eternity, he was thinking, "Hmmm, what do I want to be? Truthful or not? Righteous or not."

You are saying that someday God can change his mind. Or that he can lie if he wants to but he just won't.

I don't think God decided how he should be. I think his nature defines what truth, righteousness, holiness, etc. is. His nature and his actions are not defined by our definitions of these concepts. He IS these concepts.

Just my (very inadequately stated) two cents.

S

[editor]

This was called "modalism".  God was said to be one being, who subsists in three modes: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

It preserved the Unity of the Godhead, but to do so it sacrificed the personhood.  That is why it was rejected by the early Church fathers.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

Yes, Modalism.
I also am familiar with Pelagianism,  Arianism,  Sibellianism and a few other "isms."

Like I said, the analogy isn't perfect, but I don't know of a perfect analogy....do you?

God said that nature itself reveals "the Godhead," Romans 1:20  For since the creation of the world His invisible [attributes] are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,  

So, I'm not so sure that it's that bad of an analogy.  Perhaps you are under the mistaken idea that water only exists in one form at a time?  Actually,  this isn't true,  as even at the south pole there is solid, liquid and vapor.

Anyhow, I do not subscibe to Modalism, or the Arian heresy.  I also know that I have no problem whatsoever with the Trinity, and I am not a Oneness Pentecostal.

In spite of that, this thread is getting way off track.

Brent

[M2]

This is not about knocking Calvin and the reformers, but about re-evaluating my beliefs on various Christian doctrines.  All of my Christian education, prior to the last 7 months, was in the assembly.  Quoting the Scriptures did help me to see where the teaching on 'pre-destination' gets its credibility.  However, I still do not agree with that teaching based on the 'whoever' (whosoever) verses.  Albeit, I would rather go to a Christian Reform Church where they love the Lord and are off in some doctrines IMO, than stick with an ex-Geftakys assembly where the ex about the Geftakys part is mainly that GG is not welcome anymore.  Also, I tend to agree with Tom re. Plymouth Bretherenism.  I have discovered in my search for a new place of fellowship that not all churches under the same umbrella are living and growing.  However, there might be some that are.  Though I now fellowship at a Baptist church, I would not go so far as to 'promote' the Baptist way.  The discussion here, from my standpoint, is to discuss the Scriptures and how they influence my belief system.  In doing so the various theological viewpoints will be be opened for scrutiny.

Lord bless,
Marcia

[Oscar]

Al,

You wrote,

"    God's very nature is of His own choosing.  He is not holy, righteous, just, merciful, good because it is required of Him or imposed upon Him, but of His own volition, because He chooses to be so.  Anything that God "is not free" to do is because He Himself has deemed it so.  No other power could have."

I don't believe that there is any basis upon which to make statements like this.  All we know of God is what we can glean from what He has revealed of himself in His word.

The Bible just doesn't say anything about this.  So, we cannot know.

One of the uncommunicable attributes of God that theologians describe is His unchangeableness.  And He has said, "I change not".  So it would seem that this is not a possibility.

If God could and did decide to change, He would make the earlier statement false.

So, I just don't think enough is known about this to make draw the kind of conclusions you seem to have drawn.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[sfortescue]

Exodus 3:13-15
And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?  And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.  And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

"I am that I am" could be said in reverse: "I am because I am."  The essential meaning being that God decides his own existence.  It's as if he is saying that he created himself.  The question about God changing his mind is illogical because God doesn't make mistakes.

[jesusfreak]

"I am that I am" could be said in reverse: "I am because I am."  The essential meaning being that God decides his own existence.  It's as if he is saying that he created himself.  The question about God changing his mind is illogical because God doesn't make mistakes.

What do you think of this? (It is a quote from a friend's theology dissertation that I have been thinking about for a while now)

"It is not to God whom we relate, but to the affects of His being; grace, love, and perfection.  While Our perception of each is subject to subtle change resulting from environmental elements, the reason for their existence, their affect upon Our existence, and the applicatory nature of their existence universally remain the same."

--
lucas