Posted on 01/21/2005 6:34:28 AM PST by P-Marlowe
Grima....LOL!
Strike where it hurts are we?
"I would know nothing except Christ and Him crucified."
"One is born in the Spirit by choosing to trust in God"
I repeated what I thought was the thrust of that remark:
"According to Buggman, man is saved by his own choice to trust God."
But you corrected me, saying:
"No, man is saved by God's free gift."
So somehow you're drawing a distinction between "born in the spirit" and "saved?" Or have you forgotten you made the first comment? Or do you simply deny everything any Calvinist says from habit?
And kindly stop with the constant sniping. They weigh down the discussion in acrimony needlessly. No one is "compelled to distort..." Your own words are confusing enough and I'm asking for clarification.
Calvin never says in his commentary (at least in Ephesians or Romans) that faith is not a gift from God as Oslen erroneously charges. At least not that I could find. Calvin simply states that faith is something man must initiate. Perhaps you may wish to find a more objective source or at least check the references.
The real question seems to center around whether it is a “gift of God”. (Everyone has been arguing this for the last 150 posts but I’m a little dense.) The question in my mind is that if it doesn’t say this in Ephesians does it say it somewhere else?
One of the more interesting verses that I came across is:
Act 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
We know saving faith is a response to God’s word from Romans. Additionally faith is exercised by those “who have been appointed to eternal life”. No one else. This is consistent with:
Joh 6:36-37 "But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
We are unable to believe until the Father gives us to our Lord Jesus. While faith is man’s exercise it cannot be implemented until we are appointed by the Father to eternal life. It is through His appointment our faith becomes active according to Acts. Since not everyone believes we know everyone is not appointed and cannot exercise faith. Nor can one believe and then not believe since under Acts they would not fit the definition of appointment. I should also mention that Acts is pretty clear that if you ARE appointed you will believe-there is no choice of whether to believe or not.
I can only conclude that, under the scriptures presented, our faith is a gift from God since our salvation is a gift from God; appointed by the Father.
First, you say Peter made a mistake. Then when I call you out on that illogical statement, you go with the old restructuring of the sentence argument, saying that he was misunderstood. Apparently 3,000 + people misunderstood the Holy Spirit speaking through Peter on that day since they were baptized. And the Bible clearly says that those who were baptized that day were added to the church. In other words, they were saved. Just face the fact that you don't have a real answer for this verse.
The idea that repentance is tied to the remission of sins, and baptism is not, is a bogus one. The "and" in that passage between "Repent" and "be baptized", which as you must know is a conjunction, ties them together. The conjunction "and" never separates two things, always joins them. The Greek word here is "kai" and it has the meaning I just described. Even if you wanted to tie only one of the verbs to remission of sins, it would be baptism the way the sentence is structured. However, that is not the case since the Bible clearly teaches that repentance is necessary for salvation.
It isn't my theology, it is that taught in the Bible. If, as you suggest, "eis aphesin ton harmartion humon" is translated as "because of the remission of your sins" in Acts 2:38, then "eis aphesin hamartion" is translated as "because of the remission of sins" in Matthew 26:28.
This would mean Christ said he shed His blood because we were already forgiven, which I know you will deny wholeheartedly.
There are also 2 other verses that use "eis aphesin hamartion". They are Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3. Both are talking about John's baptism as being "of repentance for the remission of sins". I also don't see you saying that those should be translated as "because of the remission of sins".
If it is "becuase of the remission of sins" in one passage, it must be translated that way in all four. Please, be consistent.
1 Peter 5:5
"Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all [of you] be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble."
This verse says that God gives grace to those who are humble and submit themselves to the elders. In the verses preceding this one, Peter tells the elders to watch over their flock and continue to teach them. If grace is unconditional as you say, then why does Peter say just the opposite here. Is he "mistaken" yet again as you said he was in Acts 2:38, even though the Holy Spirit guided the writers of the Scriptures?
I would never suggest that God is limited. I am only saying what the Bible says, which is God's Word. Logically speaking, grace must be either universal, or there must be some conditions. I don't understand why that is so hard to comprehend, unless you are just not wanting to believe it.
) Believe,
2) repent of your sins,
3) confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God,
4) and be baptized for the remission of your sins.
At which point are you "saved".
At the moment you actually believe.
Then tell me, which action actually remits (paid for) your sins? The shedding of Christ's Blood, or your Baptism? And while you're at it, was Christ's death and resurrection an actual purchase of your redemption, or only a potential purchase, conditioned on your response? Please answer in light of Jesus' own statements:
All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will in no way cast out. (Joh 6:37)And this is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all which He has given Me I should lose nothing but should raise it up again at the last day. (Joh 6:39)
No one can come to Me unless the Father who has sent Me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day. (Joh 6:44)
And He said, Because of this I said to you that no one can come to Me unless it was given to him from My Father. (Joh 6:65)
You are confusing the action os obedience by men with the action of Christ in the Atonement.
So, going through all four steps brings you to the result of being saved, but then your last statement can be taken two ways. It can be read as you are saved at step one, or it can be read saying that you don't actually believe until after you've done step 4. There seems to be a contradiction here.
So, which is it?
I answered your question
You are saved the moment you believe.
The Bible does not teach the need for any of the others as being a requiement for salvation
I'm glad to hear that we're on common ground on this issue.
Calvin never says in his commentary (at least in Ephesians or Romans) that faith is not a gift from God as Oslen erroneously charges.
Sorry, should have included Olsen's citation: John Calvin, Commentaries, trans. Pringle, vol. XXI, pp. 228-9.
Act 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
There are two ways to answer this verse. First is simply to say that here Dr. Luke was simply acknowledging God's predestination of the elect. That's not a problem for me. Only in the distortions of certain Calvinists have we "Arminians" ever denied predestination--the argument between us is, and always has been whether God's predestination is based on His foreknowledge rather than His whim.
In addition, context is key. Two verses before, Luke writes, "Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, 'It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles'" (v. 46). Ergo, God had not rejected them or predestined them to eternal death--they had rejected Him, and condemned themselves to eternal death. This coincides with what I have been saying all along: That God must take the initiative in offering salvation, but that Man may choose not to trust God and so reject it.
For the second way of looking at this passage, I'll refer back to Olsen again:
Although I have not found any source which considered the fact that tetagmenoi, being a perfect participle form, can be either middle or passive, this is of great significance in our exegesis. . . The middle voice, being reflexive, could be rendered, "as many as had devoted themselves to eternal life believed" or "as many as had arranged (positioned) themselves toward eternal life believed." The first rendering is suggested by the usage in 1 Cor. 16:15: "The household of Stephanas . . . have devoted themselves for the ministry of the saints." . . . Gerhard Delling in TDNT (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament) concurs with that general understanding in reference to Acts 13:48: "The idea that God's will to save is accomplished in Christians with their conversion is obviously not connected with the thought of predestinatino (IV, 192, ff.), but rather with that of conferring status (->31, 20ff.); cf. ouk axious Ac 13:46" (TDNT, VIII, pp. 28-9). Delling here is pointing to a contextual argument, so let us move on to examine the context. (pp. 244-245)Here, Olsen goes on to point out the very same verse that I did above and how it relates to his interpretation of this passage. He goes on:
The contrast Luke makes between these words of the apostles and his own statement in 13:48 is clear. Since the Jews had put themselves in a position hostile to eternal life, the apostles were very explicit by the use fo the reflexive pronoun ('yourselves') to attribute the cause to their attitude. Then Luke in explaining the opposite response of the Gentiles would be most likely intending a reflexive middle voice, rather than a passive, in attributing the cause of the Gentile's faith to their attitude, which in 13:42 was evidenced in their pleading with the apostles to come back on a second Sabbath to give the word of God. The parallel is striking. (ibid.)He concludes by pointing out that his exegesis of this passage is "not new or novel. This was proposed by Dean Henry Alford a century and a half ago . . . He references Bengel and DeWette as supporting his view . . ." (p. 246). (Pardon me for not quoting the Alford citation, but this is getting long as is.)
Bottom line: Either way, Luke is not advocating absolute predestination here in the Calvinist sense, nor does he or Paul indicate that choosing to trust God for salvation is itself the gift of God, though to continue quoting Olsen, "I do not question the Holy Spirit's initiative in opening the sinner's heart to the gospel message, but believe that it is by the conviction of the Holy Spirit (Jn. 16:8-11), which is neither irresistable nor immediate" (ibid.).
Now regarding John 6, I would reiterate the first answer above, since again predestination isn't the problem between us--it's what it's based on. All God gives the Son will come to the Son. So, who does the Father give the Son? I direct you again to John 3:16--the Father gives the Son all who would trust in Him.
Furthermore, there's an immediate context that needs to be considered: Verse 45 says, "It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me." Really? So how did they hear from and learn from the Father before the Son came to them, and before the Holy Spirit dwelt in them as He does in the Church?
The only answer that makes sense here is that Jesus was speaking to the faithful remnant of Israel which God had always and continues to hold for Himself (see Rom. 11:1-6)--in other words, those who knew Adonai from the Tanakh, but not yet Yeshua. These are those who had put their faith in Adonai, who had kept His Torah, who had repented from their sins, and who were looking forward to the coming of His Messiah. Many of these were disciples of John the Baptist some months before Jesus began His ministry. Having learned and trusted in the Father, the Father gave them to His Son, who promised not to cast any of them out.
In other words, the whole context of the passage seems to be a lot more local than it has generally been taken. Therefore, we should be careful and keep that in mind in drawing out theology from it.
For the record:
Salvation is God's gift. Man cannot earn it, he cannot work for it, he could not have obtained it for himself, nor can he make an end-run around around his need for it by claiming that he really doesn't, for all alike have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
However, God having taken the initiative to offer this salvation to him (both on a global and individual scale), Man has a choice to either accept it by trusting God's provision or to condemn himself by rejecting God's loving offer. Trusting God's provision is not a work in the sense that your side has tried to define it, nor can the man who trusts God's provision in Jesus Christ boast of it any more than a man who chooses to trust a person with a branch to pull him out of the quicksand and take hold of it boast that he rescued himself.
Now, if you would like to take issue with any of the above on the basis of Scripture, I am happy to continue the conversation. But I am not going to continue to give you or anyone else a pass on bearing false witness against me or everyone else in my theological camp, as you clearly have been. No more strawmen, no more false dichotomies, no more guilt by association, no more ad hominems, no more simply changing the subject because the line of argument is going against your position.
I suggest you look to HarleyD's recent posts for an example. He doesn't have to mistate my position in order to create an argument that I actually have to do some (in some cases intensive) digging to respond to, nor is he so intractible that he refuses to concede any point at all (as OP has strangely been on the "Is faith a work?" issue).
Harley, if I haven't said it before, thank you for the civil and intellectually stimulating debate that we've been having. I'm really enjoying it.
Yes, I looked at the citation. Calvin simply states that he does not believe this particular text indicates that faith is a gift from God. I cannot conclude from Calvin’s citation that he doesn’t believe faith is a gift as Mr. Olsen has done.
The does beg the question as to what exactly is “the gift of God”. Calvin states that he believes it is the “gift of salvation” as what Mr. Olsen and others have claim. I’m not prepared to accept that interpretation as the beginning context of Ephesian 2 is talking about God’s grace. Be that as it may I wouldn’t dispute that salvation is what Paul is referring to here as “the gift of God” as well. This is too far into the Greek for my limited knowledge.
”There are two ways to answer this verse. [Acts 13:48] First is simply to say that here Dr. Luke was simply acknowledging God's predestination of the elect. In addition, context is key.”
It’s convenient to pick apart the Greek when it suit ones purpose and then try to explanation away the Greek with some other method when the verse is far more troubling. Acts clearly says:
Act 13:48 When the Gentiles1484 heard191 this, they began rejoicing5463 and glorifying1392 the word3056 of the Lord2962; and as many3745 as had been1510 appointed5021 to eternal166 life2222 believed4100.
I’ve left the Strong’s concordance numbers in so you could look them up. You will find that “appointed” means “ordained”, “appointed”, “assigned”. If this was a simple acknowledgement of God’s predestination of the elect then it would have been better stated, “…and as many as believed had been appointed to eternal life.” A small but significant difference. But that is not what it says. Luke, if anything, is noted for his thoroughness and attention to detail in the scriptures. I doubt if he made a mistake. He knew exactly what he was saying.
”Now regarding John 6, I would reiterate the first answer above, since again predestination isn't the problem between us--it's what it's based on. All God gives the Son will come to the Son. So, who does the Father give the Son? I direct you again to John 3:16--the Father gives the Son all who would trust in Him.
Joh 6:36-37 "But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. .
Your interpretation of John 6 makes no sense to me at all. If God the Father gives the Son everyone as you suggest, then everyone will come to Christ and our Lord Jesus will not cast them out. But then you back petal and say that the only conclusion you can draw is that this is talking to the “faithful remnant” but then that would mean only the will be given to Christ by the Father. I don’t need to go into the Greek with this one.
You're the type of poster I generally steer clear of because the discussion drags down into who said what and not the subject itself. And sarcastic rejoinders are unproductive, even though you populate your posts with them.
I simply repeated your statement made to OrthodoxPresbyterian in your post #875, asking for clarification, and you accuse me of "bearing false witness."
Buggman: "One is born in the Spirit by choosing to trust in God after He has extended His initiative. "
If you now retract that statement because seeing it again in black and white reveals the error of it, fine. Do so. But kindly stop haranguing me.
I think you misunderstand Olsen's quote, since he is dealing strictly with that single passage and it's proper exegetical interpretation. Regardless, we're agreed that Ephesians 2:8-9 by itself does not teach that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is the gift of God which much be recieved by trusting Him, correct?
I’m not prepared to accept that interpretation as the beginning context of Ephesian 2 is talking about God’s grace.
I apologize if I'm being dense, but I'm not seeing where that would pose a problem. "Grace" in Greek is charis, which literally means simply a gift--hence the word "charismatic" to refer to someone who emphasizes the gifts of the Holy Spirit in their Christian walk. Could you explain where you see a contradiction?
I’ve left the Strong’s concordance numbers in so you could look them up. You will find that “appointed” means “ordained”, “appointed”, “assigned”.
Yes, but the problem is that Strong's simply gives us the base word without reference to tense, voice, or mood. Without determining the voice, we cannot be sure whether the verb is done to the subject (passive), done by the subject (active), or done by the subject to himself (middle). You are assuming that the verb "appointed" is in the passive voice, which it may be. However, given the original Greek, the context, and the parallelism of the passage, there's no reason why we cannot regard Luke as using the middle voice here.
I'm just pointing out what I did in the case of Ephesus--sometimes the English does not do a good job at accurately transmitting the precision of the original Greek. Heck, look at how many Greek words for various kinds of love (e.g. agape, eros, phileo) we translate back into a single word. That's a problem with all translations, not just in the Bible. However, in this case, it happens to open up the verse to an alternative translation and interpretation that is decidedly inconsistant with the Calvinist POV.
But in any case, if you don't like the digging into the original Greek that Olsen does, just go with my first option, that Luke is acknowledging predestination without explaining (as Paul does in Romans 8:29) on what God bases His election. Since elsewhere we read of people believing without reference to a predestination, that just brings us back to what I suggested many posts ago: That both the eternal POV (predestination) and the temporal POV (free will) are equally valid in the eyes of Scripture, and that we have to acknowledge both in order to really understand Scripture, without getting hung up on the paradox.
If God the Father gives the Son everyone as you suggest, then everyone will come to Christ and our Lord Jesus will not cast them out.
Not at all. I believe to some extent or another, the Holy Spirit draws the whole world per Jn. 16:8-11. However, the Holy Spirit can be and is resisted (Ac. 7:51). Therefore, if this passage is intended with a global application (which I'm not sure that it is), the Father only "gives" those to the Son who do not reject His call. Again, I embrace both God's predestination (based on His foreknowledge) and Man's free will.
But then you back petal and say that the only conclusion you can draw is that this is talking to the “faithful remnant” but then that would mean only the will be given to Christ by the Father.
Okay, let's do this interactively then, if you don't mind the questions back and forth: Who were those who learned from the Father before coming to the Son in Jn. 6:45? How did they learn from the Father without seeing Him (v. 46)? If they had died before the Son had appeared so that they could meet Jesus and put their faith in Him, would they have gone to Heaven? Why or why not?
As I hope you'll see, I'm not so much backpedaling as I am opening up the discussion on an alternative interpretation, while not relying on it as my principal line of attack. Simply put, it's because the idea occured to me just now as I was reviewing the passage, and I don't know if it'll hold up yet. I'm inviting you to take a swing at it, but I'm not abandoning the interpretation on this chapter that I've held for years just yet. Basically, I'm making sure that the second stepping-stone is steady before I take my foot off the first one.
It's just one way that I go about testing and refining my theology. Call it playing devil's advocate if you will, but I find that having others picking out flaws in an idea that I'm considering is a good way to see if it needs to be discarded or how it needs to be refined.
My friend, I would absolutely love to keep this on the subject. However, no honest discussion can take place so long as you continually misrepresent what we are saying in order to take cheap, mocking shots at the strawmen of your own making.
For example, compare again these two statements:
Me: "One is born in the Spirit by choosing to trust in God after He has extended His initiative." (post #875)Do you not see where you chopped off an important part of my sentence in order to change its meaning? Do you not see that your response is not geared to what I wrote, but to your truncated version of it? You made it sound like I believed that Man's faith apart from God's initiative (from the Cross to the conviction of the Spirit) could somehow save us.You quoting me: "One is born in the Spirit by choosing to trust in God"
You: "According to Buggman, man is saved by his own choice to trust God."
Furthermore, you not only chopped that sentence up, you lifted it competely out of its greater context--that being all of the other posts I have made on this subject where I have plainly explained my views on salvation. Not only did I explain with that sentence that God must take the initiative before Man can be saved, or even have faith, I have explained throughout my many posts just what I mean by God's initiative.
Furthermore, you tried to tie a belief in free will with gnosticism, demonstrating your ignorance of what gnosticism really was. I've also seen accusations from your side that "Arminianism" was Jesuit plot, attempts to tie it into Pelagianism, etc. etc. May I introduce you to the fallacy of guilt by association. I know making that kind of attack is easier than actually debating the issue on the basis of Scripture, but I'm candidly fed up with it.
And now suddenly you want to stand up on your soapbox and try to tell me, "You're the type of poster I generally steer clear of because the discussion drags down into who said what and not the subject itself"?
Or, "And sarcastic rejoinders are unproductive, even though you populate your posts with them"? Here's the difference, Doc: When I use sarcasm, it's to drive home the point of a larger argument that I have carefully built on a logical exegesis of Scripture in an extended post, and I think it's pretty evident to any neutral observer that I do read your posts and try to make sure that I understand your arguments before I give rejoinders. You continually use sarcasm in place of presenting an argument, and since you use almost nothing but, heck if we can see that you actually understand what our beliefs actually are.
In short, demonstrate that you actually understand what is being posted and present a logical, Biblical counter-argument (as Harley and I have been doing for the duration of this thread--and you'll notice that I'm not the least irritated with him; on the contrary, I have a great and growing respect for him as a result of our exchanges), and I have no problem with you, nor will I with the use of aggressiveness, irony, sarcasm, jokes, or following an idea to its logical conclusion (provided that we avoid "slippery slope" fallacies).
But as long as you attack strawmen, make false guilt by association accusations (and when was the last time you accepted the argument that Calvinism is wrong because of what happened to Severius?), engage in theological intimidation ("Heresy!"), attempt to change the subject rather than concede a lost point (my exchange with OP earlier in this thread), etc., I'm going to call your BS.
And if that causes you to stop responding to me, oh well. There are too many others here that provide quality debate and Christian discussion for me to mourn the loss of your sarcastic comebacks.
Ok, perhaps I misunderstood the thrust of your post. I cetainly agree that salvation is by faith in the Son of God. I would postulate that the other three are the willing repsonse of those who have believed, and I think you would as well. We agree that those other actions do not save us, but are a response to being saved. Am I correct?
Let's begin there. Are you saying...
"One is born in the spirit (saved) by choosing to trust in God (man making a choice to believe) after He has extended His initiative (whatever that is)?
Save all the snotty remarks and endless paragraphs and let's simply figure out what you're saying in this one simple declarative sentence from your earlier post to OP --
"One is born in the Spirit by choosing to trust in God after He has extended His initiative."
Position X: All the Father decrees to become believers.
Position Y: All the Father sees becoming believers.
One is not more logical as an answer than the other. Both make perfect sense.
Therefore, the best choice for me is the choice that most aligns with scripture.
Each position above is an adequate answer to the verse: All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.