What Must I Do To Be Saved?

Dwight Lyman Moody's Last Sermon in London. Preached in Camberwell Hall, Sunday Evening, July 11th, 1875.

Suppose you do not want to hear a sermon (on this last night) so much as you want to know how to be saved. I want, if I can, to answer that question, "What must I do to be saved?" There is no question that can come before us in this world that is so important; and I think that there is not a man in this audience to-night who does not feel interested in it.

I heard a man, when he was going out the other night, saying: "I do not believe in sudden conversion. I do not believe what the preacher said to-night, that a man could come in here a sinner, and go out a Christian." Now, I want to say that I do not believe in any other conversion. I do not believe that there ever has been a conversion in the world that was not instantaneous, and I want you to mark this: not but what many cannot tell the day nor the hour when they were converted. I will admit that: they may not know the time; but that does not change the great fact that there was a time when they passed from death unto life; that there was a time when they were born [ABCOG: begotten] into the kingdom of God. There must have been a minute when their name was written in the Book of Life. There must have been a time when they were ere lost, and a time when they were saved; but we may not be conscious when the change takes place. I believe the conversion of some is like the rising of the sun, and of others like the flashing of a meteor. But both are instantaneous, really, in the sight of God. There must be a time when life begins to rise; when the dead soul begins to live.

Now, this evening I want to take up some of the Bible illustrations. In the first place, there is the ark. There was a minute when Noah was outside of the ark, and another minute when he was inside. And, bear in mind, it was the ark that saved Noah: it was not his righteousness; it was not his feelings; it was not his tears; it was not his prayers. It was the ark that saved him. If he had tried to make an ark of his feelings, or of his prayers, or of his life, he would have been swept away: he would have been drowned with the rest. But, you see, it was the ark that saved him.

When I was in Manchester, I went into the gallery one Sunday night to have a talk with a few inquirers; and while I was talking, a business man came in, and took his seat on the outskirts of the audience. I think, at first, he had come merely to criticize, and that he was a little skeptical. At last I saw he was in tears. I turned to him, and said, " My friend, what is your difficulty?" "Well," he said, "Mr. Moody, the fact is, I cannot tell." I said, "Do you believe you are a sinner?" He said, "Yes; I know that." I said, "Christ is able to save you"; and I used one illustration after another, but he did not see it. At last I thought of the ark, and I said: "Was it Noah's feelings that saved him? Was it Noah's righteousness that saved him, or was it the ark?" "I see it, now," said he; "I see it." He got up and shook hands with me, and said: "Good-night: I must go. I have to go away by the train to-night; but I was determined to be saved before I went. I see it now."

A few days after, he came and touched me on the shoulder, and said, "Do you know me? " I said, "I know your face, but do not remember where I have seen you." He said, "Do you not remember the illustration of the ark? I said, " Yes." "It has been all light ever since," said he. "I understand it now. Christ is the Ark; He saves me; and I must get inside Him." When I went down to Manchester again, and talked to the young friends there, I found he was the brightest light among them.

Let me take another illustration. There was the blood in Goshen. God says, "When I see the blood I will pass over you." Now He does not say, "When I see Moses' feelings, or the feelings of the people, I will pass over you"; or, "When I see you praying and weeping, I will pass over you"; but, "When I see the blood I will pass over you." It was the blood that saved them, not their righteousness. And a little child by that blood in Goshen was just as safe as Moses or Aaron or Joshua or Caleb. It was the blood that saved them. Look! there is the Jew taking the hyssop. He dips it in the blood, and strikes it on the doorpost. One minute it is not there: the next it is there. The moment the blood is there they are saved. God says, "When I see the blood I will pass over you." Some people say, "If I were only as good as that minister I should feel so safe" or, "If I were only as good as that mother in Israel who has been praying fifty years for the poor and unfortunate, should I not feel very safe? " My friends, if you are behind the blood, you are as safe as any man or woman who has been praying for fifty years. It is not their righteousness and good works that are going to save them. They never saved any one. God says, "When I see the blood I will pass over you." [ABCOG: Moody understands "pass over" to mean "bypass". It can also mean "hover over to protect"] And when I am sheltered behind the blood, then I am saved; and if I am not sheltered behind the blood, I am not saved. That was instantaneous, was not it? God says, "When I see the blood, it shall be a token, and I will not enter." Death came down and passed over Egypt; and where the blood was on the doorpost he passed by; but where the blood could not be found, in he went and took the victim away. The great palaces could not keep out death; wealth and position could not keep out death. He went and took the Crown Prince of Egypt; he took the richest and the poorest, the highest and the lowest. Death makes no distinction, except a man is behind the blood.

My friends, be wise to-night, and get behind the blood. The blood has been shed. The blood is on the mercy-seat; and while it is there you can be saved. God is imputing to His Son your trespasses and sins. He says, "I will look at the blood on the mercy-seat." Press in, my friends; make haste and get in tonight; for the Master of the house will rise up by-and-by and shut to the door, and then there will be no hope.

Take another case. When Israel went over Jordan, God told Joshua to have six cities of refuge; three on each side of Jordan. They were to be built on a hill, where they could be seen at a great distance, and the gates were to be kept open day and night. All obstacles were to be kept out of the way, the highway was to be kept in repair, the bridges and everything in good condition, so that nothing should hinder a poor man flying to the city of refuge. If a man killed another in those days, it was considered a great disgrace if the nearest relative did not take vengeance. "An eye for an eye, and a booth for a tooth." If a man killed another, the next kinsman was bound to put him to death. But if he could escape to a city of refuge he was tried, and if it was found he had not intentionally killed the man, he might live.

Now for my illustration. Suppose I have killed a man. I am out away in the woods working, and my axe slips out of my hand, and kills the man working with me. I know that his kinsman, his brother, is not far away. The news will soon reach him that I have killed his brother. What shall I do? I start for the city of refuge, over there away on the hill, ten miles off. I run - and we are told that in those days there used to be signposts with the word " Refuge," written in great red letters, so that a man might read as he ran; he need not stop. I have been told that there was a finger pointing towards the city, and a man who could not read might see the hand. A man does not have to learn to read before he can be saved. I see that hand; it is pointing to the city of refuge. The gate is wide open, but it is ten miles away. I leap over the highway. I do not look behind, to the right hand or to the left. I do not listen to this man or to that man, but, like John Bunyan, I put my fingers in my ears. The avenger has drawn his sword, and is on my track. I leap over into the highway; and, pretty soon, I can hear him behind me, Away I go, over that bridge, across that stream, up that mountain, along that valley, - but I can hear him coming nearer and nearer. There is the watchman; I can see him on the wall of the city. He gives notice to the inhabitants that a refugee is coming. I see the citizens on the wall of the city watching, and when I get near I hear them calling, "Run, run! Escape, escape! He is very near you! Run! escape!" I press on; leap through the gate of the city; and at last I am safe. One minute I am outside, and the next I am inside. One minute I am exposed to that sword; it may come down upon me at any minute: the next minute I am safe. Do I feel any difference? I feel I am behind the walls: that is the difference. It is a fact. There I am. The avenger can come up to the gates of the city, but he cannot come in. He cannot lay his sword upon me. The law of the land shields me now. I am under the protection of that city; I have saved my life; but I had no time for lingering.

A great many of you are trying to get into the city of refuge, and there are enemies trying to stop you, But do not listen to them. Your friends tell you to escape. Make haste! Delay not for a single moment!

In our country, before the war, when we had slavery, the slaves used to keep their eye on the north star. If a slave escaped to the Northern States, his old master could come and take him back into slavery. But there was another flag on American soil, and if they could only get under that flag they were for ever free. It is called the Union Jack. If they could only get as far north as Canada they were free; therefore they kept looking towards the north star. But they knew if they only got into the Northern States, there might be some one ready to take them back. So it is with every poor sinner who wants to come to Christ. Many men do all they can to hinder him; others will cheer him on. Let us help every man towards the north star. A man has escaped: perhaps he swims across the Mississippi river, or crosses the Ohio river in a little canoe. The master hears of it, and he takes his hounds and sets them on his track, and begins to hunt him down. The slave hears the hounds; and he knows that his master is coming to take him back to slavery. The line is a mile or two away. He escapes as fast as he can. He runs with all his might for the frontier, over hedges and ditches and rivers; away he goes for Canada. By-and-by he comes in sight of Canada. He can see that flag floating in front of him; and he knows that if he can only cross the line before his master and the hounds overtake him, he will be free for ever.

How the poor black man runs! leaping and bounding along; and at last, with one bound, he goes over the line. He is free! One minute he is a slave; the next minute he is a free man, under the flag of Queen Victoria, the British flag! (cheers [ABCOG: by British crowd]) - don't cheer, my friends, but come to Christ - and your laws say that no man under that flag shall be a slave. One minute he is a slave; the next minute he is a free man. One minute it is possible for his old master to drag him back; the next minute he shouts, "Free!"

If Christ tells us that we are free, we are free. My friends, Christ is calling to-night. Get out of the devil's territory as quick as you can. No slave in the Southern States had so hard a master as yours, nor so mean a master as Satan. Take my advice tonight, and escape for the liberty of your soul.

I can imagine some of you saying "I do not see how a man is really going to be converted all at once." Let me give you another illustration. Look down there. There are two soldiers. Now, if you bring those soldiers up to this platform, and ask them how they became soldiers, they will tell you this - that one moment they were citizens, and the next minute soldiers. What was it that made them soldiers? It was when they took the Queen's shilling. The moment they received that shilling they ceased to be citizens, and they became soldiers. Before they received that shilling they could go where they pleased; the next minute they came under the government and under the regulations of the army, and they must go where Queen Victoria sends them. They did not have to wait for the uniform. The minute they received the shilling they became soldiers. What made them soldiers? Receiving the shilling. What makes a man a Christian? Receiving Christ. "He came unto His own, and His own received Him not: but as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God."

Now, the gift of God is eternal life. Who will have the gift to-night? When I was down in Manchester I asked that question, and a man shouted in the meeting, "I will! " Who will have it now? Is not there some man here in London, as there was in Manchester, who will say that he will have the gift? Is it not a wonder to have to plead with so many to take the gift? "The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life." Who will have the gift now? (Many responses of "I will"; "I will.")

I can imagine one man down there who says "How about repentance? How about getting into the ark or the city of refuge before repentance?" My friend, let me ask you what is repentance? It is right-about-face! I think these soldiers understand that expression. Some one has said that every one is born with his back to God, and that conversion turns him right round. If you want to be converted, and want to repent, I will tell you what you should do. Just get out of Satan's service, and get into the Lord's. Leave your old friends, and unite yourself with God's people.

In a few days, if nothing happens, I expect to go to Liverpool. If, when I am in the train, my friend Mr. Shipton says, "Moody, you are going in the wrong train, - that train is going to Edinburgh" - I should say, "Mr. Shipton, you have made a great mistake; somebody told me the train was going to Liverpool. You are wrong, Mr. Shipton; I am sure you are wrong." Then Mr. Shipton would say, "Moody, I have lived here forty years, and I know all about the trains. He must have been very ignorant or very vicious who told you that train goes to Liverpool." Mr. Shipton at last convinces me, and I get out of that train and get into the one going to Liverpool.

Repentance is getting out of one train and getting into the other. You are in the wrong train; you are in the broad path that takes you down to the pit of hell. Get out of it to-night. Right-about-face! Who will turn his feet towards God? "Turn ye, for why will ye die?" In the Old Testament the word is "turn." In the New Testament the word is "repent." "Turn ye, for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" God does not want any man in this audience to perish, but He wants all to be saved. You can be saved now if you will.

There is another illustration I wish I had time to dwell upon and that is about looking. There is that serpent in the wilderness. "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man also be lifted up, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Look here! Just give me your attention for a few minutes. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." How long does it take a man to believe? Or, if you will, how long does it take a man to look? Some people say they believe in educating people to be Christians. How long do you educate children to look? You hear the mother say, "Look," and the little child looks. It does not take a child three months to learn to look. Look and live! You need not go to college to learn how to look. There is not a child here but knows how to look. Christ says, "Look unto me; for I am [ABCOG: the way to] God, and there is none else."

There is the brazen serpent on the pole. God says to the children of Israel, who are dying of the bite of the fiery serpents - "Look, and live!"

Now, there is nothing in looking at a piece of brass which can cure the bite of a serpent. It is God who cures it, and the looking is the condition. It is obedience; and that is what God will have.

One moment the poor sufferer is dying; the next there comes a thrill of life through his veins, and he lives: he is well. My friends, look to Christ, and not to yourselves. That is what is the matter with a great many sinners; instead of looking to Christ, they are looking at the bite.

It is not looking to the wound; it is looking to the remedy. Christ is the remedy of sin. What you want is to look from the wound to the remedy - to Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our faith. Who will look tonight, and live? Turn your eye to Calvary; believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.

Well, as you suggested I went through and read Calvin's writings on Ephesians and Romans as well as a number of articles by various authors. You’re correct and I would agree that ”Faith, trusting God, is ~~neither~~not a work, ~~nor is it a gift from God,~~ but rather a response to God offering the gift of salvation."

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.

This would mean Christ said he shed His blood because we were already forgiven, which I know you will deny wholeheartedly.

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.

You’re correct and I would agree that ”Faith, trusting God, is neithernot a work, nor is it a gift from God, but rather a response to God offering the gift of 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.

You're not even trying to have a real conversation anymore, are you?

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.

”Sorry, should have included Olsen's citation: John Calvin, Commentaries, trans. Pringle, vol. XXI, pp. 228-9. “

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)
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."

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.

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.

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.