Posted on 03/12/2011 6:27:13 AM PST by Gamecock
"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." Romans 3:28 "Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness." Romans 4:4-5
I was going through some of my old study notes today and came across this short article by Dr. R. C. Sproul. In reading it through again, I was reminded about the magnitude of the issue as it relates to the very Gospel itself, and the vital differences that still remain between the two sides. Rome believes that justification is by grace, through faith and because of Christ. What Rome does not believe is that justification is by grace alone, or through faith alone, or by Christ alone. For Rome, justification is by grace plus merit, through faith plus works; by Christ plus the sinner's contribution of inherent righteousness. In contrast, the Reformers called the Church back to the one true Biblical Gospel: Salvation is by God's grace alone, received through faith alone, because of Christ alone, based on the Scriptures alone, to the Glory of God alone. Dr. Sproul's article (below) brings out the clear distinctions between the Reformers and Rome concerning justification - which as Martin Luther declared, is the article upon which the church stands or falls. - John Samson
Dr. Sproul writes:
At the heart of the controversy between Roman Catholic and Reformation or Protestant theology is the nature of justification itself. It is a debate not merely about how or when or by what means a person is justified, but about the very meaning of justification itself. Reformed theology insists that the biblical doctrine of justification is forensic in nature.
What does this mean?
In the popular jargon of religion, the word forensic is used infrequently. The word is not foreign, however, to ordinary language. It appears daily in the news media, particularly with reference to criminal investigations and trials. We hear of "forensic evidence" and "forensic medicine" as we listen to the reports of criminologists, coroners, and pathologists. Here the term forensic refers to the judicial system and judicial proceedings. The term forensic is also used to describe events connected with public speaking. Schools hold forensic contests or events that feature formal debates or the delivery of speeches. The link between these ordinary usages of forensic and its theological use is that justification has to do with a legal or judicial matter involving some type of declaration. We can reduce its meaning to the concept of legal declaration.
The doctrine of justification involves a legal matter of the highest order. Indeed it is the legal issue on which the sinner stands or falls: his status before the supreme tribunal of God. When we are summoned to appear before the bar of God's judgment, we face a judgment based on perfect justice. The presiding Judge is himself perfectly just. He is also omniscient, fully aware of our every deed, thought, inclination, and word. Measured by the standard of his canon of righteousness, we face the psalmist's rhetorical question that hints at despair: "If you, LORD, should mark iniquities, ...who could stand?" (Psalm 130:3 NKJV). The obvious answer to this query is supplied by the Apostle Paul: "There is none righteous, no, not one...." (Romans 3:10). God commands us to be holy. Our moral obligation coram Deo (before the face of God) is to live perfect lives. One sin mars that obligation and leaves us naked, exposed before divine justice. Once a person sins at all, a perfect record is impossible. Even if we could live perfectly after that one sin, we would still fail to achieve perfection. Our sin may be forgiven, but forgiveness does not undo the sin. The consequences of the sin may be removed, but the sin itself is not undone.
The Bible speaks figuratively about the sin being washed, cleansed, healed, and blotted out. The sin, which is scarlet, may become white as snow, the crimson may become like wool, in God's sight. The sin may be cast into the sea of forgetfulness or purged with hyssop. But these images describe an expiation for sin and divine forgiveness or remission of our sin. Our record does not change, but our guilt does. Hence Paul declares, "Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin" (Romans 4:8 NKJV). In our redemptive forgiveness God does not charge us with what we owe. He does not count our sins against us. If he did, no one (except Jesus) would ever escape his just wrath. No one but Christ would be able to stand before God's judgment. Again, God in his grace may regenerate us, sanctify us, and even glorify us. He might make us perfect in the future. He really does change the elect and will eventually make the justified totally and completely righteous. But even the perfected saint in heaven was once a sinner and has a track record that, apart from the grace of justification, would send him to hell. Thus, where temporal creatures are concerned, everyone who is once imperfect is always imperfect with respect to the whole scope of the person's individual history. This is what Thomas Aquinas meant when he asserted that justification is always of the impious (iustificatio impii). Righteous people have no need of justification, even as the healthy have no need of a physician.
Both Roman Catholic and Reformation theology are concerned with the justification of sinners. Both sides recognize that the great human dilemma is how unjust sinners can ever hope to survive a judgment before the court of an absolutely holy and absolutely just God. If we define forensic justification as a legal declaration by which God declares a person just and we leave it at that, we would have no dispute between Rome and Evangelicalism. Though Rome has an antipathy to the concept of forensic justification, this antipathy is directed against the Protestant view of it. In chapter 7 of the sixth session of the Council of Trent, Rome declared: "...not only are we reputed but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure...." Here Rome is jealous to distinguish between being reputed just and actually being just, yet it is still true that God calls the baptismally regenerated just. That is, for Rome justification is forensic in that justification involves God's legal declaration. A person is justified when God declares that person just. The reason or the ground of that declaration differs radically between Roman Catholic and Reformed theology. But both agree that a legal declaration by God is made. Nor is it sufficient merely to say that Rome teaches that justification means "to make just," while Protestants teach that justification means "to declare just."
For Rome God both makes just and declares just. For Protestants God both makes just and declares just -- but not in the same way. For Rome the declaration of justice follows the making inwardly just of the regenerate sinner. For the Reformation the declaration of justice follows the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the regenerated sinner (Rom.4:4-8; 2 Cor. 5:21).
AMEN!!!!
Hoss
Nonsense. The fact stands; the natural man, without the Spirit of God, can do NOTHING to please God. Attempting to muddy the waters is futile, but I do understand the natural inclination to twist Scripture since we were warned about it in 2 Peter 3:16.
“Jesus answered them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.” - John 6:43-44
Arminians follow a long tradition of grumblers who despise the sovereignty of God.
Luke 4:25-29 But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over all the land, 26 and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.” When they heard these things, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. And they rose up and drove him out of the town and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the cliff.”
The natural man hates the sovereignty of God, because at his core, he hates God.
“The fact stands; the natural man, without the Spirit of God, can do NOTHING to please God.”
True. So, who is saying man reaches God apart from the Holy Spirit? Who is claiming that man, left alone by God, will decide to follow God?
No one. God in his grace reaches out to us. The difference is that Calvinists believe man is incapable of responding to the call - that man is ‘dead’ and cannot interact with God or know who God is unless God first regenerates them.
But this is false, as demonstrated by both Jesus and Paul. Jesus refers to us in Luke 4 as poor, captive, blind, oppressed. In Mark 1, Jesus commands natural man “repent and believe in the gospel.”
In Romans 1, what does Paul say?
“9For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him...”
“For although they knew God...” - this speaks of natural men, men of whom Paul goes on to say,
“they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. 24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator”
So yes, man can respond to God’s outreach, or he can reject it. If he accepts, he is saved. If he rejects, God will eventually reject him and turn him over to his folly.
No man comes unless the Father draws, but what did Jesus say? “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” To draw is not to compel to believe - if it were, all men would be saved.
“Arminians follow a long tradition of grumblers who despise the sovereignty of God.”
Actually we honor the sovereignty of God, since we respect his will. We do not presume to tell him that he hates most men, or that he only wants a few to be saved, when God has said otherwise. And we do not presume to impose on God salvation by grace thru election, when God has said it is by faith we accept his grace.
Put down your systematic theology text, and read the word of God.
Tragically, this kind of thinking arises from those who speak as though they do not practice systematic theology...yet do. Acts 13:48 (along with several other passages) belies your claim. Here, in the very early days of the grafting in of the Gentiles (all other peoples than the descendents of A-I-J), we are told by Dr. Luke that, "...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."
Now, if the clear meaning of these words is that appointment to eternal life not only precedes believing but is the proximate cause of believing, then election is indeed necessary in order to respond to the call of God. This kind of clear statement is why systematic theology, really nothing more than the restating these kind of basic truths, is needed. It is apparent that the excercise would inform your Semi-Pelagian view. Long ago such was condemned even by Augustine.
And, one element of systematic theology, hermeneutics, would also aid in your understanding of the Matt. 13 passage. But, it appears as though you cling to your systematic theology, a theology which rejects systematic theology.
This alone would raise the level of discourse here by an order of magnitude.
LOL. When Arminians have no response they yell "CONTEXT!" The "context" is how did God make men. Before conversion. Before birth. Before they "had done anything good or evil" (Romans 9:11.)
And Paul, in context, tells us God made some men to be vessels of His mercy and some men to be vessels of His wrath. The "context" asks who are men to demand of God "Why hast thou made me thus?"
Nothing precedes God's creation. What God has declared, is.
"Who made thee to differ?" (1 Corinthians 4:7)
Arminians either ignore that question or wrongly assert that men make themselves "to differ."
"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" -- Romans 9:20
Arminianism is all about presumption. Sadly, when a man does not know that God's gift of grace is 100% free and unearned, his gratitude will be that much more diminished because he thinks he deserves the gift by making himself "to differ" from those men who do not "choose" as wisely as he.
Thank you for the evidence on this thread and many others that Arminians and Romanists are in cozy and comfortable agreement regarding salvation and men's ability to save themselves. Sadly, under both systems the Holy Spirit becomes merely a motivator and Christ is relegated to a reward and not a Savior.
Ah! the "open" mind. Where would the benefits of an "open" mind be explained to us in Scripture?
Many of us would prefer a "renewed" mind in order to "know the things of God."
Do men renew their own minds?
Some open minds think they do.
But none does. A renewed mind, like new ears and new eyes and a heart of flesh are all free gifts from God according to mercy and not debt.
The rest of your post simply touts men's ability to save themselves, and Scripture tells us men cannot save themselves; they first must be born again.
"Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." -- John 6:65
God willing, when people tire of reading links like the ones you've offered which tell men how clever and pious they are to choose correctly, they will be turned toward the Scriptures and Scriptural links which glorify God's sovereignty and His choices...
"Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast." -- Psalm 22:9
For our reading pleasure, here's brother Spurgeon on a variety of topics...
A man is not saved against his will, but he is made willing by the operation of the Holy Ghost. A mighty grace which he does not wish to resist enters into the man, disarms him, makes a new creature of him, and he is saved. (Sermons, Vol. 10, p.309) George Whitefield said, "We are all born Arminians." It is grace that turns us into Calvinists. (Sermons, Vol. 2, p. 124)...I believe that Christ came into the world not to put men into a salvable state, but into a saved state. Not to put them where they could save themselves, but to do the work in them and for them, from first to last. If I did not believe that there was might going forth with the word of Jesus which makes men willing, and which turns them from the error of their ways by the mighty, overwhelming, constraining force of divine influence, I should cease to glory in the cross of Christ. (Sermons, Vol. 3, p. 34)
Amen.
I've bolded the parts you left out:
2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.
Next, here's what you left out of 2027:
2027 No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.
If you could post all of of 2068 in context, why not all of 2010 and 2027?
Luther, “Good works do not make a man good, but a good man does good works.”
Inner spiritual freedom comes from the certainty found in faith which leads to the performance of good works. To cooperate with God (good works) in our salvation involves an “interest” in our salvation which is selfishness.
AMEN!
"There is nothing of which it is more difficult to convince men than that the providence of God governs this world." - John Calvin, Is.I:406,407
And why is that?
Because men love to take credit.
AMEN!
As Christ taught us, a good tree brings forth good fruit and a corrupt tree produces evil fruit.
Inner spiritual freedom comes from the certainty found in faith which leads to the performance of good works. To cooperate with God (good works) in our salvation involves an “interest” in our salvation which is selfishness.
I've only understood the depth of what you just wrote since coming to a reformed, Calvinist perspective of salvation which gratefully lays all the effort, glory, intent, direction and ability to believe at the feet of Jesus Christ.
That is the freedom we have in Christ. "Not my will, but thine."
The amazing thing about that understanding is that rather than making us complacent, it actually strengthens our resolve.
God alone does what is good in us, and all the good actions which men perform are from His Spirit... Not only do we receive righteousness by grace, through faith, but, as the moon borrows her light from the sun, so does the same faith render our works righteous." - John Calvin "Election is the source and beginning of all good works...
Rome says men cannot merit “initial” grace but they can merit any corresponding grace.
And that is not what the Scriptures tell us. Grace is a free gift of God and no man can “merit” it because all men are fallen unless God first regenerates them to “know the things of God,” to repent, to obey and to believe.
Rome, in black and white, takes as its own what belongs to God alone.
I’m just interested in why the citations were cherry-picked.
The majority of the Roman catechism is "cherry-picked." It certainly isn't Scriptural.
In black and white...
2027 - No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.
I wrote, “It no where says we are saved by grace thru election, or that election is the critical factor.”
You reply, “Tragically, this kind of thinking arises from those who speak as though they do not practice systematic theology...yet do. Acts 13:48 (along with several other passages) belies your claim.”
So obviously Acts 13:48 will say we are saved by grace thru election, or something close. Yet in this chapter we find verses 13-47 consist of the Apostles preaching to the Jews. In fact, at this point, the Gentile have never been publicly preached to. Of the Gentiles, only Cornelius - “a devout man who feared God with all his household, gave alms generously to the people, and prayed continually to God”, and of whom the angel said, “Your prayers and your alms have ascended as a memorial before God” - had heard the Gospel. And that description of the pre-conversion Cornelius isn’t exactly in line with Calvin’s gospel, but we’ll go back to chapter 13.
For 35 verses, the Apostles preach to the Jews, but in the last 2 of those verses we find:
46And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying, “It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. 47 For so the Lord has commanded us, saying,
“’I have made you a light for the Gentiles,
that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’”
This now becomes the first time ever that the Gospel is preached to the Gentiles in public, and what does the next verse say?
“48And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.”
The Calvinist, locked by bad theology into individual election, thinks this means that those individuals picked out by God before time converted, while all the rest were left in the dark so God wouldn’t have to let them live.
The Arminian sees this one example, so often used by Calvinists, and sees the Gentiles have also been appointed to believe - that God’s plan includes evangelism, not just to Jews, but to Gentiles. Publicly, and for the first time to Gentiles who were not already closely tied to Judaism.
And since it is the only time in Acts that they were ‘ordained to believe’, and since this new thing is referred to as ‘the faith’ and not the election, perhaps the Arminians are right.
You write, “And, one element of systematic theology, hermeneutics, would also aid in your understanding of the Matt. 13 passage.”
Hmmmm....”For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 13This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.”
To those who respond to God’s revelation of Himself, more will be given. Those who reject God, will lose what they had - see Romans 1 for Paul’s discussion of men who know God, but refuse to worship Him. That, again, is impossible in Calvin’s theology.
Jesus went on to say:
18 “Hear then the parable of the sower: 19When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path. 20As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, 21yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away. 22As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. 23As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty.”
What is this? One category is those men who hear the word but who does not understand it, and “the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart.” Is this the irresistible calling of God at work? Surely Jesus should have said that God didn’t allow the seed to penetrate, rather than blame the hard soil!
The next category “is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy”. Yes, he receives it, and does so with joy! Yet he does not persevere, but “when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away.” Again, who falls away? Is it possible to fall away? Yet Jesus blames the man - “he has no root in himself”. Not according to Calvin, but according to Jesus!
The next category is “the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful.” Apparently it takes root and doesn’t die out, so I assume this person doesn’t reject the word, but only “proves unfruitful”.
Then the last “was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit” - and notice again, that it is the soil that determines the outcome, not God’s intervention.
The word is cast widely, but not all respond. Yet at no time does Jesus blame God, or say that God prevents them from hearing. The blame is always on the man for failing to respond to the Gospel.
Dr E Writes, “The rest of your post simply touts men’s ability to save themselves, and Scripture tells us men cannot save themselves; they first must be born again.”
Actually, as I have cited, the scripture clearly and explicitly teaches that believe precedes life: “these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”
BY BELIEVING YOU MAY HAVE LIFE! This isn’t subtle, or a debater’s trick: “by believing you may have life in his name.”
But DR E changes the subject and injects John 6:65 (”65And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”)
So let’s look at that.
As one of the links I provided earlier says, “Predestination, individual election, eternal security, and regeneration preceding faith are all presuppositions held prior to reading John 6:44, 65 which are then poured in by the exegete...
...Universalists are correct in that God’s drawing applies to everybody but wrong to reason that because all people are drawn to God, all people will also be saved. Conversely, determinists are right that not everybody is saved but they error in the belief that God doesn’t seek to draw all people because they read into the text their presupposition that the drawing refers to God’s unconditional election rather than to God’s drawing grace. The symmetry between determinists and universalists is that they both think the drawing spoken of in John 6 may not be resisted and as a result of the inability to resist God’s drawing, the drawing spoken of must be effectual. The inability to resist God is one of the presuppositions both universalists and determinists hold that is poured into the the text when they seek to draw out the meaning of the text...Ultimately the primary difference between Arminian and Calvinist readings of John 6 is that Arminians think that the drawing spoken of is God’s reaching out with grace and Calvinists believe the drawing is speaking of unconditional election.”
http://evangelicalarminians.org/Landstrom.Proof-texting-Presuppositions-with-John-6.44-65
From the same link:
“If God doesn’t first reach out, then nobody can answer the call. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44), Jesus stated. “That is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him” (John 6:65). God draws and enables by giving grace before any action or thought on the part of man. We don’t work our way to the Father. Instead, the Father works his way to us. Both John 6:44 and 6:65 would be false if people possessed the ability to come to God without grace. Thus God necessarily gives grace preveniently before any action or thought on the part of man so that man is able to be drawn to God and is enabled to believe. “What do you have that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7; cf. Eph. 2:8) wrote the Apostle. These passages don’t presuppose predestination; they presuppose that God first gives grace.”
You are welcome!
Thanks anyway, I already provided the full citation a few posts upthread.
The SEA regularly posts articles from Calvinists when they think it sheds light on some specific area. I don’t need to agree with everything in a long article to think it is worth reading and considering. Scripture is true, but what men write about it - including all my posts - have the failings of man mixed in.
I think a part of the problem is with systematic theology. We want rules and to confine God to a systematic way of doing things, but I don’t think God works within our limits.
For example, when did I become a Christian? IN the second grade, I attended a missionary school run by baptists in Taiwan. I remember asking the teacher how to become a Christian, and I remember praying...and I remember flunking citizenship the following 3 months. During the next 5 years, I don’t recall ever thinking about or considering God in anything.
In the 7th grade, I met a group of kids whose lives were different from any I had met before. I asked them, and they said the difference was Jesus - they had asked God to forgive them and they wanted to be like Jesus. I knew whatever they had, I needed. But we moved a month later.
For a couple of years, I thought I ceased to be a Christian any time I sinned, which meant...well, a lot. I did get a Bible and start reading it, and a few years later I asked to be baptized. That was something the church I was going to never brought up with kids.
Was there a moment when I became a Christian? God knows, but I do not. I think many conversions are like that, where God is working and Satan is opposing and the person is resisting and giving in stages, but God brings things thru His way and in His time.
I also think the situation Paul describes in Romans 1 is more common that we know, where someone has known enough of God to accept at least that part of God’s revelation,but they reject God and God knows they will never turn. God may implore, but He doesn’t beg.
I don’t think the dogmas of Calvin or Arminius limit God in anyway. That is one of the reasons I don’t study systematic theology any more. It tries to quantify God, and God won’t be fit into their containers. God has given us revelation, but He has also left ambiguity. He COULD have given us a theology text, but that isn’t what we need and He doesn’t fit in the confines of our boxes.
That said, I firmly believe scripture teaches corporate election, not individual election. I think the parable of the sower shows that Calvin, at least, missed the boat by a larger margin than I have. I just don’t think God is limited by my thoughts...
It's to distract from themselves.
Perhaps at some other date, a time when I can spare the time, I will be more than happy to go through each of these points and explain where the defects lie. This would not be to dismiss your arguments, but to demonstrate that when viewed as an entire message, the Word of God does not, could not possibly, teach this Arminian perspective. Unfortunately, this will for me now be measured in weeks.
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.