Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

God's Part and Man's Part in Salvation
John G. Reisinger ^ | John G. Reisinger

Posted on 02/08/2003 7:43:01 AM PST by Matchett-PI

God and man must both do something before a man can be saved.

Hyper-Calvinism denies the necessity of human action, and Arminianism denies the true nature of the Divine action.

The Bible clearly sets forth both the divine and human as essential in God's plan of salvation.

This is not to say, as Arminianism does, God's part is to freely provide salvation for all men, and man's part is to become willing to accept it.

This is not what we said above, nor is it what the Bible teaches. In order to understand what God's Word really says and to try to answer some "straw dummy" objections, we shall establish the subject one point at a time.

ONE: A man must repent and believe in order to be saved. No one was ever forgiven and made a child of God who did not willingly turn from sin to Christ.

Nowhere does the Bible even hint that men can be saved without repentance and faith, but to the contrary, the Word always states these things are essential before a person can be saved.

The one and only Bible answer to the question "What must I do to be saved?" is "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."

TWO: Every one who repents and believes the gospel will be saved.

Every soul, without any exception, who answers the gospel command to come to Christ will be received and forgiven by the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Philip Bliss put the truth to music when he said, "Whosoever will, forever must endure...

If we can be absolutely certain about anything, we can be sure that Christ will never void His promise to receive "all who come to Him." As old John Bunyan said, "Come and welcome" is the Savior's eternal word to all sinners.

THREE: Repentance and faith are not vicarious but are the free acts of men.

Men, with their own mind, heart, and will must renounce sin and receive Christ. God doesn't repent and believe for us~we repent and believe.

Turning from sin and reaching out in faith to Christ are the acts of man, and every man who so responds to the gospel call does so because he honestly desires to do so.

He wants to be forgiven and he can only be forgiven by repenting and believing.

No one, including God, can turn from sin for us, we must do it.

No one can trust Christ "in our place," we must personally, knowingly, and willingly trust Him in order to be saved.

Now someone may be thinking, "But isn't that what the Arminian teaches?"

My friend, that is what the Bible teaches-and teaches it clearly and dogmatically.

"But don't Calvinists deny all three of those points?"

I am not talking about, or trying to defend, "Calvinists" since they come in a hundred 'varieties.

If you know anyone that denies the above facts, then that person, regardless of what he labels himself, is denying the clear message of the Bible.

I can only speak for myself, and I will not deny what God's Word so plainly teaches.

"But haven't you established the doctrine of free-will and disposed of election if you assent man must repent and believe and it is his own act?"

No, we have neither proven freewill nor disproved election ... since it is impossible to do either.

We have merely stated exactly what the Bible says a man must do in order to be saved.

Let us now look at what the Scripture says a sinner is able to do and what he is not able to do.

FOUR: The same Bible that states man must repent and believe in order to be saved, also emphatically states that man, because of his sinful nature, is totally unable to repent and believe.

All of man's three faculties of mind, heart, and will, which must be receptive to gospel truth, have neither the ability to receive such truth nor even the desire to have such ability.

In fact the exact opposite is true.

Man's total being is not only unable to either come, or want to come, to Christ, but every part of his nature is actively opposed to Christ and truth.

Rejecting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is not a passive "non-action," but a deliberate volitional choice.

It is deliberately choosing to say "no" to Christ and "yes" to self and sin.

No one is "neutral" in respect to God and His authority.

Unbelief is just as much a deliberate act of mind, heart, and will as is faith.

This is what Jesus meant in John 5:40 when He said, "You will (you are deliberately making a choice) not to come to me."

Yes, unbelief is an act of the will. In fact unbelief is active faith, but unfortunately it is faith in myself.

To believe and preach points One, Two, and Three, without also preaching number Four is to grossly misrepresent the gospel of God's grace.

It is to give a totally false picture of the sinner and his true need.

It shows only half of the man's sin.

It misses the most crucial point of a lost man's need, namely, his lack of power or ability to overcome his sinful nature and its effects.

The "gospel" which is concocted out of this view is only a half gospel. It is at this point that modern evangelism so miserably fails.

It confuses man's responsibility with his ability, and falsely assumes that a sinner has the moral ability to perform all that God has commanded.

The "cannot" texts of scripture are either totally ignored or badly twisted by this perversion of the true gospel of God's saving grace.

Please note a few texts of Scripture that dogmatically state some things that a lost man cannot do:

Man cannot see-until he first be born again. (John 3:3)

Man cannot understand-until he first be given a new nature. (I Cor. 2:14)

Man cannot come-until he first be effectually called by the Holy Spirit. (John 6:44-45)

We do not have space to go into all the "cannots," but these three are sufficient to show that a sinner absolutely cannot (notice it is not "will" not) come to Christ until God first does something in that sinner's nature.

That "something" is what the Bible calls regeneration, or the new birth, and it is the exclusive work of God the Holy Spirit.

Man has no part whatever in regeneration.

FIVE: The new birth, or regeneration, is God giving us the spiritual life that enables us to do what we must do (repent and believe), but CANNOT DO because of our bondage to sin.

When the Bible says man is dead in sin, it means that man's mind, heart, and will are all spiritually dead in sin.

When the Bible speaks of our being in "bondage to sin," it means that our entire being, including our will, is under the bondage and power of sin.

We indeed need Christ to die and pay the penalty of our sin, but we just as desperately need the Holy Spirit to give us a new nature in regeneration.

The Son of God frees us legally from the penalty of sin, but only the Holy Spirit can free us from the power and death of our depravity in sin.

We need forgiveness in order to be saved, and Christ provides complete forgiveness and righteousness for us in His death.

However, we also need spiritual life and ability, and the Holy Spirit provides it for us in regeneration.

It is the Holy Spirit's work of regeneration that enables us to savingly receive the atoning work of Christ in true faith.

God is a triune God, and no person can understand His 'so great salvation" until he sees each blessed Person of the Godhead playing a distinct and necessary part in that salvation.

No man can declare the "glorious gospel of grace" and leave out the Father's sovereign electing love and the Holy Spirit's regenerating power as essential parts of God's work in saving sinners.

To speak of "God's part" in salvation as only being one of "providing" forgiveness and man's part as "being willing" to accept it is to ignore both the Father's work of election and the Spirit's work of regeneration.

This not only makes man a full "partner" with God in the work of salvation, it credits man with playing the decisive roll in the deal.

How dreadful, and ridiculous, to give Christ the glory for His work on the cross, and then give sinners the credit for the Father's work in eternity (election) and the Spirit's work in our hearts (regeneration).

It does great dishonor to the Sovereign Spirit to say, "The Holy Spirit will perform His miraculous work of quickening you unto life as soon as you give Him your permission."

That's like standing in a graveyard saying to the dead people, "I will give you life and raise you up from the grave if you will only take the first step of faith and ask me to do it."

What a denial of the sinner's total spiritual inability.

Amazing!

The root error of the Arminian's gospel of freewill is its failure to see that man's part, repentance and faith, are the fruits and effects of God's work and not the essential ingredient's supplied by the sinner as "man's part of the deal."

Every man who turns to Christ does so willingly, but that willingness is a direct result of the Father's election and the Holy Spirit's effectual calling.

To say, "If you will believe, God will answer your faith with the New Birth," is to misunderstand man's true need and misrepresent God's essential work.

SIX: The Scriptures clearly show that faith and repentance are the evidences and not the cause of regeneration.

Suppose a man who had been dead for twenty years greeted you on the street one day.

Would you conclude that the man had gotten tired of being dead and "decided' to ask a great doctor to perform a miracle and give him life?

I'm sure you would instead, exclaim in amazement, "Man what happened to you? Who brought you back to life?"

You would see he was alive because he was walking and breathing, but you would know these were evidences of a miracle having been performed on him from without and not the results of his own power of will.

Just so when a spiritually dead man begins to perform spiritual acts such as repentance and faith-these spiritual "fruits" show that the miracle of the new birth has taken place.

Let me illustrate this with a Biblical example. Acts 16:14 is a clear proof of the above.

By the way, as far as I know, this is the only place in the New Testament that uses the phrase "opened heart," and the Bible gives the whole credit for this "opening" to God's power and not to man's will.

Modern evangelism does the exact opposite and credits the opening of the heart to the power of man's "free will."

Remember that we are not discussing whether man must be willing to open his heart. We settled that under points One, Two, and Three.

We are looking now for the source of power that enabled man to perform that spiritual act.

Arminianism insists that man's free will must furnish the willingness or power, and the Bible says that the Holy Spirit of God furnishes that power or ability in the new birth.

Let us examine the one text in Scripture that uses the phrase "opened heart" and see if it agrees with our previous points:

"And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul." (Acts 16:14)

The NIV says: "The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message."

First of all we note that Lydia did indeed "attend" or listen to the words of Paul.

She gladly heard and willingly believed his message. As we have already shown, she had to do this in order to benefit from the gospel and be saved.

Lydia's attending," or hearing and believing, illustrates points One, Two, and Three above, and refutes hyper-Calvinism, (which says the elect will be saved regardless of whether they hear and believe the gospel or not).

Lydia did choose to believe, and she herself did it only because she wholeheartedly wanted to.

She did not do it "unwillingly" nor did God hear and believe for her.

It was her own response and it was a most willing response.

Next, we notice exactly what God did. We see here demonstrated what God must do before Lydia can be saved.

(1) He provided a salvation of "by grace through faith" that could be preached. Obviously "the things spoken" by Paul were the gospel facts concerning the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and surely this Lamb is God's gracious provision.

(2) God also brought the message of His provision to Lydia. He sent a preacher to tell her about this great plan of salvation.

God went to a lot of trouble to provide such a gospel-He gave His only begotten Son up to death.

He went to great ends to provide such a preacher as Paul-read about it in Paul's testimony in Acts 22.

It is at this point that Arminianism departs from the Bible and proceeds to apply human logic to the above truths.

They tragically fail to look at the rest of the Biblical text and see that God must do something else.

(3) God must open Lydia's heart (or give her spiritual life) so she will be able to believe.

Her natural mind is blind, her natural heart is averse to God, and her will is in bondage to sin and spiritual death.

Only the power of God can free her from this graveyard of spiritual depravity.

The giving of this life and power is solely the work of God.

Notice that the Bible explicitly gives God alone the credit for Lydia's heart being opened.

It is impossible not see that in this text unless you simply refuse to accept what God clearly says.

Look at the words carefully: . . whose heart the LORD OPENED...

Notice also how clearly the Holy Spirit teaches us the relationship between the cause and the effect in the conversion of Lydia.

God was the One Who opened Lydia's heart, that is the cause, and He did so in order that she might be able to attend to the truths that Paul preached, that is the effect.

Now that is what the Word of God says!

Do not bluster about "dead theology" or throw Calvin's name around in derision, just read the words themselves in the Bible.

If you try to deny that the one single reason that Lydia understood and believed the gospel was because God deliberately opened her heart and enabled her to believe, you are fighting God's Word.

If you try to get man's "free will" as the one determining factor into this text, you are consciously corrupting the Word of God.

God's grace not only provides salvation, but His power also gives us the ability to both desire and receive it He works in us "both to will and to do."

His working in us to "will" is the new birth, and, I say again, this work of regeneration (new birth) is totally the work of the Holy Spirit.

The moment we lose sight of this distinction between being "saved by faith" (the act of man) and being "born again by the Holy Spirit" (the act of God), we are heading for confusion and trouble.

We will be convinced that man is able to do what the Bible emphatically states he is unable to do.

The necessity of the Holy Spirit's work being thus theologically denied, it will not be long before it is ignored in actual practice.

This is the plight of modern day evangelism.

Since the evangelists are convinced that the new birth is within the power and ability of man's will, their man made "me theology" has become far more important than the theology of the Bible, and organization and advertising are absolute essentials to success while the necessary work of the Holy Ghost is all but forgotten.

It is true that lip service is given to the need to "Pray for the Holy Spirit's guidance," and cards asking people to "promise to pray every day" are always sent out months in advance of the big campaign.

However, some people are not sure if the promise to pray or the other pledge (to give money) which is always included ( "only your gifts can make this great campaign possible") is the most important to the success of the campaign.

But that's another subject for another day....


TOPICS: Apologetics; Current Events; Ecumenism; Evangelical Christian; Mainline Protestant; Religion & Culture; Skeptics/Seekers; Theology
KEYWORDS: arminianism; calvinism; christianity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 681-698 next last
To: xzins
"Are you saying that God DOES NOT know who will believe in Him?

Or are you just saying that election isn't predicated on what God foreknew even though you accept that God does foreknow who will believe in Him? "

Seeing as I was a rather "vocal" critic of your flirtation with "Open Theism", you tell me.

Actually, I'm not remotely suprised you felt the need to ask this question.

Jean

41 posted on 02/09/2003 10:37:55 AM PST by Jean Chauvin ("I would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for those meddling kids" -Michael Servetus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Jean Chauvin
Of course God knows who will believe in Him. And he will have always known who would believe in Him. Absolute foreknowledge means there never will have been even an instant when God didn't foreknow anything/everything.

Do you accept that?

(And you mistake reading up on something with buying into it.)
42 posted on 02/09/2003 11:13:19 AM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: xzins
And those ALL will have first come under the power of God's prevenient grace. Might as well go to them first.

So then prevenient grace is NOT a general grace..God determines who gets it and how much and when?

43 posted on 02/09/2003 11:33:33 AM PST by RnMomof7 (God Bless America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Of course God knows who will believe in Him. And he will have always known who would believe in Him. Absolute foreknowledge means there never will have been even an instant when God didn't foreknow anything/everything.

Can God change the future?

44 posted on 02/09/2003 11:35:29 AM PST by RnMomof7 (God Bless America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: xzins; RnMomof7
Absolute Foreknowledge, Rn. There are no more people saved than God foreknew. And those ALL will have first come under the power of God's prevenient grace. Might as well go to them first.

Is there anything of God's character that prevents Him from providing said prevenient grace ONLY to those He "foreknew." Is there anything of Christ's character that prevents Him from taking only the sins of those He "foreknew" with Him to the cross?

We're all abundantly familiar with the quoted Scripture we volley back and forth regarding limited atonement or irresistable grace, but I'm curious to know what from a character standpoint (meaning His love, justice, omnipotence, etc.) would prevent God from doing these things.

By the way, if God foreknew who would choose Him, is there any possible way for those men to reject Him anyway? If not, wouldn't that violate their "free will?" :D

45 posted on 02/09/2003 12:32:47 PM PST by Frumanchu (Those who distort Scripture do so to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Let's focus on those who respond.

46 posted on 02/09/2003 12:35:11 PM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
It is not possible to limit an absolutely omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God....especially not to mere human understandings.
47 posted on 02/09/2003 12:37:32 PM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Frumanchu; OrthodoxPresbyterian
There is little difference in the end result between absolute foreknowledge and absolute predestination. OP and I had a discussion early in January that we never finished and were trying to form propositions for.

What thread was that OP?

The telling question is this: Is there EVER a time when God did NOT have absolutely perfect knowledge, to include absolutely perfect foreknowledge (a subset of knowledge)?

If there was such a time, then at that time God wasn't God.
48 posted on 02/09/2003 12:42:33 PM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Jean Chauvin
Jean,

You do insist on making me work on the day of rest. (sigh,)

Ok, let's look at the verse in the Greek:

kai; tiß gunh; ojnovmati Ludiva, porfurovpwliß povlewß Quateivrwn sebomevnh to;n qeovn,h]kouen, h|ß oJ kurioß dihvnoixen th;n dardivan prosevcein toi?ß laloumevnoiß uJpo; tou? Pauvlou.
Acts 16:14 UBS 4th ed.
And a certain woman, (in) name Lydia, (a) purple (cloth)seller, (of the) city (of) Thyatira [who] while (devoutly)worshipping God, (she)heard [imperfect ind., continuous action in past time] [us], who {feminine) the LORD opened [aorist ind. simple past tense]{def. (Moulton) to open... met. to open the sense of a thing, explain, expound...to open the mind, the heart, so as to understand and recieve,} the heart to attend [present infinitive](to the things) being spoken (pres pass participle) by Paul.

Arminian counter argument irrelevant: Action of opening performed by God Purpose infinitive [to attend] defines reason of opening, worship, being imperfect in knowlege and truth is incidental to purpose of God.

Since when does the devil need advocates?

Regards,

CDL

49 posted on 02/09/2003 12:51:26 PM PST by Calvinist_Dark_Lord (He must increase, but I must decrease)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Calvinist_Dark_Lord
Opened her heart to attend.

Any idea if "attend" here means "to listen/pay attention?"

If so, then we have:

1. Opened heart (for purpose of)
2. Listening/attending
50 posted on 02/09/2003 1:03:17 PM PST by xzins (Games of chance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: xzins; lockeliberty
Very good explanation, X. Locke, I haven't forgotten our posts on that other thread, however, I have yet to find time to really "defend" the views. I would explain them, however, similarly to X's explanation. Wesleyan-Arminianism has prominent theologians (i.e. Watson, Pope) who claim that this system of theology is actually monergistic. In Wesleyan-Arminianism, it is God's work, but God makes it so that we are able to reject the retention of grace; Watson's Theological Institutes and, I believe, Pope's Compendium of Christian Theology both (Wesley and Fletcher of Madeley, as well) say that there is an irresistibility to grace. In the beginning, we cannot not receive grace, but what we do with it afterwards is another affair.

Keep in mind that this is an explanation and not a defense.

P.S. Xzins, how do you pronounce "Wesley"? Is it Wez-ley or Wes-ley? I'm having this argument with a friend (silly as it sounds--it's all in fun).

51 posted on 02/09/2003 1:19:55 PM PST by The Grammarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: xzins
prosevxw

To have in addition; to hold to, to bring near; absol. to apply teh mind to a thing, to give heed to, attend to, observe, consider,... to take care of, provide for,...when followed by ajpov, mhv, or mhvpote, to beware of, take heed of, guard against,... to assent to, yield credence to, follow, adhere or be attached to,...to give ones self up to, to be addicted to, engage in, be occupied with.

Moulton, Analytical Greek Lexicon

i'd say that was pretty clear X

Regards,

CDL

52 posted on 02/09/2003 1:21:25 PM PST by Calvinist_Dark_Lord (He must increase, but I must decrease)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Calvinist_Dark_Lord; xzins
gotta go be back later tonite!
53 posted on 02/09/2003 1:26:54 PM PST by Calvinist_Dark_Lord (He must increase, but I must decrease)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: xzins
***DrJ's logical order is "regeneration, faith, justification, salvation, sanctification....If I remember correctly." ***

I don't put salvation in the list since it is a general term and can refer to past (justitifaction - deliverance from the penalty of sin), present (sanctification -deliverence from the power of sin) or future (glorification - deliverance from the presence of sin).

I also do not put sanctification in the list. Practical sanctification is subsequent in time to regeneration, faith and justification. Positional sanctification is complete at the time of R,F, & J but is really similar to justification.

Just a clarification. You did get RF&J is the logical sequence that I have suggested.
54 posted on 02/09/2003 1:41:30 PM PST by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Let's focus on those who respond.

That my friend is a cop out..I always understood that everyman was given the grace necessary to believe was I wrong? This is a new discussion to me..You seem to be saying that God only gives the grace to those that will believe and Wesley felt those were the only one to be focused on..am I hearing you wrong?

55 posted on 02/09/2003 2:58:23 PM PST by RnMomof7 (God Bless America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: xzins
It is not possible to limit an absolutely omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God....especially not to mere human understandings.

But it seems to me when you say that a man can overcome Gods grace you have limited God

Here is my question IF God foresees who will be saved and only gives them Prevenient Grace, then he has a limited atonment..If God determines that He wants a particular person saved can he give them that grace?

56 posted on 02/09/2003 3:04:23 PM PST by RnMomof7 (God Bless America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Jean Chauvin; xzins; Revelation 911; fortheDeclaration; ksen
Corin, you must realize that Wesley and Arminius redefine "grace" and "election".

Yes. Thankfully, they corrected Calvin's errors.

57 posted on 02/09/2003 3:36:19 PM PST by Corin Stormhands (HHD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: The Grammarian; xzins
Is it Wez-ley or Wes-ley?

John Wes-ley

Wez-ley Crusher

58 posted on 02/09/2003 3:39:56 PM PST by Corin Stormhands (HHD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: The Grammarian
The grace that brings faith, and thereby salvation into the soul is irresistible at that moment. With regard to....Irresistible Grace, I believe, that the grace which brings faith, and thereby salvation into the soul, is irresistible at that moment:

That most believers may remember some time when God did irresistibly convince them of sin:

That most believers do, at some other times, find God irresistibly acting upon their souls:

Yet I believe that the grace of God, both before and after those moments, may be, and hath been, resisted:

And that in general, it does not act irresistibly; but we may comply therewith, or may not:

And I do not deny, that, in some souls, the grace of God is so far irresistible, that they cannot but believe and be finally saved.

But I cannot believe, that all those must be damned, in whom it does not thus irresistibly work."
-Wesley

Perhaps you can help me understand Wesley. On the one hand he says that Grace is irresistable at the moment of regeneration. Later he equivocates and says that the Grace provided at regeneration is later resistable, even perhaps, to the point of damnation. The logical conclusion is therefore that Justification continually loses it legal status dependent upon the the actions of the individual. This seems contradictory to what is written in Hebrews.

59 posted on 02/09/2003 4:42:29 PM PST by lockeliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: The Grammarian
Strictly phonetic.

weS - ley
60 posted on 02/09/2003 5:27:32 PM PST by xzins (Games of chance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 681-698 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson