Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Genesis Chapter 3 Continued (Fourth Try)
Free Republic Thread ^ | April 2002 | the_doc

Posted on 04/25/2002 10:02:18 AM PDT by Matchett-PI

the_doc had written:

I think we ought to focus, initially at least, on the temptation account in vv.1-7, especially what is known as "the Lie."

These verses present what may very well be the most significant data concerning Satan in the entire Bible. It is the Bible's own introduction of Satan. It sets the sin-scene for the entire Bible.

The Genesis 3 story shows us how Satan ordinarily works his deadly deceptions: he tampers with the Word of God to produce a roundabout suggestion that the Creator is never to be feared. He gets sinners to think that an unbelieving, disobedient, Creator-ignoring spirit is actually okay.

Notice that Satan's lie is just a kind of pleasant, worldly "gospel."

In an obvious sense, modern Christianity has just largely bought into Satan's lie and called that the gospel. It's a "Don't worry: Be happy" pseudo-gospel. It's the pseudo-gospel of "I'm okay; you're okay." It's the pseudo-gospel which ultimately regards God as little more than the happy, sentimental character on a smiling-face button.

According to the Book of Proverbs, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. This verse necessarily declares that if you bypass the fear of God, you are a fool. Period.

My concern here is that a kind of Positive Mental Attitude (PMA) has been substituted for real faith. It is an almost unfathomably nasty deception. It is the wide-doorway deception which the Lord Jesus warned about. It involves denying the bad news of sin. That, in turn, feels somewhat like good news--and presto, ladies and gentleman!--we have a kind of "doorway experience"!

The whole thing is a non-saving farce. The poor hypocrite who is trying to substitute PMA for really knowing God--knowing the Lord for real--has never really embraced the Good News of the Atonement. He just hasn’t ever really faced the bad news of the Fall.

In short, he has never really repented. He has missed the narrow doorway of true salvation. The only reason why he believes he is saved is because he is an unbeliever. (Think about that ugly little paradox for a while.)

According to the Lord Jesus Himself, the wide-doorway experience is a lot more common than the narrow-doorway experience.

Dressing up your religiosity with the name "Jesus" doesn't fix the problem. There are a lot of folks who get sentimentally religious around Christmas time. Some of them even think Santa Claus is a sad departure from the true story of Christmas. They prefer nativity scenes over sleighs and reindeer. But some of these same folks think of Jesus as though He is just the porcelain baby in the nativity scene. They don't really know Him at all. They are actually idolaters. They have never really repented in the fear of God. (Many of them even realize this--sort of--at some level of their deceitful and desperately wicked hearts. But they have never realized it in the awful way of repentance.)

What I am ultimately saying in this introductory discussion of the Fall is that the Lie of Eden infects the souls of Adam's offspring. Having embraced the Lie in a racial way in the Fall (Adam is the Hebrew word for man, of course), they are stuck in it. If they make strictly halfhearted "efforts" to seek the Lord in the gospel, Satan just reiterates the "Don't worry: Be happy" lie in their souls. This blocks conversion. In effect, it blocks conversion by falsely approximating it!

In a very real manner of speaking, it is Satan's job to block conversions. And he is very, very good at his job. Don't kid yourself about that. Examine yourself to see whether you are really in the faith at all. That's not merely my admonition. It is Paul's own imperative, Paul's own warning.

Notice that if the "Don't worry: Be happy" LIE of Eden infects the souls of all Adam's offspring, if it is a demonic thing which now infests the race of man, it will prevent a sinner from seeking the Lord in the only way which even counts as seeking. ("You shall seek Me," the Lord said through Jeremiah, "And you shall find Me on the day that you shall seek Me with your whole heart.") This accounts for the strange verse in Romans 3 which says that there is NONE that seeketh after God.

This opens up all sorts of theological questions which are terribly important. If we really care about our own souls, we will dare to study the Fall, we will dare to try to understand what is really going on in the race of man and how it really traces back to the Lie of Eden. If we really love the Lord Jesus, if we really want to serve Him in the gospel, we will want to study the Fall and its demonic effects in order to become more competent spiritual warriors for the Lord Whom we confess with our lips.

This stuff, then, is monumentally serious. If anyone loves not the Lord Jesus, let him be accursed.

***

In a later post, I will offer some more specific analysis of what Satan actually said to Eve. Eventually I will show Freepers the very spooky theological implications of what Satan said.

I will show you from this why I am Calvinist. I will show you why even though I love Arminians, I definitely do loathe Arminianism with every fiber of my being.

9 posted on 4/12/02 7:30 AM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

the_doc had also written:

Anyway, the next thing to notice is that that the Lie In Eden really is a counterfeit of the gospel itself!

Notice how Satan "Christianized" his pagan lie in the encounter with Eve. He promised Eve eternal life and exemption from punishment through the forgiveness of her sin (Genesis 3:4). He suggested that all of the pleasurable things of Creation were specifically intended for her happiness (Genesis 3:6a). He displayed his uncanny wisdom and offered her the same if shew would follow his lead (Genesis 3:6b). He specifically promised that she would acquire a discerning conscience through her determination to govern herself under his overall guidance (Genesis 3:5b). He even promised that she would be godlike (Genesis 3:5a).

Every single one of these points has a correspondence with things which we find in the real gospel.

Now, what do you suppose we should make of that in regard to the deception character of Satan's lie? (I have some thoughts on this, as you already realize!)

MORE TO COME LATER the_doc http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/664598/posts?page=143#143 ---------------------------------------------------------

Thanks to Matchett-PI for reposting my material from the previous thread.

In the middle of that lengthy re-post, I demonstrated that the Lie of Eden was a phony gospel. (Lurkers who haven't read that demonstration ought to go back and read it before going further.)

This idea that the Lie of Eden was a kind a phony gospel is important in Biblical theology. When we say that our status in Adam needs to replaced by a new status in Christ, we are actually saying that the phony gospel through which we became lost has to be replaced in our souls by the True Gospel; the one which saves!

In other words, the Truth has to replace the Lie.

Furthermore, believing the Truth (faith) has to replace believing the Lie (God-hating, Truth-suppressing wickedness [Romans 1:18-32]).

18 posted on 4/13/02 8:54 PM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

The real problem is that reprobates prefer to go to hell. They hate God. They'd like to get as far from God as possible. God grants them their wish, so they have no cause to complain.

Someone might say: But how can this be so? They say they want to go to heaven rather than to hell.

In the first place, it's because they do not know the real God (and don't even want to know Him). They want to go to the heaven of their imaginations, the dwelling place of the God of their imaginations.

There is another reason why their choosing faculty is discovered to be perverse. It's because the gospel of REAL faith--not the phony kind which is so common in our day--does not merely present a choice of heaven versus hell. It actually presents the choice of this world versus the World to Come.

And the reprobate will always choose this world. He is choosing hell. This world is, in fact, the ante-room of hell. It will soon be burning.

22 posted on 4/14/02 8:38 AM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

In an earlier post, I said that the Truth contained in the Lord's gospel has to replace Satan's Edenic Lie in the souls of sinners.

What do I mean by replacing the Lie? Well, the idea actually means several things. For our present purposes, I would say that the Truth has to replace the individual's inborn and perniciously stupid disregard for the True and Living God.

The attitude which all lost sinners have toward their own Creator is completely idolatrous. If they have any thoughts concerning a Creator, they have fleeting and/or completely stupid thoughts of Him. In other words, they never really think of HIM at ALL.

Paul's sermon on Mars' Hill underscores this problem. He pointed out that the Athenians had an altar to a God Whom they did not even know! (The Athenians probably thought they were pretty shrewd in trying to "cover their bases." But their approach was utterly inadequate!)

What I am saying is that the "Don't worry: Be happy" lie of Eden--which specifically said that the Creator does not need to be feared, much less obeyed perfectly, has somehow demonically infected the souls of the entire Adamic race. The children of Adam are unblieving, God-ignoring fools.

(In the Fall, Adam [along with his wife, who was one with him] spurned the Creator whom he actually knew personally. And Adam, together with his wife, constituted the entire human race. So, the entire human race spurned God. This infuriated God against man. In other words, it was a racial crime--since every human being other than Jesus Christ Himself was obviously in Adam in a racial sense, to use the language of Romans 5:12f, at the time of the Fall.

I realize that a lot of people complain at the idea that God would suffer the entire family of Adam to fall under an utterly awful condemnation when all but two members of the racial family remained unborn, but that is precisely what happened. God holds Adam's offspring accountable for a crime which they committed in Adam. God is angry against man.)

God has given Adam's offspring over to some kind of demonic power, to an evil power immediately associated with the Lie. The Eternal Power and Divine Nature of our universe's Creator ought to be obvious from natural revelation, but lost sinners have a depraved incapacity for taking natural revelation seriously. Having spurned the knowledge of God in Eden--when man did know God--God has given them them over to what they wanted--which is to NOT know God!

In other words, the Lie is deeply embedded in the souls of Adam's natural offspring.

The gospel has to expel that Lie and replace it with God's Truth.

40 posted on 4/14/02 7:22 PM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

In Eden .... man fell into pride. In this case, pride cometh before God's CURSE.

***

For overall housekeeping purposes, I want to take this opportunity to repost a reply I made to WM on the other Genesis 3 Thread.

WM said:

How Arminian! According to Calvinism as presented here, there is no such thing as a halfhearted effort to seek the Lord -- it is all or nothing, and there is no way Satan can block a conversion, which must irresistibly follow regeneration. (Nor could Satan block regeneration.) Perhaps you mean "fakes conversion" instead of "blocks conversion". (How is that for logical charity, OPie?)

Your're right that the Bible doesn't regard halfhearted seeking as seeking at all. It's because halfhearted seeking is definitely not going anywhere.

But notice again the reason why it is not going anywhere. It's because the whole thing is demonic.

Your comment that I should have said "faked conversion" rather than "blocked conversion" is interesting in that it allows me to point out that a faked conversion is a blocked conversion.

You see, we are actually just talking about what one might call "failed conversions." And the distinction between one failed conversion and another is not really consequential at all, since all failed conversions are blocked conversions.

What I mean is that the element of fakery which blocks all conversions in the unregenerate sinner is the Lie in the soul. Sometimes the unregenerate sinner is conspicously religious. Sometimes he is not. But the problem is still the Lie.

***

I will add that so long as the Lie is allowed to remain demonically resident in the soul, Satan always can and always does block true faith. He always can and always does block the knowledge of God. The unregenerate sinner doesn't really want to know the True and Living God. He hates Him.

Fully supernatural power must displace the Lie, because the Lie is not merely objective stuff, but fully demonic. This is why 1 Corinthians 2:10-14 points out that the Third Person of the Trinity (the Spirit) has to go ahead of the Second Person (the Truth) when a soul is targeted by God for conversion.

In other words, regeneration precedes conversion. And yes, it always produces conversion. This is the only scenario in which Satan does not, indeed, cannot--block conversion. It's because He cannot block regeneration.

(See also Genesis 3:1-13. The Spirit positioned Himself over the chaos of the materials of Creation before God's Word produced light in the Creation.

Salvation, the new Creation, is all Trinitarian stuff, just as the original Creation was.)

47 posted on 4/15/02 8:28 AM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

Please notice that I said in my previous post that the Lie is demonic. It's not just a spiritually neutral idea. You need to appreciate that. In some way, Satan took over the entire race of Adam's offspring in the Fall.

This is the reason why the whole matter of original sin, with obvious hereditary depravity transmitted down the bloodline of Adam, is so WEIRD.

48 posted on 4/15/02 8:38 AM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

typo in third-from-last paragraph: "He" should have been "he."

(Hey, Satan is the "god of this world"--and that's quite awful enough--but he ain't God! The One True God is the One Who decides who is going to be saved. God is the One Who decides to regenerate a sinner or leave him in his sin.)

49 posted on 4/15/02 8:42 AM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

What the Arminians on this thread need to realize is that Calvinism is merely affirming very clearly that evangelism and doctrinal discussions entail supernatural warfare, not merely intellectual matters.

We see supernatural forces behind the arguments and positions. We specifically notice 2 Timothy 2:26 and following.

The Arminians don't seem to think Satan is all that real, all that powerful in the souls of men. And they do not correctly apprehend the Trinity of God in His work of salvation.

54 posted on 4/15/02 2:53 PM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

I'd like to continue with my inputs on this thread (see #7, 18, 40 and 46 for the main points of doctrinal background). In the present post I hope to start developing my explanation of why I said that although I can love Arminians, I can only hate Arminianism.

***

Let me start off by reaffirming something which I said in #7: The Lie of Eden was a counterfeit gospel. This counterfeit gospel entered God's Creation via a fallen angel. And it triggered God's CURSE against that angel and against the Adamic race.

Now, if we look at Galatians 1:8-9, we see something very interesting in Paul's warning to the Galatians. He says that if anyone, even an angel, should come preaching a counterfeit gospel, let him be accursed.

***

My point here is that there are Genesis overtones in what Paul is saying in Galatians 1:8-9.

Can you see this? I'll bet you can. If you are unsure of this, go back and read #7. The Lie of Eden really was a counterfeit gospel. It was the ruin of the Adamic race.

Faithful preachers of the True Gospel have to attack the Lie and displace it from the souls of sinners, not stupidly recapitulate the Fall through a reiteration of the Lie!

Fair enough?

***

The above discussion ultimately explains why I hate Arminianism. It really is the Lie of Eden, as I will demonstrate in a series of posts now under development.

You see, topics like Mormonism have taken over this thread. Today's knowledgeable Christians (who do regard Mormonism as non-Christian) would tend to get the impression from reading this thread that Mormonism is the sort of false gospel which Paul is talking about. Okay, but all of the furor over Mormonism is actually a decoy of sorts. It misses the point which I think we need to see in Genesis 3. In my opinion, the real problem with which we need to contend is Arminianism.

If today's Christians were more solid on this point, a lot of the other arguments concerning the various offshoots of true Christianity would suddenly become moot. The real problem with Mormonism is that it is essentially Arminian.

In my subsequent posts, I will make good on my claim that I can prove that Arminianism is just the Lie of Eden, not the gospel. We need to get away from it, not just swap the Lie of Eden for the Lie of Eden and call it conversion. (The post which you are now reading is just a matter of housekeeping for this thread. I'd like for us to get back on topic.)

182 posted on 4/22/02 10:28 AM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

To: Wrigley

Thanks for the comment. I think that it is very, very important to notice from Galatians 1:8-9 that erroneous presentations of the gospel are, to one degree or another, just recapitulations of the Fall.

This confuses people for the very reason that the Fall itself was a counterfeit gospel--not to mention the fact that the fallen Adamic race has what amounts to an inborn preference for the counterfeit gospel.

That is what original sin is about, of course!

187 posted on 4/22/02 12:48 PM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

I have not had much time for FR over the last several days, but I thought the Galatians 1:8-9 comment was important food for thought.

Arminianism is not an innocent doctrinal error. (In fact, I don't think there is such a thing.)

Please notice that I am not saying that all Arminians are lost. But if a person is trusting in the distinctive tenets of Arminianism for his salvation, he is not saved at all. (The fact that he may sprinkle the name of Jesus in the confession of his lips means nothing whatsoever.)

My bottom-line point is that an evil tree (bad doctrine) does not bear good fruit (salvation). The evil tree in this case, of course, was the tree of the Fall itself.

191 posted on 4/22/02 1:23 PM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

But Arminianism definitely is a counterfeit gospel. You just haven't seen this yet.

Arminianism really is the Lie of Eden. (It is a very, very impressive deception!!!)

***

As I have been saying on this thread, the unregenerate sinner is polluted with a lie in his soul--and, Arminianism aside, that lie is the Lie of Eden.

The Lie of Eden blocks repentance. The Lie of Eden prevents the sinner from taking his Creator seriously. (To see what I mean, see again the first seven verses of Genesis 3.)

And this is what concerns me about Arminianism. It tends to encourage frivolous professionism and to call that frivolous experience saving faith.

Look at the way the Arminians have behaved on these doctrinal threads. It has been terrible.

223 posted on 4/23/02 3:34 PM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

Just for fun, why don't you Arminians try to figure out from the text of Genesis 3 why I would argue that Armininianism is the Lie of Eden?

(I'm just trying to get you fellows to be more thoughtful. I think the exercise may prove to be interesting.)

226 posted on 4/23/02 4:37 PM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

Someone asked:
"How does Arminianism block repentance? How does the Lie of Eden block repentance, for that matter? I thought that God blocked repentance (on the part of the non-elect--and of course, on the part of the elect, it's irresistible, so that's not blocked repentance either)?"

Demonic power operating in the soul blocks repentance. This is explicitly taught in 2 Timothy 2:26f. (The fact that this awful mess is ordained by God, and under God's sovereign control, is another matter in that same passage!)

The person continues:

"I don't see how the doctrines of Arminianism themselves could tend to encourage frivolous professions. Arminianism, at least "classical" Arminianism (the kind Arminius, Watson and Wesley espoused), doesn't espouse "say the sinner's prayer and you're saved--don't go by feelings, just pound your will into submission!" That's more a debased Baptistic view of things (the more Southern Baptist sort, not really Reformed or Fundamental or even Free Will...). But you are somewhat correct--due to the predominance of Arminian churches here in the US, there are probably more ostensibly "Arminian" Christians than Calvinist Christians (not to say that there are not ostensibly "Calvinist" Christians who really aren't saved, either)."

Actually, Wesley was NOT a classic Arminian.

And I will acknowledge that being a professed Calvinist does not equal salvation.

But these are not want I am talking about. Please see my most recent post (#226).

The person continues:

"Doc, when we bring up Servetus and use him as a reason why Calvin was a wicked man, besides the off-base attempts at defending Calvin ("Oh, he actually wanted the sentence commuted! Really"), usually there are intermixed cries that God used him anyway, or to look past his character at what he's saying--in essence, to avoid ad hominem attacks. Please do us, or at least me, the same turn. (Note that I've never said that Calvin was unregenerate, although I definitely am not thrilled with his involvement with Servetus.)"

You are being stubborn by insinuating that Calvin was "wicked" and then turning around and saying that maybe he was regenerate after all.

The problem is not that a regenerate individual cannot sin, but that you are being hypocritical in ways which you have have not even recognized. Calvin's error was that of continuing the Romanist error of church-statism. I will stipulate that this was, in and of itself, a pretty monstrous error. But there is no reason to believe that you would not have made precisely the same mistake if you had lived in 16th Century Europe.

In the final analysis, I am not so much interested in defending Calvin's honor as I am interested in warning you of this hypocritical bias against a pretty good Christian.

Anyway, see my #226. Maybe it will dawn on you what I am saying.

***

And I will say again that you Arminians have behaved badly. The way you guys tried to use the Servetus story, with a dishonest slant, is an example of this--albeit a minor example. (Many of the Arminian posts have been filled with viciously malevolent lies attacking us. It's almost non-stop slander.)

228 posted on 4/23/02 5:04 PM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

Spurgeon is famous for his statement "Calvinism is the gospel in its purest form."

For reasons which should eventually become clearer, I believe that Spurgeon was correct. In the present post, I will simply maintain that Spurgeon's statement was correct. (As I have already indicated, we'll look at the proof later.)

What I want to do in this post is to show you what Spurgeon's statement is actually declaring.

It turns out that there are two different ways to read Spurgeon's statement. There is a soft way to read it, and there is also a decidedly more harsh way to read it. I believe both readings have merit. (See below.)

***

In the first place, you need to keep in mind that Spurgeon never maintained that an Arminian is surely lost. He actually affirmed that one does not have to be a Calvinist in order to be saved. (I have never met a Calvinistic Baptist who would disagree with Spurgeon about this!)

What is my point in telling you this? It is to point out that Spurgeon's statement to the effect tbat Calvinism is the "purest form" of the gospel is admitting the doctrinally important possibility that an Arminian can be saved in the overall gospel but still be confused concerning some of the doctrinal particulars of the gospel!

How could Spurgeon have realized that an Arminian can still be a true Christian? Well, the Bible nowhere says that a person has to get all of his doctrinal p's and q's straight before he is converted. Spurgeon knew that. Besides, Spurgeon himself was converted to Christ before he became a Calvinist as such. And there is no reason whatsoever to doubt Spurgeon's prior conversion.

On the other hand, it is ominously significant that Spurgeon was not converted to Christ by the preaching of an Arminian theology of gospel conversion.

This is so significant that I want to say it again and go on to explain it. Although Spurgeon did not become a Calvinist per se until a short time after his conversion, he had not been converted by the Arminian position.

Let me explain this by pointing out that Spurgeon was converted in a Primitive Methodist church under the preaching of a lay preacher who did not present the standard invitation of the 19th Century Arminian preachers. No one in that little church told Spurgeon or even implied to him that if he would walk an aisle and make a public confession of Christ and get baptized and join a local church, then these works would surely amount to saving faith.

This is important--especially when we realize that there are Protestant preachers who do teach/imply such things. They were on the scene in Spurgeon's day, and they became even more common in the 20th Century!

The lay preacher whose unctuous presentation of Christ stirred young Spurgeon's soul was not one of these hirelings. The fellow was not just trying to get members for the visible Body of Christ!

Why do I think the pejorative term "hireling" is appropriate for describing a lot of ministers? It's because the Christian ministry is too much of a career for them--a career in which visible success equals visible "converts." This is why the hirelings naturally learn the tricks of gospel huckstering from the likes of the 9th Century heretic Charles Finney.

Sadly, we Calvinists notice that today's "hireling evangelists" use Finney's tricks over and over and over in our day. Most people think this is perfectly okay. But it's not okay. It is a dangerous mess.

Why do I say that? It's because it is a throwback to Romanism. The fact that certain works (e.g. profession of faith and joining a local church) are the necessary fruits of true faith does not give us the right to say that the doing of certain works constitutes true faith. (That is the essential error of Romanism!)

More to the point of our present discussion, we must never imply that every seemingly positive thing which a wickedly, demonically confused sinner might do in response to a sermon is a thing of regeneration. The parable of the tares warns us that this is not the case! The tares are demonic counterfeits in the visible church. They are planted by the Enemy, not by the Spirit of God.

This is why I believe that it is important to affirm that the Spirit of Christ must regenerate unto conversion!

The tares are spiritually dead folks who might very well look like they are alive to God--when, in fact, they are actually Adamic-Satanic idolaters who HATE the God of the Bible. Whatever spirit they have, it ain't the spirit of Christ. And since they are arrogantly presenting themselves in the temple of God as saved when they are not, the spirit of the deception is necessarily an antichristian spirit.

Do we just throw these folks out of our churches? No, if they behave themselves, we leave them alone. Trying to root them out will create more problems than it solves. But we definitely can preach about the problem of the antichristian deception! We can point out that some folks are hypocrites who learn lipservice confessions concerning Jesus and God but who do not know the God of the Bible after all. And we can specifically point out from the parable that one of the specific reasons why the Lord says leave the tares alone is because He already intends to burn them in hell.

Notice from this that the tares scenario is a pretty scary scenario. We are limited in some ways as to what we can do about the tares; however, we certainly can sharpen the message which may have been so sleepy/sloppy as to allow them to be planted in our churches in the first place! We can do our level best to preach a gospel which attacks doctrinal confusion--including the doctrinal confusion of the Lie which facilitates spurious conversions, i.e., produces antichrists in our churches!

(In case you have missed this, let me clearly affirm that a lot of professing Christians don't really believe that Jesus is the Christ, that He is God in the flesh, that God is Triune. They just memorize confessions and hope that's good enough.)

One of the nifty things about this doctrinal powerful approach is that it automatically unmasks a lot of frauds. As a matter of fact, most of the antichrists will eventually get up and leave the church. (See 1 John 4:2.)

By far the best thing about doctrinally profound warnings is that it winds up converting some of the hypocrites! God wakes them up supernaturally for the very first time.

***

Now, let me summarize a few points about Spurgeon and his position that Calvinism is the "purest form" of the gospel.

You will notice from what I have said already in this post that I believe that Arminian preaching tends to produce spurious conversions. It tends to confuse folks into professions of faith.

This is nothing like what happened to Spurgeon. But he did not realize the significance of this until he thought about what really happens in conversion. And he did not think about that until the Lord taught him the doctrine of God's sovereignty in salvation!

It is also interesting that when the Spirit of God was pleased to instruct Spurgeon in this doctrinal area, Spurgeon saw the Truth of the Calvinistic position almost immediately. He quickly renounced the Arminian position and never turned back. As far as Spurgeon was concerned, the Truth of the matter was obvious in the Bible. And it explained his own experience beautifully.

Am I saying that a saved but confused Arminian will respond to sound doctrinal instruction as quickly as Spurgeon did? No, I'm not. The Spirit of Christ operated in a pretty spectacular way in Spurgeon. God had big plans for the young man. (Some Christians are not foreordained to the kind of conspicuous, even spectacular ministry which Spurgeon had. They slog along in the confusion of error because God is willing to let them do so.)

In other words, Spurgeon had to abandon the confusion of Arminianism which temporarily adulterated his understanding of the gospel. The Spirit of God was pleased to have Spurgeon get a purer understanding of the ways of God in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Understandably, Spurgeon even gave God the credit for having opened his eyes to the Truth of Biblical predestination.

But what about the professing Christians who are Arminian in their theology and doggedly determined to remain as Arminians? Well, some of them are regenerate but childishly happy with their (proud!) doctrinal confusion. We Calvinists need to be patient. But we should never be so "patient" (!) as to imply that their Arminian doctrine is surely okay. Heck, it's not okay. A lot of "Arminian Christians" are not even Christians in the first place.

We need to be clear about that. So, let me point out the other, more ominious implication of Spurgeon's statement concerning Calvinism and the gospel (see below).

The issues of salvation and damnation are much bigger than assensus; they are much bigger than one's merely intellectual understanding (which can involve profoundly weird self-deceptions). But inasmuch as the mind is the portal of the soul for the Doctrine of the gospel, I will be blunt in my warning about the importance of getting unconfused! If Calvinism is the gospel in its purest form, then Arminianism is the antichristian deception in its purest form.

This is why I have warned FReepers over and over and over that Arminianism is the Lie of Eden ITSELF.

This is why I have said that although I love Arminians, I hate Arminianism.

Look again at what Satan said to Eve. Think about it a while. It's a pretty subtle point. But I'm afraid that I'm correct.

And this would go a long ways toward explaining why so many Arminians have behaved so badly, even repeatedly trying to get Calvinists thrown off FR. We infuriate the more rabid Arminians on FR precisely because we are correct.

Tomorrow I will explain why I say that Arminianism is the Lie of Eden. Please relax enough to be thoughtful rather than only stubbornly adversarial.

348 posted on 4/24/02 1:38 PM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

You just aren't noticing which is the cart and which is the horse. If you will figure this out, you will get the order straightened out.

1 Corinthians 2:14 definitely teaches that a person who does not even have the Spirit of the Truth will never receive the Truth.

Cute, huh? Well, what I am telling you is also correct!

You see, [____] the unregenerate sinner actually hates the God of the Bible. This is why preaching, in and of itself, fixes nothing. Conversion is a supernatural phenomenon. So, puh-leez don't call this foolishness. (See again 1 Corinthians 2:14.)

357 posted on 4/24/02 1:59 PM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

Someone asked:
"If Calvinism is the gospel in its purest form, why did God take so long to bother letting it out? And why do it's practioners have such a long history of failed Christianity in it's application in the world? Probably because it is not."

Actually the Calvinistic position can be found in the writings of Augustine (circa 400 A.D.). And there is evidence that Augustine was by no means the first Christian to understand the Biblical doctrine of predestination.

Even when the Roman Church went into apostasy between Augustine's day and the 16th Century, there were a large number of non-aligned Christians who kept alive Augustine's understanding of the doctrine of God's absolute predestination.

Have predestinarian Christian movements occasionally wandered away from the Truth of God's absolute sovereignty? Of course. The RCC is a good example. Then again, you are a living example of this phenomenon. So, don't blame the doctrine.

361 posted on 4/24/02 2:30 PM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

Someone said:
"You know, maybe Servetus was converted to Christ on the pyre. I am sure that people like Calvin did pray for him."

But I don't think you understood what I meant when I said that Servetus got what he deserved. The fact is, no one deserves mercy from God. We are all brands fit for burning.

Maybe Servetus finally realized that he was getting what a sinner does deserve. Maybe he finally realized that he had lived his entire life as an unregenerate smart-aleck who had never had a real fear of the True and Living God. Maybe he realized that he had been a fool to think his execution as a martyr would be somehow "tolerable," somehow a lovely thing.

Being burned to death can sure jerk the slack out of a fellow, I guess. But as a physician, I would point out that conversions in the final moments of life are not very common.

367 posted on 4/24/02 3:36 PM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

"Cursed be this 'love' and Cursed be this 'unity' for which the Word of God is put to the Stake."

FReepers might be interested to know that you(OP)were quoting Martin Luther.

(Do you know what Martin Luther means? It means "warlike warrior." Cool, huh?)

424 posted on 4/24/02 7:28 PM Pacific by the_doc ---------------------------------------------------------

Let's get started on the detailed discussion of the Lie of Eden.

Satan, manifesting himself as the Serpent of Genesis 3, told man a single lie presented in two different forms. He said that man would not die for unbelieving disobedience. He re-stated the lie in a more alluring form when he said that man would achieve godhood by a God-defying determination to sin (i.e., to know the issues of good and evil, by evil experience, for himself).

One of the reasons why we know that we should regard this as a single lie presented in two different forms--other than the obvious parallel between the two statements!--is found in Romans 1:25. That verse literally says "for they exchanged the truth of God for THE lie."

So, it was THE lie--or, as I have chosen to designate it, the Lie of Eden.

Now, inasmuch as this lie was stated in two different versions, we need to realize that the second version is just designed to be especially seductive. The first statement of the Lie, claiming that man would not die for unbelieving disobedience, is the one on which I would like to focus.

This statement, when we fully appreciate what it is saying, is the one which unmasks Arminianism as a fraud. (Ah, but the whole thing is subtle! See again Genesis 3:1a!)

More to come tomorrow.

435 posted on 4/24/02 7:49 PM Pacific by the_doc


TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: arminianism; calvinism; philosophy; sinofeden; theology; worldviews
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-142 next last
Here is another attempt to start the thread again - this time in the religion section. I've carried this one over from This One HERE
1 posted on 04/25/2002 10:02:18 AM PDT by Matchett-PI
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
I posted the Sin thread to discuss Genesis there..I quit:>))
2 posted on 04/25/2002 10:27:49 AM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the_doc;orthodoxpresbyterian;RnMomof7;CCWoody;Jerry_M;Jean Chauvin; Wrigley; Dr. Eckleburg...
The "Five Points of Arminianism" :

1. FREE WILL - Arminius believed that the fall of man was not total, maintaining that there was enough good left in man for him to will to accept Jesus Christ unto salvation.

2. CONDITIONAL ELECTION - Arminius believed that election was based on the foreknowledge of God as to who would believe. Man's "act of faith" was seen as the "condition" or his being elected to eternal life, since God foresaw him exercising his "free will" in response to Jesus Christ.

3. UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT - Arminius held that redemption was based on the fact that God loves everybody, that Christ died for everyone, and that the Father is not willing that any should perish. The death of Christ provided the grounds for God to save all men, but each must exercise his own "free will" in order to be saved.

4. OBSTRUCTABLE GRACE - Arminius believed that since God wanted all men to be saved, He sent the Holy Spirit to "woo" all men to Christ, but since man has absolute "free will," he is able to resist God's will for his life. He believed that God's will to save all men can be frustrated by the finite will of man. He also taught that man exercises his own will first, and then is born again.

5. FALLING FROM GRACE - If man cannot be saved by God unless it is man's will to be saved, then man cannot continue in salvation unless he continues to will to be saved.

Interestingly, John Calvin, the French reformer, did not formulate what today we know as the Five Points of Calvinism. This came out of the Canons of the Council of Dort (1618), and subsequent statements among the many Reformed Confessions have expanded upon these matters. Calvinism has been known for outstanding scholars, theologians, preachers, and reformers, men such as John Owen, George Whitefield, William Wilberforce, Abraham Kuyper, Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, and Charles Haddon Spurgeon.

Those in the reformed tradition who answered the teachings of Arminius chose the word "TULIP" as an acrostic to summarize their answer to the Five Points of Arminianism":

1. "T" = TOTAL DEPRAVITY - The Calvinists believed that man is in absolute bondage to sin and Satan, unable to exercise his own will to trust in Jesus Christ without the help of God.

2. "U" = UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION - The Calvinists believed that foreknowledge is based upon the plan and purpose of God, and that election is not based upon the decision of man, but the "free will" of the Creator alone.

3. "L" = LIMITED ATONEMENT - The Calvinists believed that Jesus Christ died to save those who were given to Him by the Father in eternity past. In their view, all for whom Jesus died (the elect) will be saved, and all for whom He did not die (the non elect) will be lost.

4. "I" = IRRESISTIBLE GRACE - The Calvinists believed that the Lord possesses irresistible grace that cannot be obstructed. They taught that the free will of man is so far removed from salvation, that the elect are regenerated (made spiritually alive) by God even before expressing faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. If a totally depraved person wasn't made alive by the Holy Spirit, such a calling on God would be impossible.

5. "P" = PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS - The Calvinists believed that salvation is entirely the work of the Lord, and that man has absolutely nothing to do with the process. The saints will persevere because God will see to it that He will finish the work He has begun.

3 posted on 04/25/2002 10:35:19 AM PDT by Matchett-PI
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
Bump!
4 posted on 04/25/2002 10:38:13 AM PDT by Matchett-PI
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
I'm sorry! I didn't see that when I posted this again! How many false starts will we have to have before we can continue with this subject? LOL!!!!
5 posted on 04/25/2002 10:41:01 AM PDT by Matchett-PI
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
Historical correction. The Remonstrants, followers of Jacob Arminius (who died in 1609), authored Five Articles of Remonstrance, 1610 [posted below] which were the basis for the Calvinist Five Point response in the Canons of Dordt. Your summary is not entirely accurate, for example note that Article 5 (below) is non-commital on whether a believer may "fall grom grace."

I thought it might be helpful to have the document rather than a summary to critique. Likewise, It is good to read the text of the Cannons of Dort aith the Retraction of Errors to see the issues as the participants saw them.

=============

The Five Arminian Articles of Remonstrance

1.That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ His Son, before the foundations of the world were laid, determined to save, out of the human race which had fallen into sin, in Christ, for Christ's sake and through Christ, those who through the grace of the Holy Spirit shall believe on the same His Son and shall through the same grace persevere in this same faith and obedience of faith even to the end; and on the other hand to leave under sin and wrath the contumacious and unbelieving and to condemn them as aliens from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36, and other passages of Scripture.

2.That, accordingly, Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that He has obtained for all, by His death on the cross, reconciliation and remission of sins; yet so that no one is partaker of this remission except the believers [John 3:16; 1 John 2:2].

3.That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the working of his own free-will, inasmuch as in his state of apostasy and sin he can for himself and by himself think nothing that is good--nothing, that is, truly good, such as saving faith is, above all else. But that it is necessary that by God, in Christ and through His Holy Spirit he be born again and renewed in understanding, affections and will and in all his faculties, that he may be able to understand, think, will, and perform what is truly good, according to the Word of God [John 15:5].

4.That this grace of God is the beginning, the progress and the end of all good; so that even the regenerate man can neither think, will nor effect any good, nor withstand any temptation to evil, without grace precedent (or prevenient), awakening, following and co-operating. So that all good deeds and all movements towards good that can be conceived in through must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ.

But with respect to the mode of operation, grace is not irresistible; for it is written of many that they resisted the Holy Spirit [Acts 7 and elsewhere passim].

5.That those who are grafted into Christ by a true faith, and have thereby been made partakers of His life-giving Spirit, are abundantly endowed with power to strive against Satan, sin, the world and their own flesh, and to win the victory; always, be it understood, with the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit, with Jesus Christ assisting them in all temptations, through His Spirit; stretching out His hand to them and (providing only that they are themselves prepared for the fight, that they entreat His aid and do not fail to help themselves) propping and upbuilding them so that by no guile or violence of Satan can they be led astray or plucked from Christ's hands [John 10:28]. But for the question whether they are not able through sloth or negligence to forsake the beginning of their life in Christ, to embrace again this present world, to depart from the holy doctrine once delivered to them, to lose their good conscience and to neglect grace--this must be the subject of more exact inquiry in the Holy Scriptures, before we can teach it with full confidence of our mind.

6 posted on 04/25/2002 11:06:03 AM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI; xzins; OrthodoxPresbyterian
Hey, xzins, would you modify the 5 points of Arminians to reflect your Weslyan-Arminian beliefs? You should have something available somewhere...

OP, would you provide our FR point for T that we discussed?

7 posted on 04/25/2002 11:22:09 AM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: drstevej;the_doc
"Your summary is not entirely accurate, for example note that Article 5 (below) is non-commital on whether a believer may "fall grom grace."

Thank you. You point out that Article 5 is "non-commital. That is probably the reason why not all Arminians agree with each other on the point that those who believe and are saved can lose their salvation by failing to keep up their faith. Some Arminians hold that believers are eternally secure in Christ and that once a sinner is regenerated, he can never be lost.

I would say that most Arminians hold to the view that they can lose their salvation, however, since most of them believe their will is involved.

If I had posted the Steel/Thomas summary of Arminianism and Calvinism instead of the one I did post, it would have avoided your objections, I think.

8 posted on 04/25/2002 11:31:40 AM PDT by Matchett-PI
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
Thanks for the post.

Note in article 1 the Remonstrants base election on the condition of foreseen faith and perseverance to the end!

This implies someone may be truly be a believer and yet not be elect. No elect person, in this view, can be lost. I think their "need for further study" in article 5 was an unwillingness for 2 + 2 to equal 4.

Historically, the Remonstrants were in danger of losing their "livings" from the Dutch government. They were also unwilling to embrace the views of the Anabaptists and Radicals in the area (Coornhert, DeRies, et al.) -- whose views Arminius was initially commissioned by the Dutch Reformed Church to refute. Arminius kept stalling year after year and died without ever making a official response. In researching the radicals of the area Arminius did not embrace these views but found he no longer affirmed the Reformed understanding of these issues. Thus he was hesitant to make his report.

The writings of Dirk Coornhert and Hans DeRies reflect views held by many of today's Arminians. Perfectionism has Coornhert for a Patriarch. DeRies said the universal death of Christ removed original sin's taint in Adam's descendants, etc. Waterlanders (deRies' group) didn't baptize babies cause they did not consider them contaminated by Adam's sin.

The point is that historic Arminians (Remonstrants) were less "Arminian" than Arminians today.

BTW, the group I did my dissertation on (the English General Baptists) have by recent historians been wrongly called 'Arminian' Baptists almost by all. John Robinson, the Five Point Calvinist pastor of the Pilgrims while in Holland, wrote against both the Remonstrants and the General Baptists and clearly understood the difference. The anti-Calvinistic impact on the General Baptists was primarily Hans de Ries and the Waterlander Mennonites not Arminius. -- drstevej, "The Soteriology of John Robinson" Westminster Theological Journal [Spring, 1982].

9 posted on 04/25/2002 12:25:01 PM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: drstevej;the_doc;orthodoxpresbyterian;RnMomof7;CCWoody;Jerry_M;Jean Chauvin; Wrigley; Dr. Eckleburg
"Likewise, It is good to read the text of the Cannons of Dort aith the Retraction of Errors to see the issues as the participants saw them."

The Canons of Dort The Synod of Dordrecht November 13, 1618—May 9, 1619

First Head of Doctrine. Divine Election and Reprobation

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 1. As all men have sinned in Adam, lie under the curse, and are deserving of eternal death, God would have done no injustice by leaving them all to perish and delivering them over to condemnation on account of sin, according to the words of the apostle: "that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God." (Rom 3:19). And: "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," (Rom 3:23). And: "For the wages of sin is death." (Rom 6:23).

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 2. But in this the love of God was manifested, that He "sent his one and only Son into the world, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (1 John 4:9, John 3:16).

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 3. And that men may be brought to believe, God mercifully sends the messengers of these most joyful tiding to whom He will and at what time He pleases; by whose ministry men are called to repentance and faith in Christ crucified. "How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent?" (Rom 10:14-15).

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 4. The wrath of God abides upon those who believe not this gospel. But such as receive it and embrace Jesus the Savior by a true and living faith are by Him delivered from the wrath of God and from destruction, and have the gift of eternal life conferred upon them.

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 5. The cause or guilt of this unbelief as well as of all other sins is no wise in God, but in man himself; whereas faith in Jesus Christ and salvation through Him is the free gift of God, as it is written: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God" (Eph 2:8). Likewise: "For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him" (Phil 1:29).

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 6. That some receive the gift of faith from God, and others do not receive it, proceeds from God's eternal decree. "For known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world" (Acts 15:18 A.V.). "who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will" (Eph 1:11). According to which decree He graciously softens the hearts of the elect, however obstinate, and inclines them to believe; while He leaves the non-elect in His just judgment to their own wickedness and obduracy. And herein is especially displayed the profound, the merciful, and at the same time the righteous discrimination between men equally involved in ruin; or that decree of election and reprobation, revealed in the Word of God, which, though men of perverse, impure, and unstable minds wrest it to their own destruction, yet to holy and pious souls affords unspeakable consolation.

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 7. Election is the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, He has out of mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of His own will, chosen from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault from the primitive state of rectitude into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, whom He from eternity appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect and the foundation of salvation. This elect number, though by nature neither better nor more deserving than others, but with them involved in one common misery, God has decreed to give to Christ to be saved by Him, and effectually to call an draw them to His communion by His Word and Spirit; to bestow upon them true faith, justification, and sanctification; and having powerfully preserved them in the fellowship of His son, finally to glorify them for the demonstration of His mercy, and for the praise of the riches of His glorious grace; as it is written "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves." (Eph 1:4-6). And elsewhere: "And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified." (Rom 8:30).

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 8. There are not various decrees of election, but one and the same decree respecting all those who shall be saved, both under the Old and New Testament; since the Scripture declares the good pleasure, purpose, and counsel of the divine will to be one, according to which He has chosen us from eternity, both to grace and to glory, to salvation and to the way of salvation, which He has ordained that we should walk therein (Eph 1:4, 5; 2:10).

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 9. This election was not founded upon foreseen faith and the obedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality or disposition in man, as the prerequisite, cause, or condition of which it depended; but men are chosen to faith and to the obedience of faith, holiness, etc. Therefore election is the fountain of every saving good, from which proceed faith, holiness, and the other gifts of salvation, and finally eternal life itself, as its fruits and effects, according to the testimony of the apostle: "For he chose us (not because we were, but) in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight." (Eph 1:4).

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 10. The good pleasure of God is the sole cause of this gracious election; which does not consist herein that out of all possible qualities and actions of men God has chosen some as a condition of salvation, but that He was pleased out of the common mass of sinners to adopt some certain persons as a peculiar people to Himself, as it is written: "Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she (Rebekah) was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' Just as it is written: 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'" (Rom 9:11-13). "When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed." (Acts 13:48).

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 11. And as God Himself is most wise, unchangeable, omniscient, and omnipotent, so the election made by Him can neither be interrupted nor changed, recalled, or annulled; neither can the elect be cast away, nor their number diminished.

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 12. The elect in due time, though in various degrees and in different measures, attain the assurance of this their eternal and unchangeable election, not by inquisitively prying into the secret and deep things of God, but by observing in themselves with a spiritual joy and holy pleasure the infallible fruits of election pointed out in the Word of God—such as, a true faith in Christ, filial fear, a godly sorrow for sin, a hungering and thirsting after righteousness, etc.

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 13. The sense and certainty of this election afford to the children of God additional matter for daily humiliation before Him, for adoring the depth of His mercies, for cleansing themselves, and rendering grateful returns of ardent love to Him who first manifested so great love towards them. The consideration of this doctrine of election is so far from encouraging remissness in the observance of the divine commands or from sinking men in carnal security, that these, in the just judgment of God, are the usual effects of rash presumption or of idle and wanton trifling with the grace of election, in those who refuse to walk in the ways of the elect.

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 14. As the doctrine of election by the most wise counsel of God was declared by the prophets, by Christ Himself, and by the apostles, and is clearly revealed in the Scriptures both of the Old and the New Testament, so it is still to be published in due time and place in the Church of God, for which it was peculiarly designed, provided it be done with reverence, in the spirit of discretion and piety, for the glory of God's most holy Name, and for enlivening and comforting His people, without vainly attempting to investigate the secret ways of the Most High (Acts 20:27; Rom 11:33f; 12:3; Heb 6:17f).

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 15. What peculiarly tends to illustrate and recommend to us the eternal and unmerited grace of election is the express testimony of sacred Scripture that not all, but some only, are elected, while others are passed by in the eternal decree; whom God, out of His sovereign, most just, irreprehensible, and unchangeable good pleasure, has decreed to leave in the common misery into which they have willfully plunged themselves, and not to bestow upon them saving faith and the grace of conversion; but, permitting them in His just judgment to follow their own ways, at last, for the declaration of His justice, to condemn and punish them forever, not only on account of their unbelief, but also for all their other sins. And this is the decree of reprobation, which by no means makes God the Author of sin (the very though of which is blasphemy), but declares Him to be an awful, irreprehensible, and righteous Judge and Avenger thereof.

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 16. Those in whom a living faith in Christ, and assured confidence of soul, peace of conscience, an earnest endeavor after filial obedience, a glorying in God through Christ, is not as yet strongly felt, and who nevertheless make use of the means which God has appointed for working these graces in us, ought not to be alarmed at the mention of reprobation, nor to rank themselves among the reprobate, but diligently to persevere in the use of means, and with ardent desires devoutly and humble to wait for a season of richer grace. Much less cause to be terrified by the doctrine of reprobation have they who, though they seriously desire to be turned to God, to please Him only, and to be delivered from the body of death, cannot yet reach that measure of holiness and faith to which they aspire; since a merciful God has promised that He will not quench the smoking flax, nor break the bruised reed. But this doctrine is justly terrible to those who, regardless of God and of the Savior Jesus Christ, have wholly given themselves up to the cares of the world and the pleasures of the flesh, so long as they are not seriously converted to God.

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 17. Since we are to judge of the will of God from His Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they together with the parents are comprehended, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom it pleases God to call out of this life in their infancy (Gen 17:7; Acts 2:39; 1 Cor 7:14).

FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 18. To those who murmur at the free grace of election and the just severity of reprobation we answer with the apostle "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" (Rom 9:20), and quote the language of our Savior: "Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own?" (Matt 20:15). And therefore, with holy adoration of these mysteries, we exclaim in the words of the apostle: "Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! 'Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?' 'Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?' For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen." (Rom 11:33-36).

REJECTION OF ERRORS The true doctrine concerning election and reprobation having been explained, the Synod rejects the errors of those:

FIRST HEAD: PARAGRAPH 1. Who teach: That the will of God to save those who would believe and would persevere in faith and in the obedience of faith is the whole and entire decree of election, and that nothing else concerning this decree has been revealed in God's Word.

For these deceive the simple and plainly contradict the Scriptures, which declare that God will not only save those who will believe, but that He has also from eternity chosen certain particular persons to whom, above others, He will grant in time, both faith in Christ and perseverance; as it is written "I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. (John 17:6). "and all who were appointed for eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48)". And "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. (Eph 1:4)."

FIRST HEAD: PARAGRAPH 2. Who teach: That there are various kinds of election of God unto eternal life: the one general and indefinite, the other particular and definite; and that the latter in turn is either incomplete, revocable, non-decisive, and conditional, or complete, irrevocable, decisive, and absolute. Likewise: That there is one election unto faith and another unto salvation, so that election can be unto justifying faith, without being a decisive election unto salvation.

For this is a fancy of men's minds, invented regardless of the Scriptures, whereby the doctrine of election is corrupted, and this golden chain of our salvation is broken: "And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. (Rom 8:30)."

FIRST HEAD: PARAGRAPH 3. Who teach: That the good pleasure and purpose of God, of which Scripture makes mention in the doctrine of election, does not consist in this, that God chose certain persons rather than others, but in this, that He chose out of all possible conditions (among which are also the works of the law), or out of the whole order of things, that act of faith which from its very nature is undeserving, as well as it incomplete obedience, as a condition of salvation, and that He would graciously consider this in itself as a complete obedience and count it worthy of the reward of eternal life.

For by this injurious error the pleasure of God and the merits of Christ are made of none effect, and men are drawn away by useless questions from the truth of gracious justification and from the simplicity of Scripture, and this declaration of the apostle is charged as untrue: "who has saved us and called us to a holy life, not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time (2 Tim 1:9)."

FIRST HEAD: PARAGRAPH 4. Who teach: That in the election unto faith this condition is beforehand demanded that man should use the light of nature aright, be pious, humble, meek, and fit for eternal life, as if on these things election were in any way dependent.

For this savors of the teaching of Pelagius, and is opposed to the doctrine of the apostle when he writes: "All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast (Eph 2:3-9)."

FIRST HEAD: PARAGRAPH 5. Who teach: That the incomplete and non-decisive election of particular persons to salvation occurred because of a foreseen faith, conversion, holiness, godliness, which either began or continued for some time; but that the complete and decisive election occurred because of foreseen perseverance unto the end in faith, conversion, holiness, and godliness; and that this is the gracious and evangelical worthiness, for the sake of which he who is chosen is more worthy than he who is not chosen; and that therefore faith, the obedience of faith, holiness, godliness, and perseverance are not fruits of the unchangeable election unto glory, but are conditions which, being required beforehand, were foreseen as being met by those who will be fully elected, and are causes without which the unchangeable election to glory does not occur.

This is repugnant to the entire Scripture, which constantly inculcates this and similar declarations: Election is "not by works but by him who calls (Rom 9:12)." "And all who were appointed for eternal life believed (Acts 13:48)." "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight (Eph 1:4)." "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name (John 15:16)." "And if by grace, then it is no longer by works (Rom 11:6)." "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son (1 John 4:10)."

FIRST HEAD: PARAGRAPH 6. Who teach: That not every election unto salvation is unchangeable, but that some of the elect, any decree of God notwithstanding, can yet perish and do indeed perish.

By this gross error they make God be changeable, and destroy the comfort which the godly obtain out of the firmness of their election, and contradict the Holy Scripture, which teaches that the elect can not be led astray (Matt 24:24), that Christ does not lose those whom the Father gave him (John 6:39), and that God also glorified those whom he foreordained, called, and justified (Rom 8:30).

FIRST HEAD: PARAGRAPH 7. Who teach: That there is in this life no fruit and no consciousness of the unchangeable elect to glory, nor any certainty, except that which depends on a changeable and uncertain condition.

For not only is it absurd to speak of an uncertain certainty, but also contrary to the experience of the saints, who by virtue of the consciousness of their election rejoice with the apostle and praise this favor of God (Eph 1); who according to Christ's admonition rejoice with his disciples that their names are written in heaven (Luke 10:20); who also place the consciousness of their election over against the fiery darts of the devil, asking: "Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? (Rom 8:33)."

FIRST HEAD: PARAGRAPH 8. Who teach: That God, simply by virtue of His righteous will, did not decide either to leave anyone in the fall of Adam and in the common state sin and condemnation, or to pass anyone by in the communication of grace which is necessary for faith and conversion.

For this is firmly decreed: "God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden (Rom 9:18)." And also this: "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them (Mat 13:11)." Likewise: "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes , Father, for this was your good pleasure (Mat 11:25-26)."

FIRST HEAD: PARAGRAPH 9. Who teach: That the reason why God sends the gospel to one people rather than to another is not merely and solely the good pleasure of God, but rather the fact that one people is better and worthier than another to which the gospel is not communicated.

For this Moses denies , addressing the people of Israel as follows: "To the LORD your God belong the heavens, even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it. Yet the LORD set his affection on your forefathers and loved them, and he chose you, their descendants, above all the nations, as it is today (Deu 10:14-15)." And Christ said: "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes (Mat 11:21)."

10 posted on 04/25/2002 2:10:27 PM PDT by Matchett-PI
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
Who am I as a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary to object to the publication of the Canons of Dordt?

Object and they'd jerk my sheepskin ***grin***.

11 posted on 04/25/2002 2:17:38 PM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
12 posted on 04/25/2002 2:22:02 PM PDT by Matchett-PI
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: drstevej; Matchett-PI
Note in article 1 the Remonstrants base election on the condition of foreseen faith and perseverance to the end!

It appears to me that with a proper understanding of (insert a bunch of stuff here), that Article 1 would be an entirely Calvinistic thing to say. It does seem like Arminius was teaching in 2,3 & 4 that when Jesus died everybody was born again and then had to decide to either remain with Christ or fall away.

I'm not sure what exact phraseology you are looking at to see that Article 1 is talking about foreseen faith.

This implies someone may be truly be a believer and yet not be elect. No elect person, in this view, can be lost. I think their "need for further study" in article 5 was an unwillingness for 2 + 2 to equal 4.

Kinda like ftd's belief that someone may be conformed to the image of Christ and yet still be nothing more than wood, hay, and stubble. It really does seem--considering article 4--that Arminius main goal was I am in control and not you God.

13 posted on 04/25/2002 2:45:37 PM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
Posted it 3 hours before with a flag to you...
14 posted on 04/25/2002 2:56:44 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ His Son, before the foundations of the world were laid, determined to save [[ELECTION]], out of the human race which had fallen into sin, in Christ, for Christ's sake and through Christ, those who through the grace of the Holy Spirit shall believe on the same His Son and shall through the same grace persevere in this same faith and obedience of faith even to the end; and on the other hand to leave under sin and wrath [[SINGLE PREDESTINATION]] the contumacious and unbelieving and to condemn them as aliens from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36, and other passages of Scripture.

====

The fact that this is a determination before the foundation of the world, and that saving faith is not irresistable [Pt. 4] the conclusion is that it is forseen faith that is the basis of the eternal determination of God.

However, I do understand your point. Bangs, Arminius shows that Arminius believed that election was based on foreseen faith and perseverance and that a believer may foresake faith but the elect will not. My statement did read his views into the Remonstrances to some degree. The Remonstrances is a cautious document understandibly. Thanks for the question.

15 posted on 04/25/2002 3:22:16 PM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
Thanks for the ping, but being 'Dutch Reformed', I can page through this confession every Sunday if the sermon gets a little boring.

(Oh, and I also have it at home too. It makes a good read on a cold winter night with a nice warm fire and Bach Organ music singing through the HiFi! -Did I forget the warm cup of Hot Chocolate?)

*wink*

Jean

16 posted on 04/25/2002 3:53:29 PM PDT by Jean Chauvin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
God... determined to save... those who... shall believe on... His Son. And since man can neither think, will nor effect any good, nor withstand any temptation to evil, without grace, such grace must include the grace to co-operate with God, I must conclude that God simply does not give certain men the grace to co-operate.

Arminius' 5 points are difficult to read...

17 posted on 04/25/2002 4:00:52 PM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI; The Grammarian; winstonchurchill; Revelation 911; Alas; RnMomof7...
I have already demonstrated that the Lie of Eden was a kind of counterfeit gospel. And inasmuch as this Lie obviously pollutes the lost race of Adam, the Truth of the Lord's gospel has to replace the Lie.

The True gospel has to replace the counterfeit one which tends to reassure the sinner that everything is actually okay, that the Creator is not as Holy and Awful as these crazy Calvinists say He is.

My point is that the Lie of Eden renders unregenerate sinners nothing more than natural-born fools. Somehow, some way, the sinner has to be brought to the awful place of the fear of the Lord. Bypassing this experience of the true fear of God, he will only stay damned in the Fall.

Unfortunately, a race under the demonic control associated with sin has an absolutely amazing capacity for resisting the fear of God. And one of the ways in which demon-controlled sinners (see 2 Timothy 2:26!) wind up resisting conversion is by embracing the wrong gospel.

The funny thing is, the false gospels which sinners wind up embracing invariably prove to be some variation of the Lie which got the Adamic race damned in the first place. Paul even appears to be alluding to this Edenic mess when he says in Galatians 1:8 that we must not embrace a false gospel even if an angel preaches it. He goes on to say that anyone who preaches a false gospel will trigger God's CURSE.

This is pretty serious stuff. It is even more serious when we realize how deceptive Satan is. Most folks can't necessarily spot a false gospel for what it is!

That being the case, it would seem prudent (to say the least!) for us to look at the issues of the gospel more carefully to learn what is going on in this mess. We specifically ought to look at the two different gospels which have been proposed in Christianity. We ought to figure out which one of them is just the Lie of Eden after all.

Why do I say there are two gospels? Aren't there more than two? Nope. There are only two.

In my next post I will compare these "two gospels" and show you what I believe is going on.

18 posted on 04/25/2002 4:22:10 PM PDT by the_doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
Reading the Retraction of Errors that concludes the Canons of Dordt gives some insight into the issues being surfaced by the Remonstrants.
19 posted on 04/25/2002 4:27:24 PM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI, the_doc

The Biblical Doctrine of Man’s Depravity
The Natural Man comes from the womb speaking lies (Ps. 58:3), and is spiritually insane in his heart (Ecc. 9:3), and he only performs unrighteous actions (Is. 64:6), and he cannot receive the Spirit (Jo. 14:17), and he does not seek God (Ro. 3:10-12,23), and he cannot will anything Godly (Ro. 7:18), and he is violently hostile to God (Ro. 8:5-8), and he is not able to action God-pleasing selections of Will (Ro. 8:5-8), and he cannot understand the Gospel (1 Co. 2:14), and he cannot confess Jesus is Lord (1 Co. 12:3).

20 posted on 04/25/2002 4:46:23 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-142 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