Posted on 01/06/2004 6:08:05 PM PST by P-Marlowe
N3
Luk 18:17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.
Seems to me that the best kind of evangelistic gospel sermon is one which a child can relate to.
Lather up.
Still judging souls, I see.
Care to speak to the beam?
If you are talking about that tract where it stated that you have to prepare yourself to be acceptable before the lord before you will be saved, then I don't think that was the gospel. Salvation is not the work of men, it is the work of God. You cannot prepare yourself so that you are somehow worthy to be saved, you just have to believe. Sanctification comes after salvation, not before.
The tract was just a rearticulation of the Puritan evangelical program. Are you saying that our fore-fathers were tricked into Christianity? If one "lathers up" is he preparing for salvation or is he performing his own salvation?
The point of the article is not why you would or would not lather up. The point is that if you refuse to lather up then you are preparing for your own damnation. The point is that regardless of the reason why you respond to the gospel message, the fact of the matter is that if you are to be saved, you MUST respond to it. You must do what the gospel says. You must believe. Responding insures your salvation, while refusing to respond insures your damnation.
So if you don't respond to the gospel, the gospel does you no good. The fact that some people refuse to bathe is no reason to believe that soap is not effective. Similarly the fact that some people refuse to heed to gospel message is no reason to believe that the gospel message is not effective.
Let me try to define our "lather up" analogy and the differences in our perspectives.
You would say:
Man "lathers up" through his own personal response.
I would say:
God "lathers up" man so that he can respond.
Does this accurately reflect our different perspectives?
Can a man be saved without them? Let me be very clear here, because I know the tendency is to try to distort what Calvinists say. The man performs the acts. I don't think there can be any argument on that point. The question is, does he perform the acts totally on his own initiative, or does God enable the man to do so?
The Arminian says that salvation is of God.
The Calvinist says the same.
The Arminian says that the man must choose to come to God, but they don't address his ability to do so. The assumption is that man is able to make that choice, unaided, only needing to hear the Gospel.
The Calvinist says that man cannot choose to do so on his own, so God must first enable the man to hear the Gospel so that he CAN believe it, and receive Christ.
The Arminian says that's "Prevenient Grace", that wonderful catch-all term that is at the same time universal, yet specific, and sufficient by itself to enable man to make his own choice to receive Christ.
The Calvinist says that God's enabling of the man is Irresistable Grace, or Effectual Grace, meaning that it is specific, not universal, and that it is never failing in those to whom it is granted.
The Arminian says that God does not override man's free will in this, that the man's free will is sacrosanct, inviolable, or God would be some sort of draconian monster, pushing people around, and making them do things they don't want to do, although they never really explain why God forcing someone to be saved would be a bad thing, seeing that it is of infinite value to the one so saved.
The Calvinist says that God, without consulting the man's will, unilaterally resuscitates the sinner's dead, cold, stony heart of sin, a heart that is incapable of hearing or believing the gospel (the preaching of the gospel is to them that perish foolishness), thereby enabling the man to hear the Gospel with spiritually-alive ears so that Faith can come (faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God), and the man can believe, the Gospel, receive forgiveness of sins, Christ can dwell in his heart (which must be spiritually alive), and he can receive justification.
The man is the one doing the believing and receiving, God is the one that makes it possible. Man freely chooses to do so, because he has been made spiritually alive by the power and Grace of God, but he cannot do those things UNTIL he is FIRST made spiritually alive. Spiritually-dead men cannot believe savingly, cannot receive Christ into their hearts, and cannot be justified, because they are spiritually dead. No spiritually-dead man can ever do any act pleasing to God. Only spiritually-alive men can do so.
Can a man be saved without them?
It would appear that would be the case.
I say that because it is my understanding that for God to bring a man to perform a God-pleasing act then he is predestined for salvation. He is already saved no act is required or necessary or this would deny God's sovereignty.
If this is not the case than the works of man in some manner are required for salvation?
No, it is not accurate.
I would exactly say the same: "God 'lathers up' man so that he can respond.
Where I perceive our difference is this:
You say: "God lathers up man and responds for the man, and it is a permanent lathering."
I say: "God 'lathers up' man so that he can respond, and then the man is able to make the choice for permanent 'lathering.'"
I'm not sure that this is what P-Marlowe would say.
So man can resist the call of God.
Can a man be saved without them?
It would appear that would be the case.
I say that because it is my understanding that for God to bring a man to perform a God-pleasing act then he is predestined for salvation. He is already saved no act is required or necessary or this would deny God's sovereignty.
Actually the answer to your questions are contained within my premise, if you look. I will attempt to expand on it a little. Even though a man is predestined for salvation, he still must be brought by God to ability to perform the actions that obtain salvation for that man. Predestination does not mean that it is already done, only that it will be done.
If this is not the case than the works of man in some manner are required for salvation?
Not REQUIRED in the sense that it is those works themselves that save him, but they are the natural actions of a spiritually-alive man. God resuscitating the man's heart makes it possible for the man to perform actions pleasing to God. The very first of those acts is to believe on Christ, which results in eternal life.
The mistake is thinking that the actions themselves save, or that God's Predestination itself saves, apart from the work of Christ, or from God's resuscitation of the sinner's heart. Man cooperates in the sense that he freely chooses Christ, AFTER he has first been resucitated by God to be ABLE to cooperate. This is where the Arminians miss it. They believe that God has already provided all that is necessary for man to choose Christ, WITHOUT the specific and individual resuscitation of the sinner's heart by God prior to belief. They believe that the sinner first believes, which then resuscitates his heart, something akin to a patient in cardiac arrest applying the paddles to himself to restart his own heart.
The works themselves do not cause salvation. They are evidence that salvation has occurred. As James says, "faith without works is dead, being alone. Show me your faith apart from works, and I will show you my faith BY my works."
Maybe you want to think that's what we're saying, but no Calvinist has ever said that God responds for the man. That is a gross misrepreentation of the Calvinist position, and I think you know that it is. I expect a little more accuracy from you than that, xzins. As long as we've been discussing it, you know that is not what we say.
Predestination does not mean that it is already done, only that it will be done.
Done on what conditions or at what time?
Not REQUIRED in the sense that it is those works themselves that save him...The very first of those acts is to believe on Christ, which results in eternal life.
Is not this act of believing required for eternal life/salvation or are eternal life and salvation different?
The mistake is thinking that the actions themselves save, or that God's Predestination itself saves, apart from the work of Christ, or from God's resuscitation of the sinner's heart. Man cooperates in the sense that he freely chooses Christ, AFTER he has first been resucitated by God to be ABLE to cooperate.
I'm afraid I am missing something here too.
Is it not God's will?
Predestination is not sufficient.
Christ works are not sufficient.
Man or his works are not sufficient.
God needs mans cooperation to be able to affect his soviergn will?
God needed to have Christ's works to enable his sovereign will?
God needed his own predestination of the elect to grant his sovereign will?
The works themselves do not cause salvation. They are evidence that salvation has occurred.
Who requires this evidence?
Of what value is this evidence and to whom does it have value?
That is what I honestly conclude after combining the doctrines of pre-faith regeneration and irresistible grace together. Especially after our discussions of the philippian jailer, I've come to understand that you believe the new birth happens BEFORE a person becomes a believer.
I Cleansed Me from SinBrought to you by drstevej courtesy of the....
I praise You, O God!
For giving Me hope,
For Jesus Who died,
And left me the soap.
Hallelujah! Mine the glory.
Hallelujah! Amen.
Hallelujah! Mine the glory.
I Cleansed me from sin.
We praise Thee, O God!
For Thy Spirit of light,
Who hath shown us our Savior,
With prevenient eyesight
Hallelujah! Mine the glory.
Hallelujah! Amen.
Hallelujah! Mine the glory.
I Cleansed me from sin.
All glory and praise
To the Lamb that was slain,
Who hath borne all our sins,
Yet I scrubbed every stain.
Hallelujah! Mine the glory.
Hallelujah! Amen.
Hallelujah! Mine the glory.
I Cleansed me from sin.
Some glory and praise
To the God in my mind,
Who hast brought me, but taught me,
To scrub my be-hind.
Hallelujah! Mine the glory.
Hallelujah! Amen.
Hallelujah! Mine the glory.
Come on counselor: They called you by their Gospel, they wrote it, not you! BTW, those are a couple of impressive proffs for Calvinism, thanks for posting them!
Once you are in the canon I will cut you some slack.
The Marlowe Theology library:
The Chick Tract is about a lawyer. What's up with that Marlowe?
The Calvinist Theology Library:
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.