Calvinist, Reformed Theology No Longer Allowed

Well detailed and thought out post Alex :thumbs:

 

What was the rich young ruler asked to do by Jesus? Why did he turn away sorrowful? I don't think you understand the necessity of "counting the cost" of following Christ. This is a Biblical imperative.

 

Jesus was not telling the RYR he needed upfront works along with faith to be saved. It was his heart that needed changing. He violated the very first commandment.

 

All LS is, from what I understand, is believing that a forsaking of sin/self denial is a vital part of the Gospel. A while back we had that exhaustive, seemingly endless debate on what the definition of repentance is. I think that would help us greatly. So when Paul was telling people to repent, what did he really mean? The Lordship salvationists believe he meant, "Forsake your sin." The non-Lordship salvationists think he means, "Change your mind" either about sin, or about Christ's diety. It would be a great thread to have stickied actually, because there was so much great historical information on it. We looked at the major Christian figures of history and examined their views on repentance. I think it would do much to illuminate this subject.

Brother Bob, this subject beckons you with all of those church fathers right about now.

 

You've added the word that. The choice is not that you... The choice is you.

The chosing is of people (the believers in Thessolonica).

God chose people, and he chose those people to salvation. The intended result of God's chosing those people is their salvation.

The salvation that is the intended result of God chosing those people comes through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. The instumental means (the through) of their salvation is the sanctifying work of the Spirit and their belief in the truth.

Yes, of course.

Of course not, and I hope you are not suggesting that Calvinists believe that someone is saved first and then believes.

Yes, we are saved through belief and through the santifying work of the Spirit

That this passage is referring to the method of salvation as what is chosen makes no sense either contruction-wise or in context:

• Context: Paul thanks God "for you" because God "chose you". Paul doesn't thank God for the method, he thanks God for the people.
• Construction: The verb chose has an object. It's you (plural).

The choosing is of people; the choosing is to salvation; the instrumental means of salvation is belief and sanctification.

 

It is a lot more than this. Do a search on Lordship salvation, as there was recently 60 some pages on this topic. Also, Lou Martuneac (BB member) has done a fine job of pointing out the holes in this view.

 

That is how I understand it, but you put it into words far better than me. :thumbs:

 

Really? A lot of people on this Board who believe that we should tell sinners (in effect): "Just stand fast and do nothing. Don't believe those who tell you you must repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ! If God wants to save you, He will." ? That sounds even more "hyper" than hypercalvinism - it is certainly not calvinism. Perhaps if there are "a lot of people" on the Baptist Board who believe that, just one of them could write and say so.

 

Luk 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
Luk 18:23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.


Jesus told him in a very straightford way what the ruler had to do to be saved. Of course his heart needed to be changed. Jesus made him realize that by placing this requirement on him. Are you saying that if the ruler had followed our Lord's command he would not have been saved? That would have meant that Jesus was not telling him the truth.

This passage in Luke 14 says the same thing.

Luk 14:26 If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Luk 14:27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
Luk 14:28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have [sufficient] to finish [it]?
Luk 14:29 Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish [it], all that behold [it] begin to mock him,
Luk 14:30 Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.
Luk 14:31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?
Luk 14:32 Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.
Luk 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

Jesus frequently uses the word deciple to mean someone who is saved. Many times He asked those He came into contact with to "Come and follow Me." That same request is made to us. But we must first count the coost as these verses say.

 

Good -- so this is the crux of our debate then. Not that Calvinists don't do anything in order to receive salvation but that they will finally admit to doing something to receive salvation.

See, no more debate. And all along I thought you were pushing "monergism" and "all of God" and "unconditional election" and "repentance is the fruit, not the cause of salvation" and "free will denies that God is all-sovereign," and "the sinner's prayer is merely an expression of us telling God what He must do for us."

Man -- I been around here a long time and I misinterpretted all that!?

skypair

 

David -- it happens at a church near you every Sunday! No invitation to receive Christ and in place of it a reciting of the Apostle's Creed and another repetition of the "Lord's Prayer" as if those rituals somehow influence our eternal destiny and bring the "elect" into the kingdom -- or, more likely, the church rolls.

"Say smooth things" is the mantra. This is a comfortable place to fellowship.

I would ask you, do these people actually win souls OUTSIDE church when they go home Are these the ones out "street preaching" on the corners? Or are the more likely the ones giving the money for ministries and missions? working in the serving lines at the food kitchen? Habitat for Humanity houses? All that is important but it's works -- the "cumin and anise" -- but not "judgment and [salvational] mercy"

At the risk of being even more controversial (as webdog offered once) what are you repenting to if you realize that you are "elect" already?? Aren't you just having a "pity party" with God if He has already saved/elected you? sorrowful recollections? "I've been such a bad son/daughter, God."

There's a place for that after you are saved (2Cor 7:9-12). But what if God isn't even your Father yet?

skypair

 

Jesus did as many Baptist pastors do today --- He brought the RYR to the "breaking point" of his own will vs. the will of God. The purpose of this HS conviction is to demonstrate the RYR's need to turn from self (NOT from his "things" but from himself) to God in true repentance.

The RYR couldn't "pull the repentance trigger!" He still thought there was another way. Many Calvies (Baptists, too) do the same. Once they convince themselves that they are "elect" already, they decide that just little change of lifestyles -- which they call "repentance" -- is all that's needed. They haven't "presented themselves a living sacrifice, HOLY, acceptable unto God which is their reasonable service," Rom 12:1 They've offered what they think is holy because they presumed they are "elect."

This presumption of "election" is dangerous. Do you suppose that the rich young ruler felt justified already? The Jesus words were mere "opinion" that he, already saved by the law, could walk away from?

skypair

 

That seems to have been the mindset of those who tried to oppose William Carey of going to India. I can't give you the exact quote (maybe someone can look it up), but one of the elders of his church said something to this effect: "Young man if God wanted the natives of India saved He would do it in his own way, in his own time, and without your help."
I think that is quite a bit off the mark from his actual words, but the gist of the thought is there. They were against his going to India. They were against missions. If God were going to save the elect he could do it without Carey. There was no need for Carey to go to India. That was a ridculous concept.
That William Carey did go to India was the beginning of the modern missionary movement.

 

I used the word "that" to describe the instrumental process. No one, particularly me, added any word but my friend...words do have to be use to describe things and here THAT is how the instrumental HAS to be described.

This reflects a misunderstanding regarding the nature of the Greek preposition, particularly here. No one is arguing God made a choice but it is the preposition that leads to understanding that choice is how one is saved.

There is a notable sect of Calvinists who make this proclamation.

Then apparently you need to become more familiar with the force in Greek prepositions, particularly the locality. Here God chooses that "we be into salvation" (a most literal rendering) by means of or through the instrument of the sanctifying work of the Spirit and belief in the truth. Obviously you having a Calvinist grid that you have determined isn't open for consideration or examination and will be forced to view this as objectionable in whatever way you can find. But grammatically this is, in spite of your objection, what it says.

And even if a person, in this case, had not one ounce of Greek grammar, if it is translated most literally to reflect this demarcating nuance, the English can and does render it, as I provided with the ESV, a clear understanding. The emphasis is that we are saved through the Sanctifying work of the Spirit and belief in the truth.

 

Romans 10:9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. NIV

 

That is TRUE Lordship Salvation...but not the LS John Macarthur and many calvinists hold to, which I am trying to point out.

 

Welll I do not know where you persoanlly differ from McArthur. I am in the middle of reading his book. But if we have not made Christ Lord of our lives we are not saved. One cannot claim Christ and live like the world. The two are contradictory and irreconcilable.

 

The problem is we can't MAKE Christ anything. If we are saved, He IS Lord of our lives.
We are saved by grace through faith...not grace through faith PLUS an upfront commitment to live our lives as seasoned believers. A lost person has no clue how to live a life committed to Christ, so how in the world can this be a requirement in order to be saved?

I know plenty of believers who are committed to Christ, and have backsliden. I was one of them. To claim that we cannot is no different than holding to a works salvation, and refutes much of what Paul stated in Romans about the war between the flesh and Spirit.

 

I believe that what John MacArthur is saying in regards to Lordship salvation is that your are saved by grace through faith and that alone, but the willingness to follow Christ and be obedient to Him is the proof of one's salvation. Many are deceived into believing they are saved because they said the "prayer", but the fruit of their salvation is a love and devotion to Christ and a forsaking of the world.

Full article: http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-8-2.htm

 

This is what Lordship salvation is about I believe. You said it: IF we are saved, He IS Lord of our lives.

If He is NOT Lord of your life, you are NOT saved.