Decisional JUSTIFICATION - Sovereign SANCTIFICATION

So now are we even far as questioning each other's salvation? :type: No, I wasn't questioning yours and you have misunderstood mine.

It is man-centered as to application. The difference between yours and my application is that you would have the gospel apply to anyone who likes the preaching. They're the ones who are "regenerate" and hear the Spirit and are "elect." To you, that is how "justification" is dispensed to the right folks.

Me -- I would preach the gospel and believe salvation was applied to those who "believed with the heart and confessed with the tongue." When the preacher says, "Do you take Jesus to be your Savior?" I would not say that the person who says, "Who, me?" is saved yet.

Here's the thing, good friend -- the blood didn't jump out of the lamb onto the doorposts at Passover! Whosoever would be saved had to kill the lamb and take the blood himself and smear it on the doorpost and lentil. And that, as you might recall, is what got them justification with God so they could get out of Egypt/sin. They had yet to be sanctified in the desert and in the Promised Land before they could be glorified.

skypair

 

I guess someone was doing me a favor -- someone who misunderstood me switching between the personal "you" and the rhetorical "you." I'm sorry I didn't make that point clearer but it's a general application statement to say one must be justified but it is personal application to speak about what you preach or teach (even if I don't believe that is what you believe).

I've said all along that there is a disparity between what you teach and what you believe and practice (just like there is with RC Sproul).

skypair

 

Well, here's my answer in Calvinist terms -- the drawing was NOT complete; the calling was INeffectual at that particular time.

And now for my own terms: Heb 10:39 "But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul." And if we believe, we "apply the blood" to the doorposts. If we don't, we either "draw back" resisting doing anything or we sit quietly in our pews and hope not to perish.

Yes, indeed. This is the default. Many "believe in vain." They got the Lamb Who has the blood but won't kill the lamb and apply the blood because they are holding out for another way.

You're not really saying that you must not respond to the gospel, are you? You're not really saying that you passively receive what you believe, are you?

If you believe the stock market is going up but don't invest, how much richer do you think you will be when it happens?

Do you have something to give to God? We call it "substitutionary atonement" for a reason, right? If you do believe, what do you have to decide or choose to give in order to receive Christ's death on your behalf?

Yeah, I know. What you have to give is utterly worthless but it is extremely valuable to God. And that is why He will JUSTIFY you in Christ. He isn't going to do it if you demand to keep your life and receive His gift as well.

skypair

 

Which tenet is just as fraught with error. You would never admit that God is actually "calling" if the person didn't respond because that would mean that God wasn't sovereign, wouldn't it, Lar? So let's invent another term -- "general calling" -- and say by it that the same call that the "elect" hear is the calling that the "reprobate" hears but God must have meant for it to be ineffectual most of the time. Same gospel. God just meant for it to be ineffectual (and heap more condemnation on some) and effectual simultaneously.

Come clean, Lar. More vocabulary doesn't help the problem. :laugh: Grace is not irresisible any more than "calling," the gospel message, is always effectual. Grace is only irresistible to a certain class of person who is already chosen and the call is only effectual in those same special ones who will probably let everyone else know they are "elect" as soon as they realize it themselves.

skypair

 

Perhaps we should quote the actual text. "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified:..."

Do you see where is says "for whom He did foreknow?" This passage teaches that He calls them. It does NOT teach that He doesn't call everyone. Neither does it teach that everyone who is called is justified. The word "everyone" that you use does not even appear in the passage.

Actually, they were ALL "called to be saints" but only those who, in response "called on the name of Christ" were saved.

Is that why Calvies are always asking "Why do some respond and some not when the same message is preached?" It has nothing to do with the effectuality or irresistiblity of the message --- it had to do with the contemplations of the human spirit (intellect, emotions, will). Is the intellect convicted that its soul is "dead in sin?" Does the spirit believe that Christ gave His own life for them? Is the spirit willing to exchange Jesus life for their own? to die with Christ and be raised again with Him in resurrection to "newness of life" as baptism teaches?

Granted, these are points that may come across more or less powerfully. But there is no different message for some ("effectual call") than for others.

I thought scripture said that the word never returns void but always accomplishes God's purposes. The problem here is that you don't understand God's purposes. If one hears and is saved and another hears the same thing and isn't, the ineffectuality is not with God but with understanding His purposes. What you appear not to understand is that God wants all to be saved, but you think He preaches the gospel/calls only so that the elect can be saved.

skypair

 

True, they were "foreknown" in some way rather than inclusive of everyone.

In the context, they are all being "called" by Paul's preaching. I think what you need is to go back and consider whether preaching is the "call" or if "election" is the call. You are making the gospel superfluous to salvation, my friend. It's really, the way you describe it, not about the gospel or it being preached at all, is it? It's about something we can't see going on 'behind the scenes,' so to speak.

Free will.

OK, this is the 'behind the scenes' secret that you know and we don't, right? So the difference isn't in what they hear and what they think about it, yeh or nay? It's God already in them lending His own POV? Do you think the fact that everyone has a God-given conscience might then weigh into their thoughts? maybe "convicting them?" That's certainly one of the things that is necessary, isn't it.

What about the reasonableness of the proposition that Christ died for the convicted sinner? That's pretty universal knowledge and included in the gospel, right? Is that God working? Is this something only the "elect" can understand?

What is the real reason some believe and others don't? Dr Rogers taught it well. He said it comes down to the same issue Pilate faced, "What will you do with Jesus?" Pilate had a decision to make, but to save his own political (temporal) life, he had to "pawn it off" on someone else.

That's really what the decision is, isn't it, PL? That's really why some believe and some don't. Some just don't like the "terms and conditions" of choosing -- especially if they can some way get the same results by being not deciding.

skypair

 

Kinda takes "decisional justification" right out of the equation for you, then, doesn't it? You, like Pilate, can let others make the decision for you thus deferring the decision yourself. I would guess by that profession that you had no choice and no "hand" in becoming a pastor?

Very good. But the conscience isn't totally hardened all at once, is it. Every new sin is another new denial of God saying you should do good and not sin.

And of course, all this leaves out the case in which one has resisted the gospel 1000 times and then on the 1001st time, believes. What happened there? God suddenly "elected" or "regenerated" an "elect" saint whom He wouldn't regenerate 15 years ago? What does that tell you?

PL, I'm not going to badger you anymore. Your truth is quite obviously good enough for you. What's true for me obviously doesn't apply to you.

skypair

 

DHK,

Thanks for you encouraging words. I didn't learn salvation PL's way either. PL HAS made a decision in his life. Heavens, he's apparently decided to be a pastor! Why he would deny making a choice (other than false humility) I do not understand. Heck, he's committed more to God than I have! His career reveals his choice! Unless he is just trying to be PC with someone, I don't understand his motives.

skypair