Do you agree with this? Washer & Lordship salvation

HP: What is your point DHK?? You are making an accusation against me. How do the posts you are now drawing attention to substantiate your accusation? Where have I called you an Augustian/Calvinist, or anyone else for that matter? Where have I name called an individual as you have stated I have? I have most certainly shown forth the parallel between certain doctrinal positions of yourself and Marcia with a system known to the world as Augustinian/Calvinism, but that is a far cry from your accusation that I am name calling. Possibly you have another post to point us to?

If one does not desire for another to connect the dots between ones own views and that of a particular ‘ism’ in which such a dogma was novel, the solution is not to espouse such as ones own belief. If not, every fair minded individual should be able to see that it is totally in keeping with fairness to make such a connection in the examination of the beliefs now held by others. To do so is not name calling in the least. It is simply drawing attention to the formulation and development of doctrines novel with certain ‘isms.’

What needs to be stopped DHK in the name of Christian charity is the false accusations.

If this thread is being derailed, I suggest it is due to the false accusations that are being leveled against myself. Why do not we either show evidence that I have called anyone a Calvinist or something else, or precede with the debate on imputed righteousness and its direct connection or impact on lordship salvation as was my direct amd stated intention?

 

Gal. 6:1 "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted."

 

HeavenlyPilgrim: I also have experience with your habit of deliberate misrepresentation for debate purposes. I looked up the thread yesterday, and it was exactly how I remember. I was spending as much time, or more, correcting your misrepresentations than actually posting material relevant to the topic. I think tactics used in sleazy lawsuits and sleazy political campaigns have no place among Christians, and you were so bad with this stuff that I withdrew from that exchange.

Marcia has reported similar misrepresentation by you. On this thread, Steaver has also complained of misrepresentation in just the first few pages.

If I were you, I would shut up with claiming that DHK is making stuff up against you to `pick on you' because I doubt he is. He stepped into this thread as moderator because your flippant and baseless accusations have happened too much. I am pretty sure he could get you banned, and from where I sit, you likely deserve it. People ought to be able to have a discussion without you jumping in, and making them have to worry about your tactics of misrepresentation. I appreciate DHK stepping in. My suggestion as regular member to regular member is that you simply comply with the long-needed and reasonable directive you were given.

The Bible does not have a `rightness exception' to its directives: Scripture's commands regarding our conduct are binding regardless of how right a person might be on any disputed matter. If the Bible is not enough to keep you away from your tactics, BaptistBoard's rules thankfully are, and it looks like a site authority is finally bringing those rules to you.

 

From what I remember from your posting pattern previously, don't you hold to reformed theology?

 

You sure do ASSUME way too much HP. Can you show me once again where in my post that I suggested Calvinism as an explanation of imputed righteousness?

You won't find it! Settle down and stop assuming everything I post has been discovered in an ism somewhere i read. I study scripture and use a greek and hebrew concordance mostly. I do read commentaries as well, but don't view them as Inspired. I try every man's work with scripture, and I am VERY slow to accept any theories until I am whole heartedly convinced I have exhausted every possibility. And even then I try my own held views daily on this board and with others in my circle of friends. My goal is truth, not to be proven right.

Here is imputed righteousness (a biblical term btw) properly divided...

And another....

I say again, imputed righteousness is FACT. You assumed way too much when you tell me what I mean by my post.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

Heavenly Pilgrim wrote:

I think you are wrong, HP. Imputed rigtheousness is found in God's word, as I think Steaver (and I) were trying to show you. Believing in imputed righteousness is not necessarily a Calvinist position, even if Calvinists hold it. Imputed righteousness is also called justification which is a HUGE teaching in all bible-based churches and seminaries.

 

Nope, never. In fact, if you are able to search some old postings from after I first joined the BB, you'll find I argued against and/or questioned this position a few times, mainly to test out my own thoughts. I did this only briefly since I did not enjoy the endless debates that led to nowhere, imo.

I've only been saved for 17 1/2 yrs. which at my age is not long (I have a 26 year old son). My church is not reformed, my seminary is not reformed (co-founded by Norman Geisler), nor is my mission board.

 

My bad. I've seen so many people come and go over the years I can't keep everybody's position straight

 

HP: Darron, what kind of a tactic are you using here with this personal accusation that you have offered absolutely no proof of? Would the moderator of this board please make a note as to the nature of Darron’s post and take the appropriate action? How is this post showing grace??

 

HP: There are at least two differing ideas concerning the imputed righteousness of Christ. I believe we all would agree that when we come to Christ there is nothing we can do in and of ourselves to be righteous before God having sinned. If we are to be seen as righteous, nothing but the righteousness of Christ will atone and set aside the stain of sin on our behalf. One can indeed say that the righteousness of Christ, in the sense just mentioned, is and must be imputed to us if we are to ever be declared as righteous before God.

Once we have fulfilled the conditions of salvation, i.e. repentance and faith, Christ imputes His righteousness to us on behalf of sins that are past. Ro 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Now comes the great divergence of opinion. The Augustinian/Calvinistic position has been that all sin a believer has, is currently engaged in, and will do in the future has in fact had the righteousness of Christ imputed to them on account of these sins in total. I will preceed to explain why I believe this position is in error as we go along. I first wanted to establish how the righteousness of Christ is indeed imputed, and as such I believe it fair to say without exception in protestant circles, accepted and believed as true and Biblical. Just the same, the church has NOT always accepted, nor do many today accept, the Calvinistic/Augustinian position I am drawing attention to.

Am I making the distinction between the two distinctive views of imputed righteous clear to you?

 

Need it be noted that the Bible preceded Calvin and Augustine (yes, both of them), and not the other way around. Most of us study the Bible first and foremost. In fact many of us have no interest in studying either Augustine or Calvin. This is a red herring on your part that you are better off leaving alone.

I may or may not disagree with your position. I don't care if it agrees with Philosopher Magoo, or with Augustine or Timbuktoo. I really, really don't care. Discuss the Bible, not Calvin, and not Hobbes. There is no difference between the two in my books.
My sole authority is the Bible. Leave the others out.
If you want an intelligent discussion, discuss the Bible without a comparison to theologians, philosophers, gurus, sufis, and maulvis. Let's discuss the Bible instead.

 

HP: Here is classic proof of Steaver’s position that is in lock step with the Augustinian/Calvinistic position.

Let the reader note that the verse Steaver gives in no way supports the position he is taking. Certainly God chastens those that He loves. Does the Scripture say that no penalty for sin can be imposed on a believer IF one does not repent or does not ‘endure chastening?’ Not in any way. Steaver has to reason from his unfounded presupposition of OSAS to massage the text to stand on all four legs to support his view of imputed righteousness.

HP:Yet again Steaver spells out in clear terms the Calvinistic/Augustinian position on imputed sin. He assumes without proof that the present and future sin that a believer is committing or will commit are automatically covered by the blood. Again, the only way one can massage the Scriptures to support such a notion is by the unfounded presupposition of OSAS.

Consider the implications of the view Steaver is espousing. If in fact actual sins were atoned for at the cross, in this case those of the believer, it also must be true that some sins are not atoned for, i.e., those of the damned. Does it not stand to reason that if all sins were atoned for that all sins, just as Steaver says is true of the saved, it would be true for all sin? One either would be forced to accept the universalist position or absolute irresistible grace with all its necessitated ends. Double predestination would of necessity be invoked, (as Calvin himself clearly admits must of necessity be the case) as well as limited atonement.

Now Steaver can believe whatsoever he so desires, but let the reader note that when one takes a position such as the one Steaver here clearly states, there are necessitated ends to his argument. If one takes the Augustinian /Calvinistic position such as Steaver has done, he must accept the logically necessitated ends to his argument as well. Is he prepared to do that? We shall see.

 

Tell us DHK, why it so offensive to simply draw a connection between a well established theological system of thought known to every open minded student of theology as Calvinism and ones stated position? Have you ever called one a Pelagian, or Arminian, in any debate on this list? Have you ever drew attention to the likeness between men such as Pelagius or Ariminius and the doctrinally held positions of one on this list? Careful DHK, God is listening.

 

Does anyone know what Washer's view on imputed righteousness is? That would have a great deal to bear on how I would view his lordship salvation.

 

1. Because God came first; not the theologians.
2. Because God gave His revelation, recorded in a book we now call the Bible.
3. Because that Bible is a lamp unto our feet, a light unto our path.
4. Because the theologians often take a darksome path, a sinful way, stumbling and leading many astray. They may see light at the end of the tunnel. But it's been to late for many others.

Finally, and most importantly, you wrongly (even if innocently) associate these names with others on this board, when in all fairness they have no association at all. They have been associated with people, and thus put in another's camp, in which they do not believe. That is slander. In real life you would find yourself in court for such action.
So I ask you again. Drop it, and discuss the wholesom Word of God instead.

 

HP:You have a jaundiced view of slander. On fairness I would give you a D-.
If one desires to distance themselves from a particular camp, let them answer for themselves as to how they differ. I have pointed out the clear logical and necessitated consequences of a particular view by Steaver, possibly yourself and possibly Marcia. Try defending your position or that which Steaver has posted. Show the list where I am wrong and you are right. Tell us DHK, how one can hold to a view of imputed righteousness as expressed clearly by Steaver without logically asserting a limited atonement and double predestination…….. or do you accept the idea of a limited atonement and double predestination? Try answering the questions I posed to Steaver. Prove to us once for all that I have slandered anyone. This is a debate forum is it not?

 

It appears to me HP that you are locked into tunnel vison. You have formed an opinion in your mind and cannot losen yourself from it's grips long enough to actually read my post and respond to them rather than to your preconceived view of my view.

You see? It matters not to you what I have posted as the clarification you asked for. You just continue on as if nothing else matters but your own thoughts.

Here is my position once again on imputed righteousness. Maybe you can take the time to actually read it...

Here is imputed righteousness (a biblical term btw) properly divided...


Quote:
The last term tobe explained is IMPUTATION. The original verb LOGIZOMAI is well enough translated to impute in the sense of to reckon, to account; but it is never used to signify imputation in the sense of accounting the actions of one person tohave been performed by another.
A man’s sin or righteousness is imputed to him when he is considered as actually the doer of sinful or of righteous acts, in which sense the word repute is more commonly used; and he is consequently reputed a vicious or a holy man. A man’s sin or righteousness is imputed to him in its legal consequences, under a government of rewards and punishments; and then to impute sin or righteousness signifies, in a legal sense, to reckon or account it to account it, to acquit or condemn, and forthwith to punish or exempt from punishment. Thus Shimei entreated David not to "impute iniquity unto" him, that is, not to punish him for his iniquity.
In this sense, too, David speaks of the blessedness of the man "unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity," that is, whom he forgives, so that the legal consequences of his sin shall not fall upon him. This non-imputation of sin to a sinner is expressly called the "imputation of righteousness without works." The imputation of righteousness is, then, the non-punishment or pardon of sin; and if this passage be read in its connection, it will also be seen that by the imputing of faith for righteousness, the apostle means precisely the same thing. "To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justified the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness; even as David, also, described the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man towhom the Lord will not impute sin."
This quotation from David would have been nothing to the apostle’s purpose unless he had understood the forgiveness of sins, the imputation of righteousness, and the non-imputation of sin, to signify the same thing as the accounting of faith for righteousness, with only this difference, that the introduction of the term faith marks the manner in which the forgiveness of sin is obtained. To impute faith for righteousness is nothing more than to be justified by faith; which is also called by St. Paul, "being made righteous," that is, being placed by an act of free forgiveness, through faith in Christ, in the condition of righteous men in this respect, that the penalty of the law does not lie against them, and that they are restored to the Divine favor.
From this brief but, it is hoped, clear explanation of these terms, righteousness, faith, and imputation, it will appear that it is not quite correct in the advocates of the Scripture doctrine of the imputation of faith for righteousness to say that our faith in Christ is accepted in the place of personal obedience to the law; except, indeed, in this loose sense, that our faith in Christ as effectually exempts us from punishment as if we had been personally obedient. The scriptural doctrine is rather that the death of Christ is accepted in the place of our personal punishment on condition of our faith in him; and that when this faith is actually exercised, then comes in, on the part of God, the act of imputing or reckoning righteousness to us; or, what is the same thing, accounting faith for righteousness; that is, pardoning our offenses through faith, and treating us as the objects of his restored favor.
Christian Theology, Samuel Wakefield, 2: 419-420.


And another....


Quote:
The Imputation of Faith for Righteousness.—With the word impute we have also the words count and reckon. Faith is imputed for righteousness, counted for righteousness, reckoned for righteousness. There is no difference of meaning in these words, as here used, that requires any notice. They are all the rendering of the same word, LOGIZOMAI.
Two facts should be specially noted. One is, that it is faith itself, and not its object, that is thus imputed. This is certain even where a pronoun is the immediate antecedent to the verb. Here is an instance: "For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." Here only the faith of Abraham can be the antecedent to the pronoun it; and hence only his faith could be the subject of the imputation. Further, faith itself, as so named, is repeatedly the immediate nominative to the imputation. Here are instances: "His faith is counted for righteousness;" "faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness." Hence any attempt at a metonymical interpretation of faith, so that it shall mean, not itself but its object, that is Christ, and hence mean the imputation of his personal righteousness, is utterly vain. The other fact is, that the faith is counted, reckoned, imputed to him whose personal act it is. This is what is imputed to Abraham, to the Jew, to the Gentile. In neither case is there the slightest intimation of an imputation of any personal act of another.
For what is faith imputed? For righteousness. This is the only answer, because such is the uniform statement of the Scriptures. But what is the meaning of righteousness, as the term is here used? Only two views are worthy of any consideration: one, that faith itself constitutes a proper and real personal righteousness; the other, that righteousness means the legal state consequent upon the remission of sin on the condition of faith.
Faith itself cannot constitute a true personal righteousness, suchas consists in a complete fulfillment of personal duties. Considered as a duty, faith could fulfill only its own obligation, and therefore could not answer for any other duty. It never can constitute the sum of Christian obedience. Such a view would infinitely exalt it even above the high place which the Scriptures assign it in the economy of the Christian life. Besides, the relation of faith to righteousness is entirely overlooked. In the view of St. Paul faith is simply the condition of righteousness, whereas in this view it constitutes the righteousness. Also, it takes us entirely away from the atonement in Christ as the only ground of justification, and from the remission of sin as the vital fact thereof.
The truth of the question lies in the other view, that the righteousness for which faith is imputed means the legal state consequent upon the remission of sin. In an earlier part of this discussion it was shown that justification and remission of sins mean the same thing. We further find that the imputation of righteousness has the same meaning as the other two facts. The proof of this oneness of meaning in the three forms of expression lies in a single passage, wherein are set forth, in one sentence and without any real distinction, the righteousness of God, justification, and remission of sins, as conferred on the same condition of faith in Christ.’ The imputation of faith for righteousness is thus easily understood. It means simply that faith is accepted as the condition of justification or the remission of sin, whereby the believing sinner is set right with God.
Systematic Theology, John Miley, 2:319-320.


I say again, imputed righteousness is FACT. You assumed way too much when you tell me what I mean by my post.

 

It would better if you would tell us why you do it? What is the thought and intent of your heart for doing so? Do you feel it makes us look bad? Tell us your reason.

God Bless!

 

Honestly HP. Are you not using Calvinism as a dagger in an attempt to win a debate?

It's like when my wife gets mad at me and tells me I act just like my mother. I say I do not and explain the differences and she keeps on saying "you act just like your mother". It is her dagger even though she knows in her heart it is not so, she continues with it because she is not winning the argument.

Why don't you just debate the interpretations of scripture? I did not bring up Calvin as support for my view. You brought up Calvin as a weapon against my view.

It is one thing to bring up an ism to express a view and yet another thing to bring up an ism to slander a view. You are using Calvinism as a dirty word to discredit a person's argument. You are digging yourself a hole in the view of the readers HP. You are making yourself look bad by continuing to defend this and use Calvinism as a debate tactic against those who do not support Calvinism.

You are debating Calvin instead of steaver. If you want to debate Calvin go right ahead. Let me know when you want to debate scripture.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

HP: Calvin is dead and Scripture is a fixed entity of truth. What one can debate is the logical ends of ones stated position and ones interpretation of Scripture. I simply draw a parallel between that which you and DHK see as a dreaded system when the logical ends of your argument are at one with it. It is like holding a mirror in front of your face so as to allow you to see your own arguments for what they really are.

I debate your conclusions of Scripture when you approach Scripture with presuppositions that are not supported in or by Scripture. Let me know when you desire to debate the debatable.

I am still waiting on a reply from Marcia. Possibly she can add a fresh breeze of reason to this thread in reply to my last post to her. I would also like to hear from one that knows Washer's position on imputed righteousness.