Featured Lewis on Atonement theories

Jon, you don't really know what you are talking about. You can't even explain your own theology, let alone someone else's At this point I take whatever you say with a grain of salt.

 

I agree that we are influenced by outside stimuli. That being creation, the gospel, the Holy Spirit convicting us, etc but what it comes down to is that we still have to make the choice. We can reject or accept Christ Jesus. That choice is not made for us by God. If you want to say He does make it for us, as some calvinists insist, then He becomes responsible for all those not in heaven as He did not make that choice for them to be there.

You pointed out how C S Lewis came to faith while at the zoo and was wrestling with the issues, that is just what most people do when they come to faith. They evaluate the information and choose one way or the other. That is free will. Faith in anything is not blind nor is it made without information. I think if you asked most people why they came to faith they would tell you it was because they trusted something they heard or read, information. Every choice that man makes is based on information, it is what they do with that information that makes the difference.

 

No you haven't. And you won't expound the passages you say you believe, because you know it would establish the central truth that you deny, Christ died in our place on the Cross.

And the work was finished there. He didn't rise from the grave to finish it.

 

Just wanted to comment on a few of the statements in this thread, and I hope no some will take offense. None is meant in any of my comments.

There simply is no Scripture that teaches men are regenerated in order to have faith.

Regeneration does not even begin until Christ begins building the Church by baptizing them with the Holy Ghost (in an internal and eternal manner He contrasts to the filling of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament John 14:15-23)) on the Day of Pentecost. Regeneration is the result of men being baptized into Christ. Faith is the result of the convicting ministry of the Comforter (John 16:7-9).

Two entirely different issues.

Please provide the Scriptural Basis for regeneration prior to Pentecost.

No, it is the result of the conviction that the Comforter brings to the dead, natural man.

We see this same type of ministry (though not identical, because it is not the Comforter enlightening the dead, natural man to the Mystery of the Gospel) performed in the lives of the disciples here:


Matthew 16:13-18 King James Version

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


These men are unregenerate at this point. There is no way to say they are born-again believers, that they have received the Baptism with the Holy Ghost (which according to Acts 11 13-18 is the Salvation Experience), and they are not in Christ. We know this because this teaching as well as Christ's teaching of Eternal Union with God (John 14:15-23) Takes place just before His death.

God has revealed to them that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah and that He was the Son of God. What was not revealed to these men at this time was that Jesus would be the Risen Savior, and that He died in their stead so that they might not perish Despite the fact He had taught this earlier in His Ministry, i.e., John 3:1-16).

Peter rejects the Gospel:


Matthew 16:20-23 King James Version

20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.


Peter basically states, "Lord, the only means of remission of sins on an eternal basis cannot happen. You cannot die! That will ruin our expectation of the physical kingdom we expect the Messiah to be king over!"

Or, "Lord, I don't want the only thing that can keep me or any man or woman from eternal separation and damnation to take place."

The Mystery was not revealed, so he did not understand that the Christ must die as it was written.

Again, the point in that they are not regenerate, unless one thinks a person can be born again and not have remission of sins, not be in Christ, and not have the eternal indwelling of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (John 14:15-23).

But they did have faith. As far as them believing on Christ as they did and as we do after the Cross, they didn't do that either:


John 16:28-32 King James Version

28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

29 His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.

30 Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.

31 Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe?

32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.


But when they are Baptized with the Holy Ghost they will then become witnesses of Christ.

Men do have to have faith and believe in response to the ministry of the Holy Ghost. That does not constitute "work" on the part of the believer.

When people get upset at a post someone does in response to their own views, do they have to consciously make up their minds for that anger to occur? Not at all. It is a response to that which stimulates the anger. It is no different in the area of faith and belief: they are responses, not intellectual conclusions.

This does not support the false notion that the natural man can, for him/herself, make a conscious decision to have faith or believe. Because they cannot receive or perceive the spiritual things of God.

But God can reveal that knowledge to the natural man or woman, as He enlightened the disciples to the truth that He was the Christ (really the Messiah God said He would send) and the Son of God (and I still don't think they understood this entirely at this time). And it is when He enlightens men that they can have faith or believe.

Doesn't require regeneration. Regeneration occurs at the time of saving faith, not before it.

We see men who are held accountable because they reject the truth of the Gospel:


2 Peter 2:20-22 King James Version

20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.


They are held more accountable because they have had the revelation of the truth of Jesus Christ and have rejected it. This is the reverse of what those who have faith and believe do.

But it cannot be denied, the truth has been given unto them, and this by God through the ministry of the Comforter. The holy commandment delivered unto them is that they are to accept the Gospel (the knowledge of Jesus Christ).

Again, this does not support the false notion the natural man can do what Scripture makes clear they cannot. They cannot hear the Gospel and in their dead condition respond either way. Only when God enlightens their minds and they receive divine revelation can they respond.


Continued...

 

I would have to disagree with you here, brother, that is precisely what God has done:


1 Peter 3:18 KJV
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:


The Doctrine of Vicarious Sacrifice is seen in the pattern/type/shadow/figure/parable throughout the Old Testament. It is Christ taking the penalty we owe upon Himself and dying in our stead.

That is the basic meaning of all Old Testament sacrifices of animals: the animal died in the stead of the sinner so that they would not have the penalty exacted upon them.

Consider this statement:


Hebrews 6 King James Version

6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.


How the Hebrew people "crucified to themselves Christ afresh" was in returning to the sacrifices of the Law that pictured in parable/figure/shadow (Hebrews 10:1) the death of Christ. And just as the animal died in the sinners stead that the sinner not have to die, even so Christ died in our stead that we would not have to pay that penalty ourselves.

If I am misreading your argument I apologize, and would ask you to clarify if you are saying Christ did not die in the stead of the sinner.


Continued...

 

Hi Dave, not sure that we have ever had the opportunity to talk before or not, so just want to preface my statements with a note to assure you I mean no offense, just expressing why I might disagree with some of the things being said.

I myself find the Calvinist approach to be very mechanical, to the point where the believer becomes robotic. He doesn't have faith of him/herself, and he doesn't believe for him/herself.

While salvation is by grace through faith (and not by faith through grace) we have to recognize the fact that men and women are called to have faith and believe. Many men and women had faith in Christ during His ministry, but that faith had a different focus than the faith required after the Cross.

That is, it became specific to the Gospel of Christ. The promises of God to Israel were understood in physical terms. This is why Nicodemus responds in physical terms in John 3. They were promised a physical kingdom so it is not surprising that they expected it to be fulfilled as God has always fulfilled prophecy, to the joy and tittle.

The primary problem Calvinism has is its teaching that men were/are regenerated in order to have faith. This is a response to the equally erroneous teaching that men have the ability to respond to the Gospel apart from divine intervention. We see both sides going to extremes that cannot be supported, hence the ongoing dispute between the two groups.

My own position is simple: men respond in faith and believe simply as a response to the ministry of the Comforter, Who would begin that ministry when Christ returns and He is sent:


John 16:7-9 King James Version

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;


God is still the means for the ability to believe and have faith, but men still have a responsibility to respond. And the fact is, all will. They will either acknowledge the truth and accept the truth, or they will reject it.

This is why we can say that it is God that grants repentance. A dead and natural man has no ability to repent of that which he is not aware of.

Baptists vary in their views, just as Catholics do, lol.


Continued...

 

The confession is the evidence of the faith in the response, no?

You said this:

We see two events in your example: someone giving, someone deciding.

I am a little confused how this is not someone making a decision.

Maybe I am missing what you are trying to say?


Continued...

 

Confession with the mouth is a work. Telling me a work is not a work is not going to work.

 

As is calling on the LORD, Romans 10:13-14. Praying is a work too. In either work faith are their (those works) prerequisites.

Romans 4:5.

 

Agreed.

Agreed for the most part.

Again, we would need to see Scripture teaching God regenerates men so they might have faith. You are spot on in referencing the Holy Spirit's ministry, though.

WOuld you mind presenting the Scripture you see as supporting this teaching? Regeneration is one of my favorite subjects and I am always glad to hear how this teaching is supported by those who embrace it.

Again, agreed. But that doesn't justify the teaching that a man must be born again before he can have saving faith.

It is inevitable. As several passages and verses have been given to support man's responsibility to make a decision one way or another.

I would affirm these teachings. It is true that the Spirit of God is said to bring conviction of sin, righteousness, and judgment in the lives of people (John 16:7-9). It is also true that God is not always going to strive with men. I think that the imagery of man hardening his heart speaks to that issue. That is why men are commanded not to harden their hearts, lest they end up in judgment:

Hebrews 3:8
Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:


Hebrews 3:15
While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.


Hebrews 4:7
Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.


This speaks of God's longsuffering, and the end of that longsuffering is that God will cease to bring men to the knowledge of the truth.

Agreed. We are all babes when we are saved, and understanding is minimal. We are commanded to "grow up," and we do this by eating strong meat instead of drinking milk, lol.

Most salvation experiences I hear about are usually pretty quick experiences in themselves, but I would agree that there is usually a period of time that we can look back to and see how God was using people and experiences to bring us to Himself. For me that was a period of nearly a year. But it all came to a head one day while hearing a message of a preacher at a church I was visiting, and fear fell on me in the realization of the truth of the Gospel. Ten men could not have stopped me from going down and getting on my knees and asking God to forgive me.


Continued...

 

I wouldn't be too sure about that, lol. I think there are Ctholics who do not entirely agree with what their leadership teaches. Just as there are Baptists that do not entirely agree with what their Pastor teaches.

And does he believe that view is based on his studies? Just as you say yours are? Just as I say mine are?

Hasn't your claim of that been rejected already in this thread by other members? That doesn't mean it's a valid rejection, right?

So, as you have pointed out, we must discuss those differences in light of the Word of God. What doesn't stand up should be tossed out, and what agrees with Scripture must stand.

Not really: it was a matter of ritual for many, just as going to church, tithing, and reading bibles is a matter of ritual for many today.

I will address your post to me in response to what we disagree on after I finish with these few posts left.

He has in fact explained his theology and has provided Scripture to support his views.

What needs to happen is a response of like kind: with Scripture.


Continued...

 

Agreed.

I would just ask you to clarify if you believe men have that ability within their natural/dead condition?

The "outside stimuli" is of course the Biblical position, but what some here seem to be arguing against is the position that men have the ability in their natural dead/natural/unregenerate state to make that decision. If you were to clarify whether you are or aren't taking that position it might help eliminate one aspect of the dispute.

"Free will" has a couple of different faces, and what most stand on today is the belief that men have an inherent ability. It differs from what I see Arminius teaching (Prevenient Grace), and is what I call a result of that teaching.

Again, I would ask if you could clarify where you stand on that, and to what extent you would demand of the "outside stimuli." Truly God gives man witness in Creation, and an internal witness of His will, but I take a position that in this Age, and in the context of the dispute between "sovereignty" and free will," only the testimony of the Comforter would really be relevant.

I don't view Lewis as someone who came to belief through the witness of Creation or the internal witness he was born of alone. They may have played a part but Lewis was saved through the "outside stimuli" of the Ministry of the Comforter.

Agreed.


Continued...

 

The Work of Atonement was accomplished but that does not negate the work that follows on God's part. The Comforter did not begin His ministry until after Christ returned to the Father. That is when the Gospel began to be unveiled in the hearts of men.


God bless.

 

Nothing of what you said subsequent to this offended me in any way. Good to hear from you. I have no problem with the general Baptistic idea that the Holy Spirit is essential for salvation and without it you have no salvation. But the classic Arminian idea and that of the non-Cal Baptists is that you have the final say and it is possible to reject the call. The Calvinists agree and explain that in the general call in the WCF. They say though that when the call is effective it is an effectual call! That sounds simplistic almost to the point of being silly but it amounts to this: "help" given in any area, if it makes something easier or faster or less of a burden on someone is not the same as "help" where something could not have occurred without that help. It's not the same at all. If you are willing to admit that no one comes to Christ without the convicting power of the Holy Spirit then you are left with the idea that it is a necessary thing done to you - not an assistance to some ability you have. If it were the latter you would still have a few good men who would make it to Christ without such help and you don't. I am not going to look up scripture for you but let me suggest this. Look at the conversions we have in scripture. You have some action or message and BAM, a conversion or multiple conversions. It does not fit the description of modern non-Cals who have given man an autonomous will that is independent of outside influence and sovereign. And if you read the modern anti Calvinist arguments they stress this autonomous free will as not the same as the free will Jonathan Edwards talks about - where you are free to do what you most want to.

Now regarding the earlier statement about "help" I think that is what Jesus was trying to say in John chapter 3. It is more than a logical sequence or a learning method or a set of facts. It is something more that men need. Now some say Jesus was just saying that you have to humble yourself but the description in chapter 3 seems like more than that to me. I think being born again is another description of regeneration. And remember, if you define "help" as essential then you still have the problem of why aren't all men given the same kind of help.