The Doctrines of Grace and Evangelism

Whereas I ascribe more to classical arminianism, with a tendency towards calvinistic amyraldism. There are aspects of arminianism that I don't see supported in scripture (such as conditional security; I believe in once saved, always saved); just as there are aspects of calvinism I don't see supported in scripture (such as irresistable grace; I see examples of those drawn to Christ who end up resisting Him throughout scripture (the rich young ruler as one; Agrippa as another; the parable of the seeds as another).

 

13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:
14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves;
15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them); Ro 2

In the OP you make the bold statement, “There is no such thing as spontaneous regeneration in the absence of the Gospel.”

How was it that Gentiles, in the absence of the law, could have had that law written in their hearts?

 

No, we won't agree on that, the text specifically states that the 'doers of the law shall be justified'. I will agree their doing of the law is a result of the grace of God who put that law in their hearts, so in that sense it is not of themselves. They owe their changed hearts to God.

Friend, this is no 'moral law' in the context, this is the law, and what is meant by doing this law is defined in Ro 13:9,10. This tangent you're striking out on here (and your entire post) in no way conforms to the context of the passage, and has it's roots in your presupposition of gospel means or indirect or mediate regeneration. You're convinced that there's no way that God would act alone to change a heart.

The text of Romans 2 has EVERYTHING to do with WORKS and DOING:

6 who will render to every man according to his works:
7 to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life:
8 but unto them that are factious, and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indignation,
9 tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek;
10 but glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek:
11 for there is no respect of persons with God.

The remainder of Romans 2 plainly sets forth that these DOERS of the law were not so because they had the law, or had even heard the law, but because they had had the law written in their hearts [Jn 3:8], and that the true circumcision is of the heart, that which is not made with hands [Col 2:11], to both the Jew and the Gentile.

Neither the letter of the law nor ritual circumcision (nor being the physical descendant of Abraham as is later revealed) had ever had anything to do with justification , or standing uncondemned before the judgment of God; it had always been a matter of the condition of the heart, from which the [good] works, which are wrought in God comes [Jn 3:21].

Chapters 1 & 2 are culminated with the question of Romans 3:1:

“What advantage then hath the Jew? or what is the profit of circumcision?”

Paul begins his answer in the 2nd verse:

“Much every way: first of all, that they were intrusted with the oracles of God

And resumes answering the question of 3:1 in 9:3-5:

“...my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.”

Take note, eternal life is not listed as one of those advantages.


I've a question for you. Twice in the gospels (Mk 10 & Lk 10) Christ is asked the question, “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” On both occasions the answer was in keeping the law as in loving God and doing no ill towards your neighbor, with absolutely no mention of faith in Christ or belief of the gospel.

How come no mention of faith in Christ or belief of the gospel in order to gain eternal life?

 

No, I do not have to intend on giving you my snicker bar to have a sufficient number of snicker bars purchased. It's sufficient because I've purchases the number of snicker bar required for everyone to get one. Whether I have any intention to give any away is irrelevant.

When you are referrencing something that I have said. you changed where I said "believers" to "elect."

Do you believe the atonement was ever intended to to apply to the sins of those that never believe?

However, it's sufficient because the payment has been made. Intention is irrelevant as per my example above.

 

Are there many types of justifications, or one?

33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God`s elect? It is God that justifieth; Ro 8

7 that, being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Titus 3

24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Ro 3

9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him. Ro 5

Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ; Ro 5:1

Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. Ja 2:24

13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:

Decide for yourself:

who will render to every man according to his works: to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life: Ro 2:6,7 ASV

.....the righteous by his stedfastness liveth. Habakkuk 2:4 YLT

.....according as it hath been written, `And the righteous one by faith shall live, Ro 1:17 YLT

The correlation is clear to me. IMO, the 'faith alone', or 'duty-faith', crowd has distorted the deeper intent of the word.

And in that post you stated, “There is no evidence to support the view that there is a noticeable pause between regeneration and salvation.”, and you're wrong, there's many examples given.

And what is Jn 3:16?

And how is this different now? Has something changed?

And how much of a 'pause' was there between Gen 12:1 and 15:6?

Agree.

He is able to exercise faith because he has been born of the Spirit, and faith is a fruit of the Spirit, along with many other good works.

You make another bold statement here, which actually is a real stretch to come to this conclusion from this passage alone.

And he believed in Jehovah; and he reckoned it to him for righteousness. Gen 15:6

Was it Abraham's belief that made him righteous, or did his belief show him to be righteous?

Was it an unrighteous man, that Jehovah called out of Mesopotamia years earlier, appeared to several times, and announced blessings upon? I think not.

Was it an unregenerate man that built an altar to Jehovah at Shechem years earlier? I think not.

Was it to a dead alien sinner that Melchizedek pronounced 'Blessed be Abram of God Most High' years earlier? I think not.

John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit from his mother's womb, David was made to hope while on his mother's breast, Isaac was born after the Spirit by the time of his weaning. The scriptures abound with examples of 'pauses' such as these.

There's much that I'd like to say here, I'm short on time, the Lord willing I'll come back to this. In short, Christ is cutting to the heart of the matter. In the final judgment, it's all about DEEDS. A couple examples:

10 for all of us it behoveth to be manifested before the tribunal of the Christ, that each one may receive the things done through the body, in reference to the things that he did, whether good or evil; 2 Cor 5 YLT

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice,
29 and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment. Jn 5

Why no mention of faith in Christ or belief in the gospel? See my signature.

You don't see the humongous contradiction you've just made here? Both of your own words and of the scriptures.

The birth from above is made manifest in man by his good deeds, which includes faith. By their fruits you shall know them.

 

My take on this similiar to yours, in that regenration/salvation /faith/repentance etc are ALL part of 'same process", as that God is doing an internal work by His HS, while using the Gospel/Bible as exteral "agent" as both combine to have God use to achieve the desired result, that being bringing His elect unto salvation in Christ!

 

Sure, I was in a hurry with that last post and should have waited. One question at a time:

I ask, are there many types of justifications, or one? I suggest to you that the examples given below indicate several phases, or facets, of justification [singular]. If I were to attach 'alone' to any of these it would be 'justification by grace alone', possibly 'justification by blood alone'.

33 Who shall lay anything to the charge of God`s elect? It is God that justifieth; Ro 8

7 that, being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Titus 3

24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Ro 3

9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him. Ro 5

Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ; Ro 5:1

Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. Ja 2:24

13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified:

 

Concerning “for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified”, you asked:

Absolutely yes. Your question seems odd to me because it's Paul that wrote this. I take it from the OP that you hold to 'sola fide'. I don't see how anyone can be pure 'sola fide' when the only place in the scriptures where 'faith alone' is mentioned is here:

Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. Ja 2:24

Thus the intent of Paul's statement “for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified”.

I've tried to point out in my prior posts that these works come NATURALLY (do by nature the things of the law) solely because God has wrought within [Jn 3:21], He has 'written the work of the law in their hearts' through GRACE, and that in the absence of the law or the gospel and prior to coming to Christ [again, Jn 3:21]. That's why I would prefer to sum it up as 'justification by grace alone'.

I tried to point out here....:

who will render to every man according to his works: to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life: Ro 2:6,7 ASV

.....the righteous by his stedfastness liveth. Habakkuk 2:4 YLT

.....according as it hath been written, `And the righteous one by faith shall live, Ro 1:17 YLT

.....the correlation of faith to works. I believe the 'faith alone'/'duty faith' crowd has erred in making the word 'faith' to always mean 'the act of believing the gospel'. The deeper intent of the word implies stedfastness or faithfulness (in well -doing) on the part of the one that God has wrought within.

 

The evils of Calvinism in a nutshell. I'm surprised any thinking person cannot see that Calvinism is not only illogical and wrong, but that it attempts to make God into a liar!

 

That's because there is no regeneration before belief.

Calvinism is bad enough, but Hyper-Calvinism is even worse. The farther down the Calvinist ladder one goes, the farther from the truth they find themselves. Hyper-Calvinist are pretty much at the bottom!

 

But what he said is not accurate. Nowhere does Calvinism make God to be a liar. God sends people to hell because they are a sinner and deserve hell and have rejected God.

 

Yet another problem with the anit-calvi sentiment here. Calvinism is only wrong if it is unscriptural, not if it is illogical or makes God out to be a liar. Catch my drift... you are arguing on a philosophical level, which is ok for some. But that in essence misses the point. Calvinism is only wrong if it is not taught in God's Word. I would argue that Scripture teaches many paradoxical things that in our western mind are illogical. So unless I am convinced by Scripture (forget conscience ML ), I don't care what is "logical." Logic is not the arbiter of truth-God's Word is truth!

 

I disagree! If a certain doctrine is gleaned from the scripture that makes God a liar or evil, then this interpretation is wrong! I believe some of the Calvinistic teachings, such as Hyper-Calvinism does just this. This would also include God offering salvation for those He did not die for, which is the problem I was addressing.

 

Are you implying that I somehow have made God to be a liar? Please clarify.

 

Did you mean to quote me on this?

 

My apologies to you, I should have looked deeper in than I did. Disregard.