Zane Hodges has passed and recieved his rewards...

It is the baisc view of all primitive baptists.

They base it upon scripture but I believe what they base it upon is greatly out of context.

 

Taking Scripture out of context is not biblical at all.

*edited for spelling.

 

Never said it was brother.

You asked if his statement was "based on scripture" and it was to this I answered. Their doctrine in this is derived from the scriptures/bible but I believe they are not 'scriptural' as in contextually correct.

Sorry for the confusion brother.

 

Allan,

I'm not charging you at all with any wrong. I'm just making a general observation.

 

Ok. BTW - You're correct

 

==No, his statement is compromise. Read it again carefully. It is not enough to say those things are true and important. When it comes to Jesus' work on the cross and His resurrection those things are a MUST. That is they are far more than just important, they are essential.

What did Paul say?

"that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" -Rom 10:9

"Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures..." -1Cor 15:1-4

Notice that according to Paul one must believe in the substitutionary death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved. Bob Wilkin denies that. Wilkin and Paul (ie...Scripture) don't agree.

Wilkin said (in part) "What about...Jesus' bodily resurrection, Jesus' post-resurrection appearances, Jesus' substitutionary death on the cross...and so on? Knowing these things certainly makes it easier to believe in Jesus for eternal life. But does it follow that we must believe these things to be saved? No." . In that statement Bob Wilkin denied that a person must believe in the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross and the resurrection in order to be saved. Yet, as I showed, Scripture clearly states that one must believe in the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross and the resurrection in order to be saved. Bob Wilkin is teaching a heresy that we call the "crossless gospel".

==Scripture makes clear that some of those claims/beliefs are required for salvation (not just to make it easier). See above.

==Then that person cannot be saved (1Cor 1:18, 22-25). Wilkin is compromising the truth by denying that a person must believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in order to be saved. If a person does not believe those things a person cannot be saved.

==In order to be born again a person must believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. According to Paul that is the Gospel and that is what must be believed and confessed. See above.

==No, what I am saying is what Scripture says. That in order to be saved a person must believe in the Gospel. If they don't believe in the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross and the resurrection then they don't believe the Gospel and cannot be saved.

==The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write that a person must believe the Gospel in order to be saved. The Holy Spirit will teach a Christian their whole lives, but in order to be saved a person must (must) believe the Gospel message and place their trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. If one does not believe in the resurrection, one cannot be saved. If one does not believe in the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross, one cannot be saved. One can be saved without understanding the Trinity, or the hypostatic union. Those things are not part of the Gospel and will be learned through the Holy Spirit and the study of Scripture. But those things are not part of the Gospel. As Paul said, see above, the work of Christ on the cross and the resurrection are essential parts of the Gospel a person must believe in order to be saved.

==I believe in faith alone. However I believe that the "faith" that is required for salvation, which Christ provides as a gift, believes the entire Gospel (1Cor 15:1-4, Rom 10:9, Eph 2:8-10, Heb 12:2).

==On what basis could God do that? The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ! That is the basis of the whole thing. Take those things away and there is no basis. That is why a person must believe in those things to be saved. I never share the Gospel without sharing about His work on the cross and His resurrection. Why not? Because without those things there is no Gospel (Lk 24:46-47, 1Cor 15:12-19).

==If you lay aside Christ's death on the cross then you have just laid aside the Gospel message.

 

Well, think about the act of redemption, TCG. I know that you and yours believe as I do that the plan of redemption was made in eternity past before the foundation of the world, and you and yours believe that salvation is by grace. By you and yours I mean those who hold to the Doctrine of Grace, not the Doctrine of Grace plus faith, although there is such as salvation by grace through faith, but that is not eternal in its character and scope.

Now, back to redemption.

Tell me, on what basis according to Scripture did God redeem His people ?
What did He require them, according to Scripture, that they MUST HAVE in order for them to be included among Christ's redeemed ?

Those who comment against what I said comment like they're experts on the nuances of Primitive Baptists, but none is able to come up with an explanation of how the Holy Spirit used the word "all" in the Revelation Scriptures that I just quoted. Any takers on that one ?

Did Christ redeem you, TCG, because you will be a Doctrine of Grace adherent in the future ? Did Christ redeem any of us on this board on the basis of him seeing what we will be ?

Here's another one: "Not according to our righteousnesses, but according to His mercy He saved us" Titus 3:5.

Now, of course, you all can take Scriptures to clash with Scripture I quote and where does that leave us ? It leaves us a bunch of stupid "Christians" in the eyes of those who frequent this site not to learn but to find fault, because we couldn't even agree on the character and depth of redemption so we throw Scriptures at each other like we're trying to cast demons out of one another !

But the bottom line is still: Does redemption have any qualifiers ? And the base answer is still: none !

God's redeemed were redeemed unto Himself, for His kingdom, and for His glory that His mercy over them (not their faith in Him) may be known through all eternity, and His mercy is extended over them because they are sinners and guilty of all manner of sin, including the sin of unbelief and disobedience, which by the way were the first sins Adam and Eve committed.

Faith is the result of belief, and belief comes from conversion, and conversion comes from instruction, and as someone said, one can be converted to error, or from error to truth, but God's grace is over and above all error, and error is sin, therefore God's grace is over and above all sin.

 

Does that mean everyone who has doubts is not a child of God?

 

I believe one doesn't stop believing when they quench the Spirit. How does one stop believing in something that they knew to be true at some point? It's like denying the law of gravity after one knows it to be true. There can be other beliefs that mask and overshadow that which we know to be true, but to claim that a true believer can stop believing and ultimately not be saved puts salvation on the shoulders of man to continue in belief...an oddity for those who hold to the "doctrines of grace". The "father of lies" can surround and consume our belief with horrible lies and other false beliefs that seem to the person on the outside to be unbelief. "When we are faithless, He remains faithful"

 

No of course not.

 

Isn't doubting a show of unbelief?

 

So is it your position that we can not have a belief in Christ and be saved?

 

How did you get that from my question

 

I had to do some research on Zane Hodges and there is some interesting reading out there to say the least . . .

 

Guilt by association??

You might want to check a bit further before lumping all the above together in one group in one 'pigeonhole.' It is not an accurate classification.

Ed

 

To some degree, yes. But it is not a repudiation. It's not denial. The existence of doubt presuppose the existence of belief, does it not? Someone says, "I believe but ... "

 

A good place to start...

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/04/biblical-response-to-free-grace.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/04/biblical-response-to-free-grace_03.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/04/biblical-response-to-free-grace_05.html

 

Pinoybaptist,

The blood of Christ was applied to me in redemption through faith in that finish work of Christ at Calvary.

It's all about God in Christ, not me.

 

Therefore will it be safe to say that you believe unless there was faith in the elect sinner first, then the blood of Christ is ineffective ? The finished work meant nothing for the sinner unless his faith first came into play ? If so, then we go back full circle to Romans 3:3 - "For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?"