part 2
Was the Law just something God made up because He needed some substance by which to judge the blessings and sanctions of the covenant?
Paul says it was added because of transgressions (Gal 3:19).
That reminds me...which aspect of Christ do you recommend we follow: Christ "according to the flesh" (Rom 1:3; 2 Cor 5:16) or Christ "according to the revelation of the secret" (Rom 16:25)? They're not the same - which do you choose?
You're going to have to explain that question a little better.
It's already as simple as can be. Look at the three verses above and you'll see exactly what I mean.
Like there's a biblical alternative? Besides, God invented dispensationalism (1 Cor 9:17; Eph 3:2). As has been pointed out, dispensationalism not only preceeds them all but is supported by the best authority an idea can have: God thought of it.
Fru: Yup...and waited to let us all in on it until the 19th century. Too bad for the rest of the Christian faith...the joke's on them, huh?
No. It was there the whole time in Paul's letters. That Christendom began to ignore it during Paul's lifetime isn't God's fault. It's exactly what He predicted would happen.
And don't be a hypocrite - you're reformed faith is also a last-quarter development. With it's alleged core of
solas, it excludes 1,500 years worth of believers prior to Luther.
Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles. James was wrote to the circumcision. Two different (but related) audeinces. Two different (but related) Gospels. Two different (but related) apostles. Two different (but related) aspects of Christ. Best to keep them separate!
Fru: Wow. You avoided using the word 'dispensation.' Good for you.
Again you choose a bit of irrelevant nastiness rather than actually addressing what I wrote.
Tell me..how much of your Bible do you skip over on a regular basis because it doesn't apply directly to you?
Please understand me here: All of the Bible is FOR us, but not all of the Bible is written TO us, nor is it all ABOUT us. As always, it's simply a matter of keeping things in their proper context.
Lately I've concentrated on Paul's epistles because I've been teaching a 3-month stretch of Sunday school on "Living the Christian Life according to Paul." Only in Paul's letters will you find the positional truths of who and what we are "in Christ," a knowledge of which is VITAL to proper spiritual growth. Since Paul's the only one who taught these truths, to Paul I go.
But I do not ignore the rest of the Bible. I don't know anyone who does. We simply "rightly divide" the Word (2 Tim 2:15) by "testing the things that differ" (Phil 1:10).
Within the last month alone I've listened to several of Sproul's messages specifically in relation to the Law of God as it pertains to the Christian.
And what is Sproul's basic point on that? I'm curious.
So what in your estimation IS evidence of salvation?
I believe you're asking the wrong question; you're assuming there is such evidence for us to see in others, so you want to know what it is. And under the covenants - under Law - there
was to be such evidence ("By their fruits...").
But there is no proof-positive that someone else is saved during this dispensation of salvation by grace ALONE through faith ALONE without works.
Even a person's testimony of having heard, understood and believed the Gospel isn't an accurate standard UNLESS we define the Gospel VERY CLEARLY when we ask the question "Have you believed the Gospel?" (otherwise, there are people who will take advantage of a stupidly phrased question to get you to leave them alone - "Do you believe in Jesus?" "Yeah, I believe in Jesus").
Others may have sincerely believed a false gospel combining faith and works, and can still say, "Yes, I believe the Gospel."
So we must define exactlly what we do and do
not mean by "the Gospel."
And even then, all we have to go by is someone's testimony - not their exterior - about whether they've really trusted Christ's death, burial and resurrection for the individual's sins against God. This makes perfect sense if salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, without works.
Likewise, there is no "hard evidence" that a person is
not saved UNLESS a person says they haven't heard the Gospel, or has heard it but rejects it. Again, this makes perfect sense:
if salvation is by grace thru faith in Christ, then the "proof" likewise goes back to a matter of faith (or lack of it) in what God has said. So we can't really know. The salvation transaction is between the individual and God. No works preceed it, no works accompany it, and no works have to follow it as "proof."
We can't infallibly know any heart but our own. So, since the heart is where salvation happens, there is no external proof/evidence/sign under grace of whether someone else is saved. Only God knows, and the individual. We can only take them at their word. We may DOUBT (as Paul did) but we can't KNOW, so we can't JUDGE by presence or absence of what we think a saved person should act like. We CAN pray for others, however!
So if there's any "evidence" at all, it is what someone testifies according to a CORRECT understanding of who Christ was, what He did, and why it matters for them.
BTW, fruit and good works SHOULD follow salvation because we're created in Christ to do good works. But I know of no place where Paul said the
apparent absence of such fruit and works, or the presence of sin, proved (as Lordship Salvation says) someone isn't really saved.
Note Paul told individuals in Corinth to "examine YOURSELVES {not "examine each other" or "examine your works"} to see whether you are in the FAITH. Don't you know your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, unless you do not stand the test?"
How were they to "test" and "examine" themselves to see if they were "in the faith" or that Christ was in them? Well, asking the question answers it! Paul told them to see if they'd done the one thing required for anyone to be saved: have I heard, understood, and believed the Gospel of grace? Paul preached it to them - had they believed it?
That's the same test for us, and is why the whole "election/reprobation" argument simply gets in the way.
If we sent you back in time to Corinth, I have ZERO doubt you'd write off most of them as religious reprobates.
[bold]Fru: Well, thank you, o, for that kind sentiment.[/bold]
Do you deny it?
What's the point, o? I have no disagreement with the notion that works can be "faked" or that one who appears outwardly righteous may inwardly be unregenerate. What's your point?
Simply that Paul's Gospel gives assurance of eternity, NOW, without works as a requirement FOR salvation or as evidence OF salvation. It's all about faith. Calvinism's election gospel, on the other hand, gives no such assurance (hence the "P").
BTW: I am not questioning your salvation - if you have trusted Christ's death, burial and resurrection to have paid for your sins, then you are saved. You're just confused by all that Augustinian baggage you're carrying around.
Curses...foiled again! So far you've given them a glimpse of what the Reformed view is, but I'd hardly say you've shown it to be anti-Biblical (except in your own mind).
Keep reading.
Please provide me with the chapter and verse which says "one isn't regenerated until he/she believes the Gospel." I have no doubt you think you have one.
Romans 8:28-30. Romans 10:8-18.
Mmm-hmm. Shall we discuss the matter of causality, o, or will you persist in making more rediculous claims about what I actually believe?
Feel free. In fact, start a thread on it.
Straw man. Calvinists don't believe that faith is both the means of regeneration and the conduit of it.
I know that. I was contrasting what Calvinists do believe and what Paul taught. Look, I know what objections you'll raise when I pose my questions. Not because I'm psychic but I used to believe as you now do.
You operate from a presumption that is in question, namely that regeneration follows faith.
And you're starting from the opposite assumption. Whose assumption is the correct one? Start a new thread on this, too, if you like.
If that is not true, then our position that regeneration precedes faith does not leave us in self-contradiction.
And if it IS true, you need to get yourself some new theology, yes?
Weigh your words carefully, o, before you stand here and accuse me of preaching a false gospel.
I already have weighed them and see no reason to retract or modify. I have no intention of being nasty, but Calvinists (those who
really know their Calvinism, which isn't every Calvinist) preach a God who tells all who hear His Word that they can be saved, even though He doesn't
really mean it. That makes
that gospel a lie. And not only is that gospel false, Calvin's god - who says what he doesn't mean - it is a false god.
Again I am not questioning anyone's salvation - I am only addressing the logical implications of the theological baggage they want to throw onto the backs of others.
I'm sorry...remind me again where I said my sin nature is gone.
Fascinating. . .you reject eradicationism? Do you have both the old Adamic nature and the new nature coexisting inside you?
Umm..never said we could [keep the Law perfectly.
But you HAVE to, if you place yourself under any point of the Law, even if only for sanctification. The Law is an all-or-nothing deal. Oh, let me guess: "But we're under grace, so God will forgive me for any part of the Law I break." Well, if you're under grace you don't need the Law.
It's people like you that keep the apologists of the world busy. People like you lead to councils.
Sorry, authority for such councils is found. . .where?
But I half-agree with you: send me back in time and let Calvin get his hands on me, and I'll end up with a terminal case of rope burn (around the neck).
Actually, from a theological standpoint it means AGAINST the Law, which very aptly describes you. But thank you for going on record as being antinomian. At least I need not draw it out of you.
From your theological standpoint many words can mean things other than they appear to mean (see "all").
From my standpoint (which, for me, is what counts) I am not "against" the Law; I only put it in its proper perspective. It's made for the unrighteous, not those in Christ. Why's that so hard for you to accept?
But here's your chance to prove me wrong on the Law:
point to a passage of Pauline Scripture where the so-called 10 Commandements are excluded from the Mosaic covenant, thus making them binding on believers today.
Sing with me now...
o/~ Redeemed from the Law...
Oh blessed condition...
I can sin all I want....
And still have remission! o/~
Dual fallacy: Straw man/cheap shot.
While it is true someone in Christ CAN theoretically sin all they want and still be forgiven (see Col 1:12-13), the idea is abhorrent to me beyond words.
Moreover, I've never met one of these legendary boogeyman Antinomians. They seem to be kinda like Bigfoot and Nessie -- theoretically they MAY exist but no one's ever bagged one.
But if I ever do meet one, I'll offer correction and exhortation.
o.