Hebrews 5:9 vs Calvinism

[christian-only]

Heb 5:9 "And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;"

What gloss could a Calvinist possibly put on this to make it agree with their system? It plainly says that obedience is necessary for salvation, not that salvation is by faith only.

 

[Azaka]

Heb 5:9 "And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;"

What gloss could a Calvinist possibly put on this to make it agree with their system? It plainly says that obedience is necessary for salvation, not that salvation is by faith only.

Well, salvation is by faith only (through God's grace). But saving faith (trust and loyalty, or faithfulness, to God) is expressed through obedience. If we lack obedience, we really don't have saving faith. That is why we are to examine and test ourselves to see whether we are really in the faith, so that we are not disqualified (2 Cor 13:5).

In Christ,
Azaka

 

[christian-only]

Well, salvation is by faith only (through God's grace). But saving faith (trust and loyalty, or faithfulness, to God) is expressed through obedience. If we lack obedience, we really don't have saving faith. That is why we are to examine and test ourselves to see whether we are really in the faith, so that we are not disqualified (2 Cor 13:5).

In Christ,
Azaka

Ok, but in reality if faith is expressed through obedience it is no longer faith only, because it is not alone. James says in James 2:17 "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." But if it is expressed by obedience, it is no longer alone but accompanied by obedience, and hence not dead. But the point remains that since it is no longer alone, it is not faith only - it is now faith and obedience together.

 

[Azaka]

Ok, but in reality if faith is expressed through obedience it is no longer faith only, because it is not alone. James says in James 2:17 "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." But if it is expressed by obedience, it is no longer alone but accompanied by obedience, and hence not dead. But the point remains that since it is no longer alone, it is not faith only - it is now faith and obedience together.

Christian-only,

I understand your emphasis on obedience, for I believe it is something very much lacking in the church today. People think faith equals mere intellectual assent to a certain truth, or even "blind faith" with no basis at all, when true, Biblical faith is far from that. But it should also be emphasized that it is not our works that save us - it is God's graciously taking our obedient faith into account and declaring us as having right-standing before him, on the basis of what Christ did on the cross. It is Christ's work that saves us, not our own.

In Him,
Azaka

 

[Ben johnson]

It is faith alone. "Obedience" is a qualifier to specify what KIND of faith.

James 2:19 says, "You believe in one God; you do well. But even DEMONS beleive, and shudder." Belief is expressed in terms of being "BORN AGAIN" --- only belief that receives Jesus' indwelling presence, and the indwelling Holy Spirit."

Jesus issues "qualifiers" on "eternal life" --- in Matt18:3-4, He says "unless you are humbled as a child"; in Luke 13:3, "Unless you REPENT". In Matt7:21, "unless you DO the will of the Father" (obedience). All fall under the umbrella of the qualifier of John3:3, "unless you are BORN AGAIN, you cannot see the kingdom of God."

Faith that RECEIVES Jesus, can ONLY obey. Can ONLY be humbled. Can ONLY do His will. As James says, properly translated with respect to the "me-dunamai" construct, 2:14: "That kind of faith (which produces no good works), can NOT save you, CAN IT!"

What gloss could a Calvinist possibly put on this to make it agree with their system? It plainly says that obedience is necessary for salvation, not that salvation is by faith only.

They confuse "cause" and "effect". They see "obedience" as a given, because it "flows invariably/irresistibly/unavoidably from the unilaterally-regenerated-heart. Thus "obedience's" inclusion in this verse, is more anecdotal.

"Author of eternal life unto all who obey Him, meaning all He sovereignly chose and regenerated and are EVIDENCED BY their obeying-Him."

Calvinism denies that "faith comes from the heart" (Rom10:10); saying instead that saving-faith "flows from the prior regeneration". And also denying that "obedience comes from the heart" (Rom6:17-18). But because of the nature of saving-faith, we receive the gift of grace through our own faith. And, there we also abide, through our faith; or if faith fails, our abiding fails also.

 

[BBAS 64]

Heb 5:9 "And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;"

What gloss could a Calvinist possibly put on this to make it agree with their system? It plainly says that obedience is necessary for salvation, not that salvation is by faith only.

Good Day, Christian Only

Before the understanding of verse 9, don't ya think we should uderstand verse 8 seeing how verse 9 starts with "and"

Heb 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered

How do you see verse 8, how is it related to verses 9

Here is a more literal Translation that may help.

Heb 5:8 although being a Son, He learned obedience from what He suffered.

Heb 5:9 And having been made perfect, He became to all the ones obeying Him [the] source of eternal

Have you looked up this passage in Calvin's work or any early church writings.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[nobdysfool]

They confuse "cause" and "effect". They see "obedience" as a given, because it "flows invariably/irresistibly/unavoidably from the unilaterally-regenerated-heart. Thus "obedience's" inclusion in this verse, is more anecdotal.

"Author of eternal life unto all who obey Him, meaning all He sovereignly chose and regenerated and are EVIDENCED BY their obeying-Him."

Calvinism denies that "faith comes from the heart" (Rom10:10); saying instead that saving-faith "flows from the prior regeneration". And also denying that "obedience comes from the heart" (Rom6:17-18). But because of the nature of saving-faith, we receive the gift of grace through our own faith. And, there we also abide, through our faith; or if faith fails, our abiding fails also.

As usual, Ben, you've misrepresented Calvinism to bolster your own doctrine. The semi-Pelagianism in your doctrine reeks of man-centered theology.

What is the first act of obedience to Christ? Repent and believe, is it not?

Until a man does that, he is not saved.


You characterize the Calvinist as saying that God believes for the man, and drags him kicking and screaming against his will, forcing him to become a Christian. That is a lie. The Calvinist believes, and clearly states that God regenerates the mans heart, which enables the man to hear the Gospel, receive the faith that it imparts into his heart which the man then exercises in repentance and faith in Christ, resulting in forgiveness, the indwelling of the Spirit, and Justification unto Life. You keep mis-stating this sequence even though you've been told time and time again what the Calvinist believes. If you can't get it right, you have no business telling others what Calvinists believe.


I can show unequivocally that your doctrines are, in fact, semi-Pelagian, from the writings of Cassian, contrasting them with the writings of Augustine (which you falsely claim to be closer to that to Cassian), and of Martin Luther, who challenged and refuted Erasmus on many of the same twisted-logic arguments you use and believe to be original to you.

I told you before, "those who do not learn from (Church) History are doomed to repeat it", and you are the poster boy for that statement, the living embodiment of the truth of that statement.


I simply will not stand by and allow you to tell falsehoods about Reformed/Calvinist doctrines in order to gain converts to your semi-Pelagian doctrines, and the gloom and doom you espouse.

 

[Ben johnson]

As usual, Ben, you've misrepresented Calvinism to bolster your own doctrine.

What is the first act of obedience to Christ? Repent and believe, is it not?

Until a man does that, he is not saved.

No, I "represented it" correctly.

Calvinism: regeneration => faith/belief/obedience/repentance => salvation

But the sequence seen in passages like 2Tim3:15 and titus 3:5-6, is:
hearing/studying => conviction/learning/belief => repent and receive Jesus and receive the Spirit => receive simultaneously regeneration

I cannot understand how you can embrace a comcept such as, "regenerated unsaved". As you just said, "he is not saved UNTIL he obediently repents and believes, AFTER regeneration". So there is a brief time BETWEEN "regeneration" and "salvation"...

You characterize the Calvinist as saying that God believes for the man, and drags him kicking and screaming against his will, forcing him to become a Christian. That is a lie.

Is this what a "straw man" is? In trying to show my misrepresentation of Calvinism, you MISREPRESENT my misrepresentation. I have never said, nor implied that. I correctly represent what you have said,l that God UNILATERALLY regenerates the man, BEFORE he repents and BEFORE he turns to God and asks. THROUGH this regeneration, invariably/irresistibly/unavoidably FLOWS belief, and repentance, and perseverance. RIGHT? You say, "man's will always follows his heart; before unasked-unlateral-regeneration, his will can ONLY be degenerate; after regeneration his will can ONLY be towards salvation. Does that not accurately represent your doctrine?

I can show unequivocally that your doctrines are, in fact, semi-Pelagian, from the writings of Cassian, contrasting them with the writings of Augustine (which you falsely claim to be closer to that to Cassian), and of Martin Luther, who challenged and refuted Erasmus on many of the same twisted-logic arguments you use and believe to be original to you.

I told you before, "those who do not learn from (Church) History are doomed to repeat it", and you are the poster boy for that statement, the living embodiment of the truth of that statement.

If it is required to study multiple "extra-Biblical writings" to "correctly" discern doctrine, then I politely decline and base my theology on Scripture itself. There is more than sufficient information contained in the letters the Apostles and Paul wrote to correctly convey the Gospel.

I simply will not stand by and allow you to tell falsehoods about Reformed/Calvinist doctrines in order to gain converts to your semi-Pelagian doctrines, and the gloom and doom you espouse.

Ahhhh --- but you ARE "standing by". You participate where you feel it benefits, and decline where it does not suit. Case in point, "Two Verses" thread. You will not answer that, because you cannot; there is no credible answer that endorses OSAS.

Thus, you "stand by"...

 

[nobdysfool]

No, I "represented it" correctly.

Calvinism: regeneration => faith/belief/obedience/repentance => salvation

But the sequence seen in passages like 2Tim3:15 and titus 3:5-6, is:
hearing/studying => conviction/learning/belief => repent and receive Jesus and receive the Spirit => receive simultaneously regeneration

2Tim 3 is written to someone already saved (Timothy). It is not a statement of the order of salvation, but of the order of growth in the Christian walk. Salvation is not an event, it is a process, ongoing until the final redemption of the body. Titus is a reference to the results of initial salvation, not the order.

I cannot understand how you can embrace a comcept such as, "regenerated unsaved". As you just said, "he is not saved UNTIL he obediently repents and believes, AFTER regeneration". So there is a brief time BETWEEN "regeneration" and "salvation"...

I am speaking of the logical order of events, not the temporal order. I've told you that before. Many times. The logical order is not concerned with the flow of time, it is concerned with the order of events, even though they may happen nearly simultaneously in temporal terms. So there is no "time" between regeneration and the man's repenting and believing, in the sense of minutes or hours or days. Get that notion out of your head, because I'm telling you right here and now that I have never said such a thing, and if you say I did, you lie.

"Regenerated/unsaved" is an invention of your mind to try to discredit that which you cannot discredit. Regeneration is UNTO salvation, 100% of the time.

Is this what a "straw man" is? In trying to show my misrepresentation of Calvinism, you MISREPRESENT my misrepresentation. I have never said, nor implied that. I correctly represent what you have said,l that God UNILATERALLY regenerates the man, BEFORE he repents and BEFORE he turns to God and asks. THROUGH this regeneration, invariably/irresistibly/unavoidably FLOWS belief, and repentance, and perseverance. RIGHT? You say, "man's will always follows his heart; before unasked-unlateral-regeneration, his will can ONLY be degenerate; after regeneration his will can ONLY be towards salvation. Does that not accurately represent your doctrine?

Oh, so you DID misrepresent? Thanks for being honest!

No, it does not accurately portray Reformed doctrine (it's not mine, I didn't invent it, the Holy Spirit did, in a book called the Bible. Ever hear of it?)

Regeneration (the new birth) revives the man's dead-in-sin heart so that the Word of the Gospel (the Word of God) can impart faith into his heart. The man then uses that faith, imparted by God, but now in the man's heart, to repent, believe on Christ, and receive Forgiveness of sins, the indwelling of the Spirit, and Justification; ergo, he has been saved. And as he continues to walk with Christ, he grows in sanctification and strength, and Jesus protects him, strengthens him, and preserves him (notice the spelling, Ben), and ensures that he will endure to the end, because Jesus does not lose those who are His, He does not cast them away, and they cannot fall away completely if they stumble, because He upholds them with His Hand.

No true Christian can fall away. When God changes the heart, it stays changed. When man just "says the words", he can takle them back. Many who profess to be Christians have and will fall away, because they were never saved to begin with. Saying that one is a Christian, or having prayed the sinner's prayer is not defacto evidence that one is a Christian. True Christians bear fruit. False ones don't. True Christians have the promise from Christ that they will not fall away, but will be raised up on the last day.

If it is required to study multiple "extra-Biblical writings" to "correctly" discern doctrine, then I politely decline and base my theology on Scripture itself. There is more than sufficient information contained in the letters the Apostles and Paul wrote to correctly convey the Gospel.

But only a fool would not avail himself of the opportunity to learn from men who have devoted their whole lives to these studies. Remember what I told you about the 3 types of people that refuse to learn from the work olf others? Proud, Ignorant, and Stupid people? The Proud and Ignorant can be set right, and can learn to benefit, through humility and education. There is no cure for Stupidity. Which one of the three are you, Ben?

Don't tell me none, because, you just got done telling us how you didn't need to learn from others. One can only conclude that you consider yourself their equal, armed only with a Bible, a Concordance, and a Lexicon. That, my poor deluded friend, is Stupid!

Ahhhh --- but you ARE "standing by". You participate where you feel it benefits, and decline where it does not suit. Case in point, "Two Verses" thread. You will not answer that, because you cannot; there is no credible answer that endorses OSAS.

Thus, you "stand by"...

Actually, I have an answer, but I'm in the dilemna of whether I should "cast my pearls"....and I post where I see you trying to lead people astray. I don't follow you around. You keep coming back, because you can't stand the idea that I might say something that you don't try to shoot down with your "ransom note" posts, and convoluted and illogical semi-Pelagian reasoning.

 

[christian-only]

You characterize the Calvinist as saying that God believes for the man, and drags him kicking and screaming against his will, forcing him to become a Christian. That is a lie. The Calvinist believes, and clearly states that God regenerates the mans heart, which enables the man to hear the Gospel, receive the faith that it imparts into his heart which the man then exercises in repentance and faith in Christ, resulting in forgiveness, the indwelling of the Spirit, and Justification unto Life.

Essentially this is another misrepresentation, both of what Ben said and of Calvinism. Calvinism says that God regenerates a man's heart enabling him to accept the Gospel, but it also says that once he has been thus regenerated he cannot stop himself from accepting it, etc. This is exactly what Ben was trying to say in the following quote:

They confuse "cause" and "effect". They see "obedience" as a given, because it "flows invariably/irresistibly/unavoidably from the unilaterally-regenerated-heart. Thus "obedience's" inclusion in this verse, is more anecdotal.

In otherwords, Hebrews 5:9 places at least SOME obedience PRIOR to salvation, whereas Calvinism places ALL obedience AFTER salvation. That is not a misrepresentation on Ben's part.

 

[nobdysfool]

Essentially this is another misrepresentation, both of what Ben said and of Calvinism. Calvinism says that God regenerates a man's heart enabling him to accept the Gospel, but it also says that once he has been thus regenerated he cannot stop himself from accepting it, etc. This is exactly what Ben was trying to say in the following quote:



In otherwords, Hebrews 5:9 places at least SOME obedience PRIOR to salvation, whereas Calvinism places ALL obedience AFTER salvation. That is not a misrepresentation on Ben's part.

The problem is, you equate regeneration with the whole of salvation; both you and Ben. It is not the same thing. And I have labored long and hard to get you all to understand the distinction. This is common among people who really don't understand Reformed doctrine, yet protest that they do. There is a precision to what I'm saying that you're not catching. Regeneration is the new birth, but it is not all of salvation. When I refer to being "saved", I'm referring to the whole of it: Regeneration, Faith in Christ, Justification, and walking in newness of life.

If I refer to regeneration, I'm just talking about the very first thing that happens, which is the revival of the heart by God's Grace. It is the New Birth, the heart being made new and alive unto God. THEN the Word can impart faith (by hearing) into that newly born heart; the man then repents of his sins (the Gospel's call, quickened by faith received by that Word in the newly born heart), and believes on Christ, for Forgiveness of sins, the Spirit enters and indwells his heart, and He is Justified by God, clothed with the Righteousness of Christ, and is Sanctified (set apart) unto holiness and begins his walk in Christ. At that point he gets baptized (don't worry, I haven't forgotten that) If I talk about a man being saved, I'm referring to whole of the process, and a person who has already begun his walk with Christ.

You equate at various times regeneration, Born again, and the whole of salvation, and use the terms interchangeably. That very lack of precision is why there is confusion, and why you don't get it. Ben is misrepresenting Reformed doctrine, because he switches the terms around to benefit his doctrine. If I speak of regeneration, he reads "saved" and then says I'm twisting the words, when actually it he who is doing so.

Your last sentence of your post, you did the exact same thing: equated regeneration with salvation, and your reference was to ALL of salvation.

Do you understand the distinction?

 

[christian-only]

The problem is, you equate regeneration with the whole of salvation; both you and Ben.

Actually, the way I see it, you are the one equating regeneration with the whole of salvation. Calvinism holds that it is impossible for someone who has been regenerated to not be completely saved since their being regenerated means they were elected and if elected there is no way they cannot be saved. Hence, in point of fact, if you are truly a Calvinist you must believe that regeneration is the whole of salvation, or cease being a Calvinist.

Your last sentence of your post, you did the exact same thing: equated regeneration with salvation, and your reference was to ALL of salvation.

In my last post I was pointing out that in Calvinism regeneration is essentially the whole of salvation since it indicates election and election in Calvinism means there is no way the person could ever be lost.

Do you understand the distinction?

First, there is a difference between what you call regeneration and what I call regeneration. In my previous post I was following your Calvinist definition of some event where God enlightens someone in order to allow them to believe. That, however, is not the Scriptural definition of regeneration. Generation comes from the Greek word for birth, and regeneration is simply the rebirth, and rebirth and becoming sons of God are the same idea, being born into God's family. The rebirth consists of water and the Spirit, and does NOT precede faith. John says that those who believe receive the right to become sons of God, not that sons of God receive the right to become believers (as Calvinism suggest). So then, it comes after faith, at the point of baptism (where the believer being in water is circumcised by the Holy Spirit).

BTW, I don't believe in incomplete salvation, and I certainly don't see how such an idea could fit in with Calvinism either. The closest thing is a rejection of OSAS, and I don't believe in OSAS, so let that take the place of this incomplete salvation viewpoint in your post.

 

[nobdysfool]

Actually, the way I see it, you are the one equating regeneration with the whole of salvation. Calvinism holds that it is impossible for someone who has been regenerated to not be completely saved since their being regenerated means they were elected and if elected there is no way they cannot be saved. Hence, in point of fact, if you are truly a Calvinist you must believe that regeneration is the whole of salvation, or cease being a Calvinist.

You're missing one very important point, and it makes all the difference. I am speaking of the logical order of events in salvation, i.e. what happens first, what happens next, etc. In real time, these events happen very quickly, almost simultaneously. That's where you're getting confused, and not seeing what I'm saying. Ben is having the same problem, although he won't admit it.

I'll say it again, and hope that you can understand. Regeneration is the first event in the logical order of salvation. God is the one who does it, it is His work, monergistic, and it is what makes man able to receive faith from the Word, believe on Christ with that faith, and receive forgiveness of sins and everlasting life. Regeneration is not the whole of salvation, it is the beginning point. What follows is made possible by regeneration.

Compounding your understanding of this critical distinction, if I understanding other posts you've made, is the fact that you believe in Baptismal Regeneration, which is a whole other kettle of fish, so to speak. We both use the term "regeneration", but in completely different contexts. If you try to understand my use of regeneration by the way you define it, no wonder you question what I'm saying! I have tried to give an accurate explanation of what I, and other Reformed believers, use the term to mean, and if you want to understand what we say, you need to understand the terminology in the way that we use it. Ben has a real problem with that. He refuses to accomodate any other use of a term that how he uses it.

In my last post I was pointing out that in Calvinism regeneration is essentially the whole of salvation since it indicates election and election in Calvinism means there is no way the person could ever be lost.

Non-Reformed believers have a terrible time with Election and Predestination. That's at the heart of the disagreement here, and there are many misconceptions and outright lies told about what a Calvinist "means" when they speak of these things, as though Calvinists were trying to "pull one over" on everyone else. In my own personal opinion, I believe much of it is an intuitive understanding that if Election and Predestination are true, then a believer is not "the captain of his soul", and was not the one who "accepted" Christ, but rather was "apprehended" by Him. It speaks directly against theology like Ben's insistenece that the man, while yet dead in sins, somehow musters up faith of a kind pleasing to God, and manages to believe himself into salvation. I believe this stems from an unconscious anthropomorphing of how God deals with men, and then thinking that God deals with men the same way that men deal with each other. Ben's theology (and many others) place man in the center seat, the one who "decides" whether or not he will be saved, considering an "offer" of salvation made by God for man's approval and acceptance. I find that extremely unbiblical and offensive.

First, there is a difference between what you call regeneration and what I call regeneration. In my previous post I was following your Calvinist definition of some event where God enlightens someone in order to allow them to believe. That, however, is not the Scriptural definition of regeneration. Generation comes from the Greek word for birth, and regeneration is simply the rebirth, and rebirth and becoming sons of God are the same idea, being born into God's family. The rebirth consists of water and the Spirit, and does NOT precede faith. John says that those who believe receive the right to become sons of God, not that sons of God receive the right to become believers (as Calvinism suggest). So then, it comes after faith, at the point of baptism (where the believer being in water is circumcised by the Holy Spirit).

At least you see that you and I use the term differently. You do understand that it is the new birth. Where we disagree is how and where this takes place. You place it at Baptism, and I place it at the beginning of the process, with Baptism being the obedience to the gospel at the end. I cannot believe that a believer is unregenerate until he is baptised. It makes no sense, because, in effect, all that happens before, believing, receiving Christ, etc. is meaningless until they go into the water. Perhaps this explains why so many define regeneration as the whole of salvation, and use the terms interchangeably. I'm just trying to be accurate and precise, believing that we can learn much from accurate, precise examination of these things.

BTW, I don't believe in incomplete salvation, and I certainly don't see how such an idea could fit in with Calvinism either. The closest thing is a rejection of OSAS, and I don't believe in OSAS, so let that take the place of this incomplete salvation viewpoint in your post.

I don't believe in incomplete salvation either, and I assure you, that is not the Reformed/Calvinist position. And, Calvinists don't believe in Once Saved, Always Saved, either. There are many who will argue with that, and they'd be wrong. The Calvinist believes in the Perseverance of the Saints, which is the belief that the Believer will, in fact, persevere to the end with God's help, but never without their own participation. There are some who are so intent on undermining Reformed/Calvinist doctrine, that they will lie about this, either through believeing incorrect information about Calvinists, or intentionally, because they hate the inplications of Reformed/Calvinist doctrine.

Simply put, True Christians will not fall away, because their conversion is genuine, their lives are lived for Christ, and they are walking with Him in ever-increasing faith, sanctification, and holiness. A belief that saying a sinner's prayer in response to an altar call (please find that in the Bible)as though just saying the words somehow transforms a person (something akin to a belief in magic, IMHO) is often nothing more that an emotional response to verbal manipulation, a psychological response. That is not a true salvation experience, and many are complacently living lives very little if any different from their heathen neighbors, but trusting in the fact that they "said the words', said the "sinner's prayer", so now they're saved.

At the heart of this thinking is the belief that the person must choose God on their own initative, and that God will not work in their lives until they do, and that they do so by mumbling some words, repeating what someone else tells them to say. This is man-centered, and unbiblical. Many will say to Jesus, "Lord, Lord", and He will tell them "I never knew you" (never had intimate knowledge of you, because you weren't truly one of Mine)

 

[Ben johnson]

But only a fool would not avail himself of the opportunity to learn from men who have devoted their whole lives to these studies. Remember what I told you about the 3 types of people that refuse to learn from the work olf others? Proud, Ignorant, and Stupid people? The Proud and Ignorant can be set right, and can learn to benefit, through humility and education. There is no cure for Stupidity. Which one of the three are you, Ben?

"Man who stand on head, world is upside down!"

Actually, I have an answer, but I'm in the dilemna of whether I should "cast my pearls"....

Oink.

 

[nobdysfool]

"Man who stand on head, world is upside down!"
Oink.

*sigh* not even seriously addressing the issue. Ben, why do you ridicule the idea of learning? Afraid you'll find out that your doctrines are unorthodox after all, and be challenged to change them? Ignorance is bliss? You tell me.

I know you fancy in your own mind that your "two verses" thread is the be-all and end-all refutation of Calvinism, but it's ONLY in your own mind. I have the answer, but you won't like it, and won't accept it. Why? Because it shows the misinterpretations you have stacked one upon the other for what they are. I grow weary of covering the same ground over and over again. You don't listen, you won't listen, you're too proud to admit mistakes and errors even when they're shown to you. You hate Calvinism because it directly threatens your own doctrines, which you refuse to believe are incorrect. You attack Calvinism from the wrong basis, because you know nothing about it, because if you did, you wouldn't attack it at its strongest point, like you do.

Maybe one of these days, you'll realize that if you stop beating your head against the wall, it will stop hurting....

 

[billwald]

"All that obey" are elect. <G>

 

[christian-only]

I don't believe in incomplete salvation either, and I assure you, that is not the Reformed/Calvinist position. And, Calvinists don't believe in Once Saved, Always Saved, either. There are many who will argue with that, and they'd be wrong. The Calvinist believes in the Perseverance of the Saints, which is the belief that the Believer will, in fact, persevere to the end with God's help, but never without their own participation. There are some who are so intent on undermining Reformed/Calvinist doctrine, that they will lie about this, either through believeing incorrect information about Calvinists, or intentionally, because they hate the inplications of Reformed/Calvinist doctrine.

(2 Pet 2:20) "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."
(2 Pet 2:21 KJV) 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.
(2 Pet 2:22 KJV) 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.

It is apparent that those who escape the pollutions of the world can become entangled in them again and be overcome - they can end up in worse shape than they were in before they accepted Christ. How could that ever fit in with "Perseverance of the Saints" as believed by Calvinists? And don't say "they weren't true believers" - if they weren't true believers, how were they able to escape the pollutions of the world?

 

[nobdysfool]

(2 Pet 2:20) "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."
(2 Pet 2:21 KJV) 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.
(2 Pet 2:22 KJV) 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.

It is apparent that those who escape the pollutions of the world can become entangled in them again and be overcome - they can end up in worse shape than they were in before they accepted Christ. How could that ever fit in with "Perseverance of the Saints" as believed by Calvinists? And don't say "they weren't true believers" - if they weren't true believers, how were they able to escape the pollutions of the world?

Knowledge is not faith. If an unbeliever hangs around Christians long enough, he will escape the defilements of the world while he is around them, because the Christians don't participate in them. He will gain knowledge of the Lord, and of the way of righteousness through observation. But knowledge doesn't save you. Only faith in Christ saves a person.

If this unbeliever stops hanging around Christians, he will become entangled again in the defilements of the world, and his last state will be worse than the first, because now he knows how bad it is. You assume that this person is saved, just because he has been with Christians. I suppose you believe that if you spend a lot of time in a garage, you're a car.

Someone saying that they are a Christian doesn't automatically make them one. That is Easy Believism. "Say the sinner's prayer, and you're saved". That's not much different than magic. Reducing the Gospel to a little formula and then believing that if you say the magic words, *poof* you're saved, is way too prevalent in today's society. Churches are filled with people who have incanted the words, but their lives are no different, they are just cleaned up heathens maintaining appearances by self-discipline, who are like the Pharisees, having all the outward appearances of True Faith, but inside they are full of dead bones, there is no everlasting life there.

Assosciation on the outside is not what saves you, it is assosciation on the inside. My knowing of Christ did not save me. I was raised in a Christian home. I knew who Christ was, I knew what He was, and I knew things about him. It wasn't until He called me, and brought me to my knees (literally) that I found out that He knew me. It was His assosciation with me on the inside that saved me. There are a lot of people who know about Christ, and as a result their lives are better than if they had not known anything about Him, but they are not saved. They are just living in the reflected blessings that surround the True Child of God.

In this passage of scripture, the fact that they returned to their former ways and entanglements, proves they were not really saved. Man's will is not stronger than God's will. John says "if they were truly of us, they would have remained, but they go out from us proving they were never of us". That seems pretty plain to me.

Quite frankly I'm tired of hearing how God can't keep His own people, but has no power to prevent them from leaving. I suppose that must follow if you believe that it was your choice that got you saved. I know from my own experience that it wasn't my choice that brought me to a face-to-face meeting with the Living Christ, it was His choice of me that brought me there, and it was when I saw Him, and realized what He did for me, I wanted His forgiveness like I've never wanted anything before. He changed me. I would not have done so otherwise, even though I knew about what He had done. When He made it personal, I believed, because I could do nothing else. If you want to call that being a zombie, then I guess that's what I am, just a zombie for Christ. Personally, I think that is one of the stupidest accusations I've ever heard.

 

[theseed]

Ok, but in reality if faith is expressed through obedience it is no longer faith only, because it is not alone. James says in James 2:17 "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." But if it is expressed by obedience, it is no longer alone but accompanied by obedience, and hence not dead. But the point remains that since it is no longer alone, it is not faith only - it is now faith and obedience together.

Faith that is dead is not a saving faith.

 

[theseed]

Christian-only,

I understand your emphasis on obedience, for I believe it is something very much lacking in the church today. People think faith equals mere intellectual assent to a certain truth, or even "blind faith" with no basis at all, when true, Biblical faith is far from that. But it should also be emphasized that it is not our works that save us - it is God's graciously taking our obedient faith into account and declaring us as having right-standing before him, on the basis of what Christ did on the cross. It is Christ's work that saves us, not our own.

In Him,
Azaka

Yes, faith is more than mere accent to the truth. We must place our hope in Christ.

The bible speaks of a saving faith where we have come to understand that what Jesus Christ said was true. This came about through the recognition that we have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God. We understood that, there is none who does right. As we heard His word, it radiated light onto our deeds and we saw that they were evil. John 3:18,19,36). When we became educed to the fact that what he says is true. We had to make a choice, whether to believe whether he can save us or not (Romans 10.17).

http://www.theseed.massah.org/v1(3)fhl.htmhttp://www.theseed.massah.org/