"God's decree, in as much as it concerneth man, is called predestination: which is the decree of God by the which he hath ordained all men to a certain and everlasting estate, that is either to salvation or condemnation, for his own glory. (1 Thessalonians 5:9) 'For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ.' (Romans 9:13) 'As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.' (Romans 9:22, 23) 'What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory.'
The means of accomplishing God's predestination are twofold:
The Creation and the fall." - William Perkins, A Golden Chain
Sunday, May 31, 2015
The Decree of God is first in order and time
"The decree of God is that by which God in himself hath necessarily, and yet freely, from all eternity determined all things. . . . The same decree of God is the first and principal working cause of all things, which also is in order and time before all other causes. For with God's decree is always his will annexed, by the which he can willingly effect that he hath decreed. And it were a sign of impotency to decree anything which he could not willingly compass. And with God's will is conjoined an effectual power by which the Lord can bring to pass whatsoever he hath freely decreed.
The first and principal cause, howbeit in itself it be necessary, yet it doth not take away freedom of will in election, or the nature and property of second causes, but only brings them into a certain order; that is, it directeth them to the determinate end, whereupon the effects and events of things are contingent or necessary, as the nature of the second cause is. So Christ according to his Father's decree died necessarily, (Acts 17:3) but yet willingly (John 10:18); and if we respect the temperature of Christ's body, he might have prolonged his life; and therefore in this respect may he said to have died contingently." - William Perkins, A Golden Chain
The first and principal cause, howbeit in itself it be necessary, yet it doth not take away freedom of will in election, or the nature and property of second causes, but only brings them into a certain order; that is, it directeth them to the determinate end, whereupon the effects and events of things are contingent or necessary, as the nature of the second cause is. So Christ according to his Father's decree died necessarily, (Acts 17:3) but yet willingly (John 10:18); and if we respect the temperature of Christ's body, he might have prolonged his life; and therefore in this respect may he said to have died contingently." - William Perkins, A Golden Chain
Saturday, May 30, 2015
Assurance is not based upon our good works
"Matthew 7:22-23 reads, 'Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name . . . ? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you.'
This is severe, and very strange. These people against whom Jesus shall shut the door of heaven are not the secularists who openly despise religion. These are the people who attend church regularly, the ones who do the work, who boast of their success. These are the religious leaders, who talk of leading the church of Christ. But Jesus says, I never knew you. False assurance is a common thing.
Yet it is possible to have a true assurance and rejoice in a hope that will not disappoint. The Scriptures say it is possible and urge us to attain to that state. John wrote his first epistle especially to teach us this lesson." - Gordon H. Clark, What Do Presbyterians Believe?
This is severe, and very strange. These people against whom Jesus shall shut the door of heaven are not the secularists who openly despise religion. These are the people who attend church regularly, the ones who do the work, who boast of their success. These are the religious leaders, who talk of leading the church of Christ. But Jesus says, I never knew you. False assurance is a common thing.
Yet it is possible to have a true assurance and rejoice in a hope that will not disappoint. The Scriptures say it is possible and urge us to attain to that state. John wrote his first epistle especially to teach us this lesson." - Gordon H. Clark, What Do Presbyterians Believe?
When four pointers say they are five pointers
"The assertion that because the atonement of Christ is sufficient for all men therefore no men are lost is as absurd as the assertion that because the grain produced in the year 1880 was sufficient to support the life of all men on the globe therefore no men died of starvation during that year. The mere fact that Jesus Christ made satisfaction for human sin, alone and of itself, will save no soul. Christ, conceivably, might have died precisely as he did and his death have been just as valuable for expiatory purposes as it is, but if his death had not been followed with the work of the Holy Spirit and the act of faith on the part of individual men, he would have died in vain. unless his objective work is subjectively appropriated, it is useless so far as personal salvation is concerned." - W.G.T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology
If this is what Calvinist really teach then I do not want it.
"Atonement is unlimited, and redemption is limited. This statement includes all the scriptural texts: those which assert that Christ died for all men, and those which assert that he died for his people." - W.G.T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology
"The difference between the Calvinist and the Arminian appears at this point. Both are evangelical in affirming that salvation is solely by faith in Christ's atoning blood. This differentiates them from the legal Socinian, who denies the doctrine of vicarious atonement and founds salvation from condemnation on personal character and good works. But they differ regarding the origin of faith. The Calvinist maintains that faith is wholly from God, being one of the effects of regeneration; the Arminian, that it is partly from God and partly from man. The Calvinist asserts that a sinner is unconditionally elected to the act of faith and that the Holy Spirit in regeneration inclines and enables him to the act, without cooperation and assistance from him. The Arminiian asserts that a sinner is conditionally elected to the act of faith and that the Holy Spirit works faith in him with some assistance and cooperation from him." - Shedd
Atonement must be distinguished from redemption. The latter term includes the application of the atonement. It is the term redemption, not atonement, that is found in those statements that speak of the work of Christ as limited by the decree of election." - Shedd
It seems as if Shedd is clearly saying that Christ died for all but only his death is applied for a small group of people (The elect). Logically speaking then this makes Shedd a 4 pointer not a 5 pointer.
If this is what Calvinist really teach then I do not want it.
"Atonement is unlimited, and redemption is limited. This statement includes all the scriptural texts: those which assert that Christ died for all men, and those which assert that he died for his people." - W.G.T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology
"The difference between the Calvinist and the Arminian appears at this point. Both are evangelical in affirming that salvation is solely by faith in Christ's atoning blood. This differentiates them from the legal Socinian, who denies the doctrine of vicarious atonement and founds salvation from condemnation on personal character and good works. But they differ regarding the origin of faith. The Calvinist maintains that faith is wholly from God, being one of the effects of regeneration; the Arminian, that it is partly from God and partly from man. The Calvinist asserts that a sinner is unconditionally elected to the act of faith and that the Holy Spirit in regeneration inclines and enables him to the act, without cooperation and assistance from him. The Arminiian asserts that a sinner is conditionally elected to the act of faith and that the Holy Spirit works faith in him with some assistance and cooperation from him." - Shedd
Atonement must be distinguished from redemption. The latter term includes the application of the atonement. It is the term redemption, not atonement, that is found in those statements that speak of the work of Christ as limited by the decree of election." - Shedd
It seems as if Shedd is clearly saying that Christ died for all but only his death is applied for a small group of people (The elect). Logically speaking then this makes Shedd a 4 pointer not a 5 pointer.
Even as Believers we continue to sin and stand in need of God's forgiveness
"It is indeed true that there is no one passion ceaselessly driving us to distraction. Anger does not always burn, evil desire does not always rage, we are not constantly tormented with envy, but one of these succeeds the other. When they all sleep, then languor and sloth do not sleep. If you are strenuously active, then pride awakens. As I have most truly said, just as we are not without the flesh, so we do not work without the flesh. So we are neither free of carnal faults, ...nor do we act without them. Latomus constructs an extremely stupid syllogism on the basis of a singular or particular premise when he argues thus: Sometimes a passion is quiescent; therefore sin is not in every good work. He ought to have said: Sometimes all are quiescent, and sin is entirely dormant. This is impossible, for sin is a living thing in constant movement changing as its object change. that there is indeed no sin in sleep is to be ascribed to the grace of God, not to nature. I mean by this that it is not because of the absence of the use of reason that there is then no sin which is condemned. The fact that we cannot sleep in purity is sin. Why have we not remained in that uprightness in which we could have slumbered purely and done only what is pure? The drunkard is not excused by his drunkenness if he sins because of it. Why did he not remain sober? Thus nothing is forgiven us for our own sake, nothing is pure because of us, but only because of the grace and gift of God. What excuses the unbaptized infants who are eternally damned?" - Martin Luther, Against Latomus
Thursday, May 14, 2015
Determinism
"There are some Christians, even some who have been raised in Presbyterian homes and churches, who dislike the idea of determinism. These people, to varying degrees, have been infected with the Arminian notion of a free will, a will independent of God. But the Confession is not afraid of determinism. Note carefully that the effectual or effective call occurs by God's 'renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus powerful than any alleged physical determinism. the sinner comes 'freely,' i.e. voluntarily, not in spite of but because of the fact that God controlled his will and made him willing.
The reason it is so necessary to insist on divine determinism and to rebut any doctrine of a will free and independent of god's causative power is that man since the fall is dead in sin, cannot will to accept Christ, and is wholly dependent on grace. Thus section ii not only ties in with section I, but also depends on chapter VI." - Gordon H. Clark, What Do Presbyterians Believe?
The reason it is so necessary to insist on divine determinism and to rebut any doctrine of a will free and independent of god's causative power is that man since the fall is dead in sin, cannot will to accept Christ, and is wholly dependent on grace. Thus section ii not only ties in with section I, but also depends on chapter VI." - Gordon H. Clark, What Do Presbyterians Believe?
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Answer to an objector.
The other day in responding and defending the truth about saving faith I had said, "It is not that anyone is saying that demons are saved it is that when a lordshiper says mentions the demons to those who say that we are saved by belief alone without works they (the lorshiper) insist that demons believe and are not saved. But question, is belief in monotheism even salvific? No. Even muslims believe that their deity is monotheistic. What is saving faith? Saving faith is belief in the gospel of Christ and this is what the demons do not believe, and they certian cannot believe it because Christ did not die for them."
In response to this someone had replied and said this:
Actually, this misses what the "God is one" phrase is -- a reference to the shema. As Jews, one of the central statements of orthodoxy (then and today) is that "God is one" and so it's a way for James to say "you're orthodox", and as such is much more than a simple affirmation of monotheism.
Secondly, a bare affirmation of monotheism makes no sense because of whom James is comparing to the demons -- professing Christians. If these people in the churches to whom James was writing were only making an affirmation of monotheism and nothing else, then James wouldn't be saying "you do well", he'd be saying "repent and believe in Jesus". It only makes sense if these people were saying "we're completely orthodox in the beliefs we affirm, but we do not need to have works accompanying that faith". There's a parallel being made between the "faith" of the work-less Christians and the state of the demons, which is destroyed by the notion that James is simply referring to monotheism, because James would recognize that bare monotheism alone doesn't save, only a true saving faith in Jesus saves. Instead, James' point is that true faith is accompanied by works, something that sets it apart from whatever level of apprehension of truth the demons have (whatever that level of apprehension may be)."
I would like to respond to this here since I cannot actually respond to it directly.
First, "Actually, this misses what the "God is one" phrase is -- a reference to the shema. As Jews, one of the central statements of orthodoxy (then and today) is that "God is one" and so it's a way for James to say "you're orthodox", and as such is much more than a simple affirmation of monotheism."
How does this miss the point? Of course God is one is in reference to the shema. I do not think I said it was not. The shema is one if not the central statements of their orthodoxy. However, the Jews do not believe that God is one is essence and three in person. And since James is perhaps writing to a predominately Jewish Believing people. Like the Jews these people probably believed in other things and likewise with the demons (certainly they believed in wrong things). But let us take James at his word and not read into the text what James could have written merely believing that God is one does not save anyone.
Second, "a bare affirmation of monotheism makes no sense because of whom James is comparing to the demons -- professing Christians. If these people in the churches to whom James was writing were only making an affirmation of monotheism and nothing else, then James wouldn't be saying "you do well", he'd be saying "repent and believe in Jesus". It only makes sense if these people were saying "we're completely orthodox in the beliefs we affirm, but we do not need to have works accompanying that faith". There's a parallel being made between the "faith" of the work-less Christians and the state of the demons, which is destroyed by the notion that James is simply referring to monotheism, because James would recognize that bare monotheism alone doesn't save, only a true saving faith in Jesus saves. Instead, James' point is that true faith is accompanied by works, something that sets it apart from whatever level of apprehension of truth the demons have (whatever that level of apprehension may be)."
First of all I need to ask a question to this person. What else is there to do besides believing in the Gospel that will save someone? Obviously this writer has taken up issue with the corpus of the Bible which says believe (nothing else is added here) on the (Propositional truths) Jesus and you will be saved.
Second just to be clear James is writing to Christians. And he is writing on the subject of Christian living. However, that said none of what you have written has any baring on whether James should have written on Monotheism or not. James is writing against someone who professes to believe.
Third you also need to understand the objectors ideas in verses 18-19 "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 19Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble."
The objector says that James has faith and the objector has works. Then ask James to show the objector his (James) faith without works, and the objector will show James his faith by works. The objector says that James believes that there is one God (This is not a gospel proposition) even the devils believe this and mock.
The point is that James is not denying that faith is intellectual and assent. Merely professing belief does not save. However, by faith does one do good works.
apprehension of truth does not save however assenting to the truth does.
In response to this someone had replied and said this:
Actually, this misses what the "God is one" phrase is -- a reference to the shema. As Jews, one of the central statements of orthodoxy (then and today) is that "God is one" and so it's a way for James to say "you're orthodox", and as such is much more than a simple affirmation of monotheism.
Secondly, a bare affirmation of monotheism makes no sense because of whom James is comparing to the demons -- professing Christians. If these people in the churches to whom James was writing were only making an affirmation of monotheism and nothing else, then James wouldn't be saying "you do well", he'd be saying "repent and believe in Jesus". It only makes sense if these people were saying "we're completely orthodox in the beliefs we affirm, but we do not need to have works accompanying that faith". There's a parallel being made between the "faith" of the work-less Christians and the state of the demons, which is destroyed by the notion that James is simply referring to monotheism, because James would recognize that bare monotheism alone doesn't save, only a true saving faith in Jesus saves. Instead, James' point is that true faith is accompanied by works, something that sets it apart from whatever level of apprehension of truth the demons have (whatever that level of apprehension may be)."
I would like to respond to this here since I cannot actually respond to it directly.
First, "Actually, this misses what the "God is one" phrase is -- a reference to the shema. As Jews, one of the central statements of orthodoxy (then and today) is that "God is one" and so it's a way for James to say "you're orthodox", and as such is much more than a simple affirmation of monotheism."
How does this miss the point? Of course God is one is in reference to the shema. I do not think I said it was not. The shema is one if not the central statements of their orthodoxy. However, the Jews do not believe that God is one is essence and three in person. And since James is perhaps writing to a predominately Jewish Believing people. Like the Jews these people probably believed in other things and likewise with the demons (certainly they believed in wrong things). But let us take James at his word and not read into the text what James could have written merely believing that God is one does not save anyone.
Second, "a bare affirmation of monotheism makes no sense because of whom James is comparing to the demons -- professing Christians. If these people in the churches to whom James was writing were only making an affirmation of monotheism and nothing else, then James wouldn't be saying "you do well", he'd be saying "repent and believe in Jesus". It only makes sense if these people were saying "we're completely orthodox in the beliefs we affirm, but we do not need to have works accompanying that faith". There's a parallel being made between the "faith" of the work-less Christians and the state of the demons, which is destroyed by the notion that James is simply referring to monotheism, because James would recognize that bare monotheism alone doesn't save, only a true saving faith in Jesus saves. Instead, James' point is that true faith is accompanied by works, something that sets it apart from whatever level of apprehension of truth the demons have (whatever that level of apprehension may be)."
First of all I need to ask a question to this person. What else is there to do besides believing in the Gospel that will save someone? Obviously this writer has taken up issue with the corpus of the Bible which says believe (nothing else is added here) on the (Propositional truths) Jesus and you will be saved.
Second just to be clear James is writing to Christians. And he is writing on the subject of Christian living. However, that said none of what you have written has any baring on whether James should have written on Monotheism or not. James is writing against someone who professes to believe.
Third you also need to understand the objectors ideas in verses 18-19 "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 19Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble."
The objector says that James has faith and the objector has works. Then ask James to show the objector his (James) faith without works, and the objector will show James his faith by works. The objector says that James believes that there is one God (This is not a gospel proposition) even the devils believe this and mock.
The point is that James is not denying that faith is intellectual and assent. Merely professing belief does not save. However, by faith does one do good works.
apprehension of truth does not save however assenting to the truth does.
But the devils also believe?
"Manton definitely asserts, 'The devils also believe; that is, assent to this truth and other truths revealed in the word.' Of course they do: They believe that Eve yielded to their temptation; no doubt they believe that Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt. But to suggest that they believe all other truths revealed in the Word goes beyond James' text, and contradicts other parts of Scripture.
Manton continues. 'Bare assent to the articles of religion doth not infer true faith.' Here the weasel word is 'bare.' Does he mean a mere nodding of the head? Probably not, for the devils' belief or assent is more than that. It is difficult to guess what Manton's psychology of 'bare' assent is. The truth that saving faith produces works does not advance the argument. To say that true or saving faith (since belief in a falsehood is true or genuine belief) produces works does not imply that faith is other than assent. Why should not assent produce works? It produced trembling. But if 'bare' assent is not identified with assent minus works, then Manton assigns no meaning to the word on which he so much depends." -Gordon H. Clark, What is Saving Faith?
Manton continues. 'Bare assent to the articles of religion doth not infer true faith.' Here the weasel word is 'bare.' Does he mean a mere nodding of the head? Probably not, for the devils' belief or assent is more than that. It is difficult to guess what Manton's psychology of 'bare' assent is. The truth that saving faith produces works does not advance the argument. To say that true or saving faith (since belief in a falsehood is true or genuine belief) produces works does not imply that faith is other than assent. Why should not assent produce works? It produced trembling. But if 'bare' assent is not identified with assent minus works, then Manton assigns no meaning to the word on which he so much depends." -Gordon H. Clark, What is Saving Faith?
Monday, May 11, 2015
In the Greek to believe in is to believe that
"Then too some preachers who have had a year or two of Greek make allegedly scholarly remarks about a difference between a New Testament belief and a pagan Greek belief. Better scholars, Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, and Rudolph Bultmann, have these things to say:
Two pages later they write,
To translate or to summarize a little, these three language scholars said: To believe in is equivalent to believe that. To believe in Christ Jesus simply means to believe that Jesus died and rose again. In John especially to believe in and to believe that are constantly used interchangeably." - Gordon H. Clark, Faith and Saving Faith
From a purely formal standpoint there is nothing very distinctive in the usage of the NT and early Chr. writings as compared with Gr. usage . . . . Pisteu eis is equivalent to Pisteuein oti . . . 'to regard as credible, as true.' Pisteuein eis Christon Ihsoun (Col. 2:16), eis auton and eis eme (often in Jn.) etc, simply means Pisteu ein oti Ihsous apethanen kai aneoth . . . . In Jn. esp. Pisteuein eis and Pisteuein are constantly used interchangeably in the same sense. [Note: Cf. also Ac. 8:37E. . . .] This is proved also by the poss. expression Episteuthh (sc. Ihsous Christos, 1 Tim. 3:16) and the fact that Pistis is equivalent, not to Pistis c. dat., but to Pistis c. gen. obj . . . .
Two pages later they write,
Pisteuw often means to believe God's words. Belief is thus put in Scripture (Jn. 2:22), in what is written in the Law and the prophets (Ac. 24:14), in what the prophets have said (Lk. 24:25) . . . in Moses and his writings (Jn. 5:46f), also in what God is saying at the moment, e.g., through an angel (Lk. 1:20, 45; Ac. 27:25). [See also pages 208 and 222.]
To translate or to summarize a little, these three language scholars said: To believe in is equivalent to believe that. To believe in Christ Jesus simply means to believe that Jesus died and rose again. In John especially to believe in and to believe that are constantly used interchangeably." - Gordon H. Clark, Faith and Saving Faith
Believing in is simply believing that
". . . Some people find a great difference between believing a person and believing in him. there is no doubt a difference, but it is quite different from the difference these people think they have in mind. Attentive readers who read their publications will conclude that very likely they have nothing in mind, for they regularly avoid stating what the difference is. Let us use a human example, for if we begin by talking about believing in God, our sense of piety may deceive us. Any ordinary instance will do. I meet a stranger on the plane and we begin to talk. His conversation indicates that he is a chemical engineer. Somewhere along the line he remarks that a certain chemical process does so and so. I believe him; I accept his statement as true. But I do not for that reason believe in him. He may be a scoundrel. Occasionally engineers are. On the way home I sit next to some legal matter. But now I not only believe this one statement: I believe in him because I believe that anything he will tell me in the future, especially if it concerns law, will be true. I believe he always tells the truth and always will. Of course, since he is a sinner, he may make a mistake. But when we believe in God, we believe that he will never make a mistake. To believe in is simply a reference to the future beyond the present single statement." - Gordon H. Clark, Faith and Saving Faith
Sunday, May 10, 2015
Existentialist deny logic
"The chief source of failure is the subjectivity of Existentialist epistemology. Existentialism is an extreme form of romanticism. Its ideal is a wartime Faust. The values of life are considered superior to the values of thought. Unfortunately, in opposing life to thought Existentialism dares not have any concept of life, for that would be thinking. Thinking depends on the relation of a subject to a predicate, and the goal of the Existentialists is to rise above this distinction. This is a denial of all knowledge and truth, and if there is no knowledge in general, obviously there can be no knowledge of morality in particular.
The same impossible epistemology is found among the non-atheistic, so-called Christian Existentialists also. They may even not wish to be known as Existentialists, but their rejection of rationality and logic is the same. In particular, along with Friedrich Nietzsche they reject or at least set limits to the law of contradiction. To argue logically for a certain distance is acceptable, but there comes a point where faith must curb implication, and that must be accepted which contradicts earlier assertions." - Gordon H. Clark, Secular Philosophy found in the Works of Gordon Haddon Clark volume 7
The same impossible epistemology is found among the non-atheistic, so-called Christian Existentialists also. They may even not wish to be known as Existentialists, but their rejection of rationality and logic is the same. In particular, along with Friedrich Nietzsche they reject or at least set limits to the law of contradiction. To argue logically for a certain distance is acceptable, but there comes a point where faith must curb implication, and that must be accepted which contradicts earlier assertions." - Gordon H. Clark, Secular Philosophy found in the Works of Gordon Haddon Clark volume 7
Saved by assenting to the propositions of the Gospel
This is really interesting. Saving faith is faith in the propositions of the Gospel. What else could it be? Assenting to the Gospel is in other words believing the Gospel. The Bible says "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? 27She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world." John 11
John 6 says "Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. 27Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. 28Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent."
"63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him."
Do you think the Bible is lying here?
"And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." - Acts 8
Your example does not offer up anything. The question is if assenting or believing the truth of the Gospel does not save then what else is needed?
"The further question as to the components of faith regards the status of fiducia. The Apostle said, if thou shalt believe, thou shalt be saved. But to assent to the good news is to believe. What else can be required?
A Latin dictionary may throw some light on the terminology. The Latin word fides, translated faith, means: trust (in a person or thing), confidence, reliance, credence, belief. The Latin word fiducia means: trust, confidence, reliance, assurance. This reduces the old analysis of faith to a tautology: faith is composed of knowledge, belief, and faith. Or we might retranslate it: Confidence is composed of knowledge, assent, and confidence. Clearly therefore the listing of fiducia as a component of fides is not very enlightening." - Gordon H. Clark, What Do Presbyterians Believe?
John 6 says "Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. 27Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. 28Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent."
"63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him."
Do you think the Bible is lying here?
"And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." - Acts 8
Your example does not offer up anything. The question is if assenting or believing the truth of the Gospel does not save then what else is needed?
"The further question as to the components of faith regards the status of fiducia. The Apostle said, if thou shalt believe, thou shalt be saved. But to assent to the good news is to believe. What else can be required?
A Latin dictionary may throw some light on the terminology. The Latin word fides, translated faith, means: trust (in a person or thing), confidence, reliance, credence, belief. The Latin word fiducia means: trust, confidence, reliance, assurance. This reduces the old analysis of faith to a tautology: faith is composed of knowledge, belief, and faith. Or we might retranslate it: Confidence is composed of knowledge, assent, and confidence. Clearly therefore the listing of fiducia as a component of fides is not very enlightening." - Gordon H. Clark, What Do Presbyterians Believe?
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
Sanctification is not a process but it is definite act of God
"For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 2For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. 3But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. 4For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." - Hebrews 10
The focus is on Hebrews 10:6-10 in this section, however, I added verses 1-5 for context.
"Note that 'sanctified' is in the perfect tense (indicating a complete work) and the passive voice (indicating a work of God, not man). Just as Christ's offering was once for all, so is the setting apart (consecration) of God's elect. Kistemaker writes, 'The verb [been sanctified] indicates that at a given moment someone acted on our behalf to sanctify us, and we have become pure.' Delitzsch adds, 'In [God's] will we are or have been once for all sanctified.' What does this mean in practice?
Invariably in Hebrews, sanctification is the once-for-all act of consecration by which God 'sets aside' the believer from a profane and empty way of life to serve and glorify the living God. Peter describes the sequence of God's saving work in the soul of man. We are, he says, (1) 'elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,' (2) 'in sanctification of [or by] the Spirit, (3) 'for obedience [to the gospel] and' (4) 'sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ' (1 Peter 1:2).
The New Testament writers usually thought of sanctification as that work of the Holy Spirit in which he delivers an individual from the authority of darkness and translates him into the kingdom of Christ (Col. 1:13). For example, Paul reminds the Corinthians that they had once lived in rebellion against God, then adds, 'Such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God' (1 Cor. 6:11, emphasis added). The believer's sanctification is not so much a thing that he must strive towards, as an accomplished work of grace by which he is obligated to live for God (1 Cor. 6:19-20)." - Edgar Andrews, A Glorious High Throne
The focus is on Hebrews 10:6-10 in this section, however, I added verses 1-5 for context.
"Note that 'sanctified' is in the perfect tense (indicating a complete work) and the passive voice (indicating a work of God, not man). Just as Christ's offering was once for all, so is the setting apart (consecration) of God's elect. Kistemaker writes, 'The verb [been sanctified] indicates that at a given moment someone acted on our behalf to sanctify us, and we have become pure.' Delitzsch adds, 'In [God's] will we are or have been once for all sanctified.' What does this mean in practice?
Invariably in Hebrews, sanctification is the once-for-all act of consecration by which God 'sets aside' the believer from a profane and empty way of life to serve and glorify the living God. Peter describes the sequence of God's saving work in the soul of man. We are, he says, (1) 'elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,' (2) 'in sanctification of [or by] the Spirit, (3) 'for obedience [to the gospel] and' (4) 'sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ' (1 Peter 1:2).
The New Testament writers usually thought of sanctification as that work of the Holy Spirit in which he delivers an individual from the authority of darkness and translates him into the kingdom of Christ (Col. 1:13). For example, Paul reminds the Corinthians that they had once lived in rebellion against God, then adds, 'Such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God' (1 Cor. 6:11, emphasis added). The believer's sanctification is not so much a thing that he must strive towards, as an accomplished work of grace by which he is obligated to live for God (1 Cor. 6:19-20)." - Edgar Andrews, A Glorious High Throne
"11And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 15Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." - Hebrews 10
"We next notice that perfection attaches to 'those who are being sanctified'. What does this mean? It can be taken in one of two ways. It might refer to a process of sanctification ('progressive sanctification') in which the believer grows more Christ-like with the passage of time; or it could simply mean that Christ makes perfect those whom he first sanctifies or sets apart ('positional sanctification'). The words translated 'those who are being sanctified' (NIV and NKJV) or 'them that are sanctified' (AV and others; almost all older translations use this simple present tense) mean literally ' the sanctified'. Young's Literal Translation renders it: '... he hath perfected to the end those sanctified.'
Because 'sanctified' is a present participle in the original Greek, many authorities today represent sanctification as an ongoing process rather than an accomplished fact. However, it would be more consistent with general New Testament usage if the Writer is employing the present tense to signify ' those who are now in a state of sanctification'.
This, I believe, is the correct interpretation. Only four verses earlier (10:10), Hebrews clearly refers to the believer's sanctification as a completed work, accomplished by Jesus' death upon the cross. It is unlikely that the Writer now wishes to teach that sanctification is an ongoing and as yet incomplete process. Indeed, the idea that believers are being made more holy with the passage of time would sit uncomfortably with the primary statement of this verse, namely, that the elect have been perfected for ever by the death of Christ." - Ed Andrews, A Glorious High Throne
"We next notice that perfection attaches to 'those who are being sanctified'. What does this mean? It can be taken in one of two ways. It might refer to a process of sanctification ('progressive sanctification') in which the believer grows more Christ-like with the passage of time; or it could simply mean that Christ makes perfect those whom he first sanctifies or sets apart ('positional sanctification'). The words translated 'those who are being sanctified' (NIV and NKJV) or 'them that are sanctified' (AV and others; almost all older translations use this simple present tense) mean literally ' the sanctified'. Young's Literal Translation renders it: '... he hath perfected to the end those sanctified.'
Because 'sanctified' is a present participle in the original Greek, many authorities today represent sanctification as an ongoing process rather than an accomplished fact. However, it would be more consistent with general New Testament usage if the Writer is employing the present tense to signify ' those who are now in a state of sanctification'.
This, I believe, is the correct interpretation. Only four verses earlier (10:10), Hebrews clearly refers to the believer's sanctification as a completed work, accomplished by Jesus' death upon the cross. It is unlikely that the Writer now wishes to teach that sanctification is an ongoing and as yet incomplete process. Indeed, the idea that believers are being made more holy with the passage of time would sit uncomfortably with the primary statement of this verse, namely, that the elect have been perfected for ever by the death of Christ." - Ed Andrews, A Glorious High Throne
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)