The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Falling away from what?

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Any time someone tells me that Romans 7 is about a preconversion experience of Paul, I must say that I doubt the reality of their conversion.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>(Fred) This is really a side issue, but I believe Romans 7 is speaking of Paul's pre-conversion experience with the law. I stand in fairly good company on this seeing that D.M. Lloyd-Jones, Robert Reymond, Douglas Moo, and Thomas Schriener are a handful of the many Calvinistic theologians who also believe that is what the text is describing. I hope that you wouldn't doubt their salvation! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/laugh.gif" alt="laugh" title="laugh[/img]<br><br><br>Fred

Costello:<br><br>Seconding Joe's thoughts and reinforcing those of one of the quotes from Gill as follows:<br><br>"The “all” design not the apostles only, who were given to Christ as such; for these did not all, in a spiritual manner, come to him, and believe in him; one of them was a devil, and the son of perdition; much less every individual of mankind: these are, in some sense, given to Christ to subserve some ends of his mediatorial kingdom, and are subject to his power and control, but do not come to him, and believe in him:"<br><br>What is interesting here is that many "come to Him" but of those, if you read the scriptural accounts, including the parable of the sower, many have a "temporary faith" and thus "believe for awhile". There is a difference between a natural faith and a spiritual God given faith. The old Puritan divines, including Gill, were careful to distinguish between natural and spiritual faith, the one being the product of man and the other the product of the Holy Spirit's seed in the soul of man giving new, spiritual life.<br><br>In Him,<br><br>Gerry

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Hi Jason, My belief is that for someone who is saved the possibility is there that they can lose that in one of two ways. One way, and the quickest, is to simply renounce Jesus Christ as Savior and proclaim Him an imposter. This would be committing the unpardonable sin and what John spoke of. <br>(1Jo 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. )</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>What about Peter's three denials of Christ? Not quite the same situation, but did he lose his salvation, even for a moment? Furthermore, there's nothing to suggest that a person who is saved can commit the unpardonable sin. Only unsaved people were ever accused of having committed it.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I would say that it is extremely rare for that to happen. One case might be Ananias and Sapphira. They trusted the god of mammon, more than the Word of the Lord and consequently lied about their gift. Since scripture does not record anything else about them we can not know if they were saved or not or how they came to be a part of this company. Another case is Simon the sorcerer. He appears to have effectively been saved, (Acts 8:13) but when he attempted apostasy by offering Peter money was told “Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.” (v21)</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I would suggest that the faith they exhibited was the kind without works which James rebuked. It is a faith that does not save.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]The other way, which is the slow way, is for a person to just drift away from his walk and relationship with the Lord and His people, eventually returning to their old ways and habits. What happens to this person is not for the Church to decide apart from someone getting a specific word of the Lord as how to deal with them. We are to be always seeking to restore such a one, and as long as there is some action and repentance on their part, they can be restored. (Mat 18:22; Isa 42:3)</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Again, what I said above would very easily apply in this situation.

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]It is a payment of price with the intention to recover something. It is to buy up for ones own use. There is nothing in that definition that includes imputed righteousness. Every sinner is redeemed but only those who receive it, will benefit from it in the sense of salvation, but redeeming the sinner was also necessary for God to be able to punish them.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>The redeemed are delivered from sin and the punishment it incurs---DELIVERED. Those who are not elect/unsaved can in no wise be said to have been delivered from anything. They remain in bondage to sin and incur the punishment due them.<br><br><blockquote>[He] gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds (Titus 2:14, NASB).</blockquote><br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]It is like a number of prisoners having an outstanding debt at the bank you can’t pay. Someone else makes a huge deposit and says “just call the bank and ask them to transfer my money to your account, I told them to do it for any one who calls.” You have to make the call to clear the debt and be freed from prison, if you don't make the call, you serve the term and then are deliverd to the redeemer anyway because he had bought you.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>This example is just not making sense to me. In the first place, you make salvation ultimately dependent upon the work of man, again. "You have to call for this money to be transferred to your account." No, but Christ has already transferred the money to the account of the redeemed, and that is not dependent upon call we make. Then also those who are not redeemed will be delivered over to God as judge and jailer, not to Christ as Redeemer.

Fred:<br><br>Yes, it is a "side issue" but it is a related one, and I must say that I feel quite good about the company of men who did hold to Romans 7 as a post conversion experience. Since you are more theologically educated than I, perhaps you would like to supply the list? For example, would it include, Calvin? Luther? Edwards? Bunyan? Owen? <br><br>Gerry

I freely admit, although I have read alot, but have not read any of Calvin's or Arminius' works. But I do have a good friend who studied them whilst in Bible College (something his teacher hadn't even done.) He came to a startling conclusion: both men say almost the exact same thing. Both talked about the twin truths of divine election and human responsability/action. Calvin stressed divine election more, and Arminius stressed human responsability/action more, but the truth is, they both taught both because BOTH ARE TAUGHT IN SCRIPTURE.<br><br>Read John 6:37-40:<br><br>37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. <br>38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. <br>39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. <br>40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. <br><br>Go read vs. 37 again: there is "divine election" written all over this verse. Same thing with vs. 39. The message is clear: God chooses people, and those He chooses will never be lost. Now read vs. 40. "Every one." This is an open invitation! Hello, human responsability and action. Welcome to our program.<br><br>John MacArthur said as much in "The Gospel According to Jesus." I forget the exact quote, but it refers to the above passage and comes to the only sane conclusion: Jesus affirms both divine election and human action. There is no way around it. Both are true. And as MacArthur aptly put it, it's a "mystery." Plain and simple.<br><br>I could dig into a bunch of other Scripture to continue this, but I think this is enough to get some gears turning and shed a bit of light on this excellent discussion.

Henry;<br><br>I'm glad you made this post because it does bring out the important issue of human responsibility. No true believer, or proponent of the doctrines of grace, denies the reality or importance of human responsibility. What true calvinists contend though, is that the FIRST CAUSE of a man's move toward God, and the continuance in that move and perserverance therein, is always God. Thus, God, not man gets the glory, always and forever.<br><br>In his sermon: "The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners" one of 5 sermons that Edwards credited with being most used in, and honored of God in, the initiation of the great awakening of 1735, Edwards made the following statement:<br><br>"2. There is certainly a great deal of difference between a forced compliance<br>and a free willingness. Force and freedom cannot consist together. Now<br>that willingness, whereby you think you are willing to have Christ for a<br>Saviour, is merely a forced thing. Your heart does not go out after Christ of<br>itself, but you are forced and driven to seek an interest in him. Christ has<br>no share at all in your heart; there is no manner of closing of the heart with<br>him. This forced compliance is not what Christ seeks of you; he seeks a<br>free and willing acceptance, “Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power.”(Psalm 110:3.)<br><br>He seeks not that you should receive him against your will, but with a free<br>will. He seeks entertainment in your heart and choice. And if you refuse<br>thus to receive Christ, how just is it that Christ should refuse to receive<br>you! How reasonable are Christ’s terms, who offers to save all those that<br>willingly, or with a good will, accept of him for their Saviour! Who can<br>rationally expect that Christ should force himself upon any man to be his<br>Saviour? Or what can be looked for more reasonable, than that all who<br>would be saved by Christ, should heartily and freely entertain him? And<br>surely it would be very dishonourable for Christ to offer himself upon<br>lower terms. — But I would now proceed:<br><br>2ndly, To show that you are not willing to have Christ for a Saviour. To<br>convince you of it, consider:<br><br>1. How is it possible that you should be willing to accept of Christ as a<br>Saviour from the desert of a punishment that you are not sensible you<br>have deserved? If you are truly willing to accept of Christ as a Saviour, it<br>must be as a sacrifice to make atonement for your guilt. Christ came into<br>the world on this errand, to offer himself as an atonement, to answer for<br>our desert of punishment. But how can you be willing to have Christ for a<br>Saviour from a desert of hell, if you be not sensible that you have a desert<br>of hell? If you have not really deserved everlasting burnings in hell, then<br>the very offer of an atonement for such a desert is an imposition upon<br>you. If you have no such guilt upon you, then the very offer of a<br>satisfaction for that guilt is an injury, because it implies in it a charge of<br>guilt that you are free from. Now therefore it is impossible that a man who<br>is not convinced of his guilt can be willing to accept of such an offer;"<br><br>I think it's important to notice that Edwards says that Christ wants man's free, willing, acceptance of him, and that he focuses on the games we play with ourselves and God, when we don't really believe that we deserve hell, nor can we, until He shows us by eyes made alive spiritually in the new birth, the utter sinfulness of sin, and the unspeakable beauty of the Saviour. To use another scriptural analogy, Christ seeks a bride that is all aflame with love and desire for Him, not some reluctant woman who walks the isle to escape a prison or one who only wants his material riches, no, the true bride relishes Him, loves Him, and is never satisfied when He is absent, she desires the one true object of her love, her perfect saviour and redemer and friend and prophet, priest and king.<br><br>Yes, man indeed has a will but it is bound up in death, darkness, blindness until God, by His sovereign choice, opens the eyes of the blind that they might see.<br><br>In Him,<br><br>Gerry <br>

You know Joe I think costello's mistake was in quoting a Calvinist. Perhaps if he had researched about Gill he would have thought twice? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rofl.gif" alt="rofl" title="rofl[/img]

Not true and foul! I am not selective in the theological label of a commentator. I know he is a Calvinist. I know Pink is a Calvinist, he writes good stuff and reading his commentary is what started me wondering about this whole thing.<br><br>It just happens, much to your surprise apparently, that the selection I quoted made exactly the point I wanted to convey. Pardon would be available to the Pharisees, if they would but confess their blindness. This answers to Owens’s argument that the first case can not be true. Christ did die for all the sins of all men; else how could the savior say “ye should have no sin”? But their sin remains unpardoned because they say they see.<br><br>The three passages Joe posted do not “indict” my error. He merely fills out the reasons why they would not confess their blindness, but he does not contradict himself or change the final meaning of the passage I quoted. That is, it was within the Savior’s ability to pardon them because he would bear their sins on the cross as well as ours who receive that pardon which they reject. <br>

Good post Henry. Thank you. Divine election does not leave us without responsibly and certainly not without accountability. He can not hold us accountable for what we are not first responsible.<br><br>Rom 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.<br><br>If there is going to be error in our understanding of these things, I think it safer to error on the side that gives us the greater sense of personal responsibility. That is where our greatest dependence is put on the Lord. And that is where he gets the greatest glory. He will certainly do His part. It is much more doubtful whether we will do ours. But ours is so important.<br><br>Reading this passage really touched me yesterday. <br><br>Jdg 16:28 And Samson called unto the LORD, and said, O Lord GOD, remember me, I pray thee, and strengthen me, I pray thee, only this once, O God, that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines for my two eyes. <br>Jdg 16:29 And Samson took hold of the two middle pillars upon which the house stood, and on which it was borne up, of the one with his right hand, and of the other with his left. <br>Jdg 16:30 And Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines. And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life. <br>Jdg 16:31 Then his brethren and all the house of his father came down, and took him, and brought him up, and buried him between Zorah and Eshtaol in the buryingplace of Manoah his father. And he judged Israel twenty years. <br><br>“he bowed himself with all his might and the house fell.” All Samson’s might was probably but a small fraction of the force that it took, but THAT is what God used.<br><br>“There is a lad here, with a few small fishes, but what is.” “Make the men sit down.”<br><br>Lord, I believe. Help thou mine unbelief. <br>

costello<br><br>If your understanding of what Gill said is correct, I would have to say that Gill would be contradicting almost every other Calvinist commentator on the subject. It also goes against Calvinist teaching on the subject, so if he actually believes those things (as you interpreted him) he couldn't be called a "Calvinist".<br><br>If you have done much reading on Gill, you will find that he is a strong proponent of Calvinism. So much so that he has been accused of being a hyper-Calvinist (falsely I believe). So I find it highly unlikely that your interpretation of him is correct.<br><br>Tom

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]It just happens, much to your surprise apparently, that the selection I quoted made exactly the point I wanted to convey. Pardon would be available to the Pharisees, if they would but confess their blindness. This answers to Owens’s argument that the first case can not be true. Christ did die for all the sins of all men; else how could the savior say “ye should have no sin”? But their sin remains unpardoned because they say they see.</font><hr></blockquote><p> The idea expressed was to show them that they could not even repent because of their blindness unless God initiated things first! Who is the one that initially heals blindness FIRST before one may see--John 3:1-9.<br><br><blockquote> 2 Timothy 2:24-26 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.</blockquote><br><br>PS you still have not answered my other question????<br><br>

Yes, it is a "side issue" but it is a related one, and I must say that I feel quite good about the company of men who did hold to Romans 7 as a post conversion experience. Since you are more theologically educated than I, perhaps you would like to supply the list? For example, would it include, Calvin? Luther? Edwards? Bunyan? Owen? <br><br>(Fred) I am not completely sure where each of those guys stood on the issue. I think most of them held to a post conversion view of Romans 7 because of their covenantalism and the fact that classic Arminianism held the opposite view. However, the reasons Arminius held to a pre-conversion view was driven more by his particular theology, rather than the actual context of what Paul is arguing in Romans 6-8. I would further say that the reason those who hold to a post-conversion view of Romans 7 is also due to theological consideration, rather than contextual. I held tenaciously to the post-conversion view until I studied and taught the book of Romans, and then I was convinced of the position that Paul is discussing a Jewish wrestling to be righteous under the law before Christ came (pre-conversion). Robert Reymond has an appendix in his theology outlining several reasons why he holds to pre-conversion before Christ. Moo also has a compelling discussion in his commentary on Romans.<br>Personally, I think trying to relate a person's understanding of Romans 7 to the issue of what Costello is arguing is artificial. If a person insists upon the "traditional" Calvinistic, post-conversion view of Romans 7, then there is going to be a need to defend it against the position of most confused Arminians who mix justification and sanctification. I don't think a person needs to go that route.<br><br><br><br>Fred

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]If there is going to be error in our understanding of these things, I think it safer to error on the side that gives us the greater sense of personal responsibility.</font><hr></blockquote><p>I agree and disagree at the same time. You are right in saying, right after this above statement, that our responsibility is so important, but I don't think it is safer to be in error on the side that de-emphasizes the work of God in a person's life. Personally, I think it is safer to give God too much glory, if that is possible, than to not give Him enough.<br><br>I go to this Bible study on Monday nights, and we started a study of James. This verse really stuck out to me and goes along with what I have just said.<blockquote>[color:green]Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creation.</font color=green> James 1:18 (ESV)</blockquote>James is here writing and saying that we, we being Christians, were created by God in worship to God. Let me rephrase that in case it is misunderstood. God created mankind as an act of worship to Himself. Or another way, God was worshipping Himself when He created people. And the firstfruits are the Christians, hence why James says we. Christians are this kind of firstfruits. <br><br>I quoted that to say that if God creats things as an act of self-worship, than who are we to take away glory from God or to give less emphasis on God's work to give man a larger sense of meaning? Man's meaning is simple, as the Westminster Larger Catechism states, [color:purple]"Man's chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy Him forever."</font color=purple> Fully being a very key word in that statement. To glorify God and completely enjoy Him. We can't completely enjoy God if we are not emphasising Him and what He does.

Not to sound like I am being technical or anything, and someone PLEASE correct me if I am wrong, but in some sense, didn't Jesus die for all sins of all men because every kind of sin was payed for on the cross?