Creeds divide!

Today some creeds and statements of faith that are so broad they include almost anyone -- and therefore are virtually useless. But historically, the main purpose of creeds has been to exclude those who don't agree with "us". Anyone who doubts this, should study church history and see when various creeds have been written, what they have said with reference to theological controversies of the time, and what effect they had.

One of the "last straws" that finally precipitated the split between the Western and Eastern churches (what later became the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches) was the West's insistence on adding to the Nicene creed the so-called "filioque" (or "from the Son") clause, which said that the Holy Spirit "proceedeth from the Father AND THE SON." The Eastern churches did not agree with this evaluation of the relation of the "persons" in the "Godhead", and did not like the Western church making it a "test of faith", so they left.

I have my doubts that the ones in this forum who are most in favour of having creeds and statements of faith would themselves be able to assent to the whole of the Nicene creed, which is one of the oldest in Christianity. Near the end it says, "I acknowledge one Baptism FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS."

The so-called Apostles Creed MAY be older (although the original form of the Nicene Creed was produced at the Council of Nicea in 325, while the earliest exact text of the Apostle's Creed dates from about 400). It is certainly simpler. But even though I could assent to most of it, I would have trouble with one clause. It says that Christ, "descended into Hell." That may have happened. I don't know. But I don't find that doctrine stated clearly enough in the Bible to say that I definitely believe in it, or to feel that it shoud be made a test of fellowship.

If someone else and I agree to take the Bible itself as the final standard, we may differ widely in our interpretations, but at least we have a basis for dialogue, especially if we BOTH agree to amend our opinions if we find them to be contradicted by the Scriptures. But if either side insists that Bible interpretation must be tested by how well it fits with a creed, statement of faith, or any other "authorised" interpretation of the Scriptures (whether written or only "understood"), or even with that person's subjective experience, then we have no real basis for discussion and no hope for achieving any understanding.

As I understand it, this is the original reason why the Restoration Movement resisted accepting any other creed than the Bible itself. (Another reason being that there is no authorisation in the Bible for creating any such creeds.)

Benjamin A. Rees

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

Answers

Very nice post Ben. You summed up beautifully the frustration of creeds...i.e., "which one?"

Thanks!

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

Hello, Benjamin:

Creeds (or rather, in our case a 'statement of faith', have never been a big issue in our church, since we use only the Scriptures to guide us. When someone is going to join, however, we give an outline of our basic beliefs, for them to determine whether they can agree with it. Then their responsibility is to give a statement of their belief or conversion experience to the Board of Elders.

They are not automatically members, (even though they may be members of the 'body of Christ, by virtue of what He has done, not according to what THEY have done, other than to believe); much prayer and seeking of God's will is then done before the Board and the pastor come to an agreement on a person's request to become a member.

We are not 'beating the bushes' for members, by the way ~ other than we are getting out the Gospel so that individuals can become members of the true church ~ the Body of Christ. We require this examination before anyone can preach or teach, however.

Now, someone mentioned that we are not witnesses to Christ's crucifiction, so we are not really witnesses, but the 'witnessing' I am referring to (in another thread) is such as one would give in a court of law ~ an account of one's personal experience ~ how Chrict impacted one's own life.

If a propective member cannot remember his/her conversion, because they were saved at a very early age, then a statement of their belief is what is required. We have several immersions monthly.

I know that the Nicene Creed has that statement and most of Christendom has rejected it. The 'one baptism' they refer to is into the Roman Catholic Church, is it not? I believe the 'one baptism' is into Christ, by virtue of His death, shedding of blood and resurrection. One cannot reconcile the different positions, if one thinks it is a physical baptism, because then each group's beliefs that theirs is the only correct one has to be thrown out.

We have finite minds, but God will reveal His position to His sheep, who hear His voice.

In Christ, not because of anything I have done, other than believe Him) but because of what He has done for me.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

The early creeds (Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian) served a very important purpose: to distinguish true Christianity from the various cults and heresies that had arisen in that day. Therefore they brought, or attempted to bring, the body of Christ together as one. Modern creeds usually tend to be exactly the opposite, separating one denomination from another, dividing the body of Christ.

Benjamin, I think they based the phrase, "descended into hell" on two passages of scripture, Ephesians 4:9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? [Hades usually being understood, at least by the Greeks, as a lower region, an underworld]) and 1 Peter 3:19-20 (through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago ...) -- which interestingly segues into a discussion on baptism. (The way I understand these verses, when Jesus died he descended spiritually into Hades, that part that Jesus describes in his tale of Lazarus and the rich man as "Abraham's Bosom," not to suffer, as the Word-Faith cultists claim, but to proclaim his victory there.)

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

John W.:

What do the Word-Faith Cults believe? I had never heard of them.

I also remembered a place where Christ descended into Hades? Hell? but I couldn't find it in my Bible, so then I thought maybe it was because I HAD seen the Apostles Creed someplace (but not at my church).

Thanks.

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2000

Well, I don't want to go into their entire theology here, that would be a whole other thread. But on the subject of Jesus' descent into Hell, they believe that Jesus' atonement for our sins didn't end on the cross, that he suffered for 3 days in Hell until he was finally "born again." It's sheer and utter blasphemy.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

Also, FYI, the Word-Faith cults include teachers such as Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, Frederick Price, John Avanzini, Benny Hinn, Paul Crouch, et.al. Basically most of the people you see weekdays on TBN (the Travesty Blaspheming Network).

I once saw Price trance-channeling Jesus live on TBN ... that was enough for me, brother! Off went TBN, forever!

I found a good site that outlies some of their other heretical beliefs at http://home.computer.net/~cya/cy00052.html.

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2000

John and Connie:

Many have concluded that the descent into Hell is out of order in the Apostles Creed, and occured while Christ was yet on the cross. If Hell consists primarilly in being without any fellowship with God, the words "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" along with the hours of darkness in the middle of the day are more of a Hell on earth than the other possibilities. It is also consistent with the doctrine that Christ suffered our penalty while on the cross; which is not just physical death, but the righteous anger of God against sin.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2000

Connie (and whoever else is interested) -

The whole "Word-Faith" thing is explained in "Christianity in Crisis" by Hank Handegraaf (sp?). It is actually a balanced treatment of the whole subject, in spite of what TBN et al said about it.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2000

I'm in the process of reading a book which talks about the various creeds and how they came about. The author makes an interesting statement, which is relevant here. Many of these creeds, specifically the Nicene (Apostles)Creed, was formulated as a way to combat a SPECIFIC heresy that was active at the time. The Apostles Creed was a way to combat gnosticism, which denied that Jesus had been born in the flesh. This is the importance of the phrase "born of the virgin Mary." The original emphasis was on "born" (as of flesh), not of "virgin" or "virgin Mary," which is where we moderns choke on it.

As I have always understood it, the reference to "hell" in this creed did not refer to the hell of punishment, but to hades, the place of the dead. This phrase, "descended into hell" does not mean Jesus suffered any punishment, but that He physically died like every other human being and was then resurrected through the power of God. John was right when he made reference to "Abraham's Bosom." That is what the statement in the Apostles Creed refers to.

-- Anonymous, April 07, 2000

Connie, I'll respond to this "on-forum" since it is something you said "on-forum". You said, above,

"I know that the Nicene Creed has that statement and most of Christendom has rejected it. The 'one baptism' they refer to is into the Roman Catholic Church, is it not? I believe the 'one baptism' is into Christ, by virtue of His death, shedding of blood and resurrection. One cannot reconcile the different positions, if one thinks it is a physical baptism, because then each group's beliefs that theirs is the only correct one has to be thrown out."

(1) The Nicene creed says, "I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins."

"One baptism" -- From the Bible: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism", Ephesians 4:5

"For the remission of sins" -- From the Bible: "Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38. (NIV -- KJV has "for the remission of sins")

(2) As for connecting this with the Catholic Church, the Nicene Creed was first drafted at the Council of Nicea (hence the name), which was called in 325 by the Emperor Constantine, and was put in pretty much its present form at the Council of Constantinople in 381. By this time the church had already made some big steps in the direction of what became the Roman Catholic Church, but one of the "giant steps" in that direction was the official recognition of Christianity as the religion of the Roman Empire, by Emperor Constantine himself. It took numerous further steps before it crystalised into the Roman Catholic Church as it was when Luther and the other Reformers rebelled against it.

Although the status of the bishop of Rome had been gradually elevated over the years, by the time of these two councils, the Roman bishop had not yet achieved full "papal" status (notwithstanding Roman Catholic claims of an unbroken line of popes from Peter onward). Leo I (440-461) and Gelasius I (492-496) were the first to formulate the doctrines of papal supremacy and papal infallibility that the church teaches today. And it was not until Gregory I (590-604) that the pope really achieved the kind of authority that the Roman bishops had been claiming for themselves. Even then, this was not accepted by the Eastern wing of the church, which was another of the reasons for the split in 1054. (BTW, this Gregory is the one who gave his name to Gregorian chant.)

The doctrine of baptism was still in flux at the time the Nicene Creed was written. They had already begun to accept sprinkling in certain cases, and I think they had begun to baptise babies. But Constantine himself delayed his own baptism until near the time of his death because of a common belief at his time that while ALL sins could be forgiven at the time of baptism, not all sins committed afterward were so easily forgiven.

There is abundant evidence that up to this time and right up to the time of Calvin, the common understanding was that baptism was a requirement for sins to be forgiven and a person to be saved. There is no evidence that I am aware of that anyone, except possibly a few fringe cultic groups like the Gnostics, held any other view -- until the time of Calvin.

One thing I find ironic about this is that the modern Evangelical view that baptism is a "work" and therefore cannot possibly have anything to do with our salvation is largely based on Calvin's idea of God predestining individuals to salvation or damnation. If God has chosen you, nothing you choose to do yourself can have any part in the process. But Calvin's ideas are based on Augustine's. And I understand that one of the arguments Augustine based this view on was the "baptism" of infants. Since "baptism" (actually sprinkling by this time, I believe, though I've heard that the Eastern Orthodox churches actually immerse infants) was a requirement for forgiveness of sins, but the infant could not choose whether to be baptised or not, this was evidence of God predestining some to be saved and others not to be. Augustine was also probably greatly influenced by his own "conversion experience", in which he felt he had been called by God against his own will.

(3) When you say, "most of Christendom has rejected it", I'm not sure if by "it" you mean the Nicene Creed, or the teaching that baptism is a requirement for salvation. Either way, I doubt if that is true. The Nicene Creed is still printed in many hymnbooks and recited, sometimes weekly, in many "mainstream" churches. As for the teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation, "most" (though not all) of the churches that are usually classified as "Evangelical" have rejected it, but they are still not the majority of "Christendom" as a whole. Then there are those very liberal churches that deny that there is any heaven or hell and therefore any need for salvation. But I believe that the majority of "Christendom" as a whole, still believes that "baptism" is for the remission of sins. They may have differing "methods of baptism", and do it at different ages, but I think I'm correct in saying that the majority of those in the world today who believe in Jesus Christ and claim to be "Christians" do believe that some form of "baptism", at some stage in life, is a requirement for salvation.

-- Anonymous, April 08, 2000

My thanks to those of you who tried to clarify for me what was meant by Jesus' "descent into hell."

My problem was less with understanding what it means or knowing what Bible verses were used to support it than with (a) the fact that it seems to mean different things to different people, as your responses have shown, and (b) the fact that the doctrine is NOT clearly spelled out in scripture. Depending on how you interpret the phrase and how you interpret the verses (none of which are crystal clear), the verses might support the doctrine or might do no such thing. I don't think a doctrine should in any way be made any kind of "test of faith" or "test of fellowship" unless it is a whole lot clearer than this -- which is one reason why it's best not even to have creeds.

Dr. Jon, I would find the view you proposed easiest to accept IF that was what EVERYONE understood it to mean. But as you have seen, many don't. Also, I really doubt if that meaning was what was originally intended. Along with the clauses immediately before and after, it says, "... suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, diead, and buried; He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven ...."

If all that it originally meant was that he died, why repeat it again and out of sequence? It seems to mean that after he died he actually descended into hell or at least into "hades" -- but which? And for what purpose? I have an opinion, but it is only an opinion and I think each person should be free to make up his/her mind on something both as unclear and as non-essential as this.

-- Anonymous, April 08, 2000

Benjamin:

Thank you for your scholarly information. It is helpful to know the background.

We all, all who are Christians, have the Apostles (but more than that, the Christ) from which to claim our faith has descended. I have fortunately been spared until now, the divisiveness sometimes attendant to theological discussions.

The people attending our church are Christians, with strong faith in Christ, but who have come out from all different denominations, or none, but who have a oneness of Spirit, because of our knowledge of what Christ has done for us.

So I feel that our church is a microcosm of the larger church ~ the Body of Christ.

We may disagree on different matters, but we respect each others' opinions, as you do. And you have a lot of knowledge and access to information which many of us (me, included) do not have. You also have a gift for teaching. And you have made use of that gift by studying to show yourself approved unto God, a workman who needs not to be ashamed.

The thing is, we are going to have differences of opinion. In other words, I have just come to a MORE solid belief that Christ's shed blood and death on the cross are the only thing which could possibly have saved me from my sins ~ nothing that I could do, other than to believe and accept it.

So where does that place our fellowship? I personally love and accept you. But I am getting the feeling that if I don't agree with the CoC position on baptism, then I am not accepted by you; indeed you may even doubt that I am a Christian. This is amazing to me, given my words of testimony about what has happened in my life.

Is NO ONE a Christian who doesn't agree with your position? Does EVERYONE have to agree with the CoC position to be saved? If so, then THAT is really divisive.

In Christ, bacause of His Death, Shed Blood and Resurrecton, not my filthy rags.

-- Anonymous, April 08, 2000

Also, I went back and re-read some of the posts, and John W.'s of April 5th had a reference to some verses which I found VERY interesting. (I've posted these before, on another thread.)

I Peter:19,20: Actually, I'm going to include those verses that John said these 'segue'' into: (18, 21 and 22): [AMPLIFIED]

18: For Christ, the Messiah, [Himself] died for sins once for all, the Righteous for the unrighteousness -- the Just for the unjust, the Innocent for the guilty -- that He might bring us to God. In His human body He was put to death but He was made alive in the Spirit,

19: In which he went and preached to the Spirits in prison,

20: [The souls of those] who long before in the days of Noah had been disobedient, when God's patience waited during the building of the ark in which a few [people], actually eight in number, were saved through water.

21: And baptism, WHICH IS A FIGURE [OF THEIR DELIVERANCE], DOES NOW ALSO SAVE YOU [FROM INWARD QUESTIONINGS AND FEARS], NOT BY THE REMOVING OF OUTWARD BODY FILTH (BATHING), BUT BY [PROVIDING YOU WITH] THE ANSWER OF A GOOD AND CLEAR CONSCIENCE [INWARD CLEANNESS AND PEACE] BEFORE GOD, BECAUSE YOU ARE DEMONSTRATING WHAT YOU BELIEVE TO BE YOURS] THROUGH THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST.

22: [And he] has now entered into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with [all] angels and authorities and powers made subservient to Him.

KJV/ASV:

21: The like figure whereunto EVEN BAPTISM DOTH NOW ALSO SAVE US, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh) {C.:sin?} but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) BY THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST.

NAS:

21: And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you -- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, {C.:sin?} but an appeal to God for a good conscience -- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Baptism saves us through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, not by the bodily cleansing of sin. It is a 'figure' -- figurative -- campared to the figure of Noah's being saved through being on the ark in water.

We are demonstrating what we believe by being baptized. Similar to what Isaac Errett said.

-- Anonymous, April 08, 2000

Benjamine Rees wrote, "One thing I find ironic about this is that the modern Evangelical view that baptism is a "work" and therefore cannot ossibly have anything to do with our salvation is largely based on Calvin's idea of God predestining individuals to salvation or damnation."

Do you agree that if predestination is true, then baptism and any other work of obedience comes after salvation by grace through faith?

Romans 8:29-30 "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified."

Calvin didn't invent predestination. He reminded the church that God is in charge, as is clearly taught in the scriptures. Notice that each step is an act of God, and not of man. And since God does it for unworthy sinners, it is entirely grace if we are among those predestined, and called, and justified, and glorified. Your position, that we must qualify for grace by our obedience; is not grace at all, but a works-based salvation that is not supported by scripture.

-- Anonymous, April 08, 2000

Something I heard recently fits with the disputes on this forum.

The church body can be a lot like Noah's Ark. The stench would be unbearable if it were not for the storm raging outside.

-- Anonymous, April 08, 2000

Amen, dbvz:

There must be something good about this place. It seems quieter and more a forum for discussion and respectful debate than it has been.

What a relief!

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2000

"As I have always understood it, the reference to "hell" in this creed did not refer to the hell of punishment, but to hades, the place of the dead. This phrase, "descended into hell" does not mean Jesus suffered any punishment, but that He physically died like every other human being and was then resurrected through the power of God. John was right when he made reference to "Abraham's Bosom." That is what the statement in the Apostles Creed refers to." -- Dr. Jon F. Dewey

Did you mean to say that Jesus did not suffer any punishment for our sins? Or that the punishment was his physical suffering and death? Or that the phrase in the creed is not about the punishment he received on our behalf? I believe the most severe punishment was being forsaken by God the Father while on the cross, and could only be endured because he is both God and man.

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2000

No, that reference does not mean that Jesus did not suffer any form of punishment for us. His death WAS punishment. His separation from God when the sins of the world were put upon him was punishment. Hades is not punishment. It is a place of waiting. I think the problem here is the concept of hell. I think it is a mistake to replace the original idea of hades or Abraham's Bosom (a place of waiting until the final judgment) with hell or the Lake of Fire (the place of eternal torment). They are two totally different concepts.

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2000

As it turns out, today we had Part two of a series on the subject:"Hell: Is It Really As Bad As They Say?"

The Scripture references are: Matthew 7-13; John 10:10; John 14:6; Proverbs 14:12; Luke 16:19-31; II Thessalonians 1:8,9; Luke 13:22- 28; and II Corinthians 5:18-21.

The message was that 'Hell is VERY bad' and we had better be out telling the 'Good News' to anyone who will listen. This is the Hell of eternal separation from God, not a cozy spot to wait.

-- Anonymous, April 09, 2000

"dbvz" (Do you have a name? Or could you, as Connie puts it, "buy some vowels"? It's very hard to remember the right letters and right sequence.) --

Anyway, I am aware of the Scripture verses that use the word "predestine" (and its cognates). So in one sense, you are right, Calvin did not "invent" predestination. But Calvin's interpretation is far from being the only way to understand those verses. (For some other views, see GOD'S STRATEGY IN HUMAN HISTORY by Roger T. Forster and V.Paul Marston, with foreword by F.F. Bruce, 1973, Tyndale, Wheaton; ELECT IN THE SON, A Study of the Doctrine of Election, by Roger Shank, 1970, Westcott, Springfield, MO.; and WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT SALVATION, by Virgil Warren, 1982, College Press, Joplin, MO.)

Calvin and Augustine between them did "invent" the particular interpretation of predestination which does great disservice to the character of both God and man, and blighted the lives of many, particularly in past centuries, who longed to be part of the church -- who really did believe in Jesus Christ and wanted to obey him -- but lacked a "conversion testimony" that was satisfying to the churches that examined them. So they were taught -- and believed -- that they were eternally damned!

Fortunately that phase of Calvinistic practice seems to have faded away, but the teaching that no action on the part of man can have anything to do with his salvation still prevents many from accepting Christian baptism, even though the Bible clearly teaches that it is one human step that God commands of those who wish to accept the free gift he offers through Jesus Christ. Unlike Connie, who was immersed, even though I believe she misunderstood the Biblical reason for being immersed, I have known a number of people who actually REFUSE to be immersed because they think it would show a lack of faith in God -- that if they were to do so they would be trusting in "works" rather than in Christ (even though this is something that the Bible commands)!

My HOPE is that God will have mercy on those who have been so misled by their teachers as to take this position, but there is no clear promise that I can find that this will be so. The promises (e.g. in Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16) are that those who believe, repent AND are immersed in water will have their sins forgiven and be saved. Those who do not believe are clearly condemned. For those who believe and repent but are not immersed, there is a grey area that God has not chosen to tell us clearly. For people in this category I have hope but no confidence.

-- Anonymous, April 10, 2000

Connie, I think you misunderstood what I said. There is a huge difference between hades/Abraham's Bosom, and hell/The Lake of Fire. At no time did I imply "a cozy spot to wait." But what must be understood is that there is a difference in hades between where the righteous dead and the unrighteous dead.

The clue to this differenciation is Jesus' telling of the rich man and Lazarus. It must be noted from the outset that this is NOT a parable. Parables always are in a specific format. This telling is not in that format, and is a narrative given as one with personal knowledge of the history. The rich man went to the place of torment. Lazarus went to Abraham's Bosom, the place of the righteous dead.

The whole point of the "descended into hell" reference is that there is a tradition that Jesus went to Abraham's Bosom, preached the good news to the righteous Jews who were there, and took them lock stock and barrel to where He now resides. (There is a vague reference to this in Scripture too, but I am not able to look it up at this second.) Abraham's Bosom is empty; it is not a place of waiting any longer.

The place of torment is still there, and is still a place of waiting for the final judgment AND of torment/punishment. But it is not the FINAL punishment. That is the lake of fire, and that is the final place for the unrighteous AFTER the final judgment. But no one goes to the lake of fire as of this point.

I agree with you that hell is no joke, and will be horrible. But let's not confuse apples for oranges here. This reference is NOT to the lake of fire.

-- Anonymous, April 10, 2000

Dr. Jon:

Please forgive my hyperbole. (I think that expression can be said to be 'hyperbole').

Thank you, also, for your explanation. I have been 'asleep in the pews' for too long, and just woke up a year ago. I have been a typical suburban matron, a Christian, and good-works doer, who hasn't been studying the way I should have.

Some of these concepts, while I knew of them, really were not 'on the front burner' of my brain. Now they are. So I have a lot of catching up to do.

I am thankful for the knowledge imparted from all of you, even the ones who are a little rough.

The distinction being made between 'hades', 'hell', 'Abraham's Bosom',etc., and what is actually described in Scripture is helpful to know.

Are the unbelievers consigned to the 'Lake of Fire' AFTER the Judgment Seat judging?

-- Anonymous, April 10, 2000

Bejamin:

That 'funny' was actually asked by, I think, Mark Wisniewski. The one about 'buying some vowels'. Others may remember better than I do.

Whoever said that also said it must be a Hebrew name, because of no vowels. dbvz, please forgive our talking about your 'handle'.

The really rude comments are by the ones making fun and calling you BVDs.

-- Anonymous, April 10, 2000

Dr. Jon:

As I re-read what you wrote, I want to clarify what I said.

I personally would consider 'Abraham's bosom' a cozy spot to wait. The 'hell' referred to ~ the eternal 'Lake of Fire' punishment and separation from God ~ is the terrible place to avoid, and to try to get others to understand what is in store for them, if they don't repent, believe and accept Christ as Savior and Lord. And ultimately, confess, be baptized and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

-- Anonymous, April 10, 2000

Dr. Jon-without-an-H:

The clue to this differenciation is Jesus' telling of the rich man and Lazarus. It must be noted from the outset that this is NOT a parable. Parables always are in a specific format. This telling is not in that format, and is a narrative given as one with personal knowledge of the history.

Would you please support this idea? I have heard it often, and have tended to disagree with it, but have not seen or read the scholarly work behind it. If what you say is so, then I would have to guess that other "parables" are also not, but are in fact narratvies of actual events. For instance, the two immediately preceding it (the prodigal son and the shrewd manager), and one that follows closely behind (the persistant widow), all start essentially the same way as Lazarus. Does this mean that they are also narratives of actual events?

-- Anonymous, April 10, 2000

Connie,

It wasn't me looking for vowels - with my last name, I don't Need no "stinkin' vowels"..........:~)

To answer you question, I think that the casting of souls into the Lake of Fire occurs after the final judgment. Hades, Paradise or whatever you want to call it is merely a "holding tank" for the dead until the Judgment. However, I feel (per the Lazarus & Rich Man Account) that there is a "good" & a "bad" side of Hades which cannot be crossed. Which pretty much makes the final Judgment merely a Formality.

That kinda illustrates the fact that, for those outside of Christ, there is no happiness and no respite in either in this life, the life to come, nor in the "transition stage" of Hades.

-- Anonymous, April 10, 2000

Sam,

I am not Jon, but, even if it is a parable, what difference would it make. Parables were always based on things as they are, i.e., real life situations. Even if Lazarus and the Rich man is a parable, it is a situation that is real.

I do not have time to say much, but I do disagree that Hades is as it was when Jesus told of Lazerus. When He rose from the dead he took those in the righteous portion of Hades with Him. I did a study and have taught this a couple of times which is available free (for a love offering of just $29.95, just kidding) at www.954access.net/users/jscott/Dead.htm. See especially the section on Jesus after the Cross which is near the end of the study. The study is hardly exhaustive but should throw a couple of other thoughts into the arena. Gotta go to Miami now.

-- Anonymous, April 10, 2000

Let me give some explanation on why I think The Rich Man and Lazarus could be a real event, not a parable. These are not exhaustive evidences, but I think you can get my line of thinking from them.

1. Parables all have a format that explains the Kingdom of God/Heaven.

Examples:

The Parable of the Weeds (Matt. 13:24)  The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed

The Parable of the Mustard Seed (Matt. 13:31)  The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed

The Parable of the Hidden Treasure (Matt. 13:44)  The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field

The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant (Matt. 18:23)  Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants.

The Parable of the Growing Seed (Mark 4:26)  He also said, This is what the kingdom of God is like.

2. A parable never mentions anyone specifically by name. It is always a man, a farmer, etc.

Examples:

Parable of the Sower (Matt. 13:3)  Then he told them many things in parables, saying: A farmer went out to sow his seed.

Parable of the Lost Sheep (Matt. 18:12)  What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep

Parable of the Tenants (Matt. 21:33)  Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard.

Also Mark 12:1  He then began to speak to them in parables: A man planted a vineyard.

Parable of the Great Banquet (Luke 14:16)  Jesus replied: A certain man was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests.

Parable of the Lost Son (Luke 15:11)  Jesus continued: There was a man who had two sons.

3. The Rich Man and Lazarus story is not about the kingdom, and it names specific individuals (two by name). It also has details that are lacking in the majority of the parables, naming places, specific events, and specific conversation.

a. While the story begins with the generic rich man, it suddenly deviates to naming Lazarus (a specific beggar) who has a disease (covered with sores) and is in a specific predicament (living at a gate, licked by dogs). b. When both die, Lazarus goes to the specific place where Abraham is (vs. 22). The rich man also goes to a specific place, but it is a place of torment (vs. 23). c. The rich man is able to see both Lazarus and Abraham as recognizable people. d. The rich man and Abraham have a detailed conversation, which gives details about their locations (vs 24-26).

Again, this is not an all-inclusive argument, and I am willing to concede that point d is a little shaky. But this is what makes sense to me. This passage could be a parable in a different format. Here is another view of this verse:

Because Scripture does not call this word from Christ a parable and because names are used, some have concluded this is not a parable but an actual historical incident. Whether it can be considered a parable or an incident does not alter the teaching. The unrighteous are eternally separated from God. They are in torment. They remember the opportunities they had which they rejected. They are conscious of their lostness. Their state is unalterable and eternal.  (J. Dwight Pentecost, The Words and Works of Jesus Christ)

-- Anonymous, April 10, 2000

Benjamine Rees wrote, "Fortunately that phase of Calvinistic practice seems to have faded away, but the teaching that no action on the part of man can have anything to do with his salvation still prevents many from accepting Christian baptism, even though the Bible clearly teaches that it is one human step that God commands of those who wish to accept the free gift he offers through Jesus Christ. Unlike Connie, who was immersed, even though I believe she misunderstood the Biblical reason for being immersed, I have known a number of people who actually REFUSE to be immersed because they think it would show a lack of faith in God -- that if they were to do so they would be trusting in "works" rather than in Christ (even though this is something that the Bible commands)!"

Which shows that a doctrine based in biblical truth can be taken to an extreme where it is no longer truth at all. I have not argued that we can refuse to obey; but only that salvation occurs first. If a delay or inability to be baptized immediately is not the result of disobedience, I don't see where salvation as described in the Bible is at issue. Where you read that baptism is what is necessary for the forgiveness of sins, most of the rest of the Christian world reads that the sacrifice of Christ which is symbolized in baptism is what is necessary for the forgiveness of sins. As I noted before, I see no resolution to this difference of opinion on how to interpret the critical passages of the Bible; but the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit.

What I have tried to say several times is that I believe some on this forum have expressed their view of the requirement to be baptized, which is a biblical truth, in such an extreme way that it comes in place of or as a condition for the grace of God. In order to reconcile salvation by grace through faith (taught throughout the Bible) and the control and initiative of God in that process (taught also throughout but especially in Romans); with the command to be obedient, and to be baptized, and to live by the Law of Love, etc. takes more systematic study and understanding than seems to have been applied here. Where you read baptism MEANS immersion, I read grace MEANS we can do nothing to earn or merit or qualify for salvation. When you make obedience in the matter of baptism the cause or method or process by which sins are forgiven and salvation is realized, it is no longer "grace" as most of us understand the Bible to mean when "grace" is used. I have no problen with baptism being the necessary consequence of salvation, and that is how I understand all the verses that have been used to describe it as the necessary cause of salvation. I don't see any other logical resolution that can reconcile salvation by grace, and the requirements that flow out of that grace.

I noted that in the description of what the church believes, it is stated that salvation is not earned or merited, etc.; so I know you understand grace the same way I do. What I have been attempting to point out is that the most extreme position on the necessity of baptism as a condition or qualification for salvation and forgiveness, is inconsistent with that understanding of grace. I don't believe God has lied to us, or described salvation by grace as a trick to cause the unaware to miss out on heaven. It really is all grace.

-- Anonymous, April 10, 2000

I wonder ... (just musing) ... is the place of torments in hades more of a torment now? I mean, before, they could see the righteous in Abraham's bosom, and that was agonizing enough ... but now when they look across all they see is a big empty space.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

"DBVZ",

As you suggested some time ago, I went back and re-read what Paul says about grace and works in Romans and Galatians. I also looked at Ephesians 2, Hebrews, James, and various other relevant passages. What I find them saying (especially the extended passages in Romans and Galatians) is that there is no way that we can ever "earn" or "merit" or "deserve" to be saved by God. Therefore, the only way for us to be saved is for God to extend his grace to us.

But what is grace? In the traditional definition, grace is "unmerited favour." Since there is no way whatsoever that we can possibly earn or deserve to be saved by God, for God to accept ANYTHING LESS than what would earn salvation is still grace. God could impose very stringent conditions on us, and it would still be grace, because we would still not deserve what he is giving us.

Since God does choose to extend grace and to save people, even though we do not deserve it, there seem to me to be three ways he might do it.

(1) He might choose to save everyone. Universalists say that this is what he has done. The Bible seems to disagree.

(2) He might arbitrarily choose some to be saved and some to be lost. This is the essence of the Calvinistic interpretation of predestination, but that is far from being the only possible interpretation of what the Bible says about predestination, and it does not seem to me to fit what the Bible says about God's love and God not wishing anyone to perish, but wishing that all would come to repentance.

(3) He could impose some conditions which would allow for man to make the choice of whether to accept His grace and be saved or not. These conditions could be very easy or very difficult, and it would still be grace, since none of us deserve this from God. Almost everyone (except the universalists) agrees that God has made one condition, i.e. faith. Most would even allow for one or two more (i.e. repentance and confession). Why do so many balk at saying that one simple act, immersion in water, is also required? It doesn't make it any less by grace.

The very passages, in Romans and Galatians, that speak most strongly of salvation being by grace and not by works, also point to baptism (immersion) as the dividing line between those who have new life in Christ (Romans 6) and those who do not, and between those who have "put on Christ" (Gal. 3:27) and those who haven't. [The word in Greek in Gal. 3:27, HOSOI, which is translated "all of you who" (NIV) or "as many of you as" (KJV and RSV), carries the idea of measurement -- "up to this amount" or "to the extent that".]

I know that one reason some people balk at accepting that baptism is a pre-condition for salvation is because it is a physical act and the Bible says we are not saved by "works." It is true that the broadest definition of "work" can include any physical act. But is that what Paul meant by "work" when he said it? When a husband says to his wife, at 8:30 in the morning, "Honey, I'm going to work now", do we think he means that he has performed no physical action whatsoever that day up to the time that he says, "I'm going to work"? Obviously not! We understand that he is using the word "work" with a more limited meaning. So what did Paul mean by "work" in these passages? In many of the verses, he specifically says, "works of the law", i.e. the Mosaic Law. In many others, he doesn't even use the word works, he says that we cannot be saved by the Law. From this I am led to conclude:

(1) We cannot be saved by obedience to the Mosaic Law.

(2) Since the reason he gives for why we cannot be saved by the Mosaic Law is that it only serves to make plain our imperfections, and that since we are imperfect there is no way that we can "deserve" or "earn" salvation, I assume that the same would apply to any system under which men seek to "earn" or "deserve" salvation by our own efforts.

(3) In the absence of any other evidence, I MIGHT conclude that it also applies to ANY human action -- that there is no physical act that we can do that can have anything to do with our salvation. Certainly this would be true if it was our own idea, e.g. "God, I know I'm not worthy, but if I can just do this really important thing that would be of such benefit for your Kingdom, that should be enough for you to accept me. After all, it is better than anyone else has done!" But there is other evidence. There is evidence that God himself does have a few simple conditions for accepting the gift he has prepared for us. One, which we all agree on, is faith. Another, according to Romans 6; Gal. 3:27; Acts 2:38; John 3:5; I Peter 3:21 and other passages, is immersion.

As Scott Sheridan and John Wilson have pointed out in the "Sincerity" thread, God has chosen to extend to us a "covenant" of grace. But a covenant always has terms; two of the terms for entering into this covenant of grace with God are that we must have faith, and must put the "seal", so to speak, on the covenant by being immersed.

A lot of what I've said and what others have said could be applied to circumcision as well. It is one single and simple act (not as simple as baptism, but relatively so); and it is done to you, rather than something that you yourself expend effort in doing. So why does Paul denounce the circumcision party so strongly? He answers this himself in Gal. 5:3-4 -- "I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that HE IS OBLIGATED TO OBEY THE WHOLE LAW. You who were trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." Circumcision was the "seal of acceptance" of the Old Testament covenant of law (works); immersion in water is the "seal of acceptance" of the New Testament covenant of grace.

I no more "earn" or "deserve" salvation by being baptised than I "earn" a friend's gift of $1000 by endorsing the check he has given me. But it is still required that I endorse the check and present it to the bank before I can take possession of the money, and God requires that we be both have faith and be immersed before we take possession of his free gift of eternal salvation.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2000

Well said as always, Ben!

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

Benjamine Rees,

I agree, it was very well said. It is the first time I have seen how you can come to the conclusions you have about baptism as a condition for salvation, and the relationship of that to the grace of God. I still don't agree, but I have a much better understanding of the logic of your position. How do you deal with those verses that indicate that even faith is not of ourselves, but initiated by the Holy Spirit?

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

Benjamin,

For what it's worth, I very much appreciated the way you worded your last post. It was very clear and to the point.

DBVZ,

What verses teach the Holy Spirit is the initiator of faith. Romans 10:17 says that faith comes by hearing the Word of Christ. If you are trying to make Eph 2:8, 9 say the Holy Spirit gives faith, that is a misunderstanding of the verse. The Greek construction of the sentence makes it clear that it is the grace of God that is the gift that is not of ourselves. What other verses do you have?

BTW, how are you doing? Well, I hope.

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

Benjamin;

On April 10 you said:

Calvin and Augustine between them did "invent" the particular interpretation of predestination which does great disservice to the character of both God and man, and blighted the lives of many, particularly in past centuries, who longed to be part of the church -- who really did believe in Jesus Christ and wanted to obey him -- but lacked a "conversion testimony" that was satisfying to the churches that examined them. So they were taught -- and believed -- that they were eternally damned!

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the RM's position on baptism does the same thing ~ people really believe in and trust Christ as Savior and Lord, but the CoCs say that without baptism, one can't be saved, thereby consigning them to hell.

SO MANY verses say, without mentioning baptism or even obedience, or repentance, say that one is saved by faith, with the enabling process of grace. (Unmerited favor ~ from God ~ with faith from us).

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2000

Grace2U Member Posts: 529 Registered: Feb 2000 posted 04-05-2000 09:35 PM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Election is the act of God whereby in eternity past He chose those who will be saved. Election is unconditional, because it does not depend on anything outside of God, such as good works or foreseen faith (Romans 9:16). This doctrine is repeatedly taught in the Bible, and is also demanded by our knowledge of God. To begin with, let's look at the biblical evidence. The Bible says prior to salvation, all people are dead in sin-- spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1-3). In this state of death, the sinner is utterly unable to respond to any spiritual stimulus and therefore unable to love God, obey Him, or please Him in any way. Scripture says the mind of every unbeliever "is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God" (Romans 8:7-8, emphasis added). That describes a state of total hopelessness: spiritual death.

The effect of all this is that no sinner can ever make the first move in the salvation process. This is what Jesus meant in John 6:44, when He said, "No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him."

This is also why the Bible repeatedly stresses that salvation is wholly God's work. In Acts 13:48 we read, "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed."

Acts 16 tells us that Lydia was saved when, " . . . the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul."

Romans 8:29-30 states, "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified."

Ephesians 1:4-5,11 reads, "Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will . . . also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will."

Ephesians 2:8 suggests that even our faith is a gift from God.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:13, the apostle Paul tells his readers, "God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation."

Second Timothy 1:9 informs us that God "has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity."

Occasionally someone will suggest that God's election is based on His foreknowledge of certain events. This argument suggests that God simply looks into the future to see who will believe, and He chooses those whom He sees choosing Him. Notice that 1 Peter 1:2 says the elect are chosen "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father," and Romans 8:29 says, "whom He foreknew, He also predestined." And if divine foreknowledge simply means God's knowledge of what will happen in advance, then these arguments may appear to have some weight behind them.

But that is not the biblical meaning of "foreknowledge." When the Bible speaks of God's foreknowledge, it refers to God's establishment of a love relationship with that person. The word "know," in both the Old and New Testament, refers to much more than mere cognitive knowledge of a person. Such passages as Hosea 13:4-5; Amos 3:2 (KJV); and Romans 11:2 clearly indicate this. For example, 1 Peter 1:20 says Christ was "foreknown before the foundation of the world." Surely this means more than that God the Father looked into the future to behold Christ! It means He had an eternal, loving relationship with Him. The same is true of the elect, whom we are told God "foreknew" (Romans 8:29). That means He knew them--he loved them--before the foundation of the world.

If God's choice of the elect is unconditional, does this rule out human responsibility? Paul asks and answers that very question in Romans 9:19-20. He says God's choice of the elect is an act of mercy. Left to themselves, even the elect would persist in sin and be lost, because they are taken from the same fallen lump of clay as the rest of humanity. God alone is responsible for their salvation, but that does not eradicate the responsibility of those who persist in sin and are lost--because they do it willfully, and not under compulsion. They are responsible for their sin, not God.

The Bible affirms human responsibility right alongside the doctrine of divine sovereignty. Moreover, the offer of mercy in the gospel is extended to all alike. Isaiah 55:1 and Revelation 22:17 call "whosoever will" to be saved. Isaiah 45:22 and Acts 17:30 command all men to turn to God, repent and be saved. First Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 tell us that God is not willing that any should perish, but desires that all should be saved. Finally, the Lord Jesus said that, "the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out" (John 6:37).

In summary, we can say that God has had a special love relationship with the elect from all eternity, and on the basis of that love relationship chosen them for salvation. The ultimate question of why God chose some for salvation and left others in their sinful state is one that we, with our finite knowledge, cannot answer. We do know that God's attributes always are in perfect harmony with each other, so that God's sovereignty will always operate in perfect harmony with His goodness, love, wisdom, and justice.

-- Anonymous, April 14, 2000

Connie,

I just looked in again, and found the question by Scott Sheridan and your very good commentary on the natural state of humanity and the source of our faith. I would add the following verses as additional support.

Acts 3:16. 6:5, 11:24 Rom. 12:3 I Cor. 12:9 Eph. 2:8, 6:23 I Tim. 1:14 Heb 12:2 (this one is special) Jude :3

Some are more direct than others, and I am sure I missed many; but all the above indicate that faith is from God and/or closely associated with the presence of the Holy Spirit. When God works in the hearts of human beings, it is always understood to be the operation of the Holy Spirit who initiates the response of the creation to the authority of God (the Father), and the expression of that authority by the Word (the Son) of His power; so that all three persons of the Trinity are involved in every act of God. But it is the Holy Spirit that is in us, causing us to recognize the call of God and to respond.

Hebrews 12:2 states, "Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfector of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God."

It is certainly clear that our faith does not spring from any natural goodness within us, but that God causes us to respond in faith through the work of the Holy Spirit.

-- Anonymous, April 15, 2000

Hi, dbvz,

I should point out, and should have marked it better, that the post right above yours (of the 15th) are not my words. They are the words of Grace2U, from another forum, but they seemed to fit here.

If I do that again, as I actually did on the 'Faith/Works/Baptism thread, I will note it more pointedly.

-- Anonymous, April 15, 2000

Scott,

Thank you for your inquiry. The eye surgery has left me with much worse vision than before the operation in my left eye. They tell me it will improve in a month or so after the stitches are removed. The pain, swelling, black eye, and bloodshop eyeball are all much better, but the vision is still at the level of legally blind in that eye. My church and family are praying for me, and I trust that God's will will be done in whatever happens next - a confidence that results from my understanding of predestination and the soverignty of God.

You wrote, " If you are trying to make Eph 2:8, 9 say the Holy Spirit gives faith, that is a misunderstanding of the verse. The Greek construction of the sentence makes it clear that it is the grace of God that is the gift that is not of ourselves." I have looked into this a little, and find that all my notes, and the Bible comentary I consulted, do not make the distinction you refer to. The commentary notes this is a "creed-like" statement, that salvation is presented as complete (in the perfect tense). "The whole process is God's doing (as 2 Cor. 5:18 insists), not man's; and it comes to him as a freely offered gift (cf. Rom. 6:23). The reason why there is no room for a human contribution is given: lest any person should make a proud claim, thus subverting the divine soverignty (cf. I Cor. 29-31)." The New Boble Commentary: Revised, Guthrie, Motyer, Stibbs, Wiseman.

I have always read Eph 2:8-9 to include both grace and faith as the free gift of God, and the structure of the sentence certainly seems to imply that. With the instruction of the other texts, it is an interpretation supported elsewhere in the Word of God.

-- Anonymous, April 16, 2000

I guess it is inevitable that we would eventually get to this point -- where we are no longer debating, in itself, the necessity of immersion for salvation, but rather the truth or falsehood of pure Calvinism/Augustinianism whereby God alone chooses, purely arbitrarily, who is saved and who is lost. If you are chosen by God to be lost, it is impossible for you even to believe; you can only believe if God forces you to believe. If human beings can choose whether or not to believe, it is not at all unreasonable for God to "test" their faith by requiring a simple act of initiation followed by a life that is characterised by following God's will to the best of your knowledge and understanding; but if you can only believe if God gives you faith, anything else is simply irrelevant.

This may be one way to reconcile a few "proof texts", taken out of context and often interpreted contrary to the natural sense of the passage, with the masses of Biblical evidence that talk about man's free will and man's responsibility before God, not only collectively but individually, BECAUSE of the free will we have. (Read the opening chapters of Romans with an open mind and especially follow his arguments about why the Gentiles, without the Law, are also sinners and condemned.) But I prefer to take the Bible message as a whole.

I plan to write more about this later, either here or in the "Faith/works/baptism" thread, but it may have to wait until after Resurrection Day. In the meantime, how about the following as one way to reconcile the teaching that God gives faith, with the equally Biblical teaching that man has free will?

Romans 10:14ff -- "How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, 'How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!' But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, 'Lord, who has believed our message?' Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ."

Notice: faith comes from hearing; hearing comes from the word of Christ (or "word of God", KJV). Also, "... how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent?" God gave us his word, God also calls people to go and preach the message, i.e. they are sent by Him. When people hear the word God has given, through the preaching of those He has sent, and they believe, one could say that God has given them the faith they have. But it is still up to them to choose to believe or to disbelieve.

Something else to keep in mind is that the word "faith" (PISTIS) and the word "believe" (PISTEUO) have several different meanings, depending on the context. For example, faith may mean (1) our personal inner trust in God and in Jesus Christ; OR (2) mere mental assent ("the demons also believe, and tremble"); OR (3) a special measure of particularly strong faith (e.g. the "faith that can move mountains"), which is a spiritual gift, and, like all spiritual gifts, is not given to every Christian but only to some; OR (4) the "content" of our faith, i.e. WHAT we believe ("contend for the FAITH once for all delivered to the saints"). And there may be other Biblical uses as well.

As I said in another posting about the word "works" (I've forgotten if it was on this thread or another), it is not enough to say that a word may have a particular meaning and then decide that in every place where it suits your cause to say that it has that meaning, that is the only meaning it could have. (Advocates of "faith only" are fond of pointing out alternative definitions for "baptism" and "water", but want to insist that their definition of "works" [as any physical act] and "faith" [as inward trust] are the only possible definitions of those words in the places where it suits their Calvinistic pre-suppositions to do so.)

It is not enough just to point to "a handful of phrases, taken out of context" that refer to faith as a gift from God, and say that these contradict both plain Bible teaching and human experience about the free will of man and our ability to choose or reject what God offers. Rather it is necessary to examine each passage in its context and ask first, what is the meaning of the word "faith" in this passage? and, second, what does the passage itself indicate about how this gift is given and received?

Another good question might be, is this a gift that could be rejected, or have we no choice but to "take" it? We who believe in free will believe that God OFFERS salvation to all, but only gives it to those who CHOOSE to have faith. Is it possible that "faith" too is OFFERED to all (or at least to all who have heard the Word), but that we also have the CHOICE whether to make it our own or not? This last idea just occured to me, so I haven't thought it through very thoroughly yet, but it seems to me one more possible explanation of how faith can be both from God and something that we have a choice over.

I believe that Calvinism includes a concept referred to as "common grace", which is extended to all mankind. Is it possible that this "common grace" is a little broader than Calvin believed it was, and includes giving all mankind (as a gift?) the POTENTIAL to have faith?

BTW, all the Greek teachers I had in seminary were agreed that the idea that the "gift" in Eph. 2:8-9 is "faith" is a grammatical impossibility. Something to do with the genders of the various nouns and pronouns, I believe. I'll have to look at it again more closely myself.

-- Anonymous, April 18, 2000

Benjamine Rees.

You may be right, that it really comes down to the question of whether man has an unfettered free will, or God has unfettered soverignty. I am convinced nothing limits the soverignty of God but his own nature. God does not contradict his own nature in anything.

As for faith coming by the preaching of the Word, I would agree; but I understand that the Holy Spirit makes use of the the preaching and witnessing and Bible reading that those who are elect are exposed to, and works within the elect to bring them to a saving faith. We are called to be His witnesses, and the Holy Spirit uses that witness to call the elect to salvation. Without the activity of the Holy Spirit, preaching is not effective; so where does the faith come from?

As for the problem of human responsibility and freedom vs. the Soverignty of God; no one has given a satisfactory explanation of that issue from either side of the arguement. Satan didn't understand the plan of God or the soverignty of God either, and actually thought he could convince Jesus to abort the who thing during the temptation in the desert. It may be a matter of the perspective of God vs. the perspective of men. We live as if we have free will, but God is the "I Am". Not a hair can fall, as I have reminded you before.

The only way out of the problem, from your point of view, seems to be to argue that God exercises his will in setting aside his soverignty to the extent necessary for man to have a limited free will. (sort of like how the Son of God set aside the independant exercise of his soverignty while living as a man). Perhaps my mind is not capable of seeing this as God does, but it seems to me that does not work. The Creator does not have to wait to see how his creation turns our. It is a completed creation from his perspective, outside of our human limits in time and space and matter. God would not have been in doubt that Jesus would complete the work set before him, even if the satan did not understand it.

The basic position of Calvin, and the Bible, is that the battle is won, Christ is already the victor, and all who are His are already saved by the one all sufficient sacrifice on the cross. His soverignty will not allow any that are his to be lost. That clear teaching from Romans and Galations (and elsewhere) helps to structure the other related issues around the central truth. Our God Reigns!

-- Anonymous, April 20, 2000

dbvz,

You are certainly one of the most consistent Calvinists I have ever had a serious discussion with.

Calvinism is a logical system and a consistent system, if you stick with it and refuse to accept any other evidence. But I believe "our" point of view has a much "higher" view of God than yours (even though you probably feel your view of the sovereignty of God makes yours "higher"), and also takes more consistent and more honest account of the WHOLE of what the Bible says.

Calvinism, if followed consistently and drawn out to its full logical conclusions makes God a liar and the author of sin and originator of evil (which likewise makes Him a liar since the Bible says God cannot have anything to do with evil).

How do I reason this? The Bible says that God does not wish for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance (II Peter 3:9). If NOTHING happens without God actively causing it to happen, including causing people to have faith so that they can be saved, then God is also able to cause ALL people to be saved. So either He is lying in saying that only some will be saved, or He is lying in saying that he wishes all would be saved!

If NOTHING happens without God actively causing it to happen, then where did sin come from? Even more importantly, where did Satan come from? If God allows free will in His subjects, the answer is easy. If he does not, then God himself must be the author of evil, Satan, and sin.

If God allowed free will for Satan and for Adam, so that they could rebel against Him, why not allow free will for the rest of us to choose to believe in Him? If He won't or can't (!?!) do this, then why lie to us by telling us that only some will be saved, when he intends to save all, or by telling us that he wishes all would be saved, when He, with the power to force all to believe, chooses not to do so?

How much simpler to believe that God, though ABLE to cause all mankind to believe, has CHOSEN to limit what he is ABLE to do, in order to give us the opportunity to choose for ourselves whether to accept Him or reject Him! Or do you believe that God, in his sovereignty, is NOT ABLE to limit himself in this way?

Then there is the matter of the nature of faith or trust. Is faith/trust REALLY faith/trust if one has no choice but to do it?

As for the scriptures that mention "predestination", as I've said before, the Calvinistic interpretation is not the only way to understand those passages. Some believe in the "election" of individuals, but that the individuals who are chosen are those that God "foreknew" would choose to have faith. That's one possibility, though the explanation that makes most sense to me has nothing to do with INDIVIDUALS being INDIVIDUALLY chosen.

All the passages about predestination talk about us being chosen "IN JESUS CHRIST". I haven't yet found any that talk about INDIVIDUALS being chosen to be put into the body of Christ; they all talk about how Christ was chosen, and we were chosen IN Him. To me that says that the ones who are chosen are the ones who are IN Him. How do we come to be IN Christ? By faith (which I believe the Bible teaches is a choice), and by being buried with Him and raised with Him, by being clothed with Him, by "putting on" Christ -- all of which the Bible says comes at baptism. The ones who are "predestined" are the GROUP who are in Christ, but individuals have the choice ourselves of whether we are in Christ or not. God does "foreknow" which individuals those will be, but that's not the way he chose. He chose the group, collectively.

P.S. I'm sure if you find a passage that says clearly that INDIVIDUALS are chosen INDIVIDUALLY to be "put into" Jesus Christ, you won't hesitate to let us know.

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2000

Romans 8:30 sounds like individual predestination to me, and it also deals with foreknowledge. Those he "foreknew" means more than antiipating their future decision, as is shown by what follows.

Your conclusion that your construction of doctrine is more consistent with the WHOLE of the Bible is (or course) in conflict with my conclusion that Calvin got most of it right, and that reformed doctrine is nothing more than biblical truth organized topicly.

While your churches don't have doctrinal standards that are published, and recognized as a creed or statement of faith; it is very clear you have firm positions on doctrinal issues that define the "orthodox" position. We have made some progress if you recognize that the position of Calvin and the other reformers is also based on scripture, with a different interpretation of key passages.

As for the origin of sin, I actually agree "man" was allowed more free will before the fall of Adam and Eve. After the fall, the nature of man changed and the potential for choosing the good, without the help of the Holy Spirit, was lost. Original Sin. You are correct, I am a very convinced Calvinist. All 5 points of the Canons of Dort.

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2000

Canons to the right of them, Canons to the left of them, Canons in front of them    Volleyed and thunder'd ...

Sorry ... a little levity ... :-)

-- Anonymous, April 21, 2000

Ephesians 1:4 and following and I Peter 1:20 and folllowing, are informative about the origin of the plan of salvation; and as a related issue the origin of sin. Romans 5:12 and following is explicit about the origin of sin, and the relationship to the law.

God had a plan for salvation before the creation of the world, so He knew sin would cause the need for such a salvation before Adam and Eve sinned. Sin was not taken into account before the law, so someone could say God created the opportunity for sin to occur with the command not to eat of the tree. Without the command, eating would not have been sin. So what can you conclude?

My conclusion is that creation from the point of view of God is like painting a picture. It is a complete picture, from beginning to end, from eternity to eternity. We don't see the picture from a God's eye view. Sin is in that picture, because the need for salvation was in that picture from before the creation of the world. God did not create sin, but He "rendered it certain" by giving the commands and creating man with a moral awareness (unlike the animals), and that human nature fell into depravity with the disobedience of Adam and Eve.

My basic position is that if we really had free will, we would all be lost. We are unable in our current state to recognize the call of God and repond without the intervention of the Holy Spirit. We live as if we do, but we rely on the Holy Spirit to take our efforts at preaching and teaching and make them effective. Many hear the same message, but only those who are moved by the Holy Spirit will respond.

Those that the Holy Spirit moves to respond are the elect unto salvation, and none will be lost. Now you may quote the parable of the seed, and note that some seem to respond and grow, but have no root. Many people have a human interest and response to the gospel, just like people have an interest and response to a cult or another religion; but if they are not rooted by the Holy Spirit it is not saving faith. Once the Holy Spirit is at work in us, His work will not return void. God will save His elect.

-- Anonymous, April 22, 2000