May 13, 2012
Bill Twisse vs. the Gospel, pt. 2
This article is one I posted to a message board called “theChan”. The site has since been reformatted, and this posting deleted. The first half of this article is posted here.
================================
Bill Twisse’s next problem with the CCF is the teaching that Adam was innocent:
<<This teaching is a bulwark of paradox theology. An innocent person without impulse to sin plunged all humanity into sin. No further comment needed, as I have discussed this extensively in the past.>>
[CA] Since I have not seen Mr. Twisse’s “extensive discussion” of the innocence of Adam, I will not respond to it here, except to list some of the verses referred to in the CCF, and note that they teach that God made man “upright” and “in His own image”. In what way can it be said that Adam and Eve were made “in the image” of God, if not in their innocence?
Genesis 1: (26) And God said, let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth. (27) And God created the man ***in His own image*** ; in the image of God He created him.
Ecclesiastes 7: (29) See, this only I have found, that ***God has made man upright*** , but they have sought out many inventions.
James 3: (9) By this we bless God and the Father; and by this we curse men having come into being ***according to the image of God***.
Bill Twisse next takes issue with the CCF position on “Grace”:
<the declaration of favor conferred in the atonement——outside of the experience of the sinner.>>
[CA] This makes me wonder how closely Bill has read the CCF. Here is what it actually says:
“In covenanting with Jesus Christ, God the Father covenanted with all the elect in Jesus Christ, to be their God and to reveal His divine love, mercy, grace, and wisdom to them by saving them through the work of Jesus Christ their Redeemer. … Further, as part of the terms of this covenant, the Father decreed to send the Holy Spirit to indwell His elect people. “ II.D.1.b & c
“The gospel is God’s promise to save His people, giving them all the blessings of salvation from regeneration to final glory, conditioned exclusively on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, totally apart from the sinner’s works and efforts.”V.B.1
“Regeneration (also known as the new birth) is that grace in which the Holy Spirit brings a sinner from spiritual death to spiritual life, … Regeneration is never preceded by any condition the sinner meets, can meet, or is enabled to meet. ” V.C.1
Nothing here even implies that Regeneration is anything BUT a “benefit resulting from grace”. Nothing here even implies that Regeneration is itself a saving grace, or that it is not a work of God.
Bill’s assertion that “Grace is the declaration of favor conferred in the atonement——outside of the experience of the sinner.” is equivocation. Grace is ALWAYS experienced by the sinner; it can never be experienced by anyone BUT a sinner. However, grace is NEVER *MERITED* by the sinner – as the Confession clearly says.
<<Paradox theology is almost always employed to explain the justice of hell. Two contradictory propositions:
.All the sufferings of hell can never pay for even one sin (so why do they exist in relation to sin?)
.Sin offends an infinitely holy God; thus it is an infinite crime deserving infinite punishment.
The scriptures cited do not even begin to prove these two propositions in the way that they are stated. >>
[CA] First, the CCF clearly repudiates paradox theology:
“God is a logical being, and the knowledge that He imparts to His people is logical and noncontradictory. God is not paradoxical or illogical, for God cannot be against Himself.” II.A.7
Second, there is no paradox here. The second statement (“Sin offends an infinitely holy God; thus it is an infinite crime deserving infinite punishment”) is an explanation of the first (“All the sufferings of hell can never pay for even one sin”).
Here is what the Confession teaches about the doctrine of Hell:
“All for whom Jesus Christ did not die will live eternally in the pit of Hell and will be eternally tormented for their sins. Souls who are tormented in the next life will never suffer enough to even begin to pay for as much as one sin. Scripture rejects the lie that souls in Hell cease to exist or cease to be tormented, as this is a denial that offending the infinitely holy God is an infinite crime deserving of an infinite punishment. Scripture also rejects the lie of Purgatory as well as the lie that those who perish denying the doctrines of the gospel will finally accept them in heaven.” VII.B.
Third, I will print out some of the verses listed in support of the doctrine of Hell, and let the reader decide if they prove the disputed propositions.
Deuteronomy 32: (22) For a fire has been kindled in My anger, and it burns to the lowest Sheol, and consumes the earth and its produce; and sets on fire the foundations of the mountains.
Deuteronomy 32: (41) If I have sharpened My glittering sword, and My hand lays hold on judgment, I will render vengeance to My foes, and I will repay those who hate Me.
Psalms 9: (17) The wicked shall be turned to Sheol, all the nations forgetting God.
Proverbs 27: (20) Sheol and destruction are never satisfied, so the eyes of man are never satisfied.
Isaiah 33: (14) The sinners of Zion are afraid; terror has seized profane ones; who of us shall tarry with consuming fire? Who of us shall tarry with everlasting burnings?
Matthew 13: (41) The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all the offenses, and those who practice lawlessness. (42) And they will throw them into the furnace of fire; there will be weeping and gnashing of the teeth.
Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting life.
Mark 9: (43) And if your hand offend you, cut it off. For it is profitable for you to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go away into Hell, into the unquenchable fire, (44) where their worm does not die, and the fire is not put out.
Luke 16: (23) And being in torments in hell, lifting up his eyes, he sees Abraham afar off and Lazarus in his bosom. (24) And calling he said, Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering in this flame.
Romans 2: (5) But according to your hardness and your impenitent heart, do you treasure up to yourself wrath in a day of wrath, and revelation of a righteous judgment of God?
2 Thessalonians 1: (6) since it is a just thing with God to pay back tribulation to the ones troubling you, (7) and to give you, those being afflicted, relief with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from Heaven with angels of His power, (8) in flaming fire giving full vengeance to those not knowing God, and to those not obeying the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Jude 1: (6) And those angels not having kept their first place, but having deserted their dwelling-place, He has kept in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of a great Day; (7) as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, in like manner to these, committing fornication, and going away after other flesh, laid down an example before-times, undergoing vengeance of everlasting fire.
Revelation 14: (11) And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever. And those worshiping the beast and its image have no rest night and day, even if anyone receives the mark of its name.
[CA] Bill Twisse concludes his section on the CCF’s teaching of Hell by saying:
<elect will never experience it themselves.>>
[CA] This is fine, so far as it goes, but it doesn’t tell us what, if anything happens to the non-elect. Did Jesus suffer for them, too? Do they experience the wrath of God? Are they destroyed by it?
Finally, Bill Twisse offers some examples of “omissions” from the CCF. The first “omission” has to do with Jesus’ impeccability:
<is said about Christ’’s impeccability. This is a major omission if one is intent on honoring the Christ of revelation in the darkness of all of today’’s heresy>>
[CA] Actually, the Christology section DOES have something to say about Jesus’ impeccability:
“He was born of a virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit, contracting no guilt or
defilement from Adam. He was totally and completely without sin.” IV.A.1
The second “omission” is this:
<<Legal additions to the gospel that ultimately result in denying it are not condemned: Sabbatarianism, tithing, sacraments, sacred buildings, systems of false prophetic interpretation, ‘‘steps’’ to holiness, worldly promotional methods.>>
[CA] While none of these things are mentioned by name, the CCF does have something to say about relying on works as a means of gaining or maintaining God’s favor:
“The gospel, which is clearly revealed within the Scriptures, is the power of God to salvation to everyone believing. No man ever has, or ever can be, saved apart from the knowledge of this gospel, for it is this gospel and this alone that glorifies God in all His redemptive attributes. Scripture rejects the lie that a regenerate person may be ignorant of the gospel or that the people of God were saved by various other means under various other dispensations (such as the keeping of the law in the time of Moses, etc.).” V.B.3
“Faith is not a condition of or prerequisite to salvation; instead, faith believes that Jesus Christ alone met all the conditions for salvation. Faith is the instrument through which a believer receives the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ and is justified. No man is justified before God by works. Salvation by grace alone through faith alone is diametrically opposed to salvation by works. Scripture rejects the lie that man is able to keep the law of God or even a mere summary of the law as a means of gaining God’s favor, let alone that he is able to obey the law beyond what God requires.” V.C.4
“A believer’s assurance does not lie in his obedience to the law, his continued repentance, or anything else but in the sure and certain promise of God through the work of Jesus Christ alone received by faith.” V.C.6
[CA] Thus, the CCF clearly teaches that no keeping of the Law can ever bring anyone favor with God, or assurance of his favor.
If anyone would like to ask questions, or otherwise correspond, my e-mail is c_adams@s******m.net
Christopher Adams.
================================
For more information please see:
May 6, 2012
Bill Twisse vs. the Gospel, pt. 1
This article is one I posted to a message board called “theChan”. The site has since been reformatted, and this posting deleted.
================================
Response to Bill Twisse
On January 19, 2004, a lengthy critique of the Christian Confession of Faith was posted by Bill Twisse. This article will be a response to that critique. All quotes from Mr. Twisse will be enclosed in <>. Unless otherwise noted, all other quotes are from the Christian Confession of Faith ( www.outsidethecamp.org/ccf.htm , February 13, 2004)
Mr. Twisse begins by saying:
<the content of the statement itself. Other issues, such as Arminianism and Tolerant Calvinism, will be dealt with later if need be. I will make one preliminary observation. The habit of using ‘‘Arminianism’’ as a label, in reference to all attempts of synthesizing free-will philosophy with the Christian gospel, this is false. >>
[CA] The last sentence of this quote makes no sense, unless Twisse is referring to his own use of the word “Arminianism” in the second sentence. The words “Arminian” and “Arminianism” nowhere occur in the Confession. This was done for a reason, namely to avoid giving the appearance that we are opposed merely to the beliefs of a single man, or group of men. What we oppose in the CCF is Free Will, and Universal Atonement, and these terms both occur in the CCF.
<churchian dogma as unregenerate. In using this term, they are failing to expose the heresy of 1400+ years of dogma before Arminius, who taught merely one version of free-will heresy.>>
[CA] Apparently Bill has never read the Cannons of Dordt:
“Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those … Who teach that Christ, by the satisfaction which he gave, did not certainly merit for anyone salvation itself and the faith by which this satisfaction of Christ is effectively applied to salvation, but only acquired for the Father the authority or plenary will to relate in a new way with men and to impose such new conditions as he chose, and that the satisfying of these conditions depends on the free choice of man; consequently, that it was possible that either all or none would fulfill them. For they have too low an opinion of the death of Christ, do not at all acknowledge the foremost fruit or benefit which it brings forth, and summon back from hell the Pelagian error.” Head II / Rejection of Errors #3
[CA] Note that these words were formulated in response to the doctrines taught by Arminius’ own students. The delegates to the Synod of Dordt (1618-19) realized that the Arminian heresy was merely a subtle version of the Pelagian heresy.
<<In this critique, I will not quote from the OTC confession, since reproduction is forbidden and I do ‘‘obey the rules.’>>
[CA] Actually, this is untrue. The title page of the confession says this:
“Permission is granted to reprint any parts of the Christian Confession of Faith, providing that the citation includes the title of the document and the mailing address and web site address of the publisher.”
[CA] So, you could very easily quote from the Confession. In fact, it would be helpful if you did, since we could get down to specifics regarding where you think the confession is wrong.
<may be assumed to be 100% accurate. I agree with the great majority of the OTC confession. In fact, on many points it is superior to almost all other confessions. But I will never cross the line into the territory of unquestioned submission to everything that a teacher promotes. That would be revering a certain teacher as on the level of Christ. Paul condemns this schismatic attitude in 1 Cor. 1.>>
[CA] Then why do you think this confession wasn’t named the Carpenter Confession? Why the CHRISTIAN Confession of Faith? Because this Confession was written specifically to put forth the essential doctrines necessary to, or implied by, the GOSPEL. When we wrote it, we were very careful to exclude anything not strictly related to the Gospel, such as the mode of baptism, or the relationship of the church to the magistrates. Show me which point of doctrine the Confession puts forth that is NOT essential to, or necessarily implied by, the Gospel.
<<The greatest sin of the OTC confession is an underlying assumption that the words of a person always express the beliefs of the mind and heart. If this were true, a Christian believer would be sinless in mind. The fact is: remaining sin will always manifest itself in wrong acts and expressions in word. >>
[CA] This is equivocation. There is a world of difference between someone who differs with us on the exact wording we used, and those who differ with us on the CONTENT of the Confession. Believe it or not, after the Confession was first published we accepted some criticism of it from a man who disagreed with us over the WORDING, but agreed with the SUBSTANCE of the Confession. We didn’t consider him lost, or cut off communication with him; in fact we ADOPTED his suggestions!
There are certainly many things that regenerate people can disagree over. But there are some things (eg, the Deity of Christ) that regenerate people can NEVER disagree over! When God causes one of his elect to believe the Gospel, he sovereignly CAUSES that person to believe the necessary doctrines of the Gospel. Each person may have a different way of expressing the same doctrine, without differing on the doctrine itself. There may be many words and phrases to express (for example), the divine nature of Jesus Christ, but saying “Jesus was a created angel” is not among them.
Suppose someone actually came to your fellowship and wanted to join; but he stated that he believed Jesus was a created angel. Would you admit him to your fellowship? After all, he could merely be using wrong expressions because of his remaining sin, right? Furthermore, you wouldn’t want him to unquestioningly submit to everything you teach, right?
This quote is from an article Marc wrote for OUTSIDE THE CAMP (Vol 4, No. 2):
“Another example of a contrast between the regenerate and the unregenerate is in Matthew 7:15-20 and Luke 6:43-45. Christ Jesus uses very strong and clear language to describe the impossibilities in both cases: “A good tree CANNOT produce evil fruits, NOR a corrupt tree good fruits.” “For there is NOT a good tree that produces bad fruit, NOR a bad tree that produces good fruit.” Christ Jesus is here speaking of an IMPOSSIBILITY. It is JUST AS IMPOSSIBLE for a regenerate man to produce evil fruit as it is for a totally depraved man to produce good fruit!! Do you see the impact of that statement? We know about the impossibility of totally depraved man to bring forth good fruit (and we need to keep hearing it!). But in the exact opposite direction, and just as strongly, it is impossible for a regenerate man to bring forth bad fruit! Is this talking about sinless perfection? Obviously not. Luke 6:45 gives us the answer: “The good man brings forth good out of the good treasure of his heart. And the evil man brings forth evil out of the evil treasure of his heart, for his mouth speaks out of the abundance of his heart.” This is not talking about all the thoughts, words, and deeds of either the regenerate or unregenerate man; it is talking specifically about what GOSPEL the men believe and confess. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a regenerate man to believe and confess a false gospel!! Those who are in the flesh bear fruit unto death, and those who are in the Spirit bear fruit unto God (Romans 7:4-5), and it is JUST AS IMPOSSIBLE for one who is in the Spirit to bear fruit unto death as it is for one who is in the flesh to bear fruit unto God.”
http://www.outsidethecamp.org/presgrace.htm , January 22, 2004
<<The words that I have expressed so far will immediately become perverted by a different group who don’’t want to accept the whole of biblical revelation. >>
[CA] Really? Where? Would you kindly point out some specifics?
<constitutes the revelation of scripture is not clearly defined. My assumption would be that it is the 66 books. However, the issue of ‘‘original manuscripts’’ vs. possible corruption by interpolation needs to be addressed.>>
[CA] Again, not true. It was dealt with in section I.B.:
“B. Preservation
It has been God’s special care to providentially preserve the Bible whole
and unblemished through every age. [Deu 31:11; Psa 12:5-7; 111:7-8; 119:152;
Isa 40:8; 59:21; Act 15:21; Rom 3:1-4; Eph 2:20]”
<<There is no question that scripture teaches a plan and purpose of redemption among the Trinity before human time. The issue is whether the scriptural revelation of covenant applies within the Godhead itself. The scriptures cited all apply to covenants that God made unilaterally with estranged humans during the course of earthly history.>>
[CA] One of the verses referred to is Galatians 3:16-18. Here is verse 17 (emphasis mine):
Galatians 3:17 And I say this, A covenant having been ratified before ***TO CHRIST BY GOD***, [the] Law coming into being four hundred and thirty years after, does not annul the promise, so as to abolish [it].
Sure sounds like a covenant within the Godhead itself to me.
<<Also, not all covenants that God has made were unilateral. There was one exception (see Exodus 19)>>
[CA] Apparently Mr. Twisse is referring to Exodus 19:5:
Exodus 19:5 And now if listening you will listen to My voice, and will keep My covenant, you shall become a special treasure to Me above all the nations, for all the earth [is] Mine.
[CA] I don’t see any exception here. God told Moses he would make the Israelites his special treasure if they obeyed him. This requirement is not something that God and the Israelites arrived at jointly, it was UNILATERALLY imposed on the Israelites by God.
<reveal to the elect God’’s saving love. … The true position of scripture is that God purposed reprobation strictly for his own good pleasure, as he purposed redemption for his own good pleasure. The saints receive pleasure from this because they share Christ’’s reign and rule over the lost.>>
[CA] Again, one of the verses referred to is Romans 9:21-23 (emphasis mine):
Romans 9:22-23 But if God, desiring to demonstrate His wrath, and to make His power known, endured in much long-suffering vessels of wrath having been fitted out for destruction, (23) and ***THAT HE MAKE KNOWN THE RICHES OF HIS GLORY ON VESSELS OF MERCY*** which He before prepared for glory,
[CA] As the Confession itself goes on to explain:
“Contrary to the aspersions of the enemies of God, this doctrine of reprobation does not make believers exalt themselves over other men; instead, it humbles them and causes them to tremble before Almighty God, thankful that He has graciously numbered them among the elect rather than the reprobate. [Rom 9:15-16,23, 29; 1Co 4:7; 2Th 2:11-13]” (II.D.2.g)
<infralapsarian false teaching.>>
[CA] First, as explained above, the Confession explicitly teaches that the “doctrine of reprobation does not make believers exalt themselves over other men; instead, it humbles them and causes them to tremble before Almighty God, thankful that He has graciously numbered them among the elect rather than the reprobate” (II.D.2.g)
Second, noone is bypassed, as II.D.2.d teaches:
“God actively causes the reprobate to hate His glory, persecute His people, and oppose His gospel, that He may justly punish them. [Exo 7:3; 9:12; Jos 11:20; 1Sa 2:25; Psa 105:25; Rom 9:18; Rev 17:17]” (II.D.2.d)
[CA] Third, II.D.2.c explicitly teaches that God planned to cause the elect and reprobate to become unrighteous together, the very OPPOSITE of infralapsarian teaching:
“The Father determined to include the elect and the reprobate in one common fall, that they should be equally ruined and undone, equally guilty and defiled, and equally in need of a righteousness that neither could produce on their own. [Rom 3:9-12,23; 5:12-14; Eph 2:3]” (II.D.2.c)
[CA] Infralapsarianism is the teaching that God planned who would be his elect out of “a common mass of fallen humanity.” The Confession teaches that God planned who would be his elect and who would be reprobate BEFORE he planned that they would all be equally unrighteous. Note that this order is LOGICAL, not TEMPORAL, because it all took place before time began.
Bill Twisse’s next problem with the CCF is the teaching that Adam was innocent:
<<This teaching is a bulwark of paradox theology. An innocent person without impulse to sin plunged all humanity into sin. No further comment needed, as I have discussed this extensively in the past.>>
[CA] Since I have not seen Mr. Twisse’s “extensive discussion” of the innocence of Adam, I will not respond to it here, except to list some of the verses referred to in the CCF, and note that they teach that God made man “upright” and “in His own image”. In what way can it be said that Adam and Eve were made “in the image” of God, if not in their innocence?
Genesis 1: (26) And God said, let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth. (27) And God created the man ***in His own image*** ; in the image of God He created him.
Ecclesiastes 7: (29) See, this only I have found, that ***God has made man upright*** , but they have sought out many inventions.
James 3: (9) By this we bless God and the Father; and by this we curse men having come into being ***according to the image of God***.
================================
To Be Continued …
For more information please see:
April 29, 2012
bergref vs. the Gospel
Several years ago, I posted the article “Gospel Atonement” on a discussion board called “theChan”; the site has since been redesigned, and the following discussion was removed. The first section is a reply from someone with the handle “bergref”, followed by my response:
================================
Hello fellow followers of Christ
Let us assume that every verse in the Bible has some truth, some value. Then we can agree that the verses quoted are true.
I believe they are, but are they complete? Is the doctrine painted complete? Think about the souls that accept this doctrine as complete. Where does “If you do not believe as I a human does, then eternal damnation to you ” come from?
Arminius believed that mans free will was directed by God.
Calvin believed that justification was obtained through faith.
To understand that in the end, atonement will be for his remnent, and then pervert that to take away the universal invitation, and to confuse the two is a clear doctrine of man and ignores the invitation given to all .
My estimation is there are at least a 80 percent more verses directly implying a universal invitation then there are implying being chosen.
I am not implying universal atonement , just the obvious invitation to accept what was done by the blood. Should humans place any credit to themself when God regenerates them to a corect belief ? Your doctrine is amiss in its understanding that God desires a covenant so strong in belief that we forsake all to follow Him.
Now suppose that you had the chance to ask your congregation to stand if their children at a young age commited their life to the Lord. Then ask each parent to sit down if in their heart of hearts believed that every one of their children were living out their calling. Note how many still stand. Those standing gave their best for their children yet The promise they hold on to not yet acomplished. Their children have fallen to our culture, in your doctrine there is not one drop of hope, not even one. there is no incentive to try, denying all the Gospel promises.
I can and will not allow myself to be the Judge of attonement but lay my case to those who can read to have strength that God somehow does call some and not all, and that our commision is to explain the invitation to all and be a kind of person that there is a testimony in their walk, not a finger pointer to all those who do not believe as they do.
In Christian love. John
================================
Hello again. I have been offline lately, due to a move, but I’m back online now. I would like to respond to some things written by bergref:
1. bergref wrote: <>
[CA] From your imagination. This is not about believing what Chris Adams says or believes, it is about believing the Gospel. The gospel is the good news of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ alone. [Psa 22:1-18; 32:1; Isa 53:1-12; Dan 9:24-26; Zec 13:7; Mat 26:28; Act 20:28; Rom 3:24-25; 5:6-11; 1Co 1:30; 5:7; 6:20; 15:3; 2Co 5:21; Gal 1:4; 2:20; 3:13; 4:5; Eph 1:7; 2:13-17; Col 1:14,20-22; 2:13-14; 1Th 5:10; 1Ti 2:6; Tit 2:14; Heb 2:9-10,17; 9:12-14,26-28; 10:10-18; 13:12; 1Pe 1:18-19; 2:24; 3:18; 1Jo 1:7; 2:2; 3:5; 4:10; Rev 1:5; 5:9]. As part of believing the gospel, all regenerate persons have repented of dead works and former idolatry. They have repented of ever thinking that salvation was conditioned on themselves. They have repented of ever thinking that anything they did would gain favor with God. They realize that before hearing and believing the true gospel, all their works were evil in the sight of God. [Deu 4:34-35; Isa 45:6,20-25; Mat 13:23; Mar 16:16; Joh 6:40; 8:32; 16:8-11; 17:3; Act 16:14-15; Rom 1:16-17; 3:26; 6:17,21; 7:6; 1Co 2:10-12; 2Co 4:2-6; Eph 1:13; Phi 3:7-8; 2Th 2:13-14; Heb 9:14; 1Jo 5:20]
Furthermore, I’m not making judgements about where someone will spend eternity. I can’t and don’t send people to “eternal damnation”. But I DO make judgements about a person’s current spiritual state, whether regenerate or unregenerate [Isa 8:20; 45:20; Mat 7:15-20; Mar 16:16; Luk 6:43-45; Joh 7:24; Rom 10:1-3; 1Co 5:11-12; Ga1 1:8-9; 1Jo 4:1,6; 2Jo 9]
2. bergref also wrote: <>
[CA] bergref, would you be so kind as to provide a *quote* from the article (or anywhere on the website, for that matter) that “take[s] away the universal invitation”? Thanks.
The command to repent and believe the Gospel is preached to all without exception. But that is not because there is some desire on the part of God for the salvation of all without exception. It is because God has not revealed to us who is elect, and who is not, and therefore he commands us to preach the Gospel to all without exception, trusting that the Gospel will be a savor of life to life for the people of God, and a savor of death to death for those who are not (2Co 2:16) “For many are called, but few chosen”(Mat 22:14).
3.bergref also wrote: <>
[CA] The doctrine put forth in the “Gospel Atonement” article is the ONLY ground of hope. It is the good news that Jesus Christ has accomplished EVERYTHING necessary for the salvation of his people [Isa 53:1-12; Dan 9:24-26; Zec 13:7; Mat 26:28; 27:35-50; Mar 15:24-37; Luk 23:33-46; 24:46; Joh 11:49-52; 19:16-30; Act 17:3; 20:28; Rom 3:24-25; 5:6-11; 1Co 1:30; 5:7; 6:20; 15:3; 2Co 5:21; Gal 1:4; 2:20; 3:13; 4:5; Eph 1:7; 2:13-17; Col 1:14,20-22; 2:13-14; 1Th 5:10; 1Ti 2:6; Tit 2:14; Heb 2:9-10,17; 9:12-14,26-28; 10:10-18; 13:12; 1Pe 1:18-19; 2:24; 3:18; 1Jo 1:7; 2:2; 3:5; 4:10; Rev 1:5; 5:9]. It is not hope as the world thinks of hope, but a hope based exclusively on the finished work of Jesus Christ, with nothing left over for the sinner to accomplish towards his salvation. This is a hope which can never be disappointed.
4. Last, bergref wrote:
<to be the Judge of attonement but lay my case to those who can read to have strength that God somehow does call some and not all, and that our commision is to explain the invitation to all and be a kind of person that there is a testimony in their walk, not a finger pointer to all those who do not believe as they do.
In Christian love. John>>
[CA] I’m not setting myself up as “the Judge of attonement”. But I AM setting forth the biblical doctrine of the Atonement, and what it accomplishes on behalf of all for whom it is intended.
As far as pointing fingers, yes I am most certainly pointing fingers. The true Gospel is best understood in contrast with the false gospels. Jesus, Paul, and John all pointed fingers (Mat. 16:12; 23:13; 2Ti. 2:17; 3Jo. 1:9; Rev. 2:15, 20).
bergref, you wrote that you were “not implying universal atonement”. Do you believe that any for whom Christ died are in Hell, or will go to Hell? If so, that is not “Christian love” but “Satanic hatred”. It is proclaiming that the work of Jesus Christ accomplished NOTHING of itself, but only becomes effectual when the sinner does his part.
Chris Adams.
================================
bergref replied with to this post with a single line. Here it is with my response:
================================
bergref wrote:
<<Why not just say you believe it is heresy, and let everyone decide themselves?….John>>
[CA] I would be willing to call Universal Atonement merely a heresy if it only had reference to, say, Eschatology. But it doesn’t. Universal Atonement rips the heart out of THE GOSPEL. If the blood of Jesus Christ doesn’t atone for ALL for whom it is intended, then you are left with a salvation which is dependent on MAN, and that is no salvation.
Would you make the same objection if I had said that all who deny the deity of Jesus Christ are lost? Would you say: “Why not just say you believe [denying the deity of Christ] is heresy, and let everyone decide themselves?” All who deny the deity of Jesus Christ rip the heart out of the Gospel, also. The doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ is just as fundamental to the Gospel as is the doctrine of his work.
If you “decide for yourself” that you just don’t agree with the doctrine of Jesus’ deity, then you are denying the Gospel. In that case it would not be love, but HATRED, to tell you that everything is well with your soul. The exact same thing is true of those who deny the effectual WORK of Christ.
Christopher Adams. (4/11/06)
================================
For more information please see:
April 15, 2012
Mark DeYoung vs. the Gospel, pt. 3
Recently, I had an email discussion with a man named Mark DeYoung, in response to some things I had written to Ken Lokken. This is DeYoung’s response to my first email.
================================
From: Mark DeYoung
To: Chris Adams
January 23, 2012
Re: Fw: Demon possesion; a few thoughts
Christopher,
Your boldness is commendable in the beginning of this email, the belligerence by the end is unnecessary. The line “And I must warn you that you are going on in your simplicity, unaware of the danger to your soul. You do not believe in the deity of Christ, and therefore, you do not believe the Gospel. You are lost, and your deeds are evil. Again, the Gospel is:” That is totally uncalled for, and shows a lack of God’s love and desire for all men to come torepentance.
Jesus when preparing the disciples for his departure said this,
John 13:34-35 (NRSV) I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. (35) By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
If you truly thought that I am a lost sinner undone in my sins headed straight for a Devil’s hell to be tormented for all eternity for my lack of faith, and you spoke to me that way; then my blood would be on your hand’s when you stand before God to give an account for actions.
Now I am willing to continue, if you are willing to discuss this not only as Christians, but as disciples of Jesus Christ, which means we will correspond with compassion, gentleness and meekness. If these are acceptable terms then we will continue.
We can start with any one of the things that you listed in this last email. But we aren’t going to refer to your web pages, spell everything out in the email including the passages of Scripture you wish to refer to.
But let’s discuss one thing at a time, I’m a full time pastor of a church and my time is limited when it comes to email correspondence.
=======================================
From: Chris Adams
To: Mark DeYoung
January 23, 2012
Re: Fw: Demon possesion; a few thoughts
Mark –
You wrote:
“Your boldness is commendable in the beginning of this email, the belligerence by the end is unnecessary. The line “And I must warn you that you are going on in your simplicity, unaware of the danger to your soul. You do not believe in the deity of Christ, and therefore, you do not believe the Gospel. You are lost, and your deeds are evil. Again, the Gospel is:” That is totally uncalled for, and shows a lack of God’s love and desire for all men to come to repentance.”
What I was trying to show you is that the “simpleton … go[ing] blindly on” referred to in your own signature, is in fact you. I was hoping to shake you out of your simplicity, and show you the true nature of the danger you face.
As for my “lack of God’s love”; in the first place, God does not want all men without exception to come to repentance (Rom 9:17), but all men without distinction (Col 3:11, 1Ti 2:1-4).
Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very thing I raised you up, so that I might show forth My power in you, and so that My name might be publicized in all the earth.”
Col 3:11 where there is no Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, foreigner, Scythian, slave or freeman, but Christ is all things and in all.
1Ti 2: (1) First of all then, I exhort that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made on behalf of all men, (2) for kings and all the ones being in high position, that we may lead a tranquil and quiet existence in all godliness and dignity. (3) For this is good and acceptable before God our deliverer, (4) who desires all men to be delivered and to come to a full knowledge of truth.
Of course, you’re not complaining about God’s lack of love, but about mine. The problem is that you apparently equate love with me telling you that everything is right with your soul, and everything is right between you and God. But it isn’t, and I won’t lie, and tell you it is.
If a man was sleeping in a burning house would it be more loving to let him enjoy his restful slumber, or would it be more loving to shout and annoy him?
Was Christ being loving towards the Pharisees in Matthew ch. 23, when he called them a brood of vipers and whitewashed tombs? Was Ezekiel being unloving towards the Jews when he described their apostasy in repulsively sexual terms? Was Paul being unloving when he said he wished that the Judaizers would emasculate themselves?
Mat 23: (14) Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour the houses of widows, and pray at length as a pretext. Because of this you will receive more abundant judgment. (15) Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you go about the sea and the dry land to make one proselyte; and when he has become so, you make him twofold more a son of Hell than yourselves. (16) Woe to you, blind guides, who say, Whoever swears by the Holy Place, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the Holy Place is a debtor. (17) Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold, or the Holy Place that sanctifies the gold?
Eze 16:25 At the head of every highway you have built your high place, and have made your beauty despised. And you have parted your feet to all who passed by, and have multiplied your fornications.
Gal 5:12 I would that the ones causing you to doubt will cut themselves off.
Mark, I do hope that you will come to repentance, but that means that you need to repent; that is, you need to be saved. How else should I tell you to come to repentance, except by telling you that you are lost? If I told you that you were saved, there wouldn’t be any need for repentance.
But there’s more. In previous correspondence, Ken Lokken told me this: “I dare say if you continue in your beliefs now that you are informed..you certainly will not be part of the kingdom and that means you are LOST!” So, Mark, are you going to rebuke Ken, tell him that this was uncalled for, and shows a lack of God’s love, and desire for all men to come to repentance? If so, I want to be on the cc list.
You wrote:
“Jesus when preparing the disciples for his departure said this,
John 13:34-35 (NRSV) I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. (35) By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.””
Mark, you don’t believe the Gospel. Therefore, you are not my brother in Christ. Your father is the devil, and you are an enemy of the true God, the true Christ, and the true Gospel.
You also wrote: “If you truly thought that I am a lost sinner undone in my sins headed straight for a Devil’s hell to be tormented for all eternity for my lack of faith, and you spoke to me that way; then my blood would be on your hand’s when you stand before God to give an account for actions.”
This is the opposite of the truth. See Eze 3:18-19. I have delivered my soul, and the responsibility to repent is now yours.
Eze 3: (18) In My saying to the wicked, Surely you shall die; and you do not warn him, and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, he, the wicked, shall die in his iniquity. But I will require his blood at your hand. (19) And you, because you have warned the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his way, he, the wicked, shall die in his iniquity. But you have delivered your soul.
You also wrote:
“Now I am willing to continue, if you are willing to discuss this not only as Christians, but as disciples of Jesus Christ, which means we will correspond with compassion, gentleness and meekness. ”
Again, was Christ using compassion, gentleness, and meekness towards the Pharisees in Matthew ch. 23, when he called them a brood of vipers and whitewashed tombs? Was Ezekiel using compassion, gentleness, and meekness towards the Jews when he described their apostasy in repulsively sexual terms? Was Paul using compassion, gentleness, and meekness when he said he wished that the Judaizers would emasculate themselves?
The answer to all three questions is: Yes, they were. And if you disagree, then you need to adjust your concept of compassion, gentleness, and meekness, or else admit that God inspired these men to say and write sinful things (which would be blasphemy).
You also wrote:
“We can start with any one of the things that you listed in this last email. But we aren’t going to refer to your web pages, spell everything out in the email including the passages of Scripture you wish to refer to.”
It seems like not too long ago somebody said this to me: “Christopher I hope you don’t mind the copy and paste, but why should the wheel be reinvented? ” Well, good question. Why should I reinvent the wheel? For this post, I have pasted in the passages I referred to, but I have also already written a good deal of stuff that is relevant to this argument, including the Christian Confession of Faith, a couple of articles, and a dozen pages of correspondence with Ken Lokken. Do you really want me copy and paste all of that here? If you’re willing to read all of that, it’s just as easy to click a link.
Furthermore, you’re not the only person that that post was sent to. There are quite a few names on that cc list, and if any of them were interested in the previous material, they deserved to have the link.
If you want to continue this exchange, fine, but this is not a friendly discussion between brothers in Christ. Nor is it a discussion about trivial matters. It is a discussion about the fundamentals of the Gospel, and that has eternal consequences. If you believe in a false Gospel to your dying breath, you will spend eternity in hell.
Mar 16:16 The one believing and being baptized will be saved. And the one not believing will be condemned.
Rom 10: (1) Brothers, truly my heart’s pleasure and supplication to God on behalf of Israel is for it to be saved. (2) For I testify to them that they have zeal to God, but not according to knowledge. (3) For being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to the righteousness of God.
Christopher Adams.
=======================================
See also:
March 25, 2012
Peter Pike vs. the Gospel, pt. 6
Back in 2002 I had an e-mail exchange with Peter Pike, known as “CalvinDude”. He posted the first exchange on his site, thecalvinist.com, which is now defunct; but the exchange has been reposted.
This is the sixth round of letters between Mr. Pike and I.
Note that this part of the exchange doesn’t appear at the link given above.
=========================================
—– Original Message —–
From: <debate@calvinist.com>
To: <Christopher Adams>
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: Child of Satan?
Oh, I’m a liar now….
You wrote:
<<< Nice try, but the distinction is *knowledge*. >>>
BUT you *ALSO* wrote:
<<< I have NEVER said that salvation was dependent on knowledge. >>>
[CA] Finally!! Very good, Mr Pike!! You finally provided something that looks like PROOF for your accusations!! After at least 5 letters to me, you finally provide a QUOTE that seems relevant to your argument!
Congratulations are in order!
Of course you neglected to mention that the first quote you selected was from an entirely different context than the second quote. Here’s the context of the first quote:
[CA 11/27/02] <<Nice try, but the distinction is *knowledge*. If there is someone I speak peace to, who speaks peace to the unregenerate, then I don’t *know* about it. If someone is telling me they don’t speak peace when they really do, I’m not responsible for judging that.>>
Now here’s the context of the second quote:
[CA 11/23/02] <<I have NEVER said that salvation was dependent on knowledge. Nowhere is this idea to be found on the OTC website. You have made this accusation several times, several times I have asked for proof, yet you continue to simply make accusations. I have already pointed out an article that answers this accusation: http://www.outsidethecamp.org/doctregen.htm>>
So the context of the first quote was *judgement*, while the context of the second was the *grounds* of salvation, specifically whether it was dependent on doctrinal regeneration (see the article I linked to).
[PP] But I digress.
—–
<<< [CA] Fine, you can take all the offense you want. But you are still not responding to what I said. I said you are speaking peace to lost people. ***THAT*** is why I say you are lost, and therefore unregenerate. >>>
And *THAT* makes my salvation dependent upon an action I do, not on the grace of God.
[CA] Not at all. It is the *evidence* that you are lost.
[PP] <<< [CA] Nice try, but the distinction is *knowledge*. If there is someone I speak peace to, who speaks peace to the unregenerate, then I don’t *know* about it. If someone is telling me they don’t speak peace when they really do, I’m not responsible for judging that. >>>
But why should it affect your salvation either way?
<<< YOU on the other hand, KNOWINGLY speak peace to a group of people who strip God of his rightful glory in the Gospel. You realize they do this, yet you continue to speak peace to them. >>>
No, I knowingly speak peace to a group of people who RIGHTLY UNDERSTAND that the only way they can be saved is because of the grace of God.
[CA] Yet your website says this:
[PP] <<Arminianism itself is a man-based theology that strips God of His right to be “God” and elevates man above what man should be.>>
[CA] THIS is a “right understanding” that “the only way they can be saved is because of the grace of God.” ?!?!
[PP] That they are not *RATIONAL* in why they accept the basic truths of God–that those truths, in fact, CONTRADICT their beliefs *IF* they actually logically carried them out–
[CA] This is precisely why I asked this in my first post to you (11/12/02):
<<5. Where does the Bible teach a difference between a man and his theology? How do you interpret Prov 23:7?>> I notice you still haven’t answered that one.
[PP] does not contradict the fact that they *DO* hold to the sufficient truth.
[CA] Believing that the atoning sacrifice was intended for everyone who is now in Hell is sufficient truth??
[PP] Answer this: Why would an Arminian *EVER* say, “Christ took my sins on the cross, AND THAT SAVED ME”? Yet when you look at the average Arminian, they *DO* believe that it was the imputation of our sins onto Christ that saved them.
[CA] Then what, to them, is the reason some people go to Hell?
[PP] There is no reason for them to hold this view, and when I point out that there is a contradiction, they do *NOT* abandon Christ as the atonining sacrifice.
[CA] Really? Do they also STOP believing that Christ died for everyone who goes to Hell? If not then they have NOT believed that salvation is “of the Lord.” They STILL believe that salvation is dependent on MAN.
[PP] If you study human psychology, you will know that the best way to decieve someone is to offer something that SEEMS like the truth. This is, undoubtedly, what Arminianism proper does–that is, Pelagianism. The average Arminian, however, realizes that he CANNOT accept the full ramifications of his Arminianism. Why do you think that Norm Geisler writes against Clark Pinnock when, from a strictly logical point of view he should *AGREE* with everything Pinnock says? Why do you think Charles Wesley could write, “And Can It Be”? How could Keith Green, an obvious Arminian in his songs, also write, “You [God] Put This Love In My Heart”? None of this makes any sense outside of the realization that they implicitly knew/know the truth of God and they will not abandon it. And the truth of God comes *ONLY* by the Spirit of God.
[CA] I don’t know enough about Geisler. But consider this quote from Wesley:
<<Though there are some expressions in my brother’s Hymns which I do not use …; yet I am fully satisfied, that …. there is no jot of Calvinism therein; that not one hymn, not one verse of an hymn, maintains either unconditional election, or infallible perseverance.>(Works, v.10, p.426, Remarks On Mr. Hill’s ‘Farrago Double Distilled’; Mar. 14, 1773)
[CA] One of Wesley’s hymns contained the following lines:
“From all eternity with love
Unchangeable thou hast me view’d.”
When this passage was pointed out to him, Wesley commented <<I believe this is true on the supposition of faith foreseen, not otherwise.>(Works, v.10, p.383, Remarks On Mr. Hills Review; Sept. 9, 1772)
Would you still say that he “knew … the truth of God and [would] not abandon it.” ?
[PP] Why do I say Arminians are saved? Because they believe the Gospel. They believe other things that are not the Gospel, but they *DO* believe the Gospel.
This is where we differ, Mr. Adams. You believe saving faith must be in all the intricate outworkings of the Gospel, whereas I believe saving faith is a faith in *JUST* the Gospel.
[CA] This is a false dichotomy. Suppose someone believes that Jesus is not God, but still believes in imputation, predestination, etc. Can we overlook his denial of the deity of Christ with the excuse that he “doesn’t have to believe in all the intricate outworkings of the Gospel”? Of course not. The Gospel DEMANDS that Christ be God as well as man. The person who denies the deity of Jesus Christ has denied a doctrine ESSENTIAL to the Gospel. It is my duty to JUDGE HIM LOST.
Arminians teach that the blood of Jesus Christ atoned for the sins of all
the people who are in Hell. They DENY that his blood is what makes the difference between their going to heaven and going to Hell. The efficacy of Christ’s blood is JUST AS ESSENTIAL to the Gospel as his deity.
[PP] As way of analogy–I have faith that turning my key in the ignition will start my car. You say that “real” faith is when I know that the engine runs because gasoline is pumped into a chamber where the spark plug ignites it, etc. But I simply turn my wrist and my car runs.
[CA] Your analogy is incomplete, since the car is not capable of changing your thinking. The car has not expressly declared that it wants you to understand how it works. God HAS declared that he wills to be glorified by his people. Why doesn’t he do this in the case of Arminians if (as you say) they are regenerate?
[PP] How simple is the Gospel? Why, it is EXTREMELY simple! So simple in fact that the Old Testament believers, who had no comprehension of Jesus, and only a dim understanding of the Messiah’s work, understood it. Read Hebrews 11–it is by *FAITH* that Abel offered a better sacrifice than Cain. Read Genesis 15–it is by *FAITH* that Abraham believed, and God imputed it to him as righteousness.
I simply ask–are these individuals saved? They certainly are. I further ask–by what means were they saved? By the same means *WE* are. Salvation has *ALWAYS* been by grace through faith. Faith in what? Well, the faith Abraham had was sufficient. The faith Cain had was sufficient. The faith that Rahab had was sufficient. Why would we be required to have a zillion tons more information the *MUST* be believed in order to be saved?
What you are missing is the simple fact that while the mystery of salvation has been explained to us, salvation does not require the explanation in order to actually save.
[CA]
Isaiah 45: (24) He shall say, Only in Jehovah do I have righteousness and strength; to Him he comes; and they are ashamed, all who are angry with Him.
This is what Abraham believed. This is what I believe. Is this what ARMINIANS believe? NO. They believe that their “decision for Christ” is what entitles them to God’s favor.
[PP] <<< A few premises:
A. All saved people believe the Gospel (Mk 16:16, Rom 1:16).
B. All who do not believe the Gospel are lost (Isa 45:20, Rom 10:3).
C. The Gospel gives all the glory to God. (Isa 45:24, Rom 3:21-26)
Combining A and C, we get: D. All saved people (give all the glory to
God).
Combining B and C, we get: E. All who do not (give all the glory to God) are lost. >>>
You *OBVIOUSLY* do not know what the Gospel is then. You are equating the Gospel with “giving all the glory to God.” But you are *WRONG*. While that is what the Gospel *DOES*, that is not what the Gospel *IS*.
[CA] What??
I said “The Gospel gives all the glory to God”
You say: “that is what the Gospel *DOES*, that is not what the Gospel *IS*.”
Are you agreeing with me?
[PP] In fact, I would do this:
A. All saved people believed the Gospel.
B. Abraham was saved.
:. Abraham believed the Gospel.
C. The Gospel was not fully revealed to Abraham
D. Abraham was still saved.
:. A full understanding of all the Gospel is not necessary for salvation.
<<< Two more premises:
F. Arminians do not give all the glory to God (note: you stated this on
your website) >>>
Yes, and I further state that *YOU* do not give all the glory to God. You admitted as much when you admitted you sin.
[CA] I give ALL the glory to God for my JUSTIFICATION. Who does the Arminian give glory to? HIMSELF — BASED ON HIS OWN DECISIONS. These two views are POLAR OPPOSITES.
[PP] <<< G. All who speak peace to those who are lost, are themselves lost (Jer 8:11, 2 Jn 11) >>>
Even if they give all the glory to God? Suppose I give God all the glory, and yet say that He has also saved Arminians–does this destroy the fact that I give God all the glory for my salvation? Not at all. They are two separate issues!
[CA] Then what does Jer 8:11, and 2 Jn 11 mean?
[PP] <<< Combining E and F, we get: E. All who do not (give all the glory to God) are lost. >>>
So you admit you are lost. It spares me the trouble of pointing it out.
<<< F. Arminians do not give all the glory to God. >>>
Neither does Christopher Adams. Nor any human being on the planet for that matter.
<<< H. Therefore, Arminians are lost. >>>
And therefore, so is Christopher Adams.
<<< Combining H and G, we get: I. All who speak peace to (Arminians) are themselves lost. >>>
And also, all those who speak peace to *ANYONE* who does not give all the glory to God is also lost.
<<< Now, noting that Peter Pike speaks peace to Arminians we declare him lost, unregenerate, a child of Satan, based on (I.) above. >>>
And noting that Christopher Adams speaks peace to others who sin, such as the folks at Sovereign Redeemer Assembly.
<<< I am *not* talking about any old sin. I *AM* talking about the sin of not believing the GOSPEL. This is the sin Arminians commit, and I DON’T. >>>
But inconsistent Arminians *DO* believe the Gospel. They believe it, and they believe things that *SHOULD* contradict it–but they do not abandon the Gospel. WHY? Because they *DO* believe it!
[CA] A “man-based theology that strips God of His right to be “God” and elevates man above what man should be”, is not inconsistency, it is HATRED of God and his glory.
[PP] <<< But wait a minute. Do you really mean to say that God sent Pharaoh to Hell, just because Pharaoh’s theology wasn’t 100% accurate? Just because he didn’t give all the glory to God? Just because he tried to reserve some glory for himself? Do you really mean a person’s knowledge of God has to be perfect in order for him to go to heaven? I thought you said salvation was dependent on what Christ did for that person, not on what they believe? What are you trying to say here, Mr. Pike? >>>
First, that you are rude. Secondly, you are obfuscating the issue because I disproved your point! God’s glorification has *NOTHING WHATSOEVER* to do with what ANYONE believes!
[CA] This is astounding. Have you any familiarity with Scripture at all? Sorry, Mr Pike, but I can’t just take your word for it. Give me the word of God:
Psalms 50: (15) And call on Me in the day of distress, and I will save you; and you shall glorify *Me*.
Isaiah 43: (21) The people that I formed for Myself shall recount *My* praise.
Isaiah 48: (11) For My sake, for My sake, I will act; for how is it defiled? And I will not give *My glory* to another.
Ezekiel 36: (38) Like a holy flock, like the flock of Jerusalem in her appointed feasts, so the wasted cities shall be filled with flocks of men. And they shall *know* that I am Jehovah.
Matthew 13: (11) And answering, He said to them, Because it has been given to you to *know* the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven, but it has not been given to those.
John 8: (32) And you will *know the truth*, and the truth will set you free.
Romans 6: (17) But thanks be to God that you were slaves of sin, but you obeyed from the heart the form of *doctrine* to which you were delivered.
Romans 9: (23) and that He make *known* the riches of His glory on vessels of mercy which He before prepared for glory,
1 John 5: (20) And we know that the Son of God has come, and He has given to us an *understanding* that we may know the true One, and we are in the true One, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and the life everlasting.
Furthermore, look at what God says is MISSING from those who don’t believe the Gospel:
Isaiah 45: (20) Gather yourselves and come; draw near together, escaped ones of the nations; the ones who set up the wood of their carved image, and the ones who pray to a god who cannot save; they *know* nothing.
Matthew 13: (11) And answering, He said to them, Because it has been given to you to *know* the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven, but *it has not been given to those*.
Romans 10: (3) For being *ignorant of the righteousness of God*, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to the righteousness of God.
In each case, the person opposed to God’s glory was missing some KNOWLEDGE.
[PP] Pharaoh hated and despised God. Arminians do not. Pharaoh was consistent in his false beliefs. Arminians are not. Pharaoh couldn’t care less what God wanted. Arminians do.
God does not give equally to all people, even believers. To him who has been given much, much will be demanded; but from him who has been given little, only a little will be asked.
<<< SO WHAT??? No matter what you profess to believe, you also believe a person can be saved believing the OPPOSITE of the Gospel. This shows that you place NO SAVING VALUE on the Gospel. >>>
*NO I DON’T*. They are saved because they believe the *GOSPEL*. They also have other beliefs that sometimes *ARE* opposite of the Gospel, but the fact remains that they believe the GOSPEL regardless! It is *THAT* that saves them, not their false beliefs.
<<< If you changed from believing Calvinism, to believing Arminianism, you would still consider yourself saved. Correct? If so, then it shows that you do not believe that it is necessary to believe the Gospel in order to be saved. >>>
1) This shows that you equate Calvinism with the Gospel, which is what I said all along even though you whined and complained [CA- And then you call ME rude.] and said:
—
And now, I’m asking you again, for proof of your accusations:
“Your statements make an understanding of Reformed Doctrine a prerequisite for salvation. That is, unless one understands total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints EXACTLY as YOU understand these points, that person is damned.”
—
Well, what more do you need for proof?
[CA] Alright, I will rephrase the question:
If you went from a theology that claims to give God his rightful due, to a theology that “is a man-based theology that strips God of His right to be “God” and elevates man above what man should be”, would you still consider yourself saved?
[PP] 2) Would I be saved as an Arminian? Well, I started out that way. My salvation has always been dependent on Christ, not on me.
[CA] And if you believed that Christ tried, but *failed*, to atone for everyone in the world, and what really made the difference was your *decision*, would you still say that your “salvation has always been dependent on Christ, not on me.”?
PWP
http://www.thecalvinist.com
Christopher Adams.
====================================================
For more information, please see:
