I’m going to change my usual modus operandi a bit and state my beliefs near the beginning of this study. I still want to try and present different views as objectively as I can, but I think it might be helpful if I lay out my current understanding.
- I believe in salvation by grace through faith. I admittedly view that differently than some, because I believe that faith is more than intellectual assent. It includes action. Faith that does not express itself in obedience is mere belief, not faith.
- I believe that Jesus’ sacrifice is sufficient to save all men from all times. That sufficiency is never in question. How God applies that sacrifice is a matter of debate. Some would put no limits, arguing that all men will eventually be saved. Others limit it in different ways: to all believers, to believers who do certain things, etc.
- I believe that the New Testament teaches that Christians can “fall away from grace” (as Galatians states it), “believe in vain” (1 Corinthians), “be disqualified” (2 Corinthians), “be cut off” (Romans), “shipwreck their faith,” “lose their crown,” or any of a number of phrases used to describe what happens when a Christian chooses to return to the world.
- I do not believe in “DAISY,” the idea that people can come in and out of the body of Christ on a daily basis. As long as we are walking in the light, Christ’s blood continually cleanses us. As long as we continue to seek that cleansing, God will grant it to us.
- Since some of the doctrines John Calvin taught do influence our beliefs on this issue, I will mention that I do not believe in TULIP. I believe that God has granted unto man free will, especially regarding salvation. I believe that man chooses whether or not to accept God’s salvation. I believe that Jesus died for the whole world, not just a few. And I believe that saints can lose their status as saints.
That should be enough to start with. I think I’ve given just about everyone something to disagree with. Let the protests begin!
okay okay — I know what TULIP stands for.
but you’ve GOT to share what DAISY is an acronym for, if indeed it is one at all.
Tim, said “I think I’ve given just about everyone something to disagree with.”
I can’t see where anyone could disagree with anything you have said why ? because you have only stated what you believe, and if you don’t know what you believe, who does?
Nick,
DAISY is new to me, and I don’t think it’s an acronym. It’s a joke based on TULIP, saying that these people hold to “He loves me, he loves me not, he loves me, he loves me not.”
Maybe somebody else has a better explanation.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim: Lets start with 2000 years ago. From the time Christ had his earthly ministry in place, all sin was future. Correct? So the blood covered all sin, past, present and in our case future. All sin. Now salvation comes from understanding that your sin is not counted against you. If you have an understanding that In your entire existence all sin is future from Christ’s act on the cross. Its covered, period. So it really doesn’t change anything about what you do and how you think. It doesn’t change the outcome of grace. Like the song your washed as white as snow. Why fight this act of love that was given to you 2000 years ago? Bathe in the glow of his presence in your life. Like another song I like “Be happy, don’t worry”
heavenbound: but what if, despite that grace, a person decides to give God “the finger”? metaphorically speaking. Something like, “The grace that saves is the grace that transforms, and I don’t WANT to be like you, God!”
His sin can be forgiven, but that doesn’t force him into reconciliation and fellowship with God.
“Now salvation comes from understanding that your sin is not counted against you.” So the limitation on Christ’s sacrifice is that one must be conscious of it?
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim, nick:
1) What does being “born-again” mean to you?
2) Why do we have to be “born-again”?
3) How is one “born-again”?
1) Salvation.
2) Because we need saving.
3) through water and spirit, from above.
Jr, I’ve made some pretty basic statements of belief. I’m curious that you’ve chosen to ask other questions rather than address what is there.
Anyway, I’ll play along.
(1) What does “born again” mean to you? Born again is the imagery used both by Jesus (John 3) and Paul (Romans 6; Titus 3) to refer to someone leaving their old life and beginning a new life in Christ.
(2) Why do we have to be born again? As Juan Carlos Ortiz expressed it, there are no naturalized citizens in the kingdom of heaven. You have to be born into the kingdom.
(3) How is one born again? One is born again of water and of Spirit.
Now I wait for the trap to spring…
I predict that the trap will be along the lines of “You can’t be unborn!”
1) Salvation is by grace through faith; both of which are given by God according to His own counsel and will. “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph 2:8; notice the “this” refers to both the saving and the faith) Natural man cannot obtain faith on their own; this Scripture is very clear on this. “But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (1 Cor 2:14) Therefore a person must be born-again and this does not happen by the fallacy of absolute free will. Just as Jesus told Nicodemus, “”Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit” (John 3:5-8).
2) I believe Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient to save all men; though this is pointless because it was never intended to do so. Jesus died for His Bride; the Elect; those who were chosen before the foundation of the world according to the purpose of His will (Eph 1). If you follow the Arminian/Semi-Pelagian logic to its end, you will be a Universalist – unless of course you believe forgiven people are going to hell. Instead, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44). “All that the Father gives me will come to me” (John 6:37). And, “you do not believe because you are not part of my flock” (John 10:26).
3) A true Christian will never “fall away”. Christ keeps His Sheep just as He has promised; Our Lord is not a liar; and the Spirit “who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory” (Eph 1:14). Let me repeat that: “guarantee until we acquire possession of it”.
4) It’s easy to say you don’t believe in DAISY; but the previous puts doubt on that. In addition, what you go on to describe here is self-justification. You have to do something in order that God would grant you something. That’s what we might call “works”. To which Paul and the writer to the Hebrews say makes Christ meaningless. “Christ will be of no advantage to you.”
5) TULIP was only a part of what Calvin taught (he didn’t even come up with that acronym by the way); but if that is what we are going for here; then I will affirm all 5-points. Man is dead in sin and of the flesh. It is impossible for a dead man to come to life on his/her own; or to be born-again on his/her own. We do nothing to get salvation. Jesus died for His Bride; He was 100% successful on the Cross; saving grace cannot be resisted (God values His glory above the fallacy of absolute “free will”); and only those who persevere until the end are the true Sheep.
Where this begins is with who Jesus died for. Tim and others believe Jesus died for every single human that will ever live; which has serious exegetical problems. But then there is the reality of hell, so they have to have an escape route; for you cannot have forgiven people going to hell. So, the man-centered doctrine of autonomous free will comes in. Dismiss the Scriptures that point to the inability of man in the flesh and man then becomes ever powerful and can reject the saving work of Christ no matter how hard God tries. This does two things:
1) Gives man power in justification.
2) Severely reduces the glory of Jesus and the efficiency of His blood by having to admit that what He did on the Cross was a miserable failure (seeing that many will be damned); and weak (when put up against the ever powerful will of man).
I so often here in contemporary Christianity the idea of being born-again reduced to forensic justification – being declared (in a legal sense) free from the guilt of sin. I don’t quible that salvation involves the forensic sense…especially if we are considering the entire canon of scripture. However, in the most famous “born again” passage (John 3), I am not sure Jesus even has in mind forensic justification. Jesus is speaking about being “born from above” in order to see/understand/experience the kingdom of God (Jn 3.3ff). This is about being transformed in order to be reoriented in our ways of living and thinking from a kingdom viewpoint of which Jesus operates from rather than the worldly viewpoint which Nicodemus travails in.
I am not sure how this helps us in the larger discussion that has been taken place over the last few blog posts except to illustrate that biblical salvation is a dynamic reality that cannot be reduced to the forensic quality that some in contemporary Christian seem content with.
Grace and peace,
Rex
1) JR, your lack of simple grammatical understanding is depressing.
If “THIS IS” in Eph 2:8 referred to TWO or more things, it’d be “THESE ARE.” Paul might not have been a nuclear brain surgeon, but he knew simple Greek conjugation and agreement.
2) How does it maximize God’s glory that He would damn a massive group of people for no other reason than arbitrary selection?
3) Yes, the Spirit is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it. But if you lose the King’s seal… if you break it or quench it or cast it away… it is now a guarantee of an inheritance you don’t want.
4) Your definition of works is pitifully weak.
5) Since Calvin didn’t write in English, no one is surprised that he didn’t come up with an English acronym.
Man rejected the saving work of God before Man fell.
Man can reject the saving work of God after Man is saved.
Jr, how do you know you’re part of the elect?
1. Does “this” refer to grace and faith in Eph 2.8? Or does it refer to “saved” which is the subject of the entire section in Ephesians? I find it difficult to believe the pronoun is limited in it scope to grace and faith when the subject of the entire section is about the salvation that comes from God.
2. Is “election” merely sorteriological? Whatever Paul meant by election, he surely was shaped by his understanding of God’s work in Israel (OT). Christopher J. H. Wright makes an incredible argument from Genesis 18 for the missiological implications of God’s covenant to Abraham and thus election is not limited to salvation but also about mission. Wright concludes “We cannot speak bibilically of the doctrine of election without insisting that it was never an end in itself but a means to the greater end of the ingathering of the nations. Election must be seen as missiological, nor merely soteriological” (“The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative,” Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2006, 369).
3. We can proof-text all day long as to whether the death of Jesus was for the all of humanity or only those whom are saved. But the entire biblical trajectory from Genesis to Revelation is a story of God redeeming all of his creation. To say that Christ’s death has “limited atonement” goes against the trajectory of the entire scriptural narrative with its progressive goal. From where I sit, this seems just another attempt at forcing scripture to submitt to doctrinal dogma.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Jr,
Not surprisingly, I disagree with that analysis of Ephesians 2. It does not say that God gives faith to man. At best, it is ambiguous. We then weigh out the passages where man is encouraged to believe; why would that be done, if it is merely a question of God giving man the necessary faith. Most of what we have in the New Testament is mere mockery if nothing depends on what man does. Why exhort man to try and change if he is incapable of doing so?
Do I believe that God could create a world full of robots, incapable of doing anything except his will? Of course I do. With equal fervor, I’m convinced that he chose not to do so. A loving God would create a world full of people who had no chance of salvation? I don’t think so. That’s a monster, not a loving God.
The doctrine is man-centered because God made it that way. “What is man that you are mindful of him?” is the great question. God chose to put this treasure in clay pots. It is God who elevated man. In the book of Job, Job’s friends spoke of man as a worm, an image that crept into our hymnody. That’s not the image that God uses for man. Man is created in the image of God. God set things up so that man “would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him” to use Paul’s words. That’s hardly the image of a God imposing salvation on man.
There is a huge difference between believing in obedience and believing in works. Hebrews 11 is full of examples of faith; we know that because of what they did. Acts 16 shows us the example of the Philippian jailer that believed in God. How do we know? “Abraham believed in God and showed it by sitting in his tent thinking happy thoughts.” Yeah, right. Noah built an ark by faith. No ark, no faith.
Again, the New Testament is full of exhortations about what people should do. Why? What’s the point? Just sit back and let God do whatever he has planned to do with these people.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
This is interesting…I believe…well, I will leave that for later.
Bro’ Tim,
I suggest that “born again” is far more than “imagery”. One of the theological stumbling blocks in coc circles is the failure to understand that “spiritual” realities are just as real and meaningful as physical realities.
Paul described the unbeliever as spiritually “dead” but it seems many of our people do not believe that is true. When God justifies a sinner he is in reality giving life to the dead.
This “new birth” results in something (“new creature”) that did not exist before. It is one thing to make a commitment or a decision to follow Jesus or join a church. It is an altogether different thing to be born from above.
” who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:13)
since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God” (1 Peter 1:23)
Royce
as much as I love, appreciate and respect John Piper…
and as much as I enjoyed his book on Preaching and the Supremacy of God..
the section on preaching to convict, get a response, from the hearers was hilarious, written from a no free-will perspective.
sections include
use threat and warning
plead for a response
Royce,
I wrestled a bit with “imagery.” I chose the term largely because when someone lays out questions like that in the middle of a discussion, some sort of logical or verbal trap is being set. I tried to leave myself as much wiggle room as possible! :-)
From my understanding, and I’m relying on the expertise of others, “new” in the Bible so often refers to something that is “renewed” or “reshaped.” Isn’t that the thrust of a lot of the arguments going on about the new heavens and the new earth? It’s not that the new creature didn’t exist before; he’s been remade.
Spiritual realities are not easily expressed in physical terms. The relationships are always imperfect. When two people marry, the two become one. However, God recognizes the reality of divorce and says that when divorced people remarry, they can’t come back to their original spouses (Deut. 24—let’s please not get off on divorce and remarriage!). The two become one, yet can become two again. Does that lessen the reality of the two becoming one flesh?
It is imagery that expresses spiritual realities… but the realities remain spiritual and as such can only be imprecisely defined in the physical world.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Royce writes: This “new birth” results in something (“new creature”) that did not exist before.
Nick here: That’s precisely the misunderstanding that leads to annihilationist understandings of eschatology. ‘Kainos’ does *not* mean “something that did not exist before.”
‘Kainos’ means renewal, refreshing, restoring. As in, “Behold, I make all things new” — not, Behold, I make all new things.
The “new creature” bear some discontinuity with the old (which the “imperishable seed” image seeks to convey), but also remarkable continuity with the old.
If ‘kainos’ means new in the sense of different, then the new birth would mean we lose our image-of-God identity for something different.
Please remember, that in this discussion most if not all are well educated.
No need to give degrees and college info. Remember that the bible was written to tent dwellers, uneducated peasants as well for the Stoics, and professionals of the day. This is not rocket science fellas. God sent his perfect son to save an imperfect world. How hard can this be to understand? Religious dogmatics gets in the way of truth and Christ said the truth shall set you free. Do I need to prove my salvation to anyone?
Its a free gift. I am sorry if a lot of you gentlemen want to work for it, work to maintain it, work to have it in the end. I don’t have to because I recognize, that I don’t deserve it, I can’t work hard enough to keep it and the fact of the matter its free! If I gave everyone in this discussion 10 million dollars, and said here its yours I give it to you with no strings attached, some of you would argue about it, some would say no I have to work for you to feel good about that gift and God I hope some would say praise Jesus I am rich beyond my wildest dreams!!!!!!!
Heavenbound,
And some would never cash the check, fearful of spoiling the gift by “working” to receive it.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
heavenbound,
Sorry. You haven’t interacted with anything in Tim’s original post or anything that anyone has brought up in response to your main posting. So this is my last response to you: and it is a two-parter.
1) Please show me where anyone gave “degrees and college info.” That looks dangerously like a red herring.
2) The only person you need to prove your salvation to is yourself – because nothing you’ve said offers any security. As you said: “only those who persevere until the end are the true Sheep.” It ain’t the end yet, so how do you know you’re one of the “true Sheep”?
Heavenbound,
Please don’t be intimidated if someone refers to the original languages. Since the Bible wasn’t written in English originally, such is necessary at times. I do agree that dogmatics can get in the way. It’s just always easier to see the dogmatism in someone else than in ourselves.
I don’t believe in doing good works to earn salvation, nor in doing good works to keep my salvation. The giver of the gift warns that it can be lost… should I not listen to him more than I do the men around me? “Take care that no one steal your crown…” I follow the one that issued that warning to the members of his body.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Nick, Don’t take it personally if you are not degreed. A lot of intelligent people didn’t get degreed.
I really feel for you man, to go thru life not knowing about eternal security. You seem to be angry about something, are you?
Do you have spiritual peace? You seem to want to mix law and grace.
My salvation comes from what Christ did for humanity . Colossians 1:20
And having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile
ALL things unto himself by him, I say whether they be things in earth or things in heaven 21 And you that were once alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet NOW hath he reconciled 22 In the body of his flesh through death to present YOU holy and unblamable and unreprovable in his sight. Now what more do you need?
According to the Scholarchip I am familiar with:
TULIP is the result of the Synod of Dort aka Dordt which was held in the city in the Netherlands a good while after Calvin and Arminius had passsed on. The synod was called as a reaction to the Dutch Remonstrance. The Remonstrants were Arminians but they were probably more Arminian that Arminius and the Synod was probably more Calvinistic than Calvin. Calvin was probably a four point Calivinist and I understand he did not teach the doctrine of Limited atonement – the “L” in TULIP.. The five points of Calvinism (aka TULIP) were reaction against the five points of Arminianism.
DAISY is not original with me as I heard it somewhere else, many years ago. However, I believe I am the one that introduced it to CofC blogs – first on John Mark Hicks blog and later on Jay Guin’s blog. After a discussion of TULIP one may say that the semi-Pelagians also have a flower and it is the DAISY. You then explain DAISY as picking a daisy blossom and holding between your thumb and index finger with one hand and plucking the petals off the blossom with the other hand while repeating the words “he loves me, he loves me not.” This is the theology my generation grew up with in the CofC. So DAISY is used to poke a little fun at the semi-Pelagians after they have belittled TULIP>
Faith is more trhan intellectual assent. YES, of course it is and I do not know of a single Calvinist that ever once said that saving faith was limited to intellectual assent. That is a falsehood frequently thrown at those that affirm salvation by grace alone through faith alone. Check any good (Calvinistic) systematic theology – thry Berkhof if you want a one volume theology – and you will see that saving faith includes intellectual knowledge, assent and trust. Even the demons have some kind of faith in that they have intellectual knowledge and assent, but they DO NOT trust Jesus for their salvation. No educated person thinks faith is limited to intellectual knowledge and assent.
For a little better understanding of being born again one might also look at John 1:13 in addition to the third chapter of John. Jn 1:13 reads “who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” Regeneration (being born again) is not something in which man is active any more than he was active in his physical (of water) birth. Man was present when it happened to him but he was passive in the event. It is something God does for his children. It is like the wind, you see/feel the effects, but you don’t know where it came from or where it went, it is the activity of a sovereign God. At least that is the way Calvinists see it.
Heavenbound,
You’re new here, so this is merely a warning. Do your best to keep the personal stuff out of it. At least toward others commenters. That gets ugly fast.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Randall, what I said about intellectual assent was said more as a defense than an attack. I think that everyone knows faith is more than intellectual assent, but when someone mentions doing ANYTHING they say, “Oh, you believe in grace and law” (for a good example, look at heavenbound’s comment below).
What I’m trying to point out is what everyone already should know: faith isn’t just sitting around thinking happy thoughts about God. Not according to the Bible.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim: If my comment was offensive to anyone, I apologize, It appeared to me that a responder took a shot over my bow. I myself don’t have the years of seminary or Letters behind my name. What I have done is compared scripture with scripture and found truth when doing this.
It does make a difference when you compare, contrast and ask questions, of why people believe a certain way. We are reading the same scriptures.
I don’t think many who are on this blog have read much of what Paul said in his letters to the gentiles. If I can shed light on the fact that there is a difference between prophecy and mystery, and people can see it, its exciting……….Doctrine is for correction, reproof and instruction. We have to be berean in knowing if its applicable to us today.
Heavenbound,
You have referred several times to your blog. Do you have one? The address that you put in the comment form is incomplete, so no one can click on your name and go read your writings. http://universalreconciliation is not a complete address.
That said, your comment about “Please remember, that in this discussion most if not all are well educated. No need to give degrees and college info.” was what prompted Nick’s remark. Since no one had done any of that, your comment made no sense. And you keep writing about the doctrines you have to share, rather than addressing what is actually being posted. That’s more than a little frustrating to all of us.
Publicize your blog. I’ll even make sure people see the address. You can talk about whatever you want there.
Then take some time to actually read what’s written, think about it, and respond on topic.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Heavenbound said, “I don’t think many who are on this blog have read much of what Paul said in his letters to the gentiles.”
That is quite an accusation to be made.
No one on this blog is claiming to be a Pauline scholar or flouting whatever degrees they may have, theology or otherwise. But I am quite confident in saying that most of the commenters on this blog (Tim, Jr., Nick, Royce, Laymond, myself, et al…) have read the NT books written by the Apostle Paul. We may not always agree on what is the correct interpretation but disagreement is not evidence of unfamiliarity and novelty.
Grace and peace,
Rex
K. Rex then what is the correct interpretation of what Paul claims.
He claims he is the apostle to the Gentiles
He claims that he is the chief sinner.
He claims that Christ is a stumbling block to Israel
He claims that there is no law but grace
He claims that he was given revelation by the Lord and didn’t receive it from any man.
He claims that in time past we were alienated from the blessings of God
He claims that the law was nailed to the cross.
He claims that now there is no difference between Jew and Greek
He claims that he was glad that he only baptized a few by water and that the baptism is spiritual not physical.
He claims that the fullness of times has come to the gentiles.
He claims that feast days, ordinances and traditions of men are no longer applicable.
He claims we are justified, sanctified and no longer under sin by the finished work of the cross
He claims that we have peace with God thru Christ Jesus
Wow, HB, that’s a lot of interpretation you’re asking for.
A few points, just to save time:
Paul does not claim that the law was nailed to the cross. Continuing his prescient posting, Jay Guin wrote about that today:
http://oneinjesus.info/2010/02/09/faith-lessons-by-ray-vander-laan-abolish-and-fulfill/
Paul does not say he was glad that he only baptized a few by water. He says that he is glad only a few were baptized by his hand. I wrote on that one a while back: http://www.timothyarcher.com/kitchen/?p=205
And I won’t bother trying to refute “He claims that the baptism is spiritual not physical” because that one’s not EVEN in there.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Heavenbound,
You missed my point…I am not talking about what is the correct or incorrect interpretation of what Paul wrote. I AM TALKING ABOUT throwing out unfounded accusations such as ““I don’t think many who are on this blog have read much of what Paul said in his letters to the gentiles.”
You don’t know what I (or anyone else) have read or not read. Disageement on an issue does not mean we have not read the letters of Paul. For instance, Jr. and I have disagreed much on the present subject but I have no doubt that despite our disagreement, Jr. has read the letters of Paul.
So feel free to agree or disagree with others, raise your own questions, present your own convictions, etc…but don’t accuse others of being unread just because they don’t share your convictions.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Tim,
Please excuse me for speaking so forthrightly regarding the meaning of the word “faith.” I did not intend to be as aggressive as I probably came across. Now that I clearly understand that what you said was “more as a defense than an attack” I should indicate my appreciation.
As you are aware, it is common in some circles to deny salvation by grace through faith and not works, to accuse people who do affirm by grace through faith of not believing that works have anything to do with salvation or that action is not a part of it. Of course, we do believe that works have a lot to do with salvation. That is, we are saved for good works, not because we did good works. And of course, trust in Jesus’ finished work is an integral part of saving faith.
Like you I believe I believe that Jesus’ sacrifice is sufficient to save all men from all times. However the atonement is limited, either by God or by men. I am sure you agree with this for either the atonement is applied to all men w/o exception and all are saved (universalism), or the atonement is applied only to those that come to faith. In today’s Calvinism, five pointers believe God limited the atonement to those for whom it was intended i.e. the elect. Semi-Pelagians believe the atonement is limited by men in that it was intended to save all men w/o exception but it is limited to those that come to faith and reap the benefit. The end result is that the extent of the atonement is the same, only the intent of the atonement is different. While it is logically consistent with the other four points to go with the Calvinist view, it is not taught clearly in scripture. It falls into the category of what I call pounding a round peg into a square hole. That is, the doctrine is taught for the sake of being consistent in a systematic theology even though the biblical support for the view is weak. In Lewis Sperry Chafer’s systematic theology he acknowledges it is logically consistent but of very limited practical value relative to the other four points. I think that all good theology is practical so I do not describe myself a five pointer.
Some deny the practical value of POTS, but it is clear to those of us that believe it. In short, if God be for us what does matter who is against us. It is by his power and his grace that we stand now and the same holds true for the future. We have every confidence to continue on and not give up for he will complete in us that which he started.
If one believes they came to faith through their own devices (i.e. their supposed free will) rather than the grace of God then they have only their limited and fickle free will to sustain them. Also, if we pause to think about it for a moment must acknowledge there is a limited amount we can accomplish through willing it. Just try willing to be perfect for even one day and let me know how that works for you.
I believe you know these lyrics. We sang them a lot when I was growing up. Like the lyrics to Amazing Grace, we sang them but didn’t really mean them in the CofC.
How Firm a Foundation
1. How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,
Is laid for your faith in His excellent word!
What more can He say than to you He hath said—
To you who for refuge to Jesus have fled?
2. “Fear not, I am with thee, oh, be not dismayed,
For I am thy God, and will still give thee aid;
I’ll strengthen thee, help thee, and cause thee to stand,
Upheld by My gracious, omnipotent hand.
3. “When through the deep waters I call thee to go,
The rivers of sorrow shall not overflow;
For I will be with thee thy trouble to bless,
And sanctify to thee thy deepest distress.
4. “When through fiery trials thy pathway shall lie,
My grace, all-sufficient, shall be thy supply;
The flame shall not harm thee; I only design
Thy dross to consume and thy gold to refine.
5. “The soul that on Jesus doth lean for repose,
I will not, I will not, desert to his foes;
That soul, though all hell should endeavor to shake,
I’ll never, no never, no never forsake.”
I wish I could underline or put some of those words in bold print.
Peace,
Randall
“I am sure you agree with this for either the atonement is applied to all men w/o exception and all are saved (universalism), or the atonement is applied only to those that come to faith.”
Randall,
Respectfully, you are posing a false dilemma. There are options besides universalism or limited atonement. I believe that the blood of Jesus Christ was shed to atone for every sin ever committed by humanity. Nothing else fits the God who IS love. But that God, who created humanity in his image, will force no one to dine with Him. Thus you have the terribly sad image of people who reject the God of grace, and whose decision God respects. In the parable of the lost sons in Luke 15, the father forces neither child to stay in his house.
That hymn is a fine one, and it doesn’t teach either limited atonement, eternal security, or either of the flower plans, or even your POTS to hold the flowers in! It teaches quite simply what Tim has asserted and I’ve tried to defend, that the one who continues to choose to “lean on Jesus” has nothing to fear. The one who rejects Jesus (by rejecting their faith, rejecting their repentance, or trying to set up ways to justify themselves) has no such protection.
Randall,
Thanks for the extensive reply. You’d be surprised at what people believe about the songs they sing; one of the beautiful things about art is that it is open to multiple interpretations. Isaac Watt’s “Come Ye That Love The Lord” was a bit of a battle song, arguing with those would didn’t care to sing songs that don’t come straight from the Psalms. It still holds meaning for those who sing it, even if they aren’t using it to argue with anyone. And I have absolutely no problem in singing the two hymns you’ve mentioned.
I did want to comment on one thing you said, “If one believes they came to faith through their own devices (i.e. their supposed free will) rather than the grace of God then they have only their limited and fickle free will to sustain them.” Why on earth would that be true? When we are baptized into Christ, we receive God’s Spirit; why would we be only sustained by our own will? That some seek to maintain their faith in that way, I will grant you. But it’s not an obvious consequence, no matter who states it as such.
Once again, I have to say that, to my thinking, predestination turns many of the exhortations in the New Testament into some sort of a cruel joke. “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation… oh wait, you can’t.” “Repent… well, only if God forces you to.” “This salvation has appeared to all men… appeared to them, just no available to them.”
The promise to Abraham was to bless ALL families of the earth. The kingdom of Israel was a kingdom of priests, on whose behalf? Priests serving one another? No, priests to serve the nations. God never chose a nation to bless that nation alone. That’s not what election is about. God sent his son to die for all men, for God wills that all men be saved. He has commanded all men to repent, and his grace that brings salvation has appeared to all men.
Shall I put it to music?
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
P.S.— I believe that you can use basic HTML to put in bold, etc.
Nick,
Thanks for your reply. Please note I take the charge of a false dichotomy almost as seriously as my ability to understand poetry. ;-)
Let’s also keep in mind that parables were never intended to walk on all fours. The parable of the lost sons, prodigal son or the gracious father is not intended to teach free will or that man’s will be win over God’s will with regard to the behavior of either son. It teaches the grace of God and joy of God over a sinner who repents, and it does that quite well, especially when contrasted with the elder brother’s attitude.
With regard to the supposed false dichotomy, a Five Point (emphasize five point) Calvinist says the atonement was only intended to atone for the sins of the elect and the HS applied it to every one pf the elect as they come to faith. A Pelagian or semi-Pelagian says the atonement was intended to atone for the sins of every person w/o exception but it is only applied to those that come to faith. So the effect of the atonement is limited to those that come to faith i.e. it is limited by man’s supposed free will choice rather than by the initial intent of God. There are two other options, but we do not take either one seriously. Those two options are that every person is saved by the atonement (universalism) or no person is saved by the atonement. So I don’t think I really presented a false dichotomy. Perhaps I failed to explain my meaning sufficiently well.
As to the song and POTS: Like the song Amazing Grace we may not understand the lyrics. If we did, I don’t know why we would sing it in a CofC – its like the Roman Catholics singing A Mighty Fortress – just who do they think Luther meant by the Prince of Darkness?.
Note these lyrics:
Fear not, I am with thee, oh, be not dismayed,
For I am thy God, and will still give thee aid;
I’ll strengthen thee, help thee, and cause thee to stand,
Upheld by My gracious, omnipotent hand.
They state that God will cause me to stand and emphasize his infinite ability to do that as well s the grace that is directed towards me. One main point of poetry is to say something in such brevity and force that the reader will understand. We have not taken poetry seriously for decades so it is understandable that many would not get it.
Likewise the last verse of the song states:
“The soul that on Jesus doth lean for repose,
I will not, I will not, desert to his foes;
That soul, though all hell should endeavor to shake,
I’ll never, no never, no never forsake.”
The point is that nothing at all, not even the wiles of the evil one can cause the believer to be forsaken by God. I hope we can agree that those that God condemns to eternal judgment have been forsaken by God. If he condemns those that he loves then who on earth will receive his wrath, and do I really want his love if it sends me to hell? If you don’t see this in these lyrics, as well as the clear Calvinistic perspective presented in Amazing Grace, may I suggest a little further study of this genre, that is, fi you are interested. No one has to like English literature nor should they be compelled to study after the obligatory six or eight hours required for a Bachelor’s degree. I really loved the stuff but must admit I have not devoted a lot of time to in these last two decades.
I hope this helps you understand what I intended.
Peace,
Randall
Randall,
I searched a bit and found that the author of “How Firm A Foundation” is unknown, so the interpretation is left to each of us.
I have no problem in singing about how God sustains the believer. I do believe that. And I know that God will never surrender us to our foes. Nor will he ever be unfaithful to us.
Reading the words again, I had to smile a bit. The song is praising God’s Word as the foundation on which WE can build our faith. Any Calvinist who studies the words won’t be able to sing them honestly.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim,
Thanks for your comments and critique. I believe my last and your last may have been crossed in ethereal cyberland. Apparently I am old enough to appreciate the Romantic and Modern era poetry so much more than contemporary poetry, though I do like Paul Simon very much, but please don’t make me read E.E. Cummings ever again.
Regarding song lyrics you said: “And I have absolutely no problem in singing the two hymns you’ve mentioned.” Yes of course you sing them and w/o problem, but you don’t mean what you are singing. Did you know that in Calvinistic churches they actually select songs in large part based on their lyrics? From my experience they actually consider their theology far more important then than is the norm in the CofC.
You also said “You’d be surprised at what people believe about the songs they sing; one of the beautiful things about art is that it is open to multiple interpretations.” Ah yes, isn’t that the wonderful thing about post modernism. It doesn’t really matter what it means. The important thing is what it means to ME, not what the author intended. Why should we let the intent of the song writer get in the way of OUR understanding of it. So actually , I just might not be surprised at what people believe about the sings they sing. We in the CofC don’t have a lock misusing words, but we certainly have been guilty of using the same words as more mainstream Christianity while meaning very different things by those same words e.g. grace. Another example, the Mormons believe in Jesus, but the Jesus of Mormonism has very different attributes than the Jesus of orthodox Christianity. Unfortunately, since some (not you) in our fellowship believe we are the only true Christians, we are not sensitive to the criticism of behaving like a cult in some respects.
Previously I said “If one believes they came to faith through their own devices (i.e. their supposed free will) rather than the grace of God then they have only their limited and fickle free will to sustain them.” And you said “Why on earth would that be true? When we are baptized into Christ, we receive God’s Spirit; why would we be only sustained by our own will? That some seek to maintain their faith in that way, I will grant you. But it’s not an obvious consequence, no matter who states it as such.” Are you suggesting that the HS influences what we think, believe, decide, and how we act. Be careful or you may become a Calvinist for that is the doctrine i.e that God is sovereign and he regenerates us and gives us eyes to see and ears to hear and influences our will. If it is only a person’s free will or good sense that brought them to faith and God will help them (to an extent) to persevere, but won’t cause them to persevere then they may well walk away anytime their free will leads them to do that . The belief is that God won’t effectually influence you stay if your old man says to go, or infringe upon your free will in any way isn’t going to keep a man in love with Him. The man is far more apt to do that which he does not want to do. Wretched man that I am…, thanks be to God for all he has done and is doing for me.
Tim, I think you mean well but you actually said “Once again, I have to say that, to my thinking, predestination turns many of the exhortations in the New Testament into some sort of a cruel joke.” Really, do you really, truly believe that? I doubt very much that you know one Calvinist that sees it that way. Calvinists think it is altogether appropriate to admonish all men w/o exception to believe, trust and obey God. Why would you view it as a cruel joke? You also said “Repent… well, only if God forces you to.” Calvinists do not believe that God forces anyone to repent. They believe he makes them willing and they willingly come. Presenting this as a God forces people to believe or won’t allow them to believe or that we are puppets or robots are all caricatures of Calvinism. I do not believe this terminology is used by anyone (even those that disagree) if they actually understand the doctrines of sovereign grace. If this is your understanding I can only implore you to study it until you have a real understanding of Calvinism. Please keep in mind this is almost never ever taught in the CofC, only the caricature is presented there. If you know of an exception please make me aware ot it.
I wonder if you think God knows the future and has always known all of the future. If your answer is “no” than how would you explain God’s omniscience? If your answer is “yes” then don’t you believe things will turn out exactly the way God knows they will turn out? In other words, don’t you believe we are predestined to turn out exactly the way God knows we will turn out? And isn’t it consistent to to believe that God knew that (in logical sequence) before he created even one of us, yet he chose to create us just the way he did,. Pharaoh and Moses, Jacob and Esau, Issac and Ismael, etc.
For what it is worth.
Peace,
Randall
OK, Randall, lots to deal with.
It’s not post modernism that says that art can be interpreted in many ways. I’m curious what they taught in those literature classes, because it’s very different from anything I’ve ever learned. And I was in school LONG before post modernism was in vogue. No, the Bible is not open to “private interpretations,” but songs are.
You will probably continue to sing “How Firm A Foundation,” even though the thrust of the song contradicts your beliefs. And you will continue to point fingers at others who do the same. Such is life.
I can sing “Amazing Grace” because I’m not bound to affirming what John Newton meant when he wrote the words. He wrote them with enough ambiguity that I don’t have a problem with what it says. Yes, he was a Calvinist. Do you know the beliefs of every hymn writer whose songs you sing? Obviously not, since the writer of “How Firm A Foundation” is unknown.
But enough with that silliness…
Man can resist the Spirit. We can let ourselves be led by Him into holiness, or we can resist him and remain in carnality.
Yes, I do believe that offering salvation to people who can’t accept it would be a cruel hoax, unworthy of our holy God.
Your questions about God’s foreknowledge gets back to my post on “Let God be God.” You’re attempting to define the infinite in terms of the finite. Is God limited by our concepts of time and space? Attempts to cram the sovereign God into human definitions force us to create doctrines to support these misconceptions.
(My belief is that God exists outside of our dimensions of time, sort of like a man looking down on a ruler. He can see all points at once, conceivably even seeing multiple streams of time based on different happenings. But this is all human speculation.)
Was God lying when he sent Jonah to tell Nineveh that it would be destroyed in 40 days? They repented and he relented. How is that possible? Because God is God. He announced a destruction of the city of Tyre, destruction that never took place. Why? God is God.
OK, as long comments try to answer long comments, we each start rambling a bit. Sorry. Hope that we’re each growing through the exchange.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim,
I know very little about art in the form of paintings and such. I never studied any more than was absolutely required and it didn’t float my boat all that much. Words mean something and I think that is important to suggest we should pay attention to what they mean. There are appropriate ways of interpreting poetry and it is good that we know what those words mean the way they were written, but we don’t have too. I am sure that I have sung words that I did not understand the meaning of (including both these songs many years ago) and that may have been contrary to my actual beliefs. Such is the behavior of man.
Certainly finite beings can not grasp an infinite being, but it is worthwhile to attempt to understand him better. I believe he does reveal himself to us in ways that we can understand and he intends for us to understand more about him than we do now.
One can read scripture – let’s say the passage where God tells Moses he is going to destroy the Israelites for making golden images and worshiping them while Moses was on the mountain. God says he will make a new people for himself though Moses’ offspring. Moses tells God he shouldn’t do that as these people are known by his name and if he destroys them it will give God a bad rep. God repents of what he was going to do and goes back to keeping Israel as his people. How should we understand that passage? Perhaps Moses kept a level head when God was so angry he couldn’t think straight; so Moses calmed him down and talked some sense into him. Or perhaps this is an example of God revealing something to us about himself in anthropomorphisms (really anthropopathisms). Or maybe we should just say God is so far above us we shouldn’t try to make sense of all this along with everything else God has revealed about himself. After all, His ways are not our ways and vice versa.
I think it is edifying to contemplate what God is like and what he wants us to understand about himself. Granted our understanding will always be flawed b/c it is based in part on mere human intellect, understanding and wisdom. AS we try to understand him we may hit the edge of the envelope after 250 meters or 250 miles, but somewhere we will simply bow in awe. Personally, I think semi-Pelagianism and Pelagainism fall so short and giving God the glory for what he has done and attribute way too much credit to what man accomplishes. Others see it differently. To each his own.
But poetry does mean something! At least that’s what they taught in the literature classes I attended. Any student that stopped at “Well, this is what it means to me …” was not in for a good day when the grades were handed out.
Tim,
I thoroughly appreciate your post, and, incidentally agree with you 100%. Also, well done to you (& Nick) in the above reply debates. I’ve grown by reading even if no one else has!
—JLPappas
Tim: My point about Paul and baptism is made since he is the object of my point I thought it obvious he was talking about his hand. Sorry I didn’t make that clear. To further make my point about his position on water baptism I sight the following passage Eph. 4:4-6 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
One Lord, one faith, one baptism.
Now surely water is not mentioned in this passage you must agree.
In the sentence above the Spirit is eluded to baptism.
Another verse about baptism with out water is Gal. 3:26-27
The verse that says the law was nailed to the cross is Col 2:14
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us which was contrary to us and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross.
Now surely you can see in this passage the law being ordinances against us.
Heavenbound…
I am amazed. My children had baths earlier tonight. Now do I need to mention that their baths were in water or is it reasonable to assume that since our culture bathes in water that when I mention the word “bath” other readers will know it includes water without me mentioning the word “water”?
So must a biblical writer mention water everytime they use the word “baptism” or is it reasonable to assume, based on the vast biblical and non-biblical literature regarding the practice of Christian baptism in water, that the biblical writer has in mind water baptism? And in the cases where the NT does have in mind baptism in the Holy Spirit when the word baptism is mentioned, I think it would be upon the interpreter to show from a contextual study why the writer is speaking of baptism in the Holy Spirit rather than the normal practice of water baptism.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Tim: another passage that states that the law was nailed to the cross is Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the emnity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances to make in himself of twain one new man so making peace. Eph 2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross having slain the enmity thereby. The law has no power over us.
Rex: Being a former baptist and being baptized myself, my discovery in my studies raised issues about importance of this ordinance. Israel priests were baptized in ceremonies as part of their priesthood.
John the Baptist, baptized in the announcement of the Kingdom and of course baptized our Lord. Peter mentions it in Acts. Paul announces that this is not important any longer as this ordinance has no purpose in this age of Grace. That is why he is so adamant about only baptizing a few by his own hand. The Jews kept baptizing as that was a requirement for the announcement of the kingdom. This in my view is the reason why we don’t need to do it anymore…….Some denominations require it for membership and some make it part of the salvation process. Catholics just to name one
Weren’t the Israelites baptized in the sea and in the cloud. Yet they crossed on dry land. In this context it is clear that baptism may have a broader meaning than immersed in water.
On the other hand, the normal scriptural usage of the word does appear to refer to immersion in water so it does seem that the context would have to make clear that something else was being spoken of e.g. baptism by fire.
For what is it worth.
Heavenbound,
I disagree…nevertheless, you still missed my point.