Some things really get under my skin and when they get there I seek God for clear directives on these matters. When I read this article from Apologetics.com it at first drove me crazy, and as I read some of the responses from 'francis' (a RCC apologete), Mathetes (Jack Gibson - a teacher in Apologetics), 'Love Supreme' (Lindsay - the chief apologete)...my brief irritation turned to boiling hot distaste.

The opening post presented 3 arguments in the form of a Soldier who worshipped a demon from one of C.S. Lewis' books, a letter by C.S. Lewis and then a passage of Scripture from Romans (perhaps the thrust), plus two other passages. The author was a person who goes by the name of Seal_of_servants.

This morning as I awoke this was still on my mind and I turned to the Lord in prayer. I began to think about how Scripture condemns witchcraft and how the ideas that were expressed here by those who are meant to be defending the truth of the Gospel was offensive but not only that is that they claim to be Calvanistic to some degree or other.

My jets are still steaming and I doubt they shall cool for a long time. Unless someone here has a good answer for me, please ?

Here is the link:
Saved and not know it

Straw
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/puke.gif" alt="" /> I think you are correct to feel the way you do about this article. How can someone serve a false god and at the same time be saved? The story has no account of the soldier repenting and turning to Aslan, so I don't know how he could be saved.
Also, if he was following this false god all his life, how could it also be true (as Aslan said) that he was following good all his life? It would be like saying that the false god was good.

Tom

straw,

So, help me out here..... what's your problem?

ALL who participated in that thread and the views of C.S. Lewis on this subject of the possibility of non-believers ultimately being saved are waaaaaaaay off the mark; their views are totally false. There is no speculation to be seen in Scripture on who is going to be received by God at the Judgment. It is crystal clear that only those who God has predestined to salvation in Christ will be saved. And those, during their lifetime will be irresistibly drawn to Christ by the Holy Spirit, Who having regenerated them, will infallibly repent of their sins (true evangelical repentance) and believe on Christ with a living faith. All of the elect will progress in sanctification, putting off the old man and putting on the new man. (Rom 8:29, 30; Eph. 1:4-13; et al)

There is no such foolishness as a "second chance salvation", despite what Billy Graham and others think. For as it is written:


Re: Romans 2:12-16, the "interpretation" given by "Seal_of_Servants" is so far from what Paul is actually teaching in that particular passage it makes my head spin! What that passage is saying is that whether or not one is without the law (Gentiles) or has the law (Jews) both will be judged (condemned) because BOTH transgress the law; either the law written on the hearts (Gentiles) or the written law [Moses] (Jews). [cf. Rom 3:9ff]

In His grace,

Straw,

You'll have to be a little more selective of what you read. As Pilgrim has pointed out "ALL" who are participating in that thread are completely off the mark.

Peter warns us about folks like that in his second letter. He tells us to beware of people who twist things to their own destruction as they do with the rest of Scripture. Instead be diligent to be found faithful and growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (See 2 Peter 3:14-18)


Wes

Thank-you so much Tom, Pilgrim and Wes. I feel the jets cooling some. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cloud9.gif" alt="" />

Wes,

What do you think of the current direction of the discussion between the person who wrote the opening post and H.T. Beckstead and Psyche ?

Especially the replies of Psyche:

1.
Perhaps Lewis and yourself are too focussed on the roads that are leading to Christ and not the pathway that is Christ (straight and narrow) which leads to us.

2.
The completed work of Yeshua ha Massiach, is an eternal work that reaches forward and backward simultaneously embracing all who are of 'the election of grace' - the chosen of God/Yahweh : not based on merit of any sort; be it zeal misplaced, pure devotion or faith which is anything more or less than A GIFT namely the completed work of Yeshua ha Massiach.

Straw
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cheers2.gif" alt="" />

Philosophical but hardly biblical. There is only ONE road that leads to eternal life. If you veer off that road then you obviously aren't going to reach the necessary destination; Christ. That road is "by grace through faith in Christ alone", aka: Sola Fide. God has decreed not only the end but also the means to that end.

John 10:1-5 (ASV) "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. When he hath put forth all his own, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers."

Again, interesting philosophical musings but it is hardly in accord with the teaching of Scripture. Although God's election is from eternity, it comes to fruition in time/history. There is no "eternal justification" nor an "eternal atonement". What Christ accomplished must also be applied in time through the means determined by God. Those means are made effectual by the work of the Holy Spirit upon and within individuals at the appointed time. And one last point, "Yeshua ha Massiach" is not eternal. The Son of God, the second person of the Trinity is eternal. But the incarnate Son of God, aka: Jesus of Nazareth came into being at a point in history when he was brought forth from the womb of Mary. (cf. Jh 1:1, 10) The Word (Son) became flesh (Jesus)!

In His grace,

Thanks Pilgrim.

Just a few facts I would like clearned up regarding your last point.

Are you saying that 'Jesus Christ' is not eternal ? He referred to himself as the Son of God, so are you dividing 'Jesus Christ' and 'The Son of God' ? Sort of 'Son of man' and 'Son of God' - His man part died on the cross and His eternal part continued living ? Yet we know that he rose a physical man. Remember Thomas touched him and he ate food etc. The passage you are referring to in John 1 also says that 'The Word was God' Did the Word stop being God when He became flesh, what of the other passages which says, 'God manifest in the flesh' The other passage is not John 1:10 it is John 1:14.

add:
If Jesus Christ was not eternal then how do you explain the following passages of Scripture ?

1 John 4:2
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

1 John 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Sorry to have caused some confusion on this matter of the eternality of Christ.

The reason I mentioned what I did was because so many today make the serious error, albeit unknowingly for most, in interpreting John 1:1, i.e., they believe that the "Word" was Jesus. The "Word" is referring to the "Son" of God; 2nd person of the Trinity. And this "Word" (Son) became flesh 1:14, which was Jesus the Christ, the incarnation of God the Son, aka: the God-man.

Now, the Son is eternal but Jesus Christ as the God-man, although divine as to the Son is not eternal as to His humanity. We cannot intermix the two natures even though they cannot be separated. This was a serious issue waaaaaaay back and the result was that the Church formulated an answer to those who erred on one side or the other as to the nature of Christ. That document is known as "The Chalcedonian Creed".

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

Hopefully, the above statement will clear up any misunderstanding that may have resulted due to the way I phrased something, etc..

In His grace,

Just to add.


HEIDELBERG CATAECHISM
XIII. LORD'S DAY.

Question 33. Why is Christ called the only begotten Son of God, . . . ?

Answer. Because Christ alone is the eternal and natural Son of God . . .

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 (AV)

Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Hebrews 1:2 (AV)




XIV. LORD'S DAY.

Question 35. What is the meaning of these words "He was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary"?

Answer. That God's eternal Son, who is, and continueth true and eternal God, took upon him the very nature of man, . . . sin excepted.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:14 (AV)

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, Galatians 4:4 (AV)





William

Thank-you Pilgrim for your humble spirit on this matter of grave consequence, for great indeed is the mystery of godliness, that God the Father was pleased to have the fulness of the Godhead dwell in Christ bodily.

Revisiting the topic of this thread:

The question is bizarre; in and of itself. If someone did not know that one was saved, then surely one would not be saved at all, or at least as the Apostle Peter wrote by the Holy Spirit; such a one has forgotten they were cleansed from their sins.

I have yet to meet a person that is not simply bursting with joy when they have been cleansed from their sins.

As to the matter of what preceeds regeneration; surely there might well be a state where the elect not yet made alive would be considered as saved in a nominal sense, namely that there names are written in the Lamb's book of life but they are not conscious of this not yet having been brought to God the Son by God the Father ? (Excuse my abundance of rather awkward corners.)

Sincerely,
The Straw.

Thanks William,

I have always found Matthew Henry's Commentary, though a little excessive to contain great wealth of detail:

That we have in Christ the substance of all the shadows of the ceremonial law; for example, (1.) Had they then the Shechinah, or special presence of God, called the glory, from the visible token of it? So have we now in Jesus Christ (Col_2:9): For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Under the law, the presence of God dwelt between the cherubim, in a cloud which covered the mercy-seat; but now it dwells in the person of our Redeemer, who partakes of our nature, and is bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, and has more clearly declared the Father to us. It dwells in him bodily; not as the body is opposed to the spirit, but as the body is opposed to the shadow. The fulness of the Godhead dwells in the Christ really, and not figuratively; for he is both God and man.

What think ye gentleman ?
The Straw.

Let's not shut the door too quickly else you might be guilty of shutting out some of whom are "bruised reeds", i.e., they are of a tender spirit and/or who have been wrongly taught about the nature of assurance, of which they may be woefully lacking in their life as a whole or perhaps due to a period of sinfulness; a closeness to God is missing. David experienced the latter did he not? And if one would have asked him if he knew assuredly that he was "saved", he just might have answered with a good measure of doubt. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/idea.gif" alt="" />

We are allowed to speak generally of the fixed number of the elect according to God's eternal election and predestination and consequently the elect are going to be saved infallibly. But we are not warranted to speak of the elect as "saved" in any sense before they are regenerated and are actually united to Christ by faith. For it is ONLY those who are in Christ who are "children of God", adopted on the basis of Christ's shed blood being applied to them, aka: justification. Secondly, it serves no purpose to speak of an "eternal salvation" in regard to the elect, albeit again their salvation is certainly fixed in stone as it were, since we as mortals have no absolute knowledge of who the elect are. And even after true conversion, can anyone be 100% absolutely infallibly sure that someone else is of the elect? There are many who profess to know that they themselves are "saved" but who are destined to perdition. (cf. Matt 7:21f; 13:1-52; et al)

So, yes, whatever God has decreed in eternity will infallibly come to pass in time. But until it actually happens in time, it cannot be said to exist. If it will be of some help, we can say that everything which exists originated in God's "mind" from eternity. He didn't sit around and layout several possible scenarios of how the universe should look and function and then choose one which for some reason appealed to Him most. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" /> But it would be wrong to say that you or I or any human existed from eternity. That we would exist is true because it was the will of God to be so. But our actual existence is not infinite but finite else we would be God. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

Straw,
I use to believe in justification from eternity. Now I believe that justification occurs only once. However there was an eternal decree to save ONLY the elect.

William




Article of the Month
Dr. Joel R. Beeke

(the Relation of Faith to Justification)





.

Thank-you Pilgrim and William.

If the work of Christ is complete, from eternity then it makes perfect sense to say that 'making our calling and election sure' and 'striving to enter into the rest' and 'working out our salvation with fear and trembling' does mean that we may experience intial joy at the forgiveness of sins, but then the struggle to learn to 'walk in the Spirit' to remain, 'In the liberty of the Spirit' etc means that eventually when we learn that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever, that HE will never lose one of those whom the Father has given Him, shows that the weaknesss in agreeing, in reckoning ourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, or as Paul says dead to this world and the world to us by the cross (the completed work of the Lord), shows the eternal position of salvation. He does not half have us, but has us in His book, written by the blood that was spilled from the foundation of the world. I had for many years found myself half believing in his work, and credited some to history, as in when it happened in the historical sense. However, in meeting Him I understand that His love is not bound by time, but that He has always from eternity loved His saints.

I appreciate the effort on both of your part and I hope that you will not find my ideas to out there. I will read the article and will hopefully find time to get back here, but for now I have some work to attend to in the book of Daniel and then on to Hosea.

Shalom to you both,

The Straw.

Straw, I have no problem with what you believe. I'd rather someone be one sided in the right direction.

William

Straw,

Just in case you are still hanging on to the idea of "eternal salvation", which from the decretal standpoint is true but also true from the perspective of an elect individual, those texts which you referred to must be taken in context. That context is from the standpoint of one who has been justified, i.e., one who has been regenerated, received a new nature, experienced conviction of sin and consequently believed upon Christ. In other words, they apply ONLY to those who have already been united to Christ in space and time. They do not apply to anyone else; elect or not. Again, until what God has foreordained, predestined comes to pass in time, it cannot be said to exist. Perhaps if you consider that the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ was foreordained in eternity, it cannot be said that He suffered, died and rose from the dead in eternity. The Son of God had to first be joined with His human body being born of the virgin Mary, grow in years, and then be crucified and finally resurrected from the dead for it to be "real".

God's eternal predestination/election doesn't save anyone in and of itself. That which is fixed in eternity includes both the end AND the means to that end! And until the "means" come to pass, that end does not exist regardless of the fact that it is eternally declared and will infallibly come to pass. If this were not true, then it would not be necessary for the elect to repent and believe upon Christ unto salvation. The Gospel would not have to be preached to the world in order to gather the elect unto Christ. And, even more so, it would not have been necessary for the Son of God to join Himself to human flesh, be crucified and resurrected in order to make atonement for those predestinated to salvation in Him.

I do hope you can grasp the importance of this truth. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Here are a couple of articles which deal directly with this issue.

1) Eternal Justification, by Louis Berkhof

2) Justification From Eternity, by G.C. Berkouwer

In His grace,

Thanks for making your thoughts so open and crystal clear. I do understand your ideas perfectly well, and agree with them entirely, but am a little bit fuzzy about this ideas you have of 'joined to His human body' and again 'join Himself to human flesh'. I am not sure if these terms are the same as 'became flesh' For the Son of God was an entirely new being, and as the Apostle Paul calls Him, 'the last Adam - a life giving spirit' Not that He was not fully human, but also that He was both God and man, and the 'first born', the only 'begotten'. This seems to be coming along with the discussion and I just want clarity on this point.

William, regarding the matter of 'Justification by Faith alone' and a subject that I am more than familiar with, I have moved to a stronger tower against the Ecumenical position, namely 'Justification by Christ alone'. It is just that with equivocation has made this doctrine difficult to 'dilineate' (I think my word might be wrong...what I mean is the position of terms like 'justify' and 'faith' have been so twisted, that concentrating on the 'Pre-eminence or Christ' brings the conflict more sharply to a head, with those who are beginning to submit to the Papal Office as being the dominant office. I hope this is not confusing.)

So it is that I have taken the stance of the Puritan; making Christ the central focus of all doctrine, and just shortening the route. Instead of Justification by Faith alone, I move as in Chess to the heart of the matter. After all it is Christ who justifies, by grace through faith, it is most certainly NOT of ourselves 'in any way whatever', we can lay no claim to justification. (this we know), and so as to make that crystal clear in the current times of unification (a worldly concept), I choose to lift the 'Saviour and Deliverer' of the saints, to a position that He has always had from eternity. The pre-emminent One.

Again just to bring forward a bit more to consider. The name Jesus in the book of Revelation does refer to the 'Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End.' It is just that in so much that is being discussed, in Ecumenical circles (pun intended), there is little correct presentation of 'the completed work of the Lord Jesus Christ' (which we know and understand in terms of Scriptures such as 1 Corinthians 15:1,2)

I have been looking for both the articles you mention and will attend to them with great diligence, but not before the Scriptures out of which all men, even I, are attempting to expound, 'the truth', yet 'the truth' is not simply found in the Scriptures, the Scriptures (Sola Scriptura) are themselves the 'written word of God.' Excuse the deviation.

Let me download and print both that you have put on the menu. I have already got the other one ready, and I am currently reading 'Healing the Wound' by John R. Robbins, though I have read most of this in various other lectures, being a lover of Gordon H. Clark's work, needing still to acquire 'Predestination' by the same, and all his other work.

To another topic, perhaps at some point further on, 'the nature of man', 'the image of God', 'General and Special Revelation' and 'How it is that man knows anything'. Just so you are both clear and anyone who reads. Though I have been reading and studying for 31 years, I still regard myself as 'an old fool' and 'an absolute beginner' (David Bowie) and so am going to have to spend more time reading than anything else.

I am still truncated on the matter of 'Traducianism' and 'Creationism' and the ideas relating to 'Adam's sin', the correct position of 'Eve' and the ideas of Rome concerning Mary and 'the second Eve' ideas. So much to consider and in the end, just desiring to KNOW what is the correct position.

Sidebar: Has anyone considered the work of 'Jeff Pollard' ex lead singer of Louisiana Le Roux, and how would describe his position concerning the plan of God ?

Whew, that was a gigantic fish to load, or a net to unload. I am currently entering, have entered Chapter 10 of Daniel, on my way to Malachi.

Brothers of Christ,

Straw.

ps. If all that seemed a little mixed up. Pilgrim I understsand what you have written and agree the ideas I have expressed ONLY relate to 'the elect', also that I do understand that the event in time and space, is the same covenant that was always spoken of between man and God, as revealed in all the Scriptures.

My only consideration is that prior to the event of the cross, and by that I do mean (the death, burial and resurrection), those of the elect of old, look forward in hope to this truimph, and as the writer in Hebrews says in the last passage of Chapter 11, only with us, those who are post cross, 'And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.' (Perhaps a good passage for us to hold the fort. Stand and deliver, discuss matter of 'saved and not know it...for there was a partial blindness here, as prophet, priest and King looked forward and only saw the shadow, but 'when the fullness of time came'...etc

Hence I stand on the only solid ground I know, 'Justified by the Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, alone' - not leaning to 'fiath, hope or love' but to God in Christ, my redeemer, lover of my soul, Saviour and Deliverer. This I do so that I will not be deceived, should the power of Rome's equivocation swallow all that remains of the body of Christ, into the unholy alliance with those who are happy to hold out a hand of fellowship to unbelievers, as if they were already elect. My position I hope is a little clearer.

Pilgrim,
I managed to download and print Louis Berkhof's article, but the 'Justification from Eternity' by G.C.B doesn't open ? I see that your site is the only one that offers this. I started reading the first sermon and can immediately see that I am in for some 'learning'. Hold back on replying to what I wrote above unless you have found any serious loopholes in my thinking. In other words; reply or don't I am going to be doing some serious thinking here.

Off to work,

Salvation has always been - both before and after Calvary - by grace through faith in Christ. Those who lived prior to the cross looked forward with faith to the Messiah's substitutionary atonement, while we look backwards in time with faith to the cross.

Both groups of people, despite having been "chosen in Him before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4)" were yet dead in their sins and unjustified until they believed (Heb 11:6).

-Robin

I just tried the link to G.C. Berhouwer's article and it opened fine for me. Perhaps you could try again to access it. Should that fail for you, you can download a copy in Word (.doc) format which I put in a ZIP file here: Justification From Eternity.

In His grace,

Thanks Robin, and thank-you Pilgrim, I managed to eventually get to it and now have a splendid printed out version of both articles. Yes Robin, and add what you have to what is in the last two verses of Hebrews 11, and what more comes after in 12, and then what is in Galatians, and one might understand exactly how the oath and the covenant work. I also noticed that this promise of 'a new and better way' was infact offered throughout but only came to pass in time a little over two thousand years ago. Does Salvation need to be experienced before it is effective, is another point to consider here. Which makes it binding, the oath that God made to himself or our acceptance of it, or is there even the chance that we can accept what we are born into not by birth, or man, but by God.

It is only in this sense that I am still convinced that we can be saved and not know it.

I am going to withdraw at this point, mainly for work and secondly to read all the pertinent information on this topic that you, Pilgrim, have link and kindly made available as a zip.

Straw,

Methinks you are confusing the "ground" of salvation and the "effectual means" of salvation. As to the first, the "ground" is the vicarious atoning work of Christ which was foreordained before the foundation of the world. But the "effectual means" of salvation is what brings a sinner into union with Christ by faith. Until a person is regenerated, convicted of sin, and brought to faith in Christ, that person remains under the wrath of God. One cannot be saved without repentance and faith, which are simply two sides of the same coin. One can similarly look at the atonement of Christ in the same manner. The sufficiency of Christ's death and resurrection in behalf of the elect doesn't save anyone in and of itself UNTIL it is applied to them. This application of the atonement is the work of the Holy Spirit in time, in which the sinner is given a new nature and made both able and willing to believe upon the Lord Christ unto justification. Unless this happens; where the sinner is united with Christ by faith and thus clothed with His righteousness; aka: imputation of Christ's righteousness, there is no salvation to be had, either conscious of unconscious.

An excellent book I would recommend to you on this subject is John Murray's Redemption Accomplished and Applied. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

"Election is no mere decree; it is not simply a choice of God. But the decree of election is the living will of the Lord God to save His people; and the whole of their salvation, including all the means and the way to final glory is included in the decree." Homer C. Hoeksema



[color:"0000FF"]PORTIONS OF THE "GREAT" SYNOD OF DORDT
FIRST HEAD OF DOCTRINE
Of Divine Predestination[/color]

[color:"0000FF"]Article 9[/color] . . . therefore election is the fountain of every saving good; from which proceed faith, holiness, and the other gifts of salvation, and finally eternal life itself, as its fruits and effects, according to that of the apostle: "He hath chosen us (not because we were) but that we should be holy, and without blame, before him in love,"
[color:"0000FF"]Article 7[/color] . . . God hath decreed to give to Christ, to be saved by him, and effectually to call and draw them to his communion by his Word and Spirit, to bestow upon them true faith, justification and sanctification; and having powerfully preserved them in the fellowship of his Son, finally, to glorify them for the demonstration of his mercy, . . .





Faith is the God-given bond of the union with Christ. The activity which proceeds from that bond is the act of believing, whereby one consciously clings to Christ, the only begotten Son of God, as the revelation of God's redemptive love. That faith, as a bond and as a power and as an activity, is not of ourselves: it is the gift of God, bestowed sovereignly upon all the elect members of that world that God saves in redemptive love
Homer C. Hoeksema "GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD . . ."

[color:"0000FF"]Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Romans 3:28 A.V.
¶ Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: Romans 5:1 A.V.
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. Galations 3:24 A.V.[/color]

William



.

Thank-you both for your ideas and the references. I have started a new thread exploring the idea of 'responsible vs accountable' and look forward to reading your thoughts on the ideas of Robert R. Higby of Predestinarian.net. (Duty Faith)

Straw,

Well..... Hmmmm IF this is where your questions are coming from, then things have become clear. Mr. Higby is a hyper-Calvinist Baptist who also holds to some unorthodox views. Here is most of the information contained in his "Profile". My comments are in red.

Religion / Church Affiliation:
High Grace Predestinarian [color:"red"]<----- hyper-Calvinism[/color]
Soteriological Position:
Calvinism (Supralapsarian)
Eschatological Position:
Historicist/Amillennial
Covenantal Position:
Modified Covenant Theology (MCT)
Creeds and Confessions:
London Baptist Confession of 1644, Canons of Dort, Gospel Standard Articles of Faith
Are some men elected to salvation?:
Yes
Are some men elected to damnation?:
Yes
Is salvation by works?:
No
Do men have free will?:
No
Is salvation offered to all who hear the Gospel?:
No [color:"red"]<----- hyper-Calvinism[/color]
God wants all men to be saved?:
No
Salvation dependent upon acceptance of truth?:
No
Jesus died for all men?:
No
God loves all men?:
No
Christ experienced sin in His person?:
No
Was sin imputed or imparted to Christ?:
Imputed
Is righteousness imputed or imparted to believers?:
Imputed
God predestines all things, including sin?:
Yes
God wanted Adam to fall into sin?:
Yes
God has how many wills?:
One (His decretive will of purpose is His will of pleasure)
When is righteousness imputed to the elect?:
At the cross
Do you believe in Justification from Eternity?:
Yes
God hates the elect at some point in time?:
No
God loves the reprobate?:
No
God's will is mutable?:
No
Tithing is obligatory?:
No
Baptism is required for salvation?:
No
Baptism is the sign of the new covenant?:
No
James part of the "canon?":
I don't believe it should be part of the canon. [color:"red"]<----- Unorthodoxy[/color]
Definition of Faith:
It is simply mental assent to the truth. [color:"red"]<----- Sandemanianism[/color]
Is there such a thing as a "Dead Faith?":
No, there is no such thing as a "dead faith" because those who give mental assent to the truth will undoubtedly perform good works.
Assurance:
The Spirit graciously gives assurance to those who assent to the truth. Good works have no part in producing assurance in an individual.
Agreement:
I have answered all of these questions to the best of my knowledge.

I am not going to get into that monothelete vs dithelete stuff. I think it is more interesting as to how the two are one person and the consideration of how we are born-again in light of the incarnation. Amazing stuff.

Backing up, Pilgrim in the WCF and other good Reformed confession it speaks to the salvation of the "elect infants who dying in infancy are saved." Not the exact wording but close enough. Recently, I have run afoul of those who think that cognition is necessary to salvation.

There is disagreement among some as to what exactly is the ordo salutis, and here I do not want to examine that. I am merely asking what you believe is the case. Is cognition a necessary condition of salvation?

I realize the question is directed at Pilgrim, but I have no doubt that God saves even those without cognition as we know it. Consider the unborn John the Baptist, leaping in the womb for joy upon the meeting of his mother and Mary (Luke 1:44). Consider also who the elect are according to the Scriptures:


-Robin

Robin,

Yes, Calvinists although divided on the matter of the salvation of infants or elect infants, all agree that there is a distinction to be made between infants and adults. I personally hold that the Spirit of God communicates to infants who are saved (elect infants which do not include all covenant children or even just covenant children for God's election is Unconditional) a knowledge of Christ and imparts to them a new nature which unites with Christ effecting their salvation.

However, for children and adults "cognition" is most necessary. But in opposition to those who hold to Sandemanianism (Easy Believism) to one degree or another, it is not enough to have simple knowledge of the Gospel and/or Christ to be saved. One's entire being must be changed, i.e., one's mind, emotions and will must be involved. This is what regeneration accomplishes. In regeneration a new nature is created. The soul is "resurrected", made alive so that the sinner is made able to love the Lord God with all one's heart, mind, soul and strength, which is required of God. But to do what the law requires in this regard, one must first be reconciled to God through the one Mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ Who paid the penalty required by law and Whose righteousness must be imputed; justification.

We do have a few exceptions given to us in Scripture, e.g., Jeremiah and John the Baptist who were regenerated in the womb vs. the rest of mankind (elect) who are regenerated after birth in God's good time according to His purpose. But in all cases, the regeneration effects the whole being and not just the mind.

In His grace,

Pilgrim,
I am familiar with Robert R. Higby's theological ideas. I think there are a few more books that he has problems with in the New Testament which according to him conflict with the teachings of the Apostle Paul. They also adhere to some teachings from the DSS, which I find peculiar to say the least. As well as a position I find difficult to hold to, that he proves the truth of the Scriptures by the Gospel. (I hold to John Calvin and the divines, that the 66 books of the Bible are 'the Truth' - Sola Scriptura in the sense that the Trinity Foundation do. Maybe more intense.)

When I first entered this forum it was because I noticed the fluid manner in which you discussed his teaching on 'The Two Seeds' (one of his numerous articles) Being a Calvinist and holding to the double head position, well that is how I have often had people explain my theological position to me. Though I have never read 'The Institutes' (I fall asleep trying) and I though I have read just about everything I can on the topic of Predestination from Boettner, Bunyan and names I have forgotten...(I have quite a armoury of printed out documents), I have only learned what I know from the Scriptures and from reading stuff over the years, in the end if the Scriptures are not holding the view then I let it fall. That is the way that I have always measured truth. I will happily read everything you give me unless I have struggled with an author before and found their teaching to be worth more trouble and filled with unsubstantiated ideas.

Perhaps when I have read everything I might consider starting and final thread, exploring the 'nature of man' after what some call 'the fall'.

I am in dead earnest and have carefully copied across all the dialogue here on the two topics in preparation for a slow and careful Bible Study. I know I am going to really enjoy it. So if there can be a reduction of input, so I might catch up I would GREATLY appreciate it.

Please just 'Woh Silver' I need to catch my breath, and I need to catch up with reading everything that I have been given to read over the last few days...here is the list.

"The Chalcedonian Creed".
HEIDELBERG CATAECHISM
Dr. Joel R. Beeke - (the Relation of Faith to Justification)
Eternal Justification, by Louis Berkhof
Justification From Eternity, by G.C. Berkouwer
John Murray's Redemption Accomplished and Applied.
SYNOD OF DORDT
Westminster Confession (Okay, I admit I have been through this twice and then once with the Gordon Clark Commentary.)
Belgic Confession
Savoy Declaration
Baptist London Confession
Anthropology - The Doctrine of Man
The Development of the Doctrine of Predestination, by Herman Bavinck
Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism, by Herman Bavinck (I think I hae read this)
Double Predestination, by R.C. Sproul, Sr.
Sandemanianism, by Dr. Michael Haykin (I am looking forward to this.)
'Whosoever Will' by Hoeksema.
plus what is in 'Predestination Index.'

There is actually much in two other areas relating to Origins and related subject matter that I will have to read, all in all I cannot see myself getting through this until we have moved to England. (Spring next year.)


Btw. This last comment to Robin I found extremely valuable, thanks!

Fellow pilgrim, Straw.

(I am signing out and am going to concentrate on reading the many books and articles that yourself and others have wisely shared with me. There is not point commenting further until I understand your induvidual theologies and philosophical points of view.) Aurevoir, Merci Beaucoup, Chow etc.