'Theology Discussion Group'

Subject: Concern for a relative From: Tom To: All Date Posted: Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 12:52:03 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: I have a relative who does not have a lot of Bible knowledge, who I am afraid is being duped, by someone with their own web site. Although, I am knowledgable enough to know that what is on this site is bad theology. For someone who isn't all that knowledgable. This persons site, would seem to make some pretty good points. I am trying to show, my relative, just how this person is wrong. But I think I need help in doing so. If there is anyone, who is willing to help in this regard, please go to the following site: http://www.remnantofgod.org/~nicholas/Truthpro.htm Either post your findings here or e-mail me. Any help I can get, would be very appreciated. Thank you in advance Tom

Subject: Re: Concern for a relative From: Pilgrim To: Tom Date Posted: Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 17:21:45 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, First of all I edited your message and corrected the URL so it now works! no charge!. So, I sauntered over to that sight and waited almost 5 minutes for all the brightly colored graphics to load, hehe, and took a brief look at was there. Brother, there is soooooo much heresy there I couldn't possibly tell you where to begin. So, perhaps for the sake of all of us here, who are willing to give you a hand with your relative, you might tell us just what specifically this relative of yours finds most appealing? Then we could try and address the issue(s) involved. Otherwise we will be chasing windmills. :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Cults and Sharing the Gospel From: Brother Bret To: All Date Posted: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 21:12:25 (PST) Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com Message: With the several admonitions to avoid, withdraw, turn away, not be hospitable, etc with false teachers, how biblical do you think it is when we try to reach out to cults such as JW's and Mormons and others? Look forward to the responses. Brother Bret

Subject: Re: Cults and Sharing the Gospel From: laz To: Brother Bret Date Posted: Tues, Jan 30, 2001 at 06:36:45 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hmmmmm, I think the biblical issue/admonition you are refering to applies WITHIN the local Church (or within Churches that share the communion table) .... it may not apply to folks in other aberrant sects or cults, who rarely never darken our Church doors, and should be regarded as unbelievers and thus objects of our efforts to make disciples of all. But even then, there comes a time when we must also consider not casting pearls before swine, giving what is holy to the dogs after our efforts have been spurned. I got a question: Should pastors (the good ones) avoid contact with false teachers/preachers? Or should they try to reason with them from the Scriptures? laz

Subject: Re: Cults and Sharing the Gospel From: Brother Bret To: laz Date Posted: Tues, Jan 30, 2001 at 13:48:10 (PST) Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com Message: Hmmm brother, you trying to tell me something? :^ ). I know, I know, if the shoe fits, where it hehe. I would think that the same thing would apply to Pastors. A couple of those admonitions are from Paul to Timothy. I'll look at the passages and contexts closer, but I don't know that all the admonitions are just for 'within' the local church. Would the 'withdrawing' and 'avoiding' be accomplished by eventual excommunication if there is no repentence by the erring person? Couldn't the admonistions also be to Christians in the Church as they deal with people in the highways and byways of life? BTW, I never did go on the radio show with that erring feller :^ ) Brother Bret

Subject: Re: Cults and Sharing the Gospel From: Tom To: laz Date Posted: Tues, Jan 30, 2001 at 10:50:38 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Laz You asked: Should pastors (the good ones) avoid contact with false teachers/preachers? Or should they try to reason with them from the Scriptures? It is my experience that many false teachers/preachers believe that they are teaching truth. Some even say if they are convinced by the scriptures that they are wrong in any doctrine. They they will bow to the scriptures. Given the fact that we do not know if that person will or will not, bow to the scritures, a pastor should try to reason with them from the scriptures. (if I may borrow a quote from you) But even then, there comes a time when we must also consider not casting pearls before swine, giving what is holy to the dogs after our efforts have been spurned. Tom

Subject: Re: Cults and Sharing the Gospel From: john To: Brother Bret Date Posted: Tues, Jan 30, 2001 at 03:45:40 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: How is one cult different from another? Are they not all together unworthy: is a cult more unworthy than a Methodist or a Pentecostal. Are there degrees in needing salvation: some a little and other’s more? Here is a nautical analogy. There are a thousand ships on life's seas, all different, but all sinking into the depths of confusion. Death awaits them all. You have a means to save some, a life raft. You are called by the ship's Captain to present the case on His behalf. If any person on any doomed ship desires to be saved, then you throw out your raft and help rescue them. It doesn't matter if they are seeking help while aboard a 'cult' ship, or some other ship. You provide assistance to whoever desires it. If no one seeks your raft, then so be it, their blood is not on our hands. The danger when dealing with leaky vessels full of holes is that we should think to abandon the safety of our sturdy vessel or by their trickery compromise our position of safety and seek to tie ourselves to their ship. Nevertheless, there is no need for worry if we stick to the commission our Captain has given us. We are not to bind ourselves in any way with these lost ships, or lest we drown together. We are not to prop up what was meant to sink. Therefore, we throw our life preserver to whoever desires it, no matter the ship that carries them. Yet we stay aboard the safety of our secure vessel, high and dry, no matter what others might implore us to do. john

Subject: Matt. 24:13 From: Tom To: All Date Posted: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 12:45:58 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: At the risk of being misunderstood. I am definately not asking the following question to support Chrys' beliefs. I am trying to understand what Matt. 24:13 is saying 'But he that shall endure unto the end shall be saved.' I am sure that it is not saying what at first glance it seems to be saying, for that would be conflicting with other verses of scripture, such as 1 John 2:19. What is it saying? Tom

Subject: Re: Matt. 24:13 From: Pilgrim To: Tom Date Posted: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 17:20:50 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: At the risk of being misunderstood. I am definately not asking the following question to support Chrys' beliefs. I am trying to understand what Matt. 24:13 is saying 'But he that shall endure unto the end shall be saved.' I am sure that it is not saying what at first glance it seems to be saying, for that would be conflicting with other verses of scripture, such as 1 John 2:19. What is it saying? Tom Tom, What Rod replied is quite true. This text in Matt 24:13 is troublesome ONLY if one fails to keep straight the two fundamental doctrines of Scripture; God's absolute sovereignty and man's full responsibility. On the one hand, salvation is of the LORD (Jonah 2:9). From His immutable counsel in eternity to and through the elect's glorification, a sinner is in His hands. All is of God; we are saved 'by grace'! Therefore we hold to Sola Gratia, secured by Solus Christus and obtained by Sola Fide all of which is for Soli Deo Gloria as testified as truth by Sola Scriptura. (whew!) At the same time, on the other hand, it is the sinner who repents! It is the sinner who believes! It is the sinner who must endure to the end! Thus the inspired words of Matthew in the gospel are not to be diminished one iota. It is ONLY those who endure to the end who will experience that which they profess. As faith without works is dead, so is a life shown to be fallacious if it doesn't continue in those things which were first begun. Faith doesn't merit the salvation it brings! It is but the means by which one apprehends Him Who has earned the right to save. Likewise, the enduring enjoined doesn't merit salvation, nor does it put the actual salvation at risk, but rather it shows forth the salvation possessed. And so it is, that any who fail to endure to the end show themselves to be unconverted and never in possession of that which they professed to possess; reconciliation with God and the new life wrought by the Holy Spirit. We must not therefore, shy away from giving the full import of such texts as Matt 24:13 which exhort a person to do this or that out of fear of somehow compromising the equally true reality of God's predestination and preserving, providential mercy and grace. BOTH are true and must exist side by side, even though it seems impossible to reconcile the two in our own finite minds. The Scriptures teach it, we must believe it! :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Matt. 24:13 From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 14:55:15 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Tom, First, let me affirm that you are exactly right in reading the entire Bible to get your truth and not relying on one verse lifted from the Bible and its context to get your theology. Don't be shaken in what you know is true from the whole of Scripture. (And please see my post of a little while ago under 'laz and Rod.') Our friend Chrysostomos is fond of citing Luther, but one of Luther's statements from a sermon I quoted awhile back speaks to this. In that sermon, Luther deplored people saying that statements pronouncing security for Paul or another Bible writer were not doctrinal, but applied strictly to the person writing. Luther loudly proclaimed that such statements were 'doctrinal' and to be applied universally, to every believer, just as most of us here accept them. Salvation is both completed and ongoing in time. In Rom. 8:30 the entire process, including our final glorification with the Lord Jesus is viewed as past. That is as God sees it. But, in time, and as man sees it, it is both assured and is ongoing. We 'are saved': 'For we are saved by hope...' (Rom. 8:24). We 'have been saved': '...according to the power of God who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our own works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began...' (2 Tim. 1:9). Finally, we 'shall be saved': 'For whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved' (Rom. 10:13). That covers all the bases, doesn't it?

Subject: Re: Matt. 24:13 From: Tom To: Rod&Pilgrim Date Posted: Tues, Jan 30, 2001 at 11:07:31 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Thanks Guys As you are aware, I believe the P in TULIP wholeheartedly. However that doesn't mean I know how to reconcile every scripture that seems to contradict it. It is for that purpose that I came to a place where I know that I can find some answers. I had earlier checked a few commentaries on the verse. Not one of them gave as good an answer as you. One in fact just said something to the effect that, we shouldn't take this to mean that one can loose their salvation. However, they didn't tell what the verse actually meant. Thanks for answering my question. :-) Tom

Subject: 1Joh2:19 Isn't it clear? From: laz To: All Date Posted: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 11:02:17 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 1John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. 20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. Is there something unclear about these verses. Does Chry really believe it's talking about teachers? That teachers who leave the flock prove they were never of the flock...but that garden variety believers who leave the flock were truly saved/believers who CAN and DO apostacize? Rod, is that what you said is the position held by Chrysostomos? blessings, laz

Subject: Re: 1Joh2:19 Isn't it clear? From: Rod To: laz Date Posted: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 13:25:20 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Laz, Here is what Chrysostomos wrote to me from 'Wow, lots of topics to discuss' on Jan 23: (Lifting a quote from Rod) '>>>>All that's necessary to see that is to believe 1 John 2:19.' (Chrysostomos' response) 'You know, I did have a chat with Pilgrim about that verse last week or so (my original post to him on it was entitled 'question for Pilgrim') and he clarified what he meant by quoting it (given the rest of 1 John 2, which seems much more obviously appliciable to the individual believer). Anyway, I just don't understand making it such a pivotal verse in your argument, since it seems to be primarily directed at teachers (though there certainly is a component of individual salvation there). In any case, I think you're explaining away the clear meaning of my quote. However, I suppose that's the problem. The clear can't really interpret the unclear unless we're all agreed on which ones are clear to begin with.'

Subject: Thks for clarification. NT From: laz To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 18:48:50 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message:

Subject: Common Grace From: Trevor Johnson To: All Date Posted: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 18:02:50 (PST) Email Address: trevorjohnson@hotmail.com Message: This question concerns common grace. There is that grace which does not save, but which provides some goodness even in the hearts of the unsaved. Otherwise, the unsaved would be at each other's throats instantly. God is merciful to all in this common grace, and love all with some gifts, and yet, does not love all with all gifts (namely, eternal life). My question: What is the relationship between God's common grace and Christ's purchase? I welcome all replies....this has the potential to make a good discussion and will help edify all involved - including me!

Subject: Re: Common Grace From: laz To: Trevor Johnson Date Posted: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 19:23:57 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hey Trevor! I think Christ's purchase of redemption for His people creates model citizens, great neighbors, charitable organizations, etc, etc...in otherwords, more common grace being dispensed to society at large on account of Christian activity and conduct. blessings, laz p.s. now if you're really asking about the extent/nature/purpose of the atonement...just come out with it! hahaha!

Subject: Re: Common Grace From: David Teh To: laz Date Posted: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 05:09:42 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi folks, I am kind of leaning towards the opinion that says the reprobate are living on 'borrowed time' until God's plan of redemption is complete. [Yes, I am a Calvanist.] The issue here, it seems, is what exactly is the fallen human nature.

Subject: Misconceptions of the... From: Rod To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 25, 2001 at 10:33:10 (PST) Email Address: na Message: uninformed and nonreformed. :^) In reading some of the posts of the last couple of days, I was reminded that the majority most often don't understand some of the basics. I'm referring to the allegations of Chrysostomos that, according to the belief system of those of us here, that is, the Bible :^), God 'coerces' men into receivng grace/having faith/being saved if they are elect. He, according to that line of thought, forces them to come to Him disregarding their wills, whereas the 'right thing to do' is to allow them to make up their own minds whether they want him or not. It's often hard to deal with all the issues in a thread or post, since so many complicated things are brought up. One has to be choosy as to what he deals with or volumes will be written. And some of us (I won't mention any names, but one's initials are 'Rod') are too wordy anyway. :^) So, to set the record straight, neither the 'Calvinists' nor the Bible believe that man is forced to come to God in violation of his will. Man isn't cleaned up or wooed by God to come to Him either. I'm speaking of the natural, unregenerate man. That man is absolutely dead to God, God's total enemy. He is incapable of pleasing God and has no desire ever to do so (Rom. 3:9-20; 8:7-9; 1 Cor. 2:14). This is the result of the inheritance of Adam's nature; all men join him in the fall (1 Cor. 15:21-22). This natural man is hopeless and spiritually dead. He doesn't want to be redeemed and is not redeemable. His will is to serve sin and he is 'free from righteousness,' being dead to it (Rom. 6:20). His will is not violated; he gets what he wants. So, what is the answer then? How does a man become regenerate and saved? How does he come to God? The only way is this: God gives him a new will which is a result of regeneration. The Spirit of God comes to the predestinated/elect person because of God's love for him and makes him alive to Himself (Eph. 2:4-5). This 'new man,' the 'new creation' (2 Cor. 5:17), has, quite logically, a new will, a will from the Spirit of God Who gave him life. That will desires and is free to turn to God, to love and serve Him. Operating by faith, believing the Word of promise of God which he can receive for the first time ever (Rom. 10:17), the 'new man' freely and willingly turns to God by the grace thus provided and is saved by the gift of God through faith. The old man, with his old will, struggles through the flesh and its desires to overcome the new man and drag him into sin. When one is enticed and allows himself to, he does fall into sin (James 1:13-15). So the old man isn't killed. He must physically die to be disposed of. The old man's will isn't violated by God, but is to be kept under by faithful obedience of the new creation in Christ whose will is to serve the Lord God in obedience to his nature. That is precisely why no Christian is 'perfect' practically, but is perfect positionally. He sins, but he is seen by God as possessing the righteousness of Christ Jesus on account of faith gifted to him by grace, the sins of the old man being forgiven the new creation in Christ. ''BUT AS IT IS WRITTEN, EYE HATH NOT SEEN, NOR EAR HEARD, NEITHER HAVE ENTERED INTO THE HEART OF MAN, THE THINGS WHICH GOD HATH PREPARED FOR THEM THAT LOVE HIM [the reason the unregenerate perceive these things as ridiculous]. BUT GOD HATH REVEALED THEM UNTO US BY HIS SPIRIT; FOR THE SPIRIT SEARCHETH ALL THINGS, YEA, THE DEEP THINGS OF GOD...NOW WE HAVE RECEIVED, NOT THE SPIRIT OF THE WORLD, BUT THE SPIRIT WHO IS OF GOD; THAT WE MIGHT KNOW THE THINGS THAT ARE FREELY GIVEN OF GOD.' (1 Cor. 2:9-12).

Subject: Who can be saved? From: Pilgrim To: Chrysostomus Date Posted: Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 19:42:35 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Chrysostomus, In a message below Rod asked you the following question: >>>>You mention that people are saved without baptism. Then, if the 'laver of regeneration' is true, from whence come the exceptions? And you answered: I mentioned that it's possible. I could think of any number of situations: the guy that gets hit by the bus that I mentioned, some peasant in China who'd never heard the Gospel, someone who grows up and spends their whole life only hearing heresy, etc. My only point there is that God knows all hearts and He's the one who judges them. Not us. I find this statement of yours intriguing, to say the least. Why? because you have stated on numerous ocassions that you reject 'Sola Fide'! And in its place you believe that one is justified by faith: through the 'church' + baptism + good works +?. Now given that even these things, regardless of the number of items you would either add or subtract as necessary for one to be justified before God, what is clearly absent from the examples you have mentioned above, of those who 'could' be saved, is the sacrificial work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus: On what basis are people saved without faith in the Lord Christ? What impetus is there for anyone to believe on Christ and strive to live according to God's holy law if salvation is possible otherwise? In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Who can be saved? From: Chris To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 05:48:19 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: At the risk of sounding simplistic, Who can be saved? Whosoever believes. 'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life' John 3:16 ASV And whosoever can believe? 'No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:44 NKJV

Subject: Re: Who can be saved? From: Chrysostomus To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 25, 2001 at 21:29:17 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: >>>>>Chrysostomus, With eye winking and elbow nudging: 'Finally, I must ask readers to be indulgent with the inconsistencies in my spelling of Greek proper names. All my life I have been impatient with the patronising way with which we westerners present Greek names in their Latin forms, and, in my old age, I decided to break free from it, adopting the principles used by my stand-by mini-encyclopedia, Der Kleine Pauly. Unfortunately, I have sometimes deviated from its high standards--for example, printing Chalkedon but shying away from from Nikaia.' --JND Kelly, from the Introduction to Golden Mouth, The Story of John Chrysostom; Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop. Sorry, I couldn't resist... >>>>you have stated on numerous ocassions that you reject 'Sola Fide'...And in its place you believe that one is justified by faith: through the 'church' + baptism + good works +? Looks like Luther did, too. And he invented Sola Fide. That was my original point, the one you called 'pseudo-history.' You said you weren't interesting in discussing it. If you do decide you want to pick the conversation back up, let me know, since your same accusations could be leveled at Dr Luther, and he's supposed to be on your 'side.' Chrysostomos 'It is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! Therefore, watch out for your own false ideas and guard against good-for-nothing gossips, who think they're smart enough to define faith and works, but really are the greatest of fools.' --from 'An Introduction to St. Paul's Letter to the Romans,' Luther's German Bible of 1522

Subject: Re: Who can be saved? From: Pilgrim To: Chrysostomus Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 25, 2001 at 22:44:00 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Chrysostomos, Gee, the fact that I asked the questions I thought would give a clear indication that I wanted answers? hahaha. As to your quote from Martin Luther regarding the inseparability of faith and works, I can without hesitation give my unqualified Amen! That's because I know Luther rejected categorically any form of works contributing to justification as he has boldly stated, 'simul iustus et peccatore'! Justification necessitates Sanctification. However, Sanctification in no way contributes to Justification, but only displays the reality of that Justification. Of course, James spelled that out in his inspired letter. :-) Now, will you please answer my few questions? :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim LUTHERAN THEOLOGIAN MARTIN CHEMNITZ (1522-1586) ON JUSTIFICATION: This unique doctrine in a special way distinguishes the church from all other nations and religions....[Justification] is the pinnacle and chief bulwark of all teaching and of the Christian religion itself; if this is obscured, adulterated, or subverted, it is impossible to retain purity of doctrine in other loci. On the other hand, if this locus is securely retained, all idolatrous ravings, superstitions and other corruptions are thereby destroyed (Loci Theologici II, p. 443)

Subject: Re: Who can be saved?? From: Chrysostomos To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 25, 2001 at 23:00:45 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Pilgrim, At least you still have a sense of humor, I'm glad to see... >>>>Now, will you please answer my few questions? :-) Make you a deal. At least three times, I suggested that the notion of baptismal regeneration, as Luther has stated it, not me, is far less illogical than than the following statement from Rod: 'The fact that none except those elect are enabled to hear it doesn't lessen the fact that the offer is genuinely made.' Now, since I know you hold to the same notion as Rod (whom I do not in the least intend to disparage here, since I very much appreciate both our conversations and his zeal), I will address your two questions in depth if you would be so kind as to tell me how the above statement doesn't stand directly in contrast to plain old common sense, much less logic (and, lest I forget, a whole buncha Scriptures). Chrysostomos PS--what happened to St Worm? I see he's been posting on that other board lately. Came in with a flurry of posts and then--nothing. That's too bad.

Subject: Re: The "Free Offer" From: Pilgrim To: Chrysostomos Date Posted: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 17:21:45 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Chrysostomos, DEAL! Your question is in reference to what Rod said in another post which was: 'The fact that none, except those elect, are enabled to hear it doesn't lessen the fact that the offer is genuinely made.' I am going to presume here that you are primarily questioning the truth of God's sincerity or genuineness in the 'free offer' of the gospel in relation to the truth held by Calvinists that God has from all eternity predestinated some to everlasting life and the remainder to eternal torment. First of all it must be emphasized that the 'genuineness' of the offer of salvation which is found in Christ Jesus depends not upon the action and/or response of the intended recipient but only upon the intention of the Giver. Whether or not any recipient of the actual 'offer' accepts or rejects it; whether that individual is even able to accept it or reject it is of no consequence to the sincerity of the God Who has extended it to him. I would offer to you as indisputable proof of God's unquestionable genuineness and verity in His benevolence shown toward the reprobate and unbelieving from the following texts: Deut 5:29 (v. 26 in Hebrew); 32:29; Psa 81:13ff (vvs 81:14 in Hebrew); Isa 45:22; 48:18; Jer 32:17; Ezek 18:23; 33:11; Matt 5:44-48; 23:37; Lk 13:34; Acts 4:17. I hope no commentary is necessary to explain any of these texts, although I am willing to do so if found necessary. Secondly, the 'free offer' of the gospel must always include all its elements; two of which are 'repentance' and 'faith' as the prerequisites to be performed by any man so as to obtain the justification/salvation promised in the overture itself to come to Christ. There is no salvation apart from those prerequisites being done by the sinner. And both of these are expressions of a regenerated soul. First, some of the proofs for the inability of any man to repent and/or believe upon Christ in his natural state: Gen 6:5; 8:21; Job 14:4; 15:14-16; Eccl 9:3; Jer 12:23; 17:9; Matt 7:16-18; 12:33; Jh 6:44, 65; 10:26; Rom 8:7, 8; 11:35, 36; 1Cor 2:14; 4:7 2Cor 3:5; Eph 4:17-19. Second, some of the proofs that repentance and faith are sovereignly bestowed upon men according to the good pleasure of God as He wills; Ps 110:3; Matt 11:25-27; Jh 3:5-7, 37; 5:21; 6:37; 10:16; Acts 2:47; 3:16; 5:31; 11:18; 13:48; Rom 8:29, 30; Eph 2:1-5; Phil 1:29; 2Thess 2:13 2Tim 2:25, 26; Titus 3:3-5; Jam 1:18; 2Pet 3:9. There must always be a recognition between the 'decretive' will of God and the 'preceptive' will of God. In the former, whatsoever the LORD God has foreordained will come to pass. In the latter, whatever is published as God's law and therefore rule must and should be observed by men, but such observation may not be done by men. In fact no man does or can do that which the law of God requires wholly. For proofs of the 'decretive will of God see: Job 12:13ff; 23:13; Ps 33:6-11; 148:1-5; Isa 14:24, 27; 55:11; 46:10; Lam 3:37; Dan 4:35; Acts 2:23; 4:28; Eph 1:9, 11; Heb 6:17. As to the preceptive will of God, this is so obvious, that I see no need of referencing the countless texts which affirm it. The 'free offer' of the gospel comes under the preceptive will of God, Who has declared in all sincerity, that all who come to the Christ in repentance and faith will surely and infallibly be saved. (Matt 11:28-30; Jh 6:37-39; et al). However, the number of those who will be saved is fixed in the heavens by God's decretive will, of which no man can number nor can they know who they be. Thus the gospel goes out to all indiscriminately proclaiming that Christ is dead for sinners and that in Him and Him alone there is remission and forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God and the adoption as sons who are heirs of the present kingdom and the new heaven and new earth. In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Oh, P.... From: Chrysostomos To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 22:51:58 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I was hoping for something that I could again just slap in a quote from Luther, but you're not giving it to me. hehe. You've given a thoughtful response, so I'll do you the courtesy of same. See you in a day or so... Chrysostomos

Subject: Re: Who can be saved?? From: laz To: Chrysostomos Date Posted: Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 13:53:22 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Chry - there is no inconsistency...not from God's perspective. You are suggesting that God is unfair in His 'genuine offer' as we have presented matters. Right? Was Pharoah given a 'genuine offer'? Apparently NOT for he was created for a specific purpose by God. Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. You and others would have us cry, 'FOUL!' When did Pharoah get to exercise his 'freewill'? Where was the genuine offer to Pharoah to do what was noble and right? Where was Pharoah's chance to redeem himself...to grab hold of salvation's hand? To repent and team up with Moses? Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Who has resisted God's will? NO ONE! EVER! Pharoah did as God had ordained. Again, is God now unfair??? Here is the answer many despise: Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? Bottom line: God is in total control and offers His mercy to whomever He determines. And since God is impassible, having no shadow of turning ... His decisions were made in eternity past. Pharoah did what God ordained for him to do...as were the men who kill Jesus (Act 2:23). Yet, none are held blameless for their sin. Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. laz

Subject: Re: Who can be saved?? From: Rod To: laz Date Posted: Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 14:21:28 (PST) Email Address: na Message: laz. Let me state up front that I in no way disagree with you. Yet I think I know you well enough to say that you believe that Pharaoh was given the genuine offer in the command to 'let my people go.' And in the demonstrations of God's power and might, which his magicians finally failed to duplicate. He was given many proofs and the direct Word of God though His mouthpiece. He did what his will, as a lost man unenabled by the Spirit of God to believe, was free to do: He rejected God's revelation, as all lost men do, just as they are free to do. God was actually, in many ways, and over a period of time, very patient with Pharaoh's unbelief. He demonstrated what was in man's heart, just as the Lord Jesus did: 'But Jesus did not commit himself to them, because he knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man; for he knew what was in man...Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again' (John 2: 24-25 and 3:7).

Subject: Re: Who can be saved?? From: laz To: Rod Date Posted: Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 15:41:56 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod - I guess I failed to emphasize the 'human responsibility' aspect of the sovereignty equation. Thanks and blessings, laz p.s. I just went back to reread my post...and see where you misunderstood me...I was being sarcastic in suggesting that Pharoah did NOT receive a genuine offer. Of course he did...as none are with excuse. I should have been more clear. ;-)

Subject: Re: Who can be saved?? From: Rod To: laz Date Posted: Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 15:54:09 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Hi, laz, I wan't 'correcting' you at all, brother :^). I was in complete agreement with you in every respect. I just wanted to elaborate. BTW, that was an excellent post earlier under 'Logical inconsistencies.'

Subject: Re: Who can be saved?? From: Rod To: Chrysostomos Date Posted: Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 12:35:36 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Chrysostomos, I don't want to butt in on you and Pilgrim, but the explanation to my absurdity and foolishness is in the next thread above and in Chris' post in this thread. See especially the section from Paul in 1 Cor. 2:9-12 quoted at the end of my post and the quite natural, logical conclusion he makes from those inspired facts in verses 13-16, which I didn't quote. Simply stated, the man who is graciously indwelt by the Spirit of God in regeneration will believe the promises of God in Christ, be thus justified, and will show forth his faith by the works which the Father, whose workmanship he is, has 'before ordained that he should walk in them' as a functioning member of the body of Christ, following his Head (Eph. 2:10, and 4:11-16). Those indwelt by the Spirit of God are enabled to see and understand this, those not so indwelt think it ridiculous: 'For after that, in the widsom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe' (1 Cor. 1:21). I am very grateful to be a fool for Christ, enabled by grace to believe the gospel of God unto salvation.

Subject: Re: Who can be saved?? From: Chrysostomos To: Rod Date Posted: Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 21:46:45 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi Rod, You're not butting in. It was with you that I was having the original conversation.... We're back to the original problem, however. Luther thought the Scriptures were quite clear about baptismal regeneration. Chrysostomos

Subject: Re: Who can be saved?? From: Rod To: Chrysostomos Date Posted: Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 23:03:13 (PST) Email Address: na Message: But my authority isn't Luther, it is the Bible. I have stated previously that Luther rationalized the need for baptism as a means of salvation based on the command of the Lord Jesus to baptize. He was dead wrong on that, as Paul and others, including the Lord Jesus said repeatedly, as in very persistently. It is evident that you don't believe that salvation comes until the individual jumps through several hoops. That gives the glory to the person who has the power from within to keep himself saved, elevating man to a postion higher than God's. When man tips the balance by what he does, he becomes the prime mover, the supreme being. Sovereignty, however, as the Bible presents it, has God determining all things and working all things to the glory of God who will not share His glory with another (Is. 42:8). Pilgrim quoted you thus above in the opening post: ' I mentioned that it's possible. I could think of any number of situations: the guy that gets hit by the bus that I mentioned, some peasant in China who'd never heard the Gospel, someone who grows up and spends their whole life only hearing heresy, etc. My only point there is that God knows all hearts and He's the one who judges them. Not us.' Well, you still haven't explained to us the basis of that judgment you mention. You implicitly state in this quote that it isn't the gospel, so what is it? So then, your only basis for God's judging them worthy is if they somehow endure to the end, it seems. You do not acknowledge that they are 'saved' beforehand and are safe from judgment from God, as we do, but are really only saved when they finally crawl across the finish line, having worked to the end of this life for their approval before God. That is a definte denial of God's Word, Chrysostomos. The entire chapter of Romans 8, for just one example says so. It begins that there is 'no condemnation' for those in the Lord Jesus Christ by faith. That faith gives to the person of faith the eternal, everlasting life of the saved person: 'But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also give life to your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you' (verse 11). The Apostle Paul goes on to say, 'The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God' (verse16). 'We are' God's children and He gives us the testimony within that we are His own. It is a state of current being, salvation, which is assured by many statements, such as this one, 'And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose (verse 28). 'All things work together....' for the elect/saved person, the one whom God effectually calls. Now, do you suppose that a man (or men) causes every thing which ever transpires to work together for good for those who love God? That is preposterous. And why does a person love God and obey Him, being indwelt by His Spirit to eternal life? It is because of God; because He loved those whom He saved: 'But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses and sins, hath made us alive together with Christ (by grace ye are saved)' (Eph. 2:5). It isn't baptism which saves us, or our continuance in good works, our own sticktoittiveness, but it is grace borne of God's love for the elect. Because of that grace He calls those whom He loved from eternity (Eph. 1:4-5). They in turn love Him and all things work together for their good because of God's will and determination. Even their devotion to Him is due to His action: 'We love him, because he first loved us' (1 John 4:19). I'm not just talking about the 'P', I'm speaking of 'salvation,' the work of God who, because of predestination and his having chosen us in love 'before the foundation of the world' (Eph. 1:4) 'to the praise of the glory of his grace, through which HE HATH MADE US ACCEPTED IN THE BELOVED; in whom we have [right now] redemption in his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace' (verses 6-7). That is the whole package! We are now and forever 'accepted in the Beloved' due to the love of God Who 'predestinated us to the adoption of sons by Jesus Christ to himself' (verse 5, cp. Rom. 8:15). We are saved, we are being saved, and we shall be saved. You once referred to a person's finishing 'the race', stating, 'Your question puts the end of the race at the beginning, which makes a number of St Paul's images and analogies, well, nonsensical.' In mentioning the Apostle Paul, you neglect to note what he said about 'the race' as it applies to salvation: 'What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then, it is not of him that willeth, NOR OF HIM THAT RUNNETH, but of God that showeth mercy' (Rom. 9:14-16). Every person who makes it through to the end makes it through because the race was indeed finished in the beginning, when God showed mercy to him in grace based on predestinating love. That's the meaning of salvation. That is he who may be saved. And only that person can be saved.

Subject: Federal Headship and Government From: Eric To: All Date Posted: Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 07:51:59 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Is the leader of a country viewed as the federal head in the eyes of God? Since George Bush professes faith, and assuming it is genuine, will this change the way God views the United States? God bless.

Subject: Re: Federal Headship and Government From: Pilgrim To: Eric Date Posted: Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 08:41:05 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Eric, There are only 2 'Federal Heads', at least according to God's Word (there are some who say otherwise); Adam and the Lord Christ. In both person's whatever they did had direct bearing on those who they represented as you well know. There is no other 'Federal Head' other than these two, as they were duly appointed by God for the sole purpose of showing for His love, mercy, grace, justice, holiness and glory in the redemption of mankind by His own will. George W. Bush is certainly an 'instrument' of God's will and a Federal Head of State, but hardly a 'Federal Head'. :-) And I don't think God considers the United States as a nation as He did Israel; i.e., one who is chosen of God etc. In other words, I reject the notion that the United States is a 'Christian' nation; even more so in regards to Canada as a nation, which I am convinced is far worse morally and spiritually than the United States! :-) Therefore I think God simply views the United States as the godless nation that it is and a promoter of wickedness and evil, albeit there is a good measure of Common Grace given to its citizens. :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Now wait a cotton ... From: stan To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 15:57:29 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: pickin minute you calling the good ole usa a godless nation - you - a Canadian calling MY country godless! Wish I could argue with you on that one but don't like being on the losin team! '-) stan

Subject: Re: Now wait a cotton ... From: Pilgrim To: stan Date Posted: Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 19:26:45 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: pickin minute you calling the good ole usa a godless nation - you - a Canadian calling MY country godless! Wish I could argue with you on that one but don't like being on the losin team! '-) stan --- Stan, Hahaha.... don't be misled brother! I am still an American citizen, much to my own shagrin. I'm only a 'Landed Imigrant' here in Canada and haven't even considered for a moment becoming a Canadian citizen even though it is permitted to hold dual citizenship. This is not to say that I am proud to be an American... :-); it's just the land of my birth and I didn't have much choice as none of us do. LOL! In His Grace, Pilgrim Heb 11:13 'These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.'

Subject: Re: Federal Headship and Government From: Eric To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 08:56:49 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hello Pilgrim, Thank you for your response. I have been listening to some messages by Douglas Wilson (of Credenda/Agenda fame), whereby he states that the whole concept of federal headship has been lost in modern times. He was speaking in regard to the man being the federal head of the family, and therefore responsible for it's members sins. Do you agree or disagree with this view of federal headship? Adam and Christ were the 'ultimate heads' of each type of humanity, but doesn't the concept apply to other societal structures? Also, I do not believe that America is a Christian nation, or under God's special blessing. ISTM that America is an apostate nation, and it's financial and political successes are not a blessing, but rather a curse. Thanks for your insight. God bless.

Subject: Re: Federal Headship and Government From: laz To: Eric Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 25, 2001 at 13:29:16 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: For what it's worth...I happen to believe that where the king goes...the nation tends to follow. Just look at what the CLinton admin has done to the overall moral tone of our nation. One good example is what Clinton did to redefine sex. Oral sex is now an innocent extracurricular activity. In the OT...the people of Israel often became like the king leading them. The king definately set the moral tone/climate. I'm hoping that Bush will set high moral standards to prove to the world the stark contrast between conservative principles and liberal ones! Not that we don't have immoral conservatives and moral liberals...but for the most part, liberals tend to support questionable public policies from a biblical perspective (abortion, gay rights, license, promiscuity, humanism, etc, etc). That's why we are so lucky....we have the ULTIMATE King in Christ Jesus. May we strive to follow His example and live lives worthy of His blessed calling. laz

Subject: Re: Federal Headship and Government From: Pilgrim To: Eric Date Posted: Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 15:02:14 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Eric, Indeed I vehemently oppose and reject Doug Wilson's outlandish teaching concerning the 'Federal Headship' of ANYONE other than Adam or the Lord Christ. His view is contrived and has no biblical support. Further the consequences of this teaching that result in families who try to implement it is devastating in many cases. It is one thing to be a 'covenant head'. But it is entirely different matter to be a 'Federal Head'. 'Foedus' is never used in reference to any husband, leader, etc. And no amount of sophistry will be convincing to me, at least, that a husband is responsible for his wife's sins. Perhaps others who have been taken in by Mr. Doug Wilson and this abhorrent teaching can attempt to defend it here on the forum? :-) I do know that there are some participants here who have first-hand knowledge and/or experience with Doug Wilson and this teaching, and perhaps they too can share their conclusions on this matter? In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Federal Headship and Government From: Heidi To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 08:40:09 (PST) Email Address: sandhill@quixnet.net Message: Hi Eric A friend linked me to this discussion. My husband and I, for our 10th anniv. gave 'each other' the books Reforming Marriage and Federal Husband, as well as Nancy Wilson's book about the wife's duties, which title I cannot recall right now. My question for you is, how do you define Headship? and what are the responsibilities of the head of a household? I'm not going to defend Doug Wilson's position, and don't mean to sound defensive. Your post is the first refutation of his position that I've seen, and I am interested in how you would explain the biblical notion of headship, if it is a different explanation than Doug Wilson's. thanks Heidi Crane

Subject: Re: Federal Headship and Government From: Tom To: Heidi Date Posted: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 10:24:40 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Heidi It just occured to me that you were asking Eric, not Pilgrim. :-)

Subject: Re: Federal Headship and Government From: Tom To: Heidi Date Posted: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 10:19:25 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Heidi I am not Pilgrim and I am sure he could do a lot better job that I can do. But if I may, I would like to say something on this topic. Have a look at Eph.5:22, 'Wives submitt to yourselves to your husbands, as unto the Lord.' This is talking about family government. Like all government, God has ordained the husband to be the head of the household. Even with in the Godhead, the head is God the Father (see 1 Cor.11:3). We know the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, make up the Trinity. All three make up one God, however the Son and the Holy Spirit are in submission to the Father. The lack of government is anarchy. The same is true for the home, there must be a head, and there must be obedience to that head. God has ordained that the place of headship be given to man. He indicated this by creating man first, then creating woman for the man. Submission, doesn't imply inferiority. This is different from federal headship. Like Pilgrim rightly said, the Bible only talks about two federal heads. Adam and Jesus Christ. Through Adam, we inherit our sin nature. Through Jesus Christ all those who are IN Christ, have Christ's rightiousness. I know this is rather a simplistic answer, but I am sure someone else wants to alaborate more on what I said. Tom

Subject: Re: Federal Headship and Government From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 10:51:20 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Tom, I was/am confused as to whom Heidi was addressing also. :^) You did very well in this explanation. I think the only other thing to emphasize is this: Federal headship refers to one being a substitute in his actions for all those who are 'in' him. 'For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive' (1 Cor.15:22). In that sense, federal (representative) headship refers to the two sons of God, the created son, Adam (Luke 3:38) and the Second Person of the trinity, God the Son. A husband cannot sin or do good for his wife, only Adam and the 'last Adam' could do that. Thus, in God's eyes, these are the only two federal heads of the Bible, the one leading mankind into sin because they are all born 'in' him; the Other keeping the pure Law of God perfectly so that all 'in Christ' by grace through faith are regarded as having His righteousness in God's eyes.

Subject: Re: Federal Headship and Government From: Heidi To: Rod Date Posted: Tues, Jan 30, 2001 at 14:15:26 (PST) Email Address: sandhill@quixnet.net Message: Hi Tom, Rod, Pilgrim, Eric *L* and everyone else! What constitutes headship, then? I think there has been an understanding of husband headship as being Federal, in the past...hence, a head of household voted, but his wife didn't, because his vote represented his entire family. Or at least, that was the argument...and the argument came from an understanding of Headship as being representative in some way. So, if headship doesn't have representation in its definition, what IS Biblical headship? What are the practical outworkings of such a teaching? What does it mean, that a husband is the head of his wife? Is it no more than 'If a decision needs to be made, and there is disagreement, the husband's decision holds sway'? Is it possible that there are levels of representation? No, a husband doesn't provide righteousness to his wife, in his name, and he can't bear her sins. But what about the societal tradition of calling a family by the father's name 'The Jim Crane Family' that is still in practice today? Isn't that a sort of representation? The family's... appearance....in the community has bearing on the husband's name more than anyone else's, isn't it because the husband in some way represents his family to the community? well, just some thoughts. glad for the interaction! love, Heidi

Subject: Re: Federal Headship and Government From: Rod To: Heidi Date Posted: Tues, Jan 30, 2001 at 14:47:09 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Howdy, Heidi, 'Heidi' is the way most of us Texans actually pronounce 'howdy' anyway! :^) I'm not certain I will answer your question in the exact way in which you asked it. You have been very thoughtful in your approach, BTW. Yes, there is an element of representation in the husband/wife relationship. However, as we have said, and you have noted, the representation for imparting good or evil to the wife as Adam did to his descendants and the Lord Jesus does to those whom God saves by grace is missing. In fact, the impartation by federal representation is to have been done for Christians prior to the marriage! We are commanded not to marry nonbelievers, those whose Federal Head isn't the Lord Jesus. The husband and the wife then each have a joint Federal Head, the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. These two people were 'in' Adam and are now to be 'in Christ' in marriage and all of life. Yet there is no federal headship involved as their saved status is not automatically passed on to their descendants; each individual offspring being responsible for his own lost condition as he/she is born in Adam and needing the Lord Jesus' salvation. Also, though the Bible appoints the husband as 'head of the wife' (Eph. 5:23), it is because of the Headship he is himself under. He is not appointed a dictator, but he is to be obeyed when his direction and decisions honor the Lord. A wife is not called to follow her husband into sin, but is responsible for living her own godly life. There is an element of physical protection involved in the marriage relationship: 'he is the savior of the body.' Likewise, a wife will have no trouble or doubt about submitting to her husband's leadership if he is operating under the leadership of the Savior, loving her 'as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify it and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word' (verses 25-26). A husband who is fulfilling this command of the Lord has the purity and sanctity of his wife foremost in his mind. It is his duty to lead spiritually, and to protect her against evil, not to make all decisions without consulting her or considering her wishes as a selfish person would. His is the final authority, but his is not authority to act out of anything but love and concern for her well-being: 'So men ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself' (verse 28). Such a husband will lead as Christ Jesus wills and the wife of such a husband will willingly submit and 'reverence her husband' (verse 35). All that is possible because we have a Federal Head who has placed us in a position of having received His righteousness before God and enabled us by the indwelling Spirit of God to serve Him.

Subject: Re: Federal Headship and Government From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 15:50:07 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Rod Thanks, that is the point I was trying to make, though you alaborated on what I said. 1 Cor.15:22, is a great scripture verse to show federal headship. :-) Tom

Subject: More on headship From: Eric To: Tom Date Posted: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 08:33:00 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Just so I am not representing Mr. Wilson's teaching on marriage and federal headship, let me clarify a couple of things. 1. Mr. Wilson uses the term covenantal and federal head interchangeably. Apparently some people distinguish between the two words--perhaps somebody could explain the difference. 2. Mr. Wilson teaches that the husband is responsible for his sins, the wife is responsible for her sins, and the husband is responsible for his wife's sins, because he is the head of the household. This also applies to children as well. I do not believe that he teaches that the husband will suffer eternal punishment for the sins of his household if the are unbelievers, but I do not understand what exactly he means by the word responsible. However to bolster his understanding of the man's covenantal responsibility, he cites the example of Job offering sacrifices to God on behalf of his sons, who might have sinned against God in their heart. Job 1:4-5 His sons used to go and hold a feast in the house of each one on his day, and they would send and invite their three sisters to eat and drink with them. When the days of feasting had completed their cycle, Job would send and consecrate them, rising up early in the morning and offering burnt offerings {according to} the number of them all; for Job said, 'Perhaps my sons have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.' Thus Job did continually. God bless.

Subject: Re: More on headship From: Pilgrim To: Eric Date Posted: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 12:38:08 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Eric, Reluctantly I continue with this topic! :-) First of all, Mr. Wilson has no biblical or logical warrant to equate or join the biblical concept of 'Federal Headship' with the concept of 'Covenant Headship'. Although in the examples of Adam and the Lord Christ they are inseparable. But again, there is no warrant to apply the office of 'Federal Head' to a husband. To do so incontrovertibly disrupts the uniqueness of both Adam and Christ in their ordained roles and their function in biblical redemption. Secondly, can one really posit that a husband is 'responsible' for his wife's sins without denying such texts as Ezek 18:4-20; Ps 62:12; Prov 24:12, 29; Jer 17:10; Matt 16:27; Rom 2:5, 6; 2Cor 5:10; Rev 20:12, 13, where it is more than perspicuous that each individual will have to give an account for their OWN sins, and not be held responsible/accountable for the sins of another? Accepting that these texts are clear in and of themselves, and given the great weight of their number, I would suggest that one not assume to fabricate a doctrine which is evident in Mr. Wilson's teaching, from the Job passage. Thirdly, Mr. Wilson also posits that a wife's sins are to be seen as at least partially due to her husbands sinful behaviour. Again, this is absurd. For theoretically, it would then be possible if a husband lived a pure and righteous life, none of his family would ever sin. The absurdity of this logical conclusion can be seen in the life of the Lord Christ Himself, Who sinned not, yet all those who were brought in under His 'Federal/Covenant Headship' continued to sin and do continue to sin even after they are justified in His blood. If we, who are under Christ's headship are yet sinful in thought, word and deed, how much less can one suggest that a wife and or children of a man will not sin, or even that they will sin less? In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: More on headship From: Tom To: Eric Date Posted: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 10:20:35 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Eric I think I answered your first question, in my earlier post. Rod also aloborated on what I said a bit. Please go back to them and re-read them. Perhaps after that if you have something more specific in mind, you could ask it. I would rather leave the other questions to someone else. Tom

Subject: Logical inconsistencies From: Rod To: All Date Posted: Tues, Jan 23, 2001 at 22:48:16 (PST) Email Address: na Message: To all, If you have been following the discussions of 'baptismal regeneration,' you may have noticed that St. Worm's and Chrysostomos' contentions are similar in the following respects. First, each seems to express the view that salvation can be lost. Second, though regeneration is only possible through the administration of baptism by the church, faith seems to be assumed in the individual submitting to the baptism, even though he is unregenerate, dead to God spiritually, and, therefore, incapable of having the faith of which God approves. I find these things to be totally illogical, as well as boldly unscriptural. Chrysostomos has written me thus concerning that charge: 'I am absolutely puzzled that you find the idea of baptismal regeneration illogical....' There are many things illogical about it. I have already written (at length) about the necessity of faith, the faith which God in grace supplies which saves, so I won't go into that again with the same proofs. But the Bible does make it clear that the regeneration of a person comes from the Spirit of God. Can that origination of the indwelling/regeneration be traced to baptism or to any other specific, identifiable event? John 3:8 is the key to understanding that the answer is 'No!' ''Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again'' (verse 7). Here we see the subject is the new birth, regeneration, the making alive of a person spiritually, making him alive to God. ''The wind bloweth where it willeth, and thou hearest the sound of it, but canst not tell from where it cometh, and where it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit'' (verse 8). Here we have a description of the mysterious coming of the Spirit of God to create a new life (regenerating an individual). It is as the wind. One can tell that the wind is blowing and the direction from which it is blowing, but he can't tell where it came from and can't tell where it will end up. It is mysterious, beyond human comprehension. So is the operation of the Spirit of God. There seems to me to be little question that this is the thrust of the verse. If that is so, then, if one is able to point to baptism and say, 'This event causes the gift of the Holy Spirit in creating new life and salvation,' then there is absolutely no mystery of the origin! The mysterious gifting of the Spirit of God is solved, when the Lord Jesus says it is insoluble from the human standpoint. Add to this the fact that Nicodemus was a pious Jew. He had already received the sign of the covenant of Israel, being circumcised, and the ordinance of baptism wasn't yet instituted, but he needed to be regenerated, he needed the new birth, as testified to in verses 3 and 7. How could he receive such a new birth? It had to be from above, from the explicit gifting of God in faith in 'heavenly things': 'If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you heavenly things...And, as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, THAT WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH IN HIM should not perish, but have eternal life' (verses 12-15). And, moreover, the narative goes on to mention 'belief' (faith) as the sole condition for 'eternal' and 'everlasting life' in verses 16, 18, and 36 of the same chapter. But beyond that, both St. Worm and Chrysostomos have each expressed a belief (faith) that a person 'regenerated' by baptism can fall away and be lost. In my concordance, I count at least 30 times the word 'eternal' is applied to the life and inheritance of a child of God. That is in addition to the 'never perish' verses and the 'everlasting' life assurances, and various others. Note what the Lord Jesus said to the pious Jews, ''Search the Scriptures,'' He commanded. Why? Well, He gives the answer immediately,...''for in them ye think ye have eternal life.'' And they were correct in so thinking eternal life was in believing God, but incorrect in the assumption such faith applied to them, as evidenced by his next statement, ''and they are they which testify of me'' (John 5: 39). Now note this: '' And ye will not come to me [believing], that ye might have life'' (verse 40). That it is belief (faith) of which He is speaking is verified by this statement in verse 44, ''How can ye believe, who receive honor from one another, and seek not the honor that cometh from God only?'' He goes on to lash them for their faithlessness: ''...there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust [have faith]. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings [the Scriptures], how shall ye believe my words?'' (verses 45-47). They have not the Spirit of God in them and are faithless and undiscerning, concerning Moses' Scriptural writing and concerning all the truth of God, even from God come in the flesh. The man of faith has the indwelling of the regenerating Holy Spirit of God. Like the wind, we can't tell why God sent it or how He did it, but we can discern His presence by the faith and the works thereof in the new creation in Christ Jesus. (See Part II below.)

Subject: Re: Logical inconsistencies From: Chrysostomos To: Rod Date Posted: Tues, Jan 23, 2001 at 23:51:09 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi Rod, >>>>>First, each seems to express the view that salvation can be lost. 'For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith; that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own;...I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature be thus minded; (Phil 3:8-17) There are many others. I don't base my 'case' on one passage alone, you know. >>>>Chrysostomos has written me thus concerning that charge: 'I am absolutely puzzled that you find the idea of baptismal regeneration illogical....' Yes, I still am, given that you made the following statement: 'The fact that none except those elect are enabled to hear it doesn't lessen the fact that the offer is genuinely made.' I'd still like you to address that one. >>>>>If that is so, then, if one is able to point to baptism and say, 'This event causes the gift of the Holy Spirit in creating new life and salvation,' then there is absolutely no mystery of the origin! No, Rod, there is no mystery to the origin. We know the origin. The origin is not the mystery. The Holy Trinity is the origin. It's the how that's the Mystery. Everything, from the very relationship of Christ to the Church (Eph 5) to the sacraments (which are actually properly called mysteries in the patristic Greek, continuing this NT tradition) is Mystery. The passage you quote actaully proves my point against your contention that we believe no one can possibly be saved apart from baptism (I don't know where you got that. Not even the RCs believe that). That passage is precisely why Orthodox make no judgements about those 'visibly' outside of the Church. It prevents one from judging that which he has no right to judge. And I've said quite emphatically that no one can point to baptism as a source of pride, as if they've 'made it.' Baptism is the beginning of the race, the enlistment in the battle--both NT images of the Christian life. If you don't finish the race, you don't get the prize and if you quit fighting on the battlefield...well, you get killed. >>>>>But beyond that, both St. Worm and Chrysostomos have each expressed a belief (faith) that a person 'regenerated' by baptism can fall away and be lost 'Then Peter came up and said to him, 'Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?' Jesus said to him, 'I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven. 'Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. When he began the reckoning, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents; and as he could not pay, his lord ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, `Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.' And out of pity for him the lord of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. But that same servant, as he went out, came upon one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and seizing him by the throat he said, `Pay what you owe.' So his fellow servant fell down and besought him, `Have patience with me, and I will pay you.' He refused and went and put him in prison till he should pay the debt. When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their lord all that had taken place. Then his lord summoned him and said to him, `You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you besought me; and should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?' And in anger his lord delivered him to the jailers, till he should pay all his debt. So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.' (Matt 18:21-35) So did the lord not really forgive the initial 10,000 talent debt? Of course he forgave it. The person was forgiven the debt and then thrown into jail to pay a debt he couldn't possibly repay. Why? Because he forgot that 'if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.' (Matt 6:15) The rest of your analysis of Christ's conversation with Nicodemus sounds good to me. I find nothing on which I couldn't agree with you. I did see your original post to St Worm (Part II), and have noted them as Topics Forty-Four through Forty-Seven (sorry, just trying to keep things chummy). I'll try to write you a response tomorrow evening. In the mean time, I'd still like to hear how your comment about the call being genuine in spite of the fact that certain person can't respond to it isn't totally illogical, not to mention unScriptural. Chrysostomos

Subject: Re: Logical inconsistencies From: Brother Bret To: Chrysostomos Date Posted: Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 19:51:25 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: 1 know Rod or someone must have mentioned this before. But please, please tell me how if a person loses or forfeits their salvation that it cannot be a violation of Jn. 6;39 and 10:28? Thank you, Brother Bret. P.S. Then tell me what Mt. 7:2,1Jn.2:19; Heb.10:35-39 means!

Subject: Re: Logical inconsistencies From: Chrysostomos To: Brother Bret Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 25, 2001 at 22:38:29 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: >>>>>Jn. 6;39 and 10:28? Matt 18:21-35 >>>>>P.S. Then tell me what Mt. 7:2, Matt 7:1 >>>>1Jn.2:19; 1 John 2:3,4,10,11,15,24,28,29 >>>>Heb.10:35-39 means! Heb 2:1-3; 3:12, 16-19; 4:1-2. There are more in that Epistle, but here's chapter 4, verse 6: 'Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience,' I don't know how the comparison between the Christian life to the Israelites, Egypt and the promised land could be made any clearer. Maybe it's just me (on this board anyway!). You all call the 'P' or eternal security or what have you 'logical.' Tell me, were the Israelites who died in the desert not really delivered from Egypt? St Paul (or the author, whichever you prefer) is making a clear comparison between the two. However, if your doctrine is true, then this comparison makes no sense whatsoever. Chrysostomos

Subject: Re: Logical inconsistencies From: laz To: Chrysostomos Date Posted: Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:54:41 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Chry - the comparison is clear...Israel was all about temporal blessing (and conditional in the earthly plane!), an earthly inheritance whereby they were given by GRACE the product of the work of another(s). Deut 6:10 And it shall be, when the LORD thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not, 11 And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full; God CARRIED these people out of bondage...they did nothing to merit such favor! God has always GIVEN as promised to Eve, Abraham, etc! Give, give, give is what God always does on behalf of His people! Grace in action. The Church too is the beneficiary of a gracious God who ensures that all the work necessarily to receive and enjoy our heavenly/eternal inheritance has already been done FOR US...GRATIS. As for another comparision: Just as tares existing amongst the wandering Israelites (who fell by the wayside)... tares exist within the 'church' today. But none of this negates the fact that God is true to His word and blesses His Elect (throughout all redemptive history) according to His riches and grace - all without condition. His elect recognize His blessings and act in gratitude and obedience unto salvation..which is in the final analysis ALL OF GOD. laz

Subject: Re: Logical inconsistencies From: Chrysostomos To: laz Date Posted: Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 21:44:37 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: laz, Please read some of the earlier posts. I also agree that salvation is given by God and not 'merited' by man. I never even implied that the Egyptians were delivered out of Egypt by their 'merit.' You still didn't answer the question, though... Chrysostomos

Subject: Re: Logical inconsistencies From: Brother Bret To: Chrysostomos Date Posted: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 20:44:07 (PST) Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com Message: And you never dealt with the Jn.6:39;10:28 directly, but posted different texts that did not relate to them. Also 1Jn.2:19. I had a typo regarding the Matthew verse. I meant to put Mt.7:21-23 not 7:2, sorry. So are you going to interpret those verses I asked about Chrys? If they don't mean what we think they do (that no one can lose/forfeit their salvation because Christ will not lose any and none will perish), then what do they mean. Please answer the question, Brother Bret

Subject: Re: Logical inconsistencies From: laz To: Chrysostomos Date Posted: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 13:47:04 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: What question? LOL Pls ask it again as I thought I did address the meat of your position. In Him, laz

Subject: Re: Logical inconsistencies From: Chrysostomos To: laz Date Posted: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 22:39:49 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: What question? LOL Pls ask it again as I thought I did address the meat of your position. In Him, laz --- 'Tell me, were the Israelites who died in the desert not really delivered from Egypt?' See, there's being delivered from Egypt and then there's arriving in the promised land.... no?

Subject: Re: Logical inconsistencies From: laz To: Chrysostomos Date Posted: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 10:55:03 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: OK...how about this: There's being part of a Church...going through the motions (Israelites chosen as race and leaving Egypt/wandering)...but it's another thing entirely being of the Elect and eventually going to heaven (Israelites who actually entered into the Promised Land). LOL!! Redemption of pre-Mosaic Israel was MORE than just escaping their temporal captors...it also included entering into their 'sabbath rest'. Obviously many where called...but few were chosen. It's always been that way... laz

Subject: Re: Logical inconsistencies From: Rod To: Chrysostomos Date Posted: Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 10:10:47 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Chrysostomos, I see that all this is futile. (Actually I knew it would be from the start.) You have refused to see the elementary fallacy of your argument. One the one hand, you endorse, 'baptismal regeneration,' which in and of itself as a designation DEMANDS that the new life comes from baptism. Then, on the other hand, you have taken it away. That is confused and illogical, indicating a flawed understanding of 'regeneration,' salvation, and God's ways. When I said that the origin of the Spirit's working was 'mysterious' I meant, obviously, that we could point to no single event which produced it, since the Lord Himself said His (God's Spirit's) arrival to save an individual was as undiscernable as the wind as to its cause. He saves whom He will for His own reasons. It is so painfully obvious that God the Spirit comes from God that I didn't think you, a learned person and an academician, would have even dreamed I meant that. I'm astounded that you would make that connection. That is also most illogical.

Subject: Part II From: Rod To: Rod Date Posted: Tues, Jan 23, 2001 at 23:21:07 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Chrysostomos, I presented the following truth from Scripture and posed the questions which follow that three times to St. Worm. I never received an answer. Possibly you will answer the questions? ''St. Worm, Rather than respond to who believed what, let me pose this to you: If man can over-rule what God has achieved, who is really the Supreme Being? This is the most fundamental and important question. If God's will is the ultimate, determining factor, then how can His sanctifying grace be 'killed?' The bedrock premise that God is sovereign and that His will is all-important in determination of man's end, as you assert by your statement, 'all God's elect will make it by His will,' means that man cannot be the determining factor. Just to be certain that we're discussing the same thing, 'sanctifying grace' can be practically defined as God's setting aside an individual for His salvation, protection, and perfection, in a positional way. That can never be annulled, according to the Lord Jesus' own pronouncements (twice): 'My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, NEITHER SHALL ANY MAN PLUCK THEM OUT OF MY HAND. My Father, who gave them to me, is greater than all, and NO MAN IS ABLE TO PLUCK THEM OUT OF MY FATHER'S HAND. I and the Father are one' (John 10:27-30). The statement in verse 29 where, 'My Father is greater than all,' cannot be true if His decisions and will can be nullified by the actions of man, but the fact so clearly and unmistakeably emphasized is that man can't undo what God's sovereign choice affirms. It is in the sovereign will of God to 'sanctify' (positionally) a person for all time whom He elects and it is His will to keep him thus 'sanctified' positionally for all time with 'eternal life,' and 'never perishing.' In view of these statements of flat fact by the Son of God Himself, will you please consider and answer the following questions: 1) How does 'eternal life' get lost and come to an end? 2) How does a man negate the promise that he will 'never perish' from the lips of the Savior? 3) When God says, 'no man can pluck them out' of God's hand, how does the man in question pluck himself out of God's hand by losing his salvation?''

Subject: Re: Part II From: Chrysostomos To: Rod Date Posted: Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 01:20:59 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi Rod, The pregnant wife went to bed. I had some time... >>>>>posed the questions which follow that three times to St. Worm.I never received an answer What happened to that guy, anyway? Doesn't he know it's not polite to just stir up dust and then leave town? >>>>>If man can over-rule what God has achieved,who is really the Supreme Being? Again, you're assuming that man's eternal destiny is determined at what you define as the moment of regeneration (which is not really accurate, since some people were decreed to eternal salvation and some to eternal damnation before everything was created). We've just got to resolve this at some point.... Anyway, >>>>>If God's will is the ultimate, determining factor, then how can His sanctifying grace be 'killed?' That's a big if, Rod. Keeping in mind that I don't believe that one's eternal salvation or damnation was either decreed before the beginning of the world or at the moment of regeneration (given the decree part, isn't the argument about baptism somewhat superfluous? why not just argue the decree?), I don't believe that God's will is the only factor in man's salvation. Free will has to exist, otherwise God is the author of sin, or he coerces. Plus, he's a little whimsical and tyrannical, too. >>>>>The bedrock premise that God is sovereign and that His will is all-important in determination of man's end, as you assert by your statement, 'all God's elect will make it by His will,' Remember, that was St Worm's statement, not mine. >>>>>means that man cannot be the determining factor. Correct. The proper understanding is actually 'synergia' or cooperation with the grace of God for salvation. Because the sovereign God wants a man to love him out of his own free will and not coercion, it's not an either/or situation. He created all things. He didn't need to do anything. He did what he did out of love. He does not desire the death of a sinner, but that he should return and live. He does want all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. That doesn't mean that all men will love him, repent, or be saved. I can hear it now. 'But that means that God's own will doesn't get accomplished! It means he needs to peer into the future to find out if a man will be saved!' Or other such statements I've seen on this board. False. God knows all. God transcends all. But he does not coerce. If sin has it's origin in anything other than man's (or Satan's) free will, then God is the author of it. And that is not possible, since God is All-good. This is because evil is not a created thing. It is simply a product of disobedience. Man is responsible for his own mess, so to speak, God does not need to save him, and yet He does. God has accomplished man's salvation in Christ. Death was destroyed. The handwriting that was against us is gone. All the grace, all the mercy, all the help is there. It only remains for man to receive and run the race. On the Last Day, there can be no excuses, because God will say to every man, 'I gave you everything necessary.' In that sense, man's will does indeed determine salvation, because God has provided everything and man has no excuse. The 'assurance' is the goodness and mercy of God. That's the bedrock. It holds up the whole world, in fact. >>>>>'sanctifying grace' can be practically defined as God's setting aside an individual for His salvation, protection, and perfection, in a positional way. As should be clear from the above and previous conversations, I don't believe that salvation is a judicial delcaration. Salvation is union with God, the resoration of that which was destroyed in the Fall. All men are called to participate. Your definition continues to make God whimsical. Some he sets aside, some he does not. A theory which nullifies more Scriptures than it explains. >>>>>1) How does 'eternal life' get lost and come to an end? In my previous post, I quoted Phillipians to you. Your question puts the end of the race at the beginning, which makes a number of St Paul's images and analogies, well, nonsensical. >>>>>2) How does a man negate the promise that he will 'never perish' from the lips of the Savior? We might ask St Paul the same thing. We might also ask Christ the same thing, given what I previously posted about the servant who owed 10,000 talents. An even better passage that many people use to prove your point is in Romans, where St Paul says that nothing can separate one from the love of God. Yes, this is true. Christ conquered death, and the fear of death. And perfect love drives out fear. A Christian can be 'killed' by no external thing, again, because God has provided for everything, not tempting beyond what one can bear, says St James. So, on the Last Day, God can say, 'I gave you everything. I told you I would never leave you, never allow any harm to come to you beyond chastisting you for your own benefit, never give you something that you couldn't bear with my help. What excuse do you have?' None. >>>>3) When God says, 'no man can pluck them out' of God's hand, how does the man in question pluck himself out of God's hand by losing his salvation?'' By persistently refusing to get up (repenting) when he falls down (sins). This is pride (the original sin), a denial of the mercy of God. Keeping in mind that he hasn't lost eternal salvation. He failed to finish a battle in which he was guaranteed victory beforehand. Peter denied Christ three times, but he wept, repented and came back. Judas felt miserable about what he'd done, but didn't repent. What happened to each of them is clear enough, no? The point is to be like Peter and not Judas. 'if we deny him, he also will deny us; if we are faithless, he remains faithful -- for he cannot deny himself.' (2 Tim 2:12,13) One may get injured in battle by faithlessness. One gets killed by denial. Chrysostomos

Subject: Re: Part II From: laz To: Chrysostomos Date Posted: Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 08:02:20 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: So is 'denial' the ONE sin Christ did not atone for? Is 'denial' the unpardonable sin? laz p.s. then why does God sometimes kill the body (of a presummably elect person) to save the soul? hmmm

Subject: Re: Part II From: Chrysostomos To: laz Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 25, 2001 at 22:13:49 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hello again, laz! >>>So is 'denial' the ONE sin Christ did not atone for? Is 'denial' the unpardonable sin? I give up. You tell me what Matt 18:21-35 means. Especially verse 35. >>>>>p.s. then why does God sometimes kill the body (of a presummably elect person) to save the soul? hmmm Presumably? What are you talking about? Chrysostomos

Subject: Re: Part II From: laz To: Chrysostomos Date Posted: Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 10:43:38 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Chrysostomos - Mt 18:33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? 34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. 35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, IF ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses. Notice the IF and that...it is God which worketh in (us) both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Php 2:13 Also: Heb 13:21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. So, you see...I'm safe from apostasy if I'm truly of the Elect (and thus possesing a NEW HEART) since God will be wroughting godly forgiveness in me (as I am IN CHRIST) for His good pleasure...His grace always being sufficient for every occassion. ;-) In Corinth, some were being killed for their abuse of the Lord's table....I say some of the elect were PRESUMABLY being killed for their sin...because no one apart from God and the individual know whom are the elect. In Him, laz p.s. having said that (Verse I just posted in Php and Heb) ...you believe God violates our 'free will' in working in us to do that which He has willed according to His wise counsel and good pleasure?

Subject: Re: Part II From: Chrysostomos To: laz Date Posted: Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 21:33:01 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: >>>>>Notice the IF laz, noticing the if is my point... Chrysostomos

Subject: Re: Part II From: laz To: Chrysostomos Date Posted: Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 13:49:25 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: This 'if' is somewhat rhetorical since it would ONLY apply to those who only SEEM to be of the faith...but who eventually fall away because as John said...those that fall away PROVE they were never really OF the faith. (1Jh 2:19) laz

Subject: Re: Part II From: Rod To: laz Date Posted: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 16:49:35 (PST) Email Address: na Message: laz, Chrysostomos believes that 1 John 2:19 applies only to 'teachers,' if I understand him correctly, though how this principle is applied only to some false believers and not to others is beyond this pore ole country boy.

Subject: laz and Rod From: Chrysostomos To: Rod Date Posted: Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 22:43:17 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: What you fellers claim for I John 2:19 is absolutely beyond me. That's why I asked P the question to begin with, which you can find in an earlier thread. For my part, I simply don't get it, so make of that what you will. The rest of the chapter seems clear enough. Chrysostomos

Subject: Re: laz and Rod From: Tom To: Chrysostomos Date Posted: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 10:47:45 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Chrys I do not see anything in the rest of the chapter that contradicts what we believe 1John 2:19 says. In case you don't understand our position. Let me say it this way. True faith always has a quality of permanance. If a man has really been born again, he will go on in the Lord. 1John 2:19 does not mean that we are saved by enduring to the end, but rather that those who endure to the end are really saved. Tom

Subject: Re: laz and Rod From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted: Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 14:18:05 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Tom, It seems Chrysostomos believes in a 'partial birth.' That God does something and it's up to man to validate it by obedience. That, obviously, could lead to a 'partial birth abortion,' to put it crudely. The Lord Jesus doesn't say, 'Ye must be partially born again.' Only a born person grows and functions as a human. A person who is never brought to term doesn't function so, but is yet unborn. Only a fully born again person can be a spiritual person and function spiritually. He is 'born of the Spirit' and, if he is not born (completely) of the Spirit, he remains dead in trespasses and sins: 'But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now, if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his' (Rom. 8:9). Chrysostomos believes the ancient lie of Satan that man's works secure salvation and the approval of God 'after the race' [of life] is run, rather than the fact of salvation being secured by an act of God in the regeneration of the Spirit in which that grace born of God's love causes the new creation to turn to God in faith, which in turn produces the works which show forth faith. Matthew 12:33 is the Lord Jesus' pronouncement about this: 'Either make the tree good, and its fruit good, or else make the tree corrupt, and its fruit corrupt; for the tree is known by its fruit.' It's obvious from this statement that what is in man produces the fruit (works) of man. The man of flesh produces evil, corrupt fruit; the man of the Spirit of God, the man born again, produces the good fruit of faith. James said the same thing in the key verse to his Epistle: '...and I will show you MY FAITH by my works' (2:18). The Apostle Paul was in total agreement, which is not surprising, as the Bible is complementary to itself, not contradictory: 'For I am crucified with Christ [dead to the corrupt, evil flesh]: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me [making the tree good]; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me' (Gal. 2:20). Such a person lives the life of faithful works. He lives it purely and simply because of the regeneration of God and his immediatley resultant salvation and the Spirit of God living in him. As laz pointed out, God indwelling us is causing and enabling those who are His own to do His will and to show forth their faith. Along with James, Paul again confirms this: 'For it is God who worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure' (Phil.2:13). Though Chrysostomos won't have it so, 'the race is over at the beginning' (Chrysostomos' saracastic words) for 'it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy' (God's Word in Rom. 9:16) in making the tree good. Chrysostomos' position is nothing new, but is the old lie brought forth once again. It is semi-Pelaganism in all its 'splendor.' Man has at least a spark of good in him which allows him to cooperate with God in getting himself saved, but the actual salvation cannot occur until he jumps through all the required ecclesiastical hoops to secure it for himself! ''NOW THE WORD OF THE LORD CAME UNTO JEREMIAH, WHILE HE WAS SHUT UP IN THE COURT OF THE PRISON, SAYING, GO AND SPEAK TO EBEDMELECH, THE ETHIOPIAN, SAYING, THUS SAITH THE LORD OF HOSTS, THE GOD OF ISRAEL, BEHOLD, I WILL BRING MY WORDS UPON THIS CITY FOR EVIL, AND NOT FOR GOOD; AND THEY SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED IN THAT DAY BEFORE THEE, BUT I WILL DELIVER THEE IN THAT DAY, AND THOU SHALT NOT FALL BY THE SWORD, BUT THY LIFE SHALL BE FOR A PRIZE UNTO THEE, BECAUSE THOU HAST PUT THY TRUST IN ME SAITH THE LORD.

Subject: Re: Part II From: Rod To: laz Date Posted: Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 10:40:33 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Laz, I see you have latched onto the lack of logic and lack of adherence to Scriptural principles also. Chrysostomos, I see you haven't exactly been hanging on my every word recently, for I have made many references to Rom. 8:31-39 in the last week. The fact is the Bible is so full of proofs of God's position that one is able to cite many without having to repeat himself. I leave you to the tender mercies of others. Anyone who believes that God, the Supreme Being of the universe, the One Who proclaims Himself, infallible, immutable, omniscient, and proclaims that He doesn't need man, but man needs Him, would need/desire the cooperation of man to get man saved has a real problem. That problem is expressed in the fact that God's Word declares emphatically that man is, in his natural state (unsaved, unregenerate), God's enemy. He is totally consumed by that enmity, as expressed by the word 'is' in this Scripture, indicating an abiding state of being: 'For to be carnally minded is death...Because the carnal mind is ENMITY AGAINST GOD; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither, indeed, can be' (Rom. 8:6-7). That is the 'free will' of man; he wills to be God's enemy. This you maintain God wants to cooperate with! This you maintain will somehow want to cooperate with God! Incredible and illogical. Lest you think I'm being 'unfriendly,' let me emphasize this. I have told you the truth of Scripture, as I promised to do a couple of days ago, when I cited Paul (Gal. 4:16) in saying that that in no way makes me your enemy. How you handle that truth is between you and God. I trust you will not remain as those unbelieving, unable to discern, Jews of John 5, but will be enabled by God's Spirit to discern Christ and His ways, trusting Him, and not your church, for salvation.

Subject: Re: Part II From: Chrysostomos To: Rod Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 25, 2001 at 14:58:37 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi Rod, >>>>>Lest you think I'm being 'unfriendly,' Not at all. Thank you for the discussion. Take care, Chrysostomos

Subject: alms giving From: Puritan To: All Date Posted: Tues, Jan 23, 2001 at 17:15:32 (PST) Email Address: bhackett@telusplanet.net Message: Greetings all, Man, I just recovered from that on tiff on the celebration of Christmass. That was a rough one. :O) Question; Do you believe that offerings during the worship service should be considered an act of worship just as public preaching etc? If so why. Why not? Peace to you all, Puritan.

Subject: Re: My two cents worth .. From: stan To: Puritan Date Posted: Tues, Jan 23, 2001 at 19:00:13 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: phipp 4.18 indicates giving is a sacrifice and listening to some sermons is a sacrifice so yes ;-) If giving is a sacrifice then is must be a form or worship I'd think. stan

Subject: Re: alms giving From: Brother Bret To: Puritan Date Posted: Tues, Jan 23, 2001 at 18:16:19 (PST) Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com Message: Puritan: While it never uses the word worship in conjunction with tithes and offerings, I have always looked as it as a form of worship! Worship means 'worth-ship' right? So when we are giving to the Lord for Him, His gospel and His service, we are doing it because He is worthy, He deserves it! His cause is the most WORTHwhile cause to give to. Well that's my take on it anyway :^ ) Brother Bret Cornerstone Community Baptist Church www.ccbcfl.org

Subject: New Series of Sermons From: Pilgrim To: All Date Posted: Tues, Jan 23, 2001 at 14:24:38 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Greetings in the name of the Lord Christ! There is now online a new series of sermons by John Flavel (1628-1691) entitled 'On Keeping the Heart'. This series consists of 17 chapters which are an exemplary example of the Puritan gift in being able to delve into the recesses of the heart of man. Flavel is one of the finest representatives of 'Experimental Christianity' given to us. This series will certainly be of interest to anyone who has wrestled with the agony of sin within himself and whose primary desire is to please God. You can find the Table of Contents for that series here: On Keeping the Heart There is also a brief biography of John Flavel on a separate page: A Short Biography of John Flavel In His Service and Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: KJV From: Tom To: All Date Posted: Tues, Jan 23, 2001 at 13:50:46 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Like I said before, although I use the KJV as my preferred version. I do have some things that I am wrestling with in regards to the differences between the KJV and other versions, such as the NASV. I also understand that some of these differences are because they were translated from different sources of the original langauges. However, there seems to be many verses that change the meaning of the whole verse. I will give a few examples. ISA 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! In the NASB it reads 'O star of the morning,instead of 'O Lucifer' .' Why is this such a big deal? Because REV 22:16 plainly states that, 'I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright and morning star.' Jesus is the bright and morning star, NOT Lucifer! ACTS 17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, [Ye] men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. NASV reads 'too superstitious' to 'very religious' Superstitious and very religious seem to me to have different meanings. COL 2:18 The KJV reads 'Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,' The NASV reads 'has seen' as opposed to the KJV 'not seen'. Do you see why I am wrestling with the differences? Am I misunderstanding something? Tom

Subject: Re: KJV From: stan To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Jan 23, 2001 at 15:42:05 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The Isa text to me is speaking of the king of Babylon and behind him Satan. Thus the kjvers say that the niv makes christ into lucifer - they assume 'morning star' can apply only to Christ as a title. The term is not a title in Isa, but is more descriptive as I understand it. It is kind of saying if Lord refers to God once then it always relates to God, which in Deut makes a problem - it mentions God is lord of lords - both the same term - He can't be Himself as well as all other lords. I don't remember which one, but one of the proverbs is exactly opposite when read in the nasb and the kjv. We have to compare and study how words are used to determine which translation of a passage is best. stan

Subject: Re: KJV From: Chris To: stan Date Posted: Tues, Jan 23, 2001 at 18:40:20 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The KJV is not the best translation to use today. Modern version proponents have spoken of errors in the KJV; this is a poor choice of words. It is better to point out archaisms, words that meant one thing in 1611-1769 but do not mean the same thing now. If one believes that the majority text/textus receptus is the best line of manuscripts, then the NKJV is the best choice, as it updates the archaisms of the KJV into modern english. Also available are the Modern King James Version and the 21st Century KJV, the latter not as modern as the NKJV. The NKJV is, I feel, the best modern translation to use for teaching and preaching.

Subject: The Love of Christ From: Chris To: All Date Posted: Tues, Jan 23, 2001 at 06:31:43 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: One subject that often baffles me is the love of Christ. It is almost universally believed in evangelical circles that 'God loves everyone'. This invariably leads to the unbiblical idea of a universal atonement. Yet Scripture is quite clear that God does not love everyone. He loved Jacob, hated Esau, and he hates evil sinners: Ps 5 The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity. 6 You shall destroy those who speak falsehood; The LORD abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man. Yet I have heard even reformed pastors preach on the love of Christ for all men. This appears to be universal love. So my question is: Does Jesus Christ love all equally? Is the love of Christ different from teh love of the Father? Any thoughts woudl be appreciated.

Subject: Re: The Love of Christ From: FredW To: Chris Date Posted: Tues, Jan 23, 2001 at 14:17:49 (PST) Email Address: fred__w@hotmail.com Message: You are on the right track. God loves his people. These are grafted into his tree (adopted). God hates sinners (also see Ps 11:5). It could be said that the call is universal ('many are called, but few chosen'). May God be with you.

Subject: Re: The Love of Christ From: Rod To: Chris Date Posted: Tues, Jan 23, 2001 at 11:00:05 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Chris, I think Pilgrim has given the definitive answer. I will add a couple of remarks for reflection also. God shows kindness and forbearance to the lost in many ways, the foremost being that he doesn't squash them like bugs for their sins, but allows them, at least for a time, to continue in life. A second is in His provision for their needs in a physical sense: '...That ye may be the sons of your Father, who is in heaven; for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust' (Matt. 5:45). And another is in His sending out His Word of promise universally, so that, if any is able to hear it with ears of faith, that person may be saved. The fact that none except those elect are enabled to hear it doesn't lessen the fact that the offer is genuinely made. The 'general call' does go out and men are obviously held accountable for their sin in rejecting the Son of God. The reasons behind all this are more complex than we can realize, of course, but must include these: 1) God isn't cruel and He, being good, provides good for all mankind. 2) More importantly, the lost and nonelect are here for a purpose, the wheat and the tares growing together (Matt. 13:24-32). The fact is that all men are 'dead in trespasses and sins' until they are rescued by the love of God in Christ Jesus (Eph. 2:1-3). God, in His timing, brings the elect to Himself. We cannot determine why He waits and brings some later than others; it is all part of His planning. 3) It is in God's plan to suffer the sins of the lost for the benefit of the elect in the grand scheme of things: 'What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction; and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had before prepared unto glory, even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?' (Rom. 9:22-24; cp. 2 Peter 3:1-9 and Rom. 8:28).

Subject: Re: The Love of Christ From: Pilgrim To: Chris Date Posted: Tues, Jan 23, 2001 at 07:56:54 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Chris, The love of the Lord Christ MUST BE the same as the Father's love since they are the ONE GOD. There can be no difference in the will of God since there is but ONE WILL. The objects of that will are those whom God Himself has chosen before the foundation of the world to be in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:39; Eph 1:4; 1Joh 3:16; 4:9, 16, 19) and them alone. The love of God is not simply some sentimentalism floating around in the Godhead. It is the expressive work of the will of God manifest to and in His creation. God's love is inextricably connected to the Lord Jesus Christ. Whomsoever is the recipient of the love of God is blessed with salvation and all the glory which is to come at the Lord Christ's return. Thus, if God loved everyone the same; everyone would be redeemed and eventually glorified. But we know the Scriptures are quite clear that only a remnant is to be saved and the remainder of mankind will face the LORD as Judge and be damned according to pure justice to the glory of God. The Lord Jesus was also discriminatory in His own life toward men, for His purpose was solely to do all that the Father purposed, (Joh 5:19, 30; 36, 37; 6:38; 8:28, 29; 10:30; 12:49, 50; 14:10, 11). And the will of the Father was for the Lord Jesus to lay down His life that He might redeem all those whom the Father gave Him (Joh 5:37, 39; 13:1 17:9, 10, 24-26) Joh 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. 15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. 17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: The Love of Christ From: Chris To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Tues, Jan 23, 2001 at 11:15:06 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thanks Pilgrim (does that make me sound like John Wayne? ;-) Yes Christ and the Father are one God, but they are also seperate persons, with separate ministries. So a difference in expression of divine love is possible, no? All you say is true, but you have only really reiterated my original question. Yes, God has a special, electing love for his chosen, and yes, if God loved all of these the same, all would be chosen and all would be saved. Yet the person of Christ seems to have an all-encompassing love for all of humanity. Specifically in passages like Mark 10:21, 'Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”, and Luke 13:34 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it!' Does Christ have an expression fo love for the reprobate, related perhaps to lovingkindness or common grace, which is different from the hate the Father has for sinners?

Subject: Re: The Love of Christ From: Pilgrim To: Chris Date Posted: Tues, Jan 23, 2001 at 14:12:45 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Chris, I think Rod has sufficiently answered the first part of your question concerning 'Common Grace' and God's benevolence for the reprobate. This 'Common Grace' may be called 'love', but the Scriptures seem to reserve God's love for His salvific purpose and affection for the elect, and them only. Today's 'evan-jelly-cals' have so distorted the truth, depth and affect of God's love that it has become nothing more than a weak emotional expression of the Deity that in the end accomplishes nothing; unless of course appendixed by a movement of the sinner's will. Secondly, you seem to want to bifurcate the love of the Son from the love of the Father? This again is an impossibility, for Christ's 'love' is the Father's love, albeit expressed in the totality of His coming, incarnation, humiliation, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension and coronation. Christ's redemptive work is nothing less than the Father's love in action. So, if in fact, the Lord Christ 'loved' anyone, then that 'anyone' would be effectually redeemed by His blood and made an heir of the kingdom of God. The 'Rich Young Ruler' was shown compassion by the Lord Jesus Christ, but we are never told if this man ever came to repentance and believed upon the Saviour. Let's not forget that there are at least two meanings for the word 'love' in the Scriptures; phileo love and divine love (for lack of better terms)! And even the Greek words themselves; philew and agape are used interchangeably throughout the New Testament, so that the overall teaching of Scripture and the context will determine how they are to be understood. So again, there is and cannot be any difference whatsoever between the 'love of Christ' and the 'love of the Father'. The are ONE! The love of God is demonstrably shown in the life and death of the Lord Jesus Christ. John 14:9 'Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?' . . . Joh 20:28 'And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.' In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: The Love of Christ From: Chris To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Tues, Jan 23, 2001 at 18:02:46 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thanks to all. I think I'm starting to sort it out.

Subject: Another Question From: Joe Machuta To: All Date Posted: Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 19:08:24 (PST) Email Address: Machutajmachuta@aol.com Message: To All, Can someone tell me about the date of John's gospel, 1,2,3 John and Revelation. I'm interested in knowing about dating it 60AD rather than the date of 90 - 95 AD. Please cite theologians or historians. Thanks, In Christ Jesus, Joe

Subject: A question. From: stan To: All Date Posted: Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 19:27:18 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Not looking for discussion, but for information ;-) Ran across a defense of the King James on a Calvinist site. Is there a link between calvinism and kjvonlyism? I ask for two reasons: 1. dumb interest. 2. many kjv onliers are not calvinist. stan

Subject: Re: A question. From: Chris To: stan Date Posted: Tues, Jan 23, 2001 at 06:21:52 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: There is no direct link from Calvinism to KJVO, although some Reformed place an over-importance on the KJV and the textus receptus as the Bible of the Reformation. Most KJVOs are arminian fundamnetalists, but for a reformed defense of the KJV, see http://www.chalcedon.edu/report/97jun/index.htm

Subject: Re: A question. From: Pilgrim To: stan Date Posted: Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 08:06:24 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Stan, There is nothing to link 'KJV Onlyism' with the Reformed faith and/or Calvinism. Narrowness of doctrine is one thing, but it takes a 'narrowness of mind' to take a stand for the KJV Only position! :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: A question. From: Tom To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Tues, Jan 23, 2001 at 01:13:57 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Pilgrim Like you I believe it is narrowness of mind, to take the KJV only position. I have read a fair amount on the topic. I was wondering if you could give a short example, of why you believe it is narrowness of mind to take the KJV only position. Also, in another thread, John P mentioned that the thee, thou's, ye etc... that are in the KJV, are there because they convey what the original languages convey (plurality etc.). There isn't another version that does this. Would you agree with him about this? Or is this really important? Not trying to start a debate. Tom

Subject: Re: A question. From: Pilgrim To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Jan 23, 2001 at 07:20:55 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, I think the major tenet of the KJVO people, that God has providentially chosen, guided and protected the KJV as the 'ONLY' legitimate English translation Bible is paradigmatic narrowness. I think the proposition speaks enough for itself. :-) As to whether I think the KJV is to be preferred because it uses 'thee', 'thou' and 'ye', 'you', I don't consider this to be a good reason. Doubtless it is a 'good thing' (in my best Martha Stuart impression) to have this distinction, but to make it a criteria for choosing a translation? Is the KJV the MOST accurate translation? Nope! But it is close enough for me. ALL translations have their caveats. It is good to know what those are beforehand so one can make an intelligent decision about which translation is going to be used and relied upon. Again, I personally like the KJV for my own English Bible as the one I use daily for normal reading, etc. But the KJV is not 'the standard' by which I compare everything else! :-). In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: A question. From: saved To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 14:26:24 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Stan, There is nothing to link 'KJV Onlyism' with the Reformed faith and/or Calvinism. Narrowness of doctrine is one thing, but it takes a 'narrowness of mind' to take a stand for the KJV Only position! :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim --- Greetings Pilgrim, Yes, I agree; however, there is nothing wrong with defending the KJV as still the best version to use. I am not 'KJV only', but I use the KJV because I believe it is the best, and because it is taken from the same Received Text as the one used for the Geneva Bible - the Bible used by the Pilgrims and many of the reformers. Tyndale gave his life so that we could have the Bible today in English. Much of his noble work has been preserved in the King James Bible.

Subject: Re: A question. From: Pilgrim To: saved Date Posted: Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 21:15:59 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: saved, I have no desire, nor will I enter into any frivolous debate about the KJV being the 'best version' available today. My reasoning is that to argue such is simply a matter of preference which is normally based upon a belief that the Textus Receptus is the 'preferred' source of manuscript integrity. The differences claimed between it and the Kurt-Aland Text and/or the Majority Text are minuscule in fact. And what invariably happens is that those who prefer the TR bring in an almost superstitious pietism to defend it. To be sure, this mentality and methodology has much in common with those who are of the KJV Only sect. This has nothing to do with the sincerity, fervour, spirituality etc. of individuals. But it is a matter of scholarship, history and fact. As I have many times before said on this forum and other places, I use the King James translation of the English Bible as my primary version. However, I do think there are just as worthy English translations, e.g., the American Revised Version (ASV) of 1901, the New American Standard Version (NASB) and the New King James Version (NKJV). But being able to read the Greek and Hebrew, albeit not nearly as fluently, LOL... I can honestly say that any of these versions are notable and reliable translations which no one should dismiss as being less accurate and/or reliable than any other of this group. In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: A question. From: saved To: stan Date Posted: Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 06:18:55 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Not looking for discussion, but for information ;-) Ran across a defense of the King James on a Calvinist site. Is there a link between calvinism and kjvonlyism? I ask for two reasons: 1. dumb interest. 2. many kjv onliers are not calvinist. stan --- --- --- --- --- - I have noticed the same thing... Gospel Mission is Reformed & Calvinistic, and also has books supporting the use of the King James Bible as the best version to use. I see noting wrong with that. It is the Arminian fundamentalists who have made an issue out of the KJV, and I think this is very harmful. Gospel Mission is located at P.O. box 318 Choteau, MT 59422 they have some very good books, I think, You have to request to be on their mailing list. I think they closed their website.

Subject: Re: thanks ya'll! From: stan To: saved Date Posted: Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 14:29:04 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The narrowness issue was about all I could think of, the calvinist is quite intent and sure of his position normally, but most of the kjvers I've run across are toward the other end of things. Thanks. stan

Subject: The New Birth From: saved To: All Date Posted: Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 16:30:43 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thomas Boston stated: >>> The new birth, however in appearance hopefully begun, may be marred two ways: First, Some, like Zarah (Gen. 38:28,29), are brought to the birth, but go back again. They have sharp convictions for a while; but these go off, and they become as careless about their salvation, and as profane as ever and usually worse than ever; 'their last state is worse than their first' (Matt. 12:45). They get awakening grace, but not converting grace and that goes off by degrees as the light of the declining day, till it issue in midnight darkness.<<< Maybe this is the type of 'apostacy' that Luther was refering to in his early messages. There is a 'spiritual abortion of the soul' of those who are only enlightened by the birth pangs of the Spirit, but still not truly converted and born again, sad to say... These are the ones that 'go out from among us' for they are not of us ( one of the sheep of Christ). They are only members of the visible church, and not members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones..Eph.5:30.

Subject: Worm, The Inveterate Invertebrate From: chosendust To: All Date Posted: Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 15:21:49 (PST) Email Address: chosendust@yahoo.com Message: See for instance http://www1.gospelcom.net/HyperNews/get/rymforum/gen0101/21/4/1/1.html Enjoy him! Regretting inviting Ligonierians here?

Subject: Re: Worm, The Inveterate Invertebrate From: Prestor John To: chosendust Date Posted: Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 13:37:34 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: See for instance http://www1.gospelcom.net/HyperNews/get/rymforum/gen0101/21/4/1/1.html Enjoy him! Regretting inviting Ligonierians here? --- You know, Pilgrim, the owner/operator of this forum has stated the rules/guidelines for posting in this forum, if people follow those rules then I don't believe that he cares where they came from. Whether its RYM, Timbuktu, or Abu Dhabi all are welcome here, as long as they follow the rules. Prestor John Servabo Fidem

Subject: 'Regretting...here?' was ? for St.Worm. From: chosendust To: Prestor John Date Posted: Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 14:05:16 (PST) Email Address: chosendust@yahoo.com Message: See for instance http://www1.gospelcom.net/HyperNews/get/rymforum/gen0101/21/4/1/1.html Enjoy him! Regretting inviting Ligonierians here? --- You know, Pilgrim, the owner/operator of this forum has stated the rules/guidelines for posting in this forum, if people follow those rules then I don't believe that he cares where they came from. Whether its RYM, Timbuktu, or Abu Dhabi all are welcome here, as long as they follow the rules. Prestor John Servabo Fidem --- Dear Prestor John, Again I was asking St. Worm if he was regretting posting an invitation in the Ligonier General Forum for people to join him here. Thus here *I* am, someone who is not a fan of his and who thinks y'all maybe should be cautioned regarding his, uh, 'spiritedness' at times (doncha love a good euphemism?)... Hey! The URL didn't hypertext! Lemme try Link URL... Sorry about my lack of clarity!... BTW, no offense but, it would be nice if people here didn't so frequently use the default message for the subject of replies. RE: [Previous Title] tends to make things sorta blur together when ya do that enough. Don't mean to be fussy. Just an idea... Again, sorry about my previous lack of clarity AFA the question. God bless! - chosendust St. Worm Tirade www.gospelcom.net/HyperNews/get/rymforum/gen0101/21/4/1/1.html

Subject: Welcome! From: Pilgrim To: chosendust Date Posted: Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 17:05:48 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thanks for joining here! You are welcome anytime. In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Hello there! From: chosendust To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 17:58:42 (PST) Email Address: chosendust@yahoo.com Message: Thank you very much Pilgrim! And whoever posts to me, feel free to send it to my e-mail. In fact, please do! Thanks. Love In Christ, chosendust

Subject: Baptismal Regeneration From: John P. To: All Date Posted: Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 14:31:03 (PST) Email Address: putz7@msn.com Message: Greetings, As I have been reading along - hearing what Worm and others have had to say - I have noticed something which almost disturbs me as much as St. Worm's doctrine of baptismal regeneration. That something which disturbs me so much is this: the almost totally neglect of the efficacy of baptism. As Biblical, Calvinistic Christians, we have a duty to recognize that, albeit true baptism does not regenerate us (nor do we have the right to presume that the Holy Spirit regenerates at the moment of baptism sine exceptione - without exception), nevertheless, baptism is, 'not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized inot the visible Church.' (WCF 28:1) No - it is much more than that. Baptism is a sign and a seal of the covenant of grace (which God made with Christ and all in Christ), of the ingrafting into Chirst, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of the recipient's giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life (WCF 28:1). Furthermore, we - as Calvinist (Presbyterians) - believe that baptism is efficacious. Indeed, as the WCF says, 'by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.' (WCF 28:6) Now, how is this different from baptismal regeneration? In the following particulars: (1) Although we believe that baptism is efficacious, we believe it is efficacious in the elect only. As the WCF says: 'The grace promised is...really exhibited and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto...' (2) We do not believe that the efficacy of baptism is tied to the moment at which the elected person is baptized. WCF: 'The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered.' (3) We do not believe that all who are baptized (not even infants) are necessarily regenerated (obviously, many who are not elect are baptized and never regenerated). WCF: 'Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.' (WCF 28:5) There are maybe others which could be mentioned. However, as Calvinists, we need to remember that Baptism is not merely a declaration...it truly exhibits and confers grace, by the Holy Spirit, to those who through faith recieve the promises signified and sealed by it. True, the water does nothing. However, Christ did not give this ordinance in order to visibly preach the Gospel with His divine seal of approval, in order for us to wholly ignore this means of grace in reaction to those who superstitiously follow after baptism as an idol. Scripturally, this position is the only way to reconcile these three doctrines: (1) A person to whom God gives the grace of regeneration and thereby faith, cannot fall away from the state of justification. (John 10; Romans 5:9; &c.) Thus, if a person was regenerated and justified at baptism, then it is impossible to concieve of them apostatizing - albeit it is a known fact that many baptized persons end up in hell. (2) The Bible clearly teaches that there are baptized persons who have not ever been regenerated or justified. (Acts 8:13-21; 19:1-5; &c.) Thus, baptism didn't regenerate them. (3) We are baptized for the remission of sins. (Acts 2:38; 10:43) Thus, it isn't merely an offer of the remission of sins - it is for the remission of sins. Now, with these facts, what can we conclude? Well, for one, not everyone baptized is regenerated. Two, the efficacy of baptism is not tied to the moment at which it is administered. And, three, in a way consistent with justification by faith alone, it is for the remission of sins - to wit, when the promises signified and sealed by it are received by faith. Thus, the efficacy of baptism depends on this, and this alone: the Holy Spirit, at the time of His own pleasure (John 3:8), regenerating and giving the elect individual faith to recieve the promises of the Gospel offered both in the preaching of the word and the sacraments. Thus, Holy Spirit wrought gift of faith alone justifies. Thus, the Holy Spirit is not bound by the sacraments. Thus, the sacraments are not merely equivalent to 'dedicating a baby,' or, 'making a public profession of faith.' Thus, the sacraments have an important role in the Christian life, while not being foolishly and superstitiously exalted to the stature of the way of our salvation. They - including baptism - are means of grace which aid our faith. This faith is the means through which God justifies us alone. I hope this helps. Baptists are going to have trouble debating Worm, because it is going to be difficult to avoid those passages which teach the efficacy of Baptism. Worm is going to have a tough time dealing with passages which de-emphasize the importance of baptism and demonstrate that it doesn't regenerate. The Presbyterian, on the other hand, will be able to deal with both kinds of passages adequately. BTW Worm, although I'm not a 'fan' of RC Sproul myself (although he has said a few things well, no doubt), I would be careful saying that he classified Luther as a 'Calvinist.' Usually - unless you have heard something I have not - he says Luther agreed with Calvin in believing predestination. In this particular, Augustine, Luther, Aquinas, and Edwards (the four men, in addition to Calvin, whom Sproul loves so much) Sproul would contend all agreed. I may be wrong on that, however. I, for my part, don't feel sufficiently studied in Luther's writings to confidently affirm or deny what Luther taught concerning apostasy. Sola Fide, John P. PS - I probably won't be responding in the near (or semi-far) future, but no promises. I'm busy.

Subject: Re: Baptismal Regeneration From: Diaconeo To: John P. Date Posted: Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 15:43:32 (PST) Email Address: Diaconeo@minister.com Message: John P., After reading your post I must say that I cannot find any difference between what you posted and what I know to be the beliefs of friends and aquaintences that are baptismal regenrationists. Your post, in fact, echoed nearly all of thier same arguements. The only people I know that would hold to the thought all who are being baptized are saved would be a Universalist, and they don't believe that you must DO anything to enjoy eternal life. Though I strongly disagree with you in your interpretation, which appears to be wholey based on the WCF (am I correct in assuming that is the Westminster Confessions?), I am only going to respond very briefly to you conlusion of the Sacraments being the means of Grace. I am not sure what your bible says, though I am fairly possitive that it says the same in mine, but Romans 2:8-10 state specifically the means of grace as well as the reason for our salvation. It reads thusly: 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. So you see, the Sacraments are NOT the means of Grace, but rather Faith that is. This saving faith, and once your salvation has been complete, there remains nothing else to do for it, it is in the believing alone. I noticed that you signed off by the Latin, Only Faith. But after reading your post, I have serious doubts as to your conviction to that statement. It is only by faith alone, and by no 'Sacrament' that man recieves the Grace of God that saves. In Christ, Matthew

Subject: Re: Baptismal Regeneration From: John P. To: Diaconeo Date Posted: Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 16:45:17 (PST) Email Address: putz7@msn.com Message: Greetings Matthew, Please don't misunderstand this post - I'm only hoping to correct your misunderstanding of what I previously wrote. There is actually a very big difference between what I believe and what a baptismal regenerationist believes (ask Worm or a Roman Catholic, I'm sure they'd let you know). They would say that all infants who are baptized are regenerated, but that some go to hell because they lose their salvation. I, on the other hand, would confess that not all baptized infants or persons are regenerated, and many never will be. This means that I do not even come close to saying that baptism is the instrument through which we receive salvation. Faith alone is the instrument through which we receive justification. Again, I reiterate: Baptism is in no way this instrument. What I was claiming is that baptism is A particular outward means of grace out of many, including the preaching of the word, communion of saints, prayer, etc. When I, or the Puritans, speak of the, 'means of grace,' we are not talking about the instrument through which we are justified. We are speaking about the 'means' through which the Holy Spirit works in order to aid our faith. For instance, let's pretend there is a fellow named Joe. Joe, prior to being baptized, hears the preaching of the Gospel of salvation (a means of grace), and comes to repent and exercise faith alone in Jesus Christ for his eternal salvation. At this time, I would argue that Joe is completely and immutably justified. Nothing can be added to his justification. Thus, because he was perfectly justified prior to baptism, it is necessary that we conclude that baptism could in no way help him get justified, nor improve his justification. However, once he is baptized, he receives a sign and a seal of the righteousness which came by faith prior to his being baptized. This sign and seal is a visible rite by which he is formally admitted to membership in the visible church, and it declares (i.e., is a 'sign'), with the outward authoritative 'seal' of the King of kings, that the promise of the Gospel of justification by faith alone is truly offered to him. Thus, because he is baptized, he may have a greater assurance that, through faith alone in Christ alone, he will be truly justified by God alone. In other words, rather than baptism being merely, 'an outward profession of our faith,' I am contending that baptism is in some ways analogous to daily Bible reading, prayer, sitting under faithful preaching, etc. It isn't what saves us - it is a help, or means which aids, the grace of faith that God has given to us. You would agree that your faith weakens if you neglect reading the word, would you not? How about if you neglect sitting under faithful preaching? Of course you believe this weakens your faith. Likewise, our baptism and the consideration of what it signifies and how it seals God's promises are really offered to us, aids our faith and makes us come more boldly to Christ alone for forgiveness of our sins and the imputation of His righteousness. NOTE: baptism does not save in and of itself, baptism does not forgive us of our sins, baptism does not change our heart, baptism is not the means by which we are reckoned righteous, etc. What baptism does do is this: it is the visible preaching of the Gospel which helps weak and sinful creatures like ourselves go forward with confidence that we may be, and will most certainly be justified by God through Christ if we simply trust Christ alone for this justification (and, of course, this faith is the sovereign gift of the Holy Spirit). In this sense, it is a means of grace. On a side note, I would just like to make comment in a way which is not spoken directly to you, Matthew. It is sad that, in reaction to popery and Lutheranism, we have come to make baptism nothing more than a dedication or outward profession of faith. Baptism is more than that. It signifies (or declares) the Gospel visibly to those who receive the sign, and it seals that this Gospel promise is really offered to the recipient of this ordinance. If we don't receive what is declared and sealed in baptism, then we are in grave sin and have made our baptism essentially vain / void. In fact, if we neglect to recieve the Gospel promised in God's word (and the preaching of it), and the sacraments, our participation in both of these things will simply add to our destruction. This doesn't mean they save us, regenerate us, or justify us. No, no. In and of themselves, they do nothing. By the Holy Spirit working by them, however, giving us the faith necessary to recieve Christ for our justification, they are made effectual for our salvation. On another side note: I don't get this doctrine just from the WCF. My point in using the Westminster Standards was simply to demonstrate that reformed men throughout church history have not given such an insignificant role to baptism as many modern people do. If you read my whole post (or read it more carefully), you will see that I did reference verses of Scripture in the latter half of it. My reason for doing so was to avoid just what you seemed to accuse me of: the appearance that I have an implicit faith in the Westminster standards. What I believe, I believe to be firmly rooted in the word of God. If it is a matter of faith and practice and is not found there, then it is less than worthy of belief. And, no, this post was not intended to give a Biblical argument for my position. Rather, it was intended to show you how my position is not inconsistent with a belief in justification by faith alone. In Christ, John P.

Subject: Re: Baptismal Regeneration From: John P. To: John P. Date Posted: Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 16:52:15 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: One more quick note: you may really want to be careful in who you claim is denying justification by faith alone. If I, and the Westminster divines, are all denying justification by faith alone, then you you are implying one of two things: (1) we aren't saved, or (2) we are saved because we are inconistent. Now, with respect to the Westminster divines, I - and even most reformed baptists (of which I am *not* one) - would have a real difficult time believing that they were inconsistent with the doctrine of justification by faith alone. John P.

Subject: Re: Baptismal Regeneration From: Diaconeo To: John P. Date Posted: Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 14:28:47 (PST) Email Address: Diaconeo@minister.com Message: John, First, I'm not saying anything untoward about who may be saying what about justification by faith alone. What I was saying is that the WCF, and various other conventions, or 'divines' (I only believe there are 4 Divines total, the Three Divine Persons of the Trinity and the Divine Scriptures which are divine by definition, being God-breathed) place far too much emphasis on sacraments as a means of Grace. I personally only recognize two ordanances of the Church, the Lord's Supper and baptism (ritual vice real). While there is significant importance in both, they are rituals, powerfully symbolic ones, but rituals none the less. That the Lord Jesus Christ put specific commands to us to follow them is of great importance. Every believer has a duty to follow them in the presence of other believers in fellowship. But I stop far short of raising them to the level of being a means of grace. I will not raise them to that level because the scriptures do not raise them to that level. The only means of Grace biblically is through the work of Christ on the Cross. What I am most disturbed about in all of this, is that the majority of believers fail to see the difference in two distictly different baptisms. One is real baptism, the other ritual baptism. Real baptism is that which is done through the medium of the Holy Spirit upon believe into the body of Christ, sealing us forever into His Body (Eph. 1:13-14, 4:30, II Cor.1:22). It is this Baptism, and not water baptism that seals believers. It is because of this indistinction that this whole issue is in fact an issue. A very well written work on this can be found in Chafer's systematic theology (Vol. VII). In Christ, Matthew

Subject: Re: Baptismal Regeneration From: Rod To: Diaconeo Date Posted: Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 16:41:52 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Matthew, I'm certain that you meant to type 'Ephesians 2:8-10,' :^) but since you brought up Romans, look at what the same Apostle had to say about baptism in Romans, by not mentioning it at all in connection with salvation: 'For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; FOR IT IS THE POWER OF GOD UNTO SALVATION TO EVERYONE THAT BELIEVETH; to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, the just shall live by faith (1:16-17).There is an extreme lack of literal water in those verses, the key to understanding Romans, one of the greatest books of the Bible. '...unto salvation to everyone that believeth,' may we accept that at face value? 'But these are written that ye might believe that Jesus us the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing, ye might have life through his name' (John 20:31). John the Apostle thinks so. 'He that believeth on him [God's Son] is not condemened; but he that believeth not is condemned already (John 3:18). The condition of salvation is explicit in the Scriptures.

Subject: Re: Baptismal Regeneration From: Diaconeo To: Rod Date Posted: Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 14:36:03 (PST) Email Address: Diaconeo@minister.com Message: Rod, I'm sure someone will mention it, so it might as well be me. Mark 16:16 says this, 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.' Let me quote from Henry Morris, Jr.: 'Every true believer should gladly give testimony to his new life in Christ by following Him in baptism. Those who refuse or ignore this command should examine the reality of their professed faith. Baptism is clearly a part of the great commission (Matthew 28:19) and normally is to follow immediately upon true repentance and faith in Christ (Acts 2:38,41). Nevertheless, it is faith in Christ that saves, not faith plus baptism. As this verse says, 'he that believeth not'--not he that is not baptized--is unsaved. This is the clear testimony of many Scriptures (John 3:18,36), as well as Christ's promise to the thief on the cross (Luke 23:43).' (footnote, The Defender's Study Bible) Of course, I agreed with this long before I read his foot note. But amen to it again! In Christ, Matthew

Subject: Re: Baptismal Regeneration From: Rod To: Diaconeo Date Posted: Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 15:50:50 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Thanks, Matthew. I'm aware of this verse and some others that people misinterpret to mean that baptism in water is necessary to salvation. I'm also aware that what we say here won't settle the controversy! :^) However, I do think, as you, it helps to state our beliefs and support them Scripturally for the simple reason that there may be some who are troubled by these things. It isn't up to us to convince them, but God's Spirit through the truth of His Word. I had thought that someone who believes in baptsimal regeneration might bring up these things, such as Mark 16:16, John 3:5, and Acts 2:38, as well as one or two others they think supports the position so that we might air them out and prove that they 'leak' when the truth is applied to them in regard to water baptism's efficacy for salvation. Maybe the issue is over; if so, I see no need to beat a dead mustang. :^) If someone does support this position, he should come forth and put forth his Scriptural proof. And, if not, there is no further need to refute it.

Subject: I'll bite, Rod... From: Chrysostomos To: Rod Date Posted: Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 20:47:29 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: >>>>>If someone does support this position, he should come forth and put forth his Scriptural proof. In his Large Catechism, Luther seems to have liked this one: 'he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,' (Titus 3:5) Not debating with you, just seeing if I can't play Luther's advocate a bit. What sayest thou? (Please pardon me if you addressed this elsewhere I just missed it) Chrysostomos

Subject: Re: I'll bite, Rod... From: Diaconeo To: Chrysostomos Date Posted: Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 12:29:49 (PST) Email Address: Diaconeo@minister.com Message: Christopher, You asked what Rod thought about this passage: 'he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,' (Titus 3:5) Well, it is not that difficult. The passage tells how the washing of regerneration and renwal was accomplished, namely, by the Holy Spirit. In Christ, Matthew

Subject: Re: I'll bite, Rod... From: Rod To: Chrysostomos Date Posted: Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 23:06:14 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Chrysostomos, I fully expected to drop this for lack of interest. And I, being satisfied with the truth of the Scriptures, would have been glad to let it go. I do believe someone did address this quite a few months ago. Titus 3:5 is one of the few other verses which are used to support this idea of baptismal regeneration. A look at a couple of pertinent facts are useful to begin. First, Luther had a predisposition to believe, due to his background, in 'BR'; second, the verse does most definitely refer to 'washing,' the cleansing of the redeemed. The fact is that one must, indeed, be washed clean, but the question is: How is that achieved? In the same manner of the leper in the OT who had the "uncleanness" (representing sin) in his flesh. He must be cleansed from within and then he presented himself, cleasnsed of the disease of the flesh, to be accepted into the community of God. The descriptive phrase is, 'the washing of regeneration.' It is perfectly obvious (once again, as Luther pointed out) that the dead (unregenerate) man is evil, 'unclean' and full of sin, due to his dead-to-God nature. When the Spirit of God regenerates him, it is a new life given, a spiritual life; the regenerate man is given a new life and a clean heart, his sins forgiven. That is the 'washing of regeneration,' the new life from God. It is simply synonymous with the second portion of the last half of the verse in question, meaning the same thing as the 'renewing of the Holy Spirit.' The cleansing power is in the blood of the Lamb. The fact is that water doesn't clean anything, as is evidenced by the twenty-second verse of chapter 9 of Hebrews: 'And almost all things are by the law purged with blood, and without shedding of blood is no remission.' I have demonstrated below, in a post in reply to John P., that the giving of the Holy Spirit precedes all else and is the thing which causes regeneration, new spiritual life. That this cleansing is applied internally, not externally, is reinforced by Ez. 36:25-27. Likewise, Is. 52:13-15 has direct reference to the blood of Christ in sacrifice (verse 14) which is applied to many as He chooses. The fifteenth verse indicates, 'So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him; for that which had not been told them shall they see, and that which they had not heard shall they consider.' That is a direct reference to the truth and promise of eternal life in Christ. Not to belabor the point, but there are other proofs which can be offered. Heb. 10:22: 'Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.' Does that last clause refer to baptismal regeneration? See verse 19 which lays the groundwork for this statement: 'Having, therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us through the veil, that is to say, his flesh....' That is the basis of saving faith made possible by God's grace. Did Paul preach the necessity of baptism for salvation? He did not, though he certainly taught the importance of baptism. 'For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel;...lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect' (1 Cor. 1:17). And the next verse verifies his great statement in Rom. 1:16-17: 'For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, but unto us, who are saved, IT IS THE POWER OF GOD,' echoing that 'it is the power of God UNTO SALVATION" as set forth in Rom. 1:16. Do you as an Orthodox person, Christopher, believe in BR? If so, please state your position. If not, then what need is there to persue this topic?

Subject: Re: I'll bite, Rod... From: Chrysostomos To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 09:53:38 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: >>>>>Do you as an Orthodox person, Christopher, believe in BR? If so, please state your position. Since you asked: Yes, Rod, that Holy Baptism is the 'laver of regeneration' is the teaching of the Orthodox Church. However, I think the arguments made against baptismal regeneration assume some things that aren't there--at least as Orthodox undertand it. First, it assumes that anyone not baptized must necessarily being going to hell. Which isn't true. There is the thief on the cross, after all. And there can be no doubt that the All-merciful God is able to save people apart from Baptism. No one's too worried, I don't think, about someone who gets hit by a bus before they have an opportunity to be baptized. As is often emphasized here, God is sovereign, so we trust that he knows the state of such souls and makes a righteous and just judgement regarding them. There's nothing there that the limited human has the capacity to reason about. Second, it's assumed that the water itself has some magic power that elminates the necessity of faith. Also not true. For one who does not approach baptism with faith and afterward show the fruits of repentance, then the gift of the Holy Spirit received will be of no benefit to that person. Third, there's an assumption that the waters of baptism have something to do with cleansing the body (though it's true that'ultimate' salvation does include the body--'what is sown corruptible is raised incorruptible'). Of course, we know that St Peter says that baptism is not like washing dirt off the body. It's not any physical leprosy that is addressed in Baptism, but the spiritual leprosy that we all have due to being descendants of Adam. The Orthodox Church understands the Scriptures to teach that just as the first Adam was born of earth and the Spirit ('then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.' (Gen 2:7)), so all those born of the Second Adam are born of water and the Spirit. >>>>>Did Paul preach the necessity of baptism for salvation? He did not, Yes, I do. I don't think I Cor 1:17 means what you think it means, but I won't take that up unless you want to continue the discussion. >>>>>what need is there to persue this topic? I really was only playing Luther's advocate for the sake of an interesting discussion, not to replay discussions we've already had. But if you think we might cover ground we haven't already covered in a new friendly discussion, then I'd be glad to participate. If not, take care and it was nice chatting with you again. Chrysostomos

Subject: Re: I'll bite, Rod... From: Rod To: Chrysostomos Date Posted: Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 12:02:20 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Chrysostomos, You wrote, 'if you think we might cover ground we haven't already covered in a new friendly discussion, then I'd be glad to participate.' As far as I know, I have been friendly toward you in these exchanges over the last several days. I will try to donctinue to be so, while passionately defending the truth of the Scriptures. I think it is good to remember the words of Paul, 'Am I, therefore, become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?' (Gal. 4:16). The greatest good, the most friendly thing one can do for another, is to tell him the truth of the Scriptures. That I will endeavor to do. Concerning your own beliefs, you say this: 'Since you asked: Yes, Rod, that Holy Baptism is the 'laver of regeneration' is the teaching of the Orthodox Church.' Then you go on to qualify the statement with contradictions. You mention that people are saved without baptism. Then, if the 'laver of regeneration' is true, from whence come the exceptions? It is possible to say that not one person saved in the Bible is saved apart from faith. It is not possible to say that no one is saved apart from baptism by the church. You also wrote this, 'I don't think I Cor 1:17 means what you think it means, but I won't take that up unless you want to continue the discussion.' Yes, this must be taken up. And don't forget the directly parallel statement in Rom. 1:16-17. In neither instance is baptism in water mentioned for salvation. It seems to me your whole argument is rendered invalid by this one fact. You think salvation comes from the church. Yet the teaching of the Bible is this: The Church doesn't 'create' Christians; the Church instead is created by Christ from those Christians He has created. The Christian isn't created by the 'good work' of baptism, but the Christian is 'created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them' (Eph. 2:10). Only after being created in Christ Jesus may we do anything good. Baptism in obedience to the command of the Lord Jesus is a good thing in God's sight. But God says, 'without faith it is impossible to please him' (Heb. 11:6). He also says the unregenerate man has a 'carnal mind [which is] enmity against God' and 'they that are in the flesh cannot please God' (Rom. 8:7-8). If such an unregenerate man came to God for baptism, he would be offering the "filthy rags" of Isaiah 64:6 and cause God to retch with rejection; he would be repeating the offering of Cain which was based on his own determination rather than God's chosen way.

Subject: wow, lots of topics to discuss From: Chrysostomos To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 16:38:01 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: >>>>As far as I know, I have been friendly toward you in these exchanges over the last several days. Yes, you most certainly have, Rod. Didn't mean to imply otherwise. As far as 'new' is concerned, I meant the fact that we did have some extended discussions several months ago in which we talked about a number of things. My intent was to let you know that I wasn't trying to dredge up topics you and I had already discussed in some detail just for the sake of arguing. >>>>You mention that people are saved without baptism. Then, if the 'laver of regeneration' is true, from whence come the exceptions? I mentioned that it's possible. I could think of any number of situations: the guy that gets hit by the bus that I mentioned, some peasant in China who'd never heard the Gospel, someone who grows up and spends their whole life only hearing heresy, etc. My only point there is that God knows all hearts and He's the one who judges them. Not us. >>>>>It is possible to say that not one person saved in the Bible is saved apart from faith. It is not possible to say that no one is saved apart from baptism by the church. I agree with you on both counts, if you mean whether one ends up in heaven or hell. But we understand the topic of salvation to be more comphrehensive than that the 'tools' of salvation, so to speak, are in the Church and only in the Church. That's another topic. >>>>>You also wrote this, 'I don't think I Cor 1:17 means what you think it means, but I won't take that up unless you want to continue the discussion.' Yes, this must be taken up. And don't forget the directly parallel statement in Rom. 1:16-17. In neither instance is baptism in water mentioned for salvation. That'll have to be another thread. >>>>>It seems to me your whole argument is rendered invalid by this one fact. You think salvation comes from the church. Well, yes I do. Salvation is only through Christ (hey, at least we agree on one sola!) and the Church is the Body of Christ. I think we can agree that these two things are mentioned in the NT. The question simply becomes how we understand 'Church.' To say the least, you and I understand it differently. >>>>>Yet the teaching of the Bible is this: The Church doesn't 'create' Christians; the Church instead is created by Christ from those Christians He has created. If the Church is the Body of Christ, and Christ is the Head of the Body, and it's Christ that creates Christians, then, the Church does create Christians. I said it before, but just because a person has not been baptized an Orthodox Christian, does not, repeat, does not automatically consign them to hell if they die in the next instant. The Orthodox Church knows where the Church is in visible terms and can tell you where it's been in every generation for 2,000 years, but always maintains that we can't know who is a part of her or not part of her in invisible terms. Like I said above, there could be any number of reasons that a person never unites visibly with the Church. God knows those things. I don't. In any case, I don't see why you would have a problem saying 'there is no salvation outside of the Church,' yourself, since your definition of Church also excludes those outside of it from eternal salvation. >>>>>The Christian isn't created by the 'good work' of baptism, Baptism is not a good work. >>>>>but the Christian is 'created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them' (Eph. 2:10). Agreed. >>>>Only after being created in Christ Jesus may we do anything good. I think that's another thread. About the 'T.' In any case, non-Christians can do lots of good things. A non-Christian can save a baby from a burning building for example, or sacrifice his own life to save someone else's. Those are all good things which prove that man still retains the image of God in him, even though he lost the likeness at the Fall and that image is now distorted and disfigured. But not destroyed. >>>>>Baptism in obedience to the command of the Lord Jesus is a good thing in God's sight. But God says, 'without faith it is impossible to please him' (Heb. 11:6). Right. But remember that Baptism is not a 'good work' and, as I mentioned in my previous post, faith is a necessary component. If there's no faith, then, to that person, it's just water. The Grace of the Holy Spirit is of no benefit to that person. >>>>>He also says the unregenerate man has a 'carnal mind [which is] enmity against God' and 'they that are in the flesh cannot please God' (Rom. 8:7-8). If such an unregenerate man came to God for baptism, he would be offering the 'filthy rags' of Isaiah 64:6 and cause God to retch with rejection; he would be repeating the offering of Cain which was based on his own determination rather than God's chosen way. But baptism is not a work offered to be evaluated for its goodness or it badness. It is the new birth, a gift being received by the person being baptized. Baptism is not a one-way ticket to heaven that I could show and say, 'Look! I was Baptized! Lemme in!' Nor is it something to lord over someone else, thinking, 'whew. At least I've been baptized, unlike that poor wretch. Glad I'm not him!' Like the Scripture says, by grace. Through faith. No one can boast. And even if baptism were considered a work (which I'm emphasizing that it is not), good works do not lead to any notion of 'meriting' anything. In addition to St Paul telling us that it is by grace and through faith so that no one can boast, Christ Himself says: 'So you also, when you have done all that is commanded you, say, `We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.'' (Luke 17:10) We got a lotta topics here, Rod. Forgive me for not being able to discuss them all fully in one response. Maybe we could choose a couple that interest you to begin with and work on them one at a time? Obviously, they're all interconnected. Maybe you feel there's one that's the outer layer of the onion, so to speak. Chrysostomos

Subject: Re: wow, lots of topics to discuss From: Rod To: Chrysostomos Date Posted: Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 18:13:26 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Wow, Chrysostomos, You are correct; there is very little here we can agree on! Let's start here. 'Baptism is not a good work.' As you view it, it is not, but you aren't seeing my point. Here is what I mean. When a person is baptized, he presents himself to your church for baptism. That is his decision, his desire to be baptized so that he may do what is necessary to be 'saved.' These are all things that he does in and of himself because, by your own admission, he is not already regenerated. So by presenting himself to be 'acted upon,' he is doing an act of submission to the God he hates as a natural, carnal man. That act of 'sumbmission' to the practice of baptism is his decision and the impetus comes from his dead self, since he is not regenerated prior to baptism, if BR be true. That makes it a 'good work' of a dead man and would nullify any efficacy the actual administering of the water could have, since the submission to it was done by one dead in trespasses and sins (unregenerate). You prove that you realize that fact when you write, 'remember that Baptism is not a 'good work' and, as I mentioned in my previous post, faith is a necessary component. If there's no faith, then, to that person, it's just water.' In saying this, you are in the same boat as Luther (pun intended). Your argument breaks down. Only a saved person is justified by faith, but a person can only be made alive to have faith by the act of baptism. That is logically inconsistent and the reason BR is unbiblical! If one has faith in the effecacy of the act of baptism, he has faith in an action, the action which he decided to obey, not the Person of God in Jesus Christ. In other words, he may be saved, in your view, but only if he completes the process of baptism by his submisison to it so that he may by saved. His faith is in an action, his trust is not in Christ alone to save him. Yet the very passage you quote says it is 'by grace and through faith.' It is self-evident that the passage means 'faith in a Person,' not faith in the submission to the water of baptism. Once again, the same Apostle, in the same chapter of the same Epistle lays out what the basis of the faith is. The faith is in the substutionary action resulting in the shed blood of the Lord Jesus: 'But now in Christ Jesus ye who were once made far off are made near BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST' (Eph. 2:13). The pre-emminent section on having the faith which justifies and pleases God and secures salvation by grace as Eph. 2 says is Rom. 3:21-4:25. In it Abraham received righteousness, the righteousness of Jesus Christ, solely on the basis of his faith. He was placed in a position of no condemnation before God because he had the gift of faith by grace to believe the promises of God; 'therefore, it is of faith, that it might be of grace, to the end that the promise might be made sure to all the seed, not to that only which is of the law, but that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the Father of us all' (4:16). While Abraham did submit to circumcision later, it was because he was saved by God, not in order to be saved by God. The parallel to Christians' being of the seed of Abraham because of their faith is unmistakeable, as is the fact that baptism isn't necessary to bring them to that position of being saved. Paul told the jailer who asked, 'Sirs, what must I DO to be saved?' 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy house' (Acts 16:30-31). What does that mean? It means to believe that Jesus was 'Lord,' the God of eternity come in human form to save his people from their sins. It means to believe that he, 'Jesus,' in human form was the Son of God, the sacrifice of innocent blood sufficent to wash away the stain of sin because innocent lifeblood is the only sacrifice God will accept, as the whole of the Law taught. It means to accept the 'Christ' Who is the great High Priest Who alone can offer the sole acceptable sacrifce to God, being both priest and sacrifce of purity. What did Paul say to the man? 'Believe' this and you will be saved at the instant of believing, as Abraham was. He could make that promise because he knew also, 'without the shedding of blood, there is no remission' of sin (Heb. 9:22). Then, and only then, having been saved by believing these things, could the jailer be baptized in obedience to the command of the Lord Jesus. And that was not for salvation, it was for the fact that he was a child of God and could obey His command. The Great Commission makes that clear: 'Go ye unto all nations....' Why? So that they may hear the truth and be saved by grace through faith. Only then will they accept Christ's teaching: '...baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoeven I have commanded you...' (Matt. 28:19). There is no commandment for these men preaching to save people. The commandment is to be faithful in preaching so that they may believe and be saved by the action of God in enabling them to believe and then receive baptism. God does the saving by granted faith by grace: 'Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God' (Rom. 10:17). What they are to do is to preach, allowing God to save. Then baptism is to be administered, just as Paul followed the pattern in Acts, just as he emphasized in 1 Cor. 1. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved."

Subject: Re: wow, lots of topics to discuss From: Chrysostomos To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 19:20:09 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: >>>>>In other words, he may be saved, in your view, but only if he completes the process of baptism by his submisison to it so that he may by saved. No, no, no, Rod, he who endures to the end will be saved! Topic Number 43 on our list must now be the equivalency of your understanding of 'regeneration' with eternal salvation. And what you say only has a chance of being 'logically consistent' if the T in TULIP is true and, as you might guess, I don't believe that T is what Scripture teaches. I suggest the following: Let's talk about T, since I believe that you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. See you tomorrow sometime... Chrysostomos

Subject: Re: wow, lots of topics to discuss From: Rod To: Chrysostomos Date Posted: Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 21:12:13 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Chrysostomos, The problem which does exist is that 'regeneration' means new life, spiritual life from God. The Bible speaks of that numerous times as 'eternal' and several times as 'everlasting;' it is an integral part of salvation. Yes, he who endures to the end shall be saved because he is saved by God and kept by the indwelling Spirit to remaining. All that's necessary to see that is to believe 1 John 2:19.

Subject: Re: wow, lots of topics to discuss From: Chrysostomos To: Rod Date Posted: Tues, Jan 23, 2001 at 21:15:33 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi Rod, >>>>All that's necessary to see that is to believe 1 John 2:19. You know, I did have a chat with Pilgrim about that verse last week or so (my original post to him on it was entitled 'question for Pilgrim') and he clarified what he meant by quoting it (given the rest of 1 John 2, which seems much more obviously appliciable to the individual believer). Anyway, I just don't understand making it such a pivotal verse in your argument, since it seems to be primarily directed at teachers (though there certainly is a component of individual salvation there). In any case, I think you're explaining away the clear meaning of my quote. However, I suppose that's the problem. The clear can't really interpret the unclear unless we're all agreed on which ones are clear to begin with. Anyway, you made a comment above which I found absolutely astounding, given the fact that you found all of Luther's arguments for baptismal regeneration 'illogical:' >>>>>The fact that none except those elect are enabled to hear it doesn't lessen the fact that the offer is genuinely made. I am absolutely puzzled that you find the idea of baptismal regeneration illogical, and yet can calmly make such a statement as this as if it makes perfect 'sense.' Not saying that to be polemical or argumentative, just making an observation about the things different people find logical and illogical. Chrysostomos

Subject: Re: wow, lots of topics to discuss From: Rod To: Chrysostomos Date Posted: Tues, Jan 23, 2001 at 21:42:36 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Chrysostomos, See the new thread at the top of the page.

Subject: Re: wow, lots of topics to discuss From: Chrysostomos To: Rod Date Posted: Tues, Jan 23, 2001 at 22:44:55 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Sorry, Rod, you lost me. Which one? The one I pulled your quote from?

Subject: Re: wow, lots of topics to discuss From: Rod To: Chrysostomos Date Posted: Tues, Jan 23, 2001 at 23:25:26 (PST) Email Address: na Message: You were too quick on the draw for me. It takes me a long time to compose a post. See 'Logical Consequences' and 'Part II' above, a new topic concerning the same subject.

Subject: A Short Article about Faith From: saved To: All Date Posted: Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 14:26:16 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: >>>The doctrine of another's righteousness reckoned to us for justification before God is one of the links that knit together the first and the sixteenth centuries, the Apostles and the Reformers. The creeds of the Reformation overleap fifteen centuries and land us at once in the Epistle to the Romans. Judicial and moral cleansing was what man needed. In that epistle we have both the imputed and imparted righteousness-not the one without the other; both together, and inseparable, but each in its own order, the former the root or foundation of the latter. It was not Martin Luther merely who took up the old watchword, 'The just shall live by faith,' and thus found the answer of a good conscience toward God. To thousands of hearts it came like a voice from Heaven, they knew not how. Sunshine from above had fallen upon one grand text, the text which the age needed. Men recognized the truth thus supernaturally lighted up. 'The nations came to its light, and kings to the brightness of its rising.' The inquiring men of that age, though not borrowing from each other, betook themselves to this truth and text. From every kingdom of Europe came the same voice, and every Protestant Confession bore witness to the unanimity of awakened Christendom. The longneeded, long­missing truth had been found; and Eureka! was the cry of gladness announcing the discovery. Our fathers saw that this truth was the basis of all real spiritual life. That which was superficial, and morbid, and puny, and second rate, might do with some less deep, less broad foundation; but all that is healthy, and noble and daring and happy and successful in religion must rest here: 'The just shall live by faith.' Religion is fashionable in our age, but is it that religion which sprang up, after centuries of darkness, among our fathers in Europe? God himself must be there with His covering of a perfect Righteousness, his cleansing blood, his quickening Spirit. Without this, religion is but a shell; holy services are dull and irksome. Joy in God, which is the soul and essence of worship, is unknown. The sacraments, prayer meetings, religious services, labors of charity, and all 'dead works' will not make up for having the living God and His holy Spirit in the heart. Men with their feet firmly set on Luther's Rock, the imputed Righteousness of Christ, being filled with the Spirit, and pervaded with the peace of God do the great things in the church; others do the little. The men of robust spiritual health are they who, like Luther, have made sure of their filial relationship to God. They shrink from no battle nor succumb to any toil. The men who go to work with an unascertained relationship give way in the warfare and faint under the labor: their life is not perhaps a failure or defeat, but it is not a victory; it is not a triumph. 'We do not war after the flesh' (2 Corinthians 10:3), and 'our weapons are not carnal' (2 Corinthians 10:4). Our battle is not fought in the way that the old man would have us to fight it. It is 'the fight of faith' (1 Timothy 6:12). It is not by doubting but by believing that we are saved; it is not by doubting but by believing that we overcome. It is 'believing' from first to last. We begin, we go on, we end in faith. The faith that justifies is the faith that overcomes (1 John 5:4). By faith we obtain the 'good report' both with God and man. By faith we receive forgiveness; by faith we live; by faith we work, and endure, and suffer; by faith we win the crown - a crown of righteousness which shall be ours in the day of the appearing of Him who is our Righteousness, both now, and forever!<<< Horatious Bonar ++++++++++++++++++ It is rather clear why I would want to post this now!

Subject: Concerning James... From: Rod To: All Date Posted: Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 13:52:16 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Chrysostomos, You had this to say below in a curious post to Pilgrim: 'The other (not later) Reformers, however, like Calvin, certainly didn't take such a blasphemous view of Holy Scripture and, thus, tried to make it fit within Sola Fide. At least he recognized Luther's problem in this regard, but the dilemma is that the fellow who proclaimed Sola Fide believed what he believed and everybody since has only come up with what seem to me to be trite slogans to explain James. (The really dispensational dispensationalists are interesting, however, because they 'solve' the problem by simply saying that he was writing to Jews, not Gentiles. Same net result as Luther, though.)' There is so much in that paragraph I hardly know where to begin. As a Dispensationalist (though I don't know waht a 'really dispensational Dispensationalist' is) I don't believe the Book of James was written exclusively to the Jews. I don't know any others of my 'ilk' who do either! :>) I am absolutely certain one doesn't need a prybar to force the book of James into sola fide. It fits very nicely there on its own, since that is the design of the most holy God. In fact, one of the primary subjects of James' Epistle is exactly that: faith. Note the third verse of the first chapter, '...knowing this, that the testing of your FAITH worketh patience.' Verse 12 indicates that when that faith is so tested and proved, the faithful man (the one who 'endureth temptation') 'shall receive the crown of life,' which is is based on the promise accepted by faith of the Lord 'to them that love him.' Then, speaking of the kinds of temptations such a faithful one must endure, James again alludes to faith, though not by name: '...of [the Father's] own will begot he us with the word of truth,' a certain indication that the Word of Truth, the promises of God in Scripture, are accepted by faith (verse 18). And in verse 21 he speaks of the 'engrafted word, which is able to save your souls'--faith yet again. Then, in the second chapter, the entire thrust is faith: 'I will show you MY FAITH by my works, works are the evidence of God's gift of faith working within the saved man. This is precisely what Paul says in various places, but never better than in Eph. 2:10: 'For we are [God's] workmanship, created in Christ Jesus [by grace, through faith] UNTO GOOD WORKS, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." The Scriptures are perfectly consistent within themselves.

Subject: Re: Concerning James... From: Chrysostomos To: Rod Date Posted: Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 20:29:11 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi Rod, Clarification. What I meant by 'really dispensational' was a curious bunch I recently discovered who follow a fellow named Peter Ruckman. I had a brief converstation with of these people and it was a bizarre experience. Wasn't referring to folks like yourself, who seem to come from the same tradition as I. Please forgive me for any offense caused by my much too vague comment. >>>>>I am absolutely certain one doesn't need a prybar to force the book of James into sola fide My point is that Luther definitely needed one. Rather, he just didn't bother with it. >>>>>The Scriptures are perfectly consistent within themselves. I wholeheartedly agree with you. Chrysostomos

Subject: Re: Concerning James... From: Rod To: Chrysostomos Date Posted: Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 11:06:07 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Chrysostomos, I wan't offended by your statement. Your apology, though appreciated, was unnecessary. I just never met any of those folks and no thinking person I know who is a Christian thinks that James was written for Jews alone. It is ironic that the people who initially received the letter, Jewish believers, the 'twelve tribes, which are scattered abroad,' those who came from a tradition of 'works' under the old economy, had to be warned and instructed that real faith, true saving faith evidenced itself by its works which the Lord had 'before ordained.' Of course, it has to be remembered that faith in God's Word has always, even under the Law, been the foundation of regeneration and salvation.

Subject: Re: Concerning James... From: Chrysostomos To: Rod Date Posted: Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 12:25:52 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod, It's too bad St Worm didn't decide to stick around (or maybe he'll come back). If he knows as much Luther as he says, I'd be interested in his take on some of these things. You don't come across a good old fashioned Lutheran every day... Take care, Chrysostomos PS--if you're curious, do a search on Peter Ruckman sometime. If nothing else, he certainly has 'interesting' ideas about some things.

Subject: Salvation is of the Lord! From: saved To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 18, 2001 at 20:44:27 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: My defense of Calvinism is taken from Jonah 2:9: Salvation is of the Lord! When God opens a person's eyes to this great truth, they are forever Calvinistic in doctrine. I am sure Luther understood this verse very well, so that is why I will always say that 'Luther was Calvinistic in doctrine'. Luther also understood that our imputed righteousness is from God alone, receved by faith alone, and cannot be lost- see his works on Galations and Romans. Luther also understood that out redemption in Christ cannot be lost, for he understood that God's chosen people are all 'redeemed from among men'..Rev. 14:4. Luther also knew that Christ died for the church (or for all true believers - see Eph.5:25 in His version, so this proves that all true believers shall never perish. I have studied Luther's German Bible, and it has the good verse found in Eph. 5:30, which proves that Luther knew that all true believers are 'menbers of Christ's body, members of His flesh and of His bones'..and so shall *never perish* or 'fall away', for they are kept by the power of God, and are enabled to perservere unto the end. Luther's Bible also contains the verses Luke 10:20, Phil. 4:3, and Rev. 21:27, so he knew that all who become saved have their new names already written down in the Lamb's Book of Life. Christ's name is the first name on this list as the Head of the Body, which is the Church. If the Head is chosen for glory, so are the members chosen for glory, for we are made to be joint-heirs with the Lord Jesus Christ. And so we see that none of the members of Christ's Body can ever fall away and perish, for then a portion of Christ Himself would 'perish'. and then some of the victory would go to the devil at that last and final day! If any one of God's elect could be lost, then there would be no cause for rejoicing and singing in heaven, and no final song sung such as 'Worthy is the Lamb that was slain - TO REDEEM US from every kindred, nation, tongue, and tribe...see Rev. 5:9, and Rev. 5:12-13! (Some of the greatest verses that prove a particular atonement of all of God's elect are found in the Book of Revelation!) saved.

Subject: 'Saved by Baptismal grace?' From: saved To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 18, 2001 at 19:13:44 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: St Worm said recently: >>>May God who has delivered us through Baptismal grace work in us true faith and grant us His peace, for the sake of Jesus His Son. Amen. <<< 'Baptismal grace?' The grace of God does not come to us through water baptism. It is clear that Luther did not have the correct view of baptism, and therefore often confounded it (baptism) with salvation. This is where St. Worm is also in error, I think. Luther still may have had much of 'Romanism on the brain' in his short ministry ( as Joe pointed out) but he was clear on justification - that is the main thing. Rod, your excellent message on John 10:28 was very good and inspirational, and it cannot be refuted! If Luther were here, I am sure he would say an 'amen'. saved

Subject: Re: 'Saved by Baptismal grace?' From: Brother Bret To: saved/Others Date Posted: Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 15:27:49 (PST) Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com Message: Agreed 'Saved.' Luther of course was not Inspired like the New Testament writers were. If we are to take St. Worm's interprtetations as correct, then simply, Martin Luther was in error. Is there any way that we can get a chronological order on Luther's writings? Perhaps he was 'still growing in Christ' when he said some of the things about baptism until he grew to the point where he recognized it was sola fide w/o water baptism??? What do you think? Brother Bret

Subject: Re: 'Saved by Baptismal grace?' From: Rod To: Brother Bret Date Posted: Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 16:55:14 (PST) Email Address: na Message: BB, I don't know about a complete list, but check here: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/wittenberg-luther.html And here: http://www.ultranet.com/~tlclcms/mlserms.htm

Subject: Re: 'Saved by Baptismal grace?' From: Prestor John To: Rod Date Posted: Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 09:43:19 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Here is the doctrinal position held by the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod on baptism taken from their FAQ . Lutherans believe that the Bible teaches that a person is saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ. Baptism, we believe, is one of the miraculous means of grace (together with God's written and spoken Word) through which God creates and/or strengthens the gift of faith in a person's heart (see Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 2:38; John 3:5-7; Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Titus 3:5-6; Gal. 3:26-27; Rom. 6:1-4; Col. 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 12:13). This faith needs to be fed and nurtured by God's Word (Matt. 28:18-20), or it will die. Although we do not claim to understand how this happens or how it is possible, we believe (because of what the Bible says about baptism) that when an infant is baptized God creates faith in the heart of that infant. This faith cannot yet, of course, be expressed or articulated, yet it is real and present all the same (see e.g., Acts 2:38-39; Titus 3:5-6; Matt. 18:6; Luke 1:15; 2 Tim. 3:15). Lutherans do not believe that only those baptized as infants receive faith. Faith can also be created in a person's heart by the power of the Holy Spirit working through God's (written or spoken) Word. Baptism should then soon follow conversion (cf. Acts 8:37) for the purpose of confirming and strengthen faith in accordance with God's command and promise. Depending on the situation, therefore, Lutherans baptize people of all ages from infancy to adulthood. The LCMS does not believe that baptism is ABSOLUTELY necessary for salvation. The thief on the cross was saved (apparently without baptism), as were all true believers in the Old Testament era. Mark 16:16 implies that it is not the absence of baptism that condemns a person but the absence of faith, and there are clearly other ways of coming to faith by the power or the Holy Spirit (reading or hearing the Word of God). Still, baptism dare not be despised or willfully neglected, since it is explicitly commanded by God and has his precious promises attached to it. It is not a mere 'ritual' or 'symbol,' but a powerful means of grace by which God grants faith and the forgiveness of sins. Now this is the LCMS view I can't say that this is the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America) view. Prestor John Armchair Theologian, esperantist, and curmudgeon Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus Servabo Fidem!

Subject: Re: 'Saved by Baptismal grace?' From: saved To: Prestor John Date Posted: Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 15:44:16 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Greetings friend! I was just wondering if you have ever read any of Thomas Boston? See the link I am posting on Regeneration. He says that 'All that are baptised are not born again'.. This does not seem to be the same as what you stated - if baptism has some sort of 'power' to give grace to the person who is being baptised. article by Boston www.xmission.com/~fidelis/volume3/chapter9/boston.html

Subject: Re: 'Saved by Baptismal grace?' From: Prestor John To: saved Date Posted: Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 12:53:50 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Gratia et pax saved!! Now, saved you did read the preface to the post I made didn't you? If not I'll post it again. Here is the doctrinal position held by the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod on baptism taken from their FAQ Now while I may have been raised a Lutheran, I personally don't hold to their particular view on baptism, in fact my view on baptism is stated here in the London Baptist Confession of 1689: Of Baptism I. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with Him, in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Him;[1] of remission of sins;[2] and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.[3] 1. Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:27 2. Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16 3. Rom. 6:4 II. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.[4] 4. Mark 16:16; Acts 2:41; 8:12, 36-37; 18:8 III. The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, wherein the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.[5] 5. Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 8:38 IV. Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.[6] 6. Matt. 3:16, John 3:23 I hope that clears that up, I don't hold to baptismal regeneration at all. Prestor John Servabo Fidem Prester John's Demesne Pewsitters a reverant cartoon

Subject: OK, thanks - very good .....NT From: saved To: Prestor John Date Posted: Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 06:28:51 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message:

Subject: Re: 'Saved by Baptismal grace?' From: Pilgrim To: Prestor John Date Posted: Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 13:33:15 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Prestor John, From the quote above, this section does seem to teach 'baptismal regeneration' or at least 'presumptive regeneration', which some Presbyterians and Dutch Reformed churches also teach and/or practice. Although we do not claim to understand how this happens or how it is possible, we believe (because of what the Bible says about baptism) that when an infant is baptized God creates faith in the heart of that infant. With such a view one is inescapably forced logically into believing that the baptized infant who has true saving faith can fall away unto perdition, or believing that the 'believing infant' who grows to maturity can backslide to the point that no discernible fruit of faith can be recognized. In the latter case, it is held that such individuals are still saved in spite of their sinfulness. All of these views I consider aberrant and unbiblical regardless of the 'position' of those who have and do embrace them. In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: 'Saved by Baptismal grace?' From: Rod To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 14:38:39 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Pilgrim, Aberrations doubtless. Prestor John, Here are some interesting things from the site of a M.S. Lutheran church in Mass.: http://www.ultranet.com/~tlclcms/index.htm If they believe these things, they are very confused by their other beliefs which can be examined here: http://www.ultranet.com/~tlclcms/index.htm One simply cannot believe in grace alone, faith alone, Scripture alone, and and then add things to them. It is logically inconsistent.

Subject: Re: 'Saved by Baptismal grace?' From: John P. To: Rod Date Posted: Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 08:58:31 (PST) Email Address: putz7@msn.com Message: Greetings Rod, I'm not writing this in order to express any agreement with the Lutherans on this point: I disagree with them. However, albeit true that they are in disagreement with Scripture on this point of apostasy and baptismal regeneration, this does not necessarily mean that they must reject sola fide. Let me explain. They do not believe that baptism saves them in and of itself. It isn't the water working salvation in us. They aren't claiming any magic. What they are essentially saying is this (if I understand correctly): when a person is baptized, because Christ has sovereignly promised the remission of sins and the Holy Spirit to accompany it, we believe that HE ALONE will honor His promise and, by His Holy Spirit, regenerate the baptized individual and, at that time, give them the faith to be justified. Thus, in this respect, baptismal regeneration as the Lutherans see it, is not inconsistent with faith alone: is is simply inconsistent with Scripture, which clearly teaches that there are unregenerate baptized persons. Now, does this mean that their sin in this matter is insignificant? Absolutely not. They are binding the Holy Spirit to work when and where Scripture has made no promise He will work. Furthermore, this leads to an almost incalculable amount of people who presumptously believe they, or their children, are regenerate simply because they are baptized. Obviously, the consequences of this erroneous doctrine are very serious. Furthermore, and what I believe is much worse, is the fact that they believe in the apostasy of a justified person. At this point, I do believe they have abandoned justification conceived as imputation alone, and, therefore, justification by faith alone as we understand it. Because I have written 'St. Worm' on this before, on a different forum, I will simply quote the argument I presented from there. It goes as follows (its rough, but...not particularly interested in rewriting it again unless necessary): I don't think you are understanding my position. Possibly this is because I am not positively stating my position, but am merely negatively rebutting your own. I suspect this is my fault since it appears as though both you and the other fellow who responded to me have misunderstood what I believe concerning justification. I apologize for not having done this earlier. I believe that God justifies those whom He has effectually called by pardoning their sins and accounting them righteous for the sake of Christ alone. I deny that anything wrought in us by the Holy Spirit, or done by us, is the reason for which God justifies us. I believe faith is not the formal cause of our justification, but is the instrument through which (or by means of which) we receive and rest on Christ's righteousness as the only grounds of our eternal felicity and peace with God. What I think is particularly important to notice is the fact that I do not believe that we are justified *for* our faith, but *for* Christ's sake alone. Now, if this is correct - and I believe it most certainly is (and Luther would heartily concur) - then once we are justified *for Christ's sake,* we cannot fall out of a state of justification unless there is a fault found in Him for whose sake we are justified, namely, Christ. Let me reiterate: we are not justified *for* our faith, but *through* (dia) our faith. We are not justified on account of our faith, but on account of Christ's righteousness and satisfaction. *That on account of which alone an already justified person is justified is that alone on account of which an already justified person can lose their justification.* Since we are justified on account of Christ's righteousness and satisfaction alone, the alone possible fault of losing our justification can be found in Christ's righteousness and satisfaction. *WE ARE NOT JUSTIFIED FOR, OR ON ACCOUNT OF, OUR FAITH - OUR FAITH IS MERELY AN INSTRUMENT GIVEN TO US BY GOD IN ORDER THAT WE MAY RECEIVE HIS GIFT GIVEN TO US FOR CHRIST'S SAKE ALONE.* If we are to be careful in how we state what we believe justification is, we would say, we are justified by Christ alone, not faith alone. Faith is just the instrument by which we receive Christ - the Object of our faith and He for whose sake we are justified. Thus, I maintain my position that the implications of believing in a doctrine espousing the possibility of a final apostasy of a truly justified person *are serious.* Another point is this: if the faith through which we are justified is wholly a gift of God which was given to us wholly independent of anything in us of worth, then what grouds do you have to say that God would withdraw this gift? If you say our sin provokes God to withdraw it, then I would respond that the presence of our faith (then) depends on *our* not sinning (and thus is a work). If you say He simply withdraws it as He gave it: for reasons wholly independent of anything in us, then I would respond by saying that this is contrary to God's nature, whose, 'gifts and callings,' are, 'without repentance.' (Romans 11:29) Indeed, we must keep in mind that every perfect gift and every good give is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variablness, neither shadow of turning. Unless you move the merit of our justification from Christ to us, you cannot give a reason consistent with God's nature that would prompt Him to withdraw faith from those to whom He has given it. He gave us faith when we were His enemies; He saved us *in spite of who we are,* *independent of who we are or would be,* and *wholly for Christ's sake and His own glory;* we ought to be very confident that He who justified us will sanctify us, and ultimately glorify us. And this confidence among God's people will motivate them to work out their salvation with fear and trembling. 'But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared.' (Psalm 130:4) John P.

Subject: Re: 'Saved by Baptismal grace?' From: Rod To: John P. Date Posted: Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 13:06:37 (PST) Email Address: na Message: John P., I pointed out in a post to Chrysostomos, I believe, that Luther was adhering to the principles of the various solas as he saw them when he espoused his beliefs on baptistm (with which I heartily disagree). He went to the Scriptures, read them, tried to follow them, but grossly misinterpreted the sections on 'water and the Spirit' in John 3 and elsewhere. So, while he thinks he is being faithful to the Word, by his wrong interpretation he has fallen and led others into error. The Spirit of God is not given at or by baptism, the Spirit comes to quicken and indwell the chosen individual prior to any other actions. It is the foundation of all subsequent events in the salvation process. That process is based on grace alone, as evidenced by the quickening of the individual with spiritual life, which enables him to receive the gift of the 'engrated word' (James 1:17-18, 21). That is extremely clear from the Word of God: Because of His love for the elect, God, 'even when we were dead in sins, hath made us alive together with Christ (BY GRACE ye are saved)' (Eph. 2:5). The distinction of the Word in describing how faith plays its part in all this and from whence it comes is manifest to all in the suceeding verses. 'Salvation,' the entire process of it is 'BY GRACE,' as Paul has just previously affirmed, and ' THROUGH faith,' as God, in grace, has chosen. But it is not merely 'justification' given at that point, but 'salvation,' and 'eternal life,' as described in verse 5, the life of Christ. And all of it, the entire package, designated by the word 'that' in verse 8, is God's gift to the saved individual. In succeeding order, order so rapid as not to be discerned by man, the individual is made alive by the Spirit of God according to predestination/election; given the faith he is now able to receive due to his new life; justified forever in God's sight with the righteousness of Christ; and consequently sealed by the Spirit of God as His own forever. That Spirit of God Who enables him to 'cry, Abba, Father' (Rom. 8:15) without being presumptuous or blasphemous at all. Such is the estate of the person who is saved 'by grace' and 'through faith.' Though baptism is an ordinance of the Church established by our Lord Jesus, it plays no part in obtaining or keeping salvation, all of which belongs to God.

Subject: Re: 'Saved by Baptismal grace?' From: laz To: John P. Date Posted: Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 11:17:24 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: AMEN, JP! And what was the response? Where do some say you've gone wrong???? Inquiring minds wanna know! blessings, laz

Subject: Re: 'Saved by Baptismal grace?' From: John P. To: laz Date Posted: Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 11:39:00 (PST) Email Address: putz7@msn.com Message: Greetings Laz, Actually, nobody responded. I'm not sure that is because they didn't think they had an answer, or if that was because I titled that post as, 'One last try,' or something (so they may have thought that I was quitting). Nevertheless, both of the people against whom I was debating did not respond. I think it is the most powerful argument one can present against those who believe in the final apostasy of those who are truly justified. If we direct our arguments to other points, those who believe in apostasy typically have some response which makes their belief seem halfway credible (even though it is outright wicked). This argument, however, that they deny justification conceived as imputation, utterly destroys their position. To argue against this argument, is to blaspheme by either calling the Father unjust (for casting away a person against whom He said He will not impute sin), or to blaspheme by saying Christ (whose righteousness and satisfaction justified persons possess) was a sinner and not a sufficient sacrifice. Very serious, and it ought to cause all who reject perseverance of the saints to recognize that, albeit true they may be saved inconsistently, they have denied that which we believe is most central to the Gospel: the imputation of Christ's righteousness and satisfaction. I hope my post helps others who struggle with this issue, as I did in the past, to be more assured of the 'P' in TULIP. John P.

Subject: Re: 'Saved by Baptismal grace?' From: Rod To: Prestor John Date Posted: Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 11:10:34 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Thanks, Prestor John. This is interesting. I have only been acquainted with two Lutherans and we had no theological discussions as I was a 'baby' when I knew the first and the second is not amenable to discussion.

Subject: They shall never perish..John 10:28 From: saved To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 18, 2001 at 19:00:25 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Recently Rod said in his good message to St. Worm: >>>''I give unto them eternal life....'' This is not only 'everlasting life' (Matt. 19:29, John 3:16, 36, etc.), but it is the very life of the Son of God Himself due to the indwelling Spirit of God. This same God Who guarantees His own, 'I will never leave thee nor forsake thee' (Heb. 13:5, cp. Deut. 31:6 and more--this is a common statement in the OT). That is why the Scriptures speak of 'Christ in you, the hope of glory' (Col.1:27). ''I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish.'' Now if they could lose real, sanctifying, justifying faith, God and His Son would be liars for the Spirit says, 'they shall never perish.' The meaning of that is obvious: Being 'in Christ,' having 'Christ...the hope of glory' in them, the sheep are guaranteed by God 'to be conformed,' from the moment of salvation until their final glorification, 'to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren' (Rom. 8:29). <<< I still do not see any response to this excellent post made to 'St Worm' about John 10:28! 'Let God be true, and every man a liar' saved

Subject: Amen & Jn.6:39 NT From: Brother Bret To: saved Date Posted: Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 12:20:00 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message:

Subject: Imprecatory Psalms From: Eric To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 18, 2001 at 12:40:04 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: How are we to understand the Psalms which pray for God to strike down David's enemies and cast off the sons of his enemies in light of the NT teaching that we are to love our enemies and bless those who curse us? Aren't these things mutually exclusive, and if not, what circumstances are we to bless or curse? I would appreciate any help. God bless.

Subject: Look at them Christologically From: St. Worm To: Eric Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 18, 2001 at 13:46:02 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The Psalms are principally the theology of redemptive history. Christ is the the topic of the Psalms. When David cries out for vengeance, we can link this to Christ's eschatological judgment. In this age the prayer is, 'Forgive them, for they know not what they do.' The age to come is the prayer, 'Repay them, O Lord...' St. Worm

Subject: Re: Imprecatory Psalms From: Pilgrim To: Eric Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 18, 2001 at 13:43:31 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Eric, See this article here: May We Pray the Imprecatory Psalms? In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: One final quote from Luther... From: St. Worm To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 18, 2001 at 05:56:26 (PST) Email Address: tekworm@hotmail.com Message: Greetings, precious baptised saints of Jesus. I earnestly hope this posting finds you all well. We begin in the name of the Father, and the [+] Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen. Before I give my last, and believe most potent, of all quotes from Luther on the question of apostasy, I want to address my brother Rod in short. I've not engaged, dear soul, into your question and challenge from John 10 simply because my schedule limits me severely from engaging fully every challenge I ever get on the net. As you well know, such topics deserve plenary and careful handling and consideration. I will, God willing, address every point of your concern in due time. I simply ask you grant me through sacred charity the benefit of the doubt that I'm not avoiding your posts or questions; I just don't have a prodigious intellect that would accomodate speedy responses all the while handling my familial/vocational affairs. In this vein I beg your patience. Secondly, I sincerely seek to establish some solid friendships here (as solid as one could get in cyberspace, I suppose). My intention isn't to be as a gnat buzzing around your faces. I am labouring under the assumption that this Reformed forum will welcome Lutheran Christians for meaty dialogue, and regardless of the stark differences and gaping chasm that separates our theologies, we can charitably exchange ideas and arguments. We've lost in our day and culture the masculine art of debating; people don't want to be offended with ideas and claims to absolute truth, so they run and hide at the first sign of conflict. I've not found this to be so among my Reformed brethren, and certainly not among my Lutheran brothers who know their confessions and Scripture. So in this spirit I ask all here to not cast me aside too quickly, but allow me room here to fellowship and challenge with the grace, weightiness, and seriousness the theological enterprise demands. Peace to you all. In light of the quotes of Luther from our first exchange, I've got one more quote that simply CANNOT be misinterpreted, re-interpreted, re-cast, or clouded by anything but an unwillingness to accept the words as they stand. Again, I'm willing to explain to my brethren here the 'mechanics' of Lutheran thought as it relates to election and perseverance and the use of Law and Gospel, but I'll leave that up to you. Luther's sermon on the Ninth Sunday After Trinity, from the same volume (pp.180-196), is preaching from I Cor. 10:6-13). I wish I had the time to type the ENTIRE sermon (wish modern day sermons were this long!) -- but the Luther's conclusive thoughts on the matter carry as much weight as the entire sermon itself. Here the good doctor is comparing the baptised community and our sojourning in this age with the Israelites in the wilderness -- and how they tempted God and many of the people were judged. Listen to how Luther explains/interprets this parallel (all caps are mine for emphasis, I'm not trying to shout): 'Now, as Paul teaches, if terrible judgment and awful punishment came upon these illustrious and good people, let us not be proud and presumptuous. We are far inferior to them and cannot hope, in these last ages of the world, to know gifts and wonders as great and glorious as they knew. Let us see ourselves mirrored in them and profit by their example, being mindful that while we are privileged to glory in Christ, in the forgiveness of sins, and the grace of God, we MUST be faithfully careful NOT TO LOSE what we have received and fall into the same condemnation and punishment before God which was the fate of this people. For we have not YET completed our pilgrimage; we have NOT arrived at the place toward which we journey. We are still on the way and must CONSTANTLY go forward in the undertaking, in spite of dangers and hindrances that may assail. The work of salvation is INDEED begun in us, but as YET is INCOMPLETE. We have come out of Egypt and have passed through the Red Sea; that is, we HAVE BEEN LED OUT OF THE DEVIL'S DOMINION INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD, through Christian baptism. But we are NOT YET through the wilderness and in the promised land. THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OF OUR STILL WANDERING FROM THE WAY, INTO DEFEAT, AND MISSING SALVATION. Nothing is lacking on God's part; HE HAS GIVEN US HIS WORD AND THE SACRAMENTS, HAS BESTOWED THE SPIRIT, GIVEN GRACE AND THE NECESSARY GIFTS, and is willing to help us even further. ***IT RESTS WITH OURSELVES NOT TO FALL FROM GRACE, NOT TO THRUST IT FROM US THROUGH UNBELIEF, INGRATITUDE, DISOBEDIENCE AND CONTEMPT OF GOD'S WORD. For salvation is not to him ONLY begins well, but, as Christ says, 'He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved...' (sec. xxvi-xxvii). In conclusion, dear brothers, if the doctor of grace, along with Augustine, taught that a baptised, regenerate Christian who has received the gifts of salvation by faith, can through disobedience cast these gifts aside (which he plainly does in this text -- I omitted nothing in this pericope), it logically stands that Luther would neither accept or accord with the Calvinistic formulation and understanding of the meaning of apostasy. The quotes given to me by my gracious brethren here concerning Luther's writings of Christ's protective work is easily incorporated into his broader theology of Law/Gospel and the nature of grace; but, if we're honest, no Calvinist I EVER READ has even come close to using such language in the Christian context. Luther either was so double-minded that he could easily contradict himself from one sermon to the next (which is a possibility, but not a probability), OR, his theological paradigm is radically different than the Reformed understanding. Again, Luther with Augustine understood that the Spirit of grace can be resisted to the point of losing one's faith and salvation. Another possibility is that Luther is a deceiver and theologically irresponsible exegete and interpreter of scripture (which is also possible). But given the above quote, not a thing could be said to soften or re-arrange the meaning. Believe me, when I was a Calvinist I would have moved heaven and earth to make brother Luther 'one of us.' But historically it is impossible to do. His own writings prevent it, the confessions he signed his name to with the rest of the Lutherans forbid it, his contemporaries (Lutheran theologians) did not believe the 'P' of the TULIP construct, and Scripture has kept Luther from explaining the apostasy passages any differently than the norm of catholic teaching. This is Luther, for better or worse, this is the man who heralded sola fide all the while believing this article on apostasy. Interesting how Rome never accused the Lutherans (neither Luther nor his minions) of teaching one could not lose sanctifying grace, and believe me, Rome was looking for every occasion to reject Lutheran teaching publically. I shall let this quote be my last one in spite of the fact that there are a multitude more. Unless I'm asked to do so, I won't further molest anyone here with this matter of what Luther believed about apostasy. I consider it a plain and open fact of Luther's teaching, and so does every Luther scholar I've read. In closing, I'm open to discussing anything else on your minds. May God who has delivered us through Baptismal grace work in us true faith and grant us His peace, for the sake of Jesus His Son. Amen. Your earnest brother, St. Worm

Subject: Re: One final quote from Luther... From: Brother Bret To: St. Worm Date Posted: Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 15:20:09 (PST) Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com Message: Greetings: I have been reading the posts with interest. In the text that Luther uses in your post (1Cor.10:6-13), please explain to me what you believe God is saying through Paul in verse 13: 'No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common unto man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.' In light of the context of this passage, and others that Rod has brought up (Heb.6:4-9; 1Jn.2:19), and if I may add one (Heb.10:35-39), it seems clear to me that only professing Christians can lose 'their' faith. Elected, effectually called believers shall not perish or be lost by Christ (Jn.6:37-39; 10:25-29). Thank you. By the way, I am TULIP toting Baptist :^ ). Brother Bret Cornerstone Community Baptist Church www.ccbcfl.org

Subject: Some observations From: Rod To: St. Worm Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 18, 2001 at 12:59:57 (PST) Email Address: na Message: St. Worm, Taking the whole body of the things I have read by Luther and the quotations you have supplied, I would say that I still am not convinced that he believed one could lose salvation, being certain he had read and taken to heart 1 John 2:19. If there is a sermon on that section, it should be most enlightening. There are many who are deceived into thinking that Hebrews 6:1-8 support apostacy of real believers; however, if one reads on, we find in verse 9, these words, ''But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, AND THINGS THAT ACCOMPANY SALVATION, THOUGH WE THUS SPEAK. And it is common in Paul's writing that he warn against a false security which one might feel, though he doesn't possess it. You mention 'a baptised, regenerate Christian,' as apparent evidence that ''baptismal regeneration'' is fact and what determines whether one is born again or not. Once again, I offer Luther's words on Christian assurance (though I have said I would retire from it): ''Christ teaches here that we are not lost, but have eternal life; that is, that God has so loved us that he allowed the ransom to cost him his only beloved child. Him he placed in our stead to suffer misery, hell and death, and let him drink our cup to the dregs. THIS THE THE WAY WE ARE TO BE SAVED. 5. Now, if there were another way to heaven doubtless he would have made it known to us. There is no other. Therefore, let us cling to the words, firmly pilot our hearts along this way and keep within it, and let us close our eyes and say: If I had the merits of all the saints, the sanctity and purity of all virgins, and the piety of St. Peter besides, still I would not give a fig for all I call my own. I must have another foundation on which to build, namely, the words: God has given his Son, that whosoever believeth on him, whom the Father sent out of love, shall be saved. AND LET US DEFINANTLY BOAST THAT WE MUST BE SUSTAINED. Let us fearlessly establish ourselves upon his words, which neither Satan, hell nor death can overthrow, for the Father mightily writes his Word over these terrors and all that clings to them. Come what will, let us say: Here is God's Word; that is my rock and anchor; to that I cling and that abides; and where that abides, there I abide also. For God cannot lie; sooner would the heavens and earth perish than the smallest letter or tittle of his Word would fail.'' (Sermon for Pentecost Monday, John 3:16-21) That is my stance, I will definatly boast, based on the Word of God alone, that I am saved by the will and love of God in the sacrifice for my sins, a fact accomplished when I was (as Paul says) 'crucified with Christ' (Gal. 2:20) before my birth, before I knew of my need for breath or the Bread of Life. God has devised the plan for my salvation; He has accomplished my salvation in His Son; and He has promised that no created thing, including myself and my miserable actions, shall separate me and my Christian brothers and sisters 'from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord. This, by the way, is the only thing in my life of which I may legimately boast, glorifying God in the process, that 'for his great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses and sins, [he] hath made us alive together with Christ (by grace are ye saved)' (Eph. 2:4-5). I thank Him most profusely and gratefully for that gracious provision for me and my fellow Christians. And I thank Him for the revelation of the truth of His promises in the Bible and for the gifted preachers and teachers whom He has used to make me aware of it. May I suggest, St. Worm, that we confine ourselves to the issues of truth by referencing the Bible alone for our proof, rather than merely quoting men of the past, however great.

Subject: Luther the vague? From: St. Worm To: Rod Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 18, 2001 at 13:40:03 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I'm not sure why you entered into a polemic against me about apostasy when the only design of my post was to show Luther's position on this matter. Like I said, I'll be happy to engage with you on this matter, but simply saying, 'Oh well, regardless of that quote I'm still not certain...' marginalizes, I think, the force of that text. Certainly you admit Luther used all the necessary language to convey that apostasy is possible, whereas if I or some other Lutheran came on this board and said the same things, without reference to them being Luther's words, would have been undoubtedly taken to task on the matter. I simply wanted to show my brethren here that Luther is unfairly represented by many Reformed folk for lack of reading and historical acquaintance. One Calvinist soul was brave enough to tell me in my face that Luther was wrong about the question of apostasy -- at least he understood that Luther was diametrically opposed to his Reformed paradigm. If this many quotes could not satisfy you, brother Rod, it is doubtful that a mountain of quotes could convince you. But that's alrigh, my dear brother, we can forego the fluff and discuss what the Scriptures teach about sin, grace, and salvation. First of all we'll need to address your enthusiast view of regeneration, and mark well whether God deigns to be sought outside of Word and Sacrament. But that I might have a better handle as to what kind of Reformed fellow you are, are you a Presbyterian? Reformed Baptist? CRC? That will better help me intelligently interact with your presuppositions. Peace to you, St. Worm P.S. I wish we had smiley-face icons I could use to show you I'm not embittered against you or think that just because you are in a sect that I think you're on your way to hell. God has sheep in Rome and in Geneva, y'know. ;P

Subject: Re: Luther the vague? From: ST. Rod To: St. Worm Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 18, 2001 at 14:31:32 (PST) Email Address: na Message: First of all, St. Worm, be very careful of jumping to conclusions. This is not personal with me. The only thing I have concern for is the truth expressed in the Word of God. When you write, 'but simply saying, 'Oh well, regardless of that quote I'm still not certain...' marginalizes, I think, the force of that text....' you distort the facts. I have not denied that Luther wrote the things you quote, what I have denied is that based on a large number of other SIGNIFICANT statements by the same author, he meant things in the precise manner you have interpreted them. Similarly, though you imply I have made Luther vague, he is most definitely not vague in any of the quotes I have provided either, which you have in no manner whatsoever responded to. I have also invited you to leave this fruitless back and forth of 'he said....' and 'he said....' and to go directly to the Bible, something you have so far refused to take up. You also wrote this: ''I simply wanted to show my brethren here that Luther is unfairly represented by many Reformed folk for lack of reading and historical acquaintance.'' I have said that I am not an expert on any subject. You, however, have repeatedly expressed your belief that you are an expert, not only on Luther, but on all subjects of the Reformed view. I claim no expertise there, either, incidentally, not being strictly a 'Reformed' Christian, merely a 'Christian' simply. But, if it is ignorance and 'unfair' for me to read and quote Luther, in the exact same manner you have then so be it: I am unreasonable, ignorant, and unfair. Rather, the truth is, I assert, that I am passionate about the Word of God and its precepts. As to your P.S.: Bitterness, I have none. I merely don't want to be misrepresented, as you have done in your post above. BTW, you 'haven't the time' to reply to the substantive issues I've raised from the Bible, but you have time to remain on the board and read and respond to various posts...very interesting.

Subject: Re: Luther the vague? From: St. Worm To: ST. Rod Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 18, 2001 at 15:29:41 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I'll let go that snide comment about my time, since you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about. As to the quotes you mishandled by Luther (and yes, they were mishandled since you're grinding that through a 5-point grid anyway), the solution is quite simple once you get it through into your mind that Luther does not separate the means of grace and the gift of perseverance. Your a-sacramental approach forces you to read most everything Luther writes in Calvinese. But that's okay, Moises Amyraut did the same kind of thing with Calvin -- so you're in good company. I'll be happy to refute your construct. Perhaps we should start at square one, and discuss the question of Original Sin and its effects. Or maybe a deeper issue, your view of God (not) working salvifically through matter. This should prove to be an interesting debate. If you can weather the polemics, we should be okay. St. Worm

Subject: Re: Luther the vague? From: Rod To: St. Worm Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 18, 2001 at 16:25:40 (PST) Email Address: na Message: I repeat, I am not personally concerned whether you believe in assurance, whether Luther did, and I am not interested in personalities. Let's discuss the meaning of specific Scriptures alone. I assume your goal is truth and not 'winning.' I certainly hope so. In a post below, Pilgrim pointed out that all the package of the 'Five Points' must be true or none of it is true. It is a logical progression of thought and conclusions. I think you will find that not all the folks here are as poorly informed as I am, so be certain you are ready for what you receive. As for my 'snide remark' and 'polemics', how would you catagorize this statement: 'As to the quotes that you mishandled by Luther (and yes, they were mishandled since you're grinding that through a 5-point grid anyway)'? Certainly sounded condescending to me, as have many of your statements assuming our ignorance here. BTW, how does one 'mishandle quotes' when he quotes Luther's writings in the same manner in which you did, who presumably handled them properly? :>) I find that most amusing, particularly since you never responded directly to even one of my quotations from Luther's writings over the days. As to where to start, I have already posed numerous questions to you. Please start by responding to those statements and challenges in 'Cutting to the chase....'

Subject: Re: Luther the vague? From: St. Worm To: Rod Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 18, 2001 at 19:27:16 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: You got it bossman. Let's do it. ;-)

Subject: Luther on Baptismal Regeneration From: Chrysostomos To: Rod Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 18, 2001 at 13:28:00 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: >>>>>You mention 'a baptised, regenerate Christian,' as apparent evidence that ''baptismal regeneration'' is fact and what determines whether one is born again or not. Once again, I offer Luther's words on Christian assurance... Hi Rod, I think Luther most definitely did believe in baptismal regeneration. Unlike some of the quotes from sermons posted here, which certainly could be taken in different ways, depending on how one approaches them, his Large Catechism was written, as he says, specifically for families to teach to their children. Here is what he says: 'From this now learn a proper understanding of the subject, and how to answer the question what Baptism is, namely thus, that it is not mere ordinary water, but water comprehended in God's Word and command, and sanctified thereby, so that it is nothing else than a divine water; not that the water in itself is nobler than other water, but that God's Word and command are added. Therefore it is pure wickedness and blasphemy of the devil that now our new spirits, to mock at Baptism, omit from it God's Word and institution, and look upon it in no other way than as water which is taken from the well, and then blather and say: How is a handful of water to help the soul? Aye, my friend, who does not know that water is water if tearing things asunder is what we are after? But how dare you thus interfere with God's order, and tear away the most precious treasure with which God has connected and enclosed it, and which He will not have separated? For the kernel in the water is God's Word or command and the name of God which is a treasure greater and nobler than heaven and earth. Comprehend the difference, then, that Baptism is quite another thing than all other water; not on account of the natural quality, but because something more noble is here added; for God Himself stakes His honor His power and might on it. Therefore it is not only natural water, but a divine, heavenly, holy, and blessed water, and in whatever other terms we can praise it, -- all on account of the Word, which is a heavenly, holy Word, that no one can sufficiently extol, for it has, and is able to do, all that God is and can do [since it has all the virtue and power of God comprised in it]. Hence also it derives its essence as a Sacrament, as St. Augustine also taught: Aocedat verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum. That is, when the Word is joined to the element or natural substance, it becomes a Sacrament, that is, a holy and divine matter and sign.' 'In the second place, since we know now what Baptism is, and how it is to be regarded, we must also learn why and for what purpose it is instituted; that is, what it profits, gives and works. And this also we cannot discern better than from the words of Christ above quoted: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Therefore state it most simply thus, that the power, work, profit, fruit, and end of Baptism is this, namely, to save. For no one is baptized in order that he may become a prince, but, as the words declare, that he be saved. But to be saved. we know. is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death, and the devil, and to enter into the kingdom of Christ, and to live with Him forever. Here you see again how highly and precious we should esteem Baptism, because in it we obtain such an unspeakable treasure, which also indicates sufficiently that it cannot be ordinary mere water. For mere water could not do such a thing, but the Word does it, and (as said above) the fact that the name of God is comprehended therein. But where the name of God is, there must be also life and salvation, that it may indeed be called a divine, blessed, fruitful, and gracious water; for by the Word such power is imparted to Baptism that it is a laver of regeneration, as St. Paul also calls it, Titus 3, 5.' But as our would-be wise, new spirits assert that faith alone saves, and that works and external things avail nothing, we answer: It is true, indeed, that nothing in us is of any avail but faith, as we shall hear still further. But these blind guides are unwilling to see this, namely, that faith must have something which it believes, that is, of which it takes hold, and upon which it stands and rests. Thus faith clings to the water, and believes that it is Baptism, in which there is pure salvation and life; not through the water (as we have sufficiently stated), but through the fact that it is embodied in the Word and institution of God, and the name of God inheres in it. Now, if I believe this, what else is it than believing in God as in Him who has given and planted His Word into this ordinance, and proposes to us this external thing wherein we may apprehend such a treasure? Now, they are so mad as to separate faith and that to which faith clings and is bound though it be something external. Yea, it shall and must be something external, that it may be apprehended by the senses, and understood and thereby be brought into the heart, as indeed the entire Gospel is an external, verbal preaching. In short, what God does and works in us He proposes to work through such external ordinances. Wherever, therefore, He speaks, yea, in whichever direction or by whatever means He speaks, thither faith must look, and to that it must hold. Now here we have the words: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. To what else do they refer than to Baptism, that is, to the water comprehended in God's ordinance? Now here's the interesting part, which comes after all of the above explaining what he believe Baptism is: Hence it follows that whoever rejects Baptism rejects the Word of God, faith, and Christ, who directs us thither and binds us to Baptism.' Luther's Large Catechism www3.edgenet.net/davet/large.html

Subject: Re: Luther on Baptismal Regeneration From: Rod To: Chrysostomos Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 18, 2001 at 14:04:49 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Once agian, very interesting. He does emphasize and place effect on the water of baptism, but, again, it seems to me, only in the context of one's faith in doing it as part of God's command, as part of exercising faith which he already possesses. I, obviously, would disagree with much of what he writes, but appeal once again to his great principle of sola fide, which he attests comes first and is of highest importance. If one is not of faith, even though he is baptized, he is not saved in Luther's estimation. Here is what he said in a sermon 'On Faith and Coming to Christ, and the True Bread of Heaven': ''JOHN 6:44-55: No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. I is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.'' ''SECTION I. On Faith, And Coming To Christ. 1. This Gospel text teaches exclusively of the Christian faith, and awakens that faith in us; just as John, throughout his whole Gospel, simply instructs us how to trust in Christ the Lord. This faith alone, when based upon the sure promises of God, must save us; as our text clearly explains. And in the light of it all, they must become fools who have taught us other ways to become godly.'' Now, from the same sermon, notice particularly these words: ''16. In this light I now remind you that these words are not to be misconstrued and made to refer to the Sacrament of the Altar; whoever so interprets them does violence to this Gospel text. There is not a letter in it that refers to the Lord's Supper. Why should Christ here have in mind that Sacrament when it was not yet instituted? The whole chapter from which this Gospel is taken speaks of nothing but the spiritual food, namely, faith.'' It's obvious, then, that he thinks that later the 'Sacrament of the Altar' is effectual, but that, without the command for Christians and the Church, it is unnecessary for salvation. That principle seems reinforced by this statement from the Larger Catechism concerning the Lord's Supper: ''Here also we do not wish to enter into controversy and contend with the traducers and blasphemers of this Sacrament, but to learn first (as we did regarding Baptism) what is of the greatest importance, namely that the chief point is the Word and ordinance or command of God. For it has not been invented nor introduced by any man, but without any one's counsel and deliberation it has been instituted by Christ '' Thus, it seems safe to conclude that he still retains the belief that the central thing is faith without which the effect of all else is nullified. A person who doesn't have true faith will be lost because he was never saved.

Subject: Re: Luther on Baptismal Regeneration From: Chrysostomos To: Rod Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 18, 2001 at 15:29:45 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Sure, the central thing is faith. He did make that perfectly clear. However, he also connected baptism to the whole thing, in no uncertain terms and in stark contrast to the definitions of regeneration offered by the Reformed. I think that's the curious part. Chrysostomos

Subject: Re: Luther on Baptismal Regeneration From: St. Worm To: Rod Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 18, 2001 at 14:19:14 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Correct, Rod, Luther did say baptismal grace must be received by faith for it to be effective. But also, Luther maintained that do seek salvation apart from baptism is as wrong as thinking baptism without faith is fruitful. This is how we differ from Rome. Lutherans believe baptism works ex opera operantis, Rome says ex opera operato. Both, however, agree that salvation deals with original sin, and is necessary for salvation, since God forgives us through baptism, and gives us the Holy Spirit therein. So truly I was born again when I was baptised in 1984. St. Worm

Subject: Re: Luther on Baptismal Regeneration From: St. Rod To: St. Worm Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 18, 2001 at 14:47:44 (PST) Email Address: na Message: St. Worm, In a very brief statement, 'since God forgives us through baptism, and gives us the Holy Spirit therein. So truly I was born again when I was baptised in 1984,' you have covered a lot of theological ground. Please answer the follwing questions: 1) What is the Biblical basis for 'forgiveness' through baptism by water? 2) What Biblical passages demonstate that the Spirit of God is given to men by water?

Subject: Excellent point, brother. From: St. Worm To: Chrysostomos Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 18, 2001 at 13:42:10 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Amen, Chrysostomos. Luther thought it devilish to think that God saved us apart from Word and Sacrament. Thanks for the great quote. St. Worm

Subject: But... From: Chrysostomos To: St. Worm Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 18, 2001 at 14:00:48 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: ...baptismal regeneration and forensic justification may seem to be in conflict with one another to some people. The folks who frequent this board, for example. I've never met a real live Lutheran (I was raised on the Michigan side of Lake Michigan, hehe), so I'd be interested in your take on the article I posted for Rod on single and double predestination... Thanks, Chrysostomos

Subject: Cutting to the chase... From: Rod To: All Date Posted: Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 21:43:42 (PST) Email Address: na Message: (Part One) Yesterday I posted in a thread far below the following statements and challenges to St. Worm which have received so far no response: ''St. Worm, Rather than respond to who believed what, let me pose this to you: If man can over-rule what God has achieved, who is really the Supreme Being? This is the most fundamental and important question. If God's will is the ultimate, determining factor, then how can His sanctifying grace be 'killed?' The bedrock premise that God is sovereign and that His will is all-important in determination of man's end, as you assert by your statement, 'all God's elect will make it by His will,' means that man cannot be the determining factor. Just to be certain that we're discussing the same thing, 'sanctifying grace' can be practically defined as God's setting aside an individual for His salvation, protection, and perfection, in a positional way. That can never be annulled, according to the Lord Jesus' own pronouncements (twice): 'My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, NEITHER SHALL ANY MAN PLUCK THEM OUT OF MY HAND. My Father, who gave them to me, is greater than all, and NO MAN IS ABLE TO PLUCK THEM OUT OF MY FATHER'S HAND. I and the Father are one' (John 10:27-30). The statement in verse 29 where, 'My Father is greater than all,' cannot be true if His decisions and will can be nullified by the actions of man, but the fact so clearly and unmistakeably emphasized is that man can't undo what God's sovereign choice affirms. It is in the sovereign will of God to 'sanctify' (positionally) a person for all time whom He elects and it is His will to keep him thus 'sanctified' positionally for all time with 'eternal life,' and 'never perishing.' In view of these statements of flat fact by the Son of God Himself, will you please consider and answer the following questions: 1) How does 'eternal life' get lost and come to an end? 2) How does a man negate the promise that he will 'never perish' from the lips of the Savior? 3) When God says, 'no man can pluck them out' of God's hand, how does the man in question pluck himself out of God's hand by losing his salvation?''

Subject: Part Two From: Rod To: Rod Date Posted: Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 22:35:51 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Luther's greatest principle is espoused in these words, pronounced in defense of his beliefs and published statements, 'Unless I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture or by an evident reason--for I confide neither in the pope nor in a council alone, since it is certain that they have often erred and contradicted themselves--I am held fast by the Scriptures adduced by me, and my conscience is taken captive by God's Word, and I neither can nor will revoke anything, seeing that it is not safe or right to act against my conscience. God help me. Amen.' These are wise and worthy words; let us indeed look to the Scriptures for our guidance into the truth of God's Precepts, as we are led by the indwelling Holy Spirit. ''But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice [cp. Rom. 10:17], and I know them, and they follow me. And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, who gave them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one'' (John 10:26-30). To him who has spiritual ears, it is evident that those whom the Lord Jesus saves unto eternal life are sheep, by predestination/election and by justification resulting from the gift of faith by grace from God (Eph. 2:5,8). That results in their being able to hear His voice and follow Him when those who aren't sheep cannot. It is possible to mine the depths of these few verses for a very long time and not exhaust them, but let's concentrate briefly on verse 28: ''I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any [one] pluck them out of my hand.'' If we had no other statement in Scripture on the doctrine of eternal life/perseverance of the saints, this would be enough. In it is the essence of the assurance of the believer, resting on the promises of God in Christ. 'I,' he says, emphasizing Who it is Who is responsible for the action. The granting of the gift of eternal life is not dependent on anyone or anything outside the will of God in Christ Jesus. It is not dependent on man in any way for the granting or the keeping. The glory goes to 'I,' the Son of God alone. 'I give,' He states. It is a gift given and granted by the Savior unto the sheep marked out from eternity past. It is full and free and not contingent on works or 'staying,' but His keeping. If man could direct the giving and the keeping of the sheep (gain or keep salvation for himself), he would have something which to boast, but 'boasting is excluded'--Rom. 3:2--'But he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord'--2 Cor. 10:17). ''I give unto them...,'' i.e, 'my sheep.' No one else possesses this precious gift of being kept from being snatched from the Shepherd's grasp. It is for a select group, which, as we have said, is made up of those predestined by God 'unto the adoption of sons by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will to the praise of the glory of his grace' (Eph. 1:5-6). Again, the praise goes to God and His Son, not to any work of man in keeping himself, but is wholly dependent on the workings of the grace of God. ''I give unto them eternal life....'' This is not only 'everlasting life' (Matt. 19:29, John 3:16, 36, etc.), but it is the very life of the Son of God Himself due to the indwelling Spirit of God. This same God Who guarantees His own, 'I will never leave thee nor forsake thee' (Heb. 13:5, cp. Deut. 31:6 and more--this is a common statement in the OT). That is why the Scriptures speak of 'Christ in you, the hope of glory' (Col.1:27). ''I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish.'' Now if they could lose real, sanctifying, justifying faith, God and His Son would be liars for the Spirit says, 'they shall never perish.' The meaning of that is obvious: Being 'in Christ,' having 'Christ...the hope of glory' in them, the sheep are guaranteed by God 'to be conformed,' from the moment of salvation until their final glorification, 'to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren' (Rom. 8:29). Let us be seized by the truth of these Word of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and the truth contained in them: 'All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out' (John 6:37). In adhering to the revelation of God, we will all be real 'Lutherans.'

Subject: Or--calling a spade a spade? From: Chrysostomos To: Rod Date Posted: Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 22:17:15 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The dispute is (from the Reformed perspective) really single versus double predestination, no? Chrysostomos Double Or Nothing: Martin Luther's Doctrine of Predestination www.visi.com/~contra_m/cm/features2/cm98_bm_luther.html

Subject: Re: Or--calling a spade a spade? From: Rod To: Chrysostomos Date Posted: Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 23:11:21 (PST) Email Address: na Message: This was most interesting--thank you.

Subject: Yes very interesting! N/T From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 18, 2001 at 00:53:24 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message:

Subject: Luther on Grace & Apostasy From: St. Worm To: All Date Posted: Tues, Jan 16, 2001 at 21:32:41 (PST) Email Address: tekworm@hotmail.com Message: To my brothers of the Reformed churches: grace to you. We begin in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen. As I promised earlier, I went back to the works of that great doctor and confessor of the faith, Herr Martin Luther, to collect sundry passages from his own pen on the question of faith, grace, and apostasy. The sources will be cited accordingly so as not to cast doubt on my research. The bulk of the quotes provided come from his own sermons preached to his congregation between 1522 thru 1535. Luther had many things to say about conversion, perseverance, faith, regeneration, justification, and the eternal inheritance that are ours through the Word and holy Baptism; and amid his preachings on these topics he dealt very frankly and pastorally about how a Christian can withstand the enemy's assault and obtain victory over the world, the flesh, and the devil. In the presentation to follow we will see Luther affirming the possibility of a Christian suffering, through the mortal sin of unbelief, loss of all he gained in Christ. Luther was very astute in the things of spiritual warfare, and more than anything knew how to instruct Christians in protecting their souls from apostasy. This is Luther in context. Without this broader context, Luther could easily be made to say what he never means. Firstly, it should soundly and roundly be asserted that Luther's theology of the extent of Christ's atonement is without question universal. By 'universal' I mean that Jesus, in His holy passion, assumed the wrath of God for all men without exception. In contrast to this, it is not unknown that in his earlier years (circa 1512-1515) within the Augustinian cloister, Luther adopted a kind of Limited Atonement theology which would please many Reformed purists. It should be understood that this was not an Augustinian consensus. The backdrop for Luther's initial theology of the atonement was rooted in a 400 year old debate on the nature of the cross in relationship to those who die without its benefits. Medieval catholicism (12th century) took up this argument in academic circles, and some of the Augustinian orders gravitated toward the particular reference of the Atonement to the elect. This, however, does not mean that the Roman Church dogmatically adopted the conclusions of some in this debate. Luther's theology of the cross, however, was in quick transistion. His wrestling with God in terms of Law, forgiveness, and assurance of his personal election began to influence his grasp of the pure gospel. Stauptitz can be credited with helping Luther discover the gospel's riches, as he often urged the doubting doctor to see Christ's wounds and forget the Deus nuda. Luther's scholia in Romans was written at a time of transition, so consequently we'll find some of Luther's old ideas come to the fore. But not for long. By 1517, Luther had come to understand sola fide. His theology of the cross had already matured to the point of understanding what God is in the Word versus what He is to us outside the Word. To learn of God's will toward us apart from the Gospel can only damn and condemn us. God does not desire to be known in that way. This is why Luther said, 'The only God I want to know is the one on the Virgin's lap.' Luther's theology of the cross became God's yes to the world, though only the benefits only come to those who believe. Concerning Christ's death for all, Luther wrote: 'The theme of Christ's passion, then, must far outrank every other. His sufferings are like pure and precious gold, compared to which ours are as nothing. No one but Christ has suffered fro the sins of another. No man has ever paid the price of his own sins, great or small. Even if man's suffering could avail anything for sin, the individual could not go beyond expiating his own sins. But Christ had no need at all to suffer for himself; for...he had committed no sin. He suffered to leave us an example, but yet also to bring man the great blessing of being able to say, 'My sins and the sins of the *whole world* were atoned for upon the cross, blotted out, through Christ's death.' Peter, Mary, John the Baptist, and every other soul born of woman MUST include himself or herself in this statement, 'Christ also suffered for you.'' [Sermon, Second Sunday After Easter; Text of I Peter. 2:20-25. p. 255, sec. xvi. Lenker edition. ] Also, 'If you will not desist from the vice of covetousness then know you are not a Christian... You cannot say, 'Therefore he died for me, I trust.' Truly, Christ died for you, but if you continue in your wickedness, using this revelation as a cloak for your mean covetousness, do not -- such is the declaration of the text -- by any means apply that comforting promise to yourself. Although Christ INDEED died and rose for all, yet unto you he is not risen; you have not apprehended his resurrection by faith. You have seen the smoke but have not felt the fire...' [Easter Wednesday Sermon, Text of Colossians 3:1-7; ibid. page 226] Thus Luther. I could belabour his doctrine of the universality of the cross some more. Even his 'De Servo Arbitrio' expressly tells Erasmus that Christ did all things for all men. In his Galatians commentary he explains Paul's words, 'Christ gave Himself up for me,' in universal terms. The practical outworking of this is that in Luther's mind, though Christ died for even the reprobate, they must first feel the force of the Law before the comfort of the Gospel can be theirs. This is the Lutheran position, too. Christ died for all, but for a man to have the blessings of this he must feel his helpless estate and flee to Jesus alone. There are dozens of other quotes, but since this is principally a tiny treatise on his doctrine of apostasy, I'll forego this topic for now. Luther recognized that in the church there are the spawn of Satan, those who have a form of godliness and yet deny its power. His commentary on Jude makes this plain, and various sermons explain that this is a reality we must suffer for now. The Reformed would cheerfully concur with Luther's explanation of how there are wolves in our midst donning sheep's clothing. But aside from this, Luther also understood that the life of a Christian, a truly regenerate, justified and forgiven Christian, is exposed to ruin if we do not heed certain things. This is the crux of the controversy. We can discuss another time whether Luther was simply too dim or too biblically dishonest (from a Reformed stand point) to see the connection between election and regeneration. For now, let us see whether Luther was careless with words now and again, or whether Luther truly believed a Christian could fall from grace and go to hell. In Luther's Sunday After Easter sermon on I John 5:4-12, he begins to talk about 'Faith the Victor', but issues a warning against those who become indolent about their faith. Luther says, 'If you boast of being a child of God, but still live in fornication, adultery, and such vices, the devil has already overcome you and WRESTED you from the kingdom of God...' Again, 'God's Word and faith are the power which will bring [the Christian] through; he cannot be overcome so long as he adheres to them.' And again, 'Then, too, if the devil tempt you by his tyrannical, factious spirits...to forsake your pure doctrine for his deceptions, you as a Christian are to resist the temptation, remembering the blessings you have through faith received from Christ in the Gospel; you have been liberated from darkness, blindness, and error; have learned rightly to know God; and have obtained the sure consolation of grace and salvation, being aware upon what you must depend in life and death. Why, then, yield to the devil, allowing yourself to be robbed of salvation and eternal life?' [page 238, sec. xiv] This is absurd language to Reformed theology. Luther's teaching here simply does not coincide with the 'P' of the TULIP paradigm. Again, we can discuss later as to how this is, but for now let us hear from Luther in other places. Returning to Luther's Second Sunday After Easter sermon, we find the masterful theologian urging his congregation to 'be careful, then, what you believe and how you live, that the efficacy of Christ's suffering may be manifestly fulfilled in you' [p. 267 sec. xl] Here Luther expresses the vast difference of Christ's death for all objectively, and the subjective fruit of that death, which can be forsaken if we harden our hearts in unbelief or false doctrine. Similarly we find Luther speaking in his sermon on I Peter 2:11-20 saying to Christians, 'It is necessary to strive if we are to withstand the lusts of the flesh; for these, Peter says, war against the soul--against faith and the good conscience of man. If lust triumphs, our hold on the Spirit and on faith is lost. Now, if you would not be defeated, you must valiantly contend against carnal inclinations, being careful to overcome them and to maintain your spiritual, eternal good. In this instance, our own welfare demands the conquest.' [p. 284, sec. xxii] Again, Luther is not sympathetic to the Reformed understanding of grace and faith. He sees the mortification of the flesh as essential to preserving salvation. Luther's Sunday After Ascension Day sermon from I Peter 4:7-11, explains the words to Peter's descripton of the devil and his ministry of destruction as a roaring lion, saying: 'Peter's meaning is this: Since you are a people called to contend with this powerful spirit which is more intent on seizing your souls than is the wolf on seizing the sheep, it is essential you should take thought how to withstand him. Resistance is effected only through faith and prayer.' [p. 311, sec. xix]. Another powerful quote comes to us from Luther's epistle sermon on the Third Sunday After Trinity, preaching from I Peter 5:5-11, saying: 'Now [Peter] admonishes his readers to battle and warfare, that these blessings [of salvation] may be preserved. He shows us our enemy and adversary who seeks to rob us of our treasure and deprive of us our salvation and eternal blessedness. Hence he would say: Be not concerned about livinag a life of earthly glory, and let not anxious cares fill your soul. But be intent on humbling yourselves before God. Trust in Him. Let this be you care, that you may abide in the grace of humily. Let it never be wrested from you. For the devil seeks to instill these forbidden cares, and to produce disobediene against God, that he may tear faith and God's Word out of your heart' [p. 76, sec. xliii]. The mounting evidence of Luther's stance on faith and apostasy should allow me to discontinue this little work at this point. But to remove any lingering doubt as to Luther's understanding of this topic, I'll supply a few more statements. In the same sermon Luther cautions us against drunkenness and urges soberness. 'Satan' says he, ' employs [drunkenness of the soul], until [the Christian] grows numb [and] loses faith' [ p. 78, sec. xlvii]. Reiterating the point about Satan's ministry of destruction, Luther says 'He does not purpose merely to wound or prick you, but wholly to consume you, so that nothing of body OR soul will remain.' Therefore, 'If you would withstand these wiles, there can be no other plan or counsel than this: Fight with God's Word in firm faith... Further, keep in mind both your former misery and your present treasures of grace. Remember how you were once under God's wrath...had not God, in boundless goodness forgiven your sin and bestowed on you His grace. And give heed that you may not lose this treasure...' [pp. 86, sec. lxii; 87, sec. lxiv]. So concludes my preliminary evidences from Luther's own pen. I can continue if need be, but I don't think it's necessarily fruitful to pile on a multitude of quotes without discussing why Luther thought in this manner about grace and such. Perhaps we can continue this with that purpose. As for now, let the record stand that I have honestly represented the Second Light and Doctor of Grace, Herr Martin Luther, for the benefit of you, my Reformed brethren. May God grant us all the wisdom and humility to learn from the mouth of this fiery prophet, his sins and vices not withstanding. Amen. St. Worm

Subject: Re: Luther on Grace & Apostasy From: FredW To: St. Worm Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 18, 2001 at 03:16:10 (PST) Email Address: fred__w@hotmail.com Message: St. Worm: It seems you are testing the waters over here. Welcome in the name of our Lord. There are a few of us here from the other board of which you may be aware. I have gathered that the tone of this board is to the right of the other board. I must say that it sounds like you have read a lot, but through the limited reading I have done on Luther, I do not see a universalist strain in his being. However, I do not have the strength to elaborate just now. Peace to you.

Subject: Re: Luther on Grace & Apostasy From: Pilgrim To: St. Worm Date Posted: Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 16:07:13 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: St Worm, If Luther indeed did come to the same conclusion as you have, and I am assuming a number of others, that Sola Fide does not in any manner include a Definite Atonement secured for the elect by Christ, nor a Preservation/Perseverance of those same elect, then he must be found embracing unbiblical doctrine. Yes, I know, I know, you would strongly disagree, since you embrace the theology of Martin Luther. And for me, THIS is the issue; not whether or not Luther held to a Universal Atonement or the distinct and real possibility that anyone who is ingrafted into the Lord Christ can ultimately be damned due to a failure to abstain from sin. Since you have announced openly, that you are in some measure 'well read' concerning the doctrines of the Reformed Faith; coined 'Calvinism' as is detailed in the Canons of Dortrecht of 1618-1619, what rebuttal can you offer against the doctrine of 'Particular Redemption'; infamously known unfortunately, as 'Limited Atonement'? I think that would be of some interest to those here who embrace that as the biblical teaching and the truth of God. In Grace, Pilgrim PS: It is of some historical relevant note that Scott Hahn echoes a somewhat similar autobiographical description of his 'journey' as you have, with a slightly different end, although I think the similarities are over represented when compared to each other.

Subject: Re: Luther on Grace & Apostasy From: St. Worm To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 20:51:21 (PST) Email Address: tekworm@hotmail.com Message: Certainly it is no secret that the Lutheran Reformation was of a different kind than the Reformed branch of the Reformation. The fact of these differences are underplayed, unfortunately, and Luther is often times solicited as a Calvinist. This was unfortunate when I was learning under R.C. Sproul at Knox Seminary (he was a visiting professor, and a friend and myself audited some of his classes) that Dr. Sproul told everyone that Luther was 'one of us' (i.e. 'Reformed'). At the time, being a historically naive Calvinist, I accepted his claim ex mano. So happily I read Luther with the expectation that his doctrines would mostly agree with my then Reformed paradigm. But as a matter of course, the more Luther I read, the more I found his theology radically driven by a different set of hermeneutical principles and presuppositions. It shook me to my foundations and forced me to ask the question, 'Why did Luther and Calvin disagree?' All of the sudden the Reformation wasn't this neat little unified front against Rome. It was Luther and his followers, Zwingli and his followers, then later Calvin and his bunch. Luther respected some of what Calvin early wrote, but then again, Luther respected St. Francis Assisi and St. Bernhard's writings, too. My purpose in this thread was only to prove, at the request of one Reformed brother, that Luther did not hold to the 'P' in the TULIP paradigm. I think I've sufficiently proved this, and any further doubts would come out of a resistance to the facts, and not due to any ambiguity in the evidence. If you would like to pursue a friendly debate on the nature of the atonement, I'd be happy to indulge you some. Dort is a good starting place, but it matters not to me whether you appeal to the WCF, the London Baptist Confession, the Philadelphia Confession, or whatever Reformed creed or confession you want to use. The argument doesn't change. Blessings to you, my brother. May the peace of our Lord Christ be with you. Amen. St. Worm (St. James i.xvii)

Subject: Re: Luther on Grace & Apostasy From: Pilgrim To: St. Worm Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 18, 2001 at 14:15:10 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: St. Worm, Again, to risk redundancy, I iterate, It matters not to me personally whether or not Martin Luther personally rejected the biblical doctrine of the 'Preservation/Perseverance of the Saints', for it is in fact a biblical doctrine which has and can be evidenced from the Word of God apart from any sub-authoritarian document written by men. As you surely must know, the infamous 'Five Points of Calvinism', as enumerated in some detail in the 'Canons of Dortrecht' either stand or fall as a one unified statement. They cannot be bifurcated without destroying the truthfulness and/or logic of any of the individual doctrines themselves. In other words, either each of the 'Five Points' are true, or none are true. For if but one of the doctrines is untrue, then there is an inescapable contradiction of the whole. Thus, albeit possible in the minds of finite men, it is impossible to accept but even one tenet without being logically forced into embracing the whole. Thus, Luther may well have questioned or even explicitly denied 'Eternal Security', but it was illogical and unbiblical for him to do so. It is my proposition, that the atonement of the Lord Christ is the centroid of soteriology. Upon its truth and understanding all else hangs. So yes, I would be more than willing to discuss/debate the nature and objects of Christ's atonement with you in detail without reservation. :-) The proverbial 'ball' is therefore in your court! If you are intent on debating the atonement of the Lord Christ with me and others, then I would ask you to begin a new thread and we'll 'cross swords' with the Sword of the Spirit in hand. In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Subject: But P.... From: Chrysostomos To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 18, 2001 at 15:49:36 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: ...let's say Luther did have a different view of 'eternal security' than the Reformed. In any case, we do know that he did have a very different view of baptism. That would mean that the two 'camps' had a different view of the atonement, no? In which case, the two camps would have different views of what Sola Fide means, right? But how could you possibly agree on Sola Fide but not on atonement? Seems to me you couldn't agree on one without agreeing on both. Otherwise, you end up having two different definitions of Sola Fide. Chrysostomos

Subject: Re: But C.... From: Pilgrim To: Chrysostomos Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 18, 2001 at 17:41:50 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Chrysostomos, I doubt Luther had a different view of the Atonement than the Reformed. He quite certainly differed on the 'means' of its fruit, as he placed far more emphasis on baptism than those who followed after him. Given the historical milieu within which Luther lived and laboured, I am not surprised that he only came 'half way' on the two issues of baptism and the Lord's Supper. And given that fact, I certainly am not one to cast stones, as it were at this pioneer who sought to bring the Church back to the Scriptures alone for determining truth. Therefore, I see no problem here with what you would like to see as an illogical inconsistency. Let me make myself clear, if possible on this matter. I said the 'Five Points' must be taken as a whole as they are but different facets of the one 'jewel' (the golden chain). Indeed there have been some who have claimed to hold to but some of them and labelled themselves as 'Four-point Calvinists, Three-point Calvinists and even Two-point Calvinists' [why they didn't rather choose to be known as 'One, Two or Three-point Arminians' is interesting if not amusing. :-) But it doesn't destroy the irrefutable logic of the 'Five Points'! It only shows the illogic and inconsistency of those who do such things! :-). In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Sure, I understand your position.... From: Chrysostomos To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 18, 2001 at 22:54:45 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: ...if there's one thing you convinced me of last year, it's that Calvinisim is a package deal. Being kinda Calvinist is like being kinda pregnant. I'm not debating the truth of your particular system, because we went through all that before. Even if I did want to debate it, I'd save us both a lot of time by just going to the archives. ;-) But... >>>>....he placed far more emphasis on baptism than those who followed after him. ...Zwingli didn't follow after him. He was a contemporary with whom Luther had direct contact. And Zwingli adhered to an approach to the Scriptures that the Reformed and Baptists hold to to this day. Calvin didn't even have remotely the same understanding of baptism and he was also a contemporary. My point is that it's not like they followed each other in some fashion so that a reasonable 'development' could be implied that would make them all basically agree on 'essentials.' If they were all agreed on the 'essentials,' then Protestant Europe wouldn't have split into a bunch of doctrinal pieces within 50 years of the 95 theses. (Yeah, I know politics is a big part. Always is. But there would have been far less opportunity for the politics part if it weren't for the doctrinal part) >>>>Given the historical milieu within which Luther lived and laboured, Again, that's my point. Calvin and Zwingli are a part of his historical milieu and they took drastically different methodologies with them when they sat down to study their Scriptures. Luther despised the scholastic method and it shows in his disputes with Zwingli over the Eucharist. It shows in his Catechisms. Luther wrote no 'systematic theology' because he hated it and seems to have been far more aware of what led western theology to the problems it faced it the 16th century. Not that I think he solved those problems, mind you, but my view on that is probably obvious. Basically, you guys and the St Worms of the world are battling over who really understood Luther in the same way that the Reformers battled with Rome over who really understood St Augustine. You're both trying to prove that Luther agrees with you. Whether he believed in eternal security or double predestination is not what I'm interested in. I think it's easier to show that Luther was totally opposed to the scholastic, systematic approach that resulted in the 5 points than it is to discern whether he really believed you could lose your salvation or not. Anyway, the bottom line seems to be that Luther knew what he meant by Sola Fide and he knew what he meant by baptismal regeneration. He didn't find them mutually exclusive and it doesn't appear to be because he just hadn't thought the whole thing out far enough. In fact, he spoke just as strongly against those who denied the power of the baptismal waters as Calvin did against those who denied paedobaptism ('furious madmen'). The scholastic types and the Anabaptists did find them mutually exclusive and, therefore, I think that concluding that you have two different understandings of Sola Fide here is not an unfair observation to make. Which is peculiar, since Sola Fide is the one common thread the Reformers are all supposed to have. The other side of the coin is Sola Scriptura. There's a different understanding there, too, since Luther claimed that St James preached a works righteousness in outright contradiction to Paul and said the work had 'no merit.' Therefore, it gets placed at the back of NT along with Hebrews, another book he wasn't all that fond of. The other (not later) Reformers, however, like Calvin, certainly didn't take such a blasphemous view of Holy Scripture and, thus, tried to make it fit within Sola Fide. At least he recognized Luther's problem in this regard, but the dilemma is that the fellow who proclaimed Sola Fide believed what he believed and everybody since has only come up with what seem to me to be trite slogans to explain James. (The really dispensational dispensationalists are interesting, however, because they 'solve' the problem by simply saying that he was writing to Jews, not Gentiles. Same net result as Luther, though.) So, whatever the particulars are, St Worm is right in claiming that you misunderstand Luther because you're reading him through a different 'paradigm.' That's not confessional polemics, it's just plain history. It's not at all like the Monopysites claiming that Chalcedon betrayed St Cyril's formula--after Cyril was dead--and so everybody had to hash who really understood Ephesus. All these disputes took place amongest these Reformers. The only common thread I've found is the common enemy. Rome on the one hand and then England over 100 years later. It's not til the Church of England starts making life miserable for the Prebyterians and the Baptists that the paedobaptizers stop following in Calvin's foosteps by calling them 'furious madmen.' Until that time, they seem to have been generally at each others' throats. There's nothing like a common enemy to make the lines start to blur and that's where things are today--blurred. To the point where infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, the 'real presence' in the Eucharist, and other such things are associated almost exclusively with RC errors. (Your site's critiques of RCism and sites like progospel.org seem to be sufficient to prove that point) Problem is, Luther believed all those things. And that's the guy that came up with the Solas that all 'conservative evangelical' parties, for lack of a better label, claim to have in common. Well, I guess that's something to end with. Getting late. Nice chatting with you again, by the way. What I can't figure out is how a 28 year old like St Worm writes so much like you. He's not old enough to be such a curmudgeon yet! ;-) Chrysostomos

Subject: Re: Sure, I understand your position.... From: Rod To: Chrysostomos Date Posted: Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 10:04:57 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Christopher, You didn't address me, but I have to butt in anyway, since several of your observations/conclusions are flawed, as I see it. Let's start here: 'Anyway, the bottom line seems to be that Luther knew what he meant by Sola Fide and he knew what he meant by baptismal regeneration. He didn't find them mutually exclusive and it doesn't appear to be because he just hadn't thought the whole thing out far enough.' I'd have to agree wholeheartedly with the first sentence, but the conclusion you've drawn in the second seems faulty. Luther doesn't seem to me to be able to grasp, for whatever reason, the inconsistency of the two positions. It isn't that he didn't contend with it and didn't think about it, it appears, but that he simply couldn't get past the extreme 'sacramentalism' to which he held. And I do believe that the Reformers seem to have a solid basis in sola fide, realizing that faith alone leads to justification in God's sight. In fact, that is possibly the only pure common ground they held. From there, however, the differing branches are mystifying to me, quite frankly. Here's why: If one believes that faith produces the righteousness of Christ in the faithful individual because it is God's imputation to him on the basis of that faith, making him blameless in God's sight, he believes essentially and necessarily that faith is a good thing, good in the sense that God (Who actually is good) chooses to view it as good. That is the thrust of Rom. 3:21-chapter 4. The fact that is is good is reinforced by James 1:17, where he pronounces that all good and perfect gifts come down from God the Father. Accepting that as so, since it is scriptural, we go to Eph. 2 and discover that salvation, BY grace and THROUGH faith, is a 'gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.' One who truly believes in sola scriptura must then conclude that faith comes not from within oneself, but is a gift from God and it is a good thing. There is no other possible conclusion, if we are relying on the evidence of Scripture alone. It is undeniably spoken of as a part of the package of salvation by grace and it is undeniably spoken of as 'a gift of God,' which is pronounced 'good' by the inspired book of James, as well as other Scripture. It is at that point that 'baptismal regeneration' must become unrealistic for those who hold to sola fide. If one is made alive (regenerate) spiritually by baptism, then it must necessarily be that he cannot do a good thing (good as God sees it) until he is alive to God in spirit. A dead man can't do anything except the works of the dead (evil), as Luther said in a sermon I quoted previously. Only one alive in God can do what God approves because of faith. Therefore, if a dead man has faith enough to get himself regenerated by baptism, he has done a good thing in and of himself and apart from God! He must have faith that God will regenerate him in the baptism, but that is impossible. He cannot have faith in that because he has only evil in him and faith is a good thing in God's sight! He has, out of his evil, had faith enough to get God to regenerate him and 'save' him! Totally irrational and unscriptural. Of course, for one who believes that salvation comes from the Church all of this is ridiculous. But to us who believe the Bible, that also is totally irrational and faithless. You also said this, 'The only common thread I've found [among the Reformers] is the common enemy. Rome on the one hand and then England over 100 years later.' Not true. Even though there is much disagreement, the 'common thread' is the devotion to seeking to find the true way of God to salvation in the Bible alone, by grace and through faith. The fact that the interpretations differ in how Reformers saw that approach developing doesn't lessen the fact that it was the path they took.

Subject: Re: Sure, I understand your position.... From: Chrysostomos To: Rod Date Posted: Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 20:58:14 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod, You basically just reproduced Zwingli's argument against Luther about the Eucharist. Different topic, same logic. That's my only point. Luther despised that sort of logic being applied to Scripture. I'm not saying I think he was consistent about his doctrines, mind you. He certainly does say a lot of curious things. But he was very confident about his abilities in understanding Scripture. Read here what he writes to those objecting to his adding the word 'alone' to Romans 3:28 in his German bible: 'If your papist makes much useless fuss about the word sola, allein, tell him at once: Doctor Martin Luther will have it so and says: Papist and donkey are one thing; sic volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas. For we do not want to be pupils and followers of the Papists, but their masters and judges. Are they doctors? So am I. Are they learned? So am I. Are they preachers? So am I. Are they theologians? So am I. Are they philosophers? So am I. Are they writers of books? So am I. And I shall further boast: I can expound Psalms and Prophets; which they cannot. I can translate; which they cannot . . . Therefore the word allein shall remain in my New Testament, and though all pope-donkeys should get furious and foolish, they shall not get the word out.' [cited in G Florvsky, Reflections on the Critique of the Theology of the Reformation] >>>>>>Even though there is much disagreement, the 'common thread' is the devotion to seeking to find the true way of God to salvation in the Bible alone, by grace and through faith. The fact that the interpretations differ in how Reformers saw that approach developing doesn't lessen the fact that it was the path they took. I'm not doubting anyone's devotion or sincerity, Rod. Not at all. But interpretations do matter. 'For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you,' as St Paul said. But I think you're being far more charitable toward Luther than he was toward you: 'Hence it follows that whoever rejects Baptism rejects the Word of God, faith, and Christ,' Chrysostomos

Subject: Re: Sure, I understand your position.... From: Rod To: Chrysostomos Date Posted: Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 11:25:10 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Chrysostomos, You wrote, ''I'm not doubting anyone's devotion or sincerity, Rod. Not at all. But interpretations do matter. 'For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you,' as St Paul said.' To that quotation, I would say a most hearty, 'Amen!'' I think you have misinterpreted my meaning. This, the avid seeking (that devotion) of 'the true way of God to salvation in the Bible alone, by grace and through faith,' not their sincerity of belief or interpretation, was my emphasis in the paragraph you quoted. And, yes, their conclusions most emphatically do matter, as they lead people down the path of truth, error, or, at least, partial error. As for Luther's feelings about me, I'm certain he would have found me less noticeable than a gnat. I have been also long aware that he would have regarded me as a heretic. I regard him as a great man and a man of God (with glaring faults theologically). It doesn't matter, his doctrine is purified now, since he has been so long with the Lord. The doctrine of all saved men await the same. None of us can afford to be so conceited that he thinks he has all truth. There is a vast difference in being confident in one's belief system and thinking he is on the same level as the inspired writers. I agree with no preacher or teacher 100%. It's why I admire many, such as Luther and Calvin, but pedestalize none.

Subject: Re: And I understand your position.... From: Pilgrim To: Chrysostomos Date Posted: Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 08:47:03 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Chrysostomos, Thanks for the quasi history lesson and sharing your personal 'insights' into the struggles of Western Protestantism. Obviously, you had a lot on your chest which you had to get out, haha! Unfortunately and as has been the case in the past, it is irrelevant as a response to what I have had to say on this issue with St Wörm. Anyone else would know by now that in several places I have stated that I personally have little interest at this point whether Martin Luther held to the Preservation/Perseverance of the Saints. Nor is it important to me to debate his views concerning baptism, etc. This I have said over and over again here! :-) You weren't 'listening' perhaps? On the positive side, what I have said repeatedly, is that my interest lies in what the Word of God says concerning Eternal Security, Atonement, etc. However, you being so close to the mentality of Rome (despite your incessant denials otherwise) find it incredulous that the Scriptures Alone are sufficient to know the truth of these matters. All such findings, you insist, must be filtered through the screen of the ancient sages, who alone have the 'key to life'! Yes, and you could likewise consult the Forum Archives to substantiate this as well. :-) As to St Wörm's writing style being perceived by you as similar to mine in spite of his young years, I think this is a conclusion which only you are able to discover the answer to. And as to the 'curmudgeon' slur, again you haven't been paying close enough attention in class it seems. It is 'Prestor John' who has been using that humorous addenda to his signature here for years and not I. :-) Glad you found yourself interesting and amusing at times too. In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: And I understand your position.... From: Chrysostomos To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 20:07:30 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Pilgrim, Well, if you have no interest in discussing it anymore... >>>>>And as to the 'curmudgeon' slur, It was written with affection. Promise! Chrysosotmos

Subject: Re: And I understand your position.... From: Prestor John To: Chrysostomos Date Posted: Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 20:56:25 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Pilgrim, Well, if you have no interest in discussing it anymore... >>>>>And as to the 'curmudgeon' slur, It was written with affection. Promise! Chrysosotmos --- As a duly licensed member of the local curmudgeon's union, local 465, I must instruct you to cease and desist from calling one Pilgrim a curmudgeon, who is not now an official memeber, nor has paid the dues to the local union. I warn you sir, that our lawyer will be seeing you if you continue. Prestor John Curmudgeon in good standing.

Subject: Uhoh... From: Chrysostomos To: Prestor John Date Posted: Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 21:01:52 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Legal action from a union is not my idea of a good time. Full compliance, I assure you, sir. Full compliance.

Subject: Re: Luther on Grace & Apostasy From: Rod To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 20:46:58 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Pilgrim, I listened to a taped sermon today by Dr. S. Lewis Johnson, former seminary professor and teacher at Believer's Chapel in Dallas, in which his conclusion included a quotation from Luther (source uncited): 'If we perish, Christ perishes.' This would seem to place very much in doubt whether Luther believed in 'falling away' to damnation for a true saint of God. Furhtermore, one of St. Worm's quotations: '''If you will not desist from the vice of covetousness then know you are not a Christian... You cannot say, 'Therefore he died for me, I trust.' Truly, Christ died for you, but if you continue in your wickedness, using this revelation as a cloak for your mean covetousness, do not -- such is the declaration of the text -- by any means apply that comforting promise to yourself. Although Christ INDEED died and rose for all, yet unto you he is not risen; you have not apprehended his resurrection by faith. You have seen the smoke but have not felt the fire...' [Easter Wednesday Sermon, Text of Colossians 3:1-7; ibid. page 226]'' seems to suggest just the oppositite view St. Worm is espousing of Luther. Rahter, it would indicate that the person described was 'not a Christian' and, indeed, never had been. That conclusion is strengthened by numerous quotations I previously cited, along with some more as follows: ''II. The Bread Of Heaven. 12. The living bread, of which the Lord here speaks, is Christ himself, of whom we partake. If in our hearts we lay hold of only a morsel of this bread, we shall have forever enough and can never be separated from God. The partaking of this bread is nothing but faith in Christ our Lord, that he is, as Paul says in 1 Cor 1, 30, 'made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption.' He who eats of this food lives forever. Therefore, the Lord says, immediately following this Gospel lesson, where the Jews strove among themselves about this discourse of his: 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 13. The bread from heaven the fathers ate in the wilderness, as Christ says here, was powerless to keep them from dying; but this bread makes immortal. If we believe on Christ, death cannot harm us; yea, it is no longer death. The Lord utters the same truth in another passage when he says to the Jews: 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my Word, he shall never see death.' John 8, 51. Here he speaks definitely of the Word of faith, and of the Gospel.' (from Sermon for Pentecost Wednesday, text John 6:44-51); and ''16. In this light I now remind you that these words are not to be misconstrued and made to refer to the Sacrament of the Altar; whoever so interprets them does violence to this Gospel text. There is not a letter in it that refers to the Lord's Supper. Why should Christ here have in mind that Sacrament when it was not yet instituted? The whole chapter from which this Gospel is taken speaks of nothing but the spiritual food, namely, faith. When the people followed the Lord merely hoping again to eat and drink, as the Lord himself charges them with doing, he took the figure from the temporal food they sought, and speaks throughout the entire chapter of a spiritual food. He says: 'The words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, and are life''' (ibid). Furthermore, a section I cited a few days previously doubly reinforces these facts: ''So we do also, if we stand and abide in this article of faith: I believe in Jesus Christ, our Lord, who suffered, died and rose again for us, etc., then we need not worry about being lost, or that the devil can devour us, though he even opens his jaws ever so wide. For we are not then on our own way, nor do we walk with our own feet, but hang about the neck of our dear Shepherd and lay upon his back, where we are entirely safe. For although sin, death and hell appear ever so wicked and terrible, they cannot devour him; otherwise we poor sheep would too soon be lost and destroyed. 61. For even as the sheep cannot protect or provide for itself that it go not astray, unless the shepherd continually directs and leads it in the way; and when it has strayed and is lost, it cannot of itself find the right way or come to its shepherd, but the shepherd himself must go after it, and seek it until he find it, and when he has found it, he holds and bears it upon his back, that it may no more be frightened away from him, hunted or seized by the wolf. So we too cannot either help or advise ourselves, that we may obtain rest and peace of conscience, and escape the devil, death and hell, unless Christ himself brings us again and calls us to himself by his Word. And when we come to him and are in a state of faith, even then we are not able to keep ourselves in faith or be steadfast, unless he himself by his Word and power holds and carries us, because the devil every way and without ceasing watches for us, end lurks, round about us like a roaring lion, as St. Peter In 1 Pet. 5:8 says, to devour us. So that here it avails nothing whatever to boast of our free will and strength, either to begin or continue our return to the Shepherd, and to abide with him, but Christ alone, our Shepherd, must do everything. 62. But now we are certain of this, that as long as we lie around the neck of Christ, we shall be safe from all terror and misfortune. For he will certainly not permit us to be torn from his neck, norr will he cast us off, because he is so happy and of good cheer that he once again has his sheep, and can bring it back to the rest of the flock. In short, there is nothing here of terror, driving and commanding, but a simple friendly carrying and a mere life of grace, by which he cares for his sheep in the tenderest manner''(Sermon for the Third Sunday after Trinity, Luke 15:1-10). If one is not convinced about Luther's feelings on the subject after the many quoted proofs provided from his own words over the last few days, so be it. It is a subject from which I intend to rest satisfied that Luther believed in the perseverance of God's saints by the keeping power of God in Christ.

Subject: Fasting From: Brother Charles To: All Date Posted: Tues, Jan 16, 2001 at 16:31:13 (PST) Email Address: BNFLD3@juno.com Message: Hello to all, I was just wanting to ask what you all think on the subject of fasting (practices, and what the Bible says do through it) other than the prayer and worship. just wanting to know for future ref. your brother in Christ Jesus, -Charles

Subject: Re: Fasting From: David Teh To: Brother Charles Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 18, 2001 at 07:41:34 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi Charles, For your reading pleasure on fasting....please go to http://www.soundofgrace.com/piper95/piper95.htm and read the sermons from Jan 1 to Feb 19 1995.

Subject: To start this off a little better.. From: St. Worm To: All Date Posted: Tues, Jan 16, 2001 at 13:21:37 (PST) Email Address: tekworm@hotmail.com Message: In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Amen. Having had a brief run in with some already here, I just wanted to let you know that I'm not here to cause 'trouble'. I still have a soft spot in my heart for my Calvinistic brethren, and wish to engage in some honest and helpful polemic and dialogue regarding the Lutheran/Reformed differences. Could we start from ground zero? Just to let you know a little about myself. I'm a 28 year old computer programmer and family man. I'm aspiring to go to Concordia Seminary in a few years, and have been a Christian for 15 years. In 1993 through a tract by Spurgeon on Calvinism I turned from my Charismatic/Arminian worldview and joined the OPC after a brief stint in the Reformed Baptist context. I devoured everything I could get my hands on in terms of Reformed theology, so my library is not too puny. I authored a local theology newsletter/journal, had a small readership, and conducted several interviews with people like R.C. Sproul, Michael Horton, Leonard Coppes, Kim Riddlebarger, John Gerstner (before he died), and such. I've engaged in formal public debates with Arminians and atheists. I'm very acquainted with a broad spectrum of Reformed works including but not limited to: Calvin's Institutes, 'De Praedestinationes Dei', I have all his commentaries (great set by the way!) Turretin's Intitutes, Owen's 'Death of Death', 'Display of Arminianism'; Warfield's 'Studies in Perfectionism', 'Calvin and Augustine', 'The Plan of Salvation'; Boettner's 'Reformed Doctrine of Predestination'; Murray's 'Redemption: Accomplished and Applied'; Pink's 'Sovereignty of God', 'The Atonement'; Packer's 'Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God,' Horton's 'Putting Amazing Back Into Grace', 'Mission Accomplished', 'Beyond Culture Wars', 'In the Face of God', 'Christ the Lord', 'The Law of Perfect Freedom', 'Agony of Deceit', 'We Believe'; Sproul's 'Justification by Faith Alone'; A.A. Hodge's 'Systematic THeology', Berkhof's 'Manual of Christian Doctrine', tons of Modern Refromation magazines (since 1992), various Reformed journals, and the list goes on. I haven't even commented on the books I borrowed and read. I'm just pulling some off the top of my head. The point is, I don't come to this debate as an 'outsider'. I was a committed and zealous Calvinist for 6 years, dedicated to the Reformed distinctives. The fact that I later found them wanting in no way shows I didn't understand or believe these doctrines. I've had friends at Knox Seminary whom I spent hours upon hours conversing with on Reformed theology. I was a thorough-going contintental-brand Calvinist that hated Arminianism as much as you guys do. I don't profess to 'know it all', but I am not unfamiliar with the hermeneutical and exegetical arguments. But my love of learning and books got me in trouble. Once I discovered that Christendom had a bigger base of scholarship than my Reformed world, I freely read (at the advice of my OPC elder) outside my paradigm. There is some gargantuan intellects and theologians that I soon discovered about, Luther included. It was through Calvin that I met Luther. And then Luther and his co-laborers brought challenged my Reformed assumptions. That's another story. Oh yes, I am also a church history fanatic. I read everything I can on church history. It's a fascinating topic. I extend God's charity to all here in hopes of building good dialogue. I've rejoiced to see some of my Calvinistic friends become Lutherans recently (and God willing my friend Chuck is almost there! We just had a debate on double-predestination this weekend. Needless to say he's going to go back and review Robert Reymond's arguments for supralapsarianism), but I don't dialogue simply to get converts. I genuinely love God's truth and desire to learn and teach what little light I've received. I'm not sure if this is one-sided board where you just HAVE to be Reformed to get a serious ear. The Sproul forum I come from is broadly catholic and consists of highly intelligent and engaging people. I'll do my best to conform to the spirit of this forum. Blessings to you, my brothers. St. Worm

Subject: Hello St. Worm!! From: chosendust To: St. Worm Date Posted: Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 18:19:33 (PST) Email Address: chosendust@yahoo.com Message: So nice to learn a bit more about you! ''Had a brief run in with some here already'' eh? I can't IMAGINE!! ;~) Did you see the thread I started above yet? Thanks for the general invite to Ligonier forum people you posted there. A little variety for spice. Neato what you can do with fonts 'n' stuff here! Now be a good boy here like you said you would (however you phrased it). Save the vituperative stuff for Ligonier! :~P Peace! - chosendust

Subject: Re: To start this off a little better.. From: Tom To: All Date Posted: Tues, Jan 16, 2001 at 14:49:11 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: I just want to say that although I disagree with St.Worm on a number of issues. I have found him to be honest, cordial, and intellectual in his posts. Tom

Subject: Re: To start this off a little better.. From: laz To: St. Worm Date Posted: Tues, Jan 16, 2001 at 14:08:52 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: St. Worm - I for one am anxious to hear what you have to say...especially given that the folks at CURE (and the White Horse Inn) seem to get along just peachy despite the Lutheran/Reformed/Baptist/etc dynamics often at play. What IS so different about Reformed and Lutherans besides views on law/grace, sacraments...and others I can't recall...if I ever knew or understood them in the first place? LOL! blessings, laz

Subject: Re: To start this off a little better.. From: St. Worm To: laz Date Posted: Tues, Jan 16, 2001 at 14:40:12 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: The folks at CURE are long time friends and comerades. They have some common causes which we should all be happy they're banding together to advance. I don't want you to think that I think Lutherans are Christians and Calvinists are not -- we have some commonalities we should rejoice about. With that said, we shouldn't be naive about the stark contrasts in some very fundamental Christian concepts the Lutherans have over against the Calvinists. It's a theological and historical fact we must come to terms with if any dialogue will be meaningful. I'll be happy to outline in a few hours our differences. Gotta get back to programming for now. Blessings to you my brother, St. Worm

Subject: St.Worm on Luther From: Tom To: All Date Posted: Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 23:47:46 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: I am posting this, just in case some of you (especially Rod) missed St.Worms reply to Rod, on the topic of Luther. You will find his posts further down the board. Tom

Subject: Re: St.Worm on Luther From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Jan 16, 2001 at 12:42:01 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Thanks, Tom, Saw them right off.

Subject: Prayer, Advice & Possible Support From: Brother Bret To: All Date Posted: Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 15:19:46 (PST) Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com Message: Dear Friends In Christ: As several of you know, I was contemplating whether to join a man that believes that Baptism is a part of faith and therefore necessary for salvation, on the radio for live discussion. As per the advice of most of you, I do not plan on doing it [although I listened to him yesterday at their 3:30pm slot and called in to respond to a question of what Eph.2:6 meant when they implied it is Baptism :^ )]. But the request that I mentioned in the heading is for something else. I'm contemplating going on that Christian radio station myself for a half our time slot for bible study. Please bear with me as I outline the options, and pro's and con's for your prayerful advice :^ ). 1. Most of the ministries I have heard directly or commercials are pentacostals/word-faithers. 2. The representative does say there are others. 3. They do not allow cults but do catholics even though there are no catholics on there now. 4. I told him what I believed, and based on his response I do not think there are any ministries on there that embrace and proclaim the doctrines of sovereign grace. 5. They have a 14 minute slot for $80, 28 minute slot for $120, and 56 minute slot for $225. 6. It can be prerecorded, live, or done over the phone. Although the latter does not have as good sound quality. I thought I had another point or two, but they allude me right now :^ ). Our church cannot afford to support it as an entity, but I would see if I could get folks in my church and any others to support by giving 'x' amount of dollars per week for the ministry. So let me know what you think. And if you think that you would like to help me get the doctrines of sovereign grace and we lift up the Lord Christ and the true gospel by giving a little bit regularly yourselves, please let me know. Most importantly, pray for God to give me wisdom, and do His will regarding this matter.Thanks as always, Brother Bret

Subject: Re: Prayer, Advice & Possible Support From: Pilgrim To: Brother Bret Date Posted: Tues, Jan 16, 2001 at 16:50:46 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Brother Bret, What first comes to mind is my concern that any such venture interfere with your primary calling; Pastor to Christ's flock! Secondly, you have the responsibility of caring and leading your own family. And third, if you are still of necessity, having to hold down a job to provide the material needs of yourself and family this is yet another important responsibility. If after serious consideration and prayer, you still feel you can devote yourself to all these things and add a radio ministry and all that it requires, including the funding, to your calendar, then it might be something to consider. Another concern that I have is whether or not you are sufficiently prepared for such a task? Not only is there the time needed to prepare weekly presentations, but have you perhaps considered the correspondence this radio ministry might generate and need to be taken care of? I have been involved in doing a weekly broadcast many years ago and thus I speak from experience! :-) Your congregation who loves you is far more understanding and forgiving when it comes to the matter of speaking in error. A radio audience generally has little patience or room for what they deem as error. And they will often let their opposition be known in no uncertain terms and sometimes, in ways that lack a 'gentler, kinder spirit'! :-) Lastly, have you considered your own weaknesses, in body, mind and spirit? Will the added time and stress that comes 'with the job' cause you to gradually fail in health? Would a popular radio broadcast tempt you into pride and self-glory? And although you would need to prepare your presentation, even that which is based on the Word of God, have you brought to mind how many of such people have gone astray, not heeding to themselves what God has commanded them as those who profess godliness? My dear brother, I am not trying to discourage you! No! But I would have you seriously consider at least these things which I have brought forward for your contemplation before making any decisions concerning committing yourself to a weekly radio broadcast. At least if you are going to do this, do so with your eyes wide open and your mind enlightened to the burdens and perils which more often than not, accompany such things. May God open your heart and mind to hear what the Spirit is speaking to your spirit. And may you humbly submit to His leading. For it is His own glory He desires others to see in and through us. In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Prayer, Advice & Possible Support From: Brother Bret To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Tues, Jan 16, 2001 at 19:43:29 (PST) Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com Message: Brother Pilgrim: Thank you for your response. They are very good questions that I need to continue considering. Most I have already thought about. The time that would be sacrificed would be the computer. Although I have said that before :^ ). I would like you to elaborate on the following comment you made, as I'm having trouble completely understanding it tonight...hehe: 'And although you would need to prepare your presentation, even that which is based on the Word of God, have you brought to mind how many of such people have gone astray, not heeding to themselves what God has commanded them as those who profess godliness?' Thanks brother. I always appreciate your advice, and look forward to your next reply...Brother Bret

Subject: Re: Prayer, Advice & Possible Support From: Pilgrim To: Brother Bret Date Posted: Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 15:48:03 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Brother Bret, What I meant was there are far too many 'radio preachers', not excluding others who are not on the radio, who spend countless hours preparing and delivering messages allegedly based upon the Scriptures, but they fail to practice what they preach! :-( In other words, they have failed to heed what the Scriptures are saying in regard to their own lives first and more focused on 'preaching to others'. We should always seek the Scriptures with the primary goal of hearing and being transformed into the image of Christ, first and foremost. And then the care of others secondarily. I think Pastor Albert Martin's article, What's Wrong with Preaching Today speaks to this issue most cogently. In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Prayer, Advice & Possible Support From: Brother Joe To: Brother Bret Date Posted: Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 18:43:40 (PST) Email Address: Machutajmachuta@aol.com Message: Brother Bret, This sounds like a big step. I think that a sound teaching ministry could be fruitful for some. Are you planning to expose error for what it is or just expound sovereign grace? Here in the San Francisco Bay area Christian Radio is mostly syndicated national preachers and local Pentecostals. There is one fellow in San Jose who has a half hour program on Sunday afternoon. He preaches soveriegn grace and the gospel each time. I know him and have visited his church. He says that he takes a lot of heat but he feels that it is worth it from the few that respond thankfully. He is a five point Calvinist who came out from among Oneness Pentecostals. His local assembly is a vital loving congregation even though small. I'll pray for you and if you are interested I can get you his address. In Christ Jesus, Brother Joe

Subject: Re: Rod and Joe From: Brother Bret To: Brother Joe Date Posted: Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 22:11:42 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod and Joe: Thank you for your advice and encouragement. I hope I get some more responses from others, including Pilgrim and Laz :^ ). Yes Joe, I would like that brother's address. You can e-mail it to me if you'd like. Because I do expect some opposition and flack :^ ). Thanks again, Brother Bret

Subject: Re: Prayer, Advice & Possible Support From: Rod To: Brother Bret Date Posted: Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 16:55:21 (PST) Email Address: na Message: BB, I don't have any sage advice, just some ramblings, not worth much. Here goes: 1) I personally think a teaching ministry for real and professing Christians COULD be fruitful, as the Lord leads. It is true that there seems to be little or no doctrine of sovereign grace being espoused. It might bring a great deal of opposition, particularly if the audience isn't used to it. Are you up for criticism in the extreme? You might not get it, but it's better to be prepared than surprised. 2) Be very sure of your financial support before you launch a ministry like this. I know that doesn't sound like I'm advocating faith, but people have a way of dropping out after the excitement wears off. I think the faith comes in knowing that God is behind you and gives you solid supporters. 3) I sincerely don't mean to be condescending, but I'd also be certain that you can talk to a phone or tape recorder for 15-30 minutes in a pleasant, interesting, and sincere way. If one isn't used to not having an 'audience,' it might be different from what you suspect. 4) Make every effort not to take your ministry time by anything like appeals for money. A simple statement that 'This ministry is provided solely by the financial support of Christians like you,' along with an address is enough, if the Lord is truly in it. You have my sincere prayers for the revelation of the Lord's will to you in this matter.

Subject: Re: ? From: stan To: Brother Bret Date Posted: Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 15:50:15 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Crossed my mind that you did not state a purpose for going on the radio - is it to reach the lost or teach those that call themselves Christians ;-) Now, this is personal opinion, but I have wondered why any Christian would want to support or be on most of what I hear called Christian radio. What I hear is mostly false doctrine and so called music. Not a fan of Christian radio ;-) in case you can't tell. If your purpose is to reach the lost why not go for a secular station (where lost people listen) - if it is anywhere near affordable. stan

Subject: Re: ? From: Brother Bret To: stan Date Posted: Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 22:05:28 (PST) Email Address: Lovitz5@juno.com Message: Stan: Good questions. I haven't read the other 2 responses that are posted thus far. My goal is to reach the lost which would include professing Christians that are not truely saved, promote our church; and educate people with the whole counsel of God, the complete gospel, and doctrines of sovereign grace. This also includes preaching against the easy believism and modern gospel that permeates so many churches. But that is a good idea about the secular stations. Whether they would do it or not, I don't know. But it sure wouldn't hurt to try :^ ) Brother Bret

Subject: John Murray From: JOwen To: All Date Posted: Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 10:25:12 (PST) Email Address: jerlewis@dowco.com Message: If there is any intrest... There is a new email discussion list called John-Murray. Men such as Dr. Francis Nigel Lee and Professor Barry Hofstedler are just some of the members. To join the list go to http://www.egroups.com/group/John-Murray and follow the instructions. JOwen

Subject: For Joe From: Rod To: All Date Posted: Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 15:06:34 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Joe, I went to your link and found this section in the 'Statement of Faith': ' We believe that those who put their faith and trust in the cleansing blood of Jesus receive the indwelling Holy Spirit as a guarantee of their salvation at the first moment of exercising their faith, by confessing with their mouth the Lord Jesus Christ, and believing in their hearts that God raised Him from the dead. (Ephesians 1:13-14)(Romans 10:9,10).' I think it is the general belief of those who frequent this board, and it is definitely mine, that faith doesn't precede the new birth, but faith proceeds from the new birth from God. The premise is that, as Luther said, 'Therein God concludes all man's works, previous to his justification, evil and ineffectual; he requires justification and goodness on the part of the individual first. Again, he concludes that all persons in the state of nature and of the first birth are unjust and evil. As said in Psalms 116, 11, 'All men are liars.' And in Genesis 6, 5, 'Every imagination of the thoughts of man's heart was only evil continually.' Hence the natural man can perform no good work, and all his attempts will be no better than Cain's.' Such a person, before regeneration, before the Spirit comes to quicken him, is dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1-3) and, as a spiritually dead man to God, simply cannot turn to God in Christ in faith. That is Paul's point in Eph. 2:1-10: Salvation is BY grace (God's action), through faith and all of that is the 'gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast' (verses 8-9). If man can get faith prior to God's action of quickening him by the regenerating gift of the indwelling Spirit, that getting of faith from within himself is one of the works Luther describes as 'evil' because the unregenerate person is evil and is of no avail. If man gets faith from within himself in order to receive the Holy Spirit of God, he has a work of which to boast, but Paul says that 'boasting is excluded' (Rom. 3:27). The quickening, indwelling Spirit of God comes to the individual first, creating a new man who is spiritually alive and then 'even we who were dead in sins, hath [God] made us alive together with Christ (by grace are ye saved)" (verse 5). Note that it is not faith which saves, but grace, a fact repeated in verse 8. It is true that it is faith which 'justifies', but it is not true that faith makes one receive the Spirit of God: 'Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it willeth, and thou canst hear the sound of it, but canst not tell from where it cometh, and where it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit' (John 3:7-8). Saving faith, "justifying faith," is a good work, a work which can only come from God, since God alone is good (Matt. 19:17). Such faith must come from the impetus of the indwelling Spirit who enables the man to exercise the fatih with which God has gifted that man. Otherwise, there would be no other way to explain why one man hears the Word and receives faith from the hearing and another is "bulletproof" to it (see Rom 10:17).

Subject: Re: For Joe From: Pilgrim To: Rod Date Posted: Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 15:54:34 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod, Interestingly enough, if I have understood correctly how you took the 'statement' from the website referred to, I don't come to the same conclusion; i.e., that the statement is espousing that the 'new birth' follows in time from one's believing. Rather, I read it as saying that the Holy Spirit as the 'guarantor' Eph 1:13 “In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, . . .” (cf. Gal 3:14) But I'll wait for Joe to reply and clear this matter up for us! :-) In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: For Joe From: Rod To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 16:30:15 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Pilgrim, I went back and read the quote twice and you may be right. The first clause gave me the impression that the thought was faith came first, but the latter statement about the 'guanantee' may mitigate that. Joe seems to be of the correct mindset on the order, as his reply below indicates. It's a very intricate process, but a very wonderful one! :>)

Subject: Re: For Joe From: Joe To: Rod Date Posted: Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 15:18:23 (PST) Email Address: Machutajmachuta@aol.com Message: Rod, I can see that I need to revise. What I meant was sealed. The point of this portion of the statement was to mitigate against those who would teach the second blessing or that the Holy Spirit comes with a baptism after Salvation. I realize that one must be quickened by the Spirit of God to even believe the gospel. I would be interested in your reaction to the discussion points that are on the Home Page. In Christ Jesus, Joe New Wineskin Ministries http://www.newwineskinministries.homestead.com/

Subject: Re: For Joe From: Rod To: Joe Date Posted: Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 15:45:28 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Hi, Joe, I perceive this is the major problem with creeds, confessions, and statements of faith--they all, though they may be very good, fail at some point, it seems, not actually being Scripture. (BTW, your commitment to accuracy is highly commendable.) I would assert that the person indwelt by the Spirit in regeneration is also 'sealed' by the Spirit simultaneously, as it is God's intent and 'eternal purpose' (Luther again) that that person be saved and never lost. All these events, indwelling/new birth, justification by faith, and all the rest accompanying salvation would occur in the 'twinkling of an eye', it seems to me, though they are separate events as theology necessitates, so that we can understand them.

Subject: Communication From: Joe machuta To: All Date Posted: Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 13:00:05 (PST) Email Address: Machutajmachuta@aol.com Message: Much of the training of a lawyer is learning about precise communication. Their livelihood depends upon their ability to protect the position of their clients. This is achieved in great measure by the contracts and letters written by lawyers. They do this with precise communication paying particular attention to the meaning of words. On the other hand, society in general, uses words in a more connotative fashion. This makes many words connotatively idiomatic. That is to say that the meaning of many words has shifted from the origional meaning and are utilized by sub groups of the population. Look at this illustration; I am a member of the “holy catholic church.” Many people would misinterpret this statement to mean that I am a member of the “Roman Catholic Church..” The reality is though, that by the strict definitions of each term I have communicated that I am a member of the set apart, universal, assembly of believers. In other words I have stated that I am a true believer. One of the problems, from which the Evangelical Church suffers, is imprecise communication and perhaps is the sole chief cause of the factions and divisions. Each division has its own connotative lexicon of terms. Would it serve us to examine and define the meanings behind our language? We could look at terms such as justification by faith, sanctification, salvation. We could see what the Founders and other theologians meant by these terms. Who knows we may communicate better in the long run. What do you think? In Christ Jesus, Joe

Subject: Re: Communication From: Tom To: Joe machuta Date Posted: Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 23:43:59 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Joe As a person who has a tendancy to butcher the English language. Thus in many cases I am misunderstood. I can relate to your post, lol. Hopefuly I am getting better. Tom

Subject: Re: Communication From: Rod To: Joe machuta Date Posted: Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 13:47:26 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Okay, Joe, Hi, by the way! Sorry if you're an old hand, but I don't remember seeing you before. Welcome, if you're new. I have wondered about the difference between 'transubstantiation' and 'consubstantiation.' I know the alleged differences as supplied by the RCC and the Lutherans, but I see no practical differences. Maybe I'm missing something. Supposedly, when the Swiss were making their case about the Lord's Supper at the conferences with the Germans, Luther took a piece of chalk and wrote on the floor, 'This IS my body!' Can that incident be confirmed by anyone historically? Can anyone put the term 'consubstantiation' in terms I can understand as to how 'in, under, around, and through' (I think I got that right) is really materially different from 'becoming' the body? The line is so fine, I can't see it.

Subject: Re: Communication From: Joe To: Rod Date Posted: Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 13:57:15 (PST) Email Address: Machutajmachuta@aol.com Message: Hi Rod and All, I am new. My understanding of the difference between 'transubstantiation' and 'consubstantiation.' is this. I am not certain if this is correct because it has been a long time since I read about it. The Roman Catholic position is that the bread and the wine actually become the body and blood of the Lord physically. The Lutheran position is that there is a mystical partaking of the body and blood of the Lord but not physical. I believe that Jesus clearly stated that it was memorial and when he told the Jews in John that His blood was drink and His body was food I believe he was Spiritualizing. Certainly there has never been any water issuing from the belly of the born again believer. In Christ Jesus, Joe New Wineskin Ministries newwineskinministries.homestead.com

Subject: Re: Communication From: stan To: Joe Date Posted: Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 14:34:27 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Erickson states that Luther denied transubstantiation and that it was a sacrifice, but held that the wine/bread have the elements of blood/body, though the wine/bread does not change - it now contains blood/body. I think some have suggested that it is wine/bread till it goes down during which it changes. Erickson mentions 'In his dialouge with Zwingli (the Marburg Colloquy), Luther is reputed to have repeatedly stressed the words 'This is my body.' He took the words of Jesus quite literally at this point. The body and blood are actually, not merely figuratively, present in the elements. From Erickson's Christian Theology p 1117. The quote is from Great Debates of the Reformation, ed. Donald J. Ziegler

Subject: Re: Communication From: Rod To: stan Date Posted: Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 15:36:27 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Additionally, the 'transubstantiation' and 'consubstantiation' would be thus equally 'mystic' wouldn't they?

Subject: Re: Communication From: Joe To: Rod Date Posted: Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 16:39:36 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Yes, but I have heard Catholic Priests explain that if the host in communion was regurgitated for some reason then it would be necessary to bury it as in a funeral because it was indeed the literal physical body of Christ.

Subject: Re: From: stan To: Joe Date Posted: Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 19:42:41 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Can't desicrate it if it comes up but it is okay to run it through the downward process?????? How about taking the host and having a massive heart attack on the way out the door - rip open the stomach and bury it??? sorry, just had to bring that up ;-) stan

Subject: More Luther theology From: Rod To: All Date Posted: Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 16:36:19 (PST) Email Address: na Message: I told Tom I was going to leave this alone, but I suppose I lied. Here is some theology from a site containing hymns attributed to him. I have quoted only a portion of each hymn, emphasizing some points in bold print. A Mighty Fortress Is Our God: Did we in our own strength confide, Our striving would be losing; Were not the right Man on our side, The Man of God's own choosing; Dost ask who that may be? Christ Jesus, it is He; Lord Sabaoth, His name, From age to age the same, And He must win the battle. Dear Christians, One and All Rejoice: To me He spake: Hold fast to Me, I am thy Rock and Castle; Thy Ransom I Myself will be, For thee I strive and wrestle; For I am with thee, I am thine, And evermore thou shalt be Mine; The Foe shall not divide us. The Foe shall shed My precious blood, Me of My life bereaving. All this I suffer for thy good; Be steadfast and believing. Life shall from death the victory win, My innocence shall bear thy sin; So art thou blest forever. 9. Now to My Father I depart, The Holy Spirit sending And, heavenly wisdom to impart, My help to thee extending. He shall in trouble comfort thee, Teach thee to know and follow Me, And in all truth shall guide thee. To Jordon Came our Lord, the Christ: Thus Jesus his disciples sent: Go teach ye every nation, That lost in sin they must repent; And flee from condemnation: He that believes and is baptized, Obtains a mighty blessing; A new-born man, no more he dies, Eternal life possessing, A joyful heir of heaven. Who in this mercy hath not faith, Nor aught therein discerneth, Is yet in sin, condemned to death, And fire that ever burneth; His holiness avails him not, Nor aught which he is doing; His inborn sin brings all to naught, And maketh sure his ruin; Himself he cannot succor. We All Believe in One True God: We all believe in one true God, Who created earth and heaven, The Father, who to us in love Hath the right of children given. He both soul and body feedeth, All we need He doth provide us; He through snares and perils leadeth, Watching that no harm betide us. He careth for us day and night, All things are governed by His might. I have been told that one of Luther's principles was that hymns should teach theology. It seems we have his theology and belief concerning the perseverance of the saints reaffirmed in his hymns.

Subject: Re: More Luther theology From: Joe To: Rod Date Posted: Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 13:40:55 (PST) Email Address: Machutajmachuta@aol.com Message: Excellent point! Joe

Subject: Re: More Luther theology From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted: Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 10:33:52 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Rod As I said, I don't understand how Luther could say the things he said in his commentary on Romans and some of the other things you quoted and not believe in the P of TULIP. But some of his other maturial that I have read, writen by him, makes me believe that he was inconsistant in his theology. St. Worm has promised to send me proof of the things he says about Luther. Something else that I seem to remember, is that there were a few of the other Reformers that Luther was at odds with. Perhaps Zingley(sp?)and a few others? Should I copy and paste them here when I recieve them, or not? Tom

Subject: Re: More Luther theology From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted: Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 12:01:28 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Tom, The only major difference I'm aware of between the Swiss Reformers and the German ones is the issue over consubstantiation in the taking of the Lord's Supper. But I'm certainly no expert on the matter. They did part company (over this issue, I understand) with the differences unresolved. I am open to correction on this, as I have studied it only superficially. Tom, you mentioned the quotations in the thread below. Have you read the latest ones here? You mentioned that Worm had 'dozens' of things. I haven't pasted in that many, but have given several and, more importantly, have not found anything to negate the stance. I have no vested interest in this. It makes no difference to me or what I believe one way or the other, except that I believe Luther to have been blessed of God and more theologically correct than St. Worm gives him credit for being. Sure, why not paste in St. Worm's revelations, if he cites his sources so that we can look them up. Along those lines, all the quotations I have used have been from sermons taken from the site I listed in the other thread. They are very revelatory and I recommend reading some to all here.

Subject: Re: More Luther theology From: Hail To: Rod Date Posted: Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 18:34:56 (PST) Email Address: hailstreak@cs.com Message: Rod, As a Lutheran myself, I have found the recent discussion regarding Luther and Lutheranism to be quite interesting. Unfortunately, I am lacking time, so I cannot actively participate in the discussion. However, I want to post an answer from the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod's web site regarding this issue: Lutherans believe both are true and Scriptural: It is possible for a believer to fall from faith and lose salvation, and it is possible for a believer to have complete assurance of eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. If this seems paradoxical to human reason, then (Lutherans say) this is only because the teaching of Scripture itself on this issue (as on many other issues) appears paradoxical to human reason. For Lutherans, this is essentially a matter of properly distinguishing between Law and Gospel: Warnings against falling from faith are the strongest form of God's Law, intended to warn against 'carnal security' based on 'good works' or against the attitude that 'since I'm saved, I can do anything I want to do.' Assurances of God's constant and eternal love in Christ are the sweetest and purest form of Gospel, intended to comfort those who are plagued by their sins and by their failures to keep God's Law perfectly. This may explain why Martin Luther seemingly contradicts himself in some of his sermons and writings.....why he speaks of both complete assurance and loss of salvation. God Bless, Hail

Subject: Re: More Luther theology From: Rod To: Hail Date Posted: Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 21:59:41 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Hail, Once again, it all goes back to 1 John 2:19. True believers don't want to offend their Lord by presuming on His grace and mercy. Luther, indeed, does speak to this in the sermons I mentioned, but makes it clear that the true Christian cannot be lost, as the quotes I provided attest to. Here are some selected words from Luther on the subject: 'Now, let it be sufficiently proven for the present that there are two kinds of good works; some precede and others follow justification. The former merely appear to be good and effectual; the latter are really good. Now, this is the point of contention between presumptuous saints and God. Right here carnal nature contends, even rages, against the Holy Spirit. The Scriptures everywhere treat of this contention. Therein God concludes all man's works, previous to his justification, evil and ineffectual; he requires justification and goodness on the part of the individual first. Again, he concludes that all persons in the state of nature and of the first birth are unjust and evil. As said in Psalms 116, 11, 'All men are liars.' And in Genesis 6, 5, 'Every imagination of the thoughts of man's heart was only evil continually.' Hence the natural man can perform no good work, and all his attempts will be no better than Cain's.' 'In the preceding epistles we have heard that to be a Christian it is not enough simply to believe the story of Christ true--the Cain-like saints possess such faith--but the Christian must without any hesitancy believe himself one to whom grace and mercy are given, and that he has really secured them through baptism or through the Holy Supper. When he so believes, he is free to say of himself: 'I am holy, godly and just. I am a child of God, perfectly assured of salvation. Not because of anything in me, not because of my merits or works, am I saved; it is of the pure mercy of God in Christ, poured out upon me.' To such extent will he appreciate God's precious mercy, he cannot doubt that it renders him holy and constitutes him a child of God. But he who doubts, disparages to the utmost his baptism and the Holy Supper, and censures as false God's Word and his grace in the sacraments.' [Emphasis added.] 'Tell them what the prophet says in Psalm 86, 2: 'Preserve my soul; for I am godly'; and Paul's words in Romans 8, 16: 'The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God;' and they reply: 'Yes, but the prophet and the apostle did not mean by these statements to establish a doctrine or leave an example of what others may claim. They were enlightened and their holiness was revealed to them.' Similarly, they construe every passage relating to the subject as not doctrinal in design, but exhibiting a remarkable miracle, a special prerogative of certain individuals not to be possessed by every believer. This explanation is a mere invention of their own minds. Themselves unbelievers, tasting not the Spirit, they think no one else should so believe or taste. By such conduct--their own fruits--they may be clearly identified as thorns and thistles; not as Christians, but as enemies and destroyers of Christians, and persecutors of the Christian faith.' I could quote more, but it is obviously unnecessary. Regardless of what today's various branches of Lutherans believe, the Reformer himself is quite clear on the matter.

Subject: Re: More Luther theology From: saved To: Rod Date Posted: Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 09:50:14 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod, Keep up the good work. I have been reading the different messages about Luther's doctrines. The hymn you gave by Luther also was very good. Maybe St. Worm is just a 'good churchman'; But good churchmen do not always make good Christians! Both doctrines cannot be true...(perserverance & apostasy of true believers). If a true believer can 'fall away' then that makes void God's election, particular redemption, and justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ. I think St. Worm really is teaching a 'salvation by works' because he believes that one of God's elect can 'fall from grace'..etc. Also, I think Tom has made a good defense of the truth in the other forum! Give honor to whom honor is due!..:-) saved

Subject: Slander is ungodly From: St. Worm To: saved Date Posted: Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 22:39:02 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I don't teach a salvation by works theology. Being regenerate does not of necessity make you elect. What makes this difficult for you is that you don't believe in Sacramental grace (like Luther), and therefore don't have a MEANS of being kept in faith. Luther's doctrine of election must be kept in context with his doctrine of faith and the pneumatology. Luther rejected Reformed pneumatology, and condemned vehemently those who would urge the Spirit's work apart from Word and Sacrament (i.e. baptismal regeneration and the holy Eucharist--the oral eating of Christ's flesh and blood). In Nomine Iesu, St. Worm

Subject: Re: Slander is ungodly From: Pilgrim To: St. Worm Date Posted: Tues, Jan 16, 2001 at 10:38:46 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: St. Worm, You wrote, 'Being regenerate does not of necessity make you elect.' This statement begs at least two fundamental questions: 'How DOES one become regenerate?' 'What is regeneration?' The 'Reformed' also reject baptismal regeneration and affirm that grace is imparted through God's designated means, i.e., the Word of God. We do however, also affirm that God is able and does impart grace apart from the Word in specific cases, e.g., unborn elect infants, and mentally 'challenged' persons. (cf. WCF X:III) In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: More Luther theology From: Rod To: saved Date Posted: Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 12:08:24 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Thank you. It doesn't surprise me that Tom mounted a manly defense.

Subject: Book of Concord ...Lutherans From: saved To: All Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 11, 2001 at 06:47:15 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: >>>Christ calls to Himself all sinners and promises them rest, and He is in earnest [seriously wills] that all men should come to Him and suffer themselves to be helped, to whom He offers Himself in His Word, and wishes them to hear it and not to stop their ears or [neglect and] despise the Word. Moreover, He promises the power and working of the Holy Ghost, and divine assistance for perseverance and eternal salvation <<<< Copied from another forum. Taken from The Lutheran 'Book of Concord'... This does not sound reformed to me at all. 'Christ wishes them to hear..?' I thought God causes His own elect people to hear and respond to the gospel. This is a continuation of the topic below about how Lutherans believe or are taught to believe. None of the writings of Luther that I have ever read have said that 'Christ wishes that sinners hear'..etc.

Subject: Re: Book of Concord ...Lutherans From: Rod To: saved Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 11, 2001 at 08:38:20 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Hi, saved, Long time, no font! Someone once said words to this effect: 'Luther helped lead the Reformation and Lutherans have been leading away from him ever since.' The Lutherans of today often seem not to bear much resemblance to what Luther would approve, as is true of many other denominations who have 'left their first love.' Do you mind if I ask, saved, have you become 'Reformed' since we last corresponded?

Subject: Re: Book of Concord ...Lutherans From: St. Worm To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 22:22:09 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I'm fairly amused by your accusation that Lutherans today don't resemble Luther's doctrine. And I suppose you're going to tell me that he was kinda sorta mostly a Calvinist? I'd be curious to see how well read you really are in Luther. A little Luther student, St. Worm (happily ex-Calvinist and now Lutheran)

Subject: Re: Book of Concord ...Lutherans From: Rod To: St. Worm Date Posted: Tues, Jan 16, 2001 at 11:59:33 (PST) Email Address: na Message: If you have read all my posts on this subject, you will note that I have never claimed to have been well-read in Luther. In fact, unlike yourself, I claim no expertise on any subject. The quote I gave above was by another who did claim to know something about Luther and Lutherans. A few years ago, when I gave a message concerning the Lord's Supper, I contacted a local Lutheran pastor who didn't really know anything about Luther's beliefs and was no help at all, as I wanted to compare and contrast, among other things, Calvin and Luther's beliefs on the subject. His only response was to try to 'convert' me to his brand of Lutheranism! There are differing branches of Lutherans and different convictions among them, obviously. In your post above entitiled, 'slander is ungodly,' you demonstrate lack of basic knowledge about the Reformed position, as Pilgrim has outlined for you. Coming onto a strange board with arrogance and belligerence, charging ignorance when you demonstrate it yourself, is not designed to foster dialogue. I would suggest that you, and invite you to, discuss the issues, rather than going on the attack of persons whom you don't know at all.

Subject: Re: Book of Concord ...Lutherans From: saved To: Rod Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 11, 2001 at 09:29:26 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Thanks for the reply! Yes, I agree that Lutherans today have more or less 'left their first love'...so maybe that is why they can teach that a 'true believer can fall from grace'..etc. (Maybe you are thinking of someone else here. Since posting here, I have always been of the reformed Calvinistic faith. I just do not enjoy 'Psalm singing', but rather gospel songs better...Maybe that is what you are thinking of). saved

Subject: Re: Book of Concord ...Lutherans From: St. Worm To: saved Date Posted: Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 22:24:05 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: But Luther's sermon on the parable of the unforgiving servant made it clear that Christians can fall from grace and be damned. Please read Luther. St. Worm

Subject: Re: Book of Concord ...Lutherans From: Tom To: St. Worm Date Posted: Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 23:39:33 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: St. Worm If it is true that what you said about Luther's sermon on the parable of the unforgiving servant made it clear that Christians can fall from grace and be damned. Why don't you save us some trouble and post it here for us, or at least give us a link where it can be found. By the way, I am still waiting for that maturial writen by Luther on how someone can fall from grace. Also I am still waiting for you to explain what you believe Luther meant in his commentary on Romans chapter 8. Tom

Subject: Re: Book of Concord ...Lutherans From: St. Worm To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Jan 16, 2001 at 00:13:10 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: My dear brother Tom. I will not fail in my promise to you, it's only been rough since my programming has carried me into late hours. I will pledge myself to gather the quotes this week and by Friday have some more substantial proofs for you posted on this very forum. Please indulge me a little time as my schedule is very restrictive. Blessings to you, St. Worm

Subject: Re: Book of Concord ...Lutherans From: Rod To: St. Worm Date Posted: Tues, Jan 16, 2001 at 12:09:18 (PST) Email Address: na Message: St. Worm, I'm very interested also in why you specifically bypassed the quotations I gave from Luther's sermons under 'More Luther Theology' and responded to other posts not dealing strictly with what he did say. Shouldn't all aspects of the statements by the man be considered?

Subject: Re: Book of Concord ...Lutherans From: Rod To: saved Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 11, 2001 at 10:20:42 (PST) Email Address: na Message: saved, I used to correspond with a 'saved' on a couple of other boards (first name was G______--I won't reveal it, in case it's you and you don't want it to be known). I assumed that was you and, if so, didn't have the impression that you were Calvinistic. If I am wrong on any of these counts, I'm sorry for the mistaken identity.

Subject: Robert Raymond's New Systematic The From: JOwen To: All Date Posted: Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 10:06:34 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Robert Raymond After Reading Raymond’s New Systematic Theology of The Christian Faith it is becoming clear that Gordon Clark was: 1. Strongly opposition to Van Til. He believed some of Van Til's ideas were irrational. (I believe he had legitimate and important criticisms of Van Til.) 2. He loved logic. He insisted that _logos_ denotes logic, and he suggested that John 1:1 should be translated like this: 'In the beginning was the Logic, and the Logic was with God, and the Logic was God.' He defended the absolute consistency of divine revelation, insisting that it is ultimately fatal to all truth to think God's revelation is self-contradictory or full of 'paradoxes.' Some decry him as a rationalist. I think his defense of the consistency and coherence of God's truth was his most important contribution, and in general he was right on this point. 3. His believed that the senses and empirical means play no role whatsoever in gaining knowledge. ('All science is false.') Clark went about as far in his rejection of empiricism as it is possible to go. He believed the ONLY thing we can _know_ is what Scripture reveals, and what can be logically deduced from it. He opposed inductive reasoning as well as empiricism. You have to read his material to see what he was saying. He set forth some very interesting arguments and ideas. A mere discussion of Clark's anti- empiricism is enough to get good Reformed people threatening to kill one another. This may be the most controversial aspect of his views. 4. His high Calvinism. Clark was very close to Hoeksema in the style of Calvinism he represented. (If I'm not mistaken, Clark left the faculty of Wheaton College--or perhaps was dismissed-- amid accusations that he was a hyper-Calvinist.) As I recall, he rejected the idea of common grace. He strongly objected to the view that the gospel is a 'free offer.' He was a dogmatic supralapsarian and just about as absolute in his predestinarianism as it is possible to be without being fatalistic. I think I recall reading where he felt the Westminster Assembly erred in the language they used when they said God is not the 'author' of sin. Has anyone else read this tome? I would be interested in any thoughts that the list might have regarding Clark. The rumor has been circulated that he denied assurance. Any proof of this or comments about this post? Kind Regards, JOwen.

Subject: Re: Robert Raymond's New Systematic The From: laz To: JOwen Date Posted: Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:57:08 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: If the Bible is the ONLY source of revelation...KNOWLEDGE even...then what he's saying is of no value or consequence....it's just empty rhetoric...musings of a mad man? LOL! laz

Subject: Re: Robert Raymond's New Systematic The From: JOwen To: laz Date Posted: Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 13:08:21 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Unless what he is saying is derived from that revelation, which he believes it is. WCF 1:6 'The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.' This seems to support what Clark is saying. Sola Scriptura. JOwen

Subject: Re: Robert Raymond's New Systematic The From: laz To: JOwen Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 11, 2001 at 11:39:29 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Would that include making a good cup of coffee, quantum physics, differential equations and the how too's of integrated circuit board manufacturing? laz

Subject: Re: Robert Raymond's New Systematic The From: JOwen To: laz Date Posted: Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 09:18:36 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Yes. God has given us all we need for life and godliness. JOwen

Subject: Re: Robert Raymond's New Systematic The From: LAZ To: JOwen Date Posted: Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 14:01:45 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: I don't dispute that...nor that God gave us calculus...but did we discover calculus in holy writ? Is the 'knowledge' of the fact that my 6 month old likes to suck her thumb revealed in scripture? Why do I feel this discussion is not going so well? lol laz

Subject: Luther and Lutherans From: Tom To: All Date Posted: Tues, Jan 09, 2001 at 14:54:57 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Recently I found out that Luther and Lutherans do not believe in the perseverance of the saints, at least in the way other Reformers do. I found out this by a recent conversation that I have been participating in. The following was addressed to me after I told my beliefs on the subject. Anyone care to comment? I am not sure what to say about it. 'I know what Calvinism believes, I was a Calvinist for 6 years immersed in that 5 point paradigm, trying to interpret every verse in accordance to that structure. What made it untenable was the forced and contrived way all the Reformed exegetes and theologians I've read (from Turretin to present-day authors) on this issue have not satisfied the force of the verses that threaten us if we fall away. The Lutheran approach doesn't feel compelled to override one verse for the sake of another. We readily acknowledge Christ has His sheep, and that in the end the sheep He was given will be divided from the goats. The elect make it, and God alone gets the glory. And these elect were wonderfully kept as Christ promised. Problem is with your slant on things is that those 'believe' passages aren't qualified the way Jesus qualifies. This is a faith of constancy that Jesus promises a person will be preserved for salvation. The one who endures to the end will be saved. We know there are passages addressing the elect specifically, and then passages that address all believers at present. Peter doesn't say that our election is guaranteed just because we believe now and that we are regenerated (purified from sin). The comfort of election comes of coure through Christ and the fruit of faith. This is the degree to which we can be certain of our eternal calling, as we are blooming in the faith. Explain to me, if you would, what in the world is so tragic about apostasy? Kim Riddlebarger (from the White Horse Inn) candidly admitted to Rod Rosenblatt that the Reformed has a doctrine of apostasy, but nobody's in it! I thought it telling that when Rod said this on the air not a Reformed person objected! In your system, nobody really forsakes salvation and peace. It's only about going from one appearance to another. That's not much of an apostasy. We always have tares among us -- that's nothing new.'

Subject: For Tom: Luther on assurance From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted: Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 12:34:04 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Tom, Here are some statements I've found by Luther: In a sermon on the parable of the lost sheep, 'For even as the sheep cannot protect or provide for itself that it go not astray, unless the shepherd continually directs and leads it in the way; and when it has strayed and is lost, it cannot of itself find the right way or come to its shepherd, but the shepherd himself must go after it, and seek it until he find it, and when he has found it, he holds and bears it upon his back, that it may no more be frightened away from him, hunted or seized by the wolf. So we too cannot either help or advise ourselves, that we may obtain rest and peace of conscience, and escape the devil, death and hell (emphasis added--Rod), unless Christ himself brings us again and calls us to himself by his Word. And when we come to him and are in a state of faith, even then we are not able to keep ourselves in faith or be steadfast, unless he himself by his Word and power holds and carries us (emphasis again added), because the devil every way and without ceasing watches for us, and lurks, round about us like a roaring lion, as St. Peter In 1 Pet. 5:8 says, to devour us. So that here it avails nothing whatever to boast of our free will and strength, either to begin or continue our return to the Shepherd, and to abide with him, but Christ alone, our Shepherd, must do everything.' From a sermon on Philippians: 'Such is the rejoicing, mark you, of which Paul here speaks--a rejoicing where is no sin, no fear of death or hell, but rather a glad and all-powerful confidence in God and his kindness'...And, 'He [David] declares (Ps 34, 1): 'I will bless Jehovah at all times; his praise shall continually be in my mouth.' And David has good reason to do so, for who will harm or distress one favored of God? Sin harms him not; nor death nor hell (I added this emphasis--Rod). David sings (Ps 23, 4): 'Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil.' And Paul queries (Rom 8, 35): 'Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or anguish, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?' And then he goes on (verses 38-39): 'For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.''' Until I can see a complete rejection of assurance for those who are truly saints and children of God, I must conclude Luther endorses 'perseverance.' [Tom, I took these quotations from sermons by Luther found at this Lutheran site: http://www.ultranet.com/~tlclcms/]

Subject: Re: For Tom: Luther on assurance From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted: Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 13:56:58 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Rod I don't want to take up too much of this boards space on the subject. But I just got an e-mail from St. Worm, that I think you might be interested in. You're interpreting Luther through a Calvinist lens. When Luther derides free will, affirms sola gratia, and holy election, he does so, as all confessional Lutherans, as a work God alone does. But Luther in other places shows us that one can fall away (non-elect) who was truly saved. This is our position. This is Luther's. Otherwise his sermons on apostasy are meaningless. Again, no Luther scholar of any denomination will agree with your sentiment. It's ripping Luther's statements out of his Augustinian construct and foisting Calvinism onto it. Please read Luther historians like Steinmetz, Elert, Preus, Ott, etc. None of these men would affirm your statement. They've read ALL of Luther, and nobody disagrees that he held to the Augustinian doctrine of apostasy among the regenerate. St. Worm If what he says is true, I think we need to look at a broad spectrum of maturial Luther wrote, in order to find out what Luther really believed. Tom

Subject: Re: For Tom: Luther on assurance From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted: Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 14:12:52 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Tom, I'll leave the further research up to you. If you can find a direct repudiation of the statements I cited below, which are definite in their intent that all is dependent on the Savior, including the keeping of the sheep, particularly this one: 'So that here it avails nothing whatever to boast of our free will and strength, either to begin or continue our return to the Shepherd, and to abide with him, but Christ alone, our Shepherd, must do everything,' I'd like to see it. For now, that statement from the preacher himself seems to settle it. I'm not looking at this from any particular point of view: It says what it says. From where the evidence stands now, it seems to me that St. Worm is the one with the warped view; otherwise, one would have to 'fear death and hell' which Luther expressly says hold no fear for the Christian, agreeing with the Apostle Paul in Rom. 8. In another of these sermons, Luther definitely speaks of the 'wheat and tares' growing together. It seems he recognizes that those who fall away were never really saved, a la 1 John 2:19. The ONLY REASON I look at these things with a 'Calvinistic' view is that the Bible does.

Subject: Re: For Tom: Luther on assurance From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted: Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 13:41:47 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Rod Thanks for that post and site. It would seem to me that from what I have read on Luther so far. He was inconsistant on his view of the subject. I was told to read Luther's sermon on the parable of the unforgiving servant, in order to prove that Luther didn't believe in the P of TULIP. I haven't found that sermon, as of yet but I entend to doing so. Perhaps I can find it in the site you mentioned? Tom

Subject: Re: Luther and Lutherans From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted: Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 12:51:21 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Tom, I wanted to address this statement earlier, but I wanted to review some of Luther's writing first: 'Recently I found out that Luther and Lutherans do not believe in the perseverance of the saints, at least in the way other Reformers do.' As far as I can tell, this is an erroneous statement. I thought so at first, and my review of Luther's book on Romans confirms my belief. Luther, as far as I can find, makes no direct statement about the saints, 'perseverance,' but states the belief strongly in his dealing with the topic of predestination in discussing Romans 8 in his 'Commentary on Romans.' We have to remember that the 'Five Points' were not identified as such when Luther was writing, though the validity of the stance seems to be clearly recognized by Luther to me. That he endorsed the assurance of salvation is made clear by his handling of verses 18-30, as well as in other places. Under the heading for that section of Romans 8, either Luther himself or the editor gives the heading: 'The Believers' Certainty of Salvation by Faith.' If Luther gave it that heading, there is no doubt. If the editor supplied it, then it is evident that at least one other person, who was very intimately involved in the work, recognized his intent also. In this section, we find these words by the great Reformer: 'But when the Apostle says: ''Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?'' ''Who is he that condemneth?'' ''Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?'' (8:33,34,35), he shows that the elect are not saved by chance, but by God's purpose and will. Indeed for this reason, God allows the elect to encounter so many evil things as are here named, namely to point out that they are saved not by their own merit but by His election, His unchangeable and firm purpose. They are saved despite their many rapacious and fierce foes and the vain effors (to lead them into perdition)...Now he makes us to see that it [the wisdom of the flesh] amounts to nothing, and that our salvation altogether lies in His hands. God absolutely recognizes not chance; it is only men who speak of a chance. Not a single leaf falls from the tree without the will of the Father. All things are essentially in His hands, and so are our times. There are yet three thoughts that should be considered in connection with the subject of divine predestination. First, there are the proofs of God's unchangeable position, gathered from the words of Scripture and His works....' He goes on to mention and emphasize God's eternal purpose. Obviously, Luther means that man is assured of salvation because it is God's work, as he so earnestly emphasizes by the declaration, 'our salvation lies altogether in His hands.' At another point, he demonstrates that salvation is totally the work of God by the indwelling Spirit. Concerning verse 9, he says, 'That is: If the Holy Spirit dwells in you, who by His indwelling makes us new creatures.' By these declarations and others, Luther shows that he recognizes that salvation is from God, is dependent on God, and cannot be removed from man because it is the sovereign God who grants salvation by means of the indwelling of the Spirit of God to bring about His eternal purpose in election. I conclude that Martin Luther was convinced of the perseverance of the saints, whether today's "Lutherians" are or not.

Subject: Re: Luther and Lutherans From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 11, 2001 at 13:17:02 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Rod Just to make sure you know, I in know way am doubting the doctrine of the perseverence of the saints. I believe it whole heartedly! But my knowledge can only take me so far when debating this kind of thing. It is with that in mind that I started this thread. I found what you had to say about Martin Luther to be interesting, and a quite convincing. However, some things that a Lutheran poster, who goes by the name St. Worm (I assume it is taken from Luther's diet of worms, lol) posted some things on the Renewing Your Mind general forum. That make me wonder about what Luther really believes on the matter. He claims that his quotes are from Luther himself. Tom.H

Subject: Re: Luther and Lutherans From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 11, 2001 at 17:30:52 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Hi, Tom, I did figure you believed in the 'P' in TULIP. Luther, who came to understand and believe so firmly in justification by faith, which he insistently asserts is based on God's grace in the 'Commentary on Romans', would have a hard time, I think, believing this same sovereign God could lose one of His sheep. In fact, at one point he quotes the John 10 sections I mentioned below. The editor of the book did say that Luther altered some of his beliefs over the years (as do we all, I think, as we grow) and the editing refelcted those changes, a fact which I found interesting. From that book I'd have to say that Luther believed in assurance for the believer, at least as of 1522. St. Worm, eh? Well, as someone said, 'Diet of Worms? What a diet!' Let's hope instead his designation for himself came instead from the hymn line: "Would He devote that sacred head for such a worm as I?" But your assumption is probably the valid one.

Subject: Re: Luther and Lutherans From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 11, 2001 at 18:21:35 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Rod What do you make of the following? Here's one for my Calvinistick brethren: 'Is it not true that [the Father] neither wanted to judge or condemn you, but forgave you all your sins, suspended his judgment, and accepted you in grace? For that you should be grateful and do to your neighbor as your Father has done to you... If you do not do it...then the Father in Heaven will say to you, 'You wicked Christian, I have given you my Word, baptism, the Lord's Supper, eternal life...Because you have not done to your fellowman as I have done to you, I WILL IN TURN DO TO YOU AS YOU HAVE DONE TO YOUR FELLOW MAN... I HAVE FORGIVE YOU YOUR SINS, HAVE GIVEN YOU MY WORD AND BAPTISM... VERY WELL, I WILL WITHDRAW MY GRACE AND MERCY, I WILL TAKE BACK MY FORGIVENESS, ETERNAL LIFE, AND THE SALVATION THAT I GRANTED YOU. I WANTED TO ADORN AND DRESS YOU GLORIOUSLY.' --Sermon by Martin Luther, 1534 (4th Sunday after Trinity, Luke 6:36-42) Take that to Geneva and bank it. St. Worm

Subject: Re: Luther and Lutherans From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 11, 2001 at 19:43:58 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Tom, I frankly don't know what to make of it. It seems a reversal of his other statements I have read. It may be that the context of the sermon makes it clear that such a person was never saved and his actions demonstrate it, but the part about withdrawing salvation seems to make that questionable. Whether Luther actually meant loss of salvation, as this seems to say; it is self-evident on the surface that if one has 'eternal' life then that cannot be lost. That which one possesses and loses was never 'eternal' by definition.

Subject: Re: Luther and Lutherans From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted: Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 09:43:45 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Rod This St. Worm character, said he can literally supply me with dozens of quotes and articles written by Luther, showing that he didn't believe in the the P of TULIP. He said that Luther made a big distinction between mortal and venial sins. I also thought I would point out that there is someone else over at the other forum, who like us believes in TULIP. However, he said he has read a lot of Luther, and he agrees that Luther didn't believe in the perseverance of the saints. In the end, I guess it really doesn't matter if Luther believed in the P from TULIP or not. What matters is what the Bible teaches on the subject. Tom

Subject: Re: Luther and Lutherans From: Joe To: Tom Date Posted: Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 09:41:07 (PST) Email Address: Machutajmachuta@aol.com Message: Tom, aI am certain that you will find that the quotes all came from Luthers early development. His swan song (my view)'The Bondage of The Will' shows that he believed it was all of God and all of grace. If this is true then, it would be God who did not hold, not man who apostasized. Sovereign grace demands the P in TULIP. In Christ Jesus, Joe

Subject: Re: Luther and Lutherans From: Rod To: Tom Date Posted: Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 10:58:20 (PST) Email Address: na Message: Tom, This really makes me want to delve into the situation more deeply. If this is true, then my enormous respect for Luther will be lessened a good deal, not totally, but significantly. How one could say, 'But when the Apostle says: ''Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?'' ''Who is he that condemneth?'' ''Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?'' (8:33,34,35), he shows that the elect are not saved by chance, but by God's purpose and will;' how he can say, 'they are saved not by their own merit but by His election, His UNCHANGEABLE and firm purpose; ' how he could state, ' All things are essentially in His hands, and so are our times;' and believe that God could alter His 'ETERNAL PURPOSE' (a phrase which Luther explicity uses in relation to these things) of election is beyond me. How one can read and quote Rom. 8:33-4, which indicate that neither God the Father nor God the Son will ever lay anything to the charge of God's elect could reject assurance, I don't know. How he could cite John 10:28-29 and entertain that notion, I can't fathom. And Luther does all this in his 'commentary on Romans.' The bottom line is what you said, 'In the end, I guess it really doesn't matter if Luther believed in the P from TULIP or not. What matters is what the Bible teaches on the subject.' That is always and forever true. I believe it was Luther himself who said, 'One man with God is a majority.' Being true to the teachings of the Word of God is foremost in the Christian walk. And it is further proof that no preacher, no man, is to be pedestalized. If I find anything definitive, I'll let you know. Please do the same for me.

Subject: Re: Luther and Lutherans From: St. Worm To: Rod Date Posted: Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 22:32:14 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: What needs to be kept in mind is that Luther's Augustinian background informed his apostasy theology. Augustine himself agreed that a regenerate (born again) Christian can fall into mortal sin and kill sanctifying grace. But look at Augustine's doctrine of election -- it affirms that all God's elect will make it by His will. Luther was only following suit. St. Worm

Subject: Re: Luther and Lutherans From: Rod To: St. Worm Date Posted: Tues, Jan 16, 2001 at 12:40:21 (PST) Email Address: na Message: St. Worm, Rather than respond to who believed what, let me pose this to you: If man can over-rule what God has achieved, who is really the Supreme Being? This is the most fundamental and important question. If God's will is the ultimate, determining factor, then how can His sanctifying grace be 'killed?' The bedrock premise that God is sovereign and that His will is all-important in determination of man's end, as you assert by your statement, 'all God's elect will make it by His will,' means that man cannot be the determining factor. Just to be certain that we're discussing the same thing, 'sanctifying grace' can be practically defined as God's setting aside an individual for His salvation, protection, and perfection, in a positional way. That can never be annulled, according to the Lord Jesus' own pronouncements (twice): 'My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, NEITHER SHALL ANY MAN PLUCK THEM OUT OF MY HAND. My Father, who gave them to me, is greater than all, and NO MAN IS ABLE TO PLUCK THEM OUT OF MY FATHER'S HAND. I and the Father are one' (John 10:27-30). The statement in verse 29 where, 'My Father is greater than all,' cannot be true if His decisions and will can be nullified by the actions of man, but the fact so clearly and unmistakeably emphasized is that man can't undo what God's sovereign choice affirms. It is in the sovereign will of God to 'sanctify' (positionally) a person for all time whom He elects and it is His will to keep him thus 'sanctified' positionally for all time with 'eternal life,' and 'never perishing.' In view of these statements of flat fact by the Son of God Himself, will you please consider and answer the following questions: 1) How does 'eternal life' get lost and come to an end? 2) How does a man negate the promise that he will 'never perish' from the lips of the Savior? 3) When God says, 'no man can pluck them out' of God's hand, how does the man in question pluck himself out of God's hand by losing his salvation?

Subject: Re: Luther and Lutherans From: Pilgrim To: Rod Date Posted: Tues, Jan 16, 2001 at 13:07:27 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Rod, Amen, brother! All of God's 'pleasure' shall surely be done. (Isa. 46:10, et al). This of course is inseparably related to the 'pleasure' of God in sending His only-begotten Son to redeem all those whom He has elected from before the creation of the world. And if the Lord Christ's atonement was what the Scriptures incontrovertibly say it was; definite, efficacious, complete, and particular', then none of His who have been ingrafted into Christ Jesus CAN fall away and be ultimately 'lost'! The promises of God are true and sure as Paul testified to the Corinthians: 2Cor 1:19 'For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea. 20 For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us. 21 Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; 22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.' In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: Luther and Lutherans From: Tom To: Rod Date Posted: Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 13:08:25 (PST) Email Address: thardy@sd52.bc.ca Message: Rod How indeed could Luther say those things, if he didn't believe in the P of TULIP? It doesn't make sence to me either. However, from some of his other writings, I am beginning to believe that St. Worm is correct about what Luther believed. You might find out more about this topic by going to the following thread at the renewing your mind general forum: http://www1.gospelcom.net/HyperNews/get/rymforum/gen1200/414.html You will get a birds eye view of where I am coming from. Tom

Subject: Re: Luther and Lutherans From: Pilgrim To: Tom Date Posted: Tues, Jan 09, 2001 at 21:29:28 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Tom, Got yourself in yet another 'pickle' it seems, eh? hahaha Well, it's so hard to try and comment intelligently, when all we have is what the 'other' person said in reply to something you said, which we don't know! :-) But what I can tell you is that just from what your friend wrote in the quote, he is making the infamous error of confounding the subjective aspect of salvation (our personal assurance which comes partly by the observation of the fruit of the Spirit at work in our lives) and the objective aspect of our salvation (the full satisfaction of Christ's atonement for the elect and to whom its benefits are infallibly bestowed upon them by the Holy Spirit.). Can a 'believer' fall away unto death? Sure can! But the person is only a 'believer' in his own estimation and/or the false perception of others. No true believer can possibly fall away! If that were true, then God's eternal decree to save a people for Himself is subject to failure! The Son's vicarious substitutionary atonement is insufficient to secure the redemption of those whom He died for! And the Holy Spirit's work of regeneration and preservation is ineffective as a fulfillment of the Father's decree and the Son's entire purpose in coming to earth to 'save His people from their sins'! etc. :-) I think the apostle John's brief statement is sufficient to explain the truth of the matter: 1John 2:19 'They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.' In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: question for Pilgrim From: Chrysostomos To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 13:13:27 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hi Pilgrim, Long time, no ecumenical dialogue. ;-) I still check in occasionally and found this thread interesting. I wondered if you might answer a question. Why do you apply this verse to the individual believer? It seems that St John is warning about false teachers, since in the previous verse he says: Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour. And then in verse 26, he says: I write this to you about those who would deceive you; Not that your verse wouldn't seem also to apply to the salvation of the individual teachers being referred to, but I'd just never heard that verse applied to the salvation of individuals generally. Just curious, Chrysostomos

Subject: Re: question for Pilgrim From: Pilgrim To: Chrysostomos Date Posted: Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 17:16:01 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Chrysostomos, To be sure the immediate context of 1John 2:19 is speaking of 'teachers' per se. However, the principle is applicable to 'plain ole believers' who don't hold the 'office' of teacher. I would have you consult: Rom 9:6ff; 1Cor 11:18, 19; 2Tim 3:1-9; Heb 10:38, 39. And for a more illustrative and historical example, read the account recorded in the Gospel of John 6:22-71 noting particularly the Lord Christ's words: Joh 6:64 'But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.' In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: question for Pilgrim From: Chrysostomos To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 19:34:17 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Hey Pilgrim, You lost me a bit, due to the fact that the reference to 2 Tim is also about teachers, no? But I understand what you're trying to say and got your point in your original post. I suppose the reason that I posted was because of the rest of I John 2, in which there seems to be much that is applicable to plain ole believers, the subject of this thread. For example, 3: And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4: He who says 'I know him' but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him; 5: but whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him: 6: he who says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked. and 15: Do not love the world or the things in the world. If any one loves the world, love for the Father is not in him. and 28: And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not shrink from him in shame at his coming. 29: If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that every one who does right is born of him. Not implying that you haven't ever run across those verses. Quite the opposite. Which is probably what made me interested in your choice of vs. 19. Curiously yours, Chrysostomos

Subject: Re: question for Pilgrim From: Pilgrim To: Chrysostomos Date Posted: Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 20:21:36 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: Chrysostomos, Well, there you go! :-) My intention was to show that there is really no difference between 'good ole professing Christians' and those who are 'teachers' among them. They both share the fact that they are 'professing' Christians and are 'saved' by the blood of Christ. And those who 'leave'for various reasons, e.g., doctrinal and/or lifestyle (sin) show themselves to not be among the true church. However, as another has rightly pointed out, this 'leaving' may in fact be a temporary thing and not necessarily and true indication of one's spiritual state, as repentance is always possible and should never be ruled out by others. In His Grace, Pilgrim

Subject: Re: question for Pilgrim From: Chrysostomos To: Pilgrim Date Posted: Thurs, Jan 11, 2001 at 08:10:45 (PST) Email Address: Not Provided Message: >>>>>repentance is always possible and should never be ruled out by others. Agreed. Your response prompted another question. I would say that this repentance simply consists in a 'restoration.' Of communion, that is. However, what do you do when the person returns to repent who has fallen away? Where I come from (Baptist), the theology that says that if a person falls away, then that means that they weren't a 'true' Christian, results in varying explanations of how to respond and direct if that person comes back. Would he need to 'get saved' again? 'Rededicate' his life to Christ? Get rebaptized? In any case, a judgement is certainly made (by the Baptists, that is) about that person's spiritual condition (their eternal state if they would have died) prior to their 'fall,' so that a course of action going forward may be determined. I don't know that the Baptists ever decided on it. What do the Reformed do, at least in your experience? Chrysostomos