The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum faith in Jesus verse faith of Jesus

There is a group of people (christian I guess) called primitive baptists and old school baptist I they are hyper electionists and promote a temporal salvation which is apart from eternal salvation, eg. the phillipian jailer was saved from killing himself and from his bosses, which is what is meant by what must I do to be saved? (so they say) also they say that we are not saved by our faith imparted or otherwise but by the faith "of" Jesusus Christ rather than faith in Jesus Christ. iknow this because some of them are freinds on my FB page but they won't talk with me now because they were unable to convince me of their doctrine. Has anyone ever struck these teachings, of course they have to use the KJB to get the faith of because no other translation tranlates it that way that I'm aware of.

Yes, we are somewhat familiar with the "Primitive Baptists" because we have had one or two here on the Board a few years back. One, in particular, rejected the Nicene Creed's use of "begotten" in reference to the Son of God. He insisted that this word was inextricably linked to Platonist philosophy and thus made the Son "created" and not eternal. We labored to explain to him from linguistics as well as Scripture and the word "begotten" had nothing to do with "generation", i.e., birth from, but rather a place of exaltation.

Secondly, he held that the 'imago dei', image of God, was totally absent in all who were not regenerate, i.e., they were on the same level as non-human animals.

This is NOT to say that all Primitive Baptists hold to the same views as this one person and his local church. Doubtless there are others who hold to the same errors, but there are surely those who would reject them as strongly as we do.

The ones I have talked to a very strong on their "time" salvation and the faith of Jesus. But essentially hyper calvinists but they don't seem to like the reformers or the five solas.

The whole time salvation thing is an innovation. The old line Primitive Baptists rejected that view. In fact, it is really something in line with the Paul Washer, John MacArthur, John Piper thing about Lordship salvation and "final vindication" by good works.

The old line Primitive Baptists followed John Gill more closely and would have rejected any idea that justification by anything other than by means of faith alone.

As for Primitive Baptists being "hyper-Calvinists", that is a misnomer as far as I can tell. You're either a Calvinist or you're not.

Calvinists do not believe in "free will" or anything short of absolute predestination. In fact, the Westminster Confession teaches that God foreordains "whatsoever comes to pass."

Charlie J. Ray

http://reasonablechristian.blogspot.com

Can you supply some direct links to information which would show that any or all of the above 3 mentioned men reject a "once for all declaration that the sinner is not guilty; justified at the moment faith is expressed in Christ"? Or, coming from the other side, that they hold to a progressive justification which is determined by faith + works and declared at the final judgment?

This view is predominantly held by those adhering to NPP, Federal Vision, Shepherdism, and others e.g., Richard Gaffin, John O. Kinnaird, &co. But I have never heard, until now, that John MacArthur or Paul Washer embraced or taught this view. John Piper is suspect due to what he wrote in his book Future Grace. So, any references you are able to supply would be much appreciated.

John Piper is the easiest to demonstrate a reliance on the NPP. First of all, Piper was a student at Fuller Theological Seminary, CA. His favorite professor there was Daniel Fuller, a well known advocate of the New Perspective on Paul. Daniel Fuller taught the doctrine of "future justification." Piper has simply retooled the doctrine and calls it "future vindication":


The key point here in Piper's version of the judgment is that salvation is ultimately dependent on works to "vindicate" the believer's salvation. The emphasis here is not on the finished work of Christ but on something your "faith" and your "obedience" contributes to "salvation". This is really nothing more than the NPP view of "future justification" dressed up in dissimulating language. The problem is that Piper places this "evidence" for salvation in the final judgment, not in the visible church where church discipline and a credible profession of faith is necessary for communicant membership. God already knows who is saved. If a believe is not justified by faith alone on earth, then good works will certainly add nothing to salvation in the judgment. You will either stand in the righteousness of Christ alone or you will stand in your own works. If the latter, you're lost. (Romans 10:1-5).

John MacArthur is likewise compromised: The Gospel According to John MacArthur

Paul Washer likewise teaches a form of works righteousness since he, like Piper and MacArthur, confuses justification with sanctification:

Paul Washer and Gospel Sanctification

Thanks for the links. I'm nearly done reading them through. But there was something that the late John Robbins wrote in his critique "The Gospel According to John MacArthur" that I am compelled to bring to you in the form of a simple question:

Do you hold to: the Biblical view [is] that faith is “bare assent to the truth about Jesus’ saving role.”?

Would you consider this to be a biblical and textbook definition of saving faith?

Pilgrim
As I went to the links, especially the one concerning John MacArthur, I couldn’t help thinking that John Robbins was either misunderstanding MacArthur, or deliberately misrepresenting him.
My understanding of what MacArthur is basically saying can be said by the old Reformed saying (forgive me if I butcher it, as it is from memory): ``Salvation is by faith alone, in Christ alone, but not by a faith that is alone."
Two verses that I like that captures this is James 2:18-19 “ But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!” NKJV
Verse 20 makes these verses hit home. “But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead.” NKJV
If true justifying faith doesn’t produce works, then we must conclude from verse 19, that demons would be justified, because they have that kind of faith. Yet they tremble and are not justified!
Here is what John Gill says concerning James 2:18.
Yea, a man may say, thou hast faith, and I have works
That is, a true believer in Christ may very justly call upon a vain boaster of his faith, who has no works, to give proof and evidence of it, and address him after this manner; you say you have faith, be it so that you have; I have works, you see I have, I say nothing about my faith at present; now,
shew me thy faith without thy works,
if thou canst; see what ways, means, and methods thou canst make use of, to make it appear to me, or any other, that you have the faith you talk of: the words are a sort of sarcasm and jeer upon the man, and yet very just, calling upon him to do that which is impossible to be done, and thereby exposing his vain boast; for faith is an inward principle in the heart; an hidden thing, and cannot be seen and known but by external acts; and where it is right, it is operative, and shows itself by works, which is not practicable in those who have none:
and I will show thee my faith by my works;
there may be indeed an appearance of good works, where there is no faith, as in the Heathens, in the Scribes and Pharisees, and in the Papists, and others; and on the other hand, there may be the principle of faith implanted, where there is not an opportunity of showing it by a series of good works, or a course of godly living, as in elect infants dying in infancy, and in those who are converted in their last moments, as the thief upon the cross; wherefore works are not infallible proofs and evidences of faith, yet they are the best we are capable of giving of it to men, or they of receiving. In short, works may deceive, and do not infallibly prove truth of faith, yet it is certain, that where they are not, but persons live in a continued course of sinning, there cannot be true faith.
Would it be fair to conclude that John Robbins doesn’t agree with John Gill and his commentary on the verse? Therefore, he could not agree with people like John MacArthur?

I am a person who has been helped by people who point out error. However, I have noticed that in some people who have ministries that point out error, they often take quotes with out using the full context. Therefore misrepresenting what the person had in mind.
In some cases, I have also found that the original authors may not have used the best wording. However, rather than seeking clarification by further reading etc... the critique often jumps on the statement to try to show just how unbiblical that person is.

Tom

Tom,

John Robbins has written many things which are helpful and biblically sound. However, he did have a tendency, at times, to exaggerate and misrepresent the position of others and doing so with a caustic tone. I think in this case, Robbins is unfortunately incorrect in his criticism of John MacArthur on this particular issue.

You are correct in your reference to the Reformation adage which summarized their position on justification, "Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone... but not with a faith that is alone." In short, true saving faith; the faith through which a sinner is justified will naturally and assuredly exhibit itself in good works, albeit those good works do NOT CONTRIBUTE in any way, shape or form to justification. Justification is based upon one being united to Christ by a true living faith ALONE.

Amen!