Response to a Semi-Pelagianist
|
It appears that Mezzaman came to play, though that is not the purpose of this board, as is stated in the Rules. I respond to his latest effort to neuter the Christian doctrine of Salvation by Faith Alone (his words in bold face):
It pleases me that you consider what I wrote to be informative.
It is interesting to me that though you suggest a limited understanding of apologetics interaction you are actively engaged in such interaction as one who appears to have "been around the block a few times." You ask if apologetic debates and discussions are actually a rhetorical genre. Or were you asking if "discussions" are. Well, now, lemme see if'n I can come up with a response that you might judge to be informative. I s'pose it might be useful to determine just what "rhetoric" is. My dictionary offers a number of alternative definitions for the word, but this one seems most appropriate to this issue:
Given that understanding, it would appear that both apologetic debates and discussions indeed do qualify as "rhetorical genre." Now let us see whether "discussions" conform to this understanding. According to my dictionary, a discussion is:
It appears to me that we next need to establish an understanding of just what "apologetics" is so that we might continue to examine your challenge to the doctrine of Salvation by Faith Alone:
With that out of the way, let us advance to the next stage in your exercise in semantics:
Of course I knew he was not joking. As I attempted to make clear in my first response to you, I replied as I did because I believe my words would convey to him the small regard I had for his fatuous question. I have no doubt that the individual to whom the comment was directed perfectly understood my message.
I am beginning to suspect that you do not have access to a dictionary, so I provide this link to an online dictionary that may be of some use to you. In that dictionary, we learn that "assertiveness may be defined:
I hope that after reading the above, you now understand that my use of the term "assertiveness" was not pejorative. My use of sarcasm is generally intended to mock either the remarks or the person with whom I am dealing. From the same dictionary cited above:
I like sarcasm, whether sent or received, though I do at times content myself to resort to the use of its weaker sister Irony.
Well, golly gee, your honor; I'm just a good ole boy from Texas and don't understand these high fallutin' concepts.
That's mighty nice of you, Sir. Not only is the idea of salvation by sinner's prayer not to be found per se in Scripture; it also is not to be found by inference—unless one uses a "spiritual" form of hermeneutics and a set of preconceptions to dig it out.
O! Dear me! I must disagree. One cannot make any argument from the New or the Old Testaments concerning a requirement of baptism for salvation unless, of course, one accepts the heretical concept of baptismal regeneration, which I do not.
Now that statement is a wide open doorway leading to all sorts of possibilities, isn't it? I in no way intended to suggest that man does not respond to God's grace. In fact man does respond, and should be expected to continue to respond throughout all his earthly life. The responses result from the application of God's grace in salvation and play no part in either the granting or receiving of that grace. Were man required to play any part in his own salvation, then it would be a clear indication that Almighty God is not so almighty after all and requires man to help in obtaining his own salvation. Man is saved by God, when man graciously permits God to save him. Rubbish!
The Scriptures are crystal clear. In support of that affirmative statement, I offer the following words from my published statement of faith:
If the foregoing is unclear to you, I encourage you to read the cited passages.
It would appear that your understanding of the Calvinist doctrine of Predestination is a bit confused. BTW, I do not consider myself to be either Calvinist or a member of the Reformed Church. The idea of sitting around and hoping that one is numbered among the elect is foolishness. A consequence of Adam's sin is that, while all are born with a soul, that soul, or spirit, is dead. What can the dead do for themselves? Nothing at all. I do not deny that many folk who likely are not spiritually alive do express a hope for eternity. I argue, however, that that hope is a learned phenomenon; the product of exposure to spiritual matters, without regard to the validity of the learning. We are exposed to newsreels of the public activities of religious leaders, to unexplained psychic phenomena and so-called miracles, to fantasized religious experiences in the entertainment media and, just maybe, may begin to hope or even believe that we are or can be saved by the experience. Not so. Watching Mel Gibson's Christ agonize under the Roman scourge for 12 minutes and being moved by the experience surely cannot be considered to have a salvific result. I have only recently posted an article dealing with predestination and freewill, and have no intention of exploring this subject further at this time.
True. I cannot think of anyplace in Scripture where your question receives the response "absolutely nothing." On the other hand, I am able to point to a number of passages where it is made clear that only belief is required for salvation. This, of course does not refer to the same type belief as expressed in statements such as, "I believe I'll have another beer;" or "I believe that it's going to rain." The belief implied in such statements differs greatly from the belief that results from the gift of saving faith, a deep conviction that Jesus Christ is who He claimed to be—the incarnate Son of God come to save the world. Take for example this passage in which the question you posed is asked:
Then, of course, there is my favorite passage in Scripture, John 5:24:
A more detailed explanation of what is required for salvation, and what happens to those who do not meet that requirement, is found in this passage:
Please notice that there is no mention of baptism as a requirement for having eternal life [salvation]. However, in verse 18 it is made clear that not believing has serious consequences. Notice that it also does not suggest that the lack of baptism results in condemnation.
Certainly. That is the only ground of salvation, as should be clear from the verses I cited above.
Once again, we delve into the world of semantics. BTW, the above words are found in Romans 10:8-10. I've already addressed believing, so let's just examine the word "confess" as used in this passage. Paul is not saying that confession is a requirement of salvation, but that it is a result. He does this by offering what would have been, in his time and culture, a litmus test of saving faith. The Greek word translated as "confess" is homologeseis, which basically means to say thing or to be in agreement with someone. As used in verse 9 of this passage, it tells us that the person who confesses Jesus as Lord agrees with the Father's declaration that Jesus is Savior and Lord. In verse 9, the Apostle uses the Greek word transliterated kurios that is translated "Lord." No Jew would do this who had not really believed in Christ as Lord and Savior, for the same word is used in the Septuagent to refer to God. No Gentile would do it who had not ceased worshipping the Emperor as Kurios. The word Kurios was and is the touchstone of faith. Faith precedes confession. In verse 10, the true order is provided: faith , then confession.
In the New Testament, this phrase is found in Romans 10:13, where the Apostle quotes Joel 3:5. In quoting the Old Testament prophet, Paul emphasizes that salvation is for everyone without regard to nationality or race. This is a not uncommon expression in the Old Testament and does not refer to some desperate cry to just any deity but to the one true God as He has revealed Himself—a revelation (see verse 9) that now includes recognition of Jesus as Lord and of the One who raised up Jesus from the dead
I did not find that exact phrase in any of the Bibles that I own, but Mark 16:16 comes close:
I don't perceive an issue in this verse, for it clearly informs that believing (faith) precedes baptism. This verse is similar to the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20, and adds the contrast of those who have been baptized (believers) with those who refuse to believe and are condemned. This verse is not found in all early manuscripts and may be a pious addition added by some scribe or transcriber. If genuine, it does not teach that baptism saves, since the lost are condemned for unbelief, not for not being baptized.
Words to this effect are found in Acts 2:38:
I shall call upon the words of Christian scholar and educator A. T. Robertson to explain this passage:
I fully agree with Robertson's view that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission.
The reference here is to the self-righteous young man who asked Jesus what more he need do in order to be saved (Matthew 19, Mark 10 and Luke 13) In this verse, Jesus is not setting forth terms for salvation, but rather exposing the young man's true heart. His refusal to obey here revealed two things: 1) he was not blameless as far as the law was concerned, because he was guilty of loving himself and his possessions more than his neighbors; and 2) he lacked true faith, which involves a willingness to surrender all at Christ's bidding. Jesus was not teaching salvation by philanthropy; but He was demanding that this young man give Him first place. The man failed the test.
In John 3:3 the words translated as "born again" are better understood as "born from above." Jesus in this passage answered a question that Nicodemus had not asked. He read the man's heart and addressed the core of his problem—the need for spiritual transformation or regeneration produced by the Holy Spirit. New birth is a sovereign act of God whereby eternal life is imparted to the believer. The Pharisee's response regarding physical birth, [verse 4], indicated that he had no idea what Jesus meant and was incredulous at what he was hearing. With that, I believe that I have successfully negotiated the rabbit warren. I usually do not allow myself to be led down bunny trails, but I relented on this occasion for reasons that are not clear to me. And now back to work.
I am so glad that you think we agree on something. However, I suspect that your understanding of grace is more in line with the Catholic concept and far distinct from my evangelical understanding.
See what I mean?
Perhaps you do not recognize the ambiguity of this question. Nevertheless, I shall attempt to explain what gives. Essentially, we are told that not believing will have the certain consequence of eternal condemnation (damnation). Given that the lost are doomed forever, what worse consequences could result from their decisions or actions? Unbelievers will receive the official pronouncement of their condemnation from the Perfect Judge seated on the Great White Throne.
The reference to the books of life and death would have been familiar to Jewish readers of this book. If you are interested in knowing how Judaism understands the books, I encourage you to visit one of the Jewish educational websites to read about Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. The possible consequences of the actions and decisions of believers is explained in chapter three of Paul's first letter to the church at Corinth, verses 10-15:
The fire mentioned in this passage refers to God's discerning judgment. This is not a judgment for sin. Christ has paid that price, so no believer will ever be judged for sin. This judgment is to determine eternal reward. All that has been accomplished in His power and for His glory will survive. No matter how much is found to be worthless, no believer will ever forfeit salvation..
"No amount of effort on our part could make us right with God without God's grace?" That is a pretty fair approximation of Romanism's Semi-Pelagiac understanding of grace. God-given grace is okay, but it doesn't really amount to much unless we choose to use it according to our understanding and desires. Poor God. He isn't even able to give man a great gift unless man chooses to permit the gift and to use it in his miserable life. So grace really isn't grace but is merely a little baksheesh that God offers in the hopes that we will accept and make use of it. Sheesh!
Yep. That's what it means, when speaking soteriologically. Whether to grant or withhold His salvific grace is a sovereign choice determined by God alone. Once saved, man is enjoined or encouraged to undertake a great many works intended to please God and to manifest His involvement in one's new life, as James wrote in chapter two of His epistle.
This does not contradict Paul's clear teaching in Romans 3:20; 4:1-25 and Galatians 3:6,11 that Abraham was justified before God by grace alone through faith alone. There are a number of reasons why James cannot have meant that Abraham was constituted righteous before God because of his own good works: 1) James already had stressed that salvation is a gracious gift (1:17,18); 2) in the middle of this passage (verse 23), James quoted Genesis 15:6, which forcefully claims that God credited righteousness to Abraham solely on the basis of his faith; and 3) the work that James said justified Abraham was his offering up of Isaac (Genesis 22:9.12), an event that occurred many years after he first exercised faith and was declared righteous before God (Genesis 12:1-7; 15:6). Instead, Abraham's offering of Isaac demonstrated the genuineness of his faith and the reality of his justification before God. James here is emphasizing the vindication before others of a man's claim to salvation. This teaching perfectly complements Paul's writings; salvation is determined by faith alone, and is demonstrated by faithfulness to obey God's will alone.
One more time: If God is restrained from granting the gifts of regeneration and salvation unless or until man agrees to accept it, then God is not sovereign and the promises of Christ, in fact all the Bible, are nothing more than legend or myth.
See above. I've already responded to this.
It bears mentioning that the writers of the Scriptures did not write in 21st century English. Rather, they used Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. When translating ideas from one language to another, I contend that a literal, word-order word-for-word translation would produce a barely intelligible result. I have been educated in both English and Spanish and live in a bi-lingual household in which I am required to flip-flop between English and Spanish throughout the day. In my experiences, nuances of meaning are not easily, if at all, translated. Should you have difficulty accepting that, I suggest you visit you local Barnes and Noble bookstore and spend a little time with an interlinear Greek or Hebrew/English Bible. See for yourself. Additions such as you mention serve to emphasize what is clearly stated in the Scriptures. They do not alter the clear meaning of the words they modify as do the additions proposed by Catholicism and other communions of questionable Christianity such as: Believe AND BE BAPTIZED Faith AND WORKS
I invite you to read again the above, where I address salvation by faith alone and James 2:24. You might also find this passage from the second chapter of Paul's letter to the church at Ephesus: 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
With this, I have reached my self-imposed limit of two posts on an apologetic thread. I will, however, in the next few days re-post some of my earlier articles dealing with James 2:24. |
