# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  John Calvin on obedience

## jmdrake

_ If, however, we desire to be approved by God, and accounted righteous before him, we must not only regulate our hands, and eyes, and feet, in obedience to his Law; but integrity of heart is above all things required, and holds the chief place in the true definition of righteousness. Let us, however, know that they are called just and upright, not who are in every respect perfect, and in whom there is no defect; but who cultivate righteousness purely, and from their heart. Because we are assured that God does not act towards his own people with the rigour of justice, as requiring of them a life according to the perfect rule of the Law; for, if only no hypocrisy reigns within them, but the pure love of rectitude flourishes, and fills their hearts, he pronounces them, according to his clemency, to be righteous.

John Calvin
_

Hmmmm....heart obedience.  Now where have I heard that before?  Oh yeah! *I said it!*  The irony is that I was condemned by RPF hyper-Calvinists for it.

----------


## moostraks

This is where you get the argument about how Reformed is not Calvinism, right now, pertaining to this argument, until a later argument calls for it to be Calvinism.

----------


## jmdrake

> This is where you get the argument about how Reformed is not Calvinism, right now, pertaining to this argument, until a later argument calls for it to be Calvinism.


LOL.  Right.  Calvinists are consistent in their inconsistency.  I suspect I'll get the "Calvin was talking about sanctification, not justification" argument thrown in here.  Of course that will requiring ignoring the part where Calvin says "if only no hypocrisy reigns within them, but the pure love of rectitude flourishes, and fills their hearts, *he pronounces them, according to his clemency, to be righteous.*"

----------


## Sola_Fide

*Calvin On The "Pernicious Hypocrisy" Of Justification By Faith And Works*
By Robert Reymond
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=223




> That some serious slippage has occurred away from the classical Protestant doctrine of justification sola fide has been well documented in many religious publications. Certain teachers - Douglas Wilson, Steve Schlissel, and Steve Wilkins, 1 to name only three - have risen within confessing Reformed communions who, in concert with the errant teaching of Norman Shepherd, 2 do not endorse the doctrine of justification as enunciated by their historic church confessions and, instead of doing the honorable thing and leaving their communions, 3 are corrupting the one true law-free Gospel 4 and causing division within their communions with their teaching that the Christians justification is not by faith alone in the all-sufficient work of Jesus Christ but is rather the eschatological end result of the believers faithfulness to Christ, which faithfulness includes his imperfect works of obedience.
> 
> These teachers have rejected the clear Pauline teaching that justification is an act of Gods free grace alone by which the moment a penitent sinner places his faith in Christ God forgives him of all of his sins forever and imputes to him and hence also to his weak and imperfect ìgood worksî 5 the perfection of the obedience of his Son Jesus Christ (see Acts 13:38-39; Galatians 2:16; Romans 1:16-17; 3:21-22, 28; 4:4-15; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Ephesians 2:8-10), thereby constituting and declaring him righteous in his sight. These teachers, either minimizing or denying altogether the imputation of Christs active obedience to the believer, teach that justification is not a purely forensic declaration but a transforming activity in which the believers obedience also plays a significant role in his justification. This corrupted doctrine of justification includes within it the lie of Satan that Christs righteousness is not enough in itself to justify and that obedience on the part of the believer is also necessary for his full and final justification before God. It ignores Westminster Larger Catechism, Question 73, which states:
> 
> Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it, nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for justification, but only as it is an instrument by which he receives and applies Christ and his righteousness.
> 
> More tragically, it ignores the Apostle Pauls inspired warning that those who to any degree intermingle with their faith in Christ and his obedience their own obedience as the ground of their final justification before God
> 
> ï stand under apostolic condemnation (Galatians 1:8-9);
> ...

----------


## robert68

Its impossible to disobey if youre predetermined to act a certain way.

----------


## erowe1

> Its impossible to disobey if youre predetermined to act a certain way.


Unless it's predetermined that you disobey.

----------


## erowe1

> _ If, however, we desire to be approved by God, and accounted righteous before him, we must not only regulate our hands, and eyes, and feet, in obedience to his Law; but integrity of heart is above all things required, and holds the chief place in the true definition of righteousness. Let us, however, know that they are called just and upright, not who are in every respect perfect, and in whom there is no defect; but who cultivate righteousness purely, and from their heart. Because we are assured that God does not act towards his own people with the rigour of justice, as requiring of them a life according to the perfect rule of the Law; for, if only no hypocrisy reigns within them, but the pure love of rectitude flourishes, and fills their hearts, he pronounces them, according to his clemency, to be righteous.
> 
> John Calvin
> _
> 
> Hmmmm....heart obedience.  Now where have I heard that before?  Oh yeah! *I said it!*  The irony is that I was condemned by RPF hyper-Calvinists for it.


Could you cite where this is from?

Never mind. I found it. It's in his comments on Genesis 6:9 from his commentary on Genesis.

I notice a couple things to keep in mind about what Calvin is saying here:

1) He is commenting on Noah being called just and perfect in the Bible. He isn't necessarily talking about prerequisites for being reckoned righteous in God's final day of judgment. He may mean that as well. But it doesn't seem necessary to me.
2) These remarks on v. 9 are preceded by Calvin's remarks on v. 8, which says "Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD." Here is what Calvin says about that:



> This is a Hebrew phrase, which signifies that God was propitious to him, and favored him. For so the Hebrews are accustomed to speak: -- 'If I have found grace in thy sight,' instead of, 'If I am acceptable to thee,' or, 'If thou wilt grant me thy benevolence or favor.' Which phrase requires to be noticed, because certain unlearned men infer with futile subtlety, that if men find grace in God's sight, it is because they seek it by their own industry and merits. I acknowledge, indeed, that here Noah is declared to have been acceptable to God, because, by living uprightly and homily, he kept himself pure from the common pollutions of the world; whence, however, did he attain this integrity, but from the preventing grace of God? The commencement, therefore, of this favor was gratuitous mercy. Afterwards, the Lord, having once embraced him, retained him under his own hand, lest he should perish with the rest of the world.


http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/comm...01/htm/xii.htm

----------


## Sola_Fide

Jmdrake,

According to Paul, why did God give us His law?

----------


## jmdrake

> Could you cite where this is from?
> 
> Never mind. I found it. It's in his comments on Genesis 6:9 from his commentary on Genesis.
> 
> I notice a couple things to keep in mind about what Calvin is saying here:
> 
> 1) He is commenting on Noah being called just and perfect in the Bible. He isn't necessarily talking about prerequisites for being reckoned righteous in God's final day of judgment. He may mean that as well. But it doesn't seem necessary to me.
> 2) These remarks on v. 9 are preceded by Calvin's remarks on v. 8, which says "Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD." Here is what Calvin says about that:
> 
> http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/comm...01/htm/xii.htm


That's nice.  You're still stuck with:

_ if only no hypocrisy reigns within them, but the pure love of rectitude flourishes, and fills their hearts, he pronounces them, according to his clemency, to be righteous._

Calvin wasn't talking about Noah building a boat there.  He was drawing a larger lesson.  I know it's a lesson that you might find distasteful so you may want to deflect what's actually being said.

----------


## jmdrake

> *Calvin On The "Pernicious Hypocrisy" Of Justification By Faith And Works*
> By Robert Reymond
> http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=223


LOL.  When the Bible fails to support your view you rely on Spurgeon.  When Spurgeon fails to support your view you rely on Calvin.  When Calvin fails to support your view you rely on someone spoon feeding you Calvin 2nd hand (which is 3rd hand Bible).  You make me LOL.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Jmdrake,
> 
> According to Paul, why did God give us His law?



(hint:  its Romans chapter 5)

----------


## jmdrake

> Jmdrake,
> 
> According to Paul, why did God give us His law?


Sola_Fide: Do you realize that according to Paul their are two laws?  One is the written law which leads to death.  The other is the law of liberty inscribed in the heart.  Your error is that in trying to reject one you have rejected both.

----------


## erowe1

> That's nice.  You're still stuck with:
> 
> _ if only no hypocrisy reigns within them, but the pure love of rectitude flourishes, and fills their hearts, he pronounces them, according to his clemency, to be righteous._
> 
> Calvin wasn't talking about Noah building a boat there.  He was drawing a larger lesson.  I know it's a lesson that you might find distasteful so you may want to deflect what's actually being said.


Not really. Calvin was an important theologian, and I'd like to know more about what he said. I don't feel any obligation to agree with him about anything, and when I do disagree with him I don't see anything distasteful about it. But I want to make sure I'm not taking something out of context.

At any rate, whether Calvin intends for his remarks about v. 9 to be taken as a general principle about the doctrine of justification (and I don't say he doesn't, only that he may or may not), it still remains the case that, based on what he had just said about v. 8, he clearly sees the righteousness he described in the quote you gave as monergistic, not synergistic.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola_Fide: Do you realize that according to Paul their are two laws?  One is the written law which leads to death.  The other is the law of liberty inscribed in the heart.  Your error is that in trying to reject one you have rejected both.


In Romans chapter 5, why does Paul say the law was given?

----------


## jmdrake

> (hint:  its Romans chapter 5)


Hint if you want to know about the law you have wrongly rejected, it is in Romans 8 as well as James 1 and 2.

----------


## jmdrake

> In Romans chapter 5, why does Paul say the law was given?


What are the two laws Paul is talking about in Romans chapter 8?  Why does he distinguish them?

----------


## jmdrake

> Not really. Calvin was an important theologian, and I'd like to know more about what he said. I don't feel any obligation to agree with him about anything, and when I do disagree with him I don't see anything distasteful about it. But I want to make sure I'm not taking something out of context.
> 
> At any rate, whether Calvin intends for his remarks about v. 9 to be taken as a general principle about the doctrine of justification (and I don't say he doesn't, only that he may or may not), it still remains the case that, based on what he had just said about v. 8, he clearly sees the righteousness he described in the quote you gave as monergistic, not synergistic.


What you are missing.

*And Moses does not rashly connect these two things together; for the world, being always influenced by external splendor, estimates justice, not by the affection of the heart, but by bare works.*

Calvin is rightly pointing out the same thing Jesus said when He said:

_For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.  "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.'  "Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift._

It's the same point.  If you have "hand and feet obedience", you just stick to the letter of the law, you are not justified.  Not according to Jesus or Calvin.  Some wrongly assume that Jesus and Calvin were saying "Give up on being Holy!  Just live a garbage life but claim Christ's righteousness!"  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Jesus said "Be perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect."  He didn't say merely "Claim My perfection".  Yes we can claim Christ's perfection, but that's just the beginning of the process.  And that's where repentance comes in.  Repentance is having the *desire* to be perfect.  Sanctification comes as Christ works out His life in you.

Edit: And the main point that I'm bringing up is that Calvin is confirming what I understood on my own but was condemned for saying.  That God desires *heart obedience*.  That's all.  I didn't say anything about monergism or synergism in this particular thread.  You threw that in there.  I expect you to first learn to walk theologically before you can run.    Seriously though, it should be a simple tas for anyone objectively reading the OP to come to the conclusion that Calvin is talking about heart obedience.  Whether Calvin endorses synergism wasn't the point I was making.

----------


## erowe1

> What you are missing.
> 
> *And Moses does not rashly connect these two things together; for the world, being always influenced by external splendor, estimates justice, not by the affection of the heart, but by bare works.*


Why do you think I'm missing that?

----------


## jmdrake

> Why do you think I'm missing that?


Well neither you nor I quoted that part.  But more importantly, you're going off of a tangent.  I didn't say Calvin endorsed synergism.  I said Calvin said the same thing about heart obedience that I've said here at RPF before but was condemned by (hyper)-Calvinists for saying it.  You're so eager to get to the end of the argument that you missed the premise.

Edit: And it's fascinating that neither you nor Sola_Fide have yet to even attempt to address what I was saying regarding heart obedience as Calvin taught it.

----------


## erowe1

> Well neither you nor I quoted that part.  But more importantly, you're going off of a tangent.  I didn't say Calvin endorsed synergism.  I said Calvin said the same thing about heart obedience that I've said here at RPF before but was condemned by (hyper)-Calvinists for saying it.  You're so eager to get to the end of the argument that you missed the premise.


If somebody condemned you for saying that it probably had nothing to do with being a hyper-Calvinist.

I agree that Calvin is clearly saying that he thinks Noah's righteousness was in his heart and not just outward.

----------


## jmdrake

> If somebody condemned you for saying that it probably had nothing to do with being a hyper-Calvinist.


That someone was Sola_Fide and it had everything to do with his hyper-Calvinism.  The "hyper" in "hyper-Calvinism" simply means "beyond" as in "beyond-Calvinism".  He's going "beyond-Calvinism" in his belief system.




> I agree that Calvin is clearly saying that he thinks Noah's righteousness was in his heart and not just outward.


Yes.  But Calvin is saying more than that.  Calvin is saying that having "pure love filling the heart" is a requirement to be pronounced righteous according to God's clemency.  There is no other way to interpret what Calvin wrote!  Now, maybe you believe that God "predestines" people to have pure love filling their heart.  Fine.  That's not what I'm debating in this particular thread.  This whole argument boils down to where Sola_Fide claimed I was lost for feeling a need to obey Jesus.  Well if Jesus "predestines" me to obey Him, then wouldn't He inducing a feeling of the need to obey?  I think so.  Calvin apparently thinks so.  You might agree as well.  If so, then you aren't a hyper-Calvinist.

----------


## erowe1

> That someone was Sola_Fide and it had everything to do with his hyper-Calvinism.  The "hyper" in "hyper-Calvinism" simply means "beyond" as in "beyond-Calvinism".  He's going "beyond-Calvinism" in his belief system.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  But Calvin is saying more than that.  Calvin is saying that having "pure love filling the heart" is a requirement to be pronounced righteous according to God's clemency.  There is no other way to interpret what Calvin wrote!  Now, maybe you believe that God "predestines" people to have pure love filling their heart.  Fine.  That's not what I'm debating in this particular thread.  This whole argument boils down to where Sola_Fide claimed I was lost for feeling a need to obey Jesus.  Well if Jesus "predestines" me to obey Him, then wouldn't He inducing a feeling of the need to obey?  I think so.  Calvin apparently thinks so.  You might agree as well.  If so, then you aren't a hyper-Calvinist.


How is that going "beyond" Calvin? It seems like you could as easily say that  anyone who disagrees with Calvin on anything is a hyper-Calvinist.

Maybe you're looking at it from your vantage point, where whatever you believe is the center, and anyone who differs from you even more than Calvin does is a hyper-Calvinist.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Jmdrake,

Have you ever considered that God gave us commandments for some other reason than for us to follow them?




> Romans 5:20 NIV
> 
> The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase.


God gave us His law, not so that we could follow it, but so that our sin would increase!    Why would God give us this law that increased our sinfulness, if He wanted us to follow it to be righteous?


Maybe...just maybe...God was (and is) teaching men that they must lean on Him alone for salvation, and that salvation is a free gift, not a payment for your working.

----------


## acptulsa

> Jmdrake,
> 
> Have you ever considered that God gave us commandments for some other reason than for us to follow them?
> 
> 
> 
> God gave us His law, not so that we could follow it, but so that our sin would increase!    Why would God give us this law that increased our sinfulness, if He wanted us to follow it to be righteous?
> 
> 
> Maybe...just maybe...God was (and is) teaching men that they must lean on Him alone for salvation, and that salvation is a free gift, not a payment for your working.


Obviously, it occurred to you.  And to Orwell.  Pass so many laws that a man cannot walk down the street without violating one or two, and call it justice.

Or, perhaps, He gave us so many laws that no matter how imperfect He made us we could manage to _obey_ one or two...

I still can't forget the thing you ignore time and again--what Jesus Himself said in Matthew 25 about what criteria would seperate the Sheep from the Goats.  He still contradicts you.  And burning me at the stake the way Calvin did for those who disagreed with _him_ won't change that...

----------


## Sola_Fide

Here is one of my favorite sermons.  It is the easiest-to-understand presentation of the difference between law and gospel that I've heard.

*Condemnation Through Commandments Or Comfort From Christ:  The Law/Gospel Distinction Made Plain * 
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...ID=52205222454

If you don't understand this distinction, then you cannot understand Christianity, and you cannot understand the Bible.  It's that fundamental.

----------


## acptulsa

> If you don't understand this distinction, then you cannot understand Christianity, and you cannot understand the Bible.  It's that fundamental.


Says the guy who claims not to be a fundy...

I humored you and am listening to that sermon.  It's all review.  The law is there to prove to us we can't obey the law.  Yadda yadda.  You still aren't even saying which law you're referring to, the law of the heart or the law of sin.  And all along, I haven't even been saying anything about the law at all.  I've been saying that Matthew 25 tells us who is and who isn't saved, and that passage doesn't directly address the law at all.  Yet you won't address Matthew 25--when I bring it up, you just deflect the conversation to the law.  For someone who thinks the law is just there to be broken, you surely are obsessed with it.

Spare me.  If you could have this conversation without using the word 'law', we might get somewhere.

'Law messages' vs. 'grace messages' as a litmus test.  Merciful Lord.  Rather than spending my time trying to categorize everything that comes my way as a 'law message' or a 'grace message' and considering whether to be Calvinist enough to burn those who disagree at the stake, I'd rather spend my time trying to move my heart to the right place so I can better walk with God.  You may suit yourself...

----------


## jmdrake

> How is that going "beyond" Calvin? It seems like you could as easily say that  anyone who disagrees with Calvin on anything is a hyper-Calvinist.


Before I respond, are you even familiar with the term "hyper-Calvinist"?




> Maybe you're looking at it from your vantage point, where whatever you believe is the center, and anyone who differs from you even more than Calvin does is a hyper-Calvinist.


Someone taking Calvinism beyond where even Calvin went with it is, by definition, a hyper-Calvinist.  It doesn't matter where my "vantage point" is.  It's a term Calvinists use with each other.

----------


## jmdrake

LOLz.  When all else fails find a sermon and post it even though nobody you are disagreeing with will listen.  Whatever dude.




> Here is one of my favorite sermons.  It is the easiest-to-understand presentation of the difference between law and gospel that I've heard.
> 
> *Condemnation Through Commandments Or Comfort From Christ:  The Law/Gospel Distinction Made Plain * 
> http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...ID=52205222454
> 
> If you don't understand this distinction, then you cannot understand Christianity, and you cannot understand the Bible.  It's that fundamental.

----------


## erowe1

> Before I respond, are you even familiar with the term "hyper-Calvinist"?


Yes. I've never seen it applied to what you're applying it to here before.




> Someone taking Calvinism beyond where even Calvin went with it is, by definition, a hyper-Calvinist.  It doesn't matter where my "vantage point" is.  It's a term Calvinists use with each other.


This is just a case of someone saying something different than Calvin. I don't see how it's taking Calvinism beyond where even Calvin took it. You could just as easily call SF hypo-Calvinist, and describe his view as not going as far as Calvin did.

----------


## jmdrake

> Jmdrake,
> 
> Have you ever considered that God gave us commandments for some other reason than for us to follow them?


Sola_Fide, have you ever considered that there is more than one law?  No.  You haven't.  Even though I've pointed this out to you *in Paul's writings multiple times*. 




> God gave us His law, not so that we could follow it, but so that our sin would increase!    Why would God give us this law that increased our sinfulness, if He wanted us to follow it to be righteous?


If I answer your question will you be honorable and answer mine?  I'm not holding my breath, but here goes.

When someone goes against the law of God in ignorance, even if it isn't held against that person as "sin", that person is hurting himself and possibly others.  There are always negative consequences for not doing things God's way.  Let's take the sanitary laws given by Moses which include having your bathroom away from your camp.  If someone didn't know about that and dug a latrine next to his tent was he "sinning"?  Not according to Romans 5.  Is that healthy?  Not according to modern science.  By bringing the law the "trespass increases" because people are made aware of what they were doing.  That made them accountable for their actions.  But God didn't leave people without hope under the law of sin and death.  He gave the law of the Spirit.  The law of liberty that brings life.  *Do you know the difference between the two laws?*




> Maybe...just maybe...God was (and is) teaching men that they must lean on Him alone for salvation, and that salvation is a free gift, not a payment for your working.


Or maybe, just maybe, God knew that man was destroying himself breaking the law in ignorance and in love He wanted man to realize this and repent.  What happened when King Josiah found the book of the law?  He repented.  God honored that repentance.  Repentance is not "payment" for salvation.  It's the term of accepting the free gift.  I've explained to you already that a gift is still a gift even if you accept it, yet you persist in the error that somehow acceptance = payment.  Why is that?

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes. I've never seen it applied to what you're applying it to here before.
> 
> This is just a case of someone saying something different than Calvin. I don't see how it's taking Calvinism beyond where even Calvin took it. You could just as easily call SF hypo-Calvinist, and describe his view as not going as far as Calvin did.


Well I disagree and I'll leave it at that.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes.  But Calvin is saying more than that.  Calvin is saying that having "pure love filling the heart" is a requirement to be pronounced righteous according to God's clemency.  There is no other way to interpret what Calvin wrote!  Now, maybe you believe that God "predestines" people to have pure love filling their heart.  Fine.  That's not what I'm debating in this particular thread.  This whole argument boils down to where Sola_Fide claimed I was lost for feeling a need to obey Jesus.  Well if Jesus "predestines" me to obey Him, then wouldn't He inducing a feeling of the need to obey?  I think so.  Calvin apparently thinks so.  You might agree as well.  If so, then you aren't a hyper-Calvinist.


Still waiting for someone to address ^this.  Forget the "hyper-Calvinist" distraction.

----------


## erowe1

> Still waiting for someone to address ^this.  Forget the "hyper-Calvinist" distraction.


I'm not an expert on Calvin. But I assume that he wouldn't say that feeling a need to obey Jesus means you're lost.

----------


## jmdrake

> Says the guy who claims not to be a fundy...
> 
> I humored you and am listening to that sermon.  It's all review.  The law is there to prove to us we can't obey the law.  Yadda yadda.  *You still aren't even saying which law you're referring to, the law of the heart or the law of sin.*


And ^that is the key problem of Calvinism at least as pushed by Sola_Fide!  And it's why he refuses to answer my question about the two laws.  His theology revolves around conflating the law of the Spirit that Paul said brings life with the written law that Paul said brings death.  Repentance is part of the law that brings life.

----------


## moostraks

> Here is one of my favorite sermons.  It is the easiest-to-understand presentation of the difference between law and gospel that I've heard.
> 
> *Condemnation Through Commandments Or Comfort From Christ:  The Law/Gospel Distinction Made Plain * 
> http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...ID=52205222454
> 
> If you don't understand this distinction, then you cannot understand Christianity, and you cannot understand the Bible.  It's that fundamental.


Why are the Reformed right in their beliefs but the tradition of the Church in defining the understanding of the Scriptures is so wrong? Oh, if the Reformed define who is a Christian according to disagreeing/agreeing with them then they can insure that funds are directed to their own cofers. I love the doctrines wherein one is to use scripture alone but it requires you to use your church tradition to properly understand and be saved.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> When someone goes against the law of God in ignorance, even if it isn't held against that person as "sin", that person is hurting himself and possibly others.  There are always negative consequences for not doing things God's way.  Let's take the sanitary laws given by Moses which include having your bathroom away from your camp.  If someone didn't know about that and dug a latrine next to his tent was he "sinning"?  Not according to Romans 5.  Is that healthy?  Not according to modern science.  By bringing the law the "trespass increases" because people are made aware of what they were doing.  That made them accountable for their actions.  But God didn't leave people without hope under the law of sin and death.  He gave the law of the Spirit.  The law of liberty that brings life.  *Do you know the difference between the two laws?*



Yes.  I know the difference between justification and sanctification.  You don't yet.  You keep constantly confusing the two, and _that_ is what causes you to believe in works-salvationism.  Please read and understand the difference between what God does on the cross and what God does in the heart.  If you don't understand what the difference between the two are, you will not understand Christianity, and you will be lost.. I mean this...and I hope you never forget what I'm telling you right now.  Please read:

http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=165




> Sanctification is what God does in the believer; itis not the good works of the believer. Important as they are, neither sanctification nor good works is the basis of salvation or the foundation of the Christians hope. Sanctification, of course, is a work of Gods grace, but it is the result of a more fundamental act of grace. Unless sanctification is rooted in justification, and justification in election, sanctification cannot escape the poisons of subjectivism, moralism, or Pharisaism.
> 
> Sinful reasoning might tell us that what God does in changing the heart of the sinner is the most important thing God could possibly do in the salvation process. This contention is the heart of Roman Catholic soteriology, and it must be admitted that the overwhelming preoccupation of neo-evangelicalism today is its message of being saved by letting Christ come into your heart, by being born again, etc. It is neo-evangelical Romanism. The great truth of justification by faith alone, however, does not deal with the acts of God within the believer, but with the saving acts of God outside the believer.
> 
> First, the reason for a mans acceptance with God unto life eternal is sheer grace: being justified freely by his grace (Romans 3:24). The Greek word here translated freely is elsewhere translated without cause. Gods grace is not conditioned on any quality in the human heart or life. So far is it from relating to a quality within man that the apostle declares that this grace ... was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began (2 Timothy 1:9). Grace is a quality in Gods heart, his disposition to be kind and merciful to those who are lost and undeserving. Grace means Gods attribute of accepting those who are unacceptable-including those whom he has sanctified.
> 
> Yet God cannot allow his grace to override his justice. The rule of law must be upheld. God must have valid grounds to forgive sinners and to accept them as righteous. Those grounds are also completely outside of us: being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (Romans 3:24).
> 
> Christs living and dying are the sole grounds of Gods being able to judge us and treat us as righteous. This is being justified by Christ (Galatians 2:1). The Gospel proclaims that sinners are saved by the objective, concrete acts of God in history. This is an action that is so far outside the sinner that it happened two thousand years ago. This is Christianity. It is the only truly historical religion. All other religions teach that salvation is found in some process within the worshiper, and consequently the worshipers supreme preoccupation is with his internal experience. Christianity alone proclaims a salvation which is found in an event outside the believer.
> ...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why are the Reformed right in their beliefs but the tradition of the Church in defining the understanding of the Scriptures is so wrong? Oh, if the Reformed define who is a Christian according to disagreeing/agreeing with them then they can insure that funds are directed to their own cofers. I love the doctrines wherein one is to use scripture alone but it requires you to use your church tradition to properly understand and be saved.


If you listen to the audio I posted, he explains exactly what this confusion of law and gospel did to the church in the middle ages.  Because the gospel of free grace was lost (and the strict demands of the law were lost), the church perverted the gospel into a message that basically said Jesus was a kindler, gentler Moses, who came to give us new laws to follow.  This was not Paul's gospel.  

So I don't care what tradition "the church" has, if any church doesn't preach the gospel that Paul preached, then they are not preaching the gospel of Jesus.  "The Church" very early in its existence drifted away from a proper distinction of law and gospel.  The audio I posted is really helpful in this area.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes.  I know the difference between justification and sanctification.  You don't yet.  You keep constantly confusing the two, and _that_ is what causes you to believe in works-salvationism.


Yes I do.  You do not.  Justification is God declaring a sinner to be righteous.  Sanctification is God working in the sinner's life to transform the sinner to His image.  And I don't need to waste my time reading or listening to some stupid sermon that you've cherry picked because you think it agrees with you to know the truth.

This is justification Sola_Fide *he pronounces them, according to his clemency, to be righteous*.  You know what the word "clemency" means right?

_Definition of CLEMENCY
1
a : disposition to be merciful and especially to moderate the severity of punishment due
b : an act or instance of leniency
2
: pleasant mildness of weather_ 

God pronouncing a sinner righteous, Go granting "clemency" is justification, not sanctification.

----------


## jmdrake

> If you listen to the audio I posted, he explains exactly what this confusion of law and gospel did to the church in the middle ages.  Because the gospel of free grace was lost (and the strict demands of the law were lost), the church perverted the gospel into a message that basically said Jesus was a kindler, gentler Moses, who came to give us new laws to follow.  This was not Paul's gospel.  
> 
> So I don't care what tradition "the church" has, if any church doesn't preach the gospel that Paul preached, then they are not preaching the gospel of Jesus "The Church" very early in its existence drifted away from a proper distinction of law and gospel.  The audio I posted is really helpful in this area.


Once again, you don't understand, and you won't even acknowledge the *fact* that there are two different laws.  Until you do, you will remain hopelessly confused.

----------


## robert68

> Unless it's predetermined that you disobey.


It’s impossible to disobey without having a choice to do so.

Asks the the teacher to the school bully who keeps beating up other students for the fun of it: “Why do you keep beating up the other kids?" The school bully replies: “I was predetermined to do it by God, it’s not my fault.”

----------


## erowe1

> It’s impossible to disobey without having a choice to do so.


Just because your choice is predetermined doesn't mean it isn't a choice (and even if it did mean that, I don't think that your rule would apply, since someone can still disobey without choosing to).

I would turn around your story about the bully and say that it's only his fault if it is predetermined. It is he who beats up the other kids, he, an individual, with his own nature, and behavior that results from that nature. It is not the case that his decisions just happen to him without any prior cause. If they did, he could say they weren't his fault, that he's a victim of some haphazard will. Of course it's true that he is not the ultimate cause of them, since something prior to him must have determined what his nature would be, but he is still the proximate cause. And he wouldn't even be that if it weren't the case that his nature determined what his choices would be.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yes I do.  You do not.  Justification is God declaring a sinner to be righteous.  Sanctification is God working in the sinner's life to transform the sinner to His image.  And I don't need to waste my time reading or listening to some stupid sermon that you've cherry picked because you think it agrees with you to know the truth.
> 
> This is justification Sola_Fide *he pronounces them, according to his clemency, to be righteous*.  You know what the word "clemency" means right?
> 
> _Definition of CLEMENCY
> 1
> a : disposition to be merciful and especially to moderate the severity of punishment due
> b : an act or instance of leniency
> 2
> ...




There is no amount of sanctification that a person can undergo to attain the perfection that the law demands.  Even if a sinner became a Christian and became perfectly sanctified, he has still sinned in his life, and the law demands a LIFE of perfect obedience (the kind of life Jesus lived).

Sanctification does not save a man.  This is the error of Rome and it is why the Reformers rejected this false gospel.  It was all about the issue of justification.   Salvation does not depend on what God does in the heart, it depends on what God does on the cross.  God could save (and does save) countless people who have no sanctification in their life before they die (babies, deathbed conversions, the thief on the cross).

If you read my article or listened to my sermon, you would understand where I'm coming from.  I think you should at least understand where I'm coming from.  I know exactly where you are coming from. I know every argument you make even before you make it.

----------


## jmdrake

> There is no amount of sanctification that a person can undergo to attain the perfection that the law demands.  Even if a sinner became a Christian and became perfectly sanctified, he has still sinned in his life, and the law demands a LIFE of perfect obedience (the kind of life Jesus lived).


Do you always try to change the subject when you're losing an argument?  

Of course there is no amount of sanctification that a person can do to make up for what he's already done.  That's the point of *clemency*.  You know "he pronounces them, according to his clemency, to be righteous".  Justification is spiritual clemency.  God declares you righteous even though you haven't done anything to deserve being called righteous.  Clemency is mercy.  Clemency is grace.  Now we can debate later as to whether or not there are any terms to receiving clemency.  But don't try to change the subject to sanctification.  I'm not confusing the two.  You are.  Clemency is not sanctification.  Clemency is justification.




> If you read my article or listened to my sermon, you would understand where I'm coming from.  I think you should at least understand where I'm coming from.


I know where you're coming from.  You are attempting to obfuscate the truth.




> I know exactly where you are coming from. I know every argument you make even before you make it.


 And now you're claiming to be God!

It's really simple Sola_Fide.  Do you understand the definition of clemency or don't you?  Do you think God declaring someone to be righteous to be justification or sanctification?  It's a simple question.  And no.  I'm not going to listen to your stupid sermon.  Especially since you can't answer simple question or stick to the point being made in the discussion.  I'm not letting you waste my time like that.

----------


## robert68

> Just because your choice is predetermined doesn't mean it isn't a choice (and even if it did mean that, I don't think that your rule would apply, since someone can still disobey without choosing to).
> 
> I would turn around your story about the bully and say that it's only his fault if it is predetermined. It is he who beats up the other kids, he, an individual, with his own nature, and behavior that results from that nature. It is not the case that his decisions just happen to him without any prior cause. If they did, he could say they weren't his fault, that he's a victim of some haphazard will. Of course it's true that he is not the ultimate cause of them, since something prior to him must have determined what his nature would be, but he is still the proximate cause. And he wouldn't even be that if it weren't the case that his nature determined what his choices would be.


Its not clear to me if youre saying the school bullys statement that its not his fault is correct. Is it or isnt it?

----------


## erowe1

> It’s not clear to me if you’re saying the school bully’s statement that “it’s not his fault” is correct. Is it or isn’t it?


If his choice is not predetermined, then his statement would be true. In that case, it could not be his fault, since his action would be uncaused, and, thus, it could not be the case that he caused it.

In order for his statement to be false, and for his action to be his fault, it must be the case that he caused his action. And if his action has a cause, that means it was predetermined.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Do you always try to change the subject when you're losing an argument?  
> 
> Of course there is no amount of sanctification that a person can do to make up for what he's already done.  That's the point of *clemency*.  You know "he pronounces them, according to his clemency, to be righteous".  Justification is spiritual clemency.  God declares you righteous even though you haven't done anything to deserve being called righteous.  Clemency is mercy.  Clemency is grace.  Now we can debate later as to whether or not there are any terms to receiving clemency.  But don't try to change the subject to sanctification.  I'm not confusing the two.  You are.  Clemency is not sanctification.  Clemency is justification.
> 
> 
> 
> I know where you're coming from.  You are attempting to obfuscate the truth.
> 
> 
> ...


Justification happens on the cross, not in the heart.  What happens in the heart is sanctification.

Justification happens outside of a man (on the cross), sanctification happens inside a man (in his heart).

Justification is the ground of salvation, not sanctification.  Sanctification cannot be the ground of salvation because there is no amount of sanctification that a man can undergo to be righteous.  The law demands a LIFE of perfect obedience (the kind that Jesus lived).

You are engaging in the same error as cultists (you are a cultist if you are a Seventh Day Adventist) and Roman Catholics...you are confusing justification with sanctification.  You are saying the ground of salvation is what is done in the heart, not is what is done on the cross.  That is not Paul's gospel.

You really should read my article.  At least you would understand where I'm coming from.  As of now, you still don't know.

----------


## jmdrake

> Justification happens on the cross, not in the heart.  What happens in the heart is sanctification.


The definition of justification versus sanctification is what it is, not where it happens.  Again if you can't answer the simple question about clemency, then it's because you are avoiding the truth.





> You are engaging in the same error as cultists (you are a cultist if you are a Seventh Day Adventist) and Roman Catholics...you are confusing justification with sanctification.  You are saying the ground of salvation is what is done in the heart, not is what is done on the cross.  That is not Paul's gospel.


When all else fails rely on name calling.  Then when I respond in kind complain about my name calling.  Again is clemency justification or sanctification?  I care not whether this is "Paul's gospel".  Paul didn't have a gospel.  Jesus did.  And neither Paul nor Jesus use the word "clemency".  Calvin did.  The question is, do you understand the meaning of the word?




> You really should read my article.  At least you would understand where I'm coming from.  As of now, you still don't know.


You really should answer my question about clemency.  That will either expose your ignorance or your dishonesty.  Beyond that I don't care to know where you are coming from.  I know where you are going and it ain't glory.

----------


## acptulsa

> You really should read my article.  At least you would understand where I'm coming from.  As of now, you still don't know.


No, it's you who don't know where I am coming from.

I understand where you're coming from, I don't believe you, and I don't want to go there.

Now do you understand?

----------


## jmdrake

> No, it's you who don't know where I am coming from.
> 
> I understand where you're coming from, I don't believe you, and I don't want to go there.
> 
> Now do you understand?


This conversation reminds me of the one I had with Sola_Fide when I proved that Charles Spurgeon agreed with me and not him on repentance.  At first Sola_Fide was all "You don't understand Spurgeon".  Then he tried to change the subject.  Then he resorted to ad hominems.  Then, failing in all that, he simply declared that Charles Spurgeon was wrong in that instance.  I'm expecting him to do the same with Calvin.  Although that would make his head explode.  So instead he'll just pretend that the word "clemency" was never used in the context where Calvin used it.  I expect him to stick with the name calling and keep badgering me about watching some stupid sermon that has nothing to do with the simply question of whether clemency is justification or sanctification.  Anyone with any theological understanding knows the answer.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The definition of justification versus sanctification is what it is, not where it happens.  .


No.  This is THE question.  This is the ONLY question.

Rome's error (and yours right now) is that justification happens in man's heart.  This is a false gospel because it brings man's work into the process of justification.

Paul's gospel is that justification happens OUTSIDE of a man, on Calvary's cross, apart from man's work.

You don't even know right now what the issues are and you're acting like an arrogant, boastful man in how you are debating the issues.  If I asked you what the primary issue of the Reformation was, could you tell me? I'm guessing that you couldnt.

----------


## erowe1

> So instead he'll just pretend that the word "clemency" was never used in the context where Calvin used it.


That context being Calvin's comments on Genesis 6:9, where the Bible calls Noah perfect and just.

----------


## jmdrake

> No.  This is THE question.  This is the ONLY question.


Wrong.




> Rome's error (and yours right now) is that justification happens in man's heart.  This is a false gospel because it brings man's work into the process of justification.


We don't even get to whether that's an error unless we agree first on what justification *is*.  And furthermore that has nothing to do with whether man's works have anything to do with it.  God works where He will.  If He works entirely in man's heart (and I didn't say that, you did) then that doesn't change what He does.  Your argument is like someone asking what was the significance of Jesus death and you insisting on arguing which hill it happened on.  Justification is when God declares a person to be righteous.  You don't like what Calvin said in regards to that so you'll ignore that and try to move on to another part of the conversation.

You are dishonest in that you don't want to deal with what justification *is* because you know it will condemn your belief system.




> You don't even know right now what the issues are and you're acting like an arrogant, boastful man in how you are debating the issues.  If I asked you what the primary issue of the Reformation was, could you tell me? I'm guessing that you couldnt.


Arrogant?  Boastful?  Look in the mirror!  You are the one who just claimed equality with God in claiming to know my thoughts!  (You don't by the way).  And yes I know what the primary issue of the reformation was.  And I know what you believe it was.  But you can't tell me whether God declaring man righteous is justification or sanctification.  Actually you can tell me but you want because you are dishonest.

----------


## jmdrake

> That context being Calvin's comments on Genesis 6:9, where the Bible calls Noah perfect and just.


The context being Calvin applying that same concept to all men, not just Noah.  Nice try.

----------


## jmdrake

Sola_Fide: I've answered your question now answer mine or admit your cowardice.  What is the proper theological term for God declaring man righteous?  Justification or sanctification?  What is the proper theological term for God transforming man's character?  Justification or sanctification?  I know the answer to both of those questions.  The question is, do you?

----------


## jmdrake

Such a good quote deserves repeating.

_If, however, we desire to be approved by God, and accounted righteous before him, we must not only regulate our hands, and eyes, and feet, in obedience to his Law; but integrity of heart is above all things required, and holds the chief place in the true definition of righteousness. Let us, however, know that they are called just and upright, not who are in every respect perfect, and in whom there is no defect; but who cultivate righteousness purely, and from their heart. Because we are assured that God does not act towards his own people with the rigour of justice, as requiring of them a life according to the perfect rule of the Law; for, if only no hypocrisy reigns within them, but the pure love of rectitude flourishes, and fills their hearts, he pronounces them, according to his clemency, to be righteous.

John Calvin_

----------


## erowe1

> The context being Calvin applying that same concept to all men, not just Noah.  Nice try.


All who are called just and upright. And the context of that is being called those things in the Bible, like Noah was, as were others, such as Job.

Calvin's point about clemency is that, when the Bible says this about someone, it's not making an absolute claim that they lived their lives without a single moral failing. But he's not talking about Pauline justification here. And if what he says here contradicts what he says about that topic elsewhere, then the context of this should be taken into account.

I don't think Calvin is saying that any person ever has been or ever will be saved by living a living a righteous life in the sense that Noah did. For someone to be saved by their own righteousness, they would have to live a perfect life, such that what Calvin says about Noah could not be said of them, but that in their case there was no moral failing at any time, and no need for clemency. I'm pretty sure Calvin said this as well.

----------


## fr33

Calvin, Luther, who cares... Two men that burned people at the stake. I don't consider them moral authorities since they enforced thought crimes with tortuous capital punishment. I consider them immoral.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> When all else fails rely on name calling.  Then when I respond in kind complain about my name calling.  Again is clemency justification or sanctification?  I care not whether this is "Paul's gospel".


Name-calling is not wrong if it is accurate.  Seventh Day Adventists teach justification by Sabbath-keeping, therefore it is a false gospel of works-salvationism.






> Paul didn't have a gospel.  Jesus did.





> 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 NIV
> 
> Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 
> 
> For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,


If you do not believe that salvation is because of Christ dying on the cross, then you are believing a false gospel.  The gospel is declarative, not imperative.  It declares something that has already been done on behalf of the elect, it does not require you to do anything and it does not concern itself with what happens in the heart.  What happens in the heart is sanctification, not justification.  

*Sanctification is not the gospel.  I don't care how many times you say it, its not true...it is a false gospel.  Paul says the gospel is Christ on the cross.*





> You really should answer my question about clemency.


No thanks.  I don't care.  I don't know enough about the context of what he was talking about and I don't even care if Calvin or any other man has said something wrong on these issues.  Reformed men throughout the ages have said things or held positions that were sub-biblical (Im not saying that Calvin here did, because I don't know enough about what he was talking about).

Read this.  Reformed men are not always consistent:

*A History Of Hypo-Calvinism*
by Marc D. Carpenter
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=161

----------


## jmdrake

> All who are called just and upright *by God*. And the context of that is being called those things in the Bible, like Noah was, as were others, such as Job.


Fixed it for you.




> Calvin's point about clemency is that, when the Bible says this about someone, it's not making an absolute claim that they lived their lives without a single moral failing. But he's not talking about Pauline justification here. And if what he says here contradicts what he says about that topic elsewhere, then the context of this should be taken into account.


Paul's gospel....Pauline justification.  That's making Paul into God.  The point is that anyone who is declared righteous by God is righteous before God.  Anyone who is not declared righteous before God is not righteous before God.  It's really that simple.  




> I don't think Calvin is saying that any person ever has been or ever will be saved by living a living a righteous life in the sense that Noah did. For someone to be saved by their own righteousness, they would have to live a perfect life, such that what Calvin says about Noah could not be said of them, but that in their case there was no moral failing at any time, and no need for clemency. I'm pretty sure Calvin said this as well.


I don't think so either.  I'm not saying Calvin said that.  I didn't make any claim about what Calvin said other than he was clearly talking about justification, because the definition of justification is being declared righteous by God.

Focus on what Calvin said as opposed to what you *think* I meant by posting what he said.

_Because we are assured that God does not act towards his own people with the rigour of justice, as requiring of them a life according to the perfect rule of the Law_

There Calvin is saying something quite different than someone "will be saved by living a living a righteous life in the sense that Noah did".

Read further:

_if only no hypocrisy reigns within them, but the pure love of rectitude flourishes, and fills their hearts, he pronounces them, according to his clemency, to be righteous._

Now, to be clearer on the subject, look at when Jesus declared the publican justified.

Luke 18:13,14

_ 13 The tax collector, however, stood far off and would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, be merciful to me, sinner that I am!’ 14 I tell you that this man went down to his home justified rather than the Pharisee. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”_  

Sola_Fide wants to concentrate on where justification took place.  But look at *when* Jesus declared it took place.  The publican didn't come to the temple justified.  Nor did he have to wait for Jesus death on the cross to be justified.  He *left* justified!  Jesus isn't talking about Noah either.    Now how can this be?  How could the publican be justified before Jesus was crucified?  Well the answer is that Jesus was slain "from the foundation of the world".  In other words, before Adam sinned, Jesus paid the price for sin.  One thing that Sola_Fide got *right* in another thread is that God exists in all times.  But when was the publican justified according to Jesus?  At repentance.  All of the sermons, all of the arguments, all of the name calling cannot erase the words of Jesus.  

But there are some sins forgiven before repentance.  Those are the ones done in ignorance.  Without the knowledge of the law there is no sin.  Jesus said "Father forgive them *for they know not what they do*".  I used to think "That was nice of Jesus to say."  Now I understand those words had meaning.  While the priests and rulers knew what they were doing, many in the crowd did not.  Luke says that when Jesus died and it sunk in to these people what they did the "smote their breasts".  That's the same language Jesus used to describe the actions of the publican.  On the day of Pentacost Peter preached to many of these same people and told them what they did and how God "winked at their ignorance" but now "calls all to repentance".  Many repented that day and were saved.  That's a perfect example of the two laws.  As Peter expounded on Moses and the prophets predicting Jesus it convicted the crowd of their sin and that they were under the penalty of death for killing God's son.  When the law of liberty was offered to them through repentance many accepted and were saved.

Now, we can debate all day whether the publican was "predestined" to repent.  We can debate all day whether the crowd was overcome by "irresistible grace" and repented.  We can debate whether they were forced to repent or did so through their own free will.  But there's no mistaking what Jesus said.  The publican was justified when he repented.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> We don't even know whether that's an error unless we agree first on what justification *is*.  And furthermore that has nothing to do with whether man's works have anything to do with it.  God works where He will.  If He works entirely in man's heart (and I didn't say that, you did) then that doesn't change what He does.  Your argument is like someone asking what was the significance of Jesus death and you insisting on arguing which hill it happened on.  Justification is when God declares a person to be righteous.  You don't like what Calvin said in regards to that so you'll ignore that and try to move on to another part of the conversation.


God declares a person righteous AT THE CROSS.  Justification does not happen in a man's heart.  Justification happens OUTSIDE of a man.  

Sanctification is what happens in a justified believer's heart.  Sanctification is not justification.  Sanctification is not salvation.  The ground of salvation is not what God does in the heart of a justified believer.  It is not possible that a person can be sanctified enough to fulfill the demands of the law.

The gospel is what Jesus accomplished on the cross.  The gospel IS NOT what God does in the heart of a justified believer.







> You are dishonest in that you don't want to deal with what justification *is* because you know it will condemn your belief system.


....With this....I'm just really at a loss for words....  I don't even know what to say after this.....

----------


## erowe1

> Paul's gospel....Pauline justification.  That's making Paul into God.


No it's not. The discussion is about what Calvin believed, which is something hundreds of monographs have been written on, if not thousands. It's not something that boils down to one crucial statement in his comments on Genesis 6:9. All I'm saying is that what he says in that context may not apply to what he would say about justification in a pauline context.

I am pretty sure that Calvin would say (or at least he did say things to this effect in other writings) that Noah was justified in the final judgment entirely because of Christ's righteousness, and not in the slightest bit because of what Genesis 6:9 says, and that no one ever has been or ever will be justified in the sense that Paul talks about by way of a righteousness like what Calvin describes in the quote you gave, but that people who have no more righteousness than that will be condemned to Hell.

----------


## acptulsa

James 4:11-12  Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?

And _still_, on the Judgement Day, will we all say the same thing:  'Lord, when did we see You...?  For both Sheep and Goats say, 'Baaa!'  But it just doesn't sound the same.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Originally Posted by *jmdrake*
> 
> Paul's gospel....Pauline justification. That's making Paul into God.


No it isn't.  And by the way, I am more than happy to drive a wedge in between the Romanism youre preaching here and the gospel of free grace that Paul preached.  

I am going to quote Romans and Galatians until you know that what you believe is not what Paul believes.

----------


## jmdrake

> Name-calling is not wrong if it is accurate.  Seventh Day Adventists teach justification by Sabbath-keeping, therefore it is a false gospel of works-salvationism.


Your telling the same lies over and over again does not make it true.  Seventh Day Adventists teach the Sabbath is just one of God's ten commandments.  You are condemned by breaking any of God's law.  You (Sola_Fide) admitted that yourself.  But the written law cannot save.  It can only condemn.  Seventh Day Adventists teach justification through repentance (Repent for the remission of sins) and acceptance of God's grace (For by grace are ye saved through faith).  You are fooling no one but yourself.  Do you believe you believe you are justified by honoring your parents?  I hope not.  Do you think that gives you license to dishonor your parents?  I hope not.  The Sabbath is no different for Seventh Day Adventists.  Anyone who tells you otherwise, even an ex Seventh Day Adventist, is either mis informed or lying.




> If you do not believe that salvation is because of Christ dying on the cross, then you are believing a false gospel.


When did you stop beating your wife?  




> The gospel is declarative, not imperative.


Right!  God *declaring you to be righteous* is justification!  That is the definition of *clemency*!  Now why can't you just be a man and admit that?




> *Sanctification is not the gospel.  I don't care how many times you say it, its not true...it is a false gospel.  Paul says the gospel is Christ on the cross.*


The gospel literally means "good news" and sanctification is good news.  All aspects of Christ's life were good news.  When He was born the angels declared to the shepherds it was "good news".  So limiting the "good news" to just one aspect of Christ's life isn't what Paul meant.  That said, consider this from Romans 10.

_13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
_

Hmmmmm....a command to "call upon the Lord" to be saved.  A lament that some "have not *obeyed* the gospel."  How do you obey something that is merely declarative?  Perhaps the "Romanist/Arminianist Charles Spurgeon" has the answer.

_While the gospel is a command, it is a two-fold command explaining itself. "Repent ye, and believe the gospel."

Charles Spurgeon
_

Oh...but you think that's where Spurgeon departed from the "true gospel" right?  Let's see.  How about what the website Reformationtheology.com has to say?

_John Samson showed me this piece on seperate blog entitled
"I don't want to be a hyper-Calvinist"

Here are a few of my comments on it:

The author of this piece is struggling with the following question: If the gospel is an offer how can it really be sincere since only the elect will be regenerated?

Response: According to the witness of Scripture itself, the gospel is nowhere clearly presented as merely an offer, but as a divine command. There is no clear indication from the Text anywhere that we are simply "offering" the gospel to people. We, rather, plead with people to obey the Divine command to believe in His Son. There is explicit Scriptural evidence that the Gospel is a command. Here are some key texts:

"Truly these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent." -Acts 17:30

"And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ..." - 1 John 3:23

Not only do these texts explicitly affirm that the gospel is a command, but we should take note that the Gospel has every characteristic of a command. Just like commandments throughout the Bible, the command to believe the Gospel is accompanied by covenant blessings for obedience and covenant curses for disobedience. And like a biblical covenant it is accompanied by the shedding of blood. On the other hand, a gift held out as a mere offer does not usually threaten consequences for refusing it._ 

Hmmm....these aren't Seventh Day Adventists.  They aren't Catholics.  They aren't Mormons or Hindus or any other group.  So even many of your fellow "reformed" Christians recognize the gospel as a command.




> No thanks.  I don't care.  I don't know enough about the context of what he was talking about and I don't even care if Calvin or any other man has said something wrong on these issues.  Reformed men throughout the ages have said things or held positions that were sub-biblical (Im not saying that Calvin here did, because I don't know enough about what he was talking about).
> 
> Read this.  Reformed men are not always consistent:


Of course not.  You (Sola_Fide) have been very inconsistent.  In fact, that's my point.  Your whole belief system is one big fallacious inconsistency.  Yet you have the nerve to try to condemn others, or worse to put yourself in the position of God.

----------


## jmdrake

> I am going to quote Romans and Galatians until you know that what you believe is not what Paul believes.


You're only going to selectively quote it.  You will ignore the part where Paul laments in Romans 10 that some people didn't obey the gospel because you really don't believe what Paul believed.  And you certainly won't quote Jesus.

----------


## jmdrake

> No it's not. The discussion is about what Calvin believed, which is something hundreds of monographs have been written on, if not thousands. It's not something that boils down to one crucial statement in his comments on Genesis 6:9. All I'm saying is that what he says in that context may not apply to what he would say about justification in a pauline context.
> 
> I am pretty sure that Calvin would say (or at least he did say things to this effect in other writings) that Noah was justified in the final judgment entirely because of Christ's righteousness, and not in the slightest bit because of what Genesis 6:9 says, and that no one ever has been or ever will be justified in the sense that Paul talks about by way of a righteousness like what Calvin describes in the quote you gave, but that people who have no more righteousness than that will be condemned to Hell.


God declaring Noah righteous is God declaring Noah righteous.  Christ's righteousness was applied to Noah way back in Genesis 6:9 because Christ had already died for Noah since Christ was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.  Your trying to make this an "either or" is what's confusing you.  Clemency is having your wrongs forgiven.  Jesus declared that the publican was justified before the cross because the cross was literally before the world.  The same goes for Noah and Gen 6:9.

----------


## erowe1

> God declaring Noah righteous is God declaring Noah righteous.  Christ's righteousness was applied to Noah way back in Genesis 6:9 because Christ had already died for Noah since Christ was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.


It's fine that you think that. That doesn't mean that's what Calvin was saying in that quote.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Your telling the same lies over and over again does not make it true.  Seventh Day Adventists teach the Sabbath is just one of God's ten commandments.  You are condemned by breaking any of God's law.  You (Sola_Fide) admitted that yourself.  But the written law cannot save.  It can only condemn.  Seventh Day Adventists teach justification through repentance (Repent for the remission of sins) and acceptance of God's grace (For by grace are ye saved through faith).  You are fooling no one but yourself.  Do you believe you believe you are justified by honoring your parents?  I hope not.  Do you think that gives you license to dishonor your parents?  I hope not.  The Sabbath is no different for Seventh Day Adventists.  Anyone who tells you otherwise, even an ex Seventh Day Adventist, is either mis informed or lying.
> 
> 
> 
> When did you stop beating your wife?  
> 
> 
> 
> Right!  God *declaring you to be righteous* is justification!  That is the definition of *clemency*!  Now why can't you just be a man and admit that?
> ...


The command to believe the gospel is just that....a command.

The command to repent is just that...a command.

Whenever you see a command in the Scripture, that is THE LAW.  Whenever you see a promise of God, that is THE GOSPEL.

The law is what God requires of man.  The Gospel is what God has done (past tense) on behalf of men.


The theme of law/gospel, faith/works, letter/Spirit, are concepts that are found all throughout the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.  You are so confused you don't even know where to begin.  I warned you that you should at least try to understand where I'm coming from by reading the articles I sent to you.  Right now, you don't even know what the difference between the law and the gospel is....but you are acting like a pompous man.  One day when you actually understand the law/gospel distinction, you may be regretful of how arrogant you were without knowing what you were talking about.  But, I'll leave that to you...




If Seventh Day Adventism teaches "salvation by repentance" as you say, then that is works salvationism.  Repentance is a command of God.  All men everywhere are commanded to repent.  If you say man can be saved by following this law, this is a works gospel that is false.  

We are "justified freely by His grace"....meaning the justification is without cause.  Nothing in a man causes God's grace to be shown to him, otherwise it would not have been free.  

But when you get down to the nitty gritty, if you asked Ellen White if there is salvation for Sunday worshippers, she would have to be consistent and say no.  Salvation by law-keeping (sabbath-keeping).

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You're only going to selectively quote it.  You will ignore the part where Paul laments in Romans 10 that some people didn't obey the gospel because you really don't believe what Paul believed.  And you certainly won't quote Jesus.


The command to obey the gospel....is just that ...a command.  God commands all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel.

Those commands that you see are GOD'S LAW.  When you see the promises of God (for instance "Christ died to save sinners") that is the GOSPEL.  

The law commands things.  The gospel is declarations of what God will do/has done.


Do you understand the difference yet?

----------


## jmdrake

> The command to believe the gospel is just that....a command.


Except Paul didn't say that.  He said they were not obeying the gospel.  Not that they were not obeying the command to obey the gospel.  Once again the only way to prove your point is to lie about what is said.




> The command to repent is just that...a command.


Right.  It's a command to do something.  That something is to repent.  It's like saying "I command to to slow down".  You're making a distinction without a difference.




> Whenever you see a command in the Scripture, that is THE LAW.  Whenever you see a promise of God, that is THE GOSPEL.


The law?  *WHICH LAW?*  There are *two laws*!  One is the written law that brings death.  The other is *the law of the Spirit that brings life*!  You continue to dishonestly ignore this fact.  And I will continue to bring it up.  Paul talked about this.  James talked about it.  You ignore it to your soul's peril.




> The law is what God requires of man.  The Gospel is what God has done (past tense) on behalf of men.


What God does under the new law is to write the law of the spirit (present tense) on man's heart.  That process begins when man enters into the new covenant.  Jesus death on the cross is what made the new covenant possible.




> The theme of law/gospel, faith/works, letter/Spirit, are concepts that are found all throughout the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.  You are so confused you don't even know where to begin.  I warned you that you should at least try to understand where I'm coming from by reading the articles I sent to you.


You "warned me"?  You are not God!  You have no right to warn me about anything!  And you are the one confused.  When I show you that Spurgeon disagrees with you, you say Spurgeon got it wrong.  When I show you Calvin disagrees with you, you claim Calvin is a "hypo-Calvinist".  That's just stupid!  It is *impossible* for Calvin to be less Calvin than Calvin.  I was right when I pegged you as a hyper-Calvinist.  Note that *none of your fellow Calvinists will sign on to your ridiculous belief system*.  Erowe1 won't.  (Not sure if he is a Calvinist, but at time he defends the Calvinist position.)  In another thread a different Calvinist asked "Why do people think Calvinists are against obedience"?  Answer?  Sola_Fide.




> Right now, you don't even know what the difference between the law and the gospel is....but you are acting like a pompous man.


Again, you are the one that keeps putting yourself in the position of God.  Do you even fear Him?  Or would fearing God cause you to "fall from grace"?  It's not being pompous for me to realize that you can't possible be right.  It's not pompous for me to see through your lunacy where you declare everyone who disagrees with you, from me to Charles Spurgeon, to John Calvin, wrong or "cultist" or "hypo-Calvinist".  I've run into your type before.  You have no faith in God.  You have no true religion.  You get angrier and angrier when people disagree with you and *especially when people use your on material against you*.  *That* is the sign of a cultist.

Meanwhile, here's what Jesus said about repentance.

_Luke 1:3

3I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.

Luke 24:46-48
46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
_

And Peter.

_Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord._

And John the Baptist

_Mark 1:4

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Luke 3:3
And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;
_

And Paul.

_2 Corinthians 7:10

For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death._

With all of the Biblical evidence before me, it is not "arrogance" that leads me to reject your false teachings and not bother listening to your false prophets.  Arrogance is your thinking you can undo the words of Jesus, John the Baptist, Peter and Paul by posting some sermon you found on the Internet.  Sorry, but I choose to obey God rather than man.




> One day when you actually understand the law/gospel distinction, you may be regretful of how arrogant you were without knowing what you were talking about.  But, I'll leave that to you...


^See above.  I believe in sola scriptura.  You do not.  If you cannot prove your point about salvation from the Bible and the Bible alone, if you have to rely on some regurgitated sermon from someone else to prove your point, then it isn't a point worth listening to.  Note that I don't go around posting Seventh Day Adventist sermons and say "Listen to this and you'll know I'm right."  *That* would be arrogant.  But *that is exactly what you are doing with your Calvinist sermons*!  And your relying on sermons to prove your religion is the epitome of being a cultist.  Cultist follow man made ideas rather than going back to source of wisdom (the Bible) for themselves.  I've seen Seventh Day Adventists who are cultists.  I'm not one.  I've seen Calvinists who are not cultists.  But you are a cultist.




> If Seventh Day Adventism teaches "salvation by repentance" as you say, then that is works salvationism.  Repentance is a command of God.  All men everywhere are commanded to repent.  If you say man can be saved by following this law, this is a works gospel that is false.


If you teach that one can fall from grace because they believe they should obey the voice of Jesus than you are teaching Satanic works salvationism.  Lucifer became Satan in the first place because he wanted to do his own thing rather than be humbly obedient to God.  And you are giving a command just the same.  You are saying that man must obey your command (because it's not God's command) not to be concerned about obeying God.




> We are "justified freely by His grace"....meaning the justification is without cause.  Nothing in a man causes God's grace to be shown to him, otherwise it would not have been free.


Once again you show your ignorance of the law of gifts.  I've explained this to you 100 times already.  A gift isn't considered "gifted" until it is accepted.  Accepting a gift doesn't mean you've earned it.




> But when you get down to the nitty gritty, if you asked Ellen White if there is salvation for Sunday worshippers, she would have to be consistent and say no.  Salvation by law-keeping (sabbath-keeping).


You can ask Ellen White.  All of her books are available on line.  Nowhere did she say there was no salvation for Sunday worshippers.  Quite the opposite in fact.  But it's easier for you to just make up stuff.

http://www.whiteestate.org/

Seventh Day Adventists have always taught the knowledge requirement of the law.  *To him that knoweth to do right and doeth it not, to him it is sin.* (James 4:17)

----------


## jmdrake

> The command to obey the gospel....is just that ...a command.  God commands all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel.


That's nice.  But Paul said people didn't obey the gospel.  He didn't say that they didn't obey the command of the gospel.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say you're right?  You aren't, but let's pretend you are.  Where does that leave those who do not obey the command to believe the gospel?  Can you give an honest answer to that?  I doubt it.




> Do you understand the difference yet?


I understand that you don't understand simple sentences.  Actually I think you do understand.  I think you're being willfully ignorant.

----------


## jmdrake

> It's fine that you think that. That doesn't mean that's what Calvin was saying in that quote.


It's find if you don't think that.  But it's clear that Calvin wasn't just talking about Noah.  You can't get the interpretation you seek from the text.

_if only no hypocrisy reigns within them, but the pure love of rectitude flourishes, and fills their hearts, he pronounces them, according to his clemency, to be righteous._

Noah was not a "them".

----------


## acptulsa

> No it isn't.  And by the way, I am more than happy to drive a wedge in between the Romanism youre preaching here and the gospel of free grace that Paul preached.  
> 
> I am going to quote Romans and Galatians until you know that what you believe is not what Paul believes.





> Do you understand the difference yet?





> You are so confused you don't even know where to begin.
> 
> ....but you are acting like a pompous man.


You, meanwhile, are obviously not acting.

31  "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory.   32  All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.   33  He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.   34  "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.   35  For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,   36  I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

Where are your Seventh Day Cultists, your fundies, your predestined, your precondemned, and your get out of hell free card?  Where did Jesus lie?  Inquiring minds want to know.

----------


## moostraks

> If you listen to the audio I posted, he explains exactly what this confusion of law and gospel did to the church in the middle ages.  Because the gospel of free grace was lost (and the strict demands of the law were lost), the church perverted the gospel into a message that basically said Jesus was a kindler, gentler Moses, who came to give us new laws to follow.  This was not Paul's gospel.  
> 
> So I don't care what tradition "the church" has, if any church doesn't preach the gospel that Paul preached, then they are not preaching the gospel of Jesus.  "The Church" very early in its existence drifted away from a proper distinction of law and gospel.  The audio I posted is really helpful in this area.


The Church was trusted with the traditions to keep the knowledge of the meaning behind the Scriptures faithful. I lived a faith as professed in the Calvinist churches for years. My ex-spouse was quite a gem at exploiting the loopholes such as those put forth by you. I left formal Christianity behind for a season in order to regain my faith. I disagree with your position because I have seen its exploitation. You have no validity to pronounce me condemned for disagreeing with you. My soul was healed when I left Calvinist teaching. My mind was stilled when I researched the history of the church and found the peculiarities of Calvinism (specifically the hyper version) were not the norm.

You spend all your energy using Romans and Galatians. How about the books of Timothy? What is their purpose considering your position?

----------


## acptulsa

> I disagree with your position because I have seen its exploitation. You have no validity to pronounce me condemned for disagreeing with you.


Well, he could be worse.  Calvin would simply have burned you at the stake for disagreeing with him.  That would have fixed you.  Nothing like ensuring someone doesn't get the chance to 'come to Jesus'.  Smoke and ash can't repent.




> James 4:11-12  Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?
> 
> And _still_, on the Judgement Day, will we all say the same thing:  'Lord, when did we see You...?  For both Sheep and Goats say, 'Baaa!'  But it just doesn't sound the same.

----------


## erowe1

> It's find if you don't think that.  But it's clear that Calvin wasn't just talking about Noah.  You can't get the interpretation you seek from the text.
> 
> _if only no hypocrisy reigns within them, but the pure love of rectitude flourishes, and fills their hearts, he pronounces them, according to his clemency, to be righteous._
> 
> Noah was not a "them".


Right. I'm not missing that. But what he says about "them" is in the context of his comments on Noah being called just and perfect in the Bible, and not in any context referring to salvation (neither Noah's nor anyone else's). That seems significant to me. If it doesn't to you, oh well.

----------


## erowe1

There are similar verses in the Bible, where people are called righteous and blameless as a description of their own lives and not of the righteousness of Jesus imputed to them. One of them is Luke 1:6, saying about Zacharias and Elizabeth, "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."

Calvin's comments on that verse are more lenghty and nuanced than what he said about Noah. But he makes the same basic point. I think his meaning in Genesis 6:9 should be taken to be the same as what he says here.




> And they were both righteous before God He awards to them a noble testimony, not only that among men they spent holy and upright lives, but also that they were righteous before God This righteousness Luke defines briefly by saying that they walked in all the commandments of God Both ought to be carefully observed; for, although praise is bestowed on Zacharias and Elisabeth for the purpose of showing us that the lamp, whose light went before the Son of God, was taken not from an obscure house, but from an illustrious sanctuary, yet their example exhibits to us, at the same time, the rule of a devout and righteous life. In ordering our life, (Psalm 37:23,) therefore, our first study ought to be to approve ourselves to God; and we know that what he chiefly requires is a sincere heart and a pure conscience. Whoever neglects uprightness of heart, and regulates his outward life only by obedience to the law, neglects this order. For it ought to be remembered that the heart, and not the outward mask of works, is chiefly regarded by God, to whom we are commanded to look. Obedience occupies the second rank; that is, no man must frame for himself, at his own pleasure, a new form of righteousness unsupported by the Word of God, but we must allow ourselves to be governed by divine authority. Nor ought we to neglect this definition, that they are righteous who regulate their life by the commandments of the law; which intimates that, to the eye of God, all acts of worship are counterfeit, and the course of human life false and unsettled, so far as they depart from his law.
> Commandments and ordinances differ thus. The latter term relates strictly to exercises of piety and of divine worship; the latter is more general, and extends both to the worship of God and to the duties of charity. For the Hebrew word הקים, which signifies statutes or decrees, is rendered by the Greek translator δικαιώματα, ordinances; and in Scripture הקים usually denotes those services which the people were accustomed to perform in the worship of God and in the profession of their faith. Now, though hypocrites, in that respect, are very careful and exact, they do not at all resemble Zacharias and Elisabeth. For the sincere worshippers of God, such as these two were, do not lay hold on naked and empty ceremonies, but, eagerly bent on the truth, they observe them in a spiritual manner. Unholy and hypocritical persons, though they bestow assiduous toil on outward ceremonies, are yet far from observing them as they are enjoined by the Lord, and, consequently, do but lose their labor. In short, under these two words Luke embraces the whole law.
> But if, in keeping the law, Zacharias and Elisabeth were blameless, they had no need of the grace of Christ; for a full observance of the law brings life, and, where there is no transgression of it, there is no remaining guilt. I reply, those magnificent commendations, which are bestowed on the servants of God, must be taken with some exception. For we ought to consider in what manner God deals with them. It is according to the covenant which he has made with them, the first clause of which is a free reconciliation and daily pardon, by which he forgives their sins. They are accounted righteous and blameless, because their whole life testifies that they are devoted to righteousness, that the fear of God dwells in them, so long as they give a holy example. But as their pious endeavors fall very far short of perfection, they cannot please God without obtaining pardon. The righteousness which is commended in them depends on the gracious forbearance of God, who does not reckon to them their remaining unrighteousness. In this manner we must explain whatever expressions are applied in Scripture to the righteousness of men, so as not to overturn the forgiveness of sins, on which it rests as a house does on its foundation. Those who explain it to mean that Zacharias and Elisabeth were righteous by faith, simply because they freely obtained the favor of God through the Mediator, torture and misapply the words of Luke. With respect to the subject itself, they state a part of the truth, but not the whole. I do own that the righteousness which is ascribed to them ought to be regarded as obtained, not by the merit of works, but by the grace of Christ; and yet, because the Lord has not imputed to them their sins, he has been pleased to bestow on their holy, though imperfect life, the appellation of righteousness The folly of the Papists is easily refuted. With the righteousness of faith they contrast this righteousness, which is ascribed to Zacharias, which certainly springs from the former, and, therefore, must be subject, inferior, and, to use a common expression, subordinate to it, so that there is no collision between them. The false coloring, too which they give to a single word is pitiful. Ordinances, they tell us, are called commandments of the law, and, therefore, they justify us. As if we asserted that true righteousness is not laid down in the law, or complained that its instruction is in fault for not justifying us, and not rather that it is weak through our flesh, (Romans 8:3.) In the commandments of God, as we have a hundred times acknowledged, life is contained, (Leviticus 18:5; Matthew 19:17 but this will be of no avail to men, who by nature were altogether opposed to the law, and, now that they are regenerated by the Spirit of God, are still very far from observing it in a perfect manner.


http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom31.ix.ii.html

----------


## moostraks

> Well, he could be worse.  Calvin would simply have burned you at the stake for disagreeing with him.  That would have fixed you.  Nothing like ensuring someone doesn't get the chance to 'come to Jesus'.  Smoke and ash can't repent.


So true. The interesting thing I found during my stint with Calvinism was that the conscientious believers are condemned but those who are the most deplorable, contemptuous followers get a pass. One who is conscientious has to ignore the leadings of the Holy Spirit because of the hangup they have over works. It was completely unsettling for me. I could see where someone might benefit from it if they became too wrapped up in a wrongheaded fashion by doing for others but most of the folks I met were using it to control others while giving themselves a pass.

----------


## jmdrake

> Right. I'm not missing that. But what he says about "them" is in the context of his comments on Noah being called just and perfect in the Bible, and not in any context referring to salvation (neither Noah's nor anyone else's). That seems significant to me. If it doesn't to you, oh well.


So who is the "them" and what specifically is Calvin meaning when he says "clemency"?  You know what the word "clemency" means right?  And how can God declare someone one righteous without that person receiving salvation?

Edit: Besides, in Genesis 6:9 God isn't declaring Noah righteous.  Moses is.  Calvin extrapolates from what Moses said about Noah to what God says about "them", whoever it is you think "them" refers to.

----------


## jmdrake

Again you miss the point.  Calvin wasn't merely talking about how Moses declared Noah righteous.  Calvin made a point about how God grants "clemency" to "them".  He's using the words of Moses to make a larger point.




> There are similar verses in the Bible, where people are called righteous and blameless as a description of their own lives and not of the righteousness of Jesus imputed to them. One of them is Luke 1:6, saying about Zacharias and Elizabeth, "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."
> 
> Calvin's comments on that verse are more lenghty and nuanced than what he said about Noah. But he makes the same basic point. I think his meaning in Genesis 6:9 should be taken to be the same as what he says here.
> 
> 
> http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom31.ix.ii.html


From what you just posted.

_In ordering our life, (Psalm 37:23,) therefore, our first study ought to be to approve ourselves to God; and we know that what he chiefly requires is a sincere heart and a pure conscience. Whoever neglects uprightness of heart, and regulates his outward life only by obedience to the law, neglects this order._

Who is the "he" that Calvin says "requires a sincere heart and a pure conscience"?

----------


## erowe1

> So who is the "them" and what specifically is Calvin meaning when he says "clemency"?  You know what the word "clemency" means right?  And how can God declare someone one righteous without that person receiving salvation?
> 
> Edit: Besides, in Genesis 6:9 God isn't declaring Noah righteous.  Moses is.  Calvin extrapolates from what Moses said about Noah to what God says about "them", whoever it is you think "them" refers to.


The "them" is anyone about whom God makes a statement such as he did in Genesis 6:9. Other examples include Job, Zacharias, and Elizabeth. There are more.

When he says "clemency," he is talking about how God's making of such statements should not be taken absolutely literally, as though these people never did anything wrong, but that they are judgments made with clemency that allows for mistakes that do not override the general claim of their righteousness.

As he spells out more clearly in his comments on Luke 1:6, the text makes clear that this righteousness is actual righteousness lived out by these people, through the character of their hearts and the actions that flowed from that character. This is not the righteousness of Jesus being imputed to them. Calvin does not mean that there is no such thing as imputed righteousness, only that that's not what these passages are talking about. According to Calvin, what we must assume about Elizabeth and Zacharias is that, in fact, they were justified by the imputed righteousness of Jesus, and they would have no hope of entering Heaven if they hadn't been. But the righteousness ascribed to them in Luke 1:6 is not that righteousness, but the righteousness they exhibited in their lives as a consequence of that salvation. Again, he makes clear that this blameless righteousness cannot be taken too literally, but that it must allow for exceptions (i.e. "clemency" as he says in his comments on Genesis 6:9).

----------


## erowe1

> Again you miss the point.  Calvin wasn't merely talking about how Moses declared Noah righteous.  Calvin made a point about how God grants "clemency" to "them".  He's using the words of Moses to make a larger point.
> 
> 
> 
> From what you just posted.
> 
> _In ordering our life, (Psalm 37:23,) therefore, our first study ought to be to approve ourselves to God; and we know that what he chiefly requires is a sincere heart and a pure conscience. Whoever neglects uprightness of heart, and regulates his outward life only by obedience to the law, neglects this order._
> 
> Who is the "he" that Calvin says "requires a sincere heart and a pure conscience"?


The he is God.

----------


## jmdrake

> Calvin, Luther, who cares... Two men that burned people at the stake. I don't consider them moral authorities since they enforced thought crimes with tortuous capital punishment. I consider them immoral.


I didn't realize Luther engaged in the heresy of burning heretics.  In his 95 thesis he condemned Rome because he said that the burning of heretics was against the will of the Holy Spirit.  Alas, he later agreed to burn Anabaptists at the stake for rejecting infant baptism.   http://books.google.com/books?id=6wX...retics&f=false

----------


## jmdrake

> The "them" is anyone about whom God makes a statement such as he did in Genesis 6:9. Other examples include Job, Zacharias, and Elizabeth. There are more.
> 
> When he says "clemency," he is talking about how God's making of such statements should not be taken absolutely literally, as though these people never did anything wrong, but that they are judgments made with clemency that allows for mistakes that do not override the general claim of their righteousness.


Justification does not mean someone never did anything wrong.  Justification means God declares a person righteous even though they have done things that are wrong.  Clemency, justification, being declared righteous are all the same thing.  You have to build a strawman to pretend they are different.

----------


## jmdrake

> The he is God.


Right.  God chiefly requires a sincere heart and a pure conscience.  At least according to Calvin.  It's not optional.  Note, having a pure conscience does not mean you have never sinned.  Jesus said the publican who prayed the prayer of repentance left justified.  He left with a sincere heart and a pure conscience.  That doesn't mean he never sinned.

----------


## erowe1

> Justification does not mean someone never did anything wrong.  Justification means God declares a person righteous even though they have done things that are wrong.
> 
>   Clemency, justification, being declared righteous are all the same thing.  You have to build a strawman to pretend they are different.


No. Justification means that God declares that someone has the perfect, sinless, righteousness of Jesus Christ, even though they themselves are sinners. There is no need for clemency in this judgment. Jesus's righteousness is without flaw. And when God judges people in his final judgment based on their own righteousness, again, there is no clemency, such as there is for Noah in Genesis 6:9. There is no allowance for someone who occasionally sinned. The standard is absolute perfection in both heart and actions. He either ascribes to you your own righteousness without any clemency, in which case there is no possibility of you being declared just, or he ascribes to you Jesus's righteousness without clemency, in which case there is no possibility of you being condemned.

This may not be your position. But I'm pretty sure it is Calvin's.

----------


## erowe1

> Right.  God chiefly requires a sincere heart and a pure conscience.  At least according to Calvin.  It's not optional.  Note, having a pure conscience does not mean you have never sinned.  Jesus said the publican who prayed the prayer of repentance left justified.  He left with a sincere heart and a pure conscience.  That doesn't mean he never sinned.


But, according to Calvin, the only people who have this are saved people, whom God has declared righteous not on the basis of their pure consciences, while making allowances for occasional sins, but on the basis of Christ's imputed righteousness.

The unsaved person who tries to attain righteousness in God's sight by way of having a pure conscience is doomed to fail. It's hard enough to obey the letter of the law. But for an unsaved person to have a pure heart as well is impossible. Having a pure heart isn't easier than living an outwardly sinless life, it's harder.

----------


## jmdrake

> But, according to Calvin, the only people who have this are saved people, whom God has declared righteous not on the basis of their pure consciences, while making allowances for occasional sins, but on the basis of Christ's imputed righteousness.


That's not what Calvin said in the parts where you and I quoted.  I'm not doubting that Calvin didn't say that somewhere.  One thing Sola_Fide may be right on is that Calvin might have been inconsistent.  




> The unsaved person who tries to attain righteousness in God's sight by way of having a pure conscience is doomed to fail. It's hard enough to obey the letter of the law. But for an unsaved person to have a pure heart as well is impossible. Having a pure heart isn't easier than living an outwardly sinless life, it's harder.


Doing anything on your own is impossible.  Doing anything through the power of Jesus is possible.  "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me".  Yep.  "For with man this is impossible, *but with God all things are possible*".  Yep.  "Be not conformed to this word, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind."

Here is the basic fallacy of Calvinism.  It teaches that God regenerates the elect, but then teaches that regeneration doesn't actually accomplish anything.

----------


## jmdrake

> No. Justification means that God declares that someone has the perfect, sinless, righteousness of Jesus Christ, even though they themselves are sinners.


That's what I just said.  




> There is no need for clemency in this judgment.


 Clemency is when Christ's righteousness is applied to your life.  That's what clemency means.  Saying you have no need for clemency is the same thing as saying you have no need for Jesus.




> Jesus's righteousness is without flaw. And when God judges people in his final judgment based on their own righteousness, again, there is no clemency, such as there is for Noah in Genesis 6:9.


God judges people based on their own righteousness?  Did you really mean to say that?  I'm certain Calvin would disagree.  I know God does.  People apart from God have no righteousness to judge.  




> There is no allowance for someone who occasionally sinned. The standard is absolute perfection in both heart and actions. He either ascribes to you your own righteousness without any clemency, in which case there is no possibility of you being declared just, or he ascribes to you Jesus's righteousness without clemency, in which case there is no possibility of you being condemned.


Jesus righteousness is where you obtain clemency.  Again, God declaring you to be righteous means that you are righteous.  There is no "righteous but not really righteous" standard according to God.  The way Calvinists get around elements of justification that they disagree with it to invent new definitions of justification.

----------


## erowe1

> Clemency is when Christ's righteousness is applied to your life.  That's what clemency means.


You can call that clemency. But that's not what Calvin is calling clemency in the quote you gave. There, by clemency, he means leniency, in the sense that Noah could be described as righteous and perfect by way of judging his heart and general course of life, and overlooking the inevitable occasional sins.

----------


## jmdrake

> You can call that clemency. But that's not what Calvin is calling clemency in the quote you gave. There, by clemency, he means leniency, in the sense that Noah could be described as righteous and perfect by way of judging his heart and general course of life, and overlooking the inevitable occasional sins.


Being declared righteous by God is being declared righteous by God is justification is clemency.  In Genesis 6:9 Moses declared Noah righteous.  But Calvin extrapolates from that to make a broader point.

----------


## erowe1

> That's not what Calvin said in the parts where you and I quoted.  I'm not doubting that Calvin didn't say that somewhere.  One thing Sola_Fide may be right on is that Calvin might have been inconsistent.


It's definitely possible that Calvin was inconsistent. I'd say it was practically inevitable. He wrote tens of thousands of pages over the course of decades. But I wouldn't too quickly say that he meant to say something in his comments on Genesis 6:9 that contradict doctrines that he treated with very high importance elsewhere. And that's why I was saying that the context of the quote matters so much. It's a commentary on a text. That text already is what it is. Calvin wasn't at liberty to present a systematic theology there. He was commenting on the verse before him. Genesis 6:9 is a verse that presented problems that Calvin needed to explain. There problems are, how can anyone be called perfect and just if all are sinners? And how can Noah be described as perfect and just in such a way that appears to be talking not about the alien righteousness of Christ imputed to him, but about the way he himself lived his life? The quote you gave is Calvin's attempt to resolve these problems while still being faithful to the words of Genesis 6:9. He is not saying that this description of his life as generally righteous is the basis on which Noah was saved, nor that anyone ever has been or ever will be saved that way.

----------


## erowe1

> Being declared righteous by God is being declared righteous by God is justification is clemency.  In Genesis 6:9 Moses declared Noah righteous.  But Calvin extrapolates from that to make a broader point.


Justification doesn't always mean the same thing and clemency doesn't always mean the same thing.

God describes Noah as righteous in Genesis 6:9, and yes that is justification. But that is not the same justification Paul writes about, when he describes sinners being imputed with Christ's alien righteousness.

The justification Paul describes involves forgiveness of sins, and so yes it is clemency. But that is not the clemency Calvin is talking about in his comments on Genesis 6:9.

To you they may be the same, but don't say Calvin said they were.

----------


## jmdrake

> Justification doesn't always mean the same thing and clemency doesn't always mean the same thing.
> 
> God describes Noah as righteous in Genesis 6:9, and yes that is justification. But that is not the same justification Paul writes about, when he describes sinners being imputed with Christ's alien righteousness.


Again, God didn't describe Noah as righteous.  Moses did.




> The justification Paul describes involves forgiveness of sins, and so yes it is clemency. But that is not the clemency Calvin is talking about in his comments on Genesis 6:9.


If you are "accounted righteous before him" (God), your sins have been forgiven.  That's the only way to be accounted righteous before God.  Otherwise there can be people that God declares righteous that are actually lost.




> To you they may be the same, but don't say Calvin said they were.


Declared righteous by God is declared righteous by God.  You are making a distinction without a difference.

----------


## erowe1

> Again, God didn't describe Noah as righteous.  Moses did.


Why do you keep saying this?

Calvin treats it as the word of God. If you don't think he should, that doesn't change the fact that that's what he does.

In Calvin's understanding, when Genesis 6:9 (i.e. God, for Calvin) calls Noah righteous and blameless, it is describing Noah's own heart and his own actions. It is not talking about Jesus's righteousness being imputed to him. It is a description of how he lived in a merely general sense (hence the reference to clemency), not a verdict given to him on account of which he can enter Heaven. This does not mean that Calvin denied that Noah was saved on the basis of Jesus's righteousness and not his own. It only means that that's not what he thinks Genesis 6:9 is talking about.

This does not mean that someone can be accounted righteous before God, either in the sense Noah was in Genesis 6:9 or in the sense believers in Jesus can be justified according to Paul, and then ultimately lost. This is because, at least as Calvin sees it, even in Noah's case, that description of righteous living can only be applied to someone who has already been saved by God (as Calvin says Noah already had been prior to his living of a righteous life in the previous verse), and justified on the basis of Christ's righteousness altogether apart from any righteousness of their own. The righteousness ascribed to Noah in Genesis 6:9 is Noah's. The righteousness imputed to him by which he was saved was Jesus's. They are not the same thing. But the latter produced the former. At least this is what I think Calvin means by that quote.

----------


## jmdrake

> Why do you keep saying this?


Because it's the truth.




> Calvin treats it as the word of God. If you don't think he should, that doesn't change the fact that that's what he does.


Since you want to be the Calvin litteralist, quote where Calvin says "In Genesis 6:9 God is declaring Noah righteous".

Nevermind.  I'll one up you.  Calvin himself said it was Moses declaring Noah righteous.

_ For when Moses had stated that one man was found whom God, -- when he had determined to destroy the whole world, -- would yet preserve, he briefly describes what kind of person he was. And, in the first place, asserts, that he was just and upright among the men of his age: for here is a different Hebrew noun, rwd (dor,) which signifies an age, or the time of a life._

The "he" that "describes what kind of person" Noah was, was Moses, not God.




> In Calvin's understanding, when Genesis 6:9 (i.e. God, for Calvin) calls Noah righteous and blameless, it is describing Noah's own heart and his own actions. It is not talking about Jesus's righteousness being imputed to him. It is a description of how he lived in a merely general sense (hence the reference to clemency), not a verdict given to him on account of which he can enter Heaven. This does not mean that Calvin denied that Noah was saved on the basis of Jesus's righteousness and not his own. It only means that that's not what he thinks Genesis 6:9 is talking about.


Calvin doesn't say that, but you are free to believe it.  It's funny how you tell me not to say what Calvin says, but then you go on to say what Calvin says, even when a careful reading of what Calvin wrote proves that Calvin said what you didn't say he said.  (As in the case where Calvin says Moses was the one describing Noah in Genesis 6:9 as opposed to God.)

Again, Calvin takes a specific point about how Moses declared Noah righteous and extrapolated that to a general point about how God declares people righteous.  Now if you think God has two different ways of declaring people righteous....well that's a new one on me.  That's probably a new one on Calvin as well.

----------


## erowe1

> Because it's the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> Since you want to be the Calvin litteralist, quote where Calvin says "In Genesis 6:9 God is declaring Noah righteous".
> 
> Nevermind.  I'll one up you.  Calvin himself said it was Moses declaring Noah righteous.
> 
> _ For when Moses had stated that one man was found whom God, -- when he had determined to destroy the whole world, -- would yet preserve, he briefly describes what kind of person he was. And, in the first place, asserts, that he was just and upright among the men of his age: for here is a different Hebrew noun, rwd (dor,) which signifies an age, or the time of a life._
> ...


Yes, Calvin believed Moses wrote Genesis. I don't think there's much of a case for that being true, but that's what Calvin thought. The quote you gave and the context around it also make God the one who judges Noah the way Moses describes him. First, the passive voice of "was found" in your quote is talking about being found by God. Second, notice how the passage continues:



> 9. These are the generations of Noah. The Hebrew word twdlwt (toledoth) properly means generation. It has, however, sometimes a more extended sense, and applies to the whole history of life; this indeed seems to be its meaning in the present place. 13 For when Moses had stated that one man was found whom God, -- when he had determined to destroy the whole world, -- would yet preserve, he briefly describes what kind of person he was. And, in the first place, asserts, that he was just and upright among the men of his age: for here is a different Hebrew noun, rwd (dor,) which signifies an age, or the time of a life. 14 The word Mymt (tamim) which the ancient interpreter is accustomed to translate perfect, 15 is of the same force as upright or sincere; and is opposed to what is deceitful, pretended, and vain. And Moses does not rashly connect these two things together; for the world, being always influenced by external splendor, estimates justice, not by the affection of the heart, but by bare works. *If, however, we desire to be approved by God, and accounted righteous before him, we must not only regulate our hands, and eyes, and feet, in obedience to his Law; but integrity of heart is above all things required, and holds the chief place in the true definition of righteousness. Let us, however, know that they are called just and upright, not who are in every respect perfect, and in whom there is no defect; but who cultivate righteousness purely, and from their heart. Because we are assured that God does not act towards his own people with the rigour of justice, as requiring of them a life according to the perfect rule of the Law; for, if only no hypocrisy reigns within them, but the pure love of rectitude flourishes, and fills their hearts, he pronounces them, according to his clemency, to be righteous.*


All through the part I bolded he is talking about how God judges people. He hasn't changed the subject. He's still talking about Noah being called just and perfect in Genesis 6:9. And where he had said that Moses described Noah that way, here he indicates that Moses's description is the same as God's. Calvin doesn't distinguish the two, as you seem to want him to. Calvin is not talking about God imputing Jesus' righteousness to anyone. He is talking about people who could be called just and perfect when they are described by what kind of people they are, the way Moses "describes what kind of person he [Noah] was."

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes, Calvin believed Moses wrote Genesis. I don't think there's much of a case for that being true, but that's what Calvin thought. The quote you gave and the context around it also make God the one who judges Noah the way Moses describes him. First, the passive voice of "was found" in your quote is talking about being found by God. Second, notice how the passage continues:
> 
> 
> All through the part I bolded he is talking about how God judges people. He hasn't changed the subject. He's still talking about Noah being called just and perfect in Genesis 6:9. And where he had said that Moses described Noah that way, here he indicates that Moses's description is the same as God's. Calvin doesn't distinguish the two, as you seem to want him to.


The one trying to make a distinction that isn't there is you.  You are trying to distinguish how God ultimately declared Moses righteous and how God declares others righteous when Calvin makes no such distinction.  Further the phrase "was found" isn't in Genesis 6:9 at all.  Genesis 6:8 says "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord."  In Genesis 6:9 Moses, not God, describes the kind of person Noah was.

----------


## jmdrake

double post

----------


## erowe1

> The one trying to make a distinction that isn't there is you.  You are trying to distinguish how God ultimately declared Moses righteous and how God declares others righteous when Calvin makes no such distinction.  Further the phrase "was found" isn't in Genesis 6:9 at all.  Genesis 6:8 says "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord."  In Genesis 6:9 Moses, not God, describes the kind of person Noah was.


The phrase "was found" is in the part of Calvin's comments on verse 9 that you bolded that I was replying to.

Calvin doesn't make the distinction I'm making here, because that's not Calvin's point. It's a distinction that doesn't have anything to do with what Genesis 6:9 says, and Calvin isn't presenting his systematic view, he is commenting on this verse and saying what he thinks it means. But it's a distinction that I think is in the background. And I think it comes out more clearly in his comments on Luke 1:6.

It would be wrong to take Calvin's comments on Genesis 6:9 and base a claim about how Calvin thought a person could be saved on those comments, when that isn't what Calvin is talking about when he makes those comments, especially since the topic of salvation (and justification in relation to it) is one he talks about a lot elsewhere and takes a different view than one would ascribe to him if they took his comments on Genesis 6:9 that way. Everything Calvin says about people in general being approved by God in his comments on Genesis 6:9 is in explanation of God, through Moses, describing Noah as righteous. Calvin freely interchanges Moses and God because in Calvin's mind, when Moses describes Noah as righteous, God does too. The context matters.

----------


## jmdrake

> The phrase "was found" is in the part of Calvin's comments on verse 9 that you bolded that I was replying to.


Right.  But Calvin in his commentary on verse 9 was referring to what had already happened in verse 8.  "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord".  Verse 9 is merely the description, by Moses, of Noah.

And again, all that matter, really, is being accounted righteous before God.  How does that happen?  By God's grace.  (See verse 8 "Noah found *grace* in the eyes of the Lord).  Calvin is referring to the grace mentioned in verse 8 when he talks about Noah being declared righteous in verse 9.  You're trying to make a distinction between two different kinds of "declared righteousness" where there is none.

----------


## erowe1

> Right.  But Calvin in his commentary on verse 9 was referring to what had already happened in verse 8.  "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord".  Verse 9 is merely the description, by Moses, of Noah.
> 
> And again, all that matter, really, is being accounted righteous before God.  How does that happen?  By God's grace.  (See verse 8 "Noah found *grace* in the eyes of the Lord).  Calvin is referring to the grace mentioned in verse 8 when he talks about Noah being declared righteous in verse 9.  You're trying to make a distinction between two different kinds of "declared righteousness" where there is none.


But Calvin doesn't say Noah is declared righteous in v. 9. He says he is described as righteous. In Calvin's thinking, Noah had already been declared righteous when he found grace in the eyes of the Lord,  prior to having any of the virtues he is described as having in v. 9.

In Calvin's thinking, there is the alien righteousness of Jesus that is imputed to a person altogether apart from any virtue they have and without which they could never have a pure heart, and then there is the righteous way saved people live their own lives after that. Nothing Calvin says in his comments on v. 9 is about the former kind, it's all about the latter kind. He is not saying to unsaved people, "If you wish to be counted as righteous by God, all you have to do is have a pure heart, and then God will show clemency and overlook a few occasional sins." He is saying to people who already are imputed with Jesus's righteousness, "If you want to live a life that can be described as righteous and blameless in the sense that Noah's life was after he was saved, then this is what that life must look like. It still won't be totally perfect in the sense of flawless, but with clemency it can be described as perfect in the sense of pure when you have a pure heart."

----------


## jmdrake

> But Calvin doesn't say Noah is declared righteous in v. 9. He says he is described as righteous. In Calvin's thinking, Noah had already been declared righteous when he found grace in the eyes of the Lord,  prior to having any of the virtues he is described as having in v. 9.


Why the "But"?  I never said anything contrary to ^that.  Yes, Noah was declared righteous when he found grace in the eyes of the Lord.  Then Calvin goes on to describe the person that is declared righteous.

_If, however, we desire to be approved by God, and accounted righteous before him, we must not only regulate our hands, and eyes, and feet, in obedience to his Law; but integrity of heart is above all things required, and holds the chief place in the true definition of righteousness_

If you understood how the clemency process works you would understand what Calvin is saying.  Look back at Calvin's commentary on verse 8.

_ I acknowledge, indeed, that here Noah is declared to have been acceptable to God, because, by living uprightly and homily, he kept himself pure from the common pollutions of the world; whence, however, did he attain this integrity, but from the preventing grace of God? The commencement, therefore, of this favor was gratuitous mercy._

Do you know what the word "commencement" means?  It means *the beginning*.  It does not mean the sum total.




> In Calvin's thinking, there is the alien righteousness of Jesus that is imputed to a person altogether apart from before any virtue they have, and then there is the righteous way saved people live their own lives after that.


Fixed it for you.




> Nothing Calvin says in his comments on v. 9 is about the former kind, it's all about the latter kind. He is not saying to unsaved people, "If you wish to be counted as righteous by God, all you have to do is have a pure heart, and then God will show clemency and overlook a few occasional sins." He is saying to people who already are imputed with Jesus's righteousness, "If you want to live a life that can be described as righteous and blameless in the sense that Noah's life was after he was saved, then this is what that life must look like."


That's not what he said.  That's how you choose to interpret what he said.  This is what he said.

* If, however, we desire to be approved by God, and accounted righteous before him, we must not only regulate our hands, and eyes, and feet, in obedience to his Law; but integrity of heart is above all things required, and holds the chief place in the true definition of righteousness.*

----------


## erowe1

> Why the "But"?  I never said anything contrary to ^that.  Yes, Noah was declared righteous when he found grace in the eyes of the Lord.  Then Calvin goes on to describe the person that is declared righteous.
> 
> _If, however, we desire to be approved by God, and accounted righteous before him, we must not only regulate our hands, and eyes, and feet, in obedience to his Law; but integrity of heart is above all things required, and holds the chief place in the true definition of righteousness_
> 
> If you understood how the clemency process works you would understand what Calvin is saying.  Look back at Calvin's commentary on verse 8.
> 
> _ I acknowledge, indeed, that here Noah is declared to have been acceptable to God, because, by living uprightly and homily, he kept himself pure from the common pollutions of the world; whence, however, did he attain this integrity, but from the preventing grace of God? The commencement, therefore, of this favor was gratuitous mercy._
> 
> Do you know what the word "commencement" means?  It means *the beginning*.  It does not mean the sum total.


Right. So what Calvin says about v. 9 is not a way for a person to get declared righteous by God, but a way for someone who already has been declared righteous to go on living.

The judicial justification itself is complete in v. 8, but it is also the commencement of everything else that Noah's salvation entails. It is the guarantee of all that follows from it, including the experiential righteousness v. 9 describes. You cut off your quote of Calvin right before he said, "Afterwards, the Lord, having once embraced him, retained him under his own hand, lest he should perish with the rest of the world."

I'm not telling you what you have to believe. I'm just saying what Calvin is talking about.

----------


## jmdrake

> Right. So what Calvin says about v. 9 is not a way for a person to get declared righteous by God, but a way for someone who already has been declared righteous to go on living.


That's not a logical conclusion based on what Calvin wrote.




> The judicial justification itself is complete in v. 8, but it is also the commencement of everything else that Noah's salvation entails.


Okay.  But ultimate salvation is the desired result.  Being ultimately declared righteous before God.




> It is the guarantee of all that follows from it, including the experiential righteousness v. 9 describes. You cut off your quote of Calvin right before he said, "Afterwards, the Lord, having once embraced him, retained him under his own hand, lest he should perish with the rest of the world."
> 
> I'm not telling you what you have to believe. I'm just saying what Calvin is talking about.


You're telling me *what you believe* Calvin is talking about.  That's a difference than what he actually says.

----------


## erowe1

> That's not a logical conclusion based on what Calvin wrote.


It is the only possible conclusion I can see based on what Calvin wrote here, what he didn't write here, the context in which he did and didn't write these things, and what he also wrote elsewhere.




> Okay.  But ultimate salvation is the desired result.  Being ultimately declared righteous before God.


Which for Noah had already been sealed when he found grace in God's sight apart from any virtue of his own (at least as Calvin understood it). That judicial declaration was final at that moment. According to Calvin, it was not based on anything in Noah. And the description of Noah in v. 9 (which is experiential, not judicial) results from that, so does Noah's ultimate salvation.




> You're telling me *what you believe* Calvin is talking about.


Correct. But the more I look into it, the more clear it is to me that I'm right about this.

I don't think you even knew where the quote came from when you found it. You read something from someone else somewhere who cherry-picked it, and then after I pointed out the context, you hunkered down, decided the context didn't matter and declared yourself an expert on the thought of John Calvin based on a quote you saw that someone else put in something you read somewhere.

----------


## jmdrake

> It is the only possible conclusion I can see based on what Calvin wrote here, what he didn't write here, the context in which he did and didn't write these things, and what he also wrote elsewhere.


That's your opinion.  I disagree.




> Which for Noah had already been sealed when he found grace in God's sight apart from any virtue of his own (at least as Calvin understood it).


You are not sealed the moment you are justified.  

_Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads._




> That judicial declaration was final at that moment. According to Calvin, it was not based on anything in Noah. And the description of Noah in v. 9 (which is experiential, not judicial) results from that, so does Noah's ultimate salvation.


That's not according to Calvin.  That's according to your interpretation of Calvin.




> Correct. But the more I look into it, the more clear it is to me that I'm right about this.


I've had quite the opposite experience.




> I don't think you even knew where the quote came from when you found it. You read something from someone else somewhere who cherry-picked it, and then after I pointed out the context, you hunkered down, decided the context didn't matter and declared yourself an expert on the thought of John Calvin based on a quote you saw that someone else put in something you read somewhere.


You could think that, but you're wrong.  You're being like Sola_Fide and just making up stuff about someone you are arguing against and that's not honest.  I knew where this came from when I posted it.  If you had simply asked for the link I would have gladly shared it with you.

----------


## Sola_Fide

What is the link, jmdrake?

----------


## erowe1

> You are not sealed the moment you are justified.


That's where you differ with Calvin. And assuming he didn't think you are sealed the moment you are justified is probably why you're misinterpreting his comments on Genesis 6:9. Calvin's final words in his comments on v. 8 indicate this: "Afterwards, the Lord, having once embraced him, retained him under his own hand, lest he should perish with the rest of the world."

----------


## jmdrake

> What is the link, jmdrake?


Erowe posted it back on page 1.  But here it is again.  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/comm...01/htm/xii.htm

It's Calvin's commentaries on Genesis 6.  I've also read Calvin's commentaries on James.  (I quoted from Calvin's commentaries on James in post # 60 of the Romney / Mormon / Billy Graham / Cult thread).

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Erowe posted it back on page 1.  But here it is again.  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/comm...01/htm/xii.htm
> 
> It's Calvin's commentaries on Genesis 6.  I've also read Calvin's commentaries on James.  (I quoted from Calvin's commentaries on James in post # 60 of the Romney / Mormon / Billy Graham / Cult thread).


Hmmm.  What did you think about Calvin's commentary on James?  For instance, when he says that James is not talking about justification before God in chapter 2, but another type of justification before men ("show me your faith"), what do you think about that?

----------


## jmdrake

> That's where you differ with Calvin.


Actually....Calvin agrees with me on this.  Read Calvin's commentary on Ephesians 1:13.

_In whom also, after that ye believed. Having maintained that the gospel is certain, he now comes to the proof. And what higher surety can be found than the Holy Spirit? “Having denominated the gospel the word of truth, I will not prove it by the authority of men; for you have the testimony of the Spirit of God himself, who seals the truth of it in your hearts.” This elegant comparison is taken from Seals, which among men have the effect of removing doubt. Seals give validity both to charters and to testaments; anciently, they were the principal means by which the writer of a letter could be known; and, in short, a seal distinguishes what is true and certain, from what is false and spurious. This office the apostle ascribes to the Holy Spirit, not only here, but in another part of this Epistle, (Ephesians 4:30,) and in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, (2 Corinthians 1:22.) Our minds never become so firmly established in the truth of God as to resist all the temptations of Satan, until we have been confirmed in it by the Holy Spirit. The true conviction which believers have of the word of God, of their own salvation, and of religion in general, does not spring from the judgment of the flesh, or from human and philosophical arguments, but from the sealing of the Spirit, who imparts to their consciences such certainty as to remove all doubt. The foundation of faith would be frail and unsteady, if it rested on human wisdom; and therefore, as preaching is the instrument of faith, so the Holy Spirit makes preaching efficacious.

But is it not the faith itself which is here said to be sealed by the Holy Spirit? If so, faith goes before the sealing. I answer, there are two operations of the Spirit in faith, corresponding to the two parts of which faith consists, as it enlightens, and as it establishes the mind. The commencement of faith is knowledge: the completion of it is a firm and steady conviction, which admits of no opposing doubt. Both, I have said, are the work of the Spirit. No wonder, then, if Paul should declare that the Ephesians, who received by faith the truth of the gospel, were confirmed in that faith by the seal of the Holy Spirit.

With that Holy Spirit of promise. This title is derived from the effect produced; for to him we owe it that the promise of salvation is not made to us in vain. As God promises in his word, “that he will be to us a Father,” (2 Corinthians 6:18,) so he gives to us the evidence of having adopted us by the Holy Spirit._

----------


## jmdrake

> Hmmm.  What did you think about Calvin's commentary on James?  For instance, when he says that James is not talking about justification before God in chapter 2, but another type of justification before men ("show me your faith"), what do you think about that?


I thought "So that's where Sola_Fide gets the nonsense about justification before men".  I didn't think it was Calvin's finest work and that he was grasping at straws.  Who was around to see Abraham's "good work" of sacrificing Isaac?  Isaac?  Do you honestly believe that Isaac had any doubt about Abraham's faith in God?  If Isaac did, do you think Abraham preparing to kill Isaac increased Isaac's faith in Abraham's faith in God?  I doubt it.

But let's look at what Genesis actually said.

_9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the Lord called out to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!”

“Here I am,” he replied.

12 “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”_

Did Genesis say "Now Isaac knows that you fear God"?  Did it say "Now other men will know that you fear God"?  No.  Of course God already knew what Abraham would do before he did it.  Abraham produced the fruit of faith that God already knew was in Abraham.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Here, I'll post it for you:




> The Sophists [Romanists] lay hold on the word justified and then they cry out as being victorious, that justification is partly by works. But we ought to seek out a right interpretation according to the general drift of the whole passage. We have already said that James does not speak here of the cause of justification, or of the manner how men obtain righteousness, and this is plain to everyone; but that his object was only to show that good works are always connected with faith. And, therefore, since he declares that Abraham was justified by works, he is speaking of the proof he gave of his justification.
> 
> When, therefore, the Sophists set up James against Paul [sound familiar Jmdrake?] they go astray through the ambiguous meaning of a term. When Paul says that we are justified by faith, he means no other thing than that by faith we are counted righteous before God. But James has quite another thing in view, even to show that he who professes that he has faith must prove the reality of his faith by his works. Doubtless James did not mean to teach us here the ground on which our hope of salvation ought to rest; and it is this alone that Paul dwells upon.
> 
> _That we may not then fall into that false reasoning which has deceived the Sophists, we must take notice of the two-fold meaning of the word justified. Paul means by it the gratuitous imputation of righteousness before the tribunal of God; and James, the manifestation of righteousness by the conduct, and that before men, as we may gather from the preceding words "show to me your faith," etc. In this sense we fully allow that man is justified by works, in a similar way as when anyone says that a man is enriched by the purchase of a large and valuable estate--because his riches that were before hid and shut up in a chest were thus made known._

----------


## jmdrake

> Here, I'll post it for you:


Why?  I already read it and explained my objections to it.  Your reposting it does what exactly?  Calvin tripped over himself trying to invent a new form of justification *that Jesus spoke AGAINST* and used that as "proof".  (Matthew 6:1 "Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.) Martin Luther took the smarter route on this and just declared James not to be part of the Bible.

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/preface.html

_    Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle, and my reasons follow.

    In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works 2:24). It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac (2:20); Though in Romans 4:22-22 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15:6. Although it would be possible to "save" the epistle by a gloss giving a correct explanation of justification here ascribed to works, it is impossible to deny that it does refer to Moses' words in Genesis 15 (which speaks not of Abraham's works but of his faith, just as Paul makes plain in Romans 4) to Abraham's works. This fault proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.

    In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He names Christ several times; however he teaches nothing about him, but only speaks of general faith in God. Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and resurrection and office of Christ, and to lay the foundation for faith in him, as Christ himself says in John 15[:27], "You shall bear witness to me.? All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate [_treiben_] Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ, Romans 3[:21]; and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ, I Corinthians 2[:2]. Whatever does not teach Christ is not yet apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it." (__ibid__).

    But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and its works. Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching. He calls the law a "law of liberty" [1:25], though Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin.

    Moreover he cites the sayings of St. Peter [in 5:20]; Love covers a multitude of sins" [1 Pet. 4:8], and again [in 4:10], "Humble yourselves under he had of God" [1 Pet. 5:6] also the saying of St. Paul in Galatians 5[:17], "The Spirit lusteth against envy." And yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod [Acts 12:2] in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. So it seems that [this author] came long after St. Peter and St. Paul.

    In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture. He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. Therefore I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. One man is no man in worldly things; how then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all Scripture.

    Concerning the epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter's second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the apostles like a disciple who comes long after them [Jude 17] and cites sayings and incidents that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures [Jude 9, 14]. This moved the ancient Fathers to exclude this epistle from the main body of the Scriptures. Moreover the Apostle Jude did not go to Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write Greek. Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of faith._

If you're going to reject James' teaching, as Martin Luther did, then just be upfront and reject it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I thought "So that's where Sola_Fide gets the nonsense about justification before men".  I didn't think it was Calvin's finest work and that he was grasping at straws.  Who was around to see Abraham's "good work" of sacrificing Isaac?  Isaac?  Do you honestly believe that Isaac had any doubt about Abraham's faith in God?  If Isaac did, do you think Abraham preparing to kill Isaac increased Isaac's faith in Abraham's faith in God?  I doubt it.
> 
> But let's look at what Genesis actually said.
> 
> _9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the Lord called out to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!”
> 
> “Here I am,” he replied.
> 
> 12 “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”_
> ...


So you don't think that Abraham's faith was demonstrated to anyone else but Isaac?   How did  you (jmdrake) come to know about Abraham's faith?

----------


## jmdrake

> So you don't think that Abraham's faith was demonstrated to anyone else but Isaac?   How did  you (jmdrake) come to know about Abraham's faith?


I certainly wasn't there to see it.  And reading Genesis I didn't need to wait until the sacrifice of Isaac to believe that Abraham feared God.  Furthermore, why did God say "*Now* I know that you fear God?"  And if anything that particular story made me question the Bible more than it confirmed Abraham's faith.  It's one of those "I have to ask God about it when I get to heaven" stories.  It certainly was not a deed of the law as human sacrifice goes directly against the law.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I certainly wasn't there to see it.  And reading Genesis I didn't need to wait until the sacrifice of Isaac to believe that Abraham feared God.  Furthermore, why did God say "*Now* I know that you fear God?"  And if anything that particular story made me question the Bible more than it confirmed Abraham's faith.  It's one of those "I have to ask God about it when I get to heaven" stories.  It certainly was not a deed of the law as human sacrifice goes directly against the law.



It made you "question the Bible"????   You don't see that this entire event was a type and shadow of Christ????




> Genesis 22:7-8 NIV
> 
> "The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?" 
> 
> Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.


God Himself will provide the Lamb, His own Son, as a sacrifice for His people's sins.

I'm sure Erowe1 can explain it better than I can, but this should not cause you to question the Bible, it should cause you to wonder at God's providence and mercy.

----------


## jmdrake

> It made you "question the Bible"????   You don't see that this entire event was a type and shadow of Christ????


If you've never questioned the Bible at any time in your life then you've never read it or you're incapable of independent thought.  And yes, it's obvious that it was a shadow of Christ.  That's obvious from the beginning.  You still have Abraham being told to violate the law, and common sense, and kill his own son.  Of course God stops it, so it's all good.




> God Himself will provide the Lamb, His own Son, as a sacrifice for His people's sins.
> 
> I'm sure Erowe1 can explain it better than I can, but this should not cause you to question the Bible, it should cause you to wonder at God's providence and mercy.


Where did I say it causes me to question the Bible *now*?  Yes I understood the whole providence thing back when it was written.  But that doesn't mean I have to put my brain in neutral.  The question any believer should ask is "If I hear something that I perceive to be the voice of God and it tells me something I know to be wrong, what do I do?"  And the answer is "Make sure you really know the voice of God."

And the point I made, which you just ignored, is that this isn't a story that makes me go "Hey!  I wasn't sure about Abraham's faith prior to Genesis 20.  But now I really see it!"

Edit: And furthermore, I see you still ignore where I asked you this.

*Furthermore, why did God say "Now I know that you fear God?"*

I have an answer for ^that.  I wonder if you do?

----------


## moostraks

> But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and its works. Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching. He calls the law a "law of liberty" [1:25], though Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin.


 Wonder if he threw out 1 Timothy as well?

1 Timothy 1:. 7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 99 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurersand for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

The law is good if one uses it properly. I wonder how he would spin that one? He was so hung up on proving a point that he had no problem using a sharpie to remove anything that disagreed with his agenda.

These guys like Luther and Calvin became rock stars of their age but I wouldn't want to have my children use them for models. They served a purpose in the scheme of things but I think they should be judged by their actions.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Wonder if he threw out 1 Timothy as well?
> 
> 1 Timothy 1:. 7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.
> 
> 8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 99 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
> 
> The law is good if one uses it properly. I wonder how he would spin that one? He was so hung up on proving a point that he had no problem using a sharpie to remove anything that disagreed with his agenda.
> 
> These guys like Luther and Calvin became rock stars of their age but I wouldn't want to have my children use them for models. They served a purpose in the scheme of things but I think they should be judged by their actions.



That's right.  The law is good if one uses it properly.

It's not a proper use of the law to use it as a ladder for justification before God.  Why?  Because righteousness does not come from our law-keeping.  Even our best works are still tainted with sin.

----------


## jmdrake

> That's right.  The law is good if one uses it properly.
> 
> It's not a proper use of the law to use it as a ladder for justification before God.  Why?  Because righteousness does not come from our law-keeping.  Even our best works are still tainted with sin.


Question.  What would your view be of a practicing openly gay Calvinist minister?  Kosher or not kosher?  Why or why not?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Question.  What would your view be of a practicing openly gay Calvinist minister?  Kosher or not kosher?  Why or why not?


Have you been googling again?  I mean, if you found some nut in The Second Reformed Church in Southern Luxembourg who says its a-okay to be a Calvinist (let alone a Christian) and a homosexual "pastor"...then.....well, I don't know what to tell you.  This world is full of sin and full of nuts.

No you cannot be a Christian and practicing homosexual at the same time.

----------


## moostraks

> Have you been googling again?  I mean, if you found some nut in The Second Reformed Church in Southern Luxembourg who says its a-okay to be a Calvinist (let alone a Christian) and a homosexual "pastor"...then.....well, I don't know what to tell you.  This world is full of sin and full of nuts.
> 
> No you cannot be a Christian and practicing homosexual at the same time.


Lol! So jmdrake should google less by I should google more?

----------


## moostraks

> That's right.  The law is good if one uses it properly.
> 
> It's not a proper use of the law to use it as a ladder for justification before God.  Why?  Because righteousness does not come from our law-keeping.  Even our best works are still tainted with sin.


Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: 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.

It isn't the law that is in error or too harsh it is the heads of those who seek to fulfill the letter but not the spirit of it. Wonder why it is so hard to follow Him when you are married? Have you ever experienced even a minute of giving yourself fully to Him? 

1 Corinthians 7:32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

Have you read 1 or 2 Timothy or 1 Corinthians lately? All the way through, not cherry picking verses?How can you believe that Paul was into this rule free existence? Now one can take Paul's rules and twist them much as you will see some of the plain churches do or you can use the wisdom put forth and guidance from the Holy Spirit to achieve the state such as is proposed in Galatians 2:20.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: 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.
> 
> It isn't the law that is in error or too harsh it is the heads of those who seek to fulfill the letter but not the spirit of it. Wonder why it is so hard to follow Him when you are married? Have you ever experienced even a minute of giving yourself fully to Him? 
>  .





> Galatians 2:20-21 NASB
> 
> I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the  life  which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. *I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness  comes  through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."*


If righteousness could come by how you live, Christ died needlessly.  Why?  Because by the works of the law, no man will be justified.  Nothing you do and nothing that comes from yourself can contribute to your standing with God.  If it could, then why do we need Christ's righteousness to be saved?  Don't you see Paul's argument here?


B]Living by faith in the Son of God means I LOOK BACK upon my justification and live in thankfulness that God has shown mercy to me and saved me.  

Living by faith does not mean I LOOK FORWARD to my salvation and do works to justify myself before God.[/B]


This "living faith" is just another codeword for works-salvation, and as we see from the passage, if goodness could come from anything we do, Christ died in vain.

----------


## erowe1

> Actually....Calvin agrees with me on this.  Read Calvin's commentary on Ephesians 1:13.
> 
> _In whom also, after that ye believed. Having maintained that the gospel is certain, he now comes to the proof. And what higher surety can be found than the Holy Spirit? Having denominated the gospel the word of truth, I will not prove it by the authority of men; for you have the testimony of the Spirit of God himself, who seals the truth of it in your hearts. This elegant comparison is taken from Seals, which among men have the effect of removing doubt. Seals give validity both to charters and to testaments; anciently, they were the principal means by which the writer of a letter could be known; and, in short, a seal distinguishes what is true and certain, from what is false and spurious. This office the apostle ascribes to the Holy Spirit, not only here, but in another part of this Epistle, (Ephesians 4:30,) and in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, (2 Corinthians 1:22.) Our minds never become so firmly established in the truth of God as to resist all the temptations of Satan, until we have been confirmed in it by the Holy Spirit. The true conviction which believers have of the word of God, of their own salvation, and of religion in general, does not spring from the judgment of the flesh, or from human and philosophical arguments, but from the sealing of the Spirit, who imparts to their consciences such certainty as to remove all doubt. The foundation of faith would be frail and unsteady, if it rested on human wisdom; and therefore, as preaching is the instrument of faith, so the Holy Spirit makes preaching efficacious.
> 
> But is it not the faith itself which is here said to be sealed by the Holy Spirit? If so, faith goes before the sealing. I answer, there are two operations of the Spirit in faith, corresponding to the two parts of which faith consists, as it enlightens, and as it establishes the mind. The commencement of faith is knowledge: the completion of it is a firm and steady conviction, which admits of no opposing doubt. Both, I have said, are the work of the Spirit. No wonder, then, if Paul should declare that the Ephesians, who received by faith the truth of the gospel, were confirmed in that faith by the seal of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> With that Holy Spirit of promise. This title is derived from the effect produced; for to him we owe it that the promise of salvation is not made to us in vain. As God promises in his word, that he will be to us a Father, (2 Corinthians 6:18,) so he gives to us the evidence of having adopted us by the Holy Spirit._


I wasn't talking about Ephesians 1:13 or the seal of the Holy Spirit. I was talking about Calvin's comments on Genesis 6:8-9. My use of the word "seal" was in that context. When I said you differed with Calvin, I was talking about how you differed from what he said in his comments on those verses to the effect that Noah's finding grace in v. 8 could not have failed to result in his experiential righteousness described in v. 9 (i.e. it "sealed" it).

----------


## erowe1

> Who was around to see Abraham's "good work" of sacrificing Isaac?


All of us who read about it.

James still says that God declared Abraham righteous in Genesis 15:6. But in his offering of Isaac that declaration was completed. He was already righteous in God's sight, based on his faith. Many decades after already being righteous in God's sight by faith he performed a work that demonstrated that faith. From that work we can see that his faith was genuine. But God didn't need that.

----------


## jmdrake

> Have you been googling again?  I mean, if you found some nut in The Second Reformed Church in Southern Luxembourg who says its a-okay to be a Calvinist (let alone a Christian) and a homosexual "pastor"...then.....well, I don't know what to tell you.  This world is full of sin and full of nuts.
> 
> No you cannot be a Christian and practicing homosexual at the same time.


This was just a hypothetical question.  You claim that justification has nothing to do with anything you do right?  You claim that the gospel is totally separate from the law right?  You claim that Christians should not feel pressure to even try to obey the voice of God right?  Why is homosexuality any different then?

Look at what moostraks posted from Timothy.

_ We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me._

Or look up 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

_"Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God."_

In each case where homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible, *there are also sins that are less unacceptable to modern Christians*.  If someone covets is he not worthy of being a pastor?  Paul doesn't seem to condemn coveteousness any less.  Now, if what you do has *nothing* to do with you being a Christian then the coveteous Christian has nothing to worry about, and neither does the homosexual Christian.  If, on the other hand, what you do does have something to do with you being a Christian......

----------


## jmdrake

> All of us who read about it.


No.  You've just read the account of it.




> James still says that God declared Abraham righteous in Genesis 15:6. But in his offering of Isaac that declaration was completed. He was already righteous in God's sight, based on his faith. Many decades after already being righteous in God's sight by faith he performed a work that demonstrated that faith. From that work we can see that his faith was genuine. But God didn't need that.


The record is clear before that episode that Abraham had faith.  Even Calvin says that.

----------


## jmdrake

> I wasn't talking about Ephesians 1:13 or the seal of the Holy Spirit. I was talking about Calvin's comments on Genesis 6:8-9. My use of the word "seal" was in that context. When I said you differed with Calvin, I was talking about how you differed from what he said in his comments on those verses to the effect that Noah's finding grace in v. 8 could not have failed to result in his experiential righteousness described in v. 9 (i.e. it "sealed" it).


Except I haven't differed at all.  Calvin didn't use the word "seal" in the commentary of Genesis 6:8-9.  He used the word "commencement" as in "to begin".  You're the one that used the word "sealed".




> Which for Noah had already been sealed when he found grace in God's sight apart from any virtue of his own (at least as Calvin understood it).


I pointed out that, biblically speaking, sealing doesn't happen at justification.  Calvin agrees with that assessment.  You (apparently) do not.  Maybe you should have used a different word other than "sealed".  There's only one Biblical definition for the word and it's the one that I used and Calvin agrees with.

----------


## erowe1

> No.  You've just read the account of it.


Yes. And that's how Abraham showed me his faith by his works.




> The record is clear before that episode that Abraham had faith.  Even Calvin says that.


Exactly. He both had faith and was declared righteous decades before the binding of Isaac. What he did in Genesis 22 did not gain him justification, it outwardly demonstrated the faith he already had.

----------


## erowe1

> Except I haven't differed at all.  Calvin didn't use the word "seal" in the commentary of Genesis 6:8-9.  He used the word "commencement" as in "to begin".  You're the one that used the word "sealed".
> 
> 
> 
> I pointed out that, biblically speaking, sealing doesn't happen at justification.  Calvin agrees with that assessment.  You (apparently) do not.  Maybe you should have used a different word other than "sealed".  There's only one Biblical definition for the word and it's the one that I used and Calvin agrees with.


But you're talking about something else when you talk about sealing here, that has nothing to do with anything I was saying before. I was just talking about what Calvin said in his comments on Genesis 6:8-9 that you disagreed with. His non-use of the word "seal" there is irrelevant. I could have used the word "settled" instead. I also gave you Calvin's own words, "Afterwards, the Lord, having once embraced him, retained him under his own hand, lest he should perish with the rest of the world." When Calvin says "commencement," it is this process which he is talking about. Once God had commenced the process, it was certain that God would finish it.

The fact that the word "seal" is used of something else somewhere else in the Bible, and what Calvin thinks about that passage, has nothing to do with this.

----------


## jmdrake

> But you're talking about something else when you talk about sealing here, that has nothing to do with anything I was saying before. I was just talking about what Calvin said in his comments on Genesis 6:8-9 that you disagreed with. His non-use of the word "seal" there is irrelevant. I could have used the word "settled" instead. I also gave you Calvin's own words, "Afterwards, the Lord, having once embraced him, retained him under his own hand, lest he should perish with the rest of the world."
> 
> The fact that the word "seal" is used of something else somewhere else in the Bible, and what Calvin thinks about that passage, has nothing to do with this.


Fine.  Except that Calvin used the word "commencement" (beginning) without signifying the end.  What he said in that particular commentary doesn't match up with what you are trying to claim he said.  But that's fine.  Cognitive dissonance is difficult to overcome.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes. And that's how Abraham showed me his faith by his works.


But you understand he had faith before Genesis 22.




> Exactly. He both had faith and was declared righteous decades before the binding of Isaac. What he did in Genesis 22 did not gain him justification, it outwardly demonstrated the faith he already had.


The "faith that he already had" is the type of faith that is obedient.  And over time his faith grew.  That is what the Bible means when it talks about moving "from faith, to faith".  Lastly, God did not say "Now Abraham, generations later will know that you fear me."  God said "Now Abraham *I know* that you fear me."  And yes, I know that's a rhetorical statement.  But God still made it.

----------


## erowe1

> But you understand he had faith before Genesis 22.
> 
> 
> 
> The "faith that he already had" is the type of faith that is obedient.  And over time his faith grew.  That is what the Bible means when it talks about moving "from faith, to faith".  Lastly, God did not say "Now Abraham, generations later will know that you fear me."  God said "Now Abraham *I know* that you fear me."  And yes, I know that's a rhetorical statement.  But God still made it.


I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with here. Abraham already had faith and was justified long before Genesis 22. He could have died before Genesis 22 and he would have been righteous in God's sight, having attained that righteousness by faith alone without works.

----------


## erowe1

> Fine.  Except that Calvin used the word "commencement" (beginning) without signifying the end.  What he said in that particular commentary doesn't match up with what you are trying to claim he said.  But that's fine.  Cognitive dissonance is difficult to overcome.


He didn't signify the end, which is glorification, which fits with the fact that he wasn't trying to present a systematic theology here, but just to comment on the verses before him, but he did signify that the process included the experiential righteousness Noah had after having found grace. That experiential righteousness resulted from the grace that God had already given to Noah on the basis of nothing that Noah had in himself.

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with here. Abraham already had faith and was justified long before Genesis 22. He could have died before Genesis 22 and he would have been righteous in God's sight, having attained that righteousness by faith alone without works.


What I'm getting at is the interpretation that James was talking about "justification before men" makes no sense when 1) Abraham already had enough good works recording in the Bible for any reasonable person to assume he had faith 2) the "work" that Abraham did goes against the law and 3) God said "Now Abraham *I* know that you fear me."

----------


## erowe1

> What I'm getting at is the interpretation that James was talking about "justification before men" makes no sense when 1) Abraham already had enough good works recording in the Bible for any reasonable person to assume he had faith 2) the "work" that Abraham did goes against the law and 3) God said "Now Abraham *I* know that you fear me."


1) Sure, James could have pointed to other examples from Abraham's life. But I think the one he picked is the best one.
2) It didn't go against the law that was given to Abraham, which was God's command to him to offer up his son.
3) James doesn't refer to God saying that. James refers to God reckoning Abraham righteous already long before Genesis 22 by quoting Genesis 15:6.

James does say that he's talking about people demonstrating their faith outwardly in a way that others can see in v. 18, and that this was specifically true of Abraham's offering of Isaac in v. 22 ("Do you see...").

I do agree that true saving faith produces good works. But those works are not a prerequisite for being justified in God's sight. That justification is already there before any of those works are, and ultimate glorification cannot fail to follow from it.

----------


## moostraks

> If righteousness could come by how you live, Christ died needlessly.  Why?  Because by the works of the law, no man will be justified.  Nothing you do and nothing that comes from yourself can contribute to your standing with God.  If it could, then why do we need Christ's righteousness to be saved?  Don't you see Paul's argument here?
> 
> 
> B]Living by faith in the Son of God means I LOOK BACK upon my justification and live in thankfulness that God has shown mercy to me and saved me.  
> 
> Living by faith does not mean I LOOK FORWARD to my salvation and do works to justify myself before God.[/B]
> 
> 
> This "living faith" is just another codeword for works-salvation, and as we see from the passage, if goodness could come from anything we do, Christ died in vain.


Listen carefully...you need to read the verse again.

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me

Read each word and let it sink in past what you are obfuscating. I no longer live but Christ lives in me...

It isn't works salvationism no matter how much you want to malign it. It is not you that does good works. 

1 Corinthians 3:16Dont you know that you yourselves are Gods temple and that Gods Spirit lives in you? 17If anyone destroys Gods temple, God will destroy him; for Gods temple is sacred, and you are that temple

You are the temple. What do you have against the Holy Spirit? Why do you deny the power and potential of the Spirit? To look so contemptuosly down upon a living faith is to deny the beauty of the relationship you could have. Dead faith is that which argues for hours on twists of a phrase to validate itself and strikes passages from the Bible that are inconvenient or ignores them. Living faith is trusting in Love and giving over to it. It is not me who loves, but He who lives in me. It is not me who does those good works found acceptable but the Spirit entrusted through faith. 

Again why were we told not to marry? It brings you into your head and you are not carefree enough to throw caution to the wind. Have you ever experienced what is described in Galatians 2:20?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> 1) Sure, James could have pointed to other examples from Abraham's life. But I think the one he picked is the best one.
> *2) It didn't go against the law that was given to Abraham, which was God's command to him to offer up his son.*
> 3) James doesn't refer to God saying that. James refers to God reckoning Abraham righteous already long before Genesis 22 by quoting Genesis 15:6.
> 
> James does say that he's talking about people demonstrating their faith outwardly in a way that others can see in v. 18, and that this was specifically true of Abraham's offering of Isaac in v. 22 ("Do you see...").
> 
> I do agree that true saving faith produces good works. But those works are not a prerequisite for being justified in God's sight. That justification is already there before any of those works are, and ultimate glorification cannot fail to follow from it.


Absolutely right.  What God commands is His law.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Listen carefully...you need to read the verse again.
> 
> Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me
> 
> Read each word and let it sink in past what you are obfuscating. I no longer live but Christ lives in me...
> 
> *It isn't works salvationism no matter how much you want to malign it. It is not you that does good works.* 
> 
> 1 Corinthians 3:16Dont you know that you yourselves are Gods temple and that Gods Spirit lives in you? 17If anyone destroys Gods temple, God will destroy him; for Gods temple is sacred, and you are that temple
> ...


While it is true that a believer's works are predestined by God and workings of the Spirit, (and this is the most important part) our being justified in God's sight is not the same as sanctification:




> Sanctification is what God does in the believer; itis not the good works of the believer. Important as they are, neither sanctification nor good works is the basis of salvation or the foundation of the Christians hope. Sanctification, of course, is a work of Gods grace, but it is the result of a more fundamental act of grace. Unless sanctification is rooted in justification, and justification in election, sanctification cannot escape the poisons of subjectivism, moralism, or Pharisaism.
> 
> Sinful reasoning might tell us that what God does in changing the heart of the sinner is the most important thing God could possibly do in the salvation process. This contention is the heart of Roman Catholic soteriology, and it must be admitted that the overwhelming preoccupation of neo-evangelicalism today is its message of being saved by letting Christ come into your heart, by being born again, etc. It is neo-evangelical Romanism. The great truth of justification by faith alone, however, does not deal with the acts of God within the believer, but with the saving acts of God outside the believer.


What you're doing when you confuse sanctification with justification, and when you make the gospel about what happens inside your heart instead of what happens on the cross is losing the entire Christian faith and turning it into a new moralism.

----------


## moostraks

> 1) Sure, James could have pointed to other examples from Abraham's life. But I think the one he picked is the best one.
> 2) It didn't go against the law that was given to Abraham, which was God's command to him to offer up his son.
> 3) James doesn't refer to God saying that. James refers to God reckoning Abraham righteous already long before Genesis 22 by quoting Genesis 15:6.
> 
> James does say that he's talking about people demonstrating their faith outwardly in a way that others can see in v. 18, and that this was specifically true of Abraham's offering of Isaac in v. 22 ("Do you see...").
> 
> I do agree that true saving faith produces good works. But those works are not a prerequisite for being justified in God's sight. That justification is already there before any of those works are, and ultimate glorification cannot fail to follow from it.


So what do you think about : 1 Timothy 2:15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearingif they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety

----------


## moostraks

> While it is true that a believer's works are predestined by God and workings of the Spirit, (and this is the most important part) our being justified in God's sight is not the same as sanctification:
> 
> 
> 
> What you're doing when you confuse sanctification with justification, and when you make the gospel about what happens inside your heart instead of what happens on the cross is losing the entire Christian faith and turning it into a new moralism.


I am not confusing anything, I disagree with your demands to seperate and compartmentalize. Found this and it explains it better than what you keep arguing with me over.




> For most of Christian Church history, salvation was seen as comprehensive of all of life. Christians believed in Christ, were baptized, and were nurtured in their salvation in the Church. Key doctrines of the faith centered around the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation of the Son of God, and the atonement.
> 
> In Western Europe during the 16th century, however, justifiable concern arose among the Reformers over a prevailing [wrong] understanding in the West [Roman Catholicism] that salvation depended on human works of merit, and not upon the grace and mercy of God. Many involved with the Reformation experienced a rediscovery of Romans chapter 5. Their slogan became sola fides (i.e. justification by faith alone).
> 
> This Reformation debate in the West was late-breaking news for the Orthodox East: why this new polarization of faith and works? It had been settled since the apostolic era that salvation was granted by the mercy of God to righteous men and women. Those baptized into Christ were called to believe in Him and do good works. It has never been faith VS. works or faith OR works, but faith AND works has always been seen as a holistic concept (see James 2:14-26). A discussion, therefore, of faith VERSUS works was unprecedented in Orthodox thought.
> 
> The Orthodox understanding of salvation differs from Protestant in several ways.
> 
> First, when Orthodox Christians approach the doctrine of salvation, the discussion centers around the New Covenant. Justification, that is being or becoming righteous, by faith in God is part of being brought into a covenant relationship with Him. Whereas Israel was under the Old Covenant, wherein salvation came through faith as revealed in the law, the Church is under the New Covenant. Salvation comes through faith in Christ who fulfills the law, and we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, leading us to the knowledge of God the Father. Whereas some Christians focus on justification simply as a [one time] legal acquittal before God, Orthodox believers see justification by faith as a covenant relationship with Him, centered in union with Christ (see Romans 6:1-6).
> ...


http://www.orthodox-christianity.com...tion-by-faith/

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *Whereas some Christians focus on justification simply as a [one time] legal acquittal before God, Orthodox believers see justification by faith as a covenant relationship with Him, centered in union with Christ.*


This is exactly why "Orthodox Christianity" is not Pauline and not orthodox.  They deny justification as an event that happens outside of man, and instead say it is a "process" that happens in a man's heart.  This brings man's works into justification, and teaches works-salvationism.


This is a confusion of justification with sanctification, and an improper distinction of the law and the gospel.

This is why if you get the law/gospel distinction wrong, you lose the Christian faith and just teach moralism.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You claim that justification has nothing to do with anything you do right?


Right.




> You claim that the gospel is totally separate from the law right?


Right.





> You claim that Christians should not feel pressure to even try to obey the voice of God right?


Wrong.  You are confusing justification with sanctification.  You are mixing law and Gospel.

When a man is justified, the law no longer stands over him as a death sentence, but that in no way means that the law is nullified in the Christian's life.  The law continually stands above the Christian, showing him his imperfection and pushing him to Christ in faith.

The problem you're having is one that all cultists have:  a confusion of what God does on the cross with what God does in the heart.  What God does in the heart of a justified believer is not the basis of his salvation.  No one can be sanctified enough to be completely perfect (what the law requires).  The only sure foundation of salvation is God's imputation of Christ's merits to a believer (and the imputation of the believer's sin to Christ on the cross).

----------


## Sola_Fide

From Moostracks' article:




> So people can say with “faith”: “I believe in God” or “I believe Jesus died on the cross for my sins”, but so what? To paraphrase James, demons believe in these things, too. These are facts. It’s what you do with those facts that count.


Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.  Let's look at what James says:




> James 2:19 NASB
> 
> You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.


The demons did not believe "Jesus died on the cross for my sins" (as the article falsely said).  They simply believed in monotheism.  A simple belief in monotheism is not saving faith.  Saving faith is assent to understood propositions of the gospel...period.  If you believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins, you have saving faith, and are saved.

The opponents of sola fide latch on to this verse because they think it teaches that works mix in with our justification before God.  But that's not what the text says. The demons had faith, but they did not have faith in the propositions of the gospel.  They simply had a monotheistic faith, which is not saving.


We are saved by simple faith in the propositions of the gospel, alone:



> Romans 10:9 NASB
> 
> that if you confess with your mouth Jesus  as  Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;





> John 5:24 NASB
> 
> Most assuredly I say to you, he who hears my word and believes in him who sent me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.





> 1 Thessalonians 4:14 NASB
> 
> For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus.





> Romans 4:5 NASB
> 
> But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,

----------


## jmdrake

> Wrong.  You are confusing justification with sanctification.  You are mixing law and Gospel.


You are the one confused.  You are confusing our conversation.  And it has nothing to do with sanctification versus justification.  A while back you asked if I felt I had to obey the voice of Jesus.  I said "yes".  You claimed that meant I had "fallen from grace".  Well, if you're "in grace" (and I am) you are already justified.  So that would be the sanctification process.   You rejected sanctification.

----------


## moostraks

> This is exactly why "Orthodox Christianity" is not Pauline and not orthodox.  They deny justification as an event that happens outside of man, and instead say it is a "process" that happens in a man's heart.  This brings man's works into justification, and teaches works-salvationism.
> 
> 
> This is a confusion of justification with sanctification, and an improper distinction of the law and the gospel.
> 
> This is why if you get the law/gospel distinction wrong, you lose the Christian faith and just teach moralism.


No Orthodox Christianity is not Reformed. You use speech much as the government does redefining things as you see fit. Lose the faith? How is that possible per your position? 

You are intentionally trying to obscure what has been repeated to you by both jm and myself which is who is doing the good works. You have such an ax to grind against anyone who is not claiming the banner of the Reformed because of the elitism that you cling to that you want to misconstrue others so that you appear to be the chosen one that you are claiming to be.

The Eastern Orthodox faith is one of the few with an clear pedigree. As such, when it comes to matters of doctrine and wanting to understand what the original intentions were one is well served by comparing later 'revelations' against what the original gatekeepers have held to over time. I think it is the height of arrogance to ignore the historical record of the church so completely that an entirely different 'revelation' is to be seen as the only divine response and all others are condemned to hell. While I think it is possible(more likely probable due to human failings) there is some minor changes made to the overall message through the centuries, I do not think that those who devoted themselves to the service of the church have veered so far off the path as you have claimed on this issue. 

Now, while I am not EO I find their writers the best to relay the information as I understand things. We are all individuals though and there will be minor differences in how one internalizes things according to ones history. That said, I think it is erroneous to try to pretentiously force others to divorce two concepts which are so intertwined as the argument you are attempting to put forth. The whole matter has become as ridiculous as the argument over free will. You rant and jmdrake and I respond refuting your position and you complain that we are something we are not because we must , per your complaint, be works salvationists even though you are not acknowledging there is a difference between one who does a work on their own in a vain attempt to gain favor and one who believes it is the Holy Spirit who does that which is a good work through me.

The only reason I bother is because your position does not allow room for the Holy Spirit to work and denies people the fullest relationship they can have as a Christian.

----------


## moostraks

> From Moostracks' article:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.  Let's look at what James says:
> 
> 
> 
> The demons did not believe "Jesus died on the cross for my sins" (as the article falsely said).  They simply believed in monotheism.  A simple belief in monotheism is not saving faith.  Saving faith is assent to understood propositions of the gospel...period.  If you believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins, you have saving faith, and are saved.
> ...


If that is the bone you have to pick with the article worthy of extra refute then it was worth it for me not to waste my time analyzing 5 articles to pick the least argumentative one last night. 

You use an ax to cut down a weed...

While not the best comparison he makes the point that he is doing a rough comparison to the verse in James. Since the target audience is those who are on an Orthodox website, they will not be nitpicking to find fault. I have learned with you there is no room to be given in any discussion as you will misconstrue vague points because you thrive on being contentious. You will not graciously allow this room for discussion on any matter, for all those not Reformed are to be destroyed and that seems to be your chosen calling. I know the churches that teach this and they are self serving. What master do you serve? Oh, I fancy the response would be the truth but are you sure you aren't more concerned with pushing for a particular church system? Reformed viewpoint seems to be an idol for you. 

As for the complaint you have, it is a petty one. The position of the author, as I understood it to be put forth, is that one can acknowledge there is a Creator much as the demons acknowledge He exists, but it is how that faith lives in us that reveals where our hearts are and who our master is. Much like you prooftext the Bible, you seem to regard any document can be analyzed in such a fashion.

----------


## jmdrake

> No Orthodox Christianity is not Reformed. You use speech much as the government does redefining things as you see fit. Lose the faith? How is that possible per your position?


Exactly!  That's the Sola_Fide / Calvinism division by zero!  It's the belief that man must "work" to be "saved" by not "losing faith" because they don't believe his version of the Gospel!  It's the "God says you despite yourself but you will be lost if you think you can be lost" ideology.

----------


## jmdrake

> From Moostracks' article:
> 
> Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.  Let's look at what James says:
> 
> The demons did not believe "Jesus died on the cross for my sins" (as the article falsely said).  They simply believed in monotheism.  A simple belief in monotheism is not saving faith.  Saving faith is assent to understood propositions of the gospel...period.  If you believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins, you have saving faith, and are saved.


Nonsense!

_Acts 16:16-18

16 Once when we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a female slave who had a spirit by which she predicted the future. She earned a great deal of money for her owners by fortune-telling. 17 She followed Paul and the rest of us, shouting, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved.” 18 She kept this up for many days. Finally Paul became so annoyed that he turned around and said to the spirit, “In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of her!” At that moment the spirit left her._

The demons fully understand salvation.  A mere belief that Christ died on the cross for your sins is not enough to save you.  This is saving faith.

_Hebrews 11:6

6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him._

The key is understanding that faith that doesn't move you to action is not faith.  Remember, the demons were first angels in heaven.  They were willing to trade heaven for a false freedom.  It's not that they don't understand that Christ died for sin.  They do not want to be saved!  I've seen atheists say "If heaven is real then I don't want to go there."  The demons know heaven is real, that Christ paid the price for sin ect.  They do not believe in God's reward.  Not enough to seek God.  So their purpose is to try to prevent others from seeking God as well.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Nonsense!
> 
> _Acts 16:16-18
> 
> 16 Once when we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a female slave who had a spirit by which she predicted the future. She earned a great deal of money for her owners by fortune-telling. 17 She followed Paul and the rest of us, shouting, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved.” 18 She kept this up for many days. Finally Paul became so annoyed that he turned around and said to the spirit, “In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of her!” At that moment the spirit left her._
> 
> The demons fully understand salvation.  A mere belief that Christ died on the cross for your sins is not enough to save you.  This is saving faith.
> 
> _Hebrews 11:6
> ...


Nonsense?  Nothing in what you quoted contradicts my point.

The demons (and unsaved people) do not have faith in the propostions of the gospel, therefore they do not have saving faith.  The demons did not say (and unsaved people do not say) "I believe in my heart that Jesus died for MY sins".  

The demons in James 2 (and other unsaved people, like Muslims) affirm a monothesitic faith.  A montheistic faith is not a saving faith.  Saving faith is assent to the understood propositions of the gospel. 



We are saved by simple faith in the propositions of the gospel, alone:



> Romans 10:9 NASB
> 
> that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;


The moment a person believes, he has passed from death to life:



> John 5:24 NASB
> 
> Most assuredly I say to you, he who hears my word and believes in him who sent me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.


He who DOES NOT WORK, but believes is justified before God:



> Romans 4:5 NASB
> 
> But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,



What we believe  is primary:




> 1st Corinthians 15:1-2
> 
> Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.  By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

----------


## moostraks

> Nonsense?  Nothing in what you quoted contradicts my point.
> 
> The demons (and unsaved people) do not have faith in the propostions of the gospel, therefore they do not have saving faith.  The demons did not say (and unsaved people do not say) "I believe in my heart that Jesus died for MY sins".  
> 
> The demons in James 2 (and other unsaved people, like Muslims) affirm a monothesitic faith.  A montheistic faith is not a saving faith.  Saving faith is assent to the understood propositions of the gospel. 
> 
> 
> 
> We are saved by simple faith in the propositions of the gospel, alone:
> ...


Romans 4:5 in context:

Romans 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

In the context to which your snippet was put forth it was discussing the issue of works of the flesh to earn heaven. Stop trying to confuse the two issues...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Romans 4:5 in context:
> 
> Romans 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
> 
> 2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
> 
> 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
> 
> 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
> ...


So...what's your point?

In Romans 4, Paul is challenging the idea that man could ever do anything to work for God's grace.  God's grace is absolutely free. It cannot be worked for.

Therefore, the one who ceases from his work, and simply believes in God who justifies the ungodly, is saved.



In Romans 10, Paul talks more about this:




> Romans 10:9-11 NIV
> 
> If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 
> 
> For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 
> 
> As Scripture says, "Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame."


We are justified before God by His free grace.  We don't give anything to God to get His grace, we simply receive.   We are saved through the simple method of believing.  Works are not involved in our being made righteous in God's sight.

----------


## moostraks

> So...what's your point?
> 
> In Romans 4, Paul is challenging the idea that man could ever do anything to work for God's grace.  God's grace is absolutely free. It cannot be worked for.
> 
> Therefore, the one who ceases from his work, and simply believes in God who justifies the ungodly, is saved.
> 
> 
> 
> In Romans 10, Paul talks more about this:
> ...


You are equating works of the Spirit with works of the flesh, We are not called to quit works of the Spirit, but to stop trying to earn favor by doing works of the flesh. You are using one verse out of context to validate your points but it is in error because you are taking the verses out of context for the whole point that is being made in the chapter in question. 

Again Matthew 4 comes to mind. You preach a viewpoint much like the temptation of Jesus. Oh, it seems really nifty on the surface as it uses verses to seemingly back it up, but it doesn't pass the sniff test. This is why you use so many outside resources to validate your twisting of Scripture so we can understand where you are coming from. You don't use chapters and books, you use verses and those are out of context with regards to the books they are contained within. 

We were not called to bask in our chosen status but be laborers.
1 Corinthians 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building

So have you spent anytime recently on the Beatitudes?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You are equating works of the Spirit with works of the flesh, We are not called to quit works of the Spirit,


?

Equating?   

Works of the Spirit is SANCTIFICATION, not JUSTIFICATION.  

We are not justified by our sanctfied deeds. It is not possible to be justified by our sanctified deeds, because the law requires a LIFE of perfect obedience (the kind of life Jesus lived) and none of us can be sanctified enough to fulfill the requirements of the law.

Again, this is a confusion of sanctification and justification.  When you confuse these two doctrines, the result is that you bring human work into the process of justification....works-salvationism.

But we are not justified by our _works or our faith._



> Ephesians 2:8-9 NIV
> 
> For it is by grace you have been saved, *through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God*— not by works, so that no one can boast.


We are not saved BY our faith (or our workings of faith), we are saved by grace, through faith...and that faith is not from ourselves, it is a gift if God.

----------


## moostraks

> ?
> 
> Equating?   
> 
> Works of the Spirit is SANCTIFICATION, not JUSTIFICATION.  
> 
> We are not justified by our sanctfied deeds. It is not possible to be justified by our sanctified deeds, because the law requires a LIFE of perfect obedience (the kind of life Jesus lived) and none of us can be sanctified enough to fulfill the requirements of the law.
> 
> Again, this is a confusion of sanctification and justification.  When you confuse these two doctrines, the result is that you bring human work into the process of justification....works-salvationism.
> ...


There is only confusion for those who feel the need to bring confusion to the issue. I already posted an article sufficient to the understanding of the need to realize these issues are intertwined. You can keep insisting that you are right but you are misrepresenting those that disagree with you so that you can place condemnation upon those you disagree with. Your verse was not pertinent to the argument that we are called to be laborers, but that we were not to use works of the flesh with the thought that they could earn salvation. 

You are acting as if we are not called to labor. You cannot split the two ideas apart. 

James 2:14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, Depart in peace, be warmed and filled, but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

18 But someone will say, You have faith, and I have works. Show me your faith without your[a] works, and I will show you my faith by my[b] works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believeand tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?[c] 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.[d] And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also

Matthew 25:31 When the Son of Man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his throne of glory; 32 and all the nations will be gathered before him and he will separate them from one another, just as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will put the sheep on his right hand and the goats on his left.

34 Then the King will say to those on his right, Come! you who are the blessed ones of my Father, inherit the kingdom that was prepared for you from the beginning of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me a drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.

37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, Lord, when did we see you hungry and fed you, or thirsty and we gave you a drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and we invited you in, or naked and we clothed you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and we came to you?

40 And answering, the King will say to them, Truly I say to you, as much as you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.

41 Then he will say to those on his left, Depart from me, you accursed ones, into the eternal fire that has been kept in readiness for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you did not give me anything to eat, I was thirsty and you did not give me a drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I was naked and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not visit me.

44 Then they will also answer, saying, Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and we did not help you?

45 Then he will answer them, saying, Truly I say to you, as much as you did not do it for one of the least of these, you did not do it for me. 

46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

----------


## jmdrake

> Nonsense?  Nothing in what you quoted contradicts my point.


Your point was that the demons only believe that there is one god.  They don't only believe that.  They also believe that Jesus died to pay the price for sin.  Their whole job is to prevent others from believing and accepting that.




> The demons (and unsaved people) do not have faith in the propostions of the gospel, therefore they do not have saving faith.  The demons did not say (and unsaved people do not say) "I believe in my heart that Jesus died for MY sins".


Well you don't believe that Jesus died for everyone's sins anyway.  Arminianists, who you condemn, believe that Jesus died for their sins, your sins, and everyone else's sins.  So if all you have to do is believe that Jesus died for your sins to be saved, all Arminianists are, by definition, saved.

Now you believe that anyone who believes Jesus died for their sins is saved right?  Yet you believe that a certain homosexual preacher in Luxemburg isn't a Christian.  How do you know he doesn't believe Jesus died for his sins?  




> The demons in James 2 (and other unsaved people, like Muslims) affirm a monothesitic faith.  A montheistic faith is not a saving faith.  Saving faith is assent to the understood propositions of the gospel.


Circular reasoning that is unbiblical.  This is a definition of a saving faith.

_He the comes to God must believe that he is and that he is the rewarder of those that diligently seek Him."_

Peter, Paul, James and Jesus all warned against those who would come to the conclusion that a mere intellectual acknowledgement of Jesus and His role in salvation would save them.  Faith (saving belief) leads one to repent.




> We are saved by simple faith in the propositions of the gospel, alone:


So the gay pastor you think isn't a Christian probably is saved by your definition.  




> The moment a person believes, he has passed from death to life:


The moment he has faith according to Hebrews Hebrews 11:6 he passes from death unto life.  It has to be a moving faith.




> He who DOES NOT WORK, but believes is justified before God:


He who does not work doesn't have real faith and is therefore not justified.  He's justified by faith, but it's the same faith that causes works.  If you don't have a faith that causes works you are spiritually dead.  James 2 makes that abundantly clear.  Charles Spurgeon and John Calvin agree with that point.




> What we believe  is primary:


If that belief doesn't move you then it's a dead belief that can't save you.  Getting your "belief right" is not what salvation is about.  Getting your "faith right" is.  Faith is different than intellectual belief.

_ 2 Corinthians 7:10 Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death._

There is no salvation without repentance.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Your point was that the demons only believe that there is one god.  They don't only believe that.  They also believe that Jesus died to pay the price for sin.  Their whole job is to prevent others from believing and accepting that.



I'll repeat what I said again:  No demon and no unsaved person has believed "Jesus died for *MY* sins."

Saving faith is believing in the propositions of the gospel.  Faith does not include work:




> Romans 10:9-11
> 
> ...the message concerning faith that we proclaim:  If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 
> 
> For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 
> 
> As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”



Paul doesn't say "it is with your heart you believe, and then you must also do works to be saved", he says very simply:



> For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.











> Well you don't believe that Jesus died for everyone's sins anyway.  Arminianists, who you condemn, believe that Jesus died for their sins, your sins, and everyone else's sins.  So if all you have to do is believe that Jesus died for your sins to be saved, all Arminianists are, by definition, saved.


Arminians do say this, but so did the Judiazers.  The Judiazers believed wholeheartedly in Jesus dying for their sins, but their error (and the Arminian error) is that the grace of God is not sufficient for their salvation...works must be added to grace in order for it to be sufficient.

This is the division between true religion and false religion, between salvation and damnation--monergism vs. synergism.  








> Now you believe that anyone who believes Jesus died for their sins is saved right?  Yet you believe that a certain homosexual preacher in Luxemburg isn't a Christian.  How do you know he doesn't believe Jesus died for his sins?


I don't know.  God's elect people don't glow green when they walk down the street.  God's decree in election is something that we humans are not privy to.  All that we can say is that, as James points out, this homosexual "preacher" is not "showing us his faith" through his deeds.  So we can only make a temporal judgement that he is not a Christian.  But who knows?  God may do a work in his heart and convert him.  Or maybe God has done a work in his heart and this man has not yet been sanctified enough for it to show in his life.  Or maybe this man was a Christian, but he has fell back in to his sin and is under God's displeasure. Or (most likely) he is a reprobate who loves his sin.








> Peter, Paul, James and Jesus all warned against those who would come to the conclusion that a mere intellectual acknowledgement of Jesus and His role in salvation would save them.  Faith (saving belief) leads one to repent.


*Really?*  Well, this I would love for you to show me!  Where are the verses that warn us of this?







> So the gay pastor you think isn't a Christian probably is saved by your definition.


Previous response.







> The moment he has faith according to Hebrews Hebrews 11:6 he passes from death unto life.  It has to be a moving faith.


Where does it say anything like that in that Hebrews 11?   All of the heroes of the faith were looking forward by faith to the resurrection of the dead.  This is what the 11th chapter of Hebrews is about.  It is not talking about the relationship between faith and works.








> He who does not work doesn't have real faith and is therefore not justified.


Paul says* exactly* the opposite.  The one who does not work, but believes, is justified:



> Romans 4:4-5 
> 
> Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation.  However,* to the one who does not work* but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.









> He's justified by faith, but it's the same faith that causes works. If you don't have a faith that causes works you are spiritually dead.  James 2 makes that abundantly clear.  Charles Spurgeon and John Calvin agree with that point.


This, I don't have a problem with...depending on what you mean by it.  We are justified freely (without cause...meaning nothing we did caused God's grace to be given to us) by His grace alone, through faith, and what flows from the fact that we are justified are works that God prepared for us in advance to do (Ephesians 2:8-9).  These are works that can come only from a regenerated heart.  They in no way contributed to our justification.  The Westminster Confession describes the biblical view on this:




> Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.
> 
> 2. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.
> 
> 3. Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to His Father’s justice in their behalf. Yet, in as much as He was given by the Father for them; and His obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead; and both, freely, not for any thing in them; their justification is only of free grace; that both the exact justice, and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.
> 
> 4. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.
> 
> 5. God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and, although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may, by their sins, fall under God’s fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of His countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.
> ...










> If that belief doesn't move you then it's a dead belief that can't save you.  Getting your "belief right" is not what salvation is about.  Getting your "faith right" is.


You can have all the good deeds and good works in the world, but if you don't assent to the propositions of the gospel, how can you be saved?  If you don't assent to the propostions of the gospel, then you endorse self-righteousness, and then your works condemn you in the end.











> Faith is different than intellectual belief.


NO IT IS NOT.   Faith is no different than belief.  To say that faith is any different than belief is to bring works into justification.










> _ 2 Corinthians 7:10 Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death._
> 
> There is no salvation without repentance.


The quote in context:






> 2nd Corinthians 7:9-11
> 
> *For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us.* Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death. See what this godly sorrow has produced in you: what earnestness, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm, what longing, what concern, what readiness to see justice done.



Repentance is a gift from God.  There is no salvation without faith, but faith is a gift of God.  There is no salvation with works, but works come from the Spirit and were prepared in advance for us to do.    Repentance, faith, and the works we do come as a result of our justification, not as a condition of it.

Saved people are counted as righteous "*not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God."*

----------


## jmdrake

> I'll repeat what I said again:  No demon and no unsaved person has believed "Jesus died for *MY* sins."


Says you.  But you claim that a certain gain preacher isn't saved.  You can't know that he doesn't believe Jesus died for his sins.  You just make stuff up as usual.




> Saving faith is believing in the propositions of the gospel.  Faith does not include work:


Calvin disagrees with you.  If your faith doesn't produce works, according to Calvin it is not faith.  It's not that faith includes works.  *It's that TRUE faith produces works.*  Unless you understand that, you do not understand the gospel.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If your faith doesn't produce works, according to Calvin it is not faith.


You'll love these quotes:




> ...according to [the Papists], man is justified by both faith and works provided they are not his own works but the gifts of Christ and the fruit of regeneration. But all works are excluded, whatever title may grace them. 
> 
> -John Calvin, Institutes, 3.11.14





> ..a great part of mankind imagine that righteousness is composed of faith and works [but according to Philippians 3:8-9] a man who wishes to obtain Christs righteousness must abandon his own righteousness.... From this it follows that so long as any particle of works-righteousness remains some occasion for boasting remains with us.
> 
> -John Calvin, Institutes, 3.11.13





> To believe the Gospel is nothing else than to assent to the truths that God has revealed. 
> 
> -John Calvin, commentary on John

----------


## jmdrake

> You'll love these quotes:


That's nice.  None of those quotes at all contradict with John Calvin's position that if faith does not produce works it is not faith.  All you are proving is how little you know about faith.  You have a very superficial scratch the service knowledge.  And that's why you can't answer the question as to why you think the openly gay pastor is not a Christian.

----------

