Man insists, 'By faith alone.' Scriptures declares, 'Not By Faith Alone.'

'Rambutans in my garden.'

The man insists, 'By faith alone.'
Scriptures declare, 'Not By Faith Alone.'

Consider this biblical statement in James 2:24,
"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."

It has always puzzled me why and who had formulated the formula - "Justification is by Grace alone, through Faith alone, in Christ alone." Why is there such a fascination with 'faith alone'?

Scriptures declare quite the opposite: "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and NOT BY FAITH ONLY [ALONE]" James 2:24.

Scriptures declare quite plainly "NOT BY FAITH ALONE." However, very many - both the 'reformed' folks as well as the 'Arminians' - insist to the contrary, i.e. 'BY FAITH ALONE.' Isn't it puzzling? Isn't something seriously wrong, somewhere!


Is it alone or not alone?

I have a simple mind, but a sound and consistent one, I hope, and see things logically and consistently. For example... consider the popular theological jargon... "Justification is by Grace alone, through Faith alone, in Christ alone." If justification is by God's free grace alone, then it most certainly cannot be by faith alone too in the same SENSE. That's double talk at best! If it is by faith alone, then how could it be also by grace alone in the same sense? This manner of talking destroys the meaning of words and hinders honest communication and understanding. It has to be one or the other. Like the case, both 'alone' are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, otherwise, both are mutually contradicted and rendered meaningless. These are too obvious even to be stated. The two 'alones' CANNOT possibly be in the same sense and still remain true at the same time. Common sense and a sound mind require that. Honesty and consistency would require one to say, 'Justification is by God's free grace AS WELL AS by faith' if that is what folks really want to convey.

If justification is by grace alone, then it must be by grace ALONE. 'Grace alone' excludes everything else, otherwise, it is no longer 'grace alone.' To say that justification, in the same sense, is ALSO by faith alone is an example of double talk - speaking from both sides of the same mouth or an indication of confusion, or a case of bad expression, or worse, outright deceit. If justification is by grace alone, then it cannot be by faith alone too in the same sense.

'By grace alone' - if words have meaning at all - excludes justification by anything else in the same SENSE. Otherwise, we end up with a case of justification which is by grace AND faith.

Let me just say that I have no sympathy for the RC's LIE that legal justification BEFORE GOD is by BOTH works AND faith. I must also state that I do not have any sympathy either for the populist LIE that legal justification BEFORE GOD is by faith alone. Both are lies of the Devil!

I do believe that our legal justification before God is by His grace alone through the righteousness of Christ alone. And BY GRACE ALONE means BY GRACE ALONE and nothing else, and THROUGH CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS ALONE means THROUGH CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS ALONE and nothing else.

If justification is by God's grace alone, then what is the biblical relationship of faith to justification which is by God's grace alone through the righteousness of Christ alone? There is rampant confusion here. But the statement in James 2:24 is plain and clear. I am in perfect agreement with this biblical statement in James 2:24. Let's consider the plain teaching and the implications of this simple and plain statement.


Look at this plain statement of Scriptures

"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
This is a plain enough statement. There should be no problem understanding it. In its context, it is declaring at least two very obvious and basic truths:

ONE: The works, as well as the man's faith, justify HIM, THE MAN.
Scriptures say, 'NOT BY FAITH ONLY'! It is by BOTH works and faith. That's what the text plainly declares regardless of what it means. Please don't embrace the common and popular error of saying that works justify the genuineness of the man's faith! Read the text again really slowly and carefully. It says 'a man is justified by works' - the works of the man justifies THE MAN himself, not his faith - as so commonly claimed.

TWO: A man's works justify him the same way his faith justifies him.
The same verb 'justified' is applied to the SAME MAN, in exactly the SAME MANNER to both the man's 'works' as well as the man's 'faith.' That is what the text plainly declares! If one is tempted to say that works and faith justify a man differently, i.e. faith justifies the man, and works justify his faith, let him prove that the text teaches such a notion.

The new-school reformed as well as non-reformed folks recoil from and reject these simple observations stated here. This only reveals that there is so much confusion, deficiency and inconsistency in their view concerning justification. This problem can easily be resolved when we rightly divide the word of truth on the doctrine of justification.


The different and distinct facets of justification

I suggest that the Scriptures speak of the different aspects of justification:
- there is the forensic/legal/objective justification of all the elect that is by the blood of Jesus Christ alone at the cross when Christ's righteousness was legally IMPUTED to all represented by him;
- there is the vital/personal/applied justification when Christ's righteousness is APPLIED to each elect at his effectual calling unto grace and salvation in Jesus Christ by God's grace alone;
- there is the experiential justification which is by faith alone (Gen 15:1-6, Romans 4:1-8), the justification by God's free grace is experienced through faith in Christ, and evidenced by both works and faith (James 2:24). BOTH faith and works evidence/manifest the justified state!
- and there shall be the final justification at Christ's second coming. There shall be that grand vindication before the judgment throne!

This way everything is consistently biblical.

Now the questions we need to ask about James 2:24 text are these:
How do a man's works justify him?
How does a man's faith justify him?
In what sense do the works and the faith of the man justify him in exactly the same manner?

Old school reformers (WCF 11:2) declared: '... Faith is not alone in the person justified.' This means, among other things, that apart from the grace of faith there are (present tense) other graces worked by the indwelling Spirit in the person justified (past tense) by God's free grace. In a man justified by God's free grace, you will find among other saving graces, faith and good works. Faith is one of the many graces among the fruit of the Spirit, cp Gal 5:22-23

A man's faith justifies him in that his faith certifies, declares, demonstrates, evidences, proves, manifests, and vindicates that he has been legally imputed (when Christ died at the cross) and personally applied (at effectual calling to grace and salvation) with the righteousness of Christ, i.e. justified by God's free grace. Faith, as well as works, justifies a man EVIDENTIALLY. It's like BOTH breath and heartbeat vindicate that a dead man has been made alive!

Faith does not justify FORENSICALLY, i.e. it does not secure the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Faith is NOT the instrumental means to secure the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Faith is NOT the instrumental means to secure our legal justification before God.

Faith which receives and rests in Christ for righteousness is the instrument to certify, declare, demonstrate, evidence, justify, prove, or vindicate that the person is a child of God - justified, regenerated and adopted, and indwelt with the Spirit of adoption who works those saving graces like faith, works, repentance, etc. Faith is a fruit of justification; a fruit of justification CANNOT possibly be the instrumental cause of the same justification.

EVEN SO, a man's works of righteousness justify him in that his works of righteousness certify, declare, demonstrate, evidence, justify, prove or vindicate that the person with works of righteousness IS indeed a child of God by God's free grace, i.e. already imputed with the righteousness of life, regenerated with life, adopted, and have the Spirit of adoption dwelling within to work those graces of works and faith. The justified man (personally by God's free grace) has good works. The justified man has faith. Both good works and faith are fruits and effects of legal justification before God by God's free grace. They give evidence of a justified state before God.

Works do not justify in that they do not secure the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Works are not the instrumental means to SECURE the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Works are not the instrumental means to SECURE our legal justification before God. [Papists would anathematize me 1000 times for these repudiations].

Faith does not justify in that it DOES NOT secure the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Faith is not the instrumental means to obtain the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Faith is not the instrumental means to receive our legal justification before God. [The 'reformed' as well as free-willers folks would anathematize me 1000 and 1 times for these denials].

The works of a man, like his faith, are the instruments to declare, demonstrate, evidence, prove, or vindicate the justified state of the man. Both works and faith justify EVIDENTIALLY. BOTH works of righteousness and faith are fruits and effects of our legal and personal justification before God. That's the only way to make sense of the statement in James. Our justified [past tense] state before God by His free grace is [present tense] presently certified, demonstrated, evidenced, justified, manifested, proven, vindicated, etc by BOTH works of righteousness and faith in Christ. The evidences are twins, though both may be visibly manifested in varying degrees. A breathing person evidences the life in him by BOTH breathing and heartbeats. It is never by one ALONE. However,  neither breathing nor heartbeats is an instrumental cause of the life possessed. Both works and faith are always together as the effects of our justified state before God by His free grace.


Experiential justification by faith is gravely perverted

The RCs make BOTH works and faith the INSTRUMENTAL causes of their legal justification before God. They are plainly wrong. The protestants would amputate one of the two gangrenous limbs and insist that faith is the ALONE INSTRUMENTAL cause of their legal justification before God. So also almost all the rest of Christendom. They are no less erroneous than the RCs. There must be serious confusion somewhere.

The Bible teaches that both works and faith are evidence of the legal justification before God by His free grace. They BOTH justify a man EVIDENTIALLY, not FORENSICALLY before God. The only thing that is required to justify a guilty condemned unrighteous sinner forensically before God is the complete and perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ ALONE. "Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." This declaration rules out the "justification by faith alone" in the same forensic sense.

The question then is, where does the popular idea of 'faith alone' come from?

The Bible does speak of EXPERIENTIAL justification by faith alone in Christ alone. There is no other way for a child of God (therefore, already personally justified, regenerated and adopted, with the Spirit dwelling within him) to personally experience his justified state by God's free grace apart from faith in Jesus Christ alone. But this is precisely NOT what people mean when they mouth the shibboleth 'justification by faith alone.' They insist upon Legal Justification by their faith as the alone instrumental cause... they vehemently deny that it is Experiential Justification that is by faith in Christ alone.

In the purpose of God, it is revealed and repeatedly stated that 'faith is accounted to him for righteousness.' It is never 'works are accounted to him for righteousness.' Please take VERY careful note that 'faith is accounted to him for righteousness' IS NOT - IS NOT - IS NOT the same as 'the righteousness of Christ is accounted to him for justification.' Too many confound the two. One who cannot distinguish this basic and fundamental difference between the two does not have the basic requirement to rightly divide the word of truth. Someone has aptly said, 'Biblical distinction is the essence of sound theology.'

There is a world of difference between Christ's righteousness and a believer's faith, and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to a condemned sinner, and the imputation of the believer's faith to him.

The accounting of a believer's faith to him for righteousness, and the accounting of Christ's righteousness to a condemned dead alienated sinner (i.e. unjustified) for his legal justification before God are two completely distinct matters. It is a massive theological blunder to confound the two. There is SIMPLY NO ACCOUNTING OF CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS to a believer when he believes. The Scriptures state in the plainest way that there is imputation of the believer's faith unto him for righteousness. And there is a world of difference between the two. A man is woefully blind when he refuses to see or acknowledge the plain and obvious distinction.

God imputing a believer's faith to the believer for righteousness speaks of God blessing the believing of the believer unto the believer for him to subjectively know and personally experience the blessedness of his legal and personal justification by God's free grace while still ungodly, i.e. dead in sin and enmity against God. It is by faith in Jesus Christ alone that a child of God - effectually called to grace and salvation by God's free grace while in the state of sin and death - experiences the blessedness of his righteousness before God. No amount of good works would enable a child of God to experience the same blessedness. This is the true meaning of 'by faith alone' - Apostle Paul's thesis in Romans and in Galatians.

The meaning of the word 'to justify' must be determined by its context. It does not always mean the divine act of declaring a guilty condemned dead alien sinner righteous by the imputation of Christ's righteousness. God justifying a condemned guilty sinner, and faith justifying a believer are two very distinct and different subjects! Context may require that the verb 'to justify' mean to demonstrate, to declare, to prove, to vindicate, etc. The resurrection of Christ justified and vindicated Him as indeed the Son of the eternal God, Romans 1:4, 1Tim 3:16.

The biblical position is, "The just shall live by faith." The new school's reformed position seems to be insisting, "By faith, a condemned dead man shall be justified and live". Here, a simple statement declaring a fact has been entirely MIS-understood and turned into a statement that makes a conditional offer - that is, an offer of legal justification on the condition of faith!!! It is a simple declaration of fact that 'the just shall live by faith' - i.e. the justified ones shall live by faith. Justification by God's free grace is the cause, and 'shall live by faith' is the effect. Legal Justification precedes the ability to live by faith. It is NOT - as most commonly understood by so many, 'by faith the condemned unrighteous shall be justified and live.' It is a puzzle how a plain straightforward statement of Scriptures can be read and understood in precisely the opposite manner.

Another classic example is the repeated declaration "whoever believes has eternal/everlasting life" in the Scriptures. It is quite plain that this is a declarative statement of fact... declaring the simple and obvious fact that whoever believes HAS/ALREADY POSSESSES eternal life. It is a simple statement, declaring a certain plain fact about the believer. It is like a doctor saying, 'whosoever breathes has life.' Now, NOBODY in his sound mind would understand the doctor's simple statement as meaning, "A dead man who will breathe shall have life." Yet nearly all in Christendom today understand a declarative statement of fact "whoever believes has eternal life" as a conditional statement of an offer, meaning, as a statement that makes a conditional offer, "whoever will believe shall receive eternal life." Those dead in sin without eternal life CAN NEVER believe. Life must precede the activity of life - in the physical realm as well as in the spiritual realm. To claim otherwise is the height of folly, and irrationality.


Failure to distinguish different aspects of Justification

Legal justification before God is neither by works nor by faith. Legal justification is by God's free grace ALONE through the righteousness and blood of Christ ALONE. This evidences itself not only by works of righteousness BUT ALSO by faith. God justified us while we were still ungodly, under the condemnation of death and were still enemies, still in rebellion against Him. The common error is that God justifies us when we believe. God justifies the ungodly - i.e. while one is in a state of condemnation, death and alienation, but faith justifies the believers.

EXPERIENTIAL justification is by faith, i.e. believing in Jesus Christ is the instrumental means to personally know and experience the blessedness of our justified (simple past tense) state by God's free grace. EVIDENTIAL justification is by faith as well as good works. Abraham is the classic example. Abraham was already a justified man by God's free grace in Gen 12-14, prior to Gen 15:1-6. He was justified by God's free grace while an UNGODLY man in the Ur of the Chaldean. All his works of obedience and righteousness in Gen 12-14 and prior to Gen 15:1-6 EVIDENCES his justified state before God beyond a shadow of a doubt. (Read on this subject here: 'What thinkest thou of thy father Abraham?')

His faith (evidenced by obedience and works of righteousness) before Gen 15:1-6 PROVES beyond any shadow of a doubt that Abraham was ALREADY a justified man by God when he left Ur. So many 'reformed' people who insist that Abraham was justified before God in Gen 15:1-6 must necessarily imply that Abraham in Gen 12-14 was STILL an unjustified man, therefore STILL a condemned guilty sinner before God. What blasphemy and slanders against the venerable father of all those who believe!

His faith in the promised Seed in Gen 15:1-6 was accounted to him for righteousness. God blessed his faith in the promised seed to EXPERIENCE the blessedness of his justified state. His faith in the promised Seed secured for him the subjective and personal experience of the blessedness of his righteous standing in Christ by the free grace of God. By faith in the promised Seed, he experienced personally the blessedness of his righteous standing before God in Christ. This blessed experience can only be attained through faith in the promised Seed alone. No amount of his prior works of righteousness enabled Abraham to attain this blessed experience. This Experiential justification is by his faith! No faith, no experiential justification. This is biblical and is consistent with the vital/personal justification by grace alone. But the common and popular error is: no faith, no legal justification. This is anti-biblical and repudiates legal justification by grace alone.

Abraham had works of righteousness in Gen 12-14 before his faith was brought forth by the good news of the promised Seed. But his works of righteousness were not imputed to him for righteousness. His faith in the promised Seed was! Both his works of righteousness and his faith are fruits and effects of his free grace justification by God while an ungodly man in Ur. Both EVIDENTIALLY justify his righteous state before God by His free grace while ungodly.

Both faith and works demonstrate and evidence the justified state of a man by grace. The saving grace of faith as a result of justification is a saving grace that is never alone, i.e. always accompanied by the saving grace of good works. Both are effects of the free grace justification before God. Abraham is a classic proof of this fact. He has good works as well as faith in the promised Seed. Apostle Paul marshalled Abraham to demonstrate this fundamental truth to rebuke the regenerate Jews who have good works (they have the zeal OF God, they follow after the law of righteousness but are woefully ignorant...) but have not trusted in the promised Seed. These were seeking EXPERIENTIAL justification in the wrong place... through their observance of the ceremonial laws. Apostle Paul told them that they would never find it through their works of keeping the ceremonial laws. Apostle Paul told them to learn from the classic example of Abraham... 'he believes and his faith was counted to him for righteousness.'

EXPERIENTIAL justification is by faith alone in Jesus Christ. The case of Abraham proves that it is 'his faith [in the promised seed] is accounted unto him for righteousness.' There is no other way. Apostle Paul put Abraham before them, and showed them that Abraham had good works BOTH before and after Gen 15:1-6, he also had FAITH in the promised Seed. And if they are truly children of Abraham, they would walk like their father Abraham, and receive and rest in the promised Seed.

A believer's works and faith are EFFECTS and MANIFESTATIONS of his justified state by God's free grace. They justify him EVIDENTIALLY - that's what James 2:24 declares.


Conclusion

The Mother Harlot teaches:
Legal justification before God is by BOTH faith in Christ AND works of righteousness.

Mother Harlot's daughters (amputated one of the two gangrenous limbs) declare:
Legal justification before God is by faith ALONE in Christ.

Scriptures say, and the old school Baptists believed rightly:
Legal justification is by the free and sovereign grace alone through the righteousness of Christ alone; and this free grace legal justification that is applied freely and sovereign by the Spirit of God is TO BE EXPERIENCED through faith in Christ alone, and is EVIDENCED by BOTH works of righteousness and faith in Christ.

"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."
"Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."

This is Legal Justification in the court of God the Judge. By God's free grace, one stands justified in the court of heaven, once and for all eternity.

"Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."
The Legal Justification through the redemption of Christ at the cross is applied to each elect personally at effectual calling, thus bringing about Vital Justification. What was legal became vital and personal. Imputed righteousness is applied personally to each elect at his effectual calling out of the state of sin and death to that of grace and eternal salvation.

"Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.'
This is Experiential Justification in the court of one's conscience. By faith in the finished work of Christ one stands justified in the court of his own conscience that he is indeed a child of God. The Scriptures declare, 'The just shall live by faith." Therefore by faith in Jesus Christ, one's conscience is confirmed and assured that he is indeed a justified man by the free grace of God.

"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
This is Evidential Justification before the court of the church of Christ. By both works of righteousness and faith in Jesus Christ, one provides evidence to others that he is indeed a justified man by the free grace of God, fit to be received into the fellowship of the saints by the church of Jesus Christ.

May the God who justifies the ungodly guilty condemned sinners grant each reader light to understand the multifaceted nature of the Scriptures’ teaching on justification.

=======

On Mar 20, 2007, at 8:57 PM, jay wrote:

Brother Sing,

I love your way of reasoning and presenting your thoughts, I believe Biblical thoughts. Could it be that Luther's strong dislike of the letter of James grew out of his failure to understand justification in the way you set forth below? And for the typical myopic view of justification that tries to put a non-existent tension between James and Paul, there is always Romans 4:2, "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God." Paul here affirms that Abraham was in fact justified by works, perfectly harmonious with what James wrote in the passage you used in your writing. I believe Paul was making exactly the same point that you so clearly set forth from James.

A distinction in the various phases of justification goes hand in hand with the PB distinctive between eternal and temporal salvation (many temporal salvations to be more accurate). Our forensic or eternal justification and our eternal salvation occur by the grace of God alone and require no conditions or instrumentalities from us to become effective. Our temporal discipleship (in the many, many deliverances that we experience in discipleship) and our true justification by faith and by works require conditions from us and are in fact contingent on those things in us to become effective and thus to be enjoyed and experienced. If a person is confused on the distinct aspects of phases of justification, he will in all likelihood be equally confused on the question of distinct aspects of phases of salvation.

Thank you for sharing this delightful and thought-provoking work with us.

Blessings to you in the sandy seas,
jay

======


sing wrote:

Brother Jay,

It is interesting that you mentioned Luther. Questions about him have been lingering in my mind. I sometimes wonder whether it was Luther who was responsible for the error associated with 'faith alone.'

Did Luther believe faith as the instrumental cause for legal justification? Or did he believe correctly that faith is the instrumental cause for experiential justification, but those who came later pervert his teaching? When Luther was frantically doing all those 'works' in the monastery in order to be justified before God, did he think of legal justification before God or experiential justification before his own conscience?

I do believe that he was already vitally /personally justified by the free grace of God at that point. However, he has not experienced the truth and reality of his justified state because he was not seeking it through faith in Christ but his own works. And when he did believe and obtained experiential justification by his faith, did he misunderstand it as his legal justification by his faith.

I have been on this forum for 6 years now... and hardly heard Luther being mentioned. But he is an idol among protestants - daughters of Rome! So many Baptists love the daughters and sons of Rome better than our own Gills and company better.

sing
=======

On Wednesday, March 21, 2007 1:10 AM Jay wrote:

Brother Sing,

I haven't read Luther enough to give you an "expert" opinion on him or his motives, but I suspect that your assessment of him is pretty much on target. How easily we may misinterpret our experiential justification for forensic justification and thus sadly confuse both. If this were the case with Luther, it would also explain his intense dislike of the epistle of James, as I believe he termed it, that "rather strawy epistle."

God speed,
jay

=======

On Mar 21, 2007, at 7:48 PM, Far East wrote:

Bro. Jay,

I wonder if Luther even gave thought to experiential justification and/or legal justification, or maybe he lumped them together as one salvation making them equally important to destiny.
Another thought, in the form of a question, about the expressions of justification.

Am I interpreting correctly what you and Bro. Sing are saying, or am I making muddy water to apply them with reference to legal, or forensic justification being applicable to justifying by the death of Christ to give eternal life to His elect? Is regeneration the vital phase of the legal justification, or how would you say that?

In the case of experiential justification applying to a now salvation based on the legal justification?

In a natural parable, we have life and as a result of life we have opportunity to enjoy it in a variety of degrees.

One other question: Do each and all of God's elect experience the experiential phase?
I wish I knew how to ask the questions correctly.
I hope I am not intruding.

far east
=======

March 22, 2007 9:23:31 AM GMT+07:00 sing wrote:

Brother Far East,

I will give my sandy opinion - just shaky ones, of the quality that can't be used to make glass for mirrors.

This is how I understand various aspects of justification:

The Legal aspect is by the blood of Jesus Christ at the cross, by which the righteousness of life is legally imputed to all the elect of God.

The Vital aspect is by the grace of God at the effectual calling of an elect to grace and salvation. The righteousness of Christ is actually applied/imparted to each elect personally. I understand that as the vital aspect of justification. When God the Father applies the righteousness of Christ to an elect personally, the Holy Spirit regenerates him and unite him personally to Christ, and the Father adopts and gives the Spirit of Christ to dwell in the regenerated elect. Though I believe it is in that logical order, yet all of them are simultaneously chronological at effectual calling out of the state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation.

The Experiential aspect is by faith in Jesus Christ... to be experienced throughout this earthly life.

Briefly, I understand it this way:
== Justification is decreed by the Father. This is the decretal aspect.
== Justification was accomplished by the Son at the cross. This is the legal aspect.
== Justification is applied by the Spirit at effectual call. This is the vital/personal aspect.
== Justification is experienced by faith in Jesus Christ. This is the experiential aspect.
== Justification is evidenced by works and faith. This is the evidential aspect.
== Justification is finally vindicated on Judgment day. This is the Final aspect.

You ask, 'Do each and all of God's elect experience the experiential phase?' If experiential justification is experienced by faith in Jesus Christ... then there needs to be hearing and believing the gospel, and the calling upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. In that light, I would say that justification is NOT experienced by each and all of God's elect. Justification is accomplished for each and all of God's elect. It is also applied to each and all of God's elect personally in due time when they were still in the state of condemnation and death. So, some experience it, and some don't; and those who do experience it, do so to a variety of degrees. Apostle Paul experienced it to a very great degree, whereas a work-righteousness regenerated Jew experienced very little.

I always marvel at the vast blessing that the PBs enjoy in this regard - they walk closest to Apostle Paul. And the PBs have rubbed some of that vast blessing to a poor lad like me. Now I am less poor.

sing
----

No less illogical Calvinists calling Arminians illogical

Posh Reformed Sport Car struck by a straight Old School Tree

In any discussion between the Calvinists and the Arminians, the former would inevitably slam the latter concerning their illogical position. The Calvinists will kindly remind their Arminian cousins condescendingly that regeneration or the new birth must precede faith, i.e. that the gift of life must precede the ability to believe. And of course, that is perfectly correct. Nothing could be more basic and logical and obvious than that - life must precede the activities of that life.

However, the Calvinists, in the pride of their prowess of logic, they fail to see that some of their own ideas are NO LESS inconsistent and illogical. Given the fact that the Calvinists claim themselves to be logical, and their haughty inclination to mock and ridicule the Arminians as being illogical, they are more culpable and blameworthy for their illogical ideas.

In conversing with a confident Calvinist, I [who is neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian] wrote thus: "Faith EVIDENCES the justification that has ALREADY taken place by God's free and sovereign grace. That is the truth the Bible teaches, and the Old School Baptist (like the framers of the 1689 CoF) did believe. New School Baptists are confused about the issue, failed to rightly divide the word of truth, and have rejected the truth of justification by God's free grace, WITHOUT faith."

He replied: "It's one thing to make such emphatic statements, but it is quite another thing to support them. Neither you nor the article you reference demonstrate the truthfulness of these statements from Scripture. The article that you quote from seems to be afraid that if faith is an instrumental cause of justification then it will give man some credit and rob God of His glory, but that is not necessary if faith itself is a gift and regeneration logically precedes faith. Further, the article seems contradictory. It says that faith is not an instrumental cause, but then goes on to describe faith as an instrument of receiving this righteousness."

In his statement he rightly states that "regeneration logically precedes faith." That's a perfectly logical, and a truthful statement. (As an aside, his statement that 'faith is a gift' is simply illogical - because a gift is something that comes to us from WITHOUT. The act of believing and resting in Christ is by the grace of faith worked by the Spirit of Christ from WITHIN a child of God. I assume this is a given, and that there is no dispute about this basic point.)

Now, let us turn to his confident point of logic. I reply thus:

You are perfectly right - regeneration logically precedes faith. Amen. I am always thankful when men insist on logic, because God's word truly is a logical, consistent harmonious whole. A renewed mind ought to be a sound mind, to rightly divide the word of truth. I believe your logic would insist that your justification before God follows faith, your act of believing. Let us examine the soundness of this logic.

Ask yourself these questions to check the soundness of your logic:

Is it logical that the bestowal of life (regeneration by the Spirit) PRECEDES the removal of the condemnation of death (justification by God)?

Is it logical that justification by God's free grace (I didn't say justification by believer's faith) FOLLOWS regeneration (since faith follows regeneration)?

Is it logical, or even possible, that a man UN-justified by God could ever be regenerated by the Holy Spirit?

You would agree that by nature a man is under the condemnation of death. And only the justification by God's free grace is that condemnation of death removed, and righteousness of life imputed? (Read a short article on Romans 5:18 "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; EVEN SO by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life" here: http://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2009/09/therefore-as-arminians-reject-doctrine.html)

Equally logical, one cannot possibly be regenerated when he is still unjustified, i.e. while still under the condemnation of sin and death. The removal of condemnation of death is PREREQUISITE to being quickened to life, i.e. regeneration. That is pure and sound logic!

Equally logical, one who is regenerated is ALREADY justified by God's free grace, i.e. the condemnation of death has been removed, and righteousness unto life is already applied personally, and eternal life bestowed. To claim that life is bestowed BEFORE the removal of the condemnation of death is just perverse and twisted logic!

It is crooked logic to say that an unjustified person, i.e. still under the condemnation of death and sin, is regenerated, and is able to believe in order that he may be justified by God. That is very irrational... no less irrational as those who teach that one must believe in order to have eternal life. Activity of life cannot precedes the life itself!

It is twisted logic to say that a regenerated person is still under the condemnation of sin and death, and that his act of believing is the instrumental means to remove that condemnation!

Equally illogical is the teaching that the Holy Spirit regenerated a sinner still under the condemnation of death whom the Father has not justified, has not removed the condemnation of death and imputed the righteousness of life.

All this sick, perverse and twisted logic would be set right of only these 'logicians' humble themselves, and recognize their failure to rightly divide the word of truth.

God justifies the ungodly. Faith justifies the believing.

God justifies the ungodly - those under the condemnation of death - by His free and sovereign grace, wherein He pardons all their sins, and accept them as righteous in His sight, only for the righteousness imputed to them. God justifies the ungodly REDEMPTIVELY - freely and sovereignly saving them from their just condemnation, and bestowing to them eternal salvation in Jesus Christ.

SURELY, God's acts of justifying the UNGODLY, must precede any possibility of faith, the act of believing by the justified ones.

Faith justifies the believing - God's children who are indwelt by the Spirit of God, who works in them the many graces, faith being one of them - faith certifies, demonstrates and evidences that the believing ones are indeed the children of God. Faith justifies the believing EVIDENTIALLY.

Many cannot see the obvious distinction, and end up with the nonsensical idea that faith precedes justification by God. They are blind to the simple and obvious truth that it is only an elect who is already justified by God's free grace, regenerated and adopted, and bestowed with the Spirit of adoption, that is able to believe to demonstrate his justified state by grace.

Is it not logical, as well as biblical, that one who is born again has been justified by God? How could a person be regenerated if he is still under condemnation, i.e unjustified by God? That would portray the Holy Spirit as acting immorally, regenerating someone who is still under the condemnation of death!

ALSO, the Scriptures declares, "God justifies the UNGODLY," but many illogically read that as God justifies the BELIEVING. The ungodly whom God justifies is necessarily in an unjustified state, in the state of sin and death. A believing one must necessarily be a regenerated person... and a regenerated person CAN'T possibly be at the same time still under the state of sin and death, needing to be justified by God in the same sense.

Sometimes I am amazed how the Calvinists who ridicule the irrationalism of the Arminians fail to see their own irrationalism!

That's a classic case of the pork calling beef 'meat'!

Notwithstanding all the great differences there are between Calvinists and the Arminians, they are united in one most crucial doctrine: justification by faith. Both insist that justification before God is by faith, their act of believing.

In every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him

"My son, hear the instruction of thy father,
and forsake not the law of thy mother."

I put these on Facebook and the following exchanges took place:

======
BECOME AS NEWBORN BABES: "Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, as newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: if so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious." Become as newborn babes and you are harmless to others, an...d able to grow wholesomely as your feed on the sincere milk of the word just like like newborn babes that feed solely on the miraculous milk that flows from their mothers breasts!

But it is mighty hard for grown up adults to BECOME as newborn babes. Nevertheless it is absolutely essential for spiritual growth and development.

A newborn babe is completely contented and satisfied with the wholesome milk from the mother's breast. He seeks and asks for no other form of nourishment!

So ought a disciple of Jesus Christ, who not only gave him life, but also the wholesome word of life to nourish that life! But that's only possible when he becomes as newborn babe!
======

Ellis
The sincere milk means "unadulterated", not watered down or corrupted.

Sing F Lau
That's true Keith.
Nowadays, some mums need to 'express' their milk for their new born babes... whatever silly reasons that necessitate it I don't know... often a career outside home.

What need to be observed is that none of those mum would add some salt or spices or vitamins to the expressed milk before they feed it to their babes. At least they are wise to serve the expressed milk UN-TAMPERED. Of course the best is still DIRECT and LIVE FEED from the fountains - as God has intended it.

That's truly unadulterated!

Sides
Sing I don't want to assume one way or the other but if I may ask do you believe all of God's elect will become Christians before they die and no I am not referring to those outside of having a mental capacity of even understanding good and evil. I ask these things as I have heard of some things within the Primitive Baptist Church that greatly distress me.

Sing F Lau
Sides, thanks for asking, and not assuming. That's wise. The answer to your question is OBVIOUSLY 'No'. Let me put the issue in the simplest way I know how.

1. Every elect of God shall be regenerated to become children of God, all made fit for eternal glory before the end of the gospel age. Just read Romans 8:29-30 slowly and carefully.
- Does that passage include ABSOLUTELY every single elect or not? Answer this, and I will follow up with a few question for you to consider. Or begin to think of the PLAINS implications of your answer on the question you asked.

2. Of those children of God who do GET TO hear, and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, they become Christians, they are follower of Jesus Christ. These are God's children, AS WELL AS Christians.
- Some of these are become good Christians, many others are mediocre Christians, still others are disgraceful Christians.
- But they are ALL EQUALLY children of God... because their SONSHIP is by virtue of the same power and efficacy of the sovereign and gracious acts of regeneration and adoption.
- However, their discipleship as God's children varies greatly, conditioned on many factors, the quality of the ministry they enjoy, their responsiveness to the ministry to work out their own salvation, etc.

a. Of course there are God's children, and I meant the SENTIENT ONES*, who not only do not have the gospel brought to them, they are also God's children who do hear the half-baked gospel and reject them. There are also God's children, especially among the Jews in the apostolic times, who rejected the gospel brought to them by the Apostles of Jesus Christ. They were God's children who were stuck in the rut of the old covenant!

b. *The qualification about the gospel ministry being only for those with mental capacity is of course redundant, and really STUPID, because it qualifies against something that is so obviously UNTRUE, i.e. that the gospel ministry was ever intended for the non-sentient also!

Sides
Sing allow me to be a little more specific with you. Do you believe a muslim could be part of God's elect die as a muslim never having become a christian by God's grace and yet still go to heaven this is a very straight forward question?

Sing F Lau
The more specific the better!

I DO BELIEVE that any man who fears God and works righteousness, whatever religion he is categorized and lumped up with, whether a muslim or whatever, COULD not only be a part of God's elect but also a true child of God by God's free and sovereign grace, and die, and never having been CONVERTED to Christianity by the gospel ministry, and be found in glory with Jason Sides.

I live in the sea of muslims for nearly 50 years now... and I have seen and observed on several occasions the muslims that FEAR the GOD of Abraham and WORK RIGHTEOUSNESS. Blessed be the God of heaven! They fight justice for the persecuted Christian minority, they revere the name of Christ. They are familiar with the Bible, quote it in their writings... but they make no public profession of faith in Christ.

Have you not discovered the truth Peter discovered and confessed, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." It was a big surprise to Peter that one does not have to be a Jew to be accepted by God. And it is a bigger surprise to many that it is not whether you hear and believe the gospel that determines your acceptance with God. It is fearing God and working righteousness that EVIDENCE and DEMONSTRATE one's acceptance with God.

Was Cornelius accepted with God long before Peter came along? And if Peter did not come along, would the divine acceptance of Cornelius ceased, or be reversed? Does God show favoritism in ETERNAL SALVATION - GOING TO HEAVEN - to ONLY those who have the opportunity to hear, and believe the gospel?

And they fear Him and works righteousness BECAUSE God has called them out of the state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation, justified them regenerated them, adopted them, giving His Spirit to dwell in them... working graces in them... which are then MANIFESTED in the reverence of God and works of righteousness! This the the only possible explanation.

Have you not read.... there were secret believers among the Jews even in the days of Jesus Christ. They feared to profess Jesus Christ openly! They were fearful to be ostracized from the Jewish community!

In every nation (i.e. every ethnic group) any one that fears God and works righteousness HAS BEEN ACCEPTED by God. His acceptance by God explains his difference from all others... fearing of God and working the works of righteousness. Such a man can be found in any religion he was born in and grew up with - whether Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism, Monkeyism, Cowism, Americanism, etc. Such are God's children and the gospel ministry has been appointed for their conversion to the truth of their salvation by God's free grace in Christ Jesus! And the gospel DOES NOT reach everyone of them! That doesn't make them any less CHILDREN of God though they may remain in darkness without the gospel light to enlighten them of their eternal salvation by God's free grace.

Is my answer straight forward enough?

Sides
Sing baloney you and I believe a different Gospel then. Mormons like Muslims believe on a Different Christ although very thankful Gill and many true Baptist did not propagate this kind of nonsense.

Sides
Richard, Spurgeon a Baptist and Whitfield an Anglican whom Sing said he has read would staunchly disagree with Sing's commentary they can't all be right there is a very stark difference.

Sing F Lau
Jason, it matters very little to me whether you and I believe the same gospel or not. And it matters less whether Spurgeon or Whitefield agree with me. I am contented that I am faithful to Scriptures.

I would be interested if you engage me with the Scriptures. Who cares what so and so great theologians say and disagree with me? Since when did they become the standard of your faith??? 'Scriptures alone' is just a cheap shibboleth to so many. They would rather appeal to men, and not the word of God!

Jason, make sure you do represent me correctly. I did say a muslim who fears God and works righteousness, and not just any muslims without distinction. Or for that matter, not just a muslim, BUT ANYONE who fears God and works righteousness GIVES evidence that he is a child of God, perfectly and completely FITTED for eternal glory by God's free grace, regardless of whether he hears and believe the gospel or not.

Of course, of course, it would be VERY GOOD if such do hear and believe the gospel... because the gospel will save them from so much errors and lies, the gospel informs and instructs them the truth of their salvation that HAS ALREADY happened by God's grace.

And that is the urgency of the gospel ministry... not to get people to heaven, BUT to instruct and inform them of the truth of their salvation by God's free and sovereign grace, and to reproof them and correct them, and to train them in godly living... in their life here and now... as they wait for their eternal inheritance by God's free grace from beginning to end.

Sides
Sing funny how you could care less what Spurgeon and Whitfield believed but yet you claim you spent the time to read there writings do not expect me to believe that. Secondly most of your comments seem to be that of a copy and paste format of what some Primitive Baptist believe so yes let's appeal to scripture. Luke 13:3 unless you repent you shall likewise perish repent is a change of mind about the former things you held to ie. unbelief on Christ and Christ himself is the one who causes this repentance.

Sing F Lau
Ah, Jason, I could afford to care LESS with the words of such great men because I care MORE for the word of God.

Unless and until you have proof that I copy and paste from the Primitive Baptists, I take you as a false accuser and a liar for now .

Sing F Lau
Jason, may I ask you a straight forward question too?
For this passage in Rev 7:
" 9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.
11 And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God,
12 Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen."

DID every one of the great multitude which no man could number - of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues - mentioned here, hear the gospel and become Christians while here on earth?

This is a very simple and straight forward question!
Indeed you believe a different gospel - one conditioned upon the availability of a faithful gospel ministry as well as the ability to hear and believing the gospel.

Sides
Sing what makes you think they didn't. Secondly you dismiss my commentary perhaps because you do not have an answer. I have also asked before if you witness to people you denied answering me and probably because you believe in a false gospel. Beware many will come saying did we not do thus and that and he will declare depart from me ye workers of inquiry. Beware of the wolves as they come in sheeps clothing.

Sides
Anyone see in Revelations 7:9 different religions nope not I Sing you twist scripture worse than a pretzel at least Mormons admit they have another Revelation from Christ.

Sing F Lau
I love it when you appeal to Scriptures...
That passage reads like this.

13:1 ¶ There were present at that season some that told him of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.
2 And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans, because they suffered such things?
3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

Did you note the word LIKEWISE... LIKEWISE... LIKEWISE. How did the Galileans perish? They perish by suffering BLOODY and CRUEL death. That's the destruction spoken of. It has nothing about gaining eternal life or perishing to hell. And it is pretty plain that only that who are ALREADY BEEN GIVEN eternal life that are able to believe.

But almost every one believes that this passage speaks about eternal salvation or eternal destruction! All blind leading the blind!

Luke 13:1-5 speaks of perishing in calamities, not about perishing in eternal hell. People perished in disasters. The Jews were warned that they would LIKEWISE perish if they repent not. Christ was warning them that they would LIKEWISE - LIKEWISE - LIKEWISE perish under the hands of the Romans in the coming destruction of Jerusalem. If they do believe, then they would take heed of Christ's warning about the impending destruction coming upon Jerusalem in 70AD!

Oh Jason, read and study the Scriptures, and learn to rightly divide the word of truth!

Sides
Sing study to show thy self approved. Even Satan used scripture to blind the masses. A Muslim is an Antichrist and since you approve of them I feel you are in an even worse circumstance being a pastor blindly leading others to a false hope.

Sing F Lau
So, just stick to the Scriptures, and it would benefit both of us. Jason, I asked you a very straight forward question on Rev 7:9, why don't you give a straight forward answer. That way, there would be profitable discussion. What is your take? Why bring in the Mormons? I want to know Jason Sides' answer to my straight forward question.

How many Muslims have you met and lived with? Have you met one who fears the God of Abraham and works righteousness as well? Have you? if you have not, I suggest you hold you peace, and cease foaming!

Sing F Lau
Jason@"Even Satan used scripture to blind the masses."
Show that I have twisted Scriptures. You can offer your interpretation of the passage under discussion. Don't just go off tangent and rave irrelevant stuff!

Hart
Brother Sing, is ritchurd saved eternally for the quality of his own faith, or is it by the 'faith of Christ' upon which any believer has such eternal hope?

So many seemingly have faith in faith.

I think, Apostle Paul said the gospel is preached from faith to faith.
Surely one having FREELY received faith is able to receive the gospel message. I think too that many will never in this lifetime have opportunity of hearing a true gospel message.
Thank you, Brother Sing for rightly dividing the word of God which is for my edification!

Sides
I have no peace with those who claim Christ is not Co equal to God as do Muslims and since you agree with them I have no peace with you. Rev 7: 9 is clear all kinds of people will be saved some were saved then past tense some being saved present and others not even alive yet will be saved and rejoice unto Christ through out the entire world this passage has nothing to do with saying all kinds of religions teach and proclaim the same Christ.

Sing F Lau
Yes, the gospel is preached by one who has the Spirit of God dwelling in him working the grace of faith in him, to another one who has the same Spirit of God indwelling in him, working the same grace of faith.

The act of believing is the manifestation of the grace of faith worked in the heart by the indwelling Spirit... the evidence of the possession of eternal life, given by God's free and sovereign grace.

I am a child of free and sovereign grace...

Sing F Lau
Jason, I do ACCEPT any man a child of God who fears the God of Abraham and works righteousness... BECAUSE God Himself has accepted them. I do endeavor to bring the gospel of Jesus Christ to them... and they may not openly profess faith in Jesus Christ for the simple reason of persecutions.

Have you not read the similar situation among SOME Jews - "As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes." Ro 11:28.

Sides
And some Jews believed on Christ, all those who were of the elect of God. Those who did not before they died were not chosen of God. Sing you can believe your righteousness will save you till you're blue in the face but God calls it a filthy rag. How dare you think you could be saved by a filthy menstral rag.

Sing F Lau
Sides@ "Rev 7: 9 is clear all kinds of people will be saved some were saved then past tense some being saved present and others not even alive yet will be saved and rejoice unto Christ through out the entire world this passage has nothing to do with saying all kinds of religions teach and proclaim the same Christ."

Jason, please stop raving about things irrelevant to the discussion. No one is saying that the passage has anything to do with with saying all kinds of religions teach and proclaim the same Christ. Who has said that Islam proclaims the same Christ of the Bible? That's just your imagination, an indication that you are incapable of a proper discussion.

In relation to Rev 7:9, do you know that there have been nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues who had perished/disappeared from the face of the earth WITHOUT the gospel message ever reaching them? How then did individuals from those ALL those nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues found in heaven - as indicated in the passage?

And do you know some of those tribes mentioned in the Scriptures? Here are some from Genesis... Were any among them found in heaven? If yes, how? Because they heard and believed the gospel? Please give a reasoned answer. Please NO RAVING nor foaming!

Read this little section of the book 'Pruning Seven Deformed Branches: 'Redeemed out of Every Tribe..."
http://pruning-deformed-branches.blogspot.com/2008/01/redeemed-out-of-every-tribe.html

Sides
Sing, wrong again. You claimed Muslims along with others who deny Christ can and will be saved so my statement is very relevant. Until you are willing to stop twisting the scriptures I have nothing more to say to you.

Sing F Lau
Jason, when did I ever say that my righteousness will save me? Thou shalt not bear false witness - 9th commandment.

I did say that a man who fears God and works righteousness DOES SO because he is already a child of God by sovereign and free grace... without the hearing of the gospel. Hearing and believing the gospel is ONE evidence of having eternal life. Fearing God and working righteousness are also evidences of having eternal life.

I expect this basic rules in communication: if you cannot represent the view of your opponent fairly you have forfeited you right to speak! You resort to raving and ranting!

Sides
You do not work righteousness nor believe in God if you deny Christ or teach a false Christ hence your statement is a false assumption that Muslims do.

Sing F Lau
Islam denounces Christ as the Son of God, and many other fundamental truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. BUT I have met men who are outwardly muslims who don't!

So, you need to make a distinction between Islam and Muslims... just as you need to make a distinction between Christianity and Christians. I have nothing good to say about the religion called Islam. I do have some good words for some muslims who fear the God of Abraham and work righteousness. I have everything good to say about Christianity, but no good words for a vast number of Americans who claim themselves Christians.

I do believe some muslims (i.e. those who fear the God of Abraham and works righteousness) will be in heaven, while VERY many so called Christians in the west (who fear not God nor work righteousness) will find themselves in eternal hell!

Thankful that you have decided to hold your peace. Your raving and foaming betray a woolly and confused mind.

Sing F Lau
Jason@"You do not work righteousness nor believe in God if you deny Christ or teach a false Christ hence your statement is a false assumption that Muslims do."

This is obviously a STUPID statement. Cornelius was ALREADY working righteousness WHILE he has no knowledge of Jesus Christ. Cornelius was ALREADY believing in God when he has no knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Whoever is denying Christ, or making false assumption about Muslims? You are the one with obtuse mind, incapable of representing what I said correctly.

What I have said concerns some 'muslims' who DO fear the God of Abraham and works righteousness. And you FOOLISHLY and PERVERSELY equate my words as describing ALL adherents of Islam!

Your question was, "Do you believe a muslim could be part of God's elect die as a muslim never having become a christian by God's grace and yet still go to heaven this is a very straight forward question?"

I said a muslim, or whatever communal faith he was born into, who FEARS the God of Abraham AND works righteousness IS a child of God, and may die as 'muslim' never converted to Christianity through the gospel ministry, and STILL go to heaven.

I did give a straight answer, but you in your perverseness, twisted it out of context.

Glad that you have decided to hold your peace. Your raving and foaming betray a woolly and confused mind.

Perfect Harmony Between the Decretive and the Preceptive Will of God

New school Calvinists put up signs like this!!!

Can you accept this proposition as a self-evident truth:
The decretive will of God and the preceptive will of the SAME God, though distinct and separate, are perfectly consistent and harmonious, without any inconsistency or contradiction between them? But many believe in a schizophrenic god of their own imaginations!

1. IF the decretive will of God and the preceptive will of the SAME God, though distinct and separate, are perfectly consistent and harmonious, without any inconsistency or contradiction between them... THEN why do the new school Calvinists (e.g. reformed baptists):- IGNORE the decretive will, and believe and act contrary to God's decretive will.

God has decreed eternal redemption for a very specific and particular people, and Christ Jesus accomplished that redemption for the same particular and specific people, and the Holy Spirit applies that same eternal redemption to individuals personally of that exact same people. There is a perfect harmony of purpose among the three Persons of the Triune God.

God's preceptive will is consistent with his decretive will. He sends forth preachers to herald the gospel to the recipients of that eternal redemption, i.e. God's children (those elect whom God has effectually called out of their native state of sin and death to that state of to grace and salvation) that they may know the glorious things that God has done for them by His free and sovereign grace in Jesus Christ, and to gather them into NT churches.

THEN... THEN... pretend that the gospel call to believe in Jesus Christ applies to all men without distinction?

Why do the new school Calvinists ignore the decretive will of God, and go around offering, hawking, and pedaling the gospel - the good news of what God has done to save ONLY His own people - to all men without distinction???


2. IF the decretive will of God and the preceptive will of the SAME God, though distinct and separate, are perfectly consistent and harmonious, without any inconsistency or contradiction between them... THEN why do the new school Calvinists (e.g. reformed baptists):- IGNORE the decretive will, and believe and teach contrary to God's decretive will.

Why do the new school Calvinists pretend and teach that faith in Jesus Christ is the duty of every sinner, even those for whom Christ did not die, and God decreed not to save but leave them in their sin? Why do they insist that even those whom God has bypassed in His decree to save in Jesus Christ has the SAME duty to believe in Jesus Christ? Why do they teach that God requires some men to believe a lie?

It is the duty of a man to believe the truth. It is never the duty of a man to believe a lie. Only those whom God has saved have the duty to believe that Jesus Christ has saved them. But the new school Calvinists believe in a god that requires some men to believe a LIE!

The risen Lord Jesus gave pastors and teachers to His church to preach the truth of what God has done for His people in order to call out those He HAS SAVED, and gather them into HIS church.

A universalist believes that Christ died for all to make all savable, and therefore logically and consistently believes these things:
1. That the gospel call applies to all the listeners,
2. That faith is the duty of every sinner,
3. That the gospel "offers" Christ and salvation to all,
4. That the gospel offer of divine mercy is free and universal,
5. That the saving grace in Jesus Christ is common to all, and
6. That God has the same saving love for all, the elect and the non-elect.
     (the universalists, of course, curse the truth of election!)

Because of their theology of universal redemption, their method is wholly consistent.

BUT why do the new school Calvinists who boast in election and particular redemption ALSO believe the same method of the universalists?

Doesn't one's theology affect one's practice?

Some questions on effectual call and the gospel call

So start asking lots of questions. Challenge the popular notions and shibboleth. Refuse inconsistencies and reject contradictions. Demand answers that are consistent!

Some study questions on:

- The Effectual Call out of the state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation, and
- The Gospel Call out of darkness into the knowledge of the gospel of their salvation:   

A. THE EFFECTUAL CALL

1. Concerning 1689.10.1 - Divine calling out of the STATE sin and death to that STATE of grace and salvation

- Who is the Author of effectual call?
- Is Christ involved in the effectual call? Why?
- Who are the objects of the effectual call?
- What is the effectual call?
- What does God do at effectual calling?
- What is the spiritual condition of the mind before/after effectual call?
- What is the spiritual condition of the heart before/after effectual call?
- What is the spiritual condition of the will before/after effectual call?
- In the effectual calling, what is the state of the sinner who is drawn to Christ and united with Him?
- What does it mean to be drawn and united to Christ?

2. Concerning 1689.10.2 – the effectual call enables a saved man to answer to gospel call to believe the truth of his salvation by God's free grace

- How is the effectual call executed?
- Is the execution of the effectual call dependent or conditioned upon God's free and special grace alone?
- Is the execution of the effectual call dependent or conditioned upon anything in the person called?
- Is the execution of the effectual call dependent upon any power or agency of the person called?
- Why is the person entirely passive in the effectual call?
- In what call is a man dead in sins and trespasses made alive, in the effectual call or gospel call?
- In what call is the grace offered and conveyed, in the effectual call or gospel call?
- Is a man dead in sins and trespasses able to embrace the grace offered and conveyed?
- What call enables a man dead in sins and trespasses to embrace the grace offered and conveyed?
- In what call are the grace offered and conveyed embraced by a man, in the effectual or gospel call?
- What does quickening and renewing by the Spirit enable a man to answer, effectual or the gospel call?
- Why is the power that enables the embrace of the grace offered and conveyed no less powerful than that which raised up Christ from the dead?
- Is the effectual call by God in any way dependent or conditioned upon the gospel call by man?
- How are the effectual call and the gospel call related? What about Abraham? What about Cornelius?

3. Concerning 1689.10.3 – The effectually called who do not have the gospel call

- Are the statements in 1689.10.1 concerning 'those whom God has predestinated to life' true of the elect mentioned in this 3rd paragraph?
- Are the elect mentioned in para. 3 included in the elect predestinated unto life in paragraph 1?
- Is ‘by His Word and Spirit’ in para 1 and ‘by Christ through the Spirit’ in para 3 refer to the same persons?
- Are the elect in para. 3 effectually called to life and salvation in a different manner than those mentioned in para. 1?
- What are the differences between the elect mentioned in para 2 and those mention in para 3?
- What does the 'ministry of the word' mean? (Acts 6:4)
- To whom is the ministry of the word intended: those who have the mental capacity to hear or those who are without?
- What is the relationship between 'grace offered and conveyed by it' in para 2 and the 'outwardly call by the ministry of the word' in para 3? What is the 'it' by which grace is offered and conveyed?
- What is the difference between the 'elect infants dying in infancy' and 'all elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly call by the ministry of the word'?
- What is the similarity [indicated by 'so also'] between the 'elect infants dying in infancy' and 'all elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word'?
- Why are the elect infant dying in infancy incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word? No mental capability, or the gospel call never reached them?
- Why are all other elect person in paragraph 3 incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word? No mental capability, or the gospel call never reached them?
- What are two chief reasons that the elect mentioned in para 3 are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word?
- Are there God's elect who, for are various reasons, DO NOT receive the gospel call?
- Will these be justified by God? How?
- Will these be justified by their faith? How?
- Will these be found in heaven? Why?


B. THE GOSPEL CALL

4. Concerning 1689.14.1 – The ministry of the word/gospel call and faith

- Which particular person of the Godhead is the author of the gospel call to faith?
- In effectual call, God and His Word and Spirit call to life and salvation one who is in the state of sin and death. In the gospel call, the Spirit of Christ works faith in the hearts of those already regenerated. Are the two acts of grace the same? How are they related?
- Who are those who are enabled to believe?
- How is 'enabled to answer the call and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed by it' in 1689.1.2 related to 'is enabled to believe' in 1689.14.1?
- Who are able to response to the gospel call, those already effectually called to life or those still in the state of sin and death?
- Who is able to exercise faith in response to the gospel call, those already effectually called to life or those still in the state of sin and death?
- What role does an elect play in the gospel call?
- What role does an elect play in the effectual call?
- What is the divine work in the gospel call to faith?
- What is the divine work in the effectual call to life and salvation?
- How is an elect ORDINARILY brought to faith?
- How is an elect ALWAYS WITHOUT EXCEPTION brought to life and salvation?
- What does 'ordinarily brought into being by the Word' imply?
- Is bringing a spiritual dead person to life in the effectual call, and calling an effectually called person to life to believe the truth of his salvation the same thing?

5. 1689.20.3-4 - The function of the gospel preaching and faith

"... And therefore in all ages, the preaching of the Gospel has been granted unto persons and nations, as to the extent or straitening [limitation] of it, in great variety, according to the counsel of the will of God."

"Although the gospel be the only outward means of revealing Christ and saving grace, and is, as such, abundantly sufficient thereunto; yet that men who are dead in trespasses may be born again, quickened or regenerated, there is moreover necessary an effectual insuperable work of the Holy Spirit upon the whole soul, for the producing in them a new spiritual life; without which no other means will effect their conversion unto God."

 - What does “in all preaching of the Gospel has been granted unto persons and nations… as to the extent or limitation of it…according to the counsel of the will of God." tells us about the sovereignty of God?
- What is the divinely ordained purpose of the preaching of the gospel?
- What does 'the preaching of the gospel is the only outward means of revealing Christ and saving grace' mean?
- Why is the gospel is the only outward means of revealing Christ and saving grace?
- How does 'the preaching of the gospel reveals Christ and saving grace'?
- What is absolutely necessary for the preaching of the gospel to reveal Christ and saving grace?
- Can the preaching of the gospel reveal Christ and saving grace when there is no PRIOR work of effectual calling to life?
- Can the preaching of the gospel reveal Christ and saving grace that are not already present?
- In whom alone will the preaching of the gospel reveal Christ and saving grace?
- How is the preaching of the gospel related to the conversion of sinners unto God?
- Who can be converted to God by the preaching of the gospel?


- WHY IS THE PREACHING OF THE GOSPEL MOST NECESSARY?

If you wish to try to answers the question to find out how much you misunderstand the subject, send them to me, and  will let you find out . Save your time if you want to debate!

Has it ever occurred to you... ?

Thus saith the LORD, 

Stand ye in the ways, and see, 

and ask for the old paths, 

where is the good way, 

and walk therein, 

and ye shall find rest for your souls. 

But they said, 

"We will not walk therein."

Jeremiah 6:16

Has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong?

O yes, on many occasions... it occurred to me that I was seriously wrong... which explains why I'm no longer a Reformed Baptist!

I was converted while an undergraduate at Sydney University in the early 80s, and united myself to a RB church right after. The RBs were the only people I was associated with, and have known closely, and are still very dear to me to this day. I was with them since conversion, and was ordained into the ministry among them in 1993... worked with them for many years until they officially withdrew fellowship in 2004... because of doctrinal differences.

In year 2000, the Lord began to deal with me, and it was as if my RB foundations were beginning to shake. I had internal struggles over many months when I began to see that there is a wide gap between what RBs believe and what the Scriptures declares. There were turmoils and upheavals within... yes, the whole foundation was shaken especially when I became convinced that there is a stark difference between what the 1689 (doctrinal standard of the RBs) says and what the RBs actually teach and believe. I trembled in my shoes, and wondered 'how could such a terrible thing even happen'? I was so sure the RBs got it all right.

I prayed and prayed, and studied and studied - playing the devil's advocate, arguing among bible students on pastors forums, against what the Lord has shown me, just to doubly assure myself that what the Lord has shown in indeed what had been believed by the old school baptists of the 17th century... those who framed the 1689CoF. When I was fully assured in my own mind, I began to alert my highly esteemed fellow RB pastors of my deep concerned early 2003. They did not receive the matter well. They were, and are convinced that I have departed from their 'reformed faith', and insisted that unless I recant of my error, we have to part way.

But they said, 

"We will not walk therein."

Parting way, they warn all their people to keep away from the plague of Sungai Dua Church. A few brave souls DEFY such ecclesiastical tyranny! The Lord has been very merciful in that the Sungai Dua Church (Reformed Baptist) turned around, and we have been together till now as Sungai Dua Church (1689 Free Grace Baptist)!

"Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things."

Amen.

The Mother of Harlots vs. The Bride of Christ

HOW ROME DENIES JUSTIFICATION BY GRACE ALONE

(adapted, source unknown)

 

Re 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

In ecumenical circles the claim is made with increasing frequency that Rome now accepts the doctrine of justification by grace alone. The recently approved agreement between the Lutheran World Federation and the Vatican, the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, makes this claim. Many supporters of the Promise Keepers movement have written to me making this claim. Those who promote the idea that there are Evangelical Catholics often make this claim.

The Mother Harlot and her many daughters reject the biblical doctrine of justification... that is:

- the BASIS of justification: i.e. by the righteousness/faith/blood of Christ alone,
- the MANNER of justification: by the grace of God alone, i.e. God freely applying the righteousness of Christ to an elect personally, without the elect meeting any condition whatsoever,
- the INSTRUMENT of justification: through faith in Christ alone, i.e. the divinely ordained means for the justified to experience the blessedness of the righteousness of Jesus Christ already applied by to them by God's free grace alone.

This is plainly evidenced in the following indisputable facts:

JUSTIFICATION BY GRACE ALONE 

DENIED BY TRENT

At the Council of Trent (1545-1563), the declarations of which are still in force, the Roman Catholic Church formally condemned the biblical doctrine of faith alone and grace alone. Consider the following declarations of Trent:

If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA (Sixth Session, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 12).

If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA (Sixth Session, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 24).

JUSTIFICATION BY GRACE ALONE 

DENIED BY VATICAN II

In its most formal and authoritative statements since Trent, Rome has continued to deny that salvation is by grace alone through Christ's atonement alone through faith alone without works or sacraments. Consider the following statements of the authoritative Vatican II Council of the mid-1960s, called by Pope John Paul XXIII and attended by more than 2,400 Catholic bishops-

For it is the liturgy through which, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, 'the work of our redemption is accomplished,' and it is through the liturgy, especially, that the faithful are enabled to express in their lives and manifest to others the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church (Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Introduction, para. 2).

As often as the sacrifice of the cross by which 'Christ our Pasch is sacrificed' (1 Cor. 5:7) is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Chapter 1, 3, p. 324).

...  also willed that the work of salvation which they preached should be set in train through the sacrifice and sacraments, around which the entire liturgical  life revolves. Thus by Baptism men are grafted into the paschal mystery of Christ. ... They receive the spirit of adoption as sons (Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Chap. 1, I, 5,6, pp. 23-24).
 

From the most ancient times in the Church good works were also offered to God for the salvation of sinners, particularly the works which human weakness finds hard. Because the sufferings of the martyrs for the faith and for God's law were thought to be very valuable, penitents used to turn to the martyrs to be helped by their merits to obtain a more speedy reconciliation from the bishops. Indeed, the prayers and good works of holy people were regarded as of such great value that it could be asserted that the penitent was washed, cleansed and redeemed with the help of the entire Christian people (Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, chap. 3, 6, pp. 78,79).

ROME DENIES JUSTIFICATION BY GRACE ALONE 

IN ITS DEFINITION OF JUSTIFICATION

Rome's gospel is a confused combination of faith plus works, grace plus sacraments, Christ plus the church. It redefines grace to include works. It confuses justification with sanctification. It confuses imputation with impartation. It views justification not as a once-for-all legal declaration whereby the sinner is declared righteous before God and is granted eternal life as the unmerited gift of God, but as a PROCESS whereby the sinner is gradually saved through participation in the sacraments. There is no eternal security in the Roman gospel because salvation allegedly depends partially upon a man's works. According to Roman Catholic theology, Christ purchased salvation and gave it to the Catholic Church to be distributed to men through its sacraments.

This is not only a false gospel, it is a blasphemous usurpation of Christ's position as only Lord and Savior and Mediator. The authoritative Addis and Arnold Catholic Dictionary, with the Imprimature (ecclesiastical authorization for printing) of E. Morrough Bernard, 1950, says justification consists, not in the mere remission of sins, but in the sanctification and renewal of the inner man by the voluntary reception of God's grace and gifts This dictionary plainly states that the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification is contrary to that of the Reformation, noting that the Council of Trent was at pains to define most clearly and explicitly the Catholic tradition on the matter, placing it in sharp opposition to the contrary tenets of the Reformers. Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia, published in 1991, defines justification as THE PROCESS by which a sinner is made righteous, pure and holy before God. Justification in the Catholic Tradition comes about by means of faith in Christ, AND in a life of good works lived in response to God's invitation to believe. ... That works are clearly required in the New Testament for union with Christ is seen in the many parables such as the Good Samaritan, Lazarus and Dives, and others (emphasis added).

ROME DENIES JUSTIFICATION  BY GRACE ALONE 

IN DOZENS OF OTHER WAYS

Not only in most authoritative declarations and not only by its definition of justification, but in dozens of other ways Rome denies the once-for-all sufficiency of Christ's atonement, His sole mediatorship, and the doctrine of salvation through faith alone by grace alone without works.

Rome denies justification by grace alone BY ITS DOCTRINE OF BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. The New Catholic Catechism (1994) dogmatically declares: The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are 'reborn of water and the Spirit.' God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism... (1257).

Rome denies justification by grace alone BY ITS DOCTRINE OF THE MASS, by claiming that in the mass the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated and the work of our redemption is carried out (Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy).

Rome denies justification by grace alone BY ITS DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS: The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. ... The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Saviour (New Catholic Catechism, 1129).

Rome denies justification by grace alone BY ITS DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY, claiming that the doctrine of purgatory clearly demonstrates that even when the guilt of sin has been taken away, punishment for it or the consequences of it may remain to be expiated or cleansed (Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy).

Rome denies justification by grace alone and the sole Mediatorship of Christ BY ITS DOCTRINE OF CONFESSION. One who desires to obtain reconciliation with God and with the Church, must confess to a priest all the unconfessed grave sins he remembers after having carefully examined his conscience (New Catholic Catechism, 1493). Individual and integral confession of grave sins followed by absolution remains the only ordinary means of reconciliation with God and with the Church (New Catholic Catechism, 1497). The sacrament of Penance restores and strengthens in members of the Church who have sinned the fundamental gift of ... conversion to the kingdom of Christ, which is first received in Baptism (Vatican II, Decree on Confession for Religious).

Rome denies justification by grace alone and the sole Mediatorship of Christ BY ITS DOCTRINE OF THE PAPACY: For 'God's only-begotten Son ... has won a treasure for the militant Church ... he has entrusted it to blessed Peter, the key-bearer of heaven, and to his successors who are Christ's vicars on earth, so that they may distribute it to the faithful for their salvation' (ellipsis are in the original) (Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, Chap. 4, 7, p. 80).

Rome denies justification by grace alone and the sole Mediatorship of Christ BY ITS PRIESTHOOD: The purpose then for which priests are consecrated by God through the ministry of the bishop is that they should be made sharers in a special way in Christ's priesthood and, by carrying out sacred functions, act as his ministers who through his Spirit continually exercises his priestly function for our benefit in the liturgy. By Baptism priests introduce men into the People of God; by the sacrament of Penance they reconcile sinners with God and the Church; by the Anointing of the sick they relieve those who are ill; and especially by the celebration of Mass they offer Christ's sacrifice sacramentally (Vatican II, Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, chap. 2, I, 5, p. 781).

Rome denies justification by grace alone and the sole Mediatorship of Christ BY ITS DOCTRINE OF MARY: In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the Saviour's work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace (New Catholic Catechism, 968). ... Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us gifts of eternal salvation. ... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix (New Catholic Catechism, 969).

Rome denies justification by grace alone and the sole Mediatorship of Christ BY ITS DOCTRINE OF THE SAINTS: Thus recourse to the communion of saints lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin (New Catholic Catechism, 1475).

Rome denies justification by grace alone and the sole Mediatorship of Christ BY ITS DOCTRINE OF FORGIVENESS THROUGH THE CHURCH: There is no offense, however serious, that the Church cannot forgive. ... Christ who died for all men desires that in his Church the gates of forgiveness should always be open to anyone who turns away from sin (New Catholic Catechism, 982).

Rome denies justification by grace alone BY ITS DOCTRINE OF INDULGENCES: An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints. ... Indulgences may be applied to the living or the dead (New Catholic Catechism, 1471).

CONCLUSION

Rome has not changed its doctrinal position or its claims to be the one, true, holy, apostolic church. It is engaged, rather, in a clever ploy. It is using the ecumenical movement to bring the separated sons home to the papa (which is the meaning of the term pope), and it is succeeding brilliantly. The amazing fact is that Rome has not hidden its goal in ecumenical relations. Consider the following statement from Vatican II:

The term 'ecumenical movement' indicates the initiatives and activities encouraged and organized, according to the various needs of the  Church and as opportunities offer, to promote Christian unity. ... The results will be that, little by little, as  the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion are overcome, ALL CHRISTIANS WILL BE GATHERED IN A COMMON CELEBRATION OF THE EUCHARIST, INTO THE UNITY OF THE ONE AND ONLY CHURCH, which Christ bestowed on his Church from the beginning. THE UNITY, WE BELIEVE, SUBSISTS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS SOMETHING SHE CAN NEVER LOSE (emphasis added) (Vatican II, Decree on Ecumenism, chap. 1, 4, p. 416).

For those who claim to be Evangelical Catholics and who claim to believe that salvation is by grace alone, I say you are deceiving yourself and others by remaining in the Roman Catholic Church which explicitly denies what you claim to believe. God's curse is upon those who preach a false gospel and Rome certainly falls under that curse. The Bible warns that those who affiliate with error become partakers with that error.

Do not be deceived, friends.

And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues (Revelation 18:4).

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own

lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables (2 Timothy 4:2-4).