 |
| Is this an apple with orange flesh, or is it orange with apple skin? Whatever, it is neither apple nor orange! |
Initially posted here
https://www.facebook.com/sing.f.lau/posts/3792455205391
October 6, 2012
Dr Gill:
"Faith is not the cause, but an effect of justification; it is not
the cause of it in any sense; it is not the moving cause, that is the free
grace of God... nor even the instrumental cause... it is not in any class of
causes whatever; but it is the effect of justification... Now if faith is not
the cause, but the effect of justification; then as every cause is before its
effect, and every effect follows its cause, justification must be before faith,
and faith must follow justification." - A Body of Doctrinal Divinity Book
II, Chapter V, section II. (1769)
"The New Testament everywhere makes it
plain that faith in Jesus Christ is the instrumental 'precondition' [in italic]
of justification before God... Therefore, faith in Jesus Christ... must precede
justification as its logical prius... Thus we have the order: effectual
calling... and faith in Jesus Christ, justification, and glorification." -
A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, page 707. (1998, Nelson)
How vast is the difference! Who is right?
I like the picture! At the first glance, it
looks like a normal fruit, only to realize that it is an orange with an apple
skin or apple with orange flesh!
Ronny Villanueva
the first order or step for our salvation both
Gill and Reymond are spot-on... Gill says the moving cause is "the free
grace of God" and Reymond echos the same thing but calls it
"effectual calling". order or step #2 and 3 both Gill and Reymond have
it in reverse and I camp with the latter.
Mark Thomas
Gill is correct. Reymond is a duty faith
fullerite and dead wrong.
Sing F Lau
Ronny, you are quite confused: 'effectual
call' (is a divine activity), 'the free grace of God' describes the method
that divine activity is executed!
Both effectual call and justification (divine
actions) are by God's free grace.
Gill said justification before God is by God's free grace. The method is God's free grace!
Reymond said justification before God is
preconditioned upon faith in Jesus Christ. The method is man's faith in Christ.
Ronny Villanueva camps here: "faith in
Jesus Christ is the instrumental 'precondition' [in italic] of justification
before God."
Is it a good or solid ground, or sinking
mucky ground?
Preconditional? Why are great theologians like Ronny and his mentors so BLIND to the plain declaration of truth?
Romans 3:
21 But now the righteousness of God without
the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by
faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no
difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the
glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace
through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Being justified FREELY... FREELY... FREELY... FREELY! Is it with any precondition or FREELY?
Before a man is justified before God, i.e. in
his unjustified state, he is still in his native state of condemnation and
death! How could an unjustified man ever believe? It is like asking a dead man
to hold a glass in order to receive some life-giving water! That's quite
elementary, I assume.
Titus 3
4 But after that the kindness and love of God
our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have
done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration,
and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through
Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should
be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Being justified by His GRACE... His GRACE... His GRACE...Is it with any precondition or FREELY... by His GRACE ALONE?
Faith in Christ is a work of righteousness.
Ronny and Reymond are work-righteousness Calvinists!
Preconditional? That's NO gospel!
Sing F Lau
Hey Ronny, this actual conversation applies
nicely...
A conversation on the above subject between A
and B:
A: Upon their believing in Jesus Christ, God
justifies them, i.e. God gives them the righteousness of Christ upon their
believing in Christ!
B: Brother, did God give you Christ's
righteousness upon your believing?
A: Yes I received Christ's righteousness when
I placed my faith in Him and His Work for me at Calvary.
B: When you were WITHOUT Christ's
righteousness, what state were you in, Brother?
A: Depraved, UTTERLY depraved, utterly.
B: Really? Do you really believe that? You are
sure?
A: I know it, my Brother and I know it.
B: And do you ALSO know and believe that in
such depraved, utterly depraved state, it is impossible for you to believe IN
ORDER to have Christ's righteousness imputed to you? Or such depraved state is
just a meaningless shibboleth... because you claim that in such utterly
depraved state you are still capable of believing, and upon your believing
Christ's righteousness is imputed to you.
A: Holy Spirit! HELLO Holy Spirit convicts!
NOT YOU. Holy Spirit, Holy Spirit convicts!
B: Silly Brother, I'm not trying to
convict you, or anyone. It is true, only the Spirit of truth can convict a
child of God the truth of his salvation by God's free grace. I'm just saying
that you are completely inconsistent. And that's not good. And you are just
TOOOOOOOOOOO proud to admit your plain inconsistency. Why divert the issue now.
have some integrity. It takes a big heart to admit one's error.
A: Ok I accept my errors, sorry for the lacking discernment.
Ronny Villanueva
The example from both men is near
identical... It's merely reversed on step 2 and 3!____ but in order to get to
step 2 and 3, there must be first a step 1. They are both saying REGENERATION,
the only difference is in the phrasing that's all!
Sing F Lau
Ronny Villanueva, you are getting even more
confused!!!
The effectual call is NOT THE SAME as
REGENERATION... though that may be Reymond's and Calvinists' ideas. WCF
completely repudiates such a notion. WCF distinguishes effectual call and
regeneration clearly.
The effectual call is defined as the activity of
the Triune God in calling an elect out of his native state of sin and death to
that of grace and salvation... to do so involves divine free grace acts of
justification (to remove condemnation), regeneration (to remove deadness) and
adoption (to remove alienation), with the gift of the Holy Spirit to dwell in
the child of God - in that number and logical order.
Giddy Calvinists equate the effectual call to
regeneration. Big mistake!
There is no need of such a SILLY and FORCED attempt
to reconcile Gill and Reymond. Let the vast differences stand!
In Gill's understanding, justification is
PRIOR TO regeneration.
In Reymond's, regeneration is logically AND
chronologically to prior to justification, which is obviously wrong, because it
impugns upon God's character!
How could the Holy Spirit regenerate an elect
who is still under condemnation, and of whom God has not forgiven sins nor
imputed the righteousness of Christ? Just plain nonsense - almost blasphemous!
Justification of life by God the Father based on the works of God the Son MUST
BE logically prior to regeneration unto life by God the Spirit. Elementary,
sir!
The only difference - even in just the phasing - is enough to repudiate the truth of the gospel of free grace and turn it into a gospel conditioned on works... and Apostle Paul has some very HARD WORDS for that, you know, don't you!
Ronny Villanueva
okay... I gotta go sleep now, it's 3am here!
Charles Page
I scan thru this but gotta go to work and
don't have time to go deep there are references to Reymond, Berkhof and
Turrentin
http://evangelicalarminians.org/.../The%20Wills%20of...
Sing F Lau
Ronny Villanueva, may our Lord bless you with a night of good sleep, and
may tomorrow be a blessed day of worship and fellowship with the saints.
And do let the Lord clear your mind of confusion and lies.
Johnny Davis
EVERYTHING, is an
effect, from God, and not ourselves. Even, faith, belief, hearing, believing,
repenting, baptism, every "good" work. ALL because of thankfulness,
which is not a work, simply only response of love. To those whose
consciousness, from whatever reason, thinks that God is only for those coming
to Him, through man, and man's teaching of God's word, then I can only say:
"maybe." For me, to say, for sure, yes, that is God's way, would only
limit God. Any man dare limit God? Not me.
Sing F Lau
Effects presuppose PRIOR and INDEPENDENT
CAUSES... that's a given... otherwise no meaningful communication possible!
Many are unWILLING to accept that but rather believe fables and fiction! Their
liberty of course!
To say that is God's way is NOT to limit God,
but to submit and believe what he has revealed about Himself in the Scriptures.
So, no need a false piety which let error in by the back door <LOOOOOOOL>
Always good to hear from you!
Johnny Davis
@Sing. Well, that's why I preceding my
comment, with the scripture: for anyone to know to do good, and do it NOT, to
HIM it is sin. It would be sin, for me, to exclude from God's kingdom, any
person, who, for instance, is not baptized. Especially, Especially, if they have not "heard" to be baptized. I do not know God well enough, to know what he has done, plans to do, or how he judges. And, I'll NOT place that on any other man. If that is relative "truth," then so be it. I'll not sin, where I know something is sin. And to me, it would be sin. In the meantime, until we ALL know God fully, I'll teach faith and belief, and the result of that, "good works," including repentance, baptism, and true religion of James. Other, and all of us, for that matter, are in God's hands. After all, He does it all.
Sing F Lau
Johnny, who is excluding who from God's
kingdom?
And who is dealing with God's children who
have not heard the gospel?
You sure have too many bullets to blow here!
Surely, you can aim a little bit better than
that! <LOL>
I will teach faith in the gospel of Christ
too... but I will not commit the grievous sin of deceiving God's children to
believe a BIG life that it is their faith that is the instrumental cause of God
imputing Christ's righteousness to the believing. Teaching lies to God's
children is most certainly a sin - taking the name of God in vain, PLUS bearing
false witness!
Which is why I say again and again... keep to
the subject.
If you have something else to say, say it by
all means, just start another thread.
Johnny Davis
I am not speaking of myself. God has been
good to me, He has shown his goodness through my parents, the church, His word,
and from that, God provides salvation, and in His word, in some way, who, and
even why (His love). I am speaking of those not blessed in that manner, as we
who have been blessed. Why should that interest me? It would increase my faith,
to understand how God blesses those. He loves all, after all. None, less than
me, if my understanding of love is accurate. But primarily, it is to understand
how come brothers, come to their conclusions that only they, are saved, others
are lost. My faith would be weakened, if I did not believe God's word, and His
nature. Beliefs you spoke of, are hateful at times (not from you or any
"good" facebook freineds), and frankly, I believe they sin, when they
speak for God, and say others are to be in hell.
Sing F Lau
I don't think for one minute that they or
their beliefs are hateful... they are just sincerely and honestly misguided,
and ignorant of the terrible implications of their misguided ideas.
Being such, it may appear hateful to you...
because such notions do, by implications, exclude and damn, many of God's elect
from their eternal glory! For example, if justification before God is by faith
in Jesus Christ, then God's children who is unable to believe or have no
opportunity to believe are left to perish in their unjustified state. That
borders on blasphemy!
Johnny Davis
I'm not to judge. But to say, "If you're
not baptized, and go to the true church, you are going to hell." That's
hateful, in my book, as, if I were told that, I'd never listen to another word.
So, hateful or not, the "hearer," and I have specific examples, those
turning from God altogether because of such remarks. When relaying this
information to the ones seeking to "teach the lost," the response:
"we teach truth, and they heard truth. If they don't believe it, they
don't believe it. They are going to hell." Not very loving to me. If it
were a truthful, loving, teacher, in my view, an honest about love for the
"lost," rather than one convinced of HIS OWN knowledge of truth,
then, contact should be made (and the lady would have come), to be enlightened.
Knowing the Bible, is more than an accurate theology.
Sing F Lau
Is the Lord Jesus Christ hateful in saying
this:
Mr 16:16 "He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
Is "shall be damned" the same as
"go to hell"? What's your understanding.
Our Lord says we must judge, and in certain
particular way! Not to judge is a cop out! <LOL> What do you think?
Joh 7:24 Judge not according to the
appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
Good night.
Read the rest of the exchange here:
https://www.facebook.com/sing.f.lau/posts/3792455205391
