 |
| Don't let your theology leave you stranded like those boats. |
The notion of some Reformed Baptists:
The normal way of salvation and the
exceptional way of salvation
He said: "I do believe that 'all elect
persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the
word' (1689 LCoF, ch 10, art. 3) is indeed an exception to the norm… Obviously,
God is free to act above the norm as and when He chooses. After all, He is God.
But at the same time, we cannot draw/formulate our doctrines from the
exceptions, because they are the exceptions."
===========
## I do understand what you are saying. You
can see it as an exception (with its attendant inconsistencies) or you can see
it in another way, which I believe is perfectly biblical.
In terms of eternal salvation, there is no
exception or norm. The examples you pointed out are interesting but hardly
applicable. In all these exceptions, the way they are saved is still EXACTLY
THE SAME, even though the external circumstances attending each of them may
vary greatly
Romans 8:29-30 says, "For whom he did
foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son,
that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did
predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified:
and whom he justified, them he also glorified."
Sadly, this glorious passage is so often
understood as though it says this [note all the additions]
"For whom he did foreknow, he also did
predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the
firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also
called [effectual call to grace and salvation, but so many take this as gospel
call to conversion] and whom he called, THEM HE ALSO CONVERTED: AND WHOM HE DID
CONVERT, them he also justified: and whom he justified, HE ALSO SANCTIFIED: AND
WHOM HE SANCTIFIED, them he also glorified."
I feel that many have conveniently and
UNCONSCIOUSLY added and demanded more things as necessary for the ETERNAL
SALVATION [sic] of God's elect that God Himself DOES NOT require.
[As I demonstrated before, the justification
spoken of here CANNOT be the justification by personal faith in Christ. It is
the personal application of legal justification at the effectual call to grace
and salvation... because this aspect of justification is absolutely true of
every elect.
There is NO EXCEPTION in God saving sinners
eternally. When He bestows eternal life at regeneration, that regenerated
person is destined for eternal glory... no ifs, no buts, regardless of the
degree and amounts of gospel blessings he may experience and enjoy in this life
before entering glory.
However, the gospel blessings and benefits,
quantitatively and qualitatively, a regenerated elect may enjoy in this brief
life is dependent upon many human factors. Some enjoy none... others to greatly
varying measures, depending on such factors as the purity of the gospel
preached to them, availability of the various means of grace, the quality of
the ministry of the word, the quality of pastoral oversight and care, etc, etc.
Only those who have been eternally saved are
capable OF BEING SAVED in the temporal sense... of benefiting from the means of
grace.
I hope you begin to see a vast and distinct
difference between eternal salvation which is wholly God's work, and the
temporal salvation which is dependent upon the responses of those who HAVE BEEN
SAVED to the means of grace that they may be saved here and now.
Eternal salvation is purely and solely by the
regenerating work of God unto eternal life. Gospel ministry is to inform and announce
the good news of that eternal salvation which God Himself has purposed, Christ
Himself has accomplished and the Holy Spirit Himself has applied to the elect
individually at God's approved and appointed time. The gospel ministry is UTTER
foolishness to all except those to whom the eternal salvation has been applied
by the Holy Spirit.
excerpt from here:
Regenerated but without eternal life until
faith in Christ - a RB's belief
==========
Dan Samons
Simply put, "all elect persons who are
incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word" is just
"all elect persons prior to regeneration." It follows that ALL of
God's elect are regenerated in the SLCOF 10.3 way and none are regenerated by
the 10.1 way because the 10.1 way is incapable of regenerating anyone. This is
one of MANY reasons that I would not sign-off on the 1689 SLCOF and why I
believe my Primitive Baptist forefathers were wrong to do so.
"NO EXCEPTION" - I completely agree. All of God's elect are regenerated in the same way (John 3:8).
Sing F Lau
Dan, As usual, you misread 10.1 as well
as 10.3 - just like the RBs twisted it.
Dan Samons
Sing F Lau - Consider this question: What
portion of God's elect family are "incapable of being outwardly called by
the ministry of the word" in their natural state prior to regeneration?
a. All of them.
b. Some of them.
c. None of them.
Sing F Lau
Dan Samons Take a look here.
https://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-effectual-call-as-summarized-in.html
The Effectual Call - as summarized in the
1689 CoF
Sing F Lau
Dan Samons @ Consider this question: What
portion of God's elect family are "incapable of being outwardly called by
the ministry of the word" in their natural state prior to regeneration?
a. All of them.
b. Some of them.
c. None of them.
-------------
Your smart questions are the wrong question to
ask with respect to 10.3.
It should be: what portion of God's
effectually called elect are "incapable of being outwardly called by the
ministry of the word"?
And not a few carelessly equate the effectual call with regeneration.
Dan Samons
Sing - "Wrong question" or
not, humor me. Just answer the question and we'll take it from there...
What portion of God's elect family are
"incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word" in
their natural state prior to regeneration?
Brother Sing, you're an intelligent character
and a pretty deft theologian, IMO. I can only assume that failing to answer
that direct question is not because you don't know the answer, but because you
know that the proper answer places your 1689er doctrine of the effectual call
in a serious headlock.
"Shall. We. Play. A. Game?"
Sing F Lau
You asked @ What portion of God's elect family are
"incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word" in
their natural state prior to regeneration?
a. All of them.
b. Some of them.
c. None of them.
My answer: In their natural state, i.e.
before their effectual call, all of them are incapable of being outwardly called
by the ministry of the word.
I asked:
What portion of God's effectually called
elect are "incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the
word"?
1689.10.3 deals with the effectually called
who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word.
A biblical distinction is the essence of sound theology.
Dan Samons
Sing F Lau - Which of these statements are
accurate? (list all that apply)
a. There are effectually called men who are
unregenerate
b. There are regenerate men who are not
effectually called
c. All effectually called men are regenerate
d. All regenerate men are effectually called
e. There is a separation in time between EC
and R
f. There is no separation in time between the
EC and R
g. The gospel is instrumental in the EC
h. The gospel is instrumental in R
i. The effectual call is a monergistic act of
God
j. Regeneration is a monergistic act of God
Sing F Lau
Dan Samons, good questions, Teacher.
Which of these statements are accurate? (list all that apply)
a. There are effectually called men who are
unregenerate ❌
b. There are regenerate men who are not
effectually called ❌
c. All effectually called men are regenerate ✅
d. All regenerate men are effectually called ✅
a-d: an elect is effectually called out of
his native state of sin and death into that of grace and salvation in Jesus
Christ; to call a man out of his state of sin and death to that of grace and
salvation requires these distinct monergistic activities of God:
- justification,
- regeneration, and
- adoption, along with the bestowal of the
Spirit of adoption. This indwelling Spirit in the effectually called work the
fruit of the Spirit in him, including faith
Effectual call is a broader term than
regeneration; the effectual call embraces vital justification (righteousness
applied personally), regeneration ( life warranted by the righteousness
applied), and adoption (given access to the rights and privileges of God's
family). All these are required to bring a man out of his native state of
condemnation, death, and alienation into the state of grace and salvation in
Jesus.
e. There is a separation in time between EC
and R ❌
f. There is no separation in time between the
EC and R✅
g. The gospel is instrumental in the EC ❌
h. The gospel is instrumental in R ❌
i. The effectual call is a monergistic act of
God✅
j. Regeneration is a monergistic act of God✅
I guess you want to demonstrate with these
questions that the effectual call is SYNONYMOUS with regeneration.
Imitating my teacher, may I also ask...
1. What portion of God's effectually called
elect are "incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the
word"?
a. All of them.
b. Some of them.
c. None of them.
2. What portion of God's effectually called
elect are "capable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the
word"?
a. All of them.
b. Some of them.
c. None of them.
Aaron Milyard
In the Old Testament, when God made a promise to
Abraham, he swore by an oath and because there was none greater to swear by he
swore by himself. Scripture is clear on what happens to those who break a
promise or do not hold up to an oath they take by swearing to it. How then can
God change his oath or change his promise? I haven’t found anywhere I.
Scripture where God went back on his promise or an oath except where it was
first broken by the other party. Yet in this particular promise God was the
only party present making an oath. It seems a problem therefore to say that
because he is God he can do whatever he wants. While that may be true in a
general sense, in this particular sense, God made a promise, both before
creation and it was confirmed by an oath before Abraham that he would perform
it just as he said he would. No adding to it, no taking away. No exceptions.
Sing F Lau
Aaron Milyard What issue are you addressing?
Aaron Milyard
Sing F Lau, here is the subject I was
addressing. “God is free to act above the norm as and when he chooses. After
all, He is God”. Certainly God is God and does according to His will in the
armies of heaven and none can stay his hand or say unto him what doest thou.
That said, He does not change His promises flippantly, which seems to me is a
path one could end up going down if they say because God is God he can do
whatever he wants. I don’t believe that is scripturally sound doctrine when it
comes to Gods promises. He cannot lie, He therefore cannot go back on his
promises. In the promise of eternal life and His Son Jesus Christ there is no
way God can go back on it, because he is God. My hope is built on nothing less
than Jesus blood and righteousness the hymn tells us. It’s based on that because
God who cannot lie, promised from before the world began what would take place
in the saving of His chosen children, the elect. When he swore his oath to
Abraham he swore by none greater because he is the Greatest. I don’t think
there’s any question in any of this quoting from this confession of faith that
can supersede that. This is why I hesitate on using confessions of faith to
build doctrine on. What assurance would we have with God if he could break his
promise just because he is the greatest and there is none greater? That would
really defeat the purpose of hope sure and steadfast.
Sing F Lau
Aaron Milyard Thanks.
NO. I DON'T BUILD DOCTRINE on the confession
of faith.
However, I do use the confession of faith to
correct the falsehood that misrepresents the confession of faith, even as I use
the Bible to correct the falsehood that misrepresents the Bible.
Aaron Milyard
Sing F Lau, I see that as dangerous brother.
Scripture is your corrector, not a confession of faith. Scripture is Gods
inspired word and is true, confessions of faith are men’s words, although they
try to take them from scripture, they are not without error. One should use
scripture to correct the confession of faith, not the confession of faith to
correct itself.
Sing F Lau
Aaron Milyard Those who claim their beliefs
are based on the confession, I use their own confession to correct them. What's
so dangerous about it? Please explain. Thanks.
Aaron Milyard
Sing F Lau it’s dangerous in the sense that
men’s writings are being used, it’s more of a practice thing than it being in
error. Practice using scripture to correct errors, not men’s writings. As I’ve
heard many ministers say, when you encounter a contradiction or an error being
taught, reason it out to its logical end, with scripture, and it will die a
natural death. Using men’s own reasoning to correct there errors is ok as long
as scriptures are used. Just as Paul said, follow me as I follow Christ. Not,
follow me as I follow me. Men have opinions, scriptures have the truth, try not
to make a practice of correcting opinions with opinions, it’s validating to the
opinions and lowering the standard of scripture as truth as all men have
opinions and none can claim there’s are more right than another except when
backed by scriptures. All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction for instruction in
righteousness that the man of God might be perfect, throughly furnished unto
all good works. And also, lean not unto thine own understanding, in all thy
ways acknowledge him and he shall direct thy path. We also find that the word
debate in scriptures is used in a negative sense for without are found debates,
meaning without(outside) the church. These I would contend are what would be
considered words to no profit. Only Gods word is profitable, not men’s.
