When Cause and Effects are not carefully distinguished, they are seen as a Continuous whole.
The Effect is seen as a continuation or extension of the Cause, both having the same essential nature!
This destroys the monergistic nature of eternal salvation, and reduces eternal salvation to being synergistic at best, i.e. God started eternal salvation, and men cooperate in the process to make it effective and complete it!
I put the following on a 'reformed and Calvinistic group.
Read the exchanges.
Sing F Lau
There is grace-based salvation, as well as work-based salvation.
Both are true and are plainly taught in the Holy Scriptures.
Both are distinct and separate in nature.
However, sincere men, being ignorant, pit them one against another.
There is the salvation that Christ alone has finished and accomplished for His people. This made the specific condemned guilty sinners perfectly fitted for eternal glory, they being completely passive.
And there is a salvation that God's children must actively work out for themselves with fear and trembling, in obedience to their Father's will for them. This saves them from the present perverse generation, and teaches them to live soberly, godly, and righteously.
The two salvation are distinct and separate salvation: the former is eternal salvation saving sinners from the eternal condemnation of their sins, and the latter is temporal salvation saving God's children from the temporal effects of sins in this life.
Rightly dividing the word of truth is the essence of sound theology.
March 4 at 10:49pm
Thoma
'likes this'
Sing F Lau
There is a life given to you by your parents - they brought you into being! There is also a life that you have to get through your own activities in obedience to your parents' will.
The former enables the latter. The latter evidences the former.
The former brought you into BEING. The latter ensures your own WELL BEING and usefulness here while you live. The two lives are quite distinct and separate.
[Calvinists find the above very confusing and hard to understand, as evidenced by the comments following. I wonder why?]
Jean
Sing F Lau, where did you read or hear of this two salvation theory?
"As Pelagians of old, so Papists at this day make a proud boast of this passage, with the view of extolling man’s excellence. Nay more, when the preceding statement is mentioned to them by way of objection, It is God that worketh in us, etc., they immediately by this shield ward it off (so to speak) — Work out your own salvation. Inasmuch, then, as the work is ascribed to God and man in common, they assign the half to each. In short, from the word work they derive free-will; from the term salvation they derive the merit of eternal life. I answer, that salvation is taken to mean the entire course of our calling, and that this term includes all things, by which God accomplishes that perfection, to which he has predestinated us by his gracious choice. This no one will deny, that is not obstinate and impudent. We are said to perfect it, when, under the regulation of the Spirit, we aspire after a life of blessedness. It is God that calls us, and offers to us salvation; it is our part to embrace by faith what he gives, and by obedience act suitably to his calling; but we have neither from ourselves. Hence we act only when he has prepared us for acting.
The word which he employs properly signifies — to continue until the end; but we must keep in mind what I have said, that Paul does not reason here as to how far our ability extends, but simply teaches that God acts in us in such a manner, that he, at the same time, does not allow us to be inactive, but exercises us diligently, after having stirred us up by a secret influence."John Calvin, commentary on Phillipians 2:12
[The problem with this Calvinistic fiction is this: first he assumes that the salvation that the Philippians saints must work out for themselves is the same as the eternal salvation that Christ has FINISHED for them, and APPLIED to each of them personally, and then attacks a straw man. Apostle Paul is plainly speaking of something else - of a salvation that is conditioned on the Philippians saints working it out with fear and trembling, God's grace enabling them. With respect to this salvation, if they don't work, they DON'T enjoy this salvation; i.e. it is conditional upon their obedience!]
Sing F Lau
Where did I read the two salvation FACT?
Right in the Scriptures. Do you want plain passages?
Is John Calvin your authority???
Apostle Paul said, "Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee."
Is there a salvation here that is conditioned upon Timothy's work of being faithful on taking heed unto himself, and unto the doctrine?
What is this salvation that is conditioned upon Timothy's work? What salvation does Timothy's ministry secure for himself and bring to his flock? Does this work-based salvation contribute to the eternal salvation that Christ accomplished?
If Timothy does not take heed unto himself and unto the doctrine, will he save himself, and those that hear his ministry?
Jean
No, Calvin is not, but you were using Phil 2:12 to prove 2 salvations and yet you say you are a 1689 COF baptist, which is Calvinistic, so I don't understand. How are you defining salvation?
Sing F Lau
"Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee." 1Tim 4:16.
Timothy, obviously ALREADY a recipient of eternal salvation (justified, regenerated, and fitted for eternal glory) must take heed unto himself, and unto the doctrine, continue in them both... For in doing this he shall BOTH save himself, and the flock under his care.
The salvation that comes from Timothy's activities is completely distinct and different from the salvation that God has accomplished and applied to Timothy personally.
Isn't that quite elementary?
The fruits of one's salvation by God's free and sovereign grace is ALSO spoken of as saving, only in a distinct and different sense.
A biblical distinction is the essence of sound theology.
2Ti 2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
Rock
Much in common with Federal Vision.
Jean
This is Federal Vision?
Rock
It's not, but it has the tendency to confuse justification with sanctification.
[Which aspect of justification are you speaking of - the LEGAL at the cross, the VITAL at effectual call, or the EXPERIENTIAL at conversion? You are probably ignorant of these distinct and separate aspects of justification stated in the Scriptures. And what sanctification - definitive, or progressive?]
Clin
Yeah...I'm a bit confused with this double salvation talk. Justification (eternal salvation) is through faith in Christ and His atoning sacrifice alone. What you are calling a 2nd salvation is Sanctification and that is the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer.
Mari
I wouldn't necessarily call sanctification a second salvation; salvation was taken care of by Christ's death and resurrection.
I would call sanctification a work that is evident in the believer AFTER salvation, but not a salvation itself.
Thoma
I would say it is part of salvation. We are saved (justification), we are being saved (sanctification) and we will be saved (glorification). This is how I understand it.
Rock
Each point of the ordo salutis is all by grace, including sanctification. Good works were designed by God as inevitable in the life of the elect. These are neither contrary to salvation nor the cause of salvation. In this regards, the reprobates and hypocrites are wanting. To ascribe to good works anything in our salvation is therefore heretical for salvation in whole and in parts is merited solely by the redemptive work of Christ in behalf of the believers.
[These new school Calvinists are pretty confused about the ordo salutis... check here...
http://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2011/12/calvinists-order-of-salvation-some.html
http://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2011/05/order-of-salvation.html
Mari
It appears as if Mr. Lau is speaking of two different kinds of salvation, Thomas.
[sing: I am. One is eternal, the other temporal; one is by Christ's finished work alone; one is through the obedience of God's children; the former is the cause, and the latter is the effect and evidence. How could they be the same, being so different in nature?
Mari
Methinks Rock said it much better than I; thank you. :)
Matt
I don't see where Mr. Lau has denied that sanctification is by grace. He is merely pointing out that the imperatives are rooted in the indicatives, and that the language in Philippians points to a sense in which we "save ourselves" by what we do, in our response to what has been done for us in by Christ in our justification. This is classical reformed theology. How else do you read the pastoral epistles? How do you read the imperatives in John's epistles if you have created such a disjunction between grace and works that you are forced to preclude any concept of obedience at all for a Christian under grace? Being saved by grace does not do away with works; it only makes works acceptable to God, for without faith, no one can please Him.
[It seems Matt is the only one who is able to speak some sense to the issue at hand! My words appear quite plain to him. He understood the gist of it.]
Mari
I don't think he has done that, either, Matt.
I will admit that I was confused by how he has worded it.
Matt
Me too. I don't know if I like the idea of "distinct and separate in nature", though. That seems to be a stretch to me. They are 2 sides of the same coin.
Rock
If Mr. Lau wants to emphasize human responsibility, I don't have a problem with that. Reformed Confessions, in faithfulness to the Scripture, have always advocated good works. But if Mr. Lau teaches that there is a distinct and separate "salvation" merited by sinful men outside of the salvation wrought by Christ as the second Person of the Trinity, I don't see it taught in the Scripture.
Mari
Sing, Please clarify, sir. Are you teaching that there is a salvation apart from Christ?
Rock
I can add that Pelagians believed that man’s goods work must be meritorious to salvation due to the prevalence of Scripture passages in which God’s demands mankind good deeds, otherwise, according to their logic, the command is moot and immaterial. On the other hand, the Scripture says that the man can never merit his salvation by good works; however, his inability and depravity is not a sufficient excuse for him to neglect such a solemn duty.
Sing F Lau
Mari you asked: 'Are you teaching that there is a salvation apart from Christ?
Thank you for inquiring... instead of throwing labels!!!
I wrote these words in my post above. Do they answer your question?
"There is the salvation that Christ alone has finished and accomplished for His people. This made the specific condemned guilty sinners perfectly fitted for eternal glory, they being completely passive.
No, there is no ETERNAL salvation apart from Christ and His work of redemption. Salvation from our eternal condemnation due to our sins is solely, and wholly by Christ and His finished work, bestowed to us by God's free and sovereign grace.
IN ADDITION, there is no temporal salvation for God's children (those whom God has bestowed eternal salvation in Christ) apart from their obedience to the will of their Father.
There is an eternal salvation that is UNCONDITIONAL, man being completely passive... in fact actively in enmity against God.
There is a temporal salvation that is CONDITIONAL upon the active obedience of God's children (already bestowed with eternal salvation) to the will of God. This salvation that is conditional upon the obedience of God's children is distinct and different in nature from the salvation Jesus Christ secured for His people, and applied to them individually. The latter contributes NOTHING to the former, and only affects the temporal well-being of God's children in this present life.
The former enables the latter, but the latter is distinct and different from the former. The former is the province of God's sovereignty; the latter is the province of man's (God's children) responsibility.
Sean
I would choose words more carefully. Salvation has a prevalent connotation being the eternal one given by Christ. When you state there is a salvation through works, you are confusing people because of connotation.
When I say "you are very gay today," it has two meanings of which one is prevalant. Even if I explain myself, society expects me to refrain from using archaic connotations of words. I am guessing you will be explaining your connotation of the second "salvation" for a while ^^v
Sing F Lau
Sean, that is the whole problem... every one read the word 'save' in the Bible as though it always refers to eternal salvation that is accomplished by Jesus Christ and applied to the elect by God's free and unconditional grace.
That is just NOT the case. It is obvious that there is a salvation that is CONDITIONAL on the obedience of God's children.
Context, context, context.
The two must be rightly divided, distinguished.
2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Red
huh ? Uh oh !!! not good ....
You all here is his blog maybe one can pick up what the man is saying by doing an investigation there :-)
http://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2010/08/conditional-grace-oxymoronic-notion.html
[This article deal with the moronic idea that eternal salvation by grace is conditional of John Piper.
That is quite different from saying that temporal salvation is conditional.
Quite different. A biblical distinction is the essence of sound theology.
When folks can't even distinguish the two, how to rightly divide the word of truth?]
Rock
I'd say there are blessings on earth for God's covenant people for their covenant faithfulness to God’s commands. Working out our own salvation (Phil. 2:12) means putting into practical application our own salvation that we received freely from Christ. But lest we should attribute the ability to do good deeds on our own, Paul said in verse 13 that “it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” See? Our inability to do good does not excuse us from responsibility; but if good works are done, it is not by our own strength. The action and will to do good is ultimately attributed to God.
Red
This is his other blog :
http://pruning-deformed-branches.blogspot.com/
Rock
And there is not another separate and distinct salvation apart from that salvation we should work out with.
[What about the eternal salvation that Christ Himself has completely and fully worked out for His people, and applied to each by His Spirit?]
Rock
Deformed?
Red
Confusing !!
Sean
Sing, mine was a gentle rebuke not affirmation. Phrasing something in a way that will not convey your message or prove your point, but rather stoke a fire.
[Your rebuke should be directed at those who fail to rightly divide the word of truth... who ignore contexts, and think 'save' always has reference to the eternal salvation by the finished work of Jesus Christ!!!]
Jean
"That is just NOT the case. It is obvious that there is a salvation that is CONDITIONAL on the obedience of God's children. " Then we are all still lost and to be pitied for we all have remaining sin that we need to confess daily."If we say we have no sin (disobedience) we lie and the truth is not in us." 1 John
[Your reasoning shows you still do not understand the difference between eternal consequences of sins, and the temporal consequences of sins. Christ's works of redemption dealt with the eternal consequences of the sins of His people. The obedience of His redeemed people deals with the temporal effects of their sins. If a child of God fails to take heed unto himself, and unto the sound doctrine, he will mess up his life big time. For example, in the eternal sense, Lot and Abraham are equally saved... because their eternal salvation is based solely upon the finished work of Jesus Christ accounted unto them. But in the temporal sense, Lot messed up his life big time... so suffered great lost, but Abraham saved to a great degree.]
Mari
Sing you stated this: //I wrote these words in my post above. Do they answer your question?//
No, they do not; they are confusing and appears as if you're running in circles (circular arguments). Americans prefer plain-spoken words and meanings and, honestly, you are confusing.
Make your yes be yes and your no be no; that is what we are commanded by Scripture! "Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil." - Matthew 5:37
Also, there is no Scripture proof-texts to what you say; please direct me to the Scriptures that prove this.
[ To some, it is plain and simple. To others, confusing. So what is the explanation?
I have quoted and demonstrated 1Tim 4:16. Probably didn't suit your taste!]
Sing F Lau
Mari I do despise equivocation. So let me try again.
I am only confusing because you have not grasped what I am saying. Others, like the old school baptists, say the words are plain and simple.
[The Calvinists say it is confusing.]
You asked: Are you teaching that there is a salvation apart from Christ?
I replied: "There is the salvation that Christ alone has finished and accomplished for His people. This made the specific condemned guilty sinners perfectly fitted for eternal glory, they being completely passive."
The first sentence tells you that apart from the salvation that Christ accomplished, there is no other such salvation. That salvation is deliverance from our just and eternal condemnation due to our sins. That is ETERNAL salvation.
Then I went on to say these - "No, there is no ETERNAL salvation apart from Christ and His work of redemption. Salvation from our eternal condemnation due to our sins is solely, and wholly by Christ and His finished work, bestowed to us by God's free and sovereign grace" - to make sure that your question is answered.
Mari
Sing So, it's not your fault that you're not being understood? It's the fault of the possible recipient?
In fact, no one else has said that you were plain-spoken; point to one person who said that you were plain-spoken. Make yourself plain, sir, especially since you claim to teach the Word.
I asked for Scripture proof and it was not given. What part of that was not clear?
[So, whose fault when so many read the same Bible as you do, and are convinced Arminians? The Bible's fault? The Bible is confusing and unclear? One possible reason may be blind prejudice! Another, simply unbelief! And not because what was said is unclear or confusing!]
Sing F Lau
Mari said, "Make your yes be yes and your no be no; that is what we are commanded by Scripture!
Sometimes, that is naive and simplistic. Let me explain. It is because your question fails to take into consideration that there is unconditional eternal salvation in Christ alone, and there is temporal salvation conditioned on the obedience of God's children. The question ignores the fact that the Scriptures speak of those two distinct salvation: one by the finished work of Christ alone, and one through the obedience of God's children, and both are NOT the same.
There is no ETERNAL salvation apart from Christ... because Christ's redemptive works deal with our eternal salvation from the lake of fire - saving us from the eternal condemnation due to our sins.
Christ's redemptive works DO NOT deal with our temporal salvation, because temporal salvation is conditioned upon the obedience of the saved. Christ's redemptive works do not save you from falsehood and lies and superstition. We have to believe the truth of the gospel in order to be saved from falsehood and lies and superstition. We have to obey the Father's will in order to save ourselves from this perverse and crooked generation.
There is a salvation God's children have to work out for themselves... and that salvation is distinct and different in nature to the salvation secured by Christ. [But you refused to see the distinct... you would rather see one as the extension of the other... thus confusing or undermining monergism in eternal salvation with synergism.]
Thanks. I won't be around for a while.
Mari
Sing: You just called Christ Himself simplistic and naive.
[If I may call anyone simplistic and naive, it would be you!]
Red
Rev 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
[Who is adding? perhaps may are subtracting... DENYING that there is a salvation that is conditioned upon the obedience of God's children, separate and distinct from the salvation that is wholly and solely by the obedience of Christ alone.
My advice: don't play with the double-edged sword, it cuts both ways! ]
Sean
I can see no purpose in this thread except to stir the pot, try to cause unhealthy debate and prove a muddled point using verbose and connotationally wrong words. I'm out guys.
Red
Good idea to have the whole thread removed also.
[I wonder why? So I copy and keep it here on this blog]
