Landmark Baptist

Brother Howard,

Well I can read what I write and understand it, and most of the time I can read what you write and understand it. What I see in your last point is that you ignored a lot of what I DID say to make a lot of implications about things I DIDN'T say. My point was that what happened in the upper room was absolutely unique and never repeated anywhere on anyone else. What we seem to be failing to discuss is the fact that this is also called the "gift of the Spirit". We agree that this is the fulfillment of what Jesus called the "promise of the Father.” He also called it the Baptism in the Spirit. He also said the Spirit would “come upon you”. Now it is true that Jesus associated their “empowering” with the baptism of the Spirit, but He also associated it with His “coming upon them.” Peter called it the "gift" both in Acts 2 and in Acts 11.

If “to whom he was speaking” means as much as we have seen made of it on this forum in John 14 and in the epistles, then what does that do with the crowd John the Baptist promised the baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire to? Now I’m not making any implications here, but I am curious how well you folks will stick with your own hermeneutic because the church certainly wasn't started then.

I would say that the baptism of the Spirit is, or if you prefer "was", a part of the gift of the Spirit since that's what the bible says. Right up front, Peter tells everybody that this is exactly what is going on:

Acts 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

But was this promise always to be “seen and heard?” In fact, it was never again accompanied by the audio/visual phenomenon of Pentecost with the flaming tongues of fire and the sound of the rushing mighty wind. I went on in my discussion to speak of the other occasions in Acts when people received the gift of the Spirit that were actually written down for us – and each one of them was exceptional from the others. None showed a person coming out of the waters of baptism and receiving the Spirit. None showed Him falling on anyone after receiving the right hand of church fellowship.

Thus, I would say that we receive the gift of the Spirit exactly as the epistles say we do, by faith. If one wished to argue as Ben Bogard did that the Baptism of the Spirit was for miracle working power and ceased to be, I wouldn’t argue the point although I do disagree. If one wishes to say the baptism of the Spirit came on the church as an audible and visible token of the powerful and continuing presence of Christ working in His churches, I wouldn’t argue that either and would probably even agree because Simon Peter said it certainly came straight from Him because He had been glorified. If one wishes to say that there is a difference between the gift of the Spirit and the baptism of the Spirit, I wouldn't argue that either even though I have a hard time getting past the fact that Peter calls it the gift.

But the living waters Jesus promised to everyone who believed on Him in John 7 after he was glorified were indeed flowing in the life of every true believer.

You asked about the power of the Spirit working in His people everywhere. Can a person read the bible and be led by the Spirit to understand and accept the truth of the gospel? Well, some folks on this forum don't think so but I do. Can such a person then give a Spirit-empowered testimony to someone else to show them how to be saved? I believe they can but some folks on this forum don't. Can a person who is genuinely saved be led by the Spirit to understand the truths of God's word even though they do not have scriptural baptism and have not joined a church? I've been amazingly blessed by the writings of Max Lucado, even when he was a campbellite -- and I hate campbellite doctrine. I carried a Thompson Chain reference for years and a Schofield before that. I sing songs that bless my soul every Sunday, not one of which was written by an author in the ABA.

i could go on but I think i've made my point. The Spirit "bloweth where it listeth."

Rich

Brother Jon,

Good points. As for the doctrine of the chuch, or ecclesiology, I would choose the word "obsession" over the word "overemphasis." I recently read a description of Augustine's thinking, to the effect that his doctrine of the church and his doctrine of grace were at war inside of him, and it certainly seems that this is often so among us today.

We need to reclaim the centrality of the New Testament doctrine of union with Christ, which will keep us from both the "high churchism" of one side and the "low churchism" of the universal invisible crowd and the "no churchism" emerging all around us today. Then we have a good balance of who we are and what we have in Christ without losing what we are supposed to be DOING in our service through our church. Speaking of which.....

Rich

Bro. Rick,
In response to your last post I would like to quote an ABA author who Pastors the Tulare MBC here in California. His name is Dewayne Hoppert and the lengthy quote is from his book entitled “Abraham, Journey to Faith.” This is his comments which I agree with concerning Genesis 15 and the ratification of the Covenant with Abraham:

“It is obvious that something very dramatic took place in the above reading (Genesis 15:9-17)Scripture Reference Mine. On this subject Willmington writes:
6. Abraham gathered the creatures as ordered. In our culture today, whenever two parties determine to enter an agreement, a contract is drawn up and signed by both parties. But in Abram’s time it was different. Back then the two parties would slaughter some animals, carve them up, and arrange the pieces in two lines. Then both parties would join hands and solemnly walk together down the middle path. By doing so they would pledge in the presence of blood and suffering and death, their intention to keep the terms of the contract. (Willmington, 1981, p. 39).
This reading gives further insight into the term, “cutting of the covenant.” This term was, a common description of a contract throughout history and refers back to this ancient practice. Certainly, this is a far cry from the lightly taken contracts made today. Willmington continues his description of this event:
7. Just prior to God’s physical presence on the scene (in the form of a smoking fire-pot and a flaming torch), Abram was put into a deep sleep. As he slept, God’s presence passed through those bloody pieces alone, thus indicating that the promises of Jehovah concerning Abram’s salvation and his possession of Palestine were both unconditional, with no heavenly strings attached whatsoever. (Willmington, 1981, pg. 40).
Therefore, the process of the covenant was completed as God Himself ratified the covenant by walking alone between the pieces of the sacrifices. There was nothing which Abraham could do to insure all the blessings which God had promised because God had done it all. All that remained for Abraham to do was to trust God. Truly, this would have been a dramatic moment in the life of this great man.”

Abraham was not a perfect man by any means when God called him. In fact if you look at his life closely he failed in many areas. For example, he took his family (father and nephew) when leaving the Ur of Chaldeas and he lied a couple of times. If I follow your reasoning then God should not have made a covenant with a disobedient man. In fact, Abraham was a man of faith who made errors just like us all. God chose Abraham to bless with the promise of the “seed” and made that unconditional covenant with him. I do not believe that God was ignorant of Abraham’s future, since God knows all things, that Abraham would not do those things you mentioned.

Well, I will begin here. This has already been a lengthy post. I am trying not to get heated in discussing this but I will say when someone begins to say that a person is not a partaker of the New Covenant because he is not baptized and a member of the Lord’s New Testament Church. I shutter because I see the book of Hebrews 8-10 as soon as someone places faith in Christ, then his sins are remitted by the blood of Christ which is the ratification of the New Covenant which is better than that of the old. I see if you or others say the New Covenant is not operational until baptism and church membership, than that to me means you are not saved until you enter the church by baptism and frankly that is heresy. I do not say this to condemn but only as alarm of what I have understood in some of the posts. Please do not get me wrong. Baptism and church membership is important, very important in being obedient to our Lord and a part of the New Covenant blessings but by all means it begins at salvation. Forgive me if I seem attacking. I do not want to violate what I wrote about “Profitable Discussions” because I do desire profitable discussions.

Bro. Todd

I couldn't agree with you more, Bro. Dorman.

Thank you younglandmarker for the encouragement!

Brethren, I just want to clarify something. I made the statement, "I see if you or others say the New Covenant is not operational until baptism and church membership, than that to me means you are not saved until you enter the church by baptism and frankly that is heresy." None of you came out and said that salvation in by baptism or in the church. However, by following some of the arguments presented here and if I follow them to conclusion that is exactly where I would find some of your statements. I would hope that we would all agree taht salvation is in Jesus Christ and nothing more. Salvation is by faith through grace and not in baptism and church membership.

Thank you!
Bro. Todd

Bro. Dornan,
Absolutely no offense taken on my part. These are issues we are to be fervent about.
When you said, "I would hope that we would all agree taht salvation is in Jesus Christ and nothing more. Salvation is by faith through grace and not in baptism and church membership"
you have 100% agreement from me.

Also, when you said, "I am trying not to get heated in discussing this but I will say when someone begins to say that a person is not a partaker of the New Covenant because he is not baptized and a member of the Lord’s New Testament Church"
I would agree with that as well.

The New Covenant comes down in its most essential form to the blood of Christ.
So, when application of His blood is made, there must be an application to the covenant as well.

My whole thing with this idea it must be all one way or the other of whether the new covenant is speaking only about salvation or only about the church, is- I don't get it.

Are not the 27 books we call the New Testament describing the terms of the new covenant? And, every jot and tittle of it is thought up, instituted, brought about and made complete due to the blood of Christ.
Hebrews 8 - 10 has been mentioned several times.
These chapters do describe the terms of the covenant and the means they were brought to reality - the blood of Christ, over and over is mentioned.
But, these same chapters in very closely connected verses, such as Heb.10:19 "by the blood of Jesus" speaks of "remission of these" (sins and lawless deeds) in the verse prior and "the house of God" two verses later and "hold fast the profession of our faith" a few verses later and "not forsaking the assembling" a few verses later - and all said to be about "the blood of the covenant" in vs.29.
Do we only "count the blood of the covenant a unholy (common) thing" (described further in vs.29 as "done despite to the Spirit of grace") when we mess with salvation, or do we also count the blood a common thing (and do despite to the Spirit) when we despise His church and live an ungodly life - for all those are dependent on His blood (and not insulting the Spirit).

I guess all I'm saying is, do not the 27 books we call the new testament describe both the terms of salvation and the terms of proper service and that both are totally dependent on the blood of Christ?
Isn't the sacrifice of Christ the only thing that brought about our eternal salvation and whatever salvation entails is part of the terms of the covenant and is totally accomplished at faith.
Isn't the sacrifice of Christ the only thing that purchased His church, and in doing so, is preparing for Himself a bride by preparing a path for us to travel that brings Him proper glory? And, only because of His blood can I confess and be forgiven of my daily sins, my "footwashing." So, isn't acceptable worship and service part of the terms of the covenant?
Why can't both of these be part of covenant relationship since neither would exist without the blood of Christ - the blood of the covenant?
And, all the terms of the covenant are obtained by faith, not by my works.

the blood of christ was an unholy thing for those Hebrews that went back and were doing sacrifices with the unrepentant jews rather than continuing to trust in Jesus blood sacrifice. In my opinion it wasn't really that complicated. The church is not the blood neither is it Jesus.

Bro. Rick,

I think what I am beginning to see with the subject of the Holy Spirit and the Covenants is extremism. As you said all one way or another. To me as it relates to these specific topics that there is some overlapping if you will. We do agree that it is God's will for everyone to accept the salvation offered through Jesus Christ by faith, it is God's will for every child of God to follow Jesus Christ obediently in scriptural baptism, and it is God' will for every scripturally baptized believer to be an active member in His New Testament church. But by some comments I feel some are saying some aspects of the Spirit or the new covenant are exclusive to one group or the other.
It is a necessity we continue to strive to understand the scriptures by rightly dividing the truth. We may not agree on every aspect of scripture (I do not know anyone who does) but when a teaching emerges that I feel undermines the truth of the Word of God, I can't help to feel some fervency. Thank you for your understanding and the discussion. I am awaiting for younglandmarker to let me know where the thread is concerning the new covenant discussed several months ago. I wouldlike to read it and then maybe discuss further in detail Hebrews chapters 7-10.

Thanks,
Bro. Todd

I want to apologize in advance for writing another lengthy post, but I thought putting the scriptures in the discussion might be helpful. What is being suggested about Ephesians 2 is something I take very seriously. If you read through the entire post, I think you’ll see why.

Brother Jerry wrote, “Just because he is speaking to people who have been saved and are members of a NT Church, doesn't mean that everything he says applies to saved people who are not members of a NT Church.”

Paul actually said this about the people in question:

Ephesians 2:11-13 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

He went on to explain how this worked:

Ephesians 2:14-18 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

Then we find the “therefore”:

Ephesians 2:19-22 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

We see absolutely nothing in this discussion previous to verse 19 that would qualify the “therefore you all are no more strangers and foreigners but fellowcitizens with the saints and of the household of God” as something accomplished by baptism and being voted into a Baptist Church. Paul tells us what accomplished their being “no more strangers and foreigners”. It is “in Christ.” It is “by His blood.” It is through the peace we enjoy because He “has created in Himself one new man, so making peace.” It is because we are reconciled unto God “in one body by the cross.” It is because the cross has “slain the enmity”. Finally, and in closest proximity to the “therefore”, it is BECAUSE WE BOTH HAVE ACCESS TO GOD BY THE ONE SPIRIT.

Paul mentions several things that were true of them before they were in Christ. They were without Christ, outside the commonwealth of Israel, strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. Then did he write, “BUT NOW "IN THE CHURCH" YOU WHO ONCE WERE FAR OFF ARE MADE NIGH BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.”??????

No, that isn’t what he said at all. I don’t think even Fred Stevenson would have rewritten this passage that way, although he certainly said that is what the passage means. In his commentary on Galatians and Ephesians on p. 80, he wrote of this passage saying:

“Lesson 18 discussed a mystery that was revealed to Paul. This mystery was that the Gentiles were to be made members of the same body with the Jews. This is not the body of the saved, but it is the church.” So, according to Stevenson, the “one body” in vs. 16 where the Jews and Gentiles are reconciled to God IS THE CHURCH. Strange, Paul said it was the cross. He offered more:

On page 73 he wrote, “The Gentiles were made near in Christ in the sense that Christ came and established the church covenant. Under this covenant the Gentiles could come into the special favor of God on exactly the same terms as the Jews.”

It is interesting that Stevenson did not say one word about the cross or the blood of Christ in his discussion of these passages. He conveniently left that out because if the “in Christ” in vs. 13 is the church then the blood of Christ is in the church and we are left to get to the blood through baptism and the church. Talk about Campbellite doctrine! And this stuff is sold in our bookstore in Texarkana and was once the Sunday School quarterly of the ABA.

So no, Brother Jerry, we cannot say "therefore we are no more strangers" because we have been baptized and joined a church. That is not what this text says, unless you are willing to argue as Stevenson did that the entire passage is not speaking of being "in Christ" because we are saved; because "in Christ" means the same thing as "in the church." As L.D. Capell said in the article Brother Melvin posted, that isn't Baptist thinking. More importantly, it isn't what the bible teaches.

Rich

Brother Howard,

Your suggestions might find some acceptance were it not for the fact that the bible so clearly teaches us that access INTO the New Covenant is by grace through faith in Christ's completed work. What gets us in keeps us in. The New Covenant is not like the old one. If one wishes to say it is conditional, it can be made conditional only on believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. He gets us in, He keeps us in.

I understand you are trying to phrase things in such a way as to gain acceptance for your beliefs -- but what you and Jerry and a few others on this forum are doing to the New Covenant cannot be reconciled unless one accepts that the New Covenant is a conditional covenant on works.

If it is of grace, brother, it is no more of works. A gift is a gift is a gift. If you earn it, it isn't a gift. These are simple things guys, and to borrow one of your expressions, I can't for the life of me understand why you want to try and make it complicated.

Rich

Bro. Hamlin,
You said, "Your suggestions might find some acceptance were it not for the fact that the bible so clearly teaches us that access INTO the New Covenant is by grace through faith in Christ's completed work."
I am in agreement with that statement. I've already explained the core essence of the new covenant is the blood of Christ and any application to the blood must include application to the covenant - and just to make sure there's no misunderstanding, the blood of Christ was applied to my heart and eternal soul the moment I was saved.

You also said, "I understand you are trying to phrase things in such a way as to gain acceptance for your beliefs -- but what you and Jerry and a few others on this forum are doing to the New Covenant cannot be reconciled unless one accepts that the New Covenant is a conditional covenant on works."

Here's where it gets kind of sticky.
Just staying strictly with salvation for now, are there not conditions placed on me to receive and enter by the blood of Christ?
Not on Christ - He finished His part completely - but are there conditions placed on a sinner before they become a child of God?
"What must I do to be saved?" Paul did not say, "Do nothing" but he said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ."
That's the belief part. Acts 16:30,31
"Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Peter said, "Repent..."
There's the repentance part. Acts 2:37,38
That's what I did the day I was saved in 1967.

And both are included here - Paul also said everywhere he went, he preached "repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ" Acts 20:21.
That's what I preach every Sunday from the pulpit.

What if a person does not repent and believe? Are those not conditions before the blood of Christ is applied for salvation and forgiveness?

This is the part of the dilemma that caused men like Augustine, Calvin, Spurgeon, Pink and others to adopt a doctrine that regeneration precedes repentance and faith; otherwise they had to reconcile how this could be totally unconditional, yet conditions were set of repentance and faith.
These preachers just mentioned, and many others today, including a rising tide of Southern Baptist preachers, use a verse like John 6:29 from the lips of Jesus to justify their view of regeneration taking place before faith, Jesus said, "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." This was in response to their question, "What shall we do to work the works of God."
So, in their minds, if faith is called a work here, then if we insist on personal faith before salvation can happen, we are preaching salvation by works.

I have heard with my own ears preachers use this verse and others like it to say, "if salvation is dependent on an individual repenting and believing, then a lost sinner has a role in their salvation and the covenant is no longer unconditional" or words to that effect.
That is why this "Calvinist" group calls their version of regeneration "Doctrines of Grace" and what all of us teach about the necessity of repentance and faith unto salvation as "Doctrine of Works."
They say repentance and faith are the products of regeneration; we say repentance and faith are necessary parts to produce salvation.
Can we not see the basis all of us are accused of "salvation by works" based on our insistence we have conditions to meet to produce it?
We might say, "my only role is to accept Christ as Savior." We can make it as passive sounding as we want - we are still accused of salvation by works even if it only requires our assent before salvation takes place.

Is salvation dependent on me repenting and believing in Jesus and His blood?
Of course it is!
Is it still by grace?
Of course it is!

And, not a mention of baptism or church in the above discourse.

Brother Howard,

Your assessment of traditional Covenant Theology is true, although those who hold it would probably disagree. When we say that participation in the New Covenant is conditioned on believing in Christ, it is for that reason that we point out that "faith" or "believing" are not categorized as "works":

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

As Paul said of one of your favorite examples:

Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Faith and/or believing are the antithesis of works, no matter what Covenant theologians propose of whatever kind.

I can't see how that the false accusations that faith qualifies as a work would make the thinking valid that baptism and joining a church and staying faithful are not works; nor do I see how it would deliver this entire system from the conclusion that it is trying to turn the Covenant of grace into a covenant of works.

Rich

But, are not repentance and faith requirements for the blood of Christ to be applied unto salvation?
If there are requirements of any type - in this case faith and not works - then how can the covenant be unconditional if there are conditions to meet?

A choice must be made for salvation to take place.
Isn't this choice both an act of the will and submission of the heart?
Yet, we call this act of the will and submission of the heart "grace though faith" and I agree completely.
Even if we put it as passively as we can - "accepting Christ" is not totally passive, but requires us to believe and repent prior to salvation, else salvation does not happen.
Even if it is simply a, "Lord, save me" cry, it is anything but passive.
He does the saving, but faith and repentance are required on our part, even demanded, before the conviction of the Spirit and the power of the Father and the blood of Christ regenerates us.

It is Christ alone and His blood alone and grace alone that saves us - but not apart from repentance and faith. Not any condition of works (except His) but a condition of faith and repentance, yet still a condition.
"What must I do to be saved?"
Men and brethren, what must we do?"
The answer in both cases is to repent toward God and believe in Jesus, by the working of the Spirit.

I understand how the covenant is unconditional as far as it being designed and purchased and in force and made secure by Christ's sacrifice, without me playing any role in that. If that's what you mean by unconditional, then there is no disagreement from me.
But, my gaining any benefit of the covenant - forgiveness and salvation - does depend on me receiving it in humble faith, broken-hearted over my sins.
Please help me understand how the covenant can be completely unconditional, yet conditional of application and benefit to an individual only by faith and repentance.

I'm sincere about this request, not snarky in any way.

Maybe a better, and certainly a more succinct, way to say this - is the covenant unconditional as far as being in force and available, but covenant relationship conditional as far as the requirement to repent and believe to receive any benefit?

Brother Howard,

When I responded to your post this morning, I made the following statement:

richhamlin wrote:The New Covenant is not like the old one. If one wishes to say it is conditional, it can be made conditional only on believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. He gets us in, He keeps us in.

If I were to say it again in a different way, I could say that the New Covenant is unconditional as far as any works on our part are concerned. That is because faith/believing/trusting do not qualify as works. Like yourself, I've had this discussion with our Calvinist folks before. When Jesus said to the man who had the withered hand, "Stretch forth thy hand", he was telling him to do something impossible for him to do. But with the command came the power to perform that command, and when he stretched it forth it became whole. The word as it is energized or empowered by the Spirit is indeed the agency that enables our believing response. Faith does come by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. We are born again...by the word of God which liveth and abideth forever.

Now the calvinist folks I've discussed scripture with didn't like my answer much -- and others have accused me of being a calvinist because of my answer, so whatever. The bible says that believing in Him qualifies us as one that "worketh not".

Rich

Faith is a Work but the Bible clearly distinguishes it from a work of the law, work of righteousness or a work of the flesh

Here is a a very good piece I found from Matt Gholson that puts this the notion that faith is works in proper perspective. I am not putting this out here because I think anyone is a calvinist but only because it deals with the same subject.

Belief: Is It a Saving Work?

Many Calvinists are quite fond of equating faith with works in regard to the matter of salvation. In my conversations with Calvinists they have often tried to assert that salvation by freewill is the same as salvation by works. I cannot necessarily presume that this is a doctrine universally upheld by all Calvinists, but the basic concept is as follows.

Calvinists define a work as anything man does on his own, particularly for the purpose of obtaining salvation. "Freewill" implies that God is not involved in the choices we make and, therefore, according to a Calvinist definition of works, free human choice is a work. Since we know that we are not saved by works, we know also that our free choice must not play a part in our salvation.

The Calvinist premises in this argument fall into two sets. Let's see if we can outline them.

Set A - The Definition of a "Work."
1. A "Work" is anything done for the purpose of obtaining salvation, which originates from man, not God.
2. A ("Freewill") choice to believe originates with man, not God.
Conclusion A: A ("Freewill") choice to believe is a work.

Set B - Salvation by Works.
1. Men aren't saved by works.
2. The ("Freewill") choice to believe is a work.
Conclusion B: Men cannot be saved by their own choice to believe.

Set A-1 is a purposefully broad definition, and from a Calvinist perspective it has to be. If there is anything done for the purpose of obtaining salvation that originates from man and does not fall into the category of "works" then this entire Calvinist argument falls apart. Or in other words, if the ("Freewill") choice to believe is not a work, then we have no reason to reject that man could be saved by such a choice.

And there is also a hidden premise to this Calvinist argument. The hidden premise also involves the definition of a "work" as it applies to Set B-1. Set B-1 states that "men aren't saved by works." The question is, does this apply to all "works" or did Paul have a particular set or kind of works in mind?

We can easily dismantle this Calvinist argument. We will start by assuming that the Calvinist definition found in Set A-1 is correct. We will assume that a "work" is accurately defined as "anything done for the purpose of obtaining salvation, which originates from man, not God."

By assuming this definition is accurate, we will now demonstrate that there are at least two categories of works in the New Testament.Thus, the Calvinists are in error by assuming that all "works" are included in the New Testament category of "things which cannot save."

We cannot emphasize strongly enough that the Calvinist argument on this issue requires that the definition found in Set A-1 is correct and, therefore, "the choice to believe" is appropriately categorized as a work. If there is any "work" which originates from man that can bring him salvation, then the Calvinists argument crumbles.

So, let's look at some scripture and ask, is there any work a man can do to obtain eternal salvation?

John 6:27 Labour [2038] not for the meat [1035] which perisheth, but for that meat [1035] which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. 28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work [2038] the works [2041] of God? 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work [2041] of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Let's do some vocabulary. First, the word "Labor" in verse 27 is the same Greek word as "work" in verse 28.

2038 ergazomai {er-gad'-zom-ahee}
middle voice from 2041; TDNT - 2:635,251; v AV - work 22, wrought 7, do 3, minister about 1, forbear working + 3361 1, labour for 1, labour 1, commit 1, trade by 1, trade 1; 39
1) to work, labour, do work
2) to trade, to make gains by trading, "do business"
3) to do, work out
3a) exercise, perform, commit
3b) to cause to exist, produce
4) to work for, earn by working, to acquire

Second, the words "labor" (verse 27) and "work" (verse 28, 29) are directly related to the noun "work(s)" in verse 28 and 29. One is simply a noun and the other a verb.

2041 ergon {er'-gon}
from a primary (but obsolete) ergo (to work); TDNT - 2:635,251; n n AV - work 152, deed 22, doing 1, labour 1; 176
1) business, employment, that which any one is occupied
1a) that which one undertakes to do, enterprise, undertaking
2) any product whatever, any thing accomplished by hand, art, industry, or mind
3) an act, deed, thing done: the idea of working is emphasised in opp. to that which is less than work

The word "meat" in verse 27 is defined as follows.

1035 brosis {bro'-sis}
from the base of 977; TDNT - 1:642,111; n f AV - meat 6, rust 2, morsel of meat 1, eating 1, food 1; 11
1) act of eating
1a) in a wider sense, corrosion
2) that which is eaten, food, ailment
2a) of the soul's food, either which refreshes the soul, or nourishes and supports it

Here in John 6, Jesus tells the crowds that he will give them everlasting life but that they must labor (or work) to obtain it. In fact, we know Jesus is talking about the "works" men do because he starts off in verse 27 saying, "Labor for," and labor is the same Greek word as "work" in this passage. So, Jesus is instructing his listeners to work that they might received eternal salvation from him.

In response to this, Jesus is asked a very simple question "what works are the works of God that we might do them?" Or in other words, Jesus has just advised the crowd to work not for material things, but to work for eternal life. He is then asked, what works should we do? And he answers this question directly in verse 29, telling his listeners specifically what work they must do to obtain eternal salvation from him.

And according to Jesus, what work should men do that they might have "everlasting life?" In verse 28, Jesus clearly states that the work men should do to obtain everlasting life is the work of belief. This does two things to the Calvinist argument.

1. It tells us that everlasting life is obtained by a "work."
2. It tells us that the "work," which saves is the work of belief.

Remember that the Calvinist's argument does not work unless we define a work as "anything done for the purpose of obtaining salvation, which originates from man, not God." If we assume their definition is correct then we are left with the following.

Number 1 destroys the Calvinist's hidden premise that all "works" are of the same category, the category of "those which cannot save." According to Jesus, belief is a work that does bring eternal salvation. Number 2 destroys the Calvinist's Conclusion B that men cannot be saved by their choice to believe.

What this passage from John 6 really shows us is that the Calvinists have erred by assuming that all "works" are of the same category. In reality, belief is considered its own special category of a "work." And this is made even more clear as we examine the New Testament origination of the doctrine that we are saved "not by works."

This essential orthodox doctrine is found in the epistles of Paul.

Romans 4: 1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about--but not before God. 3 What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. " 4 Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

Galatians 3: 5 Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because youbelieve what you heard?

NIV - Ephesians 2: 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

KJV - Ephesians 2: 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

We should also note that in the New Testament, the words "faith" and "belief" are really the same word in two different forms, noun and verb.

Romans 4: 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth [4100] on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith [4102] is counted for righteousness.

4102 pistis {pis'-tis}
from 3982; TDNT - 6:174,849; n f AV - faith 239, assurance 1, believe + 1537 1, belief 1, them that believe 1, fidelity 1; 244
1) conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it
1a) relating to God
1a1) the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ
1b) relating to Christ
1b1) a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God
1c) the religious beliefs of Christians
1d) belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same
2) fidelity, faithfulness
2a) the character of one who can be relied on

4100 pisteuo {pist-yoo'-o}
from 4102; TDNT - 6:174,849; v AV - believe 239, commit unto 4, commit to (one's) trust 1, be committed unto 1, be put in trust with 1, be commit to one's trust 1, believer 1; 248
1) to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in
1a) of the thing believed
1a1) to credit, have confidence
1b) in a moral or religious reference
1b1) used in the NT of the conviction and trust to which a man is impelled by a certain inner and higher prerogative and law of soul
1b2) to trust in Jesus or God as able to aid either in obtaining or in doing something: saving faith
1bc) mere acknowledgment of some fact or event: intellectual faith
2) to entrust a thing to one, i.e. his fidelity
2a) to be intrusted with a thing
As is made clearly evident from Galatians 3:5, the "works" which cannot save are the "works of the law." From the words of Jesus Christ in John 6, we know that belief is a "work." And from the words of both Jesus and Paul, we know that it is by belief that we are made righteous and obtain salvation. Therefore, the when Paul writes that we are saved "not by works" he has in mind only the specific works prescribed by the Law. Paul is not including the "work" of belief in this category of "unsaving" works.

And notice that when writing in Romans, Paul equates justification by works as a wage and salvation by belief as a gift. Paul is using faith/belief as the opposite of works. Therefore, Calvinists cannot equate "salvation by free human choice" with "salvation by works." For, scripture clearly distinguishes the "work" of belief from the unsaving works of the law. It is the "work" of belief that saves, while the works of the law do not.

And notice in Romans 4:3-5 that God credits Abraham for his faith. You wouldn't credit Abraham for something he had no choice about or for something you made him do. Such things wouldn't be to his credit at all. If Abraham's faith weren't of his own choosing, then it would not be a credit for him in any way.

Notice also that the comment in Ephesians parallels the account in Romans 4. In Romans 4 the gift is righteousness, not faith. Faith is trusting for the gift. But even if faith were the "gift" that still would not prove man has no choice in the matter. For the idea of a "gift" does not negate the freewill of a person to accept or reject it. What gift has any of us received in our lives that we could not choose to accept or reject? Even the natural abilities we have received are ours to develop and share or neglect and lose.

If for Calvinists, the free human choice to believe is a work AND works are defined by their origination from man (not God), then Calvinism is proven wrong by John 6. For, in John 6, Jesus clearly tells us that it is by a work, the work of belief that men obtain eternal salvation. And in that passage, Jesus tells us to do this work, attesting not only to man's responsibility to believe but also his ability to believe.

In reality, the "works" which DO NOT save are the works of the Old Covenant Law. That is not to say we are saved by works of any kind, except for the "work" of belief. And on this point, we would not disagree with the Calvinist definition of a work described at the start of this argument. Belief is a "work done for the purpose of obtaining salvation, which originates from man, not God." Man himself freely chooses to believe and rely on Jesus Christ of his own accord. This is the work required by God."


If you now take this a step further and apply this to baptism......Jesus clearly calls baptism a work of righteousness....Mat 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer [it to be so] now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
Baptism is a sign of the covenant but not the covenant itself......if Baptism was necessary to enter into covenant relationship then all those that have not been baptized would not be sons and would not yet be in the family of God because they could not be chastised by their heavenly father without covenant and if they were not sons then they are none of his. Jesus was the Son of God before he was baptized and so are all that become children of God by faith.
Baptism is a beautiful picture and sign but that is all it is!
I was on an all-star team in high school and we had awesome corporate sponsored high tech uniforms but we were all on the team long before we got our uniforms that said we were on the same team. The Children of Israel had to make a choice to put the blood on the doorposts but when they crossed the sea and were baptized unto Moses they had no choice....They had been delivered already it was not what saved them from the hand of God it was what seperated them and saved their lives from the hand of the egyptians! I was covenanted to God by the Blood, I was covenanted to the Church by the Water......Brethren Blood is Much Thicker Than Water!

Bro. Hamlin,
You said, "When Jesus said to the man who had the withered hand, "Stretch forth thy hand", he was telling him to do something impossible for him to do. But with the command came the power to perform that command, and when he stretched it forth it became whole."
I like that example and illustration a great deal, esp. the parts I underlined- thank you.

And, Bro. Smith,
You said, "Faith is a Work..." and you said "In reality, the "works" which DO NOT save are the works of the Old Covenant Law. That is not to say we are saved by works of any kind, except for the "work" of belief. And on this point, we would not disagree with the Calvinist definition of a work described at the start of this argument. Belief is a "work done for the purpose of obtaining salvation, which originates from man, not God." Man himself freely chooses to believe and rely on Jesus Christ of his own accord. This is the work required by God."

Very much agreed on both quotes of you brethren.

That's all I'm trying to say as well.
"As ye have therefore received the Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him" Col.2:6.

The same way we received Him is the SAME way we walk in Him - by grace through faith, so that it is always to His glory and never to ours.
The works of the Law cannot save.
The works of the Law cannot result in proper service either.

With any command of God comes the power to perform, else it is the works of the Law or our own works and thus, dead works.

Bro. Howard....I enjoy these discussions and appreciate them.

Do you believe that there is a difference between works of the law and works of righteousness? If you do what is the difference....When Paul talks of Abraham not being justified by works...What works was he talking about seeing the law was not yet given?

Brother Jon,

I'm not sure who Matt Gholson is, although I've read some of his stuff I can't remember what it was. I do know this, he went a long way around to deal with something and seems to have missed the point. As in the case of the rich young ruler, Jesus responded in a way designed to show that he had asked the wrong question and had the wrong motive so he could show him what he needed to do. The rich young ruler wouldn't have been saved by selling all that he had and giving it to the poor. Similarly, the people Jesus addressed in John 6 asked the wrong question. Jesus told them what they needed to do -- believe on Him. I don't think "faith" should ever be called a work because the bible tells us it isn't.

Brother Howard,

I'm glad you liked my illustration. If we understand that faith/belief is not a work and we are under no pressure to call it such a thing because the Bible tells us differently, then the Calvinist ideas don't trouble us. We understand then that we are in Christ by faith. We understand that because we are in Christ we are no longer strangers from the covenants but fellowcitizens with the saints. We received Christ by faith in His completed work. We serve Him on the basis of the same faith. We believe that He that has begun a good work in us will be faithful to complete it. We believe that the same Christ who brought is into the New Covenant will keep us in it because we can never, ever, be seperated from Him.

And we will forever exercise great care to make sure that what the Bible says Christ does for us because we are in Him we do not turn around so as to say it is only for those who are in the church.

Rich

Bro. Hamlin,

I appreciate your explanation of John 6:28-30. That is exactly how I see it and the account of the rich young ruler.

younglandmarker wrote:Bro. Hamlin,

I appreciate your explanation of John 6:28-30. That is exactly how I see it and the account of the rich young ruler.

What about this perspective of the lesson of the Rich Young ruler?


Rich Young Rulers Question


Mat 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

I have often been curious when I was younger why in this time of Grace and Faith and Sacrifice of Christ that Christ when asked how to have Eternal Life, would say keep the commandments. It seems at odds with just believe and confess that Jesus is the son of God and thou shalt be saved. The reality though is that this isn’t at odds in the least sense of the word, but is the prophetic portion of that very Sacrifice of Christ. Lets explore this with a few questions first.

1. What was the Law for?
2. What did the Law require?

To answer the first question lets look at, Galatians 3: 19-25 “What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions!”,

Notice here that it says that the Law was added because of transgressions; in other words TRANSGRESSIONS were already present and they needed to be identified, highlighted, revealed.

To further understand this I believe the Apostle Paul says it well in, Romans 7: 7-11 “I was alive apart from the law once” Simply put in other words he seems to be saying without the Law I could do what I wanted, how I wanted, when I wanted. Doesn’t society today as a whole seem to be adopting that very same character? Who are you to tell me what I can and cannot do? What makes you the morale authority? I don’t need God!

Lets look further at what Paul had to say once the commandments came; “but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died;” Simply put the commandments made him aware, conscious of his sin.

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet:
Which is summarized nicely again in, Galatians 3: 24 “So that the law is become our tutor”; TO BRING US TO CHRIST.


Which brings us beautifully to the second question; what did the Law require?

Hebrews 9: 18-22 “according to the law” --- “all things are cleansed with blood, and apart from shedding of blood there is no remission. Stated simply the Law requires a sacrifice.

Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life.

Christ came here from on high and made this ominous yet for us today extremely powerful statement in Matthew 5: 17-18 “I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. Christ came to fulfill the commandments; which required a sacrifice for sin.

So He says to the young man Keep the Commandments

Mat 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

Mat 19:19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Mat 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
SEE Mark 10:21 “looking at him, Jesus loved him, and said to him”

Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

“If thou wilt be complete”, its not enough to just recognize your sin nature and that you are under penalty of death or still yet not enough to see that Christ paid that penalty of death for you. It does take a bit more on mankinds part.

“go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor”, What does it take for a rich man whom has worked diligently to accumulate wealth and prestige; to just give it all up to others whom have not earned or deserved it? Humility, Humbleness

Christ has shown this young man that since he recognizes his sin condition and that He (Christ) is the Sacrifice for that condition then he needs to humble himself AND.

“come follow me”, submit to Christ as Lord and Savior the bearer of eternal Life.

Christs answer to this young man wasn’t to get him to follow the commandments according to the letter of the Law. His answer is to point out that the Spirit of the Law is fulfilled in Him, that the sin debt is paid by Him.

Hebrews 9: 11-14

Mat 19:22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

Summery today you have heard the question of; what must I do to be saved? Today you have heard that the answer is to recognize that your sin leads unto death and that Christ has paid that price for you, all you need to do is humble yourself before Him and submit (REPENT). Can you do that today? Or are you going to be like the young man that walked away grieved.

Bro. Smith,
I am enjoying this discussion as well. I do wonder though, with all these threads that deal with the Spirit, if the Spirit is not somewhat grieved, since His role is to testify of and promote Christ but we seem to be discusssing the Spirit much more than we are Christ.
I wonder if that's a sign we are not really being directed by the Spirit???

You had asked, "Do you believe that there is a difference between works of the law and works of righteousness? If you do what is the difference....When Paul talks of Abraham not being justified by works...What works was he talking about seeing the law was not yet given?"

Of course, volumes could be written in response, but a short answer would simply be, yes there is as much difference between the works of the law and works of righteousness as there is between night and day. Works of the law, at least as they morphed into, are works of the flesh.
I say "morphed" because the Law as originally given was intended to produce an understanding of helplessness to produce righteousness on their own and to drive them to faith, Rom.3:20, "...for by the law is the knowledge of sin" but they turned it into their version of works of righteousness in their self-righteous attitude.
Or, as Paul declared about God's desire for the Law, "Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid." Gal.3:21

When Abraham was said to be justified by works, it was not the works of the law, of course.
Justification is only by faith, else it become works of the flesh and that won't justify anyone before God - it is only "by the law of faith." Rom.3:27 quoted in full below.

I would say salvation is God's righteous work in us and proper service after that is God's righteous work through us.
It is always God's way for inward change first, then outward to follow.
It is always man's way to think outward change can replace inward.
"Cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also."

And, if it is to be a righteous work, it must be by faith that Christ receive the true glory and never us.
Romans 3:27, "Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith."

Thanks Bro. Howard

In my mind it clears things up by knowing that you do not believe works of the law and works of righteousness to be the same and that neither of them save.
I appreciate your response.


Bro. Cbut

I doubt that selling all his goods would have saved the Rich Young Ruler....Jesus was magnifying and showing him his inability to be righteous enough. If doing such would have saved him then it would save others also and yet Paul said 1Co 13:3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed [the poor], and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. A great teacher of mine Bro. JR Alexander always said "True Repentance Always Leads To Saving Faith". Muslims preach repentance, I have led countless Missionary Baptists to the Lord that thought Repentance meant to "be sorry for your sin and try a little harder" which is works. Humbleness is admitting there is nothing you can or are able to do to deserve Christ. Repentance is not trusting Christ with your ability it is trusting Christ with your inability.

In Christ,
Jonathon D Smith

Jon Smith wrote:Thanks Bro. Howard

In my mind it clears things up by knowing that you do not believe works of the law and works of righteousness to be the same and that neither of them save.
I appreciate your response.


Bro. Cbut

I doubt that selling all his goods would have saved the Rich Young Ruler....Jesus was magnifying and showing him his inability to be righteous enough. If doing such would have saved him then it would save others also and yet Paul said 1Co 13:3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed [the poor], and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. A great teacher of mine Bro. JR Alexander always said "True Repentance Always Leads To Saving Faith". Muslims preach repentance, I have led countless Missionary Baptists to the Lord that thought Repentance meant to "be sorry for your sin and try a little harder" which is works. Humbleness is admitting there is nothing you can or are able to do to deserve Christ. Repentance is not trusting Christ with your ability it is trusting Christ with your inability.

In Christ,
Jonathon D Smith

Brother Smith if you notice what it says in the verses you can see that it is talking about humbling his heart before God, that is what all mankind must do to be saved. Christ used the method He did to bring that teaching to the young mans heart precisely because he was a wealthy Hebrew that aparantly understood the Law. It didn't have anything to do with the actual selling of his possesions it had to do with his heart being humbled. Christ then followed it up with the usual "follow Me" which is the young man submission to Christ if he had done so, instead he walked away grieved.

It is sad to me that some cannot see past the young mans possesions and look into his heart any more than the young man could, when Christ Himself bares open the young mans soul right before our very eyes.