Calvinism VS the Scriptural Design of Baptism

greenspun.com : LUSENET : The Christian Church : One Thread

Brethren:

This thread is a continuation of the "baptismal regeneration" thread. I have canged the name to reflect what we are really discussing and to remove the deliberate pejoritive implication that we in the restoration movement beleive in baptismal regeneration. For we do not beleive any such thing. We do beleive all that the New Testament teaches on the subject of our salvation. We have never taught that baptism alone without faith in Christ and his shed blood could save any one but rather that baptism is essential to a faithful obedience to Christ which is essential along with faith, repentance and confession of Christ to our obedience to our Lord and His gospel which is essential to our salvation. (Heb. 5:8,9; 1 COr. 15:1-4; 2 Thess. 1:8-9; ROmans 6:3-6,17; Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Acts 3:19; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Acts 8:14-40; John 3:3-5; Titus 3:3-5; Eph. 5:26; Heb. 10:22; Gal. 3:26,27).

Therefore I have titled this thread "Calvinism VS teh Scriptural design of Baptism" by which I mean that Calvinism is a doctine that is contrary to the doctrine of Christ our Lord's design or purpose for Commanding baptism for the remission of sins. (Acts:38).

This was also done becaause the former thread was getting too long and the downloads were taking too much time for many to read and respond promptly.

I now continue by responding to DBVZ's last post in that previous thread.

DBVZ:

You have said:

“Saffold, Your long post makes it clear again it is pointless to continue a discussion with you.”

Now, there is little doubt in anyone’s mind that I care very little about the length of my post and your whining about its length does nothing to cause me to be in the least concerned about it. And your response continues to show that it is very much “pointed” to discuss these matters with me inasmuch as you have now for the forth time completely refused to answer my very pointed and reasonable question that was put to you.

Then you say:

“ Is I wrote some time ago, I did not quote the post of John Wilson from Feb. 17 to make any point concerning the interpretation of "eis", but as an example of one who indicated by his comments that he relies on the finished work of Christ for salvation. I may be wrong, but that is what his post indicated to me. As for "eis", I don't read Greek and my opinion on that issue would be entirely based on the opinions of those who do.”

Again you have deliberately avoided discussing the meaning of this Greek term “eis” and its bearing on the subject at hand. I know that you were quoting John but my question was do you agree with his argument that was based upon an egregious error concerning the meaning of the Greek term “eis”. You have not answered and will not answer that question, now will you? And, if you do not “read Greek” how can you agree with an argument based upon the meaning of a word in the Greek language when you have absolutely no idea what the word means or that the assertion in the words you quoted from John were factual and true?

Then you say:

“In any event, even using the interpretation of "eis" you want does not change the meaning I get from the passage. As I have commented before, "repent and be baptized" assumes that some other things have already occured - like recognition of sin, belief that God exists and will forgive, and faith in Jesus Christ. No one truely repents who does not believe, and baptism follows as a symbol of the washing away of our sins by the blood of Christ.”

Well, the meaning of the Greek term “eis” is not merely an “interpretation that I want”. It is the meaning that all reputable and able scholars in all of the recognized scholarly Lexicons give to it. I have quoted many of them to establish that such is the meaning. And you admit that you have not the slightest idea what the word means. Therefore it is quite presumptions on your part to attempt to make it appear that I am simply giving it a meaning that I want it to have. When the truth of the matter is that I have established its meaning from reputable and recognized Scholars of the Greek language, including the very one that John himself deliberately misquoted.

Why wouldn’t the fact that the Greek term “eis” means “to obtain” cause you to consider the possibility that repentance and baptism is “to obtain” the remission of sins. And if they are for this purpose according to the inspired apostle Peter on what grounds do you contend that repentance and baptism is not done in order “to obtain” the remission of sins? So far all we can tell is that the actual meaning of the inspired words from God have no bearing upon what you will believe. According to you it can mean repentance and baptism is “to obtain” remission of sins but you still insist that repentance and baptism are merely “symbolic” of the washing away of our sins by the blood of Christ. You insist without offering a single word from God that says that repentance and baptism are merely symbolic. We are just expected to believe that it is so because you say it is. We want evidence from the word of God that makes repentance and baptism nothing more than a symbol. In Acts 2:38 repentance and baptism are connected by a conjunction that connects things of equal rank in a sentence. Thus whatever is said of repentance in that verse is also said of baptism. Now do tell us just how is it that repentance is nothing more than a symbol? And if baptism in this verse is symbolic then so is repentance for they are equally related to the remission of sins in exactly the same way in this verse. It is as plain as the nose on your face that “repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ” are both “for” or “unto” or “to obtain” the remission of sins. Nothing in this verse or its entire immediate context says a single thing about “repentance and baptism being nothing more than “symbolic” of the washing away of our sins. The truth is that when we repent and are baptized God actually, by his grace and because of the blood of Christ, removes our sins from us. (Col. 2:11,12). And both repentance and baptism are acts of obedience to the commands of Christ our Lord prompted by faith in him upon hearing the gospel of Christ. For faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:13-17). SO there is nothing in the entire second chapter of Acts that says that “repentance and baptism” are symbolic. The question is not and has never been “what saves us” for we know that it is Christ who saves us through the benefits of his shed blood. The issue is not “how does Christ save us for we know that it is through the sacrifice of himself upon the cross. Rather the issue is when does he grant us the remission of our sins. And Peter made the answer to that question simple and abundantly clear when he said, “Repent and be immersed every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS.” (Acts 2:38). Thus when our faith leads us to obey Christ by repenting and being immersed in His name we receive the forgiveness or remission of our sins. This is when Christ removes our sins. He is the savior of those who are obedient to his commands in these matters. For he is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him. (Heb. 5:8,9). He is not the author of eternal salvation to any others. It is His sovereign right to decide when and upon what conditions his blood will be applied to our souls and our sins will be removed. And Paul by inspiration made it abundantly clear when we receive the benefits of the blood of Christ. For he said, “In whom also ye were circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in the putting off of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: BURIED (not sprinkled or poured) with him in baptism (immersion) wherein also ye are risen with him THROUGH FAITH IN THE OPERATION OF GOD, who hath raised him from the dead. And you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with Him, having FORGIVEN ALL YOUR TRESPASSES;” (Col. 2:11-13). Thus it is clear that the removal of our sins takes place when we are “buried with him in baptism”. For it is evident that we are in our sins before we are “buried with Him in baptism and that they are forgiven when we are immersed with him and that afterward we are raised to walk a new life. And Paul again reinforces this same idea when he said, “know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore (for this reason) we are BURIED WITH HIM (not sprinkled or poured with Him) by baptism (immersion for that is what the word means) into death: that LIKE AS CHRIST was raised up from the dead by the glory of the father we also should walk in newness of life. For IF we have been planted in the likeness of his death we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: KNOWING THIS, that our OLD MAN is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth (after this dying to sin and burial and resurrection with Christ) we should not serve sin. (Romans 6:3-6). And Paul harkens back to these very words in the seventeenth verse of this same chapter of Romans with these words, “ know ye not that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey whether of sin unto death or obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked; that ye were once the servants of sin, but ye have OBEYED from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. BEING THEN MADE FREE FROM SIN, ye became the servants of righteousness”. (Romans 6:16-18). When were they made free from sin? When they OBEYED FORM THE HEART THAT FORM OF DOCTRINE. It is clear that they were made free from sin WHEN they obeyed that form of doctrine which he described with his words concerning the “burial” with Christ in baptism in Romans 6:3-6. So, when were they forgiven according to all of these verses from Colossians and Romans? It was when they OBEYED the gospel. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 defines the gospel. “Moreover brethren I declare unto you the gospel, which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; BY WHICH ALSO YE ARE SAVED, IF YE KEEP IN MEMEORY what I preached unto you unless ye have BELIEVED IN VAIN. For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received, how that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scripture;” (1 Cor. 15:1-4). Yet Paul also told us that those who do not obey the gospel would be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of his power. (2 Thessalonians 1:8,9). The gospel according to Paul is a set of facts to be believed (1 Cor. 15:1-4) that Christ died for our sins and that he was buried and raised from the dead. These are facts to be believed. How then can anyone obey facts to be believed? How can one obey the death, burial and resurrection of Christ? The answer is clear. For the gospel also has commands to be obeyed that allows us to obey the death burial and resurrection of Christ by being “buried with him in baptism and raised to walk in newness of life. Thus, the only way we are given in the scriptures to obey the gospel is by imitating the death burial and resurrection of Christ as Paul explained in two places by being buried with Him by baptism. (Romans 6:3-6). There is no other way given in the scriptures that anyone can “obey” the death burial and resurrection of Christ. And this is the reason that immersion is commanded for we are expected by God to obey the gospel of Christ or be eternally lost. (2 Thess. 1:8,9). And the only way that we can obey the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ is to obey His command to be “buried with him by immersion” so that we can be raised with Him to a new life. (Romans 6:3-6, 17). Thus we can understand what Paul meant when he said, “for ye are all children of God in Christ Jesus FOR (gar meaning because) as many of you as have been BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST have put on Christ. (Gal. 3:26, 27). And if any man be in Christ he is a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17). Thus Christ words are even more understandable when were hear him say, “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: he that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16).

Now, DBVZ, why do you not give some scriptural evidence to support your assertion that repentance and baptism are nothing more than symbolic of the “washing away of our sins”? For if you could produce a scripture to support such a notion it would be contradictory to the many that I have listed above. However, we have no expectation that you will find a scripture that actually says that “repentance an baptism” are merely symbolic of washing our sins away, for there is no such scripture in the entire word of God. And it is certain that Acts 2:38 says no such thing.

Then you say: “You truely state that baptism is a command of God, given through Christ and his apostles. I have never disputed that or that baptism is required.”

It is interesting just here that you cannot complete the thought. Of course it is true that repentance and BAPTISM ARE REQUIRED. I am glad that you can see that they are therefore essential for some reason. Both of these in the scriptures are just as essential and REQUIRED, as is faith. But you are afraid to admit just why they are “required”. They are commands of God and we are required to obey them because Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that OBEYS HIM. (Heb. 5:8,9) and they are RQUIRED for us to obey the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Romans 6:3-6,17) and if we do not obey the gospel we shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of His power. (2 Thess. 1:8,9) therefore they are REQUIRED commandments of God for our salvation.

Then in your further absurd efforts to twist the truth you say:

“The issue that is critical is whether salvation results from this human action of baptism, putting it in the control of men; or whether salvation results from the sovereign act of God of which baptism is the symbol.”

Salvation in Christ is for those who OBEY the commandments of our sovereign Lord. “Though he were a son yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; and being made perfect he became the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him.” (Heb. 5:8,9). And there is no way for any human being to obey God without taking human action to do so. It is indeed ridiculous that one could contemplate human beings obeying God without taking human action. Even faith is a human response to the hearing of the word of God, Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.” (Romans 10:17). Repentance is also a human action and no one will have their sins blotted out without taking the action of repenting of their sins. For we are told by Peter again, “Repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. (Acts 3:19). And Ananias had no problem with telling Saul, who was later, the great Apostle Paul, “And now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and WASH AWAY thy sins calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16). Now notice he did not say “arise and be baptized and symbolically wash away they sins calling on the name of the Lord”. No would DBVZ ever bring himself to say these same words that Ananias said to Saul to anyone? Ananias said them but DBVZ cannot say them for they are opposed to his Calvinistic presuppositions. He would choke on such words. And when Peter said, Repent and be immersed every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission sins” (Acts 2:38) He urged the people, “and with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, save yourselves from this untoward generation”. (Acts 2:40). Now those are more words that DBVZ would choke to death on before he would say them. Then the very next verse following Peter’s admonition for them to “save themselves from this untoward generation” says, “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them three thousand souls.” (Acts 2:41). Three thousand souls were baptized because they gladly received Peter’s words and in doing so they were added to their number. And verse 47 say says, and “the Lord added to them daily those that were being saved.” Yes, those that gladly received the word of God were baptized and thus were added and those being added were those who were being saved. Interesting, isn’t it. All of the things we read in this passage are repugnant to Calvinist. They just cannot “gladly receive” Peter’s inspired words. And they most certainly would never be found repeating them to an audience that cried out, “Men and brethren what shall we do?” For their words would be, “you cannot do anything but hope that God has chosen you from the foundation of the world for if he did not you are eternally lost and there is nothing you can do about it, period for our God is sovereign! That is their gospel. But it is not the gospel of Christ.

Then you say:

“ If it results from baptism, it is works-dependent just as the command not to eat of the tree in eden was.”

Now this statement is nothing more than an assertion of your opinion. Where does the word of God say such a thing? If repentance and baptism is the point in time when our sovereign God has determined to grant us the remission of our sins (Acts 2:38) where does God’s work teach that we must then conclude that our salvation is “works dependent” and not a matter of God’s sovereignty and Grace? God’s work does not speak with such theological nonsense. Peter had not the slightest fear that anyone would conclude that His answer to those poor souls on Pentecost who had crucified Jesus Christ and had Cried out, “men and brethren what shall we do?” Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” would cause anyone to say that their salvation was “works-dependent”. It is certain that he had never contemplated such an absurd notion. But, DBVZ, could never tell anyone to do those things because he has this fear that telling someone what Peter said would case them to believe that their salvation was “works-dependent” instead of by God’s grace. But we have no indication that the three thousand souls who were immersed on that day in response to Peter’s answer to their question ever thought that their salvation was “works-dependent” and not by God’s grace. Is it not interesting brethren that none of this theological nonsense can be found in the word of God. WE never read of any words like “works-dependent” in the scriptures. Those words are not there even though we are told to “repent and be baptized for the remission of our sins. He was using the exact same words that our Lord used when he said, “this is my blood of the New Covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins.” (Matt. 26:28). And there is not the slightest idea in the scriptures that this would ever cause anyone to think that should we accept the Lord’s commands to repent and be baptized that we would be in danger of concluding that our salvation was “works-depended”. Our salvation is without doubt dependent upon obedience. For Christ our Lord is the “author of eternal salvation to all them that obey Him. (Heb. 5:8,9). I can just hear DBVZ arguing with the inspired writer of the book of Hebrews saying don’t you know that if you tell people that Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey Him that you will thereby be guilty of teaching a “works-dependent” salvation. Christ will not save anyone that does not believe. But if they believe, which is a human mental activity that comes from hearing the word of God (Romans 10:13-17), are they seeking a “works-dependent” salvation? Repentance is an change of hear and mind and takes place in the heart of man and is a mental activity caused by Godly sorrow as Paul explained to the Corinthians. “Though I made you sorry with my epistle, I do not regret it, though I did regret; for I see that the epistle made you sorry after a godly sort; for godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation not to be regretted.” Now, this mental activity of repentance that leads to salvation did not cause Paul to fear that anyone would ever conclude that their salvation was “works-dependent”. Thus if one repents of his sins, which is a human mental activity based upon a godly sorrow for sin, and that repentance leads to salvation then is one’s salvation “works-dependent? It would be according to DBVZ but not according to the inspired word of God. Then we come to baptism, which is not a mere human act that man does but rather an action that he allows to be done to him. In baptism the one being baptized is entirely passive except in the sense that he willingly and humbly in his hear submits to it. For Peter said, “repent and BE baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” In order for one to BE baptized he must submit to it but in the action of baptism he is totally passive. And Christ said he that believeth and IS baptized shall be saved. Thus if one humbly and passively submits to our Lords command to be baptized he will be saved and thousands in the New Testament did just that without even once thinking that their salvation was “works-dependent’ and not bay God’s grace. Yet DBVZ gathers from this passive, inactive submission to the command of Christ that one is working to earn his salvation if he submits to it. But he cannot show from the word of God that his theory is true. If God’s word does not teach that salvation that is dependent or conditioned upon faithful obedience to God’s Commands is “works-dependent” then just why would DBVZ draw such a conclusion? He does not draw it from anything that God says on the matter for all that God has to say about it is contrary to his theological theories and suppositions.

Then he says:

“If it results from the sovereign act of Gos it is provided freely, by grace, to all who believe as Romans 3:21-24 clearly states.”

Now, anyone who reads Romans must keep their mind continually on what Paul is talking about.

The scripture teaches that remission of sins happens in baptism after we through faith have repented of our sins (Acts 2:38). Now the fact that it happens when we are baptized does not in the least mean that it results from baptism. Remission of sins results from the shed blood of Christ WHEN we obey His commands to repent and be baptized. For this reason the exact same phraseology is found in Matthew 26:28 as id found in Acts 2:38. For Christ tells us that, This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. (Matt. 26:28) and then we are told by Peter, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS” (Acts 2:38). Now this is the exact same phrase in Greek as it is in English. Both the Blood of Christ and Repentance and baptism are for the exact same purpose. They are all FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. And the only reasonable explanation that can be given for this fact is that the blood of Christ remits our sins WHEN we repent of those sins and submit in humble obedience to the command of Christ to be baptized. Thus, remission of sins is the result of Christ blood and is granted to us by our sovereign God when we “repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins”. And our Calvinist friend has failed to inform you that according to his theory, not the word of God, God decided before the foundation of the world who would be saved and who would be lost and that nothing that you do can change God’s mind about that decision. If you were arbitrarily selected to be eternally Lost before the foundation of the world you will be lost and there is nothing you can do to be saved. And if God selected you arbitrarily to be saved before the foundation of the world you will be saved and there is nothing that you can do to save yourself nor is there anything you can do to be lost. This is what they mean when they say it is all by God’s Grace. The grace of God described in the gospel of Christ is not the same as the imaginary grace of God found in the twisted Calvinistic theories about God’s Grace.

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold



-- Anonymous, February 26, 2001

Answers

Question DBVZ....if God is ultimately responsible for the gift of faith.....is He ultimately responsible for sending people to hell??

(You failed to answer this question in the baptismal regeneration thead.)

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2001


And based upon what....does God choose to save some....and let others rot in hell???

Boy....as has always been said.....The Calvinistic God is an ugly monster.

-- Anonymous, February 28, 2001


Brethern I now Continue my response to DBVZ.

DBVZ you continue by saying:

“One step follows another. When you recognize that baptism is a symbolic washing, the mode is less important even though I agreed with you that the word originally included the meaning "to dip" or "to immerse".”

Now, DBVZ, we are not going to “recognize that baptism is a symbolic washing” until it is proven from the scriptures that it is a symbolic washing. There is not one passage that tells us that our sins are “symbolically” washed away when we are baptized. In fact, Paul tells us in Colossians 2:11-13 that Christ actually removes our sins from us when we are buried with Him in baptism. And Peter tells us to “repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS.” He does not say repent and be baptized for the symbolic remission of sins. And Annanias told Saul, “and now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins having called upon the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16). He does not say to Saul, “arise and be baptized and symbolically wash away your sins having called upon the name of the Lord.” In fact there is not a place in the New Testament where we find the words symbolic and baptism together. DBVZ that notion is not in the scriptures and therefore until it is proven that baptism is symbolic we will not recognize it as such.

I am happy however that you finally admit that originally, meaning how the men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit to use it used it, the word baptism included “to dip” or “to immerse”. But you still have not understood the truth of the meaning of the Greek word “baptizo”. For in did not merely include “to dip” or “to immerse”. It meant “to dip” or “to immerse” and that was its entire meaning. It never included anything else. It most certainly NEVER included sprinkling. And it did not include “pouring” unless enough water was poured out to immerse the person or object being baptized. There is no justification in the entire New Testament for anything other than immerse as the meaning of the Greek term “baptizo”.

But this fact does not stop our Calvinistic friend form claiming that since baptism is nothing more than a symbolic jester it does not matter in the least what mode we use to symbolize whatever it is that God had intended that it should symbolize. In other words he is telling us that God designed immersion as nothing but a symbol but he does not prove that this is true. Then he says that though our sovereign God chose to immerse, as a symbol of something that it does not matter if we human beings change it to suit our particular taste for it is not essential to our salvation. He is saying that we can just change God’s symbols any time we want to. Now, I do not agree and DBVZ has not proven that baptism is a symbol in the least. But if I did believe that God intended for it to be symbolic I would not tamper with the symbolism that He in his sovereignty and wisdom selected. Just who does DBVZ think he is to treat what he believes is God’s symbol with such indifference as if it does not matter in the least what God wanted if he chose immersion and not sprinkling to symbolize something. The pathetic idea here is that if we decide that something is not important that we can just change it to suit ourselves for God does not care about it. This is not the attitude of one who has respect for the power, authority, and sovereignty of God. But rather it is the attitude of a rebellious heart that cares nothing for the things of God.

Nevertheless, It remains to be proven that baptism is nothing more than a mere symbol. And this will be difficult since it is never called a symbol in the word of God.

Then BVZ says:

“When a word has several possible intended meanings, it is not always clear which one is specifically intended in each case. Where you read a full body immersion I read we are to get the one baptized wet as a symbolic washing.”

The Greek term “baptizo” does not have “getting the one baptized wet” as one of its meanings. Nor does it have “a symbolic washing” as one of its meanings. In fact the Greek term “baptizo’ does not, in the New Testament have “several intended meanings” and for one who has admitted that he does not read Greek you are suddenly speaking as if you consider yourself an authority on the language. But in the New Testament “baptizo” means immerse. It has never meant to “get one wet”. Can you show from any reputable Lexicons that the term has such a meaning or are you going to just avoid that question as you have avoided the questions that I have asked you about the Greek term “eis”?

Then you say:

“ The point is, baptism itself does nothing.”

Now notice folks that DBVZ says, “baptism itself is nothing”. Now contrast this with the inspired apostle Peter who said that baptism was FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. (Acts 2:38) and compare this to Peter’s words who said that “baptism doeth also now save us” (1 Peter 3:21) And compare it to Paul’s inspired words when he said, “for ye are all children of God in Christ Jesus. For (Greek word gar meaning because) as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal. 3:26,27). And compare this statement of DBVZ with the words of Christ our Lord who said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). Jesus uses a coordinating conjunction that connects things of equal rank in a sentence and he thereby put baptism on the same level as believing. So according to Christ baptism is as important as believing. Then Peter put baptism, using the exact same coordinating conjunction together with repentance. And according to him baptism was as important as repentance. But according to our Calvinistic friend, DBVZ, baptism is nothing. I suppose Peter and Jesus should have waited until DBVZ was born so that he would have been around to set them straight on this matter for they did not seem to have the impression that “baptism itself is nothing” as does DBVZ.

Then he says:

“It is symbolic, and after salvation by grace through the work of the Holy Spirit which has brought about faith

Now notice brethren. First DBVZ says baptism is nothing and then he says it is symbolic. Well, DBVZ, make up your mind. Is it nothing or is it symbolic? Or are you telling us that it is symbolic of nothing? Or is it symbolic of something important which would mean that it is at least something important after all.

No, DBVZ, the truth is that you cannot prove the above statement from the scriptures. For we are nowhere told that “baptism is symbolic, and after salvation by grace through the work of the Holy Spirit which was brought about by faith.” And we do notice that you gave absolutely no scripture references to support that nonsense. This is all something that you have read in your Calvinistic creeds. But you cannot read such nonsense in the word of God because it is just not there.

Then you say:

“We are called to obedience in baptism, but those who are baptized in another mode are being obedient.”

That is interesting that you say we are “called to obedience in baptism” but you ignore that we must obey Christ or we will not be saved. For he is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him. Therefore if we must be baptized in order to be obedient and Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him then one cannot be saved without being obedient to him in baptism. Sounds like you have made a good argument for the necessity of baptism to me.

But your assertion which you do not and cannot prove is that those who are “baptized by another mode are being obedient’. To put it bluntly, no they are not. And again I must inform you that there is no way anyone can be immerse by another mode. For either one is immerse or he is not. The word baptized means immerse in the New Testament. It does not mean anything else and there is simply no such thing as modes of immersion. If one is immerse he is immerse. If one is sprinkled he is not immersed. If he has water poured on him he is not immersed until enough water has been poured out to completely immerse him. Now, the Greek term “Baptizo” cannot be translated “sprinkle” or “pour” and therefore there is no such thing in the New Testament as “modes of baptism” for it is impossible to have “modes of immersion” and immerse is the meaning of the Greek term “baptizo”. Therefore one cannot talk in New Testament terminology about “modes of immersion or baptism” for they just did not exist.

Then you quote my words as follows: “In a prior post, you wrote, " Well, DBVZ this is the issue we are debating now isn’t it? It seems that you think that the matter has been settled when everyone reading this discussion can see that it hasn’t. The conclusion that many faithful Christians throughout history have lived and died without being baptized (which means immersed) by immersion (a clear tautology in usage) is false to its very core and you have not even attempted to prove that it is the truth. The fact is that no one who has not been obedient to the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ which can only be done through faith by “repenting and being immersed in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38) is not a Christian at all. (2 Thess. 1:7-9). And your notion that it is a “given” that faithful Christians throughout history have lived and died” without being immersed has not been proven to be the truth. It is not a “given”. Who has “given” that this is true? It is not a “given” in the word of God. I have not conceded or “given” this point to you nor has any other Christian who knows the word of God. And your notion that it is a “given” truth is contrary to the teaching of the word of God in these verses. (Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; John 3:3-5; Titus 3:3-5; Ephesians 5:26; Heb. 10:22; Acts 22:16; Acts 8:14-40; Acts 16: 9-11; Gal. 3:26,27; 1 Peter 3:20,21)."”

And after quoting my words you say:

“So it is clear that your understanding of God is that it is not faith in Jesus Christ that saves, contrary to scripture.”

Now anyone with halve their wits about them can read my words which you quoted and see that I have not said any such thing. And I have never said any such thing. I have always taught that we are saved by a living obedient faith in Christ and anyone who is no obedient to Christ does not have real genuine or saving faith. And this you have also said. For you once told us that obedience was a requirement and that those who did not obey did not have real faith. I have said it so many times that our readers must be nauseous reading it. I have said that we must believe (John 3:16) and we must repent (Acts 3:19; Acts 2:38) and we must confess Christ (Romans 10:9,10) and we must be baptized for the remission of our sins (Acts 2:38). And all of these things are important to having an obedient faith or obedience that it prompted by faith. And any faith that does not lead us to obey is dead. Faith if it is alone is dead and cannot save anyone (James 2:14-24). So, it is obvious that only a completely biased and prejudiced person could conclude form my words that I do not believe in salvation by faith. For it is by faith that we repent of our sins. It is by faith n Christ that we are baptized in obedience to his commands and it is by faith therefore that we receive the remission of our sins (Acts 2:38) WHEN that faith leads us or prompts us to obey him. For Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that have enough faith to obey him. (Heb. 5:8,9)

Then you say:

“ Throughout history many hundreds of thousands (millions!) of faithful Christians have lived and died believing God, trusting in Jesus Christ and his shed blood for their salvation, but were baptized by sprinkling or pouring water over. They died in with their faith in God intact, and in some cases because of thier faith.”

But you do not prove that those who died in this deception were Christians at all. If they did not obey the gospel they were not Christians. (2 Thess. 1:8,9; 1 Cor. 15: 1-4; Romans 6:3-6,17) and if they did not repent and be immersed for the remission of their sins they did not receive the remission of there sins. If they listened to false teachers like you instead of the word of God that was delivered by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit they could not have ever been faithful Christians. And, we are not saved just because we died for what we believe in. Why, even you would see that as “salvation by works”. We are saved when we obey the gospel of Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-4) and condemned if we do not obey it. (2 Thess. 1:8,9). Now, God will judge these men according to His word but your notion that they were Christians is not according to the truth of the word of God. You have yet to prove that these men were Christians at all. In order for them to have been Christians your Calvinistic doctrine would have to be true. So why not first prove to us that your doctrine is true and then we can see them as Christians. But do not try to assume that your doctrine is true because some men followed it, died believing it and try to prejudice the case before it is settled so that you can deliberately avoid the real issues by claiming that we are condemning these people. I could just as easily argue that Muslim faith is true because many good and faithful men died believing that doctrine. But that would not make their doctrine true, now would it. There are thousands of people who have lived and died for their faith in Mormonism. Is their doctrine true because some have sincerely died in that faith and is anyone who opposes their doctrine guilty of condemning all good faithful Mormons to hell? I know that many good and honest and equally sincere men have died as Buddhist. But does that mean that their doctrine is true simply because the “goofed and did not get it right?” And if you opposed their teaching and someone argued this way so as to prejudice everyone against you by placing you in the imaginary position of condemning all of them to hell what would you say? Would you just say, oh, well God did not mean that one must really believe in Christ in order to be saved. Why, according to your Calvinistic doctrine some of God’s elect could be among the idolatrous peoples of the world and they would be saved even if they never knew Christ for they are among those that God elected to save before the foundation of the world.

Then you say:

“You quoted a list of passages out of context, but I will state again that in every case when you see them in context it is clear that baptism followed faith, and that it is faith that is the measure of who are saved, and that we are brought to faith by the work of the Holy Spirit.”

Now you do not prove that I quoted any passage out of context. In fact, when one quotes a passage and gives the reference where others can go to read it they are more than able to read the entire context surrounding it and determine the truth. But if you think there is something in the context of the passages that I have quoted that mitigates against what they clearly seem to be saying then tell us just what that is and we will examine it. But to simple complain that I have taken them out of context without showing how I have done so or demonstrating just what there is in the context that would controvert the argument that I am making from those passages is nothing more than sheer sophistry. I have not taken any of those passages out of context and there is nothing in their context that would controvert the things I have said about them in the least. If you claim that there is then prove it. I am certain that you will make no attempt at such a thing for you have no idea what is in the context of those passages that would controvert what I have said about them in the least.

And you say that it is faith that is the measure of those that are saved. And no one has ever said otherwise but even you have agreed with us that those who do not obey do not have “real faith” and we all know that that no one can be saved by a false faith or a dead faith.

And you claim, but do not prove that faith comes by the work of the Holy Spirit. You do bother to explain what you mean by this statement. You most certainly do not give us any passages of scripture that prove it to be true. But the word of God tells us that “faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:13-17). In fact, read that entire context and you will find how faith comes. It comes by the Word of God.

Then you quote:

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

Every one, including myself, in the Restoration movement believes this verse with as much strength as you claim to believe it. And this verse makes it abundantly clear that we are not saved by “faith alone”. For it says we are saved by grace through faith. And faith is that which prompts obedience to all of Gods commands and by that means it saves us. (James 2:14-24; Heb. 5:8,9; Hebrews 11). And this verse does not contradict the plain teaching of the Holy Spirit speaking in the apostle Peter on the day of Pentecost when he said, “repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38) for it is our faith that Christ will give us the remission of our sins if we will simply repent and obey His command to be immersed. And therefore it is by faith that we are led to repent and be baptized for the remission of our sins. We believe God’s word that tells us to repent and be immersed for the remission of our sins and by faith we do what God commanded and we received the remission of our sins. So, your Calvinistic concept of this verse on the other hand is completely contrary to the truth taught within this verse. For according to Calvinism you were saved or lost the day that God, before the foundation of the world arbitrarily chose you to either be saved or lost. And the numbers of those cannot be “diminished or increased” and therefore it is solely by God’s arbitrary goodness and grace that he has chosen you to salvation and others to condemnation and there is nothing, even faith that can change your fate. So, even the Calvinist has no need for faith and all of his talk of faith is pure hypocrisy for he believes that this salvation matter was decided before the world began. So according to him nothing means anything except the sovereign choice of God. The very idea of one choosing to become a Christian of his own free will and that salvation is for all men is foreign to a Calvinist. Therefore you are either not a real Calvinist or you do not believe that even faith is a factor in our salvation.

And more Calvinism surfaces with these words from you:

“Certainly those who were baptized as a result of their faith were saved, but it is the faith that saved them and that was the gift of God.”

Now this goes back to your notion that all men are totally hereditarily depraved and cannot have faith on their own but God must come and overpower this total depravity and give us faith whether we want to have faith or not. And that he must do this because he has selected them to be saved before the foundation of the world. And he cannot allow his elect to be lost even though they are totally depraved therefore he must come to give them a faith that they cannot even desire to have within themselves. And for this reason you claim that faith is the “gift of God”. But the scriptures teach that faith comes by hearing and hearing the word of God (Romans 10:13-17) and that we can chose to believe or to refuse believe and we do not need any overpowering work of the Holy Spirit to force us to have faith.

Faith does lead us to obey Christ and Christ saves those who obey him (Heb 5:8,9).

It is indeed God’s gift that he sent his son to die for us while we were yet sinners (Romans 5:8). That is God’s gift to us. And by faith in Christ we are now privileged to simply repent and be baptized to obtain remission of our sins. (Acts 2:38) Isn’t that wonderful? Al we need do is believe, repent and obey the gospel to be saved. And none that do not do those things will be saved. (John 3:16-18; Acts 3:19; 17:30; Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21).

Then you say:

“I contend the RM position as expressed by Saffold is essentially the belief that immersion is the act (of man, not God)through which sins are forgiven. I believe that is what was intended in the original question, and why a calvinist properly identified it as heretical.”

Hogwash! It is easy to make an assertion but not so easy to prove it. And all we have from you are assertions and not proof. Where did I ever say that baptism was a place when only man acted and not God? I have now quoted Colossians 2:11-13 numerous times wherein it is clearly stated that man is passive and God is active in baptism. Now your efforts to deliberately misrepresent position of those of us working to restore New Testament Christianity today by deliberately misrepresenting the things that have been said by E. Lee Saffold is very pathetic indeed. You do this because it is a far easier thing to do than to meet and answer fairly, candidly and objectively the arguments made by “Saffold”, now isn’t it? For you most certainly have made very few and always futile attempts to respond to them. And here is no doubt among sensible and informed readers of the word of God that it is Calvinism that is pathetically heretical.

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold



-- Anonymous, February 26, 2001


Saffold:

You spew forth just more of the same. For example:

"Then you say:

“ The point is, baptism itself does nothing.”

Now notice folks that DBVZ says, “baptism itself is nothing”."

You change what I wrote, and then argue that what YOU wrote is in conflict with some other statements of mine. I did not say baptism IS nothing, but that baptism itself DOES nothing. God does it, and baptism does not. No time now to continue.

I see by your thread title that you are being very fair and open minded. Again, it is pointless to discuss this with you. You go over all the same passages, and make all the same unsupported assertions.

-- Anonymous, February 26, 2001


DBVZ:

You accurately record my words which shows that I did in fact change you actual words when I responded to you in this one place as follows:

“Then you say: “ The point is, baptism itself does nothing.” Now notice folks that DBVZ says, “baptism itself is nothing”." You change what I wrote, and then argue that what YOU wrote is in conflict with some other statements of mine. I did not say baptism IS nothing, but that baptism itself DOES nothing. God does it, and baptism does not. No time now to continue.” I apologize for I see that I did change your words. But I did not intend to do so intentionally. It was late at night and I was writing while tired. For it is not my intent to misrepresent anything that you have said. However, my response to your words would have been the same even if I had not inadvertently changed your words and I had realized that you said instead that baptism “itself” is nothing”. For the scriptures say no such thing. While baptism does not do everything it does something. Baptism “itself” is not the only thing, neither is it everything but it is indeed something and it is as clear as a bell that it is not merely a symbolic thing! But we have not been discussing baptism alone by itself in a vacuum and you know it. WE have not been arguing what baptism “itself “ is. We have been arguing about what it is in the scheme of redemption and in its relation to Christ and faith in him and man and his repentance of sins and its relation to the gospel. You would like for us to contend that baptism alone saves but I have said before several times that I do not believe in salivation by baptism ONLY any more than I believe in the false doctrine of salvation by faith ONLY.

When you say concerning baptism:

“God does it, baptism does not” you continue to show your inability to comprehend what we have been telling you. We have been telling you that God does it WHEN WE ARE BAPTISED. If I say that my father sings WHEN he goes to the church building to worship I do not mean that the church building does the singing now do I? When I show from the scriptures that GOD removes our sins from our souls WHEN we are baptized I do not mean that Baptism does it without God but rather that God does it within baptism as is taught by Colossians 2:11-14. And we have said as much to you many times now but you are just unwilling to accept that we could be saying such a thing for that is not what you were prpared to hear from us now is it? No, you are eager instead to hear us argue that baptism all alone without God or Christ saves us. But we have never said any such thing. And you know it. And to continue to attempt to leave that impression just because you cannot answer our difficult questions that we have put to you and you are frustrated is a pathetic sight for a man who would like for us all to believe that he is objective, fair and “open minded”.

We are talking about baptism as commanded by Christ and as it is connected to faith in Christ and repentance toward Christ and confession of Christ. And you are doing nothing more than avoiding the simple fact that no one has been talking in this discussion about salvation by baptism alone apart from Christ and faith in him. And we have said it so many times that you would think that you could have heard it. But you are not honest enough to admit that we are claiming that baptism as a response of our faith in Christ after the repentance of our sins is ‘For the remission of sins” as Peter told us all plainly in Acts 2:38. But this does not mean that baptism “itself’ is nothing. For baptism is mentioned 127 times in the New Testament and God would not mention something so many times if it itself were “nothing”. And even you try to make it out to be a symbol. And if you are correct then it would at least t be something, now wouldn’t it?

Then you say:

“I see by your thread title that you are being very fair and open minded.”

Now who told you that I was trying to be “fair and open minded” in my choice of titles for the thread? Such was not my intent in the least. It was my intent to avoid the pejorative as I described and to point out that there is a conflict between the scriptural doctrine concerning baptism and the false doctrine of Calvinism. It was my intent to describe the facts in this discussion accurately. I have done that in the title. Stating the facts is neutral. It is neither fair nor unfair. And the door of my mind is not standing wide open for any and every “wind of doctrine” to come blowing through. The door of my heart or mind responds only to the truth of God’s word. If you would like to see it open then come with the word of God and you will find it is well oiled and exercised to open at the command of God. But the doctrines of men will be left howling at the front porch until I have time to drive them away!

Then you say:

“ Again, it is pointless to discuss this with you. You go over all the same passages, and make all the same unsupported assertions.”

Your problem is not that it is “pointless” to discuss something with me. Rather you are all too well aware that it can often be quite pointed to discuss things with me. Especially when you manage to ignore the truth. And as to my assertions at least it can be said that I attempt to give evidence to support them. Even if you do not agree that my evidence proves my assertion all can readily see that I always offer some evidence to support them. But this you have not done and will never do. In fact, you deliberately ignore what is impossible for you to answer such as the question that I asked you concerning the meaning of the Greek word “eis”! You just cannot deal with how that word destroys your false doctrine concerning Acts 2:38 now, can you? You are afraid to admit the truth that this word shows that repentance and baptism was “for” “unto” or “to obtain” the remission of sins. (Acts 2:38). It bothers you but you just cannot reply and all that read this forum are able to see that this is the simple fact in the case.

And no one should be surprised that since you continually talk of the same pathetic egregious errors that it is only natural that I would give you the same response. Especially is this true when you deliberately ignore the responses that you cannot answer. Such as you have done with this Greek word “eis”. I will just keep repeating the truth every time you repeat error. In fact, this particular discussion we have had once before and it was you that came back to talk of the same things all over again. Did you actually expect to receive a different response to your same old nonsense?

Well, we are waiting for you to reply if you still think there is a point to your doing so. WE have thus far seen that all you can do is avoid the arguments that are impossible for you to answer.

We have long since known that we cannot expect anything better from most common Calvinist. While there are notable exceptions to that statement you are not one of them.

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold



-- Anonymous, February 26, 2001



Saffold,

I must admit you have just about worn out my patients with this exchange. As I said several times it is pointless to continue this, but yet we do. Well, here we go one more time.

Brethren:

This thread is a continuation of the "baptismal regeneration" thread. I have canged the name to reflect what we are really discussing and to remove the deliberate pejoritive implication that we in the restoration movement beleive in baptismal regeneration. For we do not beleive any such thing. We do beleive all that the New Testament teaches on the subject of our salvation. We have never taught that baptism alone without faith in Christ and his shed blood could save any one but rather that baptism is essential to a faithful obedience to Christ which is essential along with faith, repentance and confession of Christ to our obedience to our Lord and His gospel which is essential to our salvation. (Heb. 5:8,9; 1 COr. 15:1-4; 2 Thess. 1:8-9; ROmans 6:3-6,17; Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Acts 3:19; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Acts 8:14-40; John 3:3-5; Titus 3:3-5; Eph. 5:26; Heb. 10:22; Gal. 3:26,27).

Which is the essence of a works based salvation, contrary to the gospel of Christ. DBVZ

Therefore I have titled this thread "Calvinism VS teh Scriptural design of Baptism" by which I mean that Calvinism is a doctine that is contrary to the doctrine of Christ our Lord's design or purpose for Commanding baptism for the remission of sins. (Acts:38).

Everything seems based on this one verse in Acts, which you have mis interpreted. DBVZ

This was also done becaause the former thread was getting too long and the downloads were taking too much time for many to read and respond promptly.

I now continue by responding to DBVZ's last post in that previous thread.

DBVZ:

You have said:

"Saffold, Your long post makes it clear again it is pointless to continue a discussion with you."

Now, there is little doubt in anyone's mind that I care very little about the length of my post and your whining about its length does nothing to cause me to be in the least concerned about it. And your response continues to show that it is very much "pointed" to discuss these matters with me inasmuch as you have now for the forth time completely refused to answer my very pointed and reasonable question that was put to you.

Then you say:

" Is I wrote some time ago, I did not quote the post of John Wilson from Feb. 17 to make any point concerning the interpretation of "eis", but as an example of one who indicated by his comments that he relies on the finished work of Christ for salvation. I may be wrong, but that is what his post indicated to me. As for "eis", I don't read Greek and my opinion on that issue would be entirely based on the opinions of those who do."

Again you have deliberately avoided discussing the meaning of this Greek term "eis" and its bearing on the subject at hand. I know that you were quoting John but my question was do you agree with his argument that was based upon an egregious error concerning the meaning of the Greek term "eis". You have not answered and will not answer that question, now will you? And, if you do not "read Greek" how can you agree with an argument based upon the meaning of a word in the Greek language when you have absolutely no idea what the word means or that the assertion in the words you quoted from John were factual and true?

Pay attention. I did not comment on the interpretation of the word. I commented on the reliance on Christ for salvation. DBVZ

Then you say:

"In any event, even using the interpretation of "eis" you want does not change the meaning I get from the passage. As I have commented before, "repent and be baptized" assumes that some other things have already occured - like recognition of sin, belief that God exists and will forgive, and faith in Jesus Christ. No one truely repents who does not believe, and baptism follows as a symbol of the washing away of our sins by the blood of Christ."

Well, the meaning of the Greek term "eis" is not merely an "interpretation that I want". It is the meaning that all reputable and able scholars in all of the recognized scholarly Lexicons give to it. I have quoted many of them to establish that such is the meaning. And you admit that you have not the slightest idea what the word means. Therefore it is quite presumptions on your part to attempt to make it appear that I am simply giving it a meaning that I want it to have. When the truth of the matter is that I have established its meaning from reputable and recognized Scholars of the Greek language, including the very one that John himself deliberately misquoted.

Why wouldn't the fact that the Greek term "eis" means "to obtain" cause you to consider the possibility that repentance and baptism is "to obtain" the remission of sins. And if they are for this purpose according to the inspired apostle Peter on what grounds do you contend that repentance and baptism is not done in order "to obtain" the remission of sins? So far all we can tell is that the actual meaning of the inspired words from God have no bearing upon what you will believe.

No. The meaning of the words, as you interpret "eis" remains consistent with the Calvinist understanding of the relationship of faith, repentance, and baptism. I did not say it is without meaning. According to you it can mean repentance and baptism is "to obtain" DBVZ

remission of sins but you still insist that repentance and baptism are merely "symbolic" of the washing away of our sins by the blood of Christ.

No, just baptism is symbolic of the finished work of Christ. DBVZ

You insist without offering a single word from God that says that repentance and baptism are merely symbolic. We are just expected to believe that it is so because you say it is. We want evidence from the word of God that makes repentance and baptism nothing more than a symbol. In Acts 2:38 repentance and baptism are connected by a conjunction that connects things of equal rank in a sentence. Thus whatever is said of repentance in that verse is also said of baptism. Now do tell us just how is it that repentance is nothing more than a symbol? And if baptism in this verse is symbolic then so is repentance for they are equally related to the remission of sins in exactly the same way in this verse. It is as plain as the nose on your face that "repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ" are both "for" or "unto" or "to obtain" the remission of sins. Nothing in this verse or its entire immediate context says a single thing about "repentance and baptism being nothing more than "symbolic" of the washing away of our sins. The truth is that when we repent and are baptized God actually, by his grace and because of the blood of Christ, removes our sins from us. (Col. 2:11,12). And both repentance and baptism are acts of obedience to the commands of Christ our Lord prompted by faith in him upon hearing the gospel of Christ.

Except that when baptism is done as an act to earn salvation by obedience, it is no longer grace but works. See Rom. 3:21-31. You substitute a new law, through which obedience earns salvation. DBVZ

For faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:13-17). SO there is nothing in the entire second chapter of Acts that says that "repentance and baptism" are symbolic. The question is not and has never been "what saves us" for we know that it is Christ who saves us through the benefits of his shed blood. The issue is not "how does Christ save us for we know that it is through the sacrifice of himself upon the cross. Rather the issue is when does he grant us the remission of our sins.

No. It is the question of whether it is by grace, or by works as you claim. DBVZ

And Peter made the answer to that question simple and abundantly clear when he said, "Repent and be immersed every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS." (Acts 2:38).

You left out the punctuation. "in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." is one thought. DBVZ

Thus when our faith leads us to obey Christ by repenting and being immersed in His name we receive the forgiveness or remission of our sins.

Your conclusion, not what it says. DBVZ

This is when Christ removes our sins. He is the savior of those who are obedient to his commands in these matters. For he is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him. (Heb. 5:8,9).

Not in baptism only, but in all things. Perfect obedience is impossible, which is what forgiveness is all about. Baptism is not mentioned in the passage from Hebrews at all. DBVZ

He is not the author of eternal salvation to any others. It is His sovereign right to decide when and upon what conditions his blood will be applied to our souls and our sins will be removed. And Paul by inspiration made it abundantly clear when we receive the benefits of the blood of Christ. For he said, "In whom also ye were circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in the putting off of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: BURIED (not sprinkled or poured) with him in baptism (immersion) wherein also ye are risen with him THROUGH FAITH IN THE OPERATION OF GOD, who hath raised him from the dead. And you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with Him, having FORGIVEN ALL YOUR TRESPASSES;" (Col. 2:11-13).

And all of that is clearly figurative and symbolic of the work of Christ. SYMBOLIC. And if symbolic then my point is made. DBVZ

Thus it is clear that the removal of our sins takes place when we are "buried with him in baptism". For it is evident that we are in our sins before we are "buried with Him in baptism and that they are forgiven when we are immersed with him and that afterward we are raised to walk a new life. And Paul again reinforces this same idea when he said, "know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore (for this reason) we are BURIED WITH HIM (not sprinkled or poured with Him) by baptism (immersion for that is what the word means) into death: that LIKE AS CHRIST was raised up from the dead by the glory of the father we also should walk in newness of life. For IF we have been planted in the likeness of his death we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: KNOWING THIS, that our OLD MAN is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth (after this dying to sin and burial and resurrection with Christ) we should not serve sin. (Romans 6:3-6). And Paul harkens back to these very words in the seventeenth verse of this same chapter of Romans with these words, " know ye not that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey whether of sin unto death or obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked; that ye were once the servants of sin, but ye have OBEYED from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. BEING THEN MADE FREE FROM SIN, ye became the servants of righteousness". (Romans 6:16-18). Read the whole passage. This is about how the redeemed are to live and not how sinners are to be redeemed. When were they made free from sin? When they OBEYED FORM THE HEART THAT FORM OF DOCTRINE. It is clear that they were made free from sin WHEN they obeyed that form of doctrine which he described with his words concerning the "burial" with Christ in baptism in Romans 6:3-6.

No. When they obey Christ they are free to do good instead of evil. Those who are not in Christ can not do good, and are slaves to evil. Baptism does not do that, but salvation does. DBVZ

So, when were they forgiven according to all of these verses from Colossians and Romans? It was when they OBEYED the gospel. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 defines the gospel. "Moreover brethren I declare unto you the gospel, which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; BY WHICH ALSO YE ARE SAVED, IF YE KEEP IN MEMEORY what I preached unto you unless ye have BELIEVED IN VAIN. For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received, how that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scripture;" (1 Cor. 15:1-4). Yet Paul also told us that those who do not obey the gospel would be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of his power. (2 Thessalonians 1:8,9). The gospel according to Paul is a set of facts to be believed (1 Cor. 15:1-4) that Christ died for our sins and that he was buried and raised from the dead. These are facts to be believed. How then can anyone obey facts to be believed? How can one obey the death, burial and resurrection of Christ? The answer is clear.

Yes it is. Obedience to these "facts to be believed" makes no sense. You have misinterpreted Thess. 1:8 as I pointed out before. It is the belief that is required, as is CLEAR through every presentation of the gospel. DBVZ

For the gospel also has commands to be obeyed that allows us to obey the death burial and resurrection of Christ by being "buried with him in baptism and raised to walk in newness of life. Thus, the only way we are given in the scriptures to obey the gospel is by imitating the death burial and resurrection of Christ as Paul explained in two places by being buried with Him by baptism. (Romans 6:3-6).

Which is about how the redeemed are to live, and not how sinners are to be redeemed. DBVZ

There is no other way given in the scriptures that anyone can "obey" the death burial and resurrection of Christ.

Because it is not obedience that merits salvation. Faith, grace, the free gift of God. DBVZ

And this is the reason that immersion is commanded for we are expected by God to obey the gospel of Christ yes or be eternally lost no. (2 Thess. 1:8,9). And the only way that we can obey the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ is to obey His command to be "buried with him by immersion" so that we can be raised with Him to a new life. (Romans 6:3-6, 17). Thus we can understand what Paul meant when he said, "for ye are all children of God in Christ Jesus FOR (gar meaning because) as many of you as have been BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST have put on Christ. (Gal. 3:26, 27). And if any man be in Christ he is a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17). Thus Christ words are even more understandable when were hear him say, "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: he that believeth not shall be condemned." (Mark 16:16).

Which proves my position, not yours. DBVZ

Now, DBVZ, why do you not give some scriptural evidence to support your assertion that repentance and baptism are nothing more than symbolic of the "washing away of our sins"? For if you could produce a scripture to support such a notion it would be contradictory to the many that I have listed above. However, we have no expectation that you will find a scripture that actually says that "repentance an baptism" are merely symbolic of washing our sins away, for there is no such scripture in the entire word of God. And it is certain that Acts 2:38 says no such thing.

Yes it does. DBVZ

Then you say: "You truely state that baptism is a command of God, given through Christ and his apostles. I have never disputed that or that baptism is required."

It is interesting just here that you cannot complete the thought. Of course it is true that repentance and BAPTISM ARE REQUIRED. I am glad that you can see that they are therefore essential for some reason. Both of these in the scriptures are just as essential and REQUIRED, as is faith.

Faith is provided by God. Baptism is obedience, in service and gratitude for the salvation we have freely given by grace. Not the same thing at all. DBVZ

But you are afraid to admit just why they are "required". They are commands of God and we are required to obey them because Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that OBEYS HIM. (Heb. 5:8,9) and they are RQUIRED for us to obey the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Romans 6:3-6,17) and if we do not obey the gospel we shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of His power. (2 Thess. 1:8,9) therefore they are REQUIRED commandments of God for our salvation.

You repeat yourself with the same circular arguments. DBVZ

Then in your further absurd efforts to twist the truth you say:

"The issue that is critical is whether salvation results from this human action of baptism, putting it in the control of men; or whether salvation results from the sovereign act of God of which baptism is the symbol."

Salvation in Christ is for those who OBEY the commandments of our sovereign Lord. "Though he were a son yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; and being made perfect he became the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him." (Heb. 5:8,9). And there is no way for any human being to obey God without taking human action to do so.

Which is why salvation was not left in the hands of sinful men, dependant on their obedience. DBVZ

It is indeed ridiculous that one could contemplate human beings obeying God without taking human action. Even faith is a human response to the hearing of the word of God, Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God." (Romans 10:17).

Through the instrument of the Word, certainly; but only if God is at work will a man respond. It is God that seeks us, not we him. DBVZ

Repentance is also a human action and no one will have their sins blotted out without taking the action of repenting of their sins. For we are told by Peter again, "Repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. (Acts 3:19). And Ananias had no problem with telling Saul, who was later, the great Apostle Paul, "And now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and WASH AWAY thy sins calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16). Now notice he did not say "arise and be baptized and symbolically wash away they sins calling on the name of the Lord". No would DBVZ ever bring himself to say these same words that Ananias said to Saul to anyone? Ananias said them but DBVZ cannot say them for they are opposed to his Calvinistic presuppositions. He would choke on such words. And when Peter said, Repent and be immersed every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission sins" (Acts 2:38) He urged the people, "and with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, save yourselves from this untoward generation". (Acts 2:40).

And which of them would respond if they did not first have faith, and which would have faith that God did not call? If they respond in faith to the call, they are ALREADY saved by their faith, and the baptism they submit to is symbolic of that salvation in Jesus Christ. Can't you see that a baptism that means anything beyond a simple bath must be the result of faith? And if the faith is real, the baptism becomes meaningful? And how is it meaningful since it is just water? AS A SYMBOL OF CHRIST! DBVZ Now those are more words that DBVZ would choke to death on before he would say them. Then the very next verse following Peter's admonition for them to "save themselves from this untoward generation" says, "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them three thousand souls." (Acts 2:41). Three thousand souls were baptized because they gladly received Peter's words and in doing so they were added to their number. And verse 47 say says, and "the Lord added to them daily those that were being saved." Yes, those that gladly received the word of God were baptized and thus were added and those being added were those who were being saved. Interesting, isn't it. All of the things we read in this passage are repugnant to Calvinist. They just cannot "gladly receive" Peter's inspired words. And they most certainly would never be found repeating them to an audience that cried out, "Men and brethren what shall we do?" For their words would be, "you cannot do anything but hope that God has chosen you from the foundation of the world for if he did not you are eternally lost and there is nothing you can do about it, period for our God is sovereign! That is their gospel. But it is not the gospel of Christ.

Not the way you state it, it isn't. But the message is clear. Those that believed were added to the number being saved by "the Lord". Baptism didn't save them. The Lord did, by calling them to faith, and to a response in obedience that includes baptism. DBVZ

Then you say:

" If it results from baptism, it is works-dependent just as the command not to eat of the tree in eden was."

Now this statement is nothing more than an assertion of your opinion. Where does the word of God say such a thing?

He didn't. That is the point. You are the one stating that an obedience requirement is necessary in addition to faith. God expects faith, and he provides that faith to his elect. An obedience requirement didn't work in Eden, when man was still innocent. We should thank God he provided salvation by grace, instead. DBVZ

If repentance and baptism is the point in time when our sovereign God has determined to grant us the remission of our sins (Acts 2:38) where does God's work teach that we must then conclude that our salvation is "works dependent" and not a matter of God's sovereignty and Grace?

I dispute you "If". DBVZ

God's work does not speak with such theological nonsense. Peter had not the slightest fear that anyone would conclude that His answer to those poor souls on Pentecost who had crucified Jesus Christ and had Cried out, "men and brethren what shall we do?" Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" would cause anyone to say that their salvation was "works-dependent". It is certain that he had never contemplated such an absurd notion.

Because, when they responded in faith they were already saved by God. Their obedience in baptism "earned" nothing because it was already theirs by faith. DBVZ

But, DBVZ, could never tell anyone to do those things because he has this fear that telling someone what Peter said would case them to believe that their salvation was "works-dependent" instead of by God's grace. But we have no indication that the three thousand souls who were immersed on that day in response to Peter's answer to their question ever thought that their salvation was "works-dependent" and not by God's grace. Is it not interesting brethren that none of this theological nonsense can be found in the word of God. WE never read of any words like "works-dependent" in the scriptures. Those words are not there even though we are told to "repent and be baptized for the remission of our sins.

Read Eph. 2:9 again. DBVZ

He was using the exact same words that our Lord used when he said, "this is my blood of the New Covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins." (Matt. 26:28). And there is not the slightest idea in the scriptures that this would ever cause anyone to think that should we accept the Lord's commands to repent and be baptized that we would be in danger of concluding that our salvation was "works-depended".

Because our salvation isn't! It is by faith, "from first to last." It is you who have created a doctrine that makes salvation works dependent. Our salvation is without doubt dependent upon obedience. No, we are required to obey as a RESULT of our salvation; so that Paul can say: DBVZ

For Christ our Lord is the "author of eternal salvation to all them that obey Him. (Heb. 5:8,9). I can just hear DBVZ arguing with the inspired writer of the book of Hebrews saying don't you know that if you tell people that Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey Him that you will thereby be guilty of teaching a "works-dependent" salvation. Christ will not save anyone that does not believe. But if they believe, which is a human mental activity that comes from hearing the word of God (Romans 10:13-17), are they seeking a "works-dependent" salvation?

Faith is not of man, but of God (Ephesians again) DBVZ

Repentance is an change of hear and mind and takes place in the heart of man and is a mental activity caused by Godly sorrow as Paul explained to the Corinthians. "Though I made you sorry with my epistle, I do not regret it, though I did regret; for I see that the epistle made you sorry after a godly sort; for godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation not to be regretted." Now, this mental activity of repentance that leads to salvation did not cause Paul to fear that anyone would ever conclude that their salvation was "works-dependent". Thus if one repents of his sins, which is a human mental activity based upon a godly sorrow for sin, and that repentance leads to salvation then is one's salvation "works-dependent? It would be according to DBVZ but not according to the inspired word of God.

Your assertions will not make that true. DBVZ

Then we come to baptism, which is not a mere human act that man does but rather an action that he allows to be done to him. In baptism the one being baptized is entirely passive except in the sense that he willingly and humbly in his hear submits to it. For Peter said, "repent and BE baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." In order for one to BE baptized he must submit to it but in the action of baptism he is totally passive. And Christ said he that believeth and IS baptized shall be saved. Thus if one humbly and passively submits to our Lords command to be baptized he will be saved and thousands in the New Testament did just that without even once thinking that their salvation was "works-dependent' and not bay God's grace. Yet DBVZ gathers from this passive, inactive submission to the command of Christ that one is working to earn his salvation if he submits to it. But he cannot show from the word of God that his theory is true. If God's word does not teach that salvation that is dependent or conditioned upon faithful obedience to God's Commands is "works-dependent" then just why would DBVZ draw such a conclusion? He does not draw it from anything that God says on the matter for all that God has to say about it is contrary to his theological theories and suppositions.

I have already covered this at length. Read all of Romans, where faith is the center of the gospel message and baptism, when it is mentioned in chapter 6, is about how the redeemed are to live and not about how sinners are to be redeemed. Faith is the gospel message, and faith that is the gift of God. DBVZ

Then he says:

"If it results from the sovereign act of Gos it is provided freely, by grace, to all who believe as Romans 3:21-24 clearly states."

Now, anyone who reads Romans must keep their mind continually on what Paul is talking about.

The scripture teaches that remission of sins happens in baptism after we through faith have repented of our sins (Acts 2:38).



-- Anonymous, February 27, 2001


Response to Saffold Continued:

Now why didn't Paul mention that to the Romans, if it was such an important point? You keep going back to Acts, which you misinterpreted, but the letter to the Romans is necessarily the entire gospel message. It may have been the only message they have been provided. Certainly if the point you infer in Acts were essential to salvation it would have at least been mentioned in passing. It isn't. The entire gospel message in Romans is faith in Jesus Christ. DBVZ

Now the fact that it happens when we are baptized does not in the least mean that it results from baptism. Remission of sins results from the shed blood of Christ WHEN we obey His commands to repent and be baptized. For this reason the exact same phraseology is found in Matthew 26:28 as id found in Acts 2:38. For Christ tells us that, This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. (Matt. 26:28) and then we are told by Peter, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS" (Acts 2:38). Now this is the exact same phrase in Greek as it is in English. Both the Blood of Christ and Repentance and baptism are for the exact same purpose. They are all FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. And the only reasonable explanation that can be given for this fact is that the blood of Christ remits our sins WHEN we repent of those sins and submit in humble obedience to the command of Christ to be baptized. Thus, remission of sins is the result of Christ blood and is granted to us by our sovereign God when we "repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins". And our Calvinist friend has failed to inform you that according to his theory, not the word of God, God decided before the foundation of the world who would be saved and who would be lost and that nothing that you do can change God's mind about that decision. If you were arbitrarily selected to be eternally Lost before the foundation of the world you will be lost and there is nothing you can do to be saved. And if God selected you arbitrarily to be saved before the foundation of the world you will be saved and there is nothing that you can do to save yourself nor is there anything you can do to be lost. This is what they mean when they say it is all by God's Grace. The grace of God described in the gospel of Christ is not the same as the imaginary grace of God found in the twisted Calvinistic theories about God's Grace.

But you fail to acknowledge that is what the word of God teaches us. See Acts 2:23, Rom. 8:29-30 & 11:2, 1Peter 1:2, Gal. 4:9, 2 Tim. 2:19, Rom. 9:11, Rom. 11:5&6, Eph. 1:4, 2 Thess. 2:13, Eph. 1:9 & 11, etc. etc. If your position rests on your foolish misinterpretation of Acts 2:38, and mine rests on the power of God and his eternal predestination of the elect, I am content. "But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." 2Thess. 2:13-15; and "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons, through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will - to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in th One he loves." Eph. 1:4-6. I am weary of this exchange. As I said, it is pointless (not pointed) because you will not see the light, and prefer the darkness. DBVZ

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2001


If the above is a little confusing, it is because the forum does not support a change in print, to set off my words. The paragraphs I added to the Saffold post I ended with my initials. Saffold posted my earlier post with comments, so you have three mixed posts above. If the content was not confusing enough, I could not get the whole thing in one post, and I still did not address the other Saffold post with much the same content. Never mind, it is all the same arguement. As I ended, I am content to rest on the power of God, and his eternal election and predestination of his own. Just read the cited passages, and Saffolds free-will salvation by baptism is refuted entirely.

But I am done with the pointless exchange with Saffold. No doubt he will rave, and claim victory.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2001


I found a few confusing sections in the above because of all the cut and paste, including this:

"Because our salvation isn't! It is by faith, "from first to last." It is you who have created a doctrine that makes salvation works dependent. Our salvation is without doubt dependent upon obedience. No, we are required to obey as a RESULT of our salvation; so that Paul can say: DBVZ"

The central sentence, "Our salvation is without doubt dependent on obedience" should have ended with a ?. Not my position, but Saffold's.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2001


The simple answer is no. The issue is that all men are subject to condemnation, in their state before being brought to salvation. That some are lifted out of that state of condemnation is an act of love and grace. That others are not is the justice they deserve. That issue is addressed in several of the parables of Jesus and elsewhere in the Bible (the wages paid to the workers, for example). God can grant more that we deserve in grace and love, but that does not change what it is we really deserve if we were subject only to his justice.

Responsibility does not enter into this, except the responsibility of man for the fall in Eden. God could have saved all humanity, but then what of the justice of God? Saving some and leaving others in their sin is an expression of the whole nature of God.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2001



Brethren:

Inasmuch as DBVZ has decided that he is finished with our discussion I will simply repeat yet one more time for your edification the truth about the relationship of the gospel and our obedience to it to our salvation by grace through faith. Therefore I invite your attention to what the word of God has to say about the relationship the Gospel sustains to salvation of the souls of men. “For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.” 1 Cor. 4:15

We can see from this passage that the Corinthians were “begotten by the gospel”. This shows a relationship between the gospel that was preached and being begotten of God.

“For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!”(1Cor.9: 16)

This shows that without doubt there is a sense of urgency and the clear expectation of God the gospel is preached. It is an urgent matter for salvation is connected to the preaching of the gospel. (Romans 1:16,17).

Then Paul makes it abundantly clear that we are SAVED BY THAT GOSPEL.

“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye hold fast the word that was preached unto you, except ye believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received; that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures.” 1Cor 5:1- 4.

Now Paul makes a clear connection in this verse between the gospel and our salvation for he tells us concerning the gospel, “by which also ye are saved”. Then he shows that even the salvation that comes through the gospel is conditional by saying, “if ye hold fast the word, which I preached unto you unless you have believed in vain”. He also indicates that it is possible for one to have “believed in vain” if they do not hold fast to the gospel. He also gives in this verse a definition of the gospel. The gospel consist of certain facts to be believed. Paul gives them here, “that Christ died for our sins according to the scripture and that he was buried and that he raised on the third day according to the scriptures”. Thus according to this verse the gospel is the facts concerning the death burial and resurrection of Christ. And these are the facts that were must believe in order to our salvation according to the inspired apostle Paul.

But then Paul says something else about the gospel to the Thessalonians that is frightening and ominous. And it is connected to his definition of the gospel in 1 Corinthians by virtue of his using the word “gospel” which he defined for the Corinthians. But he uses a phrase that is often used in the New Testament which does not fit the language of most modern theologians today and without Paul’s definition of the gospel given to the Corinthians we would be at a loss to comprehend his meaning. For this reason the two verses are connected in the sense that one helps to partially explain the other.

To them he said:

“And to you that are afflicted rest with us, at the revealing of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels of his power in flaming fire rendering vengeance to them that know not God, and to them that OBEY NOT THE GOSPEL of our Lord Jesus: who shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of His might.” (2 Thess. 1: 7-9). Now here the same apostle Paul that defined the gospel to the Corinthians and told them that they were saved by the gospel and that if they forgot that gospel and turned from it they would have believed in vain. This same apostle warns that Christ is coming in flaming fire to “render vengeance” on those who know not God, and those who OBEY NOT THE GOSPEL. This verse is verily relative to the subject that Paul was discussing for in one place he talks of how the Corinthians were SAVED by the gospel and defines that gospel so that there is no question or doubt as to what the gospel is that saves us. It is the truth that Christ died, was buried and raised again that is the gospel that saves us. Then to the Thessalonians he describes the horrible consequence that will come at the appearing of Christ upon those who do not “OBEY THAT GOSPEL” which saved the Corinthians. For there is no doubt that Paul preached the same gospel to the Thessalonians that he preached to the Corinthians. For he said to the Galatians, “but though we or an Angel from heaven should preach unto you any other gospel that which we preached unto you let him be anathema.” (Galatians 1:8). And those who do not obey the gospel according to Paul will be punished with everlasting destruction.

Therefore it immediately becomes extremely important to any thinking person to determine just what Paul meant when he said, “obey not the gospel”. For if we “obey not the gospel” we will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of God. This explains the reason that I quoted Peter’s words concerning this matter for he too used the exact same Phrase that Paul used which we must know the meaning of, because we would not want to be among those who obey not the gospel now would we? Peter said, “For the time is come for judgement to begin at the house of God: and if it begin with us what shall be the end of them that OBEY NOT THE GOSPEL OF GOD?” (1 Peter 4:17). Now this verse gives us information to help us understand this phrase “obey not the gospel” used by two inspired apostles. It is clear from this passage that those who were in the house of God were those who had obeyed the gospel and those who had not obeyed the gospel were not in God’s house or family. And this passage is related to the one Paul wrote to the Thessalonians in that Peter ask a question that Paul answers. He asked what shall be the end of them that obey not the gospel? And Paul gives the clear answer to that question when he told the Thessalonians that those who obey not the gospel shall be punished with everlasting destruction form the face of God and the power of His might. These verses are without doubt connected in that they are speaking of the same subject matter. And it is clear that one verse answers a question that was asked in the other verse. Therefore they are verily related!

But still we do not have an answer to another question of great importance. A question that is brought to view in the light of what is said in all of the above scriptures. We know that we are saved by the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4). We know that it is possible to have “believed in vain” (1Cor. 15: 2,3). We know that the gospel is a set of facts to be believed concerning the death of Christ for our sins, his burial and his resurrection on the third day from the dead. And we know that it is possible and required for us to obey the gospel of Christ and we know the end of them that obey not the gospel. But we do not know HOW or by what means we can obey the gospel, which we must do or be eternally punished by God. In other words we do not yet know how we can OBEY the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ which is the gospel facts to be believed instead of commands to be obeyed. And we therefore seek to know if there are any commands of God that provides the means whereby we can obey the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

Therefore we find another passage of Scripture from Paul which without question shows us a command of God that provides the only means found in the entire New Testament for anyone to OBEY the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, or to obey the gospel.

Let us read it together:

For Paul speaks of it briefly after having explained it in detail with these words. “Know ye not that to whom ye present yourselves as servants to obey his servants ye are to whom ye obey whether of sin unto death or of obedience unto righteous ness? But thanks be to God, that whereas ye were servants of sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that FORM OF DOCTRINE wherein ye were delivered. And being then made free from sin ye became the servants of righteousness.” (Romans 6:16-18) Thus we see that there these Romans were at one time the servants of sin. And then the Romans became “obedient from the heart” to a “form of doctrine” and were thereby “delivered” and made “free from sin” at that point in time. Is it even remotely possible that obeying this particular “form of doctrine” might be related to being obedient to the gospel of Christ? And if so is that form of doctrine the means of our being able to obey the death, burial and resurrection of Christ or the gospel of Christ that we might be saved. For there is no doubt that this form of doctrine was what allowed the Romans to be delivered. And we know that there were strangers from Rome in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. And that they therefore heard Peter say “repent and be Baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2: 38) and that they could have been among those three thousand that gladly received Peter’s words and were baptized? Well let us see what Paul has to say about this “form of Doctrine”. This is found in the sixth chapter of Romans and Paul in Romans 6:16-18 was summing up his words about this subject of not living any longer in sin that grace may abound which he began discussing in the beginning of the chapter as follows. What shall we say then, shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? (A question that would never occur naturally to a Calvinist) God forbid WE, who died to sin, how shall we live any longer therein? Or are ye ignorant that all we who are immersed into Christ are immersed into his death? We were immersed therefore through immersion into death: THAT LIKE AS CHRIST WAS RAISED FORM THE DEAD THROUGH THE GLORY OF THE FATHER WE ALSO SHOULD WALK IN NEWNESS OF LIFE.” (Romans 6:3-4).

Now finally we see a “form of doctrine” (Romans 6:17) that provides a means whereby we can OBEY the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. For it was Christ that commanded baptism and hence when we are baptized we are being obedient to Christ. But we are also without doubt being obedient to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, which is the same as saying we are being obedient to the gospel. For according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 the gospel is facts that Christ died, was buried and raised the third day according to the scriptures. And also we are expected to obey this gospel and the only way that could be done would be for us to have commands to obey that are related to the facts of the gospel that we must believe. How can we obey the death burial and resurrection of Christ? There is only one way given in the inspired word of God. We can obey the gospel or the death burial and resurrection of Christ when we obey his commands to be immersed. And this is the only way that the gospel of Christ, i.e. the death burial and resurrection of Christ can be obeyed. And this is when we transfer our allegiance from being servants of sins to being servants of righteousness and that is when we are delivered from sin. (Romans 6:16-18).

Now, I hope that you can see that these scriptures are very much related to one another and help us to answer a very important question related to our soul's salvation. That question being how does one obey the death burial and resurrection of Christ. And the answer is clear to those honest enough to objectively consider it. We obey the gospel (the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ 1 Cor. 15:1-4) when we are baptized into Christ (Gal. 3; 26,27; Romans 6:3- 6) and that is when we are delivered from being slaves or servants of sin and become servants of righteousness. (Romans 6:16- 18).

Therefore the thoughtful and discerning can see that I have quoted passages that are related to each other and the very subject of obedience to the gospel.

Now, let us consider several other verses concerning the relation between the gospel and our salvation.

“But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:”(2 Cor. 4:3). Is it not reasonable that if the gospel is “hid to them that are lost” that those who cannot find it and obey it (2 Thess. 1:8,9) are therefore lost? And if one cannot obey the gospel without being baptized they would therefore be in danger of being as lost as one to whom the gospel was hid if they do not humbly submit to and obey the command of Christ to be immersed. (Mark 16:16). Especially since obedience to the gospel is essential to salvation. (1 Cor. 15:1-4; 2 Thess. 1:7-9; Romans 6:3-6;16-18). And be warned that the “god of this world” does not want you to even come into contact with the gospel much less does he want you to obey it to be saved.

“In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them, which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” (2Cor. 4:4).

That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: (Eph. 3:6) Here Paul tells us that the Gentiles are of the same body and partakers of his promise in Christ and that this is done by the gospel.

For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; (Col. 1:5)

“If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;” (Col.1: 23). Notice the words “IF YE CONTINUE IN THE FAITH and not moved from the hope of the gospel.” The hope of the gospel is conditioned upon our continuing in the faith.

And we are called by the gospel.

“Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.”(2Thess. 2:14). And life and immortality is brought to light through the gospel and it is obtained in our obedience through faith to that gospel.

“But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:” (2Tim.1: 10). Christ abolished death and brought life and immortality to light by the gospel. Then where is there any hope for anyone who has not heard and obey that Gospel? For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. (Heb. 4:2)

Now the above is the truth. We must obey the gospel of Christ, which is the fact that Christ died for our sins, was buried and raised the third day. And the only way that we can OBEY the gospel (the death burial and resurrection of Christ) is by being “buried with him by baptism into death that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the father we also should walk in newness of life."”(Romans 6:3-6,16-18).

I have shown the clear and certain relation of these verses to all that are honest and objective in their search for truth. But for those who seek to hold to Calvinism instead of Christianity and are determined to do so even if they must pervert every word they find in the scriptures. To them, no amount of explaining can help. Let him that hath ears to hear, HEAR! And such an admonition is wasted upon those that have chosen to be deaf.

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold



-- Anonymous, February 27, 2001


I agree with Danny about t he God of Calvinism. Who needs a God like that?

-- Anonymous, February 28, 2001

I agree with Danny about t he God of Calvinism. Who needs a God like that?

Greetings from the Arctic, where it is now a balmy 14 degrees

1

-- Anonymous, February 28, 2001


Danny and Dr. White,

Careful what you say about the sovereign Creator of the universe.

-- Anonymous, February 28, 2001


DBVZ:

You have warned Danny and Dr. White as follows:

“Danny and Dr. White, Careful what you say about the sovereign Creator of the universe.”

Now, anyone reading what they have said can clearly see that they had no reference to the TRUE God of the Universe. But rather to the imaginary and false God that resides solely in the mind of a Calvinist who imagines that God from the beginning of the world decided who was going to be saved and who was going to be lost before they were ever born. And by his arbitrary choice alone their salvation or condemnation rest and His decision has been made and nothing that they do can change their predetermined fate in the least. Such a God as the Calvinist imagines does not exist in any place but their twisted imagination. And their imaginary God is a cruel and vicious “monster” as Brother Danny has said and surely no one in this world “needs such a God” as Brother White has correctly stated. And neither of them nor any of the rest of us should have any fear of “what we say” about this nonexistent imaginary God of the Calvinist. For he is not the true God of the universe. He is the idol of Calvinistic perversions of the one and only true, living and just God who loves us and has granted the hope of eternal life to ALL MEN. Any man can, if he chooses and if he will, come to God through Christ.

For the doctrine of Predestination is stated by Calvinist in the Presbyterian Confession of Faith as follows:

“God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably whatever comes to pass.” (Presbyterian Confession of Faith, Chapter iii, section 1.) And to the same subject we read the answer to question twelve in the “Larger Catechism” as follows:

“ God’s decrees are wise, free, and holy acts of the counsel of his will, whereby, from all eternity, he hath, for his own glory, unchangeably foreordained whatever comes to pass, especially concerning angels and men.”

Now just think of it, brethren. If the above Calvinistic doctrine of Predestination were true, it would be impossible for man to err. Whatever he does, is in keeping with and brought about by God’s fore- ordination or decree, and therefore cannot be wrong. If he does anything-it matters not what-whether good or bad- if God has ordained everything he has ordained that thing. If it comes to pass that a man lies, God has not only ordained that he should lie, but he has UNCHANGEABLY ORDAINED IT. If it comes to pass that a man steals, God has unchangeably ordained that too. If it comes to pass that a man kills his neighbor, God has unchangeably ordained that as well. If fact it did come to pass that Cain killed his brother Abel. Why then did God put a curse upon him for it? For according to the Calvinist it was not only according to the wise and holy counsel of his will, but he had freely and unchangeable ordained that Cain should do the very thing for which He Cursed him!!! Can any sane man believe such foolishness? God has said thou shall not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. (Ex. 20:13-16). As God has plainly forbidden things, which do come to pass, it cannot be true that he has unchangeably ordained them. That God should unchangeably ordain that a certain thing should come to pass, and at the same time positively forbid it, is an inconsistency that entirely incompatible with his divine character. This is especially true if one understands that He has threatened the one guilty of doing that which he has he unchangeably ordained should come to pass and positively forbidden with endless punishment. This is the Calvinistic God and no one but a person that has no resect for the true God can knowingly and thoughtfully hold and propagate such a pernicious view of Him.

Surely, He whose laws ever bear the impress of justice, goodness, love and mercy which characterize their author would not punish h His dependent creature man in the rude flames of an angry hell forever for doing that which He had unchangeably ordained that he should do. For the “Lord is good to all: and His tender mercies are over all his works.” The Lord is righteous in all His ways, and holy in all His works”.

It is not that God has from all eternity ordained that is the problem. Rather it is the false doctrine that he has unchangeably ordained; not SOME THINGS, but WHATSOEVER comes to pass-everything. Those who teach this doctrine have said things about God that makes him appear to be a monstrous beast that unchangeably ordains everything that comes to pass including many things which he has positively forbidden any man to commit such as adultery, murder, lies, stealing, wars, atrocities. And then he punishes eternally those whom he ordained should so the very things that he unchangeably ordained to come to pass but that He positively forbids them to do. Such nonsense has no equal in the world of even insane men!!!

No, DBVZ, Brother Danny and Brother White were absolutely correct to say what they said of this false God of Calvinism. It is you Calvinist, who are trying to teach the world that our loving, merciful, just and all powerful and wise God is so unjust as to unchangeably ordain everything that comes to pass. Then positively forbid what he ordained to come to pass and then punish the men eternally in an angry hell for having done the very thing that he unchangeably ordain that they should do. Therefore I issue a warning to you. Be careful what lies you teach about the true soveriegn creator of the universe: For He is just, merciful, loving and living God who sent his son to die for our sins and not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:1-2). And remember that we must know that we are teaching the truth for we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ. And it is appointed unto man once to die and after this cometh the judgement. (Heb. 9:27).

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, February 28, 2001



Well said Bro. Saffold!

Pray for me folks, I have misplaced my wallet, and w/o a picture ID I cannot board my plane Saturday and will be stuck in the Arctic Circle.

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2001


Brother White:

I read your other post and I am thankful that you have found your wallet and will not be stuck in the Article Circle forever. For I know what it is like up there. While it has a beauty all its own and is something that few men have the opportunity to see and appreciate I do not think that many of us would want to be "stuck" up there! I do however continue to pray for you that the rest of your journey will be safe.

I also thank you for your kind support of my previous post. It does help to have someone to occassionally say "Amen".

Your Brother,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 01, 2001


To all who are still open to what the Bible teaches on this subject, read on:

"But you fail to acknowledge that is what the word of God teaches us. See Acts 2:23, Rom. 8:29-30 & 11:2, 1Peter 1:2, Gal. 4:9, 2 Tim. 2:19, Rom. 9:11, Rom. 11:5&6, Eph. 1:4, 2 Thess. 2:13, Eph. 1:9 & 11, etc. etc. If your position rests on your foolish misinterpretation of Acts 2:38, and mine rests on the power of God and his eternal predestination of the elect, I am content. "But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." 2Thess. 2:13-15; and "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons, through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will - to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in th One he loves." Eph. 1:4-6. I am weary of this exchange. As I said, it is pointless (not pointed) because you will not see the light, and prefer the darkness. DBVZ

-- dbvz (dbvz@hotmail.com), February 27, 2001."

With all you have written about how it does not fit with your concept of God, you have not addressed what the Bible plainly teaches on the subject of predestination and the sovereign power of God. You have shamelessly misrepresented the calvinist position on predestination, by simply ignoring (or perhaps you do not understand) the difference between the decreetive will of God, and his permissive will, and several other related issues. You act as though you do not have some of the same issues in your doctrinal position. Why does God permit evil to exist in the world at all, within your understanding of his sovereign power? The fact is that not everyone will be saved, and whatever the sovereign creator determines as criteria for who is and who is not, is his right to decide. You believe he has allowed faithful believers by the millions to be damned, because they "misunderstood" the specific required mode of baptism - without regard for the faith in Jesus Christ they hold dear to and die for. I find that much more offensive than sovereign election which demonstrates both the love and justice of God. You ask me to accept your position on baptism because that is the criteria you believe is set forth in the Word, regardless that it makes no sense; because that is the standard God has set (you believe) even if it seems unfair and legalistic. How is that different than accepting election as God's sovereign choice of who will be saved? Both rest on the power and authority of God to determine what is acceptable, and what isn't.

Paul addressed your arguement about the fairness of predestination very clearly in Romans 9. Read it, and try to reason your way out of the sovereign power of God to determine who is saved and who is not. In Rom. 9:10-16 we read "Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born and had done anything good or bad - in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls - she was told, 'The older will serve the younger'. Just as it is written: 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated'. What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' It does not ,therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy...." Not by works. Before they were even born.

With your passion for the Word and its clear meaning, how can you not accept predestination and sovereign election in light of all these clear passages that tell us it is the truth from God? God chose the people of Israel, and not the rest of the human race. Was that unfair, and did that make God a monster? Where does your logic take you? It takes you to passing judgement on God for his decisions, and that is what I cautioned against.

But my point on Feb. 27 is that the biblical evidence for my positon on predestination is much more clear and convincing that your evidence for salvation brought about by (?) through (?) conditioned on (?) a baptism by immersion. I don't mean to offend you if I am misstating your position, but to me it looks like you have established a legalistic condition, a new "law" that must be obeyed in order to be saved, that places the "free will" of man above the sovereign power of God as described in Romans. I think we can agree that both your free will position on baptism, and the calvinist position on sovereign election and predestination, can't be equally true - or at least if they are both true we are unable in our human limitations to see a resolution to the conflict. My point remains that I am much more confident in the clear evidence of predestination and election, from the Word of God, than I could ever be in your position on free will and baptism. When man's "free will" is in conflict with God's "sovereign will", I have no doubt which side I am on.

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2001


DBVZ:

You have quoted something that you wrote on the 27th of February as follows:

“To all who are still open to what the Bible teaches on this subject, read on:”

Well, DBVZ, we have always been and continue to be entirely open to what the Bible has to say upon any subject. And your implication that some of us have lost interest in the truth of God’s word simply because we do not accept that your false doctrine of Calvinism is taught in it is without any justifiable foundation or reason whatsoever. Like most of what you have said, it is nothing more than another mere assertion that you offer without giving any support or proof for it in the least. It is your assumption that you would like for our readers to believe merely because you say that it is true rather than because you are able to demonstrate from observable evidence that it is factual.

Then you tell us to read on and you offer several verses for us to read as follows:

"But you fail to acknowledge that is what the word of God teaches us. See Acts 2:23, Rom. 8:29-30 & 11:2, 1Peter 1:2, Gal. 4:9, 2 Tim. 2:19, Rom. 9:11, Rom. 11:5&6, Eph. 1:4, 2 Thess. 2:13, Eph. 1:9 & 11, etc. etc. If your position rests on your foolish misinterpretation of Acts 2:38, and mine rests on the power of God and his eternal predestination of the elect, I am content.”

Now, just because you have failed miserably to show that these verses teach your false doctrine of Calvinism is no proof that we have “failed to acknowledge what the word of God teaches us”. It is your failure to prove that any of these verses teach such nonsense as you are teaching that keeps us from believing your false doctrine. For we acknowledge all that God’s word teaches and should you prove to us that it teaches Calvinism we would all gladly accept it and teach it ourselves. But the problem is that while we acknowledge all that God’s word teaches we do not have any good reason given by you, or anyone else for that matter, that we should acknowledge what you have taught about this subject to be the truth from God.

I must tell you that I am happy that you have at least on one occasion offered to make some attempt, however feeble it is, to offer some evidence from the word of God that you suppose teaches your false doctrine of Calvinism. We have read these verses in their entire context and have not found the doctrine of Calvinism that you are teaching in any of them. And all you did was suggest that we read them but you did not bother to even attempt to explain to us just how you reached your conclusion from them that the Calvinist doctrine is true. And then you merely assert what you have shown again and again that it is impossible for you to prove. You say that our position “rest on our foolish interpretation of Acts 2:38”. Now, you have already admitted to us that you have not the slightest idea what all of the words of Acts 2:38 mean. And for that reason you have refused steadfastly to answer our very pointed and pertinent questions put to you concerning the meaning of the Greek term “eis” and it’s bearing upon the interpretation of the verse. Therefore you have admitted that you are entirely incompetent to gather its true meaning since you do not know what the words mean. Yet you are satisfied that we are foolish without ever proving to us that our reading and rendering of this verse is “foolish”. You have no idea about the meaning of one of the key words in this verse. And you have never even offered to prove that there is a single verse in the immediate context of Acts 2:38 nor in the context of the entire Bible that justifies your “position” on the meaning of the verse. Yet you are convinced fully, without even knowing the meaning of all of the words in that text or with any evidence from its context that our position is based upon a “foolish” interpretation of Acts 2:38”. And you would like to leave the impression that our position concerning baptism is based solely upon this verse. The truth, however, is that it is based not only upon the very clear and easy to understand meaning of Acts 2:38 but also upon numerous other verses which we have quoted often and explained. I will give you a list of them again and if you want to read an explanation of them you can look through our previous posts where we have made their meaning clear to any honest person that can read. We have based the fact that the scriptures teach that baptism is essential to our obedience to God and that obedience to him is essential to our salvation upon following verses which are but a few of the many upon which we rely. (Mark 16:15,16; Matt. 28:19,20; John 3:3-6; Titus 3:3-5; Eph. 5:26; Heb. 10:22; Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Acts 8:14-40; Romans 6;3-6,17; Col. 2:11,12; Gal. 3:26,27; 1 Peter 3:21; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4; 2 Thess. 1:8, 9; Heb. 5:8,9; Matt. 7:21-23; Luke 6:46). And it is obvious to our readers that you have deliberately ignored many of our arguments made from these verses in God’s eternal word. Thus your pathetic and feeble assertion that our “position” on baptism is based upon our “foolish” interpretation of Acts 2:38 is nothing more than a sophism devoid of all reasonable considerations whatsoever.

But we shall examine each of the passages that you quote in the light of all that God has to say about this subject and all will be able to see that these verses do not even remotely teach the doctrine that you would like for us all to believe. It will be wise at this point to again remind our readers of just what this false doctrine is that you would like for us to believe is taught by the verses that you merely cite without explanation. Therefore I will quote again from one of the most notable “Creeds” of the Calvinist so that we are clear about just what you are trying to convince us that these verses teach. For the doctrine of Predestination is stated by Calvinist in the Presbyterian Confession of Faith as follows:

“God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatever comes to pass.” (Presbyterian Confession of Faith, Chapter iii, section 1.)

And to the same subject we read the answer to question twelve in the “Larger Catechism” as follows:

“ God’s decrees are wise, free, and holy acts of the counsel of his will, whereby, from all eternity, he hath, for his own glory, unchangeably foreordained whatever comes to pass, especially concerning angels and men.”

And then concerning the doctrine of “unconditional election and reprobation” we quote again from the same creed as follows:

“By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life, and others are foreordained to everlasting death. These angels and men thus predestined and fore ordained are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished. Those of mankind that are predestined unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works or perserverence in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions or causes moving him thereunto.” (Presbyterian Confession of faith chapter three, secs, 3. 3,4,5,)

Now if God has unchangeably ordained whatever comes to pass, then of course He has fore ordained just who shall be saved and who, if any, shall be lost. And if he has unchangeably fixed the destiny of every man before time began without any conditions whatever. Then Calvinism or Universalism must be true. But we think that we have proven manifestly in our last post that God did not so ordain every thing and hence this doctrine cannot support the false doctrine of unconditional and unchangeable election and reprobation. And you have not responded to our arguments made in the last post in the least. All you have done is walk around them without making any significant efforts to reason about them at all.

But for present, then, we propose to inquire whether or not God has unconditionally and unchangeably fixed the destiny of a definite number of two classes of persons – the Elect and the Reprobate. Then we shall proceed to examine every verse that our good friend DBVZ has referenced, as what he supposes is evidence from the word of God that this false doctrine is true. This we will do in four separate post beginning with this one. I am confident that when we are finished all will be able to see why we do not accept his notion that God has taught such an absurd doctrine in His holy and inspired word. And after examining in detail the meaning of the verses, which he merely sites, we shall see if it is wise for others to be, as DBVZ claims that he is, confident and content in this absurd notion of “His eternal predestination of the elect!”

There is much that can be written and discussed about this subject. And in the interest of not writing an entire book on the subject because I have neither the time nor sufficient leisure to pursue such a task. I will therefore simply state a general principle from the word of God, which points to how God has always dealt with man in all ages of the world. Then I will show from the scriptures that the doctrine of “unconditional election and reprobation” is contrary to the truth that Christ died for all men and that those who are elect can be lost and those who are reprobate can be saved. Both of these two facts manifestly shows that the idea that God set all men’s destiny before the foundation of the world and it cannot in any way be changed by the death of Christ or the obedience to the gospel of Christ is false to its very core. And that it strikes at the very heart of the gospel. After doing this we will examine the verses quoted by DBVZ in a future post.

Our God said through the prophet Ezekiel, “ If the wicked will turn from his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statues, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live and not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? Saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways and live? But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he sinned, in them shall he die. Yet ye say the way of the Lord is not equal? Are not your ways unequal? When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.” (Ezekiel 18: 21-28).

Now all one need do is to read the above passage of scripture and immediately afterward read from the Calvinistic Creed. For the Creed says: “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life, and others are foreordained to everlasting death. These angels and men thus predestined and fore ordained are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished. Those of mankind that are predestined unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works or perserverence in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions or causes moving him thereunto.” (Presbyterian Confession of faith chapter three, secs, 3. 3,4,5,).

Any one with half a brain can clearly see that the creed says the direct opposite of what God clearly said through Ezekiel. And those who love God will chose to believe what God said through Ezekiel over what men have written in their Creeds. In fact, if what God said through Ezekiel was true and none but an atheist would deny it, the above principle of Calvinism as stated in their Creeds could not have been followed in any age of the world. For if God had decided from before the foundation of the world the exact number that were foreordained to live and those foreordained to death. And if he had done so with such certainty that their numbers cannot be diminished or increased and that there was nothing, even faith or good works or PERSERVERENCE IN ANY OF THEM that would move God concerning them in any way. Then all that Ezekiel said about God forgiving the wicked man and saving his life if he turned from his wicked ways could never have been true. And what he said of the condemnation of a righteous man who forsook righteousness also could not have been true. Now I know that God does not lie and I know that God spoke these words through Ezekiel and that they are therefore true. I also know that men do lie and often without knowing it. I also know that the Creeds of men are filled with such deceptions and that they are known to have perpetuated many lies. The choice that we all have here is whether to believe what God said through Ezekiel or believe what Calvin through his followers have said in their Creeds. All who love God and His inspired word know that God is right while this Creed is pathetically wrong.

Now let us consider the doctrine of eternal unconditional election and reprobation in its bearing upon the subject of the atonement. If God, before the foundation of the world, unconditionally ordained exactly how many and who should be saved and if he also determined and ordained the fixed number of those who would be lost. Then there is little doubt that the atonement of Christ could not ever reach those who were fore ordained to dishonor and wrath, and therefore they would have absolutely no interest whatsoever in His death. Indeed it is difficult to see, according to this pernicious theory, the benefits of Christ death for the either the elect or the reprobate at all. For the atonement could not make the salvation of the elect any more secure, nor could it possibly change the condition or the chances of the impossible to diminish or increase number of the reprobate. And concerning this point the Creed is consistent with itself, as far as the reprobate are concerned, for it does not assume that the benefits of the atonement could in any way reach them. And this is not, according to the creed, because of any fault in them, but rather because Christ did not die for them. This is what it says: “Neither are their any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the ELECT ONLY.” (Presbyterian Confession of Faith chapter 3, sec. 6.) Therefore when it is shown from the word of God that Christ died for all men the doctrine of unconditional election will have again been proven to be false and contrary to the true gospel of Christ. And remember that Paul by inspiration said, “But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel to you that that which ye have received let him be anathema.” (Gal. 1:8).

Therefore let us consider what the inspired word of God teaches concerning for whom Christ, our Lord, died.

Paul says: “We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that he by the grace of God should taste of death for EVERY MAN.” (Heb. 2:9). What can this verse mean? It can mean nothing less than the fact that Christ died for every man. Surely it would require “educated help” with extremely “elastic rules of interpretation” to supply the word “elect” so as to make it read that Christ died for every “elect man” in order to exclude the rest of mankind.

By Inspiration, the apostle John wrote: “For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten son, that WHOSOEVER believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life; for God sent not His Son into the world to condemen the world; but that the world through Him might be saved.” (John 3:16). But again one would have to exchange the word “elect” for the word “world” in this verse in order to reach the false Calvinistic conclusion that Christ died only for the “elect” so as to restrict the love of God to the elect. But the same apostle approached this subject again when he wrote, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the following words: “He (Christ) is the propitiation for our sins: AND NOT FOR OURS ONLY but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD.” (1 John 2:2). Could words be any clearer? Would anyone ever have thought of restricting such language to the “elect” except that the salvation of a human theory required it? Now we know that the word “world” is sometimes used in a limited sense when it is intended to apply to a part and not all of the human race; but in such cases it applies to the wicked as distinguished from the elect. One example will show this to be true. Jesus said, “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own; but because ye are not of the world but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” (John 15:18,19). In this quotation the word “world” is used several times in a limited sense, but every time it refers to the wicked as distinguished from the elect.

But the context of both John 3:16,17 and 1 John 2:2 utterly forbids any restriction in the use of the term “world”. Let’s examine John 3:16, and 17 a little. The passage not only teaches that God loved the world but that he sent his Son into the world was that the world might not perish, but have everlasting life. Then, if the love of God and the world to whom he sent his Son, should be confined to to the “elect world”, it follows that whosoever of this “elect world” believes on Him may not perish. But others of the elect world may not believe on him, and therefore perish. This view is prominent in the verse immediately following: “He that beleiveth on Him is not condemned: But he that believeth not is condemned already. This doctrine the advocates of Calvinism will not allow. And it will do not good to confine this term to the Jews. To do so would have the verse read: “God so loved the Jewish world that he sent his only begotten son…” For that would exclude all others but Jews from the benefits of the atonement, even the Calvinist Creed makers themselves. Then it is clear that it means exactly what it says. Christ is the “propitiation for the sins of the whole world”.

Again Paul said: “Because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: and that he died for all, that they which should live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them, and rose again.” (2 Cor. 5:14,15). Here the apostle Paul clearly teaches that Christ died for all affected by the sin of Adam. For this reason he says, “If one died for all, then were all dead. Then as “death passed upon all men” (Rom. 5:12), even so Christ died for all men. “Therefore, as the offense of one, judgement came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” (Romans 5:18). Without taking the time to give a complete exegesis of this verse, it is sufficient for our argument to call attention to the obvious fact that as Adam’s sin affected all men, even so the benefits of Christ’s death are offered to ALL MEN.

Jesus our Lord also spoke to the same effect concerning His sacrifice for all men. He said, “ I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This signifying the death that he should die.” (John12: 32,33). Now we are certain that he would not expect His death to draw all men unto him if they had no reason to have any interest in his death. What attraction could the death of Christ have for a reprobate who knew that Christ did not die for him but for the “elect” only?

Then we are told again by Paul, “There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a RANSOM FOR ALL, to be testified in due time.” (1Timothy 2:5,6). Here, as usual, Paul is in direct conflict with the false notion that Christ died only for the “elect” as taught by Calvin and perpetuated by the Creeds of men like DBVZ who insist that Christ died only for the elect.

In our next post we will establish that Christ died for those who may have been or may be lost. Then we will follow with another post to give a specific and clear exegesis of each passage that DBVZ thinks teaches his pernicious Calvinistic doctrine. For if they do teach his doctrine they would all be in direct conflict with the facts which we have already established that Christ died for all men. And he did not die only for some imaginary “elect” chosen before the foundation of the world.

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold



-- Anonymous, March 03, 2001


Brethren:

I now continue my response to DBVZ as I have promised. I will begin by quoting again what the Calvinist Creed says about the subject of unconditional election and reprobation so that all can keep before them the false doctrine that the word of God completely refutes.

The Creed says:

“By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life, and others are foreordained to everlasting death. These angels and men thus predestined and fore ordained are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished. Those of mankind that are predestined unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions or causes moving him thereunto.” (Presbyterian Confession of faith chapter three, secs, 3. 3,4,5,).

We have thus far shown from the scriptures that since Christ died for all men it is impossible that God could have elected a certain, specific and unchangeable definite number of individuals to eternal salvation and damnation before the foundation of the world.

And we have shown that the Creed says that God would save them regardless of whether they have the “foresight of faith or good works or perseverance in any of them”. That nothing, therefore would cause him to change his mind and save some that were originally reprobate or condemn any that were from the foundation of the world elected to salvation.

This portion of the Creed we shall now commence to show from God’s own eternal word to be false. When the angel of the Lord came to the shepherds who were watching over their flocks by night and announced the good news of the birth of Jesus Christ the savior he said, “ Fear not: for, behold, I bring you tidings of great joy, which shall be to ALL PEOPLE. It should occur to anyone reading both the Bible and this Calvinist Creed in parallel that this angel did not seem to know what the Creed would later be telling people. For if the angel had known it to be true what Calvin and his followers later discovered he would have spoken more like the creed and said, “behold I bring you glad tidings of great joy, which shall be to the elect.” Surely, the announcement of the birth of a savior of the “elect only” could not have been “glad tidings of great joy” to those that God had arbitrarily chosen to be eternally reprobate. For they could not have any hope for an interest in His mission and death, or the atonement made by him. Nor is it very easy to see how the news of his birth could have been “glad tidings of great joy” even to the elect. For, according to the creed, he could not make THEIR salvation any more secure than it was made by the immutable decree of God from before the foundation of the world. But not only did this angel not understand or know of the things taught in the Calvinist Creed which we have quoted but neither did the apostle Peter who was inspired by the Holy Spirit. For the Holy Spirit inspired him to write, “Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure.” Then it was not already sure, was it? “For if ye do these things ye shall never fall” (2 Peter 2:10). Then if they did not “do these things” they would, or at least could, fall and make void their election; at least they would be liable to do so. Thus we can see that the Angel sent by God knew nothing of the doctrine taught in the Calvinist creed, the Holy Spirit who inspired the apostle Peter knew nothing about the Creed. But DBVZ and other Calvinist know the creed and they think that even though the Holy Spirit taught contrary to the creed in His word that their creed is right. And they are resting on the idea that they know that God chose them before the foundation of the world and they are depending upon an imaginary immutable decree of God, which he never made before the foundation of the world. And because of this they are not depending upon the sacrifice of Christ but rather upon the immutable decrees of God, which they imagine that he made because their Creed says that he made them. But the truth is that Christ died for all men as we have shown in our last post. And therefore any and all men who will come to him in faith and obey him will be saved by him (John 3:16,17; Heb. 5:8,9; Heb. 2:9; Romans 5:18; 2 Cor. 5:14). And there is no imaginary “immutable decree of God” that has unchangeably saved some men and irrevocably condemned others regardless of the sacrifice of Christ or their faith in and obedience to Him.

But let us further consider what the word of God has to say about this matter. Christ said, “I am come to seek and save THAT WHICH WAS LOST.” (Luke 19:10). Now, whoever Christ came to save he was prior to the coming of Christ LOST. If Christ died for the elect only then it would naturally follow that the “elect” were lost before Christ came to save them. But according to the Creed they were chosen unto salvation before the foundation of the world and nothing could cause them to be lost. It was an unchangeable choice of God based solely upon his sovereignty and for His own glory! Thus if they were chosen to salvation before the foundation of the world and the reprobates were equally condemned before the foundation of the world. Then what was “lost” that Christ could save? It would not be the “elect”. And it could not be the reprobate because though they were lost God, according to the creed, decided before the foundation of the world who they were and their number cannot be diminished or increased. Then Christ could not have come to save any of them for if he saved one of them at least to that extent the number of the reprobate would decrease and the number of the elect would increase. Therefore, according to the Calvinist creed Christ DIED IN VAIN! For if he did not die to save the elect and could not possibly save the reprobate. Then there was no reason for Him to die at all for there was nothing lost that he could save without changing the immutable or unchangeable decree of God from the foundation of the world!

According to the scriptures Christ died for such as have been or may be lost. Paul says, “But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died.”(Romans 15:15). And again, And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for who Christ died.” (1 Cor. 8:11). These passages teach as plainly as language can teach anything that there were members of the church at Rome and Corinth, for whom Christ died, who were liable to PERISH or be destroyed. Therefore, Christ died as well for those who perish. But the Calvinist would have you believe that Christ died for the “elect only”. Were the elect liable to perish? These passages also show that the disciples at Rome and Corinth were liable to fall away- perish-be destroyed. For that reason we have the admonition to those in charge of the weaker members to guard against such a result. How, then, can it be that the destiny of every one was immutably fixed by the decree of election? Peter says, “But there were false prophets among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in DAMNABLE heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.” (2 Peter 2:1). Here were false teachers that denied the Lord that bought them and no one but an egregiously ignorant person could conclude that the Lord had never bought them! And we are told that they would bring upon themselves SWIFT DESTRUCTION. Now, how did the Lord buy them? Paul admonished the elders of the Church at Ephesus just before giving them a similar warning as that given by Peter concerning false teachers rising up among them and he urged them to “feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.” (Acts 20:28). Thus it was the blood of Christ that bought these false teachers who denied him and brought upon themselves swift destruction. And before leaving this verse it is significant and important to notice that these false teachers, who had been bought by the blood of Christ, brought upon THEMSELVES swift destruction. Now this they could not have done if they were eternally and unchangeably ordained to dishonor and wrath by God’s decree. For according to this doctrine the decree of God destroyed them from the foundation of the world and therefore they could not have destroyed themselves by any means for they were destroyed the day that God decree it and nothing would or could ever change their lost condition.

WE will now end our remarks by showing from the scriptures that salvation is attainable by ALL men, because the gospel is to be preached to all men. Jesus charged the apostles to “teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.” (Matt. 28:19,20). And again, Mark records our Lord as saying, “go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature”. (Mark 16:15). Why preach the gospel to every creature when the larger portions of them were not embraced in its provisions as is stated by the Calvinist creed? It occurs to us that something like the following would be more appropriate if the Calvinist creed were true. “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to the elect (if you can figure out who they are) that they may know the provisions that were made for them before the foundation of the world; but to the reprobate (if you have the slightest idea who they are) say nothing, as they cannot possibly avoid the awful doom that surely awaits them, it is better and more kind to allow them to be ignorant of their fate as long as possible.” If the doctrine of Calvin as taught in the Creeds is true we cannot see any use in the labor and expense to print Bibles, and preach the gospel to either saint or sinner. If we are of the definite number elected unto eternal life, there is not chance for us to be lost; and if not, we cannot be saved. What a shame it is when this doctrine is preached from the Calvinist pulpit, and the sermon is closed with an exhortation to sinners to come to the “anxious seat” and pray for salvation and pardon from sin. What a mockery! Why tell a man that God has unalterably fixed his destiny before time began, and then exhort him to “flee from the wrath to come” while knowing all along that he cannot by any means escape that wrath. And why plead with him to “Lay hold on eternal life!” as if he could either change or confirm God’s eternal and immutable decree if we knew all along that he can never attain to eternal life for God’s decree from the foundation of the world is unchangeable! Surely, his best efforts could do no good, nor could his negligence do any harm. For according to the Calvinist creed, “Those of mankind that are predestined unto life, God before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, has chosen us in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of the mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or anything in the creature; as conditions or causes moving him thereunto.” (Presbyterian Confession of Faith, chapter 3, sec. 5.). Thus we see that the Calvinist creed teaches that neither FAITH, GOOD WORKS, NOR ANY OTHER THING, can avail, for the whole matter was unalterably fixed before the foundation of the world was laid. But according to the scriptures salvation, upon certain conditions was the great object of preaching the gospel to every creature; and among those conditions FAITH occupies a conspicuous place. “Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:13-17). Hence we see the necessity of preaching the gospel. This is why Jesus said of those who heard the gospel. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he that beleiveth not shall be condemned” (Mark 16:16). The fact that Jesus required the gospel to be preached among all nations, to every creature, promising salvation to those who believe and obey it, is evidence as high as heaven that all may have salvation who will accept the gospel upon the conditions specified in it. Surely God would not mock his creatures by preaching the gospel, and offering salvation to them on certain conditions, when he had unchangeably ordained that they should not be saved, and put it out of their power to comply with the terms offered by the gospel. This would be the gospel of deliberate disappointment and delusion instead of the good news of salvation in Christ through humble obedience to His will. (Heb. 5:8,9; Matt. 7:21-23; Luke 6:46). And what is worse he follows this promise of salvation with the awful threat that “he that believeth not shall be condemned”. I cannot comprehend why anyone should be required to believe and trust in a savior who did nothing for them, and believe and obey a gospel the provisions of which did not embrace them. Men are required to believe and trust in Jesus in order to salvation. “Many other signs did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” And why are believe this? “That believing ye might have life through His name.” (John 20:30,31).

All men can come to Christ and they can be saved if they believe the gospel and obey it. (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21; John 3:16,17; Acts 3:19; 17:30; John 3:3-5; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; 2 Thess1: 7,8; Romans 6:3-6,17). You can be free from sin and there is no need whatsoever for you to be concerned whether you are among those that God “elected” to salvation before the foundation of the world by an immutable decree. For that nonsense is nothing more that the imaginary self-delusions of the Calvinist creed makers. Christ died for us while we were yet sinners (Romans 5:8) and he died for all men and “whosoever will” can come to him in humble obedience to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. And after having been buried with him in baptism (Romans 6:3-6) and having received the removal of your sins by the “circumcision of Christ” which God does when one is “buried with Christ in baptism” (Col. 3:11,12). And having obeyed that “form of doctrine” you are “then made free from sin”. (Romans 6:17). And thus having been raised with Christ you can then walk in newness of life (Romans 6:6). For then, by faith you will have been “baptized into Christ”. For Paul makes it clear, “for ye are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus (not by the immutable decree of God before the foundation of the world). For (Geek word GAR meaning BECAUSE) as many of you as have been BATIZED INTO CHRIST have put on Christ. And, “if any man be in Christ he is a new creature”. (1 Cor. 5:17). One must be in Christ to be a new Creature and we are told that one is baptized into Christ. (Gal. 3:26, 27). And salvation is without doubt offered to all men IN CHRIST JESUS. And all men can be in Christ Jesus if they choose to obey the gospel. (1 Cor. 15:1-4) and will thereby be saved by that gospel.

Our next post will examine the passages given by DBVZ which he thinks teaches this obnoxious false doctrine of Calvinism.

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold



-- Anonymous, March 04, 2001


Saffold,

I keep reminding you I have no problem with the demands of God for obedience, from our human perspective. Those that are elect and brought to faith will NECESSARILLY try to live by that faith (though they fail and need forgiveness), so that verses that call us to obedience are not in conflict with those that acknowledge that God has foreordained and predestined what will happen from His eternal perspective.

I wish you would address the Word of God, and not doctrinal statements you disagree with. You have not argued your way around the fact that God is sovereign in everything; just because the Bible, in addressing issues from our human perspective, calls on us to be obedient. You need to always keep in mind who the Bible passage is addressed to, and on any issue whose perspective is being presented.

Look at Psalm 139, particularly v.16, since you used an OT passage: "All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." From the point of view of God, David's days were predestined in the eternal plan of God. From the point of view of David, he was uncertain what the plan was and lived his life searching out the will of God, and what he was to do (as we all should). Passages written to us and for us are often written from our point of view. Passages written to God about God, always acknowledge that from his perspective no doubt could ever exist. That is the real meaning of the name "I Am". The forever "I Am" is in the present tense throughout created history, and created time itself. Your narrow understanding of this, conflicts with the very nature of God.

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2001


P.S.

If you keep on misrepresenting calvinist positions the way you do, and then attacking the misrepresentations, you will lose whatever credibility you still have. Also, since on another thread the use of the King James Version is being discussed at length, how do you deal with the fact that the KJV Rom 3:27 uses a more literal phrase when describing the law as "by the law of faith". So that it is the "law of faith" that we are required to obey to fulfill the gospel of Christ.

-- Anonymous, March 04, 2001


DBVZ:

I am at work and only have a few moments to respond to some of your remarks in your last two posts:

You have said:

“Saffold, I keep reminding you I have no problem with the demands of God for obedience, from our human perspective.”

It is true that God demands obedience and His demands are from HIS perspective and not our human perspective. And not only does he demand obedience but he also will punish those who do not obey the gospel with everlasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of His power. (2 Thess. 1:8,9). This will be the end of those who disobey him. And Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey Him (Heb. 5:8,9) and he is the Lord only of those that obey Him (Matt. 7:21-23; Luke 6:46) and all of this is from HIS perspective and not our “human perspective” as you falsely claim. God demands and expects obedience from you, DBVZ, regardless of what your perspective might be. Our Sovereign God does not ask for your perspective he demands instead your faithful obedience.

But then you contradict your own Calvinistic doctrine when you say:

“Those that are elect and brought to faith will NECESSARILLY try to live by that faith (though they fail and need forgiveness), so that verses that call us to obedience are not in conflict with those that acknowledge that God has foreordained and predestined what will happen from His eternal perspective.”

Now, according to the false doctrine of Calvinism the eternal destiny of those who are elect and those who are reprobate was already determined before the foundation of the world and whether they “fail” to live by faith will not in any way whatsoever affect their destiny. Read it from the Calvinist creed and see for yourself.

““By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life, and others are foreordained to everlasting death. These angels and men thus predestined and fore ordained are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished. Those of mankind that are predestined unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions or causes moving him thereunto.” (Presbyterian Confession of faith chapter three, secs, 3. 3,4,5,)

According to this Calvinistic false doctrine, God, before the foundation of the world has “chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, WITHOUT ANY FORESIGHT OF FAITH OR GOOD WORKS OR PERSERVERENCE IN ANY OF THEM or any other thing in the creature, as to conditions or causes moving him thereunto.” But now you come in here and admit what I have been telling you from God’s word all along that God demands that we live by faith. And no one can “live by faith while being disobedient to God. And you even say that those who “fail” to “live by that faith” NEED forgiveness. But your doctrine of Calvinism says that God’s election is completely out of His mere free Grace and love without any foresight of “faith”. In other words God did not even look to determine if any of those which he elected to eternal live would be faithful. Or do any good works or whether if they “were brought to faith” and did any good works he elected them without even considering whether they “persevered (or continued to walk in) either of them. According to Calvinism God’s elect were Chosen to eternal life without seeing before or even considering in advance whether these would “live by faith or not. According to your Doctrine even faith is not a condition of salvation of the elect. God has chosen them and they will be saved even if they do not have faith at all. But now you come in here to tell us that you believe this Calvinistic view. And that there is no “conflict” with this false doctrine and the portions of God’s word that “call us to obedience” and this false notion of the Calvinist is that God determined to save the elect even if they do not have faith at all. So, even if they are called to obedience and they reject that Call they will be saved anyway. Now that false doctrine is contrary to the fact that Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him (Heb. 5:8,9). And that Christ will say to those who are disobedient and hence unfaithful “depart from me for I never knew you”. (Matt. 7:21-23). Thus Christ is not the savior of anyone who has not submitted to his LORDSHIP. (Luke 6:46). And you even say that the elect can “fail” to live by faith and will be in NEED OF FORGIVENESS. Now if God has already chosen them to salvation and the number of those thus chosen cannot be diminished then I cannot see why they would need any forgiveness since they would be saved even if they never had faith and never obeyed and never repented and were never forgiven. For God’s determination in the matter is according to your theory “unchangeable” and without any “foresight of faith, good works, or perseverance in either of them”. You act as if your false doctrine is not in direct conflict with the verses from God’s word that promises eternal punishment for those who do not obey the gospel. (2 Thess. 1:8,9). But it does verily conflict with the word of God at just this point. DO tell us just what need those whom God has chosen to eternal life have for forgiveness when they “fail” to “live by faith”? For according to the Calvinist creed God’s choice is not in the least bit affected by any “foresight of faith” or even “perseverance” in it.

Then you complain:

“I wish you would address the Word of God, and not doctrinal statements you disagree with.”

I have addressed the word of God and the fact that His word is in conflict with a Calvinist Creed which states the doctrine of Calvinism, which you claim to believe. So it is not only doctrinal statements that I “disagree with” but a creed that is in conflict with our Sovereign God and His Holy Word. It is the Creed that disagrees with God and God that disagrees with the creed. I am simply pointing to this conflict and urging others to believe God and His word and obey Him and reject this absurd creed of the Calvinist, which for all practical purposes encourages complete denial of the truth and obedience to the gospel of Christ.

Then you say:

“ You have not argued your way around the fact that God is sovereign in everything; just because the Bible, in addressing issues from our human perspective, calls on us to be obedient.”

I have shown that because our God is sovereign in everything he is sovereign in his perfect choice before the foundation of the world to devise the scheme of redemption in the sacrifice of Christ, our Lord. For it was indeed according to His Sovereign will for Christ to die for ALL MEN. And that through Him and Him alone all men can be saved if they Believe and obey the gospel. (Mark 16:16; Heb. 5:8,9; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; Romans 5:8,9; Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; John 3:3-5; John 3:16,17; 1 John 2:2).

And it is His "sovereign will" that all men Repent and turn form their sins that they might live. (Acts 17:30; Acts 3:19). And it was His “sovereign will” that those who were evil could become righteous and if the righteous forsake righteousness to punish them. (Titus 3:3- 5). And I again quote a verse that you have deliberately ignored. “Our God said through the prophet Ezekiel, “ If the wicked will turn from his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statues, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live and not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? Saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways and live? But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he sinned, in them shall he die. Yet ye say the way of the Lord is not equal? Are not your ways unequal? When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.” (Ezekiel 18: 21-28).

Then you say:

“You need to always keep in mind who the Bible passage is addressed to, and on any issue whose perspective is being presented.”

Indeed that is true that we must know who is being addressed. And I have done just that in all of the verses that I have quoted and explained thus far, which you have completely ignored. And, as I promised, in my next post I will discuss the verses that you have quoted and misapplied. And one of the very reasons that you have done so is because of the simple fact that you have ignored your own advice in this regard.

Then you quote this verse:

“look at Psalm 139, particularly v.16, since you used an OT passage: "All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." From the point of view of God, David's days were predestined in the eternal plan of God. From the point of view of David, he was uncertain what the plan was and lived his life searching out the will of God, and what he was to do (as we all should).”

I have not only used an Old Testament passage but numerous New Testament passages all of which, including the Old Testament passage that you mention, you have completely ignored and made no effort to explain how they harmonize with your pathetic false doctrine concerning unconditional election and reprobation.

But we will examine this verse along with the others that you have sited as I promised to do in my next post, which I have not finished yet. When I am finished I will post it in its entirety if possible or in two separate post if necessary because of its length. But all of the passages from the word of God that you have sought to pervert in order to bring the Word of our Sovereign God to conform to your human creeds will be reviewed. And your feeble efforts twist these passages so as to bring the will of our sovereign God to the subjection of your own will shall be examined in detail. And we will expect you to reply rather than merely ignore our responses to them. And all that read this forum are going to watch to see whether you reply or ignore our examination of these verses. As I am certain that they have noticed that you have deliberately ignored the many verses which we have quoted to sustain the truth that God sent Christ to die for all men not just the so-called “elect”. And that the offer of eternal salvation has been extended to all men and that "WHOSOEVER WILL" may come to God through Christ our Lord and because of Him.

Then you say:

“ Passages written to us and for us are often written from our point of view. Passages written to God about God, always acknowledge that from his perspective no doubt could ever exist.”

Now here you act as if God wrote portions of His word to HIMSELF from His own point of view. I suppose you mean for us to imagine that God did not want to misunderstand what he had written to HIMSELF! Hogwash! If it is in the word of God it has been revealed to us and God expects us to understand His divine will. He did not inspire the word of God for his own benefit in the least. Now, all should take notice just what ridiculous and absurd lengths a man must go to in order to “twist the scriptures to their own destruction”. Now DBVZ’s feeble attempts at supporting Calvinism has been reduced to the absurd position of actually affirming that God wrote His word to himself so that from his “perspective” no doubt would exist!

And then this man that thinks God wrote His word to himself has determined the following:

“Your narrow understanding of this, conflicts with the very nature of God.”

I cannot, for the life of me, imagine just how it is that DBVZ knows so much about the “nature of God”. He is so able to comprehend God’s nature as to be certain that us poor ignorant souls who accept the teaching of God’s word that offers salvation to ALL MEN through Faith in Jesus Christ have such a “narrow understanding” of the nature of God. Because we refuse to accept the “narrow” conclusion that God is such a monster as to unchangeably elect some to eternal life whether or not they have faith in Christ. And that he unchangeably ordained some to eternal punishment even if they have faith in Christ. For that number cannot be diminished or increased. Therefore nothing can change the fate of anyone whether he is among the “elect” or the “reprobates”. According to DBVZ and his Calvinistic Creed makers man’s fate was sealed before Jesus Christ ever came to die on the cross for the sins of EVERY MAN IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. (John 3:16,17; 1 John 2:2). But we have, according to DBVZ, a narrow view because we insist that all men can be saved through faith in Christ if they shall chose to come to him by faith. Yet his thinking, according to himself, is the BROAD view that God has set everyone’s fate before the world began and the very death of Christ cannot change or increase the definite number of the saved nor diminish number of those “”ordained” to eternal damnation. Thus none are affected in any way by the very death burial and resurrection of Christ. Though God’s word says were are saved by the gospel of Christ and our faithful obedience to it. (Romans 1:16,17; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; Romans 6:3-6,27; Col. 2:11,12). Such an absurd doctrine cannot be equaled even among the insane! This false theory requires neither faith in Christ nor obedience to neither Him nor anything. According to his “broad” view the very Blood of Christ cannot change a man from lost to saved for even if one of the lost are saved that would diminish the number of reprobates that God ordained to damnation from the foundation of the world. And it would increase the number of the elect, which the Creed says cannot be increased or diminished. And if it is admitted that the number can be increased or diminished then the Calvinistic doctrine of eternal and unconditional election or reprobation is completely false. Such a doctrine! He may perceive this doctrine to be a “broad” understanding but he will never prove from the word of God that it is true.

WE cannot know anything about the nature of God that He has not revealed to us in His inspired word. And there is nothing in the word of God that describes Him as having the “monstrous” nature of one who arbitrarily and unchangeably ordained before the foundation of the world who would be lost. And who would be saved and that the number is so definite that it cannot be increased or diminished. Even the very death of the Son of God, according to His theory cannot change this unchangeable decree. The very idea that God would send His only begotten son to die for all men, including those whom he foreordained to everlasting death, knowing that even after the death of his son he would not change his decree concerning them in the least. Even after the death of Christ the number of the reprobate or lost remains the same and the elect were saved by His immutable decree rather than by His immeasurable gift of His beloved Son who poured out his precious blood upon the cruel cross of Calvary. Thus according to Calvinist Christ died in vain! He died to change NOTHING concerning the imaginary Calvinistic immutable decree of God concerning his predetermined fate of the entire human race. And it is even worse when one understands that God arranged in advance by His own decree that the death of Christ nor faith in Him would not make any difference whatsoever in his decree concerning any man’s predetermined fate.

No, DBVZ, We are indeed just too narrowly confined to the words of our Sovereign God and too much love and faith and respect for Him and His Holy, just, and merciful nature as to believe such nonsense.

Then in His last post we read:

“If you keep on misrepresenting Calvinist positions the way you do, and then attacking the misrepresentations, you will lose whatever credibility you still have.”

You should know by now DBVZ that I am not in the least concerned about my own “credibility”. I am fully convinced of the credibility of God’s eternal word! And I am equally persuaded that God’s credible word is in direct opposition to Calvinism as taught in their Creeds. My personal credibility is not in the least important in this discussion. In fact it is far better for every one to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good. No one should believe another person concerning spiritual matters based solely upon their personal credibility and standing among their fellow men. They should believe only what can be proven from the word of God to be the truth. I have shown from God’s word that Christ died for all men and that we must by faith obey the gospel in order to our salvation (Heb 5:8,9; 2 Thess. 1:8,9). I have done nothing more concerning what Calvinist teach than to quote their Creed in their own words and examine it in the light of God’s word. It is the Calvinist creed that has suffered a severe loss of credibility. But you cannot bear to see it suffer such a loss so you pretend that I have misrepresented your Creed. But you do not show or prove from any reliable evidence that I have misrepresented the Calvinist in any place. You merely assume that everyone will believe such just because you claim it. But the readers in this forum are not so simple as to be misled by such futile tactics!

Now, DBVZ, I have allowed a Calvinist Creed written by Calvinist themselves in there very own words to represent their positions. I have merely called it severely into question by comparing their own absurd statements, written by themselves into contrast with what is written in the word of God. The contrast is so clear that you cannot bear to see how miserably wrong it turns our to be and therefore wish to leave the impression that they have been “misrepresented”! You have not once shown just how or where I have “misrepresented” them. In fact, if the creed that I quoted is a misrepresentation of the Calvinist view then why do you not repudiate that Creed and admit that the doctrine taught in it is false and that it does not represent your “perception” of Calvinism. Will you repudiate the Creed and deny that it teaches accurately the doctrine espoused by Calvinist? I do doubt it but if you repudiate that Creed I will be happy to accept your repudiation of it. If not then you will just have to accept the way that Creed conflicts with the word of God and chose between what God says and what your fellow Calvinist teaches.

Then you say:

“Also, since on another thread the use of the King James Version is being discussed at length, how do you deal with the fact that the KJV Rom 3:27 uses a more literal phrase when describing the law as "by the law of faith". So that it is the "law of faith" that we are required to obey to fulfill the gospel of Christ.”

Now, it seems here that you are trying to place me in the category of those who contend for that the King James Version is the only correct translation of the scriptures. I do not hold this to be true. While I believe it to be very accurate as a translation in many places I am aware that it is not accurate in others. But the fact that others are discussing this version in another thread has nothing to do with our discussion in the least. But obedience to the gospel is “by the law of faith”. If you will but objectively read Hebrews the eleventh chapter you will see numerous examples of how the “law of faith” works. In fact you will find that Abraham is one of the examples of the “law of faith”. In that chapter we are clearly told that without faith it is impossible to please God. (Heb. 11:6). And that by faith “Noah built an ark to the SAVING OF HIS HOUSE” (Heb. 11:7). By faith, Abraham when he was called OBEYED”. (Heb. 11:8). By faith Abraham “offered up Isaac”. By faith Moses was hidden. By faith Moses “forsook Egypt.” By faith he “kept the Passover”. By faith the children of Israel Passed through the Red Sea. By faith the walls of Jerico fell down AFTER THRY WERE COMPASSED ABOUT for seven days in obedience to the command of God. Now that is the “law of faith” and by faith we are “immersed into Christ” (Gal. 3:26,27) for the remission of our sins. (Acts 2:38). By faith we repent of our sins. By faith we confess that Christ is God’s son. By faith we obey the commands of Christ our Lord. The law of faith is that simple. BY FAITH WE OBEY just as Abraham by faith obeyed God and Noah by faith built an ark to the saving of his house by faith we too obey the gospel of Christ.

But you over look a very important matter concerning your false doctrine of Calvinism as it is depicted in the Calvinist Creed. For according to that Creed, which I have now quoted many times God has unchangeably ordained who would be saved and he did so without “ANY FORESIGHT OF FAITH” or “perseverance” in it at all. According to the Calvinist creed there is no “law of faith:” that can have any impact upon God to the salvation of mankind from their sins. SO you are the one that should answer your own question. How do you deal with this “law of faith” that is indeed required according to the word of God for one to obey the gospel but is not required at all by your false Calvinistic creeds. In fact according to your false doctrine God saved the elect “without any foresight of faith” or “perseverance” in it moving him to do so. SO the Calvinist would have one saved by the “decree of God before the foundation of the world” without faith in Christ or God altogether! Now that is something with which you should “deal”.

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold



-- Anonymous, March 06, 2001


Saffold,

You are not paying attention. From God's perspective, everyone's fate was determined from before the creation of the world. From our perspective, we don't know what that fate is and live accordingly looking for what God would have us do. It is only looking back that we see that God is at work making all things work together for good, for those that love Him. Our obligation to be obedient is from God, but our performance of that obedience is from our point of view. God is not waiting to see whether we will do it or not with any uncertainty about what we will do.

Try addressing all the passages I listed where the eternal sovereignty of God is described, including his predestination and election of sinners unto salvation. You seem to avaid attempting to explain away what is clearly taught in God's Word.

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2001


P.S.

As for the "Law of faith", the point is that faith is the fulfillment of the gospel. The source of the faith is still God, through the work of the Holy Spirit. Faith from beginning to end, the free gift of God by grace, so no man can boast. This is all very clear if you read all of Roman's at one sitting.

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2001


DVBZ

You offend me to the core of my being. Not only do you propagate ungodly doctrine (Calvinism) which promotes a god so ugly and evil that such is not worthy of worship, but you are so rude to Bro. Saffold, and this is inexcusable.

God predestines no one to damnation. All in Adam die and all in Christ are made alive. And the gospel is preached offering all a chance to come to Christ. If they cannot come, and this is determined beforehand the invitation is a mockery.

Shame on you and shame on your (false) god.

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2001


DBVZ:

You have said:

“Saffold, You are not paying attention.”

Yes, DBVZ, I am “paying attention”. In fact I am paying much more attention to the things you have said than you are to the arguments that I have made. Anyone reading our exchange with one another in this thread can see that I have at least taken notice of almost every word that you have said and I am, while working at my employment, trying to finish that task. The only thing left is to complete my examination of all of the passages that you have tried to “draft” against their will into the service of your false Calvinistic cause. Indeed it is you that is failing to take notice of our arguments. And the scriptures that we have correctly applied which teach that Christ died for all men and that “whosoever will” can come to Christ and obtain the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38) and “take hold on eternal life” in Him. (Romans 6:23).

Then you tell us:

“From God's perspective, everyone's fate was determined from before the creation of the world.”

You have not proven this to be true just yet therefore we have no reason to believe it. In fact there is not a single passage in the entire word of God, both old and new testaments, that even remotely teaches such a doctrine.

But then after assuming this to be true you tell us:

“ From our perspective, we don't know what that fate is and live accordingly looking for what God would have us do.”

Now brethren think about this statement. I do not believe that DBVZ was “paying attention” when he wrote it. It is a “Freudian slip” wherein he has made it abundantly clear, without meaning to do so, the real consequence of the doctrine that he is teaching! He has told us that God has already, “from His perspective” before the foundation of the world determined EVEREYONE’S FATE. And that “from our perspective” we do not know “WHAT THAT FATE IS”! Therefore it is entirely possible that a number of faithful Christians among us may have been “ordained” to eternal damnation before the foundation of the world? Therefore even though they actually came to Christ for forgiveness of sins and served God faithfully all the days of their lives they will be damned eternally just because of this imaginary immutable decree that God made before the foundation of the world? And, since we do not and cannot know our fate. Even those that sacrifice their very lives for the cause of Christ our blessed Lord, who shed His precious blood for us, may have done so in vain. Is it not, DBVZ, according to your words, possible that one day these faithful Christians may die only to learn, what they never knew in their entire life, that God had determined their fate before the world began. And that he had ordained them to be reprobates and consigned them to eternal damnation and nothing, not even the shed blood of Christ and their faith in that shed blood could or would ever change God’s immutable decree to their damnation. And thus, by this doctrine, we have no earthly idea just how many faithful and dedicated Christians, even among those who died as martyrs for Christ have been designated by the eternal and immutable decree of God before the foundation of the world as reprobates. And that they have been consigned, all without their knowledge, by that imaginary decree to eternal damnation. And that no “foresight of faith, good works or perseverance in either of them” will change that decree so as to diminish or increase the number of those so damned by God’s arbitrary and immutable decree made before the foundation of the world. No, DBVZ, we are paying attention and we notice just here the actual consequence of believing your Calvinistic nonsense. But, nevertheless, we will accept it if you can show that the word of God teaches such a doctrine. But I can tell you that anyone that casually reads God’s word would know that this absurd doctrine is not taught therein.

So, my friends, DBVZ expects you to become a Christian, though if you are among those chosen before the foundation of the world as elect you will be saved without even acknowledging Christ at all. And if you are a Christian he expects that you should live accordingly “looking for what God would have us to do”. He expects this even though if we are among those ordained to be reprobates, and we do not know it, nothing that we do can in any way whatsoever change God’s immutable decree to condemn us to be banished in a torturous hell for eternity! Now what sane person can believe such nonsense? Do tell us, DBVZ, are you not telling us that we could have faith in Christ without knowing that God had selected us from before the foundation of the world to be damned for all eternity? And since we are among that number and that number cannot be increased or diminished, even by the very blood of Jesus Christ and our faith in Him, we will be damned? And such will be our fate even if we do all that God expects us to do simply because He, before the foundation of the world chose us to eternal damnation. And according to your own words “WE DO NOT KNOW IT”. And we wonder just how anyone ever came to doubt his or her salvation? I am amazed that any Calvinist can know whether he is saved our not since DBVZ says that we cannot know which “list” we were placed upon when God “ordained” some men to eternal life and the rest to eternal damnation. Even our friend DBVZ could have been ordained a reprobate while he is in this forum trying to persuade us to have faith in God’s foreordination when we cannot know what our “fate is” according to that ordination! Any one of us according to this pernicious theory found in Calvinistic creeds and advocated by our friend DBVZ could be reprobates that have only to wait for our eternal damnation regardless of how much faith we have in our Lord who died for us!

But DBVZ comforts us with these words:

“It is only looking back that we see that God is at work making all things work together for good, for those that love Him.”

Well I fail to see just how “looking back” on our faithful Christian lives and seeing just how it all worked for our good to be faithful to Christ and hope in Him. Only to be disappointed at the Judgement to learn that because God had put us on the “reprobate list” before the foundation of the world we will be damned eternally and therefore we had believed in Christ in VAIN! I do not believe that anyone would conclude that all these things “worked together for the good of those chosen to be “reprobates” that loved Him. For according to the Calvinistic theory even my love for God will not change His immutable decree that consigned me to eternal damnation. And He, in His perspective, stood idly by and watched me believe in Christ and sacrifice my entire life faithfully in His service knowing all along, from His perspective, that I was on the reprobate list. And that He was never had any intentions whatsoever for any reason to take me off of that list! Who can believe such nonsense?

Then we are told by DBVZ:

“Our obligation to be obedient is from God, but our performance of that obedience is from our point of view. God is not waiting to see whether we will do it or not with any uncertainty about what we will do.”

But, according to DBVZ, he knows whether we have been ordained to eternal life or eternal damnation and he allows us, in our perspective, to be completely ignorant of whether we are ordained to be reprobate or the elect. And according to DBVZ, God has already determined what he will do with us. And He is going to do it whether we believe in Christ or not and all we can do is obey God with the hope that we are among the elect and not on the reprobate list. For it matters not, according to DBVZ, whether we believe in Christ or whether Christ died for us, or whether we obey him. If we have been ordained as reprobates we will be damned even after Christ died for us and we had faith in him and we obeyed his every command and we loved him with all of our heart mind and soul! I cannot imagine how any sane man reading the scriptures could reach such a conclusion! In fact, I cannot imagine that even an insane man would come to such absurd conclusions.

Then you say:

“Try addressing all the passages I listed where the eternal sovereignty of God is described, including his predestination and election of sinners unto salvation. You seem to avaid attempting to explain away what is clearly taught in God's Word.”

Now, again you demonstrate that you are not paying attention, DBVZ. For did I not tell you that I have been writing an exposition of each and every verse that you have quoted and that I have not finished it yet? You need not worry I have been doing exactly what you suggest. And you will have the results of that thorough study as soon as I am finished and not one moment before. You do want me to study the passages that you have referenced before I give you a response do you not? I am almost finished and I can tell you that you will not like the result and neither can you refute that result. I can assure you of that. In fact, it might be that you should follow your own advice in this regard as well. We have made numerous arguments from the scriptures that are clearly contrary to your Calvinistic assertions and you have not even begun to address them. I was hoping that it was because you were taking a long time to seriously study and consider them before replying. But it is beginning to appear that you have instead determined to just ignore them as if they were never inspired of God and written for our learning. Especially is this true since you have not even promised to take them into consideration and reply to them. But, you should know that those reading this forum have been reading and studying all of them and they will learn the truth from them whether you reply to them or not.

And Calvinism has been exposed by those verses from God’s word for the pernicious and evil doctrine that it truly is. A doctrine that implies that Christ died in vain and that the only hope we have is that maybe, just maybe, God ordained us to eternal life before the foundation of the world. But, according to you, we do not know, now do we? WE could all, including DBVZ, be on the reprobate list, now couldn’t we? And according to your doctrine no amount of faith in Christ or obedience to Him could redeem us if we just happen to have been among those poor unfortunate souls whom God ordained to eternal punishment. Such nonsense!

Your Christian friend,

E. Lee Saffold



-- Anonymous, March 06, 2001


Saffold, you wrote, "For it matters not, according to DBVZ, whether we believe in Christ or whether Christ died for us, or whether we obey him. If we have been ordained as reprobates we will be damned even after Christ died for us and we had faith in him and we obeyed his every command and we loved him with all of our heart mind and soul! I cannot imagine how any sane man reading the scriptures could reach such a conclusion! In fact, I cannot imagine that even an insane man would come to such absurd conclusions."

Here you go again misrepresenting the calvinist position and then attacking that misrepresentation. That is not what I wrote, and not an accurate statement of the calvinist position.

God predestined those who will be brought to faith in him, and when the Holy Spirit brings them to faith they will be saved.

There is no possibility that anyone could have a true faith in Jesus Christ and not be saved. The only way they can have a true faith in Jesus Christ is if they have been brought to that faith through the work of the Holy Spirit. The only ones the Holy Spirit will bring to faith are the elect in Christ Jesus. The reprobate are simply not brought out of their already fallen and condemned condition by a sovereign act of God, provided by grace to those on whom he will have mercy.

But you have still failed to address my criticism of your position, that getting baptism "wrong" from your point of view, can lose salvation for millions who have faith, live in obedience, and even die for the faith. Under the calvinist understanding of predestination, all those brought to a faith in Jesus Christ and rely on him for salvation will be saved. They would not have that faith if they were not of the elect. Under your understanding of salvation dependant on getting baptism right, not all those who are brought to true faith will be saved. You think my understanding of the plan of God paints him as a monster; but in fact it preserves both his justice in punishing evil, and his love in providing a substitute for that punishment for all those who believe. In contrast, your position would make God a legalist worse than any Pharasee who would overlook the faith and devotion of Christians because they were sprinkled instead of immersed. Millions who have true faith would yet be condemned. That is the more offensive position.

Dr. White wrote, "You offend me to the core of my being. Not only do you propagate ungodly doctrine (Calvinism) which promotes a god so ugly and evil that such is not worthy of worship, but you are so rude to Bro. Saffold, and this is inexcusable.

God predestines no one to damnation. All in Adam die and all in Christ are made alive. And the gospel is preached offering all a chance to come to Christ. If they cannot come, and this is determined beforehand the invitation is a mockery.

Shame on you and shame on your (false) god."

I am sorry you see this as being rude to Saffold. It is not intended as rudeness, but as the presentation of the gospel of Jesus Christ, by grace through faith not works. I am convinced that E. Lee Saffold does not rely on Christ for salvation, as much as he relies on the works part of immersion as his assurance of salvation. If I confront that issue more strongly than I should, it is because it is of eternal significance.

As for all in Christ being made alive, I hope you do not mean you believe that all will be saved whether they are brought to faith or not. I am sure you don't. And if not then some are left in their sin, and those left in their sin remain under the condemnation they deserve. The issue we have been debating is how we become one of those who is no left in our sins and comdemned. Saffold believes that is in the control of men, and whether they get their obedience right in the matter of baptism. I believe that is in the hands of God, who deternined before the foundation of the world the plan of salvation, who would be saved by faith, and who the Holy Spirit would bring to that faith in Jesus Christ.

The invitation is not a mockery. It is a command of God that we present the gospel to all, because that is our duty in gratitude and service, and because we don't know who in the world is to be brought to faith through the message we bring. We don't know, but God does; and because we don't know we throw seed on dry ground and in weeds etc, leaving the growth and increase to God through the work of the Holy Spirit. The invitation to all is part of our command to preach the gospel to the whole world, but the whole world will not be saved. Is that a mockery? No. It is just obedience to the great commission, so that the Holy Spirit may choose to use the preaching of the gospel to fulfill the purposes of God in the salvation of the elect.

If you think my comments to Saffold are rude, read his from my point of view. They are just as rude in condemning my position, and for the same reason. We seem to be equally convinced the other is wrong and doomed. But perhaps we are both getting overly direct in our comments to each other.

As I have said several times, it seems a pointless exercise to convince Saffold. He said he would respond to all the verses thatclearly teach predestination and the sovereign power of God in election but I have not seen anything that begins to do that yet. Perhaps it will come, but I think I am through with the debate and with this forum. You may all say your fairwells, but I will not read them.

Perhaps Dr. White will police your language so it is not excessively rude.

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2001


DBVZ:

I have not much time to respond at the moment since I am on my lunch break at work.

You have quoted my words as follows:

“Saffold, you wrote, "For it matters not, according to DBVZ, whether we believe in Christ or whether Christ died for us, or whether we obey him. If we have been ordained as reprobates we will be damned even after Christ died for us and we had faith in him and we obeyed his every command and we loved him with all of our heart mind and soul! I cannot imagine how any sane man reading the scriptures could reach such a conclusion! In fact, I cannot imagine that even an insane man would come to such absurd conclusions."

TO which you have responded:

“Here you go again misrepresenting the Calvinist position and then attacking that misrepresentation. That is not what I wrote, and not an accurate statement of the calvinist position.”

I gave you an opportunity to repudiate the Calvinist creed, which I quoted that, teaches the very thing that you claim is a misrepresentation of their position. If you did not agree with what it says then all you need to do is repudiate that creed and state that it does not accurately represent the Calvinist position. But you have refused to do so. And if it accurately represents the Calvinist position then I have accurately responded to that position. You see, you want to convince us that I have misrepresented the Calvinist by quoting their own words in their Creed and responding to them. Yet you want to stop short of repudiating that Creed and what it says. If you do not believe what that creed says in the portions of it that I quoted then all you need to do is tell us that the creed is wrong and that it does not accurately represent your position nor the Calvinist position. But you do not do that, now do you? The reason you do not do that is because it does accurately represent the Calvinist position and you know it.

And it says, “““By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life, and others are foreordained to everlasting death. These angels and men thus predestined and fore ordained are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished. Those of mankind that are predestined unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions or causes moving him thereunto.” (Presbyterian Confession of faith chapter three, secs, 3. 3,4,5,)

And then with your own words you show that you agree with this pernicious creed as follows:

“God predestined those who will be brought to faith in him, and when the Holy Spirit brings them to faith they will be saved.”

But you immediately follow with these words intended to make it clear that the Holy Spirit has no intention of bringing anyone to faith other than the “elect” and thus demonstrating that Christ did not die for all men but only for the elect as follows:

“The only ones the Holy Spirit will bring to faith are the elect in Christ Jesus.”

Therefore you are saying the same thing this creed says. That the Holy Spirit is going to bring those whom God, before the foundation of the world, ordained to eternal life or the “elect” as you call them, to faith. And that the ONLY ONES that the Holy Spirit is going to “bring to faith” is the “elect in Christ Jesus” by which you must mean those that were elected or ordained to eternal life from the foundation of the world before Christ came to the earth to “redeem them”. Therefore you are not only pretending that those whom God “elected” before the foundation of the world to be saved and their number cannot be diminished or increased were actually “lost” before they were brought to faith. But you are also implying that the Holy Spirit has absolutely no intention whatsoever of offering eternal salvation through the blood of Christ to ALL men but only the elect among men. He has no intention of bring those that have been placed on God’s arbitrary list of the reprobates to faith in Christ. And therefore the preaching of the gospel as the word of God teaches does not save one. (Romans 1:16,17; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; 1 Cor. 1:18-22).

Then of course any sensible person would inquire as to how could the elect ever have been “lost” after God decreed them as those that he elected to salvation and their number cannot be increased or diminished. Does he actually “save” those whom God ordained to eternal life by an unchangeable decree before the foundation of the world? It seems to us that if they are among those predestined to eternal life before the foundation of the world and their number cannot be increased or diminished that they are saved and cannot be lost and therefore would not ever need to be saved at all. And if the elect were saved, and their eternal destiny had been determined by God’s decree before the foundation of the world. And because they sinned against God they became lost and needed to be “brought to faith in Christ” so that they could be saved. Then it follows that God must force them to believe in Christ or they will either be saved in their sins or they will be lost despite God’s eternal decree. And we know that Calvinist will never accept the latter conclusion therefore they have no choice but to logically admit the former.

You admit that we cannot know who are the elect. So according to Calvinist when you meet a Christian you are meeting someone who may be among the elect and would have been saved even without faith in Christ. Or he may simply be meeting someone who is a reprobate that has been deceived by the very truth of the gospel into believing in Christ in vain!

But now let us think of the reprobate in relation to what both you and the Calvinist Creed have said. These poor souls, according to your own words quoted above, were predestined or foreordained to everlasting death. And CHRIST DID NOT DIE FOR THEM AT ALL but only for the “elect” and therefore the Holy Spirit has not the slightest intention of “bringing them to faith”! He will never bring those poor reprobate souls to faith in Christ. Therefore preaching the gospel to them and offering an invitation for them to come to Christ that they might have eternal life is, as Brother White so wisely pointed out, a pure mockery! To intimate that the only reason that Christ our Lord Commanded us to preach the gospel to every creature is because we cannot know who is a reprobate and who are the elect. While at the exact same time contending that we do not have it within our power to bring men to faith in Christ but must rely upon the Holy Spirit to do it is absurd! While, according to you we do not know who is reprobate and who is among the elect, the Holy Spirit, according to you, knows exactly who they are and will bring them to faith even if he must do it against their will. Yes, according to you the Holy Spirit will force these souls to believe in Christ. But he deliberately will completely ignore those who are on the reprobate list. He will not make even the slightest attempt whatsoever to bring them to Christ that they might be saved. In fact he will ACTIVELY PREVENT THEM FROM “COMING TO FAITH”. For if he does not prevent them from coming to faith he would have a reprobate eternally destined to damnation having faith in Christ to no effect. For he would be lost even if he had faith according to your theory.

SO, we have not misrepresented your position in the least. For you have admitted that Christ died only for the elect and no one else! For God, according to you, has determined that these souls are going to hell even if, after hearing us preach the gospel many of them will of their own free will chose to believe in Christ. Just think of it, brethren, we are being told that Christ commanded us to preach the gospel and offer eternal salvation to all men but the Holy Spirit is only going to ALLOW those who are on the elect list to believe in Christ. Everyone else he is going to prevent from ever having faith! Not only, therefore are the reprobate arbitrarily selected to condemnation but God is going make sure that they are damned eternally. And not even the death of Christ, or their faith in him which they reached by hearing the word of God preached (Rom. 10:17). Which according to DBVZ must not be true faith because the Holy Spirit will not allow them to have true faith just because they are so unfortunate as to be on the wrong list! And not even repentance, or confession of faith in Christ or a life faithfully lived in complete and total dedication to Christ based upon their knowledge of the gospel which we have, at God’s command, preached unto them will not have any effect upon them in the least. God will still condemn them because they were not on his original list of the fortunate “elect”! No one with the slightest amount of common sense and ability to read could reach such an absurd conclusion from God’s eternal word.

Thus, again I sate to you that Calvinism is a pernicious and false doctrine that implies that Christ died in vain. And it is a false doctrine that ignores the fact that Christ died for all men that they might be saved. And it implies that the precious blood of Christ cannot save anyone but those who are already saved by the eternal, unchangeable arbitrary decree of God from the foundation of the world. Such pure nonsense!

Let us remember what the Holy Spirit inspired Peter to say:

“ And Peter opened his mouth and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is NO RESPECTER OF PERSONS. But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness is acceptable to Him.” (Acts 10:34,35).

Your Christian Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2001


Brethren and friends:

DBVZ has said:

“As I have said several times, it seems a pointless exercise to convince Saffold. He said he would respond to all the verses thatclearly teach predestination and the sovereign power of God in election but I have not seen anything that begins to do that yet. Perhaps it will come, but I think I am through with the debate and with this forum. You may all say your fairwells, but I will not read them.”

Well, it does seem that our friend DBVZ wants to leave you with the impression that E. Lee Saffold has now been guilty of chasing yet another person away from the forum. But I would not worry too much about this for he has left this forum before under similar circumstances only to return latter for whatever reason. I therefore do not say farewell to him. Rather I say that we look very much forward to the time when his frustration and possible anger subsides and he returns to continue discussing the word of God with us. He is indeed our friend though he is woefully mistaken about the truth of the word of God and the gospel of Christ which is to be preached to ALL MEN because all men can benefit to eternal salvation if they hear it, believe it, and humbly obey it.

He says:

“As I have said several times, it seems a pointless exercise to convince Saffold.”

I believe that DBVZ brings up a point with this remark with which I very much agree. Indeed it is a “pointless exercise” to attempt to “convince Saffold” of false doctrine. It is indeed futile to attempt to convince him of doctrines that are the antithesis of the doctrine of Christ. (2 John 9-11). Doctrines that are contrary to the truth of God, the gospel of Christ, the hope of salvation in Christ and that makes a mockery of the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ for the sins of the entire world! (John 3:16,17; 1 John2:2). And especially a doctrine so pernicious as Calvinism that subtly smears the very character of God who is just, merciful, wise and intended ever to benefit all of mankind whom he created in his own image. The very scheme of redemption is made by Calvinist to appear to be nothing more than an evil game wherein God fools the reprobate in to believing in Christ and hoping for salvation. When in truth he has, long before Christ died, determined to send them into eternal damnation and nothing, not even the death of Christ, would change that unchangeable determination. While simultaneously pretending to save, through the needless sacrifice of His only begotten Son on a cruel Cross, the elect who are already safe and secure in the unchangeable decree and foreordination of God before the foundation of the world.

Then DBVZ says:

“He said he would respond to all the verses thatclearly teach predestination and the sovereign power of God in election but I have not seen anything that begins to do that yet. Perhaps it will come, but I think I am through with the debate and with this forum.”

Well, Brethren, it does take time to give a reasoned and thoughtful response to a string of passages taken out of their context and used as a pretext to sustain false doctrines such as Calvinism. In fact, we all need to take time enough to think objectively about any arguments presented even by those who teach doctrines as pernicious and pathetically false as Calvinism. I have not the slightest doubt that DBVZ is sincere and honest in his belief of this pernicious doctrine and he deserves to hear a response to his arguments when they are presented. I have done as much as I could in the time available to me to keep up with his remarks, even responding during my lunch break at my job. And writing a few hours in the evening when I get home from work after dinner. I sincerely regret that he has “given up on the debate” and left before I could finish the task that I promised Him that I would complete. And out of respect for the fact that he has a right to have those passages considered I will keep my promise and provide the response to them even in his self imposed absence from the forum. And I pray that he will return and have the benefit of that reasoned response to the passages that he thinks sustain his pernicious Calvinistic teachings. But even if he does not return I will have done my duty to the best of my ability with time available to me for participating in such important activities.

We should not just assume without thought that all arguments are entirely wrong simply because they are contrary to that which we already believe. And we should ever be willing to give an “answer to every man that asketh us a reason for the hope that is in us”.

DBVZ has been impatiently waiting for us to examine the several verses which he quoted without giving any explanation of how they are significant in proving his Calvinistic doctrine of Predestination and fore ordination. It was his intent to prove from these verses that God from before the foundation of the world determined, decreed and unchangeably ordained before the foundation of the world the exact numbers of those who were elect and thus saved or reprobate and thus eternally lost. And that those numbers are so definite for both classes that they can neither be diminished or increased even by the very sacrifice, suffering and brutal crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ on the cruel cross for the redemption of ALL MEN. I will now quote his words which does nothing more than “list” several verses for us to consider without offering even the most feeble of attempts to explain why he believes they teach the false doctrine that he has been espousing in this and the other thread.

DBVZ has said:

"But you fail to acknowledge that is what the word of God teaches us. See Acts 2:23, Rom. 8:29-30 & 11:2, 1Peter 1:2, Gal. 4:9, 2 Tim. 2:19, Rom. 9:11, Rom. 11:5&6, Eph. 1:4, 2 Thess. 2:13, Eph. 1:9 & 11, etc. etc. If your position rests on your foolish misinterpretation of Acts 2:38, and mine rests on the power of God and his eternal predestination of the elect, I am content.”

WE note that DBVZ’S “position rest” not on the crucified and resurrected savior and His shed blood. But rather upon what DBVZ believes is God’s “eternal predestination of the elect”. Which he admits in another post that no one can know their fate since they do not know that they are for certain among the unchangeable number of those thus “elected” by his imaginary “eternal predestination” of God. He is just hoping that maybe, just maybe God put his name in that unchangeable list of those “elected to salvation”. And that he has not rather been selected by his imaginary decree of God to be among those poor, wretched and helpless souls that have been forever, with no good reason or cause, assigned to eternal damnation before the foundation of the world. Before any man ever sinned against God. Before Christ ever died to save man from his sins. Before the gospel of Christ, which is the “power of God unto salvation to ALL THEM THAT BELIEVE to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Romans 1:16) was ever preached. And before Remission of sins was offered in the name of Jesus Christ to those who would “repent and be immersed”. (Acts 2:38). According to DBVZ, God decided whom he would save and whom he would condemn before anyone sinned. And after they sinned he sent a savior to die for all men but he will not, because of that death, change his unchangeable decree for any man. Therefore Christ died only for those that God was going to save without his death in the first place since he had unchangeably ordained them to life and even their sin against him in the garden of Eden could not cause him to change his decree. Who can intelligently believe such nonsense was the eternal designs of our loving, merciful and just sovereign God? We have already replied to his absurd comments about our failure to acknowledge that this pernicious doctrine of the Calvinist creed makers is “what the word of God teaches us”. And we have replied to his nonsense assertion without proof that our understanding of Acts 2:38 is foolish. It is now only left for us to examine in some detail the above verses that he has merely cited without any effort to demonstrate to us just how he thinks that these verses support his theory. And having no words from him concerning that matter it is only possible for us to simply give an exegesis and exposition of the true teaching of these verses. And then we shall wait for his response before we can deal with how he actually reached his conclusions that these verses teach such a doctrine. For he has not offered in the least to give his exposition of these verses. But he did take the time to actually make a special reference to the verses from his above list that he appeared at least to think were the strongest supporters of his humanly devised Calvinistic theory. Therefore we shall take them up and we will discuss each of the verses in his above citations in our own determined order since we have no idea that he listed them in any particular order of importance.

We shall examine each of the passages that our friend DBVZ quoted in the light of all of God’s word has to say about this subject. And all will be able to see that these verses do not even remotely teach the doctrine that Calvinist such as DBVZ would like for us all to believe.

It will be wise, however, at this point, before beginning our examination of these verses to remind our readers of just what that doctrine is that DBVZ and Calvinist creed makers claim that these verses teach. It is also important that our readers keep in mind that all DBVZ has done is reference these verses. He has not even felt it necessary to give us any explanation in his own words as to why he is convinced that the verses which he urged us to read teach these things that he is claiming that they teach. Inasmuch, however, that DBVZ has claimed to be an avowed “Calvinist” and he has refused to repudiate this Creed which I have now quoted numerous times and offered him the chance to repudiate it we shall consider it representative of the Calvinistic position according to DBVZ. Therefore I will quote again from this notable “Creed” of the Calvinist so that we are clear about just what DBVZ is trying to convince us that these verses teach. Then we shall proceed to demonstrate that the verses, which he referenced, teach no such foolish doctrine as he affirms. For the doctrine of Predestination is stated by Calvinist in the Presbyterian Confession of Faith as follows:

“God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatever comes to pass.” (Presbyterian Confession of Faith, Chapter iii, section 1.)

And to the same subject we read the answer to question twelve in the “Larger Catechism” as follows:

“ God’s decrees are wise, free, and holy acts of the counsel of his will, whereby, from all eternity, he hath, for his own glory, unchangeably foreordained whatever comes to pass, especially concerning angels and men.”

And then concerning the doctrine of “unconditional election and reprobation” we quote again from the same creed as follows:

“By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life, and others are foreordained to everlasting death. These angels and men thus predestined and fore ordained are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished. Those of mankind that are predestined unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions or causes moving him thereunto.” (Presbyterian Confession of faith chapter three, secs, 3. 3,4,5,)

We think that we have proven manifestly in our several previous posts that God did not so ordain EVERYTHING that comes to pass and hence the scriptures cannot support the false doctrine of unconditional and unchangeable election and reprobation. And our friend DBVZ has not even attempted to take up these arguments and the scriptures referenced to support them and it appears that he has no intention of ever doing so.

Nevertheless, we propose now to inquire whether or not the verses referenced by our friend DBVZ teach that God has unconditionally and unchangeably fixed the destiny of a definite number of two classes of persons – the Elect and the Reprobate. We shall proceed to examine every verse that our good friend DBVZ has referenced, as what he supposes is evidence from the word of God that this false doctrine is true. I am confident that when we are finished all will be able to see why we do not accept his notion that God has taught such an absurd doctrine in His holy and inspired word. And after examining in detail the meaning of the verses, which he merely sites, we shall see if it is wise for others to be, as DBVZ claims that he is. For he is confident and content that he must accept that his eternal destiny or fate rest solely in this absurd notion of God’s “eternal predestination of the elect!” A fate that he admits is one that we cannot know. He desires for us therefore to be confident in being in a situation where we cannot know whether we are “elect” and therefore saved or “reprobate” and therefore damned forever by the arbitrary eternal and unchangeable decree of God from the before the foundation of the world! I can assure you brethren that we have been given by our God a far better ground of faith and confidence of salvation in Christ through obedience to the gospel than this pernicious doctrine would have you to rest your eternal destiny upon. No brethren, I urge you to remember that it is appointed unto man once to die and after this cometh the judgement” (Heb. 9:27). And remember that this matter is extremely important because of the very brevity of life. “For what is your life? It is but a vapor which is here for alittle while and then vaniseth away”. ! Before your vapor vanishes you must decide what you will do to prepare in such a short time to face God in the judgement. DBVZ would have you to be content that there is nothing you can do to change anything concerning your eternal fate and no means whatsoever for you to even know “what that fate is”. We shall see if such is true according to God’s word. So please give your attention to this matter. For it is your eternal destiny that we are discussing!

My introductory remarks are preparatory to my following post that will give an exposition of 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14 and a few of the simple passages that he quoted. I invite your attention to my next post and those that follow which discuss these important matters.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold



-- Anonymous, March 08, 2001


Brethren:

DBVZ has asked us to read the following verses for in them he thinks that he finds support for the doctrine of Calvinism. A doctrine that I have described and defined above in both DBVZ’S own words and the words of the Calvinistic creeds that he refused to repudiate written by his fellow Calvinist of years gone by. The verses that he offers to sustain this pernicious doctrine were these.

“See Acts 2:23, Rom. 8:29-30 & 11:2, 1Peter 1:2, Gal. 4:9, 2 Tim. 2:19, Rom. 9:11, Rom. 11:5&6, Eph. 1:4, 2 Thess. 2:13, Eph. 1:9 & 11, etc. etc.”

Now, I must tell you that it is impossible to deal with the “etc. etc” since he does not give the reference for them. It is entirely possible that they do not exist except in DBVZ’s imagination. But if he has others than these we would expect him to reference them before we attempt to examine them.

He did however seem to make the quotations from 2 Thessalonians 2:13 as if it was particularly strong in favor of his false doctrine.

Let us begin with an exposition of 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

“But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.” (2 Thess. 2:13).

From the sad picture of those who, through love of unrighteousness, were given over to the working of error unto perishing. Paul turns to give thanks for the Thessalonians, who were chosen from the beginning (though Gentiles) unto salvation- a salvation which is worked out on the divine side in the sanctification of the Spirit, and on the human side in the belief of the truth.

“Whereunto he called you through our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (2 Thess. 2:14). To this working of salvation God had called the Thessalonians, not by an arbitrary election, but by the gospel which Paul had preached to them, and he had called them that they might be possessors, or sharers, in the glory of Christ--"joint heirs" with him (Romans 8:17).

It is good just here to notice that DBVZ only wanted us to read verse 13 and neglect to notice verse 14. Verse fourteen shows that the Thessalonians were not called by an “arbitrary election” or by some direct operation of the Holy Spirit on their hearts. Rather they were called by the preaching of the gospel of Christ.

But be that as it may let us think about verse thirteen. In examining this passage it is important that we inquire as to just what beginning it was from which these persons were elected or chosen? Was it the beginning of eternity? Eternity had no beginning. Was it the beginning of time? Then the theory of eternal election is false, for time had a beginning and is not eternal. As this election was through “sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth”, it is impossible that the election could have been before the belief of the truth through which it was effected. The apostle John says, “I write no new commandment unto you, but a new commandment that ye had from the beginning.” (1 John 2:7). And again he says, “ Let that abide in you that ye heard from the beginning” (1 John 2:24). Now, what beginning was this? It was not the beginning of time, or the beginning of the world, or any other time or thing that began before their birth. For this THEY HEARD from the beginning. How could they have “heard it” if it was before the foundation of the world or their existence in that world? Nor was it the beginning of the Christian dispensation, for it is likely that none of them HEARD the gospel until long after that beginning. Then, the only thing left that makes any sense is that it was the beginning of their spiritual life- the time of their conversion to Christ. From that beginning they heard the gospel- had the old commandment and knew God, hence it is that beginning that the apostle undoubtedly refers. And we are convinced that it was this same “beginning” to which Paul reminds the Thessalonians about in this verse. Therefore he is telling them that they were chosen to salvation through the “sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth”. If Paul had been a Calvinist he would have said that they were chosen “before the foundation of the world by an immutable decree of God. And even if they never believed the truth they were already saved before they were ever born and nothing that they could ever believe, practice or do in this life would ever change this unchangeable decree of God that arbitrarily saved them. But "thanks be to God" that Paul was a Christian and a faithful apostle of Christ and not a Calvinist! For he shows in this verse that the Thessalonians were chosen and sanctified by the spirit when they heard and believed the truth. If we were to say that the sheriff was elected by the votes of the people, no one would understand us to mean that he was elected before he received the votes of the people. In like manner when we are told that the Thessalonians were chosen or elected by the sanctification of the spirit and belief of the truth. We cannot reasonably conclude from such language that they were chosen or elected before they were sanctified by the spirit and came to believe the truth of the gospel of Christ. But our Calvinist friends would like for you to think that Paul was saying in this passage that the Thessalonians were elected “before the foundation of the world” and therefore long before their belief of the truth that effected their election! They do nothing more than find every verse they can that uses the words “elect” or “chosen” or “predestined” or “foreordained” and assume from the mere existence of these words that their entire convoluted and twisted doctrine is bound up in them. But such is far from the truth. These brethren were chosen when the Spirit in their hearing and believing of the truth sanctified them. And this fits with our Lord’s prayer where he asked God concerning the apostles and those who would believe on Him through their word to “sanctify them through the truth, thy word is truth”. (John 17:17). There is not one single word in this passage that even remotely intimates that the Thessalonians were “chosen before the foundation of the world”. Calvinist just see the word “chosen” in this verse and get all excited thinking that they have found their entire false doctrine in that one word. And they neglect to see that the very next verse refutes their doctrine entirely when we are told that they were called by the gospel and not by some arbitrary decree of God or any direct operation of the Holy Spirit in some imaginary “experience of grace”.

Next DBVZ quotes from Acts 2:23 which reads as follows:

“Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and fore knowledge of God, ye have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.” (Acts 2:23).

That it was not from impotence on his part, but in accordance with the purpose and foreknowledge of God, that Christ was yielded up to these wicked men. No one has doubted that God foreknew and determined in his own wisdom and counsel that he would allow Jesus to be sacrificed to be crucified by the hands of wicked men. And that this sacrifice was made for ALL sinners. (Romans 5:8). For God’s scheme of redemption was indeed known and God’s wise counsel determined the means of the salvation of ALL MEN before Christ executed it. This passage shows only what all of us believes to be the truth. It shows that God foreknew and ordained that Christ would be crucified for us but it says nothing about the Calvinistic imaginary idea of God's “eternal decree” which predestined some to eternal salvation and others to eternal condemnation before the foundation of the world”. One would have to write those words in their Bible at this place before they could say it is found there! There is nothing in this passage about any foreordination or predestination of the individual souls of any men much less some to be unchangeably and eternally reprobate and lost and others to be elect and saved.

In this verse it is the delivering up of our Lord Jesus to crucifixion that was done by God’s “determinate counsel and foreknowledge”. It was not God’s decree of the predetermined fate of two definite classes of individuals –the elect and the reprobate- classes that are not even mentioned here that is being discussed by Peter. And certainly nothing that even remotely implies that the numbers of these two classes are so “definite that they can be neither diminished or increased".

In fact, this shows the opposite of what DBVZ would like for us to believe. “Wicked hands” not “elect hands” crucified Christ! And these very “wicked men” that crucified him were offered forgiveness and remission of their sins on the very day that Peter by the Holy Spirit informed them that they had with their wicked hands crucified the Christ. If these men were among the “elect” they were “wicked elect” and were saved in their wickedness before the foundation of the world and were still saved even after crucifying the very Son of God! Who can believe such nonsense? Or they were truly reprobates and they were forgiven and saved contrary to the Calvinistic creed that says their number could not be increased or diminished. (Acts 2:38- 47) These passages as well as the entire context shows that Christ died to save all men. This includes even those who crucified him not merely the elect. And I hasten to point out just here that this is in the Context of Acts 2:38 where these men were told to “repent and be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS”. Thus one of the very sins that they were to “repent and be immersed “to obtain” (Greek word eis) the forgiveness of was the sin crucifying the very Son of God with their “wicked hands”.

No, my friends and brothers, there is not even the slightest support given by Acts 2:23 to this pernicious Calvinistic doctrine of eternal “election and reprobation”. No one single word even remotely implies such nonsense.

Now let us look at another passage quoted by DBVZ:

Gal. 4:9- “ but now that ye have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how turn ye back again to the weak and beggarly rudiments, whereunto ye desire to be in bondage over again? Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years. 11 I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain.” (Gal. 4:9,10).

I cannot see anything in this passage or it’s immediate context that would lead any thinking person to conclude that God ordained certain individuals to eternal salvation and others to eternal damnation and that their numbers are so definite that they can neither be diminished nor increased. Can you? This actually describes the condition of these gentiles as LOST before they came to know God or “rather to be known by God”. And this shows something that does not fit the Calvinist theory in the least. It shows that the Galatians were in danger of turning back to the beggarly rudiments to come again in bondage to them and if they did this all of Paul’s labor would have been bestowed upon them in vain. If they were the Calvinistic “elect” they were in danger of losing the benefits of such “unchangeable” election, now weren’t they? Paul even said this in plainer words in the next chapter. “He says to those whom DBVZ would like for us to believe were “elect” before the foundation of the world and their numbers could never decrease. “Ye who would be justified by the law ye are fallen away from grace”. (Gal. 5:4). But if the number of the elect could not be increased or diminished they could not so fall from Grace and there would be no danger of such ever occurring by any means. And thus there would be nothing for Paul to be in the least bit concerned about if he were a Calvinist. But clearly Paul was not a Calvinist, now was he?

Brethren that is all I have time for this evening. More to come tomorrow. For I must break up these sessions into smaller bits for the sake of time.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, March 09, 2001


Dear Mr. Saffold,

This very issue has recently been brought to my attention at church. I am very interested in this subject and your responses to the verses you were working on. Is that still in progress, or can I find it somewhere else? I appreciate your help.

Sincerely,

Tess Marler

-- Anonymous, March 31, 2001


Tess:

You have written:

“Dear Mr. Saffold,

This very issue has recently been brought to my attention at church.”

This is a subject that will often come up in the church and the dangerous thing about this pernicious doctrine is that it often comes up in forms that make it difficult for one to recognize it. For this reason I spent some time discussing the source of this doctrine from Calvin and his creed making followers by referring often to their creed that teaches it.

Then you say:

“I am very interested in this subject and your responses to the verses you were working on.”

I am thankful to you and to God for your kind expression of interest in this subject and the verses that we have been working to explain in this thread. I will write you, via e-mail, with some sources of information on this topic.

Then you ask:

“Is that still in progress, or can I find it somewhere else? I appreciate your help.”

Well, it seems that DBVZ has left the forum as he explained to us but I have continued to give expositions of the scriptures that he provided for us to examine which he thought favored this pernicious doctrine of Calvinism. And that work is still in progress and I am encouraged by your request for information to complete that work. I have not sent anything else to this thread since March 9th because I became pretty busy in my work for AT&T and was diverted by another controversy in the forum temporarily. But I will work today to finish my exposition of the passage from Ephesians 1 and the other passages mentioned by DBVZ because of your response this task will take on a higher priority than I have given it recently.

If you need any other help with this subject I would be more than happy to provide as much as I possibly can via e-mail to you. Feel free anytime that you think I may be of assistance to you in the discussion of this topic or any other related to the teaching of the inspired word of God to write me via E-mail. Any you are more than welcome to call me on the phone, at my expense, and I will do my very best to help. I will give you my phone number via my e-mail response to you.

Thanks again for your kindness and your interest in the teaching of God’s inspired word. I pray that our Lord will abundantly bless you and your family with the hope of eternal life through the gospel which is offered to all men and is indeed the “power of God unto salvation to all them that believe to the Jew first and also to the Greek”. (Romans 1:16).

For Christ our Lord,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 01, 2001


Dear Mr. Saffold,

Thank you. I can’t check my mail or this forum every day, as I have three children to raise and time doesn't always allow, but I will keep checking.

The subject came up at our women's Bible study. The author of the study we are using teaches that the blood of Christ was shed for the whole world, for Jews and gentiles alike, but that we must choose to follow and obey (parts of the free-will doctrine, I believe). Two of the ladies felt that they needed to educate us on the predestination/election doctrine that they believe. Although I have never seen (to my knowledge) the Presbyterian creed you refernce here, I had heard of the doctrine, but was taught that we had free will to choose, so I never considered it much before then. I am very much looking forward to reading your insights on the passages that are used to support the predestination/election doctrine.

I read through this whole thread, but haven't had a chance to find and read the "baptismal regeneration" thread you mentioned at the beginning. I will look back over the verses offered here and compare them to those offered by the ladies at church I've been discussing this with. It's weighing heavily on me lately, to the point that I dream about it and I woke up several times yesterday morning finding myself saying to them (the ladies at church) in the dream "I just don't know, I'm going to have to study some more."

Thanks again.

Sincerely,

Tess Marler

-- Anonymous, April 05, 2001


Hello, Tess,

The'Baptismal Regenerationists' thread is in the "Uncategorized' category at the very bottom of the page when you first enter the forum.

It is too long to bring up.

Be careful to just stick to the Scriptures for your beliefs as you study, and not what others say. And 'test the spirits, whether they be of God' ~ some are not.

This is not to say we can't learn from what others say; we can, and should. We need the Holy Spirit to teach what it all means, however. Some here do not even believe the Holy Spirit is at work in us today.

Watch and pray. And be careful.

Respectfully,

-- Anonymous, April 06, 2001


Moderation questions? read the FAQ