Comments on: God Does Not Accept Everyone

By: Bradley

Bradley — Fri, 29 May 2009 22:23:13 +0000

Oh, also ... based on YOUR definition of merit, St. Augustine and the Roman Catholics don't believe it's possible to be saved by one's own merit in any way shape or form. Happy thought huh? Bradley Bradleys last blog post..::: Ancient Persian Imperial History :: pt 2 :: The Empire’s Peak

By: Bradley

Bradley — Fri, 29 May 2009 22:20:55 +0000

Matt, Thanks Matt. Hebrews teaches exactly that. But ... maybe I was unclear in my question. I'm very aware that Hebrews and the New Testament in general teach that we are not accepted by God on the basis of anything done on our own accord apart from God's grace (specifically the sacrifice of Christ). But what I was hoping you could provide was a passage that teaches that Christ is the ONLY ONE accepted, not the only grounds by which sinners are accpted. In other words, because of the preferred language you use in your post, I'm looking not just for passages that say we are accepted only through Christ, but that only Christ is accepted. The former is compatible with scripture, the latter does not appear to me to be compatible with scripture (although you may be able to show me a passage that speaks this way). Demonstrating that the Bible teaches that the exclusive grounds of our acceptance is Christ vs. demonstrating that the Bible teaches that Christ is himself the ONLY ONE accepted are two different things. I was hoping, given the preferred language of your post, that you would know of a passage that would allow you to demonstrate the latter. Do you know of any? Thanks for your thoughts, Bradley Bradleys last blog post..::: Ancient Persian Imperial History :: pt 2 :: The Empire’s Peak

By: Matt Svoboda

Matt Svoboda — Fri, 29 May 2009 22:02:35 +0000

Bradley,

I would say the entire book of Hebrews uses the language that only by faith in Christs sacrifice can we be accepted with God. Therefore, if it were not for the sacrifice of Christ no man would be accepted by God on his own merit.

***merit meaning all that a person has accomplished on his own accord.

Yes, bad definition and possibly bad use of the word merit.

By: Bradley

Bradley — Fri, 29 May 2009 20:01:49 +0000

Matt, Thanks for your thoughtful response. I understand that you desire to make the point that apart from Christ, we are not accepted before God. Also, it seems we may agree in substance while disagreeing over wording. At any rate, it still seems that grounds for being accepted by God (i.e. Christ's perfect sacrifice) and quantity of persons being accepted by God (all who repent and believe) is easily confused by your language. I'm curious (this really isn't a challenge, I'm just curious): Does the Bible ever say it the way your saying it? I know the Bible repeatedly assures believers of their acceptance before God, but I'm not immediately aware of any passage that says Jesus is the only one accepted or that nobody but Jesus is accepted before God. Maybe you can point some biblical passage out to me that speak this way? I would then be more open to your language (even if it did confuse grounds and quantity). Also ... what do you mean by "merit" in the following phrase: "God will not accept them on their own merit"? Of course, I know when you use the word "merit" about the "merit of Christ" that you mean his perfect sacrifice, but I'm not sure what you mean by it when you use it of persons other than Christ. Thanks for your clarifications. Bradley Bradleys last blog post..::: Ancient Persian Imperial History :: pt 2 :: The Empire’s Peak

By: Matt Svoboda

Matt Svoboda — Fri, 29 May 2009 19:39:48 +0000

By merit I mean the work he accomplished in his life and on the cross.. i.e. Being the perfect sacrifice.

I think the rest of your comment could come down to us arguing over use of wording, while we still agree on the substance. God does only accept the life/person of Jesus and because of that those who are in union with Jesus get the free gift of eternal life. But that ‘acceptance’ is still not them being accepted on there own, but on the behalf os Jesus. It is an important distinction. The last thing we want is what we have: a lot of people that think God will accept them because they are ‘good people.’

By: Bradley

Bradley — Fri, 29 May 2009 18:32:53 +0000

Matt, Great to see that you aren't just giving us the whole "Jesus loves/accepts everybody" cliche, and that you are trying to balance out the love of God with the justice of God. You said God 1) only accepts Jesus, and that 2) God also accepts people who are united to Jesus. But if 2 is true, 1 cannot be true. If God doesn't only accept Jesus, but also people who have the kind of faith in Christ that demonstrates itself with good deeds, God accepts many people, not just one. I think you would agree, but propositions 1 and 2 are contradictory. You said: 3) God only accepts people on the basis of Christ's merit, and that 4) God will not accept people on their own merit. But ... why do you not consider Christ's merit as actually belonging to those with the kind of faith that works through love? As Christians, is Christ's merit not "our own"? If it's not, we are in big trouble, aren't we? Also ... what do you meant by "merit"? Bradley Bradleys last blog post..::: Ancient Persian Imperial History :: pt 2 :: The Empire’s Peak

By: Tony Kummer

Tony Kummer — Thu, 28 May 2009 02:56:52 +0000

Matt, Great title and solid post. Thanks again for all you're doing here on SBC voices. Tony Kummers last blog post..Welcome New Writers!

By: Dr. James Willingham

Dr. James Willingham — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:39:56 +0000

Thank you Jason for your kind response. What everyone, practically speaking, fails to realize is that the TULIP doctrines are the theology of the First and Second Great Awakenings and the launching of the Great Century of Missions (as Dr. Latuorette sp? , called it). If we are to have another awakening, which is what I pray try to pray for every day and even more than once a day. then we need to have some insight into the theology, the message of God, in such event. These truths must be handled for what they are, mysteries, inexplicable in a sense, attended with wonder in any case. My researches suggest to me that prayer, knowledge of the presence, theology, and the attendant humility in such a visitation will, likely, lead to another Awakening. The works of Jonathan Edwards among others will provide some help in the process. On June 6, d.v., I hope to preach the ordination sermon fora gentlement at a small church in the Sandy Creek Assn. I ask for prayer as I hope to make it a major statement on the theology, etc. It will be a reply to the present situation as well. Again, I say, deo volente, God willing. My strength is small, indeed. Thankfully, I had done most of the research on the texts before I ever knew or was invited to preach the ordination and before the heart attack. Also this Sun (5/31), d.v., I will preach our son's 10th anniversary service by invitation of his church where he has been serving since 99. He was 11 yrs old, when Gum Springs had a 10th anniversary service for us in our service there. And now I have lived to see and be part of his 10th yr. of service. I feel humbled into the dust by such privilege. Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..The Climax of the Reformation

By: Jason Gardner

Jason Gardner — Wed, 27 May 2009 13:03:48 +0000

Dr. Willingham, Good assessment. Though I would not consider myself a five-pointer, I certainly affirm TUP, the L and I with certain caveats. That aside, I think you're right on in drawing the connection between the doctrines of grace and humility. If there is one thing that my understanding of election/predestination has borne out, it's humility before an almighty Father. The wonder of grace is not just that some go to heaven, but that all are not separated from God for eternity. Jason Gardners last blog post..Digital or print?

By: Dr. James Willingham

Dr. James Willingham — Wed, 27 May 2009 01:01:07 +0000

The Bible does say, Roms.9:13, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Yrs. ago, after I had read Dr, Eusden's Intro. to his translation of William Ames' Marrow of Divinity, and had reflected on the issue of predestination as an invitation, it hit me. God hated Esau, but how did God treat Esau? Esau could have said, "With an enemy like God, who needs any friends?" As Dr. John Gill said, God treats the wicked so well that no one in his right mind would condemn God for sending them to Hell. The real issue is how do they respond to the good which they receive. And if God calls them a dog or says I hate all workers of iniquity, how do they respond to His negative message? The really hard part of Roms.9:13 i to explain how could God love Jacob. After all, when you look at Esau and how he profaned the good God did for him, trampled it under foot, well....None of this is as simple as it seems. When I was converted, a weight that I did not even know I had was lifted off of my heart. Was that the wrath of God that abides on the one who is not believing (Jn.3:36)? The wonder of it all is that God should love any of us. The Bible teachings are weird. Consider how David said, "Forgive my iniquity, for it is great." Who ever heard of arguing your one reason for God to forgive is that your sin is great? How would you like to be called depraved, reprobate and unclean? The woman of Canaan was. Jesus, "It is not right to take the children's bread and cast it to dogs." The woman agreed to what He said about her. She was willing to look on herself as unclean, depraved, polluted, helpless to do anything other than be a dog, and yet she said, "True, Lord, but even the dogs eat of the crumbs that fall from their master's table."(Mt.15:21-28).I think Jesus was mentoring his teachings in that remarkable passage as an example of how to use particular redemption (Not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel) and total depravity, reprobation, pollution, (children's bread cast to dogs). O yes, unconditional election, predestination, and limited atonement/particular redemption were set forth. Her response was worship. He did the same thing with His fellow Nazarites (Lk.4:18-30), but He never got past election, particular redemption, and predestination. They did not let him get to the depravity and reprobation part as they started displaying those truths by their action. All He had said was, Elijah was not sent to any widow in Israel, but to a widow of Sarepta a city of Sidon (same area as the woman in Mt.15). And Elisha did not heal any leper in Israel, but he did heal Naaman the Syrian. Here we have the same truths presented to gentiles and jews. Evidently the truths received as truth and accepted are really invitations to be saved, to take God on His terms. The woman did and was saved. The Jews of Nazarite did not. Any comments. O yes, do we appeal to God's sovereignty for acceptance. Did not the leper say, "Lord, if you will (if you please), you can heal me." Paradoxical interventions have a way of bringing reality home to us, and in a way they really bring control back into our lives that our lived like the wild asses mentioned in the Bible. Can such teachings be the explanation for the humility that the woman displayed along with our forebearers who had accepted such views? Today, we find little real humility. Could it be because few really know and accepted the teachings of Sovereign Grace, like predestination, total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints, and reprobation? Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..The Climax of the Reformation