Archive: It is a Fearful Thing to Fall into the Hands of the Living God

by Antonio da Rosa

The Following is an excerpt from a longer post with the same name

----------
Regenerate man has a free will that is regulated by two opposing capacities within his ontological being. The old man is powered by his pride, selfishness, and wordly passions. The new man MUST BE empowered by the Holy Spirit through active yieldedness. What does this say? That unless regenerate man, by an act of his will, mortifies the old man, and actively yields himself to the indwelling Holy Spirit, he will not have victory nor necessitated progressive and experiential sanctification.

God has positive and negative means by which to affect His children apart from coercion, force, necessity, and imposition. The object of this post is not to get into the positive aspects of God’s relationship to the regenerate one. I may in the future outline the glorious nature of God’s encouragement, leading, guiding, teaching, prompting, and acts of love and kindness.

The assessment of the Traditionalist against the Free Gracer is folly.

The Free Gracer has a sober view of God’s holiness and loathe of sin. God demands holiness. God hates sin. He will not tolerate or wink at the evil machinations of His children. God requires that His servants be holy and abide by His commandments.

At His discretion, God will employ His discipline and judgement against the sinful acts of His children. These may take the form of temporal consequences or eternal ones. In either respect, they are serious and sobering.

Following is a list of God’s punitive disciplinary actions against believers, whether they be temporal or eternal.

Within God’s discretionary model of accountability, the believer may be:

1. Cast out (Mt 5:13).
2. Called least (Mt 5:19)
3. Thrown into prison (Mt 5:25)
4. Not forgiven (Mt 6:15)
5. Judged in like manner (Mt 7:1-2)
6. Cast away from the table into the darkness outside (Mt 8:11-12)
7. Denied before the Father (Mt 10:33)
8. Counted unworthy of Jesus (Mt 10:37-38)
9. Condemned on the basis of their words (Mt 12:36-37)
10. Paid back with the loss of their souls (Mt 16:24-27)
11. Handed over to tortures (Mt 18:34-35)
12. Last (Mt 19:30)
13. Last (Mt 20:16)
14. Bound hand and foot (Mt 22:13)
15. Cast outside the wedding feast into the darkness outside (Mt 22:13)
16. Pictured as weeping and gnashing their teeth (Mt 22:13)
17. Not chosen (Mt 22:14)
18. Humbled rather than exalted (Mt 23:12)
19. Whipped (Mt 24:51)
20. Assigned a place with the hypocrites (Mt 24:51)
21. Pictured as weeping and gnashing their teeth (Mt 24:51)
22. Denied entrance into the wedding feast and left in the darkness outside (Mt 25:12)
23. Rebuked (Mt 25:26)
24. Penalized (Mt 25:28)
25. Cast into the darkness outside (Mt 25:30)
26. Pictured as weeping and gnashing their teeth (Mt 25:30)
27. Pictured as losing their lives (Mk 8:35)
28. Made objects of shame (Mt 8:38)
29. Last (Mk 10:31)
30. Ruined (Lk 6:49)
31. Exposed (Lk 8:17)
32. Warned of losing their souls when Jesus returns (Lk 9:24-26)
33. Made objects of shame (Lk 9:26)
34. Not fit for the kingdom (Lk 9:62)
35. Exposed (Lk 12:2)
36. Told to fear God who casts people into hell (Lk 12:5)
37. Publicly denied by Jesus (Lk 12:9)
38. Called fools in the loss of their souls (Lk 12:20)
39. Whipped (Lk 12:46)
40. Assigned a place with the unfaithful (Lk 12:46)
41. Subject to many lashes rather than just a few (Lk 12:47-48)
42. Thrown into prison (Lk 12:58)
43. Last (Lk 13:30)
44. Publicly disgraced and humbled by being put in last place (Lk 13:9-11)
45. Thrown out as worthless (Lk 14:35)
46. Humbled rather than exalted (Lk 18:14)
47. Penalized (Lk 20:24-26)
48. Cast into the fire and burned (Jn 15:6)
49. Killed (Acts 5:5-10)
50. Threatened with death (Acts 8:20)
51. Unforgiven (Acts 8:22)
52. Rewarded with God’s wrath and indignation (Rom 2:6)
53. Subject to death (Rom 8:13)
54. Severely cut off (Rom 11:22)
55. Condemned (Rom 13:2)
56. Subject to wrath (Rom 13:4)
57. Condemned (Rom 14:22-23)
58. Revealed for the negative they do (1Cor 3:13)
59. Punished with loss (1Cor 3:15)
60. Destroyed (1Cor 3:17)
61. Revealed for the negative they think (1Cor 4:5)
62. Delivered over to Satan for physical destruction (1Cor 5:5)
63. Rejected as kingdom heirs (1Cor 6:9-10)
64. Rejected as losers (1Cor 9:24-27)
65. Afflicted with God’s judgment of weakness and sickness (1Cor 11:30-31)
66. Judged and disciplined (1Cor 11:32-34)
67. Accursed (1Cor 16:22)
68. Punished (2Cor 2:6)
69. Paid back with evil for the evil they do (2Cor 5:10)
70. Punished with suffering loss (2Cor 7:9)
71. Not benefited by Christ (Gal 5:2)
72. Severed from Christ (Gal 5:4)
73. Fallen from grace (Gal 5:4)
74. Rejected as kingdom heirs (Gal 5:21)
75. Reapers of corruption rather than eternal life (Gal 6:8)
76. Rejected as kingdom heirs (Eph 5:5)
77. Partakers of God’s wrath (Eph 5:6-7)
78. Considered unholy objects of blame and reproach [at the bema] (Col 1:22-23)
79. Rewarded with harm rather than the inheritance (Col 3:24-25)
80. Objects of God’s vengeance (1Thess 4:6)
81. Put to shame (2Thess 3:14)
82. Condemned (1Tim 5:12)
83. Publicly rebuked (1Tim 5:20)
84. Plunged into ruin and destruction (1Tim 6:9-10)
85. Denied (2Tim 2:12)
86. Ruined (2Tim 2:14)
87. Dishonored (2Tim 2:20)
88. Self-condemned (Tit 3:11)
89. Subject to a negative payback (Heb 2:2-3)
90. Objects of God’s wrath and anger (Heb 3:11-17)
91. Rejected from God’s rest (Heb 3:18-4:11)
92. Burned (Heb 6:8)
93. Subject to a terrifying fiery judgment (Heb 10:27)
94. Subject to server punishment (Heb 10:29)
95. Subject to God’s vengeance (Heb 10:30)
96. Subject to God’s judgment (Heb 10:30)
97. Subject to a terrifying experience at God’s hands (Heb 10:31)
98. Subject to God’s displeasure (Heb 10:38)
99. Subject to destruction (Heb 10:39)
100. Subject to God’s discipline (Heb 12:5-8)
101. Subject to God’s reproving (Heb 12:5)
102. Subject to God’s whipping (Heb 12:6)
103. Consider illegitimate children (Heb 12:8)
104. Rejected concerning the inheritance (Heb 12:17)
105. Unable to escape God’s fiery judgment (Heb 12:25-29)
106. Subject to potentially harmful or detrimental consequences (Heb 12:17)
107. Subject to God’s judgment (Heb 13:4)
108. Susceptible to merciless judgment (Jam 2:13)
109. Not be saved from this merciless judgment (Jam 2:14)
110. Susceptible to strict judgment (Jam 3:1)
111. Opposed by God (Jam 4:6)
112. Susceptible to miseries on judgment day (Jam 5:1)
113. Susceptible to being burned with fire (Jam 5:3)
114. Susceptible to condemnation when the Lord returns (Jam 5:9)
115. Susceptible to judgment (Jam 5:12)
116. Susceptible to premature death (Jam 5:20)
117. Justifiably afraid of God’s judgment (1Pet 1:17)
118. Opposed by God (1Pet 3:12)
119. Opposed by God (1Pet 5:5)
120. Worse off because they are believers (2Pet 2:20-21)
121. Fallen from grace (2Pet 3:17-18)
122. Out of fellowship with God (1Jn 1:6)
123. Put to shame by Jesus (1Jn 2:28)
124. Subject to premature death (1Jn 5:16)
125. Removed (Rev 2:5)
126. Subject to having his crown taken away (Rev 3:11)
127. Punished with sickness (Rev 2:22)
128. Cast into great tribulation (Rev 2:22)
129. Killed (Rev 2:23)
130. Spit out (Rev 3:16)
131. Reproved (Rev 3:19)
132. Disciplined by God (Rev 3:19)
133. Plagued by God (Rev 22:18)
134. Subject to having God take away his portion in the tree of life (Rev 22:29)
135. Subject to having God take away his portion in the holy city (Rev 22:29)
(Credit for this list goes to Marty Cauley, Sylva N.C., friend and GES member. Thank you, Marty!)

I realize that the readers, even those who ally themselves in proximity to my position, may not agree with some of these disciplinary actions.

It must be noted that many, if not most of these disciplinary actions are within the context of parabolic structures, and as such, are not to be taken literally, but the accounts within the metaphorical contructs correspond to spiritual truths.

For sake of clarity and argumentation: Any one who would oppose my use of these references of negative consequences in specific relation to the regenerate one, I have a request. If you take issue with any of these references, please give me your observational, exegetical, and contextual exposition of the verse that would cause you to arrive at your interpretation. Just to merely assert and froth is of no benefit.

Prove by your exegetical and expositional skills that these references are not with the regenerate one in mind.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

God does not trifle with sin, not even the sin of His children.

Heb 10:30-31
"The LORD will judge His people." It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Logical vs Theological Necessity

by Antonio da Rosa

I wrote this post in comment to Earl over at Rose's blog. I thought it would be beneficial here as well.

Matthew doesn't see how my logical versus theological discussion makes things clear. I am at a loss for words here. It seems very simple to me and makes me amaze how people are scratching their heads about it.
----------


Logical necessity is a valid distinction from theological necessity.

Not everyone has logical necessities to faith in Christ. And again, not everyone would necessarily have the same logical necessities.

For instance:

A ticket to a baseball game is all that is necessary FROM THE VIEW OF THE STADIUM for entrance into the baseball game.

A man living a block away may walk to the game and not incur any additional monetary necessities in order to actually step foot into the game.

A man living a 4 miles away may have to take a trolley and incur some more monetery debt to step foot into the game or he may put on his jogging shoes and run there.

A man living in another city may have to drive there (incurring gas cost) and park there (incurring parking cost) as a logical necessity to going to the baseball game or he could carpool with a ride from a friend, and incur no additional monetary necessity to enter the game.

A man living in another state may have to fly in by airplane, take a taxi from the airport, shack up in a hotel, and bus in from the hotel in order to step foot into the stadium, which by the way, only requires a ticket for entrance. Or this man could leave a week in advance, hitchhike to the city, sleep in a sleeping bag on the side of the street by the stadium, and eat at rescue missions, and thus incur no extra monetery necessity OTHER than the purchase price of the ticket.

Each person in the world is at a different subjective state in relation and relativity to the exercise of faith in Christ.

But the one and only requirement by God is that one exercise simple faith in the promise of Christ for eternal life.

How one gets to that point, well, there may be various logical necessities (and they don't even have to be an absolute program for the same person -- just think of how many routes you can take from your office to your home).

Repentance may indeed be a logical necessity to faith in Christ for some people. Yet it is not a necessary requirement for eternal life.

The man at the stadium does not require anything but the ticket for entrance. God does not require anything but one receive eternal life by the passive instrumentality of simple faith alone into Christ. How the man actually gets to the point where he can purchase the ticket and get his body to the stadium, how the man prepares himself and/or is prepared by external circumstances for faith in Christ IS AN ABSOLUTELY SUBJECTIVE CONSIDERATION WITH MANY DIFFERENT SCENARIOS.
----------

Jesus says:

Luke 13:23-25
And He said to them,"Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able."

Man is to use any means by which to find the entrance and actually enter into the narrow gate.

We know that Jesus is the narrow gate and that entrance into the narrow gate is through faith alone.

I hope this helps.

Antonio

Does Anybody Agree with this Quotation? V

by Rose~

I think so far the series that Matthew and Antonio have been doing ... "Does anybody agree with this quotation?" ... has consisted mostly of quotes that the two of them have found not favorable ... in other words ... their answer to their own questions would be a resounding "NO!"

I saw this quote today, (in a very unlikely place), and I so agreed with it that I wanted to post it here.

"The Bible clearly teaches that God’s love for His people is of such magnitude that even those who walk away from the faith have not the slightest chance of slipping from His hand."

-Charles Stanley

If you have been born again, my friend, you have no more chance of eternal death ... than God does of being unfaithful. It won't happen. This should bring us joy, not trouble!

The quote is from a larger article.

Calvinism and the Sins that Christ did NOT Atone For

by Antonio da Rosa

I was responding to a comment on a thread on my other blog tonight when it struck me.

To the Traditionalist, there is a list of sins, that if someone commits them, then there is no way that person can be a truly regenerate person.

The list may vary from Calvinist to Calvinist, but there is one sin, inparticular, that would make it on all of their lists:

Apostasy

All Calvinists would say that any body who apostasizes from the faith cannot be a truly born-again person and will end up in the Lake of Fire.

Think about this for a moment.

Since, in the estimation of the Traditionalist, only the elect will be saved, when we add into the equation the Perseverance of the Saints, we are faced with an interesting thought:

There is a list of sins that Jesus in no way could have practically propitiated the Father for, died for.

Since Christ died only for the elect, and the elect cannot apostasize, Jesus could not have died for the sin of apostasy. He did not die for the sin of apostasy, because no elect person can apostasize and stay saved!

The Traditionalist says that Christ's death is an actual satisfaction for all the elect's sins. If the elect can't apostasize, then Christ didn't die for the sin of apostasy!

It is in this way that the Traditionalist has put his qualifiers on Christ's blood. Not only have they limited the extent of Christ's death only to the elect, but they must necessarily limit the breadth of that death to exclude the list of sins, specifically that of apostasy.

They may say, well Christ died for all the elect's sins but the elect can't apostasize.

If Christ died for sin as a whole and in general, then apostasy would have to be included in it. Apostasy is a sin! Therefore Christ must have propitiated the Father concerning the specific sin of apostasy.

Yet the Traditionalist will say that apostasy negates the faith that the apostate once held, therefore is a deal-breaker. The only way they can guard from the charge that the apostate lost his salvation is to say that he had a merely spurious faith. This, too, is a man made doctrine.

The bottom line is that if Christ died for sin (period), apostasy would have to be included in that scheme, and therefore, Jesus would have had to die for apostasy in the elect!

If Jesus died for the sin of apostasy, why would such a sin negate someone's eternal standing before God? If Jesus died for all sins, then the only logical answer from the Traditionalist would have to be that Jesus did not die for the sin of apostasy. For if Jesus died for all sin, apostasy being a specific under that banner, and the believer gone apostate WOULD STILL BE UNDER THE BLOOD of CHRIST!

If a believer commits apostasy, and Jesus died for all sin (apostasy being one), then Jesus' death propitiated completely for that sin of apostasy, and the apostate is still under the blood of Christ and still has the declaration of justification (although he will be under the chastening and discipline of the Lord as well!)

But in the Traditionalist religion, which is substantially less realistic than the Bible itself, Christ's death cannot atone for the sin of apostasy. It is a deal breaker, and the one who once believed but now apostasized has lost his salvation (how else are we supposed to look at it?).

Your thoughts?

Antonio da Rosa

Free Grace Theology and Repentace

by Antonio da Rosa

Recently, Matthew Waymeyer of Faith and Practice wrote a critique of Free Grace theology based upon Acts 17:30-31. I have constructed a long response to it that I will break up into 4 or 5 segments and post every day or so.

My response is found here:

Free Grace Theology and Repentance -- A Reply to Matthew Waymeyer Part 1

Please read and be informed!

Also interact and comment!

Antonio da Rosa

Gospel Comment Thread on 'The Moor'

by Antonio da Rosa

Interesting conversation going on at the Head of the Moor, Jonathan Moorhead's blog:

Gospel Presentation Comment Thread

Go throw in your two cents.

Antonio

Are You a “Traditionalist”?

by Rose~

If you read this blog very much or that of Antonio … or if you have the pleasure of Antonio’s comments appearing on your blog, then you probably have noticed that he uses the term traditionalist. I first noticed this term being used by him about 6 months ago, I think. It immediately provoked thought on my part.

My first reaction to the term was to think of Catholics. I was raised Catholic, but converted into a Biblical Believer at the age of 20. After having gone round and round with my Catholic relatives (mom, uncles etc…) I heard the word tradition often used as a defense for many of the Catholic positions that are clearly unbiblical. In fact, when push comes to shove, although Catholics say they believe the Bible, if there is a tension between a portion of Scripture and the teachings of their church (this is what is called tradition for the purposes of this post) the devoted Catholic will stick with the Church tradition unabashedly.

So, when I saw Antonio refer to Calvinist Lordship Salvation teachers as traditionalists, I was given pause. I had been narrowly thinking of Roman Catholics as traditionalists and “Protestants” as … well … not worthy of that descriptor. Then, I started analyzing the situation more closely.

I noticed a few things. For example, one time when discussing Calvinism with a brother, he responded to one of my Biblical challenges and critiqued my interpretation by saying this: “That has not been the position of historical Christianity.” I thought, "So what?" I happen to know many Christians who have arrived at the same interpretation as I have living presently. Maybe we're all wrong - but don't try to tell me because of "historical Chriatanity" we are wrong - or we are wrong because we are outnumbered. Majority doesn't rule when it comes to truth.

Another example - when the subject of dispensationalism comes up, more than one friend will deride it as a theological viewpoint because, as it is named and defined today, it is fairly new in relation to church history. Therefore, haughty insults of “Johnny-come-lately” are thrown out. Isn’t this a somewhat traditionalist criticism? In other words, if this is not on record as what all the theologians for centuries of church history have taught, then it must be wrong. I think this approach in challenging the dispensationalist system of Bible study is not an appeal to Biblical teaching at all – it is a criticism is on the tradition of the teaching.

I read where a blogger buddy recently challenged a certain viewpoint of Lewis Sperry Chafer on eschatology – this friend said, “Prior to 1827 is there any record of the teaching of a pre-trib rapture in church history?” (Even though I am not entirely sure that the answer to his question is no), his is a common and proud appeal to the foothold of traditional Protestant theology.

So there ARE traditionalist Protestants!

This is unfortunate to my mind because I think of those who were in the Catholic Church before Martin Luther came along. I am sure they wagged their heads at him for his newfangled ideas. His views were eventually given ear and these revelations … sparked by God’s Word … then sparked the Protestant Reformation.

But … was it right to then enthrone the ideas and interpretations of him and his successors to the same heights as the Romish doctrines had been? May it never be!

In the world there is nothing new under the sun. But, when a Christian picks up his Bible, we each have the Holy Spirit and can be revealed the fresh truth of His Word … which I believe holds many truths that are very complex as well as some wonderful simple truths. It is not necessary to have the opinions of the church fathers etc… as a guide when reading our Bibles, although these can be helpful when kept in their place. Please understand, I am not suggesting that each Christian is an island unto himself ... but that we have direct access to God’s truth in our own copies of the Bible.

I am also not saying that there isn’t room to point out cultish or erroneous teaching, but don’t appeal to “the church fathers” or the long-standing position of the majority in the church for your criticism. Go to the Bible itself, because it is NEVER WRONG – and men CAN be wrong – even in large numbers for long periods of time. Don’t be a traditionalist!

The Problem with the Moderate Non-Lordship Salvation Position

by Matthew

A key difference between the Free Grace and the more common Non-Lordship Salvatio position is the issue of repentance. Non-Lordship Salvaton advocates like Ryrie define repentance as a change of mind that is invovled in saving faith. Free Grace theology holds that repentance involves a more complete turning from sin which is distinct and separate from saving faith. I would conted that Ryrie's concept of 'Repentant Faith' is a theological construction that does not do justice to the Biblical material.

However, I believe there is a far more serious problem in the Moderate camp's agreement with the Traditionalist interpretation of James chapter 2. Those who align themselves with Ryrie and other Moderates agree with the Lordship advocates that the faith that lacks works is a false faith. Gordon C Olson, in his otherwise excellent book 'Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism', wrote:

A second consideration is the differing usage of the verb 'to believe' by Paul and James. Paul is obviously referring to genuine faith or trust in Christ, whereas James is using it in the sense of a mere profession of faith. This is clear from 2:19 'You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.' Here believing means intellectual assent to the truth, rather than trust in Christ as Savior.

Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism p.260-261

He then lists a number of proof texts for the notion of a false faith, such as Simon the Sorceror and John 2:23-25. This statement could quite easily have come from my Calvinist pastor.

The notion of a false, intellectual faith is very unhelpful. How exactly can one be sure that one does not have such a faith? More importantly, the Scriptures never differentiates between a true faith and a false intellectual faith. Our Lord defined for us the nature of saving faith in His conversation with Martha:

John 11:25-27
Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection and the life: He that beleiveth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
She saith unto him, Yea Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.

Here saving faith is shown to be the simple affirmation of the proposition that Jesus is the resurrection and the life (the one who provides eternal life). Our Lord does not in any way qualify the manner in which it is to believed. To truthfully answer yes to the Lord's question is to believe on Him for eternal life.

The result of Olson's interpretation of James is that faith is not enougth. If a believer's faith must include works to be genuine, the believer must inevitably look for his assurance in works. Olson might argue that the perserverance is not certain tand that fruit may be minimal. However, if any amount of works are essential to salvation, then faith is not enougth on its own.

Moderate Non-Lordship people maintain that all believers wil show some fruit. Certainly, the vast majority of believers will show some fruit. However, I believe it is necessary to maintain the possiblity that a believe may display no fruit at all. I think this would only occurr in exceptional circumstances, however if this possiblity is denied then faith we have the dilemma of the works necessity. If Olson insists that a believer must do some works, how can Olson resist the conclusion of Lordship Salvation that lots of works are necessary? Olson makes a big concession to the Lordship Salvation position:

It is true that the New Testament does challenge us with tests of eternal life (as in 1 John), by which we can examine our own lives to see those lifestyle problems which seriously raise questions about our salvation. But I am concerned about the way that legalistic Christians write off problem believers and that the way that some legalistic Christians fall back into extreme introspection which seriously undermines their own assurance.

Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism, p.264

Olson unfortuantely wants to have his cake and eat it. On the one hand he wants to avoid introspection undermining assurance, but then he agrees with the Calvinist that one should examine one's life to test one's posession of eternal life. I find it difficult to see how Olson can satisfactorily resolve this tension.

Olson would seem to be familiar with Zane Hodges and other Free Grace authors, as he includes them in his bibliography. Nevertheless it is deeply disappointing that he has not made any attempt to engage with Hodges' alternative interpretations of the epistles of James and 1 John. 'Beyond Calvinism and Armininianism' is by far the best work I have read on the subject of Calvinism. Olson's treatment of election, depravity and the extent of the atonement is superb. However, it isunfortuante that his rejection of Lordship Salvation lacks the systematic consistency of Zane Hodges and Bob Wilkin.

Another otherwise excellent author who runs into trouble on this issue is Robert Lightner. Like Olson, Lightner aligns himself against Lordship Salvation and seems familiar with the work of Zane Hodges. Yet for whatever reason, Lightner falls short of embracing the consistency of the Free Grace position.

Lightner states on page 212 of the 'Handbook of Evangelical Theology' that he rejects Lordship Salvation. However, he goes on to make a seriously big concession:

On the other hand, Scripture clearly states that no one can become a child of God unless he fully intends to serve and obey Christ.

I find it very disapointing that Lightner takes this view. This is a quite unscriptural definition of saving faith. He clearly has in view the fiction of a Repentant Faith. As is clearly seen in Jesus' discourse to Martha in John chapter 11, saving faith is simply affirmign the proposition that Jesus is the sole provider of eternal life. If a person believes that she posesses eternal life through Jesus Christ she has it because it is a free gift. There is no added condition that she must also intend to serve and obey Christ.

Does Anybody Agree with this Quotation? IV

by Antonio da Rosa

This one speaks for itself, and needs no introduction:

----------
"There is a deadly and damnable heresy being widely propagated today to the effect that, if a sinner truly accepts Christ as his personal Saviour, no matter how he lives afterwards, he cannot perish. That is a satanic lie, for it is at direct variance with the teaching of the Word of truth. Something more than believing in Christ is necessary to ensure the soul's reaching heaven."
----------
(A.W. Pink as quoted by Iain H. Murray in "The Life of Arthur W. Pink" pgs 248-249) [Emphasis MINE]

This is a Calvinist calling a spade a spade: "Something more than believing in Christ is necessary to ensure the soul's reaching heaven."

This is what I have been saying about Calvinism all along. In choice moments, Calvinists actually directly say what the rest of their doctrine implies.

Does anyone agree with Mr. Pink?

Antonio

Does Anybody Agree with this Quotation? III

by Antonio da Rosa

Often times Traditionalists are asked by those who represent their faith to hold contradictory notions in their minds at the same time. For instance:

----------
We may cling tenaciously to the doctrine of Final Perseverance and yet at the same time we may legitimately view our own personal profession of faith with something akin to uncertainty.
----------
Maurice Roberts, "Final Perseverance," The Banner of Truth Trust 265 (October 1985): 10

So we are to believe in the Reformed doctrine of perseverance in a general sense but doubt that we in particular are necessarily saved!

There is no security in the Traditionalist religion!

How is the Calvinist position any different than that of the Arminian?

D.A. Carson states, "Thus at their worst, the two approaches meet in strange and sad ways." "Reflections on Christian Assurance," Westminster Theological Journal 54(1992)

The two systems are exactly the same: If you do not persevere until the end in faith and good works it is off to the lake of fire!

What do you think? Do you agree with Maurice Roberts?