Errors in Baptist and Presbyterian Logic (with Salvation)

[jasontn]

**Grace alone: ** Man is totally depraved and cannot earn or keep his salvation.

"faith plus works" or better stated “choosing grace doctrine”: Man is fallen and can choose to accept or reject grace (on a daily basis) which sustains his salvation. Choosing is not considered a work in such a theology.

Non-free-will Baptists: You must choose salvation at a point in your life. Afterwards, you have eternal security
**
Error:** Choosing God at one point in your life is a work. “Grace Alone” theology teaches that you cannot “do” anything (including choosing grace one time) to get salvation. Baptists claim to support “Grace alone” but don’t back it with thier beliefs.

Presbyterians: They believe in “Grace Alone” theology totally.

Error: Predestination is a consequence of real “Grace Alone” Theology. However, God has stated he desires all people to come to salvation. Plus how can God judge those whom he handicapped (by preventing them from being saved)?

I have seen some other errors on the web too.

Two covenants error: This error states that “faith plus works” existed in the Old Testament but eternal security exists in the new Testament.

What’s wrong with this idea? First of all, man is either totally depraved in ALL of the Bible or Fallen in all of the Bible. So either “grace plus works” exists for all of the Bible or “grace alone” exists for the Old AND New Testaments.

Adam fell into total depravity (or a fallen state as Catholics believe) BEFORE the Old Testament law and the New Testament covenant.

So what do you guys think? Am I right or wrong?

 

[Bob_Crowley]

As an ex-Presbyterian (although that was really my father’s choice, not mine), I’m a bit wary of trying to pigeon-hole the business of predestination and free will. It’s due to a few personal experiences.

I’ve mentioned too often that the night my father died, he turned up in my room. He started with an apology, we argued and conversed, and at the end he gave this terrifying scream and disappeared.

During the proceedings however at one stage he said, with a sort of desperation, “I always was doomed! I didn’t really have any choice!” I argued back (even though I was an atheist at that time) that “That can’t be right!”. He replied, “Oh, it’s right, all right. You can see that from here!”

Yet later in the same exchange, he admitted, “I was WILLING!” (to be cruel, stupid, bad-tempered and vindictive). In fact, I think he enjoyed being cruel. He as much as admitted it on a few occasions.

Now there are a couple of anecdotes related to this. Since he made some predictions on the same night, a few of which have since happened, I get frustrated in trying to make sure this was a bona fide divine personal message. Now I’ve been driving a cab part time for a few years. One night I was in the suburb where he died. I was in the street where he died. So I prayed that if there was anything in what he said, could I please have some sort of “sign”.

I got this sense I ought to know better than to ask, but anyway I drove off to the city. Some time later that same night, I was sitting in Queen Street, when eventually a bloke came up to the cab, jumped in and said “Nundah”. I asked whereabouts, and he just said to drive and he’d tell me.

We ended up at no. 6 in the same street, right across the road from no. 7, where he died.

Co-incidence? Or an answer to prayer? I think it was the latter, a mini-sign. If so, I had free will all night, my passengers had free will, the radio operator had free will, the bloke who wanted to go to No. 6 had free will, but I ended up right opposite where my father died, literally for the second time that night.

Anecdote No. 2 - The person who gave me human confirmation he had died was my mother’s brother, my uncle. He died later the same year incidentally.

A couple of years ago, I was arguing with atheists on the net about “near death experiences”, and getting nowhere. So I prayed that I might meet someone who’d had a near death experience.

A couple of days later, I was sitting in a suburb called Boondall, when a Maxi job came up on the screen for a suburb called Brighton. I was driving a Maxi. I procrastinated initially because I thought someone closer would get it, but when it persevered I put in for it and got it.

I ended up at a place called Eventide, a retirement / nursing complex. I found the fare, a single bloke about my age who hadn’t ordered a maxi. I’d only got the job due to a glitch. But we’d only been going for a couple of minutes when he said, “I’m one of those rare people”. I asked him what he was talking about. He said he was technically dead for ten minutes during an operation, and had a “Near death experience”.

So I’d got what I asked for. But what got me was the fact that this bloke went to the same highl school as the eldest son of the very same uncle who turned up to tell me my father had died. Co-incidence? I don’t think so.

Yet all day the customers had free will, I had free will where I was to go, the radio operator who possibly made the “Maxi” glitch had free will, and I had free will whether to go for the Maxi job or not, and other Maxi drivers had free will whether to put in for it also.

Yet in what seems to be response to my prayer to meet someone who’d had an NDE, I got an answer in a couple of days. Yet it was even more personal in the sense he had an almost familial relationship to my own father’s death, and the peculiar event that took place when he died.

Moreover it was quite a long fare to the Royal Brisbane Hospital, so we had quite a bit of time to talk about the NDE, and other matters. He was a Christian incidentally. He said despite his death, he could hear clearly everything that was being said, the white light, etc. etc.

So I don’t know the answer. I still wonder who it can be just for someone to “always be doomed”, yet at the same time the fact is that he was “WILLING”. I’d say, very willling.

As a consequence, I don’t think any theologian has the answer to this question. Some may provide certain insights, but I don’t think anybody can really pin it down.

As Scripture says, “My ways are not your ways. As high as the heavens are above the earth, so are my thoughts compared to your thoughts.”

 

[TheQuestioner]

As an ex-Presbyterian (although that was really my father’s choice, not mine), I’m a bit wary of trying to pigeon-hole the business of predestination and free will. It’s due to a few personal experiences.

I’ve mentioned too often that the night my father died, he turned up in my room. He started with an apology, we argued and conversed, and at the end he gave this terrifying scream and disappeared.

During the proceedings however at one stage he said, with a sort of desperation, “I always was doomed! I didn’t really have any choice!” I argued back (even though I was an atheist at that time) that “That can’t be right!”. He replied, “Oh, it’s right, all right. You can see that from here!”

Yet later in the same exchange, he admitted, “I was WILLING!” (to be cruel, stupid, bad-tempered and vindictive). In fact, I think he enjoyed being cruel. He as much as admitted it on a few occasions.

Now there are a couple of anecdotes related to this. Since he made some predictions on the same night, a few of which have since happened, I get frustrated in trying to make sure this was a bona fide divine personal message. Now I’ve been driving a cab part time for a few years. One night I was in the suburb where he died. I was in the street where he died. So I prayed that if there was anything in what he said, could I please have some sort of “sign”.

I got this sense I ought to know better than to ask, but anyway I drove off to the city. Some time later that same night, I was sitting in Queen Street, when eventually a bloke came up to the cab, jumped in and said “Nundah”. I asked whereabouts, and he just said to drive and he’d tell me.

We ended up at no. 6 in the same street, right across the road from no. 7, where he died.

Co-incidence? Or an answer to prayer? I think it was the latter, a mini-sign. If so, I had free will all night, my passengers had free will, the radio operator had free will, the bloke who wanted to go to No. 6 had free will, but I ended up right opposite where my father died, literally for the second time that night.

Anecdote No. 2 - The person who gave me human confirmation he had died was my mother’s brother, my uncle. He died later the same year incidentally.

A couple of years ago, I was arguing with atheists on the net about “near death experiences”, and getting nowhere. So I prayed that I might meet someone who’d had a near death experience.

A couple of days later, I was sitting in a suburb called Boondall, when a Maxi job came up on the screen for a suburb called Brighton. I was driving a Maxi. I procrastinated initially because I thought someone closer would get it, but when it persevered I put in for it and got it.

I ended up at a place called Eventide, a retirement / nursing complex. I found the fare, a single bloke about my age who hadn’t ordered a maxi. I’d only got the job due to a glitch. But we’d only been going for a couple of minutes when he said, “I’m one of those rare people”. I asked him what he was talking about. He said he was technically dead for ten minutes during an operation, and had a “Near death experience”.

So I’d got what I asked for. But what got me was the fact that this bloke went to the same highl school as the eldest son of the very same uncle who turned up to tell me my father had died. Co-incidence? I don’t think so.

Yet all day the customers had free will, I had free will where I was to go, the radio operator who possibly made the “Maxi” glitch had free will, and I had free will whether to go for the Maxi job or not, and other Maxi drivers had free will whether to put in for it also.

Yet in what seems to be response to my prayer to meet someone who’d had an NDE, I got an answer in a couple of days. Yet it was even more personal in the sense he had an almost familial relationship to my own father’s death, and the peculiar event that took place when he died.

Moreover it was quite a long fare to the Royal Brisbane Hospital, so we had quite a bit of time to talk about the NDE, and other matters. He was a Christian incidentally. He said despite his death, he could hear clearly everything that was being said, the white light, etc. etc.

So I don’t know the answer. I still wonder who it can be just for someone to “always be doomed”, yet at the same time the fact is that he was “WILLING”. I’d say, very willling.

As a consequence, I don’t think any theologian has the answer to this question. Some may provide certain insights, but I don’t think anybody can really pin it down.

As Scripture says, “My ways are not your ways. As high as the heavens are above the earth, so are my thoughts compared to your thoughts.”

1. If ever people from hell come to give you messages, it is best to ignore them. Engaging in dialog with such people is never a good idea. Find the nearest hard object and throw it at the apparition.
2. Look up the Thomistic view of Grace, as well as the Molinistic view. I think this may help you.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

1. If ever people from hell come to give you messages, it is best to ignore them. Engaging in dialog with such people is never a good idea. Find the nearest hard object and throw it at the apparition.
2. Look up the Thomistic view of Grace, as well as the Molinistic view. I think this may help you.

What intrigues me is that some ancient writer’s view of grace necessarily holds more import that our own personal experiences.

I don’t think he came from hell. I think he was at the point of being sentenced. His final scream was an effort to ward something off, and he was terrified. Most of the time he was looking over my head, as though absolutely enthralled by what he could see. When I turned around to see what he was looking at, all I saw was the wall.

I fail to see any conflict between the Biblical account of judgment and what happened that night. He had to apologise for his consistent, we argued about some issues known to both of us, and at the end he gave this terrific scream as something apparently approached him from his right (my left), then disappeared.

Secondly how do you explain the two answers to prayer in the two anecdotes, if free will is the only factor? Somehow God engineered those two particular outcomes despite all our free wills.

Christ Himself said, according to John 17:12 “While I was with them, I protected them in your name that you have given me. I guarded them, and not one of them was lost except the one *destined *to be lost, so that the Scripture might be fulfilled.” Judas might have been destined to be lost, but he was also willing to betray Christ (whatever his motivation - personally I think he wanted to back Christ into a corner so that Christ would be forced to defend himself using his obviously miraculous power).

My old pastor used to be a bit wary of the story too. One of the things my father said was, “You’ll meet a pastor. You’ll think he’s great, but all he’ll do is to discourage you even more!” About twelve years after that the pastor said to me, “I owe you an apology. You needed encouragement, but all I’ve done is to discourage you even more!”

I pointed out to him he’d just repeated almost word for word my own father’s prediction. He then said, “You really did see your father that night.”

I think both predestination and free will are involved. I think Adolf Hitler was predestined to be the dictator of the Third Reich for example, but he was also ***very willing ***to be the dictator of the Third Reich. I suspect Richard Dawkins was predestined to be an atheistic hardliner (at this point in time anyway), but it’s also clear that he is quite willing to be an atheistic hardliner.

As I said in the first post, I don’t think any of us are anywhere near understanding the issue. Some theologians might gives us insights, but that’s about as far as it goes.

Somehow or other predestination and free will go together. If it was merely a question of God watching our actions, He would just be an onlooker who knew the outcome because He could see the future. But when He answers prayer like my two examples above, despite the free choices of other people, it’s a different matter.

 

[TriuneUnity]

**Grace alone: ** Man is totally depraved and cannot earn or keep his salvation.

"faith plus works" or better stated “choosing grace doctrine”: Man is fallen and can choose to accept or reject grace (on a daily basis) which sustains his salvation. Choosing is not considered a work in such a theology.

Non-free-will Baptists: You must choose salvation at a point in your life. Afterwards, you have eternal security
**
Error:** Choosing God at one point in your life is a work. “Grace Alone” theology teaches that you cannot “do” anything (including choosing grace one time) to get salvation. Baptists claim to support “Grace alone” but don’t back it with thier beliefs.

I would agree. There are some Calvinistic Baptists, though, and these would hold to the Presbyterian idea of predestination and the perseverence of the saints.

Presbyterians: They believe in “Grace Alone” theology totally.

Error: Predestination is a consequence of real “Grace Alone” Theology. However, God has stated he desires all people to come to salvation. Plus how can God judge those whom he handicapped (by preventing them from being saved)?

This would approach the subject with the presupposition that Presbyterians believe that God handicaps the non-elect. A more accurate viewpoint would be that all men are totally depraved and will never willingly come to faith in Christ. They cannot do so. Therefore, in order for man to be saved, God must take the positive action of choosing to save them. He doesn’t prevent the non elect from coming to Him in faith. He simply allows them to continue to reject Him.

I am not a Calvinist, so I do not hold to double predestination, but one must allow for the tension within Scripture that states that God is fully responsible for man’s salvation yet if man is damned, it will be by his own choice. The Bible does not give logical explanations of these truths, it just reveals them. We are just to accept them.

Two covenants error: This error states that “faith plus works” existed in the Old Testament but eternal security exists in the new Testament.

What’s wrong with this idea? First of all, man is either totally depraved in ALL of the Bible or Fallen in all of the Bible. So either “grace plus works” exists for all of the Bible or “grace alone” exists for the Old AND New Testaments.

Adam fell into total depravity (or a fallen state as Catholics believe) BEFORE the Old Testament law and the New Testament covenant.

I do not know of many who teach that in the OT, man was saved by faith+works. A few extreme dispensationalists may hold to this belief, but the vast majority of Baptists and Presbyterians would say that man was saved by grace through faith in the OT the same as in the New.

 

[ralphinal]

This would approach the subject with the presupposition that Presbyterians believe that God handicaps the non-elect. A more accurate viewpoint would be that all men are totally depraved and will never willingly come to faith in Christ. They cannot do so. Therefore, in order for man to be saved, God must take the positive action of choosing to save them. He doesn’t prevent the non elect from coming to Him in faith. He simply allows them to continue to reject Him.

I am not a Calvinist, so I do not hold to double predestination, but one must allow for the tension within Scripture that states that God is fully responsible for man’s salvation yet if man is damned, it will be by his own choice. The Bible does not give logical explanations of these truths, it just reveals them. We are just to accept them.

Could it be said that God ALLOWS a means for salvation of all men (thus He alone is responsible for it), while we can freely reject that means?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Could it be said that God ALLOWS a means for salvation of all men (thus He alone is responsible for it), while we can freely reject that means?

It would depend on how you first approach the subject of the nature of fallen mankind.

If you’re a synergist, then the above scenario would make sense. Synergists believe that man is fallen, yet still retains something of a moral “neutrality” wherein he is still capable of making a choice, independent of grace, to either accept God’s appointed means or reject it.

If you’re a monergist, the scenario wouldn’t make sense. Monergists believe that man is fallen to the degree that his will is bent fully to his sinful nature. Because he is in slavery to sin, he will always choose to reject God and chase after his own desires. The above scenario wouldn’t make sense because if God allowed a means of salvation that ultimately relies on man accepting or rejecting it, no one would be saved, because no one would choose to accept it. So if mankind accepts it, it is because God has, through grace, changed his will and given him the ability to accept it.

Ultimately, the writings of the prophets and apostles that touch on this anthropological question has to determine which is the correct view.

Where Calvinistic monergists err on this point, is because of double predestination, they say that when the means of salvation are presented to the non-elect, God is NOT trying to convert them inwardly. Lutheran monergists would disagree and say that God is sincerely offering them the means of salvation, but they are rejecting it. However, we would agree that if they do accept it, it is solely because of God’s grace and not something within the will of man.

 

[jasontn]

This would approach the subject with the presupposition that Presbyterians believe that God handicaps the non-elect. A more accurate viewpoint would be that all men are totally depraved and will never willingly come to faith in Christ. They cannot do so. Therefore, in order for man to be saved, God must take the positive action of choosing to save them. He doesn’t prevent the non elect from coming to Him in faith. He simply allows them to continue to reject Him.

Allowing people to continue to reject him is the SAME as NOT saving them. Let’s say your a lifeguard. You have a sign which says

“I desire to save ALL people if they drown”. So some depressed people go swimming and a few of them begin to drown. But of course all these guys were commiting suicide (so they wanted to drown). And of course, these drowining victims can’t save themselves (once they start drowining) and apparently don’t want to live.

So you come and save a few victims (though your capable of getting all of them) but let the others drown. However, you said you were willing to save ALL of them with no condition.

I think the lifeguard is a liar. What do you think???

 

[brkn1]

Non-free-will Baptists: You must choose salvation at a point in your life. Afterwards, you have eternal security
**
Error:** Choosing God at one point in your life is a work. “Grace Alone” theology teaches that you cannot “do” anything (including choosing grace one time) to get salvation. Baptists claim to support “Grace alone” but don’t back it with thier beliefs.

If we are “Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;” “by faith” in Jesus, then there can be no claim of any works on our part to obtain salvation.
“Being justified freely” precludes the idea of our own works saving us.
The faith which saves is a gift of God freely given.
A requirement of any, who are given that free gift of faith, is the recognition that one can not save oneself. We must humbly come as a child would for the gift of salvation. That very recognition must also be a free gift of the Holy Spirit, which then leads to the Holy Spirit sovereignly giving the required true faith in Jesus’ finished work which saves.
There are works of God that result, but I see no works by the person saved being the cause of his salvation.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Allowing people to continue to reject him is the SAME as NOT saving them. Let’s say your a lifeguard. You have a sign which says

“I desire to save ALL people if they drown”. So some depressed people go swimming and a few of them begin to drown. But of course all these guys were commiting suicide (so they wanted to drown). And of course, these drowining victims can’t save themselves (once they start drowining) and apparently don’t want to live.

So you come and save a few victims (though your capable of getting all of them) but let the others drown. However, you said you were willing to save ALL of them with no condition.

I think the lifeguard is a liar. What do you think???

Well, yes, that would be true. Believe me, I won’t be defending Calvinism’s view of God’s desire to save anytime soon. However, it still has to be distinguished that the reason the sinner goes to Hell is not because God chooses to send him there but because the sinner deserves to go there.

 

[jasontn]

If we are “Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;” “by faith” in Jesus, then there can be no claim of any works on our part to obtain salvation.
“Being justified freely” precludes the idea of our own works saving us.
The faith which saves is a gift of God freely given.
A requirement of any, who are given that free gift of faith, is the recognition that one can not save oneself. We must humbly come as a child would for the gift of salvation. That very recognition must also be a free gift of the Holy Spirit, which then leads to the Holy Spirit sovereignly giving the required true faith in Jesus’ finished work which saves.
There are works of God that result, but I see no works by the person saved being the cause of his salvation.

The act of choosing grace is a work (according the the “grace alone / total depravity” theology) Therefore, if Baptists believe in free will in choosing grace (one time) then they are not true to thier own core beliefs. Being able to “choose grace” one time is an action. “grace alone” theology says no action on the part of sinner can save his soul.

On the other hand, “faith plus works” theology does not consider “choosing grace” to be a work (only an action). But it does consider charity (and prayers etc…) apart from God as works. For example, if somebody does not “choose grace” and then gives a million dollars to charity then God doesn’t accept the sacrifice.

Well, yes, that would be true. Believe me, I won’t be defending Calvinism’s view of God’s desire to save anytime soon. However, it still has to be distinguished that the reason the sinner goes to Hell is not because God chooses to send him there but because the sinner deserves to go there.

Of course the sinner deserves to go there. However, god said that he desires to see ALL sinners saved. He is supposed to act on what he says. If Universalism is true then Presbyterian theology makes sense. But we know universal salvation isn’t true.

 

[ralphinal]

What does it mean for God to “desire the salvation of all?”

 

[brkn1]

The act of choosing grace is a work (according the the “grace alone / total depravity” theology) Therefore, if Baptists believe in free will in choosing grace (one time) then they are not true to thier own core beliefs. Being able to “choose grace” one time is an action. “grace alone” theology says no action on the part of sinner can save his soul.

Grace is not something that can be chosen. Grace is God’s favor, which is sovereignly dispense by God.
Our will is involved in being receptive to God’s grace, but there is no part of our will or own work that can be said to actually cause our own salvation. It is entirely God’s will and work that saves. No one can honestly later boast of having any part of his own will or work helping to save himself.

 

[rev_kevin]

Because God is so rich in mercy, and he loved us so very much, that even while we were dead because of our sins, he gave us life when he raised Christ from the dead.
Ephesians 2:4-5

We know because of Gods mercy we are saved and mercy is defined as “not getting what we deserve.” See we deserve death, Spiritual deat. Why? Because thats the penalty for going against God. but instead of death upon us, God sent Jesus his son to die in our place, and then he raised him from the dead to give is life. Now mercy goes hand in hand with grace and grace is defined as “getting what we don’t deserve.” See we don’t deserve Gods favor of grace, but he gives it to us anyway because he loves us. Now the ultimate grace gift is salvation, because as we all know there is nothing any of us can do to earn it. Now we know we don’t deserfe Gods gift of life, but he gives it to us anyway. All we have to do is believe and accept it. Free will-- some think its a basic himan right. Others think its a oxymoron, and still others think we aren’t even capable of choosing God because of our sinful natures. “It is God who saved us and choose us to live a holy life. He did this not because we deserved it, but because that was hi plan long before the world began.”
2 Tomothy 1:9