Has the true gospel been misunderstood or distorted? Are we now to preach something else?

[Carbon]

About 22-23 years ago, when God opened my eyes to the reformed faith, I had a couple of Arminian friends who did their best to try to convince me that calvinism was wrong. One even bought me a couple of books that I could read, as they were meant to convince me Calvinism was wrong.

The title of this thread is from chapter 2 of one of these books titled: Calvinistic Paths Retraced.

The author says, there is a concept abroad in the land which will seem strange to many of God's people: The idea that regeneration must precede belief or faith in Christ, the regeneration making faith in the Savior possible or perhaps initiating it.

The title of this chapter starts with: GOD, FAITH, AND REGENERATION
he goes on to say:
Has the true gospel been misunderstood or distorted? Are we now to preach something else?


It's obvious this person is against the Reformed faith,

He says: A. W. Pink (A Calvinist) comes out boldly and says, "Faith is not the cause of the new birth, but the consequence of it." I say, Amen!

He goes on to say. Loraine Boettner (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination) declares, "We have nothing to do with our spiritual birth . . . .," and adds, it occurred . . without our consent being asked." "Further, if any person believes, it is because God has quickened him; and if any person fails to believe, it is because God has withheld that grace . . . "Finally, " the soul dead in sin is first transferred to spiritual life and then exercises faith and repentance. . ."

Well, all I can say is Pink and Boettner are absolutely correct.

As I went on and read this book, Scripture tore it apart.

 

[Carbon]

Today, I ask this question:
Has the true gospel been misunderstood or distorted? Are we now to preach something else?

The author of that book is Samuel Fisk, I suppose it's right to mention that.

I'm sure so many agreed with him and thought Calvinism is another (false) gospel.

Today, I ask this question:

Has the true gospel been misunderstood or distorted? Are we now to preach something else?



The author of that book is Samuel Fisk, I suppose it's right to mention that.



I'm sure so many agreed with him and thought Calvinism is another (false) gospel. But the fact of the matter is, it is the gospel in its truth.

 

[EarlyActs]

About 22-23 years ago, when God opened my eyes to the reformed faith, I had a couple of Arminian friends who did their best to try to convince me that calvinism was wrong. One even bought me a couple of books that I could read, as they were meant to convince me Calvinism was wrong.

The title of this thread is from chapter 2 of one of these books titled: Calvinistic Paths Retraced.

The author says, there is a concept abroad in the land which will seem strange to many of God's people: The idea that regeneration must precede belief or faith in Christ, the regeneration making faith in the Savior possible or perhaps initiating it.

The title of this chapter starts with: GOD, FAITH, AND REGENERATION
he goes on to say:
Has the true gospel been misunderstood or distorted? Are we now to preach something else?


It's obvious this person is against the Reformed faith,

He says: A. W. Pink (A Calvinist) comes out boldly and says, "Faith is not the cause of the new birth, but the consequence of it." I say, Amen!

He goes on to say. Loraine Boettner (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination) declares, "We have nothing to do with our spiritual birth . . . .," and adds, it occurred . . without our consent being asked." "Further, if any person believes, it is because God has quickened him; and if any person fails to believe, it is because God has withheld that grace . . . "Finally, " the soul dead in sin is first transferred to spiritual life and then exercises faith and repentance. . ."

Well, all I can say is Pink and Boettner are absolutely correct.

As i went on and read this book, Scripture tore it apart.

Carbon, to be clear, define the "it" of your last line, thanks.

 

[Carbon]

Carbon Wrote: As i went on and read this book, Scripture tore it apart.

Carbon, to be clear, define the "it" of your last line, thanks.

The "it" is the synergist theology that Fisk tried to sell.

 

[Eleanor]

About 22-23 years ago, when God opened my eyes to the reformed faith, I had a couple of Arminian friends who did their best to try to convince me that calvinism was wrong. One even bought me a couple of books that I could read, as they were meant to convince me Calvinism was wrong.
The title of this thread is from chapter 2 of one of these books titled: Calvinistic Paths Retraced.
The author says, there is a concept abroad in the land which will seem strange to many of God's people: The idea that regeneration must precede belief or faith in Christ, the regeneration making faith in the Savior possible or perhaps initiating it.
The title of this chapter starts with: GOD, FAITH, AND REGENERATION
he goes on to say:
Has the true gospel been misunderstood or distorted? Are we now to preach something else?
It's obvious this person is against the Reformed faith,

He says: A. W. Pink (A Calvinist) comes out boldly and says, "Faith is not the cause of the new birth, but the consequence of it." I say, Amen!
He goes on to say. Loraine Boettner (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination) declares, "We have nothing to do with our spiritual birth . . . .," and adds, it occurred . . without our consent being asked." "Further, if any person believes, it is because God has quickened him; and if any person fails to believe, it is because God has withheld that grace . . . "Finally, " the soul dead in sin is first transferred to spiritual life and then exercises faith and repentance. . ."
Well, all I can say is Pink and Boettner are absolutely correct.
As i went on and read this book, Scripture tore it apart.

Jn 3:3-5 makes it pretty clear. . .we can't even see (understand the meaning of) the kingdom of God until we are born again.

"The life (new birth) is the light of men" (Jn 1:4) by which we see the kingdom of God (Jn 3:3-5).

 

[Carbon]

Jn 3:3-5 makes it pretty clear. . .we cn't even see (understand the meaning)the kingdom of God until we are born again.

Amen!

"The life (new birth) is the light of men" (Jn 1:4) by which we see the kingdom of God (Jn 3:3-5).

 

[Carbon]

Samuel Fisk goes on,

Title: Salvation Not Of Human Achievement

He says, "Before going further, a clarification needs to be made. Maintaining that believing is the way to become saved does not indicate that belief is the cause or ground of one's salvation; it is only the means or the agency.
To suppose that in saying we must believe to be saved would make salvation a matter of man's achievement (as is being repeatedly asserted) is to entirely misrepresent the commonly preached doctrine. Accepting the grace of God is quite different from meriting the benefit received.
(Let's be fair: no one should be charged with holding what is completely repudiated. Incidentally, this distinction doubtless is a leading point of difference between moderate Calvinists and outright Arminians, some of the latter allegedly believing that salvation finds its ground in human design. On the other hand, the regeneration-before-faith idea is apparently a distinguishing characteristic of the hyper Calvinist. More on this later.)


Thoughts?

EDIT} In the beginning, I had no clue what a lot of his stuff meant.
For example, I had no idea what a hyper-Calvinist was.

 

[Carbon]

I believe all things happen for a purpose; nothing is by chance or luck.
Looking back, as a new believer in "Reformed Theology," this book could present quite a challenge; this and other books, which I even bought myself, keep me busy in a study of predestination for a few years. Once scripture destroyed these books, I still had to deal with Predetstination.


Back to the book:

He goes on,

Does Fath Precede Regeneration?

Returning to our question, then, which comes first, regeneration or faith, being already children of God, and then belief, or receiving Christ to become children of God?

 

[Carbon]

He goes on,

Does Fath Precede Regeneration?

Returning to our question, then, which comes first, regeneration or faith, being already children of God, and then belief, or receiving Christ to become children of God?

He writes:
For as long as memory serves, we have heard salvation put in its simplest terms by preaching Acts 16:31, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved."
It may seem a bit frivolous to ask if such a text can be put: "When thou art saved thou wilt then believe on the Lord Jesus Christ."

What good would such advice have done the Philippian jailer? Or take the sublime John 3:16. Can it be rendered: For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that those who were not to perish, but who have been given everlasting life, would then believe on Him?

How many great texts - texts that have been preached to the saving of innumerable souls- would have to be rewritten if the theology advocated is accepted. The order would have to be completely reversed in such a scripture as John 5:24, "He that heareth my word and believeth. . . hath everlasting life. . . "Or John 20:31, "But these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ. . . and that believing ye might have life. . . "


Thoughts?

 

[Eleanor]

Samuel Fisk goes on,
Title: Salvation Not Of Human Achievement
He says, "Before going further, a clarification needs to be made. Maintaining that believing is the way to become saved does not indicate that belief is the cause or ground of one's salvation; it is only the means or the agency.

To suppose that in saying we must believe to be saved would make salvation a matter of man's achievement (as is being repeatedly asserted) is to entirely misrepresent the commonly preached doctrine. Accepting the grace of God is quite different from meriting the benefit received.
(Let's be fair: no one should be charged with holding what is completely repudiated. Incidentally, this distinction doubtless is a leading point of difference between moderate Calvinists and outright Arminians, some of the latter allegedly believing that salvation finds its ground in human design. On the other hand,
the regeneration-before-faith idea is apparently a distinguishing characteristic of the hyper Calvinist. More on this later.)

Sez who?

Thoughts?

EDIT} In the beginning, I had no clue what a lot of his stuff meant.
For example, I had no idea what a hyper-Calvinist was.

"The regeneration before faith idea" is Jesus' idea (Jn 3:3-8).
You certainly don't believe what you can't even see, and you don't see without the new birth (Jn 3:3-5).
How does one spiritually "dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph 2:5) see anything spiritual?
He does not. . .he must be born again of the Holy Spirit to see the spiritual (Jn 3:3-5, 1 Co 2:14).

 

[Carbon]

Sez who?

"The regeneration before faith idea" is Jesus' idea (Jn 3:3-8).
You certainly don't believe what you can't even see, and you don't see without the new birth (Jn 3:3-5).
How does one spiritually "dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph 2:5) see anything spiritual?
He does not. . .he must be born again of the Holy Spirit to see the spiritual (Jn 3:3-5, 1 Co 2:14).

Amen!

 

[Carbon]

On the back of his book, it reads, Samuel Fisk is a recognized scholar and an authority on the matter of Calvinism. I can see he needs to go back to school, perhaps sit with a Calvinist and take notes? Like so many who claim they know Calvinism or were a Calvinist (like Flowers), they really dont have a clue.
Just like the saying, a little Greek is dangerous, so is a little Calvinism.

Here is more of his "authoritative" teaching on Calvinism.

 

[Carbon]

Here is more of his authoritative teaching on Calvinism.

He writes:

Or, take the words of Peter, where, in Acts 10:43, he says, "whosoever believeth on him shall receive remission of sins, "not, one receives remission of sins so as to believe on him.
And Paul in Acts 13:39 preached, "all that believe are justified from all things"; not, those justified are the ones who then believe on him.

 

[Carbon]

He writes:

Or, take the words of Peter, where, in Acts 10:43, he says, "whosoever believeth on him shall receive remission of sins, "not, one receives remission of sins so as to believe on him.
And Paul in Acts 13:39 preached, "all that believe are justified from all things"; not, those justified are the ones who then believe on him.

He writes:

Other texts are even more telling. The writer of Hebrews says, "we are of them that believe to the saving of the soul" (10:39). Could anything be more pointed?
1 Peter 1:9 plainly states, "receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. "Both the Amplified New Testament and the New American Standard render it, ". the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls. "Second Thessalonians 2:10 speaks of "them that perish, because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." The NIV puts it simply, "They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved."

Thoughts?

 

[Carbon]

In Jesus' parable of the sower, we read the explanation of the first kind of sowing, as given in Luke 8:12: "Those by the wayside are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved." Note the last phrase.

The regeneration first theory would make this meaningless. If regeneration precedes faith, it would be useless for the devil to try to take the word out of people's hearts "lest they should believe and be saved," for before they could believe, they would already be regenerated.

Thoughts?

 

[Hazelelponi]

If regeneration precedes faith, it would be useless for the devil to try to take the word out of people's hearts "lest they should believe and be saved," for before they could believe, they would already be regenerated.

Thoughts?

This actually highlights the total victory of Christ at the Cross. For those whom the Father has given to the Son, there is no ultimate danger of falling away—they will believe and be saved. The devil may try to snatch the word, but he cannot triumph.

Christ has bound the strong man and is plundering his house (cf. Mark 3:27). Though we may stumble, we cannot finally fall, becau tose the Shepherd holds us fast. This is not mere theology—it’s the hope of the saints.

 

[Eleanor]

In Jesus' parable of the sower, we read the explanation of the first kind of sowing, as given in Luke 8:12: "Those by the wayside are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved." Note the last phrase.

The regeneration first theory would make this meaningless. If regeneration precedes faith, it would be useless for the devil to try to take the word out of people's hearts "lest they should believe and be saved," for before they could believe, they would already be regenerated.

Thoughts?

If the heart is not regenerated, the word it chooses to receive will not remain, but will be crowded out by unbelief.

 

[Carbon]

He writes:

Other texts are even more telling. The writer of Hebrews says, "we are of them that believe to the saving of the soul" (10:39). Could anything be more pointed?
1 Peter 1:9 plainly states, "receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. "Both the Amplified New Testament and the New American Standard render it, ". the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls. "Second Thessalonians 2:10 speaks of "them that perish, because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." The NIV puts it simply, "They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved."

Thoughts?

I wonder sometimes where some synergists come out with some silly arguments. I see now, in some cases, it could be from listening to people like Fisk.

I think Fisk confuses a lot of people.

 

[Carbon]

It's obvious to me that Fisk really does not get it. Look what he writes here.

In 1 Timothy 1:16, the apostle Paul speaks of "them which should hereafter believe on him to everlasting, "or "who would believe on him and receive eternal life" (NIV).

 

[Arial]

For as long as memory serves, we have heard salvation put in its simplest terms by preaching Acts 16:31, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved."
It may seem a bit frivolous to ask if such a text can be put: "When thou art saved thou wilt then believe on the Lord Jesus Christ."

To which I would say, "Does the text say "Make a decision to believe in the Lord and you will be saved"? Or does it simply state what constitutes salvation?

Or take the sublime John 3:16. Can it be rendered: For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that those who were not to perish, but who have been given everlasting life, would then believe on Him?

What it says is that God so loved the world that he sent Jesus to save, and the ones who are saved are the ones who believe. It is not a text that says a single thing about where believing comes from or how it comes about.

Reading the rest of Fisk's statements where he "puts a passage into the words that would exist if Calvinism were true" pretty much bypass the issue altogether. If faith is what places us in Christ, where does that faith comes from. Why are some able to believe and most are not?

He truly does not understand Calvinism. I think people say that to give themselves credibility in debunking Reformed theology, even when it is not true. I.e. Civic. They are just going with what is more pleasing to them. What more aligns with the God of their image and that "old man" that wants to be under no one, but control his own destiny.