STEPHEN TONG TEACHES DETERMINISM: GOD'S DECREE IS THE BASIS OF HIS KILLING 4000S BY MEANS OF THE EARTHQUAKE. GOD'S PREDESTINATION OF ALL THINGS GREAT AND SMALL IS THE SOURCE OF THE QUAKE.
posted by Gereja @ 4:12 AM
5 comments
STEPHEN TONG DAN REFORMED INJILI AJARAN DETERMINISME: ALLAH TENTUKAN SEGALA HAL; DAN SEMUANYA JADI KARENA DIRENCANAKAN DIPREDESTINASI ALLAH.
posted by Gereja @ 8:33 PM
8 comments
MENURUT AJARAN CALVINIS REFORMED ADA SETAN KARENA RENCANA ALLAH
posted by Gereja @ 7:04 PM
2 comments
AJARAN REFORMED CALVINIS STEPHEN TONG DAN AJARAN SEMINARI SAAT MALANG BERKATA BAHWA ALLAH TETAPKAN BENCANA DAN KEHENDAK ALLAH ITULAH YANG MENJADI PENYEBAB BENCANA.
posted by Gereja @ 6:36 PM
1 comments
STEPHEN TONG REFORMED INJILI, DANIEL LUCAS LUKITO DAN REFORMED CALVINIS MENGAJAR DOKTRIN SESAT BAHWA ALLAH YANG TETAPKAN BENCANA DAN SEGALANYA.
posted by Gereja @ 6:32 PM
2 comments
There are many shades and colors of Calvinists. Like Lutherans, many but not all Calvinists (most Presbyterians) have been baptized as babies. They believe, as did many of their parents, that infant baptism saves. Calvin even declared that the children of the elect are themselves automatically among the elect - and whether one's parents were elect or not, if one was baptized as a baby, even by an unsaved Catholic priest, that act made one a child of God. "Confirmation" only confirms this delusion. Obviously, anyone believing such a "false gospel" is not saved.
posted by Gereja @ 8:13 AM
1 comments
REFORMED INJILI DI BAWAH DANIEL LUCAS LUKITO DAN STEPHEN TONG BUKAN TEOLOGI TETAPI FILSAFAT.
posted by Gereja @ 7:55 AM
3 comments
STEPHEN TONG DAN REFORMED INJILI BERTUMBUH DENGAN STRATEGI MENJARING JEMAAT GEREJA2 LAIN.
posted by Gereja @ 10:28 PM
7 comments
DANIEL LUCAS LUKITO DAN GURUNYA STEPHEN TONG MEMBABI BUTA MENYEMBAH CALVIN. TULISAN CALVIN YANG MENYESATKAN DIIMANI SEPERTI FIRMAN TUHAN.
DATA2 DARI SEJARAH GEREJA MENUNJUKKAN BAHWA CALVIN SEORANG PEMBUNUH BERDARAH DINGIN. CALVIN BUNUH SERVETUS KARENA TIDAK MENERIMA AJARAN CALVIN TENTANG BAPTISAN (AJARAN CALVIN TENTANG BAPTISAN DIAMBIL DARI ROMA KATOLIK)
The following is from Philip Schaff (History of the Christian Church), Volume 8, "Protestant Intolerance," pages 700-800.
The Reformers inherited the doctrine of persecution from their mother Church, and practiced it as far as they had the power. They fought intolerance with intolerance. They differed favorably from their opponents in the degree and extent, but not in the principle, of intolerance. They broke down the tyranny of popery, and thus opened the way for the development of religious freedom; but they denied to others the liberty which they exercised themselves. The Protestant governments in Germany and Switzerland excluded, within the limits of their jurisdiction, the Roman Catholics from all religious and civil rights, and took exclusive possession of their churches, convents, and other property. They banished, imprisoned, drowned, beheaded, hanged, and burned Anabaptists, Antitrinitarians, Schwenkfeldians, and other dissenters.
The prime example of intolerance was the execution of the heretic Sevetus. Schaff devotes 86 pages to this man--his doctrines, trial and execution (Volume VIII). Sevetus fled to Geneva where Calvin had him arrested, tried and eventually burned to death. Other Reformers who strong supported Calvin in this act included Beza and even the usually mild and gracous Melanchthon.
These men must be commended for their hatred of false doctrine (see Revelation 2:15) but strongly condemned for their intolerance, persecution and even execution of those who promote error. Dr. John Whitcomb has stated the Biblical view as follows: "We insist that no human being in the church age should ever be executed for any spiritual or theological error. At the same time, we dare not minimize doctrinal errors and must be careful to apply New Testament principles of Biblical separation and church discipline." C. H. Mackintosh has commented as follows:
CALVIN SEORANG PEMBUNUH. DIA MEMBUNUH SERVETUS DAN LEBIH DARI 50AN ORANG LAIINYA.The burning of Servetus, in 1553, for his theological opinions, is a frightful blot upon the Reformation, and upon the man who sanctioned such an unchristian proceeding. True, the opinions of Servetus were fatally and fundamentally false, --he held the Arian heresy, which is simply blasphemy against the Son of God; but to burn him, or any one else, for false doctrine, was a flagrant sin against the spirit, genius, and principle of the gospel, the deplorable fruit of ignorance as to the essential difference between Judaism and Christianity. C.H.Mackintosh, Notes on the Book of Deuteronomy, Volume II, page 162 footnote.
posted by Gereja @ 1:22 PM
2 comments
MURID TONG, LUKITO DI SAAT MALANG LEBIH KONSISTEN REFORMED DARI SUHUNYA STEPHEN TONG.
posted by Gereja @ 7:41 PM
1 comments
PENEKANAN DEKRIT PREDESTINASI YANG MENTIADAKAN TANGGUNG JAWAB MANUSIA ADALAH PARADIGMA EKSTREM REFORMED CALVINIS.
posted by Gereja @ 7:40 AM
3 comments
Reformed adalah salah satu denominasi terkecil. Kenapa? Karena ajaran deterministik dan fatalistik tentang predestinasi Allah menentukan sebagian orang masuk neraka. Di USA aliran Reformed kehilangan anggota dalam jumlah besar.
posted by Gereja @ 8:22 PM
1 comments
ALKITAB MENEKANKAN PERCAYA YESUS MEMILIKI HIDUP KEKAL
posted by Gereja @ 1:57 PM
1 comments
STEPHEN TONG & MURIDNYA DANIEL LUCAS LUKITO MENOLAK AJARAN ALKITAB YANG JELAS TENTANG KEPASTIAN KESELAMATAN (YH 3:16; 1 YH 5:12,13).
APA YANG DIA AJARKAN? "UNCOMFORTABLE WITH JESUS"There are people in this world who are not saved, but who are convinced that they are. The presence of such people causes genuine Christians to doubt their salvation. After all, we wonder, suppose I am in that category? Suppose I am mistaken about my salvation and am really going to hell? How can I know that I am a real Christian?
A while back I had one of those moments of acute self-awareness that we have from time to time, and suddenly the question hit me: "R.C., what if you are not one of the redeemed? What if your destiny is not heaven after all, but hell?" Let me tell you that I was flooded in my body with a chill that went from my head to the bottom of my spine. I was terrified.
I tried to grab hold of myself. I thought, "Well, it's a good sign that I'm worried about this. Only true Christians really care about salvation." But then I began to take stock of my life, and I looked at my performance. My sins came pouring into my mind, and the more I looked at myself, the worse I felt. I thought, "Maybe it's really true. Maybe I'm not saved after all."
I went to my room and began to read the Bible. On my knees I said, "Well, here I am. I can't point to my obedience. There's nothing I can offer. I can only rely on Your atonement for my sins. I can only throw myself on Your mercy." Even then I knew that some people only flee to the Cross to escape hell, not out of a real turning to God. I could not be sure about my own heart and motivation. Then I remembered John 6:68. Jesus had been giving out hard teaching, and many of His former followers had left Him. When He asked Peter if he was also going to leave, Peter said, "Where else can I go? Only You have the words of eternal life." In other words, Peter was also uncomfortable, but he realized that being uncomfortable with Jesus was better than any other option!
posted by Gereja @ 7:58 PM
0 comments
Reformasi lahir dari Katolik.
(1) And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, (2) He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. (3) And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. (4) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. And all the men were about twelve.
The interpretation of this passage turns upon the pronouns and their proper antecedents. Now there is no one principle in any language, touching pronouns, more axiomatic than this:
Pronouns should not be used instead of their antecedents, when their use would in the least obscure the sense of the passage in which they occur, much less when they make the passage doubtful or ambiguous.
Construing the passage by this rule, every English scholar is bound to decide that the pronoun "them" of the sixth verse, and "they" of the fifth, manifestly refer to disciples of the first for their antecedents. The narrative plainly declares that Paul laid his hands upon those who were baptized; but since he did not lay his hands upon those John baptized, he must have laid his hands upon these twelve disciples.
To say that the pronoun "them" of the sixth verse, and the pronoun "they" of the fifth, do not refer to the same antecedent, is to charge the inspired writer with using the pronoun so as not only to obscure, but to contradict the sense! The reason is obvious, for it is a simple continuous narrative, and there is nothing introduced to show that they refer to different antecedents, and therefore we are forced by the laws of language to refer them to one and the same antecedent.
The Greek does not only warrant this rendering, and the construction we have given, but it unquestionably demands it. Every Greek scholar knows that the conjunctive "but" has an adversative force, and is therefore used to call attention to the fact that the word or clause with which it stands, is to be distinguished from something preceding, while "and" is often used to resume the discourse after a long parenthesis; while the office of "and" is to continue the narration. Now, turning to the original, we may expect that the transition from the relation of Paul to that of Luke would be indicated by this adversative, de, that marks the change from Luke's narrative to Paul's, but instead of this, we find the kai introducing the fifth verse, and only the simple connective "and," introducing the sixth verse. Therefore, according to the use of these connectives in the Greek, we must conclude that Paul's narrative closes with the fifth verse, or the sixth would have been introduced with "but," and the fifth with "and."
[It is apparent that the latter paragraph contains textual errors which betray Graves' intents. His intended point apparently was that verse five begins with the adversative de whereas verse six begins with the connective kai. This is twofold indication that Paul's narrative ends with the fourth verse and Luke's narrative begins with the fifth. This follows first in that de indicates transition to a new speaker in the fifth verse, and second in that kai indicates the speaker of the sixth verse is the same as the fifth, but the speaker of the sixth is obviously Luke. - David Pyles]
Prof. Charles Anthon, one of the most accomplished of American Greek scholars, says, "The word 'they' in verse five of xix Acts, refers clearly to the 'disciples' mentioned in the first of the chapter, and not to those who are spoken of in verse four as having been baptized by John. The particle de at the commencement of verse five, is employed to mark transition, and is not meant to be the correspondent particle to the 'men' of verse four. * * * Paul's narrative, therefore, closes with verse four. Any other view of the question is open to serious difficulties."
Not only do the particles above determine the question, but the regimen of the pronouns and particle, employed by the inspired historian.
It is not a verb in the Aorist tense, in the original, but a participle, and the conjunction, "but," that is rendered in our version, "And when they heard this." The literal rendering is, "but hearing this," etc. The participle akousantes in the nominative plural, can not refer to laoo which is in the dative singular, as its antecedent, but to autous, the representative of mathetas (disciples) in verse one. We think no Greek scholar will question this.
Then, again, the sixth verse being connected to the fifth, by the copulative conjunction "and," instead of a disjunctive, requires that autois (them), akousantes (hearing), should have the same antecedent - disciples. Thus does the original clearly demonstrate that these twelve disciples were rebaptized.
Albert Barnes (Presbyterian), of this says: "This is the obvious interpretation of the passage, which would strike all persons as correct unless there were some previous theory to support. The opposite is a most forced construction" (See his notes on Acts xix.)
Alexander Carson, acknowledged by scholars to be the "Prince of Philologists," says: "I can not see how it can be denied without doing violence to God's Word" - i.e., that those disciples were baptized.
If these twelve disciples were reimmersed, as I claim to have demonstrated they were, then it must have been because there was an irregularity in their first baptism which rendered it void. There are four things essential to scriptural baptism:
1. A scriptural act.
2. A scriptural subject - i.e., regenerated.
3. A qualified administrator.
4. Design - i.e., for a scriptural purpose.
We are authorized to suppose that something connected with them awakened Paul's suspicion that all was not right with them; that, if they were what they professed to be, he desired to know "if they received the Holy Ghost when they believed." He therefore asks: "Did ye in believing receive the Holy Ghost?" For this is the form of the question in the original. They replied, "We did not so much as hear if there be a Holy Ghost." This frank disavowal of so much as any knowledge of such a person in the Trinity as the Holy Ghost, was well calculated to awaken Paul's surprise, and he very appropriately asks, "Into what then were ye baptized?" Into what faith could ye have been baptized? - what Christian evangelist could have taught and baptized you and you not so much as have heard of the existence of the Holy Spirit? And they answered: "Into John's baptism." They did not say, "We were baptized by John," as they unquestionably would have done had they received the act at his hands, in which case they certainly would have heard from him that there was a Holy Spirit. They understood that they had received and been baptized into the faith or doctrine that John preached, by some one of John's disciples doubtless, and, if so, he was not qualified to administer the act, and, never having heard of the Holy Spirit, or experienced its renewing influences, they themselves were not proper subjects for Christian baptism.
Here we have a conspicuous want of three of the essential elements of Christian baptism:
1. Qualified subjects: These were manifestly unregenerate; not having heard of the existence of the Holy Spirit, therefore, not having been the subjects of His regenerating influence.
2. They lacked a qualified administrator. They had not been baptized by John the Baptist himself since John closed his ministry, some twenty or twenty-five years before this.
3. If, by one of John's disciples, he was not authorized to administer John's baptism. John was not authorized to commission any one to administer his baptism. His baptism commenced and ended with his ministry. He was to decrease and therefore no one was to continue his ministry, nor was John authorized to commission any one of his disciples to baptize.
We learn (1) that though the subject profess his faith, and that most sincerely and conscientiously, and is satisfied with his baptism as those twelve men were, yet if his faith is not a scriptural faith, his baptism is a nullity.
We learn (2) that persons who, through misinstruction or misapprehension, have been immersed before they receive the renewing of the Holy Ghost, are most certainly entitled to receive Christian baptism when such have experienced satisfactory evidence of a change of heart. Receiving correct instruction they believed and were baptized, and, thus doing, they set an example for all who have received irregular baptisms to follow.
All can see that the immersion of these men does not reflect in the least upon John's baptism. They evidently were not baptized by John, but by some of John's disciples some twenty years after John's baptism ceased, and had long been superseded by the ministry of Christ.
We think the context clearly indicated by whom they were immersed.
Apollos, a Jew of Alexandria, a disciple of John, a zealous and eloquent man, knowing nothing but the baptism of John - labored about here mightily, convincing the Jews from the scriptures that Jesus was the Christ, but not with a perfect knowledge of what he should preach, for Aquila and Priscilla took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of the Lord more perfectly, but a silence right here carries a convincing argument with it. It does not say they required him to be rebaptized, which they would have done if John's baptism had not been Christian and valid baptism. He, doubtless, received his baptism from John himself, but he could have received no authority to baptize others, for John had no right to give such authority. He is authority on this: I must decrease. In this age all such authority is vested in Churches of Christ. Their official ministers - ordained ministers - are their official servants.
NO INFANT BAPTISM AT ALL IN THE BIBLE
posted by Gereja @ 7:46 AM
2 comments
AJARAN SESAT BAHWA MANUSIA DIPILIH MASUK NERAKA TIDAK DIAJARKAN ALKITAB.
posted by Gereja @ 6:21 AM
1 comments
Banyak sekolah teologi. Tidak semua ajarkan Alkitab. Nama bisa Sekolah Alkitab tetapi ajarannya belum tentu Alkitabiah.
posted by Gereja @ 8:11 AM
9 comments
STEPHEN TONG & MURIDNYA DANIEL LUCAS LUKITO YG MEWARISI STT SAAT MALANG ADALAH ALIRAN YANG ANTI SEMITIK.
posted by Gereja @ 7:57 AM
3 comments
DANIEL LUCAS LUKITO & SUHUNYA STEPHEN TONG MEMPERKOSA NATS2 TENTANG KRISTUS MATI BAGI DUNIA UNTUK DIGANTI AJARAN PALSU CALVINIS BAHWA KRISTUS HANYA MATI BAGI SEBAGIAN
What is the "world" here? Exegete B. F. Westcott says: "The fundamental idea of kosmos [world] in St. John is that of the sum of created being which belongs to the sphere of human life as an ordered whole, considered apart from God....the world comes to represent humanity in its fallen state, alienated from its Maker."
Ryle similarly states: "Christ is...a Savior for all mankind....He did not suffer for a few persons only, but for all mankind....What Christ took away, and bore on the cross, was not the sin of certain people only, but the whole accumulated mass of all the sins of all the children of Adam....I hold as strongly as anyone that Christ's death is profitable to none but the elect who believe in His Name. But I dare not limit and pare down such expressions as the one before us....I dare not confine the intention of redemption to the saints alone. Christ is for every man....The atonement was made for all the world, though it is applied and enjoyed by none but believers."
John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
The Greek lexicons are unanimous that "world" here denotes humankind, not the "world of the elect."
John 3:16 cannot be divorced from verses 14-15, wherein Christ alludes to Numbers 21 with its discussion of Moses setting up the brazen serpent in the camp of Israel, so that if "any man" looked to it, he experienced physical deliverance. In verse 15 Christ applies the story spiritually when He says that "whosoever" believes on the uplifted Son of Man shall experience spiritual deliverance.
John 4:42: "They said to the woman, 'We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.'"
It is certain that when the Samaritans called Jesus "the Savior of the world," they were not thinking of the world of the elect.
Likewise, when Jesus said, "I am the Light of the world" (John 8:12), He was not thinking of Himself as the Light of the world of the elect. "The sun in the heavens shines on all men, though some, in their folly, may choose to withdraw into dark caves to evade its illuminating rays."
When Jesus called His disciples "the light of the world" (Matt. 5:14), He did not mean they were the "light of the elect."
Likewise, the "Savior of the world" in John 4:42 cannot be limited to the elect.
Acts 2:21: "And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
Romans 5:6: "You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly."
2 Corinthians 5:14-15: "For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again."
1 Timothy 2:3-4: "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."
1 Timothy 2:5-6: "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men - the testimony given in its proper time."
1 Timothy 4:10: "We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe."
Titus 2:11: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men."
Hebrews 2:9: "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone."
The word "everyone" is better translated "each."
Henry Alford comments: "If it be asked, why pantos (each) rather than panton (all), we may safely say that the singular brings out, far more strongly than the plural word, the applicability of Christ's death to each individual man."
2 Peter 3:9: "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."
1 John 2:2: "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." (Note the distinction between "ours" and "the whole world.")
1 John 4:14: "And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world."
posted by Gereja @ 7:44 AM
4 comments
Man Exercises Will…Consistent With Imperative
TONG & LUKITO DARI SAAT MALAN MENELAN CALVINISME LALU MEMBACAKAN AJARAN PALSU KE DALAM ALKITAB. MISALNYA: ALKITAB TIDAK MENGAJARKAN ORANG BERDOSA TIDAK BISA PERCAYA YESUS. ALKITAB JUSTRU MEMERINTAHKAN AGAR ORANG BERDOSA PERCAYA YESUS. CALVINIS TUNDUK PADA AJARAN PALSU DAN MEMASUKKAN KEKAFIRAN ITU KE DALAM FIRMAN ALLAH.
PERINTAH BERTOBAT DALAM PRESENT TENSE DISANGKALI
PERINTAH YESUS UNTUK BERTOBAT KRN ASUMSI ORANG BISA RESPONS TERHADAP YESUS DISANGKALI.
SEBAGAI GANTINYA TONG, REFORMED INJILI DAN LUKITO DR SAAT MENGAJARKAN BAHWA MANUSIA TIDAK BISA RESPONS TERHADAP KRISTUS.
YANG MENIPU BUKAN YESUS TETAPI REFORMED INJILI DAN SAAT MALAN. BACA KETERANGAN BERIKUT:
In Mark 1:15, Jesus said:
“You repent and you believe in the gospel…metanoeite kai pisteuete en tō euaggeliō.”
Note that both repent and believe are in the imperative mood of command. Implicit to this inescapable imperative laid upon human kind by Jesus is His understanding of the following:
That man has a will, and if he has a will, it is necessarily free
That man is not passive in terms of the necessity to act
That man is active in his salvation
That man is not brought to salvation by irresistible grace–so called–in a state of total inability.
TOTAL DEPRAVITY ADALAH AJARAN ANTI INJIL BUKAN AJARAN ALKITAB
posted by Gereja @ 10:15 PM
2 comments
DANIEL LUCAS LUKITO & HIS MENTOR STEPHEN TONG TEACH A PERVERTED CONCEPT OF SAVING FAITH. AJARAN ALKITAB TENTANG IMAN KESELAMATAN DIPUTARBALIKKAN UNTUK MENGAJARKAN AJARAN CALVIN DAN ARTHUR PINK YANG EKSTREM. MENOLAK AJARAN SIMPLE DALAM ALKITAB DAN DIGANTI AJARAN CALVINIS EKSTRIM SEPERTI AJARAN PINK ADALAH CIRI LUKITO DAN TONG.
In this chapter Pink belabors the point that it is possible for a person to believe in Christ and not really be saved. Such "belief" falls short of true saving faith. As Pink says, "There is a ‘believing’ in Christ which does not save." This point is well made and can certainly be demonstrated in the Scriptures. The Bible does speak of a kind of faith which is not saving faith. Pink gives some excellent examples of this. In Luke 8:13 we have a description of those who BELIEVE for a while (for a time) but then fall away, having no root. In 1 Corinthians 15:2 the implication is made that it is possible for a person to believe in vain, and those who believe in vain are not saved. In John 3:2 we see that Nicodemus believed in Christ in the same sense that many others did (see John 2:23), but he needed to be born again. In John 8:31 the Lord Jesus spoke to those Jews who believed on Him, but as you read the verses which follow it seems clear that these Jews were unregenerate (see verses 33,37,44). Other examples could be cited and Pink touches on many of them.
Pink's intent is to disturb those who think they are saved and who think that they are believing in Christ in a saving way, and to show them that they very well could be on their way to hell. This is needful, because certainly we do not want to give people false assurance or false hope. We don't want to tell people that all is well when all may not be well with their souls. The Bible says, "Examine yourselves, whether you are in the faith" and "be diligent [make every effort] to make your calling and election sure" (2 Cor. 12:5; 2 Pet. 1:10). It seems, however, that Pink goes too far in questioning whether people are really saved, even to the point of condemning anyone who is not a model saint. For example, on page 16 he says, "Reader, if there is a reserve in your obedience, you are on the way to hell." This statement reflects a very important statement of God's Word found in 1 John 2:3-4. But how many of us can honestly say that we consistently obey Christ unreservedly? Personally I desire to obey Christ in all things, but I confess that I fall short of this in practice. I thank my God that I have an Advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1-2)! Did not the disciples fall short of total, unreserved obedience unto God? Did not they have shortcomings and lapses of faith? Peter denied the Lord three times, but this did not mean he was on the way to hell. Did not even the most godly men in the Bible have times of disobedience and failure? Saints still have a struggle with the flesh which the Bible describes as an inner warfare (1 Pet. 2:11; Gal. 5:17).
The book of 1 John was written for the same reason that Pink wrote his chapter. John wrote so that people would know that they had eternal life and not be deceived into a false assurance of their salvation. And yet there seems to be a difference of mood or emphasis in the two writings. In 1 John there are some strong warnings for those who do not keep His commandments, do not practice righteousness, do not love the brethren and who continue in sin. Yet there are also words that encourage the reader and which acknowledge that even true believers still struggle with sin and at times fail (1 John 1:8-2:2). Pink seems to lack this needed balance. His words seem to condemn: "Perhaps some readers are ready to say that all of this is very unsettling and, if really heeded, most distressing. May God in His mercy grant that this article may have just those effects on many who read it" (p.14). Obviously mere professors who are unsaved need to be convicted and bothered and unsettled. But it is possible to carry a truth so far that even genuine saints can become distressed rather than encouraged. True assurance comes not as we look at our faith, but rather as we look to the Saviour—His Person, His work, His promises, His righteousness, His perfection, etc.
Pink says some very helpful things about Christ’s Lordship and the dangers of "easy-believism," and there is no question that much that passes for true Christianity today is very shallow and questionable. Many claim to believe in Jesus but they seem to know nothing of His saving, transforming grace. They come to Christ for an abundant life but they are under no conviction of sin and they are not aware of their lost condition. Billy Graham even has admitted that only a very small percentage of those who make decisions are actually saved. [See our study, The Problems with Ecumenical Evangelism.] The gospel message must be presented in such a way, in total dependence upon the Spirit of God, that the sinner is deeply convicted of his need for Christ, convinced of his lost estate, and the terribleness of his sins. Apart from Christ he is without HOPE and without HELP.
On the bottom of page 21 Pink criticizes a popular method of leading a person to Christ. We would wish, however, that Pink would tell us how he would present the gospel to a lost man. One gets the impression by reading Pink that being saved is a very difficult thing that demands unreserved obedience to God, total surrender to the Lordship of Christ and fulfillment of all the conditions of discipleship. Indeed, on page 26 he says that Luke 14:26,27,33 shows a person how to become a Christian. Pink thus confuses discipleship with salvation. [See the helpful chart: A Comparison and Contrast Between SALVATION and DISCIPLESHIP.] Is Pink saying that we should tell an unsaved sinner, "You must love Christ supremely (Luke 14:26), and you must bear the reproach of Christ (Luke 14:27) and you must forsake all that you have (Luke 14:33)? Was this the gospel that was preached in the book of Acts? Was this the gospel Paul preached (1 Cor. 15:1-4)? Was this what Paul told the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:30-31)? Did Paul say, "Love Christ supremely and thou shalt be saved"? Was this the message Philip gave to the Eunuch in Acts 8?
Suppose we tell an unsaved person, "To be saved you must love the Lord God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength!" This is not a gospel message but a message of condemnation. Preaching the greatest commandment is not the same as preaching the gospel. The very reason we have the gospel message of grace is because we have failed to keep the greatest commandment. The very reason we need a Saviour is because we do not love God as we should and we do not obey Him as we should and we do not surrender to Him as we should. This may be the reason why Pink's chapter seems to condemn everyone who reads it. He seems to be preaching law instead of gospel. We must not confuse law with the gospel of grace. The law is important, for by the law is the knowledge of sin (Romans 3:20). The law can show us our sin but it cannot save our soul. The law should drive us to the lamb who alone can save!
We must not put the cart before the horse. We must not confuse saving faith with the fruits of saving faith. Discipleship (and all that it involves) is not a requirement for salvation, but discipleship is the obligation of every saved person. The terms of discipleship given in Luke 14 cannot be met unless one is a saved person. No unsaved person could meet such terms, nor does God expect him to. Consider again the message of 1 John. In 1 John we read much about loving the brethren, obeying God's commands, not loving the world, practicing righteousness, etc. Such things are not requirements of salvation. It is because we are saved that we do such things. A Christian is characterized by these things but this is not how a person becomes a Christian. Likewise, Luke 14 gives us the marks of discipleship but these marks of discipleship must not be confused with the terms of salvation. To say that Luke 14 is giving a plan of salvation would be as careless as saying that in Matthew 19:16-17 the Lord Jesus was preaching the gospel. In Matthew 19:17 the message of the Lord Jesus was this: Keep the commandments! This is law, not gospel. The Lord's purpose in using the law was to condemn the rich young ruler and show him his need for a Saviour.
How easy is salvation? Is it some difficult thing? The Bible presents saving faith as something that is very easy. Consider the following Biblical illustrations of saving faith:
Salvation Is as Easy Salvation Is as Easy Salvation Is as Easy Salvation Is as Easy |
Saving Faith Is Spoken in Terms of Saving Faith Is Spoken in Terms of |
Pink argues that believing is a very difficult thing (p.21). However, there is a sense in which it is correct to say that believing is not a difficult thing (without getting into the error of modern day "easy-believism," which is a shallow kind of faith that falls short of true, saving faith). For example, believing is something simple enough for a young child to do. Believing is simple enough that a person does not need any advanced education or training. Believing is simple enough that a person can be led to the Lord in a matter of minutes, like the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8) or the Philippian jailer (Acts 16) or the thief on the cross (Luke 23). Salvation is simple in the sense that Christ did all the work and the sinner is not required to do difficult works to earn his way to heaven. Rather God justifies the one who "worketh not" (Rom. 4:5). It is so simple that the Lord could say, "he that heareth My Word and believeth on Him that sent Me hath everlasting life" (John 5:24). It is simple enough that God's plan of salvation can be written out briefly and clearly in the form of a small tract.
Of course, apart from the Lord, salvation would not only be difficult, it would be impossible (Matthew 19:26)! Apart from God's gracious working, no one would be saved (John 6:44,65). But God has made the impossible possible, and Christ came into this world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him (John 3:17). God is willing to save (1 Tim. 2:4), God is able to save (Heb.7:25) and God will save all those who come unto Him through Christ (John 6:37). In a sense salvation is difficult because sinful, fallen men do not want to come to Christ: "And ye will not come to Me [you are not willing to come to Me], that ye might have life" (John 5:40). It is not that they cannot come, but that they do not want to come. Why is it that men cannot come to Christ (John 6:44,64-65)? Why is there this "inability" on the part of man? Is it that men want to come to Christ but there is some strange mysterious force keeping them from coming, keeping them from Christ, keeping them from salvation? No! They cannot come because they do not want to come! They love darkness rather than light (John 3:18-20). Compare Genesis 37:4. Why were Joseph's brothers unable to speak peaceably to him? Where did this inability come from? Was there some outside power forcing their mouths closed so that they could not speak in such a way? No, they could not because they did not want to! It was their own sinful jealousy and envy and hatred that kept them from speaking to him in peace. They could not because they would not. This is the same reason why the people mentioned in John 5:40 were UNABLE to be saved.
We recognize that there is a difficulty in presenting the gospel because of man's sinful depravity and his unwillingness to come to Christ. [See the helpful study God's Willingness and Man's Unwillingness]. Who should take care of this difficulty? Obviously this is the work of God! Only God can give life to the spiritually dead and give sight to the spiritually blind. The believer can only present Christ and Him crucified. It is God that must work in the sinful and stubborn heart of man. We must proclaim the simple gospel that salvation is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9). God must take care of the difficulty as He works in the hearts of men by His Spirit!
Let us beware of adding requirements to the gospel of grace. Let us beware of adding LAW to the GOSPEL (see Galatians chapter 1). Let us not tell sinners how they must labor and strive and surrender and obey. Let us rather tell them of a crucified and risen Saviour and of their responsibility to believe in Him lest they perish in their sins.
Perhaps no one has better answered this chapter by Pink than Charles Spurgeon who himself was a fervent Calvinist. However Spurgeon recognized the danger of mixing law with grace and adding things to God's simple command to believe on God's Son. I'm going to quote at length from one of Spurgeon's sermons entitled, "The Warrant of Faith." [This sermon is available from Pilgrim Publications, P.O. Box 66, Pasadena, TX 77501] This sermon is based on 1 John 3:23--"And this is His commandment, That we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ." The following is a lengthy quote taken from this sermon by Spurgeon:
O, when will all professors, and especially all professed ministers of Christ, learn the difference between the law and the gospel? Most of them make a mingle-mangle, and serve out deadly potions to the people, often containing but one ounce of gospel to a pound of law, whereas, but even a grain of law is enough to spoil the whole thing. It must be gospel, and gospel only.
"Believing" is most clearly explained by that simple word "trust." Believing is partly the intellectual operation of receiving divine truths, but the essence of it lies in relying upon those truths. I believe that, although I cannot swim, yonder friendly plank will support me in the flood—I grasp it, and am saved: the grasp is faith. Thus faith is accepting God's great promises, contained in the Person of His Son. It is taking God at His Word, and trusting in Jesus Christ as being my salvation, although I am utterly unworthy of His regard. Sinner, if thou takest Christ to be thy Saviour this day, thou art justified; though thou be the biggest blasphemer and persecutor out of hell...if thou wilt honor God by believing Christ is able to forgive such a wretch as thou art, and wilt now trust in Jesus' precious blood, thou art saved from divine wrath.
The WARRANT OF BELIEVING is the commandment of God. This is the commandment, that ye "believe on His Son Jesus Christ."
They (certain Calvinists) preached repentance and hatred of sin as the warrant of a sinner's trusting to Christ. According to them, a sinner might reason thus—"I possess such-and-such a degree of sensibility on account of sin, therefore I have a right to trust in Christ." Now, such reasoning is seasoned with fatal error. Whoever preaches in this fashion may preach much of the gospel, but the whole gospel of the free grace of God in its fullness he has yet to learn. In our own day certain preachers assure us that a man must be regenerated before we may bid him believe in Jesus Christ; some degree of a work of grace in the heart being, in their judgment, the only warrant to believe. This also is false. It takes away a gospel for sinners and offers us a gospel for saints. It is anything but a ministry of free grace.
If I am to preach the faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate. Am I only to preach faith to those who have it? Absurd, indeed! Is not this waiting till the man is cured and then bringing him the medicine? This is preaching Christ to the righteous and not to sinners. "Nay," saith one, "but we mean that a man must have some good desires towards Christ before he has any warrant to believe in Jesus." Friend, do you not know that all good desires have some degree of holiness in them? But if a sinner hath any degree of true holiness in him it must be the work of the Spirit, for true holiness never exists in the carnal mind, therefore, that man is already renewed, and therefore saved. Are we to go running up and down the world, proclaiming life to the living, casting bread to those who are fed already, and holding up Christ on the pole of the gospel to those who are already healed? My brethren, where is our inducement to labour where our efforts are so little needed? If I am to preach Christ to those who have no goodness, who have nothing in them that qualifies them for mercy, then I feel I have a gospel so divine that I would proclaim it with my last breath, crying aloud, that "Jesus came into the world to save SINNERS!"
Secondly, to tell the sinner that he is to believe on Christ because of some warrant in himself, is LEGAL, I dare to say it—legal. Though this method is generally adopted by the higher school of Calvinists, they are herein unsound, uncalvinistic, and legal.
If I believe in Jesus because I have convictions and a spirit of prayer, then evidently the first and the most important fact is not Christ, but my possession of repentance, conviction, and prayer, so that really my hope hinges upon my having repented; and if this be not legal I do not know what is...If I lean on Christ because I feel this and that, then I am leaning on my feelings and not on Christ alone, and this is legal indeed. Nay, even if desires after Christ are to be my warrant for believing, if I am to believe in Jesus not because he bids me, but because I feel some desires after him, you will again with half an eye perceive that the most important source of my comfort must be my own desires. So that we shall be always looking within. "Do I really desire? If I do, then Christ can save me; if I do not, then he cannot." And so my desire overrides Christ and his grace. AWAY WITH SUCH LEGALITY FROM THE EARTH!
If you tell a poor sinner that there is a certain amount of humblings, and tremblings, and convictions, and heart-searchings to be felt, in order that he may be warranted to come to Christ, I demand of all legal-gospellers distinct information as to the manner and exact degree of preparation required. Brethren, you will find when these gentlemen are pushed into a corner, they will not agree, but will every one give a different standard, according to his own judgment. One will way the sinner must have months of law work; another, that he only needs good desires; and some will demand that he possess the graces of the Spirit--such as humility, godly sorrow, and love to holiness. You will get no clear answer from them.
And let me ask you, my brethren, whether such an incomprehensible gospel would do for a dying man? There he lies in the agonies of death. He tells me that he has no good thought or feeling, and asks what he must do to be saved. There is but a step between him and death—another five minutes and that man's soul may be in hell. What am I to tell him? Am I to be an hour explaining to him the preparation required before he may come to Christ? Brethren, I dare not. But I tell him, "Believe, brother, even though it be the eleventh hour; trust thy soul with Jesus, and thou shalt be saved."
How DANGEROUS is the sentiment I am opposing. My hearers, it may be so mischievous as to have misled some of you. I solemnly warn you, though you have been professors of the faith in the Lord Jesus Christ for twenty years, if your reason for believing in Christ lies in this, that you have felt the terrors of the law; that you have been alarmed, and have been convicted; if your own experience be your warrant for believing in Christ, it is a false reason...
Sinners, let me address you with words of life: Jesus wants nothing of you, nothing whatsoever, nothing done, nothing felt; he gives both work and feeling. Ragged, penniless, just as ye are, lost, forsaken, desolate, with no good feelings, and no good hopes, still Jesus comes to you, and in these words of pity he addresses you, "Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out."
Our preaching, on the theory (erroneous theory) of qualifications, should not be, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved;" but "Qualify yourselves for faith, be sensible of your sin, be regenerated, get marks and evidences, and then believe."
They (the apostles) ought not to have commenced with preaching Christ; they should have preached up qualifications, emotions, and sensation, if these are the preparations for Jesus; but I find that Paul, whenever he stands up, has nothing to preach but "Christ, and him crucified."
Sinner, whoever thou mayest be, God now commands thee to believe in Jesus Christ. This is his commandment: he does not command thee to feel anything, or be anything, to prepare thyself for this. Now, art thou willing to incur the great guilt of making God a liar? Surely thou wilt shrink from that: then dare to believe. Thou canst not say, "I have no right:" you have a perfect right to do what God tells you to do. You cannot tell me you are not fit; there is no fitness wanted, the command is given and it is yours to obey, not to dispute. You cannot say it does not come to you—it is preached to every creature under heaven!
A.W.Pink, in his chapter called "Saving Faith," is guilty of the very errors exposed by Spurgeon in the above quoted sermon. Pink argues that saving faith is more than simple trust in the crucified One. Rather it involves a full surrender to Christ's Lordship, a hatred of sin, a hatred of self-pleasing, a full commitment, a fulfilling of Christ's demands for discipleship, etc. Such things are the results and fruits of saving faith, but to tell a sinner to do all these things is to add law to the gospel of grace, even as Spurgeon has so clearly pointed out.
Pink was critical of how some people talk to sinners (bottom of page 21) but he never really explained how he would talk to sinners. Spurgeon, however, in the sermon already cited, clearly states how he would address sinners. How then should we preach and proclaim the gospel? Should we get the sinner to look inwardly to see if he is surrendered or to see if he desires to please Christ in everything or to see if he hates sin? Or should we get the sinner to gaze upon Christ who died to save SINNERS (those who do not love God as they should, those who do not surrender to His Lordship, those who are rotten rebels, etc.). The key seems to be that we should simply make known Christ and Him crucified, even as Paul determined to do (1 Cor. 2:2). What did Philip tell the eunuch? "he began at the same scripture and preached unto him Jesus." Once a sinner is saved, then all the things Pink says should be true in the life of the believer, and absence of these things could indicate that the person has never truly come to Christ.
May the reader carefully weigh Pink's words on page 27--"Now the popular answer which is being returned to them is, ‘Nothing more is required from any sinner than that he simply BELIEVE ON the Lord Jesus Christ’ . . .such a reply is misleading, inadequate, faulty, and . . . it ignores all the other scriptures which set forth what God requires from the sinner: it leaves out of account God's demand for repentance and Christ's clearly defined terms of discipleship in Luke 14." This is what Pink says. How different is the Bible's declaration: "And this is His commandment, that we should believe on the Name of His Son Jesus Christ" (1 John 3:23). Apparently Pink would feel that Paul and Silas gave a misleading, inadequate and faulty reply to the Philippian jailer (see Acts 16:31)! Like Naaman of old (see 2 Kings 5:10,11,13), Pink seems to be saying, "There's got to be more than that. Surely God can't tell the sinner to simply believe!"
Spurgeon is correct. We have a glorious gospel of grace for lost and dying men who are helpless and hopeless. God commands sinners to believe. God's preachers must do the same. We must tell them to get their eyes off themselves and to look to the One who is hanging on the pole of Calvary's cross who alone can save and heal. As we proclaim this wonderful message, God will perform the miraculous work whereby a sinful rebel is transformed into a submissive servant of the Lord Jesus Christ. One who a few minutes before was kicking against the pricks was a recipient of God's mercy and grace and was able to cry out, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" (Acts 9:5-6).
May the Lord give us clearer insight into the glorious gospel of Christ, what it is and how it should be proclaimed to those who are without hope and without life and without Christ (Zeller)
posted by Gereja @ 3:47 PM
3 comments
REFORMED INJILI STEPHEN TONG, DANIEL LUCAS LUKITO DAN SAAT MALANG DKK MENGAJARKAN AJARAN CALVINIS EKSTREM BAHWA IMAN DIBERIKAN ALLAH BARU MANUSIA BISA PERCAYA.
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is THE GIFT OF GOD: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)
What is "THE GIFT OF GOD" which is referred to in these verses? This is a key question which must be carefully answered. There are many who teach that Paul was referring to FAITH as the GIFT OF GOD in this passage. They would say that a person cannot be saved unless God gives the sinner the gift of saving faith. Many of these same teachers [usually those trained in Reformed theology or Covenant theology] insist that regeneration precedes faith (that is, a person must be born again before he can believe!). This view is inconsistent with the clear teaching of the Bible. For example, John 1:12 does not say: "As many as have been regenerated, to them gave He the power to believe on His Name, even to those who have become the children of God." Also John 20:31 says, "believing ye might have life." It does not say, "having life ye might believe" (which is what one would expect it to say if regeneration precedes faith). For a detailed study on this issue, see Does Regeneration Precede Faith?
What is "the gift of God" in Ephesians 2:8-9? Is it "faith" or is it something else?
The key to understanding Ephesians 2:8-9 is to correctly identify the antecedent of the pronoun "that" [touto]. Does the pronoun "that" (v.8) refer to faith or does it refer to salvation? There are those who say that "faith" is the gift of God and there are others who say that "salvation" is the gift of God. We will now consider these two ways of interpreting this passage as well as two other views which are variations of these two basic views:
"For by grace are ye saved through FAITH; and THIS FAITH is not of yourselves, this faith is the gift of God, this faith is not of works, lest any man should boast" (in this case the antecedent of the pronoun is identified as "faith").
"For by grace ARE YE SAVED through faith; and THIS SALVATION is not of yourselves, this salvation is the gift of God, this salvation is not of works, lest any man should boast" (in this case the antecedent of the pronoun is identified as "salvation" which is the idea of the main verb "are ye saved").
This view is clearly reflected in the IFCA doctrinal statement [Article IV, Section 1, Paragraph 6] which says, "We believe that SALVATION is the GIFT OF GOD brought to man by grace and received by personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." This well-worded statement makes it clear that salvation is the gift of God and this gift is received by personal faith. The gift is salvation; the receiving of that gift is by faith.
There is a third proposed solution which like View #1 says that the gift of God is faith, but unlike View #1 it says that salvation, not faith, is "not of works." This is the view of Charles Hodge and others [See Charles Hodge's commentary on Ephesians under Ephesians 2:8-9]. These men realize that Paul would never have said that "faith is not of works" (for reasons which will be discussed later in this paper) and therefore they are forced to place an awkward and unnatural parenthesis in the middle of these verses. This view could be stated as follows:
"For by grace are ye saved through faith (and this faith is not of yourselves, this faith is the gift of God), not of works [that is, this salvation is not of works] lest any man should boast."
If the pronoun really refers to "faith," then it seems better to be consistent with "faith" all the way through. The reason for the parenthesis is that men like Hodges are aware of the difficulty of saying that "faith is not of works" and this difficulty will be discussed later in this paper. This view of Charles Hodge and others is actually a variation of the first view mentioned which says that "faith" is the antecedent of the pronoun ("that"). They teach that "faith" is the gift of God. They are correct in saying that salvation is not of works; they are wrong in saying that this passage teaches that faith is the gift of God.
There is a fourth proposed solution which says that the entire salvation process (including faith) is the gift of God: "he [the sinner coming to Christ] realizes that the totality of the salvation process is a gift of God, including the grace of God and his own choice to believe (Ephesians 2:8-9)." [This quote is taken from an IFCA position paper, November 1990, entitled, Salvation by Grace Through Faith] John Calvin also held this view. Calvin did not believe that the pronoun referred to "faith." He believed it referred to "salvation by grace through faith" (to the entire salvation process, including faith). Is salvation the gift of God? This view would answer "yes." Is faith the gift of God? This view would again answer "yes" because faith would be considered part of the totality of the salvation process. Thus, according to this view, not only salvation, but the reception of salvation ("faith") would be the gift of God.
This view confuses the gift with the reception of the gift. It is interesting that the IFCA doctrinal statement makes a clear distinction between the gift and the reception of the gift: "We believe that salvation is the gift of God brought to man by grace and received by personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." But in the IFCA position paper which was written in order to clarify "saving faith" (in light of the Lordship salvation controversy) this distinction is lost. In the IFCA position paper faith is included as part of the gift (part of the total salvation process). This leads to an obvious problem. Let me put myself in the place of the sinner. If faith in Christ is itself God's gift, then how do I receive this faith? Instead of asking, "What must I do to be saved?", I must now focus on the question "What must I do to believe?" If faith is God's gift, then how do I get this gift? Do I pray to God and ask for the gift of faith? Do I sit back and do nothing and hope that I am one of the chosen ones who will be given this gift? How do I get the gift of saving faith? It is all very confusing and it takes away from where the focus of the sinner ought to be, which is upon Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
Identifying the Antecedent
Some might argue that "faith" is the nearest antecedent: "For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves" (Eph. 2:8). It is certainly true that "faith" is the nearest antecedent, but since there are a great number of cases in the New Testament where the nearest antecedent is not the correct one, we should be very careful before applying this "rule." There are other far more important considerations.
Here is the correct rule that Greek grammar demands be followed: Pronouns agree with their antecedent in gender and number. Their case is determined by their use in their own clause.
This rule argues forcefully against the identification of "faith" as the antecedent because "faith" does not agree with the pronoun in gender. The pronoun "that" (verse 8) is NEUTER, and the word "faith" (verse 8) is FEMININE. If Paul wanted his readers to understand the pronoun as referring to "faith," then there is no reason why he could not have used the feminine form of the pronoun [which would have been the Greek word auth]. This would have settled it. If Paul had used this feminine pronoun then it would be very clear and obvious that FAITH is the gift of God. Paul did not use the feminine pronoun.
Why then did Paul use the neuter pronoun? What is the antecedent? If Paul had wanted to refer to the idea contained in the main verb (the idea of being SAVED), then it would have been perfectly normal and appropriate for him to use the neuter gender. It would have been very natural for Paul to say, "For by grace ARE YE SAVED through faith and this thing that I'm talking about, namely salvation, is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God..." If Paul had wanted the pronoun to refer to the idea contained in the verb, the neuter form would be the one to use.
| [Note: The following paragraph is of a technical nature. If the reader is not well versed in Greek grammar he may wish to skip over this paragraph.] There are some who give another explanation for the neuter gender being used. Mr. Stephen Parker, for example, argues that the pronoun is attracted to the neuter gender of the word "gift," and he cites Mark 15:16 as an analogy. It is true that attraction does take place in Mark 15:16 as Mr. Parker correctly points out. This is one of those rare cases where the pronoun agrees with the PREDICATE when the relative clause is an explanation. Another example would be in Ephesians 6:17: "the sword (feminine) of the Spirit, which (neuter) is the Word (neuter) of God" (the antecedent is "sword" but the pronoun is attracted to the neuter gender). However, we do not really have the same thing in Ephesians 2:8. First of all, in Mark 15:16 we have a relative pronoun, but in Ephesians 2:8 we have a demonstrative pronoun [touto]. In Mark 15:16 the verb is explicitly stated, but in Ephesians 2:8 the verb is understood (the words "it is" are in italics). The greatest problem, however, is that in Mark 15:16 the word "praetorium" comes right after the word "hall" but in Ephesians 2:8 there is a whole additional phrase which comes between "that" and "gift," and this would make attraction much less likely: "...through faith and that NOT OF YOURSELVES, it is the gift..." In other words, in Mark 15:16 there is only one word (the verb estin) which comes between the pronoun and the word to which it is attracted. In Ephesians 2:8 there are five Greek words which come between the pronoun and the word which Mr. Parker claims it is attracted to. This explanation seems highly unlikely, and I did not find this argument in any of the respectable commentaries that I consulted, even among those men who believe that the antecedent is "faith." It could also be noted that Mr. Parker is wrong when he says that the words "hall" and "which" in Mark 15:16 do not agree in number. They do agree. They are both singular in number. [This ends this technical discussion.] |
We need to carefully think through Ephesians 2:8-9 in order to correctly identify the antecedent. We must ask, "What is Paul talking about in Ephesians 2:8-9? What is his main point?" It is obvious that Paul is talking about HOW A PERSON IS SAVED. The main idea of the sentence is found in the verb "ARE YE SAVED" [or "YE ARE SAVED"]. How is a person saved? Ephesians 2:8-9 answers this key question. Salvation is by grace. Salvation is through faith. Salvation is not of yourselves. Salvation is the GIFT OF GOD. Salvation is not of works. Paul is not giving a dissertation on faith, but he is giving a brief dissertation on salvation. SALVATION is his main subject. Faith is mentioned because you cannot answer the question "HOW IS A PERSON SAVED?" without mentioning faith. A person is saved by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31). God's gracious gift of salvation must be personally received, and it is received by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
THE GIFT OF GOD--New Testament Usage
The Bible explains itself. We do not need to depend only on Ephesians 2:8 in order to find out what the gift of God is. There are many other New Testament passages which clearly tell us what the gift of God is. How is the expression "gift of God" used elsewhere in the New Testament by Paul and the other writers?
A study of the places where the word "gift" is used in the New Testament reveals the following:
dwron a gift, a present (neuter noun)
This word is used to refer to the "gift of God" only once, and that is in the passage under consideration (Ephesians 2:8). However there are other related Greek words that are translated "gift" and these are as follows:
dwrea a gift (feminine noun)
John 4:10--the gift of God is everlasting life (compare verse 14).
Acts 2:38; 8:20; 10:45; 11:17--the gift of God is the Holy Spirit.
Romans 5:15,17--these verses speak of the gift of justification (righteousness) and life (compare verses 18,21).
2 Corinthians 9:15--this verse speaks of God's unspeakable gift which is Jesus Christ.
We should note that this word is never used of FAITH.
dwrhma a gift, a present (neuter noun)
This word is never used of FAITH but it is used of God's gift of salvation or justification (see Romans 5:16).
carisma a gift freely and graciously given (neuter noun)
Romans 6:23--the gift of God is eternal life (compare Romans 5:15-16).
This word is never used of FAITH (except in 1 Corinthians 12:9 which is speaking of the temporary gift of miracle working faith and not saving faith).
* * * * * * *
Thus, in no other place in the New Testament does the word "GIFT" ever refer to saving faith, though we recognize that apart from God's mercy and gracious enabling and enlightenment, saving faith could not be exercised (John 6:44,65; Romans 9:16; Matthew 11:27; 16:16-17; Acts 16:14; etc.).
We have seen therefore that there are many passages in the New Testament which speak of SALVATION (or justification or eternal life) as being the gift of God, especially in Paul's writings. In light of this, it would be much safer to identify "the gift of God" in Ephesians 2:8 with SALVATION unless there were some very obvious reasons for doing otherwise. If Ephesians 2:8 speaks of faith as being the gift of God, then this is the only place in the New Testament where Paul makes such an identification.
Since the pronoun is in the neuter gender (not agreeing with the feminine gender of the word "faith") and since the New Testament elsewhere refers to salvation as the gift of God, we have good reason for concluding that salvation is the gift of God in Ephesians 2:8.
"Not of works"--New Testament Usage
"Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Ephesians 2:9). What is not of works? Is Paul saying that faith is not of works or is he saying that salvation is not of works? Here again it is helpful to do a study of New Testament (Pauline) usage:
| In Romans 3:20 Paul says that justification is not of works. In Romans 3:27 Paul says that justification is not of works. In Romans 3:28 Paul says that justification is apart from works. In Romans 4:2,6 Paul says that justification is not of works. In Romans 9:11 Paul says that election is not of works. In Romans 9:32 Paul says that righteousness is not of works. In Romans 11:6 Paul says that election is not of works. In Galatians 2:16 Paul says that justification is not of works. In 2 Timothy 1:9 Paul says that God's salvation and calling are not according to works. In Titus 3:5 Paul says that salvation is not of works. |
If Ephesians 2:9 means that SALVATION IS NOT OF WORKS, this would be in harmony with all of these above passages. That salvation is not of works is repeatedly taught by Paul, but in no other place in the new testament does Paul ever say that "faith is not of works." Again and again Paul says that salvation (justification) is not of works, but he never says that faith is not of works. It would be foolish to say such a thing. That faith is not of works is so obvious (or as Alford says "irrelevant") that it does not need to be said. As John Eadie has said, "you may declare that salvation is not of works, but cannot with propriety say that faith is not of works." This is why men like Hodge are forced to put a parenthesis in this passage: "Ye are saved through faith (and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God), not of works." Hodge wants to make the verse say that faith is the gift of God (because this fits in well with his Reformed theology). However, Hodge knows that Paul would never say that "faith is not of works."
The Bible repeatedly says that we are not saved by works (see the verses cited earlier). Also the Bible repeatedly says that we are saved or justified by faith (Romans 5:1; etc.). If a man is not saved by works but by faith, then faith is obviously not a work: "but to him that worketh not, but believeth..." (Romans 4:5). Faith and works do not go together. Faith is not a work. Work is something that we take credit for. Work is something that we can be rewarded for. Work is something that we can boast about. Work is meritorious. Faith is non-meritorious. A person cannot "take credit" or "praise himself" for his faith, because faith is not meritorious (not deserving of reward or honor). Faith is not something that a person can boast about. Faith does not take credit for itself. Faith gives all the credit to Christ. Faith acknowledges that Christ gets all the credit and praise and honor, for He did it all! Faith is not something "good" that a man does, it is simply a recognition on the part of man that "I cannot do any good thing, and therefore I need a Saviour." Only someone totally ignorant of the gospel and of the meaning of "faith" would ever try to take credit for faith. There is no merit in the act of believing.
To say that faith is a work is totally contrary to what the New Testament teaches on salvation. Salvation is "not of works" and entirely "apart from works" (Rom. 3:28; 4:6). Those who believe are those who "DO NOT WORK" (Romans 4:5). What then do they do? They merely REST upon the finished work of Christ who did it all and paid it all!
If Ephesians 2:9 speaks of faith as being "not of works," then this is the only place in the New Testament where Paul makes such a statement. If on the other hand the verse is saying that salvation is not of works, then this would harmonize with Paul's frequent teaching elsewhere and this would be one of many verses in the New Testament which teaches this truth.
As a practical example, think of how we share the message of salvation with those who are lost. Often we tell them that salvation is not of works. All false religions teach some form of salvation by a system of works. In our sharing of the gospel we make it clear to people that salvation is not of works and there is nothing that they can do to work for their salvation or to earn favor with God. On the other hand, we do not tell the sinner: "My friend, faith is not of works. There is nothing that you can do to believe." No, faith is something that the sinner is responsible to do. The sinner is responsible to take God at His Word and to rest his all upon the WORTH (who He is), the WORK (what He has done) and the WORD (what He has said) of the Saviour. Even though faith is not a meritorious work, it is a work that man must do: "Then said they unto Him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye BELIEVE on Him whom He hath sent" (John 6:28-29). It is something that man is responsible to do and condemned for not doing (John 8:24; 3:18).
Saving Faith
In Ephesians 2:8, faith is not the gift. Faith is how we receive the gift. Faith is the HAND OF THE HEART that reaches out and receives that which God so graciously gives. Faith is man's response to God's gracious provision and promise. Faith is taking God at His Word and resting fully on Jesus Christ, WHO HE IS, WHAT HE HAS DONE and WHAT HE HAS SAID. What is saving faith? The hymn writer has expressed it well: "Tis so sweet to TRUST IN JESUS, [what does it mean to trust in Jesus?] èjust to take Him at His Word, èjust to rest upon His promise, èjust to know THUS SAITH THE LORD."
Some extreme Calvinists tend to speak of faith as if it is something that man cannot do. This results in a wrong understanding of man's inability. The question the Philippian jailer asked was this: "What must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30). Some would answer in this way: "Nothing! You can't do anything! You are dead and totally unable to respond to God until you are regenerated. You have no part in salvation. God must do it all. You cannot exercise saving faith." This answer might harmonize with one's theological system, but there is only one problem. This is not how Paul and Silas answered the question! Paul and Silas told the jailer that there was something that he could do and was responsible to do: "BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ!" (Acts 16:31 and compare how Peter answered a similar question in Acts 2:37-38).
Regardless of one's theological system, Acts 16:31 is very clear. God must do the saving; man must do the believing. The saving is something that God alone must do. The believing is something that the sinner must do. God does not do the believing for man. Even William Hendriksen (who is Reformed in his theology and who believes that faith is the gift of God in Ephesians 2:8) says, "both the responsibility of believing and also its activity are ours, for God does not believe for us." Another illustration would be the account of the deadly serpents in the wilderness in Numbers 21. Should we say that the Israelites had no part in their deliverance from the deadly snakes? Of course not! Their part was to LOOK; God's part was to HEAL. They did the looking and God did the healing.
Faith is when the sinner humbly recognizes his desperate need and acknowledges that God must do all the saving. Salvation is wholly the work of god; faith is wholly the responsibility of man. Man does not contribute to his own salvation. It is the work of God. God does not contribute to man’s unbelief. That is man’s work. God alone must do the saving; man must do the believing. Those who are saved have only God to thank; those who are lost have only themselves to blame. God gets all the credit for man’s salvation; the unsaved man must take full blame and responsibility for his eternal damnation. The saved person thankfully says, "I’m in heaven because of God!" The lost person must truthfully say, "I’m in hell because of me." His damnation is based not on God’s rejection of him but upon his rejection of God (Mark 16:16; 2 Thess. 2:10,12; John 5:40).
No one will ever stand before God and say, "I am condemned because God never gave me the gift of faith." No such excuse will ever be uttered. All men are responsible to believe. All men are commanded to believe and to repent (1 John 3:23 and Acts 17:30). God says, "Look unto Me [that's faith!] and be ye saved all the ends of the earth" (Isaiah 45:22). According to 1 Timothy 2:4, God desires ALL MEN to COME unto Himself (and coming to Christ is equated with believing on Him--John 6:35). Men are responsible to believe and to come and to repent. Men are condemned eternally for their failure to do this (John 8:24; 3:18; etc.).
D. L. Moody once said, "Some say that faith is the gift of God. So is the air, but you have to breathe it; so is bread, but you have to eat it; so is water, but you have to drink it. Some are wanting some miraculous kind of feeling. That is not faith. ‘Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.’ It is not for me to sit down and wait for faith to come stealing over me...it is for me to take God at His Word."
According to the Apostle Paul, faith is "being fully persuaded [convinced] that, what He had promised, He was able also to perform" (Rom. 4:20-21). God has promised to save all those who come unto Him through Christ (Heb. 7:25), and the man of faith is fully persuaded and convinced that God will do this. Notice also that Romans 4:3 and Romans 4:5 speak of "his faith" (Abraham's faith) not God's faith. A study of the verb "believe" in the New Testament reveals that the subject of the verb is man (it is always men or persons that do the believing) and the verb is most often used in the active voice, which means that it is men and women, boys and girls who must perform the action of the verb. Such persons must do the believing. God holds them responsible for whether or not they do this.
The IFCA doctrinal statement sums it up well: "We believe that salvation is the gift of God brought to man by grace and received by personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." According to this statement, it is SALVATION not FAITH which is the gift of God. This gift of God (this gracious salvation) is received in only one way: by personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
What Difference Does It Make?
What is wrong with saying that FAITH is the gift of God? Does it make any real difference? What are the practical implications of saying such a thing?
I would recommend an article by Roy L. Aldrich entitled "The Gift of God." The author convincingly shows that the interpretation of Ephesians 2:8 which says that FAITH is the GIFT OF GOD leads to a hyper-Calvinistic doctrine of faith, which in turn leads to an unscriptural plan of salvation. For example, Shedd says: "The Calvinist maintains that faith is wholly from God, being one of the effects of regeneration" (Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, p. 472). This results in a strange plan of salvation. According to Shedd, because the sinner cannot believe, he is instructed to perform the following duties: 1) Read and hear the divine Word; 2) Give serious application of the mind to the truth; 3) Pray for the gift of the Holy Spirit for conviction and regeneration (Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 512-513). Arthur Pink agrees with Shedd saying that the sinner is to "ask God...to bestow upon him the gifts of repentance and faith" (The Sovereignty of God, pp. 198-199). Here is Roy Aldrich's excellent comment: "The tragedy of this position is that it perverts the gospel. The sinner is wrongly instructed to beg for that which God is already beseeching him to receive. He is really being told that the condition of salvation is prayer instead of faith" (p. 249).
Another illustration of this is from the pulpit of Dr. John MacArthur, a very popular Bible teacher in America. Dr. MacArthur believes and teaches that faith is a gift of God. Such teaching has some very practical implications and it will affect the way a person presents the gospel.
If faith is a gift of God, THEN HOW DO I GET IT? Do I do nothing and hope that God will sovereignly bestow it upon me? Or, do I cry out to God and pray that He will give me the gift of saving faith? Dr. MacArthur apparently holds to this second option. At the end of one of his messages he gave a salvation appeal and said the following: "Faith is a gift from God...it is permanent...the faith that God gives begets obedience...God gave it to you and He sustains it...May God grant you a true saving faith, a permanent gift that begins in humility and brokenness over sin and ends up in obedience unto righteousness. That's true faith and it's a gift that only God can give, and if you desire it pray and ask that He would grant it to you."
Notice carefully what MacArthur is doing. He is not telling the sinner to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31), but to PRAY and ASK GOD to grant the GIFT OF FAITH! This perverts the gospel of Christ by making the condition of salvation prayer instead of faith! Sinners are commanded to believe on Christ. They are not commanded to pray for the gift of faith.
* * * * * *
Ephesians 2:8-9 is not complicated. It was one of the first passages that I memorized as a new believer. I always understood it to mean that salvation was God’s gracious and free gift, and that faith was how we received this gift. It was not until I began reading certain theologians that I became aware of the other interpretation. May God help us not to complicate and corrupt the simplicity of the gospel message, a message so straightforward and simple that even a child can understand it. [Zeller]
posted by Gereja @ 9:45 AM
2 comments
