Monty Is No Clarkian, Justification Issues In Sanctification

[October31st1517]

@TheClarkianApologist Oh...Hold on... We're not talking about the root of salvation. Simple belief does justify the sinner, however what are the fruits that one has been justified? That is the point you are missing.

[1689Baptist]

@TheClarkianApologist We have already been through this Christians do sin daily but they are not habitual sinners.

[BludBaut]

@1689Baptist That sounds funny to me. Someone does something EVERY DAY and it's not a habit?

Is there a "theological mind" that is separate and distinct from a "rational mind"? If there is, then I can better understand the comment. ;-)

[October31st1517]

@TheClarkianApologist Monty subscribes to easy believeism. The doctrine that you can continue in your sin and still be a child of God. This is not the reformed position. Monty's final authority is himself, not the bible.

[October31st1517]

@TheClarkianApologist Because Monty denies Lordship salvation. He believes that fruits of regeneration are works and not evidences of salvation.

[servantanna]

Finally, Paul states in Jon 3:12 that he presses on toward the goal of "laying hold of" that for which Christ laid hold of him. This means that god has made him righteous (that is what "Christ laid hold of him" means. BUT, he wants to grow into that righteousness, through God's desire and power in him (not his OWN righteousness). He says he's not there yet, but he keeps pressing. (v. 12-14). This is the balance between legalism and licentiousness: God's righteousness in us.

[servantanna]

Note we are not earning salvation, we've been saved. We are not working in our own power (legalism/death), we are working in God's desire and power Letting the Holy Spirit live through us is submission not legalism. In chapter 3, Paul says he does not want his OWN righteousness, he wants GOD's righteousness, which he describes as the "power of His resurrection, fellowship of His sufferings, and conformity to His death" -- again all in GOD's power (3:9-10). Continued...

[servantanna]

His righteousness makes it possible to be blameless, but we are still called to grow into what He has given us. Paul states in Phil 1:22 that to live iin the flesh means "fruitful labor" for him. In verxe 27, the Phil. were told to conduct themselves in a manner worthy of the gospel. This is too long, and I'm not out of the first chapter. In Chap.=ter 2, we come to the passages from this video, stating we need to work out our sanctification because God fills us with desire & power to work..

[servantanna]

Phil 1:6 says that God n the Pwill complete His good work in the Phil. This "good work" is described as love, which Paul prays will abound more and more (1:8), hinting at growing, rather than remaining stagnant in the moment of salvtion. The very next verse says they were to approve the things tha are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless (so "blameless" doesn't mean faith in Jesus death/resurrection.) Verse 11 says that we are blameless b/c we have God's righteousness in us...

[servantanna]

The verse cited here, Phil. 2:12-13 speaks of sanctification - God's part and our part. As I understand the controversy from the comments, the basic problem is that some believe we are sanctified by a condinued belief in Jesus' death and resurrection, others believe it is faith in God's ability to transform us, as we cooperate with Him. I just want to look for the answer to this problem in the context of Philippians, though the rest of the Bible bears the sane truth. Continued...

[1689Baptist]

@TheClarkianApologist Sir I am not going back through all the comments left over dozens of videos to prove my point you can do that yourself. Monty is teaching a law / Gospel distinction that is antinomianism, Clark is in disagreement.

[RedBeetle]

@1689Baptist ,

You're begging the question.

In the TheologyMatters group, you claimed there is no Law / Gospel Distinction.  You claimed the Gospel demands obedience. When did you retract this? You claimed the word 'Gospel' doesn't have a wide and a narrow sense. You did this until I showed you otherwise from John Gill's systematics. You rejected the 3rd Use of the Law...until you learned there was such a thing. Where's all the public retractions, Jeff? Your theology is in constant flux.

[1689Baptist]

@RedBeetle What are you talking about? There were 4 of use in that group, so I take it if one says it all say it. You are asking me to retract statements I don't remember making, out of arguments I don't remember having and do not know the context they were made in.

[BludBaut]

@RedBeetle If a person's theology isn't in flux, then doesn't that mean they're not learning?

[1689Baptist]

@ele12957returns Ok Ed, another comment gone. I'm sick of it.

And someone making a spoof account is not wicked, maybe childish but not wicked, you poor little martyr.

[1689Baptist]

@ele12957returns I have told you many times the church is perfect and blameless b/c of the imputed righteousness of Christ. Why do you think I asked you awhile ago if you knew the difference between positional and practical righteousness? The very fact you are asking my this question proves you don't listen to me.

[1689Baptist]

@TheClarkianApologist I know you have not been that far removed from this debate.

[eIeI2957returns]

I am a big numbskull! I yamma wack job!

[1689Baptist]

@ele12957returns B/c I am tired of you nonsense, I explain something to you and you don't even think about what I say your reply proves it. That is why I told you several times to reread what I said.

[BludBaut]

@1689Baptist Does not the Word of God say that we reap what we sow? Perhaps you might consider if you're guilty of the same behavior.

[fivepointbaptist]

Keep em coming, brother!

[ParticularBaptist]

@ele12957returns Your comments are unbiblical and anti-Christ, your accusive comments are crude. You don't deserve further thoughtful conversation. Prov 14:7 "Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge." Prov 29:9 "If a wise man contendeth with a foolish man, whether he rage or laugh, there is no rest." I will leave you with only this warning. You pervert the word of God and blaspheme His image. For such you are accountable.

[1689Baptist]

@ele12957returns No Ed, Salvation something to do with mercy but it has ALL to do with grace. Gods mercy is given to all men in some measure but grace is not. Grace is only for the elect.

[1689Baptist]

@ele12957returns I am removing this comment b/c I am tired of your nonsense. And I do not drink.

Now tell me the difference between "#1 there is no salvation without repentance" and "#2 you must repent to get saved", Common explain it to me. I believe the first phrase but reject the second.

[1689Baptist]

@ele12957returns Screaming EEEEEEEEEEDDDD!!!!!!!!! Do you not know the difference between "There is no salvation without repentance and you must repent to get saved? This can't be this hard to understand.

[1689Baptist]

@ele12957returns I am going to bed you are impossible. Do you not know the difference between positional and practical righteousness?

[1689Baptist]

@ele12957returns EEEEEEEED! FAITH IS A GIFT FROM GOD and my comment did not contradict that, read it again.

[1689Baptist]

@ele12957returns Where did you get that rotten translation? They don't forfeit grace, they forsake mercy, HUGE difference Jon 2:8 They that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy. mercy and grace are not the same thing at all. The next verse tells the real story of grace for ...Salvation is of the LORD. Jon 2:9

[1689Baptist]

@ele12957returns You said, " wait, you believe "faith" is a gift from God, you said that many times. Now you are saying that people can have faith? So faith is available to anyone who chooses to have it? Is this ur position now?"

ED, I said none of that, read what I said, I made myself clear.

[1689Baptist]

@ele12957returns REALLY??? So they achieved the perfection of God? WOW! NO ED there is only 2 things that could be referred to, either they were being compared to other men b/c there are many that are far more righteous then others in their daily lives, or it is referring to the imputed righteousness of Christ(which is the very righteousness of God therefore I can say that I am righteous but it is not Me but Him) , but NONE are righteous compared to God in this sinful flesh.

[ParticularBaptist]

@ele12957returns "Black!"

[1689Baptist]

@ele12957returns You said, " try ur buddy Paul Washer and a few other Calvinists like Haukman666 preaches that rubbish. You even defended it b/4 in the past" NO they don't, and NO I did not. You are lying.

[1689Baptist]

ED, if at some point someone understands or seeks God Then the Bible could not make the claim "THERE IS NONE". The Bible also says Rom 3:10...There is none righteous, no, not one. are you now going to tell me there is some that are righteous? Here is the context, Rom 3:19...that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. In the first 3 ch. of Rom. Paul makes sure every person in the world is condemned in Total Depravity.

[1689Baptist]

ED

Cont...

As far as faith Jesus addresses people b/c it is people who have faith, it is man that has great, little or no faith, therefore Jesus is addressing man. Jesus is not settling the argument of where did the faith that man possesses originate from, whether it is God granted or mustered up from the inner recesses of man. He is simply holding man accountable for what amount of faith a man does have. Now it is right for God to require us to do even what we cannot do.

[1689Baptist]

ED 3

Cont...

If God says have faith it is our duty to have faith, and God has every right to hold us accountable. We are not held responsible b/c of our ability to obey or disobey but our knowledge. Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

[1689Baptist]

@ele12957returns Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. Literally "the God seeker there is not"

[ParticularBaptist]

Mark 10:29

"And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's"

Romans 3:11

"There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God."

[ParticularBaptist]

Mark 10:26-29

26 "...Who then can be saved?"

27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

28 Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee.

29 AND JESUS ANSWERED AND SAID, VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU, THERE IS NO MAN THAT HATH LEFT HOUSE, OR BRETHREN, OR SISTERS, OR FATHER, OR MOTHER, OR WIFE, OR CHILDREN, OR LANDS, FOR MY SAKE, AND THE GOSPEL'S,

[ParticularBaptist]

@ele12957returns - Again, re: "yes all can repent if they choose to but we know some won't."

Incorrect!

We know that Jesus came to seek & save that which was lost, calling men to believe yet we learn in Matthew 19:25-26:

25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

impossible with man (no choice), possible with God.

[ParticularBaptist]

@ele12957returns You said, "yes all can repent if they choose to but we know some won't. " Show me in the bible where that statement is true.

And do you believe that "if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth" (2 Timothy 2:25) the recipient that has been granted repentance can refuse it? If so show me where it teaches that in the bible.

That word "grant" or "give" means to make, minister, number, put, receive, set,

[ParticularBaptist]

@ele12957returns You asked, "Why would Jesus tell people to have faith in God if they couldn't?" Why would God give us the law to obey if we couldn't? Why would Jesus tells us to perfect even as your Father in Heaven is perfect if we couldn't? A clarion call to repentance in no way means that the sinner is able to heed that call without the new birth where and his spirit given to us to CAUSE us to walk in His commandments. No problems with Calvinism, just your understanding of it.

[1689Baptist]

@ele12957returns No one CAN repent or believe unless God grants it. They do not even want to.

[ParticularBaptist]

@ele12957returns - Jesus said, "But go ye and learn what this is, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but the sinners to repentance." Matthew 9:13

Repent - To think differently, reconsider, feel compunction...

[ParticularBaptist]

@ele12957returns - "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." Acts 17:30-31

Repent - To think differently, reconsider, feel compunction...

God grants repentance - 2 Timothy 2:25

[ParticularBaptist]

@ele12957returns "Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel."Mark 1:14-15

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 2:38

Repent - To think differently, reconsider, feel compunction...

[ParticularBaptist]

@ele12957returns - Jesus said, "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." Luke 13:3,

"In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth" 2 Timothy 2:25

God grants repentance in Salvation:

Repent, Greek - pronounced metanoeō, The Definition: to think differently or afterwards, i.e. reconsider (moral feel compunction) :- repent.

[1689Baptist]

@ele12957returns Rom 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. I tell them that Christ will save them if they will believe on Him and Him alone. I qualify nothing.

I don't tell anyone to first repent then hate or turn from their sin then believe. Where do you get this stuff? Faith in Christ alone is ALWAYS first, repentance, turn from, or hate sin is the natural result of one with true faith b/c all is a work of God in regeneration.

[1689Baptist]

@ele12957returns Difficult? I preach Christ Crucified for the sins of those that believe. Acts 15:19 is referring to obliging them to be circumcised, and they become subject to the whole law, and all its burdensome rites and ceremonies. 

[1689Baptist]

@ele12957returns This is not about winning an argument and no disagreeing with me does not make one saved nor unsaved, it is the attitude behind it that makes me question ones salvation as I do with yours. You and Monty are 2 just alike only you are Arminian and he is Calvinist but both of you are wicked antinomian gloaters. The elect cannot be deceived or lost but I don't want to be the one deceiving the nonelect that is your job (which you do quite well).

[1689Baptist]

@ele12957returns Many Arminians "go at it" just as bad or worse so don't set over there and gloat like the imp you really are. This a battle between the saved and the unsaved that are trying to destroy sound doctrine. What you said above would only come from a devil.

[CalvinistChurch]

Blogrich55 was never ordained by any Reformed / Calvinist Presbyterian denomination, despite what he has been claiming in the past.

Blogrich55 did end up in the PCUSA, which just voted to allow openly gay clergy. Gordon H. Clark left the PCUSA and helped J. Gresham Machen form the OPC long before Blogrich55 ever went to the PCUSA. Why would one claiming to be a Clarkian run to an apostate denomination? Supporting such a group contradicts the Westminster Standards, but then that's evident.

[Blogrich55]

@CalvinistChurch "but then that's evident."

What's evident is your pathetic use of red herrings to try to avoid answering simple questions Monty. Lying will not make it so no matter HOW much you wish it was so. Clark said "We are sanctified by faith and works." I didn't say it but CLARK did. The question is do you agree or not?

[CalvinistChurch]

@Blogrich55,

"Lying will not make it so..."

Your PCUSA denomination did vote to allow openly gay clergy.

I guess you need to check the news...or with the elders in your denomination.

Best wishes!

[Blogrich55]

@CalvinistChurch "Your PCUSA denomination..."

I am NOT a member besides which it is irrelevant. Why don't YOU try answering the questions put to you?

Clark said: "faith is the root and works are the fruit. We cannot be saved without them." Clark also said: "We are sanctified by faith and works." Do you agree with Clark on this or not? Can you PLEASE give a straight answer Monty?

[CalvinistChurch]

@Blogrich55,

I didn't say you were a member of the PCUSA. I said you ended up there. However, you did tell me on skype that you were a teaching elder in the PCUSA and the RPCGA. Were you lying? You told Liz you were a teaching elder in the PCA. Were you lying? I checked those denominations, and none of them said you were ordained by them. Any comments?

[Blogrich55]

@CalvinistChurch "Any comments?"

Yes, you are desperately trying to change the subject Monty. You have NOT answered the question:

Clark said "faith is the root and works are the fruit. We cannot be saved without them."

Clark also said: "We are sanctified by faith and works." So do you or do you NOT agree with Clark. Trying to get off the subject by calling into question my qualifications seems to be an admission of defeat. Why don't you answer the questions, Monty??

[daafith]

The poor fellow RB doesn't get it. Justification is by faith, not of our works. Sanctification is by faith expressed in our works.

[CalvinistChurch]

Notice 1689Baptist never quotes Monty Collier.

The video is titled "Monty is no Clarkian..."

Yet, no evidence is presented by 1689Baptist to prove Monty Collier is not a Clarkian. Quoting Clark only proves what Clark taught--not what Collier teaches.

1689Baptist needs a class in logic, for he is begging the question.

RedBeetle teaches, as did Luther, Calvin, and Clark, that justification causes sanctification. Why is 1689Baptist lying? Because Lordship Salvation is heresy.

Got Logic?

[1689Baptist]

@CalvinistChurch Wow, so there has been no disagreement going on between you and I this year or so? I am affirming I agree with Clark in the quote, are you also affirming? If so then I guess there is no longer a disagreement between us.

You said, "RedBeetle teaches, as did Luther, Calvin, and Clark, that justification causes sanctification" I see you conveniently left the word "works" out of sanctification, Clark didn't hesitate to use it. Say it Monty (wo-wo-wo-works)

[CalvinistChurch]

@1689Baptist,

You haven't read Gordon H. Clark's book "Sanctification." It's his most complete and advanced work on the subject. Clark wrote: "Our obedience to the law is the RESULT, not the cause, of our growing sanctfication" (Sanctification, Conclusion, page 99).

Notice Clark correctly teaches our good works result from Sanctification.

You are a synergist--Clark was NOT.

You are NOT a Clarkian.

Lordship Salvation sanctification/synergists are: Dr. Morey, J.I. Packer, R.C. Sproul.

[CalvinistChurch]

@1689Baptist wrote: "Wow, so there has been no disagreement going on between you and I this year or so?"

Notice this does not prove your claim. You are STILL begging the question. You and I having a disagreement does NOT prove I am no Clarkian. That's twice I've slapped you on this. You want to try again?

Got Logic?

[DCussen]

I don't care who Monty the RedBeetle is, and please stop sending me a bunch of videos. I didn't ask for them. God bless.

[1689Baptist]

@DCussen I am sending my videos to all my friends, if you don't want my videos then I will unfriend you. As it stands right now we are friends. Besides that if you don't want to watch it then delete it.

[Brucev7]

Good, but get some WD40 for those hinges! )

[brainouty]

Wow, this is a milestone. For the first time, I wholly agree with what you posted in a video. Thanks for sending this to me, 1689. I had meant to watch it but then forgot.

Okay, let's not get too chummy. Time to go back to work.

[Absolute21Truth]

Foreknowledge precedes predestination (Romans 8). God gives us grace and faith (and everything else). Our responsibility: choose to live in the spirit or in the flesh (Romans 8 again). This is true of the entire salvation journey. Overcomers inherit the Kingdom of Heaven Rev. 3:8. Our ability to believe/live in Christ and carry out the Great Commission (all part of salvation journey) comes from God but hinges upon our choice: spirit or flesh? This free will Calvin/Reformed Theology is missing,

[rofyle]

I'm glad you're pointing this out about Clark. He held to aberrant views concerning justification, sanctification, and even election. I don't think Monty has read much of Clark. I like Clark when it comes to philosophy, and maybe one or two other things, but I don't he's of much benefit anywhere else. Kind of like Sproul in that regard - worth reading when it comes to the subject of God's sovereignty, but pretty much useless everywhere else.

[BludBaut]

I don't know who Monty or Clark are and don't care. Neither do I remember the apostles saying to one another, "What would Elijah do? In fact, I don't remember ANY MAN of God EVER ASKING what previous men of God said or thought or did. The Pharisees made a big deal over Moses when Jesus was here, but men of God never did. Men of God always heard God speak.

Why isn't the Biblical example good enough for us? Is this what, "When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth? means?

[blessedwithoutmeasur]

rightousness is a free gift like salvation we don't have to work for our salvation it is also a free gift , working out our salvation doesn't mean we have to work to get salvation we already have that,that verse is not in phil2 13 but as you take scriture agaist scriptsure it will have more meaning

[BludBaut]

@blessedwithoutmeasur For some reason, he didn't want to quote that Scripture in its entirety, but it says "Work out your salvation WITH FEAR AND TREMBLING." I've always felt the first part was contingent on the second, especially in light of grace and doubly relevant since the fear of God is in such disrepute today and when it is mentioned, it is so often wrongly defined. Don't we err when we say we don't have to do what the New Covenant says? Is that not arrogant and presumptuous?

[blessedwithoutmeasur]

@BludBaut truth , seeing in scripture we need to veiw the text compleatly and ask the Holy Spirit who will show us things to come, will see to it to make us understand what this verses mean,

[BludBaut]

@blessedwithoutmeasur He is the Lord of the Church. Our part is faith for the things we need right now and faith for our brothers, hope for what we don't see but have Scriptural justification and fervent love towards our brothers. It seems we're lacking greatly here; not so much in loving our one or two best friends, but in loving those who disagree with us and are a little strange and not as spiritual as we think they should be, the ones who are flaky and the "heretics" who surely aren't saved.

[blessedwithoutmeasur]

@BludBaut some people are saved , but some people just listen to preachers ans don't krack open the bible for themselves, Kenneth e haHagin called them baby birds , but there is hope in prayer like in eph 1 16-23 and also col and phil , no one is perfect but we are perfected in Him , God wants everyone to know Him in the power of His resurection, as phil 3 10 says, It is great to know God Loves all of us and He is no repect of persons,love ya bro

[1689Baptist]

@BludBaut Adding the last part of the verse "with fear and trembling" in no way changes nor contradicts what is said in the video

[BludBaut]

@1689Baptist (cont) heresy, have a strength in "family" and valuing the life of the unborn. The Presbyterians, predestination, the Pentecostals, the baptism in the Spirit, the Baptists, water baptism and the simplicity of the New Birth and yet each has its weaknesses also.

The weirdness is the rancor and lack of love and acceptance toward one another.

Frankly, I got nothing out of the video. "Heady" doctrine never has done anything for me. I like Word that feeds my spirit, not my intellect.

[martalog121]

@BludBaut

false dychotomy between spirit and intellect(in the Word, the 2 are synonyms if i remember correctly) 

[BludBaut]

@martalog121 If you're saying the intellect and the spirit are the same, you are very mistaken. The intellect is of the soul. The flesh and the spirit are contrary and the stronger will bear more influence on the intellect.

In other words, meditating on the Word day and night will change your thinking. Ignoring the Word will make your thinking get worse. If you don't feed the spiritual man, the effects will largely be obscure and obtuse because you're walking in darkness. If the spirit is fed

[martalog121]

@BludBaut

the Bible uses 'heart' and 'mind' as synonims(in most of the OT and NT verses)

look up the words in a concordance and you'll understand that your diatribe is not biblical

faculty psychology is a recent western idea that should be discarted as trash !!!

[BludBaut]

@martalog121 Your carelessness and dishonesty is incredible. Please don't address me again without doing some HONEST homework.

[martalog121]

@BludBaut

asserting without proving what u assert means NOTHING, so how about u doing your homework first..i did mine

[BludBaut]

@martalog121  1Cor2

[martalog121]

@BludBaut

what about it?

[BludBaut]

@martalog121 Too lazy to read it, huh? This belies your claim of doing your homework.

Well, I'm not His replacement for wisdom & understanding. If you refuse to get it from Him, I won't help you. Show a sincere desire to learn from the Spirit and if you ask intelligent questions that show you've been seeking the Lord, I'll address them.

There's more in 1Cor1:17 -- 1Cor2 than you can get in a day. I doubt if you can get it in a year, but you can try.

Or listen to DM and be spiritually dull.

[martalog121]

@BludBaut

unless u are specific i can not address whatever u're trying to say...as for what i listen to or not is not your concern!

[BludBaut]

@martalog121 cont2 adequately (let's say "well"), then the spirit will enlighten the intellect and you'll both walk in light and understand your way, or as the Scripture says, "The spiritual man judges all things but he himself is judged of no man.

I think the most important point I'm making is the difference in cognizance between abiding in the Word and "going with the flow" (of life) The difference is darkness or light, yet darkness blinds and we don't see how blind we are. It's deception.

[BludBaut]

@martalog121 After I finished that, I reread it along with your remark to see if I was communicating and if you would understand and agree and I'm not sure you will. So let me take from this angle. If I'm fleshly (carnal) my intellect will deceive me, e.g., "Oh, that's OK, There's nothing wrong with that, That won't hurt anything, Seems good to me," etc., because the intellect is blinded by darkness. The spirit is born again and is the candle of the Lord but it's got no fuel (WORD) with which

[BludBaut]

@martalog121 cont2 to feed, nourish and enlighten us. It's only the spirit that's born again. Not the flesh, not the soul, not the intellect, not the emotions. The well being of all those things is determined by how well our spirits receive from the Spirit of God. To illustrate the intellect isn't enough, there are many men who know the Scriptures (and hate God) much better than many Christians who love God and don't yet know much Scripture. The intellect is functioning well for the pagan, but

[BludBaut]

@martalog121 though he knows Scripture, he gets no spiritual nourishment, no life from God, no wisdom from God and no revelation or illumination in Scripture for God is not speaking to him because he is not His. Yet, his intellect may be so well flourishing that he can present seemingly reasonable arguments in rapid fire succession.

Also consider the rich man being in torments. The Scripture says the body without the spirit is dead, yet this dead man, had a rational conversation with Abraham.

[BludBaut]

@martalog121 cont4 We can therefore see (if we're not blinded by false doctrine) that the intellect is of the soul because the dead man is able to think, reason and appeal to Abraham without his spirit ("which returned to God who gave it"). This explains the doctrinal error that some teach that "the soul and spirit" go to God. If this were true, Jesus was lying because He testified that the man, being dead, was able to have a conversation with Abraham. This requires the man's soul.

[BludBaut]

@blessedwithoutmeasur When we see two verses seemingly at odds, should we not see that as God's invitation to seek Him for wisdom and understanding? Don't fools take Scriptures that seem to be at odds and polarize over them because they have no faith in the living God to hear prayer and answer and give revelation?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never seen brethren do this. All I've seen is to reference an opinion of some dead man of God and endorse it and argue with the "opposition.".

[1689Baptist]

@BludBaut Sir, there is no Scripture that is at odds with other Scripture, this is the reason I embraced reformed theology b/c it is the only one that does not have Scripture at odds with one another.

[BludBaut]

@1689Baptist If you'll check, you'll see that I never said Scriptures were at odds, I said "seemingly at odds," and I and multitudes of people can show you Scriptures that are"seemingly at odds." God chose to write the Scriptures the way He did and Paul told us about a veil that is over the eyes that isn't removed until one "turns to the Lord."

In my observation, no sect has a corner on truth, but God seems to have allowed each sect to have a strength in an area. Even Catholics, for all their

[BludBaut]

@blessedwithoutmeasur Which, btw, I've never yet seen any recommendation for such behavior in God's Word. The ONE Church council in the NT had disagreeing brothers come together to DISCUSS the matter and in the end, the decision said, "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us."

Yet, men love to polarize and pretend they're right regardless of Biblical pattern and in complete disregard of the voice of the Spirit and love of the brethren.

[blessedwithoutmeasur]

@BludBaut so what are you saying ? we should not worry even of  of salvation we need to just fellowship with the Lord Jesus and He is our High Preist , he makes innersession for us

[BludBaut]

@blessedwithoutmeasur I said several things, but I never addressed worry one way or another. Worry is ALWAYS unbelief and unbelief is sin. Hebrews says, "We who have believed do enter into rest." Can you worry and rest? Aren't they antithetical?

Every Believer has his own relationship with the Lord. We're not clones. We learn, by faith, what is pleasing to the Lord. We should look to the Lord for everything and hear Him. As Kenneth Hagin used to say, "Keep the switch of faith turned on."

[BludBaut]

I want to make a recommendation.

Quit reading commentaries, stick to the Word and meditate in it. Two minutes of God putting life in your heart is better than five years of doctrine in your head.

[Blogrich55]

@BludBaut "Quit reading commentaries, stick to the Word and meditate in it. Two minutes of God putting life in your heart is better than five years of doctrine in your head."

Jesus said of people like you, "Ye worship ye know NOT what." Jesus, salvation, God, EVERYTHING must be defined according the the Bible. This is doctrine. Mormons worship a false Jesus as do JWs. Doctrine is important.

[martalog121]

all our "good works" are tainted and it's very easy for us to fall into the aristotelian false view that by practicing good we become good.

Monty comes out strong at times on the issue but he(rightly) keeps the Law/Gospel distinction on the forefront!

[1689Baptist]

@martalog121 Are you against Clark then and side with Monty?

[martalog121]

@1689Baptist

both, Justification and Sanctification, are of the Lord

God is giving us the "willing and the doing",so if that's the case who in his/her right mind will think that

our 'good works' are keeping him/her saved when in fact it is God who is doing it?

funny,but it was Monty a few yrs back that recommended Clark to me...now i have almost all of Clark's books

keep up the good fight

[RedBeetle]

@martalog121,

You better be careful of Blogrich55 and 1689Baptist. They are liars. They teach Lordship Salvation, which teaches sanctification is synergistic. They reject Law / Gospel Distinction (1689Baptist makes fun of the 3rd Use of the Law!). See Clark's book "Sanctification." It teaches monergism. Lordship Salvation proponents, like R.C. Sproul, J.I. Packer, Robert Morey, for example, all teach sanctification is by synergism. Lordship is linked to Van Tilianism and Federal Vision.

[martalog121]

@RedBeetle

as i said before,Justification and Sanctification are BOTH of the Lord(HE is the author and the finisher of both)

as for those synergists(when it comes to Sanctification)that u've listed i come to the same conclusion that u did ;)

R Morey attacks LS but he is a vantilian par excellence,it took me a while to admit it !

[CalvinistChurch]

@1689Baptist wrote: "Are you against Clark then and side with Monty?"

Jeff, you are begging the question, again. You have NOT proven Clark and I disagree--you simply assume it, then you present a false dichotomy (another logical fallacy). All that from one idiotic rhetorical question. You have to be one of the most irrational individuals on Youtube.

Got Logic?

[Blogrich55]

@CalvinistChurch "You have NOT proven Clark and I disagree..."

Clark said "faith is the root and works are the fruit. We cannot be saved without them." so Monty, do you agree or disagree with Clark?

Do you even know the difference between a sufficient condition and a necessary condition Monty?

[CalvinistChurch]

@Blogrich55,

You're begging the question. Pretending I disagree with Clark does not prove it. You need a class in logic. Compare your petitio principii with my video "Why Gordon Clark didn't say: Our Good Works Are Necessary To Salvation." There, I provide the viewer with your words, show how they not only contradict Clark, but the writings of the Reformation. You were silenced, and that is why you had to resort to pretending.

Good works are NOT necessary TO salvation, as Clark taught.

[Blogrich55]

@CalvinistChurch  "You were silenced.." And YOU have been refuted. You have NEVER answered the question. Your video proves NOTHING. You have LOST and now resort to LIES. But then, LIES are all you have. I do NOT teach Pelagianism, common grace, or Lordship Salvation. Keep lying Pinocchio.

[Blogrich55]

Sadly Monty's antinomianism has caused him to go ballistic over Clark's views on faith producing the fruit of good works. Antinomians of Monty's sort do not feel works are obligatory but optional. He accuses Jeff and I of teaching justification by works and faith and being Catholics. Yet works have NOTHING to do with justification but sanctification.

X If you have saving faith

Y then you will have good works

therefore no good works implies no saving faith.

Modus Tollens

[BludBaut]

@Blogrich55 Your last sentence reminds me of a fact I NEVER hear addressed. James talks about works working with our faith and a multitude of people pontificate about it but I've yet to hear one mention the fact that Abraham's saving works didn't show up until he was OVER 110 YEARS OLD.

Yet they want to yoke people with that burden at 20, 30 and 40 because it's "good theology."

Too much dead letter and not enough of the Breath of life. If every fingerprint, eye, nose, ear, breast, voice,

[BludBaut]

@Blogrich55 (cont) personality, snowflake, individual and man of God (in God's Word) has been different, why doesn't anyone look with awe and faith for God to do something new and different ALL THE TIME, rather than want to compel everyone to fit a form of what "we've learned" to be the way God does things?

I thought it was His Church and He was the Head. Why is it NO ONE says, "Well, God said to us," and if he does, he's promptly labeled a false prophet. How will God speak without His men?

[Blogrich55]

@CalvinistChurch "Calvinism teaches that sanctification is synergistic. That Blogrich55 is teaching synergism shows he is no Calvinist."

WOW! THAT is a blatant contradiction Monty. Both statements are also FALSE! I have NEVER denied that God is the SOLE CAUSE of our sanctification. If you are such a good Clarkian, WHY can't you say you agree with Clark when he says "faith is the root and works are the fruit. We cannot be saved without them.

[CalvinistChurch]

@Blogrich55@Blogrich55,

Yes,

I made a mistake. I apologize and retract that. I should NOT have typed: "Calvinism teaches that sanctification is synergistic." I meant to type: "Calvinism teaches that sanctification is monergistic." Even so, you DID teach synergism when you wrote, and I quote: "Yet works have NOTHING to do with justification but sanctification." The context of your comment concerns the cause of justification and sanctification. You are completely wrong, again.

[Blogrich55]

@CalvinistChurch " Even so, you DID teach synergism when you wrote, and I quote: "Yet works have NOTHING to do with justification but sanctification." The context of your comment concerns the cause of justification and sanctification. You are completely wrong, again."

"Not only do destructive critiques make such mistakes; many sincere and devout worshipers are also confused. They often say that we are saved by faith alone. This of course is false. We are justified by faith alone;

cont'd...

[Blogrich55]

...cont'd

"but we are regenerated without any previous faith or works; we are sanctified by faith and works; and we shall be glorified by neither. A closer study of Scripture would help us avoid confusion relative to the several distinct phases of an all-inclusive salvation." The Pastoral Epistles by GHC pg 133

Monty do you agree with Clark when he says "we are sanctified by faith and works"? Yes or no

Better yet Monty, are you REALLY even a Clarkian at all?

[Blogrich55]

@RedBeetle So was Clark being a synergist when he wrote "we are sanctified by faith and works?"

My statement "Yet works have NOTHING to do with justification but sanctification" does NOT teach or imply works are the cause of sanctification. YOU are LYING once more and deliberately twisting my words to prove your false accusations. Do you even understand logic Monty?

[CalvinistChurch]

@Blogrich55,

Clark did not have a history of equivocation on the topics of justification and sanctification. You do. Notice Clark's context is dealing with the hypothetical topic that the justified might live but not do good works, but he's not asserting synergism in justification or sanctification. You claim our good works are necessary TO salvation, a claim that was condemned, a condemnation that met with confessional status. Clark held to Law / Gospel Distinction, while you reject it.

[Blogrich55]

@CalvinistChurch "You claim our good works are..."

Monty it was Clark himself who said "faith is the root and works are the fruit. We cannot be saved without them." Clark also said "We are sanctified by faith and works."

Do you or do you NOT agree with Clark? You still haven't answered the question. Refusal to answer in a debate means you LOSE. Well, Monty, yes or no? Do you agree with Clark?

[CalvinistChurch]

@Blogrich55,

So, your answer is "Yes, Clark is teaching sanctification is by synergism."

I'm not surprised. That's why my latest video "Blogrich55 Caught Teaching Synergism" sets the record straight. Richard, Clark was not a synergist, even if you and your Lordship Salvation friends are.

In Calvinism, we don't teach sanctification is synergistic. We teach Sola Gratia.

Sorry to see you misread Clark. Oh, your denomination, the PCUSA, approved homosexuality today. Clark left the PCUSA.

[Blogrich55]

@CalvinistChurch "Sorry to see you misread Clark..."

And I am sorry to see that you cannot give a straight answer. I ask you once again: Clark said "We are sanctified by faith and works." Do you agree with Clark on that or not?? A simple yes or no will suffice. You seem to have a hard time giving a straight answer. You do love your RedHerrings though, don't you?

[Blogrich55]

@CalvinistChurch writes: So, your answer is "Yes, Clark is teaching sanctification is by synergism."

Funny Monty but I NEVER said that. I asked you a question which, as usual, you did NOT answer. No surprise. You CAN'T answer it.

[CalvinistChurch]

@Blogrich55,

I wasn't quoting you. I was showing your position. I answer you below.

[CalvinistChurch]

@Blogrich55,

Are you saying Gordon Clark is teaching that sanctification is by synergism?

Don't be shy. Don't be afraid.  You've been hinting at this for months.

Clark said that if there was any question as to what he taught with sanctification to see his book on the topic.

You and Jeff like to quote small bits of Clark where he is NOT dealing with the topic in detail. This gives you the chance to equivocate. You make your claim, and I will bury you with Clark, chump.

Got the guts?

[Blogrich55]

@CalvinistChurch "Are you saying Gordon Clark is teaching that sanctification is by synergism?"

What I am doing is asking YOU if YOU think that. How do you explain his quotation. We quoted the whole paragraph (Pastoral Epistles pg 133).

Now I will ask you once again. Do you agree with Clark or not when he says: "We are sanctified by faith and works"?

If you are going to accuse me of synergism why don't you accuse Clark of synergism. Got consistency?

[CalvinistChurch]

@Blogrich55,

"What I am doing is asking YOU if YOU think that. How do you explain his quotation. We quoted the whole paragraph (Pastoral Epistles pg 133)."

Oh no, Richard, you claim to be the one who has read Clark for decades, and since you brought this quote up AFTER I stated clearly that Clark was NOT a synergist, and since I asked you FIRST, then state whether you think Clark is a synergist and explain the quote in light of Clark's complete teaching on sanctification. I can: can you?

[CalvinistChurch]

@Blogrich55

" If you are going to accuse me of synergism why don't you accuse Clark of synergism."

The context of Clark's entire teaching on sanctification demonstrate that he is NOT teaching synergism.

Remember, Clark didn't say "Our good works are necessary TO salvation." You said that.

The context of YOUR entire teaching: justification and sanctification is synergistic. After all, need I point out how you affirm free-will, common grace, the Gospel is commands to be obeyed...LOL!!!

[777Levin]

I'm confused as to who is Monty. And this I know. God reveales His truth to mankind. He does so in many forms. It is mankind's choice to believe or not believe. If we believe, as John 1:12 tells, we have the εξουσιαν, the authority, to become children of God. It is not automatic. This is the "working out" of our salvation, whereby we engage and are willing participants in the process of becoming Christ-like.

[dkshotwell]

As a calvinist i must say that monty is a joke; he is parody of all the slander that is made against reformed theology. His hyper myopic view of doctrine would leave even the Lord Jesus outside the camp.

[APSOC38]

@dkshotwell It is entirely possible for someone to have their theology right and still be unregenerate. I know, because I am becoming convinced that I was that way. It is tragic to reflect upon this and seeing it get played out before our very eyes with Monty. Believe it or not, I grieve over this and I pray for Monty to repent.

Now, he might take my words out of context in a video. IDC if he does or not. The fact is that he might actually be the one on the outside looking in. That scares me.

[Afrikitty]

@APSOC38 "It is entirely possible for someone to have their theology right and still be unregenerate."

What does that mean? What "theology" are you talking about? The Gospel? Is it possible for somebody to get the Gospel "right" and still be unregenerate? What does that mean? More than belief in the gospel? Must he get it right in his heart AND his mind? Is that, perhaps correct?

How do YOU know that your prior condition (as you state) wasn't the correct one?

It is GOD ALONE who justifies!

[CalvinistChurch]

@APSOC38 wrote: "It is entirely possible for someone to have their theology right and still be unregenerate. I know, because I am becoming convinced that I was that way. It is tragic to reflect upon this and seeing it get played out before our very eyes with Monty."

In Calvinism, we do not claim to known who is and who is not regenerated. Such a claim is part of hyper-Calvinism, not Calvinism. I think even James White, who is not a Calvinist, would agree with me on this.

Best wishes!