Banner

"...if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10). (Council of Orange: Canon 6)

Contributors

  • Rev. John Samson
  • Rev. David Thommen (URC)
  • John Hendryx
  • Marco Gonzalez

    We are a community of confessing believers who love the gospel of Jesus Christ, affirm the Biblical and Christ-exalting truths of the Reformation such as the five solas, the doctrines of grace, monergistic regeneration, and the redemptive historical approach to interpreting the Scriptures.

    top250.jpg

    Community Websites

    Monergism Books on Facebook

    Blogroll

    Latest Posts

    Categories

    Archives

    Ministry Links

  • « The Strong Hold of Ecumenicalism: Ecclesiological Chaos By Marco Gonzalez | Main | There's Good News and Bad News by Pastor John Samson »

    Bible Logic Fallacies of Synergists

    The following numbered items are common assumptions made by synergists in rejecting the bondage of the will and God's sovereign grace in salvation.

    Fallacy #1. God would not command us to do what we cannot do.

    God gave the Law to Moses, The Ten Commandments, to reveal what man cannot do, not what he can do.

    A. Premise #1 is unscriptural. God gave the Law for two reasons: To expose sin and to increase it so man would have no excuse for declaring his own righteousness. Why? Because in the context, he does NO righteousness. As Martin Luther said to Erasmus, when you are finished with all your commands and exhortations from the Old Testament, I’ll write Ro.3:20 over the top of it all. Why use commands and exhortations from the O.T. to show free will when they were given to prove man’s sinfulness? They exist to show what we cannot do rather than what we can do. Yes, God gave commands to man which man cannot do. Therefore commandments and exhortations do not prove free will. Nowhere in scripture is there any hint that God gives commands to natural men to prove they are able to perform them.

    [Here is the passage Luther quoted to Erasmus to show that law's purpose is to expose our bondage to sin, not show our moral ability to keep it: "Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin." Rom 3:19, 20]

    B. This premise is irrational. There may be many reasons for commanding someone to do something, other than the assumption that the can do it. The purpose, as above, may be to show the person his inability to perform the command. Thus, NOTHING can be deduced about abilities from a mere command. Passages which state things such as "If thou art willing" and "whosoever believes” are spoken in the subjunctive (hypothetical) mood. A grammarian would explain that this is a conditional statement that asserts nothing indicatively. In such passages, what we "ought" to do does not necessarily imply what we "can" do.

    C. The consequences of Adam's disobedience on his descendants includes spiritual impotence in several areas: man's inability to understand God (Psalm 50:21; Job 11:7-8; Rom 3:11); to see spiritual things (John 3:3); to know his own heart (Jer 17:9); to direct his own steps in the path of life (Jeremiah 10:23; Proverbs 14:12); to free himself from the curse of the Law (Galatians 3:10); to receive the Holy Spirit (John 14:17); to hear, understand or receive the words of God (John 8:47; 1 Corinthians 2:14); to give himself birth into God's family (John 1:13, Romans 9:15-16); to produce repentance and faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9; John 6:64,65; 2 Thessalonians 3:2; Philippians 1:29; 2 Timothy 2:25); to come to Christ (John 10:26; John 6:44); and to please God (Romans 8:5, 8, 9).

    Fallacy #2. Unless our will is free, then we are not responsible.

    Or, "If not free, then not responsible." This means if we are unable to make a contrary choice, then our wills are not free. Thus, if we are completely bound in sin so that we can do nothing else but sin, then we are free from responsibility for those sins. This is irrational because the assumption behind this is the idea of neutrality.

    A. The Bible does not present the concept of freedom in this way. According to Scripture, freedom is described as holiness. The ultimate freedom is absolute holiness. If that is true, then God is the most free being in the universe. Otherwise, we must say that God is the most enslaved being in the universe because He is the one least neutral on moral issues. Plus, God is not free in the libertarian sense to do something contrary His own nature. For example God cannot lie or be unholy or He would violate his own essence and thus no longer be God (an impossible supposition). but He is free in the Biblical sense...free from sin and the bondage of corruption ... as will be the saints in heaven when glorified on the last day. That they cannot choose otherwise [to sin] when glorified does not hinder their freedom, according to the Bible, who speaks of these persons as being the MOST free.

    B. Likewise, if we affirm that bondage of will eliminates responsibility, then the best way to avoid responsibility for ours sins to be as bound by them as possible. The drunk who is bound by alcoholism is therefore not responsible for his actions. Should we encourage people to sin all the more therefore, so that they are not responsible any more?

    C. The entire idea of neutrality of will is absurd. If the decisions of the will are not determined by the internal nature of the person, then in what sense can it be said that those decisions are the results of a decision of the person himself? How in fact could be a decision be truly a moral one if it is morally neutral? How can morality be morality at all and be neutral?

    Fallacy #3. For love to be real, it must have the possibility of being rejected.

    God wants us to love him freely, not by compulsion. Therefore, fallen man must have the ability to love God. It is simply that he chooses to love other things.

    A. Scripture teaches that love for God is a product of His grace. 1Ti.1:14. If grace is necessary to make us love God, then it follows that we had no ability to love him before the arrival of grace. It also means that grace is not given because we chose to love God. We chose to love God because grace is given. Grace, not a virtue in man, takes the initiative.

    B. This premise is similar to the one that says, "Contrary choice is necessary for freedom to exist." Does God periodically give the saints in heaven an opportunity to hate him so as to be ‘fair’? Did Jesus have some ability to hate the Father? Or was His love for the Father a reflection of what He himself really is?

    C. If faith is a gift of grace, as we saw above, then why is it strange to think that love may not be also a gift of grace?

    Fallacy #4. A person cannot be punished for what he cannot help doing.

    If that is the case, then a Christian may not be rewarded for what his new nature compels him to do. Let us not forget that the nature of a person is not a thing he possesses. It is something he is.

    John Hendryx adapted from a short essay by Roger Smalling

    Posted by John on November 5, 2005 01:11 PM

    Comments

    John,

    I have been preaching through Philippians and the content therein has been fresh upon my mind. Philippians 2:10-11 states, "so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the father (ESV)."

    The phrase "and under the earth" poses a really HUGE problem for those who fall into the 3rd fallacy you spoke of. There are two reasons for this:

    1. Those under the earth are those in Hell. It is not as if once in Hell the unsaved are all of a sudden going to cease sin and start loving God; leaving them to humbly submit under him and confess Him as Lord. Rather, the opposite is true. The only way they will bend the knee and confess is by a forced hand of judgment bringing them to their knees. Without such a hand of judgment bringing them to such a state of recognition they would continue shaking their fists in the face of God.

    I remember hearing a sermon by Don Whitney on Hell when in college. He described to us that the language of hell being a place of "gnashing of teeth" was not the greatest picture. He described it as being more of a place of "gritting of teeth." Gritting, however, not in pain, but in anger and hatred toward God. If this be the case, then no other conclusion could be made except that of those in Hell recognizing Christ under a forced hand of judgment. So, the first issue that needs to be faced is that God is not as committed to our "free will" as some may intimate.

    2. The 3rd fallacy you speak of is totally destroyed in this verse. WHY? Because of what happens at the end of v.11... "to the glory of God the Father." God is glorified by a forced recognition of His Son. Though in their hearts in Hell, shaking their fists in His face, God is not only satisfied, but Glorified by their recognition of Christ even though it be forced.

    It is a fallacy to believe that love and devotion must be reciprocal in order for it to be satisfactory or glorifying to God. We have a clear instance where that is not the standard in relationship to the Glory of God. Not only has "free will" been violated, but God is duly glorified by the results of it. I do not necessarily know how all that works, but the scripture seems to be abundantly clear on this issue!

    God Bless!

    Hi John,

    May I translate your short article into Chinese and post on some websites?

    Please consider our link for Reformed resources in English and Spanish under your "ministry links" .
    In His bonds,
    Roger

    http://www.smallings.com/

    Thanks for your comments. Apologies for not getting back to you. I had some serious computer complications yesterday.

    Duncan, you may translate the material, of course, as long as you show the source with a link.

    Roger, thanks for your great ministry. When I have the opportunity I would be glad to add your link.

    Thank you John, I'll add the link
    as well as Roger's link.

    Here is the translation of this essay in simplified Chinese

    Hi John, you posted much faster than I did.

    That blog is not very stable, the original posting site is

    http://www.old-gospel.net/viewthread.php?tid=262

    "Let us not forget that the nature of a person is not a thing he possesses. It is something he is."
    I think this is mistaken. A person is not identical to his nature (essence). An essence is the sum collection of essential attributes (properties) such that if the thing loses one, it ceases to exist. If a person is his nature (using the is of identity) then he is identical to his essence which is identical to a collection of properties, and therefor the person is a property. But a person is not a property, it is what possesses those properties. You can only say "a person is his nature" if you are using the "is" of essential predication, but it's hard to see how saying a person is his nature (using the is of essential predication) is not synonimous with "a person has a nature essentially."

    Steven:

    So in other words, you would contend, that a persons essential nature is something he posseses external to his actual self. That a person is not their essence.

    So God's essence is not the sum total of who is is in Himself.

    I think you have a problem there. Jesus Himself contends that is is the nature of a person which determines the choices he makes:

    "Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit." Matthew 7:15-17

    "The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks. " Luke 6:43-45

    "but you do not believe because you are not my sheep"
    John 10:26

    "If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing what Abraham did, 40but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. 41You are doing what your father did." They said to him, "We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father--even God." 42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. John 8:39-45

    All of these passages speak of a persons choice being determined by who they are by nature. You cannot seperate the person from his essence.

    We must get our information about the nature of a man from the Scripture not from unaided reason and human philosophy.

    But Jesus also stated that he came to save the sinner, not the righteous...so he is saying that people can naturally be righteous and have no need for saving...that refutes his position as the savior of the world...

    Jesus never denied that some people do not need him naturally.


    On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Mark 2:17

    He is here only to help the mentally deranged. Jesus is not here to condemn either as he has stated, so that refutes his position as savior again. If there is no condemnation why must we be saved?

    If people used reason more often there would be far less 'sin'(error in behavior) in the world. Not that all behavior would be altered by thinking properly.

    http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/

    Iristin,

    All the World Guilty

    Romans 3 NASB “Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? 4 May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written,

    “ THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS,
    AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED.”

    5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.) 6 May it never be! For otherwise, how will God judge the world? 7 But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner?8 And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), “ Let us do evil that good may come”? Their condemnation is just.

    9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written,

    “ THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
    11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
    THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
    12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
    THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,
    THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.”
    13 “ THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE,
    WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,”
    “ THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS”;
    14 “ WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS”;
    15 “ THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
    16 DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
    17 AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN.”
    18 “ THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES.”

    19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.”

    Justification by Faith

    “21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”

    This would deny that some people do not need him naturally or in their unregenerate state would it not Iristin? Taking verses out of context is what the unregenerate do naturally because as it says in1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV, “14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” Can a person is their natural state which in enmity with God please Him or conform to His law? “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” (Romans 8:7-8 ESV) Since they can’t, we see your interpretation of what Jesus meant in Mark 2:17, “Jesus never denied that some people do not need him naturally. On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Mark 2:17 He is here only to help the mentally deranged. Jesus is not here to condemn either as he has stated, so that refutes his position as savior again. If there is no condemnation why must we be saved?”, but never said is false.

    As was noted earlier by John, “We must get our information about the nature of a man from the Scripture not from unaided reason and human philosophy.” This also applies to what Jesus meant in scripture.

    Gills Exposition of the Entire Bible; Mark 2:17 commentary,

    “When Jesus heard it, he saith to them,.... Christ either overheard what they said to his disciples, or he heard it from the relation of the disciples; and when he did, he turned to the Scribes and Pharisees, and spoke to them the following words:

    they that are whole, have no need of the physician, but they that are sick; which seems to be a proverbial expression, signifying that he was a physician; that these publicans and sinners were sick persons, and needed his company and assistance; but that they, the Scribes and Pharisees, were whole, and in good health, in their own esteem, and so wanted no relief; and therefore ought not to take it amiss, that he attended the one, and not the other. These words give a general view of mankind, in their different sentiments of themselves and of Christ; and of the usefulness of Christ to one sort, and not another. There are some that cry up the power of man's freewill, and plead for the strength and purity of human, nature, and extol its excellencies and abilities; and it is no wonder that these see no need of Christ, either for themselves or others: hence preachers of this complexion leave Christ out of their ministry for the most part; and generally speaking, lessen the glory and dignity of his person, depreciate his offices, reject his righteousness, and deny his satisfaction and atonement: and such reckon themselves the favourites of heaven, and are ready to say, whom shall God delight to honour, but us, who are so pure and holy? they therefore trust in their own righteousness, and despise others, and submit not to the righteousness of Christ; they make their own works their saviours, and so neglect the great salvation by Christ. There are others that are sick, and are quite sick of themselves; they see the impurity of their nature, how unsound and unhealthful they are; that from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot, there is no soundness in them, nothing but wounds, bruises, and putrefying sores: their loins are filled with the loathsome disease of sin; they are sensible of their inability to cure themselves, and that no mere creature can help them; and that all besides Christ, are physicians of no value: and therefore they apply to him, whose blood is a balm for every wound, and a medicine for every sickness and disease, and which cleanses from all sin: and whereas such, and such only, see their need of Christ as a physician, these only does he attend under this character; See Gill on Matthew 9:12. Adding this as a reason,

    I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. These words explain, what is more obscurely and figuratively expressed in the former; it appears from hence, that by "the whole" are meant, "righteous" persons; not such who are made righteous, by the righteousness of Christ imputed to them, but such who were outwardly righteous before men, who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, depended on their own righteousness, and fancied themselves, with respect to the righteousness of the law, blameless; and so, in their own apprehensions, stood in no need of Christ and his righteousness: yea, even needed not repentance, according to their own thoughts of things, and therefore were not called to it, but were left to their own stupidity and blindness; these were the Scribes and Pharisees; and by the "sick", are meant "sinners"; such who are made sensible of sin, and so of their need of Christ as a Saviour; and who have evangelical repentance given them, and are called to the exercise and profession of it: and Christ's calling sinners to repentance, and bestowing that grace, together with the remission of sins, which goes along with it, is doing his work and office as a "physician".”

    Iristin,

    All the World Guilty

    Romans 3 NASB “Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? 4 May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written,

    “ THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS,
    AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED.”

    5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.) 6 May it never be! For otherwise, how will God judge the world? 7 But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner?8 And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), “ Let us do evil that good may come”? Their condemnation is just.

    9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written,

    “ THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
    11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
    THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
    12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
    THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,
    THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.”
    13 “ THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE,
    WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,”
    “ THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS”;
    14 “ WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS”;
    15 “ THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
    16 DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
    17 AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN.”
    18 “ THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES.”

    19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.”

    Justification by Faith

    “21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”

    This would deny that some people do not need him naturally or in their unregenerate state would it not Iristin? Taking verses out of context is what the unregenerate do naturally because as it says in1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV, “14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” Can a person is their natural state which in enmity with God please Him or conform to His law? “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” (Romans 8:7-8 ESV) Since they can’t, we see your interpretation of what Jesus meant in Mark 2:17, “Jesus never denied that some people do not need him naturally. On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Mark 2:17 He is here only to help the mentally deranged. Jesus is not here to condemn either as he has stated, so that refutes his position as savior again. If there is no condemnation why must we be saved?”, but never said is false.

    As was noted earlier by John, “We must get our information about the nature of a man from the Scripture not from unaided reason and human philosophy.” This also applies to what Jesus meant in scripture.

    Gills Exposition of the Entire Bible; Mark 2:17 commentary,

    “When Jesus heard it, he saith to them,.... Christ either overheard what they said to his disciples, or he heard it from the relation of the disciples; and when he did, he turned to the Scribes and Pharisees, and spoke to them the following words:

    they that are whole, have no need of the physician, but they that are sick; which seems to be a proverbial expression, signifying that he was a physician; that these publicans and sinners were sick persons, and needed his company and assistance; but that they, the Scribes and Pharisees, were whole, and in good health, in their own esteem, and so wanted no relief; and therefore ought not to take it amiss, that he attended the one, and not the other. These words give a general view of mankind, in their different sentiments of themselves and of Christ; and of the usefulness of Christ to one sort, and not another. There are some that cry up the power of man's freewill, and plead for the strength and purity of human, nature, and extol its excellencies and abilities; and it is no wonder that these see no need of Christ, either for themselves or others: hence preachers of this complexion leave Christ out of their ministry for the most part; and generally speaking, lessen the glory and dignity of his person, depreciate his offices, reject his righteousness, and deny his satisfaction and atonement: and such reckon themselves the favourites of heaven, and are ready to say, whom shall God delight to honour, but us, who are so pure and holy? they therefore trust in their own righteousness, and despise others, and submit not to the righteousness of Christ; they make their own works their saviours, and so neglect the great salvation by Christ. There are others that are sick, and are quite sick of themselves; they see the impurity of their nature, how unsound and unhealthful they are; that from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot, there is no soundness in them, nothing but wounds, bruises, and putrefying sores: their loins are filled with the loathsome disease of sin; they are sensible of their inability to cure themselves, and that no mere creature can help them; and that all besides Christ, are physicians of no value: and therefore they apply to him, whose blood is a balm for every wound, and a medicine for every sickness and disease, and which cleanses from all sin: and whereas such, and such only, see their need of Christ as a physician, these only does he attend under this character; See Gill on Matthew 9:12. Adding this as a reason,

    I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. These words explain, what is more obscurely and figuratively expressed in the former; it appears from hence, that by "the whole" are meant, "righteous" persons; not such who are made righteous, by the righteousness of Christ imputed to them, but such who were outwardly righteous before men, who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, depended on their own righteousness, and fancied themselves, with respect to the righteousness of the law, blameless; and so, in their own apprehensions, stood in no need of Christ and his righteousness: yea, even needed not repentance, according to their own thoughts of things, and therefore were not called to it, but were left to their own stupidity and blindness; these were the Scribes and Pharisees; and by the "sick", are meant "sinners"; such who are made sensible of sin, and so of their need of Christ as a Saviour; and who have evangelical repentance given them, and are called to the exercise and profession of it: and Christ's calling sinners to repentance, and bestowing that grace, together with the remission of sins, which goes along with it, is doing his work and office as a "physician".”

    I just translated this article to brazilian portugues and uploaded it on my blog.
    monoergon.wordpress.com

    or

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/156295484/Falacias-logicas-biblicas-dos-Sinergistas

    I just translated this article to brazilian portugues and uploaded it on my blog.
    monoergon.wordpress.com

    or

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/156295484/Falacias-logicas-biblicas-dos-Sinergistas

    Post a comment

    Please enter the letter "y" in the field below: