Part 1 of 2
tartanarmy wrote:
So, you think that Calvin is merely saying here that God arbitrarily saves the elect and sends the rest to Hell?
Is that your assessment of Calvin here?
Mark
So who makes the choice in salvation? Does man make a choice in salvation (this includes regeneration) or does God choose? If God chooses who to regenerate, and if those who are regenerated can only believe and persevere to the end then God certainly does "save" those whom he has chosen to save. The rest have the only other obvious outcome, Gods wrath. Arbitrary is a good word for it as Calvinist don't believe man makes a "free" choice in salvation. Interesting that Calvinist do believe that man makes "free" choices once he is saved, even sin, but for some reason unbelief isn't one of those sinful choices he is "free" to make.
Why don't you give a succinct explanation of Calvinist belief then, since we can't get it right. Smile
I can only hope to answer these matters as plainly as I am able, and pray that God shall open your eyes to understand these things. Here goes,
So who makes the choice in salvation?
In scripture, salvation as a concept, has various distinctions and not all of them mean exactly the same thing. Consult any basic Christian book on Theology if you doubt this.
We can in one sense say that God chooses us and in another sense we can say that we choose God.
It is precisely in this “sense” area we need to define scripture using scripture.
We call the study of salvation, “Soteriology”. (The study of Salvation)
That subject aims to provide the scriptural terms, ideas, concepts which address salvation.
When you ask who makes the choice in salvation, I shall answer it with scripture, and then we shall see if we can harmonise what scripture says.
We shall either harmonise it (Calvinism) or make it contradict itself (Arminianism)
Here is a brief, very brief study. (Scriptures chosen from memory, plus I was tired!)
1/ Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before thee life and death, the blessing and the curse: therefore choose life, that thou mayest live, thou and thy seed;
vs
Joh 5:40 and ye will not come to me, that ye may have life.
2/ Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house.
Vs
Mat 19:26 And Jesus looking upon them said to them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
3/ 1Jn 5:13 These things have I written unto you, that ye may know that ye have eternal life, even unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God.
vs
Joh 15:16 Ye did not choose me, but I chose you, and appointed you, that ye should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should abide: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
4/ Mat 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
vs
Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.
5/ Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
vs
1Co 2:14 Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.
Who is doing what with context, presuppositions and exegesis?
First of all, scripture is never meant to be “pit against scripture”, we are not meant to be engaging in a game of theological Ping-Pong, and therefore when this appears to happen in any exchange, the fundamental challenge to understand scripture has been overruled right at the start, or at least is so, if we continue to use this means as some kind of method to pin our understanding of doctrine.
It is the aim of interpretation to get rid of the (vs) mentality.
It is the aim of interpretation to strip us of our “pet” passages, preconceived ideas and presuppositions, traditions and any other “junk” that gets in the way between “us” and “scripture alone”, which is what as Christians, we say we believe.
Arminians I have talked to are quite happy to play Ping Pong with the scriptures.
Sometimes I will have a wee hit, but soon realise what a stupid game this is, and I will ask if we can question the rules of this game as it makes no sense whatsoever.
Sadly, many like the game and love the rules and have no affection nor inclination to challenge their long loved tradition of playing and understanding this game. To challenge is to destroy the history of their game. This is the game they grew up with, was passed down from generations, was taught to them in childhood, was taught them by their closest friends and teachers, and why should such rules be challenged?
Now, I know I am being quite polemic here, so please forgive me for that, but I am genuinely trying to get some people to challenge their ideas about this thing called interpretation. It is way more important than many would seem to think.
For example, someone here said, and I quote,
“if most Christians dont understand these issues, then how can they be THAT important?”
This is some scary logic and seems to illustrate to me why there is a need to do what I do.
The obvious assumption from the above statement is in the “Most Christians” statement.
Followed immediately by “don’t understand” statement.
This is modern evangelical Christianity. Welcome, sit down, switch off and enjoy the ride.
Scripture does not promote, teach, advocate this kind of Christianity! It simply does not!
The assumption begs the question! Are “most” Christians even Christians at all?
That is where we must start! The consequences are huge are they not?
So, to admit that most Christians do not understand these issues and therefore such is not important is one almighty and profoundly scary assertion is it not? Think about it. I have.
It can legitimately be argued that most Christians who are thinking these things are not important are perhaps not Christians at all! This is viable, possible and certainly reasonable.
Now, for the sake of argument and discussion, I will not pursue that here in this thread.
Back to the subject.
I do not want to play Ping Pong with the above scriptures or any others one might add to the mix.
If you do, then it only proves your mindset with regards to how we are supposed to interpret scripture.
It only reveals an inability to approach scripture with the reverence it alone deserves and an inability to lay aside our presuppositions.
If we disagree at this point, I see no reason to further discuss the subject of interpretation of scripture with any reasonableness and rationality of thought.
Does man make a choice in salvation (this includes regeneration) or does God choose?
That is the issue and we have gone back and forth. Please answer the above comments I have made and then we might catch our breaths and try again!
If God chooses who to regenerate, and if those who are regenerated can only believe and persevere to the end then God certainly does "save" those whom he has chosen to save.
Yes, and how I would love for you to flesh this out, just to see if you are actually able to lay out the Calvinist view in its fullness, even if you totally disagree with it.
That is my challenge to you!, and I assure you, such an attempt would be a learning experience for you and perhaps others.
The rest have the only other obvious outcome, Gods wrath. Arbitrary is a good word for it as Calvinist don't believe man makes a "free" choice in salvation.
But Calvinists
do affirm that Man makes a free choice to believe. This is a misrepresentation of Calvinism, and we are fed up pointing this out.
Interesting that Calvinist do believe that man makes "free" choices once he is saved, even sin, but for some reason unbelief isn't one of those sinful choices he is "free" to make.
Again, how can we discuss these things with such misrepresentation going on. I will be generous here and suggest it is ignorance rather than deliberate misrepresentation at work.
Why don't you give a succinct explanation of Calvinist belief then, since we can't get it right.
Will you listen, but more importantly, will you try to lay aside your lens and let us say what we say on our own terms?
Your lens gets in the way and skews what we are actually trying so hard to tell you.
tartanarmy wrote:
If those doctrines taught in Calvinist/Reformed Theology were untrue, then I am the most miserable of men, without hope, and without assurance and ultimately one seriously deluded individual.
How does Calvinism/Reformed Theology give assurance?
I will hope to give a fuller answer to this question but there are literally hundreds of good Calvinists books with this subject available for your reading pleasure.
I will just quote one long text
which answers your one question and if you cannot see how such a passage brings assurance to a Christian, then again, I cannot help you at this point.
Please read it and dwell closely upon what is written. I have made bold some statements just for emphasis.
Rom 8:28-39
And we know that to them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to his purpose.
For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?
He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things?
Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth;
who is he that condemneth? It is Christ Jesus that died, yea rather, that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or anguish, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
Even as it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; We were accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,
nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
One of your teachers, Mr Steve Gregg believes we are only as assured this day as we are any other time, and that by a condition in the present tense called faith.
He fails to understand that faith is a gift and the elect shall “all” have faith, some small some great and some may even fail at times to use it, but all will have it.
Faith is not a condition, if it were, then assurance itself is based upon us rather than God’s faithfulness.
Paul above Vs Steve Gregg and his doctrine of Conditional faith. It’s a no brainer really. Gregg is in error
I would further ask. If a free will decision was made to get you into salvation, then a free will decision to get you out of salvation is possible. That is why Arminians have no consistent warrant to believe in eternal security, without butchering scripture.
Also, will the Arminian in Heaven have a free will to sin and if not, does that not offend his sense of liberty!
Much more could be said.
No matter what you might argue, the verses above give me all the assurance in the world and they should do that for you too!
Mark