No, I did not say “Doubting Calvinism.” Although I am a master of typos, this blog is about something different. First, every reader needs to know that I am a Calvinist. And while the “doctrines of grace” are not the most important issues in theology, I believe in them very deeply and find that they constitute a significant portion of my hope and comfort.
Why all this snuggling up to Calvinism? Because I don’t want to look like one of those disgruntled emerging types, continually complaining about his own family. Having said that, I am going to discuss a “problem” I often (certainly not always) see among my Calvinist brothers and sisters. I am going to state the issue and then attempt to provide a timid yet substantial interpretation of the problem.
Okay, enough of the prologue. Let me get to it.
I grew up a Baptist. As such, I was quite aware of the “Baptist way” of evangelism. First, you get the person saved. Next, you make sure they know that they can never lose their salvation. Assurance of salvation was not some tertiary or auxiliary doctrine. It was something the new believer in Christ must have, now. To be fair, this is not simply a Baptist thing. It is something that can be found in the DNA of pop Evangelicalism as well. And it makes some sense. If a new believer knows that he is secure in Christ, his works and service to the Lord will come because he is saved, not so that he can be saved. This secures his belief and understanding in justification by faith alone.
Assurance of salvation. I suppose this is the subject of this post. The question is Can one be absolutely sure that they are a believer and how important is this assurance in their walk with the Lord? Many Christians don’t believe an individual can be assured of their ultimate salvation. Many believe one can lose their salvation. Catholics believe that “mortal sins” (really nasty sins such as adultery, rejection of the perpetual virginity of Mary, or missing Mass without a valid excuse) can cause a Cathlic to lose their salvation. Arminians and Wesleyans believe one can cease to believe, thereby forfeiting their seat in heaven. Therefore, from the perspective of those who don’t believe salvation can be lost, these belief systems cannot offer any assurance. The criticism would be that no one could ever be sure, until death, whether or not they are saved. After all, what if I decided to sleep in on Sunday and then immediately died of a heart attack without repenting? How do I know for sure if my faith is going to last until the end? For Catholics, the fact that one cannot be assured of their salvation is dogmatized.
If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.
Council of Trent, Canon XV of the Decree on Justification
If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end, unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.
Council of Trent, Canon XVI of the Decree on Justification
Ironically, for the Catholic, to believe that one can be assured of their salvation would be the means by which they lose their salvation!
You: I thought this was about Calvinists!
Me: Patience, my son. Patience
Calvinists believe in a doctrine called “perseverance of the saints.” Normally, we don’t like the phrase “Once saved, always saved” (even though, technically, we believe this). A little better is the designation “eternal security.” But our favorite is “perseverance of the saints.” We believe that the elect will persevere in their faith until the end. Therefore, if one is among the elect, she cannot lose her seat in heaven.
One would think this would bring a great deal of assurance among Calvinists concerning their security. Their faith is a gift of God and he will never take it back. The elect are secure.
Now, as many of you know, I have quite a significant ministry dealing with Christians who are doubting their faith for one reason or another. Jude 22 says “have mercy on those who doubt.” I don’t think we do this enough. We avoid doubters like the plague, not knowing how to minister to them. Unfortunately, many of my fellow Calvinists deal with doubters according to one of two theological clichés. If they leave the faith, they were never saved to begin with. If they are elect, they will not leave faith. End of story.
There are three primary reasons Christians doubt. The first has to do with objective intellectual issues. These doubt the Bible’s truthfulness, Christ’s resurrection, and even God’s existence (among other things). Another group doubts God’s love and presence in their lives. The last group doubts their salvation and the reality of their faith. These are always wondering if they have true saving faith or a false faith. This last group lacks assurance.
It may surprise you to know that just about every contact I have had with people who are doubting their salvation are Calvinistic in their theology. In other words, they believe in unconditional election. These are the ones who believe in perseverance of the saints. These are the ones that believe that we cannot lose our salvation! Yet these are the ones who are doubting their faith the most.
Their issue has to do with their election. Are they truly among the elect? If they are, they believe their faith will persevere until the end. But if they are not, there is no hope. But how are they to know for sure whether they are elect? Maybe their faith is a stated faith? Maybe it is false. The gentleman I talked to today was so riddled with doubt, he was having thoughts of suicide. “How do I know my faith is an elect faith?” He wanted assurance so badly, but felt that his Calvinistic theology prevented him from ever having such assurance.
Isn’t this ironic? I have never had a call from an Arminian (or any other believer in conditional election) about this. In my experience, it is only Calvinists who doubt their faith in this way, with such traumatic devastation. Why?
I have my theories. Let me share them, but I am interested in your thoughts.
Here we go (close your ears Baptists): I think we make too much of the doctrine of assurance. I don’t know if it is paramount for a believer to always be absolutely assured that he is a believer. John Hannah, one of my favorite profs at Dallas Seminary, said one time in class, “I am ninety percent sure I am saved . . . but I am only ten percent sure of that.” He would say things like this, knowing it would disturb most of his Evangelical students’ foundations, causing them to think more deeply. I thought if John Hannah is not one hundred percent sure he is saved, how can anyone be? I did not know whether to rethink my Baptist upbringing or take John Hannah out into the hall and share the Gospel with him. Eventually, it caused me to rethink my understanding of assurance. I don’t think there is any reason why we have to be absolutely certain we are saved at every moment. When we present the Gospel to someone and they say they have trusted in Christ, we do them a disservice to force assurance upon them. After all, how do we know that their faith is real? We don’t. Instead of assurance, maybe we should give them some of the Hebrews warning passages. Maybe we should speak to them as Christ spoke to the seven churches in Revelation: “to him who overcomes . . .” Maybe we should encourage them to “test their faith” (2 Cor. 13:5). Maybe we should warn them that there is a possible disqualification. (1 Cor. 9:27). This may not fit into your thinking, but we all know there is a faith that does not save (James 2:19). Why not bring this up?
You see, people in our tradition often believe it is anathema to test your faith. To even bring up the possibility of our faith not being real scares us. Why? Because if it is not real, in our sometimes distorted thinking, it is God’s fault and there is nothing we can do about it. We are either elect or not and all that can happen if we examine our faith is bring about the terrifying possibility of reprobation.
I think, for so many of us, the issues are as black and white as they can be. We are caught up in this modernistic ideal of absolutes. Either you know with one hundred percent infallible certainty that we are saved – or we have no certainty at all. But I think our certainty is relative to our situation. The question is never Are you elect? That is a question only for God. The question is Do you believe right now? If you do, you can know you have eternal life. Could you be wrong? Could your faith be false? Could your trust in the Lord be like that of the second and third soils of Christ’s parable? Those that sprung up quickly but faded away? Sure. But the solution is not to divine the mind of God to see if you are elect. It is to persevere in your faith. Arminians know this. They live with this every day. Therefore, they don’t call me falling apart about their assurance. They know how to test their faith and they do all they can to keep it. Calvinists often just get paralyzed in fear thinking they are not among the elect and have their hands tied. When, truth be told, we should respond very much like Arminians with regard to the stability of our faith. We do everything to persevere (which I would love to expand on, but I don’t have the space). Our theology demands that when we do persevere, we know that it was God who would not ever let us go, not us who would never let him go. Therefore, we understand our faith was not of ourselves. But this fact does not help much in situations when our faith needs to be tested. We simply do not have a magic decoder ring to determine if we are truly elect.
You ask me: Michael, do you know you are saved? My answer: yes. You ask me: Michael, do you have assurance? My answer: yes. You ask me: Michael, why do you believe you are saved? My answer: because today I am still believing. But I have to test this all the time, as I am not infallible. I could have a false faith, but I don’t believe I do. This ninety percent assurance will have to do. The witness of the Spirit I have today is enough for today. Tomorrow I will examine myself again. But my assurance does not have to be absolute and comprehensive. While the Catholics went way overboard on their “anathemas” (I mean, come on, guys . . .), I do think they are right to warn against any necessity of infallible assurance. Once we learn to test ourselves, the times of doubt will lead to productive action, not paralyzing fear.
867 replies to "Doubting Calvinists"
I should revise what I said above. These posts show up to me, but say that they are awaiting moderation, so I don’t know that they show up for anyone else.
Why don’t the rest of you that are having trouble send e mails to CMP or Creedo House? I think they need to hear from more then me.
I think you should try reposting your comments too. Maybe they will go through this time.
I agree it is very frustrating.
Arminian in Heaven: “I/we still state that it is quite a different thing to end up in hell because you made a choice–a choice that you actually had even if God knew ahead of time that you would make that choice–and to be born with no choice at all.”
Apostate Arminian in Hell: “I did not choose to be born! Plus, does that thought really and truly comfort you? I can see why you’re happy that God decreed that you be born, but I’m utterly miserable and in agony because God decreed that I be born. Do you have any understanding at all of what I’m saying?”
Arminian in Heaven: “You made your choice your own choice.”
Apostate Arminian in Hell: “Oh I see. Libertarian Free Will. I made a bad choice – so I go to Hell. YOU made a good choice – so you go to Heaven. Good job. You did a great work, if you didn’t make that good choice, then you’d be in Hell with the rest of us. You deserve some credit for that.
Arminian in Heaven: “Thank you.”
Fr. Robert writes
I gotca on the run mate! There can be no ability to respond to God without the ability of life itself, and here is the New Birth! Regeneration proceeds before faith! Sinful man is dead in sin, (Eph. 2: 1-3 ; 5).
You are going to “run” out of prooftexts really soon. So far none of them have worked out for you, and John 1:12, 13 has really already settled things (in definitively putting faith before the new birth). Now you resort to the typical Calvinist misunderstanding of what dead in sin means:
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/10/24/jesus-says-the-dead-will-hear-unto-spiritual-life/
So what’s left?
And yes, I agree with Muller as to “adoption”! (Gal. 4: 5-6-7)
Not sure what this reference is supposed to mean. I already referred you to Gal. 3:26, which plainly says that we become sons of God through faith.
Notice also that in Gal. 4:5, becoming sons of God is dependent on justification (cf., Gal. 3:10-14), which, of course, is by faith. Verse 6 says that we become sons through the Spirit of adoption, and Gal. 3:2, 5, 14 make it clear that we receive the Spirit by faith.
The more you try to defend the Calvinist ordo, the worst it gets for you.
(re-submitted with some minor changes)
Cherylu,
I just resubmitted it and it came up as awaiting moderation again. I’m going to change it again, and get rid of the main link and see if that helps. I will include the link in a follow-up post.
Fr. Robert writes,
I gotca on the run mate! There can be no ability to respond to God without the ability of life itself, and here is the New Birth! Regeneration proceeds before faith! Sinful man is dead in sin, (Eph. 2: 1-3 ; 5).
You are going to “run” out of prooftexts really soon. So far none of them have worked out for you, and John 1:12, 13 has really already settled things (in definitively putting faith before the new birth). Now you resort to the typical Calvinist misunderstanding of what dead in sin means (see my follow up comments fro a post that debunks this common and oft repeated Calvinist argument).
So what’s left?
And yes, I agree with Muller as to “adoption”! (Gal. 4: 5-6-7)
Not sure what this reference is supposed to mean. I already referred you to Gal. 3:26, which plainly says that we become sons of God through faith.
Notice also that in Gal. 4:5, becoming sons of God is dependent on justification (cf., Gal. 3:10-14), which, of course, is by faith. Verse 6 says that we become sons through the Spirit of adoption, and Gal. 3:2, 5, 14 makes it clear that we receive the Spirit by faith.
The more you try to defend the Calvinist ordo, the worst it gets for you.
(re-submitted with some minor changes)
It just won’t allow that comment to to show up. Really ridiculous. I tried 3 times, with changes and taking out the link, and it still comes up under moderation. Too bad, because it is devastating to Fr. Robert’s argument.
I really think it has to do with the many Scripture references that come up as links. I think it cues the system that it might be spam due to the # of links, not recognizing that they are automatically generated links that happen when one references Scripture. That is a major screw up in the system.
I think I will space out the Scripture references so they don’t show up as links, or break it into smaller posts to see if that helps.
(trying again, breaking it into more than one smaller post)
Fr. Robert writes,
I gotca on the run mate! There can be no ability to respond to God without the ability of life itself, and here is the New Birth! Regeneration proceeds before faith! Sinful man is dead in sin, (Eph. 2: 1-3 ; 5).
You are going to “run” out of prooftexts really soon. So far none of them have worked out for you, and John 1:12, 13 has really already settled things (in definitively putting faith before the new birth). Now you resort to the typical Calvinist misunderstanding of what dead in sin means:
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/10/24/jesus-says-the-dead-will-hear-unto-spiritual-life/
So what’s next?
(Part 2)
Fr. Robert writes,
And yes, I agree with Muller as to “adoption”! (Gal. 4: 5-6-7)
Not sure what this reference is supposed to mean. I already referred you to Gal. 3:26, which plainly says that we become sons of God through faith.
(Part 3)
With regards to Fr. Roberts’ references…
Notice also that in Gal. 4:5, becoming sons of God is dependent on justification (cf., Gal. 3:10-14), which, of course, is by faith. Verse 6 says that we become sons through the Spirit of adoption, and Gal. 3:2, 5, 14 make it clear that we receive the Spirit by faith.
The more you try to defend the Calvinist ordo, the worst it gets for you.
I see my #153 up now! Btw, AP I have been “moderated” many times here! Perhaps it really is God’s “providence”? 😉 And sadly Arminian theology is really its own devastation (to itself and those that hold it!) Sorry but of course that’s the way I see it! That’s an ad hoc, and not really an ad hom, btw. 🙂
Hey, it worked!
TUAD,
Can you engage the argument without all of the silly immature antics?
See if you can give a straight answer to this post, since you keep ignoring the fact that Arminian already addressed how your comments are built on a logical impossibility.
Just as God cannot lie, etc., God cannot falsify His foreknowledge. So if God foreknew that a free moral agent would reject Him, and then, based on that foreknowledge, refrained from creating that agent, He would, in effect, falsify the foreknowledge He used to make the decision not to create the person. And if a person is never created, there is no “person” to know anything about. It is a nothing. And nothings can’t make choices, not the least choices foreknown by God.
So your argument is based on multiple absurdities. But hey, maybe if you just keep repeating it, people will assume it must be true.
So, do you think God can falsify His foreknowledge? Do you think God can foreknow decisions that will never be made by a “person” (actually a nothing) that will never exist to make those decisions?
Yes, or No?
Fr. Robert,
If what I am saying isn’t devastating, just show me how it isn’t. Of course I know you won’t agree with that assessment, but it is, to my mind, a valid assessment. So, show me how I am wrong. Tally Ho! and all that.
@AP: Surely in “time” (temporal order), but based upon God’s decree: sovereignty and His will, with the emphasis again upon the eternal decree and its execution in time, we have an “ordo salutis”: order of salvation.
Btw, let those too see Melanchthon and the Lutheran Confessions, as they too seek the task of “sorting out” the correct use of, and place for, every single word on the list; but there is no more uniformity among the later Lutheran divines than within the various writings of Luther himself. As with the Wesley brothers!
Greg writes,
This is not the place. I offered a place. You turned me down. I happily agreed to your place if the topic would be what it is here and again you turned me down.
I certainly didn’t turn you down about my blog. I gave you a link to a good post where that sort of topic would fit in nicely in the comments section. I also told you that I don’t have a character limit. All I have “turned down” is your request to write an article on Arminian epistemology. I’m not interested in doing that right now, and I don’t see that it is necessary for you to answer the fairly straightforward questions I have been asking you.
So here is what I will do. I will create a post at my site that simply states the problem I have with your claim, and ask the same question I have asked of you here. I will also leave a link to that paper you wanted us to read.
Then, in the comments, you can take your time explaining it. And I will interact with that. And you know what, I bet in the course of time, you will begin to get a pretty clear picture of my view of things anyway. Hey, it might even help me develop my thoughts for that article you want me to write.
But remember, you are the one who has made these grandiose claims that Arminians can’t even think or type or do anything unless Calvinism is true. That is a claim that I think YOU need to back up. So I think it a little strange that the way you respond is to request that I write an article on my view of things before you will explain how your claims are valid. I can see how that would give you an advantage, as you can just try to pick apart what I have written, rather than address the questions that have been asked of you, based on YOUR claims.
So I think that is a pretty fair offer. And if you want, I will make it clear that nobody else can comment on the thread. Just you and me (unless you want to allow other commenters)
That is a pretty open and fair forum, as far as I am concerned…
Fr. Robert (#190)
That is a disappointing non-answer.
@AP: I can see your not a historical Churchman, and sadly this is also one of your weaknesses, in your theological errors! But again, I am writing on the run. Maybe later I will be home?
Btw, an Augustinian and an Arminian, somewhat like the debate between Luther and Erasmus, on so-called free-will, will always be real sparks!
A couple of notes:
The comment numbering is all changed now since posts that were in moderation have now come out. And AP, I think your post is up about 3 times now!
And I heard back from CMP. He said 5 or more links get a comment sent to moderation. And obviously that includes Scripture references. So I guess we all need to be aware of that. And obviously, sometimes comments get approved out of moderation quicker then others.
Fr Robert,
Whenever you get that far, would you please tell me if God’s life=eternal life????
Frankly, I can’t imagine such a thing as God having any kind of life that isn’t eternal. It is His very nature to be eternal.
That being the case, can you please tell me how it can be logical that God gives a person eternal life before they are justified, before their sins are dealt with–the very sins that insures spiritual death in the first place?
So if I am misunderstanding you that God’s life is eternal life, please let me know or I will continue to believe that is what you mean as I can see no alternative. Or any alternative to the fact of that making your ordo very illogical.
And please don’t tell me I don’t understand Calvininism! 🙂 I have been literally begging you for hours now to clarify your position on this and you have just beat around the bush repeatedly.
Fr Robert,
Your ordo would also seem to leave you in the very uncomfortable position of having adopted sons of God that have eternal life but are in fact condemned men. John 3:18
Cherylu writes,
Your ordo would also seem to leave you in the very uncomfortable position of having adopted sons of God that have eternal life but are in fact condemned men. John 3:18
It creates way more problems than just that, even if we ignore his very strange view that we are adopted before coming to faith in Christ,
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/the-arminian-and-calvinist-ordo-salutis-a-brief-comparative-study/
Arminianperspectives (Ben): “So, do you think God can falsify His foreknowledge? Do you think God can foreknow decisions that will never be made by a “person” (actually a nothing) that will never exist to make those decisions?
Yes, or No?”
Yes to the second and third questions. Keep reading as to the answer to the first question.
“Just as God cannot lie, etc., God cannot falsify His foreknowledge. So if God foreknew that a free moral agent would reject Him, and then, based on that foreknowledge, refrained from creating that agent, He would, in effect, falsify the foreknowledge He used to make the decision not to create the person. And if a person is never created, there is no “person” to know anything about. It is a nothing. And nothings can’t make choices, not the least choices foreknown by God.”
Ben, your fellow arminian Bossmanham does a superb job of refuting you in your own comment thread on your own post on your own blog:
“Don’t you think God was free to create other people than He has chosen to, or do you think He was constrained in some way to create people He has created?…Well speaking of different ways things could be is simply speaking of different worlds. Possible world lingo simply makes it more convenient, unless this is the only possible world. But then you’d be a determinist.”
One Arminian to another Arminian who makes the silly claim that God cannot “falsify His foreknowledge” when it comes to deciding not to create people:
“But then you’d be a determinist.”
LOL!!! Ben, do yourself a favor and listen to Bossmanham on this one.
From: Bossmanham’s Rebuttal
TUAD (comment 198),
All one needs to do is look down further in that thread to see AP/Ben refute Bossmanham: http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/some-quick-comments-regarding-free-agency-and-foreknowledge/#comment-4971. An incorrect argument does not become correct just because an Arminian makes it.
Also, it appears that TUAD believes that God can be wrong. That is a huge difference between Arminian theology and TUAD’s version of Calvinism (though I believe most Calvinists do not believe God can be wrong).
@cherylu: First, I am certainly not beating around the bush, but with this blog up and down earlier, and of course theology being not an easy or quick affair, and always involves our deepest thinking and thought; we must be patient! Plus, I am at the hospital, working along as a chaplain. (Though I am home now) We have been a bit busy of late too. So bear with me, please!
But, if you know Calvinism? it appears you don’t know Calvin, see his work: ‘Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God’, written in 1552 and against Albertus Pighius and others. No doubt written with people in his time that were too very much against the great doctrine of Election and Predestination! Btw, see also Calvin’s book: The Secret Providence of God, John Calvin, edited by Paul Helm, (Crossway, 2010). This is a rather polemic work and answer also. But I would also really suggest you get and read this book! (And only 125 pages)
Finally, though I am a most certain Presupper, I am also one that reads and engages in Reformed Scholasticism. Again here is historical theology, and Reformed Divinity!
Of course a study of Paul’s Romans Letter is central here!
“Regeneration. – In the language of theology ‘regeneration’ denotes that decisive spiritual change, affected by God Holy Spirit in which a man, naturally estranged from God and ruled by evil powers, is renewed in character, becomes the subject of holy affections and desires, enters upon a life of progressive sanctification, the issue of which is complete “likeness” to Christ. The actual term, however, to which this word corresponds (Gk. “palingenenesia), occurs only twice in the NT (Matt. 19: 28 ; Titus 3: 5). (Dictionary Of The Bible, Edited By James Hastings, Revised Edition By Frederick C. Grant and H.H. Rowley, (1963 T & T Clark).
Which happens to be the only thing I’m interested in as I’ve said. OR, point me to something you’ve already written.
It’s too bad you are not interested in providing some actual argumentation for your many un-backed assertions, despite being asked several times. I would think that would be important to you. Oh, well. I guess I probably know why.
Arminian writes,
Also, it appears that TUAD believes that God can be wrong. That is a huge difference between Arminian theology and TUAD’s version of Calvinism (though I believe most Calvinists do not believe God can be wrong).
It is telling that he couldn’t give a direct answer to the question (or at least couldn’t explain his direct answer), just refer to someone else’s interaction, which likewise didn’t address the question. I wonder if TUAD even understands the argument that he assumed refuted what I was saying. But he seems to be more interested in sound bites and taking people way out of context than offering any actual argumentation.
@AP: I can see that you really DON’T do theology! I have given biblical texts and theological logic, but you just don’t believe the Word of God! Unless it fits YOUR Arminian views, sad! I think were done, mate!
Guys, have you read Michael’s post on the tornado in that area or seen the horrible devastation on the news?
I’m afraid I don’t have the heart to debate theology at the moment. Those videos are so terrible I can’t even bear to look at them.
Fr. Robert,
You are really beginning to excel at that these non-answers.
It is funny that you quote the “dictionary of the Bible” as I have been meaning to write a post on it for some time. Thanks for the reminder. It is easily refuted and even self-contradictory. It was obviously written by a Calvinist who drew a lot of unfounded conclusions that are not drawn from anything the Bible actually says about regeneration.
But how about addressing our actual questions and engaging the Scriptures we have presented?
Where shall we start? I already offered refutation for the passages you tried to use to support your doctrine. How about interacting with that? Or how about answering Cherylu’s question about eternal life and regeneration? Or how about the major, major Biblical difficulty you walked into in claiming that we are adopted before believing?
@cherlyu: YES, Michael lives in Oklahoma! But I agree this tread should perhaps END!
How about be postponed?
@AP: How many times does one have to say it, “believing” is by God’s purpose, power & grace! Which actually comes from God’s eternal decree, for the “elect’!
Fr. Robert writes,
@AP: How many times does one have to say it, “believing” is by God’s purpose, power & grace! Which actually comes from God’s eternal decree, for the “elect’!
You can assert it all you want. I want Biblical support. I want to see you grapple with the relevant passages.
But really, what you say here isn’t even what we are discussing. We are discussing whether regeneration precedes faith specifically, and whether one becomes an adopted son prior to believing. That is actually not the same thing as what you are now saying, as God could conceivably just cause one to believe irresistibly without needing to regenerate them first. But that has not been your argument. You have claimed that regeneration precedes faith and that one becomes an adopted son prior to faith. Both claims are easily refuted by Scripture.
If you don’t want to discuss it or actually engage the Scriptures on the subject, then that is fine. But then you are only left with un-backed assertions again, which seems to be a pattern here for some reason.
cherylu,
Good reminder. May God’s mercy, grace and healing be all over those people. May he strengthen those who are hurting and grieving. May He be glorified in the actions of God’s people in that area to help these people and offer support. May any who are still trapped and needing rescue be found before it is too late. May God provide for the needs of those who are now left with nothing.
I am done debating for tonight. May God’s blessings rest on all of you. I strongly disagree wit the Calvinists on this thread, but I admire your desire to honor God in accordance with how you have come to understand Him. I only pray that if any of us are wrong, God will help us see that. There is nothing to be feared from the truth.
@Greg: The teaching of the said: ordo salutis (order of salvation) is part of that aspect of so-called Reformed Protestant Scholastic Theology, (see btw Richard Muller’s fine book: Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms), just a well defined book in Reformed Divinity!
Btw, this ordo is a term applied to the temporal order of causes and effects through which the salvation of the sinner is accomplished. And as I have quoted Charles Wesley, he saw this for the most part as a single whole…again ‘the bloom, colour, or scent of a “single flower”, and John Wesley as truth in syllogistic treatment. As we are looking here in the temporal and scholastic order!
Fr Robert,
I thought the ordo was supposedly speaking of logical order?
Now you say it is referring to temporal order. That makes all of the problems with it that much worse because now you are not just speaking of theoretical logic but of reality in time.
So God has adopted sons who have eternal life who haven’t yet had their sins that caused eternal death dealt with. Adopted sons with eternal life who are indeed condemned men, etc, etc. Sounds quite impossible. Makes a shambles of many scriptural principles for certain.
@Cheryl: “I NEVER” said it was in a “logical” order per se! Check back at my post. That was AP who said the order was logical in the ordo! Of course logic is somewhat involved, but here it is the “temporal order”. (Please people READ what I write and say in my posts!)
Fr Robert,
I didn’t say you said it either! 🙂 That is how I have heard it explained over and over by others (Calvinists included) so that has been my perception of it.
But as I said, if it is temporal order youare speaking of here, the problems we see are magnified considerably. What say ye about that?
“God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.” – John Calvin
“The decree of justification is one thing; justification itself another as the will to save and sanctify is one thing; salvation and sanctification itself another. The will or decree to justify certain persons is indeed eternal and precedes faith itself, but actual justification takes place in time and follows faith.” Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 2:683.
Btw, “temporal” here only means the logic of time, but for the elect, the order of their salvation always goes back to eternity! But as Calvin says it is the Holy Spirit who in time “regenerates” the elect-sinner, and this is first place for Reformed theology.
And btw, this IS Eternal Justification!
Fr Robert,
Well for twenty four hours or so now, you have managed to answer every question except the ones we have been asking. I give up.
Well, I see you clarified what you meant by temporal. Still haven’t answered our original questions about the ordo though.
cherlu: I think I have answered your questions most fully, but “theologically” as well as biblically! YOU need to think and read too! I am not here to be (as the Arminian’s appear), the mere Bible answer man! Indeed biblical mystery is always before the person of Reformed Divinity!
God Bless All!
Fr. Robert
No you haven’t. You haven’t told us how it is logical or Biblical to have condemned men still in their sins that are adopted sons of God and have eternal life.
I have never seen an answer given for that by any Calvinist. Maybe there is one out there somewhere, but I haven’t seen it. And if fact, in all my time in reading about Calvinism and discussing with Calvinists, I don’t believe I have ever heard another one state that adoption comes before faith. Thinking is what is making me ask this question and I plainly resent the implication in your comment that I don’t. One would think that when someone like you that is quite certain this is correct was asked by someone else about it, he would at least make an effort to explain it to those people in a way that actually answers what is being asked.
If you want to insist on an ordo that is illogical and makes mincemeat of Biblical principles, that is your privilege. If you want to just relegate it all to the realm of mystery, that is your privilege.
But I am done asking for answers that it is obvious you are not about to give.
Fr. Robert,
But don’t you think you should do some reading and thinking too? You have certainly evaded very direct questions (which, again, seems to be a pattern among the Calvinist on this thread). You keep insinuating that we do not understand Calvinism, but then say things that very few Calvinist would agree with. I think the idea that we are adopted before faith is (to be kind) a major minority position among Calvinists (you are the first one I have ever seen who affirmed it, and now Muller, if that is really what he was saying). Most Calvinists reject that idea because it is so obviously and violently unBiblical, as I demonstrated, and you have ignored. Also, most Calvinist reject eternal justification, for the same reasons (it is so obviously unBiblical and contradicts soal fide). But maybe you are using the term in your own unusual way, rather than the way it is typically used in “theological” discussions.
Now you keep saying you are speaking theologically, and we are not (?). That is nothing but an assertion. In what way is what you are saying theological and what we are saying not theological? It really seems like you just throw this stuff out as a distraction, or maybe to get us off topic, because you don’t know how to answer the questions that are being posed to you.
For a myriad of “theological” problems with the Calvinist ordo salutis, see the post I referred you to earlier (not to mention the ones Cherylu and I have already mentioned). It’s OK for you to do some reading and thinking too. Here it is again for easy reference:
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/the-arminian-and-calvinist-ordo-salutis-a-brief-comparative-study/
God Bless,
Ben
Cherylu writes,
If you want to insist on an ordo that is illogical and makes mincemeat of Biblical principles, that is your privilege.
Don’t forget the tremendous amount of Biblical eisegesis needed to support his ordo as well, which is seemingly why he doesn’t want to engage the Bible directly, but just talk “theologically”. But, of course, his ordo leads to theological absurdities as well (as you and I have noted repeatedly)
Here is a link that I hope will be helpful to show that most Calvinists grapple with this most profound mystery, at least sort of an “in house” debate.
http://www.theopedia.com/Eternal_justification
Btw note too, that even Arminan theology puts first GOD’s prevenient grace in their ordo/order of salvation (prevenient grace, antecedent to human action)…take note cherylu!
Greg,
If all you can continue to offer me are mere assertions rather than actual answers and argumentation, then there is really no need to even respond to my posts.
And I did provide plenty of argumentation regarding how free will is presupposed in Biblical language and how determinism makes nonsense out of presupposing determinism. It’s strange that you would suggest I didn’t. And yet, YOU have still not offered, in the least, any argumentation to back up YOUR assertions (that YOU “freely” made) that we can’t know, think, or do anything unless the truth of Calvinism is presupposed. It would seem that the very obvious reason is that you simply can’t.
I also already told you that I was familiar with your epistemology. I read the paper you referred me to and didn’t find an original thought there that I had not already read from other prepositional proponents. So what could possibly be the reason for me to need to write a detailed article on my view for us to be able to engage the issue and for you to be able to actually offer argumentation for the assertions that YOU keep making?
I offered you a wide open forum to do that. W-i-d-e O-p-e-n.
BTW, did those people you were arguing with in that paper you referred me to offer a detailed understanding of their epistemology before you engaged them? It’s funny, in all I have read, I have never seen any prepositional proponent say that was a prerequisite for engaging someone in prepositional argumentation.
No offense intended. Just telling it like I see it. I am sure, based on your rhetoric to date, you can appreciate that.
And again, if all you have to offer are more assertions, there is no need to respond further.
God Bless,
Ben