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"
Fr. Robert writes,
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!
OK, we take note. How is that relevant? Have you read the post I referred you to twice now? If you had you would have taken note that prevenient grace is included in the Arminian ordo. But what has that got to do with your claims? Nothing that I can see. Just seems to be another distraction.
Fr Robert.
I took note years ago that Aminianism has prevenient grace in their ordo.
Prevenient grace however does not adopt the person and make them a child of God. Nor does it give them eternal life.
“You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:26
Fr. Robert’s position thoroughly refuted by a single verse. Nothing more needs to be added.
Fr. Robert,
What do you mean when YOU refer to eternal justification? Do you mean that we are justified before we are born, before we exercise faith in Christ? If not what do you mean? Do you just mean that God in eternity decreed to justify those He would irresistibly cause to believe in Him? If so, calling that eternal justification seems to be terribly imprecise, theologically speaking, of course.
@AP: Wow! It always amazes me how blind and really ignorant Arminianism really is, if you cannot see the connection between God’s Eternal Justification and God’s Prevenient Grace? Then what more can I say? Btw, note Augustine also used Prevenient Grace in his theology! Prevenient btw means going before, and in Augustine’s use God was/is still the worker, certainly not man!
Poor ad hoc btw, to cast me as “just” a Theolog! I bet I read and know the Bible and Holy Scripture just as much as you do, perhaps more? And I love to just read my Greek NT as my A.M. devotion!
Sincerely In Christ,
Fr. Robert
@AP: Again mate, you sadly really are ignorant of Calvinism!!! And I don’t say this as an ad hom, either. YOU really have never heard of Eternal Justification in Calvinism? I mean come on… Its a central issue! Note the link from Theopedia here!
But, lets end this.. were never gonna get on hardly any common ground!
Best to you and yours ‘In Christ’,
Fr. Robert
If questions can not be answered and we are going to resort to ad hom and spiritual bragging, what reason is there to stay in this conversation? Come on now.
Blog rule time again…..
Fr. Robert writes,
@AP: Wow! It always amazes me how blind and really ignorant Arminianism really is, if you cannot see the connection between God’s Eternal Justification and God’s Prevenient Grace?
Another non-answer piled on top of other non-answers, and another apparent attempt at distraction so you don’t have to actually engage the argument. Wow, is right!
If anyone is proving ignorant, it would appear to be you in the way you seem to so misunderstand Arminianism and even pretty basic theological concepts. But this not surprising since you once tried to convince me that “The 15 Major Tenets of Arminianism” was an Arminian work that rightly expressed Arminian views. Follow this link and note that you are the person I am talking about in that first paragraph.
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/nelson%E2%80%99s-dictionary-of-christianity-gets-it-wrong-examining-the-so-called-%E2%80%9C15-major-tenets-of-arminianism%E2%80%9D/
You were very confused back then and you are confused now.
Btw, note Augustine also used Prevenient Grace in his theology! Prevenient btw means going before, and in Augustine’s use God was/is still the worker, certainly not man!
Which no Arminian disagrees with, which is further evidence that you simply do not understand Arminianism.
Poor ad hoc btw, to cast me as “just” a Theolog!
It is statements like this that make it so frustrating to have a discussion with you. YOU re the one that kept dismissing our comments because YOU were supposedly speaking “theologically”, while we were not.
I bet I read and know the Bible and Holy Scripture just as much as you do, perhaps more? And I love to just read my Greek NT as my A.M. devotion!
That could certainly be true. But the problem is that you keep writing distracting posts like this one, rather than engaging the Bible, or theology for that matter. Why not just engage the issue instead? Let’s start with Gal…
@cherylu: Note its the first place of their ordo, and it is GOD’s work and not man’s! Again read Augustine here, please!
But again, as with AP let’s be done, if want to follow Arminianism? Then go with it! Lay that at the feet of Christ at the Bema, and see what HE says? I know I will lay myself, and God’s Reformed Divinity there myself!
Best, ‘In Christ’,
Fr. Robert
Fr. Robert writes,
@AP: Again mate, you sadly really are ignorant of Calvinism!!! And I don’t say this as an ad hom, either. YOU really have never heard of Eternal Justification in Calvinism? I mean come on… Its a central issue! Note the link from Theopedia here!
Never did I say that I don’t know what eternal justification is in Calvinism. But I was trying to get specifics from you as to what YOU believe. You said yourself that it was a Calvinist “in House” debate. You also hold to other ideas that are not very prevalent in Calvinism, like saying that adoption precedes faith. That is why I wanted to get your view specifically, so I could interact with it. But once again, instead of getting a straight answer to a very simple question, you resort to more red herrings, rhetorical bluster, unjustified accusations and characterizations, and non-answers.
In light of all of that, it seems pretty obvious why you would really prefer this conversation end.
@AP: This really will be my last, but YOU quoted Gal. 3: 26, as if we would just read IT, then we are done! And that’s just non-theological ignorance! Again, for the most part I am writing on the fly (up and down) here. But yes “theologically” you got buried! And not really by me, but the Holy Scripture and Reformed Divinity themselves! And btw, maybe I should write Richard Muller (he’s just a year older than me), and let him speak for himself!
I am done!
BTW, Many traditional Calvinists consider eternal justification to be a heretical feature of hyper-Calvinism:
Many Hyper-Calvinists do not believe that justification – being declared righteous based on the imputed righteousness of Christ – occurs at the time a person is regenerated. Instead, they believe that God’s elect are already declared righteous from before the foundation of the world. Some would say that God’s people were justified at the cross; however, this has the same implications for the unregenerate elect after the cross as eternal justification. These Hyper-Calvinists claim that eternal justification (or justification at the cross) glorifies God by taking the work of man out of the justification equation and that any who believe that faith and justification are inseparably connected believe in a form of salvation conditioned on the sinner.
Along with justification comes all the other objective blessings, including adoption, reconciliation, and sanctification. Thus, eternal justification advocates believe that, when an unregenerate elect person is conceived in the womb, and throughout his time as an unregenerate sinner, he is already counted as perfectly righteous and holy, is thus a child of God and not of the devil, and is not under God’s curse or wrath. God is at peace with the unregenerate elect and is not at enmity with them.
From: http://www.outsidethecamp.org/hyperheresy.htm
Do Arminians have an elect body? If so,is the identity and number of the elect fixed and certain before creation?
Fr. Robert,
@AP: This really will be my last, but YOU quoted Gal. 3: 26, as if we would just read IT, then we are done!
Fr. Robert: We becomes God’s sons so we can believe.
The Apostle Paul: We become sons of God by faith.
Sorry, but that seems pretty easy to figure as far as I am concerned.
If you really are done, then, as you said to Greg earlier, guess that makes me “the last man standing.” 😉
But what are YOU really standing on? Not the Word of God and Biblical theology, certainly! GOD is Sovereign..always and forever!
Yes, I like to get the last word in, especially when it concerns God! I am a pastor of Christ’s!
Fr Robert,
IF you believe in eternal justification–the elect has been justified in God’s eyes from the time of his decree even while he was living in his sin (my quick restatement of the doctrine) why on earth did you not say so to defend your ordo in the first place? It took pleading over a twenty four hour plus time to get an answer of any sort from you and then you finally come up with this.
It would appear to not be a very popular position among Calvinists because I have never discussed these issues with any of them in the past that have ever referred to eternal justification nor have I read any Calvinist authors referring to it.
And in this area, I will admit that I was ignorant that this is an aspect of Calvinism for some folks. This is new to me.
Fr Robert,
In case you are not done, what Scriptures do you believe support your view of eternal justification?
ArminianPerspectives: “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 do you deny that God knows conditionals of the form:
“If I create John in circumstances C, he would reject me.”
@cherylu: I am both an old professor (once upon a time), and always a pastor-teacher! It is best, to draw-out peoples thinking, and not show all your cards at once! (I was okay at poker too! 😉 ) Seriously, WE must be thinkers, but always foremost faithful stewards towards the doctrine of GOD, and all His gifts! But yes, I believe in the Eternal Justification of God’s Elect! (Chosen before the foundation of the world! (Rev. 13: 8)
Btw, note John the Baptist moving in his mothers womb, at the sound of Mary’s voice! Do you believe he was one of God’s elect? And also Mary the Mother of our Lord, now she was most certainly an elect-vessel of grace!
TUAD,
Do you believe God can be wrong? Yes or No?
Fr Robert,
How then do you understand other verses such as Romans 5:6-10?
Does it bother you in the least that some of your fellow Calvinists call this doctrine a heresy? The article from a Calvinist source that AP quoted from above called it a “damnable hyper -Calvinist heresy.”
And BTW, I didn’t figure you were really done! 🙂
Arminianperspectives,
So do you deny that God knows conditionals of the form:
“If I create John in circumstances C, he would reject me.”
(A) Yes, I deny God knows conditionals of that form.
(B) No, I do not deny God knows conditionals of that form.
Ben, choose (A) or (B). Yes or no?
P.S. I’ll be happy to answer your question once you answer this question.
TUAD,
Sorry, I will not be baited. You haven’t given a straight answer to a question yet. So, start with the one I just asked, and we can go from there.
Arminianperspectives/Ben,
Your pattern of rhetorical abuse continues. Your latest evasion and dodge of a simple question simply provides further confirmation and evidence of your habitual rhetorical abuse.
By the way, no, God cannot be wrong.
Now answer the question:
Do you deny that God knows conditionals of the form: “If I create John in circumstances C, he would reject me.”?
How then do you understand other verses such as Romans 5:6-10?
Or Ephesians 2:1-3. Or any passage that say that we are justified “by faith”. It is a violently unBiblical doctrine.
However, I admire that at least in this one instance, Fr. Robert is willing to be consistent, as consistent Calvinism really demands this conclusion. For example, compare the Calvinist understanding of Eph. 1:4 with Romans 1:8. Calvinists often quote Eph. 1:4 as if it simply promotes Calvinism, without really taking the time to think through the implications of the language. If it has reference to unconditional election, it is also teaching that we were “in Christ” from eternity. Romans 8 tells us that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. So from eternity the “elect” are justified, not guilty and not under condemnation if the Calvinist interp. is accepted. Not only that, since all spiritual blessings reside “in Christ” (Eph. 1:3), then the “elect” possess all spiritual blessings including regeneration, adoption, sanctification, etc. from eternity, and are therefore born already justified, regenerated, adopted, sanctified, etc.
What a mess.
But, the Calvinist can always just try not to think about it, or brush it aside as a “profound mystery.”
Cherylu says,
How then do you understand other verses such as Romans 5:6-10?
Or Ephesians 2:1-3. Or any passage that say that we are justified “by faith”. It is a violently unBiblical doctrine.
However, I admire that at least in this one instance, Fr. Robert is willing to be consistent, as consistent Calvinism really demands this conclusion. For example, take the Calvinist understanding of Eph. 1:4. Calvinists often quote Eph. 1:4 as if it simply promotes Calvinism, without really taking the time to think through the implications of the language. If it has reference to unconditional election, it is also teaching that we were “in Christ” from eternity. Romans 8 tells us that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. So from eternity the “elect” are justified, not guilty and not under condemnation if the Calvinist interp. is accepted. Not only that, since all spiritual blessings reside “in Christ” (Eph. 1:3), then the “elect” possess all spiritual blessings including regeneration, adoption, sanctification, etc. from eternity, and are therefore born already justified, regenerated, adopted, sanctified, etc.
TUAD,
Your pattern of rhetorical abuse continues. Your latest evasion and dodge of a simple question simply provides further confirmation and evidence of your habitual rhetorical abuse.
Seriously?
By the way, no, God cannot be wrong.
So then do you concede that your prior argumentation was erroneous since God’s foreknowledge would be false in such a situation as your prior argument described, an argument that you repeated ad nauseum with a clear “pattern of rhetorical abuse”?
So since your previous argument has been refuted, are these new questions supposed to be your plan B? If so, please explain how they differ from your already refuted argument. I don’t see a need to refute an argument that has been already refuted.
LOL! Ben, your comments are simply providing more confirmation of your habitual rhetorical abuse.
Just answer the question simply, and quit dodging and evading.
Do you deny that God knows conditionals of the form:
“If I create John in circumstances C, he would reject me.”
(A) Yes, I deny God knows conditionals of that form.
(B) No, I do not deny God knows conditionals of that form.
Ben, choose (A) or (B). Yes or no?
Sheesh! Guess you guys deserve credit for stick-to-it-iveness, but I think you all’s guardian angels are sitting together rolling their eyes, or hand on forehead shaking head at you all. (:
Hi Irene,
Well, I have learned something new out of all of our stick-to-tive-ness! I wonder if that will calm those angels down any? 🙂
Given the horrific tornado that has just recently struck Oklahoma City, it’s good to remind ourselves of God’s sovereign providence from the Scriptures:
Psalm. 148:8 lightning and hail, snow and clouds,
stormy winds that do his bidding,
Jonah 1:4 Then the LORD sent a great wind on the sea, and such a violent storm arose that the ship threatened to break up.
Psalm 42:7 in the roar of your waterfalls;
all your waves and breakers
have swept over me.
Amos 3:6 When a trumpet sounds in a city,
do not the people tremble?
When disaster comes to a city,
has not the LORD caused it?
TUAD,
I already answered your question when I refuted your argument the first time. Why should I need to repeat myself? Just refer back to the way I already answered it. If you don’t think I refuted it, explain why, without just quoting someone else.
If this is not the same question as the one that has already been refuted, then please explain how, or re-frame it so that the difference is clear.
You have proved to not be very clear in the way you frame your questions, as in the example I already provided when I asked you if you stopped beating your wife: Yes or No? I am not the only one who has pointed this out to you, so I don’t think it is a case of me just trying to dodge you. The way the question is framed, and what is meant by it is important. Why not put a little more effort into the point you are trying to make?
If this is the same question, I already answered it. If it is not, explain the difference. It would also be nice if you addressed my answer to your question the first time, instead of just quoting someone else. Strange that you don’t see that as dodging. If you are not willing to do these things, then I’m not willing to continue this discussion with you. It gets us nowhere fast, and I have honestly had enough of getting nowhere.
Thanks,
Ben
@Irene: Yes, this has been a long haul, but I guess I had to hang in there, as too Cherylu has hung in there, still asking me real questions, it appears. Though AP has bordered on ad hom as to my theological thinking and logic therein (note ad hom perhaps)… in his prejudices rather than reasoning, I note “Truth” calls it “rhetorical abuse”. But, I will let others judge this who have read the blog treads. I can understand one’s passion for what they believe, even when I believe it is wrong. And certainly none of us argues in any human perfection. I too btw have really sought to glean the Scriptures toward what I see as Reformed doctrine and divinity. And I really believe too “the elect angels” are actually seeing & enjoying the beauty of the Reformed Divinity, in the face and presence of God In Christ! If I did not believe it, I would not hold it!
Let the record of this comment thread show ArminianPerspective/Ben’s habitual rhetorical abuse.
He refuses to answer simply the following simple question without persisting in his rhetorical abuse.
Just answer the question simply, and quit dodging and evading.
Do you deny that God knows conditionals of the form:
“If I create John in circumstances C, he would reject me.”
(A) Yes, I deny God knows conditionals of that form.
(B) No, I do not deny God knows conditionals of that form.
Ben, choose (A) or (B). Yes or no?
TUAD writes,
Let the record of this comment thread show ArminianPerspective/Ben’s habitual rhetorical abuse.
He refuses to answer simply the following simple question without persisting in his rhetorical abuse.
It’s too bad that you reply this way to a simple request for clarification. I can’t understand why that should be so objectionable to you, or how you can possibly interpret such a request as “rhetorical abuse.” It is also strange that you don’t seem to recognize the over the top nature of your own rhetoric, going way, way back. Oh well.
Fr. Robert,
I certainly do not want to be rhetorically abusive. Could you please cite some specific examples of the way I have rhetorically abused you? And could you please scroll back and re-examine your own comments to Cherylu, Arminian and myself and see if anything you have said could likewise be described as “rhetorical abuse” in accordance with your own standards?
And if you have really tried so hard to “glean the Scriptures” towards us, why has it been so hard to get you to address our questions regarding what specific Scriptures say in contrast to some of your theological claims (like eternal justification and the claim that we are adopted into God’s family prior to putting faith in Christ?). I honestly find your comment here very confusing. I hope you don’t interpret this comment as more rhetorical abuse.
Thanks,
Ben
@cherylu: Romans 5: 6-10, is of course Paul’s heart and mind in God’s revelation in the Death of Christ, as Christ has died for the ungodly, which are always simply “sinners”…verse 8 here is the centre and power of the Gospel of Christ itself! But also verse 10 combines both the Death & Resurrection, but “we shall be saved by His life” also points profoundly to Christ’s Risen & Ascended life, above!
Sorry this is a bit quick, but I think true to the essence of the Gospel!
Fr. Robert: “Though AP has bordered on ad hom as to my theological thinking and logic therein (note ad hom perhaps)… in his prejudices rather than reasoning, I note “Truth” calls it “rhetorical abuse”.”
I thoroughly enjoyed Bossmanham catching Ben Henshaw stewing in his arminian prejudices in lieu of sound reasoning when he wrote:
“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.”
“But then you’d be a determinist”. LOL!! Even your fellow arminian notes the dilemma you’ve posed for yourself.
You’re too blinded by your “prejudices rather than reasoning” as Fr. Robert notes so well, to see that you’ve been hoisted by your own petard.
Of course btw, the Death of Christ is sufficient for all sin itself, but only efficient or efficacious for the elect believers! This is central for the Pauline and Reformed Gospel!
Fr Roberts,
Re the Romans question I asked you. What I want to know is how someone that was an enemy of God could be said to be eternally justified? Or conversely, how can an enemy be said to be justified while he was an enemy.
TUAD writes,
I thoroughly enjoyed Bossmanham catching Ben Henshaw stewing in his arminian prejudices in lieu of sound reasoning when he wrote:
“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.”
Did you also thoroughly enjoy my response to Bossmanham on that same thread? Strange that this is the second time you have neglected to address that little tid bit, even when Arminian directed you to it before and provided the link? But, I guess you have your reasons for leaving things like that out.
At least you wrote a nice little comment here, devoid of unnecessary “rhetorical abuse.” Good stuff.
@cherylu: Indeed God looks at His “Elect” as ‘In Christ’, though in ourselves we are sinners, as St. Paul says: “And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which your formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.” (Eph. 2: 1-3, etc.”) And even after we are “regenerate” and ‘In Christ’…”For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.” (Rom. 7: 18, St. Paul) And yet, thankfully we move ‘In Christ’ into Romans 8: 1-4!
@ “AP” surely the real essence or difference between us here is as Amos 3: 3, “Can two walk together , except they be agreed?” (KJV) And again. surely there is just way too much difference between Calvinist’s (Calvinism) and Arminianist’s (Arminianism)! Especially in the area of soteriology (Salvation)! What else can we really say? But yes, we always need to be civil to one another, and this surely has been strained on this blog. But the blog is very hard here, i.e. to use! AndtThis is the nature sadly of the blog all too often!
Fr Robert,
Does He actually have justified unbelievers, justified condemned men, men with eternal life that are still in their sins?
Are you saying that their justification is actual and complete since the time He pronounced them so in His eternal decree, and did they stay that way through all of the time that they were unregenerated and unbelieving as per the first quote in that Theopeida article?
@cherylu: God alone knows who His Elect are…and they are all Eternally Justified! (Again, Rev. 13: 8 / 20: 15) In time, they will experience the great fullness of the New Birth!
Btw, you perhaps know I am rather “eclectic” as a Calvinist (neo-Calvinist btw), but if both John Calvin and Francis Turretin believed in Eternal Justification, I am on board (of course here I speak of their theological gifts and ability!) 🙂
Arminianperspective/Ben: “Did you also thoroughly enjoy my response to Bossmanham on that same thread?”
I don’t know if I would describe watching someone do the dead man’s kick as he’s being hung by a petard of his own making as being a thoroughly enjoyable experience. Engenders an amused chuckle though.
Curious, do you know if Bossmanham has been persuaded by your argument, and has now adopted your position? Also, is your position the preferred position within the Arminian camp regarding this aspect of Divine Foreknowledge?
Lastly, I think Bossmanham gave you this zinger “But then you’d be a determinist” to get you to abandon your nonsense. I noticed that he never bothered to respond to your last comment to him. Was he persuaded by your response or, perhaps, he gave up since you failed to notice the import of his amusing zinger.
Fr Robert,
I have certainly noticed that you are eclectic.
Still haven’t pinpointed the answer to my question. (Why does this surprise me. Been down this road before.) 🙂
Here is the first quote from that Theopedia article that you linked. “Some of the older theologians, when expounding this doctrine, contended for the eternal justification of the elect, affirming that God pronounced them righteous before the foundation of the world, and that their justification was then actual and complete, remaining so throughout their history in time, even during the days of their unregeneracy and unbelief; and that the only difference their faith made was in making manifest God’s eternal justification in their consciences.” Arthur Pink
Do you believe their justification “actual and complete” even when they were unbelieving and unregenerate? Was the only difference coming to faith made “making manifest God’s eternal justification in their consciences?”
Please don’t go the professor and student route again. This is not a university, you are not my professor, and I am not your student. Neither do I have the time or patience to ask the same question repeatedly for the next day or more before I finally get your answer.
To all:
I only have a second, and I have not looked through any follow up posts since I stopped posting last night, but I did want to highlight a passage of Scripture that the Lord brought to my attention last night:
“As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.” Ehp. 4:1-3
While I do not think that my argumentation has been especially harsh or “abusive”, it has certainly not been up to par with the expectations of this Scripture. I have certainly not been as humble or patient or gentle as I ought to have been, and I apologize for that. Please forgive me for failing to live up to Paul’s admonition in not doing all that I can to keep the bond of peace and unity in the way I interact with those here that I disagree with. If I continue to post here, I will do my best to fully live up to this passage, and I welcome any of you to hold me accountable.
Thanks and God Bless.
Hi Ben,
Ouch. Thank you for posting those verses. They hit me right between the eyes too when I read them.
I apologize too for my part in this. Neither have I been as humble, gentle, and at times certainly not as patient as I should be. Or any of the rest of it either. I am sorry.
Maybe we need to hold each other accountable in any other further discussions here.