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"
@cherylu: Yes and Yes! (Rev. 13: 8)…I too noted you have said nothing as to the essence of this Scripture Text! (Also Rev. 17: 8 ; 20: 8) How and when does someone get their name written in the Lamb’s book of life, from the foundation of the world?
Btw, perhaps the guy that has been the most “Christ-like” on this blog subject and debate has been our brother Greg? But of course he and I are closer in biblical & theological agreement. As I said however, the nature of the blog does not bode well at times, especially on an open blog!
Btw, just a note, but P&P’s definition of Presuppositionalism is hardly without an ad hoc. A much more simple and true statement would be: “The Bible never sets out to prove the truth of God existence or of the gospel by human reason. Rather, it presupposes God. God is not someone whose existence may be questioned or denied, because he is necessary to the existence of all the facts, including the faculties of human beings. God proved by reason (alone) is always less than the true God. The Christian task is not to prove but proclaim and open the eyes of those who are blind.”
And btw, let us dare not seek to lessen or remove the “offence” of the Cross in the Gospel! (Gal. 5: 11 / 1 Pet. 2: 4 thru 8)
#279 *”God’s existence”
Fr. Robert writes,
Btw, perhaps the guy that has been the most “Christ-like” on this blog subject and debate has been our brother Greg? But of course he and I are closer in biblical & theological agreement.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion concerning who has been the most “Christ-like” on this blog, but I wonder why you feel the need to share that opinion? And why do you then seemingly connect it to theology that you both share? In short, what point are you trying to make by this comment exactly?
God proved by reason (alone) is always less than the true God. The Christian task is not to prove but proclaim and open the eyes of those who are blind.”
I thought only irresistible regeneration could open the eyes of the blind?
God proved by reason (alone) is always less than the true God. The Christian task is not to prove but proclaim and open the eyes of those who are blind.”
I thought only irresistible regeneration could open the eyes of the blind.
Sorry about the double post.
Fr. Roberts writes,
@cherylu: Yes and Yes! (Rev. 13: 8)…I too noted you have said nothing as to the essence of this Scripture Text! (Also Rev. 17: 8 ; 20: 8) How and when does someone get their name written in the Lamb’s book of life, from the foundation of the world?
Regarding the book of life, it would seem that your own theology has something to answer for in light of the passages that speak of names potentially being blotted out of that book (Exod. 32:32-33, cf. Rev. 3:5 and possibly Rev. 21:18).
Could you please explain how one already justified (from eternity) can be described as under the wrath of God, and how such a doctrine of eternal justification can comport with the Bible’s plain and repeated declaration that justification is by faith (as in “sola fide”)?
Notice also that none of your fellow Calvinists are supporting your contentions thus far. Would you suggest that they do not understand Calvinism either? Would you work to persuade them to likewise embrace eternal justification?
Thanks,
Ben
@”AP”: Well my statement about Greg means just what I said! Of course I believe like Greg that in the end, the Bible or the Word of God surely is the basic and only real “presupposition”, itself. And here Greg has been faithful!
And indeed within the proclamation of the Gospel itself, it speaks to “Election of Grace”, and those whom God has predestinated to Eternal Justification! (Matt. 22: 14)
Btw, the Dictionary Of The Bible, with James Hastings, Revised Edition by Frederick C. Grant and H.H. Rowley is hardly “Calvinistic”. And H.H. Rowley has written a book, called: The Biblical Doctrine Of Election, (1950), and aye.. I have it! It is actually more of a loose Arminian position too, though he does have a chapter, on: The Election of Individuals, though in this chapter he turns to “paradox” at the end. So no, no overt Calvinism in the Dictionary itself!
@”AP”: Well my statement about Greg means just what I said! Of course I believe like Greg that in the end, the Bible or the Word of God surely is the basic and only real “presupposition”, itself. And here Greg has been faithful!
But this is not what I asked you. I wasn’t wondering about the ways that you and Greg might agree with each other. I was wondering why you connected your agreement to your stated opinion that Greg has been the most “Christ-like” person commenting in this thread? Could you please answer that question?
Regarding the Dictionary of the Bible, I owe you an apology. I was referring to “The New International Dictionary of the Bible” by J.D. Douglas & Merrill C. Tenney. That is my mistake. I thought I recognized some of the language you quoted as coming from that “Dictionary of the Bible” and assumed it was the same one. Looking back, the quote you offered is actually not a bad description of regeneration, with only one part that might be easily read in a Calvinistic sense, but not necessarily so.
I look forward to you addressing my concerns about Gal. 3:26 and the questions I just asked you about eternal justification.
Thanks,
Ben
@”AP”: Indeed, as Romans 7: 13-25 teaches…especially verse 18, that even within the Elect themselves (in this life), sin still exists! But their “position” ‘In Christ’ is eternal!
Concerning what my other Calvinist brethren here believe about God’s Eternal Justification, I know not? But it is my position, as it was “many of the older Reformed”, as I said..Calvin and Turretin, and too, Abraham Kuyper, the great Dutch neo-Calvinist!
Fr. Robert,
You really lost me with your reference to Matt. 22:4. Could you explain how you think that passage is connected to the idea of eternal justification?
Thanks,
Ben
Fr. Robert,
I need to get going. I am not talking about sin still existing. I am talking about being under the wrath and condemnation of God. How can someone be both justified and under the wrath and condemnation of God?
And could you please quote John Calvin with regards to where he defends the idea of eternal justification?
I look forward to you answering these questions and the others I have asked.
Thanks,
Ben
FWIW, I found the following post by CMP to be helpful as the subject has been raised up in this thread:
Does Regeneration Precede Faith?
Excerpt: “I have come to the conclusion that I am in agreement with the Reformed camp concerning the ordo salutis. I believe that regeneration is a sovereign act of God by which He places a new life within a person so that the person naturally responds in faith. At the same time, I am not entirely dogmatic about this. I hope that as I continue to study Scripture, I will gain more insight.”
From a real Calvinist connection, Matt. 22: 14 speaks for itself to my mind, in this life, “many are called but (really) few are chosen (God’s eternity).”
@”Truth”: As you know if your a real Calvinist, this position of “regeneration” as first place, and really with “calling” in the ordo, is THE truth of The Reformed Divinity!
But I am not surprised about Michael not being dogmatic here! Simply in many ways he is not a consistent Reformed thinker or theolog! But as he says, perhaps he will become more so Reformed (epistemologically too) as he continues to study? As I have said, us Reformed pastor-teachers will lay ourselves and our doctrine before the Bema-Seat of Christ!
@”Truth”: As you know if your a real Calvinist, this position of “regeneration” as first place, and really with “calling” in the ordo, is THE truth of The Reformed Divinity!
I hear ya. I think it goes hand-in-hand with Monergism.
Seems like it all nuts down to monergism versus synergism. And that we’re just arguing about the merits of the branches (entailments and logical implications) that extend out from the debate between monergism versus synergism.
That being said, I am delighted that there are Heaven-bound synergists and Heaven-bound Arminians. Their doctrine is full of error, but not spiritually fatal.
P.S. I think I’ve mentioned this before to you Robert, but I feel sorry for the Church of England and the Anglican Communion. Thanks for serving faithfully amidst the ecclesial disarray.
@”AP”: As I said on this blog already, Calvin wrote a piece in 1552 called: ‘Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God’. And again see the Theopedia link I gave, Calvin has a quote there!
Surely for Calvin the doctrine of divine sovereignty lies at the heart of the Reformation! And from here too is the Eternal Justification of God!
I will try to get back to commenting here later today. Have had an extremely busy day today so far.
@Thanks Truth! I am now for the most part retired or semi-retired, save for some hospital chaplain work. And I do get to preach a bit, but mostly outside of the Anglican body, at least in the US. I have preached at some Lutheran Churches, and some Presbyterian Churches too. But I am still a classic Calvinist Anglican! (Love the Irish Articles 1615)
Fr. Robert,
Theopedia is not a very reliable source. However, the quotes they provide do not support Calvin as holding eternal justification as that term is normally used in theology. The first quote they provide is actually a good basic, objective description of the view by an opponent of the view. And then notice that the quotes by both Calvin and Turretin both disagree with eternal justification as defined in the first quote by Pink (and again, Pink himself disagrees with the view). What Calvin and Turretin held, along with the vast majority of Calvinists, is that the decree to justify the elect was from all eternity, but that justification itself does not take place until an elect person believes. For them, justification comes logically after faith.
@”A”: Well this is the big debate among Calvinists! (I saved this last for cherylu) They also still debate Calvin’s doctrine of the Atonement. But as noted, I still see the doctrine of the Eternal Justification. And surely no real Calvinist puts faith before regeneration! Note as I said too Abraham Kuyper taught the EJ. This is really an “in house” debate among some Calvinist’s.
Btw, I like “Theopedia” as a general source myself! 😉
Hi Fr Robert,
Thanks for so specifcally answering my questions this time. I appreciate that.
I too was going to note that only the first Theo quote supports eternal justification as you say you believe it. AP beat me to it. In house debate or not among some Calvinists, the fact remains that it is also called heresy by some of those same fellows.
I would also like to know as AP asked, how a person can be simultaneously justified while they are under God’s wrath and condemned. That is a total contradiction and an impossibility, it seems to me.
I will get back to the Rev verses later.
I think I have answered that, in this life all men and humanity are born (as in themselves) sinners! (Rom. 3: 23) Adam is the Federal Head of the race, (Rom. 5)! And the sinner never knows he is “elect” In Christ, until he is regenerated, etc. (Again, the “ordo salutis” is again the temporal order of causes and effect through which the salvation of the sinner is accomplished, but this comes from the emphasis upon the eternal decree, itself, but its execution in time. Note again the Lutheran ordo, as the Methodist is different. See, adoption; conversion; fides; gratia; homo; illuminatio; intuit fidei; iustificatio; perseverantia; praedestinatio; regenerio; renovation; sanctification; vocation. The actual arrangement is different from system to system.
Finally in actual fact, the Reformed ordo is very simple and biblical, and always “calling” and “regeneration” are first! Calling is again God’s choice, and here is really God’s eternal justification, itself! (Note, Acts 13: 48)
Fr Robert,
I believe the point is that once a person is justified, they are freed from God’s sentence of wrath, they are no longer condemned.
But your justified men still, according to the Bible, are under that sentence and that condemnation. You can’t be free of a sentence and under it at the same time.
@cherylu: A few things you are sorely missing, “eternal/eternity” and the “doctrine of God” and certainly “God’s eternal decree”!
Okay,
Lets back way up here again. Are you saying that God decreed in eternity that these men would in time be justified?
Or are you saying that they were born justifiied because of God’s eternal decree and therefore not under God’s wrath and condemnation? The latter is what that quote that you answered “yes” and “yes” to said when I asked you if this is what you believe.
I am not missing “eternal” or “decree”. But maybe you have not understood what I was asking you.
Just a quick answer to your question about those Revelation verses. I assume you are referring to the “written in the Lamb’s Book of Life….” sections.
Since the non Calvinist view of foreknowledge, at least the one I have always believed, doesn’t require that God has to make a decree of unconditional election to know who will be the ones that will choose to believe in Him, those verses hold no problem at all. He, being omniscient, knows who will make that choice so their names can on that basis be written in the Book of Life.
I hope I said that in a way that makes sense. I really have been rushed here today.
TUAD writes,
FWIW, I found the following post by CMP to be helpful as the subject has been raised up in this thread:
Does Regeneration Precede Faith?
Good reference. See Arminian’s excellent comments in the comment thread, which, in my opinion, highlight how unbiblical the doctrine truly is. You can find them starting here:
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/02/regeneration-prcede-faith/#comment-48877
Just noticed in my comment a ways back to Greg (#227) that I kept saying prepositional, rather than presuppositonal. I need to check the “correction” spell check offers before clicking on it (as it doesn’t recognize presuppositional). Embarrassing.
@cherylu: Yes, I have known for sometime that you are really an Arminian! What can we say more?
Again, yes, yes, yes! Christ’s death only saves and really affects the Elect! (And btw, John and Charles Wesley, with Whitefield were Elect, of course in my opinion!) And I believe in God’s Eternal Justification (note “eternal” and always God’s decree)! But were never going to understand all of this…ever, not in this life, and maybe not in eternity either?
Here is a quote from a friend of mine on the subject of Eternal Justification…
“This is very interesting! I am glad that Beeke and Jones brought this out. That being said I continue to maintain (in agreement with you, I am sure), that “justification in time” has no reference to the perspective of God. God is the one who justifies, and a forensic justification only has His satisfied pronouncement as a referent. Being chosen in Christ “before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4), with our names written in the Lamb’s book of life “from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 17:8), crucified in union with Him (Gal. 2:20) who was slain “from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8), to enter into the rest of God’s works finished “from the foundation of the world” (Heb. 4:3), leaves no room for a justification that waits for a temporal pronouncement by the justifying God who transcends the temporal. Case in point: Abraham’s justification must not be seen as suspended until the Cross lest the argument of its timing relative to his circumcision fall to the ground, nor was this necessary from the perspective of the Holy One who inhabits Eternity. One of the problems I see with the theological “slicing and dicing” from Goodwin is the attempt to see justification as both forensic and experiential. Another is that the completion of the work of redemption appears to be left to our response of faith. Sometimes what appears to be solutions have the potential to create worse problems. In the case of Abraham and other Old Testament believers the “applicatory” (3) is seen as occurring prior to that which is referred to as the “transient” (2). This is not a problem with a God whose justifying decree is eternal and transcendant, but certainly should be to theologians who are not considering it from His perspective.” – John T. Jeffery
Well, Father Robert, I’m not at all sure that I understand your views on eternal justification. Because if your two “yes” answers when I asked you the question yesterday were what you really meant, you do contradict the statements that the Bible makes about the elect before they are justified in time.
You seem to be putting round pegs into square holes. Which we all know doesn’t work.
@cherylu: Indeed this great Doctrine is not just and exercise in logic! And “putting round pegs into square holes” is really a good way of seeking to explain the great mystery of God here! But indeed as Eph. 1: 3-6, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ Jesus with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, (no break in the Greek here), even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved One.” – Amen!
Fr Robert,
Yes He chose us in Him.
Here is my question to you very simply (I think!)
When we were chosen and predestined, were we then born with all of those benefits of being in Christ already actually applied to us in an effectual way? Or did they only become effectual in the elect person’s life at that point in time in his life when he was regenerated, adopted, came to faith, etc, etc?
Well as the verses I quoted, by our great Apostle Paul from Ephesians 1: 3-6, it was in the heart and mind of God first! Indeed here is our (if were really chosen and elect) the Eternal Justification and predestination of being “In Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world” which GOD will surely effect in time ‘In Christ Jesus’! Indeed these verses really nail it down, that it is all in the heart, mind and in “the purpose of his will”! But yes, we will see it in our own “effected lives in time, again ‘In Christ’!
So, before it was actually “effected in time” in the elect person’s life, were they under God’s condemnation and wrath?
Aye Greg. I can also go the scholastic way too, I mean for information, history, and argument. The Holy Scripture does have a human and historical factor, i.e. the Jewish Hellenistic (Johannine), as the Pauline Greco-Roman, but even here it is still under/in God’s sovereign hand! 🙂
Yes–Fr. Robert (Anglican)
I whole heartedly agree with you.
In his conclusion to
Consequences of Ideas, R.C. Sproul
sets forth solution to conflict between religion and science–restoring the classical synthesis between general revelation and special revelation.
Great book:
Religion and the Rise of Modern Science
by R. Hooykaas
Has anyone else read it?
Fr Robert,
Did you notice my last question to you last night? I am still trying to figure out exactly what you are saying re eternal justification.
I thought I knew at one point, now I am still confused.
@cherylu: God’s sees the “Elect” eternally justified, and in time, they are human and born in sin (like King David here surely). But “Mary” the Mother of our Lord, called “The Mother of God” (in/for the Incarnation)..at the Ecumenical Council of 431, was certainly an “elect-vessel of grace”, for the birth and incarnation of Christ, for the unity of His Person, in what was called the “communication idiomatum”, that is “by reason of this unity of person, to be understood in both natures, the Son of God took flesh from the Virgin from whom He was born..” “And Mary said: “My soul exalts the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.” (Lk. 1: 46-47) But, yes Mary was born, in some Adamic nature also, but did she sin overtly? I say no, myself, but she still needed her/our Savior! Just a point.
@Amen Lora! Would that we could get people to read the simply grand Reformed theologian: R.C. Sproul! No doubt the real gentleman of the Reformed Divinity today!
Fr Robert,
So is there a point in time in the life of the elect when they are actually justified? When they are freed from wrath and condemnation? If so, this seems to be in conflict with your “yes” to the statement in that quote that all that happened in time was that what was actually already there was “manifested” in their consciences.
Some of the reading I have done on this matter says that the elect were never under God’s condemnation, that they were never under His wrath, but were free of those things from birth onwards because they have been eternally justified. Is that what you believe?
And btw Cherylu, but the “how” and “when” “God chose us” ‘In Christ’, is the great question here, and the biblical answer is most certainly eternally & sovereignly by God Himself…’In Christ’! The effect and time for us is secondary in the eternal decree of God. (Btw, again Eph. 1: 3-6) is such a profound string of verses, the crack of eternity in time… the revelation & purpose of God!
That doesn’t really answer my last question to you.
@cherylu: Again, “yes” to your last paragraph in # 323 (as to God’s grace and eternity), but in time WE are all sinners! This is why I used Mary the Mother of our Lord as an example! But again surely, Mary is an example of God’s sovereign, eternal justification! (As too St. Paul I might add, 1 Tim. 1: 15-16..noting too verse 17!)
Btw Cherylu, your not going to get a neat scholastic answer out of me! I like the Reformed Creeds, mostly all, but none of them are the very Word of God itself! This is why I simply love the section I quoted in Eph. 1: 3-6! 🙂
Okay, so you are saying that God never saw the elect as condemned or under His wrath even though we were all sinners.
The only trouble is, the Bible speaks of all that do not believe as being condemned and speaks of those that are now believers as having been under God’s wrath.
So it just doesn’t work according to those verses to say that they were born free of God’s wrath and condemnation. I would imagine that is why the belief in eternal justification has been called a heresy by some of your fellow Calvinists.