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"
We simply MUST see God’s eternity AND time! And this is always a “dialectic” in itself!
The “heresy” btw, is overly pressing an either/or here! (I am talking about Calvinism here) We simply must respect some aspect of transcendence and mystery! But again from the fully Calvinist position!
That is not mystery per se–it is downright contradiction! Saying we are condemned and under his wrath and saying we are not at the same time–contradiction.
I have to be gone this afternoon, so probably won’t see anything more from me until this evening.
Fr. Robert,
Biblical mystery is real, but that doesn’t give us the right to just pass off major problems in our views as mystery. There is simply no reason to hold to any such “dialectic” here.
I do agree that your understanding of Eph. 1:1-4 logically leads to an eternal justification/regeneration/sanctification position (and I believe those Calvinists who reject it are being inconsistent here, though more Biblical). It really cannot be avoided. But then we have passages like the ones we bring up that flatly contradict that idea. Your response is to just appeal to mystery at this point rather than re-examine your understanding of Eph. 1:1-3.
While that passage is profound, I submit that you have profoundly misunderstood how it is profound. I don’t have the time now, but tonight I will give an alternate interpretation that makes way better sense of the language and avoids all of the problems you are now struggling to deal with.
God Bless,
Ben
TUAD,
I will have some more to say to you tonight as well, Lord willing.
@cherylu: I can see that this issue has been an on-going problem for you, thus your retreat into the error of Arminianism! I have noted you on other P&P blogs, etc. But in the end the only position that biblically & theologically honors the Word of God, and thus GOD Himself and His great Mystery is Calvinism, or better Reformed Divinity! This is my mind and faith, surely! 🙂
@”AP”: Indeed without a certain biblical mystery, we will simply never get to the truth of the Word of God, and surely the divine doctrine of GOD’s decree & predestination is here! But again, Eph. 1: verses 3 thru 6 are a hammer blow to our intellect!
We can also see this in verse 11, “In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.”
Sorry Fr Robert, but God saying we are justified while He is also calling us condemned and saying we are under His wrath at the same time is rather an absurdity. Call it mystery if you like.
But if you are going to say black is black at the same time you are telling me black is white, I am likely to just plain not believe you!
And I see a comment you posted that must of come out of moderation sometime this afternoon. Your friend doesn’t even leave a place for a temporal justification.
TUAD,
With regards to your comments, God’s foreknowledge simply mirrors what ends up happening including all the conditionality involved. So it doesn’t constrain God’s behavior when he acts, but simply reflects what God will in fact do. But that means God cannot use his foreknowledge of what will in fact happen to prevent what he foreknows, i.e., God cannot make his foreknowledge wrong; God cannot be wrong. That does not mean he cannot choose whether to create someone or not, since his foreknowledge reflects the *choice* he will make; it simply means that he can’t use his foreknowledge of his decision to create the person in the decision about creating them. He can’t say, “I know I will create John. Therefore I will not create John.” It is really very simple and iron clad logic. How does that lead to determinism? It doesn’t in the least.
TUAD writes,
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.
Do you not realize that saying God cannot falsify his foreknowledge is just another way of saying that God cannot be wrong? “To falsify” means “to make false.” So if it is a “silly claim” that God cannot “falsify His foreknowledge”, then it is a silly claim that God cannot make himself be wrong and thus cannot be wrong. Does that mean you think God can falsify His foreknowledge in such a situation, that you think God can be wrong after all? This is why “Arminian” said that you appeared to think God can be wrong. It is good that you have clarified that you agree with us that God cannot be wrong. But then that “falsifies” your argument. That is, it makes your argument against our position wrong.
BTW, I assume you realize that “zingers” do not constitute sound argumentation, and certainly do not equate to refutation.
God Bless,
Ben
Fr. Robert,
Eph. 1:1-4 is big trouble for Calvinism in that it does indeed imply such plainly unbiblical concepts as eternal justification, regeneration, sanctification, etc. Indeed, when coupled with Rom. 8:1, it plainly leads to the conclusion that the “elect” were born justified, regenerated, sanctified, etc., and could therefore certainly never be under God’s wrath or condemnation according to the plain testimony of Scripture.
Thankfully, there is a more Biblical way to understand these passages. It all has to do with union with Christ. When we put our faith in Christ we come to be in union with Him (Eph. 1:3, which, BTW, kills the Calvinist claim that we are regenerated prior to faith).
See my next post for more….
Response to Fr. Robert continued…
Here is something I wrote to my Calvinist pastor (and Uncle) that will help shed light on this passage,
Notice that it does not say “chose us to be in Him”. Rather, it says “chose us in Him”. Now you seem to find support for your view in the second part of the passage, “before the foundation of the world”. But think through the ramifications of your interpretation here. If we were “in Him” (remember, the passage does not say “chosen to be in Him”) from before the foundation of the world, then we would be born saved since there is “no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1).
We would be beneficiaries of all of the spiritual blessings that reside in Christ since our birth (Eph. 1:3). That means that we would be born forgiven, justified, regenerated, and holy. But this plainly contradicts Eph. 2:3 which say that the believers in Ephesus were previously under the wrath of God. So what does Paul mean in adding that this choice was from “before the foundation of the world”?
The solution has to do with the believers identification with Christ through union with Him at the point of being joined to Him through faith (Eph. 1:13). When we believe, we are joined to Christ and share in all of the spiritual blessings that reside in Him. His history becomes our history. His death becomes our death. His life becomes our life. His righteousness becomes our righteousness. His holiness becomes our holiness, and His election becomes our election. So just as Paul can say that He was crucified with Christ (though He was not actually crucified), so Paul can say that the believers in Ephesus were “chosen before the foundation of the world”, even though they were not actually the ones chosen. Rather, Christ was the chosen one from before the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:20), and they share in this election through union with Him. Our chosen status is wholly dependent on…
Response to Fr. Robert continued…
Our chosen status is wholly dependent on union with Christ. Election is Christ centered, not decree centered.
Think of it this way. Before becoming an American, you (my Uncle who is from the Philippines) couldn’t claim America’s history as your own. But upon becoming an American, the history of our country became your history. You could then say that “we won the revolutionary war.” You could say that even though you were not always a citizen of the USA, and you could say that even though you did not personally fight in the revolutionary war. America’s history became your history through identification with this country as your own and through union with this country through your new citizenship. In a similar way, Christians can say we died with Christ and were chosen from the before the foundation of the world based on our present union and identification with Christ
All,
Anything with more than 3 scripture references gets tagged for moderation as they get translated into links.
Since I am the only one who checks the control panel, I am the only one who approves. And there are so many first time commenters that the moderation queue is overloaded every day. I get very far behind. Is there anyone who wants a volunteer job of moderating this beast of a blog?
I wish I could, bro., but I have enough going on as it is. Is there anything you can do to change the issue of flagged Scripture verses? That seems extremely counter productive for a Christian blog where such things should be expected.
Hey Greg,
I thought you might find this blog post interesting (from 2007). We basically use the same illustration of a ball being held under water:
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/struggling-with-regrets/
Both Cherylu and AP: One of the nice things about being an Anglican (also a one time Anglo-Catholic, as being raised Irish Roman Catholic, from which I was even a Benedictine monastic for a few years in my mid 20’s – after my first combat tour as a Royal Marine. Is that I have a real “unio mystica” place in my life. As a Reformed Christian now for well over 25 years, I have somewhat learned however how I balance this with my Reformed doctrine and divinity. So I really do see things in both an existential and certain dialectic! Btw, reading Karl Barth has also helped my thinking here, though I don’t follow Barth’s theology per se, but he was a very special theological thinker for sure! The point is the balance of the spiritual with the theological, which really is always somewhat experiential. I hope you might be able to get a bit of what I am saying, as this has been the better part of over 40 years on my regenerate and theological life and Christian journey! 🙂
And btw, I should get “something” for reading Barth’s whole CD corpus once in my life too! (I am somewhat kidding), but it was really a theological journey, along with reading just about everything by Calvin, in both English and too even many Latin pieces! The point here is much of this is where I get my own sort of eclectic thinking, and Calvinist thought! And surely this runs me into trouble sometimes with my very tight Reformed Calvinist Brethren, also! 😉 So though I am more conservative than our brother CMP or Michael, I do appreciate his eclecticism!
Wow, RC was young in that piece! RC is 73 now. Btw Ligonier Valley is just outside of Pittsburg. He is one of the great Reformed today! Everyone should read his book: Holiness of God! And perhaps those non-Calvinist types here should see his book: The Consequences of Ideas, Understanding the Concepts That Shaped Our World, (Crossway, 2000).
Several comments seem to have vanished from this thread. Wonder if we have a new glitch going on here?
Well I am not much of a computer guy myself, though of course I use it. It came rather late for me, in my early 50’s to even use it much. My son’s are the computer guys!
I am just an old bookman!
Btw, what should a 63 year old Calvinist have, as a desk-top for home? I have a Dell lap-top for my hospital use (its mine).
It seems the smoke has cleared here a bit on this subject? But is not God’s Sovereignty always just or justice, in the administration and maintenance of His purpose and will? Of course it must be, or God is not God! And of course God is Immutable! And too before God, justice is conformity to truth, right reason and righteousness, in the court of God! And here alone, the Christian finds all of this ‘In Christ’! HE “Christ Jesus” alone is the Mediator before the Throne of God! But does Christ mediate for the non-Christian, or really non-Elect? John 17: 19 surely seems to say: No! Indeed the whole of John 17 appears to be the High Priestly Prayer of Christ for His elect people, whom God the Father has given Him, and Christ gives back to the Father, in the Power and Person of the Holy Spirit! (John 17: 2-3 ; 21).
Greg
You say you are speaking to those reading! Have to tell you that my wife Cerbaz that you wrote to in the past has read all these comments and said if God is a Calvinist I want no part of him. If God predestined before I was born that I would go to hell with billions of others so be it! I know you will say this isn’t my problem as she is an unbeliever. So you will go on your merry way.
Luther wrote
A man cannot be thoroughly humbled, until he comes to know his salvation is utterly beyond his own powers, counsel, endeavours, will, and works, and absolutely depending on the will, counsel, pleasure, and works of another, that is, of God only.
Don mentioned that his wife, who is not a believer, commented from reading this thread, “if God is a Calvinist I want no part of him”.
That sort of response partly illustrates why one of our goals in the Society of Evangelical Arminians (SEA) is to “foster the proper representation of our magnificent God to the world”. That goes along with “our commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ, which offers salvation by grace through faith for all who believe. It is an exciting and profound message of good news from a good God who loves the world and has provided for the salvation of all in the death of his Son, though only those who believe will receive the salvation that God wants to give them. Such good news–salvation, forgiveness of sins, and eternal life offered to us by God as a free gift at the greatest cost to himself–the life of his own Son, Jesus Christ our Lord!” (quotes from SEA’s “about us” page: http://evangelicalarminians.org/about-us/).
@Arminian: The whole problem here is the making of the straw-man that somehow God is dealing some aspect of free-willed men or people! And this is always simply a myth, there are no free-willed men or people in the Bible! Since the Fall of Adam, all men are considered sinners, as Adam was the head of the race. I am simplifying here, somewhat, for the theology of the Federal Headship is quite theological! And God deals with men from where they are,”sinners” and sinful beings! And simply no man makes himself a believer by his own human decision! As I have quoted from Acts 13: 48, “When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” Indeed the ability to “believe” is itself an appointment by the grace of God, and the gift is eternal life, which is itself a life from God that is eternal and cannot be forfeited from the God who has given and made it! And this is the position of the Reformed Divinity, itself. But it is certainly not antinomian either! That all and any salvation of God comes from His sovereign grace alone! This is surely the Gospel of the Reformation, as too Luther also. Note Luther’s great debate with Erasmus on Free-Will!
Robert did you not hear my plea to be thoughtful about your comments? You also made comments to my wife cerbaz/Margaret that did not help her in her struggle with Christianity. Please stop with having to be right and pray for my wife that she will once again see that Jesus loved her so much that He died on the cross for her that she is a child of God that God will never leave her or forsake her. But I have no doubt you will have a negative reply that once again she will say see I told you so!
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16
God so loved that He gave His Son.
According to you Greg I was not one of the elect before I was born so I am predestined to hell. So I will go my flickering way according to your theology.
Hello Cerbaz,
It is a whole lot safer to believe what God tells you in the Bible then to believe what any man has said. And He has said He gave His only Son so that if you believe in Him you wiil have eternal life.
Believe me, no man can look into God’s mind and know if a doubting person is one of the elect or not.
@Don: I always at least seek to honor and speak as I understand the Word of God, both biblically and theologically, and not just on some personal or really ecclesiastical level. And I don’t see the Reformed Divinity at all as a denominational theology! You can note all the different Reformed Creeds, from Anglican (Irish Articles 1615), to the Reformed Baptist Creed of 1689, etc. There are many Reformed Creeds! Btw, perhaps if ‘the Brethren’ had better understood the great Creedal history of the top-tier Reformation, their history would have been stronger and better!
I am truly sorry to hear of your wife’s great spiritual quandary, I really am. But all you can do is to just love her ‘In Christ’, and not from your own self alone, perhaps standing back as to religious issues, especially. And btw our brother Greg has spoken with much love and wisdom here! I feel myself that you all, as many have, loaded up on him unfairly! But the issue is not persons here but God’s Doctrines of Grace! But indeed your “if’s” are but deadly (as Greg noted), for the bottom line is God’s sovereign grace & glory in the salvation of each human-being and soul, HE makes the Christian regeneration, not us! At this level we are really passive before God!
Btw, Cherylu, your #361 seems to leave-out the whole pastoral-teacher gift of God? (Noting Eph. 4: 11-12-13, see too verses 14-16). I love it! To hear of Greg’s testimony at reading Calvin! John Calvin has also been one of THE greatest pastor-teachers in my life also! Btw, I should say here one of my great provident persons of my life, was my first Irish Roman Catholic priest, Fr. Sweeney, he was indeed an Augustinian theologically (from a Catholic order of Augustinians, his education).
Btw, too, if people will look historically Luther was greatly affected by his Augustinian superior, from his Augustinian Order, John Staupitz. And too, Augustine was always a main ingredient in medieval theology (as he also affected John Calvin). And btw also, it was Staupitz who helped Luther see that the study of theology helps to make clear that while God is merciful to real sinners, imaginary sinners only remain trapped in their illusions spun out of their own fears, and here Staupitz was convinced that soft handling would never teach Luther the difference between real sin and entirely unjustified feelings of guilt. Luther had to learn that it was not a sign of great piety to mistrust the mercy of God but of stupid, obstinate, and wholly unnecessary unbelief!
It has been said that Luther should be seen or understood primarily as a disciple of the Augustinian Fr. John Staupitz! He certainly taught Luther his theological centre of Christ and Christology, and Christ as the Christological centre in his exegesis. And also taught Luther that human interpretation and temptation therein, was the context of providence and predestination! Btw both Staupitiz and Luther believed Christ died for the elect alone, but they did not seek to solve the mystery, but both did not believe in so-called Free Will, more of responsible will as Augustine!
i.e. the negative of the human interpretation and its temptation there in with election, and providence misunderstood!
@cherylu: John 3: 16 is also most certainly not an “Arminian” text either:
“For God (Theos, both Elohim and Jehovah) so loved (agapao, verb, to regard with favor, principle) the world (kosmos=the world as created, ordered, and arranged), so “For thus God loved the world/kosmos” seems better! “That the Son, the Unique One and Only, He gave, that everyone believing in Him, may not perish but have life eternal.”
I believe this is a righteous exegetical translation!
Fr Robert,
My comment # 361 to Cerbaz was meant only in answer to her comment just before that where she said that Greg had told her she was not one of the elect and her response to that. Nothing more and nothing less.
If any one ever tells anyone else, or implies to anyone else, that they are not one of the elect, I would tell them to not listen to that person since that is not information we have access to.
And it seems to me that your translation of John 3:16 only “seems better” if you are already convinced that Calvinism is correct.
@cherylu: I don’t think any of us so-called Calvinists have said that Ms (really Mrs as it appears) Cerbaz or Margaret is personally not one of the Elect of God, but that her attitude and beliefs are thus far simply indicative of unbelief obviously. But then it is also quite obvious that sometimes God’s Elect can fall into sin and unbelief (as King David). Again no ones really knows who the Elect are, but God. And yet if a so-called Christian is seeking to be faithful to God and His Holy Word, and also seeking to persevere in it with truth and holiness, we can assume that they are part of God’s collective and the individual “Election of Grace”! Note, 1 John 2: 19 with 2 Thess. 2: 10-14. And here too the proper understanding of John 3: 16 also applies, “believing in Him, may not perish but HAVE eternal life.”
Btw, my so-called “translation” of John 3: 16, is actually close to the interlinear translation of the Greek N.T. of the UBS 4th edition, Nestle-Aland edition..Robert Brown, M.A. then senior editor, with too Philip Comfort, Ph.D. also a senior editor at Tyndale House. Neither of which are overt Calvinists that I know of?
But then it is also quite obvious that sometimes God’s Elect can fall into sin and unbelief (as King David). Again no ones really knows who the Elect are, but God. And yet if a so-called Christian is seeking to be faithful to God and His Holy Word, and also seeking to persevere in it with truth and holiness, we can assume that they are part of God’s collective and the individual “Election of Grace”!
And these comments again highlight the major problem Calvinism has with salvation assurance.
Again, Cherylu, you might want to be careful before you just shoot from the hip in your statements here! I am always a perpetual student type, even at my age. Sadly, the blog is quite the easy place for such, however!
@”AP”: Of course just according to your Arminian ideas. John and Charles Wesley both quite believed in perseverance, i.e. the Christian seeking to be faithful to God!
The real problem for Arminianism, is that one day your saved, then the next day you have fallen away from “Grace”! Very sad, and full of biblical and theological error!
And the biblical truth of the Reformed Divinity is, that assurance and perseverance are connected, if one is seeking obedience, then that is really finding perseverance in Grace! And this really “Arminanism” can never itself give! At least fully and biblically!
Fr Robert,
Please watch it with your accusations there. Before I wrote that statement, I read it in twelve different versions. Eleven of them had it as, “For God so loved the world.” One said, “For God did so love the world.” After I posted the comment I read one more version, I believe it was the Net Bible, that translated it the “better” way. And even then in the study notes, it didn’t seem that they believed it had any different meaning then the standard, “For God so loved the world.”
Edit: Here is the link to the Net Bible and that study note: https://net.bible.org/#!bible/John+3:7
Don to Greg: “Have to tell you that my wife Cerbaz that you wrote to in the past has read all these comments and said if God is a Calvinist I want no part of him. If God predestined before I was born that I would go to hell with billions of others so be it! I know you will say this isn’t my problem as she is an unbeliever.”
Curious, for all those commenting on this thread or lurking, did anyone investigate the doctrines of Arminianism or Calvinism before becoming a follower or disciple of Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior?
I didn’t.
Also, fwiw, the doctrines of Calvinism and Arminianism agree with each other in many critical areas.
Given the comment above by Don, here’s two areas where Arminianism and Calvinism agree:
#1. Nobody had a choice to be born. God chooses.
#2. Before anybody was born, God in His Divine Foreknowledge foreknew who is Elect and who is not.
Both Arminianism and Calvinism agree on these two points.
@cherylu: Tit for tat, dear! YOU have been throwing your own ideas against Calvinism for some time. I just served a wee bit of my own back! 😉 Just a question, but do and can you read your pure Greek NT? I read mine every A.M. for my devotion! Just a point, that though I too have many Bible Translations, and I like the NET too! I know the Greek alphabet, and I love Biblical Word studies! Though I don’t have the Greek apparatus for my computer use, to write it.
As if YOU haven’t been throwing YOUR ideas against Arminianism!
Amen “Truth”! I read the Wesley brothers all the time! They were of course Evangelical Anglicans. If one reads closely their Hymns, one can surely see just how close they were on some aspects to the Doctrines of Grace! And both Luther and Calvin affected John, as he wrote in his Journal several times (see his Journal as to Calvin and justification, Tues. May 14, 1765). He also could write, “I believe justification by faith alone, as much as I believe there is a God.” (Works, X, 349)
Just a question, but do and can you read your pure Greek NT? I read mine every A.M. for my devotion!
The answer is “no” and “no”. I’ve never had the opportunity to acquire your vast degree of learning.
Are we going for a bit of intimidation here this a.m? Kind of makes one wonder.
Surely, I admit too I am a culprit of ‘the shoot from the hip blog mentality’, myself! I’m Irish! 😉 It ‘s just that I am also an old “theolog” myself, and have been so for well over 35 years! This counts for something I hope? 😉 Not to mention God’s hand and “temperance” as being a pastor! The latter sadly gets left out too often on the blogs!
No intimidation on my part, at least not on these blogs! Though people should feel something when they are on ground they simply have but opinions! The saying should work for all of us too, talk is cheap! It should be grounded in the historical, as well as something of the Church, and biblical theology!
All of the theologs in the world aren’t Calvinists you know.
The trouble here seems to be that all non Calvinists only have “opinions” while Calvinists of course have the “facts.” And of course Calvinists have all of biblical theology on their side too and Arminians? Well, of course they are all just plain wrong about so much!! 🙂
And you Calvinsts that are so all fired right can’t even begin to agree among yourselves about things. And boy, has this thread brought out the reality of that! Must be frustrating I would think!
Don’t know why I ever get involved in these conversations anyway. Not much point when you just get shot down with a “you don’t know what you are talking about anyway” mentality by those with such vast theological training. Maybe that isn’t the way you mean it, but that IS the way you are coming across.