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"
“(A) Do you believe that God knows the future exhaustively and He knows everything that will happen?”
Irene: “Whole-heartedly A.”
Good.
So God who knows the future exhaustively, and knows everything that will happen, creates a woman who He foreknows will not be in Heaven eternally, but in Hell forever. Let’s say that this woman’s name is Reprobate.
Question: “How can the Gospel be seen as “good news” for the Reprobate?”
@Alan: my blog is from Word Press… irishanglican.wordpress Btw, I am not all that computer savy myself, but I use it as tool somewhat.
Responding to TUAD (cooment 171):
Because God’s foreknowledge of what the woman will do is contingent on what she will do. His foreknowledge mirrors her actions. So she can actually believe and be saved. The gospel was good news for, offering her the opportunity to be saved. That she will reject the good news is her own fault and not God’s. Good news was given her, but she cast it aside. TBut she did not have to. And God’s foreknowledge does not change that.
Truth Unites and divides asked:
—So God who knows the future exhaustively, and knows everything that will happen, creates a woman who He foreknows will not be in Heaven eternally, but in Hell forever. Let’s say that this woman’s name is Reprobate.
Question: “How can the Gospel be seen as “good news” for the Reprobate?”—
Reprobate still has choices to make regarding whether or not she will follow God and accept his graces. God’s foreknowledge does not equal God’s taking control.
Similar cases as examples:
A mother sees her son climbing a tree and acting goofy. She says, “you are going to fall- stop it!” She foreknows that the boy is going to fall, but it’s the boys own disobedience that causes the fall, not the mother.
Or
You have an airplane’s view of the city streets below. You see two vehicles both heading toward an intersection at full speed. You know they are going to crash, but you don’t cause the crash.
Now, these aren’t perfect or maybe not even good examples, and they are not meant to model justification or anything else, just to show the difference between foreknowledge and control. Hope you can see what I mean.
Irene, #174: “Reprobate still has choices to make regarding whether or not she will follow God and accept his graces. God’s foreknowledge does not equal God’s taking control. … [These examples are] just to show the difference between foreknowledge and control. Hope you can see what I mean.”
Answering the following question will help me more to see what you mean: So who has “control” – God or Reprobate?
Arminian: “Responding to TUAD (cooment 171):
Because God’s foreknowledge of what the woman will do is contingent on what she will do. His foreknowledge mirrors her actions. So she can actually believe and be saved. The gospel was good news for, offering her the opportunity to be saved. That she will reject the good news is her own fault and not God’s. Good news was given her, but she cast it aside. TBut she did not have to. And God’s foreknowledge does not change that.”
Let’s go with that.
Question: Did God in His foreknowledge create Reprobate?
Both the Calvinist and the Arminian must approach the same God and the same Bible! But for me anyway, the former approach the Doctrine of God much more truly and fully! In John’s Gospel we can see the biblical reality of “receiving”, and the “will” of God In Christ, (John 1: 12-13). And God the Father alone is both the giver and keeper of all this…”And of His fullness have all we received, and grace for grace.” (John 1: 16)
Busy today!
Arminian has made some interesting comments.Arminains believe God reads a tape of the future,but has no part in writing or producing that tape. So where does the tape come from? It comes from nowhere. Can’t come from people who do not exist and can’t come from God,since that would be Predestination.This is why Socinians held that God does not know the future. They knew if they admitted that He did,they could not disprove Predestination. And that doctrine is unbearable to sinners.Just as Open theism is the step-child of Socinianism,So Arminianism is the step-child of Pelagianism,a form of self-salvation.Open theism is the new fad and very popular.God knows some of the future,but not the choices of men.Kind of like you can have your cake and eat it to.It is actually a good place for Arminians and I expect multitudes will flood those churches.God and men are pals and co-operate with each other in bringing the future. Of course men always have the final vote.What more could you ask for?You won’t have any problem filling those churches.
Goodness, I’m gone for a few hours and there has surely been a lot of convo since then. Can’t probably find time to join in on all of it. It is late afternoon so not now for sure…..
I am still waiting for an Arminian to explain if they have an elect or non-elect definition. Are there people who are elect and non elect? Who are the non elect in Arminianism,and can any of the Arminian non-elect go to heaven?
I prefer some sort of in between view on this one. I believe that God knew all about our lives before we were even conceived (Psalm 139:16). Thus, in the realm of God’s omniscience, He knew that we would respond in faith for salvation. Thus, we would prove ourselves to be the elect that God knew we were even then. I don’t believe that God elected us so that we would choose salvation against our will, but I believe that our choosing to be saved revealed our election before the foundation of the world. The only limiting factor on the number of those who are elected is the sinful will of man, certainly not the love of God. God foreknew this sinfulness, and this is what kept all from being elected. God loved us enough not to force our love for Him but to give us the capacity to do so, rendering love meaningful rather than meaningless.
We are not victims of blind fate; neither are we able to do anything unless God wills it. We must acknowledge God’s sovereignty and omniscience and the free will of man. We must accept the tensions that such a position creates. May God make us those who rest in His providence and who are adamant about doing all that we can by His strength and grace to make a difference in this world.
Truth Unites, #176, said
–“So who has “control” – God or Reprobate?”—
For precision’s sake, I probably should have used the word causality instead of the word control. As in, foreknowledge does not equal causality.
God always has control in the sense that he has the greater power and the greater wisdom. BUT being all-powerful does not necessitate being the cause of everything that happens. God freely, of His own choosing, and in His goodness and generosity, created humans with their own wills. (He’s sovereign, you know, he can do that.(: ). It’s one of the ways we are made in his image.
So God ALLOWS us to exercise our own free wills. It’s a great gift and a great dignity he has given us. Since the Fall, though, it’s the cause of much of the evil in the world.
Also, humans having free wills does not mean that whatever we will can happen. It doesn’t make us all-powerful, of course. God remains “in charge”, yet he is a gentleman. As a good and just man does not force a woman into marriage (he knows that would not be a true marriage), God does not strongman us into loving him (he knows that love not freely given is not true love). We need his grace to have the power to love God, repent, do good works, etc. but if we resist his grace, he will leave us.
So if you mean who is in control of all of history? God. He is all-powerful and all-wise to bring good out of the evil we have willed.
If you mean who is in control of our own selves? We are. We have free wills given to us by our sovereign Creator.
In the end, God respects Reprobate’s refusal of his gracious offers of life.
@Don: Wow your position, and I say this nicely but theologically.. appears to be very confused as an Arminian? Btw, note the PB’s (the Brethren), or at least the early ones like JND and William Kelly, were living and preaching/teaching a High Calvinism with Free Grace! I have a piece on my own blog about how JND simply loved the Anglican Article XVII, Of Predestination and Election. (Would perhaps we could get a few to read that grand Article here? 🙂 ) And of course there was no Free-Will for Darby! Again, just a historical point from Brethrenism.
Btw, this is the blessing of Classic Anglicanism for me, i.e. the general biblical and theological balance of the Thirty-Nine Articles! Would that I had a case lot of the Evangelical Anglican, W.H. Griffith Thomas’s book: The Principles Of Theology, An Introduction To The Thirty-Nine Articles! (I am not sure if it is now in re-print? But my copy is like an old friend!) And of course the Rev. Griffith Thomas was early part of the making of the DTS…Dallas Theological Seminary. Just a great man and Christian, and btw was only a moderate dispensationalist.
A good example of what I just mentioned is the sacrament of infant baptism. The infant has nothing of his own to bring before God, only his state of original sin. But the infant also, because he is an infant without reason, and without the maturity to will any resistance, is able to receive the generous, amazing grace of baptism. The infant doesn’t bring his own faith or even his own desire, but also has no “roadblocks” to receiving the blessings of baptism.
We must be like little children before God! (The letting him hold our hand kind, not the kicking and screaming kind! (: )
@Don: #185, again just too “general”, we do have biblical tensions, but an Arminian Free-Will is just not one of them!
Btw, I have yet to see an Arminian really grapple honestly with the Text of John 17: 12! (And surely this is Judas Iscariot). And again, as Jesus said: “It would have been good for that man if he had never been born.” (Matt. 26: 24)…An amazing statement from the lips of our Lord! And note too, Judas was never a believer! (John 6: 70-71).
Irene: “In the end, God respects Reprobate’s refusal of his gracious offers of life.”
You sound just like a Calvinist. Calvinists believe that God foreknew Reprobate’s decision and destiny before even creating Reprobate.
@Irene: Baptism for us Reformed, is always part of the Covenantal blessing, and also seen in the faith of the Covenant-parents! (Acts 2: 39, Note here too St. Paul in 2 Tim. 1: 3-5 ; 3:15).
Greg. Your a very good Calvinist. You sound like like you know the great Westminster Confession very well.My favority theologian is John Frame.His work on preventives resulting from God’s decrees is very good. I like his book on the doctrine of God the best. Of course,Sproul and others are very good.I was raised a Catholic and then became an atheist. I really hated any mention of Jesus or God. Bible thumpers were the true dummies of the earth.Then one day,in 1975 in LA,I walked into an occult bookstore to brouse around and found the only Christian book there called “There” is a new world coming by Hal Lindsey.I was strangely attracted to the book so I brought it. At first,I thought I would have a few laughs at the superstition I expected to find. But this was a book on simple Christian doctrine,no election and no prophecy.Well within 6 hours I was no longer laughing. I was regenerate and enjoying the presence of the Lord as he revealed Himself to me. I was stunned. I had hated him. How could this be true? I think I was going through what John Newman found out about Amazing Grace.I knew that I had passed through a solid wall that cannot be penetrated by men.I knew that God had knocked that wall down.It wasn’t till I had read Strong’s theology book that I learned of Calvinism.Every day I thank the Lord for choosing me. I still find it hard to believe.Sproul has stated that Christians are not awed by Grace. They expect it. They are shocked by judgment,not Grace.They have little regard for God’s holiness and justice and wisdom.They have little knowledge of the hopeless state the lost are in.They don’t really believe men are dead,dead,dead,in their sin.I do. I lived it.Cheap Grace is the mantra of today.They really don’t seem to have any idea who they are dealing with. God is love has been turned into Love is God.I thank the Lord every day for choosing me.My favoritte athlete,the great Michelle Kwan is a Unitarian.The Lord let me know she is one of the elect…
Truth Unites:
–“You sound just like a Calvinist. Calvinists believe that God foreknew Reprobate’s decision and destiny before even creating Reprobate.”–
Well, we’ve got omniscience in common, then. But there is a difference between foreknowledge and causing (or allowing to happen without any intervention). In Catholicism, saving grace was offered and available to Reprobate. In Calvinism, it was not. Correct?
Jay writes,
I am still waiting for an Arminian to explain if they have an elect or non-elect definition. Are there people who are elect and non elect? Who are the non elect in Arminianism,and can any of the Arminian non-elect go to heaven?
The elect are those who are in Christ. The non-elect are those who are not. I hold to corporate election, so my answer is likely different than a Classical Arminian’s would be (though they are similar).
Election is in Christ (Eph. 1:4). He is the sphere of election. He is God’s chosen Head of the covenant, and all who are in Him share in His election by becoming a member of God’s chosen covenant people in Christ.
So one can go from being non-elect to elect (through faith which unites that person to Christ and His elect body). Likewise, one could go from being elect to non-elect (through apostasy, and subsequently being broken/cut off from that elect body, cf. Romans 11:16-24).
For a good starter on the corporate view, see this post: http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/corporate-election-quotes/
@Fr Robert,
Yes, if I understand you properly, I believe it is too. I know one couple who reject covenental theology just because they don’t believe in infant baptism. But they claim “Reformed” theology, too! I think it’s popular to redefine the word “reformed” just like its been popular to redefine the word “catholic” apart from its historical use. (; Well, I need to hop over to your blog one of these days and see what you’ve said about infant baptism. I’m sure you’ve got some good perspectives. (:
You sound just like a Calvinist. Calvinists believe that God foreknew Reprobate’s decision and destiny before even creating Reprobate.
But there is a major, major difference. In Calvinism, God foreknew “Reprobate’s” decision and destiny because God irresistibly decreed that decision and destiny. Reprobate could no more resist that decree than create a universe. However, in the Arminian view, God’s foreknowledge is not based on an irresistible decree, but on the decision the person will make and her subsequently freely chosen destiny. “Reprobate” fixes her own destiny in her own free decision in Arminianism. God irresistibly fixes her decision and destiny in Calvinism. Big difference.
Jay wrote,
My favoritte athlete,the great Michelle Kwan is a Unitarian.The Lord let me know she is one of the elect…
What???
In my above comment I wrote,
“Reprobate” fixes her own destiny in her own free decision in Arminianism.
While that is true in a sense, my wording excludes God’s involvement in that process. So it would have better to say that Reprobate’s decision fixed her destiny in accordance with God’s sovereign decree that unbelievers will perish. Or better yet, that God fixed her destiny conditionally (based on her free decision) rather than unconditionally (based on nothing but God’s irresistible decree, as in Calvinism).
So there is a sense in which she fixes her own destiny (in that her decision to reject Christ or remain in unbelief is free), but ultimately her destiny (and the destiny of all those who reject Christ and remain in unbelief) is fixed by God, who sovereignly determined that only believers will live and not perish everlastingly.
Fr.Robert
A. John 17 is divided into 3 parts. In John 17:1-5 Jesus prayed for Himself. John 17:6-19 was meant for His disciples, which is why He said He wasn’t praying for the world in verse 9. In John 17:20-26 He prayed for all believers. In John 17:20 the Lord said He was praying for “those who will believe in Me.” The Greek word translated believe means to place their trust in Him. It comes from a root that means to be persuaded and implies choice not predestination.
@Irene: There are the Reformed Baptists of course, John MacArthur is one somewhat, though he is not part of any so-called Reformed Baptist denomination, though there are generally some MacArthur satellite churches, one is even near me, in So Cal. Of course old A.W. Pink was a Reformed Baptist (called Strict and Particular Baptists (basically historically an English (Brit.) church.
Btw, I really don’t write in-depth on my blog that much. But I do share theological pieces, and only sometimes add personal issues. And I don’t think I have written strictly on Baptism in-depth on my blog? The time factor for me, and I sometimes blog from the hospital (lap-top), where I am a chaplain, but up and down, on and off, etc. Note, my wife is disabled.. chronic COPD, and she is also my love and responsibility! She is younger too, and still very beautiful inside and out! 🙂
@Jay, Michelle Kwan an “elect” vessel? Only if she comes to know Christ, by grace & glory!
Not God’s genuine desire to save her.
God’s genuine desire to have a loving relationship with her (a being with free will). Gods genuine desire for her to participate and share in his divine life. It takes two free persons to share love.
Salvation is more than us passively receiving a legal declaration.
Btw, indeed the “corporate” aspect is common in the Arminian idea of Election, but it is also part of the Reformed too. But there is always the particular first and foremost, as we can see in St. Paul, who also calls himself “a pattern”.. ‘to them which should hereafter believe on Him to life everlasting.’ (1 Tim. 1: 16) And see too, 2 Timothy 2: 10, “Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.” Such a grand verse, profound!
Robert
John 17 is divided into 3 parts. In John 17:1-5 Jesus prayed for Himself. John 17:6-19 was meant for His disciples, which is why He said He wasn’t praying for the world in verse 9. In John 17:20-26 He prayed for all believers. In John 17:20 the Lord said He was praying for “those who will believe in Me.” The Greek word translated believe means to place their trust in Him. It comes from a root that means to be persuaded and implies choice not predestination.
Irene: Indeed salvation is more than “a legal declaration” alone, but we cannot have salvation without it, either! Btw, Justification is always first, of course with Sanctification! And in reality they are closely connected, but “Justification” is certainly foremost Pauline! (Rom. 4-5)
Ha! That must be what the non-elect reprobate hears when he prays. Who are you and don’t talk to me right now.
Well, now I just tried to post a long comment and it went into moderation. The site glitches here are ridiculous the last few days.
Responding to TUAD (comment 177):
TUAD asked: Did God in His foreknowledge create Reprobate?
He knew she would reject him and end up in Hell when he created her if that is what you mean. However, since foreknowledge mirrors what will actually happen, being based on it, God cannot use his foreknowledge of a specific action to prevent the action. It is logically impossible to use foreknowledge to prevent itself. It’s the old grandfather paradox. So God cannot decide not to create someone because he knows they will reject him. If he doesn’t create them, then he would not know that they will reject him.
There are other Arminian responses to the problem Calvinism has and you are trying to stick Arminianism with. But this is the one I favor. It totally avoids the problem you are building toward raising.
Does anyone know if comments automatically go into moderation if you exceed a specified number of Scripture links? I have tried twice now to post that comment. It has five Scripture links. It has gone into moderation both times. I don’t recall ever having that kind of a problem with those links before. Maybe it is just another glitch.
Well, CMP knows we are having problems. He said he was going to pass the info along. Hope they get it fixed soon. (Wonder why these short comments go through and it is the ones we are putting a lot of effort into that don’t make it?)
PS
Just saw your e mail offer, Greg. If it doesn’t appear by tomorrow a.m., I may take you up on that.
This post illuminated something that I have personally struggled with for a long time. However it’s usually something relating to my constant failures in sancitification that bring it about. I am terribly far off from having the “holiness without which one won’t see God.” And since there is a faith that can’t save, a whole group of people that call Jesus Lord who won’t enter, and the proof that you do have saving faith being your sanctification; it’s too easy to reverse engineer the whole logic and constantly doubt that one has saving faith because of their sanctification failures. It certainly doesn’t help when all of the verses that would usually make one feel ok in spite of their sanctification failure security ( i.e Paul’s “what I do not want to do i do”, “saved by faith not works”, etc) are shown by a lot of scholarship to mean something entirely different (such as with n.t wright’s views). Thanks for the post
Arminianperspectives, #198: “So there is a sense in which she fixes her own destiny (in that her decision to reject Christ or remain in unbelief is free), but ultimately her [Reprobate’s] destiny (and the destiny of all those who reject Christ and remain in unbelief) is fixed by God, who sovereignly determined that only believers will live and not perish everlastingly.”
Thanks. Sounds like a Classical Calvinist.
“But”
“But ultimately”
“But ultimately, her destiny (and the destiny of all those who reject Christ and remain in unbelief) is fixed by God.”
Amen @Truth! Out of their own mouths…”fixed by God”! Btw, even the best so-called seekers, only seek a god for their benefit, even socially or any other purpose. Those that are not “regenerate” simply cannot see or know God! (John 3: 3), and without the New Birth, they cannot enter the kingdom of God, (John 3: 5). And surely the New Birth itself is a “gift” of God!
And btw, one thing certain “exegetically”… John 3: 5 is NOT speaking of water baptism, noting verses 6 and 8 of John 3!
Well, welcome to Arminianism and its strong doctrine of God’s sovereignty then TUAD and Fr. Robert! Finally you see the light! God does sovereignly fix our destinies, not unconditionally, but conditionally based on his sovereign decision to save believers and condemn unbelievers, and the free choice of people, enabled by grace, to accept the gospel or reject it.
Glad to have you on board!
But indeed water baptism is a ‘sign and seal’ of Salvation, but not the essence itself. This is the classic Anglican position anyway, and I believe the biblical one. 🙂
I’ll try this comment one more time!
From Greg earlier:
cherylu says: “I think maybe we should be telling people that God’s defining characteristic towards most is hate instead of love!”
OR, OR, OR… hang on now…. how bout if we tell them to repent and believe the gospel like was done in the NT church and leave who God loves to Him? 😀 See, that’s the biblical view. Please show me where anybody preaching the gospel to unbelievers in the new testament told them “Jesus loves you”.
Well, you do have a point there. However, the New Testament does talk about God loving people a whole lot. For instance, “God so loved the world,” John 3:16 “we love Him because He first loved us,” 1 John 4:19, and, “but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us,” Romans 5:8 So there is a biblical basis for telling people that God loves them. Unless of course you are going to insist that those verses all refer only to the elect. In which case I am just going to disagree with you on that! 🙂
And what about “the rich young ruler” in Mark 10:21? “Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.” You know that this man went away from Jesus without becoming a disciple. There is no indication at all that he was one of the elect. But did you notice?? Jesus loved Him!!
And one last verse, Luke 13:34: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” It doesn’t sound to me like He hates these folks. And of course it gives us another basis for telling folks that God loves them.
Funny @Arminian! But it is YOU who are on-board, and not to Arminian doctrine either, but to the full sovereign grace of God in Salvation – of course if you are elect? And not a real mystery biblically, if you have “regenerate” (real living) faith in Christ! (Eph. 2: 8-9-10)…And btw, Eph. 2: 10 is a real hammer blow here… “created in Christ Jesus”!
I’ve come to the conclusion that the comment I first tried to make yesterday afternoon that went to moderation and that I have tried to post three more times since then must be decreed and predestined to not appear on this blog! 🙁
Ha, and now it went through. And glad it appeared only once and not multiple times.
Arminian, #209: “Responding to TUAD (comment 177): TUAD asked: Did God in His foreknowledge create Reprobate?
He knew she would reject him and end up in Hell when he created her if that is what you mean.”
Yes, that is what I mean.
“So God cannot decide not to create someone because he knows they will reject him.”
So God decided to create someone even though He knows that Reprobate will reject Him.
This is further affirmed by Arminianperspectives in #209:
“So there is a sense in which she fixes her own destiny (in that her decision to reject Christ or remain in unbelief is free), but ultimately her [Reprobate’s] destiny (and the destiny of all those who reject Christ and remain in unbelief) is fixed by God, who sovereignly determined that only believers will live and not perish everlastingly.”
Fixed. By. God. Sovereignly. Determined.
Let us now return to Cherylu’s prior comments in #70:
“So, it follows then that the non elect have no chance whatsoever of desiring Him. And of course, they were non elect before their conception and birth. Before they had any opportunity to do one wrong thing. Created with no hope and no possibility whatsoever of desiring Him or of salvation. They didn’t ask to be born with a sinful nature. They didn’t ask to be born at all. But they were. And before they took their first breath they were doomed to an unending eternity in torment in hell.”
Cherylu: “They didn’t ask to be born at all. But they were.”
vis-a-vis
Arminian: “So God cannot decide not to create someone because he knows they will reject him.”
Greg writes,
So then arminianperspectives is saying that when “God fixed her destiny conditionally”, that she has in her own case personally, essentially thwarted God’s genuine desire to save her? As an individual? Correct?
Correct.
This is corporate election? God elected a heaven bound bus and it’s up to us to get on it or not? This is how we maintain God’s fairness? I’m askin.
I referred you to a good article on corporate election. Did you read it? You obviously do not understand the concept very well, so I would suggest reading that article. Then if you have questions, feel free to ask.
TUAD,
You still just don’t seem to be getting it at all. The Arminian position is that people can make a choice to accept or reject God. If they don’t accept Him, then they are doomed to hell. God, being omniscient–knowing all things, knew from eternity past who would make the choice to accept Him and who would not.
He did not create that person without any hope of accepting Him. He died for him and He died for all. Not just for the elect and all of the rest are relegated to hell before they are even born.
Knowing what someone will choose and decreeing what someone will choose so that they can make no other choice are two totally different animals.