An email came into the Credo House today containing this question:
I’m wrestling with Calvin right now and as a parent I have hit a wall…What if my kids aren’t elect? The idea sickens me but it has to be possible. I have a hard time just shrugging that off and saying that it is to God’s glory.
What follows is my response for the sake of processing the topic for yourself:
Thanks for contacting the Credo House. I have 3 precious children and I am personally a Calvinist so please know that I’m not responding to you from a purely intellectual standpoint.
Taking a step back from this particular issue, I think we would all agree with the popular saying that, “God has no grandchildren.” God only has children. No one gets into heaven because they were related to people who were Christians. Even the most ardent Calvinist and the most ardent Arminian would agree that each individual must come to Jesus on their own. So there cannot be any absolute guarantee that all children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, etc… of all Christians will go to heaven. If this were true then the entire world would probably be a Christian. The Bible is full of statements where every person must consciously believe in Jesus to have eternal life (John 3:16).
If someone tries to defend the “all children of Christians go to heaven” position there aren’t too many verses along these lines. One verse they could point to is the Proverb of training up a child and they won’t depart. This verse, however, needs to be kept in the Genre of Proverbs. Proverbs are statements to make us wise. Proverbs are generally true but shouldn’t be considered an absolute certainty.
For example, if I put 20% of my paycheck in savings and I’m careful to spend less than I make it is wise to think that I should be financially stable. It is a generally true statement. My car could break down, my house could flood in a way that insurance refuses to pay and I could have someone steal my identity and ruin my credit scores. The Proverb is still true. Although I perfectly followed the accurate Proverb, I can still be in financial shambles. So pointing to a proverb as a magical formula is violating the rules for interpreting the Genre. The Bible is made up of many Genres. Poetry is interpreted very differently from narrative (i.e., a woman’s neck being a mighty tower). We have to keep Proverbs inside it’s Genre.
Getting back to the issue at hand, how does a Calvinist cope with kids who might not love Jesus? First, I pray for them until I am blue in the face. Or at least that is my desire. I pray they would come to love Jesus as authentically and passionately as my wife and I do. My wife started praying for the salvation of our kids before they were even a twinkle in her eye.
For instance, when pastor Matt Chandler thought he was dying from a cancerous brain tumor, he realized the greatest thing he could do for his infant daughter is to devote the remaining energy he has to praying for her salvation and her future walk with Jesus.
Secondly, my wife and I are always trying to tell our kids about Jesus and hopefully build in them an authentic love for and desire for Jesus. Although Calvinists believe that no one comes to the Father unless they are drawn, Calvinists never know who those people are. Calvinists don’t have a copy of the book of Life. As Spurgeon said we pray knowing it depends fully on God, but we share as if it depends fully on us.
Ultimately, however, if a child (or parent, co-worker, etc…) rejects Jesus their entire life and dies in that rejection then we don’t commit suicide thinking that we didn’t share good enough so they are damned because of our failures to convince them of Jesus. We trust the loving heart of God that for whatever reason they would have hated a heaven where Jesus is the center of attention. We think we know better than God as it relates to saving people, it’s a lifetime for all of us to learn that He is more loving, more generous, more caring, more fair than we could ever imagine. I believe Paul clearly teaches people are elect for salvation yet he still pleads with all people, every one, to come to Jesus.Even when people, like ardent atheist Christopher Hitchens, seemingly die as God haters I still many times hold out hope that in their last breath God opened their eyes and they came to Jesus. I reserve ultimate despair for later when we will truly know. Then God will console us and help us understand things we can’t know now.
In the meantime, however, I am pleading with all to love and be loved by the only One worth the worship.
211 replies to "What if My Children Are Not Elect?"
@Chancellor, one other comment regarding your mention of the Cross from the foundation of the world … how does the fact that God knew we would ALL need a sacrificial savior even hint that his sacrifice was, by election, applied to so few? It seems quite a waste, wouldn’t you agree, to sacrifice your only son for so few when you could have sacrificed him for them all?
I wonder if we aren’t getting hung up on “God chose” who was in and out (election) versus “God knew what we would choose” (my view). And while I know these both resolve down to the same final outcome – God created people he knew would go to hell – at least all people had the opportunity to spend eternity with Christ, which is what scripture seems to say by my reading of it. Otherwise what was the point of creating them?
A lot of things don’t make sense 🙂
@Mike: This is a friendly observation. 🙂 But in my opinion, you simply don’t have the biblical presuppositions of Calvinism! As I have sought to show, Calvinism historically and theologically comes or follows from Augustine and Augustinianism. And of course foremost from St. Paul! Though it is surely seen too in St. John and the Johannine. As too from 1st. Peter 1: 2. But, to fully get the Pauline and biblical backdrop, we simply must see the great reality of God’s Federal Headship, in Adam.. as well In Christ! Without the Federal Headship and the Federal Vision of God, we will never quite get the whole doctrine of God! And most surely Augustinianism, as Calvinism are very theologically modeled! And again this especially goes back to Paul and “Romans”, as too the Letter of “Galatians”, and even also the Letters of the “Corinthians”; and finally the great pinnacle of “Ephesians” 1: 5-11, etc. Again, without this foundation we will quite simply be adrift biblically & theologically, as to who God is (the doctrine of God), and what God has done, theologically…Creation, Redemption, etc., as ‘In Christ’! Surely, we must place Christ at the centre of all and everything God does, but always in the great Federal Vision of God! And here properly speaking is the great doctrine of Predestination & Election! And this doctrine quite separates humanism, from God’s Revelation! The human mind alone, will never arrive Here!
Btw, here in John (the Johannine) we can hear the words of Christ Himself… John 16:9-15!
“All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.” (John 16: 15) And note too the Johannine in Matt. 11: 27! “Surely these are the one’s that “Come to me..”(verse 28, “..and learn from Me”, verse 29, etc.)
If we want our children to know Christ, we must teach the Christ of the Bible, and here seek to stand beneath God’s revelation therein, and live..’In Christ’! And as I have said before, the great doctrine of God’s “Reprobation” is not just the flip side of the God’s “election of grace”. Indeed we must allow God’s great mystery here! And this includes not pressing mere human questions! God is simply not going to answer these!
Guys! I hear some of you crying out for a Universal atonement, but you don’t realize it yet. We could do a meltdown on all this Calvinist/Arminian debate if we just recognized what the atonement did–it atoned! We’ve read the Bible all these years wearing those dark glasses, and they have blurred the view.
The gospel does not come as cool waters in one hand, but
bitter waters in the other, or more to the point, He doesn’t say, “You can have the joy of sins forgiven, but maybe I chose that your children spend eternity away from in Hell.”
I realize the Non-Universalist sees some Scriptures as teaching an eternal Hell, but I would insist there are better translations and better interpretations of these Scriptures.
Romans 9, I think does teach an election, but it says nothing about an eternal Hell. We’ve just been trained in such a way, that when we see any judgment of God, we automatically assume that to mean “eternal Hell.”
Even in verse 22, the word “destruction” is not required to translate (or be interpreted) as “eternal Hell.” The word in the original is used frequently for physical death, and in Luke 15, it is used of the one sheep that was lost, which the shepherd would seek UNTIL he find it.
Also, in the same verse, the word “prepared,” or “fitted” is not “predestined,” we just tend to lump too many different words into one line of thinking.
It is granted here that Stumblefoot does not speak from
“inspiration,” and that he is a fallible human being (You
would have never guessed, huh?). But the road signs seem to strongly point in that direction. And it is all based on the atoning, or reconciling, death of our Lord Christ.
Check it out!
@Stumblefoot: Let’s see you re-work John 17: 12, and old Judas, John 6: 70-71! 😉
Mike O,
God didn’t merely know beforehand, He loved beforehand (there’s more to foreknowledge than mere knowledge). Christ’s death on the cross actually purchased the salvation of those whom God chose (before He even spoke Creation into existence) to save, which is why Christ’s death was a penal substitution and not just a made-salvation-possible-but-something-more-is-needed-from-man event.
God created Adam and Eve: everyone else came into existence through the procreative process.
The “so few,” according to Revelation, will be an innumerable throng from every people group.
God does not love every human being, He loves every kind of human being: Jew and Gentile, slave and free, male and female, rich and poor, etc. Remember, He said that He loved Jacob, but hated Esau.
There is no such thing as “free will” in humans. What many wrongly call “free will” (the capacity to make choices) is merely “will.” In order for the will to be free, there must be the right to make those choices and humans have NEVER had the right to choose sin, to choose against God. Further, no one can be punished for exercising a right; otherwise, it isn’t a right.
Yes, Mike O, someone who taught election and predestination did, in fact, write Romans 1-4 (and the rest of the letter). Those first four chapters explain the basis for man’s total depravity, man’s inherent guilt, etc.
When you get to Romans 8, particularly Romans 8:29-30, notice the progression: foreknowledge (which is more than knowing beforehand), predestination, call, justification, and glorification. If God foreknew (merely knowing beforehand) everyone, and not everyone will be saved, then there’s no basis for the progression. Those whom God foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ. Those whom He predestined He also called (an effectual call, meaning that those who are called would obey the call). Those whom He called, He justified (granted salvation). Those whom He justified, He glorified (their position in Christ now, which will be completed when we go home to be with Him). If “foreknew” means that God merely knows beforehand, you either have to say that God doesn’t foreknow those who won’t be saved or that everyone will be saved (the universal salvation heresy).
[…] named Tim Kimberley wrote a post at Credo House asking, “What if my Children are not Elect?” The post is a response to an inquisitor who is struggling with the horrific implications of […]
Chaplain Roberts:
Before we get started, let me just ask you, wouldn’t you actually be most happy if Evangelical Universalism were true? I can’t imagine any rational person wishing it to be otherwise, even if said person didn’t really believe it. Now I know that Jonathan Edwards and Tertullian and John Gerstner thought it would be great sport to watch people suffer in Hell’s fires, but I’m thinking of you as a man of the 21st century.
But now for John chs. 6 and 17 regarding Judas: I,
of course, would not use the word “rework” but I might make a few comments.
It’s interesting that Judas was “chosen” (elect) but to be a disciple, not chosen to be among the elect, the believers of that day. When God chooses, it is according to context, not automatically to salvation.
But yes, I believe God has His elect in this present day, but that He will ultimately reconcile all, or at least generally all, as I have frequently stated on P&P comments. I think that often, the word “all” means
“generally all,” though I get a terrible coughing spell when someone suggests it means “all kinds of men.” I retain a bit of ambivalence on the use of the word “all,” but I believe that if any human is not finally reconciled, such will be annihilated, eternal Hell just doesn’t fit with who our God really is.
It is also interesting, that Our Lord referred to Judas as
“a demon.” I’m not sure if He meant that in a literal sense, or figuratively; at any rate, I don’t think Judas is the proper pattern or illustration for us to build a doctrine of repprobation or Universalism on, he may be a special case.
Having said that, I move to the issue of Judas being lost that the Scriptures might be fulfilled. Are we here supposed to understand that God “made” Judas betray the Lord, and then sent him to an eternal Hell for doing it?
I don’t think so, there are too many nerve endings in my emotional make-up to get my head around that…
I have to emphasize again, I am an Evangelical Universalist,
not Unitarian. And I recognize that you guys are not Muslim, even if your doctrine of eternal Hell coincides with Islam.
@Stumblefoot: After, reading your posts, especially your crack about our doctrine of hell – of us here Evangelicals – being the same as Islam, I am not going to further dialogue with you! YOUR simply “spun” on doctrine it so appears! So I will leave you in your own desires, and “stumblefoot” rather covers it well! 😉
And btw, “chaplain” is my job and duties, Robert, singular, is my first name (not sir name), and I am an Anglican priest or presbyter.
I had no idea my comment would be so offensive, really, I would not have made it, had I realized how it would be received. I was attempting to draw out a parallel that we should not be identified with heretical groups who might hold a LIMITED agreement with us in some area of belief.
But I must apologize, perhaps it was in bad taste. How do you think I got my name in the first place?
Fr. Robert and Brother Stumblefoot,
Christianity, as you are both well aware, existed for several hundred years before Islam came along. So, it just doesn’t make sense to compare what came before to something that came after. Further, there’s no reason to believe Mohammed didn’t take a little from the Christian and Jewish scriptures when he came up with his religion (after all, the followers of the three religions are called “the people of the book”).
The Christian Bible views Jesus as, among other things, a prophet: are we to abandon those parts of scripture because Islam considers Jesus to be a prophet? No. Likewise, an eternal Lake of Fire is taught in the New Testament and there’s no reason to abandon that doctrine simply because Islam adopted it (or a variation of it). The New Testament teaches that women are to dress modestly: should Christian women dress immodestly just because Islam also teaches that women are to dress modestly (even if Islam does have a different idea of what that means)? No.
For the record, Brother Stumblefoot, Chancellor is my first name and Roberts is my surname. Maybe you were confusing Fr. Robert with me when you referred to him as Chaplain Roberts?
Brother Stumblefoot,
We are Irenic here despite the arrogance of some who wish to bring back the Acts of Uniformity and the penal laws. Your remarks are neither upsetting or without precedent. Thank you for offering them and you are, of course, welcome. Sometimes when you lose a “commenter” you should take your blessings where you find them.
And to my friend Robert, I have no idea why you think your military background is a part of this discussion, but since you injected it allow me to add my own. Lt. in the Marine Corps special operations, 105 Hi-Lo Jumps and missions, 3 Purple Hearts, Bronze Star with Cluster among many others. And, as you can see it means nothing and adds nothing to the conversation except a willingness to polemically dominate a conversation by adding bland facts meant to put down the opposition. So I apologize for my part in that.
I have no idea who you are and how wrong I could be (and I am willing to do penance for it if called for) but based on my observation here, your tactics are divisive and more resemble the tactics of Titus Oats then a irenic discussion. Your lack of pastoral sensitivity is mystifying given your overly stated credentials. Your intellectual capacity, although enormous, does not reflect God’s good grace, in my opinion. And finally, you willingness to speak “Ex Cathedra” about matters that are not of doctrinal necessity for salvation is needlessly combative.
In simple English, you want to win and be right no matter what the cost. As best as I understand it, that is not what we do here. Frankly, I am tired of it, Please stop.
Have a God Filled Day,
your brother,
Jay Saldana
The Bible nowhere states that we are drawn to the Father. What it does say is that the Father draws us to Christ (John 6:44), and that we then go to Father through Christ (John 14:6). This does not imply an “indirect” drawing as one may assume, but a process of unfolding grace that is initiated apart from the Father’s “drawing to Christ”. The “drawing” in John 6:44 is clearly preceded by the process described in verse 43, where we read “It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’d Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.” And so the process in John looks as follows:
1. All are taught by God (that includes all children)
2. Those who “hear” and “learn” from this teaching of the Father then comes to Christ.
3. This they can do because the Father enables them by drawing them (note: not randomly, but based on the pre-condition in 2 above).
4. Those who are drawn then “comes” to the Father through Christ.
Note the three types of knowing in this scenario (which is John’s, not mine):
A. We first know God as the “Teacher of all”, which suggests a general revelation that is not dependent on doctrinal specifics, and that can be “heard” and “learned” by anyone who is willing. (Such “hearing” and “learning” is not salvation, however, but merely a first step towards it.)
B. We then know Jesus as the Christ, which is a divine and sovereign revelation given to the “hearers” and “learners,” by God. In our knowing of Christ, we also begin to know him as our teacher. His teaching is a continuation of God’s (in A above), and leads us to the last phase (C below).
C. Through Christ, we now know God as the Father, which is the intended conclusion and climax of the process started by His very own teaching to “all”.
So here’s the thing: Children should be assisted to “learn” from the Father”, so that the Father can continue his good work in them. There is absolutely no hint of determinism here,…
Day 3: Romans 10-13
Again, I primarily see non-election. Chapter 11 does talk about election, how some were elect, etc. But it also talks about how some branches were broken off the vine, so the Gentiles could be grafted in. And for the Gentiles not to be proud because if God was willing to break off original branches (Jews), how much more would he be willing to break off a grafted wild shoot? And if a wild shoot can be grafted in, how much more quickly an original branch.
It all reads as if God RESPONDS to man. Yes, I see election for some. Who couldn’t, in Romans 11. But the general undercurrent is that ALL men have a chance. Branches were broken off SO THAT Gentiles could be grafted in.
Could it be a small subset of elect that Paul is talking about? Sure, but he doesn’t doesn’t say that. He doesn’t even hint at it. He doesn’t say anything to indicate that “there are elect and there are the doomed.”
I don’t know how to read Romans 1-13 and walk away with the idea that God intended for almost everyone to go to hell, except for a few. Because if strict election is true, that’s what will happen.
I just can’t read scripture and wrap my head around strict election at the same time. I can listen to THEOLOGY and understand how election is built from scripture, but I just can’t get it from the straight reading of scripture with no preconcieved notion. When I read scripture, I see God’s grace available to all people (each person, not all people groups). Changing it to mean “all people groups” is IMO a clever manipulation of scripture, whose only purpose is to manufacture support for election. I’m sorry if that’s too strong, but I just think it’s wrong.
I just don’t see it.
If his remarks are not upsetting, perhaps it is because you, Mr. Saldano, are not certain of what you believe. At any rate, the fact that his words do not upset you, do not authorize you to declare that they should upset no one else. His beliefs regarding the ultimate destiny of the reprobate are contrary to the historic Christian faith, and should be treated as any other such statements. As far as I know, you are not our bishop, either. Mr. Stumblefoot presented his opinion as if it were an Article of Faith, and anyone who believes otherwise regarding eternal punishment is as he put it, following the teachings of Islam.
Your response to Fr. Roberts displays the same spirit of which you condemn him. Since I am neither the host of this page, nor its enforcer, I will refrain from making any demands upon you, other than that you think about what you are doing, since it has now been pointed out to you that someone can take your words with the same offense that you took someone else’s.
Chancellor Roberts says,
Keep in mind, of course, that the “Arminians” (actually semi-Pelagians) can’t offer any real hope to parents either
It is too bad that you misrepresent Arminians by calling them semi-Pelagian. I can only hope that it is simply a result of ignorance on your part. Arminianism is in no way semi-pelagian. Even Calvinist scholars like Peterson and Williams admit this:
Does the antipathy between Calvinism and Arminianism suggest that Pelagius, the arch-opposite of Augustine, is the proper ancestor of Arminianism? Calvinists have often sought to paint Arminianism in Pelagian colors. Associating your opponent with a position that the historic faith has repeatedly judged heretical can only help one’s cause. However, the allegation that Arminianism is Pelagian is unfortunate and indeed unwarranted. From Jacob Arminius and the ‘Remonstrance Articles’ on, the Arminian tradition has affirmed the corruption of the will by sin and the necessity of grace for redemption. Arminianism is not Pelagianism….The Semi-Pelagians thought of salvation as beginning with human beings. We must first seek God; and his grace is a response to that seeking. The Arminians of the seventeenth century, however, held that the human will has been so corrupted by sin that a person cannot seek God without the enablement of grace. They therefore affirmed the necessity and priority of grace in redemption. Grace must go before a person’s response to the gospel. This suggests that Arminianism is closer to Semi-Augustinianism than it is to Semi-Pelagianism or Pelagianism. (Why I Am Not An Arminian, pg. 39)
I recommend you read this article as well:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/are-arminians-semi-pelagian/?/
Chancellor Roberts writes,
Parents can pray that God will maybe do something in their children’s hearts, but in their theology the ultimate decision is still the child’s (again, making man sovereign over God).
Another horrible misrepresentation. Arminians in no way believe that man is “sovereign over God.” I always find it interesting that Calvinists insist that God is wholly sovereign and free and yet deny Him the sovereign right or freedom to create free moral agents and hold them accountable for their choices and actions. It seems to me that it is Calvinists who are limiting God’s sovereignty by dictating the limits to His sovereignty and freedom. That’s too bad.
Chancellor Roberts writes,
God will save those who are His. He will save all those whom He specifically gave to Christ. That’s a guarantee. The semi-Pelagians don’t even have that.
So is this your answer to the parents that would ask, “What if my children are not elect?” Just say, “God saves all those who are his, that’s a guarantee.” In other words, when a parent asks you “What if my children are not elect?”, you say, “God will save all His elect, that’s a guarantee.” That doesn’t seem very helpful to me, just another non-answer.
Mike O.,
I highly recommend you investigate the corporate election view. I think you will find it helpful and Biblically compelling. Here is a good place to start:
http://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/corporate-election-quotes/
First, thanks “Delwyn”, you put the matter rather well! We all might disagree on the mystery of Election to some degree, but indeed there is absolutely no place for any doctrine of “Apocatastasis”, or any modern idea of Universalism In true Christianity! In 543 AD, at the Council of Chalcedon this was condemned, in the first anathema against Origenism. In so called modern times, F.D.F. Schleiermacher taught it, and btw it is the creed of the Unitarian Universalist Association.
As to our friend Jay, I have never met an American Marine who held his Marine Corps service meant “nothing” to almost any discussion! That’s the way of it with all “Marines” I suspect! (We call it pride, as RMC “bootnecks”!) And note as I have said, I was attached to the American Marine 3rd Force Recon Co., out of Pu Bai, in the Nam in 1968, of course as an RMC (Royal Marine Commando) I too was wounded in the Nam. And then later too in British engagements. I would list my combat medals, but they are several after over 20 years, with broken time. And I was a “mustang” (that’s enlisted to officer). And I am a retired Captain. And my parachute jumps are in the hundreds now (with a few combat jumps back when). Btw, I come from an Irish Brit family.. that my father, great uncles, uncles were all WW II Vets! Yes, so pride does run deep where I come from! And as I have said, my scientist father, owned and flew a P-51 Mustang for fun and racing into his 60’s! Indeed trying to follow his image, RIP! (an WW II Spit pilot, RAF) was not easy! But I tried! 😉
Finally, I am one that is a real conservative, both politically and biblically! And bible and theology can, and should be done in great seriousness, surely St. Paul was not a mere “irenic” spirit here! Its time for the Church of God to wake-up! And stand for the Truth & Christ! As I have said several times here, I am a “presuppostionalist” as to Holy Scripture! And no apologies here!
Just a note, but I am 64…
That’s 64 today! So Semper Fi! 🙂
Just a note, and a true story I have told a few times… But my father got to meet the great American NASA astronaut, Neil Armstrong once. (Note again my father was a scientist and physicist), but when they met later as older men, as my father told me, they both spoke together about flying and airplanes. Armstrong was a Naval pilot in the Korean War. Indeed that breed is gone now! RIP!
Fr Robert,
I of course can not speak for Jay and would not think of trying.
But maybe you could explain to us why it is that you believe your Marine Corp service has so much bearing on your theological stance today? I have never understood that either. How does your Marine history, for instance, affect the fact that you are a Calvinist today?
I certainly know a lot of folks that are Calvinists that do not have your military history. So, what about that history is it that you think is so important to where you are today theologically?
Frankly, I have always wondered about that. Can you clarify it for us?
The Corporate view of Election is only part of the great doctrine! I have H.H. Rowley’s book: The Biblical Doctrine Of Election, (Lutterworth Press, Lodon, 1950). And in it he has a full chapter on ‘The Election Of Individuals’ (chap. 4).
@cherylu: Sure, that’s quite easy, I am Irish (an Anglo-Irish now actually, and British!), and with this I place that great reality of God’s Providence! And again, its quite a “Marine” thing, especially for us who served in Her Majesty’s service, of the RMC’s! One would think that most American Marines would get this too? Especially those who lived through combat! It changes you, and in some sense you are never the same! Note King David spoke somewhat of his military experiences! And there GOD was quite his Sovereign!
And btw, why does one man live through war or combat, and another man die, especially when you are shoulder to shoulder? Surely and profoundly because of the will and purpose of God alone! I have found that THIS is the only real reason! Indeed GOD alone is Sovereign!
Fr Robert,
Thanks. I am sure no one would ever deny or think that being a Marine does not change you. Especially if you have been in actual combat.
So, if I understand what you are saying correctly, it was being in the Marines that really helped you form your view of God’s sovereignty? Am I getting even close?
PS I posted my last comment before I saw the last one of yours. I think you have probably answered my question. At least in large degree.
@FR Robert, have you read Viktor Frankl’s “Man’s search for meaning?” Not a Christian work, but as a Holocaust survivor he asks and answers the same philosophical question.
Very good book from a psychology standpoint – I am not recommending it as theology; just a good read from a Holocaust Jew.
Not a direct quote, but Frankl makes the statement, “The question is not how come so many died in the holocaust, but rather how any survived.”
“Naked I came from my mothers womb, And naked I shall return there. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord.” (Job 1: 21)
Arminianperspectives,
Most of those who might call themselves “Arminian” today (the bulk of evangelical Christianity in North America) are not Arminians (in the sense of the followers of Jacobus Arminius) but semi-Pelagians whose doctrine is a mix of Arminianism and Pelagianism a la Charles Finney. I put the word “Arminians” in quotes in my earlier post for a reason.
God did not create “free moral agents!” There has NEVER been a right to choose sin, a right to choose against God.
“Arminianism” makes man sovereign over God because it teaches that man is the final arbiter of his own salvation (even if it doesn’t use those words) in that God cannot save anyone unless that person gives Him permission and somehow magically comes up with the faith to believe all by himself and then “decides” to let God save him. For the “Arminian” (actually, Semi-Pelagian a la Charles Finney), Jesus’ death wasn’t sufficient to actually purchase the salvation of any specific individual, but was only sufficient to make salvation “possible” for those who bring something more to the table – their sovereign free will exercised in deciding to “accept” Jesus.
@cherylu: Actually I count it my most blessed reality that I have somehow known and believed that God’s sovereign hand and grace has been on my life, even before the RMC’s. I see this as God’s great “existential” reality and purpose. My creation, existence, and redemption is alone in the hand of the Lord! But most surely being an RMC has been one of my most major providences in the lessons of life!
As a wee boy, six or seven? I asked my Irish priest, who is this man on the Cross or Crucifix? And he said, the essence of which I have never forgotten: This is Jesus, God-Incarnate (the God-Man) who died for your soul!
The Corporate view of Election is only part of the great doctrine! I have H.H. Rowley’s book: The Biblical Doctrine Of Election, (Lutterworth Press, Lodon, 1950). And in it he has a full chapter on ‘The Election Of Individuals’ (chap. 4).
The corporate election view does not deny that individuals are elect, only that their election is subordinate to the election of the group. Have you read any of the articles on corporate election I referred Mike to? I know I have referred you to them before and also explained quite a bit about the corporate view to you and others who do not seem to understand it. It would be good for you to read these articles so you can better understand the view.
God Bless,
Ben
Thanks Fr Robert.
I understand a whole lot better where you are personally coming from when you make those statements about your military service now.
And understanding is a good thing!
Chancellor Roberts writes,
Most of those who might call themselves “Arminian” today (the bulk of evangelical Christianity in North America) are not Arminians (in the sense of the followers of Jacobus Arminius) but semi-Pelagians whose doctrine is a mix of Arminianism and Pelagianism a la Charles Finney. I put the word “Arminians” in quotes in my earlier post for a reason.
Thanks for clearing that up. However, I would suggest that you make such distinctions a little more clear while posting. Just putting Arminians in quotes doesn’t necessarily mean that you are not talking about true Arminians. It can mean that you simply view “Arminian” as a label that hides its true theological nature- semi-Pelaginaism. That was the impression your comments seemed to give, but I am glad you now admit that Arminiainism is not semi-Pelagian.
God did not create “free moral agents!” There has NEVER been a right to choose sin, a right to choose against God.
First, to say that God did not create free moral agents is nothing more than an assertion on your part. I will just counter assert that He did.
Second, nobody said anything about a “right” to choose anything. That is something you just came up with on your own.
“Arminianism” makes man sovereign over God because it teaches that man is the final arbiter of his own salvation (even if it doesn’t use those words) in that God cannot save anyone unless that person gives Him permission and somehow magically comes up with the faith to believe all by himself and then “decides” to let God save him.
This comment is riddled with problems, but I will just point out that if God sovereignly decides to make faith the condition for receiving His salvation and enables His creatures to trust in Him and receive salvation, that in no way makes man sovereign over God. Meeting a God ordained condition doesn’t make one “soevereign” over the one who sovereignly decided to make salvation conditional on faith…
Chancellor Roberts writes,
Jesus’ death wasn’t sufficient to actually purchase the salvation of any specific individual,
Of course it was. It was sufficient for all and is applied to all those who receive it by faith (Romans 3:25).
but was only sufficient to make salvation “possible” for those who bring something more to the table – their sovereign free will exercised in deciding to “accept” Jesus.
What “table” are you referring to here? Who said anything about “sovereign free will” (besides you)? If God wants to make the application of His atonement conditioned on faith, who are you to talk back to God?
God Bless,
Ben
@Ben: Yes I have read what you speak of in your idea of corporate election, but I only see the corporate reality alone in the Elect-One Himself, of course Christ Jesus! God In Christ has chosen all of those individuals who come to Christ, but they are chosen each one according to God’s Sovereign Grace alone ‘In Christ’! And this even before the “foundation” of the world! (Eph. 1: 3-6 ) The Lamb’s Book of Life! (Rev. 21: 27) The final essence of Predestination & Election is rather simple really! (1 Peter 1: 2) And the believer does not come to Christ corporately, but each of us individually, as HE calls us to Himself, and by name! Only then, do we have a corporate place in the Church of Christ! I am speaking simply here!
My comment 187 got cut off, here is the rest:
…Meeting a God ordained condition doesn’t make one “soevereign” over the one who sovereignly decided to make salvation conditional on faith…That’s just another assertion on your part.
For the “Arminian” (actually, Semi-Pelagian a la Charles Finney),
And here you go again. Since you know that I am not a semi-Pelagian, but an Arminian, why not engage me directly, unless you are indeed equating Arminiansim with semi-Pelagianism.
Fr. Roberts,
Which articles did you read exactly? You write,
And the believer does not come to Christ corporately, but each of us individually
Not sure why you would say that since the corporate view in no way suggests that believers come to Christ “corporately.”
@AP: It singular “Robert” (my first name), my sir name btw is Darby!
You would be surprised how many Arminian’s, or just people I have met who believe that coming to Christ, in a Church in a certain church, is a corporate experience! I.e. the altar call!
@cherlyu: 🙂
Fr. Robert,
My apologies on the name. I think it is because I am also having a discussion with Chancellor Roberts.
I don’t see how the alter call is relevant. People might come to the alter together, but each one also comes individually and responds individually. Just because more than one person responds doesn’t make the response a corporate response rather than an individual one.
But you seemed to be using it as a description of the corporate view of election, and that was what I was addressing. That is not what the corporate view says at all. That was my point.
I am still wondering which of the articles you read on corporate election.
Thanks,
Ben
@Ben: That was sometime back, I don’t remember? But I did read them!
My point, about the corporate, was just peoples general ideas here, and the use of the Altar Call. I heard a woman say, the Altar Call, and the speaker were part of her election to Christ! Obviously she did not understand Election!
Arminianperspectives,
I make it a point to differentiate between real Arminians (those who follow the teachings of Arminius, though I haven’t encountered many of them) and most of evangelical Christianity (which could more accurately be described as “Semi-Pelagian” because they, at least in part, deny original sin or at least partly deny it). It is because of that differentiation that I put “Arminians” in quotes.
In order for moral agents to be free, they must have the right to choose sin (because freedom, by its very nature, necessitates rights). That’s also why I said in earlier posts (in response to others) that what most people mistakenly call “free will” (the capacity to make choices) is simply “will.” Again, freedom necessitates having the right to choose, and God didn’t give anyone (including Adam) the right to choose sin. Punishing sin is proof that there is no right to choose it.
The logical result of the “Semi-Pelagian” doctrine that God can’t save anyone unless they give Him permission, and that man must bring to the salvation table something he produces within himself on his own (faith, which Calvinists believe is given by God, not produced by sinners who are “dead in trespasses and sins”) is that man is sovereign over God. Synergistic (or, perhaps, sinnergistic) salvation has man making the final decision over whether or not he will be saved and, thus, sovereign over God because God is prevented from saving anyone if that person doesn’t cooperate. I would suggest that no one can ever choose to be saved on his own, but that God must first regenerate the person, give that person the faith to believe, and then grant repentance. Dead people cannot will themselves to life.
Indeed most all Arminian’s (so-called) today are Semi-Pelagian! And actually in the Reformed ordo salutis, regeneration follows calling. God “calls” the elect sinner, then he is regenerated!
Chancellor Roberts writes,
In order for moral agents to be free, they must have the right to choose sin (because freedom, by its very nature, necessitates rights).
That doesn’t follow at all. Freedom has reference to ability and not necessarily rights. If you are free to do something, you either have the ability to do that thing or not, but that doesn’t mean you have a “right” to do that thing or not.
That’s also why I said in earlier posts (in response to others) that what most people mistakenly call “free will” (the capacity to make choices) is simply “will.”
I actually agree with this since the concept of “will” really requires the idea of freedom. Without freedom, the word “will” loses a lot of meaning (if not all meaning).
Again, freedom necessitates having the right to choose
But this is just another assertion on your part. There is no reason to define freedom as necessitating a “right” and that is not how it has been historically understood. Now you may feel that defining it that way gives you some sort of rhetorical advantage, but that doesn’t mean it is accurate. Freedom of will can simply have reference to the “ability” to choose.
and God didn’t give anyone (including Adam) the right to choose sin. Punishing sin is proof that there is no right to choose it.
But none of this even makes sense against the backdrop of Calvinist sovereignty (exhaustive decretal determinism). I can just as well say that punishing sin is proof that God created us free moral agents, which you deny, and that the concept of “punishment” is wholly incompatible with exhaustive determinism. So now what?
God Bless,
Ben
Chancellor Roberts writes,
The logical result of the “Semi-Pelagian” doctrine that God can’t save anyone unless they give Him permission,
Do you want me to address this? It’s hard to know since you keep speaking about semi-Pelagians and I am not a semi-Pelagian. As an Arminian I would never say God can’t save anyone unless they give Him permission. I would say that God “won’t” save anyone unless they receive salvation through faith in accordance with His sovereign decision to make salvation conditional on a faith response. God has the “right” to make salvation conditional if He so pleases and you do not have the “right” to say He can’t.
and that man must bring to the salvation table something he produces within himself on his own (faith, which Calvinists believe is given by God, not produced by sinners who are “dead in trespasses and sins”) is that man is sovereign over God.
Clearly you must not be talking about Arminianism because Arminianism plainly denies that anyone can exercise faith “on his own.” And I still am puzzled by this “salvation table” language. Feel free to explain. But allow me to run with it a bit. Suppose God prepared feast and invited people to come (Matthew 22:1-14). Some accept the invitation and come to the feast. Now would they say that they “brought something to the table” or contributed to the feast by simply accepting the invitation? Of course not. If you freely receive a gift from someone, does that mean you “contributed” to the gift? Does it mean you earned or merited the gift? Does it mean you had a “right” to the gift? Does it mean you gave the gift to yourself? Not at all. That’s absurd. But your argument is based on just this sort of absurdity.
That’s why Arminians like me find Calvinist arguments like yours to be far from compelling.