Posted on 02/08/2005 5:46:04 AM PST by ksen
Why Did God Save Me?
by R.C. Sproul
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why did God save me?
I know of no more difficult a theological question to deal with than this one. I've been studying theology for many years, and I still can't come up with any exhaustive reason to explain why God would save me, or anyone else for that matter.
Some people give a very simple answer to this question. They say that God saved you because you put your trust and faith in Christ when you answered the summons of the gospel. On the surface that's certainly a legitimate answer because we are justified through faith and we are called to make that response.
But the deeper question is, Why did you respond to the gospel when you heard it, but someone else who heard it -- even the very same presentation at the same moment -- did not respond to it? What was there in you that caused you to respond positively while others are caused to reject it? I ask that about my own life. I could say the reason I responded was that I was more righteous than the other fellow. God forbid that I ever say that on the Judgment Day. I might think I'm more intelligent than somebody else, but I wouldn't want to say that either. Some might say that I recognized my need more than somebody else recognized his need, but even that recognition is a mixture of at least some measure of intelligence and some measure of humility, most of which would find its ultimate roots in the grace of God. I have to say with the ancient man, there but for the grace of God go I. I can't give any reason other than God's grace for why I am saved.
The Bible says many things about why God initiates salvation of people: He loves the world; he has a benevolent attitude toward his fallen creatures. We know that. But when we get down to the specifics, the Bible speaks of God's sovereign work of redemption and uses the terms predestination and election. These are biblical words. What is behind God's predestinating grace or his election? Some say that God foresees the choices of people. I think that takes the very heart out of the biblical teaching.
When the Scripture speaks about God's electing people, God speaks of electing people in Christ; our salvation is rooted and grounded in Jesus. What that makes me think is this: You and I are saved not only because of God's concern for us but chiefly and ultimately for God's total determination to honor his obedient Son. We are the love gifts that the Father gives to the Son so that the Son, who lived a life of perfect obedience and died on the cross, will see the travail of his soul and be satisfied. That's the main reason I think God has saved you: to honor Jesus.
When did God decide to give us eternal life?
"When" is a time word, and the Bible uses words like that. And when the Bible speaks about the time frame in which God's decision is made in respect to our eternal life, it generally puts the decision at the foundation of the world; that is, from all eternity God has chosen us to be among the redeemed.
I think Paul emphasizes that very clearly, particularly in the first chapter of his letter to the Ephesians. We were chosen in Christ from the foundation of the world to be conformed to Christ and to be brought into a state of redemption. This, of course, touches immediately on the very difficult and controversial doctrine of predestination. I will say in passing, as we skate over the surface of it, that every church has some doctrine of predestination. There are great variances among the churches in terms of how to understand predestination, but every church historically has had to hammer out and forge some doctrine of predestination because the Bible speaks of it. So there is a certain sense in which from all eternity God has chosen his people for salvation.
Now, obviously, that gets into some very complicated side issues. On what basis does God make a decision like that from all eternity? Did God make a decision from all eternity that certain people would be damned? Does he destine people for hell? Does he destine people to fall? I think the church has shrunk from that concept and rightly so. I think God knew from all eternity that man would fall, that man would rebel against him, and he also knew that he was going to make a provision to redeem people from all eternity. God's knowledge is as ancient and his omniscience is as eternal as he is. Everything that God knows, he knows from eternity. We need to keep this idea in front of us.
I would say that God's decision to choose us was made prior to the fall of mankind but in light of the Fall. Let me say it again. He made the decision before the Fall, with the knowledge that the Fall will come and with the knowledge of its consequences. In other words, God couldn't possibly make it his choice to save persons who were in no need of salvation. Only sinners are in need of salvation, so God must have considered us as being sinners and fallen as we were considered in the divine mind for salvation. Ultimately, the decision to save us was made in eternity, according to God's divine knowledge of us.
OK, now I know the reasoning behind the statement, I just don't believe it.
I did? What is inflammatory about an article that puts forth the Reformed view of Election? Sproul didn't launch into a diatribe in the article. He just laid out in a clear manner what the Calvinist position is.
As for why I posted the article, the discussion on the "Ignorance of God" thread had turned to God's Election so I told FtD that I would post an Election article to continue the discussion on a clean thread.
If you really want "discussion" you should post articles that would foster that discussion....
Such as.....?
There isn't an article that exists that wouldn't be seen as "inflammatory" by one side or the other.
Yeah, you did.
Have a nice thread.
What is inflammatory about this particular article?
We had someone come on and give a testimony of how Sproul's writing helped bring him to Christ.
We had stuartcr on asking things even though he doesn't believe a word of it.
And then we have PM saying that Sproul rejects the Gospel and actually writes against it.
Who is being inflammatory?
If asking questions is inflammatory, then I am definitely guilty.
No, you're questions aren't inflammatory......maddening at times, but not inflammatory. ;^)
So then, you knew it would be inflammatory, and yet you accuse someone else of being inflammatory first???
Isn't that a bit hypocritical??
Becky
Isn't that a bit hypocritical??
No, because I didn't post it with the intention of being inflammatory.
FR rules say that an article needs to be posted to start a thread. I found an article dealing with the issue I wanted brought up and posted it.
I hope you and your family are doing well.
I haven't been following the new NES. Are SD and Old Reggie still going at each other?
Thanks, I was afraid I was losing my touch.
Some are just plain boring. ;^)
One thing I have noticed though, is that even though we get into some knockdown dragouts on this forum I still personally like everyone who participates.
If a member's life gets turned upside down I've seen this forum come together in prayer one for another. It's a beautiful thing.
Can the article be discussed?
Why is it inflammatory to ask a question, or post an article that supports your doctrinal position?
Sproul is a fine teacher and theologian. His musings in this should not bring contention, but a meditation on God and his nature.
The fact is, ksen, that God saved R.C. Sproul because he believed. That is the Gospel truth. The question on the thread is not "Why do I believe?" but "Why did God save me?" Sproul gives the correct answer to that question and then turns around and ridicules the answer by stating that the "deeper question" is....
Ultimately his answer is that he doesn't know. But he does reveal something at the end which is quite telling. He reveals that there is something (something not revealed) in a person that God uses for a determinate choice. "Ultimately, the decision to save us was made in eternity, according to God's divine knowledge of us.
So pick your preposition, but there is something in, on, or about us that God foresees and then uses as a determinate factor in election. It is clear from scripture that the only thing that could be is "CHRIST IN US." And how do we get CHRIST IN US? We invite him in. That is the essence of the Gospel. It is something that Sproul recognizes in the beginning of this article and then refuses to recognize at the end.
So in essence Sproul recognizes the gospel, and then rejects it as too simplistic. Instead he delves deeper and then where does he end up? Confused.
The question is always who will desire come and believe?
Do you have a scripture that says that men must invite Christ to come in?
No RN, the Question (from the thread) is "Why did God save me?" The answer is "that God saved you because you put your trust and faith in Christ when you answered the summons of the gospel."
That is the essence of the gospel. That is why there is an urgency to the gospel message. If people will believe, then they will be saved. All this soteriological reflection results in is confusion. Note the fact that while Sproul could come up with a quick answer to the important question, when he attempted to answer his own deep reflection, he didn't have a clue. That should tell you something about the relative importance of the answer to Sproul's deeper question.
Paul did not go into a long soteriological discussion with the Phillipian Jailer when he asked what he must do to be saved. He just told him he had to believe.
Feel free to show where Sproul "ridiculed" the notion that "God saved you because you put your trust and faith in Christ when you answered the summons of the gospel."
Ultimately his answer is that he doesn't know. But he does reveal something at the end which is quite telling. He reveals that there is something (something not revealed) in a person that God uses for a determinate choice.
No, actually, that's NOT what he is saying. If you look at the rest of the paragraph preceding this final statement, his point is essentially one for infralapsarian predestination over supralapsarian predestination. Sproul is an infralapsarian...he believes that the decree of election was made in the context of the Fall. You are distorting his words in saying he advocates conditional election.
So in essence Sproul recognizes the gospel, and then rejects it as too simplistic. Instead he delves deeper and then where does he end up? Confused.
He's not the one confused, Marlowe. And I should think you would be more careful with your choice of words as to Sproul's approach to the Gospel, unless of course your intent is to challenge Sproul's salvation.
He referenced it as simplistic and only true "on the surface." IMO that is ridicule of those who would respond so "simplistically". He should have stated that it is true, period. But he only referenced it as true "on the surface."
IMO, his intent was to show that those who hold firmly that position are not deep thinkers like he is.
Sproul's belief is not the why he was saved, but the how he was saved.
God saves those whom He has elected to salvation.
I've asked a couple times, but it was probably lost in the general give and take, but is it true that you believe God's election is based on our foreseen faith in Christ?
Ultimately his answer is that he doesn't know. But he does reveal something at the end which is quite telling. He reveals that there is something (something not revealed) in a person that God uses for a determinate choice. "Ultimately, the decision to save us was made in eternity, according to God's divine knowledge of us."
That doesn't say knowledge was of something in, on, or about us. It just says that He knew us. I think that goes back to the whole "What does foreknowledge mean?" conversation.
So pick your preposition, but there is something in, on, or about us that God foresees and then uses as a determinate factor in election. It is clear from scripture that the only thing that could be is "CHRIST IN US." And how do we get CHRIST IN US? We invite him in. That is the essence of the Gospel. It is something that Sproul recognizes in the beginning of this article and then refuses to recognize at the end.
Ok, so God sees Christ in us through our belief. All that was done without His election. Then what is the purpose of election?
Calvinism says Election is what ultimately brings us to faith in Christ. What do you say is the purpose of Election?
So in essence Sproul recognizes the gospel, and then rejects it as too simplistic. Instead he delves deeper and then where does he end up? Confused.
He doesn't reject the Gospel as too simplistic. He rejects certain explanations as too simplistic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.