Posted on 11/13/2006 11:01:10 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg
If salvation is all of grace -- if God is God and he has chosen us for salvation even though we did nothing to deserve it -- then we ought to live by the grace we have received. Of course, some of you will look at that and say to yourselves, “Yeah, I really need to do better at living by grace. I’ve really been a failure there. I hope God will forgive me again.” If that’s you, you still don’t get it. Go back and re-read the last seventeen pages and (if you’re a believer) remember that you’re one of the elect!
Our hearts so quickly try to relate to God on a works-basis! It’s our pride, really. I’m convinced that that’s the problem with free-will Arminianism. People naturally process it like this: God requires one work from me, to believe. Once I believe, I’ve done my work and deserve heaven. Of course, in more hard-line Arminian circles, it goes a step further. Unless I’m holy enough, I’ll still go to hell, and maybe I’ve even committed the unpardonable sin and will be damned even if I’m sinlessly perfect from here on out. Legalism. Legalism. Legalism. Such a religion is barely recognizable as Christianity.
But Calvinists can fall into legalism just as easily. You see, I understand predestination. I’m a superior Christian. I’ve got all my theological “t”s crossed and my Reformed “i”s dotted. I sure am close to God. Pride is the Presbyterian’s favorite form of legalism, so watch out! But if God really is for us, and if we had nothing to do with that decision -- if even our faith was given to us by the Father -- then there’s no room for boasting. God’s sovereign choice of us leaves us free from pride. It leaves us aware of our brokenness and humble before God, but all the while confident that his eternal purpose will stand, that we will glory in God forever as objects of his saving mercy. As God’s eternal blessing really begins to sink from our heads into our hearts, we see a new freedom that we never would have imagined when we first encountered the raw, holy, sovereign power of God. Among the newfound freedoms:
1. Freedom from shame, guilt & Insecurity
Read Romans 8:28-39. Nothing can separate you from God’s love -- nothing in the past, nothing in the future. No one can stand against you. No one can accuse you. Even bad things (“all things”) are working right now to your benefit, to make you more like Jesus. God didn’t choose you because of your faith, and Jesus is not ashamed of you—even at your worst (Hebrews 2:11). He’s proud to have you in the family, proud to call you brother or sister -- even knowing what he knows. He’s displaying the glory of his mercy, remember. God’s law is no longer your enemy, but a friend. You can have confidence before God.
2. Freedom from destructive Perfectionism
If God really is for you, then you can quit trying to look good. If you’re trying to be good enough for God, he’s not buying it -- he didn’t choose you because of your great faithfulness. If you’re trying to be good enough for other people, don’t bother. God wants to display his mercy -- that means we have to be broken. God’s glory is not displayed by trying to look like you have it all together. Faith is not a work, and even if it were it still wouldn’t earn you any brownie points. Let God be God. If you won’t show your weakness, then others won’t see God’s power displayed in it.
3. Freedom from legalistic man-made rules
Some of the biggest practical opponents to living by grace are those legalistic little rules that we live by. We love to judge other with them -- they make us look good, and help us feel better about ourselves. (Pride again.) Dress this way, not that way. Wear this much makeup, not that much. Work. Don’t work. Home school is God’s way. Public school is God’s way. Christian school is God’s way. Drink. Don’t drink. Smoke. Don’t smoke. Dance. Don’t dance. This is God’s worship style. If we’re all about God’s glory, there’s no room for any of this. Do whatever you do for God’s glory without comparisons. God has freed you from judging others. You don’t understand God’ sovereign grace until you realize you are a beggar who’s been blessed without cause. You had nothing to do with it -- you’re just a receiver.
4. Freedom from Penance
Even repentance can be a sham if we’re trying to approach God with some vestige of self-reliance. Biblical repentance is a freedom we can enjoy daily, while penance is its counterfeit.
Repentance/Penance
Comes with empty hands/Tries to bargain with God
Acknowledges real sin as against God/Makes excuses for sin
Grieves over displeasing God/Grieves over getting caught
Asks for help to do better/Promises to do better
Is willing to publicly confess, if needed/Is too proud to publicly confess
Relies on God's promises to us/Relies on own promises to God
Turns outward, away from self, to God/Turns inward on self
Produces freedom, joy, and confidence/Produces guilty feelings, anxiety
God has obligated himself to receive any repentant sinner who comes to him. Without this realization, true repentance is impossible. Until we realize that God is for us, we cannot truly be for God.
You are saying in that passage that EVERYTHING is factored into God decisions, to include His knowledge.
Correct me if I am wrong about what you wrote in that line. Please don't give me links to read. I want simply to have you address your use of the word "factored."
I am not the one who brought the "factored in" line to this discussion. You are. If you wish to back off of the way you wrote if, or if you wish to tweak it to say better what you intended, fine.
Face it xzins. She just disagrees with EVERYTHING you or I have to say on these threads. Many times, as an experiment, I have posted Calvin's words as my own and she has disagreed with them. She just assumes that EVERYTHING you or I have to say is wrong.
In this case all you did was use her own words as your own and she disagreed with them. And when you did that and I patted you on the back, she accused both you and I of beating a path to Rome. Heck, she's the one who quotes Augustine all the time. Talk about beating a path to Rome.
You can't win with this crowd.
Flame suit is on and ready for action.
"Face it xzins. She just disagrees with EVERYTHING you or I have to say on these threads."
Hey, PM, don't leave us poor simple Orthodox out. "Course we're not just beating a path to Rome so far as she is concerned, we're already there or worse!
When I was little I was always afraid of the "Bouboula", the Greek Bogeyman. He was always dressed as a Turk and lived either under my bed or in the closet. I'm convinced that the Calvinist Bogeyman is the Pope (or maybe a Patriarch). probably a cultural thing! :)
No, x, that's what you've always maintainted -- that God takes in our clever choice to believe and makes His decisions according to our actions. I never said "EVERYTHING is factored into God's decisions." I said "everything" is determined by God, even any "hypothetical change of mind" on God's part (which I don't believe in, hence my use of the word "hypothetical.")
For the record, x, it was YOU in post #543 who said "everything was factored into God's decisions." This statement was then repeated by Marlowe in his post #545.
I, OTOH, questioned that assessment in post #544 and then disagreed with it when I responded in post #554...
"If God is collecting information to "factor" into His decrees, then something pre-exists God's will and God's knowledge of His own creation, which is an absurdity. God's foreknowledge is an attribute, not an action on His part. Of course He knows what's going to happen -- because He ordains what's going to happen, most especially who will be given faith in Christ."
Maybe you are unaware of a certain pattern you gentlemen have developed. Rather than debate the argument you twist sentences, make ad hominem attacks, post deceitful comments, and try as much as possible to blur the lines between Arminians and Calvinists. But the distinctions are worth preserving. The Arminian believes in resistible grace, semi-fallen nature, Christ's blood being lost on the reprobate, the possibility of true faith not persevering to the end, and most especially, election based on men's clever choice to believe in Jesus Christ, as "hypothetically factored in" to God's decree.
However, the distinctions between us are real and should not be glossed over carelessly because we are told to preach the word of God in truth and clarity.
As noted, I like Augustine. Have you read his TREATISE ON THE PREDESTINATION OF THE SAINTS? You should.
"Let us, then, understand the calling whereby they become elected,—not those who are elected because they have believed, but who are elected that they may believe...His mercy preceded them according to grace, not according to debt. God elected believers; but He chose them that they might be so, not because they were already so." -- ST. AUGUSTINE ch. 34 Treatise on Predestination
Sola Gratia.
Which is why we are not Arminians
And you are most especially not Calvinists.
We are and ever shall remain Calvinists in the Tradition of Arminius. As Reisinger says: "Calvinists... come in a hundred varieties."
We are simply Calvinists of the Jacob Arminianist variety.
And I'll even be kind enough to ping Ottofire, which you forgot to do when quoting him.
Did you read Ottofire's thread, Marlowe? I don't see you agreeing with any of its conclusions, i.e....
"The root error of the Arminian's gospel of freewill is its failure to see that man's part, repentance and faith, are the fruits and effects of God's work and not the essential ingredient's supplied by the sinner as man's part of the deal."
When you can embrace that truth without hedging or deflection, I will rejoice.
Arminius was part of the counter-Reformation, which continues to this day.
And you have successfully managed to change the subject again. Congrats.
The NewAdvent article Harley referred to in his #447. Your response in #453 said that the article "didn't deny" your assertion. You later followed with statements that the Holy Spirit is both purposeless and yet has unique roles, seemingly contradictory statements. We are unclear on whether there is any official Catholic teaching as to what the Holy Spirit does. For example, we know that in Catholicism the Holy Spirit completely turns His back away from the laity in terms of leadership, that He only speaks to your hierarchy and to no one else. Much less clear is what the Holy Spirit would do for every Christian, if anything. Are the roles of the Holy Spirit completely performed by the Church, such that the laity really does not (or should not) have any contact at all with Him?
Where is that in the Catechism?
-A8
For the same reason a baseball player needs to trot around the bases after hitting a home run. It is necessary to complete the act, but the certainty of the homerun is complete after the ball clears the fence. God promises that sanctification/perseverance WILL happen for His elect, it is not a matter of choice.
Protestants treat salvation as entirely legal, as though cleaning out all the sinfulness from our hearts is not actually part of our being saved.
No, it's "part" of it, but we believe that God loves us so much that He will not let any true believer slip out of His hands, confirmed by scripture and rejected by Roman Catholicism.
Protestants do not discard the teachings of the early fathers. Calvin refers to a number of the church fathers throughout his works. All sola scriptural really means is, that at the end of the day, the only real thing we know to be true are the scriptures.
To say one draws upon "Tradition" is simply to say we pick and choose what to believe. The Orthodox, admittedly are more careful and methodical in their approach in relying upon traditional teachings. Plus your theology allows for it.
I find Catholics to be a tad bit disingenuous in insinuating they also go back to the early church. You will not find any traditional teachings on the Pope being infallible. They would like to straddle the Orthodox/Protestant fence but it doesn't work very well.
"To say one draws upon "Tradition" is simply to say we pick and choose what to believe. The Orthodox, admittedly are more careful and methodical in their approach in relying upon traditional teachings. Plus your theology allows for it."
Those are three quite different statements, HD. Spin those out a bit please. I'm curious as to what your thinking is.
It sounds like this idea could be included within what we call sanctification.
Anyway, even if you try it simply as an historical exercise, I think you'll find it worthwhile. At least you'll have a bit more understanding of where we Orthodox here are coming from.
Thanks for the advice. I find myself now more surprised when I categorically disagree with Patristic writings when I read them. I agree it would be worthwhile to read more of them.
"It sounds like this idea could be included within what we call sanctification."
I'm sure you've told me this before, but is santification a process and once started, can one still fail to attain salvation?
"I find myself now more surprised when I categorically disagree with Patristic writings when I read them."
Truth be told, FK, I suspect you'll find very few of those instances and many of those will fall into two categories, writings you don't understand because you haven't read them 5 or 6 times (I'm not kidding; it happens to me all the time) and second, times when an individual Father has gone out a bit beyond the pale. I'd be interested in what you've found that you do thoroughly disagree with and whether or not you think the disagreement might be from a fundamental anti-Roman theology/ecclesiology prejudice which of historical necessity colors Protestant thinking at least to some extent.
This reminds me of a song by They Might Be Giants...
(She wants) She wants to see you again
(She wants) She wants to see you again
Slowly twisting (Twisting)
In the wind (Twisting)
Twisting twisting (Twisting)
In the wind
Thanks Doc! Hey, all I did was post...er... Hey, I didn't WRITE the blasted thing.
I mostly agreed with the premise that tho' election and predestination are pretty plainly written about in the Bible, God is not a Calvinist. Or Arminian. 'Cause only He knows His will and plan. We are just trying to scrape what we know from what we have.
And the Doctrines of Grace and Sovereignty of God are logically parallel with what is in the Bible in its entirety. Arminianism throws justice to the wind, and that mean OT God just doesn't make sense! How dare God allow evil to exist? How dare God make me Christian? How dare God take away my ability to sin in heaven? Free will becomes the god, and a weak and worthless god at that. I get to say whether He saves me. Does that sound like a God of Glory, which we fall on our faces in abject submission to? An Eternal and Everlasting God? Does that sound like the King of Kings, waiting for us to choose? Is He waiting on His throne, like a girl waiting for a call asking for a date?
I cannot guess how anyone of that bent can explain the Prophets...
Calvinism allows the OT and NT to click together like legos. They just click together and they make sense. Justice and Love are fully allowed to be in God's character, and allows the Author of History to write the story as He wills. God does not need to herd the wills of billions of people into the best possible scenario. Everything is as He wills, and we just get to react the way we do, which is also the way He wills.
The above is what you wrote, E. I didn't write it. You did.
Now, you are ready to maintain that there are some things God does NOT know, or you are ready to ask for a redo on your statement above. I don't mind if you say that you didn't write it the way you meant it. I just prefer that you affirm it or revoke it.
Until we get you to address this, it is impossible for me to move on. I consider this an issue of straightforwardness. There are proper ways of handling this and improper ones. Your choice.
Which is why I am not an Arminian.
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.