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.
The fact of the matter is that Scripture denies your supposition.
None of us knows who is elect, and so we should greet everyone as a child of God until their fruits make themselves known otherwise.
Judas could not be saved because his deceit was ordained by God from before the foundation of the world for your salvation and mine.
There is nothing in Scripture about any "prevenient" grace.
It is a 19th century invention which seeks to enable men at the expense of God.
Make that an 18th century concoction, further developed in the 19th century.
You are not properly in touch with doctrinal terminology, DrE.
"Prevenient grace" is God's grace that comes prior to salvation to everyone. (Prevenient mean "comes before".)
See Acts 14, Romans 1 & 2, etc.
It is all the kindnesses, all the goodness, all the drawing/wooing, of God that are granted all of us prior to salvation.
I will point out to you that the word "Trinity" also does not appear in scripture. Nonetheless, it is a legitimate biblical teaching.
Yes and no, depending on the technical use of the word "saved". In normal conversation, you and I would talk about being "saved" in the sense of coming to belief, having the Spirit indwell, and all the rest of it. All of this is clearly laid out in the Bible. However, it is also clearly laid out in the Bible that God predestined the elect from before they were born. From the beginning of time it was set in stone that Fred Smith, born in Peoria, IL on July 17, 1971 would one day enter the Kingdom of heaven to be forever with his Lord. That is also a way to describe the word "saved" and I believe it is equally valid. However, by this there is no "instruction". There is nothing we can do now to change what has already been done.
The important difference is that the distinction I draw ONLY has meaning if one believes that God elects SOLELY based on His sovereign will, wholly apart from any consideration of future events. If God does "peek", and bases His election decisions on the happenstance of the free will of men, then the concept of predestination is pointless.
See #648.
It is in contrast to FK's more recent posts. In 648 a novice appears.
In the later posts, a dedicated dortist appears.
Or am I missing something?
However... you seem to place your theoretical soteriology in a higher position than the words of God himself.
You can't answer "yes and no" It was a simple yes OR no question.
The answer is an unqualified "yes".
The jailer said, "What must I do to be saved?"
FK, what verse tells us the answer did Paul give to that Jailer? What does that verse say?
You're jumping the gun. You are required first to define "free" before you can say that the scriptures deny it. There will be no scriptures that deny free will if you want to claim there are no scriptures that speak of free will. Talk straight or not at all.
I think this action gets to the heart of the matter. The problem gets untangled with the origin of evil, for the patristics and Augustine.
I would agree that men have no excuse, but I do not think this means that all men make a decision for or against Christ from the same platform of grace. If that was true wouldn't you expect the "saved ratio" to be close to if not equal to 100%? Remember your own experience. At that moment was there any hesitation on your part? Was it a decision that could have gone either way?
If Fred is among the elect, then Fred will not always resist.
Does this mean that some among the elect are not eventually saved? Or, more likely, do you mean that Fred might resist for a while, but if he is among the elect, he MUST ultimately come to believe? If true, does that mean that when you say that saving grace is resistible, that it is only temporarily resistible such that saving grace ALWAYS results in salvation? I had always assumed that you all meant permanently resistible (as a possibility).
Just what do you think Philippians 2:13 is saying?
I strongly aver that Scriptures speak of free will from Genesis to Revelation, though the phrase “free will” is not often used; then again, the words “Trinity” and “homoousia” are not used at all, as mentioned by cornelis.
Nevertheless, man’s free will obviously exists and, IMHO, is clearly a gift of God.
For instance, right after breathing life into Adam (neshama), God gives him a commandment with a penalty for not obeying – an if/then:
I do however believe all that is written in the word of God – so I accept both prophesies (predestination) and commandments (free will.) Moreover, I receive the entire revelation as a gift of God – whether the commandments come with rewards or penalties. Either way, it is a gift to know God’s will.
LOL. I thank God I am not "in touch" with the distortions of John Wesley and his concocted "prevenient" grace. The very idea demeans God's grace which is perfect, absolute, particular, irresistible and determinant.
Thank God.
And BTW, no Calvinist believes in "prevenient" grace. It is a word and concept created and utilized by Arminians.
"...The Scriptures testify that the man without the Spirit cannot understand the things of God (1 Cor 2:14). Even with prevenient grace theoretically putting humanity in a neutral position, we would still lack the quickening Spirit to give us what we need. How is it then that the natural man can understand or desire God independent of grace? Can a blind man see prior to his eyes being opened? Can a man with a heart of stone love and desire God before His heart is made flesh? How can a ox desire flesh to eat or water rise above its source? We believe that salvation is of the Lord from beginning to end. He deserves all the glory. While we were still helpless Christ died for us and His death purchased everything we need to be saved, including our regeneration. For an unregenerate man would not ever desire the things of God on his own. If God's grace does not save us then man still ultimately decides based on some principle within, either good or evil."
Same old, same old.
Not at all. I'll assume for the sake of charity that your misrepresentation of the Catholic position is unintentional. If you want to criticize either something I have said or the Catechism, then please include the quotations, so as to avoid criticizing paraphrased straw men.
-A8
What about Paul?
Hypothetically, if God's intent in answering was to give the jailer, who was, importantly, a seeker, everything he needed to know, then "no", God would simply have quoted Himself in scripture (i.e. given Paul's answer). However, if God's intent was to give the fullest possible answer, as only He knows it, He would have included the idea that the jailer could do nothing of himself toward his salvation because God had already decided the matter pro or con eons earlier.
I think we would all agree that the Bible does not contain all there IS to know, but it does contain all we NEED to know. Thereby He has ordained how we are to treat our fellow man, since He does not grace us with the knowledge of who is elect. When we meet seekers we can in all righteousness quote the scriptures because this is what God has given us to work with. There is no shame to us, and there is no controversy that God could give a fuller answer based on His superior knowledge.
I FULLY understand how any seeker can read through sections of scripture and come away with Arminian conclusions. I did it, and I'm sure many others of like minds to mine on these issues would say the same. Men want to be in control. Men want to make the decisions concerning their own destinies. And in fact, that is how we experience it, we "decide" to say the sinner's prayer, and it's all very real. At least in modern times, what we don't "experience" (as much) is that this decision was actually made by God, not by us.
Isn't it true that the correct Calvinist answer is "Nothing. You can't do anything to be saved!" If so, then, if Paul was the Calvinist that all the GRPL seems to say he was, then why didn't Paul answer: "Nothing. There's nothing you can do to be saved!"?
I think a Calvinist would answer just as Paul did because it seems to me that this is how God wants us to handle seekers. I freely admit that I have done it before and would do it again, even though I claim to have a fuller understanding. There is a difference between milk and meat, and each has its time. I think Paul the Calvinist answered as he did because he was specifically led by God to do so.
The fact of the matter is that the scriptures confirm that anyone can be saved and what a person must do to be saved is to believe on Jesus Christ.
What do you say of all the infamous reprobates that God has used throughout scriptures to further His plan? Could they have been saved? Was it "luck" that God found a perfect combination of evil in all history (the one we know), and then He fashioned His plan around that? If men had made very different decisions, would the Bible today look very different?
No, you're not missing anything. :) In your terms I have been a "Dortist" since I discovered I was a Calvinist, less than a year ago. In earlier posts I did not think it best to argue my Dortist position until I better understood what I was arguing against. Now that I have a better idea, here I am. :)
I am genuinely curious about your views though, so please accept my questions as being in good faith.
I don't think so. All of the words of God were written for our benefit and all are perfectly true. Paul's answer was absolutely correct and in accordance with God's wishes.
You can't answer "yes and no" It was a simple yes OR no question.
I said I think it depends on one's use of the term "saved". In one way that you and I both use the term, "Yes", there are clear instructions on how to be saved. However, if that is the only way to properly use the term, then other Biblical terms like "predestination" and "election" must be explained. Under your singular view, those terms would appear to be meaningless. How is this reconciled?
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.