Posted on 02/28/2011 8:17:37 AM PST by blue-duncan
Soli Deo gloria is the motto that grew out of the Protestant Reformation and was used on every composition by Johann Sebastian Bach. He affixed the initials SDG at the bottom of each manuscript to communicate the idea that it is God and God alone who is to receive the glory for the wonders of His work of creation and of redemption. At the heart of the sixteenth-century controversy over salvation was the issue of grace.
It was not a question of man’s need for grace. It was a question as to the extent of that need. The church had already condemned Pelagius, who had taught that grace facilitates salvation but is not absolutely necessary for it. Semi-Pelagianism since that time has always taught that without grace there is no salvation. But the grace that is considered in all semi-Pelagian and Arminian theories of salvation is not an efficacious grace. It is a grace that makes salvation possible, but not a grace that makes salvation certain.
In the parable of the sower we see that regarding salvation, God is the one who takes the initiative to bring salvation to pass. He is the sower. The seed that is sown is His seed, corresponding to His Word, and the harvest that results is His harvest. He harvests what He purposed to harvest when He initiated the whole process. God doesn’t leave the harvest up to the vagaries of thorns and stones in the pathway. It is God and God alone who makes certain that a portion of His Word falls upon good ground. A critical error in interpreting this parable would be to assume that the good ground is the good disposition of fallen sinners, those sinners who make the right choice, responding positively to God’s prevenient grace. The classical Reformed understanding of the good ground is that if the ground is receptive to the seed that is sown by God, it is God alone who prepares the ground for the germination of the seed.
The biggest question any semi-Pelagian or Arminian has to face at the practical level is this: Why did I choose to believe the gospel and commit my life to Christ when my neighbor, who heard the same gospel, chose to reject it? That question has been answered in many ways. We might speculate that the reason why one person chooses to respond positively to the gospel and to Christ, while another one doesn’t, is because the person who responded positively was more intelligent than the other one. If that were the case, then God would still be the ultimate provider of salvation because the intelligence is His gift, and it could be explained that God did not give the same intelligence to the neighbor who rejected the gospel. But that explanation is obviously absurd.
The other possibility that one must consider is this: that the reason one person responds positively to the gospel and his neighbor does not is because the one who responded was a better person. That is, that person who made the right choice and the good choice did it because he was more righteous than his neighbor. In this case, the flesh not only availed something, it availed everything. This is the view that is held by the majority of evangelical Christians, namely, the reason why they are saved and others are not is that they made the right response to God’s grace while the others made the wrong response.
We can talk here about not only the correct response as opposed to an erroneous response, but we can speak in terms of a good response rather than a bad response. If I am in the kingdom of God because I made the good response rather than the bad response, I have something of which to boast, namely the goodness by which I responded to the grace of God. I have never met an Arminian who would answer the question that I’ve just posed by saying, “Oh, the reason I’m a believer is because I’m better than my neighbor.” They would be loath to say that. However, though they reject this implication, the logic of semi-Pelagianism requires this conclusion. If indeed in the final analysis the reason I’m a Christian and someone else is not is that I made the proper response to God’s offer of salvation while somebody else rejected it, then by resistless logic I have indeed made the good response, and my neighbor has made the bad response.
What Reformed theology teaches is that it is true the believer makes the right response and the non-believer makes the wrong response. But the reason the believer makes the good response is because God in His sovereign election changes the disposition of the heart of the elect to effect a good response. I can take no credit for the response that I made for Christ. God not only initiated my salvation, He not only sowed the seed, but He made sure that that seed germinated in my heart by regenerating me by the power of the Holy Ghost. That regeneration is a necessary condition for the seed to take root and to flourish. That’s why at the heart of Reformed theology the axiom resounds, namely, that regeneration precedes faith. It’s that formula, that order of salvation that all semi-Pelagians reject. They hold to the idea that in their fallen condition of spiritual death, they exercise faith, and then are born again. In their view, they respond to the gospel before the Spirit has changed the disposition of their soul to bring them to faith. When that happens, the glory of God is shared. No semi-Pelagian can ever say with authenticity: “To God alone be the glory.” For the semi-Pelagian, God may be gracious, but in addition to God’s grace, my work of response is absolutely essential. Here grace is not effectual, and such grace, in the final analysis, is not really saving grace. In fact, salvation is of the Lord from beginning to end. Yes, I must believe. Yes, I must respond. Yes, I must receive Christ. But for me to say “yes” to any of those things, my heart must first be changed by the sovereign, effectual power of God the Holy Spirit. Soli Deo gloria.
Sola Scriptura buddies; an irenic way to start the day(little rhyming there for your enjoyment).
Great article - and thanks! Nice rhyme too.
:D
Hoss
I believe this to be true, but it does open the flip side of the debate. If God causes us to believe The Gospel and be saved then if God does not do that to an unbeliever God condemns them to Hell.
The caucus label was removed because the article compares beliefs to Arminianism.
Double predestination. God in His sovereignty chooses whom are to become His children:
Consequently, since God is under no duty to save anyone, not all are saved and some are passed over. God decides not to regenerate them. However, it is nevertheless true that it is the sinner who condemns himself to hell, not God:
God is right in front of us, everywhere. However, our blindness prevents us from seeing God for Who He really is. The blindness is caused by sin, not God, so we have no excuse. From Calvin's Commentaries:
“God is right in front of us, everywhere. However, our blindness prevents us from seeing God for Who He really is.”
God “needed” a transitional figure from the economy of the Judges to the Prophet/Monarchy system. It is interesting how He managed it. First He closed up the womb to the chagrin and disgrace of Hannah. Then He brings torment and jealousey to her by the first wife. In her exigent circumstances and despair she like Jephthah offers a rash vow to give back to God a son if God would give her a son.
Look how God arranges circumstances so His plan works out. Everyone gets what his/her heart desires.
Thanks for the ping.
Amen! As you once wrote so aptly...
"The whole sacrificial system was poor copy of the reality that was in heaven and looked forward to it breaking into time. A believer's life will catch up with his election in time. At present, believers are seen as perfect in Christ and yet our sanctification is in process and ultimately when we are in the presence of Jesus our sanctification will catch up with the perfection that God sees us in now." -- blue-duncan
and this is a great thread. If we understand anything, may it be that we have been saved by the free, unmerited grace of God alone.
Cannot get my head around this Forrest Keeper. Since scripture teaches us God would have us all come to repentance. Indicating salvation is indeed offered to any who choose to come to Him. Additionally we are called to spread the gospel to all people. Yet in the end the individual determines to choose to believe or not oftentimes based on the gospel message itself...othertimes circumstances in ones life leads them to cry out to God and thereafter he hears the message of salvation.
All who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved...it is written....and how shall they believe unless He sends those with the gospel message to explain.
At this point I cannot believe God chooses NOT to regenrate some, or selects only certain people to hear His message. There just seems to always be that gap there.
Further the scripture used in John:1: 11-13 IMO was talking about those who believed 'first' and then rebirth occurs and it is that 'birth' which is not of natural descent, nor of human decision, or a husbands will, but BORN of God.
It seems to me about spiritual birth which he speaks....unlike a human birth where one becomes a memeber of a family thru the natural order etc. Which requires a husbands willingess and the descision to engage in that which creates life.
How much grace did it take for you to come to Christ? It took a lot for me. Way more than I like to admit. I was very stubborn. But eventually, on a day God had chosen long ago, it finally registered in my brain and heart -- "ah, so this is grace. This is God's love. This is reality."
Then the question becomes if God gave me so much grace to finally compel me to see and hear the truth of His holy words, why doesn't He give everyone enough grace to compel them?
Because either some men are created not as sinful as other men (which we know is not true; all men are fallen) or some men simply do not receive the same amount of grace God has shown to those whom He calls with a perfect love and intention of saving.
If God really wanted all men to be saved, all He would have to do is give each man enough grace to bring him to the truth, just as He gave me "enough" grace.
"(God) hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" -- 2 Timothy 1:9"Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast." -- Psalm 22:9
Still, I believe God moves within the arena of our life in such a way as we can and do come to the end of ourselfs, so to speak, and it is then man looks to something outside himself. Some choose alcohol to dull the senses, or drugs, but even in these cases oftentimes at some point there is intervention and the gospel is offered....they then determine if they will believe or not.
The realization that one cannot save themselves is not realized until one understands that they need saving...and that Christ is the only one who can do that and why. Just as with yourself their comes a moment of decision to believe or not...one agrees with what God has supplied or they reject it. It is the same with any gift given...it’s presented but one can always refuse or accept. But IMO all men are given this opportunity at some place in their life and though God knows who will or not acccept Him the offer is to all men...not just those some might believe are specifically chosen and the rest left hanging out there with no chance. The chosen are those who do believe but they are those after they believe.
Cannot get my head around this Forrest Keeper. Since scripture teaches us God would have us all come to repentance. Indicating salvation is indeed offered to any who choose to come to Him.
I agree that this area of theology can be difficult and I remember struggling with it myself (and I'm a really smart guy - LOL!). Anyway, of course the scriptures you are referencing to above are perfectly true and correct. I think we just need to figure out if there is a greater context carrying weight through scripture that helps us interpret them beyond stand alone single sentences, IF that is appropriate. For my statement to be in line with these true scriptures, then, I must think there is such a context.
The first concept I would mention is the idea of God's "outer calling" (consistent with His nature) verses His "inner calling" (consistent with His wishes).
But before we can really get into this we would need to agree about one core aspect of God's nature. If I have said it a hundred times, Dr. E. has said it a thousand, "God gets everything He wants, so if God's will is for "X" to happen, then "X" absolutely happens, and no one can thwart God's will." I think if I showed this quote to most Christians they would find it pretty basic sounding and probably nod their heads in agreement. If you would too, then we would have to ask ourselves "Then why isn't everyone saved if God says that is what He wants?" (as you refer to above).
The answer I get most often is that while God says He really wants all to be saved, what He "super-duper" really wants is for us to have the choice to choose Him or not even if some/many do not choose Him. And this is because His giving us the choice is showing love for us. This thinking establishes a sort of "hierarchy" of some things God "really" wants and other things He "really super-duper" wants. So for example, yes God wants all to be saved, but what He wants more is for us to have the choice to come to Him thus making the saving real because it came from our free will love for Him.
You know what? I totally agree with this TYPE of thinking. :) It is of immense help in clearing up Bible verses that appear to contradict each other on their faces. Here though, the difference with Reformers is that what we think God really super-duper wants is SO much bigger. I would say that if God's higher wish was to leave the decision of who would spend eternity with Him in Heaven up to the sorry likes of us then He is a God who's thinking small potatoes. :) That's because if it really worked this way then the final result would have to be comparatively random, wouldn't it? God would be taking a risk. Some will choose and some will not. Maybe all will, maybe none will. AND, it must also mean that if He is willing to take this risk that He does not really super-duper care which of us makes the decision.
I'm sure we would agree that it is fully within God's power to determine by name whom He super-duper wants with Him, but if He doesn't and leaves it to chance, then it must be the case that His love for any of us is NOT on the "super-duper" level, but on a lesser level. The great teacher and theologian B.B. Warfield says it much better than I in Some Thoughts on Predestination. Here he is talking about predestination generally but it applies to our discussion vis-a-vis whether God predestines a random outcome or a certain outcome with regard to the names of the people who will spend eternity with Him. [my words in brackets and italics]
I really apologize for the length of all this, I just think it's really important to think about God's nature, His power, and what He wants. In reading scripture it helps us to figure out what that hierarchy is that we agree on, what he really wants and what He super-duper really wants. That brings the circle back around to where I started with the idea of "outward calling" and "inward calling".
God calls everyone to repentance, just as you said. That is perfectly consistent with His all-loving nature. However, does God exercise the control we just read about to make sure that happens? We know He doesn't. So, we call that an "outward calling" consistent with His nature, but not consistent with what He really super-duper wants, because He is in full control and doesn't cause it.
We say that the "inward calling", then, is His stated will that He actually acts upon and causes to happen. This is how He actively changes us and brings us to faith without leaving anything to chance. Some examples include:
If we take into account what we just read about God's power, control, and caring about the smallest things, then John 6:44 would seem to prove that God does not draw all men equally to salvation because not all come to Him. Along the same lines, this helps us to understand all of the many verses that indicate that "salvation is indeed offered to any who choose to come to Him" or "All who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved". These are absolutely true quotes, but they don't address the "how" of how someone comes to choose Him. The Romans passage, above, tells us they came to choose God because they were predestined. The Ezekiel passage tells us it was because God gave them a new heart and a new spirit. Likewise with the Deut. verse and John 6:44 tells us it was because the Father has drawn them.
All of these match each other and the ideas of the extent of God's caring and control that we read about. Finally, the Reformed view matches how we actually pray, whether we know anything of Reformed theology or not. We praise God's infinite power and the power of His infinite will. I don't think we can reasonably do this if it pertains to all things in God's created universe EXCEPT that it is God's will that men randomly come to Him or not. We have to ask ourselves if He were to make ONE exception out of all the infinite details in all the universe, why would it concern a matter of such importance as the eternal life or death of His children? If He really loved us I would think that would be the first thing He would take no chances with, not the single exception of relinquishing control in all the universe.
I apologize again for the length of this, but hope it may stir some thoughts or questions. Worth a shot. :)
Well that is exactly why people get into trouble and confusion...by attempting to see further than the scriptures clearly speak.
Jesus died for ALL men who would come to Him...some will and some won't because they do have that choice to believe or not...some even believe but choose not commit to Him. They recognize it means a change in their life... they love their sin more than the offer of salvation from it. This is why some are saved and some are not. They choose which side they are on and who they will serve.
You stated..." I would say that if God's higher wish was to leave the decision of who would spend eternity with Him in Heaven up to the sorry likes of us then He is a God who's thinking small potatoes.
I don't think that at all...He knows the hearts and mind of men very well and that NONE are worthy apart from Christ... Man is the one who thinks otherwise and thus decides for himself to accept or decline the gift of salvation he has offered. He does not force His will on anyone.
You further said.. Some will choose and some will not. Maybe all will, maybe none will. AND, it must also mean that if He is willing to take this risk that He does not really super-duper care which of us makes the decision.
I don't know how you can determine if God cares or not when it seems quite clear that thru the death and crucifxion of Christ He certainly cared beyond discription...."No greater love is this then that He would lay His life down for us"......"once for all" of those who will come to him...........It's not a matter of chance we accept Him or not...it's a matter of faith and choice.
You mentioned "How does God bring us to Him."..and I disagree with that not being known...we each know exactly how we were brought to Him...when it began and where we were each faced with the decision. Many can look back and see the Holy Spirit's work along the way at different times and places. ..so the 'How' is thru His Spirit and that which He reveals on a journey to the decision we ultimately make..
And Yes....this was too long. Prefered reading your own words on the subject...skipped the other.
Thanks for the ping and your well thought out article.
This is what makes this question so intriguing. What causes us to make the right choice?
Through out the OT God arbitrarily chose someone for His good purposes. God chose Abram and named him Abraham. Abram was the son of an idol maker. God chose Isaac over Ishmael the first born. God chose Jacob over Esau even though there really wasn't much good in Jacob.
In the NT Jesus spoke in parables so those that the message was intended for would hear it and those the message was not intended for would not understand. IOW, coming to Faith in Jesus and understanding He was the Christ was not a free choice to all.
It seems there is a process of weeding out and some are never intended to come to faith in Jesus Christ and The Gospel that saves.
The message was not understood because they were unwilling to agree with Gods assessment of their condition. One cannot understand the gospel message until one also understands their fallen estate...that they are a sinner in need of Gods forgiveness. If that is ignored or not believed then there is no place for salvation....they will not hear what the Spirit is saying to their hearts. It is a co-operative event...the Holy Spirit works with the individual to draw them to and see their condition...but they can refuse to agree.
It can't be if God is all knowing and all powerful.
Also, if it is truly co-operative (synergism) you would be able to identify the group, by objective means, that is saved. The saved group would be smarter. They made the right choice.
God does not force his will on the unwilling in the matter of salvation. ...the heart of the matter is the matter of the heart...and the heart of the willing or unwilling.
Well that is exactly why people get into trouble and confusion...by attempting to see further than the scriptures clearly speak.
That is a direct argument against Sola Scriptura. Is that what you meant? Here is the Westminster Confession on the subject:
Sola Scriptura is violated when one takes single sentences to prove a preset theology when the greater weight of scripture indicates a contrary doctrine. I don't think your position can be said to be "clearly spoken" in the Bible when there is so much Biblical material arguing against it. At the least it is a debatable subject, which is why I sought to look at the totality of scripture.
Jesus died for ALL men who would come to Him
True. That is the Reformed doctrine of limited atonement. :)
...... some even believe but choose not commit to Him. They recognize it means a change in their life... they love their sin more than the offer of salvation from it.
In this context, your use of "believe" is different from Biblical faith. Demons had knowledge of the identity of Christ, but they obviously had no faith. In the vast majority of cases (if not all) the Bible uses "believe" to mean faith, as in Mark 5:36 : 36 Ignoring what they said, Jesus told the synagogue ruler, “Don’t be afraid; just believe.”
I don't know how you can determine if God cares or not when it seems quite clear that thru the death and crucifixion of Christ He certainly cared beyond description...."No greater love is this then that He would lay His life down for us"......"once for all" of those who will come to him...........
When you say "He certainly cared beyond description" what are you saying He cared about? From your position you cannot mean that God cared at all about which of us chooses Him.
It's not a matter of chance we accept Him or not...it's a matter of faith and choice.
You are speaking from your own perspective as the decider. If you really are the decider, then from God's perspective it absolutely is random as to whether you in particular will be among those who choose Him. The control would rest with you, not God. The article you skipped discussed how so many people have trouble with the idea of God being in control over them, but that it is something we should be thankful for, not afraid of.
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.