Calvin on Baptism, Penance, and Absolution

Calvin was a highly nuanced theologian. Sometimes, though, these nuances have been lost on his theological descendants. For example, Calvin's discussion of predestination includes numerous careful qualifications that are intended to short cut philosophical speculation and prevent the doctrine from appearing arbitrary or tyrannical. But many modern followers of Calvin, especially his numerous popularizers, often truncate, and therefore distort, his pastoral, Christ-centered view of election, turning Calvinism into a caricature of its real self. Nowhere is the loss of nuance more evident than in contemporary views of Calvin's teaching on the sacraments.

Two strands continually emerge in Calvin's sacramental theology. On the one hand, Calvin views the sacraments as signs of assurance that serve to confirm and strengthen our faith. Through the sacraments, God grants certainty to believers. On the other hand, Calvin speaks of the sacraments as genuine instruments of salvation. As means of grace, the sacraments are said to effect what they represent and perform what they picture [1]. In the sacraments, God creates, as well as nourishes, faith. While latter day Calvinists have often felt the need to choose one of these two strands at the expense of the other (and have all too often chosen the first), Calvin himself felt no tension. The two strands were not in a tug-of-war, pulling against each other, but woven together into a beautiful sacramental tapestry [2].

How are these two strands harmonized in Calvin's mind? Certainly Calvin's systematic intellect would not allow his sacramental theology to contain a blatant contradiction on so crucial an issue. One possible approach to relating the two strands would be to offer a diachronic analysis of Calvin's sacramental theology. At different points in his career, he emphasized different aspects of the sacraments' usefulness. Often Calvin seemed to modify his sacramental theology, or at least its emphases, depending on his opponents at the time, his desire for a Reformed ecumenism, his pastoral concerns, and so forth, all the while attempting to build a Protestant consensus. He had quite a gauntlet to run, as he sought to avoid the errors of the Romanists, Zwinglians, Anabaptists, and so forth. For example, during his time in Strassbourg, he worked closely alongside Martin Bucer. No doubt, Bucer's own high view of sacramental instrumentality and his ambitious ecumenical projects exercised decisive influence on Calvin. After Calvin returned to Geneva, his attempts to build a coalition with Ulrich Zwingli's successor Heinrich Bullinger led him to tone down, or at least de-emphasize, sacramental efficacy. The result was the less than satisfactory Consensus Tigurerinus of 1549. Towards the end of his career, debates with pesky Lutherans such as Joachim Westphal led Calvin to re-emphasize God's powerful, saving action in the sacraments. Because the Institutes went through several drafts, it is to be expected that bits and pieces reflect the various emphases of the various phases of Calvin's turbulent career. But this in itself cannot account completely for the nuance found in the final 1559 version of the Institutes. There is no question Calvin himself considered the final product to be a coherent, consistent manual of theology.

Another method of resolution is to take into account Calvin's definition of faith. In Book three, he writes, "Now we shall possess a right definition of faith if we call it a firm and certain knowledge of God's benevolence toward us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit." In other words, faith = assurance. We can then bridge the gap between sacraments as assuring pledges that fortify pre-existing faith and sacraments as salvific, faith-giving instruments by simply pointing out that faith and assurance are two sides of a single coin. To say the sacraments give assurance is to say they give saving faith, and vice versa [3].

I think the most satisfactory answer is simply to leave the strands side by side. Calvin does not seem to think they need harmonizing, so why should we? The salvific and assuring functions of the sacraments can simply be combined into an organic whole. Calvin himself does this repeatedly and effortlessly in his baptismal theology, as a brief examination of Book 4, chapter 15 in the Institutes shows.

For Calvin, baptism has a God-manward meaning and a man-Godward meaning. Of course, God's action towards man has primacy: "Now baptism was given to us by God for these ends (which I have taught to be common to all sacraments): first to serve our faith before him; secondly, to serve our confession before men...Accordingly, they [e.g., the Zwinglians and Anabaptists] who regarded baptism as nothing but a token and mark by which we confess our religion before men, as soldiers bear the insignia of their commander as a mark of their profession, have not weighed what was the chief point of baptism" [4]. Baptism, in reality, is God's work: "For inasmuch as [baptism] is given for the arousing, nourishing, and confirming of our faith, it is to be received as from the hand of the Author himself. We ought to deem it certain and proved that it is he who speaks to us through the sign; that it is he who purifies and washes away sins, and wipes out the remembrance of them; that it is he who make us sharers in his death, who deprives Satan of his rule, who weakens the power of our lust; indeed, that it is he who comes into a unity with us so that, having put on Christ, we may be acknowledged God's children. These things, I say, he performs for our soul within as truly and surely as we see our body outwardly cleansed, submerged, and surrounded with water [5]...And he does not feed our eyes with a mere appearance only, but leads us to the present reality and effectively performs what he symbolizes" [6].

The God-towards-man action of baptism is then unpacked in three dimensions [7]. "The first thing that the Lord sets out for us is that baptism should be a token and proof of our cleansing; or (the better to explain what I mean) it is like a sealed document to confirm to us that all our sins are so abolished, remitted, and effaced that they can never come to his sight, be recalled, or charged against us." Calvin begins (in a very pastoral way) with baptism as an assuring pledge. All who believe may know they are washed in Christ's blood just as surely as the waters of baptism have come upon them. As he goes on to explain, the water does not cause salvation by itself; rather "in this sacrament are received the knowledge and certainty of such gifts" [8]. However, this does make the significance of baptism merely cognitive, as the next two points demonstrate. Baptism's assuring function does not exhaust its usefulness.

For Calvin, baptism means union with Christ: "Baptism also brings another benefit, for it shows us our mortification in Christ, and new life in him...[T]hrough baptism Christ makes us sharers in his death, that we may be engrafted in it" [9]. Calvin then turns to a brief exposition of Romans 6. It is this baptismal union with the crucified and risen Christ that gives the Christian life its basic pattern of mortification and vivification [10]. Calvin, following Paul exhorts the baptized to live out their union with Christ, dead to sin and alive to righteousness. According to Calvin, Christ himself was baptized in order to include us in his work: "For he dedicated and sanctified baptism in his own body [Mt. 3:13] in order that he might have it in common with us as the firmest bond of the union and fellowship which he has deigned to form with us...Thus we see that the fulfillment of baptism is in Christ, whom also for this reason we call the proper object of baptism...For all the gifts proffered in baptism are found in Christ alone" [11]. Our baptisms unite us to The Baptized One, Christ himself in whom all blessings are found.

The third benefit received in baptism is adoption: "Lastly, our faith receives from baptism the advantage of its sure testimony to us that we are not only engrafted into the death and life of Christ, but so united to Christ himself that we become sharers in all his blessings...Hence, Paul proves that we are children of God from the fact that we are put on Christ in baptism [Gal. 3:26-27]." Baptism is not only a kind of marriage, uniting us to Christ, but also an adoption ceremony, placing us in God's family. As adopted sons, we are co-heirs of God together with Christ.

As Calvin expounds this threefold grace of baptism, he continually mixes in the two strands: baptism as assuring pledge and baptism as efficacious instrument. Sometimes these two angles on baptism appear side by side on the same page! Consider his words on 1304-5: "For Paul [in Eph. 5:26 and Tit. 3:5] did not mean to signify that our cleansing and salvation are accomplished by water, or that water contains in itself the power to cleanse, regenerate, and renew; nor that here is the cause of salvation, but only that in this sacrament are received the knowledge and certainty of such gifts...[The water of baptism] attests with certainty that Christ's blood is our only laver." It seems Calvin has limited baptism to giving assurance, taking away any salvific efficacy. However in the very next section, he states, "But we must realize that at whatever time we are baptized, we are once for all washed and purged for our whole life" [12]. Thus, the salvific, instrumental power of baptism is preserved.

The same combination shows up on 1315. In expounding Acts 22:16, Calvin focuses on the assuring function of baptism: "Ananias meant only this: 'To be assured, Paul, that your sins are forgiven, be baptized. For the Lord promises forgiveness of sins in baptism: receive it and be secure." However, Calvin immediately corrects the impression of those who would view the sacraments as merely assuring seals: "Yet it is not my intention to weaken the force of baptism by not joining reality and truth to the sign, in so far as God works through outward means."

Further insight into Calvin's baptismal theology is gleaned by examining his rejection of penance [13]. In baptism, we receive a once and for all justification that becomes the basis for all subsequent forgiveness: "Through baptism, believers are assured that this condemnation has been removed and withdrawn from them, since (as was said) the Lord promises us by this sign that full and complete remission has been made, both of the guilt that should have been imputed to us, and of the punishment that we ought to have undergone because of the guilt. They also lay hold on righteousness, but such righteousness as the people of God can obtain in this life, that is, by imputation only, since the Lord of his own mercy considers them righteous and innocent" [14].

For Calvin, baptism is a seal of cleansing that extends through the whole of our lives: "But we are not to think that baptism was conferred upon us only for past time, so that for newly committed sins into which we fall after baptism we must seek new remedies of expiation in some other sacraments, as if the force of the former one were spent...For, though baptism, administered only once, seemed to have passed, it was still not destroyed by subsequent sins" [15]. It was error at just this point that led some in the early church (e.g., Tertullian) to recommend delaying baptism till one was near death. Otherwise postbaptismal sin might undo the blessings granted in baptism. While this mistaken baptismal theology was roundly condemned by patristic giants such as Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine, it was not dealt with thoroughly enough, eventually leaving open the door for the rise of the "sacrament" of penance.

The medieval scholastics developed penance into a full blown, rather mechanical system of dealing with postbaptismal sin. Calvin has already dissected the practice of penance in 3.4, showing it's a counterfeit parody of biblical repentance. The three parts of penance, contrition of heart, confession of mouth, and satisfaction of works, as taught by the papists, are each harmful distortions of true religion. Penance, understood as an attempt to "plug the leak so no more grace runs out" [16], or grabbing hold of the "second plank after shipwreck," undermines baptism, and therefore the gospel itself. Calvin is very clear about the root of the problem: The Romanists have severed the exercise of the keys from baptism, and "this error has provided us with the fictitious sacrament of penance" [17].

What does Calvin mean? And what is his solution to the problem of postbaptismal sin? Calvin claims the power of the keys (in this context, the power to declare forgiveness) depends upon baptism: "We see therefore that the absolution has reference to baptism" [18]. In other words, Calvin would substitute regular confession of sin and absolution for the false sacrament of penance. Absolution is not a stand-alone sacrament; it is a renewal of one's baptism. Penance, on the other hand, is one of Rome's "new helps devised by themselves" [19]. This proper exercise of the keys - absolution rather than penance -- looses us from our sins. It regularly reminds us of and reapplies to us the baptismal promise of forgiveness.

Calvin is specifically directing his words towards those weak believers struggling with assurance: "Therefore, there is no doubt that all pious folk throughout life, whenever they are troubled by a consciousness of their faults, may venture to remind themselves of their baptism, that from it they may be confirmed in assurance of that sole and perpetual cleansing which we have in Christ's blood" [20]. Baptism, not penance, is the believer's refuge after sin. But how is one's baptism best remembered? Through the pastor's declaration of absolution! [20] Again, absolution has reference to baptism.

In other words, weekly [22] confession of sin and absolution must be understood within the framework of baptismal justification. Absolution ("Your sins are forgiven, take heart")[23] harkens back to baptism. It recalls, reapplies, and renews one's baptism. To borrow a metaphor from John 13, baptism cleanses the whole body once and for all; regular confession and absolution wash the feet as we walk through the sin-infested world.

Calvin strongly believes in the efficacy of pastoral absolution. For him, there is not only a once and for all forgiveness granted at the inception of the Christian life, but also a "continual and unceasing forgiveness of sins even unto death" [24]. Consider his teaching on absolution from a variety of his writings:

"We now see the reason why Christ employs such magnificent terms, to commend and adorn that ministry which he bestows and enjoins on the Apostles [and their successors, pastors]. It is, that believers may be fully convinced, that what they hear concerning the forgiveness of sins is ratified, and may not less highly value the reconciliation which is offered by the voice of men, than if God himself stretched out his hand from heaven. And the church daily receives the most abundant benefit from this doctrine, when it perceives that her pastors are divinely ordained to be sureties for eternal salvation, and that it must not go to a distance to seek the forgiveness of sins, which is committed to their trust."

"[The forgiveness of sins] is dispensed to us through the ministers and pastors of the church, either by the preaching of the Gospel [including the declaration of absolution] or by the administration of the sacraments; and herein chiefly stands the power of the keys, which the Lord has gifted to the society of believers. Accordingly, let each one of us count it his own duty to seek forgiveness of sins only where the Lord has placed it."

"When Christ enjoins the Apostles to 'forgive sins,' he does not convey to them what is peculiar to himself. It belongs to him to forgive sins. This honor, so far as it belongs peculiarly to himself, he does not surrender to the Apostles, but enjoins them, in his Name, to declare the forgiveness of sins, that through their instrumentality he may reconcile men to God. In short, properly speaking, it is he alone who forgives sins through his apostles and ministers"

"The entire power [of the keys] rests in the fact that, through those whom the Lord had ordained, the grace of the Gospel is publicly and privately sealed in the hearts of believers" [25].

Calvin says we must seek ongoing forgiveness where the Lord has placed it: on the lips of our local parish pastor. There, in his spoken word of salvation, our baptismal covenant with is Christ renewed. The gospel comes to us through these external, objective means of grace in the community of the church. Note that for Calvin, absolution adds nothing to baptism. Baptism, in one sense, is complete in and of itself. But absolution does reapply the forgiveness of sins received in baptism, so that baptism's efficacy continues through the whole of life. Whereas the medievals taught that justification begins in baptism and continues in penance, Calvin taught that the once and for all justification received in baptism is freshly enjoyed through absolution [26].

I'm still getting hung up on how "dead men can not choose life" seems to contradict "Man has the 'free will' left to them by Adam."
Does the "free will" left to Adam merely mean freedom to sin, and only sin? Then, is that freedom?
I'm not really suggesting man would ever seek or choose God on his own. But, perhaps the quickening is the grace of restoring the man so that he does have a choice to seek or choose God. But if that is irresistable, it seems like we've lost free will again.

Let me answer your question with a question.

What happend right after the fall?

Did Adam and Eve seek out God to repent and confess?

God told them if they ate the fruit from the tree they would die immediately..was God telling the truth?

Man does indeed have the free will left to him from Adam, but as you have observed it is a will in bondage able only to choose from degrees of evil.

I'm not really suggesting man would ever seek or choose God on his own. But, perhaps the quickening is the grace of restoring the man so that he does have a choice to seek or choose God. But if that is irresistable, it seems like we've lost free will again.

Yes, man would never choose God on his own without the grace of God.

Would you see that as a general grace given to all men? Then we must ask why then do not all men respond to that grace? Is an equal amount given to all men , or more to some than others?

If it is Gods will that all men without exception be saved, then why did He not give all men enough grace to overcome their resistance?

Sorry I tend to answer questions with questions..kind of a "what shall we say then..." approach:>)

God told them if they ate the fruit from the tree they would die immediately..was God telling the truth?

I think Gold told them they would surely die, in the day that they ate it. The meaning of the word "day" in Hebrew is broad, and in that particular context it could either mean immediate or not. I've seen the argument that their spiritual death was immediate, and spiritual life is only restored through Jesus. I've also seen it argued that physical death did not exist prior to the fall, for anything, and that this introduced physical death into the world. My rational side sees myriad problems with that view. And I've seen it argued merely that it meant that Adam would eventually die physically.

But I guess that's off-topic, sort of.

Man does indeed have the free will left to him from Adam, but as you have observed it is a will in bondage able only to choose from degrees of evil.

Right. I guess I'm not fully Arminian.

Would you see that as a general grace given to all men? Then we must ask why then do not all men respond to that grace? Is an equal amount given to all men , or more to some than others?

Yes, that is the crux. Does the Holy Spirit touch all men at some point? Is the touch greater for some than others? I'd like to believe that all men are quickened to the point that they could choose life. And that only some will. Which would then place the responsibility to respond back on the human, thus making "just" his punishment for failure to choose life. For if it is all from God, then why should the robot be punished? How can we be held responsible for not doing something we cannot do?

The flip side, though, is in the question: if everyone is quickened to the choice, why then would only some believe? Wouldn't we all choose life? Well, perhaps not. Some love themselves too much, or their sin. Only those who repent are saved... and repentance is also an act of the will, after the quickening of the Spirit to recognize one's sinfulness.

I guess I can almost convince myself, except for some passages in the Bible, such as the one about "I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy..." But, that may not be insurmountable.

If it is Gods will that all men without exception be saved, then why did He not give all men enough grace to overcome their resistance?

Perhaps He did give them enough to overcome, yet they refused anyway, instead loving themself or their sins and clinging to them. Had God given all men irresistable grace, then He would have by the same act removed their free will.

Of course, the whole question of God's will is complex. Can God's will ever be thwarted? Yes? Then is He sovereign, or not? Or, if God's will cannot be thwarted, then is it God's will that we sin? Do we not then thwart God's will when we sin?

Apart from free will, sin is God's fault. I think God made man with free will. He is sovereign, but allows us, for His good pleasure, the ability to make choices. When we chose badly, and corrupted our whole race to total depravity, God made a way to restore choice to us.

Romans 8:19 is my question - "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"

The short answer is, I'll work on this passage and come back.

The long answer is, I'll do some of that work in this post. :D

As far as God making souls to populate hell, that can be turned around on the free willers as God knew what decision we would make, and yet created those who would go to hell. Does that sound more plausable/palatable?

Well, yes, that does sound much more palatable. Foreknowledge, while similar, still allows for free will. Some people will disagree with me, not seeing anyway in which foreknowledge doesn't curtail free will, but I see foreknowledge by God as not placing any limitation on my free will. He is outside of time, I am not.

Try reading this guy, he gives an awesoome defense of election: http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm

I did. He's very eloquent. I particularly liked the part where he looks deeper into his salvation experience, and sees that it was God's grace, and the deeper he looks, he keeps finding God's grace. It reminded me of the Native American story of the world resting on the back of a giant turtle. When asked "What does that turtle stand on?" the elder said "Another turtle." When asked what that turtle stood on, the elder paused for a while, then answered "It's turtles, all the way down."

Not that that applies really. I think.

Anyway, one thought about Pharaoh - God hardens whom He will harden. This does not preclude that Pharaoh had a chance at some point in his life. My thesis only requires a minimum of one quickening per person per lifetime. If rejected, and particularly if rejected repeatedly, he may never get another chance - he will be "hardened." As I recall, the first few (several?) times that Pharaoh refused Moses, he hardened himself. It was only later that God hardened Pharaoh's heart.

but I see foreknowledge by God as not placing any limitation on my free will. He is outside of time, I am not.

But when you say this, you are tossing out the entire Romans passage I provided. Think about it! Paul is defending God's choice, not ours. He is answereing those that cannot accept the concept of predestination. Why does he do this? Because we, in our sinful state cannot accept Christ. Only by effectual calling can we be quickened and the scales fall off of our sinful eyes. And who does the effectual calling and why? God does, because it is to his Glory.

Try this: consider the Bible as a whole instead of just the verses that have been provided so far. Look at how God's will is never thwarted. When someone tries to do his will, he gets slammed hard (Jonah, Pharoah, Saul to name a few). Look at God choosing individuals to save, and others to doom. Look at God choosing a nation. Look at God doing his wiill.

Think about the Lord's prayer. We are taught to pray "Thy will be done." Not an sinners will.

Think about when you pray for someone to come to Christ. When we pray, we always pray like Calvinists! "Lord, move in my friends heart so they will come to you." It's never, "Well God, I would like them to be saved, but I know that it's their free will, so I guess our hands are tied."

Talk to a brand new Christian. The vast majority have no problem with predestination. They are still new enough in their walks that they realize they were called and could not resist. It is only when they start to hear free will being wrongly preached that they get off track.

I would argue that Adam, before the fall, had free will. Yes?

I am sorry I should have narrowed it to after the fall. Adam being made in the image of God had free will. That Free will is now bound by that sin.

Thus, I would have to make a slight variation, and argue that until God's resistible grace was given, mans will was not free, it was bound by sin and unable to choose Christ.

But if the man was bound how could he reach out an take that grace? Didn't he need to be freed first?

The entire sense of the word Justice seems to require it.

You are describing justice as man describes justice. Like a small child yelling "it is not fair"

The problem is if God does what is fair all men will be damned to hell, for that is what we all deserve. THAT is justice. There is NONE righteous no not one.

We all deserve hell. The wonder is that God saves any. The Arminian theology makes God a debtor to man.

Man has the choice and God is then forced to abide by the choice of man..who is god in this situation?

Do you allow God the same free will that you give to men? Can He determine what is just or must he wait for man to tell him?

Is it Mercy if man earns salvation by a correct choice?

Sure, I could trot out the Arminian support passages. Like when Jesus says "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling." (Matthew 23:37)

That was Jesus the Savior weeping that all will not be saved.That was not Jesus the judge that we have yet to see.

As the Savior Jesus was willing to save all men(His blood was suffuicent to save all men.) But Jesus came here to do the will of the Father.

Jhn 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

The Father elects, Christ redeems, and the Holy Spirit applies redemptive grace to sinners.

But when you say this, you are tossing out the entire Romans passage I provided.

The Romans passage is complex, but it seems to be dealing with two diffent "elections" - that of the nation of Israel, and that of individuals, throughout chapters 9 thru 11. Your passage applies to the nation, and is perhaps it is wrongly applied to the individual.

Paul consistently teaches that salvation comes by faith - and faith is an excercise of man's will. I don't doubt that the exercising of a saving faith must be preceded by a quickening. But Paul clearly teaches faith comes before salvation, not the other way around.

Romans 1:16 "the gospel … is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes."

According to Romans 1:18–32, the heathen who knew God (knew about his eternal power and divine nature) responded against God. "Therefore" God gave them over to their own evil.

In Romans 4:3, and again in 4:23–24, Paul states that just as Abraham's belief formed the basis for his righteousness, so our belief forms the basis for our righteousness. Both for Abraham and for us, the granting of positional righteousness stems from our faith. But doesn't Calvinism teach something different — that God's choice alone forms the basis for our righteousness?

Look at how God's will is never thwarted.

That makes God the author of all sin. I would argue that every sin is the thwarting of God's will. And see that throughout the Bible.

Look at God choosing a nation.

Choosing a nation is quite different than individual salvation.

We are taught to pray "Thy will be done." Not an sinners will.

If it cannot ever be thwarted, then why pray for it? We aren't taught to pray that the sun will rise. I'm not clear on where you're going with that sinners will bit...

When we pray, we always pray like Calvinists! "Lord, move in my friends heart so they will come to you." It's never, "Well God, I would like them to be saved, but I know that it's their free will, so I guess our hands are tied."

This is an interesting point. Why would Calvinists pray that, seeing as how it is solely God's choice? Do they think their petitions will change God's election? Conversely, do they think a prayer will overturn God's will to not save the person? I think the above prayer more accurately reflects a recognition that the person must be quickened, made aware of their sins, awakened to true free will, and that perhaps this time the person will make the right choice.

Talk to a brand new Christian. The vast majority have no problem with predestination. They are still new enough in their walks that they realize they were called and could not resist. It is only when they start to hear free will being wrongly preached that they get off track.

Unfortunately, I fear you may have wandered into sophistry. Are brand new Christians more reliable guides as to the true nature of salvation? Even though they may have read the Bible hardly at all? Seems this is an upside-down appeal to authority. The vast majority? How many is that, in both raw numbers and percentages? I still remember my conversion clear as a bell, even all these years later. I struggled, yet in the end, made the choice to put my faith in Jesus, repent from sin, and follow Him. The submission of my will was the hardest part to overcome. As to hearing free will wrongly preached, well, there is plenty of wrong preaching out there, unfortunately. I certainly don't consider myself Arminian, much less Pelagian, but I think the Bible does speaks clearly of free will.

But if the man was bound how could he reach out an take that grace? Didn't he need to be freed first?

Yes, through the moving of the Holy Spirit on his heart, the quickening. My understanding is that this is the restoring of the person to the free will that Adam had.

Man has the choice and God is then forced to abide by the choice of man..who is god in this situation?

Good argument. But I see it as a gift. God offers a gift. Some accept it, some don't. Does this make the gift-receivers god-like, or make God their debtor? I don't think so. For a Christian, the Gift was already offered and accepted, there is no debt. God is not "forced to abide" by the choice of the gift receiver, rather, the would-be gift-receiver is forced to choose between life and death. As Moses said, we should "choose life"

Do you allow God the same free will that you give to men? Can He determine what is just or must he wait for man to tell him?

God has determined what is just. He has since told us what our choices are. God is the God of Justice, and all our sense of Justice comes from Him. We cannot fully understand God, nor His justice. But we can read the choices written for us in His word.

Is it Mercy if man earns salvation by a correct choice?

What earns? Man is totally depraved, God quickens him, calls him, grants him the ability to make a choice to believe. If he believes, if he accepts the incredible free gift then he is saved. Not by works, not by offerings he makes, not even by obedience, just faith. The leap of faith is not a work. A choice is not a work.

As the Savior Jesus was willing to save all men(His blood was suffuicent to save all men.) But Jesus came here to do the will of the Father.

Jhn 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

The Father elects, Christ redeems, and the Holy Spirit applies redemptive grace to sinners.

That's interesting. I hadn't run across that yet, thanks for bringing it up. Of course, I immediately saw where the Father and the Son were willing two different things - an internally conflicted God? I'll have to think about that, though, I'm not dismissing it.

Here is an interesting passage:
Deuteronomy 18
18 'I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.
19 'It shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him.

Emphasis mine, of course, but seems to indicate to me an act of will. If the plan was to use the words the the Prophet (Jesus) to only save the elect, then wouldn't it have made more sense to write it: 'It shall come about that whoever I do not choose to listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him.

Good argument. But I see it as a gift. God offers a gift. Some accept it, some don't. Does this make the gift-receivers god-like, or make God their debtor? I don't think so.

Will God save every man that chooses correctly?
If you believe that then you have constrained God and made salvation the payment to man for choosing correctly ..God then owes man salvation.

A salvation not by grace. For the grace was applied after the work. God saw the man choose correctly so God then chose Him correct? Man has "free will" but God is bound by the decision of the man .

Man has more free will than God in this theology God can not refuse anyone He wants or save any that were not smart enough to make the correct choice

For a Christian, the Gift was already offered and accepted, there is no debt. God is not "forced to abide" by the choice of the gift receiver, rather, the would-be gift-receiver is forced to choose between life and death. As Moses said, we should "choose life"

You are misappling scripture here and I think you are aware of it..as this is about the taking of the land not about "choosing" salvation.

What earns? Man is totally depraved, God quickens him, calls him, grants him the ability to make a choice to believe. If he believes, if he accepts the incredible free gift then he is saved.

Sorry to burst your bubble , but you have men deciding to choose God . Seeing that all men have the grace in your belief all men are then spiritually alive , they are no longer spiritually dead. They are now able to do what a dead man can not do , save himself with his choice.

What makes one choose and not another? Is one smarter or more able? If it is Gods desire that all be saved why did he not freely give each man the amount of grace necesary to make an affirmative decision?

Not by works, not by offerings he makes, not even by obedience, just faith. The leap of faith is not a work. A choice is not a work

Where does one get the faith to believe?.

I think the Bible does speaks clearly of free will.

OK, I'll bite, where? Only once is the term free will used in scripture and it is not in the context of salvation.

Paul consistently teaches that salvation comes by faith

And where does that faith come from? Romans 9 clearly teaches it comes from Gods election.

the heathen who knew God (knew about his eternal power and divine nature) responded against God

And why is that? They knew! Clearly they are capable of understanding God's power. And yet they did not have faith, why? Again, the answer is in Romans 9.

That makes God the author of all sin.

Not hardly, but he allows sin to show his power, to thwart the evil one. (Reread Joseph being sold into slavery, when Jacob dies. His brothers are afraid that he will seek vengence. But how does Joseph respond? By showing how God rules over sin! Genesis 50: 19 But Joseph said to them, "Don't be afraid. Am I in the place of God? 20 You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. Now, don't confuse that with being the author of sin, but he uses sin to demonstate his power and glory. Read Job. Satan was powerless to harm Job unless God allowed it.

When Job cries out and questions God, he is quickly dressed down: (a scary prsopect indeed) Job 38 The LORD Speaks 1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said: 2 "Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? 3 Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.

And again Job 40 1 The LORD said to Job: 2 "Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? Let him who accuses God answer him!" 3 Then Job answered the LORD : 4 "I am unworthy-how can I reply to you? I put my hand over my mouth. 5 I spoke once, but I have no answer- twice, but I will say no more." 6 Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm: 7 "Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. 8 "Would you discredit my justice? Would you condemn me to justify yourself?

My computer was acting up so I couldn't finish, sorry!

Where were we....Oh yes,

Choosing a nation is quite different than individual salvation.

It's a common theme throughout. God chooses in all manner of situations, it's not limited to one aspect of the human expierience. And is it so different? Is it fair that we are born in America and others are born in countries where they have very little chance to hear the Gospel? No, that is all part of God's good will.

Eph 2:10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Heb 9:15 Therefore He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance...

This is an interesting point. Why would Calvinists pray that, seeing as how it is solely God's choice? Do they think their petitions will change God's election?

We pray to glorify God, to carry out his will. That is what we are taught in scripture. We pray as part of God's plan, to be his tool, to fulfill his will.

Rom 8:30 And those WHOM He predestined He also called; and those whom He called He also justified; and those whom He justified He also glorified.

Unfortunately, I fear you may have wandered into sophistry. Are brand new Christians more reliable guides as to the true nature of salvation?

I clearly did not develop my point enough, as the young people say "My bad!"

My point here is not that they have developed a theological insight, but they realize what wretched creatures they were at the time they were called. They realize that they were powerless to resist God's will.

made the choice to put my faith in Jesus

I challenge you to think back to when you came to Christ. Did you sit and examine the claims of Christ and come to a rational well thought out decision, much like when you buy a car insurance policy? I would guess when you when you heard the effectual call, and accepted Christ, you were devistated at your condition and came with a broken heart, much like my pool of water analogy? I may be wrong, but I have never had anyone answer otherwise. [Of course, there is always a first. ;-) ]

Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the Word of God: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed

The submission of my will was the hardest part to overcome.

And yet you did, why? Think back, were you really able to resist when the actual moment came?, All in God's time my Friend

1 Cor 12:3 Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus be cursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit.

II Cor 3:17-18 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into His likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

1 Pet 1:2 ....chosen and destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with His blood...

Gal 1:15-16 But when He who has set me apart before I was born, and has called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son to me, in order that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood.

The vast majority? How many is that, in both raw numbers and percentages?

Well, I have never seen a well designed scientific study on the matter, but I have talked to countless Christians, and I have never had one disagree with me.... When faced with scriptural proff, the all agree readily, they were drawn and powerless to resist.

John 1:12-13 But to all who received Him, who believed in His name, He gave power to become children of God; who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Again, any verses that point to free will will be fully considered....

I want to thank you for the patience and graciousness of your posts. I know I am "arguing," but much of it is more as an exploration than as trying to convince you of a belief I strongly hold, (although I couldn't blame you for thinking otherwise). I find this debate style helpful, I hope I'm not too tiresome. Anyway...

Will God save every man that chooses correctly? If you believe that then you have constrained God and made salvation the payment to man for choosing correctly ..God then owes man salvation.

I see what you are saying. It is a subtle disctinction. But to answer your question, I tentatively contend that yes, God will save every man that chooses correctly. But I don't see it as man constraining God, I see it as God constraining Himself. He is always faithful and just, and this is self-imposed constraint.

Salvation is not owed any man. To (over)simplify it, lets say I offer you a gift. You can either take it, or not. If you take it, do I then owe it to you? I want you to have it, but I'm not going to force you to take it. If you take it, how then am I constrained by your choice? You have submitted to my will, not vice-versa.

A salvation not by grace. For the grace was applied after the work. God saw the man choose correctly so God then chose Him correct? Man has "free will" but God is bound by the decision of the man .

There was certainly grace in the providing of the gift in the first place. There was no other way to ever get the gift. I could never earn the gift.

God can not refuse anyone He wants or save any that were not smart enough to make the correct choice

Again, my contention is that God does not refuse anyone, nor does He want to. Nor does He force anyone to become Christian. But, you do bring to mind Paul's conversion, and that was powerful, it would appear he receive more grace than some. I'm not sure how that fits in. But, I don't think election implies compulsion. Where is the faith, if I am perforce made a Christian?

And, I don't think I was mis-applying the "choose life" passage. Many think it was an intentionally doubled meaning.

Sorry to burst your bubble , but you have men deciding to choose God . Seeing that all men have the grace in your belief all men are then spiritually alive , they are no longer spiritually dead. They are now able to do what a dead man can not do , save himself with his choice.

Well, that's not exactly what I was saying. I agreed that all men are spiritually dead. That the Holy Spirit touches them, raising them to a status of free will - raising them to Adamic status, if you will. At that time, and only then, are they able to make a free-will choice to accept God's gift. So, we're up to double-grace - grace to have the gift available, grace to be quickened to be able to accept the gift. I see no room for boasting.

What makes one choose and not another? Is one smarter or more able? If it is Gods desire that all be saved why did he not freely give each man the amount of grace necesary to make an affirmative decision?

Excellent questions. Working backwards, had He given all men so much grace that they all accepted, how would that be different from compulsion? They would not be men, but robots. God wants our free-will faith. Why do some choose differently? I don't know. Love of themself, love of their sin, they think they don't need God. Certainly some are more blessed. Some of the blessing is passed down from previous generations - the blessing of the father's faith. Not a popular idea in our culture, where we feel every man deserves exactly the same amount of chance as everybody else. But supportable biblically.

Where does one get the faith to believe?.

You saved the best question for last. I don't know. I realize that if I answer "God," then I seem to be working against myself here. But how can it be anything other than God? If I say man, then I place man too high. Hmm. Perhaps, God placed within man the potential for faith, that is stirred during the quickening. Thus, the faith comes from God, but the grace is still not irrestible. If Paul had turned down the gift, God would have raised a different man.

Will God save every man that chooses correctly? If you believe that then you have constrained God and made salvation the payment to man for choosing correctly ..God then owes man salvation.

I see what you are saying. It is a subtle disctinction. But to answer your question, I tentatively contend that yes, God will save every man that chooses correctly. But I don't see it as man constraining God, I see it as God constraining Himself. He is always faithful and just, and this is self-imposed constraint.

Did God all through out the history of the bible choose for himself a special people? When did God change?

Salvation is not owed any man. To (over)simplify it, lets say I offer you a gift. You can either take it, or not. If you take it, do I then owe it to you? I want you to have it, but I'm not going to force you to take it. If you take it, how then am I constrained by your choice? You have submitted to my will, not vice-versa.

So it is not really a gift right? It is a promise of a gift until a man does the work of opening it?
How do we then deal with the cross as a completed act?
Was it complete then or is it only completed when a man is smart enough to open it?

A salvation not by grace. For the grace was applied after the work. God saw the man choose correctly so God then chose Him correct? Man has "free will" but God is bound by the decision of the man .
There was certainly grace in the providing of the gift in the first place. There was no other way to ever get the gift. I could never earn the gift.

But in a sense you did earn it. You unlike most men were smart enough to open the gift. If you had not worked then God would not or could not??

Again, my contention is that God does not refuse anyone, nor does He want to. Nor does He force anyone to become Christian. But, you do bring to mind Paul's conversion, and that was powerful, it would appear he receive more grace than some. I'm not sure how that fits in. But, I don't think election implies compulsion. Where is the faith, if I am perforce made a Christian?

The bible is a book that is replete with God choosing men. Is that a different God?

Well, that's not exactly what I was saying. I agreed that all men are spiritually dead. That the Holy Spirit touches them, raising them to a status of free will - raising them to Adamic status, if you will. At that time, and only then, are they able to make a free-will choice to accept God's gift. So, we're up to double-grace - grace to have the gift available, grace to be quickened to be able to accept the gift. I see no room for boasting.

If God is giving the grace to all men to raise them to the Ademic level why did He put man under the curse at all? It seems the curse serves a spiritual purpose. But you are saying that none of mankind today is under that curse spiritually.That being the case we must have produced at least one sinless man in all the time since the fall...could you point me to him?

I am sorry Fact but it does seem to me that you have plenty to boast about. You took the grace and used it while so many squander it..God owes you that promise

Excellent questions. Working backwards, had He given all men so much grace that they all accepted, how would that be different from compulsion? They would not be men, but robots. God wants our free-will faith.

Could you give me a citation on that ?

Why do some choose differently? I don't know. Love of themself, love of their sin, they think they don't need God. Certainly some are more blessed. Some of the blessing is passed down from previous generations - the blessing of the father's faith. Not a popular idea in our culture, where we feel every man deserves exactly the same amount of chance as everybody else. But supportable biblically.

You are correct on that, so you think all men have the same opportunity to open the gift but some are more equal than others?

Where does one get the faith to believe?.
You saved the best question for last. I don't know. I realize that if I answer "God," then I seem to be working against myself here. But how can it be anything other than God? If I say man, then I place man too high. Hmm. Perhaps, God placed within man the potential for faith, that is stirred during the quickening. Thus, the faith comes from God, but the grace is still not irrestible. If Paul had turned down the gift, God would have raised a different man.

I always save the best question till last. Of course saving faith is a gift from God. It is listed as a spiritual gift is it not?
We know that faith itself does not save. It is what (or who)the faith is in that saves. So the faith that leads men to repentance is God given, without it men can not be saved.

2Ti 2:25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;

If saving faith is a gift from God then it is clear that all men do not have equal access to it.

So now my closing question fact.
Would you please define two words for me?
Grace and Mercy

OK, I'll bite, where? Only once is the term free will used in scripture and it is not in the context of salvation.

I'm not saying the term itself is used... the term Trinity isn't in the bible either. But I think the teaching is there.

"Choose life" Deut 30:15-18

"choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: ... as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." Josh 24:15

"You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit" Acts 7:51

"Why do you call me Lord & don't do what I say" Luke 6:46

"Whosoever believes shall be saved" John 3:16 (as opposed to 'whosoever I choose shall believe???')

"Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. Rev 22:17

"And whosoever will not receive you, when you go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them." Luke 9:5

"Come to me you who are heavy laden and I will give you rest" Matt 11:28

When Job cries out and questions God, he is quickly dressed down: (a scary prospect indeed)

Quite scary. I don't think I am questioning God, this isn't an issue of theodicy. I seek to understand what God has said, as accurately as possible. I seek to understand the nature of salvation - if ever there was a more important question, I'm not sure what it would be. I don't think God would dress us down for searching the scripture to measure theological doctrines.

Eph 2:10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Not trying to be obtuse, but I don't see the connection. What was created beforehand? Us, or the good works? Seems like maybe the good works, since we would be awkward to say we walk in ourselves. Perhaps the two clauses have different objects... but, aren't we created in Christ Jesus when we are saved, and not before?

Heb 9:15 Therefore He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance...

And if I contend that all are called, but not all choose, it wouldn't contradict this verse. Interestingly, my bible cross-references this verse to Matthew 22:3
"And he sent out his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding feast, and they were unwilling to come. "

would guess when you when you heard the effectual call, and accepted Christ, you were devistated at your condition and came with a broken heart, much like my pool of water analogy?

Well, yes, the pool of water does more accurately reflect it. But there was also a tension - an inner conflict, the urge to both do it, and the urge not to do it. It seemed balanced on the edge of a knife, with my soul in the balance. It also seems I chose, and as soon as I did, I felt the water of the pool rushing over and thru me.

And, as I told Rnmomof7, I want to thank you for bearing with me in this discussion.

Did God all through out the history of the bible choose for himself a special people? When did God change?

Yes, He did. And required of them faith, obedience, trust. Many of their blessings were contigent. You raise an interesting point though, I guess I need to do a word search in the NT for "chosen," see what turns ups.

Matthew 22:14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."

Romans 11:7 "What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;"

Colossians 3:12 So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience;

2 Thessalonians 2:13 "But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth."

2 Timothy 2:10 "For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory.

Revelation 17:14 "These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful."

Hmm, I have to concede the Christians are often called "chosen" in the NT. Although the Matthew passage seems to clearly say there is a distinction between being called and being chosen. But it doesn't say "all" are called, either. So now we have three groups, the uncalled, the called-but-not-chosen, and the called-and-chosen. Feels like we're backing up here...

It is a promise of a gift until a man does the work of opening it?

No opening was required, just acceptance.

But you are saying that none of mankind today is under that curse spiritually.That being the case we must have produced at least one sinless man in all the time since the fall...could you point me to him?

I definitely did not say that - I said quite the opposite.

God owes you that promise

Did God "owe" the Israelites? Does God "owe" on every promise He made?

so you think all men have the same opportunity to open the gift but some are more equal than others?

Not all receive the same opportunity. Each is judged according to the opportunity received. Even those who have not heard the gospel have received enough opportunity that they are condemned. (Romans 1).

If saving faith is a gift from God then it is clear that all men do not have equal access to it.

Faith is a gift from God. But a gift doesn't have to be accepted.

And I've run out of time for the day. See you tomorrow!

And, as I told Rnmomof7, I want to thank you for bearing with me in this discussion.

No need for thanks. I find this a very stimulating exercise!

I know I come across strongly, but I have come to the point in my walk where I take this very seriously. I used to be a free willer, but reading scripture with a neutral mind has changed that.

Believe it or not I go home at night and reread these posts to see if I am missing something from your perspective. I trust you are finding it stimulating as well. The important thing to remember is this: Our salvation is in Christ.

My church is Reformed in theology, but free willers are welcome into full membership, to partake in the Lord's Supper, and to be baptized according their belief (age wise that is, we do sprinkle, no one has yet asked to be dunked so stay tuned).

The only limitation is officers must accept the scripture as described in The Westminster Confession. Actually, we are more tolerant to opposing views than some free will churches. (I'm not going to name names)

Now then, lets look at your quote in Ephesians. You quote Eph 2:10. Who is the writer addressing?

Eph 2:1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved. 6And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7 in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

He is clearly talking to those who are saved. Again why are we saved? Well, verse 10 indicates that God already had the plan for those of us who are saved. Using my own argument, why are some saved and others not? Again, Romans seems to spell it out quite clearly:

Romans 9:10 Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger."

Also here:

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. 7What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. {What's that? Isreal wanted it, but only the elect got it? Is that free will?} The others were hardened, {Hardened? What happened to free will}8 as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day."

---------

Heb 9:15 Therefore He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance... And if I contend that all are called, but not all choose, it wouldn't contradict this verse.

Actually it doesn't say all are called, but those who are called, sounds exclusive, not inclusive. This verse clearly reflects those who are effectually called, according to (here's that word again) predestination.

Matthew 22:3 shows that others may be called, but will not accept. Again, who are they and why do they not answer? God choose them!

Romans 8:28: And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

I would wager a cold coke I know what you will say here, but I'll wait and see.

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.