Posted on 02/28/2010 8:30:39 AM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
John Calvin's 16th century reply to medieval Catholicism's buy-your-way-out-of-purgatory excesses is Evangelicalism's latest success story, complete with an utterly sovereign and micromanaging deity, sinful and puny humanity, and the combination's logical consequence, predestination: the belief that before time's dawn, God decided whom he would save (or not), unaffected by any subsequent human action or decision.
Calvinism, cousin to the Reformation's other pillar, Lutheranism, is a bit less dour than its critics claim: it offers a rock-steady deity who orchestrates absolutely everything, including illness (or home foreclosure!), by a logic we may not understand but don't have to second-guess. Our satisfaction — and our purpose — is fulfilled simply by "glorifying" him. In the 1700s, Puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards invested Calvinism with a rapturous near mysticism. Yet it was soon overtaken in the U.S. by movements like Methodism that were more impressed with human will. Calvinist-descended liberal bodies like the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) discovered other emphases, while Evangelicalism's loss of appetite for rigid doctrine — and the triumph of that friendly, fuzzy Jesus — seemed to relegate hard-core Reformed preaching (Reformed operates as a loose synonym for Calvinist) to a few crotchety Southern churches.
No more. Neo-Calvinist ministers and authors don't operate quite on a Rick Warren scale. But, notes Ted Olsen, a managing editor at Christianity Today, "everyone knows where the energy and the passion are in the Evangelical world" — with the pioneering new-Calvinist John Piper of Minneapolis, Seattle's pugnacious Mark Driscoll and Albert Mohler, head of the Southern Seminary of the huge Southern Baptist Convention. The Calvinist-flavored ESV Study Bible sold out its first printing, and Reformed blogs like Between Two Worlds are among cyber-Christendom's hottest links.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
“Calvinism, when taken at its core, is exactly the polar opposite of the idea that any man can be assured of his salvation, no matter what kind of life he leads, or what his outward spiritual life has been or what decisions he has made. In the Calvinistic world how a man lives his life is ultimately irrelevant to his standing before God.”
That sounds like the old “sin boldly” argument that Paul in romans 5 and 6 took care of. At a point in time we were justified; adjudged right with God; innocent; clothed in Jesus’ rightness; in Christ. How did we get that standing; by the grace of God and incorporated in that graciousness was our salvation by the instrument of faith which was a part of God’s graciousness. Once judged innocent the judgment cannot be annulled since it is based, not on our doings, but on Christ’s obedience; his righteousness.
We were dead in trespasses and sins and that same power that resurrected Christ quickened us. The dead do not have the power or the inclination to live again. They are dead. And just as Paul was chosen on the road to Damascus and those with him weren’t, so God in His infinite wisdom and grace has mercy on whom He will have mercy.
On the other hand, if it is left up to sinful man then one will never know his standing for ‘”Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus says, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.”
But herein lies the rub, BD. If you are not numbered among the elect, there is really no way to tell. You can pray every day, tithe, cry out for mercy and call upon the name of the Lord, and under the Calvinistic Theological construct, you still can not be assured of your salvation. These choices you make to be holy may be nothing more than a vain attempt by a reprobate to avoid Hell, or to achieve heaven and the person engaging in this outward manifestation of holiness can never know if his heart was changed by God enabling him to engage in these good works or if he is merely attempting to work his way into a salvation that he has not been elected to receive.
To the Calvinist, mercy is not conditioned upon any act a person can do, so there is no way to determine if the act is motivated by a new heart or a reprobate mind.
How in the Calvinistic construct can any man say with assurance that he is saved?
The promise is clear. If a person has been given Trinitarian faith in Jesus Christ, then that person is obviously among God's children. Faith is the evidence of our salvation, not a requirement for it. Faith is a gift. Everything we have are free gifts from God to whom He will.
When I was first coming to the doctrine of grace I thought evangelism might be difficult, too.
But it's just the opposite. It simplifies the preaching of the Gospel because it gives every single bit of the glory to God, from first to last. Christ is truly the author and finisher of our faith.
In the Calvinistic world how a man lives his life is ultimately irrelevant to his standing before God.
That's ridiculous. In the Calvinistic world the redeemed live their lives by the teaching and leading of the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit. Those who have not been redeemed, don't. They live the exact lives they want to live. No one deprives them of anything. They are who and what all men would be without the grace of God.
Arminianism is ego. Short and simple. Arminianism says a man does something to merit salvation. And that idea is anathema to true Christianity because CHRIST is the only merit of salvation. His obedience saves us when our own fails. HIS righteousness saves us because our own is lacking. HIS good work on the cross justifies us because ALL MEN ARE FALLEN AND NOT CAN MERIT SALVATION.
If you reject the formula that "all those who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved,"
Who rejects that? That statement is 100% true. Every person who calls upon the name of the Lord as God and Savior will be saved. Period.
Arminians presume they call upon the Lord through something good within themselves with the aid of the Holy Spirit.
Calvinism, true Christianity teaches that no man can come to Christ unless they are drawn by God.
Arminians are either left with universalism or an impotent God. Two very unlikely postulates. Whatever is, is what God wants at any particular point in time. Or things would be different. He's not Charlton Heston. He's God.
Therefore no man can state that he is saved, nor can anyone pass judgment on whether or not some person
All Trinitarian Christians can have a reasonable confidence that they are saved because God has told us that is the emblem of His people -- faith in Jesus Christ.
God also tells us that while we have indications of other people's natures by the evidence or lack of any good fruit in their lives, we are not to judge other men's salvation because none of us knows another's heart nor do any of us know what tomorrow will bring. The atheist today could well be the believer tomorrow. It all depends on where God leads him.
Calvinism is the consistent preaching of the Gospel. In this day and age, that's rare. It's no wonder people "recoil" at it. Men have recoiled from the truth for centuries, preferring instead to think their own righteousness will save them when all it does is to reveal a boastful pride.
"...On the basis of any teaching rightfully calling itself Christian the active and passive obedience of Christ emerges as the only basis of our spiritual and eternal life. Since the demand that sin must be punished was met by Him in His representative capacity, justice was not injured; and since His life of perfect obedience to the moral law was also rendered in His representative capacity, the gift of spiritual cleansing and of eternal life is now conferred upon His people as their right and privilege. He saves them from hell, and establishes them in heaven. There is no blessing in this world or in the next for which they should not give Christ thanks."
Meant to ping you to 203, too.
Article 17: The Salvation of the Infants of Believers Since we must make judgments about God's will from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.So, what the Presbyters at the Synod of Dordt were referring to is from 1 Corinthians 1:12-16. Specifically to verse 14.[emphasis mine]
For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. (ESV)So, I used two different English translations to make a point. Paul, here, is actually talking specifically about who should marry whom and who should remain married to whom in the church, when, after conversion there is an unequal yoking in the marriage resultant of getting married when both were unbelievers. Without getting too deep into the whole Greek of the verse, the word in question here is translated holy or sanctified in different English translations. Fact is, both are correct, it's more a matter of usage than of the actual word that is the issue (since neither sanctified nor holy are words with a single meaning and, in English, are words dependent upon their usage in Scriptural text anyhow. That is, the words only exist in English because they exist in Hebrew and Greek Scripture dependent upon where and how they are used). So:
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. (NASB)
For the unbelieving husband is made holy (ἡγίασται - set apart from others) because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy (ἡγίασται - set apart from others) because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy (ἅγιά - pure, purity that is revered).Now, this is the only time that the holiness (in the sense of purity) of children is directly addressed in the Bible. A child of one believing parent and one unbelieving parent is set apart and pure because of the holiness of the one believing parent. It follows, then, that the same is true, and better understood as sure, that the children of two believers are holy (in the sense of purity). This does not advocate the holiness of the unbelieving spouse, only that they are set apart by God for the sake of the believing spouse and the children.
Because the relation or state is sanctified by the holiness of either party: For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife by the husband (v. 14), or hath been sanctified. The relation itself, and the conjugal use of each other, are sanctified to the believer. "To the pure all things are pure," Tit. 1:15. Marriage is a divine institution; it is a compact for life, by God’s appointment. Had converse and congress with unbelievers in that relation defiled the believer, or rendered him or her offensive to God, the ends of marriage would have been defeated, and the comforts of it in a manner destroyed, in the circumstances in which Christians then were. But the apostle tells them that, though they were yoked with unbelievers, yet, if they themselves were holy, marriage was to them a holy state, and marriage comforts, even with an unbelieving relative, were sanctified enjoyments.
"Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy" (v. 14), that is, they would be heathen, out of the pale of the church and covenant of God. They would not be of the holy seed (as the Jews are called, Isa. 6:13), but common and unclean, in the same sense as heathens in general were styled in the apostle’s vision, Acts 10:28. This way of speaking is according to the dialect of the Jews, among whom a child begotten by parents yet heathens, was said to be begotten out of holiness; and a child begotten by parents made proselytes was said to be begotten intra sanctitatem—within the holy enclosure. Thus Christians are called commonly saints; such they are by profession, separated to be a peculiar people of God, and as such distinguished from the world; and therefore the children born to Christians, though married to unbelievers, are not to be reckoned as part of the world, but of the church, a holy, not a common and unclean seed.
1. We bear the stain of Original Sin. That is, from birth we are the spiritual progeny of Adam and face the problem of separation from God. (Psalm 51:5, Genesis 8:21, Romans 5:12)
2. God is absolutely sovereign in salvation. (this is where the necessarily Reformed understanding starts) We do not deserve salvation and there is nothing that we can do to earn salvation. We are completely hopeless to be saved apart from the work that God does to save us. We are dead in our sin. We are, by nature, children of wrath, who by our nature deserve only wrath. Our salvation is wholly a gift of grace. (Romans 8:7-8, Hebrews 11:6, Ephesians 2:3, Romans 9:14-16, John 6:44-45, and a lot more)
3. Further, salvation in dependent on God's elective decree. That is, through no work of our own and in no ways knowing the details of this hidden will (that is, we don't know men's hearts nor do we know the names of the elect) God saves who he will save. (Romans 8:28-33, Exodus 33:19, Romans 9:10-13, Matthew 22:1-14, Luke 12:27-32, John 15:13-19, Acts 13:48, and others)
4. Jesus is the only Savior. There is no salvation without Christ. (John 14:6)
5. The redeemed are justified and spend eternity in heaven and the unregenerate receive just punishment in hell. (John 6:39, Revelation 20:11-15)
"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil." 2 Corinthians 5:10But, what about infants? Do small children commit such sins in their body? Well, truth is, I don't know if we can be sure. But there is Biblical evidence that they do not and are thus not going to be judged according to what they have done in the body. One example is from Deuteronomy Chapter 1:34-39
"...and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done" Revelation 20:13b
"And the LORD heard your words and was angered, and he swore, 'Not one of these men of this evil generation shall see the good land that I swore to give to your fathers, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh. He shall see it, and to him and to his children I will give the land on which he has trodden, because he has wholly followed the LORD!' Even with me the LORD was angry on your account and said, 'You also shall not go in there. Joshua the son of Nun, who stands before you, he shall enter. Encourage him, for he shall cause Israel to inherit it. And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it. But as for you, turn, and journey into the wilderness in the direction of the Red Sea.'Now, the above passage is really important to us with a covenantal view of eschatology (amil, post-mil, and historic pre-mil). The reason is because we see all prophecy in the Old Testament as being fulfilled in and through Christ, NOW. And that his millennial reign is NOW. All the promises of Scripture are answered "Yes" in Christ ("For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory." - 2 Cor. 1:20). That includes the land promise to Israel. In Christ we don't look for an earthly plot of land, but a heavenly one, found in Him for all that are in Him (Hebrews 11:13-16, 39-40). So, I believe that when God promised the Promised Land, he was foretelling eternity through Christ. The Land was but a shadow. When He promised that "your little ones... who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there" He was foretelling that the innocent children would see eternity in Christ.
"And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, "Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them." - Mark 10:13-16Now, I understand that this passage is explaining how someone must be if they are to be saved. But, in explaining this Jesus tells us how he views children. In short, God sees the children as innocent - able to enter into the kingdom, nay, inheritors of the kingdom. That is what Paul calls us: adopted children - inheritors of the Kingdom of God. Also, refer to the Deuteronomy passage. Only the children (without blame) could enter the land - now only those like children (without blame) can enter the kingdom.
No, not all children. All children that die having no knowledge of good or evil (i.e. - those that die in infancy, incapable of understanding due to disability, etc...).
This does not apply to those that don't die without the knowledge of good and evil.
Let me explain a bit, so that there is a seperation made. God chooses according to his will and according to his purpose, not because of anything that we have done or may do to earn the merit of his choice. From before time began God made his choice. Some that he chose have and/or will grow up and come to Christ in faith, their sins being covered. Some will die in infancy and because they have no knowledge of good and evil they are saved by the same faith through the same grace. The technicalities of that, I don't understand and the Bible doesn't speak to it. God will do as he will. What I do believe is that those who die innocent of sin because they do not have the cognitive ability to know sin are of the elect. Of all those who will grow up, some are elect some aren't.
As far as assurance of the infants (et al.) we (Reformed) are convinced of their assured salvation from what God describes as the elect in the Bible. We are justified, found not guilty, innocent of sin.
God's sovereign choice is what makes the infants (et al.) innocent. That is to say, they are not saved because they die innocent. Instead, they die innocent because God elects them to salvation and according to his purpose they die as infants (or without knowledge of good and evil). His Sovereignty allows us to understand they are all in his hands according to his will.
No, that is not what I'm saying. What you are missing is God's sovereignty, I think. Or, at least, you have a different view of sovereignty and omnipotence than I do.
No. God saves according to his will. This has nothing to do with whether or not the child has sinned or knows of sin. It has everything to do with his will and his purpose. That they do not sin or never knew of sin is because it is according to God's will and purpose that they die without that knowledge.
No. The normal rules of salvation always apply. Salvation, that is, being found justified is wholly dependent upon God. Whether this "formula" is applied to an unborn child or a 56 year old man doesn't matter. God predestines to salvation, God calls, God justifies, God glorifies by grace through faith in Christ Jesus. This he always does for the good of those who love him, those who love him are those he calls. (Romans 8:28-33)
I believe the issue is that you are unclear on the sovereignty of God. God is sovereign, perfectly sovereign. Nothing, absolutely nothing, happens except that he allows it and accomplishes it according to his purpose. A bird can't expire except that it does so according to God's good will and purpose.Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? And not one of them is forgotten before God. Why, even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not; you are of more value than many sparrows. (Luke 12:6-7)A child does not die in infancy except that he dies according to God's good will and purpose.
Now, I believe that a child that dies in infancy, according to God's purpose is elect. Not because they have not sinned, but because they are elect. Nothing extra. They are not elect because they haven't sinned. They are not covered in grace because they are in infancy. They are in God's grace because they are. They are because that is God's sovereign choice.
As for evidence of their election and all the proofs I gave for it... that evidence is for us and for our comfort. This is not assurance and comfort that they need, for they are already in the eternal comfort of Christ. I don't believe that they are elect because they know no sin. I believe that they never knew sin before dying because they were always elect and they died according to God's choice and purpose.
There is no age when they are no longer elect. I believe that if they aren't elect they won't die in infancy, ever. If they die in infancy it's because they are elect and it is according to God's will that they never know sin.
To be completely honest, I don't know. At first I would say they stand condemned for the sins they have committed in the flesh, and I think that that is a perfectly accurate Biblical statement."And when the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, "I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done. (Genesis 21:8 - post flood promise)And I think that this understanding rightly gives us the sense of urgency to "Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it." (Proverb 22:6) But, here's the thing... I can't speak to that with full confidence. I can't know a child's heart just as I can't know any man's except for by the fruits produced. If I see, still in a child, a sense of innocence even in their elementary understanding of good and evil then I am forced to conclude (by my heart, not by Scripture) that they are innocent. Should they die with this innocence then all I said about infants that die in infancy may apply.
But, I don't think that that is completely accurate. I lean more towards the former than the latter, and very heavily towards the former because I know that there is Scriptural basis for it. Some children at the age of 5, 6, 7, or whatever will die condemned, I think.
My limited sense of justice is not God's. To me it may seem unjust, but if it is just (and I believe it more likely is than not) I have to understand that it is my sinful nature that understands justice different than what justice truly is. In my sinful nature I may see innocence where there is none. But, at the same time, in my limited, but guided understanding, I may be seeing innocence where there actually is innocence. I don't know.
In the end, I trust God's electing Grace and I understand that no-one, no-one, deserves the free gift of salvation (not even my beautiful little son). I know that I am used as a vessel to bring people to God in Christ and my first priority, above all others, is my family. I do have a sense of urgency to see my son saved. But, when I pray I pray that my son is saved and that it is done according to the will of God.
Obviously? Really? That would mean that every Catholic who regularly posts on the Religion Forum would be among God's Children. So why would we be so adamant about confronting Catholic Dogma if the simple act of expressing Trinitarian Faith is sufficient to ensure that we are numbered among the elect? Seems like a waste of time and energy to confront any heresy that is not a direct challenge to Trinitarian Faith?
Every person who calls upon the name of the Lord as God and Savior will be saved. Period.
Again if that is true, then why should we concern ourselves over minutiae on dogma and doctrine? We should just be seeking to make sure that everyone has Trinitarian Faith and calls upon the name of the Lord and if they express that, then we should just praise God and move on.
Calvinism, true Christianity teaches that no man can come to Christ unless they are drawn by God.
Even Arminians believe that. So why should we argue about whether Calvinism is true or Arminianism is true. As you stated above, the true test is not whether we accept some specific doctrinal position, but whether we have Trinitarian Faith and that we call upon the name of the Lord. Whether that Faith and call saves us or is simply evidence of our Salvation appears to be irrelevant.
Most of us don't have time for the "long replies". Just give us the Readers Digest version.
I, for one, do not read responses that don't fit on a single screen on my computer. Sorry, but I don't. I doubt if most people do.
That’s a strange comment. The guy takes the time and makes the effort to present his position and you’re too busy to read it.
It’s just a fact. I don’t read excessively long posts. Sorry.
Roman Catholics have shown consistently that they put Mary on the cross with Jesus, thereby believing in at least a quadrarian faith.
Why should we argue Calvinism over Arminianism?
Because we are commanded to preach the Gospel with as much truth and clarity as we can. And predestination and unconditional election are taught in the Scriptures.
Not only that, but understanding predestination makes life truly better. Every Calvinist I've ever known (except maybe for Jean Chauvin) was first an Arminian through adulthood. And then, by God's grace, they came to the richer perspective of Calvinism. And to a one, these people will tell you their lives are happier, more productive, more secure, more gratifying, more God-glorifying for it.
To a one.
It's the difference between work and grace.
[insert my long reply]
It just seemed kind of a rude response. Like our RC friends when say they prefer the Gospel as told to them by Rome over reading it for themselves in the Bible. 8~)
And the fact that infants are saved should tell our Arminian and Roman Catholic FRiends that faith is not the requirement for salvation.
Grace is the requirement. The only one.
FWIW, when you post a 2000 word essay, the conversation ceases to be a conversation. Long posts are conversation killers. You cover so much ground that a brief response becomes impossible. Just get to the point.
We were dead in trespasses and sins and that same power that resurrected Christ quickened us. The dead do not have the power or the inclination to live again. They are dead. And just as Paul was chosen on the road to Damascus and those with him weren’t, so God in His infinite wisdom and grace has mercy on whom He will have mercy.
AMEN!
Music.
Believe in Christ, not an icon of Christ.
I asked if there is any Reformed Confession that states that all children (not merely elect children) are saved? Now maybe you believe it, but it is not Calvinistic dogma. Many Calvinists may believe it, but it is not part and parcel to TULIP. Indeed, to make the claim is to deny God's soverignty as most Calvinists proclaim it. If Esau had died as a child, would he have been saved? Be honest.
Please read Luther...
"Furthermore, I have the comfortable certainty that I please God, not by reason of the merit of my works, but by reason of His merciful favour promised to me; so that, if I work too little, or badly, He does not impute it to me, but with fatherly compassion pardons me and makes me better. This is the glorying of all the saints in their God." -- Martin Luther, "Bondage of the Will" -- (xviii) Of the comfort of knowing that salvation does not depend on free-will' (783) "I frankly confess that, for myself, even if it could be, I should not want 'free-will' to be given me, nor anything to be left in my own hands to enable me to endeavour after salvation; not merely because in face of so many dangers, and adversities, and assaults of devils, I could not stand my ground and hold fast my 'free-will' (for one devil is stronger than all men, and on these terms no man could be saved) ; but because, even were there no dangers, adversities, or devils, I should still be forced to labour with no guarantee of success, and to beat my fists at the air. If I lived and worked to all eternity, my conscience would never reach comfortable certainty as to how much it must do to satisfy God, Whatever work I had done, there would still be a nagging doubt' as to whether it pleased God, or whether He required something more. The experience of all who seek righteousness by works proves that; and I learned it well enough myself over a period of many years, to my own great hurt. But now that God has taken my salvation out of the control of my own will, and put it under the control of His, and promised to save me, not according to my working or running, but according to His own grace and mercy, I have the comfort¬able certainty that He is faithful and will not lie to me, and that He is also great and powerful, so that no devils or opposition can break Him or pluck me from Him. `No one,´ He says, `shall pluck them out of my hand, because my Father which gave them me is greater than all´ (John 10.28-29). Thus it is that, if not all, yet some, indeed many, are saved; whereas, by the power of ´free-will´ none at all could be saved, but every one of us would perish.
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.