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 ...
“That doesn’t make your position wrong but it certainly should give you pause that you are outside of orthodox Christianity.”
If I were outside orthodox Christianity, there would be a simple scriptural refutation of my position. That is the implication of Sola Scriptura - if it is critical, it is clearly taught in scripture.
The fact that I’m still waiting for a single verse that explicitly and clearly teaches that faith is a gift we receive after being born again should give you pause.
It is true Arminians don’t produce lots of Systematic Theology texts. This may be because we consider evangelizing more important than theorizing. It may also indicate we trust the clarity of scripture.
What God has done for us is clearly and repeatedly shown in scripture - it doesn’t take a theology degree to understand. However, it would take a lot of theorizing to pull our salvation by election from scripture, when it so clearly contradicts the text.
“1 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.” - Romans 5
Are we justified by having our name on a list, being regenerated thru the secret process of God, and then given faith? Or have we been justified by faith?
Does faith give us access (”the ability, right, or permission to approach, enter, speak with, or use; admittance”) to grace in which we stand?
The problem isn’t that Calvinists have all the answers, but that they have the wrong ones. They’ve studied theology to the neglect of reading the Word of God.
From just the first 3 chapters of John, to keep it short...is believing something we do, or something God does to us? Is our belief in response to God, or is it something irresistibly given to us by God? Are there reasons for our belief, or does it just pop into us?
Jhn 1:7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him.
Jhn 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
Jhn 1:50 Jesus answered him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these.”
Jhn 2:11 This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.
Jhn 2:22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.
Jhn 2:23-24 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was doing. But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people
Jhn 3:12 “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
Jhn 3:15 “that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
Jhn 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Jhn 3:18 “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
Jhn 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
“don’t worry x, I don’t think anybody noticed”
worry x, I’m saving it.
p.s. Thanks for the tab. Now if I can work the cramps out of my fingers and play it just a bit faster than a dirge K might recognize it.
What is your definition of belief and faith? You seem to say they are not “work” and yet all of the definitions I can find say they require knowledge and reasoning.
You’ve said they are active in response to xzins question “active or passive” and that would seem to be work. Dr.Eckleburg pointed out that “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God” and that implies hearing and reasoning and that would seem to be work.
What is meant by the words ‘work’ & ‘works’, in scripture, varies with the author.
In the Gospels, it usually refers to what Jesus does to demonstrate who he is.
Paul uses it as ‘works of the law’ - good deeds done to earn the approval of God. I think one of the most revealing passages is this one:
Gal 3:2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?
It is receiving the Holy Spirit that marks one a Christian, and how does one receive the Holy Spirit? Not by doing works of the law - as Paul points out later, “For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.””
No one receives the Holy Spirit by obeying the law of Moses, but how? “By hearing with faith”.
Our faith is not unreasonable, but neither does reason take us all the way. Jesus did many great works - miracles - and not all believed. Yet Jesus didn’t hesitate to give evidence that would encourage belief:
“27Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” 28Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Believing is contrasted with works of the law. The latter is man trying to force God to approve, while the previous is God’s gift to man.
Not all work is bad. We have been born again to do good works.
“8For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”
Saved by grace thru faith, we are born again to do good works - but those works are the fruit of our new birth, not the cause. All we can do is believe the word of God, and accept his gift of salvation. We obtain access by faith into this grace in which we stand...
There is only one verse in scripture that I know of that refers to believing as a ‘work’, and there it is said to be the ‘work’ God requires. There are no other verses that I know of where believing is described as a ‘work’ in the sense that Paul uses works.
Yes, but FK we need things, God doesn't, by definition. We need love, God doesn't. What would God do to the himself as an act of self love? And we all recognize that self-love is not love. Ergo, God seems to have fulfilled his purpose by creating us so he would have someone to love and someone to love him. I realize this is radical and "OMG" sort of thing, but if you think about it, what good is having all the love in you if you can't give it?
“What is meant by the words ‘work’ & ‘works’, in scripture, varies with the author”
I didn’t ask you what works were. I asked you for your definition of believe and faith. Does your definition include the gathering of facts and reasoning based on those facts?
believe: “to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so”
faith: “confidence or trust in a person or thing”
dictionary.com
“What is your definition of belief and faith? You seem to say they are not “work” and yet all of the definitions I can find say they require knowledge and reasoning.”
I answered your objection. You should know the standard definitions of believe and faith without my looking it up for you.
As Lord Protector of the Fraternal Order of the Knights of the Eternal Time Table, I have unconditionally elected thee to the High Council Honorary Title of "Keeper of the Forest".
BD is our Keeper of the Institutes, but I have this funny feeling that he may have misplaced the personally autographed copy which we all broke down and cashed in our beer cans to buy last year. I only hope you can take better care of the Forest than our Keeper of the Institutes did with the personally autographed copy of the Institutes.
Neener Neener Neener.
N3
{!}
And let us not forget the lessons of Matthew 25. If the wedding guests were Calvinists, they would not only have all been there without having to be called, there would be nobody who refused to come or, when they had come, nobody would have been found unfit and had to be thrown out.
No doubt you were predestined to do so.
BD is our Keeper of the Institutes, but I have this funny feeling that he may have misplaced the personally autographed copy which we all broke down and cashed in our beer cans to buy last year.
If the beer supplied extends to Guinness and schokolade stout, would there be any openings for a Knight of Columbus?
Sorry.
No food fight for me!
No. She not a very good tennis player. She's pretty easy to beat.
Now, do you have a scripture for your prior assertion?
Actually, the Reformers emphasized the dichotomy between Law and Gospel. You keep missing the import of that "through" phrase. If one wants to actually understand Paul's theology they won't just cherry pick a singular proof text to fit their construct instead they will be more diligent and search his other writings like a good Protestant would and allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. If one does that they find that Paul describes this dichotomy more thoroughly in Romans which makes clear the Law/Gospel dichotomy.
But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets; even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for those who believe; for their is no distinctionsSo this verse clearly distinguishes between Law and Gospel because "the righteousness of God has been manifested" is obviously Christ and the fact that he perfectly obeyed the Law and predicted by the Prophets. Then again we see that "through" term but before that the "righteousness of God". So Paul clearly states that it is not the Law that saves but the righteousness of Christ that saves and since that is an alien righteousness we need some device by which we can receive that righteousness but obviously that device cannot be the thing that saves but only the means by which to get to what actually saves, Christ!
Good grief!
The law and faith ARE contrasted! Salvation by the Law would require total obedience, which none can give. However, we are justified by faith:
27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
And no, it isn’t some nebulous faith that justifies us, but faith in Jesus Christ!
So...what is your problem with that? As it says, we “are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.”
What do you think you are arguing against?
The Biblical concept of faith seems to connote the notion of three components: notitia (understanding the content of the Christian faith), fiducia (trust), and assensus (the assent of the intellect to the truth of a Biblical proposition). It seems to involve the compatibility that faith and reason are nonhostile to each other. They, in fact, work together to a condition of placing trust in the knowledge and understanding. Belief in rests on belief that. Biblically, faith is not a blind, irrational leap into the dark. Faith and reason cooperate on a Biblical view of faith.
Belief, as differentiated from knowledge, in that one may have a belief, completely divested from reality, while knowledge is a warranted true belief. This is exhaustively discussed by Alvin Plantinga in his discussion of warranted true belief in its true, properly functioning (as it ought) in the proper environment for which it was designed.
It is true, that in a Christian worldview, the reality of God's statement, 'faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word,' is understandable only in the Christian worldview. The atheist will not assent to the truth of God and therefore makes argument ineffectual when engaging the atheist.
But to your specific reference of 'work', it does seem that to preach the gospel to a 6 month old will not result in a warranted knowledge, nor assent to belief in some concept which they do not understand. If, however one preaches that same gospel to a 30 year old and that persons, 'hears' the Word, understands that Word, assents to that understanding, and claims faith in that more sure Promise of the Word, they are Christian (orthodox, Christian). Are those 'acts', works?
I'm arguing against your natural theology that believes that your own self-initiated faith is what saves you. The effective cause of your salvation is the "righteousness of God" and not your faith. The righteousness of God, Christ, applies all the benefits of salvation including faith. That's why the "through" phrase is so important because it describes faith as the middle term not the effectual cause. Attributing any human effort as the effectual cause is anti-gospel. There is no good news if it relies on human effort. Quoting Packer again:
For justification by works is, in truth, the natural religion of mankind, and has been since the Fall, so that, as Robert Traill, the Scottish Puritan, wrote in 1692, "all the ignorant people that know nothing of either law or gospel," "all proud secure sinners," "all formalists," and "all the zealous devout people secure sinners, in a natural religion," line up together as "utter enemies to the gospel." That trio of theological relatives—Pelagianism, Arminianism, and Romanism—appear to Traill as bastard offspring of natural religion fertilized by the gospel. So he continued: "The principles of Arminianism are the natural dictates of a carnal mind, which is enmity both to the law of God, and to the gospel of Christ; and, next to the dead sea of Popery (into which also this stream runs), have, since Pelagius to this day, been the greatest plague of the Church of Christ, and it is like will be till his second coming.2—a point of view entirely in line with that of Luther and his reforming contemporaries a century and a half before. And all study of nonChristian faiths since the time of Luther and Traill has confirmed their biblically based conviction that salvation by self-effort is a principle that the fallen human mind takes for granted.
It is the grace of God entered thru faith in Christ that saves us. And yes, I say that faith is NOT a gift from God given after regeneration, since it is never thus described in scripture.
I did not say my “own self-initiated faith” saves me. It is believing in Jesus Christ & what he has done.
“”Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
Deal with it. Quote Packer if you wish, but here is what Jesus Christ says, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.”
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.