CALVINISM'S BLIND SPOT

I don't think this is an accurate description of how it works. But even if it were, it still makes the idea of free will humorous. It's like saying in one breath that a man is free to come and go as he pleases and then in the next breath say that if the warden and his keys were not active in the lives of men, they wouldn't be able to get out of their jail cells. </font>[/QUOTE]You miss the real issue. The question should be, whose "jail cells" have already been opened and whose are still closed? I believe that once someone hears the powerful message of the gospel their jail cell has been opened. The Spirit has moved through the gospel presentation to reveal the truth to those who listen. They are left to "consider the cost" of leaving that cell to take up their cross and follow the Lord.

They have a decision to make. Stay in the comfort of their cells or walk into the Light.

If they walk into the Light, God gets all the Glory because he is the one who opened the door and provided their freedom. He even gets the glory for the decision that the prisoner made because even his faith came from God's gift of grace, there is nothing for which he can boast about.

The man who stays in the cell, does so out of his own decision. He was able to walk out, he was given a measure of faith by God's common grace to all men (Rom 1) so he is completely responsible for his decision to stay in the cell, he is truely without excuse. Just like the Rich Young Ruler, he wasn't willing to give up his comforts and he will receive the punishment that he deserves.

Bill

 

GREAT POINT RAY!

The Gentiles were sinful, no doubt, but they had not repeatedly refused God as had the Israelites, therefore they were not hardened as was Israel. Gentiles had never had an opportunity to "refuse" God's Covenant, because it had never been given to them before. God brought it to them and "they listened." (Acts 28:28)

Why would God need to harden people who already "cannot" see, hear or turn to him as "Total Depravity" teaches?

Why would Jesus need to veil the gospel from the Pharasees if they are unable to understand it without the Holy Spirit anyway?

The doctrine of hardening and ingrafting, which is spoken of by the prophets, Jesus and Paul on several different occasions, makes Calvinism pure non-sense.

Can someone please explain how "hardening" and Calvinism can co-exist?

Thanks,
Bro. Bill

 

Sturgman, I think your weakness is in attempting to divide them. Your saying this as if the disciples could have said, "No, I really don't think that's a cost I'm willing to endure, but I'll stay Justified if its all the same."

Sanctification is the act of setting someone apart for a holy use. How is that not completely and wholing tied in to a man's justification. Even John Calvin sees them as one in the same: He writes:
[i}Man's only hope of excaping the curse of the Law and finding salvation lies in faith. The nature of faith is the benefits it brings, and the results it produces. It can all be summed up like this: Christ is given to us by the goodness of God; WE GRASP AND POSSESS him by faith; then we obtain a two-fold benefit.
First, when we are reconciled by the righteousness of Christ, God becomes a gracious Father instead of a judge.
Second, when we are sanctified by his Spirit, we reach after intergrity and purity of life. This is new birth.[/i]

Sanctification is apart of justification and justification is apart of sanctification. Justification is being made "right" in the eyes of God, not by our own righteousness, but by the righteousness of Christ in who we place our faith. The faith in Christ is what causes our sancification as well. Our faith sets us apart for a holy purpose.

By separating these two principles you make it seem as if the Rich Young Ruler just missed being Sanctified, but because he did believe in Christ he got Justified. No, he believed that Jesus was the Christ, but he considered the cost of following him and he turned away. Was he justified or sanctified? No.

True justification always involves sancification, being saved and set apart at the same time. They are one in the same, yet they describe different aspects of our new birth. One is being made right in the eyes of God; the other is being set apart of a holy use.

In Paul's conversion, for example, both of these two things happen at the same exact time. He was justified and set apart for a holy use at the same time.

You're not one of those that believe you accept Jesus as Savior for Justification and then later can accept him as Lord for Sanctification are you? Because that's what your argument seems to imply. The justified disciples were asked to "take up there cross" and "consider the cost" of being his disciple. That's silly. He is asking those who say they believe in him to consider the cost of actually following him. Some decide that the cost is too great. Are they still justified? Of course not.

Also, I know I speak of a difference in the Apostles and the saints conversions. But the term "disciples" are used universally for all saints. "Go and make disciples." So what you seem to be saying is that a man can sit down and consider the cost of being a disciple while being already Justified? What if they decide not to be a disciple but just a "justified" person. This is not biblical. You have separated our calling into two parts:
1. To salvation = Justification
2. To service as a disciple = Sanctification

Can a man be saved by one calling and then can sit down and consider the cost of being sancified or not? That distinction is not made anywhere in scripture and frankly I'm surprised that you hold to it being a Calvinist. You should read John MacArthur's book "The Gospel According to Jesus" or his book "The Gospel According to the Apostles" where he teaches on the Lordship salvation issue in which you seem to disagree. In his book he shows how the call of justification and sanctification are are both completed in gospel's one call to faith. (of course he is Calvinistic so he also believes that calling is effectual, but that's not the point here, the point here is that it is one call, not two.)

Sturgman, I don't think you probably meant to argue for a dual calling of justification and then sanctification, you may want to rethink what you have said.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

Ok, if there is only one call then what is Jesus' call to "take up you cross" refer too?

The call for the Rich Young Ruler to sell all that he had was a call to.....? What?

The call for those who were wanting to follow him to "consider the cost" of being a disciple? What was that a call too?

Could those who heard the call to "consider the cost" have said, "No, that costs too much," and still have been justified by faith? Of course not.

The call to faith and repentance is the same call as the call to obeidience, as you have now admitted. Therefore, Christ is telling them to consider the cost of "faith/repentance/obeidence" because if you not willing to "carry your cross" or "give up all that you have" you are not worthy to be my disciple.

The call to faith is a call to obedience. The process of justification and sancification begin after one has answered that call. BTW, both Justification and Sanctification are in the prefect tense meaning they are both a process. We are being saved, we are being made righteous, its not a "point in time" declaration as we often think. This is why we see so often in scripture phrases like, "if we endure to the end we will be saved."

The perfect tense is: We have been saved, we are being saved and we will be saved. Make sense?

Bill

 

Ok, Sturgman lets start over.

Jesus walks up to a group of people who believe he is the messiah because of the miracles he is doing, have they been justified?

Not necessarily as we can see in John 2, right?

He says to them you must consider the cost of being my disciple, if you don't take up your cross and follow me you cannot be my disciple. Some of them, after considering the cost walk away, like the rich young ruler. Others of them, after considering the cost, follow Christ even to their own deaths.

There was one call. The call to be his disciple. There is never a call to justification or a call to sancification. Just a call to follow Him. That is the decision we are all confronted with, the decision to follow Christ or to reject him. That is why we must consider the cost before we can be his disciple.

Your right in that being a disciple has two components: 1. Faith in Christ
2. Obedence to Christ

We both believe (I think) that True Faith will always lead to True Obedience. So a true disciple must have both of these components. Right?

Therefore, if Christ calls someone to obedience, how is that different than calling him to faith. Faith proves itself in obedience, so to call someone to obey is ultimately calling them to faith.

Can a true believer sit down and consider the cost of becoming a disciple? Isn't a "true believer" already a disciple?

In short, the decision to follow Christ is the decision unto salvation. It is that decision that Jesus asks his audience to consider the cost of. Why would they be asked to consider this cost if their consideration wasn't a factor in their salvation?

Bill

 

I'm looking more at the text which talks about considering the cost. Christ mentions two men who must sit down and decide whether or not to build or go to war. They have to consider the cost before they make that decision, right? Well, that is presented to a group of people who must "consider the cost" of being a follower of Christ.

Some followed, others, like the Rich Young Ruler, don't. Why? If the Rich guy didn't say yes to Christ demands, Why didn't he? Calvinists would say, "Because he wasn't chosen." The scripture says, "Because he was a man of great wealth."

Jesus even goes on to say that it is more difficult for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kindom of God. Why?

If it's God's "effectual calling" that determines if they will enter into the kingdom, what does a man's wealth have to do with it?

Think about it. Money (like envy) affects man's will. Rich men are more likely to be enslaved to money and after considering the cost of discipleship they are more likely to think it is to great a cost. Calvinism's assumptions don't make much sense in light of these teachings, could you explain them?

Bill