A Balanced Calvinism

Thanks. A part of what I (and others) are trying to combat is a "cherry picking" of certain words in verses that negate the larger biblical message. I've seen this done over and again in posts here on the board and in discussions elsewhere. For some reason, Scripture is examined under a microscope at times, when perhaps a telescope would be a better instrument, as God has overarching "big pictures" that we "should" be able to see in the Text if we just look, instead of "useless wrangling..." over every "jot and tittle..."

As long as we keep tossing words like "saved" around, we'll continue to have unprofitable arguments that neither support Scripture nor honor God. I see it here every day. "Saved" in and of itself doesn't really mean what a lot of people seem to think it means, for it is merely a descriptor of other more concise terms presented in the Scriptures. To be "saved" one must be lost, and the biblical picture of "lostness" is either that of "slave to sin" (slaves have no rights) or "dead in sin and trespasses." A truly "lost" person cannot extricate themselves from their lost condition. If they could, they would not be truly lost, therefore, those who suggest that "lost" persons can somehow arrive at God's front door, and open their way to God's throne are mistaken about their true condition.

God "seeks and finds" lost people, that is His business. He then graces those same lost persons with the ability to come to Him. That (to the lost person) it "seems" like they are coming to Christ on their own volition is nothing more than a perception based on a sinful vantage point -- God, and only God, has made it possible. Indeed, except that God has revealed Himself to us, we would not even know that there is a God who saves! That is the gist of Romans 1 -- that He has indeed revealed Himself to us, but that we chose to remain lost if left to our own devices.

Back to the "cherry picking" issue... Those who have attempted to use tools of higher education, such as a concordance have not done so wisely at times. They just search for some key word, then run with that word as if it proves some point or another. A key tenet of scholarly biblical hermeneutics is to discern from context the actual usage of any give word in the Scriptures. Is it allegorical, is it historical, is it apocalyptic, poetic, etc.? Who is speaking to whom, and why? All inform context. Is, for example, Israel being used to talk about Israel, or as an illustration pointed to some issue in the NT church? In the verse that comes up so often in discussions of this nature, "Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated..." an actual discussion of Jacob and Esau, of two varying tribes in the history of Israel, or are these an example for God's actions toward believers in the church? One must actually take a few moments to answer these sort of questions before jumping off the deep end with a theological (or scriptural) view that does not truly represent the position of Scripture.

 

glfrederick:

I know that you come from primarily a "reformed" perspective. I would enjoy knowing your objections to the concept of "prevenient grace" as is typically espoused by the Methodist denomination, having its roots in Arminius and Wesley.

 

Here's the thing: You come on here talking your talk, calling me out, and calling names such as condescending for what you call declaring opinion. Behind the scenes you can't take open rebuke because I simply state "we would be wise to open our Scriptures and see what they say" and in anger send me your "how dare you expose me" PM.

So in other words, you can't handle rebuke, and I clearly know what Proverbs says concerning such like yourself. Do you know what it says about you doing this? You really ought to go look, and then let it either turn you around from the error of your ways, or leave you right where it says you are. This chastisement isn't from me, it's from Him.

Again, you get angry because someone says to you maybe you should have opened your Bible and not got your fingers to typing what you are clueless about. Hmmm. Wonder why you can't take the truth of that? Instead of humbling yourself and saying, "hey, I was wrong" you send your angry letter about how you were exposed, and express your anger about it, as in who am I to do this in front of everyone to you (such humility) That's utter foolishness right there. You show your true colors in not being able to recieve instruction, nor a rebuke, nor do you consider a friend will be the one who does this for you, but a fool will see it as an enemy, and as beneath him to recieve such, and not receive it, as you have done. :wavey:


Nope. If you can't consent and admit in this world, you will never be capable of doing so in the next. God's Word plainly describes how you act, and who you are when you can't take a rebuke. NT scriptures teaches that those such as you aren't rejecting man (me) but Him. Sermon on the Mount teaches how kingdom people will behave prior to entering the real kingdom, proving they belong to the kingdom. Part of that is humility and being broken to an extent that they accept themselves, their faults, and grow. Go check it out. I'm sure that you can see this and submit to it. (Check out D. Martyn Loyd-Jones and Robert Harris' treatment on this in their Sermon on the Mount Commentaries, unless, you are above listening to them also)

I will refuse interaction with you also. You can't take instruction or rebuke but want to be the one to dish it out as if you are some great repository of truth.

I pray God humble you, while you see me as arrogant and condescending to which I will take a look.

- Blessings

 

Spoken by the world's most famous inconsistent theologian.

 

Therein lies one of your errors... Calvinism does not seek to "tell God" anything, save to agree with Him that we are desperate sinners in need of His grace! Indeed, perhaps the central tenet of Calvinism IS the fact that God tells us -- not we tell God.

God tells US that He is sovereign. He tells us that He will not allow ANYONE else to share His glory. He tells us that He will not allow any other gods before Him -- including human beings who would like to usurp His throne. He tells us that He tossed out one named Lucifer, who tried to share in God's glory. He tells us, that without Him, there is no hope, no salvation, and that there is nothing at all that we can do to remedy that situation.

Oh, praise God, that He has made a way where, in the lives of mere humans, there was no way! Pray that He calls your name and that you are one that He has written in the Book of Life before the foundation of the world.

 

"My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."" —Charles Spurgeon, "Salvation By Knowing the Truth"

 

Not surprised at all by that comment. Spurgeon was too busy builing complete sermons off of one text and taking that text out of context to truly figure out exactly what the word of God meant in that particular spot. That's why studying Spurgeon is so difficult. Of course, he was only following in the footsteps of Andrew Fuller. These men had no mind for systematic thinking. I do find it funny that people have so high an opinion of him despite the fact that he basically admitting to not caring if he maintained any sort of consistency in his teaching.

 

My primary objection to "previnient grace" is that I cannot prove it via Scripture. The concept, by the way, was not original with Wesleyan Arminianism, it stems from Catholicism, post Augustine. Wesley was the one who popularized what was otherwise an aberration to reformed scriptural theology concerning God's election.

(A reminder that the Articles of Remonstrance, essentially the 5 articles of Arminian theology, were found to be heretical by the Synod of Dort in 1618-19. The synod of Dort's response to the heretical doctrines of Arminianism were what we now call the TULIP, that having not stemmed directly from the hand of John Calvin, but rather from the leaders of the church gathered at Dort. {I would not go so far as to suggest that Arminian theology is heretical.})

There needed to be some means of explaining what the Bible says as truth, i.e., that man is dead in his sin and trespasses. And, so, a "pre-grace" -- grace before the true grace that comes from justification -- was invented to explain how it was that dead people might respond to God.

In essence, previnient grace also admits to the Reformed doctrines, in that it says succinctly that man cannot come to God without God's first intervention. Interestingly, Jacob Arminius affirmed "total depravity." I'm not sure that many Arminians understand that or even know that.

That previnient grace is one of the tenets of Arminianism, and of Catholicism seems to escape many who disavow the Reformed doctrines that speak more plainly of the fact that we cannot approach God without God's intervention. Those who don't hold to previnient grace (such as IFB, who disavow any "ism" including Arminianism, Calvinism, Augustinianism, Catholicism, et al) must almost certainly turn to Pelagian thought, placing squarely on humans (and giving humans, somehow, the ability) the need to come to God. in faith "before" being made alive. This has best been exemplified in recent posts by people like Winman and MB (not picking on you guys, but that is your position). In a sense, that theology, though rather "spiritual" sounding, does not compute according to the Scriptures.

 

very true. no matter how eloquently many here try to put in their case, the end result is what I say: Christ is Savior NOT YET, and Redeemer NOT YET.

And none of the above applies to the unelect. The reprobates are not lost because God never considered them His sheep, nor His children. God's elect were slaves to sin until purchased by the blood of the Lamb slain at Calvary here in time AFTER which no more redemption is being made for Christ was offered ONCE FOR ALL, and all for whom this redemption was made are recipients or beneficiaries of such redemption already, and what remains in many are the second: dead in sins and trespasses...UNTIL the Holy Spirit in His own due time and apart from means brings them back to spiritual life.

Is that where it ends ?
Definitely not.
If the Lord's plan was simply to save and redeem, He wouldn't have organized a church and commissioned His apostles to go out and preach the gospel and that is where many confusions come in because people read they who obey and are baptized shall be saved and they say, oh, okay, so we need to get ourselves into missions and get souls "saved" and more often than not they mean eternally saved which is what Jesus Christ just did with His blood, death and resurrection, when what this means is get saved from false religions, dead religions, worship of dead gods, saved from riotous living, and instructed into kingdom living where their PRIMARY and MAIN purpose is to glorify God in their midst.

 

Huh? Two salvations? Sorry brother. You lost me.

 

I was reading a book last night with similar thoughts. The book was Romans, Verse by Verse, by William Newell.

In commenting on Romans 9 he said something like the following:

God did not give us the task to reconcile sovereign grace with mans will. We should accept by faith and preach that there is sovereign grace and the elect when reading Romans, and "leave it there". We should accept by faith that somehow people must respond when preaching from other scriptures, and "leave it there". Let God sort it out in the end how it all works.

At some point we have to have faith, rather than understand everything that goes on in the Counsels of God. That's humbling to admit we won't understand everything about God in a tight logical systematic heierarchical fashion.

God must be amused in heaven sometimes at us children when we think we understand things like how DNA reproduces itself. It's not simple. Like a grand symphony, God is very sophisticated in his designs.

I love the pop machine at a church that has a button for Coke, Pepsi, and "Let the Lord Decide".

 

I agree.

If free will is defined as the ability to do whatever one most wants- I believe the Bible may teach free will.

If it is the ability to do good or evil without any inclinations one way or the other- the ability to, at a fork in the road, choose one path just as well as the other- then no, free will is not taught in the Bible and it is a misnomer because it does not exist. That kind of free will doesn't even exist in the throne of God.

GOD ALMIGHTY must make even HIS choices based on what is the greatest and highest good. His perfect and divine nature demands it. When the Almighty comes to a fork in the road, even HE cannot choose one path as well as the other. He will and MUST ALWAYS choose that which is thoroughly best.

Yes. I say with Paul, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved..."

That directive falls on deaf ears, however, when it falls upon one who is not elect.

Both.

Absolute: They that worship God must worship him in Spirit and truth. The unregenerate CANNOT do this because he is dead spiritually. He is natural only and the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God... NEITHER CAN HE..."

In this manner he is like a bird without wings. In an absolute sense he lacks what it takes to worship and please God.

Moral: His heart is desperately wicked, deceitful above all things. In his flesh dwells NO good thing. He will not come to the light lest his deeds are reproved.

Calvin was a man, just like you and I, with feet of clay.

But he was a great man to whom we all owe honor. Gvie honor to whom honor is due.

But the popular trend right now seems to be for Calvinists to distance themselves from Calvin- which is fine because the doctrines of grace spring up from the Scripture not the man who repopularized them- but I think it is unnecessary.

 

"No pressure or force was put upon her, she lifted up herself; and yet she was "made straight." She was passive in so much as a miracle was wrought upon her, but she was active too, and, being enabled, she lifted up herself. What a wonderful meeting there is here of the active and the passive in the salvation of men. The Arminian says to the sinner, "Now, sinner, you are a responsible being; you must do this and that." The Calvinist says, "Truly, sinner, you are responsible enough, but you are also unable to do anything of yourself. God must work in you both to will and to do." What shall we do with these two teachers? They fell to fighting, a hundred years ago, most frightfully. We will not let them fight now, but what shall we do with them? We will let both speak, and believe what is true in both their testimonies." —Charles Spurgeon, "The Lifting Up of the Bowed Down" (Luke 13:13)

 

Thanks for you thoughts. I am only "vaguely" aware of the historical roots of the concept of prevenient grace. Seems like both sides of the theological aisle carried with them ideas originally rooted in orthodoxy.

I do understand your objection as to "direct biblical" proof, however, I am also reminded of many other things that we in christendom acknowledge and cherish such as the "trinitarian" concept of God etc.

I, though never have been a Methodist, am intrigued by the concept of "p-grace" and see many parallels regarding the "reformed" position of regeneration.

Yes, many who are "pseudo-arminian" are unaware the Arminius did in fact hold to total depravity, however, he did not take TD in the same way that the reformers did, hence the adoption of P-grace.

But, all in all, both A's and C's at the very least agree that salvation is initiated by God.

Blessings

 

Wonderful quote. Spurgeon had a way with this subject that I and my peers would do well to learn.

However, he was, in this great quote, reconciling, NOT free will and Sovereignty, but RESPONSIBILITY and Sovereignty.

 

Believe like a Calvinist, preach like an Arminian. :laugh:

I always preach for salvation. The mistake I most see made against Calvinism is assuming that God's election means that salvation is a done deal. It is not. On that the Bible is clear -- and that "clear" part is the basis for Arminian theology. If they understood the rest, they would be home free. Election does not equal "salvation." Election equals election. Salvation is election, plus effectual call, plus regeneration, plus justification, plus adoption, plus sanctification, plus perseverance, plus glorification.

We see in Paul's writings an urgent call to convince and convict. That is not because men are not elect -- it is rather to present the effectual call of God TO the elect!

An additional point of Arminian theology... Article I of the 5 articles of the Remonstrance says this:

It does on to suggest that God did the above based on His seeing the changed life of the unbeliever "until the end," which is the part that is most inconsistent with the Scriptures.

So, for the Arminian to argue that God did not elect before time began is a serious mistake in one's own theology.

Article II says that Christ died for all, but that Christ's death would only be effective for those who are in faith.

Wonder what Article III says?

Wow... I think that Article III just blew most of the Arminian arguments I've seen on this board out of the water... What? Not by free will?

I've posted Article IV a bunch, because it says that God's grace is necessary for one to come to God -- and that BEFORE any other action like faith. But for review:

And, of course there is Article V, which sums up salvation...

 

What Spurgeon was doing was having his cake and eating it too. He was in this, as in most things, following Andrew Fuller. Nothing like a little fence sitting.

 

I know, and I expected that.

 

LOL.. you are doing it again huh brother.. LOL

(not laughing negatively at you, but that your view always brings up this discussion)

 

"After awhile, as I expected, they fell to their usual amusement of calling names. They began to say what rank Arminianism this was; and another expression they were pleased to honour with the title of "Fullerism;" a title, by the way, so honourable that I could heartily have thanked them for appending it to what I had advanced." —Charles Spurgeon, "The Ravens' Cry"