Presbyterian and Conversion?

hedrick · #11 30th January 2012, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by RisingSpirit

I think you should say, "I am the Elect". I'd like to know if Hedrick would be comfortable in saying that directly.
For some reason, most of the time, the arminians tries hard to beat around the word, "Elect" and tries not to let you say it or use it in that way. I think it has something to do with "Elect" doesn't mean you and me.

No, I wouldn't. The problem is that we can't see God's plan directly, and all attempts I know of to come up with objective tests to see whether someone is probably elect have caused as many problems as they have solved. There's a long history of this in Reformed Christianity, and it typically seems to lead to something very much like justification by works. I see no evidence for tests of whether you're elect in Calvin's own writing.

My understanding of Calvin's position is that there are two levels on which we can understand events. Since God normally works though normal history, we can understand events as happening on the human level, according to people's abilities and motivations. And of course those motivations include activity by the Holy Spirit. But on God's level there is a plan, so we could in principle also understand things in terms of his plan.

But except where he has revealed it, we don't know his plan. So it's really only possible to understand things as humans. Thus the safest approach for us is not to guess whether we are elect, but to trust in his promise that he will save anyone who trusts him. While Luther and Calvin both believed in predestination, as far as I know, neither of them advocated trying to guess whether we are elect. Both recommended trusting God's promises.

There is a psychological problem here, because the doubt then comes up: well, sure God will save anyone who trusts him, but how do I know I really trust him and I'm not self-deluded? Then we descend into a morass of trying to second-guess ourselves. I don't think there's an intellectual answer to that, because intellectual answers just further feed the process. The only answer I know is a non-intellectual one: the only way to have confidence is to focus on God and his promises, not on our own faith. Nowhere does the Bible say that our faith has to measure up to a certain standard. Indeed Jesus says that faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains, and of course the mustard seed was proverbially the smallest possible object. We are to have faith in God, not faith in our own faith.

Now in a certain sense saying that I have confidence in God implies that I'm elect, I suppose. But it's not something I want to claim in any direct way.

RisingSpirit · #12 30th January 2012, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by hedrick

. . . Thus the safest approach for us is not to guess whether we are elect, but to trust in his promise that he will save anyone who trusts him.. . ..

I believe you're right. I recently read Calvin's Institutes and he talks about going overboard with the term "predestination". He was also saying that the more you get into guessing and second guessing, the more trouble you'll get into called boasting.
I think for now, I'll stick with, "I hope I'm saved" Does that sound right or does that excuse the armininians saying, "If you don't know Jesus is your Lord and Saviour then you're not saved."?

My guess is that it's impossible for armininians and Calvinists to agree with each other or be on the same page.

I enjoyed your response like I always do.

Anoetos · #13 30th January 2012, 10:53 AM

Fwiw, and what I tried to get across is that the experience of salvation in its subjectivity cannot necessarily be communicated. So, if I am asked whether I am saved or not, I usually just say, "yes", if for no other reason than that, as often as not what I am really beings asked is whether I am a Christian who goes to church, who believes the Bible, and above all who trusts Jesus for salvation.

RisingSpirit · #14 30th January 2012, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by Anoetos

. . . So, if I am asked whether I am saved or not, I usually just say, "yes", if for no other reason than that, as often as not what I am really beings asked is whether I am a Christian who goes to church, who believes the Bible, and above all who trusts Jesus for salvation.

YES are three letters and that best fit the minimum amount of wording to answer the arminians questions but when they ask you a second question like almost always, a response usually ends up into a long explanation to the meaning of "yes" and ends up with maybe, hope, might or working on it.

The arminians has a "know for sure" boat in their lakes but I know for sure there leaking in water

hedrick · #15 30th January 2012, 12:53 PM

Assurance of salvation is a generic Reformation tenet. I wouldn't think it is peculiar to Arminians. Maybe the Calvinist and Arminian answers are different on where assurance comes from. I don't know Arminian theology that well. I can say that plenty of Reformed have not given the answer I have. Many Reformed Christians have answered that because our lives should reflect the new life in Christ, the way you know you're elect is that your life shows the fruit of a Christian life.

While I don't disagree that our lives should show fruit, the problem is our lives aren't perfect, and non-Christian lives can show good things as well. So when you try to turn this into something that can actually give someone assurance it becomes impossible. People are, quite correctly, bothered by their remaining sins, and a person who is particularly sensitive can never get any assurance that they've repented enough and shown enough fruit to be sure that they aren't deluding themselves. This is exactly the problem that Luther had before his conversion, which led to justification by faith. Better to say that we can trust God to save us. That was certainly Luther's answer, and I think Calvin's. But the problem I describe occurred among Reformed Christians, and Luther's answer should be common property of all Protestant traditions.

Apologetic_Warrior · #16 31st January 2012, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by Holyroller125

Hello,

I am wondering, how do Presbyterians view/do conversion?

Do they go buy Romans 10:9-10, 13 - That if you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Is conversion instantaneous at the moment of faith when one believes in the heart, confesses with the mouth that Jesus is Lord, and makes the faith statement, calling on the name of the Lord? Is this how a conversion goes in the presbyterian church? Just would like to know compared to Methodist.

Thank You,
Holyroller125

Hello,

how do Presbyterians view/do conversion?

Great question. Rather than framing an answer in my own words, allow me to quote the well known and popular Presbyterian theologian R.C. Sproul:

"One of the most dramatic moments in my life for the shaping of my theology took place in a seminary classroom. One of my professors went to the blackboard and wrote these words in bold letters: "Regeneration Precedes Faith."

These words were a shock to my system. I had entered seminary believing that the key work of man to effect rebirth was faith. I thought that we first had to believe in Christ in order to be born again. I use the words in order here for a reason. I was thinking in terms of steps that must be taken in a certain sequence. I had put faith at the beginning. The order looked something like this:

"Faith - rebirth -justification."

I hadn’t thought that matter through very carefully. Nor had I listened carefully to Jesus’ words to Nicodemus. I assumed that even though I was a sinner, a person born of the flesh and living in the flesh, I still had a little island of righteousness, a tiny deposit of spiritual power left within my soul to enable me to respond to the Gospel on my own. Perhaps I had been confused by the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Rome, and many other branches of Christendom, had taught that regeneration is gracious; it cannot happen apart from the help of God.

No man has the power to raise himself from spiritual death. Divine assistance is necessary. This grace, according to Rome, comes in the form of what is called prevenient grace. "Prevenient" means that which comes from something else. Rome adds to this prevenient grace the requirement that we must "cooperate with it and assent to it" before it can take hold in our hearts.

This concept of cooperation is at best a half-truth. Yes, the faith we exercise is our faith. God does not do the believing for us. When I respond to Christ, it is my response, my faith, my trust that is being exercised. The issue, however, goes deeper. The question still remains: "Do I cooperate with God's grace before I am born again, or does the cooperation occur after?" Another way of asking this question is to ask if regeneration is monergistic or synergistic. Is it operative or cooperative? Is it effectual or dependent? Some of these words are theological terms that require further explanation.

A monergistic work is a work produced singly, by one person. The prefix mono means one. The word erg refers to a unit of work. Words like energy are built upon this root. A synergistic work is one that involves cooperation between two or more persons or things. The prefix syn -

means "together with." I labor this distinction for a reason. The debate between Rome and Luther hung on this single point. At issue was this: Is regeneration a monergistic work of God or a synergistic work that requires cooperation between man and God? When my professor wrote "Regeneration precedes faith" on the blackboard, he was clearly siding with the monergistic answer. After a person is regenerated, that person cooperates by exercising faith and trust. But the first step is the work of God and of God alone.

The reason we do not cooperate with regenerating grace before it acts upon us and in us is because we can- not. We cannot because we are spiritually dead. We can no more assist the Holy Spirit in the quickening of our souls to spiritual life than Lazarus could help Jesus raise him for the dead.

When I began to wrestle with the Professor's argument, I was surprised to learn that his strange-sounding teaching was not novel. Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield - even the great medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas taught this doctrine. Thomas Aquinas is the Doctor Angelicus of the Roman Catholic Church. For centuries his theological teaching was accepted as official dogma by most Catholics. So he was the last person I expected to hold such a view of regeneration. Yet Aquinas insisted that regenerating grace is operative grace, not cooperative grace. Aquinas spoke of prevenient grace, but he spoke of a grace that comes before faith, which is regeneration.

These giants of Christian history derived their view from Holy Scripture. The key phrase in Paul's Letter to the Ephesians is this: "...even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have you been saved)" (Eph. 2:5). Here Paul locates the time when regeneration occurs. It takes place 'when we were dead.' With one thunderbolt of apostolic revelation all attempts to give the initiative in regeneration to man are smashed. Again, dead men do not cooperate with grace. Unless regeneration takes place first, there is no possibility of faith.

This says nothing different from what Jesus said to Nicodemus. Unless a man is born again first, he cannot possibly see or enter the kingdom of God. If we believe that faith precedes regeneration, then we set our thinking and therefore ourselves in direct opposition not only to giants of Christian history but also to the teaching of Paul and of our Lord Himself." - Excerpt from the book, The Mystery of the Holy Spirit, by R.C. Sproul, Christian Focus

As you can see, the Presbyterian (Biblical) view of conversion is not unique to Presbyterians. Two of the greatest Roman Catholic theologians held to the "monergist" view of conversion, as did the founder of the Lutherans, and George Whitfield one of the founders of Methodism, Reformed Anglicans like J.I. Packer, Calvinistic Baptists like C.H. Spurgeon.

The following link provides links to 172 resources by many different scholars/theologians (including: J.I. Packer, Spurgeon, Charles Hodge, John Owen, A.W. Pink) pertaining to regeneration, in favor of monergism: SEARCH RESULTS

One of the links is an ebook with Quotes on Monergistic Regeneration from Church History

Monergism is contrasted to Synergism, one of the links is to this great article by John Hendryx. John has written a number of great articles on the subject.

I hope this helps, God bless.

Holyroller125 · #17 7th February 2012, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by Apologetic_Warrior

Hello,

how do Presbyterians view/do conversion?

Great question. Rather than framing an answer in my own words, allow me to quote the well known and popular Presbyterian theologian R.C. Sproul:

"One of the most dramatic moments in my life for the shaping of my theology took place in a seminary classroom. One of my professors went to the blackboard and wrote these words in bold letters: "Regeneration Precedes Faith."

These words were a shock to my system. I had entered seminary believing that the key work of man to effect rebirth was faith. I thought that we first had to believe in Christ in order to be born again. I use the words in order here for a reason. I was thinking in terms of steps that must be taken in a certain sequence. I had put faith at the beginning. The order looked something like this:

"Faith - rebirth -justification."

I hadn’t thought that matter through very carefully. Nor had I listened carefully to Jesus’ words to Nicodemus. I assumed that even though I was a sinner, a person born of the flesh and living in the flesh, I still had a little island of righteousness, a tiny deposit of spiritual power left within my soul to enable me to respond to the Gospel on my own. Perhaps I had been confused by the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Rome, and many other branches of Christendom, had taught that regeneration is gracious; it cannot happen apart from the help of God.

No man has the power to raise himself from spiritual death. Divine assistance is necessary. This grace, according to Rome, comes in the form of what is called prevenient grace. "Prevenient" means that which comes from something else. Rome adds to this prevenient grace the requirement that we must "cooperate with it and assent to it" before it can take hold in our hearts.

This concept of cooperation is at best a half-truth. Yes, the faith we exercise is our faith. God does not do the believing for us. When I respond to Christ, it is my response, my faith, my trust that is being exercised. The issue, however, goes deeper. The question still remains: "Do I cooperate with God's grace before I am born again, or does the cooperation occur after?" Another way of asking this question is to ask if regeneration is monergistic or synergistic. Is it operative or cooperative? Is it effectual or dependent? Some of these words are theological terms that require further explanation.

A monergistic work is a work produced singly, by one person. The prefix mono means one. The word erg refers to a unit of work. Words like energy are built upon this root. A synergistic work is one that involves cooperation between two or more persons or things. The prefix syn -

means "together with." I labor this distinction for a reason. The debate between Rome and Luther hung on this single point. At issue was this: Is regeneration a monergistic work of God or a synergistic work that requires cooperation between man and God? When my professor wrote "Regeneration precedes faith" on the blackboard, he was clearly siding with the monergistic answer. After a person is regenerated, that person cooperates by exercising faith and trust. But the first step is the work of God and of God alone.

The reason we do not cooperate with regenerating grace before it acts upon us and in us is because we can- not. We cannot because we are spiritually dead. We can no more assist the Holy Spirit in the quickening of our souls to spiritual life than Lazarus could help Jesus raise him for the dead.

When I began to wrestle with the Professor's argument, I was surprised to learn that his strange-sounding teaching was not novel. Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield - even the great medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas taught this doctrine. Thomas Aquinas is the Doctor Angelicus of the Roman Catholic Church. For centuries his theological teaching was accepted as official dogma by most Catholics. So he was the last person I expected to hold such a view of regeneration. Yet Aquinas insisted that regenerating grace is operative grace, not cooperative grace. Aquinas spoke of prevenient grace, but he spoke of a grace that comes before faith, which is regeneration.

These giants of Christian history derived their view from Holy Scripture. The key phrase in Paul's Letter to the Ephesians is this: "...even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have you been saved)" (Eph. 2:5). Here Paul locates the time when regeneration occurs. It takes place 'when we were dead.' With one thunderbolt of apostolic revelation all attempts to give the initiative in regeneration to man are smashed. Again, dead men do not cooperate with grace. Unless regeneration takes place first, there is no possibility of faith.

This says nothing different from what Jesus said to Nicodemus. Unless a man is born again first, he cannot possibly see or enter the kingdom of God. If we believe that faith precedes regeneration, then we set our thinking and therefore ourselves in direct opposition not only to giants of Christian history but also to the teaching of Paul and of our Lord Himself." - Excerpt from the book, The Mystery of the Holy Spirit, by R.C. Sproul, Christian Focus

As you can see, the Presbyterian (Biblical) view of conversion is not unique to Presbyterians. Two of the greatest Roman Catholic theologians held to the "monergist" view of conversion, as did the founder of the Lutherans, and George Whitfield one of the founders of Methodism, Reformed Anglicans like J.I. Packer, Calvinistic Baptists like C.H. Spurgeon.

The following link provides links to 172 resources by many different scholars/theologians (including: J.I. Packer, Spurgeon, Charles Hodge, John Owen, A.W. Pink) pertaining to regeneration, in favor of monergism: SEARCH RESULTS

One of the links is an ebook with Quotes on Monergistic Regeneration from Church History

Monergism is contrasted to Synergism, one of the links is to this great article by John Hendryx. John has written a number of great articles on the subject.

I hope this helps, God bless.

Yes it did, I also see a general consensus between all these faith covenant communities. The general concensus is consistent with Scripture, confirmed by Church Fathers, and validated through the historic Christian church. Whereas, heresy has no general concensus, not confirmed (Exegetic) by Greek Fathers, and validated through the historic Christian church.

It is powerful to have different backgrounds even with the general concensus of (Biblical) conversion.

Everyone continue to participate in this discussion.
Thank YOu,
Holyroller125

cajunhillbilly · #18 10th February 2012, 08:56 AM

Both Luther and Calvin pointed to the promises of God as the grounds for one's assurance, NOT our works. They also pointed to baptism as the means by which God brought us into the church and the Eucharist/Lord's Supper as the means by which we receive God's grace sacramentally as grounds for assurance. Too often we tend to point to subjective feelings and works and that leads to dispair as we see just how wicked our hearts continue to be even after a "conversion". We do not love God enough or our neighbor as ourselves and we despair. Are we really saved? Calvin, Luther, Aquinas, Augustine, and so on all would say trust God's promises as conveyed to us by Word and Sacrament.