Can salvation depend on your position on Calvinism, Arminianism or Free Grace?

[Sine Nomine]

[/QUOTE] I see all of these denominations basically affirming James' insistence on good works, even if they have different reasons, but in their affirmation of James' insistence on good works, they all describe Christians who would look the same to an external observer.

Perhaps they would carry out evangelism differently based on their soteriologies, but all Christians ought to look and act pretty much the same.[/QUOTE]

Well said.

 

[Sine Nomine]

I think my prior explanation was clear. The "us" in the phrase "God chose us" refers to believers, as Paul defined the "us" in 1:19. The point of 1:4 is that God chose believers. One of the problems with Calvinism is that they think that election is about who God chooses to save.

My apologies that I'm not proficient enough with the tech to quote all your text.

So we agree that God chose believers. When did he chose them? Before the foundation of the world (Eph1:4) or when they chose to believe? (Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved-Joel, Acts, Romans)

Since neither of us are Calvin, it's pointless to argue what he really meant--we only have what he wrote. Likewise all Calvinist are not the same--please don't lump them together as though there is some lockstep--believe me there isn't and some more internal conversations are much more contentious than here.

 

[RDKirk]

What theology did the jailer know before he was baptized? Preciously little.

Actually, a lot more than most think. I used to wonder why he even asked his question. But then it dawned on me why he did.

Acts 16:16-18 16 It happened that as we were going to the place of prayer, a slave-girl having a spirit of divination met us, who was bringing her masters much profit by fortune-telling. 17 Following after Paul and us, she kept crying out, saying, “These men are bond-servants of the Most High God, who are proclaiming to you the way of salvation.” 18 She continued doing this for many days. But Paul was greatly annoyed, and turned and said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her!” And it came out at that very moment.

There can be no doubt that the jailer must have been aware of what brought Paul to the prinson in the first place. I believe the message of this slave girl was rather clear about what Paul was preaching: they were servanta of the Most High God and were proclaiming the WAY TO BE SAVED.

So which of the soteriological doctrines being espoused in this thread do you think the Philippian jailer believed? Or did he merely know there was such a thing as "salvation," that Paul and Silas had it, and he didn't?

I think the gospel is much, much slimmer than people today seem to suppose.

does this suggest that my view of the gospel needs to be put on a diet?

If anyone's answer to the question "Can salvation depend on your position on Calvinism, Arminianism or Free Grace?" is anything other than "no," his gospel needs to be put on a diet.

 

[Butch5]

nothing new.

 

[FreeGrace2]

My apologies that I'm not proficient enough with the tech to quote all your text.+

It's not a tech issue. It's about where the QUOTE and /QUOTE boxes are placed (with brackets around the words).

So we agree that God chose believers. When did he chose them? Before the foundation of the world (Eph1:4) or when they chose to believe? (Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved-Joel, Acts, Romans)

Everyone God has chosen was done before man existed. The point of Eph 1:4 is that He chose believers to be holy and blameless. He didn't choose who would believe, which is the ultimate conclusion of Calvinistic election.

Since neither of us are Calvin, it's pointless to argue what he really meant--we only have what he wrote.

Correct. And what he wrote is quite clear.

Likewise all Calvinist are not the same--please don't lump them together as though there is some lockstep--believe me there isn't and some more internal conversations are much more contentious than here.

i'm fully aware of the 3- and 4-point Calvinists.

 

[FreeGrace2]

What theology did the jailer know before he was baptized? Preciously little.

I quoted Acts 16:16-18.

So which of the soteriological doctrines being espoused in this thread do you think the Philippian jailer believed? Or did he merely know there was such a thing as "salvation," that Paul and Silas had it, and he didn't?

Luke's text is quite clear: Paul was a servant of the MOST HIGH GOD, and his message was about THE WAY TO BE SAVED.

 

[RDKirk]

I quoted Acts 16:16-18.


Luke's text is quite clear: Paul was a servant of the MOST HIGH GOD, and his message was about THE WAY TO BE SAVED.

And that equals "precious little," excluding any level of soteriology that can be specifically labeled

Thank you for your support.

 

[FreeGrace2]

And that equals "precious little," excluding any level of soteriology that can be specifically labeled

Thank you for your support.

I disagree with your "math". The jailer knew exactly what to ask Paul. And Paul gave him a very clear answer.

That equals precious much.

 

[RDKirk]

I disagree with your "math". The jailer knew exactly what to ask Paul. And Paul gave him a very clear answer.

That equals precious much.

So, as I've asked before: Was the Philippian jailer's soteriology Calvinism, Arminianism or Free Grace?

 

[Sine Nomine]

Everyone God has chosen was done before man existed. The point of Eph 1:4 is that He chose believers to be holy and blameless. He didn't choose who would believe, which is the ultimate conclusion of Calvinistic election.

Do you think that man has the ability, apart from God/His Spirit, to choose Christ? Some think A&E did, but chose themselves instead so now all humanity apart from God is unable to do so. Others think God intended to glorify Christ from the very beginning, A&E fell according to God's foreknowledge, unable to choose Him--a condition that persists until God works faith in the believer. I'm guessing you believe that man is presented with a choice and that man is capable of choosing God, which becomes a conditional election.

I will agree that God chose believers to be blameless and holy before him, but I believe that in the Greek, chose (properly "chose us in Himself") applies to the believers themselves and not to their attributes, blameless and holy, which are imputed by Christ. [by means of other examples--God chose Abraham, God chose Moses, God chose his people--his choice was not conditional upon them, yet they believed him--otherwise we might have example of God speaking and being rejected. For Abraham, this was counted as righteousness.] I don't think God has changed his MO.

I will allow that Calvin may be read as you suggest, Beza certainly thought that way. But, Packer reads Calvin differently, as I believe many Calvinists do. Since the 5 points aren't Calvins writing, I suggest that these folks accept an unconditional election that is not strictly predeterministic leaving them with 5 points, just not what you'd see with Beza-esque 5 pointers.

 

[RDKirk]

I have this image of a group of kindergarten children--none of them actually knowing the science of aerodynamics--flying in an airplane on a trip to Hawaii, coming up with fanciful theories about what makes an airplane fly--and getting into a fistfight over their fanciful theories.

 

[FreeGrace2]

So, as I've asked before: Was the Philippian jailer's soteriology Calvinism, Arminianism or Free Grace?

This is the first time I've seen such a clear question. Since all 3 agree that one is saved by faith in Christ, your question is moot.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Do you think that man has the ability, apart from God/His Spirit, to choose Christ?

This is a non starter. God gave mankind the ability, through intellectual function, to understand the gospel. So, until man hears the gospel, he cannot choose it. And the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit's ministry is to convict the world of sin, righteousness and judgment (Jn 16:8).

So, the gospel must be heard, and the person must be convicted. We also know that man ius able to resist the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51).

I'm guessing you believe that man is presented with a choice and that man is capable of choosing God, which becomes a conditional election.

The doctrine of election has been badly abused by reformed theology. Are you applying the concept of election to that of being chosen for salvation apart from any conditions (unconditional)? If so, as does reformed theology, that is wrong. We know exactly who God chooses to save: those who believe, per 1 Cor 1:21. While the verse doesn't use the word "choose", it should be very obvious that by the phrase "God is pleased…" means that He is choosing what pleases Him. And what pleases Him is to "save those who believe", just as the verse says.

I will agree that God chose believers to be blameless and holy before him, but I believe that in the Greek, chose (properly "chose us in Himself") applies to the believers themselves and not to their attributes, blameless and holy, which are imputed by Christ.

Correct. The point is that it is believers who are chosen to be holy and blameless. All believers. This choice (election) is unconditional. iow, God didn't choose just the better believers to be holy and blameless; but that He has chosen ALL believers to be holy and blameless. Even the stinkers.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I have this image of a group of kindergarten children--none of them actually knowing the science of aerodynamics--flying in an airplane on a trip to Hawaii, coming up with fanciful theories about what makes an airplane fly--and getting into a fistfight over their fanciful theories.

How about an image of full grown adults who haven't been trained in aerodynamics, but one or 2 of them finding an article on aerodynamics in the seat pocket in front of them, and they read it.

 

[Sine Nomine]

How about an image of full grown adults who haven't been trained in aerodynamics, but one or 2 of them finding an article on aerodynamics in the seat pocket in front of them, and they read it.

Or a group of capable pilots attempting to understand the fine points of why the plane flies using aerodynamic theories posited 500 years ago. Some pilots being taught the theories are correct and others suggesting a flaw. Conversation hurts no one, might be beneficial.

 

[Sine Nomine]

This is a non starter. God gave mankind the ability, through intellectual function, to understand the gospel. So, until man hears the gospel, he cannot choose it. And the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit's ministry is to convict the world of sin, righteousness and judgment (Jn 16:8). So, the gospel must be heard, and the person must be convicted.

OK, so we agree that without God convicting the heart, thus enabling hearing of the Gospel, Man cannot be saved. I don't think you're suggesting that intellectual function is a condition and would agree that those with diminished or absent capacity are also able [somehow] to be saved.

We also know that man is able to resist the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51).

Agreed. But can such resistance be ultimately successful? I think of the many testimonies of the "Hound of Heaven." I don't think your suggesting that the lack of resistance per se is a condition for election, although ultimately there will be a 'yielded' state. I think we would argue that these believers in process are actually/ultimately believers.

The doctrine of election has been badly abused by reformed theology. Are you applying the concept of election to that of being chosen for salvation apart from any conditions (unconditional)? If so, as does reformed theology, that is wrong. We know exactly who God chooses to save: those who believe, per 1 Cor 1:21. While the verse doesn't use the word "choose", it should be very obvious that by the phrase "God is pleased…" means that He is choosing what pleases Him. And what pleases Him is to "save those who believe", just as the verse says.

Yes--some reformed theology types badly abuse the doctrine of election. Of course there are conditions, God must chose, the believer must believe, the Spirit must work, etc. I don't think that unconditional means willy-nilly else God would be capricious. What I believe is meant by unconditional is that 1) we did nothing to deserve election 2) there is nothing we can do to deserve/earn it 3) were it not for God's free gift of grace we would be lost. This is what I meant when I said Calvin was countering the RC position that salvation must be merited through works. As I have read, he was OK with Arminius' "free will" up to the point that merit (i.e. the less stinky only) got mixed in. Your statement below suggests you believe this as well. The mistake in some Reformed circles is thinking that the Gospel is not made available, freely to all, that God has decided ahead of time that X isn't going to get it.

The point is that it is believers who are chosen to be holy and blameless. All believers. This choice (election) is unconditional. iow, God didn't choose just the better believers to be holy and blameless; but that He has chosen ALL believers to be holy and blameless. Even the stinkers.

Yes, election is unconditional--the most foul and the least foul believers (we all stink) are chosen, elect--and this by God's grace [alone] lest any man should boast.

I think we've spent a long time to see that we agree. Have I missed something?

 

[RDKirk]

How about an image of full grown adults who haven't been trained in aerodynamics, but one or 2 of them finding an article on aerodynamics in the seat pocket in front of them, and they read it.

Except that the fights that have erupted--including bloodshed--reduces them to childishness.

 

[RDKirk]

Or a group of capable pilots attempting to understand the fine points of why the plane flies using aerodynamic theories posited 500 years ago. Some pilots being taught the theories are correct and others suggesting a flaw. Conversation hurts no one, might be beneficial.

Inasmuch as no theologian can actually effect the salvation of anyone else, they can't claim to be pilots. All they're doing is describing something they can't even directly examine themselves, much less accomplish.

 

[FreeGrace2]

OK, so we agree that without God convicting the heart, thus enabling hearing of the Gospel, Man cannot be saved.

Not exactly. There are many many examples of unbelievers who have heard the gospel, fully understand it, yet don't believe it. So it doesn't require God convicting the heart before man is able to "hear" the gospel.

I don't think you're suggesting that intellectual function is a condition and would agree that those with diminished or absent capacity are also able [somehow] to be saved.

I believe that since Christ died for everyone, those who don't ever reach the intellecutal function to be able to understand and process the gospel are saved because of Christ's work alone. While many don't believe in the concept of "age of accountability" and will claim that the Bible doesn't teach it, I disagree, because of Isa 7:15 - 15“He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good."

It seems obvious that "knowing enough to refuse evil and choose good" requires a certain level of intellectual function. It no doubt varies with each individual, but God certainly knows who knows what.

Agreed. But can such resistance be ultimately successful? I think of the many testimonies of the "Hound of Heaven."

i'm not familiar with the "hound of Heaven", but yes, such resistance of the Holy Spirit can be "successful", if by successful one means that they aren't convicted by Him. The forefathers mentioned by Stephen were those who never believed.

I don't think your suggesting that the lack of resistance per se is a condition for election, although ultimately there will be a 'yielded' state. I think we would argue that these believers in process are actually/ultimately believers.

I don't see resistance or lack thereof relates in any way to election. Per Eph 1:4, the point is that God has chosen believers (us) to be holy and blameless. Eph 1:4 isn't even about how one is saved, or even about getting saved. It's about being chosen for service.

Yes--some reformed theology types badly abuse the doctrine of election. Of course there are conditions, God must chose, the believer must believe, the Spirit must work, etc. I don't think that unconditional means willy-nilly else God would be capricious. What I believe is meant by unconditional is that 1) we did nothing to deserve election 2) there is nothing we can do to deserve/earn it 3) were it not for God's free gift of grace we would be lost. This is what I meant when I said Calvin was countering the RC position that salvation must be merited through works. As I have read, he was OK with Arminius' "free will" up to the point that merit (i.e. the less stinky only) got mixed in. Your statement below suggests you believe this as well. The mistake in some Reformed circles is thinking that the Gospel is not made available, freely to all, that God has decided ahead of time that X isn't going to get it.[/QUOTTE]
Agreed!

Yes, election is unconditional--the most foul and the least foul believers (we all stink) are chosen, elect--and this by God's grace [alone] lest any man should boast.

Amen.

I think we've spent a long time to see that we agree. Have I missed something?

I don't think so. Seems our views are quite compatible.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Except that the fights that have erupted--including bloodshed--reduces them to childishness.

True