Sanctification & Calvinism

[fhansen]

I choose to read it for God's truth, as he states it, not based on myself's need for "balance."

The truth regarding salvation, for anyone interested, balances between the brilliant hope of future glory with God and the necessity of doing our part, with whatever time and grace we're given, in acheiving it.

Indeed! . . .my theology is "stifled" by the Scriptural text taken at its word.

You select the parts of His word you prefer-and also fail to undersatnd any of it in light of the historical understandimg-and so your theology remains stifled.

 

[Clare73]

The truth regarding salvation, for anyone interested, balances between the brilliant hope of future glory with God and the necessity of doing our part, with whatever time and grace we're given, in acheiving it.

You select the parts of His word you prefer-and also fail to undersatnd any of it in light of the historical understandimg-and so your theology remains stifled.

And you know this how?

So my theology is canned and stifled, while your theology is saturated with historical human reasoning.

Previously addressed. . .

 

[Mark Quayle]

He's saying that the definition of a gift is not compatible with the Calvinistic dogmas that remove agency through the eternal decree. That what you said here below is not a gift due to it being forced on a person.

I personally disagree and think that there is a definition of a gift against somebody's will. For example if you give a dying man the thing he needs to live against his will in order to save his life then it is a gift regardless of if he wanted it at the time or not. But I think that Bob is right in the heart of his argument that Scripture does not present this gift as such, that it presents the gift as something that people can deny (and will be judged for doing so).

God bless .

As you have stepped in as @BobRyan 's personal translator, I'll jump in, too, as @Clare73 's.

Clare is not saying that God cannot, nor that he does not, do anything against the will of the lost, but that the one gift, regeneration, is not forced against anyone's will, anymore than their first birth is forced upon the fetus. What the fetus wills or doesn't will is not a consideration. That the baby does will to live, once born, and that, by his very nature, is more than obvious.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The truth regarding salvation, for anyone interested, balances between the brilliant hope of future glory with God and the necessity of doing our part, with whatever time and grace we're given, in acheiving it.

Well, at least you represent the RCC more or less accurately.

You select the parts of His word you prefer-and also fail to undersatnd any of it in light of the historical understandimg-and so your theology remains stifled.

Scripture doesn't say anyone can "[achieve] the brilliant hope of future glory with God.", in part or in whole. Thus, perhaps, you can see how the standard by which you have here measured @Clare73 will be used to measure you, and those you represent, even as what I have just said will be used to measure me.

And may God have mercy on us all.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Because encouragment is just what it is: encouragement, and yes, hyperbole is often one of the literary devices the disciples used for this. This is obvious when the believer is also admonished to remain in Chrsit, put to death the deeds of the flesh, obey the commandments, be holy, persevere, remain in God's kindness, not return to the flesh, etc, with eterrnal life at stake.

Besides that, one has to believe that, aside from the specific audience the writer is addressing, they individually are also being addressed in these cases, and that, again, everyone who's personally applied those words to themselves down through the centuries was/is necessarily saved by virtue of that fact, that self-assessment, alone.

So how would you state the same things without employing this "hyperbole"?



Who made that rule?

Let's see, what? Remaining is Christ, putting to death the deeds of the flesh, obey the commandments, be holy, persevere, remain in God's kindness, not return to the flesh, are hyperbole? How about, "Apart from me you can do nothing." —is that hyperbole too?

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

We are not, even though we declare independence and self-determination, able to do anything apart from God's causation.

Brother thank you for the thorough and well reasoned writings here. It will take some time for me to chew on it but for the most part you have fulfilled the purpose of the thread. I was looking for an answer to the question I had out of a genuine curiosity and you've given me that in spades. The above is the only point that I would speak against that you've written, that God allowing something to come to pass =/= causation. Your causation is gotten from the eternal decree, whereas a non deterministic paradigm puts the causation for sin & other events on the agency or volition of the individual that has real choice and responsibility. Which is why the origin of sin within Calvinism is so thorny (the Devil being the father of lies for example). Like I said earlier because of the changing definitions it leaves us with blind spots but this being the only point (Edit: in reference to the OP, not Calvinism in general) within this thorough response you have given me in regards to this for lack of a better term, synergistic view, it really speaks to your diligence. Thank you again for the effort put in here .

And thank you also for your time & effort too @Clare73

 

[fhansen]

Let's see, what? Remaining is Christ, putting to death the deeds of the flesh, obey the commandments, be holy, persevere, remain in God's kindness, not return to the flesh, are hyperbole? How about, "Apart from me you can do nothing." —is that hyperbole too?

I never even hinted that those are hyperbole-just the opposite, in fact.. They help establish the very truth that we must do our part, that salvation is not guaranteed-no OSAS-that we cannot predict whether or not we'll persevere. That we must remain in Him because..."Apart from Me you can do nothing."

 

[fhansen]

Well, at least you represent the RCC more or less accurately.

Scripture doesn't say anyone can "[achieve] the brilliant hope of future glory with God.", in part or in whole. Thus, perhaps, you can see how the standard by which you have here measured @Clare73 will be used to measure you, and those you represent, even as what I have just said will be used to measure me.

And may God have mercy on us all.

It's the measure God will use on all of us. As His Church wisely and rightly teaches, "At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love." We can fool oursleves into thinking we've been regenerated and saved forever but that's not the gospel. You've allowed a little leaven to spoil the whole batch of dough.

Well, at least you represent the RCC more or less accurately.

I honestly doubt you know much about it, or about the general broad consensus of the ECFs on the gospel, teachings of the early church or the progression of even more clear understanding and statements laid down at council down through the centuries of what was received and held from the beginning. History has aa way of confusing some with the facts. Of course, one can always believe that God lost the gospel for centuires only to have the reformers revive it by somehow doing some pretty good guess-work by picking up the bible centuries after the fact and just infallilby knowing what it meant to say even as they disagree with other reformers on what it meant to say. It's still happening to this day.

 

[setst777]

When I was a Calvinist I was told that sanctification was synergistic and at the time I recognised it as truth. But now that I've come out of the dogma I can't help but see somewhat of a contradiction. I have many other problems with the Calvinistic doctrines but I was just wondering if somebody who is still a Calvinist could explain to me the reasoning as to why "God does not try" works for salvation but not for sanctification? Is there something I'm missing here?

P.S I'm not anti Calvinist, most of my favourite preachers come from the Reformed tradition. Just thought I would mention because I remember what it's like being on the receiving end of this stuff. There's a tendency to put the walls up.

The Scriptures throughout teach that Sanctification is definitely synergistic (Philippians 2:12-13).

God sanctifies those who sanctify themselves to Lord Jesus, following Him by faith.

1 Thessalonians 4:3-8 (WEB) 3 For this is the will of God: your sanctification, that you [the believer] abstain from sexual immorality, 4 that each one of you know how to control his own body in sanctification and honor, 5 not in the passion of lust, even as the Gentiles who don’t know God, 6 that no one should take advantage of and wrong a brother or sister in this matter; because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as also we forewarned you and testified. 7 For God called us not for uncleanness, but in sanctification. 8 Therefore he who rejects this doesn’t reject man, but God, who has also given his Holy Spirit to you.

If your faith is not evidenced in sanctification unto righteousness, you will never see the Lord.

Hebrews 12:14-16 (WEB) 14 Follow after peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no man will see the Lord, 15 looking carefully lest there be any man who falls short of the grace of God, lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and many be defiled by it, 16 lest there be any sexually immoral person, or profane person, like Esau, who sold his birthright for one meal.

2 Timothy 2:19 (WEB) However God’s firm foundation stands, having this seal, “The Lord knows those who are his,” [Numbers 16:5] and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from unrighteousness.”

Matthew 10:38 (WEB) He who doesn’t take his cross and follow after me isn’t worthy of me.

Romans 6:19-22 (WEB) 19 For as you presented your members as servants to uncleanness and to wickedness upon wickedness, even so now present your members as servants to righteousness for sanctification. 20 For when you were servants of sin, you were free from righteousness. 21 What fruit then did you have at that time in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22 But now, being made free from sin and having become servants of God, you have your fruit of sanctification and the result of eternal life.

To those who believe, which includes repentance: (2 Corinthians 7:10), God indwells by His Spirit to mark the believers as His (Ephesians 1:13-14) and to guide or lead the believer in that New Life, which is regeneration (Romans 8:14), but only as the Christian continues in the faith evidenced by walking by the Spirit - For the Spirit will only give life to those who live, walk, and sow to the Spirit - that is synergistic sanctification:

Galatians 6:7-9 (WEB) 7 Do not be deceived. God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. 8 For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap destruction. But he who sows to the Spirit will {{from the Spirit}} reap eternal life. 9 Let us not be weary in doing good, for we will reap in due season, {{if we}} do not give up.

Romans 8:12-14 (NIV) 12 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation – but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. 13 For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. 14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.

Galatians 5:24-25 (WEB) 24 Those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and lusts. 25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.

Romans 8:3-4 (WEB) 3 For what the law couldn’t do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh; 4 that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

That is synergistic sanctification.

The key word is "believe" or "faith," which is a present and continuous faith evidenced by following Lord Jesus into a sanctified life of righteousness and love.

Luke 21:34-36 (WEB)34 “So be careful, or your hearts will be loaded down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that day will come on you suddenly. 35 For it will come like a snare on all those who dwell on the surface of all the earth. 36 Therefore be watchful all the time, praying that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things that will happen, and to stand before the Son of Man.”

"The Promise" to be made alive is by faith (Galatians 3:21-22).

 

[Mark Quayle]

I never even hinted that those are hyperbole-just the opposite, in fact.. They help establish the very truth that we must do our part, that salvation is not guaranteed-no OSAS-that we cannot predict whether or not we'll persevere. That we must remain in Him because..."Apart from Me you can do nothing."

Ok, then. My misunderstanding.

Not that I don't detest any hint at Salvation dependent on the works of the person both before and subsequent to their regeneration, but I honestly mean not to disparage what you are saying. I protest vehemently that Calvinism (or I) claim we don't need to work, as is often said of OSAS. We MUST, or we are not of Christ. But the point is that these things you listed a couple of posts back, are not what saved us, nor indeed what keep us saved. At the best stretch of my reaching your direction, I can say that of these things, if they are more than evidence of Regeneration, and are causal to our salvation, it is only in Perseverance, and that, by God's work and not ours. And if there be any other besides Perseverance, that too is by God's work and not ours. YET WE DO WORK.

I'm not going to look for it, but today I wrote concerning the notion that Sanctification —not just Regeneration and/or Salvation— is also monergistic. Both scripture and personal experience tell me that whatever good I have done, whether accidental or by willed obedience on my part, was not I, but Christ in me.

It is valid to say that if we do not repent, believe, obey, persevere etc we are none of his. That does not imply that we CAN lose our salvation, but only at the most, that we can lose what we thought was our salvation. Nevertheless, when God uses all things to accomplish whatever he set out to do, it is not, as some claim we believe, "automatic", but rather very earthy and action-intensive. All creation groans until the sons of God are revealed. We believers do work, and God accomplishes every detail of what it takes to persevere. We believers are responsible to see that we continue in obedience and submission, but even that remains the work of God in us.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Brother thank you for the thorough and well reasoned writings here. It will take some time for me to chew on it but for the most part you have fulfilled the purpose of the thread. I was looking for an answer to the question I had out of a genuine curiosity and you've given me that in spades. The above is the only point that I would speak against that you've written, that God allowing something to come to pass =/= causation. Your causation is gotten from the eternal decree, whereas a non deterministic paradigm puts the causation for sin & other events on the agency or volition of the individual that has real choice and responsibility. Which is why the origin of sin within Calvinism is so thorny (the Devil being the father of lies for example). Like I said earlier because of the changing definitions it leaves us with blind spots but this being the only point (Edit: in reference to the OP, not Calvinism in general) within this thorough response you have given me in regards to this for lack of a better term, synergistic view, it really speaks to your diligence. Thank you again for the effort put in here .

And thank you also for your time & effort too @Clare73

Thank you for your kind words.

Yes, I do equate God's decree with God's causation with God's determining and a few more words. To me they are one and the same thing, though I can't say for sure there is not more to it than just that, (nor can I say that there is not less to it !) I don't like some of the words, because of the connotations that necessarily seem to be attached to them. They no longer mean only what they logically derive.

I can't remember if I have written on this thread concerning the Biblical evidence and logic behind the fact that a "non-deterministic paradigm" is not workable. The logic behind it, that God does nothing logically self-contradictory, is pretty self-evident. But I will leave the Biblical evidences to you to find for yourself, because if I do it, you may not be hit the same way as if you find it yourself.

To avoid confusion on your part, I don't want to insert more of my descriptions into what you are working on in your mind and heart. Just PLEASE realize, brother, that in no way do I, nor any Calvinist nor Reformed believer, to my knowledge, mean to absolve guilt or responsibility on the part of man for his acts. I will leave it there for now, but welcome your questions.

I don't know if you are familiar with some of the theological/philosophical "Attributes of God". You might find it uplifting and extremely relevant to your questions to study the Simplicity of God and particularly, the Aseity of God. I recommend you watch RC Sproul's talk on the Aseity of God. I have watched it maybe 4 times, and just looking it up tonight to give you the link, I see I am going to watch it again!

 

[fhansen]

"Forced" on a person means "against his will," for one does not will what one does not prefer.

God works in the disposition to give one to prefer the gospel.

And the choices one then makes based on their preference, by definition of "preference," are never against their will because they prefer it.
God does not "force" faith/salvation on the elect, they prefer the gospel and, therefore, freely and willingly choose it. . .no force involved.

I see. God doesn’t force them to choose rightly; He just changes their dispositions such that they cannot choose otherwise. Kind of a distinction without a difference IMO. Pure puppetry in any case, no reason for creation other than to have God manipulate His creation into doing His will, or not doing it. He may as well have just made some with the right dispositions to begin with and stuffed then in heaven and made the rest with wrong dispositions and stuffed them in hell. Or just gave Adam the right disposition to begin with and avoided all the centuries of evil that his sin led to.

Instead, with the true gospel, man, by an act of the will, said “no” to God at the beginning. And rather than redeeming and reconciling man with Himself right then and there He left man to his own devices, without abandoning him, to patiently seek to ultimately cultivate a willing “yes” from him. With man’s experience in a world alienated from God combined with the grace and revelation received from Him man might finally be malleable enough to respond with a “yes” when, in the fullness of time, he meets God in the person of Jesus Christ.

"Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.” Rev 3:20

This is not talking about some slam dunk. He’s not saying, “Since I’ve already regenerated you, when I stand at the door and knock you will open it, you will allow Me in, and so be saved forever. He draws us to open that door but we must open it. And then we must remain in Him and He in us.

“Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.” John 15:4-6

No slam dunk salvation there.

 

[fhansen]

Ok, then. My misunderstanding.

Not that I don't detest any hint at Salvation dependent on the works of the person both before and subsequent to their regeneration, but I honestly mean not to disparage what you are saying. I protest vehemently that Calvinism (or I) claim we don't need to work, as is often said of OSAS. We MUST, or we are not of Christ. But the point is that these things you listed a couple of posts back, are not what saved us, nor indeed what keep us saved. At the best stretch of my reaching your direction, I can say that of these things, if they are more than evidence of Regeneration, and are causal to our salvation, it is only in Perseverance, and that, by God's work and not ours. And if there be any other besides Perseverance, that too is by God's work and not ours. YET WE DO WORK.

I'm not going to look for it, but today I wrote concerning the notion that Sanctification —not just Regeneration and/or Salvation— is also monergistic. Both scripture and personal experience tell me that whatever good I have done, whether accidental or by willed obedience on my part, was not I, but Christ in me.

It is valid to say that if we do not repent, believe, obey, persevere etc we are none of his. That does not imply that we CAN lose our salvation, but only at the most, that we can lose what we thought was our salvation. Nevertheless, when God uses all things to accomplish whatever he set out to do, it is not, as some claim we believe, "automatic", but rather very earthy and action-intensive. All creation groans until the sons of God are revealed. We believers do work, and God accomplishes every detail of what it takes to persevere. We believers are responsible to see that we continue in obedience and submission, but even that remains the work of God in us.

All I can tell you Mr Quayle, and this is so obvious to me now, is that monergism subverts and eviscerates the gospel and God's purposes for and in man. God can and has made morally accountable beings, potentially great and noble beings made in His own image. And He can, by His sovereign decree, demand that they do the right thing: believe in, hope in, and love Him, and live their lives accordingly with firmer and firmer conviction of the will, with the help of grace but without His simply pulling the strings to make that happen.

He's in the busines of producing something here, not merely saving a portion of otherwise worthless sinfull wretches. He's not in it simply to glorify Himself, other than for us to come to know that glory that is His love so that we may be changed by it and begin to love in return whcih then become our glory. God, ever the good Father, wants that glory, that goodness for us. That's the nature of love-to want the very best for the other. And that means that He necessarily wants and allows us to participate in whether or not we'll receivce that goodness from Him. He dosn'tt need us to even exist but He wants us to- and to experince the sheer bliss and happiness that He knows.

The new covenaant is not about our just comimg to know how worthless and bad we are and how good He is. Its about the fact that we're worthless and nothing apart from Him. He wants us to be something; He created us to be something; He wants us to choose something, to choose Him first above all else and He will not simply cause us to do that. That's the point-the human will is the prize, so to speak. Because of the will evil entered the world. Because of that will, in conjunction with grace, with Him rather than apart from Him, evil is overcome. You don't know how much I- and He -detest the idea that the role of man must be removed altoghter from this matter-and IMO one has to bury their heads in the sand on order to think otherwise. But, again, He allows evil, for a time.

 

[fhansen]

So my theology is canned and stifled, while your theology is saturated with historical human reasoning.

My theology is saturated with scripture, heightened by the knowledge of historical beliefs and theology, and secure in the knowedge that God-and His gospel-are not irrational.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I see. God doesn’t force them to choose rightly; He just changes their dispositions such that they cannot choose otherwise.

@Clare73 didn't say the redeemed can't choose otherwise. It is self-evident and Biblical that the regenerated CAN choose otherwise. She only said they can choose rightly because the disposition of their will has been changed.

The mocking doesn't become you —particularly when you are beating a strawman.

 

[Mark Quayle]

All I can tell you Mr Quayle, and this is so obvious to me now, is that monergism subverts and eviscerates the gospel and God's purposes for and in man. God can and has made morally accountable beings, potentially great and noble beings made in His own image. And He can, by His sovereign decree, demand that they do the right thing: believe in, hope in, and love Him, and live their lives accordingly with firmer and firmer conviction of the will, with the help of grace but without His simply pulling the strings to make that happen.

He's in the busines of producing something here, not merely saving a portion of otherwise worthless sinfull wretches. He's not in it simply to glorify Himself, other than for us to come to know that glory that is His love so that we may be changed by it and begin to love in return whcih then become our glory. God, ever the good Father, wants that glory, that goodness for us. That's the nature of love-to want the very best for the other. And that means that He necessarily wants and allows us to participate in whether or not we'll receivce that goodness from Him. He dosn'tt need us to even exist but He wants us to- and to experince the sheer bliss and happiness that He knows.

The new covenaant is not about our just comimg to know how worthless and bad we are and how good He is. Its about the fact that we're worthless and nothing apart from Him. He wants us to be something; He created us to be something; He wants us to choose something, to choose Him first above all else and He will not simply cause us to do that. That's the point-the human will is the prize, so to speak. Because of the will evil entered the world. Because of that will, in conjunction with grace, with Him rather than apart from Him, evil is overcome. You don't know how much I- and He -detest the idea that the role of man must be removed altoghter from this matter-and IMO one has to bury their heads in the sand on order to think otherwise. But, again, He allows evil, for a time.

The reasoning by which you derive your doctrine somehow left out the reasoning that by removing God as first cause of all subsequent causes and effects, you have relegated destiny to the actions of mere chance —which is patently absurd. It is logically self-contradictory.

 

[Clare73]

I see. God doesn’t force them to choose rightly; He just changes their dispositions such that they cannot choose otherwise.

Is that the extent of how you imagine the operation of one's preference?

When given a choice between your favorite dessert and steamed hominy, you cannot choose the hominy?

Your preference forces you to choose the dessert?

You see that strawman as a true representation of the matter?

Strawmen are presented to disguise the reality of things and to justify denial of them.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

One legitimate test that a person is a child of God is persistence. If after suffering, persecution, and denying delicious temptations, a person remains... then that is evidence of salvation. If one goes away, then that is evidence of no rebirth.

I have come to see all believers to be Christ, and ALL unbelievers as "antichrist."

1 John 2:18-19
18. Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
19. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

Am I interpreting this passage correctly? The "they" of verse 19 are antichrist individuals in our midst. They will not indeed cannot remain with us. They are fish out of water. They may remain for a while and enjoy the benefits of church society. But when trouble comes or the benefits vanish... why would they remain? They do not. This seems to be an underlying theme in 1 John.

 

[fhansen]

Is that the extent of how you imagine the operation of one's preference?

When given a choice between your favorite dessert and steamed hominy, you cannot choose the hominy?

Your preference forces you to choose the dessert?

You see that strawman as a true representation of the matter?

Strawmen are presented to disguise the reality of things and to justify denial of them.

That's no strawman. Read the rest of my post. The answer to sin/evil in your scenario is that God changes someone so that they no longer prefer sin/evil. He could've just done that with Adam in Eden. There's no rhyme or reason for the history of the world, rife with sin, with the experience of evil, if all God does is make it so some people don't want to sin. He's the author of both good and evil in that case because no one else's will is involved in whether or not evil will prevail. Just Him, pulling all the strings.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

On that day when we stand before the Lord, nobody will be saying "See what I did? I sought You and found You. I did it. I was wise enough, strong enough, righteous enough, and it was my integrity that led me to take advantage of Your offering. It was me making the right decisions. I made the right choices. It is a good thing I was so virtuous, otherwise I would have never responded to Your offer. I did the work required to receive what You offered. Thanks for the assist of what you did on the cross, but in the end, it was all me, my actions, my thoughts, my faithfulness, not Yours that saved me. Now give me those crowns I deserve."
An exaggeration for effect, I know. But it is His faithfulness and love that saved us, not ours. All we can do is bow down and give thanks for His love, faithfulness, and sacrifice. Him. Not you.