A question for Calvinists

[orthotomeo]

Come on, you guys are arguing like a bunch of baptists.

Oh. Right.

 

[CCWoody]

CCWoody, so morality has nothing to do with salvation, in whether one come to God or not?

YES! YES! YES!

YOUR morality, i.e. your good and correct character and behaviour, has absolutely nothing to do with your salvation. I'm not sure what you meant to say, but you have essentially asked me if your good works will get you into heaven.

The only character which counts is the character of Christ. And unless you are wholly leaning on that, then you have absolutely no salvation at all.

He is always a free moral agent?

Yes! Man is always free to do what he wants to do.

But in the quote it just said "free agent" and says it is consistant meaning that the two are related. I still find the statement quote ambigious.

Let's replace the word consistent with its equivalent "compatible." Then, we should see that the Baptist faith message is only saying that Election and free agency are not mutually exclusive ideas. The reason is that election has absolutely nothing to do with man.

Let me illustrate with this simple set of verses and questions:

Matthew 11: 20 - 27 --
Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you." At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure. "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

• God foreknew Tyre and Sidon's free choice NOT TO REPENT in the case of His non-performance of such Miracles; AND
• God foreknew Tyre and Sidon's free choice TO REPENT in the case of His performance of such Miracles; AND
• God CHOSE not to perform these Miracles in Tyre and Sidon, a choice which had as its perfectly foreknown result the NON-Repentance of Tyre and Sidon, just as He foreknew.

True, or False?

 

[CCWoody]

I'm not CCWoody, but I am almost certain we will have the same answer. Since our salvation (election) is determined before the foundation of the earth is laid (Eph 1) then our salvation has NOTHING to do with what we do or do not do here on earth, but all to do with the mercy and grace of God choosing us as His children and creating us to trust in Him to help us perservere.

Perzackly. Not of him who works, but of Him who calls.

 

[CCWoody]

Amen. Very good point.

I LOVE the avatar. We could use a little more of that man's fire and theological brilliance today. Billy Graham, you ain't America's greatest preacher. That role was filled a few hundred years ago.

 

[CCWoody]

eh? I do go to a SBC Church but would never sign the Baptist Faith and message because I believe to sign something is to agree fully, and if that be the case then the Bible is the only thing I'll sign

FOM<><

Just for my curiosity since I'm not a SBC, but what part of the Baptist Faith and Message do you find to be wrong?

 

[sola fide]

I LOVE the avatar. We could use a little more of that man's fire and theological brilliance today. Billy Graham, you ain't America's greatest preacher. That role was filled a few hundred years ago.

Amen again. You're not going to find any Jonathan Edwards' running around today. It sure would be nice though .

Grace.

 

[FOMWatts<><]

Just for my curiosity since I'm not a SBC, but what part of the Baptist Faith and Message do you find to be wrong?

Well I wouldn't call it wrong. I just hesitate to go along with Paul's stated opinion on women in the church. The SBC takes that as command not to let women preach, and I happen to have been spiritually touched by many women. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with it, I just have doubts about that part of it.

FOM<><

 

[Covenant Heart]

Whereas my words have been cited in substantiation of the existence of a "problem," I feel that a response is in order.

First, know that I am not the final word on the reformed interpretation of our undoubted Christian faith. I am one voice, just as folk rocker is one voice in his tradition. The fact that I (or he) say something hardly establishes what is said as normative in our respective communities. And as rocker seems little inclined to affirm other statements I make, he can hardly deem reformed members to be obligated to concur with me when I affirm some things that rocker says. This cuts both ways.

Second, folk rocker seems to read my post in a sense other than was intended. When I say that reformed people have not always been as devoted to the Great Commission as they ought to have been, I do so in the sense that no Christian body–including rocker’s fellowship–has ever been totally devoted to God. What tradition has no embarrassing moments? What church has not made mistakes? Speaking for myself, it seems a sad day when we cannot say we have sinned (1Jo 1:10).

Third, in private correspondence with rocker, I’ve alluded to serious error in his Anabaptist tradition. But I also cited our confessions as they indicate that our interpretation of the commandments requires us to cover other’s failings, and to refrain from an unnecessary discovery of other’s sins. If it gratifies rocker to publish the failings of our past leaders, so be it! I will reply in the spirit of the above paragraph.

Fourth, while some individuals and bodies in the reformed community of churches have failed abysmally in Great Commission work, some of our number have always stood in the very best of evangelical tradition. That is also true of people in rocker’s tradition as well. We can’t paint all people with the color of some. That is true in all faith traditions.

Fifth, when addressing other faith communities, it behooves us to do good work, to find not the poorest but the best examples, to cite them not at their weakest but in their strongest moments of faith. Try as we may to make Calvin stand for our whole tradition, he was very aware of being but one in an international community of theologians such as Heinrich Bullinger, Peter Martyr Vermigli and Wolfgang Musculus.

Just as these leaders did not work alone, so our later confessions (as the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession) drew from theological antecedents other than Calvin’s Institutes. If you wish to make us accountable Rocker, I suggest that you refer not to individual figures but to the reformed family of confessions. You’ll accomplish more by holding us accountable to or even chargeable before them.

Sixth, however much our past leaders be maligned, I will not forsake the reformed interpretation of the law as it prohibits an unnecessary discovery of others’ sins. I may allude to them in private messages to Rocker–but to post the sins of Anabaptist of past centuries for all eyes to read on the www? No! That is not Christ’s way. Therefore, it is not the reformed way. Reformed people are accountable for themselves. We have enough for which to answer. Let others answer for their sins!

Rocker, you quickly latched onto my statement as "proof" of reformed neglect in gospel work. But when I acknowledge that, the point becomes moot. In our private messages, you say that our reformed forefathers persecuted and killed your Anabaptist predecessors. As documentation of church history seems not to be your strength (we all have weaknesses), I will document this for you. Anyone who so desires can read standard texts by scholars of any perspective–Lindsay, Bainton, Latourette, Hillerbrand–the list goes on.

On page 218 of "The Reformation," Hillerbrand writes "wherever the Anabaptist evangelists went, persecution set in almost simultaneously and forced the movement to go underground as soon as it had established itself. None the less, it appears that this persecution did not crush the vitality of the Anabaptist movement, even though most of the early leaders suffered martyrdom. If anything, it convinced the Anabaptists that theirs was the righteous cause which, so they felt, must in this world always suffer and be persecuted."

If this hasn’t made your day, Rocker, know that this work was published by Baker. Of course, Hillerbrand goes on to say other things about Anabaptists, but I won’t elaborate on them. If that still is not enough, one can read Leonard Verduin’s "Reformers and their Stepchildren." I don’t find the description of the rack, the thumbscrews, the burning of Anabaptists, etc., to be particularly edifying. But again, note that this was published by Wm. Eerdmans, another reformed publishing house. Rocker, we have the strength to say these things.

I agree with the reformer’s theology wholeheartedly. I am equally convinced that such practices as I describe were wrong. The fact that I can say that doesn’t weaken our reformed position. Our own people acknowledge these things. By acknowledging our wrong and repenting of it, we become stronger.

Seventh, Jesus told us to remove the log from our own eye so that we can see clearly to remove the speck from our neighbor’s eye. What does this mean for sinners? If we are as uncompromisingly principled and brutal with ourselves as we can be–and as tolerant and forgiving of others as we can be, we will probably approach the Biblical balance. Christ calls us to make full and free confession of our sins to find the forgiveness that he promises. Then we live the gospel that we profess.

Eighth, while meaning no disrespect to folk-rocker, know that he does not represent the best of his tradition–just as I do not represent the best of our tradition. Do not hold all Mennonites accountable for the few who may have been hardened in their injury. Those who appreciate the reformed "world-and-life" view theme can only wonder at all that the Mennonites have accomplished! They have dared to take some very unpopular stands–daring even to call for justice for those in occupied Palestine. Any who are seriously interested in social justice issues cannot fail to sing the work of the Mennonite Central Committee!

If I maligned this tradition, what would it accomplish? Would it take away anything of all that noble Mennonites have done? No. It would say nothing of them at all. But doing so would speak volumes of me. I won’t have it! These people are not our enemies! So whatever others may say of us, we must not slander or bash past leaders. Instead I can thank God for what he is doing through this tradition as well as ours.

In LD 40, the Heidelberger teaches that ill will is condemned by the sixth commandment as the root of murder, and "hidden murder." The Larger Catechism, ans. 135 includes as required duties "charitable thoughts, love, meekness...peaceable, mild and courteous speeches, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries."

To confess God’s law is to confess that all of us are murderers. Every believer sees the consequence of his/her sin as (s)he looks to the cross. Rocker–if you do not give your grudges and grievances to Christ, then for you to ask God to forgive your debts as you forgive ours–which would be not at all–that would ask God to curse you and to exclude you from his kingdom fellowship. Do not let your grudges keep you from fellowship with God. It isn’t worth it! Give this to Jesus Christ! All of us have experienced injuries. We can spend our lives nursing our grievances or we can experience the joy of the Lord in our lives. My friend–you have to face whether the Savior or these grudges are more important to you. LET THEM GO!

I have acknowledged freely that our reformed people have not always been as devoted to the great commission as they ought to have been. But Rocker–how can we hold out the gospel if we ourselves do not forgive? How can we proclaim forgiveness if we do not embody that gospel as a lifestyle by seeking God’s forgiveness for the grudges (and indeed, all our sins) that sever us from his fellowship? Nothing is worth that! Before God, we are all condemned and all beggars of his mercy and grace.

We confess our sins! For Christ’s sake and your own, will you not confess yours? Blessings!

Covenant Heart

 

[sola fide]

The Reformed view promotes evangelism. Why would we not want to take part in the great commission? We have a slight advantage. At least we know that God's elect will respond to the gospel. We know that the preached Word will have an effect on all hearers. Either it will call them to a state of life, or it will harden their dead hearts. The arminian has no such hope. If no one responds positively to the gospel the arminian will often end up blaming themselves and trying to come up with "more effective" methods. We can stick to God's simple two part plan for evangelism.
1. Preach the Word of God faithfully.
2. Pray that God will make it effectual.


Grace.

 

[Covenant Heart]

Hi Sola Fide! I have to tell you that I think we have an HUGE advantage! I touch on this in post # 104. We've all heard the "reformed theology discourages preaching" line. I think that a reformed view of God's present and coming kingdom gives us a VAST advantage. Yes, we need to figure out this fact and get with the program. But let the kingdom perspective filter through our brains and wow--this has potential! For whatever reason, my point has been given the silent treatment. Blessings!

Covenant Heart

 

[sola fide]

For whatever reason, my point has been given the silent treatment. Blessings!

Covenant Heart

Hmm. I wonder why . The truth is very difficult to argue with .

Grace and Peace.

 

[theseed]

CCW, Then this would resemble the Arminian argument that God chose those who would have chose him if they had the free will. Did God chose those who would chose them?

This is my thinking, he predetermines everything, and set everything in motion from the begining, so my free choice by God was pre-determined. But I'm only thinking this, not beleiving it yet.

 

[CCWoody]

A "Slight" Advantage???


Hi Sola Fide! I have to tell you that I think we have an HUGE advantage!

You guys crack me up! After taking a look at your post which folk rocker seemed to take as justification of his position, I decided to form a response. You see, rather than justify his statements, it actuallys condemns them. I'm sure it won't make folk rocker happy when he sees what I'm about to show since he has already agreed it is the truth.

Where is he, anyway? Has he decided to take a vacation from us? I know we reformed are a meaty chew, but usually people stick around a little longer before deciding they have had enough.

 

[CCWoody]

Seedy:

Gospel proclamation has not always been equal to other works among reformed bodies, true. But the Canons of Dort are not the reason for that. The reason lies more in the erosion of our philosophy of ministry due to the inordinate influence of alien theological systems. Among those is Gill’s brand of "Calvinism" as I said. More recently, another system has assailed our ministry philosophy and done ill to mission. Notice the several forces–good and ill–that have contributed to this.

Ok, lets examine why your statements do not support "folk_rocker's" conclusions. It is very simple, really. You have stated, and I actually agree that an "erosion" of our great historic Reformed doctrine is accompanied by a decline in our mission effort. Rather than support his conclusions, it actually condemns "folk_rocker's" assertions. For it does directly state that any erosion from Reformation doctrine actually causes a decline in missionary zeal.

What does this say for the Remonstrants and their Arminian offspring, who formed an entire anti-Reformation movement on doctrines different from those of the Reformers? I think it is rather obvious.

[begin edit]

I thought it prudent to expound upon my last statment as it pertains to missionary zeal. What I had in mind at the time I said it was a challenge by Augustus Toplady to the Arminians of his day to actually produce a single Arminian martry who had died in a missions effort. The historical fact is that by relative comparrision there have been very few Arminian martyrs when compared to the Reformers and their spiritual offspring who would be called Calvinists. One could literally trot out a long list of Predestinarian Reformers who were martyred from missions efforts to producing English language Bibles to even making historic Creeds.

Historically, we have been beaten and put into stocks; we have had our ears and noses cut off; we were burned alive, even while worshipping in our own churches. We have literally been slaughtered in droves, as many as 80,000 in only 2 weeks.

 

[CCWoody]

CCW, Then this would resemble the Arminian argument that God chose those who would have chose him if they had the free will. Did God chose those who would chose them?

It would only resemble the Arminian argument IF the Lord first resolved to create a world in a certain way, resolving the ends of creation, and THEN looked into the future to see who would believe and predestine them based upon their choice.

This is my thinking, he predetermines everything, and set everything in motion from the begining, so my free choice by God was pre-determined. But I'm only thinking this, not beleiving it yet.

Yes, the Lord also predestined your very free will choices. The Arminian explicitly denies this, but it is true. Just look at the questions in my example:

• God foreknew Tyre and Sidon's free choice NOT TO REPENT in the case of His non-performance of such Miracles; AND
• God foreknew Tyre and Sidon's free choice TO REPENT in the case of His performance of such Miracles; AND
• God CHOSE not to perform these Miracles in Tyre and Sidon, a choice which had as its perfectly foreknown result the NON-Repentance of Tyre and Sidon, just as He foreknew.

Every Christian will grant God’s perfect Omniscience; for not to do so is rank heresy, damnable and vile. Likewise, every Christian will grant God’s perfect Omnipotence, for not to do so is rank heresy, damnable and vile.

But grant God’s perfect Foreknowledge of All Potentialities, and Sovereign Freedom of Action, and you have just given the Calvinist the entirety of the debate. For if God, alone in Eternity, perfectly Foreknows all possible Creations, and perfectly Foreknows the operations of Free Will in each, from Beginning to End, and with Sovereign Freedom of Action Wills to give Actuality to the Creation of His choosing, then simply by the Act of Creation, He has Predestined all that will occur in that Creation -- having chosen to give Actuality to That One, in preference to all other Potential Creations which He could have willed into existence instead.

This is not to deny God’s capacity for Miraculous Intervention, for we worship a dynamic, Living God; but it does establish that God’s Interventions are themselves Predestined by Him from the Beginning, for He has Foreknown all possible Creations, and could have given Actuality to a Creation in which He would not intervene, or would intervene differently; But He Sovereignly Willed to give Actuality to the Creation (foreknown from beginning to end) which He chose, including therein His Foreknowledge of all Interventions which He would Effect.

Grant God’s Omniscience and Omnipotence, and the Augustinian/Calvinist will win the debate at its very root, every time. The Pelagian heretics knew this, which is exactly why they sought to deny God’s Omniscience -- they rightly knew it to be the anvil upon which Augustine would break them! And so it is with the ("Arminian") Pelagian and semi-Pelagians who hold the Church of Christ captive today.

 

[orthotomeo]

Every Christian will grant God?s perfect Omniscience; for not to do so is rank heresy, damnable and vile.

If that's true (and I'm not saying it's not), isn't it dishonest of God to react emotionally to anything people do?

o.

 

[theseed]

Where is he, anyway? Has he decided to take a vacation from us? I know we reformed are a meaty chew, but usually people stick around a little longer before deciding they have had enough.

He got kicked our of CF for 4 weeks b/c this thread. He says that he publically posted a reply to a moderator saying that everyone else was doing the same thing he was. I've no read all the posts, and some probably have been romoved, but it's seems a little drastic . He probably won't be back. He likes Theology Web better, and is using the same name there.

 

[frumanchu]

If that's true (and I'm not saying it's not), isn't it dishonest of God to react emotionally to anything people do?

o.

I would say no. Just because I know that my father will in fact die some day does not prevent me from being grieved by it when it happens. Nor did the knowledge that we were pregnant with any of our children prevent me from being joyful at their birth.

In the case of sin for instance, God's foreknowledge of it (and allowance of it) does not a) take away the sinner's responsibility for it or b) suspend the righteousness of God. Therefore it is quite reasonable for God to react as He does.

Does that answer your question?

 

[orthotomeo]

Do you have the link to the board FolkRocker's at? This place is becoming a real

Fru:

I would say no. Just because I know that my father will in fact die some day does not prevent me from being grieved by it when it happens. Nor did the knowledge that we were pregnant with any of our children prevent me from being joyful at their birth.

Not the same. Your emotional responses are genuine at such events because they're happening in the NOW, even if you expected them to happen for some time. But you did not preordain your father's death in eternity past, nor your children's birth. That's something different entirely.

In the case of sin for instance, God's foreknowledge of it (and allowance of it) does not a) take away the sinner's responsibility for it or b) suspend the righteousness of God. Therefore it is quite reasonable for God to react as He does.

Again, no it is not. You may be one of those who disagrees with the likes of R.C. Sproul on this, but does not God actually FOREORDAIN or DECREE all that happens in our universe, not merely FORESEE? God's emotions (which the Bible does present Him as having) are not genuine if He is "reacting" to things He long ago commanded to come to pass; He's not really reacting at all. It's a sham.

Also - do you believe God only *foresees* the indivdual's sin, but does not *foreordain* it, as Sproul and others do?

o.

 

[theseed]

Do you have the link to the board FolkRocker's at? This place is becoming a real

Yes. www.theologyweb.com