Is salvation by faith or by election?

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Sounds like straight from A.N. Whitehead, a very original thinker in his own right. Though he was culturally Christian and believed Jesus had a unique relationship with God, he did not have an orthodox faith. He's had some influence on liberal Christian churches, particularly those looking for an aesthetic alternative in a post-WWII, post-Holocaust world.

I'm not aware of him. I was first introduced to the concept through reading a work by Gordon Olson.
Here is a link to him:
https://biblicaltruthresources.wordpress.com/tag/gordon-c-olson/

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm not aware of him. I was first introduced to the concept through reading a work by Gordon Olson.
Here is a link to him:
https://biblicaltruthresources.wordpress.com/tag/gordon-c-olson/

Yeah, well, alot of the evangelical Open Theism type stuff is not as well thought out as Whitehead's process metaphysics.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Yeah, well, alot of the evangelical Open Theism type stuff is not as well thought out as Whitehead's process metaphysics.

There are some theories about God knowing everything, including a non-existent future, that is devoid of plain common sense. Some people leave their brains behind when they get religion.

 

[FireDragon76]

There are some theories about God knowing everything, including a non-existent future, that is devoid of plain common sense. Some people leave their brains behind when they get religion.

One major criticism of Whitehead's philosophy is that it was based off an outdated understanding of cosmology, including the eternity and steady-state of the physical universe. On the other hand, modern physics suggests the universe is not eternal and that time can be thought of as a dimension or function of space-time, that the future in some sense can be thought of as real in the same way space is real (are Open Theists now going to deny the reality of space, too? Then why not go all the way and also deny persons are real, as well? Then you have Whitehead's thought, or perhaps Meriological Nihilism or some form of quasi-Buddhism).

Open theism sounds like a human-centered philosophy/theology, similar to Whitehead, but its responding to religious rather than broader philosophical concerns. That's why I think its suspect. When dealing with God, any rationalistic approach is bound to be flawed.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

One major criticism of Whitehead's philosophy is that it was based off an outdated understanding of cosmology, including the eternity and steady-state of the physical universe. On the other hand, modern physics suggests the universe is not eternal and that time can be thought of as a dimension or function of space-time, that the future in some sense can be thought of as real in the same way space is real.

Open theism sounds like a human-centered philosophy/theology, similar to Whitehead, but its responding to religious rather than broader philosophical concerns. That's why I think its suspect. When dealing with God, any rationalistic approach is bound to be flawed.

I believe that the Genesis account is what God wants us to know about Cosmology, and although not exhaustive, it is true.

 

[FireDragon76]

I believe that the Genesis account is what God wants us to know about Cosmology, and although not exhaustive, it is true.

If the future is not real, how exactly does prophecy occur? How could we potentially explain a phenomenon such as clairvoyance?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

If the future is not real, how exactly does prophecy occur? How could we potentially explain a phenomenon such as clairvoyance?

1. Prophecy involves what God is planning for the future.
2. Clairvoyance is a demonic lie in order to deceive people.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Is salvation by faith or by a pre-born, pre-faith election? If God elects individuals to salvation prior to their being born, prior to them believing, and if such election is not based on foreknowledge of their faith, then that would mean that people are born saved. They don't need to be saved through faith in the gospel as they would already be saved upon their birth.

In such a case, salvation is not by faith, but by election. In what way is such a concept not a denial of the gospel?

Being elected to salvation, though not yet appropriated by faith is no more an either/or situation than salvation by grace thru faith is. Election means one will be converted, though prior to that he has his "conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." (Ephesians 2:3)

In short, they were not saved, until God enabled and motivated him to do what he otherwise could not and would not do, to God be the glory.

For man could not and would not believe on the Lord Jesus or follow Him unless God gave him life, and breath, and all good things he has, (Acts 17:25) and convicted him, (Jn. 16:8) drew him, (Jn. 6:44; 12:32) opened his heart, (Acts 16:14) and granted repentance (Acts 11:18) and gave faith, (Eph. 2:8,9) and then worked in him both to will and to do of His good pleasure the works He prepared for them commands them to do. (Phil. 2:13; Eph. 2:10)

Thus man owes to God all things, and while he is guilty and rightly damned for resisting God contrary to the level of grace given him, (Prov. 1:20-31; Lk. 10:13; 12:48; Rv. 20:11-15) man can not claim he actually deserves anything, and God does not owe him anything but damnation, except that under grace which denotes unmerited favor God has chosen to reward faith, (Heb. 10:35) in recognition of its effects.

But man is not saved as one comatose, but passes from death to life (Luke 15:24) when he volitionally, as per God's grace described above, believes on the Lord in His penitent heart with a faith which will confess the Lord Jesus in word and deed.

And thus as "with the heart man believeth unto righteousness," (Romans 10:10a) thus salvation is promised to those who believe, but as works by the Spirit (Romans 8:14) evidence one is of saving faith, then the promise of salvation is given to those who believe as well as to those who obey, that with "the mouth confession is made unto salvation," (Romans 10:10a) "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned," (Mark 16:16) "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 10:32) "And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;" (Hebrews 5:9)

 

[FireDragon76]

The first part of the book of Romans gives some possible to answers to that.

How so? Neither classical Arminianism nor Calvinism implies that ignorance or naivite towards the Gospel puts away God's wrath against sin.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

How so? Neither classical Arminianism nor Calvinism implies that ignorance or naivite towards the Gospel puts away God's wrath against sin.

So you haven't read the relevant passages in Romans yet?

 

[FireDragon76]

So you haven't read the relevant passages in Romans yet?

I have, but I also am Lutheran/Protestant and I believe justification is by faith alone. How can a heathen have faith? I suppose we could say there are "anonymous Christians", but we don't know that in the same way we know what a Christian is.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I have, but I also am Lutheran/Protestant and I believe justification is by faith alone. How can a heathen have faith? I suppose we could say there are "anonymous Christians", but we don't know that in the same way we know what a Christian is.

If we take the passage in Romans literally without our theology getting in the way, it does seem that those who have never heard the gospel are judged by their own consciences. But the same principle applies to those complying with the Law. One has to comply with the whole Law without one single itty bitty little fault from childhood until death to be justified by the Law. One single fault is the violation of the whole Law therefore condemnation results. So, one single fault in complying with conscience brings the same result. One has to totally avoid everything his or her conscience tells is wrong, and one single little fault brings condemnation. So, in reality, not very many pagans will be saved, because everyone sins against their conscience in one way or another.

I think that Paul wrote that part of Romans to show that God is just and fair in all His dealings with those who hear the gospel and those who don't. A pagan who has not heard the gospel, cannot say God is unjust in dealing with him because all God has to ask is whether the guy obeyed his conscience in all his dealings. That would silence the guy because he would know very well that he didn't obey his conscience.

 

[StevenBelievin]

Is salvation by faith or by a pre-born, pre-faith election? If God elects individuals to salvation prior to their being born, prior to them believing, and if such election is not based on foreknowledge of their faith, then that would mean that people are born saved. They don't need to be saved through faith in the gospel as they would already be saved upon their birth.

In such a case, salvation is not by faith, but by election. In what way is such a concept not a denial of the gospel?

Salvation is by grace through faith. No one is saved before belief. Election and predestination come before salvation and belief. God has chosen the means of salvation by grace through faith. Being elect means that person will certainly come to faith by grace at the pre-ordained time of their calling. If you're not elect then you will never come to faith.

Acts 13:48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

 

[bcbsr]

Salvation is by grace through faith. No one is saved before belief. Election and predestination come before salvation and belief. God has chosen the means of salvation by grace through faith. Being elect means that person will certainly come to faith by grace at the pre-ordained time of their calling. If you're not elect then you will never come to faith.

Acts 13:48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

Under Reformed Theology people are fated to eternal life prior to even being born. Now ask yourself the question: Are such people ever in their life in danger of going to hell? No, not according to Reformed Theology. Rather they are eternally secure being destined for heaven. Mine you, this is prior to them coming to faith in Christ. And thus faith in Christ was not a condition for them to be destined for eternal life.

According to such a scenario how should one respond to some random person asking "What must I do to be saved?" For if they are elect, there is nothing they can do to be saved. (That's monergism for you) For they are already fated to go to heaven. And likewise if they are not elect, then there's nothing they can do to be saved. So the rational response in light of the Reformed doctrine of "Unconditional Election" should be "nothing". Otherwise such people aren't responding rationally to such an inquiry.

 

[bcbsr]

I am a Calvinist. And I agree that, existentially, our faith is the condition of our justification and adoption and it is the instrument whereby we are saved. No one teaches that the elect are “born saved” in an absolute sense. The elect were at one time children of wrath. It is only when God regenerates them and gives them faith that they truly become saved.

Under Reformed Theology people are fated to eternal life prior to even being born. Now ask yourself the question: Are such people ever in their life in danger of going to hell? No, not according to Reformed Theology. Rather they are eternally secure being destined for heaven. Mine you, this is prior to them coming to faith in Christ. And thus faith in Christ was not a condition for them to be destined for eternal life.

According to such a scenario how should one respond to some random person asking "What must I do to be saved?" For if they are elect, there is nothing they can do to be saved. (That's monergism for you) For they are already fated to go to heaven. And likewise if they are not elect, then there's nothing they can do to be saved. So the rational response in light of the Reformed doctrine of "Unconditional Election" should be "nothing". Otherwise such people aren't responding rationally to such an inquiry.

 

[Tree of Life]

Under Reformed Theology people are fated to eternal life prior to even being born. Now ask yourself the question: Are such people ever in their life in danger of going to hell? No, not according to Reformed Theology. Rather they are eternally secure being destined for heaven. Mine you, this is prior to them coming to faith in Christ. And thus faith in Christ was not a condition for them to be destined for eternal life.

Unless you are an open theist, you have the same difficulty. Wouldn't you agree that God knows the beginning from the end and that he knows all those who will freely choose him? Since he knows who will ultimately be saved, isn't it the case that these people were never really in danger of going to hell?

According to such a scenario how should one respond to some random person asking "What must I do to be saved?" For if they are elect, there is nothing they can do to be saved. (That's monergism for you) For they are already fated to go to heaven. And likewise if they are not elect, then there's nothing they can do to be saved. So the rational response in light of the Reformed doctrine of "Unconditional Election" should be "nothing". Otherwise such people aren't responding rationally to such an inquiry.

The funny thing is that no Calvinist would ever say this. If someone asks me: "What must I do to be saved?" I would say: "repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ."

 

[StevenBelievin]

When the elect are born it is inevitable they will go to heaven, and coming to faith at some point doesn't change that fact.

You will never hear a Calvinist say this. You are misrepresenting Calvinism.

The elect still have to come to faith at some point by believing. If that never happens then they were not elect.

 

[StevenBelievin]

Under Reformed Theology people are fated to eternal life prior to even being born. Now ask yourself the question: Are such people ever in their life in danger of going to hell? No, not according to Reformed Theology.

If a person dies before believing in Jesus for their salvation they will go to Hell provided that they are over the age of accountability (which is a different topic). If that happens then that person was not elect. Being elect doesn't mean your saved before you believe. It means you will certainly be saved by grace through faith (belief) at the appointed time. Elect people believe and are saved. Non-elect people will not believe.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Salvation is by grace through faith. No one is saved before belief. Election and predestination come before salvation and belief. God has chosen the means of salvation by grace through faith. Being elect means that person will certainly come to faith by grace at the pre-ordained time of their calling. If you're not elect then you will never come to faith.

Acts 13:48 Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

So what you are saying: that the billions of people now in hell, or are to go there in the future were actually created for that purpose - to be tortured in hell for eternity? Why would God created billions of people for that purpose? Does that sound like a monster of a God you'd want to believe in? Or is the God of the Bible different?

 

[bcbsr]

Unless you are an open theist, you have the same difficulty. Wouldn't you agree that God knows the beginning from the end and that he knows all those who will freely choose him? Since he knows who will ultimately be saved, isn't it the case that these people were never really in danger of going to hell?
"

Apparently you're unfamiliar with the Calvinist doctrine of election. God's foreknowledge doesn't enter into it.

Institutes of the Christian Religion Chapter 21.
Of the eternal election, by which god has predestinated some to salvation, and others to destruction. (title is calvin's)
"All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation"

"The predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death, no man who would be thought pious ventures simply to deny; but it is greatly caviled at, especially by those who make prescience its cause."