My understanding of Soteriology.

[5thKingdom]

.

Great response, thank you.

Great question... Philosophically speaking, I think it makes more sense from a molinist PoV which is which you listed in the second way, that being God has "middle knowledge" of what anyone "would do" if in any given situation.

I would agree that is the molinist perspective, however, the fact
that God knows what men will do, does not really address the
question of salvation - if we accept the Biblical teaching that (after
Adam's sin) NO MAN will seek God or make a "good" movement
toward God. I say this only because some readers ASSUME that
God "knowing" how men will act equates to men being ABLE to
seek God, or make a positive movement, before regeneration.
God can KNOW that NO MAN will "seek" Him [Rom 3:10-12]
but that foreknowledge does NOT equate to natural men having
the ABILITY to "seek" Him, or to do any action other to what is
"natural" to men with a sin nature - and captive to Satan.

I would say, however though, that theologically, this PoV is a bit untenable if we have a view of the body, soul, and spirit as "contents" of God's creation. If, from the theological position that what we ARE is contents that God has created, then it makes little sense to adopt a point view where God is not ultimately in control of and Sovereign over those contents.

While I agree... I would add that we are not looking at man as he
was created (Adam) we are looking at men after they inherit the
result of Adam's rebellion and are born spiritually DEAD and captive
in Satan's "Kingdom of Babylon". In my view, this only INCREASES
the point you made above about the Sovereignty of God during the
salvation process. But it is a necessary distinction because some
like to pretend that the sin nature of man is God's creation, instead
of God's (righteous) Judgment for committing a forbidden act (sin).

From a strictly Biblical view, however, I would say in some sense this paints a bit different picture. From the point of an exegetical view of the whole Bible and God's redemptive plan, it seems to be the case that God in His Sovereignty wants to make us heirs of His Grace that He has given His Son.

I would only add that the word "us" represents those God elected,
before the foundation of the world, based ONLY on His good pleasure
and not on anything good or evil that person would do in their life.


In other words, the History of the world is really just a reflection of
God's salvation plan over four separate and distinct "Kingdoms" as
He elects, regenerates and sanctifies certain people, and not others.


That the (1st) Pre-Flood "Kingdom of Heaven" consisted of all the
saints from Adam to Noah, who God "elected" to salvation as well
as all the millions of people that God never elected.


Likewise, in the (2nd) Jewish "Kingdom of Heaven" [Mat 22:2]
God "elected" SOME Jews to be saved while He left the majority
of Israel in their natural (unsaved) state, as well as almost 100%
of the millions of Gentiles. In other words, many men living in
that "Kingdom" were NEVER MEANT to be saved.


We see this again during the (3rd) Christian "Kingdom of Heaven"
[Mat 13] as Jesus explains the church consists of saved "wheat" who
are sown by God and destined to eternal life - with many unsaved
"tares" sown by Satan and (as children of Satan) destined to the
same FIRE prepared for Satan [Mat 25:41]. Clearly, the children
of Satan were NEVER MEANT to be saved.


And the same in the (4th) Great Tribulation "Kingdom of Heaven"
[Mat 25:1-13] which consists of the saved ("wise virgins") and the
unsaved "foolish virgins". Clearly, in this era, the "wise virgins" are
taken into the "marriage" and the "Door is Shut" [v10] while the
"foolish virgins" were NEVER MEANT to be saved.

One can even argue that we are "FELLOW heirs with Christ" because of the way Christ's atoning death functions whereby God only sees the righteousness of His Son in Christ and that our sins are "paid for". And with God granting us the righteousness of His son, the the conclusion we would come to is that in our glorification we reign with Christ.

Again I agree as long as we define "we" and "our" as meaning
ONLY the elect of God. The Bible is clear that some men were
NEVER MEANT to be saved and, therefore, their sins were NOT
covered by the Atonement. If Christ had PAID for those sins then
those people would not be destined to eternal hell - because the
Bible never teaches any sin must be paid TWICE. Neither does
the Bible teach Christ's SUFFERING was a contingency payment
or a "promissory note" that men can choose to redeem of not.


In fact, while it is normally viewed as an abstract concept, to
correctly understand the Atonement we need to understand that
(a) it required Christ SUFFERING for each sin covered, as if He had
committed the sin and (b) Christ did not SUFFER for more sins than
any elect committed - or sins of people NEVER MEANT to be saved.

In my humble understanding of these things, I think the main thrust
of salvation is that it is a gift that would not make sense under any condition to turn it down. If we are resurrected with Christ then really, the only "choice" we have in the matter is how much we should show our gratitude towards Him who saved us when we were dead.

While there is no doubt salvation is a GIFT, the Bible is clear that
the natural man will always and ever oppose God and is not able
to "receive" any GIFT until after regeneration when they become
"sons" of God and joint "heirs" with Christ.


Another perspective would be to say that God "elected" a man
to salvation... and then the WILL of that man is able to frustrate
the WILL of his Creator. There is no such teaching in the Bible,
where man is Sovereign and Autonomous over God.


When you say "if we are resurrected with Christ" that has to apply
ONLY to the "elect" who are included in that resurrection, so that
the natural (free will) response of the regenerated is to "seek" God
and to respond with the "fruit" of sanctification. Whereas those
not elected, in their natural state, can only make a ("free will")
decision that opposes God. As their master/father is still Satan.


I appreciated your thoughtful response and would be interested
in discussing any area that you think we differ in our theology
or how we see Biblical Truth.


Jim

 

[TibiasDad]

That doesn’t answer the question. You said that predestination informs God who the elect are. The verse you posted says we are predestined according to His purpose. So the two views are opposed to each other.

To the Calvinist, God's knowledge is certain because he has predetermined and decreed whatsoever comes to pass. His purpose is to ensure that what he wants will indeed happen. And again, for the Calvinist, God can only do this by meticulous predetermination of all things great and small. (I'm not a Calvinist, by the way )


Doug

 

[5thKingdom]

To the Calvinist, God's knowledge is certain because he has predetermined and decreed whatsoever comes to pass. His purpose is to ensure that what he wants will indeed happen. And again, for the Calvinist, God can only do this by meticulous predetermination of all things great and small. (I'm not a Calvinist, by the way ) Doug

To the Arminian, God's "election" is contingent on man's will.
Men are not "elected" according to the Good Pleasure of God's Will,
[Eph 1:4-5] but based on the foreknowledge that MAN will choose
or decide to become one of "His Sheep".


Election is based on man's will, and man's works, instead of God's
mercy. The purpose of election is NOT based on Him that Calleth,
but on man's will and works. Election is not based on the Will of God,
but on the will and the works of man. [John 1:13] [Rom 9:11, 16]


Essentially, man must do some good work; like saying the sinner's
prayer or making an altar call or receiving water baptism or repenting
of some sin or inviting Jesus into their heart or DECIDING* to believe.
Then God will SEE what a good work that man has done, and God
will then be OBLIGATED to save that individual.


This makes MAN the author (or co-author) and God the finisher
of salvation... as long as man "works" to retain that salvation.


*It should be noted that, to the Arminian, the good work of choosing
or deciding to become one of "His sheep" is not really a "work" since
they put the word "non-meritorious" before the action. This makes
an action/choice/decision of man NOT a "work" of man. Pretty cool.


God's knowledge on "election" can still be certain but only because
God can know HOW each man will respond to the "free offer" of salvation... requiring Christ to SUFFER and PAY for the sins of those
God knew would NOT believe the Gospel, and even men who were NEVER MEANT (and I quote) "to be forgiven". [Mark 4:11-12]


Of course the vast majority of the Pre-Flood world, and the vast
majority of the Jewish Kingdom, and the vast majority of the
Christian Kingdom were NEVER MEANT "to be forgiven".
To the Arminian, Christ SUFFERED to pay for their sins
KNOWING they would not meant to be forgiven.


Do not ask me WHY those destined to hell must PAY for their sins,
if Christ has already SUFFERED to pay for the same sins, apparently
their sins must be paid TWICE, or the Atonement was only some
"contingency payment" or just a "promissory note" for the men
who would eventually DECIDE to become one of "His Sheep".


(I am not an Arminianist by the way)


Jim
.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

Upon reflection...

I do not know if I am firmly in the Calvinist camp although I do agree with TULIP. What I mean is that I think I would say salvation is synergistic upon justification and not after. Rather, I would say regeneration happens precisely at the time of synergism, but before that it would be completely monogistic.

Based on my understanding of the Bible, man does have a Free Will as far as making decisions goes. The question then becomes at what point does God intervene. The way I see it is that there are certain "laws" governing the universe such as mathematics and physics and biology and psychology. That being said, it is then a matter of whether what we call the mind today is actually a separate entity other than a creation of God. I say this because it seems if God knows the contents of everything, then things like the soul and spirit have rules of their own. If God knows the laws governing those rules that souls and spirits adhere to, then it seems likely God really does control everything since the beginning of time. Now the question remains whether God can create something he doesn't have control of. Well, certainly God does intervene in the happenings of man. If God can intervene, does that mean he allows us to intervene in the lives of others? The question is a question of freedom. Does God "allow" people to live as they want to live? Common sense based on our first person narrative seems to be pretty clear that we can in fact infringe our will on someone else. But if that is the case, then how does God carry out His redemptive plan for us? So the question just circles around to how "Sovereign" God is verses how much Freedom He gives to intelligent creatures. How much of our Free Will is "too much" and how much is "not enough" of God's Sovereignty...
I feel reading in the OT can answer this. From what I have gathered in my reading, God allows men to go astray, but then chastises them into repentance. But that is only one of the two perspectives. God allows sin, but does He also give us an allowance of Free Will to repentance? In my mind, this is a one way street argument. God allows sin, but calls the elect. The problem I thin a lot of Armenians make is that God's Sovereignty is a two way street between was he allows that is evil and extending that same thinking to those who are saved. I think the actual way it works is that even though God is Sovereign over our lives, He gives us the Free Will to sin, but He gives His irresistible grace to those whom He elects.

I would say it like this:
Let's say your best friend says he has a really great place to meet him at where they have a bunch of free food that is your favorite dish. Let's say the destination is called "Heaven". So you plug into your GPS that you want to go to the destination. So you get in your car and start driving. Say you are driving on a one way street called "Sin Street". The direction you headed in is where you sin and it leads to an eventual traffic jam that you do not know about. You come to a juncture where there is a stoplight of a one way by one way intersection with two roads intersecting. The road at the intersection is called "Regeneration Avenue". There are several "Regeneration Avenue" roads before the traffic jam all leading to your destination called "Heaven". Let's say your GPS is telling you to turn at the intersection. As you are on "Sin Street" you have ample number of chances on when you want to turn on "Regeneration Avenue" every intersection, but once you turn onto this road all the "Sin Streets" will disappear. The question then is if you want to turn onto "Regeneration Avenue" or not and go in a new direction to your destination of "Heaven" or not.

 

[5thKingdom]

Upon reflection...
I do not know if I am firmly in the Calvinist camp although I do agree with TULIP.

To the Arminian, God's "election" is contingent on man's will.
Men are not "elected" according to the Good Pleasure of God's Will,
[Eph 1:4-5] but based on the foreknowledge that MAN will choose
or decide to become one of "His Sheep".


Election is based on man's will, and man's works, instead of God's
mercy. The purpose of election is NOT based on Him that Calleth,
but on man's will and works. Election is not based on the Will of God,
but on the will and the works of man. [John 1:13] [Rom 9:11, 16]


Essentially, man must do some good work; like saying the sinner's
prayer or making an altar call or receiving water baptism or repenting
of some sin or inviting Jesus into their heart or DECIDING* to believe.
Then God will SEE what a good work that man has done, and God
will then be OBLIGATED to save that individual.


This makes MAN the author (or co-author) and God the finisher
of salvation... as long as man "works" to retain that salvation.


*It should be noted that, to the Arminian, the good work of choosing
or deciding to become one of "His sheep" is not really a "work" since
they put the word "non-meritorious" before the action. This makes
an action/choice/decision of man NOT a "work" of man. Pretty cool.


God's knowledge on "election" can still be certain but only because
God can know HOW each man will respond to the "free offer" of salvation...
requiring Christ to SUFFER and PAY for the sins of those God knew would NOT
believe the Gospel, and even men who were NEVER MEANT (and I quote)
"to be forgiven". [Mark 4:11-12]


Of course the vast majority of the Pre-Flood world, and the vast
majority of the Jewish Kingdom, and the vast majority of the
Christian Kingdom were NEVER MEANT "to be forgiven".
To the Arminian, Christ SUFFERED to pay for their sins
KNOWING they would not meant to be forgiven.


Do not ask me WHY those destined to hell must PAY for their sins,
if Christ has already SUFFERED to pay for the same sins, apparently
their sins must be paid TWICE, or the Atonement was only some
"contingency payment" or just a "promissory note" for the men
who would eventually DECIDE to become one of "His Sheep".


(I am not an Arminianist by the way)