Sanctification & Calvinism

[BobRyan]

Thanks. . .I am asking where.

"Gift" here, and in the NT, is in the sense of "not earned," it is not in the sense of "freedom to accept or reject."

Can you think of a gift that you are forced to accept against your will?

"Whosoever WILL may come"

Rev 22:17 And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. (Revelation 22:17)

Come unto Me all who are weary... and I WILL give you rest - Matt 11:28

"I STAND at the door and KNOCK - if anyone hears My voice AND OPENS THE DOOR - I will come in" Rev 3

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Can you think of a gift that you are forced to accept against your will?

"Whosoever WILL may come"

Rev 22:17 And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. (Revelation 22:17)

Come unto Me all who are weary... and I WILL give you rest - Matt 11:28

"I STAND at the door and KNOCK - if anyone hears My voice AND OPENS THE DOOR - I will come in" Rev 3

I'm not looking to argue against Calvinism here as the thread was about a specific question I had for those within it but just so you don't spin your wheels I thought that I'd mention something.

The "whosoever will" here is speaking of the elect in the Calvinistic paradigm which carries a different meaning within the systematic. The problem that you're going to run into that will leave you not making any headway is that Calvinism (any doctrine to be fair) changes the meaning of words like "elect" to mean limited atonement, "apostasy" to mean forsaking that which you didn't have and "predestined" to mean sovereignly decreed before the foundations of the earth in regards to every single individual action and future action. It can really sneak up on you and speaking from experience you often just forget and end up talking past each other. The only way to make headway is to present contradictions according to and within their own systematic, using their own definitions. Like 2 Peter 2:1 for example.

It's fun and stimulating to argue theology but let's remember that there's another soul on the receiving end, we should do our best not to place stumbling blocks in front of them . Not that you are, it's just a reminder for both you and anyone else reading this.

1 Corinthians 13:1

 

[Clare73]

Can you think of a gift that you are forced to accept against your will?

Relevance?

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Relevance?

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.

"Gift" here, and in the NT, is in the sense of "not earned," it is not in the sense of "freedom to accept or reject."

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 .

 

[Clare73]

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.

"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 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.

Again, in the light and context of the gospel, and the principle it repeatedly presents (i.e., "not by works"), "gift" is not about "freedom to accept or reject" the gospel of salvation, but is about "not earning" it.

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 .

Yes, the gospel is offered to all, and many reject it, but that is not the use of "gift."

All are born condemned (Ro 5:18), by nature (with which we are born) objects of wrath (Eph 2:3) and under judgment already.
The issue is not "being judged for rejecting the gospel,"
the issue is "rejecting the remedy" being offered which frees them from the condemnation and wrath (Ro 5:9) under which they are born.
They reject the remedy, so they remain in the condemnation and wrath under which they were already born (Ro 5:18, Eph 2:3).

 

[fhansen]

I don't think they would say that. Calvinist (at least the 3 and 5 point group) are pretty focused on the idea of perseverance and obedience

And yet I suppose it becomes a rather moot point if, by believing that they're numbered among the elect/regenerate, they beleive that faith and holiness, perseverance and obdience, are guaranteed to them anyway?

 

[Clare73]

And yet I suppose it becomes a rather moot point if, by believing that they're numbered among the elect/regenerate, they beleive that faith and holiness, perseverance and obdience, are guaranteed to them anyway?

Yes, as sons of God, the Holy Spirit guarantees his work in them which produces obedience and perseverance to their inheritance.

 

[fhansen]

Yes, as sons of God, the Holy Spirit guarantees his work in them which produces obedience and perseverance to their inheritance.

Yes, and its also true, as a teaching I'm faimliar with maintains, that we cannot know with 100% certainty that, we, individually, are or will remain in His family. A little healthy fear and trembling, a certain amount of doubt, about ourselves, is a sound perspective.

 

[Clare73]

Yes, and its also true, as a teaching I'm faimliar with maintains, that we cannot know with 100% certainty that, we, individually, are or will remain in His family.

NT apostolic teaching tells us how we can be sure to ourselves.

A little healthy fear and trembling, a certain amount of doubt, about ourselves, is a sound perspective.

Not according to NT apostolic teaching. . .

Healthy fear and trembling is not about our doubting our salvation, but just the opposite; i.e, it is the remedy for such doubt, which we are not supposed to have.

Fear and trembling is about not coming up short in our zealousness to good works (2Pe 1:5-8) which are the assurance to our own hearts of our election (Heb 6:11) and the testimony in our own hearts of our salvation and perseverance.

It's not about guaranteeing our salvation, it's about working out the testimony to our own hearts (Php 2:12) of the salvation we are guaranteed (Php 2:13).

 

[fhansen]

NT apostolic teaching tells us how we can be sure to ourselves.

No, it gives us encouraging hyperbole, instruction, balanced with warnings and admonishments, etc. And not everyone down through the centuries who's applied those words to themselves is/will be necessarily saved.

 

[fhansen]

Healthy fear and trembling is not about our doubting our salvation, but just the opposite; i.e, it is the remedy for doubt.
Fear and trembling is about not coming up short in our zealousness to good works (2Pe 1:5-8) which are the assurance to us of our election (Heb 6:11) and the testimony in our own hearts of our salvation and perseverance.

God, alone, knows with perfect cetainty whose names are written in the Book of Life, and whose are not.

 

[Clare73]

No, it gives us encouraging hyperbole,

God encourages us with hyperbole?
So then I can't take his encouragements at his word?

And you know this, how?

instruction, balanced with warnings and admonishments, etc. And not everyone down through the centuries who's applied those words to themselves is/will be necessarily saved.

Which does not discredit those who "applied those words to themselves" that were saved.

God, alone, knows with perfect cetainty whose names are written in the Book of Life, and whose are not.

Who claims they know the names written in the Book of Life?
The claim is only to one's own name (Ro 8:16).

 

[fhansen]

God encourages us with hyperbole?
So then I can't take his encouragements at his word?

And you know this, how?

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.

 

[Clare73]

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.

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

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.

Who made that rule?

 

[fhansen]

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

I'd leave out any warnings against the possibility of apostatizing, turning away from God, etc and make it all thoroughly nice and positive regardless of any choices we might make. That would leave less doubt at least. But that would be irresponsible. Man is the wildcard, not God.

Who made that rule?

Anyone who's ever believed such about themselves.

The Christian way has been more balanced, however. We find ourselves, as far as a human can know, believing in, hoping in, and loving God-and then growing stronger yet in those virtues. We also produce fruit: turning from sin, helping others, serving God in one way or another the best we can, loving more than before. But also being challenged as we struggle with sin, sometimes failing, returning to Him if we've turned away in a serious manner. And we say, 'I don't know if I'll necessarily persevere, if I'm one of those whom Jesus doesn't lose, but I sure believe so today, based on what I know about myself, my life, and His mercy, forgiveness and love. And that's enough, no reason to go further, or second-guess. We can leave it all up to Him to judge at the end of the day knowing He'll do the right thing in any case, and we just strive to do the right thing as well, now with the help of His grace made possible by the work of His Son.. I may be repeating myself here but this doesn't change one iota under the new covenant:

"He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God." Micah 6:8

 

[Clare73]

I'd leave out any warnings against the possibility of apostatizing, turning away from God, etc and make it all thoroughly nice and positive regardless of any choices we might make. That would leave less doubt at least. But that would be irresponsible. Man is the wildcard, not God.

So then the only way to be responsible is to use "hyperbole."

Somehow, I just don't think God finds himself in a bind from which only "hyperbole" can extract him.
That's just too low a view of my God.

No. . .my God means what he says,
I can trust in and count on his exact words in Scripture,
which tell me how I can to myself be sure that I am a son (Ro 8:16).

And I'm sure you'll understand when I believe what my God says in his word written over what anyone else says.

 

[fhansen]

So then the only way to be responsible is to use "hyperbole."

No, the only way a disiciple of God can be resposnilble is to reveal both sides of the coin-to tell the truth-the carrot and the stick, the possibility of still choosing evil over good. The only way a disciple of God can be responsible is to acknowledge thast man can fall again at any time. In Eden as well as after rising to the new birth. God doesn't want us to fool ourselves but to remain alert, vigilant, etc.

And I'm sure you'll understand when I believe what my God says in his word written over what anyone else says.

You believe the parts you prefer to believe-and overlook or ignore or reinterpet those that would bring balance into the matter-all to your liking with a rather canned, stifled theology reigning behind the scenes. Start reading the bible= for yourself, with no theological lens to begin with-and add some ECFs as well. It will give you a much fuller understanding of the faith- with history offering valuable input too.

 

[Clare73]

No, the only way a disiciple of God can be resposnilble is to reveal both sides of the coin-to tell the truth-the carrot and the stick,

That being a construct of Scripture where what is stated is never completely what it means.
Such construct allows leeway for conforming Scripture to one's theology, rather than conforming one's theology to Scripture.

God doesn't play "carrot and stick," he reveals his unalterable truth in its pure fullness, no "carrot and stick" needed.

I do not allow myself the liberty of not taking Scripture at its word. . .and neither did Jesus (Jn 10:35).

You believe the parts you prefer to believe-and overlook or ignore or reinterpet those that would bring balance into the matter-all to your liking

Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black.

For I do not assume Scripture needs some kind of "balance," that it is somehow "unbalanced" (nowhere presented in Scripture), and all being based simply on my personal notions of "balance."
Surely God hasn't left "balancing" his Scriptures to me. . .I leave the "balance" to God and take him at his word in the Scriptures.

with a rather canned, stifled theology

Indeed! . . .my theology is both
"canned," it being taken from the "canned" word of God, and
"stifled" by that "canned" Scripture taken at its word.

Whether "cooked and canned," or "green and fresh," all that matters is Scripture taken at its stifled word.

One can either take God at his word in the Scriptures, or one can "enlarge" their meaning based on one's personal need for the flexibility of "balance."

Start reading the bible= for yourself,

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

 

[Mark Quayle]

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.

Actually, there are a number of people, including myself, that hold to a monergistic view of progressive sanctification. I, too, saw a synergistic framework in any part of the ordo salutis contradictory to the whole system. If God works and wills in us to obey the gospel call, then it must necessarily follow that He works and wills in us for our holiness as well (Philippians 2:13).

Within the systematic if then we sin during our progressive sanctification does that mean that God decreed it? Per Monergism that is

J.I. Packer and R.C. Sproul taught that sanctification is “synergistic.” That is , they accept that an exercise of the will is needed to cooperate in Sanctification. As you point out - this is also true in Salvation , in Justification in the entire walk of faith.

God alone causes someone to be born again - but before that happens the person must choose the gospel which is a synergistic work - with God drawing and convicting the person - enabling their choice and the person choosing to respond.

Exactly! That is the flaw in monergistic sanctification and is one of the reasons why R.C.Sproul and J.I. Packer likely reject that Monergism for Sanctification

Bob, I expect you mean, "...is likely one of the reasons why R...". But I disagree. Having read and listened to both men, I would say they reject Monergism for Sanctification only because of the large difference between the effort of man in Regeneration and the effort of man of Sanctification.

This subject is one near and dear to me, in that experientially I can heartily, gratefully and without reservation affirm that it is God who has accomplished any good I do. But that it is obedience when it happens is nevertheless obvious. I have asked this question several times of several different sources and the answer is always the same as what I already know: That in the matter of regeneration, God does not consult me nor wait for me to do anything effective toward that end; he does not ask for my permission nor consider my will or my will's disposition in accomplishing it. HE alone does it, whether I am cognizant of it or not. But with Sanctification, and any virtue proceeding from Regeneration, to include repentance, obedience, love and even faith itself, I am given the responsibility to 'see it done', even though I recognize in the end that it was not me, but Christ in me.

Whether that should be called synergism or not, I'm not the one to say, because I do recognize the difference between the effort of will in the one vs the other. I only know that in my mind Sanctification is still monergistic, in that the term 'synergism' when applied to Salvation and in particular Regeneration, references the notion that the effort of the lost is added to that of God and improves or completes it, for a greater total effect. But if all 'synergism' means is that the believer merely 'cooperates' with God's work, not adding to it nor improving on it, then Sanctification is necessarily synergistic.

For that matter, the same could be said of salvific faith, I think. We did not generate it, but it nevertheless became ours; so it is a gift, and is that by which we choose to believe. We, in choosing to believe, 'cooperate' with our faith, in much the same way as, (conversely), the sin that Paul in Romans 7 describes almost as though it is something separate from the person, still is quite purposely cooperated with by the sinner.

Within the systematic if then we sin during our progressive sanctification does that mean that God decreed it? Per Monergism that is

I think Monergism (even apart from specific meaning regarding Regeneration and Sanctification) may have more to do with God's decree than we realize, in our organization of thoughts and concepts. But the short answer to your question is, "yes", but I say that only because God has decreed "all things, whatsoever shall come to pass". To me, it is both scriptural and logical, that whatever happens happens because God, one way or another, caused it to happen. It is a huge subject not often dealt with, in that God, to his Glory and Praise, in and of himself, caused that there be sin, and took the penalty for sin upon himself —this horror called 'sin', that we so lightly consider, excusing ourselves and making jokes about it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If that includes God initiating/decreeing temptation then it would go against the scripture in James 1:13-15. It would have God decreeing people to be dragged away by their vices as apposed to it being "their own evil desire". I understand the notion of God using agents to fulfill their own desires and then in turn being glorified by it, you can't read Job without believing that. But the decree has God initiating both the temptation and the carrying out of the sin itself. Whereas a synergistic view has the being who had the evil desire being held responsible.

This is the same kind of reasoning that says that if God decrees what we will choose, that we don't really choose. The one does not "appose" the other.

Your construction is simply not so, but we choose what we do BECAUSE God has decreed it. We are not, even though we declare independence and self-determination, able to do anything apart from God's causation. It is simply illogical to attribute our own ability to ourselves alone. We BECAME. But God IS. We cannot operate on his level.

That does not, however we might wish it, attribute blame to him, because the same being who commands "thou shalt not murder", is not the one who murdered. But, for those who might look at this from a purely temporal human point of view, that says the one that caused the murder is as guilty as, or even more guilty than, the one who pulled the trigger, consider three things:

1) That God, but for a couple of exceptions spoken of in Scripture, kills absolutely everyone who ever lived, whether by one cause or another, damage or old age. We are his to do with as he pleases. He owns us in every way that we do not own anyone else. He is not us. To make it perhaps more immediate, our very lives are in the palm of his hand. He upholds our very existence. Were he to "not bother" anymore, we would instantly cease to exist, or to even have ever existed. We are that much and more, his creatures.

2) That if one denying that God causes all things, still holds the murderer responsible for reacting the way he did to the circumstances surrounding the deed, how does seeing God as the first cause of that chain of causation bringing about that set of circumstances surrounding the deed, change anything of the murderer's responsibility?

3) That sin is committed against God. What is done by one creature against another is sin —no question there— but it is beyond comparison that it is done against God himself. The transgression is against the word of God. It is the setting of oneself in opposition to his creator. But while all men may agree with me that it is so, some would use that fact as though to prove that God cannot be in any way causal in anyone's sin, nor indeed in anything in any way hard or harmful to his creatures. Not so, for by the witness of scripture and by way of plain reason, God is causal of all things, and 'taking the knocks' against himself —even apart from my argument that all creation is his by right to do with as he pleases— proves that what he does in this returns hurt against himself, and that, to his Glory and Praise.