Why I am a [Calvinistic] Christian – Part 1 – The Bible Says So

[Skala]

God is love according to 1st John.

But he's not just love. he's also wrath, justice, a consuming fire, sovereign, etc.

If I want to disobey God He does not make me follow Him if He did He would never need to punish us.

Nobody here is claiming that God makes you follow him. Maybe you don't quite understand what it is you are arguing against.

 

[OzSpen]

Nice post! Thank you.

It does boggle the mind how many professing Christians just outright deny the sovereignty of God in salvation. No matter how much scriptural evidence you show them, they still refuse it.

Skala,

It would be helpful if you would back quoted so I know to whom you are referring when you make this kind of post.

In writing of the 'sovereignty of God in salvation' (as you put it), you have not told of the 'how' of God in salvation. What does his sovereignty involve? It is here that the monergists and synergists disagree - and you know that.

 

[janxharris]

They did. Go read the council of orange 529 AD. Monergism is emphatically affirmed there.

Assertion.

 

[janxharris]

Per John 3, the new birth is 100% monergistic: the work of the Spirit alone.

There's no "other side of the coin"

Faith is necessary. Faith is not a work. Faith does not avail oneself of boasting.

Romans 4:2-3:
If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

If we cannot even take at face value the clear meaning of v.3 then I don't know that the Bible can have any value at all. Abraham believed God. What is there to be confused about? No, he didn't believe without the influence of God but if the creation is to have any worth at all then we must infer that God made man with libertarian free will.

John 3:14-15 (the other side of the coin)
Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.

 

[abacabb3]

Coming 1500 years later with an alleged reinterpretation of the early fathers and scripture is in itself enough to cause much suspicion, especially since the primary motive for doing so had little to do with Christian belief.

This is addressed in the OP.

 

[OzSpen]

Faith is necessary. Faith is not a work. Faith does not avail oneself of boasting.

Romans 4:2-3:
If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

If we cannot even take at face value the clear meaning of v.3 then I don't know that the Bible can have any value at all. Abraham believed God. What is there to be confused about? No, he didn't believe without the influence of God but if the creation is to have any worth at all then we must infer that God made man with libertarian free will.

John 3:14-15 (the other side of the coin)
Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.

Janx,

Thanks for providing Rom 4:3. It states clearly that 'Abraham believed God' and not 'Abraham was decreed by God to believe'.

 

[AndOne]

Assertion.

So if its not Calvinism what is it?

 

[Ignatius21]

They did. Go read the council of orange 529 AD. Monergism is emphatically affirmed there.

I've always wondered if Monergists fall back on this particular council, because there are so few other clear statements on human will that can be interpreted consistently within Calvinism. The 2nd Council of Orange in 529 is basically an affirmation of Augustine's core soteriological principles. It was a regional council addressing a specific issue at a particular time, and in the scheme of Church history, really isn't terribly significant. It basically affirms an Augustinian understanding of Original Sin, over against pelagian notions of man as being able to take the first step toward God entirely of his own accord. I can find almost no indication that this council ever had any impact or significance in the East, where the Augustinian-style controversies had much less importance.

Roman Catholics also affirm this council, yet reject strict monergism. I believe the canons are such that they can be interpreted in various manners. Given the canons' clear affirmation of baptismal regeneration, I would say the Roman Catholics have a much better claim to consistency with this council, than Calvinists.

At any rate, eventually the work of St. Maximos the Confessor came to define the understanding of human and divine wills. In my best attempts to grasp his theology, he elaborated a way to understand how two wills could be in perfect synergy within Christ, and this serves to understand how our own wills can freely cooperate with God's will. This was the 6th Ecumenical Council, normative for all Christians who wish to maintain any claim to historical continuity. It kind of makes the 2nd Canon of Orange an interesting historical footnote with little direct significance to us, unless we are scouring the pages of history looking for justification for what we believe today.

John Cassian, (wrongly) labeled by Calvinists as "Father of Semi-Pelagianism" (itself a pejorative term and not really accurate of any particular system of belief, especially considering the term wasn't coined until the 18th century) took a balanced view of things, rejecting the extremes both of Augustine and Pelagius. He makes sense. Well, as much sense as an ascetic monk who wasn't a systematic theologian can make

 

[dogs4thewin]

But he's not just love. he's also wrath, justice, a consuming fire, sovereign, etc.



Nobody here is claiming that God makes you follow him. Maybe you don't quite understand what it is you are arguing against.

I understand that He is also wrath, but He is wrath to punish for our sins that IS part of love. If He did not love us He would not care what we did.

 

[AndOne]

Janx,

Thanks for providing Rom 4:3. It states clearly that 'Abraham believed God' and not 'Abraham was decreed by God to believe'.

It doesn't matter. Where faith comes from is explained elsewhere in the Bible (i.e. 2 Pet 1:1, Acts 16:4 and Philippians 1:29). The fact that Abraham's faith was a gift from God doesn't nullify the fact that Abraham believed and therefore his faith was counted to him as righteousness...

 

[AndOne]

I've always wondered if Monergists fall back on this particular council, because there are so few other clear statements on human will that can be interpreted consistently within Calvinism. The 2nd Council of Orange in 529 is basically an affirmation of Augustine's core soteriological principles. It was a regional council addressing a specific issue at a particular time, and in the scheme of Church history, really isn't terribly significant. It basically affirms an Augustinian understanding of Original Sin, over against pelagian notions of man as being able to take the first step toward God entirely of his own accord. I can find almost no indication that this council ever had any impact or significance in the East, where the Augustinian-style controversies had much less importance.

Roman Catholics also affirm this council, yet reject strict monergism. I believe the canons are such that they can be interpreted in various manners. Given the canons' clear affirmation of baptismal regeneration, I would say the Roman Catholics have a much better claim to consistency with this council, than Calvinists.

At any rate, eventually the work of St. Maximos the Confessor came to define the understanding of human and divine wills. In my best attempts to grasp his theology, he elaborated a way to understand how two wills could be in perfect synergy within Christ, and this serves to understand how our own wills can freely cooperate with God's will. This was the 6th Ecumenical Council, normative for all Christians who wish to maintain any claim to historical continuity. It kind of makes the 2nd Canon of Orange an interesting historical footnote with little direct significance to us, unless we are scouring the pages of history looking for justification for what we believe today.

John Cassian, (wrongly) labeled by Calvinists as "Father of Semi-Pelagianism" (itself a pejorative term and not really accurate of any particular system of belief, especially considering the term wasn't coined until the 18th century) took a balanced view of things, rejecting the extremes both of Augustine and Pelagius. He makes sense. Well, as much sense as an ascetic monk who wasn't a systematic theologian can make

Regardless - it is thoroughly Calvinistic and can be backed up with scripture, which trumps historical significance. And therefore should not be so easily dismissed.

 

[janxharris]

Regardless - it is thoroughly Calvinistic and can be backed up with scripture, which trumps historical significance. And therefore should not be so easily dismissed.

Would you care to demonstrate that.

 

[Ignatius21]

Regardless - it is thoroughly Calvinistic and can be backed up with scripture, which trumps historical significance. And therefore should not be so easily dismissed.

Your statement is thoroughly anachronistic. The council was thoroughly Augustinian, including the emphasis on regeneration and the liberation of the will coming through baptism. That can also be backed up with scripture. Why so easily dismiss part of not but not all?

And I don't dismiss it. I understand it within its context. I don't need to grasp at historical threads to find evidence that my particular interpretations of Scripture have precedence. Just sayin'

 

[Johnnz]

Regardless - it is thoroughly Calvinistic and can be backed up with scripture, which trumps historical significance. And therefore should not be so easily dismissed.

Scripture, not church fathers, is the post Reformation Protestant stance. Historically, Romans was viewed soteriologically, but modern scholarship now emphasizes an ecclesiastical viewpoint, where Paul is arguing to a church made up of Jewish and Gentile believers - Who now are the people of God?

Romans 9-11 is about Israel, not about individuals pre-selected for salvation. In Ephesians the church now forms the people of God. In both instances it is the collective, not the individual that is in focus.

John
NZ

 

[Skala]

Faith is necessary. Faith is not a work. Faith does not avail oneself of boasting.

Yes, faith is necessary. But faith is the result of the new birth, it is the result of the Spirit's graciously quickening us from spiritual death to life. (1 Jn 5:1)

Thus, God provides everything that is necessary, so that He can take all the credit and receive all the praise. As objects of salvation, we cannot take any of the credit.

Does that sadden you?

 

[Skala]

Assertion.

It's not an assertion, it is a fact. Here are some quotes from the council of orange. I will highlight some important parts that show that Christians then believed in monergism.

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him "unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).

 

[Ignatius21]

Scripture, not church fathers, is the post Reformation Protestant stance. Historically, Romans was viewed soteriologically, but modern scholarship now emphasizes an ecclesistical viewpoint, where Paul is arguing to a church made up of Jewish and gentile believers - Who are now the people of God? Romans 9-11 is about Isreal, not about individuals pre-selected for salvation. In Ephesians the church now forms the people of God. In both instances it is the collective, not the individual that is in focus. John NZ

Ancient interpretation also emphasized an ecclesiastical viewpoint. There's nothing terribly new about the so-called "new perspectives."

 

[janxharris]

Yes, faith is necessary. But faith is the result of the new birth, it is the result of the Spirit's graciously quickening us from spiritual death to life. (1 Jn 5:1)

Thus, God provides everything that is necessary, so that He can take all the credit and receive all the praise. As objects of salvation, we cannot take any of the credit.

Does that sadden you?

1 John 5:1 does not support your view.

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.

There is no discernable order of events in this scripture

Yes, all the credit goes to God for providing a way back to Him. No human being ever lifted one finger to help. The way back is there whether one accepts it or not. That is the Gospel.

Ephesians 1:13
And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit

John 3:14-16
Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.” For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

The order is incontrovertible.

 

[janxharris]

It's not an assertion, it is a fact. Here are some quotes from the council of orange. I will highlight some important parts that show that Christians then believed in monergism.

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).

This is synergism.

 

[Skala]

1 John 5:1 does not support your view.

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.

There is no discernable order of events in this scripture

If you read the other "if..then" statements in 1 John, yes there is. 1 John 5:1 is part of a chain of "if..then" statements. observe:

1Jn_3:9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.

1Jn_4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.

1Jn_5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.

1Jn_5:4 For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith.

1Jn_5:18 We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.

Here, John writes that if a person is born of God, he does certain things. You don't become born of God by doing any of those things.

Yet that is what your position is, despite John's statements here.