Do Calvinists believe that God loves everyone? Or does he love only the elect?

[IggyAntiochus]

Many Protestants now a days say you must BELIEVE in order to RECEIVE, but If you look at the Calvinist camp it is RECEIVE in order to BELIEVE!

Catholic’s can say this "Sure man chooses according to his nature, that is why** grace works in the heart of the sinner to move him towards repentance and that grace cant be earned, it proceeds solely from the Love and Mercy of God!**

Don’t Confuse us with the Arminians or Charles Finney please!

I wouldn’t. American evangelicalism is far more semi-Pelagian (or outright Pelagian) than Roman Catholicism has ever been.

I think what calls into question God’s justice, (in calvinist theology) is not that He only chooses to save SOME, but in fact that He chooses to save ANY. If all men are unjust, wouldn’t it cast a shadow on God’s justice to save ANY?

No, it wouldn’t cast a shadow on his justice. Mercy is not injustice. Think of it in terms of an analogy. If the governor of a state chooses to grant pardon to a death row inmate, is that injustice to all of the death row inmates who do not receive his pardon? The criminal pardoned receives mercy, the criminals not pardoned receive justice. None of them receive injustice. The criminals deserve the punishment they are receiving. An injustice would be for the governor to put to death individuals who had not committed any crimes.

Added to this equation, however, is the Person of Christ. Those whom God saves do have their sins punished. It’s just not them who bears it. It is, rather, Christ who bears the punishment of their sins. So the sins are condemned on the cross. God is just merciful in transferring it to the One who chose to give Himself on their behalf. The Apostle Paul puts it this way, “It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”

 

[mini_me640]

Does God save man, or does man save himself? If man saves himself, that is, makes the choice to save himself, then yes, your position would make sense. However, Scripture does not present such a scenario, but rather, presents a God who saves a people unto Himself. If it is God who saves, then His love for His people must differ, or His love would save everyone.

Nonsense. If I’m drowning and someone in the boat reaches their hand out to me, and I accept their help, did I save myself? If I reject their help and drown, did I die because they didn’t help?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Questions to pose to Calvinist regarding the topic in order to illuminate Calvinist doctrine!

Before Satan fell, he was an angel.

Did Satan have free will?

Yes. Satan was free to choose rebellion or not choose rebellion. That is to say, there was nothing in his nature that inclined him toward rebellion.

If God for-knew Satan would fall, could Satan have done anything but fall?

Did God cause Satan to fall?

No, he could not have done anything but fall, because that is how God decreed the outworking of redemptive history. It is a similar question to asking “If Christ is called the lamb slain before the foundation of the world, and Peter says that Christ was given up according to the predetermined plan of God, would it have been possible for Christ NOT to be crucified?” However, that is different than saying that God caused Satan to fall. There was nothing external to Satan’s will that forced him to do something he did not want to do. The question gets to the heart of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. There is just no way for us mortals to solve the conundrum.

No Catholic would say that man can choose God apart from His grace already working in him/her!

The debate between Reformed Protestants and Catholics over grace has never been whether grace is necessary. We know that Catholics believe it is necessary. The debate is over whether grace is alone sufficient.

God saves sinners out of Grace, Love and Mercy. We cannot earn salvation. Apart from grace there is no salvation. In terms of conditions, as a Catholic I could say that it is by Divine Mercy alone. By grace God touches the sinners heart, and calls him towards repentance. This grace cannot be merited: it proceeds solely from the Love and mercy of God. Man may receive or reject this invitation of God, he may turn towards God or remain in sin. Grace does not constrain mans free will.
Thus assisted the sinner is disposed for salvation from sin; he believes in the revelation and promises of God, he fears God’s justice hopes in his mercy, trusts that God will be merciful to him for Christ’s sake, begins to love God as the source of all justice hates and detests his sins.

If, however, grace merely gives man the ability to choose or reject God’s love, then grace is not sufficient, because it would still require something in man to complete salvation. You’re right in saying that grace doesn’t constrain man’s free will. What it does is liberate his will from its bondage to sin. In that liberation, however, man will always freely choose to love and serve his Creator, because that is what the new birth does to our hearts. Renews and restores it to what our heart was meant to do.

This disposition is followed by justification itself, which consists not in the mere remission of sins, but in the sanctification and renewal of the inner man by the voluntary reception of God’s grace and gifts where as a** man becomes just** instead of unjust.

Except that God justifies the ungodly. He doesn’t justify those who are becoming godly. Of course, you are right in saying that salvation consists of the renewal of the inner man, so that he daily dies to sin and grows in godliness. But all of that is predicated upon man being in a right standing with God. This requires his innocence before God, or the renewal would never happen.

First of all, a quick overview of what free will is.
We are not free to will what we want freely. For example no matter how much I will myself to breathe underwater, I will never be able to breathe underwater! Free will has its limitations, in which I can only freely choose things according to my capacity as a created being!

Agreed.

I am free to do what I was set apart for as a human being to do, Love and Worship our Creator! How? By the mercy and grace of our Creator!

We are free to. God doesn’t force us to not love and worship our Creator. Apart from His grace, however, we would never desire to love and worship our Creator! Everything within us desires only rebellion, prior to regeneration (Ephesians 2).

Before the fall, Adam freely chose to do what he was Created to do, Love and Worship God!

After the fall, sin entered man, because of sin we were in bondage to sin, it turned us ever inward towards ourselves and away from our Creator! We freely chose to turn ourselves over to that bondage! Through Christ, we are now freed from bondage and no longer turned inward, now we have been given the grace needed to freely choose what we were made for again, love and worship God! If not for the grace merited by Jesus Christ, we would still be in bondage to sin.

Yes. However, we would argue that that grace is not given to all. But is given to those whom God set aside and gave to Christ as His inheritance. Grace is particular (John 6).

I think another thread may be helpful to understanding the Development of the Doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement. Moral Influence, Ransom View, Christus Victor, and Satisfaction, Penal Substitution, Governmental, and Scapegoating views.

It could be helpful. It is, however, incorrect to try and pin it down to one particular view of the atonement. The atonement contains elements of all of those theories. We would just say that as it relates to justification, the penal substitution view is the most predominant in Scripture.

 

[JustaServant]

Again, the OPs question:
Do Calvinists believe that God loves everyone? Or does he love only the elect?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Nonsense. If I’m drowning and someone in the boat reaches their hand out to me, and I accept their help, did I save myself? If I reject their help and drown, did I die because they didn’t help?

No, but that is not how Scripture presents man’s condition. Man doesn’t have the desire to reach out and accept their help. Spiritually, he is already dead in the water. It requires the rescuer to resurrect the corpse floating in the water, not merely provide a little assistance.

 

[Newsy]

No, but that is not how Scripture presents man’s condition. Man doesn’t have the desire to reach out and accept their help. Spiritually, he is already dead in the water. It requires the rescuer to resurrect the corpse floating in the water, not merely provide a little assistance.

But men reached out to Christ, they searched Him out. They made one choice, God did the rest.

It seems that there are non-Christians, who through their own will, choose to do good things. If they are not seeking God’s will in their life, how are they able to do good? This seems to contradict the total depravity of man.

Again, God is outside of time and He knows what we will choose (to accept or reject Him), but if we have no choice in whether to love Him, then it is not genuine love.

 

[JonNC]

=onemangang;8857532]
If the Imputation is truly a real imputation, you would not have the ability to sin, being that Christ would never choose sin. So I think that there is no room to choose sin if one truly received Christ righteousness in full by imputation.

That’s interesting, because I could argue this to be the case from fully infused righteousness. I mean, if one is really made righteous, how is sin even possible. Lutherans make the claim of being at once, saint and sinner.

I don’t believe one gives up free will. What I was getting at was, faith is a gift!
If faith is a gift in the first place, then it is something the Spirit gives prior to the act of mans will by grace! If that is by imputation, is there any room for a free will decision? I would say NO! Many Protestants I talk to say otherwise.

I agree with you.

This is outside of my DEPOSIT of faith being, that I believe in a Grace that moves the sinner towards repentance, but does not constrain mans free will!

Agreed.

So what type of Calvinism fits your theology? Just Curious!

None!! I could never be Calvinist. I reject the ULIP of the TULIP, and their views of the sacraments. I would be Catholic long before Calvinist.

Jon

 

[IggyAntiochus]

But men reached out to Christ, they searched Him out. They made one choice, God did the rest.

It seems that there are non-Christians, who through their own will, choose to do good things. If they are not seeking God’s will in their life, how are they able to do good? This seems to contradict the total depravity of man.

Good according to our standards, yes. No one denies that non-Christians do things which we consider good, like giving to the poor. However, by God’s standards, they are stained with sin. Without faith, it is impossible to please God. His standard is much higher; perfection.

Again, God is outside of time and He knows what we will choose (to accept or reject Him), but if we have no choice in whether to love Him, then it is not genuine love.

According to whom?

The issue is not choice, but desire. The unregenerate man freely chooses according to what he wants to choose. Scripture makes it clear that the man in “the flesh” desires only to rebel against God. He is enslaved to sin.

If God merely foresees what man will do, then the only thing God would see is man continuing to reject Him, because that is all man wants to do. Unless God acts in time and space to give faith to man, man would never be saved.

 

[fhansen]

Good according to our standards, yes. No one denies that non-Christians do things which we consider good, like giving to the poor. However, by God’s standards, they are stained with sin. Without faith, it is impossible to please God. His standard is much higher; perfection.

According to whom?

The issue is not choice, but desire. The unregenerate man freely chooses according to what he wants to choose. Scripture makes it clear that the man in “the flesh” desires only to rebel against God. He is enslaved to sin.

If God merely foresees what man will do, then the only thing God would see is man continuing to reject Him, because that is all man wants to do. Unless God acts in time and space to give faith to man, man would never be saved.

Did the Good Samaritan act on faith/grace?

 

[Roy5]

Most people of Calvinist background that I know (Presbyterians, Congregationalists and others of the Reformed tradition) don’t take the teachings of Calvin all that seriously.

 Then, again, I've always been intrigued by the predestination/free will debate. Quite obviously, we have very limited free will, as so much about us is decided even by our birth, over which we have no control. If we are born in, say, Mali in a devout Islamic family, we already are likely to grow up poor, illiterate and Muslim. Compare this with being born a Mitt Romney, son of a wealthy businessman and state governor. Even he probably had no real choice re religion as he was deeply nurtured from infancy in the Mormon faith.

 Besides, we know that causes, often beyond our control - maybe a birth defect or a tornado or a car accident - endless variables - lead us from one chapter of life to another.

 On the other hand, it is wisest to believe we have free will, because to some degree we do. Our mindset can become a major influence as to whether to live abundantly or in a non-productive, unhappy fashion.

 

[onemangang]

Yes. Satan was free to choose rebellion or not choose rebellion. That is to say, there was nothing in his nature that inclined him toward rebellion.

No, he could not have done anything but fall, because that is how God decreed the outworking of redemptive history. It is a similar question to asking “If Christ is called the lamb slain before the foundation of the world, and Peter says that Christ was given up according to the predetermined plan of God, would it have been possible for Christ NOT to be crucified?” However, that is different than saying that God caused Satan to fall. There was nothing external to Satan’s will that forced him to do something he did not want to do. The question gets to the heart of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility.*** There is just no way for us mortals to solve the conundrum.***

Agreed. There is just no way for us mortals to solve the conundrum. There are different schools of thought on God’s grace and mans responsibility in Catholic circles as well.

According as the theological examination of grace and free will in its efforts to demonstrate the mutual relations between the two took as its starting-point respectively either grace or free will, two pairs of closely related systems were evolved: Thomism and Augustinianism, which take grace as the starting-point, and Molinism and Congruism, which set out from free will. These are the extremes. The middle ground is held by Syncretism, which may be regarded as an eclectic system making an effort at compromise.

We use different terms like efficacious grace, and sufficient grace!
Not sure but, don’t Calvinist use Common grace and Sovereign Grace?

The debate between Reformed Protestants and Catholics over grace has never been whether grace is necessary. We know that Catholics believe it is necessary. The debate is over whether grace is alone sufficient.

Ok understood. We have a bit of a language barrier as well. Things defined in Catholic circles may seem odd to you as the way things are defined in Reformed circles are often puzzling to Catholics.

We would say that the efficacious grace given, is not irresistible, where I gather you would disagree!

If, however, grace merely gives man the ability to choose or reject God’s love, then grace is not sufficient, because it would still require something in man to complete salvation. You’re right in saying that grace doesn’t constrain man’s free will. What it does is liberate his will from its bondage to sin. In that liberation, however, man will always freely choose to love and serve his Creator, because that is what the new birth does to our hearts. Renews and restores it to what our heart was meant to do.

You say the liberated man will always CHOOSE to love, but earlier you said that man will never be able to solve the conundrum of God’s sovereignty and mans responsibility! Doesn’t this very statement claim to do that?

Except that God justifies the ungodly. He doesn’t justify those who are becoming godly. Of course, you are right in saying that salvation consists of the renewal of the inner man, so that he daily dies to sin and grows in godliness. But all of that is predicated upon man being in a right standing with God. This requires his innocence before God, or the renewal would never happen.

That is a fundamental difference in our theology. God justifies the ungodly agreed, but how? By working in their hearts to make them just, or by simply forensically declaring them just. I once heard a Calvinist tell me that when God declares something to be, it just IS, and then went on to talk about the Creation of the universe, but didn’t the universe unfold and develop by the sovereign hand of the Almighty?

When you say “Of course, you are right in saying that salvation consists of the renewal of the inner man, so that he daily dies to sin and grows in godliness.” by that do you mean a type of Lordship Salvation?

We are free to. God doesn’t force us to not love and worship our Creator. Apart from His grace, however, we would never desire to love and worship our Creator! Everything within us desires only rebellion, prior to regeneration (Ephesians 2).

I agree that Apart from grace, we would not love and worship God. No arguments there

Yes. However, we would argue that that grace is not given to all. But is given to those whom God set aside and gave to Christ as His inheritance. Grace is particular (John 6).

By that I assume you mean sufficient grace and not common Grace?

It could be helpful. It is, however, incorrect to try and pin it down to one particular view of the atonement. The atonement contains elements of all of those theories. We would just say that as it relates to justification,*** the penal substitution view is the most predominant in Scripture***.

I do not agree with that. I would say there is a type of Judge in a penal sense where God is presiding over the Law, where the lawless will be judged in that manner, but not for the ones who have entered into a Covenant. That view just seems to be declarative and not transformative.

All have sinned and offended God.
God’s wrath abides in sinners.
God provided a way out.
God imputes His righteousness in you.
God no longer has His wrath abiding over you!
Who got converted, God or Man?

I think the Christus Victor and the Catholic Satisfaction model, better explain the LOVING nature of God biblically. Just my opinion.

 

[onemangang]

That’s interesting, because I could argue this to be the case from fully infused righteousness. I mean, if one is really made righteous, how is sin even possible. Lutherans make the claim of being at once, saint and sinner.

Infused righteousness, implies a cooperation with grace! Fully infused, I am not aware if that is possible in the body! It could be, but I don’t know! If so I get your point, if not then my claim of an inability to sin with an imputation of Christ righteousness still stands!
Truth be told, I am unaware if one can be fully infused with the righteousness of Christ while in the body. Maybe some better informed Catholics can weigh in on this?

 

[CopticChristian]

Does **God save man, or does man save himself? **If man saves himself, that is, makes the choice to save himself, then yes, your position would make sense. However, Scripture does not present such a scenario, but rather, presents a God who saves a people unto Himself. If it is God who saves, then His love for His people must differ, or His love would save everyone.

Iggy,

It has been my experience that people sometimes ask questions in light of a preconcieved understanding…It is not unusual. The Americas are as you know North, Central and South. Many people from the USA, North Americans, if asked what the biggest city in North America is would say, New York, when in fact it is Mexico City. I have had occasion to be in Colombia speaking of myself as an American and have been corrected by Colombians telling me that they too are Americans.

I would like to explore your thoughts. You ask the question as to who saves God or man. This causes me to wonder. I am sure that you believe God saves. Is it your belief or understanding that Catholic Christianity teaches that man saves as opposed to God?

 

[JonNC]

Infused righteousness, implies a cooperation with grace! Fully infused, I am not aware if that is possible in the body! It could be, but I don’t know! If so I get your point, if not then my claim of an inability to sin with an imputation of Christ righteousness still stands!
Truth be told, I am unaware if one can be fully infused with the righteousness of Christ while in the body. Maybe some better informed Catholics can weigh in on this?

Understood. Remember that imputed righteousness means that we are held righteous for Christ’s sake, not because of a righteousness of our own. So, again, I’m still not clear why it would exclude/ eliminate free will. I am still capable of rejecting the gift of grace.

Jon

 

[Newsy]

Good according to our standards, yes. No one denies that non-Christians do things which we consider good, like giving to the poor. However, by God’s standards, they are stained with sin. Without faith, it is impossible to please God. His standard is much higher; perfection.

You are missing my point. I agree that we are sin stained, but if we never choose good then how do you explain non-Christians who do good? You say that we would never accept God, we agree that God is all good. If we can choose to do good things, why can’t we choose God? I believe that I had the choice to accept God and His Grace, once I did, He did more work than I did. Hence, through His Grace, I cooperated with Him, I made a choice to accept Him and all His love.

God wants to bring us to perfection, we disagree on how He does it.

According to whom?

The issue is not choice, but desire. The unregenerate man freely chooses according to what he wants to choose. Scripture makes it clear that the man in “the flesh” desires only to rebel against God. He is enslaved to sin.

If God merely foresees what man will do, then the only thing God would see is man continuing to reject Him, because that is all man wants to do. Unless God acts in time and space to give faith to man, man would never be saved.

Manipulation, according to the World English Dictionary is “to negotiate, control, or influence (something or someone) cleverly, skilfully, or deviously”.

1 Corinthians 13:4 “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.” So, if we have no choice about our love for God, then He is forcing our love, i.e. self seeking.

If we don’t have a choice to love God, then how does that glorify God? If we are doing only what He allows, then it is not love but rather manipulation.

To put it a little differently, let’s look at a ventriloquist. If I have a dummy, I can make it’s mouth move and say “I love you”, but it is not the same as my wife saying, “I love you”. I can manipulate my wife, through mental stress and abuse, to believe that I am the only person who is good to/for her. Then she might say, “I love you”, but that would still not be real love. In order to thrive in our relationship, we must both freely give our love to one another. If we have no choice in our love for God, that makes God our cosmic ventriloquist or manipulator. In order for us to have a thriving relationship with God, when we freely give our love to Him, He gives us Grace and love that we would never receive otherwise.

I know that God brought me to a place and time, where I was confronted with the fact of His love. In that moment, I chose to accept His love. If He never brought me to that place, I may never have addressed His love, so He controlled the circumstances and foreknew the outcome. However, if my reaction was not a choice, then it was only manipulation.

If Mary had no choice in bearing the Christ child, then she was forced. Last time I checked, forcing someone to have your baby is rape, even if they say yes under manipulation. You see, there must be free will and predestination. If they don’t both exist, then things get really messy.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Agreed. There is just no way for us mortals to solve the conundrum. There are different schools of thought on God’s grace and mans responsibility in Catholic circles as well.

According as the theological examination of grace and free will in its efforts to demonstrate the mutual relations between the two took as its starting-point respectively either grace or free will, two pairs of closely related systems were evolved: Thomism and Augustinianism, which take grace as the starting-point, and Molinism and Congruism, which set out from free will. These are the extremes. The middle ground is held by Syncretism, which may be regarded as an eclectic system making an effort at compromise.

We use different terms like efficacious grace, and sufficient grace!
Not sure but, don’t Calvinist use Common grace and Sovereign Grace?

Yes. Generally speaking we do. To the extent that God provides a common grace which constrains man’s desire to do evil to the extent that it destroys human society completely. Common grace would be seen, for example, in various philanthropic causes undertaken by unbelievers, or the US military preventing genocide, overthrowing dictatorships, etc. It could be called a “left handed” exercise by God in the secular sphere, versus the right hand kingdom of the Church in spreading the gospel and discipleship, which would be a exercise in sovereign or redemptive grace.

Ok understood. We have a bit of a language barrier as well. Things defined in Catholic circles may seem odd to you as the way things are defined in Reformed circles are often puzzling to Catholics.

We would say that the efficacious grace given, is not irresistible, where I gather you would disagree!

Redeeming grace is irresistible to the extent that once a person is regenerated by the Holy Spirit, they will always submit in faith to Christ, yes. God’s grace in sanctification is, however, to some extent, resistible since it requires the activity of the human will and is subject to the sinful nature of man.

You say the liberated man will always CHOOSE to love, but earlier you said that man will never be able to solve the conundrum of God’s sovereignty and mans responsibility! Doesn’t this very statement claim to do that?

No…we simply take Christ’s statement that those who are drawn by the Father will come to Christ at face value. All those that the Father gives to Him will come to Him and He will raise them on the Last Day.

That is a fundamental difference in our theology. God justifies the ungodly agreed, but how? By working in their hearts to make them just, or by simply forensically declaring them just. I once heard a Calvinist tell me that when God declares something to be, it just IS, and then went on to talk about the Creation of the universe, but didn’t the universe unfold and develop by the sovereign hand of the Almighty?

It would be simplistic to a point to say that what God declares just is. It wouldn’t be comparable to the creation of the universe. What Scripture does state, though, is that the ungodly are justified. It does not say they are in the process of being justified. They are justified. In order for this to occur, it must be based on something outside of the ungodly person, because the ungodly person is ungodly! Therefore, it is based on the righteousness that comes through faith. Namely, the righteousness of Christ. I would not, though, get caught up on the forensic aspect of it. Because that has a tendency to reduce it to a simple legal declaration that doesn’t bear any weight behind it. The fact is, though, that forensic justification results in something…union with Christ, and all of the spiritual benefits that that entails…holiness, godliness, a new creation. When Catholic apologists often accuse the Protestant understanding of justification of being a legal fiction, this doesn’t take into account that the righteousness of Christ is a real righteousness that is imputed.

I do think that it is common within Reformed and Lutheran circles to overemphasize forensic justification. I love the doctrine of justification, but the fact does remain that it is not THE major emphasis of the New Testament. In fact, it is really only explicated in two of the 27 letters. I believe justification is foundational, but there is a lot more in the Bible than forensic justification.

When you say “Of course, you are right in saying that salvation consists of the renewal of the inner man, so that he daily dies to sin and grows in godliness.” by that do you mean a type of Lordship Salvation?

I’m not really all that caught up on the Lordship Salvation controversy. Its simple enough to say that growth in holiness and obedience to the law of Christ is necessary.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Iggy,

It has been my experience that people sometimes ask questions in light of a preconcieved understanding…It is not unusual. The Americas are as you know North, Central and South. Many people from the USA, North Americans, if asked what the biggest city in North America is would say, New York, when in fact it is Mexico City. I have had occasion to be in Colombia speaking of myself as an American and have been corrected by Colombians telling me that they too are Americans.

I would like to explore your thoughts. You ask the question as to who saves God or man. This causes me to wonder. I am sure that you believe God saves. Is it your belief or understanding that Catholic Christianity teaches that man saves as opposed to God?

No, that is definitely not my understanding of Roman Catholic teaching. If I chafe at the misrepresentation of my own beliefs, I am forced to chafe at them when they occur towards those I disagree with as well. I was responding to a statement by a poster, and not attempting to portray what Rome teaches on the subject.

 

[onemangang]

Understood. ** Remember that imputed righteousness means that we are held righteous for Christ’s sake,** not because of a righteousness of our own. So, again, I’m still not clear why it would exclude/ eliminate free will. I am still capable of rejecting the gift of grace.

Jon

I think I misunderstood imputed righteousness then.

I took imputed righteousness to mean something more radical. I took it to mean an extrinsic righteousness, that is now imparted into the very soul of man, and its the righteousness of Christ. Not a transaction that is something just to be held in account, but an ontological change in mans nature! Something transformative not something merely held in account!

I thought the imputation was an ontological change in the very nature of man, not just a extrinsic credit added to man! Hence the reason I believed one couldn’t possibly sin if the imputation was a real ontological change in nature.

No wonder why when I discuss this with Protestants friends we get nowhere. we are speaking a different language at times!

That is why I was implying this elimination of the ability to sin would be AFTER an
(ontological) transaction was to take place.

Quick question though. Does Lutheran theology teach that you must make an act of faith to receive the imputation? If so wouldn’t you already have to under go the transaction prior to the act of faith if you believe in the T. in total depravity?

What I was trying to say was, if there is a Legal transaction that takes place where Past, Present and Future sins are to be taken upon Christ by a legal imputation, and then after the transaction takes place where Christ righteousness is imputed in to the former sinner, there is no sin in the body, ONLY Christ righteousness. After one is filled with the imputation of Christ righteousness, if the legal transaction caused an ontological change, the person would not choose sin, if in fact, it was a true imputation. Otherwise the transaction is fictitious being that the legal transaction was not real, only declared as if on paper! If it was a real transaction, the former sinner would under go an ontological change, being that he is filled with the righteousness of Christ!

I could understand such a change after the Second Advent, but in a fallen world I just do see it!

That is where I was going with that. I hope that clarified what I was trying to say.

 

[onemangang]

Redeeming grace is irresistible to the extent that once a person is regenerated by the Holy Spirit, they will always submit in faith to Christ, yes.** God’s grace in sanctification is, however, to some extent, resistible since it requires the activity of the human will and is subject to the sinful nature of man.**

What Scripture does state, though, is that the ungodly are justified. It does not say they are in the process of being justified. They are justified. .

First of all thanks for the dialog, I find it interesting

Ok, so you say sanctification is a process and Justification is not because Scripture says that the ungodly are justified. So I assume you say that since Justified is being used in the past tense, then that means it is a done deal?

Scripture also puts sanctification prior to justification and it uses sanctified in the past tense 1 Corinthians 6:11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

I can be both Justified and Sanctified in Catholic theology, I just can’t assume that I will never fall away. I think it is the sin of presumption to say I know that I will never fall away, but I can KNOW that I have received His Holy Spirit and that it wasn’t just some sort of religious experience or deceiving spirit!

How do Calvinist KNOW they have been Justified without a Sacramental Economy!

I find in many Calvinist camps people will say when a person falls into mortal sin “He must have never been saved in the first place” or the Lordship Salvation folks will say that "You can’t possibly know that you have been justified, because you can’t KNOW that, if in fact, you will persevere to the end!

 

[IggyAntiochus]

First of all thanks for the dialog, I find it interesting

As do I!

Ok, so you say sanctification is a process and Justification is not because Scripture says that the ungodly are justified. So I assume you say that since Justified is being used in the past tense, then that means it is a done deal?

Yes.

Scripture also puts sanctification prior to justification and it uses sanctified in the past tense 1 Corinthians 6:11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Paul here is using the term sanctified, not in its ontological sense, but is referring to the break with love of sin and hatred towards God and His law that occurs at regeneration. He is exhorting the Corinthian disciples to live in accordance with their standing before God and their washing by the Spirit.

I can be both Justified and Sanctified in Catholic theology, I just can’t assume that I will never fall away. I think it is the sin of presumption to say I know that I will never fall away, but I can KNOW that I have received His Holy Spirit and that it wasn’t just some sort of religious experience or deceiving spirit!

I do not presume to say that I will not fall away. My confidence rests in God’s promise to keep me in the one true faith unto life everlasting. Not in my own abilities or efforts.

How do Calvinist KNOW they have been Justified without a Sacramental Economy!

Because it rests upon the merits and passion of Christ, which is enough for me to know that what He accomplished is enough to justify me.

I find in many Calvinist camps people will say when a person falls into mortal sin “He must have never been saved in the first place” or the Lordship Salvation folks will say that "You can’t possibly know that you have been justified, because you can’t KNOW that, if in fact, you will persevere to the end!

I would not say about anyone that he must not have been saved in the first place. The only response we can have in those situations is to pray for them and try to love them enough to implore them to repent and believe the gospel. I do not know if that individual will not come back to the faith in 20 years. Those things aren’t for us to know.