V
- Status
S
SojournerOnEarth
Guest
They are part of Scripture. I thought someone should let you know that.SojournerOnEarth:
They’re just Psalms.
Good material. I used to sing them in choir often.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
They are. And they’re holy.Vonsalza:
They are part of Scripture. I thought someone should let you know that.SojournerOnEarth:
They’re just Psalms.
Good material. I used to sing them in choir often.
But Psalms don’t “do” the same thing as an Epistle.
Last edited:
S
SojournerOnEarth
Guest
If you don’t want to learn anything from them, that is up to you, I suppose.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
We can learn lots from them.
Just not much in the way of prescriptive theology. You’re trying to put them in a lane they don’t belong in.
S
SojournerOnEarth
Guest
Actually, no. You are.SojournerOnEarth:
We can learn lots from them.
Just not much in the way of prescriptive theology. You’re trying to put them in a lane they don’t belong in.
Scripture has one self-consistent message. Scripture interprets Scripture. Or perhaps you believe it is contradictory and you have to cherry-pick passages to suit your preconceived theology?
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Scripture can’t interpret itself.Vonsalza:
Actually, no. You are.SojournerOnEarth:
We can learn lots from them.
Just not much in the way of prescriptive theology. You’re trying to put them in a lane they don’t belong in.
Scripture has one self-consistent message. Scripture interprets Scripture. Or perhaps you believe it is contradictory and you have to cherry-pick passages to suit your preconceived theology?
Seriously. Grab a copy and throw it on a table and watch it. Nothing happens. So that means YOU and I interpret scripture.
Naturally, we’ll interpret things differently, which will create conflict.
Lucky for us, God established a Church to authoritatively interpret it 30 years before the first NT book was even written and 300 years before the NT was canonized and roughly 1500-1800 years before the common man would be literate enough to read it.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
@SojournerOnEarth Took a quick peak at The Confession and you’re right on this: The Confession defines “assurance of faith” as progressive in chapter 18 even as the reality of its perseverance is laid out in chapter 17.
However, on the ultimate question posed by the revised title of this thread, chapter 3 of The Confession seems to conclusively answer in the negative:
Perhaps you were meaning “free will” in some lesser context?
However, on the ultimate question posed by the revised title of this thread, chapter 3 of The Confession seems to conclusively answer in the negative:
As it pertains to moral agency, there obviously is no “free will” supported by The Confession.
Perhaps you were meaning “free will” in some lesser context?
Last edited:
F
fhansen
Guest
But does it really matter if someone is sure or not of their eternal destiny, if God has already decided that destiny from the beginning of creation? Why battle-if nothing they do can change the outcome?MT1926:
It’s like Catholic baptism. Baptism washes away the stain of original sin, but you still have these sinful tendencies to fight against. This is where the Calvinist belief in progressive sanctification comes into play.
According to Calvinists, the freedom of the will is restored when God effectually calls, so even though ultimately the truly regenerated will win the battle against sin and corruption, there is still a battle to be fought. And since no one can be completely sure in this life if they are predestined to eternal life or reprobation, this should make people extremely careful to cling to Christ and seek after his righteousness.
L
ltwin
Guest
I understand where you are coming from. Maybe an actual Calvinist will give you a more convincing explanation, but what I will say is Calvinists do believe in predestination but they also believe in some remaining corruption. There is no sinless perfection until after death. The person will still have to work out his salvation.
What the person goes through–their trials and victory over those trials–ultimately bring Glory to God and God uses other Christians (their obedience, their suffering, their testimony, their religious experience, their growth in grace, their backsliding and repentance, etc.) as, in a sense, a means of grace through which the Holy Spirit moves and convicts other people, bringing them to salvation and advancing the Kingdom.
God gets no glory out of saving people who remain essentially unchanged. God’s love would not allow him to save people without changing them. Therefore, there must be a growth in grace for without holiness no man will see God.
If you are not growing in grace and love, that’s probably a good indication that you have not been truly converted.
Last edited:
F
fhansen
Guest
Yes, I agree with much of this, but also, from the Catholic perspective, it might mean you backslid, turned away from God, lost salvation after conversion, with God, again, not overriding the human will.fhansen:
I understand where you are coming from. Maybe an actual Calvinist will give you a more convincing explanation, but what I will say is Calvinists do believe in predestination but they also believe in some remaining corruption. There is no sinless perfection until after death. The person will still have to work out his salvation.
What the person goes through–their trials and victory over those trials–ultimately bring Glory to God and God uses other Christians (their obedience, their suffering, their testimony, their religious experience, their growth in grace, their backsliding and repentance, etc.) as, in a sense, a means of grace through which the Holy Spirit moves and convicts other people, bringing them to salvation and advancing the Kingdom.
God gets no glory out of saving people who remain essentially unchanged. God’s love would not allow him to save people without changing them. Therefore, there must be a growth in grace for without holiness no man will see God.
If you are not growing in grace and love, that’s probably a good indication that you have not been truly converted.
Last edited:
S
SojournerOnEarth
Guest
S
SojournerOnEarth
Guest
For one thing, we are commanded to “work out our salvation by fear and trembling.” With an assured outcome in the good, it has meaning, purpose and significance. We are to become sanctified.ltwin:
But does it really matter if someone is sure or not of their eternal destiny, if God has already decided that destiny from the beginning of creation? Why battle-if nothing they do can change the outcome?MT1926:
It’s like Catholic baptism. Baptism washes away the stain of original sin, but you still have these sinful tendencies to fight against. This is where the Calvinist belief in progressive sanctification comes into play.
According to Calvinists, the freedom of the will is restored when God effectually calls, so even though ultimately the truly regenerated will win the battle against sin and corruption, there is still a battle to be fought. And since no one can be completely sure in this life if they are predestined to eternal life or reprobation, this should make people extremely careful to cling to Christ and seek after his righteousness.
If you are bothered by your sin, that is a good sign. God turns no one away, which means if someone comes to Him, He is the one already drawing them.
Look around you. You will find many who do not give a rip about God or their standing before Him. People with hardened hearts, dead in their sins, apathetic, not drawn towards God at all. Then there are those who beg Him for mercy. They will only beg for mercy if He is drawing them to himself.
S
SojournerOnEarth
Guest
Seriously?SojournerOnEarth:
Scripture can’t interpret itself.Vonsalza:
Actually, no. You are.SojournerOnEarth:
We can learn lots from them.
Just not much in the way of prescriptive theology. You’re trying to put them in a lane they don’t belong in.
Scripture has one self-consistent message. Scripture interprets Scripture. Or perhaps you believe it is contradictory and you have to cherry-pick passages to suit your preconceived theology?
Seriously. Grab a copy and throw it on a table and watch it. Nothing happens. So that means YOU and I interpret scripture.
Naturally, we’ll interpret things differently, which will create conflict.
Lucky for us, God established a Church to authoritatively interpret it 30 years before the first NT book was even written and 300 years before the NT was canonized and roughly 1500-1800 years before the common man would be literate enough to read it.
You really have forgotten your Reformed theology, if you ever learned it.
The Holy Spirit is the authority we turn to. And we do not regard Scripture as a dead book but as Living Word.
Jeremiah 23:29 NIV.
Hebrews 4:12
There is an immediacy of the Holy Spirit in the Bible. It is not a dead book that is only brought to life by the Church. We regard the idea that the Church determines the Bible to be the Bible as a very wicked thing indeed. The Church flows from revelation, not revelation from the Church.
You really, really should know this if you attempt to claim any knowledge at all of Reformed theology.
F
fhansen
Guest
So have complete assurance that you’re saved but live as if you might not be. Can’t help but think that the next step is simply to acknowledge in fact what’s effectively being practiced in truth: we don’t have absolute, 100% certainty about who’s names are written in the Book of Life and who’s are not. While we can have a level of assurance, based on God’s promises and fruit that we observe in our lives, that knowledge, that certitude, is reserved for God, alone.
Last edited:
S
SojournerOnEarth
Guest
“Pray to God but keep rowing to shore.”
The pastoral advice under either the Catholic or the Reformed system to someone who is sinning is exactly the same: STOP!
I think our friend John Calvin discusses that it is unhealthy to be overly concerned about it. Do what God commands you to do now, and that will be taken care of. It is NOT anything near I am saved so I can wait for heaven in my hammock and sip lemonade all day long. To look at certainty, there are questions like “Am I obeying God now more than I was say 5 years ago, or is my life more sinful?” You can ask other people, too, and allow them to speak into your life (which can be very painful, especially if you ask the wrong people!). Is the fruit of the Spirit more evident in my life now than formerly? Am I more aware of His presence, providence and care for me than I was? It is not (necessarily) a spectacular moment of realizing you are saved, a revelation, but a realization lived out in the world.
The pastoral advice under either the Catholic or the Reformed system to someone who is sinning is exactly the same: STOP!
I think our friend John Calvin discusses that it is unhealthy to be overly concerned about it. Do what God commands you to do now, and that will be taken care of. It is NOT anything near I am saved so I can wait for heaven in my hammock and sip lemonade all day long. To look at certainty, there are questions like “Am I obeying God now more than I was say 5 years ago, or is my life more sinful?” You can ask other people, too, and allow them to speak into your life (which can be very painful, especially if you ask the wrong people!). Is the fruit of the Spirit more evident in my life now than formerly? Am I more aware of His presence, providence and care for me than I was? It is not (necessarily) a spectacular moment of realizing you are saved, a revelation, but a realization lived out in the world.
L
lanman87
Guest
Sorry to interrupt…But…
Actually, I would say that I have complete assurance of salvation and live as I do because of that salvation. I live as I do because I love Jesus, because I trust Jesus, and because of what He did for me. If I live as I do to in order to obtain salvation then my salvation comes from me instead of Christ. If this is Christianity then it is not really any different than being Jewish under the old Law. The sacrifice has changed from animals to Christ and the rituals have changed to baptism and the sacraments. But in both Salvation comes from what you do.
I don’t think Christ came to change what we do. He came to change who we are. But what we do changes because who we are has changed.
S
SojournerOnEarth
Guest
Yep.
We take “regeneration” seriously. Raised from the dead, new will, new mind (that of Christ), new spirit, new person, actually. Catholics seem to think everything is the same as it was, so there is no real conversion aside from the washing away of original sin. We see, as in Scripture, something profoundly better.
We take “regeneration” seriously. Raised from the dead, new will, new mind (that of Christ), new spirit, new person, actually. Catholics seem to think everything is the same as it was, so there is no real conversion aside from the washing away of original sin. We see, as in Scripture, something profoundly better.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
You’re just not making rational sense here. All you’re doing is spouting the same theosophic nonsense that I once spouted in defense of this broken system.
Let me be perfectly clear here - if Adam chose for us, then we do not hold moral agency. Adam held/holds it. The federal head does not make YOUR choice. It makes its own choice. As stated earlier - just because your father was a murder doesn’t mean you’re a murderer.
Now do we live with the environmental consequences? Sure. But that’s not even REMOTELY the same thing.
But until God does this, man does not have moral agency since he can do no other besides reject God. He is only given the ability to choose between good and evil as God capriciously decides, per the Calvinist. And once this “choice” is given, the elect affirms without exception; as a matter of doctrine.
This. Is. Not. Moral. Agency. Period.
Because one more time, in bold!
The Westminster Confession, Chapter 3:
III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.
IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.
I’ll admit it’s been some years since I freed myself from the shackles of Calvinism. But…
Accepting some sort of expression of the duality of God’s sovereignty and Man’s responsibility is part of studying any part of Christian theology. The Calvinist makes the mistake of assembling this duality in a way that fully eliminates an individual man’s culpability for his sins and then completely ignores that they’ve done so under the nebulous and highly subjective concept of spiritual federalism.
S
SojournerOnEarth
Guest
I guess you are just unwilling to accept it. What I wrote makes sense. Your inability to grasp it does not invalidate it. Truth is truth, regardless of your “arguments”.
Confusing Calvinism and theosophy demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of both. You went to seminary?
Confusing Calvinism and theosophy demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of both. You went to seminary?
Last edited:
- Status