I'm Debating A Calvinist

[mackbrislawn]

The short answer is no.

From the Reformed perspective:

The only thing you can know is that you are saved– if you recognize in yourself that you love God, trust him and what Christ did for you, and agree that it is good.

If you are reprobate, you do not care for God, so you won’t be asking yourself this question. Put another way, if you are concerned about your salvation, then you probably have nothing to worry about.

Also remember, that everyone starts out life dead in their sins… Everyone, even the elect. This is the meaning of “total depravity”. It is only when God gives you a new heart that you begin to care for him. This is the meaning of regeneration.

Therefore, there literally is no difference between an elect person who has not yet come to faith, and a reprobate person. They look identical to an observer, and they feel the same about themselves inside. The only difference is something only God knows-- can that is that the elect person will one day believe.

If the elect person will one day believe, that means there are no elect among those who have not heard the gospel. I infer then that by happenstance God predestined the elect to be concentrated beforehand in areas that received missionary work. It seems there are an undue number of the elect in western Europe and North America. Maybe South Africa.

How does God decide when to give a new heart to someone? Obviously, if we are all totally depraved, no one can care about God on their own. Apparently God gives some of the elect a new heart early in life, and to others, later. What determines His choice of when and whom?

Does a new heart and regeneration mean that one is no longer dead in their sins? Or do they remain so in spite of their election?

Another question. How does this election apply to people before Jesus?

 

[Theojunkie]

Sorry… Hit the wrong button on my phone.

. Another question. How does this election apply to people before Jesus?

In the same way that it applied to Mary to keep her sinless from birth. In the same way that my prayers for my dead grandmother are efficacious. (The reformed would not argue this, but they would if they believed In the immaculate conception and the communion of saints). God works in the eternal Now.

 

[Theojunkie]

Sorry, clearly I should not be doing this from a phone. Here is my response that I thought posted but didn’t.

If the elect person will one day believe, that means there are no elect among those who have not heard the gospel.

No, rather, all of the elect will eventually hear the gospel. A subtle but important difference.

I infer then that by happenstance God predestined the elect to be concentrated beforehand in areas that received missionary work. It seems there are an undue number of the elect in western Europe and North America. Maybe South Africa.

No, rather, the Gospel will reach (somehow… in person, a book, radio…) each of the elect. If you seek me with all your heart… You will find me.

How does God decide when to give a new heart to someone? Obviously, if we are all totally depraved, no one can care about God on their own. Apparently God gives some of the elect a new heart early in life, and to others, later. What determines His choice of when and whom?

Good question. God knows!

Does a new heart and regeneration mean that one is no longer dead in their sins? Or do they remain so in spite of their election?

Once regenerated, one is no longer totally depraved. Not sanctified yet, just not totally depraved. Correct, regeneration = no longer dead in their sins.

Another question. How does this election apply to people before Jesus?

In the same way that it applied to Mary to keep her sinless fr

 

[Theojunkie]

Sorry… Hit the wrong button on my phone.

In the same way that it applied to Mary to keep her sinless from birth. In the same way that my prayers for my dead grandmother are efficacious. (The reformed would not argue this, but they would if they believed In the immaculate conception and the communion of saints). God works in the eternal Now.

Let me clarify. The Gospel message (I think Catholics should agree) is found throughout the entire history on Mankind as recorded in everything from Genesis to the last prophet. Anyone with an ear to hear would see that God was not putting simply the law before them. Look at David…

I think your question was how the work of Christ is applied retroactively (or really, before it happened in time at all)… That is what I answered above. It is a question for all theologies, not just Reformed. I think Catholic theology has a good example in Mary.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Sorry… Hit the wrong button on my phone.

In the same way that it applied to Mary to keep her sinless from birth. In the same way that my prayers for my dead grandmother are efficacious. (The reformed would not argue this, but they would if they believed In the immaculate conception and the communion of saints). God works in the eternal Now.

Sort of retroactively. Did the ancient Israelites think in terms of election? Were all of them elect? Obviously they couldn’t believe in Jesus, nor could any of the Greeks and Gentiles. I guess they were all reprobate.

Edited P.S.: I didn’t see your subsequent post. So the work of Christ is applied retroactively to those who God already decided were of the elect. Were these elect only of the Israelites?

 

[mackbrislawn]

Theojunkie;10347545

No, rather, all of the elect will eventually hear the gospel. A subtle but important difference.

Very subtle! Okay, so only those who will hear the gospel are of the elect. That implies God fixed it that those who never heard or never will hear the gospel are not of the elect. Also for hundreds of years there were untold thousands who were not reached by Christian missionaries, which means there were no elect in those geographic areas. Therefore, in only those limited geographic areas reached by missionaries had God planted any elect.

No, rather, the Gospel will reach (somehow… in person, a book, radio…) each of the elect. If you seek me with all your heart… You will find me.

Of course before there were books and radios, that is, for hundreds of years and multiple generations, the elect were to be found only where missionaries went in person. A limited geographic area. For at least 1500 years there were no elect in the Americas.

“If you seek me with all your heart…You will find me.” This seems to mean even those who haven’t heard the gospel but are seeking can be saved, be of the elect. This further means that the gospel isn’t really necessary after all, but is redundant and unessential for salvation.

Once regenerated, one is no longer totally depraved. Not sanctified yet, just not totally depraved. Correct, regeneration = no longer dead in their sins.

Not totally depraved, but still partially depraved. Does sanctification remove the rest of the depravity? When and how does sanctification occur? By works? Since one regenerated is no longer totally depraved and dead, this must mean he is now capable ot good works.

I understand that Luther and Calvin taught that our sins, unlike in Catholic teaching, are not removed, but still on us, simply covered up, not counted against us. Like a dunghill covered in snow. How does this teaching fit in with sanctification and regeneration?

In the same way that it applied to Mary to keep her sinless.

But Mary was sinless, and everyone else around her, before and after were sinful and depraved, so I don’t see how it is the same.

 

[Theojunkie]

Mack,

It would appear that:

1. there are some from the Old Testament (OT) who are saved.
2. the bible reveals that people are saved only through faith in Christ and only by his work.
3. therefore, those in the OT who are saved, somehow got enough information to have faith in Christ, whether they called him “Jesus of Nazareth” or not.

The OT is rich with accounts of christophanies and the simple promise of a messiah. Faith in the promised Messaiah = faith in the historical Jesus.

Romans 11 explains.

This question is not about Reformed theology. Every faith/theology has to answer this question. But the bible itself is clear.

 

[Theojunkie]

Theojunkie;10347545

Very subtle! Okay, so only those who will hear the gospel are of the elect.

please read again. Many hear the gospel but do not believe. All of the elect will hear the gospel, but not all who hear the gospel are elect.

When and how does sanctification occur? By works? Since one regenerated is no longer totally depraved and dead, this must mean he is now capable ot good works.

Sanctification occurs over time, just like in Catholic theology. Correct, if one is not dead, one is capable of good works.

I understand that Luther and Calvin taught that our sins … How does this teaching fit in with sanctification and regeneration?

I will be happy to discuss with you, but this is not related to the current micro subject. .

But Mary was sinless, and everyone else around her, before and after were sinful and depraved, so I don’t see how it is the same.

Mary was preserved from sin by the grace of God enabled by the wok of her son Jesus. For more explanation read around this forum and articles on catholic.com. Pax.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Theojunkie;1034775

please read again. Many hear the gospel but do not believe. All of the elect will hear the gospel, but not all who hear the gospel are elect.

Nothing I said implied that all who heard the gospel were of the elect, but that the elect were only among those who heard the gospel. And the point was that the elect, historically, were to be found only in limited geographic areas, by odd coincidence. The notion of election, to me, seems to favor certain ethnic groups.

Sanctification occurs over time, just like in Catholic theology. Correct, if one is not dead, one is capable of good works.

In Reformed theology what causes sanctification? Good works? Is sanctification necessary to enter heaven?

I will be happy to discuss with you, but this is not related to the current micro subject. .

The subject is Calvinist teaching, and my question referred to Calvin’s teaching. But that’s okay.

Mary was preserved from sin by the grace of God enabled by the wok of her son Jesus. For more explanation read around this forum and articles on catholic.com. Pax

Of course, but I was wondering, since you are familiar with Reformed theology and presumably Calvinist teaching on this subject, how it differs from Catholic teaching, if it does. Different theologies would have different takes on it (election prior to Christ), and I presumed Reformed theology would be different from Catholic.

I’m not trying to be disputational; I’m asking all these questions because I have a hard time wrapping my head around Reformed theology and was hoping you could help make sense of it.

Best regards, Mack

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Another question for anybody, is it possible to know in this life if you are of the elect or of the reprobate?

No. Why else have we been given the gift of Faith for?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The Catholic Church teaches that apart from special revelation no one can have 100% have absolute certainty of their salvation.

While that is true it is also true that a Catholic living in the state of grace and receiving the sacraments can have a moral certainty that they will be saved.

That is not absolute certainty and any PRESUMPTION of salvation is a sin against the Holy Spirit.

So is it POSSIBLE to have absolute certainty? Yes–but only if that is given to a person by special revelation by God which is EXTREMELY rare.

 

[Theojunkie]

Mack,

The notion of election, to me, seems to favor certain ethnic groups.

The core of the gospel has reached around the world, really. Christ was incarnate in the Middle East of course. There is a huge Christian movement in China. The Coptic orthodox in Egypt have been around a long time. Even central Africa has Christians in it. Numbers may of believers be small but any believers at all means the Gospel has reached there. So I don’t think it is fair to say that election is limited to white Europeans. But note, this problem - if it existed-- is a problem regardless of theology.

In Reformed theology what causes sanctification? Good works? Is sanctification necessary to enter heaven?

God’s grace transforming you by the renewing of your mind. The Spirit who lives in you to will and to work according to God’s will. Increasing good works is outward evidence of this process. Not the cause. All who believe will be sanctified. Yes, sanctification is required to enter heaven.

 

[Theojunkie]

Mack,

Regarding those who were born before Christ… Reformed believe that the core of the Gospel is found in and throughout the entire OT from Genesis to the last OT prophet. This basic message being 1) God exists and is your creator and is holy, 2) you sinned and need a savior, 3) God will forgive and save those who love and trust him.

Paul mentions this in Romans… The core of the gospel is written even in nature.

True, people in the OT would not know the name “Jesus of Nazareth”. But knowing his name is not what is required to be saved. Throwing yourself upon God’s mercy and trusting him alone to make you right with him… That is the core.

Believers in the OT were saved by grace through faith in the promise of God’s saving work to come. Believers in the NT and beyond are waved by grace through faith in this accomplished reality.

Not too much different --if at all-- from Catholic theology.

 

[Theojunkie]

^saved not waved. Sigh. …but waived, perhaps, could work…

 

[PoorKnight]

I’ve been told that St. Francis de Sales book “Catholic Controversy” is the gold star in refuting Calvinism.

Also, how does Calvinism square all the ‘free will’ passeges like “CHOOSE today whom you will worship” or all the “IF” statements: “IF you remain in me…” “IF you endure to the end…” etc etc etc…

When I was in a Presb. church taking the membership class (and not even thinking of coming back to Holy Mother Church) I asked these questions. Neither the pastor, nor his wife (both holding degrees from a Calvinist seminary) and all I ever got for an answer was: Well Predestination is something that is hard to accept…

 

[mackbrislawn]

Theojunkie;10372694

Mack,

The core of the gospel has reached around the world, really. Christ was incarnate in the Middle East of course. There is a huge Christian movement in China. The Coptic orthodox in Egypt have been around a long time. Even central Africa has Christians in it. Numbers may of believers be small but any believers at all means the Gospel has reached there. So I don’t think it is fair to say that election is limited to white Europeans. But note, this problem - if it existed-- is a problem regardless of theology.

Yes, in the present day the gospel has reached around the world, although in some places it may have been forgotten. However I am thinking not just of space, but of time. Even though now the gospel may have reached around the world, that is not so in the past. Obviously in the Americas the gospel didn’t arrive until 1500. And since the gospel originated in the Middle East and slowly spread outwards, for hundreds of years the elect would have been planted by God only in those limited geographies reached by evangelists.

A friend of mine was raised as a Presbyterian but he didn’t remain so because he couldn’t believe the theology he was taught. I understand his disblief. So what I am doing is pointing out what to me are the necessary and absurd consequences of the notion of election.

You’re right, this is a problem regardless of theology. Well, not quite since some theologies allow for salvation even if the gospel has not been heard. However, for Reformed theology, as you have explained it, the gospel must be heard which means the elect can only exist in those places reached by missionaries. Those in all other geographic areas are automatically reprobate.

God’s grace transforming you by the renewing of your mind. The Spirit who lives in you to will and to work according to God’s will. Increasing good works is outward evidence of this process. Not the cause. All who believe will be sanctified. Yes, sanctification is required to enter heaven

.
This makes sense.

I suppose God foresees when an elect person will die and makes sure the sanctification is completed beforehand. The Catholic idea of purgatory sort of fits in here, the difference being the sanctification is completed after death.

I ask if sanctification is necessary because I have heard that in some viewpoints sins are not really taken away but are covered up, like snow covering a dunghill. God pretends they are not there, even though they still are. Definitely not sanctified.

Theo, I am asking you these question because you know both views, and would then understand where my questions (and perhaps misunderstandings) are coming from.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Mack,

Regarding those who were born before Christ… Reformed believe that the core of the Gospel is found in and throughout the entire OT from Genesis to the last OT prophet. This basic message being 1) God exists and is your creator and is holy, 2) you sinned and need a savior, 3) God will forgive and save those who love and trust him.

Paul mentions this in Romans… The core of the gospel is written even in nature.

True, people in the OT would not know the name “Jesus of Nazareth”. But knowing his name is not what is required to be saved. Throwing yourself upon God’s mercy and trusting him alone to make you right with him… That is the core.

Believers in the OT were saved by grace through faith in the promise of God’s saving work to come. Believers in the NT and beyond are waved by grace through faith in this accomplished reality.

Not too much different --if at all-- from Catholic theology.

Right, not much difference. Catholics teach that heaven was opened by Christ, and at that time the OT saved could enter heaven, but not until then. What do the Reformed teach?

In regards to the OT, since the elect were chosen beforehand, it would appear that the elect of those days would only be among those who knew the OT–an even more limited geographic area.

Unless, unless, as Paul mentions, the core of the gospel is found even in nature. In which case hearing an actual missionary would not be strictly necessary, since nature itself teaches the gospel. What do Reformed think in this matter?

 

[Theojunkie]

Mack,

Reformed would agree that Christ opened up heaven as you say. No difference.

Reformed would agree with Paul in Romans 1 & 2, as does the Catholic Church, that the core of the Gospel is manifest in nature and the law written on our hearts, with our conciences “now accusing, now defending” us.

Yes, if someone dies without ever believing, it would mean that they are not of the elect. I think Catholics would agree on that as well. The difference is-if I understand correctly- that Catholic soteriology says that you become one of the elect upon belief (election follows faith) whereas Reformed says that you believe because you are elect (election precedes faith). He practical out working of all this with respect to the gospel… Both on the personal level and the question of what about those who never heard the gospel … Is the same. However, one difference is that the Reformed find peace knowing that God will ensure that each and every person who would ever want to believe shall must needs hear the gospel (again by whatever means, not necessarily from an evangelist visiting them) and further if a person does not believe, it is simply and only because that person does not desire God, and not perhaps because they were missed in having the Gospel reach them. Catholic teaching I think provides for this as well, saying that God provides sufficient grace to all to believe and the necessary information to all to make a decision for Christ if they choose to do so.

I think both sides are saying the same thing, us

 

[Theojunkie]

Mack,

Reformed would agree that Christ opened up heaven as you say. No difference.

Reformed would agree with Paul in Romans 1 & 2, as does the Catholic Church, that the core of the Gospel is manifest in nature and the law written on our hearts, with our conciences “now accusing, now defending” us.

Yes, if someone dies without ever believing, it would mean that they are not of the elect. I think Catholics would agree on that as well. The difference is-if I understand correctly- that Catholic soteriology says that you become one of the elect upon belief (election follows faith) whereas Reformed says that you believe because you are elect (election precedes faith). He practical out working of all this with respect to the gospel… Both on the personal level and the question of what about those who never heard the gospel … Is the same. However, one difference is that the Reformed find peace knowing that God will ensure that each and every person who would ever want to believe shall must needs hear the gospel (again by whatever means, not necessarily from an evangelist visiting them) and further if a person does not believe, it is simply and only because that person does not desire God, and not perhaps because they were missed in having the Gospel reach them. Catholic teaching I think provides for this as well, saying that God provides sufficient grace to all to believe and the necessary information to all to make a decision for Christ if they choose to do so.

I think both sides are saying the same thing, using different approaches. At least this is true regarding Reformed vs Thomist thinking. The differences between Reformed and Molinist thinking are less compatible (Thomist and Molinist Catholics have similar points of dispute just as Reformed and Arminian/Wesleyan/Methodist Protestants).

 

[Bandoh]

I think we must remember that the God who knows and foreordains all things is the same God who foreordains that men will be free and has perfect knowledge of all their decisions. To that end God need not violate man’s will nor need He base election on man’s decision in order to effect the salvation of all the elect.

Augustine argued that a man will do that toward which his heart has placed its affections. In fact this predisposition is so powerful that a man cannot do what he will not do. Paul says we are born enemies of God and pursue only the lusts of this world and the pleasures therein. Therefore a God who knows us perfectly need not violate our ability to choose Him in order to save us. He needs only to change the disposition of our hearts. Or as Augustine would say it, he would change our affections from being bent inward on our self consuming lusts to being outward toward God and our fellow man. He would change our affections and so also our will.

Which of course is exactly what Scripture says God does in that He gives us a new nature and new hearts capable of seeing and entering into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Therefore with this new nature our ability to choose has not been altered in the least but that toward which our affections tend has been changed and so our hearts desire God because of His working in us. So a man may truly say that he has heard the call of God and come to the Sacraments to receive the Graces unto eternal life, and at the same time confess that he has done nothing of himself and only that which God has worked in him.

This same God who has foreordained this choosing and election has also ordained the means of that salvation; those being prayer, the Sacraments, the intercession of the priests before the altar, evangelism, missions, charity, etc. All of these means are God’s way of using jars of clay to pour priceless treasure out onto the whole world and so it is our response to grace and responsibility in light of that grace to spread this Gospel to our brethren and teach them the truths of God’s mercy wherever we go.

God Bless

This may be covered further along in this thread (and if so I apologize) but I wanted to post this before I got lost in the rest.

In a similar discussion currently and I thank God for continually challenging me to learn and grow so I can always be loving Him with all my heart, soul, strength and mind! I have to use my God given love for science and logic to constantly sharpen my mind to be as wise as a serpent while remaining as gentle as a dove.

I think things are coming down to a “Total depravity” discussion (haven’t hit that yet but will be reading about it soon). If, as you said above, “He needs only to change the disposition of our hearts” is true, it appears to back the argument for total depravity. Can we without this grace choose him?

On the other hand, her argument seems to say we have no choice once given that grace but to follow him. This then removes free will right?

(back to reading the next few pages of the thread)

God Bless!